Imprimatur,  
February 15th. 1686. Jo. Edinburgh.   

A COLLECTION OF DISCOURSES Lately Written by some DIVINES of the CHURCH OF ENGLAND AGAINST THE ERRORS and CORRUPTIONS OF THE Church OF Rome,  
To which is prefixed a Catalogue of the several Discourses  
EDINBURGH, reprinted by John Reid, for Thomas Brown, Gideon Schaw, Alexander Ogston, and George Mosman, Stationers, to be sold at their Shops, Anno DOM. 1687,   

THE CATALOGUE Of the DISCOURSES contained in this Book.  

I. A Discourse concerning the Guide in Matters of Faith, with Respect especially to the Romish pretence of the necessity of such an One as is infallible. Page 1  
II. The Protestants Resolution of Faith, being an Answer to three Questions. 

First, How far we must depend on the Authority of the Church for the true sense of the Scripture.  
Secondly, Wither a visible Succession from Christ to this day makes a Church which has this Succession, an Infallible Interpreter of Scripture? And whither no Church which has not this Succession, can teach the true sense of Scripture.  
Thirdly, Wither the Church of England can make out such a Visible Succession. Page 31    
III. A Discourse about the Charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England, made by the Papists, ask of us the Question, Where was our Religion before Luther? Page 57  
IU. A Discourse about Tradition showing what is meant by it, and what Tradition is to be Received, and what Tradition is to be rejected. Page 82  
V A Discourse concerning the Unity of the Catholic Church maintained in the Church of England. Page 117  
VI A Discourse concerning the Object of Religious Worship, or a Scripture proof of the unlawfulness of giung any Religious Worship to any other Being besides the One supreme GOD. Page 158  
VII. A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an unknown Tongue. Page 212  
VIII. A Discourse concerning the Devotions of the Church of Rome, especially as compared with those of the Church of England, in which is shown that what ever the Romanists pretend, there is not so true Devotion amongst them, nor such a Rational Provision for it, nor encouragement to it, as in the Church established by Law among Us. Page 250  
IX. A Discourse concerning Invocation of Saints. Page 295  
X. A Discourse against Transubstantiation. Page 345  
XI. A Discourse concerning the Adoration of the Host, as it is taught and practised in the Church of Rome, wherein an Answer is given to T. G. on that subject: and to Monsuer Boileau's late Book de Adoratione Eucharistiae, Paris 1685. Page 375  
XII. A Discourse against Purgatory, Page 421  
XIII. A Discourse concerning Auricular Confession as it is prescribed by the Council of Trent, and practised in the Church of Rome; With a Postscript on occasion of a Book lately Printed in France, called Historia Confessionis Auricularis. Page 447.   
FINIS.   

A DISCOURSE CONCERNING A GUIDE IN MATTERS OF FAITH.  
THE design of this Discourse is the Resolution of the following Query.  
Wither a Man who liveth where Christianity is 
The Question  professed, and refuseth to submit his judgement to the Infallibility of any Guide on Earth, and particularly to the Church or Bishop of Rome, hath, notwithstanding that refusal, sufficient means still left him whereby he may arrive at certainty in those Doctrines which are generally necessary to the Salvation of a Christian Man.  
Satisfaction in this Inquiry is of great Moment. For 
The moment of this Question.  it relateth to our great end, and to the way which leads to it. And it nearly concerneth both the Romanists and the Reformed. If there be not such a Guide, the Estate of the Romanists, is extremely dangerous. For then the Blind take the Blind for their unerring Leaders; and being once misled, they wander on without correcting their Error, having taken up this first as their fixed Principle, that their Guide cannot mistake the way. On the other hand, If God hath set up in his Church a Light so very clear and steady as is pretended; the Reformed are guilty of great presumption, and expose themselves to great uncertainty, by shutting their Eyes against it.  
Now, there lies before Men a double Temptation to a belief 
The Temptations to believe the Affirmative part of this Question.  of the being of such a Guide in the Christian Church; Sloth and Vicious Humility of mind. Sloth inclineth Men rather to take up in an Implicit Faith, then to give themselves the trouble of a strict Examination of things. For there is less Pain in Credulity, then in bending of the Head by long and strict Attention and severe Study.  
Also there is a Show of Humility, in the deference which our understandings pay unto Authority; especially to that which pretends to be under Christ, Supreme on Earth. Although, in the paying of it without good reason fi●st understood, Men are not Humble but Slavish.  
But these Temptations prevail not upon honest and considerate Minds, which inquire, without prejudice, 
The true Resolution of the Query.  after Truth, and submit to the Powerful Evidence of it. Such will resolve the Question in the Affirmative; and they may reasonably so do by considering these propositions which I shall treat of in their order.  
First, The Christian Church never yet wanted, nor shall it ever want, either the Doctrines of necessary Faith, or the Belief and Profession of them.  
Secondly, Wheresoever GOD requireth the Belief of them, he giveth means sufficient for Information and unerring Assent.  
Thirdly, Whatsoever th●se means are, every Man's Personal reason giveth to the Mind that last Weigh which turneth Deliberation into Faith.  
Fourthly, The means which God hath given us towards necessary Faith and the ce●●ain●y of it, is n●t the Authority of any infallible Guide on Earth.  
Yet, Fifthly, All 〈…〉 is not to be rejected, in our pursuance of the 〈…〉, in the finding out or ●●ating of which it is a very 〈…〉.  
Sixthly, By the 〈…〉 to us the Holy Scriptures in the 〈…〉, ●●ans sufficient to lead us to certainty 〈…〉 to ●i●e Eternal.  
First, 〈…〉 and Profession of the n●●ess●r 〈…〉 Faith, are annexed 
Prop. I,  〈…〉 the Chri●●●●● Church.  
There ●● but 〈…〉 and acc●●●ing ●● he saying of Leo the great 
* Nisi 〈…〉 Fides, non est. ●. M Ser. 2●.  If 〈…〉 at all: For it cannot be contrary ●● it se●●. And though it be 〈◊〉, ●et Men o● di●●ering Creeds ●ret 〈…〉 it, as the Merchants of Reliefs in the Church of 〈◊〉 show, in several places, the one ●●amless Coat of Christ 
† ●ee Ferrand. l. 1. c. 1. Sect 4. disquis. Relig. .  
This one Faith never did, nor ever shall in all places fail.  
The Apostles were themselves without error both in their own assent to the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith, and in the delivery of them.  
They heard the Oracles of Christ from his own mouth, and they were Witnesses of his Resurrection; And they spoke 
* Act. 4. 19, 20.  what they had seen and heard. And they gave to the World Assurance of the Truth, by the miraculous signs of their Apostolical Office. And if they had not had such Assurance themselves, and could not have given proof to others of their mission, there would have been a defect in the first promulgation of the Gospel; and such as could not afterwards have been amended. That which, at first, had been delivered with uncertainty, would, with greater uncertainty, have been conveyed down to after Ages; and Men, who, in process of time, graft error upon certain Truth, would much more have grafted error upon uncertain Opinion.  
Ever since the Apostles times there has been True Faith, and the Profession of it in the Catholic Church: And it will be so till Faith shall expire, and Men shall see him on whom they before believed. For a Church cannot subsist without the Fundamentals of Christianity. And Christ hath Sealed this Truth with his promise, that there shall be a Church as long as this World continues. 
* S. Mat. 28. 20.  I mean by a Church a visible Society of Christians both Ministers and People; for public Worship on Earth cannot be invisible.  
But the True Faith and the Profession of it is not fixed to any place, or to any succession of Men in it. God's Providence has written the contrary in the very Ashes of the Seven Churches of the lesser Asia.  
Neither is any particular Church, though so far infallible in Fundamentals as to be preserved from actual error, an infallible Rule to all other Christians. If they follow the Doctrine of it, they err not, because it is true; but if they follow that Church as an unerring Guide or Canon, they mistake in the Rule and Motive of their Faith. For that particular Church which Teacheth Truth, might possibly have erred; and the Church which errs, might have shined with the True Light. But the whole Church cannot err in any Age; for then the very being of a Church would cease.  
Neither doth it, hence, follow, that the Faith of the Roman Church, when Luther arose, was the only true and certain Doctrine. For that Church was not then the only visible Church on Earth. The Greek Church (for instance sake) was then more visible than now it is, and more Orthodox: The Rich Papacy having much prevailed upon the necessities of it by Arguments guilded with Interest. That Church did not err in Fundamental Points; the Article of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father by the Son, which the Romans accuse of Heresy, being easily acquitted of it, if Men, agreeing in the sense, forbear contention about the Phrases. Besides, if our Forefathers under the Papacy embraced the True Faith, we have it still, the Faith not being removed, but the Corruption. Their Question therefore (Where was your Religion before Luther?) is not more pertinent amongst Disputers than this amongst Husbandmen, (Where was the Corn before it was weeded?)  
We have seen that necessary Faith is perpetual, and it is as 
Prop. TWO  manifest that wheresoever God requireth the belief of it, he vouchsafeth sufficient means for information, and unerring Assent.  
Of all he does not require this belief, for to all the Gospel is not preached, and where it is preached there are Infants, and Persons of Age so distempered in Mind, as to remain avoidable Children in understanding.  
And though th● same sum of Doctrines is generally necessary to Salvation, yet the Creed of all men is not of equal length, seeing they have unequal capacities.  
But wheresoever, there is a particular Society of Men, who call themselves a Church, yet err actually in the necessary Articles of the Faith, it is certain they were not forced into that error for want of external means. For the Just Judge of the World would never have required Unity in the Faith upon pain of his Eternal displeasure, if he had not given to Men Power sufficient for such Unity. No Tyrant on Earth has been guilty of such undisguised injustice as that is, which maketh a Law for the punishment of the Blind because they miss their way. The Articles of Christian Religion come not to the Mind by natural reason, but by Faith; and Faith comes by hearing or reading; and where these means are not offered, a Man is rather an Ignorant Person than an Unbeliever. Wherefore our Saviour told the perverse Jews, 
* Joh. 15. 22, 23.  that if the Messiah had never been revealed to them, they had not been answerable for the Sin of Infidelity: But that, since he was come to them, and by them despised, their Infidelity was blackened with great aggravation.  
The means, then, are sufficient wheresoever the end 
Prop. III.  is absolutely required; but whatsoever those means are, the Act of Assent is to be utlimately resolved into each Man's Personal reason. For no Man can believe or assent but upon some ground or motive which appears credible to him. He could not believe unless he had some reason or other why he believed. When all is done (said Mr. Thorndike 
* To the Reader of the Dis. of Govern: of Churches ) Men must and will be Judges for themselves. I do not quote the saying because it is extraordinary, but because that Learned Man said it, who was careful to pay to Authority, its minutest deuce. If a man believe upon Authority, he hath a farther reason for the believing of it. He is not willing to take Pains in examining that which is proposed to him; or he thinks himself of less Ability in understanding then those from whom he borrows his Light. If he desireth another to judge for him, his choice is determined by the Opinion he hath conceived of him. Every Man has his reason, though it be a weak one, and such as cannot justify itself or him. Something at last turns the Balance though it be but a Feather.  
This the Romanists own as well as the Reformed, till it toucheth them in the case of a new Convert. To induce a Man of another particular Church to embrace their Communion, they submit these weighty points to his private Judgement: What is a True Church, and which are the marks of it? What is the Roman Church? And whither the marks of the True Church do only belong unto the Roman? What Men or what Books sp●●k the sense of that Church? They tell us 
† R. H. Guide in Controu. in Pref. p. 3.  That the Light of a Mans own reason first serves him so far as to the discovery of a Guide; Also that, in this discovery, the Divine Providence hath left it so clear and evident, that a sincere and  quest cannot miscarry. But when once this Guide is found ou●, the Man is afterwards, for all other things that are prescribed by this Guide, to subject and resign his reason. As if it were not as difficult to judge of such a Guide, as of his direction.  
It seems, the Roman Church is like a Cave, into which a Man has Light enough to enter; but when once he is entered, he is in thick Darkness.  
But, how subservient soever our reason may be to our Faith; The means which Go● hath given us towards the certain 
Prop. IU.  attaining of it, is not the Authority of any infallible Guide on Earth.  
This will not be disbelieved by those who weigh well the following considerations.  
First, God did not set up such a constant, infallible Guide among the Jews; though, at first, he gave Assurance 
Consid. I.  to them by Miracle, that Moses had received his Commission from him, and had brought to them the Tables which he had Written, for their direction, with his own finger.  
Some of the Sanedrim were of the Sect of the Sadducees, who erred in the Fundamental point of a future State. Most of them erred in the Quality of the Messiah, not considering their Scriptures so much as their Traditions. And of the errors of the Levitical Priesthood there is, in the Old Testament, 
* Isai. 56 10. Jer. 2. 8. Ez. 7. 26. C. 22. 26.  frequent mention, and great complaint. And the Prophet Malachy, 
† Mal 2. 7. 8.  as soon as he had said, The Priest's lips shall preserve Knowledge, he adds this reproof, but ye are departed out of the way.  
It is true, the Israelites were, by God, directed in difficult cases to an Assembly of Judges 
* Deut. 17, 8. to 12. . But they were not Judges of controversies in Doctrine, but in Property. To their sentence the People were to submit, as to an expedient for Peace; though Judgement might be perverted, or mistaken. 
See Levit. 4. 13.   
It must be, also, confessed that God spoke to them by the Oracle of Vrim, and that the voice of it was infallible. But its answers concerned not the necessary Rudiments of the Mosaic Law, but emergencies in their civil affairs; those especially of Peace and War.  
But if we admit that there was under Judaisme a living infallible Guide; it does not, thence, follow, that it must be so under Christianity. For their small precinct (the People of which were thrice in a year to come up to the Temple) was much more capable of such a Judge then the Christian Church, which is as wide as the World. Also the new Revelation is more clear and distinct than the old one was, and stands not in such need of an Interpreter.  
Secondly, God hath, no where, promised Christians such a Judge: He hath no where said that he hath given such a 
Consid. II.  one to the Christian Church. And seeing such a one cannot be had without God's supernatural assistance, the most knowing amongst Men being subject both to Error and to Falsehood; it is great arrogance, whilst the Scripture is silent, to say he is in being. And to affirm that if there were not such a Guide, God would be wanting in means sufficient for the maintenance of Peace and Truth, is presumptuously to obtrude the schemes of Man's fancy upon God's Wisdom. He can Govern his Church without our methods.  
Now, God hath no where promised such a Judge to Christian Men; though he hath promised help on Earth, and assistance from Heaven, to Men diligent and sincere in their inquiries after truths which are necessary for them. There are two places of Scripture, which are by some taken for promises of such a nature, though they were not, by the Divine Wisdom, so intended.  
Of these, the First is that which was spoken by Christ unto St. Peter. 
* S. Mat. 16. 18.  The gates of Hell shall not prevail against (the Church.)  
Which Promise concerneth the Church in general, and the necessary Faith of it, and not any particular persons, or places, or successions of persons in them.  
And Christ doth here assure us, that the Gates of the Grave, shall not swallow up the Church; that it shall not enter in at them; that it shall not die or perish But he doth not say he will preserve it by the means of any Earthly infallible Guide. He can, by other waves, continue it till time itself shall fail.  
The other place of Scripture is, the promise of Christ a little while before his Ascension into the Heavens. 
† S. Mat. 28. 20.  Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the World: As long as this Age of the Messiah shall last, and that is the last time or Age. This promise is, indeed, made to the Apostles, and to their successorrs also. But it is a promise of general assistance; and it is made upon condition that they go forth and make Disciples of all Men of all Nations, and Baptise them, and give them farther instruction in the things which Christ gave in charge to them. And some of the successors of the Apostles have not performed these conditions: and the Governor of the Church of Sard●s had not held fast what he had received & heard. Rev. 3. 1. 2, 3  
As GOD hath not promised an unerring Guide, so neither hath he said he hath set up such an one in any Church on Earth.  
He hath not said it, either directly, 〈◊〉 by consequence.  
T●● places which are supposed directly to affirm this, are two, and both mistaken.  
One of them is that of Christ to his Disciples, after he had given Commission to them to preach the Gospel. 
* Luke 10. 16.  He that heareth you, heareth Me; Me the infallible way and the Truth.  
This Speech, if it be extended to all Ministers, it makes them all infallible Guides. And it is certain they are so, as long as they deliver to the People what they received from Christ. But the words are especially directed to the seventy Disciples who were taught to preach a plain Fundamental Truth, that the Kingdom of GOD was come nigh to the Jews. 
† S. Luke 10. 1, 9  And these Disciples were able to give to the Jews a demonstration of the Truth of that Doctrine which they taught, by miraculous signs: By healing the sick, 
‡ verse 12.  and do●ng among them, mighty works.  
Another place, used as an express Testimony, 
* 1 ●im. 3. 15.  is that in the first to Timothy to whom St. Paul saith, that the Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth. But this place also is misapplied. It seemeth to be spoken of that Church of Ephesus in which St. Paul advised Timothy to behave himself with singular care: Which place hath so fare failed that the lofty Building called St. John's Church, † is now become a Turkish Mosch. But i● it 
Ryc. of the Greek Ch. p. 44.  were spoken in a general sense, it would amount only to this meaning: A Christian Church is like a Pillar sustained by a Pedestal on which a writing is so fixed, that all who pass by may see it. It is (as Jerusalem once was to the Heathen-World) a City on a Hill: It is a visible Society which giveth notice to Jews and Gentiles of Christianity, and is instrumental to awaken their observation, and by their sense to prepare the way to their belief. For, this advertisement being so publicly given to them they have fair occasion of examining the grounds of Christian Truth, which when they find, they will be induced to build upon them. In this sense likewise, though not in this alone, Apostolical Men were called Lights and Pillars. In the Book of the Revelation * this promise is made to ●i● who persevereth in his Christianity, 
Rev. 3. 12.  notwithstanding the cross which it brings upon him. Him will I make a Pillar in the Temple of my God, and I will write my name upon him, and the name of his God, and the name of the City of his God which is new Jerusalem [or the Christian Church.)  
And St. Chrisostom 
† In 1 Cor. 9 2. To phonon Eccesion, ho Themelios' taes pisteos, ho Stylos, &c  gives St. Paul the Titles of the Light of the Churches, the Foundation of the Faith, the Pillar and Ground of Truth. The Governors of the Church do ministerially exhibit Christian Truth: they do not by mere Authority impose it.  
Among the Places which are said to prove, by good consequence, that there is ● living Guide of Faith, that in the eighteenth of St. Matthews Gospel 
* S. Mat. 18. 15, 16, 17.  is the Principal.  
There our Saviour, requireth his Followers, if their Brethren persisted in their offences, to tell it to the Church, and to esteem them no longer Members of their Society, if they despised the Sentence of it. From whence they conclude with strange Inadvertence, that such a Decree is therefore infallible.  
But our Lord speaks of their Brother's Trespasses against 
See Deut. 17. 6.  them, and not of his Heresy: And of the Discipline, and not of the Doctrine, either of the Synagogue or the Church. In which case if we submit, even where there is error in the Sentence for Peace sake, and because we are come to the last Appeal; We worthily sacrifice private Good to public Order. And such Submission is sat in point of property, though not in point of Doctrine; for we may, without Sin, depart from our property, but not from our Faith.  
Now, much of this that has been said in order to the explication of the foregoing places, might have been well omitted, if I had designed this little Discourse for the use only of such Romanists as had been conversant with the writings of the Fathers. For than I should have needed only to have cited those Ancients, and shown that their sense of these▪ several places was plainly different from the modern interpretations of the Church Men of Rome. And, by this way of arguing, they are self condemned. For they fall 
* Launoy in Epist. ad Carol magistrum ad Jacob. ●evil. ad Guil. Voell. ad Raeim. Formentinum in S. par. Epi.  according to their own Rule of expounding Scripture by the unanimous consent of the Primitive Fathers, who with one voice, speak another sense. Those who doubt of this may receive satisfaction from the Learned Letters of Monsieur Launoy.  
If God had promised an infallible Guide, or told us be had given one to his Church, he would, doubtless, 
Consid. III.  have added some directions for the finding of him. For, to say in general, you shall have a Star which will always Guide you without all dangerous error; and not to inform us in what par● of the Firmament it is to be seen, is to emuse rather than to promise.  
Now, God hath no where given us such direction. He hath no where pointed us to this Church, or that Council; to this Person, or that Local succession of Men. He hath not said the Guide is at Antioch, or Jerusalem; at Nice, or Constantinople; at Rome or Avignon.  
You will say, he hath directed us to St. Peter. Answer, no more than to the rest of the Apostles, to whom he gave equal power in their Ordination 
* Joh. 20. 21. ; All of whom he made equally Shepherds of the Flock●; 
† S Mat. 9 36. C. 10. 6. 2. Pet. 5. 2.  to all of whom he gave equal Commission to make Proselytes of all Nations. 
* S. Mat. 28. 16, 17, ●8, 19  And in this sense St. Chrysostom 
† S. Chrys: in 1 Cor. 9 2. Ten oikoymenen hapasan egkecheirismenos, etc.  affirmed concerning St. Paul that the whole World (or the World of the Roman Empire) was his Diocese. You will reply, that he promised, on him particularly, upon this Rock, or Stone, this Kiphas (a Syriac Word of the Masculine Gender 
† See R. H. Guide in Controu. Dis. 1. p. 5. and Socin. in Loc. ) this Peter; to build his Church. I answer, the Ancients took the Word as Feminine, 
* S. Hil. de Trin. ●. 6. dixit Petras, Tu es filius Dei, etc. super hane igitur Confessionis Petram Ecclesiae edificatio est. v. Launoy in Epist. ad Voellum.  and understood it rather of his Confession then of his Person. If it was spoken of his Person, it was spoken by way of Emphasis, not Exclusion; for there were twelve Foundations 
† Revel. 21. 14. Ephes. 2. 20.  of these he might be called the first, having first preached the Gospel to Jews and Gentiles, 
* Act. 2. 14. 41, 47 IU. Consid.  the Eleven standing up with him, and he speaking as the Mouth of the Apostolical College.  
We cannot, by the strictest ennumeration, find out any living infallible Guide existing in any Age after St. Peter in the Christian Church.  
1. This Guide could not be the Church diffusive of the first Ages. For the suffrages of every Christian were never gathered. And if we will have their sense, they must rise from the dead and give it us.  
2. This Guide cannot be the Faith (as such) of all the Governors of all the Primitive Churches. The sum of it was never collected. There were anciently general Creeds, but such as especially related to the Heresies then on foot; and who can affirm, upon grounds of certainty, that each Bishop in the World consented to each Article, or to each so expressed?  
3. This Guide is not a Council perfectly free and universal. For a Guide which cannot be had, is none. If such a Council could assemble, it would not err in the necessaries of Faith, or there cannot be a regular Flock without a Shepherd; and if all the Spiritual Shepherds in the World should at once, and by consent, go so much astray; the whole Flock of the Church Catholic would be scattered. And that would contradict the promise of Christ the Supreme, Faithful, Infallible Pastor. But there never was yet an universal Council properly so called: Neither can we suppose the probability of it but by supposing the being of one Temporal Christian Monarch of the World who might, call, or suffer, it. In the Councils called General, if we speak comparatively, there were not many Southern or Western Bishops present at them. It was thus, at that first. Ecumenical Council, the Council of Nice though, in one sacred place (as Eusebius 
† Euseb. l. 3. vit const. c. 7. 8. p. 487●  hath noted) there were assembled, Syrians and Cilicians, Phoenicians, and Arabians; Palaestinians, Egyptians, Thebaeans, Libyans, Mesopotamians; a Persian, a 
Socrat. ●. H●l. c. 8. p. 19  Scythian Bishop; and many others from other Countries. But there was but one Bishop for Africa, one for Spain, one for Gaul; two Priests as Deputies of the infirm and Aged Bishop of Rome. Whilst (for Instance sake) there were seventeen Bishops for the small Province of 
* V Concil. Labb. Tom. 2. p. 50. etc.  Isauria; yet such Councils are very useful; such we reverence; but God did not set them up as the only and the infallible Guides of Faith. If there were such Guides, what Guided the Church which was before them? By what rule was Ebion judged before the Council of Nice? How can we be infallibly Guided by them in Controversies of Faith not determined by them; nay not brought before them; nay scarce moved till these latter days? Such (for the purpose) are the Controversies about the virtue of the Sacrifice of Christ, and of Justification by the Faith of mere recumbence upon his Merits. Or how shall a private Man who errs in the Faith, be delivered from his Heresy, seeing he may die some years ere a Council can assemble, or, being assembled, can form its decrees. Arius vented his Heresy about ten years before the Council of Nice was called for the suppressing of it. And soon after he had given vent to it, it spread throughout Egypt and Lybia and the upper Thebes, as Socrates † has reported: And in a short time many other Provinces and Cities were 
Socr. Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 6. p. 9  infected with the contagion of it. And, in the pretended Council of Trent, no less than five Popes were successively concerned; and it lasted, in several places longer than two legal lives of a Man. 
* From A. 1545. to A. 1563.  There was indeed, a Canon in the Western Church 
† V Council Const. sess. 39  for the holding of a Council once in the space of each ten years: But that Canon has not been, hitherto, obeyed; and as affairs stand in the Church, it is impracticable. For the Pope will exclude all the Greek and Reformed Bishops: He will crowd the Assembly with Bishops of his own Creation; and with Abbots also; he will not admit of former Councils unless they serve his purpose; not so much as that of Nice itself. 
* V Greg. magn. Ep. 6. 31. Leo. 1. Ep. 53. Gelas. 1. Ep. 13.  He will be the Judge, though about his own Supremacy. He will multiply Italians and others who, upon Oath 
† Concil. Labb. Tom. 10. p. 23. 379. & Pontific. Roman.  own their votes to him. He will not hold a Council upon the terms approved by all Romish Princes. Nor did they agree at their last Council; the Emperor would no● send his Bishops to Bologna, nor the French King his to Trens '. And though the French Church believed the Doctrines of that Synod, yet they did not receive them from the Authority of it, but they embraced them as the former Doctrines of the Roman Church. And the Parisian ' Faculty 
a A. D. 1542, in coll. So●b. See Richer. H. conc. general, vol. 4. p. 162, 163. etc.  prepared the way to the Articles of Trent.  
Notwithstanding all this, we firmly believe that at least the first four general Councils did not err in Faith; and it is pious to think that God would not suffer so great a temptation in the Church on Earth. Yet still we believe those Councils not to be infallible in their constitution, but so far as they followed an infallible rule. For the greatest Truth is not always with the greatest number: And great numbers may appear on contrary sides. The Council of Constantinople under Constantine Copronymus, consisting of three hundred thirty eight Bishops, decreed against the use of Images in Churches. Yet the 2d Synod of Nice consisting of about three hundred and fifty Bishops determined for it. And, a while after, in the West, the council of Frankford consisting of about three hundred Bishops, reversed that decree And, after that, the council of Trent did re-establish it; though there the voting Persons were not fifty. With such uncertain doubts of belief must they move who follow a Guide in Religion without reference to a farther rule.  
But, here, there is offered to us, by the Guide in Controversi●●, * an Objection, of which this is the sum. The fifth Canon of the Church of England does declare 
Object. R. H. Annot. on D. Still. Answer. p. 82, 83.  that the thirty nine Articles were agreed upon for the avoidance of the diversities of opinions and the establishing of consent touching true Religion Consent touching true Religion is consent in Matters, of Faith. Establishing of consent relateth both to Laity and Clergy. The third and fourth Canons of 1640. Decree the Excommunication of those who will not-abjure their holding Popery and Socinianism. The Reformed Churches in France teach the like Doctrine, threatening to cut them off from the Church who acquiesce not in the resolution of a National Synod. 
‡ Art. 31. ch. 5, du consis●●ire. si un ou plusieurs, etc.  The same course was taken with the Remonstrants in the Synod of Dort. 
* Syn. Dord. sess. 138.  Wherefore Protestants ought not to detract from the Authority of general Councils, whilst they assume to themselves so great a Power in their particular Synods.  
The force of this Objection is thus removed. Answer. Every Church hath Power of admitting or excluding Members, else it hath not means sufficient to its end, the order and concord of its Body. Every particular Church ought to believe that it does not err in its deflnitions; for it ought not to impose any known error upon its Members. But though it believes it does not err, it does not believe it upon this reason, because God hath made it an infallible Guide; but rather for this, because it hath sincerely and with God's assistance followeth a rule which is infallible. And, upon this supposition, it imposeth Doctrines, and excludeth such as with co●umacy descent from them 
a See Artic. 20. 21, 22.   
4. This Guide is not the present Church declaring to particular Christians the sense of the church of former Ages, How can this declaration be made, seeing Churches differ, and each Church calls itself the true one, and pretendeth to the Primitive pattern. The Church of Rome hath, on her side; the suffrages of all the Councils and Fathers, the first, the middle, the last, if Campiain the Jesuit may be believed 
b camp, Rat. 3. p. 180. Rat. 5. p. 185.  On the other hand Monsieur Larroque hath Written a Book of the confirmity of the Protestant churches in France, with the Discipline of the Christian Ancient church, taking it for granted that their Doctrine was catholic. And we likewise pretend both to the Doctrine and Discipline of it. All of us cannot be in the right. The Roman church, without any proof, calleth herself the church catholic; and she pretendeth to convey to us the sense of the Ancient Fathers and councils; which sense was that they understood formerly by the word Tradition. 
* Lib. diurn. Pontif p. 35. eten●m hujus Apostolicae Traditinis normam quam venerandam Sanctorum 318. Pa●rum concilium quod in Nicaea, etc. & p. 43. hujusmodi Evangelicam Traditionem.  And in this sense a Romanist said of Pope Honorius 
† Ant. Dezallier in Histor. Monoth. p. 123. , that he had broken the rule of Tradition. But how can we esteem that church a faithful representer of the sense of the Ancients whilst the Reformed consult the Ancients with equal ability, and find a contrary sense in them? Whilst the church of Rome, 
* conc. ●rid. Sess. 4. decr. 1.  by a kind of Ecclesiastical coinage, stampeth Divine Authority upon B●●ks esteemed by the councils and Fathers to be Apocryphal? 
† V constit. Apost. can. Apost. conc. Laod. conc. Nic. 1. S. Hieron. prolog. etc. Euseb. E. H. l. 4. c 26. p. 149. cron. l. 2. etc.  Whilst it hath forged decrees of Popes, 
* V Blondelli Pseudo. Isodorum.  and (like a deceitful Gibeonite) rendered that which was really new, in appearance old and mouldy, on purpose to promote imposture? How doth it give us the sense of the Ancients, when it owneth what it formerly disowned as canonical, the Epistle to the Hebrews 
† V S. Hieron. in Isai. c. 6 8. ? When it taketh away the cup which Pope Gelasius called a grand Sacrilege 
* Gratian in de consecr. didst, 2. cap. 2. ? When it now rejecteth the communicating of Infants, which, in former times was esteemed by many a very necessary point? When a former Pope Gregory condemns the Title of Universal Pastor as Anti-christian, and a latter insists upon it as the choicest flower in the Papal prerogative? When St. August 
a S. Aug. tract. 30. in Joh. & tract. 50.  and from him the very Breviary 
b Brev. Rom. Dom infra. oct. Asc. 3. noct. lect. 7. p. 440.  shall expound Christ's promise, of being always with his Church, of the presence of his Divinity and of his Spirit, and not of his Body: And Pope Innocent the third shall interpret them as meant also of his corporal presence 
c Innoc. 3. Mist. miss. l. 4. p. 196. ?  
And, if the Roman Church falsifieth written Tradition, how shall we trust her for Oral? And how and at what time did that Oral Tradition remove from Greece to Rome where the Greek church, which it alloweth to have been once possessed of the true Tradition, is accused of Heresy? At the same time (I suppose) that the chapel of the Virgin removed from Nazareth to Loretto. This principle of Oral Tradition is most uncertain to th●ir Judges; and to those to whom they offer it, it is most obscure. It is a principle on which they can serve a purpose in justifying novel Doctrines as Oral Traditions not known to any but the Roman church, which pretendeth to the custody of them.  
5. GOD hath not set up any one Person in the Catholic Church in the Quality of an unerring Guide in the Christian Faith. The Bishops of Rome who pretend to this Prerogative, do but pretend: It is a tender point; and the Pope's Legates, in the Council of Trent, 
* H. conc. Trid. l. 2.  were enjoined to give forth this Advertisement that the Fathers, upon no account whatsoever, should touch it, or dispute about it. They who examine it, will soon reject it as false and useless.  
And, 1. Wither the Pope be or be not the Guide, Arg. I the Men of the Roman Communion are exposed to dangerous uncertainty. For, it is not yet determined amongst them, whither they are to follow the Pope, with, or without, or against a Council. Yet a Pope hath owned a Council which deposed other Popes, and by decree, set itself above them, or rather vindicated the superiority due to it. Thus Martin the fifth received the Papal Mitre from the Council of Constance, after it had deposed Gregory the twelfth, Bevedict the thirteenth, and John the twenty third. Again, there have been, by the account given us in their own Historians, 
† See the Index of Onuphrii, vit Pontif. ed. colon. 1610.  more than twenty form Schisms in that Church; two or more Popes pretending at the same time to the infallible chair, and each of them not being without their followers and giving Holy Orders. And at this time there is risen an Apologist 
* Steph Baluz. in miscellan. l. 3. p. 471. to 514.  for Mauritius, Burdin or Gregory the eight, though he was ejected by the Roman church, which received Gelasius into his place; Burdin being disliked by them as a creature of Henry the Emperor. This Schism (saith S. Bernard) 
† S. Bern. Ep. 219.  distracted that church and gave it a wound only not incurable. And Baluzius 
* Baluz. ibid. p. 514. difficile tum erat, etc.  professeth that it was then difficult to understand which of the two, Gregory or Gelasius, was the Legitimate successor of of Pope Paschal. Now, how useless, to them, is the pretence of a Guide, when they want some other Guide who should tell them which of the Pretenders they may securely follow;  
Arg. II. Secondly, the Popes themselves in ●heir solemn profession, suppose themselves liable to the misleading of the People even in Matters of Faith. For, having owned the Faith of the Six general councils, 
* Lib. diurn. Pontif. 2. professio fidei. p. 43. Vnde & districti Anathematis interdictioni subjicimus, siquis unquam, seu nos, sive est alius, qui novum aliquid praesumat contra hujusmodi Evangelicam Traditionem, & Orthodoxae fidei, Christianaeque Religionis integritatem, etc. Arg. III.  They further profess themselves and others to be subject to an Anathema, if they advance novelty contrary to the aforesaid Evangelical Tradition, and the integrity of the Orthodox and Christian Faith.  
Thirdly, If the Pope challengeth this Power of infallible Guidance, he must lay claim to it by his succeeding of S. Peter in the chair Apostolical. But, then, by equal reason, the successors of each Apostle may challenge the office of an infallible Guide. For the Power which Christ gave to St Peter, he gave to the rest: It was not special. And for the Bishops of Antioch who first succeeded S. Peter, they have a much fairer pretence than those of Rome. The Truth is, Jerusalem was properly the Mother-church: Though Rome was the Imperial city; and if, by this means, the Popes had not sat higher, they would not have pretended to see farther than others.  
Arg. IU. Fourthly, Those who have considered the writings of many Popes, and the decrees made by them, have found no reason to lay their Faith at their Golden Sandal. It is manifest to every Learned Man that the Eyes of the Pope are not (metaphorically) like those of Augustus in which (it is said) there appeared a brightness like that of the Sun. If we had more of their History, and more of their Writings, we should find more of their errors. They have showed both ignorance and extravagance in opinion, and error in the Faith itself. There are not, perhaps, weaker or more absurd passages in any Ecclesiastical Writer, than we may find in the works of Pope Innocent the third, who was called the Wonder of the World. 
* Mat. par. A. 1217. stupor mundi  He saith of Subdeacons that they represented the Nethinims 
† Ezra. 8. 20.  ● (or Nathinnims as he calls them;) and that Nathaniel was one of that Order. 
* Innoc. 3. Mist. missael. 1. c. 2. fol 15●.  That the Pope does not use a Pastoral rod, because St. Peter sent his S●●ff to Eucharius the first Bishop of Treves, to whom Maternus succeeded, who, by the same Staff, was raised from the dead. 
† junoc. 3. ibid. c. 62 fol. 165.  That the People have seven Salvations in the Mass, in order to the expelling the seven deadly Sins, and receiving the seven fold Grace of God. 
* Ibid. l. 2. c. 24. fol. 170.  That an Epistle, signifying in Greek an Over-sending or supererogation, the word agrees very well to the Apostolical Epistle, which are supperadded to the Gospel 
a Ibid. c, 29. fol. 171.  He allots to each Article of the Apostolical and Constantinopolitan Creeds, a particular Apostle, and finds the mystery in all things that are twelve in number. For example sake, in the twelve loaves of Shewbread; in the twelve Tribes; twelve hours, twelve Months.  
He gives this reason why Water is by the Bishop mixed with Wine in the Holy chal●ce; because it is said in the Revelation, that many Waters signify many People, and that Christ shed his Blood for the People; 
b Ibid. c. 58. fol. 177. . He saith that Judas was not at the Sacrament 
c Ibid. l. 4. c. 13. fol. 189.  because he was not to drink it new with Christ in his Kingdom, which privilege he had promised to all the partakers. He teached that Mice eat only the Shows of consecrated Bread 
d Ibid. c. 16, fol. 190. . He professeth rather to venerate Sacraments then to pry into them 
e Ibid. c. 19  because it is written in Exodus the twelfth, concerning the Pafchal Lamb, Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with Water, but roast with Fire. I have not narrowly ransacked the plaits of the Pope's Vestments, for this is obvious enough; and so were a great many other say of equal weakness, but I am weary of the folly of them. There have been other Popes, also, injudicious even to Duncery. Eugeniout the third approved of the Prophecies or Enthusiastic Dreams of Hildegardis, in the Synod of Tryers, as Inspirations, Pope Zachary judged the true Doctrine of Antipodes, to be heretical in the case of the more Learned and Knowing Virgilius 
a Epist, Zach. p. ad Bonifac. inter op. M. Velseri. in l. 5. Rer. Boic. p. 148. deperversa autem [Virgilii) Doctrinan, quam contra Dominum & animam suam locutus est, quod scil. alius mundus & alii homines sub terra sint, aliusque Sol & Luna, si convictus fuerit ita confiteri, hunc accito Concilio ab Ecclesiam pelle Sacerdotii honore privatum. . Herein the Pope committed a greater error than the poor Priest who Baptised in nomina Patria & Filia & Spiritus Sancta; 
b Velser. op. Ibid. p. 147.  and whose lack of Latin Boniface the Germane Apostle would have punished by the Rebaptisation of his Proselytes, if the said Virgilius had not; by application to that Pope, prevented it, It is true, Virgilius was accused as an Heretic who had set up another Sun and another Moon, as well as another world of Men whose feet were oposite to ours. But Velserus himself 
c Vels. Ibid. p. 149.  hath the ingenuity to confess this was meant only of the Sun and Moon as shining to our Ant-podes, as well as to us: And that the accusation was framed by ignorant Men who had not the acuteness to understand the Globular form of the Earth, and the scheme of the proposer. Neither had Pope Zachary himself sagacity enough to discern the nature of this ridiculous charge. He who can mistake Truth for Heresy, may mistake Heresy for Truth.  
Now that Popes have erred not only in lesser things, but even in Matters of Faith, is plain from History I will instance, only, in Vigilius, and Honorius, forbearing to speak of Liberius and divers others who swerved from the truly Ancient Catholic Faith.  
Pope Vigilius framed a constitution in favour of the three chapters or Nestorian-writing of Ibas Bishop of Edessa, Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus. This Constitution was published by Cardinal Baronius 
† Baron. Anal. A. 553. N. 48. ed. colon. p. 486.  out of an Ancient Manuscript in the Vatican Library: And he calls it a Decree 
* Id. Ibid. N. 218. p. 419.  in defence of these chapters. In this Decree the Pope doth not only justify these Heretical Writings, but, with the Followers of Theodorus, he falsely chargeth upon the council of Chalcedon the Epistle of Ibas, 
* Id. An. 553. N. 292. p. 511.  and calls it Orthodox. This charge the Fathers of the fifth general Council 
a Conc. Constant. 2. colat. 6.  show to be unjust and false. That Council condemneth those three Chapters as Heretical. And together with them, it condemneth 
b Defin. conc. col. 8.  Pope Vigilius and others under the name of Sequaces or Followers of Nestorius and Theodorus. Baronius himself acknowledgeth that the decree of that council was set up against the decree of that Pope; 
c Baron Annal. 553. N. 212. p. 417.— Actumque est (ut apparet) adversus Vigili. constitutum, licet prae reverentiā ipsum non nominaverint. . These Chapters had not been condemned if they had not contained in them the Nestorian-Heresie. The Epistle of Ibas does, in particular manner, extol Theodorus. And the council affirmeth concerning his Creed, that the father of lies composed it. And it denounceth a curse against both the composer and the Believers of it. Yet doubtless, these writings were, in themselves inconsiderable enough. But the council opposed them with such rigour, because the Faction had made them very popular, and advanced them into the Quality of a kind of Bible of the Party.  
For Pope Honorius, he fell into the, Heresy of the Monotholites. 
* Dezall. Hist. mon. scrut. 5. p. 192. 193. Altera phrasis Honoriana long difficilior, Minimè tamen dissimulanda, ea est, quod dicat aperte. Unde & unam voluntatem fatemur Dom nostri Jesu Christi.  That is, of those who held that there is but one Will in both the Natures of Christ. This Doctrine he published in his Epistles; This he declared in the sixth General Council 
† Synon: 6. Act. 13. See Richer. Hist: conc. General vol. 1. p. 569, etc.  he is, in the seventh Council 
* Syn. 7. Act. ult. p. 886. Con. in Labb. Richer. H. Conc. Gen. vol. 1. p. 658. Ad calc. ejusd. act. 7 in omn. editionibus council. legitur Epist. Synod. quam Tarasius, etc.— Et diserte narrat cunctos Patres— Honorium damnasse.  condemned as a Monothilite. And he was expressly anathematised for confirming the wicked Doctrine of Sergius.  
The guilt of Heresy in Honorius, is owned in the Solemn Profession of Faith made by the Popes at their entrance on the Papacy 
a Lib. diurn. Pontif. con. sid. 2. p. 41. Autores verò novi hoeretici dogmatis, Sergium, Pyrrhum. Paulum, & Petru● Episcopos, unà cum Honorio (qui pravis eorum assertionibut fomentum impendit) pariterque & Theodorum Pharamitanum, & Cyrum Alexandrinum, cum eorum imitatoribus, etc. . This matter is so manifest that Melchior Canus 
b Melch, can. Loci come. l. 6. c. ult. p. 242, 243. etc.  professeth, no Sophistry is artful enough to put the Colour of a plausible defence upon it. A late Romanist hath undertaken to write the History of the Monothilites 
c Anton. Dez. Hist. Mon. Par: 1678.  and the Defence of Honorius seemeth to be the principal motive to that undertaking. Yet so great is the power of Truth, and such, in this case is the plainness of it, that in the Apologist himself, we find these concessions: That the Pope 
a Id. ib. p. 224. 325, 226 218.  was condemned by the Council, and that the Council was not to be blamed †; that Pope Leo the second owned both the Council and the Sentence, and that Honorius was Sentenced as an Heretic. 
* Id. p. 220.  He would abate this guilt by saying 
b P. 207, 208.  that Honorius erred as a private Person, and not as Head of the Church, because his Epistle was hortatory, and not compulsive. It is true, he erred not as Head of the Church, for such he was not, neither as such was he owned. But he erred as a public person and with Heretical obstinacy. For Pope Leo, as he noteth, said concerning him, that he had made it his business to betray and subvert the Holy Faith. 
c Id. p. 122. profanan proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est.— Flammam confovit, p. 123.   
Now this matter of Fact sufficeth for the refuting all the fallacious reasonings of the patrons of Papal infallibility. For all must agree that they 
d de Socer. Christ p. 40,  are not unerring Guides who actually err. The Sieur de Balzac 
d Socr. Chr. p. 40.  mocks at the weakness of one of the Romish Fathers who offered four reasons to prove that the Duke D' Espernon was not returned out of England: And offered them to a Gentleman who had seen him since his return.  
There seemeth no fitness in the constituting of such a Arg. V Guide; nor any necessity for it.  
Had it been agreeable to God's Wisdom, his Wisdom would not have been wanting to itself. God having made Man a Reasonable Creature, would not make void the use of deliberation, and the freedom of his judgement. There is no virtue in the Assent where the Eye is forced open, and Light held directly to it. It is enough that God, the rewarder of them who believe, hath given Men sufficient faculties, and sufficient means.  
And, seeing Holiness is as necessary to the pleasing of GOD, and to the peace of the World, as Union in Doctrine (to which there is too frequently given a lifeless assent;) seeing there must be Christian Obedience as long as there is a Church; seeing (as the Guide in Controversy 
* R. H. Annot. on D. St. Answ. p. 81.  himself urgeth) the Catholic Church and all the parts of it are believed, in the Creed, to be Holy as well as Orthodox. We ask not the Romanists an impertinent Question when we desire them to tell us, why a means to infallibility in the judgement, rather than irresistibleness in the pious choice of the Will, is to be, by Heaven, provided in the Church? Both seem a kind of Destination of equal necessity.  
But, though the Reformed, especially those of the 
Prop. V.  Church of England see no necessity for an infallible Guide, nor believe there is one on the face of the earth, yet they do not reject all Ecclesiastical Guidance; but allow it great place in matters of Discipline and Order; and some place also (though not that of an unerring Judge) in Matters of Faith.  
At the beginning of the Reformation the Protestants, though they refused the judgement of the Pope their Enemy, yet they declined not the determination of a Council. And, in the Assembly at Augsburg, the Romanists, and Protestants agreed in a council as the Umpire of their public difference. At this the Pope was so alarmed (saith the Sieur de Mezary 
* Hij. A. 1. ) that he wrote to the Kings of France and England, that he would do all they would desire, provided they hindered the calling of a Council.  
In the Reformation of the Church of England great regard was had to the Primitive Fathers and Councils. And the aforesaid French Historian was as much mistaken in the affairs of Our Church, when he said of our Religion, that it was a medley of the Opinions of Calvin and Luther 
a A. , as he was afterwards in the affairs of our State, when he said King James was elected at the Guildhall King of England 
b 10. A. 1603. .  
The Romanists represent us very falsely, whilst they fix upon us a private Spirit, as it stands in opposition to the Authority of the Catholic Church.  
Mr. Alabaster 
c See J. Racsters' 7 motives of W. A p. 11, 12.  expresseth one motive to his conversion to the Roman Church in these Words: Weigh together the Spouse of Christ, with Luther, Calvin, Melancthon: Ecumenical councils with private opinions. The Reverend learned Fathers with Arius, Actius, Vigilantius, Men always in their time Burned for Heretics [of which words, the former are false reasoning, the latter is false History.] The Bishop of Meaux 
d Confer avec M. claut de p. 110.  reasons after the same fallacious manner, Supposing a Protestant to be of this persuasion that he can understand the Scriptures better than all the rest of the Church together, of which persuasion he saith very truly, that it exalteth Pride, and removeth Docility.  
The Guide in controversies 
d R. H. Annot. on. D. St. Answ. p. 84.  puts the Question wrong in these terms. Wither a Protestant, in refusing the submission of his judgement to the Authority or Infallibility of the Catholic Church in her Councils, can have, in several Articles of necessary Faith, wherein the sense of Scripture is controverted, as sure a Foundation of his Faith, as he who submits his judgement to the foresaid Authority, or also Infallibility? Here the Catholic Church is put in place of the Roman, Authority and Infallibility are joined together; and it is suggested dishonestly concerning the Reformed, that they lay aside the Authority of the Catholic Church in her general Councils. Authority may be owned where there is no infallibility; for it is not in Parents Natural or Civil: Yet both teach and govern us.  
If others reject Church-Authority, let them who are guilty of such disorderly irreverence, see to it. The Christians of the Church of England are of another Spirit. Of that Church this is one of the Articles: The Church hath power 
Art. 20.  to decree Rites and Ceremonies, and Authority in controversies of Faith. There is a Question (saith Mr. Selden 
* Mr. Selden in his colloquies; a Ms. in the Word Church, Sect. 5 ) about that Article concerning the power of the Church, whither these words (of having power in controversies of Faith) were not stolen in. But, it's most certain, they were in the Book of Articles that was confirmed; though, in some Editions, they have been left out. They were so in Dr. Mocket's 
† Doctr. & Polit. Eccl. Angl. A. 1617. p. 129. ; but he is to be considered in that Edition as a private Man. Now this Article does not make the Church an infallible Guide in the Articles of Faith, but a Moderator in the controversies about Faith. The Church doth not assume that Authority to itself in this Article which, in the foregoing 
* Artic 19 , is denied to the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Rome. When perverse Men will raise such controversies, who is so fit, for Peace sake, to interpose, as that Church where the Flame is kindled? There can be no Church without a creed; and each particular Church ought to believe her creed to be true, and, by consequence, must exercise her Authority in the defence of presumed Truth. Otherwise she is not true to her own constitution. But still she acts under the caution given by St. Augustine 
a S. Aug. de verb. Dom. super Mat. Ser. 16.  You bind a Man on Earth: Take heed they be just b●nds in which you retain him. For Justice will break such as are unjust in sunder. And whilst the Church of England challengeth this Authority, she doth not pretend to it from any supernatural gift of infallibility, but so far only as she believes she hath sincerely followed an infallible Rule. For of this importance are the next words of the Article before remembered. — It is not Lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's word written.— And besides the same it ought not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation 
b Art. 20. .  
After this manner the Church of England asserteth her own Authority; and she runs not into any extreme about the Authority of Councils, or the Catholic Church.  
We make confession of the Ancient Faith expressed in the Apostolical, Nicene, or Constantinopolitan and Athanasian Creeds, The canons of forty reject the Heresy of Socinus as contrary to the first four General Councils 
c can. 5. ; Our very Statute-Book hath respect to them in the adjudging of Heresy. 
d 1 Eliz. 1. Sect 36.  Yet our Church still teacheth concerning them 
e Art. 21. , that things by them ordained have neither Strength nor Authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.  
When controversies arise, especially when the doubts concern not so much the Article of Faith itself, as the Modes of it, we grant to such venerable Assemblies a Potiority of Judgement: Or if we Assent not, yet for Peace sake we are humbly silent: We do not altogether refuse their Umpirage. We think their Definitions good Arguments against unquiet Men, who are chief moved by Authority. We believe them very useful in the Controversies betwixt us and the Church of Rome; and as often as they appeal to Primitive Fathers and Councils; to Fathers and Councils we are willing to go with them, and to be tried by those who were nigher to the Apostles, in the Quality of Witnesses rather than Judges. We believe that in matters of Truth of which we are already well persuaded, there may be added by the Suffrages of Councils and Fathers, a degree of corroboration to our Assent. In some we say, with St. Augustine 
* Ep. 118. council. in Eccl. Dei saluberimam esse Authoritatem.  that there is of councils in the church of God a most wholesome (though not an infallible) Authority. And if S. Gregory Nazianzen never saw (as he saith) a happy effect of any Synod, 
a Greg. Naz. Ep. 42, ad Procopium.  this came not to pass from the Nature of the means as not conducive to that end, but from the looseness of Government, and the depraved manners of the Age in which he lived: For such were the times of Valens the Emperor.  
It is true, there are some among us, though not of us, who with disdainful insolence, contemn all Authority; even that of the Sacred Scripture itself. These pretend to an infallible Light of immediate and personal Revelation. It hath happened according to the Proverb, every Man of them hath a Pope within him. Henry Nicholas puffed up many vain ignorant People with this proud Imagination. Hetherington a Mechanic, about the end of the Reign o● King James, advanced this notion of Personal Infallibility His followers believed they could not err in giving deliberate Sentence in Religion. 
a See D. Dennisons white wolf  And this was the principle of Wynstanley and the first Quakers, though the Leaders since they were embodied, have in part forsaken it.  
But these Enthusiasts have entitled the Holy Spirit of God to their own Dreams. They have pretended to Revelations which are contrary to one another. They can be Guides to themselves only, because they cannot by any supernatural sign prove to others that they are inspired.  
And such Enthusiasm is not otherwise favoured in the Church of England then by Christian pity in consideration of the infirmity of Humane Nature; but in the Church of Rome, it hath been favoured to that Degree, that it hath founded many orders and Religious Houses, and given Reputation to some Doctrines, and canonised not a few Saints amongst them. The Inspiration of S. Hildegardis, S. Catharine of Sienna, S. Teresa and and many others seemeth to have been vapour making impression on a devout fancy: Yet the Church of Rome in a Council under Leo the Tenth, hath too much encouraged such a distemper as prophesy 
* conc. Lat. sess. 11. A. 1516. inter Labb conc. Max. p, 291. Caeterum si quibusdam eorum Dominus futur a quaedam in Dei Ecclesia inspiratione quapium revelaverit ut per Amos prophetam ipse permittit, & Paulus Ap. Praedicatorun princeps Spiritum inquit, nolite extinguere prophetas nolite spernere, hos aliorum fabulosorum & mendacium gregi co●●umerari vel aliter impediri minime volumus. .  
For private Reason, it is the handmaid of Faith; we use it, and not separately from the Authority of the Church, but as a help in distinguishing true from false Authority. And in so plain a case as Heresy, if our Church thinketh, a private Man may without an infallible Guide on Earth, judge aright of it, it does but believe as Pope Adrian believed, as he professed in a Synod of Rome, of which profession report is made in the 2d. Synod of Nice 
† Syn. Nic. 2. art 7 sec. vers. Anastasii Licet enim Honorio post mortem anathema sit dictum ab Orientalibus, sciendum tamen est quia fuerat super haeresi accusatus propter quam solam licitum est minoribus majorum suorum moribus resistendi, vel pravos sensus libere respuendi, etc. . For, speaking of the Sentence against Pope Honorius, he excuseth it in point of good behaviour, because it was given in the case of Heresy. For in that case, and that case alone, he allowed Inferiors (so he was pleased to call the Oriental Bishops) to reject the corrupt sense of those who are superior to them.  
I will hasten to the next Proposition, after I have added one thing more which relates to the guidance of Ecclesiastical Authority: And it is this. Those of the unlearned. Laity who are Members of the Church of England, have much more of the just guidance of Ecclesiastical Authority than the like order of Men in the Church of Rome. For the Authentic Books of that Church being all written in the Latin Tongue the illiterate People resolve their Faith into the ability and honesty of their Confessor or Parish Priest. They take it upon his word, that this is the Doctrine this the Discipline, this the Worship, of their Church. Whereas each Minister in our Church can direct the People to the Holy Bible, to the Books of Homilies, Articles, Canons, Common-Prayer, Ordination, as set forth in their native Tongue, by public Authority. Of this they may be assured by their own Eyes, as many as can but competently read. They do not only take this from the mouth of a Priest, but from the Church itself. Where the Laws of the Church and the Statutes of the Civil Government are written in an unknown Tongue, there the Unlearned depend more upon private than public Authority; for they receive the Law from particular Priests or Judges.  
Though Ecclesiastical Authority be a help to our 
Prop. VI  Faith, yet the Holy Scripture is the only infallible Rule of it; and by this Rule and the Ministeral Aids of the Christian Church, we have sufficient means without Submission to papal infallibility, to attain to certainty in that Faith which is generally necessary to Salvation.  
I do not mean that, by believing the whole Canon of the Scripture in the gross, we thereby believe all the necessary Articles of the Faith, because they are therein contained. That looks too like a fallacy; and it giveth countenance to an useless Faith. For he that believes on this manner, hath as it were swallowed a Creed in the lump only, whereas it is necessary for a Christian to know each particular Article and the general Nature & Tendency of it. Otherwise his Faith will not have a distinct influence upon his Christian behaviour to which if it were not useful, it were not necessary. To believe in general as the Scripture believes, is with the Blind and Flexible Faith of a Romanist, to believe at adventure. He believes as his Church believes, but he knows not what is the belief of his Church; and therefore is not instructed by that Faith to behave himself as a Member of it.  
The Scripture is that rule of Faith which giveth us all the particular Articles which are necessary to eternal Life.  
By this rule the Primitive Fathers governed themselves, and this they commended to the Churches. And Clemens Alexandrinus 
a Cl. Alex. Strom. 2. Kanon Ekklesiastikos he Synodia, etc. & Strom. 7— Alethon kai pseudon kriterion.  does in terms; call the Consent of the Old and New Testament the Ecclesiastical Canon, and the Touchstone of true and false. I will not multiply Testimonies; enough of them are already collected 
b V Davenant. de Judice & norman fidei c. 12. p. 53. etc. D. Till. Rule of Faith. part. 4. sect. 2. p. 320. etc. .  
I will rather pursue the Argument before me, in these three Assertions  
First, a Protestant without the submission of his Judgement to the Roman Church, may be certainly directed to the Canonical Books of Holy Scripture.  
Secondly, He may without such submission, sufficiently understand the Rule of Faith, and find out the Sense of such places in those Canonical Books, as is necessary to the belief of a true Christian.  
Thirdly, This rule of Faith is the principal means of Union in Faith in the Christian Church.  
First, a Protestant without the submission of his 
Assert. I.  Judgement to the Roman Church may be certainly directed to the Holy Scriptures.  
It is commonly said by Men of the Roman persuasion, but injudiciously enough, that we may as well receive our Creed from them, as we do our Bible. The Scribes and Pharisees might have said the like to the People of the Jews. But with the good Text, they conveyed down to them a very false gloss, and misinterpreted the Prophecies, as meant of a pompous temporal Messiah. But, for the Reformed, they have received neither Creed nor Bible from the Church of Rome. The first enumeration of those Books they find in the Apostolical Canons and in those of the Council of Laodecea; no Western writings. They have received the Scriptures from the Universal Church of all Ages and Places, the Copies of them having been as widely dispersed as the Christians themselves. And they receive them not from the infallibility of any particular Church, but upon the validity of this sure principle, that all the Christian World, so widely dispersed, could not possibly conspire in the imposing of false Books upon them.  
For particular Churches, we may, of all others suspect the Roman, in reference to the Scriptures. For what sincerity of dealing may we hope for from such a Cabal of Men as has forged decrees of Councils and Popes, obtruded upon the World Apocryphal Books, as Books Canonical, purged out of the writings of the Fathers such places as were contrary to their Innovations, depressed the Originals under an imperfect Latin Copy, and left on purpose in that Copy, some places uncorrected for the serving of turns For example sake, they have not either in the Bible of Sintus, or in that of Clement (both which, though in War against each other are made their Canon) changed the word (She) in the third of Genesis, 
a Gen. 3. 15.  for (That, or, Herald) But, contrary to the Hebrew Text, to the Translation of the Seventy, to the Readins of the Fathers, They persist in rendering of it after this manner; She shall break thy Head. They believe this Reading tendeth most to the Honour of the blessed Virgin, whom they are too much inclined to exalt, in the Quality of a Mother, above her Son. The English Translation of Douai hath followed this plain and partial corruption.  
Secondly, A Protestant may without Submission 
Assert. II.  of his judgement to the Roman Church, find out, in the Books of Holy Scripture, the necessary Articles of Christian Faith.  
Two things are here supposed; and both of them are true.  
First, That the Scriptures contain in them all the necessary Articles of our Faith.  
Secondly, That the sense of the Words in which these Articles are expressed in Scripture may be found out by a Protestant, without the Submission of his Judgement to the Papacy.  
First, The Scriptures contain in them all the necessary Articles of the Faith. This is true, if the Scriptures themselves be so: For this they Witness 
* See S. Joh. 20. 30. 31. c. 21. 25. . St. Paul 
b 2 Tim. 3. 15. 16, 17.  saith of the Old Testament, as expounded of Christ, that it was able to make a Man wise unto Salvation. Much more may this be affirmed of the entire Canon. The Apostles preached the necessaries to Salvation, and what they had preached they wrote down 
* Iren. l. 3. c. 1.  concerning the manner of it, Eusebius may be consulted 
† Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 14. . For the Primitive Fathers, they allowed the Scriptures to be a sufficient Rule. Irenaeus said of them they were perfect 
* Iren. l. 2. c. 47. S. Aug. de doct. Christ. l. 2. c. 9 ; and of the words of St. Austin this is the sense; Among those things which are plainly set down in Scripture, all those things are to be found which comprehend Faith and Good Manners. Nay, the Romanists themselves attempt to prove their very additional Articles out of the Bible. That there are in it the Articles of the Apostolical Creed, is evident enough to a common Reader. But how the Romish Articles should be found in that Bible which was written some hundreds of years before they were invented, is a riddle beyond the skill of Apollo.  
Secondly, the sense of the Scriptures, in matters necessary to Salvation, may be found out by Men of the Reformed Religion, without Submission to Roman Infallibility. The Learned know the Originals, and the true ways of Interpretation. And amongst us, those of the Episcopal Clergy have obliged the World with such an Edition of the Bible in many Languages as was not before extant in the Roman Church. And a Romanist who writes with great mastery in such matters, prefers it before the great Bible of Paris. 
a V P. S. p. Hist. Critic. p. 583— Mais elle est plus ample & plum commode, etc.  For those of the Laity who are Unlearned, they have before them a Translation which errs not in the Faith. And the phrases are not so obscure, but that, by study and Ministerial helps, they may understand them.  
They have, before them, a Translation which errs not in the Faith. Of this the Italians and the French may be convinced by comparing the Translations of James de Voragine, and the Divines of Louvain with those of Signior Diodati, and Olivetan or Calvin, And the English may receive satisfaction in this matter by comparing their Translations with that of Douai. In all of them they will find the same Fundamental Doctrines of Faith. And were there any such material alteration made in our Bible, it would appear by the notorious inconsistence of one part of the Canon with another: It would have been, long ago, detected, and exposed to public shame, both by the Romanists and the other Dissenters from our Communion. But the former are not able to produce one instance; and the latter agree with us in the use and excellence of the Translation; though in other things, they extremely differ from us; And where they do but dream we er●e, they forbear not to proclaim it. In so much that a difference in the Translations of the Psalter which concerns not Faith or Manners 
† See Hook. Eccl. Pol. Book fifth. Sect. 19  and a supposed defect in the Table for keeping Easter have been made by them public Objections 
* Mr. Hs. peaceable design renewed, p. 14. , and stumbling blocks in the way to their Conformity. It is true, there is a Romanist who hath raved against the Bible of the Reformed, in these extravagant words; 
‡ A. S. Reconciler of Religions, Printed 1663. c. 11. p. 38, 39  The Sectaries have as many different Bibles, in Canon, Version, and sense, as are days in the year.— The Sectarian Bible is no more the Word of GOD then the Alcoran, Almanac, or Aesop's Fables. Of great corruption he speaks in general, but his Madness has admitted of so much caution, that he forbears the mention of any one particular place.  
The Learned Romanists understand much better, and the Ingenuous will confess it. And they are not ignorant that we Translate from the Original Tongues, after having compared the Readins of the most Ancient Copies, and of the Fathers: Whilst they Translate the Bible from the Vulgar Latin, which, indeed, in the New Testament is a tolerable, but in the Old, a very imperfect Version. If our English Bible were turned into any one of the Modern Tongues by a Judicious Romanists who could keep Counsel, it would pass amongst many of that Church for a good Catholic Translation. And this is, the rather, my persuasion, because I have read, in Father Simon 
a History critic. ch. 25. p. 392. 393. , that not unpleasant story concerning the Translation of Mr. Rene Benoist a Doctor of the Faculty of Paris. This Doctor had observed that a new Latin Translation of the Organon of Aristotle, performed by a person who understood not the Greek Tongue, had been very well received: Upon this occasion he was moved to turn the Bible into the French Tongue, though he was ignorant of those of the Greek and Hebrew. For the accomplishing of this Design, he served himself upon the French Translation of Geneva; changing only a few words, and putting others of the same signification in their room. But, it seems, he was not exact enough in this change of words. For he having overlooked some words which were used by the Genevians and not the Romanists, a discovery was made by the Divines of Paris, and this Edition of the Bible was condemned by them, though published under the name of one of their Brethren.  
I do not say that such places of Scripture as contain Matters of Faith, are plain to every Man. But those who have a competence of capacity, who are not prejudiced against the Truth, who pray to God for his assistance, who attend to what they read, who use the Ministerial helps which are offered to them, shall find enough in Holy Writ to Guide them to everlasting life. In finding out the sense of the Scriptures, the Church gives them help, but it does not, by its Authority, obtrude the sense upon them. The Guides of it are as Expositors and Schoolmasters to them: And by comparing phrase with phrase, and place with place, and by other such ways, they teach them how to judge of the meaning themselves. They give them light into the nature of the Doctrine, they do not require them to take it upon trust. They endeavour to open their understandings that they may, themselves, understand the Scriptures. And if they cannot themselves understand the Doctrine, it will be of little use to them in their lives. For they then believe in general that it is a necessary Truth; but what Truth it is, or for what ends it is necessary, they apprehend not. A Foolish Master in the Mathematics may require his Scholars to take it upon his word that a Problem is demonstrated: But a w●se and useful teacher will give them light into the manner of the demonstration in such sort that they themselves shall at last be able to judge that it is truly performed: And till they can do this, they are not instructed. St. Hierom relates it in praise of Marcelia a Roman Lady 
a S. Hieron. in praef. ad comment. in Epist. ad Galat.—  sentirem me non tam Discipulam habere quam Judicem. v. Psal. ●19 99  that she would not receive any thing from him after the Pythagorean manner, or upon bare Authority. She would, with such care examine all things, that She seemed to him, not so much his Scholar as his Judge.  
It is certain that there are great depths and obscure Mysteries in the Holy Bible. But the Doctrines of Christian Fa●th are, to the sincere and industrious and such as wait on God in the way of the Reformed Church, sufficiently plain. But to the Idle, the prejudiced, the captious, Light itself is Darkness.  
The Romanists affright with this pretence of obscurity and profoundness; as if we must not adventure into any part of the Waters, because in some places, we may go beyond our depth. If there are hard and difficult places which the Unstable wrist; who required their meanness to make a Judgement of that for which they might perceive themselves to be insufficient? But whilst St. Peter speaketh of some few places in St. Paul's writings which are obscure, he does, at the same time, suppose many others to be plain enough for the capacities of the Unlearned. And if they be evil Men, though very Learned, they will wrest the plainest places; and (as some did in St. Hieroms 
* S. Hieron, in Ep. ad Paulin. ad sensum suum incongrua aptant testimonia— Et ad voluntatem suam S Scripturam repugnantem trahunt.  days) they will draw violently to their private sense a Text of Scripture which is incongruously, and with reluctance applied to it.  
It is true all Sects of Christians cite the Scriptures, but that does not prove the obscurity of those Sacred writings: It rather shows the Partiality, Boldness, and Sophistry of those who allege them. All Laws are obscure if this Argument hath force in it. For every Man, in his own case, has the Law on his side. Men take up their opinions and Heresies from other reasons; and then, because the name of Scripture is venerable, they rake into the several Books of it, and they bend and torture places, and force them on their side by unnatural construction. So do the Socinians, producing all niceties of Grammar and Criticism in a matter of Faith. Yet the Guide in Controversies 
a R. H. Guide etc. Disc. 4. p. 375, 376, 377, 378. etc.  useth it as an Argument against the plainness of this Rule of Faith, that the Socinians cite the Holy Scriptures in favour of their Heresy. But is not this Argument two-edged? And will it not cut as well on the other side, and do Execution against the words, of Fathers and Councils, and the Apostolical Creed itself? For the Socinians (those especially who are turned Arians) since Petavius hath furnished them with Quotations, will cite the writings of the Ancients: And Slichtingius, a mere Socinian, 
* V Confess. fid. Christ. ed. nom. Eccl. Polon. etc.  hath expounded every Article of the Creed in a sense agreeable to the Heresy of his Master.  
But, if the Scriptures were so obscure in necessary matters, what remedy would be administered by the Roman Church? They cannot offer to us any Ancient; Infallible exposition. What the Ancients have said, the Reformed generally understand much better than Popes, amongst whom there have been some who could scarce read the Holy Gospel in Latin. For the Fathers of the earliest Ages, they were more busied in writing against Heresies, then in explaining of Scriptures. Nor, to this day hath the Roman Church, given any Authentic Collection of Expositions, either of the Ancients or of her own. And if we must go to any Church for a comment on the Scriptures, let the Roman be one of our last Refuges. For it is manifest that the Key the Papalins use, is the Worldly Polity of that Church. And as they like, so they interpret. Had not they governed themselves by this art; we should not have found in the writings of their Popes, and in the very Ca●●● Law itself, those words which were spoken to Jeremiah expounded of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome 
a V Innoc. 3. in decret. Greg. l. 1. tit. 33. c. 6. Greg. Ep: 12 Extrav de Major, & Obed. 1. P. Pi. 5. in Bulla Cont. R. Eliz. in Camd. Annal. A. 1570.  I have set thee over Kings, to root out, to pluck up, and to destroy. 
b Jerem. 1. 10.  The Donatists found their Church in these words of the Canticles, Tell me (thou whom my Soul loveth) where thou feedest; where thou makest thy Flock to rest at noon. For they expounded this (as it 〈◊〉 them best) of the Flock of their 〈◊〉 the Southern Country of Africa. Such Ex●●unders of Scripture are those Popish Writers who interpret (Feed my sheep) of the Universal Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome, and conclude that a Past●r must drive away Wolves, or depose Princes hu●●ul to the Church. But the straining of such Metaphorical expressions (as an excellent Person 
* D. Falkner in Christ. Loy. p. 315.  saith) proves only that they want better proofs. And, by a like way of interpretation, from the same Text it might be concluded that all Christians are Fools because Sheep are silly Creatures.  
No expositions are more besides the sense of the Text, or more ridiculous, than some of those which may be found in the Roman Church. And those who composed them appear to have looked asquint on the Scriptures. For whilst they looked on them, they seemed to have looked another way. I will instance only in a few of those many absurd expositions, with which the Roman Breviary abounds.  
The words of the Angel to the Holy Virgin (a sword shall go through thine own soul also) are 
a Domin. infr●. Octau. Nati v. in 2. nocturno Lect. 8. p. 175.  interpreted of that word of God which is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword. And this sense is designed as an evasion of their reasoning, who from that Text, conclude concerning the blessed Virgin, that she died, and was not miraculously assumed. The Ascension of Elias is thus expounded. 
b Dom. infrâ Oct. Asc. in 3. Noct. p. 443.  He was taken up into the Aerial, not the Aetherial, Heavens; from whence he was dropped in an obscure place on Earth, there to remain to the end of the World, and then to expire with it. They say 
† Infra Oct. Asc 3. Noct. Lect. 8. p. 447.  of Job, That when he spoke of a Bird, and of her path in the Air, he, by a figure, called Christ a Bird, and, by the motion of it in the Air, figured also our Lord's Ascension.  
We may perceive, by these few Instances, what an entrance into the sense of Scripture is like to be given, whilst a Pope has the Key of Knowledge in his keeping.  
Thirdly, If Men would use the Church as their 
Assert. III.  Ministerial Guide, and admit of the scripture as the only Rule by which all Matters of Faith are to be measured, they would agree in the proper means to the blessed end of Unity in the Faith. This was the persuasion of St. Austin who thus applieth himself to Maximinus 
* S. Aug count Max. l. 3. ; Neither ought I at this time to allege the Council of Nice, nor you that of Ariminum: For neither am I bound to the authority of the one, nor you to that of the other▪ Let us both dispute with the Authorities of scripture which▪ are Witness common to both of us.  
Whilst the Romanists ascribe the differences which arise amongst the Reformed to their want of an infallible Guide, and to their different interpretations of the scriptures, they unskilfully derive effects from causes which are not the natural Parents of them. There is (saith St. Austin) one Mother of all strifes, and she is Pride. Neither doth the scripture divide us, nor does the infallibility of their judge unite them. Their Union (such as it is) ariseth from the mighty force of their external Polity; and they speak not differently because they dare not; and the strength of that Polity arose at first from Rome, not as the Chair of St. Peter, but as the Seat of the Empire. Our divisions like theirs, arise (as all Wars do, be they Ecclesiastical or Civil) from the unruly Lusts and Passions of Men. And from these likewise arise generally the misinterpretations of plain Laws, and Rules; the sense of which must be made to chime according to the Interest of prejudiced Men, or else they will not give attention to them. If the Lusts and Passions of Men were mortified; all Christians agreeing in the certainty of the Scriptures, though not of any Living Guide; and the words of one being as intelligible as those of the other: All might agree in one Creed, and put an end to those unnecessary Controversies which entangle Truth, and extinguish Charity.  
FINIS.   

THE PROTESTANT RESOLUTION OF FAITH, Being an Answer to THREE QUESTIONS.  
I. How far we must depend on the Authority of the Church for the true sense of the Scripture.  
II. Whither a visible Succession from CHRIST to this day makes a Church, which has this Succession, an infallible Interpreter of Scripture; and whither no Church, which has not this Succession, can teach the true sense of Scripture?  
III. Whither the Church of ENGLAND can make out such a visible Succession?  
London Printed, And Edinburgh reprinted by J. Reid, for T: Brown, G: Schaw, A: Ogston, and G: Mosman, Stationers in Edinburgh, to be sold at their Shops, 1686.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
THese Papers, which are here presented to thee, were write for the use of a private Person, and by the Advice of some Friends, are now made Public. We find how busy the Romish Emissaries are to corrupt our People, and think ourselves equally concerned to Antiaote them against Pop●●y and Phanaticism: Two extremes equally dangerous to the Government of Church and State in these Kingdoms, both in their Principles and Practices; and both of them very great Corruptions of the Christian Religion, and very dangerous to men's Souls. Some of our Clergy have already been so charitable to our Dissenters, as to warn them of their danger, and by the Strength and Evidence of Scripture and Reason, to Convince them of their mistakes; and I pray God forgive those men, and turn their Hearts, who will not contribute so much to their own Conviction and Satisfaction, as diligently and impartially to read and consider what is so charitably offered to them. Ignorance and mistake may excuse men, wh● have no opportunities of knowing better, but such wilful and resolved Ignorance, which bars up men's mi●ds against all means of better Information, will as soon damn them, as sins against knowledge.  
And now it might justly be thought want of charity to those of the Roman communion, should we take no care at all of them; nay, want of charity to those of our own communion, and to Dissenters themselves, who are daily assaulted by the busy Factors for Rome. For the Disputes against the church of Rome, as well as against Dissenters, are for the most part too Learned, and too Voluminous for the instruction of ordinary People, and therefore some short and plain Discourses about the principal Matters in dispute between us, is the most effectual way we can take to confirm men in their Religion, and preserve them from the crafty Insinuations of such as lie in wait to deceive.  
Some few Attempts, which have been already made of that kind, give me some hope, that several other Tracts will follow, that the ruin of the church of England (if God shall please ever to permit such a thing) whither by Popery, or Phanaticism, may not be charged upon our neglect to instruct People better.  
Some Persons, it seems, whose Talon lies more in censuring what others do, then in doing any good themselves, are pleased to put some sinister constructions on this Design; as it is impossible to design any thing so well, but men of ill minds, who know not what it means to do good for goods sake, shall be able to find some bad name for it. Some guess that we now write against Popery only to play an aftergame, and to regain the Favour and good Opinion of Dissenters which we have lost by writing against them: But I know not that any man has lost their Favour by it, nor that any man values their Favour for any other reason, then to have the greater advantage of doing them good. If so good a work, as confuting the Errors of the church of Rome, will give the Dissenters such a good Opinion of us, as to make them more impartially consider what has been writ to persuade them to communion with the church of England, I know ●● reason any man has to be ashamed to own it, though it were part of his design; but whither it is or not, is more than I know; I dare undertake for those Persons I am acquainted with, that they neither value the favour, nor fear the displeasure either of fanatics or Papists, but yet hearty desire to do good to them both.  
But there is a more mischievous suggestion than this, that the design of such Papers is only to raise a new cry, and noise about Popery, and to alarm the People, and disturb the Government with new Fears and Jealousies: Truly, if I thought this would be the effect of it, I would burn my Papers presently; for I am sure the church of England will get nothing by a Tumultuary and clamorous Zeal against the Church of Rome, and I had much rather suffer under Popery, then contribute any thing towards raising a Popular Fury to keep it out. We profess ourselves as irreconcilable Enemies to Popery, as we are to Phanaticism, and desire that all the World may know i●; but we will never Rebel, nor countenance any Rebellion against our lawful Sovereign, to keep out either, we leave such Principles and Practices to Papists and fanatics. But when we find our People Assaulted by the Agents of Rome, and do not think ourselves secure from Popish Designs, we think it our Duty to give them the best Instructions we can to preserve them from such Errors, as we believe will destroy their Souls; and cannot but wonder, that any men, who are as much concerned to take care of Souls as we are; should think this a needless or a scandalous undertaking. I wish such men would speak out, and tell us plainly, what they think of Popery themselves. If they think this Design not well managed, by those who undertake it, it would more become them to commend the Design, and do it better themselves. I know no man, but would very gladly be excused, as having other work enough to employ his time, but yet I had rather spend my vacant minutes this way, then in censuring the good that other men do, while I do none myself.   

The Words of the Paper, which was sent to me are these.  
IT is my Opinion that the infinite Goodness of our Legislator, has left to us a means of knowing the true sense and meaning of the Holy Scriptures, which is the Church: Now I judge this Church must be known to be the true Church, by its continual visible Succession from Christ till our Days. But I doubt whither or no the Protestant Church can make out this continual visible Succession, and desire to be informed.  
ANSWER.  
THAT Christ has lest a means of knowing the true sense and meaning of the Holy Scriptures, I readily grant; or else it had been to no purpose to have left us the Scriptures. But the latter Clause is very ambiguous, for the meaning may either be, that we may understand by the Scriptures, which is the Church; or that the Church is the means whereby we must understand the true sense and meaning of the Scripture.  
The first is a true Protestant Principle, and therefore I presume not intended by this Objector. For how we should know that there is any Church without the Information we receive by the Scripture, I cannot Divine; and yet we may as easily know that there is a Church, as we can know which is the true Church without the Scripture. For there is no other means of knowing, either that there is a Church, or what this Church is, or what are the Properties of a True and Sound and Orthodox Church, but by Revelation, and we have no other Revelation of this but what is contained in the Holy Scriptures.  
As for the Second, That the Church is the means of knowing the true sense and meaning of the Scriptures, it is in some sense very true, in some sense very false.  
1. It is in some sense true, and acknowledged by all sober Protestants. As, 1. If by the Church we understand the Universal Church of all Ages, as we receive the Scriptures themselves handed down by them to our time, so what ever Doctrines of Faith have been universally received by them, is one of the best means to find out the true sense of Scripture. For the nearer they were to the times of the Apostles, the more likely they were to understand the true sense of their Writings, being instructed by the Apostles themselves in the meaning of them. And thus we have a certain Rule to secure us from all dangerous Errors in expounding Scripture. For the great and fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Religion, are as plainly contained in the Writings of the first▪ Fathers of the Church, and as unanimously asserted by them, as the Authority of the Scriptures themselves: and therefore though we have not a Traditionary Exposition of every particular Text of Scripture; yet we have of the great and fundamental Doctrines of Faith, and therefore must never expound Scripture so as to contradict the known and avowed sense of the Catholic Church. And this course the Church of England takes; she receives the Definitions of the four first General Councils, and requires her Bishops and Clorgy to Expound the Scriptures according to the professed Doctrines of those first and purest Ages of the Church.  
2. We ought to pay great deference to, and not lightly and want only oppose the Judgement and Authority of the Particular Church, wherein we live, when her Expositions of Scripture do not evidently and notoriously contradict the sense of the Catholic church, especially of the first and best Ages of it. For it does not become private men to oppose their Sentiments and Opinions to the Judgement of the church, unless in such plain cases, as every honest man may be presumed a very competent Judge in the matter; and no church, nor all the churches in the World have such Authority, that we must renounce our senses, and deny the first principles of Reason, to follow them with a blind and implicit Faith.  
And thus the church, that is, the sense and Judgement of the catholic church, is a means for the finding out the true sense of Scripture; and though we may mistake the sense of some particular Texts, (which the Romanists themselves will not deny, but that even infallible councils may do, who tho' they are infallible in their conclusions, yet are not always so in the Arguments or Mediums, whither drawn from Scripture or Reason, whereby they prove them) yet it is Morally impossible we should be guilty of any dangerous mistake, while we make the catholic Doctrine of the church our Rule; and in other matters follow the Judgement, and submit to the Authority of the church, wherein we live; which is as absolutely necessary, as Peace and Order and good Government in the church,  
2. But then this is very false, if we mean that the church is the only means of finding out the true sense of the Scriptures; on if by the church we understand any particular church, as I suppose this Person does, the Roman Catholic, that is, the particular universal church of Rome; or if we mean the church of the present Age, or by Means understand, such a Decretory sentence, as must determine our Faith, and command out Assent; that we must seek for no other Reason of our Faith, but the Authority of the church in expounding Scriptures. I shall discourse something briefly of each of these.  
1. To say that the church is the only Means to find out the true sense of Scripture, is very false and absurd. For, 1. This supposes the Holy Scriptures to be a very unintelligible Book, which is a great reproach to the Holy Spirit, by which it was Indicted▪ that he either could not, or would not speak intelligibly to the World.  
2. This is a direct contradiction to those Exhortations of Christ and his Apostles to study the Scriptures, which were made to private Men, and therefore necessarily supposes, that the Holy Scriptures are to be understood as other Writtings are, by considering the Propriety of the Words and ●●nguage wherein they are written, the scope and design of the place, and such other means; as honest and studious Inquirers use to find out the meaning of any other Book.  
3. If the Scriptures are so unintelligible, that an honest man cannot find out the meaning of them, without the infallible interpretation of the Church, I would desire to know whither Christ and his Apostles Preached intelligibly to their Hearers? If they did not, to what purpose did they Preach at all? By what means were men Converted to the Faith? If they did, how come these Sermons to be so unintelligible now they are written, which were so intelligible when they were spoken? For the Gospels contain a plain History of what Christ did, and of what he said; and the Apostles Wrote the same things to the Churches when they were absent, which they Preached to them when they were present; and we reasonably suppose, that they as much designed that the Churches should understand what they wrote, as what they Preached, and therefore that they generally used the same form of words in their writing and in their Preaching: And this makes it a great Riddle, how one should be very plain and easy to be understood, and the other signify nothing without an infallible Interpreter.  
4. If the Scriptures be in themselves unintelligible, I would desire to know how the Church comes to understand them? If by any humane means, together with the ordinary Assistances of the Divine Spirit, than they are to be understood, and then why may not every Christian in proportion to his skill in Languaged, and in the Rules of Reason and Discourse, understand them also?  
If the Church cannot understand the Scriptures by any humane means, but only by Inspiration, (for there is no Medium between these two) to what purpose were the Scriptures written? For we might as well have learned the will of God from the Church, without the Scriptures; as with them. GOD could have immediately revealed his will to the Church without a written Rule, as well as reveal the meaning of that written Rule, which it seems has no signification at all, till the Church, by Inspiration, gives an Orthodox meaning to it.  
5. And i● we cannot understand the Scriptures, till the Church Expounds them to us, how shall we know, which is the Church, and that this Church is such an infallible Interpreter of Scriptures? The Church is to be known only by the Scriptures, and the Scriptures are to be understood only by the Church; if we will know the Church, we must first understand the Scriptures, and if we will understand the Scriptures, we must first know the Church, and when both must be known first, or we can know neither, it is impossible in this way; either to understand the Scriptures, or find out the Church.  
For, suppose the Church does expound Scripture by Inspiration; how shall we be assured that it does so? Must we believe every Man, or every Church, which pretends to Inspiration? This is a contradiction to the Apostles Rule, not to believe every Spirit, but to try the Spirits. How then shall they be tried? I know but two ways, either by Miracles, or by Scripture, Miracles are now ceased, unless we will believe some fabulous Legends, which all wise men in the Church of Rome are ashamed of; and if there were real Miracles wrought, they are of no Authority against a standing Rule of Faith, which the Apostle calls a more sure word of Prophecy. If then we must judge of these pretences to Revelation by the Scriptures, which is the only way now left, then there is a way of understanding the Scriptures without this Revelation; for if we must understand the Scriptures by Revelation, and Revelation by the Scriptures, we are got into a new Circle and can understand neither.  
Obj. But do we not see how many Schisms and Heresies have been occasioned, by suffering every one to Expound Scripture for himself? How many Divisions and Subdivisions are there among Protestants, who agree in little else, besides their opposition to Popery? And is it possible to cure this without an an Infallible Interpreter of Scripture●? Is it not a contradiction to common Experience, to say, that the sense of Scripture is plain and certain, when so few men can agree what it is?  
Ans. 1. Yes, we do see this, and lament it, and are beholden to the Church of Rome, and her Emissaries in a great measure for it. But yet we know, thus it has been in all Ages of the Christian Church, as well as now; and we take the same way to confute these Heresies, and to preserve the purity of the Faith, and the Unity of the Church, which the Primitive Fathers did, by appealing to Scripture, and the Doctrine and Practice of the Catholic Church which is the best way any Church can take, when there is no infallible Judge of controversies: And if the Primitive Church had known any such infallible Judge, they would certainly have appealed to him, at one time or other; and it had been impossible, that any Errors or Heresies should for any long time together have disturbed the Church: but we hear nothing of him for many hundred years after Christ; but the ancient Fathers took the same way to confute the Heresies of their days, which we do now, which is a good proable Argument, that they knew no better. And the present Divisions of the Christian Church, are no greater Argument against us, than the Ancient Heresies were against the Primitive Church, or then the Protestant Heresies (as they are pleased to call them) are against the church of Rome? For what advantage has the church of Rome upon this account above any other profession of Christians. Those who are of the same communion are of the same Mind. Thus it is among us, and it is no better among them; for we are no more of their mind, than they are of ours; nay notwithstanding all their pretences to infallibility, most of the Disputes, which divide the Protestant churches, are as fairly disputed among themselves, witness the famous controversy between the Jansenists, and Molinists; which their infallible Judge never thought fit to determine to this day: They live indeed in the communion of the same church, notwithstanding these Disputes, because it is a very dangerous thing to leave it; but they are more beholden to the Inquisition, then to infallibility for this Unity.  
2. How do these Divisions and Heresies, which disturb the Church, prove, that no man can be certain of his Religion? If we can certainly know what the sense of Scripture is, notwithstanding there are many different Opinions about it, than the diversity of Opinions is no Argument against us; if we cannot be certain of any thing, which others deny, dispute, or doubt of, then how can any Papist be certain that his Church is infallible? For all the rest of the Christian Church deny this, and scorn their Pretensions to it. I may indeed safely acquiesce in the Determinations of an infallible Judge, whom I am infallibly assured to be infallible, how many contrary Opinions soever there are in the World; But when infallibility itself is the matter of the dispute, and I have no infallible way to know whither there be any such thing, or where this infallibility is seated, if diversity of Opinions be an Argument against the certainty of any thing, which I am not, and cannot be infallibly assured of, than it is a certain demonstration against infallibility itself.  
Unless we will take the Church of Rome's word for her own infallibility, we cannot have the Decision of an infallible Judge in this matter, for she will allow no other infallible Judge, but herself; and yet this is so absurd a way, that it supposes, that we believe, and that we  the same thing at the same time. For unless we beforehand believe the Church to be infallible, her saying so is no infallible proof that she is infallible; and yet the very demand of a proof supposes that we are not certain of it, that we doubt of it, or  it. When we ask the Church whither she be infallible, it supposes that we are not certain of it, otherwise we should need no proof; and when we believe the Church to be infallible, because she says so, it supposes, that we did beforehand believe that she is infallible, otherwise, her saying so is no proof.  
The greatest Champions for the Church of Rome, never pretended that they could produce any infallible proofs, which is the true Church. Cardinal Bellarmine attempts no more, then to allege some Motives of Credibility, to make the thing probable, and to incline Men to believe it; and yet it is impossible we can be more certain of the Infallibility of the Church, than we are, that it is a true Church; and if a Papist have only some motives of Credibility, to believe the Church of Rome, to be a true Church, he can have no greater probabilities, that it is an infallible Church.  
Now not to take notice, what a tottering Foundation some high probabilities, though they amounted to a moral assurance, is for the belief of infallibility, which is to put more in the Conclusion then there is in the Premises. The only use I shall make of it at present is this, That we can at least be as certain of the meaning of Scripture, as the Papists are, that their Church is infallible, for they can be no more infallibly assured of this, than we are of our interpretations of Scripture; and therefore, if the diversity of Opinions about the sense of Scriptures, proves that we cannot be certain what the true sense of it is, the same Argument proves, that they cannot be certain that their Church is infallible, because this is not only doubted, but absolutely denied by the greatest part of the Christian World, and was never thought of by the best and purest Ages of it. So this Argument proves too much, and recoils upon themselves, like a Gun which is overcharged; and if, for their own sakes, they will grant that we may be certain of some things, which are as confidently denied, and disputed by others; then the diversity of Opinions in the Church, is no Argument, that we cannot be certain of our Religion, but only teacheth us greater caution, and diligence, and Honesty, in our inquiries after Truth.  
3. These Divisions and Heresies that are in the Christian Church, are no better Argument against the truth and certainty of our Religion, than the diversities of Religions that are in the World, are against the truth of Christianity. The whole World is far enough from being Christian; great part of it are Jews, or Pagans, or mahumetans still; and this is as good an Argument, to prove the uncertainty of all Religions, as the different Parties and Professions of Christians are to prove, that we cannot be certain, what the true Christian Church, nor what true Christianity is. The Gospel of our Saviour was not designed to offer any force or violence to men's Faith or understanding, no more then to their wills. Were there such an irresistible and compulsory Evidence in the Gospel, that wherever it was Preached, it should be impossible for any man, though never so wicked and ill disposed, to continue an Infidel, or to prove a Heretic, Faith would be no greater a Virtue, then forced Obedience and Compliance is. The Gospel has Evidence enough to Convince honest Minds, and is plain enough to be understood, by those who are honest and teachable; and therefore has its Effects upon those who are Curable, which is all that it was designed for. Those, who will not believe, may continue Infidels, and those, who will not understand, may fall into Errors, and believe a Lie; and yet there is Evidence enough to Convince, and Plainness enough to Instruct well disposed minds, and certainty enough in each to be the foundation of a Divine Faith.  
The sum is this, Though the Instructions of the Church are a very good means for the understanding of the sense of Scripture, yet they are not the only means; the Holy Scripture is a very intelligible Book, in such matters as are absolutely necessary to Salvation; and could we suppose, that a man, who never heard of a Church, should have the use of the Bible, in a Language which he understood, by a diligent reading of it, he might understand enough to be saved.  
2. If by Church is meant any Particular Church; as suppose the Roman Catholic Church, or the Church of the present Age, it is absolutely false to say, that the Church, in this sense, is always a sure and safe means of understanding the Scripture. What has been Universally believed by all Christian Churches, in all Ages, or at least, by all Churches of the first and purest Ages of Christianity. which were nearest the times of the Apostles, and might be presumed best to understand the sense of the Apostles in the great Articles of our Faith, is a very safe Rule for the interpretation of Scripture; and the general Practice of those Primitive Apostolic Churches, in matters of Government and Discipline, before they were corrupted by worldly Ambition, and secular Interest, is a very safe Rule for our Practice also, and this is the Rule whereby our Church is reform, and to which we appeal.  
There are but three things necessary to be understood by Christians, either the Articles of Faith or the Rules of Life, or the external Order and Discipline of the Church, and Administration of Religious Offices.  
1. As for the Rules of Life, all those Duties which we own to GOD and Men, they are so plainly contained in the Holy Scriptures, that no honest man can mistake them; I suppose the church of Rome herself, will not pretend, that there is any need of an infallible Interpreter to teach men what is meant by Loving GOD with all our Heart, and our Neighbour as ourselves.  
2. As for the Articles of Faith, those which are fundamental to the christian Religion, and which every Christian ought to believe, are so plain in Scripture, that every honest and unprejudiced man may understand them; but however, as I observed before, we govern ourselves in these things by the received Doctrine of the catholic church of the first and purest Ages, and if this be not a safe Rule, we can be certain of nothing. And what the catholic Faith was, we learn from those short summaries of Faith, which were universally owned by all catholic churches. For what we now call the Apostles creed, was very anciently received in all churches, with some little variety indeed of Words and Phrase, but without any difference of sense; and the catholic Faith was not only preserved in such short Summaries and creeds, which were as liable to be perverted by Heretics, as the Scriptures themselves, but was more largely explained in the Writings of the ancient Fathers; and though this will not enable us to understand every Phrase and Expression of Scripture, but we must use other means to do that, as Skill in the Original Languages, a knowledge of ancient customs, and ancient Disputes, to which the Apostles frequently aflude, a consideration of the Scope and Design of the place, etc. Yet the catholic Faith received and owned by the Primitive Church, is so far a Rule, as, it directs us to Expound Scripture to a true catholic sense. As St. Paul commands the Romans, that those who prophesy, should Prophesy according to the proportion of Faith, Rom. 12. 6. Kat' analogian pisteos, according to the Analogy of Faith: That is, that in the interpreting the Scriptures of the Old Testament they should expound them to a christian sense, according to those Doctrines of the christian Faith, which he had taught them; and this was a safe Rule for expounding the Old Testament, which contained the Types, and Figures, and Prophecies of the Gospel-State. And thus in expounding the new Testament, now it is committed to writing, we must Prohpesie according to the Analogy of Faith, or as he commands Timothy in his Preaching, Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard from me; 2. Tim. 1. 13. It seems the Apostle had given him a form of sound words, according to which he was to direct his Preaching; whither this refers to a short summary of Faith, such as our Creed is, I cannot say, though it is not improbable it may; but it is plain, we have a form of sound words delivered to us by the Catholic Church, which contains the true Catholic Faith, and therefore aught to be so far a Rule to us in expounding Scripture, as never to contradict any thing which is contained in it, for that is to contradict the Faith of the Catholic Church.  
And when one great Article of this Faith, concerning the Eternal Godhead of Christ the Son of God, was corrupted by Arius, a Presbyter of the Church of Alexandria, it gave an occasion for a full Declaration of the sense of the Catholic Church about it. And though the effects of that Controversy were very fatal to the Church, yet it was very happy that it broke out in such an Age, when it could be determined with greater certainty and greater Authority, than it could have been in any succeeding Age of the Church; by men, who were venerable for their Age, for their Wisdom, for their Piety, for their undaunted Confessions under Heathen and Persecuring Emperors, who knew what the sense of the Catholic Church was, before this Controversy broke out, and before External Prosperity had, through ease and wantonness, corrupted the Faith; as well as the Manners of Christians.  
3. As for matters of External Order, Discipline. and Government, the Universal Practice of the Catholic Church is the best and safest Comment on these General Rules and Directions we have laid down in Scripture. There is no doubt at all, but the Apostles did appoint Governors, and Rules of Order and Discipline, in the Churches planted by them: what these were the Christians of those days saw with their eyes ● in the daily practice of the Church; and therefore the Apostles, in those Epistles which they wrote to their several Churches, did not give them so punctual, and particular an account of those matters, which they so well knew before, but, as occasion: served, make only some accidental mention of these things, and that in such general terms, as were well enough understood by them, who knew the practice of the Church in that Age, but it may be, cannot merely by the force of the words, which may be capable of several Senses, be so certainly and demonstratively determined to any one sense (by us, who did not see what was done in those days) as to avoid all possible Cavils of contentious men.  
This has occasioned those disputes concerning Infant Baptism, the several Orders and Degrees of Church Governors, the Rites and ceremonies of Religious Worship, and the like. Those who lived in those days, and saw what the Apostles did in these matters, could not doubt of these things, thought it were not in express words said, that infants should be baptised with their Parents, or that Bishops are a Superior Order to Presbyters, and Presbyters to Deacons, or that it is lawful for the Governors of the Church to institute and appoint some significant Rites and ceremonies, for the more decent and orderly Administration of Religious Offices. But because there is not a precise and punctual account given of these matters, in the Writings of the Apostles, which there was no need of then, when these things were obvious to their very Senses, some perverse and unreasonable Disputers, who obstinately reject all other Evidence, will judge of these things just as they please themselves, and alter their Opinions and Fancies, as often as they please.  
But now if there be any certain way to know, what the practice of the Apostles was in these cases, this is the best comment we can possibly have on such Texts, as are not sufficiently plain and express without it. Now me thinks any reasonable man must acknowledge, that the best way to understand the Practice of the Apostles, is from the Practice of the Catholic Church in succeeding Ages, especially while the memory of the Apostles was fresh, and the Church Governed by Apostolical Men; when we cannot reasonably suspect any Deviation from the Primitive Practice; and this is the Rule which the Church of England owns in such matters, and by which she rejects and confutes both the Innovations and corruptions of the Church of Rome, and the wild pretences of Phanaticism.  
So that we do in the most proper sense own the Belief and Practice of the Primitive Church, to be the best means for Expounding Scripture. We do not leave every man to Expound Scripture by a private Spirit, as our Adversaries of the Church of Rome reproach us; we adhere to the ancient Catholic Church, which the Church of Rome on one side, and the fanatics on the other, have forsaken: And though we reject the new invention of an infallible Judge, yet we are no Friends at all to Scepticism, but can give a more Rational account of our Faith, than the Church of Rome can.  
Had we no other way of understanding the sense of Scripture, but by Propriety of the Language, and the Grammatical construction of the Words, and the scope and design of the Texts, their connexion and Dependence on what goes before, and what follows, and such like means as we use for the understanding any other Books of humane composition; I doubt not, but honest and diligent Inquirers might discover the true meaning of Scripture, in all the great Articles of our Faith; but yet this alone is a more uncertain way, and liable to the Abuses of Heretics and Impostors. The Socinians are a famous Example, what Wit and Criticism will do to pervert the plainst Text; and some other Sectaries are as plain a demonstration, what w●rk Dullness and Stupidity, and Enthusiasm will make with Scripture; but when we have the practice of the Catholic Church, and an ancient and venerable summary of the Christian Faith, which has been the common Faith of Christians in all Ages, to be our Rule in Expounding Scripture, though we may after all mistake the sense of some particular Texts, yet we cannot be guilty of any great and dangerous mistakes.  
This use the Church of England makes of the Catholic Church in Expounding Scripture, that she Religiously maintains the ancient Catholic Faith, and will not suffer any man to Expound Scriptures in opposition to the ancient Faith and Practice of the Catholic Church.  
But though the Belief and Practice of the Catholic Church be the best means of understanding the true sense of Scripture, yet we cannot affirm this of any particular Church, or of the Church of any particular Age, excepting the Apostolic Age, or those Ages which immediately succeeded the Apostles. Notwithstanding this, the Church of Rome may be no good Expositor of Scripture, for the Church of Rome, though she usurp the name of the Catholic Church as presuming herself to be the Head and Fountain of catholic Unity, yet she is but a part of the catholic Church, as the Church of England, and the Churches of France aind Holland are; and has no more right to impose her Expositions of Scripture upon other Churches, than they have to impose upon her. If there happen any controversy between them, it is not the Authority of either Church can decide it, but this must be done by an appeal to Scripture, and the sense of the Catholic Church, in the first and purest Ages of it.  
For when we say, that the belief and Practice of the Catholic Church is the best means to find out the true sense of Scripture, we do not mean that the Church is the Sovereign and absolute Judge of the sense of Scripture, but the meaning is, that those Churches, which were founded by the Apostles, and received the Faith immediately from them, and were afterwards, sor some Ages, governed by Apostolical men, or those who were taught by them, and conversed with them, are the best Witnesses what the Doctrine of the Apostles was, and therefore as far as we can be certain, what the Faith of these Primitive Churches was, they are the best Guides for the Expounding Scripture.  
So that the Authority of the Church in Expounding Scripture being only the Authority of Witnesses, it can reach no farther than those Ages, which may reasonably be presumed to be Authentic and credible Witnesses of the Doctrines of the Apostles, and therefore if we extend it to the four first general councils; it is as far as we can do it with any pretence of Reason; and thus far the Church of England owns the Authority of the Church, and commands her Ministers to Expound the Scriptures according to the Catholic Faith. owned and professed in those days; but as for the later Ages of the church, which were removed too far from the Apostles days, to be Witnesses of their Doctrine, they have no more Authority in this matter, than we have at this day, nor has one church any more Authority than another.  
3. And therefore, if by the church being the means of knowing the sense and meaning of the Holy Scriptures be understood the Judgement and Sentence, and Decree of the church, that we must seek no farther for the reason of our Faith, than the infallible Authority of the church, in Expounding Scripture▪ this also is absolutely false and absurd.  
This is more than Christ and his Apostles assumed to themselves, while they were on Earth; they were indeed infallible Interpreters of Scripture, but yet they never bore down their Hearers merely with their Authority, but Expounded the Scriptures, and applied ancient Prophecies to their Events, and took the vail off of Moses' Face, and shown them the Gospel state concealed under those Types and Figures; they confirmed their Expositions of Scripture by the force of Reason, and appealed to the Judgements and consciences of their Hearers, whither these things were not so; Christ commands the Jews nor merely to take his own word, and to rely on his Authority for the truth of what he said, but to study the Scriptures themselves; and the Bereans are commended for this generous temper of mind, that they were more noble than those of Thessalonica, for they daily searched the Scriptures, to see whither the Doctrine the Apostles preached were to be found there or not? Now I think no Church can pretend to be more infallible than Christ and his Apostles, and therefore, certainly ought not to assume more to themselves than they did; and if the Church of Rome, or any other Church, will convince us of the truth of their Expositions of Scripture, as Christ and his Apostles convinced their Hearers, that is by enlightening our Understandings, and convincing our Judgements by proper Arguments, we will gladly learn of them.  
This course the Primitive Christians took, as is evident in all the Writings of the ancient Fathers against Jews and Heretics; they argue from the Scriptures themselves to prove what the sense of Scripture i●; they appeal indeed sometimes to the sense of the Catholic Church, not as an infallible Judge of Scripture, but as the best Witnesses of the Apostolical Doctrine: Thus Tertulli●● argues against Heretics, in his Book De Praescriplionibus; ●●t when they reason about the sense of Scripture, they never direct us to any infallible Judge, but use such Arguments, as they think proper to convince Gain-sayers.  
Nay, this is the way, which was observed in all the Ancient Councils; the Bishops of the church met together for common counsel and advice, and in matters of Discipline and Government, which were subject to their Authority, they considered what was ' most for the public benefit of the church, and determined them by their Authority, not as infallible Judges, but as Supreme Governors of the church. In the disputes of Faith, they reason from Scripture, and the sense of the catholic church, not from their own Authority; and what upon a serious debate and inquiry they found to be most agreeable to the sense of Scripture, and the Doctrine of the church of former Ages, that they determined, and decreed to be received in all churches, as the catholic Faith. That this is so, is evident from all the Histories of the most Ancient, and celebrated councils, which any man may consult, who pleases.  
Now I would ask some few Questions about this matter. 1. Whither-these▪ councils took a sure and safe way to find out Truth? If they did not, what reason have we to believe that they determined right? If they did, than we may use the same way, which they did; for that which is a good way in one Age, is so in another, and then there is no necessity of an Infallible Judge, to find out the sense of Scripture, because we have other certain ways of doing this; the same which all the ancient Councils observed.  
2. I would know, whither it be not sufficient for every Christian to receive the Decrees and Determinations of these councils, upon the same Reason and Authority which moved the Fathers assembled in council to make these Decrees? Whither, for instance, we must not believe the Eternal Godhead of Christ, and that he is of the same substance with his Father's, for the same Reasons for which the Nicene Fathers believed this, and required all christians to believe it? If we must, than Scripture, and the sense of the catholic church, not the Authority of a general council, or any Infallible Judge, is the Reason of our Faith: For the Nicene Fathers, who were the first that met in a General council, could not believe this, upon the Authority of any other General council much less upon their own Authority; unless we will say, that they first Decreed this, than believed it, because they themselves Decreed it. If Scripture, and the sense of the Catholic Church, antecedently to the determinations of a General council, or any other pretended Infallible Judge, be not a sufficient foundation for our Faith, than the whole christian World, before the council of Nice, which was the first general council, had no sufficient Foundation for their Faith, for there was no particular Bishop, or church in those days, which pretended to be the Infallible Interpreter of Scriptures. We Protestants have the same way to understand the Scriptures, have the same Reason and Foundation of our Faith, which the Nicene Fathers themselves had, or which any christan could have, before there was any general council, and if the church of Rome do not think this enough, we cannot help that, we are abundantly satisfied with it.  
The Authority of a general council in those days, was deservedly sacred and venerable, not as an infallible Judge, which they never pretended to, but as the most certain means they could possibly have to understand, what was, and in all Ages had been the received Doctrine of the catholic church. They met together not to make new Articles of Faith, which no council in the World ever had any Authority to do, but to declare what was the truly ancient and. Apostolic Faith; and to put it into such words, as might plainly express the catholic sense, and meet with the distempers of that Age.  
For this end Grave and Reverend Bishops assembled from all parts of the christian World, not merely to give their private Opinions of things, but to Declare what was the received Doctrine o● those churches, over which they presided; and I know no better Argument of an Apostolic Tradition, than the consent of all churches, as remote from each other as East and West, which were planted by several Apostles, and differed very much from each other, in some External Rites and Usages, but yet all agreed in the same Faith. And this is the true Authority of those ancient councils, that they were most likely to understand the true sense of Scripture, and of the Catholic Church. This is the Protestant Resolution of Faith, and the Nicene Fathers themselves had no other way, nor pretended to any other.  
Nay, the church of Rome herself, as much as she talks of Infallibility, makes very little use of it. She has never given us an infallible comment on Scripture, but suffers her Doctors to write as fallible comments, and in many things as contrary to each other, as any Protestant Divines do: And I cannot imagine what good Infallibility does, if an infallible Church has no better means of understanding Scripture, than the comments of fallible men; that is, no better means then every fallible Church has; for no man can understand the Scripture ever the better for the Churches being infallible, unless this infallible Church improve this glorious Talon of Infallibility in Expounding Scripture; which she has not done to this day, and I believe never will▪  
Indeed it is apparent, that infallibility, as it is pretended to by the church of Rome, can be of no use, either in the Refolution of Faith, or in confuting Heretics, who deny this Infallibility, and then I cannot imagine what it is good for, but to multiply Disputes, instead of ending them.  
As for the Resolution of Faith; suppose I ask a Papist; why he believes such Articles, as the Divinity of Christ, or the Resurrection of the dead, to be contained in Scripture? If he answer, as he must do, Because he is taught so by the church, which is infallible; my next Question is, How he knows the Church to be infallible? If he says he learns this from Scripture; I ask him how he comes to understand the Scripture, and how he knows that this is the sense of it? If he know this by the infallible interpretation of the church, than he runs round in a circle, and knows the Scripture by the church, and the church by the Scripture, as I observed before; if he can find out the Church's infallibility by the Scripture, without the help of an infallible Judge, than it seems the Scripture is, to be understood without the infallible interpretation of the Church; and if men can find out infallibility in Scripture without the Church, I am confident they may find out any thing else in Scripture as well, without the Church's infallibility: For there i● no Article of our creed so hard to be found there, as the Church's infallibility is. But however that be, after all this boast of infallibility, a Papist has no more infallible Foundation for his Faith, than a Protestant has, nor half so much. We believe the Articles of the Christian Faith, because we find them plainly taught in Scripture, and universally received as the sense of Scripture by the Catholic church in the best and purest Ages of it: A Papist believes the Church to be Infallible, because he thinks he finds it in Scripture, though the Catholic church for many Ages never found it there, and the greatest part of the Christian church to this day cannot find it there: Now if they will but allow, that a Protestant (though a poor fallible Creature) may reason about the sense of Scripture, as well as a Papist, and that the Evidence of reason is the same to both, than we Protestants stand upon as firm ground as the Papists here; and are at least as certain of all those Doctrines of Faith, which we find in the Scripture, and are ready to prove by it, as they are of their Church's infallibility; but then we have an additional Security, that we Expound the Scriptures right, which they want, and that is the Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Church, which confirms all the Articles of our Faith, and Rules of Worship and Discipline, but gives not the least intimation, that the Pope or Church of Rome, was thought infallible by them, and if the Primitive Church was ignorant of this, which is the best witness of Apostolical Tradition, it is most probable, that no such thing is contained in Scripture, though some mercenary Flatterers of the Pope have endeavoured to persuade the World, that they found it there.  
So that we have a greater assurance of all the Articles of our Religion, from Scripture and Catholic Tradition, than a Papist can have of the Church's Infallibility, and yet he can have no greater assurance of any other Doctrines of Religion, which he believes upon the Church's Infallibility, than he has of Infallibility itself. So that in the last Resolution of Faith, the Protestant has much the advantage of the Papist, for the Protestant resolves his Faith into the Authority of the Scriptures, Expounded by the Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Church, the Papist resolves his into the Infallibility of the Church; which he finds out only by Expounding Scripture by a private Spirit, without the Authority of any church, but that whose Authority is under dispute,  
And as the Doctrine of Infallibility is of no use in the last Resolution of Faith, so it is wholly useless in disputing with such Heretics as we are, who deny Infallibility: for it is a vain thing to attempt to impose any absurd, or groundless, and uncatholick Doctrines upon us, by the Churches infallible Authority, who believe there is no such infallible Judge; but are resolved to trust our own Eyes, and to adhere to Scripture and the Catholic Faith of the Primitive Church in these matters. And therefore the great Advocats for the Church of Rome are forced to take the same course in confuting Heresies, as they call them, that we do: They allege the Authority of Scripture, the Authority of Fathers and Councils, to justify their Innovations, and here we willingl join issue with them, and are ready to prove, that Scripture and all true Antiquity is on our side; and this has been often and unanswerably proved by the learned Patrons of the Reformation.  
But there are some very material things to be observed from hence, for our present purpose. For either they think this a good way to prove what they intent, and to convince Gain-sayers the Authority of Scripture, and Primitive Antiquity, or they do not. If they do not think this a good way, to what purpose are there so many Volumes of Controversy written? Why do they produce Scripture, and Fathers, and Councils, to justify the Usurpations of their Church, and those new Additions they have made to the Christian Faith and Worship? If this be not a good way to convince a Heretic, why do they give themselves and us such an impertinent trouble.  
If this be a good way, than we are in a good way already; we take that very way for our satisfaction which by their own Confession and Practice, is a very proper means for the conviction of Heretics, and to discover the Truth, and after the most diligent inquiries we can make, we are satisfied that the Truth is on our side.  
If the Authority of Scripture signify any thing in this matter, than it seems Heretics, who reject ●he Authority of an Infallible Judge, may understand Scripture without an Infallible Interpreter, by the Exercise of Reason and Judgement in studying of them, otherwise why do they pretend to expound Scripture to us, and to convince us by Reason and Argument, what the true sense of Scripture is.  
If the Authority of the Primitive Church, and first Christian Writers, be considerable, (as they acknowledge it is, by their appeals to them) then, at least, the present Pope or Church, is not the sole infallible Judge of controversies; unless they will say, that we must not Judge of the Doctrine or Practice of the Primitive Church, by ancient records, (and then Baronius his Annals are worth nothing) but by the Judgement and Practice of the present Church.  
The sum is this, There is great reason to suspect that the Church of Rome herself, does not believe her own Infallibility, no more than we Protestants do; for if she does, she ought not to suffer her Doctors to dispute with Heretics, from any other Topick, but her own Authority; when they vie Reasons and Arguments with us, and dispute from Scripture and Antiquity: they appeal from the infallibility of the present church, to every man's private Reason and Judgement, as much as any Protestant does: and if the Articles of the Christian Faith may be established by Scripture and Antiquity, without an infallible Judge, as they suppose they may be, by their frequent attempts to do it; this plainly overthrows the necessity of an infallible Judge. In a word, not to take notice now, how weak and groundless this pretence of Infallibility is, it is evident, that it is a very useless Doctrine; for those who believe the church's Infallibility, have no greater assurance of their Faith, than we have, who do not believe it; and those who do not believe the church's Infallibility, can never be confuted by it. So that it can neither establish any man's Faith, nor confute any Heresies; that is, it is of no use at all.  
The Church of England Reverences the Authority of the Primitive Church, as the best witness of the Apostolical Faith and practice, but yet resolves her Faith at last into the Authority of the Scriptures. She receives nothing for an Article of Faith, which she does not find plainly enough taught in Scripture, but it is a great confirmation of her interpretation of Scripture, that the Primitive church owned the same Doctrines, which she does; and she looks upon it as a just prejudice against any Expositions of Scripture, if they contradict the common Faith of the first Christians; and therefore when the words of Scripture are fairly capable of different senses, she chooses that sense which is most agreeable with the Catholic Faith, and practice of the Primitive Church; but should any Doctrines be imposed upon her, as Articles of Faith, which are not where to be found in Scripture, or which are plainly contrary to it, (as the new Trent Creed is) whatever pretence there be for the Antiquity of such Doctrines, she utterly rejects them; she will not put out her Eyes to follow any other Guide; and thanks be to God, she needs not reject any truly Catholic Doctrine in this way. We still retain the Faith of the Primitive Church, and are greatly confirmed in it, from that admirable consent there is between the Scriptures, as Expounded by us, and that Faith which was anciently owned and received by all Christians.  
Having thus shown in what sense the Church is the Interpreter of Scripture: I proceed now to the Second thing contained in this Paper, That this Church must be known to be the true Church, by its continual visible Succession from Christ till our days. Now these few words contain a great many, and very great mistakes. The subject of the inquiry is, how we may find out such a Church, whose word we may safely take for the true sense and meaning of Scripture.  
Now, 1. The Author of this Paper, whither, ignorantly, or designedly, I know not, altars the state of the Question, and in stead of a Church, which is an unerring and Infallible Interpreter of Scripture, which would be very well worth finding, he tells us how we may know a true Church; now I take a true Church, and and an infallible Interpreter of Scripture, to be very different things. A Church may be guilty of Schism and Heresy, and yet may be a true Church, though not a sound, Orthodox, and Catholic Church; for a true Church is such a Church, as has all things necessary, and essential to the Being and Constitution of a Church; this a Church may have, and superadd other things, which are destructive of the Christian Faith, and very dangerous and fatal mistakes; as we believe, and are able to prove the Church of R●me has done; and yet we acknowledge her a true Church, because she retains the true Christian Faith, though miserably Corrupted by Additions of her own; as a man is a true man, though he be sick of a mortal Disease. Now if a true Church may corrupt the Christian Faith, we have no reason to rely on the Authority of every true Church, for the true sense and meaning of Scripture.  
2. Let us suppose, that by a true Church, he means an Infallible Church, whose Authority we may safely rely on in Expounding Scriptures; this Church, he says, is to be known by a continual visible Succession from Christ, till our days: Now if this visible uninterrupted Succession be the mark of such a true Church, as is an infallible Interpreter of Scripture, then, 1. The Greek Church is an infallible Interpreter of Scripture; for she has as visible uninterrupted a Succession, from Christ and his Apostles to this day, as the Church of Rome has; and so we have two infallible Churches (not to instance in any more at present, who have as good a Succession as either of them) which are directly opposite to each other; and what shall we do in this Case? Must we believe Contradictions, or must we  infallible Churches?  
3. If a visible Succession from Christ and his Apostles makes a●y church an infallible Interpreter of Scripture, than all the churches, which were planted by the Apostles, were infallible. All the churches which were planted by the Apostles, have an equally visible Succession from Christ; those churches which were planted by the Apostles, may be presumed as infallible while the Apostles were present with them, as they were afterwards; and those churches which succeeded these Apostolical churches, at the distance of an Age or two, may be supposed as infallible as any church of this Age is; for if a visible Succession from Christ makes a church infallible, why should not a Succession of a hundred, or two hundred years make them as infallible as a Succession of sixteen hundred years, unless they think that Infallibility increases with the Age of the Church, which I could wish true, but we see very little sign of it. Now according to these Principles all the churches which were planted by the Apostles, and have a continual visible Succession from Apostolical Churches, through all Ages since the time of the Apostles, must be infallible; for if a continual visible Succession confers Infallibility, and is the mark whereby we must know it, than every Church, which ever had, or has to this day this visible Succession, must have Infallibility also, which, it seems, is entailed on Succession. And thus we have found out a World of infallibility, and it is wonderful, how any Apostolical Church came to be overrun with so many Errors and Heresies, and to grow so corrupt and degenerate, as to provoke GOD to root them up; if every Apostolical Church was infallible, I cannot imagine how whole Churches, which visibly succeeded the Apostles, should be infected with Heresy; for if Infallibility itself will not secure a Church from Heresy, the LORD have mercy upon us.  
3. This mark he gives how to find out such a true Church at is an infallible Interpreter of Scripture, viz. A continual visible Succession from Christ till this day, includes another great mistake; for it supposes, that there is some church now in being, on whose Authority we must rely for the sense of Scripture; for otherwise there can be no use of a visible Succession to this day, in this Controversy: If, as I have already Proved at large, we must rely only on the Authority of the Primitive Church, not of the church of this present Age, for the sense of Scripture, and that not as an infallible Judge, bu● as the most Authentic Witness of the Apostolical Doctrine and Practice, than we cannot find out this church by a visible Succession to this day, but by examining the ancient Records of the Primitive Church, where we shall find what the Faith and Practice of the Church in those days was, which is the safest Rule to guide us in the Exposition of Scripture. Though there were no Church in the World at this day, which could prove a continual visible Succession from Christ and his Apostles, yet while we have the Scriptures, and the Records of the Primitive church we have very sufficient means for the understanding the true meaning of Scripture: So that of whatever use this talk of a continual visible Succession may be in other cases, it is wholly impertinent in this. A church which cannot prove such a continual visible Succession; which was not founded by any Apostle, or Apostolical men, or has lost the Memory or Records of its first Plantation, may yet have very certain means of knowing the true sense of Scripture, from the Scripture itself, and the Doctrine and Practice of Apostolical and Primitive Churches, and a Church which has the most visible uninterrupted Succession from Christ and his Apostles, may be so far from being an infallible Interpreter of Scripture, that she may be very corrupt and erroneous herself, if she forsake the Apostolical Tradition, contained in the Writings, of the new Testament, and Expounded by the Catholic Faith and Practice of the first Churches; as we know the Church of Rome has done, which is so far from being an infallible Church, that we believe her to be the most corrupt Church in the World.  
And thus I think we are prepared to venture upon the last Clause of this Paper, wherein the whole force of the Argument, such as it is, is turned upon the poor Protestant Churches. But I doubt (says the Author of this Paper) whither or no the Protestant Church can make out this continual visible Succession, and desire to be informed. The sting of which Argument lies in this, that we Protestants have no certain way of knowing the true se●nse and meaning of Scripture, because we cannot prove the continual visible Succession of our Church, from Christ unto this day; and therefore we ought to go over to the church of Rome, who has this visible Succession, and receive all her Dictates as infallible Oracles. But, for Answer to this, consider.  
1. That suppose the Protestant Church could not make out such a continual visible Succession, yet we may understand the Scriptures very well without it, and need not go to the church of Rome to Expound Scripture for us, as I have already shown at large. Had he proved that we had been no church, for want of a visible Succession of church Officers, or that our Religion were a Novelty, which was never heard of it in the world before Luther, this had been something more to the purpose; but to pretend that we cannot understand the Scriptures, for want of a visible Succession, is such a lose and inconsequent way of reasoning, as a poor fallible Protestant would be ashamed of.  
2. But pray, why can't the Protestant Church of England prove her continual visible Succession from Christ till this day, as well as the church of Rome? Here was a Christian Church planted in this Nation, as very good Historians say, as early as at Rome, and it has continued here ever since, to this day: when Austin the Monk came over to England, he found here a company of resolute British Bishops and Monks, who would not submit to the Usurpations of Rome, and the English and British Churches under several Changes and Alterations, have continued to this day, with a visible Succession of Christian Bishops, and what better Succession can Rome show than this?  
I suppose no Roman Catholic will disown the Succession of the church of England, till the Reformation, and I pray, how came we to lose our Succession then? Did the Reformation of those Abuses and Corruptions, which had crept into the Church, unchurch us? Just as much as a man ceases to be the same man, when he is cured of some mortal Disease: Did not the Church of England consist of the same Persons, before the Reformation and after? A great many indeed disowned the Reformation; but were not all those Persons who were so active and zealous in the Reformation, formerly of the Roman communion? And did they lose their Succession too, when they became Reformers? When a Church consists of the same Bishops, Priests, and People, which she had before, though she have not all the same that she had; when she retains the same ancient Catholic and Apostolic Faith, which she did before, only renounces some Errors and Innovations, which she owned before, how does this forfeit her Succession? The Church of England is the very same Church now, since the Reformation, which she was before, and therefore has the very same Succession, though not the same Errors, to this day, that ever she had; and that, I think, is as good a Succession as the Church of Rome has.  
There are but two things to be considered in the case of Succession: Either a Succession of Church Officers, or a Succession of the Faith and Doctrines of the Church.  
1. As for a Succession of Church Officers, we have the same that the Church of Rome has, Those English Bishops who embraced the Reformation, received their Orders in the Communion of the Church of Rome, and therefore they had as good Orders, as any are in the Church of Rome; and these were the Persons, who Consecrated other Bishops, and so in Succession to this day. For as for the story of the Nagshead Ordination, that is so transparent a Forgery, invented many years after to Reproach the Reformation that I presume no sober Roman Catholic will insist on it.  
But we are Heretics and Schismatics, and this forfeits our Orders, and our Succession together. But, 1. This charge ought first to be proved against us, that we are Heretics and Schismatics we deny and abhor both the name and thing, and if we be not Heretics, and Schismatics, as we are sure we are not, and as the Church of Rome can never prove us to be, then according to their own Confession, our Orders must be good.  
2. However be we Heretics, or Schismatics, or what ever they please to call us, how does this destroy our Orders and Succession? The Catholic Church would not allow in former Ages, that Heresy or Schism destroyed the validity of Orders. St. Jerome disputes against this at large, in his Book Contra Luciferianos. And St. Austin allows the Donatists' Bishops to have valid Orders, though they were Schismatics, and therefore that the Sacraments administered by them were valid. And indeed, if Heresy will destroy Orders and Succession, the Church of Rome will be as much to seek for their Orders and Succession, as we are, which, by their own Confession, have had several Heretical Popes, and no body knows how many Bishops Ordained by them.  
2. As for Succession of Doctrine, which is as considerable to the full, as Succession of Orders, the great Articles of our Faith are not only plainly contained in Scripture, but have been delivered down to us, through all ages of the Church by an uninterrupted Succession.  
The Church of Rome herself, in her greatest Degeneracy, did own all that we do in pure matters of Faith: When we reform the Church we did not make a new Religion, but only separated the old Faith from new and corrupt Additions; and therefore the quarrel of the Church of Rome with us. is not that we believe any thing which they do not believe, but that we do not believe all that they would have us.  
The Doctrine of the Church of England is truly Primitive and Catholic, taught by Christ and his Apostles, owned by the Primitive Church, and excepting the Dispute between the Latin and Greek Church, about the Filioque, or the Holy Spirits proceeding from the Father and the Son, received by all catholic churches to this day; which is as complete and perfect Succession, as any Doctrine can have; therefore when the Church of Rome asks us, Where was our Religion before Luther? we tell them it was all the World over, all Catholic churches believed what we do, though we do not believe all that they do, they themselves did, and do to this Day own our creeds, and Articles of Faith, excepting such of them as are directly opposed to their Innovations.  
So that we are on a ●ure Foundation, our Faith has been received in the catholic church in all Ages. But now the church of Rome cannot show such a Succession for her new Doctrines and Articles of Faith, which were unknown to the Primitive church for many Ages, which were rejected by many flourishing churches, since the first appearance of them, which never had a quiet possession in her own communion, and were never form into Articles of Faith, till the packed conventicle of Trent.  
This I think is a sufficient Answer to this Paper, and it pities me to see so many wellmeaning Persons abused with such transparent Sophistry.  
FINIS.   

A DISCOURSE About the Charge of NOVELTY Upon the Reformed CHURCH OF ENGLAND Made by the PAPISTS Ask of us the Question, Where was our Religion before LUTHER?  
LONDON. Printed, and Edinburgh reprinted by J. Reid, for T. Brown, and G. Schaw, and A. Ogston, and G. Mosman, Stationers in the Parliament Closs, 1686.   

A DISCOURSE About the Charge of NOVELTY Upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists, etc.  
THe Christian Doctrine was once, by the way of trust delivered by Christ and his Apostles unto the Saints, Men of Care and Honesty, and who should preserve it in its first purity and Spiritual intention, only to prescribe methods unto Men by Faith, and an Honest conversation, how they might arrive at Heaven; that this Religion might make a deeper impression upon their minds and memories and be more faithfully kept, it was set down in plain and significant Terms, and reduced into 
2 Tim. 1. 13, 14. Rom. 6. 17. 1. Tim. 6. 20.  short summaries called a form of sound words, that good thing, that Form of Doctrine, a depositum, or trust and by the Church afterwards a creed. That it might be believed and valued, it was in its own Nature of the greatest importance, confirmed with variety of the best of Arguments, Miracles, Prophecies, innocent carriage, and Death of its numerous Disciples, and severe curses denounced against any that should add to or take from it, till 
Gal. 1. 8. 9 Rev. 22. 18.  their great Master, And its Author, Jesus should come from Heaven again. Yet notwithstanding all this, by the Malice and Subtlety of the Devil, the Designs and Passions of Men, the Ignorance and Negligence of some, the Cunning and Industry of others, this plain and simple Religion began by degrees to be corrupted by the mixtures of Philosophy and niceness, by the Rules of Stat Craft and Policy, by idle Traditions, and Inventions; by the Melancholy of some, and the gaiety of others; and the natural Face of it was so strangely changed that it seemed another Gospel, and you might seek Christianity in the Christian World and yet scarce find it. Many Kingdoms and People were to blame in this, being Teacherous to their Master, and false to their trust, suffering so Pure, and chaste a Religion to be corrupted 
2. Cor. 11. 2  or Stolen away, but the Church of Rome seems the most Guilty of them all, (especially upon her own grounds, her Bishop being the Infallible Vicar of Jesus, to whom are committed the Oracles of GOD) once indeed renowned 
Cyp. Epist. Ox. Edit. p. 5. 6. Rom 18. Platina vit● Bon 7. p. 159. vide quaeso quantum degeneraverint, etc.  for her Faith and Pious Governors, but now as famous for their Degeneracy as well in Religion as in their Lives. Whose Ambition or Interest prostituted the Faith to those Designs, and made it Earthly and Sensual, or their Negligence and Stupidity suffered the Enemy in the night of Ignorance to sow the tares, which so grew up and choked the Wheat, that Faith was turned into Fables and Lies, Foppery and Superstition were Nicknamed Devotion, Ridiculous Gestures and Habits passed for Repentance and Mortification, the Bible was shut up and contemned, and the Legends opened and praised, Honest and Good Men were butchered, and unknown Persons and Malefactors, canonised, Saints with their Pictures and Relics were made Rivals to Christ in Mediation and Intercession, Good Works were spoiled by Merit and Arrogance, or done by way of composition for vices, the fear of Hell was abated by the invention of Purgatory, Christ was fetch from Glory by the Magic of a Priest, and put into a Wafer, or into a more sordid place, riddles and quirks of their Schools were made Articles of Faith; in short, old truths were rooted up, and new errors grafted on them, Power and Profit were Styled the church; the court of Rome was brought into the Temple and called the Holy of Holies. Such errors as these in the christian Faith came from Rome, and infected our Ancient British church (not at first planted by the Labours of the Romish Bishops of old, but corrupted by their later Emissaries) and lasted a long time among us, being supported by Power, twisted with Interest, suitable to the pleasures and vices of Men, incorporated into the Government, having put out men's reason to try and discern between Truth and Error, and at length became Fashionable, Legal, Terrible with Fires and censures which made us Sick unto death, absolute almost and beyond recovery; Such was our condition here of Slavery and Ignorance, but it pleased him that dwells between the Golden Candlesticks, to dispel our Darkness and restore the Ancient light of Primitive Christianity. His Wisdom and Goodness improving the passions and inclinations of some in temporal changes and concerns to Spiritual purposes, encouraging the secret groans and desires of others, putting many more upon search and enquiry after Truth, and infusing courage for it, at length came to a resolution of Arguing and Debating the Errors of the Romish Faith and manners, of reforming the abuses in Discipline and Devotion and to call back True Christianity again, and being dispossessed of the Spirit of Rome which oft tore them and rend them till they foamed again, are now clothed and in their Wits once more; upon this account the Friends of Rome call us Heretics, Schismatics and Innovators, Discharge Censures and Excommunications and Eternal Damnation against us, are full of Wrath and indignation, and to show a little Wit in their Anger, And pretended reason, pertly ask the Question, where was our Religion before Luther.  
This is the common and trite objection against our Religion, very frequent not only in the Mouths of their 
Bellarmine. Campian. Smith.  more Ordinary Disciples, but also of their more Learned Writers, who (whatever strength they really fancy may be in the Argument itself) think it a very proper Weapon to attempt the Vulgar and the Weak withal, to amuse and dazzle the less discerning eve, at least when back● and set off with the stately Names of Infallibility, Succession, Antiquity, and the like; and they tell us roundly our Faith was but yesterday, our Religion is new and upstart, as only Henry the Eights and cromwell's contrivance (they may truly say as much as their Treason was Cecils Plot,) That our Faith began only in the year 1517, in Saxony by one Martin Luther an Apostate Friar, who for the sake of a fair Nun and other designs renounced the Ancient Faith, and set up his new Device of Protestantism at Spires; which did not quietly last much above seven years, for in the year 
Bellar. Tom. lib. 4. p. 287  1. 25. starts up Zuinglius, & after two years more he Anabaptists, who change and correct Luther's Religion, and draw great numbers of his disciples from him; and himself for his reward died a strange Death, great Noises and Cracking were heard in his Tomb, which being opened, neither Body nor Bones were found, and the smell of Brimstone was ready to stifle the standers by. And therefore they say, we ought to look from whence we are fallen, to repent of our Heresy, and return to our first Love, and not stick so close to our Religion, the new invention of so ill a Man. That we may therefore keep those firm that are members of our Religion, and bring those back that have revolted from us into the Romish Communion, we have endeavoured to give a satisfactory Answer to this their Question, Where was your Religion before the times of Luther? Not to trouble ourselves with such Legends as these, and Uncharitableness along with them, the Answer is thus.  
1. Telling them plainly where our Religion was before Luther's time.  
2. By showing what Errors and Mistakes are included in the Question  
3. To turn the Question upon themselves, and ask them some others of the like nature.  
1. The plain Answer to the Question is this: That our Religion was long before the times of Luther, and believed and settled in many Kingdoms and Nations of the World, and hath neither Novelty nor Singularity in it. 'Tis an old Religion, I am sure 'tis of Age and can speak for itself. It hath lasted now these 1600 years and more, founded at first by Christ and his Apostles, handed down to us through many Sufferings and Persecutions, and here it is preserved. It contracted indeed in the coming down a great deal of rust by the Falseness and Carelessness of its keepers, particularly by the Church of Rome, we scoured off the rust, and kept the metal; that's the Romish Religion, this is the English. They added False Doctrines to the Christian Faith, we left the one and kept to the other; this is Ancient, those are New. Our Religion is the same with that of the Early Christians, Martyrs, and Confessors, believed in the first 300 years, and defended by all Councils truly General; Our Religion in those first Ages was in Palestine and Greece, in Egypt, in Antioch where the Disciples 
Acts 11. 26.  were fi●st called Christians and in Rome itself, and wherever the great labours of her first Apostles carried her to the different and re●ote Countries of the World: Then and there our Religion l●v'd, where Peter, Linus, and Cletus, and all the first and Pious Bishops of Rome did. It suffered indeed great variety of changes and conditions, by the interest and wickedness of men, sometimes more Adulterated, and sometimes more Pure, it flitted from Country to Country, sometimes greater and sometimes smaller in its number, sometimes in a dejected, and sometimes in a more flourishing state, but somewhere or other it was entire and without mixture, as it was at first given unto the world, and such an old Religion as this we are of, holding fast neither more nor less, neither adding to, nor diminishing what Christ and his Apostles taught; and i● Antiquity must evidence the Truth of our Religion, we are safe and secure that we have right on our side. And this will appear if we consider these following things.  
1. What Conformity our Religion carries to that of Christ and his Apostles. Let any impartial eye compare them both together, and he will find the features and complexion, the whole body of Religion the same in both. Whatever they delivered out at first, as Fundamental to Salvation, whatever they instituted as parts of Devotion, Discipline, and Order, we still faithfully retain in our Church, and if any Truth of moment hitherto by Fraud or Negligence be concealed from her, she is ready to receive it, when ever it is made plain, not having stopped up the way of Truth by a pretence of Infallibility or want of Modesty to confess an error. She hath the same sense of the Nature, Offices, the Design and whole Undertake of Christ, that the truly Ancient Church had; She receives the Creed and Bible, and any Traditions that can be made out to be truly Divine, in the same meaning and understanding that Christ and his Apostles gave to the first Christians, and they to us. What their thoughts of Saints and holy Souls departed were, ours are, thoughts of respect, remembrance and imitation, not divine Worship. Christ instituted proper Figures, and Symbols of Bread & Wine, to represent and confirm, to convey and commemorate his bloody Passion and Benefits to Mankind; in this sense She preserves the Institution sacred, and doth not really Sacrifice or Crucify the LORD of Life again. Christ commanded good works under the penalty of eternal Damnation, She doth the same, and in our Master's language bids the doers of them call themselves unprofitable Servants, beating down Pride and Merit. Christ and his Apostles told the World what departing Souls must expect; Her sense is the same, that there are not second Ventures and Trials to be made, neither can a kind Friend with a good Estate, left for Masses or Monks, compound for a Life ill spent. Run through the whole constitution of our Church in Articles of Faith, and Rules of Manners, you may trace them to Christ and his Apostles time, and all other parts of her Government and Order are truly Primitive. And it must needs be so, if She sincerely follows her rule of Faith, the holy Scriptures, so Ancient, so Divine, and whatever is declared there essential to Salvation She brings into her Creed, and resolves to keep it, like a mighty Treasure, faithfully unto death. And indeed the Church of Rome confesses, that what we do retain is ancient and Apostolical; but pretends that we are defective in many things, and want some necessaries which they have, to make an entire Faith. But we challenge them to prove that those opinions wherein we differ from them were delivered by Christ or any men divinely inspired in those times. And they seem to acknowledge we do not, and therefore to make up the matter, pretend a Divine Authority in the Church, to cast new Articles, and Truth's fere de fide, almost fit for a Creed, and some others of them confess that some of their Opinions as Image-Worship and others were not maintained in the first Ages of Christianity for fear of coming too near the Heathens Worship and out of other Prudential considerations, so that whosoever doth compare the Doctrine of our Church, with that of Christ and his Apostles, must needs conclude that our Religion is Ancient Christianity, and that the charge of Novelty is groundless.  
2. The Nature of Reformation, which was not to found a New Church but correct an old one, Christianity that Pearl of great price, was hid with trash and 
Mat, 13. 3.  filth, that the Romish Church had heaped upon it, our Reformers removed only what loaded and obscured it, and restored it to its first Beauty and Lustre. Such a Reformation indeed is later than their errors, and it must needs be so, it naturally supposing them before, otherwise 'tis not Reformation but a destructive change; but Primitive Christianity which is our Religion was long before the D●sease of Popery, though the cure of this Disease was after, or later than the disease itself, but the sound Body of Christianity for which we are concerned, was before them both, for 'tis not Reformation barely that we are pleased withal, no more then with a Pill or Potion, but only as necessary to drive away an inveterate Disease, and recover an old Religion to its ●ormer Health. When Christ reform the Jewish Religion from the false senses and glosses that the Scribes and Pharisees had put upon it, and grafted Christianity upon the old stock, will the Romanists call this a New Religion, or rather an old one well amended and improved by Divine Authority, Bellarmin doth allow this for Truth, and saith that Christianity was rather a new State and Condition than a new church, and he that can call our Religion New, because 'tis mended, and made now, what it was about 1600 years ago, may affirm that Christ built a new Temple when he Whipped the buyers and sellers out of the old. And that Hezekiah built a 
2 Chron. 305  New Sanctuary, and Instituted a New Passover, because he cleansed the one and restored the other to its first Institution; our Reformation did no more, it only scaled off the Leprosy that stuck to the Body of the Romish church, it only paired off those Additions that Interest or Superstition, Niceness or Foppery, had glued to it; what after remained, was our Religion, the same that Christ and his Apostles taught the world at first. And if they can show that any thing hath been added since, pernicious to the Nature of the True and Old Religion, our church is ready to remove it, or that any thing is wanting that is necessary to its compliment and perfection, she is ready to entertain it with the same spirit of meekness and Wisdom, and Regard to the Gospel, that she used in the Reformation; but hitherto upon good grounds and strict inquiry She is fully satisfied that Her Religion is absolute and complete Christianity.  
3. We have many and impartial Judges on our side, that our Religion is Pure and Old Christianity. The particular church of Rome indeed, that supports herself by a pretended Infallibility, to be true to her Principle, refuses to be tried by any other Church but will be only Judge of herself, and others too; yet we that are certain and sure of the Truth of our Religion, though not Infallible, dare appeal to the Judgement of other Christian churches. The Greek church condemns their half Communion, the Doctrines of Purgatory, Merit and Supererogation. The Adoration of Images, their locking up the Scriptures in an unknown Tongue, their extreme Unction, and sale of Masses, and laughs at their Infallibility, the thing that makes their errors in Faith incorrigible; the Arminian Christians reject the Supremacy 
Baron. Tom. 10. P. 256.  of the Pope, Transubstantiation, Purgary, and excommunicate those that worship Images. The Jacobites, the Indians of St. Thomas, the Egyptian and Abassine Christians, descent from most or all of the Romish errors which we condemn. We have all the truly ancient Christian Churches on our side, and most of the Modern whom the busy Emissaries of Rome have not terrified or seduced into their Party: Our Writters have appealed with great success to the Ancient Councils, the holy Fathers, and to the Learned and Pious Bishops and Priests of old, and from thence discovered the Novelty of the Romish Faith, and the good old way of the English Church. And they dare not stand the trial, when we desire to be determined by the best and infallible Judge, the holy Scriptures, except they must give the meaning of them, otherwise they load them with Ignominious Names, of ● Lesbian rule, mere Ink and Paper, and a Nose of Wax. Who will they be tried by? by a Council truly General? No, except it be called, managed, and Confirmed by the Pope. Will they be Judged by any that differ from them, yet are men of good, honest, and unprejudiced Judgements? No, they are out of the pale of the Church, and stubborn Heretics. And the best reason they have for their assurance, that they are in the right, is, that they are sure they are so, and keep themselves safe in their Enchanted Castle of Infallibility. The Arabian Philosopher was offended at, and abhorred their barbarous Doctrine of Transubstantiation. and eating of their God, and resolved to stick to his Philosophical rather than be of such a Christian Religion. The Roman Images, and the Worship of them, have laid a Stumbling block before the Jews, who therefore approved our Sentence and condemnation of them; having therefore such a number of good Testimonies and Judgements on our side, we rise up and reverence the grey Hairs of our Religion, which Rome once clothed in a wanton and fantastic dress, and made it ridiculous; which because we have pulled off, and put on its ancient habit, and made it look manly with the Image of GOD and Christ upon it, they call us Innovators. Many of their own Writers have spoke in favour of the English Church, and many of their distinctions in a fair sense have concluded for her Doctrine, and shown their dislike of many opinions of their own Church.  
4. That our Religion was long before Luther will appear from the oppositions that were made to the Papal corruptions, which did not enjoy so quiet a life, but were frequently disturbed, and cried o●t against, not only by other Churches, but by many honest and considering men in their own Communion. Men they were, not of Interest and Discontent, Peevishness, and given to change, of little Learning and less conscience, and not in the World, but men eminent in their Generation, men of Probity and Studies, of Temper and consideration; men that stood not alone, but had great numbers of Disciples, a visible Society of Christians, who followed their Judgements. Some of these sadly bewailed the degenerate state of the Roman church; others petitioned for, and advised not only the correction of the abuses of good Doctrines and innocent Institutions, but the Reformation of gross Errors and scandalous Additions to the christian Faith, and others in great Authority promised an amendment and to reduce the whole frame of christianity to its Primitive sense & Model. And the famous council of Trent was promised and begun to rectify Errors and Abuses crept into the Romish Faith and Government, yet after a long Sitting it fatally concluded, confirming those corruptions which was hoped after so many complaints and addresses with strong reasons for them, should have been throughly redressed and reformed. The Original of their barbarous Inquisition will be a standing record of the frequent and stout oppositions that were made against the Romish Innovation in the christian Faith. And so long as the Blood of the numerous Albigenses and Waldenses cries to Heaven for Vengeance against the Papal cruelty, we have a cloud of Witnesses for this Truth, who resisted unto Death the new Doctrines of Rome. The carriage of old Wicliff and his Followers, tells us plainly in story, that the corruptions of Rome had no such quiet possession, but ever and anon some or other inconsiderable numbers did endeavour to eject them out of their hold, though they paid dear for it. And so long as the Treachery of their council of Constance about the safe conduct granted to poor Huss, and his Disciples in number above forty thousand, remains upon record never to be forgotten or forgiven, so long we have clear evidences of strong resistance made to the Romish Religion before the times of Luther. And in most Countries and times, where and when the Romish corruptions began from small and obscure beginnings to be gross and plain some or other in greater or lesser numbers began to Renounce and Protest against them. What though some of these early Reformers might hold some erroneous Opinions which we ourselves condemn, yet however they opposed the Romish Church in her corruptions and these tended to a Reformation, which was completed only by degreed and 'tis no wonder some Stumbled in such a night of Ignorance. And have not the Agents of Rome destroyed the Papers and Records, disguised their Adversaries, and falsified their Opinions to serve the power and Interest of their great Mistress? They therefore branded the Waldenses with the name of Manichaism, and that they affirmed two Principles or Originals of all things, because they asserted that the Emperor was independent of the Pope, and that they denied CHRIST to be the Son of GOD, because they could not believe a crust of Bread to be CHRIST. And they have framed as lewd stories against many excellent Men of the lat●r Ages who withstood the approaches of their Doctrine and Government, which we certainly know, and the more ingenuous among them confess, to be notoriously false. Though we have reason to believe (because of the severity and industry of the Romish Factors ever warm against those who opposed her Practices) a great number of Honest and Learned Men (as those Ages would afford) are buried in obscurity and their names unknown, there being an Expurgatorian Index for the merits of such Men as well as Books and Editions, yet we have a sufficient Catalogue of them who kept up the Title and claim of old Christianity, & would not suffer their new Errors to plead prescription.  
2. By showing what Errors and Mistakes are included in the Question.  
1. That these new Errors of Rome are absolutely necessary to the being of a Christian Church: For though we believe all that Christ and his Apostles taught, all things that are contained in the Holy Scriptures, all things that undoubted Tradition, or good Reason proves to drive themselves from both or either, yet because we do not assent and Subscribe to the new Articles of Faith that Rome hath invented for us, we cease to be a Christian Church, are marked for Heretics, which are worse than Pagans with them, and must be certainly damned. Nay, should we embrace all the other Doctrines of Rome, and deny only the Pope's Authority and Supremacy, (that Epitome of their Christianity) it would avail us little, we are Heathens still. Should we reject but one Article of Pope Pius' Creed, suppose the Doctrine of Purgatory or Merit, yet because this question's Infallibility, the centre of all their Religion, we are in the state of Damnation still: Should we receive their Doctrines as probable and in a larger and more favourable meaning, yet because we do not entertain them as Articles of Faith in the sense of the Church, our case is not mended, we shall mee● with Fires here and hereafter for our reward. Should we wink and swallow them all down with a good Catholic stomach, yet i● the Bishop of Rome should give out a new Edition of Faith, enlarged with many more monstrous Doctrines and Opinions, yet if we boggle and kick at them, all our former Righteousness shall not not be remembered, we are Apostates worse than Truks and Infidels; and who can tell what this Infallible and powerful Guide of ●●●●stendom will do? For when things obscure, or of an indifferent Nature, when things wherein they differ among themselves, and only serve a temporal Interest, when Opinions which they can dispense withal upon occasion, when only the modes and manner of Truth, when Contradictories, and Doctrines directly leading unto impiety, and things Barbarous and Blasphemous have been christened Articles of Faith and Fundamentals of Religion, have we not just reason to suspect as ill or worsé may be done again? And the intrigues of Trent may be acted once more, and as many new Articles of Faith as Titular Bishops, by the same Spirit moving in the same manner: were not the first and early Christians sound Members of Christ's Body though they never thought of such wild Opinions as these, and published truths directly contrary to them? And could I suppose them to have known these Innovations, out of Zeal and Fidelity to their trust, would have detested and abhorred them. Was Christ negligent in the discharge of his mighty Office, and his Apostles defective in their Duties and Ministry, not to acquaint the first Christians with these great truths, and were they revealed in the Tridentine Council only to us upon whom the ends of the world are come. These Primitive Disciples of Christ thought themselves secure of Heaven by this short Creed, that Jesus was the Christ the Son of God. And the contrary was the character of the Man of Sin, that denied that Jesus was come in the Flesh, that he was the God incarnate and the true Messiah, and were scandalised at his meanness and obscurity. S. Paul told the Jailor, that certainly he would be saved if he believed that Jesus was the Christ, all other Fundamentals of Christianity one way or other being necessarily included in that belief: And thought that he made sincere and sound Disciples, if they believed what he preached only Jesus and the Resurrection, in their full compass and latitude. Though we believe all this in a more express and explicit sense, all that is contained in Scripture, in the Apostles Creed, or the two other Creeds drawn up by the Church to explain the Christian Religion in some Articles, and to oppose the Doctrines of Heretics, yet the first Christians shall be saved and we shall be damned; they shall be the Elect and the Church of GOD, we must be Reprobates and the Synagogue of Satan. Or let Rome show her wont Charity, and say she doubts also of their Salvation. Or did Christ connive at that time of Ignorance, or had he as a Lawgiver forgot to declare some part of the Will and Pleasure of GOD, and upon better remembrance after so many hundred years, suggested it to his careful Vicar? Or did Christ, knowing their Nature and Circumstances of it, that they could not bear them at that time, therefore delay the discovery so long? Or did these new Articles lie hid so long concealed by his Apostles, or buried by some lewd Heretics in the rubbish of those Churches they pulled down, but afterwards found, (as they say the Cross was) and now stored to light? Or are these new Articles some way or other contained in the ancient Creeds which we believe, and by easy and natural consequences deduced from them. Some such fine reasons as these must be pretended, otherwise we can safely conclude that our Church is truly ancient and Apostolical, though she disowns the late inventions of the Romish Bishop and is known to be the Spouse of Christ by her first features and complexion, though she hath cast off the new Italian dress. For, was the Christian Church the House of GOD, irregular in its building, wanting of Beams and Pillars, the Essentials of Religion, till Rome's curious and careful Builder cast it into a new Model and completed it?  
2. This Question supposeth that the Christian Church ought always to be visible, which is not so strictly true. For Visible or Invisible make not two Churches, but different States, Conditions or Respects of one and the same. 'Twas designed by Christ, that all that are baptised into the Communion of his Faith, and Church, should make an Outward and Vissible Profession of it, by their Religious Assemblies and Worship, by their Sacraments, Discipline, and Government, whereby being United among themselves, and to Christ their Head, they should constitute one Body called the Catholic church, in whose Communion they must live and die. But so it came to pass, that the number of Christian People so professing and owning the Faith of Jesus, was lesser or greater, more conspicuous or obscure, as Persecutions or Heresies grew and prevailed among them, which like raging Plagues wasted whole Countries. destroying some, perverting others, and making many fly into remoter Kingdoms, and only some scattered and solitary Christians living in Caves and Wildernesses remained behind, or only the face of a distressed Christian Church, as it happened to the Seven Asian and African Churches, which now labour under a Mahometan Pride and Superstition: But as it lost in one Country it gained in another, the Jewish Persecution and others driving several Colonies of Christians into remoter Countries, where they spread and enlarged their Religion, and many times the distress or triumph of the Church followed the changes and revolutions in the Civil State, suffering or flourishing with it. And often the abuse of Religion, Prostituting of it to Hypocrisy and secular ends, the wicked lives of its Disciples, or want of Courage or Resolution in its defence, hath tempted Providence to permit pestilent Heresies (worse than that in these Northern parts) to prevail, and Paganism to return again, but still the promise of Christ to his Church was firm, and the Gates of Hell did not prevail against her. And though he was forced sometimes to travel from Country to Country, and look● small and obscure in the number of her Followers, yet still some or other parts and corners of the World, and true and zealous Christians in them made up the little flock, and shall never fail while the World endures. Popery like the Egyptian darkness had overspread this and other Nations, yet here and there was as the Israelite that had light in his dwellings, and a counter-charm against the Enchantments of Egypt, the Gospel that at length did prevail against corruptions, and made its Followers visible and numerous. They ask us, Where was our Religion before Luther? As though it was not, because it did not visibly appear; or no where in the World, because not here in England or in other parts where Popery did domineer, and the Romish Faction was all and whole Christianity in the World, the Catholic Church, which implies contradiction and absurdity. Christianity here indeed was obscured, and like the Sun under the cloud; but still the Sun was the same, and at length conquered the Mists: 'tis a fine Question to ask, Where was the Sun before Noon day? We will suppose her Followers to be few, yet Christ is true, though others are liars; for he never promised that the Members of the true Catholic church should be always famous for their numbers, or that multitudes should always follow Truth, nor ever directed men to follow the Multitude in search of Truth, which is found otherways. not by Votes and Polling for her. Did not our Saviour ask the question, when he should come again, whither at the Destruction of Jerusalem, or at the Judgement day whereof the other was a Type and Prefiguration, whither he should find Faith on Earth or no: Did not the Prophet 
Luk. 1●. ●  sadly complain in the Reign of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, Kings of Judah, that the good man is perished out 
Mich, 7. 2  of the Land, and there is none righteous among men; they could not then reckon up of the Tribe of Judah Twelve thousand, and yet there was true Faith, and a Church of GOD though little and Obscure. Doth not King David cry 
Psal. 12. 1.  out, Help Lord, for the Godly man ceaseth, for the faithful fail from among the children of Men, corruption in Faith and Manners usually going together. And Elijah tells a sad story of the Children of Israel, that they 
1 Kin. 19 10  had broken their Covenant, and destroyed the Altars, and the Prophets, and he only was left alive, that they sought his life also, God tells him that yet for all that he had seven 
vers. 18.  thousand knees that had not bowed to Baal; still there was a small Church not infected with Idolatry, though obscure and unknown to Elijah. Have not some of the Romish Writers told us, that at Christ's Passion the Church was only left in the Virgin Mary, all then forsaking Christ but the holy Mother. The Shepherd was smitten and the Sheep dispersed. And they farther confess, that in the times of Antichrist there shall be neither Pope, Monk, nor. Mass, (if this be all, that Monster is not so terrible as he is painted) and their Annalists complain of such sad things as these in the tenth Century. And certainly they have read of 
Ver. 12. 6. 11. 7. 1 Cor. 3. 12.  the Woman in the Wilderness, and the Witnesses slain, and of Hay and Stubble co●ering the Foundation, Which describe the deplorable condition of the Christian Church, and Fopperies, Niceties, and Inventions of men obscuring the Essentials of the Christian Faith, Should a Revolt happen (which GOD divert) from the Reformed Church of England to Romanism again, might not others ask them the same Question, Where was your Religion before Eighty three or Eighty four, before snch a time? Would they not answer at Rome and in England also, only kept under and obscured by Heretics and Tyrannical Princes. Ours was also here locked up in Bibles, owned by some numbers, desired by more, only frighted from a visible profession of it, by the Torments that did attend it. And Christianity though not so visible, yet was purer when it, and its professors dwelled in Rocks and Mountains and Den●, places of Privacy and obscurity, in the Reigns of Nero and Di●clesian, then when some Kings were its Nursing Fathers, and Qu●ens its Nursing Mothers, and took possession of the seven Hills. And there was a true Church of God though overlayed and groaning under Arrianism as before Persecution, and in Cyprians time, as ours once under the Popish Yoke. And 
Cypr, Epist. p. 59 Ox, Edit. aspice totum orbem pene vastum, etc.  the truth of Christianity, like the truth and essence of other things, depends not upon splendid entertainment or judgement of others, nor the Church upon the Visible number of its Members, but it may be a true Church whither visible or hid, which this Question denies.  
3. This Question supposeth that the Roman Church cannot err, but that it remained pure and undefiled, as it came from the hands of Christ, through the many Centuries of years, till it came to the times of Luther, and from thence shall so continue till the World's end, and therefore we made a false charge against them of corruptions in their Religion, to excuse our Innovation. But we have reason to conclude She hath foully erred from the Faith, and that more fatally and obstinately, because She pretends She cannot err. For upon what grounds doth She found Her Infallibility? Upon the Scriptures? They are only so many dead Letters, till the breadth of the Church doth give them life, and they are then to do the Church a good turn and give her Infallibility, which is such a Circle, as makes men's Brains so giddy turning round in it, that they scarce know what, he Scriptures, and what the Church do mean: the places of Scripture to prove Infallibility are such, which have only reference to the Apostles themselves, their Doctrines or Confessions of Faith, as Divine and Infallible, but not to their pretended Successors. Or else they are restrained, not simply 
Mat. 16. 18. joh. 16. 13. Mat. 28. 20  unto all truth, but only unto all truth that is necessary to Salvation, in which the Pope or a Council cannot err, while they follow the Spirit of Truth in the Scriptures, and not compel the Spirit and Scriptures to follow them. For they do not irresistibly force the minds of Christians into truth: Or else relate only to the Catholic Church and not 
Mat. 18. 20.  to the particular Roman, or else are applicable to private Assemblies and their Worship of God, which no body but Quakers and Enthusiasts think to be infallible. And all the first Ages of Christianity and undoubted Tradition never in the least imagined such an Infallibility as now the Church of Rome dreams of. They are at War among themselves where this Infallibility is lodged, either in the Pope alone, or in a General Council alons, or in both together, the Pope sitting in person there, or by his Legates, or in the council confirmed by the Pope; till they agree among themselves and prove it better, we say 'tis no no where placed but in the Scriptures, and they do not prove any other person or persons upon Earth to be infallible in their determinations. To say such an infallible Judge of Controversies to guide the Church, is absolutely necessary; and therefore Divine Providence hath placed him some where or other, and who but the Pope can be the man? is only to prescribe methods unto GOD, and teach him how to govern his Church, and not be thankful for the good old ways of Salvation and Peace (Scriptures, an honest Judgement with Divine assistance and humane means) he hath chalked out for us, but contrive some new ones of their own. Such infallibility must be of no use to the Church of GOD, for upon the Romish principles, it cannot be known, for the Pope before he be Infallible must be Bishop of Rome, but the Sacrament of Order, according to the Council of Trent, receives its validity from the intention of the Priest, that when he ordained him Bishop, he did what the Church intended, and who can tell upon these grounds, what this supposed Priest was, who gave this Order, or dyve into his thoughts and intentions, which their Casuists confess may sometimes be very perverse. But if there be this Infallibility at Rome, why do not the Countries and Religious Orders in 
Archbishop Laud against Fisher, 27 2.  them still under their Dominion receive the blessed Fruits of it, and still all the brawls and squables among themselves, if his Holiness be at leisure, and it be worth his while: And why should not the Champions of Rome bend all their power to prove this main point of Infallibility, when all other controversies would fall under and submit unto its power, a compendious way to make the Christian world at Peace and Unity with its self. But why need we labour to disprove the Pope's Infallibility, when themselves put their shoulders to it, and do the work for us, in disputing among themselves, whither the Pope being an Heretic may be deposed, by which Question they confess that he may fall into heresy; which is error of the highest nature, carrying wilfulness and obstinacy with it. And acordingly these Infallible men have been guilty of Heresies, as Pope Honorius of Monothelitism; and Liberius of Arrianism and the like, and many of them lived most debauched lives, as fatal to Christianity as Heresy, and Fallibility, and wherein Providence is highly concerned. This Doctrine of Infallibility looks like a plain contrivance of the Romish Church, having some way or other slipped into these gross errors from small beginnings, & finding them not defensible by all the sleights and arts of their cunning heads, are forced to quit their hold and betake themselves to their common Sanctuary of Infallibility, that let these things be what they will in dispute between us and them. they are sure they are great Truths by virtue of Infallibility, which is one of the Miracles of Rome, which can change the nature of things, 
Fowlis hist. Preface p. 1.  which may be true in England, and the quite contrary at Rome, as Father Cotton and other Jesuits affirmed at Paris. For it's plain to all impartial judgements, that their Doctrine of Purgatory, Transubstantiation, and the like, are not to be found in the Scriptures, are utterly unknown to the truly ancient Fathers and the eldest and purest times of Christianity, and contrary to the reason of mankind. They may as well tell us that the City of Rome was never sacked and spoiled because some Flatterers humoured her Pride and arrogance calling her 
Vrbs aeterna & immobile saxum. Grot in Apoc. c. 17.  the immortal city and impregnable Rock, as that these gross errors never invaded and ruined the Christian faith, because of the fine name of Infallibility, which they arrogate to themselves. And may as well put out our eyes, and then bid us see if we can discover any errors in the Romish Church. And St. Peter's being at Rome proves no more that he left Infallibility behind him, than consecrated clouts sent from Rome that the Infant that wears them shall ever after be a firm defender of the Romish Faith.  
4. This Question will serve any Heresies or errors that have got some Antiquity on their side against a Reformation. If it be true in this case, 'tis so in all others, and then what a shelter have they provided for all Heresies, if they chance to live long, to be safe and secure in, and escape correction. And there are many errors contemporary with Christianity itself in its first plantation in the World, at least followed it very close at the heels, such were the Ancient Gnostics, the Carpocrations or Ebionites, the spawn of Magus and others, who can plead great Antiquity on their side, and as properly ask any Reformer of their Heresies, Where was his Religion before such a time, as the inconstant World began to favour his new Faith and Innovation. And so Errors once superinduced upon the Truth, will become by Age Truth itself, and are never to be mended for fear of this pert Question, and charge of Innovation. And it's plain that new and old are but uncertain Characters to judge of Truth and Falsehood by, there being sometimes a new Truth that is lately discovered to be so, but really old, and an old error kept up a long time by force or art, and walking in the garb of Truth, but truly new, having come in after the Truth it vies with: Time like a River many times bringing down Straw and Trash, & leaving weightier things behind, which when they come to be retrieved are called new Fashions and Inventions. When Abraham restored the true Worship of GOD, and stripped it of Idolatry and Superstition, the Chaldean Priests, whose Power and Interest was shaken by it, were very brisk and ready to charge this pious and mighty Man from the East, with Novelty and Singularity in his Religion, the false service of GOD in 
Isaiah 41. 2.  these Countries being then ancient and almost universal, though the Patriarches Religion did derive itself from a very ancient stock, that of adam's in Paradise, kept up by an Enoch and a Noah in single Families, when all Flesh had corrupted their ways, and now delivered unto Abraham, and now all the 
Gen. 6. 11.  sticklers for a false Religion began to upbraid the Sons and Followers of Abraham's Faith with Novelty, and asked them, Where was your Religion before the times of Abraham? who set up his but yesterday, and scorns and uncharitably damns all his Forefathers, who of old lived beyond the River in our Religion. The same Objection might have been cast in the teeth of Moses, when he was settlling a Religion delivered to him by GOD, in opposition to the Idolatries and false Devotions of the World, and to serve his farther designs of providence; that he affected Novelty and Singularity; that all the World stood against him in this; and one of his Disciples afterward was inhuman and uncharitable in praying 
Psalm 79. 6.  GOD to pour out his indignation upon the Heathen, who had not known his Laws. And his Successor Joshua might have met 
Josb. 24. 15.  with the same fare, when he bids his People choose whom they will serve, either the Gods beyond the Flood, and in Egypt, or the Gods of the Amorites, Old and great Nations, who might have had this Objection in its full strength on their side, or the GOD of Abraham, and stoutly tells them, Let that plausible Argument weigh withthem what it will, as for myself and his Family they would serve the LORD. And as this Religion might degenerate in descending Ages, so any Restorer of it might be set upon by the same frivolous Objection, and so it happened to our Messiah (and his forerunner who was to restore all things) who when he began to reform the false glosses, and corrupt senses, which the Scribes and Pharisees had put upon the Law of Moses, and cry down their Traditions which made the Commands of GOD of none effect, was looked upon as an Enemy to Moses, a Blasphemer of the Law, a Profaner of the Temple, and a Changer of all their Religion, whose Design was only to fill up their Law, and restore it to its Natural Beauty and Perfection, and before Abraham was, I am, not only in his Divine Nature, and designation to his Office, but in his Religion also, which now he was going to to teach the jew and Gentle too. And 
Heb. 9 10.  now the times of a general Reformation being come and the Apostles were Preaching this excellent Religion unto all the World, Jew and Gentile conspire together in the same Language and call them setters forth of strange Gods and new 
Acts 24. 14. Acts 28. 22  Heresies, Heads and Contrivers of new Sects▪ and Ways, and are whipped for Vagrants and Impostors, who would cheat the World out of their old paternal Religions, that were entailed upon them, teach them to speak ill of the Gods of their Fathers, and Predecessors, and to think they all died in a false Religion, and to embrace a new-fangled Faith of a few illiterate and rambling fellows who had turned the World upside down. And had this Argument prevailed then, as much as the Romanists do desire it should new, we should have had no Christianity among us, the Idol-Gods of our, Ancestors in this Island, their Woodens and Twisters would have prescribed against Christ himself.  
3. To turn the Question upon them, and ask them some others of the like nature. Men that are insolent, and ever boasting of the Antiquity of their Family, and upbraiding others with their obscure Birth and Extraction, do many times meet with some cross Questions about the Head and Fountain of their Families, which many times proves only to be a Shepherd, or meaner Original, made glorious with arrogant Titles and borrowed Names. Search into the Pedigree of Rome's Religion, we do not find Christ, or St. Peter, or any of his Apostles to be the Authors of it; but Pride, Interest, and Design, old Vices indeed, but new Fathers of a Christian church, which brought in a late and new generation of Opinions, and additions to Christ's Religion, clothing them with the venerable Names of Primitive and Apostolical. Where was the Romish Religion before the Council of Trent concluded only about the year 1563. of a latter date then when Luther first began, which legitimated all their Innovations, the issue of Scholastic Wranglings, pretended Dream's, and Visions, forced and unnatural, Senses of Scripture, Ambition and Profit, the Fxchequer of Rome, to be made Sons of the Church and Fundamentals of the Christian Faith. Many of their own Writers confess that for 1400 or ● 500 years the Pope was not believed to be infallible, till of late some of their flaming Zealots have vested him with infallibility, whereby the Roman Church is sick unto death, and no cure is to be applied, because she is so certain and sure that she is well. Their lewd Doctrine of Transubstantiation, was not made an Article of Faith, till the Council of La●eran under Innocent the third, above 1200 years after Christ, and many of their own Writers are still dissatisfied about it. The Title of Universal Bishop was obtained by Pope Boniface the Third, not till about 600 years after Christ, fearing a powerful Rival the Constantinopolitan Bishop, who affected the same, and therefore by the Popes themselves was declaimed against as proud and Antichristian, but now by Hypocrisy and base compliance with the wicked Phocas, who was guilty of Treason and Murder against the Emperor Mauritius, Rome gained the delicious point, and has made it a fundamental Article of her new Religion, though the Popes came not up to their swaggering temper and Power of Hectoring Christian Princes some hundred of years afterwards. The Doctrine of Purgatory, which some derive from the Platonic Fancies of Origen, the Montanism of Tertullian, pretended Visions, and Pagan Stories, Rhetorical Flourishes, and doubtful Expressions of the later Fathers, yet it was not positively affirmed till about the year 1140. and not made an Article of Faith till the Council of Trent, then indeed a good Estate became a surer way to Heaven then a good Life and Conversation. The use of indulgences was the Moral to the Fable of Purgatory, and began to grow much what about the same time, though it came not to the height and perfection till Pope Leo the Tenths time, when Luther so stoutly opposed them, than Heaven was set to sale, and the best Chapman was the greatest Saint, though they boast of the second Council of Nice for the Antiquity of their Image— Worship, (And if it will do thern any good, so they may of Simon Magus, who was of an elder date, and a very fit Patron of 
Acts 11. 13  such an Opinion) yet the Council of Frankfurt condemned it, and the purest times did not so much as allow the making of Images. And it was not the Catholic Doctrine in France for almost 900 years after Christ, nor in Germany till after the 12th C●●tury; then indeed such a Doctrine might be very proper, when true Religion was turned into Pageantry and a form of Godliness. The number of the seven Sacraments is now an Article of the Romish Faith, yet the Council of Florence ended in the year 1439 was the first Council, and Peter Lombard the first man that precisely fixed that number. That the Laity ought to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper only in one kind was never made an Article of Faith till the Council of Constance concluded in the year 1418; then indeed that Council with the greatest insolence, and a direct Invasion of the Authority of CHRIST, took the Cup from the Laymens' mouths, notwithstanding (as it was then acknowledged) the Institution of CHRIST to the contrary, and they may as well christian the Laics Children only in the name of the Holy Ghost, leaving out the Father and the Son by the way of concomitancy, it being as Lawful to Baptise as Communicate by the halves: For what cannot such a pretended Power do?  
The prohibiting of Priests to Marry was not in perfection, as 'tis now, till Pope Gregory the Sevenths' time. Let them tell us where 'tis said by Christ, or his Apostles, or any of the truly Ancient Writers of the christian Church, that Penance is a Sacrament, or that Auricular Confession is necessary to Salvation, or that Prayers ought to be made in an unknown Tongue, or that good works are strictly meritorious, or where can they find the many Impieties and absurdities of their Mass in those early times of Antiquity. And since they are fond of ask us this Question, we might ask them many more, about the many Fopperies and Innovations in their Faith and Devotion, and many they are, and large is the inventory, almost as many as are the Christian Truths in direct opposition to them, or prevarication from them: But they seem to confess the newness of their Religion, when they arrogantly set up a Power in their Church, to frame new Articles of Faith, and many things; only Opinions and Notions at first, have grown up by degrees to Fundamental Truths, and having once slipped into error, they are bound to maintain it, for the Reputation and Authority of Holy Church. And who knows how many of this Nature are upon the Romish forge, ready to be put into their Creed, and where must we end; not till it be believed. that consecrated Feathers and Holy Water, can convey Divine Grace to us, and drive away wicked Spirits, and the Weathercocks of our Churches be thought P●illars of it. Would the Champions of Rome speak out, they would tells us, as their Eckius did the Duke of Bavaria, That the Doctrine of Luther might be overthrown by the Fathers, though not by the Scriptures; 'tis a plain confession that we have the truest Antiquity on our side, and in the beginning it was not so. But we add, that we have the Fathers also on our side, for otherwise what mean their Expurgat orian Indices of the Fathers, and other Ancient Writters, but that they very well know, that these are old Enemies to Pope Pins' new Creed, and the Truth in them confounds their error. Such an account as this, about the Original and Progress of their new Additions to the old Faith was convenient to be given, not because the Nature of the thing did necessarily require it, for it had been sufficient only to have proved, that these Romish Additions to the Christian Faith, are contrary to the Word of GOD, and no where to be found in any of the Divine Writings, the only Infallible Rule of Faith, and that they have no power of minting new Articles Fundamental to Salvation▪ but because the Disciples of Rome so frequently ask us the Question, and lay so much stress upon it, 
Bellar. Tom. 2. p. 286.  if these are Innovations crept into their Church, who was the first Author of them? when did he begin? in whose Reign and in what place did he live? who did oppose him? what company believed on him? and what his new Opinions were as they instance in Arrianism and other Heresies? And because they fancy we cannot make all these particulars so absolutely plain. therefore they say we have falsely charged the Romish Church with new errors, and that their Faith is truly ancient and by an uninterrupted Succession of Infallible Bishops hath been conveyed down from Christ and his Apostles in its full purity to this present Age. To satisfy their curiosity, the defenders of the Reformation have done this; but suppose they could not have been so particular about the birth of these new Errors, or had made some mistakes in the compass of time, yet however the charge of Innovation against the Romish Church stands firm and good upon these accounts.  
1. That Reformation carries not so much a respect to the Error when it began, as to the Error itself. Not whither it be sooner or later, but whither it be an error contrary to the true Christian Faith. It may serve some honest purposes to know the who, and the when, the where, and the how, and other circumstances of its beginning, and proceeding; but the necessity of Reformation springs from the nature of the Error, which came from the invention of men, and not the Authority of Christ. And matters not much, whither Simon Magus, who was contemporary with the Apostles, was the first Author of it, or Pope Hildebr●●d at so great a distance. 'Tis enough, that we are certain and sure, that the Popish Doctrines which we condemn, by comparing them with the Scriptures, are not Christ's and his Apostles, have none of their Images or Superscriptions upon them, who only had full Authority to make them current, and true Articles of Faith. They have indeed indeed Christianity among them, but like Joseph's coat, so dipped in blood, so over-laced with Fopperies and undecent Ceremonies, and so many new pieces stitched to the old Cloth, that the old Fathers, if alive, would scarce know it to be the true Joseph's, and would not trouble themselves so much, to ask the time when this came to pass, as lament the sadness of the change. And the Apostles did not so much care to tell the punctual time to the Disciples when Antichrist should discover himself, as to make them stand upon their guard to defend that Faith which he would invade, where and whensoever he should come, or whosoever he was.  
2. The difficuity of knowing the precise and punctual times when Errors first began. In many sorts of Changes or Innovations, 'tis hard to know the nice time of their beginning, but some latitude of Judging is allowed, and why not in things especially relating to Religion. Are there not wild Opinions left upon Record among the Pagan Writers, whose Authors are either unknown, or which are fasely fathered upon others, and as hard to be known as the head of Nile. Can the nicest Romanist tell us what Rabbi; and in what place and age first superinduced the several false Glosses and Senses to the Law of Moses, yet our Saviour (though he knew them well) thought it sufficient to tell them, that in the beginning it was not so, and by comparing the Mosaic Religion, it plainly appears they were new additions to the good old way And how many Errors sprung up in times of Christianity, of whose Original and other Circumstances both the Romanists and ourselves are yet uncertain. And how many things of this nature more near our own times are we puzzled about, and the difficulty of knowing them ariseth principally from this twofold account.  
1. From the subtlety of the contrivers of Errors: Which many times are the cunning and the wise in their Generation, which the necessity of their cause requires; Truth being strong, and Error nuturally weak, and that sly deceiving Spirits lends it his utmost assistance to serve the design. Such men know how to disguise new Falsehoods in the old habits of Truth, to make them look ancient and venerable; they feel and know the temper of the age, and fit their Opinions to the interest and pleasure of it. They prepare their errors to be received by degrees, and one part must draw on the other, and the who●e must be insensibly swallowed down. So it happened in the adoration and invocation of Saints and Images, and the whole structure of the Romish▪ Religion, which by several steps and in many ages advanced to its mighty bulk. The cunning knew the consequences of their own positions, how far the● would reach, which the vulgar eye discerned not; they well foresaw how their Hey and Stubble, variety of Phrases, and changes of Syllables, would at length fire the Foundation of Religion, yet being invented at first by the Angelical Doctors and leaders of an Age, for fame and reputation sake, they & their followers first defended them for bare Truths, afterwards for Sacred and Fundamental ones; and things at first only piously believed, soon after have been adopted into a Creed: and men of Rashness and Superstition only great in Place and Office, have vented opinions whose fatal conclusions they at first, we hope; did not know, yet the cunning many times have hatched▪ what they left, and improved it fatally to Religion; the greatness of the man, whither an Innocent or an Hildebrand gave the error its first reputation, and the cunning of others its strength and argument. Many of the great and knowing heads of the World being corrupted unto the Roman side, to defend those errors which had got footing in the Church. But how can we unlock the secret methods of Rome, or describe the ways and policies by which the mystery of Iniquity works; Yet we are sure it's carried on, by the wind and turn of the Serpent, and men that he employs upon design to ruin truth; for when the Apostle describes the sad Apostasies and defections from the Faith, they are said to be wrought by men of Skill 
Eph. 4. 14.  and Art, who lie in wait to deceive.  
2, From the Passions and Infirmities of other men. These give the false and busy deceiver an easy Victory. When Opinions are so contrived as to serve the designs of Pride and Covetousness, Ambition and Lust, and other Vices they easily pass for mighty Truths, their Original is not enquired into, the Judgement is bribed and they bear the title of ancient and Primitive, or what the deceiver pleaseth: For these Passions have effeminated the mind, made it soft and sluggish, and any bold error shall slip down, rather than be at the charge of a farther search and enquiry to know whither these things be so or no. The Roman Religion being so well cut out in its different Doctrines, to hit men's Vices and Passions, Gaiety or Melancholy, Enthusiasm or Fury, Power or Design, it's no wonder, it did prevail in a sly and silent manner, interest having put out their eyes, this Kingdom came not with observation, and the approaches of the Enemy in the night of Ignorance, viz. the darkness that could be felt of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh century, when all good Learning and Manners too were fast asleep, the time when many of the new devices of Rome were hammering out, and the noise not heard, were not discovered, till they had taken possession, and then by virtue of Power and great Names defended their Title. And their own Writers confess, that many of the great Guardians of Faith, the Popes of Rome, were very Vicious and Illiterate persons, whose Vice and Ignorance kept them nodding, while the little Theives, the Notions, and Speculations of men of Wit and Interest set open the Church's doors for the greater Errors to come crowding in. Our Saviour confirms the truth of this when he compares his Church to a Field which had been sown by him, and his Apostles, with very good seed, Wheat or some other Grain; but while men steeped, when Christians were grown wicked and careless, ignorant or factious, comes the Enemy and scatters the Tares, and a new harvest of Weeds, Heretical Doctrines, Superstitious Practices, Foppish and Fantastic 
Mat. 13. 24, 25.  Rites, over-ran and choked the purer Grain. And the Apostle tells his Disciples, that men of dangerous principles abusing the grace of God, speaking evil of Dignities and despising Dominions and denying Christ that bought them, had crept in unawares, being well disguised with fine Names and pretences, 
Judas 4.  while good men were careless and steeped. And when most begin to broach n●w Errors, and spread their inventions for mighty Truths, they do it with all the skill and artifice that so bad a design can possibly require. Error and Innovation necessarily calling for the utmost cunning and slyness to its aid and assistance. Religion therefore may easily suffer a considerable change, yet good men know not how, neither the time nor authors of it.  
It being therefore only absolutely necessary for us to know that whensoever and howsoever these errors in the Church first sprung up, that they were contrary to the Primitive Faith of Christ and his Apostles, and therefore were to be amended and weeded up notwithstanding the common question, where was our harvest of Wheat before the Weeders our Reformers came? for the Church of England finding old Christianity strangely overgrown with the new Doctrines and Creeds of Rome, contrary to the Offices of CHRIST, the design of his undertaking for Mankind, and the true spirit of his Religion, it became a duty, as much as they loved their Souls, and would be true and loyal unto CHRIST, to shake off these new and sinful Impositions, and restore true and primitive Christianity. Had our differences with Rome consisted only in things less fit and proper, used by them in their religious Offices, or in Rituals or Gestures not so decent, they might have had some pretence to roar against us, for breaking off Communion with her, but when they blow up the very Foundation, as one of her Pagan Captains did the Walls of Jerusalem's Temple; and lay all waste before them, their new additions eating out the very Heart of old Religion, to thunder out damnation against us, because we renounce her Communion in this, is to add uncharitableness and other gross Vices to their former sin, as though they could not preserve Christianity, but by defacing of it more. Our Prince being constituted by GOD a nursing Father of the Church, and our Bishops in their Episcopal power being  with him of Rome, or any other in the Christian World, aught under the penalty of Damnation, and did accordingly, reform the Romish corruptions, which had tainted the Vitals of Christianity; an indispensable duty it was to preserve the Primitive Faith, like a chaste Virgin, and not to suffer it to be 
2 Cor. 11. 2.  longer prostituted to the Designs and Passions of men by a solemn Vow, and our Souls were at stake, we had engaged to preserve it pure & undefiled, & therefore with all just and proper ways and methods we were bound earnestly to contend for it. In duty therefore to our Lord and Masters Command, at such a time we began our Reformation, but wish that it had been promoted and completed many years before, though the same Question would have been as fitly asked then, or any other time, except they think that errors must be immortal, and the gates of Heaven shall not prevail against them. The goodness and wisdom of our Reformation, would be readily acknowledged and imitated, did not Fame and Ambition, Power, and Secular Interest, infect the Eye, and change the natural shape and colour of things; and 'tis a sign the cause of Rome wants strength, when such a trifling, only popular, Objection against our Reformation is made so powerful to preserve their Disciples in their Communion, and amuse our own. And we need say no more against it but this, and 'tis no Roman uncharitableness and rigour. That if Rome, notwithstanding all the clear evidence against her new and upstart Opinions, shall obstinately defend them, and contemn a wise and pious Reformation, let her suffer the just punishment of her wilful errors. He that will prefer an old Disease before a new Cure, let him be for ever sick. For we have healed Babylon, and she was not healed.  
FINIS.   

A DISCOURSE ABOUT TRADITION: Showing what is meant by it. AND WHAT TRADITION Is to be Received, AND WHAT TRADITION: Is to be Rejected.  
The third EDITION.  
EDINBURGH, Printed by J. Reid, 1686.   

A DISCOURSE ABOUT TRADITION  
AN Obligation being laid upon us at our Baptism, to believe and to do the whole will of GOD, revealed unto us by Christ Jesus; it concerns every one that would be saved, to inquire where that whole, entire Will of God is to be found? where he may so certainly meet with it, and be so informed about it, that he may rest satisfied he hath it all?  
And there would be no difficulty in this matter, had not the worldly interest of some men, raised Controversies about it; and made that intricate and perplexed, which, in itself, is easy and plain. For the Rehearsal of the Apostles Creed at Baptism, and of that alone, as a Summary of the Faith, whose sincere profession entitles us to the Grace there conferred, warrants the Doctrine of the Church of England, in its VI Article, that the Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an Article of Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation.  
But this strickes off so many of the Doctrines of the present Roman Church, which are not to be found in the Scripture, nor have any countenance there, that they are forced to say, the Faith once delivered to the Saints (mentioned by St. Judas) is not entirely delivered in the Scripture, but we must seek for the rest in the Traditions of the Church. Which Traditions, say they, are to be received as a part of the Rule of Faith, with the same Religious Reverence that we do the Holy Scripture.  
Now, though this is not really the bottom of their heart (as will appear before I have done) but they finally rest for their satisfaction in matters of Faith somewhere else; yet this being plausibly pretended by them, in their own Justification, that they follow Tradition; and in their Accusations of us, that we foresake Tradition: I shall briefly let all our People see, who are not willing to be deceived, what they are to judge and say in this business of Tradition. About which a great noise is made, as if we durst not stand to it, and as if they of the Roman Church steadfastly kept it, without any variation: neither of which is true. I shall plainly show in this short Discourse.  

The meaning of the Word.  
Which for clearness sake shall begin with the meaning of the word TRADITION: which in English is no more than delivering unto another; and by a Figure, signifies the matter which is delivered; and among Christians, the Doctrine of our Religion delivered to us. And there being two ways of delivering Doctrines to us, either by writing or by word of mouth; it signifies either of them indifferently: the Scriptures, as you shall see presently being Traditions. But custom hath determined this word to the last of these ways, and distinguished Tradition from Scriptures, or writings: at least from the Holy Writings; and made it signify that which is not delivered in the Holy Scriptures, or Writings. For though the Scripture be Tradition also, and the very first Tradition and the Fountain of all true and legitimate Antiquity; yet in common Language Traditions now are such ancient Doctrines, as are conveyed to us some other way: whither by word of mouth, as some will have it, from one Generation to another; or by humane Writings, which are not of the same authority with the Holy Scriptures.   

How to judge of them.  
Now there is no better way to judge aright of such Traditions, then by considering these four things.  
First, The Authors of them, whence they come.  
Secondly, the matter of them.  
Thirdly, Their Authority,  
Fourthly, The means by which we come to know they derive themselves from such Authors as they pretend unto; and consequently have any authority to demand admission into our belief-  
1. For the first of these, every body knows and confesses that all Traditions suppose some Author, from whom they originally come, and who is the diliverer of those Doctrines to Christian people: who being told by the present Church, or any person in it, that such and such Doctrines are to be received, though not contained in the Holy Scriptures, because they are Traditions; aught in Conscience to inquire from whom those Traditions come, or who first delivered them: By which means they will be able to judge what credit is to be given to them, when it is once cleared to them from what Authors they really come. Now whatsoever is delivered to us in Christianity, comes either from Christ, or from his Apostles, or from the Church [either in General, or in part) or from private Doctors in the Church. There is nothing now called a Tradition in the Christian World, but proceeds from one or from all of these four Originals.  
2. And the matter which they deliver to us, (which is next to be considered) is either concerning that Faith, and godly life, which is necessary to Salvation; or concerning Opinions, Rites, Ceremonies, Customs, and things belonging to Order. Both which, as I said, may be conveyed either by writing or without writing; by the Divine Writings, or by Humane Writings; though these two ways are not alike certain.  
3. Now it is evident to every understanding, that things of both sorts which are delivered to us, have their Authority, from the credit of the Author from whence they first come. If that be Divine, their Authority is Divine; if it be only Humane, their Authority can be no more. And among Humane Authors, if their Credit be great, the Authority of what they deliver it great; if it be little, its Authority is little: and accordingly must be accepted with greater or lesser Reverence.  
Upon which score whatsoever can be made appear to come from Christ, it hath the highest authority, and aught to be received with absolute submission to it, because he is the Son of God. And likewise whatsoever appears to have been delivered by the Apostles in his Name, hath the same Authority; they being his Ministers, sent by Him, as He was by God the Father; and endued with a Divine Power, which attested unto them. In like manner, whatsoever is delivered by the Church, hath the same Authority which the Church hath: which though it be not equal to the foregoing, (the Church having no such Divine Power, nor infallible Judgement, as the Apostles had) yet is of such weight and moment, that it ought to be reverenced next to theirs. I mean, the sense of the whole Church; which must be acknowledged also to be of greater or lesser Authority, as it was nearer or farther off from the times of the Apostles. What was delivered by their immediate Followers, aught to weigh so much with us, as to have the greatest Humane Authority; and to be looked upon as little less than Divine The Universal consent of the next Generation, is an Authority approaching as near to the former, As the Ages do one to another. But what is delivered in latter times, hath less humane Authority, though pretending to come, but without proof, from more early days: and hath no Authority at all, if it contradict the sense of the Church, when it was capable to be better acquainted with the mind of Christ, and of his Apostles.  
As for particular Churches, their Authority ought to be reverenced by every Member of them, when they profess to deliver sincerely the sense of the Church Universal; and when they determine, as they have power to do, Controversies of Faith, or decree Rites and Ceremonies (not contrary to GOD's Word) in which every one ought to acquiesce.  
But we cannot say the same of that which comes from any private Doctor in the Church, Modern or Ancient: which can have no greater Authority than he himself was of; but is more or less credible, according as he was more or less diligent, knowing, and strictly religious.  
4. But to all this, it is necessary that it do sufficiently appear, that such Doctrines do really come from those Authors, whose Traditions they pretend to be. This is the great, and the only thing, about which there is any question among sober and judicious persons. How to be sufficiently assured, that any thing which is not delivered unto us in the Scriptures, doth certainly come, for instance, from CHRIST, or his holy Apostles. For in this all Christians are agreed, that whatsoever was delivered by CHRIST, from GOD the Father, or by the Apostles from CHRIST, is to be embraced and firmly retained, whither it be written or not written: that makes no difference at all, if we can be certain it came from Him, or them. For what is contained in the Holy Scripture, hath not its Authority, because it is written; but because it came from GOD. If CHRIST said a thing, it is enough; we ought to submit unto it: But we must first know that he said it; and let the means of knowing it be what they will, if we can certainly know He said it, we yield to it.  
But how we can be certain (at this distance of time, from his being in the World) that any thing now pretending to it, was said by CHRIST, which is not recorded in the Holy Scriptures; there is the business. And it is a matter of such importance, that it cannot be expected any man should be satisfied without very good evidence of it: but he may very reasonably question, whither many things be not falsely ascribed unto Him, and unto his Apostles; which never came from them. Nay, whither those things which are affirmed to be the Doctrines of the Primitive Church, and of the whole Church, be not of some later Original, and of some particular Church, or private Doctors in the Church: unto whose Authority that Reverence is not due, which ought to be paid, and which we willingly give unto the former.  
Now according to this state of the matter, any good Christian among us (who is desirous to know the Truth, and to preserve himself from Error) may easily discern what Traditions ought to be received, and held fast; and what we are not bound unto, without any alteration; and what are not to be received at all, but to be rejected; and how far those things are from being credible, which the Roman Church now would obtrude upon us, under the name of Apostolical, or ancient Traditions; without any Authority from the Holy Scriptures, or (in truth) any Authority but their own, and some private Doctors, whose Opinions cannot challenge an absolute submission to them.  
But to give every one, that would be rightly informed, fuller satisfaction in this business, I shall not content myself with this General Discourse; but shall particularly and distinctly show what Traditions we own, and hearty receive; and than what Traditions we cannot own, but with good reason re●use. These shall be the two Parts of this short Treatise: wherein I shall endeavour that our people may be instructed not merely to reject Errors, but also to affirm the Truth.   

PART I. What Traditions we receive.  
1 AND in the first place we acknowledge that what is now Holy Scripture, was once only Tradition, properly so called; that is Doctrine by word of mouth. In this we all agree, I say, that the whole Gospel or Doctrine of CHRIST, which is now upon record in those Books, we call the Scriptures; was once unwritten, when it was first preached by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles.  
Which must be noted, to remove that small Objection with which they of the Roman Church are wont to trouble some people's minds, merely from the Name of Traditions: which St. Paul in his Epistles, requires those to whom he writes, carefully to observe; particularly in that famous place, 1. Thess. 2. 15. Where we find this Exhortation, Therefore, Brethren, stand fast, and hold the Traditions which ye have been taught, whither by word, or our Epistle.  
Behold, say they, here are things not written; but delivered by word of mouth; which the Thessalonians are commanded to hold. Very true, (should the people of our Church say, to those that insist upon this) but, behold also, we beseech you, what the Traditions are of which the Apostle here writes; and mark also when it was that the● were partly unwritten.  
For the fi●st of these, it is manifest that he means by Traditions, the Doctrines which we now read in the holy Scriptures. For the very first word therefore, is an indication that this verse is an inference, from what he had said in the foregoing. Now the things he before treated of, are the grand Doctrines of the Gospel, or the way of Salvation revealed unto us by Christ Jesus, from God the Father: who hath from the beginning (saith he, v. 13, 14.) chosen you to Salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth, whereunto he hath called you, etc. This is the sum of the Gospel, and whatsoever he had delivered unto them about these matters, of their Sanctification, or of their Faith, or of their Salvation, by obtaining the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, (to which they were chosen, and called, through their Sanctification and Faith) this he exhorts them to hold fast; whither it was contained in this Epistle, or in his former preaching: for he had not occasion now to write all that he had formerly delivered by word of mouth.  
Which afterward was put in writing: for mark (which is the second thing) the time when some things remained unwritten; which was, When this Epistle was sent to the Thessalonians. Then some things concerning their salvation, were not contained in this Letter; but, as yet, delivered only by word of mouth unto this Church. I say, to this Church: for it doth not follow, that all Churches whatsoever, were, at the time of the writing of this Epistle, without the Doctrine of the Gospel completely written; because among the Thessalonians, some Traditious or Doctrines were as yet unwritten Which can in reason be extended no farther than to themselves, and to this Epistle; which did contain all the Evangelical Doctrine, though other writings, which it is possible were then extant in some other Churches, did.  
And, I say, as yet unwritten in that Church; because the Thessalonians, no doubt, had afterward more communicated to them in writing, besides this Epistle, or the former either: viz. all the Gospels, and the Acts of Apostles, and other Apostolical Epistles, which we now enjoy. Which Writings, we may be confident, contain the Traditions which the Apostle had delivered to the Thessalonians, by Word, concerning the Incarnation, Birth, Life, Miracles, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of our blessed Saviour; and concerning the coming of the holy Ghost, and the mission of the Apostles: and all the rest which is there recorded for our everlasting instruction.  
And therefore it is in vain to argue from this place, that there are still, at this day, some unwriten Traditions, which we are to follow; unless the Apostle had said, Hold the Traditions which ye have been taught by word, which shall never be written. And it is in vain for us to inquire after any such Traditions, or rely upon them, when they are offered unto us; unless we were sure that there was something, necessary to our Salvation, delivered in their Sermons, which was never to be delivered in writing; and unless we know where to find it, as certainly as we do that which they have committed to writing.  
And it is to no more purpose to show us the word Tradition, in other places of St. Paul's Writings; particularly in the third Chapter of the same Epistle, v. 6. where, by Tradition, St Chrys●ston understands the Apostles Example, which he had given them; and so it follows, v. 7. For yourselves know how you ought to follow us, &c, or it may refer to the commandment he had given them in his former Epistle, 4. 11. (which the Reader may be pleased to compare with this) but cannot with any colour be expounded to signify any Doctrine of Faith, about which the Roman Church now contends with us. For it is plain, it hath respect to their good manners, and orderly living: for the information of which, we need go no where, but to the holy Scriptures; wherein we are taught full enough, how we ought to walk and please GOD in all things.  
The same may be said of that place, 1 Cor. 11. 2. Now I praise you, Brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the Traditions (or Ordinances, as we render it, or Precepts, as the vulgar Latin itself hath it) as I have delivered them unto you. For we are so observant of what he hath delivered, that we are confident, if Saint Paul were now alive, and in this Church, he would praise us (as he doth the Corinthians) for keeping the Traditions as be delivered them; and on the contrary, reprove and condemn the Roman Church, for not keeping them as they were first delivered. And we have good ground for this confidence; there being an instance in that very Chapter, which demonstrates our fidelity in preserving the very first Traditions, and their unfaithfulness in letting them go. For he tells us, v. 23. that he had delivered to them what he had received of the Lord: and that which he received and delivered, was about the whole Communion (as you may read there and in the following verses, 24, 25.) in both kinds; the Cup, as well as the Bread. Thus, he saith, the Lord appointed it, and thus he delivered it: and this Tradition we keep entire, as he received it of the Lord, and delivered it to his Church, in this Epistle, which is a part of the holy Scripture: whereas they do not keep it, but have broken this Divine Tradition, and give the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood otherwise than St. Paul delivered, keeping the Cup from the People.  
By which I desire all, that love the Lord Jesus in sincerity, to judge which Church keeps closest to the Apostolical Tradition (fo● so St. Paul calls this Doctrine of the Communion in both kinds; that which he delivered, or left as a Tradition with them) they that stick to what is unquestionably the Apostolical Doctrine, or they that leave it, to follow those Doctrines (or Presumptions rather) which at the best, are very dubious and uncertain.  
And farther, I desire all that read this Paper, to consider whither it be reasonable to think, that those Ri●es which have no Authority in the holy Scripture (but were instituted perhaps by the Apostles) have been kept pure and uncorrupted, according to their first intention: when these sacred Rites (for instance, the holy Eucharist) are not preserved entire, which are manifestly ordained in the holy Writings.  
And so much may serve for the first thing: for it would be too long, to explain all the rest of the places of holy Scripture, which they are wont to allege (though the word Tradition be not mentioned in them) to give a colour to their present pretences; how pertinently may be judged by these places now considered.  
II. Secondly then, That Word of God which was once unwritten, being now written, we acknowledge ourselves to be much indebted to the Church of God in all foregoing Ages, which hath preserved the Scriptures, and delivered them down to us, as his Word: which we ought to do unto those that shall succeed us; as our Church teacheth us in its Twentieth Article, where the Church is affirmed to be a Witness and a keeper of holy Writ.  
This Tradition we own, it being universal, continued, uninterrupted, and undenied. Though, in truth, this is Tradition in another sense of the word; not signifying the Doctrine delivered unto us, but the manner and means of its delivery.  
And therefore, if any Member of our Church be pressed by those of the Romish Persuasion, with this Argument, for their present Traditions, that Scripture itself is come to us by Tradition, let them answer thus: Very right, it is so, and we thank God for it; therefore let this be no part of our dispute, it being a thing presupposed in all Discourses about Religion, a thing agreed among all Christian people, that we read the Word of GOD when we read the holy Scriptures, Which being delivered to us, and accepted by us as his Word; we see no necessity of any other Tradition or Doctrine, which is not to be found there, or cannot be proved from thence: for they tell us, they are able to make, even the men of God, wise unto Salvation.  
And if they press you again, and say, How do you know that some Books are Canonical, and others not, is it not by a constant Tradition? Answer them again in this manner: Yes, this is true also, and would to GOD you would stand to this universal Tradition, and receive no other Books, but what have been so delivered. But know withal, that this universal Tradition of the Books of Scripture (unto which you have added several Apocryphal Writings, which have not been constantly delivered, as t●●se we receive) is no part of the Tradition or Doctrine delivered. That is, no Doctrine distinct from the Scriptures; but only the instrument or means of conveying that Doctrine unto us.  
In short, it is the fidelity of the Church with whom the Canon of Scripture was deposed; but is no more a Doctrine, not written in the Scripture, than the Tradition or delivery of the Code, or Book of the Civil Law, is any Opinion or Law not written in that Code.  
And we are more assured of the fidelity of the Church herein, than the Civilians can be assured of the Faithfulness of their Predecessors in preserving and delivering the Books of their Law to them, because these holy Books were always kept with a greater care, than any other Books whatsoever; and in the acceptance of them also, we find there was a great caution used, that they might not be deceived: all Christians looking upon them to be of such importance, that all Religion, they thought, was concerned in them.  
Of which, this is an Argument, that they who sought to destroy the Christian Religion, in the Primitive times, sought nothing more than to destroy the Bible. Which they were wont to demand of those who were suspected to be Christians, to be delivered up to them, that they might burn it. And according as men behaved themselves in this trial, so they were reputed to be Christians or not Christians. And the Traditours, as they were called, that is, they who delivered the holy Scriptures into the hands of the Pagans, were looked upon by Christians, as men that were content to part with their Religion. For which there could be no reason, but that they thought Christian Religion to be therein contained, and to be betrayed by those who delivered them to be burnt.  
By which I have proved more than I intended, in this part of my Discourse; that in the holy Scriptures, the whole Will of God concerning our Salvation, is contained. Which is the true Question between us and the Church of Rome● Not whither the Scripture be delivered to us as the Word of GOD, or no, (in this our People ought to tell them we are all agreed) but whither they have been delivered to us as the whole Will of GOD. And from that Argument now mentioned, and many more, we conclude, that Universal Tradition having directed us unto these Books and no other, they direct us sufficiently, without any other Doctrines, unto GOD, and to our everlasting rest.  
And if they urge you farther, and say, that the very Credit of the Scripture depends upon Tradition: tell them that it is a Speech not to be endured, if they mean thereby that it gives the Scripture its authority, (and if they mean less, we are agreed, as hath been already said) for it is to say, that Man gives authority to GOD's Word. Whereas in truth, the holy Scriptures are not therefore of Divine Authority, because the Church hath delivered them so to be; but the Church hath delivered them so to be, because it knew them to be of such authority. And if the Church should have conceived, or taught otherwise, of these Writings, then as of the undoubted Oracles of GOD, she would have erred damnably in such a Tradition.  
I shall sum up what hath been said in this second particular, in a few words. Christ and his Apostles at first taught the Church by. word of mouth; but afterward that which they preached was by the commandment of GOD committed to writing, and delivered unto the Church, to be the ground of our Faith. Which is no more than Irenaeus hath said in express words. (L. 3. C. 1.) speaking of them by whom the Gospel came unto all Nations: Which they then preached, but afterward, by the Will of GOD delivered unto us in the Scriptures, to be, in time to come, the Foundation and Pillar of our Faith.  
III. And farther we likewise acknowledge, that the sum and substance of the Christian Religion, contained in the Scriptures, hath been delivered down to us, even from the Apostles days, in other ways or forms, besides the Scriptures. For instance, in the Baptismal Vow, in the Creed, in the Prayers and Hymns of the Church. Which we may call Traditions, if we please, but they bring down to us no new Doctrine, but only deliver in an abridgement, the same Christianity which we find in the Scriptures.  
Upon this there is no need that I should enlarge; but I proceed farther to affirm.  
iv That we reverently receive also the unanimous Tradition or Doctrine of the Church in all Ages, which determines the meaning of the holy Scripture, and makes it more clear and unquestionable in any point of Faith, wherein we can find it hath declared its sense. For we look upon this Tradition as nothing else but the Scripture unfolded; not a new thing, which is not in the Scripture but the Scripture explained and made more evident.  
And thus some part of the Nicene Creed may be called a Tradition; as it hath expressly delivered unto us the sense of the Church of GOD concerning that great Article of our Faith, That JESUS CHRIST is the Son of GOD. Which they teach us was always thus understood, the Son of GOD, begotten of his Father before all worlds, and of the same substance with the Father.  
But this Tradition supposes the Scripture for its ground, and delivers nothing but what the Fathers, assembled at Nice, believed to be contained there, and was first fetched from thence. For we find in Theodoret (L. 1. C. 6.) that the famous Emperor Constantine, admonished those Fathers, in all their Questions and Debates to consult only with these heavenly inspired Writings; Because the Evangelical and Apostolical Books, and the Oracles of the old Prophets, do evidently instruct us what to thi●k in Divine matters. This is so clear a Testimony, that in those days they made this complete Rule of their Faith, whereby they ended Controversies, (which was the reason that in several other Synods we find they were wont to lay the Bible before them) and that there is nothing in the Nicene Creed, but what is to be found in the Bible; that Cardinal Bellarmine hath nothing to reply to it, but this, Constantine was indeed a great Emperor, but no great Doctor. Which is rather a Scoff, than an Answer; and casts a scorn not only upon him, but upon the great Council, who, as the same Theodoret, witnesseth, assented unto that speech of Constantine. So it there follows in these words That most of the Synod were obedient to what he had discoursed, and embraced both mutual Concord, and sound Doctrine.  
And accordingly, St. Hilary a little after extols his Son Constantius for this, that he adhered to the Scriptures; and blames him only for not attending to the true Catholic sense of them. His words are these, (in his little Book which he delivered to Constantius) I truly admire thee, O Lord Constantius the Emperor, who desirest a Faith according to what is written. They pretended to no other in those days; but (as he speaks a little after) looked upon him that refused this, as Antichrist. It was only required that they should receive their Faith out of God's Books, not merely according to the words of them, but according to their true meaning, (because many spoke Scripture without Scripture, and pretended to Faith without Faith, as his words are;) and herein Catholic and constant Tradition was to guide them. For whatsoever was contrary to what the whole Church had received and held from the beginning, could not in reason be thought to be the meaning of that Scripture which was alleged to prove it. And, on the other side, the Church pretended to no more than to be a Witness of the received sense of the Scriptures; which were the bottom upon which they built this Faith.  
Thus I observe Hegesippus saith, (in Euseb. his History, L. 4. C. 22.) that when he was at Rome, he met with a great many Bishops, and that he received the very same Doctrine from them all. And then a little after, tells us what that was, and whence they derived it; saying, That in every succession of Bishops, and i● every City, so they held; as the Law preached, and as the Prophets, and as the Lord. That is, according to the Doctrine of the Old and New Testament.  
I shall conclude this particular with a pregnant passage, which I remember in a famous Divine of our Church, (Dr. jackson's, in his Treatise of the Catholic Church, Chap. 22.) who writes to this effect;  
That Tradition which was of so much use in the Primitive Church, was not unwritten Traditions or Customs, commended or ratified by the supposed infallibility of any visible Church, but did especially consist in the Confessions, or Registers of particular Churches. And the unanimous consent of so many several Churches, as exhibited their Concessions to the Nicene Council, out of such Forms as had been framed and taught before this Controversy arose, about the Divinity of CHRIST, and that voluntarily and freely (these Churches being not dependent one upon another, nor overswayed by any Authority over them, nor misled by Faction to frame their Confessions of Faith by imitation, or according to some pattern set them) was a pregnant argument that this Faith wherein they all agreed, had been delivered to them by the Apostles and their Followers, and was he true meaning of the holy Writings in this great Article: and evidently proved, that Arius did obtrude such interprerations of Scripture, as had not been heard of before; or were but the sense of some private persons in the Church, and not of the generality of Believers.  
In short, the unanimous consent of so many distinct visible Churches, as exhibited their several Concessions, Catechisms, or Testimonies of their own Forefathers Faith, unto the Council of Nice, was an argument of the same force and efficacy against Arius and his Partakers, as the general consent and practice of all Nations, in worshipping a Divine Power in all Ages, is against Atheists. Nothing but the engrafted notion of a Deity, could have induced so many several Nations, so much different in natural disposition, in civil Discipline and Education, to effect or practise the duty of Adoration. And nothing but the evidence of the ingrafied word, (as St. James calls the Gospel) delivered by CHRIST and his Apostles in the holy Scriptures, could have kept so many several Churches, as communicated their Confessions unto that Council, in the unity of the same Faith.  
The like may be said of the rest of the four first General Councils; whose Decrees are a great confirmation of our belief, because they deliver to us the consent of the Churches of CHRIST, in those great Truths which they assert out of the holy Scriptures.  
And could there any Traditive Interpretation of the whole Scripture be produced upon the Authority of such Original Tradition, as that now named, we would most thankfully and joyfully receive it. But there never was any such pretended; no, not by the Roman Church, whose Doctors differ among themselves about the meaning of hundreds of places in the Bible. Which they would not do sure, nor spend their time unprofitably in making the best conjectures they are able; if they knew of any exposition of those places in which all Christian Doctors had agreed from the beginning.  
V But more than this, we allow that Tradition gives us a considerable assistance in such points as are not in so many letters and syllables contained in the Scriptures, but may be gathered from thence, by good and manifest reasoning. Or, in plainer words perhaps, whatsoever Tradition justifies any Doctrine that may be proved by the Scriptures, though not found in express terms there, we acknowledge to be of great use, and readily receive and follow it; as serving very much to establish us more firmly in that Truth, when we see all Christians have adhered to it.  
This may be called a confirming Tradition: of which we have an instance in the Doctrine of Infant-Baptism, which some ancient Fathers call an Apostolical Tradition. Not, that it cannot be proved by any place of Scripture; no such matter: for though we do not find it written in so many words that Infants are to be baptised, or that the Apostles baptised Infants; yet it may be proved out of the Scriptures, and the Fathers themselves, who call it an Apostolical Tradition, do allege testimonies of the Scriptures to make it good. And therefore we may be sure they comprehend the Scriptures within the name of Apostolical Tradition; and believed that this Doctrine was gathered out of the Scriptures, though not expressly treated of there.  
In like manner we, in this Church, assert the authority of Bishops above Presbyters, by a Divine right, as appears by the Book of Consecration of Bishops, where the persons to be ordained to this Office, expresses his belief, That he is truly called to this Ministration, according to the will of our LORD JESUS CHRIST. Now this we are persuaded may be plainly enough proved to any man that is ingenuous, and will fairly consider things, out of the holy Scriptures, without the help of Tradition: but we also take in the assistance of this for the conviction of gainsayers; and by the perpetual practice and Tradition of the Church from the beginning confirm our Scripture proofs so strongly, that he seems to us very obstinate, or extremely prejudiced, that yields not to them. And therefore to make our Doctrine in this point the more authentic, our Church hath put both these Proofs together, in the Preface to the Form of giving Orders; which gins in these words: It is evident unto all men, diligently reading the holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles time there have been three Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.  
I hope no body among us is so weak, as to imagine, when he reads this, that by admitting Tradition to be of such use and force as I have mentioned, we yield too much to the Popish Cause, which supports itself by this pretence. But if any one shall suggest: his to any of our people, let them reply, That it is but the pretence, and only by the Name of Tradition, that the Romish Church supports itself: For true Tradition is as great a proof against Popery, as it is for Episcopacy, The very foundation of the Pope's Empire (which is, his succession in St. Peter's Supremacy) is utterly subverted by this; the constant Tradition of the Church being evidently against it. And therefore let us not lose this Advantage we have against them, by ignorantly refusing to receive true and constant Tradition; which will be so far from leading us into their Church, that it will never suffer us to think of being of it, while it remains so opposite to that which is truly Apostolical.  
I conclude this with the Direction which our Church gives to Preachers in the Books of Canons, 1●71, (in the Title Concionatores) That no man shall teach the people any thing to be held and believed by them religiously, but what is consentaneous to the Doctrine of the Old and New Testament; and what the Catholic Fathers and Ancient Bishops have gathered out of that very Doctrine. This is our Rule, whereby we are to guide ourselves; which was set us on purpose to preserve our Preachers from broaching any idle, novel, or popish Doctrines; as appears by the conclusion of that Injunction: Vain and old Wives Opinions, and Heresies, and Popish Errors, abhorring from the Doctrine and Faith of Christ, they shall not teach; nor any thing at all whereby the unskilful multitude may be infla●ed either to the study of Novelty, or to Contention.  
VI But though nothing may be taught as a piece of Religion; which hath not the forenamed Original; yet I must add, that those things which have been universally believed, and not contrary to Scripture, though not written at all there, nor to be proved from thence, we do receive as pious Opinions. For instance, the perpetual Virginity of the Mother of GOD our Saviour; which is so likely a thing, and so universally received, that I do not see why we should not look upon it as a genuine Apostolical Tradition.  
VII. I have but one thing more to add, which is, that we allow also the Traditions of the Church, about matters of Order, Rites, and Ceremonies. Only we do not take them to be parts of GOD's worship; and if they be not appointed in the holy Scriptures, we believe they may be altered by the same or the like authority, with that which ordained them. So our Church hath excellently and fully resolved us concerning such matters, in the XXXIV Article of Religion? where there are three things asserted concerning such Traditions as these.  
First, It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies (they are the very first words of the Article) be in all places, one or utterly alike for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. But then to prevent all disorders and confusions, that men might make in the Church, by following their own private fancies and humours; the next thing which is decreed, is this:  
Secondly, That whosoever through his own private judgement, willingly and purposely doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of GOD, and be ordained and approved by common authority; aught to be rebuked openly (that others may fear to do the like) as he that offendeth against the common Order of the church, and hurteth the Authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak Brethren.  
Lastlie, It is there declared, That every particular or National church, hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or Rites of the church, ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying.  
This is sufficient to show what we believe concerning Traditions, about matters of Order and Decency.  
VIII. As for what is delivered in matters of Doctrine, or Order, by any private Doctor in the church, or by any particular church, it appears by what hath been said, that it cannot be taken to be more than the private Opinion of that man, or the particular Decree of that church, and can have no more authority than they have: that is, cannot oblige all christians, unless it be contained in the holy Scripture.  
Now such are the Traditions which the Roman church would impose upon us, and impose upon us after a strange fashion, as you shall see in the Second Part of this Discourse: unto which I shall proceed presently, when I have left with you this brief Reflection on what hath been said in this First Part.  
Our people may hereby be admonished not to suffer themselves to be deceived and abused by words and empty names, without their sense and meaning. Nothing is more common than this; especially in the business of Traditions. About which a great stir is raised, and it is commonly given out, that we refuse all Traditions, Than which, nothing is more false: for we refuse none truly so called; that is, Doctrines delivered by Christ, or his Apostles. No, we refuse nothing at all, because it is unwritten; but merely because we are not sure it is delivered by that Authority to which we ought to submit.  
Whatsoever is delivered to us by our LORD and his Apostles, we receive as the very word of God; which we think is sufficiently declared in the holy Scriptures. But if any can certainly prove, by any Authority equal to that which brings the Scriptures to us, that there is any thing else delivered by them, we receive that also. The Controversy will soon be at an end. For we are ready to embrace it, when any such thing can be produced.  
Nay, we have that reverence for those who succeeded the Apostles, that what they have unanimously delivered to us, as the sense of any doubtful place, we receive it, and seek no farther. There is no dispute, whither or no we should entertain it.  
To the Decrees of the Church also we submit in matters of Decency and Order; yea, and acquiesce in its authority, when it determines doubtful Opinions.  
But we cannot receive that as a Doctrine of Christ, which we know is but the Tradition of man, nor keep the Ordinances of the ancient Church in matters of Decency, so unalterably as never to vary from them; because they themselves did not intent them to be of everlasting obligation. As appears by the changes that have been made in several times and places; even in some things which are mentioned in the holy Scriptures, being but Customs suited to those Ages and Countries.  
In short, Traditions we do receive; but not all that are called by that name. Those which have sufficient Authority; but not those which are imposed upon us, by the sole authority of one particular Church, assuming a power o●er all the rest. And so I come to the Second Part.   

PART II. What Traditions we do not receive.  
AND in the first place we do not believe that there is any Tradition which contains another Word of God; which is not in the Scripture, or cannot be proved from thence. In this consists the main difference between us and them of the Romish Persuasion, who affirm that Divine Truth which we are all bound to receive, to be partly written, partly delivered by word of mouth without writing. Which is not only the affirmation of the Council of Trent, but delivered in more express terms, in the Bresace to the Roman Catechism, drawn up by their order; where we find these words (towards the conclusion of it) The whole Doctrine to be delivered to the faithful, is contained in the Word of GOD; which (Word of GOD) is distributed into Scripture and Tradition.  
This is a full and plain declaration of their mind; with which we can by no means agree, for divers unanswerable reasons.  
1. Not only because the Scriptures testify to their own perfection; which they affirm to be so great, as to be able to complete, the divinest men in the Church of CHRIST, in all points of heavenly wisdom, 2 Tim. 3. 15. 16. 17. but,  
2. Because the constant Tradition of the Church (even of the Roman Church anciently) is, that in the Scriptures we may find all that is necessary to be known and believed to salvation. I must not fill up this Paper with Authorities to this purpose; but we avow this unto the people of our Church for a certain Truth, which hath been demonstrated by many of our Writers; who have shown that the ancient Doctors universally speak the language of St. Bawl, 1. Cor. 4. 7. Not to think above that which is written. I will mention only these memorable words of Tertullian, who is as earnest an Advocate as any for ritual Traditions, but having to deal with Hermogenes in a question of Faith, Whither all things in the beginning were made of nothing, urges him in this manner. I have not where yet read, that all things were made out of a subject matter. If it be written, let those of Hermogenes his shop show it; if it be not written, let them fear th●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is allotted to such ●● add or take away. The very same Answer should our People make to those that would have them receive any thing as an Article of Faith, which is not delivered to them by this truly Apostolical Church wherein we live. If it he written, let us see it; if it be not, take heed how you add to the undoubted Word of GOD. We receive the holy Scriptures, as able to make us wise to Salvation. So they themselves tell us; and so runs the true Tradition of the Church: which you of the Romish persuasion have forsaken; but we adhere unto.  
3 And we have this farther reason so to do, because if part of God's Word had been written, and part unwritten, we cannot but believe there would have been some care taken, in the written Word, not only to let us know so much, but also inform us whither, we should resort to find it, and how we should know it; if it be absolutely necessary for us to be acquainted with it. But there is no such notice, nor any such directions left us; nor can any man give us any certain Rule to follow in this matter, but only this: To examine all Traditions by the Scripture, as the supreme Rule of Faith and to a●mit only such as are conformable thereunto.  
4. For which we have still this farther reason, that no sooner were they that first delivered and received the holy Scriptures gone out of the world, but we find men began to add their own fancies unto the Catholic Truth; which made it absolutely necessary to keep to the Tradition in the holy Scriptures, all other growing uncertain. This is observed by Hegesippus himself (in Euseb. l. 3. c. 32) that the Church remained a chaste Virgin, and the spouse of Christ, till the Sacred Choir of the Apostles, and the next Generation of them, who had had the honour to be their Auditonrs, were extinct; and then there began a plain Conspiracy of impious atheistical error, by the fraud of Teachers, who delivered other Doctrine, Which was a thing Saint Paul feared even in his own life time, about the Church of Corinth [2 Cor 1. 3.) lest the Devil, like a wily Serpent, should beguile them, and corrupt their minds from the original simplicity of the Christian Doctrine wherein they were first instructed. And if it were attempted then, it was less difficult, and therefore more endeavoured afterward; as shall appear anon by plain History, which tells how several persons pretended they received this and that from an Apostle. Some of which Traditions were presently rejected; others received, and afterwards found to be impostures. Which shows there was so much false dealing in the case, that it was hard for men to know what was truly Apostolical in those days, if it came to them this way only; and therefore impossible to be discerned by us now, at this great distance of time from the Apostles, who we know delivered the true Faith; but we have no reason to rely upon mere Tradition, without Scripture, for any part of that Faith; when we see what Cheats were put upon men by that means, even then when they had better helps to detect them then we have.  
It is true, the Fathers sometime urge, Tradition a as proof of what they say. But we must know, that the Scriptures were not presently communicated among some barbarous Nations, and there were some Heretics also who either denied the Scriptures, or some part of them, and in these cases it was necessary to appeal to the Tradition that was in the Church, and to convince them by the Doctrine taught every where by all the Bishops. But that (mark this, I pray you) of which they convinced them by this Argument, was nothing but what is taught in the Scripture.  
5. With which we cannot suffer any thing to be equalled in authority, unless we would see it confirmed by the same or equal Testimony. This is the great reason of all, why we cannot admit any unwritten Traditions to be a part of the Word of GOD, which we are bound to believe, because we cannot find any truths so delivered to us, as those in the holy Scriptures. They come to us with as full a Testimony as can be desired, of their Divine Original; but so do none of those things which are now obtruded on us by the Romish Church, under the name of Tradition or unwritten Word of God.  
For the Primitive Church had the very first Copies and authentic Writings of those Books called the New Testament, delivered by the Apostles own hands to them. And those Book confirm the Scriptures of the Old Testament: and they were both delivered to Posterity by that Primitive Church, witnessing from whom they received them; who carefully kept them as the most precious Treasure: so that this written Word hath had the general approbation and testimony of the whole Church of Christ in every Age, until this day, witnessing that it is Divine. And it hath been the constant business of Doctors of the Church, to expound this Word of GOD to the People: and their Books are full of Citations out of the Scripture; all agreeing in substance with what we now read in them. Nay, the very Enemies of christianity, such as Celsus, Porphyry, Julian, never questioned but these are the Writings of which the Apostles were the Authors, and which they delivered. Besides, the Marks they have in themselves of a Divine Spirit, which indicted them, they all tending to breed and preserve in men a sense of GOD, and to make them truly virtuous.  
Not one word of which can be said for any of those unwritten Traditions, which the Roman Church pretend to be a part of GOD's Word. For we have no testimony of them in the holy Scriptures. Nor doth the Primitive church affirm she received them from the Apostles, as she did the written Word. Nor have they the perpetual consent and general approbation of the whole church ever since. Nor are they frequently quoted, as the words of Scripture are upon all occasions, by the Doctors of the Church. Nor do we find them to be the Doctrine, which was constantly taught the People. Nor is there any notice taken of them by the enemies of our Faith, whose Assaults are all against the Scriptures. In short, they are so far from having any true authority, that sergeant Testimonies and forged Writings have been their great Supporters, Besides, the plain drift of them, which is not to make all men better, but to make same richer; and the manifest danger men are in by many of them, to be drawn away from GOD, to put their trust and confidence in Creatures. As might be shown, if this Paper would contain it, in their Doctrines of Papal Supremacy, Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Image. Worship, and divers others.  
Concerening which, we say, as Saint Cyprian doth to Pompeius, about another ma●ter, If it be commanded in the Gospels, or in the Epistles of the Apostles, or in their Acts, that they should not be baptised who return from any Heresy, but only be received by imposition of han●s, LET THIS DIVINE and HOLY TRADITION BE OBSERVED. The same say we, if there be any thing in the Gosples, in the Epistles, in the Acts, concerning Invocations of Saints, concerning the praying Souls out of Purgatory, etc. Let that divine, that holy Tradition be observed. But if it be not there, What obstinacy is this (as it follows a little after in that Epist l. 24. (what presumption, to prefer human Tradition, before the Divine Disposition or Ordinance?  
A great deal more there is in that place, and in others of that holy Martyr, to bring all to the source, the root, the original of the Divine Tradition; for then human errors ceases: which original Tradition he affirms to be what is delivered in the holy Scriptures; which delivering to us the whole Will of GOD concerning us, we look after no other Tradition, but what explains and confirms, and is consonant to this. For we believe that what is delivered to us by the Scriptures, & what is delivered by true Tradition, are but two several waves of bringing us acquainted with the same Christian Truth, not with different parts of that Truth.  
And so I have done with the first thing; the sum of which, is this: We do not receive any Tradition or Doctrine to supply the defect of the Scripture, in some necessary Article of Faith; which Doctrines they of Rome pretend to have one and the same Author with the Scripture, viz. God: and therefore to be received with the same pious affection and reverence. But cannot tell us where we may find them, how we shall discern true from false, nor give us any assurance of their Truth, but we must take them purely upon their word.  
Now how little reason we have to trust to that, will appear in the second thing I have to add, which is this:  
11. That we dare not receive any thing whatsoever, merely upon the Credit of the Roman Church; no not that divine, that holy Tradition before spoken of, viz. the Scripture. Which we do not believe only upon their testimony, both because they are but a part of the Church, and therefore not the sole Keepers of Divine Truth; and they are a corrupted part who have not approved themselves faithful in the keeping what was committed to them.  
Let our People diligently mark this, That Traditions never were, nor are now, only in the keeping of the Roman Church: and that these things are widely different; the Tradition of the whole Church, or of the greatest and best part of it; and the Tradition of one part of the Church, and the least part of it: and the worst part also and most depraved.  
What is warranted by the Authority of the whole Church, I have shown before, we reverently receive: but we cannot take that for current Tradition, which is warranted only by a small part of the Church, and we give very little credit to what is warranted only by that part of it which is Roman. Because,  
1. First, This Church hath not preserved so carefully as other Churches have done, the first and orginal Tradition, which is in the Scriptures; but suffered them to be shamefully corrupted. Every one knows that there is a Latin Vulgar Edition of the Bible (which they of that Church prefer before the Original) none of which they preserved heretofore from manifest depravations; nor have been able, since they were told of the faults, to purge away; so as to canonize any Edition without permitting great numbers in their newest and most approved Bibles. Isidore Clarius in his Preface to his Edition, complains that he found these holy Writings defaced with innumerable errors: Eight thousand of which, that he thought most material, he saith he amended; and yet left he knew not how many lesser ones untouched: After which (the Council of Trent having vouched this Vulgar Latin Edition, for the only authentic) Pope Sixtus the Fifth, published, out of the several Copies that were abroad, one which he straightly charged to be received, as the only true Vulgar; from which none should dare to vary in a tittle. And yet two years were scarce passed, before Clement the Eight, found many defects and corruptions still remaining in that Edition; and therefore published another with the very same charge, that none else should be received.  
Which evidently shows they have suffered the holy Books to be so foully abused, that they know not how to amend the errors that are crept into them, nor can tell which is the true Bible. For these two Bibles thus equally authorized as the only authentic ones, abound not only with manifest diversities, but with contradictions, or contrarieties one to the other. Whereby all Romanists are reduced to this miserable necessity, either to make use of no Bible at all; or to fall under the curse of Sixtus, if he make use of that of Clement: or the curse of Clement, if he use the Bible of Sixtus. For they are both of them enjoined with the exclusion of all other Editions; and with the penalty of a Curse upon them, who disobey the one or the other; and it is impossible to obey both.  
This might be sufficient to demonstrate how unfaithful that Church hath been, in the weightiest concerns. Whereby all the Members of are plunged beyond all power of redemption, into a dismal necessity, either of laying a side the Scriptures, or of offending against the sacred Decrees (as they account them) of one or other of the heads of their Church (which some take to be infallible) and being accursed of them.  
2, But for every one's fuller satisfaction, it may be fit farther to represent how negligent they have been in preserving other Traditions, which were certainly once in the Church, but now utterly lost. There is no question to be made, but the Apostles taught the first Christians the meaning of those hard places which we find in their and other holy Writings. But who can tell us where to find certainly so much as one of them? And therefore where is the fidelity of this Church, which boasts so much to be the Keeper of sacred Traditions? For nothing is more desirable than these Apostolical Interpretations of Scripture; nothing could be more useful; and yet we have no hope to meet with them either there, or indeed any where else. Which is no reproach to other Churches, who do not pretend to more than is written; but refl●cts much upon them, and discredits them, who challenge the power of the whole Church entirely, and would pass not only for the sole Keepers and Witnesses of Divine Truth; but for careful preservers of it. For of what should they have been more careful then of these useful things, whereof they can tell us nothing? when of unprofitable Ceremonies they have most devoutly kept, if we could believe them, a very great number.  
3. They tell us indeed of some doctrinal Traditions also which they have religiously preserved; but mark I beseech you with what sincerity. For to justify these, they have forged great numbers of Writings and Books under the name of such Authors, a● it is evident had no hand in them; which is another reason why we cannot give credit to their reports, if we have no other authority. There are very few persons now that are ignorant how many Decretal Epistles of the ancient Bishops of Rome have been devised, to establish the Papal Empire; and how shamefully a Donation of Constantine hath been pretended, wherein he gave away the Roman Empire and all its Rights to the Pope. Which puts me in mind (as a notorious proof of this) of the Forgeries that are in the Breviary itself, where we read of Constantine's Leprosy; and the cure of it by Sylvester's baptising him (which are egregious Fables) and of the Decrees of the second Roman Synod under that Pope Sylvester, wherein the Breviary affirms Photinus was condemned: when all the world knows that Photinus his Heresy did not spring up till divers years after the death of Sylvester. And there are so many other Arguments which prove the Decrees of that Synod to be a vile forgery, that we may see, by the way, what reason they have to keep their Liturgy in an unknown Language; lest the people perceiving what untruths they are taught, instead of God's Word, should abhor that Divine Service, as justly they might, which is stuffed with so many Fables.  
It would be endless to show how many passages they have foisted into ancient Writers to countenance their Traditions, particularly about the Papal Supremacy; by which so great a man as Thomas Aquinas was deceived: who frequently quotes Authorities which are mere Forgeries, though not invented by him, I verily think, but imposed upon him by the fraud which had been long practised in that Church. For we find that the Canons of so famous and universally known Council as that of the first at Nice, have been falsely alleged even by Popes themselves. Boniface for instance, and Zosimus alleged a counterfeit Nicene Canon to the African Bishops in the sixth Council of Carthage; who to convince the false dealing of these Popes, sought out with great labour and diligence, the ancient and authentic Copies of the Nicene Canons; and having obtained them both from Alexandria and from Constantinople, they found them for number and for sense to be the very same which themselves already had; but not one word in them of what the Pope's pretended. The same I might say of Pope Innocent, and others, whom I purposely omit, because I study brevity.  
4. And have this farther to add, that as they have pretended Tradition; where there is none; so where there is, they have left that Tradition: and therefore have no reason to expect that we should be governed by them in this matter, who take the liberty to neglect, as they please, better Tradition than they would impose upon us. None are to be charged with this, if it be a guilt, more than themselves. For instance, the three Immersions: i e. dipping the Persons three times in Baptism, was certainly an ancient practice, and said, by many Authors, to be an Apostolical Tradition; and to be ordained in signification of the blessed Trinity, into whose name they were baptised, And yet there is no such thing now in use in their Church, no more then in ours; who justify ourselves, as I shown above, by a true opinion, that Rites and Ceremonies are not unalterable: which it is impossible for them to do, unless they will cease to press the necessity of other Traditions upon us, which never were so generally received, as this which is now abolished. To which may be added the custom of giving the Eucharist to Infants, which prevailed for several Ages, and is called by St. Austin an Apostolical Tradition; the custom of administering Baptism only at Easter and Whitsuntide; with a great heap more, which would be too long to enumerate. Nor it is necessary I should trouble the Reader with them, these being sufficient to show the partiality of that Church in this matter; and that we have no reason to be tied to that, merely upon their Authority, which they will not observe, though having a far greater. Nay, all discreet persons may easily see what a wide difference there is between them who have abrogated such Traditions as had long gone even in their Church, under the name of Apostolical; and us who therefore do not follow pretended Traditions now, because we believe them not to be Apostolical, but merely Roman. He is strangely blind, who doth not see how much more sincere this Church is then that, in this regard.  
5. Besides this, we can demonstrate, that as in these things they have forsaken Traditions, so in other cases they have perverted and abused them, turning them into quite another thing. As appears to all that understand any thing of ancient Learning, in the business of Purgatory; which none of the most ancient Writers so much as dreamed to be such a place as they have now devised; but only asserted a Purgatory-Fire: through which all, both good and bad, even the blessed Virgin herself, must pass, at the great and dreadful day of Judgement. This was the old Tradition, as we may call it, which was among Christians; which they have changed into such a Tradition as was among the Pagans.  
6. But it is time to have done with this; else I should have insisted upon this a while, which I touched before, and is of great moment, That the Tradition which now runs in that Church, is contrary to the certain Tradition of the Apostles and the universal Church; particularly in the Canon of Scripture. In which no more Books have been numbered by the Catholic Church in all Ages, since the Apostles time, then are in the VI Article of Religion in the Church of England? till the late council of Trent took the boldness to thrust the Apoeryphal Books into the holy Canon, as nothing inferior to the acknowledged Divine Writings, This hath been so evidently demonstrated by a late Reverend Prelate of our Church, in his Scholastical History of the Canon of the Scriptures, out of undoubted Records, that no fair answer can be made to it.  
But I must leave a little room for other things that ought to be noted.  
III. And the next is a consequence from what hath been now said. That there being so little credit to be given to the Roman Church only, we cannot receive those Doctrines of Truth which that Church now presses upon our belief, upon the account of Tradition. For instance, That the Church of Rome is the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches; That the Pope of Rome is the Monarch or Head of the universal visible Church: That all Scriptures must be expounded according to the sense of this Church; That there are truly and properly seven Sacraments, neither more nor less, instituted by our blessed Lord himself in the New Testament: That there is a proper and propitiatory Sacrifice offered in the Mass for the quick and dead, the same that Christ offered on the Cross. In short, the half communion, and all the rest of the Articles of their New Faith, in the Creed published by Pope Pius IU. which are Traditions of the Roman Church alone, not of the Universal; and rely solely upon their own Authority. And therefore we refuse them; and in our Disputes about Traditions, we mean these things; which we reject, because they have no foundation, either in the holy Scripture, or in universal Tradition; but depend, as I said, upon the sole Authority of that Church, which witnesses in its own behalf.  
For whatsoever is pretended, to make the better show, all resolves at last into that; as I intimated in the beginning of this Discourse. Scripture and Tradition can do nothing at all for them, without their Church's definition. Though their whole infallible Rule of Faith seem to be made up of those three, yet in truth, the last of these alone, the Church's definition, is the whole Rule, and the very bottom upon which their Faith stands. For what is Tradition, is no more apparent, than what is Scripture, according to their Principles, without the Authority of their church, which pretends an unlimited power to supply the defect even of Tradition itself.  
In short as Tradition among them is taken in to supply the defect of Scripture; so the Authority of their Church is taken in to supply the defect of Tradition: But this Authority undermines them both, because neither Scripture nor Tradition signify any thing, without their Church's Authority. Which therefore is the Rule of their Faith; that is, they believe themselves.  
To which absurdity they are driven, because it is made evident by us, that there have been great diversities of Traditions, and many changes and alterations made, even in things called Apostolical, etc. And therefore they have no other way, but to fly to the judgement of the present Church, to determine what are Traditions Apostolical, and what are not: by which Judgement all mankind must be governed; that is, we must believe them, and they believe themselves: which they would have done well to have said in one word, without putting us to the trouble of seeking for Traditions in Books, and in other Churches. But they would willingly colour their pretences by as many fair words as possible, and so make mention of Scripture, Tradition, Antiquity; which when we have examined, they will not stand to them, but take fanctuary in their own Authority, saying, They are the sole Judges what is Scripture, and what Tradition, and what Antiquity; nay, have a power to declare any new point of Faith, which the Church never heard of before. This is the Doctrine of Salmeron and others of his fellows: That the Doctrine of Faith admits of additions in essential things. For all things were not taught by the Apostles, but such as were then necessary and fit for the Salvation of Believers.  
By which means we can never know when the Christian Religion will be perfected; but their Church may bring in Traditions by its sole Authority, without end.  
Nay, some among them have been contented to resolve all their Faith into the sole Authority of the present Roman Bishop; according to that famous saying of Cornelius Mussus (promoted by Paul the Third to a Bishopric) upon the fourteenth Chapter to the Romans: To confess the truth ingenuously, I would give greater credit to one Pope, in those things which touch the mysteries of Faith then to a thousand Hierom's, Austin's, Gregory's; to say nothing of Richard's, Scotus', &c. For I believe and know that the Pope cannot err in matters of Faith. Which contemptuous Speech he would never have uttered, to the discredit of those great-men whom they pretend to reverence, if he had not known more certainly that the Tradition which runs among the ancient Fathers is against them, than he could know the Pope to be infallible.  
There is no Tradition, I am sure for that; nor for abundance of other things, which rest merely upon their own credit; as is fairly acknowledged in two great Articles of their present Creed by our Countryman Bishop Fisher, with whose words I conclude this particular. Many perhaps have the less confidence in Indulgences, because their use seems to have been newer in the Church, and very lately found among Christians. To whom I answer, that it doth not appear certainly by whom they began to be first delivered. For the Ancients make no mention, or very rare, of Purgatory; and the Greeks to this very day do not believe it: nor was the belief either of Purgatory or of Indulgences so necessary in the Primitive Church, as it is new. And as long as there was no care about Purgatory, no body sought for Indulgences: for all their esteem depends upon that. If you take away Purgatory, to what purpose are Indulgences? Since therefore Purgatory was so lately known and received in the Catholic Church, who can wonder that there was no use of Indulgences in the beginning of our Religion?  
Which is a full Confession what kind of Traditions that Church commends unto us: things lately invented; their own private Opinions, of which the ancient Christians knew nothing. In one word, their Tradition is no Tradition, in that sense wherein the Church always understood it.  
IU. And what hath been said of them, must be applied to other particular Churches; though some have been more sincere than they. None of them hath any Authority to commend any thing as an Article of Faith unto Posterity, which hath not been commended to them by all foregoing Ages, derived from the Apostles. For Vincentius his Rule is to guide us all in this: That is Catholic (and consequently to be received) which hath been held by all, and in all churches, and at all times.  
V Which puts me in mind of another thing to be briefly touched, that the Ecclesiastical Tradition contained in the Confessions or Registers of particular Churches in these days wherein we live, is not received by us, nor allowed to have the same Authority which such Tradition had at the time of the Nicene Council, for the conviction of Heresy. The joint consent I mean of so many Bishops as were there assembled, and the unanimous Confessions of so many several Churches of several Provinces, as were there delivered, hath not now such a force to induce belief as it had then. The reason of which is given by the same Vicentius, who so highly commends that way which was then taken of reproving Heresy; but adds this most wise Caution (in the last Chapter but one of the first part of his commonitorium,) But you must not think that all Heresies, and all ways, are thus to be opposed; but only new and fresh Heresies: when they first rise up, that is, before they have falsified the Rules of the ancient Faith, etc. As for inveterate Heresies, which have spread themselves, they are in no wise to be assaulted this way; because in a long tract of time many opportunities may have presented themselves to Heretics of stealing Truth out of the ancient Records, and of corrupting the Volumes of our Ancestors.  
Which if it be applied to the present state of things, it is evident the Roman Church hath had such opportunities of falsifying Antiquity ever since the first acknowledgement of the Papal Supremacy that we cannot rely merely upon any written Testimonies, or unwritten Traditions, which never so great a number of their Bishops met together shall produce; which amount not to so much as one legal Testimony, but they are to be looked upon or suspected as a multitude of false Witnesses, conspiring together in their own cause.  
How then, may some say, can Heresies of long standing, be confuted? The same Vincentius resolves us in this, in the very next words: We may convince them, if need be, by the sole authority of the Scriptures? or eschew them as already convicted and condemned in ancient times, by the general Councils of Catholic Priests.  
The Tradition which is found there, must direct all future councils not the Opinions of their present churches.  
iv I will add but one thing more; which is, That the Tradition called Oral, because it comes by word of mouth from one Age to another, without any written Record, is the most uncertain, and can be least relied upon of all other. This hath been demonstrated so fully by the Writers of our Church, and there are such pregnant instances of the errors into which men have been led by it, that it needs no long discourse.  
Two instances of it are very common, and I shall add a third.  
1. The first is that which Papias, who lived presently after the Apostles times, and conversed with those who had seen them set on foot. His way was, as Eusebius relates out of his Works, not so much to read, as to inquire of the Elders what Saint Andrew or Saint Peter said; what was the Saying of Saint Thomas, Saint James, and the rest of the Disciples of our LORD. And he pretended that some of them told him, among other things, that after the resurrection of our Bodies, we shall reign a thousand years here upon Earth: which he gathered, saith Eusebius, from some Saying of the Apostles, wrong understood. But this Fancy was embraced very greedily, and was taught for two whole Ages, as an Apostolical Tradition; no body opposing it: and yet having nothing to say for it, but only the antiquity of the man (as Eusebius his words are, L. 3. cap. ult) who delivered it to them: yet this Tradition hath been generally since taken for an imposture, and teaches us no more than this: That if one man could set a going such a Doctrine, and make it pass so current for so long a time, upon no other pretence then that an Apostle said so in private discourse; we have great reason to think that other Traditions have had no better beginning, or not so good; especially since they never so universally prevailed as that did.  
2. A second instance is that famous contention about the observation of Easter; which miserably afflicted the Church in the days of Victòr Bishop of Ròme, by dividing the Eastern Christians from the Western. One pretending Tradition from Saint Jòhn, and Saint Philip; the other from Saint Peter, and Saint Paul. Concerning which I will not say, as Rigaltius doth (in his sharp note upon the words of Firmilian, who pretended Tradition for the rebaptising of Heretics,) That under the Names and Persons of great men, there were sottish and sophistical things delivered for Apostolical Traditions, by Fools and Sophisters. But this I affirm, that there are many more instances of men's forwardness, and they neither Fools nor Sophisters, but only wedded to the Opinions of their own Churches, to obtrude things as Apostolical, for which they had no proof at all. For when they knew not how to defend themselves, presently they flew to Tradition Apostolical.  
3. A third instance of whose uncertainty we have in Irenaeus, (L. 2. c. 39) concerning the age of our blessed Saviour when he died, which he confidently affirms to have been forty, if not fifty years: and saith the Elders which knew St. John, and were his Scholar's, received this relation from him. And yet all agree, that he beginning to preach at thirty years of age, was crucified about three years and an half after.  
The like relation Clement makes of his preaching but one year; which he calls a secret Tradition from the Apostles: but hath no more truth in it then the other.  
Now if in the first Ages, when they were so near the fountain and beginning of Tradition, men were deceived, nay such great men as these were deceived, and led others into errors in these matters; we cannot with any safety trust to Traditions that have passed, men pretend, from one to another until now; but we can find no mention of in any Writer, till some Ages after the Apostles; and then were by some body or other, who had authority in those days, called Apostolical Traditions; merely to gain them the more credit. Thus Andreas Caesariensis in his commentaries upon the Book of Revelation, p. 743. Saith, that the coming of Enoch and Elias before the second coming of Christ (though it be not found in Scripture) was a constant report received by Tradition without any variation, from the Teachers of the Church.  
Which is sufficient to show how ready they were to father their own private Opinions upon ancient universal Tradition; and how little reason we have to trust to that which was so uncertain, even in the first Ages; and therefore must needs be more dubious now.  
Thus I have endeavoured to lay before the eyes of those who will be pleased to look over this short Treatise, what they are to think and speak about Tradition. It is a calumny to affirm, that the Church of England rejects all Tradition; and I hope none of her true Children are so ignorant, as when they hear that word, to imagine they must rise up and oppose it. No, the Scripture itself is a Tradition; and we admit all other Traditions which are subordinate, and agreeable unto that; together with all those things which can be proved to be Apostolical by the general Testimony of the Church in all Ages: nay, if any thing not contained in Scripture, which the Roman Church now pretends to be a part of GOD's Word, were delivered to us by as universal uncontroulled Tradition as the Scripture is, we should receive it as we do the Scripture.  
But it appears plainly that such things were at first but private Opinions, which now are become the Doctrines of that particular Church; who would impose her Decrees upon us under the Venerable Name of Apostolical Universal Tradition; which I have shown you hath been an ancient Cheat, and that we ought not to be so easy as to be deceived by it. But to be very wary, and afraid of trusting the Traditions of such a Church, as hath not only perverted some, abolished others, and pretended them where there hath been none; but been a very unfaithful preserver of them and that in matters of great moment, where there were some; and lastly, warrants those which it pretends to have kept, by nothing but its own infallibility. For which there is no Tradition, but much against it, even in the Original Tradition, the holy Scriptures; which plainly suppose the Roman Church may not only err, but utterly fall and be cut off from the Body of Christ: as they that please may read, who will consult the Eleventh Chapter to the Romans, v. 20, 21, 22. Of which they are in the greater danger, because they proudly claim so high a Prerogative as that now mentioned; directly contrary to the Apostolical Admonition in that place: Be not high minded, but fear.   

CONCLUSION  
I Shall end this Discourse with a brief Admonition, relating to our Christian Practice.  
And what is there more proper, or more seasonable than this? While we reject all spurious Traditions, let us be sure to keep close to the genuine and true. Let us hold them fast, and not let them go.  
Let us not not dispute ourselves out of all Religion, while we condemn that which is false; nor break all Christian Discipline and Order, because we cannot submit to all humane Impositions.  
In plain words, let us not throw off Episcopacy, together with the Papal Tyranny.  
We ought to be the more careful in observing the Divine Tradition delivered to us in the Scripture; and according to the Scripture, because we are not bound to other.  
While we contend against the half Communion, let us make a conscience to receive the whole frequently. It looks like Faction rather than Religion, to be earnest for that which we mean not to use.  
In like manner, while we look upon additions to the Scripture as vain, let us not neglect to read and ponder those holy Writtings.  
When we reject Purgatory as a Fable, let us really dread Hell-fire.  
And while we do not tie ourselves to all usages that have been in the Church, let us be carful to observe, first, all the substantial Duties of Righteousness, Charity, Sobriety, and Godliness, which are unquestionably delivered to us by our LORD himself and his holy Apostles: and secondly, all the Ordinances of the Church wherein we live, which are not contrary to the Word of GOD. For so hath the same Divine Authority delivered, that the people should obey those that are their Guides and Governors, submitting themselves to their authority, and avoiding all contention with them, as most undecent in itself, and pernicious to Religion; which suffers extremely, when neither Ecclesiastical Authority, nor Ecclesiastical Custom, can end disputes about Rites and Ceremonies.  
Read. 1 Thess. 5. 12. Heb. 13. 17. 1 Cor. 11. 16. and read such places, as you ought to do all the other Scriptures, till your hearts be deeply affected with them.  
For be admonished, in the last place, of this; which is of general use, and must never be forgotten, because we shall lose the benefit of that Celestial Doctrine which is delivered unto us; if we do not strictly observe it● That as this Evangelical Doctrine is delivered down to us, so we must be delivered up to it. Thus St. Paul teaches us to speak, in 6. Rom. 17. where he thanks GOD that they who formerly had been servants of sin, did now obey from the heart that form of Doctrine unto which they were delivered. So the words run in the Greek (as the Margin of our Bible's inform you) cis bon paredothnie.  
This is the Tradition which we must be sure to retain, and hold fast above all other; as that without which, all our belief will be ineffectual.  
This is the very end for which all Divine Truth is delivered unto us, that we may be delivered and make a surrender of ourselves unto it.  
Observe the force of the Apostles words; which tell us, first, that there was a certain form of Christian Doctrine which the Apostles taught, compared here to a mould (so the word Typos, form, may be translated) into which Metal or suchlike matter is cast, that it may receive the figure and shape of that mould.  
2. Now he compares the Roman Christians to such ductile, pliable matter; they being so delivered or cast into this form or mould of Christian Doctrine, that they were entirely framed and fashioned according to it, and had all the lineaments, as I may say, of it expressed upon their souls.  
3. And having so received it, they were obedient to it: for without this all the impressions, which by knowledge of Faith were made upon their souls, were but an imperfect draught of what was intended in the Christian Tradition.  
4. And it was hearty obedience, sincere compliance with the Divine Will; such obedience as became those who understood their Religion to be a great deliverance and liberty from the slavery of sin (before spoken of) into the happy freedom of the service of God.  
5. All which, lastly, he ascribes to the grace of God, which had both delivered to them that Doctrine, and drawn them to deliver up themselves to it, made their hearts soft and ductile to be cast into that mould, and quickened them to Christian Obedience, and given them a willing mind to obey cheerfully. All this was from God's grace, and not their merits; and therefore the thanks was to be ascribed to him, who succeeds and blesses all pious endeavours.  
Now according to this pattern, let us frame ourselves, who, blessed be God, have a form of Doctrine delivered to us in this Church, exactly agreeable to the holy Scriptures, which lie open before us; and we are exhorted not only to look into them, but we feel that grace which hath brought them to us, clearly demonstrating that we ought to be form according to the holy Doctrine therein delivered, by the delivery of ourselves to it. By the delivery of our mind, that is, to think of God, and ourselves, and of our duty in every point, just as this instructs us. And by the delivery of our wills and affections, to be governed and regulated, according to its directions. And when we have consented to this, we find the Divine grace representing to us the necessity of an hearty obedience, to what we know and believe, and have embraced as the very Truth of God. To this we are continually drawn and mightily moved; and if we would show our thankfulness for it, let us follow these godly motions, and conform ourselves in all things to the heavenly prescriptions of this Book, being confident that if we do, we need not trouble ourselves about any other model of Religion, which we find not here delivered.  
For if you desire to know what form of Doctrine it is, to which the Apostle would have us delivered, it is certain it is a Doctrine directly opposite to all vice and wickedness. For herein the grace of God was manifested, he tells the Romans, in that it had brought them from being slaves of sin, hearty to obey the Christian Doctrine; which taught, that is, Virtue and Piety.  
Now to this the present Romanists can pretend to add nothing. All the parts of a godly life are sufficiently taught us in the holy Scriptures. And if we would seriously practise and follow this Doctrine from the very heart, we should easily see there is no other but what is there delivered. For whatsoever is pretended to be necessary besides, is not a Doctrine according unto godliness (as the Apostle calls Christianity) but the very design of it is to open an easier way to Heaven then that laid before us in the holy Scriptures, by Masses for the dead, by Indulgences, by Sanctifications, and the merits of the Saints, and several other such like inventions; which have no foundation in the Scriptures, nor in true Antiquity.  
That is a word indeed which is very much pretended. Antiquity, they say, is on their side; but it is nothing different from what hath been said about Tradition. And if we will run up to the true Antiquity, there is nothing so ancient as the holy Scriptures. They are the oldest records of Religion; and by them if we frame our lives, we are sure it is according to the most authentic and ancient directions of Piety, delivered in the holy Oracles of God. So both sides confess them to be. And if the old Rule be safe. that is true which is first, we are safe enough: for there is nothing before this to be our Guide; and there can be nothing after this, but must be tried by it. According to another Rule, as old as Reason itself; The first in every kind, is the measure of all the rest. And, as sure as that there is a Gospel of GOD'S grace, they that walk after this Rule (this Divine Canon) peace shall be upon them, and mercy; they being the true Israel; or Church, of God.   
THE END,   

A DISCOURSE Concerning the UNITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH Maintained in the CHURCH OF ENGLAND.  
EDINBURGH, reprinted by J. Reid, Anno DOM. 1686.   

THE UNITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH Maintained in the CHURCH of ENGLAND.  
WHosoever with an impartial eye, and a truly religious concern for the Honour of GOD, the Credit of the Gospel, and the Salvation of Men, looks into the estate of Christendom; he will scarce find any greater cause of sorrowful Reflections then from the many Divisions, and Animosities, which have distracted, and separated its parts.  
These have opened the mouths, and whet the tongues of professed enemies to reviling Invictives and profane Scoffs against our Blessed Lord himself, and his holy Religion, and stifled the first thoughts of admitting the most convincing Truths to a debate among Jews, Turks, or Pagans, and stopped their ears against the wisest Charms.  
To no one cause can we more reasonably impute the small progress which Christianity hath made in the World for a thousand years past. The same contests have as pernicious influence at home upon the Faith or manners of those within the Pale of the Church.  
Men are hereby too soon tempted into some degrees of Scepticism about very material Points of Christian Doctrine, in which they observe so many to differ among themselves. Others are the more easily seduced to seek and make much of all Arguments, whereby to baffle or weaken the clearest evidences for their conviction: and they seldom continue long in the same persuasion with those, with whom they will not maintain the same Communion. Thus Schisms have generally ended in Heresies.  
As mischievous are the effects of these Distractions upon the manners of Christians. There are many vicious, and disorderly passions; such as Anger, Wrath, Hatred, Revenge, Pride, Censoriousness, etc. which take Sanctuary therein, and under that shelter put in their claim for the height of Christian Graces, and the most holy zeal for GOD and his Cause. Every where they break, or loosen the Discipline of the Church, which should guard its children from doing amiss, or restore them after it, when the last and most capital punishment of being thrust out of its Communion is like to be little dreaded, where many voluntarily desert it with the higest pretences of better advantage elsewhere.  
Now though this matter of fact, confirmed by woeful experience, be a subject too sad for a long meditation, or passionate enlargement, yet is it no more than what might have been foreseen, without a Spirit of Prophecy, to follow from the corrupt nature, and depraved estate of mankind not otherwise rectified. Wherefore we must suppose that our ever blessed Saviour, in the Foundations of his holy Institution, made all needful provision to prevent these fatal miscarriages.  
By the sufficient Revelation of all Fundamental Articles of Belief. By the as full Declaration of all the necessary precepts of a good life. By inculcating frequently, and pressing most emphatically those commands concerning Love, Peace, Unity, Good Order, Humility, Meekness, Patience, etc. directly opposed to those contentions, in every Page of the New Testament: These it may suffice but to name.  
It will soon be granted, after the best provision of Rules, and most convincing Arguments and Motives to strengthen them, that there will be need of some Government to encourage all in their performance, to restrain some from offering violence to them, and to provide for many emergencies.  
Our Blessed LORD and Master, therefore, for the better security of his Truth, and the safer conduct of those which adhere to it, established a Society or Church in the World, which he purchased with the most inestimable price, dignified with the highest Privileges, encouraged with the largest Promises, backed with the most ample Authority, and will always defend with the strongest Guard, against all Power, or Policy on Earth or under the Earth; so that, as he hath told us, the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.  
But now where this Church is to be found, and what are the measures of our Obligation to it, hath been a long and great debate, especially between us and the Romanists. In most of their late Controversial Books they have seemed ready to wave disputes about particular points, in hopes of greater advantage, which they promise themselves from this venerable name, and that bold, though most false and presumptuous claim which they lay to the thing itself, even exclusive to all others; which will appear from the true, but short and plain state of the case between us, the chief design of this attempt,  
Now that we may not charge them, nor they us falsely or rashly;  
I. It may be convenient first, to lay down some Principles concerning this Church in which they and we seem mostly agreed though all our Writers express not themselves alike clearly herein.  
II. To propound the chief Bands of Unity within this Church.  
III. To mark out the most obvious Defections from them by the Romanists.  
iv To show the Reformation in the Church of England proceeded, and was framed with all due regard to the preservation of them.  
V To clear it of the most common Objections.  
VI To consider the strong obligations from hence upon all sorts of Dissenters among us to embrace, and continue in its ommunion.  
I. The former will soon be dispatched, which I reduce to the following particulars.  
1. That our Blessed Saviour always had, and always will have a Church in the World, in which his Doctrine hath been, and shall be so far professed, and his Sacraments so effectually administered, that they who rightly improve them may not want necessary supplies for their present spiritual life, or future hopes of Salvation: though the extent of the Church as to its boundaries, and the perfection of it in degrees may be vastly different at one time, and in one place from another. This many Prophecies in the Old Testament, and Promises from our Saviour in the New give abundant ground for our Faith to rely upon, and the experience of all Ages hitherto hath confirmed.  
2. That this Church is a distinct Society within itself, furnished with sufficient Authority in some to Govern, and Obligation in others to be subject, necessary to every Society; which the power of the Keys given by our Lord to received in or shut out, and the exercise of Discipline from Divine Precept, and Scripture Example evince beyond all exception. But then this Ecclesiastical Power in whomsoever placed, or strained to what height soever, can never extend to vacate, or change the express Institution of Christ, or take away our Obligation to his revealed Truth and direct Commands. In case of any competition the Apostles defence may be ours, We must obey God rather then man. And St. Paul's profession, We can do nothing against the Truth, but for the Truth. And again, If we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel, etc. let him be accursed, Gal. 1. 8.  
3. This Church must be visible, as every Society is more or less, whose parts are so, and whose Profession must be so. Our entrance into it is in a visible manner by Baptismal Initiation. Our obliged Communion with it is in divers outward sensible Acts, which the representation of it by a Body or Building might prove. More clearly is it likened to a city on a Hill, which cannot be hid, Mat. 5. 14. Set up as the Light of the World, an Ensign to the Gentiles, which all Nations should flee unto, or else it would witness against them: wherein its Followers should take Sanctuary, and find a Refuge.  
4. Within these Boundaries we have the only hopes of safety here and happiness hereafter. What GOD may do by his supereminent unaccountable power in an extraordinary case is presumption for us but to inquire into. Out of this Atk there is no prospect given to us of any escape from the Universal Deluge. 
a S. Cyprian Ep. 60 p. 143. Ed. Ox. Si aliquis ex talibus fuerit apprehensus; non est quod sibi quasi in confession Nominis blandiatur, cum constet si occisi ejusmodi extra Ecclesiam fuerint, Fidei coronam non esse, sed poenam potius esse perfidiae. Nec in Domo Dei inter unanimes habitaturos esse, quos videmus de pacifica & Divina Domo furore discordiae recessisse. S. August. & Caeteri in Conc. Cirtensi adv. Donatistas', Ep. 152. T. 2. p. 696. Edit. Frob. 556. Quisquis ergo ab hac Ecclesia Catholica fuerit separatus, quantumlibet laudabiliter se vivere existimet, hoc solo scelere quod a Christi unitate disjunctus est, non habebit vitam. Sed ira Dei manet super eum. Quisquis autem in hac Ecclesia bene vixerit, nihil ei praejudicant aliena peccata. Idem Ep. 204. ad Donatum Presbyterum Donatist. T. 2. p. 834. Foris autem ab Ecclesia constitutus, & separatus a compage unitatis, & vinculo Charitatis, aeterno supplicio punireris, etiamsi pro Christi nomine vivus incendereris.  All the spiritual Promises concerning this life or a better are made to this Church, the Members of this Body who is the Head. Therefore the Apostles preach to Jews and Gentiles the necessity of receiving this Character. Seeing there is no other name under Heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved, as St, Peter attests, Acts 4. 12.  
5. This church is but one. It is an Article of our Faith, expressed in our Creed to believe it so. For there be many members, yet but one Body. One Spirit quickening all; One LORD, and Head over all; One GOD and Father of all; one Faith; one Baptism; one Hope of our Calling in all, as the Apostle argues, Eph. 4. 4. 5. 6. 7, etc.  
II. Now we are to inquire what are the chief Bands of Unity in the Church which make, keep, and evidence it to be one; How we may secure ourselves within this Garden enclosed, this Spring shut up, this Fountain sealed, as the Ancients usually apply that Cant 4. 12. to this one Enclosure of the Church.  
1. This appears in the Unity of Belief, not only inwardly, but in the outward profession of the same Faith which was once delivered to the Saints, and hath been generally preserved, and continued down throughout all Ages of the Church. In testimony whereof the most eminent Bishops upon their first Consecration sent to their Brethren confessions of their Faith.  
2. In the Unity of 
a 
Tertullian de prescript. Haeret. c. 20. p. 209. Sic omnes primae, & Apostolicae dum una omnes probant unitatem. Dum est communicatio Pacis, & appellatio Fraternitatis, contesseratio Hospitalitatis, quae jura non alia ratio regit, quam ejusdem Sacramenti una traditio.  
S. August. adv. literas ●e●iliani, T. 7. p. 132. Charitas Christiana nisi in unitate Ecclesiae non potest custodiri. & Ibid. p. 473. de bapt adv. Donatist. l. 6. Etiamsi Christi Baptismum usque and Sacramenti celebrationem perceperunt, tamen vitam aeternam nisi per Charitatis unitatem non consequuntur, Et Ibid, de unitate Ecclesiae, c. 2 p. 510. Ecclesia corpus Christi est, unde utique manises●um est eum, qui non est in membris Christi, ●hristianam salutem habere non posse, membra autem Christi per unitatis charitatem sibi copulantur, & per eandem capiti suo coherent, quod est christus.   Charity, and Affection as Fellow-members one of another as well as of the same Head; that if one suffer, all the rest suffer with it, and if one rejoice, all rejoice with it. Having an intimate Fellow-●elling of all the Good, or Evil, which befalls any joined in so near a Relation, beyond the compassion of ordinary Humanity: whereby we are bound not only to pray for, but by all offices of kindness, and most intimate Affection especially to assist, and relieve each other in the same Household of Faith. So that by our Personal Consecration all our Labours, and Estates are in some measure devoted to the Honour of GOD, the Service of his Church, and the Necessities of any of its Members.  
3. In the Unity of Worship, whereby we are obliged not only to offer up the same Worship for substance, but also in the outward Act to join, and communicate with each other therein, to present the same Prayers, and Praises, to celebrate together the same Sacraments, to hear the same Instructions, to frequent the same Religious Assemblies, as much as possible; that we may with one mind, and with one mouth glorify GOD even the Father of our Lord JESUS CHRIST, Rom. 15. 6. For as the Command of GOD, the Honour of his Religion, the Edification of his Church, the Propagation of his Truth, and the peculiar Promise of his Presence, and Blessing require a solemn public exercise of all Religious Worship in united Congregations; so hereby we most sensibly prove, and secure our unity therein. 
b 
S. Austin. adv. literas Petiliani, T. 7. p. 124. Huic Ecclesiae, quae per totam terram diffunditur, quisquis non communicate, vides cui non communicate.  
Idem Ep. 50. ad Bonifacium. T. 2. p. 230. Ecclesia Catholica sola est corpus CHRISTI, cujus ille caput est Salvator corporis sui. Extra hoc corpus neminem vivificat Spiritus Sanctus, quia sicut ipse dicit Apostolus charitas DEI diffusa est in cordibus nostris per Spiritum Sanctum qui datus est nobis, non est autem particeps Divinae charitatis qui hostis est unitatis. Et de Bapt. adv. Donatist. l. 3. c. 16. T. 7. p. 409. Ipsa est enim charitas quam non habent, qui ab Ecclesiae Catholicae communione praecisi sunt, etc. Non habet DEI charitatem, qui non diligit Ecclesiae unitatem.  
S. Cyprian. de Unitate Ecclesiae, p. 113. Inexpiabilis, & gravis culpa discordiae nec passione purgatur. Esse Martyr non potest qui in Ecclesia non est: ad regnum pervenire non potest, qui eam quae regnatura est, derelinquit.   Whoever then needlessly separates himself from this Church, or refuses to join in Communion with its Members, so far as it is in his power, where he may, without violence to any Doctrine or Precept of CHRIST, such an one divides himself from his Body, and so from all the Promises that we know of the Sacred and comfortable Influences of that one Head, and one Spirit.  
4. In the Unity of Discipline, 
a 
Tertullian. Apolog. c. 39 corpus sumus de conscientiâ religionis & disciplinae unitate & spei foedere. Clerus ad D: Cyprian. Ep. 30 Ox. Ed. p. 56. Idem enim omnes credimur operati, in quo deprehendimur eadem omnes censurae & disciplinae consensione sociati.  
Ita etiam argumentatur idem clerus Rom. adv. Marcionem excommunicatum à Patre suo, & ab iis non receptum, in S. Epiphanio, Haer. 42. l. 1. T. 3. p. 303. Par. Edit. Ou dynametha aneu tes epitropes tu Patros su tuto poiesai, mia gar●estin he pistis, kai mia, he homonoia, etc.  
Synesius Epist. 58. p. 203. de censura in Andronicum, Thoantem, & eorum consortes, Eide tis hos micropolitin aposkybalisei ten Ecclesian, kai dexetai tous apokeryctous autes, isto schisas ten Ecclesian hen mian ho Christos einai bouletai.   whereby every Act of any particular Church conformable to the Institutions of our Saviour, and the universally received practice of his Church stands confirmed as an Act of the whole Church. Particularly whoever is admitted into it accordingly by Baptism in one place is to be accounted a Member of the Church Catholic, and received into its Communion wherever he comes, if no evidence appear of his exclusion by any after regular censure. Likewise into whatever Office, or Ministration any are orderly admitted in one part thereof, in the same are they to be acknowledged in all others, though without that particular Jurisdiction which they had in their own. But whosoever lies under any censure in one Church, he is to be supposed under the same in all others, and not to be received into communion till the Sentence be reversed by the same power, or a stile higher, and greater Authority; according to the Fifth Canon of the Council of Nice, and the design of their formed and communicatory Letters, without which none were to pass from one Church to another. Thus every Church is accountable to its Neighbour Churches, and so to the whole Church for its Actions, that one may not do, what the other undoes, without any regard to this Unity, which would lead to the confusion and distraction of all. Wherefore to put an end to such differences when risen, or obviate any growing mischief thereby, and to receive Appeals from persons who think themselves aggrieved or injured by their own Bishop or Church, a Council of all Bishops in each Province is appointed twice in the year by the same Canon, and in many others. But there was no mention then of any farther, or higher Appeal. 
b 
S. Cyprian ad Antonianum, p. 112. Ox. Ed. Cum sit à Christo una Ecclesia per totum mundum in multa membra divisa, item Episcopatus unus Episcoporum mu●torum concordi numerositate diffusus. Et Ep. 3. p. 71. Omnes enim nos decet pro corpore totius Ecclesiae; cujus per varias quasque provincias membra digesia sunt excubare.  
S. August. de unitate Ecclesiae, c. 12. T. 7. p. 534. Neque enim quia & in orbe terrarum plerumque Regna dividuntur, ideo Christiana unitas dividitur, cum in utraque parte Catholica inveniatur Ecclesia.   Thus an amicable correspondence, and intimate communication was maintained between the Neighbour Churches, and their Governors, and by them with others removed at a greater distance throughout the World.  
These need no long proof, but may be taken as generally granted; the main dispute will lie in the particular application of the two last.  
Now to prevent as much as may be all difficulties about them, it may be added to the third of Unity of Worship, that it will be very convenient, if not absolutely necessary in any settled established Church, that there be some set Forms of public Ministrations, without which it is hard for any to know before hand what they join with, especially for strangers.  
But then these forms should be as plain, and simple as possible, with as little pretence as can be of any danger to the known Will, and Word of God. For no Obligation whatsoever can tie me to communicate with another in that which he forbids; and it will be a great temptation to more than suspect this danger, when men's private opinions, or fanciful transports are mingled with them, which have little show of Scripture or the general practice of the Church in all Ages to justify them.  
The readiest way I know of to prevent that hazard, after all other care about the matters contained, is to endeavour that these Offices be as near alike in all places as can well be, yet every difference in Judgement, when no violence is offered to the Foundation of Catholic Faith and Unity, must not break this Communion according to that profession of St. Cyprian 
a P. 229. Ox. Ed. in Concil. Carthaginensi de baptizandis Haereticis. Neminem judicantes aut a jure communionis, si diversum senserit amoventes.  Judging no man, nor excluding him from the right of communion if he think otherwise; where the dispute was thought of no mean concern, especially in this cause. Which 
b De Bapt. adv. Donat. l. 2. T. 7. p. 391. & sape ibid.  St. Augustin oft alleges against the Donatists, that boasted so much of St. Cyprians judgement against his declared practice. To the same purpose may be applied the treatment of 
c Euseb. Eccles. Hist. l. 5. c. 26.  St. Polycarp in Rome by Anicetus the Bishop, though they differed about the time of the celebration of Easter, and in other points, which could not be agreed between them; yet this last not only invited the former to communion with him, but also to celebrate the sacred Eucharist in his Church, as the words are generally interpreted; which St. Irenaeus not long after urges strongly against Victor, who was hastening to excommunicate the Asian Churches for the same difference, contrary to his Predecessors Practice.  
As to the Fourth of Unity of Discipline, if Unity of Government in all parts be not indispensably necessary to it, yet it will be so far, as not to abrogate, or invade the positive Institutions of our Saviour himself herein, and be more than convenient, that it be as conformable, as it is in our power to make it in one place, to what it is in another. It seems horribly presumptuous, violently to thrust out of the Church that Government under the influence of which Christianity hath been conveyed, and preserved from the Age of the Apostles in the most distant places, upon pretence of erecting a new better Scheme or model of our own, or because of the intricate use of one or two terms in Scripture, when the Church was in its first formation, though against the plain current of it in other places, and the uninterrupted tradition of the whole Church. A Church indeed must be more or less perfect according to its Government, for suitable will be the Exercise and Authority of its Discipline. What allowance may be made for those, who desire to come as near as they can to the Primitive Pattern, though it be not in their power to reach it in many considerable points, I am not now to dispute. But most inexcusable, and highly obnoxious are they, that by extreme violence, and usurpation endeavour to destroy what they found regularly established to their hands.  
III. But we are here most concerned with the bold claims of the Romanists amidst their most obvious Defections, who have made it the principal Band of Unity in the Catholic Church to be subject to the See of Rome, and the pretended Vicar of Christ therein, as the Universal Head, and Monarch of the Church: this they have determined as de fide, and put into their very Creed, and excluded all that do not expressly own it.  
But against this as a great breach of Christian Unity we have many just exceptions, and been always ready to prove them so 
a Bishop Carleton of threefold jurisdiction Dr. Barrow's Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy.   
1. In that no evidence from Scripture appears of any such Authority, conferred upon him, or them: But many strong intimations of the contrary. The places usually alleged to make good their Claim are so far fetched, and so little to their purpose, that they contain alone a strong presumption against them, and their own Authors sometimes speak of them with great distrust. Here if any where sure we may safely argue without daring to prescribe Rules to the most High, that in a matter of so great moment, had it been designed, It would have been most explicitly delivered, and solemnly inculcated.  
2. But that it was not, we have farther evidence from the silence of the most Ancient, and best Fathers of the Church herein, when they have occasion to explain the places insisted on: 
b 
S. Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae post loca communiter allegata, p. 107. quamvis Apostolis omnibus parem potestatem tribuat, etc. paulo post. Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli, quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris & potestatis.  
Idem & alii in Council Carthaginensi, p. 229. Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se Episcoporum constituit, aut Tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegat suos adigit.  
S. Hieron. in Epist. ad Euagrium T. 2. p. 329. Si authoritas quaeritur, orbis major est urbe. Vbicunque fuerit episcopus sive Romae, sive eugubii, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegii, sive Alexandria, sive Tanis, ejusdem meriti, ejusdem est & Sacerdotii. Potentia divitiarum, & paupertatis humilitas vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit. Caeterum omnes Apostolorum successores sunt.   nay expressly expounding them to a quite different Sense, and disowning any such Authority of one Church, or Bishop over others. And when the Roman Bishop began any thing tending towards this, and grounded this claim upon a falsely alleged Canon of the Council of Nice, not on any Divine Character, after examination, and proof of the Forgery, other Bishops wholly disclaim it, and declare against it, and warn him for the future not to disturb their Regular proceed by such unwarrantable practices. 
c Vide Epist. concilii Africani ad Bonifacium, T. 2. p. 1670. 1674. Concil. ult. Ed.  As the African Bishops, and the great St. Austin among them in the case of Appeals. It will be hard for them to find any thing like an argument, or Example of it within the first five Centuries, at lest which was not disowned, and condemned by the rest of the Church, unless from such forged Writings, which they themselves will scare now defend.  
3. In the following Ages we have as good Testimony from History as almost in any other matter of Fact, by what steps, and in what manner this still growing power of the Church and Bishop of Rome advanced itself to the height which it now claims. 
d See D. Caves' dissertation of ancient Church Government, and Dr. Parker of the Government of the Church for the first 600. years.   
1. By Usurpation upon the Rights of other Churches, every degree of Exaltation gained being the depression and diminution of them, till all power was in a manner swallowed up by the Papal ambition, and none left to any o●her, which was not dependent hereupon in its Original, and altogether precarious in its administration. So that here alone it must be immediately derived from Christ, but to all others by commission from Him. Thus in the choice of the chief Governors of the Church all must await his consent, and confirmation, where he does not alone forcibly obtrude them, and must pay for it a round sum for an acknowledgement at their entrance, and an after Tributary Pension out of their income, and take a formal Oath of subjection at their admittance, and own their own Authority from his Delegation, and be liable to have their sentences reversed at his pleasure, and flee as far as his Judicatory, and stand to the trial of it, when he is pleased to call any cause to himself. Nay, if a controversy arise between him and any Prince, or State, the whole Kingdom or Nation shall lie at once under his Interdict, the Clergy be withheld from the exercise of their Function, and the People from the benefit of public Divine Worship and Sacraments. Of these and such like effects of the plenitude of Apostolic Power so much talked of lately, they would do well to show us any thing like a Plea from Scripture or Antiquity within the bounds forementioned, or for some Ages after in the greater part: certainly so great a change could not be effected without some notice and complaints, struggle and contentions, of which Church History is f●ll.  
Their early Faith spoken of throughout the world in St. Paul's time. The eminent Zeal of the first Bishops of that Church, most of whom, if we may credit the account generally received of them, sealed to the former with their blood. Their continued constancy in the Orthodox Profession thereof amidst the corruptions or defections of so many others, particularly in the time of the Arrian Persecution. The concurrent opinion of the Foundation of their Church being laid by the two chief Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul; and the honour of the Imperial Seat wherein they were placed, etc. gave them great repute, and advantageous recommendation in those first Ages. None will much contend with them about priority of Order or Precedence. But when the pre-eminence of the first Bishop came to be improved into a Patriarchate, and that swollen into the Title of the Universal Bishop, which 
a S. Greg. l. 4 Reg. Ep. 32. Absit à cordibus Christianornm nomen islud blasphemiae in quod omnium Sacerdotum honor adimitur dum ab uno sibi demen●er arrogatur, etc. Et alibi in Epist. passim.  St. Gregory so severely condemned in the Bishop of Constantinople, and that at last grew into the stile of the sole Vicar of Christ, and Sovereign Monarch of the whole Church: when the interposition of a Friendly, and Brotherly Arbitration, which all persons in distress, or under the apprehensions of injury are apt to flee unto, and amplify, made way by degrees for the challenge of an ordinary Jurisdiction, and that at first from the pretence of Canonical privilege to that Divine Right and Sanction, and then to prevent all scruple about its determinations these must be backed with the vindication of an infallible conduct: When instead of that charitable support they at first readily bestowed on other Churches in their distress, they now made use of this power to rob them of what was left, taking the advantage of the poverty, and oppression of some under the common Enemy, or the confusion of others through Domestic distractions, to raise themselves out of their spoils; then no wonder if other Churches complain and struggle under the yoke which they could not presently, or easily throw off.  
Indeed, had not this claim of the Church and Bishop of Ro●e risen to such an extravagant height in the arrogance of its pretended Title, and been strained to that excess in the exercise of its assumed Authority; so as not to leave it in the power of other churches to take all due and necessary care of their own members, or provide for them all needful supplies, these might more easily have born their usurpation of more power than ever they could prove belonged to them. They that have learned the Humility of Christ's School, and who are more concerned to perform their Duty then vindicate their Privilege, and know how much safer it is to obey then command, and easier to be Governed then to Govern, will not be much moved at what others fond assume, knowing still that the more difficult account awaits them. But then this power became most intolerable when it was made use of to purposes so much worse than itself, which were beside the former;  
2. The weakening of the power of Temporal Princes, and disturbing the Civil Rights of men. 
a Cracanthorp's defence of Constantine; and against the Pope's temporal Monarchy.  Although our blessed Saviour assured Pilate his Kingdom was not of this world, yet his pretended Vicar here on earth can hardly say so: for beside the Temporal Dominions unto which he hath entitled himself a Sovereign Prince, there are few other Kingdoms, or States on this side of the world in which he hath not, or had not almost as great a share of the Government, as their immediate Princes; at least so far as to prescribe bounds to their Administrations, and subject in great measure all Laws, and Persons to his Foreign Courts, Jurisdiction, and Decrees, yea, their Purses to his Exactions; and upon the least dispute hath withdrawn so great a number of his immediate dependants, who scarce own any other Governors, and raised so many disturbances, that great Princes and States have been forced at last to yield. Not to mention the Arrogance it at length grew up unto in dethroning Princes, giving their Kingdoms to others, authorising their Subjects to rebel against them, or all ways to oppose them, and what oft follows, if not expressed, to murder them: as in their late Sentence against some of our Neighbour Princes.  
But before, much of this may be seen in the long contentions between some of the Western Emperors, particularly Henry the Third, and Fourth, and the Popes, as we have them described in their own Authors 
b Sigonius de regno Italiae;  Also to go no farther, their various contests with several of our Kings, especially Henry the second and the almost continual complaints in all our Parliaments before the Reformation of the encroachments made by them upon the Civil Rights of Prince and Subject by vexatious and chargeable suits and appeals as far as Rome; by Insolences and divers Rapines committed under the shelter of their protection, and defended from due punishment, and by their extravagant Extortions, etc. abundantly prove.  
Now though these Usurpations grew by degrees, and were practised in a different manner according to the condition of those they had to do with, or the temper of him that managed them; yet they must needs seem more or less grievous to all, when power sufficient was not left to the greatest Monarches to defend themselves, or protect their Subjects, preserve the peace, or promote the welfare, and provide for the security of their own Countries. Then no marvel if some of them grow weary of so insupportable oppressions, and at last take courage to grapple with, and extricate themselves from such manifest encroachments upon their own, and the People's Civil Rights, as well as the Ecclesiastical of the Church in their Dominions, and be forced to some harsh and almost violent methods, when the more gentle and benign could prevail nothing.  
3. But beside these more public Invasions upon Church and State, that which made the usurpation more odious and insufferable was the farther abuse of the same extravagant power to bring in strange and dangerous Doctrines, corrupt, and unlawful practices into the Church, and impose them upon all in their Communion, exactly fitted to feed their Ambition, every their Coffers, secure their Authority, and promote their ease and Luxury. Such of the first sort are their Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and Purgatory, of Merit, and Supererogation, the multiplicity of Vows, and delusions in the Principles of Repentance, and ministration of Penance. Of the latter sort are the Invocation of Saints, and Angels, Adoration of Relics and Images, their half Communion, the Scripture locked up, and Divine Service performed in an unknown tongue, etc.  
These and divers like them have proved great Scandals abroad, and stumbling blocks at home, and whatever varnish they may put upon them by the fairest pretences, or however they may cast a mist before the eyes of their Disciples by nice distinctions, yet they have so disfigured the face of Christianity, that he who compares the late appearances of it in the world with the model of it laid down in Scripture, or the Records of the Primitive Church, can hardly believe it the same thing.  
But the particulars are not here to be disputed, they have sufficiently been confuted, and exposed by Protestant Writers, and were by several before excepted against, and disclaimed, though some suffered severely for so doing, and many more we may suppose waited an opportunity to free themselves from their pressure. That which I am now most to insist upon is this, that if the charge we draw up against these of falsehood in judgement, gross Superstition or Idolatry in Worship, and immorality in manners, be true and impartial, as we have been ever ready to make good, and shall do against all the Artifices of the Defendants; Then no Authority whatever regularly founded, or unexceptionably conveyed, can oblige us to these, against the revealed Will, or Word of God, the Dictates of our Consciences, as we hope carefully, and righty informed; the sense and reason of mankind, and the Belief and practice of the Church in the first and purest Ages.  
Greater cause was there to endeavour by all lawful means to throw off such an usurped power, that made so ill use of what it had unjustly gotten, and to restore Religion to its primitive beauty in Doctrine, Worship, and Precepts of Life.  
But alas many difficulties lay in the way of its accomplishment, and all possible struggle, and contentions by force and policy were used by the adverse Party to prevent its beginning, or obstruct it Progress. Great was their Interest in every place; Strong was the influence they had upon persons in Authority; Numerous were their Assistants and Dependants at home and abroad; Weighty was their concern which lay at stake, and many were the advantages which they had of any that opposed them: So that no wonder if a Reformation so long wished for, and much wanted were so slowly effected. It is rather more strange that in so many places it did master these and such like encumbrances, and in so short a time made so considerable a progress. If in some places it proceeded with less Order, Uniformity, and calmness than could have been wished for in a Religious Reformation, Necessity in part, with many perplexed difficulties and encumbrances, may in some measure excuse what no Law before hand fully warrants.  
IU. But leaving others to answer for themselves, in my next particular I am to consider how regularly, and sedately it proceeded in the church of England within the bounds of catholic Unity.  
1. With the concurrence, and encouragement all along of the Supreme Power to free it from any but suspicion of Rebellion. So it began at first with the breaking of the Papal yoke of Supremacy, the Translation of the Bible, and some like preparatives to Reformation under Henry the Eight, and the united Suffrages of his Parliaments, and the Bishops themselves therein. It proceeded suitably to a further improvement in most particulars under his Son Edward the Sixth. And at last it came to its full settlement and establishment under Queen Elizabeth. The beginning and carrying on of the Reformation here was by such loyalty of Principles, and Practices that we challenge any Church in the World to a Comparison therein. Indeed this was so notorious, that her Roman Adversares have turned her Glory into a Reproach by upbraiding her, though most invidiously, with the name of a Parliamentary Religion; because it received all along so much countenance and assistance from those great Assemblies of all the three Estates of the Kingdom under their Head and Soveriagn.  
2. But farther to clear her of all just imputation from hence, it must be added that the whole work was carried on with the advice, and mature deliberation of the Clergy assembled in Convocation, representing the entire body of them, and therein a National Council. That they from their Education, and presumed Knowledge, as well as from their Office, and Ecclesiastical Authority are ordinarily fittest to judge, debate, and determine of Religious matters will be soon granted: But that the civil Power may and ought sometimes to remind them of their Duty, and restrain them from gross Defections from it, may be proved by several Scripture Examples in the Old Testament, and the Supereminence of their place. But happy is that Order and Unity in which both Powers are joined together for the service of GOD, the security of his Church, and promotion of his true Religion, as it was here: though it could not be expected but the first attempts would meet with several difficulties, fierce Debates, and Controversies, yet still the entire establishment was ratified by the regular determination of the Clergy so assembled as before, as well as was after confirmed by the Royal Assent.  
3 Yet farther to justify themselves from any affected innovation in such a change, all was done with the greatest Reverence, Respect, and Deference to the Ancient Church to clear their continued Unity therewith.  
1. In Doctrine. The ancient Creeds were taken for the foundation of its Confession, the four first General Councils are received with great Veneration, and a particular 
a In libro canonum in Synodo Londinensi, an. 1571. titulo de concionatoribus. Imprimis videbunt ne quid unquam doceant pro concione, quod a populoreligiose teneri, & credi velint, 〈◊〉 quod consentaneum sit doctrinae Veteris & Novi Testamenti, quodquo ex illa ipsa doctrina catholici Patres & Veteres Episcopi collegerint.  Injunction was laid upon its Ministers to press upon none the necessary belief of any Doctrine, but what may be proved from Scripture, and the general current of the Expositions of the Fathers thereupon. So careful it hath been in all points to keep within the bounds of catholic Principles, in those first instilled into its young Disciples in the catechisms, and in those delivered in its Articles to be subscribed by such to whom it entrusts any Office, that the positive part of them will hardly be disowned by our very Adversaries, and can scarce appear otherwise to any, than the common Faith of all christians of Orthodox repute in all Ages. And for other determinations in the Negative she only declares thereby how little concerned she is to receive or own the false or corrupt additions to the first unalterable Rule. No church hath professed and evidenced a more awful and tender regard to Antiquity next to the express Word of GOD. Both which she oft appeals to, desires to be ruled by; and where their footsteps are not sufficiently clear, chooses not to impose upon her own Children, nor censure her Neighbours; keeps within the most safe, and modest boundaries; is not forward in determining nice and intricate disputes, which have perplexed and confounded many in their hasty and bold Positions, particularly about the Divine Decrees, and such like sublime Points. In which few understand where the main stress of the Controversy lies. It may be none can comprehend the depth of the matters upon which the Decision ought to grounded. But alas how many have been forward to lay down, and fiercely contend for, on each side, their private opinions herein as the first Rudiments of Theology, to be placed in their very Creeds or Catechisms, and so a foundation must be laid for endless Contests and Divisions? But most cautious hath our Church been in not laying such occasions to fall in the way of any: So that both sorts of Adversaries have made their complaints against her for not being positive, and particularly in such Declarations, though none can charge her justly with defect in any point of Faith so owned in the best Ages of the Church.  
2. As clear, and unexceptionable hath been her proceeding in Church Government, preserving that form, which from all Testimonies of Antiquity hath continued in the Church from the very Apostles, under the conduct, and happy Influence of which Christianity hath been propagated, and continued throughout the World whatever different measures some other Reformed Churches have taken, whither forced by necessity, or swayed by particular inclination, or prejudice. The Church of England kept up the universally received distinct prime Orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons: not desiring to censure others, who can best answer for themselves, but endeavouring to confine herself to what was most Canonical, and Regular, and to show how little affected she was to alteration from any establishment, except in notorious corruptions and abuses: And how necessary she thought due Order and Subordination in the Church to prevent Schisms and Heresies, and to give the greater Authority and advantage to her Ministrations; and finally to free herself from all suspicion of irregularity in her Succession, derived down from Christ and his Apostles, which she, as much as any Church in the World, may pretend unto. And though some intermediate Ages have been blemished with much degeneracy, yet she was concerned only to separate this, but retain, and convey down to others whatsoever good and wholesome provision she received from those before. Farther, to evince this, particular care was taken by express Law 
a See the Statute 25 of Henry the 8. cap. 19 Sect. 7 expressly revived 1 Eliz, c. 1. sect. 6.  to confirm the Rules of Government, or Canon Law before received in the Church till some better provision could be made so far as it contradicts not the Law of the Land, or the Word of GOD; making as few changes in the outward face of the Church as was possible, and sensibly proving it her design properly not to destroy, but build, nor yet therein to erect a new, but reform an old Church.  
3. Alike Canonical, and orderly hath been her Constitution in matters of Worship. Her Forms of Prayer and Praise with the whole order of her Liturgy are composed with the greatest temper, and expressed in the most plain and comprehensive terms to help forward uniform devotion, pious Affection, the most Orthodox Profession, and catholic communion. So that I think it may be universally affirmed, that there is not any thing required in her public Service necessary to those who communicate with her, which any that own the name of christians, or are owned for such by the general body of them, can almost scruple: unless because it is a Form, by one sort, and because it is ours by another sort. But how unreasonable herein are both? So careful she hath been to lay the ground of most catholic Unity, and to remove whatever might obstruct it.  
This our Adversaries the Romanists confirmed by their own practice, when for several years, as we have been told 
a Camdeni Eliz. an. 1570  in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, they frequented our churches, joined in our Prayers and Praises, attended on our Sermons and other Instructions, and received (as some add) our Sacraments, according to the order for substance the same as now, and had it is like done so still, having nothing to object against them but from the after-prohibition of the Pope, who had reason to fear they who were so well provided of all needful supply, and defence at home might thus by degrees be withdrawn from subjection to his Authority abroad; that darling point never to be dispensed, or parted with, whatever else might have been yielded 
b Camd. Eliz. an. 1560.   
Our Reformers who composed our Liturgy carefuly collected the remainders of true Primitive Devotion 
a camdeni Eliz. an. 1560.  then in use, and separated from them all those corrupt additions, which ignorance, superstition, and crafty policy had mixed therewith. Therefore it is so far from being an objection, that any part of our Liturgy was translated from the Roman Offices, that while nothing is retained contrary to wholesome Doctrine, and sound Piety, it is a convincing argument of her impartial Sincerity, and desire to preserve Uniformity, as much as possible, with all christians abroad, as well as at home in her own Members: securing all the Substantials of Worship according to the plain sense of Scripture, and the pattern of the Primitive church.  
And as to Circumstantials and Ceremonies, she is sensible when they are too numerous how apt they are to darken the inward, and more essential lustre of Religion, and prove a burden instead of a Relief to its Worship, which she takes notice 
c Preface to the common prayer concerning Ceremonies why some are abolished.  St. Augustine complained of in his time: But have since so increased in the Eastern, as well as Western Churches, that it must argue a great awe to make the Service look like any thing serious and Sacred. However this number alone, where the particulars are not otherwise obnoxious, tempts some to spend all their zeal therein, and diverts them from things more necessary, or gives too much occasion to others to quarrel about them. Yet withal being apprehensive how needful it would be to maintain Order, and Decency, She hath kept some, though very few, and those most plain, and unexceptionable in their nature, most significative of the end for which they were appointed, and most ancient, and universal in their Institution, and practice, hinted in the tittle of our Liturgy as it is changed from the former. And to prevent all differences hereabout, she hath expressed her sense of them so clearly, and explicitly, that one would think no peevish obstinacy had room to interpose a scruple however the event hath proved.  
Thus abundantly hath the Church of England vindicated her Reformation from all pretence of Apostasy from the True Ancient, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and shown in all instances how careful she hath been to preserve the Unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace with all the Members thereof. Nor hath she been wanting in any respect or reverence due thereunto. No Church being more cautious, and sparing in its determinations, more Canonical in its Impositions, more Regular in its Succession, and more charitable in its Censures: making all necessary provision, for her own Children so within the bounds of Catholic Unity, that had other Churches observed the like method, or measures, way had been made for an universal consent; 
a Touto gar en pote tes Ecclesias to kauchema hoti apo ton peraton tes oikumenes epi ta perata microis symbolaiois ephodiazomennoi hoi ex hekastes Ecclesias adelphoi pantas pateras kai adelphous euriscon. S. Basil. Ep. 198. T. 3. p. 409.  and every true Christian where ever he came would have found his own Church wherewith to communicate without hesitancy in all Religious Offices. And as (b) St. Augustin observed in his time, he would have needed but to inquire for the Catholic Church, and no Schismatic would have darred to divert him to their Conventicles.  
But if after the confusions, and disorders of so many Centuries amidst such a depraved state by corrupt manners, diversities of opinions, and perplexed Interests, so great a happiness be not to be hoped for now: that private person, or particular Church will clear themselves before GOD, and all good men, that do what is in their power towards it, and pray to Him to amend what they cannot change, and in the mean time make the best use of what means they enjoy.  
Upon which Premises an easy Solution is given to the old cavilling question, Where was your Church before the Reformation, or that time?  
We answer, Just where it is: Thereby no new Church was set up; no new Articles of Faith brought in: no new Sacraments; no new order of Priesthood to minister in holy things: all which would have indeed required new Miracles, and a new immediate Authority from Heaven so attested; only the old were purged from impurities in Doctrine, Worship, and Practice, which, in passing through so many degenerate Ages, they had contracted, and that an ordinary Power might suffice to do. If we were in the Catholic Church before, we are so still, and hope, to better purpose. We are not therefore out of it, because there rash Censures have excluded us, and then they unreasonably take advantage to argue against us from their own act: We never formally shut them out what ever they have done to us.  
What degrees of corruption in Faith or Manners may be consistent with the bare being of a Church, or the possibility of salvation therein, is needless and dangerous for us nicely to inquire: it may be impossible for us to know. I am sure it is most safe for us to reform what we know to be amiss, and to leave those who do not, to stand or fall by their own Master. It is a very ill requital of our Charity if it be turned into a weapon of offence to wound. or slay us, by that, by which we shown our desire of their Cure, But they and we must stand another trial, and await a final infallible Sentence, which ours here cannot change. The best security that we know to meet it with comfort will be to use the most strict impartiality with ourselves, and the greatest Charity to others.  
Yet our Adversaries glory in nothing more than in the name of the Catholic Church, and boast in no Title so much as that of Catholics, which hath had deservedly so great veneration in all Antiquity.  
But their claim here truly examined will prove as fallacious and arrogant as in any other instance. For the term Catholic if we respect the notation of the word, or the most constant use of it, is the same as Universal, and so joined to the Church signifies the general Body of all Christians dispersed throughout the World, opposed to any distinct Party, or separate Communion.  
Thus we find it constantly applied by St. Augustin in all his Tracts against the Donatists, 
St. August. de unitate Ecclesiae, c 2. T. 7. p. 5. 10. Quaestio certe inter nos versatar ubi sit Ecclesia, utrum apud nos, an apud illos quae utique und est, quam majores nostri Catholicam nominarunt, ut ex eo ipso nomine ostenderent. quia per totum est, Ibid. c. 3. p. 514. Christi Ecclesia canonicarum Scripturarum Divinis & certissimis testimoniis in omnibus Gentibus designata est. Et c. 4. ab ejus corpore quod est Ecclesia ita dissentiunt, ut eorum communio non sit cum toto, quacunque ea diffunditur, sed in aliqua parte separata inveniatur, manifestum est eos non esse in Ecclesia catholica. Et. c. 12. p. 533. aliud Evangelizat qui periisse dicit de caetero mundo Ecclesiam, & in part Donati, in sola A●rica remansisse. Item de fide & symbolo, in eam partem de Ecclesia catholica, T. 3. p. 149. Haeretici de Deo falsa sentiendo ipsam fidem violant, Schismatici autem discissionibus iniquis a fraterna Caritate dissiliunt: quapropter nec Haereticus pertinet ad Ecclesiam Catholicam, quae diligit Deum, nec Schismaticus quoniam diligit proximum.  and so opposed to them who went about to shut it up within their own Party, and straitened Communion; therein too closely imitated by our Adversaries, who, in spite of name or thing make the same enclosures about the Catholic as about the Roman Church, and are as free in their severest censures of all others, and as haughty in what they assume to themselves alone as they were, though not proceeding upon the same grounds. But what that holy Father every where presseth upon them reacheth as nearly our Antagonists; the indispensable necessity of Charity, that great bond of Unity in the Church, and principal evidence of the Divine Spirit, which animates the whole, without which the highest gifts, and most Sacred Ministrations are rendered ineffectual. This is one of the prime characteristic notes of the true Catholic Church, and every living Member thereof, and nothing is more opposite to their Principles and Practices, who have formally excluded all other christians and churches from any share therein, not only those in the West, that have deservedly cast off that Power, which they had unjustly arrogated, and tyrannical exercised, but also the Greeks, and others in the East, that never owned any subjection to them.  
But most securely may the Church of England glory in true Catholicism, which to all her other privileges, and advantages that she may boast of above almost any other Church, still maintains, and evidences the greatest charity to others of any that I know in the world; makes no other enclosures than those which GOD himself hath made, not assuming any Authority to command, yea, or to pass hasty judgement upon any, but only to provide for her own the best she can, and with such tender regard to common Christianity, and the Rights of all other Churches, that she seems designedly to have chalked out the way of restoring the most desirable ●●uits of Christian Unity throughout the whole Church; and we should have been sensible of considerable effects by it, had other Churches pursued like methods.  
That Church sure is most Catholic that makes provision for the most Catholic Communion, Peace, and Unity, and which imposes no other terms or conditions of it but those most universally received throughout all Ages, in all places, and by almost all Christians; which may soon decide the competition, whither the Church of England more truly vindicates to herself a part of the Catholic Church, or they of Rome arrogate to themselves the whole? Or which are the Schismatics from it, they which exclude none, whom they own no power over, but invite all to them, and join with any in what is good, and agreeable to the Institutions of our common LORD; or they who shut out all but those who will subject themselves to their usurped Authority, and most unjustfiable Impositions. 
a Firmilianus de Stephano Episcopo Rom. ad Cyprianum, Ep. 7●. p. 228. Ox. Ed. Siquidem ille vere Schismaticus, qui se a Communione Ecclesiasticae unitatis Apostatam fecerit; dum enim putas omnes a te abstineri posse, solum te ab omnibus abstinuisli.   
Farther the term Catholic is sometimes taken for Orthodox, and so the Catholic Church interpreted for that which holds the Catholic Faith opposed to heretical Opinions and Doctrines as well as to Schismatical Separations. 
b S. Cyril. Hieros'. Cat. 18. p. 2. Catholic men ●●● kaletai dia to kata pases einai tes oihoumenes apo peraton ges, heos peraton, kai dia to didaskein catholics kai anellei pos hapanta ta cis guosin anthropon elthein ophelonta dogmata Sozomen Hist. L. 7. c. 4.  In this sense the Church of England hath as good a claim in the Catholic Church as any whatever; Receiving all the Articles of Christian Faith delivered in Scripture, and received in the Primitive Ages for more than five hundred years. No Principles having been so formally declared then, and for some time after, as the catholic Faith of all christians, and as such necessary to be owned which she rejects: whatever private opinions there might be then among some eminent Doctors of the Church in which they oft differed one from the other, or although there might be some observances then generally received which she thinks herself not bound to retain.  
But ill will this character agree to the Romanists. who have added so many new dangerous Articles to the common Faith of Christians, not only beside the original Rule, which they cannot but own with us, but too often against it, and the professed belief of the first and best Ages of the church. Wherefore we reject not these Innovations merely from negative arguments, because not sufficiently proved; (and yet that way of arguing hath been always allowed in the Fundamentals of Faith, which must be grounded upon express Divine Authority and Testimony.) But we lay the greatest stress of our aversations to them upon that direct opposition, which we undertake to prove most of them have to the common Faith, and revealed Will of GOD which they and we both own. And surely that Church in this acceptation is most Catholic, that relies on such Catholic Principles, and refers all others to be examined by this touchstone.  
V. But in the fifth place some Objections lie in our way fit to be answered.  
Object. 1. They urge against us that we reject several Doctrines since formally determined in the Church by the known and received Authority thereof in Councils more general, or particular, which they pretend were believed through all Ages, but then established when they came first to be called in question.  
Answ. We are not much concerned in the first part of the objection, though very many exceptions might come in especially as to the formality, and regularity of those Councils: but as to the latter part in which the main stress lies here, we never refused a fair trial thereof.  
1. From Scripture against which no Authority Civil, or Ecclesiastical, in single persons, or the greatest Assemblies, no time, or custom of whatever date can prescribe. 
a 
Tertullian. de velandis virginibus, c. 1. p. 172. hoc exigere veritatem cui nemo prescribere potest, non spatium temporum, non patrocinia personarum, non privilegium regionum.  
S. Cyprian, Ep. 63. p. 155. Quare si solus Christus audiendus est, non debemus attendere, quid alius ante nos faciendum putaverit, sed quid qui ante omnes est Chriflus prior fecit, neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet; sed Dei veritatem.  
S. Basil, de judicio Dei, T. 2, p. 392. & ejus moral, T. 2. p. 423.  
S. Hierom. adv. Joh. Hieros. T. 2. p. 185. & in eodem T. ex Ep. Aug. ad Hierom. p. 353. 359, etc.   This hath been ever received till of late as the perfect, and entire Rule of all necessary doctrines of Faith, and practice; of which abundant Testimonies may be seen in most Protestant Writers.  
2. We appeal also to the Primitive, and best Ages of Christianity which either knew nothing of these Additions that we can find, or sometimes give as express declarations against them, as could be expected at this distance. But to take off much of the strangeness of so harsh an imputation at first sight, wherewith we charge a great part of the Church for a considerable time, and that they and we may be less scandalised at the first mention of these defections.  
3. We may consider the various Cautions in the New Testament against corrupt Doctrines, and Manners, which at the least in general are foretold would creep into the Church, if some of them we now charge be not particularly described therein.  
4. We may compare matter of fact with the experience of the like degeneracy of the Jewish Church in various instances so nearly resembling these as nothing more, and from the same plea of Oral Tradition, ●et against as clear evidence, and as emphatical promises to preserve them from Apostasy as any particular Church at least can now pretend to.  
5. We may consult the tendency of lapsed mankind, In the best how weak it is, and apt to be imposed on; In others how prone to corrupt, and distort the best Institutions, cast a mist before the clearest discoveries, and offer violence to the strongest convictions to shelter their vices, and promote their unwarrantable interests, especially in times of ease, plenty, and outward prosperity. In which we may compare common experience in lesser Societies, which however wisely directed at first, regularly founded, and strongly guarded on all sides, without a very careful Inspection, and sometimes vigorous opposition, so many corruptions will creep in as to need frequent reformations to reduce them back to their primitive Constitution. And although an especial providence be concerned for the guard and conduct of God's Church, yet neither Scripture, nor experience warrant us to expect its happy Influence by miracles now, for the effecting of that which may be accomplished by the use of ordinary and regular means of his own appointment.  
6. We may reflect upon the particular Ages of the Church, which we charge especially with these defections from about the eight century to the Reformation, wherein if all or most of them did not come in, yet they grew to that extravagant height, as to gain establishment for Principles of Christianity. These Ages are charged by their own Authors, as well as ours, and stand most sensibly convict of the grossest Barbarism, Stupidity, Ignorance, depraved Manners, and all such corrupt Inclinations in all Orders and Degrees, especially the ruling part, as were most likely to make way for such changes, and Innovations.  
7. We have some farther sensible proof of a design in many within that time to impose upon the credulity of others, and bring in strange Doctrines, and unwarrantable Practices, by the many Fabulous Stories, feigned Apparitions, and Revelations, several of which they themselves will hardly now defend, then brought into the Church to confirm these points in difference, and which almost only the people then received for their Instructions, to entice them first into an awful opinion of, and then a confident reliance upon these things.  
Nay farther, among the many spurious Writings which then crept into the World under the most venerable names of the renowned Fathers of the Church, now mostly discarded by themselves, when their shameless Impudence hath been so full exposed, yet few of them there are in which this contrivance is not legible throughout to advance these Opinions, and Practices. So that we are indebted to the Reformation, those great men which laboured in it, and some of the most moderate and learned of their own side, with the Art of Printing then newly found out, that almost all Ancient Authors, and Records have not lost their Authority, which would have been much endangered among such gross depravers of Antiquity, whose constant business it was to mar good Authors by their Interpolations, Additions, or Subtractions: or vent new ones under counterfeit old names to serve corrupt ends. But we are somewhat beholden to their ignorance, and stupidity, for doing it so grossly that there was need of little skill or observation to discover their Impostures.  
8. To which may be added in the last place against the supposed presumption in private persons, or particular Churches to judge of public Establishments by a seeming Superior Authority: that without some judgement of discretion in the former there is no room for a proper Moral Act, much less are they capable of a truly Religious Obligation, which an absolute implicit faith perfectly destroys. But whilst every man is bound to prove his own work, and must bear his own burden, he must examine the grounds of his assent according to his capacity, and determine himself by the best motives he can procure, and is concerned at his utmost peril to do it with all due respect to the Authority and Judgement of his Superiors, as well as the evidence of the things themselves, which are no where in any Government beside thought inconsistent.  
These considerations duly weighed may obviate those first prejudices which usually lie in the way to intercept all thoughts of farther trial, and examination of particular points in controversy, and may silence or shame the late idle vaunts of such who pretend to reason us out of our senses and undertake to demonstrate it á priori impossible that ever any false opinion should get into the Church, or prevail therein. I wish these men would try their pains, and subtlety to prove it impossible there could be any such thing as wilful sin in the world. I presume they might have as good Topics to pretend to it from all convictions of Reason or Interest. But after the most artificial composures herein they would hardly believe themselves or be credited by others against their experience. It were well if they might prevail to make that less frequent which all must own so unreasonable in itself, and destructive to us.  
Object. 2. But our Adversaries will yet urge upon us, that supposing, not granting such a degeneracy in the Church, and need of Reformation: yet this should have been done in order to preserve Catholic Unity by common consent in a general Council, and with most mature deliberation, and consultation.  
Answ. 1. This was most earnestly desired, and insisted on by the first Reformers, witness the great Importunities of Charles the Fifth with the Pope upon their instance.  
2. When this seemingly prevailed, and a pretended Council was called, it was far from being free or general. The Italian and mere titular Bishops outnumbered all the rest, and both one and the other were overawed by the Pope's immediate Dependants or Delegates, and all things carried by such stratagems of Policy, or partiality of interest that the only care taken was to fix the disease, and not provide for the cure by the best account we have of those transactions: So that some Princes of their own communion entered their Protestations against its proceed, disowning any Obligation to be tied up to their determinations.  
3. As the divided state of Christendom now stands, it is rather to be wished for, then supposed almost possible.  
From the different Interests and inclinations of Princes, who will hardly agree together in the Summons, place, or time of meeting, or about the persons who are to resort to it from their several Dominions. While the Roman Empire was entire, the Emperor's Edict alone was Summons sufficient to almost the whole Christian Church. But now who shall take upon him to call or invite so many from so distant places no way under his Authority? And that the Pope ever pretended to this power till of late can scarce be pleaded against such clear evidences, and Examples; and where he is so much concerned, it will be judged more unreasonable for him to demand it, If this difficulty were overcome by any consent, or condescension: yet so many jealousies, and cross interests are behind, that will be, and have been laid in the way of their first meeting together with a requisite peaceable disposition, as are not easily foreseen, and less readily governed; not to interpose the difficulties of the journeys from such distant places, and of the discontinuance so long from home of the chief Governors of the Church: many doubts and controversies of the number, and quality of persons having right to vote therein by themselves, or representatives will not soon be adjusted, and without these and such like be determined there is no preparation made for so venerable an Assembly.  
After all, when never so duly met, we have neither Reason, Promise, or Example to suppose them now infallibly 
Ecclesia non numerus Episcoporum. Tertullian. de pudicitia, c. 22.  guided in their determinations, but that they or the greater part may be mistaken themselves, or misled others, through passion, and false interest, or be carried away in the noise or torrent of a multitude, or be imposed on by the crafty. He that considers matter of fact, more than the finest Schemes, and most subtle Reasonings of his own brain, how things are oft strangely and unaccountably carried in public meetings of men of extraordinary Fame: yea, in some Councils themselves, and some of very sacred Repute in the Church, 
a Greg. Naz. Epist. 55. p. 814. & Ep. 72. p. 829 & Ep. 135. p. 864. ejusd. Orat. 15 init. p 451. Theod. Ep. 112. Vol. 3. p. 582, 983.  will think this no hard supposal, though their orderly Sentence carries the most venerable Authority below Heaven. It seems to argue the height of Blasphemy to arreign God himself of indiscretion, if it be possible for any man, or number of men to err from their Duty: And very presumptuous it is to charge the Supreme Providence of defect in the provision, for the continuance of his Church if they be capable to fall away: yea, let GOD be true but every man a liar when brought in competition, He will not be tied up by our most plausible Methods in the way of securing his own Truth, which shall at last prevail though condemned: Whose wisdom is unsearchable, and his ways oft past our finding out. He will bring to pass his own holy designs, though by means to us most unlikely, or it may be seemingly opposite.  
Whoever seriously reflects upon these things will have little reason to quarrel at the Reformation for want of this formal establishment in Council.  
No Christian, or Church is chargeable with the lack of that which is not in their power to procure. Men may please themselves with remote Speculations, and the fairest hopes, and wishes of such an Authoritative Decision of the disputes in controversy: but if it be not to be had, we must rest content with, and make the best use we can of that provision which GOD in mercy hath indulged us for our sufficient satisfaction, and safety.  
Every particular National Church directly subject to no other may, and aught to reform itself from known Abuses: keeping within the Rule of GOD'S Word, avoiding as much as possible giving just offence to any beside, and being ready to give an account of its proceed therein to all, and to alter any thing that shall be found amiss, or add whatever may be proved wanting, to receive others into its Communion, and to communicate with them so far as may be consistent with common Christianity owned by all, endeavouring to preserve Peace, and Unity, with all that call upon the same LORD, praying to GOD to increase, and improve them more and more; such hath been the continued aim, and proceeding of the Church of England.  
We believe no true Member of this would have refused the general communion of the truly Catholic church in St. Augustine's Age, or for some after, though possibly every opinion, or practice then current be not suited to their present judgement, or wish. Neither can we think after so strange alteration of circumstances through so many degenerate Ages, that holy Father in his eminent zeal for the most 
a S. Aug. adv Crescon Grammat l. 3. T. 7. p. 273. Ego in Ecclesia sum cujus membra sunt illae omnes Ecclesiae, qua● ex laboribus Apostolorum notas, atque firmatas simul literis canonitis novimus. Earum communionem sive in Africa sive ubicunque non deseram.  Catholic Communion therein would now have been much moved by our present Adversaries arrogant claims of it to themselves alone, though against the Rules and Principles of it with all others. No Foundation is laid for it here but by the absolute submission of all others to their usurped Authority, and rash, or impious determinations. Now who can hope for an universal Peace and Unity from such terms of accommodation, only fit for an insulting Conqueror to impose, like those which Nabash the Ammonite propounded to the men of Jabesh Gilead to thrust out all their eyes, and lay it for a reproach upon all Israel, 1 Sam. 11. 2.  
Object. 3. Sometimes they object to us the personal miscarriages of some engaged in the Reformation.  
Answ. If any did what they ought not, or with unjustifiable designs what they ought, the Church is no way accountable; if what they did in the Reformation, as such, were good, and they had sufficient Authority for doing it, which we are ready to maintain, that is all she is responsible for, were other imputations really true, which they oft are not: However it will be an endless dispute, and if determined would add little to the cause. I may add, few great and public changes are brought about, where so many interests are concerned either way to promote, or hinder them in which all things are carried with that clearness and evenness that were to be desired. Private Persons are not chargeable with the supposed defects of public Administrations, of which they have not the management if nothing be required of them against their express Duty, and they be provided of all necessary means of their Salvation, though they may be inclined to wish some things had been ordered otherwise.  
Object. 4. Our Enemies on both sides are apt to object to us the want of due Discipline, if not absolutely necessary to the being of the Church, yet so far useful to the well-being, and perfection of it, that it ought to have great weight in determining our choice to one Communion, before another, and is one of the most sensible bands of Unity in the Church.  
Answ. 1. The restauration of the Primitive Vigour of this hath been always wished for by our Church, as in the Preface to the Commination, but the accomplishment is very difficult.  
From the degeneracy of the Age, which would hardly bear it. He that Governs in a less Sphere will find how oft he must bear with things, which he does not approve: and much easier it is to find fault with, then to amend what sometimes we know to be amiss.  
From the multiplicity of Divisions, which weaken all endeavours towards it, and then froward men unworthily charge the Church with what they themselves make almost unavoidable; whereas, if executed, it would reach themselves as nearly as any who are now so clamorous against the most tender, and charitable endeavours towards it as cruel and inhuman.  
2. The Pretences to it in the Church of Rome according to general practice, so far as it can appear to us, and we can judge by nothing else, are more dangerous than any of these Omissions, when turned into a constant circle of sinning, private Confession, and Priestly Absolution upon the imposition of very insignificant Penance, and so over again. For hereby men have the Authority of their Church to confirm in them the dangerous presumption that they have thus readily cleared themselves before GOD, and so soon perfected their Repentance for such Sins, which we find them not so watchful against afterwards, as that aught to suppose, or make them.  
Whereas the Church of England commands private Confession for our clearer satisfaction, and direction in difficult cases as most needful: but cannot truly say that it is an indispensable condition of our pardon, which was never so believed, or practised in the church for many Centuries. If people will not be persuaded to their Privilege, unless they be forced to it by false denounciations, they must look to that; if they miscarry it lies at their own door, while they have no hopes here given them of pardon, but upon such an entire Repentance as destroys the habit of sin, and plants the contrary Grace; and what need they may have of the Assistance of a Spiritual Guide, and other helps in many cases in order to this effect, they may best consider.  
3. However the due administration of Discipline is to be placed among conveniencies, and advantages to be wished for, rather then necessaries we cannot be without; and it hath been, and will be in all Ages of the church more or less perfect according to a great many contingencies not to be stated before hand. The church hath ever judged it the best measure of using it so as may most serve the ends of Religion, and the general benefit of the community, and not that she is bound always up to the strict merit of the persons falling under it; and yet after all the strictest care, and impartiality there will be room for the final Separation, when our LORD shall send his Angels to gather out of his own Kingdom all offences, and them which do iniquity. If we will shun all communication with these, though only in what is good, we must fly out of any church that ever yet was, or will be, so far as we know, in this World, and so from any hopes in that to come: yet scarce any considerable Schism hath appeared in the Church, which did not shelter itself under this pretence.  
4. Father it may be alleged that several restraints may be upon the Church from the Civil Power. When this had suffered so much by former Encroachments, and Usurpations no wonder if it still retain some jealousy of that Yoke which with so much difficulty it cast off, and provide as securely as it can for its future preservation, though by suspending s●●e of that outward assistance very conducible to the due effect of Church censures, and sometimes by putting a stop to their sensible progress, in some cases where no such danger or necessity required it. Men by mistakes, or prejudice may strain each power too far. Better experience of the Regular management of the Ecclesiastical, may in due time encourage the Secular farther to enlarge their Liberty, and encourage their proceed so as may be most subservient to the ends of true Religion, and the advancement of the common security of Church and State, All the power which the Church pretends to as such, is spiritual, and that can make no alteration in the Civil Rights of men.  
5. Yet after all, the Church amongst us hath not only sufficient Authority committed to her by CHRIST; but reserved, and countenanced by the Laws of the Land to testify her Abhorrence of all notorious Scandals, to the shame, and confusion of gross Offenders, and as a direful earnest of a worse doom that awaits them hereafter, not here prevented by a satisfactory Repentance. I need not refer to particular instances when we have frequent examples thereof. If this be not always exercised by those with whom it is entrusted with all due vigour, and sincerity, after just abatement for necessity and a favourable allowance for such perplexed difficulties, of which scarce any private person can make a fair and competent judgement, the fault will lie only at their doors whose is the neglect, and private Christians shall not far the worse in the performance of their duty, nor fail of the salutary effects of the ordinary means of Grace by GOD'S own appointment, because every public ministration is not performed with that Religious care which becomes such concerns.  
6. Little pretence can they have from this Objection that desert the Established National Church, and that most advantageous outward Bond of Unity therein, in pursuit of private Assemblies, and select Congregations, where all acts of Discipline must needs be supposed Arbitrary on one side, and precarious on the other. When he or they who inflict them own no power over them to awe, or direct their proceeding, or upon just occasion ro reverse their Sentence; nor he who falls under them has any other engagement to submission then his own free Act, nor can suffer any farther prejudice without it, then to be forced it may be to change his Company, or place of meeting. What ever grave, and solemn appearance this may carry at the first setting up of such a new Government, it will soon degenerate into Mockery, or Confusion, Whatsoever destroys the Unity of the Church overturns the main strength, and Foundation of all Discipline; the defects hereof we may hope to see repaired with the preservation of that, but without that no prospect appears of any overtures towards it.  
7. To which may be added in the last place, whatever want of Discipline any may lay to the charge of the Church of England, none can complain of her breach of that Unity therein, which all Christian Churches ought to maintain. She neither invades the Rights, nor pretends to reverse the just and regular Censures, nor countenances the Schismatics, nor disallows the ministrations of any other Church so far as consistent with the express Institutions of our blessed Saviour; and the universally received practice of his Church, though otherwise mixed with several corruptions which she wishes removed.  
Object. 5. Lastly, our Roman Adversaries object to us the many obstinate Schisms, and gross Heresies, which have sprung up since the Reformation, and as they pretend out of it, from the forsaking of that bond of Unity in the Catholic Church, only to be hoped for in their Communion, where alone they say these are prevented, or soon cured.  
Answ. The first part of matter of fact is too notorious to be denied, and too scandalous to be defended: but against the latter part of the original of these Schisms, and Heresies many just exceptions may be interposed.  
1. The Reformation gives no countenance to them, but severely condemns them, and provides sufficient means to prevent or remove them; if notwithstanding wicked men of corrupt Principles, and depraved manners flee hither for shelter to hid their enormities, and abuse or pervert the most wholesome Institutions, and advantageous opportunities for their spiritual proficiency to the most contrary purposes; The guilt and ill consequence will lie only at their own doors. Christian's must not debarred of the ordinary means of Grace, because some turn this Grace into wantonness. St. Peter tells us of some who wrist the Scriptures unto their own destruction; but neither he nor any other then, or for many Ages after thought this motive sufficient to deprive the People of the use of them, made it rather an argument of consulting them with greater caution and and diligence, lest being led away with the error of the wicked they fall from their own steadfastness.  
2. There were many Schisms and Heresies sprung up in the first and best Ages of the Church, even in the times of the Apostles themselves, as appears by several intimations in their Writings, and in the immediately succeeding, while many Apostolical men were living, and if we compare the account we have of them in the most ancient Authors, particularly in Irenaeus, they were as wild, and extravagant as any of the later date: yet the Apologists for true Christianity thought themselves very injuriously charged with those blasphemous Principles, or flagitious Practices which they wholly renounced, or disowned. The evil one is always most busy to sow his Tares amongst the beast Wheat. But that which is most to our purpose here to observe, is that the same method which the Orthodox Christians than made use of for the Confutation, and Conviction of Heretics and Schismatics, we still appeal to, by bringing them to the touchstone of Scripture, and next to that the most Orthodox, and Catholic Tradition. Whereas how short and easy a decision to all debates might have been fetched hence, had they the same apprehension of the Authority and Efficacy thereof by referring all Controversies depending to the determination of the Roman Church, the Mother, and Mistress of all, and to that infallible conduct settled therein: but not one word of that, only when they make their appeals to her after the express Word of GOD, it is in common with many other Churches, especially those of Apostolical foundation, as in Tertullian, Irenaeus, St. Augustin, etc. Where they have to deal with such persons. 
a 
Tertullian. adv. Martion. l. 4. c. 5. p. 415.  
Videamus quod lac è Paulo Corinthii hauserint; ad quam regulam, Galatae sunt recorrecti; quid legant Philippenses, Thessalonicenses-Ehpesii, quid etiam Romani de proximo sonent, quibus Evangelium & Petrus, & Paulus sanguine quoque suo signatum reliquerunt; habemus & Johannis alumnas Ecclesias.  
Idem de prescript. adv. Haer. c. 36. p. 215. Percurre Apostolicas & proxima est tibi Achaia, habes Corinthium, si non long es a Mecedonia, habes Philippos, habes Thessalonicenses; sipotes in Asiam tendere habes Ephesum, si autem Italiae adjaces, habes Romam. Et ibid. c. 32. p. 213. de aliis. Quae denique instituuntur tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non minus Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinae.  
S, Irenaeus adv. Her. l. 3. c. 3. p. 232.  
S. Augustin. de unitate Ecclesiae, c. 10. T. 7, p. 531. ad Corinthios, ad Ephesios, ad Thessalonicenses, ad Colossenses. Vos solas Apostoli epistolas in lectione, nos antem Epistolas in Lectione, ac fide, & ipsas Ecclesias in Communione retinemus. Ibid. c. 16. p. 546. Vtrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant non nisi Divinarum Scripturarum Canonicis libris oftendant: quia nec nos propterea dicimus nobis credere oportere quod in Ecclesia Christi sumus, quia ipsam quam tenemus commendavit Milevitanus, Optatus, vel Mediolaneusis Ambrose, vel alii innumerabiles nostrae communionis Episcopi, aut, quia nostrorum collegarum conciliis ipsa praedicata est; aut quia per totum orbem in locis sanctis tanta mirabilia vel exauditionum vel santitatum fiunt etc. quaecunque talia in catholica fiunt, ideo sunt approbanda quia in catholica fiunt, non ideo ipsa manifestatur catholica, quia haec in ea fiunt.    
3. The pretence of the most absolute Authority in the one part, and the extortion of the most implicit Belief, and blind Obedience in the other among them have not been able to secure themselves from considerable dissensions, and Divisions in opinion, and practice. If these have not broke out ordinarily into the most open Schisms, and Heresies, the stop is more due to the craft and policy whereby they oft compromise the matter between both parties, or to that outward force and violence which restrains them, rather than to any opinion which they themselves have of this ready means of ending all disputes. We find in the fiercest debates among them how little heed is given to this infalllible cure farther than interest or necessity inclines them. There may be a way of preventing controversies, which destroys all Religion, and makes way for Atheism; in such a case I need not inquire where the advantage lies.  
4. We may answer, most of those mischiefs had their rise from the ruins of the Church of England. when that was violently assaulted and broken, its Authority despised, its constitutions vilified, its Order defaced, its faithful Adherents persecuted, than Faction, and Disorder, strange Doctrines. Phrensical Opinions, and all manner of looseness in Principles, and Practices came in like a torrent, and overspread the Land, which before skulkt in corners, and were little taken notice of. The Restitution of the church hath in great measure put a stop to their progress; I know not of any Sect, which hath started up since that time: But almost every year before brought forth several. If her pains and care have not yet been so successfully prevalent as to recover, and restore all that have gone astray, she hath not been wanting in her endeavours towards it, which have reduced many; and it is no little time, nor easy task to repair the the Ruins of such long confusions, and Desolations.  
5. We own a great part of these calamities to the same persons, who now charge them upon us; for beside the influence with their Agents, Principles, and Examples had his contriving and promoting those unnatural Commotions, and Rebellions in the State which I am not now concerned to examine; let matter of fact determine that as it hath been found more or less plain: Thus far we have abundant evidence that several of their Emissaries have herded with the Chief of our Dissenters, and if some of the grossest Sects were not framed among them first, as seems very probable, yet most of them have been oft found acting their parts under that disguise, and have employed on all occasions their interest to shelter, and protect them, according to the known maxim of their Policy, that the readiest way of effecting our ruin was by increasing, and fomenting our Divisions; here they have found their greatest harvest. For when men's minds are unsettled, and they grown giddy with being long turned about by every new wind of Doctrine, and are weary of tumbling and tossing from one Party to another, they will easily catch hold of any fancied support, and be sooner betrayed to yield themselves captives to the delusory hopes of rest and settlement amongst them.  
6. To all which may be added, much of that irreverence, and contempt of Persons, and things Sacred, which have made way for the forementioned sad calamities amongst us, are mostly due to their Oppressions, Insolences, or Delusions. When the People had so long groaned under their tyrannical yoke, and intolerable burdens, and found themselves so oft cheated by their manifest impostures, no marvel if they be overfearful of what they had suffered so much from, and afterwards too suspicious of being deluded again, and be soon tempted to transgress due measure in the use of their liberty, being just recovered from extreme slavery, though so many years have passed since, as will hardly admit of a tolerable excuse; Yet better experience, and longer consideration we hope in time may teach them to distinguish between the certain Interests of true Religion, and the hypocritical wiles of worldly Craft and Policy, and so to think a due respect, and Obsequiousness to those who sincerely manage the former, necessary to preserve them from being imposed on by the latter, and prevent their falling into the like miscarriages which they observe in others; And that Apostolical Government, good Order, wholesome Discipline, sound Doctrine, and Uniform Devotion may no longer suffer under the false, but most odious charge of Popery, and that they who have under GOD been most instrumental in reforming, and defending the church from the real, and gross corruptions thereof, may not still be oppressed with the unreasonable clamour of a mere invidious name, which they that use most know very little what they mean by it, only that it denotes somewhat favoured by them of whom they have deservedly an ill opinion. The case hath been too like exemplified in another Instance, especially of late years, in which many Hypocrites have so scandalously abused the most solemn pretences to Sanctity and Devotion for a covering or continuance to the most horrid Opressions, Schisms, and Rebellions, that they have emboldened profane men to scorn, and send out open Defiances against the very appearance of Religion, and possibly tempted others serious, and hearty lovers of its cause to be too modest, and shamefaced in its defence: yet we hope unfeigned Piety will be always justified of its Children. Suitably truly Catholic principles, and Observances may vindicate themselves, though gross Errors and Impostures have long passed under that disguise: Notwithstanding ordinary People, not always the best distinguishers, and who are often hurried from one extreme to another, do not readily discern one from the other, but having found themselves once cheated: be a long time over jealous of a like design upon them.  
VI From the Premises duly considered, will I hope, in the close be inferred the strongest motive, and Obligation upon all among us, hearty to embrace, and steadyly to persevere in the Communion of our Church, to share in those happy Advantages and Blessings, which all who rightly improve it may promise themselves therein. She desires by all means possible to convince their Consciences, and incline their Affections to a willing compliance with their indispensable Duty, and highest Privilege, rather than over-aw their persons by severe Censures, or the following condign punishments. Nay, if necessity force uponany the execution of the last, when they will not hearken to the former, she pleads the same Charity for the Principle of both, not only to prevent others from being seduced by the same Errors: But also thus to deter them from more dismal Ruin here, and hereafter, which hangs over them persisting still in the same obstinacy. 
a S. Augustin adv. Epist. Petiliani, l. 2. T. 7. p. 101. Non vos occidimus, sed ipsivosmet vera morteocciditis, cum vos ab anitatis viva radice praeciditis.  Of all she hath the tenderest compassion, though making a difference, but without partiality. Some must be saved with Fear, and almost violently pulled out of the Fire.  
Men may make a noise with the odious name of Persecution: yet our Adversaries of both extremes have little reason to object that, of which they themselves stand so deeply chargeable when in their power, But we rely not on that Plea, which however it offend them, would not clear us. No settled Government, Civil, or Sacred, was ever, or is more gentle, and compassionate in its inflictions then ours: If when this Tenderness was required with new and greather Insolence, and more obstinate Contempt, Authority begin to put on a more harsh, and severe Countenance, and make use of the rod of its power to correct the peevishness of some, or restrain the extravagancies of others, it is to be hoped they will in the end find it for their edification, and not for their destruction, and may see cause to bless God, and thank their Governors for those benign Penalties, which almost forceably opened their eyes to discern that evidence which pertinacious obstinacy had shut them against in all other Persuasives, as 
b S. Aug. Epist. 48. ad Vince●●●um. T. 2. p. 167. 174.  S. Auguststin declares several of the Donatists had professed to him, and therefore saw great reason to recall, and recant the many clamours they had raised on this ocsion. I hope we are not without many sensible Instances of the good effect hereof among ourselves, though it be very different in some from what it is in others; but the tendency of it is certainly to what is good in all.  
Experience, and farther consideration may have made all prudent and sober Friends to true Piety, Virtue, and good Order ashamed of the popular Plea of Liberty, or that men ought to be left free from any restraint, or Impositions in matters of Religion, and Conscience; which must needs confound all peace, and overturn all Government in every Society, and so destroy the being of the Church as such, and expose private persons to all manner of strange delusions, and extravagant enterprises without the least guard or defence; beside the ill aspect it hath on the Civil Peace; I may add, It never was, and I doubt never will be practised by any Party of men, when they can do otherwise, who flee to it only for Sanctuary when they can find shelter no where beside. Would men but impartially look abroad, or consult former times, or but really consider what were like to be their state under any other settled Constitution by whatever favourable Character it may have been represented, they might find little temptation to querulous uneasiness in their present condition, and small encouragement to seek, and improve every occasion to quarrel at those few, and mild restraints laid on them especially if withal they would faithfully reflect upon the ill use which hath been made of more remissness.  
Indeed Christianity, which is the Gospel of Love, and Peace, and is almost wholly made up of Charity; inclines us first, and most, to the mildest methods, as most grateful, most likely to win upon other men's good affections, and to testify our own. But then this mildness may be turned into the greatest cruelty to the guilty as well as to the innocent, yea, to the whole Community. Our great wisdom will be so to pursue the former as we may avoid the latter, and I know not where it is done more cautiously than here.  
If we were to examine the strange and stiff Aversations in many to the Communion of our Church, we still find them mostly owing to blind prejudice, and gross Ignorance of what is required of them, more than to any other principles. They have been brought up in a very ill opinion of our Service merely by odious names, sly and invidious Characters given to it from persons whose sincerity and judgement they rely on, and so are before resolved against any farther inquiry, and industriously shun all opportunities of better information either by personal Conference, or reading our Books. They think themselves sufficiently satisfied, and go on to hate and revile, but they often know not what, nor why. If we could bring them to make their own trial, who are always jealous of any attempts from us, matter of fact would be their confutation, and their own Eyes and Ears prove their most effectual conviction, so as to wonder at their former obstinacy, which some of them have confessed upon this experience. I believe were some fierce Dissenters asked, they can scarce say, that they ever seriously read, or attentively heard the Liturgy, and know very little what it is therein which offends them; I am sure they will hardly tell us. Sometimes mere novelty startles them, and they are afraid only for not being used to it.  
These, and many little Objections, that we can scarce guests at would soon be removed by this sensible proof reached down to all capacities; and a sober, steady temper of mind, with a firm, and well grounded belief in most of the material Points of Christian Doctrine, variously inculcated in the several Offices of our Liturgy, would grow up more and more in them; for want of this we find in several Zealots very little knowledge of the first Principles of Christian Religion, and indeed very little to be learned from those manner of discourses and Phrases to which they have been hitherto used. But more particularly may these Reflections be applied to invite the Romanists amongst us unto the free, sincere, and cordial Communion with the Church of England, which once, though only to outward appearance, they generally observed, and have almost nothing to object against it but the rash, and Schismatical Interdict of a foreign usurped Power. That the terms of our communion are most truly Catholic hath been the chief design of this small Tractat to prove, and thereby to prevent the common prejudice from the name of the Catholic, and Apostolic Church, in which, whatever they assume to themselves, we have as good a tittle to our share as any Church in the world. And no sensible evidence have we of our Communion with that Catholic Church, but by communicating with the more particular Church in which Divine Providence hath placed us, where nothing is required of us repugnant to the Bond of Unity in the whole.  
Many of our Church, yea, our Constitution itself have been often charged, and reviled, though most unjustly, with too favourable an inclination to them of Rome: because whatever of good Order, and decent Solemnity, as well as sound Doctrine, and wholesome Instruction was sound among them, is still retained and cherished by us. And that we are not so hasty and peremptory in unchurching them all together, or damning presently all that have been, or are still of their communion, as some would have us: which is in effect for being more tender in preserving the principles of true Catholic Unity then in pleasing private humours or prejudices.  
Still we must be ware that no pretended Charity to them, nor yet compliance with those who pretend the greatest opposition to them must tempt us to betray the Truth of GOD, or violate our Obligation to his commands on either side; and within those bounds to consult, as much as possible, the Peace and Unity of his church, and continue therein. If the former retort our kindness upon us in new Oppositions: If the latter load our religious care and modest caution with all those dreadful imputations due to others: If we suffer from both besides, whilst it is only for speaking the Truth, and doing our Duty, which we have no power to alter; we may justify ourselves before God, and our own Consciences, and in due time with all good reasonable, and considerative men, and then it is no matter what the clamours, and captious cavils of others lay upon us.  
But yet our Adversary's of the Romish Persuasion must take notice, that while we are so marry, and sparing in our Censures of them, we are not the less apprehensive of the extreme danger which attends those gross Errors and Superstitions, wherewith we charge them, which have a direct tendency to their ruin, and very much undermine the foundations of Faith, and good Life, which they own in common with us. What may be their influence upon any particular persons is more than we dare determine, and think always more ●ase to incline to the favourable side, where it may be without prejudice to what is certainly true and good. Notwithstanding whatever our opinion be, that will not alter the case at last, and thus far we are most determinate that the corruptions among them are such which every Church is bound to reform, and every true Christian to keep a distance from, as much as is in his power.  
Whatsoever were the condition of those who lived in that Communion before the Reformation, many of them groaned under those Oppressions from which we are happily freed: nay, whatever charitable allowance may still be made for them, who now live within those Boundaries where they have little opportunity of knowing better, and are under va●● prejudices by contrary Education, and the severest awe over them: Now far, I say, these cases may be pleadable, must be left to GOD and their own Consciences.  
As for those born, and bred among us, who have been treacherously deluded into Apostasy from us, or will persist in their hereditary obstinate averseness to us against the Clearest conviction, which they may receive, and in opposition to the express Laws of GOD, and of the Land, to the perpetual disturbance of the State, and confusion of the Church; there appears no room for any excuse to lessen their Crime, or alleviate their doom, which will be mightly increased, when all manner of hidden and crafty Artifices, or open violence against the common Rights of Humane Society, and moral Honesty, as well as the Faith, and Charity of Christ's Church are employed, and consecrated into a religious but blind Zeal for the destruction of both.  
No marvel if the Nation awakened with the effects hereof, which it hath sometimes felt, and oftener had reason to fear, have provided some severe Laws for an awe over them, and to stop the first beginnings of such exorbitant attempts, ready to break through all ordinary enclosures, and which will hardly be restrained by the usual methods of Government. No temper is more difficulty mastered, or more mischievous, if let lose, than such a false fiery zeal, which neglected burns all before it.  
But whatever may have been their Treatment of us formerly, or we may justly apprehend would be still, had they any opportunity, which GOD pervent: we ought not, and hope shall not ever desist from wishing, and endeavouring, as much as is in our power, their real welfare, and so of all our implacable Enemies, and therein their hearty Union with us in the holy Offices of Religion, and Fellowship of Gods' Church where they live, with the sincere renounciation of those dangerous Errors, and Practices that hitherto keep them at a distance from us.  
In Conclusion, instead of querulous expostulations, or catching occasions to find fault, we have great reason to admire and adore that gracious Providence, which amidst so many Confusions, Disorders, and Corruptions that prevail too much in most places ●ound about, hath placed our Lot in so happy a soil, and provided for us so goodly a Heritage, and safe Retreat in the Bosom of that Church, whose Charity is as eminent as its Faith, and its Order as signal as its Purity; whose Arms are always open to receive its returning Enemies with the most tender Compassions, as well as to cherish its faithful Friends with the wholesome and indulgent provisions; where nothing is wanting to ensure our safety, and encourage our proficiency in every thing that is good and excellent: Which upon former t●al of both the opposite extremes, the whole Kingdom hath seen necessary to f●ee back into, to repair the Confusions and Devastions they had brought: and in its most dangerous Convulsions here hath found the readiest Cure, and under whose name her very Enemies desire to shelter themselves: which finally engages us to express our gratitude for so peculiar Privileges by ● ready and impartial Obedience to the holy Doctrine we are taught, and a fruitful improvement of all those happy Advantages which we enjoy therein. That our Lives may be answerable to our Profession, and our pious▪ virtuous, peaceable, and charitable Conversation may be in some proportion as defensible, and remarkable, as the Principles we proceed upon, or the benefits we lay claim to.  
This would most effectually silence the captious Cavils of our Enemies on every side, and more powerfully invite them to our communion then all other the most demonstrative Arguments: When their very senses would bear witness that GOD is in us of a truth. I hope we are not destitute of some such eminent Examples of unfeigned Piety, true Holiness, and universal Probity. GOD Almighty increase their number more, and more: Yet whatsoever may be the effect thereof upon other men, this method would unquestionably ensure our own firmest Peace here, and everlasting Salvation hereafter. Here we keep certainly within our own bounds, and may most safely, and profitably spend all our Zeal, while other men please themselves in diverting it abroad to what they have no power over. It seems horribly nauseous to hear men quarrel fiercely about the best church, who live in the most open defiance to all Religion, and I doubt there are too many of all denominations chargeable herewith. Yet whatever the case of others prove, it will be most safe, and pious to bring it home, and close to ourselves. Be our Church, or our Profession never so much better than any other, if we be not also suitably better than other men, they will rise up in judgement against us at the last.  
But by a careful and diligent observance of its sacred Prescriptions we shall justify our Reformation throughout, put a stop to the Reproaches, and shame the calumnies of our Adversaries, and which is the Summary of all good intentions, and endeavours, bring honour to our great LORD and Master, the Author and Finisher of our Faith.  
FINIS.   

A DISCOURSE Concerning the Object of RELIGIOUS WORSHIP OR A SCRIPTURE PROOF OF THE UNLAWFULNESS of giving any Religious Worship to any other Being. BESIDES THE ONE SUPREME GOD  
EDINBURGH, reprinted by J. Reid, MDC LXXXVI.   

A DISCOURSE Concerning the Object of Religious Worship. The INTRODUCTION.  
OF all the Disputes between ●s and the Church of Rome, there is none of greater concernment, then that about the Object of Religious Worship.  
We affirm, as the Scripture has taught us, that we must worship the LORD our GOD and serve him only; the Church 
Mat. 4. 10.  of Rome teaches, that there is a degree of Religious Worship which we may give to some excellent Creatures, to Angels and Saints and Images, and the Host, and to the Relics of Saints and Martyrs. If they are in the right, we may be thought very rude and uncivil at least, in denying to pay that Worship which is due to such excellent Creatures, and very injurious to ourselves in it, by losing the benefit of their Prayers and Patronage. If we be in the right, the Church of Rome is guilty of giving worship to Creatures which is due to GOD alone; which is acknowledged on all hands to be the greatest of sins; and therefore this is a dispue which can never be compromised, though we were never so desirous of an union and reconciliation with the Church of Rome; for the Incommunicable glory of GOD and the salvation of our Souls, are too dear things to be given away in compliment to any Church.  
And should it appear in the next world (for I believe it will never appear to be so in this) that we were mistaken, that we were overnice and curious in refusing to worship Saints and Angels, yet ours is a much more innocent and pardonable mistake, then that which the church of Rome is guilty of, if they should prove to be mistaken. We are only wanting in some Religious courtship, which we might innocently have given to Saints and Angels▪ but which we were not bound to give, (as the Church of Rome will not say, that we are) by any express Divine Law; and therefore it is no sin against GOD not to do it; and when this neglect is not owing to any designed contempt and disregard of those excellent Spirits, but to a great reverence for GOD, and jealousy for his incommunicable glory, if it were a fault, we need not doubt but that GOD would pardon it, and that all good spirits, who have such profound veneration for GOD, will easily excuse the neglect of some ceremonies to themselves upon so great a reason.  
But if the Church of Rome be mistaken, and gives that worship to creatures, which is due only to the Supreme God, they have nothing to pretend in excuse of it; neither any positive Law of God, which expressly forbids all Creature-worship (as I doubt not to prove, to the satisfaction of all impartial Readers) nor the principles of Natural Reason; which, whatever Apologies it may make for the worship of Saints and Angels, can never prove the necessity of it; and it highly concerns the Church of Rome, and all of her communion to consider, whither, if their distinctions and little appearances of reason cannot justify their worship of creatures, they will be able to excuse them from the guilt of so great a sin.  
But not to insist on these things now; I shall divide this discourse into three parts.  
1. I shall prove from the plain evidence of Scripture, That God alone is to be worshipped.  
2. I shall examine what that worship is, which is proper and particular to the Supreme God.  
3. I shall consider those distinctions, whereby the Church of Rome justifies her worship of Saints and Angels, and Images, etc.  

SECTION I. That GOD alone must be Worshipped.  
TO make good the first point, that we must worship 
Sect. 1.  no other being, but only GOD, I shall principally confine myself to Scripture evidence, which is the most certain authority to determine this matter, For though I confess, it seems to me a self evident and fundamental principle in natural Religion, that we must worship none but that Supreme Being, who made, and who governs the World, yet I find men reason very differently about these matters.  
The Heathen Philosophers, who generally acknowledge one Supreme and Sovereign Deity, did not think it incongruous, nor any affront or dimimition to the Supreme God, to ascribe an inferior kind of Divinity, nor to pay an inferior degree of Religious Worship to those excellent Spirits, which are so much above us, and have so great a share in the government of this lower world, no more than it is an affront to a Sovereign Monarch, to honour and reverence his great Ministers of State, or peculiar Favourites. And the Church of Rome, as she has corrupted Christianity with the worship of Angels, and Saints departed, so she defends herself with the same Arguments and reasons, which were long since alleged by Celsus and Porphyry, and other Heathen Philosophers, in defence of their Pagan Idolatry.  
And it must be confessed, that these Arguments are very popular, and have something so agreeable in them, to the natural notions of Civil Honour and respect, which admits of great variety of degrees, that I do not wonder that such vast numbers of men, both wise and unwise, have been imposed on by them.  
For there is certainly a proportionable reverence and respect due even to created excellencies, and every degree of power challenges and commands a just regard, and we are bound to be very thankful not only to GOD who is the first cause, and the supreme giver of all good things, but to our immediate Benefactors also. And therefore if there be a sort of middle Beings, as the Heathens believed, and as the Church of Rome asserts, between us and the Supreme God, who take particular care of us, and either by their power and interest in the government of the world, or by their Intercessions with the Supreme GOD, can and do bestow a great many Blessings on us, it eems as natural and necessary to fear and reverence, to honour and worship, them, and to give them thanks for their care and patronage of us, as it is to court a powerful Favourite, who by his interest and authority can obtain any request we make to our Prince; and the first seems to be no greater injury to God, than the second 
2. Col. 18.  to a Prince. Thus St. Paul observes, that there is a show of humility in worshipping Angels; that men dare not immediately approach so glorious a Majesty as God is, but make their addresses to those excellent spirits which attend the Throne of God, and are the Ministers of his Providence.  
But then every one who believes that there is one Supreme God, who made all other Beings, though never so perfect and excellent, must acknowledge, that as there is nothing common to God and Creatures, so there must be a particular Worship due to God, which no Creatures can challenge any share in. It is no affront to a Prince to pay some inferior degrees of civil honour and respect to his Ministers and Favourites, because as the difference between a Prince and his subjects is not founded in nature, but in civil order; so there are different degrees of civil respect proportioned to the different ranks and degrees of men in the Commonwealth. There is a degree of preeminency which is sacred and peculiar to the Person of the Prince, and no Prince will suffer his greatest Favourite to usurp the Prerogative honours which belong to the Crown; but while they are contented with such respects as are due to their rank and station, this is no injury to the Prince; for all civil honour is not peculiar to the Prince, but only a supereminent degree of it, and therefore inferior degrees of honour may be given to other persons.  
But though there are different degrees of civil honour proper to different ranks and degrees of men, who all partake in the same nature, and are distinguished only by their different places in the Commonwealth; yet in this sense there are no different degrees of Religious Worship, All Religious Worship is peculiar to the Divine Nature, which is but one, and common only to three Divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one God blessed for ever, Amen. Civil honour and Religious Worship differ in the whole kind and species of actions, and have as different objects as God and Creatures; and we may as well argue from those different degrees of civil honour among men, to prove that there is an inferior degree of civil honour due to beasts, as that there is an inferior degree of Religious Worship due to some men. For all degrees of Religious Worship are as peculiar and appropriate to God, as civil respects are to men, and as the highest degree of civil honour is to a Sovereign Prince.  
However should we grant, that some excellent Creatures might be capable of some inferior degrees of Religious Worship; yet as the Prince is the fountain of civil honour, which no subject must presume to usurp, without a grant from his Prince; so no creature, how excellent soever; has any natural and inherent right to any degree of Religious Worship, and therefore we must not presume to worship any Creature without God's command, nor to pay any other degree of worship to them, but what God hath prescribed and instituted; and the only way to know this, is to examine the Scriptures, which is the only external revelation we have of the will of God.  
Let us then inquire, what the sense of Scripture is in this controversy; and I shall distinctly examine the testimonies both of the Old and New Testament, concerning the object of Religious Worship.   

SECT II. The Testimonies of the Mosaical Law considered.  
TO begin with the Old Testament; and nothing is 
Sect, 3. 1.  more plain in all the Scripture, then that the Laws of Moses confine ● Religious worship to that one Supreme God, the Lord Jehovah, who Created the Heavens and the Earth. For,  
1. The Israelites were expressly commanded to worship the Lord Jehovah, and to worship no other Being; as our Saviour himself assures us, who I suppose will be allowed for a very good Expositor of the Laws of Moses. It is written, 
Matth. 4. 10. Deut. 6. 13. Deutr 10. 10.  thou shalt worship the Lord they God, and him only shalt thou serve. In the Hebrew Text, from whence our Saviour citys this Law, it is only said, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, without that addition, of him only. And yet both the Septuagint and the vulgar Latin, read the words as our Saviour doth, him only shalt thou serve; and the authority of our Saviour is sufficient to justify this Interpretation; and withal, gives us a general rule, which puts an end to this controversy; that as often as we are commanded in Scripture to worship God, we are commanded also to worship none besides him.  
For indeed the first Commandment is very express in this matter, and all other Laws which concern the object of Worship, must in all reason be expounded by that. Thou shalt have none other Gods before me. The Septuagint 
20 Exod. 3.  renders it plen emu besides me; so does the Chaldee, Syriack, and Arabic to the same sense. And it is universally concluded by all Expositors that I have seen, that the true interpretation of this Commandment is, that we must worship no other God, but the Lord Jehovah. To pay Religious Worship to any Being, does in the Scriptures notion, make that Being our God, which is the only reason, why they are commanded not to have any other Gods. For there is but one true God; and therefore in a strict sense, they can have no other GOD'S, because there are no other Gods to be had; but whatever Beings they worship, they make that their God by worshipping it; and so the Heathens had a great many Gods, but the Jews are commanded to have but one GOD, that is, to worship none else besides him.  
In other places GOD expressly forbids them to worship any strange Gods, or the Gods of the people, or those Nations 
Deut. 6. 14  that were round about them. And lest we should suspect, that they were forbid to worship the Gods of the people, only because those Heathen Idolaters worship Devils, and wicked Spirits, the Prophet Jeremiah gives us a general notion, who are to be reputed false GOD'S, and not to be worshipped. Thus shall ye say unto them, the Gods that have not made the Heavens and the 
Jer. 10. 11.  Earth, even they shall perish from the Earth, and from under these Heavens. So that whatever Being is worshipped, whither it be a good or a bad Spirit, which did not make the Heavens and the Earth, is a false GOD to such Worshippers: and I suppose the Church of Rome will not say, that Saints or Angels, or the Virgin Mary (as much as they magnify her) made the Heavens and the Earth, And then according to this rule they ought not to be worshipped.  
But to put this past doubt, that the true meaning of these Laws is to forbid the worship of any other Being besides the Supreme GOD, I shall observe two or three things in our Saviour's answer to the Devil's temptation which will give great light and strength to it.  
1. That our Saviour absolutely rejects the worship of any other Being together with the Supreme GOD. The thing our Saviour condemns, is not the renouncing the worship of God for the worship of Creatures, (for the Devil never tempted him to his) but the worship of any other being besides GOD, though we still continue to worship the Supreme GOD. It is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Which is a plain demonstration, that men may believe and worship the Supreme God, and yet be Idolaters, if they worship any thing else besides him. The Devil did not desire our Saviour to renounce the worship of the supreme God, but was contented, that he should worship God still, so he would but worship him also. And therefore it is no reason to excuse the Church of Rome from Idolatry, because they worship the supreme God, as well as Saints and Angels: this they may do, and be Idolaters still; for Idolatry does not consist merely in renouncing the worship of the supreme God, but in worshipping any thing else, though we continue to worship him. When the Jews worshipped their Baalims' and false gods, they did not wholly renounce the worship of the God of Israel; and the Heathens themselves, especially the wisest men amongst them, did acknowledge one supreme God, though they worshipped a great many inferior Deities with him.  
2. Our Saviour in his answer to the Devil's temptation, does not urge his being a wicked and Apostate Spirit, an enemy and a rebel against God, but gives such a reason why he could not worship him, as equally excludes all Creatures, whither good or bad Spirits, from any right to Divine Worship, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Him and none else, whither they be good or bad spirits, for our Saviour does not confine his answer to either, and therefore includes them both.  
When we charge the church of Rome with too plain an imitation of the Pagan Idolatry in that worship they paid to their inferior Daemons, which was nothing more, than what the Church of Rome now gives to Saints and Angels; they think it a sufficient answer, that the Heathens worshipped Devils and Apostate Spirits, but they worship only the Friends and Favourites of God, blessed Saints and Angels.  
Now I shall not at present examine the truth of this pretence, but shall refer my Reader to a more Learned 
Stillingfleet's Defence of the discourse of Idolatry.  person for satisfaction in this matter, but if it were true, yet it is nothing to the purpose, if our Saviour's answer to the Devil be good.  
For let us suppose, that the Pope of Rome, who calls himself Christ's Vicar, had at this time been in Christ's stead to have answered the Devils temptations, and let us be so charitable for once as to suppose that (saving always his indirect power over the Kingdoms of this world in ordine ad spiritualia) he would not worship the Devil to gain all the Kingdoms of the World and the Glory of them. Consider then, how the Pope of Rome could answer this Temptation; All this I will give the, if thou wilt fall down and worship me: could he answer as our Saviour does? It is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. How easily might the Devil reply, Is this indeed your infallible Opinion; and the judgement and practice of your Church to serve God only? do you not also serve and worship St. Paul and St. Peter, and the Virgin Mary, besides a great many other obscure and doubtful Saints? This is down right Heresy to confine all Religious Worship to God; Here now is matter of fact against the Pope, that he does worship other Beings beside God, and if he will show any reason for his not worshipping the Devil; he must quite alter our Saviour's answer, and not plead for himself, that he is bound to worship God and him only, but that he is bound to worship only God and good Spirits; and therefore the Devil being a wicked and Apostate Spirit, it is not lawful to worship him. So that if our Saviour gave a sufficient answer to the Devil's temptation, it must be equally unlawful to worship good and bad spirits; there may be some peculiar aggravations in having communion with Devils, but the Idolatry of worshipping good and bad spirits is the same.  
3. Our Saviour's answer to the Devil, appropriates all kinds and degrees of Religious Worship to God alone. The Devil was not then so good a School-man, as nicely to distinguish and dispute the degrees of Religious Worship with our Saviour, but would have been contented with any degree of Religious Worship. He did not pretend to be the Supreme God, nor to have the disposal of all the Kingdoms of the World in his own right: 
Luk. 4. 6.  but acknowledges, that it was delivered to him, and now by virtue of that grant, he gives it to whom he will. Now it is impossible in the nature of the thing to worship any Being as Supreme: whom at the same time, we acknowledge not to be Supreme, And therefore the Devil asks no more of our Saviour's, then that he would fall down and worship him; which is such an inferior degree of Worship, as Papists every day pay to Images and Saints, and yet this our Saviour refuses to do, and that for this reason that we must worship God only, which must signify, that we must not give the least degree of divine Worship to any Creatures; or else it is not a satisfactory answer to the Devil's Temptation, who did not require any certain and determinate degree of worship, but le●t him at liberty to use what distinctions he pleased, and to pay what degree of worship he saw fit; whither absolute or relative, supreme or subordinate, terminative or transient, so he would but fall down and worship him any way, or in any degree, he left him to be his own Schoolman and Casuist; but of this more presently.  
11. As the Laws of Moses in general, appropriate all Religious Worship to God, commands us to worship God and him only, so the whole Jewish Religion was fitted only for the worship of the Lord Jehovah.  
I suppose our Adversaries will not deny, that the Tabernacle and Temple at Jerusalem was peculiarly consecrated to the honour and worship of the Lord Jehovah: this was the house where he dwelled, where he placed his Name: and the Symbols of his presence. It was a great profanation of that holy place, to have the worship of any strange Gods set up in it; and yet this was the only place of Worship appointed by the Law of Moses; and they had but one Temple to worship in, and this one Temple consecrated to the particular worship of one God; which is a plain demonstration, that they were not allowed to worship any other God, because they had no place to worship him in.  
And this I think is a plain proof, that all that worship which was confined to their Temple, or related to it, was peculiar to the Lord Jehovah, because that was his house, and then all the Jewish worship was so, which was either to be performed at the Temple, or had a relation and dependence on the Temple worship.  
Sacrifice was the principle part of the Jewish worship, and this we know was confined to the Temple. Moses expressly commands Israel, take head to thyself, that thou offer not thy  offerings in every place that thou 
Deut. 12. 13. 14.  seest. But in the place which the Lord shall choose in one of thy Tribes, there shalt thou offer thy  offerings; and there shalt thou do all that I command thee. The Prophets indeed, especially before the building of the Temple, did erect Altars at other places for occasional Sacrifices, for as God reserved a liberty to himself to dispense with his own Law in extraordinary cases, so it was presumed, that what was done by Prophets was done by a Divine command; but there was to be no ordinary or standing Altar for Sacrifice but at the Tabernacle or Temple; this we may see in that dispute which had like to have happened between the Children of Israel and the Tribes of Reuben and Gad, and the half Tribe of Manasseh, about the Altar of Testimony, which these two 
Joshua 22.  Tribes and a half built on the other side of Jordan. It was agreed on all hands, that it had been intended for an Altar for Sacrifice, it had been Rebellion against the Lord to have built any Altar beside the Altar of the 
v. 16, 19 22, 23.  Lord, though they had offered no Sacrifice but to the Lord Jehovah. The same is evident from God's dislike of their offering Sacrifices in their high places, though they sacrificed only to the God of Israel. So that all Sacrifices were to be offered at the Temple on the Altar of God, and therefore were offered only to that God, whose Altar and Temple it was. And indeed this is expressly provided for in the Law. He that sacrificeth to any God, but to the Lord only, shall be utterly destroyed. 
Exod. 22. 20.   
And as their Sacrifices were appropriated to the Temple, so in some sense were their Prayers, which were offered up in virtue of their Sacrifice. And therefore 
Isa. 56. 7. Mat. 21. 13. 1 King. 8.  this is a peculiar name for the Temple, that it was the House of Prayer. Here GOD was more immediately present to hear those Prayers which were offered to him according to Solomon's Prayer at the Dedication of the Temple. It is true, the devout Jews did pray to God where ever they were, though at a great distance from the Temple, whither in the land of Canaan, or out of it, but then there are two things, which show that relation their prayers had to the Temple Worship. 1. That their stated hours of prayer were the hours of Sacrifice, which plainly signified, that they offered up their Prayers in conjunction with those Sacrifices, which were at that time offered in the Temple; and therefore that they prayed only to that GOD to whom they sacrified; for we must consider, that the constant morning and evening Sacrifices, were not particular sacrifices, but were offered for the whole Congregation of Israel; and therefore every man had a share in them. Hence the time of offering the Sacrifice, is called the hour of Prayer. Thus Peter and John went up into the temple, at the hour of Prayer, being the ninth hour, that is the time of the Evening Sacrifice, Hence are such expressions as that of the Psalmist 
Acts. 3. 1.  Let my Prayer be set before thee as Incense, and the lifting up of my hands, as the Evening Sacrifice. Nay, it is most probable, that when Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed, and the people carried captive into Babylon, and the daily Sacrifice ceased, yet the devout people observed the hour of Sacrifice for the prayers. Thus Daniel prayed three times a day, which most likely were Evening and Morning, and Noon. Where Evening and Morning no doubt signify the time of the Evening and Morning 
Dan. 6. 10. Psal. 55. 17.  Sacrifice; and we are told, that the Angel Gabriel came to Daniel while he was praying, and touched him about the time of the Evening oblation. But 2ly besides 
Dan. 9 21.  this, when they offered up their Prayers to GOD in other parts of the Nation, or in other Countries. they prayed towards Jerusalem, and the Temple of God, as we now lift up our eyes to Heaven, where God dwells. Thus Solomon in his Prayer of Dedication, does not only beg of God to hear those Prayers, which were made towards it, as the words must signify in several places. In general he prays, Harken thou to the Prayer of thy servant, and of the people Israel, when they shall pray 
1 King. 8. 30.  towards this place; (The word in the Hebrew) may signify both in and towards this place, and includes both, as appears from the following instances, which refer both to Prayers made in the Temple, and to those prayers which were made towards the Temple by persons who were at a distance. Thus in what ever part of the Nation they wanted rain, which might be at a great distance from Jerusalem, they were to pray towards this place. 
ver. 35.  The same was to be done in case of Famine and Pestilence, etc. or if they were besieged in any of their Cities, when they could not go to the Temple to pray. Nay, What Prayer or supplication soever shall be made by any man, or by all thy people Israel, which shall know every man the plague of his 
vers. 37. ver. 39  own heart, and spread forth his hands towards this house, then hear thou in Heaven thy dwelling place and forgive. Thus when they went out to battle, they were to pray towards the City of Jerusalem, and towards the Temple. 
vers. 44.  And when they were carried captive into their enemy's land, they were to pray to God toward the land which God had given them, towards the Holy City, and towards the Temple. And accordingly it was the constant practice 
vers. 48.  of Daniel, when he was in Babylon, to pray three times a day to God, with his windows open in his chamber toward 
Dan. 6. 10.  Jerusalem  
So that though the Temple were not the only place where they might lawfully pray to God; yet all their Prayers were to be directed to the Temple, and receive their virtue and acceptation from their relation to the Temple and the Temple-worship. This was a standing rule for the whole Jewish Nation, that whenever they prayed, they offered up their prayers in the Temple or towards it; and this is generally observed by them to this day: For the reason why they generally now turn themselves toward the East when they pray, is not out of any respect to the rising of the Sun, but because they live in Western Countries; and so by turning to the East, they look towards Jerusalem, and the place where the Temple stood. And this is as plain an evidence, that all 
Buxtorfii Synag. Jud. p. 222.  their prayers as well as Sacrifices, were to be offered only to that GOD who dwelled in the Temple. And therefore as they are commanded to pray to God, and this is made the peculiar attribute of God, that he heareth 
Psalm 65. 2. Josh. 23. 7.  prayers, and therefore unto him shall all flesh come; so they are expressly commanded not to make mention of the name of the Heathen gods; that is, not to pray to them; the prayers of the Heathens consisting of a frequent repetition of the names of their gods, as we see in the priests of Baal, who cried from morning till evening, saying, O Baal hear us. 
1 Kin. 18. 26   
Thus the Jews were commanded to bring all their Vows, first Fruits, Tithes, and offerings, to the Temple, which is a plain sign to whom they were offered. The Seventh-day-Sabbath was a sign that they worshipped that God who created the world in six days, and rested on the seventh, and delivered them from their Egyptian Bondage, and gave them rest in that good Land, both which reasons are assigned by Moses, and therefore God command them by the prophet Ezekiel, Nallow my sabbaths, 
Ezek. 20. 20  and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God.  
They had but three solemn Festivals every year, and they were all in remembrance of the great Works of God, and all the Males were to go up to Jerusalem to keep these Feasts; and therefore al● these were the Feasts of the Lord Jehovab.  
And as they were to pray only to God, so they were only to swear by his Name which is another part of Religious Worship; and therefore to swear by the Lord of Hosts is called 
Deut. 10. 21 Isa. 12. 1●.  the Language of Canaan.  
So that all the parts of the Jewish Worship were appropriated to the Lord Jehovah, he was the only object of their dread and fear, and religious Adorations. And when we consider that God had chosen them to be a peculiar people to himself, that the Land was a Holy Land, God's peculiar Inheritance, which he gave by promise to their Fathers; and the Temple was his House where he dwelled among them, it cannot be expected that any other Gods might be worshipped by such a people, in such a Land and in such a house, as God had appropriated to himself.  
3. It is very considerable, that we have no approved example under the Law, of any worship paid to Saints or Angels, or any other Being, but God alone. We have too many sad examples of the Idolatry of the Jews both in worshipping the Molten Calf which Aaron made, and Jeroboams Calves and Baalim's, and other Heathen gods; but had it been allowed by their Law to have paid any inferior degree of Religious Worship to Saints and Angels (which is now asserted by the Church of Rome, to be a matter of such great benefit and advantage to mankind) it is a very strange, that we should not have one example of it throughout the Scripture, nor any authentic Records among the Jewish Writers: All the Psalms of David are directed to God alone, and yet we cannot think but such a devout man would have bestowed some Hymns upon his Patron and tutelar Saints, had he worshipped any such, as well as the Pap●sts do now.  
This the Church of Rome sees and acknowledges, and thinksshe answers too, when she gives us the reason why it could not be so under the Law; because those Old Testament-Saints were not then admitted into Heaven, to the immediate vision and fruition of God; Heaven-gates were not opened till the resurrection and Ascension of our Saviour, and therefore those blessed Spirits were not in a condition to be our Intercessors and Mediators, till they were received into Heaven; but now Saints and Martyrs ascend directly into Heaven, and reign with Christ in Glory, and it seems share with him in his peculiar Worship and Glory too.  
Now 1. Wither this be so or not, the Scriptures assign no such reason for it; and therefore it is likely there might be other reasons, and I think I have made it very plain that there was. We are not enquiring for what reasons the Jewish Church did not worship Saints and Angels, but whither they did worship them or not; and it appears that they never did; so that we have neither precept nor example for this, during all the time of the Jewish Church: which is all we intent to prove by this argument.  
2. But yet it is evident, that this is not a good reason why the Jews did not worship Angels under the Law. For certainly Angels were as much in Heaven then, as they are now, whatever Saints were. They are represented in the Old Testament, as the constant Attendants and Retinue of God, and the great Ministers of his Providence, and therefore they were as capable of Divine Worship in the time of the Law as they are now, nay, I think, a little more. For the Law itself, was given by the Ministry of Angels, and their appearances were more frequent and familiar▪ and the world seemed to be more under the Government of Angels then, than it is now, since Christ is made the Head of the Church, and exalted above all principalities and powers.  
And therefore sometimes the Advocates of the Church of Rome, make some little offers to prove the worship of Angels in those days: to this purpose they allege that form of benediction, which Jacob used in blessing the Sons of Josheph, The 
Gen. 44. 16.  Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the Lads.  
But 1. This is not a direct prayer to the Angel, but only his committing of them to the care and patronage of that Angel, with a prayer to God for that purpose; And if he by experience had found that God had appointed his Angel to defend and protect him, it was but reasonable to pray to God, that the same Angel might protect his posterity.  
2. But yet according to the sense of the Ancient Fathers, this was not created Angel and Spirit, but the Son and Word of God, the Angel of the presence, who is so often in Scripture styled Jehovah, a name which can belong to no created Spirit. And it is no hard matter to make it highly probable, that this is that Angel who redeemed Jacob out of all his troubles. But it is strange if Angels were worshipped under the Old Testament, we should have no clearer and plainer evidence of it, than such a single Text, which was never expounded either by any Jewish or Christian Writers to this sense, till of late days; and here the Priests of the Church of Rome are to be put in mind of their Oath to expound Scripture according to the unanimous consent of the Ancient Fathers.   

SECT. III. The Testimonies of the Gospel considered; whither Chr●●● and his Apostles have made any alteration in the object ●f our Worship.  
LEt us now proceed in the second place, to consider 
Sect. 3.  the writings of the New Testament, and examine what they teach us concerning the object of our Worship. And that Christ and his Apostles have made no change in the object of our worship, will appear from these considerations.  
1. That they could not do it. Had they ever attempted to set up the worship of any other Beings besides the One Supreme God, the Lord Jehovah, the Jews were expressly commanded by their Law not to believe them, nor hearken to them, whatever signs and wonders and miracles they had wrought. If there arise among you a Prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a 
Deut. 13. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  sign or wonder; and the sign or wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee saying, let us go after other Gods (which thou hast not known) and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of the Prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your GOD proveth you, to know whither you love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your Soul. Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his Commandments, and obey his voice, and you shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that Prophet or dreamer, of dreams shall be put to death, etc. in which Law there are some things very matterial to be obsered in this present dispute.  
1. When they are forbidden to hearken to any Prophet, who seduces them to the worship of any other Gods, this must be extended to all those instances of Idolatrous worship, which are forbid by the Law of Moses, whatever is opposed to the worship of one Supreme and Sovereign Being, the Lord Jehovah. And therefore whither these Prophets seduced them from the worship of the Lord Jehovah, to the worship of other Gods; or persuaded them to worship other Gods besides the Lord Jehovah, whither they were any of those Gods which were at that time worshipped by other Nations, or any other Gods, whom the ignorance and superstition of the people should create in after ages, whither good or bad Spirits, the case is the same: whoever persuaded them to worship any other Being with or besides the Supreme God, was to be rejected by them; for this is the sense of the Mosaical Laws concerning the worship of one Supreme God, as I have already proved, and the serving other Gods in this place, is opposed to the worship of one God, and therefore must include whatever according to the Law of Moses is contrary to the worship of one Supreme Being.  
2. This Law makes the worship of one God eternal and unwedgeable. There is no way of altering any Divine Laws, but by a new revelation of God's will, and there is no way to give Authority to such a revelation, but by Miracles or Prophecy; but in this case Miracles and Prophesy itself can give no authority, because God himself has expressly forbid us to hearken to any Prophet, whatever signs or wonders are wrought by him, who teacheth the worship of any other Being besides the one Supreme God. So that the Law of Moses having expressly forbidden the worship of any other Being besides God, and as expressly forbidden us to hearken to any Prophet, though a worker of Miracles, who teaches any other worship, it is impossible, this Law should ever be altered, because we are beforehand warned by God himself, not to give credit to any Prophet whatever he be, or whatever he do, who attempts any alteration of it. And therefore had Christ or his Apostle taught the worship of Saints and Angels, it had been a just reason for the unbelief of the Jews, notwithstanding all the Miracles that were wrought by them; and it is well the Jews never had any just occasion to make this objection against our Saviour, for if they had, I know not how it would have been answered. I say a just occasion, for the Jews did urge this very Law against him before Pilate. We have a Law and by our Law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. In which they refer to 
Joh. 19 7.  that discourse of our Saviour, John 10. 29, 30. where he affirms that God is his Father, and plainly tells them, I and my Father are one, for which saying they attempt to stone him for blasphemy, and that being a man, he made himself a God. v. 33. But though he did indeed (as the Jews rightly inferred) make himself a God by this saying, yet he did not preach any new God to them, but affirmed himself to be one with the Father, that same Supreme God, the Lord Jehovah, whom they were commanded to worship by their Law; he made no alteration in the object of their worship, but only did more clearly and distinctly reveal the Father to them, as manifesting himself in and by his only begotten Son. And therefore he did not offend against this Law, by seducing them to the worship of any other Gods besides the Lord Jehovah; which if he had done, their accusation had been just, and all the Miracles which he did, could not have secured him from the guilt and punishment of an Impostor.  
Which shows us, what force there is in that Argument which the Church of Rome urges from these Miracles, which have been wrought at the Tombs of Martyrs, to prove the Religious invocation of them; if such Miracles were ever wrought, it was in testimony to the truth of Christianity, for which they suffered, not to betray men to a superstitious and idolatrous worship of them; ten thousand Miracles should never convince me of the lawfulness of praying to Saints departed while I have such a plain and express Law against believing all Miracles upon any such account.  
Nor can it reasonably be said, that this Law was given only to the Jews, and therefore oblidges none but them; for we must remember, that Christ was originally sent to the Jews, to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; and therefore by this Law, he was bound not to teach the worship of any other Beings, under the penalty of death; and they were bound not to own and receive him if he did; and therefore it was impossible for the true Messiah to introduce the worship of any Being, besides the one supreme God; and if Christ could not teach any such Doctrine, I know not how the worship of Saints and Angels should ever come to be a Doctrine of Christianity. For what Christ himself cannot do, none of his Followers may, who had no other Commission but to teach those things which they had learned from him; and he could not give commission to preach such Doctrines, as he himself had no authority to preach.  
So that though this Law was not originally given to the Gentiles, but only to the Jews: yet it equally oblidges the Christian Church, whither Jews or Gentiles, because Christ himself, who was the Author of our Religion was obliged by it. The worship of one Supreme God, and of none else, is as fundamental to Christianity, as it is to Judaisme; for Christianity is now, or aught to be, the Religion of the Jews, as well as Gentiles; and yet the Jews are expressly forbid by this Law ever to own any Religion, which allows the worship of any Being besides God: and therefore the worship of one God and none else, must be fundamental in Christianity, if the people of the Jews are, or ever were bound to embrace the Faith of Christ.   

SECT. iv  
2 ANd therefore I observe in the next place, that Christ and his Apostles have made no alteration at all in the object of our worship. Christ urges, that Old Testament Law in answer to the Devil's Temptation: It is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve. Which it seems, is as 
●. Matth. 10.  standing a Law after the appearance of Christ, as it was before. He gives no other direction to his Disciples, but to pray. To their Heavenly Father, and in that form of prayer which he gave them, he teaches them to address their prayer neither to Saints nor Angels, but to God only. Our Father which art in Heaven.  
When St. Paul charges the Heathens with Idolatry, he does it upon this account, that they joined the worship of Creatures, with the worship of the Supreme God. Because that when they knew God they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Where the Apostle acknowledges, that they did know God, that 
Rom. 1. 21.  they did own that Supreme and Sovereign Being who made the world: and does suppose, that they did worship him also. For he does not charge them with renouncing the worship of that God who made the world, but that they did not glorify him as God; which only taxes the manner of their worship. And wherein that was faulty he declares in the following verses. As that they made mean and vile representations of him, that they 
vers. 23.  changed the Glory of the uncorruptible God, into an Image made like to corruptible man, and to birds and four footed beasts, & creeping things. And thus changed the the truth of God into a lie. But this was not the only fault, but they also gave his incommunicable worship to Creatures, and worshipped and served the Creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever, Amen. Which words do 
vers. 25.  plainly suppose, that they did worship the Creator of all things, but besides the Creator, (for so para may signify) they worshipped the creature also; which proves that the worship of the Supreme God will not excuse those from Idolatry, who worship any thing else besides him. For the opposition lies between the Creator, and the creature, be it good or a bad creature, it matters not as to Religious Worship, which must be given to neither. Or if we render the words, as our Translators do, more than the Creator, (for para  often used comparatively) yet so it supposes, that they did worship the Creator, & when they are said to worship the Creature more, that cannot signify a higher degree of worship, but more frequent addresses (and thus the Church of Rome worships the Virgin Mary, more than the Creator; for they say ten prayers (if they be prayers) to the Virgin Mary for one to God ten Ave Maries for one Pater noster.  
The same Apostle determines this matter in as plain words as can be: For though there can be, that are called 
1 Cor. 8. 5, 6  Gods, whither in Heaven or Earth, as there be Gods many, and Lords many; but to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Where in opposition to the Pagan Idolatry, who worshipped a great many Gods, not as Supreme Independent Deities (for they acknowledged but one Supreme God, who made all the other Gods) but either as sharers in the Government of the World, or Mediators and Intercessors for them with the Supreme GOD, the Apostle plainly asserts, That to us Christians there is but one GOD the maker of all Things, and one LORD JESUS CHRIST our great Mediator and Advocate with GOD the Father; that is, that we must worship none else. And that none of the distinctions, which are used by the Church of Rome to justify that Worship, which they pay to Saints and Angels, can have any place here, is evident from this consideration: For either these distinctions were known, or they were not known, when the Apostle wrote this, and in both cases silence is an argument against them, If they were known, he rejects them, and determines against them; for he affirms absolutely without the salvo of any distinctions, that we have but one GOD, and one Mediator; that is, that we must worship no more. If they were not known (as it is likely they were not, because the Apostles takes no notice of them) it is a plain argument, that these distinctions are of no use, unless they will say, that St. Paul, who was guided by an Infallible Spirit, was ignorant of some very useful and material notions about the object of Worship. If the Apostle did not know these distinctions, it is evident they are of a late date, and therefore can have no authority against an Apostolical determination: If he did not know them, he could have no regard to them, and therefore made no allowance for such exceptions.  
Nay, the same Apostle does not only give us such general rules, as necessarily exclude the worship of Saints and Angels, but does expressly condemn it, and warns the Christians against it. He fortels of the Apostasy of the latter days, wherein some shall departed from the Faith, 
1 Tim. 4. 1.  giving heed to seducing Spirits, and the doctrine of Devils, didaskaliais daimonion, the doctrine of Daemons, the doctrine of worshipping Daemons, or some new inferior Deity, Saints, or Angels, or whatever they are, as Mediators and Intercessors between GOD and men. This is the true notion of the doctrine of Daemons amongst 
See Mr. Joseph Medes Apostasy of the latter times.  the Heathens, and the Apostle tells us, the time shall come, when some Christians (for it is evident he speaks here of the Apostasy of Christians) shall fall into the same Idolatry; which is an exact prophecy of what we now see done in the Church of Rome, who have the same notion of their Saints and Angels, and pay the same worship to them, which the Heathens formerly did to their Daemons or inferior Gods.  
3. And as a farther confirmation of this, I observe, that the Gospel of our Savour forbids Idolatry, without giving us any new notion of Idolatry; and therefore it has made no alteration at all in this Doctrine, of the worship of one God, which Moses so expressly commanded the Jews to observe. For the Gospel was preached to the Jews as well as to the Gentiles; nay, the Jews had the first & most undoubted right to it, as being the posterity of Abraham, to whom the promise of the Messiah was made; and therefore as the Law was at first given them by Moses, so it did still oblige them in all such cases, wherein the Gospel did not in express terms make a change & alteration of the Law; and therefore since there was no such alteration made, and yet the Law against Idolatry renewed and confirmed by the authority of the Gospel, what could the Jews understand else by Idolatry, but what was accounted Idolatry by the Law of Moses; that is, the worship of any other Being besides the Supreme GOD, the Lord Jehovah. And since it is evident, that there are not two Gospels, one for the Jews, and another for the Gentiles, all Christians, whither Jews or Gentiles, must be under the obligation of the same Law, to worship only one God.  
The notion of Idolatry must alter as the object of Religious Worship does. If we must worship one God, and none besides him, than it is Idolatry to worship any other Being but the Supreme God, for Idolatry consists in giving Religious worship to such Beings, as we ought not to worship; and by the Law of Moses they were to worship none but God; and therefore the worship of any other Being was Idolatry. But if the object of our worship be enlarged, and the Gospel has made it lawful to Worship Saints and Angels, than we must seek out some other notion of Idolatry, that it consists in worshipping wicked Spirits, or in giving Supreme and Sovereign worship to inferior Deities, which the Church of Rome thinks impossible in the nature of the thing, for any man to do, who knows them to be inferior Spirits. But if Idolatry be the same under the New Testament, that it was under the Old, the object of our worship must be the same too; and we have reason to believe, that it is the same, when we are commanded to keep ourselves from Idols, and to fly from Idolatry, but are not where in the New Testament expressly told, what this Idolatry is; which supposes, that we must learn what it is, from some antecedent Laws, and there were no such Laws in being but the Laws of Moses.  
The only thing that can be said in this case, is, that the Apostle refers them not to any written Law, but to the natural notions of Idolatry: but with what reason this is said, will soon appear, if we consider to whom the Apostle writes; and they were but Jewish and Heathen Converts. As for the Heathens, they had corrupted all their natural notions of Idolatry, and had no sense at all of this sin till they were converted to Christianity; and therefore they were not likely to understand the true notion of Idolatry without being taught it; and it is not probable the Apostles would leave them to guests what Idolatry is. As for the Jews, God would not from the beginning trust to their natural notions, but gave them express Laws about Idolatry, which though they are the same Laws which natural reason dictates to us, as most agreeable to the nature and worship of God, yet since the experience of the world, which was overrun by Idolatrous worship, sufficiently prove, that all men do not use their reason aright in these matters, God would not trust to the use of their reason in the weighty concernments of his own worship and glory, but gives them an express positive Law about it; and Christ and his Apostles having done nothing to repeal this Law, they leave them under the authority of it; and when they warn them against Idols and Idolatry, without giving them any new Laws about it, must in all reason be presumed to refer them to those Laws, which they already had.   

SECT. V  
4. AS a farther proof of this, I observe, that Christ and his Apostles did not abrogate, but only complete and perfect the Mosaical Laws. Our Saviour with great zeal and earnestness disowns any such intention or design. Think not that I am come to destroy the Law and the Prophets, I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. plerosai to fill it up, by fulfilling the types and prophecies 
5. Mat. 17.  of it, by exchanging a ceremonial for a real righteousness, or by perfecting its moral precepts with new instances and degrees of virtue. And therefore he adds, For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled. And St. Paul, who was looked on by the believing Jews as a great enemy to the Law of Moses, does renounce all such pretences. Do we then make void the 
Acts 21. 21. 22. Rom 3. 31.  Law through Faith? God forbidden; yea, we establish the Law.  
Indeed had Christ or his Apostles attempted to have given any new Laws contrary to the Laws of Moses, it had justified the Jews in their unbelief, for God by his Prophet Isaiah, had given this express rule to examine all new Doctrines by; To the law and the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them; and that 
Isai. 8. 20.  Christ himself is not excepted from this rule, appears in this, that this is joined with the prophecy of the Messiah, both before and after; as you may see in Isai. 8 13. 14. and Ch. 9 6. 7. and therefore Christ & his Apostles always make their appeals to the writings of the Old Testament, and St. Paul in all his disputes with the Jews urges them with no other authority but the Scriptures; and thö the Miracles which were wrought by the Apostles did move the Jews to hearken to them, and greatly dispose them to believe their Doctrine, yet it was the authority of the Scriptures whereon their Faith was founded. As S. Peter tells those to whom he wrote, that though they preached nothing to them concerning the coming of Christ, but what they were eye-witnesses of; and though God had given testimony to him by a voice from Heaven, which they heard, when they were with him in the holy Mount, yet he adds, We have also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well, that ye take heed, as to a light, 
Pet. 1. 16. 7. 18. 19  that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the daystar arise in your hearts. That is the Scriptures of the Old Testament; and therefore the Jews of Berea are greatly commended for their diligence in searching the Scriptures, and examining St. Paul's Doctrine by them; and this is assigned 
Acts 17. 10. 11.  as the reasons why many of them believed.  
To apply this then to our present purpose, I observe,  
1. That if Christ did not make any new Laws in contradiction to the Law of Moses, than he could make no alteration in the object of Religious Worship. He could not introduce the worship of Saints and Angels without contradicting that Law, which commands us to worship no other Being but the one Supreme God. For the worship of Saints and Angels together with the Supreme God, is a direct contradiction to that Law, which commands us to worship God alone; though we should suppose, that in the nature of the thing, the worship of Saints and Angels were consistent with the worship of the Supreme God, yet it is not consistent with that Law, which commands us to worship none but God. So that let this be a natural or positive Law, or whatever men please to call it, it is a very plain and express Law, and Christ never did contradict any express Law of God.  
It is true, that Typical and Ceremonial Worship, which God commanded the Jews to observe, is now out of date under the Gospel, and does no longer oblige Christians; but the reason of that is, because it has received its accomplishment and perfection in Christ. Christ has perfected the Jewish Sacrifices, and put an end to them, by offering a more perfect and meritorious sacrifice, even the sacrifice of himself. The Circumcision, washings, Purifications of the Law, are perfected by the Laws of internal purity. The external Ceremonies of the Law cease, but they are perfected by an Evangelical righteousness. But this I say, that Christ never repealed any Mosaical Law, but by fulfilling and perfecting it. He came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil. Now methinks I need not prove, that the worship of Sain●s and Angels is not a fulfilling, but a destroying that Law, which commands us to worship none but God. And it is not enough to say, that these are positive Laws given to the Jews, (though that be said without any reason) for let them show me any positive Law relating to the worship of GOD, which Christ has wholly abrogated without fulfilling it.  
2. Yet as a farther proof, that Christ has made no alteration in the object of our worship, that he has not introduced the worship of Saints or Angels, or Images, into the Christian Church, which was so expressly forbid by the Jewish Law, I observe that according to our Saviour's own rule, that he came not to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfil; these Laws of worshipping one God, and none besides him, were not liable to any change and alteration, because there was nothing to be perfected or fulfilled in them. He made no change or alteration but by way of perfecting and fulfilling; and therefore those Laws which had nothing to be fulfilled, must remain as they were without any change.  
To perfect or fulfil a law, must either signify to accomplish what was prefigured by it, and thus Christ fulfilled all the types and prophecies of the Law, which related to his Person, or his undertaking, as the Jewish Priesthood, and Sacrifices, etc. or to prescribe that real righteousness which was signified and represented by the outward ceremony, and so Christ fulfilled the Laws of circumcision, Washing, Purifications, Sabbaths, etc. by commanding the Circumcision of the heart, and the purity of mind and spirit: or by supplying what was defective; and thus he fulfilled the moral Law by new instances of virtue, by requiring something more perfect of us, than what the letter of the Mosaical Law enjoined. These are all the ways that I know of and all that we have any instances of in Scripture of fulfilling Laws.  
Now I suppose, no man will say, that the first Commandment, which forbids ●he worship of any other Gods besides the Lord Jehovah, is a Typical Law, for pray what is it a Type of? nor can any pretend that the first Commandment is a ceremonial Law, for it prescribes no rite of worship at all, but only determines the object of worship.  
As for the third way of fulfilling Laws, by perfecting them with some new instances and degrees of virtue, it can have no place here, for this Law is as perfect as it can be. For it is a Negative Law, Thou shalt have none other GOD. Now that which is forbid without any reserve o● limitation, is perfectly and absolutely forbid. There are no degrees of nothing, though there are several degrees of perfection in things which have being; and therefore though there are degrees in affirmative Laws, for some Laws may require greater attainments than other; and one man may do better than another, and yet both do that which is good; yet there are no degrees in not doing a thing, and no Law can do more than forbidden that, which the Lawgiver will not have done.  
And besides, ●his way of fulfilling Laws, does not abrogate any command, but adds to it; it may restrain those liberties which were formerly indulged, but it does not forbid any thing which was formerly our duty to do; for when GOD requires greater degrees of virtue from us, he does not forbid the less. And therefore in this way Christ might forbid more than was forbid by the Law of Moses, but we cannot suppose that he gave liberty to do that which the law forbids, which is not to perfect, but to abrogate a Law.  
But to put an end to this dispute; if Christ have perfected these Laws by indulging the worship of Saints and Angels under the Gospel, which was so expreslly forbidden by the Law, than it seems the worship of Saints and Angels is a more perfect state of Religion, than the worship of the one supreme God alone.  
If this be true, then though the Heathens might mistake in the object of their worship was yet the manner of their worship was more perfect and excellent, than what God himself prescribed the Jews. For they worshipped a great many inferior Deities, as well as the supreme God; and if this be the most perfect and excellent worship it is wonderful to me, that God should forbid it in the worship of himself; that he should prescribe a more imperfect worship to his own people, than the Heathens paid to their Gods.  
For to say that God forbade the worship of any Being besides himself, because this liberty had been abused by the Heathens to Idolatry, is no reason at all. For though we should suppose that the Heathens worshipped evil spirits for Gods, this had been easily prevented, had God told them what Saints and Angels they should have made their addresses to; and this had been a more likely way to cure them of Idolatry then to have forbid the worship of all inferiors Deities; for when they had such numerous Deities of their own to have made their application to, they would have been more easily weaned from the Gods of other Countries.  
And we have reason to believe, so it would have been, had GOD been pleased with this way of worship, for he would not reject any part of religious worship, merely, because it had been abused by Idolaters. The Heathens sacrificed to Idols, and yet he commands the Jews to offer Sacrifices to himself, and so no doubt he would have commanded the worship of Saints and Angels, had he been as well pleased with this, as he was with Sacrifices; had it been a more perfect state of Religion then to worship God only, and without any Image.  
When God chose the people Israel, and separated them from the rest of the world, to his own peculiar worship and service, we cannot suppose that he did intent to forbid any acts of worship, which were a real honour to the Divine Nature, much less to forbid the most excellent and perfect acts of worship; for he who is so jealous of his glory, will no more part with it himself, than he will give it to another; and therefore excepting the Typical nature of that dispensation, the whole intention of the Mosaical Law was to correct those abuses, which the rest of the world was guilty of in their Religious Worship, which either respected the object or the acts of worship; that they worshipped that for God, which was not God; or that they thought to honour God by such acts, as were so far from being an honour, that they were a reproach to the Divine Nature. And whatever is forbid in the worship of God, unless there be some Mystical and Typical reasons for it, must be reduced to one of those causes. This account God himself gives, why he forbids the worship of any Being besides himself, or the worship of graven Images I am the Lord, that is my Name, and my glory will I not give to 
Isa. 42. 8.  another, nor my praise to graven Images. Whatever is his true glory, he reserves to himself, and therefore never did forbid any act of worship which was truly so; but he will not give his glory to another, and for that reason forbids the worship of graven Images, or any thing besides himself; and if this was not his glory then much less the most perfect and excellent part of worship, I know not how it should come to be his glory now, unless the Divine Nature changes and altars too.  
So that God having forbid by the Law of Moses the worship of any other Being besides himself, is a very strong presumption, that the worship of Saints and Angels, (whatever fine excuses and Apologies may be made for it, yet at least) is not a more perfect state of Religion, then to worship God alone. For though God may not always think fit to command the highest degrees of perfection, yet there never can be any reason to forbid it. But let us now consider the nature & reason of the thing, whither it be a more perfect state of Religion to worship God alone, or to worship Saints and Angels, etc. together with the Supreme God. Now the perfection of any acts of Religion must either respect God or ourselves, that they signify some greater perfections in God, or more perfect attainments in us, and a nearer union and conjunction with the Deity. Let us then briefly examine the worship of Saints and Angels. both with respect to God and ourselves, and see whither we can discover any greater perfection in this way of worship, than the worship of the Supreme B●eing alone, without any Rival or partner in worship; and if it appears, that it is neither for the glory of God, nor for the happiness and perfection of those who worship, we may certainly conclude, that our Saviour has made no alteration in the object of our worship, for he made no alteration for the worse but for the better, he fulfils and perfects Laws, which, I suppose, does not signify, making them less perfect than they were before.   

SECT. VI  
1. THen let us consider, whither the worship of Saints and Angels be more for the glory of God, then to pay all Religious Worship to God alone. Now if Religious Worship be for the glory of God than all religious worship is more for God's glory then a part of it; unless men will venture to say, that a part is as great as the whole. And yet whoever worships Saints and Angels, though he be never so devout a worshipper of God also, yet he gives part of Religious Worship to Creatures, and therefore God cannot have the whole, unless they can divide their worship between God and Creatures, and yet give the whole to God.  
If it be objected, that those who worship Saints and Angels, do not give that worship to them, which is peculiar and appropriate to the Supreme God, and therefore they reserve that worship which is due to GOD, wholly to himself, though they pay an inferior degree of Religion's Worship to Saints and Angels. I answer what that worship is, which is peculiar to the Supreme God, I shall consider more hereafter; but for the present, supposing that they gave only an inferior degree of worship to creatures, is this Religious Worship, or is it not? If it be, is a degree of Worship a part of Worship? if it be, than God has not the whole, and therefore is not so much honoured, as if he had the whole; as to show this in a plain instance.  
Those who pray to Saints and Angels, though they do not pray to them, as to the Supreme God, but as to Mediators and Intercessors for them with the Supreme God, yet they place an inferior degree of hope and trust and affiance in them, or else it is nonsense to pray to them at all; so that though God may be the Spreme Object of their reliance and hope, yet he is not the only Object; he has part, and the greatest part, but not the whole, for they divide their hope and trust between God and Creatures; and it be a greater glory to God to trust wholly in him, then to trust in him in part, than it is a greater glory to God to pray to him only, then to pray also to Saints and Angels.  
Nay it is more than probable, that those who pray to Saints and Angels, as trusting in their merits and intercession for them, do not make God, but these Saints and Angels, to whom they pray, the Supreme Object of their hope. This it may be well be thought an extravagant charge against men who profess to believe, that God is the Supreme Lord of the world, and the sole giver of all good things; but this is no argument to me, but that notwithstanding this belief, they may trust more in Saints and Angels, then in God, and consequently give the Supreme Worship to them. For men do not always trust most in those who have the greatest power, but in those by whose interest and intercession, they hope to obtain their desires of the Sovereign power. Thus I am sure it is in the Courts of earthly Princes; though men know, that the King only has power to grant what they desire, yet they place more confidence in a powerful Favourite then in their prince, and when they have obtained their requests, pay more acknowledgements to their Patron; for let the power be where it will, our hope and trust is placed there where our expectations are. And when men's expectations are not from the Prince▪ who has the power, but from the Favourite, whose interest directs the influences of this power to them, which otherwise would never reach them, such Favourites have more numerous dependants, more frequent addresses, more formal courtships, than the Prince himself. And when men model the heavenly Court according to the pattern of earthly Courts; and expect the conveyance of the Divine Blessings to them as much from the intercession of Saints and Angels, as they do to to obtain their desires of their Prince, by the mediation of some powerful Favourite, no wonder, if they love, and honour, and fear, reverence and adore, trust and depend on Saints and Angels, as much or more than they do on the Supreme GOD. For there is not a more natural notion, then to honour those for our GOD'S, from whose hands we receive all good things, whither we receive it from their own inherent power or not. 
— Deus nobis haec otia fecit.  
Namque erit ille mihi semper Deus, illius aram  
Saepe tener nos●ris ab ovilibus imbuet agnus.   
Men may acknowledge GOD to be the Supreme Being, and ascribe incommunicable perfections to him, and yet may pray more frequently, more devoutly, more ardently, with greater trust and affiance to Saints and Angels, then to GOD, as it is apparent many Devotoes of the Virgin Mary do; and this is to give Supreme and Sovereign Worship to them, without acknowledging them to be Supreme Beings.  
Indeed it is morally impossible, but our Religious Worship, and affiance, must be at least equally shared between the Supreme God and our Mediator, whatever he be, as men do not less trust in the interest of their Patron, then in the power of their Prince; for it is not mere power but favour, which is the immediate object of our trust; and therefore God appointed his only begotten Son to be our Mediator, as for other great and wise reasons, so to prevent Idolatry by giving us a God incarnate, who is a proper object of Religious adoration, to be our Mediator, that seeing men will worship their Mediator, they may have a God for their Mediator to worship. The sum is this: If it be more for the glory of God to have all Religious Worship appropriated to himself, then to have only a part of it, and it may be the least share and part too, than the worship of Saints and Angels cannot be for God's glory.  
But besides this, the worship of Saints and Angels, together with God, does mightily obscure and lessen the Divine perfections, and therefore it cannot be for his glory. It represents him indeed like a great Temporal Monarch, but it does not represent him like a God.  
That which we ignorantly think a piece of state and greatness in earthly Monarches, to administer the great affairs of their Kingdoms, to receive Petitions and Addresses, to bestow Favours, to administer justice by other hands, to have some great Ministers and Favourites to interpose between them and their Subject, is nothing else, but want of power to do otherwise. He would be a much greater Prince, more beloved and reverenced, who could do all this himself; but no Prince can be present in all parts of his Kingdom, nor know every particular subject, much less their particular cases, and conditions, deserts and merits; and therefore is forced to divide this care into many hands, and in so doing shares his power and honour with his Subjects. But whoever imagines any such thing of God, denies his omnipresence, his omnipotence, his omniscience, and his particular care and providence over his Creatures. God indeed does not always govern the world by an immediate power, but makes use both of the Ministry of Angels and Men; but he governs all things by his immediate direction, or at least by his immediate inspection. He overlooks every thing himself, while all Creatures either obey his commands, or submit to his power. If this be the true notion of Gods governing the world, that he has the concernments of the whole Creation under his eye, and keeps the disposal of all things in his own hands, so that nothing can be done, but either by his order or permission; then the most perfect and glorious Angels, the greatest Ministers of the Divine Providence, can challenge no share in Religious Worship, cannot be the objects of our trust or hope, because they are only Ministers of the Divine Will, can do nothing from themselves, as civil Ministers of State, and Officers of great trust can in Temporal Kingdoms, but are always under the eye, and always move at the command of God. In such a state of things all the peculiar rights of Sovereign Power and Dominion God reserves wholly to himself, as any wise Prince would, among which the receiving the Prayers and Petitions of his Creatures is none of the least; to hear Prayers is made the peculiar attribute of God in Scripture, Thou art a God that hearest prayers, therefore unto thee shall all flesh come. And reason tells us, that it is the most eminent part of Sovereignty and Majesty; and the reason why Temporal Princes do not reserve this wholly to themselves, is because they cannot do it; but God can, and he challenges it to himself, and will not allow any Creature to do it; and there is no temptation to pray to any creature, when we know, that they cannot help us, that they must receive their orders and commands from God, and do not act by their own will and inclinations.  
Thus Princes have their Favourites, to whom they express a very partial fondness and respect, to whom they will deny nothing that they ask, nor hardly show any grace or favour to their Subjects without them; and this forces Subjects to address themselves to their Prince by them; but it is a reproach to the Divine goodness and universal Providence, to conceive any such thing of God; which yet is the foundation of the worship of Patron Saints and Angels, as persons so dear to God, that he cannot deny their requests, & will not grant our Petitions without them, or at least, that is the most certain and effectual way to obtain what we desire, to offer up our Prayers and Petitions to God by their hands.  
No doubt but all good men on earth, much more Blessed Saints and Angels in Heaven, as being more perfect and excellent Creatures, are very dear to God; but yet God is not fond and partial in his kindness, as earthly Princes are, but has an equal regard to all his Creatures, and delights in doing good to them, and needs not to be importuned by any powerful Favourites to hear their cries and prayers; he will as soon attend to the Prayers of an humble penitent sinner, as of the most glorious saint, and is more ready to grant than they are to ask.  
A Mediator of Redemption is very consistent with the perfections of the Divine Nature, and does mightily recommend both the goodness and wisdom of God to the world. When Mankind had transgressed the Laws of their creation, they forfeited their natural ●ight and interest in the care and goodness of their Maker; The Divine Justice, and the wisdom of God in the government of the world, required an atonement and expiation for sin; and it was an amazing demonstration of the Divine goodness to sinners, that he found one himself, that he gave his Son to be a propitiation for our sins. When men by sin had forfeit their original innocence and happiness together, they could expect nothing from God, but by way of convenant and promise; and every covenant between contending parties, must be transacted in the hands of a Mediator, and none so fit to be our Mediator, as he who is our ransom too.  
And a Mediator must be invested with power and authority to see the terms of this covenant performed, and this is his Mediatory Intercession. He intercedes not merely as a powerful Favourite, but as the Author and Surety of the covenant, not merely by entreaties and prayers, but in virtue of his blood, which sealed the covenant, and made atonement and expiation for sin.  
Thus Christ is our Mediator of redemption, who hath redeemed us by his blood; and we must offer up all our prayers to God in his name and powerful intercession, because we can expect no blessings from God, but by virtue of that covenant, which he purchased and sealed with his blood.  
But now a Mediator of pure intercession, without regard to any atonement made for sin, or any covenant of redemption (such as Saints and Angels and the blessed Virgin are made by the church of Rome) is a mighty reproach to the Divine Nature and perfections. It clothes God with the passions and infirmities of earthly Princes; represents him as extremely fond of some of his Creatures, and very regardless of others; as if his kindness to some favourite Saint, were a more powerful motive to him to do good, than his own love to goodness; as if he knew not when, nor to whom, to show mercy with out their direction or counsel, or would not do it without their importunity; as if some of his Creatures had as much the ascendant over him, as some favourites have over their Princes, who can with a words speaking have any thing of them and extort favours from them, even against their wills and inclinations. No man can think there is any need of such Intercessors and Mediators with God, who believes him to be infinitely wise, and to be infinitely good; to know when it is fit to hear and to answer, and to be always ready to do, what his own wisdom judges fit to be done. There can be no place for such intercessions and entreaties, to an infinitely perfect Being (For they always suppose some great weakness or defect in him who want them, for even a wise and a good man wants no Mediators to persuade him to do that good, which is fit to be done. The Objection against this is very obvious, and the Answer, I think, is as easy. The Objection is this: If God be so good, that he needs not such Prayers and Intercessions, to move him to do good, Why do we pray for ourselves? Why do we pray for one another? Why do we desire the Prayers of good men here on earth? Why is it a greater reproach to the Divine Perfections to beg the Prayers of St. Paul, or St. Peter, now they are in Heaven, then to have begged their Prayers, while they had been on Earth?  
To this I answer: When we pray for ourselves, I suppose, we do no● pray as Mediators, but as Supplicants, and nothing can be more reasonable, then that those, who want mercy, or any other blessing should ask for it. It is certainly no reproach to the Divine goodness, that God makes Prayer the condition of our receiving, which is a very easy condition, and very necessary to maintain a constant sense and reverence of God, and a constant dependence on him. And when we pray for one another on earth, we are as mere supplicants, as when we pray for ourselves, and to pray as supplicants is a very different thing from praying as Advocates, as Mediators, as Patrons. The virtue of the first consists only in the power and efficacy of Prayer; the second in the favour and interest of the person. This the Church of Rome herself owns, when she allows no Mediators and Advocats, but Saints in Heaven, which is a sign, she makes a vast difference between the prayers of Saints on earth, and Saints in Heaven.  
There are great and wise reasons, why God should command and encourage our mutual prayers for each other while we are on earth; for this is the noblest exercise of universal love and charity. which is a necessary qualification to render our prayers acceptable to God, this preserves the unity of the body of Christ, which requires a sympathy and fellow-feeling of each others sufferings, this is the foundation of public worship when we meet together to pray with, and for each other to our common Father; and it gives a great reputation to virtue and Religion in this world, when God hears the prayers of good men for the wicked, and removes or diverts those judgements which they were afraid of, this becomes the wisdom of God, and is no blemish●to his goodness, to dispense his mercies and favours in such a manner as may best serve the great ends of Religion in this world.  
God does not command us to pray for ourselves or others, because he wants our importunities and solicitations to do good; but because it serves the public ends of Religion and Government, and is that natural homage and worship, which Creatures own to their great Creator and Benefactor, and Sovereign Lord. But to imagine, that God needs Advocats and Mediators to solicit our cause for us in the Court of Heaven, where none of these ends can be served by it, this is a plain impeachment of his wisdom and goodness, as if he wanted great importunities to do good, and were more moved by a partial kindness and respect to some powerful Favourites, then by the care of his Creatures, or his love to goodness.  
From hence it evidently appears, how inconsequent that reasoning is, from our begging the prayers of good men on earth; to prove the lawfulness of our praying to the Saints in Heaven to pray and interceded for us; the first makes them our fellow supplicants, the second makes them our Mediators and Intercessors; and how little the Church of Rome gains by that distinction, between a Mediator of Redemption, and Mediators of pure Intercession; for though they pray to Saints and Angels only as Mediators of Intercession, yet this is a real reproach to the nature and government of God; a Mediator of Redemption is very consistent with the Divine glory and perfections, a Mediator of pure intercession is not. And the sum of all is this, That it is so far from advancing the Divine glory to worship Saints and Angels together with God, that it is a real reproach and dishonour to him; and therefore this can be no Law nor Institution of our Saviour, who came not to abrogate the Divine Laws, but to fulfil and perfect them. Some think there is no danger of dishonouring God by that honour they give to Saints and Angels, because they honour them as God's Friends and Favourites, as those whom God has honoured and advanced to great glory; and therefore whatever honour they do to them, rebounds back again on God, and this may be true, while we give no honour to Saints and Angels, but what is consistent with the Divine glory; but when the very nature of that honour and worship we pay to them, is a diminution of God's glory, and a reproach to his infinite perfections, as I have made it appear, the worship of Saints and Angels is, surely it cannot be for God's glory to advance his Creatures by lessening himself.   

SECT VII.  
2. LEt us now consider, whither the worship of Saints and Angels together with God, be a more perfect state of Religion than the worship of God alone, with respect to ourselves; whither it puts us into a more perfect and excellent state. It does indeed mightily gratify the superstition of mankind to have a multitude of Advocats and Mediators to address to, but there are three considerations which may satisfy any man, how far this is from a perfect state of Religion.  
1. That it argues very mean and low conceits of God, for did men believe God to be so wise, so good, and so powerful, as really he is, they would be contented with one infinite God, instead of ten thousand meaner Advocats. The worship of Saints and Angels, as I have already proved, is a great reproach to the Divine perfections, and therefore such worshippers must have very imperfect and childish apprehensions of the Supreme Being, which is a plain proof what an imperfect state of Religion this is; for the perfection of Religion is always proportioned to that knowledge we have of God, who is the object of it.  
2. This worship of Saints and Angels is a very servile state, it subjects us to our fellow-creatures, who are by nature but our equals, however are not our Gods. It is a state of liberty, freedom and honour, to be subject to God; who is our natural Lord and Sovereign, But to fall down to our fellow creatures, and to worship them with Divine honours, with all humility of address, and sacred and awful regards, is to debase ourselves as much below the dignity of our natures, as we advance them above it. The excellency and perfection of reasonable Creatures principally consists in their Religion, and that is the most perfect Religion, which does most advance, adorn, and perfect our Natures; but it is an argument of an abject mind, to be contented to worship the most excellent creatures, which is a greater dishonour than to own the vilest Slave for our Prince. Mean objects of worship do more debase the Soul, than any other the vilest submissions; and the more our dependencies are, and the meaner they are, the more imperfect our state and Religion is.  
3. The greatest perfection of Religion, consists in the nearest and most immediate approach to God; which I think, these men cannot pretend to, who fly to the patronage and intercession of Saints and Angels, to obtain their Petitions of him. Though we should allow it lawful to pray to Saints and Angels to meditate for us with God, yet we cannot but own it a more perfect state to do as the Saints and Angels themselves do, go to God without any other Advocate but Christ himself. It is a great happiness to have a friend at Court, to commend us to our Prince, when we have no interest of our own, but it is a greater privilege to go immediately to our Prince when we please, without any Favourite to introduce us. This is the perfect state of the Gospel, that we have received The adoption of Sons, and because 
Gal. 4. 5. 6.  we are Sons, God hath sent forth the spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying Abba Father. This is, this Holy Spirit which dwells in us, teaches us to call God Father, and to pray to him with the humble assurance and confidence of Children. This is the effect of Christ's intercession for us. That we may now come boldly unto the Throne of Grace, that we may obtain mercy, 
Heb. 4. 16.  and find grace to help in a time of need. The throne of Grace certainly is not the shrine of any Saints, but the immediate throne and presence of God, whither we may immediately direct our prayers through the merits and intercession of Christ. Upon the same account the whole body of the Christians are called a Spiritual house, that is, the Temple of God, where he is peculiarly present to hear these Prayers that are made to him, An holy Priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to GOD through Jesus 
1 Pet. 2. 5. 6.  Christ. And a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people: This is a privilege above what the Jews enjoyed, they had a Priesthood to minister in holy things, and to offer their Sacrifices to them, but the whole Nation was not a Priesthood, nor had such immediate access to God; but now every Christian has as near an access to God as the Priests themselves under the Law had; can offer up his Prayers and Spiritual Sacrifices immediately to GOD; and that very acceptably too, through Jesus Christ our great High Priest and Mediator; and if our Prayers be acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, we need no other Mediators or Advocats. This is the only direction our Saviour gave his Disciples a little before his death, to ask in his name, with this promise, If ye ask any thing in my name, I will do it. Hitherto have you asked nothing in my name, ask and ye shall 
Joh. 14. 13, 15. Joh. 16. 24.  receive, that your joy may be full. and to give them the greater assurance of acceptance, he acquaints them with God's great and tender affection for them, such as a Father has for his Children. At that day ye shall ask in my name; and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father 
ver. 26, 27.  for you, for the Father himself loveth you because ye have loved me, and have believed, that I came out from God; a reason which equally extends to all those who shall believe in Christ, to the end of the world. And can we now imagine, that when our Saviour has purchased for us this liberty of access to God, he should send us round about by the shrines and Altars of numerous & unknown Saints to the Throne of Grace. When he will not assert the necessity of his own prayers for us, while we pray in his name, because our heavenly Father hath such a tender affection for all the Disciples of Christ, can we think it necessary to pray to St. Paul and St. Peter, and the Virgin Mary to pray for us. This is none of our Saviour's institution, nor can it be, because Christ by his death and sufferings and intercessions brings us nearer to God, as the 
Heb. 10. 19 20, 21, 22.  Apostle to the Hebrews speaks, Having therefore Brethren boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us through the vail, that is to say, his flesh, and having an high Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of Faith. But the worship of Saints and Angels removes us at a great distance from God, as not daring to approach his presence without the mediation of some Favourite Saint. And though the Church of Rome does sometimes pray directly to God only, in the Name and Mediation of Christ, as the Pagan's themselves sometime did to their Supreme Deity: yet it seems this is what they dare not trust to, and therefore join the Meditation of Saints with their prayers to God, and never pray to God without it.   

SECT. VIII.  
5. THat the Gospel of our Saviour has made no alteration in the object of our worship, appears from that Analogy which there is and aught to be, between the Jewish and Christian Worship. The Jewish and Christian Church are but one Church, and their worship the same worship, only with this difference, that the Jewish worship was in Type and Figure, and Ceremony, the Christian worship in Truth and Substance. And therefore if this Evangelical worship be the same it must have the same object, for the object is the most essential part of worship.  
So that if it appear, not only from the express letter of the Law of Moses, but from all the Types and Figures of the Law, that God only was to be worshipped by the Jewish Church; if Christ was to fulfil all these Types and Figures in his own person, and in the Evangelical worship, than it is certain, that the object of our worship must be the same still; for if the Type was confined in its nature and signification to the worship of one God, than the whole Christian worship, which was signified and prefigured by these Types, must be peculiar and appropriate to the one Supreme GOD.  
As for instance. I have already proved at large, that the Jews were to worship but one God, because they had but one Temple to worship in, and all their worship had some relation or other to this one Temple, and therefore all their worship was appropriated to that one God, whose Temple it was; now we know Gods dwelling in the Temple at Jerusalem, was only a Type and Figure of Gods dwelling in Humane Nature, upon which account Christ calls his body the Temple; and St. John tells us, That the word was made flesh and dwelled among us, es kenosen en hemin tabernacled 
2 Joh. 19 21. 1 Joh. 14. 2 Coloss, 3.  among us; as God formerly dwelled in the Jewish Tabernacle or Temple; and St. Paul adds, That the fullness of the Godhead dwelled in Christ bodily, somatikos realy substantially, as an accomplishment of Gods dwelling by Types and Figures, and shadows in the Jewish Temple.  
Now if all the Jewish worship was confined to the Temple, or had a necessary relation to it, as I have already proved. and this Temple was but a figure of the Incarnation of Christ, who should dwell among us in humane nature, than all the Christian worship must be offered up to God through Jesus Christ, as all the Jewish worship was offered to God at the Temple: for Christ is the only Temple (in a strict and proper sense) of the Christian Church, and therefore he alone can render all our services acceptable to God. So that God, who is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is the only object of our worship, and Christ considered as God Incarnate, as God dwelling in humane nature is the only Temple where all our worship must be offered to GOD, that is, we shall find acceptance with God only in his name and mediation: we must worship no other Being but only the Supreme God, and that only through Jesus Christ.  
Thus under the Law the Priests were to interceded for the people, but not without Sacrifice; their Intercession was founded in making atonement and expiation for sin; which plainly signified, that under the Gospel we can have no other Mediator, but only him, who expiates our sins, and intercedes in the merits of his Sacrifice; who is our Priest and our Sacrifice, and therefore our Mediator; as St. John observes. If any man sin, we have 
1 Joh. 2. 1, 2.  an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins. The Law knew no such thing as a Mediator of pure intercession, a Mediator, who is no Priest, and offers no Sacrifice for us, and therefore the Gospel allows of no such Mediators neither, who mediate only by their prayers, without a Sacrifice, such Mediators as the Church of Rome makes of Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary; but we have only one Mediator; a Mediator of redemption, who has purchased us with his Blood, of whom the Priests under the Law were Types and Figures.  
Thus under the Law▪ none but the High Priest was to enter into the Holy of Holies; with the blood of the Sacrifice; now the Holy of Holies was a Type of Heaven, 
Heb. 1. 12.  and therefore this plainly signified, that under the Gospel, there should be but one High Priest and Mediator, to offer up our Prayers and Supplications in Heaven, He and He only, who enters into Heaven with his own Blood, as the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies with the blood of the Sacrifice. There may be a great many Priests and Advocates on Earth to interceded for us, as there were under the Law, great numbers of Priests, the Sons of Aaron, to attend the Service and Ministry of the Temple, but we have, and can have, but one Priest and Mediator in Heaven.  
Whoever acknowledges that the Priesthood and Ministry of the Law was Typical of the Evangelical Priesthood and Worship, cannot avoid the force of this argument, and whoever will not acknowledge this, must reject most of St. Paul's Epistles, especially the Epistle to the Hebrews, which proceeds wholly upon this way of reasoning: Now this manifestly justifies the worship of the Church of England, as true Christian worship, for we worship One God through one Mediator, who offered himself a sacrifice for us, when he was on Earth, and intercedes for us as our High Priest in Heaven, which answers to the One Temple, and the One High Priest under the Law: But though the Church of Rome does what we do, worship the Supreme GOD through Jesus Christ, yet she spoils the Analogy between the Type and the Antitype, the legal and Evangelical worship, by doing more; when she sends us to the Shrines and Altars of so many several Saints, surely this cannot answer to that one Temple at Jerusalem, where God alone was to be worshipped, there are many Temples and Mercy-seats now, as there are Shrines and Altars of Saints and Angels, by whose Intercession we may obtain our requests of God. When she advances Saints and Angels to the Office of Mediators and Intercessors in Heaven, this contradicts the Type of One High Priest, who alone might enter into the Holy of Holies, which was a type of Heaven; for there is some difference between having one Mediator in Heaven, (and there can be no more under the Gospel to answer to the Typical High Priest under the Law) and having a hundred Mediators in Heaven together with our Typical High Priest. To have a Mediator of pure Intercession in Heaven, who never offered any Sacrifice for us, cannot answer to the High Priest under the Law, who could not enter into the Holy of Holies without the blood of sacrifice. The High Priests entering but once a year into the Holy of Holies, which was typical of Christ's entering once into Heaven to interceded for us, cannot be reconciled with a new succession of Mediators, as often as the Pope of Rome pleases to canonize them. So that either the Law was not typical of the state of the Gospel, or the Worship of Saints and Angels, which is so contrary to all the types and figures of the Law, cannot be true Christian Worship.  
Sixthly, I shall add but one thing more; that Christ and his Apostles have made no alteration in the object of the worship, appears from hence, that de facto there is no such Law in the Gospel for the worship of any other Being besides the One supreme God. There is a great deal against it, as I have already shown; but if there had been nothing against it, it had been argument enough against any such alteration, that there is no express positive Law for it. The force of which argument does not consist merely in the silence of the Gospel, that there is nothing said for it, (which the most Learned Advocates of the Church of Rome readily grant, and give their reasons, such as they are, why this was not done, why we are not directed to pray to Saints and Angels, and Images, etc.) but the argument lies in this, that there can be no alteration made in the object of worship without an express Law, and therefore there is no alteration made because there is no such Law in the Gospel.  
The Jews were expressly commanded to worship no other Being, but the Lord Jehovah as I have already proved, which Law appropriates all the acts of Religious worship to one God; and therefore all those who were under the obligation of this Law (as to be sure all natural Jews were) could not without the guilt of Idolatry give any Religious worship to any other Being, till this Law were expressly repeated, and express leave given to worship some other Divine Beings besides the Supreme God; so that at least our Saviour himself, while he was on Earth and subject to the Law, and his Apostles, and all believing Jews were obliged by this Law to worship none but God, unless we can show where Christ by his Legislative Authority, or his Apostles by Commission from him, have expressly repealed this Law; nay indeed, unless we can show, that Christ himself repealed this Law, and taught the worship of Saints and Angels, 
Mat. 28. 20  the Apostles themselves could have no authority to do it, for their Commission was only to teach what Christ had commanded them, which though it does not extend to matters of order and discipline, and the external circumstances of worship, yet it does as to all essentials of Faith and worship and I think the right object of Worship is the most essential thing in Religious Worship.  
From hence it appears, that at least all the Jewish Christians in the Apostles days, and all succeeding Ages to this day, cannot worship Saints and Angels without Idolatry, because the Law, which was given to them, and never yet repealed, commands them to worship none but God; and if Gentile Converts were received into the Jewish Christian Church (and Christ has but one Church of Jews and Gentiles) they must also be obliged by all those Laws, which were then, and are still obligatory to all believing Jews, and therefore Gentile as well as Jewish Christians, are still bound to worship none but God.  
Now I think I need not prove, that an express Law can be repealed only by an express Law. That Law which commands us to worship God, and him only, must continue in full force, till GOD do as expressly declare, that he allows us to pay some degree of Religious Worship to other Beings besides himself: When a Lawgiver has declared his will and pleasure by a Law, it is not fit that Subjects should be allowed to guests at his mind, and dispute away an express Law by some surmises and consequences, how probable soever they may appear; for at this rate a Law signifies nothing, if we may guests at the will of our Lawgiver, without and against an express Law. And yet none of the Advocates of the Church of Rome (though they are not usually guilty of too much modesty) ever had the confidence to pretend an express Law for the worship of Saints and Angels, and Images, etc. and though they sometimes allege Scripture to prove this by, yet they do not pretend that they are direct proofs, but only attempt to prove some other Doctrines from Scripture, from which they think they may prove by some probable consequences that which the Scripture no where plainly teaches, nay the contrary to which is expressly taught in the Scripture. And if this may be allowed, I know no law of God so plain and express, but a witty man may find ways to escape the obligation of it. This is a consideration of great moment, and therefore I shall discourse more particularly of it.  
The Law of Moses expressly commands us to worship GOD, and him only; Our Saviour Christ owns and confirms the authority of this Law in the Gospel; the Church of Rome notwithstanding this Law, gives Religious Worship to Creatures, the question than is, how she avoids the force of this Law since it is not where expressly repealed, and she does not pretend that it is. Now the Patrons of Creature-worship thinks to justify themselves from the breach of this Law, these three ways. 1. By consequences drawn, as they pretend, from other Scripture-Doctrines. 2. By distinctions. And 3. By authority. Let us then examine, whither all this have any force against an express Law, which was never expressly repealed.  
1. By consequences drawn, as they pretend, from other Scripture-Doctrines; and I shall discourse this with a particular reference to the Invocation of Saints. For when they would prove the lawfulness of praying to Saints, they allege no direct proof of this from Scripture●; but because they must make a show of saying something from Scripture, when they are to deal with such Heretics as will be satisfied with no less authority, they endeavour to prove something else from Scripture, from whence they think by an easy consequence, they can prove the lawfulness of praying to Saints.  
Thus they very easily prove, that we may and aught to pray for one another, and to desire each others prayers while we are on Earth; and from hence they presently conclude, that we may as lawfully pray to Saints in Heaven to pray for us, as beg and desire their prayers, while they are one Earth.  
And to confirm this, they endeavour to prove, that some extraordinary Saints, whose merits are very great, do directly ascend up into Heaven unto the immediate presence of God, and a participation of his Glory; and hence they conclude, that they have authority and power to help us and to intercede for us, and that they are so far advanced above us in this mortal state, that they deserve some kind of Religious Honour and Worship from us, as being Dii per participationem, Gods by participation, that is, by partaking in the Divine Nature and Glory by their advancement to Heaven.  
And if after all this they can prove, that the Saints in Heaven do pray and intercede for us on Earth, they think the demonstration is complete and perfect, that therefore 
* Bonum atque utile esse suppliciter Sanctos invocare, & ad beneficia impetranda a Deo per filium ej us Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum; qui solus noster Redemptor & Salvator est, ad eorum orationes opem auxlium que confugere. Conc. Trin. 16. 25. de Invocat.  It is good and profitable (as the Council of Trent words it) humbly to invock the Saints after the manner of Suplicants, and to ●●y to their prayers and help and aid to obtain blessings of God by his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our only (not Intercessor and Advocate, but) Redeemer and Saviour.  
Now how they prove all this, is not my business at present to inquire; but my inquiry is whither such arguments as these be sufficient to oppose against the authority of an express Law; and if they be, truly I think it a very vain thing, either for God or men to make any Laws. For,  
1. I desire to know, what these Gentlemen would prove by such ki●● of arguments as these. Suppose we should grant them, that the Saints are received into Heaven before the Resurrection, and are actually possessed of all that Glory and Happiness, which they say they are; suppose we should grant them, that by some means unknown to us, Saints and Angels are acquainted with all that we do and suffer in this world, hea● all o●r vocal or mental prayers, which we offer to GOD or to themselves, and that they do actually pray and interceded for us, what follows from hence? Therefore we may pray to Saints, not I hope if there can be an express Law against it. These argument's a● most can only prove, that in the nature of the thing it might be fitting and reasonable to pray to Saints, if God thought fit to allow it, no● that we must pray to Saints, though God has forbid it. For those are powerful reasons indeed, which can justify Saint-worship against the express Law and declared Will of God. Can they first prove one of these three things: Either 1. that there is no such Law against the worship of any other Being besides God. Or 2. that this is not the sense of the Law, that they must not pray to Saints or Angels, that the Law, which forbids us to worship any Being but God, does not forbid the worship of Saints. Or 3. that though there was such a Law, and this were the sense of it, and this Law were never formally repealed by God, yet it disappears of itself, and oblidges no longer since the discovery such reasons as these for the worship of Saints and Angels. I say, could they prove any thing of this in the first place, than there would be as much reason for the worship of Saints, as there is strength and validity in their Arguments; but no reason can take place against an express Law, till it be as expressly repealed. For,  
2. If an express Law may be disobeyed, as often as men fancy they see reason to do what the Law forbids, this overthrows the whole authority of making Laws, and makes every Subject a Judge, whither the Laws of a Sovereign Prince shall be obeyed or not. At this rate he has the greatest authority, who has the best reason; and since every man believes his own reason to be best, every man is the Sovereign Lord of his own actions. It is to be presumed, that no Prince makes a Law, but what he apprehends some reason for, and to oppose any man's private reason against a Law. is to set up a private man's reason against the public reason of government: and yet it is much worse to oppose our reason against a Divine Law, which is to oppose the reason of Creatures against the reason of God, unless we will say, that GOD makes Laws without reason, and those who can believe that, may as easily imagine, that God will expect that those Laws he makes without reason, should be obeyed without reason also, and then to be sure all their reasons cannot repeal a Law, nor justify them in the breach of it. It becomes every Creature to believe the will of God to be the ●ighest reason, and therefore when God has declared his will by an express Law, while this Law continues in force, (as it must do, till it be as expressly repealed) it is an impudent thing to urge our reasons against the obligations of it. So that since God has expressly forbid us to worship any Being besides himself, unless we can prove, that God has repealed this Law, it will never justify the worship of Saints and Angels, though we could by the plainest and easiest arguments prove to the conviction of all Mankind, that Saints and Angels are very fit objects of our Religious Worship, and that it is no diminution to the glory of God to pay some degree of Religious worship to them.  
3. Especially, when the matter of the Law is such, that whatever reasons may be pretended on one side or the other, it most still be acknowledged to be wholly at the will and pleasure of the Lawgiver, wh●ch fide he will choose. As for instance, suppose there were no natural and necessary reason against the worship of Saints and Angels, yet there is no natural and necessary reason for it neither, and therefore God may either allow or forbidden it, as he himself pleases, without assigning any reason why he does either. And when it appears that God might forbid it if he pleases, and that he has actually forbid it by an express Law, it is time to leave off reasoning about it: natural reason can give us no assurance of any thing, which it cannot prove to be necessary, whatever in the nature and reason of things may be, or may not be, can never be proved either to be, or not to be, by mere reason; for it is a contradiction to say, that there is no necessary reason why such a thing should be, and yet that I can prove by reason▪ that it must be, which supposes, that there is a necessary reason, why it should be; for I cannot prove, that it must be, unless I can prove that it most necessarily be; that is, that there is a necessary reason, why it should be.  
To apply this then to our present Case. The Law expressly forbids us to worship any other Being besides the supreme God, the Church of Rome prays to Saints and Angels and Images. which is an essential part of Divine Worship; and without ever attempting to prove this Law to be repealed, she justifies her worship by such reasons and consequences, as I have now cited from their most celebrated Doctors, and some of which are the principles, whereon the Council of Trent found'st their praying to Saints and Angels. I ask then, whither these arguments, whereby they endeavour to justify the worship of Saints and Angels, prove that we must worship them, that such worship is their natural right, and our duty. No, this the Church of Rome will not own: the most the Council of Trent says, is, that it is bonum & utile, good & profitable to do it; but, say I, if they do not prove it to be necessary, they prove nothing; for if Saints and Angels have not a natural right to our worship though we should suppose them to be very fit objects of some degrees of worship, yet it is at God's choice, whither he will allow it or not, and they can challenge no worship, and we must give none, if God forbids it; and therefore since God has forbid the worship of any Being, but himself (and therefore of the most excellent Saints and Angels) by an express Law; and it not where appears, where or when, or in what manner this Law was repealed, a hundred such arguments as these cannot prove it lawful to worship Saints and Angels against an express Law not to do it. Though we should grant that God, if he pleased, might allow us to worship Saints and Angels, as the Church of Rome does, without any diminution of his own Glory, which is the most that all their arguments can pretend to prove, yet it does not hence follow, that we may worship them, when God by an express Law has declared, that he will not allow it. No arguments nor consequences can prove, that God allows us to do that, which by an express Law he has forbid us to do. No reason can prove that to be Gods will, which he has publicly declared in his Law to be against his will.  
4. That no reason or arguments can absolve us from our obedience to any express Law, till it be as expressly repealed, appears from this, that our obligation to obedience does not depend merely upon the reason of the Law, but upon the authority of the Lawgiver, and therefore though the reason of the Law should cease, yet while it is enforced by the same authority, it oblidges still, Thus I am sure, it is in humane Laws, and it is very fitting it should be so; mere reason cannot make a Law, for then every thing which is reasonable, would be a necessary duty; that which is reasonable may be fit matter for a Law, but it is the authority of the Lawgiver which makes the Law, and the same authority which at first made it a Law, continues it to be a Law while the authority lasts, though the particular reason for which it was enacted into a Law, may cease.  
So that though the Church of Rome could prove, that there is no reason now against the worship of Saints and Angels, that all those reasons for which God forbade the Jews to worship any one but himself, were now ceased; yet till the Law be repealed too, it is utterly unlawful to worship any Being besides the Supreme God, and yet this is the most that all their reasonings come to, that there is not the same reason for this Law under the State of the Gospel, that there was under the Jewish Oeconomy.  
They suppose, that God forbade the Jews to worship any one but himself, because they were in great danger of falling into Pagan Idolatries, and worshipping the Gods of the Egyptians, and other Neighbour-Nations, and that this was the case also of the Christian Church at the first planting of the Gospel; but now there is no danger of worshipping false Gods, we may very securely worship the Friends and Favourites of God.  
They suppose, that all the ancient Patriarches who lived before the Resurrection of Christ, were not received into Heaven, and therefore not being in a state of Bliss and Glory themselves, were not yet capable of Divine Honours, could neither know our Prayers, nor intercede for us. But now at last some eminent Saints and Martyrs ascend directly into Heaven, and are the Beati, advanced to such a state of Happiness and Glory; that they are fit objects of Religious Worship, and are so powerful in the Court of Heaven; that God denies them nothing which they ask; and so tender and eompassionate to us, that they readily undertake our Cause, and intercede for us, and therefore it is very good and profitable now to invoke their aid and assistance by solemn and devout Prayers.  
And though the learndest men among them are put to miserable shifts to prove the least part of all this; yet let us for argument-sake, suppose all this to be true, that things are mightily changed since the making of this Law, and that there is not the same reason now to confine all Religious Worship to God alone, that there was in the time of Moses, what follows from hence, that therefore we may now worship Saints and Angels, notwithstanding this Law which forbids it? by no means, unless they can prove that the Law is repealed too, as well as the reason ceased: Here is the authority of the Lawgiver still, though we should suppose, that we had lost the reason of the Law; till the Law is as expressly repealed as it was given, it is God Will still, and that is reason enough to bind the Law upon us, though other reasons fail. The reason (if we speak of such reasons as these, which the Church of Rome assigns, for it is a different case, if we speak of eternal and necessary reason, which is nothing else but the eternal and immutable nature and will of God. which is an eternal Law) did not make the Law, and the change of the reason cannot repeal it. And since we see, that God has not repealed this Law, we rather ought to conclude, that we are mistaken in the reasons, for which God made this Law, or that there are other reasons, which we know not of, for which he continues it: we may indeed reasonably suppose, that God will repeal a Law, when the reasons, for which it was given, ceases, though earthly Princes may not always do so; but still the Law binds till it be repealed; and it is more reasonable to conclude, that the reason of the Law continues, while we see God does not repeal it, than first to persuade ourselves, that the reason of Law is changed, and thence infer the repeal and abrogation of the Law, when we see no such thing done.  
5, That these arguments which the Roman Doctors urge, to justify their worship of Saints and Angels, are of no force to repeal that Law, which forbids the worship of any other Being besides the Supreme God, appears from this, that they had no force in them to prevent the making of this Law, and therefore much less can they repeal it now it is made: The reasons which they use, had the same force then, which they have now, and if notwithstanding all the reasons, God thought fit to forbid the worship of all Created Being's, it is ridiculous to imagine, that these reasons should supersede the obligation of that Law, which is made in contradiction to all such reasonings: as to show this briefly.  
They prove, that we may pray to Saints and Angels to pray for us, because we may desire good men on earth to pray for us. Now suppose we could not assign the difference between praying to Saints in Heaven, and desiring the prayers of Saints on earth, yet I would desire to know, whither good men did not pray for one another, and desire each others prayers, before and after God gave this Law on Mount Sinai, which forbids the Religious worship and invocation of any other Being but himself: if good men did in all ages pray for one another, and desire one another's prayers, and God allowed and approved of this, than it seems God did not think this a good reason for praying to Saints and Angels in Heaven, because good men might beg each others prayers on earth, for if he had, he would not have made that Law, which forbids such a Religious Invocation of any Creature. And if notwithstanding this reason, which had as much force then, as it has now, God made and promulged this Law, this reason can never repeal it, nor dissolve the obligation of it.  
Thus if the Saints and Angels being in Heaven be a good reason why they should be worshipped, this was as good a reason at the giving of of the Law, as it is now; for thö we should suppose with the Church of Rome, that Saints departed were not in Heaven then, yet certainly the Angels were, and if their being in Heaven made them fit objects of our worship, why did God so expressly forbidden it; and if he forbade it then, when there was as much reason to allow the worship of of those heavenly Inhabitants, as there is now, this argument cannot prove, but that God forbids it still.  
The same may be said of the Intercession of Saints and Angels. The Papists suppose, that the Saints and Angels pray and intercede for us in Heaven, and obtain for, and convey many blessings to us, and therefore it is good and profitable to pray to them, and to fly to their patronage; now though indeed they date the Intercession of Saints, (as they do their admission into heaven) from the Resurrection of our Saviour, yet there is as much evidence for the aids and intercessions of Angels before and under the Law, as there is now; nay, I think somewhat more; for the government of the world was much more under the administration of Angels, in the time of the Law, than it is now; and yet notwithstanding this, God did by an express law forbidden the worship of any being but himself, and therefore of these Angelical powers; who are somewhat superior to Saints in Heaven; and if this were no good reason against making this law, it can be no good reason to prove the abrogation of it.  
●. The next way they take to evade the obligation of this law of worshipping God only, is by distinctions. As to name the chief of them.  
They tell us, that this law is only opposed to the worship of false Gods, such Gods as the Heathens worshipped, not to the worship of Saints and Angels, who are the Friends and Favourites of God.  
And then they distinguish about the nature of worship; they confess there is a worship which is peculiar to God, Supreme and Sovereign worship, which is peculiar to the Supreme Being, and this, for what reason I know not, they call Latria; but then there is an inferior degree of worship, which they call Dulia, which may be given to excellent Creatures, to Saints and Angels, who reign with Christ in Heaven.  
They farther distinguish between absolute and relative worship. Absolute worship is, when we worship a Being for its self, and thus God only is to be worshipped; but relative worship is, when we worship one Being out of respect to another, and thus we may worship Saints and Angels upon account of their relation to God.  
Now I shall have occasion to examine these distinctions more particularly hereafter, my business at present is to examine, how far these distinctions can justify the worship of Saints and Angels against an express Law, which commands us to worship God only. And I have three things to say on this argument. 1. That the letter of the law will admit of no such distinctions as these. 2. That the Scripture no where allows any such distinctions. And 3. That no distinctions can justify our acting against the letter of a law, which have not the same authority which the Law has.  
1. The letter of the Law will admit of no such distinctions 
Exod. 20  as these. The Law is, Thou shalt have none other Gods before ME. The explication of this Law is, 
Deut. 10 20.  Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave and swear by his name. Or as 
Matth 4 10  our Saviour expounds it, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.  
Now these words do plainly exclude the worship of all other Beings besides the Supreme God: They exclude indeed the worship of all the Heathen Gods, which were at that time worshipped in the world, but they are not confined to the worship of the Heathen Gods, nor merely to the worship of those Gods who were at that time worshipped, but should any new Gods start up in after Ages, whither among Jews or Christians, the words extend to all that are, and all that ever shall be worshipped. Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me, signifies, that we must worship no other Being but the Supreme God, for to have a God, is to give religious worship to some Being; as appears from that exposition, which both Moses and our Saviour Christ gives of it. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. For it is impossible to have any God besides the Supreme God, in any other sense then as we worship some other Being, besides the Supreme God, with Divine honours; and whatever being we so worship, become our God, and therefore this Law forbids the worship of any Being, which is not God, be it Saint or Angel, or the Virgin Mary; how excellent and perfect Creatures soever they be, they are not our God, and therefore must not be worshipped. If we must worship and serve God only, as our Saviour expressly tells us, that we must worship no creature whatever it be, the worship of saints and Angels is as expressly forbid by this Law, as the worship of the Heathen Gods, for that Law which commands us to worship GOD only, excludes the worship of all Creatures whatever they be.  
But may not the meaning of this Law be only this: That we must not give supreme and sovereign worship to any other ●eeing, but the supreme GOD, but we may give an inferior degree of worship to some excellent spirits, who under God have the care of us. And is not this plainly signified in the very letter of the Law, when it says, Thou shalt have none other Gods before me. For no other worship makes any Being a God, but that which is supreme and sovereign, peculiar and appropriate to the One supreme God; and therefore not to have any other Being for our God, is not to give Supreme and Sovereign Worship to it. Now what that worship is, which is peculiar and appropriate to the Supreme God, I shall discourse particularly in the second part; our present inquiry is, whither this Law makes any such distinction. The Laws says, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve; Here is no distinction between supreme and subordinate worship; whatever is an Act of worship must be given to God only. But the Law says, Thou shalt have no other Gods before me, and therefore it must signify supreme and sovereign worship; for no other degree of worship makes a God. Did the Heathens than worship no inferior gods? did those who worshipped so many several gods, look ●pon them all as supreme and absolute? or were they so senseless as to give supreme and sovereign worship to inferior Deities? or does not this Law forbidden the worship of those Gods, whom the Heathens worshipped as inferior Daemons, but only the worship of those Gods, whom they accounted Supreme and Sovereign? If this Law forbids the worship of all Heathen Gods and it is certain, that they worshipped a great many Gods, whom they did not account Supreme, then there can be no place for this distinction here, for such an inferior worship as makes an inferior God, is as well forbidden, as supreme and sovereign worship.  
The Law says, Thou shalt have none other Gods before me: or besides me; which as I observed before, does not exclude the worship of the supreme God, but forbids the worship of any other Being together with him. The meaning is not, Thou shalt not renounce my worship, for the worship of any other Gods, but thou shalt worship me, and no other God besides me: now I would only ask this question, whither a Jew who worshipped the God of Israel, who declared himself to be the Supreme God, could give supreme worship to any other God? this is contrary to the sense of all mankind, to worship him as Supreme, whom they do not believe to be Supreme. And therefore when God forbade them to join the worship of any other Gods with the worship of himself, he must forbid all kinds and degrees of worship, even the most inferior worship, which the Heathens paid to their inferior Deities.  
If you say, that God did indeed forbid all kinds and degrees of worship to be paid to the Heathen Gods, which were impure and wicked spirits, but still it is lawful to pay inferior worship to Saints and Angels, who are the friends of God. I answer, the Law makes no distinction between the worship of good and bad Spirits, and therefore as far as this Law is concerned, we must either deny this inferior degrees of Worship to all, or grant it to all. If this Law does not forbid giving inferior degrees of worship to other Beings, than it does not forbid the inferior worship of Heathen Gods; that may be faulty upon other accounts, but is no breach of this law; and then the Heathens were not guilty of Idolatry in worshipping their inferior D●●mons with an inferior worship. If this Law does forbid even this inferior degree of worship, than it forbids the worship of good Spirits too, though with an inferior worship, which transforms true Saints and Angels into false and fictitious Deities.  
But I have another argument to prove, that this Law can have no respect to the different degrees of worship. The Roman Doctors themselves grant, that the difference between supreme and subordinate or inferior worship, does not consist in the outward Act, that all or most of the external Acts of worship may belong to both kinds, they except indeed Sacrifice, but contrary to the sense of all men; for the Heathens offered Sacrifice to their inferior Deities, as well as to the supreme; and there is no imaginable reason to be assigned why Sacrifice, as well as Prayer, may not be an act of inferior, as well as of supreme worship. The difference then between supreme and inferior worship, is only in the intention and devotion of the worshippers, and no man can by the external act know whither this be supreme or inferior worship. Now from hence I thus argue: if the worship forbidden by this Law be such, as can be known by the external act, than this Law can have no regard to the degrees of worship, for the degrees of worship are not in the external acts, but in the mind of the worshipper, which cannot be known by external acts. Now that the Law did forbid the external acts of worship, without any regard to the intention of the worshipper, appears in this, that this Idolatrous worship was to be punished with death, and therefore it must be such external Idolatry as falls under the cognizance of humane Judicatures. Had there been 
Deutr. 13. 6 7. etc.  any regard to the degrees of worship, no man could have been convicted of Idolatry by the external act, and could not have been liable to punishment, unless he had confessed his intention of giving supreme worship to a false God, and so this Law of putting such Idolaters to death had signified nothing, because it had been impossible for them to convict any man of Idolatry, but by his own confession: but when the external act which is visible to all men, is sufficient to convict any man of Idolatry, it is next to a demonstration, that the Law had no respect to the degrees, but to the acts of worship.  
And that our Saviour in that Law, thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, had no regard to the different degrees of worship, I have already proved at large, for allowing that distinction, he had not given a good answer to the Devil's temptation.  
Thus as for their distinction between absolute and relative worship, that though we must not worship any Creature, the most excellent Saints and Angels, for themselves, yet we may worship them upon account of that relation they have to God; that is, we may worship them for God's sake, though not for their own; I find no intimation of any such distinction in the Law. We are there commanded to have no other Gods, to worship God and him only, which excludes Saints and Angels from being the object of our worship, as well as Devils.  
2. But possibly it may be said; that though the Law takes no notice of such distinctions, yet the Scripture in the explication of this Law may make allowances for it. Now in answer to this, I only desire to know, where the Scripture has made any such distinction between worshipping good and evil Spirits, the enemies and Rivals, or the Friends of God, between supreme and subordinate, absolute or relative worship; I can find no such distinctions in Scripture, and I have a material reason to believe no such can be found, viz because there was no occasion for them. The Scripture no where allows us to give any kind of worship to any Creature, and therefore there was no need to distinguish between the kind and degrees of worship.  
The most material thing that can be said in this cause is this: that when the Scripture mentions this Law of worshipping One God, it opposes it to the worship of the false Gods of the Heathens; from whence some may conclude, that God 
Deut 6. 13. 14 Deut 13. 7.  forbade the worship only of these false Gods. But we must consider, that the Law is conceived in such general terms, as to exclude the worship of all Beings besides the Supreme God; but it could not be thought, that God should at that time immediately apply this Law against the worship of any other Beings, but those which were at that time worshipped in the world. If God gives a Law, which forbids the worship of any Beings besides himself; and particularly applies this Law to prohibit the worship of all those Gods which were then worshipped in the world, will any one in theirs wits hence conclude, that if the folly and superstition of men should set up a new race and generation of Gods in after ages, that the worship of these new Gods is not as well forbidden by this general Law, as the worship of those gods which were worshipped at that time when this Law was given? If this were true, possibly Pagan Rome itself was not guilty of Idolatry; for most, if not all of their Gods might be of a later date than the giving the Law.  
3. Now since no such distinctions as these appear in Scripture, it is impossible they should justify the worship of Saints and Angels; which is so expressly forbidden by the Law, if we will acknowledge them to be distinct Beings from the Supreme God; for if they are not the Supreme GOD, we must not worship them, for we must worship none but God. No distinctions can justify us in this case, but such as GOD himself makes; for otherwise it were easy to distinguish away any Law of God. Humane Laws will admit of no distinctions, but such as they make themselves; for a distinction does either confine and straighten, or enlarge the Law, and he who has power to distinguish upon a Law, has so far power to make it. If the Law says, that we shall worship no other Being besides God, and we have power, if we have but wit enough, to invent some new distinctions, between the worship of good and bad spirits, between Supreme and Subordinate, absolute and relative worship; this makes a new Law of it; for it is one thing to say thou shalt worship GOD only, and quite contrary to say, thou shalt worship God only and good Spirits, God with a supreme and absolute, good Spirits with a subordinate and relative worship. This I think is sufficient to show, that we must admit of no distinctions upon a Divine Law, but what the Scripture itself owns, and therefore since those distinctions, with which the Church of Rome justifies her worship of Saints and Angels, are not where to be found in Scripture, they have no authority against an express Law.  
3. The next course the Papists take to justify their Creature-worship, in contradiction to that Law, which expressly commands us to worship none but God, is an appeal to such authorities, as they think sufficient to decide this matter.  
Now I shall not say much to this, for I believe all Mankind will acknowledge, that no Authority less than Divine, can repeal a Divine Law; and therefore unless God himself, or such persons as act by a Divine Authority, have repealed this Law, no other Authority can do it. That Christ and his Apostles have not repealed this Law, I have already proved, that the whole Church in after Ages had any Authority to repeal this Law, I desire them to prove.  
For the authority of the Church, as to the essentials of Faith and Worship, is not the authority of Lawgivers, but of Witnesses, The Church never pretended in former Ages to make or to repeal any Divine Laws, but to declare and testify what the belief and practice of the Primitive and Apostolic Churches was; and it is unreasonable to think, that they should have any such Authority; for then Christ and his Apostles preached the Gospel to little purpose, if it were in the power of the Church to make a new Gospel of it when they pleased.  
But indeed could it appear, that the Apostles did teach the Christians of that Age, and the Church in those Ages, which immediately succeeded the Apostles, did practise the worship of Saints and Angels, we should have reason to suspect, that we, and not they, are mistaken in the sense of that Law, which commands us to worship none but God.  
But then none can be admitted as competent witnesses of this matter, but those who did immediately succeed the Apostles, or conversed with Apostolical men and Churches. And thanks be to God, there is no appearance of creature-worship in those Ages, we dare appeal to the testimony of Fathers and Councils for above three hundred years; and those who come after, come a little too late to be witnesses of what was done in the Apostolic Churches: especially, when all the intermediate Ages knew nothing of it.  
I shall not fill up this discourse with particular ●itations, which learned men know where to find; since the Roman Doctors can find nothing in the Writings of the first Fathers to justify the worship of Saints and Angels, and the Protestant Writers find a great deal in those Ages against it.  
Indeed at the latter end of the fourth Century, some of the Fathers used some Rhetorical Apostrophes to the Saints and Martyrs in in their Orations, which the Church of Rome interprets to be Prayers to them, but though other 
See Bishops Ushers Answer to the Jesuits Challenge.  Learned men have vindicated those passages so far, as to show the vast difference between them, and solemn and formal Invocation, which is not my business at this time, yet there are several things very well worth our observation towards the true stating of this matter, As,  
1. That these Fathers came too late to be witnesses of the Apostolical practice, which they could know no otherwise, than we might know it, if there had been any such thing, viz. by the testimony and practice of the Church, from the Apostles till that time: This was no where pretended by them, that the Invocation of Saints had been the practice of the Catholic Church in all ages, and they could have no proof of this, unless they had better Records of former times, than we have at this day, and such as contradicted all the Records which we now have of the Apostolic and Primitive Churches, and I believe few men will be so hardy, as to assert this; and me thinks there should be as few, who are so credulous as to believe it, and I am sure, there is no man living who is able to prove it.  
2. Nay, the particular say of these Fathers, by which the Romanists prove the Invocation of Saints, do not prove, that it was the Judgement and practice of the Church of that age. They no where say, that it was, and it does not appear to be so by any other Records. Let them show me any Council before, or in those times, when these Fathers lived, that is in the fourth Century, which decreed the worship of Saints and Angels. Let them produce any public offices of Religion in in those days, which allows this worship; and if no such thing appears, those men must be very well prepared to believe this, who will without any other evidence judge of the practice of the Church, only from some extravagant slights of Poets and Orators: and if even in those days, the worship of Saints was not received into the public offices of the Church, methinks we may as well live without it still, and they must either grant, that these Fathers, whose authority they allege, meant no such thing by these Rhetorical flourishes, as they extract out of them, or else that they introduced a new and unknown worship into the Christian Church; and then let them prove, that some few Fathers of the fourth Century, without the public authority of the Church had authority enough of their own to change the object of worship, contrary as the Church in former Ages believed, to an express Divine Law, which commands us to worship none but God.  
3. Nay, I farther observe, that these Fathers, whose authority is urged for the invocation of Saints by the Church of Rome, do not where dogmatically and positively assert the lawfulness of Praying to Saints and Angels, and many Fathers of the same Age do positively deny the lawfulness of it, which is a plain argument, that it was not the judgement and practice of the Church of that Age, and a good reasonable presumption that these Fathers never intended any such thing in what they said, how liable soever their words may be to be expounded to such a sense.  
Greg●ry Nazianzen, indeed in this Book against Julian the Apostate, speaks to the Soul of Constantius, in this manner: Hear O thou Soul of great Constantius (if thou hast any sense of these things,) etc. But will you call this a Prayer to Constantius? does this Father any where assert in plain terms that it is lawful to pray to Saints departed? a hundred such say as these, which are no Prayers to Saints, cannot prove the lawfulness of praying to Saints against the Doctrine of the Fathers of that Age. Thus is his Funeral Oration for his Sister Gorgonia, he bespeaks her to this purpose, that if she knew what he was now a doing, and if holy Souls 
Greg. Naz. Orat. 2. in Gorg.  did receive this favour from God to know such matters as these, that then she would kindly accept that Oration which he made in her praise, instead of other Funeral Ocsequ●es. Is this a Prayer to Gorgonia to intercede for him with God? by no means! He only desires if she heard what he said of her (which he was not sure she did) that she would take it kindly. Whereas in that very Age the Fathers asserted, that we must pray only to God, and therefore they define Prayer by its relation to God; That Prayer is a request of some good things, made 
Basil, Orat in. Julit. Martyr. Greg. Naz. Orat. 1. de Oratione. Chrys. in Genes. Homil. 30. Aug. De clvit. Dei, l, 22 cap. 10.  by devout Souls to God, that it is a conference with God, that it is a request offered with supplication to God. Which is a very imperfect definition of Prayer, were it lawful to pray to any other Being besides God.  
St. Austin tells us, that when the names of the Martyrs were rehearsed in their public Liturgies, it was not to invoke them, or pray to them, but only for an honourable remembrance; nay, he expressly tells us, that the worship of dead men; must be no part of our Religion, for if they were pious men, they do not desire this kind of honour, but would have us worship 
Id●● de vera Religione, cap. ●5.  GOD: honorandi ergo sunt propter imitationem, non adorandi propter Religionem, they are to be honoured for imitation, not to be adored as an act of Religion.  
The Council of Laodicea condemned the Worship of Angels: and so does Theodoret, Oecumenius, and others of that Age. It is notoriously known, that the Arrians were condemned as guilty of Idolatry for worshipping Christ, whom they would not own to be the true GOD, though they owned him to be far exalted above all Saints and Angels, and to be as like to GOD, as it is for any creature to be: and those who upon these Principles, condemned the worship of the most perfect and excellent Creature, could never allow, the worship of Saints and Angels.  
So that through the worship of Saints and Angels, did begin abou● this time to creep into the Church, yet it was opposed by these pious and learned Fathers, and condemned in the first smallest appearances of it; which shows, that this was no Catholic Doctrine and Practice in that Age, much less that it had been so from the Apostles; and I think, after this time there was no authority in the Church to alter the object of worship, nor to justify such an Innovation as the worship of Saints and Angels, in opposition to the express law of God.  
The sum of this Argument is this: Since there is an express Law against the worship of any other Being besides the supreme God, the Lord Jehovah, which never was expressly repealed, whatever plausible reasons ●ay be urged for the worship of Saints and Angels, they cannot justify us in acting contrary to an express Law of God.   
THE END.   

A DISCOURSE CONCERNING THE CELEBRATION OF Divine Service. IN AN UNKNOWN TONGUE  
UPon this Argument the Church of England doth fully declare itself in these words. It is a 
Article 24.  thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the Custom of the Primitive Church, to have public Prayers in the church, or to minister the Sacraments in a Tongue not understood of the people.  
But if we consult the Doctors of the Church of Rome about it, we shall find them, as in most other 
Comment. in Eccles, 5. 1.  points, differing extremely amongst themselves. Mercer, a very learned person, and Professor of Hebrew at Paris, is so free as to say, Temere fecerunt, etc. They amongst us have done rashly, that brought in the Custom of praying in an Unknown Tongue, which very often neither they themselves, nor our people understand. And Cardinal Cajetan saith, Melius est, etc. It is better for our Church that the public Prayers in the Congregation be said in a Tongue common to the 
In 1. Ep. Corinth. c. 14.  Priests and People, and not in Latin. Others of them are of another Mind, and say that the having Divine Service in a Tongue known to the people is new and profane, and the Doctrine requiring it Diaboli calliditatem s●pit, smells of the craft of the Devil. And that the Church in making use of the Latin Tongue therein, received it by inspiration from the Holy Ghost; as a late Author saith. 
Stapleton. Quaest. quodl. Quaest. 2. Sixtus Senens. biblioth. l. 6. ●nnot. 263. Portraiture of the church of Jesus Christ; c, 14.   
With what consistence soever the former sort may speak to Truth and Reason, yet I am sure the later speak with consistence enough to the Opinion, Declarations and Practice of their church; as is evident from the Council of Tre●t (the present Standard of the Doctrine of the church of Rome) which I find thus Englished to my Hands by a noted person of their 
Cone. Trid. Sess. 22. c. 8. S. c. Answ. to Dr. Pierce, c. 15.  church. Though the Mass contain [great] instruction for GOD'S faithful people, yet it seemed not expedient to the Fathers (of the council) that it should be celebrated every where in the Vulgar Tongue: Wherefore retaining in all churches, the ancient Rite (or rather in all places the ancient Rite of every church) 
Retento ubiqque eujusqque Ecclesiae antiquo ritu.  approved by the Holy Roman church, the Mother and Mistress of all churches; lest Christ's Sheep should hunger, and the children ask Bread, none should be found to break it to them, the Holy Synod commands Pastors and all that have care of Souls, that during the celebration of Mass, they should frequently either by themselves, or others, expound some part of those things, which are read in it, and among others things let them explain the Mystery of the most Holy Sacrifice, 
Sanctissimi hujus Sacrificii aliquod mysterium: canon 9  (the words are, Some of this Holy Sacrifice) es●pecially on Sundays and Feasts.  
And they conclude, If any one shall say, that Mass ought to be celebrated only in the Vulgar Tongue, let him be Anathema.  
To this I shall add for a conclusion, the Judgement 
collectio quorundam Author. etc. cum Decretis, etc. 1661.  of the late Pope Alexander the Seventh, in a Brief he sent to the clergy of France about a Translation of the Missal into that Language, at that time newly published; in which he saith, that Some Sons of Perdition had arrived to that madness, as to Translate and publish it, etc. A Novelty we abhor and detest as the Seedplot of disobedience, rashness, sedition, and schism, and of many other evils, and therefore that French Missal, or what shall hereafter be published in any other manner, we condemn. reprobate and forbid.  
From all which we may perceive, what an evident repugnancy there is betwixt the Doctrine of the Church of England, and that of Rome in the matter before us: And therefore for the better understanding the Case and discerning which is in the Right, and which in the Wrong; I shall discourse of it in the following order.  
First, I shall consider the Phrase, an Unknown Tongue.  
Secondly, I shall inquire into the lawfulness and expediency of celebrating Divine Service in a Tongue not understood by the People. For so much is affirmed by the Council of Trent, and denied by the Church of England.  
Thirdly, I shall inquire, whither the celebrating Service in a Tongue not understood by the people, hath been the ancient custom of every Church? For so much also is affirmed by that Council, and denied by the Church of England.  
Fourthly, I shall consider, whither the Provision made by the foresaid Council, of having Some part of the Mass expounded; be sufficient to countervail the mischief of having the whole in a Tongue not understood by the people, and to excuse that Church in their injunction of it.  
Fifthly, I shall inquire whither'upon the whole, the public Service of God ought not to be celebrated in a Tongue vulgarly understood? Which Proposition whosoever holds, is anathematised by the foresaid Council: And yet is owned by the Church of England.  

SECT. I. Of the Phrase Service in an Unknown Tongue.  
TOward the fixing the sense of this Phrase, we are to observe, 1. That there is the Vulgar Tongue of a Country, which is universally understood by the Natives of what rank or quality soever. Such was the Latin Tongue formerly in Rome; such now is English with us.  
Before we dismiss this, it is to be farther considered,  
1. That there are different D●alects or waves of expressing and pronouncing the same Tongue: which differences of Words, or pronounciation do not so alter the Tongue, but that throughout under all these variations it agrees in much more than it differs; so that he that speaks the one, is generally understood by him that that useth the other. Such anciently were the different Dialects of the Greek Tongue: well known to the learned: And such are the Northern, Southrens and Western ways of speaking amongst ourselves in this Nation.  
2. Where there are these different Dialects, there generally is one way of speaking, which either from the eloquence, or fashionableness of it, so far prevails, as to be the Standard of the Tongue, and to be used in Writing Books, Letters, etc. And is understood by all. Such I conceive was anciently that which is called the common Dialect in Greek: And of the like kind is that which is spoken in and about the court, and by Scholars and persons of a liberal education amongst us; and elsewhere.  
3. If a Tongue in process of time, by a mixture 
De script. Diu. & Missae sacr. celebr. ling. vulg. c. 30. n 5  of other Nations, or by the removal of a people from one Country to another, or by any other cause comes to be so altered, as the Mother and Original Tongue is not to be understood (as Ledesma saith it is in Spain) than it is no longer a Vulgar Tongue, but is to be reckoned amongst the unknown.  
II. There is a Common Tongue, which though not the Mother or National Tongue, is however with that commonly and generally understood.  
Thus it was anciently in many places with the Greek and Latin. The former of which, was once the common Tongue of a great part of the then known World, and continued so to be from the time of Cicero, to that of St. Jerom, for the space that is of 400. If not 500 Years. In somuch, that not only the Scriptures were read in Greek in the public Congregations 
cic. pro. Archta Hieron. Tom. 9 l. 2. proem. ad Galat. Tom. 3. praes. l. in paralip. Ledesma 6. 33.  from Egypt to Constantinople, as St. Jerom informs us; but the christians also had their Worship (as is confessed) and the Fathers preached to them in that Language. So did St. chrysostom, S. Basil, S. Cryril and S. Athanasius in their several Sees of Antioch, Caesarea, Jerusalem, and Alexandria.  
And the Latin was so well known, understood, 
L. Valla Eleg. praef. Ledesm●, ●. 3. n. 7.  and commonly spoken together with the Vulgar Tongue in divers countries, (through the industry of the Romans in their several Provinces) that the Vulgar was scarcely more. Thus we find it in the Proconsular Africa, where (though accurately spoken then at Rome) it was so well understood, that St. Austin saith, 
L. 1. confess. c. 14. Retract. l. 1. c. 20. In Ps. 138. De verb. Apostol. Serm. 24. De Doctr. Christ. l. 2. c. 14.  he learned that Language of his Nurse, and at play, and did write as well as preach in it for the use of the Vulgar: And calls it our Speech, whereas the P●●ick was the Vulgar Tongue of that Country.  
And such a common Tongue is French in Flanders, Lingua Franca in the straits, and English in some parts of Wales.  
III. There is a Learned Tongue, which though common amongst the Learned, yet they being few in comparison of the Vulgar, that understand it not, it cannot be called a common Tongue: Such are Greek and Latin now.  
iv Their is a Tongue understood and spoken by none in a Nation, or so few, as are next to none; and which if used in Divine Offices would be wholly unintelligible. Such are Persic and Indian with us,  
The use of all this niceness, is partly to clear the state of the Question, and partly to prevent many of the Objections which the case is cumbered with: And without the observing of which, the Dispute will be turned from the point that is controverted, to that which is not. As it happens for the most part among those of the Church of Rome that undertake the management of this Cause; who do either distinguish where they are not to distinguish, or do not distinguish where they should distinguish. For sometimes they oppose the Dialects of a Tongue to that Tongue of which they are the Dialects: At other times they oppose the common Tongue to the Vulgar: Sometimes they confound the Learned Tongue with the common: And then again oppose the learned and utterly unknown, as if these two were of as different kinds as known and unknown.  
To give an instance of each of these. 
Ledesma, c. 9 n. 4, 5. 9 c. 20. n. 2. Sanders orat. de Ling. Offic. eccls   
Do they undertake to show how unfit and unreasonable it is to translate the Service or Scriptures into a Vulgar Tongue? They endeavour to make it out by showing how unfit it is to think of Translating, and how unreasonable it is to expect they should be translated into the several Dialects of each Tongue? Would they farther show that the Divine Offices, etc. were not of old so translated? they attempt to prove it from their not having been translated? into different Dialects. As if the Dialects of a Tongue differed as much from each other, and all from the main Tongue of a Nation, as a learned Tongue differs from the Vulgar. which is (to speak charitably) for want of observing, that the Dialects are but several modes of speaking the same Tongue; and that ordinarily there is some common Standard, which (as I have said) overrules the rest, and i● a guide common to all: As here in England, notwithstanding there be several Dialects and that there is one in Scotland differs much from them all: yet there is but one Translation of the Bible, and one Service for the use of the whole, and that is fully if not equally understood by all.  
Farthermore, would they prove, that anciently the Christian Churches used not a Vulgar Tongue in Divine 
L●desma, c. 9 n. 6.  Service? they presently multiply Authorities to show, that in many places they used Greek and Latin, and that Greek and Latin were oftentimes 
Lik●●●● de SS. in vulg. non vert. p. 51.  not the Vulgar Tongues where they were so used. As if the common Tongue (for such were those two in elder in times, where they were not the Vulgar) was opposed to the Vulgar as much as unknown is to known●; and each was inconsistent with the other. 
Bellarm. de verbo, l. 2. c. 15.  Thus they tell us from S. Jerom, That the Vulgar Tongue in Galatia was in effect the same with that of the Treviri in Germany: And yet there, and in the neighbouring Countries, they had the Scriptures, if not their Divine Service in Greek. Not observing that Greek was the common Tongue of those parts, and that both that and a Vulgar were there freely and generally spoken, as Greek and Latin, as well as the  Tongues were so frequent in Massilia, that it was called Trilinguis, as S. Jerome shows in the same Dissertation of his. So that these two, the Common and Vulgar, are so far from being inconsistent, that (notwithstanding the bold saying of our Countryman Sanders, That the common people understand nothing but their Mother Tongue.) The experience of 
Orat. ut antea.  all Ages, as well as our own shows that they are frequently met together.  
But to proceed would they demonstrate that they do and may lawfully use the Latin now in Divine Service, they attempt with great industry to prove that both that and the Greek were anciently 
Ledesma; c. 9 n. 1. c. 27. n. 9  used therein. And so they confound the learned and the common Tongues, and compare those times and places, in which the Latin and Greek were commonly known and understood, with our times and places, in which neither of them are understood but by the learned.  
Lastly, Would they show that S. Paul; in 1 Corinthia●s, 
Ledesma, c. 27. n. 9 Sanders orat. Bellarm. de. verb. l. 2. c. 16.  14. doth not oppose Service in Latin, they undertake to show, That he opposeth no other Service then what is altogether unknown and no Body understands, as Persic and Arabic, and that he doth not condemn a Learned Tongue; thereby supposing the Learned Tongue and Tongue altogether unknown to be different in kind. whereas they only differ so, that the one is rarely understood and by very few, in comparison, and other is understood by none.  
Now in all this they say little or nothing to the purpose. For if they plead for their Latin Service, as Greek was in Galatia, and Latin in Africa, who is their Adversary? For these Tongues were (as I have showed) in those and the like places as well or little less spoken and understood then the Vulgar and Mother Tongues. And the Protestants do not think it unlawful to have the common Service in a Tongue which is commonly understood (though it be not the Vulgar Tongue of the Nation) especially in Maritime and Provincial Countries, where there is a concourse of divers Nations, and where either these several Languages are understood, or there is a componnd Language that serves for all, as the Lingua Franca before spoken of.  
But if they plead for Latin, as it is now (when a Dead and Learned Tongue) that is where it is not known at all, as in the West-Indies (where yet it is as much used by those of the Roman communion in Mass, as in Europe) or where it is not known to the Vulgar people, as it is with us, and every where else, than they speak to the purpose, (for that the Reformed do oppose) but then the way of arguing hitherto taken notice of is of no use to them in the World; and is no more to the purpose then if they would undertake to prove that there is at this day a famous University at Athens, and that Latin is the Vulgar Tongue now at Rome, because these were so formerly.  
So that if we will know where the Controversy lies, and what is contended for and against, we must restore things to their proper places; and I think all may be brought to an Issue, by putting and resolving this plain Question, viz.   

SECT II. Qu. Wither it be lawful and expedient to use such a Tongue in the public Worship of GOD, as is not vulgarly or commonly understood by the people;  to the way at this day required and practised in the Church of Rome?  
If we would inquire into the lawfulness of such things as appertain to Divine Worship, we must apply ourselves to the Holy Scripture; being in matters of that nature to determine of Right and Wrong, Lawful and Unlawful, according to the Directions, Commands, and Prohibitions of it. If we would be satisfied about their Expedience, we must consider the Nature, Ends, and Use of what we inquire about. This therefore is a proper method for the Resolution of the foregoing Question: But because the Apostle (in his Discourse upon this Subject, 1. Corinthians, 14.) doth argue from the ends and use of the several Offices belonging to Divine Worship, and because the like Order may give some light and force to what follows; I shall first of all,  
I. Treat of the Ends for which Divine Worship, and the several Offices of it were instituted.  
II. Consider whither those Ends may be attained when the Worship is performed in a Tongue not understood?  
III. Whither the worship so performed as to leave those ends unattainable, will be accepted by GOD?  
iv I shall consider the Apostle's Discourse upon this Argument; and whither it can be reasonably concluded from thence, That Divine Worship so administered as not to be understood of the people is unlawful.  
I. In the first of these the Masters of Controversy in the Romish Church do proceed with great tenderness and no little obscurity. For would we know what the Worship is they would have in an Unknown Tongue? they answer, it is the public only they defend.  
For as for private. saith one, It is lawful for 
P. Sancta not. in Epist. P. Molinaei, c. 17. n. 6. T. G. First reply to Dr. Stelingfleet, sect. 3.  every one to offer his lesser Prayers to GOD in what Tongue soever he pleaseth. And saith another, All Catholics are ●aught to say their private Prayers in their Mother Tongue.  
As if it were possible to assign such a vast difference betwixt them (when the Dispositions, Reasons and Ends, required and intended, are the same) that what is lawful, expedient, and necessary in the one, is unlawful, inexpedient and unnecessary in the other; Or as if the saying private Prayers in Latin, was never heard of, practise●, or encouraged in their church.  
Again, Would we understand to what purposes the Divine Offices do serve; and whither the Edification, Instruction and consolation of the people be not some of those Ends. Bellarmin answers, 
De verbo. l. 2. c, 16. Sect, obj. quart,   
1.) That the principal end of Divine Offices is not the instruction or consolation of the People, but a worship due to GOD from the Church. As if there were no regard to be had to the special ends of those Offices, such as the Instruction and Consolation of the people: Or as if GOD could be honoured by that Worship, where those ends are not regarded.  
2.) The Rhemists add, That Prayers are not made to teach, make learned, or increase knowledge, 
Annot. 1. cor, 14. P. 63.  though by occasion they sometimes instruct; but their especial use is to offer our Hearts, desires and Wants to God, etc. As if there were no Offices in God's Worship appointed for Instruction, and increase of Knowledge; and which are performed in an Unknown Tongue amongst them, as well as Prayer. Or as if their Adversaries did either deny it to be the special use of Prayer, To offer our hearts, etc. to God: Or did affirm that the special use of it is, To teach, make learned, and increase knowledge; as they with others 
Censur. proposit Erasmi, prop. 5. Poncet dis: cord de L' Auvis. ch. 1.  do falsely suggest, and would fain have believed.  
But to set this in a better light: and that we may understand what are the Ends and Uses for which Divine Worship was appointed, and after what manner they are to be respected; It is to be observed.  
1. That Divine Worship in its first notion respects God as its Object; and so the end of it in general, is the giving Honour to him by suitable Thoughts, Words, and Actions.  
2. That he hath appointed several ways and Offices by which he will be so honoured; and in which, as the Honour doth terminate in him, so there redounds from thence benefit to the church,  
3. That the Benefits redound to the church according to the nature of those Offices, and the special Ends they were designed unto; As the Word of God is for our instruction and comfort, etc. The Lord's Supper for the increase of Faith in God, and love to him through Jesus Christ. The praising of God is to raise our Affections, and to make us more sensible of his goodness, and to quicken us in our duty. The special use of Prayer (that I may use the Words forecited) 
Rhem. Annot.  is to offer up our Hearts, Wants and Desires to God; and that by conversing with him, 
Part. 4. c. 2. Sect 7. 8.  we may be the more ardently excited to the love and adoration of him (as the Trent Catechism doth express it.)  
4. That those Offices are to be performed so as may effectually answer those Ends, and as we may receive the benefits they were appointed for: From whence it follows,  
5. That if the Offices of Divine Worship are to be performed by Words, those Words and that Tongue (in which they are administered) must be such as will not obstruct but promote, and in their nature are qualified to attain those Ends. And if those Ends cannot be attained without the Tongue in which the service is performed be understood: It makes that means as necessary in its kind as the End; and it is as necessary that the Tongue used for those Ends in Divine Worship be understood, as that those Ends should be respected, or that there should be a Tongue used at all. For it is not God but Man that is immediately respected in the Words (since there is no more need of Words to GOD, then of Words that are vulgarly understood) and so it is not for him but Man, that this Tongue or that, or indeed that any Tongue at all is used. And if it be requisite that there be a a Tongue and Words used in public Worship, and which all persons present are supposed to join in, and receive benefit by; than it is as necessary for the same reason to use Words significant and understood, as to 
De Doct. Christ. l. 4. c. 19  use any Words at all. For, saith S. Austin, what doth the soundness of speech profit, if not followed with the Understanding of the ●earer? seeing there is no reason at all for our speaking, if what we speak is not understood by them, for whom, that they might understand, we spoke at all.  
From what hath been said, we may be able to vindicate such Arguments of the Protestants Divine service in a known and vulgar Tongue, as were taken from the Ends of worship, against the replies made to them by their adversaries of the Romish Church. As,  
1. The Protestants argue in general, that the End of Divine Offices is for the Edification, Instruction and Consolation of the people; but these Ends cannot be attained in a Tongue not understood by them.  
To this it is replied, That the Proposition is false, because the chief end of Divine Offices 
Bellarm. de verbo, l. 2. c. 16, Seb. Object. 4.  is not the Instruction or Consolation of the people, but▪ a worship or Honour due to GOD.  
An answer that became not so great a Man. For (1) He argues as if those Ends were opposed which are not only consistent, as Principal and Subordinate, but also inseparable in the Case; such are the Honour of God, and the Edification of the Church.  
(2 (The Answer is not to the purpose, unless it could be proved; That either the Edification of the People, i● no End of the Divine Offices; or that the worship is complete, though that End be not respected or attained in them, But if it be an End, and the Service defective without that End be pursued; then it is not, that this is a subordinate End, and the other a Principal; that will destroy the force of the Argument, and justify the use of an Unknown Tongue, when persons are not edified by it.  
2. The Protestants argue in particular that there can no profit proceed to the Church from Prayers not understood.  
To this it is answered, That it is false, because the prayer of the Church is not made to 
Bellarm. ibid. Sect. Object. 2. Ledesma, c. 13. n. 11,  the people, but to God for the people, And so there is no need that the people understand, and it is sufficient if God understands.  
But (1) if this argument hold, it will prove that which they do decline, and be a reason as well for private as public Prayers in an unknown Tongue. For Private Prayer is also made to GOD, and by this way of reasoning it will follow, That it is sufficient that God understands it, though it is not understood by him that useth it.  
(2) Grant we to them what is not to be denied, That Prayer is not made to the people, but to GOD for the people: Yet grant they must and do to us, that It is the offering up our Hearts, Wants and Desires to God, and is to excite us to the 
ut supr●.  Love and Adoration of him.  
But if we cannot offer up our Hearts, Wants and Desires to GOD, nor to be excited to the Love and Adoration of him, by what we do not understand; than it is as necessary for us to understaud, as it is to have those Qualifications when we pray. For both are supposed; for that we pray, respects GOD, but that we speak in public prayer respects the Church: And though the principal End (as they call it) be regarded, and it be an Honour and worship given to GOD: Yet if the less principal be neglected, and the Service is not ordered to the increase of Faith, Love and Devotion in those that offer it (as it cannot be where the Words, and so the things prayed for in those Words, are not understood) it makes the Honour, said to be given to God, next to none; And it is much at one, whither there was no end at all propounded in Worship, or such an End, as through a defect in it shall render the service no better in itself, and no more acceptable to GOD, then if there were none. But of this more anon.  
II. I shall consider whither these Ends for which Divine Service is appointed, can be attained, when it is performed in a Tongue that is not understood? The Apostle saith, That the Offices of Divine Worship are intended and should be ordered for the Edification of the Church, 1 Cor. 14. 4, 5. That is, say the Rhemists, (explaining that Phrase 
Pag. 461.  For increase of Faith, true Knowledge, and a good Life: But when this comes to be applied to the Case of Divine Service administered in an unknown Tongue, they set aside the increase of Knowledge and Instruction, as if it were not concerned in it So doth Bellarm●n, who saith, Though the Minds of common people be not instructed by 
De verbo, l. 2. c. 16. Sect. Obj● 2.  Service in an Unknown Tongue; yet their affections are not without the benefit of it.  
If this Argument signifies any thing, it must be either because Divine Service is not a●means appointed for our Instruction, and then he must thwart not only the Apostle (who saith it is for Edification, and consequently for Instruction, a Branch of it) but also their own Church in the Council of Trent, which saith, That the Mass doth 
Sess. 22. c. 8.  contain great Instruction for the Faithful. Or else he must say that the means of Instruction may be rendered ineffectual at the pleasure of the Church, (as it is granted it is by being in an unknown Tongue) and yet neither the Church be blamed, nor the Institution of such means for such an End be disparaged, nor the Souls of Men receive any damage by the want of that Instruction, and the Means appointed for it. So that as far as Instruction is an end, and the Divine Service is a means for that Eend, it is granted that the keeping it in an Unknown Tongue doth defeat that end: For he saith, That the Minds of common people are not instructed by Service in an Unknown Tongue. And now what an usurpation is this upon God, to withhold that means that he has appointed, or to defeat the Means of that End that he hath appointed it for? What an injury to the Souls of Men? And how much accessary must that Church be to the Miscarriage and Damnation of such as perish for want of that knowledge and Instruction the Service and Offices of the Church do contain, and they might receive from it.  
But suppose that end be lost, and the people's Minds be not instructed, yet their Affections are not without the benefit of it. This is spoken with a Caution and Reservation becoming one that saw farther into the consequences of what he said, than he cared to own. He saith at large, their Affections are not without the benefit of it: But how the Affections could be benefited, without the Mind is instructed; or what the benefit is which the Affections are not without, he is sparing to tell us. But however the Rhemists advance a little farther; for they with no little confidence do determine, 
Annotat. in 1 Cor. 14. p. 462.  It is plain that such as pray in Latin, though they understand not what they say, do pray with as little tediousness, with as great Affection and Devotion, and oftentimes more than others, that pray in a Tongue they understand. The Cardinal told us, that the Affections are not without benefit, though the mind be not instructed: But now it is to a Demonstration plain (in these Mens, account) that not only the benefit is as great, as if people do understand, but oftentimes greater then if they did understand. So that what more self evident, than that Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion? But yet as plain as it is, the saying is so downright a contradiction to the common sense of Mankind, that I think a Man may venture as roundly to assert, that it is plain a Man may see without Light, as that he may pray without Affection and Devotion, though he do not understand, and with as great as if he did: And he may with as good a Grace maintain, that the best way to see, is to put out the Light, as affirm with them, That such as pray in Latin, though they do not understand, oftentimes pray with more Affection and Devotion than they that do understand.  
But because this is asserted with so much confidence, and that, To say that people are not profited without they 
Ledesma. c. 13. n. 13. Censura proposit. Erasmi. prop. 5.  understand, is condemned not only as an erroneous, but wicked assertion; I shall look back, and (leaving the extravagancy of the latter as self-exposed) consider whither the Affections are not without benefit, and that the Soul can be devout and affected, where the Understanding is not instructed, nor the Mind is concerned in the service we are conversant in? The resolution of which depends upon the consideration of the Soul of Man, and the several faculties of it.  
Concerning which it shall suffice to observe,  
1. That in all reasonable and deliberate Acts, there is more or less so necessary a concurrence of the prime faculties of the Soul, viz. the Understanding, Will and Affections, that none of them can be said to be excluded. 2. That in all such Acts if the Understanding be not the leading faculty, and of such influence, that the others cannot act without it (which must be supposed, for how can a person affect or choose what he doth not know?) Yet without that, the acts cannot be termed reasonable. So Cassiodore, No body doth any thing wisely which he doth not understand. 3. That in the Acts of Religion, the presence of the understanding 
In Psal. 46.  is as much required as in any other rational Acts whatsoever; The renewing of the Mind being there 
Rom. 12. 1, 2.  the Spring of all spiritual Action; and the whole called from thence a reasonable Service. And therefore if in other Cases the affections cannot move or be profited without the help of the Understanding, then as little can it be supposed in Religion, and the Offices belonging to it, where the Understanding is Sonus Cordis (as St. Austin calls it, applying it to our purpose) The note of the Heart.  
Now to say, That the affections are not without 
In Genes Lit. L. c. 8. & in Ps. 99  profit, though the Mind be not instructed; and that they that do not understand, do pray with as little tediousness and as great Affection and Devotion as they that do understand (not to repeat the rest of the stuff before cited) is to say, that the Affections have no dependence in Nature upon the Understanding; or that Religion requires less of us then any other reasonable acts whatsoever, and that what we cannot do without being Lunatics or Idiots in other matters, we may there creditably do, and speak, and Act, as absurdly as we will, with allowance.  
But this kind of Doctrine is only to serve a turn, being fitted to those that are fitted for it, and to whom nothing can be absurd, which some Men say: For there are those amongst them cannot digest it; and do determine otherwise. So Salmeron the Jesuit, If any one prays privately, and the things prayed for are not understood by by him, he wastes his time: So he that speaketh publicly in an Unknown Tongue, which others do not understand, 
In 1 Cor. 14  be doth yield no Fruit; And then certainly others can receive none. others receive none. This the Council of Trent doth acknowledge, when it declares, (as abovesaid) It seems not expedient to the Fathers, That the Mass be celebrated in the Vulgar Tongue: And presently adds, Lest the Sheep of Christ should hunger, and when the little ones ask bread, there is none to break to them; the Holy Synod commands all that have the care of Souls, frequently, &c, to expound somewhat of it. So that they grant without Explication, the Faithful may hunger and be without profit, for what need would there be of exposition, if the people may be as devout without it as with it? I shall conclude this with that of S. Austin, We ought to understand, that we may sing with humane reason, 
Eposit in Psalm. 8.  not as it were with the Voice of Birds. For both Parrots, and Crows, and Pies, and the like; are often taught by Men to pronounce what they do not know— But to sing with understanding is granted by the Divine Will to mankind. So that according to him, if we set aside the Understanding, the Parrot of the Cardinal Ascanius, had it been taught the LORD'S Prayer, or other Forms of Devotion, as well as the Creed, 
Rhodiginus, l. 3. c. 32.  might have contended in competition with those that hear, and sing, and pray, with Words, without understanding. Since whatever Affection and Devotion is pretended to without Knowledge, is like a Vision of a man's own Heart, and not of 
Jerem. 23. 16.  Divine Illumination, that doth either proceed from Imagination or Imposture.  
But that we may not think this Assertion of theirs, (that there may be profit without understanding, and Devotion without knowledge) to be unreasonable, they both produce Experience, and endeavour also to give a rational account of it. The former is appealed to by the Rhemists; As for 
Page. 461. Hosius. p. 9  Edification, that is, for increase of Faith, truth Knowledge, and a good Life, the experience of a few Years hath given all the World a full demonstration, whither our Forefathers were not, etc. as devout, as we are in all our Tongues, translations and English Prayers.  
And we are told, That the people know what is done in the general, to wit, that GOD is worshipped 
Ledesma, c. 21 n. 23.  and honoured; that the Priest prays to him; that good things are asked of him for the People; and thanks given to him, that the memory of Christ and his Passion are celebrated, and the Sacrifice offered to GOD. This no Clown is ignorant of, and this is enough.  
This is somewhat like the course taken by S●crates, that said, He only prayed in general, because what particular things were good for him, the Gods knew better than himself. But whither this be done among them, with as much reason; and whither with any respect to our Religion, and the several Offices of it, is now to be considered.  
For our satisfaction herein we may observe,  
I. They grant, that the People can, and do understand no more by their Service then the general intent, and points of it.  
II. That the People cannot apply these generals to the particular Points of it. So the Rhemists; The simple People are not bound to know to what Petition their part pertaineth, etc. It is enough that the people can 
P. 463.  tell this holy Oraison (the Pater noster) to be appointed to call upon God, etc.  
III. That no more is necessary; and though they are to ask special things of God, yet it is not needful to understand what, or how, or when, or if at all they are especially prayed for. For than they would understand the specials.  
But now this state of the Case will not solve the Point. For,  
I. This is contrary to the Apostle, who doth maintain, that as the public Service of God is to be ordered so, as to be for edification of the Church; so the Church cannot be edified, without the Offices are administered in a Tongue that shall as distinctly 
1 Cor. 14. 7, 8, 9, 16.  and particularly signify and point to the thing thereby to be expressed, as a Trumpet or other Instrument doth give notice by a distinction of Sounds, when to advance or retreat, when to fight and when to forbear. And that every person, the unlearned as well as the learned may know how to apply his Amen thereunto; but which he can no more do without understanding the Tongue, than He can know what motion or posture he is to observe that hath the Trumpet sounding to him without any distinction, and whose Sounds and Notes being confounded, give no direction to those that are to be guided by it. So Aquinas, How shall he say Amen, when he 
In 1 Cor. 11.  knows not what is prayed for; because he cannot understand, Quid boni dic●s, nisi quod benedi●as; What good thou sayest, except that thou dost bless?  
II. The nature of the thing is against it. For as the Offices are various, and distinguished by their Ends and Uses; and we cannot attain those Ends, nor make use of those Offices, without the understanding of those Ends and Uses: So there are particular things respected in those Offices, which unless we also respect, we lose the benefit of them; but that we cannot do without a particular knowledge of them. As for example, the 
Part. 4. c. 1. Sect. 3. c. 2. Sect. 2, 4. 10. c. 4. Sect. 3. 7. c. 6. Sect. 2. de orat. Dom.  Romish Catechism saith, That prayer is the Interpreter of the Soul, and is directed to God or the Saints. That therein Men do confess their sins, and pray for the pardon of them; that they beg for others and themselves things Temporal, Spiritual and Eternal, that therein also they give Thanks for whatever good they have received, and do enjoy. Now as these things are of different kinds, so according to their kind they require different dispositions, and so what are suitable to the one will not be suitable to the other. But if the knowledge be only general, that cannot produce special dispositions; and he that ventures to be particular therein, may rejoice and give Thanks when he is to mourn and confess; may mind Earthly things when the Prayer is for Heavenly; may imprecate when he should bless, and instead of Ora pro nobis, may say Miserere nobis, that is 
Catechis. c. 6. Sect. 3.  make a Saint to be God, and apply that to the Officer of the Court of Heaven, which he should address only to the Judge. He may be all the while in a posture of contradiction to the Church, and have his dispositions so little suited to the solemnities of it, that the Priests may say to such, with some little variation, in the Words of the Gospel, We have piped unto you, and ye have mourned; we have mourned unto you, and ye have danced. So that unless they will say, There are no need of particular dispositions, according to the kinds, and special uses of the Offices of Religion, they must say, That Service in an Unknown Tongue, is not for the edification of the Church. So Aquinas again, He who doth hear and not understand, is not edified as far as he understands not, although he 
Ibid.  he understand it in general.  
III. If this were true, That a confused general knowledge is sufficient, yet this will not help them, or justify them in the use of an Unknown Tongue: For even the general knowledge they pretend to, doth not proceed from the Tongue (for that they understand not) but is obtained some other way that is by some actions and Postures, some particular Words and Phrases, some Ceremonies and Signals given in the administration of their Service: And which would signify as Much for the most part without the Tongue and Words, as with the Tongue that is not understood.  
iv I shall add, That whereas they pretend experience in the case, and which for the present we shall not so far question, as utterly to deny, but that there may be some Devotion amongst the ignorant sort of them; yet so far as this Devotion of theirs is real, it must be because of somewhat understood, but so far as it is without Instruction, so far unquestionably it proceeds only from the Imagination; and if it rises from no better or higher a cause, whatsoever semblance it may have of Devotion, yet it hath no right to that Character. I shall make this clear by an instance or two. Not many years since, in a certain City of Brabant, there was for ornament a large Statue erected at a conduit near the Marketplace, to which the Country People as they passed to and fro, did often pay their Devotions (not discerning any different betwixt that and an image of a Saint) so much to the public scanned 〈◊〉 ●at (to prevent any such mistake for the future) it was by command transformed into a little Boy, with a change also of the posture. Now if we would inquire into this Devotion, it is much what the same we are discoursing of. There wanted not an inward disposition, that inclined the people to it; there wanted not outward expressions, for they bowed  it, kissed the Feet of it, said their Pater nosters, etc. before it, and all with as much Devotion, as if it had been the Image of S. Roch, or S. Sebastian, or S. Michael himself (the Protector and Patron of the place). And yet all this being applied to a common, and not a religious Object, and being only the Fruit of Imagination and not of Instruction, it deserved another name then Devotion, and was not so accounted by themselves. And now, why what is given, suppose to a right Object, but without knowledge, should not be equivalent to the other, that was intended to a right, but was addressed, by mistake, to a wrong, is not easy to discern? Farthermore, Let us suppose a Case, A person being before hand possessed with a report of certain persons met together upon a design of Conjuration, comes to the place, and finds the Company there assembled; and hearing all that they say, performed in a Language he understands not, he presently is seized with a panic fear, and is every moment in expectation of the foul Fiends' appearance at their summons, but is all this while abused, and under a mistake, for the persons were there met for Religious worship, and so the ground of his fear imaginary. On the other hand, a person comes into a place, where he finds several met together, who using much the like postures as if they were at their Devotions, and also Words he understands not, but what for aught he knows are the same that are used in the Church service, he falls upon his Knees, pulls out his beads, says an Ave Maria, or Pater noster, or what he has been used to in that kind. And now can there be any reason after all to conclude, That this Man's Devotion arose from any other cause then the others Fear, and that both did not proceed from the imagination? And can there be any reason to think, that what proceeds from such a cause, is fit to be Sainted, and be entitled to the name of true Piety and Devotion? So that to talk of Devotion without Instruction, or Instruction sufficient to create it, is to talk against the sense of Mankind; in which there may be, for aught I see, as much of mystery, but no more sense than in the wont saying of Anthony of Milan, produced by Bellarmin on this occasion, That is a perfect 
De verbo, l. 2. c. 16. Sect. Obj. 2. praterea.  Prayer, in which the mind is so swallowed up into God, that it doth not understand its own Words. In this they agree, that in both Cases the Words and the Understanding are separated, but in this they differ, That His Understanding was (as it seems) beyond the Words; but in our case the Words are beyond the Understanding. In both there is no need of Words, and where they are used, they cannot be the means of Devotion; which is no more to be found without the understanding then the Understanding can be, can attend, or be moved by Words that it hath no knowledge of.  
So that let them either take away the Words altogether, and use no Tongue in their Service, and turn all into mummery and pageantry: Or else let them use such Words as will stir up religious Affections in the faithful, and answer 
Catechis. Trid. p. 4. c. 8. Sect. 4.  the End for which they are used in public (as they confess) For though we should be of the same mind with Bellarmin, That Instruction is not in the Sense, but in the Words; yet how a Man can understand the sense contained in the Words, without understanding 
De verbo, l. 2. c 16. Sect. Object. 4.  the Words containing the sense, is as hard to understand, as how we can be Religious and Devout, without understanding, and for we know not what.  
But to proceed to another Question.  
III. Let us consider, Whither● the worship so performed, as to leave those Ends unattainable; will be accepted by God? Divine Worship respects God as its Object, and so the End of it is the giving Honour to him by suitable Thoughts, words and Actions (as has been before observed) but how that honour is to be given, as the nature of the thing, and Divine Institution are the Rule; so when that Honour is given to him, the Ends, for which the worship itself is appointed and the Offices of it do serve, must determine. And if these Ends are not respected, nor can be attained in the way of its ministration, we may be confident, That as the Worship is not then worthy of God, so it is not accepted by him Now,  
As it has been already showed what those Ends are, so it has been proved, that those Ends are not to be attained, where the Service is not in a Tongue known to the people, and so consequently will not be accepted by God. And for this we have the judgement of the Romish Church, when they discourse practically upon this Argument, and without respect to the controversy before us. Of this I shall give an instance in Prayer, (a point most of all insisted upon) of which it is said in 
Part. 4. c. ●. Sect. 1.  general in the Romish Catechism, That it is of special concernment after what manner we pray; for although Prayer be a saving good, yet unless it be rightly performed, it doth not profit. And 
Ibid. c. 2. Sect. 4.  elsewhere they insist upon several things that render our Prayers ineffectual, as the ignorance of what we pray for; and the want of attention or assent to what we pray, etc. And certainly if the Prayer without these Ends be not acceptable to God, than such a ministration of it, as renders those Ends unattainable, cannot be lawful to us, or be thought approved by him.  
But how well and truly soever they speak in a case remote from Controversy, yet when they come to controvert the Point in hand, they do in effect unsay all that they have said; and then the Prayers used in the Church, though not at all understood by the people, are magnified for their use and benefit to Man, and for their acceptance with God.  
Thus the Rhemists, We doubt not but it is acceptable to God, and available to all necessities, 
Annot, 1, cour, 14. p. 462. Et Annot. in Mat. 21. 16. De ling vernat. p. 9  and more agreeable to the use of all Christian people to pray in Latin then in the Vulgar, though every one in particular, understandeth not what he saith. And (saith Cardinal Hosius,) When done, to give honour to God, it is acceptable to him, and no understanding of Words can be compared to it.  
To say that our Prayers are hindered of their virtue through ignorance or want of attention, etc. And that they be acceptable to GOD, though we understand not what we say, are things irreconcilable. But setting aside the contradiction in it, they are not without some pretences to prove that the efficacy of the Divine Offices doth not depend upon the people's understanding them. Now I might ease myself or these kind of Pleas, because they suppose that which has been already disproved, viz. That the affections can be benefited without the understanding. But yet because they are frequently produced to prove as well the no necessity of Service in a Vulgar Tongue, and the lawfulness of having it in an Unknown Tongue, as that a Service of that kind is acceptable to God, and efficacious to the people, I shall before I conclude this Head (to which they more peculiarly belong) take them into consideration.  
Now their Arguments are taken partly from Scripture, and partly from some cases supposed to be parallel to this.  
Object. 1. They say, That the Children in the Temple, as well as the people cried, Hosanna 
Ledesma, c. 13. n. 1.  to the Son of David, Matth. 21. 16. Whereas they understood not what they said: And yet this was our Saviour pleased with, and defended them in.  
But this is said with very little Reason: For,  
Answ. 1. It is more probable that they did understand, then that they did not: Hosannah being a form of solemn acclamation; and as easy to be understood by them in the signification; so also in the application of it to Christ upon this occasion; which, saith S. John 12. 17. 18. was, because the people bade heard that he raised Lazarus. And whereas our Saviour applies that of Babes and Sucklings to the case, that was not because those that cried Hosannah were such, but that because God never wanted Instruments of his Glory, but could make use of such as were mean and unfit in themselves for●.  
2. Supposing they did not understand, where is the consequence, that because young children's Prayers proceeding from the instinct of God's Spirit be acceptable to God, therefore the voices of other simple folk, now in the church, though they themselves understand not what they say, be marvellous grateful to God, as 
Annot. in Matth 21. 16.  the Rhemists say. As if an extraordinary case should be a Rule for us in ordinary; and that Prayers proceeding from Children, by the instinct of God's Spirit, and who were little less miraculously impowered to do it, than the Ass of Balaam (if they were Sucklings, and such as could scarcely speak, as Ledesma would have it) should teach us to choose what we do not understand. Or as if what was grateful to God from Children, who were in no capacity of doing better than following of others, though they did not understand, should excuse, nay recommend the Service of those that are in a capacity of understanding, and yet understand no more of what they offer to Almighty God in particular, then if they were Ba●●● and Sucklings, and such as had no understanding.  
The Apostle in 1 Cor. 14. 20. doth upon this occasion exhort, Be not children in understanding, so as to think God pleased with that which doth not benefit us; or so as to think, that he who is so merciful as to accept according to what a man hath, should also be so remiss as to accept him that bringeth not what he hath. That when God hath given us a Tongue and Understanding, we should be debarred of the use of both in his Worship and Service, and yet our Service and ourselves be as well accepted, as if both were employed therein. Certainly what will avail where there is no capacity, will not avail when there is a capacity; and therefore it is a mean way of arguing, and will receive the same answer, That they that have no 
Bellarm. l. 2, de effectu sacram, c. 32. Rhem. annot. p. 461.  use of Reason, are truly and eff●catiously baptised, and so there is no need of understanding; and it would have confuted itself, if they had added, (as they should) therefore those that have understanding, may as lawfully act, and shall be as certainly accepted, though they use not that understanding, as if they did.  
Object. 2. Among the Jews the Prayers of the 
Ledesma. c, 13. n. 7, Touchstone of the Reformed Gospel, c, 52.  Priest, when he entered into the Holy of Holies, were accepted, though the people were without, Lev, 16. 17. and Luk, 1. 9 10. Therefore the Service of the Church may be so said, as all the people understand it not, and also be accepted.  
Answ. 1. It is acknowledged on both sides that the High Priest's entering into the Holy of Holies, was typical of Christ, and the Atonement made by him, and consequently what the people could not bear a part in. But since the people are concerned with the Priest in the Offices of our Religion, and are to set their Amen to it, there is no parity betwixt the case then and the case now.  
2. How is this a proof that they had their service in an Unknown Tongue? Or if they were to have it in a known Tongue, how can they infer, that the High Priest might have used an Unknown Tongue, when praying with the people, and that this should have been as acceptable to God, and as beneficial to them, as if it had been understood?  
Obj. 3. But they say, it proves thus, That 
Ledesma. ibid. Bellarm, de verb. l. 2. c. 16. Sect. obj. 2.  Prayers though made for them, that do not hear or are absent, are effectual; and then why not as well for them that do not understand them though present?  
This is an argument they much insist upon. But,  
1. If this were of any force, than we need no more to pray so ourselves, because others pray, for us, than we are not bound to understand what we pray, because those that pray for us do understand.  
2. The Dispute is not, whither persons in some cases may not be benefited by the prayers of others, though they do not understand them, as when the Church prays for the absent as well as the present, and Christ in Heaven intercedes with success for his Church here, and those that are present pray for Children, Lunatics, and Delirious: But whither such Prayers are acceptable to God, which a person himself is obliged to join in, and yet so little understands, as he knows not what he prays for, whither for himself or others; nor can be certain whither indeed he prays at all. Monica prayed for her Son Austin with that Fervour and Devotion, with such passion and continuance, that St. Ambrose told her, It was impossible a Son of such Prayers and Tears should miscarry: But if she had prayed in a Language she understood not, she would not have known what she prayed for, and she would then have found no Tears for her Prayers; or if she had had Prayers and Tears, they had both been lost with her Son. And although the Priest be a public person, and offers up prayers 
Ledesma, c. 13. ●. 13. Bellarm. ibid.  to God, yet this doth not at all exclude the faithful from a share in them, And therefore as the Priest is the Mouth of the Congregation, and as such he must use a Tongue the Congregation understands: So the Congregation is to attend to him, and to give their Amen. and Assent to what he in their name offers to God, And he is neither Priest nor Mouth to them, if he prevents them in their part, and renders them uncapable of bearing a part in it, by using a Tongue they understand not. And therefore 'tis as necessary the Congregation should understand as the Priest, and if he do otherwise, he can no more justify himself, then if he did celebrate the Service in a Tongue he himself knew nothing of, and which neither the one nor the other did understand. So that upon the whole, we have reason to conclude 
Orat. deling. Offic. Eccles.  with ; That an unknown Tongue is not profitable for the People though he will not allow it for that Reason to be unlawful.  
And that is the thing I shall now particularly inquire into, by considering.  
IU. Whither from the Apostles Discourse upon this Argument, it can be reasonably concluded, that Divine Service so administered, as not to be understood of the people, is unlawful.  
In the Apostles Discourse upon this Argument, 1 Cor. 14. there are two things agreed in betwixt the contending parties.  
I. That the Service of God is so to be ordered, as may be for the edification of the Church: ●. 4, 5, 12. And that what is inconsistent with the general, much more the universal Edification of it, is not to be allowed.  
II. That an Unknown Tongue in such Assemblies and Offices as the Apostls speaks of, is inconsistent with, and cannot be for the public Edification, v. 2, 6. 9, 11, 14, 16.  
But though it be thus far agreed, yet they afterwards divide upon it from the Protestants.  
For,  
1. Some of the Church of Rome do say, That it is evident from this place of Scripture, that a Vulgar and Known Tongue was not used in those days in public Worship.  
2. That if so be such was then used, yet the Apostle doth not forbid the use of an Unknown Tongue in it.  
The first do wholly found what they have to say, upon Verse 16. How shall he that occupieth the room of the Unlearned (or Idiot) say Amen, as thy giving of Thanks.  
This shows (say they) that such giving of Thanks was not accustomed to be made in the 
Ledesma, c. 27. n. 5. etc. Sanders, orat. de lingua, etc.  Vulgar Tongue; for had the Service been in the Vulgar, there needed no Man to have supplied the place of the Idiot.  
This at first sight may seem a pretty Argument to one that understands no more than Latin and 
English; but the is Bellarmin, etc.  mischief of it is, that it's not true. Of this mind who saith,  
1 That the Greek Phrase he anapleron ton topon, according to the use of that Tongue, doth not 
De verbo l. 2. c. 16. Sect. alii ergo. Rhem. annot. p. 458. Marg.  signify one that is in the stead of an Idiot or unlearned, but thereby are meant all rude unlearned Men. So Chrysostom and Theophylact expound it, etc.  
2, There was no such custom in Apostolical times, and long after, of one to answer in the place of the Vulgar; but that the people were wont to answer, as is evident from Justin Martyr, etc.  
After this Argument has been so clearly relinquished, it might have been omitted by us, had it 
V Petra sanctae c. 17. n. 5. Touchstone of the reformed Gospel, c. 52. p. 138.  not been re-assumed with no little assurance and triumph by others since Bellarmin's time.  
III. Those among them that do quit this, yet hold that the Apostle doth not forbid a Tongue so unknown, as the Latin is now, in Divine Worship. And for this they offer several Arguments, which will be all comprehended, and I conceive cleared, by considering.  
1. What is meant by the Unknown Tongue, which the Apostle condemns?  
2. What by the Assemblies, in which such an Unknown Tongue is forbid?  
3. What by the Service used in these Assemblies?  
4. How far the Apostle's Prohibition is to be extended?  
Quest. 1. As to the first.  
They say, That the Tongues condemned were 
Ledesma, c. 26. Rhem. annot. p. 461.  miraculous and extraordinarily infused, but what they plead for is acquired and learned.  
A. But supposing the Tongues were miraculous yet what is this to the case in Hand, when they we not condemned for being miraculous (for as such they were Gifts from God and Signs to Men) but as they were abused, and used neither to the Glory of God, nor the Edification of the Church. And by parity of reason, every Unknown Tongue, as well what is acquired as infused, is condemned also. The Miraculous Tongue was forbidden, when it did not profit, when it was a speaking to the air, when he that spoke was a Barbarian to him that heard, and when he that heard could not say Amen to him that spoke, Verse 2, 9, 11, 1●. And if a Tongue acquired be as much unknown as a Tongue infused, the Reasons being common to both, the one is as much prohibited in those circumstances as the other.  
Nay, according to their way of arguing, it will follow, That if Tongues miraculously infused, which were a sign to them that believed not, might not be used in the cases abovesaid, then much less may such as are acquired, by Education and other humane ways.  
But they say farther, That the Apostle speaks of a Tongue which no one understands in the 
Bellarm. ibid. Sect, veraigitur. Sect. at objicies. Sect. in post. riore. S. C. p. 176.  whole Church, but not of that which is understood by some, at least by him that officiates.  
But for this they offer no manner of proof, neither is there any. For (1.) the Apostle speaks of such a Tongue as is not for the Edification of the Church; but if some only understand it, those that do not understand, are no more edified by the understanding of the rest, then if none understood it. (2.) There are two sorts of persons concerned, one that can say Amen, and another that cannot, whom the Apostle calls Unlearned. But the Unlearned are as well (as he saith) to be respected as the Learned; and the Unlearned being ordinarily more than the Learned; it must consequently be such a Tongue which all or the most did understand that he pleads for; and such a Tongue, which none or the fewest did understand, that he pleads against.  
Lastly, They say, The Apostle condemns a Barbarous Tongue, but not that which is understood 
Annot. p. 461.  by Learned and Civil people in every great City, as Hebrew, Greek and Latin. So the Rhemists.  
And we are farther told, That all Tongues are 
Harding in Jewil devis. 3. p. 116. John Baptista de Rabeis Rationale, l. 2. c. 9 Sanders orat, etc.  Barbarous, except those three:  
But all this is spoken very precariously. For the Apostle excepts no Tongue, as a Tongue, from being barbarous. For that is barbarous with him that is not understood, whither it be Hebrew or Arabic, Greek or Scythian, Latin or Dalmatick: In this Sense Ovid took it, speaking of, himself in Exile, amongst the Getae,  
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor ulli:  
I am here a Barbarian, because I am not understood by any.  
And in this sense it is here taken by ancient Expositors. 
in loc. Salemeron. Lyra in loc.  Thus S. Jerom, Every speech which is not understood is barbarous. Thus S. Chrysostom, and indeed several also amongst themselves.  
So that upon the whole it is manifest, that the Apostle means by an Unknown Tongue, that which is not understood of the People.  
Quest. 2. What are the Assemblies in which the 
Bellarm. c. 16. init. Rhemists. annot. at. p. 462.  Apostle condemns the use of an Unknown Tongue?  
The Champions of this Cause in the Church of Rome, do allege, That much of the Chapter refers to Spiritual Conferences and collocutory Exercises then used in lesser Assemblies, which they endeavour to prove more especially from the Directions given by the Apostle, Verse 27, etc.  
If we should grant that part of the Apostle's Discourse refers to such Conferences, yet what is this to that part of it that treats of Public Worship? Or indeed what is it to the purpose at all, when there were mostly the same Offices used in one as the other, and the same End prescribed to the use of them in both? Those that do thus distinguish, have not ventured to tell us where the Apostle doth treat of the one, and where of the other: And it is evident that he applies his Argument of Edification to the whole, and then proceeds from one Office to another, from Prophesying to Praying, and Singing, if not also to the Lords Supper. Now where the End is common to all, without distinction, the means conducing to that End are in all alike to be observed. And if in those lesser Assemblies (when they expounded, prayed or sung) they were to use a tongue known to the Assembly, because without so doing, the Ends of their so assembling would have been defeated, then certainly it was, if not more, yet at least as necessary, that the same order be observed when the whole Church came together into one place.  
Quest. What was the Service used in those Assemblies, and what was forbidden to be celebrated in an Unknown Tongue?  
Some of the Church of Rome will understand it only of preaching; and those that do grant it 
Bellarm. ibid. Sect. Veraigitur. Sect. ad hant igitur. Rhemists' annot. in 1. Cor. 14. 26. p. 460.  to respect Prayers, yet will have it understood of such Prayers as were inspired. But what though the Prayers were inspired, when they were to be uttered in a Tongue known to the Church, and were not to be used if they were not for the Edification of the Church; as they were not if not understood? And is not the Reason as full against Prayers not inspired, when they are not understood; The Question is not about Prayers, inspired or not inspired; but known and unknown; according to which all the Offices of the Church are to be tried, as to their lawfulness and expedience.  
But let the Prayers be as they will, yet say they, The Apostle treats of them occasionally 
Sanders orat. p 64. 66.  only.  
Supposing this so to be, yet that is not to the purpose, for the Question is not whither the Apostle treats so expressly of Prayer as of prophesying; as whither the prohibition of an Unknown Tongue, and the Argument taken from the End of Divine Offices lie not as expressly against praying as prophesying in that way? And whither the words, If I pray in an Unknown Tongue, my Spirit prayeth, but my understanding remaineth unfruitful, etc. v. 14. 16. are not as plain as he that speaketh (or prophesyeth) in an Unknown Tongue, speaketh not unto Men, etc. If the prohibition be the same, and the reason of the prohibition be the same in both; than it is not the being expressly or occasionally handled, that can make so vast a difference, as that the former shall be lawful, and the latter unlawful  
Quest. 4. How far is the Apostle's prohibition to be extended?  
This will be determined partly from what hath been before said, and partly from the current of the Apostle's Discourse, who as he lays down that general, Let all things be done to Edifying; so upon that principle, he prohibits the use of an Unknown Tongue, as inconsistent with it, Verse 14. If I pray in an Unknown Tongue, my Spirit prayeth, but my understanding remaineth unfruitful. Where he doth not speak of a better and worse, and prefer that which is understood before that which is not (as they would have it) but he speaks of a good and bad; and so doth absolutely condemn an Unknown Tongue for the unprofitableness of it. For, saith he, My Spirit prayeth, not 
Bellarm. Sect in posteriore. Rhemists' ●●not. p. 460. S. Chrysost. H●mil. 35. Theophylact. Salmeron in loc. Hieron. in loc.  the Affection, but the Spirit in the gift of an Unknown Tongue (as many of the Ancients, and some of themselves expound it) But my understanding remaineth unfruitful, to myself, that is, If I do not understand it; and to others, if they do not understand me, as the Apostle doth explain it, Verse 16.  
So that from the whole we may with good Reason conclude; that the administration of Divine Service in an Unknown tongue is as unlawful as express Scripture can make it: And that after all their attempts to decline, pervert and overthrow it, the fourteenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, remains in full force against the Opinion and Practice of the Church of Rome; and is a sufficient Reason on their part, to keep the Scripture in an Unknown tongue, as long as their service is contrary to the Scripture celebrated constantly in it.   

SECT. III. I shall inquire, Wither the celebration of Divine Service in a Tongue not understood of the people, hath been the ancient Rite of every Church?  
1. I shall consider whither it hath been an ancient Rite? II. Whither from the time of its having been a Rite, it hath been the Rite and Custom of every Church.  
Both of these are affirmed by the Council of Trent.  
Qu. I. Wither it hath been an ancient Rite?  
Ancient is a Term of an uncertain date, and seems to have been chosen by the Council upon Mature deliberation; lest peradventure if it had been determined, it might have been so late, as to be of no authority in itself; or so early, as for want of truth, it might have given a foul shock to its own Authority. But however, because nothing can be ancienter then what is first, let us consider how Service was administered in Apostolical times, and so downwards, as much before the Council as any thing can be reasonably said to be Ancient by it. I have already accounted for the Apostle's sense in this matter, which Cassander calls (after St. chrysostom in loc.) an Apostolical Command for 
De ●●●ic. pii viri, p. 865.  Service in a Tongue understood of the people. And if we take a step lower, and so proceed, we shall find an uncontrollable Evidence for it, both as to the Judgement and Practice of the Church. In the first place (setting aside the pretended Liturgies of St. James and St. Clement, which are however plainly for it, as is acknowledged) 
Salmeron in 1. Cor. 14. Sect. His igitur. Apolog. sub fin.  is Justine Martyr, that flourished about 150 years after Christ, who relates, That after the Bishop had concluded his Prayer and giving of Thanks, all the people did assent to it with an Amen. Which they could not have done, as the Apostle and Fathers affirm, unless they understood what was prayed for. To this purpose doth Clemens Alexandrinus also write, who lived toward the close of the second Century.  
Origen, Who lived about the middle of the third 
Contra cells. l. ●. p. 402. cantabr.  Century, saith, The Greek Christians in their Prayers used the Grecian, and the Romans used the Roman words, and each prays and praises God in his own Tongue. And the Lord of all Tongues doth hear those that pray to him in all Tongues, etc. St. Cyprian at the same time, doth say, That the Mind in Prayer doth think of nothing 
In orat. Dom. n. 22.  else but what is prayed for. And therefore the Priest before Prayer doth prepare the Minds of the Brethren, by saying, Lift up your Hearts, that when the people doth answer, We lift them up unto the Lord, they may be admonished, that they ought to think of nothing but the Lord. For not the sound of the Voice, but the Mind must pray to the Lord.  
Dionysius Alexandrinus, that lived in the same Age, 
Apud Euseb. Eccles. Hist. l. ●. c. 8.  in a Letter to Xystus Bishop of Rome, doth write of a person that having been baptised by Heretics, upon the hearing the Questions and Answers at the Baptism of the Orthodox, questioned his own Baptism But saith he, we would not rebaptize him, because he had for a good while held Communion with us in the Eucharist, and had been present at our giving of Thanks, and answered Amen.  
St. Basil., Who flourished about the year 370. 
Tom. 2. Reg. brev. reg. 27●.  putting the Question, How the Spirit prays, and the Mind is without Fruit? Answers, It is meant of those that pray in a Tongue unknown to them that hear. For when the Prayers are unknown to them that are present, the mind is without Fruit to him that prays, etc.  
And as to the Practice of the Church in the public Service, he declares, That the People 
Tom 1. in Ps. 28  had the Psalms, Prophets and Evangelical Commands: And when the Tongue sings, the Mind doth search out the sense of the things that are spoken. And he relates how the Christians used to spend the Night in Prayers, Confessions and Psalms; one beginning, and the rest following. 
Tom. 2. Epist 63. Cler. Ne●caes. Tom. 1. ●exameri. Ho●. 4. sub. ●n.  And that the noise of those that joined in the Prayers, was like that of the Waves breaking against the Shoar,  
With him we have S. Ambr●se agreeing (that lived much about the same time) who faith, It is evident that the Mind is ignorant, where the 
In 1 Cor. 14. ●. N●● siora vere.  Tongue is not understood; as some Latins that are wont to sing in Greek, being delighted with the sound of the Words, without understanding what they say And again, the unskilful hearing what he doth not understand, knows not the conclusion of 
Ibid Quis supplet locum.  the Prayer, and doth not answer Amen, that is, it is true, that the Blessing may be confirmed. For by those is the confirmation of the Prayer fulfilled, that do ans●●● Amen. etc. And he doth show what an honour is given to God, what a reverence is derived upon 
Ibid. Sia. 〈◊〉 prophet●●●.  our Religion, and how far it excels the Pagan, that he that hears understands, and that nothing is in the dark.  
And he saith. This is a symphony, when there 
Tom. 3. Com. l. 7. in L●c. 1●. p. 169. Par. 1614 In 2 cor. c. ●. Homil 1●. Et 〈◊〉.  is in the Church a concord of divers Ages and Virtues: that the Psalm is answered, and Amen said, etc.  
Toward the latter end of the same Century lived S. chrysostom, who saith, That the people are much concerned in the Prayers, that they are common to them and the Priest; that in the Sacrament, as the Priest prays for the people, so the people for the Priest. And that those Words, and with thy Spirit, signify no thing else— And what wonder is it, That in the Prayers the people do talk with the Priest?  
And elsewhere he saith, That the Apostle shows that the people receive no little damage, when 
In 1 Cor. 14. Hom. 35.  they cannot say Amen.  
To conclude, Bellarmin saith, that in the Liturgy which bears this Father's name, the parts sung 
L. 2. c. 16. Sect. idem etiam. v. Chrysost. Tom. 4. Par. 1621.  by the Priest, Deacon and People, are most plainly distinguished.  
To him let us add S. Jerom his cotemporary, who declares that at the Funeral of Paula in Jerusaelem, the multitude did attend, and sung their Psalms in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriack, according 
Tom. 1. Epitap Paulae ad Euslochium. Epist Paulae ad Marcellam.  to the Nations they were of. And we are farther told, That at Bethlem there resorted gaul's, Britain's, Armenians, Indians, etc. And there were almost as many Choirs of Singers as of Countries; of a different Tongue, but of one and the same Religion.  
And the same Fathers tells us, That at Rome the 
Tom. 10. prooem. 2. ad Galat.  people sounded forth Amen, like to the noise of Thunder.  
Next let us consult. Augustine, of the same time, who saith, That no body is edified by 
Tom. 3. in Genes. l. 12. c. 8. Lib. de Magi. stro. c. 1. & 7. De catechis. rud. C. 9  what he doth not understand. And, That the reason why the Priest lifts up his Voice in the Church when he prayeth, is not that God, but the people may hear and understand, and join with him, And that whereas the Bishops and Ministers of the Church were sometimes guilty of using barbarous and absurd Words, they that should correct it that the people may most plainly understand, and say Amen.  
And elsewhere (as has been quoted before) exhorts that they be not as Parrots and Pies that say they 
In psalm. 18.  know not what.  
Thus far our Authorities do proceed with little interruption. For Bellarm doth grant, That not 
c. 16. Sect. sed neque.  only in the times of the Apostles, all the people were wont to answer in Divine Offices; but that the same was a long time after observed both in the Eastern and Western Church, as is evident from S. chrysostom, S, Jerom, etc.  
Now having derived the Tittle thus far above 400 years, we need not be much solicitous for what was introduced afterwards; but yet for a farther confirmation, I shall add some Testimonies of a latter date. Such is that known Edict of the Emperor Justinian (who died Anno 565,) in which 
Novel. 123. See this vindicated in Bishop Jew's reply to Hardings answ. p. 128.  it is thus enacted, We command all Bishops and Priests to celebrate the holy Oblation, and the Prayers in sacred Baptism, not in a low, but such a Voice, as may be heard by the people; that thereby their heart may be raised up with greater Devotion, and Honour be given to God; for so the Holy Apostle teacheth, in the first to the Corinthians, For if thou only bless with the Spirit etc.  
To this I shall add that of Isidore Hispalensis; that lived in the end of the fifth Century, who saith, 
De Eccles. off. l. 1. c. 10.  That it behoveth that when it is sung in the Church, that all do sing; and when prayers are offered, that all do pray; and when there is reading, that all do read; and silence being made, that all hear.  
This is also agreeable to the former Opinion of the Church of Rome itself; and for proof of which, what can we desire more than the Declarations of Popes and Councils? and this we have. For we read of a permission given by the Pope to the Moravians, at the instance of Cyril (who had 
Aeneas Silvius Hist. Bohem. l. 1. c. 13. Aun● 260.  converted them and other Nations of the Sclavonians) to have Divine Service in their own Tongue; and that he and the Conclave were induced to it (when not a few did oppose it) by a voice from Heaven, that said, Let every Spirit praise the LORD, and every Tongue confess to him, as Aeneas Silvius afterward Pope, relates.  
And Pope John the VIII. (not long after, in Anno 880.) writes thus to S fento opulcer, a Prince 
Coneil. Tom. 24. Epist. 217. Paris, 1644.  of the Sclavonians, We command that the Praises and Works of our Lord Christ, be declared in the same (Sclavonian) Tongue. For we are admonished by sacred Writ, to praise the Lord; not only in three, but in all Tongues, saying, Praise the Lord all ye Nations, praise him all the people. And the Apostles filled with the Holy Ghost, spoke in all Tongues. And S. Paul admonisheth, Let every Tongue confess; and in the first to the Corinthians, he doth sufficiently and plainly admonish us. that in speaking we should edify the Church of God. Neither doth it hinder the Faith or Doctrine, to have the Mass sung or the Gospel and Lessons well translated, read, or other divine Offices sung in the same Selavonian Tongue; because he who made three principal Tongues, viz. Hebrew, Greek and Latin, made all to his praise, etc.  
And consormable to this is the Decree of the Council of Lateran under Innocent III. Anno 1215. that because in 
Con. 9  many parts, within the same City and Diocese, there are many people of different manners and Rites mixed together, but of one Faith, We therefore command that the Bishops of such Cities or Dioceses provide fit Men who shall celebrate Divine Offices according to the diversity of Tongues and Ri●es, and administer the Sacraments.  
This may be farther confirmed by the very Offices of the Church of Rome; but this is sufficient 
Vid. Cassandris Liturg. c. 36.  to show that the Church of Rome hath departed from Scripture, Antiquity, and itself, when it doth require that Divine Service be performed in a Tongue unknown to the people: and that it was never the opinion of the Fathers, nor any Church, nor even of the Church of Rome that it is most expedient to have it so performed. So little was it then thought that religious things the less they are understood; 
Epist. Cleri Gall. Collect. p. 63. Epist. P. Alex. 7. in Collect. p. 69. Hosius, p. 64. Bellarm. Sect. Septim●, P. Sanct. c. 17. n 3. E. W. Truth will out p. 45. 47. R●●erus. c. 22. Portraiture, c. 14 p. 224. Bellarm. l. 1. de ●●ssa, c. 11. Sanders orat. p. 72 R●em. Annot, p. 461.  the more they would be admired; and that to preserve a reverence for them, and the people from dangerous errors, it is requisite to keep them from being understood. So little was it pleaded, that there are any Tongues sacred in themselves; and that as the three upon the Cross of Christ, are to be preferred before others, and to exclude the rest, so the Latin as next to the head of Christ, is the most venerable of the three. So little was it then thought that there is a certain kind of Divinity in Latin, and something more of Majesty, and fit to stir up Devotion then in other Tongues. So little were they afraid, that Latin would be lost, if the service were not kept in it; or however, so little evident is it that they valued the preservation of that Tongue above the Edification of the Church.  
Lastly, So little did they think of the expedience of having the service in one common Tongue, as Latin, That Christians wherever they travel, may find the self same Service, and Priests may officiate in it as at home. As if for the sake of the few that travel, the many that stay at home should be left destitute, and for one Man's convenience, 10000 be exposed to eternal perd●io●. These are Arguments coined on purpose to defend the Cause, and so are peculiar to the Church that needs them.  
II. Let us consider, whither from the time of its having been a Rits it hath been the Rite of every Church.  
To this I shall only produce their own Confessions, 
Cassander. Liturg. c. 11. 13. 15 Ledesm, c. 33 n. 5 Bellarm. c. 16. sect. obj. ult. Salmer on in 1 cor. 16. sect. septime.  for it is acknowledged that the Armenians, Egyptian●, Habassines, Muscovites and Sclavonians have their Service in a Tongue known to the people. And their giving them the hard Names of Heretics, Schismatics and Barbarous, will not save the Council from being fallible, when it saith, It is the rite of every church.  
But were there no such Churches in the World that herein practised contrary to the Church of Rome, yet it would no more justify her, than it can make that good which is evil, that expedient which is mischievous to the Church of God, or reconcile one part of the Council to the other, that when it hath declared, The Masi contai●●● great instruction for the people. yet adds, That it is expedient and an approved Rite, that it be not celebrated in the Vulgar Tongue.  
But say they, this is granted, If there were no interpretation, but that is provided for by the Council, for it is ordered, That lest Christ's sheep should hunger, all that have the care of Souls shall frequently expound, etc. And that we are now to consider.   

SECT. IV Whither the Provisions made by the Council of Trent, for having some part of the Mass expounded, be sufficient to countervail the mischief of having the whole celebrated in a Tongue not understood of the People, and to excuse the Church of Rome, in the injunction of it.  
THis is the last refuge they betake themselves to 
S. C. Answ. to D. Piece, 7. 175. Sanders orat. p. 63.  confessing that without an Interpretation, S. Paul is against them, but with this, they plead, he is for them.  
But what shall we then think of the case in their Church at a time, when as the people could not understand, so the Priests could not interpret, and wanted both the gift, and had not acquired so much as the art of it? What shall we think of their case, and their Church, that hath neither provided nor doth use such an Interpretation as the Apostle speaks of, but what differs as much from it in respect of the light it gives to the people, as both that and the Tongue they use, do in the way by which they are obtained? If it were a translation, what a ludicrous thing would it be for a Church in its constant Service to take, suppose, the Lord's Prayer in pieces, and first pronounce it in Latin, and then in English? But as they do not permit their Offices, 
Extract. ex regist. Facult, Par. an. 1525. Collectio, p 8. Censurae, An. 1655 p. 18. Procez. contr. V●isin. An. 1660. p. 53. etc. Epist. Cleri An 1660. p. 62. Orat. etc. p. 63  not the Horae B. Virgins, Breviary, or Mass book to be translated into a Vulgar Tongue: So the verbal translation of it, during the celebration of Mass, was never thought of by the Council, but was thereby condemned, as the cause and seedplot of many errors: as we are informed in a Lett●●, wrote upon the occasion of Voisin's translation, by the whole Clergy of France, to Pope Alexander the Seventh.  
And whatsoever the Exposition did refer to (let it be what it will) yet it was not to the devotional Part, as Sanders declares; who (after he had pleaded that an Unknown Tongue with interpretation, was the perfect fulfilling of S. Paul's advice) perceiving a difficulty behind, throws all off with this, If the Interpretation of Prayers he laid aside for a seasion, it is however not to be thought, that it is to he ommited for ever, etc. So that at most, no more was intended then a short exposition of some doctrinal Point or ceremony (which might as well be called an Exposition of the Breviary, or any other Book, containing much the same things, as the Missal) And it is probable that so much as this also was never intended, which if ever, is very rarely practised amongst them. Insomuch as Ledesma saith, That the sense of the council was, That the people should be instructed only by Sermons, Indeed they would rather have this go for an Argument, then 
Cap. 15. Sect. decret. Con. Trid. n. 2.  dispute it. They do as the Irish by their bogs, run over it lightly, for fear if they tread too hard, it will not supoort their cause but stifle it. And therefore they wheel off again, and then tell us, That it 
S. C. Answ. p. 176.  being a known set Form, in one set Language, those that are ignorant of it at first, need not continue so, but by due attention and diligence may arrive to a sufficient knowledge. As if the poor people are inexcusable, if they do not arrrive to a sufficient knowledge of the Tongue (which must be learned before the things) without other helps then their own attention and diligence; when the Priests and others are trained up to the knowledge and understanding of Latin by Rules, Masters, and frequent exercise. Surely they had the Mass in Latin, when the learned themselves did not understand it, as Valla saith. They had the 
Elegant: Praes.  Mass in Latin, when the greatest part of the people did not understand it, as Faber relates. They had 
In 1 Cor. 14. Cassand. Liturg. c. 36. Sixt. Senens. Bibli●th. 6. Annot. 263.  the Mass in Latin, when not only the people but the Priest and Deacons, rarely understood what they prayed for, as Billet, etc. confess. And where ' was then their attention and diligence, that to their lives end, either daily rehearsed it, or often heard it, and yet never understood it? And is is not so still, when notwithstanding all the noise of 
S. c. p. 176.  Exposition, Manuals and Primers, etc. for the use of the Vulgar, yet (setting aside some little Forms and Ceremonies of it) they are so ignorant of the Contents of the Missal or Mass Book, that as to the matter of it; they know it not from the Breviary; nor would know it from the Alcoran● if read in the same Tongue, alike pronounced, and the same falls and postures were used in the reading of it? So that what more plain than the means they have provided is not sufficient for to instruct and edify the people, and that after all, they do hold this instruction unnecessary, and that the people are safe without it? And this is the case, for it is generally resolved by their Casuists, both for Priest and People; that ●● they do their duty and merit, when they say their Prayers, though they do not understand; so Eckius, so Salmeron, etc. And if it were otherwise, very few 
Saimeron. in 1 cor. 16. Disp. 3 Instrnct. Sacerd. c. 13. n. 5, & 6.  would do their duty, when so very few do at all understand what they say, as Cardinal Tolet doth determine. So in fulgent are they; and very reasonable is it that they should be so, that when they have put out the people's Eyes, they should take good care to make the way broad and smooth for them.  
But in good earnest, can we think this way as safe as it is broad, and that there is no Ditch into which both Priest and People, if alike blind; may fall and perish? And if there be; must not the case of that people be very lamentable that are wholly left to the ability and sincerity of their Priest? who if he wants the former, may, through ignorance, turn the most solemn part of their Service, as it happens, into Nonesense or Blasphemy. And if he wants the latter may use a Spell for Prayer, and the ancient charm 
D. Stilling steet Answ. to. T. G. c. 3 sect. 3.  of Abracadabrae for Ave Maria (as a learned person hath observed.) Nay instead of baptising in the sacred Name of the Father, & c. ●he may do by the person, as a Jew under the profession of a Priest, is said to have done by a certain Prince in the last Age, and baptise him in the horrid name of the Devil. There is then nothing so absurd or wicked, which, according to the case, may not be practised. And neither Prayers be Prayers, nor Sacraments Sacraments, nor persons Christians, as long as the Priest doth alone know, neither Priest nor People understand.  
But supposing that there be no defect in either of these, and that the whole Service is faithfully and understandingly performed; yet if the Tongue in which it is performed be not understood of the people, there can be no understanding of the sense contained in it; and where the sense and matter is not understood, there cannot be (as I have showed) these dispositions of Soul, that attention of Mind, that Faith which gives the Amen to our Prayers, &c and which renders the Service acceptable to God and beneficial to ourselves; and consequently a service so contrived, as shall defeat these ends, is one of the greatest mischiefs that can befall a Church, and must render the Romish Church inexcusable in the injunction of it, and Justify those that have reform it.   

SECT. V We are come to inquire, Whether upon the whole, the Service of God ought not to be celebrated in a Tongue vulgarly understood.  
THe Church of Rome doth anathematise, and 
Bellarm. c. 16, sub sin. T. G. against D. Stilingfleet, Sect ●. n. 3. p. 28. Ledesma, c 33. ●. 1.  doom to Hell, those that hold a Vulgar Tongue necessary in Divine Service; and doth both absolutely forbidden their own Missal to be so translated, and persecute those that have so used it. And yet they cannot, dare not say it is unlawful in itself. For it is better to have it in the Vulgar than not at all, saith one. It is matter of Discipline, saith a second.  
It hath been granted in some cases, is acknowledged by others. And it is most expedient to have it in the Vulgar, saith a fourth. And if so, why this diligent 
Cassander. de off. pii viri, p. 86●.  care to prevent and suppress it? Why this outcry against it? Why this Severity? What need of such Decrees and anathemas of Councils? What need such Commands of the Popes for Princes to oppose it with all their force (as that of Gregory VII. to Vladislaus of Bohemia) what reason is there for a general Convention of the Clergy of a Kingdom to proceed against a translation of their Missal? When if we consult the ends for which the public Service was instituted, i● we consult the reason of the thing; if we consult Scripture, or ●ath●rs, or the practice of the Church for about seven hundred Years together, we shall find that it is not only expedient, but necessary to have it in a Tongue understood of the people, and that the Church of Rome that is so forward in its Anathema, is under a precedent, and greater o●●, even that of the Apostle, Whosoever shall preach any other Gospel, let him be Anat●em●. So that, which is most to be respected, the Anathema of Heaven, or that of the Council; the command of God, or a Decree of a Pope; the Church of God in its best times or the particular Church of Rome in latter Ages; whither the edification of the Church of God, or the will and interest of a corrupted Church, is not difficult to conceive. And therefore we may end as we began, with the Church 
Art. 24.  of England. It is a thing plainly repuguant to the Word of God, and the 〈◊〉 of the Primitive Church, to have public Prayers ●● the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a Tongue not underst●●d of the people.   
FINIS.   

A DISCOURSE CONCERNING THE DEVOTIONS OF THE Church of Rome.  
Especially, as compared with those of the CHURCH of ENGLAND In which it is shown, That whatever the Romanists pretend, there is not so true Devotion among them, nor such rational Provision for it, nor Encouragement to it, as in the Church established by Law among us.  
EDINBURGH, Re Printed by John Reid, Anno DOM. 1686.   

A DISCOURSE Concerning the DEVOTIONS Of the Church of Rome;  
IT is certain one of the greatest Commendations that can be given of any Church, or body of Christians, that a man can with Truth afirm of it that the Doctrines which they profess, the Rules and Orders under which they live, that the frame and constitution of the Church tendeth directly to make men more pious and devout, more penitent and mortified, more heavenly minded, and every way of better Lives, than the way and profession of other Christians: For to work men up to this holy frame and disposition was one of the main designs of the Gospel of Christ, which intends to govern men's Actions, and reform their Temper, as well as to inform their Understandings, and direct their belief. And in this particular it differs much from all the Ethics of the learned Heathen: For whereas they designed especially to exalt the passions. and to raise up the Mind above itself, by commending the high and pompous Virtues, thereby to stir men up to great designs, and to appear bold and braving in the affairs of this Life; the Gospel is most frequent in commendation of the humble lowly and mortifying Virtues, which would reduce the Mind to itself, and keep Men within due bounds, and teach them how to behave themselves towards God, and to live in a due regard to another Life.  
Now there is scarcely any thing which the Church of Rome doth more often urge for herself, or with greater confidence pretend to excel the Church of England in, then by endeavouring to persuade, that the Frame of their Church is more fitted for the exciting of Devotion and a good Life than ours is, And so they will boast of their severe Rules and Orders, the Austerities of their Fasts and Penances, the strict and mortified Lives, the constancy and incessancy of Devotions used among them; and would thence infer, that that m●st needs be the best Religion, or way of serving God in which these practices are enjoined and observed, That the Tree must needs be good by such excellent Fruit●; and that if all other Argument fail, yet they say they have this to show for themselves, that in their Communion there is at least somewhat more like that great Self-denial and Mortification so often made necessary under the Gospel, then is to be found in the Reformed Churches, or particularly in the Church of England. Now laying aside all Disputes concerning Points of Doctrine, in controversy between them and us, in which it hath been abundantly shown, that they err in matters of Faith; and that in what they differ from us, they differ also from the Scripture, and the true Church of Christ in all the best Ages; I'll confine myself to examine their Pre●●●ce to Devotion, where I doubt not but it will sufficiently appear, that they are as much deficient also in Regularity of Practice; that there is not that true Foundation laid for such Devotion as God accepts, nor that strict Provision made for it, nor that real Practice of it which they would make us believe; but that even the best which they pretend to, is such as doth by no means befit a truly Christian spirit,  
I'll discourse in this Method.  
1. I'll instance in the several Expressions of Devotion, the Motives to it, or Assistance of it, wh●ch the Church of Rome pretends to, and on which she is used to magnify herself.  
2. I will allege the just Exceptions which we have against such their Pretences.  
3. And then show that they are so far from encouraging true Devotion, that many things both in their Doctrine and Discipline directly tend to the Destruction of it.  
4. I'll show what excellent Provision is made in the Church of England, for the due exercise of all the parts of Devotion, and what Stress is laid on it, and on a good Life among us.  
First, Though Devotion is properly and chief in the mind, a due sense of God and Religion, yet it is not sufficient if it stop there: For there are certain outward Acts which are either in themselves natural and proper Expressions, or else are strictly required of us by God, as Duties of Religion, and Evidences of the devout temper of our Minds; and these are called Acts of Devotion. And all the Commendation that can be given of any Church, on Account of Devotion, must be either, that there is a true Foundation laid for it in men's Minds, or constant Provision made for the due Exercise of it, all necessary Encouragement given to it, and a suitable, strict and regular Practice of it observable among them. And there are several things which are not at all insisted on by us, which they of the Church of Rome boast of, as serving to some or all of these purposes, which I shall represent as fairly as I can, that we may see what there is in that Church that doth answer such great pretences.  
For it is observed that they of the Church of Rome oftentimes instead of dispute, endeavour to work on our People, and too often prevail, by appealing to matters of Practice, visible to every one's Eye; an Argument to which men need not use their Reason, but their Sense; and this will, (say they) sufficiently convince any of the excellency of our way. For here are several things used as Instances and Expressions of Devotion, very acceptable to God, and suitable to a good Christian Temper, which are either not at all used in the Church of England; or at least not in that Degree and Measure, and yet all those that are used in the Church of England, say they, are used among us: For we not only enjoin, and practise constant use of Prayers public and private, together with Reading and Preaching of the Word, Sacraments, and whatever is used in the Church of England; but we have besides several things which are as well proper Expressions of Devotion, as Helps and Assistances which are not used among the Protestants: The Principal things which they urge are such as these:  
1. They blame the Reformation in general, as well as the Church of England, for the want of Monasteries and such other Religious Houses, which are so numerous in the Popish Countries; where Holy Men and Women being shut up, and having bid adieu to the World, live as in Heaven in constant Exercise of praising of God Night and Day, and of praying to him for the Church and State, and particular Christians, as well as themselves; and who are not only so beneficial to the World, by the constancy of their Prayers, but also by their Example putting others in mind of Religion, and of doing likewise; and by the severity of their lives, as to Diet, Garb, and other Circumstances, live in a constant Practice of that self-denial which is commanded in Scripture, and was so practised by Holy Men almost from the beginning of Christianity; and are as it were constant Preachers of Holiness and Mortification; who tho' they do indeed stay here in the World below, yet converse not in it, but are in some Sense out of it, and live above it.  
2. They sometimes also boast of the extraordinary Charity, and Liberality to all good and Holy Uses pressed and practised among them, which is but sparingly used, say they, among the Protestants; Especially their excessive Expense and Cost in building and endowing Monasteries, erecting Churches, Chapels and Crosses, their so pompous adorning the places dedicated to the Worship of God, besides their Charitable Assistance, and relief which they afford to the Bodies of the Living, and the Souls of the Dead; and no Man can deny but Charity is a certaint Evidence, as well as a great branch and duty of true Religion and Devotion:  
3. Sometimes they glory in the great number of Saints commemorated in their Church, and dying in the Communion of it, and urge them as a forcible Example to others, and a mighty incentive to Devotion; they think also it redounds much to the Honour, and Commendation of their Church to have had such glorious Members of it, and twit us as they think severely, when they ask us what Saints we have of our Church, and wonder especially that we should observe so few Festivals and Holidays; whereas the very many days set apart in their Church in memory of their several Saints, they think not only afford proper Occasions, for all Acts of Religion; but are a sign of their being less addicted to this World, when so great a part of their time is spent in the Service of God, and that Piety and Devotion are a considerable part of their Business and Employment.  
4. They urge also the multitude of Pictures and Images of several Famous Men and Women, who have in an eminent manner served and pleased God, and been instrumental in converting the World, as very proper assistances of a Man's Devotion; instructing some, they being the Books of the Unlearned, and sensibly affecting and alluring all to the Imitation of the Persons whom they represent.  
5. Sometimes they commend their Church for the Fast, and other Acts of severity and Mortification, used not only by the Monks and Regulars, but by all sorts of Men, according to the Rules of their Church, on set days of the Week or Seasons of the Year; as well as such Austerities as are enjoined by their Confessors, by way of Penance; their going barefoot and bare headed in Processions, their whipping and lashing themselves their drawing great Chains and Weights after them, as great and proper Instances of Self-denial and Devotion.  
6. They place also a great Deal of Religion in Pilgrimages, which the more Devout sort take, and spend their Estates, and sometimes their Lives in, to Jerusalem, Rome, Loretto,▪ Mount-ferrdt, to St. Thomas, at Canterbury St. Winefrid's Well, or some such other places where some extraordinary Person hath lived, or some strange Relic is left, or where they reckon God hath on some Occasion or other wonderfully manifested himself; and they reckon that the very visiting or kissing these, are either an Argument of truly Devout Minds, or that which will make them so. And their Manuals or Books which their Priests give into the people's hands, do not fail by all the art imaginable, to endeavour to screw up men's Devotion, even to rapture and ecstasy in Commendation of these Practices and Orders, even as if they would have us believe that there is no true Religion and Devotion without these, and that where there are these things practised, it is a certain sign that the mind is affected as it ought, & Piety flourisheth in the highest Degree.  
And besides these Matters of Practice, their are also several Doctrines, and Opinions peculiar to themselves, which they reckon do naturally tend to the advancement of true Devotion. As,  
7. Their Doctrine concerning the Intercession of Saints for us, and the Advantage of Invocation or prayer to them, and that we of the Church of England want one of the greatest Encouragements to Prayer and Devotion that can be, who neither own nor make use of these Helps, and therefore that we cannot have such hope of Success and Blessing as they have.  
8. Their Doctrine concerning the Merit of Good Works and Supererogation, is of the same Nature, in their esteem: For the more Worth you suppose in any Action, the greater Encouragement is there to the performance of it, and therefore surely it must be a most irresistible motive to Devotion, to persuade men that the worth and value of it is such, as that you may by it purchase Heaven not only to yourselves, but for others also.  
9 Their belief of Purgatory, and of the validity of Prayers for the Dead, doth naturally tend to excite men to Devotion, say they; for here is a greater Scope and Occasion for our Prayers, we may hope to be instrumental to more good, more Persons to be relieved and helped by our Prayers, then are supposed in the Devotions of the Church of England.  
10. And especially their Doctrine and Practice of Confession, Penance and Absolution, they look on as so necessary to Devotion, that it is a wonder with them that there should be any show of it, where these are received and practised: For a particular Confession of all Sins to a Priest being so strictly required, they say is the readiest way to bring men to a sense of, and shame for their Sins; and Penance being also imposed presently on them, will surely make Men to be more afraid of sinning again when they see it must cost them so dear, and that they may not despair or despond, by Reason of the Multitude or Weight of their former Sins, but may be encouraged to strive more earnestly against sin for the future, the Priest gives them Absolution of what is passed, at the same time encouraging their hope, as well as exciting their fear, and endeavouring by the same method both to allure, to force and to shame Men into Amendment.  
Lastly they insist much also on the Validity of their Ordinations, the Truth and Succession, Unity and Authority, of their Church, and the Obedience that is paid to the Rules and Orders of it, as mighty Helps and Assistances, and Encouragements to Devotion; when they are so sure of the Sacraments being duly administered, and all other Acts of Authority rightly performed when the Laws of the Church for the punishment of Offenders are duly executed, and when the Church hath Power to oblige all to an Uniform and Regular Practice.  
All these things, say they, do either encourage and excite men to Devotion, or assist or direct them in their exercise of it, give more room or afford better occasions for it, or else show more fully the Necessity of such and such parts of it then what is received and practised in the Church of England; and therefore the Church of England that wants these wanteth also much of the Occasion, Matter, Opportunities, and Arg●●●ts for Devotion: so that they laying a side all disputes concerning Articles of Faith, they doubt not but it will be readily granted, that at least they are a more devout People; whatever their belief i●, their practies is more agreeable to that self denial, and Mortification commanded in Scripture; that God is more constantly and reverently served among them than he is among us; that they take more pains, are at more Cost and trouble in the worship of God. which they think is an Instance of a good religious mind, and will be most secure of God's Acceptance.  
These are, I think indeed, the most that they do urge for themselves in this point, and there is something of appearance of Truth in all this. Most of these Instances are such as may perhaps be very taking at first fight with some People, they having a show of Regularity, Strictness and Severity, or else of being proper helps and Assistances of Devotion: For men are wont to admire any thing that looks o●d or big, especially if others have but the confidence highly to praise and extol it. But if we examine them, we shall find them to fall infinitely short of such specious pretences; some of them to be unlawful, and those that are good in themselves, to be some way or other spoiled in the use of them; always they ●rr in some matterial part or circumstance; and taken altogether, they have nothing in them which evidence any true devout temper either designed to be wrought by the Church, or actually working in the People: Much less do they bespeak greater Devotion than is required and practised in our Church.  
For it hath been well observed by the judicious Sir Edwin Sandyes, that the Church of Rome hath so contrived its Rules and Orders, as rather to comply with, and fit every Temper and Inclination good or bad, then to work any real good effect on any. And therefore as it hath several things which openly agree with, and please the profane and debauched; so it must be granted, that it hath somewhat also to suit with and gra●ifle the melancholy Temper, where the devoutly disposed may find somewhat an agreeable Retreat: And therefore one would be apt to suspect that the most strict and severe of their Orders, were kept up rather out of a politic end to please and quiet the People, then really to advance true piety to God and Devotion. But however it is plain, that taking the whole Frame of that Church together, it doth not design to promote serious and true Devotion; but only to make a Noise, and to appear so to do. For when I see the same Church, tho' sometimes seeming to countenance the utmost severity as necessary, yet at other times to give all Liberty, and let the Rein● lose to all kind of Debauchery, I have just reason to ●ear they are not in earnest for Religion: For all such irregular Heats, are a sign of a bad Principles, or a distempered Constitution. Just as if I should see the same person sometimes desperately dissolute and debauched, and at othertimes intolerably strict and severe, and this interchangeably and often; I shall much question his strictness, whither it be sincere: If his sense of Piety were real, it would be more lasting and uniform; and therefore without breach of charity I think I may look on him in his severity, rather to act a part on a Stage, and to serve a present Turn and Occasion, then to be really in his mind what such strictness would represent him. And therefore whatever true Devotion is in any of that Communion, aught to be ascribed to somewhat else, then to the Constitution of that Church: For even those things which they are used to boast most of, which I have mentioned already, we shall easily find to have little that is truly commendable, much that is greatly faulty in them; and if their best things are no better, what are the worst? If the subject of their Glory is shameful, what will become of the rest?  
2, And therefore I'll now show what we have justly to except against their  pretences to Devotion.  
1. As for Monkery in general, which they boast so much of calling it, Status Perfectionis & religiosus, as if besides the State of Men in Holy Orders, that were a State of Perfection, and nothing else worth the Name of Religious. We confess, that scarcely as to any thing concerning the Externals of Religion, doth the Church of England distinguish itself from the Romish Church so much, as that there is not any Provision made, or so much as a supposition of such Monastries, or religious Houses, or public places of Retirement for devout People, as they are called, being again ever settled among us. For tho' we are not so rash as utterly to abhor and throw away every thing that at any time had been abused to superstition, yet we are very well contented that Monastries should never be rebuilt among us. For we do not look on the Life of Monks as any great help to Devotion, or an instance of true Religion prevailing where they are found; much less that they are necessary in the Christian Church.  
For it is evident that the first and purest Ages of the Church did not know any thing of them: Almost three Centuries passed without any mention of them in Ecclesiastical History. Antony and Paul in the Dioclesian Persecution, being taken notice of as the first of that Way. We read indeed of some that did lead a more than ordinary severe Course, and denied themselves much of the (perhaps) lawful Pleasures of this Life, in respect to Religion and the other Life; but these were not Monks, or the modern Asceticks; tho' it hath been the way of the Church of Rome in more instances than this to impose some new thing on the World upon the Reputation of some good and reverend Old Name: For the Lives of the ancient Aste●icks, or mortified Men, differed much from the present Monks of the Church of Rome. We find not that they engaged themselves in a solemn vow, distinct from, or above that of their Baptism. For whatever their general Course of Life was, they would take the Liberty to break their Rule sometimes in order to extraordinary Charity, or when an occasion offered itself of doing more good; as is recorded particularly concerning Spiridion a Bishop in Cyprus. Nor do we find that they always continued in the same State of Life; but took such a severe course on themselves at some particular times, and on some special occasions, (as the Nazarites of old did) to humble, and bring their Bodies under, and as St. Paul adviseth the married, but not to continue always so, lest Satan should tempt them; and they reckoned it in an higher degree praise worthy for every Act of Mortification to be voluntary, then that they should once for all force themselves to it: And therefore still retained a Power to themselves, and did vary from this Method sometimes, and on occasion would indulge themselves a greater, tho' still a lawful Liberty. They took not on them the Vow of Poverty, nor placed Perfection in Beggary, but reckoned every Creature of God to be good; and even the outward good things of this Life to be the Gift and Grace of God, if they be well employed, according to 1 Pet. 4. 10. And remembered that Saying of our Blessed Saviour, Acts 20. 35. It is more blessed to give then to receive. Nor did they vow what the Church of Rome now calls Chastity but reckoned themselves as chaste in Wedlock; and as for Obedience; the third part of the Monks Vow, they thought it sufficient to obey the Commands of God, and knew not of any other Obedience due from them, but only to their Governors in Church and State, whose lawful Commands they reckoned themselves obliged to, in order to the more regular Administration of Affairs, and the more peaceable Government of the World; much less had they any distinct Rules to be set up in Competition with the Laws of God, and urged as necessary to Salvation, making even the Commandments of God of none effect, as many of the Monks Rules apparently do, as might be easily made to appear. Such religious Men as these there were in the first Ages, who practised a stricter Devotion than others, that God's Name might be the more hallowed by them, the more it was profaned by the rest of the World, and who were more than ordinary instant and constant in Prayers for a Blessing on the Church and State, of which they were Members; and by the Strictness and Severity of their Lives, made some amends for the Negligence and Viciousness of the Age in which they lived.  
And many such as these, we doubt not, are now among us, who yet utterly dislike the Popish Monkery, And if by the Monastic Life all this were done, and nothing else designed, It were justly to be commended; For let Men deny themselves as much as they will, and use their Christian Liberty to the Restraint of themselves by a voluntary Self denial and Mortification, to keep their bodies under, and thereby get a better Temper of Mind. But all this will not suffice in the Church of Rome: For it is not enough for a man to live so strict and holy a Life, unless he enter into a Vow particularly to this purpose. Nay, though a man do take on him all these Vow● of Chastity, Poverty and Obedience, and tho' they be made to his Bishop or Confessor, who one would think were the properest persons in the Case, yet still it is not sufficient; he cannot be said to be in this religions State, unless he vow Obedience to another kind of Spiritual Jurisdiction. So that it is neither the living so strictly, nor vowing to live strictly, as the most severe Monks; but it is their being of a particular Order, and living under such and such Rule, that is so meritorious; so that by Monkery indeed, Monkery is encouraged, and some politic and Secular Designs answered; but the Advancement of Piety and Devotion is not principally designed or intended. But to discourse more distinctly of it;  
In a Monastic Life these three things are especially remarkable,  
First, The secluded, and perhaps Eremetical way of living which they lead.  
Secondly, The Constancy and Regularity of Devotions practised there.  
Thirdly, The severity of their Rules, and Austerity of their Lives.  
But I must needs say, that there is little of true Devotion, that I can discover in any of these.  
First, Their being shut up from the World, or living in Deserts, is no very proper Instance of their Devotion, or agreeable to the Design of Christianity.  
For a man should converse in the World, else he cannot so well understand it, what is amiss, or wanting in it, nor how even to apply and place the Emphasis of his Prayers.  
A man that lives in a Wilderness, or shut up always in a Monastery, it is possible that he may keep himself free from the Difilements of the World; but yet it must be looked on as much more noble and commendable to converse in the World, and yet to avoid the Pollution of it.  
And tho' by such a secluded Life he may escape one kind of Temptation, yet still he will be at least as liable to the two others; that arise from the Devil, or his own Flesh and Temper as ever. And if he avoid some Sins, yet still he will be more subject to others, Sourness. Moroseness, Melancholy, Censoriousness, spiritual pride, and other sins of as high a Nature as those, which by being shut up from the world he pretends to avoid. And yet such as these are generally legible and observable in the very Looks, conversation and carriage-of Monks and Hermits.  
Indeed Retiredness sometimes is an excellent help to the Mind, by giving it time to recollect itself, and to reflect on its former Miscarriages, and the better, to prepare itself for its future encounters in the World. But a man may exceed in the measures and degrees of this, as well as of other conveniences and lawful enjoyments; and so it may become a snare and an evil to him; For the mind will naturally be as much tired with Solitude as with business. Besides, that the Devil is always busy when men are idle and Diversion and Recreation is as necessary to most Tempers, as Health, and Cheerfulness are; and fits a man even for the Duties of Religion. For the keeping the mind in a constant Bent, tho' of Devotion, will in a short time weaken its Spring and dull its Edge; and the Acts of Devotion in such a mind, will, ●its to be feared, be rather a formal piece of Drudgery than a reasonable service. And though we should grant, that by being confined to a Monastery, a man might better escape the Defilements of any kind of sin; yet it must be granted that he cannot be in so much capacity of doing good in the World as if he conversed freely with it: 
S●c. l. 1. c. 12  And Sozomen quotes is as a most remarkable saying of some of the first Monks, that he that abstains from evil, but doth no good, aught to be esteemed a very bad Man; and so the commands of Scripture enjoin us to take care to do good as well as to abstain from evil, else we shall be reckoned among the unprofitable servants. We are sure that public service ought to be preferred before private, the Glory of God, and the good of men being more advanced by it; and therefore, though that man that lives in a wilderness, and serves God there when he is forced to it by persecution, may hope for a Blessing, tho' he be alone, and neither worshippeth God in public, nor gives a good Example to the World; yet he that runs into a Wilderness to be wondered at and admired, and neglects the ordinary and most useful way of serving God, there is too much reason to fear he hath his Reward. At lest how far soever it may please God to pardon his blind Zeal, and want of Discretion, yet certainly this Example of his ought not to be recommended to all, as a Rule for them to walk by. The first Monks we grant, were very good and pious Men, and were compelled to forsake their Houses, and live in solitude; but it is very unreasonable to make their manner of Life a Pattern to be followed in the quiet and peaceable Ages of the Church. For this would be to show ourselves insenfible of the goodness of God to us, in giving us the Liberty of serving him freely and openly, and that we dare profess our Religion without fear of losing our Lives. And for the same reason we should still chase to celebrate the Sacrament in an ●pper 〈◊〉 because our blessed Saviour, and his Holy Apostles did so; and should have our religious Assemblies in Crypts' and Vaults under the Ground, because the first Christians, in times of difficulty and persecution, often durst use no other.  
And as the Solitude of a Monastic Life is no proper Assistance o● Expression of true Devotion, was not known in the first Ages of the Church and afterwards was not taken up of choice, but by Necessity: So also in the last place, I observe, that the Gospel of Christ, and the ●ules of Living, which are given us by himself, and his Holy Apostles, never enjoin or suppose any such thing. We are always supposed to live in Company and Society; and accordingly the precepts of our Saviour and the Apostles are adapted to the common Cases of Men, and the Concerns of such as converse freely in the World. And therefore I must needs say, that it hath been very wisely ordered, that there should be new and distinct Rules made for those that delight in this solitary and Monastic way of Life: For they are such a kind of men as the Gospel of Christ hath no proper Rules for.  
Secondly, And I am afraid that there is as little true Devotion in their so frequent and constant Prayers enjoined and practised in their Monastries, though this be confessedly what is most commendable in their way of Life, and is the only way by which they themselves can pretend to do any Good in the World. (If I except those, which are but very ●ew, that work with their hands.)  
Praise and prayer is therefore acceptable with GOD, as it is in the voluntary Expression of our Souls, a free will-Offering and Sacrifice which we offer to GOD, in consideration of his infinite Excellencies and Perfections in himself, his former undeserved Goodness to us, and our Liableness to him. Now the constant prayer used in their Monastries, in more particulars than one, come short of that true Devotion due from Men to their Maker: For first they are as much as can be forced on a rational Being, and on that account must needs lose much of their worth and acceptableness. The Monks are obliged by the Rules of their several Orders to say such and such prayers, and just at such and such times, whatever Devotion or Intention of Mind they have; and they are severely punished if they fail of them. Exactly at Midnight, at two or three a Clock in the Morning, so very often, and at so very unseasonable times, that many have confessed this strictness of their Devotions, to be of all the greatest burden of their Lives And yet this they must do in Imitation of some holy Man of Old, who is recorded to have prayed at these Hours; whereas these men's Devotions is not warm enough to keep them awake when they are at Prayer. And therefore these Prayers not being the free Emanations of their own mind, methinks the praise of them is not so much due to the Monks themselves, as to the head and founder of their Order, who obliged them to such Rules.  
And their Devotion is little more praiseworthy than that of the Jews at Avignon, and several other Places, who are once in a Week forced to go to Church and hear a Sermon, (as these Monks are) at least to sit there whilst a Sermon is preached. and return home as good Christians as they went thither.  
But then they are not only thus strictly obliged to such Hours of Prayer, for that were somewhat tolerable, they might possibly be intent on their Prayers, notwithstanding. But they are at the same time taught, that they need only say the Words with their Mouths; it is not absolutely necessary that their mind should go along with them, and this together with the other must needs spoil all true Devotion. The frequency and unseasonableness of their Prayers, will make it very difficult for them to attend as they ought, and their Doctrine concerning the No-necessity of attention at Prayer, will certainly make them to yield to these difficulties, and so there may be abundance of Words said, but no Devotion performed.  
Besides all this, they have a way of being eased of this trouble of the Prayers, for according to their Casuists, it is allowable for a man to get or hire another to say his Prayers for him. At least he may be dispensed with by his Superior, and this Dispensation is good, whither there be a just Reason or Occasion for it or no, according to an excellent Maxim of theirs, Non ad Valo rem, sed ad Justitiam requiritur Causa.  
And if after all this, Men still will be more than they need strict in their Prayers, according to the Rules of their Orders, they almost constantly offend in the End, and Design of their Devotions. For they do them not so much to benefit the World, or work themselves up to a better temper of Mind; but to perform a task imposed on them, and which they have vowed to perform, or especially to merit by their works. For they do not so much as pretend that this strictness in Devotion is absolutely necessary for their Salvation, (for else why do they not enjoin it to all, seeing all have the same need of Salvation?) and therefore the sole end of all this strictness and constancy in Prayers, is only to get Heaven for others. Which Opinion, besides that it will mightily discourage Men of an ordinary Charity, from being very intent on what they do, when they are sensible they Labour only for another; It countenanceth also a false and dangerous Doctrine concerning the Merit of good Works, and encourageth all vicious practices in other Men, who will hope to be saved, tho' not by their own Prayers, yet by the Prayers of these holy Monks said for them.  
So that on many accounts, their is little of true Devoton to be found in that constant course of Prayers, said so regularly by the Monks and Hermits; Not to mention several other particulars, concerning the Frame and Language of their Prayers, the Object or Persons worshipped or prayed to, the Persons prayed for, and the like, which I may have Occasion to mention afterwards, which being put together, do abundantly show the impropriety, and the worthlesness of such Devotions.  
Thirdly, And as to the Austerities of the Lives of their Monks and Nuns, the Punishments which they inflict on themselves, as they profess for the sake of Religion, by course and uneasy Garments, scanty Food and Far, long and tedious Watch; frequent and cruel Whip, and Lashing, and other such Course and Harsh Treatments, which they use towards their own bodies. I confess I pity them, but can discern little or no true Christian Devotion in them.  
For all Severity to our bodies is not Devotion, or any part of that Self-denial which the Gospel requires; nor is this of theirs, though they pretend it to be for the sake of Religion; but their insisting so strictly on it, and valuing themselves so much on it, is of very bad consequence to Religion.  
All Punishment which men inflict on themselves is not Religion, nor commendable, nor is the patiented bearing of it always a Sign of a true Christian Temper. Christ hath no where told us, that he that can fast longest, or endure most Lashes is the best Man; but he that governeth himself and his Life best. We have strange Instances of this Insensibleness of Pain in many of the worst Principles and most profligate Consciences: The Devil hath his Martyrs as well as God; and if the voluntarily inflicting Punishment on themselves be a Sign of Devotion, the Priests of Baal, 1 Kings 18. must have been a very devout Generation of Men. Therefore it is not any religious commendation of a Man, that he can constantly whip, or lash himself, or bear it from another without flinching: Such a man might have made a good Gladiator, but seems not so well qualified for a Christian.  
Nor is all Punishment which Men inflict on themselves, and say they do it for the sake of God and Religion, always a Sign of true Devotion: For in other Cases, it is not Men's saying that they design well, which will make their Actions acceptable with God; but it is their doing what he hath commanded, and for the ends which he designed and intended, with which he is well pleased. And it too of●en happens, that men do Actions having a show of Sanctity, and of great Self denial, which yet are received by God only, with a who hath required this at your hands?  
Self-denial indeed is commanded in Scripture, and is necessary also to many and excellent Purposes, to subdue a man's Passions and Affections, and to bring him to a right understanding of himself; to put a man in mind of leaving the pleasant things of this World, sensibly to affect him with the Condition of those that are in Misery, and always want th●m, and to inure him to bear patiently the adverse things, or whatever it shall please God to lay upon him. It is necessary that a man should have a mind always ready and prepared to lose all for Christ: And therefore he ought often to deny himself somewhat for the Sake of Christ, that he may give full proof to himself, that his mind is affected as it ought to be: And by voluntary Acts of this Nature he preserves a Power over himself, and is much the more fitted for all the Accidents of Life, and for the Exercise of Devotion.  
But let a man have a care that he keep within due bounds: He may exceed and transgress both in the Measure, and in the End and Design of such Mortification, He exceeds in the Measure of it, when he inflicts such Severity on himself as shall render him unfit for the Service of God, and useless in his Place. God delights not in the punishment of his Creatures, but desi●es their Good here as far as it is consistent with their greater Good hereafter. And though he requires Self-denial of us, it is only in such a measure as is for our Good, in order to the bettering of our Temper, and to cut off the Occasions of Sin in us. And therefore it is a great fault in any man on this pretence to render his Life so uneasy to himself, as that he shall not be able to serve God contentedly, cheerfully, and without Distraction, As a Man may be to blame also for his Charity, when without a just Occasion he throws, or gives away all; For if this Course were allowed or followed, the worst People, and they that know least how to use an Estate well, would be the richest and Owners of all, and the only persons in Authority and Power,  
And he transgresseth also in the end and Design of such Severity, when he pretends to merit by it, and hopes to buy Heaven (which is the Gift of God) with a few Lashes, or a little Money.  
And I have too much reason to under value and dislike the Severity of the Monks on both these Accounts. They often tie themselves up to such Degrees of Strictness as are above the Measures of a man, and consequently not to the purpose of Religion and Devotion. And they always design to purchase Heaven for themselves or other, by the Merits of such Sufferings: At the same time under-valuing the Sufferings of Christ, and over-valuing their own; and yet making them of less worth in in God's esteem then else they would be ' by their own setting so high a price upon them.  
And besides all this, their insisting so strictly on these pieces of Austerity, and placing such Religion and Perfection in them, is of very ill consequence to other purposes.  
It makes men to acquiesce in the means as the end, to content themselves with having performed their Fasts, their Number of Prayers and Lashes, without ever aiming at any Reformation and Change of Temper and Practices; than which nothing can be more absurd in itself, or more contrary to the the Design of Christianity.  
It makes men also to esteem this or that kind of Meat and Drink, Condition or Course of Life, to be unlawful or sinful, which really is not; which doth much harm, even to Religion: For it disparageth God's Creation and brings an evil Report upon the Land. It necessarily makes Men querulous and censorious; and is the very thing which our Saviour took such pains to correct, and did so often rebuke the Pharisees of his Time for.  
And this extraordinary pretence to Severity, brings the Persons of such Men into Esteem, whatever their Principles, Opinions and Practices otherwise are, and so injures Religion. For so ecclestastical History tells us, That those Heretics that have most hurt the Church, were such kind of pretended mortified Men, as Montanus, Pelagius. etc. So that what do these more than others? Do not even the Publicans so?  
And therefore however praiseworthy the Monastic Life might have been formerly, and whatever good might have been done, by some of that Order, Yet thisis'no Plea for the Monks at this time. For the Ancients were very Instrumental in converting many to Christianity; but these only live on the spoil of Christians already made so. And considering the present posture of Affairs in the World, this Monkish way of living is very improper, and the abuses that are made of it in the Church of Rome, are plainly intolerable. Where Men are taught to place Religion in a certain Way and Trade of Life, rather than in a truly Christian conversation. It strikes at the very Foundation of our Religion, for Men to be made to believe, that the living or dying in the Habit of this or that severe Order of Monks, will have an Influence on the Soul, and give it a better Title to Heaven. And yet it is too notorious that these things are confidently taught and believed among them.  
In short, let Men deny themselves as much as they will, for the sake of God and of Religion, to humble themselves for their Sins, and to keep their bodies and Passions under. Let them use their Christian Liberry to the restraint of themselves, by a voluntary self-denial, as far as they find it necessary o●●xpedient; But for this to be brought into a trade, is the most preposterous thing in the World. Especially, let them have a Care of censuring and judging others, who tread not exactly in their Steps, or of over-valuing themselves, on account of this severe and strict course of Life. For it is evident that for the most part it is not Religion brings them thither, or any extraordinary love of Devotion; but their Parents send them thither as a pretty cheap way of providing for their younger Children, that so they may be able the more honourably to dispose of the rest agreeably to the Grandeur of the Family. Therefore if they will commend the Institution of Monastries, as a good and frugal way of breeding up of Youth, or of providing for a spare Child or two, let them do what they will, But it is not to be suffered, that when they serve especially, or only to such Politic ends, yet that they should be boasted of as the best, or only, Christian and Religious way of Life, as if the persons in them were the only Religious, and all others were secular, and in some Measure Profane.  
Besides it is very unreasonable for Persons to be shut up in Monasteries, so as they are, when they are young, and before they can have fully considered what Temptations they may have, or how they shall be able to bear and withstand them; and yet if they have but once, though of a sudden, through their own Melancholy, or the Insinuation of others, taken the vow on themselves, there is ordinarily not revoking or drawing back for ever,  
It is very cruel also for Persons to be put there, without any Consideration of their several Tempers, and Circumstances. For instead of benefiting the public, which they pretend, it robbeth the World of many an one that would have been useful to it in an Active Life and Station. And some by their Tempers do not need such Mortification, as the melancholy and dejected. Others cannot bear the Strictness and Confinement, as the weak and sickly, And now to force this same course of Li●e on all, or such a number of Men indifferently, is like the Cruelty of that Tyrant that would make all men of the same length: And the best that can be said in the the case, is, that the Persons who thus confine and shut up their Children and Relations, are like to the Persecutors, who in the like manner shut up S. Cyprian, which certainly was Cruelty in them, tho' by so doing, they gave him a greater Opportunity for private Devotion. So that in truth I look on the Monastries, as they are now ordered, to be rather a kind of Prisons, and places of Punishment, then convenient places of Retirement in order to the freer and more undisturbed Exercise of Religion and Devotion. And if I am not mistaken, the Church of Rome herself whatever she pretends, really thinks so of them: For the worst punishment that she inflicts on a Priest for one of the worst of Offences, viz. for his violating the Seal of Confession, is, that he shall be condemned to be shut up in a Monastery: and I dare say, that he and I agree in thinking that to be a severe Punishment, rather than an Help to Devotion.  
Secondly, And if the Multitude of Monastries in the Church of Rome is no certain Sign of Devotion flourishing among them, they have little reason to boast of their Works of Charity: For it is most plain that the biggest part of their Charity is turned this way, to the building and endowing Monastries, and to the Encouragement of the Monastic way of living.  
But besides this, though I am very loath to find fault with any pretence to Charity, yet I have too much reason on many accounts to think very meanly of all that which is practised in the Church of Rome: For whatever hath been given to that Church under the Name of charity, and is now enjoyed by it, hath for the most part been ill gotten and is as ill employed.  
And here I will not treat of the temporal Power of the Pope himself; and of the several Principalities which he stands possessed o● in Italy and France; for they cannot be ranged under the Head of charity, according to my acceptation of the Word; though it might be easily made to appear, that they have generally been gotten by unjust and unlawful, or at best by harsh and cruel Means, and such as one would not expect from the Successor of St. Peter. But I concern myself with smaller and more private Benefactions and Gifts, though these are so considerable, that generally a third part, often half the Lands of a Country are the Propriety of the Church. Now all this is gotten chief from men that are dying, who can keep their Riches no longer, and therefore who do not so much give this from themselves as from their Heirs; And is especially, as it were, to buy Heaven; and a man must have a most despicable esteem of Heaven, who will not give all the good things of this Life, when he can no longer use or enjoy them, for the Purchase of it: And what is given from so bad a Principle, is commonly applied to as bad a purpose. It is a common Observation, that in all the Popish Countries the Poor are the most miserable in the World; and their Secular Priests too are generally in a sad condition, notwithstanning the infinite Riches of that Church: And so the Regulars only have any considerable advantage by them; & they also, as it were, club together to set up one great Man as Cardinal, or Head of their Order, in mighty Pomp and State; and heap Riches and preferments on him till he can hardly bear them. So that one can scarcely suppose so great Riches as that Church is in common endowed with, to be gotten into fewer Hands, or do less Good than it doth amongst them. Let them not therefore boast of their Charity, whilst amidst so great Plenty, they suffer the poor to want so extremely; and yet to make a Show, build a fine Hospital in two or three of their chief Towns: For perhaps no where in the World do the rich exalt themselves, and tyrannize over the Poor, no where is there a greater inequality of Conditions; no where is there so much given to the Church and Charity. and no where is the Estate of the Church engrossed into so few Hands, to maintain Grandeur, rather than to be a Relief to Poverty. For the Cardinals not above Seventy in number are maintained out of the Church-Revenues, and yet are by their Creation equal to Kings, and superior to Princes. Now if this be Charity to have a Prodigious Revenue for the Maintienance of the Church and Poor, and yet to employ this to the Luxury of a few, and to let the rest perish I will acknowledge the Church of Rome to be the most charitable Church in the World. And if it be said that a great deal indeed hath been given to good and truly charitable uses, but is now perhaps misemployed: I answer, it is possible it may be so, yet still I have some reason to question it; For their Doctrines of Merit, and of buying Souls out of Purgatory, etc. are enough to spoil their works of Charity, and make them to be rather esteemed a Bargain of Sale than a free Gift. And yet their Donations run commonly in this Form, I give this to such a Monastery for the good of my Soul, or of the Souls of other persons deceased, or for the Honour of such a Saint; But seldom for the good of the Poor, the Maintenance and Support of true Piety and Religion; or for the Glory and Honour of God: And yet in my Opinion such as these are the ends for which a Gift ought to be esteemed charitable, or will be accepted by God as such.  
But now on the other side, though the Church of England own not either Purgatory, or any other of their Pickpocket Doctrines, yet charity urged by us from truly Christian Principles, hath had more force, and done more good than all their Tricks and Devices put together: For so Dr. Willet hath in part shown; and it might be more fully demonstrated, that in these last 120, or 130 Years, since the settling of the Reformation among us, there hath been more and greater Churches, Schools and Hospitals built and endowed, better Provision made for the Poor; more and better care taken, not only for the Maintenance, but especially for the Instruction of the ignorant and meanner sort of People; In short, all parts of Charity more fully exercised, then can be shown in any the like number of Years since Christianity came into this Country. Indeed the general Strain of our People's Charity runs to the doing of more good, and is more properly expressed then theirs is. The Papists build Monastries, in which Provision is made for a few people to live in Idleness and Luxury under pretence of Devotion and Retirement: Ours relieve the Sick and Needy (tho' not Regulars) and think it better Charity to preserve a poor Family from starving (of which so many thousands die in Popish Countries) then to maintain an idle Monk or Nun, or to make a Present to the Lady at Loretto, or offer Candles and Tapers to the Image, or Saint of the Town in which we live. We, by so bestowing our Charity, both honour God, and do good to Men. They do neither, but do Homage to a Saint that neither knows them, nor receives any Good by the Honour which they give them.  
It is in deed confessed, that our Churches are not so adorned as they ought sometimes: But that is no Fault of our Church, but of the Iniquity of the Times, and of those Dissensions which they raise among us; but generally they are decently grave, and as well fitted to assist a devout mind without Distraction as can be. We love to have our churches neat and handsome, to show we do not grudge whatever may be required to make them in some measure a sit place for Divine Worship; but we see not any necessity of having them so splendidly rich and fine; we think it would rather divert men's minds from the Business of the place, then assist them in the Duties of it.  
In short, in no part of Charity can they pretend to exceed us, considering our circumstances, unless it be in that of Prayer for the Dead, when they hire so many Masses to be said for them; but we think not this so much charity to the person deceased, as to the Priest; for he doubtless receives most benefit from it.  
Thirdly, And whatever they pretend, the great number of Saints canonised and commemorated among them, is neither a Sign of the good State and condition of their church, nor is their keeping so many Holy days in remembrance of them any instance of true Devotion.  
As for many of the Saints which they commemorate we own as well as they, and can pretend as good a right in them as they can, because we own, and will submit to whatever can be urged from them, such are the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and Evangelists; and after them also the Bishops, Martyrs and Confessors in the Primitive church: but we confess that we have not the same esteem of many whom they commemorate as Saints, and utterly disallow of their canonising or Sainting of them: For many of them (I believe) never had any being, but in the Fancy of these Saint-makers, who yet are commemorated, and prayed to as well as any others. Such as St. Longinus, under which name they have made a Man of the Spear which pierced our Saviour's Blessed Body. St. Almachius, on Jan. 1. which only comes from the Corruption of Alman ack; Saint Amphibalus, who was only St. Alban's Cloak; St. Ursula, and her 11000 Virgins, of whom no Footsteps can be found in true History. Many of them, I fear, it had been better that they had never been, as being notoriously vicious and scandalous in their Lives. And others, though more innocent, yet if we believe what is written in their Lives, were so prodigiously ridiculous, that a wise and religious man would be ashamed of such company. To hear men in an Ecstasy of Devotion to talk Nonsense, or to preach to Birds and Beasts, to run naked, to wander voluntarily in Deserts. etc. is more likely with sober men, to bring their persons and Actions into contempt and scorn, then to affect them with any quick Sense of Religion; at best it will excite men only to that ecstatical and enthusiastical kind of Devotion, which was in vogue among the Heathens, whose Priests were besides themselves, when they spoke in the Name of their Gods: and their most celebrated Exercises of Religion were such kind of irrational Actions; but there is nothing of this at all countenanced under Christianity: For the Gospel would make us wise as well as devout; and it is not required that we put off the Man, but the Old Man and its Vices when we become Christians.  
And though we are sensible of many among us that have been very exemplary for Virtue and Piety, and have no reason to doubt of their Salvation: but have as full Assurance of it, at least, as they of their Saints; yet we are very shy of canonising or sainting of them, because we know not men's Hearts, nor dare we to presume to dispose so absolutely of Heaven as the Pope doth. We thank God for those that have lived and died well among us, and exhort our People to imitate all the Good which shown itself in them; but we know not to what purpose Canonization is. If it be only to recommend their Virtues to Example, the Canonization of them will signify no more than the bare History of their good Lives faithfully recorded would do; but if it be in order to praying to them, we utterly condemn it. And it is too plain, that this is the end of their being canonised: For from that time solemn Prayer and Invocation is allowed and offered up to them. And this I believe hath been an occasion of falling from the Truth of Christian Doctrine as well as practise: For they taking such a man to be a Saint, think themselves obliged to follow and vindicate whatever he either did or said, as holy and true, not considering that the best of mere Men have been guilty of Mistakes and Imperfections; and then much more may we suspect the Judgement and Understanding, the Virtue and Piety of many of those that fill up the bigger part of the Romish Calendar,  
And for the same reason we think there is not much Religion or Devotion expressed in the keeping up the Memory of such Saints, by so many holidays observed among them.  
If they commend their holidays for the opportunities afforded in in them of serving God in public, we have such Conveniencies in many-places every day.  
If they commend them as days set apart to Rest and Idleness, we are not altogether of their mind; for we think we have as many as our Poor can well spare; and are sure that they have more holy days than their Poor can afford to observe So that their Holy days are no advantage to any. The Rich need them not; because if they have Abilities, they may be idle and luxurious every day: But they are a great evil and Burden to the poor, when they are forced to lose so many days from their Work, by which they should maintain themselves and their Families. And though the Popes, by reason of this Cry of the poor, have been prevailed with to cut off many of those days of Idleness, yet still in most places the Number of them is intolerable.  
Fourthly, As for Images, I should have thought it more proper to range them among the Hindrances of Devotion, did I not see the Men of Rome to plead earnestly for them, as Helps and Assistances, and to blame us for not using them, and paying no respect to them.  
I confess myself not a cute enough to discern how they can any ways advance Devotion: For their paying such Honour and Respect to them as they do own and acknowledge, must needs be a great Distraction, it diverting the Mind, and making Men spend their religious Reverence on that which is exposed to their View: but their paying such Worship to them as they do pay, but are ashamed to own, is flatly destructive to all true Devotion.  
They indeed plead the Ignorance of the People for the necessity of Images, and call them the Books of the Unlearned: but they must first suppose their People insufferably ignorant to need such Helps as these are. And to give the Priests their due, if any Ignorance would suffice to justify such a Practice: they take care to keep their People in Ignorance sufficient: And then if they are so ignorant that they cannot worship God without an Image, the Church cannot be secure, but these so silly People may worship the Image for God or Christ; or at least as having some extraordinary Virtue in it, and so make an Idol of it, especially when they see the Eyes and Hands of the Image to move, and see Miracles wrought by the Touch of it, as is frequently pretended and believed to be done: So that either there is no need of Images, or great danger in the use of them.  
I confess, I am not of Mr. Baxter's Mind, who thinks that they may be properly or safely used to excite Devotion; at least I must confess myself of a different temper from him. Methinks I represent God in greater Majesty to myself, when I consider him in his Works of Creation and Providence, then to see him pictured; as in the Clouds, though with Thunder in his hand. And my Saviour appears more lovely to my mind & thoughts when I consider him as coming into the World and dying for us, then when I see him pictured and carved on a Crucifix. For it is more useful to see him with the Eye of Faith then of Sense, and it is not the Proportion of his Body represented to my eyes, but the Dignity of his Nature, the love that he bore me, and the Passions of his Soul for me, that I admire most, and which no Pencil can draw.  
Besides, a Picture or Image tells me nothing but what I knew before; and it is by what I knew before that I can make sense or any devout use of this Picture; for else I might take it for another profane and idle Story, And I would fain know whither the reading considerately the 26, and 27th. Chapters of S. Matthew will not affect any pious Heart much more than the seeing and contemplating a Picture. Certainly if this will affect the Sense and bodily Passions, the other will more work on our Reason, and that will be to better purpose. Nay, the seeing of any Picture often will naturally make it familiar, and not at all affecting to us.  
5. And if the severity of the Monks to their Bodies is not any great Sign of Devotion, much less can the Austerities used by the common People turn to any great Commendation of the Church. It is true, they are forced to keep Fasts, but it would make a Man laugh to read how their Casuists have defined concerning the modus, the Measure the End of Fasting. Escobar hath resolved it, That no Drink breaks a Fast, be it Wine or Chocolat; and because it is not wholesome to drink without eating, you may eat two Ounces of Bread: For that is but a quarter of a Meal; and if a man should chance to break his Vow of Fasting thus, he is not bound to fast another day for it, unless on a new Obligation. And if all this be too hard, you may be dispensed with for your whole Life; and that whither there be any just cause for it or no. Nay, Servants, though they eat never so gluttonously of the Scraps, they break no Fast. Indeed there need be no Rules set down concerning the Poor People's observing Fasting Days: They are kept low enough without them: And as for the Rich, their Fasting is Mock-fasting, to fast to Luxury, with Wine, and Fish, and Sweetmeats: Is not this great Self denial? If any therefore are still truly mortified, when they can thus help it, I must rather commend their own Piety, and devout Temper, than the Rules and Orders of their Church, which give much Liberty, that a man must have a very cross-grained Appetite, or be in the highest degree sensual, not to be willing to comply with it. We find then no Fault with Fasting being enjoined, and at set seasons: For we our selves commend and practise it; but let it not be to play tricks, but for true and real Mortification, and for the proper end of Mortification, to humble the Body to the Soul, and to bring the Mind to a better Temper; and to these ends is Fasting commanded by our Church; but not as if we looked on this or that kind of Meat to be unholy, or designed to purchase Heaven by our Abstinence, as the Church of Rome doth.  
6. And as for their Pilgrimages, and Worship of Relics, they must needs have less pretence to Religion: For their Fasts, and other Austerities somewhat resemble true Christian Duties; but these have not show that way. If Pilgrimage be enjoined for Penance, than there is no thanks due to the Person performing it.  
If it be voluntary, there is no true Devotion in it: For the Worth of it must consist in some of these Reasons, viz. either, First, That GOD is more present, or Secondly, more propitious in one public place of Worship then another, both which are contrary either to the Nature of God, or his Declaration in Scripture, when he says, In every place a pure Offering shall be offered to him, Mal. 1. 11. And Where ever two or three are gathered together in Christ's Name, he is in the midst of them: Mat. 18. 20. And the teaching otherwise is in some measure to revive Judaisme. which allowed God, as to some cases, to be served acceptably only in one place, or Thirdly, that the Saint is more present or propitious here then any where else: But we are speaking of Devotion to God, not to the Saint; or Fourthly, That it is their punishing themselves that is so acceptable; but that hath been sufficiently discarded already: Or, Fifthly, That going so far, and taking such pains is a sign of their Love: But a man may show his Love to God, and to his Saints too by more proper Instances, and do more good by it, which GOD, to be sure, will better accept, and the Saint, if he be a Saint will like as well. And therefore the making such account of Pilgrimages, seems rather to favour the Mahometan, than the Christian Religion: For the going on Pilgrimage to Mecca, is one of the five indispensable points of the Mahometan Superstition.  
And as for the Veneration of Relics, all the World knows, what a cheat is put on Men, in vending any old rotten Bone, or piece of Cloth, etc. for a Relic of this or that Saint: So that according to a moderate Computation, I suppose scarcely one in a hundred is true: And some have pleaded they need not be true. Now what ever Devotion is performed to, or on occasion of these Relics, can be commendable only in regard of the Mind and devout Temper of the Person; which I think might as acceptably show itself in any other proper time and place: And there is required a long Series of Consequences before the sight of St. Joseph's Axe, or any such other of their Relics, can be pretended to raise a man's Devotion. But it being the chief Trade at Rome to sell feigned pieces of Antiquity, and other such worthless Trinkets at a high rate, I the less wonder that they have such an Esteem for Relics; for it is for their profit to keep up the value of them, they being the principal commodities of the place.  
7. And the belief which they have of the Saints hearing them, and their practice of praying to them, is no proper Encouragement or instance of true Devotion: For all Devotion is properly towards God; and therefore the making of Addresses to any other cannot possibly have any direct Tendency to exalt our Devotion to him, but is really a great hindrance, For it takes men's Minds off from GOD, and sets them on his Creature: And the same time that is spent in Prayer to them, surely is better spent in praying to God, who is more present with us, hears us better, and loves us more. And Men's going to Saints when God is present, naturally tends to provoke God's Jealousy: For he declares himself jealous as to his Worship particularly, to set them up in competition with God, and to create in Men an Opinion, that they are more easily entreated, and readier to do us a Kindness than he is. And therefore though Men may fear God more, yet they will rather love the Saint; and Love is the truest Motive to such Devotion, as will be best accepted with God And yet in this plainly consists all that Court which they make to the Virgin Mary, that she should pacify the Anger of GOD the Father, or of the Son towards Men; they are represented severe, and almost cruel, to render her more amiable to the people in her interceding for them: So they frequently in their printed and allowed Books of Devotion, call her Fountain of Mercy, and Pity, and other Names of the like Importance. Now all the assurance they have of her being tender and compassionate, is only because she is a Woman: but they are assured of God's Mercy, both from his Nature and his Word: They have no Assurance that she, or any other Saint hears them; nor can they show how the Saint can be rationally supposed to know every thing that we do or say; but they are well assured that God hears them: For he is stilled the God that heareth Prayer; which Prerogative of his, by every Prayer to a Saint, they may at least suspect that they entrench on. They are not assured that the Saint can help them; but they may be fully satisfied of his Help, who is Almighty. They have no Encouragement from Scripture for praying to Saints: For though the Angels rejoice at the repentance of a sinner, it doth not follow that therefore every concern of Men is known, or Prayer heard by them; much less that we may pray to them for the Gift of Repentance, or any other Grace, And prayer being so considerable a part of Divine Worship, we need not doubt but the Angels and Saints would refuse it: For so St. John was rebuked for offering to Worship the Angel, though supposed immediately and visibly with him, Worship God, Rev. 19 10.  
So that if they prayed to Saints and Angels only to mediate and interceded for them to GOD, it is more than they have any Warrant or Allowance for. Christ being always represented as the Mediator between God and Man; and the setting up his servants in his Office, is as far as is possible a deposing of him. Nor is it in this case, as it is in Courts on Earth (which is their common Excuse) where a Favourite is made use of to represent our cause and request to the King: For this is done because our Kings do not know our Persons, nor understand our Case, nor can they be present in all places, and hear all causes themselves: so that it is often necessary that Princes should employ and trust other than their own Eyes and Ears. Many things they think below them to inquire particularly into; and sometimes they will do that at the request of a Favourite, which they would not do for the sake of a Person that is not particularly known to them. But there is no Room nor Occasion for this in the Court of Heaven: For God is not only intimately known, but is immediately present to all his Creatures; as he hath declared himself no Respecter of Persons, but to love all, and therefore there is no need of any Intercessor for us, except the Lord Jesus; he affects not empty pomp and state; but his Providence extends to every particular Concern of the meanest of all his creatures; and though he may give some undeserved Favours, as longer Lives, and farther Opportunities of Amendment, etc. for the sake of others Prayers, yet no man is so far his Favourite, as to be able to persuade him to reverse his own Laws, and to save a wicked Person that continues in his Wickedness. On all which Accounts there is no Occasion of praying to the Saints so much as to interceded for us, as the Church of Rome pretends. But to pray to them to bless us, and give us this or that Temporal or spiritual Good, as they of the Church of Rome practice, and to suppose them to have Power to help us in this or that particular Difficulty and Distemper is plainly intolerable: For this is in a great measure to revive Heathenism, by which Men Worshipped this or that GOD for this or that particular Case. They must grant the Saint to have, though not an Original, yet a most certain and derivative Power, according to which he will not fail to assist them that worship him; and in all such Prayer, methinks, they even terminate their Worship on the Saint: For if I pray to a Saint to help me in this or that Difficulty, with a full assurance that this Saint hath sufficient power to help me, though I should grant that this Saint received this Power from GOD, yet my prayers terminate on the Saint. Indeed the Saint is obliged to God for that power; but I seem to own myself only obliged to the Saint, for his applying this his general power to my particular case: Just as I am obliged to a man for giving me an Estate, though he is beholden to the Government and Laws, that either he enjoyed the Estate himself, or was impowered to give it to another.  
Besides that they often pray to Saints for such things, which, if they be only Creatures, they can have no power to give, or to be even so much as the Instruments of conveying to us; and yet it is notorious, they pray sometimes to the Saints for Grace, for Pardon of Sins, and strength against them. So in Benaventure's Psalter, translated into Italian, and published 
Salmi di S. Bonav. in Lode della Virgin, per Giovan Battista Pinello. in Genoa, Anno 1606.  for the use of the People, tho' the Translator and Publisher says, that he had purged it from the Blasphemies which were in the former Editions; yet we find such passages as these to the Virgin Mary, Psal. 7. Come to her all ye that are heavy laden, and she shall give Rest and Refreshment to your Souls. Psal. 40. Cleanse my heart. Psal. 41. Thou art the beginning and the end of my Salvation. Psal. 44. By thy Holiness my sins are purged, and by thy Integrity, Incorruptibility is given to me. Psal. 104 Eternal Salvation is in thy Hund, O Lady, and he that worthily honoureth thee s●all obtain it; And many more Sayings of this nature, or wro●e, if possible. Now can any man say, that such Prayers as these are fit to be offered up to a Creature, or that they are Instances of the Devotion of a Christian, when they are so offered? I am sure that we charge the Heathen with giving Divine Worship to Men, though we can hardly find any Expressions or prayers to their Gods, which are so high, and argue their terminating their Worship on them so fully as these, and other such, which are commonly used by those of the Church of Rome to Saints, and especially to the Virgin Mary.  
8. And whatever they pretend, the constant Trade which they make of Confession and Penance, and their Doctrine concerning them, is so far from encouraging Devotion, that it is enough to destroy all true Devotion out of the World, if the providence of God did not miraculously interpose.  
For though they be very constant in their Confessions of all their Sins to a Priest, yet the frequency of it in themselves and others; makes them not so much as a shamed of themselves; and though they may be more afraid of angering their Priests, yet they have no reason to abhor themselves, or their Sins in the sight of GOD any more for it.  
And when they have thus confessed, their Confessor may enjoin what Penance he pleaseth, or else may leave it to the Penitents own choice as Escobar from Suarez affirms; and men are not used to be very cruel to their own Bodies, or lay a very severe penance on themselves when a lighter will serve; or else the Confessor may say thus, I impose on thee for penance whatever good thing thou hast done, or shalt do this Day, or this Week, or whatever Evil thou hast, or shalt suffer. And Cardinal Tolet is of the same mind too. Now will not this make a man mightily afraid of sinning any more, when his ordinary course of Conversation, and the unavoidable Casualties of life shall be turned into a sufficient Penance, Satisfaction, and Punishment for his Sin? And if the Confessor enjoin no Penance at all, indeed he is to blame, says Escobar; but still it is a Sacrament for all that, because a satisfactory penance is not an essential part of the Sacrament; but an Integral.  
But if after all this the Confessor will impose a Penance, the Penitent may perform what he will of it: For says Tolet, if he do not perform his Penance, his Absolution stands good, only when he comes to Confession next, he must confess that he did not perform his penance and so his Non-performance of penance will pass away in the Crowd of his other Sins, and there is an end of it. And if this please them not, there is an easier way still, if need be: For you may get another man to do your penance for you. Is not this a fine easy way to Heaven, when the fasting and starving of the Poor may be made to serve for a satisfaction for the Sins and Debauchery of the Rich? Indeed Escobar and Suarez, says, There aught to be a just Cause for one's performing penance for another: But here the other distinction will help them, non ad valorem, sed ad justitiam requiritur causa, the penance is valid, though there be no just Cause. And whither there be a Cause or no, it is not doubted, says Escobar, but one may perform the penance for another, if the Confessor will give leave: And it is to be hoped there are some good natured Consessors to be found: But good Cardinal 
* Tolet Instruct. Sacerd. Lib. 3. c. 11.  Tolet is more free and generous than Escobar himself in this point: For he tells the Confessor, That he must impose a lighter Penance, if he sees the Penitent will not perform a harder, without ever telling the penitent, that this lighter will not serve his turn, or without ever putting him in mind of his Danger, or of the necessity of a harder penance; and wholly commits it to the prudence of one Priest to diminish the penance which another had imposed, without so much as once telling him, that perhaps this penance will not suffice. So that in plain terms, by consequence, he resolves it all into the powerof the Priest; ● and neither Confessor nor penitent are any ●a●ther accountable that I perceive, if too slight a penance be enjoined, the Sin is pardoned notwithstanding. And lastly, he goes on, & shows, that though the penitent be enjoined to perform his penance in, on person, yet he may transfer this to another, without his Confessor's leave; and yet he shall obtain the satisfactory part of penance, though not the meritorions, that is, he shall be excused from suffering evil; but shall not merit much at God's Hands by such penance. And indeed I think he is very unreasonable if he expect more: And besides all this, the design of all penance being only to satisfy the Debt of Temporal punishment due to their Sins, there are several easy ways provided by their Church for the discharge of it, besides the sever penance, as e. g. several short Prayers, to the saying of which some scores of thousands of years pardon are annexed, toties quoties; there are large Indulgences granted at Jubilees, and at several other good Times; and may at any time be had for a good sum of Money; And if a man take no care of himself all his Life, yet if he can purchase Prayers to be said for him after his death, it will serve as well. And though the penance be never so easy, and be performed as triflingly, yet the Absolution, by which they suppose the Debt of eternal punishment is discharged, must be as complete and full as possible: For so the aforenamed Cardinal, with a great deal of concern, takes Care that the Absolution be not pronounced conditionally, as, e. g. on condition that you amend your Life, or perform your penance, etc. but it must be pronounced absolutely, without any if or and, thus, I absolve thee, etc.  
Now would not any one think, that the Church of Rome, by this Method of Confessions and Penances so taught and practised among them, rather designs to find out the Temper and Inclinations of People, & to dive into the councils of great Men, or to answer some other such politic End, then to advance piety towards God, or Amendment of Life in the Penitent? I am sure they can have no hearty respect for Devotion, when they are taught to look on their prayers to God, as a severe Penance, and yet which they may be released from by winning a Game at Cards, as is too commonly known.  
9 And their Doctrine concerning the Merit of good Works and Supererogation, as it is false, so we cannot look on it as any Encouragement to devotion; for God will not be served with a lie.  
I confess, if what is required of Men in their Confession and Penances be enough to save their Souls, they may very easily do more than is required: For they cannot do less, if they do any thing, though indeed one would would wonder, that any that consider the Nature of the Gospel, or the Words of our Saviour, should ever pretend to supererogate.  
But supposing their Doctrine to be true in these points, they cannot be thought to advance Devotion, but rather hinder it: For seeing it is somewhat natural for a Man to love his own Alas, every one will be apt to argue with himself, that so many have merited already, that there is no need of what he can do. Nay, it is Folly for him to attempt it. For what need he endeavour to add to a Stock of Merit, which is already infinite, as some have thought?  
And indeed it had need be infinite, else it is to be feared, it is almost, if not quite spent, especially considering the vast Expense of these Merits in frequent Jubilees, and other Indulgences, the Multitude of Sinners, and the little extraordinary Virtue and Piety found among them at this day, to add to their Store; So that methinks it may justly be questioned whither they are not bankrupt before now, their Disbursement so much exceeding their Receipts; and the Credit of their Bank seems to depend wholly on their Old flock of Merit which the Ancients laid up for them; and yet they grant that this was rather casual, then out of Design or good Nature; For the Saints designed only to make sure doing enough for themselves, and it seems that less served their turns then they thought of, and the rest was laid by for the use of such rich Sinners as the Church would sell it to. So that all the Stock of Merit, which the Church of Rome hath so great occasion for and of which there is made so prodigious an Expense, is at the best but a Chance and spare-heap, which they cannot tell how they came by (for every Bishop hath the same Title to such Treasure trove that the Bishop of Rome hath,) nay they have reason to fear there was never any such Treasure: (For I doubt not but the Saints in heaven will thankfully own, that they have received more from GOD than they deserved, or could challenge:) to be sure, they knew not how much there was ever laid up, nor whither the Stock be spent; and yet they spend as freely now, as if they had been only laying up till this time, and that the Treasure were now first opened.  
Many other such Absurdities and unanswerable Difficulties there are in their Doctrine of Merits to the use of others. And is it not a dismal thing, that the Priests of the Church of Rome should teach men to trust in, and as to Salvation, depend assuredly on these, of which they themselves have no manner of assurance nor Ground to hope. Is not this to play with Men's souls and eternal Salvation? And especially can this be urged as an encouragement of Devotion, when, if it were as true as it is false, it tends directly to make Men vicious, and to neglect Devotion: For so a man will think if there be such a Stock in the Church, why should not he have a Share of it as well as another? And if one can merit for another, why should not he depend on others, as well as they on his Merits? And seeing Merits may be bought as the Roman Casuists have adjudged, he may think it very reasonable that others Merits should be given him in exchange for his Money. So the Result of all is this, according to this Doctrine, and the supposed Church-flock, only one thing is needful, and that is Money; and this will fully make up all lack of Piety and Devotion.  
10. And the belief of Purgatory and of the validity of Prayers for the dead, is no proper Encouragement of true Devotion: For true Devotion is such as we perform to God, agreeably to his Will, when we know what we do, and for what ends; and have a promise or hope of Success; but when a man prays to God to deliver a Soul out of Purgatory, he must suppose as true several things which are either false, or at least very uncertain; so that he can never pray in Faith, or without great perplexity and distraction of mind; for he knows not whither there by any such place or state as Purgatory: For Scripture says nothing of it, nor the Fathers of the three or four first Centuries. He knows not whither the Soul that he prays for be in Purgatory (if there should be such a place) for it may be in Heaven or in Hell, for aught he can tell. And if the Soul be in Purgatory, he knows not whither it be Useful or Lawful to pray for it; for God hath given us neither Command, nor Encouragement, nor Liberty so to do, Nay, there are several particulars which they themselves cannot agree on concerning Purgatory, viz. What Sins are punished there? How the Soul without its Body can be tormented there with a material Fire? Who are Gods Instruments in punishing the Souls there? For the Devils are not; and how the Pope by his Indulgences can apply the Satisfactions of Christ and of the Saints so as to deliver any Soul out of Purgatory? And if there be such a place the Pope himself by his Example doth enough to dishearten all Men from endeavouring to deliver the Souls of their Friends from thence: For it is not doubted but he can deliver all out of Purgatory, he having the Command of the Treasure of the Church. And it must needs be a wonderful Discouragement to a Devout Mind, that among so many hundred Popes, their should not be one found so Charitable as to release so many thousands of poor Soul that lie under intolerable pains, and so must lie till the last day, or till the deb● of their temporal punishment be paid, If the Pope can do so much with so little Charge or Trouble to himself, and yet will not do it, surely I have less Reason to do any thing.  
Nor doth it follow, that because it is a part of acceptable Devotion, for one Man to pray for another whilst living here on Earth; that therefore it is as pleasing to God, for us to pray for Souls departed: For our Prayers for others on Earth, are either for Temporal Blessings, or ●or the means of Grace. We pretend not to desire God to reverse his own Laws, and save such a Man, let him be as bad as he will; but to make him Holy first, and then to make him Happy: And to pray any otherwise for another Man, naturally tends to represent it a● feasible to reconcile a wicked Life with the hopes of Heaven; but when a Man is dead he can Work no more, nor make any use of the means of Grace, and therefore there is no room for this Prayer to God for him, he is not capable of Repentance; and Glory, and Amendment; and of being made fit for Heaven.  
Lastly, if they boast of the validity of the Orders of their Bishops and Priests, as an Encouragement to Devotion, the validity of the Sacraments depending so much on the Legality of the Minstry; We answer that we have a Clergy as properly and truly of Christ's sending as any Church in the World; against whose Ordination and Mission nothing can be objected: We deriving the Succession of our bishops, not only from their own Austin, but from the British bishops before his time, which is the only Regular way of Mission that we know of except that of an extraordinary Commission from Heaven as St. Paul had. And I would not that there were that to be objected against us, that is justly objected against them, as to the Succession of their Popes even since the Reformation began. For the Election of Sixtus V, Was most notoriously Simoniacal, and yet one that comes by Simony into the Popedom, is by their own Canon Law, by the Bull or Constitution of Julius II. approved in the Council of Lateran, An. 1513. To be looked on as a Magician, Heathen, Publican, 
Septimi Decretal, Lib. 1. Tit. 3.  and Arch Heretic, and his Election can never be made valid by any after act, and yet several of the Popes since, were either made Cardinals by this Sixius. V Or received that Dignity from those that received it from him; which is the very case of this present Pope Innocent Eleventh.  
As for their Unity, it is plain that they have more divisions among themselves, than they can charge us with. For they have not only such as openly descent and separate from them, but great and violent dissensions among their own Members, and such as live in the Communion of their Church, one against another, and each party pleads the Doctrine of the Church, and Decisions of its Councils. And yet the Pope himself, notwithstanding his Infallibility and Authority, either cannot or darr not determine which is in the Right, or which Opininion is True.  
So that what ever Power and Authority their Church hath, it hath no effect to such ends and purposes, to which Church-Power is designed to serve, the encouragement of Holiness and Virtue, and the discountenancing of vice, the Preservation of the Doctrine in Purity, and of the Members at peace one with another. It is true they are more able to see the Laws of their Church Duly executed; but it is to their disparagement to have so much Power, and yet to do so little good w●th it. As for us, we had rather deserve more than we have, then that it should be said that we have more power than we deserve. And whatever Power our Church wants, and whatever loss Religion suffers by this means, we justly Charge the Church of Rome with the guilt of it, who have made all Princes jealous, and afraid of all Church-Power; by their invading their temporal Rights under pretence of a Spiritual Jurisdiction.  
In short, though somewhat may be said for the worst thing, and a very bade Cause may have a great deal pleaded in its Vindication, as we have seen in all the foregoing Helps and Instances of Devotion; which the church of Rome boasts of; yet if we consider them, they all in some respect or other come short of what they pretend to; several of them being very improper, many plainly Nonsensical and Ridiculous, they proceed from bad principles, are done in an undue Manner and Measure, or to serve some bad end or design, or some such other way offend; even the most severe practices, which most resemble true Self-denial, are countenanced or enjoined rather to make a show, or to gratify some tempers, then to advance Devotion; for excesses and over-actings are often Infirmities, and the effects of Weakness; steddiness being the most certain sign of Strength, as the shaking palsy is a Disease and sign of weakness, as well as the Dead one.  
3. I now come to consider such things in the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of Rome, as tend directly to promote Debauchery of Manners, and Carelessness in Devotion.  
I'll insist only on these few, among very many.  
First, The unlimited Power which they ascribe to the Church, or to the Pope as Head or Monarch of it: For the people are taught that he can make null Duties that were made necessary by God, and make necessary what was not so before. The consequence of which Doctrine is plainly this, that a Man may safely disobey and neglect the serving of God, if he pay but his due respects to the Pope. And yet their Casuists have defined that the Pope can dispense with Sins, or give leave to do things forbidden by the law of God, as well as pardon them when committed, as in the Dispensations with unlawful Marriages. And on the other side he can excuse them from doing what they are by their Duty to God bound to do, as in his Dispensations with Vows though made never so solemnly to God himself. That is, he can Bind where God hath left us lose, and he can lose where God has bound us. Nay, a Superior can give a Dispensation even when he doubteth whither it be lawful or no; because in a doubtful case the milder side is to be taken. And if the Reason ceaseth for which the Dispensation was given, yet the Dispensation doth not cease: Nay, a Dispensation may be granted where there is no Reason or Cause for it; and yet the Dispensation is valide notwithstanding. And not the People only, but every Bishop and Priest hath his Share of this Power, only there are some reserved and more profitable Cases, which his Holiness only can dispense in. And though I cannot tell what they think, yet I am sure their Casuists are very shy of saying, that the●e is any Case in which there may not be a Dispensation granted for the doing of it; or a Pardon for it when it is done.  
And all Indulgences are directly designed to hinder Devotion, for they are given to free Men from Necessity of Mortification, frequent Alms and Prayers, etc. Which else would have been enjoined as Penance; and yet we know that these are the chiefest parts of Devotion.  
And as their general Doctrine concerning the validity of Pardons and Indulgences is very destructive of all true Piety and Religion: So,  
Secondly, Their constant Practice of giving Absolution before Penance, is in a more especial manner influential to that purpose. For the People are taught to believe, that by the Priests saying, I absolve thee; etc. the sin is actually pardoned by God: And though indeed their Guides of Confessors advise that Absolution should not be given till Penance be imposed and accepted, yet when the Confessor thinks that the Penitent will accept of the Penance, he may absolve him first: That is, the Person may be absolved before he accept the Penance, or even promise to perform it; but it is their constant Method to absolve him before Penance be actually performed.  
Now if their Absolution be of force, the Person is free from his sin, and sure enough of Heaven, whither he perform any penance or no: Which Practice gives all imaginable Encouragement and Licence to Sin; the fear of penance being the only restraint from Sin which they pretend to; for if the sin be fully pardoned before Penance be accepted or performed: I see not why a man should trouble himself much for the performance of his Penance: he sees plainly that it is only an Appendix that is used to be annexed to Absolution, but is neither necessary in itself nor for Absolution; the Sin is pardoned already, and at the worst there is only some temporal punishment to be satisfied for, which he may get rid of several other ways.  
Nay indeed the true and ancient Notion of penance is utterly destroyed, by its being imposed and performed after Absolution. For penance according to their primitive use of it, was a severe course of Life prescribed to a person that had grieviously offended, as a proper Method for him, at the same time to testify his own sorrow for his Sin, and abhorrence of it, and to create in him an Aversation to the like for the time to come; and also to satisfy the Church of all this, that so he might be admitted to absolution and the Communion: And therefore their Penances were always public, and indeed is it by public Penance only that all these so good ends can possibly be answered: but now in the Church of Rome; the Offender is pardoned without any thing of this, he is not put to any grief for his Sin before he be absolved. It is left wholly to his own Honesty and Generosity whither he will perform any Penance for his Sin. Nay indeed so loath are they to appear severe against sin, or cruel to the sinner; that when in the Council of Trent some would have revived this Discipline, by enacting public Penance, they were violently opposed and overruled; tho' St. Gregory a Pope of Rome had held it to be of Divine Right: and their Casuists since teach that a Confessor cannot, or ought not to enjoin a public penance: So that by this means a Man is not so much as to be put to the blush for his Sins; for no such Penance must be imposed by which the Sin may be known, and he is sure that the Confessor to save a Kingdom darr not reveal or discover it.  
Thirdly, Their Doctrine concerning the Nature of several Sins, is such as must needs rather encourage Men to continue in Sin, then deliver us from it; and will spoil all true Devotion to God, and that due regard that we ought to have to his Commandments.  
They tell us there is a vast number of Sins in their own Nature Venial, which are so very inconsiderable that an 
Escobar Tract. 2. Exam. 1. cap. 4.  infinite number of them altogether will not deprive a man of the Grace and Favour of God, or make up one Mortal sin, and for the Pardon of which there is no need or occasion for the Mercy of God: And yet they have no certain Rules to discover whither a sin be Mortal or Venial, so that men are in wonderful danger of being cheated in a matter of so great Moment as their Eternal Salvation.  
They tell us also, that Habitual Sin, is only a Slain left by former voluntary Sins, and a Deprivation of 
Escobar Tract. 2. Exam. 1. cap. 2.  habitual Goodness; but hath nothing else that is evil in it. From which Doctrine it necessarily follows that a man is guilty only of those Sins which created this Habit, and that there is not an habitual Repentance, or Course of Life required to get pardon for habitual Sins; but a few or perhaps one single Act of Contrition will serve. So that the more a Man sinneth the better he may, and it is a piece of true Prudence to get an Habit of all Sin betimes; for a Man is accountable only for those sins which preceded the Habit; all the Sins which follow it will pass under the name of Inadvertencies, and as such can be esteemed only as a kind of Venial sins.  
And they not only allow the Church Power to command what doth not belong to her in many Cases; but give such Authority to her commands, as to make the Disobedience to them the greatest of all Sins, and make way for the breaking of the Laws of God, that they may keep those of the Church. So Marriage hath been adjudged a greater Sin in a Priest then Fornication, because the Priests are obliged to Celibacy by the Laws of the Church, and their own Vow; as if they were not by the Laws of God, and their Vow of Baptism more obliged to obstain from Fornication; and accordingly for Marriage, a Priest is excommunicated or deposed; but for Fornication he is only obliged to confess it secretly among his other sins; and the Gild and Irregularity of it is done away by Absolution. Indeed they bring almost all sins under the Head of Discipline, not only by pretending to give Pardon and Dispensations for most sins that can be committed; but also when they compare sins, they are always most earnest against such as transgress the Command of the Church. So. v. g. When Escobar asks the Question, What if I communicate unworthily at Easter? He answers, That by so doing, I fulfil the command of the Church, which is what I am immediately bound to: And passeth over the Duty of Self-examination and Preparation so strictly enjoined by St. Paul, as not worthy to be considered: And so in innumerable other cases, by which means indeed they create a great Veneration for the church, or for that which they call the church, but thereby make the commands of God of none effect.  
Fourthly, Their very Doctrine concerning their Prayers and Devotions, and their Practice consequent on it, is such as is altogether inconsistent with the Nature of true Devotion: For, according to the Church of Rome, the outward Act will suffice in many cases, though nothing of the Mind go along with it; particularly as to Prayers Escobar from Coninth and Durandus affirms, that neither an actual, nor virtual Attention is required when a man prayeth; and they give an excellent Reason for what they say, viz. Because the Church hath no Power in hidden cases, but only in the case of Auricular confession: As if in Prayer only the power of the church, and Obedience to its commands were to be regarded: And he confirmeth his Assertion with this other most cogent comparison, That an outward Act of Devotion, or Prayer only with the Mouth, is a true Act of Prayer, tho' without the Intention, as an outward Act of Adoration of an Idol, though without the Intention, is a true Act of Idolatry. So that for a man to mind what he doth when he is at Prayers, or to be earnest in his Desires of that which he prayeth for, though it may possibly be a commendation, and accomplishment, yet it is not necessary either to the pleasing of God, or satisfying of his Duty according to the Church of Rome. Nay, it is a praise for a man to draw nigh with the mouth, and honour him with the Lips, though the Heart be far from God, notwithstanding that our Saviour, after the Prophet Isaiah, blamed the Jews for so doing. Indeed such a kind of superficial Christians will this Doctrine make, that a Pharisee would have been an excellent Man, if he had lived in these days.  
And pursuant to this doctrine of no-necessity of Attention at prayers, they take care that the people shall not be able to attend to what is done; and therefore provide that the public prayers and the Scripture itself shall be only in a Language unknown to the people, and are so desperately fond of this Device of keeping the people ignorant of what is prayed for, that their Casuists have defined, that a Man may say his Office privately in other Languages besides the Latin, as in Hebrew, or Greek, but not in the Vulgar Language; at the same time keeping the people in Ignorance, and discouraging them in their devotions, and exercising their Authority over them in the most dangerous manner that can be.  
6. Their ascribing spiritual Effects to several things which are purely of their own Invention, is much to the discouragement of true devotion towards God. And yet they have very many things of this Nature: As Holy Water, by the being sprinkled with which, they believe the Devil shall have less power over them: Agnus Dei's, Swords and Medals which they wear to preserve them from dangers; which being consecrated according to the Rules of their Church, have through the devotion of the persons, and the power of the Church, a wonderful good effect, though indeed God never promised any such thing.  
To this Head I may refer also, their Rosary, which is nothing else but an odd combination of Pater nosters and Ave Mary's. Several short prayers to the saying of which thousands of years of pardon of Sins are annexed: Their carrying the Image of St. Genovefa in procession at Paris, and other Images in other places to obtain Rain, etc. And innumerable other such like practices, on which Men are taught to rely, and to expect great good by, though they have neither any natural force or efficacy that way; nor any assurance from God that such effects shall follow. Nay even the Sacraments themselves according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome are only such a kind of charms; for they are supposed to work effectually on the person, without any devotion or Virtuous disposition being required of him in order to it.  
Now whatever effect they promise above what the natural efficacy of the thing is apt and able to produce, they must have express Authority from God, or else they sadly delude and cheat those poor souls that depend upon them. And at the best they are supposed only a shorter cut to Heaven, an easier way of pleasing God and getting his Blessing, and are invented only to ease a Man of the fatigue and trouble of the common and ordinary road of serving him by a constancy and regularity of Devotions.  
Seventhly, Their Manuals and books of Devotion which they give their People to read, instead of the Scripture which they forbidden to be used, though they may design them as Helps, yet I must range them among the Hindrances of Devotion.  
For the best of them are so full of Tautologies and vain Repetitions, that they must needs come vuder the censure of our blessed Saviour, Matth. 6. though they use his own holy Name. For so in the Jesus Psalter, at the end of the Manuals of Prayers and Litanies printed at Paris in English, An. 1682. In a Litany of fifteen Petitions, the Name Jesus is repeated over above 130 times. And in the same book, in the Litany of the blessed Virgin, they pray to her by 40 several Names, being only so many distinct praises of her. And the like is observable in all their books of Devotion which I ever saw. Now their saying the same thing so often over, is not contrived to help and Assist Attention, or prevent Distraction, or as a Repetition of what is more than ordinarily important, or for any other good and prudent Reason, but out of pure vanity and Ostentation, or as it were even to flatter our blessed Saviour, or the Saint which they pray to.  
But most of the books and Legends which they put into the hands of their People to excite their Devotion, and by which the People take an estimate of the Christian Religion, are such wretched plain Forgeries and so pitifully contrived Fables, as can never be believed by Men of sense, and if they could be believed, are proper indeed to make Men Mad and Enthusiastical, but not to advance true Devotion; and he that reads only such books is qualified indeed to tell Stories and to believe Lies, but no serious truth will stick to him or be valued by him. So that such books as these are so far from doing good, that they do much harm to Religion, for they Imprint a wrong Notion of Religion on men's Minds; would make a Man believe that God is like a child pleased with Trifles, that Religion and the Method of our Salvation is only a Charm and Trick, which the Priests have gotten the receipt of; but that there is nothing in Christianity fi● to make a man wise and manly in his Worship of God, or in the management of himself and practice of Devotion. Nay the stories which are told in the Lives of their Saints, and believed by the common people, are enough even to deprave the natural Sentiments of Mankind concerning God and Religion, so that perhaps it were much better to leave Men to the natural effluxes of their own minds, then to pretend to assist them with such Helps as these. That a little Water or a consecrated Bell should scare the devil, or St Francis' rope charm and bind him, would make a man have little fear of such an Enemy, or a prodigious Veneration for such a Saint; but how it should render a Man more piously affected toward GOD, more relying on his Providence, or more Religiously Careful over himself, I see not: And these Stories though so apparently false, yet being affirmed with such Confidence, strike at the very Foundation of our Religion; For it is apt to make Men believe that Christianity itself was at first propagated among a sad, dull, stupid, and credulous Generation of Men; (when as really it first appeared in an Age as sharp-sighted, as any Age before or since, which is much for its Vindication.) It would tempt a Man to despise a Religion in which such Men are Saints, and such Practices commended; and will set Christianity but on the same level with modern Judaisme and Mahumetanism; For the Jews have just as much to say for their Cabbala, and the Turks for their incredible Fables; for they are reported on the same Credit, are just so credible in themselves, and just as edifying of the People that attend to them: The Miracles which they relate being often Just so useful, as that pretended to be wrought in the Temple of Apollo; when a Man coming out of the Temple, it was observed that his body did not cast any shadow; by which thing however strange in itself, the Man was not much the better, nor the World wiser,  
But many of their Books of Devotion are worse than ridiculous; for there are frequently such passages and prayers as I cannot tell how to vindicate from Blasphemy and Idolatry. Saint Bonaventur's Psalter both in Latin, and Italian I mentioned before, in which there are I believe a thousand such Prayers to her, or Expressions concerning her, which I confess I could not with a safe Conscience say of any Creature. And Albertus Magnus the Master of St. Thomas Aquinas hath not only 12 Books of the Praises of the Virgin Mary, but also a distinct Book called Biblia Mariana, in which he applies several places of Scripture to the Virgin Mary; as if she were prefigured in several passages of the Old Testament as well as her Son: So Gen. 1. 1. that she was that Heaven that God made. Gen. 1. 3. She was the Light which God there made, and so on through almost the whole Scripture: And however Cautious they are in the Books which they Print in English for the use of their Converts here: yet in them we find often such say to or of the Virgin Mary as I cannot reconcile with Christianity; for so in the Manual quoted before, in the Prayers for Women with Child they sing thus to her.  

Hail to the Queen who Reigns above.  
Mother of Clemency and Love, etc.   
Elsewhere they pray thus to her, page 1●6: O blessed Mother assis● my Weakness in all my Da●●ers and Necessities, in all Temptations to sin, and in the hour of my Death, that through thy Protection I may be safe in the Lord. Where the Lord indeed is mentioned, out of Compliment, and for Fashions sake, but they had first begged of the Lady as much as they wanted or could desire: and pag. 80. they call her Spouse of the Holy Ghost, Promise of the Prophets, Expectation of the Patriarches, Queen of the Angels, Teacher of the Apostles, strength●●● of Martyrs, Faithful comforter of the Living and Dead. Now if they print such things in English, what do they print in Spanish? If they do such things in a green Tree. what shall be done in a dry? And I fear that even their nicest Casuists give too much Countenance to this so gross Practice: For they have determined that Honours above civil, c●ltus Hyperduliae are due to the Virgin Mary, that is in plain English, Divine Honours must be paid to her. For it must be a very Metaphysical head that can in this sense apprehend a kind of Honour above civil, and yet not divine; it must be somewhat like his, that would pretend to find a mean between Creator and Creature, between Finite and Infinite.  
Lastly, this is most notorious, that they enjoin acts to be used, and propose Objects of Worship which they themselves cannot deny but there is danger of offending in them, and even of falling into that Idolatry; and yet take little or no care of giving caution concerning them; and if the grossest abuse should happen, there is scarcely any possibility of redress.  
Indeed wherever they speak of Veneration due to Relics and Images, of worshipping of Saints, and especially the Virgin M●●y, they always seem as if they cared not how much Honour were to paid to them; only they must make as if they put some Re●●●iction on it, for the sake of the Reformed who would exclaim against them: And therefore their Command for the worshipping of them is general and absolute; but the Limitations are so nice and forced, that one may easily see that they very unwillinglie deny any Worship to be paid to them. For so the wary council of Trent speaking of Images, says They are to be kept, and due Honour and Veneration paid to them: And though by and by they seem as if they would limit this Honour, yet presently they put in such words as make that pretended Limitation to signify nothing: For they tell you. That whatever Honour you pay to the Image, goes to the person represented, (v. g. to our Saviour) it seems the Honour is paid to him whither we intent so or no: And hence you may easily gather what Honour is due to to the Image of our Saviour, and how little fear there is of paying too much Honour to it: For I suppose we are all agreed there is no fear of paying too much Honour to our blessed Saviour; and whatever Honour is paid to his Im●●● is paid to him, if we can believe these Gentlemen. And agreeably hereunto, it is very rare to hear of any person censured or blamed for paying too much Honour to Images, though surely it is as possible for men to be Idolaters now as in the former Ages; and I suppose that neither the common people, nor all the Priests are Men of such extraordinary Understanding and Learning, as to be altogether free from the like Temptation. Nay, the Caution which is given ●eems only to concern, Imagines falsi dogmatis, & Rudibus periculosi Erroris Occasionem praebentes; but there is not one word concerning the abuse which may be made of the Image of Christ, or of a true Saint: There is no Provision made that Men be warned not to perform too much Devotion in their Minds to a good Image.  
And by what this Council says, the Priest understands well enough what it intends; and therefore scarcely ever dar● preach against the excess and abuse of Images, Relics, etc. Tho' they cannot but ●ee it actually committed every day.  
And now if their should happen to be any Idolatrous Worship paid to an Image; tho' the Bishop hath power indeed to set the Image up; yet he hath not power to pull it down, or to correct any abuse concerning it; without the leave of the Archbishop and other Bishops of the Province, and even of the Pope himself. So unwilling do they seem that any Provision should be made for redressing abuses in so great and common a Case as the excess in Worship of Images must needs be, v. Council. Trid. Sess; 25.  
Lastly, as we have seen how deficient and very faulty the Church of Rome is in her pretences to Devotion, we'll now consider what Provision is made for the due Exercise of Devotion among ourselves, that we may thank God for our being settled in the Communion of the Church of England, and may learn to be conscientiously strict and ●●gular in our own, as well as to despise the Romish Devotions. And in order hereunto. I reckon that these four things are especially to be regarded.  
First, That among us none but the true Object of Devotion is proposed to be worshipped. God the Father Son and Holy Ghost, none of the most blessed Angels, or Saints in Heaven being ever invocked, or adored by us. For we look on them only as our Brethren, and Members of the same Church with us, triumphing indeed whilst we are here below still in our Warfare. We thank God for them; and keep Feasts in the Memory of them, at the same time praising God for his Goodness and Grace bestowed on them, and shining forth in them, and also stirring up ourselves by such Commemorations to follow their good Example, and this we think is as much as is due from us to our fellow Creatures, and believe that neither God allows, nor do they expect more from us.  
Secondly, Only proper expressions of Devotion, are commanded or allowed by our Church. For the matter of them they are such as God himself hath required to be served by, are significant of that disposition of Mind which we know God accepts, and have an aptness to the producing of that temper in us which God intends to work us up to by them: We use all the Instances of Devotion which they of the Church of▪ Rome use, if they be either necessary or fit; though indeed often to other and better purpose. We pray constantly, but only for the living; for we look on the Dead as past the means of Grace, and consequently past the benefit of our Prayers. We praise God for his Excellencies in himself, and thank him for his Goodness to others as well as to ourselves: We practise Confession of Sins to God in public, and in private, and advise it to be made also to the Ministers of God's Word, when it is necessary for Ghostly Council and Advice, for the satisfying of their Consciences, and the removal of Scruple, and Doubtfulness: but we cannot say it is necessary to be made to Men in order to the Pardon of God: We reckon it rather as a privilege or advantage then a Duty. And if Men will not make use of this privilege, as often as there is Occasion unless we tell a lie to advance the credit of it, we cannot help that. We enjoin Fast and disallow not of Penances, but advise People to take an holy revenge on themselves when they have sinned; but not as the Papists do to satisfy for their sins, or merit at God's hand, but to show the sincerity of their Repentance, and to strengthen their Resolutions of amendment; for it is our amendment, and not our punishment which God is pleased with. And we take care that all these things be performed in a due measure, proportionably to the strength of the Person, and the Nature and Design of the Duty; but are afraid of straining them too high, lest men should be altogether deterred from them, or acquiesce only in the outward Action, or render ourselves and our Cause ridiculous by an imprudent management. We have the Sacraments duly administered, as our Saviour commanded them; we reckon our Baptism with Water perfect without Oil or Spittle: We grudge not the cup to the Laity, nor celebrate solitary Communions, nor admire whispering to God in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, but as we have received from Christ, so we teach and administer, without Addition or Diminution of any thing essential or material. In short, in the holy Offices themselves, and the behaviour which our Church requires they be celebrated with, there is always a great propriety observable, agreeable to the command of God in Scripture, and the practice of the Apostles and first Ages of the Church, proper to the several parts of divine Worship, expressive of our Sense, consonant to Reason, and the use of the World, especial respect being always had to the exciting of Piety and Devotion in the minds and carriage of our fully afforded and pressed on Men. For we not only have all our Service in a Language which the meanest People understand, but have it so contrived by frequent Responses, that every Person bears a part in that Worship which he is so much concerned in, and doth not only hear the Priest speak to God Almighty, but prays for himself, and is required to join his assent to every short Prayer by a distinct Amen. With us the same Service and Rules of Life are enjoined to all, all Men having the same Concern in another Life however different their Circumstances and Concerns are in this Life. We have constant Prayers in every Parish weekly at least, in many daily, with the blessed Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ frequently administered, nay every Sunday, not only in Cathedrals, but in several Colleges and private Parish Churches. And we appeal to all Men whither there be any where more practical Sermons, fitted to the Cases of Men, without Vanity and Superstition, then among us; Whither good and free Learning be any where more encouraged, or where better care is taken fo● the due instruction of the People: The Scriptures being in every one's hands, with us, and other excellent Books made according to the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, instead of Legends and Lives of Sai●●●, St. Bonaventure's Psalter, and other such Books which are really Libels against Christianity, and yet are the principal books which the Priests of the Church of Rome commend to their People: For as for the Bible, if any one of them hath happened to read in it, who is not licenced to that purpose, he must own it as sin to his Priest at his next Confession.  
And as there are such blessed Opportunities afforded so constantly, and such Prudent provision made for all Cases Ordinary and Extraordinary, so I thank God, we can say that our people are generally very diligent in the use of these Means; (and would be more so, were it not for the Division, which they of the Church of Rome especially raise among us.) For they may easily perceive that we urge no more on them than their own good, and the commands of God require of them ● though our church knows her Power very well, yet she makes use of it only to ensorce the Laws of God, to explain, illustrate and apply them to particular Cases, but never to set up her own commands in Opposition to them, as the Church of Rome doth; and therefore though we teach our People to dread an Excommunication, it being sammum fut●ri Judicii Praejudicium, as Tertullian calls it, a foretaste or forestall of the last Judgement; and not for a World to lie under it, though it were inflicted only for contempt; yet we warn them in the first place to avoid the Cause and Occa●ion of Excommunication, and therefore not to value what Censures of the Church of Rome we are under, they being so very unjust and Groundless.  
Fourthly, and lastly, as only the true Object of Devotion is here worshipped, only proper Expressions allowed, all useful Helps afforded; so also the greatest stress is la●d on the practice of it; agreeable to the true Nature, End and design of it. The principal ends of Devotion are to pay a Homage to God our great Creat●● and Benefactor, to get his Blessing, and to work ourselves up to a better temper of ●●ind● And to this end we are in our service importunate without Vanity or Impertinency, long without Tediousness, or Idle Repetitions; (Only we use the Lord's Prayer often, that no part of our service may be without that perfect form, and also in Consideration of the great Comprehensiveness of it, and of the Distraction of Men's Minds which seldom can attend to the full sense of it all at one time.) And we teach our People that every Man must work for himself, for he that prays only by a proxy, it is very just that he should be rewarded only by a Proxy too; we put our People in mind that an unfeigned Repentance is absolutely Necessary, and not a Verbal one only: That it is out of our power, and of any Man's in the World to turn Attrition into contrition. We pretend not to dispense with any for not obeying the Command of God. We have no Taxa Camere by which the Papists are shown how all sins are fined in their Church; for in that Book Men see at what Charge they may kill a Father, or commit Incest with their Sisters: But we assure all, that the Wages of sin is Death, Death Eternal, if indulged and not most earnestly repent of. And we tell all that Devotion is necessary for all, though the Church of Rome hath ways of gratifying every Inclination, so as they that will not lead a strict Life, need not, and yet may have hopes of Salvation: We own their Policy in this Contrivance, but do not so much admire their Religious regard to the Salvation of men's Souls.  
And to conclude, though we thus forcibly press all Christian Duties on all Men; yet at the same time we warn them not to pretend to Merit Heaven at God's Hand; but after they have done their best; to confess they are unprofitable servants. We say of our Charity or whatever else we do in Obedience to God, that of his own we give to him, and we are bound to thank him both for the will and the Ability to give. The most that we pretend to ', is only to make a small Acknowledgement by way of Sacrifice for what we have received; we beg of God to accept it as a Testimony of a grateful Mind, and we know that his Goodness is so great, that he will abundantly reward an honest and sincere servant, though he hath done no more than was his Duty: And we hope that what we offer though mingled with many Imperfections, he will be pleased to accept for the sake of Christ as if it were perfect.  
These are the Grounds that we go on in our Devotions ' and whatever we do for the Honour of God; and thus designing and thus acting and persisting, we need not doubt but the good Providence of God which watcheth over his whole Church, will in an especial manner watch over this which is so pure a Member of it: that he will accept of the Devotions which are offered to him in it, and hear the Prayers that are made unto him for it, and defend it against all its Enemies on every side; which God of his Infinite Mercy grant for the sake of Jesus Christ our Lord.   

A DISCOURSE Concerning Invocation OF Saints.  
How shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed? Rom. 10. 14.  
EDINBURGH, reprinted by John Reid, Anno DOM. 1686.   

A DISCOURSE Concerning Invocation 〈◊〉 Saints.  
AMongst many other very corrupt and erroneous Doctrines of the Romanists, the Church of England in her twenty second Article condemns that of Invocation of Sai●●s, as a ●ond thing, vainly invented and grounded upon no warrantry of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God; and in her Learned Homily against the peril of Idolatry passes yet a much severer Censure upon it, and makes all those that believe and practise it, Guilty of the same Idolatry that was amongst Ethnics and Gentiles. How sharp soever this charge may be thought to be, 'tis, you see, the plain sense and judgement of our Church, and what I believe is the Truth, and no hard matter to make good.  
To proceed therefore in the easiest and clearest method I can, I purpose to sum up all that I think needful to be said upon it under these following heads.  
1. What's the professed Doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome as to Invocation of Saints?  
2. On what occasion it began and spread in the Church?  
3. That there is not the least p: ● of for it from Scripture.  
4. That there is no proof for it from the Fathers of the first three hundred years, and more.  
5. That there is full and evident proof in Scripture against it.  
6. That the Fathers of the first and purest Ages, till after three hundred, are all express and positive in th●●● writings against it.  
7. That the Doctrine and Practice of Saint-Invocation is impious and Idolatrous.  

I. What's the professed Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome as to Invocation of Saints.  
AN Account of this I shall give you first in general, as it is set down in the decree of the Trent▪ Council, and then lay it before you more at large distributed under several particulars.  
In the twenty fifth Session of that packed Synod we have its decree in these words; That all Bishops and Pastors that have the cure of souls do diligently instruct their Flock that it's good and profitable, Humbly to pray unto the Saints, and to have recourse to their prayers, help and aid; And then to reinforce the Obligation of it, it denounces an Anathema against all those who shall find fault with it, or refuse to practise it; so that now whosoever shall be so hardy as to think and teach the contrary, to say, that either it ought not to be done, or that it's a foolish thing to do it; that the practice is little less than Idolatry, repugnant to the Glory of God as sole Governor of the World, and highly injurious to the Honour of Christ as the only Mediator betwixt God and Man, does in the judgement of that Church, think impiously; and if the Pope's Power as well as his Infallibility does not fail him, he most be Cursed and Damned for it. But, for once, not to be frighted with his vain Thunder, I shall proceed in due place by God's assistance to prove all the foregoing particulars against it, when I have given you yet a fuller description of it. First, then,  
1. The least and most excusable thing in this Doctrine and practice, is, to pray to Saints to pray for them. Thus much is not only confessed by them, but made the pretence to bring off this Doctrine without the charge of Idolatry and Creature▪ Worship; We do no more in praying to Saints departed, say they, than one living Christian does to another, when he says, pray Sir, pray for me, or remember me in your prayers. But, was this indeed the true meaning of such Devotions, it's so far from being any justification of them, that the Apologly itself is sinful, and admitting the excuse, the practice no less to be condemned: For,  
When they Pray to Saints departed to pray for them, those Saints do either hear their prayers and become acquainted with their desires, or they do not; If they do hear all those prayers that are put up to them at the same time by innumerable persons, and that in far distant places. what's this but to ascribe to them that ubiquity and omnipresence, that's solely, peculiarly and incommunicably in God? If they do not, then it's very absurd and ridiculous, and a great abuse of that reason God hath given men for other ends then to trifle with, to Pray to them. For, to what purpose should they Pray to them that can't hear them? Why should they beseech those to be their Advocates to God and recommend their particular cases to him, whose cases they cannot, by any way that we know of, come to understand? As for their Learning and seeing all things in the Glass of the Trinity, or learning them by particular revelation from God; as God has declared no such thing to us, so is it not to be known by the Light of Nature, but the contrary is very probable, if not certain; as shall be made to appear in the sequel of this Discourse. It is not denied but that blessed Spirits who are safely landed upon the Shore, do pray for their Partners who are still behind beating it on the Waves; it is not denied but that Saints in Heaven may Pray in particular to God for their Friends and Relations, whose necessities and infirmities they were well acquainted with before they left the Body; so 'twas agreed betwixt St Cyprian and Cornelius, that who went first to Glory, should be mindful of the others condition to God; for, why should their Memories or their Charity be thought to be less in Heaven than they were on Earth; We know 'twas the practice of some good Men in the Primitive times to recommend themselves to the Prayers of the Saints, that is, to desire God to hear the Prayers that the Saints in Heaven did make in their behalf; and to apply themselves to the Martyrs a little before their suffering, when they themselves were entered into bliss, to interceded with God for those who were yet on the way passing thither with fear and trembling. But now is there no difference betwixt the Saints intercessions for us and our Invocation of them? Betwixt their Praying for us in Heaven and our Praying to them on Earth? Is there no difference betwixt one Living Christian Praying to another to Pray for him, who hears his request and who is acquainted with his condition, and our addressing to Saints departed to pray for us, who know us not, and who are are ignorant of our state?  
Again, when they pray to Saints departed, they do it with all the Rites and Solemnities of a Religious Worship, in sacred offices, upon their Knees, with uncovered Heads, with Hands and Eyes lifted up, in times and places dedicated to God's Worship; now, though it should be true, that they do no more than Pray to Saints to pray for them, yet doing it in that manner, with such external Acts of Devotion that are confessed to be the same wherewith we call on God, I do not see, how they can be excused, even on this account, from attributing that Honour to the Creature which is due only to the Creator. As God is owned to be infinite in himself, and to have incommunicable perfections, so there aught to be some peculiar and appropriate Acts and signs of Worship to signify that we do inwardly so esteem and believe of God, and when these are once determined by the Law of God or the universal reason and consent of Mankind, the applying them to any else but him, is a plain violating his peculiarities and robbing him of his Honour. And now in this respect also I cannot discern how the Romish Invocation of Saints is of the same nature with our requesting our Fellow-Members to pray for us? For (not to mention again the presence of these, and the absence of the other) is there no difference betwixt my desiring an eminently good Christian to pray for me, and falling down on my Knees with Hands and Eyes lifted up, and that in a Temple, to him, with that request? Would not every good Man that has any regard for the Honour of God presently show his detestation of such an action? Would he not say to me as St. Peter to Cornelius falling down before him, Stand up, I myself also am a Man? Would he not with St. Paul have rend his Garments and with much Holy indignation cried out to me, as he to the Men of Lystra, designing the same Honours to him and Barnabas wherewith they Worshipped their Gods, Why do ye these things, we also are Men of like Passions with you? As the Saints in Heaven cannot be supposed to lose any thing of their Love and Charity towards their Fellow-Members by going thither, so neither can they be thought to abate any thing of their Zeal and fervour for the honour of God; and therefore certainly what they did and would have refused here on Earth, they must with higher degrees of abhorrence reject now they are in Heaven.  
Moreover, if this be all they mean by all their several Offices of Devotions to Saints departed that they should pray for them unto God, why in all this time that these forms have been complained of, has not the sense of them been better expressed? Whence, I pray, should we take the meaning of such prayers but from the usual signification of the Words? But, if not; why has no Inquisition passed upon them? Why have not the grossest and rankest for Superstition and encroaching on the prerogative of God, been expunged and blotted out? Why all this while has there been no review, no comments upon them, no cautions and instructions written and bound up with their Breviaries, Rosaries and Hours, that the people might know how to understand them? If the form of words in their Saint-Invocation be the same that is used to God, but their sense and meaning otherwise; Why don't they tell this to the World and make their explication as public and as general as the prayers?  
Certainly, the Bishops and Governors of the Romish Church, and those that have the care of Souls amongst them, are either guilty of gross and wilful neglects to the people; or else, whatever they say to us, their will is, that the People should understand those Prayers according to the customary and received use of the words; and then I am sure they pray, not only to saints to pray for them unto God, in order to the obtaining of him such aids and supplies they want, but to Saints themselves for those very blessings. As will appear at large in the next particular.  
2. They pray to Saints departed for those very blessings that none but God can give. To what purpose else do they advise us to fly, not only to their prayers, but their help and assistance; which words, help and assistance, would have been 
Ope● auxiliiumque Trid. Con. fess. 25. Propere veni, accelera.  altogether superflous, was not something else meant by them then only that of their prayers.  
To what purpose else do they Pray to visit them, to make haste and come to them, did they not expect some other aid and assistance from them then bore praying for them? for that certainly might have been better and more conveniently performed in Heaven, before the Face of God.  
To what purpose else in some particular cases do they put up their Addresses to one Saint rather than to another, according as in this World they were famous, either for some eminent Grace shining in them, or for some strange cure or extraordinary deliverance wrought by them, but only, that they believe and trust, that those, who did such great things on Earth, are much more willing and able to do them now they are in Heaven, where, while other Graces cease, Charity and Beneficence are perfected and abide for ever?  
Thus because St. Roch was signally Charitable in assisting those who were infected with the plague, therefore do they call upon him in times of infection; because St. Appollonia had all her Teeth struck out for her undaunted Confession of the Faith of Jesus, therefore do they fly to her for ease against the Rage of Teeth; because St, George was by profession a Soldier and renowned for wonderful Achievements, therefore have they recourse to him for assistance against Enemies. 'Tis true, was it Lawful to Address to any at all, this might be a sufficient reason, why they Address to this rather then to another Saint, because his or her former actions or sufferings do best suit and befit their present case; but, being not sure that these and such like Canonised Saints of the Romish Church are Saints in Heaven, being sure, if they are, they can't hear us, nor know our particular State, much less bestow health and deliverance upon us, whilst we Love and Honour the Memory of Saints indeed, we ought to call only upon God, who only is a present help in time of need and the Saviour of them that put their trust in him.  
But to put this out of doubt, it will not be amiss to set down some of their forms of Devotion to Saints departed; And here not to rake for them in some obscure Authors that have privately stole into the World, I shall need go no farther than the present Roman Breviary Corrected and Published by the Decree and Order of the Council of Trent. The blessed Virgin is there Invocated in the Feast of the Assumption, For strength against Enemies, and in the Hymn frequently used in her Office, she is not only called the Gate of Heaven, but entreated to lose the bonds of the Guilty to give light to the blind, to drive away our evils, to obtain good things for us, and to show herself to be a Mother, (that is, as the Mass-Book of Paris 1634 interprets it.) 
* O foelix puerpera nostra pians scelera, jure matris impera Redemptori. dal, de cultu Latin. lib. 3. c. 4. p. 359. Not denied by Natalis Alexander though he answers this Citation of Dalle, only says, Nec est ab eccles●● probata & quibusdam tant●m missalibus ●lim inser●● est. His●. E●●l. sec: 5. dissert. 5. p. 343. 347.  in right of a Mother to command her Son. In another place she is sued to for help to the Miserable, for strength to the Weak, for comfort to the Afflicted, and that all that Celebrate her Festivals may feel her assistance: And but that I said I would not hunt for matter, I could send you to Authors of theirs, and not of the least note, where we may read such Blasphemy as this; 
† Biel. in Can. mis. sect. 80.  That God hath given the Virgin Mary half of his Kingdom. 
* Salmero● in Tim. 1. 2. disc. 8.  That the Prayers made to, and by all Saints. are better than those made by Christ. 
† Carol. scrib. in Amph. hon. Com. p. 29. Ch●●●. exemp. Invocat. Sanct. p. 146.  That the Mother's Milk is equally to be esteemed with the Sons Blood. This you may take for a taste of that Hyperdulia, that super-refined service, which they put up to the blessed Virgin, and yet that to the Apostles and other Saints of less magnitude comes not much behind it; St. Peter is entreated by the power given to him, To hear their prayers, to untie the bonds of their iniquity and to open the Gates of Heaven; all the Apostles, to absolve them from their sins by their command, to heal all their spiritual maladies and to increase their virtues. St. Andrew is supplicated for patience to bear cheerfully the Cross of Christ; St. Francis, for deliverance from the drudgery and bondage of sin; St. Brigit, for Wisdom against the snares of the World; St. Nicholas, for courage against the assaults of the Devil; St. Agnes for the chiefest of Graces, that of Charity; and St. Catharine, for all Graces; We are taught to pray to be delivered from Hell, and to be made partakers of Heaven by their merits; to fly to them as our Patrons and Advocates, to put confidence in their intercessions 
Breviar & ●●ss.  and to ascribe our mercies and deliverances, to their Power and Interest in God. In the office of Visitation of the Sick, the Priest laying his right hand upon 
Ritual. de Visit. Infirm.  the head of the Sick Person, prays, that Jesus the Son of Mary, and Saviour of the World, would for the Merits and Intercession of his Apostles Peter and Paul, and all saints, be gracious & Merciful to him; & in another place in the same office; that through the intercession of the blessed Virgin & all saints, he might obtain Eternallife; these are enough, but I 
Merits and intercessione S. S. Ritual. Rom. de Sacram. poenit.  cannot omit one more, which is a flower indeed in the office about the Sacrament of Penance there is found this remarkable Prayer; The Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Merits of the blessed Virgin Mary, and of all saints, and whatsoever good thou hast done, and whatsoever Evil thou hast suffered, be to thee for the remission of sins, the increase of grace and the reward of Eternal Life. And now let the Reader judge, if this be not to give the Creature that Worship that's due only to the Creator, and to seek to obtain those blessings from finite Beings and through their procurement, which only Almighty God and his blessed Son Christ Jesus can give unto Men.  
3. 'Tis the Doctrine of the church of Rome, that Mental Prayers as well as Vocal are to be put up to 
Voce vel ment Supplicare.  Saints departed; So the Trent-Council decreed, so their Bishops and Pastors are enjoined to teach the People, and so they practise, this being a form of Prayer to Saints in frequent use amongst them, With the desire of our Hearts we pray unto you regard the ready service of our minds; So that according to them, Saints departed do not only hear our Prayers, but know our Hearts also; and indeed this is necessarily implied in every Prayer that's made to them, viz. That they not only hear the Prayer, but know the disposition of the Heart from whence it proceeds, otherwise the Hypocritical Supplicant must be supposed as likely to obtain their favour as the Sincerest Votary.  
4. They not only Pray to them with Mental and Vocal Prayer, but They confess their sins to them. Very remarkable is that form of Confession in the Reformed Roman 
Ordinar. missae. 217.  Missal, I confess to Almighty God, to the ever blessed Virgin; to Hessed Michael Archangel, to blessed John Baptist; to the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, to all the saints, and to you Brethren, that I have sinned in thought, word and deed.  
They make Vows to them; nothing is more common then at entrance into Religious Orders thus 
Francis. Albertin. de Angel. Custod. p. 224. Horst. in dedic. sect. 2. p. 83.  to express their Devotion, I Vow to God and the blessed Virgin; then to Vow that their whole life shall be devoted to the blessed Virgin or some other Saint, according to the famous Pattern, I humbly beg of thee Oh Mother of all Clemency, that thou wouldst vouchsafe to admit me into the number of those who have devouted themselves to thee to be thy perpetual servants. Another of this kind, not much inferior to it; we meet with in Horstius, viz, I firmly resolve henceforth to serve thee and thy Son with all Faithfulness, and for ever to cleave to thee.  
They offer up Laud and Praise to them, and entreat them to hear and receive their Thanksgiving; thus 
Brev. Rom, in fest. S. Jacob.  to St. James they pray that he would joyfully hear the acknowledgements that as right and due they paid to him. 'Tis usual with their Learned Men to conclude their Books with praise to God and the Blessed Virgin, particularly Valentia and Bellarmine, the letter of which thus ends his Book concerning the Worship of faints; praise be to God and to the blessed Virgin, also to Jesus Christ. Morstius before had it, thee and thy Son; Bellarmine here, the Blessed Virgin and then Jesus Christ; whereby we 
Bellarm, de cul-Sanct. Lion Edit. Laus deo virginique Mariae, Jesus item Christ●  may see they give her not only an equal part with God in their Praises, but by placing her before Christ, seem to give her somewhat of preeminence above him.  
5. They appoint Angels and saints, Deputies and Lieutenants under God in the Government of the World, and stick not to make them Cuardians, Patrons and Patronesses over particular Kingdoms, Cities, Churches and single persons. The Scripture indeed frequently speaks oft he Knowledge, presence, Dignity, occasional Ministry, and Embassies of holy Angels, but that delegation of power the Romanists give them, whereby they make them share Empire and Dominion with God in the Government of the world, can be as little proved of them, as of saints departed; however I am chief to consider their Doctrine and practice in reference to the latter; they teach the people to make choico of one or more out of the number of the saints to be their Patron; to Love them, to imitate them, through their hands 
Horst. parad. Animae sect. 2.  to offer daily their works to God, to commend themselves to their protection at all times, especially in difficulties and temptations; they give to one saint this precinct, and to another, that; to one, power over this malady; over that, to others; more of this you have drawn to the life in the forementioned excellent Homily of our Church against Idolatry, out of which I shall only ●ull some passages and refer ●he Reader for farther satisfaction to the Homily itself; it compares such saints in the Roman Church to whom they allot 
Homil of Idolat.  the defence of certain countries, to the Dii Tutelares of the Gentile Idolaters; such, to whom the safety of certain Cities are cammitted, to their Dii presides; and such, to whom Temples and Churches are builded, and Altars Erected to their Dii Patroni; it t●lls us that the Romanists have no fewer saints than the Heathens had Gods, to whom they give the Honour due to God; every Artificer and profession has his special saint as a peculiar God; for example, Scholars have St. Nicholas and St. Gregory, Painters St. Luke; neither lack soldiers their Mars; not Lovers. their Venus amongst Christians. The sea and waters amongst the Romanists as well as Cities and Countries have their special Saints to preside over them, as amongst the Heathens they had Gods; all diseases have their special Saints as Gods, the Curers of them; the Pox St. Roch; the Falling-Evil, St. Cornelis; the Toothache, St. Apollonia; neither do Beasts and Cattle lack their Gods with us, for St. Loy is the Horseleech, and St. Anthony the swineherd, etc. where is God's Providence and due Honour in the mean time? Who saith, the Heavens be mine, the Earth is mine, the whole World and all that therein is; but we have left him neither Heaven nor Earth, nor Water, nor Country, nor City, Peace nor War, to Rule and Govern; neither Man nor Beasts, nor their diseases to Cure; and as if we doubted of his ability or will to help, we join to him another, as if he were a Noun Adjective, using these say; such as Learn, GOD and St. Nichol as be my speed; such as s●eese. GOD help, and St. John; to the Horse, God and St. Loy save thee thus are we become like Horses and Mules that have no understanding; Oh Heavens! Oh Earth! What madness and wickedness against God are Men fallen into? What dishonour do the Creatures to their Creator and Maker? This is not written to reproach the Saints, but to condemn the Foolishness and Wickedness of Men, who make of the true servants of GOD, false Gods, by attributing to them the Power and Honour which is Gods, and due to him only.   

II. On what occasion this Doctrine and Practice began and spread in the Church.  
GReat was the Honour the Primitive Christians had for the Martyrs and Confessors; they frequented their Tombs, erected Altars on the places of their burial, highly esteemed their bones and relics; ●here they rehearsed their good works done in their life time, and their Faith, Patience and Constancy shown at Death; here they blessed God for that Grace that was given to them, and for that good that accrued to themselves by their example, here they proposed their virtues for imitation, and had their own Piety and Zeal inflamed by the remembrance of them; and the Christian cause being then harassed on every side by implacable Enemies, the Malice of the Jew, and the subtity of the Greek, and the Power of the Roman combining with their united force to destroy and root it up, it pleased God, not only by the demonstration of a Divine power in the Apostles and their immediate Successors, whilst they were alive▪ but also by many wonderful things done at their Tombs when the were dead, and by sensibly answering Prayers that were there puup to him, to confirm the Truth of Christianity, to declare high approbation of the sufferings of his servants, and to encourage others to Seal the Doctrine of the Gospel with their Blood as they bade done. To them in a particular manner may that of the Apostle be applied, W●om GOD did foreknow 
Rom. 8. 29, 30.  them he did predestinate to be conformed to the Image of his Son; and ●hom he did predestinate, them he called; and whom he called, them he Justified; and whom he Justified them he Glorified. The Apostle having said in the verse before, verse 28, We know that all things work together for good unto them that love GOD, to them who are called according to his purpose; adds as a proof of what he had said, whom he did foreknow, would be persons of Great and noble minds, and so fit for the work, them he did predestinate to be conformed to the Image of his Son, them he did decree to suffer for his sake, and by sufferings to be made conformed to his Son, who was made perfect through sufferings; and whom he did predestinate, them he also called, them in due time he actually called forth to suffer for his name; and whom he called, them he justified: them he approved of as Faithful Servants, as Loyal Soldiers, as Invincible Champions of Truth and Righteousness; and whom he Justified he Glorified, them he Crowned with Honour and Renown here, and with immortal Glory hereafter. This was the Testimony God bore to the Apostles and first Bishops of the Church, to the Authority they had received, to the Doctrine they taught, and for which they died; this was the Honour the Primitive Christians deservedly showed to their Victorious Martyrs, they did not Invocate them, but Loved their Memories, Commemorated their Virtues, and Blessed God for their example; they performed to them not any part of Religious Worship that was 
Cultus offici●sus dilectionis, & so●ietatis, specialis observantia. S. Aust. contr. Faust. l. 20. 21. ou latreutik●s, alla schetikos kai ti metik●s Cyril. l. o. contr. Jul.  due to God only; but, (as they called it,) an officious Worship, a Worship of Love and society, a special and particular observance, a respect convenient and proper, and which they could not but think was due to them on the account of the great service they had done to the the cause of Christ, and the more than ordinary worth and excellency that shined in them,  
But afterwards in succeeding Ages, when through the good providence of God and favour of Constantine the great, the church had rest and ease, and Prosperity began to dawn upon it; the Devil finding he could not prevail over the Christian Faith by fiery trials and temptations, betook himself to other, more secret it may be, but equally dangerous stratagems, and by working on the strong inclinations and affections of Men to ease and softness, he too successfully attempted to deprave and corrupt it by lose and superstitious Doctrines; most Men are for some kind of Religion whither the Devil will or no, which, because he cannot hinder, he labours what he can, it may be such, that whilst it pretends fair, may do them but little good; and Men are for●ard enough to close with that which offers at carrying them to Heaven on the easiest terms. The Church being now out of Persecution, and Riches and Honours attending that profession, for which such multitudes had lost all, and endured the flames, the people began to be more lose and vain in their conversations then when they still expected martyrdom; now they began to place their Religion in shows and pretences more than in a sincere and substantial Piety; and whereas before they were wont to frequent the Tombs of the Martyrs that at the sight of the place their affections might be raised, their Devotions enlivened, and their Faith and Charity receive farther degrees of warmth and heat from their burning and shining examples, now they placed all their Religion in the bare outward observance of that Solemnity, and took more care to Honour the Saints by their lofty Praises and commendations of them, then to become Saints themselves by imitating their Graces and Virtues; and that, what was wanting in the one, they might make up in the other, they now began to fall into many Superstitious Conceits and Opinions concerning them; to break out into too lavish and indeed extravagant expressions of their worth and to fly too high in their Panegyrics and Laudatory Orations, Now they began,  
To attribute the miracles done at the Martyr's Tombs to the Martyrs own Power, or at least, mediation with God; the common People observing, that many Cures were wrought upon those that at those monuments applied themselves to God, were led by degrees to look upon them as so many Testimonies of the Martyrs great interest in the Court of Heaven, and instead of begging relief of God, to speak directly to the Martyrs themselves:  
To fancy that the Souls of Martyrs were always hover about their Tombs and Ashes, and so joined their Intercessions with the Prayers of Christians that were put up to God in those places; so 'twas objected by Vigilantius to St. Hierom:  
To wish that the Martyrs would Pray for them; 
Oret pro nobis Flavianus.  so they cried out in the Council of Chalcedon, Let Flavianus Pray for us: and in Theodoret's History of the Lives of the Fathers, we find in the close of most of them, (though some think them not to be his words, but Additions and Insertions afterwards,) I wish and desire that by their Intercession I may obtain Divine help.  
To commend themselves to the Martyr's intercessions, 
Commendare nos orationi. St. Aust,  to beg to be heard for their sakes, to be helped by their prayers, to be vouchsafed the effects of the Prayers that were made by them in behalf of the Church below.  
To pray to them upon supposition if they heard or knew what was done here below; Hear, oh thou soul 
Nazian. Orat. 2. in Jultan. ei de iis soi kai ton hemeteron esti logos Orat. ●nd. in. Gorgon.  of great Constantius, says St. Gregory Nazianzen, if thou hast any understanding of these things; the like he hath in his Funeral Oration which he made upon his sister Gorgonia; If thou hast any care of things done by us, and Holy souls, receive this Honour from God that they have any feeling of such things as these, receive this Oration of ours;  
By such steps and degrees as these, the frequenting the places where the Martyrs were enshrined, and Honouring their Names and Memories, was turned into Superstitious Devotion and that soon ended in solemn and downright Invocation.  
To all this we may add, what a Learned Author of our own has ingeniously guessed, that the great compliance 
Dr. Tenison.  and yielding of the Roman Christians in this particular to those Northern Nations, the Goths and Vandals, when they invaded and overun the Empire, did not a little contribute to raise and propagate this Saint-Worship and Invocation in the Church; of all the Heathen Nations none were more Zealously Devoted to the Worship of Daemons than those were, whereof he gives many Testimonies; now it's not improbable that the Christians, to mollify their fierce natures and to induce them the more readily to embrace Christianity, might indulge them still that practice, excepting only the object of their Worship, giving them real Saints and Holy Angels instead of their feigned and impure Deities; and that which makes this the more probable is, that their invasion and stay in Italy, and the rise and growth of Daemon-Worship there, jump exactly as to time, and both bear date from the Fourth and Fifth Centures.   

III. That there is not the least proof for it from Scripture.  
1. ANd here we are first●● take notice that 
Bellar. de sanct. beat. c. 19 Salm. in 1 Tim. 2. disp. 7. Eckius Enchirid. de vener. sanct. c. 15. Cardin. du Perron.  it is ●reely confe●● by some of their own Learned Divines, that there is no express Text either in the Old or New Testament for this Doctrine and practice; and is it not hard to make that an Article of Faith that has no Foundation to stand on in the word of God? Or to make that a Duty that has no Law ●or sanction to bind us to the practice of it? Were not the Scriptures written to make Men Wise unto salvation, and to instruct them throughly un●o all good works? Were they not written that 
2 Tim. 3. 15. 16.  we might believe, & believing might have Eternal Life? Do not the Apostles say, they have made known to Man the whole will of God, and kept nothing hid from them? Do 
John 20. 30.  they not abound in earnest Exhortations to Pray to Pray always, to pray without ceasing, with all prayer? Have they not left frequent directions for the right performance of it, in a Language that all that hear may understand, with pure hands, in Faith, without wrath and doubting? And now can 
1 Cor. 14.  we imagine after all this, that, had Invocation of Saints been so good and profitable a Duty, or that it had been so great a Crime so much as to doubt of the Blessed Virgin's Merits and Ability to help, that the● would have been 
Catech. Rom. 584.  wholly silent as to this matter? Were not the Apostles guided by the Holy Spirit of God? Must they not be supposed to have as hearty a concern and as burning a Zeal for the Salvation of Souls and the Glory of God as the Trent Fathers had? And now, had this practice been so highly instrumental to promote both these, as that Synod would have us believe, is it to be imagined that, every one of them would have quite forgot it, and neglected to have given it in charge with as much strictness, as they have done to all Bishops and Pastors, to instruct their Flocks in the Piety and Usefulness of it? Have not the Apostles both by their precept and example enjoined Christians to beg the Prayers of one another whilst they are in the body? Have they not prescribed the Sick Man, as the most Sovereign receipt, to have recourse to the Prayers of the Elders of the 
Ja●. 5. 14.  Church? What reason then can be given that we have not any one example or precept to fly to the Prayers of Saints departed, to their help and assistance, as the more prevailing and meritorious, but only this, that they are not in a capacity to hear our requests, or, to know our conditions? Nay, had our Saviour and his Apostles intended this Saint-Invocation as a necessary Christian Duty; it would have needed a more express command and penalty to have enforced its obligation, then most other Duties of Christianity, since it was altogether a thing new to the Jews and what had never been practised by them; for though sometimes in their prayers to God, they besought him to remember Abraham, Isaac, and 
Luk 1. 55. 72. 73. Deut. 7. ●.  Jacob, that is, his own covenant and promise he had made with and to them, yet they never used them as intercessors, or said, Holy Abraham, or Holy Isaac, pray for us.  
But to blunt the edge of this Argument that they themselves have put into our hands against it, they tell us, was not for any intrinsic Evil in the thing, but for some particular reasons relating to the times of the Old Testament, and the first Ages of the New that It was not mentioned and enjoined in scripture; but if the reasons produced by them do hold with equal force against it promiscuously in all Ages, as well as against it then, certainly the main reason why it's no no where prescribed in scripture, is, that it might at no time be put in practice. The reasons they give are chief two.  
For the Old Testament▪ they say it's not there enjoined, because the Patriarches and Saints departed, during that dispensation, were not admitted into the beatific Vision, and so could not ordinarily understand the Prayers of the Living; but, if for aught we know, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, are still in the same Limbo, or place of rest they went to at first, or, if, our Saviour at his ascension into Heaven did give them a happy deliverance and took them up with him into the immediate presence of God, 'tis not certain, that they understand the desires of the Living any more than they did before, then there is as much reason not to Invocate them now, as there was not to do it then. Many of the Romanists will not have the Saints in Heaven come to know the desires of their Living Votaries by the benefit of the beaufick Vision which they enjoy, but by particular Revelation from God, and if so, than the Old Testament worthies were as capable of it, and consequently there was as much reason to pray unto them before our Saviour's coming, when they were but in Paradise, as afterwards when by his Glorious Victory and Triumph over Death they were exalted into Heaven, since God could have revealed the requests of their supplicants alike to them in all places, in one as well as another; besides, considering the great esteem and veneration the Jews ever had for those great Men, the Founders of their Nation, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua and others, had there been no evil in the thing, no reason can be given why it was not preached to the Jews by our Saviour and his Apostles as the most likely argument to win them to embrace the Christian Religion.  
For the New Testament they say, 'tis not there enjoined, because it would have been a great offence and scandal to the new converted Gentiles, and have given them an occasion to think, that they had only changed their Gods but not their Religion, that the Christian Doctrine was only a device of the Apostles to thrust out their old Daemons and Heroes and to put in themselves; that as those had hitherto been Worshipped for the great services and benefactions they did in this present World, so they for the future might have the some Honour done them for the full discoveries they had made, and excellent directions they had given, relating to a future and more happy State.  
And is not this a good Argument and does it not hold still against Romish Invocation? Is it not of as much force now to cast it out of the Church as it was then not to bring it in? Does it not give infinite offence to a great part of the Christian World, and is it not esteemed, and that justly by them, to be the old Pagan-Worship revived, or something very near it? For, it is not enough to excuse them from it that the object of their Invocation is not the same, that they do not with them pay this Worship to the Heathen Deities, (who, though in some respects they had been Patrons and Benefactors to their Country, were yet in others very lewd and unworthy persons,) but to the Apostles of Christ and Christians Martyrs (who in all respects were highly deserving of the World) whilst they agree in the same act & kind of Worship and give that Honour to the Creature which properly and peculiarly belongs to God, and herein especially did the Pagan Worship and Superstition consist.  
2. We shall now examine the chief of those Texts the Romanists produce in the behalf of this Doctrine, and let you see how little they serve to that purpose.  
The first is, Luke 15. 7. 10. There shall be joy in Heaven; and again, There shall be joy before the Angels of God, over our Sinner that repenteth, From whence they argue, that if Angels and blessed spirits rejoice at the Conversion of a sinner, they must know and understand this change that's wrought in them before they can rejoice at it, and if the knowledge of their repentance reaches them, why not also of their Prayers? And then if they can hear their Prayers, why may they not be Prayed unto? To this it's answered,  
That this rejoicing in Heaven is not for the Conversion of a particular sinner, but in general for the Redemption of Mankind by Jesus Christ, and this appears more than probable from the parable of the lost sheep immediately going before, whereof these words are the Conclusion; the Ninety nine sheep not lost are the Angels presevering in their first state of Innocency; the sheep that went aftray, Adam and in him all his Posterity that fell from God; the shepherd that went to seek the lost sheep, God himself, who sent his Son into the World to seek and to save that which is lost, on whose shoulders the great Work of Man's Redemption was laid; and for this we are sure there was joy in Heaven, when a Blessed Chore of Angels sung that Heavenly Anthem at Christ's Nativity, Glory be to God on high, and on Earth Peace good will towards Men But  
Supposing this rejoicing is to be understood for the repentance of individual sinners, it may be observed. 
Emopion to● Aggel●n  that this joy is not said to be the joy of Angels, but before the Angels; intimating that this rejoying is not to be attributed to the Angels, but to God in whose presence they stand, and this exposition is countenanced by considering 'tis God that answers to the Shepherd in the parable; as he went to seek his strayed sheep, and rejoiced at the finding of it, so 'tis God that by his Grace and Mercy in Christ recovered Man, and rejoyc●d at the accomplishment of his own Work. Again,  
If this Text does imply that Angels in Heaven know when a Sinner is converted and rejoice at it, it does not follow that they know this by some excellent privilege and perfection of their nature, whereby also they are enabled to understand even those mental Prayers, that we are told aught to be put up to them; but passing always betwixt Heaven and Earth (as wa● represented unto Jacob in his Divine Vision on God's Errands and Embassies) those that ascend from Earth may tell the joyful News of converted sinners to them in Heaven; but they that tell them this, cannot also acquaint them with the inward secret desires and cogitations of men's Hearts, be-being in a capacity by observing in Men the Signs and Fruits of true Repentance to know the one, but having no way by their own natural power to understand the other.  
The second place is, Mat. 22. 30. Where our Saviour says, That the just at the Resurrection shall be as the Angels in Heaven; from whence they infer, that if our Prayers and concerns are known to the Angels, and they on that account may be Invocated; why should they not be known also to the Saints departed, who are as they enjoying the same Blissful Vision of God? To this may be returned;  
That we are no more sure of the Knowledge of Angels in this particular, than we are of that of Saints, and therefore the one ought to be proved before the other be granted. The Angels in Heaven see indeed the Face of Christ's Father which is in Heaven, but the meaning of that is not, that by enjoying the sight of God's Face they therein see and hear all things transacted here on Earth, but that they are God's Ministers always attending round about his Throne, and waiting before him to receive his Commands, and to execute his pleasure.  
But was this Knowledge the privilege of the Angelical nature, the equality which just Men in the Text are said to have to the Augels, is not meant an equality of Knowledge or perfection of nature, but a similitude of State and Privileges; and his appears from the contex; In the Resurrection they neither Mary, nor are given in Marriage, but are as the Angels of God; the just shall not be equal to the Angels in every respect, for as they d●ffer in Nature and Kind, so they shall have distinct natural Qualities and Operations, of Bliss and Happiness; they as the Angels in that Spiritualised State, shall not need Matrimony for the propagation of their Kind, nor Food for the preservation of their incorruptible Bodies, they shall be free from all the necessities that attend temporal humane light, and all the affections that arise from the body and sensitive part of Man; they as Angels shall be the Children of God, being Children of the Resurrection, partakers of the Bl●ss, and immovably possessed of all the privileges of the Sons of God. Yet  
Was this equality to the Angels to be meant of an equality in Nature and Knowledge, yet the Saints departed are not to enjoy it until the Resurrection, and so, though the Angels on that account might be Invocated, yet the Saints departed, who are not till the Resurrection ●o have this excellent privilege conferred on them, are not till then to have this Homage and Worship paid to them; At the Resurrection they shall be as the Angels of God, whither they are before that admitted into the bea●fical Vision, we need not now dispute, since, if they are, this Angelical privilege of seeing all things in the Face of God, is reserved for the Saints, as a farther addition of bliss till that day.  
Again, they produce Revel. 5. 8. Where it's said, That the Four Beasts and twenty four Elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them Harps and Gold●n Vials full of Odours, which are the Prayers of Saints By the prayers of Saints,, they mean, of those Saints that ar● living upon the Earth; and by the Four Beasts and Twenty Four Elders, the Saints that are in Heaven, and from thence draw their Argument, that Saints in Heaven do offer up the Prayers of Holy Men living upon the Earth.  
But now if they are mistaken in the ●ense of this Text, and by the Four Beasts and Twenty four Elders are not meant the Members of the Church triumphant; but the Bishops and Elders of the Church Militant; Whose Office it is to represent the Prayers and Praises of the Church to God; then this cannot afford them the least show of a reason for their Invocation▪ Dr. Hamon● and many other Learned Expositors are of opinion, that either, this whole Text is nothing but a representation of the Church below offering up prayers by their Pastors; who are the Mouths of the Congregation; to God through the Lamb; (and it's said ve●se 10. That they shall Reign upon the Earth;) or else, a representation of the whole Church of Christ bo●h in Heaven and Earth, joining together in their Doxologies and Praises to God for the Victories of the Lamb, and the Redemption of the World by his blood; and for this sense the next ve●s● seems to give it, where they are said to Sing a new Song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the Book and— for thou wast s●ain, and redeemed us to God by thy Blood, out of every Kindred, and Tongue, and People, and Nation.  
Another place to be explained, which they sometimes mention as on their side, is, Revel ● 10. Where the Souls of the Martyrs under the Altar are said to cry, How long, Oh Lord, Holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our Blood on them that dwell on the Earth: Now say they, if the Souls of Martyrs pray for Vengeance upon their Persecutors and Murderers; much more may we suppose them to pray for Mercy and Deliverances for their Fellow-Members and Sufferers. To this may be replied,  
That these words cannot signify a formal Prayer of the Martyrs to God for Revenge on their Persecutors; they who after their Lord's example Prayed God to forgive their Murderers when they were on Earth, cannot be supposed, now they are in a more perfect State, to Pray for Vengeance upon them; but the words are only an Emblem and representation of the certainty of 
Dr. Ham.  God's judgements and Vengeance overtaking them; by the Souls of them that were slain and cry under the Altar, is meant their blood, and the Sin of Murdering them, and (as we are wont to say) Murder is a crying Sin, and as it's said, that Abel's blood cried for Vengeance, so the Sin of shedding their blood cried, ' that is, would certainly awake and provoke the justice of God to take Vengeance on them for it: This is well explained 
Esdr. 2. 15.  by a passage in the book of Esdras, Behold the Innocent and Righteous blood cryeth unto me, and the Souls of the just complain continually, and therefore, saith the Lord, I will surely Avenge them, etc. But  
Let their inference be granted, that the Souls of Martyrs in the future State do Pray for their Fellow Sufferes that are left behind, it does not follow that their Fellow-Sufferers Pray to them, or that they offer up their Prayers made to them unto God.  
Lastly, they cite Gen. 48. 16. When Jacob blessing the two Sons of Joseph, thus prays, The Angel that redeemed me from all Evil bless the Lads; this will require no long answer.  
God being pleased often to make use of the Ministry of Angels in sending succour and relief to good Men, Jacob Prayed, not unto the Angel, but to God, that he would appoint the same bessed Angel that administered unto him in all his straits, to be the instrument of his good providence to those two Sons of Joseph, whom he had now made his own, and caused them to be called after his name. Or else.  
If the Patriarch must be thought here to have Prayed to the Angel, we must suppose with Athanasius, and others of the Fathers, that Angel to be Christ the Son of God.  
And the same answer is to be given to Revel 8▪ 4. Where it's said, That the smoke of the Incense which came with the Prayers of the Saints, ascended up before God out of the Angel's hand; that is, Christ's, the Angel of the Covenant, and therefore this Angel that offered up the Prayers of the Saints is called verse 3. Another Angel; intimating, that it was a special Angel, one different both in Nature and Office, from the other seven mentioned verse 2. and described there as Ministering Spirits; And I saw the seven Angels which stood before God, etc. verse 2. and then ●. 3. And another Angel came— etc.   

iv That there is no proof for it from the Fathers of the first three hundred years, and more.  
THe Trent Fathers and the Catechism put out by 
Concili. Trident. sess. 25. Catech. Rom. par. 3. c. 2.  their Authority having declared invocation of Saints to be a custom received and continued in the Church ever since the Apostles time, the Romish Authors have not been wanting to turn every Stone, to search every Author, to produce and strain every sentence and expression that looks that way, to the height, in order to the making it good; but how short their proofs fall of it, will be made evident by these following particulars.  
1. Those that have taken the most pains to seek for Testimonies, have not been able to produce any tolerable one out of the  Writings of the Fathers within the first three hundred years after Christ; they cite indeed the Hierarchy of Dionysius Areopagita, Orige●s comments on the second Chapter of Job and the twenty first of Numbers, the works of St. Ephroem, and Athanasius' of the most Holy Mother of God; but these have been sufficiently proved by many of our Learned Men and acknowledged by some of no obscure fame amongst them, to be spurious, 
Mons. Dal. Coc. Censur. Patr.. in D. Are●p. Rivet. in Crit, Sac. Bellar. de Scrip. Eccl.  and falsely fathered on them; and then for their proofs out of Irenaeus, Eusebius and St. Ambrose, it's easy to show that the first is grossly misunderstood, the second corrupted, and third retracted by that Father.  
Irenoeus indeed is an Ancient Father, and of sufficient Authority, but his words are little to their 
Irenoeus Adver. Haer. l. 15. c. 10.  purpose; they are these Sicut Eva seducta est ut effugeret Deum, sic Maria suasa est obedire Deo, ut Virgins Evoe Virgo Maria fieret Advocata; Wherein the blessed Virgin Mary is termed the Advocate of Eve. Now to make this a pat proof for their Invocation, they must put this sense upon it, that the blessed Virgin being a Glorified Saint in Heaven, did at the request and desires of Eve living upon Earth represent her case to God, and interceded with him on their behalf; but how could Eve alive request this of the Virgin Mary, and Eve d●ed above three thousand years before Mary was born! Or how could Irenoeus think the blessed Virgin in a capacity to do this whose opinion it was, with the 
Iren. l. 5. c. 31.  generality of the Fathers in that Age, that her Soul, as all others of departed Saints, were yet in an invisible place and not admitted to the Beatific Vision? Or how could Eve stand in need of her Advocatship, who, if it were true, as the Romanists hold, that our Saviour at his Resurrection 
Aquin. Durand.  freed the Saints of the Old Testament from their Limbus and carried them up with him into heaven, and the presence of God, was a Glorified Saint in Heaven whilst she was living upon the Earth, and so was in a better State to be an Advocate for the Virgin Mary, than the Virgin Mary for her? Thus you see, as clear a proof as Bellarmin 
Bellar. de Sanct. beat. l. c. 19  thinks this to be, nothing can be more ridiculously and impertinently quoted; some other meaning then of the words must be found out, and the most obvious and natural is this, that the Virgin Mary is here by a figure put for Christ her Son according to the Flesh; and said to do that, as she was the happy Mother of a Son who did it; and thus indeed she is Advocate for Eve, and all Eves Posterity, instrumentally, not by herself personally, but by her Son, she being that vessel made choice of by the Holy Ghost, to bear him in her Womb, who by taking Flesh of her became the Saviour of Eve and all Mankind. For the Testimony of Eusebius; it, as Bellarmine 
Bellar. de Sanct. beat. l. 1. c. 19  reports it, runs thus, We Honour those Heavenly Soldiers, ●s God's Friends, we approach unto their Monuments, and Pray unto them as unto Holy Men, by whose intercession we profess to receive much help and assistance; but it is apparent, as many Learned Men have shown, that Bellarmine took this allegation, not out of Euse●ins's Original but a corrupt translation made by Trapezuntius and afterwards followed by Dadr●●u● a Doctor of Paris, who set forth E●sebius; there being no such words, as Praying to them as unto Holy Men, to be found in him speaking his own Language his words are these, h●then kai ept tas thekas aut on ethos, 
Evang praep. l 13 c. 7.  hemin parienai, kai tas euchas para tautais poiesthai, etc. It is our custom to come to their Tombs and Monuments, and to make our Prayers, not autois to them, those Martyrs, as the Translator and Bellarmine would have it, bu● para tautais, i e thekais, at or before their ●ombs and Monuments, and to Honour those blessed ●ouls.  
I might now pass over St. Ambrose, he living beyond the time I undertook to answer for, Anno, 374. but whatsoever he said of this nature, was said, when he was but a young Christian, and recalled and contradicted by him afterwards; 
Speculatores vitae actuùmque nostrorum.  in his book of Widows, he exhorts them to pray to the Angels and Martyrs, whom he calls beholders of our Lives and Actions; ●ut Baronius himself Confesses (as Bishop Andrews proves ●●out o● the life of St. Ambrose) that this Book was written presently after his Conversion, when he was but a raw Divine and had not thoroughly Learned the Christian Doctrine; and this appears by some other mistakes he was guilty of, besides this, that are of as dangerous a Nature; when in the same Book he asserts, that the Martyrs, either had no Sin at all, or what they had, they did themselves wash away with their own Blood. But that St. Ambrose changed his opinion concerning this 
Proprio Sanguine.  point of Invocation, we are as sure as that once he held it, since we find him afterwards plainly asserting the Contrary, in such words as these, That to procure God's favour we need no 
Amb. in Rom. c. 1. tom. 5. Tu tamen, Domine, solus es invocandus. De ●bitu The●d. tom. 3.  Advocate but a devout Mind; and again, speaking with relation to the two young Sons of Theodosius, Thou only, Oh Lord, art to be Invocated, and Prayed unto, namely, for a blessing and protection upon them.  
2. They make the Rhetorical Flourishes and Apostrophes of the Fathers in their Panegyrics of the Martyrs, to be folemn forms of Invocation of them The Fathers about the la●ter end of the Fourth Century, observing Piety and Devotion to decay and wax cold, as the Church encreafed in Riches and Prosperity, thought themselves obliged, by all the Wit and Art and Rhetoric they had, to retrieve, if it was possible, the pristine heat of Devotion that was formerly in it; to that purpose they spoke h●gh and large in commendation of their Martyrs, and sometimes in their Ovations directed their words to them, as though they had been there present, not with an intent to teach the People to Pray unto them, or to rely upon their merits, but to signify the mighty favour they were in with God, and the more effectually to excite them to an imitation of their virtues. Many such strains of Rhetoric occur in the Writings of St. Hierom, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nyssen, St. Gr●gory Nazianzen and others. 
Orat. in San●●. Theod.  So St. Gregory Nyssen speaks to theodore the Martyr in his Oration, Gather together the Troops of thy Brethren Martyrs, and thou with them beseech God to stay the In●●s●on of the Barbarians.  
So St. Gregory Nazianzen in his Oration calls unto Orat. in Athan. St. Cyprian, St. Basil, St. Athanasius, to each after this manner, Do thou favourably look upon us from on high.  
After the same manner does St. Hierom conclude his Funeral Oration on Paula, Farewell, Oh Paul, and help the Old Age of thy Honourer with thy Prayers. Now what is there in all this but what's usual in all Authors both Sacred and Profane? The design of the Fa●●●●s was to raise the People to as h●gh an opinion as they could, bo●● of the Persons of the Martyrs and their virtues that made them so illustrious; and might they not make useof their best Art and Rhetoric to do it? What is more in this then those Apostrophes frequently found in the Sacred Writings even to insensate Creatures? Hear ye, Oh Mountains, the Lord's Controversy! Praise the Lord ye Dragons and all Deeps! And who will infer from hence that the in●ensate Creatures were hereby invocked and addressed unto.  
3. A great part of the Testimonies they produce out of the Fathers, are to prove the Intercession of Saints in Heaven for us, and not our Invocating of them; and so they change the Question and are at a great deal of pains to prove that which no body denies; such say as assert the Saints Praying for us, are frequent among the ancient Fathers, and that not only for the Church Militant in general, but in particular for those, whose persons and conditions were well known to them on Earth, and these are cunningly shuffled in by the Romish Doctors as proofs for invocation of them, with a design to impose on the unwary vulgar, who are supposed not to take notice of the difference (but 'tis a wonder if they should not for 'tis wide enough) betwixt their Praying for us, and our Praying to them. Neither is this the only instance wherein those cunning Sophisters play this game, First altar the Nature of the Question, and then where they have no Adversary, to Triumph in demonstrating the truth of it?  
If the Question be whither the Bishop of Rome be the Supreme head of the Church, and has an absolute Jurisdiction and Monarchy over all other Bishops and Churches; they shall bring 
Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 15. 16.  you a number of Testimonies out of both Greek and Latin Fathers, to prove St Peter had a Primacy of Honour and Authority.  
If the be Question be whither the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament be Substantially turned into the body 
Bellar.. de Euchar. l. 2,  and blood of Christ; they shall write a whole Volume to prove the Truth and Reality of Christ's presence in it, which we own as well as they, but after a Spiritual manner, not corporally and by the way of Transubstantiation.  
If the Question be about Purgatory, a place prepared for the Purification of those Souls that depart hence not quite cleansed; they shall allege you Fathers and those 
St. Ambr. Hil. Orig. Hierom. etc.  not a few of unquestionable name, to prove the utter Consumption of all things by Fire at the end of the World.  
So here, when the Question is whither we ought to Pray to Saints departed; they bring innumerable Fathers to prove that the Saints departed do Pray for us; hence we hear of that of St. Ignatius, My spirit salutes you, not only 
Epist. ad Tral.  now, but also, when I enjoy God; and of St. Chrysostom in his Oration to those that were to be Baptised, Remember me when that Kingdom receives you.  
4. They produce the say and practices of some few in the Church for the general and allowed Doctrine and Practice of the whole Church. If the story should be true that Justina a Christian Virgin did in great distress jointly supplicate the blessed Virgin with God and Christ, does it follow, that it was the practice of all to do so? It cannot be denied but that many of the Fathers let slip, in the heat of their Affection and Oration, many unwary speeches to this purpose, and that many, otherwise good Men, were guilty of this excess of Devotion to the Martyrs; the many miracles God was pleased to work at the Memorials of the Martyrs for the Honour and Confirmation of the Faith, reasonably begat a custom amongst Christians to resort to those places, and there to offer their Prayers to God; and thinking, it may be, they could not easily honour those too much whom God was pleased after so wonderful a manner to declare his esteem of, from Praying to God at their Tombs, they began to Pray to them themselves. But now  
We are to distinguish betwixt the speeches of some particular Fathers and the general Doctrine of the Church, betwixt what they express in Rhetorical strains to move affection, and what they lay down in plain terms to inform the judgement; betwixt what comes from them in the heat of their Discourses and popular Orations, and what in cool and deliberate debates they set down for the truth of Christ; it's generally confessed, that the Fathers of times hyperbolise, particularly S. Chrysostom, and we must not take their flights of Fancy, for the Doctrine of the Church.  
We are to distinguish also betwixt what the Church did teach and allow, and what she only tolerated and was forced to bear with; the Bishops and Governors of the Church being many times engaged in weightier mattersin defending the Christian cause again Heathens and Heretics, were not always at leisure to reform abuses and irregular practices, but were forced too often to connive at those Faults which they had not time and opportunity to redress; St. Austin complains much of this piece 
S. Aust. de morib. Eccles. c. 31. tom. 1 Epis. 119. ad Janu. approbare non possum, liberius improbare non andeo.  of superstition in his days, that it had got such an head, that the good Father wanted power to give a check to it; I can no way allow them, says he, and yet I dare not freely reprove them, lest I either offend some good Men or provocke some turbulent spirits.  
5. They cite the practice of the Ancients Praying to God, that for the Intercession of those Holy Men that had died in the Lord, he would grant them their requests, as a good proof for direct Praying to them. The Ancients generally believing that the Saints and Martyrs in the future state did continually Pray to God in behalf of the Church Militant on Earth, and some, that their Souls were present at their Shrines and Tombs, and did join their Intercessions with those Prayers of the Christians that were there offered up to God, were wont in their addresses to mention the Martyrs, and to beg the effects of their Intercessions, that God would be moved by their supplications as well as their own, to grant a supply of their wants and necessities; but this is no more Praying to them, than Moses may be said to Pray to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, when he besought God to remember them in behalf of the People of Israel; then we may be said to Pray for help to that part of the Church of Christ that is at a great distance from us, when we desire God to hear the Prayers of his Church Catholic dispersed throughout the whole World in the behalf of all Christian people, that in all places call upon him. Thus it's said by the Historian that the Emperor Theod●sius, 
Ru●●in. Hist. l. 2. c. 33.  when Eugeni● and his Complices raised that dangerous Rebellion against him, repaired With his Clergy and Laity to the Oratory's and Chapples, and 
Sanctorum intercessione,  there lying Prostrate before the Tombs and Monuments of the Apostles and Martyr's begged a●d and secure by intercession of the Saints. He did not pray to any Saint●r Saints, he did not beg help of them, but supposing they Prayed with him and for him, he prayed unto God, that he would send him help for the sake of their Intercession in his behalf. This is also the meaning of those expressions in St. Austin, that They ought to commend themselves to the Prayers of the Martyrs, and frequent 
Aug. de Cur. promort c. 4.  their tombs with a Religious Solemnity, that they may become partakers of their Me●its and be helped by their Prayers; that is, not by praying to them, b●● (holding, as was then commonly believed, that when Christians came to their Tombs, the blessed Martyrs joined their Supplications with them) by Praying to God to afford them the benefit of their Prayers, and that their Petitions might succeed the better for the sake of their requests put up in conjunction with their own. The same account may be given of St. Basils' words in his O●a●●on on the forty Martyrs, He that is in distress flies to them, and 
Ba●il. Hom. 20. in, 40. Mart.  he that is in Prosperity runs to them; the one that he may have his condition changed, the other that he may have his continued; but now to fly and to run unto them, signifies no more than to fly and run to the Churches and ●omb where they lie interred, for so it follows, here a Woman Praying for her Son is heard, and here let us together with those Martyr's pour forth our Prayers; Supposing its likely, as was mentioned before, that the Martyr's Souls were continually about their Tombs and Prayed for all that came thither to Pray for themselves, the Father exhorts Christians to go thither, not to Pray to them, but to join with them in Prayer unto God.  
6. They tell us of many miracles wrought by God upon addresses made to Saints and in this they triumph as an undeniable proof that God approves of such addresses; God heareth not Sinners, neither will he give his Glory to another, and therefore were Prayers made to Saints a sin of that sacrilegious nature as to rob God of his Honour, 'tis not to be thought that he'd give suchcountenance to them against himself, as to Crown them with success.  
To this it may be answered; It's certain that at first God was pleased upon the Prayers of Christians put up to himself, to work many miracles for the Confirmation of the Faith, but that any were wrought in answer to such Prayers that at those places were in after Ages made to the Martyrs, is very uncertain 
August. de Civit. Dei. l. 22. c. 8.  and much to be suspected: St. Austin names but two instances of this kind that I have met withal, and at the same time he mentions them, blasts their credit by telling us he had no undoubted Authority for the Truth of them; St. Chrysostom not only declares that miracles in his time were ceased, but hath wrote a Discourse on purpose ●o give us the reasons why they are so, so that all the miracles the Church of Rome pretends to on this account, are either delusions of Satan, which God sometimes permits him to work for the Trial of his people, or else Cheats and Impostures performed by cunning Men of their own to wheedle and impose on the easy and credulous Vulgar.   

V That there is full and evident proof in Scripture against it.  
IF that general rule of St. Austin's be allowed off, that God is so to be Worshipped, that is, as to all the 
Aug. de consen. Evang. l. 1. c. 18  Essential parts of it, as he himself has commanded to be Worshipped, than all those places of the Scripture that command us to direct our Prayers only to God, and only in the Name and Mediation of Jesus Christ, do with equal force forbidden us to direct our Prayers to any other object, or to use any other Name and Mediation. Now Texts to this purpose are innumerable.  
Oh thou that hearest Prayers, unto thee shall all Flesh 
Psalm 65. 2  come.  
Call upon me in the time of trouble— and I will deliver 
Psalm 50. 15  thee.  
Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and 
Matt. 11. 28  I will give you rest.  
Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will 
John 16. 23.  give it you.  
In every thing by Prayer and supplication with Thanksgiving, 
Phil. 4. 6.  let your requests be made known unto God.  
If any of you lack Wisdom, let him ask it of God, who 
Jam. 1. 5.  gives to all Men liberally,— etc.  
How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? 
Rom. 10. 14.  Now if none but God is to be believed in, none but God is to be called upon.  
These are very plain and convincing, and no others need to be produced, but because the Romish Authors have been practising upon some others, endeavouring to obscure and weaken their evidence, which are yet no less clear and full; I shall bring them forth, also, and not only wip off the dust that has been cast upon thèm, but restore them to their own natural sense and Prespicuity.  
They are chief these Four.  
The First is, Luke 11. 2. When ye Pray, say, Our Father which art in Heaven,— etc. For thine is the Kingdom, the Power; and the Glory for ever and ever. Now the meaning of this precept must be one or both these two things, either that we should use this form of words when we Pray, or that we should compose all our Prayers after this pattern; take which we will; in either sense they oblige us to direct all our Prayers to our Heavenly Father; whose is the Kingdom, Power, and Glory, whensoever we repeat this form of Prayer, we address to God as the Object, saying, Our Father; and if no Prayer is to be made but after this pattern then still▪ it follows that no other ought to be the Object of them, but he who is Our Heavenly Father. 'Tis generally concluded on all sides, that in this absolute and perfect form of our Lord's Prayer is contained a Summary of what ever ought to be the subject matter of a Christians Prayer, now since every Petition in it is directed immediately to God our Heavenly Father, it follows that when ever we Pray, we are not only to Pray for no other things but these blessings, but also to beg them of no other Being but him.  
But to put by the force of the Argument taken from this command of our Lords, When ye Pray, say; or, 
Spenc. Script. mistaken by Protest. p. 57  after this manner Pray ye; the Romanists tells us, that 'tis true, we are to imitate this Prayer of Christ's in composing our own, as to its brevity and compendiousness, as to the subject matter of it, as to the the Catholickness of its Spirit, obliging us to Pray for others at the same time when we Pray for ourselves, saying, Our Father; but not as to the Object to whom our Prayers are to be addressed, for then by the same Argument we may exclude the Second and Third Persons in the Blessed Trinity as well as Angels and Saints; to this it's no hard matter to give an answer. And  
1. It must be confessed, that the word Father in this Prayer is to be meant chief, though not solely, of the first person in the Sacred Trinity; he being the Root and Fountain of the Deity, and the prime Original of all our happiness, may in special be called upon by us, so far as is consistent with our acknowledgement of the equal Divinity of the other Two Persons; for though the Son and the Holy Ghost partake alike with him of the Divine nature and consequently have a right to the same Adoration, yet forasmuch as God the Father is the First Person, and the Father who Communicates that Divine nature to them both, forasmuch as 
John 2. 29. John 6. 27. John 5. 26.  God the Father hath that Essence in himself, and what he is, is from none, but the Son and the Holy Ghost have it by Communication from the Father, and what they are, they are from him, this Title may bear particular and primary respect to him. Accordingly 
Eph. 1. 3.  we find the Apostles in a particular manner directing their Prayers to God the Father; Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us, 
Ver. 17. — I cease not to make mention of you in my Prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ; the Father of Glory,— for this cause I bow my Knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus, that he would grant you— But  
2. The word Father in this Prayer is to be taken Essentially, and not Personally, and so excludes not the other two Persons of the most Holy and Undivided Trinity but only those that are of a different nature from them. Now if the whole three Persons are one in Essence, then when ever we Pray to, and do Honour to God the Father, we must at the same time Worship 
John. 10. 20.  the other two, though not so directly, who are one with him. Thus our Saviour speaks, I and the Father are one; yea, the whole Three Persons are so, 
1 John 5. 7.  as St. John tells us expressly, There are three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. We read that 'twas the 
John 5. 23.  will of God, That all Men should Honour the Son as they do the Father, and that we should Honour the Holy Ghost as well as either, because we are equally Baptised 
Matt. 28. 19  into his name; Go ye therefore and teach all Nations, Baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and the Holy Ghost; now if the Son and the Holy Ghost are one in Essence with the Father, and to be Honoured with the same Honour, then although in this Title the Father be only expressly named and invocked, the other two persons can't but be employed and comprehended in it.  
3. We may consider that this Doctrine of the Trinity, being in a great measure a stranger to the Old Testament, and the Apostles, when our Saviour gave them this Prayer, not sufficiently instructed in it, our Saviour might teach them to call upon God in suchh an expression; which, though for the present they might understand only of God the Father, yet afterwards when they should come more fully to understand and believe the Trinity, might fairly be extended to take in the other two persons, Son and Holy Ghost.  
4. Since it is by virtue of our Spiritual relation to God by Christ, through the operation of the Holy Ghost, that in a more special and particular manner he is Our Father; when ever we call upon God as a Father, and Our Father, it implies that we address to him in the Name and Mediation of Christ, and by the assistance of the Holy Ghost; the Apostle tells believers that they had received the Spirit of Adoption, whereby they cried Abba Father: St. Chrysostom's notion on the Text is, that the Jews 
Rom. 8. 15.  during the time of the Old Testament, being under a Servile Dispensation, did seldom or never presume to call upon God by that familiar appellation of a Father; but the Holy Ghost moving believers after a miraculous and extraordinary way, in the first days of Christianity, to invocke God by that name, as our Saviour had directed his Disciples before, might well be called the Spirit of Adoption, as thereby declaring them to be his Adopted Sons.  
Another evident proof are those words of the Apostle 1 Tim. 2. 5. There is one God and and one Mediator between God and Man, the Man Christ Jesus. The natural importance of the words seems to be this, that, as there is but one God only, and no more, to whom we ought to Pray, so there is but one Mediator only, and no more by whom we have access with boldness to the Throne of Grace; one Mediator Emphatically, in the same sense as there is one God, and you may as well make to yourselves more Gods as more Mediators.  
But to weaken the strength of this evidence, the Romanists distinguish betwixt a Mediator of Redemption and a Mediator of Intercession, and tell us that the Text is only to be understood of the former, which indeed is but one, but not of the latter, which may be more than one, even as many as there are Angels and Saints in Heaven; but how little this distinction does serve their turn, may appear by considering.  
1. That there is a vast difference betwixt an Intercessor and a Mediator of Intercession; that Saints in Heaven, out of that Charity that all the Members of Christ have for one another, do in general interceded for the good of that Body of which they are a part, was owned and granted before; but this makes them not Mediators of Intercession, to which office it belongs to receive the Prayers of others, and to present them to God; and in order hereunto, they must hear the Prayers of others, and receive information concerning their particular States and Conditions, which they are not capable of.  
2. That this Text is especially to be understood of that part of Christ's Mediatory Office that consists in interceding for us; the Apostle seems to oppose these words to the Heathen Form of Praying, which was to many Gods by many Doemons, who were reputed Agents or Mediators between their chief Gods and them; now all that the Heathens attributed to their Doemons was Intercession only and the Apostle shows that Christ being made a Mediator, every way effectual for that end, ●●●re could be no necessity of any Mediators of Intercession besides him; so that the Apostle here. replies two things to the Heathens multiplicity of Mediators; 1. That God had appointed but one, the God-Man Christ Jesus; therefore he says, ver. 7. that he was ordained a Teacher of the Gentiles in Faith and Verity, for establishing the Christian Faith and Truth in this particular especially, of one God and one Mediator, in contradiction to the plurality of Gods and Mediators amongst the Gentiles; answerable to this are those words of the Apostle in another place, Though there be many that are called Gods (as there be Gods many and Lords many) but to us there is but one 
1 Cor. 8. 5.  God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ; here there is a manifest and direct opposition betwixt the Heathen way of Praying and the Christian; the Heathens had many Gods and many Lords Mediators, the Christians, but one God, and one Lord Mediator; the Heathens had many Sovereign Gods betwixt whom and Men they supposed there was no immediate intercourse; they had also many under Gods or Doemons, by whose Agency and Mediatorship they addressed themselves to their Sovereign Gods, this the Apostle confutes, and shows that Christians are taught to believe and profess but one God, Maker of all things to whom they ought to Pray, and but one Lord, Mediator and Advocate, by whom they offer their Petitions to him. 2. That there needed no other besides this one, he being a Mediator of Redemption too, and on that account had not only an Authority and Commission from God to show for that office, but an infinite worth and invaluable merits of his own to plead in behalf of Mankind and to procure the granting of their requests; he hath purchased what he begs for, and atoned for what he Pra●s for; having no Sin of his own to answer for, he was excellently qualified to interceded for Pardon for our Sins; and having perfectly fulfilled all righteousness and shed his most precious Blood for us, he highly merited of God, both for us and for himself; for us, the several blessings he intercedes for; for himself the God like Honour and Royalty to be the Donour and Dispenser of them. Hence it is that the Apostle here makes his Mediation ●●●●pend on his Propitiation, and after he had told there is but one Mediator, presently subjoins, Who gave himself a Ransom for all; to the same purpose is that of St. John 
Ver. 6. 1. Joh. 21. 2.  If any Man Sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, that is, the same with a Mediator of Intercession, and that we might be fully assured of the greatness of his 
John 2. 1, 2.  Authority and Power, he adds, Jesus Christ the Righteous, and he is the Propitiation for our Sins.  
A third Scripture against Saint-Invocation are those words of our Saviour, Mat. 4. 10. Taken out of Deut. 6. 13. Thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Now if Prayer be a necessary and chief part of God's Worship, as all are agreed it is, we are bound by this Scripture to Pray only to God. But to this they say, there are several degrees of Religious Worship, and that it is only an inferior kind wherewith they Worship the Saints departed, called by them Duleia, when it's applied to ordinary Saints, and hyperduleia, when, to the blessed Virgin; and that they never Worship them as they do God, with Latreia, the highest kind of Worship; if it be asked; How does this appear, since the same Signs and outward Acts of Worship are performed to the one as well as to the other? They answer, that they have higher conceptions and intentions of Honour to God in the exercise of their offic●● to him, then when they perform the like to any Angel or Saint departed. To this several things may be said,  
1. If these words, him only shalt thou serve, are to be understood only of the highest degree of Religious worship, as a part of the whole, and distinguished from a lower kind, they had not been a sufficient answer to the Devils demand; he might thus have answered, I acknowledge the Sovereign and Almighty Power of God as well as you, That it is he alone can command 
Ver. 3,  Stones to become Bread; and this Power I have over the Kingdoms of the World, I own to have received from him, for it was delivered to me. And therefore I do not 
Luke 4. 6.  desire that thou shouldest Worship me as thou dost God with Latreia, with the highest degree of worship; but only with Duleia, a lower kind; thy Heart, the highest and most elevated thoughts and conceptions of thy mind, may be given to God, 'tis only the outward Act that I challenge of thee, that thou wouldst only fall down and Worship me, or by falling down worship Me.  
2. That the Scriptures often use these two words, Latreia, and Duleia, promiscuously, to signify the same thing; and as sometimes Latreia, is set to signify that Civil Honour and Service that's due to Men in Eminency and Authority; so is Duleia, to express that Religious worship that's only due to God. As to the first, God 
Deut. 28. 48. Latreuseiss  thus threatens the Isralites, therefore thou shalt serve thine Enemies; as to the other, many places may be instanced in; thus when Samuel exhorted the House of Isarel, to prepare their Hearts unto the Lord and to serve him only, and when the Apostles urged Christians to be fervent in Spirit, serving the Lord, and when our Saviour said, ye cannot 
1. Sam 7. 3. duleusate, Rom. 10. 11. dulevontes Matt. 6. 24. u dunasthe Theo dulein.  serve God and Mammon, Dulevein, is the word made use of.  
3. That there is no, such distinction in Religious worship as an higher and lower kind, because whatever is Religious worship is such, with respect to God only as the Object, and therefore can be but one, and that in the highest degree, as God is one, and infinitely exalted above all. Religion, say the Schoolmen, is a Moral Virtue which exhibits due Worship to God, as the 
L. 4 Inst. c. 28. de ver. Rel. c. 55.  Principal of all things. Lactantius therefore derives it a Religando, because it ties Man to God; and St. Austin, à Religendo because Men choose God again whom they had forsaken; 'Tis not therefore whatsoever is excellent, but whatsoever is Divine, and as it is Divine, that is the Object of Religion; now Angels and Holy Men, although there be some kind of Honour due to those excellencies, that are found in them, an Honour Commensurate to those excellencies; yet falling infinitely short of Divinity, must be excluded from having any share of that worship, which either by God himself, or the universal consent of Mankind, is made Religious, that is, appropriate to God. Neither.  
4. Will it help the matter to say, that though the outward Acts and Expressions of worship to both are the same, there is a vast difference in the inward Devotions of their minds and Souls, and that which they Pray to Saints and Angels, they must not be thought to do it, with that height of Affection, and trust and resignation, wherewith they call upon God? For, when all is done, words and outward Acts will be reckoned to signify according to that sense and meaning Custom and Institution hath stamped upon them, and let the inward thoughts of the Votary be what they will, if he apply to Saints and Angels in such expressions and offices or with such Rites and Ceremonies, as according to the usual acceptation of them, naturally import that Hope and Confidence, that Love and Duty, that is due to God alone, he will be deemed to ascribe unto them, naturally import that Hope and Confidence, that Love and Duty, that is due to God alone, he will be deemed to ascribe unto them, the Honour which he owes to God. Outward Acts of worship are declarative of the inward respect and veneration of the Soul to God, as words are of the inward thoughts and apprehensions of the mind; and, as when I use such words, which  to common custom signify such a Proposition, I must be concluded to mean and intent that Proposition; so when I use such outward Acts of Worship, which by Custom or Institution signify the Honour due to God, to any other, I must be thought to ascribe the Honour that's due to God, to that other. The Corinthians, although they knew that an Idol was nothing in the World, yet because they observed the Feasts that were dedicated to the Honour of the Idol, Eating and Drinking in the Idols Temple, are said by the Apostle to Drink the 
1 Cor. 20. 21.  Cup of Devils, and to be partakers of the Devils Tables, and to have Fellowship with Devils; that is, by doing those actions that in those places were used to signify the Worship of the Heathen Gods, although they intended no Religion, but Civility and Compliment in the compliance, they are said to Worship those Heathen Gods, who were not Gods, but Devils. The Israelites that halted betwixt God and Baal, although they could not but have higher apprehensions of God than Baal, Yet by bowing the Knee to Baal and Kissing his Mouth, by using those outward 
1 Kings 19 18.  Acts of Worship, wherewith the Heathens Worshipped him, are said to be guilty of Idolatry. In sum, was a mental reservation of keeping the Heart to God, and intending the highest degrees of Honour and Worship to him, sufficient to clear Men from Idolatry, whilst they perform outward Acts Instituted and customarily observed for Religious worship 
Exod. 32. 8  to any besides God; the Israelites could not be guilty of it, when they Sacrified to the Golden-Calf they had made; nor the Wiser sort of Heathens, who whilst they knew the vulgar Gods to be no Gods, but Cheats and Devils, did out of fear of punishment comply with the vulgar practice of burning Incense to them; and the Primitive Fathers were very much mistaken, who judged not only those Christians who at the Emperors Command sacrificed to Idols against their Consciences, guilty of Idolatry, but even those, who, though no threats could move them to do it in 
Libellatici.  person, did yet either purchase Certificates that they had done it, when they did it not, or procure some others, their Heathen Friends and servants to do it for them, implicitly to be guilty of it.  
I shall name but one Scripture more, Col. 2. 18. Let no Man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary Humility and Worshipping of Angels— and not holding the head. Where we see the Apostles expressly condemns the Worship of Angels as forsaking of Christ and not ●olding the head; and if the Worship of Angels, it follows with greater force of reason, the Worship of Saints departed. What this Worship was, Theodoret upon the place informs us; where he says, that the Jews, that is, Jewish Christians, Having received the Law by the Ministration of Angels, and holding that the God of all was Invisible, and in accessible taught that Men ought to obtain the favour of God by the Means and Intercession of Angels; and the same Father tells us that they had Oratories or Chapels of St. Michael.  
This St. Paul calls, ●ot holding the head, because they set up more Mediators besides Christ, who was the only one appointed by God, and they that join others with him, do forsake him; accordingly the Council of Loadicea condemned it as Idolatrous; the words of the Canon are these; That christians 
Council La●d. can. 35.  ought not to forsake the Church of God, and Invocate Angels, because they that do so, forsake our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, and give themselves to Idolatry. St. Paul and the Canon both speak so direct and home against the Romanists, that Baronius, it seems, was hard put to it, to answer them, when he's forced to beg Theodoret's Pardon, and tells him, with his good leave, that he understood neither the one nor the other, that it was the Religious Worship of false and Heathenish Gods, not that of good Angels that was forbid and condemned by both of them, and that those Oratories of St. Michael were set up by Catholics and not by Heretics, it being then the practice of the Church to Invocate Angels. And now though we might safely venture Theodoret's Judgement and Credit against Baronius', yet we have no need of his Authority to find out the true meaning of the Text; whoever considers that the Apostle condemns the Worship of Angels in general, and duly weighs the series of his Discourse, will easily apprehend, that it is not leveled against the Heathens who had not yet embraced Christianity, but adhered to the Worship of their false Gods; but a sort of Judaizing Christians, who retaining still a mighty Veneration for Angels, as the supposed givers of the Law, endeavoured to introduce the Worship of them into the Church of Christ: Let no Man beguile you of your reward— in Worshipping of Angels, not holding the head; the Apostles Argument to dissuade them from that Worship is, that by doing so, they forsook Christ, which could not have been an Argument to the Heathens who had never yet believed on him.   

VI That the Fathers of the first and purest Ages till after three hundred, are all express and positive in their Writings against it.  
HOw fully the sacred Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament do condemn the Invocation of Saints, you have seen already; now that the Fathers of the purest Ages understood the Scriptures in the same sense as Protestants do as to this particular, and are also very clear in their writings against it, will appear from these following Considerations;  
1. They generally denied the Doctrine on which this of Saint-Invocation is founded; viz. that Saints departed do now reign in Heaven, and enjoy the Beatific Vision. 'Tis by this blessed privilege especially, of seeing God, that the Romanists ground their belief, that the perfected Spirits of just Men in Heaven come to see all things in him, to know the Petitions and to be acquaintwith the requests of their humble Supplicants; but now the Primitive Fathers have peremptorly affirmed, that the Saints departed are not yet admitted to the sight of God, but are only kept in certain hidden receptacles in the full enjoyment of Peace and rest till the general Resurrection; this they have not only asserted in so many words, and endeavoured to 
Iren. l. 5. c. 31.  prove, from our Saviour's Soul being in Paradise, which they will not have to be the highest Heaven; but thinking them in a condition not yet fully and completely happy, instead of Invocating them 
Chrysos. Tom. 6. p. 998.  did Pray for their farther Bliss & Consummation. So that denying the foundation, they can't be supposed to grant the Doctrine built upon it. No fewer than Eighteen, by the Romanists own Confession, are of this opinion; and though they should be mistaken, as their great Cardinal thinks they were, and endeavours to prove, yet 'tis enough to our purpose, that they did not hold the one, and therefore could neither teach nor practise the other.  
2. One chief Argument which the Primitive Fathers used to prove the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost against the Arrians and Macedonians, was the Catholic practice of the Church in Praying to them, which would not have been of any force, had they believed that any Creatures, though never so highly exalted in Nature and Condition, might have had that Honour paid unto them. They tell us frequently in their writings, that when the Gospel directs us to invocate the Son and Holy Ghost in conjunction with the Father, it proves them 
Orig. l. 8. in Epis. ad Rom. c. 10 Athan. Orat. 4. contr. Arrianos.  to be true God, that Invocation supposing them every where to be present when they are invocked, and that Omnipresence being the sole property of God. For the same reason when the Arrians who conceived Christ to be no more than an excellent and Godlike Creature, did yet Pray unto him, the Catholics accused them of Idolatry. Had the Catholics at the same time practised the Invocation of Saints, the charge might have been returned with greater force upon themselves, and whatever could have been thought of by the Catholics to excuse themselves from that guilt, might with more strength have been urged by the Arians in their behalf. Had the Catholics replied, as the Romanists do now, that though they did Pray to the blessed Spirits, yet they did not do it with that Sovereign, direct and final Prayer, nor with those Sublimest Thoughts and intentions of Honour, wherewith they did address to God, but only with indirect, subaltern and relative Prayer, and with no higher intentions of Honour to them, than what is proportioned to the excellencies of their finite nature; the Arrians might have returned upon them with great advantage; even after the same manner, Sirs, and with the same due limitations do we Invocate the Man Christ Jesus, and whilst we do no more but so, we have more reason for what we do then you can have, since Christ is confessedly superior to all Creatures, and consequently deserves at least as great an Honour to be paid to him as unto any the highest amongst them, though we do not think him God equal with the Father, yet the Scripture assures us he is exalted far above all Angels, Principalities and Powers and every name which is named in Heaven and Earth; and though we may not Honour the Son in the same high degree with an as of equality as we do the Father, yet the Scripture enjoins us to do it with the same kind of Honour, with an as of similitude and likeness; and this is more than can be said in defence of that Honour and Invocation you offer to Saints and Angels.  
3. Because the Fathers condemned the Heathens as guilty of Idolatry for Invocating their Doemons or inferior Deities, which in a manner is the same with the Romish Invocation of Angels and Saints. This has been invincibly proved 
Dean of St. P. against G.  against the Romanists by a great Light of our Church; who hath made the Parity and Agreement betwixt them to be very obvious; as,  
1. In the Object of their Invocation; the Heathens had one Supreme God and a multitude of Inferiors Deities; the Romanists have also, besides one God above all, a multitude of Angels and Saints departed. It may be the Vulgar and Ordinary People might mistake for their Gods, Jupiter of Crete, Mars, Venus, Vulcan, Bacchus, Persons that had been famous for Lewdness and Adulteries; and if they did, 'tis to feared not much better an account can be given of many of the Canonised Saints in the Church of Rome; but the Wiser sort had far different apprehensions of their Deities, they said and believed the same of the Supreme God, as Christians do, That he made the whole 
Plot Enn. 5. l. 9 c. 5. Laert. in Vit. Thal. p 24. Senec. Ep. 83  World, and sees all things, that he wants neither Power nor Will, nor Knowledge to make his Providence concerned in the least things, that neither the Actions nor the very thoughts of men's minds can be hid from him.  
Accordingly we find St. Paul affirming of the Heathens that they knew God, ascribing to the Heathens Jupiter, he being the Creator of all things, so he told the Athenians, Him whom ye Ignorantly Worship, declare I 
Acts. 17  unto you, God that made the World, and the being the Father of all Mankind, when he said in the words of one of heir Poets, for we are all his offspring. And then for their Inferior Deities, there is so very little disparity betwixt them and the Angels and Saints Invocated by the Church of Rome, that it seems to be only in name. Accordingly St. Austin Confessed that the Platonists did affirm the same things of their good Daemons as Christians 
St. Aust. de civet Dei. l. 9 c. 23.  did of the blessed Angels; did they distinguish their Inferior Deities into such Spirits as were by Death delivered from the Body, and such as never had any; into such as always lived in Heaven, and such, 
Apul. de Deo. Socr. p. 50. cic. de leg. l. 2.  whose merits had advanced them thither; how exactly doth this suit with the difference given by Romanists betwixt Angels and Saints departed, and the reason of their Worshipping of them, The spiritual and Heavenly Nature of the one and the Merits of the other?  
2. In the Office ascribed to them. The employment the Heathens put upon their Daemons was to 
Aug. de civ. Dei. l. 8, e. 18.  carry up the Prayers of Men to God: and what they had obtained, to bring back to Men; imagining the Supreme God to be of too pure and sublime a Nature, immediately to converse with Men, they looked upon these as Advocates and Mediators betwixt God and Men, and as Intercessors and Procurers of their desired blessings; and is not this the same thing the Church of Rome says, touching the Office of Angels and blessed Spirits in the behalf of Men, such as do solicit God for them, and by their more prevailing merits and interest in God, obtain of him what they themselves Pray for?  
3. In that which they make the Foundation of their Worship and Invocation to them, viz. a middle sort of excellency betwixt God and Men; so said the Heathens, that there were a sort of Beings between God and Men that participated of both Natures, and that by means of those intermediate Beings an intercourse was maintained betwixt Heaven and Earth; and as God was to be Worshipped for himself, so the others, to be Loved and Honoured for his sake, as being Gods by way of participation, as likest to him, as his Vicars, and as Reconcilers betwixt them: And is not this the declared reason why the Church of Rome gives Religious Worship to Angels and departed Saints, Because of a middle sort of worth and excellency that is in them, that's neither infinite as the divine, nor so low as the humane, but Spiritual and Supernatural, whereby approaching near to the Divinity, they have great interest in the Court of Heaven, and aught, as Celsus said of their Daemons, to be Prayed unto to be favourable and propitious to us. So exact you see is the parallel betwixt them. Now against this Daemon-Worship the Fathers replied, that whatever great and supernatural excellencies were to be found in the Spirits above, ought indeed to have an Acknowledgement and Honour paid to them both in Mind and Action, proportioned and Commensurate to such excellencies; but yet they were not to be esteemed inwardly as Gods, nor to be Worshipped with any outward Act of Religious Worship, be it, erecting Altars, making Vows or putting up Prayers to them, as if they were such, For all and every part of that was solely due to God and not to be given to any the highest Created Excellency. As you may see their minds more fully in the next particular.  
4. The Fathers positively assert that none but God ought to be invocated.  
And the first I shall mention is that advice 
Ign. Ep. ad Philadelph.  which Ignatius gave the Virgins of his time, not to direct their Prayers and Supplications to any, but only to the Blessed Trinity, Oh ye Virgins have Christ alone before your Eyes, and his Father in your Prayers, being enlightened by the Spirit.  
Irenaeus in his first Book taking notice of some Persons, who had entertained strange fancies concerning the Power of Angels & accordingly gave Divine Worship to them, tells us plainly that the Doctrine and Practice of the 
Iren, l. 2. c. 57  Church in his days was far otherwise, and that throughout the World, it did nothing by Invocation of Angels nor by Incantations, but purely and manifestly directs her Prayers to God who made all, and calls upon the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Fevardentius in his notes upon the place would have the words of the Father to be understood only of Prayers made by Evil Spirits and angels; but then why did not the Father express it so? Why does he exclude all Angels without distinction from Divine Worship; when he says the whole Church every where called only upon God and his Son Christ Jesus.  
Eusebius in his History hath set down a long Prayer of the of the Holy Martyr Polycrap, which he uttered at the time of his Suffering, wherein there is not any one Petition put up to Saints, but every one directed to God through the Meditation of Christ, closing his Prayer with 
Euseb. l. 4. c. 15.  this Doxology; Therefore in all things I Praise thee, I Bless thee, I Glorify thee through the Eternal Priest Jesus Christ thy Beloved Son, to whom with thee, Oh Father, and the Holy Ghost, be all Glory now and for ever.  
To which we may add, what also is Recorded by the same Author, that when the Church of Smyrna desired the Body of their Martyred Bishop to give it an Honourable Interment, and was denied it by the Governor, upon the unworthy suggestion of the Jews, that they would Worship it; they thus replied, We can never be induced to Worship any other but Christ, him being the Son of God we adore, others as Martyrs and his sincere Disciples we worthily Love and Respect: and that which here deserves a particular observation, is, what the Learned Primate of Armagh hath pointed out to us, viz. that what in the Original Greek Sebein Religiously to Worship, is in the Latin Edition that was wont to be read in all the Churches of the West, rendered precem Orationis 
Ex passion. M. S. 7. Kalend. Febr. in Bib. Eccl. Sarish. & Dom. Rob. Cotton.  impendere; to impart the Supplication of Prayer.  
The nex● Testimony I shall produce is that of Origen, who is very full to this purpose; in his Writings against Celsus, he tells us, We must endeavour to please God alone, and labour to have him propitious to us, procuring his good will with Godliness and all kind of Virtue; and if Celsus will have us to procure the good will of any others after him that is God ov●● all, let him consider that as when the Body is moved, the motions of the shadow thereof doth follow it; so in like manner, having God favourable to us, who is over all, it followeth that we shall have all his Friends, both Angels and Spirits loving to us; and whereas Celsus had said of the Angels, that they belong to God, and in that respect were to be Prayed unto that they may be favourable to us; he thus sharply replies, Away with Celsus' Council, saying that we must Pray to Angels, for we must Pray to him who is God over all, and we must Pray to the Word of God, his only begotten Son and the first born of all Creatures, and we must entreat him, that he as High Priest would present our Prayer unto his God and our God. And when Celsus Objected that the Christians did not keep to their own rule of Praying to and Worshipping none but God, since they gave the same Honour to Christ, whom they knew to be a Man; he replies, that Christ was God as well as Man, one with the Father, and proves it from Miracles and Prophecies and Precepts that this Honour was given to him to be Worshipped as they Worshipped the Father.  
Had Celsus Objected that the Christians Worshipped Angels and Saints departed, it had been laid right, and would have born hard upon them, and he had inferred strongly, that they might as well Worship their Inferior Deities; but Celsus Objects no such thing (but only their Worshipping of Christ which Origen was well provided to answer;) and this is an evident proof that the Christians were not guilty of it. Had there been but the least ground to suspect them for it, it would have been so hugely serviceable to his cause, and with so much force have rebounded back upon the Christians, that 'tis not to be imagined so industrious and spiteful an Adversary as Celsus, would have omitted, with the greatest Insult and Triumph, to have laid it at their Door.  
To these we might add the Suffrages of many more; 
St. Cyprian.  who have written set Treatises of Prayer, teaching us to regulate all our Prayers after that most perfect Pattern of our Lords, and ever to direct our Petitions to our Heavenly Father only.  
Gregory Nyssen saith we are taught to Worship and 
aktiston physin Cont. Eunom. Tom. 2. Orat. 4. O●at. 3. Contr. Arrian. De ver. Relig. c. 55. de civet. Dei. l. 22. c. 10. Ep. 42.  Adore that Nature only that's uncreated.  
Athanasius, That God only is to be Worshipped, that the creature is not to Adore the creature.  
St. Austin says expressly that the Saints are to be Honoured for imitation, not to be Adored for Religion; that at the Communion Table they were named, but not Invocated. And again, you see the head of the most renowned Empire stooping with his Diadem, and Praying at the Sepulchre of Peter the Fisherman, namely, 'tis to God himself that he Prays, though at the Tomb of Peter.  
Epiphanius reproving, as he calls it, the women's 
Hoeres. 79. adver. Collyridian.  Heresy, who were wont to offer up a Cake to the Blessed Virgin, hath these words, Let Mary be in Honour, but let the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost be Worshipped; and to show us what a very ill opinion he had of that at least Superstitious practice, he six times repeats in that tract, Marian medies ●roskyneito Let no Man Adore Mary.  
To name no more; Tertullian in his Apology for the 
Apol. c. Sect. 30. 2. 3.  Christians thus expresses himself; after he had set down the many great Blessings the Christians thought themselves ever obliged to beg for their Emperors, As long life, and Valiant Armies, and a Faithful Senate, and Loyal Subjects, and a peaceable Reign; these things, saith he, I may not Pray for from any other but from him of whom I know I shall obtain them, because both it is he who is alone able to give, and I am he to whom it appertains to obtain that which is requested, being his Servant who observe him alone.   

VII. That the Doctrine and Practice of Saint-Invocation is Impious and Idolatrous.  
THis, I think, will be fully made out from these three particulars.  
1. This ascribes to Angels and Saints the Attributes and Perfections that are solely proper and peculiar to God, viz. his Omniscience and Omnipresence; for, not only, when Mental Prayers, as the Church of Rome directs, but (since the blessed Spirits above can't be supposed to espouse the cause of an insincere Votary) when vocal Prayers also are offered up to them, it supposes them Privy to the very thoughts, and acquainted with the Hearts of Men; again, when innumerable Prayers and Supplications from Millions of places at the greatest distance from one another, are at the same time immediately put up to them, it supposes in like manner, that they are present in all places and at the same time can give Audience to all their Petitioners. Now what more or greater can be said of God? Is not this that infinite knowledge, that Omnipresent Power, and never absent Nature that the Scriptures solely attribute to the Creator of all things, and have denied to any of the highest Form of the Creatures? And although, I will not undertake to describe to you the exact bounds and Measures of the Angelical Nature and Perfections, how perspective their Knowledge is? How piercing their understanding? How swift their motion? Yet, sure I am, that neither they nor any other the most elevated part of God's Creation can by their Natural Power know the Hearts of Men, and be in all places at one instant of time. It is God alone whose understanding is infinite, who looks down from Heaven & beholds all the ways of the Sons of Men, He, even he knoweth all the Hearts of the Children 
1 King. 8. 27.  of Men. 'Tis he that seethe in secret. And God challenges it as a peculiar to himself; The Heart is 
Matt. 6. 4. Jerem. 17. 9 10.  deceitful above all things, and disperatly Wicked, who can know it? I the Lord search the Heart, and try the Reins. By this Argument the Fathers Triumphed over the Arrians and Macedonians in proving the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost, which yet would have been no Argument at all, had not this Knowledge been an Incommunicable perfection in the Divine Nature.  
But 'tis said, that 'tis God indeed that only Naturally, and of himself, knows the Hearts o Men, but this hinders not, but that others, his Saints and Angels may know them by Communication from him, viz. Either by Revelation from God or by the Beatific Vision, Seeing all things in God who sees all things.  
In answer to this, not to mention how it contradicts the express words of Scripture, which, without any distinction or limitation, does as plainly assert as words can do it, That God only knows the Heart; not to mention the many disputes the Romanists have among themselves which way is to be chosen as the most probable, and after what manner is either way this knowledge is derived and passed from God to them; these things may be said,  
1. That God hath no where declared that he hath Communicated this Privilege and Prerogative of his Nature to Saints and Angels, or that he does any way make visible or known to them the Hearts and the Requests of Men; and now, if what is not of Faith is Sin, we having no Text of Scripture to Build our Faith upon in this particular, must of necessity Sin in Praying to them on that supposition, and commit that very sin too, which we doubt whither we so doing commit or no; nay the silence of the Scripture in this particular, has in a manner determined the point, and we may conclude that the most jealous God, has reserved the Honour of Intimation to himself alone, since he has no where given us the least hint or intimation of leave, to pray to them.  
2. We are informed in Scripture that the Saints departed do not particularly know or mind what's done 
2 Chron. 34. 28.  here below, God tells Josiah. thou shalt be gathered to thy Grave in Peace, neither shall thine Eyes see the Evil I will bring upon this place. The Dead know not any thing, that is, of the affairs of this World, saith the 
Eccl. 9 5.  Preacher. His Sons come to Honour and he knoweth it not, and they are brought low and he perceiveth it not of them, says Job of Man in the other State. When 
2 Kings 2. 9  Elijah was about to be taken up into Heaven, he thus spoke to Elisha, Ask what thou wilt before I am taken from thee. Strongly implying that when he was once gone, 'twas in vain to ask any thing of him. Elijah was immediately taken up into Heaven, made no stay by the way in Limbo, as the Romanists themselves agree, being in Heaven, his Love to Elisha could not be forgot, nor his Interest in God lessened, but rather both by being exalted thither, very much increased and augmented; so that no reason can be given why he should limit and fix his making his desires known to him to the time of his abode with him on Earth, but only this, his persuasion that in the other State he should not be capable to hear his requests, and so all his future addresses to him would be ineffectual. To these we may add that known place in Isaiah, Abraham doth not know us and Israel is ignorant of us; from whence St. Austin concludes, that if those great Men 
Isa. 63. 16.  and Founders of their Nation were ignorant of what was done in after Ages to their Posterity, why should the Dead 
S. Aust. de cura pro morie c. 13.  be thought in a condition to know or help their surviving friends in what they do.  
3. They that will have God acquaint particular Saints and Angels with those Petitions that are put up to them, impose a very Servile and Dishonourable Office on God; and as sometimes they will have us, out of Discretion and Humility go to God by Saints and Angels, as Men make their way to a Prince by his Favourites; now they make the King and his Subjects to change places, and God is sent to wait on them with the requests of their Votaries. What can be more strangely ridiculous than this Position of theirs? That the Petitioner must first make his suit to Angels and Saint●, than God must tell those Angels and Saints both the person that Prays, and the boon he Prays for, than the Angels or Saints must back again and present them to God. Or, when any one addresses to an Angel or Saint, to supplicate the blessed Virgin in his behalf, God must first tell this Angel or Saint, the contents of the Address, than he must Post to the blessed Virgin, she upon the first notice of it, must have recourse to her Son, and he upon the motion of his Mother, repair to his Father, to present that request to him which he himself fi●st revealed. But is not this an insufferable affront to God, and an intolerable abuse of themselves? To send the most high God on the Errands of his Creatures, and to apply themselves to broken Cisterns, when they may directly go to the Fountain itself of all blessings?  
4. Neither can the Angels and Spirits above know the Hearts and Petitions of their supplicants any more by virtue of the sight of God, then by Revelation from him; this fond opinion depends upon this Romish jingle, That seeing God, they must in him see all things that in Idea are contained in him: but does not the Scripture assure us, That no one knows the things of God but the Spirit of God that is in him? Do they not tell us, how 
1 cor. 2. 11.  ignorant the Angels were of the great Mystery of Man's Redemption, notwithstanding their nearness to God, 
Eph. 3. 10.  and beholding his Face, Till it was made known to them by the church. Does not our Saviour let us know that 
1 Pet. 1. 12.  he himself as Man, though his Humanity was Hypostatically united to the Divinity, did not pretend to know all the Councils and Purposes of God? Speaking of the day of Judgement, he says, Of that day and hour knoweth no Man, no 
Matt. 24. 36  not the Angels but the Father only. Why then should it be thought credible that the blessed spirits above, by beholding God's Face, do in that Glass of the Divinity see all things and transactions that are done and hear all Prayers and Petitions that are made by the sons of Men?  
2. This Doctrine and Practice is highly derogatory from the Glory of God as Governor of the World. God is the great Lord of Heaven and Earth, all that we are and all that we have we derive from him; we are upheld by his Power and maintained by his bounty and Goodness; In him we live, and move, and have our being; he gives to all life and breath and all things; he numbers the hairs of our head, paints the Lilies of the Field beyond the Glory of Solomon, feeds the young Ravens that call upon him, taketh care of Sparrows; much more of Man, who is of a more worthy and excellent Nature, much more yet of Nations and Kingdoms who consist of multitudes of Men linked together by Laws and Government; and▪ though sometimes when he pleases, he makes use of the Ministry of Angels, and makes them the Instruments of his Providence towards the sons of Men, yet he hath no where told us, that he hath divided to them, much less to Saints departed, their several Provinces, or set them their particular tasks that he has made them Precedents over such Countries or Cities, Patrons and Guardians over such persons or professions, that he has given them a power over such and such Maladies and Diseases; but, has reserved the power of dispensing his kindnesses, where, to whom, and in what measure, in his own hands; and therefore all our trust and confidence ought entirely to be placed in God, all our Thanks and Praises are due to him, and he alone is to be acknowledged as the Author and Donor of all our blessings; but now from that Presidentship and protection, that power and patronage, that the Romanists intruding into these things they have not seen, without sufficient ground 
Col. 2. 18.  ascribe to Angels and Saints, over particular Kingdoms, persons, and in particular Cases and Circumstances, (though as substitutes under God) arises naturally some degree of trust and confidence in them, some debt of Homage and praise to them, and 'tis well if the person obliged looks any higher in his returns of Love and Thankfulness then to that particular Angel or Saint he prayed to, and from whose deputed power and Authority he thinks he received his deliverance; and what is this but to rob God of the Honour of being sole Governor of the World, and to make some of his Creatures who are no less beholding to him for their subsistence then the rest, to partake with him of that Trust and Affection that Homage and subjection, that is wholly due to him from all his Creatures? What is this, as our Church in her Homily expresses it, But a turning from the Creator to the Creature? Cursed is Man that trusteth in Man, says the Prophet, and 
Jerem 17. 5. 7  for the same reason in any Finite and Created Being, because in what degree he does so, in the same does his Heart departed from God, but blessed is the Man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is.  
What low and mean conceptions of God have those Men, who think his Government of the World must be modelled and conformed to a Prince's Government over his Kingdom; and because, he being but a Man, and so not able in person to hear all complaints and redress all grievances, appoints substitutes under him, Judges and Magistrates to do it, therefore God must do so too; whereas there is an infinitely wider distance betwixt the Wisdom, and knowledge, and Goodness, and Power of God, and those of the most acccomplished Governor, than there is betwixt the height of Heaven and the lowest centre of the Earth; My thoughts 
Esa. 55. 8. 9  are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord, for as the Heavens are higher than the Earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts then your thoughts. The Wisest Monarch on Earth falls infinitely short of the perfections of God, his Knowledge is but short, his Power small, and therefore cannot possibly without the information and assistance of others extend the influences of his Government over all his subjects; did he not make use of more Eyes and more Hands than his own, the complaints of some would be altogether neglected, and the cause of others not rightly judged, his mistakes would be innumerable, and his wings too short to cherish and foster, to shelter and cover every corner of his Realm: But could he act with that plenitude of Wisdom, and Knowledge, and Power that is in God, all than might have access to his Person, either immediately, or by his Son, that is of like Nature and Power with him, and no Man fear the being sent back unheard, or the having his cause misjudged, the not having justice done him, or Mercy in a compassionable case withheld from him; God's Wisdom is never wearied with seeing, nor his Power tired with acting in the World. supposing the affairs of the World to be infinite which they are not, yet God is infinite too, and now an infinite God can with as much ease manage, and govern an infinite number of affairs, as one wiseman can prudently manage one affair, Infinite bearing the same proportion to Infinite as one does to one.  
The same fancy likewise of making the Court of Heaven resemble Princes Courts on Earth, hath brought forth that excuse in the Romish Supplicants, that it's out of an humble sense of their own unworthiness, and an awful regard to the Infinite Majesty of God, that they address to him, as Earthly subjects to their King, not immediately to himself, but by the Mediation of Angels and Saints, those Courtiers and Favourites of Heaven. But what Wiseman on Earth who is abundantly satisfied of the readiness and ability of his Prince to help him, and hath free leave given him on any occasion to come, immediately, or by his Son, to him, will choose to wave this freedom of access, and apply himself to some inferior Officer and Favourite, (of whose Power and Interest he is not so well assured,) either to relieve him himself, or to procure relief of the King for him: This is our case, God is of infinite Wisdom, Goodness and Power, every way able on all occasions to afford suitable aids and supplies to the wants of his Creatures, hath not only allowed, but commanded all to call upon him in the day of trouble, to pour out their complaints to him, hath over and over promised to hear their Prayers and to answer them, hath appointed his own Son, God with himself, the Master of Requests, from time to time to receive all the Petitions of his Subjects, and both the one and the other are infinitely more able, and infinitely more willing to hear and secure them, than the Best and Wisest and most Powerful of all Created beings; and shall we now be afraid to take the liberty that God hath given us? Shall we call that Impudence which God hath made our Duty? Whilst we pretend Humility, shall we forseit our Allegiance? And distrust his promises and suspect the Goodness of his Nature for fear of being too Saucy and too Bold with his person? To this pretence of voluntary Humility, the Fathers long since, particularly St. Ambrose and St. Chrysostom, gave a satisfactory answer; St. Ambrose, or whoever was the Author of those Commentaries that go under his name, observing that the Heathens used the same Apology for going to their Gods by their inferior Deities, as the Romanists do now for their addressing to God by 
In Rom. 1. 21.  Saints and Angels, namely, As Men go the King by his Courtiers, out of Humility and a deep sense of the infinite distance betwixt God and them, calls it a miserable excuse, and adds, is any Man so mad and regardless of himself to give the Honour due to the King to any of his Courtiers, which if a Man does, he's condemned of Treason? And yet they think themselves not guilty, who give the Honour due to God's name to a creature, and forsaking God Adore their Fellow Servants, as though any thing greater than that were reserved for God himself. But therefore we go to a King by his Officers and Servants, because the King is but a Man, who knows not of himself whom to employ in his public affairs (without information from others.) But with God it is otherwise, for, nothing is hid from him, he knows the deserts of every one, and therefore we need no spokesman but a Devou● mind, for whensoever such an one shall speak to him, he will Answer him. St. chrysostom also often to the same 
St. chry. serm. 7. of. Repentance. serm. in. Psalm 4. p. 524 p. 802.  purpose denies the way of our coming to God to be like the manner of King's Courts; When thou hast need, saith he, to sue unto a King, thou are forced first to apply to his favourites and go a great way about? but with God there is no such thing he is entreated without an Intercessor, it sufficeth only that thou cry in thine Heart and bring tears with thee, and entering in straightway thou mayest draw him unto thee; and for example hereof he sets before us the Woman of Canaan; she entreated not James, she beseeched not John, neither did she go to Peter, but broke through the crowd, to Christ himself; saying, I have no need of a Mediator, but taking Repentance with me to recommend me, I come to the Fountain itself; for this cause did he descend, for this cause did he take Flesh, that I might have the boldness to speak unto him, I have no need of a Mediator, have thou Mercy upon me.  
3. It's highly injurious to the Honour of Christ, as the only Mediator God has appoint betwixt God and Man. God, as the reward of the unspotted innocency of his life and perfect obedience of his Death exalted him to the right hand of Majesty and Glory, bestowed a mediatorious Kingdom on him, invested him with all Power in Heaven and Ea●●h, and gave 
Acts 2.  him Authority to receive and answer the Prayers of his People. Jesus whom ye flew and hanged on a Tree, 
Acts. 5. Phil. 2. 9  him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour; Let all the House of Israel know assuredly, that that same Jesus whom ye crucified, God hath made Lord and Christ. He humbled himself and became obedient unto the Death, even the Death of the cross, wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every Knee should bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Lord, to the Glory of God the Father, so that now to make more Mediators than Christ, is, not only to undervalue his all-sufficient merits, to distrust his never-failling Interest and Power with God, but also to invade that Honour and Royalty that God hath conferred on him alone, by giving to Angels and Saints the same Power, they give them the same Honour too, and Christ is rob of both, whilst others are made to divide with him. But to which of the Angels or Saints departed, said God at any time; Sat thou on my right hand to make intercession for Men? Of which of them has he at any time affirmed, as he has done of Christ, He is able to save them to the uttermost that come to God by him, seeing he ever lives to make Intercession for Men? That if any Man Sin, he is an Advocate with the Father for him; Or whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in his name, it shall be given you? Certainly, they who will have Angels and Saints Mediators betwixt God and Men ought to produce a Commission signed by God or his Son Jesus to constitute them such, but this they are no more able to do, than they are to make a grant of such Power and Honour themselves to them. It's true the Blessed Spirits above are said to stand about the Throne of God, and the Holy Angels to behold his Face, and as the Honour of a Prince is increased by the number of his Attendants, so is our Lord's exaltation rendered the more Glorious by those ten thousand times ten thousand that Minister unto him; but yet it's never said, They sit at God's right Hand, or live for ever to make Intercession for us; and having no such delegation of Power from God for this office, the Honour and Worship that belongs to it, can't be given to them without manifest Wrong and Sacrilege to Christ who has? The Holy Angels are God's ministering Spirits, and the Spirits of Justmen departed, his Glorified Saints; but God hath made Jesus the Lord and Christ; and put all things in Heaven and Earth in Subjection under his feet; of him only hath he said, Let all the Angels Honour him, and all the Saints fall down before him, and all Men Honour the Son even as they Honour the 
John 5. 23  Father. Amen.   

To Conclude.  
WEre we certain that the Saints departed do now reign in Heaven and enjoy the Beatific Vision, and that it was lawful to Invocate such as are undoubtely Saints, as the Blessed Virgin and the Holy Apostles; Yet, methinks, a wary Man should be shy, and not overforward to exhibit that honour to all whom the Pope hath Cannonized; I cannot for my heart but think, that the Prelates and Bishops in King Henry the Eighth's time had as much reason to Unsaint Thomas Becket for being a Rebel against his Prince, as Pope Alexander the Third had to Canonize him for being a Biggot for the Church. What can a sober Christian think of the Saintship of some, who never had any being in the World, and of others who never had any goodness; many of their Saints are mere Names, without Persons, and many mere Persons, without Holiness; nay, I am very confident that the greatest Incendiaries and Disturbers of the Peace of the World do as well deserve it, as that famous Pope, Hildebrand or Gregory the seventh. Innumerable might be instanced in, whose Saintship justly falls under great Suspicion: but, 'tis enough that some Romanists themselves, and those of no little Authority in their Church, have granted that the Pope's canonisations are doubtful and subject to error; If then at any 
Billar. de beat. sanct. l. 1. c. 7. 8.  time his Infallibility should chance to mistake, as I am pretty sure, he has more than once done, the Members of that Church are in a sweet case, and are not only in danger of Invocating Saints, but Devils also, which is Idolatry with a witness, and by their own Confession.   
FINIS.   

A DISCOURSE AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION  
EDINBURGH, reprinted by John Reid, Anno DOM: 1686.   

A DISCOURSE AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION  
COncerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, one of the two great positive Institutions of the Christian Religion, there are two main Points of difference between Us and the Church of Rome. One, about the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; in which they think, but are not certain, that they have the Scripture and the words of our Saviour on their side: The other about the administration of this Sacrament to the People in both kinds; in which we are sure that we have the Scripture and our Saviour's Institution on our side; and that so plainly, that our Adversaries themselves do not deny it.  
Of the first of these I shall now treat, and endeavour to show against the Church of Rome, That in this Sacrament there is no substantial change made of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the natural Body and Blood of Christ; that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary, and suffered upon the Cross; for so they explain that hard word Transubstantiation.  
Before I engage in this Argument, I cannot but observe what an unreasonable task we are put upon, by the bold confidence of our Adversaries, to dispute a matter of Sense; which is one of those things about which Aristotle hath long since pronounced there aught to be no dispute.  
It might well seem strange if any man should write a Book, to prove that an Egg is not an Elephant, and that a Musket-Bullet is not a Pike: It is every whit as hard a case, to be put to maintain by a long Discourse, that what we see and handle and taste to be Bread is Bread, and not the Body of a Man; and what we see and taste to be Wine is Wine, and not Blood: And if this evidence may not pass for sufficient without any farther proof, I do see why any man, that hath confidence enough to do so, may not deny any thing to be what all the world sees it is; or affirm any thing to be what all the world sees it is not; and this without all possibility of being farther confuted. So that the business of Transubstantiation is not a controversy of scripture against scripture, or of Reason against Reason, but of downright Impudence against the plain meaning of scripture, and all the sense and Reason of Mankind.  
It is a most self-evident Falsehood; and there is no Doctrine or Proposition in the world that is of itself more evidently true, than Transubstantiation is evidently false: And yet if it were possible to be true, it would be the most, ill-natured and pernicious truth in the World, because it would suffer nothing else to be true; it is like the Roman-catholic Church, which will; needs be the whole Christian Church, and will allow no other society of Christians to be any part of it: so Transubstantiation, if it be true at all, it is all truth; for it cannot be true unless our senses and the senses of all mankind be deceived about their proper objects; and if this be true and certain, than nothing else can be so; for if we be not certain of what we see, we can be certain of nothing.  
And yet notwithstanding all this, there is a Company of men in the World so abandoned and given up by God to the efficacy of delusion, as in good earnest to believe this gross and palpable Error, and to impose the belief of it upon the Christian World under no less penalties then of temporal death and Eternal damnation. And therefore to undeceive, if possible, these deluded souls, it will be necessary to examine the pretended grounds of so false a Doctrine, and to lay open the monstruous absurdity of it.  
And in the handling of this Argument, I shall proceed in this plain method.  
I. I shall consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine.  
II. I shall produce our Objections against it. And if I can show that there is no tolerable ground for it, and that there are invincible Objections against it, than every man is not only in reason excused from believing this Doctrine, but hath great cause to believe the contrary.  
FIRST, I will consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine. Which must be one or more of these five. Either 1. The Authority of scripture. Or 2ly. The perpetual belief of this Doctrine in the Christian Church, as an belief of of this Doctrine in the Christian Church, as an evidence that they always understood and interpreted our Saviour's words, This is my body, in this sense. Or 3ly. The authority of the, present Church to make and declare new articles of Faith. Or 4ly The absolute necessity of such a change as this in the Sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive this Sacrament. Or 5 lie. To magnify the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle.  
1. They pretend for this Doctrine the Authority of Scripture in those words of our Saviour, This is my Body. Now to show the insufficiency of this pretence, I shall endeavour to make good these two things.  
1. That there is no necessity of understanding those words of our Saviour in the sense of Transubstantiation.  
2. That there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise.  
First, That there is no necessity to understand those words of our Saviour in the sense of Transubstantiation. If there be any, it must be from one of these two reasons. Either because there are no figurative expressions in Scripture, which I think no man ever yet said; or else, because a Sacrament admits of no figures; which would be very absurd for any man to say, since it is of the very nature of a Sacrament to represent and exhibit some invisible grace and benefit by an outward sign and figure: And especially since it cannot be denied, but that in the institution of this very Sacrament our Saviour useth figurative exressions and several words which cannot be taken strictly and literally. When he gave the Cup he said, This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of Sins. Where first, the Cup is put for Wine contained in the Cup; or else if the words be literally taken, so as to signify a substantial change, it is not of the Wine but of the Cup and that, not into the blood of Christ but into the new Testament or new Covenant in his blood. Besides, that his blood is said then to be shed and his body to be broken, which was not till his Passion, which followed the Institution and first celebration of this Sacrament.  
But that there is no necessity to understand our Saviour's words in the sense of Transubstantiation, I will take the plain concession of a great number of the most learned Writters of the Church of Rome in this Controversy. 
a de Euch. l. 3. c. 23.  Bellarmine, 
b in 3. dis. 49. Qu. 75. Sect. 2.  Suarez and 
c in 3. part. dis. 150. Qu. 75. art. 2. c. 15.  Vasquez do acknowledge Scotus the great Scholman to have said that this Doctrine cannot be evidently proved from Scripture: And Bellarmine grants this not to be improbable; and Suarez and Vasquez acknowledge 
d in sent. l. 4. dist. 11. qu. 1. n. 15  Durandus to have said as much. 
e in 4. sent. Q. 5. & quoth 4. q. 3.  Ocham, another famous schoolman, says expressly, that the Doctrine which holds the substance of the Bread and Wine to remain after the consecration is neither repugnant to Reason nor to Scripture. 
f in 4, sent. Q, 6. art. 2.  Petrus ab Allia●● Cardinal of Cambray say plainly, that the Doctrine of the substance of Bread and Wine remaining after Consecration is more free from absurdity, more rational, and no ways repugnant to the authority of scripture; nay more, that for the other Doctrine, viz. of Transubstantiation, there is no evidence in scripture 
g in canon Miss. Lect. 40.  Gabriel Biel, another Schoolman and Divine of their Church, freely declares, that as to any thing expressed in the Canon of the scripture, a man may believe that the substance of Bread and Wine doth remain after Consecration: and therefore he resolves the belief of Transubstantiation in to some other Revelation, besides scripture, which he supposeth the Church had about it. Cardinal 
h in Aquin 3. part. Qu. 74 art. 1.  Cajetan confesseth that the Gospel doth no where express that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ; that we have this from the authority of the Church: nay he goes farther, that there is nothing in the Gospel which enforceth any man to understand these words of Christ, this is my body, in a proper and not a metaphorical sense; but the Church having understood them in a proper sense they are to be so explained; Which words in the Roman Edition of Cajetan are expunged by order of Pope 
i Aegid. ●●nink. de sacr●●● Q. 75. art. 1. n. 13.  Pius V Cardinal 
k de sacram. l. 2. c. 3.  Contarenus, and 
l Loc. Theolog. l. 3. c. 3.  Melchior Canus one of the best & most judicious Writers that Church ever had, reckon this Doctrine among those which are not so expressly found in scripture. I will add but one more, of great authority in the Church, and a reputed Martyr, 
m contra captiv. Babylon. c. 10 n. 2.  Fisher Bishop of Rochester who ingenuously confesseth that in the words of the Institution there is not one word from whence the true presence of the flesh and blood of Christ in our Mass can be proved: So that we need not much contend that this Doctrine hath no certain foundation in Scripture, when this is so fully and frankly acknowledged by our Adversaries themselves.  
Secondly, If there be no necessity of understanding our Saviour's words in the sense of Transubstantiation, I am sure there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise. Wither we consider the like expressions in scripture; where our Saviour says he is the door, and the true Vive (which the Church of Rome would mightily have triumphed in, had it been said, this is my true Body.) And so likewise where the Church is said to be Christ's body; and the Rock which followed the Israelites to be Christ, 1 Cor. 10. 4. They drank of that Rock which followed them and that Rock was Christ● All which and innumerable more like expressions in scripture every man understands in a figurative, and not in a strictly literal and absurd sense. And it is very well known, that in the Hebrew Language things are commonly said to be that which they do signify and represent; and there is not in that Language a more proper and usual way of expressing a thing to signify so and so, then to say that it is so and so. Thus Joseph expounding Pharaoh's dream to him Gen. 21. 26. Says, the seven good kine are seven years, and the seven good ears of corn are seven years, that is, they signified or represented seven years of plenty; And so Pharaoh understood Him, and so would any man of sense understand the like expressions; nor do I believe that any sensible man, who had never heard of Transubstantiation being grounded upon these words of our Saviour, this is my Body, would upon r●ading of the institution of the Sacrament in the Gospel ever have imagined any such thing to be meant by our Saviour in those words; but would have understood his meaning to have been, this Bread signifies my Body, this Cup signifies my Blood; and this which you see me now do, do ye hereafter for a Memorial of me: But surely it would never have entered into any man's mind to have thought that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his hand, and give away himsel from himself with his own hands.  
Or whither we compare these words of our Saviour with the ancient Form of the Passover used by the Jews from Ezra's time, as 
n Dialog. cum  Justin martyr tells us, tuto to pascha ho Soter hemon kai he kata phyge hemon this Passover is our Saviour and our refugee not that they believed the Paschal Lamb to be substantially changed 
Tryph. p. 297. Edit. Paris. 1639.  either into God their Saviour who delivered them out of the Land of Egypt, or into the Messiah the Saviour whom they expected and who was signified by it: But this Lamb which they did eat did represent to them and put them in mind of that Salvation which God wrought for their Fathers in Egypt, when by the slaying of a Lamb and sprinkling the blood of it upon their doors their firstborn were passed over and spared; and did likewise foreshow the Salvation of the Messiah the Lamb of God that was to take away the Sins of the World.  
And nothing is more common in all Languages then to give the name of the thing signified to the Sign, as the delivery of a Deed or writing under hand and Seal is called a conveyance or making over of such an Estate, and it is really so; not the delivery of mere wax and parchment, but the conveyance of a real Estate; as truly and really to all effects and purposes of Law, as if the very material houses and land themselves could be and were actually delivered into my hands: In like manner the names of the things themselves made over to us in the new Covenant of the Gospel between God and man, are given to the Sgns or Seals of that Covenant. By Baptism Christians are s●id to be made partakers of the Holy Ghost, Heb. 6. 4. And by the Sacrament of the Lords Supper we are said to Communicate or to be made partakers of the Body of Christ which was broken, and of his Blood which was shed for us, that is, of the real benefits of his death and passion. And thus St. Paul speaks of this Sacrament, 1 Cor. 10. 16. The cup of blessing 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? But still it is bread, and he still calls it so, v. 17. For we being many are one bread and one Body; for we are partakers of that one bread. The Church of Rome might, if they pleased, as well argue from hence that all Christians are substantially changed first into Bread, and then into the natural Body of Christ by their participation of the Sacrament, because they are said thereby to be one bread and one body .. And the same Apostle in the next Chapter, after he had spoken of the consecration of the Elements still calls them the bread and the Cup, in three verses together, As often as eat this bread and drink this Cup, v. 26. Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, v. 27. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread and drink of that cup, v. 28. And our Saviour himself when he had said, this is my blood of the new Testament, immediately adds, 
* Mat. 36. 29.  but I say unto you, I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the Vine, until I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom, that is, not till after his Resurrection, which was the first step of his exaltation into the Kingdom given him by his Father, when the Scripture tells us he did eat and drink with his Disciples. But that which I observe from our Saviour's words is, that after the consecration of the Cup, and the delivering of it to his Disciples to drink of it, he tells them that he would thenceforth drink no more of the fruit of the Vine, which he had now drank with them, till after his Resurrection. From whence it is plain that it was the fruit of the Vine, real wine, which our Saviour drank of and communicated to his Disciples in the Sacrament.  
Besides, if we consider that he celebrated this Sacrament before his Passion, it is impossible these words, should be understood literally of the natural body and blood of Christ; because it was his body and his blood shed which he gave to his Disciples, which if we understand literally of his natural body broken and his blood shed, these words, this is my body which is broken, and this is my blood which is shed, could not be true, because this Body was then whole and unbroken, and his blood not then shed, nor could it be a propitiatory Sacrifice (as they affirm this Sacramen to be) unlese they will say that propitiation was made before Christ suffered: And is likewise impossible that the Disciples should understand these words literally, because they not only plainly saw that what he gave them was Bread and Wine, but they saw likewise as plainly that it was not his Body which was given, but his Body which gave that which was given; not his body broken and his blood shed, because they saw him alive at that very time and beheld his body whole and unpierced; and therefore they could not understand these words literally: If they did, can we imagine that the Disciples, who upon all other occasions were so full of questions and objections, should make no difficulty of this matter? nor so much as ask our Saviour, how can these things be? That they should not tell him, we see this to be Bread and that to be Wine, and we see thy body to be distinct from both; we see thy body not broken, and thy blood not shed.  
From all which it must needs be very evident, to any man that will impartially consider things, how little reason there is to understand those words of our Saviour, this is my body, and this is my blood, in the sense of Transubstantiation; nay on the contrary, that there is very great reason and an evident necessity to understand them otherwise. I proceed to show.  
2ly. That this Doctrine is not grounded upon the perpetual belief of the Christian Church, which the Church of Rome vainly pretends as an evidence that the Church did always understand and interpret our Saviour's words in this sense.  
To manifest the groundlesness of this pretence, I shall, 1. show by plain testimony of the Fathers in several Ages, that this Doctrine was not the belief of the ancient Christian Church. 2. I shall show the time and occasion of its coming in, and by what degrees it grew up and was established in the Roman Church. 3. I shall answer their great pretended Demonstration that this always was and must have been the constant belief of the Christian Church.  
1. I shall show by plain Testimonies of the Fathers in several Ages, for above five hundred years after Christ, that this Doctrine was not the belief of the ancient Christian Church. I deny not but that the Fathers do, and that with great reason, very much magnify the wonderful mystery and efficacy of this Sacrament, and frequently speak of a great supernatural change made by the divine benediction; which we also readily acknowledge. They say indeed, that the Elements of bread and Wine do by the divine blessing become to us the body and blood of Christ: But they likewise say that the names of the things signified are given to the Signs; that the bread and Wine do still remain in their proper nature and substance, and that they are turned into the substance of our bodies; that the body of Christ in the Sacrament is not his natural, body, but the sign and figure of it; not that body which was crucified, nor that blood which was shed upon the Cross; and that it is impious to understand the eating of the flesh of the Son of man, and drinking his ●loud literally: all which are directly opposite to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and utterly inconsistent with it. I will select but some few Testimonies of many which I might bring to this purpose.  
I begin with Justin Martyr, who says expressly, that 
* Apol. 2. p. 98. Edit. Paris. 1636.  our blood and Flesh are nourished by the conversion of that food which we receive in the Eucharist: But that cannot be the natural body and blood of Christ, for no man will say that is converted into the nourishment of our bodies.  
The Second is 
* Lib. 4. c. 34.  Irenoeus, who speaking of this Sacrament says, that the bread which is from the earth receiving the divine invocation is now no longer common bread, but the Eucharist (or Sacrament) consisting of two things, the one earthly, the other heavenly. He says it is no longer common bread, but after invocation or consecration it becomes the Sacrament, that is, bread sanctified, consisting of two things an earthly and a heavenly; the earthly thing is bread, and the heavenly is the divine blessing which by the invocation or consecration is added to it. And 
* lib. 5. c. 2.  elsewhere he hath this passage, when therefore the cup that is mixed (that is, of Wine and Water) and the bread that is broken receives the word of God, it becomes the Eucharist of the blood and body of Christ, of which the substance of our flesh is increased and consists: But if that which we receive in the Sacrament do nourish our bodies, it must be bread and wine, and not the natural body and blood of Christ. There is another remarkable Testimony of Irenoeus which though it be not now extant in those works of his which remain, yet hath been preserved by 
* Comment. in 1 Pet. c. 3.  Oecumenius, and it is this; when (says he) the Greeks had taken some Servants, of the Christian Catechumeni (that is, such as had not been admitted to the Sacrament) and afterwards urged them by violence to tell them some of the secrets of the Christians, these Servants having nothing to say that might gratify those who offered violence to them, except only that they had heard from their Masters that the divine Communion was the blood and body of Christ, they thinking that it was really blood and flesh, declared as much to those that questioned them. The Greeks taking this as if it were really done by the Christians, discovered it to others of the Greeks; who hereupon put Sanctus and Blandina to the torture to make them confess it. to whom Blandina boldly answered, How would they endure to do this, who by way of exercise (or abstinence) do not eat that flesh which may lawfully be eaten? By which it appears that this which they would have charged upon Christians, as if they had literally eatten the flesh and blood of Christ in the Sacrament, was a false accusation which these Martyrs denied, saying they were so far from that, that they for their part did not eat any flesh at all.  
The next is ●ertullian, who proves against Martion the Heretic that the Body of our Saviour was not a mere phantasm and appearance, but a real Body, because the Sacrament is a figure and image of his Body; and if there be an image of his body he must have a real body, otherwise the Sacrament would be an image of an image. His words are these, 
* Advers. Marcionem. l. 4. p. 571. Edit. Rigalt. Paris. 1634,  the bread which our Saviour took and distributed to his Disciples he made his own body, saying this is my body, that is, the image or figure of my body. But it could not have been the figure of his body, if there had not been a true and real body. And arguing against the Sceptics who denied the certainty of sense he useth this Argument: That if we question our senses we may doubt whither our Blessed Saviour were not deceived in what he heard, and saw, and touched. 
* Lib. de Anima, p. 319.  He might (says he) be deceived in the voice from heaven, in the smell of the ointment with which he was anointed against his burial; and in the taste of the wine which he consecrated in remembrance of his blood. So that it seems we are to t●ust ou● senses, even in the matter of the Sacrament; and if that be true, the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is certainly false.  
Origen in his 
* Edit. Huetii.  Comment on Matth. 15, speaking of the Sacrament hath this passage, That food which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer, as to that of it which is material, goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught, which none surely will say of the Body of CHRIST. And afterwards he adds by way of explication, it is not the matter of the bread, but the word which is spoken over it, which profite●h him that worthily eateth the Lord, and this (he says) he had spoken concerning the typical and Symbolical body. So that the matter of bread remain h●m the Sacrament, and this Origen calls the typical and symbolical body of CHRIST; and it is not the natural body of Christ which is there eat●en, for the food eaten in the Sacrament, as to that of it which is material, goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught. This testimony is so very plain in the cause that Sextus Senensis suspects ●his place of Origen was depraved by the Heretics. Cardinal P●rron is contented to allow it to be origen's, but rejects his testimony because he was accused of Heresy by some of the Fathers, and says he talks like a Heretic in this place. So that with much ado this testimony is yielded to us. The same Father in his 
* cap. 10.  Homilies upon Leviticus sp●●ks ●hus, There is also in the New Testament a letter which kills him who doth not spiritually understand these things which are said; for if we take according to the Letter, that which is said, EXCEPT YE EAT MY FLESH AND DRINK MY BLOOD, this Letter kills. And this is also a kill Testimony, and not to be answered but in Cardinal Perron's way, by saying he talks like a Heretic.  
St. Cyprian hath a whole Epistle 
* Ep. 63.  to Cecilius, against those who gave the Communion in Water only without Wine mingled with it; and his main argument against them is this, that the blood of Christ with which we are redeemed and quickened cannot seem to be in the cup when there is no Wine in the cup by which the Blood of Christ is represented: And afterwards he says, that contrary to the Evangelical and Apostolical Doctrine water was in some places offered (or given) in the Lord's cup, which (says he) alone cannot express (or represent) the blood of Christ. And lastly he tells us, that by water the people is understood, by Wine the blood of Christ is shown (or represented) but when in the cup water is mingled with wine the people is united to Christ. So that according to this Argument Wine in the Sacramental cup is no otherwise changed into the blood of Christ then the Water mixed with it is changed into the People, which are said to be united to Christ.  
I omit many others, and pass to St. Austin in the fourth Age after Christ. And I the rather insist upon his Testimony, because of his eminent esteem and authority in the Latin Church; and he also calls the Elements of the Sacrament the figure and sign of Christ's body and blood. In his book against Adimantus the Manichee we have this expression, 
* Aug, Tom. 6. p. 187. Edit. basil. 1569,  our Lord did not doubt to say, this is my body, when he gave the sign of his body. And in his explication of the third Psalm, speaking of Judas whom our Lord admitted to his last supper, in which (says he) 
‡ enarrat. in. Psal. Tom. 8. p. 16.  he commended and delivered to his Disciples the figure of his body; Language which would now be censured for Heresy in the Church of Rome. Indeed he was never accused of Heresy, as cardinal Perron says Origen was, but he talks as like one as Origen himself, And in his comment on the 98 Psalms speaking of the offence which the Disciples took at that saying of our Saviour, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, etc. He brings in our Saviour speaking thus to them, 
† Id. tom. 7. p. 1105.  ye must understand spiritually what I have said unto you; ye are not to eat his body which ye see, and to drink that blood which shall he shed by those that shall crucify me. I have commended a certain Sacrament to you, which being spiritually understood will give you life. What more opposite to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, then that the Disciples were not to eat that Body of Christ which they saw, nor to drink that blood which was shed upon the Cross, but that all this was to be understood spiritually, and according to the nature of a Sacrament? For that body he tells us is not here but in heaven, in his Comment upon these words, me ye have not always. 
* Id. Tract. 50. in Johan.  He speaks (says he) of the presence of his body; ye shall have me according to my providence, according to Majesty and invisible grace; but according to the flesh which the word assumed, according to that which was born of the Virgin Mary, ye shall not have me: therefore because he conversed with his Disciples forty days, he is ascended up into Heaven and is not here.  
In his 23. Epistle, 
† Id. Tom. 2. p. 93.  if the Sacraments (says he) had not some resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments, they would not be Sacraments at all; but from this resemblance they take for the most part the name of the things which they represent. Therefore as the Sacrament of the body of Christ is in some manner or sense Christ's body, and the Sacrament of his blood is the blood of Christ; so the Sacrament of faith (meaning Baptism) is faith. Upon which words of St. Austin there is this remarkable Gloss in their own Cannon Law; 
† De consecr. dist. 2. Hoc est.  the heavenly Sacrament which truly represents the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ; but improperly: whence it is said, that after a manner, but not according to the truth of the thing but the mystery of the thing signified, So that the meaning is, it is called the body of Christ, that is, it signifies the body of Christ: And if this be St. Austin's meaning, I am sure no Protestant can speak more plainly against Transubstantiation. And in the ancient Canon of the Mass, before it was changed in compliance with this new Doctrine, it is expressly called a sacrament, a sign an Image and a figure of Christ's body. To which I will add that remarkable passage of St. Austin cited by 
* De consecrat. dist. 2. sect. Vtrum.  Gratian, that as we receive the similitude of his death in baptism, so we may also receive the likeness of his flesh and blood; that so neither may truth be wanting in the Sacrament, nor Pagans have occasion to make us ridiculous for drinking the blood of one that was slain.  
I will mention but one Testimony more of this Father, but so clear a one as it is impossible any man in his wits that had believed Transubstantiation could have uttered. It is in his Treatise 
* Lib. 3. Tom. 3. p. 53.  de Doctrina christiava; where laying down several Rules for the right understanding of Scripture, he gives this for one. If (says he) the speech be a precept forbidding some heinous wickedness or crime, or commanding us to do good, it is not fiugurate; but if it seem to command any heinous wickedness or crime, or to forbid that which is profitable and beneficial to others, it is figurative. For example, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you: This seems to command a heinous wickedness and crime, therefore it is a figure; commanding us to communicate of the passion of our Lord, and with delight and advantage to lay up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. So that, according to St. Austin's best skill in interpreting Scripture, the literal eating of the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood would have been a great impiety; and therefore the expression is to be understood figuratively; not as Cardinal Perron would have it, only in opposition to the eating of his flesh and blood in the gross appearance of flesh and blood, but to the real eating of his natural body and blood under any appearance whatsoever: For St. Austin doth not say, this is a Figurative speech wherein we are commanded really to feed upon the natural body and blood of Christ under the species of bread and wine, as the Cardinal would understand him; for then the speech would be literal and not figurative: But he says, this is a figurative speech wherein we are commanded Spiritually to feed upon the remembrance of his Passion.  
To these I will add but three or four Testimonies more in the two following Ages.  
The first shall be of Theodoret, who speaking of that 
* Gen. 49. 11.  Prophecy of Jacob concerning our Saviour, he washed his garments in Wine and his clothes in the blood of grapes, hath these words, 
† Dialog. 1.  as we call the mystical fruit of the Vine (that is, the Wine in the Sacrament) after consecration the blood of the Lord, so he (viz. Jacob) calls the blood of the Vine (viz of Christ) the blood of the grape: but the blood of Christ is not literally and properly but only figuratively the blood of the grape, in the same sense as he is said to be the true Vine; and therefore the Wine in the Sacrament after consecration is in like manner not literally and properly but figuratively the blood of Christ. And he explains this afterwards saying, that our Saviour cha●●ed the names, and gave to his Body the name of the Symbol or sign, and to the symbol or sign the name of his Body; thus when he had called himself the Vi●e, he called the symbol his blood; so that in the same sense that he called himself the Vine, he called the Wine, which is the symbol of his blood, his blood: For, says he, he would have those who partake of the divine mysteries not to attend to the nature of the things which are seen, but by the change of names to believe the change which is made by grace; for he who called that which by nature is a body wheat and bread, and again likewise called himself the Vine, he honoured the symbols with the name of his body and blood: not Changing nature but adding grace to nature. Whence you see he says expressly, that when he called the Symbols or Elements of the Sacrament, viz. Bread and Wine his body and blood; he made no change in the nature of the things, only added grace to nature, that is, by the Divine grace and blessing he raised them to a spiritual, and supernatural virtue and efficacy.  
The second is of the same Theodoret in his second Dialogue between a Catholic, under the name of Orthodoxus, and an Heretic under the name of Eranistes; who maintaining that the Humanity of Christ was changed into the substance of the Divinity (which was the Heresy of Eutyches) he illustrates the matter by this similitude, As, says he, the symbols of the Lords body and blood are one thing before the invocation of the Priest, but after the Invocation are changed and become another thing; so the body of our Lord after his ascension is changed into the divine substance. But what says the Catholic Orthodoxus to this; why, he talks just like one of Cardinal Perron's Heretics, Thou art, says he, caught in thy own net: because the mystical symbols after consecration do not pass out of their own nature: For they remain in their former substance, figure and appearance and may be seen and handled even as before. He does not only deny the outward figure and appearance of the symbols to be changed, but the nature and substance of them, even in the proper and strictest sense of the word substance; and it was necessary so to do, otherwise he had not given a pertinent answer to the similitude urged against him.  
The next is one of their own Popes, Gelasius, who brings the same Instance against the Eutychans; 
* biblioth. Patr. To●. 4.  surely, says he● the Sacrament which we receive of the body and blood of our Lord are a divine thing, so that by them we are made partakers of a divine nature, and yet it ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and Wine; and certainly the image and resemblance of Christ's body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries, that is, in the Sacrament. To make this Instance of any force against the Eutychians, who held that the body of Christ upon his ascension ceased and was changed into the substance of his Divinity, it was necessary to deny that there was any substantial change in the Sacrament of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. So that here is an infallible authority, one of their own Popes expressly against Transubstantiation.  
The last Testimony I shall produce is of Facundus an African Bishop, who lived in the 6th. Century. Upon occasion of justifying an expression of one who had said that Christ also received the adoption of Sons, reasons thus. 
* Facund. p. 144 edit. Paris. 1676.  Christ vouchsafed to receive the Sacrament of adoption both when he was circumcised and baptised: And the Sacrament of Adoption may be called adoption, as the Sacrament of his body and blood, which is in the consecrated bread and cap, is by us called his body and blood: not that the bread, says he, is properly his body and the cup his blood, but because they contain in them the mysteries of his body and blood; hence also our Lord himself called the blessed bread and cup which he gave to his Disciples his body and blood. can any man after this believe, that it was then, and had ever been, the universal and received Doctrine of the Christian Church, that the bread and wine in the Sacrament are substantially changed into the proper and natural body and blood of Christ?  
By these plain Testimonies which I have produced, and I might have brought a great many more to the same purpose, it is I think evident beyond all denial that Transubstantiation hath not been the perpetual belief of the christian church. And th●s likewise is acknowledged by many great and learned men of the Roman church. 
a In Sent. l. 4. Dist. 11. Q. 3.  Scotus acknowledgeth, that this Doctrine was not always thought necessary to be believed, but that the necessity of believing it was consequent to that Declaration of the Church made in the council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the III. And 
b In sent. l. 4. dist. 11. q. 1. n. 15.  Durandus freely discovers his inclination to have believed the contrary, if the Church had not by that determination obliged men to believe it, 
c de Euchar. l. 1. p. 146.  Tonstal Bishop of Durham also yields, that before the Lateran council men were at liberty as to the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament. And 
d In, 1. Epist ad corinth. c. 7. citan te etiam Salmerone, Tom. 9 Tract. 16. p. 108.  Erasmus, who lived and died in the communion of the Roman Church, and then whom no man was better read in the ancient Fathers, doth confess that it was late before the Church defined Transubstantiation, unknown to the Ancients both name and thing. And 
e De Haeres. l. 8.  Alphonsus a castro says plainly, that concerning the transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ, there is seldom any mention in the ancient Writers. And who can imagine that these learned men would have granted the ancient Church and Fathers to have been so much Strangers to this Doctrine, had they thought it to have been the perpetual belief of the Church? I shall now in the  
Second place, give an account of the particular time and occasion of the coming in of this Doctrine, and by what steps and degrees it grew up and was advanced into an Article of Faith in the Romish Church. The Doctrine of the Corporal presence of Christ was first started started upon occasion of the Dispute about the Worship of Images, in opposition whereto the Synod of Constantinople about the year DCCL did argue thus, That our Lord having left us no other Image of himself but the Sacrament, in which the substance of bread is the image of his body, we ought to make no other image of our Lord. In answer to this Argument the second Council of Nice in the year DCCLXXXVII did declare, that the Sacrament after Consecration is not the image and antitype of Christ's body and blood; but is properly his body and blood. So that the corporal Body of Christ in the sacrament was first brought in to support the stupid worship of Images: And indeed it could never have come in upon a more proper occasion, nor have been applied to a fit purpose.  
And here I cannot but take notice how well this agrees with 
* De Eucharist. l. 1. c. 1.  Bellarmine's Observation, that none of the Ancients who wrote of Heresies, hath put this error (viz. of denying Transubstantiation) in his catalogue; nor did any of the Ancients dispute against this error for the first 600 years. Which is very true, because there could be no occasion then to dipute against those who denied Transubstantiation; since, as I have shown, this Doctrine was not in being, unless amongst the Eutychian Heretics, for the first 600 years and more. But 
‡ Ibid.  Bellarmine goes on and tells us, that the first who called in question the truth of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist were the ICONOMACHI (the opposers of Images) after the year DCC in the Council of Constantinople; for these said there was one image of Christ instituted by himself, viz, the bread and wine in the Eucharist, which represents the body and blood of Christ: Wherefore from that time the Greek Writers often admonish us that the Eucharist is not the figure or image of the body of the Lord, but his true body, as appears from the VII. Synod; which agrees most exactly with the account which I have given of the first rise of this Doctrine, which began with the corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament and afterwards proceeded to Transubstantiation.  
And as this was the first occasion of introducing this Doctrine among the Greek;, so in the Latin or Roman Church Paschasius Radbertus, first a Monk, and afterwards Abbot of Corbey, was the first broacher of it in the year DCCCXVIII.  
And for this, besides the Evidence of History, we have the acknowledgement of two very Eminent Persons in the Church of Rome, Bellarmine and Sirmondus, who do in effect confess that this Paschasius was the first who wrote to purpose upon this Argument. 
* Descriptor. Eccles.  Bellarmine in those words, this Author was the first who hath seriously and copiously written concerning the truth of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist: And 
† In vita Paschasii.  Sirmo●dus in these, he so first explained the genuine sense of the Catholic church, that he opened the way to the rest who afterwards in great numbers wrote upon the same Argument: But though Sirmondus is pleased to say that he only first explained the sense of the Catholic Church in this Point, yet it is very plain from the Records of that Age which are left to us, that this was the first time that this Doctrine was broached in the Latin Church; and it met with great opposition in that Age, as I shall have occasion hereafter to show. For Rabanus Maurus Arch-biship of Me●tz about the year DCCCXLVII reciting the very words of Paschusius wherein he had delivered this Doctrine, hath this remarkable passage concerning the novelty of it; 
‡ Epist. ad Heribaldum. c. 33.  Some, says he, of late, not having a right opinion concerning the Sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord, have said that this is the body and blood of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary, and in which our Lord suffered upon the cross and rose from the dead: which error, says he, we have opposed with all our might. From whence it is plain, by the Testimony of one of the greatest and most learned bishops of that Age, and of eminent reputation for Piety, that what is now the very Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning the Sacrament, was then esteemed an Error broached by some particular Persons, but was far from being the generally received Doctrine of that Age. Can any one think it possible, that so eminent a Person in the Church both for piety and learning, could have condemned this Doctrine as an Error and a Novelty, had it been the general Doctrine of the Christian Church, not only in that but in all former Ages; and no censure passed upon him for that which is now the great burning Article in the Church of Rome, and esteemed by them one of the greatest and most prenicious Heresies?  
Afterwards in the year MLIX, when Berengarius in France and Germany had raised a fresh opposition against this Doctrine, he was compelled to recant it by pope Nicholas and the Council at Rome, in these words, 
* Gratian. de consecrat. distinct. 2. Lanfranc. de corp. & sang. Domini. c. 5. Guitmund. de sacram. l. i Alger. de sacram. l. 1. c. 19  that the bread and wine which are set upon the Altar; after the consecration are not only the Sacrament, but the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and are sensibly, not only in the Sacrament but in truth, handled and broken by the hands of the Priest, ground or bruised by the teeth of the faithful. But it seems the Pope and his Council were not then skilful enough to express themselves rightly in his matter; for the Gloss upon the Canon Law says expressly, 
† Gloss. Decret. de conse. dist. 2. in cap. Ege Berengarius.  that unless we understand these words of BERENGARIUS (that is in truth of the Pope and his Council) in a sound sense, we shall fall into a greater Heresy then that of BERENGARIUS; for we do not make parts of the body of Christ. The meaning of which Gloss ● cannot imagine, unless it be this, that the Body of Christ, though it be in truth broken, yet it is not broken into parts (for we do not make parts of the body of Christ,) but into wholes: Now this new way of breaking a Body not into parts but into wholes (which in good earnest is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome) though to them that are able to believe Transubstantiation it may for any thing I know appear to be sound sense, yet to us that cannot believe so it appears to be solid nonsense.  
About XX years after, in the year MLXXIX. Pope Gregory the VII. Began to be sensible of this absurdity; and therefore in another council at Rome made Berengarius to recant in another 
* Waldnes. Tom. 2. c. 1●.  Form, viz. that the bread and wine which are placed upon the Altar are substantially changed into the true and proper and quickening flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and after consecration are the true body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin, and which being offered for the Salvation of the World did hang upon the cross, and sits on the right hand of the Father.  
So that from the first starting of this Doctrine in the second council of Nice in the year DCCLXXXVII, till the council under Pope Gregory the VII th'. in the year MLXXIX, it was almost three hundred years that this Doctrine was contested, and before this misshapen Monster of Transubstantiation could be licked into that Form in which it is now settled and established in the Church of Rome. Here then is a plain account of the first rise of this Doctrine, and of the several steps whereby it was advanced by the Church of Rome into an Article of Faith. I come now in the  
Third place, to answer the great pretended Demonstration of the impossibility that this Doctrine, if it had been new, should ever have come in, in any Age, and been received in the Church; and con-consequently it must of necessity have been the perpetual belief of the Church in all Ages: For if it had not always been the Doctrine of the Church when ever it had attempted first to come in, there would have been a great stir and bustle about it, and the whole Christian World would have risen up in opposition to it. But we can show no such time when first it came in, and when any such opposition was made to it, and therefore it was always the Doctrine of the Church. This Demonstration Monsieur Arnauld, a very learned Man in France, pretends to be unanswerable: whither it be so or not, I shall briefly examine. And  
First, We do assign a punctual and very likely time of the first rise of this Doctrine, about the beginning of the ninth Age; though it did not take firm root nor was fully settled and established till towards the end of the eleventh. And this was the most likely time of all other, from the beginning of Christianity, for so g●oss an Error to appear; it being by the confession and consent of their own Historians, the most dark and dismal time that ever happened to the Christian Church, both for Ignorance, and Superstition, and Vice. It came in together with Idolatry, and was made use of to support it: A fit prop and companion for it. And indeed what tares might not the Enemy have sown in so dark and long a Night; when so considerable a part of the Christian World was lulled a sleep in profound Ignorance and Superstition? And this agrees very well with the account which our Saviour himself gives in the Parable of the Tares, of the springing up of Errors and Corruptions in the Field of the Church. 
* Matth. 13 24.  While the men steeped the Enemy did his work in the Night, so that when they were awake they wondered how and whence the tares came; but being sure they were there, and that they were not sown at first, they concluded the Enemy had done it.  
Secondli●, I have shown likewise that there was considerable opposition made to this Error at its first coming in. The general Ignorance and gross Superstition of that Age rendered the generality of people more quiet and secure, and disposed them to receive any thing that came under a pretence of mystery in Religion and of greater reverence and devotion to the Sacrament, and that seemed any way to countenance the worship of Images, for which at that time they were zealously concerned. But notwithstanding the security and passive temper of the People, the most eminent for piety and learning in that Time made great resistance against it. I have already named Rabanus. Archbishop of Mentz, who opposed it as an Error lately sprung up and which had then gained but upon some few persons. To whom I may add. Heribaldus' Bishop of Auxerres in France, Io. Scotus Erigena, and Ratramnus commonly known by the name of Beriram, who at the same time were employed by the Emperor Charles the Bald to oppose this growing. Error, and wrote learnedly against it. And these were the eminent men for learning in that time. And because Monsieur Arnauld will not be satisfied unless there some stir and bustle about it, Bertram in his Preface to his book tells us, that they who according to their several opinions talked differently about the mystery of Christ's body and blood were divided by no small Schism.  
thirdly, Though for a more clear satisfactory answer to this pretended Demonstration I have been contented to untie this knot, yet I could without all these pains have cut it. For suppose this Doctrine had silently come in and without opposition, so that we could not assign the particular time and occasion of its first Rise; yet if it be evident from Records of former Ages, for above 500 years together, that this was not the ancient belief▪ of the Church; and plain also, that this Doctrine was afterwards received in the Roman Church, though we could not tell how and when it came in, yet it would be the wildest and most extravagant thing in the world to set up a pretended Demonstration of Reason against plain Experience and matter of Fact. This is just Zeno's Demonstration of the impossibility of motion against Diogenes walking before his Eyes. For this is to undertake to prove that impossible to have been, which most certainly was. Just thus the Servants in the Parable might have demonstrated that the Tares were Wheat, because they were sure none but good seed was sown at first, and no man could give any account of the punctual time when any Tares were sown, or by whom; and if an Enemy had come to do it, he must needs have met with great resistance and opposition; but no such resistance was made, and therefore there could be no Tares in the field, but that which they called Tares was certainly good wheat. At the same rate a man might demonstrate that our King, his Majesty of great Britain, is not returned into England, nor restored to his Crown; because there being so great and powerful an Army possessed of his Lands, and therefore obliged by interest to keep him out, it was impossible He should ever come in without a great deal of fight and blood shed: but there was no such thing, therefore he is not returned and restored to his Crown. And by the like kind of Demonstration one might prove that the Turk did not invade Christendom last year, and besiege Vienna; because if he had, the most Christian King, who had the greatest Army in Christendom in a readiness, would certainly have employed it against him; but Monsieur Arnauld certainly knows, no such thing was done: And therefore according to his way of Demonstration, the matter of fact, so commonly reported and believed, concerning the Turks Invasion of Christendom and besieging Vienna last year was a perfect mistake. But a man may demonstrate till his head and heart ache, before he shall ever be able to prove that which certainly is, or was, never to have been. For of all sorts of impossibles nothing is more evidently so, then to make that which hath been not to have been. All the reason in the world is too weak to cope with so tough and obstinate a difficulty. And I have often wondered how a man of Monsieur Arnaulds great wit and sharp Judgement could prevail with himself to engage in so bad and baffled a cause; or could think to defend it with so wooden a Dagger as his Demonstration of Reason against certain Experience and matter of Fact: A thing, if it be possible, of equal absurdity with what he pretends to demonstrate Transubstantiation itself. I proceed to the  
Third pretended Ground of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation; and that is, The Infallible Authority of the present Church to make and declare new Articles of Faith. And this in truth is the ground into which the most of the Learned Men in their Church did heretofore, and many do still resolve their belief of this Doctrine: And, as I have already shown, do plainly say that they see no sufficient reason, either from Scripture or Tradition, for the belief of it: And that they should have believed the contrary had not the determination of the Church obliged them otherwise.  
But if this Doctrine be obtruded upon the world merely by virtue of the Authority of the Roman Church, and the Declation of the Council under Pope Gregory the VII. or of the Lateran Council under Innocent the III. then it is plain Innovation in the Christian Doctrine, and a new Article of Faith imposed upon the Christian World. And if any Church hath this power, the Christian Faith may be enlarged and changed as often as men please; and that which is no part of our Saviour's Doctrine, nay, any thing though never so absurd and unreasonable, may become an Article of Faith obliging all Christians to the belief of it, when ever the Church of Rome shall think fit to stamp her Authority upon it: which would make Christianity a most uncertain and endless thing.  
The Fourth pretended ground of this Doctrine is, the necessity of such a change as this in the Sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive it. But there is no colour for this, if the thing be rightly considered: Because the comfort and benefit of the Sacrament depends upon the blessing annexed to the Institution. And as Water in Baptism, without any substantial change made in that Element may by the Divine blessing accompanying the Institution be effectual to the washing away of Sin, and Spiritual Regeneration; So there can no reason in the world be given why the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper may not, by the same Divine blessing accompanying this Institution, make the worthy receivers partakers of all the Spiritual comfort and benefit designed to us thereby, without any substantial change made in those Elements, since our Lord hath told us, that verily the flesh profiteth nothing. So that if we could do so odd and strange a thing as to eat the very natural flesh and drink the blood of our Lord, I do not see of what greater advantage it would be to us then what we may have by partaking of the Symbols of his body and blood as he hath appointed in remembrance of him. For the spiritual efficacy of the Sacrament doth not depend upon the nature of the thing received, supposing we receive what our Lord appointed, and receive it with a right preparation and disposition of mind, but upon the supernatural blessing that goes along with it, and makes it effectual to those Spiritual ends for which it was appointed.  
The Fifth and last pretended ground of this Doctrine is, to magnify the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle. And this with great pride and pomp is often urged by them as a transcendent instance of the Divine Wisdom, to find out so admirable a way to raise the power and reverence of the Priest; that he should be able every day and as often as he pleases, by repeating a few words to work so miraculous a change, and (as they love most absurdly and blasphemously to speak) to make God himself.  
But this is to pretend to a power above that of God himself, for he did not, nor cannot make himself, nor do any thing that implies a contradiction, as Transubstantiation evidently does in their pretending to make God. For to make that which already is, and to make that now which always was, is not only vain and trifling if it could be done, but impossible because it implies a contradiction.  
And what if after all, Transubstantiation; if it were possible and actually wrought by the Priest, would yet be no Miracle? For there are two things necessary to a Miracle, that there be a supernatural effect wrought, and that this effect be evident to sense. So that though a supernatural effect be wrought, yet if it be not evident ●o sense it is to all the ends and purposes of a Miracle as if it were not; and can be no testimony or proof of any thing, because itself stands in need of another Miracle to give testimony to it and to prove that it was wrought. And neither in scripture, nor in profane Authors, nor in common use of speech, is any thing called a Miracle but what falls under the notice of our senses: A Miracle being nothing else but a supernatural effect evident to sense, the great end and design whereof is to be a sensible proof and conviction to us of something that we do not see.  
And for want of this Condition, Transubstantiation, if it were true, would be no miracle. It would indeed be very supernatural, but for all that it would not be a Sign or Miracle: For a Sign or Miracle is always a thing sensible, otherwise i● could be no Sign. Now that such a change as is pretended in Transubstantiation should really be wrought, and yet there should be no sign and appearance of it, is a thing very wonderful, but not to sense; for our senses perceive no change, the bread and wine in the sacrament to all our senses remaining just as they were before: And that a thing should remain to all appearance just as it was, hath nothing at all of wonder in it: we wonder indeed when we see a strange thing done, but no man wonders when he sees nothing done. So that Transubstantiation, if they will needs have it a Miracle, is such a Miracle as any man may work that hath but the confidence to face men down that he works it, and the fortune to be believed: And though the Church of Rome may magnify their Priests upon account of this Miracle, which they say they can work every day and every hour yet I cannot understand ●he reason of it; for when this great work (as they call it) is done, there is nothing more appears to be done than it there were no Miracle: Now such a Miracle as to all appearance is no miracle, I see no reason why a Protestant Minister, as well as a Popish Priest, may not work as often as he pleases; or if he can bu● have the patience to let it alone, it will work itself For surely nothing in the world is easier than to let a thing be as it is, and by speaking a few words over it to make it just what was before. Every Man, every day, may work ten thousand such Miracles.  
And thus I have dispatched the First part of my Discourse, which was to consider the pretended grounds and Reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine, and to show the weakness and insufficiency of them. I come in the  
SECOND place, to produce our Objections against 
II.  it. Which will be of so much the greater force, because I have already shown this Doctrine to be destitute of all Divine warrant and authority, & of any other sort of Ground sufficient in reason to justify it. So that I do not now object against a Doctrine which hath a fair probability of Divine Revelation on its side; for that would weigh down all objections which did not plainly overthrow the probability and credit of its Divine Revelation: But I object against a Doctrine by the mere will and Tyranny of men imposed upon the belief of Christians, without any evidence of Scripture, and against all the evidence of Reason and Sense.  
The Objections I shall reduce to these two Heads. First, the infinite scandal of this Doctrine to the Christian Religion. And Secondly, the monstrous and insupportable absurdity of it.  
First, The infinite scandal of this Doctrine to the Christian Religion. And that upon these four accounts. 1. Of the stupidity of this Doctrine. 2. The real barbarousness of this Sacrament and Rite of our Religion upon supposition of the truth of this Doctrine. 3. Of the cruel and bloody consequences of it. 4. Of the danger of Idolatry; which they are certainly guilty of, if this Doctrine be not true.  
1. Upon account of the stupidity of this Doctrine. I remember that Tully, who was a man of very good sense, instanceth in the conceit of eating God as the extremity of madness, and so stupid an apprehension as he thought no man was ever guilty of. 
* De Nat. Deorum. l. 3.  When we call says he, the fruits of the earth Ceres, and wine Bacchus, we use but the common language; but do you think any man so mad as to believe that which be eats to be God? It seems he could not believe that so extravagant a folly had ever entered into the mind of man. It is a very severe saying of Averro the Arabian Philosopher (who lived after this Doctrine was entertained among Christians) and ought to make the Church of Rome blush, if she can; 
* Dionys. Carthus. in 4. dist. 10. art. 1.  I have travelled, says he, over the World, and have found divers Sects; but so sottish a Sect or Law I never found, as is the Sect. of the Christians; because with their own teeth they devour their God whom they worship. It was great stupidity in the People of Israel to say, Come let us make us Gods; but it was civilly said of them, Let us make Gods that may go before us, in comparison of the Church of Rome, who say, Let us make a God that we may eat him. So that upon the whole matter I cannot but wonder that they should choose thus to expose Faith to the contempt of all that are endued with Reason. And to speak the plain truth, the Christian Religion was never so horribly exposed to the scorn of Atheists and Infidels, as it hath been by this most absurd and senseless Doctrine. But thus it was foretold that 
† 2 Thess. 2. 10.  the Man of Sin should come with power and Signs and Lying Miracles, and with all deceiveableness of unrighteousness, with all the Legerdemain and juggling tricks of falsehood and imposture; amongst which this of Transubstantiation, which they call a Miracle, and we a Cheat, is one of the chief: And in all probability those common juggling words of hocus pocus, are nothing else but a corruption of hoc est corpus, by way of ridiculous imitation of the Church of Rome in their trick of Transubstantiation. Into such contempt by this foolish Doctrine and pretended Miracle of theirs have they brought the mos● sacred and venerable Mystery of our Religion.  
2. It is very scandalous likewise upon account of the real Barbarousness of this Sacrament and Rite of our Religion, upon supposition of the truth of this Doctrine. Literally to eat the flesh of the Son of man and to drink his blood, St. Austin, as I have showed before, declares to be a great Impiety. And the impiety and barbarousness of the thing is not in truth extenuated, but only the appearance of it, by its being done under the species of bread and Wine: For the thing they acknowledge is really done, and they believe that they verily eat and drink the natural flesh and blood of Christ. And what can any man do more unworthily towards his Friend? How can he possibly use him more barbarously, then to feast upon his living flesh and blood? It is one of the greatest wonders in the World, that it should ever enter into the minds of men to put upon our Saviour's words, so easily capable of a more convenient sense and so necessarily requiring it, a meaning so plainly contrary to Reason, and sense, and even to Humanity itself. Had the ancient Christians owned any such Doctrine, we should have heard of it from the Adversaries of our Religion in every page of their writings; and they would have desired no greater advantage against the Christians then to have been able to hit them in the teeth with their feasting upon the natural flesh and blood of their Lord, and their God, and their best Friend. What endless triumphs would they have made upon this Subject? And with what confidence would they have set the cruelty used by Christians in their Sacrament, against their God Saturn's eating his own children, and all the cruel and bloody Rites of their Idolatry? But that no such thing was then objected by the Heathens to the Christians, is to a wise man instead of a thousand Demonstrations that no such Doctrine was then believed.  
3. It is scandalous also upon account of the cruel and bloody consequences of this Doctrine; so contrary to the plain Laws of christianity, and to one great end and design of this Sacrament, which is to untie christians in the most perfect love and charity to one another: Whereas this Doctrine hath been the occasion of the most barbarous and bloody Tragedies that ever were acted in the World, For this hath been in the church Rome the great burning Article, and as absurd and unreasonable as it is, more christians have been murdered for the denial of it then perhaps for all the other Articles of their Religion. And I think it may generally pass for a true observation that all sects are commonly most hot and surious for those things for which there is least Reason; for what men want of Reason for their opinions, they usually supply and make up in Rage. And it was no more than needed to use this severity upon this occasion; for nothing but the cruel fear of death could in probability have driven so great a part of mankind into the acknowledgement of so unreasonable and senseless a Doctrine.  
O blessed Saviour! Thou best Friend and greatest Lover of mankind, who can imagine thou didst ever intent that men should kill one another for not being able to believe contrary to their senses; for being unwilling to think, that thou shouldst make one of the most horrid and barbarous things that can be imagined a main Duty and principal Mystery of thy Religion; for not flattering the pride and presumption of the Priest who says he can make God, and for not complying with the folly and stupidity of the People who believe that they can eat him?  
4. Upon account of the danger of Idolatry; which they are certainly guilty of, if this Doctrine be not true, and such a change as they pretend be not made in the Sacrament; for if it be not, than they worship a Creature instead of the Creator God blessed for ever. But such a change I have shown to be impossible; or if it could be, yet they can never be certain that it is, and consequently are always in danger of Idolatry: And that they can never be certain that such a change is made, is evident; because, according to the express determination of the Council of Trent, that depends upon the mind and intention of the Priest, which cannot certainly be known but by Revelation, which is not pretended in this case. And if they be mistaken about this change, through the knavery of crossness or the Priest who will not make GOD but when he thinks fit, they must not think to excuse themselves from Idolatry because they intended to worship God and not a Creature; for so the Persians might be excused from Idolatry in worshipping the Sun, because they intent to worship God and not a Creature; and so indeed we may excuse all the Idolatry that ever was in the world, which is nothing else but a mistake of the Deity, and upon that mistake a worshipping of something as God which is not God.  
II. Besides the infinite scandal of this Doctrine upon the accounts I have mentioned, the monstruous absurdities of it make it in supportable to any Religion. I am very well assured of the grounds of Religion in general, and of the Christian Religion in particular; and yet I cannot see that the foundation of any revealed Religion, are strong enough to bear the weight of so many and so great absurdities as this Doctrine of Transubstantiation would load it withal. And to make this evident, I shall not insist upon those gross contradictions, of the same Body being in so many several places at once; of our Saviour's giving away himself with his own hands to every one of his Disciples, and yet still keeping himself to himself, and a thousand more of the like nature: But to show the absurdity of this Doctrine I shall only ask these few Questions.  
1. Wither any man have, or ever had greater evidence of the truth of any Divine Revelation then every man hath of the falsehood of Transubstantiation? Infidelity were hardly possible to men, if all men had the same evidence for the Christian Religion which they have against Transubstantiation, that is, the clear and irresistible evidence of sense. He that can once be brought to contradict or deny his senses, is at an end of certainty; for what can a man be certain of, if he be not certain of what he sees? In some circumstances our senses may deceive us, but no Faculty deceives us so little and so seldom: And when our senses do deceive us, even that error is not to be corrected without the help of our senses.  
2. Supposing this Doctrine had been delivered in Scripture in the very same words that it is decreed in the Council of Trent, by what clearer evidence or stronger Argument could any man prove to me that such words were in the Bible, than I can prove to him that bread and wine after consecration are bread and wine still? He could but appeal to my eyes to prove such words to be in the Bible, and with the same reason and justice might I appeal to several of his senses to prove to him that the bread and wine after consecration are bread and wine still.  
3. Wither it be reasonable to imagine that God should make that a part of the Christian Religion which shakes the main external evidence and confirmation of the whole? I mean the Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour and his Apostles, the assurance whereof did at first depend upon the certainty of sense. For if the senses of those who say they saw them were deceived then there might be no Miracles wrought; and consequently it may justly be doubted whither that kind of confirmation which God hath given to the Christian Religion would be strong enough to prove it, supposing Transubstantiation to be a part of it: Because every man hath as great evidence that Transubstantiation is false, as he hath that the Christian Religion is true. Suppose then Transubstantiation to be part of the Christian Doctrine, it must have the same confirmation with the whole, and that is Miracles: But of all Doctrines in the world it is peculiarly incapable of being proved by a Miracle. For if a Miracle were wrought for the proof of it, the very same assurance which any man hath of the truth of the Miracle he hath of the falsehood of the Doctrine, that is, the clear evidence of his senses. For that there is a Miracle wrought to prove that what he sees in the Sacrament is not bread but the body of Christ, there is only the evidence of sense; and there is the very same evidence to prove that what he sees in the Sacrament is not the Body of Christ but bread. So that here would arise a new Controversy, whither a man should rather believe his senses giving testimony against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or bearing witness to a Miracle wrought to confirm that Doctrine; there being the very same evidence against the truth of the Doctrine, which there is for the truth of the Miracle: And then the Argument for Transubstantiation and 〈◊〉 Objection against it would just balance one another; and consequently Transubstantiation is not to be proved by a Miracle, because th● would be, to prove to a man by some thing that he sees, that he d● not see what he sees. And if there were no other evidence that Transubstantiation is no part of the Christian Doctrine; this would ●● sufficient, that what proves the one doth as much overth●●● the other; and that Miracles which are certainly the best and hig●● external proof of Christianity are the worst proof in the world of Transubstantiation, unless a man can renounce his senses at the same t●● that he relies upon them. For a man cannot believe a Miracle without relying upon sense, nor Transubstantiation without renouncing it. S● that never were any two things so ill coupled together as the Doctri●● of Christianity and that of Transubstantiation, because they draw several ways, and are ready to strangle one another; because th● main evidence of the Christian Doctrine, which is Miracles, is res●●ved into the certainty of sense, but this evidence is clear and poi●● blank against Transubstantiation.  
4. And Lastly, I would ask what we are to think of the Argume●● which our Saviour used to convince his Disciples after his Resurrection that his Body was really risen, and that they were not deluded by ● Ghost or Apparition? Is it a necessary and conclusive Argument or not? 
* Luke 24. 3●. 39  And he said unto them, why are y●● troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts' Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; ●●● a Spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me h●● But now if we suppose with the Church of Rome the Doctrine o● Transubstantiation to be true, and that he had instructed his Dis●ciples in it just before his death, strange thoughts might justly hav● risen in their hearts, and they might have said to him; Lord, it i● but a few days ago since thou didst teach us not to believe our senses but directly contrary to what we saw, viz. That the bread whic● thou gavest us in the Sacrament, though we saw it and handled i● and tasted it to be bread, yet was not bread, but thine own natural body; and now thou appealest to our senses to prove that thi● is thy body which we now see. If seeing and handling be an unquestionable evidence that things are what they appear to ou● senses, than we were deceived before in the Sacrament; and if they be not, than we are not sure now that this is thy body which we now see and handle, but it may be perhaps bread under the appearance of flesh and bones, just as in the Sacrament, that which we saw and handled and tasted to be bread was thy flesh and bones under the form and appearance of bread. Now upon this supposition, it would have been a hard matter to have quieted the though●● ●f the Disciples: For if the Argument which our Saviour used did certainly prove to them that what they saw and handled was his ●●dy, his very natural flesh and bones 〈◊〉 because they saw and ●andled them, (which it were impious to deny) is would as strong●● prove that what they saw and received before in the Sacrament was ●ot the natural body and blood of Christ, but real bread and wine: ●nd consequently, that according to our Saviour's arguing after his resurrection they had no reason to believe Transubstantiation before. ●or that very Argument by which our Saviour proves the reality of his ●ody after his Resurrection doth as strongly prove the reality of bread ●nd wine after consecration. But our Saviour's Argument was most ●●fallibly good and true, and therefore the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is undoubtedly false.  
Upon the whole matter I shall only say this, that some other ●oints between us and the Church of Rome are managed with some ●ind of wit● and subtlety, but this of Transubstantiation is carried out by mere dint of impudence and facing down of Mankind.  
And of this the more discerning persons of that Church are of ●ate grown so sensible that they would now be glad to be rid of this ●odious and ridiculous Doctrine. But the Council of Trent hath fastened it to their Religion, and made it a necessary and essential Point of their Belief, and they cannot now part with it if they would; it is like a Millstone hung about the neck of Popery which will sink it at the last.  
And though some of their greatest Wits, as Cardinal Perron; and of late Monsieur Arnauld, have undertaken the defence of it in great Volumes; yet it is an absurdity of that monstrous and massy weight, that no humane authority or wit● are able to support it: It will make the very Pillars of St. Peter's crack, and requires more Volumes to make it good than would fill the Vatican.  
And now I would apply myself to the poor deluded People of that Church, if they were either permitted by their Priests, or durst venture without their leave to look into their Religion and to examine the Doctrines of it. Consider, and show yourselves men. Do not suffer yourselves any longer to be led blindfold, and by an implicit Faith in your Priests, into the belief of nonsense and contradiction. Think it enough and too much to let them rook you of your money for pretended Pardons and counterfeit Relics, but let not the Authority of any Priest or Church persuade you out of your senses. Credulity is certainly a fault as well as Infidelity: And he who said, blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed; hath not where said, blessed are they that have seen and yet have not believed, much less, blessed are they that believe directly contrary to what they see.  
To conclude this Discourse. By what hath been said upon this Argument it will appear, with how little truth, and reason, and regard to the interest of our common Christianity, it is so often said by our Adversaries, that there are as good arguments for the belief of Transubstantiation as of the Doctrine of the Trinity: When they themselves do acknowledge with us that the Doctrine of the Trinity is grounded upon the Scriptures, and that according to the interpretation of them by the consent of the ancient Fathers: But their Doctrine of Transubstantiation I have plainly shown to have no such ground, and that this is acknowledged by very many learned men of their own Church. And this Doctrine of theirs being first plainly proved by us to be destitute of all Divine Warrant and Authority, our Objections against it from the manifold contradictions of it to Reason and sense are so many Demonstrations of the falsehood of it. Against all which they have nothing to put in the opposite Scale but the Infallibility of their Church, for which there is even less colour of proof from Scripture then for Transubstantiation itself. But so fond are they of their own Innovations and Errors, that rather than the Dictates of their Church, how groundless and absurd soever, should be called in question; rather than not have their will of us in imposing upon us what they please, they will owerthrow any Article of the Christian Faith, and shake the very foundations of our common Religion: A clear evidence that this Church of Rome is not the true Mother, since she can be so well contented that Christianity should be destroyed rather than the Point in question should be decided against her.  
FINIS.   

A DISCOURSE Concerning the ADORATION OF THE HOST,  
As it is Taught and Practised in the CHURCH of ROME.  
Wherein an Answer is given to T. G. o● that Subject,  
And to Monsieut Boileau's late book De Adoratione Eucharistiae. Paris 1685.  
EDINEURGH reprinted by John Reid, Anno DOM, 1686.   

A DISCOURSE OF THE ADORATION Of the HOST, etc.  
IDolatry is so great a Blot in any Church, what ever other glorious Marks it may pretend to, that it is not to be wondered, that the Church of Rome is very angry to be charged with it, as it has always been by all the Reformed; who have given in this among many others, as a just and necessary Reason of their Reformation; and it must be confessed to be so, if it be fully and clearly made good against it; and if it be not, it must be owned to be great Uncharitableness on the other side, which is no good Note of a Church neither; as grievous Slander and most uncharitable Calumny, which will fall especially upon all the Clergy of the Church of England, who by their Consent and Subscription to its Articles and to the Doctrine of its Homilies, and to the Book of Common Prayer, do expressly join in it. For it is not the private Opinion only of some particular and forward men in their Zeal and Heat against Popery, thus to accuse it of Idolatry: but it is the deliberate, and sober, and downright Charge of the Church of England, of which no honest man can be a Member and Minister, who does not make and believe it. I might give several Instances to show this; but shall only mention one, wherein I have undertaken to defend our Church in its charge of Idolatry upon the Papists in their Adoration of the Host, which is in its Declaration about Kneeling at the Sacrament after the Office of the Communion, in which are these remarkable words, It is hereby declared, that no Adoration is intended, or aught to be done, either unto the sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood; for the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their natural substances, and therefore may not be adored, for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians. Here it most plainly declares its mind against that, which is the Ground and Foundation of their Worshipping the Host. That the Elements do not remain in their natural Substances after Consecration; if they do remain, as we and all Protestants hold, even the Lutherians, then in Worshipping the consecrated Elements, they worship mere Creatures, and are by their own Confession guilty of Idolatry, as I shall show by and by; and if Christ's natural Flesh and Blood ●e not corporally present there, neither with the Substance, nor Signs of the Elements, than the Adoring what there is most be the Adoring some things else then Christ's body; and if Bread only be there, and they adore that which is there, they must surely adore the Bread itself, in the opinion of our Church, but I shall afterwards state the Controversy more exactly between us. Our Church has here taken notice of the true Issue of it, and declared that to be false, and that it is both Unfit and Idolatrous too, to Worship, the Elements upon any account after Consecration, and it continued of the same mind, and expressed i● is particularly, and directly in the Canons of 1640. where it says, 
a Canon 7. 1640. about placing the Communion Table under this head A Declaration about some Rites and Ceremonis.  That for the cause of the Idolatry committed in the Mass, all Popish Altars were demolished; so that none can more fully charge them with Idolatry in this point, than our Church has done.  
It recommends at the same time, but with great Temper and Moderation, the religious Gesture of bowing towards the Altar, both before and out of the time of Celebration of the Holy Eucharist, and in it, and in neither 
a Ib. can. 7. 1●40.  Upon any opinion of a corporal presence of Christ on the Holy Table, or in the mystical Elements; but only to give outward and bodily, as well as inward worship to the Divine Majesty; and it commands all Persons to receive the Sacrament Kneeling 
b Rubric at Communion.  in a posture of Adoration, as the Primitive Church used to do, with the greatest Expression of Reverence and Humility, tropo proskynesios kai sebasmatos; St. cyril of Jerusalem speaks 
c Cyril. Hierosolym. Catech. Mystag. 5.  and as I shall show, is the meaning of the greatest Authorities they produce out of the Ancients for Adoration not to, but at the Sacrament; so far are we from any unbecoming, or irreverent usage of that Mystery, as Bellarmine 
d Controu. de Eucharist.  when he is angry with those, who will not Worship it, tells them out of Optatus, that the Donatists gave it to Dogs; and out of Victor Vticencis, that the Arria●s trod it under their Feet; that we should abhor any such disrespect shown to the sacred Symbols of our Saviour's Body, as is used by them, in throwing it into the Flames to quench a Fire, or into the Air, or Water to stop a Tempest, or Inundation, or keep themselves from drowning, or any the like mischief (to prevent which they will throw away even the God they Worship) or the putting it to any the like undecent Superstitions. 'Tis out of the great Honour and Respect that we bear to the Sacrament, that we are against the carrying it up and down as a show, and the Exposing and Prostituting it to so shameful an Abuse, and so gross an Idolatry. We give very great Respect and Reverence to all things that relate to God, and are set apart to his Worship and Service; to the Temple where God is said himself to dwell, and to be more immediately present; to the Altar whereon the Mysteries of Christ's Body and Blood are solemnly celebrated; to the Holy Vessels, that are always used in those Administrations; to the Holy Bible, which is the Word of God, in the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as the Sacrament is his Body, and the New Testament in his Blood; to the Font, which is the Laver of Regeneration, wherein we put on Christ, as well as we eat him in the Eucharist; and if we would strain things, and pick out of the Ancient and Devout Christians what is said of all these, it would go as far, and look as like to adoring them, as what with all their care they collect and produce for adoring the Sacrament, as I shall afterwards make appear, in answer to what the 
a Jacob. Boileau Paris. De Adoratione Eucharistiae. Paris. 1685.  latest Defender of the Adoration of the Eucharist, has culled, or rather raked together out of the Fathers.  
It seems from that Declaration of our Church, that some were either so silly, or so spiteful, as to suppose that by our Kneeling at the Sacrament, we gave Worship to the Elements; and that learned man is willing to have it believed, that we do thereby, externè Eucharistiam colere c, outwardly 
b Boil. p. 145.  Worship the Sacrament, and he blames us for not doing it inwardly in our minds, as well as outwardly with our Bodies; so willing are these men to join with our wildest Dissenters in their unreasonable Charges against our Church, & use any crutches that may help their own weak Cause, or be made use of to strike at us; but it may as well be said, that the Dissenters Worship their Cushions, or their Seats, when they kneel before them; the roof of the Church, or the crowns of their Hats, when they fix their Eyes upon them; at the same time they are at their Prayers upon their Knees; or that the Papists worship the Priest himself, before whom they Kneel in their Confessions; or that on Ash-wednesday they adore the holy Ashes as they call them, and on Palmsunday the holy Boughs, which they do not pretend to do, because they Kneel when they are given them; as well as that we Worship the Eucharist, or the Mystical Elements, when we receive them Kneeling, and disavow any such thing, and declare it to be Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians.  
But is it Idolatry to Worship Christ? Or or to Worship the Body of Christ, tho' not for itself, yet for the sake of the Divine Nature, to which it is always hypostatically united? No● by no means; I know no Heretics, tho' they denied Christ's Divinity, but yet were for worshipping him; the old Arrians, and the late Socinians; but how justifiably, when they believe him but a mere man, or only a more excellent Creature; they, and the Church of Rome are both concerned to defend, and to clear it, if they can of Idolatry. As to the Worship of the Flesh, tho' Nestorius could not do this according to his Principles, as St. Cyril and the Council of Ephesus argue against him; nor could the Ebionites, nor Doketai of old; yet I know none but some of their Schoolmen dispute now of Adoring the Flesh or Humane Nature of Christ, which however it be in our minds, is never in truth abstracted from his Divinity. But we will not at all trouble ourselves with those parts of the Science of controversy; nor shall we stand upon any of those things. Well then, why may not Christ and his Body be adored in the Sacrament, if they are proper Objects of Adorations. No doubt but they may be adored in this Sacrament, in the Sacrament of Baptism too, and in all the Offices of the Christian Religion, wherein we pray to Christ and Kneel before him, and exercise the devout acts of the Mind toward him, put our trust and hope in him, and expect Salvation from him, and devout ourselves in all Subjection to him, and bow both our Souls and our Bodies, and give all, both internal and external Worship to him; this Adoration we give to Christ, who is God blessed for ever, and who sits at the right hand of God the Father. And the very same the Papists give to the Sacrament, to the Host, and the consecrated Elements, the the most Sovereign, and Absolute, and highest: Degree of Religious Worship that is due to God, whose creatures those Elements are; or to Christ himself, who commanded us receive them in remembrance of him. But it is only Christ, say they, whom we Worship in the Sacrament, whom we adore as being present there with his Body in the Host, and not the Host or the Sacrament itself; so a great many of them would fain bring off the matter, or at least colour and disguise it; Bellarmine 
a Lib. 4. the Eucharist c. 29. Quicquid sit de modo loquendi, slatus quaestionis non est, nisian Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus cultu latriae.  when he had entangled himself with the distinctions of worshipping the Sacrament, whither formally or materially would extricate himself, by thus stating the matter, and reducing it to this question, Wither Christ be to be adored in the Eucharist? And St. Clara 
b St. Clara Deus, Natura, Gratia, p. 308 〈◊〉 been, non dicit concilium Tridentinum, Sacramentum, sed Christuns in Sacramento, latria adorandum.  would reconcile the dispute with this Observation, Nota benè, Mark this, the council of Trent does not say that the Sacrament is to be adored, but Christ in the Sacrament. I wonder so great a man as Cassander 
c Adoratio non ad exteri●s signum quod exterius videtur, sed ad ipsam rem & veritatem quae interiu● creditur referenda, Cassand. consult. de Adorat, Euchar.  should say, Unless, with a design to condemn the thing, That the Adoration is not to be given to the outward sign which is seen; but is to be referred to the thing itself, and to that which is truly and inwardly believed. But Reconcilers, who will attempt the vain project of Accommodation, must do with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, as Apelles did with Antigonus his face, they must draw but one part, half of it, that so they may Artificially conceal it as deformed, and its blind side. That all these do so, I shall show by stating the controversy carefully and truly, which is the chiefest thing in this dispute; for they love to hid their own Doctrines as much as they can; and they cunningly contrive most of them with a back door, to slip out at privately and upon occasion. The Council of Trent has in this, as in other things used art, and not spoke out in one place, as it does in another; that so we mistake half its words for its full meaning, as Bellarmine and others were willing to do, or at least to have others do so. In its sixth Canon on the Eucharist it only says 
a Council Trident. Can. 6. De Euchor. si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christam Vnigenitum Dei filium non esse cultu Latriae etiam externo adorandum, Anathema sit.  If any one shall say, that Christ the only begotten Son of God is not to be adored with the external Worship of Latria, in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, let him be accursed. Who will not say in those general words, that Christ is to be adored with outward and inward Worship both, not only in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, but of Baptism too, and in every Christian Office, and in every Prayer, and solemn Invocation of him, either public or private? But they mean a great deal more than all this, by Worshipping Christ in the Sacrament, and in as plain words they say, 
b Ib. 13. Sess. c. 5.  That the Sacrament itself is to be adored; that, whatever it be which is something besides Christ, even according to them,, which is placed in the Patin, and upon the Altar, which the Priest holds in his hands, and lifts up to be seen, this very thing is to be adored; There is no doubt, says the Council 
c Ib. Nullus dubitandi locus relinquitur quin omnes Christi fideles pro more in catholica Ecclesia semper recepto, l●triae cultum qui vero Deo debetur, huic sanctissimo Sacramento in Veneratione adhibeant; neque enim minus est adorandum quod fuerit a Christo D●mino ut sumatur, institutum.  but that all faithful Christians, according to the custom always received in the Catholic Church, aught to give Supreme and Sovereign Worship, which is due to God himself, to the most Holy Sacrament in their Worship of it; for it is nevertheless to be adored, tho' it was instituted of Christ to be received. That which is to be received, which is to be put into the People's Mouths by the Priest (for since they have made a God of the Sacrament, they will not trust the People to feed themselves with it nor take it into their hands: and they may with as much reason in time not think fit that they should eat it) this which was appointed of Christ to be taken and eaten as a Sacrament; this is now to serve for another use, to be adored as a God; and it would be as true Heresy in the church of Rome, not to say that the Sacrament of the Altar is to be adored, as not to say, that Christ himself is to be adored. But what according to them is this Sacrament? It is the remaining Species of Bread and Wine, and the natural Body and Blood of Christ, invisibly, yet carnally present under them; and these together make up one entire Object of their Adoration which they call Sacramentum; for Christ's body without those Species, and Accidents at least of Bread and Wine, would not according to them be a Sacrament; they being the outward and visible part, are, according to their Schoolmen, properly and strictly called the 
Lombard. sent. l. 4. dist. 10.  Sacramentum, and the other the res Sacramenti; and to this external part of the Sacrament, as well as to the internal, they give Latreia and Adoration; to those remaining Species, which, be they what they will, are but creatures; religious Worship is given together with Christ's Body and they withh that, are the whole formal Object of their Adoration. Non solum Christum sed Totum visibile Sacramentum, unico cultu, adorari, says Suarez, 
a In Th. Quaest. 9 disp.  quia est unum constans ex Christo & Speciebus; Not only Christ, but the whole visible Sacrament (which must be something besides Christ's invisible Body) is to be adored with one and the same Worship, because it is one thing (or one Object) consisting of Christ and the Species. So another of their learned men 
b Henriquez. Moral, l. 8. c. 32.  Speciebus Eucharistiae datur Latria propter Christum quem continent; The highest Worship is given to the Species of the Eucharist, because of Christ, whom they contain. Now Christ, whom they contain, must be something else than the Species that contain him. Let him be present never so truly and substantially in the Sacrament, or under the species, he cannot be said to be the same thing with that in which he is said to be present; and as subtle as they are and as thin and subtle as these species are, they can never get off from Idolatry upon their own Principles in their Worshipping of them; and they can never be left out, but must be part of the whole which is to be adored, totum illud quod simul adoratur, as Bellarmine calls it, must include these 
de Euch. l: 4. c. 30.  as well as Christ's Body. Adorationem, says Bellarmine 
a Bellarmine de Euch l. 4. c. 29.  ad Sybola etiam panis & vini pe●●nere, ut quod unum cum ipso Christo quem continent, Adoration belongs even to the Symbols of Bread and Wine, as they are apprehended to be one with with Christ whom they contain; and so make up one entire Object of Worship with him, and may be Worshipped together with Christ, as T. G. (b) owns in his Answer to his most learned Adversary; and are the very term of Adoration, as Gregory de Valentia 
c Cathol. no Idolaters, p. 268.  says, who farther adds, that they who think this worship 
d De Idol, l. 2. c. 5.  does not at all belong to the Species, in that heretically oppose the perpetual custom and sense of the Church. 
Qui censeunt nullo m●do ad Species ipsias eam Venerationem pertinere, in eo Haeretice pugnare contra perpetuum usum & sensum Ecclesiae: de Veneratione Sacram. ad Artic. Tom. 5.   
Indeed they say, That these species or Accidents, are not be Worshipped for themselves, or upon their own account, but because Christ is present in them and under them; and so they may be Worshipped as T. G. says 
d Ib.  with Christ in like manner, as his Garments were Worshipped together with him upon Earth; which is a similitude taken out of Bellarmine, the Magazine not only of Arguments and Authorities, but of Similitudes too, it seems, which are to Defend that Church; Quemadmodum says he 
e de Euch. Venerat.  qui Christum in terris vestitum adorabant, non ipsum solum sed etia● vestes quodam modo adorabant. And are Christ's Garments then to be Worshipped with Latria, as well as Christ himself, or as the Sacrament? I think they will not say this of any of the Relics they have of Christ, or his clothes: Did they, who worshipped Christ when he was upon the Earth, worship his clothes to? Did the Wise men worship the blankets, the clouts, and the swadling-cloths, as well as the blessed Babe lying in the Manger? Might it not as well be supposed that the People worshipped the Ass, upon which Christ road; not for himself, but for the sake, and upon the account of Christ, who was upon him; as that they worshipped his clothes, or his Sandals on which he trod, or the Garments which he wore? Bellarmine● quodammodo adorabant, shows his heart misgave him, and that he was sensible the Similitude would not do, when he used it: but T. G. is a man of more heart and courage, or front at least, and he found the cause was in great need of it, and so he says boldly, without any trembling quodammodo, that they worshipped his Garments.  
The humane Nature itself of Christ, considered alone, and being a mere Creature, is not an object of Worship, as St Augustin says, 
a St. Aug. serm. 58. De verbis Dom. si natura Deus non est filius sed Creatura, nec colendus est omnino nec ut Deus Adorandus. Ego Dominicam carnem, imo perfectam in Christo humanltatem propterea adoro, quod a divinitate suscepta, atque Deitati unita est,— Denique si hominem separaveris a Deo, ut Photinus, vel Paulus Samosatenus, illi ego nunquam credo nec servio.  but only as it is hypostatically united to the Divine Nature, i. e. so intimately and vitally united to it, as to make one Person with it, with God himself, one Theantbropos and so one Object of Worship; and if the Sacramental Symbols or species, are to be adored with true latria, not per se, or upon their own account, but by reason of the intimate Union and conjunction which they have with Christ, as they say, not only with Christ's body, for that alone is not to be worshipped, much less another thing that is united to it; but with Christ's Persons, and then there must be as many Persons of Christ, as there are consecrated Wafers; then these species being thus worshipped upon the same account that Christ's humanity is, as Gregory de Valentia owns they must, (This Worship, says he, belongs after a certain manner to the species, as when the Divine Logos is worshipped in the humanity which he assumed, the Divine Worship belongs also to the ●reated Humanity. Pertinet per accidens suo quodam modo ea veneratio ad species quemadmodum suo modo, etiam hoc ipso quod adoratur Divinum verbum in humanitate assumptā pertinet ejusmodi Divinus cultus, ad illam humanitatem creatam secundario, neque in hoc est aliqua Idololatria) must be also united to Christ, the same way that his Humanity is united 
Valentia, Disput. 6. Quaest. 11. de ritu & oblat. Eucharist.  to his Divinity, so as to become with that, one entire object of Worship, as the species are, according to them, with Christ in the Eucharist; that is, they must become one suppositum, or one Person with Christ. This is so weighty a difficulty, as makes the greatest Atlas' of the Roman church not only sweat; but sink under it. Valentia a owns the wonderful Conjunction the 
a De Idol. l. 2. c. 5.  species have with Christ, but denies their being hypostatically united to him; but then how are they to be worshipped? Since it is owned by him and the schoolmen, that the very Humanity of Christ is to be worshipped only upon the account of its hypostatical Union; and tho' God be very nearly and intimately present in other Creatures, yet they are not to be worshipped, notwithstanding that presence, because they do not make one suppositum or hypostasis with him, or are not hypostatically united to him. Bellarmine being pinched on this side, removeth the burden to t'other, that is as sore, and can as little bear it; Christ, says he, is much otherwise in the Eucharist. then God 
bLonge aliter est Christus in Eucharistia, & in aliis rebus Deus; Nam in Eucharistia unum tantum suppositum est, idque Divinum, c●eteraque omnia divina ad illud pertinent, & cum illo unum quid, faciunt, licet non eodem modo, Bellar. de Euch. l. 4. c. 30  is in other things; for in the Eucharist, there is but one only suppositum, and that divine; all other things present belong to, and make one thing with that. If they do so, then sure they are hypostatically united with Christ, as T. G's. Learned Adversary charges upon Bellarmine from this place; if they make but one suppositum with him, and but one with him, let it be in what manner it will, they must be hypostatically united to him Bellarmine's Licet non eodem modo, tho' not after the same manner, is both intelligible, and will not at all help the matter; 'tis only a Confession from him, that at the same time that he says they are hypostatically united to Christ, and make one suppositum with him, and one object of Worship, that he does not know how this can be, and that his thoughts are in a great straight about it, so that he doubts they are not hypostically united at the same time that he yet says they are so; for this is no way imposed upon him, as T. G. says, notwithstanding his non eodem modo. If in the Incarnation of Christ, one should say, That the Soul and Body of Christ are both united to his Divinity, but that both were not united after the same manner; but the Soul in such a manner, as being a Spirit, and the Body in another; yet so, that both made but one Suppositum with it, and that Divine; and that all his humane Nature belonged to that, and made one with that, tho' not after the same manner; would not this be still an owning the hypostatical Union between Christ's Divinity, and his Soul and Body? and so must the other be between Christ's Divinity, and his Body, and the Species; if they make one Suppositum, and are, as they hold, to be worshipped as such.  
Thus I have taken care to give you their Doctrine, and state the case with some exactness; tho' I am sensible, with too much length; but that is the way to shorten the controversy; and by this means I have cut off their common retreats and stopped up those little lurking holes they generally run to, and in which they are wont to Earth themselves. As, that they worship only Christ in the Sacrament, or Christ under the accidents of Bread and Wine; and that 'tis only Christ, or the Body of Christ with which his Divinity is always present, is the formal object of their Adoration in the Sacrament, and that their Worship is given to that, and not to the consecrated Elements, or to the remaining Species of Bread and Wine; it appears from their own Doctrine and Principles to be quite otherwise; and if we take them at their own words, they are sufficient to bear wi●ness against them, and condemn them of Idolatry; but this will be found to be much greater and grosser, when the whole foundation of this Doctrine of theirs of the Worship of the Host, proves upon Examination to be false, and one of the most thick and unreasonable Errors in the World, to wit, the belief of Transubstantiation, or that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, are converted into the natural and substantial Body and Blood of Christ, so that there remains nothing of the substance of the Bread and Wine after consecration, but only the Flesh and blood of Christ corporally present, under the species and accidents of bread and wine. If this Doctrine be true, it will in great measure discharge them from the guilt of Idolatry; for than their only fault will be their joining the species which how thin and ghostly soever they be, yet are Creatures, together with CHRIST, as one Object of Worship; and unless they altar their Doctrine on this point, from what it is now, I see not how they can justify their worshipping with Latreia, or the Worship due only to God, not only the adorable substance of Christ's Body, but the very Vails and Symbols under which they suppose that to lie; and yet when they teach, as they do, the adoring of the Sacrament, they must adore the visible and outward part of it, as well as the invisible Body of CHRIST; for without the remaining Species, it would not, according to them, be a Sacrament; and they have not gone so far yet, I think, as to deny that there are any remaining Species, and that our senses do so far wholly deceive us, that when we see something, there is really nothing of a visible Object. And the same Object which is visible, is adorable too, according to them: If Christ's Body were substantially present in the Sacrament, tho' it were lawful to adore it as there present; but by no means, either the substance or Species of Bread with it; yet it is much to be doubted, whither it were a duty, or necessary to do so. It would be present so like a Prince in Incognito, that he would seem not to require that Honour which we ought to give him under a more public appearance. God we know is present in all his Creatures, but yet we are not to Worship him as present in any of them; unless, where he makes a sensible Manifestation of himself, and appears by his Shechinah, or his Glory, as to Moses in the burning Bush, and to others in like manner: and it would be very strange to make the Bread in the Eucharist a Shechinah of God, which appears without any Alteration just as it was before it was made such; and especially, to make it such a continuing Shechinah as the Papists do, that Christ is present in it, not only in the action and solemn Celebration, but extra usum, as they speak, and permanenter, even after the whole Solemnity and Use is over; that he should continue there as a praesens Numen, as Boileau expressly calls it 
a de Eucharistiae Adorat. p. 140.  and be showed and carried about and honoured as such, and dwell in the species as long as they continue, as truly as he dwelled in the Flesh, before that was crucified; this is strange and monstrous even to those who think Christ is present in the Sacrament, but not so as the Papists believe, nor so as to be worshipped, I mean the Lutherans. But to bring the matter to a closer issue, the Papists themselves are forced to confess, that if the Bread remain after consecration, and be still Bread, and be not Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ, that they are then Idolaters. So Fisher against Oecolampadius, l. 1. c. 2. In express words. So Coster in his 
Intali errore atque Idololotria, qualis in or be terrarum nunquam vel visus vel auditus fuit. Tolerabilior est enim error eorum qui pro Deo colunt Statuam auream aut argenteam, aut alterius materiae imaginem, quomodo Gentiles Deos suos venerabantur, vel pannum rubrum in hastam elevatum quod narratur de Lappis, vel viva animalia ut quondam Aegyptii, quam eorum qui frustum panis. coster Ench. c. ●. S. 10. Long potiori ratione excusandi essent infideles Idololatrae qui Statuas adoraverunt, Ib.  Euchiridion de Euch, c. 8. If the true Body of Christ be not present in the Sacrament, than they are left in such an Error and Idolatry, as was never seen or heard; for that of the Heathens would be more tolerable, who Worship a golden or silver statue for God, or any other Image, or even a red cloth, as the Laplanders are said to do, or living Animals, as the Egyptians, then of those who worship a piece of bread. And Again, Those Infidel Idolaters would be more excusable, who worshipped their statues. To whom I shall add Bellarmine 
a Sacramentarii omnes negant Sacramentum Adorandum & Idololatriam appellant ejusmodi Adorationem; neque id mirum videri debet, cum ipsi non credant Christum reipsa esse pra●sentem, & panem Eucharistiae reipsa nihil esse nisi panem ex furno, Bellarm. de Euch. l. 4. c. 29.  who says, It does not seem strange, that they call the Adoration of the sacrament Idolatry, who do not believe that Christ is there truly present, but that the bread is still true bread.  
If then the Bread do still remain Bread in the Host, and the Elements in the Eucharist are not substantially changed into the natural and substantial Body and Blood of Christ, than it is confessed Idolatry, and it is not strange according to Bellarmine, that it should be so; and then sure it will be true Artolatreia, or Bread worship too, if that be Bread which they worship, and be not the natural Body of CHRIST, that which is there present, that they adore; and if that be only Bread, than they adore Bread. And here I should enter that controversy, which has given rise to most of their abominable Abuses and Errors about the Eucharist; the making both a God of it, and also a true Sacrifice of this God instead of a Sacrament, which CHRIST intended it, and that is their Doctrine of Transubstantiation; but a great man has spared me this trouble, by his late excellent Discourse against it, to which I shall wholly refer this part of our present controversy, and shall take it for granted, as any one must, who reads that, that (unless in Boileau's Phrase 
a Homo opiniosus cui tenacit as Error is sensum communem abstulit, Boil. p. 159.  he be such a Bigot, whose tenaciousness of his Error, has quite bereft him of common sense, which is an unlucky Character of his own Friends) that Doctrine is false; and therefore, that the charge of Idolatry in this matter; is by their own confession true. But there are some more cautious and wary men amongst them, who out of very just and reasonable Fears and suspicions, that Transubstantiation should not prove true, and that they may happen to be mistaken in that, have thought of another way, to cover and excuse their Idolatry; and that is, not from the Truth, but merely from the Belief of Transubstantiation. As long, say they, as we believe Transubstantiation to be true, and do really think that the Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of Christ's body and blood, and so Worship the Sacrament upon that account, tho' we should be mistaken in this our belief; yet as long as we think that Christ is there present, and design only to Worship him, and not the bread, which we believe to ●e done away; this were enough to free us from the charge of Idolatry. To which, because it is the greatest, and the best Plea they have, and they that make it have some misgivings, I doubt not, that Transubstantiation will not hold; I shall therefore give a full Answer to it, in the following Particulars.  
1. All Idolatry does proceed from a mistaken belief, and a false supposal of the mind, which being gross and unreasonable, will not at all excuse those who are guilty of it; there were never any Idolaters, but might plead the excuse of a mistake, and that not much more culpable and notorious, one would think, than the mistake of those who think a bit of Bread, or a wafer, is turned by a few words into a God. They all thought, however blindly and foolishly, that whatever it was they worshipped, aught to be worshipped upon some account or other; that it was a true and fit Object, and that Adoration rightly belonged to it. Idolatry, tho' it be a great sin, and a great injury and affront to God, yet arises not so much from the malice of the will, as the blindness and darkness of the understanding; there were hardly ever any such Idolaters as maliciously, and designedly intended to affront the true God, by worshipping false Gods or Creatures; as if a subject should pass by his Prince out of ill will, and of purpose to affront and defy him, and give the Reverence and Homage that was due to him, to a Rebel or fellow Subject standing by him; but they did this, because they mistook the person, and thought this to be the Prince that was not, or that he was there where he was not, or that that which was there, aught to be worshipped for his sake; still falsely supposing that they ought to worship that wrong Object, which they took to be right; or in that false manner which they took to be true; for if a mistake will excuse, it will excuse in one as well as another.  
2. Tho' they do not only think and believe that which they worship, to be a true Divine Object; but it really be so in itself, and that which they have in their Thoughts and intentions to worship, be right; yet they may still be guilty of Idolatry; for so were the Jews in the Idolatry of the golden Calf, whereby they intended not to throw off the worship of the true GOD, the God of Israel, who brought them out of ●e land of Egypt; for they appointed the Feast 
Exod. 32. 4. 5.  to him under that Title, and under the Name of Jeh●vah at the same time; and so in the Idolatry of the Calves set up by Jeroboam; they were not designed to draw off the people from 
1 K. 12. 27. 28.  worshipping the same God, who was worshipped at Jerusalem, but only to do it in another place, and after another manner; but still as T. G. 
a Cath. no Idol. p. 330.  says of the Roman Idolaters, so it may be said of these Jewish, That what they had in their Minds and Intentions to Worship, was the true God; and what ever was the material object of their Worship, he was the formal; for they did no more think the Gold, than the Papists think the bread to be God. So the Manichees in their Idolatry, which St. Austin often mentions 
b Contra Faustum Manicheum, l. 1. c. 3 Tom. 1. de Genesi contra Manich. l. 2. c. 25. Tom. 3. Epist. 74. ad Deuterium,  etiam & Lunam & adorant & colant.  of adoring the Sun and Moon, the Object which they had in their Minds, and Thoughts, and Purposes to Worship, was CHRIST, as much as the Papists have in the Eucharist. I would only ask, if a persons having a right Object in his mind, in his thoughts and purposes to adore, which T. G. 
c catholics' no Idolaters, p. 329. 330.  so often pretends, would excuse him from Idolatry; then suppose a person should before consecration, worship the Sacramental Elements, to prevent which they generally keep them from being seen; yet in the Thoughts, and Intentions, and purposes of his mind, design to worship CHRIST then supposed, tho' falsely, to be there, as they worship him afterwards; whither this would be Idolatry in him or no? If not, than they may worship the unconsecrated Elements, as well as consecrated, even whilst they believe they are Bread; if it be, then having a right Object in our Thoughts, and Purposes, and Intentions, will not excuse from Idolatry.  
3. Whatever was the material Object of Idolatrous worship, it was nor worshipped for itself, no more than the Bread or its Accidents are by the Papists in the Eucharist; but as they say of the Host, because they believed that the true Object of worship was really present in it, or in an extraordinary manner united to it 
a Deos velect is sedibus propriis non recusare nec fugere, habitacula inire terrena, quinimo jure dedicationis impulsos simulahcrorum coalescere inunctioni, Arnob. contra gent. l. 6.  so did the Gentiles, who thought the Gods themselves, or at least a Divine Power, was brought into their Images, by their consecrations, and that it resided and dwelled there, and they worshipped their Images only upon this account 
b Deos per simulachra Veneramur Ib.  Now if they had t●ought this of the true God himself, that it was he, and no● any false God that was thus present in their Images, this would have been nevertheless Idolatry. Thus the Manichees, who worshipped the Sun, did not worship it for itself, but because they believed CHRIST had placed his Tabernacle in the Sun; so the more Philosophical Idolaters among the Heathens, who worshipped the several Things of Nature, as parts, they thought, of the Great 
See Voss. de Idolol. l. ●. c. 1.  and Omnipresent God; they did not worship them purely for themselves, but as God was in them; and they were as St. Austin speaks; Aut partes ejus aut membra ejus, aut aliquid substantiae ip●ius 
c August. l. 24. contra Faustum.  Either parts of him, or Members of him, or something of his substance, as the Papists believe the Sacrament to be his body. Thus they Deified the things of Nature, tho' they thought there was but one Supreme GOD, whom they worshipped in them, as ●usebius says of them; they believe (a,) that 
c Hena gar onia theon, pantoiais dymamesi ta panta plerun; kai dia panta diekein. kai in ton dia ton dedelomenon sebein. Euseb Praepar. Evangel. l. 3. c. 13.  one GOD fills all things with his various power, and pervades all things, and that he is to be worshipped in, and by all visible things; but yet they denied that those visible things were to be worshipped for themselves, but for the sake of God, and those invisible powers of God whichwere in them, as appears from the same place 
b Me ta horamena samata heliu kai selenes kai astron medege ta aistheta mere tu kosmu phesusi the opoiein, alla tas en tutois aoratus dunameis, autu de tu epi pasin  They do not, they say, make Gods of the visible bodies of the Sun, Moon and Stars, or the other sensible parts of the World; but they worship those invisible powers that are in them of that God, who is GOD over all. Nay the Egyptians themselves did not as Celsus pleads even for those Idolaters, worship their bruit Animals, but only as they were Symbols of God 
c einai auta kai theu symbola. Orig. contra cells. l. 3.   
4. Yet notwithstanding this Plea of Idolaters, they may justly be charged with worshipping those material Objects, which they say, as the Papists, when we charge them with Bread-worship, that they do not worship. So the Egyptians might be charged with brut-worship, the Heathens with the worship of the Sun and Moon; and the Scripture 
d Isa. 44. 17.  expressly Reproaches and Accuses the Idolaters with worshipping a Stock or Stone, or a piece of Wood; tho' it was the constant Plea and pretence of the Heathens, that they did no more worship those material Objects, than the Papists do Bread. 
e Non ego illum lapidem colo nec illud simulachrum quod est sine sensu, Aug. in Psal. 69.  I do not Worship the senseless Stone or Image, which has Eyes and sees not, Ears and hears not, says the Heathen in St. Austin; and in Arnobius, We do not worship the Brass, or the Gold, or Silver, or any of the matter of which our Images are made 
a Nos neque aera, neque auri argentique materias, neque alias quibus signa Conficiunt eas esse per se Religiosa decernimus numina, sed eos in his colimus eosque veneramur quos dedicatio infert Sacra. Arnobius contra Gentes.  and in St. Austin, again, Do ye think we or our Forefathers were such Fools as to take those for Gods 
b Vsque adeone Majores nostros insipientes fuisse credendum est ut Does—  No, they would disown it as much as Boileau does, With his, who shall say we adore the bread or Wine? 
c Quis nos adorare panem & vinum? Boileau, p. 160.  or T. G's., pretending that we run upon that false ground, that Catholics believe the bread to be God. And yet, I see not why there may not be good reason to charge the one, as well as the other.  
5. If those other Idolaters had been so foolish and absurd, as to believe and think, that those things which they worshipped were their very Gods themselves, substantially present, and that the visible substance of their Idols, had been converted and turned into the substance of their Gods; this would have made their Idolatry only more horribly sottish and ridiculous, but would not in the least have made it more excusable. If the Jews had thought that by the powerful words of Consecration, pronounced by Aaron their High Priest, the Calf had been turned into the very substance of GOD, and that, tho' the Figure and Shape of the Calf had remained, and the Accidents and Species of Gold, which appeared to their sight; yet that the substance of it had been perfectly done away, and that only God himself, had been there under those appearing Species of a golden Calf; would this have mended the matter, or better excused their Idolatry, because they had been so extremely sottish, That they conceived the Gold not to be there at all, but in the place thereof, the only true and eternal God; and so, altho' the Object (or rather subject) materially present in such a case would have been the golden Calf; yet their Act of Adoration would not have been terminated formally upon that, but only upou God, as T. G. says of the bread, p. 339. Or if the Manichees had thought the Body of the Sun had been converted into the glorious Body of JESUS CHRIST, would this have signified any thing to bring them off; if their mistake had been, as T, G. says, p. 327. Theirs is concerning the Bread, that they believed the Sun not to be there at all, and therefore, what they would have in their minds would not, or could not be the Sun, but the only true and eternal Son of God. Indeed they had as it appears from St. Austin 
a Eum (sc. Christum) na●im quandam esse dicitis, eum triangulum esse perhibetis, id est, per quandam triangulam caeli Fenestram lucem istam mundo terrisque radiare. August. contra Faustum Manichaeum, l. 30. c. 6. Nescio quam navim per foramem Triangulum micantem, atque lucentem, quam confictam cogitatis, adoretis Ibid.  some such absurd Imagination; they did think that it was not the material Sun, which appeared to their senses; but a certain Navis, which was the substance of CHRIST, that did radiate, through the triangular Fenestra in the Heavens to the World, and to the Earth. These wretched Figments of theirs, whereby they made the Father of the Light, that was inaccessible, and placed CHRIST in the Sun and Moon, and the Holy Ghost in the Air 
b Trinitati loca tria datis; patri, unum●. e. lumen in accessibile, filio duo  & Lunam spiritui sancto rursus unum, Aris hunc omuem ambitum, Ibid c. 7.  and called these the Seals of their substance 
c Sedes ejusdem substantiae dicatis, Ibid. c. 8.  these made them indeed as he says, worship only the Figments of their own crazy heads, and things th●t were not 
d In iis non quod sunt, sed quod vobis dementissime fingit is, adoratis, Ib. c. 9 Vos au●em colitis ea quae nec dii nec aliquid sunt, quoniam prorsus nulla sunt, Ib. c. 9  but yet this madness and extravagance did not excuse them from Idolatry, which he still charges them withal They worshipped that in the Sun, which was not there, as the Papists do in the Sacrament, to wit, CHRIST'S natural Body, let it be Fantastic or not; and they endeavoured to turn away the senses of men, as he says 
e Sensus simplicium connantur avertere, & nonnullorum avertunt. Id. Enarrat in Psal. 10.  from that visible Sun, and persuade them that it was Christ himself. So that as T. G. says of their mistake concerning the Bread, They did not in their minds, affirm the Sun to be, but not to be, p; 330. and so it could not according to him be the Object of their worship, because whatever is so, the understanding must affirm (either truly or falsely) to be, p. 329.  
There was an Idolatry among the Persians, which Xenophon 
f Cyrop. l. 8.  and Quintus Curtius 
g l. 3.  give an account of, in their worship of Fire, and carrying it about with the most stately Pomp and Solemnity upon silver Altars, and a great Train of Priests and others; which does the most resemble the carrying about the Host in Procession of any thing I have met with, as it is described by Curtius. Here the sacred Fire as they called it, which no doubt was consecrated by some Religious Ceremonies, and was no more counted ignis ex culinan, than the holy Bread is panis ex furno; if they had supposed it by the magical Charms of the Priests to have been turned into some other substance then common Fire, and had thought it to have become the most noble Symbol of the great God, or the illustrious Veil, under which lay the Divinity of the great Lord of the World, and that all the substance of common Fire was quite changed, and done away in this sacred and eternal Fire, as they accounted it 
a Ignis qnem ipsi sacrum & aeternum vocabant, argent is altaribus perferebatur, Curt. Ib.  this would not sure have made them to be no Idolaters. T. G. will make himself a very great Patron of Idolaters, if with this Art and Sophistry of his he can bring them off, as he would the Worshippers of the Host, by the mere adding of more thick Grossness, and more Absurdities to their mistakes. He will have (b) the Israelites to take the golden 
P. 322.  Calf for God, and the Egyptians the Sun to be God, and perhaps some of the most stupid Heathens did take their very Images for Gods, and by his way, these were the most excusable, because they were the most mistaken. These mistakes would after this rate do great and extraordinary things for Idolaters, and would be much better security for the Roman Church, than her pretended Infallibility; and 'tis these must bring off her and her Members from the guilt, tho' not from the Acts of Idolatry, as from other things, or else she and they are in a very sad and desperate condition  
But now I dare appeal to any man, who shall take in all those Considerations I have mentioned together, whither the Papist's adoring the Host, upon the supposal and belief of Transubstantiation, if that be not true, will excuse them from Idolatry, and whither if a mistake in this Case, will excuse them, it will not excuse the grossest Idolatry in the World? Notwithstanding all the little Shifts and Evasions, that T, G. uses to wriggle himself out of this straight and difficulty, into which his learned Adversary had driven him.  

HAving considered the Adoration of the Host, as it is taught in the Church of Rome, I shall now consider the Practice of it, which is more plain and notorious to all the World; however they would palliate and disguise their Doctrine. According to their Missal, which is wholly different in this, as well as other things from the old Liturgy, and Eucharistick forms, as I shall show by and by, the Priest 
a Celebrans hostiam inter policies teneus-genu flexus eam adorat; tum usque in terram genuflexus hostiam ipsam veneratur— sic de chalice, reponit calicem super corporale & genu flexus sanguinem reverenter adorat, illum populo ●●tendens adorandum Sacramentum genu flexus veneratur. In Canon. Miss. genu flexus reverentiam facit Sacramento.  in every Mass, as soon as he has consecrated the Bread and Wine, with bended Knees, he adores the Sacrament 
b Missale Romanum c. 9 Sacramentum genuflexus adorat Capite inclinato versus Sacramentum dicit Inteligibili voce, Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata●mundi miserere nobis, Da nobis pacem.  that which he has consecrated, that very thing which is before him, upon the Paten, and in the Chalico and gives the same worship and Subjection, both of Body and Mind to it, as he could to God or Christ himself; for with his head, and his Soul, bowing towards it, and his Eyes and thoughts fixed upon it, and directed to it, as to Christ himself: Lamb of God that takest away the Sins of the World, have Mercy upon us, Grant us Peace, and the like; then the Priest rising up after he has thus adored it himself, he lifts it up as conveniently as he can above his head, and with Eyes fixed upon it, he shows it to be devoutly adored by the People 
c Sacerdos postquam ipse hostiam genuflexus adoravit, continuo se erigens quantum commode potest, elevat in altum & intentis in eam oculis populo reverenter ●●●endit adorandam.  who having notice also, by ringing the Mass Bell, as soon as they see it, fall down in the humblest Adorations to it, as if it were the very appearance of God himself, and if CHRIST himself were visibly present before them, they could not show more acts of Reverence and Devotion, and Worship to him, than they do to the Host; they Pray to it, and use the very Forms of Petition and Invocation to that, as to CHRIST himself; such as these, O saving Host, or blessed sacrament which openest the door of Heaven, give me strength and power against dangers, and against all my Enemies 
d O salutaris Hostia, qu● caeli pandis ostium, bell● premunt hostilia, Da robur, fer auxilium. Hymnus in Festo corporis Christi in Breviar. Rom.  
e Adoro te devote lateus Deitas, quae sub his figuris vere latitas, tibi se cor meum subjicit, Deum meum te confiteor.  Make me always more to believe, to hope in thee, to love thee; Grant that my Soul may always live upon thee, and that thou mayst always taste sweet unto it.  
Thus both the Priest, and the People are several times to Adore and worship both the Host and the Cup in the Celebration of the Eucharist, and they will not disown, nor cannot, their directing and terminating their Devotions and Prayers upon the 
Fac me tibi magis credere; in te spem habere, te deligere, praesta menti de te vivere & te illi semper dulce sapere, Rythmus, St. Thom. ad Eucharist in Missal.  Sacrament, which is before them; Prayers, they call them to the Eucharist 
f Laus sacratissimo Sacramento.  and 'tis become a common form of Doxology amongst them, instead of saying, Praise be given to God, to say, Praise be given to the most holy Sacrament 
g Ad Sacram Eucharistiam Rithmus Rom. breviar.  as 'tis in one of their Authors, instead of ye shall pray to God, ye shall pray to the Body of Christ, i, e. To the Sacrament. 
h Orlandinus hist.   in his Book of the Supper of the Lord 
i Corpore & sangiac Christi sub speciebus panis & vini omnis honour, Laus & Gratiarum actio in secula seculerum. Sanderus de caena Dom.  instead of Glory be to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, turns it thus, To the Body and Blood of our Saviour, under the species of Bread and Wine, be all Honour and Praise, and Thanksgiving for evermore, as if it were another Person of the blessed Godhead.  
This Adoration is not only in the time of Communion, when it is properly the Lords Supper and Sacrament; but at other times out of it, when ever it is set upon the Altar with the Candles burning, and the Incense smoking before it, or hung up in its rich Shrine and Tabernacle, with a Canopy of State over it. And not only in the Church which is sanctified, they say, by this Sacrament, as by the presence of God himself 
k Bellarm. the sanct. c. 5.  but when it is carried through the Streets in a solemn and pompous Procession, as it is before the Pope, when he goes abroad, just as the Persian fire was before the Emperor 
l Curt. l: 3. S. 3.  merely by way of state, or for a superstitious end, that he may be the better Guarded and Defended by the company of his God 
m Ad capit is illius sacri custodiam praesidialem & patronalem. perron. de Euch. l. 3. c. 19  In all these times it is to be worshipped and adored by all persons as it passeth by, as if it were the Glory of God which passed by. They are like Moses, to make haste▪ and bow their heads to the Earth and worship 
n Exod. 34. ●.  but above all, upon that high day, which they have dedicated to this Sacrament, as if it were some new Deity, the Festum Dei, as they call it, the Feast of God, or the Festum Corporis Christi, the Feast of the Body of Christ; for to call the Sacrament God, is a general Expression among them, as when they have received the Sacrament, to say, I have received my Maker to day; and the Person who in great Churches, is ●o carry the Sacrament to the numerous Communicants, is called, Bajulus Dei, the Porter or Carrier of GOD; and they always account, and so always reverence it, as Boileau falsely says 
o Eucharistiam pro praesente numine ●emper habuisse Veteres.  the Ancients did, as a present Numen and Deity. This Feast was appointed by Pope Vrban the 4th, about the middle of the twelfth Century; and again by ●lement the fifth in the beginning of the 13th, as is owned by themselves, upon the occasion of a Vision to one Juliana, who saw a crack in the Moon, that signified, it seems, a great ●efect in the Church for want of this Solemnity: such was the rise of this great Festival 
p Bzovii Annal in Contin. Baron. Anno Dom. 1230.  and so late was its Institution in the Roman Church, in which alone, and in no other Christian Church of the World, it is observed to this day. And that the whole practice of the Adoration to the Host is Novel, and unknown to the primitive Church, and to the Ancient Writers, I shall endeavour to make evident against that bold and impudent Canon of the Council of Trent, which is the first Council that commanded it in these words 
q Siquis dixerit, non esse hoc Sacramentum peculiari festivia celebritate venerandum, neque in processionibus secundum laudabilem & Vniversalem Ecclesiae sanctae ritum & consuetudinem, sole●niter circumgesland●● vel ●on publice ut adoretur, populo proponendum, & ejus Adoratoresesse Idololatr as, anathema sit. Concil. Trident. Can. 6. Sess. 13.  If any one shall say that the Sacrament is not to be worshipped by a peculiar Festival, nor to be solemnly carried about in Processions according to the laudable and universal manner and custom of the Holy Church, nor to be publicly proposed to the people that it may be adored by them, and that the Worshippers of it are Idolaters, let him be accursed. To confront this insolent pretence of theirs, that it was an universal custom of the church, thus to carry the Sacrament in processions, the ingenuous confession of their own Cassander is sufficient, The Custom, says he 
r Consuetudo quae panis E●charistiae in publica pompa conspicuus circumferetur ac passim omnium oculis ingeritur, praeter veterum morem ac mentem ha●d ita longo tempore inducta & recepta videtur. Illi enim hoc mysterium in tanta religione ac veneratione habuerunt, ut non modo ad ejus perceptionem, sed ne inspectionem quidem admitterent, nisi fideles, quos Christi membra & tanta participatione dignosesse existimarent, quare ante Consecrationem Catecbumeni, Energumeni, poenite●tes, denique non Communicantes, Diaconi voce & Osliariorum Ministerio secludeb antur Cassand. consult.  of carrying about the Sacramental Bread in public pomp, to be seen and exposed to all eyes is contrary to the mind and custom of the Ancients, and seems to be lately brought in and received; for they had this mystery in such religious Veneration, that they would not admit any, not only to the partaking, but not to the sight of it, but the Faithful, whom they accounted members of Christ, and worthy to partake of such a Mystery. Wherefore all those who were but Catechumeni, or were Energumeni or Penetents and not Communicants were always put out and dismissed at the Celebration of it. Wither they be Idolaters for adoring the Sacrament, I have considered already, and their practice joined with their Doctrine, makes it more evident. I shall now prove that this Adoration of theirs, was neither commanded nor used by Christ, or the Apostles, nor by the Primitive Church, nor is truly meant and designed by those Authorities of the Fathers, which they produce for it; and upon a general view of the whole matter, That it is a very absurd and ridiculous thing that tends most shamefully to reproach, and expose Christianity.  
1. That it was not used or commanded by Christ or the Apostles, is plain from the account that all the Evangelists give us of Christ's celebrating this Sacrament with his Apostles, where is only mention of their taking and eating the Bread, and drinking the Wine, after it was blessed by him, but not the least tittle of their adoring it; so far from it that they were not in a posture of Adoration, which they should have been in, if they had inwardly adored it, which makes this not only a Negative Argument, as Boileau 
s De Adorat. Euch. l. 2. c. 1.  would have it, but a positive one. To take off this argument from the not mention of any such command or practice of Adoration to the Sacrament in the Gospel; he says, Neither is the Adoration of Christ, prescribed in express words 
t Nullo ex iis loco conceptis verbis praescriptam fuisse Adorationem, (sc, Christi) p. 27.  nor that of the Holy Ghost, either commanded or performed 
* N●llibi praeceptam ejus Adorationem aut confestim peractam conceptis intelligamus, p. 98.  But I hope all those places of Scripture, that so fully tell us, that both Christ and the Holy Ghost are God, do sufficiently command us to worship them, by bidding us worship God; and if it had told us that the sacrament is as much God as they, it had then commanded us to adore it. There are sufficient instances of Christ's being adored, when he appeared upon Earth, and had the other Divine persons assumed a bodily shape, those who had seen and known it, would have particularly adored it, and so would the Apostles, no doubt, have done the Sacrament, if they had thought that when it was before them an object of worship. St. Paul, when he wrote to the Corinthians of 
1 Cor. 11. c.  their very great Irreverence in receiving the Lords Supper, had very good occasion to have put them in mind of adoring it, had that been their Duty; this than would have been a proper means to have brought them to the highest reverence of it; but he never intimates any thing of worshipping it, when he delivers to them, the full account of its institution, and its design; nor never reproves them among all their other unworthy abuses of it, for their not adoring it; and 'tis a very strange fetch in Boileau 
† Ib. p. 103. l. 2.  that he would draw St. Paul's command of examining ourselves before we eat, to mean our adoring when, or what we eat; and that not▪ discerning the Lords body, and being guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ▪ is the not worshipping the sacrament; which he never so much as touches upon among all ●heir other fauls. Are there not many other ways of abusing ●he sacrament, besides the not worshipping it? this is like his ●irst Argument out of Ignatius his Epistles 
‡ l. 1. c. 2. synepherens de antois agapan Ep. ad smyr. at ipsemet nos docet nihil nos diligere debere praeter solum Deum.  that because he says, the sacrament ought to be loved, therefore he meant that it ought to be adored. At which rate I should ●e afraid to love this Gentleman. ●however taking he was, lest I should consequently adore him, ●or because I am not to abuse him, therefore it would follow, that I must worship him.  
2. This Adoration was not in use in the Primitive Church, as I shall show,  
1. From those Writers who give us an account of the manner of celebrating the Eucharist among the Ancient Christians.  
2. From the oldest Liturgies and Eucharistick forms.  
3. From some very ancient Customs.  
1. Those most ancient Writers, 1. Justin Martyr. 2. The Author 
1. Justin Marty. 2, Apologversus finem. Apostol. constitutit l. 8. c. 11, 12. 13, 14. 3. Cyril Hierosol. Cateches. mystagog c. 5.  of the Apostolic Constitutions: And 3. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who acquaint us with the manner how they celebrated the Eucharist; which was generally then one constant part of their public worship; they give no account of any Adoration to the sacrament, or to the consecrated Elements, tho' they are particular and exact in mentioning other less considerable things that were then in use, the Kiss of Charity, in token of their mutual Love and Reconciliation; this Justin Martyr mentions as the first thing just before the Sacrament 
y allelous philemati aspazometha, ep●ita prosphoretai artos. Justin Martyr, Apol. 2.  In St. Cyril's time 
z Catech, mystagog. 5. Aposstol. constit. l. 8. c. 11.  the first thing was the bringing of Water by the Deacon, and the Priests washing their hands in it, to denote that purity with which they were to compass God's Altar; and then the Deacon spoke 
* P●terion Krama●●● Just. Martyr.  to the people, to give the holy Kiss; then Bread was brought to the Bishop or Priest, and 
‡ Hey kalumenoi par hem●● diaconoi ●idoasin ekaste paron to metalabein apo tu eucharistethentos artu kai oinu kai hydatos, kai tois ou parusin apopherusin, Just Martyr, Ib.  Wine mixed with Water in those hot Countries, and after Prayers and Thanksgiving by the Priest, to which the people too joined their Amen * The Deacons gave every one present, of the blessed Bread, and Wine, a Water; and to those that were not present, they carried it home; this, says Justin Martyr, we account not Common Bread, or common 
‡ Eucharistetheisan trophen, ex hes haima kai sarkes kata metabolen trephontai hemon. Ib.  Drink, but the Body and Blood of Christ, the blessed food, by which our flesh and blood is nourished, that is, turned into it, which could not be said of Christ's natural Body; nor is there the least mention of any worship given to that, or to any of the blessed Elements. The others are longer and much later, and speak of the particular Prayers and Thanksgiving that were then used by the church, of the sursum corda, lift up your heart; which St. 
* cyril Hierosol. mystagog. cat. 5.  cyril says followed after the Kiss of charity; of the sancta sanctis, things holy belong to those that are holy; then they describe how they came to communicate, how they held their hand 
* Me tetamenois tois tonn cheironn karpois meed dieremenois tois daktylois alla ten aristeran, Ib.  when they received the Elements; how careful they were that none of them should fall upon the Ground; but among all these most minute and particular Descriptions of their way and manner of receiving the sacrament, no account is there of their adoring it, which surely there would have been, had there been any such in the Primitive church, as now is in the Roman.  
We own indeed, as Boileau objects to us 
f L. 2. P. 106.  that from these it appears, that some things were then in use, which we observe not now; neither do the Church of Rome all of them, for they are not essential but indifferent matters, as mixing Water with Wine, the Priest's washing, the Kiss of Charity, and sending the Sacrament to the absent; but the Church may alter these upon good reasons according to its prudence and discretion; but adoration to the Sacrament, if it be ever a Duty, is always so, and never aught upon any account to be omitted; nor would have been so by the Primitive Christians, had they had the same Opinion of it, that the Papists have now.  
2. From the oldest Liturgies, and the Eucharistick Forms; in them it appears that there was no such Adoration to the Sacrament, till of late; for in none of them is there any such mention, either by the Priest or the People, as in the Roman Missal and Ritual, nor any such Forms of Prayer to it, as in their Breviary. Cassander 
* Cassandris Lyturgic.  has collected together most of the old Liturgies, and Endeavours, as far as he can, to show their agreement, with that of the Roman Church; but neither in the old Greek, nor in the old Latin ones, is there any instance to be produced of the Priests or the People's adoring the Sacrament, as soon as he had consecrated it; but this was perfectly added, and brought in a new into the Roman Lyturgy, after the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was established in that Church, which has altered not only in the first and best times of the Church, but for above a thousand years after Christ; Boileau finding this, tho' a negative Argument, press very hard upon them; and sure it cannot but satisfy any reasonable man, that there is no Direction in the ancient Liturgies for adoring the Sacrament; and it is very hard to require us to produce a Rubric against it, when no body thought of that which after-Superstition brought in; He would fain therefore find something in an old Liturgy that should look like that of their own; and no doubt but he might have easily met with abundant places for their worshipping and adoring God and Christ at that solemn Office of the Christian worship; the blessed Sacrament; and therefore out of the Liturgy called St. Chrisostomes', which he owns to be two hundred years later than St. chrysostom, he produces a place 
* Boil. l. 2. p. 74. ●x Chrysost. Liturg-Eita proskynei ho hiereus kai●ho: ●iaconos, en ho ensti ●opō, kai ho ●aos homoios pantas met eulabeias proskynusin.  wherein it is said That the Priest and the Deacon worship in the place they are in, and likewise the p●●ple but do they worship the Sacrament? Is that, or only God and Christ the object of their worship there? Is there any such thing to determine this as they have taken care there should be in their Missal? where it is expressly several times, they shall worship the Sacrament 
* Sacramentum Adorare, Rom. missal. coopert● chalice Sacramentum ad●rare, & genuflexus Sacramentum adorare.  but here in St. Chrysos. Liturgy 'tis God, who is to be worshipped, God be merciful to me a Sinner 
* Ho Theos hilastheti moi hamartolon, Chrysos: Liturg.  but in the Roman, 'tis the Sacrament is prayed to 
* Stans oculis ad sacramentum intentis precart.  and they would reckon and account it as true Irreligion, not to worship and pray to that, as not to Worship God and Christ. So the Lyturgy, that goes under the name of St. James, the Worship is only before the Holy Table, 
† Proskynusin emprosthentes hagias t●apezet, Lyturg. S. Jacobt.  as it is in the Church of England; and I hope Boileau will not pretend that this is to the Holy Table itself. If what ever we worship before, is the very object of our Worship, than the Priest is so, as well as the Table; but it neither he nor the Table, nor the Sacrament, but only Christ himself, to whom this worship is, or aught to be given at the Celebration of the Eucharist; and therefore this Adoration was as well before as after the Consecration of the Sacramental Elements, and so could not be supposed to be given to them.  
3. There were several very ancient Customs relating to the Sacrament, which are no ways consistent with the Opinion the Papists have of it now, and with the worship of it as a God. It was very old, and very usual for Christians to reserve and keep by them, some of the Elements; the Bread especially, which they had received at the Sacrament, as is evident from Tertullian 
† De Orat. c. 14. Accepto corpore Domini & reservato.  and from St. Cyprian 
† De Lapsis.  who reports a very strange thing that happened to a Woman, and also to a Man, who had unduly gone to the sacrament, and brought some part of it home with them. I shall not inquire whither this Custom had not something of superstition in it; whither in those times of Danger and Persecution, it were not of use; but had the Church then thought of it, ●as the Papists do now, they would not have suffered private Christians to have done this; nay they would not have suffered them hardly to have touched and handled, that which they had believed to be a God, no more than the Church of Rome will now, which is so far from allowing this private Reservation of the Elements, that out of profound Veneration, as they pretend to them, they wholly deny one part of them, the Cup to the Laity, and the other part, the Bread they will not, as the primitive Church, put into their hands, but the Priest must inject it into their Mouths.  
The sending the Eucharist not only to the sick and infirm, and to the Penitents, who were this way to be admitted to the Communion of the Church, in articulo mortis, as is plain from the known story of Serapion; 
‡ Euseb. Eccles. Hist. l. 6. c. 34.  but the Bishops of several Churches sending it to one another, as a token and pledge of their Communion with each other; and 
* Iren. apud. Euseb. l. 5. c 24.  it being sent also to private Christians, who lived remote in the Country and private places, which custom was abolished by the Council of Laodicea; these all show, that tho' the Christians always thought the sacrament a symbol of Love, and Friendship, and communion with the Church, so that by partaking of this one Bread they were all made as St. Paul says, One Bread, and one Body; yet they could not think this to be a God, or the very natural Body of their Saviour, which they sent thus commonly up and down, without that Pomp and solemnity, that is now used in the Church of Rome, and without which I own it is not fit a Deity should be treated. But above all, what can they think of those, who anciently used to burn the Elements that remained after the Communion, as Hesychius 
† In Levit. 8. 32.  testifies, was the custom of the Church of Jerusalem, according to the Law of Moses in Leviticus, of burning what remained of the Flesh of the sacrifice, that was not eaten; but how ever this was done out of some respect, that what was thus sacred might not otherwise be profaned; yet they could not sure account that to be a God, or to be the very natural and substantial Body of Christ, which they thus burnt and threw into the Fire.  
So great an honour and regard had the Primitive Church for the Sacrament, that as they accounted it the highest Mystery and solemnest part of their Worship, so they would not admit any of the Penitents, who had been guilty of any great and notorious sin, n●● the Catechumeni, nor the Possessed, and Energumeni, so much as to the sight of it; the eposia and the Participation of this Mystery, used always in those times to go together as Cassander 
* Consult. de Circumgest, Sacram.  owns, and Albaspinaeus 
† L'ancienna policy de l'Eglise sur l'administration d● l'Eucharistie liure prem. c. 15. 16. 17.  proves in his Book of the Eucharist. And therefore, as it is plainly contrary to the Primitive practice, to carry the Sacrament up and down, and expose it to the Eyes of all Persons; so the reason of doing it, that it may be worshipped by all, and that those, who do not partake of it, may yet adore it; was, it is plain, never thought of in the primitive Church; for than they would have seen and worshipped it, tho' they had not thought fit that they should have partaken of it. But he that will see how widely the Church of Rome differs from the ancient Church in this, and other matters relating to the Eucharist, let ●im read the learned Dallee his two Books of the Object of religious worship. I shall now give an Answer to the Authorities which they produce out of the Fathers, and which Monsieur Boileau has (he tells us) been a whole year a gleaning out of them 
‡ Annuae vellicationis litirariae ratiocinium reddo. Praef. ad Lect. Boileau de Adorat. Euchar. , if he has not rather picked from the sheaves of Bellarmine and Perrone. But all their Evidences out of Antiquity, as they are produced by him, and bound up together in one Bundle in his Book, I shall Examine and Answer too, I doubt not, in a much less time. They are the only Argument he prebends to for this Adoration; and when Scripture and all other Reasons fail them, as they generally do, than they fly to the Fathers; as those who are sensible their forces are too weak to keep the open Field, fly to the Woods, or the Mountains, where they know but very few can ●ollow them. I take it to be sufficient, that in any necessary Article of Faith, or Essential part of Christian worship, (which this of the Sacrament must be, if it be any part at all,) it is sufficient that we have the Scripture for us, or that the Scripture is silent, and speaks of no more than what we own and admit. In other external and indifferent Matters relating merely to the circumstances of worship, the Church may for outward Order and Decency, appoint what the Scripture does not. But as to what we are to believe, and what we are to worship the most positive Argument from any humane Authority is of no weight, where there is but a Negative from Scripture. But we have such a due regard to Antiquity, and are s● well assured of our cause, were it to be tried only by that, and not by Scripture, which the Church of Rome generally de●●●s to; that we shall not fear to allow ●●em to b●ing all the Fathers they can for their Witnesses in this matter, and we shall not in the least decline their Testimony. Boileau Musters up a great many, some of which are wholly impertinent and insignisicant to the matter in hand, and none of them speak home to the business he brings them for. He was to prove, that they Taught that the Sacrament was to be adored, as it is in the Church of Rome; but they only Teach as we do, That it is to be had in great reverence and respect, as all other things relating to the Divine worship; that it is to be received with great Devotion, both of body and soul, and in such a Posture, as is to exprese this, A Posture of Adoration; that Christ is then to be worshipped by us in this Office especially, as well as he is in all other Offices of our Religion; that his Body, and his Flesh, which is united to his Divinity, and which he offered up to his Father as a sacrifice for all Mankind, and by which we are Redeemed, and which we do spiritually partake of in the Sacrament, that this is to be adored by us; but not as being corporally present there, or that the Sacrament is to be worshipped with that, or for the sake of that, or that which the Priest holds up in his Hands, or lies upon the Altar, is to be the Object of our Adoration, but only Christ and his blessed Body, which is in Heaven.  
To these four Heads, I shall reduce the Authorities, which Boileau produces for the Adoration of the Host, and which seem to speak▪ any thing to his purpose; and no wonder that among so many Devout Persons that speak as great things as can be of the Sacrament, and used, and persuaded the greatest Devotion, as is certainly our Duty, in the receiving it, there should be something that may seem to look that way to those, who are very willing it should, or that may by a little stretching be drawn farther than their true and genuine meaning, which was not to Worship the Sacrament itself, or the consecrated Elements, but either.  
1. To Worship Christ, who is to be adored by us in all places, and at all times, but especially in the places set apart for his worship, and at those times we are performing them in the Church, and upon the Altar, in Mysteriis as St. Ambrose speaks, 
* Despir. St. l. 3. c. 12.  in the Mystesteries, both of Baptism and the Lords Supper, and in all the Offices of Christian Worship, as Nazianzen 
† Orat. 11. de de Gorgon. Tun thysiasterion pr●spiptei me ta tes pisteons, kai ton ep' auton timon non anakalumene.  said of his sister Gorgonia, that she called upon him, who is honoured upon the Altar. That Christ is to be honoured upon the Altar, where we see the great and honourable work of man's Redemption as 'twas performed by his Death, represented to us, is not at all strange; if it had been another, and more full word, that he was to be worshipped there, 'tis no more than what is very allowable, tho' it had not been in a Rhetorical Oration; 'tis no more than to say, That the God of Israel was worshipped upon the Jewish Altar, or upon this Mountain. For 'tis plain, she did not mean to worship the Sacrament, as if that were Christ or God, for she made an ointment of it, and mixed it with her tears, and anointed her Body with it, as a Medicine to recover her Health, which she did miraculously upon it. Now, sure 'tis a very strange thing that she should use that as a Plaster, which she thought to be a God; but she still took for Bread and Wine, that had extradinary Virtue in it, and it is so called there by Nazianzen, the Antitypes 
‡ Eipou ti ●ōn antitypon tu timu somatos kai haimatos he cheir ●thefaurisan. Ib.  of Christ's Body and Blood, which shows they were not thought to be the substance of it; and she had all these about her, and in her own keeping, as many private Christians had in those times; and there was no Host then upon the Altar, when she worshipped Christ upon it, for it was in the night 
† Nuktos' aorian teresasa. Ib.  she went thus to the Church. So St. Chrysostom 
* Vid. Boileau, c. 7. l. 1. ex. Chrysost.  in all the places▪ quoted out of him, only recommends the worshipping of Christ our blessed Saviour, and our coming to the Sacrament with all humility and Reverence, like humble supplicants upon ou● knees, and with Tears in our Eyes, and all Expressions of sorrow for our sins, and Love, and Honour to our Saviour, whom we are to meet there, and whom we do, as it were, 
† Horas enthysiasterio; Chry. in 1. Ep. Cor. 10. c.  see upon upon the Altar, which is the great stress of all that is produced out of him. That we do not truly see him upon the Altar, the Papists must own, tho' they believe him there; but not so as to be visible to our senses; and he is no more to be truly adored as corporally present, than he is visibly present. St. Ambrose 
‡ In sermone 56. Stephanus in terris positus Christum tangit in caelo.  says of St. Stephen, that ●e being on Earth, touched Christ in Heaven; just as St. Chrysostom says, Thou seest him on the Altar; and as he and any one that will not resolve to strain an easy figurative Expression, must mean, not by a bodily touch, or sight, but by Faith 
* Non corporalia tactu, sed fide.  and by that we own, that we see Christ there, and that he is there present.  
2. Adoring the Flesh and Body of Christ, which tho' considered without his Divinity, it would be worshipping a Creature as St. Cyril of Alexandria says, 
† In acts council. Ephes. Hos anthropon proskyneistai, te ktisei latrevein.  yet as it is always united to his Divinity, 'tis a true object of worship, and aught to be so to us, who are to expect Salvation by it, even from the Blood, and the Body, 
‡ Proskynete esti sorz synton logon Theon, kathos apotheosen auten. Chrysost. Hom. 108.  and Flesh of Christ; and therefore, as we inwardly trust in it, so we ought to adore it, as no doubt the Angels do in Heaven, and as we are to do in all the Offices of our Religion; tho' that be in Heaven, yet we are to worship it upon Earth, and especially, when it is brought to our minds and thought, by that which is appointed by Christ himself to be the Figure and Memorial of it, the blessed Sacrament, there and in Baptism especially, when we put on Christ; and have his Death, and Rising again represented to us, and have such great benefits of his Death and Incarnation bestowed upon us; in these Mysteries we are, as St. Ambrose 
* Caro Christi, quam hodie in Mysteriis adoramus, Ambros, l. 3. de sp. fanct. c. 12. apud Boil. p. 32.  says, to Adore the Body and the Flesh of Christ, to which we immediately and particularly own them, and which we may truly call our Saviour. St. Ambrose, and St. Austin 
* August. Enar. in Ps. 98.  his Scholar after him, supposing that there was a great difficulty in that passage of the Psalms, worship his footstool, for so it is in the Latin 
* Adorate scabellum pedum ejus.  without the Preposition at his footstool, they laboured to reconcile this with that command of Worshipping and serving God alone; and to give an account how the Earth, which was God's footstool, could be worshipped; and the way they take, was this, to make Christ's Flesh, which he took of the Earth, to be meant by that Earth which was God's footstool 
‡ Invenio quomodo sine Impietate adoretur terra, scabellum pedum ejus; suscepit enim de terra terram, quia caro de terra est, & de carne Mariae carnem accepit, August Ib.  and this, say they, we ought to worship; his Apostles did so whilst he was upon Earth, and we do so now, whilst he is in Heaven. We worship the Flesh of CHRIST, which was crucified for us, and by the benefit of which we hope for Pardon and Salvation, we worship that, tho' it be now in Heaven; we worship it in the solemn Offices of our Religion 
* Ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem dedit (nem● autem ill ●m carnem m●nducat, nisi prius adoraverit) Aug. Ib.  that Flesh which he gave to be eaten by us for our Salvation, that we worship, for none eats that Flesh, but he first worships: Worships that, if they please; tho' St. Austin do not expressly say that; but we will own, and we will be always ready to Worship the Flesh of Christ, by which we are saved, and we will do this especially at the Sacrament; and that more truly and properly, than they themselves will own, that we eat and manducate it, as St. Austin says, not with ou● Teeth, as we do the Bread, but eat it, and worship it too, as it is Heaven. St. Hierome 
† Epist. ad Marcel. Ibant Christiani Hierosolymam ut Christum in illis adorarent locis, in quibus primum Evangelium de patibulo coruscaverat.  says of some devout Christians, That they went to Jerusalem, that they might adore Christ in those places, where the Gospel first shone from the cross. They went, that they might adore Christ in those places; not that they believed him to be corporally present in those places; much less, that they worshipped the places themselves; but they made a more lively impression of Christ upon them, and made them remember him▪ with more Passion and Devotion; and so does the blessed Sacrament upon us, and we therefore worship Christ, whom we believe to be in Heaven in the Sacrament, as they worshipped him in those places, where they were especially put in mind of him. Thus St. Hierome says, He worshipped Christ in the Grave, and that Paula worshipped him in the stall 
* Ad Paul. & Eustoch.  and so we may be said to worship him on the cross, or on the Altar, or in the Sacrament, and yet not to worship the Cross, or the Altar, or the Sacrament itself.  
3. Other places out of the Fathers brought by him for the Adoration of the Host, mean only, that the Sacrament is to be had in great reverence and esteem by us, as all things sacred and set a part to religious uses are; that a singular Veneration is due to the Eucharist, as St. Austin says 
‡ Eucharistiae deberi singularem venerationem, Epist 118. c. 3. , and as is to Baptism also, of which he uses the same word, We venerate Baptism, 
† Baptismum, ubicunque est, veneramur. Id Epist. 146.  as we ought to do all the Rites and Ordinances of our Religion; this is meant by Origen in that first place of him produced by Boileau, 
* de Euch. Adorni p. 10. ex Orlg. Homil. 12. Nostis qui Divinis mysteriis interesse consuestis, quomodo cum suscipitis corpus Domini, cum omni cautela & veneratione servatis, ne ex eo parum quid decidat, ne consecrati muneris aliquid dilabatur. Reos enim vos creditis, & recte creditis, si quid inde per negligentiam decidat.  Ye that are wont to be present at the Divine Mysteries, know how, when ye receive the Body of Christ, ye keep it with all caution and Veneration, that no part of the consecrated gift be let fall; for ye think, and that rightly, that ye should be guilty of a fault, if any of it should be let fall through your negligence. And Christians have this care and Veneration of those consecrated Symbols of the Body and Blood of their Saviour, of these wonderful Pledges of his Love, that they would not willingly spill them, or let them fall to the ground, through their carelessness and neglect; they that have that due regard to the Holy Bible which they ought, would not trample it under their feet, or show any such disrespect to it; it was this, which Origen was recommending in that place from that example of their care and respect to the Sacrament Elements, that they should give it also to the Word of God, 
* Quod si circa corpus ejus tanta utimini cautela, & merito utimini: quomodo putatis minoris esse praculi Verbum Dei neglexisse quam corpus ejus. Ib.  But if ye use such care, and that very deservedly about keeping his Body, how do ye think it to be a less fault to neglect the word of God then to neglect his Body. The comparison here made between the Word of God, and the Sacrament, so plainly shows that he no way meant its Adoration; that I wonder this person was not ashamed to pretend just before it, that he 
† Alienum esse ab institutis meis ullum in medium adducere patrem quin conceptis verbis proprium, Boil- p, 10.  would bring no Authority, but what was expressly for his Opinion, and use none but 
† Animo decreverim argumenta invictissima concludere.  invincible Arguments; but Roman Faith must be defended with Roman courage and confidence, which is the only invincible thing they have.  
The words of Theodoret are a great deal more plausible, and seem at the first glance, to look more fairly, than any for their purpose. The Elements are understood to be what they are made, and they are believed and reverenced, as those things which they are believed (
† Noeitai haper egeneto, kai pistevetai, kai proskyneitai, hos ekeina onta, haper pistevontai. Theod: Dialog● asygchyt: apud Boil: p: 64.  Here our Faith makes the Sacrament to be what it signifies, to become to us the res Sacramenti, as well as a sign and Representation of it, and that thing is to be adored by us, in the use of the Sacrament, which is the true sense of Theodoret's words; and that he cannot mean in the Roman sense, the substance of Christ's Body, is plain from what immediately goes before, and utterly destroys what they would catch from half his words; for he says, That the Elements, or the mystical Signs do not after sanctification recede from their own, but remain in their former substance (
† Oude gar meta tonhagiasmon ta mystica symbola tes ●oikeias existataiphyseos; menei, gar ei●e● proteros odfius, Ibid. ) Thus their best Witness, that seems to speak the most for them, yet speaks that against them, which destroys their whole cause, as he must own, whoever reads the Dialogue, and considers the design of it which was to answer the pretence of those, who said that the Body of Christ was after his Ascension, turned into a Divine substance, and lost the true nature of Body 
* hosper toinyn ta symb●la tu despotikon. , as the Symbols of Christ's Body and Blood are changed, say those Heretics, into what they were not before, Yes says he, Now ye are taken into your own net; for they remain in their former nature and substance afterwards, and so does Christ's Body. If then the change of these sacred Elements be only as to their use and virtue, but not as to their substance, according to Theodoret, than he could not mean that they should be adored, but only reverenced by the word proskyneitai, just as the Holy Bible * is said to be reverenced, and the Priests themselves, by the very same word 
* Prosknesai met ' eulabei as to evaggelion. Liturg. chrysost. Hiepeis' proskynetot, proskynetoi Adelpboi, proskynete synodos. Acta council. Ephes.   
4. Some of the Father's words imply, that when we come to the Sacrament, it should be with the greatest lowliness, both of Body and Mind; and as the Primitive Church used to do, and as the Church of England does, in a posture of Worship and Adoration, in the form and manner of Worship, as St. Cyril of Hieros. speaks, 
‡ Kypton kai tropo prosky●ese●● ka● sebasmatos. Catech. Myst. 5.  or as St. Chrysottome, In the form of supplicants and Worshippers 
† Schema hiketon kai proskyneton echomen, Chrysost. Homil. 7. in. Matth. epi to timesai kai proskynesai ton hyion tu Theu. Ibid. prosenegke sy tapein ophrosynen kai tetapeinomenen kapdion. Homil. de Phil. Dianastesomen toinyn heautous kai phrixomen kai pollo ton barbaron ●keinon pleiona epideixometha●en eulabeian.  of Christ, as the Magis were, when they came to bring their presents to him; do thou then present him with humility, and a lowly and submissive heart, and be not like Herod, who pretended he would come to worship him, but it was to murder him; but rather imitate the Magis, and come with greater fear and reverence to thy Saviour then they did. This is the whole design and substance of what is produced out of St. Chrysostom, 
† Boil. c. 7. l. 1,  And this is the plain meaning of Origen, 
* Hom. 5. in N. T. Tunc Dominus sub tectum tuum in greditur; tu ergo humilians teipsu●● imitare h●nc Centurionem & dicito, Domine non sum dig●●s ut intres sub tec●●● 〈◊〉.  that when we come to receive Christ in the Sacrament, we should do it with all Humility; for consider, says he, That then the Lords enters under thy roof; do thou therefore humble thyself, and imitate the Centurion, and say, Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof. When the Fathers would give us the Picture of a devout Communicant, they draw him in the greatest Posture of Humility and Reverence, looking upon and 
† Phrixomen toinyu pro●iontes, cachariste somen, prospesomen exomologunmeoi ta ptaismata bemon, dakrysomen ta o●keia penthyntes kaka, ekteneis euch as apodom en to Theo, meta tes prosekonses entaxias hos to Basilei prosiontes ton ouranon, Chrysostom in serm. 31. in natal Dom Stomen emphoboi kai entromoi kat● nevontes to omma, an● de ten psychen, stenazontes aphonos alalazomen te kapdia. Johan. Hieros'. apud Chrysost. & apud Boil. p. 44. enthymetheti hoti ge ou kai spodos, haima kai Christu metalamb antis, Chrys. Ib.  adoring his Saviour, who died for him upon the Cross prostrating his Soul, and his Body before him, and exercising the highest acts of Devotion to him, and with Tears in his Eyes and sorrow in his heart, standing like a Penitent before him; trembling and afraid, as sensible of his own guilt; with his Eyes cast down, and with dejected Looks considering that he is but Dust and Ashes, who is vouchsafed to this Honour, and inwardly Groaning, and sighing, and Panting in his Soul, saying, Lord I am not worthy, that thou shouldest enter under my roof; and the like. And thus they may find all devout Communicants in our Church behaving themselves, during the whole solemnity and celebration of that blessed Sacrament, in which Mystery they always adore Christ, and that Flesh of Christ which was crucified; for then as St. Ambrose, and St. Austin speak, when their minds are all the while inflamed with the most devout Affections, and they are performing all the inward and outward Acts of the highest Devotion to God and their Saviour, than they are upon their Knees, offering up most ardent Prayers and Thanksgivings; but not to the sacred symbols which are before them, or the Sacrament itself as the object to which, but as the circumstance, at and in which all this Devotion and Worship is performed. And there is a great deal of difference from all this in the Church of Rome, when they direct all this to the Sacrament itself, and to the consecrated Elements, when they terminate their Worship upon what is before them, and direct their Intentions to that as an Object; and therefore, when ever they have this Object appear to them, they immediately fall down and worship it, not only in the time of the Communion, when it finds them at their Devotion, but at all other times; when they are standing or walking in the streets, and are in no present Temper or Posture of Devotion; yet all of a sudden, as soon as they see the Host coming by, they must put themselves into one, and Adore that very Object, that appears to them.  
The Fathers always speak of Persons as coming to the Sacrament, and partaking of it, and worshipping Christ, and the Body of Christ in the Celebration of those Divine Mysteries; but it never entered into their minds or thoughts, to persuade or encourage their hearers in their most devout Discourses, to Adore the Host, as the Church of Rome does, either in, or especially out of the time of that sacred Solemnity; and tho' it be very easy to make a Book out of the Fathers, and to heap Authorities out of them to little purpose; yet, it is impossible to prove by all the places produced out of them, by T. G. 
* Chap. 1. Of the Adoration of the blessed Sacrament.  or more largely by Boileau that they meant any more than what we are very willing to join with them in, that Christ is to be worshipped in the Sacrament, as in Baptism, and the other Offices of our Religion; and that his Body and Flesh, which he offered for us, and by which we expect Salvation, is also to be adored, as being always united to his Divine Nature; and that the Sacrament itself, as representing the great Mystery of our Redemption is to be highly reverenced by us, and that we should come to receive it with all Humility, and in the most decent Posture of Worship and Adoration, as the Primitive Christians did. But that the Sacrament itself is to be adored, as well as Christ; that which the Priest holds in his hands, or lies upon the Altar before us, that this is to be the Object of our Worship, and to have all manner of Latria, both of Body and Soul directed to that, as to God himself; that the consecrated Elements, or the sacred Symbols of Christ's Body and Blood are to be worshipped by us when we receive them, or when without receiving them we see them set upon the Altar, or carried about in Procession; this, which is the Controversy between us, not one Father says, but above three hundred of them together in a council say, 
† council. sept. constant. Act. 6. Ten eikona hylen exaireton, egoun ar●u ousian, prosetaxe prospheres●hai, me schematizusai anthropu morphen hina me eidololatreia pareisachthe.  That to prevent Idolatry, Christ appointed an excellent Image and Representation of himself in the Sacrament, without any manner of humane shape, even the plain and simple substance of Bread. But they resolve that Idolatry shall not be prevented, but they will be so sottish as to commit it with that, which was designed to prevent it, and which one would think ' should not in the least tempt any man to it, with a bit of Bread.  
The Absurdities of which, upon a general view of the whole, I shall now for a conclusion represent and offer as the last Argument against it, and tho' that alone might be sufficient, since God never imposes any thing that is really foolish and ridiculous, to be believed or practised by his Creatures; yet I thought it the fittest to be produced after we are well assured, that neither Scripture nor Antiquity have required any such thing. And however unwilling Bellarmine 
* Bell. de Sacram. Euchar. l. 3. c 10.  is to admit of Arguments of this nature, from the Absurdity of the thing, as knowing how very liable the Church of Rome was to them; and tho' 'tis the most unjust Reflection upon Christianity to say, that any thing that is a part of that is so, which they are too ready to insinuate, and so bring a reproach upon the common Christianity, rather than part with their own ridiculous Opinions; yet after we have thoroughly informed our s●lves, that there is nothing of a Divine Authority, as one can hardly think there should be for what is so absurd in itself, than an Argument from the folly and unreasonableness of the thing, must be allowed to be very proper; and till men have lost all their Reason, it will always be very cogent; and here it is so very strong, and presses so hard upon their Adoration of the Host, that 'tis no wonder that they love to set by, and except against reason, when ever this matter is to be tried: but it is most sad to consider, that they should have so little regard and concern for the Credit and Reputation of the Christian Religion, as by this means so shamefully and notoriously to expose it to the Reproach and Contempt of the wisest Men. How must a Jew or a Turk, who are great enemies to all Idolatry, be prejudiced against Christianity, when he sees those who profess it, fall down and worship a Wafer, and make on Idol of a bit of Bread? When he lives in those places, where he sees it carried about with Candles and Torches before it, in most Solemn and Pompous Processions, and all persons as it goes by, falling upon their Knees, and saying their Prayers, and using all acts of Devotion to it; would he not wonder what strange and new God, that no History ever mentioned, the Christians adored?  
Mankind indeed, when very ignorant, used to worship a great many creatures that were very useful to them, and when they were very hungry, if they lighted upon Bread, it was no great wonder; but sure it can be no more fit to be worshipped by those who better know God, than any of his other creatures, or any of the most dum● and senseless, and pitiful Images, for which the Christians so often, and so justly laughed at the Idolatrous Heathens; especially, those of them, who were so foolish, and such true belly-Gods, as to eat and feed upon what they worshipped and Deified. This the first and most learned Christians charged, as the highest degree of folly in the Egyptians, to eat the same Animals, whom they worshipped; 
* Sebein, kai ethein ti proskynumenon. Orig. contra celsum. l. 4. Thyels proba tun, to de auto kai proskyneis. Tatian. Orat. contra Graec. Apim bovem adoratis & pascitis Minut. Octau. p. 94.  And a wise Heathen could not think any would be so mad as to think that to be a God, with which he was fed. 
‡ Ecquem tam amentem esse putas, us illud quo vescatur, Deum esse credat? Tully de natura Deorum.  It was the ingenious Opinion of a very learned Father, that God made the difference between the clean and unclean Beast, to prevent this Egyptian and Brutish folly in the Israelites, who lived among them; because, says he, by their abominating the unclean, they would not Deify them; and by eating the clean, they would be secured from ever worshipping them; for it must be the extremest madness to worship what they eat. 
* Dia touto ta men acatharta tonn zoon legeis, ta de cathara, bina ta menhos acatharta bdeluomenoi me theopoi osi, ta de me proskyosin esthiomena. ' Abelterias gar eshates to esthi omenon proskynein. Theodoret. in Quaest. in Genes.  How did the Ancient Apologists for Christianity with great wit and smartness, ridicule the other Idols of the Heathens, as being the works at first of the carver, or the Painter, and particularly for being such Gods as were baked at first in the Furnace 
* Incoctos fornacibus figulinis Arnob. contra Gent. l. 6.  of the Potter (and it had been much the same, had it been in the Oven of the Baker) for being Gods of Brass, or of Silver? 
† Deus aereus vel argenteus, Minut. Octau. p. 74.  And yet they counted the Silver or the brass no more a God 
‡ Nos neque aeris neque auri argentique materias, Arnob. ut supra.  ●hen others do the Bread, as I have shown above. How at other times did they think fit to expose their impotent and senseless Deities, because they could not preserve themselves from Thiefs, ● 
‡ Deos vestros plerumque in praedam furibus cedere Lectant. Institut. l. 2. c. 4.  nor yet from rotteness; but the Worms would still gnaw, and the Vermin deface them, and the Bitds would defile them with their excrements even in their own Temples? 
* Quanto verius de Diis vestris animalia muta naturaliter judicant; mures, hirundines, milvi, non sentire ●os sciunt, redunt, insultant, incident, ac nisi abigatis, in ipso Dei vestri ore nidificant; Arancae vero facie● ejus intexunt, Minut. Octau. p. 75.  And could not this be said of a breaden Deity? is not that as subject to all these mischances, and therefore as liable to all those Reproaches? Will not a Mouse or Rat run away with it? Tho' if it do so, they have taken care, if they can catch the sacrilegious Thief, to have the Sacrament drawn out of its entrails, and religiously disposed of; 
† Antonin. de de●ect. Miss. in Bishop Jewels reply.  but however, if no such misfortune come to it, it will in a little time, if it be kept, prove sour, and grow mouldy; and when it does so, what should then thrust out the Deity, and bring in again the substance of the Bread that was quite gone before, is an unaccountable Miracle; and that which is taken of it into our Bodies, is not l●ke one would think to have any better, or more becoming treatment there, then by the other ways; so that upon all these accounts, this which is worshipped by Christians, is in as ill condition as that which was worshipped by Heathens; and those witty Adversaries, Celsus, and Porphyry, and Julian would have thrown all that the Christians had said against the Heathen Idols, back upon themselves, and have improved them with as great Advantage, and retorted them with as much force, had the Christians in those times worshipped the Host, or the Sacramental Elements, as the Papists do now; and 'tis more than a presumption, no less than a Demonstration that the Christians did not, because none of these things that were so obnoxious, and so obvious, were ever in the least mentioned by the Heathens, or made matter of Reflection upon them, when they picked up all other things, let them be true or false, that they could make any use of to object against them. But the Primitive Christians gave them no such occasion; which was the only Reason they did not take it. As soon as the Church of Rome did so, by se●ing up the worship of the Host, Averro the Arabian Philosopher, in the 
† Apud Dionys. carthus in 4. dist. Nullam se sectam christiana deteriorem ●●t ineptiorem reperire.  13th Century, gave this character of Christians, that he had found no sect more foolish, or worse than they, in all his Travels and Observations; upon this very account, For they eat 
Quem colunt Deum, dentibus ipsi suis discerpunt ac devorant.  the God whom they worship; and ‡ a later Historian and Traveller tells us, that 'tis a common Reproach in the Mouths of the Turks and Mahometans, 
* Bullaeus Gultius in Itin. Mange Deiu.  to call the Christians Devourers of their God; and a Jew, in a Book Printed at Amsterdam in the year 1662., among others Questions put to Christians, asks this shrewd one, If the Host be a God, why does it corrupt and grow covered with Mold? and why is it gnawn by Mice or other Animals? 
† Si Hostia Deus est cur situ obducta corrumpitur? cur a gliribus & muribus corroditur? Lib. quaest. & Resp.   
The only way the Papists have to bring themselves off from these manifest Absurdities, is only a running farther into greater; and their little Shifts and Evasions, are so thin and Subtle Sophistry, or rather such gross and thick falsehoods, that it could not be imagined that the Heathen Adversaries could ever know them, and therefore be so civil as Boileau would make them 
* Cap. 10. l. 2. de aaor. Euch.  as not to lay those charges upon them, as others do; nor can any reasonable and impartial man ever believe them; for they are plainly these two; That they do not worship what all the World sees they worship; And that they do not eat what they take into their Mouths and swallow down: Which is in plain words an open Confession, that they are ashamed, to own what they plainly do; We do not worship the Bread, say they, for that we believe is done away, and is turned into the natural Body of Christ and so we cannot be charged with Bread-worship. But do ye not worship that which ye see, and which ye have before you, and which is carried about? And would not any man that sees what that is, think ye worship Bread or Wafer? And could you ever persuade him, that it was any thing else? And if notwithstanding what you think of it against all Sense and Reason, it be still Bread; then I hope it is Bread that ye worship; and till others think as wildly as ye do, ye must give them leave to think and charge you thus. But if it were true, that ye did not worship the Bread, yet ye must and do own, that ye worship the Species of the Bread; and how ye should do that without being guilty of another very gross Absurdity, ye do not know yourselves; for ye must make them so united to Christ, as to make one suppositum, and so one Object of Worship, as his Humanity and Godhead are; and then according to this way of yours, Christ may as well be said to be Impanated and United to Bread, or its Species, as some of you have taught 
* Belarm. de Ruperto Abbate Tuitiensi, l. 3. de Euch. c. 11  that the Bread in the Eucharist is assumed by the Logos, as the humane Nature was. But not to mention these, which wheresoever ye turn ye, stare ye full in the face, and should make ye blush, one would think, had ye not put off all shame, as well as all sense in this matter; grant ye what ye would have, that it is not Bread, but the substantial Body Flesh and Blood of a man, that is in the Host; will this help much to mend the matter, or to lessen the Absurdity, and not rather increase and swell it? For besides the incredible wonder, that a bit of Bread should by a few words of every common Priest, be turned immediately into the true and perfect Body of a man; nay, into ten thousand Bodies at the same time, which is a greater Miracle than ever was done in the World, and is as great almost, as creating the World itself out of nothing; and if it were true, would make the Priest a God, certainly, and not a man, and much rather to be worshipped then a bit of Bread, as Lactantins says of the Heathen Idols, He that made them, ought rather to be worshipped than they. 
* Meliorem esse qui fecit, quam illa quae facta sunt & si haec adoranda sunt, artificem a quo facta sunt, ipsum quoque multo potiori jure adorandum esse. Lactant. Instit. l. 2. c. 2  Besides this, it seems it is the whole Body of a man, then, which is eaten and swallowed down instead of Bread, for sure the same thing is not one thing when it is worshipped, and another thing when it is eaten; and then how barbarous and inhuman, as well as absurd and ridiculous, must this appear to any man, that is not used to swallow the most substantial Nonsense, as well as the whole Body of a man for a Morsel? and then all the former Absurdities which I mentioned, do return again, of the Eating that which we worship, which the Apologists thought so wild and extravagant in the Egyptian God-eaters. Well then, there is no other way, but to say. we don't eat him as we eat other food; 
† Boil. c. 10. l. 2. Comestionem substantiae corporis Christi non esse natur alem.  so might the Egyptians have said too, if they had pleased; though, how they can otherwise eat him, 'tis hard to understand; but only in the heretical sense of Spiritual and Sacramental Eating; unless they will at the same time say, They do not eat him truly and naturally, and yet do eat him so; and they are so used to Contradictions in this point, that I don't know whither they will make any more bones of this, then of the rest, or of the substantial Body of a man himself, when they have got so large a Faith, or rather so large a Swallow. But how is it, that ye do not eat him after a natural and carnal manner, and yet it is a carnal Body, that ye so much contend for, and that ye really and truly eat, and 'tis a Carnal mouth and throat he is put into, and sometimes a very soul and wicked one? And yet this must by this carnal way eat the very body of Christ, as well as the most faithful; But we do not grind this Body with our Teeth, nor chew him in our Mouths, as our other Food; nor digest him in our Stomaches, nor cast him out into the draught; if ye do not as ye pretend, being ashamed of the most shameful and abominable Consequences of it; and yet a very great many among you, have owned all that 
z Retract. Bereng. sub Nicol. 2 in Concil. Rom. Verum corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi sensualiter, non solum Sacramento, said in veritate, manibus Sacerdotum tractari & frangi & fidelium dentibus atteri, Sic Gualt. & Abbaud apud. Boil. p. 177. , as not knowing how it could be otherwise, and how if this eating be Spiritual and Sacramental, Christ's presence may not be so too, which is the Heresy on the other side; 
a Iste in omnibus veritatem subtrahit, dum asserit omnia fieri (sc. fractionem & attrit●onem corporis Christi in Eucharistia) non substantia sed in specie visibili & forma panis & Sacramento tantum. Gualther adversus Abailard. apud Boil. 179.  and ye seem to make strange Monsters of yourselves that have spiritual Teeth, and can spiritually, and not naturally eat a natural, and a carnal body; and if ye do not thus eat it, as ye eat other meat, when ye take it into your Mouths, and into your Stomaches, and do every thing to it that you do to your other food, which is as like eating as it were very true and natural eating; and if it be not Bread, which is thus eaten, when it is just as like other Bread as is possible, than it is certainly, the most fantastic Food, and the most fantastic way of eating it, that can be imagined; then there must be a new way of eating, which is not eating, and a new way for a Body to be present, and yet not present as a Body; and I will add there must certainly be then a new understanding, which is no understanding, that can understand, or believe all this.  
But farther, ye have found it necessary for your purpose of Adoring the Host, to keep the Body of Christ confined to it, and enclosed in it as a Prisoner, till the Species corrupt, and so the prison is as it were opened, and the Body let lose, and when that is gone, whither ye think it be the Species, or the substance of Bread that corrupts. I would gladly know; and surely then, when the Body is gone, there is no need of such a miracle to keep the Accidents without a Subject; if it be Bread, what think ye of this sudden Transmutation from Bread to Flesh, and from Flesh to Bread again, and this latter without any words from the Priest; but since Christ's body must be so permanently in the Host, not only in the act and use of the Sacrament, but at all other times; ye are then forced to own, that as it is eaten in the Communion, as well by those who have no faith, as by the most faithful Christians, so if any other Animals should happen to eat the Host, taking it no doubt heretically for mere Bread, that yet they truly take the Body of Christ, and eat it after some manner or other, but whither it bea star a natural manner in them or no, I don●t know how you have resolved, but most of the Schoolmen have agreed that Scandalous question 
b An muss, vel Porcus vel canis comedens hostiam suscipit corpus Christi? Bishop Jewels reply Artic. 24. see Burchard de correct. Miss. upon these Questions, De vino in chalice congelate, de musca vel aranea vel veneno mixto cum sanguine, de vomitu post receptionem Sacramenti, Quand● cadit corpus Christi, Quando cadit sanguis Christi. fol. 51. 52.  in the Affirmative, Wither if a Mouse, or a Hog, or a Dog eat the Host, they do partake of Christ's Body? Or as Thomas Aquinas your most Angelic Doctor says, consequently to this Opinion of yours, 
c Aliter derogaret veritati corporis Christi. p. 3. qu. 79.  It would otherwise derogate from the truth of this Sacrament and Christ's presence in it. So that wherever the Species are, there is always Christ's body, and whatever happens to them, happens to that also; If they fall to the ground, Christ's body does so to; and so, if they lie in a hollow Tooth, or hang but in the least crumb or drop upon a Communicants beard; there according to their principles, they and the body must be worshipped with Latria; and if they be in a Mouse or Flies body, that has got to them, the adorable Object still goes with the species, till they be corrupted; and whither the species be corrupted, or not if they be poisoned as they have sometimes been, or whither Christ be there with the Accidents of the Poison, I can't tell; but when the Species are in the pix, he is as fast there, as he ever was in his Sepulchre, and to all appearance as dead and senseless, and if the Species be burnt or Gnawn, or vomited out of the Stomach, before they are corrupted, all these misfortunes belong as truly to Christ's body as to them, and so worse indignities may be thus offered every day to Christ glorious body, than ever were offered to it, in its state of Humility and Contempt upon Earth, when it was spit upon, and Scourged, and Pierced, and Crucified by the Jews. But Good God that men should think to Honour and Adore Christ and his body, by thus exposing them to the danger of the vilest Abuses! that humane reason should be so decayed and besotted, as to believe and defend such palpable Absurdities! That Christianity should be so shamefully and abominably exposed to all the World, by such an extravagant Doctrine, and such an obnoxious practice and unreasonable Idolatry as this is? God almighty open all our Eyes, that we may not be given up to blindness of Mind, and darkness of understanding, and to the belief of Lies, as most Idolaters generally were; but may it please him, who is the God of Truth, to bring into the way of Truth, all such as have erred and are deceived, in this or any other matter; in which charitable and constant Prayer of our Church, which is much better than cursing and Anathematising, its Adversaries, I hope, as well as its Friends, will not refuse to join with it.   
FINIS.   

A DISCOURSE AGAINST Purgatory,  
EDINBURGH, reprinted by John Reid, Anno DOM. 1686.   

A DISCOURSE AGAINST PURGATORY  
AMONG all the Errors of the Church of Rome, the Superstructures she hath made of hay and stubble upon the substantial Doctrine of Christianity; this Fable of Purgatory is one of the most notorious, invented on purpose to increase the treasury of the Church, by putting the grossest abuses upon the ignorant and unwary People: over whom she hath got such an absolute dominion, as that she can make them believe what she pleases, and then can impose her additions to the word of God, as infallible decrees. How easily are the multitude led into by-paths, when that light of Scripture is taken away from their eyes, which God revealed on purpose, that by the search thereof they might find Eternal Life? For the Scriptures are the most full and complete systeme of God's Laws, the most sufficient and certain means of Man's Salvation: I cannot then but wonder how it came to pass, that this middle state, called Purgatory, hanging thus between, Heaven and Hell, was not known to the Penmen of God's word or if it were known, that they should either be so envious of the Church's happiness, or so forgetful of the work they took in hand, which was to write the whole Gospel of Christ, as not so much as one of them should give us notice of this place. But this new Doctrine, with many others, was introduced when the World was in the dark; for in the ninth and tenth Centuries, such a General ignorance and stupidity had seized the minds of Men, that scarce any one knew what the Doctrine of Christ was: when the World was thus stupid and Superstitious, Men were inclined to believe strange things: upon this fair opportunity, some cunning Men drew the simple People into the belief of the most absurd Doctrines, under the notion of being great and profound Mysteries; the gallantry of Faith, they imagined, was mightily shown, in swallowing downright Contradictions: when this breach was once made ●pon the minds of Men, than any error might enter, though as senseless and ridiculous as Purgatory itself.  
Which Opinion I will first show to have no foundation in the Canonical Scripture.  
Secondly, for what reason it was introduced.  
Thirdly, what we are to believe in this matter.  
Lastly, I shall conclude with some reflections upon the Authors of this, and other new-invented Doctrines in the Church of Rome.  
First I am to prove, that this opinion hath no foundation in Scripture. The Papists themselves are sensible enough of this; therefore they put all the false glosses they can upon it, so that the People may discern nothing in the Scripture itself, though it be as clear as the Sun: For by this craft they have their living, as Demetrius and his Crafts. men had heretofore. But let them fairly and honestly lay open the Books of God to every one's eye, without any unreasonable interpretations, or spurious additions made to it; and I doubt not, but the vanity of asserting Purgatory will soon appear.  
Now in Scripture there are matters of a different nature.  
I. Ancient Records; the History of former Times: and these things were far better known, than they are now at this distance of time.  
II. There are things that are wholly expired and out of date, and so of less use to us, as the whole Mosaical Dispensation.  
III. In Scripture there are matters of Prophecy fitted for those times, which they then far better understood than we do now, and wherein they were far more concerned than we are; for they are transactions partly of things performed, which when fulfilled, were best understood.  
iv There are matters of deep Philosophy, aswell as great Mysteries, which do not belong to the business of Religion.  
Lastly. There is the moral part of Religion, and our Saviour's Doctrine; in which two our Religion consists: and this is that Doctrine which hath brought life and immortality to light, but hath not revealed any such thing as Purgatory: which will appear, if we consider what Bellarmine hath alleged in the defence thereof, both out of the Old and New Testament. According to him, the Texts for Purgatory in the Old Testament are first the Fasting of David for Saul and Jonathan, 2. King. 1. 12. and again 2. Sam. 3. 35. For the death of Ab●er. Which Fasting of David must be as he fancies, for the obtaining of something for them at God's hands after their deaths, and when nothing can be obtained for men's Souls that are already in Heaven or Hell, it follows, that some men's Souls are in neither of those places, but must be in Purgatory.  
We answer; that Mourning and Fasting were never practised upon a design of procuring thereby any benefit to the Deceased: but they were customs only, and ceremonies made use of to ●estifie the honour and respect they had for their Friends departed: and all Nations have had their particular ways of discharging their last Duty to their Friends, when they have left this World, without any thought of doing them any service in the World to come. The Cardinal is not contented with this Argument, but he produces other places of the Old Testament to support his opinion; in the behalf whereof he citys almost every Text, wherein there is the word anger, or fire, or burning, or purging, or cleansing: it were an infinite task to answer every thing he alleges, and altogether needless, because there is not so much as any show or colour of proof in any one of them. Therefore we will pass to those Texts of the New Testament, which he says are for him.  
First; He alleges that of St. Matthew, 12. 32. Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor that which is to come. This world to come, if you will believe him, must needs be Purgatory. Now by the world to come, nothing else is meant in Scripture, but that everlasting state which we shall enter upon after death in which all agree there shall be no middle state between that of Heaven and the other of Hell; therefore the world to come and Purgatory are inconsistent: for one Scripture is the best Comment upon another; so that this way of Expression, uk en tuto to aioni, ud● en to mellonti, neither in this World, nor that which is to come, is made easy and plain by St. Mark, c. 3. v. 29. hos d' an blasphemeseis to Pneuma to hagion, ouk echei aphesin eye to aiona, alla enochos estin ai●non criseos; now this manner of Expression in St. Matthew, oukaphethesatai anto, out ' en tuto to aioni, out ' ento mellonti, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come, signifies just so much, and no more, as ouk echei aphesin eye to aiona hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of Eternal Damnation; as much as to say, this sin is of that malignant and heinous nature, that it justly deserves endless punishment, and will never be pardoned.  
II. Another is that of the 1 Cor. 3. They themselves shall be saved, but so as by fire, or but as through fire; which fire (he says) must be the fire of Purgatory. We answer, that these words seem to allude to those of Zachar. 13. 9 where he saith, I will bring the third part through fire, and refine them, as silver is refined: which is a fair warning to men, that the Doctrines they embrace, and their practices according to them, may be such as will bear the severest trial, that they may not be like wood, hay and stubble, which will not endure the fire: for the Particle (hos) is a Particle of similitude, as the whole phrase hos did pyros is proverbial, used in Scripture aswell as in other Authors, to signify a narrow escape out of a great danger; just as St. Peter expresses it, 1 Pet. 3. 20. di' ●ydatos, so here it is dia pyros he shall be saved with great difficulty, so as through fire.  
III. A Third place is that of 1 Cor. 15. concerning Baptism for the Dead; here the Cardinal ventures very far, even to the drawing of fire out of water, the flames of Purgatory out of these washings: Baptism for the Dead, and Prayer for the Dead is the same thing in his sense; though it be discordant to the harmony and scope of the whole Scripture. For the word Baptizesthai, in Scripture signifies to Wash, or purify by Washing; it must be rendered in the same sense here: For as all Nations had their peculiar Rites of Burial, so had the Jews; who were used to wash the Carcases of the Dead with warm water, Camomile, and dried Roses being put into it. This Baptismos, or use of Baptisation was threefold: The first, apo nekron, a washing from the pollution contracted by the touch of the dead Carcase. The Second was Baptismos t●n Nekron washing of the dead Corpse its self, as Tabytha was washed. The last was the Baptization in the Text, Baptisms hyper tun Nekron in use only among some misguided Christians: for the Apostle undertook to convince the Corinthians of the truth of the Resurrection, from their own foolish and erroneous Customs; in effect telling them, that their usage of Baptising the living for the dead, was vain and impertinent, if there were no Resurrection: For if the Dead rise not at all, to what end were these Funeral Solemnities! Why was there vicarium tale Baptisma, as Tertullian calls it; the manner whereof is thus described by Epiphan●us: When any Catechumenist died, some living person, being placed under the bed, they came to the deceased party, and asked him whither he would be Baptised; the Party under the bed answered, that he would; whereupon they immediately Baptised him for the dead: a silly superstitious Action! Yet from this Topick St. Paul proves a Resurrection to them, as he did once the existence of the true God, from an inscription on an Altar in Athens, to one that was unknown: but Bellarmine would persuade us, that by this washing they intended to afford their Friends some relief in Purgatory, and he might with as much reason have told us, that the Sea burns.  
iv The Fourth place is that of St. Matthew 5. 25. Agreewith thine adversary quickly, whilst thou art in the way with him, le●t at any time the adversary deliver thee to the Judge, and the Judge deliver thee to the Officer, and thou be cast into prison▪ verily I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing. Now if the Cardinal may be credited, Purgatory is this Prison, and the Prisoner shut up therein, is in a condition to pay the uttermost farthing, by the help of Prayers, Masses, and the Pope's Indulgence: Whereas all this is an Allegory, whereby we are taught to reconcile ourselves to God, the great Judge of Heaven and Earth, by leading a Godly, Righteous and Sober life, whilst we are in the Way, or on this side the Grave; for if we neglect our repentance and amendment of life in this our day, before the night approaches, wherein no man can work; we run the hazard of being cast into a prison, out of which there is no Redemption; for the Text says, We shall by no means come out thence, till we have paid the uttermost farthing; which will be never, because we shall never be able to discharge this Debt. We are infinitely beholding to the goodness and mercy of God, who hath appointed his only begotten Son to be our Surety, and to deliver us out of this Prison; how justly then may the Saviour of the World be angry with Papists, for pretending to cast simple people into I know not what Prison, and to torture them with painted Fires, in spite of that Redemption which he hath made for the whole World?  
V The Fifth place is that of Mat. 5. 22. Whosoever is angry with his Brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the Judgement, and whosoever shall say to his Brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the Council: but whosoever shall say, thou Fool, shalt be in danger of Hell Fire. The last only of these sins, Bellarmine observes, shall be punished with Hell Fire; consequently after this life, the punishment of lesser sins will be in Purgatory. But this is no true inference; because after this life, there will be no distinction of Courts of Justice, as there was among the Jews in our Saviour's time; then all Judicature shall appertain to Christ's and his Apostles: therefore this Text cannot be rightly understood without considering the words before and after it. Now our Saviour in this Chapter was about to interpret the Law of Moses, which the Jews thought they had fulfilled, when they had not transgressed the Grammatical sense thereof; this made them believe that the Sixth Commandment was not broken, but by killing a Man; nor the Seventh, but actually committing Adultery or Fornication: Whereas our Saviour forbids the inward Anger of a Man against his Brother without a cause, the punishment whereof at the Day of Judgement shall be Hell Fire, How Purgatory then should be maintained from these words, I cannot imagine, unless the Papists, can make it out, that as the Jews had divers Temporal Courts of Justice, so God Almighty will have three distinct Courts of Justice hereafter, and will inflict different punishments for Sin.  
VI The Sixth place is Luk: 16. 9 Make ye friends of the unrighteous Mammon, that when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations; Invocation of Saints, the Papists say may be proved from this Text, but I cannot see upon what grounds. We are advised to make the Poor our Friends by Charity, and by giving them some of our Riches, that we may have in this life the benefit of their Prayers, and thereby make God himself our Debtor; for he that giveth to the Poor, dareth to the Lord.  
last; the Champions for Popery allege for Purgatory, 1 Pet. ●. 19 20. By which also he went and preached to the Spirits in prison; by which they understand the descent of Christ into purgatory, to lose some Souls there from their Torments. But en ho by which, relates to Pneumati Spirit, that is set down just before it; by which Spirit in Noah, who is called a Preacher of Righteousness, Christ Jesus is said to preach to the Generation of Men immediately before the Flood, whose Souls are now shut up in Hell for their Disobedience. For this Preaching was not performed by an immediate act of the Son of God, as if he personally had appeared on Earth, and actually Preached to the Old World; but he did it by the ministry of a Prophet: For to do any thing by another, that is not able to perform it without him, as much demonstrates the existence of the principal cause, as if he did it of himself without any interveening instrument. But if purgatory be intended in these words, we must be mightily mistaken in our conceptions about a future state; then the days that follow after Death do afford opportunities of obtaining a better Life; then may Men rise from a life of torments to a life of joy: whereas the Angels had one Instant, either to stand or fall eternally; what that instant was to them, that this Life is to us; for after death immediately follows Judgement; the Soul at its departure from the body, knows its doom, and what it must trust to for ever. The Schoolmen labour all they can to destroy the true Belief of Christians in this matter, and have the face to propose it as a matter of Faith, that Christ delivered the Souls of the Saints from the very suburbs of Hell, which they call Limbus of the Fathers. It is pity but the wits of these Men had been better employed, then in building such Castles in the Air, or in filling men's thoughts, with imaginary Ideas of strange places in the other World, that have no foundation in Scripture; which is our surest guide against all such Notional wander, opens our eyes to perceive the reality of things, and clears the brain, not only from Darkness, but from fals● and useless Light, especially the Ignis fatuus of Purgatory; whic● serves only to misled Men out of the way, and so lose them i● the bogs or woods of perpetual error, which teaches us to believ● quite otherwise then the Papists do; for such as these are the instructions of the Holy Spirit, John. 5. 24. Verily, verily I say unto you▪ he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hat● everlasting life; he shall not come into condemnation, but is pass●● from death to life. Mat. 18. 8. Wherefore if thy hand or thy f●●● offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee; it is better for thee to enter into life, halt or maimed rather than having two hands and two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire. Mat. 19 29. And every one that hath forsaken houses or Brethren, or Sisters, or Father, or Mother, or Wife, or Children, or Lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundred fold, and shall inherit everlasting life. Mat. 25. 46. And these shall go into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life everlasting. In the sixteenth Chapter of St. Luk's Gospel, from the nineteenth to the one and thirtieth Verse, we read how the Rich Man was cast into Torments, and the Poor Man lodged in Abraham's Bosom: Between the places of both these Men, there was Mega chasma, a Wide Gulf, never to be passed: Insomuch, that Dives did despair of any relief out of his misery, when the gift of a drop of Water to cool his tongue would not be granted him. If we can assent to what the Papists say, they have paved a large Causeway over this wide Gulf, and have opened a very easy passage from a life of torments to that of eternal happiness. For by virtue of some prayers, oblations and indulgences, they have made the way broad to Heaven, and narrow to Hell; a Man that hath Money in his pocket cannot be damned, and a Camel may assoon pass through the eye of a needle, as a poor man be saved.  
But granting that the written word of God hath nothing of Purgatory in it, the Romanists will tell you, that Tradition will defend them in the belief thereof: which word, Tradition they are wont to allege to give a colour to most of their present innovations.  
Wherefore in the second place I am to show how they are mistaken in this case of Tradition also, and to declare for what reasons the Fiction of Purgatory was first set on foot. The Traditions we receive as good and authentic, are the Doctrines which we now read in the holy Scriptures; but I have proved Purgatory to be none of these: Therefore those of the Romish Persuasion must mean some other Tradition, that is not to be found written in the word of God. But here we ought to observe, that the Scripture in this case, aswell as in all others, is the only rule of Faith; therefore Traditions, Councils and Fathers are only to be used as helps to understand the Scripture better, but not to be entertained as any rule of Faith; in which case we are bound to be of the Apostle's mind. If I, or an Angel from Heaven preach any other doctrine then that which we have delivered, let him be accursed. For this reason we cannot receive those Doctrines for truth, which the Church of Rome presses upon our Belief upon the account of Tradition: Especially when we consider with what stratagems of force and fraud this Church hath laboured to keep the People in ignorance for the sake of her New Doctrines, that they may be swallowed the more glibly; Which is an artifice to enslave Mankind, by disabling them either to see or know what she is a doing: Whereas if we would keep up the honour and privilege of Humane nature; if we would preserve our Bibles from being sequestered into Hucksters hands; if we have any regard to God's pure and undefiled Religion, we must resolve against the Novelties of Popery. For in the true Religion, there is nothing which the reason of Mankind can challenge; wherein the judgements of Men may not have so good an account as to receive full and ample satisfaction. And to speak the truth I do not understand that there is any Religion farther than that which is owned among Protestants: what more is to be found among the Papists, is accommodated to serve some byends and purposes. For this reasons, a great Abbot in the Roman Church was wont to say, that he did greatly suspect his Religion must needs fail, being not built upon so firm a Rock as was supposed; because there was so little Ground for many Tenants of it in the word of God: I may add, that there is as little in the principals of God's Creation, or in that which we call Natural Religion.  
If this be so, I wonder with what face they can still stand up for Purgatory, or imagine such a state, in which the Souls of Men are for a time shut up, until they are set at liberty by the Prayers of the Living, or a Pope's Indulgence: but to justify themselves in this unpardonable abuse of the Christian Religion, they tell us, that some Christians in Old Time did make use of Prayers and Commemorations for those who died in the true Faith of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Now the question is, whither the Supplicants, that used this kind of Devotion, intended by these means to obtain a pardon for the Criminals that were condemned to this Prison. The right understanding of this custom will put an end to the Controversy; and who can better inform us of their meaning than they themselves, or those that lived in the same Age with them; amongst whom may be reckoned Dionysius the Areopagite. who treats particularly of the Rites used in their Burials of the Dead: this Author tells us that the Bishop was wont in the midst of the Congregation to make a Prayer of Thanksgiving unto God for his restraining the power of the Devil over Mankind; as also for his merciful admittance of sincere Penitents into his Grace and Favour. And farther prays, that God would place them in the Land of the Living, seat them in Abraham's Bosom, where, (now they rest from their Labours here,) they may be received into a place of Light, Peace and Joy everlasting: this was the end of their Prayers for those that Rest in the Lord. Now, le●t by mistake we should infer from hence, as some have done, that the Souls of good Men departed this life are not yet in Paradise, but remain for some time in a condition of darkness, loss and pain; there to be prepared for Heaven by certain Purgations, and thence to be discharged by the satisfactions and prayers of the Living; the same excellent writer hath mentioned only two divisions of the Dead: of those that have lived well, and of those that have lived ill; whereas the upholders of Purgatory have lodged them in three distinct Apartments. But the Primitive Church know but two places of entertainment for the Dead after this Life, Heaven, and Hell; the first for good, the latter for evil Men; one for the Beliver, the other for the Infidel; Heaven is for him whose sins are remitted, and Hell is for him whose si●s are retained. Indeed some Ancient Doctors did seem to doubt, what that place was which the Souls of Men did abide in, till they should be reunited to their bodies in the Resurrection; supposing for a while they lay under the Altars. But afterwards the Church of Rome found it more profitable to build for them this place of Purgatory, a place wherein she pretends the Souls of Men are cleansed by Burning, and made fit for Heaven.  
For as soon as the World was put into a great Fright about purgatory, than came in the sale of Indulgences; which the subtle Priests put off for securities against the vain fears and dangers to be met withal in this place: This indeed is a Doctrine of good advantage to the Church of Rome, but most disgraceful to the Christian Religion; for what can be more so, then to defraud Christ himself of the Title and Merit which he ever had, of being The only Redeemer of Mankind; as if he had not by his Sacrifice on the Cross fully satisfied the Divine Justice, but that this great work was to be done by Pope's Bulls, Indulgence and Masses? But for all this we will oblige ourselves to believe the Roman Consessours, if they can from Scripture, Reason, or untainted Tradition show us where God hath told Men, that he is pleased with these things, and is resolved to accept of them instead of a good and Christian Life. For this was always the Faith of the Primitive Church, that the state and condition of a Man into which he passeth after Death shall never be changed; this I could prove out of Justin Martyr ad Orthodoxos, and out of St. Cyprian ad Demetrianum; but my Design is not, to fill this brief Discourse with Quotations, and indeed there is no necessity for it, because we have Scripture, the common sense of Mankind, and the Faith of the best and purest Ages on our side.  
Wherefore in the third place, I will show what our Belief ought to be in this matter. We all know very well, that we are to believe as the Scripture directs, and herein we are taught that Heaven and Hell are fixed for the two Eternal States of good and bad Men; who if after this Life they had any hopes of gaining the first, or escaping the latter by the Prayers or the Gifts of their surviving Friends, this expectation would in a great measure frustrate the intent of Christ's coming into the World, which was to teach Men how in this present Life they must work out their Salvation, how through patiented continuance in well doing they must here be brought to goodness and real virtue; the practice whereof in all probability would be quite laid aside, if they should depend upon such foolish hopes, as these are. If we do but consider the reason of these promises and threaten, which GOD makes use of in Scripture to reclaim the Disobedient, we must be convinced, that there can be no such place as Purgatory. For promises and threaten are made use of in Scripture to work upon our hopes and fears, two the most prevailing passions of the mind; we have the promise of present assistance to encourage our endeavours in a virtuous life, and to make this work the more easy, we have the assurance of a future reward. Whereas Religion would be thought in its strictest duties to be a burden too heavy for Men to bear, if so be they should once entertain the hopes of getting Heaven by such cheap and easy methods, as the Church of Rome prescribes: Persons that are her Proselytes will not be wrought upon by that fear, which is the proper product of the threaten of the Gospel, when the most dreadful condition, that can be feared hereafter may be avoided, as they think, by the charms of Masses; or some legacy to the Church. But these are cunningly divised Fables, which the Scripture warns us of; which Gospel, because of the terrors of it, is said to be the mighty power of God to salvation: For great fear makes difficulties easy, it awakens all our powers, and quickens all our motions, it turns our feet into wings, and enables Men to do many things with ease, which without so strong a motive they would never be persuaded to attempt. The lively apprehension of the danger of their Souls, and the sad issues of a wicked life is enough to make the most profane Man stop his course, it will incite him to summon all his powers to resist so great a mischief as will undo him for ever. Besides the Commands of God are exceedingly sweetened by Love, by all the imaginale obligations of Kindness; when we have considered how undutifully we have demeaned ourselves towards him who is the great Benefactor of our life, who hath recovered us from eternal destruction; with how much long suffering he hath expected to our amendment; what means he hath used to reconcile us to himself, by sending his only Son to die, that we might live, to be made a Spectacle of misery and contempt, that he might bring us to happiness and glory: he only hath delivered us from Wrath and the Tormentor, when we lay open to the revenge of God's Justice. If we have any sense of benefits, we cannot choose but love and obey him who hath done so much to oblige us; for his whole Religion presents such arguments and considerations to us as are apt to stir up all those passions in our hearts, which are the great instruments to action; these are our hope, fear and love. But the workings of these passions must needs be stifled by a lazy, superstitious devotion, I mean that devotion of the Papists which is produced by a belief of such dreams as Purgatory.  
Let us therefore that are Protestants consider, that the main work we are to do in the time of this life, is to prepare for our immortal state; for the time of this life is the day of exercise, wherein we are to make trial of our strength, and with all our powers to labour for Heaven, the way to which place lie right before us, it is straight and narrow, so that we must use some care and diligence, that we turn not to the right, nor to the left: the ways of Popery are like the paths of sin, crooked and full of wind through Cells and Cloisters, in long Processions and Pilgrimages, wherewith Men are rather perplexed then their minds are improved, or their lives made better: by the practice of these things they are brought off from the true meaning of the Christian Religion, and learn at last to content themselves with pompous shows instead of living righteously, godly and soberly in this present World: For how can the ends of Religion be accomplished by this course, when in the place of justice, honesty and goodness, simple and plain virtues, the People are brought up to show so many tricks, and to act over so many mimical postures of Worship?  
But thanks be to God, we have not so learned Christ: we came not into the World to be idle Spectators therein, to be slothful and unprofitable Monks, to gratify our senses, feed our lu 〈…〉 or to live at ease, but to pay a reasonable service to God, and to promote the public good; not to advance our own advantages and designs, but the common interest and benefit of Mankind. And as we are not to neglect our duty upon which the saving of our Souls depends, in expectation, that after this life is ended we may get out of Purgatory into Heaven; so we must not mistake our time of doing our duty, but begin it as soon as we come to the use of our reason and understanding, that assoon as our rational powers begin to move, Religion also may show itself at the same time with all the brightness and majesty of truth and virtue. Therefore Men do mightily abuse themselves when they are led aside by erroneous opinions concerning their future state, and so lose the happy occasion of advancing their true interest: this they do, who put off their living well to the last, who defer their Repentance with groundless hopes of having the same good success as the Penitent Thief had, or who neglect all those good means that would make them sound and good Christians, out of a false persuasion, that their sufferings hereafter will be but Temporary, and then they shall be as happy as the best Men are. Some Philosophical Persons are mistaken in this matter; for they will tell you, that they would rather choose not to be at all, then be placed in such a condition of Life as that they shall be in danger of everlasting punishment if they difobey the Laws of God. Surely this cannot be the desire of a good or a wise Man, as if a Man had better choose to live in the Woods in a wild state of confusion and anarchy, then be subject to the Laws of a Just and Merciful Ruler, under whom he may lead an happy and quiet life, merely because he shall be punished if he do amiss We are beholding to the infinite bounty and goodness of God, for that he hath given us all a Being; and when we were made, it was abfolutly necessary that we should carefully observe and keep the Laws of Almighty God: but such is the degeneracy of Mankind, that they would never do this, unless there were severe penalties to be suffered for the violation of them; which penalties are eternal upon impenitent Sinners for this reason among others, because the goodness and mercy of God is eminently shown towards Men both in threatening and inflicting these punishments; for hereby they may behold his severity against fin, and so break off the practices of it, that they may escape the punishments of the future state, which are inflicted because Men have been unreclaimable either by the mercies or severities of God towards them in this life. The suffering these punishments God may accept of as a ●ull satisfaction to his Law, if they be such as tend to break men off from sin, assert 〈…〉 's Right, and vindicate his honour to the World; for we must know that the end of punishment is not the satisfaction of anger in God as a desire of revenge, but the design of it is to vindicat the honour and rights of the injured person by such a way as himself shall judge most satisfactory to the ends of his Government. But the misery of any Creature cannot be an end to us, much less to the Divine nature, because an End supposes something desirable for itself: so that God neither d●●h nor can delight in the miseries of his Creatures in themselves, but as they are subservient to the ends of his Government, and yet such is his kindness in that respect too, that he uses all means agreeable thereto to make them avoid being for ever miserable. For there is a vast d●fference between the end of punishment in this Life, and in that which is to come; the punishments in the life to come are afflicted because Sinners have been unreclaimable by either the mercies or punishments of this Life, and they are intended to deter Men from commiting those sins which will expose them to the wrath to come. Let us therefore always laud and bless the Name of God, in wh●m we live, move, and have our Being, for that he hath raised us out of nothing, to be not only Living, but Rational Creatures. Now we are bound to act according to the dignity of our Natures; if we do not, we degenerate into the lower Rank of Animals, and very deservedly pull God's vengeance upon us for disappointing the end of our Creation, which was to serve our Creator in all Faithfulness and Truth, it being a fault never to be forgiven for any Creature to say, that he is not beholding to God for giving him a Being, unless he may be freed from the dreadful apprehensions of that everlasting punishment which is due against all such as wilfully offend so good and wise, so holy and just a God.  
Wherefore let no vain expectations of escaping the wrath to come betray us into so great a sottishness as to put off our Repentance, or to defer making provision for Eternity: to be throughly regenerate is a harder ta●k then to mumble over so many Pater Nosters or Ave Mary Prayers; I fear those ignorant People whose Religion hangs on a string of Beads, and whose Prayers are set upon Tallies, understand very little what true Sanctification imports, what reconciliation with the nature, will and mind of God signifies; unless we are thus qualified for the enjoyment of God, no Flames of Purgatory will ever prepare us for it.  
Now therefore is the time of working out our Salvation; the next World will be the time of giving an account of what we have done, either good or evil; as this Life leaves us so eternal Life will find us; what advantages then we have to day of knowing the will of God, and of learning his statutes, let us make use of them; that we may be able to stand before his Judgement Seat, and receive the rewards of good and faithful Servants: in order to the acquitting of ourselves well at this Bar, we have the direction of the holy Scripture, which we may search as curiously as we please; we have all God's institutions to guide us; we have the assistance of GOD'S Spirit to help and encourage our endeavours, and the promises of the Go●pel to assure us, that ou● labour shall not be in vain. These are the benefits of the present time: but what warrant have we from Scripture that those duties may be performed hereafter, which are now neglected? No, we are told the quite contrary, because I called (saith GOD) and ye would not answer, I will then laugh at your destruction, and mock when your fear cometh; so St. Luke 15. The rich Glutton is tormented, who was always for spending his present time in riot and luxury; he applauds himself in his wisdom and foresight, when he had made such plentiful provisions for many years ease and pleasure; but alas! how soon is his unprepared Soul surprised with a sad arrest of Death! how blank did the Fool then look, when he heard the fatal news, that that night should put an end to all his hopes! How was he confounded with the terrors of the other World? poor Wretch! how did he tremble, when he found himself beset with Devils and damned Spirits▪ On the other side Lazarus is comforted, because he did his work in this World, through much poverty and hardship he got at last to Heaven.  
This is the case of all Men; an eternity of happiness or misery awaits them hereafter: there is no other state of things so great and so unalterable: the Divine Providence hath made use of all the best and wisest methods to disabuse the enchanted reason of Man, that he may not be miserable, but happy for ever: and if Men could be brought seriously to reflect on the dismal and astonishing events of a wicked life, they would never suffer themselves to be so much imposed upon by Cheats and Impost●●●s, who recommend to them an implicit Faith, and a belief in such a state, as Purgatory; whereby their eyes are shut that they may not be affrighted by the sight of their misery. The fears of one Party betray Men into Superstition, the vices of another into Atheism, the covetousness of a third draws them into most pernicious mistakes about the World to come. But if Men would be at the pains to inquire into the affairs of Religion, and be not indifferent, whither their condition hereafter be happy or miserable, they will easily discover its principles to be highly reasonable, and the keeping of its Commandments to be their highest interest, they will plainly see the paths of Truth and Blessedness, for it sets down the most easy rules both for living well and for believing right, because errors in Belief are the less destructive of Christianity and the ends thereof, than a general viciousness of manners is. But if Men will be Fools and follow trifling opinions, no wonder if they perish by their own folly; do they believe the immortality of the Soul, a future state, or a judgement to come? If they believe all this, to what a degree of madness do they act that will venture the fury of an Almighty vengeance for the sake of obeying one sort of Men who have contrived New and Antiscriptural Articles of Faith, who will run the hazard of forfeiting an eternal Happiness, and of being cast into an eternal Flame, because they fancy their Church is an infallible guide? whereas St. Paul (writing to the Romans) speaks not one word of their privilege of infallibility, but rather puts them in fear in the 11. chap. That they as well as the Jews were in danger of falling away: St. Peter also in his Catholic Epistles doth not once acquaint the Christians, whom he writes to, what Guide they were follow after his departure: there was no need for any such thing, for he had all along told them that by following the Scripture they may be saved; having then an infallible way, there was no use, at lest no necessity of an infallible Guide.  
But as the Church of Rome without any colour of reason sets up for an infallible Guide in points of Controversy, so with like boldness she may lay claim, as some of her disciples do, to demonstration in matters of Faith, whereas if we will define Faith to be that assent by which we receive the word of God as such, and upon account thereof give assent to all things which therein are propounded to us to be believed, then there are to be assigned two several acts of Faith, one of which is that judgement by which we acknowledge that word to be truly divine, the other is that assent which we give to all those things that are contained therein: Faith in the former respect is less certain than science, but in respect of adherence is more certain. than the other. Now there cannot be so great a certainty in Faith as in science, the Mathematics for instance; because Faith is more liable to doubting then science is: If any Man perceives the strength and force of a Geometrical Demonstration, he cannot in the mean while doubt of the conclusion: but now a true Believer doth often struggle with doubting and unbelief, wherewith his Faith is assaulted, and yet it ceaseth not to be true Faith. We must confess that the mind doth less clearly perceive this to be the word of God, than it doth those things which are self-evident, and the conclusions logically deduced from: There is no reason therefore that any one should fear to acknowledge that assent to be also less certain: notwithstanding it follows not upon this account that Faith is uncertain, for That, which arises not to the certainty of the science, is not therefore uncertain; for although that certainty, which is called Moral, be of an inferior degree to Demonstration, yet it is a true certainty, leaves the mind satisfied and free from doubt. But how can a Man be said to have a certainty greater than that of science, when he hath not that certainty of evidence from the Arguments upon which the matter is grounded? It may be answered, that no Man can deny but there may be just cause why a Man may adhere to the objects of his Faith more strongly than the Arguments brought for the truth thereof do require: For when a Man is sufficiently persuaded by due reasons and arguments, that what is propounded to him for Divine Revelation, is indeed such; this Man, if he duly attends and seriously considers, that it is God, who speaks, he will be wholly bend to yield obedience thereunto, he will entertain the word of God with the highest veneration, he will closely adhere to it, and he will be fully resolved to suffer and renounce all things rather than withdraw his assent from those matters of Faith which are contained in it, and confirmed by it. From thence there arises in his mind a greater, or at least a more effectual adherence to the Articles of his Faith, than there is in Science: for the mind so affected and disposed doth more affectionately embrace, and more firmly hold that word of God, than any thing else, by what light soever it be propounded, or by whatever strength of demonstration it be confirmed: Neither is there any knowledge which he doth so carefuly retain, nor is there any assent which he will suffer so hardly or with such difficulty to be forced from him: which firmness of Faith and strong adherence of mind to the objects of it, is not produced by the evidence thereof, but by the great weight and moment of it; for the mind being enlightened by the holy Spirit, understands that any other speculative scientifical Doctrine doth little or nothing conduce to a happy and blessed life; but that on This our everlasting happiness doth depend, and that we cannot reject This without certain Ruin. Therefore we ought to take head, that cunning Men do not deceive us; that we do not hearken to the teachers of New Doctrines, which have no foundation in the Scripture; their pretences to infallibility and demonstration in matters of Faith are false and unreasonable; for they assume these great and unwarrantable privileges, only to deceive the Ignorant, and to obtrude fictitious articles of Faith upon Mankind.  
Wherefore all that now remains, is to make some short Reflections upon the Authors of Purgatory, and other new-invented Doctrin●● in the Church of Rome.  
First, They may be charged for imposing upon our belief things contrary to reason, self-inconsistent and incongruous: of this I will give but one instance, which is their asserting, that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament is changed into the real and substantial Body and Blood of Christ. For this is the hardest thing that ever was put upon men in any Religion; because they cannot admit it, unless their reason be laid aside, as no competent Judge in the matter; unless also they give the lie to the report of their senses. And if they do this, how shall we think, that GOD made our Faculties true? which if he did not do, we are absolutely discharged from all duty to him, because we have no faculty that can resolve us, that this is of GOD: for if our reason must not be trusted, we must cease to be Men: if our senses are not to be believed, the chiefest proof of Christians falls to the ground; which was the sight of those, who saw our Saviour, after he was risen from the Dead. Now if I may not believe the reason of my ●●nd in conjunction with three or four of my senses; how sh●ll I know 〈…〉 that any thing is this or that: therefore I say, that this Doctrine is a gross invention of Men, contrary both to reason and sense.  
Secondly, The Truths they do acknowledge, are made void by subtle distinctions, or equivocations: as for example, their Doctrine of Probability and of directing the intention; if a Man can find any Doctor among them, that held such an opinion, it makes that Doctrine probable: and there is nothing so contrary to the rules of Virtue and Conscience, but what some Romish Casuistical Doctor hath resolved to be good and practicable: just as Tully says, there is nothing so absurd or ridiculous, which some Philosopher or other hath not maintained and asserted. So by directing their intention, they may declare that which is false, and deny that which is true, because they intent the credit of their Church and Religion; this mere intention shall excuse them from the guilt of downright falsehood and lying. They are so well practised in equivocations, that you cannot confide in any words they speak; they are so ambiguous, and of such doubtful meaning: in their evasions their Speech shall bear a double sense whereas no Man ought to use wit and parts to impose upon another, or to make a Man believe That, which he doth not mean. For the Christian Law is plain and obvious, void of all ambiguity or ensnaring speeches, free from all Sophistications, and wind of Language, never flies to words of a dubious or uncertain signification, but plainly declares the truth to Men: therefore these practices are contrary to that simplicity and plain heartedness, which ought to be in the conversation of every Christian.  
Thirdly, They superadd to Religion things altogether unlikely to be true, and dishonourable to GOD; which will appear in these following particulars.  
I. The use of Images in the Worship of God, an Idolatry they are too guilty of, otherwise they would never leave out the second Commandment, and divide the Tenth into two to conceal i● from the People. We find better Doctrine than this, among the Philosopeers, who say, God is to be Worshipped by Purity of Mind: for this is a rational service, and a worship most suitable to an immaterial Being; it being the use of that in us, which is the highest and noblest of our Faculties.  
II. The veneration of Relics; a very vain and foolish thing; for there can be no certainty at this distance of time, what they are, and if they were indeed, what they are taken for, what veneration is, or can be due to them? For inanimate ●hings are far in●eriour to those that have life, and for the living to worship things that are dead, is unaccountable and irrational.  
III. The Invocation or worship of Angels and Saints, our Fellow creatures, particularly of the Virgin Mary, to whom they make more Prayers then to our Saviour himself; although her Name be not mentioned in a●l the Ep●stles of the Apostles; although Christ himself, as foreseeing the degeneracy of the Church in this thing, did ever restrain all extravagant imaginations of honour due to her; yet the adoration of her is the most considerable part of their Religion. But why should a Man so prost●ue himself, as to Worship those, I am sure, God would not have me Worship? for he would not have us adore any Creature; as the Apostle argues, Col. 2. 18. It is but a show of humility to worship Angels, who are placed in the highest order of Creatures, and if they are not to be Worshipped, sure none below them are: and God hath declared, there is, but one supreme self-existent Being, and one Mediator between God and Man, the Man Jesus Christ.  
iv They withhold the use of Scripture from the People, because, they say, Knowledge of the very Oracles of God will make them contentious and disobedient to Authority: if this be true, than the blame of all this must be laid upon our blessed Saviour, for revealing such a Doctrine to the World as this is, and thereby we should condemn the Apostles for making known such a Doctrine to Men, in a Tongue they understand; but I suppose, the Papists are not willing to lay all the miscarriages of the World upon Christ and his Apostles. Although Men may abuse the Knowledge of the Scripture, yet the abuse of a thing that is useful, was never accounted a sufficient reason for the taking it away: therefore Men are not to be hindered from the Know-of the Scriptures, for fear they should become proud or rebellious; for this would be, as if one should put out a Man's Eyes, that he might the better follow him, or that he might not lose his way: for there is nothing in the whole Doctrine of out blessed Saviour, which is unfite for any Man to know, but what is plainly designed to promote holiness and the practice of a good life: the Romanists do indeed pretend, that the unity and peace of the Church cannot be maintained, unless the People be kept in ignorance: then the mischief will be, that for the end of keeping Peace and Unity in the Church, Church and Christian will be both lost; which would be, as if a Prince should knock all his Subjects on the Head, to keep them quiet. 'Tis true, this would be an effectual way to procure it, but by these means he must lose his Kingdom, and make himself no Prince into the bargain. 'Tis no doubt, but if Men were ignorant enough, they would be quiet; but then the consequences of it would be, that they would cease to be Men.  
Lastly, They frustrate the effects of real Religion by their Pretences to extraordinary Power and Privileges; that is, they pretend to make that lawful, which is unlawful: Bellarmine saith, that the Pope may declare vice to be virtue, and virtue vice: by this practice they attempt to change the reason of things, which all Mankind agree to be unalterable. By this pretended Power they can turn attrition into contrition; that is, they can make such a consternation of mind, as fell upon Judas, when he went and hanged himself, to be contrition by the Priest's Absolution: they can m●ke bodily Penance to be of equal validity with an inward change of mind, and true Repentance: they pretend they can produce, by I know not what magical force, strange spiritual effects by virtue of Holy Water and the Cross: they are also much puffed up with a Power they assume of Absolving Men from solemn Oaths and Obligations: They boast much of the efficacy of Indulgences for the pardon of sin, and for the delivery of Souls out of Purgatory; by which Invention they detract from the efficacy of God's Grace, as if it were not sufficient to prepare us for, and at last to bring us to Heaven, unless we pass through this imaginary Purgation after Death; by which also they themselves are deceived, whilst they couple prayer for the Dead and Purgatory together, as if the one did necessarily suppose or imply the other. But they do not: for though the sins of the Faithful be privately and particularily forgiven at the day of Death, yet the public promulgation of their pardon is to come at the day of Judgement. Christians then may be allowed to pray for this consummation of Blessedness, when the Body shall be reunited to the Soul: So we pray, as often as we say, Thy Kingdom come, or come Lord Jesus, co●● quickly: this is far enough from being a Prayer to deliver them out of Purgatory; besides, the Roman Church is not able to produce any one Prayer; public or private, nor one Indulgence, for the delivery of any one Soul out of Purgatory, in all the Primitive times, or out of their own ancient Missals, or Records.  
All these things before mentioned are not to be justified; but thus the Papists have endeavoured to spoil the best Religion that ever was made known unto Men. Whereas the Christian Religion as it is professed in the Reformed Church, is quite another thing: for it doth neither persecute, nor hold any principles of faction or disturbance, but only those of peace and obedience to the Laws of God and Man: if there be any agitatours of Mischief and Treason, it is the fault of particular parties, and not to be charged upon the Reformed Church: which Church holds the Worship of God, and all other offices of Religion to be performed in the Vulgar Tongue, so that Knowledge may be thereby had and promoted; which Knowledge of Religion if any Man doth abuse for the ends of Pride, Rebellion or Heresy, he doth it at his own peril, and God will judge him for it. But St. Paul is so far from allowing any Service to God in an unknown Tongue, that he calls it a piece of madness, 1 Cor. 14. 23. If the whole Church be come together into one place, and all speak with divers tongues, and there come in the unlearned, will not they say that you are mad, that is, they may justly say so. Now a Man would wonder, that any society of Men retaining the Name of Christians, should zealously press that to be necessary for the Christian Church, which St. Paul hath said to be a piece of madness. The same Reformed Church owns the free use of the Scriptures both in public and private, calls upon Men as our Saviour did, to search them, for these make the Man of God perfect, and do richly furnish him for every good work, and by their help we are able to render a reason of the hope that is in us. We do declare, that the Preachers of the Church ought not to take away the Key of Knowledge from the People, as our Saviour charges the Pharisees; or as St. Augustine saith, They do not command Faith in Men upon peril of Damnation, to show their superiority: but they appear as Officers do direct and give Counsel: not with Pride to rule, but in Compassion to lead others into the way of Truth. and to recover them out of mislakes. In short, we tell the People, that the Scripture is the only rule of their faith, that it is full and perspicuous in all matters necessary for good life and practic●; so that if they use diligence and mind them well, they may easily understand them, and be satisfied; we never demand any implicit Faith from them, nei●her do we expect that they should resign up their Faculties, as others believe blindfold and without reason, Therefore the Reformed Church, is honest in all its deal, doth not deceive Men ●e any w●yes of fraud or falsehood, such as the whole Doctrine of Merit ●s, and the Relieving of Souls out of Purgatory by Mass●s. But there is a pl●ce in the World, where, Coelum est venale Deusque, Heaven and God himself is set to sale.  
The premises considered, we may conclude, that the Church of England had good reason to declare in her twenty second Ankle, that The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Inundation ●● Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warra●●● of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God.  
For the whole Scripture is against Purgatory; wherein w● rea●, 1 Joh. 1. 7. That the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin▪ that the Children of God who die in C●●ist, do rest from their labours; that as they are absent from the Lord, w●●●e the● a●● in the body; so when they are absent from the body, ●hey a●e present with the Lord, Joh. 5. 24. They come not into Judgement, but pass from Death to Life.  
The same Doctrine is taught b●●●● ancient Fathers of the Chu●ch● Tertullian 
Tertul. lib, de patien. ch. 3.  says, it is an Injury to Christ, to maintain, that such as be called from hence by him, are in a 
Cyprian. de Mortali. sect. 2. edit. Goulart.  state, that should be pitied. Thus St. Cyprian affirms, the Servants of God to have Peace and Rest, as soon as they are withdrawn from the storms of this lower World. And Hilary observes in the Gospel 
Hilar. in Psal. 2.  of the Rich Man, and Lazarus, 
S. Basil. Prooem. in Regulas, etc.  that every one is sent ei●her to Abraham's bosom, or to torments, as soon as this Life is ended. St. Ba●il declares this 
Nazianz. orati. 9 ad Julianum  World to be the time of Repentance, the other of Retribution; this of 
Hierom. Epist. 25.  Working, that of receiving a Reward. So Nazianzen in his Funeral Orations plainly denies, ●hat after this Life there is any purging to be expected; and therefore he tells us, that it is better to be purged now, then be sent into torments, where the time of punishing is, and not of purging. St. Hierome also comforts Paula for the Death of her Daughter after this manner; let the Dead be lamented; but let us whom Christ cometh forth to meet after our departure, be the more grieved, because so long as we remain here, we are Pilgrims from God.  
I could cite more Fathers to this purpose; but the Testimonies of these may suffice to show, that all were not of Bellarmin's min●, as he pretends by his precarious assertion; that antiquity constantly taught, there was a Purgatory. Whereas the Grecians are so far from being of his Faith, that they do not believe it at this day. The oldest and best Authors, that I know to be on his side, are Plato in his Gorgias and Phoedo. Tully in the end of the Dream of Scipio, and Virgil in his sixth Aeneide. Tertullian likewise, when he was an Heretic, seemed to favour his opinion, and Origen was very much of that Belief who acknowledges no other punishment after this life, but Purgatory-pains only. Notwithstanding the Romish Clergy have the confidence to impose this extravagant Doctrine upon the World now, it was never heard of in the Church for the space of a Thousand years after the Birth of our Sayiour: when Thomas Aquinas and other Friars had framed the cheat; the Doctors of the Greek Church did publicly oppose it: afterwards the Pope and his Agents prevailed so far in the Council 
Council. Florentin. sess. 25.  at Florence; that for Peace s●ke they were contented to yield: That the middle sort of Souls were in a Place of punishment, but whither that were Fire, Darkness and Tempest, or something else, they would not contend. But as I have said, the Greek Church, the Muscovites and Russians, the Cophtites and Abassines, the Georgians and Armenians, could never be brought to submit to it.  
But this opinion: with some others no less absurd and ridiculous, came into the World, when Ignorance and Interest had fatally depraved the Primitive purity of the Christian Faith and Worship. The broachers of these Fictions are very crafty and industrious in contriving ways, how they may fasten them upon credulous People; and although it is more, than an hundred years since our Ancestors threw off the Pope's Tyranny; yet if he doth not meet with a proportionable zeal in their Posterity, to oppose his designs it will not be hard to conjecture the success of a vigorous attack; and a faint defence.  
As therefore we are Memberr of a Christian Church, in which we may assuredly find Salvation, if we continue in it, let us be firmly united among ourselves against all innovations in Religion. As we have no other rule of Faith and practice, than the Holy Scripture, let us reject all notorious innovations, that are obtruded upon us for fundamentals. As we are taught to be obedient to the supreme Magistrate, not only for Wrath, but Conscience sake; so we are bound to avoid the Communion of that Church, which claims a power of deposing him, and of knocking those on the head, who keep close to the Faith once delivered to the Saints.  
What obligations then have we to the Church, we are of, and to the Religion we profess, which hath delivered us from the Laws of the Roman Religion, that are written in Blood; that hath recovered us from the Idolatrous practice of the heathen World; that will not suffer us to Worship Images, or fall down to the stock of a Tree; that doth not rob us of the benefit of public Prayers, by putting them into an unknown tongue; that doth not enjoin an implicit Faith; or blind obedience, but allows to every Christian a judgment●● of Discretion, who keeps within the bounds of due obedience and submission to his lawful Superiors; that he may prove all things, hold fast That, which is good; a Church, that hath no pardons at a set price for guilty persons, no forged miracles to amuse the credulous and ignorant, no pompous shows, Beads, Tickets, Agnus Dei's, Rosaries, to please the Vulgar, or to gratify the superstitious.  
If therefore we have any love of our Religion, or any concern for the happiness of our Church and Nation; if we have any desire to hold the freedom of our Consciences, or any care for the eternal safety of our Souls, it behoves us to beware of the Emissaries of Rome, in whose success we must expect to forfeit all these interests; every one of which ought to be dearer to us, than our lives.  
Let us not be imposed upon by the specious Name of Roman Catholic; it is a mere contradiction, one of the Pope's Bulls; as if he should say, universal particular, a Catholic Schismatic. Let us not be afraid to encounter this pretended Catholic with the Councils and Fathers; though these are a Labyrinth, an entangled Wood, which Papists love to fight in, not so much with hope of victory, as to hid the shame of an open overthrow; which in this kind of combat, many of our Divines have given them. But let them bound their Disputations on the Scripture only, and an ordinary Protestant, well read in the Bible, may turn and wind their ablest Doctors; for as among Papists, their ignorance in the Scripture chief upholds Popery; so amongst Protestants, the frequent and serious reading thereof will soon baffle it. And we need not doubt of an entire conquest, if we add to this the amendment of our lives with all speed; left through impenitency, pride, luxury, bold and open Atheism, uncharitable jarring and pelting at one another; through stubborn disobedience to the Laws of GOD and Man, we run into that sottishly, which we seek so warily to avoid, the worst of Superstitions, that enervates and destroys the whole design of Christianity.  
FINIS.   

A DISCOURSE CONCERNING AURICULAR CONFESSION As it is prescribed by the COUNCIL OF TRENT, And practised in the CHURCH of ROME With a Post script on occasion of a Book lately printed in France, called  
Historia Confessionis Auricularis.  
EDINBURGH, reprinted by John Reid, Anno DOM. 1686.   

A DISCOURSE CONCERNING AURICULAR CONFESSION  
THE Zealots of the Church of Rome, are wont to Glory of the singular advantages, in the Communion of that Church, especially in respect of the greater means and helps of Spiritual comfort, which they pretend are to be had there, above and beyond what are to be found amongst other Societies of Christians. Which one thing, if it could be as substantially made out, as it is confidently asserted, could not fail to sway very much with all Wise men, and would undoubtedly prevail with all devout persons, (who were made acquainted with the secret) to go over to them. But if contrariwise it appear upon search, that their pretensions of this kind are false and groundless, and that the methods of Administering consolation, which are peculiar to that Church, are as well unsafe and deceitful, as singular and unnecessary: Then the same Prudence and sincerity, will oblige a man to suspect that Communion, instead of becoming a proselyte to it, and to look upon the aforesaid boastings as the effect either of designed imposture, or at the least of Ignorance and Delusion.  
Amongst other things that Church highly values itself upon the, Sacrament of Penance (as they call it) and as deeply blames and condemns the Church of England, and other Reformed Churches, for their defect in, and neglect of so important and comfortable an Office. And under that specious pretext, her Emissaries (who are w●nt according to the phrase of the Apostle, to creep into houses, and lead Captive silly Women, etc.) insinuate themselves into such of the People as have more Zeal than knowledge, and now and then wheadle some of them over into their Society. To that purpose, they will not only harangue them with fine stories of the ease and benefit of it, as of an Ancient and usesull Rite, but will also Preach to them the necessity of it, as of Divine Institution, and that it is as important (in its kind) as Baptism or the Lord's Supper. For that Confession to a Priest, and his Absolution thereupon obtained, is the only means appointed by God for the procuring of Pardon of all mortal sins committed after Baptism.  
As for Original sin, or whatsoever 
Concil. Trid. sess. 14 c. 2  actual transgressions may have been committed before Baptism, all those they acknowledge to be washed away in that sacred Laver. And for sins of Infirmity or Venial sins, these may be done away by several easy methods, by Contrition alone (say some,) nay, by Attrition alone (says others.) by Habitual Grace says a 
Vid. Becan. Tract de Sacramentis in specie.  third, etc. But for mortal sins committed after a man is admitted into the Church by Baptism, for these there is no other door of Mercy, but the Priests Lips, nor hath God appointed, or will admit of any other way of Reconciliation than this, of Confession to a Priest, and his Absolution.  
This Sacrament of Penance therefore is called by them, Secunda Tabula post naufragium, the peculiar refuge of a lapsed Christian, the only Sanctuary of a guilty Conscience, the sole means of restoring such a person to Peace of Conscience, the Favour of God, and the hopes of Heaven. And withal, this method is held to be so Sovereign and Effectual a remedy, that it cures toties, quoties; and whatever a man's miscarriages have been, and how often soever repeated, if he do but as often resort to it, he shall return as pure and clean as when he first came from the Font.  
This ready and easy way (say they) hath God allowed men, of quiting all scores with himself, in the use of which they may have perfect peace in their Consciences, and may think of the day of Judgement without horror, having their Case decided before hand by God's deputy the Priest, and their Pardon ready to produce, and plead at the Tribunal of Christ.  
What a mighty defect is it therefore in the Protestant Churches, who wanting this Sacrament, want the principal ministry of reconciliation? And who would not join himself to the Society of that Church, where this great Case is so abundantly provided for? For if all this be true, he must be extremely foolhardy and deserve to perish, who will not be of that Communion from whence the way to Heaven is so very easy and obvious, no wonder therefore I say, if not only the lose and vicious are fond of this Communion where they may sin and confess, and confess and sin again without any great danger, but it would be strange if the more Virtuous and Prudent also, did not out of more caution think it became them to comply with his expedient. For as much as there is no man who understands himself, but must be conscious of having committed sins since his Baptism, and then for fear some of them should prove to be of a mortal nature, it will be his safest course to betake himself to this refuge, and consequently he will easily be drawn to that Church, where the only remedy of his disease is to be had.  
But the best of it is, these things are sooner said then proved, and more easily fancied by silly People, then believed by those of discretion. And therefore there may be no culpable defect in the reformed Churches, that they trust not to this remedy in so great a Case. And as for the Church of England in particular, though she hath no fondness for Mountebank Medicines, as observing them to be seldom successful; yet she is not wanting in her care, and compassion to the Souls of those under her guidance, but expresseth as much tenderness of their peace and comfort, as the Church of Rome can pretend to. Indeed she hath not set up a Confessors Chair in every Parish, nor much less placed the Priest in the Seat of God Almighty, as thinking it safer, at least in ordinary Cases, to remit men to the Text of the written word of God, and to the public Ministry thereof, for resolution of Conscience, then to the secret Oracle of a Priest in a corner, and advises them rather to observe what God himself declares of the nature and guilt of sin, the aggravations or abatements of it, and the terms and conditions of Pardon, than what a Priest pronounces. But however this course doth not please the Church of Rome, for reasons best known to themselves, which if we may guests at, the main seems to be this, they do not think it fit to let men be their own carvers, but lead them like Children by the hand; my meaning is, they keep People as much in ignorance of the Holy Scripture as they can, locking that up from them in an unknown Tongue; now if they may not be trusted with those Sacred Records, so as to inform themselves of the terms of the New Covenant, the conditions of the Pardon of sin, and Salvation, it is then but reasonable that the Priest should Judge for them, and that they await their doom from his Mouth. Yet I do not see why in a Protestant Church, where the whole Religion is in the Mother Tongue, the Old, and especially the New Testament constantly, and conscientiously expounded and the People allowed to search the Scriptures and to see whither things be so or no, I see not, I say, Why in such a case the Priest may not in great measure be excused the trouble of attending secret Confessions, without danger to the Souls of men.  
But besides this, there is a constant use of Confession and Absolution too, in the Church of England, in every day's Service; which though they be both in general terms, as they ought to be in public Worship, yet every Penitent can both from his own conscience supply the generality of the confession by a remorseful reflection upon his own particular sins, as well as if he did it at the knees of a Priest; and also by an Act of Faith can apply the general Sentence of Absolution to his own Soul, with as good and comfortable effects, as if it had been specially pronounced by his Confessor.  
But this public confession doth not please the Romanists neither, and they know a Reason for their dislike; namely, because this doth not conciliate so great a Veneration to the Priesthood, as when all men are brought to kneel to them for Salvation: Neither doth this way make them to pry into the secret thoughts of Men, as Auricular confession doth, wherein the Priest is not only made a Judge of men's estate, but a Spy upon their behaviour, and is capable of becoming an Intelligencer to his Superiors of all the Designs, Interests, and even constitutions of the People.  
Moreover the church of England allows of private confessions also, as particularly in the Visitation of the sick, (which office extends also to them that are troubled in Mind or conscience, as well as to the afflicted in Body) where the Minister is directed to examine particularly the state of the Decumbents soul, to search and rummage his conscience, to try his Faith, his Repentance, his Charity, nay, to move him to make a special confession of his sins, and afterwards to absolve him upon just grounds.  
Nay farther yet, if (besides the case of sickness) any Man shall either out of perplexity of Mind, scrupulosity or remorse of conscience, or any other devout consideration, think it needful to apply himself to a Priest of the church of England for advice, ease, or relief, he hath encouragement and direction so to do in the first Exhortation to the Holy communion, and may be sure to find those who will tenderly, and faithfully, as well as secretly administer to his necessities. So that I see not what defect or omission can be objected to this church in all this Affair, or what Temptation any Man can have upon this account to go from us to the church of Rome.  
But all this will not satisfy them of the Church of Rome, they are neither contented with public confession, nor with private, no nor with secret neither, if it be only occasional or voluntary: It is the universality and necessity of it which they insist upon, for it is not with them a Matter of Ecclesiastical Discipline, to prevent the Scandal of the Society, to conserve the Reverence of the Church, or to restrain men from sinning, or much less an Office of Expediency and Prudence to be resorted to upon exigencies, or such as may accidentally become necessary upon emergency as suppose upon the atrocity of some fact committed, the scandalousness of some persons former life, which may make him more doubtful of his Pardon, the weakness of his Judgement, the Melancholy of his Temper, or the Anxiety of his Mind, or any such like occasion, but it must be the standing indispensable duty of all men, as the condition of the Pardon of their Sins; in one word it must be a Sacrament of Divine institution, and of Universal Obligation.  
For so the Council of Trent determines, Sess. 4. canon 1. Si quis dixerit in Ecclesia catholica poenitentiam non esse vere & proprie Sacramentum pro fidelibus, quoties post Baptismum in peccata labentur, ipsi Deo reconciliandis a Domino nostro institutum, Anathema sit; i. e. Let him be accursed, who shall affirm that Penance is not truly and properly a Sacrament instituted and appointed in the Universal Church, by our Lord Christ himself, for the reconciling those Christians to the Divine Majesty, who have fallen into Sin after their Baptism.  
And in the Doctrinal part of that Decree they teach and assert more particularly; First, That our Saviour instituted this Sacrament expressly, Joh. 20. 22.  
2. That this Sacrament consists of two parts, viz. The Matter and the Form; the matter 
Sess, 14. Cap. 2.  of the Sacrament (or quasi materia, as they cautiously speak) is the act or acts of the Penitent, namely, contrition, confession, and Satisfaction; the Form of it is the act of the Priest in these words, Absolvote.  
3. That therefore it is the duty of every Man 
cap. 3.  who hath fallen after Baptism, as aforesaid, to confess his sins at least once a year to a Priest.  
4. That this confession is to be secret; for public 
cap. 5.  confession they say is neither commanded nor expedient.  
5. That this confession of Mortal sin be very 
Ibid.  exact and particular, together with all circumstances, especially such as speciem facti mutant, altar the kind or degree of sin, and that it extend to the most secret sins, even of thought, or against the 9th. and 10th. Commandment. 
Ibid.   
9 That the Penitent thus doing, the Absolution of the Priest here upon pronounced is not 
Cap. 6.  conditional or declarative only, but absolute and judicial.  
Now in opposition to this Doctrine and Decree of theirs, and the practice of that Church pursuant thereof, as well as in defence of the Doctrine and practice of the Church of England in that particular, I will here endeavour to make good these Three things.  
1. That our blessed Lord and Saviour hath neither in his Gospel instituted such an Auricular Confession as aforesaid, nor much less, such a Sacrament of Penance as the Church of Rome supposes in the recited Decree,  
2. That Auricular Confession hath not been of constant and universal use in the Christian Church, as the Romanists pretend, much less looked upon as of Sacramental and necessary Obligation.  
3. That Auricular confession as it is now used in the Church of Rome, is not only unneceslary and burdensome, but in many respects very mischievous to Piety, and the great ends of Christian Religion.  
If the first of these appear to be true, then (at the worst) the want of such an Auricular confession in the reformed Churches, can be but an irregularity, and no essential defect.  
If the second of these assertions be made good, than it can be no defect at all in those Churches that use not such a Rite, but a novely and imposition on their parts who so strictly require it.  
But if the third be true: it will be the corruption and great fault of the Church of Rome to persevere in the injunction and practice of it, and the excellency and commendation of those Churches which exclude it  
I begin with the first, that it doth not appear that our Saviour hath instituted such an Auricular Confession, of such a Sacrament of Penance as the Church of Rome pretends and practices.  
I confess it is a Negative which I here undertake to make good, which is accounted a difficult Province, but the Council of Trent hath relieved us in that particular by founding the Institution expressly upon that one passage of the Gospel, Joh. 20. 2z. So that we shall not need to examine the whole Body of Scripture to discover what footsteps of Divine Institution may be found here or there, for the Council wholly insists and relies upon that Text of St. John, and therefore if that fail them, the whole Hypothesis falls to the ground.  
Now for the clearing of this, let us lay the words before us; and they are these, He breathed on them, and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.  
Here I appeal to any Man that hath Eyes in his Head, or Ears to hear, whither in this Text there be any one word of Auricular Confession, or much less of such a circumstantiated one as they require; And this is so manifest and notorious, that their own ancient Canonists and several of their learned Divines are ashamed of the pretence of Divine Institution founded upon this or any other passage of Scripture, and therefore are content to defend the practice of the Church of Rome in this particular, upon the account of the Authority, and general usage of the Church; which we shall come to examine by and by in its due place.  
In the mean time I cannot choose but admire the mighty Faith of a Romanist, who can believe in spite of his own Eyes. It seemed to us an unsuperable difficulty heretofore, for a Man to persuade himself that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist Bread was transubstantiated into Flesh, because it was against the express Testimony of Sense, yea, although for that there was the countenance of Five figurative (but mistaken) words to support the credulity; but this of the Sacrament of Penance clearly out does it, for here a Man must believe a thing to be, when as there is not so much as one word for the ground of his Faith, or the proof of the thing in question. How many Sacraments may not such men have if they please? What voluminous Creeds may not they swallow and digest? What Mountains may not such a wonderful Faith remove?  
But let us hear what they have to say for themselves, perhaps in the first place they will plead the Authority of the Council of Trent, which hath peremptorily determined the sense of the passage of the Gospel to the purpose aforesaid. Indeed that Council in the third Canon of their fourteenth Session, doth damn all those who deny that a Sacrament of Penance and Auricular Confession is prescribed in that Text of St. John, or who apply it to any other purpose. But in so doing, they both usurp a Prerogative which was never pretended to, or practised by any Council before them, and withal they betray a consciousness that the Text itself yielded no sufficient evidence of the thing which they designed to countenance by it; for what Councils (ever till now) brought a Text, and then imposed an Interpretation upon it contrary to the words? And then backed that Interpretation with an Anathema? If the Text were plain or could be made so, why was not that done? And to be sure if that cannot be done by other means, the curse will not do it; at least to any but very obedient Roman consciences. Besides if this course be allowed, I see not but a Council may bring in what Religion they please, having first made a Nose of Wax of the Holy Scripture, and then writhed it into what shape they best fancy; for in such a case, if the words of the Gospel do not favour me, I can govern the sense and if the letter be silent or intractable, I can help that with an Interpretation; and if I have authority or confidence enough to impose that under the peril of Anathema, I am no longer an Interpreter or a Judge, but a Lawgiver, and need not trouble myself with Scriptum est, but may (if I will speak plain) say decretum est, and the business is done.  
But if neither the Letter of Scripture, nor the Authority of a Council will do in this case, then in the second place they think they have at least some colour of Reason to relieve them; and if they cannot find Auricular Confession in the Text, yet they will by consequence infer it thence; for they say although indeed it is true it is not here expressly mentioned, yet it is certain that our Saviour in the Text before us instituted a Sacrament of penance and therefore Auricular Confession must necessarily be implied because absolution cannot be without confession.  
Here the Reader will observe that the point in Question between us is very much altered, for we are now fallen from the consideration of the Divine Institution of Auricular confession in particular to that of a Sacrament of Penance in general, i. e. from direct proof to a subintelligitur. But we will follow them hither also, and for the clearing of this matter we will briefly consider these three things.  
1. Wither that can properly be said to be of Divine Institution, and necessary to salvation, which depends on an inference, and is proved only by an innuendo?  
2. Wither it can be reasonable to assert that our Saviour there institutes a Sacrament of Penance, where not only Auricular confession, but the whole matter of such a Sacrament is left undefined?  
3. Whither if our Saviour (had done that which it is plain he hath not, that is,) had here instituted and appointed all those things, which by the church of Rome are required as the material parts of Penance, yet this could have been a Sacrament?  
1. For the first of these, we have no more to do but to consider the force and signification of this word Institution. Now that in the common use of men (especially of those which speak distinctly and understandingly) implies a setting up de novo or the appointing that to become a duty, which was not knowable, or at least not known to be so before it became so appointed. For this word Institution is that which we use to express a positive command by, in opposition to that which is Moral in the strictest sense, and of natural obligation. Now it is very evident that all things of this Nature ought to be appointed very plainly and expressly, or else they can carry no obligation with them; for seeing the whole Reason of their becoming matter of Law or Duty, lies in the will of the Legislator, if that be not plainly discovered, they cannot be said to be instituted, and so there can be no Obligation to observe them, because where there is no Law there can be no Transgression; and a Law is no Law in effect which is not sufficiently promulged. Is it not therefore a very strange thing to tell us of an Institution by implication only, and yet at the 
Sess. 14. c. 2.  same time to tell us that the matter so (pretended to be) instituted, is no less than absosolutely necessary to the Salvation of Sinners?  
2. The second of these will easily be resolved by considering what we observed before from the 
Sess. 14. C. 3.  Council of Trent, viz. that this Sacrament of Penance consists of Matter and Form; the Form is the Priest's Absolution, but the Matter or Materials of this Sacrament are Contrition, Confession to a Priest, and Satisfaction or Performance of the Penance enjoined by him; now it is evident that not only Auricular Confession (of which we have spoken hitherto, but also Contrition and Satisfaction are wholly omitted and passed over in silence by the Evangelist in this passage of Scripture, from whence they fetch their Sacrament of Penance: and is it not a wonderfully strange thing, that our Savionr should be supposed to institut a Sacrament without any Materials of it at all? Surely therefore this must be either a very Spiritual Sacrament, or none at all.  
Let us guests at the probability of this in proportion to either of the other undoubted Sacraments. Suppose our Saviour instead of that accurate form in which he instituted the Eucharist had only said I would have you my Disciples and all that shall believe on my Name to keep a Memorial of me when I am gone: Or suppose he said only as he doth, John 6. 55. My Flesh is Meat indeed, and my Blood is Drink indeed; would any one have concluded here, that our Saviour in so saying, had appointed Bread and Wine to be consecrated, to be received in such a manner, and in a word that he had (without more ado) instituted such a Sacrament as we usually celebrate? No certainly, and therefore we see our Saviour is the most express and particular therein that can be, for he takes Bread, blesses it, breaks it, gives it to them, saying, Take eat, this is my Body, etc. and after Supper he takes the Cup, blesses it, gives it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this, for this is the New Testament in my Blood, etc. and then adds, Do this in remembrance of Me. Now who is there that observes this accuracy of our Saviour in the Eucharist, can imagine that he should intent to institute a Sacrament of Penance, and that as necessary to Salvation (in the Opinion of the Romanists) as the other, only with this Form of words, Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted, etc. and without the least mention of Confession, Contrition, or any other Material or necessary Part or Circumstance of it.  
2. But in the third and last place, let us suppose that our Saviour had in the Text before us instituted Penance, and had appointed particularly all those things, which they call the Material parts of it, (as it is evident he hath not) yet even then, and upon that Supposition, Penance would not have proved to be a Sacrament properly so called.  
I confess according to a lose acceptation of the word Sacrament, something may be said for it; for so there are many things have had the name of Sacrament applied to them. Tertullian somewhere calls Elisha's Axe the Sacrament of Wood, and in his Book against Martion, he styles the whole Christian Religion a Sacrament. St. Austin in several places calls Bread, Fish, the Rock, and the Mystery of Number, Sacraments, for he hath given us a general Rule in his Fifth Epistle, viz. That all signs when they belong to divine things are called Sacrament●: And in consideration hereof it is acknowledged by Cassander, that the Number of Sacraments was indefinite in the Church of Rome itself, until the times of Peter Lombard. But all this notwithstanding, and properly speaking, this Rite of Penance taking it altogether (and even supposing whatsoever the Romanists can suppose to belong to it) cannot be reputed a Sacrament, according to the allowed definitions of a Sacrament delivered by their own Divines. Some of them define a Sacrament thus, 
a Hugo de S. Vict. lib. de Sacram.  Sacramentum est corporale elementum foris sensibiliter propositum, ex similitudine repraesentans & ex institutione significans, & ex Sanctificatione continens invisibilem gratiam. And the 
b Magist. Sent. lib. 4. dist. 1.  Master of the sentences himself describes it somewhat more briefly, but to the same effect in these words: Sacramentum est invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma, ejusdem gratiae imaginem gerens & causa existens; both which definitions are acknowledged and applauded by the Jesuit 
c Becanus Tract. 2. de Sacramentis.  Becanus: And the plain truth is a Sacrament cannot be better expressed in so few words, than it is by St. 
d Aug. c. Faust. Lib. 19 c. 16.  Austin when he calls it verbum visibile a visible Word or Gospel: For it pleased the Divine Wisdom and Goodness by this institution of Sacraments to condescend to our weakness, and thereby to give us sensible Tokens or Pleges of what he had promised in his Written word, to the intent that our dulness might be relieved, and our Faith assisted; forasmuch as herein, our Eyes and other senses, as well as our Ears are made Witnesses of his gracious intentions. Thus by Baptismal washing he gives us a sensible token and representation of our regeneration, and the washing away of our sins by the Blood of Christ; and by the participation of Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper we have a Token and Symbol of our Union with Christ, our Friendship with God and communion with each other▪  
But now it is manifest there is no such thing as this in their Sacrament of Penance (as even Bellarmine himself confesses.) For they do not say or mean that the Absolution of the Priest is a Token or Emblem of God's forgiveness, but that the Priest actually pardons in God's stead, by Virtue of a Power delegated to him. So that according to them, here must be a Sacrament, not only without any material parts instituted, but also without any thing Figurative, Symbolical, or Significative which seems to be as expressly contrary to their own Doctrine in the aforesaid definitions as to the truth itself.  
Nay, farther to evince the difference of this Rite of Penance from all other proper Sacraments; it deserves observation, that whereas in those other acknowledged Sacraments, the Priest in God's Name delivers to us the Pledges and Symbols of Divine Grace, Here in this of Penance we must bring all the material parts and Pledges ourselves, and present them to God, or to the Priest in his stead: My meaning is, that whereas (for instance) in Baptism the Priest applies to us the Symbol of Water, and in the Eucharist delivers to us the consecrated Elements in token of the Divine Grace, contrariwise here in Penance we must on our parts bring with us contrition, confession, and satisfaction too, in which respect we may be rather said to give Pledges to God, than he to us; which is widely different from the Nature of other Sacraments, and seems no less to be contrary to the reason and Notion of a Sacrament in general.  
The sum of what we have hitherto discoursed, amounts to this; First, That here is no Auricular confession instituted by our Saviour, Joh. 20. 22. As was pretended. Secondly, Not, any Sacrament of Penance in which it can be included or implied; no nor indeed any Sacrament at all.  
I confess I might have spared all the words I have used in proving the latter, for so long as I have made appear that private confession is not instituted, it was not so very material to consider whither penance could be a Sacrament or no; but this I added to show the imperious dictates of that church, and their extravagancy in imposing the most sacred Names upon their own inventions, thereby to give them the greater veneration with the People.  
And thus I would dismiss the first part of my undertaking, yet the Romanists will not forego their pretensions for Auricular confession; for they will yet urge, that wihther or no we will call it a Sacrament which our Saviour institutes in the Text before us, it is however certain here is a Power conferred on the Apostles, and their Successors, of remitting and retaining sins; for by these words, Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted, etc. * Our Saviour had made the 
Christus constituit Sacerdote● sui ipsius Vicarios. Sess. 14. Praesides & Judices Ibid. 4. Sacerdos solvit peccata potestate quadam praetoria Bellar. lib. 1. de Sacram. c. 10. Christus ratam habet sententiam a Sacerdote latam, Id. lib. 3. c. 2.  Priest a judge of men's consciences and conditions; Wherefore that he may not proceed blindly and indiscriminatly it is necessary that he know the merits of the Cause, and not only understand the matter of fact, but all the circumstances which may aggravate or extenuate it, all which cannot be attained without the Confession of the party, therefore Auricular confession is as necessarily implied in the Text, as Absoltion or Retention of sins expressed in is it. So they.  
But I crave leave to demand in the first place, Is it certain that upon such a confession as they require, the Priest (as such) will be able to make a right judgement of a Man's case that addresses himself to him, especially considering the intricacy of some cases, and the ignorance of some Priests; upon this account are those memorable words of St. Austin confess. lib. 10. c. 3. Quid mihi ergo est cum hominibus ut audiant confessiones meas, qua●i ipsi sanaturi sint omnes languores meos, & unde sciunt cum a meipso de meipso audiunt, an verum dicam? Quandoquidem nemo scit hominum quid agitur in homine, nisi spiritus hominis qui in ipso est. i e. To what purpose should I Confess my sins to Men who cannot heal my wounds? For how shall they (who know nothing of my heart but by my own Confession) know whither I say true or no? For no one knows what is in Man, but the Spirit of Man that is in him. O Yes, they will say, Clavae non errante, that is to say, if he judge right, he judges right, and no more, and this is mighty comfort to a distressed conscience.  
Secondly, Though we grant our Saviour hath given the Priest Authority to Remit and Retain sins, yet how doth it appear that this extends to Secret sins; sins in thought only, or as the Council expresses it against the ninth and tenth Commandments? Of open ●ins and public scandals the Church hath cognizance, and hath a right which she may insist upon, or recede from, if she see cause, because such sins are an injury to the Society as well as an offence against God, and therefore here the Officers of the Church may dispense her Authority, and Remit or Retain (as we shall see more by and by;) but in secret sins where only GOD is injured, and to that which he is only privy, what hath the Church to do, unless they be volunlarily discovered to her? Otherwise they are properly reserved Cases to the Tribunal of God  
Thirdly, I would be bold to inquire farther, why may not sins especially such as we last named, be Remitted upon Confession to God, without Confession to the Priest also? And I the rather ask this for these two reasons, First I observe that this very Council of Trent saith, that until the times 
Sess. 14, c. 1.  of our Saviour, and his Institution of this Sament, sins were remitted upon contrition only, and application to the mercies of God, without Auricular confession. They cannot therefore now say, remission implies this Confession, for that cannot be said to be implied in the nature of a thing, when the thing itself can be had without it.  
They will answer that it is sufficient, that it is now made necessary by our Saviour. But I reply, Then that Institution which now makes it necessary, must be better proved then yet it hath been, or else Men will be very apt to hope they may now under the Gospel obtain Pardon (at least) upon as easy terms as it was to be had at before.  
My Second reason of ask that third Question is this; I observe that their own Schoolmen 
Aquinas sum. part. 3. Q. 68  acknowledge sins to be remitted under the Gospel by the Priest without any Confession to Men, particularly in the Administration of Baptism, by which it plainly appears, that Confession is not implied in the nature of Remission, but one may be had without the other, and then why may not a sinner after Baptism, hope for Pardon upon his contrite and devout application to the Word and Sacraments, without this new device and picklock of Conscience, Auricular Confession.  
But so much for that.  
Sect. 3. I proceed now to the second thing propounded, namely, to inquire historically whither or no Auricular, or such a secret, and Sacramental Confession, as aforesaid, hath been of constant and universal use in the Christian Church, as the Romanists pretend, and as the Council of Trent asserts, Sessi. 14 Chap. 5.  
This inquiry is not into matter of Law or Divine Right, as the former was, but of Fact only, yet nevertheless it is of great moment upon a double account:  
1. Because this is the ground which the Old Roman Canonists wholly went upon, (as I noted before;) they exploded all pretence of Divine Institution in the case, as having more modesty (it seems) then to pretend so high upon no better evidence, or at least they contented themselves to prescribe for it only upon the Authority of constant and universal practice; now if we show the falseness of this ground, as well as of the other, then will their Hypothesis of Auricular Confession have no foot to stand upon.  
2. Because the Credit of what hath been already said under the former head, doth very much depend upon this, and that Discourse will be confirmed or impaired respectively to what shall be evidently made out in this second point. Forasmuch as if on the one side it be made apparent that such a Rite hath been of constant use in the Christian Church, it will afford a great presumption that it took its rise at first from Divine Institution, notwithstanding all we have offered to the contrary. So on the other side, if the Evidence here answer not the Pretention; and no sufficient footsteps of constant and universal practice appear: Then will all that which we have hitherto discoursed, be greatly strengthened and confirmed; because it is by no means probable, that if there had been a Divine Law in the case, that such a thing would have been generally neglected by the Christian Church.  
Now for the clearing of this, though I am here only upon the defensive, and so bound to no more than to examine the proofs which the Romanists bring for their pretensions, yet I will deal ingenuously, as seeking not to find Flaws, but to discover the Truth, and therefore give these instances as so many reasons for the Negative.  
In the first place I crave leave to premise this: If Auricular Confession were so great a Gospel mystery, so wonderfully efficacious a method of saving Souls, as to be typified in the Law (as the Romanists teach) as well as instituted in the Gospel and practised by the whole Church, one might seem justly to wonder how it comes to pass that there should be no mention, nor appearance of it in the whole course of our Saviour's own Ministry; he used to be an example, as well ●● a Lawgiver to the Church, he washed his Disciples Feet, before he enjoined them to wash one another; he exemplified the other Sacraments before he prescribed his Apostles to administer them, and one would have thought such an Instance of his example had been more necessary in this business of Penance, rather than any other, if it had been but to make way for the Understanding of so obscure an Institution; since especially, one would have thought to find some Traces of this in the Ministry of our Saviour, because he daily conversed with sinners he reproved them, instructed them, healed them, pardoned them, but never brought any of them to such a Confession as we are treating of; viz. To a particular enumeration of their sins, with the circumstances, nor upon so doing formally absolved them. His very Disciples (some of which had been great sinners) were admitted without it; the Woman of Samaria was told her by him all that ever she did, but she was not brought on her knees to make her own Confession; but most strange of all it is, that the Woman taken in Adultery, when he had made her accusers slink away, was not privately brought to it; it may be they will say, there was no need of Confession to him who knew all before, but yet it might have been necessary to bring these Sinners to be ashamed of themselves by that means to work Repentance, and fit them for Pardon, at least if this Method had been of such mighty use and wonderful necessity as is pretended.  
2. But to let pass that; in the next place it is matter of wonder that nothing of this practice appears in the Ministry of the Apostles; they went about preaching the Gospel, calling Men to Repentance, erecting and governing Churches, but never set themselves down in a Confessors chair for Penitents, secretly to tell them in their Ear, the story of their vicious Lives; indeed we read, Acts 19 18. That some came in and shown their deeds; but first it was voluntary, and in a fit of Holy Zeal, for we cannot find that they were required to do it, as of a Sacramental Obligation; and besides, the Confession was public before the Church, not clancular, and whispered in secret; it is true also that St. James chap. 5. 16. advices the Christians to confess their faults one to another, (which is made a mighty evidence in this Case;) but it is as true, that this was spoken in an extraordinary case, as appears verse 14. in bodily sickness and distress of Conscience, they are advised to lay open their condition, in order to Relief and Succour, by the more ardent and affectionate Prayers of those who should be privy to it, but it is not made a standing and universal Rule for all Men to comply with it, whither they be sick or well, in prosperity or adversity, perplexed or quiet in their Consciences, much less of Sacramental and Necessary Obligation, as in the Roman Church.  
3. Let us go on in the next Ages after the Apostles, for about two hundred years we hear not one word of this kind of Confession, which we inquire for. Indeed the Writings of that time which are extant, are not many, but if this business had Been of such consequence as is pretended, it is strange that those Holy Men Ignatius, Clemens, and Justin Martyr, should not have made mention of it.  
Indeed Bellarmine brings us one instance within this Period, and that is from Irenaeus, who speaking of certain Women who had been abused by Martion the Heretic, saith they afterwards came and confessed, with shame and sorrow, to the Church. But what is this to the purpose? We dispute not about Public Confession, which is acknowledged to be truly Primitive, and we wish it had been constantly maintained in after Ages, it is o●ly the necessity of Clancular Confession that we are unsatisfied in, and this passage speaks nothing at all to that case.  
4. In Tertullia's time, which was also much about Two hundred Years after our Saviour, we find great things said of Confession, but it is of that which was public, and in the face of the Church, not to a Priest in a Corner, and this indeed was greatly encouraged and required by the Holy Men of those times, as that which in the Case of open and scandalous sins, freed the Church both from the guilt, and from the reproach of them, and in the case of secret sins, was a means (by open shame) to bring Men to Repentance, and so to Pardon. And the confession was principally directed to God, who was the person offended by the sin, yet it was made before Men to raise a fervency in their Prayers, as is noted before, and to obtain their effectual intercession with God on behalf of the penitent. This that Ancient writer makes manifest to be his Sense in his Book de Poenitentia in these words Plerumque vero jejuniis preces alere, ingemiscere, lachrymari, & mugire dies noctesque ad Dominum Deum tuum, Presbyteris advolvi, & aris (or rather charis) Dei adgeniculari, omnibus fratribus legationes suae deprecationis injungere, haec omnia ex homologesis ut poenitentiam commendet, etc. The penitent often joins Fasting to his Prayers, Weeps, Wails and moans night and day before God, casts himself at the feet of the Priests, knelt to all holy people, 
Tertull. Apol. c. 39  and entreats all the Brethren to be his Intercessors with God Almighty for his Pardon: This is penitential Confession, etc. And in his Apology more plainly; Coimus in Caetum, etc. ibidem exhortationes, castigationes & censura divina nam & judicatur magno cum pondere ut apud certos de Dei conspectu, summumque futuri judicii praejudicium est si quis ita deliquerit ut a communione, etc. religetur; we have (saith he) in our Ecclesiastical Assemblies, a Spiritual Judicature, and with great gravity censure offenders, etc. But I need say no more of this, for we have the Testimony of Beatus Rhenanus, one of the Roman Church 
Beatus Rhenan, in praef ad Tertull. de poeitent.  and of great insight into Ecclesiastical Affairs, who gives us this account of Tertullian and his times, nihil illum de clancularia illa poenitentia loqui, quae id temporis penitus ignorabatur; there was no such thing as secret or Clancular Confession in use in Tertullian's time, which was a thing not so much as known by the Christian Church in those days.  
5. To go a little lower, such was the manner of proceed in St. Cyprian's time. as he himself describes it, the sinner by outward 
St. Syprian. Lib. 3. Eph. 15.  gestures and tokens showed himself to be sorrowful and penitent for his sin, and then made humble Confession thereof before the whole Congregation, and desired all the Brethren to pray for him; which done, the Bishop and Clergy laid their hands upon him, and so reconciled him: So it was also in Origen's time, and once for all, to deliver the Custom of 
Origen in Ps. 37.  the Church in those times, touching this particular, I will add the words of the Historian, Rei ad terram se pronos abjiciunt, etc. they that are Conscious to themselves to 
Sozomen L. 7. Cap. 16.  have offended, fall down flat upon the ground with Weeping and Lamentations in the Church, on the other side the Bishop runs to them with tears in his Eyes, and falls down to the ground also in token of Sorrow and compassion, and the whole congregation in the mean while sympathising with both, is overwhelmed with tears, etc.  
6. If we go lower yet to the times of St. Chrysostom and St. Austin, we 
St. Chrysost. ad Hebr, Homil. 31. Id. in Serm. de Confess. & poenit. etc.  find those Holy Men speaking very slightly of confessions to Men, so little did they think of Auricular confession being a Sacrament. St. Austin's Judgement in the case we have heard before, in the Tenth Book of his confessions, and third chapter; and for the other, the Testimonies out of him are so many, and so well known, that I cannot think it necessary to transcribe them; and for St. Jerom who lived about the same time, I think it sufficient to repeat the account of Erasmus, who was very conversant in his Writings, and indeed of all the other Fathers, and who had no other fault I know, but that he did use Mordaci rodere vero, to be too great a Telltruth; which sure will not invalidate his Testimony; his words are these, Apparet tempore Hier●●●●● nondum institutam fuisse secretam admissor●m Confessionem. 〈◊〉 in hoc labuntur Theologi quidam parum attenti, quod quae veteres soribunt de publica & generali confession, ea trabunt ad occultam & long diversi generis, i. e. It is evident (saith he) that in St. Jerom's time (which was about Four hundred years after our Saviour) there was no such thing as Secret Confession in use; but the mistake is that some few latter and inconsiderate Divines have taken the instances of general and public Confession then practised for arguments of that Auricular Confession which is now used, though quite of a different nature from it.  
Thus we have traced the current of Antiquity for Four or Five hundred years to search for the Head of this Nilus, the source and rise of that kind of Confession which is so highly magnified by the Church of Rome, but hitherto we have found nothing of it, and this methinks should be sufficient to stagger an impartial inquirer, (at least it is as much as can be expected in so short a Treanse as this is intended to be) and may satisfy the unprejudicat that there is little of Antiquity to favour this Rite, as there is of Divine Institution to be pleaded for it. But yet I know on the other side, that the Romanists pretend to bring abundance of Testimonies for it, and Bellarmine particularly goes from Century to Century with his Citations to prescribe for the constant and uninterupted use of it, but I do sincerely think that these Four following short Observations will inablea Man to answer them all.  
1. I observe that whereas this word Exomologesis is commonly used by divers of the Fathers, as the Phrase whereby they intent to express the whole nature of Repentance in all the parts and branches of it, as is evident by the passage I cited out of Tertullian de Poenit. even now, and is acknowledged by Bellarmine himself; nevertheless, merely because that word signifies Confession properly, and nothing else, these Romish Sophisters, where they find this word Exomologesis, force it into an Argument for that Confession, which they contend for; and so several Discourses of the Father's concerning Repentance in general, are made to be nothing but Exhortations to, or Encomiums of Confession in particular, and that must be nothing else neither but Auricular Confession, though thing in Question. A cast of his skill in this way, Bellarmine gives us in Irenaeus, the very first Author he citys for Auricular Confession in the last quoted Book and Chapter of his Writings De Sacramentis.  
2. Whereas the Novatians excluded all hopes of Repentance or Pardon for sins committed after Baptism, but the true Church contrariwise admitted to hopes of Pardon upon their Repentance; upon this occasion, when some of the Fathers justly magnify the advantages, and comfortableness of the true Church above the Schismatical, as that it set open a Door of hope to those who conessed their sins, and applied themselves to the Ministry: Hence hese witty men will persuade the World, that every true Church had a Confessors Chair, and such a formal way of pardoning as they now practise at Rome; as if there was no remission of Sin where there was no Auricular Confession, and as if all that excluded the latter, rejected the former too, and were no better than Novatian Heretics; when as in Truth the Power of the Keys is exercised in all the Minstries of the Church, and 
Bella●m. de Poenit. Lib. 3. c. 8.  she pardons and retains sins, otherwise then by the Oracle of a particular confessor, as we have seen already. This piece of juggling the same Bellarmine is also guilty of in his Citation of Lactantius.  
3. Whereas the Ancient Writers are much in the Commendation of confession of Sins, whither it be to GOD or to the church, but generally intending that which is Public, it is common with those of the church of Rome, to lay hold of all such say as were intended to persuade to, and encourage public confessions, and to apply them to Auricular or clancular confessions, thus particularly the aforesaid Author does by Tertullian in his citation of him.  
4. And Lastly, Whereas it is also true that several 
Id. lib. 3. c. 6.  of those Holy Men of Old, do in some cases very much recommend confession of secret sins, and persuade some sorts of Men, to ●he use of it, namely those that are in great perplexity of conscience and that needed Ghostly Counsel and Advice, or to the intent that they n●ight obtain the assistance of the Church's Prayers, and make them the more ardent and effectual on their behalf, whereas I say, they recommend this an expression of Zeal, or a prudent expedient, or at most as necessary only in some cases pro hic & nunc. These great Patrons of Auricular confession do with their usual artifice apply all these passages, to prove it to be a standing and universally necessary duty, a Law to all Christians, this is a very common salt amongst them, and particularly St. Cyprian is thus mis●pplyed by the same forementioned Writer, lib. 3. cap. 7.  
Hitherto enquiring into the most Ancient and Purest Times of the Church, by the Writings of the Fathers of those times, we have not been able to discover any sufficient ground for such an Auricular confession, as the Church of Rome pretends to, much less for a constant and uninterrupted succession of it. But now after all I m●st acknowledge there is a passage in Ecclasiastical 
S●cra●. Hist. Lib. 5. cap. 19 S. ●●●nen. Lib. 7. C. 16.  History which seems to promise us satisfaction wherein and 〈…〉 by n● me● 〈…〉 slightly passed over 〈…〉 it is the famous story of Nect●rius Bishop of Constantin●ple; and Predecessor to St. Chrysostom, which happened something loss then Four hundred years after our Saviour.  
The Story as it is related by the joint Testimony of Socrates and Sozomen runs thus: In the time of this Nectarius there was (it seems) a custom in that church (as also in most others) that one of the Presbyters of greatest Piety, Wisdom, and Gravity should be chosen Penitentiary, that is, be appointed to the peculiar Office of receiving confessions, and to assist, and direct the Penitents in the management of their Repentance: Now it happens that a certain Woman of Quality; stricken with remorse of conscience comes to the Pene●entiary (that then was) and according to custom, makes a particular confession of all such sins, as she was conscious to herself to have committed since her Baptism, for which he according to his Office appointed her the Penance of Fasting. and continual Prayers to expiate her Gild, and give proof of the Truth of her Repentance. But she proceeding on very particularly in her confessions, at last amongst other things comes to declare that a certain Deacon of that church had lain with her; upon notice of which horrid Fact, the Deacon is forthwith cashiered and cast out of the church: By which means the miscarriage takes Air, and coming to the knowledge of the People; they presently fall into a mighty commotion and rage about it; partly in detestation of so foul an Action of the Deacon, but principally in contemplation of the Dishonour and Scandal thereby reflected on the whole Church. The Bishop finding the Honour of the whole Body of his Clergy extremely concerned in this accident, and being very anxious what to do in this case, at last by the Council of one Eudaemon a Presbyter of that Church, he resolves thenceforth to abolish the Office of Penitentiary, both to extinguish the present flame, and to prevent the like occasion for the future; and now by this means every Man is left to the conduct of his own Conscience, and permitted to partake of the Holy Mysteries at his own peril. This is the matter of fact faithfully rendered from the words of the Historian; but this if we take it in the gross, and look no farther than so, will not do much towards the deciding of the present controversy, we will therefore examine things a little more narrowly by the help of such hints as those Writters afford us, perhaps we may make good use of it at last; and to this purpose,  
1. I observe in the first place, that though at the first blush here seem to be an early and great example of that Auricular Con●●ssion which we oppose, forasmuch as here is not only the Order of the Church of Constantinople, for Confession to a Priest, but that to be made of all sins commit ● after Baptism, and this to be made to him in secret; notwithstanding upon a more through view it will appear quite another thing from that pleaded for, and practised by the Church of Rome, and that especially in the respects following: First, In the Auricular Confession in the Story, there is some remainder of the ancient Discipline of the Church (whose Confessions used to be open and public, as I have showed) in that here a public Officer is appointed by the Church to receive them, such an one as whose Prudence, and Learning, and Piety she could confide in for a business of so great nicety and difficulty, and it is neither left to the Penitent to choose his confident for his Confessor, nor at large for every Priest to represent the Authority of the Church in so ticklish an Affair as that of Discipline, but to a public Officer appointed by the Church for this purpose; so that Confession to him cannot be said to be private, seeing it is done to the whole Church by him. To confirm which, Secondly, This Penitentiary it seems was bound (as there was occasion) to discover the matters (opened to him in secret) to the Church, as appears in the Crime of the Deacon in the Story; there was no pretence of a Sale of Confession in this Case, as in the Church of Rome, by Virtue of which a Man may confess and go on to sin again secretly, without danger of being brought upon the Stage, whatsoever the atrocity of his Crime be, and indeed without any effectual course in Order to his Repentance and Reformation. Again, Thirdly, This Confession in the Story doth not pretend to be of absolute necessity as if a Man's sins might not be pardoned without it, but only a prudent Provision of the Church to help Men forward in their Repentance, to direct the Acts and Expressions of it, and especially to relieve perplexed and weak Consciences, and to assist them in their preparations for the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; and this appears, amongst other things, by the account which the Historian gives us of the consequence of abolishing it, viz. That now every Man is left to his own conscience about his partaking of the holy Mysteries; but it is not said or intimated that he was left under the guilt of his Sins, for want of Confession. To which add in the last place, that this Office whatever it was, was not reputed a Sacrament, but rather, as I noted before, an expedient to prepare men for it, for doubtless neither that Bishop, nor that Church would have ever consented to the abolition of a Sacrament, for the sake of such a Scandal as happened in the mismanagement of it, or if they had done so, much less can it be imagined that the greatest part of the Christian Church would have concurred with them in it, as we shall by and by see they did.  
2. I observe concerning the beginning of this Penitentiary Office, the time and occasion of this usage; namely, that the Historians do not pretend it to have been Apostolical, much less of strictly Divine Institution, but they lay the Heat of its first rise about the time of the Decian Persecution, which was about Two hundred years after our Saviour, I confess Nicephorus would persuade us of its greater 
Nicephor, Lib, 12. Cap. 28.  Antiquity, and that it was rather revived, then instituted at that time, for he speaking of the bringing it into use at the Decian Persecution saith, Ecclesiasticco canoni heremenos, i. e. The Church pursuant of the Ancient Ecclesiastical Canons constituted a Penitentiary, etc. And Petavius is so addicted to the Roman Hypothesis, as very unreasonably to favour this Conceit; but the Truth seems to be (as Valesius very ingenuously acknowledges) only this, that here was a mistake of the import of the words of the Historian, who saith only that when the Church had chosen their Penitentiary canoni prosethesan, they added him to the Canon, that is to the number of those in the Matricula or Roll of such as were to be maintained in and by the Church, or as we would say they made him Canon of the Church; not that he was Constituted in such an Office, pursuant of that Ancienter Law or Canon, as Nicephorus carelessly or wilfully mistakes Besides afterwards when the Historian observes that the Novatians universally withstood this Order from the beginning of it, he calls it prostheken tauten q. d. This new Institution, or Addition, or Supplement of the Ancient Rites of the Church; so that there is no reason we should date this Institution higher than the Historian doth. namely, after the Decian Persecution.  
But what should be the ground and reasons of erecting this new Office, and Officer in the Church then, if it was not before? Of this I give two accounts.  
First, The Church being now very numerous, and the Zeal and Devotion very great; and what by the compassionate reception which the Church gave to Penitents, and her ardent Prayers for them, what by the earnest harangues of Holy Men to move People to repentance, abundance were inclined to confess their sins, and this confession being till that time accustomed to be open, and public in the face of the congregation, it must needs happen (all those circumstances considered together) that a great many things would be brought upon the Stage, the Publication of which would be attended with great inconveniences; for some sins are of that Nature, that they scarce can take Air without spreading a contagion, some confessions would make sport for light and vain Persons, and besides abundance of other inconveniences (easy to be imagined by any one) the publication of some sins might expose the Penitents to the severity of the Pagan criminal Judge; upon these and such like considerations, the church thought fit therefore (as I have intimated before) to appoint one wise and very grave Person in her steed to receive the confessions; who by this discretion might so determinat matters, that what things were fit for silence, might have private Methods applied to them, but what were fit to be brought upon the Stage, might be made Public examples of, or receive a Public remedy,  
Secondly, But the Historian leads us to a more special Reason of this Institution at that time; namely, that the rage of the Decian Persecution cruelly shock the Church, and abundance of her weaker members fell off in the Storm, and which was worst of all the Church was distracted about the restitution ●or final rejection of those that bade so miscarried; for though the best and wisest of the Church were so merciful and considerate of humane infirmity, as to be willing to receive those in again, upon Repentance, over whom the Temptation of fear had too much prevailed, yet the Novatians a great and Zealous part of Christianity, looked upon such as desperate, who had once broken their baptismal Vow, and would rather separate from the Church themselves, then suffer such to be restored to it. Here the Church was in a great strait, either she must be very severe to some, or she shall seem very unkind to others, she must either let the weak perish or she must offend them that counted themselves strong. Now in this case she being both tenderly compassionate towards those that had fallen, and withal willing to satisfy those Novatian Dissenters, or at least to deliver herself from Scandal, takes this course, she requires that those who had fallen, and desired to be restored again to her Society should acknowledge their faults, and make all the Penitent satisfaction that was possible for them to perform, that so neither they may be too easily tempted to do so again by the gentleness of the remedy, nor the Novatians rep●●●ch her Lenity, or take pet as if no difference was made between the sound and the lapsed; for these causes, though the most public Penance was thought little enough to be undergone by the lapsed; but yet on the other side, considering wisely the inconveniences of public Penance in some cases (as I specified before) she therefore took this middle course; namely she appointed a public Confessor, who having first heard privately the several cases of the Penitents, should bring into public, only such of them as (without incurring any of the v dangers) might be made exemplary. And this appears to be the true reason of this Institution, and the bottom of this affair, by this remarkable passage in the Historian; That whereas the generality of the Orthodox closed presently with this wise temperament, the Novatians only, those conceited Non-conformists, rejected prosiheken tauten this expedient as a new invention; they were too humoursome to comply with such a temperament.  
But here another Question arises, viz. How far this new exdient was embraced by the Orthodox Churches, for if it was only received by that of Constantinople, the Authority would not be so great; for it is possible to imagine, that other Churches might allow every private Priest to confess, and so admit of no public Penitentiary.  
To which I answer, that by the History it seems plain enough, that this was not the peculiar manner of the Church of Constantinople only, but the usal Method in that time of most other Churches also; but I must needs say, I do not find that the Church of Rome complied with them herein, though it was not much to her Honour to be singular, where there was so much Prudence and Piety to have inclined her to Uniformity. However this is gained, which is my point, that the Church of Rome is no● countenanced in her practice of private and clancular confessions, by the general usage of the Church; as they pretend.  
3. I observe concerning this Office of Penitentiary, that as it was erected upon prudential considerations, so it was upon the same grounds abolished, by the same Authority of the church which first instituted it, and that after about Two hundred years' continuance in the time of Nectarius, as we have seen; and therein he was followed, saith Sozomen by almost all the Bishops and Churches in the World: this therefore was far from being thought either a Divine or Apostolical constitution: Petavius would here persuade us, that it was only public confession, and not private, which was upon this occasion so generally laid aside, as we have seen, but this is done by him more out of tenderness of Auricular Confession, then upon good reason; and Valesius goes beyond him, and will needs persuade us that neither public nor private Confession were put down in this juncture; but only that the lately erected Officer of Penetentiary was cashiered; but I must crave leave to say, there is no sufficient reason for either of these conjectures, but on the contrary plain Evidence against them, for Socrates, who is the first and principal relater of this whole story saith he was personally acquainted with this Presbyter Eudaemon, who gave the advice to Nectarius to make this change in the Discipline of the Church, and that he had the aforesaid relation of it from his own Mouth, and expostulated with him about it, giving his reasons to the contrary, and suggested his suspicions that the state of Piety would be much endamaged by this change, and in plain words tells him, that he had now ●erest men of assistance in the conduct of their Consciences, and hindered the great benefit men have, or might have one of another, by pri●●● advice and correption. Now this fear of his had been the absurd est thing in the World, if upon this counsel and advice of his, only one certain Man in the Office of public Confessioner had been laid aside, but both the use of public and private Confessions had been kept up and retained.  
But after all (for aught appears) the Church of Rome kept her old Mumpsimus, she tenacious of her own customs especially of such as may advance her Interest and Authority, complies not with this Innovation or Reformation (be it for better or worse) but her Priests go on with their Confessions, and turn all Religion almost into Clancular Transactions, in despite of the example of other Churches. It may be she met with opposition sometimes, but she was forced to disemble it till the Heriock Age of the Schoolmen, and then those lusty Champions with their Fustian-stuff of vid●t ur quod sic, & probatur quod non, make good all her pretensions. After them in the year 1215 comes the Fourth Lateran Council, and that decrees Auricular Confession to be made by every body once a year at the least; and last of all comes the Council of Trent, and declares it to be of Divine Institution, necessary to Salvation, and the constant and universal custom of the Christian Church: And so we have the Pedigree of the Romish Auricular Confession.  
Sect. 4. I come now to the third and last Stage of my undertaking, which is, to show that Secret or Auricular Confession, as it is now prescribed and practised in and by the Church of Rome, is not only unnecessary, and burdensome in itself but also very mischievous to Piety, and the great ends of Christian Religion.  
For the former part of this charge, if it be not evident enough already, it will be easily made out from the Premises, for they cannot deny that they make this kind of Confession necessary to Salvation, at least as necessary as Baptism itself is, (supposing a Man hath sinned after Baptism) now if it be neither made so by Divine Institution, nor acknowledged to be so by the constant Opinion of the Church, what an horrible imposition is here upon the Consciences of Men, when in the highest and worst sense that can be they teach for Doctrines the commandments of Men, and make Salvation harder than GOD hath made it, and suspend men's hopes upon other terms than he hath done? if it was prescribed by the present Church as a matter of Order and Discipline▪ only, or of convenience and expediency, we should never boggle at it upon this account, or dispute the point with them; or if it was only declared necessary pro hic & nunc, upon extraordinary emergency, by the peculiar condition of the Penitent, his weakness of Judgement, the perplexity of his Conscience, his horrible guilt or extreme Agonies, we would not differ with them upon that neither; but when it is made necessary universally, and declared the indispensable duty of all men whatsoever who have sinned after Baptism (when GOD hath required no such ●hing, but declares himself satisfied with true contrition and hearty remorse for what is past, and sincere Reformation for the time to come;) this I say is an intolerable Tyranny and usurpation upon the consciences of Men. And that is not all neither, for besides its burdensomness in the general, it particularly aggravates and increases a Man's other burdens, for instead of relieving perplexed consciences, which is the true and principal use of confessions to men, this Priestly confession as it is prescribed by the Council, entangles and afflicts them more; for that enjoins that the Penitent lay open all his sins, even the most secret, although but in thought or desire only, such as against the Ninth or Tenth commandment, (according to their Division of the Decalogue,) now this is many times difficult enough; but that's not all, he must also recount all the circumstances of these sins, which may increase or diminish the guilt, especially such as alter the species and kind of sin: Now what sad work is here for a Melancholy Man? All the circumstances are innumerable, and how can he tell which are they that change the species of the Act, unless he be as great a School-man as his Confessor. Besides all his, it may be he is not very skilful in the distinction between Venial and Mortal sins; and if he omit one Mortal sin, he is undone; therefore it is necessary for him (by consequence) to confess all Venial sins too, and then where shall the poor Man begin, or when, shall he make an end? Such a Carnificina such a rack and torture, in a word, such an holy Inquisition is this business of Auricular confession become. And that eminent Divine of Strasburgh (of whom Beatus Rhenanus speaks) seems very well to have understood both himself, and this matter who pronounces that Scotus and Thomas had with their tricks, and subtleties, so perplexed this plain Business of confession, that now it was become plainly impossible. And so much for that.  
But for the second part of this impeachment, viz. That the Auricular confession now used in the Church of Rome, is mischievous to Piety; This remains yet to be demonstrated, and we will do it the rather in this place, because it will be an abundant confirmation of all that hath been discoursed under the two former heads; and might indeed have saved the labour of them, but that we were unwilling to leave any pretence of theirs undiscused; for if this practice of their● appear to be mischievous to Piety, it will never by any sober Man be thought either to have been instituted by our Saviour, or to have been the sense and usage of the Catholic Church, whatever they pretend on its behalf.  
Now therefore this last and important part of my charge I make good by these Three Articles following.  
First, This Method of theirs is dangerous to Piety, as it is very apt to cheat People into an Opinion that they are in a better condition then truly they are, or may be in towards God, as that their sins are pardoned, and discharged by him, when there is no such matter. The Churchmen of Rome complain of the Doctrine of s●●e reformed Divings touching assurance of Salvation, that it fills men with too great confidence, and renders them careless and presumptuous; but whatsoever there is in that, it is not my business now to dispute it, however methinks it will not very well become a Romanist to aggravate it, till he have acquitted himself in the point before us; for by this Assurance Office of theirs they comply too much with the self-flattery of men's own Hearts, they render Men secure, before they are safe, and furnish them with a confidence like that of the Whore Solomon speaks of, who wipes her Mouth, and saith I have done no evil. For Men return from the Confessors Chair (as they are made to believe) as Pure as from the Font, and as Innocent as from their Mother's womb: as if God was concluded by the act of the Priest, and as if he being satisfied with an humble posture, a dejected look, and a lamentable murmur, God Almighty would be put off so too.  

Ah nimium faciles qui tristia crimin●, etc.  
Ah cheating Priests who made fond Men believe.  
That God Almighty pardons all you shrieve.   
Perhaps they will say this is the fault and folly of the Men, not of the Institution of the Church: But why do they not teach them better then? Nay, why do they countenance and encourage them in so dangerous mistakes? For whither else tend those words in the Decree of the Council of Trent, ipsi Deo reconciliandis? q. d. that by this way of confession, etc. men are reconciled to the 
sess. 14. Can. 1  Divine Majesty himself; or those other forcited, where the Priest is said to be the Vicar of Christ, and in 
Ibid. cap. 5.  his steed, a Judge or Precedent; or especially what other meaning can those words have where it is said, 
Ibid. cap. 2.  that this Rite is as necessary as Baptism, for as in that all sins are remitted which were committed in former time, so in this sins committed after Baptism are likewise remitted?  
Now I say, what is the natural tendency of all this, but to make People believe that their Salvation or Damnation is in the Power of the Priest, that he is a little God Almighty, and his discharge would certainly pass current in the Court of Heaven. But there is sophistry and juggle in all this, as I thus make appear; for,  
1. The Priest cannot pardon whom he will, let him be called Index and Praeses never so; for if his Sentence be not according to Law ● will be declared Null at the Great Day; only it may be good and val●● in the mean time in foro Ecclesiae; and here lies the cheat.  
2. Nor are all sins retained or unforgiven with God, that are not pardoned by the Priest; it is true in public Scandals, till the sinner submit to the Church, God will not forgive him; For what that binds on Earth is in this sense bound in Heaven; but what hath the Church to do to retain, o● to bind the sinner in the case of secret sins, where it can charge no guilt on him?  
3. Nor is it properly the act of the Priest which pardons, but the Tenor of the Law, and the disposition of Mind in the Penitent agreeable thereunto, qualifying him for Pardon, to which the Pardon is to be ●●p●●ed: As it is not the Herald which pardons, but the Prince who by his Proclamation bestows that Grace upon those who are so and so qualified.  
4. Nor, Lastly, Can the Priest be said to pardon so properly by these Majestic words, Absolvo●te, as by his whole Ministry, in instructing People in the Terms of the New Convenant, and making Application of that to them by the Sacraments; this he hath Commission to do, but those big words I cannot find that he hath any where Authority to pronounce, and therefore (as I think I observed before) the Ancient Church had no form of Absolution, but only receiving Peni●ents to the Communion: And the Greek Church had so much modesty as to Absolve in the third Person, not in the first, to show that their Pardon was Ministerial and Declarative only.  
All these things notwithstanding the People are let to go away with such an Opinion as aforesaid (because it is for the Grandeur and Interest of the Priesthood, that they should be cheated; but these misapprehensions would vanish, if their teachers would be so just as to distinguish between God's Absolution, and the Absolution of the Church; the first of which extends to the most secret sins, the latter to open Scandals only; the one delivers from all real guilt, the other from external Censure only; of the latter the Priest may (by the leave of Church) have the full dispensation, so that he is really pardoned with her that ha●h satisfied the Priest; but of the former he dispenses but conditionally; To confirm all which I will here add only two Testimonies of the judgement of the Ancient Church.  
The first is of Firmilianus Bishop of Caesarea in his Epistle to St. Cyprian, reckoned the Seventy Fifth of St. Cyprians, where speaking of holding Ecclesiastical councils every Year, he gives these reasons for it; Vi si qua graviora sunt communi consilio ●●rigantur, lapsis quoque fratribus, & post lavacrum salutare a Diabol● vulueratis, per poenitentiam medela quaeratur; non quasi a nobis remissionem peccatorum consequantur, sed ut per nos ad intelligentia● delictorum suorum convertantur, & Domino plenius satisfacere cogantur; partly (saith he) that by joint advice, and common consent, we may agree upon an uniform Order in such weighty Affairs as concern our respective churches, partly that we may give relief, and apply a remedy to those who by the temptation of the Devil have fallen into sin after Baptism; not that we can give them Pardon of their sin, but that by our Ministry they may be brought to a knowledge of their sin, and directed into a right course to obtain Pardon at the hands of God. The other is of Theodorus Archbishop of Canterbury whose words are these: Confessio quae soli 
Theod. Cantuar. Apud Beat. Rhen. in prae●. ad Tertul. de poe●it.  Deo fit purgat peccata: Ea vero quae Sacerdoti fit, docet qualiter purgentur. Confession to God properly obtains the Pardon of Sin; but by Confession to Men, we are only put into the right way to obtain pardon. Thus they:  
But now in the church of Rome, the case is otherwise; there the Priest sustains the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and is not so much his Delegate as his plenipotentiary, and his pardon is as full and good as if the Judge of the World had pronounced it pro Tribunali; so that if the most lewd and habitual sinner have but the good fortune to go out of the World under the Blessing of his Ghostly Father, that is to say, either death came so soon after his last Absolution, or the priest came so opportunely after his last sin, that he hath not begun a new score, he is sure to go Heaven without more ado. This I represent as the first mischief attending their Doctrine, and practice of Auricular confession. But this is not all, for  
Secondly, It corrupts and debauches the very Doctrine and Nature of Repentance which the whole Gospel lays so much stress upon: Making Attrition (which is but a slight sorrow for sin, or a dislike of it in contemplation of the Wrath of God impendent over it) pass for contrition, which implies an hatred and detestation of it for its own moral evil and deformity, with a firm resolution of amendment. This they many of them are not ashamed to teach, and their practice of Absolution supposes and requires it. The Jesuits in particular, who have almost engrossed to themselves the whole Monopoly of confessions, avow this as their principle. Father Ba●●y, Bsc●●●, and S●●r●z declare their Judgement, that the Priest ought to absolve ● Man upon his saying, that he detests his sin, although at the same time the confessor doth not believe that he does so. And Caussi● saith, if this be not true, there can be no use of confessions amongst the greatest part of Men. These things (it'● true) are disliked by some others of the Romanists, and the Curees of France are so honest as to cry shame of it before all the World; for, say they, Attrition is but the work of Nature, and if that alone will serve for pardon, than a Man may be pardoned without Grace. But therefore, say the others, the Sacrament of penance doth it alone, and this is for the Honour of the Sacrament; greatly for the Honour of it (say I) that it is of greater power than our Lord Jesus Christ, and his Gospel, which cannot help a wicked Man to Heaven, whilst he continues so, but this Sacrament it seems can. Nor can they excuse this matter by saying these odio●● assertions are but the private Opinions of some Divines. For they are plainly favoured by the determinations of the council of Tre●t. I confess that council delivers itself warily and cunningly 
Conc. Trident. Sess. 14. Cap. 4.  in this point (as it uses to do in such cases) yet these are their words, Illa vero contritio imperfecta quae attriti● dicitur, qua●●vis sin● Sacramento poenitentiae per se ad justificationem perducere peccatorem nequeat, tamen eum ad Dei Gratiam in Sacramento Poenitentiae impetrandam disponit, etc. Which is as much as to say, though Attrition or a superficial Sorrow for sin, barely, alone, and without confession to a Priest, will not justify a Man before God, yet Attrition and confession together will do it, for than they are as good as true Repentance. And in this sense Melchior Canus long since thought he understood the council well enough.  
Thirdly, This business of Auricular confession, as it is practised in the church of Rome, is so far from being a means to prevent and restrain sin, as it highly pretends to be (and I am sure as it ought to be, if it be good for any thing) that contrariwise it is either lost labour, and a mere ceremony, or it greatly incourages and emboldens, and hardens Men it, both by the Secrecy, the Multitudes, and the Frequency of these Confessions, by the cursory, hypocritical and evasive ways of confessing, by the slight penances imposed, and the cheapness, easiness, and even prostitution of Absolutions.  
It were easy to be copious in instances of all these kinds, but it is an uncomfortable subject, and I hasten to a conclusion; therefore I will only touch upon them briefly.  
1. For the privacy of these confessions. In the Ancient Church (as I have noted before) the Scandalous sinner was brought upon the Stage before a great Assembly of Grave and Holy Men, he lay prostrate on the ground, which he watered with his Tears, he crept on his Knees, and implored the Pity and Prayers of all present, in whose countenances (if for shame he could look up) he saw abhorrence of his fact, indignation at God's dishonour, conjoined with compassion to his Soul, and joy for his Repentance; his Confession was full of remorse and confusion; the remedy was as sharp and disgustful to Flesh and Blood as the Disease had been pleasant, and the pain of this expiation was able to embitter the sweet of sin to him ever after. Or if the Confession was not made before the whole Church, but to the Penitentiary only, yet he was a Grave and Holy Person, chosen by the Church, and representing it, a Person resident in that Church, and so able to take notice of, and mind the future Conversation of those that addressed themselves to him; a Person of that Sanctity and Reverence that he could not choose but detest and abhor all base and vile actions that should come to his knowledge: Now it must needs be a terrible cut to a sinner to have all his lewdness laid open before such an one, and then to be justly, and sharply rebuked by him, to have his sins aggravated, and to be made to see his own ugly shape in a true glass held by him, besides to be enjoined the performance of a strict Penance of Fasting and prayer, and after all (if this do not do) ●o have the Church made acquainted with the whole matter (as in the case of the Deacon aforesaid.) This course was likely to work something of remorse in the sinner for what was past, and to make him watchful and careful for the time to come.  
But what is the way of the Church of Rome like to this? Where a Man may confess to any Priest, to him that knows him not, and so cannot observe his future life and carriage; nay perhaps that knows not how to value the guilt of sin, or to judge which be Venial, and which Mortal sins, or especially what circumstances do alter the species of it, and it may be too, he may be such an one that makes no conscience himself of the sins I confess to him. Now, when all is transacted between me and such a Priest in a corner, and this under the inviolable seal of confession, what great shame can this put me to? What remorse is it likely to work in me? Whatshall discourage me from going to sin again, if no worse thing happen to me?  
2. And then for the multitude of confessions in the church of Rome, that also takes off the shame, and weakens the efficacy of it, so that if it do no harm, it is not likely to do any good; for who is concerned much in the doing that which he sees all the World do as well as himself; if only notorious sinners were brought to confession (as it was in the primitive church) than it might probably and reasonably provoke a blush, and cause a remorse in him to whom such a remedy was prescribed; but when he sees the whole parish, and the Priest too brought to it, and Men as generally complying with it, as they approach to the Lord's Table; What great wonders can this work? What shame can it inflict upon any Man? What effect can be expected from it, but that it ordinarily makes Men secure and careless, and grow as familiar with sin as with the remedy▪ or at least think as well of themselves as of other Men, since it seems they have as much need of confession and absolution as himself?  
3. To which the frequency and often repetitions of these kind of Confessions adds very much; it is very likely that modesty may work much upon a Man the first or second time he goes to Confession, and it may something discompose his Countenance when he lays open all his secret miscarriages, to a person especially for whom he hath a Reverence (for we see every thing, even sin itself is modest in its beginnings,) and not doubt it is some restraint of sin whilst a Man is sensible that he must undergo a great deal of pain and shame in vomiting up again his sweet Morsels which he eats in secret: But by that time he hath been used to this a while, it grows easy and habitual to him, and custom hath made the very punishment pleasant as well as the sin; especially, if we add,  
4. The formal, cursory, hypocritical, and illusive ways of confession in frequent use amongst them; as that a Man may choose his own Priest, and then to be sure the greatest sinner will have a confessor right for his turn, that shall not be too severe and scrupulous with him; that a Man may con●ess in transitu, in a hurry or huddle, and then there can be no remark made upon his person nor his sins; that a Man may make one part of his confession to one Priest, and reserve the other part for another, so that neither of them shall be able to make any thing of it; that he may have one confessor for his Mortal sins, and another for his Venial; so that one shall save him, if the other damn him; nay, for failing, the forgetful sinner may have another Man to confess for him, or at least he may confess, that he hath not confessed; these and abundance more such illusive Methods are in daily use amongst them, and not only taken up by the licentious and unconscionable people, but allowed by some or other of their great Casuists; now let any Man judge whither this be a likelier way to restrain sin, or to encourage it; whither the easiness of the remedy (if this be onen) must not of necessity make the Disease seem not very formidable; in a word, whither this be not a riduculing their own Religion, and which is worse, a teaching Men to be so fool hardy as to make a mock of sin.  
5. This sad reckoning will be inflamed yet higher if we consider the slight Penances usually imposed by these Spiritual Judges upon the greatest Crimes. The Council determines that the Confessor must be exactly made acquainted with all the circumstances of the sin, that so he may be able to adjust a Penance to it; now when some great sin is confessed and that in a very ●oul circumstances, if the Penance proportioned to it, by the Priest be to say two or three Pater Nosters, or Ave Maria's extraordinary, to give a little Money in Alms to the Poor or some Pious use, to kneel on his bare knees before such a Shrine, to kiss such an Image, to go on Pilgrimage a few Miles to such a Saint, or at most to wear an Hair Shirt, or it may be to fast with Fish, and Wine, and Sweetmeats, etc. doth not this make that sin which is thus ●awled and stigmatised, look very dreadfully, can any Man find in his heart to sin again, when it hath cost him so dear already?  
Oh, but they will tell us these Penances are not intended to correspond with the guilt of the sin, but only to satisfy the debt of Temporal punishment. But we had thought that the end of Penance had been, to work in the Penitent a Disposition for Pardon, by giving him both opportunities and direction to express the sincerity of his Repentance; and this was the use of Penance in the Primitive Church, together wi●h the ●ak●ng off the Scandal from the Society; and for that other end h●w doth the Church of Rome know so certainly that there is a debt of Temporal punishment remaining due, after the sin is Pardoned before GOD; it is true, GOD may pardon so far only as he pleases, he may resolve to punish Temporally those wh●m He hath forgiven Eternally, as we see he did in the case o● David; but that this is not his constant Method appears by this that our Saviour releases the Temporal punishment to many in the Gospel, whose diseases he cured, saying to them, Your sins are forgiven you, when as yet it did not appear that all Scores were quitted with God so, but that they might have perished eternally, if they did not prevent it by Faith and Repentance.  
6. But lastly, to come to an end of this sad story, the easiness and prostitution of their absolutions in the Church of Rome contributes, as much to the encouraging of Vice and carelessness in Religion as any of the former; for what else can be the natural effect and consequence of that ruled case among the Casuists (as I showed before) that the Priest is bound to absolve him that confesses, and saith, he is sorry for his sin, though he doth in his Heart believe that he is not contrite, but that either the Priests Pardon is a very cheat, or else that Pardon is due of course to the most impenitent Sinner, and there is no more to do but Confess and be Saved? or what is the meaning of their common practice to absolve men upon their Death beds, whither they be contrite, or attrite, or neither, at least when they can give no Evidence of ●●her? If they intended this only for absolution from the Censures of the Church it might be called Charity, and look something like the practice of the Primitive Church, which released those upon their Deathbeds, whom it would not discharge all their lives before tho' not then neither without signs of Attrition and contrition too. but these pretend to quite another thing; namely to release men in foro Conscientiae, and to give them a Passport to Heaven without Repentance, which is a very strange thing, to say no worse of it. Or to instance one thing more, what is the meaning of their practice of giving Absolution before the Penance is performed (as is usual with them) unless this be it, that whither the Man make any Conscience at all how he lives hereafter, yet he is pardoned as much as the Priest can do it for him, and is not this a likely way of Reformation?  
I conclude therefore now upon the whole matter that Auricular Confession, as it is used in the Church of Rome, is only ane Artifice of greatning the Priest, and pleasing the People; a trick of gratifying the undevout and impious, as well as the Devout and Religious; the latter it imposes upon by its outward appearance of Humility and Piety; to the former it serves for a palliative Cure of the Gripes of Conscience, which they are now and then troubled with; in reality it tends to make sin easy and tolerable by the cheapness of its Pardon, and in a word, it is nothing but the Old Discipline of the Church in Dust and Ashes. And therefore though the Church of England in her Liturgy, piously wishes for the Restauration of the Ancient Discipline of the Church, it can be no defect in her that she troubles not herself with this Rubbish.  
FINIS.   

A POSTSCRIPT.  
AFter I had finished the foregoing Papers, and most part of them had also past the Press, I happened to have notice that there was a Book just then come over from France, written by a Divine of the Sorbone, which with great appearance of Learning maintained the just contrary to what I had asserted (esepecially in the Historical part of this Question) and pretended to prove from the most Ancient Monuments of the Holy Scriptures, Fathers, Popes and Councils, that Auricular Confession had been the constant Doctrine, and Universal and Uninterrupted usage of the Christian Church for near 1300 years from the Times of our Saviour to the Lateran council.  
So soon as I heard this, I hearty wished, that either the said Book had come out a little sooner, or at least that my Papers had been yet in my hands; to the intent that it might have been in my Power, to have corrected what might be amise, or supplied what was defective in that short Discourse, or indeed if occasion were, to have wholly suppressed it.  
For as soon as I entered upon the said Book, and found from no less a Man then the Author himself, that he had diligently read over all that had been written on both sides of this controversy, and that this work of his was the product of Eighteen years' study, and that in the prime of his years, and most flourishing time of his parts, that it was published upon the maturest deliberation on his part, and with the greatest applause and approbation of the Faculty, I thought I had reason to suspect, whither a small Tract, written in haste by a Man of no Name, and full enough of other Business, could be fit to be seen on the same Day with so elaborate a work.  
But by that time I had read a little further, I took Heart, and permitted the Press to go on; and now, that I have gone over the whole, I do here profess sincerely, that in all that learned Discourse I scarcely found any thing which I had not foreseen, and as I think in some measure prevented. But certain I am, nothing occurred that staggered my Judgement, or which did not rather confirm me in what I had written; for though I met with abundance of Citations, and a great deal of Wit, and Dexterity in the management of them, yet I found none of them come home to the point; for whereas they sometimes recommend and press Confession of Sin in general sometimes to the Church, sometimes to the Priest or Bishop as well as to God Almighty: Again sometimes they speak great things of the Dignity of the Priesthood, and the g●●at Honour that Order hath in being wonderfully useful to the relief of Guilty or Afflicted Consciences, other while they treat of the Power of the Keys, and the Authority of the Church, the danger of her Censures, the Comfort of her Absolution, and the severity of her Discipline, etc. But all these things are acknowledged by us without laborious proof, as well as by our Adversaries: That which we demand, and expect therefore, is, where shall we find in any of the Ancient Fathers, Auricular Confession said to be a Sacrament, or any part of one? Or where is the Universal necessity of it asserted? Or that secret sins committed after Baptism, are by no other means, or upon no other terms pardoned with God, then upon their being confessed to men? In these things lies the hinge of our dispute, and of these particulars one ought in Reason to expect the most direct and plain proof imaginable, if the matter was of such Consequence, of such Universal practice and notoriety as they pretend; but nothing of all this appears in this writer more than in those that have gone before him. In contemplation of which I now adventure this little Tract into the World, with somewhat more of Confidence than I should have done, had it not been for this occasion,  
But lest I should seem to be too partial in the Case, or to give too slight an account of this Learned Man's performance, the Reader who pleases shall be judge by a specimen or two which I will here briefly represent to him.  
The former of them shall be the very first argument or Testimony he produces for his Assertion, which I the rather make my choice to give instance in, because no Man can be said ingenuously to seek for faults, to pick and choose for matter of exception, that takes the first thing that comes to hand.  
The business is this, Chap. 2. Page 11. of his Book he citys the Council of Illiberis (with a great deal of circumstance) as the first Witness for his Cause, and the Testimony is taken from the Seventy Sixth Canon, the words are these, St. qu●s Diaconum, etc. i, e. If any Man shall suffer himself to be ordained Deacon, and shall afterwards be convicted to have formerly committed some Mortal (or Capital Crime;) if the said Crime come to light by his own voluntary Confession, he shall for the space of Three Years be debarred the Holy Communion, but in case his sin be discovered and made known to the church by some other hand, than he shall suffer Five years' suspension, and after that be admitted only to Lay Communion.  
Now who would have ever thought this passage fit to be made choice of as the first proof of Auricular confession, or who can imagine it should be any proof ar● all, much less a clear or d●●ect one?  
Oh, but here is confession! It may happen so if the party please, but it is not enjoined, but voluntary, and that not Auricular neither, but unto ●he church, at least for aught appears,  
And it is confession of a secret sin too! True it was so, till it was either confessed or betrayed.  
And here is Penance imposed for a secret sin: True when it was become public.  
And here is a different degree of Penance imposed upon him that ingenuously confesses, from him that stays till he is accused, and hath his sin proved upon him: And good Reason, for the one gave tokens of Repentance, and the other none. But then here is— What? no Sacrament of Penance, no declared absolute necessity of confession to Men in order to pardon with God, but only a necessity that when the Fact is become notorious, whither by the confession of the Party, or otherwise, that the church use her endeavours to bring the Sinner to Repentance, and free herself from Scandal by making a difference betwixt the Good and the Bad, the more hopeful, and the less.  
If this be a clear and proper Argument for the necessity of of Auricular confession, God help poor Protestant: that cannot discern it; but oh the Wit of Man, and the Power of Learning and Logic! What may not such Men prove if they have a mind to it?  
The other passage I instance in, is in his Tenth chapter, Pag. 156. viz. The critical and Famous Business of the Nectarian Reformation at Constantinople, of which I have spoken somewhat largely in the foregoing Papers. Now for this: This Learned Gentleman after he hath acknowledged very frankly that public Confession of sins was the Ancient use of the Church in the times of St. Irena●s, Tert●●●●, Cypria●●, and Origen; that is, for the space of about Threeundred years, and that instead of that Ancient usage (upon occasion of the Decian Persecution) a public Penitentiary was appointed at Constantinople, and most other Orthodox Churches, and in short after he had with more ingenuity than some others of his party owned the undoubted Truth of the Relations of Socrates and Sozomen touching this Affair, and made some Observations thereupon not much to the advantage of his cause, he at length delivers that which would be yery much to his purpose, if it could be credible; namely, that upon the whole matter Nectarius in abolishing the Penitentiary, neither abolished public nor private Confessions, but instead of obliging Men to go to the Penitentiary left every Man bound to resort to his respective Diocesan, and confess his sins to him; and so Auricular Confession ●s af●er this change every whit as  as it was before; very true (say I) it is as necessery now as it was before, for it was only voluntary before, and so it may be after. But if the intention of Nectarius, and the effect of that alteration was only the change of the Person, and every man still obliged to confess to some body, how comes it to be said in the story that every Man was left to his own Conscience, doth that word signify the Bishop? then we have found out a right Fanatic Diocesan, for they will all readily confess to this Bishop, and believe his Absolution as sufficient as any Romanist of them all doth: And yet it seems to be undeniably plain that Socrates after this Reformation thought of no other Confessor but this, nor imagined Men now bound to make any other Confession, but this (which if it was not Auricular was very secret) for otherwise how comes it to pass that he expostulates the matter with Eudaemon who advised this change, and bewailed the danger of this liberty which was hereby given men, if they were as strictly bound still to confess to their Bishop as they were before to the Penetentiary; therefore the Truth of the Business seems evidently to be this, that men were now at liberty as they were no doubt before the Institution of a Penetentiary. And now what hath this Learned Gentleman gotten by mustering up this Story; well however the Conclusion must be held, let the Premises look to themselves.  
I could find in my Heart (now my hand is in) to proceed farther and to observe; what pitiful shifts he is put to, in his Thirteenth Chapter, to evade the Testimonies brought by Monsieur Daillé out of St. Chrysostom against his Hypothesis. And the rather because (out of tediousness of writing) I in the foregoing Papers omitted to specify the most remarkable discourses which that excellent Author hath upon this Subject. But the Authorities are so plain and unanswerable, and the Evasions of this Gentleman so forced and palpable, that I think it needless to go about to vindicate the one, or confute the other; for in s●ight of Art this same Thirteenth Chapter (we speak of) will afford no less than Thirteen Arguments against the necessity of Auricular Confession.  
FINIS.