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.

Animadversions upon the Reflections made against a piece of Controversie, written by S. F.

Ʋpon the occasion of the Reflections.

I Had almost determined to pass by the Refle∣ctors Discourse upon the occasion without ta∣king the least notice of it, and to leave it to be his special Storehouse, whence he might fetch with little ado the best arguments his ability promises for the Defence of the Romish Religion, but fear∣ing that my silence in relation unto it should be∣get in himself or in others, a fond conceit of the strength and truth of it, while there is not the least Title of any such thing to be found, I thought fit to throw away sometime in returning an Answer unto it.

If it be ominous to stumble on the threshold, the Reader may expect to find strange matter of Entertainment in the Reflections: here is a long Prologue of a wonderful composition, it is my perswasion that this Gentleman doth not agree in opinion with those Judges that awarded the pre∣valency unto truth, because he speaks it so seldom besides, he that seeks for pertinences and coheren∣ces here, is sure to lose his labour; earnest impor∣tunities putting my pen upon motion, how did I put my self upon answering, and if by answer∣ing I made an Antagonist, what did he make him∣self by Querying

Because Conjectures are not proofs, I pass by the conjectural reason given by this Gentleman; why the first Champion laid down his Arms, and quitted the Field, though there be in it a censo∣rious

reflection made against my Papers, which is the usual charge of Mr. H. L. for the proof of which I have hearkened very long, but cannot yet hear any such news.

That my Papers were very much boasted of, I am assured there is no other proof but Town∣tales, which (like unto Snow-ball) do gather by rowling: and being the intelligence that was gi∣ven concerning the bulk of my Papers, is acknow∣ledged to be false; methinks little credit should have been afforded to the Tale that was told con∣cerning this; but I see now any kind of report will serve him for the groun•• of a confident assertion, who is inclined to cry up Oral Tradition for a proof of his Religion.

I never yet boasted of the travels of my Papers to meet with an Answerer; but suppose I had done so, is it so great a fault, that it deserves to be chastifed with bitter and scornful upbraidings? is it a fault to boast in the Conquest of a perverse enemy? Were the Children of Israel faulty for glorying in the Conquest of the Philistins, saying Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands? How would the first Champion have boasted, had not some return been made unto his Queries, and a Rejoynder unto his Reply? verily, because it was retarded but a little while, by reason of my indisposition of body, it want∣ed not much of being proclaimed upon the House∣top. How do the Factors of the Church of Rome; boast, when they have gained a Proselite though it be by the use of most shameful arguments such as the Devil propounded to our Saviour, ser∣ving to attract, not by the force of truth, but of slavish fear, and fruitless hope; the terrour of Eternal death, and the prolonging of a tem∣poral

life: I can instance several late examples to prove that when a Protestant lies upon his sick bed, it is the practice of Romish Priests, by some Engine or other, to open a way to a visit; and then they tell the sick person, that there is no hope of recovering his health unless he will abjure his Religion, and dying in the profession of it, he is sure to be damned; but if he will forsake it, and embrace theirs; there is no doubt to be made of receicing a speedy recovery; and of obtaining a suture salvation; and may that boasting which is made upon this intollerable ground be excused, while I should have been condemned, had I glo∣ried in the truth; for had I gloried in this, that the Champion was fled from his Colours, and left his Queries gasping on the ground, I had gloried in nothing but the truth.

Amongst those great vapours, who was it that vented that expression concerning Protestant Wri∣ters, of which if the meaning be this, that there is not any Protestant Writer that hath not been fully answered; it is very like unto Jacob's Tale unto his Father Isaac, when he told him that he was his very Son Esau; there are many Prote∣stant Writers, that have not yet been, nor ever will be fully answered, by any Champ••on of the Roman Church.

The next Relation is of the same stamp, it was not my resolution to send my papers unto any one before they were requested; nor with that assurance t••e Reflectors speaks of when they were requested; M. H. L. relating to an Esquire of antient Extract, was presumed to be endowed with qualifications su∣teable to the sphear in which he was fixed: because he belonged unto an eminent Family, I supposed him to be a person of eminent Learning, therefore upon the request of one of his own Church, I sent my da∣pers

unto him with this assurance, that if any er∣rors had dropped from my pen, he was the man that could quickly discover, and effectually refute it, which none can be more ready to do, than I in that case would be desirous to have done, for I am not (as some are) so devoted to an opinion, that I cannot afford my self the liberty of a chang upon better Information, not out of any doubt of the truth of the Protestants, but out of a full perswasion of the erroniousness of the Romish Religion, it hath been my frequent expression unto many, which is all the boasting that ever I made, if any man can produce a stronger evi∣dence for his opinions, then I can do for mine, or can refute any Protestant Tenents with Arguments not answerable by me, I shall soon submit unto his clearer light, and better informed Judgment, it is sad for any man wilfully to shut his Eyes against the truth, and to run headlong in an Error, lead∣ing others hoodwinked in the same destructive path, it is my desire to walk, and to lead others, in the beaten Tract towards heaven.

When M. H. L. had taken a view of my papers he was pleased to make this bravado, that if I would propound any particular, wherein my An∣tagonist had sailed in giving satisfaction, he would undertake to supply the defect, upon which I was importuned by my friend to write unto him, and accordingly did, whereupon several Letters passed betwixt him and me, Now because I am charged with many faults committed in my deal∣ing with M. H. L while he is reported to be al∣together unblamable in his dealing with me, tho' the Letters which passed betwixt us are not laden with any matter of importance, being only like unto the daring of two timorous enemies, un∣wiilling

to run the hazard of blows: it is my de∣sire that the Reader would peruse them in the end of the Animadversions, and then he need not take it upon trust, but will see with his own eyes how much truth is to be found in the Reflector's discourse here; in the mean time he may make a probable Conjecture, by taking notice of some expressions that are vented by him; he that is frequent in roving out into contradictions, seldom keeps within the Limits of Truth: He tells us of a paper that was sent, and a promise made of answering it, but afterwards it swelled to such a bulk, that the Gentleman who made the promise was almost determined not to concern himself in the performance of it; & again he tells us, that the reason expressed by him why he would not write against my papers, was because he would not con∣cern himself in any thing that looked like unto a personal quarrel; yet afterwards he tells us that there was no such charge brought against my pa∣pers in any of his Letters, because this Gentle∣man takes upon him to be so quick-sighted, as to discover contradictictions where there are none to be found; it is a matter worthy to be consider∣ed, what truth there is to be found in these con∣tradictory expressions.

Still says the Reflector S. F. continuing the importunities of having his Papers answered, or acknowledged unanswerable; and still he conti∣nues his remarkable strain of writing, my thoughts have been perplexed in disputing the reason of it; is it because he hath a great dispensation from his great Lord and Master, or hath a blank pardon lying by him, wherein he may insert his faults at pleasure; or rather is it not because his Pen is accustomed to drop such stuff? if so, we know

what the Prophet says? can the Aethiopian change his skin▪ or the Leopard his spots: after my last Letter sent to M. H. L. I did not speak or write unto any person concerning my Papers; and if the obliging person which he speaks of be (as I suppose) a Female, I did not speak or write unto her concerning them since they were written by me. If beginnings do make any prediction of the nature of the ends; and Prefaces do foretell any any thing of the quality of the Postcripts, the Reader may without any farther inquisition give a probable judgment concerning the Gentleman's Reflections, and say that he hath penned some sto∣ries as likely to be true as that of Valentine and Orson, or of Beves of Southampton; and for his own credit, I could wish that such strang fictions were not to be sound in the Reflections.

But shall I do him the favour, as to suppose all that hath been said upon the occasion to be as true as it is false; S. F. put himself upon answering, and made an Antagonist, and boasted of his pa∣pers, and dealt peremptorily with M. H. L. put altogether; what an heinous provocation was this? what congealed bloud would not boil in the veins to hear the relation of these things? cer∣tainly the Reflector being one of the Worthies of the Roman Church, and a mighty man of valour, had shamed himself for ever, had he not under∣taken to chastise such intollerable misdemeanors: But is this all the matter of occasion that could be found for the Refl••ctions? Controversies con∣cerning Religion should have a Rise answerable to their nature, because they are of high impor∣tance, some matter of weight should be the Head∣spring; therefore in reading this Prologue, it was my expectation to meet with some heinous

charge brought against me, either for opposing some saving truths, or maintaining some distru∣ctive errours, which might justly have stirred up the choller of the Gentleman, and provok∣ed him to run into the field, to employ all his strength for the subduing of a dangerous ene∣my, but there is no such charge brought against my Papers here, nor indeed is there any ground for such a charge to be found; it seems that upon the design of detaining his ob∣liged friend in bondage to Superstition and Ig∣norance, and Idolatry; he resolved to say som∣thing, though (besides the importunity of his friend) he had nothing but meer triffles to be the occasion.

Hitherto is expressed the occasion of the refle∣ctions, what follows speaks the reason of his pre∣tended unwillingness to appear in the field, one is because of the abuse that is committed in the management of controversies, of which (he tells us) some are guilty in an high measure; now because this is indefinitely spoken, and the application of M. H. L. Generals is charged upon me as an heinous crime, I am disputing whether I should take it as reflecting upon my Papers; if not, the Gentleman hath made him∣self guilty of a very great failing, in expressing that to be a reason, which could not be any; for if I did not observe that practice, how could he be terrifyed with it, and ••o his expressing it to be a reason serves only for this purpose, to help to piece out a long Prologue to no purpose; if I must needs take it as reflecting against my Pa∣pers, I would know whether he thought that to be true, which he writes concerning the travels of my Papers; if not it was a shame for him to

report it, as the occasion partly of his reflecti∣ons; if he thought it to be true, I must inquire how it could be that few or scarce any body heard of them, while (as he says) they travel∣ed all Lancashire to meet with an answerer; but however it is to be taken, whither reflecting up∣on my Papers or any other controversy, how can that universal be true, that no body judges it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 worthy the taking notice of, while few or scarce any body heard of it? hew he judges is not worthy the taking notice of, because his judgment serves to write so many contradicti∣ons within the compass of a Prologue.

Another reason is, because the multitude al∣ready written upon the same subject, and afford∣ing incomparably more satisfaction, hath long since made the world to nauseat, and yet hath not decided one controverted point; I suppose he speak in relation to Protestant writers, and what can be the reason or motive that moves him to speak thus contemptibly of those wor∣thies, censuring and condemning all that hath been written by them in defence of the truth, and in opposition to Romish errours; is it an high conceit of himself that makes him to have a low conceit of others? thus have I known school∣boys revile those whom they durst not encoun∣ter, and meer cowards rail upon those whom they durst not attempt to conquer, and it is the practice of effeminate combatants, to display their courage more by invective words, then by their great deeds; I do not account my self fit to be compared in the least degree to any of those worthies, yet for my self, I do profess (if there be no more strength in him, then that proportion which he hath manifested in his re∣flections

& appendix) to be foiled by him, would be an argument) of greater weakness then is to be found in a stripling of nine years old, and for them I will say this, that the weak••es•• of their ar∣guments weelded against him, would frighten him to run as the false Prophet Zedekiah sometimes did, from Chamber to Chamber to hide himself.

What is to be understood by the world? Pro∣testants cannot be included in that compass, be∣cause they judg their writers (as they are) truly, satisfactory and convincing to all that are not possessed with prejudice, and desperately setled with a resolution to oppose the truth and the Ro∣mish Laity cannot be any part of it, because they are not permitted to converse with Protestant wri∣ters in the least measure, but are kept in a perswa∣sion that the touch of them is as fatal and deadly, as the touch of Mount Synai would have been to the Children of Israel, when the law was deliver∣ed, and this done on purpose to frighten them from seeking to find out the truth, and from searching to discover that Superstition and Ido∣latry, which adheres to the Romish Religion, and consequently they cannot judg of that satisfacti∣on and force, which is to be found in the writings of Protestants; wherefore by the world we must understand the leaders of the Romish Church, and it is no wonder that Protestant writers should be loathsome and unconvincing unto them; a foul stomach loaths that meat which is wholesome, & a blinded eye cannot see the light which is held out unto it; though the truth of the Protestant tenents be demonstrated as clear as the Sun, and the Tenents of the Romish Church proved to be as visibly erronious; yet that veil of prejudice which hangs before their eyes, and that cloud of

self-conceit, which darkens their understanding will not suffer them to discern the truths that are to be found in the one, nor to observe the er∣roniousness ••ha•• is visible in the other.

What is unjustly charged upon the Writings of Protestant Worthies hath been abundantly proved to be true concerning Romish Writers, all their performances in maintenance of the Doctrine of the Romish Church is nothing but loathsomness to a judicious understanding, and altogether unsatisfactory and unconvincing to every Reader, that is not resolved to be satis∣fied with very course fare, and to be convinced with very feeble arguments.

Now it is to be observed how upon the ground of this reason, he deals with that wor∣thy person, whom he acknowledgeth to have a powerful influence over him, fastening upon an obliging friend the odious imputation of fond∣ness and extravagancy; and that by his own confession, most injuriously; I am confident this person is not one that sits at the helm, ei∣ther in Church or State, and mark his own words; it is no small piece of fondness and extravagan∣gy, for private persons to write against points of Religion, and to trouble others with either reading or answering his books; and afterwards he says, not to every quibble or captious criti∣cism, for that would be endless, and below the gravity and seriousness of the thing treated off, it seems that he is not ashamed to throw dirt in the face of a worthy person, to fasten upon an obliging friend the ignominious title of fond∣ness and extravagancy, for importuning him to answer papers, which by his own confession, do afford matters of gravity and seriousness to be insisted on.

And inlarging upon this reason, once again he falls heavily upon the faulty mannagement of controversies, but deals not fairly with the Reader, giving no direction how to find the persons guilty, but leaving him in a Wilderness, to seek them he knows not where, and possibly he may find them, but he knows not when; sure∣ly Mr. H. L. and this Gentleman are very like in their dispositions, they are so visibly like in their practices; what out-cries do they make against controversies? how fruitless and endless, and full of quibbles and captions, and passions, and what not are they reported to be? alas that any controvertists have deserved so evilly at their hands; but walking under this Cloud of generalls, and not accusing any controvertist in particular, do they not cover themselves with deceit? Oh that these Priests of the Roman Church, had the Noses of all people in a string, as they have their seduced followers, that they might lead all whether they listed, what happy persons would they be in their generation, be∣cause it is not thus with them, but their Religi∣on is contradicted, and their Tenets confuted, therefore do they make these great out-cries, to keep their people in a perswasion, that they are absolute Champions in the defence of their Re∣ligion, and could if they pleased, bear all op∣position down before them, but they scorn to defile their pens by engaging them in muddy controversies, while this is most that they can say, and all that they dare say; knowing that if they should stir to support their Religion, by their best endeavours, they would but shake that tottering Fabrick, and expose it more to ruine, by subjecting their arguments to a speedy confu∣tation.

But though controversies (as he says) have this sad hap to fall into the hands of unskilful, and abusive writers, yet he would not be mis∣taken, it is no•• the use that he decries, he allows of a prudent and serious inquiry to find out the truth; but the confirmation of this allowance by his own practice, he leaves unto the next op∣portunity of writing; mark good Reader how serious and prudent he is now, he tells thee that thou must judg of the matter of my papers, whi∣ther I have in them expressed passion, and keep close unto the matter controverted, and discus∣sed it with reason, by those reflections which he makes against my method and way of proceed∣ing; and surely if thou canst do so, thou must have an extraordinary spirit of discerning; as if thou canst judge of the honesty and upright∣ness of the person by the outward and visible parts of his face, thou must have more then an ordinary skill in physnomy; I have known a great deal of good matter, hudled together in a confused method, and disorderly way of pro∣ceeding, and a great deal of corrupt matter ex∣posed to the view in a very exact method, and orderly way of proceeding; and for thy great∣er assistance in giving of judgment, he promises to answer, but I know not what, sure it was some matter of secrecy, therefore he keeps it private to himself, and this answer must be so full and operative, that it shall be able to give Information of the insincerity of my dealing, and satisfaction to me and the prudent consider∣er, but it is well if we do not find him acting like unto the Son, which we read of him in the Go∣spel, who said unto his Father, Sir I go, and went not; in Platoes great year when all things

must undergoe a change, and this Gentlemans writing among the rest, it may prove thus satis∣factory; how it is at present, will presently be examined.

Ʋpon the Reflection in general.

HE promised to reflect against my me∣thod and way of proceeding, but I find him employing his strength another way, refle∣cting against the matter of my Papers, I shall pass by this infirmity, and take him as I do find him, confounding two different things, and will see what it is that is objected against me.

I have said that my Adversary in propound∣ing the quaeries, went three miles about, while a journey of one would be more serviceable for finding out the truth, and that the Turk can plead as great Antiquity and Succession f••r his Religion, as the Romanists can do for theirs, pre∣tending to the antiquity of Austin and the an∣tient Brittains, and the Jew can plead a greater Antiquity and longer Succession for his, and I have required my Adversary to prove the affir∣mative of the three quaeries that are propound∣ed by him; and have not agreed with him about a rule for the determining of the controversy: These are the great faults that are laid to my charge, and this is the rule that is prescribed to the Reader, by which he must give judgment concerning my Papers, and determine whither I have in them expressed passion, and keep close unto the matter in controversy, and discussed it with reason.

Now (Christian Reader) what conclusions can be drawn from these premises to over-rule thy judgment, to determine against me? here

is not the least smell of passion, and the matter in controversy being the determination of three trival and unprofitable questions, what can be closer unto it, and more consonant to reason then to tell my Adversary, that it is needless for us to incumber our selves with it, because the resolution of this one question, whether the Religitn now ••rofesse•• by the Romanists be the same that was taught by Christ and his Apo∣stles, will bring as sooner to the knowledg of the truth; and what can be more close like∣wise unto it, and more consonant to reason then to tell him that the determination of two of those questions will be altogether unprofitable for the Romanists? for if they could prove that the Religion now professed by them, is the same that Augustin professed, and his the same that the Antient Brittans in his time professed, notwithstanding this Antiquity and Succession, they must give Protestants leave to account it the meer invention of man, until they prove that it is the same that was taught by Christ and his Apostles; and what can be more close unto it, and consonant to reason, then to require my Adversary to prove the affirmative of the quae∣ries, because the Romanists do boast so much of the Antiquity and Succession of their Religion, and will have Antiquity and Succession to be the touchstone, whereby the Nature and Constitu∣tion of their Religion is to be tried? and how can it be dissonant to reason, not to have agreed with my adversary concerning an infallible rule, while that agreement is improbable, if not im∣possible to be effected.

And what is written in answer to the que∣stions, is likewise to be observed; unto two of

them there is some resolution made in the nega∣tive; and as to the third, I have told my Ad∣versary; that it cannot with any shew of pro∣bability be determined either in the affirmative or the negative, because there are not any Hi∣stories to be found, that do speak directly and expresly to the Religion of the ancient Brittans, informing us, what were the particular tenents maintained by them; and what can be more close unto the matters in controversy, and more consonant to reason then this? would this Gen∣tleman have the Reader so much enslaved to his dictates, as not to beleive his own eyes, nor to credit his own judgment; but upon his ground∣less suggestions, to believe & to determine that is not done, which (he may see) is really done.

And the quality of the Rule that is prescribed is to be taken notice of, a compleat Rule is in∣dex recti as well as obliqui, it shews what is streight as well as what is crooked, and such a rule should have been prescribed by this Gentle∣man, but in the three Reflections he tells the Reader, what, as he conceived, should not have been done; I should not have said that my Adver∣sary in propounding of the Queries went three miles about, while a journey of one would have been more serviceable for finding out the truth and I should not have sa••d that the 〈…〉〈…〉k can plead as great Antiquity and Succession for his Religion as the Romanists can do for theirs, pre∣tending to the Antiquity of Austin, a••d the an∣cient Britai••s and that the Jew can plead a grea∣ter Antiquity and longer Succ••ssion for his; and I should not have requi••••d my Adversary to prove the Affirmative of the three Queries, that are propounded by him; but he doth not declare

his mind to inform us, what he conceived neces∣sary to be done, yet by this crooked and defe∣ctive Rule the Reader must give Judgment con∣cerning my Papers; I perceive he would have the Reader to be, as his self is, an imitator of his great Lord and Master, the pretended head of the Church; to draw conclusions from any kind of premises, and to determine by any kind of rule, nor is this to be accounted a matter of ad∣miration, while this principle is maintained by the Romanists, that it is meritorious to speak or do any thing that is serviceable for the advan∣cing of the Romish Religion.

Ʋpon the first Reflection.

HE misreports the end of propounding the Quaeries, they were not propounded to sa∣tisfie some friends, that the Religion now pro∣fessed by the Romanists is the same that was first preached in England, but to unsettle and pervert some Christians that believed the truth of the Reformed Religion; it is too frequently known that the first method and practice that is used by Impostors in sowing their Tares, is to beget scruples and doubts, which is done by propound∣ing of Queries.

To Quaere only was never accounted a me∣thod of satisfaction, nor ever known to produce that effect; if the Reflector will have it thus o∣perative, why may not a Protestant as easily and effectually demonstrate and satisfy the contrary that the Religion now professed by the Roma∣nists, is not the same that was first preached in England; suppose that the same Queries should be set forth with an intimation, that they are to be resolved in the negative; or

suppose that these Queries should be sent forth: first whether the Religion professed by the Pro∣testants in England be the same which Luther professed: secondly whether his was the same that was maintained by the first four General Councels: thirdly whether that be the same that was taught by Christ & his Apostles; why should not these Queries be as powerful to demonstrate and satisfie that the Religion professed by the Protestants is the same that was taught by Christ and his Apostles, as the Queries of my adversary are to demonstrate and satisfie, that the Religion now professed by the Romanists is the same that was first preached in England.

But says the Reflector, had my adversary ta∣ken the pains to derive the Catholick Religion through every Century, it would in all reason have added very much to the satisfaction of any discreet enquiring person; what then, this would not have demonstrated, that the Religi∣on now professed by the Romanists, is the same that was first preached in England, for there is as great a difference between that Catholick Reli∣gion, and the Religion now protested by the Ro∣manists, in what it differeth from the Protestants, as there is between truth and errour: whether the present Romish Religion be the Catholick Reli∣gion is the great question that hangs in dispute between the Protestants and the Romanists, which the Protestants do justly deny; and which the Romanists with evident proof will never be able to affirm; and it is a most unjust usurpati∣on in them to assume that Title, before a right unto it be fully proved.

Had the Reflector said, if my adversary had taken the pains to derive the present Romish Religion through every Century, he would

have spoken somewhat of pertinency to the Queries, but then I would have told him that derivation would have been as great a wonder as the production of an impossibility; if my adversary, or the Reflector, or any other will go to the Fountain and examine the present Ro∣mish Religion by the Doctrine of the first A∣ges, that is the Doctrine of Christ and his A∣postles delivered in the Sacred Scriptures, he will soon discover this impossibility; I am sure, if it be impossible to derive it through the first Centuries, it is impossible to derive it through every Century.

Upon the supposition that is made, the fault charged upon me is aggravated in a high mea∣sure; I did but cavil (says the Reflector) when I said that my adversary went three miles about while a Journey of one would have been more advantageous for finding out the truth; and I might as well have said that he went sixteen miles about: but I perceive that he is like unto the Actor in the Tragedy, who was so despa∣rately bent to accuse his Enemy that he forgot what he did; while he thought to have laid di∣versity of Crimes to his charge; instead of mul∣tiplication he made a repetition: By the method which the Reflector prescribes for the resolution of the Queries, he confessed that I said this very thing; for if the Queries are to be resolved by a derivation of Religion through every Century; in saying that my Antagonist went three miles about; I said that he went the Reflectors sixteen miles about, while a Journey of one would be far more serviceable; and this is not to cavil, but seriously and pertinently to speak the truth. That Travellers may deserved∣ly

be charged with great indiscretion, that de∣clines the short, and plain, and easie road, and chooseth to range over craggy Mountains, and through darksome Woods and Thickets, and unfrequented Desarts: It is not probabble that this Travellor will ever arive unto the end of his Journey: and I desire the Reflector to shew some reason, why for the prevention of all such long, troublesome, and sruitless vagaries, an inquisition in the Doctrine of the first Ages may not lead unto a clear, and speedy discovery of the truth.

But if this be the method that is to be used in resolving of the Queries, how can the Refle∣ctor with any shew of discretion make this sup∣position, while in the third Reflection he takes upon him to shew some reasons, that the Que∣ries were not to be resolved at all by Roma∣nists; and how can he lay down this position, to see a Religion proved to be visibly handled down through all Ages, should be the greatest assurance and satisfaction imaginable that it must be the true Religion, while he tells us like∣wise there, that must not be proved by them, they being in possession the obligation of pro∣ving the negative lies on the Protestants side.

Mark gentle Reader, the Reflector is propoun∣ding of Riddles; what Religion is that, of which it is only queried whether it be true, yet this was to make a demonstration, & to give sa∣tisfaction of the truth of it? and what Religion is that, the derivation of which through every Century, would be an irresistible proof of the truth of it; and yet this derivation is not to be made; and to see it visibly handed down through every Age, would be the greatest assurance that

could be made of the truth of it; and yet this must not be seen? thou mayst without ploughing with Sampson's Heifer easily unfold this Riddle.

Lo here thou hast the visibility and succession and antiquity that is boasted to belong unto the Romish Religion: Great is Diana of the Ro∣mans, who would not be a worshipper of this Goddess; a Religion (says the Reflector) so an∣tiently settled, so universally acknowledged, so Apostolically delivered: but thou seest that the proof of all this hangs wholly upon imagina∣tion; and this must act contrary to the experi∣ment and evidence of the outward senses, as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist; though thou seest bread, and feelest bread, and tastest bread, yet thou must imagine that it is the real and proper body of Christ: so, though thou must not have the Queries resolved by the Ro∣manists, no•• s•• their Religion proved to be visi∣bly handed down▪ nor must thou have it derived through every Century, yet thou must imagine all this to be done. Now it appears plainly, that the strange matter that was feigned to be the occasion, was a true prediction of strange matter to be found in the Reflections; but let us proceed and we shall find greater abomi∣nations.

Ʋpon the second Reflection.

HEre is a great Cry, but little wool; a great outcry made against me, but little, yea no reason for it but the fictions of his own disturb∣ed fancy, where did I speak of antiquity and succession in relation to that Religion which is

acknowledged by all to be true, and proved to be unalterably derived by a continued and un∣interrupted succession from the Author of the true Religion? and where did I speak of an undefined antiquity and succession?

It is evident to him that will see, that I spoke of antiquity and succession in relation to the present Romish Religion, which is not acknow∣ledged by all to be true, but accounted by a great part of the Christian World to be false, and is so far from being proved to have its derivation from the Author of the true Religion, (That if we must believe the Reflectors) it is unreasonable for us to require any such proof; and it is evi∣dent that I speak of that antiquity and successi∣on, which claims not farther than to the Times of Austin the Monk, and of the antient Britains that were contemporary with him.

Is this the man that comes furiously against me saying, mentita est sibi iniqu••tas, while he stinks of that odious crime which he lays to my charge? and is this the method that is by the Champions of the Roman Church in shewing their ••alour, to charge the figments of their own Brain upon their Antagonists? certainly this is a plain di∣scovery of the nature of that cause and Religi∣on which is maintained by them; an unconscio∣nable management is a clear evidence of an evil cause, and the use of such fictious supports as these, is a plain demonstration of a rotten Re∣ligion; Truth will not endure to be supported with lying inventions.

And by my consent the odious imputation of fondness shall be translated, if the present Ro∣mish Religion be acknowledged by all to be true, who is there that can be blinded with passion, or

prepossesse•••• witherrour against it? & to whom, and to what purpose must that manifestation be made, which is pretended to flow from antiqui∣ty and succession? surely all will not come so near in fondness to this Gentleman, as to make this acknowledgment without a previous ground and reason for it.

But the present Romish Religion being ac∣counted by a great part of the World to be false will antiquity and Succession alone afford a con∣vincing argument to prove it to be true? St. Au∣stin * 1.1 maintains the negative, quod anterius est, says he, inquiunt Ethnici falsum esse non potest, quasi antiquitas & vetus consuetudo praejudicet ve∣ritati, the Heathen say, that the Religion that was first cannot be false, as if antiquity and old custom could prevail against the truth, and Tertullian † 1.2 says, viderint ergo quibus novum est, quod sibi est vetus, haereses non tam novitas, quam veritas revincit, quodcunque contra veritatem sa∣pit, hoc est haeresis, etiam vetus consuetudo, let them therefore take heed who count that new which in its self is old, heresy is reproved not so well by novelty as by verity, whatsoever thing savoureth against Truth, the same is an heresy, though it be a custom never so old.

The argument that is to be raised upon this medium in the behalf of the Romish Religion, is this; That Religion which hath antiquity and succession is true, but the present Romish Religi∣on hath antiquity and succession, ergo &c. unless the major proposition be an universal truth, the premises are not able to bring forth a conclusi∣on,

ex particularibus nihil concluditur; if it be, I would know some better reason then is expressed by the reflector, why this argument may no•• be used by a Turk or a Jew, both having Antiquity and Succession for their Religion; neither Turk nor Jew will acknowledg his Religion to be the meer invention of man, but are both pretende••s to a Divine original, and the Romanists having on∣ly a pretence unto Christ and his Apostles, the meanest capacity that sits under the instruction of the reflector, will easily discern the disparity spo∣ken of, to be a meer nullity, is there any diffe∣rence between feigned pretences whatsoever shew or colour they do bear, they are but feigned pre∣tences still, and the opinions of the Romanists that are contradicted by the Protestants can be no more really derived from Christ and his Apostles, then the Religion of a Turk or a Jew.

Should I comply to his humour, and say what cannot be truly said, that a meer pretence unto Christ and his Apostles, alters the nature of the argument, making it serviceable for the Romanist, while it is unserviceable for the Turk and the Jew; suppose then that a Nestorian, or Arrian, or Pela∣gian should step forth, and plead Antiquity and Succession for his opinions, saying that they were handed down from one to another, from Father to Son, through all ages until they arrived with him, they all pretend to Christ and his Apostles as well as the Romanists do, and if upon this pretence the argument be irrisistable for the Romanists, it must be as serviceable for all the other Hereticks; but it is an undoubted truth that Antiquity and Suc∣cession alone cannot be serviceable for any, what∣soever they pretend unto; for that can never be an evidence of truth that is common to errour.

and it is certain that many heresies are of an a••∣tient standing and long Succession.

His argument of Antiquity and Succession a∣lone being defeated, now let us observe, first how artificial he is in his j••gling, confounding different things to render that expression, which savoured of nothing but truth, more odious unto the igno∣rant, that are not able to discern his legerdemain; he makes no difference between Antiquity and Succession in the abstract, and that Antiquity and Succession which is Primitive and Apostolical, o∣therwise why doth he tell us, that Antiquity and Succession alone is a sufficient manifestation of the truth, and afterwards tells us, that for us to press this argument against the Turk and the Jew, that the Catholick Religion is that which our Saviour taught his Apostles, and from them it hath de∣scended unto us, therefore it is the true Religion, would be of no force to convince them: to say Religion hath Antiquity and Succession, is it to say that it was taught by Christ and his Apostles, and that from them it hath descended unto us? no Sir, there is a great difference between Antiquity and Succession alone, and that Antiquity and Succes∣sion which is Primitive and Apostolical, and the Romanists wanting this, whatsoever title they have to that, yet the claim which they make unto truth upon that ground, is but like unto the plea that was made by the base son, who because he had a spurious Succession, would have taken the inheritance from the right Heir.

Secondly; let us observe how rational and de∣monstrative he is in his deductions, he tells us, that to any rational Person not blinded with passi∣on, or prepossessed with Errour, Antiquity, and Succession alone of that Religion which is acknow∣ledged

by all to be the only true one, would be a sufficient manifestation of the true Religion, and that of necessity it must be granted that the Reli∣gion which is most ancient, and which is proved to be unalterably derived by a continued and uninter∣rupted Succession from him that is acknowledged by both Parties, to be the Author of the true Religion, is to be admitted of as true by all, and consequently the continuance and Antiquity of it, allowed as undeniable marks and testimonies thereof.

The Gentleman would be very much offended, if I should assimilate him to Balaam the forcerer; but truly there is very great reason for it, they are so visibly alike in their performances, both acting quite contrary to their intentions; Bala∣am came with a purpose to curse Israel, but he altogether blessed them; and this Gentlemon in∣tended to prove Antiquity and Succession alone to be a great supporter of his Religion, but he hath altogether wrought the contrary; Reader, who∣soever thou art (it is not extorted from his words, but his own plain and free confession) thou must not believe the Romish Religion to be true upon the account of Antiquity and Succession alone, be∣fore thou dost know it to be acknowledged true by all, and it must not be admitted as true by all, until it be proved to be unalterably derived by a continued and uninterrupted Succession from him, who is acknowledged to be the Author of the true Religion, afterward by consequence the An∣tiquity and Succession alone of it, is to be allow∣ed as undeniable marks and testimonies thereof.

Verily he hath done so worthily in the behalf of that transcendent, and always reputed argu∣ment of Antiquity and Succession alone, that he deserves,

serves, I will not say a Cardinals Cap; just as if he should say, a black Horse must first be pro∣ved and acknowledged to be an Horse, and then by consequence his blackness is a manifestation and mark, and testimony that he is an Horse, whereas thou canst not distinguish him by his blackness from an Ox.

If he be asked when his Religion will be ac∣knowledged by all to be tru••, he can return no o∣ther answer, but ad C••lenda•• Grecas, that is to say, never, and why it must have that acknowledg∣ment, and how it is proved to be unalterably de∣rived from the Author of the true Religion, by a continued and uninterrupted Succession; I doubt he will be in a great streight for an answer, un∣less he says by Antiquity and Succession alone, and then that Antiquity and Succession may re∣turn unto him (as Jeptha returned to the Elders of Gilead) didst thou not hate me, and expel me out of my Fathers house, and why art thou come unto me now, when thou art in distress, didst thou not make me a consequent of the proof of the truth, and wouldst thou have me to be an ante∣cedent to prove the truth.

It is the will of providence to infatuate this Gentleman so much, that instead of a builder he proves a destroyer of his own cause, wherefore it will be his greatest wisdom to be of another mind, to lay aside that manifestation which is pre∣tended to flow from Antiquity and Succession a∣lone, as unsufficient, and unnecessary; and in∣stead of saying that Antiquity and Succession a∣lone is a sufficient manifestation of the truth, le•• him say this which will stand against all oppositi∣on, that the truth of Religion is a sufficient ma∣nifestation of the Antiquity and Succession of it

that Religion which is proved to be true, is pro∣ved to have Antiquity and Succession, but every Religion that is proved to have Antiquity and Succession, cannot be proved to be true.

Let him prove the present Romish Religion to be true, and the Antiquity and Succession of it to this day shall be freely aknowledged, but not as needful for the clearing of the truth of it, for this will be done by the pr••ceeding Proof, and until that be proved, let him not make these senceless brags, telling us they pretend to derive their Re∣ligion, and to prove a continued Succession of it from our Saviour Christ and his Apostles, it being by them delivered unto others, and so down∣wards to this present, as they make it to appear by Scripture, Tradition, Councels, Holy▪ Fathers, in an unanimous consent of all Nations; I would know what Scripture they have for those opinions wherein they differ from Protestants, and what Nations, what Fathers, what Councels they are that are consenting unto this, that the body of the Romish Religion, that was compacted by the Councel of Trent, and never saw the light before, received this Derivation and Succession; did the Fathers, and Councels, and Nations of the for∣mer ages, foresee what would be done in the lat∣ter age by the Romish Church, and upon that foresight praefix and afford their consents unto the actions and determinations of that Church con∣cerning points of Religion.

Nor let him break out into impertinent flouri∣shes, telling us that Christians are not to impugn and answer one another, as they would impugn and answer the Turk and the Jew, and as the Turk and the Jew would impugn and answer Christians, for though it be granted that there must be a dif∣ference

in treating and handling each other, yet the argument of Antiquity and Succession alone in the mouth of a Romanist, is of no more force then when it is to be found in the mouth of a Turk or a Jew; for if it be lame in it self, it is not a feigned pretence that can work a miracle, and make it to leap in the Temple.

Nor let him upbraid us with mutability and no∣velty, these faults (injuriously charged upon Pro∣testants) do sleep in the bosom of the Romish Church; they are the Changlings that coin and declare new Articles of Faith; and they are no∣velists that have not Primitive and Apostolick Antiquity and Succession; this was never yielded unto the Romanists by any real Protestants; but whatsoever Antiquity and Succession hath been granted unto them for those opinions wherein they differ from Protestants is meerly spurious, and many ages postnate to the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles.

Nor let him tell us that we are assured that An∣tiquity and Succession will not befriend us, until he do prove his Religion to be true, we are assur∣ed that it will not befriend him; as for our selves we do profess that we stand not in need of any such friendship; though that Antiquity and Suc∣cession which is sound and legitimate belongs only unto us, yet it is not Antiquity and Succession in the abstract, but the proof of the truth, that is the ground on which we do build.

Which proof will not be made for the present Romish Religion, by saying that Religion profes∣sed by the Romanists, is the same with Austines, his the same with the ancient Brittans, their's the same that was first preached in England; or by saying that the Religion now professed by the Ro∣manists

is the same with that of the fifteenth age, that the same with the Religion of the fourteenth, and so backward to the first; can he say that the water at the foot of the River is proved to be as pure and clear as it is at the head, by saying that it runs through those cuts and passages of land, which do strike up to the head, possibly many stinking sinks and unclean puddles, and muddy ditches may empty themselves into the stream, between the head and the foot.

And let him tell us how he knows all this to be true, that the Religion now professed by the Ro∣manists is the same with that of Austin, his the same with that of the Ancient Brittans, theirs the same with that which was brought into En∣gland; I am certain that for the determination of this Identity in most points of Faith, he wants the evidence of Hystories; and let me ask him likewise how he knows that the Religion of this last age, is the same with the fifteenth, and so backward to the first; doth his measure of know∣ledg exceed that of Cardinal Perron, who being required to shew his Romish opinions in the three first ages, cries out upon it as an unjust demand, because (saith he) the monuments of the three first ages are so far ••ost, as no•• the hundredth part of them remains unto posterity, so that it is very foolish and unjust from such a paucity of books to require us to decide all the controver∣sies of our times, or prove the Articles of our Faith; with the want of Histories for some ages, let him take the corruption of Histories in others, and the contradiction of Histories in others, and then let him proceed to a resolution of the que∣stion; he is an excellent artist that can build an house without a foundation, or can draw a cer∣tain

and infallible conclusion from uncertain and fallible premises.

That the truth hath continued and succeeded from Christ and his Apostles, unto this day cannot be denied, but that there was never any chaff or tares mixed with the wheat, that corruptions & er∣rours never entred into the Church in any age, since the first cannot be proved; Histories do inform us of the contrary; that sometime Pellagianism over spread the Churches of Brittany, sometime▪ Arrianism the Churches of the whole world, cer∣tainly he will be at a great loss for the visible Suc∣cession of his Religion in those times, unless he do say that it is the same with Pellagian sin and Ar∣rianism, and it is reported that Pope Liberius was an Arrian; C••lestinus a Nestorian, Honerius a Monothelite; and that John the twenty second de∣nied the Immortallity of the Soul, he must ac∣knowledg that his Religion failed in its visible Suc∣cession during the times wherein those Popes did live, or he must say that his Religion is a main∣tainer of those errours, or that he doth not de∣rive his Religion by Succession from the Popes of Rome, neither of which (I suppose) will be affirm∣ed by him.

The purity of the water at the foot of the Ri∣ver is to be tried by that which is taken up at the head, the truth of Religion is to be proved by the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles delivered in the sacred Scriptures, and whether the Prote∣stants or the Romanists do make the fairest claim unto this proof, the Romanists themselves have determined, by their wicked rejection of the Scriptures, denying it to be the rule of Faith, and loading it with many Ignominious and Blasphe∣mous Titles.

Ʋpon the third Reflection.

IF the ground of the controversy, and the pro∣pounding of the queries was to satisfie some friends concerning the truth that is pretended to belong unto the Romish Religion, the proof of the queries in the affirmative was absolutely ne∣cessary; yet says the reflector, it was unreaso∣nable to require it: first because it is the most un∣reasonable thing in the world, to urge any one to prove a thing, and at the same time to declare that the proof of it shall be of no benefit or ad∣vantage, or no more then if a Turk or a Jew should plead the same.

Where was this Declaration made, I am very unwilling to use this expression, but the present discourse constrains me unto it, he that is frequent in telling of untruths, hath need of a strong me∣mory, is it likely that a Tu••k or a Jew should prove the affirmative of the queries; do not im∣pose upon me an improbable supposition from thence to draw a worse conclusion, in your ap∣pendix to your reflections you acknowledg that I have declared the contrary; I have said (and you confess it) that to grant your Religion to be the same with Austins, his the same with the ancient Brittans, theirs the same that was brought into England, is in effect to say that yours is the same that was taught by Christ and his Apostles, to say this is to declare contrary to that wherewith you charge me.

But to salve this sore, you make a strange In∣terpretation, and do tell how you would have the proof of the a••ffimative of the queries to be understood, to wit (say you) this continuance and an∣tient

tient Succession: verily every one will say that you wanted either grace or wit, when you made this (to wit) to prove the present Romish Reli∣gion to be Austins, his the same with the ancient Brittans, theirs the same that was first brought in∣to England, is it no more then barely to prove the continuance and ancient Succession of it; to prove a Religion, to have Primitive and Aposto∣lical Antiquity and Succession, certainly is a great deal more then barely to prove the continuance and ancient Succession of it; and to prove the con∣tinuance and antient Succession of the Romish Re∣ligion, is it to prove that it is the same with Austins, his the same with the antient Britains, theirs the same that was first brought into England? If your witty interpretation be not a wilful perver∣sion, the expressions will be convertible, and then every Religion that is proved to have antiquity & suceession, is proved to be the same with Austins; then the Turk proving the continuance and antient succession of his Religion, proves it to be the same with Austins, or a Nestorian, or Arrian, or Pela∣gian proving the continuance and antient successi∣of his Religion, proves it to be Austins.

And from whence do you make this Deducti∣on, that I have declared, that the proof of the three Queries, as you do interpret it, should be to no purpose? though some account of the words hath been already given, yet it is necessa∣ry here to make a repetition of the substance of them; I have said that the Turk may plead as great antiquity, and as long succession for his Re∣ligion, as the Romanists do for theirs, pleading to the time of Austin and the antient Britains, which were contemporary with him; and a Jew may plead a greater antiquity and longer succes∣sion for his.

By the woeful experiment of the bloudy Re¦bellion in Ireland, I have learned that some Ro∣manists will act any cruelty for the advancing of their Religion; and now I learn by experience that some will speak and write any thing for the same end, though it be never so absurd and false; I speak of a defined and limited antiquity and succession; you charge me with speaking of that, antiquity and succession which is illimited and undefined, between which there is as great a dif∣ference, as there is between a particular Coun∣try, and the vast extent of the whole world; and this you do make the interpretation of the proof of the three Queries in the affirmative, when will you be more honest and upright in your carriage for the defence of your Religion? when will you leave off these deceitful devices wherewith you do blind the eyes of the ignorant multitude, perswading them to believe that you say very much to the advantage of your Religion, while you say nothing to the purpose; and nothing but what any rational man would be ashamed to speak.

Secondly, it was unreasonable to require a proof of the affirmative of the Queries, because (say you) the Catholick Religion, the Romish Church was in possession when the Reformers first attempted the work of Reformation.

I say little of your confounding two different things; the Catholick Religion is not the Romish Church, nor the Romish Church the Catholick Religion, any more than a particular Church can be said to be the Catholick Religion; but what mean you by Catholick Religion? If that which our Saviour commanded his Disciples to preach, when he gave that commission in the

last Chapter of the Gospel according to S. Mat∣thew, go and teach all Nations; it is denied to be in possession according to your expression; that is, flourishing in the greatest calm, peace and serenity that could be all the world over; within the compass of the Romish Jurisdiction the truth was darkned with the Clouds of superstition and errours; the professors of the truth persecuted and driven into Corners; if you will believe one of your own Bishops, Cornelius of Bitonto by name, who sat in the Councel of Trent, and ad∣vanced your great Master, the Pope, unto a dig∣nity equal to that which our Saviour appropria∣ted to himself, saying Papa Lux venit in Mun∣dum, which in English is this, The Pope which is the Light is come into th•• world; you will find him declaiming thus against the Romish Church, uti∣nam a Religione ad superstitionem, a fide ad Infide∣litatem, a Christo ad Antichristum a Deo ad Epi∣curum, velut prorsus unanimes non declinassent, di∣centes incorde impio & ore impudico non est Deus, would to God they had not fallen with common consent, and altogether from tru•• Religion to su∣perstition, from faith to infidelity, from Christ to Antichrist, from God to Epicure, saying with a wick∣ed heart, and shameless mouth there is no God.

If you mean the Religion that is now profes∣sed by the Romanists, you beg the question, which will never be proved in the affirmative; it will never be proved that the present Romish Religion is the Catholick Religion; and I must ask what the present Romish Religion was possest of? if you say of those places wherein the truth was sometime sincerely professed; I deny this posses∣sion to be (as you say it was) without disturbance and contradiction; witness the persecution of

those Christians, and the bloud of those Mar∣tyrs, which suffered and died for the sake of the truth, in opposition to the Romish Religion.

But suppose this possession had been without disturbance and contradiction, is it therefore un∣reasonable to require a proof of the affirmative of the Queries? because the Turk hath been a long time possessed of those places where Christi∣an Religion once flourished, and that without di∣sturbance and contradiction, is it therefore un∣reasonable to require him to prove the truth he pretends to claim for his Religion? because a Thief hath been possessed of an honest mans purse without disturbance and contradiction, is it there∣fore unreasonable to require him to prove a right of possession? If the Lawyers do tell you, that me∣lior est conditio possidentis, the condition of the Possessour is best; this is to be understood with this supposition, if the possession be legal, otherwise if it be an usurped possession, gotten and kept by force or fraud, the condition of the dispossessed that hath a legal Title is best; and in this case the Lawyers will tell you, that prescriptio temporis non tollit bonum Titulum, prescription of time doth not make void a good Title, which being the case of the Ro∣manists, the Court of Equity will compel you to bring in your evidence to make out your Title.

And you denying to do this, which equity ob∣ligeth you unto, it is a most fond and vain pra∣ctice, to make such great cracks and flourishes, crying out of the present Romish Religion; a Religion so antiently setled, so universally ac∣knowledged, so Apostolically delivered, and the only one in possession; and being through the Christian World, and confessed by Protestants to be justly presumable to have come from Christ:

all this must be taken upon your own bare asserti∣on, there being not proof of it to be found; and there is no more ground or reason for me to believe you, than there was for the Prophet Eli∣jah to believe his servant Gehazi, when he said that he went no whether; the Romish Religion was not pr••mitively, nor legally settled, where∣soever it was settled, but by usurpation, as the Turk hath been setled where Christian Religion sometime flourished; nor was it universally ac∣knowledged, but opposed and contradicted in every Age since it first sprang up in the world; nor was it Apostolically delivered; it is my de∣sire to be informed what Apostle it was that deli∣vered these Doctrines, that the Pope is the Head of the Church; that Images are to be worship∣ed; that Saints and Angels are to be invocated; that Christ is corporally in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and the rest of your superstitious and Idolatrous Opinions; nor was it the only one in possession and being; there were Christians in A∣sia and Grecia that never submitted to the Romish Jurisdiction, nor embrace the Romish errours; but if the Romish Religion had been the only▪ one in possession according to your acceptation of the word; yet this could not be an argument to prove it the only one in being; though in A∣hab's Time the Religion and Worship of Baal was only visible in Israel; yet the Lord told the Prophet Elijah, that there were seven thousand in Israel that had not bowed their Knees to Baal; nor ever was it acknowledged by any real Pro∣testant to be justly presumeable to come from Christ, but proved to be a composition of super∣stition and Idolatry; therefore the meer invention of erring and deceitful men.

Because you lay this great weight upon this argument of possession, do us the right to suffer it to be as serviceable for us, as you expect it should be for your selves; and you will find your self beaten with your own weapon, and forced to confess that which you have peremptorily de∣nied, melior est conditio possidentis, the condition of the Possessor is best; and the Protestant Religion hath been, and is in as calm, and serene, and flourishing possession in England as ever the Ro∣mish Religion was; therefore it ought not in common reason to be changed or disobeyed upon pretences, suppositions, and meer probabilities, but to be obeyed and admitted as the only true, and undoubted Religion, until the contrary be evinced and demonstrated by most vigorous and manifest proofs; therefore it was unreasonable to propound the Queries; and being unreason∣ably propounded, there was great reason to re∣quire a proof of them in the affirmative.

And though you do suggest the contrary, it was not upon pretences and suppositions, and meer probabilities that the Reformers disobeyed, and changed the Romish Religion, but upon ma∣nifest and convincing proofs made of the super∣stition and Idolatry, which was and is maintain∣ed by the Romish Church; the expression of the Prophet Isaiah might justly have been applied un∣to her; how is the faithful City become an Harlot; it was full of judgment, righteousness lodged in it, but now Murderers; thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixt with water; it was high time for the Refiners to work, to purge away her dross, and to take away her Tinn; to dispel those mists of Romish errours that clouded the truth, and cryed against Religion, as the Edomites did against

Jerusalem, down with it, down with it even to the ground.

As to your report concerning Luther; first, I answer that all reports made by Romish Writers are not true; witness the untruths that are re∣ported in your Prologue and R••flections; and this I know, that many things are charged upon Luther, of which he was not guilty in the least measure; and this report which you do make here, is one of them, to charge this expression upon him, in that manner as you do, is a wilful and wicked slander; the expression was vented in the heat of disputation with Eckius and his companions, whom Luther perceived to be desperately settled in op∣position to the truth, they being stirred up by am∣bition and malice, and hired thereunto by the Pope, when L••ther found that they would not be convin∣ced by the light of the truth, but would persist in a desperate opposition against it; he says in relati∣on to that opposition, non propter Deum haec res caepta est, nec propter Deum finietur, this work was not begun for God's sake, nor for God's sake will it be ended; and so I may say of you, your writing against me in defence of your erroneous Religion, was not begun for God's sake, nor unless I had some better ground of hope than yet is visible, for God's sake will it be ended.

But Secondly, suppose he had vented that ex∣pression in that manner as you say, you that build your justification upon charity, should have been so charitable unto him as to have taken his words in this sence; for no other interpretation can be imposed upon them without the breach of chari∣ty, that is, it was not by mans entreaty or beg∣ing that he was moved to attempt the work of re∣formation; neither by mans entreaty or begging

would he be perswaded to desist from it; you know it was mans entreaty and begging, if the Duke of Saxony desired him for Gods sake to return to the obedience of the Church of Rome.

But should malice make the worst interpre∣tation that could be made of the words, what ad∣vantage can you reap from them? if a personal fault must be an argument against Religion, why do you make claim unto S. Peter, to derive from him the chiefest Article of your Religion, to wit, the Pope's Supremacy? you know that he was guilty of a very great fault, in denying and for swearing his Master; and then give us leave to account the worse of your Religion, because Pope Hilderbrand threw the Sacra∣ment into the Fire; Pope Sylvester, with se∣veral other Popes, were Necromancers and Conjurers; several so prodigious and execra∣ble in their Lives and Conversations, that Pla∣tina (one of your own Writers) terms them very Monsters; two of your Bishops at the Council of Trent, were taken in the Act of Adultery, and the one clubbed to death, the other hanged; you will acknowledge your self to have some personal Faults, unless you will say, that you stand not in need of the Forgiveness of Actual Sins, which if known, by your Logick a Deduction might be made thence, to convince you of the Erroneousness and Malignity of your Religion.

Now let the Reader determine, whether you have made good your Position, that it was unreasonable to require a Proof of the Affirmative of the Queries; you have builded very much upon the Lawyers Opinion concern∣ing

Possession; therefore it will be unreasona∣ble and unjust to reject his Opinion concerning the Proof of the Affirmative; and (besides all that hath been said to shew the Necessity of it) he tells you, that affirmanti incumbit probatio; Affirmatives are to be proved; wherefore, it being a Duty which my Adversary was obliged to perform, he should not have been so careless and sloathful in the Proof of his Religion, as to stand in need to be requested to do it, therefore your Charge of Severity vanishes in∣to meer Smoke, and it was just to assimilate him to the Egyptian Task-masters, because he would be laying of unnecessary Burdens upon us, and would have us to be working to prove the Negative, while he would be neglecting of his Duty.

Ʋpon the Fourth Reflection.

IN your Prologue you told me, that it was your purpose to level your few Reflexions a∣gainst my Method and way of answering, pre∣scribing them to the Reader, as a Rule where∣by to determine concerning my Papers, whether I had in them kept close unto the Matter in controversie, and discussed it with Reason; here you direct one particular Reflection against the very same Mark. It seems your Memory is very frail, you forgot to prosecute your purpose in the three first; but to supply that defect, you rub up your Memory in the fourth: I shall pass by this infirmity, leaving the Reader to descant on it as he pleases, and will mind you of that which you told me in your▪ Prologue concerning the unprofitableness of Disputation; conclu∣ding thence, that it was against your inclinati∣on to enter into the Lists: but here you say, that solid disputation is a matter of greatest importance: When will you be constant to your self? It is not you distinction of solid and unsolid, or prudent and imprudent, that can salve the Contradiction; for all that hath been done concerning Points of Religion, hath not been unsolid and imprudent; and yet you say, all hath but made the world to nauseate, and hath not decided one controverted point.

And here I find you agreeing with that re∣markable Disputant M. H. L. in your Opinion concerning my Papers, my Method, and way of proceeding (say you) hath been disorder∣ed and unconclusive; so says M. H. L. but he

passes an ipse dixit, for a sufficient Proof, while you make some little shew of Reason for it; in answer to which, I will tell you a true story: There were two Fencers, that quarrelling about their Valour and Skill, for a decision challen∣ged one another to the Stage; where, when they met, their greatest Quarrel was concern∣ing the Weapons they were to use; and not agreeing about this, they presently whipt off the Stage, leaving the Spectators to gaze one upon another in a friutless Repentance for their mispent Pains and Coin.

I shall leave the Application of this to be made by your self, and do appeal to your own Iudgment to determine how▪ pertinent your present Discourse is, you know my imposed Task was, the resolution of three trivial and unprofitable Queries; will you tell me what infallible Rule, or Guide, or Judge there is to be found and used for the effecting of this? If there be none (as I am sure there is none) for the determining of that which is unnecessary to be known, why talk you of an infallible Rule, and Guide, and Judge?

And why do you say that if I had a mind to have proceeded solidly in a disputation concer∣ning points of Religion, such an infallible rule or guide or Judge should have been nominated, can there be a solid proceeding in a disputation concerning points of Religion, when they are not points of Religion that are to be disputed? The great concern of the Queries is the Identi∣ty or Non-Identity of the present Romish Re∣ligion with Austin's, and of Austin's Religion with that of the Ancient Britains, and of the Religion of the Ancient Britains with that

which was first brought into England? which are not points of Religion; they are not points of Religion which may be affirmed or denied without any hinderance to the Worship of God, and the ignorance of which cannot prejudice the health of the Soul, while man is upon the quest of his Salvation.

Your Discourse here is as pertinent as that was of the Traveller, who when he should have related those things that concerned his Tra∣vels, as what Countreys he passed, and the na∣ture of their Soil, with the quality of the In∣habitants, and the entertainment he found a∣mongst them, talked of the Land of Ʋtopia, and of the World in the Moon, and other feign∣ed Regions, that are not to be found in rerum natura: it seems that you were resolved to put your Pen upon motion, though you did not matter how irregular it was, and to blind the Eyes of your obliging Friend, you would be saying something, though it was nothing to the purpose.

But to follow you in this wild Chace, and to shew how much your Reflection is troubled with the Simples, as well as with Impertinency; First, I will tell you, that all Disputations con∣cerning points of Religion, that have been made between Protestants and Romanists, have been without a previous Agreement concerning an infallible Rule, Guide or Judge, therefore up∣on this ground their discourses must be as dis∣ordered and unconclusive as mine; and sola∣men miseris socios habuisse doloris; it is no small comfort to me, to be ranked among those Learned Protestant Writers, against whose convincing Reasons you dare no more object,

than a Child dares to enter into the Lists to fight with a Man of War.

Secondly, By the force of your own Reason, you are compelled to shake hands with me, and to say Hail fellow, well met, in reflecting a∣gainst my Papers, you have written as much concerning Points of Religion, as I have in an∣swering the Queries, and you have not previ∣ously agreed with me concerning an infallible Rule, or Guide, or Judge, therefore your whole Discourse hath been disordered and un∣conclusive; and pray Sir, to avoid this incon∣venience in the future, do not write again, un∣til you be assured that we do agree about these things: the observation of this Advice will save you the pains and the shame of writing any more Impertinences and Untruths; for if you do continue in retaining your Opinions, for want of this Agreement, you may lay aside your Pen until the last Day of the World doth come.

But you say, it was my Duty to lay down some Principle per se notum, or to nominate an infallible Rule, or Guide, or Judge; if there be an infallible Rule, there is no necessity for an infallible Guide, or Judge; for he that guides and judges according to that infallible Rule, guideth and judgeth infallibly, though he be not infallible in himself; therefore I as∣sure you, being there is an infallible rule, that I do not know any infallible Guide or Judge under Heaven; if you do know any, it is my desire to be informed by you; and if you will comply to my desire, when you lay down your Instructions, be sure to observe your own Prescriptions, and produce not any thing that is

probable, conjectural, or uncertain, but some infallible Proof for them; otherwise (accord∣ing to your Assertion) they must be rejected as erroneous, or at least doubtful: as for an in∣fallible Rule, or Principle per se notum, the Ob∣ligation lies as much upon you, or any other undertaking to write concerning Points of Re∣ligion; will you, or any other have your Asser∣tions to be received for infallible Truths upon your own bare Authority? the Reasons for which you transfer the Duty wholly upon me, are so childish, that it is a shame to take noti••e of them; he that writes concerning Points of Religion, whether he be Opponent, or Answe••∣er, whether he write against an ancient, se••∣led, or a new, upstart Religion; whether he da••e freely to put the nomination of an infallible rule to his Adversary or not, must not think to have his Assertions to pass for infallible Truths, only because of an ipse dixit.

Thirdly, You have an admirable short and ready way of refuting all Disputations that shall be made against your Religion; though Protestants do lay down never so many Princi∣ples per se nota, and tell you of the infallible rule never so much, yet while you do retain your own Principles, you will never agree with them about it; therefore (you will say) all that shall be objected against your Religion, will be disordered and inconclusive; and thus though your Religion be an House built upon the Sand, yet (in your Conceits) it remains as firm and unmoveable as a Mountain; upon the ground of this shameful Defence, which you do make for it; but, good Sir, if a disagreement about this, be of such strength to conclude, let it be

as strong in the mouth of a Protestant, as you would have it to be in the mouth of a Romanist, and let us retort upon you and say, that all that shall be objected by you against the Protestant Religion, will be disordered and unconclusive, because you will not agree with us about an in∣fallible Rule.

Fourthly, Either your Ignorance is wonder∣ful, or your Unconscionableness not to be pa∣rallell'd: Do you not know that I have pro∣pounded three Queries to my Adversary? the Affirmatives of which are as many Principia per se nota, undeniable Truths, though not for the determination of my Adversaries Queries yet, by which the pretended Truth of your Religion may▪ be examined? And do you not know what Protestants do mean, when they speak of an infallible Rule? Yea, have I not told you what is meant by it in that Expression, viz. I do not wonder that you keep a Veil over the faces of your People to hinder them from looking into the Holy Scripture? And if you do know these things, why do you conceal and deny your Knowledge? Can it stand with the pre∣servation of a good Conscience to speak a no∣torious Untruth?

And your inconsistency with your self is as prodigious as either, what you do expresly deny, you do implicitely confess, that you do know that by the infallible rule Protestants do mean the Holy Scripture, because you do produce ar∣guments to prove, that it is not the in∣fallible Rule, Protestants do maintain the Holy Scripture to be this Rule, and if

you do not know this, while you are writing a∣gainst Protestants, why do you produce Argu∣ments against it? it seems that by the frequent use of contradiction, you have attracted such an habit, that if you do open your mouth to speak you must incur the use of it.

But supposing your ignorance to be as great as you do pretend, which no rational man will believe, while you do profess your self to be a Romanist; how can you conclude that I dare not stand to the Judgment and determination of that infallible rule, which I have spoken of, being assured that I should bring a staff upon mine own head, and find my religion to be disa∣greeable unto it? can you draw conclusions from premises that you do not know? it is a great shame to use this kind of argument, but I have your self to be my famous president, which will shield me from the imputation of folly, and bring it home to your own doors; you talk here of an infallible rule, and guide, and Judge, but you have not told me, nor do I know certainly what you mean, whether Fathers or Traditions, or Coun∣cels, or Popes, or Church, therefore you dare not stand to the Judgment and determination of your own infallible rule or guide or Judge, being assu∣red, that you would bring a staff upon your own head, and find your Religion to be disagreeable to them; this (I confess) is as if I should reason after this simple and contradictory manner, I know not the quality of the man, but I know that he is a dangerous man, and will do me a dis∣pleasure, because he hath not made himself known unto me.

Because you plead ignorance so much, I shall dispell this dark mist, and tell you that by the in∣fallible

rule, I do not mean Fathers, or Counsels, or Traditions, or Church, or any thing else, but only the Holy Scripture, that sacred Word of God, which was dictated by the Holy Spirit, and written by such penmen as were specially fitted for that Employment: this is the rule by which we walk, and by which we do prove the truth of our doctrines, and demonstrate the erronious∣ness of the modern Romish Religion; and this you do know, though you have the face to deny it, saying, That while I speak of an infallible rule: you cannot imagine what I should mean, while I stick unto the Protestant Principles, for Scripture alone, say you, it cannot be for reasons expressed before; the meaning of which is ut∣terly unknown to me, unless by it, you do say, that when you do see you are stark blind, for you do know that this is one of the Protestant Prin∣ciples, that the Holy Scripture is the infallible rule: as for the reasons wherewith you do labor to refute the truth of it, when they come to be examined, which will be presently, they will be found to be lighter than vanity, in the mean time let me ask you, why you do fasten the reproach∣ful term of a dead Letter upon the Holy Scri∣pture, and in what sence this may be done? I cannot find by the strictest inquisition, that (as from its self) it can (in any respect) have this ignominious Title applied unto it, nor can I imagine how you can reconcile what you say to the experimented Efficacy of it, and the Doctrine of the Apostle Paul; he proves it to be a living Letter; saying that it is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and that it is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righte∣ousness,

that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished to every good work; and that the reading of it hath produced these wholsom effects in many, is so abundantly confirmed by Experience, that it cannot be denied: if the Word of the ever-living God can in any re∣spect have the Title of a dead Letter applied unto it,, I would know whose Word it is that is the living Letter: Is it the Word of Fathers, or Traditions, or Councils, or Popes? Are Abana and Parphar, Waters of Damascus, better than all the Waters of Israel? Must the Word of vain, mortal, fallible men be advanced a∣bove the Word of the ever-living God? take heed of making such blasphemous Assertions, this is the Word that will judge you at the last Day; and if you do not repent for that Blas∣phemy which you have wilfully and wickedly breathed out against it, it is not the imaginary Flames of Purgatory-fire that will procure you a tolerable Judgment,

It is not your pitiful Reasons that can disanul the Authority of this infallible Rule; every one will laugh at the simplicity of your first Deduction: The Arrians (say you) quoted Scripture for the maintaining of their Heresie, therefore it is not the infallible Rule. I will help you with another as conclusive as this; the Devil quoted Scripture to perswade our Sa∣viour to cast himself down from the Pinnacle of the Temple, therefore it is not the infalli∣ble Rule: Is that Authority disanulled, which is abused by some disobedient and unruly per∣sons? Possibly you may be abused as a Romish Priest; but I suppose, you will not acknowledge, that by this that Power and Authority is disa∣nulled,

which you received by Commission from Rome; God is abused by the Sins of men, yet I hope you will not conclude thence, that his Power and Authority is disanulled which he claims over the Sons of men: you do acknow∣ledge the feebleness of this Argument, while you do affirm, that the Abuse of a good thing should not take away the Use of it (of which I will tell you more hereafter) and what was the Arrians impugning the Divinity of Christ by Scriptural Quotations, but an abusing of the Scripture?

That the Arrians impugned the Divinity of Christ with far more plausible Quotations and Texts of Scripture than I can produce for the Protestant Religion, is an Assertion which I deny; and which you ought to have proved; which be∣ing not done, perswades me to believe, that you knew it to be a gross untruth, yet you would confidently avouch it, purposely to deface the Authority, and vilifie the Use of the Holy Scripture, that you might induce your follow∣ers to believe, that the evidence it holds out, is not a sufficient proof for the manifestation of Truth, and the discovery and confutation of Errors; and all this is done as a meer shift, to prevent (if it might be) the Use of that refu∣ting force that is in it, to be employed against your Religion: what will not the Conscience of this Gentleman swallow? what will he not adventure to do for the defence of his errone∣ous Religion? while without any sign of re∣gret, he can favour the Arrians, tread under his feet the Sacred Word of God, and main∣tain it to be a greater Patron and Defender of the Arrian Impiety, than of Protestant Truths:

it is well known, that though the Arrians quoted Scripture for their wicked Opinion, yet they were irresistibly confuted by the clear evidence of Scripture; and it is as notoriously known, that you do reject the Holy Scripture, not ad∣mitting it to be a rule for the determination of that Controversie which is between the Prote∣stants and the Romanists, and consequently, it is easie to determine which of us, whether I and other Protestants, or the Arrian Hereticks can produce most plausible Texts of Scripture for our Opinions; though you distil this false per∣swasion into the minds of your people, that we cannot find any convincing Evidence in the Scri∣pture for the proof of our Religion; yet you know very well, that the Evidence which we produce thence against you, compels you to fly (as sometime the Israelites did from the Phili∣stins) into Holes and Caves, and Thickets; I mean the Coverts of Church, Traditions, Mo∣tives of Credibility, and other dark Corners, to hide your selves.

It is a certain sign that you labour under a miserable scarcity of Arguments, while the ob∣jections which you do make against me, do put weapons into my hands, to be employed for the overthrowing of your self, if you maintain ei∣ther Fathers, or Councils, or Traditions, to be the infallible rule, or guide, or Judge; the He∣retick Diascorus cried out at the Council of Chal∣cedon, Ego habeo Testimonium sanctorum Patrum, I have the Testimony of the holy Fathers on my side; Eutiches appealed to Tradition; sic à pro∣genitoribus accepi & credidi, so have I received from my Progenitors, and so have I believed; the Eutichian Heretick Carosus pleaded the

Council of Nice; Ego (says he) secundum tre∣centorum Patrum expositionem sic credo, My Faith agrees to the exposition of three hundred Fa∣thers; therefore neither Fathers, nor Councils, nor Traditions, are the infallible Rule, or Guide, or Judge: Sure you will not have the face to withstand the force of your own Argu∣ment; and this is as like unto it, as one Egg is unto another; but howsoever you shall take the force of this Argument against your self, I will tell you that your Argument is of no force to work against the Authority of the ho∣ly Scripture; though all the Hereticks in the world should wrest the holy Scripture to main∣tain their destructive Opinions, yet it will stand according to the purpose and appointment of God, to be an infallible Rule, to direct his peo∣ple in the way of salvation.

Nor is it your second Reason that can work any thing to disanul its Authority; it is not Scripture taken according to the private in∣terpretation of fallible men, that is the infalli∣ble rule, but Scripture taken in its own native sence, which in things necessary to be known, is plain and evident to the meanest ordinary capacity: He that calls not many wise men af∣ter the flesh, not many mighty, not many no∣ble, but hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and the weak things of the world to confound the mighty; hath not failed in the end, for which he ap∣pointed the Use of the holy Scripture, which is the instruction of those whom he doth call; therefore it is suted to their capacity, that they may read and understand the things that concerns their eternal Peace; wherefore it is a

most injurious Assertion which you do make, tel∣ling us, that we cannot defend our selves against the pleas of the Quakers, without the use of those Arguments which you do employ against us: while we have the benefit of this infallible Rule, we are sufficiently enabled to deal with all E∣nemies whatsoever, that do profess any thing of Christianity; for by its power we confound the Quakers, and you, and all other Hereticks, that do maintain Doctrines contrary to the plain and evident sence of it; and by its strength the Protestant Tenets are established and main∣tained in clearness as far above the Scriptural Pretences af Arrians, as Light is above Dark∣ness, Truth above Errour, and beyond the greatest resistance that can be made by the strongest Champions of the Roman Church.

Where the Scripture is obscure the sence is not necessary to be known, as God doth not cast his pearls before swine, so he doth not hide them from his children, and for the interpre∣tation of such places we willingly submit unto the Wisdom of Councels, or the Judgment of the antient Fathers, while they are constant to themselves, and consistent one with another, and do not give out any interpretation, that is contradictory to those places that are manifest and plain: and while we allow so much unto Councels and Fathers, you have no reason to say (as you do) that we reject all Councels, and undervalue the Fathers: we must not advance the word of fallible Men above the word of the everliving God, least we should attract the guilt of blasphemy and Idolatry; but yet our allow∣ance doth exceed that measure, which you do af∣ford unto them: when the Fathers speak against

you, they are but children in your account, and when the Decrees of Counsels contradict any of your Doctrines, you cry out against them as illegitimate; you dare not expose your Religion to the decision of the first four General Counsels.

Your Argument is so remarkable for its vani∣ty, that I cannot yet have done with it, though it be sufficiently confuted already, but must expose it in its formality to the view of the judicious Reader, if the Scripture be privatly interpreted and that interpretation employed to maintain errors it cannot be the infallible rule; but the Scripture is privately interpreted by the Qua∣kers, and that interpretation is employed to maintain their errors, ergo, &c. certainly you did not ruminate upon the hypothetical proposition that is included in this Syllogism, when will you prove the consequence of it to be true? if ever that come to pass, it will be miraculous, and then you will be at a very great loss, if you do main∣tain either Traditions, or Fathers, or Counsels to be your infallible rule, or guide, or Judg, Tra∣ditions, Fathers, Counsels, have been privately interpreted, and that interpretation employed by Hereticks to maintain their Errors, there∣fore neither Traditions, nor Fathers, nor Coun∣sels can be the infallible rule, or guide, or Judge verily the world will wonder at your dexterity in defending the cause of the Romanists; while you have been vainly sighting against me, you have been destroying them, and have cast the greatest supports, wherewith they pretend to uphold their Religion, down unto the ground.

Because you have blasphemed the Holy Scri∣pture, denying it to be the Infallible rule, and you confess, that there is a necessity of having such a

rule; I must ask you once again, what and whose word it is, that must have this power and prero∣gative appropriated unto it; is it the word of a∣ny single man, or any society of men, if so, why must that word be advanced above the Word of God? because you say that nothing that is pro∣bable, conjectural or uncertain, can be a princi∣ple to prove, or a rule to walk by, or a Judge to determine; for the same uncertainty, or dan∣ger, which it hath, of erring and being false in its self, the same it must have in proving, ru∣ling and judging; I expect you to produce some∣what of certainty to be the reason; and when this is done, it will afford me that satisfaction, which is not to be found in any of your Writers; but because I am assured, that this will never be done by you; I am bold to commend unto you this wholesome advice, which deserves to be accepted by you; let God be true and every man a lyar, be not so desperately wicked as to advance the word of frail man above the Word of the everliving God, but let his Word have the preheminence above all: and let his people have the benefit of that light, which it holds out for their instruction, that they may see the vani∣ty and destructiveness of those many Errors, which the Roman Leaders have politickly devi∣sed to keep them in bondage, and to maintain the wealth, height and state of the Court of Rome: if you do embrace and practise this ad∣vice, you will have less blood to account for, then otherwise you will have, when the great day of the general Account shall come.

An Answer to the Appendix.

THe great Artillery of this mighty Champi∣on, to wit, his four Reflections, wherewith he presumed to level all before him, being exa∣mined and proved to be like unto Childrens Pot-guns, charged with nothing but Paper and Blast, I come now to take a view of the Appen∣dix, and here I find him perked on high, sitting in the seat of Judicature, and having (as he sup∣poseth) confitentem reum, he takes upon him to pass a peremptory sentence against me, dispara∣ging my weak endeavours, and advancing his own in the superlative; but he is not like unto Solomon's Judge, scattering away all evil with his eyes, but very like unto the unjust Judge spoken of in the Gospel, that feared not God, nor re∣garded Man; in his last Reflexion he blasphemes God by declaiming against the holy Scripture, and here he brings several accusations against me; for which he had no more reason than Je∣zabel had to accuse Naboth; it is my perswasion that it is as natural for him to use Forgeries and Calumnies, as it is for the sparks to fly upward▪

In what Line or Leaf of my Papers was this Concession made, that I cared not how much of Antiquity and Succession was granted unto the present Romish Religion? there was never any Protestant, that granted unto it the least share in Primitive and Apostolick Antiquity; and as for the Antiquity that was spoken of, it was li∣mited to the time of Austin, and his Contempo∣raries the ancient Britains; nor was this spoken of in relation to the Romish Religion, but by way of supposition; my words are plain to any com∣mon

capacity, which were these; If I grant you so long Succession for your Religion, what ad∣vantage could you make of it? Are Suppositi∣ons Concessions? I shall make one Supposition more here; What if I say, that all the Ministe∣rial Acts performed by the Romish Priests, are null and void, because by exalting the Pope to be the visible Head of the Church, they have rejected Christ, disclaiming him as the only head, will he take this Supposition to be a Posi∣tion? But howsoever he shall take it, verily there is more of truth in it, than of concession in the former; when he did read over my Papers, he could not but find me proving, that notwith∣standing the great Brags made by the Romanists concerning Antiquity, the Religion now pro∣fessed by them, can claim no farther than to the little Council of Trent: if I made that Conces∣sion, where was the Gentleman's eyes, that he that is so apt and forward to accuse me of con∣tradiction, could not espy a contradiction be∣tween this Concession and that proof, in relati∣on to which he stands like the Guest in the Go∣spel, that came to feast without a wedding-gar∣ment) speechless; but alas, he could not help it, he would have spoken, if he could have found any thing to say.

And in what Line or Leaf of my Papers is the unexpected change, which is so much won∣dred at, and that manifest contradiction, which is charged upon me? is there any inconsistency between the forementioned Supposition, and the Answer that was made to the first Query? My Supposition (of which some Account hath been already given, but I am forced to trouble the Reader with another repetition) was this;

if I should grant you so long Succession for your Religion, what advantage could you make of it, if you reason after this manner to confirm the Truth pretended to belong unto your Reli∣gion, my Father, and my Grandfather, and so onward, until you come to Austin the Monk, and the Ancient Britains, were of this Religion, therefore it is true; a Jew or a Turk may rea∣son with the same probability; or if you reason thus, Our Religion is as ancient as Austin the Monk, and the ancient Britains, therefore it is true; a Turk may plead as great Antiquity for his Religion, and a Jew greater for his: My Answer to the first Query was this; we may presume that Austin's Religion was the same which his Master Pope Gregory professed, and your Religion differs from his in these Particu∣lars, the Canon of the Scripture, the Suffici∣ency of the Scripture, the Reading of the Scri∣pture, &c. Now what carping Momus can find occasion to bark at these Expressions, or what subtil Sophister is there that can draw from them the Position charged upon me, viz. That the Sum of the Controversie, and the main Busine••s is to find out, what Religion Austin professed, it being become the Rule of my Belief, and by which the Protestant Religion must stand or fall; and if this Position be deducible from my E••∣pressions, how diligent was he upon his watch, that another contradiction should escape his Observation? He finds me telling my Adversary, that the determination of the Queries was a bu∣siness of very low Concern, not deserving the pains of an Inquisition; therefore I desired him to leave Austin and the Ancient Britains to stand or fall to their own Master, and without

any vagary to prove that his Religion is the same that was first brought into England.

Is it possible for a man to write while he sleeps? certainly if he was awake, he was more dimsigh∣ted than the blind man in the Gospel, who saw men walking like trees; or rather did he not look upon my papers (as Astrologers tell us, the Planets do look sometime upon this inferiour Orb) with a malevolent Aspect, like the Basilisk to kill with his sight, but that the darting of his Venom is prevented by a careful foresight; here is not one symptom of an alteration, nor any terms of contradiction to be found, which the Gentleman himself doth expresly acknowledg by contradicting of himself, which he doth twice within a little distance, first he says that I grant∣ed a boundless antiquity to the Religion of the Romanists, yet he confesseth that I limited the an∣tiquity spoken of to Austin and the ancient Brit∣tains, Secondly, he speaks boldly and positive∣ly, saying, that the sum of the Controversie, and the main business was to find out what Religion Austin professed, it being become the Rule of my Belief, and by which the Protestants Reli∣gion must stand or fall; but in his Conclusion, he speaks very timerously and doubtfully, and says, I did but seem to rest upon the Judgment of Pope Gregory, and he could hardly believe that I laid any weight upon his authority, which yet was contrary to his own knowledg, for he could not but know that (as the resolution of the first query was designed) the Religion of Austin was to be tried by those opinions that were maintained by his master; here is a perfect imi∣tation of Susannas accusers, convincing himself to be a false witness against me by his manifest

contradictions; I would attempt to perswade him to leave of his practice of bringing false and injurious accusations, but that I know my en∣deavours would be to no purpose, forgeries and callumnies must be used by him, otherwise he will want one of those rotten supporters, that are frequently used by the Romanists in upholding their erronious Religion.

I will tell him, that it is not upon the opini∣on of Austin, or Pope Gregory, or of any other private Doctor, that the truth of the Protestant▪ Religion is founded, nor do we apply our selves to any such rule for the tryal of it, it is the word of the everliving God contained in the Holy Scripture, that is our foundation and rule, which only is the infallible rule, without the direction of which none can be assured to find out the truth, and without conformity unto which the Religion that is practised, will be no more accep∣table unto God, then the offering of Swines flesh or the cutting of the neck of a dog, and if he will vouchsafe to look upon my papers once again he will see this very plain, that neither the Religion of Austin, nor of Pope Gregory was mentioned for any such end, but only for the determination of the quere in the negative, presuming that Au∣stins opinions were the same with his masters, this was all the weight that was laid upon Pope Gre∣gory.

Therefore it is a wonder to me (unless he did in this imitate the practice of Fencers, who build most upon the use of that weapon, in the hand∣ling of which their greatest activity doth consi•• what inducement there was, to move him to be∣stow this high denomination upon it, terming i•• a certainty to build on, and chusing it to be the

thief Subject of his discourse, and in which he reposed his greatest confidence, to trouble him∣self in writing, and me in answering, and the Rea∣der in reading a business of very low concern▪ for supposing this to be true, that I was mistaken in quoting and understanding Pope Gregory; what do I lose, or what doth he gain by it, all amounts but to this, that the quere was not sufficiently determined in the negative; that this was not sufficiently proved, to wit, that the Religion now professed by the Romanists is not the same, that was brought into England by Austin; and what of all this, what deduction can be made from this serviceable for his purpose, this doth not prove that the Religion now professed by the Romanists is the same that Austin brought into England, a defect in proving the negative, is not a sufficient proof of the affirmative; because Jo∣seph had not any substantial witness to prove that he was not guilty, it did not therefore follow, that he was guilty of that crime, which was char∣ged upon him by his wantom Mistriss; because I cannot sufficiently prove that you are not an Englishman, it cannot be therefore necessarily concluded that you are an Englishman, possibly you may be a Spaniard, or an Italian or a French man.

But because the Romanists are unwilling to at∣tempt the proof of the Affirmative, and great reason there is for it; being it is far out of their reach, suppose secondly that this insufficient proof of the negative should be interpreted ac∣cording to their mind, to be a strong demonstra∣tion, that the Religion now professed by them is the same that was brought by Austin into Eng∣land, what use can be made of this? a derivati∣on

of Religion from fallible men cannot prove the Religion so derived to be true, if Austin and his Master Pope Gregory had maintained the mo∣dern opinions of the Romanists, it is easy to prove that they did err, as well as the Romanists now do.

But thirdly, this which he is pleased to term a certainty to build on, is a real uncertainty, it being the meaning of Pope Gregorys expressions, that he vented the expressions (either in the same words, or for the substance of them) charged upon him, is as visible to him that ••ill open his ey•• to see as the Sun, and whether mine or his interpretation comes nearest to Pope Gregories mind, doth not belong to him to determine, considering those many faults committed in his papers. I cannot trust him for an infallible interpre∣ter; and for him to judge in his own cause, and to deter∣mine on his own side, before I do injoy the liberty of spea∣king for my self, is contrary to reason and equity; when I have pleaded in my own defence, and delivered what I have to say concerning Pope Gregorys expressions, who can tell but an indifferent Arbitrator may cast the ballance on my side, and determine my interpretation most to deserve the Title of certainty; what ground there is for this, and what building he hath erected upon his conceited certain∣ty, will be presently discovered; I do not doubt but it will prove a lasting Monument to perpetuate his own sha••e, and to witness the vanity of those great clamours that are made for the antiquity of the present Romish Religion.

Concerning the Canons of the Scripture.

IT is strange that he should presume to rely so much upon Pope Gregory's Testimony, term∣ing it a certainty to build on, while he is altoge∣ther a stranger to his opinions; otherwise how could he be ignorant that Pope Gregory vented that expression, which is charged upon him; and how could it escape his search, while the very Index affixed to Pope Gregory's Writings will af∣ford sufficient direction to find it; this surpasses the running of shooting at Rovers; he is a won∣derful▪ Artist that can hit the wh••te without

looking towards the But: but though he could not find the expression, yet upon a supposition that Pope Gregory said it, he takes upon him to make an evasion, but how seebly he pursues his undertaking the Reader may easily judg.

Here is nothing of coherency or sence to be sound in most of his expressions, therefore what was the chief reason of this exception against the quotation may be speedily conjectur'd, he knew not what to say, nor can he tell what he hath said; but to answer him with some sence, though not with as many just exceptions as may be made a∣gainst his words, if he will allow me that liberty which Printers claim as an undoubted priviledg belonging unto them, that is, to correct the Errata of the Transcription; and to write 17 for 13; and search once again into the Writings of Pope Greg••∣ry, according to this direction, he will find that the expression was vented by him; where he speaks (as may be presumed) not only of all the Books of Machabees in general, but also of all those Books that are rejected by Protestants as Apocryphal; and then passeth to a particular quotation of the first Book of Machabees moralizing upon Eleazers kil∣ling an Elephant, and dying under the weight of him; therefore to talk at this rate, demanding how I make it out that he speaks of the first and second Book of Machabees, rather than of the third and the fourth; and to say that Canus speaks in the general, and says only that Pope Gregory held them as disputable, not that he rejected them as Apocri∣phal, and to say that all that can be inferred thence, is that they are not declared to be or are not truly Canonical, is nothing but vain babling, altogether unable to resist the testimony, that is given on my side, Pope Gregory's wo••d•• being positive and

plain; in his Opinion all the Books of Machabees were non-Canonical, and then by his opinion they were rejected as Apochryphal; for truly I do not know any difference between non Canonical and Apocriphal.

And let us observe what is said beside; suppose (saith he) that Pope Gregory doth speak of all the Books of Machabees, not collectively taken, for in that acceptation it would still make more against me, but distributively as well of the first and the second, as of the third and the fourth: I have no reason to say unto him as Festus said un∣to Paul, too much learning hath made thee mad; but certainly he was beside himself, or else he was in a dream when these expressions were com∣mitted to paper, here is a distinction without a difference, as he explains it; if Pope Gregory spake as well of the first and the second, as of the third and the fourth, he spoke of all collectively taken, and how an absolute Identity doth work more and less against me, will nor enter into my ap∣prehension; and every fresh-man that is but new∣ly matriculated and initiated in Logick will tell him, that the genus doth include the species, and the whole the parts; if the whole heap be un∣sound, every parcel of that heap is unsound, if all the Books of Machabees collectively taken, were in Pope Gregory's opinion non-Canonical; let my adversary mention in particular what book he pleaseth, whether the first or the second; for these as will as the third, and the fourth were in his opinion non-Canonical.

And let us observe here what he says in the conclusion; the thing in controversie (says he) at present not being whether the assertions be true or false; but whether Pope Gregory held

them or not: there his integrity is to be applaud∣ed; he once spake truth; but then I must ask him how much truth is to be found in this expres∣sion, when he says, so fully is my objection answer∣ed by Dr. Bilson: how could Dr. Bilson's words answer my objection, and determine the controver∣sie, while (as he is quoted) there is not any thing spoken by him in relation to this question, whe∣ther Pope Gregory held the Books to be Apochry∣phal or not? surely, this Gentleman is admirable for his answers and reasons, as he is wonderful for his contradictions; and this being the contro∣versie, his following discourse may be rejected as impertinent by his own confession; for the whole scope and drift of it, is to prove that though in Pope Gregory's opinion the books of Machabees were not Canonical, yet now they are to be re∣ceived as Canonical; but to shew how languishing every word that he speaks is, I shall bestow some observations upon it.

First, the truth of the supposition being grant∣ed, which I perceive, he is ••••willing at length to do; my desire is obtained, while he is crying out to triumph as if he had gotten the day; he is fly∣ing from his colours; leaving the assertion he un∣dertook to maintain to shift for its self, and grant∣ing that which I undertook to prove: the present Romish Religion differs from that professed by Pope Gregory in this particular, the Canon of the Scripture; and thus far falls short of its highly conceited and boasted antiquity; which concession I take to be a good Omen of Success to follow me in maintaining the other particulars.

Secondly, I shall let him see what fruit he brings forth in the behalf of his Religion, by labouring to introduce the books of Machabees into the Canon, it is not the declaration of the Church that makes the holy Scripture to be a Rule;

but divine inspiration, which gives its intrinsical rectitude, whereby it is qualified and fitted to be a rule; for a rule is not such because it is declared to be a rule, but because of its intrinsecal rectitude which it receives from the Author, who upon that ground designs and appoints it to be a rule; therefore where a writing wants divine inspiration, it would be a capital errour in the Church to declare it to be Canonical: This being preposed I shall offer this Dilemma so his serious consideration, the books of Machabees, either had divine inspiration, or they had it not; if they had it, it was an errour in Pope Gregory to hold them non-Canoni∣cal; which was not only his own private errour, but it is strongly deducible from his expressions, that it was the er∣rour of the whole Church; for sure there is none of this Gentlemans Tribe will dare to say, that the Opinion of the pretended Head of the Church did dash against the opini∣on of the body; if they had it not, it was an errour in the third Councel of Carthage; and in the Councel of Florence and Trent to declare them to be Canonical: it is supposed now that he will not stand mute at the sight of this Dilem∣ma, but will make choice to some side, and whichsoever is made the object of his choice, it will shake some of the greatest Pillars that are invented for the supportance of the Romish Religion; for the one throws down the infal∣libity of the Church and Pope, the other the infallibity of Councels.

Thirdly, not to spe〈…〉〈…〉 much of the nature and the con∣stitution of those Councels that are nominated and affirm∣ed to declare the books of Machabees to be Canonical; that of Carthage and Florence were particular, therefore falsly denominated general; and that of Trent was but a Con∣venticle, made up (like unto Nebuchadnezars Image of different matter, some real, some imaginary Byshops, only to serve for the advancing of the Popes Interest; I shall oppose to these Councels the Councel of Laodicea, which excluded the books of Machabees from the Canon; and likewise the general Councel of Trullo, which appro∣ved and confirmed the Councel of Laodicea; I shall object also against these, the Opinion of a 1.3 Mellito, b 1.4 Origen, c 1.5 Hillary, d 1.6 Cyrillus e 1.7 Athanasius, f 1.8 Jerom, g 1.9 Cy∣prian, h 1.10 Austin; all these Antient Fathers maintaining* 1.11

all the books of Machabees to be Apochriphal: contradicto∣ries cannot be both true; therefore I would have this Gen∣tleman to determine which side the truth is to be ascribed; but in the mean time he may again take notice of the tot∣tering condition of the Romish Religion; how unable the foundation is to support the building, while Councels are contradictory to Fathers, and the subsequent Councels to those that were preceding; I desire to know whether the Title of Infallibility is to be fixed upon any of them.

Fourthly, he speaks of a Catholick tenent that was intended to be assented unto and approved by Protestant Divines, but his meaning lies in the clouds, and truly I have wearied my self in gues∣sing what it should be; if it be that which he hath undertaken to prove here, viz. that though in Pope Gregory's opinion the books of Machabees were Apocriphal, yet now they are to be received as Canonical: It is a most injurious and false asser∣tion, for all protestants have unanimously main∣tained the contrary: if he means that tenet, which he says is expresly held and defended, not only by Doctor Bilson, but also by divers of the chief Protestant Divines, to wit, that this most weighty controversy of discerning true Scripture from false, cannot otherwise be decided, but by the Authori∣ty of Gods Church, I suppose he understands the Church representative, otherwise I do not appre∣hend his meaning, while he says, that the Church having determined the controversy concerning the books of Machabees, all parties are obliged to sub∣mit unto it; it is most injuriously done to report any Protestant writers to be Patroons of this most gross untruth; what did not the general practice of the Primitive Church, planted and watered by the Apostles, and their immediate Successors, and the opinion of the Fathers, which lived next after them, serve effectually for the deciding of this con∣troversy, and discerning of true Scriptures from

false? Did the Apostles (as without question they did) after the writing of the Holy Scriptures, propound them as a Canon to the Church, and while the original copyes were extant, did the Apostle John collect and consign a Canon for the Church, as is proved by the concurrent suffrage of antiquity, and was not this transmitted to posterity? did not the Church of God know what Scriptures were Canonical for the space of three hundred years after Christ, during which time there was not any general Councel to determine this controversy? and what perspectives doth a ge∣neral Councel use, that the Primitive Christians and Fathers had not the same glass to look through for the discerning of true Scriptures from false, that Religion is very indigent of supports, that stands in need to be sustained by those slanderous reports, that are the Parents of many irrational and senceless conclusions.

If he had said that Dr. Bilson, and other Pro∣testant writers do affirm that a general Councel hath authority to enquire concerning every con∣troverted part of Scripture, and to examine whe∣ther the evidence that it hath on its side can afford sufficient inducement, to believe that it can have no other derivation, but from the Fountain of truth, and accordingly to declare and propound their o∣pinions to be embraced by the Church, I should have easily assented to the truth of it; but this is nothing serviceable for him, but altogether repug∣nant repug∣nant and destructive unto his present design; for in∣quisition hath been made concerning the books of Machabees, and upon examination they have been found so defective in evidence, that they have been judged to be meerly the issue of mans invention, therefore they have been determined and declared

to be Apocriphal, and that determination and de∣claration being agreeable unto truth, there is no general Councel, can have authority to determine and declare the contrary.

Fifthly, I will tell him that the books of Macha∣bees were not only doubted of by some particular Churches and Persons, but rejected as Apocriphal by the Pope (who is pretended to be the head of the Church) declaring not only his own private o∣pinion, but also the opinion of the whole Church, and they were doubted of and rejected not only for some short time, but for many ages upon just and undeniable grounds, they being originally not in Hebrew, but in Greek, and the Jewish Church, to whom (as the Apostle tells us) were committed the the Oracles of God, never received them into the Canon, besides the stile of them is so low and unlike the stile of the holy Scriptures; that it is a disgrace unto the spirit of God, to affirm them to he his di∣ctates; they contain likewise several matters con∣tradictory, to those books, that were never doubt∣ed of by any in the Church; nor did our Saviour or any of his Apostles give testimony unto them, by quoting any part of them, as they did to several books of the old Testament: now must he prove that the books of the new testament mentioned by him; were not only doubted of, but rejected by the whole Church for several ages upon as just and un∣deniable grounds, otherwise the members of his comparison are as unequal and lame, as the legs of Mephibozeth were, and his argument grounded up∣on it as ridiculous and unconclusive as that of Car∣dinal Bellarmin, who because there is but one King in an hive of Bees, concluded that there was to be but one visible Monarch in the Church: he must not think to pass that coin, that is proved to be counterseited by wanting purity of Mettal, and

the Kings impression for current money, as well as that which is proved to have both, though it be q••••stioned by some unskilful persons, that want understanding to distinguish between the good coin and the counterfeit.

I dare refer it to his own judgment, to determine whether there was as much reason for the rejecting of the books of the new Testament, that were doubted of but for a short time, by some particular Churches and Persons; as there is for the rejecting of the books of Machabees, that for ma∣ny ages after their first existence in the world, were not re∣ceived as Canonical by any part of the Church, and then whether it was rationally and justly done by the Councels of Carthage, Florence and Trent to decree contrary to the o∣pinion of the Primitive Church and Fathers, and contrary to the Councel of Laodicea, which declared them to be A∣pocriphal, and to the Councel of Trullo; which approved of and confirmed the decrees of the Councel of Laodicia.

Sixthly, let it be observed once more how consistent he is with himself, here he labours tooth and nail to bring the books of Machabees into the Canon, which (if I do under∣stand what the word Canon doth import) is to joyn them to the Holy Scriptures in being a rule; and in his fourth re∣flection, with one wipe of his Pen he dashes out the whole Scripture from being a rule, by denying it to be a compleat and infallible rule, for if it be a rule, it is propounded by God unto his people, who can propound a rule of faith and manners to direct them in the way of Salvation, but him∣self? and if it be propounded by God as a rule, it is com∣pleat and infallible, I hope he will not face Heaven and say that God hath deceived his people by propounding to them an imperfect and fallible rule, therefore to deny it to be compleat and infallible, is to deny it to be a rule.

He thanks God that he is not a professor of the Prote∣stant Religion, but by this how blasphemously he charg∣ed God to be the author of those delusions, that are en∣tertained and owned by him, I leave to the judgment of any rational and pious person; if instead of thanking God for this, he had prayed to God, that he would have given him grace to open his eyes to see and acknowledg those truths that are professed by Protestants he would not have been least to himself, to use such shameful contradictions, and such pittiful arguments, as he hath used in defence of that cause which he undertakes to manage and maintain against me.

Concerning the Sufficiency of the Scriptures.

IN his Fourth Reflection, he denies the holy Scri∣pture to be the infallible Rule, and fastens the Title of a dead Letter upon it: Here, being dazled with the Light of Pope Gregory's expression, he is not ashamed to make a Recantation, confessing the truth, and bringing with him the witness of Vincen∣tius Lyrinensis to confirm it; saying, that the Canon of the Scripture is perfect, and in all points very suffici∣ent in it self: that cannot in any respect be rotten, which is altogether sound; the Scripture cannot in any respect (as from it self) be termed a Dead Let∣ter, if it be perfect, and in all points very sufficient in it self; and if it be such, it alone must be the in∣fallible Rule.

And it is strange that he did not understand how Pope Gregory's expression (the truth of which is acknowledged by himself, and confirmed by Vicen∣tius Lyrinensis) should be evidently contradictory unto the Doctrine of the Roman Church decreed in the Council of Trent, (Concil. Trid. sess. 4. decr. 1.) viz. Scripturae sine traditionibus nec fuerunt simpliciter necessariae, nec sufficientes; Scriptures without Traditi∣ons are neither simply necessary nor sufficient. What, do the Scriptures contain all things necessary for in∣struction and edification, and are perfect and in all points very sufficient in themselves, and yet not sim∣ply necessary nor sufficient without Traditions? tru∣ly I do not know how to unfold these Riddles, that Scriptures should contain and not contain all things that are necessary for instruction and edification, and that they are perfect and imperfect, and in all points

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

very sufficient in themselves, and yet not simply ne∣cessary nor sufficient without some help afforded by Tradition.

It is not his distinction between the sufficiency of the Scripture in it self, and its sufficiency to inter∣pret its self, nor the inference of Vincentius Lyrinensis, that can reconcile these Contradictions; for first, though the holy Scriptures be mysterious and dark in many places, yet in all things necessary to be known for instruction and edification, they are plain to every ordinary capacity. Pope Gregory says, that the holy Scriptures are an Epistle sent by God from Heaven unto his Creature upon Earth; and certain∣ly God would not lap up his mind concerning things necessary to be known, in such mysterious and dark Expressions that his Creatures could not attain to the knowledge of it; this in effect would be not to send any Epistle at all: for I do not apprehend any great difference between denying to set Meat upon the Table, and setting hard bare Bones instead of Meat. St. Augustin is more plain, (Aug. de Doct. Christ. l. 2, 5, 9.) In iis (says he) quae aperte i•• Scriptura posita sunt, inveniuntur omnia illa, quae conti∣nent fidem moresque vivendi; in those things which a•• plainly expressed in holy Scripture, are to be found a•• those things that do contain Faith and good man¦ners. And Chrysostom is as clear, (Chrysost. Ho•• 3. in 2. Epist. ad Thess.) Omnia (says he) pla•• & clara sunt in Scripturis divinis, quaecumque necess••∣ria sunt, manifesta sunt: In the holy Scriptures what∣soever things are necessary, are manifest and plai•• And Bellarmine himself doth acknowledge this truth (Bell. de Verb. Dei, l. 1. c. 1.) His sacris Scripture (says he) quae Propheticis & Apostolicis▪ libris cont••¦nentur, nihil est notius, nihil certius, hae fidei Catholi•• sunt sine dubio regulae; There is nothing more know••

and more sure than the holy Scriptur••s contained in the Books of the Prophets and the Apostles, these are without doubt the rule of the Catholick Faith.

Secondly, I do not find that Vincentius Lyrinensis affirmed that the holy Scripture in every part and parcel thereof is mysterious and dark; nor could this be affirmed by any man with any colour of truth: but it must be acknowledged by all, that as many places are mysterious and dark, so many more are manifest and plain; wherefore his words are to be taken as spoken in relation to those places that are mysterious and dark; and he doth not infer from the mysteriousness and darkness of those places a necessity of the Ecclesiastical understanding, but that the Line of Prophetical and Apostolical Exposition be directed according to the rule of the Ecclesiasti∣cal Understanding; that is, that the mysterious and dark places of the Prophets and Apostles be inter∣preted according to that Rule which is to be used by the Ecclesiastical Understanding in interpreting such places. I do not say that the meaning of those places is necessary to be known; but that the mea∣ning of them may be known, it is necessary that they be interpreted according to that Rule. Where∣fore was it that Eunomius did interpret the Scri∣ptures one way, Sabellius another way, Donatus a∣nother way, and the rest of the Hereticks other ways? It was not because of the mysteriousness and darkness of them, but because they did not inter∣pret them according to this Rule, but according to their own Fancies; and all others, interpreting the mysterious and dark places of Scripture after the same manner, will be sure to faulter in their Inter∣pretation, and fall upon an erronious sence. Hence it is that Vincentius Lyrinensis concludes, that the Line of Prophetical and Apostolical Exposition is to be

directed according to the Rule of the Ecclesiastical Understanding; but not a necessity of the Ecclesi∣astical Understanding. If the holy Scriptures be in all things necessary, manifest and plain, it is but a weak inference, to conclude from the mysteriousness and darkness of some or many places, the necessity of the Ecclesiastical Understanding. If the holy Scriptures be in all things necessary, manifest and plain, the meaning of the dark places is not neces∣sary to be known; and then where is the necessity of the Ecclesiastieal Understanding?

And it is as deceitfully demanded how we may come rightly to understand the holy Scriptures with∣out mistaking the true sence, there being many things in them so deep and mysterious, that they tran∣scend all Humane Reason? It is a meer fallacy, from the deepness and mysteriousness of many things, to conclude a difficulty in understanding all things con∣tained in the holy Scriptures. Though many places are hard to be understood, yet there are many most easie and plain to any ordinary capacity. And though he doth close his own Eyes, and will not see, yet he must give us leave to open our Eyes to see and to understand those places that are manifest and plain.

And the holy Scriptures being manifest and plain in all things necessary to be known. they are the best Interpreters of themselves, and sufficient to interpret themselves; that is, they are the best Rule to walk by, in interpreting those places that are mysterious and dark, and sufficient to regulate that interpretation for the preventing of Errours and Heresies; and that is the Rule that Vincentius Lyrinensis speaks of, as is evident from his own words, (Vinc. Lyr. c. 41.) he tells us that the Canon of the Scripture alone is sufficient for all things, Non quia (says he) Scri∣pturarum

Canon solus sibi non sufficiat ad universa, &c. If it be sufficient for all things, it is sufficient to re∣gulate the Interpretation of it self. But to clear this farther, let us observe what the Reflector says; he interprets the Ecclesiastical Understanding to be the Churches sense and Fathers interpretation of Scripture; (here he reckons the Fathers as Gyants, ranking them close by the side of the Church; though treating of the Communion in both kinds he counts them all Pigmies;) and he may observe that Vincentius Lyrinensis doth not say that the Line of Prophetical and Apostolical Exposition is to be di∣rected according to the Churches sense and Fathers interpretation, but according to the Rule of it: He speaks of these things as different, and so they are; the sense of the Church, and the interpretation of the Fathers is one thing, and the Rule of this Sense and Interpretation is another thing; the Churches sense and Fathers interpretation cannot be a rule un∣to it self. Now what this Rule is, hath been shew∣ed already; it is onely the holy Scripture in those places that are manifest and plain. How can we know whether the interpretation of the dark pla∣ces be agreeable unto the Truth, unless we do com∣pare that interpretation with places that are mani∣fest and plain? Must we take any Interpretation to be infallible because of an ipse dixit? Must the sense of the Church or the Fathers interpretation be received for infallible, because she or they do (if they should) say it is infallible? The claim of In∣fallibility upon an ipse dixit belongs onely unto God; and we must not take that for sound Doctrine, which is contradictory or disagreeable to those places that are manifest and plain.

To put this matter quite out of doubt, I ask the Reflector, Whether is likest to be true, to say that

the Ecclesiastical Understanding is a Rule unto the Scripture; or to say that the Scripture in those pla∣ces that are manifest and plain, is a rule unto the Ec∣clesiastical Understanding: which is as much as to say, whether it is the Ecclesiastical Understanding that directeth God how to speak unto his people, or it is God that directeth the Ecclesiastical Understanding how to speak and to interpret. Surely he will not say that the Ecclesiastical Understanding directs God how to speak unto his people; then let him acknowledge that the Scripture in those places that are manifest and plain is a rule unto the Ecclesiastical Under∣standing, and it is God that in those places directeth the Ecclesiastical Understanding how to speak and to interpret.

Besides, Gods holy Word is his Law and Rule, which he hath prescribed unto us; and though it re∣ceives very hard measure at the hands of the Reflect∣or, wheresoever he meets with it, yet for the Au∣thors sake he should not be so desperately bent a∣gainst it, as to deny it that perfection and sufficien∣cy, which he must allow unto Humane Constitutions. Now suppose a Statute, or Clause of a Statute, be obscure and dark, who must interpret it? He will say, the Judges. Well; but how must that interpreta∣tion be made? Must it be according to Law, or con∣trary to Law, or according to their own private O∣pinions? He will not say, contrary to the Law, nor can he say, according to their own private opinions, unless he will maintain the breast and will of the Judges to be Law; and then he must say, that it must be made according to the Law: Possibly one Statute may be clearer than another, and one Clause may afford light unto another; but howsoever, the interpretation must not be made in opposition to the Law, but to run as adequate and neer unto that Line

as possibly it can. The Law then must still be the Rule of interpretation; and I would have him for Gods sake to yield the same perfection and sufficien∣cy to the holy Scriptures: but what need I to beg this at his hands, while the force of Vincentius's words, acknowledged by him to be true, hath gran∣ted it already? Vincentius says, that the holy Scri∣ptures are sufficient in themselves. From this un∣deniable position must issue this Conclusion, That they are sufficient to regulate the interpretation of themselves; for certainly that self-sufficiency was not given to be lapped up in a Napkin, or covered under a Bushel, but to shew it self to the understan∣ding of the Reader.

If the Fathers might pass in any account with this Gentleman, I could produce the testimony of many on my side. Augustin says, (Aug. cont. litt. petil. l. 3. c. 6.) Sive de Christo, sive de ejus Ecclesia, five de quacunque re alia, quae pertinet ad fidem vitam∣que nostram, non dicam si nos, sed si angelus de coelo nobis annuntiaverit, praeterquam quod in sacris Scripturis lega∣libus & Evangelicis accepistis, anathema sit; whether it be of Christ or his Church, or of any thing else, I will not say, if I my self, but if an Angel from Heaven should teach us otherwise than we have re∣ceived in the Book of the Law and the Gospel, let him be accursed. And speaking in relation to Cy∣prian, he useth this expression (Aug. cont. Cresc. l. 2. c. 13.) Nos nullam Cypriano facimus Injuriam cum ejus quastibet litteras à Canonica divinarum Scriptura∣rum authoritate distinguimus, neque enim sine causa tam saluber vigilantiae canon Ecclesiasticus constitutus est, ad quem certi Prophetarum & Apostolorum libri perti∣nent, quos omnino judicere non adeamus, & secundum quos de ceteris litteris vel fidelium vel infidelium liber judicemus; We do Cyprian no wrong, when we di∣stinguish

any of his Writings from the Canonical Authority of Divine Scriptures; for not without cause is such an Ecclesiastical Rule of vigilancy con∣stituted, to which certain Books of the Prophets and Apostles belong, which we may not at all dare to judge, and according to which we may freely judge of other Writings, whether they be of belie∣vers or unbelievers. And speaking of the discourse of Reason in understanding of Scriptures, he says, (Aug. de Doct. Christ. l. 3. c. 12.) Haec consuetud•• periculosa est, per Scripturas enim multo tutius ambula∣tur; This manner of expounding is very dangerous, the safer way is to walk by the Scriptures. Irenaeus tells us, that Ostensiones quae sunt in Scripturis, non possunt ostendi, nisi ex ipsis Scripturis; the Evidences that are in Scriptures cannot be manifested but by the Scriptures themselves. Origen likewise speaks after the same manner, (Orig. Enchir. Hom. 2.) Necesse est (says he) nobis in testimonium vocare san∣ctas Scripturas, sensus quippe nostri, & enarrationes, sine iis testibus non habent fidem; we must needs call to witness the holy Scriptures; for our Judgements and Expositions without these Witnesses carry no credit. Chrysostom also is positive in this, (Chrys. in Oper, Imperf. Hom. 49.) Nec ipsis (says he) om∣nino Ecclesiis credendum est, nisi ea dicant vel faciant que convenientia sunt Scripturis; we may in no wise be∣lieve the Churches themselves, unless they say and do such things as be agreeable to the Scriptures. And Ter∣tullian gives us this rule for the expounding of the Scriptures, saying, (Tertul. adver. Prax.) Oport••t secundum plura intelligi pauciora; it is meet that we expound the fewer places according to the more; and then certainly by the law of parity this rule will hold, it is fit that we expound the darker pla∣ces by the clearer.

By this time it appears plainly, that the flash which the Reflector made, saying, that he did not understand how the Doctrine of Pope Gregory concerning the sufficiency of the Scripture, should be contrary to the Doctrine of the present Roman Church, was but like unto the glittering of a Glo-worm, visible to him that is in darkness, but disappearing upon the ap∣proach of the light. It is evident that the holy Scri∣ptures are plain and easie to be understood in all things necessary to be known: and to know the meaning of the mysterious and dark places, those Texts that are plain and easie to be understood are the best rule for Interpretation; so that the holy Scriptures need not to be beholding to Councils, or Churches, or Fathers, or Traditions, in borrowing any sufficiency from them. Nor have they any to lend, but whatsoever is delivered by way of Inter∣pretation or otherwise, is to be examined by the rule of the holy Scriptures. And this being the Do∣ctrine of Pope Gregory, that all things necessary to be known for Instruction and Edification are con∣tained in the holy Scriptures; and the Doctrine of the present Roman Church being this, That the holy Scriptures without Traditions are neither simply ne∣cessary nor sufficient: Unless some dark M••st doth cloud his Eye-sight, he may with half an Eye per∣ceive that the Doctrine of Pope Gregory is as con∣trary to the Doctrine of the present Roman Church as truth is unto errour.

What is objected concerning the perverting and wresting of the holy Scriptures made by Hereticks, is as truly applicable to the Ecclesiastical Understan∣ding: For the same fate hath befallen it; so that it lies open to the force of the same inference which the Reflector doth deduce thence. It is well known that the Fathers have been claimed and quoted by

Hereticks; and if by the sense of the Church the Decrees of Councils are to be understood, Hereticks have pretended and appealed unto them, as I have al∣ready shewed; Councils as well as Fathers have been perverted by Hereticks; and the truth is, nothing can be delivered so plainly, but it may be perverted, where there is a will and a purpose to do it. There∣fore the perversion of the sence of the Scriptures made by Hereticks, can no more prove a necessity of the Ecclesiastical Understanding to interpret them, than it can prove a necessity of interpreting the Ec∣clesiastical Understanding, and a necessity of inter∣preting that Interpretation; and so ad infinitum.

I ask this Gentleman, whether God could not, or would not speak as intelligibly and plainly as any Ecclesiastical Understanding? To say that he could not, is to deny his Wisdom; and to say that he would not, is to deny his Goodness. Will he say that God purposed for to delude his people, when he inspired those sacred Penmen that were employed to write the holy Scriptures, that instead of Bread, he would give his people a Stone; and instead of send∣ing a bright shining Light, he would involve them in a thick Cloud, to cause them to grope out their way in the dark? I entertain such an opinion of him, as to think that he will not affirm any such thing.

I demand farther, if the holy Scriptures be not plain and intelligible of themselves in all things ne∣cessary to be known, but there is a necessity for the Churches sense to interpret them, why is not the work done? Is there a Talent given to be employ∣ed and improved, and must it be lap'd up in a Nap∣kin, and lie buried in the Earth? Why are the common people hindred from the enjoyment of that benefit which the Church can afford? Why are

not the holy Scriptures, with the Churches sense of them, delivered unto the common people, to be read by them, that they may know the things that con∣cern their eternal peace? I doubt he will be hard puzzled to answer these Questions, unless he tells us, that the Churches sense lies hid in the bosom of the Parish-priest, unto whom the people have liberty to apply themselves at pleasure, to enquire what they must do, and what they must believe; and what he says must be taken for sound Doctrine, though it be quite contrary: Thus, though (according to the Doctrine of Pope Gregory) the holy Scriptures do contain all things necessary for instruction and edi∣fication, yet the word of a Romish Priest, and it may be one that is not able to draw a rational conclusion from apt and fit premises, must be preferred before the word of the ever-living God; and what is this but the blind leading the blind, whose end will be to fall both together into the Ditch?

These things being considered, it will be his wis∣dom to observe this advice, to acknowledge accor∣ding to the Doctrine of Gregory, Augustin, and Chryso∣stom, that God in the holy Scriptures hath delivered intelligibly and plainly all things necessary to be known; therefore there is no absolute necessity for private or publick interpretation, but all that is needful to be done, is to open the Eyes to see, and the Heart to receive, and to order the Will to pra∣ctise those truths that God hath delivered plainly in the holy Scriptures.

Concerning the Reading of the Scriptures.

TO speak of the occasion of writing this Epistle, is impertinent. Theodorus's Charity to the poor did not entitle him more to the reading of the Scriptures, than the meanest of the people: they all had, or were to have Charity, and the Love of God; and to increase in these Graces, as well as he: nei∣ther did any other conjoyned acts of his, beget a singularity of Priviledge; God keeps open house, and Strangers as well as Children are admitted to this Table. The priviledge of reading the Scriptures is common to the unconverted, as well as to the con∣verted: the Apostle Paul says, that all Scripture is given by inspiration from God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in Righteousness; they that want these things are priviledged to seek where they are to be found; eve∣ry one is priviledged to use the means of conversion, and the reading of the Holy Scriptures hath been profitable unto the unconverted, as well as to the converted; St. Augustin was converted by reading of the Holy Scriptures.

Nor have the learned a greater priviledge of rea∣ding than the unlearned; but if there be any inequa∣lity of priviledge between them, the unlearned ha•••• most, if it be measured according to the line of neces∣sity; St. Chrysostom affirms this, for thus he writes (Chrysost. l. in Math. hom. 2.) Hoc est quod omnia qua•• una peste quadam corrumpit, quod lectionem divinaru•• scripturarum ad solos putatis monachos pertinere, cu•• multos vobis magis quam illis sit necessaria, itaque mu•• to est gravius atque deterius rem superfluam esse puta••

legem Dei, quam illam omnino non legere, haec enim ver∣ba sunt, quae de diabolica prorsus Meditatione promun∣tur; this is that which as it were with a pestilence infecteth all things, that ye think the reading of the Scriptures pertaineth onely unto Monks, whereas it is much more necessary for you, than for them: it is more wickedness to think Gods Law is superfluous, than if you should never read it; for these be the words that no doubt come from the study of the De∣vil. I am sure that the unlearned want instruction and direction more than the learned do; and as cer∣tain it is, that the learned may wrest the Scriptures to an erronious sence, as well as the unlearned, and whose perverting of the Scripture is most destructive, let the Reflector determine. Who were the authors of those numerous Heresies that have infested the Church of God? not the unlearned, but the learned; and sure he will grant those Hereticks wrested the Scriptures to maintain their erronious Opinions.

He may find that Pope Gregory (Greg. epis. l. 9. epis. 75.) did not onely exhort Theodorus who was a Scholar, but such as he speaks of very contemptably here, illiterate women, to the reading of the holy Scriptures: and there was great reason that he should do so, being that the holy Scriptures (as he says) are an Epistle sent unto the Creature; which general term doth include both learned and unlearned. It had been strange if with the Epistle he had not given unto all a commission for the reading of it: must God beg leave of man, that his creature may know his mind? and shall he write an Epistle, and must it not be opened without a license from the Bishop or Inquisitour?

He tells me that Theodorus was not perswaded to read the Scriptures that he might make himself Judge of Controversies; but what his meaning

should be, I am very doubtful, this expression being subject unto a different understanding: it is one thing for a man to assume the power of Judging and Determining for others; another thing for a man to use the liberty of Judging and discerning for himself. If his meaning be this, that Theodorus was not perswaded to read the Scriptures that he might assume the power of propounding his Opinion au∣thoritatively in matters of Controversie to be em∣braced by others, it is willingly granted. But then if he shall say that Protestants are perswaded to read the Scriptures for that end, it is a most injurious re∣port; our people are not perswaded to read the Scriptures for any such end; but in cases of Contro∣versie they have Governours and Rulers to whom they are to apply themselves, and to them they are exhorted to subject themselves by a ready and willing submission unto their determinations.

If his meaning be this, that Theodorus was not per∣swaded to read the Scriptures to judge and discern for himself, it is denyed: doth he think that Pope Gregory perswaded Theodorus to shut his own Eyes, and to deny the exercise of his own Reason? to what purpose hath God made Man a rational crea∣ture, and given him understanding, if he must not use it? must he not see with his own eyes, and discern with his own understanding between Right and Wrong, Truth and Falshood? The Apostle Paul en∣joyned the Corinthians to judge of the Doctrine which he delivered unto them, 1 Epist. ad Cor. c. 11. v. 3. I speak (says he) as unto wise men, judge ye what I say and the Bereans were commended for searching the Scriptures, and judging of that Doctrine which he deli∣vered unto them, Act. Apost. c. 17. v. 11. And our Saviour asks the common peop••••, Yea, and why of your selves judge ye not what is right? Luk. c. 12. v. 57.

And while the Roman Leaders do restrain the com∣mon People from this Liberty, they deal worse with them than the Ammonites would have dealt with the Inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead; their cruelty extends to put out both the Eyes; though their common People have Eyes to see, yet they must not see; and though they have Understandings to judge and dis∣cern, yet they must not judge nor discern: but what∣soever is propounded must be embraced, whether it be right or wrong, truth or falshood; and they must know no other reason for it, but onely this, because it is propounded.

And as the Roman Leaders do put out the Eyes of their ignorant Followers, so this Gentleman endea∣vours to put out the Eyes of all others, or else would perswade them to believe that they do see that which they cannot see: All their common People are strictly forbidden to read the Holy Scriptures. How is it then the constant practice of the Roman Church, to perswade them that are discreet to read the Holy Scriptures for devotion and encouragement in the Service of God? To reconcile these things, will he say, that all the common People do want Dis∣cretion, that is, are meer fools? And he says, the Ecclesiastical understanding is to expound Scriptures: How then have the common People the Scriptures expounded and fitted much better by learned Expo∣sitors in their Books almost of any sort? Where are those Books almost of any sort, which do contain the Churches sence upon the Scriptures? It must be a bad Cause that is managed and defended with such con∣tradictory stories as these.

The common People which (he says) are ex∣horted to read the Holy Scriptures for Devotion, and encouragement in the Service of God, are some Phantasma's, that are existing onely in his own brain:

for there are no such common People to be found in the bosome of the Romish Church. And the Ex∣positors which he speaks of, are some such imaginary Entities, or else he must say, that the Jesus Psalter, or the Ladies Psalter, or the Exposition of the Mass, or the Legend of Saints, or some such superstitious and idolatrous Books as these, are those learned Ex∣positors: for these, or some such, are all the learned Expositors that are to be found among their com∣mon People. I suppose he will not include the se∣ven Champions of Christendom, or the Maiden-Knight, or the Knight of the Sun, or some such feigned Histories, in the number of those learned Ex∣positors. Such Histories as these (I confess) are frequently and plentifully to be found among their common People; the reading of which, is allowed for the passing away of time, and approved far above the reading of the Holy Scriptures: so careful and provident the Romish Leaders are for the Souls of their poor hood winked and deluded People.

Because he tel••s me that Theodorus was not per∣swaded to read the Holy Scriptures to interpret them according to his own phansie, I will tell him again from St. Augustine, Gregory, and Chrysostom, that the Scriptures, in all things necessary to be known, are easie and plain to the lowest ordinary Capacity: So that it is altogether improbable, if not impossible, that a well-minded person that goes humbly to draw Water out of this Fountain, with an earnest desire to be instructed and edified unto Eternal Life, should fetch thence any bitter Waters, that he should in∣terpret the Scriptures to an erronious and destructive sence; and then what great need is there for those learned Expositors of almost any sort? I would not be understood to undervalue the elaborate Tracts that have dropped from the Pens of learned Expo∣sitors;

where Scriptures are obscure, there is a ne∣cessity of Exposition for him that desires to know the right sence: for which end, learned Expositors are highly serviceable. But I must tell him, that the sence of those places is not necessary to be known; in all things that are necessary to be known, the Scriptures are as plain as any learned Expositor can make them: which himself must acknowledge, or else he must say, that God could not, or would not speak as plainly and intelligibly as any learned Expo∣sitor can.

He makes a tragical Exclamation against the use of the Holy Scriptures; but he bites his own Tongue for it, and very wisely retracts his detracting Ex∣pression: for this is the sence of his Yea rather, if any sence can be made of it; It was my great folly to speak unadvisedly; my Tongue hath uttered per∣verse things against the Holy Scriptures, they cannot be too much tossed and read; nor is it the tossing and reading of them that is productive of lamentable effects, but onely the abuse of them: And this being the sence of his Yea rather, alas for the reason of that man, that concludes against the use of the Holy Scri∣ptures, with an Argument taken from the abuse of them. He hath forgotten what he said in his Pro∣logue to the Reflections, there he will not decry Controversies for the abuse of them; but here he will decry the reading of the Holy Scriptures for that very cause. I perceive that he would shew him∣self to be as able an Artist as the Shoomaker is, that can make of the same Leather a shoe to fit any foot; or as the Taylor is, that can make of the same Cloath a stockin to fit any leg, either the right or the left: he can make the abuse of a thing to fit for any pur∣pose. It must depose the reading of the Scriptures, they must not be read at all, because they are sometimes

abused; but Controversies must ••••and and proceed in their greatest vigour, though they be subject unto the same fate. Why will he be thus partial in his dealing? why must the Holy Scriptures receive this hard measure at his hands? I know the reason of it, he will serve an Enemy with the same measure that is meted by him; because the Holy Scripture is ut∣terly against his Church and Religion, therefore he is utterly against the Holy Scripture.

And alas for the Conscience of that man, that, to maintain an erronious Opinion, and to bring an O∣dium upon a Religious Duty, which is the reading of the Holy Scripture, fears not to speak a notorious Untruth, manifest to the eye of every Christian that will cast his eye upon it; there is not any girl no•• any man in the world that reads the Holy Scriptures, but he will acknowledge a difficulty in understanding the Books of Canticles and Apocalypse: and where are those girls that upon presumption of Wit, or an un∣known Spirit, do make themselves Teachers and Controulers, and Judges of Church, Scriptures, Tea∣chers, and all? He says, every Girl: I ask where there is any such? if he cannot (as I am sure he can∣not) shew any such within the Protestant Commu∣nion, let him acknowledge this to be one of his learned Hyperboles; the frequent use of which, will beget this great credit for him, not to be believed whensoever he chances to speak truth. If there be any persons that in the least measure do abuse the Holy Scriptures, they are not indulged by Protestants in this practice, but sharply reproved for it; and from the abuse of the Scriptures, he cannot conclude against the use of them: He will betray a very soft place in his head, if, because Meat is sometime abused to Gluttony, and Drink unto Drunkenness, he shall therefore conclude that neither Meat nor Drink is to

be used. Let him but observe this practice for a while, to abstain from Meat and Drink upon this ac∣count, and his Body will be as hunger-starved and lean, as he suffers the Souls of his poor People to be, for want of the use of the Holy Scriptures.

Alas for the lamentable effects of the injurious de∣tainment of the Holy Scriptures from the common People! the Apostle Paul tells us, that the Holy Scri∣ptures are profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness: And the Psalmist tells us, that the Law of God is perfect, converting the Soul, and inlightning the Eyes, and refreshing the Heart: contrary causes do produce contrary effects. Alas then, that for want of the Holy Scriptures, the common people should want Conversion, and Illumination, and Reproof, and Consolation. St. Chrysostom says (Chrys. hom. 9. in Epist. ad Col.) Hoc omnium malorum causa est, quod Scripturae ignorantur: This is the cause of all Evil, that the Scriptures are not known. And he says likewise, (Chrys. de Laz. Can. 3.) Magna adversus peccatum munitio est Scripturarum lectio, magnum prae∣cipitium & profundum barathrum Scripturarum ignora∣tio; nihil scire de divinis legibus, magna salutis perdi∣tio, ea res & Haereses peperit, & vitam corruptam invexit, hoc sursum deorsum miscuit omnia: The reading of the Scriptures, is a great fence against sin; and the ignorance of the Scriptures is a dangerous downfal, and great dungeon; to know nothing of Gods Laws, is the loss of Salvation: Ignorance hath brought in Heresies, and vitious life; Ignorance hath turned all things up-side-down.

Alas, that the common People should pray to Saints and Angels, that they should not worship God without the use of Pictures and Images, but should worship him in and by them, and worship Pictures

with him; that they should believe a Purgatory-fire, and be tyed to an impossible confession of sin unto a Priest, and build upon merits, and assumed or impo∣sed Penancies, and purchased Indulgencies: That they should believe that Christs Body (which is ascen∣ded into Heaven) is really and properly in the Sa∣crament of the Eucharist, and should be put off with an half Communion; and should pray after such a manner, that they know not how they pray, nor what they pray for; that they should know little or nothing of that Service which they do pretend to perform unto God, and should acknowledge the Pope to be the Head of the Church; and that they should give no other reason for their Faith, but because the Priest, or the Pope, or the Church hath taught it them: all this, and much more is the rotten Fruit, which the want of Scripture doth produce: if they had the liberty of reading the holy Scriptures, they would not believe and practice any of these things.

I shall use this tragical exclamation once more; alas, that out of a miserable scarcity of better Argu∣ments, he should be forced to use his deceitful and irrational inference again, concluding a general fro•• a particular; because some Books and Texts of Scri∣pture are obscure and hard to be understood, an•• because St. Augustin says in relation to some partic••∣lar Book or Text of Scripture, O wonderful profound∣ness, &c. therefore he says (including the wh•••• Scripture) it being so hard to be understood by th•• learned▪ reason should teach us that they were •••• indifferently to be read by all, and by sad experien•• we see the inconveniencies.

The sad inconveniencies of the want of Scriptu•• are obvious; the inconveniencies of reading the Sc••¦pture are onely imaginary, otherwise this Gen••¦man would have instanced some particulars, and t••

us where to find them. Truly, I know not where to find, nor did I ever hear or read of any Girl, that by reading of the Scriptures, did make her self a Controuler, and Teacher, and Judge of Teachers, Church, Scripture, and all. But, to answer his chil∣dish inference:

1. He may as rationally and probably conclude, because some men are rich in the world, and some Kings, therefore all the men in the world are such; as he can infer, because some parts and books of Scripture are hard to be understood, therefore the whole Scripture is so: St. Gregory and Augustin, and Chrysostom do say, and so say I, and so will every one do that is not sottishly ignorant, or blinded with pre∣judice, that as there are some Books and Texts that are hard to be understood, so there are several Books and Texts that are plain and easie to every ordinary capacity, and whatsoever is necessary to be known is fully contained in them.

2. If the difficulty of understanding a particular book or Text of Scripture, be a reason why the Scri∣ptures are not indifferently to be read by all, it is a rea∣son to prove that it is not to be read by any; for if none must read the Scriptures, but such as do under∣stand every particular book and Text, there is not any learned man in the world that must read them, because there is not any learned man in the world that doth understand every particular book and Text of Scripture.

3. I shall offer to his consideration an inference that doth fully and firmly conclude the contrary, as himself will acknowledge, unless he be possessed with a wonderful prejudice against the Truth: as the Books of Canticles and Apocalypse, and other Texts of Scripture are hard to be understood; so there are many other books and Texts of Scripture that are

plain to any ordinary capacity: therefore the Scri∣ptures were ordained indifferently to be read by all▪ In them (as Pope Gregory saith) there are Ebb▪ waters where the Lamb may wade, as well as deep waters where the Elephant may swim. In them (as Fulgentius saith) is Milk for Babes to suck, as well as Meat for strong men to eat. The unlearned will find in them matter of instruction to beget and increase Knowledge, as well as the learned, matter of scrutiny, to exercise their Wit and Industry, to find out the meaning of obscure places.

If there be such a dismal number of false Transla∣tions, and corruptions of Scriptures, threatning no less than the ruine both of Church and State, as is pretended, why doth he suffer his Pen to lurk away under this Cloud of generals? Why hath he not told us what and whose they are, and wherein they are false and corrupt? Had he done this, he might have seemed to have spoken somewhat like unto Truth; but now this high exp••ession will be taken for one of his exorbitant Hyperboles, far surpassing the bounds of Modesty and Truth, used purposely to bring that sacred book into contempt, which above all books is most serviceable for the benefit of the Church of God; thus tender this Gentleman is of the Glory of God, and the Welfare of his People.

Doth he think that the Governours of the Re∣formed Churches are not as careful to provide whol∣some Viands for the nourishment of their People, as the Governours of the Roman Church are cautious that their People be kep•• hunger-starved, without that Provision which is necessary for them? The Translations that are common in the Church of Eng∣land, are not many, nor are they different in any matter of importance; which have been diligently penned, revised, and approved by as learned Doctors

as any the world can afford, who were employed by Authority; and laying aside all sinister respects, aim∣ed directly at the Glory of God, and the Good of his Church. And I leave it to any man of common sence to determine whether is safer for the common People to rely upon such Translations for instruction in matters of Faith and Manners, or to rely upon the instructions of the Priest, and the Dictates of the Pope with his Conclave, declaring for their own pri∣vate ends, matters to be believed and practised con∣trary to the Scriptures.

His Objection of corrupting, and adulterating, and mistaking the sence of the Scriptures, is so silly, that a meer Novice that hath not yet learned the Principles of the Romish Religion, would be ashamed to expose it to the publick view: Upon the same ground let not any Romish Priest, nor the Pope and his Conclave, nor the Representative Church, pro∣pound any thing to the common People: for the sence of their plainest Declarations is as much subject to corruption, and adulterating, and mistaking, as the sence of the Scripture is. Pray let him grant that God hath a will and power to speak for the in∣struction of his People as far out of the compass of this danger, as any Romish Priests, or Pope, or Coun∣cil can: and having a will and power to do this, let him not detract from the goodness and tendemess of God towards his People, and say, that this hath not been done by him.

And I perceive that he harps still upon the same string, though he doth make very harsh Musick. What is falsifying and corrupting Translations, and what is corrupting, and adulterating, and mistaking the sence of the Scripture, but an abusing of the Scripture? And what a pitiful Argument this is to conclude against the use of it, hath been already de∣monstrated.

What if there were twenty corrupt and false Translations, would it therefore follow that there is none true, or that the true Translations are not indifferently to be read by all? And what though the sence of the Scripture in some places be subject to be mistaken and adulterated, and that by come ill-disposed persons; doth he certainly know the Capacity of all the common People, that he dare conclude, that there is none amongst them that can make a good use of the Scripture, & take it in a right sence? Hath God by his special Providence appoin∣ted the penning, and preserved the being of the Scripture for his People, and will his Providence now fail in providing a true and pure Translation? And hath he promised the guidance of his Holy Spi∣rit to lead his People into all Truth, and will that Spirit suffer them to pervert the Scriptures to their own destruction? Let not any one be so wicked as to think that God will not perform his promise, and make all necessary provision that is fit for his People; and then let not any one dare to say, that there is danger in reading of the Scriptures, lest the People of God should fall upon a false and corrupt Transla∣tion, or should mistake the sence of it, and pervert it to their destruction.

If St. Augustine had seen never so many false Tran∣slations, he would not have concluded as this Gen∣tleman doth, but have taken care to furnish the Peo∣ple committed to his charge with a true Translation, and would have taught them how to distinguish be∣tween the true Coin and the Counterfeit. He quotes St. Augustin in speaking (as he pretends against the reading of the Scriptures, how pertinently, shall pre∣sently be shewed;) but he doth not observe how he exhorts Christians to the reading of the Scripture, not fearing the danger of falling upon a corrupt

Translation: Non solum, says he, (Aug. in cap. Jeju.) sufficiat quod in Ecclesiâ Divinas lectiones auditis, sed diam in domibus vestris aut ipsi legite, aut alios legentes requirite: Think it not sufficient that ye hear the Scriptures in the Church; but also in your houses at home either read your selves, or get some others to read unto you. And he tells us, that there were many Translations in his days, and testifies their in∣corruption, by shewing the happy Fruit that sprung from the use of them: Scriptura Divina, says he, (Aug. de Doct. Christ. l. 2. c. 5.) ab una Lingua pro∣fecta per varias interpretum linguas, longe lateque diffusa innotuit gentibus ad salutem: The Holy Scriptures passing from one Tongue, and being published abroad far and wide by sundry Tongues of Interpreters, have come to the knowledge of Nations to their Sal∣vation. If there were many Translations in his days, and not any of them corrupted, how comes it to pass that there is such variety of corrupt Transla∣tions in these days, as is affirmed by this Gentle∣man? Doth Gods Providence fail now in relation to his People? and are all the Rulers of the Church in a deep sleep, while there is none but this vigilant Gentleman with his Romish Brethren, awake to dis∣cern them?

Augustin's Expression makes nothing for his pur∣pose: for he doth not say, that the reading of the Holy Scriptures is the Spring of Heresies, but the mis∣understanding of them: Nor is this all the original that he speaks of, but he tells us, that this misunder∣standing must be confidently avouched and main∣tained; which is a fault more incident unto the Learned than the Unlearned. There is no rational man will think that an unlearned person wanting a∣bilities, can or will as confidently avouch and main∣tain his misunderstandings, as the learned who con∣ceit

themselves to be able to make out any position, though it be never so much contradictory unto truth. But however, if some ill-disposed persons (like un∣to the Spider) should suck Poyson by abusing this Rose; yet let him acknowledge that the well-min∣ded and humble (like unto the industrious Bee) do gather Honey from it. Now it appears plainly to the Reader, that the great Thunder-crack that he made, crying out alas for the inconveniencies of rea∣ding the Scriptures, was nothing but a great blast of Wind without any Bolt to hurt, or hinder the com∣mon people from reading of the Scriptures.

But I perceive that he is resolved to have the good hap to fall upon Truth sometime: For though Contradictions cannot be both true, yet it is very un∣likely that they should be always both false. He af∣firms and denies the very same thing; a little before he told us, that Pope Gregory did not allow of a Li∣centious and Popular reading of the Scripture, only he exhorted Theodorus who was a Scholar: and it is the practice of the Roman Church to exhort those that are discreet, but to restrain Girls, and enthusi∣astick Women, and Artificers; and he gives this rea∣son for it, The difficulty of understanding Scriptures by those that are learned, is sufficient to convince a rational man, that they were not indifferently to be read by all. Here he says, that though Pope Grego∣ries words do make nothing for a Licentious and Popular reading of the Scriptures, as it is used now a∣days, to intermeddle and judge of matters of Faith; yet they make for this kind of reading, to intermed∣dle and judge for instruction of life and manners; and this very allowance is made by the Roman Church.

It is strange that he should be such a refractory son to his holy Mother the Church of Rome, as to la∣bour to prove that is not to be done, which (as he

says) she doth freely allow: And how can I make these things to hang together? that the Church of Rome doth allow the common people to read the Scriptures for instruction in life and manners; and yet the Scriptures are not indifferently to be read by all, because of the variety of corrupt and false Tran∣slations, and the difficulty of understanding them; and because the sence of them is subject to be corru∣pted, mistaken and adulterated?

But why must this Licentious and Popular reading of the Scriptures, to intermeddle and judge for in∣struction of life and manners be allowed, and not al∣so for instruction in points of Faith? Is it because the holy Scriptures are more intelligible, or the Un∣derstanding more apprehensive in matters of life and manners? Or is it because the Church of Rome doth not much regard how the Life and manners of the common people are ordered, she being an excellent Physician, having a ready Cure for every Distemper that is made known by auricular Confession? Or is it because she dares not trust God for instruction in mat∣ters of Faith, as well as in matters of Life and Man∣ners? I would enquire concerning the validity and truth of these Reasons, because some of them are of a strong influence; but that there is another thing that carries the preheminence above all, that which wrought upon Demetrius the Silver-smith, causing him to cry out, Sirs, ye know that by this Craft we have our wealth. Whatsoever the rule be that regu∣lates the life and manners of the people, their Faith must be pinned upon the Priests or the Popes sleeve; this is the Harvest that brings in their full sheaves; this is the great supporter of the Roman Hierarchy; this maintains their pomp, and state, and wealth: the Fire of Purgatory would be quite extinguished; the price of Indulgences would fall; and soul-Masses

would be at a very low rate; besides, many other new-coyn'd commodious Articles of Faith would vanish out of the world, if the common people should be permitted to read the Scriptures to be instructed in points of Faith.

The meaning of that restriction, which he lays upon the allowance, that (as he says) is made by the Roman Church, is as dark and doubtful as the pre∣dictions of Astrologers; but I shall use my best en∣deavours to find it out: The Text which he hath quoted speaks not one word of reading the Scri∣ptures, nor of any limited measure of knowledge, which is to be attained by reading of them: If he use these words (unto sobriety) in the same sence with the Apostle, Rom. c. 12. v. 3. they are to be taken in opposition to excess, and then he must say that the extent of this allowance, which is granted unto the common people for reading of the Scripture reaches no further, but to the attainment of that Wisdom, which is bounded with Moderation, that they may not be excessively wise.

But then I must ask first what this wisdom to ex∣cess is, for the preventing of which, the Church of Rome is thus circumspect: I never heard, nor did I ever read of any person that was made too wise by reading of the Scriptures, nor will any real Christia•• believe, that the common people can be made too wise by the greatest liberty that can be granted •• used in reading of them. To answer this questi•• will be a matter of great difficulty, unless he will say▪ that it is too much wisdom for the common peopl•• to know that they are enjoyned the doing of man•• things which God doth not require of them; an•• that there are many Doctrines imposed upon the•• for articles of Faith, which are not to be found i•• the Apostles Creed, nor the Nicene Creed, nor Ath∣nasius

Creed, nor in any part of the Holy Scriptures; and so to know that the way in which they are con∣ducted by their Leaders, is not the beaten Tract that was used by the Primitive Christians in walking to∣wards Heaven.

Secondly, What are the bounds of Moderation, within the Compass of which it is the care of the Roman Church to keep the wisdom of the common people? he will be as hard puzled to answer this, unless he will say, that it is the greatest security of the Church of Rome, that is to say, the greatest as∣surance she can make for her self, that the common people shall not discern those follies and errours that are imposed upon them to be believed and practised; and then we know what this allowance to be wise to sobriety is. The surest way to keep a man from Gluttony, is to keep him quite without Meat: And the surest way to keep a man from Drunkenness, is to keep him quite without Drink. Thus the surest way to keep the common people from discerning those follies and errours that are imposed upon them, is to keep them quite without Scripture; this is the allowance that is granted by the Church of Rome to be wise to sobriety, as is very evident by that strict prohibition that was made by Clement the 8th, Biblia vulgari lingua edita legi non possunt, nec retineri; Bibles in the vulgar Tongue must not be read nor kept: and it is undeniable, that one among a thousand of the Church of Rome hath not the Bible in possession.

I wonder that the following expressions shou••d fall from the Pen of one that pretends unto Christianity; can the reading of the holy Scriptures bring forth these deformed issues, Heresie, and Blindness, and Ig∣norance, and Presumption, and Science falsely so cal∣led, that the Church of Rome should restrain it from the common people to prevent the production of

them? God appointed the penning, and comman∣ded the reading of the holy Scriptures; Can he be the Author of sin? and if the reading of the holy Scriptures doth produce these monstrous births, I would know what writings are to be read by the common people for the preventing of them; is it the Writings of a sinful man? Is the writing of a Priest, or a Pope, or a Council, more virtual and powerful than the writing of the Holy Spirit, that the read∣ing of that will open the eyes of the common peo∣ple, and make them really cautious, and wise, and Orthodox, while the reading of the Scriptures will produce the contrary effects? unto what height of wickedness is this Gentleman transported, to act contrary to the common notions of Christianity?

How much Atheistical he declares himself to be, by reproaching the Word of the ever-living God, I shall not determine; but I will be bold to say, that the Christianity practised by him is not conformable to the pattern of Trent; he will not reproach and con∣demn Traditions after this manner, and say, that the knowledge of them is to be with-held from the com∣mon people for the preventing of Heresie, and Blind∣ness, and Ignorance, and Presumption, and Science falsely so called; and that the holy Scriptures should receive as great respect from him, was decreed by the Council of Trent, denouncing an Anathema against such as do not receive them both pari pietatis affectu, with an affection equally pious.

The reading of the holy Scriptures doth not pro∣duce any of these things, but the contrary effects; Timothy (2 Epist. ad Tim. c. 3. v. 15, 16, 17.) Knew the Scriptures from a Child, yet was neither he∣retical, nor blind, nor ignorant, nor falsely wise; nay, the Apostle told him, that they were able to make him wise unto salvation; and that they are profitable

for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto every good work. And Cyril says, (Cyr. cont. Jul. l. 7. p. 162.) Etiam pueri in sacris litteris enutriti, statim fiunt religiosissime, etiamsi minus eloquentes; even our Youth being brought up in the holy Scriptures, straightway become most god∣ly, although not so eloquent. And Chrysostome af∣firms, Manichaei & omnes haeretici decipiunt simplices, sed si babuerimus sensus animi exercitatos ad discretionem bo∣••i & mali, poterimus hujusmodi discernere: quomodo au∣tem fiunt sensus nostri exercitati? ex usu Scripturarum, & frequenti auditione: the Maniches and all Hereticks de∣ceive the simple; but if we had the senses of our minds exercised to discern good and evil, we may be able to discern them; but how may our senses be∣come exercised? by the use of the Scriptures, and of∣ten hearing. Theophylact speaks to the same purpose, (Theoph. de Laz.) Illis (says he) qui scrutantur Scripturas divinas nihil potest illudere, illae enim sunt lu∣cernae, qua fur deprehenditur; nothing can deceive them who search the holy Scriptures; for they are the Candle whereby the Thief is discovered.

But how can the reading of the holy Scriptures be both allowed and restrained? this is like unto his teaching of the common people how to fast and to eat both at the same time; though they eat Fish, he will tell them that they fast from Flesh; but this is but a mock-fast: and so though the reading of the holy Scriptures be restrained for the preventing of Heresie, and Blindness, and Ignorance, and Presumption, and Science falsely so called, yet it is allowed to be wise to sobriety; but this is but a mock-allowance, these things being inconsistent. If the reading of the holy Scriptures be restrained for the preventing of those destructive inconveniences, it cannot be allowed to

be wise to sobriety; and are not these things Identi∣ties? Is not avoiding of Heresie, and Blindness, and Ignorance, and Presumption, and Science falsely so called, the same thing with being wise to sobriety, ta∣ken in his own sence whatsoever it be? and if so; how can the reading of the Scripture be allowed and restrained for one and the same end?

I suppose he will now say that I have set his Ex∣pressions upon the Rack, and tortured them to make them speak quite contrary to his meaning; but I ap∣peal unto any indifferent Judge to weigh his Expres∣sions, and if he do not say that I have charged no∣thing upon him but what is plainly expressed, or ne∣cessarily deduced from his words, I will acknowledge my self to be so impotent in my own defence, that I do not understand common English. When he hath more grace, he will have more wit, and then he will be so cautious as to hinder his Pen from dropping such nonsencical, contradictory, blasphemous, and atheistical stuff as there is to be found in his Expres∣sions.

Concerning the Real Presence.

WOuld he forbear the use of this Term Ca∣tholick, until he had proved the present Roman Church to be the Catholick Church, and the Tenents wherein she differs from the Prote∣stants, to be Catholick Doctrine; his Pen would never speak this Language. The Reader is to take notice, that wheresoever he useth this Title, as pertinent to his Church or Religion, it is to be taken abusively: and verily I must say, That in teaching his Premises to bring forth Conclusions, his Faculty is admirable. First, Pope Gregory speaks of a Sacrifice: Secondly, of an Imitative Sacrifice: Ergo, He holds the Real Presence, That the Body of Christ is really, properly, and externally sacrificed in the Sacrament of the Eu∣charist. Lo, these are his Demonstrations.

Now some inquisitive Logician, that shall exa∣mine his Logick, will be ready to ask him, how he knew the Mind of Pope Gregory, that he durst conclude thus à genere ad speciem, and à signo ad signatum; that because Pope Gregory speaks of a Sacrifice, and of an Imitative Sacrifice, therefore he meant a particular, proper, and external Sa∣crifice? As if he should say, Pope Gregory speaks of an Animal, therefore he speaks of an Horse; as if there were no other Animals in the World but Horses: and as if he should say, Pope Gregory speaks of the Embassador, therefore he speaks of the King; as if there were no Personal difference between the Embassador and the King.

But Protestants do deny all proper, real and ex∣ternal Sacrifice; thus he proves the Consequence: But thus (as Tinkers use to do) in stead of mend∣ing one Hole, he makes two. Verily he was to blame with himself, to toil in searching into Pope Gregory's Writings, to know whether his Opini∣on in the Controverted Particulars be the same that is maintained by the present Roman Church, and to prove it to be contradictory to the Opini∣on of the Protestants. Here, at a pinch, his In∣genuity hath found out an Inference that will speedily do the whole Work, without any fur∣ther trouble: What Protestants do deny, Pope Gre∣gory doth affirm; therefore he maintained the Do∣ctrine of the present Roman Church, and contradi∣cted the Doctrine of the Protestants. But besides the disability that is in the Antecedent, for the proof of the Consequence; it is no more true than Chawcer's Winter-Tales, that are meer Fi∣ctions. Protestants do acknowledge That One true, proper, and real Sacrifice of the Son of God, once offered upon the Cross, for the Re∣demption of Sinners, which is remembred and represented in the Sacrament of the Lords Sup-Supper; and besides, they do acknowledge the infinite Value and Efficacy of that Sacrifice, which the Romanists do deny, by maintaining the Necessity of a frequent Repetition of it.

As there was a proper and external Sacrifice, so there is a spiritual Sacrifice, and a figurative and mystical Sacrifice; and it is plain to him that will open his Eyes to see, that Pope Gregory speaks of a figurative and mystical Sacrifice: he tells us, That it is a Sacrifice by imitation; and that

which is a Sacrifice by imitation, cannot be a pro∣per Sacrifice; as he that imitates the King of France, cannot therefore be said to be really the King of France. It was a Practice used some∣time in England, by Boys in their Sports, to imi∣tate Priests in singing of Masses; I suppose he will not therefore conclude, that they were true and proper Priests. Besides, Pope Gregory terms the Sacrifice which he speaks of, a Mystical Obla∣tion, and says, That it renews the Death of the Son of God per mysterium, by a Mystery; and in the same sense that his Blood is poured into the Mouths of the Faithful, and his Flesh divided to the Health of his People, must this Sacrifice be taken. Now Pope Gregory could not hold, nor can this Gentleman say, That his Blood is properly and really poured into the Mouths of the Faith∣ful, and that his Flesh is really and properly di∣vided to the Health of his People, but onely in a mystical sense.

He tells me a Tale, That the Sacrifice of the Lords Supper is a Representative, unbloody, par∣ticular Sacrifice, applying the general and bloody Sacrifice; which agrees with some of his former Expressions as Light and Darkness do together, and hangs in its self as coherently as a Rope of Sand. This Sacrifice which he speaks of, must be really the same that was offered upon the Cross, or really another. He cannot say that it was really another, because he cannot say that it is another Christ that is sacrificed, and another Body of Christ that is offered; for Christ hath not several distinct Bodies: Wherefore he must say, that it is the same Sacrifice: And it exceeds

my Understanding to apprehend, how the same Sacrifice can be bloody and unbloody, particular and general, a representation and the thing re∣presented, the thing applying and applied, the imitation and the thing imitated. When he writes again, he will proclaim his Wisdom wonderfully to the World, if he shall unfold these Riddles, and reconcile these Contradictions: And the Sa∣crifice which he speaks of being invisible, (for, What Priest is there among the Romanists that can see the Body of Christ in the Sacrament?) it will be a further promulgation of his Wisdom, to tell how that Sacrifice which is invisible, can be a Representation of that which was visible.

It is a double Injury to the Memory of Pope Gregory, to interpret his Words in that sense, which chargeth him with these gross Absurdities and Contradictions, and makes him to maintain an Opinion that is first contradictory to the clear evidence of Scripture; the Scripture tells us plainly, That it was not a Sacrifice to be offered up unto God, but a Sacrament given unto the Disciples, which our Saviour did institute: Take, (says he) eat and drink, and do this in remembrance of me. In all the Passages and Circumstances of the Institution, there is not the least mention made of any Oblation; and the very Words of Institution are as contrary to the Corporeal real Presence, as Light is unto Darkness: This is my Body (says our Saviour): The Demonstrative This must be referred unto something that was present, and had a Being; for a Non ens can∣not be demonstrated: and something that was

visible, otherwise the Disciples could not have understood our Saviours meaning; and that which is invisible cannot be demostrated to the Eyes: But this thing could not be the Body of Christ contained under the species of Bread, for That (according to the Opinion of the Romanists) is not in the Sacrament until the last Syllable of the Words of Institution be pronounced; and it is visible to the Eye that it is not to be seen there: It was Bread that was present, and Bread that was visible; there∣fore the Demonstrative This must be referred unto That. This is cleared, beyond all con∣tradiction, by the foregoing Words, As they were eating, Jesus took Bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the Disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my Body, Matth. cap. 26. v. 26. What can be plainer? It was real Bread which our Saviour took, and that he blessed, and that he brake, and that he gave unto his Disci∣ples; and of that he said, Take, eat, this is my Body.

The other Part of the Institution is as clear, This (says our Saviour) is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many, for the remissi∣on of Sins. What doth the Demonstrative This relate unto here? It must be that which was contained in the Cup, the continent being put for the thing contained, of which mention was made before; And he took the Cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it, Matth. cap. 26. ver. 27. which, by the confession of the Romanists, must be Wine;

for, as I said before, according to their own Tenets, until the last Syllable of the Words of Institution be uttered, the Blood of Christ is not in the Sacrament; and it is evident, that our Saviour bad his Disciples drink of it, before he uttered those Words: Besides, after the Words of Institution, in the following Verse, he tells them expresly, that it was the Fruit of the Vine; I will not drink henceforth (saith he) of the Fruit of the Vine, until that day when I drink it new in my Fathers Kingdom, Matth. cap. 26. ver. 29.

Dare any of the Romanists affirm, That our Saviour falsified his own Words? He said that he would go away, John cap. 16. ver. 5. and leave the World, ver. 28. and be no more in the World, cap. 17. ver. 11. which connot be understood of his Deity, for that is Omnipresent; nor of his spiritual Presence, for that was promised to his Disciples, and is with his People, and in his Ordinances: Wherefore it is to be un∣derstood of his Humanity. Nor must it be un∣derstood of an imaginary, but of a real de∣parture. Will the Romanists affirm, That though he said these things, yet he would not go away, nor leave the World, but be in it Corporally, under the species of Bread and Wine? And will they contradict the Voice and Testimony of Angels? Ye men of Galilee, (say they) why stand ye gazing up into Heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into Heaven, shall so come in like manner as you have seen him go into Heaven, Act. Apost. c. 1. v. 11.

which must be understood likewise of his Hu∣manity. And how could he be taken from them, if he was still with them Corporally in the Sacrament? And how could he be said to come again, if he was not taken from them? And how can it be said that he comes again invisibly, and ingloriously, under the species of Bread and Wine; while the Angels said, That when he came again, it should be after the same manner in which he went away, that is, visibly and gloriously.

Doubtless the Apostle Paul knew the mean∣ing of the Words of Institution; and had he known that the Romish Sense was to be im∣posed on them, being that he was so earnestly desirous (as he expressed, 1 Epist. ad Cor. cap. 2. ver. 2.) to instruct the Corinthians in the know∣ledge of those Mysteries that related unto Christ, he would not haue concealed it from them; but while he treated of the Sacra∣ment of the Lords Supper, would have told them plainly, that in the use of it they were not to believe their own Senses, though they did feel, and see, and taste Bread and Wine, yet they were to know that it was not Bread and Wine, but the real and proper Bo∣dy and Blood of Christ: But he declares no such thing, telling them with several Repeti∣tions, that it was Bread, and it was the Cup, that is, Wine in the Cup after Consecration; and applying several Actions to those Elements, which could not be used to the Body and Blood of Christ, as breaking, and eating, and

drinking, 1 Epist. ad Cor. cap. 11. ver. 26, 27, 28. Besides, he tells them, That the Cup of Blessing which we bless, is the Communion of the Blood of Christ; and the Bread which we break, is the Communion of the Body of Christ, 1 Epist. ad Cor cap. 10. ver. 16. These Words must be taken as an Exposition of the Words of Institution; otherwise speaking of the same thing which Christ did speak of, how could he express it better, than by conforming his Words to the Pattern of Christ, and saying, That the Cup which we bless is the Blood of Christ, and the Bread which we break is the Body of Christ? But in stead of this, he says, That the Cup and the Bread is a Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ; whence it must be con∣cluded, That the Substance of Bread and Wine remains after Consecration, and Christ is not Corporally in the Sacrament: For, a Commu∣nion cannot be the same thing with that of which it is a Communion; nor doth this Com∣munion of which the Apostle speaks, require the Corporal Presence of Christ, any more than that Communion which the Israelites received while they were journeying towards the Land of Canaan, and by which they did partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, as well as Chri∣stians do by theirs: The Apostle says, That they did all eat the same spiritual Meat, and did all drink the same spiritual Drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock which followed them, and that Rock was Christ, 1 Epist. ad Cor. cap. 10. ver. 3. & 4. And we are assured, that to be saved, there was not one way for them, ano∣ther

for Christians; but as Christians are sa∣ved by Christ that did come, and hath suffered in the World; so they were saved by Christ that was to come, and to suffer in the World. And this is as true, That their Communion could not require the Corporal Presence of Christ, it being celebrated many Centuries be∣fore Christ came into the World.

That Text which is frequently quoted by the Romanists in favour of their Opinion, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you have no Life in you, John cap. 6. ver. 53. makes a great sound in the ears of the Common People; but while it is inter∣preted to that purpose, how shamefully it is perverted, contrary to our Saviour's meaning, is evident to every one that will open his Eyes to see. First, It cannot have any refe∣rence to a Corporal eating and drinking of the Body and Blood of Christ to be made in the Sacrament, because the Words were spo∣ken at least a year before the Sacrament was Instituted, which is acknowledged by several of the Romish Doctors. Besides, the Eating and Drinking which our Saviour speaks of, is sure to produce the Fruit of Eternal Life: Whoso (saith he) eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, hath Eternal Life, ver. 54. which can∣not be verified of a Sacramental Eating and Drinking. Judas (according to the Opinion of St. Augustine) had the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood administred unto him; and the Romanists themselves must acknowledge,

that wicked Persons do receive that which (they say) is the real and proper Body and Blood of Christ; unless they will affirm (which can∣not be affirmed with any colour of Truth) That no such Persons are to be found in their Society.

Secondly, It is a Spiritual Eating and Drink∣ing that is spoken of in that Text, as appears plainly by several Contexts. The Disciples being offended with our Saviour's Expression, to heal that Sore, and take away the Offence, he tells them how it was to be understood, What and if (says he) ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before? It is the Spirit that quickneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing: The Words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are Life, ver. 62. & 63. Which is as if he had said, You must not think that I speak of a Corporal eating and drinking of my real Body and Blood; for this cannot be done: I must leave the World, you shall see me ascend with my Body into Heaven: It is a Spiritual eating and drinking which I do speak of, for it is that onely which is profitable, a Corpo∣ral eating and drinking doth not profit. This is further cleared by that which is expressed before, He that eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, (says our Saviour) dwelleth in me, and I in him, ver. 56. What kind of In-dwelling is this which he speaks of? It cannot be Corpo∣ral; for it cannot be said that Christ dwelleth Bodily in a Christian, or a Christian Bodily in him: Wherefore it must be Spiritual;

and then this eating of the Flesh, and drinking of the Blood of Christ, must be also Spiritual. St. Augustin affirms them both to be one thing, making the latter to be an Exposition of the former: Hoc est (says he) manducare illam escam, & illum potum bibere, in Christo manere, & illum manentem in se habere; This is the eating of that Meat, and the drinking of that Drink, for a Man to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwel∣ling in him: Agust. in Johan. Tract. 26. Be∣sides, there is this undeniable Reason expressed in the Text; the Eating and Drinking which is spoken of, is absolutely necessary for the obtaining of Eternal Life; Except (says our Saviour) you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you have no Life in you: Which cannot be said of a Corporal eating and drinking, without the uncharitable guilt of excluding all Infants and Children, who dying in their Minority, and all others who through any invincible necessity do not receive the Sa∣crament of the Lords Supper, from a possibi∣lity of obtaining Eternal Life.

Thirdly, This Spiritual eating and drinking of the Body and Blood of Christ, is a belie∣ving in Christ: This is likewise evident by se∣veral Contexts. Our Saviour injoyns the Peo∣ple to whom he preached, to labour, nor for the Meat that perisheth, but for the Meat that en∣dures unto Life everlasting, ver. 27. Upon which, in the following Verse, they propound this Question, What shall we do that we might work the Works of God? Which is as if they had

said, (and this must be the meaning of the Words, taking them in a right Coherence with the former) What must we do to gain the Meat that endures unto Life Everlasting, for that is to work the Works of God: To which our Saviour returns this Answer, This is the Work of God, that you believe on him whom he hath sent. ver. 29. Christ's Flesh and Blood is the Meat and Drink that endures unto Life everlasting; and it is plain, that to believe in him, is to work for it, to gain it, to eat and drink it. This is further evidenced by what follows; And Jesus said unto them, I am the Bread of Life; he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth in me shall never thirst, ver. 35. What can be more plain than this? He tells us that this Bread is his Flesh, that he would give for the Life of the World; and it is evident, that to come to him, is to believe in him; and to believe in him, is to eat that Bread: therefore it is, that he that believeth in him, shall never hunger; and so to believe in him, is to drink his Blood; therefore it is that he that believeth in him, shall never thirst. Certainly the Romanists will grant, that it is Eating and Drinking that doth satiate the Sto∣mach, to the preventing of hungring and thirsting.

While our Saviour doth attribute the gaining of Eternal Life to Eating and Drinking, and the very same effect to Believing, as is abun∣dantly testified in the Holy Scripture, John c. 6. ver. 47. & cap. 3. ver. 15, 16. & cap. 5. ver. 24. and while there are such great and saving Ef∣fects ascribed unto Faith, as that by it we are

regenerated, by it we are justified, by it we are the Children of God, by it we overcome our Spiritual Enemies; and all this, because Faith is the Hand that lays hold on Christ, who works all our Works in us and for us, and from whose fulness we receive all that is necessary unto Eternal Salvation; who can be so senseless as to think, that this Eating and Drinking of Flesh and Blood, which our Sa∣viour speaks of, can be any other thing, but an unfeigned believing in him? I ask the Ro∣manists, Whether the Fathers that lived and died before the Nativity of Christ, did eat his Flesh, and drink his Blood, in that sense of which he speaks? If they did not, how could they be saved, it being absolutely necessary for obtaining Eternal Life? If they did, how could they do it otherwise than by Faith? And that they did it by Faith, is confirmed by our Saviours Expression, telling the Jews, That their Father Abraham rejoyced to see his day, and he saw it, and was glad, John cap. 8. ver. 56. That day must be the day of his Nativity, and living and suffering in the Flesh: And how did Abraham see this day? Surely it was by Faith, after which manner he did eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man; for it is without doubt that Abraham was saved by him.

Besides all this, which (I hope) the intelli∣gent and impartial Reader will judge to be abundantly sufficient to prove the repugnancy of the Romish Interpretation to our Saviours meaning, I shall add, for the consideration of

the Romanists, how sutably their Interpretati∣on works for them, displaying their Religion in fit and proper Colours to the view of the World. The Doctrine of the Romish Church is this, That it is not requisite and necessary for the Laiety to partake of the Cup; according to which the Practice of the Roman Leaders is conformed, they denying to administer the Cup unto the Laiety: And our Saviours As∣sertion being positive, declaring both the eat∣ing of his Body, and the drinking of his Blood, to be equally and absolutely necessary for obtaining Eternal Life; if by it we must understand a Corporal Eating and Drinking of his real and proper Body and Blood, then that Doctrine is damnably sacrilegious, and that practice diabolically cruel. How dare the Ro∣manists detain from the Common People that which is absolutely necessary for them? and why will they send poor Souls in numberless numbers posting to Damnation, by with-hold∣ing it from them? The Concomitancy of the Blood with the Body cannot acquit them from this Guilt; for daily Experience doth inform us, that Eating is not Drinking: therefore the eating of the Body, cannot be the drinking of the Blood of Christ.

Secondly, This Opinion, which the Reflector endeavours to fasten upon Pope Gregory, is con∣tradictory to the Judgment of the Ancient Fathers. Some (I confess) have given out high Expessions concerning the Sacrament; but it was onely for this end, to beget in the minds

of Christians a reverent Apprehension and Esteem of it, and this to work upon them to entertain a greater Devotion in receiving it; but that they did not maintain this absurd Opinion, is evident out of their Writings. Tertullian expounds those Words of Christ, Hoc est corpus meum, This is my Body, after this man∣ner; Hoc est figura corporis mei, This is a Figure of my Body, Tert. cont. Marc. lib. 4. cap. 40. Ambrose speaking of the Sacrament of Christ's Body, useth these Terms, A Figure, a Simili∣tude, a Sign, a Token of Christ's Body, Amb. de Sacr. lib. 4. cap. 4, & 5. St. Augustin saith, Chri∣stus adhibuit ad convivium Judas in quo corporis sui figuram Discipulis suis commendavit, Christ took Judas unto his Table, whereat he gave his Disciples a Figure of his Body, August. in Psal. 3. & cont. Adia. cap. 12. So St. Chrysostom speaks, Si mortuus non est, cujus symbolum ac signum est hoc Sacramentum? If Christ died not, whose Sign and whose Token is this Sacrament? Chrysost. in Matth. Hom. 83. And thus St. Jerome speaks, In typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam sed vinum, In token of his Blood, he offered not Water, but Wine, Jerom. adv. Jov. lib. 2.

Thirdly, It is an Opinion that is contrary to Reason, first, That Christ should be really and properly sacrificed again in the Sacrament, to represent the Sacrifice of himself upon the Cross: For, first, that Sacrifice once offered (as the Apostle speaks) was either perfect, or imperfect. To say that it was imperfect, is Blasphemy; and to say that it was perfect, is to affirm that it cannot be iterated; contrariorum est

contraria ratio & consequentia; If the Imperfection of the Legal Sacrifices was a reason why they were to be repeated, as the Apostle to the He∣brews doth abundantly testifie, Epist. ad Heb. cap. 7. & cap. 10. certainly the Perfection of the Sacri∣fice of Christ upon the Cross, must be a reason why it cannot be repeated.

Secondly, The Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross was not only perfect in its self, but it also makes the comers thereunto perfect: So the Apostle Paul affirms, By one Sacrifice (saith he) he perfected for ever them that are sanctified, Heb. 10. 14. And can any thing be added to Perfection? Is there any need that Christ should be again sacrificed, while that one Sacrifice of himself upon the Cross does all that is necessary to be done? Surely Christ will not have the Priest to do that which in every re∣spect is altogether needless.

Thirdly, If Christ be really and properly sa∣crificed again in the Sacrament, to represent the Sacrifice upon the Cross, he must be sacrificed ei∣ther as he was in this World subject to Misery and Mortality, or as he is now in Heaven living and glorious: But the first cannot be, because Bodies that are glorified in Heaven cannot be subject to Misery and Mortality any more; nor can the se∣cond be, because a living and a glorious Body can∣not represent, with any fit resemblance or likeness, that Body which suffered, shed its Blood, and died; and to represent being to expose to the view some signification or sign of the thing represented, the living and glorious Body of Christ cannot be there to represent, where there is no such representing Body to be seen.

Fourthly, That a Sacrifice may be real and proper, the thing sacrificed must be destroyed, and besides it must be visible; this is acknow∣ledged by their great Champion Bellarmin, (Bel∣larm, de Miss. l. 1. c. 2. & 27.) but we are as∣sured that Christ cannot be destroyed, he can dye no more, and that which the Romanists do say, is offered, is not to be perceived by any of the senses.

Secondly, It is contrary to Reason, that Christs Body and Blood should be really and properly in the Sacrament; first because this is contrary to the end of the Sacrament, which was to be a Remembrance of Christ, and to shew the Lords Death until he come, do this (says our Saviour) in remembrance of me, and as often (saith the Apostle Paul) as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup, you do shew the Lords Death till he come. The use of Memorials is only needful in Relation to Persons that are absent, need I any thing to put me in mind of my Friend, while I see him with mine Eyes, or know him to be close by my side? and need I any thing to shew the Lords Death till he come, if he be not gone, but is present under the species of Bread and Wine to shew his own Death.

Secondly, It is contrary to the constitutive parts of a Sacrament, which are a Signum and ••ignatum, a sign and the thing signified; If the Body of Christ and his Blood be really and properly in the Sacrament, I ask what is the visible sign? It cannot be the accidents belonging to Bread and Wine, these (according to the Opinion of the Romanists) must be left to hang in the air without a Subject, and indeed our Saviour did not say, this whiteness, or roundness, or red∣ness,

or any other accident is my Body and Blood, nor could the Body and Blood of Christ, which (they say) is shadowed under the acci∣dents, be said to be the visible sign, because it i•• invisible; but should the Romanists (contrary to sense) say this, it would confound the sign and the thing signified, making them one and the same thing, for Christ hath not two several dif∣ferent Bodies.

Thirdly, It chargeth Christ) who knew better how to speak than the Pope himself, though he be pretended to be infallible, and the visible Head of the Church) with a gross Solecism, and Tautology; for if Christs Body and Blood was really and properly in the Sacrament, the mean∣ing of the Words of Institution must be this; This my Body is my Body, and this my Blood is my Blood.

Fourthly, It is productive of many strange Conclusions, that Christ should take his own Bo∣dy in his Hand, and eat it, and give it to his Dis∣ciples, and they should swallow it, while he wa•• sitting visibly with them at the table; th•• Christs Body which is now glorified in Heaven, should be in all the Kingdoms of the Earth where the Sacrament is administred; that it should be in the Hand of one, and in the Mouth of ano∣ther, and in the Belly of another, and carri•• upon the Shoulders of men in Procession, •••• Myriads of Persons should every one recei•• the whole Body of Christ, and yet still be •••• one individual Body; that Christ should have▪ Body fitly proportioned with Parts, and endo••¦ed with Properties, and the same Body to •• without Parts and Properties; which is as mu•• as to say, that Christ hath a Body and no Bod•• for there cannot be a Body without these ••••

Parts and Properties, that do belong unto it; that Christ should have an humanity that is finite, and the same Humanity to be in a numberless number of places at the same time (and if in ma∣ny places why not every where?) which is as much as to say, that Christ hath an Humanity, and no Humanity, for Omnipresency, or to be in many places at the same time, is an incom∣municable Attribute peculiar only unto the De∣ity, and cannot be transferred to any created Nature; besides, what a blasphemous sound doth •• make in Christians Ears, to say that the Body of Christ may be devoured by Mice and Rats, may be thrown into the Fire, may be mingled with poison to the destruction of the Receiver? ••ll which (as experience hath proved) hath be∣falln the consecrated Host: These things are a∣bove the power of Wonder, and the reach of credibility, and all these, with many more; are the deformed Issues that are naturally derived from that monstrous▪ Opinion of the corporeal, real Presence.

To plead the Omnipotency of God, will not set a gloss upon it, to pass it under any shew of probability, and to excuse the absurdities that are consequential unto it; we adore the power of God more than the Romanists do, while we apply our selves unto him, and not (as they do) to the intercessory help of Angels and Saints; and we do acknowledg with Theodoret, that Deus potest quaecunque vult, God can do what he pleaseth; but his Will and his Power having de∣termined the nature of things, and appointed what essential Parts and Properties they must have to constitute them in a Being, without those essential Parts and Properties they cannot

be, for his Will is immutable, and the effect of his Power must be established; God cannot worl•• against himself, he cannot deny himself, nor lye nor repent; God hath appointed man to be a ra∣tional Creature, consisting of Soul and Body; will the Romanists say, that man can be without that specifick difference, and those constitutive parts; in like manner he hath determined the nature of Bodies, and they cannot be without those Parts and Properties that by his appointment are ne∣cessary for their existence; a Body cannot be without a place, or space and circumscription, a Body cannot be without longitude and lati∣tude, profundity; St. Augustin says, (Aug-Ep. 57.) Spatia locorum Corporibus tolle, nusquam erunt, & quia nusquam erunt, nec erunt; Take from Bo∣dies their places, and they will be no where, and because they will be no where they will not be. And an humane Body cannot be without Head and Feet, and Leggs and Arms, and Flesh and Bone••. I would know of the Romanists whether the An∣gels reasoned solidly, when they made use of this inference to prove the certainty of Christs Resurrection, saying, He is not here, he is rises, come see the place where the Lord lay. If so, then a Body cannot be in many places at the same time: And I would know likewise whether o•• Saviours Argument was concluding, when he reasoned from the Nature of his Body after h•• Resurrection, to prove that he was not a Spirit, saying, Behold my Hands and my Feet, that it •• I my self, handle me and see, for a Spirit h•• not Flesh and Bones as you see me have. If so, then his Body cannot be where there is no Hands, no Feet, no Flesh, no Bones to be handled and felt

Had not carnal ends and advantages been the

••idwife, certainly the Roman Church had not ••ravelled to bring forth this opinion, but (as it ••alls out sometime with the fruit of unchast em∣braces) it would have been smothered in the Womb, and not permitted to see the light: what will not worldly men do to gain their desired ends, upon this ground Gods commands will be violated, and his Worship slighted, truth will be contradicted, and errours maintained, and the Worship of Diana, and of the Image that fell down from Jupiter will be cryed up; this puts activity into the Tongues, and Pens of the Ro∣manists to plead in defence of this monstrous opinion, for the return which it makes, comes in richly laden; by this means the sacrificing Priest is advanced to the highest pitch in the esteem of the common People, how powerful is he deemed to be, while he is conceited to be able by the rehearsal of a few words to make the substance of Bread and Wine to vanish away; and the real and proper body and Blood of Christ to be present, and that he can offer this fruit of his lips as a propitiatory sacrifice, prevalent to take away the sins both of the living and the dead; this advances the trade of Soul Masses, and upon this ground what less respect can be paid unto him, then the Worship of genuflecti∣on, and to implore his favour for a benediction, saying holy Father bless us thy Children? This made Father Cotton to say, that while he carried his God in his hand, and had his Prince upon his knee in confession, he could do any thing. But the Romanists should fear to imitate the exam∣ple of the Scribes and Pharisees, who for Cor∣ban dispensed with the breach of the commands of God, and for a pretence made long Prayers,

lest they should share in those woes which were denounced by our Saviour against the Scribes and Pharisees; surely there is a woe to be inflicted upon them that draw out the points and practices of religion, according to the line of carnal ends and advantages.

Having proved the disagreement of the o∣pinion of Pope Gregory to that of the present Roman Church, concerning the corporeal Pre∣sence, I come now to refute those argument•• that are produced by the reflector to prove the contrary; what though Beacon do say that the Mass was fully finished by Pope Gregory; this makes not one fillable on his side, he speaks not of the Mass as it is now compounded, for as such it cannot be affirmed with any colour of truth, that the Mass was fully finished by Pope Grego∣ry; it is very well known that several successive Popes have added many ingredients as necessary to the constitution of the present Romish Mass, and the late Council of Trent hath coined several new Articles of faith relating thereunto, which were not used or known in Pope Gregories time, and particularly (if he will believe his own Dr. Tonstall, the articles of transubstantiation was not determined until the Council of Lateran, which was many centuries after Pope Gregory; Erasmus (whom he will believe, as I suppose) says, in Synaxi transubstantiationem sero definivit ec∣clesia, in the holy Ministration it was long and very late ere the Church determined the article of Tran∣substantiation.

And what though Melancthon doth confess that Pope Gregory allowed by publick Authori∣ty the Sacrifice of Christs Body, and Blood, not only for the living, but also for the dead, this

brings no advantage to his cause, for he doth not say, that sacrifice which Pope Gregory allowed, was in Pope Gregories opinion a real and proper Sacrifice, neither Melancthon nor any other Per∣son could rationally conclude from Gregories ex∣pressions that he maintained any such opinion, but directly the contrary; he terms the Sacri∣fice of the Lords Supper (as I have declared already) a mystical and representative Sacrifice, and tells us, that though Christ dyeth no more, death hath no more dominion over him, yet e∣ver living in himself, he is again sacrificed for us in this mystery of the holy oblation; for there his Body is taken, his flesh divided, his blood poured out into the mouths of the faithful. Be∣sides he says (Greg. m. 6. poen. Psal.) Quis ex∣ponere queat quantae fuit miserationis sacratissima pretiosi sanguinis effusione genus humanum redime∣re, & sacrosanctam vivifici corporis & sanguinis sui mysterium membris suis tribuere, cujus percep∣tione corpus suum quod est ecclesia pascitur & pota∣tur? How great mercy was it to redeem Mankind by the most holy effusion of his precious blood, and to give the holy mystery of his living body and blood to his Members, by the receiving of which, his body, that is the Church, is fed and refreshed; and farther he says (Greg. comment 2. hom. 37. in evang. circa med.) Christus qui a se resurgens a mortuis, jam non moritur, adhuc per hanc in suo mysterio pro no∣bis iterum patitur. Christ who rising from the dead by himself, now dies no more, yet by this he suffers again for us in his mystery. Now if the Sacrament be a mystical Sacrifice, and a mystery of his living body and blood, and that partition of the flesh of Christ, which he speaks of, and the pouring out of his blood, and that feeding

and drinking and suffering is not to be taken in a litteral and proper sense, as every man will affirm that looks upon his words; then the Sacrifice of Christ, which he speaks of, cannot be a real and proper Sacrifice, wherefore the meaning of Melancthons expression must be only this; The Sacrament of the Lords Supper being a mystical Sacrifice, Pope Gregory did allow of the use of it, that in it thanksgiving might be offered up unto God, for the benefits that flow from Christs death to the living and to the dead, to the Saints in Heaven, and to the Servants of God upon Earth; this is made more evident out of that prayer which Pope Gregory used at the time of consecration, (Greg. de Sacr. in Miss.) in it he terms the Sacrament a Sacrifice of praise, and says that it is offered for the whole Church, for all the Servants and Handmaids of God, and farther I will tell the reflector, that I do interpret Pope Gregories words, as his own Schoolmen, Peter, Lombard, and Thomas Aquinas do interpret the Sacrifice that is offered up in the Sacrament; they do acknowledge that it was not a propitiatory Sacrifice for the living, and for dead that was offered, but only a commemora∣tive and eucharistical Sacrifice. (Pet. Lom. sent. l. 4. dist. 12. Aqui. 3. part, q. 83. Art. 1.)

As to his Allegation out of Doctor Humph••y, it is a most notorious Untruth, to charge this acknowledgment upon him, which (in proprie∣ty of Speech) could not be made by any rational man, that knew any thing of Pope Gregory, or of Augustine's mission into England; Pope Gre∣gory was never in England, therefore it is certain that he did not bring the Archbishops Pall into England; nor did Augustine bring it with him

when he arrived, for it, with other Utensils, was sent unto him by Pope Gregory, after he had been several years there, so that the priviledge of wearing the Archbishops Pall was not granted unto him, until he had made some Progress in the work of Conversion; but if it had been as clear a Truth as it is a gross Untruth, that Dr. Humphrey did acknowledge, that Pope Gregory and Augustin did bring into England the Arch∣bishops Pall for solemn Masses, can any man ra∣tionally conclude thence, that Pope Gregory did maintain the corporeal presence? If the vertue and power of Transubstantiating be affixed to the Archbishops Pall, then whensoever the common Priests of the Romish Church do consecrate the Sacrament, there is no transubstantiation in it, because they are not priviledged to wear the Archbishops Pall; and thus by his own acknow∣ledgment, though he finds the corporeal pre∣sence in a Metrapolis, yet it is not to be found in the greatest part of the Romish Dominion.

Concerning the private Mass.

FOr want of better Arguments, he makes a great outcry against me, because of a Mistake in the Transcription, 13 being written for 23. I could present him with the like Dish of his own cook∣ing, but I forbear it as trivial. Besides he says, that if the Expression was Pope Gre∣gories, there is nothing of Ordination or Prohibition to be found in the words; un to which I answer, that Doctor Moorton upon the very same words makes this fol∣lowing Observation; The Romane Church (saith he) ordained in the time of Pope Gregory, that at the Celebration of the Sa∣crifice, the Deacon should say, Whosoever doth not communicate let him depart; (Moort. App. l. 1. c. 2. Sect. 8.) Against which Mr. Brerely (as wise and as stout a Champion as this Gentleman is) durst ne∣ver object; and if from thence the Ordina∣tion

of the Church may be concluded, why not likewise the Ordination of the Pope? Surely it will be granted, that the pretended Head was some part of the Church, and that his power did concur in that Ordination; and it is strange that the Order which Pope Gregory reports to be observed in celebrating the Mass, should not be by his own Ordination, being that he was (though not supream Head, yet) a Ruler in the Church; and especially if that be true, which (the Reflector says) is testified by Beacon, to wit that the Mass was fully compleated by him; certainly if this was done by him, he did give Order when, and where, and after what manner the Mass was to be celebrated: Besides, the words that were pronounced by the Deacon were Imperative, commanding the Noncommunicants to depart. Now the Reflector must say, that the custom of pro∣nouncing that command was raised and continued either by the Ordination of the Deacon, or of the Pope, or the Church; he cannot say the first, because the Office of the Deacon was but subservient in the Church, and by saying either of the other, he will affirm that which he hath denyed, that there is somewhat of Ordination in the words, and that Gregory being Pope, it

was by his ordination they were pronoun∣ced.

But all this wind shakes no Corn; though this Objection do work its utmost against me, yet it is as trivial as that of the Cook, who excepted against a fat Capon, because it wanted some feathers; notwithstanding all this blustring stir that he makes, the truth which was affirmed stands unshaken, that Gregory in his opinion differed from the present Church of Rome concerning the private Mass, which this Gentleman must acknowledge, or else he must say that the practice of the Roman Church in his time was contrary to his Opinion; for his words are plain and easie to be understood, cumque in eadem ecclesia, &c. When Mas∣ses were celebrated in the Church, and the Deacon according to custom cryed out, if any doth not communicate, let him depart: his strange distinction of solemn and un∣solemn, or solemn and private cannot re∣sist the force of this testimony; it is folly in the abstract to use a distinction, when it is known before hand that the controversy is concerning that distinction, and it is af∣firmed that there was no such distinction between Masses used in Pope Gregorys time, as is manifest from his words; for Pope Gregory doth not limit the exercise of that

custom, which he speaks of, to any parti∣cular day, but speaks in the general, and says, when soever Masses were celebrated, and the Deacon according to custom pro∣nounced, If any one doth not communicate let him depart; whence it may be assured∣ly concluded, that whensoever the Sacra∣ment was administred, it was the custom of the Deacon to make this dismission, up∣on which the Non-communicants depart∣ed out of the Church; while the rest stayed to communicate with the Priest.

Should I comply to his humour, and suppose (contrary to the express Testimo∣ny of Pope Gregory) that the words were spoken of solemn in opposition to private Masses, we find in them, as they relate un∣to that which follows, a convincing Argu∣ment for the condemnation of private Masses, and to prove that the use of them is an abuse and Prophanation of the sacred Institution of Christ. Pope Gregory re∣ports an Apparition that was frequently made in the Church, The Spirits (says he) of two persons that died while they lay under a threatned Sentence of Excom∣munication, were observed to depart out of the Church whensoever the Deacon dis∣missed the Non-communicants. Whence

we must conclude that when pri∣vate Masses were celebrated, those Spirits resided in the Church, because then the dismission was not made: Now I ask this Gentleman, why they departed when the dismission was made, and what was the reason of their residence in the Church when it was not made? certainly he can return no other answer but this, when the People were admitted to communicate with the Priest, there was a secret divine Power working to drive such Spirits away, commanding them to this purpose, procul hinc pro∣cul este prophani, therefore the Sacra∣ment was then celebrated according to the Institution of Christ; but when private Masses were celebrated, there was no such power working to that purpose; therefore the observance and use of them is not agreeable to that sacred Institution, but an abuse and prophanation of it; and it is my persuasion that private Masses have many such Attendants to take notice of the mimical gestures of the Priest, and how much Christs sacred Institu∣tion is abused and prophaned by his solitary receiving.

But I need not be beholding unto Suppositions for Arguments to con∣demn the use of private Masses, or to prove the disuse of them in Pope Gre∣gory's time, for his Testimony is as clear as the Sun to evidence, that then it was the custom of the Church to dismiss the Non-communicants when the Sacrament was to be administred; therefore there was none but Com∣municants to stay in the Church, and there were some that did stay to communicate with the Priest; the Priest only did not receive the Sacra∣ment, the People being permitted to stand by as Spectators to take notice of his Actions, as is done now at the celebration of private Masses; where∣fore I must say that the Reason of the Reflector in the use of his im∣pertinent Similitude runs as low as his confidence speaks high: but be∣ing in a great strait, he is less to be blamed, because it was the best De∣vice that he could invent to involve the Reader in a dark Mist, that he might not discern the weakness of that Reply, that he makes to Pope Gregory's Testimony.

What parity is there between Easter-day, and that time which Pope Gregory speaks of, when he says, cumque missarum solemnia celebra∣rentur? and what parity is there be∣tween my saying of Service at other times besides Easter, and private Masses, which are not mentioned at all by Pope Gregory? And then what Reason is there why I may no more conclude against private Mass from his words, then it can be con∣cluded that service is not said by me at any other time, because I do administer the Sacrament on Easter∣day? Similitudes do not always run on four Feet, but I never knew till now, that sometime they have no Feet at all to stand on. Doth this Gen∣tleman conceit himself to be such an infallible Doctor, that whatsoever is affirmed by him without proof, must be received as a certain truth a∣gainst Reason? And did Chytrers say, that the great private Masses were used in Pope Gregory's time, without any proof for what he said? And did Pope Gregory maintain private Masses, yet no

Expressions to be found in his Writings, sounding to this purpose, If there be any, why is there not some Direction laid down where to find them? His Confi∣dence (I see in his bold Assertions,) is but like unto a Castle built in the Air, without a Foundation; and the Standing of it will be wonderful, though it be not a Wonder, that it was the Product of one that professeth himself to be a Pillar of the Roman-Church.

But I perceive, that his Second Thoughts do cor∣rect his First, and now he falls from his former Confidence, At least (says he) by the words of the Objection, &c. The meaning of which must be this, I have been too bold in concluding against Pope Gre∣gory's words; for I must confess, that his Testimony is plain and positive against private Masses; but yet however, there is mention made of Masses, which are contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of Eng∣land; and argues S. F. guilty of Contradiction, or of charging a Contradiction upon Pope Gregory.

If this Gentleman had been as powerful in pro∣ving, as he is confident in concluding, he would be among the Roman Champions, as the Chief was among David's Worthies; but it is his sad misfor∣tune, that his Consequences are meer strangers to his Antecedents, and his Premises altogether unable to bring forth his Conclusions: He may take notice, that the term Missa, which signifies Mass, was not used by the Fathers and Doctors of the Primitive▪ Church; and when it came most into use, it was of different Significations; sometimes it signified the Assembling of Gods People, sometimes it signified Common Prayers, sometimes it signified the Commu∣nion.

Now, I suppose, that this Gentleman will not say, That Assemblies, or Communions, or Com∣mon Prayers, are contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England. In this Expression, which is quoted, Pope Gregory doth not say, When Masses were to be Celebrated, speaking in relation to that which was to be done, after the Deacon had dis∣missed the Non-Communicants; but he says, When Masses were Celebrated, speaking in relation to that which was done before the Deacon made this Dis∣mission; wherefore it is evident, that Pope Gregory, by Masses, doth understand that Common Service, which was performed before the Administration of the Sacrament; and then, where is the Contradi∣ction incurred by me, or charged by me upon Pope Gregory? It seems, this Gentleman entertains an Opinion, that travails far beyond the Limits of Ro∣mish Transubstantiation, being that he would have the Corporal Presence to be where and whensoever any kind of Masses were Celebrated.

If the Use of the term Mass be so powerful to conclude, what does he think of the Disuse of it? May not I more rationally and firmly conclude from the Negative, than he can do from the Af∣firmative, the term Mass was never used by our Saviour, or his Apostles? The learned Doctor Jewell, Bishop of Sarum, tells us, That it was not used by the Doctors and Fathers of the Primitive-Church for Three hundred years after Christ; and that it was seldom used by St. Augustin, St. Jerom, Ter∣tullian, St. Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius; and that unto St. Chrisostom, Basil, Naziansen, Gregory Nissen, and all other Greek Writers, it was utterly un∣known; therefore the Doctrine of the Church of

England is the same that was maintained by them and the Doctrine of the Private Mass, and Corporal Presence was never owned by them.

And now, Christian Reader, take notice what a load of Injuries is laid by this Gentleman upon Pope Gregory, charging him with an opinion, which is first contradictory to his own plain and positive Expressions, as I have already in some measure shewed, and have farther yet to shew; If Pope Gre∣gory did allow of Private Mass, how could that Prayer suit unto the Sacrament, which he penned to be used after the Receiving of it; Ut quotquot ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum filii tui corpus & sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione coelesti & gratia repleamur? That as many of us, as by par∣taking of this Altar, have received the holy Body and Blood of thy Son, may be filled with all Hea∣venly Benediction and Grace.

Secondly, Contrary to the Institution of Christ; for it was not a Private Mass, but a Communion, that was instituted, and administred by Him, and He commanded the Disciples to do the same in Re∣membrance of Him.

Thirdly, Contrary to the Injunction of the Apo∣stle Paul, who commanded the Corinthians, to tarry one for another in the Holy Administration, and to con∣form their practice to the example of Christ.

Fourthly, Contrary to the Canons of the Apostles; for in them it is decreed, That if any resort unto the Church, and hear the Scriptures, and abstain from the Communion, that he shall stand excommunicate as one that troubleth the Congregation.

Fifthly, Contrary to the Nature of the Sacra∣ment; His own Doctor Harden, in his Answer to the Reverend Bishop Jewel, concerning the Private Mass, tells us, That in Christs Institution three things are contained, which Himself did, and by His gave Authority to the Church to do the same; the Consecration, the Oblation, and the Participation. Now in Private Mass, I desire to know where this Parti∣cipation is?

Sixthly, Contrary to the Opinion of Antient Fa∣thers. St. Jerom saith, That the Lords Supper must be common to all; for the Lord delivered the Sacrament to all the Disciples that were present, Jer. in 1 Cor. 11. St. Ambrose, expounding these words, Invicem ex∣pectate, Waīt one for another, saith thus, Ut mul∣torum oblatio simul celebrentur, That the Oblation of many may be celebrated together. Amb. in 1 Cor. 1. Clemens, who was called the Apostles Fellow, writeth thus, Let so many hosts be offered upon the Al∣tar, as may be sufficient for the People, Clem. Ep. 2. Augustin saith of the Congregation in his time, E∣very day we receive the Sacrament of Christ's Body, Aug. de ser. Tom. in monet. Clemens Alexandrinus saith, After certain (as the manner is) have divided the Sacrament, they give every of the People leave to take part of it, Clem. Strom. l. 1. Chrysostom plain∣ly describeth the very Order of the Communion that was used in his time, by these words, The Spi∣ritual and Reverend Sacraments are set forth equally to the Rich and to the Poor; neither doth the Rich Man injoy them more, and the Poor Man less; they have all alike coming unto them; the Sacraments being once laid forth, are not taken in again, until all the People have communicated, and taken part of that spiritual Meat;

but the Priests stand still, and wait for all, even the meanest and poorest of them all. Chris. in 1 Cor Hom. 27.

Lastly, An Opinion that brings forth many vain and ridiculous Practical Positions, not fit to be belie∣ved, and observed by Christians; That the Priest alone should receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; and that his solitary Receiving, should be product∣ive of Spiritual advantage to the Common People, who must live by their own Faith, and be saved by a particular application of the Benefits of Christ to their own Souls; That his eating, in effect, should be theirs, and his drinking theirs; and what descends into his Belly, should be offered up unto God as a Propitiatory Sacrifice, effectual to take away their Sins; All which is as like to be true, as that One Man may be sustained in a temporal life, by the Bread which Another Man eats, and may be refresh∣ed by the Drink which Another Man drinks: And what likewise can be more ridiculous, than to see the Roman Leaders sometime admitting the whole Congregation to stand by as Spectators, to behold the Histrionical Gestures of the Priest, and at o∣ther times dismissing the Non-Communicants with an Ite Missa est, while the rest are permitted to stay to Communicate in an half Communion, the Priest himself receiving the whole, is the institution of Christ, subject to such variety of handling; that sometime one alone, somtime the whole Congregati∣on may celebrate it, and that with this Distincti••n of Partially and Totally. Did Christ institute his last Supper with this respect of Persons, that some were to Communicate more freely and fully than others? And is there a Conformity unto his Institution ob∣served,

while the observance is maimed, and part of his Command, Drink ye all of this, disobeyed? Is this institution as Soft Wax, that may be moulded into any Form or Fashion, that suits to the Hu∣mours of Men? The Sacrament of the Lords Sup∣per, in the Primitive Times, was termed a Love-Feast; and surely he must be a nigardly Feast∣maker, that cannot find in his heart to afford all his Guests an equal Entertainment; and that must be a very spare Feast, where the Guests are fed with one bare, dry Mosel, and not allowed the Refreshment of a little Drink.

Concerning the Communion in both kinds.

SOme Persons are so dimsited, that nothing but a close Conduct will keep them in the right way: This Gentleman, finding this Marginal direction, (Greg de cons. dist. 12.) seeks for Gregorius de Consideratione, while he•• should have sought for Gregorius de Con∣secratione, a Book that is quoted by Sr. Humphrey Linne, mentioning the same words which I have expressed; but because this Quotation hath not been plain enough to his view, I shall present him with some other, as plainly as I can, and as pertinent to my purpose; proving, that the Practice of the Church of Rome in Pope Gregories Time, was to Admi∣nister the Sacrament in both kinds to the Laity, as well as to the Clergy. Pope Gregory tells us, That in the mistery of the holy Oblation, the Flesh of Christ is divid∣ed, and the Blood of Christ poured into the Mouths of the Faithful; and he says, That by the holy Mistery of Christs living Body and Blood, his Body (that is the Church) is fed, as it were with Bread, and refreshed as with Drink; Diol. Greg. l. 4. c 58. & in 6. Psal. Pen. which could not be said by him, if he had main∣tained the half-Comunion. Can the Flesh of Christ be said to be divided, where there is no Division at all, but only one whole Morsel received? And can his Blood be said to be poured into the Mouths of the Faithful, where there is no pouring at all used,

as it is in the Half-Communion? And can there be any feeding as it were with Bread, and refresh∣ing as with Drink, where there is nothing like unto Drink used for Refreshment? But more plainly in that Method and Order of Consecration, which Gregory appointed to be observed in the Church of Rome, we find that the Cup was to be consecrated for the Laity, as well as the Bread; and in that Prayer, which he penned to be used after the Re∣ceiving of the Sacrament, there is mention made of the Cup as well as of the Bread, Greg de Sa∣cra.

But should I bring a Thousand clear, undeniable Testimonies out of St. Gregory, or any other, wit∣nessing that the Laity had received in both kinds, all would be to no purpose: Thus says this great Champion here; but, good Reader, observe what he says in the Appendix to his Reflections, where having stated the Question between me and my Adversary, and speaking of Pope Gregories Authority: Here at length (says he) I had somewhat more certain to build upon; and observe likwise what he says in the Conclusion; The thing in controversy, saith he, at pre∣sent, not being whither the Assertions be true or false, but whether St. Grogory held them, or not. What, is this Gentleman like unto a Proteus, that he can change himself into any shape, or as subject to Mutability as the Wind, that blows one while from one Corner, and presently upon a contrary Point? It is some∣thing upon his own confession, if Pope Gregory do say, that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper was administred in both kinds unto the Laity, as well as to the Clergy in his time; then I attain my End, the Cause is yielded, and that by this Gentleman:

The Religion professed by Pope Gregory differs from the present Romish Religion in this particular, the Communion in both kinds.

And it is not S. F. that mistakes the State of the Question, but it is this Gentleman, that contradicts himself, and starts new questions to divert the Reader, that he might not take notice how weak and childish he is in prosecuting his Design concerning the Communion; His great Foundation is quite de∣serted, and the Building which he intended, proves nothing but an idle Imagination. We must not dis∣pute now, whether Pope Gregory agreed with the Mode〈…〉〈…〉 Romanists, in maintaining the half-Com∣munion; but whither Christ did give any Command to Administer the Sacrament in both kinds, to the Laity? and whither the Sacrament be intire in one kind? What is spoken in relation to these Que∣stions, might be passed by, as altogether imperti∣nent; for if all were as visibly true, as it is palpa∣bly false, it would be nothing prejudicial, or contra∣ry to my design; But because Truth shall not want that maintenance, which my slender ability can af∣ford unto it, and that the Reader may see what Chaff the Reflector hath provided to entertain and feed him with here, and to discover what kind of Cham∣pion he hath shewed himself to be, by the Manage∣ment of his Questions, I am content to deal with him upon his own terms, and will spare some time to examine his present Dicourse; but first, I hold it my Duty to celebrate the due Praises that belongs unto the Church upon the account of those Opini∣ons and Assertions that are maintained by him.

O wonderful Church! that (while the Body of Christ is maintained to be really and properly in the Sacrament) hast Power to dispose of the glori∣ous Body of thy Crucified Saviour, and that as thou pleasest; that canst ordain it to be delivered unto the Laity under one kind or both kinds, without any Divine Precept or Command from thy Lord and Master: Hadst thou a commission from him, the matter would be less wonderful; but be∣ing it is only by thy own Ecclesiastical Power and Authority, that thou dost it, this fills me with ad∣miration! what glorious priviledges art thou en∣dowed with? how highly art thou favoured of God, that thy various and licentious dea••••ng with the glorious Body of thy Crucified Saviour, is not interpreted to be Heinous Presumption and Des∣perate wickedness?

And indeed here is a whole heap of the wonders to be considered; That that Body which is in Hea∣ven, according to an Article of our Creed, and to be contained there according to the Assertion of the Apostle Peter, until the time of the restitution of all things, should be also upon the Earth, and in more than Ten Thousand places at the same time; That the Body of our Saviour, which had Legs and Arms, and Hands and Feet (as he told his Disciples after his Resurrection) should be in the form of a Wafer-cake, that hath no suitable and answerable Proportions; that Christ's Body, which was visible upon Earth, should be in the Sacrament, and yet not to be seen; That his glorious Body, which is more resplendant than the Face of Moses was, which the Children of Israel could not behold for

the Lustre and Glory of it, should lye undiscerned under the forms of Bread and Wine; That Christ's Body, which he would not suffer Mary Magdelen to touch after his Resurrection, should be touched and handled by the Priest and the People, of whom some may be presumed to be impure and unclean, unless the Tares be separated from the Wheat without Reapers, and before the last Day of the great Harvest be come; That that Body which our Saviour said, was flesh and Bones, after his Resurrection should be touched and felt, and yet no Flesh nor Bones to be felt; and That Body should lye under the Form of Bread, or under the form of Wine, or under the Form of Bread and Wine, according as the Church shall please, to be delivered to the Lai∣ty without a Command from Christ?

Certainly, this Church is as powerful to cure all Spiritual Diseases, as she is to produce all these forementioned Wonders. Come hither then, all ye Blind, ye Halt, ye Maimed, ye withered; here is the Pool of Bethesda, that can cure you without the motion of an Angel, or the condition of Prio∣rity in stepping down. You that know not the Fundamentals of Religion, those necessary Truths that are to be believed, the Church tells you, That you must believe as she believes, and thus your Spiritual Blindness is cured; you that have neglected the Service of God, and Halted by the commission of many heinous Sins, the Church tells you, That you must Confess unto the Priest, and obtain his Absolu∣tion, which you may have upon reasonable consideration, and thus your Spiritual Lameness is cured; you that cannot speak the Language of Canaan, to pray in

a sence of your wants, the Church tells you, That it is sufficient if you do mumble out a certain number of Pater Nosters, and Ave Marias, and Credo in De∣ums, in a Language that is not understood, to equal the knacking of the Beads, and thus your Spiritual Dumb∣ness is cured. You that are like unto the barren Figtree spoken of in the Gospel, wanting the Fruit of Good-deeds, the Church tells you, That She hath power to dispose of a Treasury of Good-deeds, that is heaped together out of the superfluous works of Saints, where as much as is needful is to be gained by an Application made by the Church, without any great charges to be expended, and thus your Spiritual Wi∣theredness is cured. What should I trouble my self in numbring particulars? Take the Power of the Church in Gross, Whatsoever Spiritual Diseases doth infest you, apply but your selves unto this great Mistress of Physick, and you will be cured, as sure as she can do it, and as sure as the fore∣mentioned wonders are real.

But all this while, I must confess that I do not know what is to be understood by the Church; nor will, nor can this Gentleman inform me. What Church can that be, which according to the Do∣ctrine of the Catholick Church, is endowed with Power to Ordain and Appoint the Communicating of the Laity in one kind or both kinds, as She pleaseth? It is not the Essential Church; all the Members of that Church never did, nor ever will meet together; nor have they commission to con∣sult, or Ordain any thing to this purpose. It is not the Representative Church; for there was not a General Councel in the World for Three hundred

years after Christ: And will he say, that in all this time the Sacrament was Administred (as it was) in both kinds, to the Laity, without an Institu∣tion? It is not a Particular Church, That cannot make any Sanction, that shall be Obliging to the Whole Church. It is not the Virtual Church, which some Romanists will have the Pope to be, by this Gentleman's Assertion Pope Gregory is utter∣ly rejected, and a manifest difference expressed to be between him, and the Church that is spoken of; Let him Speak or Write what he will, it is to no pur∣pose, unless it be the Institution of the Church. Nor can it be the Consistorial Church (as some Roma∣nists do likewise speak) the Sacrament was Admi∣nistred to the Laity in both kinds, before any Pope did sit at Rome, and before ever the Pope and his Conclave of Cardinals were heard of. And had he meant this Church, he could not have except∣ed against Pope Gregory's Testimony, nor have di∣vided between him and the Church, being the Pope is the cheif part of this Church, as the Romanists affirm; and certainly what he Writes is, ex Cathe∣dra, with the consent and approbation of his glit∣tering and Princely Cardinals; wherefore the re∣sult of all is this, That this Church which hath Power to Ordain and Appoint the Communicating of the Laity under one kind, or both kinds, as She pleaseth, is not to be found: And then what Truth is to be found in his Expressions, let the World judge.

But for a farther discovery, let us inquire what strength is produced to determine the Questions; had not this Gentleman conceited that an empty

flourish of words would pass for Demon∣strations with his Followers, he would never have exposed this Stuff to the view of any Reader; The Catholick Church (saith he) hold∣eth, and hath always Taught, That there is no necessity or divine Precept for the Laity to Communicate under both kinds; but it is sufficent and lawful for them to do it under one or both, as the Church appoints; so that the Precept herein being not Divine, but only Ecclesiastical, the Church hath Power to Ordain and Dispense with it according to the various exigencies and occasions of Times and Places; and accordingly sometimes has allowed of Communion under both kinds, and at other times has forbidden it, as She judged it more expedient for the Receivers, or the Reverence of the Sacrament it self.

Here is nothing but a vain Repetition of the Churches Doctrine, and a Concluding like the Dancing about a Maypole, tracing of the same steps backward and forward, because there is no Divine Precept (as the Church Teacheth) forthe Layety to Communicate under both kinds, therefore the Church hath Power to make it to be sufficient and lawful to do it un∣er one or both: and because the Church hath Power to do this, therefore the Precept con∣cerning the Communicating of the Laity is Ecclesiastical; and because the Precept is Eclesiastical, therefore the Church hath

Power to Ordain the Communicating of the Laity under one or both kinds; which is as like to be true as this, because the Fath∣er begets the Son, therefore the Son be∣gets the Father; and because the Mother brings forth the Daughter therefore the Daughter, brings forth the Mother; and all this Teaching and Concluding divested of its impertinent Words and Tautologies, and put into a proper and fit Dress, is but one pittiful Doctrine, That the Catholick Church hath always taught that Christ did not give any Command for the Communicating of the Laity in both kinds, but left it to the Ordering and Appointment of the Church, according as exegencies and occasions fell out, and according as She judges most ex∣pedient for the Receivers, and most con∣ducing to Reverence towards the Sacra∣ment; for which these Reasons are given, because there is as much in one kind as in both; and because our Saviour Christ himself, and also his Apostles did Admini∣ster the Sacrament to the Laity under one kind. Now, to prove that this hath been always taught by the Catholick Church, and that in Teaching this, the Catholick Church hath taught nothing but Truth; and to prove that there is as much in one kind as in both, and that Christ and

his Apostles did Administer the Sacrament to the Laity in one kind, there is not one Sillable produced; the Reader must take all this upon his own bare word: But if he believe it to be true, he is as careless in employing of his Faith, as a Prodigal is of his Purse; for there is not one word of Truth to be found in it. And to make this plain to the view of every one, I shall propound these fol∣lowing Quaeries?

1. What is that Catholick Church, which hath always Taught that there is no Di∣vine precept for the Laity to Communi∣cate under both kinds? If it be all the Mem∣bers of the Church, they were not all Tea∣chers; if the Leaders and Doctors of some particular Ages, they were not al∣ways in the World to Teach; if the Lea∣ders and Doctors of every Age, I hope he will admit our Saviour Christ and his Apo∣stles, and several Antient▪ Fathers into the number of the Leaders and Doctors of the first Ages: And where did our Saviour Christ or his Apostles, or which of the An∣tient Fathers did Teach this Doctrine, That there is no Divine Precept for the Laity to Communicate both kinds?

2. Who taught the Catholick Church to teach this Doctrine; is it of God, or of men? if it be of men, it is like unto the Author, deceitful and lighter than vanity; if it be of God, where, and to whom was it revealed? it is very necessary make this inquisition, because there are many Doctrines obtruded by the Roman Leaders upon the common people, under the name of the Catho∣lick-Church, which are nothing but the meer ficti∣ous of erring and deceitful men.

3. Who did invest the Church with power to ordain and appoint the Layety to communicate under one kind? if our Saviour Christ, let his Commission be produced; where did he speak to any Church under Heaven? saying expresly or implicitely, Take thou power to do as thou pleasest in Administring the Sacrament to the Layety, if there be any Text of Scripture sounding to this purpose, why doth he not quote it? if there be none, how can he prove that the Church hath this power? That Church which presumes to do this without a Commission from Christ, is an impudent usurper for invading and assuming the Royal Prerogative, which is pertinent and pecu∣liar only unto Christ; and an absolute Tyrant in hindering the common people from the use of that liberty; which by the appointment and insti∣tution of Christ, they are priviledged to enjoy.

4. What doth this Gentleman mean? when he sayes that there is as much contained, under one kind, as under both; if as much of the institution? this cannot be; h•• confesseth, and it cannot be denyed, that our Saviour did institute both kinds; if as much of the body and blood of Christ? he should first prove that the body and blood of Christ is really and properly in the Sa∣crament,

otherwise this is as much as nothing at all; for it is visible to him that is not wilfully blind, that the real and proper body and blood of Christ is not there, and it is utterly incredible that the glorious body of Christ should be subject∣ed and debased to the licentious disposing of a mortal sinful man; if as much of the representa∣tion? how can a Wafer cake, or a peace of bread represent and signify the effusion of that precious blood, which was abundantly shed for the re∣demption of the World? if as much of the efficacy? why did the Apostle Paul? 1 Cor. 10. 16. and how could he vent that expression, attributing and appropriating different effects to the differing kinds, the cup of blessing (saith he) which we bless, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? Alexander Hales one of his own Doctors delivers an opinion quite contrary unto him affirming that there is not as much in one kind as in both, Licet (sayes he) illa sumptio, quae est in accipiend•• sub una specie, sufficiat, tamen illa, quae est sub duabus, est majoris meriti, Alex. Hal. 4. quaest 53. m. 1. although that order of receiving the Sacrament, which is un∣der one kind be sufficient, yet the other which is un∣der both kinds is of greater merit; and farther he sayes, Sumptio sub Ʋtraque specie, quem ad mod•••• sumendi tradidit dominus, est majoris efficaciae, & ma∣joris complementi, the receiving under both kinds, which order the Lord delivered is of greater efficacy and greater fulness.

5. Where did ••our Saviour administer the Sa∣crament to the Laity in one kind? his breaking of bread at Emaus was not with the Laity, b•••• with two Disciples; nor is it to be understood of the Sacrament, but of common bread, th••••

•••• Gregory understood it, Mensam (sayes he) ponunt, panes cibosque offerunt, & deum, quem in scripturarum expositione non cognoverant, in panis fractione cognoscunt, Greg. in Evan. hom. 23. they spread the table, and bring forth bread and meat, and they knew that God in breaking of bread, which they knew not in expounding the Scriptures; Widefred a Doctor of the Roman Church was of this opinion, Hoc dico (sayes he) quod non habetur ex textu, vel ex glossa, Luk. 24. ••el per antiquos doctores, quod ille panis, quem Christus fregit post Resurrectionem fuit consecratus ••el Sacramentalis, Wid. con. Wick. this I say, it cannot be gathered neither by the text of St Luke; nor by the gloss, nor by the antient Doctors, that the bread which Christ brake after his Resurrecti∣on was the consecrate or Sacramental bread.

6. Where and when did the Apostles admini∣ster the Sacrament unto the Laity in one kind? If those Texts of the Acts of the Apostles are to be understood of the Sacramental bread, Act. 2. 46. and 20. 7. it is evident that the Apostles and the Laity did receive after the same manner, for they all met together to break bread, and will the reflector say that the Apostles themselves did receive in one kind? it is certain that they had a precept from our Saviour to receive the Sacra∣ment in both kinds, could they so suddenly for∣get the command of their Master, and violate his sacred institution? and did they do that which the present Romish Church doth account sacriledge ••o the Priests to do? unless he do affirm these ••hings, he must acknowledge that by breaking of ••ead the whole Sacrament is to be understood, ••hat they did both break the bread and divide the ••up, and that this is the meaning of the Words

is cleared by a like Text, where, the Apostle Paul speaks of the Sacrament, 1 Cor. 11. 33. and by eating he means both eating and drinking, as is evident by the foregoing verses, in which the Apostle doth mention the whole institution of Christ, and enjoyns both eating and drinking; in the Gospel according to St. Luke we read of our Saviours eating of bread in a Pharisees House, Luke 14. 1. by which we must understand feast∣ing, as is evident by some following Contexts; surely if this Gentleman shall say? because there is mention made only of bread, not a word of me•• and drink, that our Saviour was entertained with no∣thing but bread, it was a very slender, and dry Feast.

7. What are those exigences and occasions that have fallen out to move the Church to ap∣point the Layety to Communicate in one kind, as most expedient for them, and conducing to the reverence of the Sacrament? if there we•• any, why did not the reflector declare them that it might be seen that he had not a purpos•• to feed the Reader with an empty sound of vai•• words? if there were none (as I am sure the•• was none of weight to counterpoise and excuseth•• breach of Christs institution) it is a great sham•• besides an Hainous sin to deceive the Read•• with feigned pretences: as for those exigences an•• occasions that have been invented by the Ro•• Doctors, such as these, the Wine will soure, th•• liquour may be shed, in some countryes it is hat•• to be gotten, some men have Beards, and so•• have Palsies, the Layety must not touch the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and the dignity of Priests and laymen wo•• be all one, are not fit to be named among C••¦stians, who should prefer that obedience wh•• they do owe unto the precepts and Institution••

their Lord and Master Christ Jesus, before their own base private and carnal ends.

8. How can it be expedient for the Layety to Communicate in one kind, yet as the practice of the Roman-Church doth declare, alwayes nece∣ssary for the Priests to receive both kinds? as there is but one Ld one Faith, one Baptism, so there is but one Institution of the Lords Supper, one Christ the Author of that Institution, of whom the Layety do stand in as much need, and in whom they are as much interested as the Priests; is it not always as ne∣cessary for the Layety as it is for the Priests to receive the sign and Seal of that pretious effusion, which was made for the Redemption of the world in which they are as much interested as the Preists.

9. How can it be conducing to irreverence in the Layety, but to reverence in the Priests always to receive the Sacrament in both kinds? may not a Lay person be duely qualified and fitted to receive the Sacrament as well as the Priests? if not, he is not to receive it in any kind; but if he be, he can alwayes receive it with reverence in both kinds, as well as the Priests.

It is not the Catholick Church that any time, but the Pope's creatures, that of late dayes have taught those gross untruths, that are visible to every one that will open his eyes to see, and that they are such I shall prove by these following argu∣ments; first, Christ did institute the Sacrament for the Layety, or he did not; if he did not, what have they to do with it? it is not any par∣ticular man, or any society of men that can give them a title to the use of it; he only that conferrs the inward grace, can institute and appoint the outward and visible sign and Seal, and bestow a title and priviledge to use it if he did institute

the Sacrament for the layety, it was in both kinds that he made this institution.

Secondly, The Layety are as much concerned and included in the end of the Sacrament, as the Priests are, that is the remembrance of Christ, therefore as much concerned and included in Christ's command, do this, eat this bread, and drink this cup in remembrance of me.

Thirdly, The Corinthians were not all Priests, and that which the Apostle Paul received from Christ concerning the Sacrament, was Christ's own institution; now it is as clear as the sun, that the Apostle received the institution in both kinds, and accordingly gave the Corinthians an Injunction to receive in both kinds, but let a man (sayes he,) examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

Fourthly, if the Sacrament be entire in one kind, two kinds are not necessary to the integrity of it, and then the reflector must say, that our saviour did institute that which is needless, Frustr a fit per plura, ••uod potest fieri per pauciora, if one hand can do the work, it is needless to use two; but I suppose he will not charge this upon our Saviour, that he did institute that which is needless, therefore the Sacrament cannot be entire in one kind: Pope Gelasius sayes, Divisio unius ejusdem••ue mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio pervenire non potest, de con. dist. 2 comp. that the division of the same mystery can∣not be done without great sacriledge and to re∣ceive in one kind is to divide the mystery; any Durandus tells us, In multis lccis communicatur cum pane & vino, id est, cum toto sacramento Dur. l. 4. c. 24. in many places they communicate with bread and Wine, that is with the whole Sacrament, where we must conclude that it was the opinion of Pope

Gelasius and also of Durandus, that the communi∣on in one kind is but the half Sacrament, and con∣sequently that it is not entire in one kind.

I have dwelt too long upon the confutation of a rude heap of vain and empty words; for a conclusion of this particular, I shall desire the reader to take notice; first, that this Gentleman sayes that the expression imputed to St. Gregory im∣plyes nothing of a command, or of a necessity of receiving the Sacrament under both kinds, with∣out which the Sacrament would not be entire; and yet he sayes afterwards that whensoever Pope Gregory, or any other of the Fathers speak of the Layety receiving the Sacrament under both kinds, they speak of such times in which the Church so appointed and commanded the administration of it.

What must be done to reconcile these dissent∣ing expressions, either he must say that the com∣mand of the Church is a meer nullity, and there is no necessity to obey it, or that the report of Pope Gregory and other antient Fathers disanulls the command of the Church, and renders it un∣necessary to be obeyed, or when the Church Commands the administration of the Sacrament in both kinds, she commands more than is ne∣cessary to be done, when he writes again, he will tell me which of these assertions he will choose to maintain, sure he will not make choice of maintain, sure he will not make choice of the last, and say that the Church can be guilty of so great an errour, as to command more than belongs unto the integrity of a Sacrament; and then it cannot be entire when it is administred in one kind; unless he will say that the Church hath Power to make the Sacrament entire in one

kind, or entire in both kinds as she pleaseth; and it is the same Sacrament still, whither it be deliver∣ed in one kind, or both kinds, which is as much as to say that the Church hath Power to make two to be no more than one, and one to be as much as two; that she can make that body which wants a leg or an arm, as perfect as that body, which hath both legs and armes; that maintain∣ing the corporall prefence, she hath power to dilate and extend the body of Christ as he pleaseth; for when the Sacrament is administred in both kinds, his body according to that opinion, must be more dilated and extended; unless he will say that then his blood is separated from his body, his body being contained under one kind, his blood under the other, which (I suppose) he will not do, because his blood cannot be separated from his body; and when it is administred in one kind, it must be more contracted, it is much to ascribe this hideous power to an unknown Church.

Secondly, that he sayes that the administra∣tion of the Sacrament sometime in one kind, some∣time in both kinds proves and confirms the Au∣thority of the Church; and a little before he told us, that the authority and Power of the Church makes it to be sufficient and Lawful to administer either in one kind or both kinds; it is very charitably and gratefully done by two crip∣ples to help one another over the stile; he should first prove that the Church hath power and au∣thority to command this twofold and different administration, otherwise it is so far from prov∣ing the Power and authority of the Church, that her precept for admininistring, and the practice of the People in receiving in one kind, is an ob∣stinate rebellion against Christ, by a wilful viola∣tion of his sacred institution.

Concerning the Merit of Good Works.

IT seems that this Gentleman was not acquaint∣ed with Pope Gregoryes writings, because he wanted the direction of a particular quotation, and then how durst he build upon Pope Gregoryes opinion and charge me with falsification; some persons (I perceive) are so confident, that they will take upon them to shoot beyond the Moon, ••hough it be out of a worm eaten and rotten bow; but to help his weakness, and to free my self from that odious imputation, which, had it been just, would have been the strongest argument in all his book, let him search into the ninth Book of Gregoryes morals upon Job. 11. C. where he will find these words, Si ad opus virtutis excrevero, ad vitam, non ex meritis, sed ex venia convalesco, if I do increase in vertue, I grow unto life not our of merit, but by pardon; and in the exposition of the first penitential Psalm he will find this expression, Non de meis meritis confidens ut me sal∣rum facias supplico, sed de sola misericordia tua praesumens impetrare, quod non de meis meritis spero, I intreat to be saved, not confiding in my own merits, but presuming to obtain that out of mercy only, which I do not hope for out of merit; what can be more plain and positive a∣gainst the merit of good Works?

The Doctrine of the Roman Church is this, that good works are meritorious, and the very cause of Salvation, so far that God should be un∣just, if he rendred not Heaven for the same, and

sometimes it is delivered thus, all good works done by Gods grace after the first Justification, be truly and properly meritorious, and fully worthy of everlasting life, and that thereupon Heaven is the due and just stipend Crown or recompence, which God by his justice oweth to the Persons so working by his grace, for he rendreth or repayeth heaven as a just Judge; and not only as a merciful giver, and the Crown which he payeth is not only of mercy or favour, but also of justice.

And although he hath tempered the Doctrine of the Roman Church here to an inferiour allay, and sayes that the opinion of Pope Gregory is ve∣ry agreeable unto it, (in which he observes his accustomed method of proving, presuming him∣self to be a man of such great credit and trust, that he leaves all to be taken for truth upon his own bare word) yet he hath mist it so much in the cooking, that (as Elisha's guests said of the pottage) there is mors in olla, death in the pott, and it is no more agreeable to Pope Gregoryes Doctrine than darkness is to light.

Because his words are very remarkable I must crave leave of the Reader to repeat them here, the Catholick Church (saith he) teacheth that our best works in this state of corrupted nature, as they are ours precisely 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 all from God, yet as proceeding from the grace of Christ working in us, and with us, and ele∣vated by his merits and promises, he hath pro∣mised a reward to them, and made them worthy of a reward.

Observe first, this Gentleman speaks of the best works of man in the state of corruption, which he passes under a double consideration, either as proceeding from a mans own self, or as proceeding from the grace of Christ, working in him and with him; now he sayes that the best work of man in the state of corruption, as proceeding from himself are not meritorious of a reward, because ••e can do no good of himself, his sufficiency be∣ing from God; but the best works of man in ••hat state as proceeding from the grace of Christ, working in and with him are elevated by Christ's merits and promises, and made worthy of a re∣ward; this is the sence of his words if there be any sence to be found in them.

And is this the Doctrine of the Roman Church, that is like unto a confused Chaos, compounded of nothing but repugnancies and inconsistencies? by the best works of man in the state of corruption he must understand good works, or else he speaks not to the question, and it is strange that good works should proceed from man in that state, works cannot be good, unless they have these three in∣gredients, rectus, recta, recte, first the person that doth them must be rectus, truly Godly, Secondly, he must do recta such things as are agreeble to the ••le. Thirdly, he must do them recte, in a right manner, the deeds of Hypocrites cannot be said to be good, though they have never so great an outward shew of goodness, a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit; and it is strange likwise that the grace of Christ should work in and with man in that state; certainly they are regenerated in and with whom the grace of Christ doth work, God will not cast his pearls unto swine, and give his Childrens bread unto dogs; and it is as strange that

the worke of man in that state should be elevated by the merits of Christ, the benefit of his merits being applyed only to them that are regene∣rated.

If he had spoken of the best works of man in the state of regeneration, they would be acknow∣ledged to be good in some Measure, and then his term of elevation might pass so far as to render them acceptable unto God, for it is the merits of Christ that makes the good deeds of the regenerate to be acceptable to him; but to say that they are made worthy, of a reward, this cannot pass, I have told him already that the glory of merit∣ing belongs only unto Christ; and that glory which belongs peculiarly unto him, he will not give unto Saints or good Works, or any thing else, in relation to which his pen hath been altogether tongue-tyed and stands as mute as a fish; it is for the sake of the merits of Christ that the good works of the righteous will he rewarded, and not for the sake of any merit, that is given to be in their good works.

Observe secondly, what agreement there is be∣tween Pope Gregory's Doctrine, and the Doctrine of the present Roman Church; Pope Gregory speaks of himself as in the state of regeneration, Si ad opus virtutis excrevero, if (says he) I do in∣crease in vertue, and in that state he disclaims and renounces all merit, relying wholly upon the mercy of God for life and Salvation; in his book of morals he expresseth himself thus, Si de his di∣vinitus discutimur, quis inter haec remanet salutis locus, quando & mala nostra pura mala sunt, & bona quae nos habere credimus pura bona esse, nequa∣quam possunt, Greg. mor. l. 35. c. 16. if God shall strictly examine us, what hope of Salvation is

there for us? when as our evil deeds are simply evil, but our good deeds which we suppose we have, cannot be simply good; and farther he sayes, Sciunt quippe sancti, qua omnis humana justitia injustitia esse deprehenditur, si divinitus districte judicetur, Greg. mor. l. 21. c. 15. the Saints know that all man's righteousness is found to be unrighteous∣ness, if God do strictly Judge it.

If Pope Gregorie had maintained the Doctrine of the present Roman Church he must have used another kind of dialect, and expressed himself after this manner, if I do increase in vertue, I am fruitful in good works, which do merit at the hands of God, and growing in them, I grow by them unto eternal life, my good deeds are elevat∣ed by the merits and promises of Christ so high, that they are made worthy of a reward, therefore I need not to fear the strict disquisition of the great Judge, but may trust to the merit of my good deeds for obtaining eternal Salvation, but there is not the least sound to this purpose, the contrary being expressed, that it was mercy not merit, pardon not good deeds that was the ground of his hope, and the Rock of his Salva∣tion.

I have not the Centurists to search into; but this I will say that Pope Gregory is so positive and plain in his expressions, that if the Centurists do charge him with an errour in this point, it must be be∣cause they mistook the meaning of his words, or else they must make him not only to contradict himself, but also to incur a more shameful and hateful contradiction, that is to the sacred Scrip∣tures, to the clear dictates of reason and to the opi∣nion of several antient Fathers.

First to the sacred Scriptures; our Saviour tells us that when we have done all those things, which we are commanded to do, we must say, that we are unprofitable servants, Luke 17. 10. and the Apostle Paul teacheth us, That by grace we are saved, through faith and that not of our selves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any one should boast, Ephes. 2. 8, 9. and speaking of the different lotts that will fall to the sons of men, he shews that there will be a direct contrariety in the manner of their seisure and possession, one lott being by merit, the other by grace, The wages (saith he) of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Rom. 6. 23. David had the approbation to be a man after Gods own heart; and Job was commended as a star of the greatest magnitude, shining with the light of good works more than others, yet neither of them stood upon his tiptoes, to ask God to deal with him according to the rule of his justice, and to pay a reward due unto him by merit; but David prayes, Enter not into Judgment with thy servant, O Lord, for in thy sight shall no man liv∣ing be justifyed, Psal. 143. 2. and Job asks how can man be just with God, if he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand, Job 9. 2. and farther says, That though he were righteous, yet he would not answer him, but would make suppl••∣cation to his Judge, Job. 3. 15. it is true the good man Nehemias prays to be remembred according to his good deeds, but for a grant of his petition, he grounds his hopes, not upon good works, but up on Gods goodness, not upon merits, but upon mercy, and spare me (says he) according to the multitude of thy mercys, can the same subject include contrarys? can a fountaine send forth

••eet waters and bitter, or fire be hot and cold? •• is certain that the best man in the world, hath ••he merit of death in him for the wise man says, That there is not a just man upon earth that doth ••ood, and sinneth not, Eccl. 7. 20. and can there be the merit of life in him too? Our saviour that knew best, how man should make his addresses ••nto God, and accordingly gave Direction to his ••isciples (who being to act and suffer and dye in their masters cause, if there could be any merit ••n any, must have a portion of the largest size) ••aught them not to ask a debt due unto merits, but the pardon of their sins: certainly this Gentle∣man, to keep peace in the House must renounce the opinion of merit, or else he must throw the use of his Pater Noster out of his doors, for these two cannot without continual jarring dwell both together under one roof.

Secondly to the clear dictates of reason, that informs us that there cannot be any merit in the performance of an obliged duty, a debtor cannot merit at the Hands of a Creditor by paying of a due debt besides man hath nothing of his own wherewith to discharge that debt, what hath he that he hath not received, and if he hath received it, why should he glory as if he did not receive it? Farther the Coin that he payes in discharge of this debt is notaltogether pure mettal, but mixed with some dross, perfection is not in this life, the best deeds of the best men have many failings ad∣hering to them; moreover there is no due pro∣portion between all mans good deeds (be they never so many) and eternal life, for if the fuffer∣ings be not, much less are the actions of this life, worthy to be compared unto the glory that shall be revealed in us. Now merit requires with an ab∣solute

necessity (without which it cannot be) that there be a due proportion between good deeds, and the reward, and that the good deeds be pure, without any sinful mixture, and that they be a man's own, and that they be like∣wise free, without the obligation of a previous duty.

To remove all these obstacles the reflector sup∣poses himself to have a ready and powerfull en∣gine, good deeds (says he) are elevated so much by the merits and promises of Christ that they are made worthy of a reward; but before he had laid down this bold and groundless assertion, he should first have proved, that the glory of merit∣ing, which belongs only unto Christ, is given to created natures; this I deny, and this he will ne∣ver be able to prove. Secondly, he should have proved that good works are capable to receive this merit; surely that which is a duty, and im∣pefect, and not a mans own, and bears no suit∣able proportion unto eternal life, cannot be cap∣able to receive any such thing. Thirdly he should have considered, that this is to divide man's Salva∣tion between Christ and good works, to say that the merit, which is pretended to be in good works, flows from the merits of Christ, will not excuse this gross absurdity, these two being indifferent sub∣jects, and different in themselves, and the gaining of eternal life is attributed by the Romanists to the one as well as to the other. Fourthly it is as in∣congruous and absurd to say, that though Christ hath merited eternal life for us, yet we must by good deeds merit it likewise at the hands of God, as it is to say that we have a large inheritance freely bestowed upon us, which was purchased with a large sum, and yet we must purchase ••

our selves to, with the payment of one small ••enny; which is not our on•• Fifthly, though the Romanists do affirm that this is serviceable to set forth the sufficiency of the merits of Christ, yet really it doth produce the contrary effect, detract∣ing abundantly from it. If Christ's merits be suf∣ficient, there is no need that good works should be meritorious, but if that be needful, then his merits are not sufficient; Sixthly, to maintaine this he must say that the merits of Christ gives unto man ability to satisfy for his sins; for meriting a reward doth necessarily pre-suppose satisfaction for sin, if there be any wrong done (as he knows that this is done by every one, every one being •• sinner) the person meriting must be a person satisfying, otherwise there will be no obtaining by way of merit; now I hope he will not say that Christ gives unto man ability to satisfy for his sins, for to say this is to deny the sufficiency of that satisfaction which was paid by Christ; Seventhly, to say that the merits of Christ gives unto man's good deeds to merit a reward, is in effect to say that Christ gives unto man by his good deeds to ••o be his own Saviour, and his own Redeemer; for the reward which as the reflectour says, the merits of Christ gives unto man's good deeds to merit, what is it but eternal salvation, that is a freedom from all evil, and a perfect fruition of happiness, which is the Inheritance that Christ purchased by the redemption which he wrought; now if it be given to man's good deeds to merit this Salvation, it must be said that it is given to man by his good deeds to be his own Saviour, and his own Redeemer, and how Blasphemous this is, and how abominable it should be unto all Chri∣stians ears, every pious Christian is able to deter∣mine.

Thirdly, to the opinion of several antient Fa∣thers, Vix mihi suadeo (says Origen) quod possit ullum opus bonum esse, quod ex debito remunerationem Dei deposcat, cum etiam hoc ipsum, quod aliquid agere possimus, vel cogit are, vel proloqui, ipsius dono, & largitione facimus, Orig. l. 4. 1 Epist. ad Rom. 4 I can hardly believe that there can be any good work, which may require the reward of God by way of debt, seeing this very thing it self, that we can do, or think or speak any thing, we do it by his gift and largess, Quis nostrum (saith Am∣brose) sine divina potest miseratione subsistere? quid possumus dignum praemijs facere coelestibus? quis nostrum ita assurgit in hoc corpore ut animum suum elevet, quo jugiter adhaereat Christo, quo tandem hominum merito defertur, ut haec corruptibilis caro induat incorruptionem, & mortale hoc induat immor∣talitatem, quibus laboribus, quibus injuris possumus levare nostra peccata, indignae sunt passiones hujus temporis ad superventuram gloriam, non ergo secun∣dum merita nostra, sed secundum misericordiam dei, coelestium decretorum in homines forma procedit, Ambr. 6. in Psal. 118. Octon. 20. which of us can subsist without the mercy of God? what can we do worthy of the heavenly reward? which of us doth rise up so in this body that he doth elevat•• his mind in such sort as he may continually ad∣here unto Christ? by what merit of man is it granted that this corruptible flesh should put on in∣corruption, and this mortal should put on immora∣lity? By what labours, or by what endurng of In¦juries, can we abate our sins, the sufferings of this lif•• are unworthy for the glory that is to come, there¦fore the form of heavenly decrees doth procee•• with men, not according to our merits but accordin•• to Gods mercy; Augustin says, Pro nihile fal••os faci••¦eos,

quid est pro nihilo salvos facies eos? nihil inve∣nis in i••s unde salves, & tamen salves, quia nihil (invenis unde selves, & multum invenis unde damnes,) Aug. de ver. 6. Apost. Ser. 5. for nothing thou shalt save them; what is meant by these words for nothing thou shalt save them? this is the meaning, thou findest nothing in them, wherefore thou shouldest save them, and yet ••hou savest them, but thou findest much; where∣fore thou shouldest condemn them; St. Bernard expresseth himself thus, Meritum meum misera∣••••nes domini, non sum ego inops meriti, quamdiu ille non est inops miserationum, si miser ationes ejus multae, multus ego sum in meritis, hoc totum est hominis meri∣tum, si totam suam spem ponat in domino; Ber. in Psal. qui. Hab. my merit is the mercy of God, so long as God is not poor of mercy, so long can∣not I be poor of merit, if his mercys be great then am I great in merits; this is the whole merit of man, if he put his whole affiance in God.

Contrary to all this the Romanists do tell us, that they have the Scripture, and reason, and the antient Fathers on their side; first for the Scrip∣ture, in it (say they) eternal life is termed a reward, and this reward is promised to persons that do perform good deeds, and is said to proceed from justice; good deeds will be mentioned when the sentence of absolution shall be pronounced to the righteous by the great Judge at the last day; but all this speaks nothing to their purpose, unless they can prove that nothing can be termed a re∣ward, or be promised, or said to proceed from justice, but what is premerited by the receiver, which will never be done by them: Suppose a Servant so much obliged to his Master for former favours, that he did owe himself, and all that

he could do, yea more than he was able to per∣form, and his Master should bespeak him after this manner, thou knowest that thou art so much obliged to me, that shouldest thou strain thy a∣bility to the utmost, thou couldest not make any proportionable retribution, yet however be thou painful and Faithful in my service, and I will endow thee with greater Favours, and ad∣vance thee to an higher Preferment, than thou dost yet enjoy; Well, the servant observes his Master's command, and the promise is performed, in this case can the servant be said to merit at the hands of his Master: The weakness of all such ob∣jections as these produced by the Romanists from the holy Scripture is clearly demonstrated by that learned prelate and primate of Ireland James Usher, whose excellent words for the greater Satisfaction of the Reader, I shall make bold to insert here.

Neither do we therefore take away the re∣ward, because we deny the merit of good works, we know that in keeping of God's Command∣ments there is great reward, and, that unto him that soweth Righteousness, there shall be a sure reward, but the question is, whence he that soweth in this manner must ex••e••t to reap so great and so sure an harvest? whither from God's Justice? which he must do if he stand (as the Jesuites would have him do) upon merit, or from his mercy, as a recompence freely bestow∣ed out of his gratious bounty, and not in justice due for the worth of the work performed, which question we think the Prophet Hosea hath suffci∣ently resolved, when he biddeth, Sow to our selves in Righteousness, and reap in mercy, Hos. 10. 12. Neither do we hereby detract any whit from the truth of that Axiom, that God will give every

man according to his works; for still the question remaineth the very same, whether God may not Judge a man according to his works, when he sitteth upon the throne of grace, as well as when he sitteth upon the throne of justice, and we think here that the Prophet David hath fully cleared the case in that one sentence, With thee, O Lord, is mercy, for thou rendrest to every one according to his Work, Psal. 62. 12.

Originally therefore, and in it's self, we hold that this reward proceedeth meerly from God's free bounty and mercy; but accidentally in re∣gard that God hath tyed himself by his word and promise to confer such a reward, we grant that it now proveth in a sort to be an act of justice, even as in forgiving of our sins, Joh. 1. 9. (which in it self all men know to be an act of mercy) he is said to be faithful and just, namely in regard of the faithful performance of his promise, for pro∣mise we see amongst honest men is counted a due debt, but the things promised being free, and on our Part altogether undeserved, if the promiser did not perform, and proved not to be so good as his word, he could not be said to do me wrong properly, but rather to wrong himself, by im∣paring his own credit; and therfore Aquinas him∣self confesseth, Non sequitur quod deus efficiatur nobis debitor simpliciter, sed sibi ipsi in quantum de∣bitum est, ut sua ordinatio impleatur, Thom. 1. 2. quest 14. art. 1. ad. 3. That God is not here∣by simply made a debtor to us, but to himself in as much as it is requisite that his own ordinance should be fulfilled; Now because the Lord hath made a promise of the Crown of Life to them that love him, therefore St. Paul doth not stick to attribute this unto God's justice, Henceforth (saith

he) is laid up for me the Crown of Righteousness, which the Lord the Righteous Judge shall give me at that day, and not only to me, but also to all them that Love his appearing; 2 Tim. 4. 8. Upon which place Bernard in his Book of Grace and Free-will, saith most sweetly, Est ergo quam Paulus expectat corona justitiae, sed justitiae dei non suae, justum quippe est, ut reddat quod debet, debet enim quod pollicitus est, & haec est justitia dei, de qua praesumit apostolus, promissio dei, Bern. l. de. gra. & lib. arb. That therefore which Paul expe∣cteth is a Crown of Righteousness, but of God's Righteousness, not his own, for it is just that he should give what he oweth, and he oweth what he hath promised, and this is the Righteousness of God, of which the Apostle presumeth, the promise of God.

Thus far that learned Prelate; to which I shall add that expression of St. Gregory expounding those words of the Psalmist, Make me to hear the voice of thy loving kindness betimes in the morning; Si ill•• (says he) sanctorum faelicitas misericordia est, & non meritis acquiritur, ubi erit quod Scriptum est, & tu reddes unicuique secundum opera sua, si secundum opera redditur, quomodo mi∣sericordia estimabitur, sed aliud est secundum opera reddere, & aliud est propter ipsa opera reddere, Greg. 7. Psal. pen. If the happiness of the Saints proceed from mercy, and is not acquired by merits, where will that be which is written, Thou shalt render to every one according to his Work, if it be ren••r∣ed according to Works, how will it be esteemed a mercy, but it is one thing to render according to Works, another thing to render for the Works; and Farther I shall add this being that Christ is the Altha and Omega, the foundation and Top-stone of Man's Salvation, for it is he that bestowes a

••itle to it, and the possession of it, and a capacity ••o receive it, and all this proceeds meerly from ••his bounty and grace, and being that there are so many plain texts of Scripture proving positively that eternal life is the gift of God, and what can be more Free than gifts? It is strange that the Ro∣manists should attempt to conlude the merit of good works from texts of Scripture, that make not the least mention of any such thing; what is this? But wilfully to shut their eyes against the Light of the shining Sun, and to stumble at Noon day.

Secondly, for the reasons that are produced by the Romanists to prove the merit of good works, they are so miserably infirm if not Blasphemous, that the mention of them is a sufficient confuta∣tion; it is more honourable to have eternal life by merit, than by gift, thus Bellarmin and Du∣randus, Absit (says Tapper) ut justi vitam aeternam expectent, sicut pauper eleemosynam, multo namque gloriosius est, ipsos quasi victores & triumphatores eam possidere, tanquam palmam usis sudoribus debi∣tam, Tap. art. lev. tom. 1. art. 9. God forbid that the just should expect eternal life, as a poor man doth alms; for it is much more glorious to possess it as Conquerours, and Triumphers, as a Palm due unto their labours; but the Reader may easily Judge how contrary this is to that poverty of Spirit, which (our Saviour says) will be re∣warded with the possession of eternal Happiness, Blessed (says he) are the poor in Spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven; Math. 5. 3. And to the Doctrine of the Apostle Paul, Ephes. 2. 8. 9. Rom. 3. 27. Telling us that by grace we are saved, through Faith, and that not of our selves, it is the gift of God, not of works, least any one

should boast, and that all boasting is excluded by the Law of Faith, but the fairest reason in their flock, as having the most plausible out-side is this, That the Doctrine of merits is effectual to pro∣mote the Practice of piety, stirring up Christians to be abundant in bringing forth the fruit of good deeds, who (say they) will be negligent in the work of the Lord? while they are assured that it is given to their good deeds to merit the reward of eternal life, where∣as on the contrary, to deny this merit is the high way to negligence and idleneses: In answer to which I ask the Romanists, whether to know that God's goodness is so great, and his bounty so large, that he will not suffer the good deeds of the Righteous to pass unrewarded, and that he is truth it self, and hath promised that a cup of cold water given unto a Disciple in the name of a Disciple will not lose it's reward, be not as powerful to provoke Christians to be fruitful in good Works? we say in opposition to them, who will not make this seeding, while he is assured of reaping a plentiful harvest? who will not employ the utmost of his care and pains in performing good works, while he knows that though he shall not be rewarded for any merit that is in them, yet he shall be re∣warded according to the measure of them? The Apostle Paul made use of this inference as effectual to perswade the Romans to this practice, saying wherefore my bloved Brethren be ye stedfast, un∣moveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, for as much as you know that your labour will not be in vain in the Lord, he doth not say, for as much as you know that there is merit given to be in good works.

And I ask them whether the immense favours, and unspeakable mercys, wherewith God hath

••evented man, be not powerfully obligatory to ••ain Christians to the strictest care and pains ••f obedeince? The Prophet David was of this opini∣••n, therefore he expresseth himself thus, Bless th•••• the Lord, O my soul! and all that is within ••, bless his holy name, Bless the Lord, O my soul! ••••d forget not all his benefits, Who forgiveth all ••ine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases, Who redeemeth thy life from destruction: who Crowneth ••••e with loving kindness and tender mercies; Psal. ••03. 1. 2, 3. And the Apostle Paul was of this opinion, therefore doth he put the Romans in ••ind, not of any merit that is in good works, ••ut of those mercies that God poured down up∣on them: I beseech you (says he) by the mercies of God that you present your Bodys a living ••acrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service, and this working the mercies of God had upon Polycarpus, who when he came to suffer (being tempted to save his life by denying Christ,) did not say by my sufferings I shall merit, but expressed himself thus, I have served Christ these fourscore years, and he never armed me, and shall I now deny and blaspheme my King and Saviour.

And farther I ask how agreeable this reason is to that method of obedience which our Saviour prescribed to his followers, wherein he shewed what must be the Root and ••ise of it, and with∣out which there can be no sincerity of obedience performed, if ye love me (says he) keep my commandements; this grace is the principle which actuates the Children of God to obey, and by the working of this, they would be stirred up to obey, though there was no future retribution to be made, a dutiful Child will observe his Fa∣thers

command, though there be no inheritance or portion to be bequeathed as a legacy unto him, because he is a Child, and because he loves his Fa∣ther; according to this is that excellent saying of Gregory Nazianzen, Si servus es, time plagas, si mercenarius tantum specta mercedem, at si supra hos es filius reverere tanquam patrem tuum, benefacto quia pulchrum est obsequi patri, & quamvis nihil a∣liud futurum, tamen vel hoc ipsum erit merces tua, fecisse quod gratum est patri, If thou be a bond-slave then fear the whip; if thou be an hireling, then look only for thy reward, but over and besides these, if thou be a child, then reverence God as thy Father, do well because it is good to obey thy Father, yea and though thou shalt have nothing else, yet even this shall be thy reward, that thou hast been obedient to thy father, Gre. Naz. de sanc. ba.

But what if I can prove that to act upon the ground of merit, and to expect to receive the Kingdom of Heaven as a debt due for the work done, is to pollute the deeds, and to hinder them from passing in the number of good works, then certainly their great reason falls to worse than no∣thing, and I think to find this no hard task to un∣dergo, I have told the reflector already that to attribute merit unto good works, is to as∣cribe unto them that glory which belongs only un∣to Christ, and it is to detract from the sufficiency of the merits of Christ, and a corrupt fountain can send forth no waters but such as are corrupt, a bad Tree can bring forth nothing but bad Fruit; but to prove this farther, he that acts upon the ground of merit, slights the glory of God, which should be the end of all man's actions, & underva∣lues the favours and mercies of God, which should bind Christians to use their utmost endeavours in

••ing the work of the Lord; and distrusts the ••unty and goodness of God, which is the rock •• which man must build the hope of his Salva∣••on; and makes himself the end of his actions, ••ho is not to live unto himself, and whose way •• exaltation is to exalt God, and to debase and ••y himself. It is true, there is a reward for the ••ighteous, unto which they may have some re∣••ect, to encourage them against those difficultys ••ad sufferings which they will meet with in the ••orld, while they are passing on in the service ••f God, as the Apostle said concerning Moses, he esteemed the reproach of Christ greater Riches ••han all the treasures of Egypt, for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward; but yet they must not make meriting that reward, the ground and end of their actions, for that work cannot be reckoned in the number of good deeds, which ••s ••ainted with slighting God's glory, and under∣••aluing his mercies, and distrusting his bounty and goodness, and with making man's self the end for which it is to be done.

Let not the Romanists now say, that I should not have divided between these things, but that a Christian may look upon merit as the ground and end of his actions, and yet (notwithstanding this) advance the glory of God, and be stirred up ••o act by the influence of favours, and may build upon the bounty and goodness of God, and deny himself and all his performances; for they may as well and truly say that man can serve two Masters, and worship God and Mammon, Christ and Belial, and divide the glory of his Salvation between God and the merit of his works. It is a remarkable saying of St. Bernard, Si nos pueril animositate gratis salvari nolumus, merito non salva∣mur,

dignatio locum non habet, ubi fuerit presum∣ptio dignitatis, If out of a Childish animosity we wil•• not be saved gratis, we are worthily not saved, dig∣nity hath no place, where there is a presumption of dignity; Bern. in dedic. Eccl. ser. 5. And I will say that he which shall be priviledged to chant out the laudatory Song of the Saints in the world to come, must begin it in this world, and say, Not unto us, Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name be the praise, for thou art worthy to receive glory and honour, and power, for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Thirdly, as to the antient Fathers, which the Romanists do pretend to be on their side; it is granted that the term merit hath been frequently used by them, but to save their credit, that they may not be charged with Blasphemy, and bar∣barism, and contradiction, to and among them∣selves, we must not say that it was used in the same sence with the present Roman Church. Ignatius (as the Romanists do quote him) says, Give me leave to become the food of beasts, that I may by that means merit and Win God, Igna. Epist. ad. Rom. Epist. ad Rom. 8. 18. This in the Romish sence is contrary to the expression of the Apostle Paul, who tells us that the sufferings of this life are not worthy to be compared unto the glory that shall be revealed in us; and this is con∣tradicted by St. Chrysostome, saying, Although we did dye a thousand deaths, although we did perform all vertuous actions, yet should we come far short of rendring any thing worthy of those honours, which are conferred upon us by God, Christ. de. compu. ad stel. tom. 6. edit. Savil. p. 157. And St. Gregory vents this expression, Paulus cum redemptoris

•••• men in terra conaretur extinguere, ejus verba de ••lo meruit audire, Paul when he went about to ex∣••inguish the name of our redeemer merited to hear ••is words from heaven; this in the Romish sence is ••eer barbarism if not Blasphemy; Greg. mor. in Job. 9. 17. And St. Ambrose useth this expression Omnia quae patim••r minor a sunt, & indigna, quorum prolaboribus tanta rependatur futurorum merces bo∣••rum, quae revelabitur in nobis, cum ad dei imagi∣••••m reformati gloriam ejus facie ad faciem aspicere ••eruimus; All those things which we suffer are too little and unworthy for the pains whereof there should ••e rendred to us so great reward of good things to come, as should be revealed in us, when we being re∣formed according to the image of God we shall merit to see his glory face to face, Amb. Epist. 22. This in the Romish sence is a manifest contradiction; the like may be said of several other Fathers; where∣fore to ••ave their credit, it must be said that the term merit was used by them in a sence far different from that of the present Roman Church; and Indeed this is cleared against all contradiction by the learned Primate of Ireland, Ans. to. Mal. p. 499. Merits (says he) in the writing of the Fa∣thers do ordinarily signify nothing but works, and to merit simply to procure or obtain, with∣out any relation at all to the dignity either of the person or the work, and therefore as Tacitus writes of Agricola, Tac. in vit. Jul. Ag. That by his vertues he merited (that is to say incurred) the danger of Cajus Caesar; so St. Augustin saith, that he and his fellows for their good doings at the hands of the Donatists, instead of thanks merit∣ed the flames of hatred; on the other side, the same farther affirmeth that St. Paul for his persecu∣tions and blasphemys merited, Aug. con. pen.

3. 6. Aug. de. pred. & gre. (That is found th•• grace to be named a vessel of election; and me¦thinks the Romanists should be easily perswad•• to believe this, by the interpretation of th•• texts of Scripture, where there is any thing o•• worthiness mentioned, the meaning of which is ••o be understood by other texts of Scripture, as the 2 Thess. 1. 5. That you may be counted worthy, of the kingdom of heaven; and Luke 20. 35. But they that shall be counted worthy to obtain the other wor••••; Revelations 3. 4. And they shall walk with me in white for they are worthy; these texts of Scripture are produced by the Romanists to prove the me∣rit of good works, but how impertinently any one may judge, for the worthiness that is spoken of i•• of persons, not of works, and what this worthine•• is, let the Apostle Paul interpret, Ephes. 1. 6. wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved, and Coloss. 1. 12. who hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light; from these texts we must conclude that the wor∣thiness spoken of in the forementioned texts, i•• nothing but an acceptance in the beloved, and a meetness to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light; and why should not the la∣thers, where they speak of merit in relation ••o the Kingdom of Heaven, be interpreted after th•• manner.

Thus the Reader may see that there is noth••••g in the antient Fathers, or in the holy Scriptures, a in the dictates of reason sounding to this purpo•• that mans good deeds are elevated by the mer•••• and promises of Christ so high, that they are made worthy of a reward, but what is altogether con∣trary, that there is not any merit either by acqui∣sition or by gift in the best deeds of the best of th••

sons of men: for a conclusion of this particular, I ••hall leave it to the Judgment of any humble and ••ious person, that prize•• •••• his Saviour's glory, and earnestly desires his own Salvation; to determine whither the sons of men, who are vile and sin∣ful dust and ashes, whose sanctification is imper∣fect in the world, and whose best deeds have many failings adhereing unto them, who are so much obliged by God, that though they had ten thou∣sand lives to lose, and would be content to shed every drop of blood that is in their veins in de∣fence of his cause, yet they would but perform their bounden duty, and fall infinitely short of ren∣dring a retribution proportionable to that loving kindness, which God hath expressed unto them. Can 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in their addresses to his glorious Majesty, with greater safety to themselves, and suitableness to their wanting and miserable conditions build upon their own good deeds, to be rewarded ac∣cording to that merit, which (as this Gentleman pretends,) is in them, whether that merit be by acquisition or donation, or lay themselves low in the dust, to acknowledge their own worthles∣ness, and unworthiness, and to shelter themselves under the wings of mercy, humbly imploring the bounty of God in Christ for the Free gift of life and Salvation: Waldensis one of the great Champions of the Roman Church, having con∣sidered, the matter on every side, at l••ast de∣termineth it thus, Quid dignum facimus ut participes coelestibus fieri inveniamur? apostolo dicente, existimo quod non sunt condignae passiones hujus temporis ad futuram gloriam, quae revelabitur in nobis, reputo igitur saniorem Theologum, fideliorem Catholicum, & scripturis magis concordem, qui tale meritum simpliciter abnegat, Wald. cont. Wick. Rom. 8.

What worthy thing do we that we may be found in the fellowship of the heavenly Spirits? the Apostle saith, I judge that the sufferings of this life are not worthy of that glory that shall be re∣vealed in us, therefore I take him to be the sound∣er divine the faithfuller Catholick and more a∣greeable to the holy Scriptures that utterly deny∣eth all such kind of merit: and Bellarmin, ano∣ther of their great Champions determineth it after the same manner, though he had streined his invention to Coin arguments, and written much to establish the Romish Doctrine of merit, yet upon better consideration, with this conclusion throws down all that he had builded before, say∣ing, Propter incertitudinem propriae justitiae, & pe∣riculum inanis gloriae, tutissimum est fiduciam totam in sola dei misericordia & benignitate repo••ere, Bel. 5. de. just. 7. Because of the incertainty of man's Righteousness, and the danger of vain glory, it is the safest way to repose the whole trust in the bounty and mercy of God; and there was great reason that the great Cardinal after all his stray∣ings should return at the last into this safe way. I have shewed in my reply how destructive it is to instill the Doctrine of merit into the common people, which this Gentleman thought fit to pass by in silence, thereby (as I conceive) yielding a free and a full assent to the truth of it; and I can confirm the destructiveness of it farther by this passage, of which there were many witnesses; ••n the beginning of the rebellion in Ireland, there was an Irish Captain taken in the Pale, who being brought to the City of Dublin, and having the sentence of death pronounced against him, was ac∣cordingly guarded to the gibbet to be hanged; while he stood upon the ladder, he used several

Prayers, which (to the outward appearance) were servent and wholesome, being directed, not to ••aint or Angel, but to God that hears Prayer; but upon the instant of his turning off the Ladder, he poured out with his last Breath this last and un∣savoury Ejaculation: Lord I hope that thou wilt ac∣cept of this my Suffering, as a full satisfaction for ••ll my Sins, and so passed to Eternity: Now let any prudent man, that is sollicitous for his future Sal∣vation, determine whether the Opinion of Merit be not destructive unto Souls, while it is thus apt to perswade frail man in the time of his great need to forsake the saving Rock of Christ's Righteous∣ness, on which only he is to build, for the obtain∣ing of Mercy, and to rely upon the broken Reed of the merit, of his own Actions or Passions.

Concerning the Worship of Images.

ONe Quotation passes without exception; yet had it been in his Power, it had not passed without a wilfull per〈…〉〈…〉; but let him stretch∣•• until the words do drop asunder, yet he can∣not▪ force it to a complyance with the Doctrine of present Romish Church: Pope Gregory reproves Serenus the Bishop of Marsilia for breaking and defacing of Pictures, and that upon this ground, because Pictures (as Gregory Conceited) might in some measure supply in Illiterate persons the de∣fect of Reading the Scriptures; thus he speaks, Nam quod Legentibus Scriptura, hoc idiotis praestat Pictura cernentibus, What the Scriptures do afford unto those that can Read, the Picture affords unto

those that see and cannot Read: But he Commends Serenus for forbidding the Adoration of Pictures, and gives these Reasons for it, Because that which is made with Hands is not to be Worshiped, and it is written, Thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God▪ and him only shalt thou serve: And besides he gives this advice unto Serenus, Et si quis Imagines fa∣cere voluerit minime prohibe, adorare vero Imagines omnibus modis devita: Forbid not the making of Images, but avoid all kind of Worshiping of Images.

The Doctrine of the present Romish Church▪ (as it is delivered by the Councel of Trent) Teach∣eth that the Images of Christ, and of the Virgin Mother of God, and other Saints, are chiefly to be had in Churches, and retained, and that due Honour and Worship is to be given unto them, or as it is delivered by this Gentleman, That it is good and Lawful and Profitable to keep Holy Pictures and Images of Christ, and of his Saints, and to set them up in Churches, to give them a Relative Honour.

This being the Doctrine of the present Roman Church, certainly the Power, which this Gentle∣man hath over his obliging Friend, and all his Followers is very great; he can perswade them to believe that it is clear day, when dark night, otherwise he would not be so Confident as to say, Now let the Reader compare the words of Pope Gregory with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, and tell us wherein they are opposite: Pope▪ Gregory forbids the yeilding of any kind of Wor∣ship to Images; the Doctrine of the Roman Church tells us, that there is a Worship due, and commands it to be given unto them; Pope Gregory allowes the use of Pictures only for the sake of Illiterate persons, and only for this end,

••t they might see on the Walls, what they could •••• Read in the Scriptures; the Doctrine of the Ro∣••an Church imposeth the use of Pictures upon those ••at are Literate, and can Read Scriptures, strictly ••orbidding them the use of the Scriptures; that ••••ed (chiefly) used by the Councel of Trent, •• a word of Remark, there is thus much includ∣••d in it, let the Scriptures be thrown out of doors, ••d let the use of Images be retained in the ••hurch, let not the Laiety, that are able to Read, ••e in any wise permitted to converse with the Scriptures, but let them be kept to the use of ••ictures, for their better Instruction and Edifica∣••on, together with the payment of an Holy Adoration, this is the very Doctrine of the pre∣sent Roman Church: And now the Reader ha∣ving viewed the Comparison between this Doctrine and Pope Gregory's words, may tell ••e Reflector truly, that there is as great an op∣position between them, as there is between Truth and Error, and the Temple of God and Ido∣••atry.

But for the Reader's greater satisfaction, I ••all examine the Arguments that are used to ••rove their pretended agreement: Pope Gregory allows, (saith the Reflector) of the use of Pictures as Pious and Profitable, and all the use for which ••e allows them is this, to be mute Instructors unto ••he Ignorant, that are not able to Read the Scrip∣tures, Frangi non debuit (says he) quod non ad ado∣randum in Ecclesiis, sed ad instruendas solummodo 〈…〉〈…〉tes fuit nescientium collocatum: That ought not ••o be broken, which is not set up in the Church to be Worshipped, but only to instruct the minds of the Ig∣norant, Greg. lib. 9. Epist. 9. And he tells Serenus that the Abuses of Pictures are to be taken away,

and these abuses are the yeildings of any kind of Worship unto them: Hence this Gentleman concludes, that the Doctrine of Pope Gregory i•• agreeable to the Opinion of the present Roman Church, because it forbids the giving of Divine Honour unto Pictures, and only commands a Relative and Inferior respect or Honour agree∣able to the Objects, which they do represent.

A strange inference, let the Reader take it in short thus, Pope Gregory forbids the Worshiping of Pictures after any manner; therefore he agrees to the Doctrine of the present Roman Church, which commands Images and Pictures chiefly to to be set up and Worshiped with an Inferior and Relative Worship; this is a strain of Logick, unknown to former Ages, and far above the hight that Pope Adrian, and the second Council of Nice did fly; God took Clay and made man after his own Image and Likeness: Therefore (says Pope Adrian) we must set up Images in Churches, as we have heard, so have we seen, and God is Marvelous i•• ••is Saints: And no man lighteth a Candle, and putteth it under a Bushel, Adr. Epist. Syn. Therefore (say the Bishops in the Council of Nice) there must be Pictures to look upon, and the Church must be Deckt with Pictures, and Pictures must be set upon the Altar: Con. nic. It is an high proof of a notable Faculty, to draw service∣able Conclusions from impotent premisses; but much more (as this Gentlemen doth) to make one contrary to bring forth another.

But while he shews his Activity in pleading for the Worship of Images and Pictures, he pro∣ceeds in his accustomed practice of Contradiction to himself: The Images (says he) of Christ and his Saints are Holy, yet the Worship that is to be given

••to them is not Divine; And yet it must be agree∣••ble to the Objects which they represent.

I would know what Holiness this is, that is ••scribed unto Images: Pope Gregory, though he ••ote two Epistles to Serenus concerning Images) ••t did not in either of them give this high Title ••o those Deaf and Dumb Idols; if it be an Inherent Holiness that the Reflector speaks of, it is strange that this Holiness should be in a senseless Stock or Stone; if it be Institutive, where is there a Pre∣cept, or a President in Holy Scripture for Sancti∣fying of Images, and setting them apart for Holy ends and uses: And if Images be Holy, and must be Worshipped, certainly the Worship that is to be given unto them, must be suitable, that is an Holy Worship; therefore I would know what Holy Worship there is, that is not Divine, and I suppose that he will acknowledge that the Worship which is most proper and agreeable unto Christ is Divine, therefore the Worship that is to be given to his Image, must be Divine, be∣cause it must be agreeable to the Object, which it represents. Besides when he Prayes to a Saint, the Worship that he performs unto that Saint is Divine, for Prayer is an act of Divine Worship, and I ask whether the Worship be agreeable to the Saint or not? If not, he is Erroneous in his De∣votion, and sins in Praying to a wrong Object; if it be, he must Pray to the Picture of a Saint, because it must have that Worship which is agree∣able to the Object, which it represents; and thus we find by this Gentleman's Discourse, that there is a Worship which is Divine and not Divine, that by the present Roman Church is Allowed and Commanded to be given to Pictures.

Nor doth he contradict himself, but he en∣deavours to bring Pope Gregory under the same guilt, making his Practice to contradict his own Expressions and Opinion; though Pope: Gregory hath delivered himself plainly and positively, forbidding all kind of Worship to be given un∣to Images: Yet the Reflector is confident to say, That the Pope had a special Devotion, and Reve∣rence towards them: But his Arguments run very low, having a strong smell of his much frequen∣ted Logick: And verily I must say, that his Fa∣culty is admirable in making any kind of Pre∣mises fruitful to bring forth serviceable Con∣clusions.

Mr. Bale, (says he) Reprehends Pope Gregory, for that he suffered the Image of the Blessed Virgin to be carried about: Osyander affirmeth that Austin obtruded Images upon the English Churches: And Doctor Fulke confesseth, that Pope Gregory al∣lowed of Images; for which very point Cab•••• affirmeth, that he was not taught in the School of the Holy Ghost: Hence the Reflector concludes, that Pope Gregory had a special Devotion and Reverence towards Pictures.

I have not these Authors to peruse, therefore I cannot examine the Truth of the Quotations, but supposing this, I will ask him how agreeable his Expressions here, charging Pope Gregory with a special Devotion and Reverence towards Images and Pictures, are unto some former Expressions used by him; he hath told us that the words quoted by me out of Pope Gregory against Image Worship (and sure Pope Gregory did not say one thing, and practice a contrary) do agree to the Doctrine of the Roman Church, forbidding all Divine Honour to be given to Images and Pictures,

••nly allowing them a Relative or Inferior sort •• Honour or Respect: I always thought a spe∣••ial Devotion and Reverence to be of an high ••ing, no less than Divine, and not to be ran∣••ed under a low and inferior sort of Honour or Respect: But let the force of the words be what they will; I will tell him, that by special Devo∣tion and Reverence towards Images and Pictures, be must needs understand the Worship of Images and Pictures, or else his Conclusion is not ad ••em, but sick of Impertinency; and who will not laugh at the Unity and Weakness of that De∣duction; what, did Pope Gregory Worship every thing that he allowed to be used, and that he per∣mitted to be carried about, and that Austin ob∣truded upon the English Churches? He then did Worship Pots, and Cups, and Vestments, and other Utensils, and might have vyed with the Heathens, for the number of those Idols, which he did Worship.

Pope Gregory hath told him again and again, that the end for which he allowed the use of Ima∣ges was not to be Worshiped with any kind of Wor∣ship, but only to Instruct the Ignorant, that could not read the Holy Scriptures; and if Austin obtruded them upon the English Churches, it was only for this end, otherwise he acted contrary to the Doctrine of his Master; and if Pope Gregory per∣mitted the Image of the Blessed Virgin to be carried about, it was only for this end; And though this was the only end for which Pope Gregory allowed the use of Images and Pictures, yet was he justly reprehended by Calvin, because this was not the method of Instruction that was prescribed by God to be used for Edification; when our Saviour gave that Commission unto his

Disciples, saying, Go and Teach all Nations, he did not injoyn them to carry Images about with them, to commend unto the Ignorant people for this end; and the Apostle Paul tells us; That Christ gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and Evangelists, and some Pastors, and some Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministery, for the Edifying of the Body of Christ: He doth not tell us that he gave Images and Pictures for that purpose; and he affirms besides; That Faith comes by Hearing of a Preacher, not by seeing of a Picture: That knowledge which is necessary unto Eternal Salvation cannot be im∣parted by Dumb and Dead Pictures and Images, but by declaring those precious Truths that are delivered in the Holy Scriptures.

Now let us observe, first how Partial this Gentlemen is in his dealing between the Sacred Scriptures, and his adored Images and Pictures: he hath declaimed against the use of the Holy Scriptures, and thrown them quite out of the doors of the common people, only for the abuse of them: But here he will not have the use of Images and Pictures cryed down, though they be abused, but reasons favourably in their behalf; For if (sayes he) a good thing should be taken away for the abuse of it, we should have very few good things left: It seems that he takes Pictures and Images for good things, while he hath an hard Sentence to pass against the Holy Scriptures; for if he take them likewise for good things, why did he not reason as favourably for them? I perceive that he knows how to scatter Favours, or to deal Blowes for his own greater advantage; and as Malice will not forget the Carriage of an Enemy, so Gratitude will be mindful of the Courtesie of a

••riend. The Sacred Scriptures are utterly against ••is Church and Religion, therefore deals he this hard measure unto them; but Images and Pictures are Superlatively Serviceable for the ad∣vancing of their Interest, therefore doth he be∣stow this high respect upon them: But the mean while, he that extolls the merits of good works, as elevated by the Merits of Christ, to make man worthy of a Reward, deserves little at the Hands of God, for preferring those Senseless Stocks and Stones, that have Eyes but cannot see, and Ears but cannot Hear, unto an higher Favour, than he can find in his Heart to bestow upon those Holy Writings, that contain the saving Truths, which God hath vouchsafed to impart unto his People.

Secondly, that he says, The present Roman Church teacheth, that it is good and lawful, and profitable to set up Images in Churches, and to give them a Relative Honour: But where is the proof of all this? Hath the Roman Church Taught this, and hath she not produced some clear evidence to prove, that by this Doctrine she hath taught nothing but Truth? Is it good, and is there no rule for its goodness? Lawful, and no Law for it? Profitable, and no profit flowing from it? If there be any, which is not mentioned? Must we receive all this for certain Truth, upon the bare word of the Roman Church? But what if God doth Teach the contrary, whether is to be be∣lieved, God or the Roman Church? Let this Gentleman look upon the second Commandment, which some of the Roman Writers have ex∣punged out of the Decalogue, and he may Read that the Worship of Images and Pictures is strictly forbidden: Thou shalt not make to thy self any Gra∣ven

Image, nor the Likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above, or in the Earth beneath; thou shalt not bow down to them, nor Worship them, Exod. c. 20. And let him peruse that Text which is quoted by Gregory against the Worship of Images and Pictures, Thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, Math. c. 4. v. 10.

These Commands do forbid the yeilding of any kind of Worship to Images and Pictures; otherwise the contrary to them in express terms may be lawfully observed: And we may say, though God hath commanded that thou shalt Worship and serve him only, yet thou mayst not Worship and serve him only, but thou mayst Worship Pictures and Images, to wit, with a Relative Worship; though God hath command∣ed that thou shalt not make any Graven Image, thou shalt not fall down and Worship them, yet thou mayst make Graven Images, thou mayest fall down and Worship them, to wit, with a Relative Worship, and what kind of Laws would these be? How much obliging to God's People, and how likely to be observed? Can a Law oblige, and is it likely to be observed, when it is not sufficiently and clearly propounded, when it admits of a double construction, and the meaning of it is not understood? God hath no where made any special Provisoes for the limi∣tation and Restriction of these Laws, and said provided that these Laws be not to be under∣stood to be against that Relative Worship, which is to be given to Images and Pictures.

I shall let the Reflector have a further view of the nature of Image Worship, according as it is set forth in Holy Scripture; he may Read, That C••••sed is the man that maketh a Graven or

Molten Image an Abomination to the Lord, Deut. 27. 15. And Confounded be all they that serve Graven Images, Psal. 97. 7. The Prophet Habakkuk terms Images, A Teacher of Lyes, Hab. 2. 18. And the Prophet Jeremiah, A Doctrine of Vanities, Jer. 10. 8. These Texts do likewise tell us, that no that no kind of Worship is to be given to Images and Pictures; otherwise as I said before, the con∣trary to them may be truly affirmed and justly maintained; and so the propounding of them would be nothing but a puzling of the Under∣standing, no direction to the Will; and instead of being a Light unto our Feet, and Lanthorn un∣to our Paths, would be (as the Pillar of the Cloud was unto the Egyptians) utter Darkness to distract and Trouble us in the choice of our way: Let not the Reflector now say, (as some Romanists have done) that these Commands and Texts were only Obligatory to the Jews, not pertinent to Chri∣stians; for he may as truly say, that the Love of God and the Love of our Neighbours, is not per∣tinent unto Christians, our Saviour having told us expresly, That on these two hang all the Law and the Prophets.

What if to give this Relative Worship to Images and Pictures be to Commit the Hainous sin of Idolatry? What is Idolatry but the Wor∣shiping of an Idol? And what are the Images and Pictures that are Worshiped by the Romanists but Idols? Certainly that must be Idolized, to which that Worship is given, which is due only unto God; and it is as certain that this is done to Images and Pictures by the Romanists, the best Learned among them, who knew best the Con∣stitution of the Romish Religion, and endeavoured with their whole might to maintain the pretended

Truth of it, have determined that the Image and Picture is to have the same worship given unto it, which is to be given to the prototype, thus Aquinas, Ozorius, and others; and that manner of Image worship, which is prescribed by the Councel of Trent speaks no less, Honos (says the Councel) Qui jis exhibetur, refertur ad prototypa, quae illae repre∣sentant, it a ut per imagines quas osculamur, & coram quibus caput operimus & procumbimus, Chri∣stum adoremus, & sanctos, quorum illae similitudinem gerun••, veneremur; The honour which we give to Images, is related to the prototypes, which they do represent, so as that by the Images which we kiss, and before which we uncover our head, and bow down, we adore Christ, and worship the saints, whose likness they bear; and is any other worship but that which is highest fit to be transfered and pre∣sented unto Christ.

But the reflector thinks to avoid this Charge by saying that the Doctrine and the practice of the Roman Church is to forbid all Divine honour to be given to Images; while with the same breath he affirms the quite contrary thing, Joyning with the Romish Doctors, and the councel of Trent in qualifying of Image-worship, the re∣lative (says he) honour that is to be given to Images is to be agreeable to the objects which they represent; and what worship lower than divine, what worship but the highest can be agreeable unto Christ? If the reflectors words do admit of any such thing as sence, this must be it, that the worship which is to be given to Images, must be the same kind with that which is given to the prototypes? The same kind of wor∣ship is to be given unto the Image of Christ, which is given unto Christ: As to instance in out∣ward

worship, we must fall down, we must cast our selves upon our bended knees unto Christ, and this must be done to the Image of Christ, because it must have that worship given unto it, which is agreeable to the object represented by it. And as so with inward worship, Christ is to be loved, and feared, and our joy, and our trust, and our hope is to be reposed in him, all this is likewise to be done to the Image of Christ, that is also to be loved and feared, and our joy and our trust and hope is to be reposed in it. Because it must have that worship given unto it, which is agreeable to the object, which it represents; let the reflector sort this worship into degrees as he can, and tell (if he can) what degree it is that makes an inferiour, and what degree a superiour worship, and prescribe how to distinguish between them; this is certaine that by his assertion the same kind of worship is to be given to the Image of Christ, which is given unto Christ, other∣wise the worship that is given to his Image, can∣not be agreeable unto him, there being a speciall kind of Worship pertinent and due unto him.

But this matter is put quite out of doubt by the notorious practice of the Romanists; as Samuel said unto king Saul, denying his guilt of sparing the best of the Amalakites cattel, what means this bleating of sheep in my ears, and this lowing of oxen which I hear; so I may say to the Romanists, while they deny their guilt of Idolatry in wor∣shiping of Images and pictures, what means their wearing and carrying of Crucifixes and pictures about with them? What means their setting them up about their beds, and in their Chambers and Closets, and what means their burning of incense,

and killing, and uncovering the head, and bow∣ing the knee used to them, and all this is done in obedience to the dictates, and in reference to the exercise of their Religion; and what means their praying to Images and pictures? The cross is on good friday invocated after this manner, O cr••x! ave spes unica! hoc passionis tempore, auge ••lis ju∣stitiam, re••sque dona veniam? Which is englished thus, all hail o cross, our only hope in this time of the passion, in faithfull people grace increase, to sinners grant remission; and in one of their pray∣er books we find a prayer intituled thus, a prayer to the Image of the body of Christ, which runs in these words, O maker of heaven and earth, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords which of nothing didst make me to thy own simlitude and likeness, &c. and what is this but to imitate the practice of that Ido∣later which the wise man speaks of, saying, he is not ashamed to speak to that which hath no life, for health he called upon that which is weak, for life he prayeth to that which is dead, for a••d he humbly beseecheth that, which hath least means to ••el••.

What if Images and Pictures be not capable to receive any kind of worship? Is there any capa∣city in a stock or a stone? There may be an out∣ward position used to it, as overlaying with gold or silver, beautifying with coulours, decking and adorning with precious Jewels, Rich Gar∣ments, according to the phansie of the cunning artificer, or Idolatrous worshiper, but there can be no reception made by it, nor is it sensible of any thing that is done unto it; the comfort of a Christian depends upon his experiences of this, that the worship which he performs is wel-pleasing un∣to God, and God is not defective to his own ser∣vants

in testifying this, but lets them feel it by that •• which he di••••ills into their Souls, Refreshing •• Cheering their Hearts, after they have de∣••tly performed their Religious Duties: But •• do the Romanists know that their Praying •• Prostrating, and Becking, and Becking, and Bowing, and ••ning Incense to Images and Pictures is accep∣••e and well pleasing unto them? To testily •• do they give any outward Sign or Token, •• moving their Lipps, or Nodding their Heads, •• pointing with their Fingers? No, let the Ro∣••••sts perform never so many Acts of Submission •• Service to their Images and Pictures, let them ••ill, or Cry, or Shout never so loud, (as it was ••h the Idolatrous Baalites) there is neither Voice, •• any to Answer, nor any that regardeth: The ••oression of the Psalmist, displaying the Stu∣••y of Idolaters, and vanity of Idols, is deser∣••lly applyed to their Images and Pictures, that •• Worshiped with an Inferior and Relative ••orship; The Idols of the Romanists, Are the ••icks of mens Hands, they have Mouthes but they ••iak not, Fyes have they, but they see not, they ••e Ears, but they hear not, neither is there any ••iath in them.

What if Christians by yeilding any kind of ••orship unto Images and Pictures do put off ••eir Humanity, and make themselves more ••p••d than Bruit Beasts, even as Stocks and Stones? ••he Psalmist tells us, That they that make Idols ••e like unto them; and so are all they that put their ••rust in them, and this is acknowledged by one •• the greatest Champions of the Roman Church, ••er••n says, The act of submission can only in rea∣••n be directed to an Object, which we conceive our ••uperior, or endowed with some more Excellency

No man submitting to a lower than himself, mu••¦less to an Irrational or inanimated Creature; a•• whosoever should yeild a submission upon this score •• servitude, should prevaricate from Reason, a•• commit a kind of Superstition and▪ Idolatry in •• knowledging a Superiority where it is not due▪ V•• Rule of Faith, p. 110. Now what Superiority o•• Excellency is there in an Image or Picture abov•• man, it is not the matter, which is Paper, •• Cloth, or Wood, or Stone, or it may be Si••¦ver, or Gold, that is above man, nor is it th•• Figure, which it receives from the Artificer; fo•• there is no cause that can produce an effect, tha•• is Superior unto, and more excellent than i•• self, nor is there any excellency derived unto •• from the Prototype, that can dart no excellen•• into a Stock or Stone, that is capable to receiv•• none; so that all its excellency must reside in th•• imagination of the Worshipper, and then it ca•• be nothing, but what is Imaginary: It is acknow∣ledged by the Council of Trent, That Images •••• not to be Worshiped for any Vertue or Divinity th•• is believed to be be in them; and then according t•• the assertion of Ver••on, To Worship them is to pr••¦varicate from reason, and become more stupid tha•• the Bruit Beasts.

What if the Decrees of Councils and Empe¦rors be contrary to the Worship of Images an•• Pictures? The Council of Eliberis Decreed thus▪ Placuit Picturas in Ecclesiis esse non debere, ne 〈◊〉〈◊〉 colitur aut adoratur in parietibus depingatur; W•• think it good that there be no Pictures in the Churches▪ least the thing that is Honoured or Adored, b•• Painted on the Walls: Con. Elib. Can. 36. To avoid the force of this Decree, it is but a pitifu•• shift that is used by the Romanists, saying, Tha••

••••e Council was held in Persecuting times, and the ••alls in the Churches, then being but slender, were ••bject to ruine by Moisture and other Incommodities, ••hich was the reason that the Council forbad the ••aking of Pictures upon Walls, lest they should be ••••••faced by the violence of the Persecutors, or by the ••••ines of the Walls; but did not forbid the making 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Pictures and Images to be set upon Altars, and to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 kept in other convenient places: It is plain that it ••as not the Locality, or placing of Pictures, ••gainst which the Council did Decree, but the ••eing of Pictures, in reference unto Worship; and ••••at for this reason, because that, which is to be ••he Object of Adoration and Worship, is not to ••e Pictured upon Walls, there to be Worshiped; and if not upon Walls, then certainly not after ••ny other manner: Melchior Canus, Can. Loc. Theol. •• 5. c. 4. makes no such simple Evasion as this, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 takes the boldness positively and plainly to charge the Council not only with Impudency, but also with Impiety, for establishing that whole∣some Decree: The Council of Ments Decreed, That when Images happen to be be abused by the People, they should be notably altered, or utterly abolished: The Emperors Valens and Theodosius gave out this general Proclamation, Cum sit nobis cura diligens, &c. For as much as we have a dili∣gent care in all things to maintain the Religion of the most high God, therefore we suffer no man to Fashion, or Grave, or Paint the Image of our Saviour Christ, either in Colours, or in Stone, or in any other kind of matter; but wheresoever any such Image shall be found, we command it to be taken down, assuring our Subjects, that we will most strict∣ly punish all such as shall presume to attempt any thing contrary to our Decree and Commandment, P. Crin. l. 9. c. 9.

To plead the second Council of Nice decreeing the contrary, will not serve the Romanists to re∣sist the force of the forementioned Decrees; let any rational person determine, whether is most consonant to the rule of Christianity, and there∣fore most obliging to obedience, a Decree that is conformable to the command of God, and the current of the Holy Scriptures, or a Decree that runs in a direct opposition to both: Yea, let the Romanists themselves determine, whether that Council is to be obeyed, that purposely to act in opposition to the Council of Constantinople, which had Decreed against the Worship of Images, was summoned near 800 years after Christ, and that by the instigation of the Empress Irene, an Heathen Born, and a most wicked Woman, who taking her own Natural Son Constantinus, pulled out his Eyes, only because he would not consent to the Idolatrous use of Images: Besides, a Council that founded its Decree upon Ridiculous grounds and motives, because the Prophet David vents these Expressions, Exalt ye the Lord our God, and Worship before his Footstool, and adore ye in his Ho∣ly Hill; and O Lord! all the Rich of the People shall Pray before thy Countenance, Nice con. act. 2. & 4. Therefore it was concluded, that an Image is better than Prayer, and Images are to be Wor∣shipped, and an Anathema was denounced against all those that should refuse to pay this adoration: Because it Decreed after this manner, it was re∣jected as a Pseudo-synod, and its base Decree op∣posed as repugnant to the Doctrine of the Church of God, by the Princes and Bishops of England first, and by Charles the Great afterwards, and by the Bishops of Italy, France and Germany, which by his appointment were gathered toge∣ther in the Council of Franckford.

What if the Ancient Fathers have delivered •• Opinion contrary to the Worship of Images? ••, Clemens Alexandrinus writes thus? Nobis ••e vetitum est artem fallacem exercere, non fa∣〈…〉〈…〉m, Inquit Propheta, cujusvis rei similitudinem, ••e plainly forbidden to use this deceitful Art of ••ing or Graving, Clem. Alex. prot. ad gent. •• the Prophet saith, Thou shalt not make the ••ess of any thing: And Lactantius says, Non est ••m quin nulla est Religio ubi simulachrum est; •• of doubt wheresoever is any Image, there is no ••gion, Lact. div. Inst. l. 2. c. 19. Origen writes •• this manner, Celsus objicit nobis, quod non habe∣•• altaria & imagines, Celsus objecteth us against ••we have neither Altars nor Images, Orig. con. Cels.

And Arnobius says unto the Heathens, Ac∣••tis quod non habemus Imagines & altaria, You ••se us that we have not Images and Altars: ••ob. cont. gent. l. 2. Epiphanius the Bishop of ••as entring into a Church, and finding there a ••l hanged up, with the Image of Christ, or ••e Saint painted on it, Tore it asunder, be∣••e it was done contra Authoritatem Scriptura∣••, Contrary to the Authority of the Scriptures: ••d further he says, Hujusmodi vela contra Re∣••mem nostram veniunt, Such Veils are contrary to •• Christian Religion: And again, Haec Scrupulo∣•• (says he) indigna est Ecclesia Christi & populis •• tibi crediti sunt; This Superstition is unmeet for •• Church of Christ, and for the people that is com∣••ted unto thee. Epip. Epis. ad Jor. Epis. Dier.

What if the invention of Image and Picture ••orship came from Heathens and Infidels, that ••ew not God? Gregorius the Bishop of Neo-Cae∣••ia tells us, That gentilitas inventrix & caput est ••ginum, Heathenism was the Head and deviser

of Images Conc. Nic. 2. act. 6. and Eusebius speaki•• of the Image of Christ and of Peter and Paul sa•• Hoc mihi videtur exgentili consuetudine observat•• quod ita soleant illi honorare, quos honore dig•• duxerunt, this seemeth to be the observation •• heathenish custom, for with such Images they used •• honour them, whom they thought worthy of hono•• Euseb. l 7. c 17. St. Augustin writing against Ac•• mantus expresseth himself thus, Simulant se faver•• simulachris, quod propterea faciunt ut miserrimae •• vesanae suae sectae, etiam paganorum conciliant be•• volentiam, they would seem to favour Images, wh•• things they do, to the intent to make the heathens to th•• the better of their most miserable and lewd sect; Au•• cont. Adia. 13. Lactantius writes of the heathen•• Verentur ne religio vana sit, si nihil videant qu•• adorent, they are afraid (as also the Romani•• are) that their religion shall be but vain, if the see nothing that they may worship; Lact. l. 2. c. 2. fro•• all this which hath been said, it must be conclu••¦ed contrary to the reflector's assertion, and th•• Doctrine of the Roman Church, that the wo••¦ship of Images is not good but evil; not lawful•• but unlawful, not profitable, but destructive to th•• worshippers.

It is strange that the reflector (having attempte•• to prove the Romish Doctrine in the rest of th•• controverted particulars,) should pass this by, an•• leave it to be taken up by the reader without an•• colour of proof; doth he think that all othe•• persons are like unto his obliging Friends, a•• seduced followers, to deny the exercise of the•• reason and sence, and to become so sottish an•• stupid as to perform acts of submission and worshi•• to a stock or a stone, or a piece of painted cloat•• or paper, only because the present Roman Churc••

••s that this is good, and profitable, and lawful •• be done? Or was he not able to contribute the ••p of one argument to make his Doctrine more ••lable to the understanding? Or did he conceit as it is), so palpably false, that no covering ••ld avail to keep the erroneousness of it from the •• of the diligent observer? Or was he afraid to ••age so far in the behalf of his holy mother, ••owing that hard undertakings put the actors ••on hard shifts, necessitating them to a faulty ••nagement, which instead of being a supporter ••a bad cause, brings it unavoidably down upon ••ir own heads? Which of these reasons had •• greatest influence upon him, I will not deter∣••ne, but this I will say, that had he undertaken •• proof of it, it is very probable that he would ••e done, as he hath frequently done, and ••t is as Children always do, by medling with edg∣•• tools.

To prove Lead to be Gold, or the Devil to be •• real Saint, ••s a task beyond the possibilty of per∣••mance, wherefore it was politickly done to ••s by this Doctrine, after this manner: For this ••ing true, that God's commands, and the cur∣••nt of the Scriptures, and the degrees of Councills, ••d Emperours, with the opinion of the anti∣••t Fathers, are against the worshiping of Images ••d pictures, and being they are uncapable to ••ceive any kind of worship, and it is in humanity ••d Idolatry to give them any kind of religious ••orship, and likewise because this dirty puddle ••th issued from the unclean fountain of heathe∣••m and paganism; the present Roman Church in∣••ad of saying that the worship of Images and ••ctures is good and profitable and Lawful, should ••ave said that it is utterly unlawful, being an

heinous sin, fatal, and deadly to the actors it.

But what the reflector hath left undone, so•• Romanists have attempted to perform, an Id•• (say they) is the Image of a feigned deity, or •• Image worshiped as a God, or with that worship whic•• is due only unto God, but the Images and Pictures, th•• are worshiped by the Romanists, are representations •• real beings, nor are they worshiped as Gods, or wit•• the worship due unto God, but with an inferiour wor••¦ship, which is not terminated in them, but referre•• to the objects represented by them; and that it i•• Lawful to worship them after this manner, they prove thus, Images (say they) do represent heav∣enly things, and God commanded two Cherubins t•• be made of beaten gold, and to be set on both side•• the ark, and promise to speak from the middle of the Cherubins; besides our saviour approved th•• making and exalting the Brazen Serpent, by which the Israelites were healed in the desart. And owns it to be an Image and figure of himself ••xalted on the cross; and to prove that it is good and profitable to worship them, they tell us that they are service∣able to restraine man's thoughts from wandring, to stir up devotion and reverence in him, making him mindful of God, and keeping him intent upon the exercise of religious dutys.

This account of Image worship do I find com∣piled in a Romish Catechism, set forth with ap∣probation, and sent to a Protestant, by Mr. H. L. upon the errand of delusion; which perswades me to believe that here we have the Doctrine of Image worship represented in the fairest dress, and supported with the strongest arguments that Romish art can use; in answer to which, first I must tell the Romanists that they are defective in

Numbring of Idols, and consequently in reckon∣••g the kinds of Idolatry; an Image worshiped ••th any kind of religious worship is an Idol, ••ough it be a representation of a real being, and ••ough the worship be referred unto the proto∣••pes; And to worship God after that manner is to ••mmit the heinous sin of Idolatry; this very Idola∣••y is forbidden in the Second commandement of ••e moral Law, Thou shalt not make to thy self any ••even Image, nor the likness of any thing that is •• heaven above or that is in the earth beneath, or that ••in the water under the earth, thou shalt not bow down ••y self to them, nor worship them.

It is replyed by the Romanists, that this is not •• particular command, but only an explanation of ••e first; but how groundless and false this plea is, ••easily discerned; and that it is a distinct com∣••andement from the first, cannot (with any ••olour of Truth) be denyed, the first shewing ••he object that is to be worshiped, that is the true God, and forbidding the worship of any other God; and the Second shewing how the true God is to be worshiped, and forbidding to worship ••im by pictures and Images, surely the Romanists will acknowledge God and Christ to be in heaven ••nd the Images of things in heaven, as well as ••hings on Earth are forbidden to be made and wor∣••hipped.

The Children of Israel might have pleaded to excuse themselves from the guilt of Idolatry, as the Romanists now do, when they worshiped the golden calfe, they might have said, that it was not the representation of a feigned deity, but of the true God; and the worship which they gave unto it, was not terminated in it, but refered to the prototype; for this was really their case; they

said these be thy Gods O Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt; Exod. c. 32. v. 4. Can any man think that they, who not long before had chanted out a song of praise and thanksgiving unto the true God for the destruction of Pharaoh and his host, whereby they were delivered out of the oppressive and tyrannicall hands of the Egyp∣tians, saying, I will sing unto the Lord for he hath triumphed gloriously, the Horse and the Rider hath he thrown into the Sea, should so suddainly forget the Lord their deliveret, and be so stupid as to ascribe their deliverance unto a calf, which a lit∣tle before hung by parcells in their ears, and which was made before their eyes? wherefore the mean∣ing of the expression must be this? O Israel this is the representation of thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt; And that the worship which they gave unto it, was referred unto the true God, is confirmed beyond all contradiction by the following verse, And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it, And Aaron made proclama∣tion, and said to morrow is a feast unto the Lord; he did not say to morrow is a feast unto the Calf.

Jeroboam might have excused himself and the ten Tribes after the same manner, and said that the Calves which were set up in Dan and Bethel, were representations of that God which was wor∣shipped at Jerusalem, and that the worship which was performed unto them, was referred unto him; it is evident that those Calves were set up to pre∣vent the Israelites from going to Jerusalem to worship, and Jeroboam said, If this People go up to do Sacrifice in the House of the Lord at Jerusa∣lem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto the Lord, even to Rhehoboam King of Ju∣dah.

Whereupon the King took Council, and made •• Calves of Gold, and said unto them, it is too 〈…〉〈…〉h for you to go up unto Jerusalem; Jeroboam did ••ttend that he and the Israelites might worship ••od nearer home, by a Relative worship, for it ••as said of the Calves (as of Aaron's Golden ••alf) These be thy Gods, O Israel, which brought ••ee out of the Land of Egypt; and Jeroboam and ••e Israelites could not be so senceless as to think, ••at the Calves newly made and set up, were ••he Author of that deliverance, which was ••rought some hundreds of years before.

Several likewise of the Heathens might have ••cused their Idolatry after this manner, Cicero ••lls, Nemo unquam tam fatuus fuit, qui saxum aut ••pidem Jovem esse credidit, None ever was so void ••f sence as to believe a Stone to be Jupiter; and the Inhabitants of Lystra, when they saw Paul and Barnabas heal one that was a Cripple from his Youth, said, The Gods are come down to us in the likeness of men, Acts 14. 11. they supposed their Gods to be in Heaven, whose Images and Sta∣tues they worshipped upon Earth; it is acknow∣ledged by the Apostle Paul, Acts 17. 23. that the Athenians worshipped the true God, and it is evi∣dent that this worship was performed by the use of Statues and Images.

Secondly, I ask the Romanists how these things do hang together, that God's worship is not given to his Image, and yet that the worship which is given to it, is referred unto him? will they refer that unto God which is not his? how then can they think to find acceptance? and how dare they pretend to worship God after this manner? The offering of strange Fire cost Nadab and Abihu dear, even the loss of their precious lives. Besides, how

can these contradictory pleas excuse them from the guilt of Idolatry? when they do worship the Image of God by Thurification and kissing, and uncovering the head, and bowing the knee, whe∣ther are these outward acts of submission and reve∣rence part of God's worship or not? if not, God is not worshipped by them, and consequently the Romanists are gross Idolaters in directing their worship to meer liveless Stocks and Stones; but if they be, then are the Romanists confessed Ido∣laters in giving that unto Stocks and Stones, which is due only to God.

Thirdly, I ask them what strength is to be found in this inference, Images are representations of Heavenly things, therefore they are to be wor∣shipped? Are all such Representations to be wor∣shipped? why then was not the Tabernacle and the Temple worshipped by the Jews, they were representations of heavenly things? and why are not the Heavens worshipped by Christians, the Psalmist tells us that the Heavens declare the glory of God, and the Firmament sheweth his handy work? why is not the Sun, the Moon, and all living Crea∣tures; yea, every Shrub and Herb worshipped, the Poet telling us (and that nothing but Truth) Presentem refert quaelibet Herba Deum? The in∣ference which they draw from the Cherubims, and the Brazen Serpent is as weak and ridiculous; the Romanists will never prove that these things were set up and commanded to be worshipped, the contrary being expressed in the holy Scrip∣ture, that when the Israelites fell to worship the Brazen Serpent, by burning of Incense unto it, their carriage was so offensive and abominable, that it was broken in pieces by the Godly King, Hezekiah, for which act he had this approbation,

That he did that, which was right in the sight of the Lord.

Fourthly, I will tell them that they are very for∣getful of holy Duties, and very backward in the performance of them, if they stand in need of the monition of Images and Pictures; and if they must have such senceless admonitors, why must they be of their own making, will not such as are God's own handy work serve their turn? But to infer hence that those admonit〈…〉〈…〉 are to be worshiped with a relative worship, is a strain of Logick that requires admiration; what goodly conclusions will this antecedent bring forth, their Ghostly Fathers (the Priests) do (as they say) put the common people in mind, and do stir them up to the performance of holy Duties, therefore they are to be worshiped with a relative wor∣ship; every provident and indulgent Parent is careful to do this unto his Children, therefore he is to be worshiped with a relative worship; yea, every part of the visible Creation may and ought to be improved to this behoof, therefore every part thereof is to be worshiped with a relative worship.

He that is convinced with such silly Arguments as these, that the worshiping of Images and Pi∣ctures is good and lawful and profitable, hath his understanding totally eclipsed; that he sees no∣thing as it is in it self, but takes every thing upon trust, as it is represented by the present Roman Church, though the nature of it be quite con∣trary.

That kind of worship can never be good and lawful and profitable, that is First, not derived from the fountain of goodness; where did God ever injoyn or approve of the worshipping of

Images and Pictures? He hath strictly forbidden the making, and frequently prohibited and punish∣ed the worshipping of them; but never did he give the least hint of an injunction, or the least sign of approbation for this worshipping of Images.

Secondly, That was never used by any of the Primitive Christians; which of those mentioned in Scripture, that were first Converted unto the Christian Faith, did ever observe this practice? we read▪ of their meeting together to hear the Word of God, and to pray unto him, and to praise him for his blessings; but never of their meeting together to worship Images and Pictures.

Thirdly, That is not conformable to that man∣ner of worship, which was prescribed by our Sa∣viour; God (says he) is a Spirit, and is to be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth; to worship God by Images and Pictures, is not to worship him in Spirit and in Truth.

Fourthly, That is not agreeable to that walk∣ing, which was used by the choice Saints and Ser∣vants of God, while they were in the World; We walk (saith the Apostle Paul) by Faith, and not by sight, and our conversation is in Heaven; to walk by the sight of a Picture, is not to walk by Faith; and to converse with Pictures, is not to have our conversation in Heaven.

Fifthly, That is a scandal and reproach unto Christianity, giving occasion of offence unto Jews and Turks▪ in the second Council of Nice, where the worshiping of Images and Pictures was decreed, several Bishops Assembled there, did ac∣knowledge that the use of Image and Picture-wor∣ship among Christians kept the Jews and the Sa∣r••cens (whose Religion was the same with that

••f the Turks, at a greater distance from the pro∣••ession and practice of the Christian Religion.

Sixthly, That is nearly allyed to that manner •• worship, which was used by the Heathens, for which we have the Testimony of Ludovicus Vives, ••ho, having compared the worship, that is given ••y the Romanists to Images and Pictures, with ••hat which was used by the Heathens to their Sta∣••ues, affirms that the only difference between them ••as in the change of some names and Titles; the Romanists do worship their Images and Pictures by burning of Incense, and uncovering the head, and bowing, so did the Heathens their Statues; and Arnobius tells us that one main ground and ••••d for which Statues were worshipped by Hea∣thens was, Non quod es, aurum, argentum, & si∣••••les statuarum materiae dii sunt, sed quod per eas •••• invisibiles honorentur, & colantur; Not because the Gods are Brass, Gold, Silver, and like unto the ••atter of Statues, but because the invisible Gods ••ay be honoured and worshipped by them; this very ground and end is pretended and pleaded for ••mage and Picture-worship by the Council of Trent, Imagines (says that Council) Christi &c. The Images of Christ, and of the Virgin Mother of God, and other Saints, are specially to be had, and kept in Churches, and due honour and worship is to be given unto them; not because any Divinity or ver∣tue is believed to be in them, for which they are to be worshipped, &c. but because the honour which is given unto them is referred to the Prototypes, so that by the Images which we kiss, and before which we do unco∣ver our Heads, and bow down, we do adore Christ, and worship the Saints, whose likeness Images do bear; never was issue more like unto its Parent, than the worship of Images and Pictures used by

the Romanists is like unto the worship that was used by the Heathens, so that it may be truly said, the one is the Mother, the other is the Daughter.

Seventhly, That endangers the damnation of the common people, by drawing them to gross and down-right Idolatry; Polydor Virgil speaks to this purpose, Multi sunt (saies he) saltem ru∣diores, qui ligneas, saxeas, marmoreas, aeneas, item in parietibus pictas imagines colunt, non ut figuras, sed perinde quasi aliquem sensum ipsae habeant, quippe eis magis fidunt, quam Christo ipsi, aut aliis d••vis quibus dicati fuerunt; In the Church of Rome there are many who worship Images of Stocks, Stones, Brass, or painted on Walls, not as Figures, but even as if they had some sence in them, and who put more trust in them, than in Christ himself, or in the Saints to whom they are dedicated. To the same purpose George Cassander speaks, Manifestius est, (saies he) quam ut verbis explicari debeat, imaginum & simu∣lachrorum cultum multum invaluisse, & affectioni seu potius superstitioni populiplus satis indultum esse, ita ut ad summam adorationem quae vel a paganis suis simulacris exhiberi consuevit, &c. It is more clear than needs many words to declare it, that the worship of Images and Statues is gone too far; and too much liberty given to the devotion, or rather su∣perstition of the People, so as it came to the very height of worship, which even Pagans do give unto their Idols.

To conclude this particular, because it is af∣firmed that the Worship which is due unto God, is not to be given to his Image, and yet the Wor∣ship which is to be given to his Image must be agreeable to him; for the preventing of a mistaken and Erroneous Devotion, and that the precious

••ouls of Christians may not be split upon the ••estructive Rocks of Idolatry, by directing unto God the Worship, which is to be given only to ••is Image, or on the contrary by directing to his ••mage the Worship that is to be given only unto ••im; I would have the Reflector to fasten some ••ote or Mark of Distinction, upon the Relative Worship, which (he says) is to be given unto ••ages, that the common people may know how •• discern (if there be any difference) betwixt it, ••d the terminative and absolute Worship which ••o be given unto the Prototypes; and until this •• done, (which will never be done) let their ••mmon people be strictly restrained (according •• the advice of Pope Gregory) from giving any ••nd of Worship unto Images and Pictures: ••ely the Roman Leaders should watch carefully ••ver their people, to be tender of the welfare of ••eir Souls, for which end they should be urgent •• pressing them to observe the advice of the A∣••ostle Paul, and likewise of the Apostle John, ••lee from Idolatry, and my little Children keep ••ur selves from Idols, Amen.

Concerning the Popes Supremacy.

TO be Head of the Catholick Church, is a Prerogative that is peculiar unto Christ; The Husband (says the Apostle Paul) is the Head of the Wife, as Christ is the Head of the Church: He only is capable to receive it, and he only hath Power and Ability to execute the Offices that do belong unto it; what is vain, sinful, mortal man, that he should have this capacity and ability at∣tributed unto him? He cannot protect, and sup∣port, and nourish, and govern himself, he can∣not give motion, and sense, and life unto him∣self, much less can he do these things for the Church of Christ: Besides, when our Saviour was about to leave the World, he did not tell his Disciples, that he would send a visible Vicar-ge∣neral to supply his Room, But his Holy and In∣visible Spirit to comfort his people, and to lead them into all Truth: Nor did he appoint any such Vicar, when he sent his Ambassadors and Ministers to plant and gather his Church, but he gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evan∣gelists, and some Pastors and Teachers; and his Kingdom being not of this World, but Spiritual, and his Church a Mystical Body, a visible Cor∣poral Head is no more suitable, and agreeable to it, than an Head of Clay or Straw is unto a Body that is framed of the most Refined Silver, or purest Gold: All this makes it plain to every one that is not wilfully blind, that the Title of Su∣premacy doth not belong unto the Pope of Rome.

Yet the Reflector strives to prove the contrary, ••nd that St. Gregory (being Pope) assumed that Title as his own undoubted Right, derived to him by Succession from St. Peter: But mark what he says, ••reating upon the Communion in both kinds; Though I should bring a thousand clear undenyable Testimonies out of St. Gregory, witnessing that the Laity ••••d received in both kinds, it would be nothing to the purpose, unless I had first proved that the Sacrament •• not entire except it be Administred in both kinds. What, are the Assertions of the Pope made to no purpose? Is he the Head of the Church, and the ••ock upon which the Church is built as the Suc∣••essor of St. Peter, and yet his Assertions of no ••orce to prove a Position to be Catholick Doctrine, ••nless a precedent proof be made for his Assertions? ••s there any man, or Society of men more to be Credited than the Head of the Church? Is there any man, or Society of men higher than the highest? Certainly the Headship that he claimes for the Pope is of the same composition with Childrens Babes, made up of nothing but Clouts, or else he hath got some Elixar as precious as the Philosophers Stone, by the touch of which all his Assertions are converted into Aphorisms, though they be meer contradictions in themselves. This being observed, I proceed to examine how he maintains the Supremacy that he claims for the Pope.

The Title of Universal Bishop in common rea∣son should Tantomount to that Title, which was given by Clement to James Bishop of Jerusalem, Episcopus Episcoporum, Bishop of Bishops, what En∣gines are there to be use ••o rack it, to signify only one particular Bishop, excluding all others from the Dignity of Bishops? Two dissenting terms of

different significations cannot import the same thing, and Universals do not exclude, but in∣clude particulars; it is a pitiful shift to avoid the force of Pope Gregory's Testimony, by sheltring himself under a Nonsensical distinction, and mark how he proves the several Members of this distinction.

For the first he quotes Pope Gregory, but as Millers commonly take their Toll, it is with some Addi∣tion; and (as some Litigious persons do win their Tryals at Law) by teaching the Witnesses to speak more than they know: These Words (as if there were no other Apostle but himself) are not Pope Gregory's; who would think that the man that hath been crying out against me, and charging me with falsifying and wresting Pope Gregory, should make himself guilty of this shame∣ful addition; and who would think that he should be thus grosly Injurious to Pope Gregory, to charge him with an Expression that contains in its self a manifest contradiction? If Peter was the Prince of the Apostles, it was impossible that any Title of Universality should exclude the other Disciples from an Apostolick Dignity; if there had been no other Apostles, how could he be Prince of the Apostles? And who would think that he should speak thus contemptibly of the Power of Christ? It is certain that Christ did ordain other Apostles besides St. Peter, and it was impossile to render that undone, which Christ had done, it was im∣possible that any Title that was given to St. Peter should divest them of that Apostolick Authority which was given to them by Christ: Because this Gentleman is resolved to be dishonest in his carriage for the maintaining of his Religion, I would advise him to settle himself for some term

of years in a Colledge of Jesuits, that he may be instructed how to set a better Varnish upon his Dishonest practices, that they may not appear so gross and notorious (as they are) to the view of the World.

I can direct him to a Quotation more seeming for his purpose, without any Additional Sophi∣stication or Corruption; Pope Gregory useth this Expression, Triste tamen valde est, ut patienter fe∣ratur, quatenus despectis omnibus, praedictus frater, & coepiscopus meus solus conetur appellari Episco∣pus, It is very sad that it should be suffered patiently that my fore said Brother and Fellow Bishop despising all others, should endeavour to be called the only Bishop, Greg. l. 4. p. 34. But what service can he make of this Expression? Can he infer hence that Pope Gregory rejected the Title of Universal Bishop, only as it did Unbishop all others? He may as rationally and firmly conclude, that he re∣jected the Title of Universal only as it did Unpa∣triarch all the rest of the Patriarchs, because he says, Sed nullus unquam decessorum meorum hoc tam prophano vocabulo uti consensit, quia videlicet si unus Patriarcha universalis dicitur, Patriarcharum no∣men ceteris derogatur: None of my Predecessors ever ••eilded to use this Prophane Title, because if one be called Ʋniversal Patriarch, the name of Patri∣archs is taken from the rest, Greg. l. 4. Epist. 36. Or he may as probably inferr that Pope Gregory rejected the Title of Universal only as it did Unpriest all others, because he says, Sed nullus eorum unquam hoc singularitatis vocabulum assump∣sit, nec uti consensit, ne dum privatum aliquid da∣retur uni, honore debito sacerdotes privarentur uni∣versi:

But none of them ever assumed or consented to use this Title of singularity, le••t, while a private Title be given to one, all the rest of the Priests should be deprived of the Honour that is due unto them, Greg. l. 4. Epist. 38. And can we think that Pope Gregory rejected the Title of Universal only in this sense, as it did Unpatriarch all, and Unpriest all but one.

His Words must be taken in this sense; it is very sad that it should be suffered patiently that my Brother and Fellow Bishop despising all others, should endeavour to be called the only Bishop of highest Power and Dignity, not ad∣mitting any other to be equal to himself; agree∣able to this sense he hath several plain and po∣sitive Expressions: What wilt thou Answer (says he unto John Bishop of Constantinople) unto Christ▪ the Head of the Church at that day of Judgment, who endeavourest to subject all his Members to thy self by a Title of Ʋniversality, Greg. l. 4. Epist. 32, & 38. And further he says, He strives to ascribe all unto himself; and all the Members of Christ, that are united to one head by the loftiness of a Pompous Title.

It is evident that Pope Gregory rejected the Title of Universal Bishop, in that sense in which it was offered to him; and his Predecessor by the Council of Chalcedon, and in which it was us∣urped by John Bishop of Constantinople; he writes to the Emperor Mauritius, and to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria, and to Anastasius Bishop of An∣tioch, and likewise to John Bishop of Constanti∣nople to this purpose; Sicut enim veneranda vestra

Sanctitas novit, mihi, per Sanctam Chalcedonen∣sem Synodum Pontifici sedis Apostolicae, cui (disponente deo) deservio, hoc Ʋniversitatis nomen oblatum est, sed nullus unquam decessorum meorum hoc tam pro∣phano vocabulo uti consensit, &c. Your Holiness knowes that this Ʋniversal Title was offered by the Council of Chalcedon to me the Bishop of the Apo∣stolick See, which by God's providence I do serve; but none of my Predecessors did ever yeild to use this Prophane Title; far be it from a Christian mind, for any one to assume that Title to himself, by which he may seem in the least measure to diminish the Honour of his Brethren, Greg. l. 4. Epist. 32, & 36, & 38. And can we think that the Bishops assembled in the Council of Chalcedon would bestow a Title that would Unbishop themselves; or that the Bishops Assembled at Constantinople would con∣sent unto John Bishop of Constantinople in the Us∣urpation of that Title, which would cast them∣selves down from their Office and Dignity.

While he says that Pope Gregory rejected the Title of Universal Bishop only as it did exclude all others from the Dignity of Bishops, observe how consistent he is with himself; in his Conclu∣sion he vents this Expression, To bring which about he will make Pope Gregory to Ʋnpope himself, a shrewd displeasure I promise you, and far more Cruel than John Bishop of Constantinople, who opposed Pope Gre∣gory; for though he stood in contention with Pope Gregory, yet he never endeavoured to make him act this Cruelty upon himself: It is notoriously known that the ground of their contention was the Title that John usurped, and Pope Gregory re∣jected as Proud, P••ophane and Blasphemous;

and this Gentleman confesses that the rejection of this Title made by Pope Gregory, and the Usur∣pation of it made by John did not Unpope Pope Gregory, and if it did not Unpope him, it did Un∣bishop him, and if it did not Unbishop him, it did not Unbishop others; and then by his own Confession Pope Gregory did not reject the Title of Universal Bishop, only as it excluded others from the Authority and Dignity of Bishops.

Secondly, Let us see how he proves the second Member of his distinction; he quotes the 62 Epistle of the fourth Book, though there be not so many Epistles in it; if he had found such a fault to object against me, he would have made great work with it, but I shall pass it as a mistake of the Transcription: In the Epistle written to John Bishop of Syracusa the words are to be found; but as Ahimaas delivered his Message to King David, breaking off his Tale before the end, so this Gentleman quotes Pope Gregory; the words that declare his meaning are deceitful∣ly kept from the sight of the Reader; the words of Pope Gregory are these, Nunc autem idem Pri∣mas aliquae de suo consilio loquitur, & valde dubium est utrum pure an certe, quia a coepiscopis suis impetitur modo talia loquatur, nam quod se dicit se∣di Apostolicae subjic••, si quae culpa in Episcopis In∣venitur, nescio quis ei Episcopus subjectus non sit, c••m vero culpa non exigit, omnes secundum ratio∣nem humilitatis sunt aequales: Now the same Pri∣mate speaks some things concerning his own advice, but it is very doubtful whether sincerely or certain∣ly, because he is earnestly desired by his Fellow Bishops to▪ speak such things unto us, for in that he

says that he is subject to the Apostolick See, if there ••e any fault to be found in Bishops, I know not ••y Bishop that is not subject unto it; but when a fault doth not require it, all according to the rule of Humility are equal, Greg. lib. 7. Epist. 65. ind. 2. These words instead of proving his Assertion, do directly prove the contrary; Pope Gregory doth not declare himself to be Supream, and above all others, but acknowledgeth in others an equality to himself, if there were any fault to be found in Bishops, he says the faulty Bishops were subject unto him, but how? not as Bishops, but as criminous, to be admonished, and repre∣hended and censured by him; which subjection was not an Argument of any Supremacy in him; equals (if there be any faulty) are subject to be admonished and reprehended and censured by one another. The Apostle Peter was admonish∣ed, and reprehended, and censured by the A∣postle Paul; but I suppose that the refle∣ctor will not conclude thence, that Paul had a Supremacy above Peter; but Pope Gregory says plainly, That if there were no fault to be found in Bishops, all were equal.

If Pope Gregory did claim a supremacy above all, he speaks very much below himself, when he made application to the Emperour Mauritius calling him Lord and Master, and professing his humble submission to him with his cap in his hand, Vobis obedientiam prebere desidero, I desire to yield obedience to your self, Greg. 4. ep. 32. ind. 1. 3. And he forgat himself very much when he writ unto Cyprian the deacon concerning the choice of a Bishop in the Room of Maximianus, after

this manner, Si autem mea voluntas ad hanc electionem quaeritur, & si fieri potest ut eligatur, cred•• quod apta valde persona inveniatur, if my opinion he required concerning the choice, and if John the arch-deacon be chosen I beleive a very fit person is found Greg. 4. ep. 19. ind. 13. And he a bridg∣ed his own power, and speaks very much against himself, when (writing to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria) he abhorred the word of command, Sicut jussistis, (says he) quod verbum jussionis peto a meo auditu removere, quia scio qui sim, & qui estis, loco enim fratres estis, morilus patres, non ergo jussi, sed quae vtilia visa sunt indicare curavi. As you have commanded, pray let me not hear of this word of command, for I know who I am, and who you are, in place you are brethren, in manners you are farthers, therefore I did not give any command, but only have taken care to shew you what I conceived to be profitable; Greg. 7. ep. 30. ind. 1. If he had been supream and head of the Church, doubt∣less he would have remembred himself, and ob∣served the frequented stile of some of his successors, Sic volo sic jubeo, Commanding all Bishops and Kings and Emperors to observe his dictates, and to obey his Commands, as this Gentleman knows very well, he that is above all, should command all, but it is certain that Pope Gregory never soared so▪ high, nor did any Pope of Rome justly claim that high and aspiring title of supre∣macy.

And while this Gentleman says, that Pope Gregory doth in the Epistle that is quoted, cite the Council of Chalcedon and the canons for the title of supremacy as due unto St. Peter and his succes∣sors

the Popes of Rome, there is not one word •• Truth spoken by him; first, there is not one ••on cited by Pope Gregory to that purpose nor •••• doth he cite the counsel of Chalcedon for that ••d; his words are these, which do speak the ••••e contrary things, 〈…〉〈…〉te pro beati Petri Apostolo∣•• principis honore per〈…〉〈…〉er and am Chalcedonensem ••odum romano pontifici obl••tum est, sed nullus 〈…〉〈…〉am eorum hoc singularitatis vocabulum assumpsit, ••uti consensit, Truly for the honour of blessed ••eter Prince of the Apostles this title was offered •• the reverend council of Chalcedon to the Popes •• Rome, but none of them assumed it, or con∣••nted to use it; he doth not say that the council ••d decree it to the Pope as his due, but only ••f••red it as a free gift, but none of the Popes of ••••me assumed it, or consented to use it, and it is ••range that the Popes of Rome would not con∣••nt to use that title, if it was a due belonging unto ••hem.

To shew farther that this Gentleman hath spok∣••n contrary to his own knowledge, and wilfully charged Pope Gregory with that which was never owned by him, let us observe what he writes in the 32 epistle of that Book which is quoted, Pope Gregory's words are these, Sicut enim veneranda vestra sanctitas novit, mihi, per Chalcedonensem synodum pontifici sedis apostolicae, cui, deo disponente, deservio, hoc vniversitatis nomen oblatum est, sed nullus unquam decessorm meurum hoc tam prophano vocabulo uti consensit; for your holiness knows that the title of vniversality was offered by the council of Chalcedon to me the Pope of the apostolick see which (by Gods providence) I do serve, but none of

my predecessours consented to useth is prophane titl•• He terms that title which was offered unto hi•• by the council of Chalcedon a prophane title, an•• we may think it wonderful that a prophan•• title, should belong unto St. Peter, and tha•• Pope Gregory should m〈…〉〈…〉ain it to be his due, •• we may not admire that •••• should be claimed b•• the late Popes of Rome, as a due belonging unto them.

Secondly, The title of Supremacy was not due unto St. Peter, for the Apostolical Office was the highest that was instituted in the Church, and this Office was given to the rest of the Disciples, as well as to St. Peter; and by the Command o•• Christ, Mat. 10. all the Disciples were to have an•• equal care over the whole Church of God, which they practiced not only by applying themselves to the Ministry of the Word, but also by a joint concurrence in appointing and ordering of Deacons, Acts 6. and our Saviour told them po∣sitively, that there should not be any inequality amongst them in respect of power and dignity, but if any one of them (out of ambition) should exalt himself above the rest, the ambitious aspirer would have so much more cause to humble him∣ble himself, by how much his ambition trans∣ported him to act contrary to his Master's appro∣bation, Matth. 20. 25, 26. Peter never assumed this Title, Acts 8. 14. but subjected himself to be sent to Samaria by the vote of the Apostles; and when a Controversie arose concerning Circumci∣sion, he did not take upon him the power of de∣termining, but it was done by the common suf∣frage of the Apostles and Elders, James (not Pe∣ter)

pronouncing the definitive sentence, Acts ••3. Besides, Peter did not look upon Paul ••s inferiour, but gave unto him the right •• of fellowship, and stiled himself 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ••ow Presbyter; Gal. 2. 9. and farther I will ••hat if Peter was head over James, it was pre∣••rously and injuriously done of Paul to prefer ••ention of James before that of Peter, 1 Pet. •• and if Peter was head over Paul it was pre∣••ptuously and rebelliously done of Paul to ••stand and censure his superiour; the subject ••liged to obey or to suffer, not to resist, Gal. •• and 2. 11. that hand and foot forgets its ••y that spurns and strikes at the head; and if •• was Superiour unto Paul, how could it be •• Paul should have (if not greater yet) as ••t a charge committed unto him, as was unto ••••▪ Paul's words are plain, that the Gospel of •• uncircumcision was committed to him, as Gospel of the Circumcision was committed to ••r, Gal. 2. 7. Add to this that Peter failed ••e than any of the rest of the Disciples; he sin∣•• by curiosity, by unbelief, by prohibiting the ••on of Christ, by ambition, by a preposte∣••s Zeal, by denying and forswearing his Ma∣••; and after he had received the gifts of the ho∣•• Spirit, he sinned by dissimulation, for which he as reprehended by the Apostle Paul, telling him at he did not walk uprightly according to the ••••h of the Gospel.

The Commission of teaching all Nations, and ••rgiving of sins was given to the rest of the Apo∣••les, as well as to St. Peter; Go (saies our Savi∣••ur to his Disciples) and teach all Nations, Bap∣tizing

them in the Name of the Father, and of Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and whosoever's s•••• remit, they are remi••ted, and whoever's sins he ••¦tain, they are retained, John 20. 23. and tho•• our Saviour spake these words, Feed my Sh•• and feed my Lambs, directly unto Peter, yet th•• did not invest him with any new or greater d••¦nity than he had before, but only restored h•• to his former station, which he had deserved forfeited by forswearing his Master; and th•• words were spoken likewise intentionally to •• rest of the Disciples, or else we must say that teach his people is not to feed his Sheep, to feed •• Lambs; St. Augustin says, Cum Petro dicitur •• omnes dicitur, amas me? pasce oves meas; When •• was said unto Peter it was said unto all, Lovest th•• me, feed my Sheep, Aug. de Agon. Chr. c. 3▪ and what though our Saviour did say unto ••¦ter, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I w•• build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall •• prevail against it. Our Saviour did not say th•• Peter was this Rock, nor doth the Metaphor sig¦nifie any thing of Dominion, Monarchy, or S••¦premacy; but Duration, Solidity, Constancy, a•• such like; which could not be derived from St. Pe¦ter; he being a frail mortal man, could not be t•• stability and strength of the Church, by reason •• which the Gates of Hell should not prevail agains•• it, it is well known that the Gates of Hel•• did prevail against him, to draw him to an A••∣juration of his Master; and being that he could not secure himself, how could he secure the Church of God; besides, the Church that was to be built, was to be presented a glorious Church, not having Spot or Wrinkle, or any such thing,

••o be holy and without blemish; which holy ••ing could not be raised upon a crazy and •••• Foundation.

••oreover, If Peter was the Head and the ••••, by vertue of that expression, how could •• that the Apostles afterwards should quar∣•• about precedency, not knowing that their ••ter had before past his promise thereof unto •• Peter? and then there was two visible Heads •• Rocks actually in being together, and •• Church should have been termed after∣••ds the Body and Spouse of Peter, and the ••ostle Paul should have planted the Churches •••• St. Peter; then there should have been ••e medium, by which the Church was to •• joined unto Peter, and he should have term∣•• himself the living Stone, upon which the ••ly Stones are built up unto a Spiritual ••ouse; but the Church was never a Monster •• two Heads, nor was it ever termed the bo∣•• or Spouse of Peter but of Christ; nor did ••ul plant the Churches upon Peter but upon ••rist; nor was there any medium by which ••e Church was to be joined unto Peter, by ••ith we stand, says the Apostle Paul, by Faith ••e Church is joined to the Head and Rock, ••t Peter is not an object of Faith; nor did Peter term himself the living Stone, but says ••at Christ is the living Stone, upon which ••he lively Stones are built up unto a Spiritual House.

The words were spoken upon that Confes∣sion, which was made by the Apostle Peter, Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God;

Matth. cap. 16. vers. 15. and vers. 20. whi•• was not Peter's Confession only, but also t•• Confession of all the rest of the Disciples; o•• Saviour propounded this question unto all, Wh•• say ye that I am, and Peter Answered for al•• all knew him as well as Peter did, and all were i••¦vested with the same Power, which was giv•• Peter upon this Confession, Whatsoever ye sh•• bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, a•• whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth shall be loosed •• Heaven, Matth. c. 18. v. 18. Joh. c. 20. v. 2▪ Wherefore it must be concluded, that thoug•• the Name of Peter only was mentioned when th•• words were spoken, yet all the Disciples we•• concerned in the words that were spoken; as Pe¦ter made a Confession in the behalf of all, •• our Saviour upon that Confession spake tha•• which pertained unto all, and then by tho•• words Peter was no more priviledged to be •• Rock than the rest of the Disciples were; agre••¦able to this is the Expression of the Apostle Pau•• And are built (says he) upon the foundation of th•• Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being •• chief corner Stone, Eph. c. 2. v. 20. which is lik••¦wise the Opinion of Origen, Petra est (says▪ he quicunque est Discipulus Christi, &c. He is the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 whosoever is the Disciple of Christ, and upon such •• Rock all Ecclesiastical Learning is built, Orig. •• Math. Tract. If thou thinkest that the wh•••• Church is built only upon St. Peter, what th•• wilt thou say of John the Son of Thunder, and •• every of the Apostles, shall we dare to say, th•• the gates of Hell shall not prevail only agains•• Peter, or are the Keys of the Kindom of Hea∣ven given only unto Peter: And St. Augu〈…〉〈…〉

••, Petrus pro omnibus dixit, & cum omnibus ••epit, Peter spake for all the rest, and received ••h all the rest, August. in Joh. Tract. 11. & ••.

This Gentleman certainly will not have the ••e to reject his sometime extolled founda∣••n, that is, Pope Gregory, but rely upon his ••erpretation for the sense of those words that ••re spoken to St. Peter, he tells us, that Christ ••mself was the Rock, of which he spake, and ••oves it by the Testimony of the Apostle Paul, ••ope Gregory's words are these, Hinc namque Apo∣••••s dicit fundamentum aliud nemo potest ponere ••••er id quod positum est, quod est Jesus Christus, hinc ••e dei & hominum Mediator ad Apostolorum prin∣••em ait, tu es Petrus, & super hanc Petram aedi∣••bo Ecclesiam meam, ipse enim est petra a qua pe∣••s nomen accepit, & super quam se aedificaturum ••cclesiam dixit: Hence the Apostle says, any other ••undation can no man lay, than that which is laid, ••hich is Jesus Christ; hence the Mediator between God ••d man said unto the prince of the Apostles, thou art ••eter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, •• he is the Rock from which Peter took his Name, ••d upon which he said he would build his Church, ••••eg. in 5. Psal. pen. 1 Cor. c. 3. v. 11. And ••urther Pope Gregory says, Nam quod in hac vita ••llis adversitatibus frangenda sit, nullis persecu∣••onibus superanda, ipse super quem aedificata est ••identer ostendit, cum ait portae inferi non prae∣••lebunt adversus eam: For that the Church in this life is not to he broken with any Adversities, ••r overcome with any persecutions, he upon whom the Church is built doth plainly shew, when he says, the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it; the

interpretation that is made by other ancien•• Fathers agrees unto this; Gregory Nissenus says Tu••es Petrus, &c. Thou art Peter, and upon th•• Rock will I build my Church, he meaneth th•• confession of Christ, for he had said before, tho•• art Christ the Son of the ever living God, Greg•• Niss. in Test. Delect. ex vet. Test. So saith St. Hillary, Haec est una foelix fidei petra quam Petrus ore suo confessus est; This is the only bles∣sed Rock of Faith that Peter confessed with hi•• mouth, Hill. de Twin. l. 2. so likewise Chryso∣stom, Super hanc petram, id est in hac fide & confessione aedisicabo ecclesiam meam; Ʋpon this Rock, that is to say, upon this Faith, and this confession I will build my Church, Chrysost. in Matth. Hom. 55. And likewise St. Augustine, Petra erat Christus super quod fundamentum etiam aedificatus est Petrus: Christ was the Rock upon which foundation also Peter himself was built, Aug. in Matth. Serm. 13.

These Titles that were given to the Apo∣stle Peter by Pope Gregory terming him the Prince of the Apostles, and ascribing unto him a Principality over the whole Church, can∣not prove any Superiority in Peter over the rest of the Apostles; for First, Our Saviour did never invest him with those Titles. And Se∣condly, It is evident that Pope Gregory ascribed as high Titles unto the Apostle Paul, calling him the Head of the Nations, and attributing to him a principality over the whole Church, Greg. in 1. Reg. l. 4. c. 5. Chrysostome terms Paul, The Master of the World; and Paulo (saies he) tribuitur Cura omnium Ecclesiarum, non unius vel duarum vel trium sed omnium

quae sunt in toto orbe; unto Paul the charge of all the Churches is committed, not of one, or two, or three Churches, but of all the Churches that be in the World, Chrys. in Gen. Hom. 7. & Hom. 11. & in Joh. Hom. 11. If Chrysostome spake truth, and Gregory did not contradict himself, the Apostle Paul was as much Head, and had as great a Principality over the whole Church, as the Apostle Peter had; a∣greeable to which, is the Judgment of St. Cypri∣••n: Hoc (says he) erant alii quod Petrus, pari con∣fortio praediti & honoris & potestatis; the rest of the disciples, were even the same that Peter was, endued with the like Fellowship both of honour, and also of power, Cyp. de simp. Prel. And this was the Opini∣on of St. Ambrose; Inter Petrum & Paulum quis ••ui praeponatur incertum est; between Peter and Paul, whether ought to be preferred before other is un∣certain. Amb. Serm. 66.

Thirdly, How can the Popes of Rome be said to be Peter's Successors? It is uncertain whether ever Peter was at Rome; his Charge and Commis∣sion was to go and teach all Nations, not to seat or settle himself in any particular City; and he was specially appointed to be the Apostle of the Cir∣cumcision, to preach unto the Jews, as Paul was specially appointed to be the Apostle of the Un∣circumcision, to preach unto the Gentiles: To this purpose there was a Covenant made between James, Cephas, John, Paul, and Barnabas: When (says the Apostle Paul) James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be Pillars, perceived the Grace that was

given unto me, they gave me the right hand of Fellow∣ship, that we should go unto the Heathen, and they unto the Circumcision, Gal. 2. v. 9. The Fourth year after the Death of Christ, the Apostle Peter was at Jerusalem; about thirteen years after the Apostle Paul conferred with him there, and af∣terwards he was at the Synod, when the contro∣versie about Circumcision was determined; he preached the Gospel in Pontus, Galatia, Cappado∣cia, Asia, and Bithinia, he lived and preached in Babylon; all this while we do not read that ever he was at Rome; that Paul was there, is evident from the Holy Scripture, but to prove Peter's be∣ing there, there is not one syllable in Holy Scri∣pture to be found.

If Peter was at Rome, it is strange that in all those Epistles that Paul writ from Rome; and in that Epistle which he writ to Rome, wherein he makes mention of several Friends and Servants of God, there is no mention made of the name of Peter: where was Peter when Paul made mention of Aristarchus, Marcus, and Justus, and says of them, that they only were his Fellow-workers unto the Kingdom of God? Col. 4. v. 11. Paul was at Rome then, but certainly Peter was not there, otherwise without doubt Paul would have reckoned him in the number of his fellow-work∣ers: And where was Peter, when Paul said that at his first appearance before Nero, no man stood with him, but all men forsook him? 2 Tim. 4. v. 16. Must we say that Peter was fled from Rome?

certainly, had Peter been there, he would have stood with Paul. These things cannot consist with that Relation which is made by Hieroni∣mus, that Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius, and sate there five and twenty years; nor also with that other story, that both Peter and Paul suffered Martyrdome in the same place, at the same time, and under the same persecuting Emperour: against these Reports, we shall op∣pose the Testimony of that ancient Father, Ire∣naeus, that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, and after him succeeded Anacletus, and in the third place the Succession fell to Clemens, not mentioning Peter's being there, and denying that he was the first Bishop that was seated there.

But however, if Peter was at Rome, and the first Bishop that sate there, this cannot make all the Popes of Rome to be his true and lawful Suc∣cessours: I ask the Romanists, in what all the Popes of Rome succeeded him? It was not in his Apo∣stolical Office; none of the Popes of Rome were immediately called by Christ, or extraordinari∣ly gifted; none of them were endowed with the power of working Miracles, or ever went into all the Earth to Preach the Gospel unto every Creature. It was not in purity of Faith and Do∣ctrine: Peter never was a Schismatick, or Here∣tick; Zepherinus was a Montanist, Marcellinus an Idolater, Liberius an Arrian, Vigilius an Euty∣chian, Honorius was condemned for an Heretick by the sixth Council of Constantinople; Peter ne∣ver

maintained the Doctrines of Pennances, In¦dulgences, Purgatory, Worship of Images, In∣vocation of Saints, private Mass, ••al••e Commu∣nion, &c. It was not in Holiness of Life; Joh•• the VIII. was a Woman Pope, and brought forth a spurious Issue as she was going in publick Pro∣cession through Rome; Sylvester the II. Benedict the IX. John the XX. Gregory the VII. were manife•• Conjurers, and had their Familiars: It was not in Humility, in executing of his Ministry: We read in Scripture, that Peter journied from J••∣pa to Caesaria (probably on Foot, for I do not think that any of the Apostles were Horse-men) to preach the Gospel; and forbade Cornelius to Worship him, and suffered patiently the reproof of his Brethren, and exhorted all to be subject unto the Ordinances of Man, for the Lords sake▪ to the King as Supream, and unto Governours▪ as sent for the punishment of Evil-doers: an•• he exhorted Servants to be obedient unto the•••• Masters; but we do not read that ever he dis∣pensed with the Laws of God, or denied to sub∣ject himself unto the reproofs of Men, saying; nemine reprehendi aut judicari debet, nec aliquis di••∣re potest quid facis; That he was not to be reprehend∣ed, or judged, or contradicted by any. We do n•• read that ever he wore the Emperial Robes, •• was carried in Pomp and State upon Mens shoul∣ders, or that he Excommunicated and Depose•• Emperours, or that he trod upon the Necks •• Kings, or had Princes to hold his Stirrop, •• lead his Horse, to kiss his Feet; or that he di••

dispose of Crowns, or absolve Subjects from their ••aths of Allegiance, or stirred them up to Re∣••el and Destroy their liege Lords; all which the ••e Popes of Rome have done.

If the Romanists do say, that all the Popes of 〈…〉〈…〉e are Peter's Successours in person and place: I ••swer, that a personal and local Succession is not ••fficient to make a true and lawful Successor; ••e Scribes and Pharisees sate in Moses Chair, yet ••hey were Thieves and Robbers, and the Apostle ••aul told the Ephesians, that after his departure ••any Wolves would enter in amongst them, ••ot sparing the whole Flock: Annas and Cai∣••••s succeeded Aaron, yet I hope the Romanists ••ill not say, that these were true and lawful ••uccessours: Ambrose tells us, Non habent haeredi∣••em Petri, qui fidem Petri non habent. They have ••t the Inheritance of Peter, that want the Faith of ••eter, l. 1. de Paen. And Gregory Naziansen speaks ••o the same purpose, Qui eandem fidem profitetur, ••jusdem quoque Throni particeps est, qui autem con∣••rariam fidem amplectitur, adversarius in Throno quo∣que censeri debet, atque hic quidem nomen, ille vero ••em ipsam, & veritatem habet Successionis: He that professeth the same Faith, partakes of the same Throne, but he that Embraceth the contrary Faith, is to be accounted an adversary to the Throne; and truly the one hath but the name, the other the thing it self, and the truth of Succession. Orat. in laud. Atha. The Canon Law saies, Multi Sacerdotes, & pauci Sa∣cerdotes, multi nomine, pauci opere; videte ergo quo∣modo

sedeatis super Cathedram, quia non Cathedra facit Sacerdotem, sed Sacerdos Cathedram, non lo∣cus sanctificat hominem, sod homo locum; Many Priests, and few Priests; many in name, but few in deed; take heed therefore how you sit in the Chair, because it is not the Chair that makes the Priest, but it is the Priest that makes the Chair, it is not the Place that sanctifies the Man, but the Man sancti∣fies the place.

Because the Romanists do build so much upon this Succession from St. Peter, and would have the Popes of Rome to be his true and lawful Successours, to conclude thence that the Pope is the Head of the Church, and do make this a chief Article of their Faith; affirming peremp∣torily, That to be within the compass of his Jurisdiction, to be obedient unto him, is abso∣lutely necessary to Salvation, I would have the Romanists to tell me, which was Peter's Succes∣sour, when Ʋrban the VI. chosen by the Ita∣lians, and Clement the VII. chosen by the French, the one sitting at Rome, the other at Avignion, thundered out their Bulls of Excommunication, the one against the other; and when tria teterri∣ma hominum monstra, as Platina terms them, Three most wicked Monsters of Men, to wit, Benedict IX. Sylvester III. and Gregorius VI. were all Scram∣bling about the Tripple Crown; and when the Council at Constance sate, in which three Popes, Benedict XIII. Gregory XII. and John XXIV. were deposed, and when the Roman Chair was

void, not only for some days or months, but for the space of many whole years? Surely it will be a two-handed labour to determine who, and where, Peter's true and lawful Successour was du∣ring these forementioned Revolutions; and conse∣quently who, and where the Head of the Church was: If there was a time when the Church had more Heads than one, then it was a Monster; if there was no Head at any other time, then there was no Church, the Church was dead, for it can∣not live without an Head; and then the Roma∣••ists wanted one prime Article of their Faith, they could not believe him to be the Head of the Church, that was not in being, and for se∣veral years whosoever died was necessitated to be damned, because there was no Papal Jurisdiction to live under, and no Pope to o∣bey; the Romanists are forced to swallow these Positions, while they do maintain the Pope to be the Head of the Church by Succession from St. Peter.

Fourthly, If the Popes of Rome might be said to be St. Peter's true and lawful Successours, yet the Title of Supremacy was not due unto them; if it was not due unto St. Peter, it is certain that it was not due unto them; but for a far∣ther proof of this, if it was their due, how could the Council of Chalcedon offer it to Pope Gregory, and his immediate Predecessour, as a free-gift? Did Pope Gregory and his Predecessour want their due, until the Session of the Coun∣cil

of Chalcedon, or did the Council of Chalce∣don offer that unto them which they had before? And how could the Council offer that as a free-gift, (as Pope Gregory terms it) which was a Due belonging unto them? And how could that be a Due belonging unto them, which is unlaw∣ful to be used? Pope Gregory tells us plainly, That the Title of Supremacy, which was the matter of contention between him and John Bishop of Con∣stantinople, and which was offered to him and his Predecessour, by the Council of Chalcedon, was con∣trary to the Rules of the Gospel, and to the Decrees and Canons of the Church: Greg. l. 4. Epist. 32. & 34. & 36. And I hope this Gentleman will grant that it was therefore unlawful to be used.

But for a farther discovery, let us inquire in∣to the practices of former Ages, and see whe∣ther they did yield any such thing as the Title of Supremacy to the Bishops of Rome, as a Due belonging unto them; several Popes have been Excommunicated, several depos'd; Appeals unto Rome were strictly forbidden by the first Coun∣cil of Nice: Con. Nic. can. 5. By the Council of Tola in Spain, Con. Tol. Can. 17. By the Coun∣cil of Melevitan, Con. Mel. Can. 22. The third Council of Carthage did Decree, That the Bi∣shop of the first See should not be called the Chief of Priests, or the Highest Priest, or by any other like Name, but only The Bishop of the first See, Con. Car. can. 26. The Council of Nice, did make

this Decree, Antiqua consuetudo servetur per E∣gyptam, Lybiam, & Pentapolim, ut Alexan∣drinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem, quia & Ʋrbis Romae Episcopo parilis mos est: Let the, ancient Custom be kept thoughout Aegypt, Libia, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria have the Government over all these, for the Bishop of the City of Rome hath the like order, Con. Nic. can. 26. The Council of Chalcedon, did Decree, That the Patriarch of Constantinople should have as high and as great Priviledges as the Pope of Rome had, Con. Chal. Act. 6. Emperours have exercised the Power and Authority of Summoning and Confirming General Councils, and the Pope with his Hat in his Hand and his Knee in the Dust, hath supplicated the Emperour to employ his Authority in calling of Councils: To this purpose Pope Leo writ unto the Clergy and People of Constan∣tinople, Exposcite ut petitioni nostrae qua plenariam indici Synodum postulamus clementissi∣mus imperator dignetur annuere: Make your re∣quest that the Emperorurs Majesty would vouch∣safe to grant my humble Petition, wherein I be∣sought him to Summon a general Council. I could instance in several other particulars, but these may serve to let this Gentleman see that the practice of former Ages did not acknow∣ledge any Supremacy to belong unto the Popes of Rome.

How can this Title be derived unto them, if this Gentleman shall say, that it was set∣tled by our Saviour upon St. Peter in order to Succession, that whosoever should be seat∣ed in his Chair, was to be immediately pos∣sessed of it, as his own undoubted inheri∣tance lineally and legally descending upon him; First I say, that it hath been already demon∣strated, that our Saviour never invested St. Peter with a greater dignity and power than he gave to the rest of his Disciples. Second∣ly, I ask how it came to pass, that the Pri∣mitive Ages were altogether ignorant of this Deed of Entail? Had the Bishops assembled in the Council of Chalcedon known it, they would not have been so simple as to offer it freely unto the Pope upon this ground of Succession from St. Peter, it is folly in the abstract to pretend to bestow that as a free-gift, which is passed before as an unquestionable inheritance. Thirdly, To say this, is a Blasphemous detraction from that special providence, and tender respect, which Christ beares unto his Peo∣ple; several Popes have been wicked Here∣ticks; several extreamly Vitious, several Illi∣terate, several have climbed up into the Papal Chair by indirect and wicked means; some by Symony, some by Sedition, some by Tyranny, some by Deceit, some by Murder; of Bonni∣face VIII. it is said, Intravit ut vulpes, regna∣vit

ut Lupus, mortuus est ut Canis: That he entred into the Popedom as a Fox, he reigned as a Wolfe, and died as a Dog, Char. sum. p. 432. It is reported of Silvester the II. Pontificatum malis artibus adeptum male amisit: That he obtained and lost the Popedom by wicked means, Char. sum. p. 415. & 416. Can we think that our Saviour foreknowing these things, would make this provision for his Church, to settle the Supremacie to be possessed, and leave his Church, which he purchased with his dearest Blood, to be ruled and instructed in the great concern of Salvation, by such mishapen and filthy Crea∣tures; experience tells us, that if the Eyes be blind, the whole body is in darkness, and if the head be diseased, the body languisheth; and Pope Gregory affirms, that one reason why the Title of Supremacy was to be rejected, was this, Si unus Episcopus vocatur universalis, universa Ecclesia corruit, si unus universus cadit, If one be called Ʋniversal Bishop, in the fall of that one, the whole Church is ruined, Greg. l. 6. Epist. 24.

Now let us admire the Candour, and the Con∣fidence of this Gentleman, how little the one, and how great the other is, in saying, that Pope Gregory pleads his own Right, and that the Title was due only to himself, as being chosen Head of the Church, and Succes∣sour of St. Peter, and that he complains grie∣vously of the Injuries done unto him by John Bishop of Constantinople, in usurping

the Title of Universal, and robbing the Popes of Rome of it; how could John Bi∣shop of Constantinople rob the Popes of Rome of that which they never had? Pope Gregory tells us plainly, that none of his Predeces∣sors ever consented to use that prophane Ti∣tle of Universal••, and speaking to the Empe∣rour Mauritius, he says; Nunquid specialem in∣juriam vindico hac in re piissime domine, nun∣quid propriam causam defendo, & non magis causam omnipotentis dei, & causam Ʋniversalis Ecclesiae? Do I defend my own Cause, or vindi∣cate my own Injury in this thing, and not ra∣ther the cause of the Omnipotent God, and of the Ʋniversal Church? Greg. l. 4. Ep. 32. And in the same Epistle he says farther; Quia vero non causa mea, sed dei est, & quia non solus ego, sed tota turbatur Ecclesia, quia venerandae Synodi, quia ipsa domini no∣stri Jesu Christi mandata superbi & pompatici cujusdem Sermonis inventione turbantur: Because it is not my own Cause, but Gods, and because not only my self, but the whole Church is trou∣bled, by reason that the wholesome Laws, the reve∣rend Synods, and the commands of the Lord Je∣sus Christ, by a proud and pompous Title are violated: He says expresly, That it was not his own cause that he defended, but the cause of God, the cause of the whole Church; and then it must be the cause of all the Patri∣archs, and of all the Bishops, and of all the Priests, and of all the Members of the Church; because John, Bishop of Constantino∣ple,

(as Pope Gregory says) did endeavour (as all the late Popes of Rome have done) to subjugate all those unto himself, which belong only to one Head, which is Christ: Pope Gre∣gory's words are these: Ita ut universa sibi ten∣tet adscribere, & omnia quae soli uni capiti co∣herent, videlicet Christo, per elationem pompatici Sermonis ejusdem Christi sibi studeat membra subjugare: He strives to ascribe all unto him∣self; and all the Members which do agree in one only Head, to wit, Christ, he endeavours to sub∣ject unto himself, by the elation of a pompous Title, Greg. l. 4. Epist. 36. And farther, if Pope Gregory had pleaded his own Cause, and complained of any Injury done unto himself, more than unto others; he would not, as he did, blame Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria, for ascribing unto him the Title of Universal, as it was offered unto the Pope by the Coun∣cil of Chalcedon, forbidding the use of it in relation to himself, or unto any other, Greg. l. 7. Epist. 30.

I have written more largely in Confutati∣on of this unjust Claim, which is made by the late Popes of Rome to the Title of Suprema∣cy, because it is (as some Romanists do affirm) the very Pinnacle of the Romish Temple, that which is cryed up, and contended for, and exposed most to view, on purpose to serve (as a great Sea-mark) to direct unwary and unskilful Passengers to steer their course into the Romish harbour; and as

some do say, it is the foundation stone, upon which all the Romish Structure is erect∣ed: whither should the Members resort, but where the Directive Faculty resides, and that is in the Head? And why must the Saints be invocated, and Images Worshipped, and the dead be prayed for, and the rest of their Superstitious and Idolatrous Opini∣ons be embraced and practised, but because they are dictated by the Head, and the Pope (as is affirmed by the Romanists) is that Head? which being disproved, it is evident that the Headship which is claimed, is nothing but a meer ignis fatuus, to draw the ignorant and unwary out of the way; and the foundation being shaken and destroyed, the whole building falls to the ground; the Dictates of the Pope, that are not expressed in the Holy Scripture, nor necessarily and by good con∣sequence deduced thence, have no more Truth in them, than there is in this position, That the Pope is the Head of the Church; and there is no more Truth in that, than there is in this, That every particular Patriarch, or every particular Bishop, is the Head of the Church.

For a Conclusion, I shall desire the Rea∣der to take notice, what Pope it was that first usurped the Title of Supremacy, and at whose hands he received, and by what means he attained this great Dignity: It was Boni∣face the III. who with much labour and dif∣ficulty,

and bribery, procured a Grant of it from that Tyrannical Usurper Phocas; who being a Souldier, rebelled against his Ma∣ster, the Emperour Mauritius, Abb. Ʋsp. in Mau. and most cruelly and wickedly put him him to Death, the manner of which was this: First he commanded forth the Empe∣rours Sons, and caused them to be Slain, and afterward the Empress, the Emperour all the while lamentably beholding that sad spectacle, and pouring out his Complaint unto God, saying, Lord thou art just, and just is thy Judgment. Last of all he acted the like But∣chery upon the Emperour, laying him, his Wife, and Children, all together on an heap, Car. in chro. Greg. l. 11. Epist 1. jud. 6.

During the Reign of this bloody Usurper, God seemed utterly to withdraw his Blessings from the Empire; France, Spain, Germany, Lombardy, and the greatest part of the East fell from it for ever; after he had Reigned a while, and committed sundry Murders, with many other great mischiefs, the People laid violent hands upon him, and slew him, and cast his dead Body into the Fire; loe, this was he that first advanced the Bishop of Rome to be Head of the Universal Church.

Concerning the Conclusion.

THE Bragadoshia in Plautus, who boasted of his ••onquests obtained over half the World, in the space of three daies, was not comparable to this Gentleman for Martial Ex∣ploits; here he cries out Io triumphe, telling the World how invincibly he hath behaved himself, and what an undoubted Victory he hath atchieved over an impotent and contemp∣tible Enemy; his conquering Arms (as he presumes) hath dealt such fatal and destru∣ctive blows, that I must be constrained to betake my self unto a shameful flight, or else defend my self by quibbling and cavelling, which is equally shameful; and then what im∣partial Judge is there, that shall deny to set the Garland on his head, and to Crown him with those due praises which his great Val∣lour hath merited by his worthy Atchieve∣ment.

But if he would not be offended, I would tell him that great Performances are visible to the Eye, therefore if there had been any such guilt in him, he would not have needed (as King Saul did) to blow the Trumpet, saying, Let the Hebrews hear; but he knows very well that

saying and doing are two things, and the failing of the one (for some shew of credit) must be supplyed by excess in the other; being conscious of the defect of his deeds, it was very requisite to blow high with his words, to deceive his obliging Friends, and Ignorant followers into a false conceit that something is done by him, though there be nothing to be seen.

He will say that I do quibble and cavil, if I do ask him, first, what evidence he hath produc∣ed to prove that the greatest part of the controver∣sy between my adversary and me (excepting the testimonys of Pope Gregory) doth only concern Historical reports, and in what particular he hath touched upon the quaeries, which I propoun∣ed to my adversary; the Historical reports do not amount to the one halfe of the controversy, which is obvious to every eye; and the touch which (he says) is made upon the quaeries, is no where to be found, unless in his own phansy, or it may be, it was sometime existing in his appetite, the edg of which was turned and dulled with fear, he might have an earnest desire to touch upon them, but it is very visible to the reader that he durst not come neer them.

Secondly what fabrick he hath erected upon that foundation, which he terms somewhat more certain, that is the testimony of Pope Gre∣gory? Instead of building upon it, he hath razed it quite, and laid aside not only Pope Gregory's, but also all the antient fathers, by saying (as he doth) treating upon the communion in both kinds, That unless I do produce a command or shew a necessity for receiving the Sacrament in both kinds, without which it could not be entire, I shall say no∣thing to the purpose, though I shall produce a

thousand clear and undeniable testimonys out of Pope Gregory, or any one else, witnessing that the laity had received under both kinds.

Thirdly, what arguments he hath used to prove that my expressions concerning Augustine the Italian Monk do not hang together? May he not be supposed to be instrumental in converting of the Saxons, and notwithstanding be charg∣ed with those faults, of which Historicall writers do report him to be guilty? Our Sa∣viour says that many will plead for them∣selves at the last day; saying, Lord have we not Prophesied in thy name, and in thy name cast out Devils, and in thy name done many won∣derfull works, which notwithstanding will be answered with a revera nescio vos, verily I know you not; if he was a Monk of great vertue, yet questionless, he had failings as well as others; and if he was proud and ambitious and cruel, yet he might be an Instrument in the hand of the supream agent for the conversion of Pagans. I hope this Gentleman will not ascribe the pow∣er and efficacy of conversion to the instrument, but will acknowledge that it resides in, and Issues from the supream agent.

Fourthly, where are those evident proofs to be found which are taken out of St. Gregory, by which he hath cleared his opinion and prov∣ed that in the particulars mentioned, he doth agree with the Doctrine of the Roman Church, and directly oppose the Doctrine of the Church of England? There is not one proof produced by him out of this antient Father in relation to any particular, excepting only two concerning the Pope's supremacy, the one made with a shameful addition, the other with a deceitfull mutilation.

Fifthly, what are the names of those Protestant writers, by whose confession and testimony he hath shewed that the Doctrine and belief of Pope Gregory in every one of the particulars, was a∣greeable to the Doctrine of the Roman Church? There is not one Protestant writer quoted by him in relation to most of the particulars, as to the canon of the Scripture, the sufficiency of the scripture, the reading of the scripture the communi∣on in both kinds, the Pope's supremacy; and those, that are quoted by him in relation to the rest, speak not one word directly to any particular, therefore what they say (as I have shewed) is nothing serviceable for the Romanists; excepting only the centurists, who speak to good works, unto which an answer hath been given.

Sixthly, what ground he hath for those hideous conclusions which he maks against me, saying my method hath been inconclusive; my arguments weakness of reason, and my reason inconsequent; and what reason he had to charge me with open contradictions, wrest∣ed interpretations, and inexcusable falsifications, and pusling the reader with wor〈…〉〈…〉-cavils, and exceptions? And I must ask him where those numerous faults, and many errours, that he objects against me in the general, are to be found? And why they are lapped up from sight in a cloud of generals, and not any one mentioned in particular.

I have seen two Champions marching to∣ward the field, the one who was the challen∣ger, filling the aire with a loud Robustious noise, and loading the other with many bitter invectives, threatening to cut collops of flesh out of his body in satisfaction for the Injury, that

was done, whereas by the evidence of several witnesses there was no occasion of offence giv∣en; the other passed along without making many words, only he protested that there was not any Injurious carriage used by him; but being that the challenger was so hot and heavy in his ex••lamations and invectives, he was content to run the hazard of a duell, to prove his own Innocency, and to try, whether the Challenger's sword was as sharp as his tongue.

When the rampant gallant perceived that he could not by his thundring words frighten the other to a submission, he was easily perswaded to let the quarrel fall, without any farther decision, and both retreated without bloodshed. From the observation of all this, I drew these conclusions, that great brags are no certain signs of true valour, nor high words demon∣strative arguments of great performances, nor confident accusations an evidence of guiltiness in the person accused: I leave the reader to deter∣mine how like this Gentleman is unto that rampant gallant; and will now perform my promise to acquaint the reader with those seve∣rall letters, which passed betwixt me and Mr. H. L. the first of which (being occasioned as I have already shewed) was to this following pur∣pose.

The first Letter witten to M. H. L.

SIR,

I am informed, that you have a purpose to vindicate the person concerned in my Pa∣pers, upon condition that I would mention any particular controverted point, wherein he hath not given a full satisfaction to me: I suppose his long and last silence is a tacite acknowledgment, that he hath failed in all his undertakings, there∣fore you may choose what particular you please to insist on: If you can prove that I have in any particular contradicted either Scripture, Reason, or the Ancient Fathers; or that I have Coined any Historical Report, you will oblige me to rest,

Yours Samuel Felgate.

Mr. H. L's Answer.

SIR,

AT my coming to Stoniherst, I found a Letter of yours, which had laid there for some time expecting my return, wherein you tell me that you hear, I have a purpose to Vindicate the per∣son concerned in your Papers: Truly Sir, why I should put my self upon the Vindication of

one, whom I neither know in Person or in Quality, I cannot give any Rational account; for if the person concerned thought himself not at all obliged, nor it worth his labour to proceed any further in it; I hope no one in reason can ex∣pect it from me.

The cause I am always ready to Vindicate, when in reason and discretion it is required, and to endeavour your satisfaction as much as possibly I can, if I find you desirous to receive it: But be∣cause Disputes are subject to many affected mistakes, Mis-interpretations of the sense, Wordish Cavils and Quibbles, too much below a man, much less a Scholar, the one often times wilful∣ly framing a quite different sense from what the other intended, by which means the thing in Controversy is industriously rendred more difficult, and obscure than before, by crowding in a num∣ber of words, so to pusle and amuse the weaker sort of people, with petty exceptions, and meer Cavils: I would have you therefore to believe, that I am as far from seeking to concern my self in any thing that looks like unto a personal Quarrel, or hath so much of the place of an end∣less contest as your hath, as I was at first from desiring your Papers, otherwise than that hear∣ing of your Challenge, and Resolution to Print them, in case I did not Answer them, I con∣ceived my self obliged both in Civility and Cha∣rity to save you both the Labour and Charges, although I am not ignorant that new Opinions (though never so weak, and untrue) rather gain than loose repute and strength by opposition, be∣cause what they want of in Truth and Reason, they are but too apt to be supplied with by Passion. Sir, I say not this for that I conceive there is any

thing in your Written Book, which hath so much as the appearance of a real difficulty, but because I have not the Itching Humour of Scrib∣ling and entring into Disputes, where nothing but Quibbles, Animosities, Heats and Passions are likely to be the Issue in a wilderness of such Talk, and wilful affected mistakes; for I do not see what other can be expected from your method and way of proceeding by any Discreet and Impartial Considerer of your Papers, but that instead of bringing your Controversy to an end, you will render it more confused and end∣less than you found it. And really Sir, should I find you so moderate and sincerely disposed, as to oblige me to a little further pains in Studying your satisfaction either in these particulars, or any else; I assure you, I should be so far from doing it to make you an Adversary, that I would not so much as think of it with any other intention, but to make you more a Friend, and to convince you likewise how much I am.

Your Cordial Wellwisher and Servant. H. L.

S. F's Reply.

YOu Charge my Papers, and you double your Charge, with a tendency to Confu∣sion, and endless contests, and with a guilt of Personal Quarrelling, therefore you will not write against them: Besides, you add this reason,

because disputes are subject to affected mistakes, Mis-interpretations of sense, Wordish Cavils and▪ Quibbles, and as Glorying in the strength of this reason, you make a Repetition of it with some. Addition, saying, That you have not the Itching▪ Humour of Scribling and entring into Disputes, where nothing but Quibbles, Animosities, Heats, Passions, are likely to be the Issue in a Wilderness of such Talk, and wilful and affected mistakes: It seems this Charge is likewise brought against my Pa∣pers, otherwise there can be no Validity in your reason; for if my Papers be not stained with that Guilt, you may attempt the confutation of them without the danger of those formidable Incon∣veniences.

Pray Sir, let me ask you why you did not ex∣press some reason for your Charge? It may be supposed that my Antagonist and you sucked both one Milk, because you are so much alike in charging, and it is well if you prove not both alike in carrying on your Charge: After I demanded a reason of his Charge, I heard not from him since unto this day; and now I demand a reason like∣wise for your Charge, but do fear that I shall never hear more from you.

And while you bring this Injurious Charge against my Writings, how much you do re∣flect against my person, I leave to your own Judgment to determine; Writings are Judices animi as much as any thing, I must then be a Scribler, a Quibbler, addicted to affected Mistakes, Mis-interpretation of Sense, Wordish Cavils, Per∣sonal Quarrels, confused and endless Contests, and therefore not fit to live in any Christian Society: But my comfort is that your Sayings are not Oracles; you Talk of Discretion and Modera∣tion,

but you do but Talk of it, I find nothing of the practice of it here.

If Composition of your Religion be like unto an Old Ruinous Fabrick, that the more you s••ir to support it, the liker it is to fall upon your Head; you are highly to be commended for your Policy in using this groundless excuse, and injurious Charge to be the reason of making an Evasion; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is commonly the weak refuge of a fainting Cause, but it bespeaks contrary to your promise; the Faithfulness of my Intelligencer is not to be distrusted, who told me what I gave you to understand in my Letter.

And being that you have taken so much liber∣ty to represent me to my self without reason out of my Papers, be not offended, if I take some liberty to represent you to your self out of your Letter, with reason, though I dare not presume to determine of the end you aim at in writing of it, because you seem to me Penelopes Telas texere, to do and undo: Yet I dare affirm,

First, That you have an admirable Faculty of Division, you can separate between those things that are of so near a concern and so strictly con∣joyned, that it is impossible to make a separation between them; you can vindicate the Cause, and do nothing for the person maintaining that Cause, for thus you express your self, The Cause you are ready to vindicate, though why you should vindicate the person, you can give no rational account: Truly the Person and the Cause are equally and joyntly concerned in my Papers, it was the person main∣taining that Cause, or the Cause maintained by that person (take whether Expression you please) against which I did write.

Secondly, That you are the ablest Champion

for your Religion, that ever I yet heard of, if you once betake your self unto your Weapons, you can strike, all that is said against it, dead a•• one Blow, you can as easily confute all other▪ Writings, as you have confuted mine: My Writings are Scriblings, Quibblings, full of Ani∣mosities, Heats, Passions, therefore not fit to be re∣presented to the Credit of any Reader, and needs not any further confutation.

Thirdly, Though you be an able Champion, yet you are Faint-hearted, pray pardon the Ex∣pression, and do not impute unto me contra∣diction, you may be Able and Faint-hearted too, but for different respects; Able for the reason ex∣pressed before, Faint-hearted because you are Frightned with a shadow; though (as you say) there be not the least appearance of a real difficul∣ty in confuting my Papers, yet you will not medle with them, for fear of being Assaulted with affected Mistakes, Mis-interpretation of Sense, Wordish Cavils and Quibbles.

Fourthly, Controversies must not be ended, be∣cause the exercise of reason must not be used to end them, for what are Disputes, but a tossing of Ar∣ment against Argument, and a comparing Reason with Reason, and these conflicts must not be at∣tempted for fear of Quibbling, Cavilling••▪ Affected Mistakes, &c. and thus siding and taking of Parties must be done likewise without the use of Reason; well were it for you, if all the World were of this Opinion, it may be they would be of your Religi∣on, though they could shew no reason for it.

Fifthly, Whatsoever New Opinions do arise, they are like to stand as they are, because it is not fit, that they should be opposed, for fear they should gather strength by opposition, and least Passion should overturn both Truth and Reason.

It may be that you will say, this is Scribling and ••ibbling, but I assure you, it is nothing but ••wing apt and fit Conclusions from premises ••pressed in your Letter, and fairer dealing than •••• afforded unto me; you are not assaulted se∣••ly and invisibly, but have reasons given for ••ery Blow that is offered, by which you are fairly ••amed to ward and defend your self, if you can; ••t you striking invisibly at me, you wounded ••e out of my Writings, and no body can tell ••t a reason for it.

To say that there is a shorter and surer Tract •• walk in, for finding out the Constitution of our Religion, than by Austin the Monk, and ••e Ancient Brittains, to wit, the Doctrine of ••hrist, and his Apostles delivered in the Sacred ••riptures; and to say that there is not merit in ••y man, because God gives not this prerogative •• meriting to any meer man; and to say that ••either Angels, nor Saints are to be invocated, ••ecause God only is to be Worshipped, is not to ••crible or Quibble.

These are Positions laid down in my Papers, without the mixture of Heats, Passions, Ani∣mosities, or respect to personal Quarrels, and may be disputed without Contests, likely to be drawn out ••o•• the Age of Methuselah: From which holds my Antagonist (as you say) thought not fit, nor worth the labour to attempt to drive me, if my desire be not discreet, yet it is real; be pleased to pick out the best Weapons that you have, wherewith to do that which he hath left undone; and I assure you, you shall find me more moderately disposed in defending my self, than you have been in Writing to me, and to be thus Engaged with you, will oblige me to re∣turn

your Cordial wishes, and to profess my •• to be yours.

S. F.

Mr. H. L's Second Letter.

SIR,

WHat I write to you was in a Friendly an•• Civil manner (since you had concerne•• me with your Papers) to inform you what •• thought of the Inconclusiveness of your method and way of proceeding in your Disputation, an•• how unlikely it was to answer either the ex¦pectation of your self or others, and not out o•• any design or intention to charge you with▪ •• guilt of personal Quarrelling, nor with those other Faults you lay to your own Charge, but a•• you may take liberty to say what you please o•• your self, so you have the same Priviledge o•• clearing your self when you have done, provided you make me not a party.

Indeed I said in general terms, That Disputes of that nature were subject to Heats, Mistakes, Ani∣mosities, &c. And being that enough had been said of those matters by so many of the most ex∣tolled Champions on both sides, I could not see any reason, why I should trouble my self with Answering over again, what hath been so fully Answered before; and for you to Hammer still upon the same matter, and make no further a progress, than you are likely to make, were

but to trouble the World with a noise, which ••ey are already sick of, and their Ears Loath ••en to Nauseousness.

But if I speak before in general terms of the ••conveniencies that such like Disputes are subject ••, and expressed an unwillingness of entring in∣•• such a fruitless and endless contest, as in all ••obability it must appear to whosoever doth ••t consider either your way of handling the ••atter, or of treating your Adversary, and therefore for a long time suspended my Resolu∣tions: You have now by your last Letter abso∣••tely determined me not to medle any further, ••••cause you have convinced me that this of ••ours will be such an one, and that rather than ••ll of a contest, you will Critically take Excep∣••ons against every word in a Letter; for in your ••nswer to mine, as long as it is, there is nothing ••lse but Cavils and Exceptions, and such truly ••s are unbecoming any man; and if I find so much of this in your Letters, what measure might I have expected, if I had entred into the Lists, engaged with you in a serious and formal Dis∣putation.

Because I delight not in Reading, much less in the Rehearsal of such stuffe, I'le give you only an Instance of this your dealing with me out of your own Letter, that even your self may judge, whether I have not reason to decline all occa∣sions of Cavilling, since I see that if I set Pen to Paper, though in a Civil Letter, they are un∣avoidable; for you tell me in your Letter, That I have an admirable faculty of Division, and can separate between those things, that are of so near a concern that it is impossible to seperate be∣tween them, because I can maintain the Cause,

and do nothing for the person concerned in •• Cause.

What a new found impossibility is this? •• own words in my Letter to you were the•• You tell me that you hear, I have a purpose to V••¦dicate the person concerned in your Papers: Trul•• Sir, why I should put my self upon the Vindication of one, whom I neither know in Person nor in Qua∣lity, I cannot give any Rational Account; for i•• the person concerned thought himself not at all oblig∣ed, nor worth his labour to proceed any further in it; I hope no one in reason can expect it from me, the Cause truly I am always ready to Vindicate, when in reason and discretion it is required, and to en∣deavour your satisfaction as much as possibly I can, if I find you desirous to receive it; but because Disputes are subject to Mistakes, &c. Thus far my own words, now let any one Judge from hence, if you were not disposed to Cavil, why you should be thus highly offended with this way of expressing my self, or how you can possibly gather from hence, That I have such an admirable faculty, &c. For if they be be two real Entities or things, as certainly they are, and your own words import no less, what great art is there required to divide between them, for if they be two according to reason, they must needs be divisible, or which is all one, capable of being divided; so as with all the art you have, you can neither clear your self of contradiction, not from a groundless exception.

Besides how can I in prudence undertake to vindicate a person, when I was not assured that there was any such one in being, for you possibly might have created an Antagonist in your own fancy, to have quelled him when you had done,

or at least thereby to set your self on work, and by that means engage some body in the de∣••ence, and had I committed a mistake upon such a fiction, you would certainly have made very great use of it, and as you accuse me now of slowness, and faint-heartedness, because I will not put my self without necessity upon the vindication of a person, whom I know not, so in that case you would have accused me of to much forwardness in the behalf of one that had only a chimericall being in your fancy, for I see one had need of Argus his eyes.

But supposing the reality (as I did) me thinks in reason you should rather have approved of my expression, because thereby I gave you to understand that I wold neither write in vindi∣cation of your adversary, nor in opposition to ••our self, either of which would have savoured of a personall quarrell, but only in vindication of the cause, if it might possibly contribute to your satisfaction; for if any body hereafter should find so little to do as to take where I leave, yet I am confident at least they would be so wife as to pass by without notice all the exceptions you have made against my letter, and only con∣cerned themselves in what is substantial, and not exceptious and cavilling, which only relates to the person, not the cause.

The rest of your exceptions against my letter are just like unto this and would afford me a∣bundance of matter, but I am weary of them, and therefore resolved to let them pass, that I may rest quiet, and therefore I shall desire to be excused, if you expect any farther from me, than that I subscribe my self.

Your loving Friend H. L.

S. F's Answer.

SIR.

I have now a little leasure to bestow in per∣using of your letter, and to tell you that by encountring with a daring enemy, whose strength (as it appears) ly's not in his rational deductions, but in his confident assertions, it is my misfortune to be (as sometime Jonathan the son of Saul was) cast upon a necessity of clim∣bing up between two rocks, and my credit must suffer wreck, if I leane to the right hand or to the left; if I pass by your letter, without tak∣ing notice of it, I must pass in the world for a great caviller; if I except against any thing expressed in it, I must expect to have the same Ignominious title fastened upon me, what must I do to escape this impending destruction? If you be a second Pyhagoras, I know that you expect to have all your assertions to be taken for axioms because of an ipse dixit; if not, I appeal to the Judgment of the world to de∣termine whether is the greater caviller, he that imputes inconclusiveness, and confusion and end∣less contests to my writings, and shews no rea∣son for it; or he that excepts against your ex∣pressions, and shews a reason for every exception that is made.

I cannot beleive but you are a man subject to failings as well as others, have you any letters patents to impower you to tell another man of his faults, and to priviledge you against

hearing of your own, that ••••ou must not be told them? Or do you take me to be under confession, that I must acknowledge the errours that you do Injuriously lay to my charge, while I must not mention the solaecismes that are justly chargeable upon you? I do not appre∣hend any such duty incumbent upon me, but that I may take as much liberty to except against your letters, as you have taken to except against my writings; and which of us hath most tru•••• and reason on his side will be determined, when your letters and my writings are exposed to the publick view; be pleased to tell me what comparison there is between too much, and much less, your expression in your former letter is this, too much below a man, much less a scholar, which I would have told you of before, had I been addicted to cavilling, as you report me to be, and whereas you say that I concerned you with my papers, I utterly deny it, it was your great Bragg made to Mr. Waddington that wrought this concern, whereof I acquainted you in my first letter, which is discovered to be but like unto a flash of Lightning, as suddenly extinguished as it was inflamed; if you be in∣fallible, I must acknowledg your Friendly man∣ner of writing, and how just that measure is, which your thoughts do proportion unto me; but if not, be pleased to know, that he cannot be counted a Friend, that conceals the reasons of his thoughts; for who can tell but his reasons may be light, therefore his thoughts Injurious, and if so, instead of a real Friend he is a real enemy,

What your design was in using those general

terms (howsoever you seek to cloud it, is as clear as the light; did you write pertinently or impertinently? If impertinently the greater shame for your self; if pertinently, the faults mentioned are charged upon my writings; the conclusion you drew was this, you would not write against my prayers; the medium used was this, disputes are subject to affected mistakes misinterpretation of sence, wordish cavills and exceptions▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 if you be a Logitian, you will help this enthy∣mema to be a compleat syllogism, and then the dimsighted will see clearly, that you did shoot at my writings, and in them at me.

Whither the whole matter treated on by me, hath been hammered by the greatest Champi∣ons on both sides, I question, yet however this is but a pitiful argument to perswade you to desist from writing; by the same reason Do∣or Pierce might have spared his pains of preach∣ing before the King, and the English Apostate Cressy his paines of answering Doctor Pierce, and that author who confuted him his farther paines, for the matter disputed between them was hammered again and again, I know not whither so far as you express concerning my writings, that is to sickness and nauseating, un∣less it be unto them that have very squeasy sto∣macks, that are sick of, and nauseat at any thing that is written against them; if you cannot endure the iterated noise of these hammers, you must forsake the tenents that uphold your Re∣ligion, and if you standing upon those Gyants shoulders cannot see a little farther than they did, nor can afford any thing of your own for the upholding, and maintaining of your Re∣ligion,

your eyes are very dim, and your head is very empty.

To pass by your witty (if) supposing that which was really done before, and your great knowledge of that which concerns a man; me∣thinks you are very soon and easily determin∣ed to the shame of your profession, (if you do esteem your Religion to be true) while you suf∣fer a thing called cavilling to have this influence over you; do you not know that the greatest suf∣ferings should not determine a Christian to fail in maintaining of the truth.

In the next place your reason runs so low, that it was wisely done to make your confidence blow high, that the sound of your great words might be serviceable to supply the Emptiness of your Arguments, otherwise the man that never langhed before, would smile in his sleeve to hear the relation of them: Your first, ar∣gument is founded upon two reall entityes; to compleat it, you must either say that all two reall entityes are divisible, or some two reall entityes are divisible, if you say the first, you are required to prove what you say, what art have you to divide between the divinity and humanity of Christ; If you say the second, then I say, a Particularibus nihil concluditur, and I would have you to prove that the person and the cause are two of these some; they are relative entityes, and the Logitian tells you that Relata sunt simul natura, What art have you to divide between such? Can you divide be∣tween the father and the son as they are rela∣tives? Certainly if there be a paternity, there must needs be a filiation; and if there be a

filiation there must needs be a paternity; and what is done for the one is done for the other; if you prove the one to be legitimate, you prove the other to be legitimate; and if you prove the one to be noble, you prove the other to be noble, thus the person and the cause being re∣latives, if you vindicate the cause, you will vindicate the person maintaining that cause, and if you vindicate the person maintaining that cause, you will vindicate that cause; but why do I trouble my self with that wounderfull ar∣gument, it being an Antipodes to the things in question; the question is not whether the per∣son and the cause be divisible, but whether you can divide between them, being that you undertook to answer my papers; and you may as well say that frigidity is calidity, and divi∣sibility is Indivisibility, as take upon you to do this, open your eyes, and look upon my expres∣sion; I told you that I heard, you had a purpose to vindicate the person concerned in my papers; it is not a person divided from my papers, but a person tyed to my papers, and so to the cause controver••ed between us by the knot of concern, which you will find an old found impossibility to unty, unless you will send your discourse to rove beyond the Moon, and yet you tell me learnedly, why you should Vindicate the Person, you can give no ra∣tional account, but his cause you are ready to vin∣dicate.

Your Second argument grounded upon a supposition is Cousin-german▪ to the first, being as tuneable to the thing in question as an harp is to an harrow, you are not to speak of a per∣son

without any relation to the cause, but con∣cerned in the cause, and thus much might serve to resist the fierceness of it, but yet to answer yours with other suppositions first, suppose I should say that you were very hard set for an argument when you used this, if the founda∣tion be sandy, the superstructure falls, if your supposition be false, the argument builded upon it, of its self goes to ruine.

Secondly, Suppose it be true that I feigned an Antagonist, do you think that in vindicating that Antagonist, you would have vindicated on∣ly a chimericall being? Will you believe your own eyes? Did you not see a reall writing; and sure you will not say that a reall writing did proceed from a Chimaera, a reall effect must needs have a reall cause, therefore this feigned Antagonist must not be a Chimaera, but a real writer, and all that you can say of him is that he was a counterfeited Friend to the cause, masked under a feigned name.

Thirdly, Supposing the impossibility that you speak of, that a person may be vindicated with∣out relation to any cause, this certainly is an impossibility, for there must be a cause in which to vindicate the person, otherwise the vidicati∣on will be an effect of a wonderfull Artificer, that can build an house without a foundation, what assurance would you have for the reality of the person; a writing under hand is not suf∣ficient to work this assurance, and all other as∣surances being to pass unto your understanding by the conveyance of the outward sences, are as liable to exception and doubtfulness as the as∣surance of a reall writ••ng, it remains therefore

that you cannot be assured at all; truly, be∣cause you cannot vindicate a person but it must be in relation to some cause, nor a cause but you must vindicate some person, for want of that prudential assurance, which you do speak of; I believe that you will be so prudent, as not to undertake the vindication of the Cause, or the person concerned in my Papers; nor of any other person or cause whatsoever, where you are like to meet with opposition.

Fourthly, To Answer the reason you do give, why I should rather approve of your Irrational Expression, than except against it: Suppose I should say that the Cause in Controversy is main∣tained by all the Papists in England, and if you do vindicate the Cause, you vindicate all those persons; why then must my Antagonist be excluded, he being a Papist, and in England? And how if I say, that in vindicating that Cause, you would oppose all the Protestants in England, how must I be excluded out of the compass of that opposition, being a Protestant?

Because you say, That Exceptions and Ca∣villing relate unto the Person, not the Cause, which must not be mentioned to avoid personal Quarrelling: I shall make one Supposition more, Suppose a man (as it might be your self) bringing Halting and decrepit Arguments to maintain the Tenents of your Religion; the Faults of his Arguments must not be menti∣oned, for to do this would be but Captiousness, and Cavilling and Personal Quarrelling: What then, it seems his Arguments must pass as with∣out fault, that i•• substantial; and thus your Religion must be upheld with Halting and De∣crepit

Arguments: When you have Besotted the World into this Opinion, and peswaded all to the practice of it, I presume you will be a Writer of Controversies: If the rest of my Letter be like unto this, against which you have directed all your Forces, you are to be commended for being weary and desiring to be at rest: Abner was weary of Fighting with Joab, when he cryed out, Shall the Sword devour for ever; but I sup∣pose you know the reason of it.

Now if you be like unto your quondam self, I expect to receive a Furious Charge of Cavil∣lation, but am content to stand out the Storm, and (if you please to heed me) will give you the reason, why I Fight you after this manner: Truly Sir, you look so contemptibly on my Papers, that I apprehended you to be some Go∣liah, that Scornes to enter the Lists with Pu∣nyes, and I have made use of this Sling, and this Stone, (that which you call Cavilling) to keep you at greater distance, lest coming with∣in the compass of your mighty Spear, I mean your invinceable Arguments, I had been crush∣ed to pieces.

But in earnest, do you think that there is any of your Writers that can Teach his Pen to Write beyond Exceptions? Or must not Ex∣ceptions be made, when there is just Cause for it? Let me beg one Favour at your Hands, be pleased to leave Shuffling and fall to Argument, that I may see some such exact piece dropt from your Pen, and then do not doubt but your Antagonist will fairly lay down his Arms, and in Testimony of Submission to your great Judg∣ment, will sit at your Footstool: Besides, you

shall be cryed up Sapientum Octavus by him who Subscribes himself,

Your Friend, S. F.

NOw (Christian Reader) it is not my pur∣pose to imitate the Reflector's dealing with thee, which I may assimilate to the practice of some Fencers, who though they be foiled upon the Stage, yet afterwards do pass through the Streets with Drummes Beating, and Swords Brandished, making a Glorious shew as if they had won the Prize: I will not endeavour to prepossess thee with a large Harangue in Re∣lation to that which I have written; here is presented to thy view the best Stuffe that some Roman Leaders could afford towards the up∣holding of the Romish Temple; what it is, whe∣ther Tall Cedars, Stately Oakes, Polished Stones, and Refined Gold and Silver, or Mate∣rials of an Inferior and base mixture, Tinn, Lead, Straw, and Peacocks Feathers, I leave to thy own Judgment to determine; I shall only mind thee of that great necessity that lies up∣on thee, to have the eyes of thy understanding Enlightned with true knowledge, that thou mayest be able to judge and discern for thy self between Good and Evil, Truth and Falshood: He that is Blind, and therefore needs to be led by the Hand, or to follow the conduct of a String, his walking is Slow, Unsteady, and Dangerous; thou must be Saved by thy own Faith, and as Faith without Works is but a

destructive presumption; so Faith without Knowledge is a groundless confidence: Thou art now in the Wilderness of Sin, and shouldest be on thy Journey towards the Land of Canaan, therefore thou art to be choice of thy way to walk in, thy guide to direct thee in that way, thy Light to follow that direction: Let Christ be thy way, his Spirit thy guide, and the Holy Scripture (which is the word of Truth) thy Light; so shalt thou pass on with Comfort and Safety, and shalt arrive at the promised possession in the end; all which that thou mayest do, I commend thee to the saving help of thy ever Blessed Saviour, concluding all in that advice to thee, and Prayer for thee; consider what hath been said, and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

POSTSCRIPT.

HAving examined the Reflections, and shewed what Stuffe they afford for publick view; I can easily conjecture what Stormy weather I shall have, and what a blustring return will be made by the Reflector, or some other daring Champion that shall ingage himself in the Quarrel.

When the Romanists are Distressed for want of Arguments, not finding any thing of weight to plead for themselves, (which is their constant and woful fate) it is their common practice (as the Reflector hath done) to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 out 〈◊〉〈◊〉 an inundation of words, and to swell into the highest considence of boasting, exclaiming against their Adversaries for unhand∣some

and Injurious dealing, charging them with Mis-interpretation, False Quotations and Corrup∣tions, and accusing them as guilty of Immodest Re∣viling, and Exasperating Language; and all this is done purposely to set a glittering shew upon their own performances, to deceive the common people into a perswasion that they are no less then Con∣querors.

In this Case, the defence that I shall make for my self shall be this: First, if any Champion shall fall into the temperate, and petulant humour of boasting; he is required not to hide himself under a Cloud of Generals, but (that I may know where to find him) to set down the particular grounds and reasons, whence his vapours do arise; otherwise the Intelligent Reader will Judge his boasting to be like unto Cardinal Campegios great Flourish with his Twenty Gilded Sumpters in Henry the 8. time, which made a glorious shew outwardly to the Beholders; but being by accident Overturned in Cheapside, discovered nothing within, but Old Rotten, Mouldy Shoes, and Boots, and Musty Marrow Bones.

Secondly, My greatest Ability, and Industry not reaching to the possession of most of those Ancient Fathers, which I have Quoted, I must confess that the Quotations were taken at the second Hand, but from Approved Authors of the Protestant perswa∣sion, and from such Romish Authors as are placed in the highest rank among the Romanists; and I am ready to justify my proceeding in this, that I have Charged nothing upon the Fathers, but what they have pressed thems••lves, and in that sense, for which I have quoted them.

Thirdly, If I do not judge Partially, I think I have not given any immodest Reviling, or exaspe∣rating Language, only I have used some simili∣tude to illustrate the Truth; and why should not that kind of Illustration be used, when nothing but Truth is spoken; if by mine own practice I should in any respect imitate a Taylor, or a Cobbler, or a Tinker, I should not suffer my Choller to Swell, for being minded of that resemblance: But were it so, that I had been guilty of some sore biting Expres∣sions, and Reflections; I am indebted to the Ro∣manists, more than my Ability can reach, or my will is inclined to repay: Should I dip my Pen in Vinegar, or write Characters with Gall and Worm∣wood, mingled with drops of Blood, yet I should not repay in that measure, which they have meted unto me.

Courteous Reader,

BEcause I have spoken (in my Preface) con∣cerning the Alienation of the Churches Revenues, to justify what I have said, be not offended, if I request thee to step aside, (if it be not too great a digression) and spare some time to Read the two following Letters, with the subsequent Observations, in which thou mayest see something that is very remarkable, (which would have passed for a wonder in the days of our Forefathers) how the office and duty of Pa∣tronage is performed by one that claims that right as an Appendance to his Inheritance: The one written by himself to justify his Title to some Church Revenues in his possession, the second written ••n Answer to the first.

The First LETTER.

Honoured Sir,

WHat Mr. F. hath now said to you he hath told me an hundred times, and hath run about the Country these ten years, complaining that I detain his right, though he hath not one Syllable to say for himself, but the report of two or three Women, who tells him that they have known the Rent of ten shillings paid to Vicar R. out of this Te∣nement, but upon what account they know not; what Mr. W. hath said to him about it▪ he hath given three times as much to us under his Hand and Seal, contradicting every Syllable that he affirms to him; and this Mr. W. could not do out of fear, because he was possessed of the Vicaridge a long time before, and he then up and we down; but to set this aside, endeavouring to satisfie Mr. F. I got Mr. H. to give him a meeting, whose Father hath been knowing in our Family above threescore years, several men in Mitton, older than those wo∣men he speaks of, and never an one of these knows, or ever heard that this Tenement belonged to any but my Ancestors; it was never found in the Bi∣shop's Records, nor in any writings that belong to the Church, that it was given to any Vicar of our Parish, it hath no marks of the Glebe Land, for it ever paid Tythes and Taxes formerly. I suppose, these Arguments are as good as any he brings; yet nothing will satisfie him, but what is more than necessary; must a person produce his writings, be∣cause another saith he will have his Estate; let those bring something more sufficient than a bare Story; otherwise I believe you cann••t think it con∣venient

that Persons should show their writings up on every slight demand. What if in these times some writings concerning those Lands should be lost; will not a continual and quiet poslession for four∣score years give me right of the thing, for any thing that he hath to say against it, but that I must shew my Writings; let him shew what is more weighty and better than our constant possession; and then I will shew what as shall be more authentick than his, or otherwise submit; let him go to Sute when he pleaseth; those that are concerned in the Estate will suffer wrong; I do solemnly protest, as I am a Christian, that I never saw Line or Scrole, or Word that gave him one Grass 〈◊〉〈◊〉 more than he hath: and this I imagine is sufficient to satisfie any reasonable person; hoping it will do you, and then it is all I desire, and that I may be esteemed as truly I am,

Honoured Sir.

The Answer.

Honoured Sir,

I Have seen yours, sent to Mr. P. and do won∣der that you would write such stuffe to a Gentleman of great esteem in his Country; I shall make this fair motion, let the Controver∣sie between you and me be determined by your own Letter, if all that you have spoken in it be pertinent and true, I will submit; if other∣wise, in reason you should yield unto me, because it is a summary of the best Arguments you can use in your own behalf, to prove your possession to be just, and ••ny claim injurious.

That I have complained, adds nothing to your Title, nor can it be imputed to me as a faulty will you strike, and have me to be (as a Stock) not sensible of your blows. I have complained, and will complain, unless you do restore to the Church what is violently and injuriously detained from it; let me ask you this Question, Whe∣ther the Rent of seven Shillings nine pence for the Touchnoughs, and of ten Shillings per annum for Wamsleys Tenement was a right to the Church or not? if it was, why should it not belong to the Church still? if it was not, how came it to pass that the Vicars received it? as sure as you can prove your ••••me to be R. S. I can prove this, I have not only two or three women, but also all the Antient men in the Town to Swear that the said Rent was paid to the Vicars upon this very account, because it belonged to the Church.

But to speak more particularly to Wamsleys Tenement, how came it to pass that Vicar K. got Widdow Wamsley the possession of it, when it was in Controversie between her and A. I. it seems that your Grandfather had nothing to do with it then; and how came it to pass that Vi∣car R. received the Rent of it during his Life? It is well known, and (if need be) it will be proved by Oath, that your Grandfather never paid the Twenty Marks per annum unto Vicar R. which is due unto the Church; and would your Grandfather de••ain that was a right unto the Church, and let Vicar R. receive that which did not belong unto it?

As to your Release, that Mr. W. was up and you down, when it was signed, it is not materi∣al; nor was he possessed of the Vicaridge a

long time before, he being presented in 48, and your Release was signed in 49. but to let this pass, I will tell you, that if your Title was good, you needed no Release; and being bad, his Re∣lease doth not strengthen it; this is a thing that was never heard of before, that a rich and power∣ful Patron should want a Release from a poor Vicar, to confirm his Title to an inheritance; surely this must be a pitiful confirmation. Mr. W. is ready to confirm his Testimony by Oath, which is ten times more forcible than your Re∣lease. Besides, to tell you upon what account the Release was given, and that he was not Vicar, when he signed it, because he wanted instituti∣on and induction; therefore it signifies no more for you, than if Tom. T. had signed it; but it speaks strongly on my side, that the Vicar had some Title to the Tenement, otherwise it would not have been required; I suppose you will not require Tom. T. to sign you a Release of your De∣mesne.

If Mr. H. and Mr. C. and several men in Mit∣ton, elder than my Witnesses will affirm that the Tenement alwaies belonged to your Ancestors I will quit my claim; why will you write after this manner? you your self will acknowledge that the Rent of it was paid to Vicar R. during his Life, and that none of your Ancestors had pos∣session of it before he died.

If your next allegation be true, you may (up∣on the same ground, take from me all that I have) it is not to be found in the Bishops re∣cords, or any writings that belongs unto the Church, that any Glebe was given to any Vi∣car; the Glebe •••• given to the Church, and

that the Touchnough's and Wamsley's Tenement was setled on it for the use of the incumbents, is as clear as the light, otherwise the Vicars could not have received the Rent; nor could the Marks of Glebe be stamped upon them, (as will be proved by oath; though you have told Mr. P. that Wamsley's Tenement never had any such marks.

As for your argument of fourscore years pos∣session, it cannot pass; it is not much above threescore years since the first Lease of the Touch∣nough's was made to old Brook; and not much above thirty years since Vicar R. Dyed; but let us suppose it to be, as you would have it, (though we should not make suppositions con∣trary to the known truth) I will tell you, that without a restriction, it is but a shameful ar∣gument, A Theif had the possession of an honest mans Purse for fourscore years, therefore he had a better title to it than the owner: The Law∣yers do tell you that Prescriptio temporis non tollit bonum titulum, And I am sure that pre∣scription will not hold in the least measure to detain from the Church that which once belong∣ed unto it; wherefore it was necessary that you should shew your deeds; and if you be what you protest your self to be, you will do this, not only to promote this good end, the keep∣ing of peace, and preventing of troublesome Suits, but also for the sake of your own credit; that if your deeds do give you a right to what you do possess, it may appear to the world con∣trary to tradition, that there has not been any wrong done unto the Church; if your deeds do not give you a title to the Glebes, your pre∣scription

is but a continuance, and therefore all aggravation of the wrong that is done, your supposition of having lost some of your deed•• cannot be made, for it is not long since they were carryed to York by H. K. And since that time there have been no troubles to endanger the loss of any.

That you never saw any line, or scorle, or word, that gives me one grass chire more than I have, (I beleive) is the truest expression in all your letter; but will you protest as a Christ∣ian that you have seen writings, that gives unto you, what you detain from the Church; the stress of the business lyes here, whether your ancestours did buy of Borgan any thing more than the tythe; if they did purchase any Glebe lands I will sit down, and be quiet; but if none, why should you possess any.

Sir I hope you will pardon my boldness, and tediousness; I have been speaking in my own defence, and not injuriously unto you; I will only admonish you to take heed of medl∣ing with Church Lands; you know how it fares with Brook's off-spring for his sacrilegious carriage in Joyning with your Grandfather to take from the Church the Touchnoughs, not any of his line is like ever to Enjoy the Tenement again; whereas had he Continued a tenant to the Vicar, they could not have been Dispos∣sessed, while they Payed the accustomed fine, and the antient Rent; and it has not fared much better with the Wamsteys, thus God punishes the Iniquitys of the Fathers upon the Children; I would not have it to be so with you; my de∣sire is that you and your Posterity may flourish,

and that I might have a Friendly arbitration and Composure; that the Controversy being determined, I may be excused from a Conni∣vance at that, which (my own Judgment tells me) is horrid Sacriledge; but if all my Impor∣tunitys and Entreatys be utterly rejected; so that to recover the Rights of the Church, there is no remedy; but I must Dash my self against the Rock of a powerful and inflexible Patron; the world shall know more then ever it knew yet (and no more then shall be Confirmed by the Oath of credible Witnesses) to determine whether you be as you Pretend to be (that is) Conscionable and Peaceable, until you conde∣scend to my earnest entreaties, that you are so qualifyed, cannot be presumed by.

Honoured Sir

Yours.

Observe 1. THe Office and duty belonging to a Patronage (as the Notation of the Word doth tell us) is to be an Advocate, to plead in the behalf of the Church, when ne∣cessity requires; to protect and defend the Church, to provide for it, to cherish and nou∣rish it, to take care that its Endowments be not alienated or diminished; in a word (according to the expression of the Prophet Isaiah, to be a nursing Father, and a nursing Mother unto it; if all this be not done, but the contrary acted, the Title is grosly misapplied and abused, The

Fox can never be said to have a Patronage over the Pullen, nor the Woolf over the Sheep.

2. According to this, the practice of former Generations has been conformed: that their Zeal and Piety, and Charity did Endow the Church with a Competency of Glebes, Rents, Tithes, and Revenues, is clearly demonstrated by the Records of Ordination, by the large bounds of the Parish, the several Chappels within its bowels, the largeness of the Mansion-House that was erected for the use and benefit of the incumbent; which though it be in a great part demolished, and the remaining part sits Solitary, mourning in ragged, clouted, and tattered Garments, yet there are some Ruines and Rubbish, some Patches and Pieces visible, to prove that it was sometime Handsomly, Splendidly, and Richly Attired.

3. To prevent (if it was possible) the Ra∣pine of future Ages, our Religious Ancestors did settle and secure the Churches Endowments with the strictest Tye and Knot that their discretion could invent, their Charters and Deeds of De∣dication and Donation running in this Tenor (with dreadful Anathema's and Execrations) Let his Name not, and his memory perish from the face of the Earth; Cursed let him be in his Per∣son, Estate and Posterity; Cursed let him be in this World, and in the World to come, that shall attempt to alienate or diminish any part of that which is dedicated and given to the Churche's use.

I do not doubt but there are many worthy Per∣sons in the Nation, who wish well unto the Church, earnestly desiring its Prosperity, whose Zeal and Piety; and Bounty leads them to tread

in, the steps of their Religious Ancestors, and therefore are so far from thinking to alienate or diminish, that they take care and contrive to augment the Churches Revenues.

But Observe 4. How contrary to this, is the practice of that Patronage which is concerned in▪ the forementioned Letters; O tempora, O mores, times and things are changed, and some persons degenerated from former Generations; where the stately Oak did stand, comes up the unpro∣fitable Shrub; and where the fruitful Vine did flourish, springs the Bramble and Thorne; co∣vetous, grasping, preying persons possess the room of those that cherished and nourished the Church under their wings, and fed it abun∣dantly with the milk of their own Breasts.

Truth may be spoken without just occasion of offence, and nothing shall be declared, but what is confirmed by Tradition, living Testi∣mony, and too sensible, and very woful ex∣perience; greatness and riches are not warrant∣ed to do evil, more than the lowest degree of poverty; and when the Church cryes out for help to be vindicated and free from Rapine and Spoiling, the Tongue is not to be struck dumb with fear, sin is to be reproved though it dwell in a Mannor-house.

The Church is like unto the man that Tra∣vailed from Jerusalem to Jericho; those two Fatal Enemies and Grand Robbers (Sacriledge and Simony) have stript her, wounded her, and left her half dead, and there is none that takes pitty upon her, to bind up her wounds, to pour in Oyl and Wine, and to take care for her Recovery: The Mother Churches that sit un∣der

the Wings and Patronage of the Pious and Learned Bishops are (according to the Gracious Command of our Dread Soveraign) largely and competently augmented in their Revenues: But the Mother Church that lyes under the pressure of a Popish Patronage, continues Mour∣ning in its Forlorn and Languishing condition.

To know more particularly by what sad fate and method the Church was brought thus low; observe 5. That the Patronage concerned in the Letters, is so greedy to swallow the Churches Revenues, that (having the Advow∣son of a considerable Benefice) it required for a presentation no less than two parts of three to be paid yearly during the Incumbents Life; but this kind of Trading being rejected, afterwards a Gobbet of a Thousand Pound was contracted to be paid, and had been (without stop or strain) swallowed, had not the tediousness of bartering afforded a Gentleman opportunity to step in upon another's account, and to carry the Benefice away from the Bartering Merchants: But to speak nearer to the concern of the Letters, this Patronage having purchased a great part of that large Portion which was in the possession of the Abbot and Covent (as Tythes small and great) and (as it is reported) the Easter Book, at a low, inconsiderable, and shameful rate; that Fat Morsel did not Satiate the Hungry Maw, but there was a continual Gaping and Snatching at that Portion which always be∣longed to the Church, so that for several turns upon a Vacancy, there was not any presenta∣tion made, but what was obtained by a pre∣vious Simonia•••• Contract; one piece after ano∣ther

was Snipped off by consent, sometime the whole Glebe was passed off for a Presentation, sometime the yearly St••pend; one Incumbent does that, for which he repented all the days of his Life, complaining that if he stayed upon his Incumbency, he should never see the Face of God with joy; another passes away Twenty Marks per Annum; and though some of those Morsels were Vomitted up, and returned to the Church again, yet there has been such Snipping and paring made, that (as appears by the Re∣cords of Ordination,) almost the one half of the Gleab is Alienated, and Devoured, and Posses∣on being gotten, it is kept more firmly than the Hawke doth Grasp the Captived Bird, or the Spaniard Sticks to his Usurped Possession.

Several Addresses have been made with much importunity, begging earnestly (for peace sake) this reasonable Condescension, (the best method for deciding of Controversies) that two or four indifferent and Discreet persons might be Selected to view the Writings, hear the Pleas, and consider the Evidences on both sides, and according to the best weight to sway the ballance, that if it appear to them (which is ap∣parent unto all) that there is Injury done unto the Church, they might order a proportionable Reparation to be made; but the inflexible Pa∣tronage (confiding not in the strength of its Cause, but the weight of the Purse) hath utter∣ly rejected all Addresses, and will hearken to no proposalls; only that tedious and Chargable method of the Law (which is most in use for ending of Controversies) must be used, which the Indigent Incumbent is not a••••e to manage.

Is it not strange that the Patronage (but that it is Romish) should thus forget its Office and Duty, to act quite contrary to the import of the word; that instead of a Nursing Mother, it should become a Cruel Stepdame, and instead of a Liberal Benefactor, an Unsatiable De∣vourer, practising contrary to the Law of God, and the Light of Nature, and doing that which is abhorred by such as have no other conduct but the Glimmerings of innate and naked Rea∣son, violating the Will and Testament of the Dead, and Converting what was given by Zealous Donors for the advancement of Piety, to Secular (if not to Prophane) uses: And is it not strange likewise that a purchase of large Re∣venues comparatively for (almost) nothing, should not satisfie the Appetite of the Patronage, but it must be so greedy as to Prey upon the Pa∣trimony of the Church.

And in this Case is not just that the Law of Retaliation should be put in Execution, that the Patronage might receive according to that mea∣sure which it hath meted; not only to be forced to restore the Revenues, which have been Sa∣crilegiously and Simoniacally alienated from the Church, and to repair the loss of the mean pro∣fits, but also to be compelled to sit down as content with an equal Alienation from its shameful purchase: Nay, because the Patronage required two parts of three for a Presentation, is it not justice and equity that it should be compelled to be content with one part of three as sufficient for its purchase, especially considering that a va∣luable consideration was not payed for the tenth part of the Revenues which are possessed.

Christian Reader, I will trespass upon thy patience no longer, but begging thy Pardon for that I have put thee to the trouble of Read∣ing this Sad (but true) Narrative, I shall con∣conclude all with that Pathetical expression of the Psalmist, which (I hope) may without just occasion of Offence (I am sure justly) be used: By the waters of Babylon I sate down and wept, when I remembred thee O Zion.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Aug. in quest. vet. & nov. Test. quest. 114.
• † 1.2

  T••t▪ de Virg. Veland.
• a 1.3

  Euse. l. 4. c. 25.
• b 1.4

  Euse. l. 6. c. 18.
• c 1.5

  Hil. m. Prol. in Psal.
• d 1.6

  Cyp. l. cat. 4.
• e 1.7

  Atha. in Syn.
• f 1.8

  Jer. in pref. l. Sol.
• g 1.9

  Cyp. in exp. Sym.
• h 1.10

  Aug. in civ. dei. l. 18. c. 36.
• * 1.11

  •• Cox. Lao. can. 59.