An vnerrable church or none being a rejoynder to the unerring, unerrable chvrch against Dr. Andrew Sall's repley entituled The catholic apostolic Church of England / written by J.S. ...

CHAPTER I.

A SVRVEY OF THE DOCTORS Dedicatory to the Earle of Essex; Sectari's Dissention in faith, The Reformers, Re∣formation and Reformed Brethren briefly described.

ALL Christian Sects, saies our Doctor to his Mecae∣nas are joyned with the Church of England; they haue all but one and the same faith; and that faith professed by that louely Company is the Primitive Catholic Apostolic faith; they differ saies he Chap. 12. against N. N. only in Rites and Ceremonies; and there is not one of these Sects but is as different from the other, and exclaim against one an other as much as against Popery:

ask the Presbiterians what they think of Protestancie? they say, its Popery in English; ask the Quakers their opi∣nion of them both? they are Limbs of Satan: ask the Anabaptists what they judge of all three? they are Children of Perdition.

But I pray D^r what is the faith of the Church of England as to the Canon of Scripture? it belieues S Pauls Epis∣tle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of Iames and Jude, the second and third of S. John, and the 2. of S. Peter to be true Canonical Scripture; and what is the Lutherans of Germani's faith as to this point? that they are not Canoni∣cal: and is this difference but in Rites and Ceremonies? does not the Protes∣tant Church belieue the Adoration of the consecrated Host, and the vse and prayers before Images to be downright Idolatry; and Lutherans say its not? and do you make but a Ceremony of Idolatry? does not the Protestant Church belieue the firgurative only Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacra∣ment; and the Lutherans belieue the Real presence, which you say is an Er∣ror inconsistent with Salvation? and

is this but a Ceremonie? or will God condemn men for a meer Ceremonie? does not the Church of England be∣lieue the Necessity of both kinds in the Communion, and the Hugonots of France in their Ecclesiastical Disciplin ch. 12. art. 7. deny it, and say it may for just reasons be giuen in bread alo∣ne? This is no Ceremonial difference betwixt your Church and ours; for its, you say, one of our Errors inconsistent with saluation; and why it should be a Ceremonial business betwixt Protes∣tants and Hugonots I know not: Nor are the Protestant Bishops of England so prodigal of their Ecclesiastical reue∣news as to say that Episcopacy is but a Ceremony which they belieue to be de Iure Divino and the Presbiterians deny it: see you Reader with what ap∣pearance of truth our D^r can say that the Church of England and the other Sects are joyned in one faith.

O! but, saies he ch. 12. against N. N. they all agree in the chief heads and fundamental points of Christianity; and what be they? Blessed be God, that inspired to our good D^r to tell vs what be those fundamental points and chief

Articles wherin Protestant Writers do so often tell vs that all must agree for to haue true faith; and that all other points are but inferior Truths, Rites and Ceremonies: Our D^r then tells vs the chief heads and fundamental points of Christianity necessary to Salvarion; The Holy Scripture; the sacred Trini∣ty, the Person of the Son of God, God and man; The Providence of God, sin, free will, the Law, the Ghospell, Ju∣stification by Christ; faith in his name; Regeneration; The Catholic Church, and supream head of it, Christ; The Sacraments, their number and vse; The state of Souls after death; the Re∣surrection and life Etetnal; these are the chief heads and Substantial points and in these all the Reformed Churchs agree with that of England, saies our D^r in that 12. Chapt. against N. N.

But my Reader will not I hope be so easily perswaded of this aggreement betwixt these Sectaries, euen in these Chief heads and fundamental points: for the Protestants belieue S. Pauls Epis∣tle to the Hebrews and the other Epis∣tles mentioned but now, to be Canoni∣cal Scripture; the Lutherans vtterly

deny them: The Lutherans in the Con∣ference of Lypsia, the Magdeburgen∣ses, and the Lutheran Divins in the Conference of Ratisbon belieue Seauen Sacraments; nor do they agree in the vse of the Sacraments for the Hugonots of France as I observed, belieue the Lords supper may be taken in one kind, the Church of England belieues it must necessarily be taken in both; in their Doctrin of Gods Providence they are all also far asunder; for not only the Gomarists in Holland following the Doctrin of Calvin, but also many Hu∣gonot Churchs in France belieue that antecedently to any good or bad work of man, God has created and absolut∣ly Decreed som men to be eternally damn'd and others to be saved; the Church of England, the Arminians in Holland and many Hugonots of Fran∣ce deny this cruel decree in God, and belieue none is damn'ed by Gods abso∣lut Will and decree, but for his fins. You see Reader how the Church of En∣gland and other Sectaries are at ears not only in Rites and Ceremonies; not only in Inferior and not Fundamental Articles, but euen in those which our

D^r himself calls the chief points, and Fundamental Heads of Christianity: How can our D^r say they are all joyned in one faith? or how can he say the faith professed in the Church of En∣gland and in the other Sects is the Ca∣tholic Apostolic faith; if he will not say that one Apostle taught and belie∣ued two Sacraments as the Protestants do; and an other Apostle Seaven Sa∣craments as the Lutherans of Lypsia and Ratisbon did; one Apostle taught that such Epistles were Canonical Scrip∣ture; and an other belieued they we∣re not.

But D^r do not you confess that the Church of England differs from Luthe∣rans, Presbiterians and other Sects in inferior and not Fundamental Verities? and no true Protestant of England who vnderstands well his Catechism will say that Protestants and Catholics differ in more than in Inferior Verities; what greater Vnion then can you pretend with Lutherans and other Sectaries than with vs Catholics? moreouer Doc∣tor you say that errors against these in∣ferior Verities are inconsistent with sal∣uation if ignorance does not excuse

them; your Brethren Sectaries therefore will be as Deep in hell as Catholics, Because they hold errors against your Inferior Verities as well as Catholics; and if they haue ignorance it must be gross, Willfull and obstinatly blind, as that of Papists because they haue the Scrip∣ture which you say, plainly declares your Doctrin to any that is not willfully and obstinatly blind: lastly D^r you say in your Dedicatory that the true nature of Heresy consists in Doctrin opposit to Scriptu∣re: but all the Doctrin that Lutherans, Presbiterians &c. hold in opposition to your Doctrin of England, is quite and plainly opposit to Scripture; because you tell vs a thousand times ouer both in your Sermon, and in your Book that your Doctrin of Protestancy, figurati∣ve Presence, Communion in both kinds two Sacraments &c. is plainly setdown, and seen in Scripture to any that is not willfully blind; therefore the rest of Sectaries, (who deny your inferior Ve∣rities) faith and Religion is plain Heresy: behold Reader the faith and Religion wherin the Church of England and the rest of Sectaries are joyned.

Our D^r goes on in his Dedicatory

Epistle, and tells his Mecaenas that the Protestant Curhch and other Sectaries are Reformed Churches; that the faith of the Church of Rome was once praised throughout the World; its his and the Reformed Churches wish, he saies, that wee may return to our primitive lustre and joyn hart and hand with them to the edification and encrease of Chris∣tianity; But they being so separated and diuided in Doctrin among them∣selues as wee haue showen; its impossi∣ble for vs to joyn with them vntill they agree among themselues, and tell vs with which of them shall wee joyn; for with whatever Sect of them wee joyn, wee shall haue all the rest on our backs, and so neuer be at rest: the Presbite∣rians will neuer consent that wee joyn with Protestants; nor the Protestants will neuer condescend that wee ioyn with Lutherans; and so D^r Sall's Wish that wee joyn with the Reformed Chur∣ches is ridiculous.

Nor is it less ridiculous to call his Sects Reformed Churches. Observe Reader who be those they call Reformers; who be they, that are called Reformed Brethren, and what is that they call

Reformation; and you will confess no Names were euer more abused. As for the first and Chief Reformers, the Au∣thor of that learned Treatise of Reli∣gion and Gouerument, in his first book, and N. N. in his Dolefull fall of Andrew Sall giues you an exact description of them; D^r Sall very wise∣ly declins their vindication from the wicked life N. N. saies they lead; for he saies the Reformation may be very good in itself, tho Luther and som other Reformers were naught; as in the Apostolical Colledge, saies he there was a Judas; it's very true D^r, but if all the Apostolical Colledge was but a pack of Iudases, and not one honest man among them; could any man in his wits be persuaded to belieue their Do∣ctrin was from God? this is your case D^r, wee defy you to name as much as one among your first Reformers, who was as much as an honest man; do you name Luther? he was an Apostat Fryar, learned his Doctrin against Mass, pra∣yers to saints &c. from the Deuil with whom he was frequently conversant as himself confesses to. 7. Wittemb. an. 1558 de Missa Privata fol. 228. & to. 6.

Germ. Ien. lib. de Missa angulari. Do you name Calvin? he was a sodomit burnt in the shoulder for that crime at Noyon, lived a continual Scandal to the world at Geneue, and dyed a horror to nature as his own bosom friend Bolseck relates in his life: do you name Beza? a man prostituted to lust and sensuality as the same Bolseck who knew him relates: Zuinglius, Oe∣colampadius Carolostadius, Goodman, Jacobus Andreas were of the same stamp. Neither were your first Refor∣mers of England of a better alloy; Cranmer a meer contemporiser who married and vnmarried Henry the VIII. as often as he pleased; in his time he writ a Treatise in favor of Transubstan∣tiation, for to please his Prince; and in king Edward the VI. time Zuinglia∣nism being the swaying Religion, he al∣tered his note, and writ an other Trea∣tise against Transubstantiation; Zuin∣glianism he professed vntill he was sen∣tenc'd to death for heresy and Treason by Queen Mary; then in hopes to saue his life he declared for the Catholic Religion, but seeing the sentence was not repealed, he renounced again this

and dyed a Zuinglian. Ochinus of a Ca∣puchin became a Reformer, and so good an one, that he ran further and became a Jew. Martin Bucer, of a Dominican Fryar became a Lutheran, of a Luthe∣ran became a Zuinglian; he became again a Lutheran, and returned again to be a Zuinglian: Hooper and Rogers both runagat Monks; Couerdale an Augustin Fryar; Bale a Carmelit; Pe∣ter Martir a Chanon Regular, all mar∣ried, and these were your Reformers, judge you what the Reformation could be; and tell vs D^r can you name any one of this company that was famous for his Virtue, Miracles, or holy conver∣sation; nay any that was an honest man.

And you will be no less surprised Reader when you consider what kind of men are called Reformed Brethren; Monks fryars and Priests, as wee haue lately seen run from the Catholic Church to Protestancy; and why? be∣cause Popery is full of Errors forsooth; Transubstantiation, Images, Purgato∣ry, &c. and out of a tender conscience and loue of Truth they forsake these errors, and snperstitious practices of

Rome. Very well; let vs suppose those Articles of Popery are Errors, and ma∣ny practices of the Church of Rome are Superstitions and against Gods Word; let vs commend and praise you for re∣nouncing those Errors: but why do you renounce and lay by, other practices, Doctrins, ad Devoirs to which you we∣re obliged by Vow in the Catholic Church, and which in the judgment of all the Church of England are Holy, commendable and conformable to the Word of God? Be it so, let Purgatory be against Gods Word; renounce it; but its not against Gods Word to fast from flesh in lent and other dayes, your Common Prayer Book commands it; Why then do not you, Fryar, who obli∣ged yourself vnder sin to fast the grea∣test part of the year from flesh, why do you lay a syde this practice? you re∣nounced but the errors of Popery con∣trary to the Word of God; this is no∣ne: let Transubstantiation be an error; renounce it; but its no error, nor con∣trarie to Gods Word to say your Office, your Matins and Laudes; to disciplin your self somtimes in the week; to liue in pouerty without any rents or reue∣news;

to liue in Chastity; these prac∣tices are no Errors nor Superstitions; why do you forsake them? let Prayers to Saints and before Images be Idola∣try; sorsake them, if you will be mad; but its no error nor profane or Supers∣titious practice, but the Counsel of Christ and the Practice of his Saints to forsake richs, lands, estates, Honors and dignities for Christ his sake and li∣ue in povertie and humility for his lo∣ue; this you vowed to do when you were a Roman Catholic; why do not you keep that part of Popery; If the king and Parliament did enact (and it would be Much to the credit of the Protestant Church, it were enacted) that there should be a house in som Country town wherin all Monks and Fryars who becom Protestants should liue togither in Community vn∣der Obedience to som Superiour as they did in the Catholic Church, (this is not against Scripture,) that none should be permitted to eate flesh in lent nor fasting daies, but fast as they did in their respective Orders (nor is this against Scripture) that none should be permitted to haue any Ecclesiastical

Benefice nor any Rents, but live vpon the charity of the People as they did when they were Catholics (nor is this against Scripture) that none should be permitted to marry, nor to weare but meane attyre (nor is this against Scrip∣ture) that all of them should be obli∣ged to say their Divin Office, or a num∣ber of spalms equivalent to it euery day, and Disciplin themselues somti∣mes in the weeke as they were acustomed or obliged to do in their Orders; in such acase indeed wee might think that such as reuolted from the Catholics and be∣came Protestants were moued by devo∣tion and a tenderness of Conscience, and they might with som appearance of truth be called Reformed Brethren; But that a company of Fryars should run from the retirement of their con∣vents to the court and houses of great ones, from pouertie and beggery to look for Benefices and rents; from fasting, and other austerities to which they are obliged, to eate and drink and cherish their flesh; casting asyde their Breviaries and Meditations, and marrying; what half witted man in the world will call such men Reformed

men but rather men prostituted to li∣centiousness and bankrupts in Hones∣tie.

By this discours you may perceiue how little or rather nothing the Protes∣tant Church has for to deserue that plausible name of Reformation; no name in the world more vnbecoming it: for a Reformation is a change of a large life into a strict one; its a Profession of a more austere life, and of more mode∣ration than formerly was: how then can Protestancy be called a Reformation of the Catholic Religion; put the case in Luther, Calvin, and the rest of Priests and Fryars who change the Catholic for the Protestant Religion: its evi∣dent by what I said and by what the world sees, they leaue a narrow, strict, and austere manner of life, for a more easy large and pleasant one; for in the Catholic they were obliged vnder sin to say their Breviary euery day; to fast the greatest part of the yeare, to seve∣ral austerities of rysing at midnight to the Quyre, of Disciplin and haire∣cloths; never to marry, neuer to haue any rents but liue in poverty, to liue vnder Obedience of their Superiors

with a total submission of their Wills to his; they were obliged to confess their sins to a Priest, to submit their judgments in matters of Religion to the Pastor of the Church, to obey the Precepts of the Church. This manner of life is it which they vere obliged to lead in the Catholic Religion: And they forsook this for Protestancy, whe∣re they are not bound to any Breviary, nor other Prayers vnder sin; where they can without a remors of conscien∣ce make good cheer all the yeare; whe∣re they can marry and get a good Por∣tion and an Ecclesiastical Benefice be∣sids; where they are not obliged to con∣fess, nor obey any Commandments of the Church (none obliges them in con∣science;) where they may belieue what∣euer they judge is the Doctrin and sen∣se of Scripture, let their Pastors and Church belieue what they list: who can deny but this exchange of life is from an austere to a large, from a rigid to a more easy, from a strict to a more pleasant life: and is this it wee call Reformation? In the Catholic Church wee can haue but one faith; wee are obliged to profess one and the same

Doctrin, practice Vniformly the same Rites and Ceremonies; in the Refor∣mation you haue many different faiths; you may with a safe conscience profess what Doctrin you please, either the Lutheran, Presbiterian, Calvinian &c. for what euer of them you belieue you will be still of the Reformation. And can this be called a Reformation? which destroies vnity, rents the Flock into so many Sects, and giues vs such liberty to belieue as wee fancy?

Perhaps our D^r may answer that Pro∣testancy is a Reformation of the Doctrin of Popery, because this swarms with many Errors; but what is Doctrin for, but for to reform our lyues? and how can that be a Reformation of Doctrin, which leads to such a corruption of Manners?

II. CHAPTER.

THAT THE DOCTOR HAS IN HIS Sermon passed his sentence of Damnation against our Saints; he retracts this Sen∣tence in his Booke; but cannot in his Principles.

OUR Doctor in his two first Chap∣ters against J. S. pretends to cast that impious position from his doore. That in the Catholic Religion ther's no saluation; he saies wee may; and when he saies, saluation may be had in our Catholic Church, any man would think he intended to grant a grater capacity for saluation in our Religion, than in Turcism, or Paganism; but not a iot grea∣ter: for if you ask him how a Roman Catholic can be saved, our Tenets being as he saies, inconsistent with salua∣tion; he answers that by Ignorance or Re∣pentance, and auers very positiuely that Protestants allow no saluation in Popery, if either of these two does not protect vs: and so much capacity for salvation, the Roman Catholics, who

are accused by him and his fellows to be vncharitable for denying saluation out of their Church, do grant to Pagans and Turks; it being the Doctrin of most learned Divins, for not belieuing the Bible to be Gods Word, for not belie∣uing the Sacraments, nay nor the In∣carnation and Passion of Christ, a man will not be damn'd, if he has invincible ignorance of these Misteries, or Repen∣tance of his Errors: and this is that great charity of Protestants beyond Catholics, when they say that Roman Catholics may be saued in their Reli∣gion; that's to say, that they are in as great a capacity for saluation as Pa∣gans and Turks.

He scrues vp the peggs of his indi∣gnation against me for making him au∣thor of that wicked Position, That in the Roman Catholic Church a man cannot be saued, and to proue him the Author of it, there needs no more, than to hear him speake: Page 116. of his Sermon he saies, No learned Protestant does allow the Popish Religion generally and absoluty spea∣king to be a secure way of saluation; for all do agree that many of their Tenets and pra∣ctices are inconsistent with saluation; tho

ignorance may haply excuse som of the Simple sort, but not such as know, or with due care and enquiry may know their Errors. Now you shall see him, like the Dogs head in the pot as in the post-signs, strugling to get out, and cannot: Many of their Tenets saies he, are inconsistent with salua∣tion; and is not this, as much as to say in good English, that wee cannot be saued? But he ads that Ignorance may saue som of the simple sors; by your fa∣vor he does not say absolutly that igno∣rance may saue euen som of the simple sort; Haply it may, saies he, that's to say, perhaps it may; nothing Sure as to that: Tenets inconsistent with saluation abso∣lutly block vs the entrance into heauen, if ignorance does not desobstruct it; and its not certain that ignorance can do it, Haply it may, saies our Doctor so that if Catholics do not renounce their Errors by repentance, it's a thou∣sand to one, if any of them euer goes to Heauen.

And observe he does not say this Ig∣norance it self will••, as much as Haply excuse all Catholics; No but som; and what som? of the simple sort, but not lear∣ned men, who know, or with due care and

enquiry may know their errors; shutting vp heauens gates to all wise men; igno∣rance will not excuse them: How D^r? but som of the simple sort? haue you ma∣de no Prouiso for that noble Prince, who made the Epigram in your praise? or will you rank him among the simple sort, for beiug so simple as to make an Epigram in your praise? No Prouiso for so many Earles, Lords and Persons of heigh quality your own bosom friends with whom you were so conversant and familiar? no Proviso for Bernard, A∣quinas, Bonaventure and other Saints, Pillars of the Church, and Eagles of the Schools? had I not reason, Reader, to say our D^r denied Saluation in the Catholic Church, first because he grants no greater Capacity For salua∣tion in her, than in Turcism and Paga∣nism; secondly because it appears by his own words that all wise and learned Catholics are excluded by him from saluation, wheras he saies that nothing but ignorance can saue som of the simple sort; thirdly because he does not grant it to be an assured Verity that igno∣rance may excuse som of the simple sort it self: Haply it may, and no more but

so. And is it not a pretty thing to see our D^r of so squeamish a stomack, as not to endure that proposition should be fa∣ther'd on him That there is no saluation in the CatholicChurch: My good friend what do you driue at in your whole Sermon and new book, but to proue wee are Idolaters for our Adoration of the con∣secrated Host, Images and Prayers to Saints? and will you boggle at saying Idolaters cannot be saued?

You haue heard our D^r say our Tenets are inconsistent with saluation; and no∣thing but Ignorance can excuse their Professors from damnation; and this sauing Ignorance he granted it only to som of the simple sort in his printed ser∣mon; but not at all to such as know, or with due care and enquiry may know their Errors: and being aduertis'd by J. S. what an impious thing it was to pass his sentence of damnation against S. Thomas of Aquin, S. Bernard and the rest of our learned D^rs and Saints; he retracts in his book what he aduan∣ced in his sermon, and saies that saving Ignorance reachs also to learned men, to Aquinas, Bernard, and others; they were he saies ignorant, and by

their ignorance they were saued: see you Reader what streights our D^r is put into; either to say that Aquinas, Ber∣nard, Scotus, Bonauēture, and our Saints and D^rs were damn'd knaues, or Igno∣rant Coxcoms; and to cast such an af∣front vpon two, the learnedest Schools in the world, Thomists and Scotists, as to say their Masters were two ignorant Dolts. Who can pretend to know if such men, esteemed the Oracles of the world, were ignorant? or who can expect to ouer∣com his ignorance, if the ignorance of such men was invincible, after so much time spent by them in reading and stu∣dying the Scripture, fathers, and Coun∣cils: but Ignorant they must haue been saies D^r Sall, or they neuer went to heauen: and the mischief is that he does not grant them Ignorance itself; for tho he saies they were Ignorant and saued through Ignorance, yet I will evi∣dence out of the Church of England, and the D^rs own Principles, they could not haue invincible Ignorance; conse∣quently that acording our D^r and his Churchs Principles they must haue bin vnauoidably damn'd.

Our D^r pag. 9. of his Reply giues vs

the Definition of Invincible Ignorance; Its such as one cannot remedy by means obvious to him acording his state and condition. He therefore who has the means obuious to him acording his state and condition of life for to remedy his Ignorance, and remains still ignorant; his Ignorance cannot be called Invincible, but Supin and gross, because he does not make vse of those Means obuious vnto him; But Aquinas, Bernard and all our learned Saincts and Doctors had the sufficient and necessarie Mcans obuious to them for to remedy their Ignorance; for they had the Scripture which our D^r saies pag. 29. of his sermon, and also often in his book, abounds with all heauenly light and cleerly sets down the Protestant Tenets to all those who are not willfully blind. If therefore they were Ignorant, their ignorance was not invincible; they did not vse the means they had, they did not search with due care and enquiry, and Ignorance will not excuse, saies our D^r, those who Know, or with due care and enquiry may Know the truth. Is it not by Scripture alone that Luther and Calvin espied out the Errors of Rome? is it not by Scripture, Councils and fathers

our D^r saies, himself was convinced of the truth of Protestancy? S. Tho∣mas Aquinas, Bernard and the rest of our D^rs and Saints had the Scripture Councils and fathers and studied them more than D^r Sall; they had therefore the Means obuious to their state and condition for to remedy their Igno∣rance; it was not therefore invinci∣ble.

I doubt if any but our D^r would vt∣ter such à Paradox, and I am sure none would prove it more ridiculously; Aquinas saies, he pag. 8. and the rest were invincibly ignorant, because the errors of the Church of Rome were not so many in his time as now; they increased day∣ly; they were not so knowen and cleered in the crucible of public opposition; none dared to check them, and so they kept credit; they be gan to be in vse in his time or som what before and were not opposed. Was there euer such a wild ramble of talk, and such a heap of vntruths coucht in so few lynes? wee must not attempt to retort him by the testimony of any Catholic Doctor, for hee'l say they are all Ignorant as Aqui∣nas; but I hope he will giue credit to his own illuminated Brethren Humfry

in Jesuit. par. 2. rat. 5. Caron in Cronol. l. 4. pag. 567. Osiand. in Epit. Cent. 6. witness, that S. Gregorie Pope and Austin the Monk (our D^r will say they were also Ignorant) brought into England Mass, Purgatory, Transubstantiation Prayers to Saints, Indulgences and the rest of our Catholic Tenets about the year 600. was this but In, or but Som∣what before Aquinas his time, wo liued the yeare 1270? Osiander Cent. 8. wit∣nesseth that Venerable Bede who liued the year 730, was plunged in all the points of Popery wherin wee now differ: Perkins in Exposit. Symb. pag. 266. ack∣nowledges that Transubstantiation and other Popish Heresies were spred ouer the world the year 900. and Fox Acts and Monum. pag. 1121. saies, it was an Article of faith the year 1060. and Be∣rengarius condemned an Heretic for denying it; was all this but In or a lit∣tle before Aquinas his time? But where was the D^rs Memorie or ingenuity when he spoke thus? is it not the vniform saying of Calvin and all Heteredox Writers that the Church of Rome fell into the Errors they accuse vs of, Tran∣substantiation, Purgatory, Prayers, to

Saints, Indulgences &c. som say the first 300. yeares, others the first 500. others the first 600. and our D^r has the courage to tell vs they began but In or somwhat before Aquinas his time?

To say our Tenets were not examined nor publickly opposed, nor arguments and books against them permitted to come to our sight, is a gross ignorance of the transactions of ages: did not Be∣rengarius as your own Fox acknowled∣ges, and before him the Bishop of Sans, and many others, their Abettors, pu∣blickly oppose and write against Tran∣substantiation? did not Aetius condemned by S. Augustin, Vigilantius condemned by S. Hierom, the Henricians condem∣ued by S. Bernard, the Witcleffians and Hussits condemned by the whole Church, publikly oppose Transubstantiation, Prayers to Saints, Veneration of Re∣licks, Purgatory, Communion in one Kind &c. and do not you yourself con∣fess. chap. 20. against J. S. that Scotus, Durand and Ocham did examin nar∣rowly and found great difficulties a¦gainst Transubstantiation yet belieued it? where haue you or your Camerades better arguments against our Tenets

than your Predecessors Heretics haue, and you find in Bellarmin, Peron, Be∣can and our Catholic Writers; but sup∣pose S. Thomas Aquinas and the rest of our Saints and D^rs had no other Books nor arguments againsts our Tenets but the Bible, Conncils, and Fathers; do not you say that the Bible alone plainly convinces our Errors, and abounds with heauenly light to such as are not will∣fully blind; they had the Bible, you cannot deny it; why then did they not find out our errors? or how could their ignorance be invincible?

Let any Impartial Reader judge if I haue been injust to our D^r in saying that its his opinion, and a necessarie sequele from his Principles, that all our Saints and learned Doctors who dyed in the Profession of our Tenets (inconsistent, he sayes, with Saluation) are damn'd: the Position is impious; but must be sustained by him; for he leaues no manner of means for saluation in the profession of our Te∣nets but Invincible Ignorance; this, I proued they could not have had, both by reason and by the D^rs own Princi∣ples; because they had sufficient means

obuious to them acording their state and condition, for to remedy their ignorance, and they did not; therefore their ignorance was not invincible, and they were vnauoidably damn'd.

III. CHAPTER.

SEVERAL OTHER ATTACKS OF our Doctor against the Saints: the Protestant Kalender of Saints examined.

I Found Aquinas and others, styled by the name of Saints in our D^rs. Ser∣mon; and reioyced to see him retain that respect for their glorious memory; but it soon repented him of his devo∣tion; he learned in Oxford that was not the true Reformed language; the purer Brethren Anabaptists, Presbiterians and Quakers judge it to be Popish; and the D^r. to giue them satisfaction for the scandal they might haue taken at his style; corrects it in his new Book: he was not in earnest, he saies, when he called them Saints; it's but an Honora∣rie title, as the Compiler of London

Gazets calls the Popes, his Holyness.

In the Conclusion of the Vnerring Vnerrable Church I argued, that any wise man tender of his saluation ought to chuse that Church where many Saints eminent for their Virtue and glorious for their Miracles liued and dyed, ra∣ther than that, where neuer any man was knowen eminent for either; as you would chuse to study in a school, where many men eminent for learning were educated, rather than in a school where no learned man was ever knowen: Hence I concluded the Catholic Church ought to be chusen before the Protes∣tant; wheras in that wee reckon so ma∣ny eminently holy and miraculous Saints and D^rs, Aquinas, Bernard, Bona∣venture, Gregory Austin &c. and in this none was euer heard of: Our Doctor answers, our Saints are only Titular ones, no Real Saints; they purchas'd their Titles (saies he pag. 228.) by public Authority as Dukes and Earles do theirs. Is not this a respectfull Child of Gods Church? who pulls down the Pillars of Christianity, and strips them of the honor exhibited to them by the Orthodox world.

I pray Reader if you chance to see

him before he reads this book, ask him his opinion of those Saints recorded in his Protestant Kalender prefixed to the Common Prayer book: are they also but Titular only and no Real Saints? was it by their merits they purchas'd their Titles, or by public Authority as Dukes and Earles did theirs? if this second; ask him what public authority was that? if a Popish authority; how com the Church of England to profane their kalender with the foorberie of Rome, and propose to the respect at least, if not adoration of the flock a company of fellows who are no Real Saints, and place them in the same Catalogue with Christ, his Mother and the Apostles; and the kalender being ordained only for to eternise the memorie of men Eminent in Santitie and virtue, and justly reputed Saints by the Church, how com they to stuff it with men who are not real but Titular only Saints: if it was a Protestant public Autority? & Vos in eadem damnatione est is. Are yee also guilty of that foul practice, as through a vain ostentation of your Churchs holyness to put in your kalen∣der a company of falsly reputed Saints,

who are but Titular ones, and Honorarily called so, as the London Gazet calls the Pope, his Holyness? Are the Saints recorded in the Protestant Kalender truly and Really Saints, or not? if they be not, what a ridiculous thing was't to put them there, more than Cromwell, or Arrius, or Luther; if they were, I'l proue they were Saints of our Church, and consequently proue your Position, that our Saints are only Titular and no Real Saints, to be impious.

You haue in the Month of March in your Kalender, S. Gregorie Pope who liued the year 600. and brought into England, as I related out of your own Historians, Mass, Purgatorie, Tran∣substantiation &c. if he was not à Pa∣pist, ther's none in Rome; and he is a Saint of your Kalender, and yee haue no Titular only, but real Saints, as you say pag. 228. you haue in the same month S. Benedict Monk, who liued the year 540; famous for his Monachism, auste∣rity of life, and Religious order: can the Protestants challenge him to be theirs, who hate Monachism as the De∣uil hates Holy Water. You haue in the same month in your Kalender (but

in ours, its the fifth of Ianuary) S. Ed∣ward king of the Saxons who liued the year 1066. Ancient Cronicles beare witness of his devotion to S. Peter and S. John, his vow of Chastity, his vow of pilgrimage to Rome and the dispen∣sation of this vow granted by the Po∣pe; and the Monastery of Winsmester he built for the Benedictian Friars: was this a Ptotestant Saint think you? yet he must be a real Saint, because he is in your Kalender.

You have in the month of April S. Ri∣chard Bishop of Chichester, who lived the year 1255. he was consecrated Bishop by the Pope himself against all the en∣deauors of king Richard, who sent his Embassador to Rome to ••hinder his consecration; and the king was obliged by the Pope to put him in possession of his Bishoprick: all this smells strongly of Popery: I pray tell vs, why was he put in your Kalender? was it because he was a Bishop? and why were not Cran∣mer, Ridley and Latimer, put there; because he was of an other mold; an Eminent, and not only a Titular Saint.

You haue in your Kalender in the month of May S. Dunstan ArchBishop

of Canterbury who lived the yeare 988. when there was no Protestant, nor any thing like it, he went to Rome to get his Pall from the Pope, which sufficiently evidences he was no Protestant; and a Real Saint he must be, or why should he be put in your Kalender. You haue in the same month S. Anstin Monk, A∣postle of England, sent by S Gregory to preach the Doctrin which now you persecut

You haue in the month of June S. Bo∣niface B. and M. who liued the year 754. he was no Martir of Fox's Kalender; nor did he shed his blood for Luthera∣nism or Protestancy.

You haue in the month of September S. Gyles an Abbot of a Monastery and a Priest: it was his good luck he dyed the year 550. for had he liued till the Reformation he had forfeited many hundred Marks, and his Monasterie too, for the many Masses he said; he liued much in the exercise of corporal austerities, feeding commonly on roots and herbs; lodged many years in a Caue, without any bed but the bare ground; this Saint is nothing like a Child of the Reformation.

You haue in the month of November S. Leonard Confessor who liued the yeare 559. built a Chappel to the ho∣nor of the B. Virgin and consecrated an Altar in it to S. Remigius; these practices sufficiently evidence he was no Protestant; and his being recorded in your Kalender, marks he was a Real Saint, for in your Kalender there is no other. You haue in the same month S. Brice Bishop; Nephew to S. Martin and a Catholic he must haue bin; wheras, being banisht from his Bishopric he had his recours to the Pope for to be reinstalld.

You haue also in the same month S. Hugh Arch Bishop of Canterbury a Car∣thusian Fryar who liued the year 1200. a notorious Papist; not only because he was a Carthusian; but because he was so austere in his manner of liuing and mortificacions, that being made a Bishop he would neuer eat flesh, and euen at his dying houre had no other bed, but the bare ground wheron he caused himself to be laid, wrapt in a haire cloth and ashes.

I know the Nativity of our gratious Soueraign is mentioned in your Kalender

for to mind vs to pray for his long and happy life; also Gounpounder Treason day, for to giue God thanks, for the Pre∣seruation of the king and Parliament against that horrid plot, but why those Saints should be recorded in your Kalender, but for hauing bin men of Eminent and knowen Holyness, and for our example and encouragement to the imitation of their Virtues, you neuer can tell; it would be therefore an im∣piety in you to deny they were true and real Saints, and it would be want of sense and judgment in you to deny they were of the Roman Catholic Church, for how can the Protestants challenge, Carthusians, Monks, Abbots, Bishops consecrated by the Pope, and appea∣ling to him in their greeuances, to be of theirs.

Now if you will act the part of a De∣fender of your Church, (and the credit of it, depends of your good success heerin) you must shew vs, som Saints, or one Saint of knowen publickly repu∣ted Holyness of life and conversation, who cofessedly was a Protestant, and whom wee cannot with any appearance of reason deny to be yours; as you

cannot deny those Monks, Abbots, Carthusians &c. named in your kalen∣der to be ours: you say Fryars Monks and Abbots are superstitious Bigots, and foorbs; for all that, there haue been som of that Profession so honest men, as to haue deserued a place in your ka∣lender; which is a manifest proof, that the Tenor of life which they professed is not superstitious, nor the Tenets of Religion they belieued, are not errors inconsistent with saluation: I pray shew vs any one Minister or Bishop of the Pro∣testant Church, since the beginning of the Reformation; shew vs any of the Image breakers, ryflers of Monasteries, Per∣secutors of Priests and Fryars, believers of Figurative Presence, Scoffers of Indulgences and Purgatorie (this is Protestancy) that was so honest a man as to haue deserued a place in your kalender: and if you can shew none; then the prudent Reader will judge my discours to be good that any wise man tender of his saluation ought to liue and dye in the Catholic Church, where many Emi∣nent and illustrious Saints haue bin; rather than in the Protestant, where neuer any was knowen.

But our reckoning is not at an end D^r; you remember that old charge against your Reformation, neuer yet answered; that your Separation from the Catholic Church was a Spiritual Rebellion, a formal schism: your an∣swer is that the Schism is Causally ours; that by our Idolatry, and many other errors, wee forced you to separat from vs; That wee separated from the Doctrin of Christ, and therefore you separated from vs. But all this appears to be an idle talk without any sense; for, Eminent Saints, glorious for their virtues, Holyness and Miracles, are not to be found, but in the Profession of the true faith of Christ; if therefore in our Church such Saints of knowen Sanctity be found; its a manifest and vndeniable proof, that the true faith of Christ is in our Church: Now I ask you and your Camerades; when did our Church separat from the Doctrin of Christ? som of you say, in the first 300. years; others of you say, that about the first 600. This appears to be manifestly fals; for in the ensuing ages all along vntill the year 1255. (then Richard Bishop of Chichester liued)

there were Eminent Saints of knowen and renowned Holyness and Miracles in our Church; (for all those foremen∣tioned Saints recorded in your kalen∣der were ours as I haue proued) there∣fore the true faith and Doctrin of Christ continued still in our Church, and your Schism is not causally ours, but without any cause yours.

And truly whateuer you may say of your Separation; I cannot imagin how your Church or you will excuse your Ouersight in prefixing that kalen∣der to your Common prayer book: I do not think there could be a more shame∣full reproach to your Church: Qua∣kers were never so tempted to sweare, that this kalender smells more of a Po∣pisn Conspiracy than Gunpounder Trea∣son day; they will neuer belieue but that som Papist had a hand in making it; for can he be a Child of the Reforma∣tion, who pur Gregory Pope, and Austin the Monk in Our Reformed Kalender, for being the first who brought Popery in∣to England; and left out Luther, Cal∣vin, Peter Martyr and others who first preached the Reformation? can he be a Reformed Child, who put Benedict,

and Austin Monks and Hugh a Carthu∣sian Fryar in our Reformed kalender, and in the mean time wee hang men in Tyburn for following their Profes∣sion, and Tenor of life: Either the Reformation had any one Eminent Saint since its first ryse, or not? if it had; why haue not you put him in your kalender? if it had not? had it not been more to the credit of your Church, to haue made no kalender; than by making one, giue fo public a testimony to the world, how poor your Church is of Saints, that to furnish your kalender you must borrow them out of our Bre∣viary: besids D^r, euen for the Refor∣mation of particular Citties, and Pro∣uinces, God makes vse of Holy men, of an exemplar life; and to say that God should haue intrusted the Refor∣mation of the whole Church, to a com∣pany of turbulent Spirits, and not as much as one man in the whole compa∣ny to be of Eminent Holyness, nor exemplar life: its against the grain of Man's reason to belieue it.

Our D^r not content to attack the Ti∣tles of our Saints; coms with a fresh charge against their manner of life: for

I argued in the Conclusion of the Vner∣ring Vnerrable Church, that Christ's Coun∣sels, of forsaking lands, estates, and means, and embracing povertie; was commended, preached, and practis'd in our Chutch, witness the many Reli∣gious Orders, where seueral Persons haue forsaken their plentifull estates; and no such Doctrin was euer preached or practis'd in the Protestant Church; also Christ's Counsel (recommended to vs by S. Pauls Doctrin and example) of corporal Austerities, Disciplins haire∣cloths, sleeping on the bare ground, rysing at midnight to sing Psalms in God's prayse, &c. was and is practis'd frequently by all sexes and ages in our Church; and what Minister or Protes∣tant was euer heard of that ryses at midnight to sing Gods prayses; that disciplins himself, &c. Hence I conclu∣ded, that to be the Church of Christ, which followed his Counsels, and con∣sequently the Catholic to be Christ's Church. Our D^r answers like a good Christian, that our corporal Austerities and mortifications are like to them of Pagans and Heathens, tending to the destruction of Body and Soule; that the

Protestants vse corporal austerities, but discreetly: that our Austerities are desperat and indiscreet. And what Chris∣tian will hear with patience, Christian Austerities vndertaken for the loue of God, and practised by the greatest Saints of the Church; to be lykned by D^r Sall, to the Austerities of Pagans, to be condemn'd as destructiue to Body and Soule? The Austerity of the great Baptist, so much commended in the Ghospell, exceeds far that of our Monks and Fryars; and if theirs be destructiue to Body and Soule, the great Baptist is vndon: the Austerity and Mortifica∣tions of David surpassed far, that of our Monks, Fryars and Nuns; and if these haue destroyed their bodies and Soules by their Mortifications; if their Austerities be indiscreet and desperat; if they be like the austerities of Pagans: in what a condition will Dauid be?

Henceforth I hope, he will not pre∣tend that S. Benedict was a Protestant (tho in his kalender) but a Catholic or a Pagan, for rysing at midnight to the Quire to sing Gods Praises as David did; for his many indiscreet and desperat austerities like them of Pagans; to

which he obliged his Monks by the Ru∣les of his Order. S. Gyles also mentio∣ned in the Protestant kalender must ha∣ue bin a Papist or a Pagan; so indiscreet and desperat he was in his austerities destructive to body and soule, sleeping on the bare ground for many years, feeding on herbs and roots; no Protes∣tant was ever so indiscreet. To conclu∣de, none who forsook silks and sattins for a poore habit; good cheer for a poore portion; pomp and vanity for a retyred and austere life as the great Baptist did, and innumerable of our Church; none I say of them were Pro∣testants, they are not so indiscreet and desperat: D^r Sall indeed was once so indiscreet, as to haue vndertaken this cours of life; but now in his old age, he is become wise, and has changed his habit for good attire; his scant and poore fare, for good cheer; his reli∣gious retirement for a court; his po∣vertie for Rents; his religious humilia∣tion for a Deanry (which they say he has) his Obedience to Superiors, for a full possession of his own Will; his austerities and mortifications, for more pleasure and satisfaction than cuer

he had; and this is the Discretion of Protestants, and the way to Saluation.

IV. CHAPTER.

OVR DOCTOR'S CONFVSED DISCOVRS of our Rule of faith: a Parallell of Protestants and Ancient Heretics.

HE perceiued the main Controver∣sie wherof the resolution of all others depend, to be that of our Rule of faith, and the necessity of a liuing Judge for to determin our doubts in Religion: therefore I so carefully han∣dled this point in my former Treatise and with strength of reason and Scrip∣ture proued, that Scripture alone, wi∣thout an infallible liuing Interpreter was not our Rule of faith. But my An∣tagonist, resolued to continue, rather than to end wrangling, hand les this question so superficially and so con∣fus-edly that he does but hint at it heer and there in seueral Chapters; nor can wee fixedly perceiue what Rule of faith he establishs for himself. For Now, he

saies Scripture alone is his Rule; then he layes that aside, and sets vp the Apostles, and four first General Coun∣cils Creeds; again he waues that, and brings in a third Rule; that's to say for fundamental points necessary to sa∣luation, the Apostles Creed alone; and for points not fundamental or inferior Truths the Word of God, whether Written that's the Bible; or vnwritten that's Tra∣dition: thus he hops from branch to branch much indeed to his credit; for when others find it a sufficient task to hit on one Rule of faith; his wit is so fertil as to find three, but his luck is naught that none is good.

His first Rule is Scripture alone; this he asserts pag. 29. of his Sermon and page 24. against I. S. in his new book; and what is to be admired in so fertil a Wit, that he could not hit on any proof for so considerable a point, whereof the resolution of so many Controversies depends, but that only Text of S. Paul 2. Tim. 3. Holy Scripture is able to make vs wise vnto saluation, that the man of God &c. out of which he concludes pag. 29. of his Sermon, that Scripture alone is suffi∣cient; abounding with all heavenly light for

instruction to those who are not willfully blind; and this alone, and nothing els of Scripture or reason he answers to my two long Chapters against the sufficien∣cy of Scripture for our Rule of faith: and tho I proved in my former Trea∣tise, by many instances, that this Text of S. Paul does not prove the sufficien∣cy of Scripture; I haue no other answer from him, but that I am a Twice Impious Sophister; that I mend the text insteed of in∣terpreting it; that I giue the Apostle the lie: truly his mistake is in som measure par∣donable; for the Apostle was once cal∣led Saul; our D^r haply, mistook Saul for Sall; and thought I corrected the text of Saul the Apostle, when I checkt the inference from it, of Sall the Apostat.

I answered the Apostle did not say Scripture alone was able for to instruct vs; and besides the many proofs I de∣livered for this in the Vnerring Vnerrable Church; I do now again prove it: for its manifest Sctipture cannot instruct vs to saluation, if it be not rightly vn∣derstood; its also manifest that the true vnderstanding of Scripture is not had with assurance, without an infallible

Interpreter; for saies S. Peter 2. Epist. 1. 20. No Prophecy of Scripture, (that's to say assured interpretation) is of any pri∣vat interpretation; for Prophecies came not in old times from the Will of men, but the holy men of God spoke as they were inspired by the Holy Ghost. Therefore its manifest that Scripture alone, interpreted by privat Persons, and without an Infalli∣ble Interpreter is not able to instruct vs to saluation. He replies its ridiculous to say, Scripture is able, if Scripture alone be not able; as it would be ridicu∣lous, saies he, to say you are able to carrie two hundred weight; and when you com to the tryal you must haue a horse to help you: And by this Dialect, wee must affirm the D^r was not able to answer J. S. his book, because when he came to the trial, he must go to Oxford for Englih; nor must wee say he is able to reade, be∣cause without spectacles he cannot; and it will be ridiculous to say you can make a voyage to England, if you cannot go alone without ship and seamen. Pray Sr. was the Apostle ridiculous when he said Men are saued by Hope Rom. 8. 24. for its evident his meaning was not that Hope alone can saue vs: was he

ridiculous when he said wee are justified by faith; for its apparent that faith alone does not justify vs: and why should it be ridiculously said by him that Scrip∣ture is sufficient for to instruct vs, tho Scripture alone be not sufficient? O but, say you, in other places the Apostle saies wee must haue charity and other Virtues; and thence it appears his meaning was not that Hope alone, and faith alone can saue vs; and so do I say, the Apostle in other places bids vs hold Traditions, and the Scripture in seve∣ral places bids vs consult in our doubts, and hear the Church; consequently S. Paul when he said Scripture was able to instruct vs, his meanning was not that Scripture alone was able.

Wise men haue more than one string to their bow; our D^r foreseeing this Rule of faith was not sufficient; sets vp an other, which is the Apostles Creed alone: pag. 10 against N. N. and pag. 60. against J. S. Points necessarie to salua∣tion, saies he, and to the constitution of a true Church are those contained in the Apos∣tles Creed, which is a Summarie of Articles, that those sacred fountains of Christianity thought fit and sufficient to be proposed to all

men, and necessary to be belieued explicitly. After hauing thus magnified the suffi∣ciency ef the Apostles Creed alone; in the same place against N. N. he alters his note, and will not have it alone to be a sufficient Rule of our faith, but joyntly with the Creeds of the four first General Councils; and as he wavers in his Doctrin, so his proof is absurd, which coms but to this; That it's strange any man not blinded with partiality should imagin the Apostles intrusted to preach sauing Doctrin to all the World should not haue giuen sufficient notice of it in the system of Articles they left vnto vs: that those Venerable fa∣thers of the purer ages of Christianity congre∣gated in the four first General Councils should giue vs but a Diminut account of Catholic beliefe.

But S^r if the Apostles Creed alone contains all necessary Articles to salua∣tion, as the first part of your discours pretends, what need had you to ad the Creeds of the four Councils as a part of your Rule of faith? and if the Creeds of the Councils contain any thing ne∣cessarie to saluation, which is not ex∣pressed in the Apostles Creed; then that of the Apostles alone is not a suffi∣cient

Rule: I pray D^r is this a good discours, Christ intrusted to teach vs to saluation preached a Sermon to his disciples Math 18. therefore all instruc∣tion, and Articles neccssary for our saluation is expressed in that Sermon; surely you will say this is a very frivo∣lous and Silly discours; giue me leaue to say so much of yours, which is this; The Apostles and Councils intrusted to teach vs to saluation, delivered vs these Creeds; therefore all Articles and ins∣truction necessary to saluation are con∣tained in them.

Moreouer, when you say that those Creeds of the Apostles and Councils contain all necessary points to salua∣tion to be explicitly believed, and are a sufficient Rule of faith; Do you mean, that to be saued it is necessary to be∣lieve explicitly all the contents of those Creeds? what sort of men do you speake of? if of Persons who neuer had any instruction, you require too much; for no Divin will stick to grant that men, euen after the promulgation of the Ghospell may be saued, believing ex∣plicitly the Misteries of the Trinity, Incarnation, and Passion of Christ for

our Redemption, tho they should ignore explicitly other Articles expressed in the Creeds: if you speake of Persons sufficiently instructed in Christian Reli∣gion; wee must know, how far they are instructed; if only of the contents of those Creeds; then indeed it is sufficient to their saluation to belieue the con∣tents of those Creeds, and no more is requisit to be belieued explicitly; but if they be instructed also of other Ve∣rities, which you call inferior Truths, as Infants Baptism, Episcopacy, Com∣munion in one kind, the Canon of Scrip∣ture, and two Sacraments; then indeed tho these Verities be not contained ex∣plicitly in them Creeds, its needfull to saluation to belieue them explicitly; and I hope I need no more proof to convince you of this truth, than your own concessions; for pag. 60. you say, that these inferior Verities are of equal ob∣jective certainty with fundamental Verities and are to be belieued explicitly when they are sufficiently proposed to vs to be revealed Truths: you cannot deny but that those inferior Verities are sufficienrly propos¦ed to you and to your Church; for you say they are cleerly contained in

Scripture; you engage to prove them by Gods Written Word; in so much that you say its an error inconsistent with saluation to deny them; therefore what∣euer you may say of Pagans or ill ins∣tructed Christians, its evident in your Principles that you and your Church are obliged to belieue explicitly those inferior Truths, because they are suf∣ficiently proposed vnto you to be re∣uealed Truths; but not one of those Truths is explicitly contained in the Creeds; therefore all points of neces∣sarie explicit belief to your, and your Church's saluation are not explicitly contained in the Creeds.

Mistake me not D^r, the question is not what may be a sufficient Rule of faith to Persons who are not well ins∣tructed; who neuer heard, but little of Religion: I haue, and do again grant that the Creeds contain all points of necessary explicit belief to the salua∣tion of such Persons, who haue bin ins∣tructed of no more, but what is contai∣ned in them, nay I say more, that in regard of som Persons who neuer heard of those Creeds, and were instructed only of the Mistery of the Trinity, In∣carnation

and Passion of Christ; those Creeds contain more than is necessary to be explicitly believed by them: But the question is, what is a sufficient Rule containing all points of necessary expli∣cit Belief to your Church and ours, which abound with light and instruction to faith? whether the Creeds alone con∣tain all points which your Church is obliged vnder pain of damnation to be∣lieue explicitly? and its evident they do not; for you say you are obliged to believe explicitly those Inferior Truths, because they are sufficiently proposed to you to be Reuealed; its an error in∣consistent with saluation to deny them, you say; and yet they are not ex∣pressed in the Creeds: therefore the Creeds are not a sufficient Rule of faith to you and your Church.

I haue in my former Treatise evi∣denc't the insufficiency of Scripture alone without an infallible Interpreter for to regulat our faith; and because our D^r does boast much of the confor∣mity of his Church in Doctrin with the first and purest ages, I will briefly shew, their Conformity with the first and impurest Heretics; for who regulat

their faith by one and the same Rule; tho they may differ in som material points of Doctrin, they haue one and the same faith. The Ancient Heretics would haue no Rule of faith but Scripture; and that, not as interpreted by the Church, but as each one vnderstood it; what they found, acording their best vnderstanding in Scripture; that they belieued; what they did not find ex∣pressed there, they rejected; tho the Councils or Church did teach it. These things are not found in Scripture (said the Arrians disputing against the Consubs∣tantiality of the son of God with the father) and what is not read there wee reject. Athan. in Epist. de Syn. Arm. & Seleu. If you bring Scripture (said Ma∣ximinus to S. Augustin) wee will listen vnto you; but these Words which are not in Scripture wee do not value. In what Scripture are two Natures of Christ mentioned (saies Eutyches) wee follow nothing but Scrip∣ture, and care not what exposition of it the Church giues. Let vs belieue what wee read in Scripture (saie the Pelagians) and what wee do not read in it, let vs not believe it. This was the precincts of Ancient Heretics belief; Scripture alone, their

Rule of faith; thus they trampled the authority of the Church, for to vent their fancies without curb.

If you read the Doctrin and books of our Modern Sectaries, you will sus∣pect a Transmigration of soules; and that the old Heretics are com again vpon the stage to act of the new, in the persons of Luther, Calvin, &c. what they haue already don in former ages. Our Rule of faith, saies Luther l. de Ser. Arb. & to. 2. Wittem: is but Scripture as each one interprets it; wee receiue nothing but Scripture. Wee are not to submit our judgments to the Decisions of Synods or Coun∣cils (saies Calvin, l. 4. Instit. c. 9.) if after hauing examined Scripture, wee do not find their interpretation and Doctrin to be according the Word of God. Its needless (saies Barlow, in Defens. Religionis Protest pag. 199.) that either Pope or Council, Man or Angel should teach vs; the Spirit Working in our hearts and the Scrip∣tures are to each one assured Interpreters Our Rule of faith is Scripture, as each Person of sound judgment in the Church vnderstands it: saies the Church of England in the 39. Art. Did euer any egg resemble more an other, than our Sectaries do

the Ancient Heretics in their Rule of faith? so far from agreeing with the first and purest ages, that the Primi∣tive fathers expresly denyed Scrip∣ture alone to be our sufficient Rule of faith; which I will prove with som few passages; it would be tedious to relate many.

S. Denis Areop. de Eccles. Hier. c. 1. saies Som things haue been recorded in Holy Writ; other heigher and more sublime Miste∣ries, our holy Leaders and Masters, haue from hand to hand, by preaching and Doctrin without any written Word delivered to Pos∣terity. So far he was from belieuing Scripture alone contained all necessary points to saluation; that he saies the most sublime misteries are not contai∣ned in them: and of this sentiment is also S. Chrysost. Ho. 1. in Act. Of the misteries of the Trinity and Divin Nature of Christ, the Apostles writ but very little and again S. Chrysost. ad 1^am. Thes. c. 2. orat. 4. It's cleer the Apostles did not de∣liver all their Doctrin in writing, but many points without any Writing, which also are to be belieued Origen lib. 2. cont. Cel∣sum, S Basil l. de Spir. Sancto. c. 27. and Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. l. 1. c. 6.

expresly teach, that the Apostles did purposely omit to write plainly of the most excellent and heigh Misteries of our Religion, contented to teach them lightly, because the Vulgar sort was not capable of such sublime Doctrin, and therefore committed them to the Pastors of the Church to be declared more particularly, as occasion required and time permitted: Epiph. Haeresi 61. saies, All things cannot be taken from Scrip∣ture; the Apostles haue declared som things by writing, and som by Tradition. Of the Nature, form, Matter, and effects of the Sacraments, (Points without doubt of necessary belief to saluation) wee know so little, that they are knowen to vs, only by Tradition, as S. Augustin observed lib. 1. de Fide & Oper. c. 9. vpon the passage of the Eunuch bapti∣zed by Philip, The Evangelist signified all things were fullfilled in that action; which tho for brevity's sake they are sylenc'd in Scripture; wee know by Tradition they ought to haue bin don.

And will our D^r perswade vs, that Scripture alone is sufficient for our instruction to saluation, against such emphatical expressions of the Ancient

fathers? No; he has a greater respect for them; tho he has hitherto so eager∣ly asserted the sufficiency of Scripture alone; then of the Apostles Creed alone; then again of the Apostles Creed joyntly with those of the four first Coun∣cils; now he quits these engagements, and runs vpon an other as desperat.

V. CHAPTER.

OVR DOCTOR'S THIRD RVLE OF FAITH, Tradition as described by Lirine••sis: his Opinion of the true Church.

PAg. 84. he resolues his faith into its vltimat Motiue wheron it rests: I belieue, saies he, the son of God was made Man, because I find it in Scripture (observe he saies, because I find it, not because the Church finds it,) I believe what's written in Scripture because its the Infallible Word of God; I belieue its the Word of God because the Apostles preaching it, did confirm it by many Miracles; and finally, that they confirm'd it with Miracles; I be∣lieue it in force of Vniversal Tradition, accor∣ding

the celebrated notion of it deliuered by Lirinensis, Quod vbique, quod semper, quod apud omnes est creditum, what was allwaies, in all places and by all men believed, that is to be taken for Vniversal Tradition.

The vltimat motiue therefore of his faith, and Rule of his Belief is Univer∣sal Tradition, as wee haue heard him describe it; To this, (saies he pag. 29.) wee are resolued to stand, or fall, as well for discerning the Canon of Scripture, as for Vnderstanding the truc sense of it. A Dieu henceforward S. Paul's text, and so many pages of good English vnfortu∣natly spent to defend the sufficiency of Scripture alone for our Rule of faith: now our D^r has pitcht vpon an other; he will belieue no Scripture, no sense of Scripture; no revealed Truth, but what is warranted by this Apostolic Liri∣nensis (as he vnderstands it) Tradition; that is to say, but what is believed in all places, in all times and by all Chris∣tians: whatever was denied in any time, in any place, or by any Christians, our D^r will not belieue it, no, he'l sooner hang; because it's not of Apostolic Tradition; and hence it follows, as you shall see that you may hide all our

Doctor's faith in a Nut's shell.

For if he will belieue nothing that was denied in any time and by any Chris∣tians, he must not belieue S Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, James and Ju∣des Epistles, nor the second and third of S. John, nor the second of S. Peter, because all are denied by the Lutherans the Older Brethren of the Reformation: nor must he believe the Old Testament, denied by the Valentinians and Mani∣cheans; nor the Ghospels because they were denied by the Marcionists, all as Good Christians, as our Sectaries: fi∣nally as I haue shewen in the 2. Chap. of the Vnerring Vnerrable Church, hardly any part of Scripture but was denied in som time, som place and by som Chris∣tians. Nor must he believe figurative Prefence denied by Luther and his sect; nor the king's spiritual supremacy, de∣nied by Calvin, as I have proved in my former Treatise; nor Episcopacy de∣nied by the Presbiterians; also hardly any sense of Scripture but was denied by som Christians, and in som time; and consequently if he will belieue no Scrip∣ture nor sense of Scripture, but what is believed by all Christians, in all times

and places, his faith will shrink to the bulk of a grain of Mustard, and Pro∣testants may expect he will with it, moue mountains, and work other Miracles in confirmation of their new Religion.

But wee are not to quarrel with our D^r for this ridiculous Rule of faith for discerning Scripture and the true sense of it; in quality of a Defender of his Church, he could do no less, wheras the 6. Article of the 39 of England speakes thus In the name of holy Scriptures wee vnderstand those Canonical books of the old and new Testament of whose authority there never was any doubt in the Church, and by the word Church they mean, as the Doctor, the whole Conhregation of Chris∣tians: so that whatever Book the Lutherans, Valentinians, Calvinists, Ebionits, or Mar∣cionists euer doubted of (and hardly any but they did) must be vtterly denied to be Canonical.

Our Doctor's mistake springs from the misunderstanding of that Notion of Apostolical Tradition, delivered by Lirinensis: if it be rightly vnderstood, its a true Notion, and may be a good Rule of faith▪ the true meaning of it is; that what was believed in all times,

and places; by all Orthodox Chris∣tians sufficiently instructed, is of Apos∣tolical Tradition, and nothing is of Apostolic Tradition, that was denied at any time or place, by any Ortho∣dox Christians sufficiently instructed: for if a Doctrin was, or was not be∣lieued or denied by Hetherodox Chris∣tians, or heretics, matters not a pin for to be of Apostolic Tradition; What is Apostolic Tradition but the Depositum of Christ's pure Doctrin delivered by the Apostles to their successors; and for to know which is Christs true Doctrin, wee must not go to Heretics, Turks, or Pagans. Let our Rule of faith then be Apostolical Tradition; now it re∣mains wee distinguish true Apostolical Tradition from what's not such;

The Apostles deliuered all Christian Verities either in their Written Word, which is Scripture; or their vnwritten Word, which is Tradition; The succee∣ding ages began to doubt, if this or that was the Apostles Written Word; that's to say, if this or that was true Canonical Scripture; so also they began to doubt, and do this day doubt, if this or that Doctrin, or vnwritten Word, be

Apostolical Tradition: And by what test did the Ancient Fathers distinguish Aposto∣lical Written Word, from not Apostolical? and Apostolical vnwritten Word, or Tra∣dition? S. Augustin l. 3. conr. Cresc. discerns the Apostolical Written Word, or Scripture from not Scripture by the judgment of the Church; Evangel••o non crederem, nisi me Ecclesiae commoveret au∣thoritas. I would not belieue the Ghospel to be such, if the authority of the Church did not moue me: where, by the Church, he did not mean all Chris∣tians; for he knew that as well in his own time, as in precedent ages, many Christians denied som parts of the true Canon; but he meant the true Orthodox part of Christianity: And by what test did the Ancient Fathers discern the Apostolical vnwritten Word, or Tradition, from not Apostolical? by the testimony of the Church also; for in S. Cyprian's time, he and his Abet∣tors held that Rebaptization of Here∣tics, was of Apostolical Tradition; S. August. l. de Bapt. cont Donat. saies it was not; and how does he proue it was not? by the Authority of the Church: Multa non inveniuntur in Scriptura, &c.

Many things are not found in the writings of the Apostles, nor in ihe Councils of their Suc∣cessors, but because they were obserued by the Church they are belieued to be delivered by the Apostles. He did not belieue the Va∣lidity of Heretics Baptism to be of Apostolical Tradition, because it was belieued in all times and by all Christians, (for he knew it was denied by S. Cy∣prian and many others) but because it was belieued by the Church, to which (saies S. Augustin) S. Cyprian, without doubt would haue submitted, had he liued to heare the judgement of the Church vpon the Controversy. Our D^r therefore, since he has pitcht vpon Apostolical Tradition for to be his Rule of faith; for to know what Apostolical Tradition is; and if this or that Doc∣trin be truly of Apostolical Tradition, must go to the Infallible Church for to be assured; and if he does not he will never rest satisfied, nor the contro∣versy be ended: which appears in con∣troversies betwixt the Protestants and other Sectaries; for Protestants say Episcopacy is of Apostolical Tradition; Presbiterians say its not; Lutherans say its of Apostolical Tradition to adore

the Consecrated Host; Protestants say its not: That the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews is Canonical Scripture, Protestants say its Apostolical Tradi∣tion; Lutherans say it is not: I pray D^r when will yee decide these Contro∣versies? when will yee agre•• among yourselves? never whylst the world is world, vntill yee com to som Infalli∣ble living Judge (which is the Church) to whom it apertains to declare which is the Apostolical Written Word, or Scripture; and which not: which is the Apostolical vnwritten Word or Tradi∣tion; and which not.

It's therefore I ptoued in the Vner∣ring Vnerrable Church, Chap. 4. the Ne∣cessity of a liuing Infallible Judge, and that to be the Catholic Church, for to instruct vs as well in this as in other doubts of Religion: but our D^r cannot endure this arrogance and pride of ours. appropriating to ourselues the name of Catholic and Ox••hodox, excluding all other Christiā Societies from any share of that, Title: No saies he you are but a part of the Church, and a corrupt one of the Church Vniversal, which is composed of all Chris∣tian Societies: this is our D^rs opinion of

the true Catholic Church, declared in the first part against N. N. 12 Chapt. and often in several Chapters of his se∣cond part against J. S. Nor did this Pa∣radox drop first from out D^r; D^r Mor∣ton in his book of the kingdom of Israel pag. 91. saies, The Arian Church is to be esteemed a true Church because it holds the substance of Christian Religion, which is faith in Iesus Christ son of God, and Redeemer of the world: and again in his 4 Chap. whose Title is, Heretics are Members of the true Church he speakes thus; whosoeuer belieues in Iesus Christ, tho by wickedness of life, or heresy in Doctrin he should err, he is still a member of the Church.

It was neither Wit nor maiice that put our D^r vpon such a desperat engage∣ment but want of memory; for had he remembred many propositions ad∣vanced by himself, he would not have ouerthrowen them all by this one. Pag. 63. he tells vs Protestants are Members of the Catholic Church; hecause they received that dignity in their Baptism, and it is not lost but by formal Heresy or Infidelity: Therefore by Heresy that di∣gnity is lost, and Heretics are not mem∣bes of the Church: Now I ask you

what do you call a formal Heresy? you answer in your Dedicatory Epistle to my Lord of Essex; that it is an obstinat adhesion to a Doctrin opposit to Scrip∣ture: But all Christian Societies distinct from yours, and whose Tenets are oppo∣sit to yours, hold obstinatly and will∣fully Doctrins opposit to Scripture; for you say often, that your Tenets are plainly set down, and their Errors cleerly convinc't by Scripture, which abounds with heavenly light to all those who are not willfully obtinat; there∣fore all those Congrations are guilty of formal Heresy and consequently are not Members of the Catholic Church.

Again; had our D^r remember'd what he said in his 10. Chapt. answering to my syllogism in Ferio, that the true Church of God is obiectevely Infallible; that's to say cannot teach any Doctrin obiectiuely fals; certainly he would ne∣uer haue said, Christ's Church is com∣posed of all those Christian Societies: because the Tenets of those Congre∣gations are contradictorily opposit; Lutherans hold Real Presence; Calvinists deny it; Lutherans hold that S. Paul's Epistles to the Hebrews is not Canoni∣cal;

Protestants say it is &c. there∣fore som of those congregations do hold Doctrins Objectiuely fals; therefore som of them are not the true Catholic Church, nor any patt of it; for he con∣fesses the true Catholic Church cannot teach any Doctrin objectiuely fals. The Catholic Church also as he acknow∣ledges is the Pillar of Truth, and its cleer, that those Christian Societies taken all togither, are not the Pillar of Truth, being guilty of so many errors.

Lastly it's evident, and our D^r will not deny it, that any congregation which holds fundamental errors against the chief and prime Articles of Chris∣tianity, is no part of the Catholic Church: its no less evident that som of these Christian Societies hold Errors not only against Infertor Verities but also against the Fundamental and chief Ar∣ticles of Christianity, as I haue proved in the Introduction of this booke and as your own Brethren the Lutheran Writers do expresly confess, as you may reade in Brierlie trac. 2. c 2. sect. 10. sub 13. reade Samuel Huberinus (a Lutheran) his book, whose Title is An ti••hesis Lutheranae & Calvinisticae Doctrinae

in praecipui fidei Articulis; the Contradic∣tion of Lutherans and Calvinists in the chief Articles of faith. Reade Conradus de Theol. Calvin. l. 1. art. 18. The Calvi∣nists have pass'd so far, as to bring in doubt, no smale number of chief Articles of Chris∣tian faith; the omnipotency of God; the Per∣sonal Vnion of the two Natures in Christ; the Communication of names in the Blessed Trini∣ty; the glorious Body of Christ; his Ascension; the difference of Sacraments, of the old and new Testament; the force and efficacy of Grace; the Prerogative of Infants born of Infidels, the Lords supper, and Predestina∣tion: in all these (which our D^r will not deny to be chief and Fundamental Ar∣ticles of Religion) the Lutherans and Calvinists disagree; and therefore the same Conradus writ three books of the irreconcilable difference betwixt Lutherans and Calvinists, and in his second book: art. 13. saies, nos negamus inter nos & Calvinistas in Doctrinae funda∣mento esse consensum; Wce deny any agree∣ment betwixt vs and Calvinists in Funda∣mental Articles: and therefore Stanca∣rus a Lutheran, l. cont. Calvin: adver∣tises his Reader; Beware Christian Reader of the Books of Calvin, especially in the Arti∣cles

of the B. Trinity; the Incarnation, and Mediation of Christ; the Sacrament of Bap∣tism and Predestination; for that they contain impious Doctrin, and Arian Blasphemies. And in his book cont. Minist Genu. saies, that the Church of Geneva and Zurich are Arians: and Nauserus, who of a Cal∣vinist becam an Arian, and of an Arian became a Turk in his Epistle ad Gerla∣chium a Protestant Preacher, saies. I know none of our age who becam an Arian, who was not first a Calvinist; if you will shun Arianism, you must beware of Calvinism: Go now Doctor and tell vs, that your Sects agree in all the chief and Funda∣mental Articles of Religion; Go and tell vs, that all these Sects so mons∣truously devided, compose the Catho∣lic Church.

VI. CHAPTER.

MY ARGVMENTS FOR THE NECESSITY of a living Infallible Iudge of Contro∣versies, and that to be the Church, vnanswered.

IN my former Treatise I argued thus; either 'its lawfull to each one to fol∣low that sense of Scripture which bona Fide, after mature consideration and prayers to God, he thinks to be the sense of the text; and if so all the world, tho at ears for their different Tenets, are in a good Religion; and the Gene∣ral Councils haue bin rash in condem∣ning Arius, Nestorius &c. because all Heresiarcks and Heretics will say (and why should not wee belieue them) that they judge in their Conscience before God, their own sense of Scripture is the true: Or God has required of vs, that wee should all believe and profess one only sense of Scripture; that, and no other, which he has reuealed; and if so; certainly he has apointed and com∣missioned

som supream Authority for to teach vs what sense of Scripture is that which he will haue vs belieue; and wee are bound to acquiesce and yeld to that supream authority, tho the sense he proposes, may not seem to our privat judgement to be the best: for if God has not appointed such an Authority, how shall I know, which of the different senses giuen to the text, is that which God has reuealed: and if wee be not obliged in conscience to obey that Authority, and belieue the sense proposed by it; then I may, and so may euery other, without any scru∣ple reject that sense, and each one hold his own, and so there will be no imaginable way for vs to be of one and the same faith. This supream Authority I proved to be the Church, and I haue no answer from my D^r to all my discours but a very civil complement pag 29. he saies; if he thinks Scripture is not suf∣ficient for to decide our Controversies, wee will admit with S. Augustin, the Authority of the Church, and Tradi∣tion as expounded by Lirinensis: But this compliance to my discours signifies nothing, if by Church and Tradition, he

Understands all Christian Societies; for if wee must belieue no sense of the text but what they all agree in, we must belieue none at all. I proued by convincing ar∣guments that this Teaching and Proposing Church must be the Roman Catholic Church; and my D^r answers, that Iam a fool as the great Turk for calling himself king of kings: assuredly this is a short and smart methode of answering, had Bel∣larmin and stillingfleet discouered this methode of anfwering, they might haue reduced their great books to a few sheets of paper.

I proued our obligation of submit∣ting to the Doctrin of this supream Au∣thority; because Christ laid his com∣mands, not only vpon the Apostles, but also vpon their successors in suc∣ceeding ages, of preaching, teaching and ruling the flock; and laid his com∣mands on the flock not only of the Apostles daies, but on the flock of all succeeding ages, of hearing, believing, and obeying their Pastors and Leaders, for to be conueyed all into one faith: Our D^r answers in the tone of a graue man; What he ads of Obedience due from the flock to their Pastors, is right, speaking of each

flock in regard of their ordinary lawfull Pas∣tors: This restriction, speaKing of their or∣dinary lawfull Pastors, was foisted in for som mischief: doubtless it was to ab∣solve the flock of England from any Obedience to the Pope.

But Pray D^r when Luther and his merry Companions began to vent their Novelties, was there not a Church ex∣tant, and consequently Ordinary and lawfull Pastors, to whom they owed Obedience? were they not obliged to obey those Ordinary lawfull Pastors, and acquiesce to their Doctrin as Christ commands vs by S. Paul, that wee liue in Vnity of faith and not be carried away with euery wind of Doctrin? were they not then, Schismatics, for not submitting to those lawfull Pastors? this obliga∣tion of submitting to that Authority descended to the Lutherans; for that Church and Authority which he was obliged to obey is still the same; and has still the right of exacting obedience from the flock; consequently the Lu∣therans are Schismatics for not sub∣mitting to it: and if the Lutherans be guilty, the Church of England is no less; because you were then vnder the

same Authotity and ordinary Pastors, to which you owed Obedience, and therefore you are obliged to return.

It was to eneruat this discours that my Antagonist inserted that word, that each particular flock owes obedience to th••ir lawfull Ordinary Pastors; preten∣ding that the Church or flock of Eng∣land owes Obedience only to the Pas∣tors of England; that as the king in each kingdom is the head of the Church so the Pastors of each kingdom are the lawfull Ordinary Pastors in that king∣dom to whom the flock owes Obe∣dience; the flock of England must obey the Pastots of England; the flock of France, the Pastors of France and so of the rest. And if you ask what way imaginable is there then, to keep vs in Vnity of faith; for it may happen that the Pastors of England, France, and Spain may deliuer different Doctrins; the one believe the Divinity of Christ, the other deny it; the one belieue the true Canon of Scripture and the other deny it: this may, and does happen; in this case all the flock of these king∣doms are obliged to haue one and the same faith: which Pastors must they

belieue? does reason or Scripture ob∣lige the flock of Spain to belieue the Pastors of France? or that of France the Pastors of England? No: why then in this case you haue nothing to answer, but that each flock is bound to obey their own Ordinary Domestic Pastors, and so be all of three different Reli∣gions one from an other; or that there is one Pastor aboue them all, to which as well the flock as the Pastors are bound to submit, and obey.

And this wee will proue out of the Church of England: for, in Ireland as there is in each Parish a Pastor to watch ouer the flock; so there is in each Bis∣hoprick a Bishop to rule the subordinat Pastors; in each Province there is an ArchBishop whose care is to keep Vnitie of Doctrin and Disciplin among the Bishops; in the kingdom there is a Primat who has a supream Jurisdiction ouer all the Pastors and Prelats. Now as Controversies may arrise betwixt the Pastors of one kingdom, so there may betwixt the Pastors of different Na∣tions; why therefore, as besides Scrip∣ture and Christ our invisible head you admit a supream visible head ouer all

the Pastors of each kingdom, will not you grant a visible Vniversal Pas∣tor ouer all the flock of Christ and ouer all the Pastors of different Na∣tions, for to keep them in Unity of Doctrin: for if you read the Scrip∣ture, you shall not find that Christ should have made any mention of any particular Pastor for each particular flock; but he made mention of One supream Pastor for to gouern his whole flock, Vnum Ouile & Vnus Pastor: this One flock which Christ spoke of, cer∣tainly is composed of all the particular flocks of divers kingdoms; therefore that one Pastor, which he spoke of is the Pastor of all kingdoms.

The Church of England, and our D^r pag. 60. tells vs Inferior or Not fun∣damental Truths implicitly contained in Scripture, are of so great conse∣quence to our saluation, that it is a damnable error to deny them; that all Nations are obliged to belieue them when they are sufficiently proposed to vs, to be revealed Truths; surely these Truths were revealed that they might be proposed to, and belieued by all Nations: therefore God has apoin∣ted

som Authority in the Church for to propose vnto all Nations, and oblige them all to belieue those Truths pro∣posed by that Authority: there must be therefore som Authority which has a power ouer all Nations; but the Pastors of any particular kingdom are not impower'd to oblige the flock of an other kingdom; therfore there must be one Pastor who has Authority and power ouer all. Nor will it be a satis∣factory answer to say that God gaue the Scripture to all Nations, wherby to learn all Truth; first because besides Scripture, its needfull that in each par∣ticular kingdom there be one supream Pastor, who has authority ouer all the Pastors of that kingdom, as wee haue discoursed but now; so likewise besides Scripture there must be one supream Pastor, whose charge is to teach and rule all Pastors of all Nations; for Christ gaue his commission for to teach certain Truths of Religion to all Nations; Ite, praedicate Evangelium Omni creaturae, in Vniversum mundum; as therefore for to teach Particular kingdoms, you grant besides Scripture, one Supream Pastor in that kingdom; why not one Supream

Pastor ouer all kingdoms? Secondly, its not a Scripture or a Written book which Christ gaue to teach; (for as I obser∣ucd in my former Treatise, Christ gaue no Scripture, nor any Commission to his Apostles to write it;) but Liuing Pastors and teachers: thirdly I haue proued and its evident that Scripture does not contain all Truths which all Nations are obliged to belieue: lastly because the true Canon itself of Scrip∣ture is doubted of by many Nations: there must be then a supream Autho∣rity for to answer to this doubt, to whom all Nations are obliged to ac∣quiesce. This supream Authority was belieued by the Christian World to be in the Pope and Council before Luther and Calvins revolt, to this Authority they gaue obedience then, and now they deny it; they are therefore guilty of Schism, and bound to return to that Obedience.

I proued in my former Treatise of this subject that it was the practice of Gods Church in all ages, when euer any Controversy in Religion arrised betwixt two Parties; it was never de∣termin'd by their altercations, disputes

and Interpretations of the Text; but the question was deuolued to the Church conven'd in a General Council, to which both Parties were obliged to submit, and he esteemed an Heretic who would not acquiesce to the Decision of the Council: That no Apellation nor Pro∣testation against the Council vnder pre∣tence of being a Partie, or of being of the contrarie Doctrin to the Person ac∣cused, was admitted; but he was obli∣ged to submit his Doctrin to the judg∣ment of the Council. I proued also at large that this was the practice of the Reformed Church, in the Synods of Dordrect and Delph in Holland; where Arminius protested against the Synod, as being a Partie because it was com∣posed for the most part of Gomarists: but the Synod declared him a Schismatic, if he did not waue his Apellation, and submit himself to its Judgment in that Controversy, and declared itself to be the competent Judge in that cause. I inferred hence, the obligation of Lu∣ther and the whole Reformation that he ought to haue submitted himself to the Church convened in the Council of Trent, to which the Decision of the

Controversies apertained. My good D^r answers pag. 31. that the Pope and Council of Trent, were the Partie ac∣cused; that Luther nor the Reforma∣tion did not therefore, nor ought not to submit vnto them: this was the answer of Arminius to Dordrect. And Dordrect judged him to be a Schismatic for so an∣swering; this was the answer of Arius and all Heretics against the Councils who condemned them; and they were judged Schismatics for not submitting; and must not our Doctor also be judged a Schismatic with his Master Luther, if they do not waue this Protestation.

VII. CHAPTER.

OVR DOCTOR'S DESINGENVITY IN HIS Replies to my Discours of Church Infallibility.

AFter I had proued the Necessitie of a Living Judge of Controver∣sies, and it to be the Church; and for to auoid all Cauils I purposely adver∣tis'd, I did not speake of the Pope

alone; because his Infallibility was no Article of faith but a school question denied by many Catholics, and affir∣med by many; I declared I would speake only of the Infallibility of the Church, both Diffusive, and Repre∣sentative, in the Pope and Council togither: and because our D^r objected our Catholics were diuided in the Doc∣trin of Church Infallibility, and quoted Turrecremat, Alfonsus a Castro, and Aqui∣nas to haue said, that even the Pope and Council joyntly could err mate∣rially; I answer'd that our Article of faith was, that they could not err nei∣ther formally nor materially in Doctrin of faith and manners; and challenged him to shew me any one Orthodox Doc∣tor which euer said the contrary; and that Turrecremat, Aquinas and Alfonsus a Castro only said they could err materially in matter of fact, but not of Doctrin: I haue for Replie from my D^r: that those Authors say, the Pope and Council joyntly can err materially; and no squint ey'd man but sees this is an impertinent an∣swer, wheras my challenge was, to shew any D^r who saies they can err mate∣rially in Doctrin.

But what does he answer to my ar∣gument for the Infallibility of the Church Diffusive, or Representative? a story of a myle long, of Clermont Colledge and Sorbonists; the one defen∣ding in public Theses; and the other impugning the Infallibility of the Pope alone without a Council: And what is all this to our question in hand? for our question was of the Infallibility of the Pope and Council joyntly: did not I grant in my 7. Chapt. that many Ca∣tholics denied, and many asserted the Popes Infallibility, and therefore I said it was but a School question, and I would not speake of it, but of the Infallibility of the Pope and Council joyntly? you are desingenuous D^r: and decline the question: but I must not complain; you are very kind to me: you are afraid that my Brethren of Clermont will take it ••ill I deny the Infal∣libility of the Pope alone to be an Ar∣ticle of faith: for how will the Jansenists be esteemed Heretics, wheras they were condemn'd by the Pope alone, without any Council, and its no Article of faith the Pope is Infallible? I thank you for your kindness; but your fear is pan∣nick:

for its not only the Church Re∣presentative in the Pope and Council is Infallible; but also the Church Dif∣fusive, as it comprehends all the Pas∣tors and Prelats; and Jansenism was not only condemn'd by Innocent the X. and Alexander the VII. but their Sentence was aproued by the Universal Church Diffusive and so Jansenism is as legal∣ly condemned as Protestancy.

But is't possible D^r that wee have forgot the Controversy of the Infalli∣bility of the Church, which was the question in debate? and fallen into that of the Pop's infallibilitie which is quite out of our road? not one argu∣ment or text does he bring to proue the fallibilitie of the Church, but that thredbare syllogism which I answered in my former Treatise: Infallibilitie said he in his Sermon (and is not asha∣med to say it again in his new book) is an Attribut proper to God; but it's a formal blasphemie, saies S. Thomas Aquinas to giue Gods proper Attributs to any creature; there∣fore its a blasphemie to say the Church is in∣fallible. The sexton of his Parish of Swoords would haue saued him his voyage to Oxford for this argument and the

answer of it; for doubtless he knows the Apostles and Prophets were infalli∣ble, and consequently there is a vast difference betwixt Gods Attribut of In∣fallibility and that which is giuen to Creatures. I answered him that Intrinsic Infallibility by nature and proper Per∣fection, is Gods Attribut, it being im∣possible to him in any case or supposi∣tion to deceiue or be deceiued: This is not challenged by the Church of Rome; she is infallible only by Gods Pro∣tection who has promised not to suffer her to teach or embrace any Error; the Apostles were thus infallible, and the Church in fundamental points, as Protestants confess; and where is there any thing like a blasphemie in this? or where is our D^r^'^s sincerity in not taking notice of, or replying against this answer, and repeating again his old syllogism as if no answer had been giuen to it?

But he lets flie som Queries against vs; first, if God can lend his Attribut of Omnipotency to his Creatures? and thence concludes he cannot giue his Infallibilitie: but the good Man is mis∣taken in thinking wee pretend that God giues his Infallibilitie to his Church;

its not his Attribut of Infallibility he giues; but his promiss of not suffering her to err in Doctrin of faith and Man∣ners, as he did to the Apostles: D^r can you deny, but that he gaue this kind of infallibility to the Apostles? and dare you say he gaue them his Omnipoten∣cy? His second Quaere if it be not a damnable arrogance to parallell the Church with the Apostles, Gods sacred Organs, as all the world acknowledges? hold D^r; not all the World, for the greatest Oracles of your Reformation (and by this my Reader will see what a pretty Reforma∣tion our D^r has choosen) say they were not only fallible, but they actually and foulie erred in what they writ and taught. Zuinglius to 2. cont. Cataph. fol. 10. Its a great ignorance to belieue any infallible authority in the Ghospels and Epis∣tles of the Apostles: Clebitius a learned Scribe of the Reformation, Vict. Verit. ar. 5. Lukes relation of Christ's Passion is not true, because it does not agree with that of Mathew and Mark, and more credit is to be giuen to two, than to one. Luther your grand Reformer to. 5. Wittemb. printed. an. 1554. and Epist. ad Gal. c. 1. saies that Peter liued and taught extra Verbum

Dei, beyond the Word of God: and again l. de Captivit. Babyl. c. de Extr. Vnct. saies S. Iames spoke foolishly of extream Vnc∣tion, Calvin your Reformed Apostle saies (in Cap. 2. ad Gal. that Peter ad∣ded to the Schism of the Church, and ouer∣throw of Christian Liberty and Christs Grace. Whitaker a Hector of your Church de Eccl. cont. Bellarm. Contr. 2. ques. 4. saies its evident that after the descent of the Holy Ghost, the whole Church even the Apos∣tles erred; and that Peter erred not only in manners but in Doctrin.

Now D^r tell vs that all the World reueres the Apostles as Gods Oracles; had you said indeed that all the Orthodox World beare that respect vnto them, wee would believe you; but when you hear D^rs of your own Reformation speak as I have related, and many more of them speak as ill, whom I omit for brevity sake, you need not be proud of your good opinion of the Apostles, nor accuse me of insolence and damnable arrogance for parallelling the Church in the point of Infallibility with them: if it be in∣solence in me so to do, S. Gregorie was as insolent as I: I Embrace, said he, the four first General Councils, as the four Ghos∣pels.

Parallelling the Church of the four first ages with the Evangelists in the cer∣tainty of their Doctrin; and truly by all I can perceiue of your opinion this censure of damnable arrogance reachs to yourself as much as to me; for you parallell the Church with the Apostles; all the Prerogative you grant to the Apostles is, that they are Gods Vnerring Oracles; I haue with particular reflexion observed and cannot find in your whole book that you should haue called the Apostles Infallible Orales, but pag. 36. you say they are Vnerring Oracles: also pag. 15. you call the Church Vnerring; Not properly Infallible, say you, but by the assistance of the H. Ghost, shall not err in fun∣damental points; and elss where you call her Vnerring Oracle: the same Prerogative of certainty and sted fastness in Truth which you grant to the Apostles, you giue it to the Church, and no more, nor no less: see you, may I say that you are damnably arrogant in parallelling the Church with the Apostles.

But wee must not let pass this word Vner∣ring, newly coyned by our Adversaries for to escape the force of our Catho∣lic Arguments for Infallibilitie; they

will not grant the Church, nor the Apostles, for ought wee can see by our D^r to be Infallible or Vnerrable; but they say the Church is Vnerring: and if by the word Vnerring they vnderstand any thing vnder Vnerrable so as to say the Church and Apostles are not Infallible or Vnerrable, wee will demonstrat their impiety and damnable arrogance; and that the Apostles and Church are not only Vnerring that's to say, will not err; but also Vnerrable, that's to say cannot err. For the Apostles were not only Vnerring, but also Vnerrable in what they writ; other wise Scripture would not be Gods Infallible Word: and who can deny but that they were as infallible in what they taught verbally, as in what they writ? wheras S. Paul saies Gal. 1. 8. that the word he preached to them, was not of man, but of God. The same wee must say of the Church: first because no text of Scripture does warrant the Infallibi∣lity of the Apostles (as wee haue she∣wed in my former Treatise and will ap∣pear in the next ensuing Chapter) that does not also warrant the Infallibility of the Church: Secondly you grant the Church is Gods Vnerring Oracle, that

by the assistance of Gods H. Spirit it will not err: I ask; is this a reuealed Truth, that God has promised that Assistance to his Church, or not? if it be not reuealed; why do you belieue it? or what warrant have you for to say it? if it be revealed; then the Church is infallible as wee pretend: for all the Infallibility wee claim for our Church, is that God has Promised in Holy Writ, to lead the Church into all truth, so as neuer to suffer her to err; which pro∣miss being made its as impossible the Church should err; as it is that Gods promiss should faile.

In his 3. Chap. he rallies pleasantly turning one of my Arguments into ridi∣cule: I. S. saies he, seems not to be very strong in the belief of Infallibilitie, because all the proof he giues for to perswade his Brethren to his belief is an imagi∣nary comfort they haue in belieuing their Church, which guides them, to be infallible, which comfort saies he, must be grounded, not vpon the real existence of that infallibility, but vpon a strong appr••hension or belief of it, tho it be not extant; and to giue som plausible appearance to this calumny, he chops my discours and

relates the one half of my words: but that my Reader may judge if my argu∣ment be as ridiculous, as my Antago∣nist is desingenuous, I will propose my discours which was thus: If wee consi∣der the testimonies of Scripture, the consent of ages, the multitude of Uni∣versities, D^rs and fathers, which teach Infallibility; its as likely (to say no more) that you are mistaken in believing Church Fallibility, as that I am mista∣ken in belieuing Infallibilitie: as to the truth therefore of this Doctrin you haue no more assurance of the truth of your Tenet than I have of mine: thus far we are equal: but I haue a huge ad∣vantage in believing the Doctrin of In∣fallibility which you cannot haue in be∣lieuing fallibility; for faith is our roade to saluation, you trauel in one faith or roade, I trauel in an other, wee are doubtfull of the roade; my advantage is, that I am guided by a Church which I firmly belieue and am fully assured is infallible, cannot err, cannot be mistaken, cannot byass me: I am like a Traveller, who tho he does not know the roade, he is fully perswaded, and without the least doubt that his guide

who vndertakes to leade him is so knowing in the way that he cannot miss it; the Traveller goes on in his journy, follows his guide, his mind is at rest, he is fully satisfied, and has not the least feare of being byass'd: so a Catholic being fully perswaded and be∣lieuing the Infallibility of his Church, liues with a quiet mind free from doubts and fear of going astray because he is perswaded the Church which guides him cannot err; and tho really the Tavellers guide were not so throughly acquain∣ted with the roade, but that he may stray, yet the Traveller being fully perswaded that he cannot; travells with satisfaction without any feare or doubt.

But if a Traveller did not know the roade, and were perswaded that the guide which leads him, is not so expert but that he may go astray; truly he must be allwaies fearfull, dubious, and without rest of mind, doubtfull if he goes well, or if he be by ass'd. So it is with the Protestant in his faith which is the roade to, Saluation he knows not the way well; he is guided by a Church, which he belieues may err in the roade,

ought not he to live and walk in conti∣nual feare? Hence I inferred that any wise man ought to choose the Doctrin of Infallibility before that of fallibili∣ty: for in believing Infallibility he does not hazard his saluation, because in the actual Profession of our Roman Tenets a man may be saued, saie the Protestants; secondly because in the belief of fallibilitie it's as likely the Protestants are deceiued, as the Ca∣tholics in believing Infallibility: the Catholics run no greater hazard of believing an vntruth, than the Pro∣testants; it may be (the Protestant will say) there is no such thing really, as Infal∣libility; and so the Catholics wil be deceiued. And it may be, saies the Catholic to the Protestant, ther's no such thing as fallibi∣lity, and so you will be deceiued: and since I hazard nothing by it, and I am as likely to belieue a true Doctrin as you; why will not I choose the Tenet of Infallibility, which giues me rest of mind without any doubt or feare in the full assurance of the truth I profess; rather than your Tenet of fallibility, which leaues you doubtfull and suspense if what you be∣lieve, be true or fals; if the roade you walk in, be the right roade or no? Let my Rea∣der

be judge if this discours be so ridi∣culous, as D^r Sall thought to repre∣sent it;

To my argument for Church Infalli∣bility, drawen from her long Possession of that prerogative, neuer denied to her but by knowen Heretics; therefore not to be denied to her now without evident proof, of her being an vnjust possessor, wheras possession of 1500. years is a weightie argument in all Commonwealths to maintain the Posses∣sors, if evident proofs be not produ∣ced to proue him an in just vsurper: My D^r answers that heer I prepare a Sanc∣tuary for Robbers and Theeves; and that what was Lawfull in the beginning, by continuance of time growes not to be lawfull; and without any more, passes by, without proving (as he ought to have don) that our Church is a Rob∣ber or Theef of this prerogative; and that in progress of time her possession was forfeited, which in the beginning was lawfull: He tells vs in his 25. chapt. that a Possessor may be questioned for his Title; and if he does not proue it must forfeit his possession: Wee answer; our Title is this, that our Church in

the bnginning was settled in the pos∣session of Christ's true Doctrin; (for the Protestants acknowledge, shee wee once the true Church,) that Christ pro¦mised her the conduct of his assisting spirit vntill the Consummation of the world, and that the gates of Hell should not prevaile against her. By virtue of this promiss she continued her possession by your acknowledgment, for many ages: shee was attackt by several Heretics from time to time, accusing her to haue fallen from the truth: she was hono∣rablie discharged by General Councils, and never yet condemned by any; but her Title approued and her possession continued. Now our D^r starts vp to question this so ancient and so often approved a Title: must he not bring evident proofs against her, or be hiss'd out of Court like a wrangler.

VIII. CHAPTER.

HIS ANSWERS TO THE TEXTS alleadged for Church Infallibility examined.

NOt a word of answer have I from my D^r to all the texts of Scrip∣ture, which I alleadged for Church In∣fallibility, but what replies I made my self against them, and I answered: and his answers are two; the first, that what texts import the assurance of Gods in∣fallible spirit, are not appliable to the Church, but only to the Apostles; which answer I refuted in a full and large Chapt. proving that the Church even in succeeding ages to the Apostles was and is still infallible and not a syl∣lable does my D^r answer to this Chapter: and its to be admired the D^r should giue this answer, if he were not so much acus∣tomed to cōtradict himself; for he saies the Church, is God's Vnerring Oracle through the Assistance of God's spirit; this he cannot know but by som texts of Scripture; therefore those texts

are appliable, and if they proue infal∣libilitie; they proue that of the Chuch: but let vs hear som of those texts; the first is that of Math. 16. vpon his Rock (meaning Peter) I wil build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevaile against her. What Church is that which Christ built vpon Peter? is it the Apostles alone? or his Vniversal Church, which was to continue in succeeding Ages after them? if the Apostles; then you must acknowledge (and that Pro∣testants will be loath to do) that Peter is the foundation, head, and chief of the Apostles, that their faith is groun∣ded vpon him: If the Church Vniversall, which was to continue in succeeding ages? then the text is appliable to the Church, and by it wee are assured, that the gates of Hell, that's to say Error or Heresy, shall not prevaile against her; which is to be infallible.

An other Text Jo. 14. If you ask any thing in my name I will do it; and I will pray the father; and he will giue you an other Comforter that will abide with you for euer, euen the spirit of Truth. Three things are promised by this Text: and all three appliable to the Church in all ages, as

well as to the Apostles: the first is; If you ask any thing in my name I will do it. This promiss vndoubtedly relates to the whole Church, and it were ridicu∣lous and erroneous to say that it was made to the Apostles and to none els. The second; If you lone me keep my Com∣mandments; was this said to the Apos∣tles alone? was the observance of the Commandments required only of them in testimonie of their loue? The third; and I will pray my father, and he will giue you an other Comforter who will abide with you for euer, euen the spirit of Truth. If these words be appliable to the Church, its evident the text proues the Infallibilitie of the Church, as con∣vincingly as that of the Apostles; And that those words are appliable to the Church, it seems vndoubted since that the precedent words of the same text are appliable to her; particularly that the later words import the Comforter's abyding for euer which cannot be said of the Apostles own persons, who were not to be for euer;

The third Text Mat. 28. Go teach all Nations, Baptizing ••hem in the name of the father son and H. Ghost; loe I am with you

vntill the Consummation of the world. Blind∣ness it self cannot but see that this text proues Infallibilitie, and is appliable to the Church, for, whom is he to be with, vntill the Consummation of the World? with those to whom he gaue his commission for to Baptize, Teach and preach: and who were they to whom Christ gave this Commission? not only to the Apostles; but to the Church in succeeding ages; therefore this text is appliable; and the Promiss of Christ's aboade vntill the Consummation of the world was made, not only to the Apostles, but to the Church which suc∣ceeds in all ages: Nor will you escape the force of this text, by saying the aboad of God's spirit promised to the Church vntill the consummation of the world, was only conditional, if they liued in God's loue and obseruance of his Commandments; because it would follow, that the Commission also giuen them in the same text of preaching, Baptizing and teaching was only condi∣tional, if they liued in Gods loue, and obser∣vance of his commandments; and so none could exercise those functions, but when he is in the state of Grace.

And what is to be admired is, that our D^r brings no kind of proof, for to proue that these texts are not appliable to the Church, but his word, and a little quillet which weighs as little as his word: for I quoted a text out of S. John. 15. When ••he Paraclet shall come whom I will send from my father vnto you euen the spirit of truth; he will giue testimonie of me, and yee will giue test••monie. From which text I argued thus: the wittnesses apointed by Christ to give testimonie of him and his Doctrin were the spirit of God, and the Church; the testimony proceeds from both joyntly, from the Paraclet inwardly inspiring, and the Church outwardly declaring; therefore this testimonie is infalliblie true: No, quoth our D^r the texts relate only to the Apostles; and not at all to the Church: no man in his senses will say otherwise: and why so? Because, saies he, the Apostles only and not the Church, were with Christ since the begin∣ning, and the text in its last words saies they were to giue testimonie of him, who were with him from the beginning, which last words of the text, he saies, I fraudulently left out, and corrupted

the text: Reader I'l be judged by you if our D^r has not lost his senses as well as his reason; Only the Apostles he sates, were the witnesses apointed by Christ for to giue tes∣timonie of Christ, because they alone were with him from the beginning, No man in his sen∣ses will say other wise. Therefore the Church of England giues no testimo∣nie of Christ nor his Doctrin, because she was not with Christ from the begin∣ning; Nor S. Paul was with Christ from the beginning; nor the four first General Councils; nor a word of the new testa∣ment. Therefore none of them were competent witnesses for to give testimo∣ny of Christ or his Doctrin; No man in his senses will say they were. And by this you may see it was neither fraud nor deprauation of the text made me omit those last words of the text, but because they did not concern the controversy in hand. And this little quillet is all the answer wee haue from him to proue those texts are not appliable to the Church.

If our D^r did contradict but in the end of his book what he said in the be∣ginning of it; it would be pardona∣ble; but to tell vs in his 7. Chapt. that

the texts importing Infallibilitie are not at all appliable to the Church: and then again in the self sam Chapt. to tell vs they are appliable to the Church con∣ditionally if she be in God's loue and grace; argues a mightie want of memo∣rie: but just now he said, No man in his sense could applie those texts to the Church: the man, surely, has lost his senses; for pag. 44. of that Chap. he saies those texts relate to the Church, and were pronounced by Christ in her favor, but still conditionally that she continue in Gods loue and grace: and because the Church has fayled in this condition by the many crimes of her Pastors and Prelats; she has forfeited the conduct of Gods assisting Spirit of Truth, and is no more infallible.

From this Paradox it follows that those Promisses were also Conditional in regard of the Apostles; for neither Scrip∣ture, nor any thing but a groundless fancy can persuade, that those Promis∣ses were Absolut in regard of the One; and Conditional only in regard of the other: read the Texts and you shall see it: and wheras in the Apostles time there were many and grieveous sinners

in the Church, (tho they were Saints themselves) it follows that the Church in their time did forfeit her Infallibi∣litie because she was not in the loue of God, and observance of his Command∣ments. Secondly it follows the Church now has not the Assistance of Gods spirit in fundamental Points, and so she is fallible in them; which Protestants will not say: thirdly it follows the four first General Councils had not that as∣sistance, which is contrary▪ to the Doc∣trin of the Church of England.

But let vs proue directly the absur∣dity of this conditional Promiss: This Proposition is now absolutly true, and independently of any condition; The Church is the Pillar and foundatiō of Truth; not∣withstanding the sins of Pastors and Pre∣lats, this proposition is true; as D^r Sall himself confesses as well in his Sermon, as in his Book: also he saies in his 15. pag. against J. S. that the Church, tho it be not properly infallible yet it shall not err in fundamental Doctrin, because the Church Vniversal has, and is to haue the assistance of the Holy Ghost: there∣fore the Church now, notwithstanding all the sins and transgressions of our

Pastors and prelates, has the Assistance of Gods infallible spirit; for if you take the Church separatly from the Assistance of Gods spirit; it is not, nor can it be called The Pillar of Truth: since there∣fore it is now truly the Pillar of Truth notwithstanding all our sins; it has now the Assistance of Gods spirit notwith∣standing our sins; therefore that Assis∣tance of Gods spirit was not promised Conditionally.

And what is execrable to be said (as I observed in my former Treatise) is, that if Gods promiss of his assisting infallible spirit, be only conditional, wee cannot be sure that the Ghospels are infallible: for if the Evangelists when they writ them were not in the state of Grace, they had not the assistance of Gods infallible spirit; as the D^r saies; and in the principles of the Church of England nothing assures vs that they were in the state of Grace then; for Protestants will take nothing for sure but what's expressed in Scripture; and no text of Scripture mentions their being then in the state of Grace: con∣sequently nothing assures vs that the Ghospels are infallible. Our D^r rings a

greate peale of insolent impietie against me for this execrable Position, That no∣thing assures vs the Evangelists were in the state of Grace; the censure of insolent impietie is most deservedly past; but its not pardonable, that the D^r should lay it at my doore, the Position not being mine, but an vnauoidable se∣quele out of his Church's Principles.

As it is an vnauoidable sequele out of their Principles, that wee are assu∣red the Ghospels are not infallible, be∣cause the Evangelists in the principles of the Protestant Church were not in the state of Grace; wheras it's the Pro∣testant Doctrin, that it's impossible to keep Gods Commandments. Heer our D^r will dash out my brains, (if ratling can do it) for so great a Calumnie: he neuer heard any Protestant vtter so despe∣rat a Position. Haply he did not; he is but a yong Protestant. But D^r do not you tell vs in your 12. Chapt. against N. N. that the Religion of England is the same with the Religion of your sec∣taries in Holland, and France? and do not you know that the Rigid Calvinist, and the Gomarists of Holland do believe Gods Commandments to be impossible?

in case you do not; reade the Acts of the Synod of Dordrect; reade Luther to. 1. Edit. Jen. pag 46. Cal. Harm. Evang. in Luc. c. 10. & in Math. c. 22. & lib. 2. Instit. c. 7. reade W••lle•• in Synop. Papis. pag. 564. O! but say you the Protes∣tants of England detest this Doctrin: I answer that they do, and they do not: they do, because in their Cathecisms and in most of their Authors they denie it: They do not; because they and you with them embrace the Calvinists, Gomarists and others who belieue this abomina∣ble Tenet, to be your Brethren of one and the same Religion with you; that their faith and belief is a sauing faith: and is not this, as much as to approue that Doctrin as Orthodox and tolera∣ble?

But D^r did you never reade the 39. Articles of the Church of England? did not you meet in the 6. Art. and in your Catholic Doctrin of the Church of Eng∣land pag. 103. that the Rule of faith of the Church of England is, Scripture as each Person of sound judgment in the Church vnderstands it: if this be your rule of faith, you'l never giue a more exact definition of your Protestant Doctrin than

this; Whatever any of sound judgment in your Church interprets to be contained in Scripture: Luther, Calvin, Willet, Go∣marus and his Disciples, were men of sound judgment and of your Church, (for you say all Christian societies are of one Church;) and they all teach the Impossibilitie of Gods Commandments to be contained in Scripture; there∣fore this is the Doctrine of the Protes∣tant Church: I confess Protestants in England deny it; but I say they must and ought to believe it, or change their Rule of faith and 39. Articles.

IX. CHAPTER.

MY SYLLOGISM IN FERIO, PROVING the Protestant Church, not to be the Church nor any part of the Church of Christ, vindicated and enforced against Doctor Sall.

IUndertook to prove in the 8. Chap. of my former Treatise that the Pro∣testant Church is not the Church of Christ nor any part of it, because it does

not teach his Doctrin; and no Church can be called the Church of Christ fur∣ther than it teachs his Doctrin: That Protestancy or Doctrin of the Protestant Church, as it is condistinct from Cathole∣cism, or the Doctrin of the Romā Church, is not the Doctrin of Christ nor any part of it, I proved it with this syllogism in Ferio. No fallible Doctrin is the Doctrin nor any part of the Doctrin of Christ; but Protestancy as it is condistinct from Catholecism, (that's to say the Doc∣trin wherin they differ from vs, and for which they separated from vs) is altogither fallible Doctrin; therefore Protestancy is not the Doctrin nor any part of the Doctrin of Christ. That Pro∣testancy is altogither fallible Doctrin, I proued it; because the Doctrin wher∣in Protestants differ from vs, is alto∣gither of Inferior Verities, of Points not fundamental; This, no ingenuos Protes∣tant will stick to grant; for its the ex∣press confession of Protestants, that Catholics and Protestans agree in fun∣damental points; and therefore they pretend wee are all of one Religion as to the substance, and that wee may be saued in our Religion, because our

Errors are only in Inferior and not funda∣mental Doctrin, which shocks not the foundation of Religion; But the Doc∣trin of Inferior Verities, and Points not fundamental is altogither fallible Doc∣trin; Nor will any Protestant deny this Proposition who vnderstands well the Doctrin of his Church; for its the constant Doctrin of Protestants, and D^r Sall himself saies it pag. 15. against J. S. that the Church cannot err in fun∣damental points of faith, but that it may and has erred in points not fun∣damental or Inferior Truths. There∣fore Protestancie or the Doctrin wherin Protestants differ from vs is but falli∣ble Doctrin, and consequently not the Doctrin of Christ.

It's a pittifull thing to see how my poor D^r is entangled in this argument: his first, and best answer is to say my Thesis is Insolent, and a big promising Title; but if his answer be not good, it will proue as performing as it is promising: let vs hear his answer: He will haue vs pre∣miss (saies he) that Protestants alow Papists not to err in points fundamental. What shufling, and ambiguous terms be these? He will haue vs premiss; what? do you

think I beg that of you as a favor? is it not your own acknowledgement in your Dedicatory Epistle to the Earl of Essex, that the Church of Rome was once the true Church? is it not also your ack∣nowledgement pag. 15. that the true Church is to have the continual assis∣tance of the Holy Ghost for not to err in fundamental points of Religion? do not you acknowledge in the beginning of your book that Roman Catholics may be saved in their Religion? and can any be saved in the profession of fundamental errors? I proued in my former treatise that almost all your sectaries confess rhis truth, and it is the constant Doctrin of the Church of England.

He goes on, but quite out of the Road, and tells vs, that fundamental points are those which are contained in the Creed; and this is nothing to our purpose; for to answer my argument, it matters not a pin's head to know where the funda∣mental points are contained; or what they are; what avails vs, is to know that the Doctrin wherin you differ from vs, is only the Doctrin of, not fundamen∣tal points: after his long rambling he

comes at last to my syllogism: He grants the Major proposition, that no fallible Doctrin is the Doctrin of Christ; he denies the Minor, that Protestancy is all fallible Doctrin: to the second Syllogism he, gives me for granted (and no thanks to him for it) that Protestancy, or Doctrin wherin they differ from vs is altogither of points not fundamental; but the Minor stings him, that the Doctrin of points not funda∣mental is fallible Doctrin; stop heer, saies he, and an eternal stop should be put to your tongue: but what will it availe you to stop my tongue, if you do not cut of my fingars? and why must my poor tongue be stopt? because he saies it's a formal blasphemy to say the Doctrin of points not fundamental, or Inferior Truths is fallible: Indeed? and why is it a blasphemy? because quoth he, it's to say the Word of God is fallible, for inferior Verities are implicitly contained in God's Written Word and Tradition. Stop heer D^r and an eternal stop should be put to your Logic: my Argument is this; Infe∣rior Verities are fallible Doctrin and therefore not the Word of God, nor to be found in Scripture; and you answer me, Inferior Verities are infallible Doc∣trin

because they are Gods Word cōtain∣ed in Scripture: is this your Logic? to give your Conclusion in debate, for a reason? you challenge me to acknow∣ledge often in my book, that points not fundamental are Inferior Verities con∣tained in the Word of God: for shame D^r; you impose vpon me, and deceive your Reader; you shall not find any such acknowledgment in all my book; nay pag. 147. of the Vnerring Vnerrable Church, I deny any distinction of fun∣damental and not fundamental points in our Catholic Principles'; because any Doctrin which is sufficiently propo∣sed to vs to be a revealed Truth, is to vs a fundamental point of necessarie belief to saluation; and whatever Doc∣trin is not sufficiently proposed to be a revealed Truth, is neither a fundamen∣tal, or not fundamental point of faith.

But let vs see how did I prove the Doctrin of points not fundamental and inferior Truths to be fallible Doctrin; for in this consists the force of my argu∣ment: I proued it by the Protestants own Principles, for the Church, say they, can err, and hath err'd in the Doctrin of points not fundamental; therefore

the Doctrin of points not fundamental is fallible; consequently not the Doctrin of Christ: Observe Reader, that my Conse∣quence is not, as the D^r disingenuously draws it The Church can err in teaching points not fundamental, therefore points not funda∣mental are in themselves fallible. No, that's not my consequence; but thus: The true Church may err in teaching points not fundamental; therefore the Doctrin or teaching (mark I say the Doctrin, not the points themselues) of those points not fundamental, is fallible and consequent∣ly not the Doctrin of Christ: for that a Doctrin may be truly called the Doc∣trin of Christ, its not enough that the points delivered and proposed be in themselves objectively true, but that the proposal, teaching and deliverance of them by the Instructor or Teacher be infallibly true; because our Act of faith or assent to Christ's Doctrin is infallibly true, and this infallible assu∣rance of it, is not bottom'd only on the objective real truth of the points proposed, but on the Authority of the Proponent or Teacher; its therefore requisit he be infallible in teaching.

And that you may see howfar he is

com short of answering my syllogism, I will shew you how he plainly grants all that I pretended to proue by it: for as well in his 10. Chapt. where he pretēds to answer it, as in his 4. Chapt. he dis∣tinguishes Subjective and Objective Infal∣libilitie; and tho he mumbles like one that's asham'd or a fraid to speake; yet he gives vs to vnderstand, that the Church is Objectively infallible, that's to say the Verities and Tenets she teachs, whether fundamental or not fundamental, are certainly and infallibly true; but the Church is subjectively fallible; that's to say the Teaching, delivering and propo∣sing of those Verities by the Church, is fallible: and this is a downright con∣cession of all I pretend; for I never pretended by my syllogism to proue that the Tenets, or points delivered are objectively fallible or fals; but that the Teachers in delivering them, their proposing and Doctrin of them, is fallible; and before wee pass further, My D^r will not take it ill, tho I be but a Master of Grammer, as he saies, to give him a peece of instruction which he wants: that distinction he makes of Objective and Subjective Infallibilitie is

very improper, and relishes nothing of a schoolmā for the Obiects in themselves are not fallible or infallible, Probable or Evident; wee do not say This is a Probable stone, or this is a fallible hors: those terms are not appliable to the objects a parte rei; but to the Vital intellectual Acts of our mind, which tend to the Objects: only the propositions or Acts of our vnderstanding which wee elicit on the Objects, are said to be fallible, infal∣lible, probable, or improbable; and so our D^rs distinction of Objective and Subjective infallibilitie, is pure non sense.

But since it has been our D^rs bad luck to hit on this distinction, wee will make it serue for to better our cause; he grants therefore that the Church is subiecti∣vely fallible: I'l propose him an other syllogism and it shall be in Ferio, for I see he is vnluckie in that figure and Mode: No Church Subiectively fallible, that's to say in teaching and delivering her Doctrin, is the Church of Christ; But the Protestant Church, as our D^r confesses now, and I hope will remember it next yeare, is subiectively fallible in teaching her Doctrin; therfore the Protestant Church is not the

Church of Christ. I proue the Major proposition: The Church of God is to be believed before an Angel, who would teach vs the contrarie Doctrin to what she delivers, as S. Paul saies Gal. 1. 8. But if the Church were fallible in teaching, wee ought to believe an Angel rather than the Church: therefore the Church is not subjectively fallible. That an Angel is to be believed before any fallible Church, it's manifest: for that Church subiectively fallible must not have the assistance of Gods infallible spirit in teaching; if it were guided by Gods spirit when it teachs it could not err; it must be a congregation of men, left to their own wisdom and prudence for to deliver what they judge to be the best Doctrin: and who doubts but that an Angels judgment, which is of so sublime and piercing an vnderstanding, in∣comparably surpassing all human intel∣lects, is to be preferred before the opinion of all congregations of men?

By the way let me ask my Adversa∣rie; Is his Church fallible subiectively in teaching fundamental points? probably he will say, No, for pag. 15. he tells vs, the Church is to have the assistance of the Holy Ghost in fundamental points: It is

subjectively fallible therefore only in teaching Not fundamental and Inferior Truths; which is the Doctrin wherin Pro∣testants differ from vs; therefore the Church of England has not the assistance of the Holy Ghost in teaching what Doctrin she differs in from vs (for to be fallible in teaching, and not to have the Assistance of the Holy Ghost in tea∣ching, is the same thing) therefore the Church of England does not teach the Doctrin of Christ when she teachs Infe∣rior truths; now it remains, that our D^r tell vs, by what spirit is his Church guided and inspired in teaching Infe∣rior Truths wherin they differ, and for which they have separated from vs; if she be not inspired and guided by the spirit of God?

I prove again that Major proposition, tbat no Church Subiectiuely fallible is the Church of Christ; The Church of Christ essentially requires not only Divin Ve∣rities objectiuely infallible, but Tea∣chers infallible in teaching, proposing, and delivering them to vs; I proue it; for, the Word of God, as D^r Sall him∣self saies, is Written; (which is Scrip∣ture) and Vnwritten (that is Tradition)

both are of equal infallibilitie; God's Written Word is not only infallible ob∣iectively in the Verities it containes; but also subiectively in the Recitall, Relation, and rehears of them to vs; otherwise what respect would there be due of vs to Scripture, more than to any other profane book, which would contain those Verities; or to our Ca∣thecisms, and Commentaries vpon Scripture: therefore Gods Vnwritten Word, or Tradition is not only obiective∣ly infallible in the Verities it contains; but also subiectiuely infallible in the Re∣lation, teaching and proposing of those Verities vnto vs; this Relation, pro∣posal and deliverance of these Verities is the Doctrin of the Church, which hands them from age to age to Poste∣rity; therefore the true Church is not only Obiectiuely, but also Subiectiuely in∣fallible.

X. CHAPTER.

PROTESTANT FAITH, NOT DIVIN: a Suruey of the Reformation's sense and letter of Scripture, not able to convert any to Christianity.

ANcient fathers and Divins were so deeply perswaded of the abso∣lut and infallible certainty of Divin faith, that it was the common Ma∣xim among them, Scientia plus habet lu∣minis, sed fides plus habet firmitatis & adhae∣sionis: Science has more of light and per∣spicuitie, but faith has more certaintie and assurance; for, all the certaintie that Science has, is grounded vpon Prin∣ciples of Nature; and that of faith vpon Divin Authority, which surmounts the certainty and assurance that Nature can give: that Protestants haue not this certaintie in their faith, I proued it in my former Treatise, bccause they rest their faith vpon Scripture as inter∣preted by them, and tho Scripture, rightly vnderstood be infallibly true,

yet Scripture as interpreted by them, can have no more assurance than the falli∣ble interpretation of them who inter∣pret it: I proposed my syllogism thus: He who can err relying vpon a Princi∣ple, can neuer be sure he does not err, whyle he relies on that Principle only, and vpon no other: but Protestants re∣lying on Scripture as interpreted by them, comparing one text with an other, may err (for they confess the Church may err in the interpretation of Scrip∣ture) and they will not bottom their faith vpon any other but Scripture, as interpreted by them comparing one text with an other: therefore Protes∣tants can never be sure they do not err; their faith therefore has no abso∣lut infallible assurance.

Our D^r answers in his 4. Chap. and in several other places of his book; Wee haue for security of our faith, Gods in∣fallible Word, cleerly containing all necessarie points to salvation and a good life; Wee have also in the general Tradition of the Church, a full and sufficient certainty that God has revealed these Verities. But how full is that assurance? how great is that cer∣tainty you haue, that God reuealed

(for example) his Son's Incarnation? Wee haue a moral certainty, saies he, which ioyned with an absolut certaintie, that what∣ever God revealed, is true; makes vp all the certaintie a pious and prudent Believer ought to desire: I am much mistaken if I will not evidence, that our D^r has not a crumm of Divin faith: for heer is his Belief; He has Absolut infallible certainty that Christ's Incarnation is true, if God revealed it; and this is no faith, but meer Science: He has no Absolut infallible certaintie that God revealed the Incar∣nation; he has but Moral certaintie of it; so that the act of faith wherwith he believes the Incarnation, is but Morally certain; but a faith only Morally cer∣tain is no Divin faith; for take Moral certainty in it's highest pitch you can imagin, it implies a possibilitie of being fals; for example, that there is a king∣dom extant called England, from which wee departed but three daies ago; is so morally certain, that it excludes all reasonable doubts of it's being true; yet in effect its possible there may be no such kingdom, but drown'd all in water: so that Moral certaintie, tho it excludes all reasonable doubts of its objects

existence; yet it does not assure vs that the object cannot be otherwise than as it affirms; but an act of Divin faith is of a heigher certaintie, for it not only assures vs of its object's being so, but that it cannot be otherwise; it not only excludes all doubts of its objects not being; but it excludes all thoughts of judging the object can be otherwise than as it represents it to be: what is Morally certain is true, and can in effect be fals; what is of Divin faith is true, and cannot be fals: therefore what is only morally certain is not Divin faith. That an Act of faith is not only true, but that it cannot be fals; it's lamen∣table that blind passion, and a despe∣rat engagement in an error has hur∣ried men so far as to doubt of it: what mans heart will not tremble to think it may be fals, that the son of God be∣came man, that he dyed for vs, final∣lie that all the misteries of our Religion may be fables? yet all is so, if faith be but Morally certain; for what is only Morally certain may be fals.

And to what purpose do you and your Church so earnestly pretend God's infallible Word for to warrant your

faith? your Reformation has from the beginning rejected Traditions as being human inventions, Fathers, Councils, consent of ages, nothing will serve you for a test of faith, but Scripture, Gods Infallible Word; and what to do? if your faith be only Morally certain; would not a ground only Morally cer∣tain suffice for to rest it on? what needs an infallible ground for a fallible Act, if that infallible ground does not com∣municat its Infallibilitie to the Act? either it gives to the Act all the assurance it can give it, or not? if not; what is it good for, more than a fallible ground? if it does, therefore it makes the Act absolutly infallible.

And if your faith be only morally certain, and your Church and Religion fallible; I commend the prudence of your Church in never hauing attempted the conversion of Pagans and Hea∣thens: for its impossible any wise man should embrace your Religion, if it were proposed vnto him in the colours wee have seen you set it out, in these precedent Chapters: Imagin two Re∣formed Preachers did go from England with their Bible to convert the king of

China, and let them preach to him, what wee have heard our D^r say hitherto: S^r Wee are absolutly sure that whateuer God has revealed is true; Our faith and Religiō is ground vpon this book, which wee belieue to be the pure Word of God, and all the contents of it are infalliblie and absolutly true; because they were revealed by him; yet it's not absolutly certain, they were reuealed by him; but we are Morally certain of it, and therefore wee belieue them; this book saies, our God is one in Na∣ture and three in Persons; and the se∣cond Person of the Trinitie became Man, dyed for vs vpon a cross, and arose again from death; of all this we are only Morally certain, and wee firmly belieue it. This second Person God and Man, establisht a Church on earth wherin his Doctrin and faith should be taught, wherof his Apostles were the chief Masters; he gave to this Church in his Apostles time; his infal∣lible Spirit for to lead and conduct her into all truth; but soon after the Apos∣tles time, he withdrew from the Church his Infallible Spirit, and she fell into many erroneous Doctrins; and now wee

haue no other guide to direct vs, but this Bible; the sense of it is very doubt∣full, but wee are certain, that sense of it which wee hold is the true sense; and of this wee have only Moral cer∣taintie: and tho it be obscure and the sense of it so doubtfull, that many sects of Christians differ from vs, and vn∣derstand it in a quite contrary sense to that which wee hold; wee will admit no judge for to allay these doubts and decide these Controversies but the Bi∣ble it self: There is a kind of people among vs, which they call the Popish Church; which was the Church establisht by the son of God, and was once a pure and Orthodox Church; But Martin Luther a learned man, arrose and found that the Doctrin professed by this Church for many hundred years before, was erroneous; our kingdom of England followed his example, and wee do not approve either the Doctrin of that Church; nor that of Luther; wee have made a new Reformation of both; there are many other sects in England who have sprung from vs, and are, as so many Reformations of our Church; but our Doctrin is the best of

all, and of this wee are Morally cer∣tain, In the Popish Church there haue been in all ages many men esteemed by the world of eminent sanctitie, and holy life and conversation, which has gained thē the name of Saints through∣out the world; wee say they were all hypocrits and no true Saints; and wee do confess ourselves never had any man of publikly knowen Sanctitie, esteemed so by the common vogue of Christians; in that Church there has been in past ages, and in these last ages since wee are in the world many Mira∣cles, and supernatural signs wrought by the Professors of her Doctrin, in confirmation of her Tenets; and the wysest men and greatest of the world, have been eyewitnesses of many of them, and judged them to be true Mi∣racles, and recorded them in their books for such; but wee say they were no true Miracles, and that since the Apostles time there has been none; it's certaine no Miracle was ever wrought in our Church: there have been very many in that Church in all precedent ages, who were esteemed the Oracles of their times in learning, and whose

Books are highly esteemed by vs; and wee say they were Ignorant Soules, because they taught the Popish Tenets contrary to ours. This is our faith and Religion which wee are com to preach vnto you, and of all this faith, and all that wee belieue, wee have only Moral certainty: if you belieue our faith and Tenets God has promised, you shall be saued; and perhaps you may not be saved, for its but Morally certain that God has made any such promiss; and what is only Morally cer∣tain may be fals: if you do not believe our Doctrin, but the quite contrarie you may also be saved, for wee are so charitable as to belieue that all the other Christian Sects who hold quite contrary Tenets to ours, may be fa∣ued; all is but Morally certain; all may be fals.

Now let my Reader consider if all this be not pure Protestant Doctrin, and what wee haue heard D^r Sall say in the precedent Chapters; and let him judge if the king would not be surprised at the boldness of these men in obtruding such a faith vpon him, and would an∣swer them; my friends, you confess

you haue but Morall certainty of the truth of what Doctrin you deliver; and what is but only morally certain, im∣plies a possibilitie of being fals; there∣fore possibly all you have said, may be fals Doctrin, and why would you have me change my Religion for yours, which for ought you and I know, may be wors than my own: you say that whatever God has revealed is absolutly and infallibly true; I do, and did ever believe the same; you say it's morally certain he revealed all the contents of your booke, I say also its morally certain he revealed all the Tenets of my Religion; If God has withdrawen the conduct of his infallible Spirit from the Church, and that the Popish Church has fallen into so many Errors, you may also fall into as many; and I would com to be in as bad a condition in your Church, as I am in, in my own Religion: I see no proof you have of the truth of your Doctrin; nor any encouragement for to embrace it, not any proof, for the Bible which you so much esteem, is challenged by your fellow sectaries and by your Popish Church as well as by you, and what

have you, befides your bare word for to prove your sense of it, is better than that of your fellows? particularly that you confess I may be saved by believing their sense of it, as well as by believing yours: and if your God has left no Judge to decide your Con∣troversies, and who by a definitive Sentence should declare, which is the true sense of it; it's a mark that he is equally pleased with any sense that is given and believed of it; or if; he in∣tended to oblige all to be of one sense and meaning of that Bible, he must haue apointed som judge for to declare what sense is that: neither do I see any encouragement you give me to embrace your Religion; for its no com∣mendation of it beyond the Popish Church, which you haue forsaken, to tell me that you never had any Mira∣cles, and that the Popish had; which tho you say, they were no true Mira∣cles; yet you confess many esteemed by yourselves to have been eminent men in learning, and esteemed by your forefathers to have been no less emi∣nent in sanctitie; that these men I say have judged them to be true Miracles;

and why should not I believe their opi∣nion before yours: finally since you acknowledge there is but Moral cer∣taintie, both of the truth of your Reli∣gion, and of saluation in the belief of those Truths; what is only Morally certain, may be fals, and so all your Doctrin and Religion may be a meer cheat.

Now you shall see Reader how im∣possible it is to perswade any Pagan to Christianity, or any Christian to piety by the Letter of Scripture which the Reformation vses: you must know, that the Reformation thought it needfull to reform the Letter of Scripture, as well as the sense of it; and purge the Bible of som words ▪ which smelt as they judged, of Popery; and substitute in their place new terms; for examble insteed of Priests, they put Elders; for Church they put Synagogue; for Holy Ghost, put Holy Wind; for Christ, Anoynted; for Our Lord and Mas∣ster, Baal and rayn; for Baptism, Washing; for Soul Carcas; for Grave, Hell; for Sa∣crament Secret; for Altar, Table; for Beelzebub, Lord of a fly; for Angels, Messengers: this famous exchange of

terms, you shall find in their Ancient Bibles, particularly of Queen Eliza∣beth and before her time; now they are ashamed of them, as Doctor Harding observes, who discourses wittily vpon this subject thus.

Let a Preacher speake to his con∣gregation in the old Catholic terms of the Bible thus; I that am a Priest, placed in the Church by the Holy Ghost, for the feeding of your souls, do denounce vnto you in the name of Christ our Lord and Master, that if you be not regenerated by Baptism; and prepared for the Sacrament of the Altar, you shall be condemned body and soul into hell, and your portion shall be with the Deuil, I say with Beelzebub and his Angels. This speech indeed has good sense and might make som im∣pression in the Auditory. But if our Dr. steps into a Pulpit, and speakes in the new coyn'd terms of the Reformation; I who am your Elder placed in the Synagogue by the Holy Wind, for the feeding of your Carcasses, do denounce vnto you in the name of our Anoynted, Baal and rayn; that if you be not regenerated by Washing. and prepared for the secret of the Table, you Shall be con∣demned body and Carcass to the Graue, and

your portion shall be with the Lord of a fly, and his Messengers. Would not the Auditory think, our D^r raved; and in lieu of compunction, burst out into laughter? by this you may see how impossible it is for the Reformation to convert any Pagan to Christianity, or Christan to piety, if they vse their own sense and language of Scripture.

XI. CHAPTER.

OVR DOCTORS REFLEXIONS AGAINST my Resolution of faith, a Check of his impiety against the Miracles of our Church.

FRom pag. 177. to pag. 184. I resol∣ued my faith thus: I belieue the misterie of the Trinitie, because God revealed it; I belieue God revealed it, because the Church by which God speakes, tells vs he revealed it; If you ask why I believe God speakes by the Church; I answer, because the Church it self, by which God speaks, saies he speaks by her; and I am bound

to belieue he speaks hy her, as shee saies, because he credits her with so many Miracles, which make it evi∣dently credible he speakes by her; see if you please this Resolution proved at large in the place quoted: My An∣tagonist saies it has as many Circles, as it has words; but not one Circle does he as much as attempt to shew, like a Physitian who would tell you are dangerously sick, but not mention any disease you have, nor prescribe you any remedie: He fancies I contradict my self, making Miracles som time the vltimat reason of believing the Church: and somtime saying they are not a sufficient motive of the credibi∣litie of her Doctrin. But I need no more proof to convince him of a mistake, but my Readers labour in reading the place I cited aboue, of my former Treatise; there I expresly say, (and in nowhere any thing to the contrary) that Mira∣cles cannot be the Motive of our faith; because if they be absolutly evident, they cannot be the Motive of our faith; which of its own nature is obscure; if they be Morally evident Miracles, they cannot be a Motive of faith, because

its Motive must be infalliblie true.

My D^r read in the last line of my Re∣solution, the word Miracle; and without any more reflexion, believed I gave Miracles for a motive of our faith: but there I distinguish two Motives, as my Reader may see; the first is, of my Act of faith, why I believe God speakes by the Church; and this I say is nothing els, but because the Church itself, by which God speakes, tells vs that he speakes by her: the second Motive is of my obligation of belie∣ving this truth, and my judgment of its Credibility; and this I say, are the Miracles wrought by the Church; for these make it evidently credible to vs, that God speakes by her, as she saies, and when such Miracles intervene, wee are obliged to belieue God speakes by her: Our Adversarie saies this distinction of Motives, the one for our Act of faith; and the other for our Iudgment of Credi∣bility and obligation of believing, is but a patch to couer the incoherencie of my Doctrin, and needless for any thing els; for the same reason which makes me believe, makes the faith credible, and shews me my obligation of believing. This is prettie good English,

but very bad Divinity; for before wee elicit the Act of faith, the judgment of its credibility must precede, and our obligation of believing must be made knowen to vs; the Motive therefore of this Credibilitie and obligation, is diffe∣rent from the Motive of the Act itself; for after that this Motive of Credibi∣litie is assented vnto, and our Obliga∣tion acknowledg'd, the Act of faith may be denied, through willfullness and Obstinacy; and thus men becom Heretics: but our D^r does not loue to diue into these subtilities; its to flay a flea, he saies.

Now you shall see a new discovery of the Church of Romes impietie made by my Antagonist in my Resolution of faith: pag. 184. I said, the chief and last motive, wheron our faith doth rest is the Word of God speaking to vs by the Church; the Church I say, by which God actually speakes vnto vs in this present age; for wee do not be∣lieue because God did speake by the Church in the 1. 2. and 3. age, but be∣cause he speakes now vnto vs by her, as he did to the primitive Christians in those ages. A plain confession, quoth

the D^r of the guilt of the Church of Rome: they exclude the primitive Church of the three first ages, from being the Mistress of our faith, and substitute the corrupt Church of this age; and heer he rattles at the Pope and Rome. For my part, I see no discouerie heer, but of his disingenui∣tie, shutting his eyes that he might not see; for I say, that God speakes to vs by the Church of this present age, as he did speake to the primitive Chris∣tians by the Church of the first ages; where then do I exclude the Primitive Church from being the Mistress of our faith; the Church in the primitive ages was the Mistress and Oracle, by which God spoke in those ages; the Church in this present age is the Oracle by which he speakes to vs, the Church in all ages is the same, and speakes but the same; but it's not enough for vs in this age that the Church spoke this Doctrin, but wee must have the testimonie of the Church of this age, that this is the Doctrin that was taught by the Church in those former ages, for to confound Heretics and Nouel∣lers, who deny our Doctrin was taught in the primitive ages; and this is the rea∣son,

why I have said, that the motive of our faith is the Word of God spea∣king by the Church, not in the 1. 2. and 3. age, but in this age; for it would little auaile vs for our faith, that God spoke by his Church in those ages, if the Church of this age did not ascer∣tain vs that the Church then did speake, as nowshe does

An othet scruple troubles our D^r that I should say wee are bound to belieue God speakes by the Church, because he credits her with Miracles; and vhere be those Miracles, saies he, wrought by the Council of Trent, which make it credible to me that God speakes by it? if a Council were conven'd now, to condemn Iansenism, I must believe God speakes by the Church in that Council; and are you sure to find Miracles at hand, as soon as the Council is joyned? Our D^r rallies merrily; let vs follow his mode and help him to sport; Do not you pretend, that your Protestant Doctrin delivered in this age is evidently cre∣dible by the Miracles of the Apostles, and the old Testament? so you would perswade vs pag. 56. have you any Mi∣racles of this age to credit it? had the Parliament Miracles at hand, cut and

dry, when it framed the 39. Articles? No; you say your Doctrin of this age is the same which was taught by the Apostles; and its sufficiently credited by the Miracles, you say, which the Apostles and Moyses wrought, when they preacht it: pray D^r take the like answer from vs: our Doctrin delivered by the Council of Trent, of Transub∣stantiation, Purgatorie &c. is the same which S. Bernard, Bonaventure, Gre∣gorie, S. Austin, preached and Con∣firmed with Miracles; what obligation then has Gods Providence; or what Title has our curiositie for to expect new Miracles for the confirmation of the same Doctrin? besides D^r rhat the Doc∣trin of the Council of Trent was prea∣ched in this our age, by that great Apostle of the Indies S. Francis Xave∣rius; and confirmed by him with innu∣merable Miracles; pray shew vs but one Miracle wrought in this, or any of the precedent ages in confirmation of yours. Three things I proued in my former Treatise; first that Miracles are vncontrolled proofs of the Infallibi∣litie of the Church's Doctrin; it being impossible rath God should confirm the

least vntruth by a Miracle: secondly I related som Miracles related by S. Au∣gustin, S. Bernard, Godfredus, John Hierosolimitanus; and believed by them to be true Miracles: thirdly I proved our obligation of believing them to have been true Miracles. Our D^r^'^s first answer is; Let not I. S. expect from me to bestow my time in examining the truth of his Miracles: and ought not any man to expect it? you confess pag. 56. Mi∣racles are a most congruous way and a strong proof of the true Church; when I alleadge therefore this congruous way and strong proof for my Tenets; ought not you to bestow your time in weakenning them, rather than in scol∣ding and railing?

His second answer is that all our Miracles are but a stock of Romances; I guest wee should have this short an∣swer; and therefore I did not only re∣late som Miracles, but proved convin∣cingly they were true Miracles, and that no man in his senses could deny them to be such; if my Antagonist had remem∣bred the duty of a Disputant, he should have endeauored to invalid my proofs, and not be contented to tell vs they

are but Romances; Can any man in his wits deny, but that S. Augustin, S. Ber∣nard, S. Gregorie and many Ancient fathers of the Church had as good Wits as D^r Sall? they could therefore dis∣cern betwixt a Miracle and a Romance as well as he; they relate the Miracles produced by me in the Vnerring Vnerra∣ble Church; they were eye witnesses of som of them; they judged them to be true Miracles and recorded them in their books for such: which will you be∣lieve Reader, D^r Sall who saies they were Romances: or those Saints, who say they were Miracles? I desired our D^r that he should tell vs, by what art did he and his Church come to know, those Miracles were not true ones; for its strange that S. Augustin and other Saints and learned men who lived when they were wrought, did not discern it; and our D^r after so many years has found out they were but fourberies? sure he must be a conjurer; but not a syllable does our D^r answer; ipse dixit, they are Romances, and ther's all: I asked would not he be esteemed a mad man, who would say there was no such man in the word as Julius Caesar, of

which truth wee have no other assurance, but the testimonie of Heathen Wri∣ters; S. Augustin and our other Saints, are as credible witnesses, I hope, as they; if therefore they tell vs they have seen Miracles wrought, is it not great obstinacy in our D^r to deny them, and say they are all Romances.

Is this the man who professes so much Veneration to the fathers of the Church, to make them Romance Writers? fourbs, who recorded strange passages which never happen'd; or fools who knew not to distinguish them from a Leger∣demain? when wee hear such an irreve∣rence against the Pillars of Christianitie, and the workes judged by them to be Miracles, irreligiously parallell'd with the wonders related by Valerius Maximus and Titus Livius in confirmation of their Heathenish superstition, what can wee say but with S. Augustin l. de Vtil. cre∣dendi c. 18 Nisi pietas & pax mentis acce∣dat, de fide nihil pro••sus intelligi potest: where the Will is not piously inclined, and the heart free from prejudice, nothing can be vnderstood of faith: Excaecavit eos malitia eorum, (saies God Sap 2. & nescierunt Sacramenta Dei, their

passion pinfolds their reason, and they cannot see the sacred misteries of our Religion; Our Devotion to them is Hipocrisie; our Austerity of life, is Heathenish excess of rigor; our Images are Idols; our Sacraments are human inventions; our Miracles are Roman∣ces; our Indulgences, Processions, and Lyturgie are but superstitions: this is the humor of our age to scoff and ieer; to turn into ridicule, and against reason, what their reason cannot grapple. Since our D^r is becom of this humor let him, with his merry companions scoffers of Miracles, prepare sport for this, which he will call a Romance, and S. Aug. reckons as a Miracle l. 22. de Civit. Dei cap. 4. Apoore Man, saies S. Aug. named Florentius, having lost his cloake and having no monies to buy one, betooke himself to the 20. Martirs whose Memorie (saies he) was with vs very famous, and praied to them with a loud voice, asking a Cloake of them; som yongmen, who were present, ieered the godly man's simplicitie, as if he did expect monies from the Saints; probably our D^r will keep them company in their merriment: the poore man departed,

betook himself to the sea side to walk, and found agreat fish on the shore; he took it and sold it; the Person who bought it opening its belly found in it a gold ring, and hearing what had happend to the good man, gave him the ring, saying, behold how the 20. Martirs do cloath thee; If our D^r will read more Romances of this kind, let him read Nazian. l. 11. de obitu Gorgo∣niae; S. Nilus Epist. ad Athan. S. Cy∣prian in Serm. de Lapsis; Chrysost. de Sacerd. l. 6. and Theodoret c. 8. de Graecis Affect.

Our Doctor's last answer to my proof of Miracles for the truth of our Tenets, is that he accepts willingly a trial of our Religion by Miracles: Very good; couragiously D^r; let's see, produce your Miracles, Wee have, saies he pag. 56. in favor of our belief all the Miracles recor∣ded in the Old and new Testament. But to whom do you speake D^r? if you speak to a Pagan, he will replie, as you do to vs against our Miracles; that the Miracles of the Old, and new testa∣ment, prove no more the truth of your Religion than the Wonders related by Valerius Maximus prove the truth of

Paganism; if you speake to vs Catho∣lics, wee ask you; what right have you to those Miracles more than Arians, Nestorians or Pelagians? and who will not laugh to heare the Miracles of the Old testament, or those of the new, alleadged to prove Protestancy: yes indeed; Moyses his miraculous fasting for 40. daies, and the great Baptists miraculous austeritie of life and fasting from wine and strong liquor; was to prove the Protestant Tenet of not fas∣ting; Elisaeus his raising the dead, by the touch of his bones, was to prove the Protestant Doctrin against the Venera∣tion of Saints Relicks; the Miracles of the Ark of the testament (God's Image as Calvin himself calls it) were directly to credit the Protestants contempt of Images; Christ turned the Water into Wine for to prove he could not turn the bread in the supper into his body; and that miraculous punishment of Ana∣nias and Zaphira struck dead at S. Pe∣ters feet, for retaining a part of their goods, which by vow they had conse∣crated to God's service; was to prove the Protestant Tenet and practice, that fryars, who have made a solemn vow

of Povertie, may breake that vow, and look for Rents and Benefices in the Protestant Church. Can any thing ap∣peare more ridiculous, than to pretend these Miracles were wrought to prove Protestant Doctrin?

XII. CHAPTER.

IF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ROMAN Catholic Religion, be inconsistent with Subject's Loyaltie to their Prince?

THe Pulpits in England did ring for a long time with bitter invectives against Popish Idolatry; against the Pope as an Antichrist; against Rome as the whore of Babylon: these were for a time our Adversari's grand charge•• scare-crows for to stricke popular soules into a feare and hatred of our Reli∣gion; the wyser sort perceiuing the weakness of it, and that Roman Catho∣lics are not so deuoid of common sense, as to adore Images, and Saints as God; nor the Pope so monstruously wicked, as to be an Antichrist; they relent in this attack, and speak but lowly of it in

corners, and vulgar ears in so much that D^r Stillingfleet is blamed by his greatest friends for engaging his pen in that ca∣lumny, now hiss'd at by all sober Protes∣tants. Now the calumny in Vogue is that our Catholic Religion is not consistent with the safetie of Soveraigns; that our Obedience to a forreign spiritual father, cannot be matcht with that which wee ow to our Prince; that if the Pope be our supream head in Spiritual affairs, wee must have two Soveraigns in one kingdom; that wee allow Popes may vn∣throne kings, and consequently kings are but Tenants at Will to him. This is the firebrand which has kindled the combustions of our kingdoms; this pre∣text of securing our Loyaltie by an oath of Supremacie, made our Princes, against their innate benignitie, severe to their best deserving Subjects; drowned our land in subjects blood, and render'd our kingdoms and government odious to neighbouring Princes, who secure their peace and safetie in the due obedience of their Subjects without oaths or other oppressions of their consciences.

Wee must then disabuse the World by examining, how far are the Princi∣ples

of Protestancie consistent with the safetie of Princes, and Loyaltie of Subjects; and demonstrat that those of our Catholic Religion are incompara∣blie more; that tho Protestants be in effect as Loyal Subjects as any others; its that aw which Nature has printed in the hearts of Subjects to be so; Its com∣mon honestie and reason leads them to be so. The Tenets of their Religion leade them to the contrary. For to know what is the Doctrin of the Church of England, wee are not to be said by D^r Sall, D^r Stil∣lingfleet, or other particular Dr^s who contradict one an other, and themselves at every turning of a leaf; Wee are to see the Rule of faith Vnanimously re∣ceived by the whole Reformation; and by it to judge what Doctrin they pro∣fess: the Rule of faith and fundamen∣tal Principle wheron the whole Refor∣mation rests, is expressed in the 6. Art. of the 39, of England; Our Rule of faith is nothing els but Scripture as each person of sound judgment in the Church vnderstands it. Luther looked vpon this Rule, (and he was a Person of sound judgment, you will say) and delivered his Doctrin vpon it thus, Tom. 2. Germ. de saecul.

Potest. & tom. 7. Wittemb. fol. 327. Among Christians none ought to be a Magis∣trat, all are equal, none superior but Iesus Christ. Zuinglius read this Rule, and delivered his Doctrin to. 6. in Expl. Art. fol. 82. Kings ought to be deposed by their Subjects, if they do not govern well: Calvin read this Rule, and delivered his judgment in Dan. c. 6. ver. 22. Kings if they be sinners forfeit their power; ought to he scorn'd rather than obeyed: Beza, Fox, Knox, Bucanan, and others of the first Reformers, defended by Scripture, as they interpreted it, that it is lawfull for Subjects to raise arms against, and depriue their Prince of his kingdom and life, if he does not establish the Refor∣mation; reade Bryerly's Apologie trac. 3. sect. 2. and that you may not want Domestic Abbettors of this execrable Doctrin reade the Trial of the Regicides wher you will find in the Trial of Parson Peters innumerable texts of Scripture, which in several Sermons he preached, for to exasperat the people against the authority and life of their king; reade th•• Hue and Cry of Iudge Cook proving by Scripture and reason the justice of that vnparallell'd Murther of our gratious

king: was not this the general Doctrin of all England in those daies; and I appeale to the consciences of your Bre∣thren of the Scotch Kirk, if there be any pure Brother among them, that is not perswaded, (tho he may be so wise as not to say it) that the Scotch did very well and like good Christians, when they entred into England with the Bible in one hand, and the sword in the other, for to assert Presbitery, against the kings design of establishing Protestancy.

And, do not tell vs that these Doc∣tors and Incendiaries were not Protes∣tants, but Lutherans, Presbiterians and Calvinists; for, first you have been so kind to them, and to all other Sec∣taries, as to say they all have one and the same faith professed in the Church of England; this is their faith and Doctrin; you must not then desown it; secondly, call them by what name you will; you haue one, and the self same Rule of faith with them, Scripture as each Person of sound judgment in the Church in∣terprets it: this is the Rule of Protes∣tancy as well as of Presbitery and Lu∣theranism; put the case (and this is not any thing impossible) that a zealous

Protestant of sound judgement, did in∣terpret Scripture as Parson Peeters and Iudge Cook did; he will teach and act as they did; and remain still a true Pro∣testant, and act nothing against the principles of Protestancy for he acts acording Scripture as he interprets it, and this is his Rule of faith.

Is it not confessedly your Protestant Doctrin, that Scripture alone as each Person of sound judgment interprets it, is your Rule of faith; that each Person is lycenc't by Scripture it self to reade Scripture, to judge of the sense of it, to hold and follow that sense of it, which in his conscience he thinks to be true; that none is obliged to belieue any sense of Scripture against his own judg∣ment; there is not a word in all this but the cream of Protestancie: take away the arbitrary interpretation of Scrip∣ture, and oblige men to follow and be∣lieve what sense of it is proposed to them by the Councils, King, state Bishops or Pastors and down falls Pro∣testancy, and the whole Reformation; it's the spiritual birthright of any Pro∣testant to believe and act as he vnder∣stands Scripture; which being true, as

Ptotestants must confess, its apparent, no Prince can have security of his kingdom or life in the Principles of Protestancy; for what hinders but that wee may have again in England, (as wee had Cromwell' in the year 40.) a bold ambitious Subject with a Parson Peeters, and Judge Cook of each side? the multitude is still capable of any im∣pression; let them speake to the Mul∣titude, that Popery has crept into the Protestant Church; that the lustre of the Ghospell is clouded with supersti∣tious Rites and Ceremonies; that the Bishops and Ministers have degenera∣ted from the purity of the Reforma∣tion; and all this they think to be true by Scripture as Presbiterians and Qua∣kers do: what then if these Zelots did perswade the Multitude to demand a Reformation of these abuses; an extir∣pation of Popish-like Ceremonies; and if they could not get it by faire means, to rise in armes and get it by the edge of their swords, and perswade them not to be amused by king or state, Bishops or Ministers; that the birthright of a Protestant was, not to be constrained in their consciences, but

to have free liberty for to serve and worship God; not as others will pre∣scribe, but as wee think in our Con∣science the Scripture does warrant; and then would cite as many texts of Scrip∣ture as Parson Peeters, Calvin, Knox and Zuinglius did, and vnderstand them as they did (this has happen'd once, and why not again and again) that kings must be constrained by force of arms, if need be, to establish the Reforma∣tion, to give libertie of Conscience, to banish Popery and superstitions: what say you D^r in this case? heer is a multitude who are perswaded by Scrip∣ture as they vnderstand it, that your Church is superstitious and erroneous; they are perswaded also by Scripture as they vnderstand it, and as it is ex∣pounded to them by your best Doctors, that it is lawfull for them to take arms against their king for to reform your Church: can they raise arms or not? if not, then you must change your Rule of faith and deny that Principle, wher∣vpon Protestancy and all the Reforma∣tion is cemented; That it is lawfull for each one to believe, and act as he vnderstands and interprets Scripture; if you say it is

lawfull for him to raise arms against his king, because he vnderstands by Scrip∣ture that he is bound in this occasion to do it? behold a Rebellion warranted by the Doctrin and Principles of your Reformation; and may be every year raised; for wee shall never want in a commonwealth, a giddie multitude, an ambitions spirit to head them for to fish in troubl'd waters, and deluded soules who misvnderstand the Word of God: and what assurance can there be of Subjects Loyaltie, or of the Princes safetie in such Principles? This is vn∣doubtedly true, that an Arbitrarie in∣terpretation of Scripture, and libertie for to believe what wee judge is the true meaning of it, is the essence and foundation not only of Protestancy but of all the Reformation: this is also no less certain, that wherever that Ar∣bitrary interpretation is permitted, and libertie assumed for to believe what your own judgment suggests vnto you to be the sense and meaning of Scrip∣ture, a Prince can never be sure of the Obedience of his Subjects; for they can, at any time and often have, inter∣preted Scripture to his disadvantage

vnder som fals pretext of piety and Religion: therefore its vndoubted that the Principles of Protestancie is not consistent with the safetie of So∣veraigns and obedience of Subjects.

No sooner was this Arbitrary Inter∣pretation of Scripture set vp, and li∣bertie for belieuing what each one thought to be the true sense of Scrip∣ture, but you dethroned the Pope; Scripture as interpreted by you, was a sufficient warrant to you for so doing; and I do not see why may not you make it a sufficient warrant for to dethrone your Spiritual Head of England, as you did with Charles the first: and pre∣tend you as much difference as you will, betwixt your selues and the Scotch Kirk, but in this you agree, that your Rule of faith is the same which they haue; Scripture as yee vnderstand it; nei∣ther are you more infallible in the In∣terpretation of it than they; as there∣fore they judged by Scripture, that they ought not to receive that Vnifor∣mitie of Rites and Ceremonies, with the Church of England, and that sub∣ordinatiō to Pastors and Prelates, which king Charles the first endeauored to

bring them into; and entred into Eng∣land with a powerfull Army for to assert their Evangelical Libertie; why may it not be allwaies feared that you may do the like when the Spirit moues you?

Now let vs see if our Catholic Doc∣trin be so inconsistent with Loyaltie; I say our Doctrin; for the sinister practices of som of our Church, is not to be im∣puted to the Church, but to their ma∣lice: all you can say of our Doctrin is, that wee believe Popes may absolve subjects of their allegiance to their Prince, and deprive him of his king∣dom: and what Power do you grant to the Protestant Church? Was it not the Protestant Church which excluded Queē Marie, the true Heiress of the Crown, and raised the Lady Jean Grey to the throne? was it not the Protestant Church representative in the Parliamēt, which excluded Queen Marie of Scot∣land and the family of the Stuarts, and substituted Queen Elizabeth; and what for? but to exclude Popery, and esta∣blish the Reformation? was it not the Protestant Church representative in the Parliament, which deposed King Char∣les

and substituted Cromwell; and was it not one of the chief causes against him that he was (as they apprehended) inclined to Popery?) thus you raise your Reformation vpon the ruin of the Popes, and fanaticism vpon the ruin of kings) and was it not the fear of the like effects from the same Principles of deposing Princes not favorable to the Reformation, which obliged our pru∣dent Statesmen to make it a haynous crime, to say the king's a Papist or inclin'd to Popery? did all the Popes for 1600. years depose so many Princes in England, as your Reformation has in one age? or did England euer see in 6. ages of Popery, so many insurrec∣ctions, privat conspiracies, such fre∣quent attempts, such open Rebellions against Regal authority, as wee have seen in one age of Protestancy? what then do you talk to vs of the power of deposing Princes in the Pope, when wee see a more illimitated power assumed by yourselves, and so frequently exer∣cised?

In our Catholic Doctrin only the Pope has that power, not of deposing Princes, but of declaring them to be

ipso facto deposed as Divins say; in case they should force their subjects to em∣brace his error; but in our Protestant Principles, ther's n'ere a Protestant in England but has it; for wheras you all have by the principles of your Religion, the libertie of reading and interpre∣ting Scripture, and following with a safe conscience what sense of it you think to be true; if a Protestant judges by Scripture that Protestancy, as now it is professed, has any mixture of Popery; if the spirit moves him to demand a re∣formation of the Church, he wants but a seasonable occasion and power for to ask it of the king, and if he will not grant it; to oblige him by force of arms to do it: moreover this power of deposing Princes belongs not to the Pope, as our Divins say, only because the Prince is an Heretic, pro∣vided he does not pretend to force his subjects to his Error; and this being so, certainly our Doctrin is far less favorable to the Pope, than to secular Princes, for a Pope if he becoms an heretic, tho he never should endeavor to pervert others, he is ipso facto depos∣ed from his Papacy. Finally if the

Popes power were so dangerous as our Adversaries blow in their Proselites eares, certainly Catholic Princes, who are as tender of their safetie and Au∣thority as Protestants; would be more jealous of his supremacy than they are: and by the way let me advertise my Reader, how much our Adversaries do injure the Frencb, in saying they deny this power in the Pope; its most fals, for tho they may pretend by the Pri∣viledges of the Gallican Church, to be exempted from that Power; but the Power they do not deny; but all dis∣putes of that point are severely prohi∣bited.

XIII. CHAPTER.

THE OATH OF SVPREMACIE VNLAW∣full; and not needfull nor sufficient for the security of our Princ's Interest.

THe Protestants themselves who so vigorously press this oath vpon vs, more for hopes of getting the goods and imployments of them who refuse it,

than for any devotion to their Religion or safetie of the king, are ashamed to believe it lawfull in the genuin and na∣tural signification of it; but do give it a far different sense from that which the words of the Oath import, and their Acts of Parliament and Oath of Ho∣mage, exhibited by their Bishops in their Consecration, give it. For the Oath imports in the general apprehen∣sion of Protestants the kings supream spiritual supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs, as wee believe it in the Pope; which implies a Power in the king (as in the Pope duely elected and conse∣crated wee believe) for to consecrat Bishops and Priests, for to administer the Sacraments, preach, and all other Ecclesiastical functions; for if the king be supream Head of the Church, as wee believe the Pope to be; it's from the king, as their spiritual Head, and the fountain of all Spiritual Jurisdic∣tion, that the Bishops and the rest of the Clergy, must derive their Character, their Jurisdiction, and their power for administring the Sacraments; and if they derive it from him, he must have it in himself; for none can give to an

other, that which he has not. That the king should have any such Power in himself, it appears so ridiculous to the Protestants themselves to vtter it, that none will dare say it; and therefore they give other different senses to the Oath, nor do they agree well among themsel∣ves in what sense it is to be vnderstood; but when they tender the Oath to the people, and force them to take it, they never trouble themselves to mollify it with any interpretation, but wee must take it, vnderstand it as wee please.

That the true sense and meaning of the Oath is to believe the spiritual su∣premacy of the king, as wee have decla∣red it, and which the very Protestants themselves this day judge to be ridi∣culous; it appears by the very Words of the Oath; and tho by crooked and far fetcht interpretations, som Doctors may give it a more myld and tolera∣ble sense, yet the Oath must be jud∣ged vnlawfull, because the genuin, natural and common sense of the words, is vnlawfull, and heterodox; secondly because the sense of the Oath intended by the Church of England which exacts it, is not that myld and passable sense

which this or that privat D^r gives it; the Church of England intends by that Oath to perswade vs the Spiritual Su∣premacy and power of the king for to consecrat Bishops, give Spiritual Juris∣diction, authority and power for to administer the Sacraments, and exer∣cise other Ecclesiastical functions; and that this is the sense intended in the Oath by the Church of England, it evi∣dently appears; first, by their Statuts and Acts of Parliament which I cited in the Introduction to this Treatise, which I pray reade; secondly by the Oath of Homage which Protestant Bishops take in their Consecration, confessing that they derive their Episcopal and Spiritual Iurisdiction wholy and solely from the king. Thirdly I have proved in the Introduc∣tion that all the Spiritual Jurisdiction, and Episcopal Character your Church has, is derived from Queen Elizabeth: fourthly king Henry the VIII. who was the first that vsurped this supremacy, which now you pretend; made Cromwell, a Layman, his Vicar General in Spiri∣tualibus, and exercised that office by the authority derived from him; and king James dispensed with ArchBishop

Abbots in the Irregularity he incurred by killing a man; lastly if by that Oath the Church of England intended only an assurance of our Allegiance to our king, and intended nothing prejudi∣cious to our faith, why would not they be content with an Oath of Allegiance worded without offence to our Con∣sciences: and it cannot be denied but that the Church of England intended by that Oath, wee should acknowledge that supremacie to be in the king which wee Catholics do believe to be in the Pope, and thereby denie any Spiritual Supremacy in the Pope; it also inten∣ded wee should believe that Supremacy to be in the king, which king Henry the VIII. assumed to himself; and this was no other than that supremacy as wee expounded, for to Consecrat, give power to cthers to consecrat, invest and Confirm Bishops, Administer Sacraments, &c.

Now that such a supremacy cannot be attributed to any secular Prince, is a point so often, so solidly, and so largely proved by innumerable of our Authors, and not only the texts, and examples of Primitive Princes quoted by D^r Sall in his 17. Cap. but all that

the Protestant Writers have said for themselves in this point, so cleerly an∣swered and refuted, that it would be a loss of time to me and to my Reader to answer my Antagonists little trivial objections; and repeat again what has been so often said, and is so knowen even to vulgar Readers; particularly that as I have said, no Protestant of judgment will now pretend that kind of supremacy in the king: Calvin saies they were madmen who flattered the king of England so far as to raise him to that supremacy; Presbiterians, Ana∣baptists, Quakers, Independents, and the rest of your sectaries in England and out of England vtterly disclaim it, and will not take that Oath; and only Ro∣man Catholics are persecuted, and pu∣nisht with loss of imployments, goods and estates for not taking it.

My Antagonist in his 17 Ch. brings som texts of S. Paul and som sentences of S. Bernard, and S. Chrysostom to prove this supremacy; and whoever reades them in the places quoted by him, will plainly see, they only prove that wee ought to obey, and submit to the heigher power and authority vnder

which wee are; and this none does or can deny; but what has that to do with our Controversie? for those passages quoted by my Adversarie, do neither distinguish Powers (and my D^r I hope will not be so senseless, as to deny there are several powers vnder which wee are, and to all which wee are obliged to obey) nor do they determin or declare, wherin those distinct Powers are: there is no doubt but that wee are obliged to obey all Powers vnder which wee are, beccause all Power is constituted, derived and ordained by God; but if our D^r will be said by S. Bernard. S. Chrysostom, S. Augustin and the ancient fathers, he will see in my next ensuing Chapter that the supream Spiritual Power, is in S. Peter and his successors; and as he believes S. Bernard when he reprehends the disorders of the Roman Court, which he does in that 42. Epist. quoted by our D^r and in several other places, I hope he will believe him also when he saies, as wee shall see that the Pope is the supream Pastor Prince and chief of all the Bishops: and my Reader will see in my ensuing Chapter, how much my D^r is to be blamed for dis∣covering

his ignorance, when he saies in his 15. Chapt. that wee shall never find in Ecclesiastical Historie any mention of any claim S. Peter should have of any power ouer S. Iames in Ierusalem, S. Andrew in Achaia or any other of the Apostles in their respec∣tive Provinces, and that none of those More worthy first Bishops of Rome for five hundred years did pretend to any supremacy.

But before wee proceed to the proof of our D^rs ignorance in this point, wee must see, if this Oath of supremacie be needfull, and sufficient for our sove∣raigns safetie; not needfull, wheras wee see all other Soveraigns, as well CathoIies as Protestants, judge them∣selves secure without any such Oath from their subjects: and when wee are ready to give to our Prince as much security of our fidelity, as any subjects of the world, give to their respective Soveraigns, why should our consciences be oppressed with an oath of supremacie repugnant to our faith; or our peace disturbed by Remonstrances and oaths against the Popes indirect Temporal Power, obtruded vpon vs by turbulent spirits; wheras such Oaths are altogither need∣less for the securing of subjects in their

Loyaltie, as will appeare by this dis∣cours: wherin I would have my Reader observe that I do not pretend to prove that any such Power is in the Pope, as I let it pass in my former Treatise, so I do now; but I intend to prove, that tho such a Power were granted to be in the Pope, neither the Oath of supre∣macy, nor that Remonstrance or Oath disclaiming that indirect Temporal Power in the Pope aboue Princes, is needfull nor sufficient to secure the subjects in their Obedience.

For suppose there is such a Power in the Pope; where leyes the danger to the Prince who has the affection of his subjects? in the exercise of that Power, you will say, if the Pope should absolve vs from our Allegiance, and command vs vnder pain of Excommunication not to obey him, and to ryse in arms against him: but I will demonstrat, its a case Morally impossible, and a Metaphisical case, as the schools speake, that sub∣jects may be obliged to obey any such command or feare any such Excommu∣nications, but may lawfully and con∣scientiously resist, and pay their Obe∣dience to their Soveraign; for its a

Principle vnanimously received by Mo∣ral Divins, that no Ecclesiastical pre∣cept obliges in conscience, if in said Obedience wee hazard our life, our for∣tunes, or our honor; for example the Church commands vs to fast in Lent; you are sick; you cannot fast without a notable prejudice to your health; you are not obliged; the Church commands you to hear Mass on sundaies; yo•• can∣not without hazarding your life be∣cause you are sick; without hazarding your estate by reason of a Persecution; you are not obliged: Now, the Pop's command and excommunication against our Obedience to our Prince, is but an Etclesiastical Precept at most; there∣fore it cannot oblige subjects with the hazard of their lyves▪ fortunes, or ho∣nor; but it is morally impossible but that they should hazard all three, if they should deny Obedience and resist their Soveraign; for such a disobe∣dience or insurrection must cast them into a warr, or a most evident danger of a warr, where all is exposed, there∣fore it's a Metaphisical case and Morally impossible that subjects can be obliged by any command or censure of the

Pope to deny obedience to their Prince: Say then what you please of that Power; many learned Diuins convincingly prove, it annoyes not the safetie of Prin∣ces; the very Heterodox Soveraigns do not care for it: nor are yee who take it esteemed better Subjects, than they who refuse it.

But you reply; tho Subjects be not obliged to obey such Commands and Cen∣sures of the Pope, yet they may lawfully obey them; and so the Prince must de∣pend of the Subjects courtesie; for being lycenc't once by the Pope, no∣thing is wanting to the execution but their Will and pleasure:

To this our Divins do commonly an∣swer, that for to secure Subjects that they May not, the way is not to force vpon them an Oath disavowing the Power in the Pope; but an Oath of never cōcurring to the exercise of that Power, if any he had; that's to say, of never takeing arms, or denying Obedience to their Prince vpon any command or Cen∣sure of the Pope: which Oath, as it does not affirm or deny any Power in the Pope (let the Divins dispute it out) so it rids Consciences from Scruples of

swearing, what they do not know to be true or fals; and secures them from any Fact, or exercise of it prejudicious to their Prince; which, and the many signal testimonies of the Loyaltie of his Catholic Subjects; and their willingness to give his Majestie any pledge of their fidelitie which does not shock their con∣sciences, would abundantly satisfie our clement Prince and prudent statesmen, if some ouer-busy spirits did not trou∣ble our rest; which trouble the Irish in∣deed did suffer, as the D^r saies in his 16. Chap. not from his Majesty, nor from his Grace his Lieutenant, (who most ju∣diciously approved the satisfactiō which was offered him by Persons of knowen loyaltie, honor and learning in a con∣ference had with them, Mr Peter Walsh being present) but from som who were too too officious and vnreasonable in pressing Oaths vpon Catholic and Irish subjects, as if for being Catholics and Irish wee must be suspected aboue all others of disloyaltie: but say you again, if such a Power be granted in the Pope: he may declare a Prince deposed, and expose his kingdom to any forreign Prince who is pleased to invade it: I an∣swer: if that should be; how can any Oath

whatsoever of subjects hinder that a for∣reign Prince shall not invade our Prince? is it because wee sweare the Pope has no such Power, that the forreign Prince will desist from invading, if the fancie takes him? what our Divins pretend, is to shew, that the Oath of supremacie is needless to secure Subjects in their Loyaltie.

Now I will shew that as that Oath of su∣premacy is needless, so it is not sufficiēt to secure Subjects in their Loyaltie; and this I will shew in the Principles and prac∣tice of the Church of Englād and D^r Sall: Our D^r has made a Solemn Vow or Oath of Povertie obliging himself never to have any Rents or revenews; also a So∣lemn Vow of never pretending or ac∣cepting any Ecclesiasticall Dignitie; he made other Vows of Chastitie, Obediēce &c. Now he saies, those Vows or Oaths do not oblige him: and why? because saies he pag. 181. against N. N. I made a former Vow of Religious Obedience in my Bap∣tism to God; if I find the later Vow made to the Pope, not to consist with the compliance of the former made to God, then I must stand to the former made to God, and rescind the later made to the Pope. And just so may any Protestant, or Child of the Refor∣mation say, after taking the Oath of

supremacy: for as wee proved in our 12. Chapt. their Rule of faith being Scripture as each Person of sound judgment vnderstands it; after swearing the Oath of Supremacy, if you reade and studie the Scripture, and the Spirit, or your ignorance moves you to vnderstand by the text, that the Rites, Ceremonies and practices of the Protestant Church are degenerated into Popery,) as Pres∣biterians, Anabaptists, and Quakers judge) and you pass further, and meet som texts as Zuinglius, Calvin, Parson Peeters, and Beza did, and interpret them, that you ought to demand a Re∣formation of those abuses, and in case of a repuls, to raise arms against the king and force him to it; then you will say that in your Baptism you made a vow of Obedience and Religion to God, according his Word; that your Oath of supremacy does not consist with the compliance of this former; and that you must rescind the later and stand to the former; what then does your Oath of supremacy signifie in the Protestant Religion?

Lastly this Oath is not advantagious, but destructive to the Government; for

it being made the distinctive sign of Loyal∣tie, and none being admitted to the king's Service in Civil or military im∣ployments, but such as will take it; his Majestie is deprived of many stout and gallant subjects who are not per∣mitted to serve him, because they will not strain their Consciences with an Oath: And besides the offices of trust in the kingdom being open to those who are ready to take an oath, and there being men in all times and common∣wealths who wil never stick to take an oath, for to advance their fortune; the places of trust will com to the hands of those prostituted consciences; who, as they sold their faith for their interest, will betray their trust and king when any good bargain presents: and who does not see how destructive this is to the government? Innumerable expe∣riences shew vs, particularly since the year 40. who were the more faithfull to the king; the Catholics who refused the Oath, but never drew sword against him; or the Protestants who freely tooke it, and fought against him.

XIV. CHAPTER.

THE POPES SVPREMACY ASSERTED.

ALl the combustions and dismal conten∣tions of our kingdoms for a whole age did proceed from the Pop's pretension to su∣premacie, saies our D^r: All D^r? The combustions of England, when Dudley Duke of Northumberland beheaded Seamor the Protector; poysoned the yong king; raysed the Lady Iean Grey to the throne; and married her to his son; was all this (and the Tragical cir∣cumstances which acompanied it) be∣cause the Pope did pretend to supre∣macie? or was it not rather an effect of Protestancie which Dudley endeavored to establish, for to raise his family vpon the oppression of the true Monarch? Was the Murther of king James in Scot∣land, and the violence of her subjects against Queen Marie? was the impri∣sonment and death of that Queen by Queen Elizabeth; because the Pope pretended to supremacie? or was it not

an effectof Queen Elizabeth's ambition of securing herself in the Crown, and excluding the family of the Stuarts? was it because the Pope would be head of the Church, that the Parliament rebelled the year 40. against the king? It was not any alteration of Ceremonies, or language in Divin Service (saies he) which minister'd fewell to this fatal fire, all would have been granted by the Pope if wee did own his supremacie; and not one word of proof of all these hallucinations, but that one Twisden (a chimaera for ought the world knows) should have said the Pope of∣fered to condescend with Queen Eliza∣beth in all points of the Reformation, if she did but own his supremacie, to which, see my answer in the Introduc∣tion.

He pursues his invective against the Pop's supremacie and tells vs S. Gregorie detested and disclaimed the Title of Vniversall Bishop, which he saies, is a commendation of his Modestie, and a check of the vnlimited ambition of the Popes of Rome. Its true S. Gregorie, lib. 4. Epist. 32. 34. 36. and 38. writes against that name of Vniversall Bishop, but not in his 4^th. book, 60. and 67. Epist. as my

Adversarie cites, for that book has but 57. Epistles; and what S. Gregorie condemns is not the name, but the sense and meaning, in which John that ambitious Patriarck of Constantinople vsurped it: for it may have two mea∣nings; the one is, the Chief and first Bishop, supream in Power and Juris∣diction, Chief Governor of the Church; in this sense S. Gregorie did not con∣demn it: the second meaning of that name is, to be the Universal Bishop of the Church, that's to say the only Bishop of the Church; so as that the rest of the Bishops are not properly Bishops, but administrators or Vicars vnder him: In this sense did Iohn the Patriark of Constantinople assume that name, and S. Gregorie did check his ambition, as appears in his 7^th. book Epist. 71. Hoc in totius Ecclesiae injuriam & omnium, &c. In this he injures the whole Church, and despises you all, for if one be the Vniversal Bishop, as he vnderstands it, then none of you all is a Bishop. Again l. 4. Epist 38. Despectis fratribus, appetit solus Episcopus vocari: Despising his Brethren he ambitions to be called the only Bishop. You know very well D^r that the Pope does

not pretend to be called, and that wee do not call him Universal Bishop in this sense, as if he did pretend to be, or wee should be so senseless as to say, he is the only Bishop in the Church; and the rest of the Bishops are not truly and properly Bishops.

But in the sense that the Pope assu∣mes that name, that's to say to be the chief Bishop in power and Jurisdiction aboue the rest, the supream Governor of the Church, S Gregorie did never blame, nor condemn it; nay l. 7. Epist. 65. speaking of the Sea of Rome he saies, In saying he is subject to the Sea of Rome, I know no Bishop but is subject to it, and S. Leo Epist. 48. calls the Chair of Peter, the Seate of the Vniversal Church; and S. Gregorie l. 4. Epist. 32. saies, and D^r Sall confesses, that the name of Universal Bishop was offered by the Council of Chalcedon Act. 3. and Act. 16. to Leo Pope; this was one of the four first General Councils, which our D^r reveres for a Holy and sacred Coun∣cil; and must consequently confess, that that name of Universal Bishop, which it offered to Leo, was Orthodox and lawfull; or that the Concil erred

foully and irreligiously in offering it: Its true as S Gregorie saies. The Popes before him did not assume, but refuse and detest that name, but that was be∣cause it was an odious name, by reason of the sense in which John the Patriark, and others did assume it; therefore they would not vse it: not because it was not just and lawfull in the true sense meaned by the Church.

And if wee can prove that S. Peter was the chief in power and authoritie aboue the Apostles, the supream in Ju∣risdiction; ther's no difficultie in be∣lieving that his Successors are the chief and supream in Power and Authority aboue the other Bishops. Our D^r saies pag. 31. he does not read that Peter should have any Authority aboue An∣drew in Achaia, or Thomas in the In∣dies, or the other Apostles in their respective Provinces and this proves no more, but that either his Librarie is ill furnisht with books, or that he does not studie, nay nor reade carefully the Bible: of all the Texts it affords, I will produce but three with the glosses of som fathers vpon them.

In two several occasions, Christ

speakes particularly of the power he was to give the Apostles for to tye and vntye: the first, Math 16. he speakes to Peter alone, tibi dabo claves regni caelorum, quodcunque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum & in caelis, quodcun∣que solveris super terram, erit solutum & in caelis. To thee I will give the keyes of the Kingdom of the Heavens; whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in the Heavens; whatsoever you shall vnbind on earth shall be vnbound in the Heavens. Again speaking of this power he was to give to his Apostles, Math. 18. he saies, whatever yee shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever yee shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever yee shall vnbind on earth, shall be vnbound in Hea∣ven: Origen Hom. 6. in Math. observes the great difference expressed in this text betwixt Peter and the rest of the Apostles. Non modica differentia est, quod Petro datae sunt claves non vnius caeli, sed multorum cae••orum; & quae ligata sunt super terram, ess••nt ligata non in vno tantum caelo, sed in omnibus caelis; ad eos autem qui multi sunt ligatores & solutores in terra, sic dicit vt soluant & alligent, non in caelis, sicut Petrus, sed in vno caelo, quia non sunt in tanta perfectione sicut Petrus, vt alligent &

soluant in omnibus caelis. It's no smale diffe∣rence that to Peter are given the keyes, not of one heaven but of many, and that what is bound on earth (by him) should be bound not in one heaven, but in all the heavens. But to the rest, who are binders and vnbin∣ders on earth he saies, that they can tye or vntye, not in all the heavens as Peter, but in one heaven; because they have not that power that Peter to tye and vntye in all the heavens. For the cleerer vnderstanding of this passage, S. Gregorie tells vs Hom. 12. in Evang. Per regnum caelorum in sacro eloquio praesentis temporis Ecclesia designatur: by the Kingdom of the Heavens, is vnderstood in Scripture, this militant Church on earth. Its a kingdom, composed of many heavens, that's to say, many Chur∣ches: now Origen's observation cleerly convinces Peter's supremacie for he had the Power of tying and vntying in all the Heavens; that's to say in all the Churches, his Jurisdiction reached to all; each of the other Apostles had a power of binding and vnbinding in vno caelo tantum, in one heaven, only, in one Church but not in all: S. Hierom and S. Augustin observed that when Christ speakes to S. Peter and gives him the

Power Math. 16. he gives him the keyes, tibi dabo claves; but when he gives the Power to all the Apostles Math. 18. no keyes are mentioned, Soli Petro, saies S. Aug. in Ps. 108. dictum est, tibi dabo claves, &c. quia figuram gerebat Ecclesiae, propter primatum Apostolatus, totius Eccle∣siae gerebat Personam: to Peter alone it was said to thee I will give the keyes &c. because he represented the Church; for the primacy of his Apostleship he represented the whole Church, It's very true all the Apostles and the whole Church teceived the keyes, saies S. Hierom, l. cont. Jouin. Cuncti Apos∣toli Claves acceperunt; but saies S. August. tract. 24 in Joan. Tota Ecclesia accepit in Petro, they all received the keyes in Peter, as being the chief and Prince of all; they all have the Power of tying and vntying, but they must call to Peter for the keyes.

The second Text Luc. 5. Duc in altum & laxate retia; Lanch out into the Deep, and let your nets drop for a draught. S. Am∣brose observes Soli Petro dicitur, Duc; omnibus imperatur vt laxent retia: to Peter only it's said lanch out and lead the boat; all are commanded to drop the nets: all must work and labor, Peter alone must go∣vern

the boat: hence it is, that S. Hie∣rom having said l. cont. Jouin. Super omnes Apostolos ex aequo fortitudo Ecclesiae solidatur; that the strength of the Church is equally founded vpon all the Apostles; he ads immediatly in the same place (which our Adversaries fraudulently let pass in sylence) Tamen inter duodecem Vnus eligitur, vt Capite constituto s••hismatis tol∣leretur occasio; but among the twelve one is chosen, that a Head and chief being pointed, all ocasion of schism might be avoided: and that you might not suspect that Peter was ordained the Head and Chief, only of the rest of the Church, but not of the Apostles; hear S. Greg. l. 4. Epist. 38. Certe Petrus Apostolus primum membrum Vniversalis Ecclesiae est; Paulus. Andreas, Ioannes, quid aliud, nisi singularium plebium capita sunt, & tamen sub vno capite (scili∣cet Petro) omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae. Trulie Peter is the chief member of the Church Vniversal, Paul, Andrew, Iohn, what are they, but heads of particular flocks, and they are all but members of the Church, vnder one head, which head is S. Peter, saies S. Greg. again l. 4. Epist. 32. Omnium Apostolorū Principi Petro Vniversalis Ecclesiae cura commissa est; Peter, the Prince of the

Apostles to whom the care of the Vniversal Church was committed. Also S. Cyprian. l. de Unit. Eccl. having said, Omnes Apostoli pari consortio praediti sunt & hono∣ris & dignitatis: the Apostles were equallie endowed with power and honor; he added immediatly (which our Adversaries also disingenuously omit) sed exordium ab Vnitate proficiscitur, Petro Primatus da∣tur, vt vna Christi Ecclesia & vna Cathe∣dra monstretur; but the beginning springs from Vnitie, the Primacy is given to Peter, to denote the Vnitie of Christs Church, and the Vnitie of the Chaire, and S. Cyprian himself saies, as wee'l see immediatly, that by denying this Unitie and Prima∣cy, wee run into heresies and schisms.

The third Text Luc. 22. I have praied for thee Peter, that they faith may not faile, and you being converted, confirm they Bre∣thren. He gawe Peter the charge of strengthning his Brethren in their temp∣tations, and hence Theophil. commen∣ting vpon this text concludes that he made him the Chief head of the Apos∣tles; Manifestus Verborum sensus est, quod cum te discipulorum Principem fecerim tu cum post negationem fleveris & resipueris, confirma fratres tuos; hoc te decet qui post me

Ecclesiae Petra & fundamentum es. The sense of the text (saies he) is cleer; that wheras I made you Prince of the Disciples, when you have lamented your Denial, strengthen your Brethren; this becoms you, who are after me, the Rock and fundation of the Church. S. Augustin is no less express in his gloss vpon that text, Serm, 124 de Tem. To∣tius corporis morbum in ipso Capite curat Ec∣clesiae; in ipso componit omnium membrorum sanitatem. He heales the disease of the whole in the very head of the Church; in him he places the health of all the members: Behold how distinctly he calls him the Head of the whole Church; and admire the bad luck of our good D^r that he could not meet, he saies, any mention in the Pri∣mitive fathers of the first fiue hnndred years of Peters suptemacy ouer Andrew in Achaia, Thomas in Indies, or the rest of the Apostles: if but now, that wee have furnisht him with these passages, he did open his eyes to the light of Truth; if he did reade Chrysost. Hom. 55. in Math. he would find Peter called the Top of the Apostolical Colledge; and again hom. 87. in Joan. Petrus os est Apostolorum, totius cae••us vertex, & Magister Orbis, qui Iacobum Hierosolimis prae∣posuit.

Peter is the Mouth of the Apostles, the Top of the Apostolical Colledge, the Mas∣ter of the world who made Iames Bishop of Ierusalem; and again, hom. 3. in Act. commending Peter's modestie, that tho he was the chief and superior of the Apostles, yet he would not alone, with∣out the approbation and consent of the rest, chuse Mathias to the Apostleship, quid, saies he, an non licebat illi soli eli∣gere? licebat quidem; & maxime licebat; verum id non fecit; nihil authoritate sola, nihil cum imperio. Could not he alone chuse Mathias? yes he could; but he would not; nothing by his proper Authority; nothing by command; let our D^r read Optatus l. 2. cont. Parmenianum. Omnium Apostolorum Caput Petrus Romae Sedit, vt in illa vna Ca∣thedra, vnitas ab omnibus servaretur, ne caeteri Apostoli singulas Cathedras sibi quisque defenderet. Peter the head of all the Apos∣tles, sits at Rome, that in that one Chaire, Vnitie should be kept by all; least that each of the rest of the Apostles, should claim each of their cbaires proper to themselves, with∣out any subordination to their head. And because our D^r flatters himself with the perswasion of S. Bernard's judg∣ment against S. Peter's Supremacie,

let him reade the Saint l. 2. de Consid. ad Eug. Tu quis es? Summus Sacerdos, Pon∣tifex magnus, tu Princeps Episcoporum, tu haeres Apostolorum, tu primatu Abel, guber∣natu Noe, Patriarchatu Abraham, ordine Melchisedech, dignitate Aaron, Authorita∣te Moyses, Iudicatu Samüel, Potestate Pe∣trus, Vnctione Christus: tu es cui claves traditae, cui oues creditae sunt; sunt quid••m & alij coeli Ianitores & gregum Pastores, sed tu tanto gloriosius, quanto differentius, vtrumque prae caeteris nomen haereditasti: ha∣bent illi sibi assignatos greges, singuli singu∣los, tibi Vniversi crediti, Vni Vnus; nec mo∣do ovium, sed & pastorum tu vnus omnium, Pastor. Who are you? (saies S. Bernard to Eugenius Pope) You are the great Priest; the Heigh Bishop, the Prince of Bishops, the heire of the Apostles, by Primacy Abel, by government Noe, by Patriarchship Abraham, by Order Melchisedech, by Dignitie Aaron, by Authoritie Moyses, by Iudicature Samuel, by Power Peter, by Vnction Christ: to you the keyes were given, to you the sheep were com∣mitted: here are also other Porters of Heaven and Pastors of the flock; but you with so much the more excellencie, by how much the more differently aboue all others you possess those names: they have their flocks apointed for

them; each one his own particular flock; to thee all are delivered, one flock to one; nor are you only the Pastor of the sheep, but you are the only and sole Pastor of all the Pastors: and a little beneath; Aliorum potestas cer∣tis arctatur limitibus, tua extenditur & in ipsos qui potestatem super alios acceperunt. The power of others is confin'd within certain bonds, but your power reachs ouer those who haue power aboue others.

And that nothing may be wanting for a full conviction of this truth, hear S. Hierom in Dial. ad Lucif. proving the necessitie of this Papal Supremacie; Nisi supereminens quaedam, &c. if there be not a supereminent and supream authoritie in the Church, there will be as many schisms in the Church, as there are Priests: and tho you may attribut that confused distraction of sectaries in England and elswhere to other causes; but S. Cyprian l. 1. Epist. 30. gives you the genuin reason of it; Non aliunde na••ae sunt haereses, aut orta schis∣mata, quam quia non agnoscun•• vnum Vice-Christi ad tempus Iudicem, cui Vniversa fra∣ternitas obtemperet. Heresies and schisms, have no other source, but because they do not acknowledge one Iudge Vicegerent of Christ to which all the flock should obey. Judge

you now Reader with what truth our D^r saies that no mention is made by an∣tiquitie of S. Peters supremacy which has been so cleerly delivered as I have showen, by Origen, Cyprian, S. August. Ambrose, Hierom, Chrysostom, Ber∣nard, Theofilact, and Optatus; and to whose judgment will you stick, either of such Oracles who teach Peter's su∣premacie, or of a Luther, a Calvin, a Beza, who to live without curb, re∣bell'd against Authoritie; see which you will prefer; or the vnanimous con∣sent of ages vpward to the Apostles; or this our last age distracted by Mush∣rom sectaries; see with whom you will believe; with the Vniversities and in∣numerable D^rs and fathers of the past and this present age, or with a hand∣full of obscure and vnknowen people.

XV. CHAPTER.

MY SYLLOGISMS FOR TRANSVBST AN∣tiation enforced against the Doctor and the Doctrin proved against his sense and Reason.

I proposed a syllogism in my former Treatise pag. 188. for our Tenet of Transubstantiation, grounded vpon the text of S. Luke 22. Take eat this is my body which is given for you: the text denotes, he gave to them somwhat to eate; I proved it was his reall Body; for; He gave to them to eate, what he gave for them; the Text saies it, take eat this is my body which is given for you; but he gave for them his real body; therefore he gave to them his Real bo∣dy: for as I advertis'd, the Text makes no difference betwixt what he gave To them, and what he gave for them: by what principles then must we in∣terpret the text, and say that what he gave to them was a figure only, and what he gave for them was his Real

body? will it not be as lawfull to Mar∣cion to interpret the text as to you, and say that as the text in the first part im∣ports only a figurative body given to them; so in the second part it imports but a figurative body given for them.

His answer is that my argument is not worth a rush; that with a peece of his Logic he will prove it a paralogism; and raises such a thick mist of scholastical terms so often repeated in few lynes, that I defy you read his discours and your head not to ake: after a great deal of tittle tattle against the form of my syllogism; the vpshot of his answer is, that tho the text does not distinguish betwixt what Christ gave To vs in the supper, and what he gave for vs yet our eyes do dis∣tinguish betwixt both, for we see what he gave to vs, was but Bread, and what he gave for vs on the Cross was an Or∣ganic Body. This answer I did forsee and replied against it in my former Treatise; but not a syllable does my Antagonist answer against my replies, as if I had made none.

But its well he has attempted to say somwhat; he confesses plainly the text makes no difference betwixt what

he gave to his disciples in the supper and what he was to give for them vpon the cross; our eyes he saies distinguish betwixt both; because they did see but bread in the supper; and they did see an Organic body, vpon the cross. Very well: I pray D^r, the night that Christ was at the supper, when he took the bread and vttered those words, take eat▪ this is my Body which is given for you. Did the Apostles see with their eyes that night Christ's Organic Body given for vs vpon the cross! No, for he was not then cru∣cified: What did they believe then, that Christ would give To them to eate? the figure only of his Body saies our D^r, real bread; because their eyes did see but bread: and what did they be∣lieve then, that Christ would give for them on the cross? an Organic Body saies he; why so? for the text as you confess, makes no distinction betwixt what he gave To them, and For them; our eyes you say make the distinction; then, in the night of the supper their eyes did not see his Organic Body on the cross; how could they therefore distinguish then, what he gave to them to eate, from that he was to give for

them on the cross; O but say you, the next day after they did see his Organic Body for them vpon the cross: its true; but I speake of the supper the night be∣fore; then, as they believed that Christ's Body was given To them, because Christ said, take eat so they believed at the same time his body would be given for them on the cross, because he said in the same text, which is given for you; and my difficultie is, since they did be∣lieve that the bodie given to them, was only a figurative body, by what Prin∣ciple did they distinguish that the body which would be given for them was an Organic Body? for by virtue of the text, as you confess, they could not Distinguish there two different bodies; nor by their eyes, because they did not see the Organic Body on the cross.

The like may be said of Abraham, Isaac, and the ancient Patriarks; they believed that Christ would give his Body to vs in the supper, and for vs on the cross; doubtless these Misteries were revealed to them: did they be∣lieve it was a figurative only body was given to vs in the supper, and an Organic real body on the cross? by

what principle did they make this dis∣tinction of what was given To vs, from what was given for vs? not by any text or supernatural revelation; for sure you will not say he spoke to them of the Ancient law in more express and emphatic terms, than to those of the law of Grace; nor by their eyes or senses, for they did not see Christ in the supper, nor on the cross: you must conclude then, that either they be∣lieved his figurative only Body was to be in the supper and on the cross; or that his true real and substantial Body was to be in both.

It's a gallant resolution of our D^r in his pag. 116. Sr saies he, wee are ready to captivat our senses and reason to faith in God wheresoever we find him to declare his will vnto vs, without any further examin: but hang the Good town of Swords, whose Parish makes him break•• this resolu∣tion: I pray D^r answer me to a question I proposed to you pag. 144. of the Vnerring Vnerrable Church, which you dropt vnder the table like a naughtie card; but I'l tak it vp: Can you deny but that God might, if he were pleased, turn the substance of the bread into

his flesh and blood, and give vs his true and real Body vnder the accidents of bread? as he turned the Water into wine, and as our stomack turns the Vic∣tuals we eat into our flesh and blood? you will not deny, but that he might, if he were pleased: If Christ were really intended to do it; and to give vs his real true body vnder the accidents of bread, how could he declare his intention in cleerer expressions than taking bread, and saying, take eat this is my body, truly my flesh; what cleerer expression can any man expect in a serious con∣versation betwixt honest men? He spoke then, as if really he intended to give vs his real body vnder the acci∣dents of bread; for if he had really in∣tended it, he could not speak other∣wise: Can you then doubt, but that Gods Will is sufficiently declared vnto you in this point? and yet you will not captivat your senses nor reason; you will not, notwithstanding the plain and cleer sense of Gods Word, believe it's his true body, because your eyes and tast find its bread•• and is not this to captivat Gods Word to your senses rather than to captivat your senses to

his Word; when you contradict the plain natural sense of his Words, because your senses and reason contradict it?

Let vs hear how sar is the D^r from the faith of the Ancient Fathers of the Church, and from their submission to Gods word in this ineffable misterie: S Chrysost. speakes thus Hom. 60. ad Pop. Ant. Let vs obey God in all things, and not gainsay him, tho what he saies con∣tradicts our senses and imaginations; let his Word obtain more credit from vs, than our thoughts and sight: let vs not consider only what leyes before our eyes, but hold fast to his Word; for his Words are infallible and our senses are easie to be deceived: his words never faile, but our senses frequentlie mistake; because therefore he saies, this is my Body, let vs obey believe and behold him with the eyes of our Vnderstanding. And again in the same place; What Pastor feeds his flock with his own blood? but he feeds vs with his own proper blood. S. Cyril is no less express in excluding our senses from being Judges in this Misterie Orat. 4. Cath. do not look on this as naked bread, for it is the Body and blood of Christ himself, and although sense does suggest vnto thee that this is bread, yet let faith confirm thee: do not

judge of it by they tast, but know and hold for certain, that this bread which is seen of vs, is no bread, though the tast iudges it to be bread, but the body of Christ; and the wine which seemes to our tast to be wine, is no wine but the blood of Christ. S. Epiph. in Acor. circa Medium speakes of this Mis∣terie, Wee see its neither equal, nor like in proportion to his flesh, but yet because he was pleased to say through grace, this is my flesh, every one believeth, notwithstanding what wee see, for his saying; and everie one who believeth not, it is his very true Body, falleth from Grace. Thus the an∣cient fathers captivated their senses to faith, notwihstanding the evidence of their eyes: And not only the example of the Fathers, but several passages of Scripture manifestly prove, that we must believe the plain and natural sense of the word of God, against the evi∣dence of our eyes; as S. Joseph belie∣ved his Spouse the B. Virgin to be a Virgin vpon the testimonie of the An∣gel, against the evidence of his eyes, which did see in her the marks of a Wo∣man. Tobias also did see in his fellow Traveller but the Accidents of a human nature, yet against the evidence of his

sense which did see nothing but a man; he believed him to be a Spirit: so also tho our eyes see nothing but bread in the consecrated Host, yet we believe against the evidence of sense, that it is no bread but the Body of Christ, be∣cause the words of Christ, This is my Body, is of a more infallible assurance than our eyes and other senses.

But saies our D^r this Misterie is quite repugnant to human reason; because thence it would follow, that Christ's Bodie would be at one time in as many different places, as there are consecra∣ted hosts; and reason shews a Body can∣not be at one time, but in one place. If he had read carefully S. Paul's l. Epistle to the Corint. chap 15. this dif∣ficultie would not have startl'd him: there the Apostle distinguishes two kind of Bodies (or rather one and the same body in two different states and condi∣tions) a spiritual, and an earthly natu∣ral body, which two bodies are not sub∣stantially different, or two different substances, but one and the same body vnder different qualities and accidents; for he saies, this our naturall corrup∣tible Body shall be changed in the Re∣surrection

of the dead; into a spiritual body that's to say purified from earthly qualities; it shall be spiritualised, and becom immortal, impassible and ador∣ned with spiritual qualities. Our D^r knows well that a spiritual substance can be in many places, and somtimes in a smal•• space, somtimes in a greater, as our soule is wholy in each part of our Body: allow therefore (which is fals) that this our earthly corruptible body may not be in many places, but when it is spiritualised and has changed its earthly natural qualities into spiritual qualities, and becom as it were a spiri∣tual, immortal impassible incorruptible substance, as glorious bodies are, why may it not have that qualitie and capa∣citie, as spirits have, of being in many places; and being somtime in a great, somtime in a smale place: and there∣fore we say that Christ's bodie by virtue of its spiritual qualities, because it's spiritualized as glorious bodies are, may be in many places; even as the Body of Christ entred into the Cenacle the doores being shut, whether that was by the chinks of the doore or the keye hole, or penetrating the door; this is

no less repugnant to reason, and to the exigence of a natural earthly Massive Body, than to be in many places; and how did that happen? S. Epiph answers Haer. 64. Our Saviour rised from the dead, not taking an other body, but the self same body, which he had, changing it into a spi∣ritual subtilitie, or spiritualizing it, by which he entred the door being shut. He who entred, saies S. Ambrose l. 10. c. 24 in Luc. had a true real body; how then did he enter the door being shut? by the qualities of a spirit which he received in his Resurrection; the body is sowen a natural, corruptible, earthly body; it riseth a spiritual, heavenly incor∣ruptible one. By these Principles of Scrip∣ture and consent of ancient Fathers, we can also vnderstand, that tho these our natural, earthly corruptible bodies, cannot be at one time in many places; yet glorious bodies, being spiritualized, by virtue of their spiri∣tual endowments, may be in many pla∣ces, as spiritual substances are.

An other repugnance against reason our D^r pretends in this misterie, that the accidents of bread would exist with∣out their substance to support them: yet we have several examples in Scrip∣ture

of the existence of Accidents without their Substances: first the tast of all vic∣tuals was in the Manna, and our D^r will not pretend the substāces of all victuals were there: secondly Tobias did see visibly the Accidents of a human na∣ture in his fellow Travaller; and Scrip∣ture assures vs he was no man, but an Angel: thirdly Scripture tells vs the Apostles did see the Accidents of a Pigeon in Iordan; and the substance of a Pigeon was not there to support them; the Israelits Exod. 13. did see a Pillar of a cloud, which lead them by day, and a Pillar of fire which lead them by night, and there was no substance either of a cloud or of fire, but only the Ac∣cidents: and why may not the acci∣dents of bread be in the Sacrament, tho their substance be not there to support them?

It's time we examin our D^r^'^s answer to my second syllogism: he saies he can reckon as many vices in it as in my first; but what was expected was, not to tell vs what he could do, but to point out those vices: it was vpon that passage of John, 6. when Christ said, my flesh is truly meate my blood is truly

drink; the Jewes repleyed, this saying is hard, how can this man give vs his flesh to be eaten: I proposed two syllogisms, the first was thus; The Jews thought im∣possible what Christ affirmed; but what the Jews thought to be impossible, was that he should give his true flesh to be eaten; for no man ever yet apprehen∣ded any impossibilitie in giuing the fi∣gure of his body to be eaten; especial∣lie the Iews, who eat yeerly the Paschal lamb, which they believed to be the fi∣gure of Christ; therefore what Christ affirmed, was that he would give his true and real flesh. My Adversarie very ci∣vily lets this syllogism pass in sylence. And any man would think its a pinching argument.

My second syllogism vpon that pas∣sage was; A damnable vnbeliever is he who denies a Truth, sufficiently pro∣posed to him to be revealed; for tho a man may be an Vnbeliever for denying a Truth, but not a Damnable one, if it be not sufficiently proposed to him to be revealed: but the Jews in this occa∣sion are called damnable vnbelievers, and what they denied, was a real fleshy eating of Christs flesh, as Catholics be∣lieve

it: therefore Christ sufficiently proposed a real fleshy eating of his bo∣dy, as we believe it: My Adversarie quarrels with the Minor of the second pro∣position, which he conceits to be a para∣logism because he saies its composed of two different propositions: but this is but a poor shift to divert his Reader, and draw breath; for the sense of the Minor appears to any half eyed man to be this, The Iews were called damnable vn∣believers, because they denyed the fleshy eating of Christs body: what saie you to this Proposition D^r? He denies it, and this is the whole and sole answer we have from our D^r a naked denial, with∣out giving any textor reason, why; but tells vs they were called damnable vn∣believers not for denying the fleshy eating of his Body, but because they misunderstood Christ, and did not vnderstand that he spoke only of his figurative flesh. But the non sense of this answer is threefold; first for to be a damnable vnbeliever it's necessarie to deny a truth, as our D^r himself con∣fesses, and as all rhe world must con∣fess; but the Jews did not deny the fi∣gurative Presence, for our D^r himself, both in his printed sermon and in his

Book, pag. 115. saies that they did not aprehend that Christ at all spoke of his figurative Presence, but of his reall fleshy Presence; and how could they deny or affirm, what they did not as much as dream was spoken of? secondly to be a Damnable vnbeliever, The truth must be sufficiently proposed to the de∣niers; and our D^r himself acknowledges that nothing of a figurative Presence was sufficiently proposed to them; wher∣as he acknowledges, that they did not apprehend that Christ should have spo∣ken of his figurative Presence, but of a real fleshy eating of his body; Christ's meaning therefore was not sufficiently declared vnto them; how could they therefore be damnable vnbelievers: thirdly he saies They did misaprehend Christ's Words, and did not vnderstand him to have spoken of his figurative Presence. And is it therefore they must be called dam∣nable vnbelievers, because they did not vnderstand what Christ said? will you call your Auditorie damn'd Here∣tics because they do not vnderstand you when you preach? to call a man a Dolt or a dull headed fellow, because he does not vnderstand, may pass; but

we are all in a sad condition, if we must be called damnable vnbelievers because wee do not vnderstand a Prea∣cher or Teacher: I pray Reader con∣sider this discours, the Jews are called vnbelievers; therefore they must have denied som revealed Truths, but they denied no other but the real fleshy ea∣ting of Christ's body, for the D^r him∣self saies, they vnderstood Christ did speak of that, and of nothing els; therefore they are damnable vnbelie∣vers for denying the fleshy eating of Christs body.

For to prove that Christ spoke of the figure of his flesh, our D^r brings not a syllable of Scripture but that text which he cited in his Sermon and I answered in my former Treatise The flesh profiteth nothing, it's the Spirit that quickneth; my Words are Spirit and life. He saies Christ gave them to vnderstand by these words, that he was to give them a fi∣gure of his Body, and that it was a check for vnderstanding him to have spoken of his true and real flesh: and if you will not believe this vpon his bare word, you may choose, for he will give you no other ptoof: But that you may

know how much our D^r is mistaken, you must know that the Capharnits, to whom Christ spoke, did not vnderstand the Doctrin which S. Paul delivered vs; that this our natural earthly sensual body, should in the Resurrection rise spiritualized, incorruptible, purified, and refined from our material earthly qualities; and should be incorruptible as spirits, Agil as spirits, invisible as spirits, able to abridge it self to a nar∣row, or enlarge itself to a great space as spirits: the Capharnits vnderstood nothing of this, but imagined the body could not be otherwise, than as we see it with its material earthly qualities; and when they heard Christ say he would give them his flesh to eat••, they concei∣ved he mean't his Body as they did see it vnder those earthly material quali∣ties, and that he would cut it in morsels and give it to them: this carnal sensual manner of vnderstanding is what Christ checkt; the flesh profiteth nothing, that's to say according their carnal sensual imagination of it; that they ought to vnderstand him spiritually; that his flesh should be given in a spiritual way: Hear S. August. vpon this subject to. 9.

tract. 27. in Joan. What means the flesh profite••h nothing? it profiteth nothing as they (the Capharnits) vnderstood it; for th••y vnderstood it, as one cuts it in morsels when the Body is dead, or as it is sold in the But∣cher's stall, and not as it is spiritualized: Again S. August. in Ps. 18. Our saviour has given vs to eate the same flesh, which was born of the Virgin, wherin he conversed with vs on earth, but in a spiritual manner. S. Chrysost. is no less express Hom 24. in 6. Joan. How doth be flesh profit nothing, withou•• which none can have life? observe that this is not said of Christ's ••rue flesh, but of their (Capharnits) fleshly sensual vnder∣standing of his words.

I expected to meet in my Adversari's book som text of Scripture directly pro∣ving his figurative Presence, that he had not alleadged in his Sermon; but our D^t is a Spaniard, he sticks to his old fashion, nothing of new will you hardly find in any of the points he treats, but what he said before in his Sermon: he cites again S. Paul calling the bread after its consecration, Brea••; and takes no notice of the answer I gave him in my former Treatise, that when a thing is converted into an other, it

often retains the name of what it was; as The bl••nd see, the lame walk &c. after they recouered their sight and limbs, they are so called, because they were so: and because the texts are somtimes to be vnderstood in a Metaphorical sense somtimes in a literal, I gave a rule for to distinguish the one from the other: when a word is equivocal bea∣ring two significations; putting it in a proposition, its determined to signifie that sense of which, and of no other, the Predicat can be verified: as the word Man, is indifferent to signifie a true real Man or a painted one, put it in a Proposition, A Man is a rational creature; there it is determined to signifie a true real Man, because of him only, the Predicat, Rational crea••ure, can be ve∣rified: The word Bread also is indiffe∣rent to signifie true material bread, or bread only in appearance: will you know which sense it beares in S. Pauls discours? see what Predicats are said of that bread; The bread which I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world, this Predicat flesh which I shall give for the life of the world cannot be said of true material bread; therefore that bread

which S. Paul speakes of, is not true Material bread: Christ saies he is a Vine, a Lamb put them in propositions; Christ is the true vine, which yields fruit to life euerlasting; the lamb which takes away the sins of the world; these Predicats can∣not he verified of a material vine and lamb: therefore they must be taken in a Metaphorical sense. Our D^r without doubt would have been so kind as to have advertis'd vs, if he had found this Rule did faulter; but tho he nibbles at it, he cannot weaken it.

XVI. CHAPTER.

TRANSVBSTANTIATION PROVED by the consent of Fathers.

NOt one of the first Reformers but exclaimed against the Ancient Fa∣thers as Fautors of Popery, carried away with the deluge of errors which ouerflowed the whole Church this they preached and printed, toxicating the brains of their Proselites with the con∣tempt of Fathers and vndervalue of

their authority, not only in the first beginning of the Reformation, but for som years after: but Posterity, as men reclaimed from a Phrensy, began to think, how heathenish a crime it was to pull down the Pillars of Christianity; and particularly the Church of England feeling the attacks of the Presbiterians against Episcopacy, and som practices of theirs; for which they can shew no other warrant but Tradition, began to revere the authority of the ancient Fa∣thers, but so fraudulently, that where they seem to drop any word which fa∣vors them, they are brave men; but shew them whole Treatises in favor of our Catholic Tenets; they were blind, and carried away with the errors of their time: Who but Augustin? the greatest D^r of the Church, when he calls the Eucharist a Sign of Christ's body, (tho not as they pretend;) but produce his book, De cura pro Mortuis where he vigorously proves Purgatory; shew his express words, for Prayers to Saints, and the Miracles of our Church which he relates; he was, they say, deceived by his Mother Monica, and hurried away by the errors of his time:

S. Bernard was, they say, a most Holy Orthodox Saint, when he bitterly checks the Pomp and Vanitie of the Court of Rome; but when he praises Monachism, teachs Purgatorie, prea∣ches Transubstantiation; he was Igno∣rant, saies D^r Sall, he was fouly de∣ceived: S. Gregorie the great, was an incomparable man, when he spoke against John the Patriark of Constan∣tinople, for vsurping the Title of Vni∣versal Bishop; but tell them that he brought Popery into England, Mass. Purgatorie &c. Fox saies, he is in hell for his pains.

Now you are to observe, Reader, that the ancient Fathers, somtimes de∣signedly spoke ob••urely of the Miste∣ries of our Religion, and particularly of the holy Eucharist; specially when they did speake in presence of Pagans and Cathecumens; because, they not being received into the Church, nor sufficiently instructed, might be surpri∣sed and deterred from following Christ by the sublimitie of this Misterie: as the Capharnits were, when it was pro∣posed to them: this wee know by Theod. quoted by D^r Sall, Dial. 2, where speak∣ing

of this Misterie he saies; Non opor∣te•• haec aperte dicere; est enim verosimile ad••sse aliquos Initiatos: its not expedient to speake more openly of these things, for pro∣bably there may be som Cathecumens present. S. Augustin, in psal. 109. saies the same, and Serm 46. de Verb. Dom. and our D^r and his fellow wranglers take an ad∣vantage from hence, snatching som of their obscure tetms, and gleaning heer and there som little fragments, dismem∣ber'd from their cleer words, and from the end and scope of their discours as wil appear by few examples; My An∣tagonist cites Theodoret Dial. 2. and Gelasius Pope de Duab. Natur. who say The symbols are not chan••ed in their nature, but abide in their proper substance, figure, and form and are toucht and seen as before. Heer our D^r stops, and very disinge∣nuously omits the immediatly following words of Theodoret; Those mystical signs are vnderstood to be, what th••y are made to be, a••d hey are believed and adored as being those things which h••y are believed to be. Could any man who professes to speake obscu∣rely, speakes in cleerer terms? he saies they are believed and adored as being what they are made to be: if they are made to be

a figure only of Christ's body, they are not ••o be adored in the Protestant Doctrin, which denies the adoration of Images: they are not changed he saies, but abide in their nature substance, form and figure, and yet he saies hey are made to be an object of our Adoration; certainly the Physical true substance of bread is no object of Adoration; they are toucht and seen as before; and the true substance of bread is not toucht or seen; only the Accidents of created substances are the Objects of our senses: whence it ap∣pears, that by Nature, Substance, Figure, and Form Theodoret vnderstands the Accidents of bread which remain in the consecrated host in their proper na∣ture as before; and the Nature of a thing may be called it's substance.

By the way, take notice, that our D^r in his printed Sermon impugning our Tenet of Infallibility, directed his ar∣rows at the Infallibility of the Pope alone: I advertis'd him, this was not our Tenet of faith, but a school ques∣tion; that our Article of faith was, the Infallibility of the Pope and Council joyntly, and of the Church diffusive: In his 3. and 5. Chapt. of his booke he

railes at me, that I impose vpon him in saying he should have spoken of the Pope alone; It's an intolerable cauill, saies he of I S. to say, I shoul speake of the Pope alone's Infallibility; a gross misunderstanding of my meaning, for which I gaue no ground in my Writings: I speake of the Infallibility of the Pope and Partie following him, whether congregated or dispers••d. Have you heard him protest, that when he impugns our Tenet of Infallibility, he does not mean, nor speak of that of the Pope alone? Heare him again reproach our Religion and faith as ridiculous, for believing the Infallibility of the Pope alone; (tho he knows, as it appears by his former words, this is not our Article of faith, nor bottom whervpon we•• rest our faith.) Chap. 19 after having cited Ge∣lasius his sentence, that the Substance and nature of bread and wine remains in the con∣secrated Elements, as if, for being the judgment of a Pope, wee must yield be∣cause wee believe him Infallible; Will you find a way sa••es he, for to decline such a sen∣tenc••? Yes D^r three waies; first you must prove against Bellar. Baron. and several others, that he was a Pope; secondly you must prove he delivered that Doc∣trin

after his installment, and not be∣fore he was made Pope; thirdly you must prove he delivered that Doctrin ex Cathedra; that is to say as Master and Pastor of the Church, proposing to the flock what they ought to believe; for a Pope who speakes his privat sen∣timents, as a particular Doctor, may err: Moreouer D^r tho the Pope alone were infallible, and tho the Pope and Council joyntly be infallible; what they say only occasionally and transiently in their Decrees is not infallibly true; for tho their Decrees in matters of Doctrin be true, but the reasons, arguments, and similitudes by which they expound their Doctrin, are not infallible Veri∣ties; and if you have read Gelasius, or if you be at leasure to read him; you will find that the Subject and scope of his discours, was of the Two Natures of Christ, proving it against Euthyces and Nestorius, and that he spoke of the Mis∣terie of the Consecrated Bread tran∣siently, as a parity or similitude by which he pretends to prove the existence of both Natures, Divin and Human, in Christ: lastly, suppose the words of Gelasius prove evidently the substance

of bread to remain in the Sacrament; what are you the neerer to prove your figurative Presence? for the Lutherans will grant the bread is there; but that Christ's body is also there, togither with the bread, as both Natures, hu∣man and Divin, are in Christ

And to shew you our D^rs disingenui∣tie and fraud, heare him conclude his 19 Chapt. Conclude Reader from this pas∣sage of G••lasius what hopes wee may have of peace, and end of Controversies, by allowing the Pope to be infallible, when the cleer and plain words of a Pope are subject to such mis∣constructions: giving his Reader to vn∣derstand, that we•• bottom our faith on the Infallibility of the Pope alone, and make him only, the infallible Judge to decide our Controversies •• and this our D^r saies, after all his Protestations, that when he impugns and rebukes our Doctrin of Infallibility, he does not speak of, or mean that of the Pope alone; as if wee had not plainly de∣clared that our Catholic Tenet is not of the Infallibility of the Pope alone, but jointly with the Council.

He cites S. Augustin also who often calls the Eucharist a sign and type of

Christ's Body; It's true he does; but it's no less true that he did not meane the Eucharist was a pure and only sign; but a Sign, and the thing signified: the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, is a sign of itself as it was on the cross; and, that this was S. Augustins mean∣ing, our D^r could not doubt of't, had he read S. Augustin in Psal. 33. where glossing vpon the words of the Pro∣phet He was carried in his own hands, he saies, Wee do not find that this was literal∣ly verified of David, but we find it literal∣ly verified of Christ, when, he saied, this is my Body, he carried his Body in his hands. S. Augustin, as you see, saies, that text, this is my Body, must be vnder∣stood literally, and was literally verified of Christ, when he pronounced it; but if what Christ carried then in his hands was a pure, and only a sign of his body, the text would not be literally verified of him; it's not his body he would car∣rie in his hand, but a sign of his Body: nor would S. Augustin have said, as we•• quoted him in the precedent Chapter, that our Saviour gave vs to ea•••• the sam flesh which was born of he Virgin, and wher∣in he conversed with vs on earth: But where

our adversarie sounds a perfect Victorie against vs, is in the passage of S. Au∣gustin in Psal. 38. You must vnderstand Spiritually, what I said; you shall not eate this body which you see, nor drink this blood which shall be spilt by those who will crucifie me; I have recommended vnto you a Sacra∣ment which (spiritually vnderstood) will give life; it is needfull it be celebrated visibily; but it must he vnderstood spiritually: take these words of the Saint separatly from the scope and end of his discours, and they may startle you: but if you con∣sider that, as I have related aboue, he checked the sensual material vnderstan∣ding of the Capharnits, who judged Christ intended his Body to be eaten vnder those material earthly qualities as it appeared to their eyes, S. Augus∣tin mean't nothing els but to rectifie their error, telling them they were not to eat that flesh and blood of Christ which they did see, as they did see it vnder those accidents and qualities; but in a spiritual manner, as glorious bodies exist, as we•• declared in the pre∣cedent Chapter; and that S. Augustin did not think of denying Christ's true and real flesh should be given, it ap∣pears,

wheras he saies, he would giue vs the same fl••esh to eat, which was born of the Virgin, and wherin he conversed with vs on earth.

Our D^r cites also Dionisius Syrus, vpon the first Chap. of S. John translated into English by D^r Loftus; affirming the Word was made flesh without any change in the Di∣vinity, as the bread is changed into the Body of Christ without any change in its nature: the Translator I honor for his learning and erudition; the works of Dionisius Syrus I have not seen, but allow he has spoken as he is translated; first this, and all you have hitherto said, Favors Lu∣thers opinion of Consubstantiation, more than the Protestant Doctrin of Fi∣gurative Presence; for all you have said proves only, that the substance of bread remains; but how do you prove against Luther or against vs, that the Body of Christ is not substantially and really there? if Dionisius Syrus be of so great weight with you, you must say, that as the Word of God being made flesh; bo••h natures and substances remain in Christ; of flesh, and of the Divinity, so when the bread is made the Body of Christ, there must remain both natures

and Substances of Christ's▪ body and the bread, in the Sacrament; and this is Luthers Doctrin, nothing a kin to the figurative Presence of England: Secondly what do you talk to vs of a Dionisius Syrus, or of Gelasius, an vnknowen Author? put both, and more of their rank, if you can get them, in one balance; and put S. Augustin, S. Chrisostom, S. Ambros, S. Cyprian, S. Hierom, and the rest of the knowen, renowned, and most illustrious Doctors and Pillars of Christianity in an other; and tell me which of them weighs most? reade S. Ambrose l. 4. de Sacram. c. 4. You will say my bread is vsual bread; No, this bread which is bread before the Sacramen∣tal Words, when the consecra••ion is perfor∣med, of bread is made the flesh of Christ; and to preuent our Adversaries cauil of a figurative flesh, he saies l. 6. de Sacram. c. 1. as our Lord Iesus Christ is the true son of God, not as men are by grace, but as the son of the substance of his father; so, it is his very true flesh, as himself has said, and his very true blood wee eat and drink: I do not wonder that Calvin wisht, (as they say he did) that the De∣vil had struck the pen out of S. Ambrose

his hand when he was writing of this Misterie; for there can be nothing more cleer against his figurative Pre∣sence: and again l. de Initiandis c. 9. he saies the bread is changed into the Body of Christ, as Moyses his rod was turned into a serpent, as the waters of Egipt were turn'd into blood; and the water into wine in the Marriage of Cana of Galilee, the word of God which made of nothing, that to be, which was not; can not it change that which was, to be that which it was not before? Face these words of S. Ambrose with those of Dionisius Syrus and see which of both is of most credit in the Christian world, Ambrose or Dionisius:

And if you think Ambrose does not outweigh him, add S. Cyprian, serm. de Coen. Dn̄i; The bread which our Lord gave to his disciples was changed, not in ap∣pearance but in nature, and by the Omnipo∣tency of his Word was made flesh. Euseb. Emiss. Serm. de Corp. Dn̄i, The invisible Pri••st Ch••••st, do••s change by his invisible power the visible creatures to the substance of h•••• Body and blood: when the visible creatures are put vpon the altar, before the invoca∣tion of the Holy Ghost for to bless them, the substance of bread and wine is there; but

after the consecration, the Body and blood of Christ; we must judge of this Host not by our senses, or exteriour appearance, but by our faith. S. Hierom. in Epist. ad Hebr. quaest. 20. Let vs vnderstand that the bread which Christ gave to his Disciples, is the body of Christ; Moyses did not give the true hread (yet he gave the Manna, which was a figure of Christ) but Christ gave it; Christ himself is the guest and the banquet; he him∣self is he who eates, and is eaten, Add to these the testimonies of S. Augustin, S. Chrysostom, S. Cyril, and S. Epiph. which I produced in the precedent, and I will produce in the next ensuing Chapter; and pretend not for som half sentences pickt heer and there out of som Ancient Fathers work, and wrested to a crooked sence which they never thought of; pretend not I say, that the Ancient Fathers do favor your Error; it would be more ingenuity in you to say, as your Ancestors, the first Reformers said, that the Ancient Fathers were blind, and carried away with our Po∣pish superstitions; and as you forsook the Church with them, to renounce to the Fathers as they did.

XVII. CHAPTER.

THE ADORATION OF THE HOST; and Communion in one Kind.

THer's no need of an Antagonist for to contradict our D^r. for in every chapter almost, he contradicts himself; in the perclose of his 20. chap. he blends vp two contradictorie propo∣sitions in one paragragh; I do not ignore nor doubt, saies he, that if your Doctrin of Christ's personal presence in the consecrated Host be true, ther's as much reason for to adore such an Host as to adore Christ himself, both being the same thing in such a supposi∣tion: then again he ads, It's an intolerable boldness to say, the matter standing as now it doth, doubtfull and controverted, there is as much reason to adore Christ in the consecra∣ted Host, as there is for adoring him in his own person, since that for adoring Christ wee haue an express command, but no command of adoring Christ in the Sacramental bread even supposing him to be corporally present there. You see how in one breath the

D^r saies wee are obliged to adore the consecrated Host supposing Christ to be there personally present, and that yet supposing him to be there personally present we•• are not obliged to adore him: But the reason he gives why we•• are not obliged to adore him, tho he should be there personally present, is very pretty; because saies he, that for adoring Christ in his own person we•• have a positive command, but we have no command for adoring him in the consecrated Host, tho he should be there personally present: as if the ge∣neral command of adoring Christ in flesh, did not reach for to oblige vs to adore him wheresoeuer he is really present in flesh; doubtless he must say the three kings were intolerably bold for adoring him in the Manger, because there was no particular cōmand of ado∣ring him in a manger; But D^r, is there any particular command of not adoring Christ in the Host, tho he should be there personally present? No; and will not a general cōmand of adoring him in flesh personally present oblige vs to adore him, wheresoeuer he be personally pre∣sent, if there be not a particular com∣mand

excluding such and such cases where he must not be adored? If the Blessed Trinitie did appear to you in the shape of three yong men, as hap∣pen'd to Abraham, and that you were assured by a revelation it was the Bles∣sed Trinitie, would not you in virtue of the General Command of adoring the Trinitie, hold yourself obliged to adore it, tho there be no particular command of adoring it vnder the shape of a man? The general command laid vpon vs of having no commerce nor dealing with the Deuil, does it not oblige vs not to have any commerce nor dealing with him if he should appear unto vs in the shape of a great black Dog; tho there be no particular command, forbidding any communication with him in that shape?

But saies he, it's an intolerable boldness to adore him in the Host, the case standing as it does doubtfull and controverted if he be there or not; be∣cause we expose ourselves to a mani∣fest danger of committing material Idolatrie at least; Just as if you did say when the Arians denied the Divinitie of Christ, it was intolerable boldness

in the Council of Nice to adore Christ as God, the matter being doubtfull and controverted: you mistake in your sup∣position S^r, we•• are not doubtfull, your doubts, denial, or controversies creat no doubt nor scruple in vs; we are certainly assured that Christ is there really present, and wee pittie your Obstinacie in denying so assured a Te∣net; and we•• fear not the hazard of a material Idolatrie, even in case that the Host were not duly consecrated for want of intention in the Priest for to consecrat, or because he is no true Priest, or what other defect you please: I had reason to say D^r, that you did not well vnderstand our Doctrin, and I may say now you do not vnderstand what ma∣terial Idolatrie is, when you say, that it might happen that the Priest should not have an intention of consecrating, and then the Host would not be consecra∣ted, and our Adoration of such an Host would be a Material Idolatry; and to this danger we are, you say, dayly exposed. I beseech you D if ever you write again, do your Reader the justice as to repley against your Adversari's answers to your arguments; you pro∣posed

this argument in your Sermon, and I plainly refuted it, by shewing you had as much reason to doubt of the Christianity of all the world, and of the truth of your Protestant Clergy, for tho you do not make your Baptism or Ordination to depend of the intentiō of the Minister, yet you make them depend of other essential requisits, and you have no greater assurance of those requisits to have been applied, than we have of the Intention of the Priest in the Consecration of the Host.

And suppose that the Priest in effect had not an intention, but that the Host remains vnconsecrated, we are not as much as materially Idolaters for adoring it; for Idolatrie whether Ma∣terial or formal is when adoration is giuen to a Creature falsly believed to be God; the Pagans are Idolaters, for adoring the Sun, and the Israelits for adoring the Golden Calf, which Sun and Calf they belieued to be a Sun and a Calf, and yet a God; for they never pretended that the Sun and Calf ceased to be such, and were converted into invisible Deities; but they attributed Divinitie to them, remaining in their

proper Being of a Sun and a Calf: for to make vs therefore either formally or Materially Idolaters, you must proue that our Adoration is given to bread; remaining bread, and falsly believed by vs to be God; and if you say so, you widely mistake our Doctrin and practice: for as your own D^r Tay∣lor saies in his Liber••te of Prophecying, c. 20. and your D^r Thorndick, in his Iust weights▪ c. 19. our Adoration is so far from being directed to bread, that wee believe the Object we•• adore is no bread, but God; Our Will goes by ado∣ration to the Object, as it is in our Un∣derstanding, and in our Understanding its no bread but God; we•• do not adore bread believed to be God, but we•• adore God, believed to be no bread: where then leyes the danger of our ma∣terial Idolatrie in adoring the Host consecrated? because it remains vncon∣secrated bread? but we do not adore what it remains to be, but what wee believe it is made by due consecra∣tion.

And that you may see how rash you were in your censure of Intolerable bold∣ness for adoring the consecrated Host,

pray hear S. Augustin who saies in Psal. 98. speaking of the footstool of our Lord, That footstool is the flesh of Christ, wherin he walked on earth, and which he gave vs to eat, no man eateth that flesh, who first hath not adored it, and wee do not only, not sin in adoring it; but wee sin in not ador∣ing it. S. Ambrose l. 3. de Spir. Sancto, wee adore the flesh of Christ in the misteries, which the Apostles adored in Christ our Lord: S. Chrysos. hom. 24. in 1. ad Corin. The wisemen adored Christ in the Manger; let vs imitate them wee see him not in the Man∣ger, but on the Altar. Had these Saints any special command for adoring Christ in the consecrated Host? no, but the general command of adoring him in flesh, and they believed his flesh to be there: and if they were not intolerably rash and bold for adoring it, why will you condemn vs?

In the Vnerring Vnerrable Church I have proved at large the sufficiency of one kind in the Communion, by Scripture, reason, and authority of fathers; and wheras I find nothing in my Adversaries repley that either weakens my discours, or strengthens his own Tenet it's better to remit my Reader to what I have said

there, than to weary his patience with a tedious Tatalogie: only I must adver∣tise, that it's strange a Church of England man, should say the Cup is so indispen∣sably requisit by Christ's Institution, that it cannot vpon any consideration be retrencht; so our D^r saies pag. 136. condemning the Council of Constance for Pretending any reason for ordaining the bread alone should be taken; This is sufficient to me, saies he, that the Coun∣cil should pretend any reason for inverting the Institution of Christ, which ordained also the Cup should be taken: Is it not strange I say▪ that a Church of England man should speake so? after that the Statut of 1. Edward VI. goes thus; We com∣mand that the Sacrament be commonly taken in both kinds, if necessitie does not require otherwise: Do not those words of the Statute Commonly, and, if necessitie does not require otherwise import that somtime for just reasons and necessitie, we•• may be dispensed with, and receive in one kind? nor is it only the Church of En∣gland by its Head king Edward, has declared this, but also the Church of France in their Ecclesiastical Disciplin printed at Saumur 12. Chap. Art. 7.

saies thus, The Minister must give the bread in the supper to them who cannot drink the wine, provided it be not for contempt. And tho the Lutheran Church vse both kinds in the Communion, yet Luther plainly declares, it might be taken in one, and that its an indifferent thing: l. de Capt. Babil. c. de Euch. They sin not, saies he, who receive in one kind only, seeing Christ hath not commanded to vse both: and again Epist. and Bohaem. in declar. Euch. & Serm. de Euch▪ although it were an excel∣lent thing to vse both kinds in the Eucharist, and Christ hath commanded nothing in this point as necessarie; it were better to follow peace and Vnity, than to contest about the kinds. Melancton also has expresly the same Doctrin in Consil. Theol. ad Mar∣chionem Elect. de vsu vtriusque partis, pag. 141.

I appeal now to any prudent vnpre∣judic'd mans judgment, who is in the wrong, D^r Sall, or I: the D^r saies, the Cup is of Divin institution so indispen∣sablie needfull that it cannot for any reason be omitted, and blames the Council of Constance for pretending a just reason for retrenching it and the D^r has of his side the Church of Eng∣land,

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

as now it is; I say, the Cup is not indispensably requisit for the inte∣grity of the Communion; that Christ has left it arbitrary to the Church, to give either the bread alone, or the bread and cup togither; as time and necessitie shall require; and I have on my side not only the whole Catholic Church, but even Luther and Melanc∣ton, and the Church of England in king Edwards time, and the Church of France this day; for tho the Hugonots vul∣garly are in that perswasion, I know not by what charm, that both kinds are needfull; yet their Ecclesiastical Disciplin, as I quoted, plainlie sets down they may for just reasons receive in one kind; have I not think you the advantage aboue the D^r? I pray read my former Trearise, where you shall find this Tenet solidly proved by Scrip∣ture and reason.

XVIII. CHAPTER.

IMAGE WORSHIP NO IDOLATRIE.

IF you consider the vndertaking, or the proofs of the vndertakers, in no where will you find the Protestants more vnjust, than in their charge of Idolatry against vs for the worship of Images: for Idolatrie being the adora∣tion of a creature as God; or the Image of a fals God; can there be any thing more vnjust than to charge vs with that sin, who plainly avow Images are but creatures and no God; who look vpon them, as the Images of the only God of Heaven and earth, and of Jesus Christ who is no fals, but a true God; wee ask nothing of them; we•• place not our hopes in them, but we•• ask of, and place our hope in him whom they repre∣sent. Where is there any thing of Ido∣latry in this? or what can there be more conformable to reason, than that we•• should honor the picture of God, whom we•• adore; as the picture of the king is

honored aboue that of any subject; and there is none but will think the in∣jury or honor don to his picture, for being his representation, to be an in∣jurie against his own Person: This charge is also injust, because the Protes∣tants allow salvation in the Catholic Church, and the actual profession of its Tenets, if ignorance does not excuse vs; and how can salvation be allowed in the actual profession of Idolatrie; or ignorance be pretended amidst so much of Christianity and light of the Ghos∣pel? It's also injust because wee are no more guiltie in this Tenet, than Luthe∣rans who revere Images as much as wee; nay no more than Protestants, who as I have observed in my former Treatise, religiously respect the Lords supper which they say, is but a figure or Image of Christ's Body: which S. Paul recom∣mends 1. Cor. 11. Let a man examin him∣self, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup, for he who eates or drinks it vnworthily eates and drinks damnation to himself not discerning the body of the Lord he is guil••ie of the body and blood of our Lord. You see what an honor what a respect, what a puritie of heart, you are to

haue, and you yourselves confess you must have, for to receive that which you say is but a figure, and an Image of Christ's body, and a representa∣tion of his Passion.

My D^r is put to his shifts by this ar∣gument, and most desperatly saies there is no sign nor insinuation of adoration, to be given to the Communion bread, in that text of S. Paul; its a work of my fancy he saies, no discovery of common sense. My God? how much a Polemical animositie blinds a man? Is there any Protestant in Eng∣land so impious, take him out of the heat of a Polemical discours, but will say the Consecrated bread is to be wors∣hip'd? or is there any, but D^r Sall, who will say there is no sign or insinnua∣of that whorship in those words of S. Paul? that purity of mind, that scru∣tiny of our defects, that cleanlyness of heart which he enjoyns, is not this an insinuation and sign of the reverence wherwith wee ought to aproach to that Misterie? and is not that reverence a worship, and honor wee pay to that bread? and why because in receiving it vnworthily, wee dishonor the body of Christ: Christ therefore is dishono∣red

in his figure; wee deserve damna∣tion by dishonoring it; and why are wee damn'd, but for our injurie to Christ? wee are guiltie of the body of Christ; is it not an evident sequele out of this, that the injurie, dishonor and irreverence don to Christ's figure (which you say is the Communion bread) is don to Christ's own Person? why will you then deny that God is honored or dishonored in his picture?

Wee have heard S. Augustin, S. Am∣brose S. Chrysostom in the next prece∣dent Chapter say, that the consecrated Host is to be adored, and that it is a sin saies S. Augustin not to adore it; cast an eye back on the words of these Saints in the former Chapter, whylst I ask my D^r what does he believe to be in the Communion bread? if the true an real flesh of Christ, that those Saints would have vs adore, then he must ack∣nowledge Transubstantiation, if it be but Bread representing figuratively Christ's Body, what they would have vs adore; then he must confess, its no Idolatrie to adore the figure and Image of Christ.

Our D^r after his acustomed fashion,

does but repeat what he said in his Ser∣mon against this Tenet, and takes no notice of what I answered: he tells vs God commanded in Exodus, Thou shalt not make to thee any graven Image-thou shalt not bow down they self to them: and where is there any mention heer of not worshipping Images? for the letter of the text is, not to make any graven Image; and if the making of an Image be Idola∣trie or adoration, you are no less guiltie than wee; the text saies thou shalt not bow they self to them; Josue and the Israëlits did so to the Ark, as you acknowledge, and you do it to the Image of our Prince, and so we are all Idolaters. But saies he, when the Israelits did look on the Serpent in the Desert, and were thereby healed; and when Iosue and the Israelits fell down on their faces before the Ark, they did not adore it, otherwise when we•• pray before the Bible and an Altar we•• must adore them: was there euer the like Childishness? He does not vnderstand, or at least will not vnderstand my dis∣cours vpon those passages; which is this: It's manifestly declared in Scrip∣ture that the brasen Serpent was erected vpon a Pole by Gods command, and it

appears Jo. 3. 14. that this Serpent was an Image of Christ Crucified, S. Aug. de Pecc. Mort l. 1. 32. exaltatus Ser∣pens est mors Christi; hence it follows that it's not against Gods commandment to make Images of Christ; secondly its apparent that when the Israelits looking on this Serpent were healed, they came before it, and looked on it with respect, reverence, and devotion, being the instrument which God vsed to heal•• them; and tho the vulgar sort of the people were perhaps ignorant of the misterie represented by that Serpent elevated vpon a heigh Pole; doubtless Moyses and the learned of the people did know it was a representation of Christ vpon the cross, by whom man kind should be healed from the venom of the infernal serpent, as all the in∣terpreters say: so that an ingenuous Reader will not doubt, but that that Serpent was worshiped and deuoutly revered by the wounded Israelits, as now wee Catholics do revere and wors∣hip a Crucifix: all this was don by Gods command; wherby its manifest that the worship of Christs Image; our access and prayers to him before his Image; and

our belief, that Christ by his Images, before which we pray, does confer many blessings vpon vs, as God did vpon the Jews by the brasen Serpent) is not idolatrous superstition or against Gods command; moreouer that God should have commanded kings. 18. that Serpent to be broken by Ezechias, when the people pass'd the bonds of devotion, to adore it as God, and not as the Image of God, convin∣ces plainly that what God forbids in the first Commandment, is the Ado∣ration of Images or Similitudes as Gods; for whilst the people looked vpon it as Gods Image, their devotion was per∣mitted, and rewarded by God with mi∣raculous cures; but when they looked vpon it as a God; then God was angrie, and commanded it to be destroied.

This and the example of the Ark (which all Interpreters declare to be God's Image) before which Josue and the people did prostrat themselves reverently on the ground; and which David honored with processions and ma∣ny other marks of devotion, demons∣trats the vse of Images not to be forbid den by God, nor to be Superstitious or

Idolatrous in vs; and your little quillet is ridiculous; then say you, when wee look on a Church; or the Bible, or the Altar wee adore it: certainly D^r you will not be so impious, as to deny, that there is a special reverence due to a Church, more than to an other house, because it's particularly dedicated to Gods ser∣vice; and a particular Veneration for the Bible, because it contains the Histo∣rie of Christ's Passion and Divin Truths, more than for Titus Livius, or Lucius Florus; and why will not you have a greater reverence for the Image of God, and his Saints, for being their representation, than you have for the kings picture and chair of state before which you dare not be couer'd in the chamber of Presence. O but say you this is no adoration: ••pish D^r what a Childish cauil is this; It's a religious ve∣neration, respect, honor and worship which wee exhibit to the Image for being a representation of God; call it adoration, or not; this wee vnderstand by Adoration: what do you call, your being bare headed before the king? will not you call it a worship and reve∣rence to the king? and what will you

call your being bare headed in the Chamber of Presence, before his pic∣ture and chair of state? you must call it a worship also, and reverence given to the picture and chair for the kings sake which they represent: even so your bowing on your knees to God, your offering donaries to him, your processions for his sake do not you call this worship, an adoration of God; so lik∣wise your kneeling, praying, and other marks of devotion before an Image, is a worship and adoration of the Image, for being the Image and type of God.

You are tedious in telling vs again that Azor, Vasq. and our Schoolmen saie, Images of God and the Saints must be adored with the same degree of adoration, that the Saints are ado∣red with, and so Images of God must be adored Cultu Latriae, which is Idola∣trie: but whoeuer reades our School Divins, will find that they who say Images must be adored with the same adoration that is giuen to their Proto∣tipes, Latria to Christ's Image, hyper∣dulia to the B. Virgins Image, and Dulia to Saints Images, they plainly and dis∣tinctly distinguish a Relative and an Abso∣lut

Adoration; and say that the same adoration which is given to the Pro∣totype must be given to the type, but differently; to the Prototype an Absolut adoration; to the Type, a relative; so God is adored with an absolut Latria, that's to say for his own sake; his Image is to be adored with a Relative Latria, that's to say not for its self, but for the relation it has to God, in as much as it is his repre∣sentation. The adoration of Latria given to God, as an absolut source of all goodness and an infinit Deytie, is gi∣ven to none but to him; to his Image wee give a greater adoration, respect, and honor, than to the Image of the B. Virgin or Saints, because it's a re∣presentation of God; and this we call a Relative Latria: and when our Doc∣trin apears to be so innocent, and our practice in our adoration of Images, is so cleerly declared by our Councils and Schoolmen; its vnbecoming any man of honor and sincerity to be nibbling at our words, and wresting them to ma∣licious sences, and little spanish Pro∣verbs and Idle stories of abuses that he has seen in Spain or read in Ludovicus

Vives, in Polydorus Virgilius and Cassander, which serve but to give the Printer work, and render the Author ridiculous: yes indeed Polydorus Virgilius, and Cassander and Ludovicus Vives must be believed, when they tell vs som abuses of the vul∣gar people in the adoration of Ima∣ges; and S. Augustin, S. Bernard, S. Gregorie, S Damian, and other Saints and Doctors of the Church, must not be credited, when they tell vs many Miracles wrought in defense of the worship of Images: O but saies our D^r our adoration of Images obstructs the Con∣version of Pagans: for how will they be dis∣swaded from adoring stocks and stones, by vs, who do the same? and will not his Reader laugh, to see Protestants so much concern'd for the Conversion of Pagans? a people who never sent one Preacher to convert Infidels: but D^r we see, notwithstanding your opinion of our Image Worship, God has even in this our age converted many Pagans, and kingdoms of Infidels by our Image-Worshippers, and he never made vse of your Image Breakers to convert any one Pagan.

In his 15. Chapt. he pretends to prove

that it is not only Idolatrie to adore an Image as God, but to adore God in an Image, or by an Image; Give that Wor¦ship, saies he, what name you please, to worship them at all, is a formal transgression against Gods precept: this, he saies, and no other, was the Idolatrie of the Jews; not for that they did believe the Calf was God, for who can believe, they were so destitut of Common sense as to judge that Image, made before their own face, and of their own Gold, was a true God? their Idolatrie then did consist in adoring the Calf as God's Image, or adoring God in that Image: the like he saies of the Pagans, such wise cleer sighted men, as many of them were, did never imagin the stocks and stones which they adored to be true Deities, but Images of the true God which he proves they adored by that text of S. Paul Acts. 17. whom you igno∣rantly worship, him I declare vnto you. Whence its apparent the Idolatrie of the Israelits and Pagans did not con∣sist▪ saies he, in worshipping fals Gods, but in worshipping God in an Image against God's Ordinance; and this is our guilt, and wee are all Idolaters.

But Abulensis, Chrysostom, S. Au∣gustin, and aboue all the Scripture will comfort vs against our D^rs discours; for Chrysost. hom. 5. de Poenit. speaking of the Israelits Idolatry saies; After the people had heard those word••, I am they Lord they God, they made a Calf, they reiected God, they did not acknowledge him to be their God: and as if he had foreseen our Adversaries difficultie, how could such wise men be so senseless, as to believe a Calf made by themselves to be a God; he pro∣poses this question in the same place; If they were Gods, why did they say Make; how could those be Gods which are made? he answers, Sic malitia excaecans sibi ipsi re∣pugnat, & seipsam extinguit; so blind is malice, that it contradicts itself, and refutes itself: it was a contradiction, to be a God, and to be made; but their malice pinfolded their reason, that they owned both those contradictions in their Calf: Abulensis speaks to the same purpose in Exod. c. 32. q. 3. and S. August. in psal. 133. saies, the wiser sort of Pagans adored Idols as the Vulgar did; but did not be∣lieve they were God's, but Images and Sym∣bols of what they believed to be Gods; and in the same place declares, what they

believed to be Gods; They give this in∣terpretation of their Images; by the Image Tellus, they signified the Earth; by the Image Neptunus, the Sea; by that of Iuno, the Air; by that of Vulcan, the fire: and if you Vrge against them; tha•• then they worship Bodies for Gods, the Earth, the Sea &c. they an∣swer they do not worship the Bodies themsel∣ves, sed quae illis regendis praesident numina; but the Deities and Spirits, which govern them bodies: and in psal. 69. he proves these Spirits were Deuils: But Scripture speaks yet more plainly, Deut 32. 15. They forsook the true God, they sacrificed to the Devils not to God; to Gods they knew not, to n••w Gods, that came newly vp, they for∣sook the true God who made them.

By this you may see how much our D^r is mistaken in saying the Israelits and Heathens Idolatrie consisted, not in adoring Images of fals Gods, but the true God in an Image; for if you read S. Pauls speech to the Athenians Act. 17 24. you will find two things, first that they had som confused knowledge of an only and ••rue Deitie, which appears by their Altar consecrated Ignoto Deo to the vnknowen God: but this knowledge was so confused and erroneous, that

they believed this vnknowen God was like Gold or sylver or stones, and the very text of S. Paul supposes they were in this opinion for he argues thus, God who made the world and all things therin &c. therefore wee ought not to think that the Godhead is like to Gold or sylver or slo••e gra∣ven by Art or man's d••vice: and therefore they were Idolaters because they ado∣red a God which they conceited to be as created things: Secondly it's apparent that besids this vnknowen God, they ado∣red also other Gods; for of them as of other Heathens S. Paul said Rom. 1. 22. that the invisible God being knowen by the Visible creatures which are made, They changed the glorie of the immortal God into an Image made like to corruptible man, and to birds and four footed beasts, they changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the Creatures more than the Creatour. Their Idolatrie did consist in that they adored these Creatures, Gold, sylver, birds, four footed beasts &c. not as Gods, for the wiser Heathens were not so senseless as to believe they were Gods; nor as Images of one, true, invisible God, as Christians believe, for you shall not

find among the Ancient Philosophers any, who saies they adored One God; but as Images of fals Gods, who truly were but Devils or debauch wicked men, who caused themselves to he adored: and this is evident, not only by the testimony of S. Augustin which I have quoted, but also by the testimonie of Arnobius contr. Gent. l. 6. where you may reade the answer of the Heathen Philosophers to Arnobius checking them for adoring stocks and stones: You err, say they, O Arnobius in what you affirm; for wee do not think the matter of brass, sylver, and gold to be God and adora∣ble Deities of themselves: No wee are wiser than so; but we honour and worship the Gods or Deities in those sacred Statues, whom the Virtue of sacred Dedication hath brought into them, and made to dwell in those Images made by Art: You see Reader, what the Heathens adored; they adored the Images not for themselves or any Deitie they should have of themselves; but for the Gods or Deities, which by Sacred Dedication were brought to lodge in them; and S. Augustin l. 8. de Civit. Dei c. 23. tells you, that Sacred Dedication was Magical incantation, by which the

Devils or wicked men's soules were ••vocated, and obliged to live in those Statues. Judge you Reader what has this to do with our Worship of Images; and how far our D^r coms short of prou∣ing that the Adoration of the true God in an Image is Idolatrie.

He percloses his 25. chapt. with an exclamation against our Church, for giu∣ing adoration of Latria to Jmages, which error and Jdolatrous practice he saies has crept so much among our Vul∣gar people, and is countenanc'd by our learned men, rhat it would strick a hor∣ror to you, if you did know the sinfull absurditie of it: and J do admire but it stricks a horror to our D^rs. conscience, to beguile his Reader with such foul misre∣presentatiōs of our Doctrin, and with such willfull falsifications of our words and meaning; wheras he knows in his heart, our Adoration of Latria given to Christ's Image, is but Relative, not resting in it, nor for its sake, but passing to the Prototype which wee adore in it: as the honor don to the Kings Chair of state, passes to the kings person, the reverence we have for the Bible, and the name of Iesus; that David had to the Ark; the

Israëlits to the Brasen Serpent (before their Idolatrie) passes to God represen∣ted in them: for to prove vs grieveously Idolaters, you bring that Hymn of the Church to the Cross

O Crux ave spes unica, Hoc Passionis tempore, Auge pijs justitiam, Reisque dona veniam.

And if this convinces vs of Idolatrie, what will you say of S. Augustin, who speakes to the cross thus, Serm. in Parasc. Crux nobis totius causa Beatitudinis est: haec nos à caecitate liberat erroris: haec à tenebris reddidit luci: haec alienos Deo conjunxit: haec discordiae amputatio est: haec bonorum omnium abunda largitio, &c. The Cross is the cause of all our bliss; this cross frees vs from blind∣ness of error: it brought vs from darkness to light: it's it which cuts of all discord; it's it which vnits those who are strayed, to God; its the source of all goodness. Know then D^r. that wee are no more Idolaters in ado∣ring the cross, than S. Augustin and innumerable other Saints whose words would be tedious to rehearsc.

JHS.

XIX. CHAPTER.

ADORATION, AND INVOCATION OF Saints, no Idolatry.

OUr D^r often charges vs with Ido∣latrie for our Adoration of the Consecrated Host, for our Adoration of Images, and for our Adoration of Saints: to the two first parts of this ac∣cusation we have answered; it remains we prove the Adoration of Saints to be no crime: and I cannot better prove it than by a Text which our Adversaries frequently bring for to prove the vnlaw∣fullness of this practice: when the Angel Revel. 19. appeared to S. John, the Apostle fell flat on the ground for to adore him; the Angel forbid him, say∣ing he was his fellow servant: if the Adoration of an Angel or Saint be Ido∣latrie; therefore the Apostle was an Jdolater; nay which is wors, a relaps Jdolater; for again he fell on the ground to adore the Angel ch. 22. and the Angel prohibited him the second

time: hence its manifest, that either the Apostle fell twice into Jdolatrie or that adoration of Angels, and Saints is none: but say you why did the Angel forbid him? J answer, out of his respect to Human nature, since his Lord and king had assumed it: this reason S. Greg. gives, Hom. 8. in Evang. Ante Redemptor is adventum, Angeli adorantur & iacent; & postmodum adorari refugiunt; quod naturam nostram quàm prius despexe∣rant, postquam illam supra se assumptam conspiciunt, prostratam sibi videre perti∣mescunt. Before the coming of Christ, the Angels received adoration from men; but after he took our Nature, they would not see prostrated before them, that Nature which was exalted aboue them. Or if this reason does not please you; its sufficient to my purpose to prove, he did not prohibit it because it was Jdolatrie; for if you say the Angel did judge it to be Ido∣latrie, I say the Apostle did judge it was not; and in our instruction for God's Worship and Religion, wee are to be∣lieve the Apostle, rather than the An∣gel according the advice of S. Paul Gal. 1. 8. tho an Angel from Heaven should preach vn to you an other Ghospel, than that

which we have preached, let him be ac∣cursed.

The Invocation of Saints I have proved in the Vnerring Vnerrable Church by several Passages of Scripture, convin∣cing that Saints departed from this life know our affaires on earth, that they pray for vs; that many have re∣ceived favours and blessings by their in∣tercession: I pray Reader read my dis∣course there, and spare me the labour of repeating it; and you will admire the courage of my Adversarie who complains, as if he had justice and reason on his syde, that I do not an∣swer his arguments vpon this subject; and not one argument does he bring ei∣ther in his Sermon, or book, but that text of S. Peter Act. 4. that there is no salvation in any other but Iesus Christ; nor any other name vnder Heaven given among men whereby wee may be saued: where he concludes, we cannot ask the mediation of Saints, without robbing Christ of his prerogative of Mediatorship. Jt's not pardonable in him to repeat again, what has been so cleerly answered, as my Reader may see in my former Trea∣••ise: in hopes we may never any more

hear of this thred bare storie, let him take this syllogism: We believe the Vnity of Christ's Deyty, as much as the Vnitie of his Mediatorship: but its not against our belief of his Deitie, to call the Saints, as well of Heaven, as of earth Gods; for David calls all Just men Gods: I say yee are all Gods, and the sons of the heighest all, therefore its not against our belief of his Mediatorship, that wee should call the Saints, as well in heaven, as on earth, our Mediators: and who does not see the weakness of our D^rs discourse; for if because Christ is our only Mediator, we must not ask the prayers of the Saints in heaven; neither must we ask any Mediator on earth, which is evidently against the practice of all congregations; for we ask one an other to pray for vs: But how come this argument to prove, (saies our D^r) as I. S. pretends, that we must not ask the prayers of the Saints on earth. Did ever Lo∣gician make the like Quere? do not you pretend by the text, that Christ is our onely Mediator because there is no other name vnder Heauen (thats to say on earth) where by we may be saued? if therefore the text proves any thing

against the mediation of Saints, it proves against the mediation of the Saints vnder heaven, that's to say on earth. We acknowledge, as I have said in my former Treatise, Christ to be our onely Mediator by Redemption, because he alone did, and was able by his death to reconcile vs to God, and re∣deem vs; but he is not our only Me∣diator by intercession, because others pray for vs; tho he in a far more excel∣lent degree.

He perceived it seems the weakness of this charge, and quits it; and runs all along vpon an other point, proving our excess in our devotion and worship of Saints; and all he brings to prove it, is reduced to three heads, and all three have not one dram of brains; the first is his Prudence, that for ought we know many of those we esteem Saints, are wicked and damn'd wretchs; therefore we must not pray to any Saint: I hope he does not meane the B. Virgin, nor the Apostles, nor S. Augustin, S. Hie∣rom, and such others; let him there∣fore give vs leaue to pray to them; and let him point out what Saint is he, of those whom we worship, of whose San∣titie

we have not as much assurance; as we have of S. Augustin and S. Hie∣rom; and then we will not worship them: but to say we must pray to none: because som reputed Saints are not such; is as much as if you did say, we must not esteem and honor any men on earth for their great Virtue and learning, be∣cause som reputed to be Virtuous and learned, are but Hypocrits and Idiots. The second excess is that we build more Churches to Saints than to God; and he will not take our answer, that what Churchs we build to the Saints, we build them to God, because its for his sake we honor the Saints: for saies he, if a king did constitut his Son Sollicitor general for his Subjects, it would not be well taken by the king, that the Subjects should make their application to the Servants in Court, neglecting their application to the Prince: but D^r what if the king were disposed to honor, not only his son, but also the Servants at Court for his Son's sake (if any man serves me, my father will honor him Jo. 12.) if he decreed to grant whatever his son would ask, for his Subjects, and not only what himself would ask, but what

any of the Servants in Court would ask in his name: certainly the power of the son would be the greater.

The third excess is, that we call the B. Virgin our Saviouress, our Redeemeress; desperat expressions he saies, against the text of S. Peter which sayes, there is no name vnder heaven whereby we can be saved, but that of Jesus Christ: These indeed are desperat expressions in the meaning you take them, but not in the meaning our Church gives them: if you go to the Dictionarie, or the Grammer to looke for the sense of those words, you may render our Doc∣trin and practice ridicule; but if you go to the Church, and be inform'd in what sense she takes them, you will find they are religious: God calls Moyses the God of Pharao; if you take the word in its proper and vsual signification, its a blasphemy, wherof I hope you will not accuse God: David calls the Just, Gods and the Sons of the Heighest; a desperat expression if you take the words in their gramatical sense, but religious, if you take them in David's meaning: The great Baptist was not the Light, but a witness of the Light, saies the Evangelist;

Christ was the true Light for to illuminat the world; yet Christ himself calls his ser∣vants the light of the world; is this a des∣perat expression? Christ is the only foundation of the Church, saies S. Paul, yet in Revel: c. 21. wee read the twelve Apostles are the twelve foundations of the Cittie of God: you will not stick to say Christ is the only Mediator and reconciliator of Man with God, as S. Paul sayes; and yet Wisd. c. 4. Noe is called not only Reconciliator, but the Reconciliation betwixt God and man: And you must acknowledge these expressions are not desperat in the sense and meaning of those who vt∣tered them, tho in a gramatical sense they may be: so you must confess the expression of Saviouress, Redeemeress &c. are Catholic and Religious in the sense of the Church, which is not any other, but that the B. Virgin is the chief in∣strument after Christ for our Redemp∣tion: Do we call her Redeemeress? wee speake with S. Cyril, Hom. cont. Nest. By thee Holy Mother of God, all creatures that worshipped Idols have been converted to the knowledge of truth: praise be to thee, O Holy Trinitie; praise be to thee also o B.

Virgin. Do wee call her, Queen of Hea∣ven, glorie and happiness of mankind? wee speake with Greg. Nazian. in Trag. Chris. Mor. to. 2. pag. 298. You who are justly seated aboue all the celeslial Hierar∣chies, Queen, Mistress, and happiness of human kind. Do we say, Haile B. Virgin thou alone hast destroied all Heresies, wee have heard S. Cyril say as much: seek not then, D^r by your bug-bears of despe∣rat expressions, to beat vs from our De∣votion to her; we speake with the Pro∣phet David, we speake with the Ancient Fathers of the Church, we speake with God himself.

And it is but a peece of your accus∣tomed confidence to say, that in the first ages there was no mention of this worship of Saints: you have heard S. Cyril, and Greg. Nazian. hear yet S. Augustin cont. faustum, l. 20. c. 21. Faustus checks vs for honoring the memorie of our Martirs, saying we change God, into Idols: but we Christians do celebrat the me∣morie of our Martirs with religious solemni∣tie, for to stir vs vp to their imitation; for to partake of their merits, and for to be help'd by their prayers; but so as that we do not offer sacrifice to the Martirs; but to the God

of Martirs in memorie of them. S. Ambrose de viduis l. 4. speaking of S. Peter and S. Andrew's prayer for their Mother in law; What then they did for her, by reason of their kinred, now they can do for vs, and for all, we must pray to the Saints, we must pray to the Martirs, from whom we may ex∣pect protection and favor, having with vs the pledges of their bodies, they can pray for the remission of our sins; the Martirs of God are our Protectors, and spectators of our lyves and actions. S. Vict Utic. l. 3. de Persec. Vand. having praied to the Angels to represent vnto God the mi∣series of Africk, he addresses his Pra∣yers to the Saints. Pray, Patriarks from whose seed the Church Springs, which now is per∣secuted; pray, o Prophets who see the Church of whom you prophecied, now so distressed; in∣tercede, O Apostles for that Church which you establisht by your labours; and in particular O Peter, pray for that flock which your Mas∣ter recommended to you. Nay our D^r in the end of his chapter quotes the testimo∣nie of Origen contr. Cels. l. 5. and saies, that by Origen's words it appears, how Angels do assist vs, and pray for vs; the testimonie of Origen ends thus (it would be tedious to repeate it wholy)

when men pray vnto God, many thousands of the sacred powers pray together with them vncalled for; and our D^r very wittily picks vp that word, vncalled for, and argues thence, that the Angels and Saints do indeed pray for vs, but that we must not ask them to do so; because, they pray for vs vncalled for; if you call to them to pray for you, you'l spoile all, if you believe our D^r; but believe S. Gregorie rather, who aduises you to pray vnto, and call the Saints to assist you; speaking of the last Judg∣ment; In illo conventu causa nostra discuti∣tur, & tamen nos patronos modo non requiri∣mus, quos tunc defensores habeamus; adsunt defensores nostri Sancti Martires; rogari vo∣lunt, & quaerunt vt quaerantur: hos ergo ad∣jutores vestris orationibus quaerite; hos pro∣tectores vestri reatus invenite, quia ne pu∣nire peccatores debeat, rogari vult & ipse qui judicat. Hom. 32. in Evang. In that great meeting our cause will be examin'd and we•• do not now seeke Patrons, who then may defend vs: the Holy Martyrs are our Pro∣tectors; they desire to be intreated; they ask, that they may be asked; ask them therefore to assist your prayers; procure they intercede for your sins, sor he who is to be the judge of

sinners, desires he be praied not to punish them.

XX. CHAPTER.

PVRGATORIE AND INDVLGENCES.

I Thought I had don my D^r a kindness in asserting a Purgatorie in the other life, where he might be so happy as to soiourn a whyle; for he may go further, and speed worse. But he has met som what in my former discourse vpon this point that has nettl'd him; for he powers out such a deluge of injuries against me, that you would think he dipt his pen in Gall. No, hee'l not heare speake of a Purgatorie; he is resolu'd not to stop or stand in the road; if God will not haue Heauen's gates open for him at his departure from this life, hee'l take vp his lodging in hell. Let not I. S saies he, expect to put me of with stra∣tagems of schooleboyes, I must keep him to the point: the point is whether the testimonies of Scripture alledged by your Church be con∣vincing proofes of the existence of a Purga∣torie:

This indeed is to speake like a Master; but you'l see hee'l com of like a school boy: what is the Point D^r? whether the texts alleaged by our Church be convincing proofs of Purgatorie: I told you, how he would com of: what? we•• loudly profess that our Rule of faith is not Scripture alone; that tho there were no convincing text of Scripture, yet we are obliged to believe Purga∣torie vpon the testimonie of our infal∣lible Church interpreting Scripture; and yet you will tell vs the Point is, if our text alledged be convincing? No D^r, you have mistaken the point; The point is, why you forsook the Catholic Church and became a Protestant? you say, for our Errors, wherof Purgatorie is one; you vndertook in your Sermon to prove these Errors by plain and cleer Scripture: let me keep you to the point D^r; let vs see your cleer and plain texts denying Purgatorie: you whose Rule of faith is Scripture alone, which, you say, cleerely shewes our Errors; you are to be demanded cleer and plain texts to prove ther's no Purgato∣rie: but we are not to be challeng'd to produce convincing texts, because our

Rule of faith is not Scripture alone; but Scripture as interpreted by the Church; so its sufficient for vs to produce a text, which the Church interprets to import the existence of a Purgatorie.

You have quite sweru'd from the point D^r, the point was to shew by con∣vincing texts, that there is no other receptacle of soules in the other world but Heaven and Hell of the damned, as you say, grounded vpon that text, where the Tree falls there it shall remain: for I proved convincingly there is an other place, by S. Peter 1. Epist. 7. 19 spea∣king of Christ's descent into hell, he saies; Dead in flesh, and quickned in Spirit he descended to the Spirits which were detained in prison (there was a Prison therefore, where Spirits were detained) to preach vnto them (certainly it was not to the damn'd souls he went to preach) which he released, leading Captivity Captive, saies S. Paul. Ephes. 4. 8. (sure it was not the damn'd soules he released) why did not you answer to this text D^r? you clapt it vnder deck, because it was the Point, and it you resolved not to touch. The point also was, to examin if after the sin is forgiven, either by Confession,

or perfect Contrition; the sinner re∣mains still lyable to Gods justice for som temporal punishment; and in case he died before he discharged that debt, if there was not a prison in the other world, where the soule should be de∣tained vntill it paid to the last far∣thing; this I proved by the Gospel, and several passages of Scripture: why did not you answer? no it was a naughtie card that spoyl'd your game, you dropt it aside, and to divert your Reader, you make Heaven a Receptacle of soules actually polluted with sins, saying, that with their infamous sins they may enter thither; and bring no proof for this paradox, quite opposit to the text, and sentiments of all the Christian world, but a passage of Origen which you fouly misinterpret. The point was to examin the true sence of the Article of our Creed He descended into Hell; what Hell was that? the Grave as som of your fra∣ternitie absurdly interpret; or the Hell of the damned, as Calvin and many of your authentic Catechisms interpreted, saying he suffered the pains of the dam∣ned; or som part of Hell where soules were detained in prison expecting their

••edemption: you pretend to fob vs of with a tale of a tub, that som saie, that Article was not in the Creed in the first four hundred years; I will not dispute this point, because it matters not if it was or not; since that now it is, and owned by vs, as well as by you; then you would render my discourse insignificant, as if my argument were, He descended into Hell, therefore there is a Purgatorie, which consequence you say is ridicu∣lous; and so it is indeed; but it's of your own making, you shall not find it in J. S. His consequence goes thus; He descen∣ded into Hell, according our Creed, to preach to those who were in prison, according S. Peter; to release them; leading Captivi∣tie Captiue according S. Paul; therefore there is a Prison in Hell, where soules were in restraint; where Christ preached; whence he released captives: is this the Hell of the damned think you? and if it be a third place, distinct from Hea∣ven and Hell of the damned, what will become of your Doctrin, which denies Purgatorie, chiesly because say you the Tree must fall to either of those two places? This was the point you should have stuck vnto D^r and not to rattle at

J. S. and keep a bustle about the texts of Scripture which he quoted, and which the reader will cleerly see you have not answered, if he faces your replies with my discourse vpon them.

And tho, as I said, wee had no con∣vincing text for this, or our other Te∣nets; our Doctrin stands vnshaken vpon the testimonie of our Church, and vpon the vnanimous consent of precedent ages: wee are in possession of this Doc∣trin these 1600. yeares; our long posses∣sion sufficiently credits our Doctrin; you are Aggressors, you must bring evident proofs against vs; as Defen∣dants; its our duty but to answer to your allegations: But my D^r replies, that they are Defendants of their libertie; that we are Actors who inuade their li∣bertie and impose vpon them Doctrins which are not in the Word of God: yee Defendants, D^r and not Actors? who were born but yesterday, who pusht vs out of our Churchs and estates for our Doctrin: you say we inuade your liber∣tie can you have any libertie for not believing a Doctrin wherof the world was possessed for so many ages? It's you who inuade our Libertie, by for∣cing

vpon vs the belief of two Sacra∣ments, a figurative presence, &c. never yet knowen in the Orthodox Church, and we must stand for our Libertie, vn∣till you produce Gods Word to prove it: but the Ancient possession of our Doctrin is sufficient to maintain vs in it; and you can have no libertie for to deny it, vntill you prove the possession to be injust: you say our possession may by question'd, and if we do not prove our, Title our possession will be forfei∣ted: And if we should forfeit our Pos∣session, I would gladly know, what are Protestants the neerer to prove theirs to be the true Church or Doctrin? The Arrians and Pelagians will have as good a claim to it as you: But D^r we have allready proved our Title: we were once put in possession of the true Doc∣trin by Christ: this is our Title, and this you confess because you say we were once the true Church: now its your dutie to prove we fell from that Doc∣trin, and vntill you prove this evi∣dently our Possession is just, and our Doctrin must be believed.

You are much pleased with that Scho∣lastical subtilitie, that prayers for the

dead (which you allow to be commen∣dable) may be made for other ends, than for to draw Soules out of the fire of Purgatorie; because say you, that God forseeing the prayers which in future times will be made for persons decea∣sed, as he is infinitly liberal and good, may anticipat the reward of those pra∣yers, to the benefit of the Persons prayed for; by giuing them a good death; And our D^r according his old mode saies not a word of my answer to this discourse, which my Reader, if he reads my former Treatise, will find to be satisfactorie and solid; it would be tedious to repeate it: but let me ask one question of my Adversarie: does he se∣riously believe, that the Jews knew this school subtilitie? they praied for the dead, as I have proved, and certainly they knew not that quillet; but their practice was regulated by their beliefe, that soules depart from this life often times with sins, which must be expiated in the other world, which the very Text signifies vt a p••ccatis solvantur. Nor is it credible, that the practice of the Church for so many ages should be grounded on so weak a bottom, as that

subtilitie of som few Modern Divins, which probably may be fals. I do not see what this school subtility may be good for, but for to comfort our D^r^'^s cō∣science in a scruple which he ought to have; for ifhe believes ther's no Purga∣tory from whence souls may be released, then he is obliged in consciēce to restore all the monies he received why lst he li∣ved in the Catholic Church, for to pray for souls in Purgatory and their release from thence; for, his being of a perswa∣sion that there was a purgatorie when he received the monies, does not ex∣cuse him now from the obligation of restitution, since he is convinced ther's none; but I do fear our D^r will not be soon perswaded to restore that monie; probably he will tell vs the Persons he prayed for, got a good death by his Prayers.

But to strick the nail in the head, we will prove that Prayers for the dead have been practised by the Church and Ancient Fathers directly for this end, to draw Soules our of the sire of Purga∣torie: S. Gregorie in Psalm. 3. Poenit. Scio futurum esse &c. I know that after this life som will be cleansed by the fire of Purgatorie;

others will be eternally damn'd. And in Psal. 1. post mortem carnis alij aeternis de∣putantur suplicijs, alij ad vitam per ignem ••ranseunt purgationis: after the death of our body, som are deputed to eternal torments; som to life, do pass by the fire of purgatorie. Again S. Greg. Dial. l. 4. c. 39. for some smale faul••s wee must believe there is a pur∣ging fire, before the day of judgment: And after hauing reckoned some smale venial sins, he ads, quae cuncta etiam post mortcm gravant, si adhuc in hac vita positis, non fuerunt relaxata. All which are a loade vpon the soule euen after death, if they be not for∣given whyle wee are in this life. And again Dial. l. 4. c. 25. Sunt quorumdam Iustorum animae, quae à caelesti regno, quibusdam adhuc mansionibus differuntnr, in quo dilationis damno, quid aliud innuitur, nisi quod de per∣fecta justitia aliquid minus habuerunt: Some Soules there are of Iust men, which are kept out of heaven for a time in certain habit a∣tions; by which punishment of delay, what is signified, but that somwhat was wanting to them, to be persectly Iust. Theodoret in Schol. Graecis in 1. Corint. 3. Hunc Pur∣gatorium ignem &c. Wee believe this purging fire, wherin the soule departed will be tried and purged as Gold in the fournace. S. Greg.

Niss. Orat. pro mortuis: Vel in praesenti vita &c. Man must be cleansed in this life; or after his death must be purged by the fournace of purgatorie fire: S. August. in Psalm. 39. & l. 2. de Civit. Dei. c. 16. &c. 24. and in several other places speakes ex∣presly of the fire of Purgatorie after this life, through which the soules de∣parted must pass to be cleansed: hear him l. 1. de Gen. cont. Manich. c. 20. Qui forte agrum, &c. He that has not cul∣tivated his field in this world; in the other life must go either to the fire of Purgatorie, or to the fire of Hell. Now D^r remember that pag. 182. you grant with Origen, that Soules departing carrie with them som stains of sins and notes of infamy; you will have me believe with Origen, as you say, (but Origen in his words which you quote saies no such thing) that the Soules carrie these stains and notes of infamy with them to Heaven; expresly against the Word of God, who saies, no polluted thing shall enter thither: let the Reader judge if it be not more just, more reasonable, and more suitable to the opinion all Christians have of Gods aversion to the least sin; and of the pu∣ritie and cleanness of that Heavenly

Cittie, that I should believe, S. Aug. S. Gregor. Theodoret, and innumera∣ble other Fathers, which, to shun te∣diousness, I pass in silence, who affirm, that those soules which carrie with them stains and sins to the other life, must be cleansed and purged by a purging fire before they can enter into Heaven; than to believe Origen (tho he should say it, as he does not) who saies they will carrie those stains and sins with them thither.

From Purgatorie he coms to attack our Tenet of Indulgences; and that you may see with how little justice, I will declare briefly our Doctrin in this point: first it's an vnquestionable Veri∣tie, that any one, of the many penal works performed by Christ, was suffi∣cient for the Redemption of this, and many other worlds, one drop of his blood was of infinit merit; whence it appears, that by the great heape of satisfactorie and penal works, which he exercised in this world, he exhibited an infinitly greater satisfaction for our re∣demption than was needfull: also it's apparent, that the many penal works of the B. Virgin, of the Apostles and

innumerable other Saints, were a grea∣ter satisfaction for their sins and imper∣fections, than was needfull to expiat them and satisfie Gods justice; and this we learn by Iob's words c. 6 v. 2. V••inam appenderentur peccata mea quibus iram merui; & calamitas quam patior in statera, quasi arena maris haec gravior ap∣pareret. O! that my sins for which I deserved anger and the calamitie which I suffer, were weighed in a balance; as the sands of the Sea, this (my calamitie) would appear greater. Of these superabundant satis∣factions of Christ and Saints workes, wee say there is a treasure in the Church; for certainly those works, though need∣less for the Workers, are not without value and esteem in Gods sight; and are not fruitless to the Church; for that Article of our Creed, the Commu∣nion of Saints, imports that the faithfull do partake, and benefit by the good works one of an other; Particeps ego sum timentium te, & custodientium mandata tua, saies the Prophet David Ps. 118. I am a partaker of the works of those who feare you, and keep your Commandments; and so we must say, that those superabundant satisfactorie penal works of Christ and

his Saints, are a treasure of the Church, wherof the faithfull do partake: And thus we expound how they partake of it: Tho the sin, whether Mortal or Ve∣nial, be remitted by Confession, or Contrition; yet a temporal punishment remains due of the sinner to Gods Jus∣tice, which I proved by Scripture and reason in my former Treatise, for the Penitent must not only satisfie the pen∣nance enjoyned by the Confessor, but we are exhorted to other penal works and pennances for to satisfie for our sins: and therefore by the Ancient Ca∣nons of the Church, great and severe penances were imposed, according the qualitie of the sin; som of seaven years pennance; others of more; others of less: these penal works the Penitents must perform; or som other must per∣form them for him, if he be not in a capacitie to do it; because Gods justice must be satisfied, who as he mercifully remits the eternal pains due for our sins, by virtue of the Sacraments, so he requires a temporal punishment for to satisfie his justice: This satisfaction may be made either by the Penitent himself, by exercising as much penal

works in this life, or suffering in Pur∣gatorie, as much as is due of him for to satisfie Gods justice; Or by offering to God, and applying to that Penitent, as much of the treasure of Christ, and Saints satisfaction and penal works as he owes.

This then wee call Indulgence, A remisson of the temporal pains due of man to God's justice, through the merits and satisfac∣tions of Christ and his Saints applied to him. Which Indulgence and application of those merits and satisfaction, wee say is in the power of the Pope; for those superabundant satisfactions and penal works of Christ and his Saints, being a treasure of the Church, and appliable to the vse and benefit of the faithfull, as we have discoursed; to whom should the distribution, of that treasure be∣long, but to the Prince, Chief Stee∣ward, and Governor of the Church; to him to whom the keyes were given to open and lock, to bind and unbind? Nor are these Indulgences appliable only to the living, but also to the Soules departed; for, as when one is in prison for a debt, for to get out, and the creditor to be indemnified, the

Prisoner must pay the debt out of his own purse, or som one must pay it for him: so when a soule departs this life, either with Venial sins only, or without having don pennance sufficient for the mortal sins forgiven him by the Sacra∣ment; he must pay to Gods justice the temporal Punishment which he ows, and this is don either by Satispassion suffering the pains of Purgatorie for a certain time; or by the suffrages and penal works of the Living which they apply to him; or by Indulgence, applying from the treasure of the Church, that's of the superabundant Satisfaction of Christ and his Saints, as much as will answer to the pains which they are to suffer there.

It's certain, the Pope must have a cause, and as som say proportionable to the quantity of the Indulgence he grants; for want of which, the grant would be null; which gives occasion to our Adversaries to snarle, as our D^r Sall does, against the profusness of the Pope, for granting Plenary Indulgen∣ces for euery triflle, as they say: but in this they speake immodestly, and temerariously; first because it's an in∣tolerable

arrogance in Subjects to ex∣postulat against their Prince, and ac∣cuse him of prodigality, when he ex∣pends the treasure of the kingdom to the advantage of his Subjects, because forsooth they do not cōceive nor know, whether the Princes design be advan∣tagious or not: its the Dutie of a sub∣ject to believe the king has just reasons to do what he does, if the contrary does not evidently appear: so its our dutie to believe the Pope has a just cause for granting Indulgences, when he grants them; for tho the motive he has, may seem to you or to me to be but smale and insufficient; yet it may be in itself weightie and great: and at least we are in charitie obliged to believe, that he thinks the cause he has, is just and proportionable to his grant; and that his intention is not, said Indul∣gence should be valuable further than as the causes deserves it.

Our D^rs reflexion, that these grants are a powerfull means to facilitat sins, is vulgar, and answered in my former Treatise, where I shewed how the Pro∣testant Principles do much more faci∣litat them, wheras they require no

more for to be cleans'd of them, but a Lord have mercy vpon me betwixt the sin∣ner and God; when to the contrary for a good Confession, so many things are required by vs; and for obtaining In∣dulgences, besides Confession and Com∣munion; alms, prayers, and other pious exercises: all the D^r has besids in his discourse of Indulgences, is but rallery, and sport vpon our Divisions of Indul∣gences, and a Bull of Indulgences, granted by Clement the X. which he has translated into English, lykely to oblige the Coffie house Master, with a subject of merriment for his Customers: and it may be feared, that in time our D^r may give his profane Reader more sport; for if, as Ochinus, of a Capuchin Fryar became a Reformed, and from the Reformation pass'd to be a Jew, and several other revolted Priests and Fryars, of Calvinists, became Turks and Jews; if I say our D^r should chance, as he renounced the Catholic faith, to renounce also Protestancy for Paga∣nism or Judaism, he will as easilie ieer the practices and Doctrin of Chris∣tianity, as now he does them of Po∣pery.

XXI. CHAPTER.

A BRIEF SVRVEY OF HIS FOVR LAST Chapters.

IN his 31. Chap. of prayers in an vn∣knowen language, he points his ar∣rows so vnfixedly, that we•• know not what he would be at; somtimes he would have it to be absolutly needfull, the Lyturgie should be in a language vn∣derstood by the people; least they may answer Amen to a knave, who would vtter blasphemies: and not a sillable does he answer to my reply, that if the Lyturgie must be in a language vnder∣stood by the Auditory; then the Dutch, and French, who do not vnderstand Eng∣lish, must not go to the Protestant Ly∣turgie; and the Deaf, and such as are at so great a distance from the Minister, as not to hear him, must quit the Con∣gregation; nay if the Minister does not vnderstand the psalms, through the in∣tricatness of their Phrases (and but few Ministers do) he must return home and

som of the neighbours, more learned than he, must officiat for him.

Somtimes he pretends only a greater advantage and Spiritual comfort of the flock, for the increase of devotion in praying in a knowen language; but the way for to prove this, would be to con∣vince the world, that Protestants are more devout than Roman Catholics; and I thank God the world is convinced of the contrary: ther's nothing more sure, than that the frequent vse of prayers, is a mark and sign of devotion in praying; ther's none more assiduous in praying, than he who feels spiritual comfort, and consolation in them; he who finds but tepidity and coolness, praies but seldom: now, it's visible, our Catholic Church praies a hundred fold more than yours: you meet in your Churchs but vpon Sundaies, and som other od daies in the year; the other daies of the week, your Churchs are shut vp; or if open, they serve but for a walking place, or for boyes to plaie at Ball: and if in som few Citties, a few Churchs are open, (and they are but very few) for Wednesday and friday prayers, your congregations are so thin,

that ther's hardly any to answer Amen to the Minister; Our Congregations are numerous every day in the week, our Churchs very many constantly open, frequently assisted, not onely by a mul∣titude of the Clergy, especially in the Cathedral Churchs, and Convents of Fryars and Nuns, morning and Eve∣ning, and at midnight singing Gods prayses; but by a numerous multitude of our Layety: is not the Pomp and Majestie of Divin service in our Church, our frequent Processions, our many holy daies, a mark that wee pray more frequently than you? and a frequent custom of praying, being a visible mark of devotion, as I have said; its Visible our Church and flock has more devo∣tion in Latin, than yours in English.

I proved prayers in any language to be lawfull in itself; because the intent of nature when wee speake, is that the hearer may vnderstand vs; when wee pray, God is our Hearer, and not the congregation; its to him wee speake; and wheras he vnderstands all lan∣guages, wee may pray in any: Our D^r fancies, that this argument proves directly against me; because, saies he,

the Lyturgy is an exchange of speech betwixt God and his people; he speakes to them in the Epistle, Ghospel and psalms; and the people are the Hearers; they speake to God in prayers, and thanks giving: Gods speech therefore must be in a language vnderstood by the peo∣ple who are the Hearers: But S^r tho the Ghospel, Epistles, and psalms be Gods speech to the people, I hope you will not say, its a prayer of God to the peo∣ple; to what purpose then do you bring this instance? for the question now de∣bated is, If Prayers must be in a knowen language: But saies he, tho it be not a Prayer of God to the people, its an exhortation of his, and I confess, with S. Paul, that the exhortations to the people must be in a language knowen to them because they are the hearers: Neither in this do you hit right D^r; God is not the immediat instructor of the people; he instructs and exhorts vs by the Ministers and Pastors of the Church; the Ghospell therefore, Epistle, lessons, and psalms in the Lyturgie, are not properly Gods exhortation to the Con∣gregation, but a subject and matter for the Pastor or Minister for an exhorta∣tion to the people; and for to prove

this its enough, that besides the Ly∣turgy, you have in your Churchs, Ser∣mons and exhortations when you meet on the Sabaoth day; its needless there∣fore the Epistle, Gospel, lessons, and Psalms be in a knowen language, be∣cause they are not intended in the Ly∣turgy for an immediat exhortation to the people; but for a Subject or argu∣ment for the Minister to exhort vpon: its evident they are a part of the Lytur∣gy, which is a prayer of the people to God; the peoples prayer as wee proved may be in any language; because God, who is the Hearer, vnderstands any: therefore the Epistle, Ghospel, lessons and psalms may be in any language the Church pleases. And it is presumption in any privat Person, as Luther and Sall, or in any particular Province or Con∣gregation, to alter the language pres∣cribed by the Church vnder pretence of a spiritual advantage or increase of devotion; the Church, and not any privat Person or Gongregation, being the guide and Mistress which God has appointed, as we have proved, for to teach vs, what rites, ceremonies and manner of Worship we are to serve

him with: but our D^r saies, its an absurd thing, that J. S. should pretend wee should submit our judgments in this to the Church, our present business, quoth he, being to check the abuses of the Church: and just so will the Presbiterians and Quakers answer, its a ridiculous thing in the Protestants to ask them to con∣form themselves with the Church of England, because their business is, to check the abuses of that Church.

In his 32. Chap. he pretends to prove its cruelty to forbid our common peo∣ple from reading Scripture, and ma∣gnifies the happiness his flock reapes from the contrary practice; and saies not a word to this purpose, but what I refuted in my former Treatise: but alas! the lamentable effects of this arbitrary reading and interpretation of Scrip∣ture, are but too visible; and he might have better called it the sparke of Hell fire, which kindled and conser∣ves the combustions of our Church and state, than our Obedience to the Pope: his vulgar reproach of our Divisions and distinctions of Rites and Ceremo∣nies, among Dominicans, Franciscans, and Jesuits, is not worth the taking

notice of; it was want of matter for to fill his Chapter made him stoop to so trivial an instance.

His attempt in his 33. chapt. against the Immaculat Conception of the B. Virgin, is no more, than what he said in his Sermon and I refuted in my former Treatise: The words of S. Augustin quo∣ted by me to prove the obligation of confessing, not only every sin wee are guiltie of, but the circumstances of time, place, and qualitie of the Per∣sons, with whom wee commit them, starrles him: he will not believe I have the least tincture of a Divin, or that I am acquainted, or was ever bred among learned men of the Roman Church; and very resolutly saies, that our Di∣vins teach, its not the duty of a peni∣tent to confess the circumstances of time, place and quality of the persons, wherin and wher with the sin was com∣mitted: and no man of judgment will ever ask a better proof for to believe, that our Doctor never was a Professor of Moral Divinity, nor that he ever read any of their works, or if he did, that he had not the memorie of a Chick to retain what he read: for he might have

met in Alexan. 3. p. q. 32. art 2. Anton. 2. p. tit. 9. c. 7. Rosel. Verbo Confessio. n. 7. and in several other ancient Authors, that a sin committed in the Sabaoth day, takes a particular malice against the Virtue of Religion, from the circum∣stance of the time: because its a profa∣nation of a day consecrated to the Worship of God; and ought to be spe∣cified in Confession: this Doctrin is now absolet: but as to the circumstances of the place and qualitie of the Persons, it has been allwaies, and is still the Doctrin of all Divins, that there is an obligation of Confessing them; It's theft to steale out of a Merchants shop; but its a sacriledge to steale out of a Church; nor will you satisfie the dutie of a Penitent by saying you stole; if you do not mention that you stole out of a Church. Its Murther to kill, but if you kill a Priest, its a sacriledge, and you must express it in your Con∣fession: but I do not wonder our D^r should not minch, nor chaw these dis∣tinctions of sins and circumstances; since he is becom of the Church of England, acustomed for so many years, to plunge its hands in the blood of the Clergy,

and ryfle Altars and Churchs, without any distinction of Persons, or pla∣ces.

His 34. Chapt. is a Spring tide of in∣juries which in smale showers he povred out against me in every chapter of his book; to which my answer will be sy∣lence, and that patience to which Chris∣tians are obliged by the example of him who being brought as a sheep to the slaughter, was dumb before his shearers and opened not his mouth. He flatters himself with the opinion of som Divins of his Church, who say, the Vows he made of Povertie, Obedience, and Chas∣titie in the Roman Church, nor the Precepts of that Church do not oblige him now, since he is a Protestant; and the same he saies pag. 181. against J. E. in his first part against N. N. and for this he gives two reasons; first he saies, he has demonstrated evidently he cannot keep those Vows and Precepts of the Church of Rome, without infringing them of God, because they are opposit: But in the first Chapter of this Treatise I have shewen this to be fals; for there is no Divin Precept commanding vs to have a good Parish to have Rents,

honors and dignities: since therefore you have made a solemn vow of having no Rents, no Honors, no Parish, but to liue in pouertie; how can you say this vow does not oblige you? with what Diuin precept is the complyance of this vow inconsistent? allow the Pre∣cept of the Church of hearing Mass does not oblige you, because in it we adore the Host; allow also your vow of Chastitie, is not consistent with S. Paul's counsel of marrying, rather than to burn; because you may find by expe∣rience you cannot contain; but against what Divin precept or counsel is it, to say your Divin Office, Matins and Laudes euery day? why do not you obey this Precept of the Church? with what Divin Precept is the fast of lent, the fast of fridaies and Saturdaies incon∣sistent? why do not you observe these Precepts of the Church? particularly that your own Protestant Common Prayer book exhorts you to these fasts.

His second reason, because those vows he made, and his Obedience to those Precepts, were grounded vpon a blind Obedience to the Pope of Rome,

including a disobedience to Gods laws; and consequently the vows are Null: But I have showen his vows, and those Precepts include no disobedience to God's law: and I will shew, tho he made those vows vnder the Pope, yet now, forsaking the Pope, he must stick to the vows: for I ask you D^r, are not you still bound to the Duties of a Priest (whateuer that duty be) tho it be vn∣der the Popes Obedience you received your Priest hood? are not you, I say, still a Priest? can you disown your ca∣racter, because you receiued it vnder the Pope? and why can you disown your other obligations contracted vn∣der the Pope; if you cannot show they are inconsistent with Gods Laws? you were vnder the Obedience of the Pope, it's true, when you made a vow of Pouertie, Chastitie and Obedience; but it's not the Pope commanded you to make them; it was a free voluntarie act of your own, and therefore whe∣ther you liue vnder the Popes Obe∣dience or not, you remain still obliged, as you remain still a Priest and with the obligations of a Priest.

Remember that Passage of Ananias

and Saphira Act. 5. they sold their lands, they sacrificed the price of it at the Apostles feet to God; it was by no Command of S. Peter; it was a volun∣tarie free action of their own; this oblation (whether it vas a vow of pouertie or not) obliged them in con∣science, and they transgressed against the holy Ghost, by detaining a part of that which they had sacrific'd to God: whether Peter, vnder whom they liued when they made this oblation, was Pope or not; supream h••ad or not of the Church; the sacrifice and oblation they made, obliged them in conscience; for it was a voluntarie free action of their own; therefore they sinn'd in transgres∣sing against it: this case is as like yours, as you can paint one: whether the Pope, under whom you liued, when you made a solemn vow of pouertie, of chastitie and obedience, a solemn vow of neuer admitting any dignitie or ho∣nor in the Church; whether I say, the Pope was supream head of the Church or not; that excuses you not; you made that sacrifice of your self to God, you made those vows, not by con∣straint or command of the Pope; it was

your own voluntarie free action; it obliges you still, let the Pope be what he wilI: listen now D^r to S. Gregorie l. 1. Epistol. 33. writing to Venantius an Apostat, who forsook his Convent and religious life to become Chancellor of Italie: Ananias pecunias Deo vouerat, quas post, diabolica fraude victus, substraxit; sed qua morte mulctatus est, s••is; si ergo ille mortis periculo dignus fuit, qui ••os quos de∣derat nummos Deo abstulit; considera quanio periculo in divino judicio dignus eris, qui non nummos, sed teipsum Deo omnipotenti, cui sub Monachali habitu te devoveras substra∣xisti? consider a judicium Dei, quid merea∣tur, qui semetipsum Deo vovit, continuoque mundi desiderijs irretitus, mentitus est quod vovit. Ananias sacrific'd his monie to God, which he afterward, ouercom by Satans insti∣gation, stole from God; but you know with what death he was punished; and if he, who took from God the monies he sacrificed vnto him, deserved such a death, in what a dan∣gerous condition will you be before the tribu∣nal of God; who hast withdrawen from God, not your monies, but yourself, after you had consecrated yourself vnto him in a Monasti∣cal life? consider Gods judgment: what he deserves, who has consecrated himself to God,

and ensnared by worldly desires, h••s disa vowed what he h••s vowed. Change but Sall for Venantius and Chancellor of Italie, for Parson of Swords; and S. Gregories words come pat to our D^r.

THE CONCLVSION.

DOctor had you begun the carrier you are now in, fiftie years agon, it would be still criminal in you, but less admired by the world; but now in your crawling years, to abandon yourself to your liberty, when you cannot enjoy it but for so short a time; to indulge your passiōs in the Autumn of your daies, which you curb'd in the Spring of your life; to prostitute yourself to transito∣rie pleasures, when you stand with one foot in the grave, at the brim of eter∣nitie; to faune at the world in such an age, when men are despised by the world; neuer could Satan have begui∣led you in a worse time, nor you have changed your religion to less of world∣lie advantage. Had you intended in this change of Religion to better your

life and secure your saluation, as you pretend to perswade vs, you might answer, that they who came to the Vyneyard at the eleaventh houre, were as well rewarded, as they who entred at the third houre; but Alas? you have too much of reason for to believe you could better yourself; and too much of judgment for to think any man can be∣lieve this was your aim: I appeale to the know ledge of any impartial man; if there be any among you of less edi∣fication, of less conscience and honor, than those, who of Priests and Fryars, become Protestants; and if they be∣come not more debauch and riotous li∣bertins, than formerly they were. What man of them can you produce, who by his exchange of religion became more devout, more reformed in his life, and more given to Meditations, prayers, and other religious exercises, and austerities of life than before? and you will tell vs, it's to reform your life, and secure your salvation you have quitted your religious Order, and become a Protestant?

You exhort me to consider the mise∣rable condition wee are in, dazl'd with

the splendor of the Roman Grandeur, and baited with the strong allurements of it, de∣ceiving the world with colours of Sanctity, when ambition and avarice is the Primum Mobile of all our actions, and the Soule which animates all our motions. I pray S^r, what share of this Grandeur and worldly allure∣ments had you, when you were of your former Profession? or have the Car∣tusians, Capuchins, and other religious orders of both sexes now? was it to encrease the worldly Pomp of the Italian court; was it ambition or ava∣rice that moued so many Noble men and women of rich estates, to quit their plentifull life, their honors and digni∣ties, their numerous retinue of Ser∣vants, sacrific'd all at the feet of Christ's Cross, and consecrated them∣selves to a religious Cell, to a life of continual mortification, of Disciplins, hair-cloths, fasting, assiduous duties of a Quyre, and begging their food from doore to doore? had they left their own estates and gon to Rome to be Popes or Cardinals, you might sus∣pect the puritie of their intentions; but to say it was Ambition, Avarice, and allurements of worldly pleasures car∣ried

them to be Carthusians, Capu∣chins, Nuns, &c. is to make them worse than mad men: I pray was it ambition that moved you when you made a vow neuer to pretend or accept any Digni∣tie? or may not wee judge it was ambi∣tion moved you to infringe that vow, and pretend and have the Dignity of Dean of S. Patrick's Church (if you be Dean, as they say) was it avarice that moved you, when you made a solemn vow of pouertie, and never to have any Rents or revenues? or was it not ava∣rice that moved you to break this vow, and accept a good Parish and rents as they say you have?

I pray tell ingenuously, what worldly allurements had you to continue in the Profession you were of for so many years in Ireland? you may say perhaps, you had great allurements in spain to be of that profession; the great credit, and impolyments of honor, you say you had, might have been an allure∣ment vnto you; but what allurements had you for to continue in that pro∣fession in Ireland for so many years? your allurements was pouertie, having no other subsistance but the charitie

and alms of the people; no other exer∣cise of your great (as you imagined) Talents, but to preach somtimes and teach the Catechism, commonly to poore people; wandring vp and down to friends houses, to pick vp a liuelyhood; somtimes wellcom, and somtimes not; to fare at other mens tables, som∣times ill, and somtimes well; somti∣mes decently clad and somtimes your pouertie not affording you to be so: your allurements besids this, was to say your Breviary dayly for about an hours time; an hours meditation or mental prayer euery morning; besids other devotions which you were obliged by your Rules to perform; to fast in Lent, Fridaies and Saturdaies, and glad to hit somtimes on bread and milk or butter; other corporal austerities, if you satisfied your dutie; continual feare of imprisonment or banishment; an abnegation of your own Will to the conduct of your Superiors command against your inclinations; these were the allurements you had to be of that Religion; see whether ambition or ava∣rice could have a share in the choice of such a life and Religion: you tell me

you will never again return to that Re∣ligion; that you will continue in Protes∣tancy; and truly if nothing but Ambi∣tion, Avarice and worldly allurements gouern you actions, your are far better where you are, and will do very ill to return where you were; the allurements are strong for your continuance in Pro∣testancie; you have a good Parish with good rents, and Judas betrayed his Master for a smaler interest; insteed of milk and eggs on fasting dayes, you have a good peece of beef and better cheer, and are not beholding to your neighbours, (if you please) for you may have a table of your own; you have neither Breviary, nor beads nor meditation nor Mass to trouble your rest, but may sleep eat and drink at will and pleasure, and insteed of an audi∣torie of poore people, you can preach in Christ Church, and have access to great ones: these indeed are strong (but earthly) allurements to keep you in Protestancy, and bid a figg for Po∣pery.

But I beseech you once more, good D^r, reflect if this be the life you are obliged by your Vows to lead? con∣sider

if by your three solemn Vows, of pouertie, you have not sacrificed your riches to God, protesting you would neuer have any; if by your vow of Obedience you have not sacrific'd your Will to God, giving it wholy to the conduct of your Superior; if by the Vow of Chastitie you have not con∣secrated your body to God denying it worldly pleasures; and consider, how your present life is a violation of all these three Vows; of pouertie by the Parish and rents you enioy and are dis∣posed to receive more if you can get it; of Obedience, by substracting your self from your Superiors conduct, and living at your will; of Chastitie, if not by marrying, by holding marriage is lawfull for you: and after these Con∣siderations, listen to S. Basil. in Regul. Interrog. 14. Si postquam intra reliquorum Fratrum Societatem admissus est, factam à se jam professionem resciderit, is perinde aspici debet, vt qui in Deum peccaverit, cui so∣lemni se voto obligavit: etenim qui semel seipsum Deo devouit; is, si ad aliud vitae genus transierit, sacrilegij se crimine obstrin∣xit, vtpote qui seipsum Deo, cui se consecra∣verat subterfuratus est. He who after being

received into the communitie of the rest of the Brethren, shall rescind the profession he has made, is to be looked vpon as a trans∣gressor against God, to whom he has obliged himself by Vow: for he who has consecrated himself to God, if after, he should pass into an other Kind of life; he is guil••ie of sacri∣ledge, as having stoln from God, what he had consecrated vnto him. O! D^r should not your heart tremble at these words? you have rescinded the profession you made; you have consecrated your self to God, and have forsaken that, and past to an other kind of life; that Pa∣rish, those Rents, that libertie, that pleasure you enioy are stolen, and robb'd from God to whom you conse∣crated them by solemn Vows; restore them again o Doctor returning to that pouertie, Obedience and Chastitie which you Vowed; if, as a fraile man, you fell; arrise as a Christian, Huma∣num est cadere, Christianum resipiscere, Dia∣bolicum perseverare; Hell was not created for sin if repented, but for obstinacy in our transgression; nor was Heaven created for the innocent only; but for the penitent sinner.

Lift vp your eyes to the top of a

Pillar thirtie foot heigh; there you shall see that Miracle of Christian aus∣teritie Simon Stellites, fasting without any manner of food 28 Lents in imi∣tation of Christ; having no shelter against the storms of Winter, or heat of Summer, but his constancy; his body couered with a rude haire-cloth, his bed but the bare top of the Pillar, and his flesh battered dayly with disciplins to bloodshed: look vpon Antonie the Abbot, shut vp in a caue for the space of twentie years; feeding on bread and water; sleeping on the bare ground; clad with beast's Skins, and searching all occasions of mortifieing his flesh: Consider S. Benedict and S. Francis, the one wallowing himself in thornie bushes, the other in heapes of snow for to ouercom impure thoughts, which assaulted them: look on S. Francis Xaverius in the hospital, washing the Vlcers and Soares of the Sick, and drinking the water wherwith he had washed them; to check the loathsom∣ness which his body conceiued at that filthred. Consider S. Louis Gonzaga Surrounded in Court with many allu∣rements of impuritie; and for to pre∣serve

his soule vnspotted, how he girded his sydes with wheels of spurs to curb his flesh; To be brief look into the Convents of both Sexes, their Cells ring with the Eccho of their disciplins; their beds afford more pain than ease to their tyred bodies; their food serves for to liue, to suffer more; their life is a continued distribution of the day into seueral houres of spiritual exercises: is it Avarice, is it Ambi∣tion, is it allurements of worldlie plea∣sures, is it for to encrease the Roman splendor and Grandeur think you that men liue so in the Catholic Religion; as if it had been the Italian Policy that prescribed that sort of life, and not Jesus Christ: is not this retirement from the world; this abdication of wordlie Pomp and vanitie; this humiliation and renunciation of honors, estates and riches; this austeritie of life, and mortification of our passions recom∣mended to vs in the Ghospell, preached by S. Paul, practis'd by David, the great Baptist, the Apostles and the eminent Saints of Christianity?

Reade what the Ghospel relater of the course fare, of the grosse attyre, of the

great retirement of S. John Baptist; Omni naturae necessitate superata (saies Chrysost. in cap. 11. Math. Hom. 38.) mirabile quoddam iter peregit: semper in Hymnis, semper in or ationibus fuit; nulli hominum, antequam ad Bap∣tizandum accederet, sed soli Deo sua semper offerebat colloquia: non lacte nutri∣tus: non lecto susceptus, non tecto, non alia re humana vsus est. Having ouercom all the want and exigencies of Nature, he walked in a most admirable course of life: he lived al∣waies in Hymns and prayers (is not this like the Quyres of our Churchs and reli∣gious orders)? he had no conversation with men, but all with God alone, (is not this the religious retirement of our Monks and Nuns?) He did not feed on Milk (nor wine or strong liquor, but wild Honnie and Locusts) nor did he sleep on a bed, nor dwelled vnder any roof, nor did vse, what men commonly vse. (Is not this the auste∣ritie of life, the mortifications and pen∣nances of our Church, which you call desperat and indiscreet austerities des∣tructive to Body and Soule?) Read the Haire-cloths of David, his eating of ashes with his bread, his fasting, his rysing at midnight to sing psalms, and

the like Austerities commended by Scripture in several others; and let the Impartial Reader judge, if the Te∣nor of life professed by our Religious Orders, if the corporal mortifications and austerities, of Disciplins, of haire∣cloths, of our Quyres, of sleeping on the bare ground, of course attires, of poore and scant fare, practised fre∣quently in our Church by all ages and sexes, be not more conformable to what Scripture praises, to what Christ and his Apostles recommended, to what the Saints of the new and old Tes∣tament practis'd; than the Tenor of life, Doctrin, and practice of the Protestant Church.

Summon now your reason D^r, and ask your own conscience, if you be not guiltie of as many sins and imperfec∣tions, as those Saints; and conclude if they did so much to expiat their sins, what you ought to do? ask if you be not as prone to temptations, and as weake to resist them as they were; and if they, to prevent temptations, did so much; how com you to forsake that profession wherin you might and were obliged to imitat them? ask, if you

have a greater claim to heaven, than they had? and resolve for to purchase heaven, to do more, and return to your devoir; since that they, for to purchase it have don so much? or conclude, that Christ, when he said the kingdom of heaven suffers force, and the violent shall carrie it, he spoke to them, and not to you: their lot is eternal consolation in the other life, because heer they mourned and wept in pennance: their lot is everlasting fullsomness, because heer they suffered hunger and thirst: their Soules are now in a height of glorie, because their Bodies were heer in the depth of afflic∣tion; We may parallell the Body and Soule to two scales; the one scale will never ryse, if the other does not fall; if this mounts, the other will sink: that the soule may rise, the Body must fall; if the Body be kept high, the soule will fall low; witness the soule of the Rich Glutton burning in the depth of hell; epulabatur quotidie splendide; his body was kept high; the sequele was, sepul••us est in inferno: his soule was buried in hell: see D^r in what degree your body was kept, by the state of religious life

you professed; you for sooke that state; you have raised your Body to a great hight; feare, least it may be said of you som day, sepultus est in inferno.

For Man's life is often termed in holy Writ, a Dream; and it is remarkable, that after a merry pleasant dream, we awake with sorrow and sadness; but after a heavy sad dream we awake with ioy and content: satius est amara somniare quam dulcia, saies Petrarchus, amari enim somnij exitus dulcis est, & dulcis amarus? Its better have a sad bitter dream, than a sweet pleasant one; because the sequele of a sweet dream is bitter; of a bitter one, is sweetness: You dream that your Spouse is trea∣cherously snatcht out of your bed, and murthered before your face; you cry out, Murther; you awake, but with ioy, that all was but a dream; you dream you have hit on a great purse of Gold for to relieve your wants; you rejoyce; you awake, but with sorrow, that your content was but a dream: Jo∣seph dreamed the Sun, Moon, and Stars, prostrated at his feet, did adore him; he awakes from this dreamed felicity, and meets a check from his Father, per∣secution from his brethren, slavery

from the Madianits, and imprisonment from Putiphar; what a heape of sorrow followed his pleasant dream. Our life is but a dream, D^r, from which wee will awake in the other world by death; we will awak to sorrow or content, ac∣cording the qualitie of our dream: see what life you have forsaken, which by your profession you ought to have lead; a life of religious povertie, li∣ving by charitie and alms, and often wanting; of religious Obedience and Chastitie; a life of pennance and auste∣ritie, of fasting, prayers, persecutions, afflictions, this was a sad dream from which, if you had continued it, you might have expected to awake in the other life with ioy: see what life you lead in the Protestant Church? it's a merry pleasant dream, plenty of mony; liberty without any check, good attire, well lodged, no obligation of fasting, of other mortifications, of a Breviary; a iouial dream; but feare that you may awake in the other life to eternal grief and sorrow, and you may say with the Debauched mentioned Sap. 5 What has the pride of our life auailed vs, or the abun∣dance of our riches profited vs; do not

hazard eternitie for a time, and a real felicitie for a dreamed happiness.

FINIS.