The novelty of the modern Romish religion set forth in an answer to three queries propounded by N.G., priest, with a rejoynder to his reply, and a reply to an answer made to three queries propounded unto him : together with animadversions upon some reflexions made by an unknown author ... / written by S.F., M.A. and vicar of Mitton in Craven.

De ore tuo te Judico.

Luk. 19. 22.

Proofs pretended to be taken out of St. Gregory, examined and shewed to be pittifully wrested if not flalsly quoted.

I Had purposed neither to have given my self or the Reader any further trouble, but that in his rejoynder I found him saying, that to grant that our Religion is the same with Austines, is the same with the Antient Brittans, and theirs the same with that which was first brought into England, is in effect to say, that our Religion is the same that was taught by Christ and his Apostles, and consequently to grant ours to be the true Religi∣on, and to renounce the Protestants as false, so that a Protestant as a Protestant (he says) cannot grant us this, and yet a little before, in his an∣swer to the queries, he is so liberal, that he cares not how much of antiquity he grants us, because he professes that it is of no advantage, nor shall it signifie any more, that our Religion is the same with St. Austin, and the Brittans, than if a Jew, or a Turk pleaded the antiquity of theirs, which he says, they may do with as much Probability. This put me also in mind of his former answer to the first query, which was Negative, presuming that St. Austines Religion was the same with that which his Master Pope Gregory professed, from which he boldly undertakes to prove evidently out of St. Gregory's own words, that our Reli∣gion differs in all these particulars; the Canon of the Scripture, the real Presence, the private Mass, Communion in both kinds, merit of good Works, veneration of Images and the Popes Supremacy;

his Doctrine in these (as he says) being the same that is maintained by the Church of England, as it is evident; so that now you see him in a mani∣fest contradiction of himself, making that which before was of so little value and advantage, to be now the sum of the whole controversy, nay where∣as before he had all along treated St. Austin so ir∣reverently, as to make him guilty of the Massa∣cre of the Brittains, and of many other misde∣meanors, yet now on the contrary side the main business is to find out what his Religion was, it be∣ing become even the Rule of his beliefe, and that which the Protestant Religion must stand or fall by.

I must confess I did not a little wonder at this unexpected change, but much more at his great undertakings; but because it is one thing to un∣dertake, and another to perform, this being ac∣knowledged to be of so great concern, I could not let it pass unexamined, because here at length I thought I had something more certain to build upon, but must needs see how well he had acquit∣ted himself of his own imposed task, and made it evidently appear that St. Gregory, and conse∣quently St. Austin did not profess the Catholick Religion, but that of the Church of England. Let us therefore now examine whether or no, he has done it with as much solidity and truth, as he says he had done it with ease.

Against the Canon of the Scripture, he cites St. Gregory speaking thus, Non inordinate agimus, si ex libris licet eon Canonis sed tamen ad edificatio∣nem editis testimonium proferamus; which in plain English signifies no more, then that it is not amiss sometimes to bring a Testimony or proof out of

the books, though they be not Canonical, yet if they be put forth for edification.

Although I have diligently sought for this place in St. Gregory, yet I cannot find any such thing in him, nor so much as such an Article, but suppo∣sing the truth of this quotation, how doth the op∣ponent make it evident that St. Grogory speaks here of the first and second book of Machabees, rather then of the third and fourth, which neither the Catholick Church holds to be Canonical? he tells you out of Canus speaking of St. Gregory thus, * Machabeorum libros ab ecclesia recipi Gregorio li∣cuit aliquando disputare, Gregory was pleased for a time to dispute, whether the book of Machabees were received by the Churchor no? he did well to put neither of these Texts into English, since they make so little for his purpose, for first Canus like∣wise speaks only in general of them, withour par∣ticularly mentioning either one or other, and be∣sides he says only, that St. Gregory was pleased to hold them as disputable, not that he did reject and condemn them all as Apocriphal, as the Church of England absolutely doth.

But to shew him all the Favour that may be, let us suppose that S. Gregory does here speak of all the Books of the Machabees, not collectively taken; for in that acception it would still make more against him, but distributively, as well of the first and second, as of third and fourth, it can be only inserred from thence, that they were not declared to be Canonical in his time, but it doth not prove that they were then either rejected as Apocryphal, or that they are not since decla∣red* 1.1

to be, or are not truly Canonical, as some other parts of Scripture have likewise been, which nevertheless the Church of England holdeth now to be Canonical, although former∣ly they were doubted of, and were not recei∣ved as Divine Scripture, as the Epistle of S. James, the second of S. Peter, the second and third of S. John, and S. Jude's Epistle; of all which * 1.2 Euseb. and † 1.3 S. Jerom testifie, that some Learned Fathers doubted sometimes whether they were Canonical or not, till the 3. General Council of Carthage under the Pope, these two Books of the Machabees, together with others, were expresly declared to be Divine Scripture: and since by the Councel of Florence and Trent, it being most certain that in the Primitive Church the Canonical Scriptures were not ge∣nerally received all at once, so that amidst that great variety of pretended Scriptures, great care and special industry was requis••te to discern the true from the false, whereby it came to pass that divers Books were for some time doubted of, or not received; which yet afterwards upon better search and consideration were generally acknowledged and received as Canonical. This is so evident for us that Doctor Bilson Bishop of Winchester, and one of the most learned of the Protestant Divines testifieth on our behalf that the Scriptures were not fully received in all pla∣ces, no not in Eusebius his time, he saith the Epistle of James, Jude, the 2. of Peter the 2. and 3. of John, are contradicted as not written by the Apostles, the Epistle to the Hebrews was for a while contradicted the church of Syria

did not receive the 2. Epistle of Peter, nor the 2. and 3. of John, nor the Epistle of Jude, nor the Apocalips and the like may be said for the Churches of Arabia, will you hence conclude (saith Dr. Bilson *) that those parts of Scrip∣ture were not Apostolick, or that we need not to receive them now, because they were for∣merly doubted of? So fully is M. S. F. his Obje∣ctions answered by one of the Protestant Do∣ctors; which he may be pleased to compare with the testimony of our Canus, and then he may easily see the difference betwixt some one doubtful saying, or such an one as doth not at all make for that purpose for which it is forced∣ly made use of, and a number of Testimonies which might easily be brought, even from the Protestants themselves, but that it would be over-tedious to the Reader, all of them ex pro∣fesso intending expresly to declare their appro∣bation and assent to the Truth of this Catho∣lick Tenent. Now seeing that it is expresly held and defended by Dr. Bilson, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 also by divers of the chief Protestant Writers, that this most weighty Controversie of discerning true Scripture from false, cannot be otherwise decided, but by the Authority of God's Church, hence it is that the Church having determined this Controversie, all parties are obliged to sub∣mit unto it, or else if Mr. S. F. refuses this and will still deny the Machabees to be Canoni∣cal, because they were formerly doubted of, or not received by S. Gregory, then for the same reason must he likewise reject the Epistle to the* 1.4

Hebrews, and those orher Books named by Dr. Bilson, because they were noless doubted of by sundry ancient Writers.

The Weakness and Absurdity of this Obje∣ction being thus clearly discovered, a wise Man, whoma word sufficeth, would presently suspect all the rest, when this which he places in the Front, and calls as clear, and as evi∣dent as the Sun, has not so much as the outward appearance of an Argument, I thank God that I am not of his Religion, yet I am confident, that if I were, I should have so much of reason in me, as either to expect stronger Proofs than this, or otherwise seek to find a better satis∣faction elsewhere. Let us see however, if his Success will be better in his other Underta∣kings.

Concerning then the sufficiency of the Scri∣pture, he brings a Saying out of S. Gregory, viz. In hoc volumine omnia quae erudiunt, cuncta quae aedificant scripta continentur, In the Holy Scriptures are contained all things that are ne∣cessary for instruction and edification.

This is easily answered by granting him all the Words import, only I desire to know how we may come rightly to understand them with∣out mistaking the true Sense; being that there are many things in Scripture so deep and my∣sterious, that they transcend all humane Rea∣son, so that though it be sufficient if rightly interpreted and understood, yet it is not a suf∣ficient interpreter of it self. For answer here∣unto, I remit you to the Divine Words of Vin∣centius Lyrin, in his Golden Book he wrote a∣gainst the prophane Innovations of Heresie: Here some perhaps may ask, forasmuch as

the Canon of the Scripture is perfect, and in all points very sufficient in its self, what need is there to join the Authority of the Ecclesiasti∣cal; Understand (so he calls the Churches Sence, and the Fathers interpretation of Scri∣pture) for this cause surely, for that all take not the holy Scripture in one and the same sence, because of the deepness thereof, some interpreting it one way, some another; so that there may almost as many Sences be pick'd out of it as there be men; for Novatian doth expound it one way, and Sabellus another, other∣wise Donatus, otherwise Arrius, Eunomius, Ma∣cedonius; otherwise Photinas, Apollinaris, Pris∣cillian; otherwise Jovin, Pelagius; lastly, otherwise Nestorius. And therefore very neces∣sary it is, by reason of so great windings and turnings of divers Errors, that the Line of Pro∣phetical and Apostolical Interpretation be di∣rected according to the Rule of the Eclesiasti∣cal and Catholick Sence and Understanding. Thus far this grave and learned Author; and may we not say the same of Wickliffe, Luther, Calvin, Beza, and many others such like, which we also behold with our own eyes in the Quakers, Fanaticks, Independents, &c. every one of them pretending to the holy Scripture, and each of them explicating it after their own way; and what Remedy? for it must be according to private interpretation, one has as much Title unto it, and as much Reason for what he says, as another. How S. Gregory therefore comes to be so evidently opposite to the Doctrine of the Catholick Church, either in these Words, or any where else, I confess I do not under∣stand.

For the reading of the Holy Scripture, he quotes S. Gregory in an Epistle to one Theodorus, a Physician and Lay-person, thus; * 1.5 The Holy Scripture is an Epistle sent from God unto his Creatures; I pray thee therefore study them, and dayly meditate on the Words of thy Creator.

The Occasion of S. Gregory's writing this E∣pistle▪ was to acknowledge the Receipt of a Sum of Money which he had received from this Theodorus, to be bestowed among the Poor, and for the Redemption of Captives; S. Gregory thereupon writes unto him in commendation of his Charity, and withal advised him to read the Holy Scriptures for a farther increase in Chari∣ty and the Love of God. Now you see this Theodorus was pious, and although a Lay-man, yet a Scholar, as you may suppose, being a Physitian; but you do not find in all this, that Gregory perswaded him to read the Scriptures to make himself Judge of Controversies, or to interpret them according to his own fancy, but only for his Devotion and Encouragement in the Service of God. And this is the constant Practice and Advice of the Catholick Church to such as are discreet, and not likely to make ill use of it, but not without restraint to every Girl, and Enthusiastick Woman, and felf-con∣ceited Artificer, who may have it explicated piously, and fitted much better to their capa∣city, without the danger of mistaking it, by Learned Expositors in their Books of almost any sort. Alas, methinks the too lamentable effects which have happened by the too much tossing

and reading of the Holy Scripture, or rather abusing of it, should convince any considering and well-meaning Person of the great Inconve∣niences that ensue upon it, when not a silly Girl, if she has but learned to read, but must have her Bible with her to Church, and there upon Presumption of Wit, or I cannot tell what Spirit, make her self not only Reader, but a Teacher, Controuler and Judge of Church, Scripture, Teachers and all, with∣out finding the least difficulty in the Apocalyp∣ses, or in the Canticles, though they contain as many Mysteries as Words; it seems not to them a sacred Book clasped with seven Seals, as it did to * 1.6 S. John, nor need they an Exposi∣tor, as the holy Eunuch did, that was Treasu∣rer to † 1.7 Candace Queen of Ethiopia, and as S. Austin did, when he cried out, O wonderful Profoundness of thy Words! wonderful Profound∣ness, my God! wonderful Profoundness! it maketh a man to quake to look on it, to quake for reverence, and to tremble for love thereof! So that being it is so hard to be understood, even by the Learn∣ed, Reason methinks should dictate and tell us, that they were not ordained indifferently to be read by all; and by sad experience we see the Inconveniences: for although the Letter were most pure and not corrupted in it self, which yet cannot possibly be expected amidst such a variety of disagreeing Translations, yet the Sence is still in danger of being corrupted, mi∣staken, and adulterated; as S. Augustin * 1.8 teach∣eth,

That Heresies and perverse Doctrines en∣tangling Souls, and throwing them headlong down into the depth, do not otherwise spring up, but when good or true Scriptures are not well or truly understood, and when that which is not well understood, is rashly and boldly a∣vouched. What would he then have said, if then there had been so many false Translations, and Corruptions of Scriptures as are now a∣days, threatning no less than the Ruine both of Church and State. To conclude, S. Grego∣ries Words make nothing for this licentious and popular reading of the Scripture, as it is used now adays, to intermeddle and judge of Mat∣ters of Faith, but only for instruction of Life and Manners; and so the Catholick Church al∣lows of it; but as the * 1.9 Apostle saith, usque ad sobrietatem, to be wise, but with sobriety, and only restrains the reading of them, to prevent Heresie and blind ignorant Presumption, and that which the Apostle calls falsi nominis scien∣tiam, Knowledge falsly so called.

Against the Real Presence he cites † 1.10 S. Gre∣gory speaking thus; Pensemus quale sit pro nobis hoc Sacrificium, quod pro absolutione passionem uni∣geniti semper imitatur. Let us therefore consi∣der what a Sacrifice this is for us, which for our Absolution doth always imitate the Passion of the only Son of God.

This is so far from being opposite to the Real Presence, that it is very agreeable to the Catholick Doctrine in that point, and very much contrary to what the Church of England

holdeth. For first, he speaketh of a Sacrifice, which Catholicks allow of; whereas Protestant•• deny all true, proper, real and external Sacri∣fice, and afterwards he says, that is done in imitation of the Passion of Christ, which is al∣so Catholick Doctrine, and does no way deny the Real Presence of our Saviour Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, because the Passion was a bloody and general Sacrifice, but this Sacrifice of the last Supper, or the holy Mass is a Re∣presentation unbloody, and particular Sacri∣fice, applying the said general and bloody Sa∣crifice unto us; so that although in this sence it be in imitation, it is nevertheless real. This more fully appears by the words of the Con∣text; for immediately before S. Gregory speak∣ing of the greatness of this Sacrifice, and of the manner of our Saviour's being in the Bles∣sed Sacrament, that is, after a Divine, immor∣tal, and impassible manner, he adds, That al∣though Christ being risen again from Death, does now die no more, nor shall Death have any farther Dominion over him, yet living in himself immortally and incorruptibly, he is a∣gain sacrificed for us in this Mystery of the ho∣ly Oblation or Mass, for there his Body is re∣ceived, his Flesh is distributed for the Salvati∣on of his People, and his Blood is not powred out by the hands of Infidels, but received by the mouths of the faithful. Let us therefore hence consider, &c. Thus most clearly does S. Gregory speak in our behalf, who is therefore very much reproved by many Protestant Wri∣ters. Mr. Beacon affirmeth, That the Mass was fully finished by Pope Gregory the first, about the year 600. Melancthon confesseth,

that he allowed by publick Authority the Sacri∣fice of Christ's Body and Blood, not only for the living, but also for the dead. Dr. Humfry acknowledgeth that S. Gregory and S. Austin brought into England the Archbishop's Pall for solemn Masses; and many others, which for brevity sake I omit.

Against the private Mass he brings * 1.11 S. Gregory, as he calls it, ordaining thus, When Mass is ce∣lebrated in the Church, and the Deacon accord∣ing to custom calls out, if any one will not com∣municate, let him give place; therefore, says Mr. S. F. the People were not to be idle Spe∣ctators, &c.

How faithfully he hath quoted here S. Grego∣ry, let himself be Judge; for though I have di∣ligently read over the whole Chapter, I find not a word of it, nor any thing to that pur∣pose: but however, that his Objection may not fail of an Answer, nor lose any thing of its strength, to prove the thing intended, which is as much as the former had, and that's just none at all, I'le suppose it to be in S. Gregory; yet I cannot imagine how it can so much as pre∣bably be gathered from thence that S. Gregory ordains any thing here against the private Mass, since the words, as you see, import not any thing of Ordination or Prohibition; and as for the Deacon's words unto the People, they can signifie no more, than if at Easter, when Mr. S▪ F. gives the Communion to the People, the Clerk or whosoever does assist him, should call upon the Non-Communicants, that they should give

place or make room for those that are to com∣municate, which in Catholick Countries upon solemn Days, when the Number is very great, as well of Communicants as Non-Communi∣cants, they are often found to do; and what doth all this prove against private Masses? No more than as if because I have now mentioned Mr. S. F. his communicating his People at Easter, it should be inferred out of my words, as a Testimony against him, that he never read Service but at Easter, when he gives the Com∣munion to the Parishioners, which he would look upon to be somewhat severe, if not an unjust way of proceeding, but at least by these words in the Objection, you see that Masses are clearly mentioned to have been in use; which is contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England; and Chytreus a Protestant Writer, affirmeth, * 1.12 That in the Times of S. Gregory, the great private Masses were used: so that I do not see how Mr. S, F. can clear himself of a Contradiction, or at least of imposing one up∣on S. Gregory; for before he quoted the holy Father, as denying the Real Presence; and now again he brings him in allowing of solemn Masses, and by consequence holding the Real Presence; so that he is not ashamed to make S. Gregory even contradict himself.

For the Communion in both kinds, he tells us, S. Gregory says thus, † 1.13 You have learned what the Blood of the Lamb is, by drinking, not by Hearing: from which he would infer,

That there was Drinking then used in the Ad∣ministration of the Sacrament.

This Place also I have diligently sought for in S. Gregory, but cannot find any such in him, nor so much as that he hath written any thing either De Consid. or by way of distinctions: in∣deed S. Bernard has written a Treatise De Con∣siderat. unto Pope Eugenius, who had been his Disciple; but neither doth he divide it by Di∣stinctions, but into Books and Chapters; so that neither could I, though I endeavoured it, find it in him; but let it be whose it will, it makes nothing for Mr. S. F. who mistakes the very state of the Question; for the Contro∣versie between Protestants and Catholicks in this point, is not whether Christ did institute the Sacrament under both kinds, or whether he himself did administer it in both kinds to hi•• Apostles, or whether the Apostles and the Primitive Christians did in like manner at sun∣dry times practise the same? All this we are agreed of: but the thing in controversie is, whether Christ did command the Administra∣tion of both kinds to the Laity; and whether the Essence and Substance of the Sacrament be entire in one, or no? Now the Catholick Church holdeth, and hath always taught, That there is no Necessity or Divine Precept for the Laity to communicate under both kinds, but it is sufficient and lawful for them to do it either under one kind or both; and our Savi∣our Christ himself, and also his Apostles did ad∣minister the Sacrament to the Laity under one; so that the Precept herein, being not Divine, but only Ecclesiastical, the Church has power to ordain and dispense with it, according to

the various Exigencies and Occasions of Times and Places; and accordingly sometimes has al∣lowed of Communion under both kinds, and at other times has forbidden it, as she judged it more expedient for the Receivers, or the Re∣verence of the Sacrament it self. To con∣clude, This Saying imputed to S. Gregory, im∣plies nothing of a Command, or of a Necessi∣ty of receiving under both kinds, without which, the Sacrament would not be entire, which is the thing Mr. S. F. ought to have pro∣ved, otherwise he says nothing to the purpose, though he should bring a thousand clear and un∣deniable testimonies out of S. Gr. or any else wit∣nessing, That the Laity had received under both kinds; because whensoever either S. Gregory or any other of the Fathers speak of the Lai∣ties receiving under both kinds, they speak of such Times in which the Church so appointed and commanded the Administration of it, which is not at all against us; but rather by shewing a difference in Practice at several times, confirms the Authority and Power of the Church, in commanding the Administration of the Sacra∣ment to the Laity either under one, or both kinds.

Against the Merit of Good Works, he brings S. Gregory * 1.14 speaking thus; I grow unto eternal Life, not by the Merit of my Works, but by the Pardon of my Sin, presuming to obtain that only by the Mercy of God, which I do not hope for by my own Deserts.

Here I cannot but most of all commend

Mr. S. F. for his Prudence, because by shooting at rovers, he has made himself pretty secure from all danger of being detected of falsifica∣tion, unless one would take the pains to search through all the 35 Books which S. Gregory hath written upon Job, and his explanation upon the seven Penitential Psalms, which is to send his Reader to seek a Needle in a Bottle of Hay; but to acquit my self of such a Trouble, let the Saying be whose it will, it is not at all to the purpose; for the Catholick Church in this point teacheth, that our best Works in the state of corrupted Nature, as they are ours precise∣ly, are not meritorious of a Reward from God, because we can do no good thing our selves, as of our selves; but our sufficiency is from God; yet as proceeding from the Grace of Christ working in us and with us, and elevated by his Merits and Promises, he hath promised a re∣ward to them, and made them worthy of a reward, which is all we intend by the merit of good Works: Hence the Reader will easily see that the words objected are not at all opposite, but very▪ agreeable to the Catholick Doctrine in this point; and that this was the Belief and Doctrine of S. Gregory, we have the Testimo∣ny of divers Learned Protestants, and amongst others, the * 1.15 Centurists making a Catalogue of S. Gregories pretended Errors, amongst the rest, number his Errour of Good Works and Justification.

Against the Veneration of Images, he quotes S. Gregory writing unto Serenus Bishop of Mar∣seilles, thus † 1.16 Though you did well in forbidding

the adoration of them, yet we judge that you should not have broken them down.

This likewise I shall answer by shewing brief∣ly what the belief of the Catholick Church is in this point, which teacheth that it is good and lawful, and profitable to keep holy Images and Pictures of Christ and his Saints, to set them up in Churches, and to give them a relative Honour. Now let the Reader compare the Words of S. Gregory with this, and tell us where∣in they are opposite: For first S. Gregory blames this Serenus for breaking down the Images; be∣cause, as he tells him, he ought to have taken away the Abuses, not the Uses of them, which is agreeable to the Catholick Doctrine and Pra∣ctice, forbidding all Divine Honour to be gi∣ven unto them, but only a relative or inferior sort of Honour or Respect agreeable to the Ob∣jects which they do represent. And secondly, S. Gregory allows of the Use of them as pious and profitable, though they are capable of be∣ing abused; for certainly were the Use of a good thing to be taken away, because it may be abused, we should in a short time have very few good things left us; for which S. Gregory, in the words immediately following, gives this Reason; because, saith he, Images are there∣fore kept in Churches, to the end that the ig∣norant may at least read upon the Walls, what they cannot in Books; you ought therefore, saith he, both to have preserved them, and yet to have hindred the People from the ado∣ration of them, &c. What S. Gregory therefore taught in this Point, is so clear, that I will appeal herein to the Protestant Writers them∣selves, who all of them reprove him for his

special devotion and reverence towards holy Ima∣ges; for Mr. Bale * 1.17 reprehends him for that he suffered the Image of the blessed Virgin to be carried about, &c. Osyander † 1.18 affirmeth, that Austin, sent by Gregory, thrusts upon the En∣glish Churches, the Roman Rites and Customs, to wit. Altars, Vestments, Images. Dr. Fulk * 1.19 confesseth, that Gregory allowed of Images▪ for which very Point Calvin affirmeth, that Gregory was not taught in the School of the Holy Ghost; but for brevitys sake I omit the rest.

Now for an upshot he would so confidently perswade his Reader, that S. Gregory † 1.20 is so great an enemy to the Pope's Supremacy, that he tells his Adversary, he must needs have steeled his Forehead, if he does not likewise confess it, and this because S. Gregory * 1.21 in divers Epistles rejects the the Title of Universal Byshop as a Novelty, Blasphemy, &c.

To which I answer, that S. Gregory rejects or condemns that Title, as it excludes all others from being Bishops; but not as it signifies one to be supream above all the rest, as he himself was at that time; for so doth he express himself in the same Book, † 1.22 saying. If there be any crim•• found in Bishops, I know no Bishop but is subject to the Sea Apostolick; and in the * 1.23 3•• Epistle of the same Book, which is the place quoted, by Mr. S. F. he clearly declares his sence and mean∣ing of the former words, thus; The Care and Principallitty of the Holy Church hath been commit∣ted

to the Holy Apostle and Prince of the Apostles, S. Peter; yet is not he called Ʋniversal Bishop, as if there were no other Apostle but himself. Nay, which is more, S. Gregory doth in this very Epi∣stle Cite the Councel of Chalcedon, and the Ca∣nons for this Title due unto S. Peter and his Suc∣cessours the Popes of Rome; and besides, he pleads here his own right, and that that Title was then only due unto himself, as being chosen Head of the Church, and Successour of S. Pe∣ter; and consequently not to be ass••med by any one else but himself; for in all those Epistles which he writ to Mauritius the Emperour, and the Em∣peress Constantia, he complains grievously of the injuries done unto him by John Bishop of Constan∣tinople, because he usurped the Title of Ʋniver∣sal to himself, and robbed the Popes of Rome of it, to whom only it was due. You see there∣fore, both ••n what sence, and in what kind of person he disallows of the word and Title of Su∣premacy.

The Conclusion.

I Have now answered all the objections pretend∣ed, to be taken out of St. Gregory without any farther examine or search into the nature of either his Queries, Answers, or the rest of his Rejoynder, further than as I have briefly touch∣ed upon them in my Reflections, hoping they will prove rational and satisfactory enough; cons∣dering besides, that the greatest part of the Controversie (excepting the arguments out of St. Grogory) was come to be rather concerning Historical Reports than matters of Faith: In∣deed,

as touching what I have said in answer to the objections out of St. Gregory; I was the more easily perswaded unto it, because, there at least, I saw something to build upon, which was the authority of that holy Father, whom he seemed to be willing to submit unto as a Judg, because he had often promised not a wrested in∣terpretation of the sence, but evident proofs out of the Father's own words; so much authority did he seem to allow the holy Doctor; but one may presume it was only in those particulars, wherein he thought ••e had him sure, or at least that he could have perswaded some body or other to such a belief; and yet I had no reason to be∣lieve he would submit to him, even in those, since all along he had treated his Disciple St. Austin so irreverently, although by his Brethren, Dr. God∣win, Mr. Holinshead, Mr. Mason, Mr. Fox, Dr. Bilson, and others, he is honoured with Title of Apostle of England, and acknowledged to be a Monk of great virtue: and even he him∣self at the same time, does suppose that S. Austin converted England to the faith of Christ, and was of the same Religion which his Master Pope Gregory professed, and which he would gladly prove to have been this of the Church of En∣gland: observe now how well these things hang together. In answering his objections, I have studied rather brevity than multiplicity of rea∣sons; making it only my designed Task, which I wish the Reader to take notice of) to shew the true sence and meaning of S. Gregory's words, and how agreeable, if rightly understood, they are to the Catholick Doctrine, and disagreeable to that of the Church of England, which is all that any one in reason can expect in such circumstan∣ces;

this being absolutely opposite to what Mr. S. F. had undertaken, and yet not by a wrested interpretation of the sence, but by evident proofs out of S. Gregory; so that should I have brought many proofs from elsewhere, as I might have done very easily, it would rather have seemed a work of superfluity, than any ways necessary, or to the purpose, by which he may see the weakness of his arguments, and how easily he is confuted & foiled, even by those very weapons wherewith thought not only to have defended himself, but he also to have destroyed all round about him. The thing in controversie being at present, not whether those assertions were true or false; but whether S. Gregory held them or no; for this reason therefote, and for a final prevention of all farther cavilling shifts, and evasions which might be made, I have ••••ther argued ad hominem, as the School-men term it, and shew'd (besides the genuine inter∣pretation of S. Gregory▪s words) even by the confession and testimony of many of the best Pro∣testant Writers; what was his doctrine and be∣lief in those particulars; because an argument drawn from the confession of Adversaries, is the most convincing proof against the adversary him∣self; his testimony as Dr. Whitaker saith, being effectual against himself. But I must needs con∣fess, I do not so much wonder he should of his own accord undertake such a task, as to prove evidently that S. Gregory was a Protestant out of his own works, without any wresting of the sence, which yet is a very bold attempt, because such a bravado as that might possibly proceed from an over great zeal and affection he bare to his own cause, through inadvertency or passion, as it hapned to the Preacher at Pauls Cross, as

that which after deliberation and study upon it, he should not then at least see how weakly he h••d acquitted himself of it; but on the contrary should still cry out upon his Adversary to give judgment, as obliged by convincing arguments, and speak once according to the truth, and not according to the groundless affection he bare to his own cause, whether or no it be not clear, that S. Gregory in these particulars held not the same with the Doctrine of the Church of England; to bring which about he'el make Pope Gregory even un Pope himself; a shrewd displeasure I promise you; and far more cruel than John Bi∣shop of Constantinople, who opposed S. Gregory was; for though he stood in contention with S. Gregory, yet he never endeavoured to make him to act this cruelty upon himself; besides after all this, he complains heavily against his Adversary, as well as he hath done since of others, that they will not set forth a charge against him, as if he had been secure of being detected, either of ••al∣sifications, or of being found to have failed in any of his undertakings; whilst attempting to maintain so many errours as he has done, and that in full view; the method that he hath followed hath been very inconclusive; his arguments weak∣ness of reasoning, and his reasons inconsequent: and after this insincerity, must necessarily endea∣vour to establish such a groundless Fabrick, which once discovered there is no way left but to fall to open contradictions, wrested interpretations, and inexcusable falsifications; and last of all for s••curing h••mself to puzle the Reader with wor∣dish cavils and exceptions.

I have done therefore, but whether this little which I have said be satisfactory or no, is not

mine to decide, but is wholly submitted to the tribunal of the judicious and rightly informed Reader, whose pardon I beg for the se••ming harshness and severity of some expressions, which truly sound ungratefully to my own ears; but I desire it may be considered, that since it fell to my lott to be the examiner of such a tough piece, full of many more faults than I have given names to; 'twas nothing but rational in maintenance of the truth, and to undeceive the Reader, to call some of them by their own proper names, though I have done it as little as possibly I could, and only to breed in the Reader a true conceit and reflection upon the substantial part of the Con∣troversie, not in the least reflecting either upon the person, or quibbles, and exceptions, and cavils, that are frequently enough to be found in it.

This is all that I have to Apologize for, except∣ing only for the long delay of this, which truly was occasioned for no other reason, but because it was conceived, that time and absence might wean him, or at least make him less fond in the opinion he seemed to have of his own productions; but this not prevailing against his importunities, you have here an hasty product, and consequent∣ly subject perhaps to some critical exceptions in words, but yet such an one as may afford a suf∣ficient satisfaction, either to Mr. S. F. if he will but seriously consider it, or at least to the judi∣cious and indifferent Reader.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Can. loc. Theol. l. 2. c. 11.
• * 1.2

  Eus. l. 1. c. 25. hist.
• † 1.3

  S. Jer. de Vir. illust.
• * 1.4

  Dr. Bilson in his Survey of Christ's Sufferings, pag. 664.
• * 1.5

  Greg. l. 4. Epist. 40.
• * 1.6

  Apoc. 5. 1.
• † 1.7

  Acts 6.
• * 1.8

  Aug. Tom. 16. in Jo.
• * 1.9

  Rom. c. 12. v. 4,
• † 1.10

  Greg. Dial. l. 4. c. 58.
• * 1.11

  Greg. Dial. l. 2. p. 13.
• * 1.12

  Apol. in cap. 9. pag. 199.
• † 1.13

  Greg. de Cons. dist. 6.
• * 1.14

  Greg. in Job, & Psal. Pen.
• * 1.15

  Cent. 6. c. 10. col. 74.
• † 1.16

  Greg. l. 7. ep. 109.
• * 1.17

  Act. Rom. ••ont. pag. 44, 45.
• † 1.18

  Cent. 6. pag. 2••••. 290.
• * 1.19

  Against Phem. test. Math. 4.
• † 1.20

  Greg. 1. 4.
• * 1.21

  Epist. 32. 3••. 36. 39.
• † 1.22

  Epist. 62.
• * 1.23

  Epist. ••2.