Roman-Catholick Doctrines NO NOVELTIES: OR AN ANSWER TO Dr. PIERCE'S Court-Sermon, Miscalled The Primitive Rule of Reformation.  
By S. C. a Roman-Catholick.  1 PET. 3. 15. Parati semper ad satisfactionem omni poscenti vos rationem de eâ quae in vobis est spe, cum modestiâ & timore, conscientiam habentes bonam, ut in eo quod detrahunt vobis confundantur. 
MDCLXIII.   

TO THE Queen-Mother.  
MADAM,  
IT cannot be doubted but your Majesty has of late been a great Sufferer, in being forced to hear frequent and loud Triumphs for a supposed Victory, which, by a Court-Sermon, scarce an hour long, the English Protestant Church at one blow, and without any resistance, pretends to have a gained over the Catholic.  
But your sufferings were much more increased, when you saw the immediately following effects of that and several other Sermons of the like stile, which, by concert, at the same time proclaimed destruction to that very Christianity, which first expelled Paganism out of our Nation.  
Your Majesty has oftentimes heretofore been wakened and affrighted with such Alarms: But then the Trumpets were blown by men whose Profession and Religion obliged them to renounce all humanity towards us, and all respect to Monarchy. Whereas this last unexpected blast proceeded from those, who, even but yesterday, promised us, as a reward for our common sufferings, a security from those our common Enemies, whose malice and rage we only apprehended.  
God forbid we should be astonished, as if some strange thing happened to us, to see our Religion persecuted: It is impossible it should be otherwise, because the great Enemy of Truth and Charity will never be reconciled to live at peace with either. Yet when we see so wonderful and so sudden a change in formerly professed Friends, when not only the hands, but the voice of Jacob, are become the voice and hands of E●au: And when we, examining ourselves, can neither find nor suspect any demerit to provoke our Protestant Friends against us; nor so much as imagine, what advantage they can gain by our ruin, but rather an apparent harm to themselves: This being a Case of suffering, for the entertaining which we have no Pattern to prepare us, and for mitigating which, all rational means are uneffectual, we cannot forbid ourselves a little to wonder at it: Yet this great Blessing we may reap from it, that thereby we are even forced to our own happiness, by having recourse for comfort and deliverance to God only, who, when the World goes farthest from us, Himself approaches nearest to us, and looking fixedly on him, we shall discover, by his Divine Light, how our unexampled ingratitudes have extorted from him unexampled punishments.  
So many years of oppressions, and such vicissitudes in them, have not diminished, much less changed the constancy of our affections to Creatures; we have passionately loved the World, even when it was bitter to us; When God called us to mourning and penitential humiliations, we dissembled the taking notice of it: In the midst of persecutions we contended in pride and vain jollities with our Oppressors: Yet now we see how mercifully God deals with us, lest our former miseries should prove beginnings of eternal ones, he has brought upon us these new and unfore-seen afflictions, for a last Trial whether his mighty hand can humble us, or no. He has seen that the fidelity we performed to our Temporal Governors, and the charitable assistance we afforded to our fellow suffering Brethren we perhaps expected should be recompensed by them in this life. Therefore he will have us continue the same Duties more cordially, now that we know and see that himself only must be our reward. Our complaints and prayers (which are so far from mitigating, that they rather incense some spirits against us) he will force us to address to himself only; which if we do as we ought, and mend our lives under his correction, we shall certainly pacify him, and, when he sees it for our good, conciliate men to us also; since for this last, which only can be doub●ed, we have no less engagement than that of his own Word: When the ways of a man please our Lord, 
Prov. 16. 7.  he will convert even his Enemies to him.  
Madam, these reflections I can with much more assurance represent to your Majesty's consideration, because, though hitherto the too common in sensibility of Catholics to God's Visitations, has been much aggravated by our neglect to follow so Christian an example of humiliation, penitential austerities, contempt of worldly vanities, and delight in solitary retraits to converse with God, as your Majesty has afforded; yet it is now at last to be hoped, that in the present dispersion of Catholic Pastors, if your Majesty could join your Authority with your Example, they both together would prove forcible means to invite all Catholics to a serious compunction for their former miscarriages, to an acknowledgement, not only of the justice, but even mercifulness of our Lord's Visitations, to a willingness in suffering for him, and an expectation of deliverance only from him.  
Never certainly did our Nation, nor perhaps any other afford two Catholic Courts such perfect Schools of Piety, in which there are two such Mistresses, of most peculiarly Christian, though seldom found to be courtly, virtues; such are Humility, Mortification, Penance, zeal for true Religion, equanimity in Sufferings, assiduous and unwearied Devotions, etc. But in a Generation so perverse as this, it must be somewhat more than Example, that can render these virtues fashionable abroad also. Insensible, vain, tepid, and negligent Catholics must see themselves reprehended by the severity of your Majesty's looks, and if need be, condemned by your charitable reproofs. Bravery and curiosity of Attires, precious time misspent in vain Conversations and Visits, magnificence in entertainments, dissolution in dancing, etc. are justly to be esteemed crimes unpardonable in those upon whom the hand of our Lord lies so heavy.  
There is no joy now seasonable, nor indeed excusable among Catholics, but a Joy in suffering for truth and fidelity; For we never had, till now, so comfortable a refreshment to our afflictions. It is now made evident that ●ur only fault is that which is our greatest glory. We are threatened more severely than ever, whilst we are declared most innocent. In former Edicts for execution of Laws the principal motives were a care for safety of his Majesty's Person, and the security of the State and Government; Withdrawing of Subjects from their natural Allegiance; contriving of Seditious and Treasonable practices; maintaining of rebellious principles, etc. were formerly our pretended crimes. Such was the stile in which the late desolating Parliament represented to our most Excellent King of glorious memory, a necessity of persecuting and destroying his most faithful Catholic Subjects, when, God knows, both His safety and security of the Government was at the same time in design, and shortly after in effect, destroyed only by the Representers themselves.  
But now Treason is left out of our charge: Nor is there any apprehension of the least danger from us to his Majesty's Person or the State: Nay, so publicly and constantly have we asserted the innocence of our Religion in the Point of fidelity to Princes, and such unquestioned proofs thereof have we given by our actions, that the Honourable Peers of this very Parliament were in an immediate preparation of mind to antiquate all the Sanguinary Laws against us: God Almighty give repentance and pardon to the unhappy obstructors of that grace.  
Yet for all our innocence, Preachers must be satisfied: They cry aloud their fears of the increase of Popery; when as, for one new-professed Catholic, who forsakes their Churches, hundreds of all other Sects relinquish both their Churches and Allegiance too. They impute as a Crime to us, what all other Sects impute to them, and themselves glory in, that we receive our Ordinations from Rome, that is, that we are not a separated Sect, but members of the true Catholic Church. For if there be indeed a Catholic Church, Ordinations must be derived into particular Countries from a Common Principle and Fountain, otherwise the Cement of Union and Subordination is dissolved.  
But what esteem our former Princes had of this pretended Crime, will appear by a late example given by his Majesty of happy memory; 
Sanderson's Hist. pag. 349. out of the Records of the House of Commons, 1640.  He had graciously reprieved a Priest condemned at the Old Bayly. Hereupon the Commons in the late unhappy Parliament A. D. 1640. by Mr. Glyn, request the Lords to join in a Petition to his Majesty, to be informed who should dare to be instrumental in retarding Justice in the face of the Parliament: To which the King by the Lord Privy Seal (28 January) tells them the cause of the reprieve was, because the man was found guilty, as being a Priest only; upon which account neither King james, nor Queen Elizabeth ever exercised the penal Laws. Notwithstanding, his Majesty left the Prisoner to their wills, to live or die, according to their Votes; and thereby he escaped; for even they had not the courage to say, Let this man's blood be upon us and our Children.  
This, MADAM, is our condition: A condition, though, according to the World's estimation, to be bewailed, yet if we look up to Heaven, it is a condition to be triumphed in. Now we are sure a reward in Heaven expects us, since we are thus recompensed upon Earth. It becomes us all therefore, bending the Knees of our Hearts, to give infinite thanks to our gracious God, since it is now evidently and confessedly for him only, and the Catholic verities revealed by him, for the unity of his Mystical Body and the religious fear we have of being guilty of Schi●m, that we do, and shall hereafter suffer.  
This, Madam, is now our only crime, and this I am now actually committing, and am so far from being ashamed [except only of the imperfect manner of executing it] that I have assumed the boldness to desire and hope your Majesty's approbation and defence both of the crime and criminal Person: it is our whole common Faith, delivered by God to the Church, that both at Court, and all over the Nation, has been publicly traduced; some Doctrines have been charged to be contrary to the honour and safety of the State; others to be Doctrines of Devils; all of them to be Novelties and usurpations; our whole Catholic Church is made to pass for a Sect, a separated Schismatical congregation; But from what other Church, neither can our Accuser tell, nor any one imagine.  
Perhaps the present temper of the Times, and delay of an Adversary appearing, had encouraged the Preacher to think his Sermon un-answerable, not for any weight in his proofs, but, because it may be in his power to reply with an Instrument sharper than his Peneus Notwithstanding, as Prudence did justly restrain that impetuosity, which zeal to God's truth might move in the hearts of Catholics to retort this Cartel of Defiance, which he has published against His Church: so to remain utterly silent after so many reimpressions of that Sermon in several forms and after such diligent Translations of it into foreign Languages, after that incredible avidity with which so many thousand Copies of it have been snatched out of the hands of the Readers, and from the Stalls of the Sellers, this would be a confession of our own guilt, and a distrust in our Cause, as public as his challenge and provocation has been, this would be indeed to be ashamed of Christ and his truth before men.  
For this reason, shutting my eyes to all external frights or discouragements, I presumed to undertake an Answer to his Allegations, hoping that some others of my Brethren would do it with greater efficacy and fruit, than I dare promise to this imperfect work: And having this resolution, I took the boldness to inscribe your Majesty's Name in the Front, being assured that nothing could be more acceptable, nor a greater refreshment to your most tenderly Christian heart, (which bears an equal share in this our common oppression) then to see that Faith, which you value above Crowns, at least not betrayed, and, truly I confidently hope, demonstrated to remain unprejudiced by any thing alleged in that Sermon. With this persuasion, I most humbly beg leave to cast at your Majesty's feet both myself and Work, which, as it was undertaken, not upon my own single judgement, so that it may not appear in public, without your Majesty's approbation and protection, is the most humble Suit and only Petition of,  
14 May, 1663. MADAM, Your MAJESTY'S Most humbly Devoted Servant in our Lord, S. C.   

CHAP. I.  
Of Doctor Pierce's Sermon in General: What was probably the inward design of it.  
I Cannot forbid myself to wonder that a Book so universally esteemed, so often reprinted, and not only reprinted in our own, but translated into foreign Languages, should yet lie open to so many and so plain Exceptions: Not one period can I find that seems to me Extraordinary; Not one Instance but has long since been often objected both with closer Reason and neater Rhetoric: So that now by experience, as well as faith, I see 'tis true that the Scripture says, 
Eccles. 9  The Race is not to the Wise, nor the Battle to the Strong, nor favour to men of Skill, but Time and Chance happens to them all.  
2. And are we not come to a fine pass, when not only a dozen perhaps of the greatest and subtlest Controversies in Religion shall be crowded into a short Sermon; but expressed with such vanity and affectation of exotic and abstruse Phrases, as if the end of Preaching were nothing but to talk an hour of hard things in harder words? Ask the great Auditory of Lords and Ladies, that heard this Doctor (Persons of clear and ingenuous apprehensions, who like good sense, though not delivered in Greek, who penetrate into the connection of Things, though they have not misspent their lives in studying Words) Ask that Illustrious and Noble Assembly, what they think of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Emperor Zeno; or of the itching to be as old as the julian period begun before the Protoplast. Some of them perhaps may have heard of the Palladium of the Conclave; but for the Embroidery of the Theopneust Aholiab, or the Antiquaries Keimeliah, I believe the Ladies at least, were a little puzzled on the sudden how to understand them; yet if those pompous Sounds were translated into plain English, not one of them but would easily see the sense, without other Dictionary than their own Cabinet.  
3. As for the Doctor's profession in his Epistle Dedicatory, That his Resolution was, the Sermon should never have been exposed to the World, had not his Majesty commanded it. I readily believe him; for a Victory is easily and very cheaply got, if a Controversy be to be decided by a flourishing Speech, confidently pronounced by a Person in esteem for Learning and Sincerity, in a Place where none must contradict, especially when he protests he has Proofs unquestionable for all his Assertions. But till those Proofs be examined, the Conquest is only over the Hearer's passions not their reason: It may be, (and I pray God this Sermon was not meant so) a good preparation to usher in the Calvinistical zeal for executing severities on innocent Persons, who sincerely abhor the crimes deserving such Rigours, and the unchristian Principles, the Fountains of those Crimes: that is, on Persons against whom the Lawgivers themselves have publicly professed they never intended those punishments. This kind of justice he may hope for from his Sermon, but a rational conviction will never be the effect of it.  
4. Truly Doctor Pierce must not blame us, if we fear he had some such thoughts in his mind, when he preached this Sermon, so differing from the style of Court-Sermons in the times of his Majesty of glorious memory, and of the late (as he styles him) immortal Archbishop. But have we since those days deserved such a change in the Tongues and Pens of any Protestants, especially the Clergy? By what crimes? Is it because we have ever since been ready, and are so still, unanimously to sacrifice our Blood and Fortunes for his Majesty, by which also their Church hath been maintained and settled against all the irreconcilable enemies both of monarchy and It? Methinks they might forgive us this fault, both for past and future: For we shall fall into it again, if they do not take care, by destroying us, to prevent it.  
5. This suspicion of ours is much increased, when we reflect on that bitter passage in his Epistle Dedicatory, where he says, I suppose my discourse, however innocent in itself, will yet be likely to meet with many, not only learned and subtle, but restless Enemies; men of pleasant insinuations, and very plausible snares; nay such as ar● apt, where they have power, to confute their Opponents with fire and faggots.  
Indeed it is possible his Sermon may somewhere fall into some such hands: But, unless he will renounce all Charity, justice and humanity, he must not impute particular men's actions to Catholic Religion, and, for their faults, expose us to the common hatred and violence. Let all the received Canons of the Church be searched, and if one be found that justifies the shedding of blood simply on the account of Religion, he may have some pretence for such an indefinite odious reflection upon innocent suffering Christians.  
Let all the practices of the World be examined, and it will clearly appear, 'tis not Catholic Religion that's chargeable with these Excesses, since in so many places both they are not, where it is; and are, where it is not.  
And, though for some few of these later Ages, the Civil Magistrates of some Countries have exercised a greater severity, then anciently was used; Yet now even they have entertained a more calm and tractable Spirit, and seem to hope by other Arguments sufficiently to secure their Religion. However, why must our England imitate the rigidest of other Nations, against whom, for that very reason, we so loudly exclaim; rather than the moderate proceedings of those, who are nearer us both in situation, temper, and interest? Why thus continually be harping upon one string that jars, and never touch the rest that move in harmony?  
6. Our late unhappy wars have made the Preacher and many others besides him Travellers; We appeal to their consciences and experience, if they would be pleased to speak, as Persons of honour and integrity; Did they in any Catholic Countries, even ROME itself (though here much spoken against for cruelty) ever apprehend any danger for their opinions, or refusal to join in the exercise of Catholic Religion? so they would abstain from public scandalous affronts to the Church, they had freedom not only with all quietness to enjoy their consciences, but civilly to justify their Doctrines. All expressions of kindness, tenderness and compassion they received from their Catholic Opponents, but surely not the least hard usage that might imprint terror in their minds.  
7. Thus much may be permitted us to allege in our own Defence upon this occasion gives us by the Preacher; especially, considering we are the only persons exposed to the public hatred and rigour, though we only, of all the Dissenters from the Religion of the Kingdom, lest deserve it: For; we are no Innovators, but Professors of the same Religion that made this Nation Christian. A Religion, though now too generally decried, yet in those times confirmed by great Miracles, as even Protestants acknowledge: A Religion, which for almost a thousand years was only known and professed here. When the Reformation entered, though almost all Subjects were Catholics, yet seeing the change was introduced by a Supreme Authority, no opposition was made to it by any other A●mes, but Prayers and Tears: Whatsoever Treasons have been acted by a few wretched persons, even our Princes themselves have acquitted the generality of Catholics thereof, and our Religion from allowing them. There cannot be framed any Forms of professing or acknowledging due Supremacy and Allegiance to our Kings, but we are ready to subscribe them in the same sense that the most learned Protestants themselves ordinarily say they intent them. Public atttestations of our fidelity and zeal, in serving and defending our Princes, and even the Religion of the Kingdom (almost destroyed by a Conspiracy of all other Dissenters) have been made in our behalf, even by some, who now are most sharp against us: Yet after all this, of them who are not able to allege any one of these excuses for themselves some are rendered in a capacity to Triumph over our Sufferings; unrepentant Traitors are among our Accusers; though it is known, the thing which most enrages them, is our fidelity; their Invectives, how false soever, are believed, and they hope to become popular for their attempts to destroy us.   

CHAP. II.  

Eleven Novelties charged on Catholics.  
Schism imputed to Catholics.  
Why necessary the Sermon should be refuted by Catholics.  
The Answerers' protestation of sincerity.   
1. THe Doctors Sermon, for as much as concerns us Roman Catholics, pretends a double Design. First, Confidently enough to assert that the Doctrines in which we differ are on our parts mere Novelties, and that Primitive Antiquity both of Scripture and the four first General Councils stands clearly for Protestants. Secondly, In consequence to this, that not they, but the Roman Church alone is guilty of Schism.  
2. As to the first Part he exemplyfies in these following Points of Catholic Doctrine, which he says are Novelties, and undertakes to calculate the precise time of their Nativity 1. The Supremacy of the Pope. 2. The infallibility of the Church. 3. Purgatory. 4. Transubstantiation. 5. The Sacrifice of the Mass. 6. Communion under one Species. 7. Worship of Images. 8. The Scriptures and public Divine Service in an unknown Tongue. 9 Invocation of Saints. 10. The forbidding Marriage to Persons in holy Orders. 11. The allowing Divorce for other causes besides Fornication.  
3. Then concerning the other part of his general Design about Schism, he acknowledges that a real Schism there is, but that the cause of it came from the Roman Church, which made erroneous Novelties, new Articles of their Creed, which errors the Reformers were obliged in conscience to reject, and reject them they did by warrantable and legal Authority: So that though they separated from the then present visible Church▪ yet they ought not to be called Schismatics, but that Church is to be esteemed Schismatical, which caused them to separate.  
4. This is in gross the substance of what in his Sermon he alleges against Her, that heretofore was this Church's Mother, and a great proportion of whose kindness she still enjoys, the Roman Catholic Church. Now considering with what triumphing applauses this Sermon was heard, and with what a general greediness thousands of the printed Copies have been bought up, even by those that formerly have not been curiously inquisitive after Court Sermons for any good they meant the Preachers. Would not Protestant's themselves in their hearts condemn Roman Catholics, if, being confidently persuaded, (as truly for my part I am) that there is not so much as one single allegation among all his replenished Margins that reaches home to a concluding proof of what he pretends to, they should out of a treacherous fearfulness be utterly silent, as acknowledging that now they have a prostrated cause. And therefore if it be but only out of fear of losing their good opinion, something must be said by us to acquaint him with his mistakes.  
5. Now in my Remarks upon this Sermon, I will follow his own order before summarily set down: And both in the Points of Doctrine and Schism I will select his Arguments, adjoining to each Point respectively▪ the Quotations or Authorities of Fathers related to in the Margins: And having done this, I will sincerely discover the grounds upon which I think I can Demonstrate, That he has neither rationally concluded any of our Catholic Doctrines to have been Novelties, nor freed his own Church from the just imputation of Schism.  
6. And, knowing very well what candour, sincerity and charity Almighty God requires from those who undertake his cause, and the cause of his Church; I do here call Him as a witness upon my Soul, that my purpose is studiously to avoid all cavilling distorsions either of Texts of Scriptures, or the holy Fathers, and much more those falsely called pia● frauds, corruptions of either: And both in my Answers and Objections, I will allege nothing but what I am persuaded is both pertinent and efficacious to conclude that for which it is produced, that is, I will bring nothing as a proof, which I for the present think can be answered.  
7. I am informed that he in his Sermon made the like Protestation. If he did, I am very glad for his own sake, that he forbore to print, what he then spoke: because though I must not charge him with wilful sincerity, yet I believe he will find by this short Paper, that he did neglect to make use of his best judgement and caution, which certainly, if ever, was most requisite, in a cause so important, especially it being to be debated by one that professed to supply the place of God himself in his own House, and who spoke to no meaner Person than the KING, God's own Vicegerent.  
8. But whether the Preacher in his Sermon, the subject whereof was nothing but Controversies, and such as his Text neither invited, much less compelled ●im to undertake, or however to debate them with such Invectives and exulcerating digressions whether I say, herein he expressed that respect and duty he owed his Majesty, that is, whether such a distempered Sermon was conformable to the Injunctions touching Preaching, which his Majesty had lately commanded my Lord Archbishop to communicate to the Clergy, I leave to the Preachers own Conscience. If he resolved to transgress those Orders so becoming a Prince who loved the peace of his Kingdoms, and still feels so much by their disunions in Opinions: yet in reason he might have abstained from letting the Court and Kingdom see, that he had the courage to disobey the King to his own face: The University-●ulpit, or some City Congregations, where such behaviour is in fashion, might well enough have contented him.   

CHAP. III.  

Bishop Jewel's Challenge imitated by Doctor Pierce.  
Primitive Reformers acknowledge Antiquity to stand for Catholics.  
The Doctor's notion of Beginning: He is obliged thereto by an Act of Parliament, 5 Eliz.  
Five Questions proposed touching that Notion.   
1. What ground or motive the Preacher had to renew the vain brag of Bishop jewel, derided by his Adversaries, and condemned by his Brethren, it will be less difficult for us to imagine, than for himself sincerely to acknowledge. However, that, both that Bishop and He are singular in this matter of challenging the concurrence of Antiquity for themselves, and imputing Novelty to the Catholic Church, we have a cloud of Witnesses among the first Reformers, both in gross and by retail, through all the particular Points by him mentioned.  
2. In general let him consider what Melancthon writes: 
Melanct. in 1 Cor. 3.  Presently from the beginning of the Church, the ancient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning the justice of Faith, increased Ceremonies and devised peculiar Worships. 
Pet. Mart. 1. devotis. p. 477.  In like manner Peter Martyr affirms, That in the Church errors did beg in immediately after the Apostles times: 
Id. ib. p. 490.  And that presently after their Age men began to decline from the Word of God: 
Id. ib. p. 476.  And therefore so long as we insist upon Councils and Fathers, we shall always be conversant in the same errors. In so much as Beza had the arrogance to write thus in an Epistle: 
Beza Epist. T●eol. 1.  I have said more than once, and I suppose not without reason that comparing the ancient times of the Church, even those immediately succeeding the Apostles with ours, they had better Consciences, but less Knowledge: On the contrary, We have more Knowledge, but less Conscience. This is my judgement, etc. These are esteemed as learned Writers as the Reformation had; They spent their lives in reading and examining Antiquity, and were as willing to make it speak on their sides, as the Preacher was: But as ill Consciences as they had, they were convinced and forced publicly to confess that the Fathers were against them, and focus.  
And in particular Opposition to his Claim of Antiquity, (like Bishop jewels for the first six Centuries) Doctor Fulk is so far from concurring with him or Bishop jewel, that he is so choleric at the suspicion of such a charge, that he addresses himself to his Adversary in this civil language; 
Fulk in rejoined. to Bristol. page. 4.  I Answer, says he, if he charge me with confessing the continuing of the Church in incorruption for six hundred years next after Christ, he lieth in his heart.  
3. One passage there is of that famous Andreas Duditius, which truly I cannot read without extreme compassion and astonishment at the dreadful judgement of God, and it may do Doctor Pierce much good, if he sadly reflect on it. Many years he had lived in great esteem for learning and prudence, a Catholic Bishop of Petscben in Hungary, called Quinque Ecclesiae; present he was at the frameing the Decrees of the Council of Trent: But at last falling in love with a Maid of honour in the Queen of Hungaries Court, to marry her, he quitted both his Bishopric and Religion. This poor man in his declining Age could not abstain from confessing in a Letter to Beza his unsatisfaction in his new Religion, vainly hoping some either Cordial or Opiate for his distressed Conscience, from one as deeply plunged, and by the very same motives engaged in the same change. I pray observe his words: 
Andre, Duditius in Epist. Theol. Beza. 1.  [Si veritas est, says he, quam veteres Patres, etc.] If that be truth which the ancient Fathers, by mutual consent have professed, it will entirely stand on the Papists side: For if heretofore any Controversies out of a beat of Disputation arose between the learned among them, an end was presently imposed thereto by Decrees of Councils or even of the Pope alone. But what strange people have we among us? They are always wand'ring, tossed with every wind of Doctrine, and being hurried into the main Deep, they are carried sometimes this way, sometimes another. If you would inform yourself what their judgement to day is touching Religion, you may perhaps come to know it: But what it will be to morrow on the same Argument, neither themselves nor you can certainly affirm: Thus Duditius. And what Cordial against this scrupulous Melancholy does Beza his good friend afford him? Take it from himself: 
Ibid.  [Scio speciosum esse venerandae velustatis nomen, etc.] I know the name of venerable Antiquity is very specious: But whence shall we fetch the beginning of that Title, but from the Prophets and Apostles? For, as for Writers that come after them, if we will take their own advice, we will believe them on no other terms but as far as they shall evidently make good what they deliver, out of the Holy Scriptures: That is in effect, have but the Christian modesty and humility to prefer your own sense of Scriptures before all the Fathers and Councils of God's Church, and then nothing, they say, need to trouble you: Antiquity, venerable Antiquity will be on your side: You may confidently say of all your Adversaries Doctrines, From the Beginning it was not so.  
4. Many other Confessions of the like nature might be added: but for brevity-sake I will content myself with only one more, and that is (as it seems to me) a secret acknowledgement of the Church of England in her public Liturgy, directly contrary to the Preachers pretention and applications of his Text, by which she, after a sort, imputes Novelty to herself, and confesses the Roman to be that Church which was from the beginning. In the Order for Morning-prayer there are these Versicles and Responds.  
V. O. Lord save the King. 
Common-Prayer-book.   
R. And mercifully hear us when we call upon thee.  
V. Endue thy Ministers with righteousness.  
R. And make thy chosen people joyful.  
V. O Lord save thy People.  
R. And bless thine Inheritance.  
Then follows a Versicle for Peace. Now these, as almost all the other Prayers, are mafestly translated out of the Roman Office. But that which ought to be observed, is, That in the Roman Office there is a Versicle and Respond immediately following these, and going before the Versicle for Peace, which the English Church has studiously left out; and that is this, 
Memento congregationis tuae Domi●e quam p●ssedis●i AB INITIO.   
V. Be mindful of thy Congregation (O lord)  
R. Which thou didst possess from the beginning.  
Now the ground why this special Versicle or Prayer for the Church was left out, is not so mysterious, but it may be very probably guessed at.  
The first Reformers did not love to put God in mind of that Church which was from the beginning: Or rather they were desirous the People should forget the Church which was from the beginning: They had rather no Prayers at all should be made for the Church, than for one that was from the beginning, because apparently that could not be the Reformed Church of England, whose beginning themselves saw.  
5. Notwithstanding such plain Confessions of these Pillars of Reformation, yet the Doctor confidently stands (with a little contraction and abatement) to Bishop jewel's Challenge: He indeed mentions 27. Points, of which 22. are about circumstantial matters touching the Eucharist, and two more of them [viz. 1. That Ignorance is the Mother and Cause of true Devotion and Obedience. 2. And that the Lay-people (if he speaks of them in general) are forbidden to read the Word of God in their own tongue,] are Calumnies. The other are three indeed of the Preacher's points, viz. 1. Supremacy of the Pope. 2. Worship of Images. 3. Common-prayers in a strange tongue, though the only fault he can find in this last, is, That the later Church hath adhered too close to Antiquity; that the hath not varied in the language of her Devotions from her Predecessors; and, after A. D. 600. continued to say her Prayers in the same Language she did before. But then this Bishop, (as being somewhat better experienced in Antiquity than Doctor Pierce) had not the confidence in this his Catalogue to reckon as Novelties either the infallibility of the Church, Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, or Prayer for the Dead, Celibacy of the Clergy, or Sacrifice of the Mass. So much more courage had the Preacher than even Bishop jewel himself. Well, between both, all antiquity is for them, and nothing but novelty on our side. No doubt but his admiring and believing Hearers assured themselves that some never-before-examined Witnesses, some hitherto unknown or un-observed Records had been found out by their learned and confident Preacher, to justify their deserted claim of Antiquity, I mean by way of aggression, and not simple defence. But when the Sermon is published, nothing appears in the Text or Margins, but Assertions and Quotations an hundred times before produced, and as often silenced, many of which too (as he explains them) have no regard to the public received Doctrine of the Catholic Church, but particular Opinions of some Catholic Divines, as much disputed against by other Catholics as by Protestants.  
6. However to qualify a little the admiration that many Protestants have of their new Champion, or Hyperaspista, as he calls it, something must be said thi● hundred and one time to old allegations and new mistakes. And first, whereas in all points now in debate between us, he so often repeats, From the Beginning it was not so; He did very well to fix a notion and conception of this word Beginning, or a distinct measure of time after which only whatever Doctrines are broached, ought in his opinion, to be esteemed Novelties; Novelties of so great importance, as to justify a separation from the external communion of all Churches both Eastern and Western. And that is the time of the Apostles, and so downward, till the fourth General Council inclusively: This he has done not out of a voluntary liberality, but because an Act of Parliament obliges him, wherein it is said: That such persons, (Laics or ecclesiastics) to whom Queen Elizabeth shall, 
Stat 1 Eliz.  by Letters patents under the great Seal of England, give authority to execute any jurisdiction spiritual, or to correct any Errors, Heresies, Schisms, &c, shall not in any wise have authority to adjudge any matter or cause to be Heresy, but only such as heretofore have been determined to be Heresy by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures, or by the first four General Councils, or any of them, or by any other General Council, wherein the same was declared Heresy by the express and plain words of the said Canonical Scriptures, or such as hereafter shall be judged to be Heresy by the High Court of Parliament with the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation.  
7. By this Proviso it appears, that, though in words the Doctor is more liberal to us than the Presbyterians and other Sects, who will call all things Novelties, which they think are not in express Scripture, yet the Law would have allowed him a greater extent, for the might have enlarged the time beyond the four first General Councils to any succeeding Council, that (in the Opinion of Commissioners) judged Heresy by express Scripture, or to future Acts of Parliament, judging after the same manner: but we are content with, and thank him for his allowance.  
8. Only he must give us leave to propound a few Questions upon this occasion; 
Quest. 1.  As first, Does he submit only to the four first General Councils, because they had an Authority inherent in them obliging him thereto? Or because he judged their Decisions conformable to God's express word? If the former, than he must inform us, why only four Councils have such authority, which it seems the Church lost as soon as the Fathers at Chalcedon rose? If the later, than he deludes us, and with Presbyterians, Independents, Quakers, etc. makes Scripture alone in effect th' Rule of Reformation, and Protestants only the Interpreters of that Rule: Because the Statute ties no further to any General Council, than as that Council is believed to proceed according to express Scripture: which, whether it does or no, who must be Judge, Doctor Pierce? To answer this Question well will be a great Masterpiece: I am sure his late immortal Archbishop found it a Task too hard for himself, as shall be seen before we part: too hard I say to resolve so, that any rational man can be satisfied with.  
9 A second Question is, 
Quest. 2.  Whether to judge of Heresy, that is to determine authoritatively what is Heresy, and what is conformable to Scripture, be not an Act of jurisdiction parely Spiritual and Pastoral? (though it seems to reside notwithstanding sometimes in Lay-Commissioners, but ordinarily in the Parliament) And this not being possible to be denied, than he must be further asked, since by one of the 39 Articles it is affirmed, That General Councils may and have erred, whether the English judge of Heresy (be it the King, as in the days of Henry the 8th and Edw. the 6th. or the Parliament also, as in Queen Elizabeth's) be infallible or no? If he acknowledge it infallible, he must resolve us, whether the Supreme Temporal Authority, with the assent of the Clergy be infallible only in England, or in other Countries also as Holland, Swedland? etc. If the former, he must show what Promises our Lord has made to England alone. If the later, than it will follow that that may, and certainly will be Heresy and contrary to Scripture in England, which England itself confesses is not Heresy beyond Sea. But if no such Authority be indeed infallible, than it will follow, that Decisions, made by it, do not oblige in Conscience: and by consequence in his Opinion there is no Spiritual Authority on earth that does so, I mean oblige, not only to noncontradiction, but to internal assent. The consequences of which Position he may imagine, and shall see anon.  
10. A third Question is, 
Quest. 3.  Whether since Presbyterians and Independents, and all such Reformed Churches, following the Heresy of Aerius, do directly oppose the Order of Bishops and their jurisdiction, (that is, the whole frame of God's Church) manifestly asserted in the four first General Councils, and as is here affirmed, of Divine Right by express Scripture; whether, I say, they be not, according to this Rule formal Heretics, or however Schismatics; since to alter this Frame, they relinquished both this Church and ours? And especially for their denying the Supreme Ecclesiastical, or Spiritual Authority, to be in Temporal Governors, which yet the Statute tells us, in effect, is the fundamental Cornerstone of the English Church? If all this do not render them Heretics, or at least in the highest degree Schismatics, what will become of this Act of Parliament, and his Primitive Rule of Reformation? If they be such, what will become of the English Church, which gives to Heretics and Schismatics the right-hand of Fellowship, and acknowledges them holyChristian● Reformed Congregations? And on the other side, since, notwithstanding the extremity of passion against Catholics, if was never yet pronounced that Roman Catholics are Heretics, nor possibly could by their own Rule and measute; how comes it to pass that we alone are punished with death as Heretics, and this merely for Religion since we both often have justified and still are ready to justify our Principles of Fidelity and Peaceableness beyond all exception; which yet no other Dissenters from this Church, though real Heretics and Schismatics, either have, or I fear will do?  
10. A fourth Question shall be, 
Quest. 4.  how can the Preacher answer to God for abusing Scripture, and mis-applying, through the whole Sermon, his Text, to the prejudice of his Church? He pretends that our Saviour's words are to be esteemed the Pattern, or Primitive Rule of Reformation, and consequently, as our Lord demonstrated Pharasaical Divorces to be illegal, because Ab initio non fuit sic: So the D●ctor pretends to prove the Justice and Legality of the English Reformation, because, by the like examination, he finds that Roman Doctrines are 〈◊〉 and that 〈◊〉 initio non fuit sic; Therefore they, as Jewish Divorces, are 〈◊〉 abolished, and that only to be confirmed, which God instituted from the Beginning. But he little considers that our Saviour's saying, It was not so, signifies, It was directly contrary to SO, as if he said, You allow Divorces, ob quamcunque causam, in manifest opposition to God's Ordinance from the Beginning, who said, Whomsoever God hath joined, let no man put asunder: This is therefore a Novelty necessary to be reformed. Now, if the Preacher would have made use of this, indeed, perfect Primive Rule of Refermation, he by his Text was obliged to have produced from the Beginning, that is either in Scriptures, or in the Fathers within the four first General Councils, some express Authorities and Decisions directly contrary to Roman Doctrines, which he calls Novelties: He ought to have quoted out of Holy Scriptures, or some Councils or consent of Fathers, such sayings as these: 1. St. Peter and his Successors never bade nor aught to have any Supremacy of jurisdiction. 2. The whole Church is a fallible Guide, not to be relied upon against our private sense of God's Word. 3. There is no state after death in which Souls may find refreshment by the prayers of the living. 4. The body of Christ is not substantially present on the Altar. 5. There is no true Christian Sacrifice 6. Both Elements are essential to the Sacrament. 7. All respect to Images is forbidden. 8. Invocation of Sains is unlawful. 9 The Scriptures must be given into all men's hands, without any certain guide to interpret them. 10. Prayers not in a vulgar tongue, though interpreted, are abominable. 11. To forbid the use of Marriage to Priests is a Doctrine of Devils. 12. To separate Bed and Board among married persons, though when, without danger of their lives, they cannot live together, is a practice condemned by our Lord. And after all, 13. To break the visible unity of God's Church, for Doctrines and Practices not in themselves causing Damnation, but only said to be false, is the Duty of every good Christian. Such sayings as these had been to some purpose, they would have been pertinent to his Text; But no such appear. On the contrary, it serves his turn to say again and again, From the Beginning it was not so: This is the burden of his Song: If he can show that, because this is the first time, we hear or read such a Doctrine (mentioned in any Ecclesiastical writer) as Origen, Tertullian, etc. therefore it is a Novelty, it was never in the Church before, the says something to the purpose.  
But, let me ask him, was there no Doctrine at all in the Church before it was written? Or was there no Doctrine in the Church but what was written? And again, is all that's written in any Age still Extant, and come to our hands? Or do those Fathers, who first writ it, say, That they, or their times first introduced it? No: On the contrary, they expressly declaim against Innovations, Novelty is their Prescription against all Heresies; So that for them to bring into the Church any Doctrines not heard of, or not received before, had been to profess themselves Heretics, and there would not have wanted other Fathers that would have condemned such Innovations: Which yet was never done to Origen or Tertullian, &c, for any Doctrines mentioned by the Preacher: Whereas for other Errors they were sufficiently proscribed. From whence 'tis evident, that, through the whole Sermon there is a palpable misapplication of the Text, and that the Preacher has been injurious to our Saviour, in making his just condemnation of the Pharisees, a warrant for him unjustly to condemn his Church. Indeed, in all matters left indifferent, and no way commanded from the beginning, nor contrary to any Divine Revelation, the Church of later times may vary, as she thinks sit, either from the practice, or injunctions of the former: For example, supposing Celibacy of the Clergy, (the 7th, Point the Doctor instances in) had not been practised or mentioned from the beginning; yet, if God had not commanded the contrary, and the thing in itself be feasible (of which more anon) the Church of a later Age may lawfully enjoin it: The Rule therefore holds only for matters of Faith and Divine Revelation. In which 'tis true, That the Later times may not vary from the former; But yet, neither doth the Rule hold in these, as to the express terms of every Proposition that is matter of Faith, but only as to the sense and substance. It is not necessary that ab initio, God the Son should be declared in express terms Consubstantial with the Father, which was first put into the Christians ●reed by the Council of Nice: But only that that Doctrine can be showed ab initio, which is identified in sense with this: Nor can I think the Doctor, upon second considerations, will offer to gainsay so plain a truth.  
But it is now time to Examine the particular P●ints which he charges on the Church as Novelties, and of each of which be says as unwarrantably, as our Lord, against the jewish Innovations said justly, From the beginning it was not so.   

CHAP. IU.  
The sum of Dr. Pierce's Discourse against the Pope's Supremacy enervated by himself. The Church's Doctrine touching that Supremacy. The Text, Mark 10. 42. cleared.  
1. IN the Doctor's Catalogue of Roman Novelties, the first is, The Supremacy of the Pope: 
Epist. Dedica●▪  Concerning which, he tells his Majesty, he has spoken most at large, because it is a Point wherein the honour and safety of his Dominions are most concerned; And because, by Bellarmin 's Assertion, it is the chief, if not only hirge on which does hang the whole stress of the Papal Fabric.  
This universal Superintendency or Supremacy of 
Serm. pag. 10. Page 16.  the Pope (says he) hath been a visible usurpation ever since Boniface the 3d. to whom it was sold by the most execrable Phocas, the greatest Villain in the world, except Cromwell and Pontius Pilate, not out of reverence to the Pope, but in displeasure to Cyriacus, Patriark of Constantinople, etc.  
2, In contradiction to this Usurpation, he adds, 
Page 17.  But from the beginning it was not so. For we find in Scripture the Apostles were equally foundations of the wall of God's City, etc. They were all as St. Cyprian says, 
Page 18.  Pari consortio praediti & honoris, & potestatis: And S. Hierom is as express: And sure Paul, who withstood Peter to his face, was equal to him at the least. And for any one Bishop to affect over his Brethren a Supremacy of Power and jurisdiction is a most impudent opposition both to the Letter and Sense of our Saviour's precept, Mark 10. 42, 43, 44. They that rule over the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them, etc. But so shall it not be among you, but whosoever, etc. Nay, by the Canons of the two first General Councils, 
Ibid.  every Patriarch and Bishop is appointed to be chief in his proper Diocese, as the Bishop of Rome is the chief in his. And a strict Injunction is laid on all, the Bishop of Rome not excepted, that they presume not to meddle in any Diocese but their own. 
Page 19  And the chief Primacies of Order were granted to Rome and Constantinople, not for having been the Sees of such and such an Apostle, but for being the two Sea●s of the two great Empires: Witness the famous Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon, etc. Nay, the immediate Predecessor of Boniface the third, 
Ibid.  Pope Gregory the Great, calls the Ti●le of Universal Bishop, a wicked, profane, and blasphemous Title, importing that the times of Antichrist were at hand, etc. Further adding, That if any one Bishop were universal, there would by consequence be a failing of the universal, Church, 
Page 20.  upon the failing of such a Bishop: Which is an Argument ad homines, not easily to be answered, whatsoever infirmity it may labour with in its self, etc. And upon that occasion he makes an excursion about the Pope's infallibility, and his falling into Heresy, etc. nothing to the Point. Lastly, He concludes, that Whosoever shall read at large the many Liberties of the Gallican Church, 
Page 21.  and the published confessions of Popish Writers for more than a thousand years together, touching the Papal Usurpations, and Right of Kings, he will not deny that the Supremacy of the Pope is but a prosperous Usurpation.  
3. This is the substance of his Discourse upon this Point of Novelty, the Supremacy of the Pope. In answering which he must permit me, yet without any prejudice to the Cause, yea rather for a better clearing of it, not to bind myself to his Order: Assuring him, in the mean time, that I will not purposely omit any thing material, either in his Reasoning or Quotations.  
1. And first in general, he must give me leave to tell him, that by the Conclusion of the foregoing Discourse, he has entirely enervated all that went before. For by arguing and asserting, That the Gallican Liberties and Popish writings against Papal Usurpations do demonstrate that the Supremacy of the Pope 〈◊〉 but a prosperous Usurpation: He clearly shows that his forementioned Reasons do not touch the Catholic Cause at all: He acknowledges those Writers to have been Roman Catholics: None can deny the French Church to be a Member of the Roman Catholic Church, acknowledged for such by the Pope himself, and professing a subjection to him, as to the Supreme Spiritual Pastor of God's Church: Therefore it is evident that what they deny to the Pope, is not simply his Supremacy in Spiritual matters, (which is all that will be required of Protestants) but an extending of that Supremacy beyond what they conceive the received Ecclesiastical Canons do warrant: (and this the English may as well be permitted to do as the French.)  
4. To the end therefore he may no longer mistake this so important an Argument, I will clearly set down the Church's Doctrine concerning this matter. This Doctrine is contained in that profession of Faith compiled by Pius 4. and extracted out of the Council of Trent. 
Sess. 25.  I believe that the Pope is the Successor of St. Peter, and Vicar of jesus Christ on Earth: I acknowledge the Holy Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, as the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches. And more largely in the Decree, with great circumspection framed in the Council of Florence, and subscribed by the Greeks. 
Concil. Floren.  We do define that the Holy Apostolic See and Bishop of Rome does enjoy a Supremacy through the whole world; And that the Same Bishop of Rome is the Successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, the true Vicar of jesus Christ, the Head of the Universal Church; the Father and Teacher of all Christians; and that in the Person of St. Peter he hath received from our Lord jesus Christ full power to feed, rule and govern the whole Church in such manner as is expressed in the Acts of Oecuminical Councils and the holy Canons.  
This is the Decision of the Council of Florence: The substance of the Doctrine of which Decree, (by which the Pope, as Successor of St. Peter, is acknowledged to have a Jurisdiction over all Christians, to be regulated by the Ecclesiastical Canons) is so received even in France, notwithstanding all the Gallican Liberties, that whoever denies it, will not be esteemed a Catholic. See what Cardinal Palavicino writes touching the Cardinal of Lorraine and his French Bishops proceedings about this Point in the Council of Trent.  
5. This Jurisdiction the Preacher positively denies both to the Pope and St. Peter, affirming It to be an impudent opposition both to the Letter and sense of our Saviour's forecited precept, 
Page 17.  Mark 10. But I heartily with Dr. Pierce would look well on this passage of the Gospel once more, and ask his own reason, though he should not be able to exclude all the fumes of passion from it; Is Ecclesiastical Authority in Superiors, and Subordination of Inferiors forbidden in this Text? Will one that calls himself a Regular Son of the Church of England, by virtue of this Text pronounce the Sentence of Decapitation (according to his own pleasant expression) upon his own Church, whosoever passes for the Head of it, whether his Majesty, or my Lord of Canterbury? On the contrary, I dare pronounce that (not the affecting, but) lawful exercising a Supremacy of Power and jurisdiction is so far from being an impudent opposition to this Precept, that it is established by it. For in this very Text express mention is made of some that are great, yea some that are the chiefest. And if he would have adjoined the next Verse to his Quotation, he would have published to the most ignorant of his Hearers of Readers his manifest abusing this passage of Scripture: Our Saviour immediately adding, 
Mark. 10. 45.  For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister. Surely he will not deny, but that our Saviour had Authority, yea a Supremacy of jurisdiction over the Church, and only here proposes himself as a Pattern of humility to be imitated by his Apostles and their Successors. And what were the Apostles? Church Governors without question. How then are they to imitate their Supreme Governor? In renouncing Superiority? Did he himself do so? By no means. 
Hebr. 5. 5. 6.  But as he did not glorify himself to be an High Priest: But he that said unto him thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedech: And being high Priest he did not forget his meekness and humility, consistent very well with the vigour of Spiritual Jurisdiction: In like manner his Apostles, (and all that succeed him) are commanded not to affect Superiority, and when they are lawfully invested with it, not to exercise it with such an arrogant pride as Heathen Princes usually do, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Conc. Eph. 1. Can. 8. they must neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; neither ambitiously seek Superiority; nor after a secular manner, 
1 Pet. 5.  Lord it over the Flock of Christ.  
6. And now let the Doctor say where is the impudent opposition of Supremacy and jurisdiction both to the letter and sense of our Saviour's Precept? Such an Argument as this, being Magisterially and confidently pronounced, might for half an hour serve his present turn in the Pulpit: But I wonder he could have the confidence to expose it to examination in Print. 'Tis time we come a little closer to examine this his first great Novelty.   

CHAP. V.  
The Doctor obliged to acknowledge Submission due to the Pope's Authority, as exercised during the four General Councils. Of the Title of Universal Bishop. It is not generally admitted at this day.  
1. HIs main Position in his forecited Discourse on this Argument is: That a Supremacy of jurisdiction challenged and exercised by the Pope, as Successor of St. Peter, is a visible usurpation ever since Boniface the Third, to whom it was sold by the Tyrant Phocas: that is, it began about the year 606. 
A. D. 606.  never before that time having been acknowledged in God's Church. To prove this, all the foregoing Reasons and Allegations are produced by him: From this usurpe● Authority, his English Church (forsooth) hath made a Secession, as he demurely Phrases it, and not from any Authority (if any were) exercised by former Popes, especially during the times of the four first General Councils. A Primacy of Order he is content to allow him, but by no means a Supremacy of jurisdiction.  
2. Whatsoever Authority then the Predecessors of Pope Boniface the Third by consent of other Churches enjoyed, especially till the end of the fourth General Council, he must grant is no usurpation, and therefore a Legal rightful Authority, from which, without a formal Schism, they could not withdraw themselves. He will not surely say with one of their learned Bishops, That they take from the Pope his lawful Christian Authority, and give that (only) to the King, not his unlawful and Antichristian. So that the Controversy between us is reduced to this precise point, Whether before Boniface the Third's time the Pope enjoyed a Supreme jurisdiction over the Catholic Church. This he denies. On the contrary I here engage myself not only to prove he had it, but moreover, that not the least degree or jota of jurisdiction will be imposed on them to acknowledge, for enjoying the Communion of the Catholic Church more than the very same that Pope Boniface 's Predecessors within the times of the four first General Councils confessedly exercised. I may add, that the new usurped Title, (as he says) sold to him by Phocas, did not give him, neither did he pretend to by it, any more authority than himself and his Predecessors formerly enjoyed. And this is I be able to make good, than not all the water in the Sea will be able to wash off his Church's Schism by his own confession.  
3. Before I show what Supremacy the Predecessor's of Boniface the Third exercised in the Church, it will be convenient to inquire into the Bargain that, He says, Boniface made with Phocal; what he gained by it; and why his Predecessors St. Gregory the Great, and P●lagius refused it.  
The Patriarch of Constantinople, john, out of an humour of lightness and vanity, proper to the Grecians, assumed the Title of [Episcopus universalis, or O●cumenicus] Universal Bishop, or Bishop of the whole World: A Title that the Council of Chalcedon had in an Epistle given to Pope Leo, but which his Successors likeed not. Certain it is that john intended little more by it, but to be a distinction of honour and preference above the other Eastern Patriarches: For whilst he took that title, he still acknowledged the Pope's Superiority, not only of place, but authority over him. But being Bishop in a City, wherein the Emperor of the world resided, he thought it not unbecoming him to be called the Bishop of the world, as the Emperor was the Governor. Perhaps indeed his Successors, (if this ambition had been either approved, or but connived at by the West) would have endeavoured to make it not a mere empty Title, but would have invaded an Authority, which the Title might seem to warrant. Hereupon Pope Pelagius and after him Pope Gregory the Great did vehemently resist this foolish ambition of john, though the Emperor himself, to gain a dignity to his own City, favoured it in him.  
4. Now the Arguments that these two good Popes made use of against him, did not so much combat john's present intention (though his mere vainglory and affectation of Novelty deserved to be repressed) as the probable consequences of such a Title, which might argue, that besides himself there were no Bishops in the Church: For if he were the Universal Bishop, and the whole world his Diocese, since by the Canons there can be but one Bishop in a place, it would follow that all others were only Bishops in name, and by their Character had no other office but as his Substitutes depending on his will, whereas the Apostles received their Office and Authority immediately from our Lord himself: And so their Successors, the Bishops, would never acknowledge a receiving their Episcopal character and right of jurisdiction from any but Christ himself. For, as in other Sacraments, whoever administers Baptism, whether an Apostle or an Heretic, Baptismus solius Christiest, says Saint Augustin: And again, Peter and john (saith he) prayed that the Holy Ghost might come on those upon whom they imposed their hands, they did not give the Holy Ghost (Acts 8.) They, as his Substitutes apply the outward Element, but the inward virtue of the Sacrament is administered only by our Lord himself. And as a Subject that receives ●n Office of jurisdiction from the King, will not esteem he derives that Authority from the Person, who presents him the Letters patents, or invests him ceremoniously in the Office, but only the King. So though a particular Bishop be ordained by a Metropolitan, a Primate, a Patriarc, or by the Pope himself, and jurisdiction given him, they indeed are the Ministers of Christ to convey his Characters and Authority, they assign him the place in which he is to exercise that Authority, but the inherent Authority itself Christ only gives him.  
5. Upon these grounds Pope Pelagius thus argues. 
Pelag. 2 Epist.  [Vniversalitatis quoque nomen, etc.] Do not give heed to the name of Universality that John of Constantinople hath unlawfully usurped, etc. For none of the Patritriarks did ever make use of so profane a Title: Because if [the Bishop of Rome] the Supreme Patriarch be called an universal Patriarch, the Title would be taken away from the rest. But God forbid this should happen, etc. It therefore John be permitted to take this Title, the honour of all Patriarches is denied, and probably he, who is called Universal, will perish in his error, and there will not be found one Bishop in the state of Truth. The very same arguments he knows St. Gregory makes use of in several Epistles both to the Emperor, to john himself, and others, which being already produced by him need not be repeated. Yet for all this neither Pelagius nor St. Gregory, notwithstanding their detesting this Title, did therefore quit their right to the Universal Pastorship of the Church, and their jurisdiction over all both Bishops and Patriarches too: nay they assert it in these very Epistles, wherein they are most sharp against that Title, as shall be showed.  
6. The reason of this, 'tis manifest, the Preacher does not understand: therefore let him not disdain to be informed. The like Order that is observed in the Church of England, he may conceive, is observed in the Catholic Church: that is, that the same person may be both a Bishop, a Archbishop, and a Primate; I will add also the Supreme head of the Church, as the Archbishop of Canterbury is among Ecclesiastics: [For as for his Majesties Supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs, it is not in this place to be treated of.] Now my Lord of Canterbury is just like other Bishops, merely a Bishop in his Diocese of Canterbury: He is likewise a Metropolitan in his Province to visit all Bishops in it, but he is not a Bishop in the other Dioceses subject to him; for in them none have Episcopal right but only the respective Bishops themselves, which are not removable by him, unless they incur crimes that by the Canons deserve it. Lastly, he is a Primate over both Provinces, that is, the whole Nation, yet without prejudice to the other Metropolitan, in whose office of Visitation and Ordinations he cannot interpose; though he have a power to summon him to a National Council, etc. And in this regard he may be styled the Universal Pastor of England, and, by being so, makes the Church of England to be one National Church, which otherwise would have two Episcopal heads. Yet if any one should style▪ him the Universal Bishop of England, it would not be endured, because he can exercise Functions properly Episcopal in no other Province or Diocese but his own. By considering this well, the Doctor may more clearly apprehend how matters stand in the Catholic Church.  
7. For, though this Title of Universal Bishop taken in some sense, might draw after it such ill consequences, yet being applied to the Supreme Pastor of God's Church, it might innocently signify no more but such a general Superintendency, as the Scriptures allow to St. Peter, and the Canons of the Church also have acknowledged due to his Successors, and with such an innocent meaning (as this Title was used long before in the 3d. Act of the Council of Chalcedon, without any contradiction of the same Council to Pope Leo) Boniface the Third did accept it from Phocas: yet having done so, it seems to me apparent that he neither exercised nor challenged the least access of jurisdiction by it more than himself and his Predecessors had enjoyed. And of this the Doctor himself shall be Judge. If he can find any proof to the contrary, let him produce it, and I will immediately recall what I have said.  
'Tis true, as appears in the History of the Council of Trent, written by the Illustrious and learned Cardinal Palavicino; 
Card. Palav. Hist. del. Conc. de Trento. lib. 19 c. 15, 16, etc. lib. 20. c. 3. 9, etc. lib. 21. c. 4, etc.  that there was in that Council an earnest and constant opposition made by the French Prelates against naming the Pope, Bishop of the Universal Church, who, in conclusion, absolutely gained the silencing of that Title: But this happened not because these denied to the Pope an Universal Superintendency over the whole Church, or over all Churches taken disjunctively, for this they willingly acknowledged; but they opposed this Title only as the Universal Church might be taken in a collective sense, that is to say, as united in a General Council, whereby a right of Superiority over a General Council may seem to be determined to the prejudice of the Decisions of the Councils of Constance and Basil, which in this matter they allowed.   

CHAP. IU.  
The absolute necessity of a Supreme Pastor in the Church. Supremacy of jurisdiction exercised by Pope Boniface the Third his Predecessors, viz. St. Gregory, P. Pelagius, P. Felix, P. Gelasius, P. Leo. The 28th, Canon of Chalcedon illegal. Of the 2d. Canon of the first Council of Constantinople.  
1. BEing now to demonstrate (more than a Primacy of Order) a primacy of jurisdiction in the Predecessors of Boniface the Third, extending itself to all Christians, all particular Prelates and Churches: yet a Supremacy not unlimited, (for then General Councils, would be useless) but sufficient to preserve unity in the Church: I will first, to make it appear reasonable, declare the ground of the necessity of it, which in brief is, as the Preacher will find by the succeeding Testimonies of the Fathers; because, since General Councils (the only absolute Supreme Authority Ecclesiastical) either for want of agreement among Princes, or by the inconvenience of the long absence of Prelates, or great expenses, etc. can very seldom be summoned, it would be impossible, without an Ordinary, constant, standing Supreme Authority in the Church, to prevent Schisms, that is, it is impossible the Church should subsist.  
2. For what effect against Schism can be expected from a mere Primacy of Order, a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a sitting at the upper end of the Table, a privilege to speak first, or to collect Votes? Therefore for a Protestant to deny a Primacy of jurisdiction to be necessary to conserve unity, as in a National Church, so in the Universal, is to give up his own cause to the Presbyterians. For all the subtlety of human wit, without such a Concession, can never answer the arguing thus, 
Ius Divinum Ministr. Evang. in App●●d. prep. 5.  If (according to the Doctrine of the Fathers) there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop ●ver many Fresbyters for preventing Schism: there is (say they) as great a necessity of setting up one Archbishop ●ver many Bishops, and one Patriarch over many Arch-Bishops, and one Pope over all; unless men will imagine that there is a danger of Schism only among Presbyters, and not among Bishops, Archbishops, etc. which is contrary to reason, truth, history, and experience. But what expedient now, without such a primacy of jurisdiction, can the Presbyterians find out against the mischief of Schism? Truly no other, but by rejecting that Article of the Creed in which we profess the (certainly visible) unity of the Catholic Church, that is, by believing that Schism i● no such ill thing, as that much care needs be used to prevent it. But surely English Protestants, not having blotted out of their Creed that Article, since they acknowledge the constituting one Bishop necessary to the unity of a Diocese etc. will find great difficulty to show a reason why one Governor is not as necessary to the ●nity of the whole Church, to which only both unity and Indefectibility is promised, and without which, the unity of Provinces or Dioceses are but factions.  
3. Certain it is, that the ancient Fathers thought so, as shall be showed. And because new opinions arising do naturally cause debates and contentions, from what causes soever they flow, and contentions are apt to generate Schisms, since likewise Ecclesiastical Laws are made to be observed every where, if any particular Church were Independent of the whole, there could be no remedy against Divisions; hence it is, that the Holy Fathers do assert the necessity of a Supreme Authority, and assign thereto these Acts. 1. Either to determine, or at least silence Disputes about opinions. 2. In those which are called majores causae, (as wrongful Depositions of Bishops, etc.) either by appeals or consultations to restore the Persons wronged, and punish the wrong-doers. 3. To take care that Discipline, established by received canons, be every where observed. 4. To judge when there is a necessity of convening in General Councils, and thereupon to summon all Bishops, and, as far as the Authority of a common Spiritual Father may extend, to oblige Princes to permit their respective Bishops to meet.  
4. These things thus premised, now follow the Proofs demonstrating, that, before Boniface the thirds time, suck like Acts of a Supreme Authority were practised by his Predecessors, and submitted to generally in the Church. I must not write a Volume, therefore I will select a few examples in all Ages, which will at least recompense the Doctor's Anti-quotations, and when he shall require it, many, many more shall be added.  
5. To proceed therefore ascendendo; 
A. D. 590.  St. Gregory the Great, Predecessor of Boniface the third, though he would not admit an Universal Episcopacy, yet at the same time he challenged and exercised an Universal Superintendency: Hence, 
Greg. M. lib. 2. all Indict. 11. Ep. 3.  says he, 'tis notorious that the See Apostolic by Divine institution is preferred before all Churches. And again more fully; The care 
Idem. lib. 7. jud. 2. Epist. 64.  of the Church was committed to the holy Apostle, and Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter: The care and principality of the Universal Church was committed to him, and yet he is not called the Universal Apostle. Again, writing to the Bishop of Syracuse, If any fault be found in any Bishops, 
Id. lib. 7. jud. 2: Epist. 64.  I know no Bishop that is not subject to the See Apostolic: But when no fault exacts it, we are all, in regard of humility, equal. And this subjection, says he elsewhere, 
Id. l. 2. Indict. 2. Ep. 63.  both our most Religious Lord the Emperor, and our Brother (John) Bishop of the same City do frequently protest. And in an Epistle to Natalis, 
Id. l. 2. Ind. 10. Ep. 37.  Bishop of Salona, If, saith he, any of the four Patriarches had committed such an act, so great a disobedience would not have passed without great scandal. Moreover in another Epistle he declares how he had reversed the judgement of the Church of Constaninople against a Priest of Chalcedon, where he says, 
Id. l. 5. Indict. 14. Ep. 24.  Dost not thou know that in the cause of John the Priest against our Brother and Colleague, John of Constantinople, he, according to the Canons, had recourse to the See Apostolic, and that the cause was determined by our Sentence? A world of like examples more may be added: And in these a primacy of jurisdiction is manifest, which therefore by his own confession is no Usurpation.  
6. In the next place the immediate Predecessor of St. Gregory, 
A. D. 577.  Pope Pelagius the Second, in the very same Epistle, in which he condemns the presumptuous Title of Universal Bishop, assumed by john of Constantinople, hath this passage, writing to the Eastern Bishops, 
Pelag. 2. Ep. ●.  The Apostolic See is informed that John Bishop of Constantinople out of this his presumption hath convoked you to a Synod, whereas the authority of assembling general Synods is by a special privilege delivered to the Apostolic See of St. Peter; neither can we read of any Synod esteemed to be ratified, which was not established on the Apostolic Authority. Therefore whatever you have decreed in your foresaid Conventicle, by the Authority of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and the Speech of our Saviour, who gave to Blessed Peter the power of binding and losing, I do command all things determined by you to be void and repealed, etc.  
Again his, 
A. D. 494.  not immediate, Predecessor, Pope Gelasius is a yet more full and convincing witness to the Pope's Universal jurisdiction, upon this occasion. Pope Felix the second, 
A. D. 484.  who possessed St. Peter's Chair next before him, had been appealed and complained to by john Patriarch of Alexandria, unjustly dispossessed by Peter an Eutichian, whom the Pope in a Synod of 42. Bishops excommunicated. Moreover, upon the complaints of the same john, he cited Acacius Bishop of Constantinople to appear: And upon his contumacy excommunicated him likewise in this Form: Take notice, says he, that thou art deprived of Sacerdotal honour, and Catholic Communion, and moreover, that thou art segregated from the number of the Faithful, having lost both the Name and Office of Priestly Ministry, being condemned by us by the judgement of the Holy Ghost and Apostolic Authority. Yet this Sentence, not having been, as the former was, denounced in a Synod, some Eastern Bishops found fault with it. Whereupon his next Successor Pope Gelasius justifies his proceedings in an Epistle to the Bishop of Dardania, 
Felix 2. in Ep. ad Episc. Dard.  he shows that when any Heretic has been once condemned by a Synod, (as Sabellius, etc.) there was need of convoking new Synods for the condemning his Followers: And that this was the case of Acacius, who communicated with Peter and Timotheus, Bishops of Alexandria, Eutychians, which Heresy had been condemned in the Council of Chalcedon. In consequence whereto he adds these Words: Neither do we omit to signify, which the whole Church all the world over knows very well, that the See of the blessed Apostle St. Peter, has a power to lose whatsoever things shall be bound by the Sentences of any Bishops whatsoever, as being the Church which has a right to judge every other Church, neither is it permitted to any one to censure its judgement: Seeing the Canons have ordained that appeals should be made to it from every part of the World. Are these now marks only of a Primacy of Order, and not Supremacy of jurisdiction?  
7. We will next enlarge a step to Pope Leo the Great, 
A. D. 440.  who began his Seat in the year 440. 
A. D. 451.  and in whose time the General Council of Chalcedon was assembled. How courageous and constant an Assertor he was of his Supreme jurisdiction, most of his Epistles witness, and almost all Protestant Controver●ists complain. He in his 53d. 
Leo M. in Ep. 53.  Epistle to Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople; in the 54th. to the Emperor Marcianus; 
Idem. Ep. 54.  and the 55th. to the Empress Pulcheria, 
Idem Ep. 55.  vindicates the Derivation of his Authority, not from the Imperial City, but St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles.  
8. Therefore, whereas the Preacher calls to witness the famous Canon of Chalcedon, 
Serm. pag. 19  decreeing to the Bishop of Constantinople an equality of privileges with the Bishop of Rome; not for any other reason then its having the good hap to be one of the two Imperial Cities. If he had had a mind to dealingenuously, he would have called it an infamous Canon surreptitiously made, saith Liberatus, after the departure of the judges, 
Liberat in Brev. cap. 13.  the Senate, and of the Legates of the See Apostolic; and entirely nullyfied by the protestation of the said Legates, 
Socrat. Hist. l. 2. c. 5.  and the Sentence of Pope Leo, without whose consent, according to the ancient traditionary Law, nothing made in any Council could oblige the Church. A Canon this was, so despised during that whole Age and more, that the memory of it only remained in the Acts of that Council, but it was not inserted among the other Canons, for as it appears by the most ancient Greek and Latin Copies of that Council, by the collection of Dionysius Exiguus, 
Theodor. Anag. in Sing. Can.  and by the Testimony of Theodoret Anagnostes a Grecian, the Council of Chalcedo● published only twenty seven Canons, whereas now this is reckoned the 28th.  
Lastly, A Canon this was, that Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople (by whose brig●ing with some Bishops, and violence to others it was compiled) was himself both ashamed and sorrow for it, 
Leo. Ep. 55. ad Anat.  as appears by St. Leo's answer to him: And of which Pope Gelasius forty years after affirms, 
Gelas P. Tom. de Anathem. Vinc.  That the See Apostolic never consented to it, the Emperor never imposed it; Anatolius never made use of it, and the whole matter was put in the power of the See Apostolic: And therefore what the same See confirmed, remained in force, and that which it received not, could not have any firmness.  
9 Now because this enormous Canon was pretended to be only a renewing of a former Canon made in the second General Council of Constantinople, 
A. D. 381.  observe the false dealing of that Bishop and his Clergy, in citing that Canon. For whereas it was thus conceived, Let the Bishop of Constantinople enjoy (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) prerogatives of honour after the Bishop of Rome: 
Conc. Constantinop. 1. Can. 3.  These renewers of this Canon at Chalcedon, fraudulently thrust in the words [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] equal privileges: As if, excepting only the sitting in the second Chair, he was to enjoy in the Church all the prerogatives of the See Apostolic: A fancy which never entered into the minds of those former Bishops. And indeed de facto after the fourth Council of Chalcedon, the new Patriarch, by virtue of the exotic power given him, presumed to summon all the other Patriarches and Bishops in the East to a Council; An attempt repressed by Pope Leo.  
And no doubt when afterward the usurped the Title of Ecumenical Bishop, they would not fear to give the same Title of Ecumenical to their Councils too.  
10. And as for the second Canon of that Council of Constantinople quoted in the Margin of the Sermon, 
Serm. pag. 18▪ Concil. Const. 1. Can. 2.  whereby the Eastern Patriarches are forbidden to meddle in Ecclesiastical affairs beyond the limits of their Provinces, what is this to the Bishop of Rome? He is not so much as named nor thought of in that Canon: Neither was there ever any received Council in God's Church that excluded him from an universal jurisdiction which the Doctor sees was ●rcised by so many Popes at and after the Council of Chalcedon, and he will see more before it.   

CHAP. VII.  
The Pope's Supremacy confirmed by a Law of the Emperor Valentinian. Decrees of Pope's had anciently the force of Laws: Yet with restriction. The Pope's Supreme jurisdiction confirmed by Examples in the Eastern Church. Appeals to the See Apostolic decreed at Sardica, where were present British Bishops. Of the first Council at Arles, where British Bishops likewise were present. The sixth Canon of the Council of Nice explained.  
1. THere was an Imperial Law made by Valentinian the third, 
Novel. Theodos. Tit. 24.  (who began his Reign A. D. 424. 
A. D. 424. ) directed to the Bishops of France, importing that Whatever had been, and should be established by the See Apostolic, should have the force of a Law to them and all others. And this the Emperor says is Secundum veterem consuetudinem. 
Ibid.  Moreover to show the grounds of that Law, 
Ibid.  he further saie●, That the Supremacy of the See Apostolic has been established both by the merit of St. Peter, who is the Prince of Episcopal Society, and by the dignity of the City, and by the sacred Authority of a Synod.  
2. Now if we shall consider the weight of such a public Testimony, and how Christian Catholic Emperors never made Laws touching Ecclesiastical matters, but by the advice of Bishops, and for the corroborating of former Church Canons both touching Faith and Discipline, and by no means for introducing of new ones, we shall find a greater proof can scarce be produced against the Preachers pretention, That between the times of the four first General Councils the Popes enjoyed only a primacy of Order, and not jurisdiction.  
3. Though this Law seems too excessively large, commanding That whatever had been or should be, etc. Pope Leo, who lived in the same Age, limits the true sense of it, when he commands That all the Decretals and Constitutions both of Pope Innocent, 
Leo in Decret. T. 5.  and all other his Predecessors, should be observed; namely, such as are published touching Ecclesiastical Orders and Canons: Or, 
Hilar. P. in Ep. ●d Ep. Provinc. Vien.  as Pope Hilarius expresses it, What ever Constitutions have been made by Popes for the quiet of all God's Priests, the observance of Discipline and taking away confusions.  
4. Examples of such public Decrees of unquestioned Authority, even in the judgement of the most learned Protestants, 
A. D. 385. to 418.  we find made by Pope Zosimus, 
Zosim in Decret. c. 1. 2 Innocent. in Decret. c. 21. & tit. 45, 46, 47.  Pope Innocent the First, and Pope Siricius, who governed the Church between the years 385. and 418. For as for the Decretals pretended to be made by antecedent Popes, they do except against them, and perhaps not without ground, He will not expect I should transcribe those authentic Decrees to weary both him and myself unnecessarily. He knows very well where to find them. I will only add, that such Decrees were actually received as Laws by the Churches of Spain, France, etc. Hence it is, 
Conc. Tolet. 4.  that in the fourth Council of Toledo, the Bishops say, For what is to be observed by us in such Cases, Let us be informed by the Precepts of the Apostolic See, and not follow our own, but our common Father's Instruction. And the Council of Tours says, 
Conc. Turon. 11. Can. 20.  What Bishop shall presume to act contrary to such Decrees as have proceeded from the See Apostolic? Notwithstanding, it was not forbidden to Bishops to consider and examine such Decrees; for if they were made upon misinformation, even Popes themselves have declared that the force of them should be suspended. And much more, if against the ancient Canons; for saith Pope Zosimus (ap. Gratian. 25. q. 1.) Even this Seat hath not Authority to constitute or change any thing contrary to the Statute of the Fathers.  
5. As for the more Primitive times preceding these, I will content myself with a few examples, but such, and of so great weight, that if the Preacher will be ingenuous, they will even content him. In the recounting of them it will not be necessary, I should observe exactly the Order of times in each of them. And the first shall be a passage of the great Saint Basil, who writing to St. Athanasius about suppressing Arianism in the East, hath these words, It seems convenient to us to write to the Bishop of Rome, 
Basil. Ep. 52.  to desire him that he would have regard to our affairs, and interpose the judgement of his Decree, etc. Moreover, that he would give Authority to s●m choice persons, who may bring the Acts of the Council of Ariminum for the annulling of those things that were violently done there, etc.  
6. Again, 
A. D. 343.  when the Synod of Antioch about the year 343. assembled by Arians to the prejudice of the Council of Nice, had framed a new confession of Faith, it was argued of nullity, saith S●crates, 
Socrat. Hist. Eccles. lib. ●. cap. 5.  especially because julius' Bishop of Rome was neither himself present, nor sent any to supply his place: Whereas (saith he) the Ecclesiastical Canon commands that no Decrees be established in the Church without the assent of the Bishop of Rome▪ And this authority the same Pope julius asserts; For writing to the Eastern Bishops, who had condemned St. Athanasius, 
Apud Athanas. Apol. 2.  he says thus, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Are you ignorant, this is the custom that you should first write to us, and after that determine just matters there? Therefore if there were any ill suspicion against that Bishop [of Alexandria] you aught to have signified it in the first place to the Church here.  
7. Consonantly hereto Sozomen, 
Sozom. Hist. Eccl. lib. 3. c 9  another Greek Historian saith expressly, That there was received in the Church a Sacerdotal law, declaring all things to be void that are done without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome. Nay, which is yet more, this (which for aught appears was only an unwritten Canon or Custom, for no Council mentions it, but delivered by Tradition even in the Eastern Churches) was of such authority, 
Novel. Theod. tit. 24.  that the foresaid Emperor Valentinian makes it a Law-Imperial: We decree, says he, that according to the ancient custom nothing be innovated in the Church without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome. Surely Dr. Pierce will acknowledge these Testimonies argue more than a Primacy of Order; here is a jurisdiction, asserted, extending itself beyond the Diocesan, Metropolitan or Patriarcal limits of Rome.  
8. I will add a few examples more: when some Eastern Councils had deposed Athanasius, Patriark of Alexandria, Paul Bishop of Constantinople, Marcellus Pri●at of Ancy●a, and Asclepas, Bishop of Gaza, The Bishop of Rome, 
Sozom. Hist. Eccl. 〈◊〉. 3. c. 2.  saith Sozomen, (to whom for the dignity of his Throne the care of all things does pertain) restored to every one of them their own Church. And he adds further, That he commanded those who had deposed them to appear on a day appointed at Rome, to give account of their judgement: threatening that he would not leave them unpunished, if they did not cease from innovating. All this he did, saith Theodoret, 
Theod. Hist. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 4.  [not by usurpation, but [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] following the Church's law.  
9 Again, when the General council of Ephesus 
Cor●. Eph. p. 2. 〈◊〉. 5 in related Calest.  was entering into debate about the cause of john Patriark of Antioch, the Bp. of jerusalem interposed, affirming, that according to the ancient custom, the Church of Antioch● as always governed by the Roman; Whereupon the whole Council remitted the judgement of that Cause to the Pope.  
10. Moreover, when Dioscorus, Patriark of Alexandria, in the Scismatical Council of Ephesus had deposed Flavian Bishop of Constantinople, Flavian appealed to the Pope. And this he did [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] according to the custom of Synods, 
Epist. ad Theodos. in p●eamb. Conc. Chalced.  saith the Emperor Valentinian.  
11. Two examples more I will the rather add, because we of this Nation are particularly concerned in them. The first is taken out of the famous Council of Sardica assembled about twenty years after that of Nice. 
A. D. 345.  This Council was by justinian called Ecumenical, because, though the Eastern Bishops departed before the conclusion; yet the Canons of it were never rejected by them. 
Concil. Sardic. can. 3, 4.  In the third and fourth Canons of this Council it was ordained, upon a proposal made by the famous Osius of Corduba, to this effect, That in any Controversies between Bishops which could not be determined in their own respective Provinces, the person aggrieved might appeal to the Bishop of Rome, who might renew the Process and appoint judges: And (by a second proposal of Gaudentius a Bishop) in case any Bishop deposed should make such an appeal, till the Pope had determined the cause, it was not permitted that another Bishop should be ordained in his place. These Decrees the Council made to honour the memory of St. Peter the Apostle.  
12. Now at this Con●cil among other Bishops from all the Western Countries, some came out of our Brittany, as St. Athanasius an eye-witness assured us. 
Athan. Apol. ●.  And therefore the General Superintendency of the Pope over all churches could not have been unknown in this Nation long before St. Augustin the Monk, or the Saxons had possession here. By which may appear the slightness of the late found Welsh paper, though much bragged of, in which the Abbot of Bangor is said to have refused the subjection to the Pope, which St. Augustin required of the British Bishops. For what gross ignorance was it in this Abbot (if the Paper relate truth of him) That after all that power exercised by that man called the Pope over the whole Church of God, especially over the Western Provinces, and so much respect returned him from them after the presence of the British Bishops at so many famous Councils, and after so many holy Bishops sent for the conversion of these Islands by the Bishops of Rome's delegation, he should be such a stranger to his person, or authority, or his titles, after the year of our Lord 600? At which time also the Irish Bishops are found to have yielded all obedience to this Roman Bishop, when the Britain's thus denied it, as appears Both in that they are said by venerable Beda (the South-Irish at least) to have returned very early to a right observation of Easter Ad admonitionem Apostolicae sedis Antistitis, 
Hist. l. 3. ●. 3.  and also in that about this time they sent Letters to St. Gregory then Pope, to know after what manner they ought to receive into the Church such as were converted from Nestorianism, to whom he sends his Orders concerning it directed Quirino Episcopo & ceteris Episcopis in Hybernia Catholicis, 
Greg. 9 ep. 61.  as may be found in the Register of his Epistles.  
13. A second Monument wherein we Britain's have a peculiar interest, is that most ancient first Council of Arles, celebrated according to Baronius and Sirmondus (assented to by Sir Henry Spelman) in the year 314. about eleven years before the first Council of Nice. 
A. D. 314.  The Canons of this Council are directed to the Bishop of Rome, as appears by the first Canon in these words, First concerning the Paschal observation of our Lord, 
Conc. Arlat. can. 1.  that it be observed by us upon one day and at one time through the whole world; and that according to custom thou wouldst direct Letters to all. And moreover in the head of the Canons is inserted this Breviary of their Epistle, To our most holy Lord and Brother Silvester, Marinus and the Synod of Bishops assembled together in the Town of Arles: We have signified to your charity the things decreed by common Council, to the end that all may know what they ought for the future to observe. Here may be seen a Patriarchical council sending their Decrees to the Bishop of Rome, as being the chief person from whom all Christians are to receive information of what they ought to believe and practise, and by whom no doubt they were to be obliged thereto. In which regard St. Martin, Pope and Martyr, makes this the Pope's most proper Title, that he is Custos Canonum Divinorum.  
14. At this Council were present three Bishops Representatives of the British Clergy, Eborius Bishop of York, Restitutus Bishop of Lonidon, Adelphius Bishop of (Maldon, called then) Colonia Londinensium, with Sacerdos, a Priest, and Arminius, a Deacon. And the Canons of this Council, were by Restitutus brought into Brittany, saith Bishop Godwin out of Bale. By which also it appears that neither the Pope himself, nor his place and authority in the Church were unknown, nor un-acknowledged by the Britain's long before St. Augustine's days.  
15. And now it will be seasonable to answer the Doctor's great Objection grounded on that famous 6 th'. Canon of the first Nicene Council, by which he says, Every Patriarch and Bishop is appointed to be chief in his proper Diocese, 
Serm. pag. 18.  as the Bishop of Rome is chief in his. This is now to be examined. The words of the Canon are, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.] Let the ancient Customs be still in force in Egypt, 
Conc. Nicen. 1. can. 6.  Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria enjoy a jurisdiction over them all: In as much as such likewise is the custom of the Bishop of Rome. In like manner both in Antioch and other Provinces, let the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] privileges be preserved entire to every Church.  
16. The true sense of this Canon will best appear from the end for which it was enacted, and that apparently was for the regulating and composing disorders begun in Egypt by Meletius Bishop of Lycopolis, who rebelliously refused obedience to the Patriarch of Alexandria, presuming to ordain Bishops independently on him. This Scismatical attempt the Council here represses, commanding that according to the ancient custom the Bishop of Alexandria should have entire jurisdiction through all Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis; And the Roman Bishop in his Patriarchat, and may say in his Metropolitanship too is made the Pattern according to which this Regulation is framed not in regard of his plenary right, and universal Jurisdiction in the Church of God, which (I have showed already, and shall demonstrate the same yet further, even in the times preceding this Council) is extended to the whole world, and was exercised over the▪ Patriarcs themselves, But only of the custom and practice of his calling Synods, correcting manners, and making ordinations according to his Patriarkal and Metropolitical Jurisdiction: for those words in the sixth Nicene Canon, Similiter autem & apud caete●as provincias, In like manner in the rest of the Provinces, that is, those Provinces also that were not such where a Patriarc resided, Honour suus unicuique servetur, Let every one's Honour be preserved to him, compared with the second Canon of the first Council of Constantinople, and the eighth canon of the Ephesian Council, show clearly enough, that not only Patriarkical authority, but Metropolitical also is spoken of in this canon, and the Roman Bishops authority also herein made a Pattern. And upon this ground that the Canon intends not to equalise the Bishop of Alexandria with the Bishop of Rome in his full Jurisdiction, 
De concord. Sacerd. & Imperii, ●. 7. n. 6.  the most learned Marca late Archbishop of Tholouse observes, that those who object it against the Pope's Primacy, though they fortify themselves even with Ru●●inus his interposition of suburbicarian Churches will gain but little by it, for it signisignifies no more but that the Bishop of Rome did ordain either immediately or by Commission all the Bishops in the Suburbicarian Churches, so ought the Bishop of Alexandria to do in Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis.  
17. But, though I mention this Version of Ruffinus, because it is much applauded by our primitive Reformers, and I expect Doctor Pier●e, in his Reply, will have recourse to it, yet it is a most groundless and senseless Translation, or rather corruption of the Canon; His words are, Vt apud Alexandriam, & in urbe Roma vetusta consuetudo servetur, ut ille Egypti, vel hic Suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum sollicitudi●em gerat. Against which so much hath been written that it would be to lose time to repeat it, especially to the Doctor, who cannot be unacquainted with what 
* Erasm Pr●●f. in Hilar.  Erasmus and 
‖ Scal●g. in Chron. Euseb. Baron Spond. Annal. 325. Peron. rep. to K. jam. c. 33.  Scalager have observed of the Interpreter, that it is his custom to omit, pervert and change the Text as he pleases; and what Others with much Learning and Judgement have said to this interpretation. Not to speak of the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction as first Patriarc, whereby the other Patriarcs were subordinate to him, being obliged even in this matter of their own Ordinations to give him notice, sending withal a Confession of their Faith, upon the approbation whereof, and of the legality of their Election and Ordination, He confirmed them or otherwise deposed them, of which many examples may be produced: Whosoever hath but looked into Ecclesiastical History must confess that His particular Patriarchat was far from being confined to the ten Suburbicarian Provinces subject to the Vicariat of Rome: Nay, it is manifest that it extended to the whole Western Empire, which, besides Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Brittany, the six Maritime Provinces of Africa, etc. contained Illyricum, Macedon, Epyrus, Greece, and the Islands near it; And all this by the confessions of Adversaries, Zonaras, Balsamon, 
Basil. Epist. 10.  etc. writing on this very Canon. Hence St. Basil calls the Bishop of Rome [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the head or chief of the Western Regious. 
August. l. 1. cont. Julian. c. 2.  And St. Augustin says, that Pope Innocent did preside over the Western Church. And St. Hierom, 
Hieron. Epist. 77.  Let them (says he) condemn me as an Heretic with the West, as an Heretic with Egypt, 
Justin. Novel. 123.  that is with Damasus and Peter. And justinian the Emperor affirms, that all the Regions of the World are subject to the five Patriarcs, that is [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to Western Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Thepolis (or Antioch) and jerusalem. Now unless Hesperia signifies the whole West, to what Patriarc was France, Spain, Africa, &c subject. 
Theod. l. 5. c. 23.  If not to Rome, how can all Bishops be said to be subject to five Patriarcs? Hence the Western Bishops are by Theodores called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and by Sacrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Socrat. l. 2. c. 29.    

CHAP. VIII.  
Proofs of the Pope's Supreme jurisdiction before the first Council of Nice. How all Apostles and all Bishops equal: and how Subordinate. St. Peter had more than a Primacy of Order. Of St. Paul's resisting St. Peter. The Pope's Supremacy not dangerous to States. On the contrary, etc. Protestant's writing in favour of it.  
1. BUt as yet our Proofs of Primacy of jurisdiction in the Successor of St. Peter, though they reach to the Beginning in the latitude fixed by the Doctor, and truly I am persuaded to an indifferent Reader will appear more credible than any his Margins furnish to the contrary: Yet they may be continued, till we come even to the Presbyterians, Independants and Quakers Beginning too, that is, the Gospels themselves. To demonstrate this, we will make a short enquiry into the times of the Church before Constantin, whilst it was a mere suffering Church, incapable of conspiring either in or out of General Councils: But withal a Church less dispersed and torn by Heresies or contentions among Bishops, and therefore less needing this Preservative against Schisms, Supreme Authority.  
2. In these holy peaceable times therefore before Silvester, I will content myself with two or three examples to prove the acknowledgement of such a Primacy. And the first shall be of St. Melchiades the immediate Predecessor of Pope Silvester: 
A. D. 311.  St. Augustin will afford us a Testimony of his care and authority extended into afric, 
Aug Epist. 162.  whose words are, [Qualis ipsius Melchiadis ultima est prolata Sententia, etc.] Such an one was the last sentence Melchiades himself pronounced (in judging the cause of Donatus:) by which he would not have the boldness to remove from his Communion his Colleagues, (the Catholic Bishops in Africa) in whom no crime could be proved: And having censured most deeply Donatus alone, whom he found to have been the Original of all the mischief, he gave a free choice of healing the breaches of Scism to all the rest of his Followers: being also in a readiness to send communicatory Letters to those (subdivided Scismatics) that were ordained by Majorinus (a Donatist Bishop:) in so much as his Sentence was, that in whatsoever Cities of afric there were two Bishops dissenters (a Catholic and a Donatist▪ he should be confirmed in the Bishopric, who was first ordained, etc. and that another Diocese should be provided which the other should govern. O Son of Christian peace! and truly Father of the Christian flock, says St. Augustin.  
3. I will add to this three other examples, in which, though as to the use and administration of the Superintendency some Objections have been made, yet they suffice to confirm the acknowledgement of such a Superintendency in the Pope▪ as the Preacher denies. The first is of Pope Stephanus contemporary with St. Cyprian and his fellow in Martyrdom, 
A. D. 258.  concerning whom we read in Eusebius, 
Euseb. Hist.  that he either inflicted, 
Eccles. lib. 7. c. 4. 6.  or at least threatened excommunication to some of the Churches of Asia that held a necessity of Rebaptisation after Baptism received by Heretics. And in the same quarrel, between the same Pope Stepha●●s and St. Cyprian himself, 
Cypr. Epist. 75  matters were almost brought to the like extremity: yet neither did St. Cyprian, though wonderfully sharp, nor even that violent Cappadocian Bishop, Firmilianus ever question the Pope's Authority, though, as they thought, unjustly employed▪  
4. The other is extant in the same St. Cyprian, who endeavoured to perswade the Pope to depose Marcianus a Metropolitan Bishop of Arles, siding with Novatian; His words to Pope Stephanus about it are these, 
Id. Epist. 67.  Let Letters be directed from thee into the Province, and to the people of Arles, commanding that Marcianus be excommunicated, and another put in his place. And to the like purpose is another Epistle of his in a cause touching two Spanish Bishops, 
Id. Epist. 68  upon misinformation restored by the Pope.  
5. The third is that so well known example of Pope Victor, 
A. D. 19●.  concerning whom Eusebius thus writes, 
Euseb. Hist. Eccl.  Victor endeavours to cut off from the fellowship of Communion the Churches of Asia, as declining into Heresy, and sends Letters by which he would divide them all indifferently from the Ecclesiastical Society, etc. But there are extant Letters of Bishops by whom Victor is sharply reproved, as one that was careless of the commodity of the whole Church. Particularly Ireneus reprehends him, telling him, that he did very ill to divide from the unity of the whole Body so many and so great Churches. Now in such reproofs from Ireneus, and even Polycrates an Asian Bishop, himself the ringleader of the party of the Quart● decimani against St. Victor, it was not imputed to Victor that he exercised an usurped Authority over Bishops not subject to him, but that the cause of exercising his just Authority was ●ot sufficiently weighty.  
6. Having proceeded thus far, our last step shall be to the utmost degree, the very beginning itself, our Lord and St. Peter in the Gospels. And here we will acknowledge what the D●ctor says, that all the Twelve Apostles were equally foundations of the Church's building: 
Serm. page. 18.  That the same Authority which was first given to St. Peter alone, sustaining the person of the whole Church, was afterward given to the rest of the Apostles; that as St. Cyprian says, the same that St. Peter was, the rest of the Apostles likewise were [pari consortio praediti, etc.] endowed with an equal participation of honour and power. And as St. Hierom affirms, that all Bishops in all places whether at Rome or Eugubium, [Canterbury or Rochester] are of the very same merit, etc. But he will give leave to the Scripture to interpret itself, and to the Fathers to interpret both it and themselves. We grant therefore that all the Apostles, and all Bishops their Successors, enjoy the whole latitude of Apostolic and Episcopal jurisdiction, for as much as concerns the internal, essential qualifications of either: But for the external administration there may be, and always was acknowledged, a subordination and different latitude in the exercise of the same authority both among the Apostles and Bishops. Let him not find fault with this distinction; for they themselves have occasion sometimes to make use of it to the like purpose. Archbishop Whitgift, in his Defence of the Answer to the Admonition, affirms, that Archbishops, quoad Ministerium, do not differ from other Pastors, but touching Government, page 303. And afterward page 386. Answering the same Argument out of St. Hierom, who equals the meanest Bishop with the Pope, he says, that they are equal quoad Ministerium, but not quoad polittam.  
7. Let him take therefore an example illustrating this at home. What Function, what Act of jurisdiction can my Lord of Canterbury exercise (I mean according to their Tenets) which the meanest of his subordinate Bishops cannot perform? He can ordain Bishops and Priests; So can they; the former with him, the other without him. He can visit his Province; they their Diocese. He can give the Holy Ghost by Confirmation; So can they▪ He can assemble a Provincial Council; They a Diocesan. He has a Canonical Authority over Bishops, etc. They over Priests. He can absolve from Censures inflected by himself; they can do as much. Yet nothing of all this excludes him from enjoying a special privilege in the exercise of every one of these Acts and Functions, or exempts them from Subordination to him as their Superior, yea, Supreme Pastor, Supreme not in Order only, but jurisdiction. Certainly the Doctor can easily apply this to St. Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, or to St. Peter's Successors, and all other Bishops.  
8. Now if the Fathers may be believed, is was a privilege, and a great one, that St Peter, for the merit of his Confession, had Christ's own Title, as Christ was Governor of the Church, given him, of being called a Rock. For in the Syrian language, in which our Lord spoke, the words have no different termination, as in the Greek or Latin, Petrus, Petra; but the words were, Thou art Gepha (a Rock) and upon this Gepha (Rock) I will build my Church. It was a privilege that Peter, neither the eldest, nor first chosen Apostle, is always in the Gospel first reckoned, and expressly called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the First. It was a privilege importing a greater latitude of jurisdiction, when after our Lord's Resurrection, St. Peter alone had in the midst of the rest a Commission given him of indefinitely ●eeding Christ's Flock; And after the Descent of the Holy Ghost, was peculiarly appointed the Apostle of the Circumcision, as St. Paul was of the Gentiles: Yea that the Dedication of St. Paul's Office was performed by St. Peter, who by immediate revelation was appointed to gather the first fruits of the Gentiles, in the conversion of Cornelius, and his household, etc.  
9 But, why among such Governors as the Apostles, was any Supereminency of jurisdiction given to one man? Certain it is, there never was less necessity to provide against disobedience and dis-unions, then among the Apostles; every one of whom was guided by a Divine unerring light, by which they knew all Truth, and replenished with the Spirit of Charity and Unity, which exempted them from all ambitious, envious or malicious designs: Yet a Subordination, not absolutely necessary to them, was established among them, for the succeeding Churches sake, which without such order would in a very short time become a mere Babel. Hence St. Hierom says, 
Hierom. cont. Jovin. lib. 2.  The Church was built upon Peter: though true it is the same thing is done upon others, and that the strength of the Church equally rests upon all. But among the twelve one is chosen, that a Head being constituted, the occasion of Schism may be taken away.  
10. To the same purpose St. Cyprian, 
Cypr. de unit. Ecclesiae.  notwithstanding the Sentence produced by the Preacher out of him, That all the Apostles were pari consortio praediti honoris & potestatis; Yet in the very same Book says, 
Ibid.  [Super unum aedificat Ecclesiam, etc.] Our Lord builds his Church upon one Person. And, though after his Resurrection, he gave an equal power to all the Apostles, saying, As my Father sent me, so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose sins you remit, etc. Yet that he might manifest unity, he by his Authority disposed the Original of the same Unity beginning from one. 
Ibid.  (And presently after) Whosoever holds not the unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the Faith? He that opposes be resists the Church; he that forsakes the Chair of S. Peter, upon which the Church is founded, does he trust that he is in the Church? In like manner St. Optatus at Rome, 
Optat. cont. Parm. lib. 2.  (says he) a Chair was placed for St. Peter, to the end that unity might be preserved of all; and for fear the other Apostles should challenge to themselves each one a particular Chair. So St. chrysostom, Observe now, how the same John, 
Chrysost. in Act. Ap. cap. 1. hom. 3.  that a little before ambitiously begged a preferment, after yields entirely the Supremacy to St. Peter. And again, Christ did constitute Peter the Master, 
Id. in. cap. 21. Jo●n. hom. 87▪  not of that See of Rome alone, but of the whole world.  
11. Now, 
Serm. page 17.  whereas the Doctor objects that St. Paul's contesting with St. Peter, and resisting him to his face, argues that he did not acknowledge any Superiority in him: 
August. lib. 2. de Bapt. cont. Donat.  Let St. Augustin, from St. Cyprian, resolve us, You see (says he to the Donatists) what St. Cyprian hath said, that the holy Apostle St. Peter, in whom did shine forth so great a grace of Primacy, being reprehended by St. Paul, did not answer that the Supremacy belonged to him, and therefore he would not be reprehended by one that was posterior to him. And he adds, The Apostle St. Peter hath left to posterity a more rare example of humility, 
Ibid.  by teaching men not to disdain a reproof from inferiors; then St. Paul by teaching inferiors not to fear, resisting even the highest, yet without prejudice to Charity, when Truth is to be defended.  
12. From all that has been said on this Subject, it will necessarily follow, that whatever Superiority St. Peter enjoyed, and the Holy Fathers acknowledged, was the gift of our Saviour only, a gift far more beneficial to us then to St. Peter. He was, as St. chrysostom says, Master of the World, not because his Throne was established at Rome, but receiving from our Lord so supereminent an Authority, he therefore made choice of Rome for his See; because that being the Imperial City of the World, he might from thence have a more commodious influence on the whole Church.  
13. Upon which grounds, whensoever the Fathers make use of the Authority of his Successors, Bishops of Rome against Heretics or Schismatics, they consider that authority as a privilege annexed to the Chair of St. Peter, and only for St. Peter's regard to the Sea of Rome. This is so common in the Father's writings, that I will not trouble him with one Quotation. Indeed john of Constantinople, when he would invade an equality [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in some sort with the Pope, did wisely to mention only the privilege of the Imperial City, because he could allege no other pretention for his Plea. But St. Leo, St. Gregory, St. Gelasius, etc. produce their evidences for their Supremacy from Tues Petrus, & super hanc Petram, etc. from Pasce oves meas, etc. Nay, St. Augustin and other Bishops of the Milevitan Council, writing to Pope Innocent to join with them in condemning the Pelagians, tell him their hope was those Heretics would more easily be induced to submit to his Authority: Why, because of the splendour of the Imperial City? No, but because the Pope's Authority 
August. Ep. 92.  was [de Sanctarum Scripturarum authoritate deprompta] deduced from the Authority of the Holy Scriptures.  
14. I might with reason enough, yet I will not omit to take notice of Doctor Pierce's trivial reasonings against the Popes, (as he calls it) pretended Headship; because such being sitted to vulgar capacities, and confidently pronounced, do more mischief, than those that have more show of profundity and weight. Thus than he argues: If the Pope be head of the Church, than the Church must be the Body of the Pope: 
Serm. Pag. 20.  And if so, then when there is no Pope, the Church has no Head: When there are many Popes, the Church has many Heads: When the Pope is Heritical, the Church has such a Head as makes her deserve to be beheaded.  
Whatever advantage the Doctor expects from such a Discourse as this, it must flow from a childish Cavil upon the word Head, and whatever consequences he here draws from thence against the Pope, may as well be applied to all kind of Governors, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil: For they are all Heads within their Precincts: A King is the Head of his Kingdom; and a Bishop of his Diocese. When we call therefore the Pope, Head of the Church, we mean that among all Governors thereof, he is the Supreme in the sense before declared: He is a Head, but not so as Christ is in respect of his Mystical body, who by his Spirit internally quickens and directs it. The Pope is only an external, ministerial, visible Head, and, as it were, Root of Unity and Government.  
All this, no question, the Doctor knew before to be our meaning: and by consequence he knew that his inferences from thence were pitifully pedantic, & insignificant, though many of his Court-hearers and Country-readers perhaps wonder there can remain a Papist in England unconverted after such a Sermon has been published.  
15. When there is no Pope, says the Preacher, the Church wants a Head. It is granted: For sure he does not think it is a part of our Faith to believe Popes are immortal. But yet for all that the Papacy is immortal: The Government is not dissolved: Succession is not interrupted. It is a Maxim in our Law that Kings die not, that is, the Regal Authority lives, though Kings in their particular persons die: Nor is there any substantial difference, as to this point, between hereditary and elective Monarchy▪ And in this sense we may say, that Popes die not, nor Bishops: Partly because when a Bishop or the Pope dies, at least his Jurisdiction remains in the Chapter or Body of Electors. Hence it is that in St. Cyprian we read Epistles of the Roman Clergy exercising authority beyond the Diocese of Rom●: But principally because, when an Ecclesiastical▪ Superior dyes there remains by Christ's Ordination a [vis generativa] or virtue in the Church to constitute another in his place, and so to continue the Government. There has been oft times a long vacancy in the Apostolic See, as well as in Dioceses and Kingdoms. After the death of Pope Fabian (before there were any Christian Emperors) the See was vacant for above a years space: yet neither did St. Iren●us, Optatus, Epiphanius, or St. Augustin, when they objected the chain of Succession in St. Peter's Chair, esteem that thereby the Chain had been broken: neither did any old Heretics make use of such an argument to invalidate the Pope's authority.  
16. But what shall we say to the Doctors next inference, in a case of Schism? when there are many Popes, then▪ says he, the Church is become a Monster with many Heads. But he is deceived. As when, after the death of a King, several pretenders to the Crown appear, there is still by right but one legitimate Successor: all the rest are Rebels and Tyrants. It is so in the Papacy. 
Cypr. Epist. 76.  In that case St. Cyprians Rule holds, If the Church be with Novatian, it was not with Cornelius, who by a lawful Ordination succeeded Fabian. Novatian therefore is not in the Church, nor can be esteemed a Bishop (of Rome.) Or if it be uncertain to which of them the right pertains, so that some Nations adhere to one Head, others to another: it is a great calamity: but yet the Church remains, though wounded, yet not wounded to death: A General Council cures all.  
17. If the Pope, (according to Doctor Pierce his supposition) should prove an Heretic, he infers very improperly, that the Church ha● such a Head as makes her deserve to be beheaded: For in that case, the Pope is so far from remaining a Head, that he is not so much as a Member of the Church, but is deprived not only of the Administration, but also the Communion of the Church, as other Heretical Bishops are: So that then there is a pure vacancy. I shall not be so severe as to take notice of the unhansom (not to say unmannerly) terms the Doctor uses in expressing the last branch of this Objection.  
18. Thus much concerning the Doctor's first pretended Novelty of the Roman Church, the Pope's primacy. Now whether my asserting that Primacy or his denying it to be a Novelty, and whether his proofs or mine are more concluding, I leave to the Readers consciences. He will excuse my dilating on this Point, because therein I follow his own example, 
Epist. Ded.  for he tells his Majesty, He has spoken most at large of the Pope's supremacy and his reasons given for such Largeness shall be mine too, though I believe we shall have different meanings, yet without equivocation, even when we deliver our reasons▪ in the same words. For i. I also acknowledge the Pope's supremacy to be the chief, if not only hinge on which does hang the stress of (more than Papal) the Ecclesiastical Fabric, as being the Cement of the Church's unity. 
Ibid.  2. Because it is a point wherein (say I likewise) the Honour and safety of his Majesty's Dominions are most concerned. His meaning is, that no danger is to be apprehended for England, but only from that Point. I am sure, on the contrary, that whilst such a Primacy purely spiritual was acknowledged in England, the Church here was never torn in pieces with Schisms, nor poisoned with Heresies: The Throne was never in the least danger upon that account; never was a Sword drawn for or against it. Some few little more than Paper-quarrels happened between the English and Roman Court, about matters, not of Religion, but outward Interests: in which generally the Pope had the worst at last: But the Honour and Safety of these Dominions were far from being prejudiced. The Kings of France always have been, and still continue as jealous and tender of their temporal Regalities, as ever any Princes were: yet they account it one of the most sparkling Jewels of their Crown, that they call themselves the eldest [and most devoted] Sons of the Catholic Church. The acknowledging the Spiritual Primacy of the chief Pastor they find a greater honour and defence to them than many Armies would be: because it preserves peace and unity in that Kingdom, not by the terror of Swords drawn and Muskets charged in their Subjects faces, but by subduing their minds and captivating their consciences to Faith and Obedience. And let Doctor Pierce be assured, without a Spiritual Authority, which may have influence on the hearts of Christian Subjects, all their preaching, and Laws too will prove but shaking Bulwarks for supporting Monarchy.  
19 But we must not yet leave this passage without considering it a little better. He saith, That in the point of the Pope's Supremacy of jurisdiction the honour and safety of his Majesty's Dominions are most concerned: his meaning is, that it is both dishonourable and dangerous to his Majesty's Dominions, that any of His Subjects should be permitted to acknowledge such a Supremacy. I would I could oblige the Doctor by any exorcisms to discover sincerely the inward thoughts of his heart upon this Subject. But, having no such power, at so great a distance, I must be content to argue the Case with him once more, because it is a passage, that reflects not only upon the honour of Catholic Religion, but the safety of all Professors of it.  
20. He cannot be ignorant, how often and how earnestly Roman Catholics here have protested their renouncing any acknowledgement of the least degree of Temporal power or Jurisdiction as of Right to belong to the Pope, over any Subject of his Majesties; It is therefore merely a pure Spiritual authority that they acknowledge in their Supreme Pastor. Is this now dishonourable? Is it unsafe? To whom? To all Supreme Princes, whether Catholics, or not? For Catholic Princes, they protest against this Opinion either of dishonour or danger; If only then to other Princes or States which are dissenters from, and enemies to Catholic Religion, than Nero and Diocletian had reason and justice on their sides, when they persecuted a Religion dishonourable and dangerous to the Roman Empire: For evidently, neither St. Peter, nor any other Apostle, or Bishops, but were, as to their Spiritual Authority, independent on the Emperors.  
21. Nay more, let the Doctor himself consider, lest He and his, both Brethren and Fathers, the Bishops, be not more deeply involved in the guilt, for which he desires the Catholics only should suffer. They themselves acknowledge, in despite of so many Statutes to the contrary, a pure Spiritual Authority in their Bishops, not derived from the King, they promise a Canonical obedience to them▪ they do not so to the King, therefore they admit a Jurisdiction in Bishops, of which the King is not the Root. 
Contrary to th● Statute 37 Hen. 8. c. 17.— ●, Ed. 6. c. ●.— & Reform. Leg. Ecclesiast. c. De Offici▪ & jurisdictione, p. 190.  For tho' for example, a public denunciation of Excommunication in their Spiritual Courts: or the conferring of Orders, or determining points of Faith, etc. without the King's consent may expose them, in case they exercise such Functions, to some danger from the Law of the Kingdom, yet they will justify such acts to be in themselves valid, that is, performed with sufficient authority; See Bishop Andrews Tort. Tort p. 366.— Bishop Carleton of Jurisdict. Reg. & Episcop. c. 1. p. 9 etc. 4. p. 39, 42.— Bishop Bramh. Schism guarded, p, 61, 63, 92.— Answer to Bishop of Chalced. p. 161.— Doctor Ferns Discovery of Episcopacy and Presbytery, p. 19— Doctor Tailor Episcopacy asserted, p. 236, 237, 239, 243,— Mr. Thornd. Right of Ch. c. 4. p. 234.— Epilog. l. 1. c. 8. p. 54. l. 1. c. 19, & 20. l. 3. c. 32. Which Quotations if any intelligent Reader will take the pains to peruse and consider, he may clearly see what limitations they make in the sense of that Oath of Regal Supremacy, which Oath yet they freely take in the full latitude of its words, though these express not any of the said limitations. Amatter, which hath not passed unobserved by Mr. Thorndyke in his Just Weights, c. 20. who there conceives great reason why the Kingdom for this should enact a new Oath.  
22. But if I should address my Speech now to Presbyterians and their Consistories, the Case is far more evident. They are so far from permitting to the King a Supremacy of Authority in their Ecclesiastical Courts (if such conspiracies may be called Ecclesiastical) that they will not so much as allow him any authority at all in such transactions: Nay they will exempt him no more than his meanest Subject from subjection to them. The like may be said of other Sects, which though they are not guilty of the Presbyterian tyranny, yet are as averse from granting his Majesty any Supremacy in matters of Religion, as either Presbyterians, Protestants, or Roman Catholics. But I am now to deal with the Preacher and his Protestants: I therefore desire them to compare themselves and Roman Catholics together as to this point of honour and safety to his Majesty and his Dominions.  
23. Is it dishonourable either to the King or Kingdom, that a purely Spiritual authority should be acknowledged in him, to whom this whole Kingdom from its first conversion to Christianity together with the whole Christian world submitted itself as to their Supreme Pastor? And is it Honourable, that the same authority should be granted to more than twenty of his Majesties own Subjects? Again, is it unsafe that Canonical obedience for Christian Vnity's sake should be professed to one Venerable Prelate a 1000 miles off, and is there no danger in making the same Profession to so many at home, who, besides their spitual authority, have a right to concur in the enacting and executing Civil laws too; and who, we see, can either exalt or depress, according to their Interests, and advantages the Royal Prerogative?  
2. To resolve such Questions, as these, but also so to resolve them as becomes a Preacher of the Gospel of peace and truth would be a subject worthy the stating in a Court-Sermon. But it must be done without transgressing the precise limits of the question, that is, by comparing the state of Catholic Religion as professed and practised, for example, in France, Venice, Germany, etc. with the reformed Religion in England; the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of the former with that of the latter; and then judging whether of the two bring more security and honour to their Princes, and are more effectual upon the consciences of Subjects to breed them up in peace and obedience. For my own part, simply as a Catholic, my desire and prayers are, that God's divine truth may prevail in all our hearts, but so prevail by those ways of Charity, Patience, Justice and Piety with which it first conquered the World. And as a Subject of the Crown of England my Prayers are, that we may be all united in the profession of that only Religion, which more perfectly and most indispensibly gives to Caesar the things which are Caesar 's, and to God the things which are God's.  
25. I will row for a farewell, to these Testimonies of our Catholic Fathers, add the Votes of the Fathers also of the Reformation, that he may see how far more ingenuously they write then himself has don● touching the Pope's Primacy. And first I will produce two or three, who, though they oppose it, as he does, as a Novelty▪ yet allow a far greater age to it. 
Fulk against Bristows motives, p. ●48.  Doctor Fulk (most unchronologically) says, that five or six hundred years before Pope Leo and Pope Gregory (that is almost an hundred years before Christ was born) the mystery of Iniquity wrought in the See of Rome, and then daily increased; they were so deceived with long continuance of error, that they thought the dignity of Peter was much more over the rest of his fellow Apostles, than the Holy Scriptures do allow. Archbishop Whitgift assures us, 
Wh●tg. Defence, cap. 59  that the Papal Supremacy began with St. Peter, his words are, Among the Apostles themselves there was one chief, that had chief authority over the rest, to the end Schisms might be compounded. And this he quotes from Calvin, who said, 
Ibid. p. 173.  The twelve Apostles had one among them to govern the rest.  
26. I will now produce two, who will give this whole Cause to the Pope. The first is the so famed Melanctho●, who writes thus: As certain Bishop's preside ●ver particular Churches, 
Centur. E●ist. Thiol. Epist. 74.  so the Bishop of Rome is Precedent over all Bishops. And this Canonical policy no wise man, as I think, does or aught to disallow, etc. For the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is in my judgement profitable to this end, that consent of Doctrine may be retained. Wherefore an agreement may easily be established in this Article of the Pope's Supremacy, if other Articles could be agreed upon.  
The other witness is learned Doctor Covel, 
Covel. Exam. page 106, 107.  the Defender of Mr. Hooker, he having showed the Necessity of setting up one above the rest in God's Church to suppress the Seeds of Dissension, etc. thus applies it against the Puritans, If this were the principal means to prevent Schisms and Dissensions in the Primitive Church, when the graces of God were more abundant and eminent then now they are: N●y, if twelve [Apostles] were not like to agree, except there had been one chief among them: For saith Hierom, Among the twelve one was therefore chosen, that a chief being appointed, occasion of Schism might be prevented; how can they think that equality would keep all the Pastors in the World in peace and unity? For in all Societies, Authority, which cannot be where all are equal, must procure unity and obedience. 
Ibid.  He adds further: The Church without such an Authority, should be in a far worse case than the meanest Commonwealth; nay almost then a Den of Theives; if it were left destitute of means, either to convince Heresies, or to suppress them; yea, though there were neither help nor assistance of the Christian▪ Magistrate. Thus Dr. Pierce may see how these, his own Primitive Reformers, either join with us in this Point of Primacy, or however they oppose him, in calling it a Novelty begun by Pope Boniface the third.   

CHAP. IX.  
Of the Church's Infallibility. The necessity thereof, that she may be a certain Guide to Salvation; And the grounds whereupon She claims it.  
1. THe Second pretended Novelty of Catholic Doctrine, is the Infallibility of the Church, called by the Preacher, 
Serm. pag. 8.  The Pa●●adium of the Conclave, and derived from the Scholars of Marcus in Irenaeus, or from the Gnostics in Epiphanius. Against which Infallibility his unanswerable Arguments are, 
Ib. page 22.  1. Infallibility is one of God's incommunicable Attributes. 2. The Church not being omniscient, must therefore be ignorant in part, and consequently may fall into Error. 3. It is confessed by the great Champions of the Papacy, that the Heresy of the Novatians was hatched in Rome, and continued there almost two hundred years. 4. Besides Arianism that overspread the Church, she was infected with the Heresy of the Chyliasts, being deceived by Papias, which Heresy found no contradi●●●● for some Ages. 5. Yea, the whole Church in the opinion of St. Augustin and Pope Innocent, (during the space of six hundred years according to Maldona●) thought the Sacrament of the Eucharist necessary to Infants: yet the Council of Trent is of a contrary mind.  
2. In order to the answering of this Discourse, he will sure acknowledge that all Sect▪ of Christianity agree in this, that each of them has both a Rule of their Faith, and a 〈◊〉 also: But in both these there is difference among them. To the Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, Quakers, Socinians, etc. the only Rule is the Holy Scripture. But both Catholics and English Protestants, though they acknowledge Divine Revelations to be their only Rule, yet they admit certain universally received Traditions, besides express Scripture.  
3. But as for the Guide from which we are to learn the true sense of this Rule, the difference among the said Sects is far greater, and more irreconcilable. The Socinians will have Scripture interpreted only by private reason, a Guide evidently fallible, and therefore not to be imposed on others. The Independents, Anabaptists, Quakers, and Presbyterians too, pretend to an Infallible Guide, God's Holy Spirit; but with this difference, that the Independents, Anabaptists, and Quakers, rationally acknowledge that this Guide is only to direct those that have it, and perceive they have it, but cannot oblige other men that have it not, nor can be sure they have it. Whereas the Presbyterians by an unexampled Tyranny (at least in France) do oblige themselves and their Posterity to a Profession, that by a Divine Illumination they are taught to distinguish Canonical Books of Scripture from Apocryphal, and by the same Guide to justify all the Doctrines by which they descent from all others: And moreover, by a most senseless inhumanity, will impose a necessity on all others, to belie their own Consciences, and acknowledge the same Guide; though they have never wrought any Miracles, which certainly are necessary to oblige others to believe and follow the internal Guidance of that Spirit to which they pretend.  
4. As for Dr. Pierce, and the generality of English Protestants, (I speak of them now, as hitherto they have been, for what they must be hereafter, neither they nor I know a special Guide of theirs, beyond Reason and Spirit, for the finding out the sense of Scripture, and judging of Traditions received by them, is the Primitive Church, or four first General Councils: But since those ancient Fathers are now past speaking, and their Writings are as obnoxious to disputes as the Scriptures themselves, a speaking Judge of the sense of all these, I suppose, is their Ecclesiastical Synods, or Bishops, when Synods are dissolved: but principally those that are to make, and determine the sense of Acts of Parliament. And upon these grounds they find themselves obliged to behave themselves differently to several adversaries. For against Sects that went out from them, they use the help of Catholic weapons, the Authority of the Church, Councils, etc. But against Catholics, they (renouncing the Authority of the present Church in her Supremest Councils, of convening which the times are capable, and (in the interval of Councils) in the major part of the Governors thereof united with him, whom themselves acknowledge the prime Patriarch) will make use of a kind of private spirit or reason; or the judgement of a most inconsiderable number of Church-governors, going against the whole Body of the Catholic Church, and their chief Pastor, but this, as to assent only, where it likes them, and so will be their own selves Judges of what is the sense of Councils, Fathers, Scriptures and all: And great difficulty they often find how to avoid being accounted Papists, when they speak to Sectaries, and being even fanatics when they Dispute with Roman Catholics. And truly the Doctor's whole Sermon, is in effect merely Fanatic: For though he flourish with Greek and Latin●quotations of Fathers joined to Scripture, which they do not; yet since there is no visible Judge talked of in it, but himself, that is able to speak; What is this but private spirit, having little measure of the gift of Tongues more than Quakers have? So that let them preach as much as they will, the result of all Dispute between them and us must come to this, Whether their last speaking judge in England, or ours in the whole Catholic Church, deserves better to be believed and relied on.  
5. It cannot be denied but that there is something of Truth in all these Sects. The Guide which each of them respectively lays claim to, is a justifiable Guide, though being alone not sufficient. For 1. To exclude Reason from guiding us, would be to become Beasts. 2. To exclude God's Spirit from directing us, would be to cease being Christians. 3. To renounce the Testimony of Antiquity, and Authority of General Primitive Councils, would be an arrogant temerity unpardonable. 4. And last of all to deny a judging determining power to the present visible Governors, I mean those Governors and Synods which are Superior, in respect of all other Governors or Synods Inferior, would be to make all Heresies and Schisms justifiable. Therefore not any of these partial Guides must be neglected: Yet unless they all concur, that which we take to be Reason, and Inspiration, and the sense of the Primitive Church may deceive and misguide us.  
6. Now, it is only the Roman Catholic Church, whose en●●re Guidance proceed● from all these, and the effect of which Guidance in full satisfaction to each man's Soul, and universal peace in God's Church: which effects cannot possibly flow but from a complication of all these Guides. Roman Catholics admit Reason to judge of the sense of Scripture, (as the Socinians do:) but they give due bounds to Reason, nay they silence it quite, when it would presume to judge of incomprehensible Mysteries, and reject them because Philosophy cannot comprehend them. When Reason has found out the sense of Scripture, they with the Presbyterians, and even Fanatics, acknowledge it is Divine Inspiration that moves the Soul to assent thereto, and embrace the verities contained in Scripture, directing their actions accordingly. But because the Devil can transform himself into an Angel of Light, neither can there be any Guide more dangerous than false Inspirations, they conclude that all such pretended Inspirations are indeed Diabolical Suggestions, which are prejudicial to Honesty, Virtue, Piety, and the common Rules of Obedience, both Spiritual and Civil; All Inspirations which which incite private, uncommissioned persons to reform either Churches or State; all that nourish Factions or Commotions in the Commonwealth: All that beget Pride, and an opinion of selfsufficiency, or an humour of censuring others, especially Superiors. In a word, whensoever the spirit of single Prophets refuse to be subject to the community of the Prophets, that is, Church Governors; such Inspirations in Catholic Religion are rejected, detested, and sent back to the Infernal Father of them.  
7. Moreover, Roman Catholics do willingly and confidently appeal to the Primitive Church, the four first General Councils, and the holy Fathers. But universal experience demonstrating it impossible, that any writing can end a Debate between multitudes of persons interessed, and therefore not impartial or indifferent, their last recourse is to the present visible Church; which cannot declare her sense to us in any other way then as she is represented by her Pastors out of all Nations, that is, by a General Council. All Catholics, submiting to this Council, not their tongues only, but also their judgements, by following the Church thus with humility, show, that they are guided both by Reason, Inspiration, and Examples of Primitive Fathers. Hence St. Austin says, We receive the Holy Spirit if we love the Church, if we rejoice in the name of Catholics, and in the Catholic Faith. And elsewhere, [Contra rationem nemo sobrius, etc.] No sober man will admit an opinion against Reason, no Christian against Scriptures, no lover of peace and unity, against the Church. And this only is the Guide that we say, and presently will demonstrate to be infallible.  
8. Now, that the final Decision of all Controversies in Faith, can only be expected from such a Guide, and consequently that all Christians under pain of damnation, are obliged never to contradict this Guide, and always to assent when it requires, we are taught, not by Reason only, but God himself also, and this in the Law of Moses. The whole Nation of the jews, (saith St. Augustin) was as it were one great Prophet; the policy of their Church was the Scheme of the Christian, to the twelve Princes of their Families answered the twelve Apostles, to the Seventy Elders the Seventy Disciples, to the several Courts of Judgement, our Ecclesiastical Synods, to the great Sanhedrim, a general Council, and to the High Priest, our Supreme Pastor. Now for our present purpose, the Ordinance that God made in the Jewish Church for deciding Controversies about the Law, ran thus, If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement, 
Deut. 7, 8, 9  etc. (that is, as we find in 2 Chron. 19 8. between blood and blood, between Law and Commandment, Statutes and judgements, then shalt thou arise and get thee into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose: And thou shalt come to the Priests and Levites, and to the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire, and they shall show thee the sentence of judgement, and thou shalt do according to the sentence which they shall show thee, etc. Thou shalt not decline from the sentence to the right hand or to the left. The man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken to the Priest, or unto the judge, even that man shall die, and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. Upon those words in this passage [unto the judge that shall be in those day's] Ainsworth, 
Ainsworth in Deut. 17. 9  out of the Rabbins, observes, that if the high Synedrion had determined of a matter, & after another Synedrion rose up, which (upon Reasons seeming good unto them) disannulled the former Sentence, than it was disannulled, and Sentence passed according as seemed good to those later; So that the present Authority was always to take place, and no Appeals to be made from it. For if any Disputes against the Sentence of living speaking judges, upon any pretence whatsoever, either of a private exposition of the Law, or the Authority of preceding Rabbis were allowed, there would never want Contentions and Schisms in the Synagogue. And observe that in this obedience was employed an assent or submission of Judgement: For otherwise it would be against Conscience, in case the party continued in a contrary opinion of the sense of the Law. It is just so, and always has been so in the Catholic Church: The present Superiors living and speaking must conclude all Controversies, their Interpretation of Scripture and Fathers, their Testimony of Tradition must more than put to silence all contradiction of particular Persons or Churches, it must also subdue their minds to an assent, and this under the Penalty of an Anathema, or cutting off from the Body of Christ, which answers to a Civil death in the Law.  
9 If then an Obedience so indispensable was required to Legal judges, who might possibly give a wrong sentence: How securely may we submit our judgements to the Supreme Tribunal of the Church: And how justly will an Anathema be inflicted on all gainsayers of an Authority that we are assured shall never misled us? And the grounds of this assurance, which the Preacher is not yet persuaded of, are now to be discovered.  
10. The true grounds of the Churche● Infallibility are the words of Truth, the Infallibility of the promises of Christ, the Eternal wisdom of the Father. These Promises are the true Palladium, not of the Conclave, but of the Universal Church: Nor do we think Doctor Pierce such an Ulysses, as to apprehend he can steal it away.  
11. We do not deny however, 
Serm. page 22.  that Infallibility and Omniscience are (as he says) incommunicable Attributes of God: It is God alone to whose Nature either lying or being deceived are essentially contrary, because he is essentially immutable as in his Being, so in his Understanding and Will. Yet the immutable God can preserve mutable Creatures from actual mutation: God, who is absolutely Omniscient, can teach a rational Creature 〈◊〉 Truth's necessary or expedient to be known: So that, though a man have much ignorance▪ yet he may be in a sort omniscient within a determinate Sphere, he may be exempted from ignorance or error in teaching such special verities as God will have him know, and has promised he shall faithfully teach others. Our Saviour, as man, was certainly infallible, and as far as was requisite, omniscient too: So were the Apostles likewise, whose writings Protestants acknowledge both to be infallible, and to contain all Truth necessary to Salvation. Good Doctor, do you think it a contradiction that God should bestow an infallibility, as to some things, on a Creature? What did our Saviour give St. Peter when he said, I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not? Thus the Doctor, may see what a trifling Discourse he has made against God's Church.  
12. Now, the infallible promises of our Lord to his Church, by virtue of which she has always been believed to be in our sense infallible, follow: At least as many of them as may suffice for the present purpose. 1. Our Saviour has promised his Apostles, 
Math. 28. 20.  That he would be present with them always to the end of the World: Therefore since not any of them outlived that age, this infallible promise must be made good to their Successors. 2. He has promised that When two or three of them meet together in his Name, 
Math. 18. 20.  he will be in the midst of them; Surely to direct them. Therefore much more when the whole Church is representatively assembled about his business only. 3. He has promised that he will lead his Church into all Truth; at least all that is necessary or but expedient for them to know. 
Math. 16. 18  4. He has promised, that Against his Church, built upon St. Peter, the Gates of Hell (that is Heresy, say the Fathers) shall not prevail: Therefore it shall be infallibly free from Heresy. 5. He has commanded that, 
Math. 18. 17.  Whoever shall not obey his Church, shall be (cut off from his Body) as a Heathen and a Publican: Therefore anathemas pronounced by his Church are valid. Our Lord indeed speaks of Decisions made by a particular Church in quarrels among Brethren: Therefore if Disobedience to such Decisions be so grievously punished, what punishment may we suppose attends such as are disobedient to Decisions of the Universal Church, (called by the Apostle, The Pillar and ground of Truth) made for the composing of public Debates about the common Faith. 6. To conclude, the belief of the Church's Unity is an unchangeable Article of our ●reed: Therefore certainly the only effectual mean to preserve Unity, (which is an un-appealable, and infallible Authority) shall never be wanting in the Church.  
13. All these Texts and Prmises we by the example of the Holy Fathers and Authority of Tradition, produce as firm Grounds of an Infallibility in the Universal Church representative, which has an influence over the Souls of men● requiring much more than an external submission, which yet is all that Protestants will allow to the most authentic general Councils. We hope now Doctor Pierce will not fly to Mr. Chillingworths' miserable shift, and say that all these Promises are only conditional and depending on the piety of Church-governors: For this is contrary to the assertion of all Antiquity, which from these Promises argues invincibly against all Heretics and Schismatics, who might otherwise, on Mr. Chillingworths' ground, allege (as the Donatists did) that the Church by the sins of some had lost all her Authority, and that God's spirit was transplanted from her into themselves. Nor yet that he will use the plea of several other Protestant Writers somewhat more discreet, who are willing to allow those Promises absolute, and to belong also to the Guides of the Church some or other, that they shall in all ages continue orthodox, but not always to the more superior, or to the greater bodies of these assembled in Councils (because, thus, they see their cause will suffer by it.) But this plea also is utterly unsatisfying; For whenever the superior and subordinate Church-Officers, or Ecclesiastical Courts shall contradict or oppose one another, here the superior questionless is to be our Guide (otherwise we have no certain rule to know who is so) and therefore to these, not the other, in such cases, must bel●ng these promises, where they cannot possibly agree to both.  
14. These promises now being Yea and Amen, the Doctor must not seem to make our Lord pass for a Deceiver, but apply them to his English Protestant Church, since he will not allow them to the Catholic, for to some Church they must be applied. But let him consider withal, he must condemn St. Gregory, 
Geg. M. l. 1. Epist. 24.  who professed that he venerated the four first General Councils of the Catholic Church, as the four Gospels. He must condemn Constantine, who, in the first Council of Nice professed, 
Act. Conc. Nicen.  that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, &c] whatever is decreed in the holy Councils of Bishops, that aught to be attributed to th● Divine will In a word he must by condemning all the General Councils of God's Church, condemn likewise (which is more dangerous) the Act of Parliament, 1 Eliz. For manifest it is that all the Fathers in those Councils did pronounce many anathemas against all those that would not submit to a belief of such and such Decisions of theirs, in some of which were new expressions not extant in Scripture, but devised by the Fathers then present, as the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Now I ask Doctor Pierce, were those Anathema's lawful? were they valid? Or will he say, those first Councils (to which he professes assent) usurped an Authority in this, not of right belonging to them? If those anathemas were valid, than the Councils had a just authority to oblige Christians to an internal belief of verities declared by them, as the sense of Divine Revelation, and this, under the penalties of being separated from Christ: And can any Authority but such as is infallible lay such an obligation upon Consciences under such a penalty? But, if those anathemas were illegal and invalid, then were the Fathers both of those Councils and of All others, who still followed the same method, not only impostors, but most execrable Tyrants over the Souls of men.  
15. These Deductions surely are more effectual to demonstrate the Church's infallibility, than any of his Quotations can be against it: Here we have express Scripture, and universal consent of Antiquity: Nay here we have the concession of the more judicious Writers of the Church of England (at least before their late restitution:) 
Dr. Hamond of 〈◊〉. sect. ●. n 1. sect. n. 15. sect. 13. n. 2. sect. 14. n. 6. Bishop Bram●a●l Reply to Bishop Chalced Preface and Vindic. ca 2. p. 9  who seem to agree that in the Controversies between our Church and theirs, they would certainly submit to a future lawful General Council: Now, could they lawfully make such a Promise and think such a Council could misguide them? Therefore truly I cannot have the uncivility to judge, that, when one of your 39 Articles declares, that some General Councils have erred, 
Artic. 19  the meaning should be ● that any legal, legitimate General Council has erred, but only some Councils that some Roman Catholics esteem to be General, concerning which the Church of England is of another opinion: And if this be the meaning, the breach made by it may be curable.  
16. Now whereas the Doctor alleages, as against this Point, 
Serm. p. 22.  the concession of Baronius, etc. that Novatianism was hatched and continued two hundred years at Rome. I cannot devise how to frame an Objection out of it: Can no Church be Orthodox, if Heretics rise and continue in the same City? Is the English Church a Quaking Church, because Quakers first began, and still increase at London? As for Novatians at Rome he cannot deny but they were so far from being Members of the Roman Church, that they were continually esteemed Heretics and condemned by it.  
17. The like we say touching the Donatists. 
Ibid.  Indeed his objecting the Arians has more appearance of reason and sense [Ingemuit orbis, etc.] The world (says. St. Hierom) 
Hieron.  sadly groaned and was astonished to see itself on a sudden become Arian,, that is, after the Council of ●riminum. But how was it Arian, if it groaned? etc. for it could not be really Arian against its will. But St. Hierom uses this expression, because the great Council of Ariminum had seemed to favour the Arian party against the Catholics. And true it was, that Catholic Bishops were indeed persecuted, and many banished: But not one of them changed their Profession of the Nicene Faith, unless you will accuse Pope Liberius, who for a while dissembled it, and presently repent. Besides, the Canons at first made in that Council were perfectly Orthodox, but afterwards by the Emperor's Tyranny, and subtlety of two or three Arian Bishops a Creed was composed, wherein though the Nicene Faith was not sufficiently expressed,. Yet there was not one Article perfectly Arian, but capable of a good sense: to which may Catholic Bishops out of fear subscribed, yet to nothing but what in their sense was true▪ though defective in delivering all the truth; but presently after, being at liberty, both themselves and all the rest renounced. And after all, there remained but three years of persecution, for after that time the Arian Emperor Constantius died.  
18. Next concerning the objected Heresy of the Millenaries: It is very unjust and a great irreverence in him to charge upon the Primitive Church the sayings of two Fathers: and though one of them says, All that were purely Orthodox, (that is, such as he esteemed so, because they were of his Opinion) held that Doctrine yet he thereby shows, that his own Opinion was not universally embraced by the Church: But the truth is, there was a double Millenary opinion, the one that interpreted the reign of Martyrs with Christ for a thousand years, in base, sensual pleasures, banquets, and women: This was the Doctrine of the unclean Heretic Cerinthus, as Eusebius and St. Augustin relate: 
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 3.  Against this St. Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria wrote an elegant Book, as St. Hierom affirms: 
Hierom. Aug. l. 2. de Civ. D. c. 7.  And it is most deservedly detested by the Church. But there was another Opinion, that the Martyrs should reign a thousand years with Christ in all Spiritual delights, and ravishing consolation, in a blessed conversing with him: And this Opinion might not unbecom Papias, St. Ireneus, 
Aug Ibid. Hieron. l. 4.  and St. justin Martyr: For St. Augustin and St. Hierom both profess themselves unwilling to censure it, neither can the Doctor, I believe, show that it was ever condemned by the Church.  
18. To his last Objection touching the communicating of Infants, it is granted that in St. Augustin and Pope Innocent's time, and many years after, such was the common practice of the Church to communicate them Sacramentally (but withal take notice, it was only in one species.) Again, it is confessed that from that Text [Nisi mand●caveritis carnem▪ 
Aug. l. 1. de pec. merit. cap. 20. Innocent in Epist.  etc.] St. Augustin, etc. argue a necessity that Infants should participate of the flesh and blood of our Lord, but this not Sacramentally, but Spiritually, by such a participation as may be had in Baptism.  
This appears first, From the constant Doctrine of St. Augustin, 
Aug. ●b. c. 19 21, 22. & lib. 2. cap. 28. etc.  etc. the whole Church affirming that, Baptism alone may suffice to the salvation of Infants. 2. From his interpreting his own meaning, in a Sermon quoted by St. Beda and Gratina. His words are these, 
Bed. ad 1 Cor. c. 10. Gratian Consecr. dist. 2. cap. Qui passus est.  None ought by any ways to doubt but that every Christian by being made a Member of Christ in Baptism, thereby becomes partaker of the Bo●y and Blood of our Lord, and that he is not estranged from a Communion of that Bread and Chalice, though being settled in the Unity of Christ's Body, he should depart out of this World, before he really eat of that Bread, and drink of that Chalice. For he is not deprived of the participation and benefit of the Sacrament, whensoever that is found in him which is signified by the Sacrament.  
19 That therefore which the Church since, and particularly the Council of Trent altered in this matter, was nothing at all touching Belief: For all Catholics this day believe St. Augustin's Doctrine in that Point, but only an external practice of the Church: And this was done out of a wonderful reverence to those Holy Mysteries, which by frequent Communions of Infants could not escape many irreverences and inconveniencies. And many such Alterations even the English Church observes and justifies, both in the administering of the Eucharist and Baptism too.  
To conclude this matter: For a further proof that these two instances about the Millenary Belief, and Infant Communion are not at all conducing to the Doctor's Design, I will refer him to the Judgement of Doctor Ferne, of some weight no doubt with him, who expressly says, and proves by Reasons not unlike these, 
Dr. Fern in certain Consid. in Preface.  That nothing can be concluded by those two Instances to the prejudice of the whole Church, as if thereby might be proved that the whole Church, universally, and in all the Members of it, may be infected with Error in Points of concernment or prejudicial to the Faith.   

CHAP. X.  
Of Prayer for the Dead. It's Apostolic antiquity. Purgatory necessarily supposed in it. The Doctor's Objections answered.  
1. HAving treated so largely of the Preachers two pretended Noveltys; 1. the Primacy of jurisdiction of the See Apostolic; and 2. the infallibility of the Church in her General Councils, I might rationally enough neglect examining the following particular Dogmas which he likewise charges with Novelty, and betake by self to the point of Schism: because if the Church have a spiritual obliging jurisdiction, taking its Original from the Chair of St. Peter; and again if what the proposes to us to be believed, she proposes validly under the penalty of being separated from Christ, since it is manifest that she so proposes the said particular Doctrines, not in her Councils only, but universal practice, wherein her infallibility is with an equal Authority demonstrated; they ought without contradiction be submitted to: Nevertheless having some reason to doubt that in case any of his Novelties be omited, he, or at least some of his over-credulous Readers will impute such an omission to a difficulty in disproving him, I must be content to take a trouble on me, which is therefore only necessary, because many Protestants are unreasonable.  
2. His third pretended Novelty, is the Doctrine of Purgatory, 
Serm. p. 8.  which he says, We have from Origen, or at the farthest from Tertullian, and he from no better Author than the Arch-Heretic Montanus. Nor does Bellarmin mend the matter by deriving it from Virgil, Tully, or Plato 's Gorgias.  
3. It would have been a great courtesy both to his Hearers and Readers, if he had informed them why he singled out a speculative Point touching Purgatory, and omitted one of far greater importance, because obliging to Practise also, which is Prayer for the Dead. His way of proceeding, doubtless does not want a Mystery: And he must give me leave to answer his Novelty of Purgatory by speaking scarce any thing at all of it, but only telling him nakedly the Church's Doctrine about it; and by insisting on the confessed Antiquity, Apostolic Antiquity of Prayer for the Dead; which being cleared, I defy all his learning and skill, unless he can disprove this, to deny or so much as question on the other.  
4. Now the Doctrine of the Church concerning Purgatory and Prayer for the Dead is contained in this Decree of the Council of Trent, There is a Purgatory: 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 25.  and Souls detained there are helped by the suffrages of the Faithful, (that is, by Prayers and Alms) and most especially by the most acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar. By which Definition the Church obliges all Catholics no farther than simply to believe that there is a place or state of Souls in which they are capable of receiving help or ease by Prayers, etc. The Council tells us nothing of the position of this place, nor what incommodities Souls find in it, nor whether there be fire, etc. which are Points that St. Augustin says he could not resolve: On the contrary, it forbids, (at least out of the Schools) all curious subtle Questions concerning it, 
Ibid.  all discourses which are not for edification.  
5. Having represented the Church's Doctrine, I will next transcribe the Form of her Prayers for the Dead, extant in the Canon of the Mass. 
Can. Missae. Memento.  Remember likewise, O Lord, thy Servants who have gone before us with the Sign of Faith (i. e. Baptism,) and repose in the sleep of peace. We beseech thee, O Lord, mercifully grant to them, and to all that rest in Christ, a place of refreshment, light and peace, through Christ our Lord. And after the Canon, We beseech thee, O Lord, absolve the Soul of thy Servant from all chains of his sins, 
〈◊〉 Commun.  to the end, that in the glory of the Resurrection, he may respire by a new life among the Saints and Elect, through Christ our Lord. Now if it can be demonstrated that by the universal practice of the Primitive Church, such Prayers as these were made for the Dead; it unavoidably follows, That the Souls for whom they are made, are neither in Heaven nor H●ll: And if so, where are they, Doctor Pierce? speak like an honest man.  
6. To demonstrate this, let him view narrowly these passages of the Holy Fathers, before, and during the space of the first four General Councils. St. Denis the Areopagite, (or whoever was Author of the Book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and who by confession of Protestants, lived within the second Century after the Apostles) declares that the Priest does demand from the Divine goodness for the person departed, 
Dion. Ar. de Eccles. Hierarchia. c. ult.  a pardon of all sins through human frailty committed by him, and that he may be conducted into the light and region of the living, into the bosoms of Abraham▪ Isaac, and Jacob, into a place from which grief, sadness, and mourning it banished. And presently after he testifies▪ 
Ibid.  that What he commits to writing concerning this Prayer pronounced by the Priest for the Dead, he received by Tradition from his Divine Teachers (the Apostles.)  
7. Next Tertullian, Let the faithful Widow, 
Tert. de Mon. cap. 10.  says he, pray for the soul of her Husband, and make an oblation in the Anniversary day of his death, begging for him refreshment and part in the first Resurrection. And, to prevent the Preachers Objection, that the Father learned this from the Arch-Heretick Montanus, let him answer for himself; 
Id. de Coron. Mil. cap. 3.  We make, says he, Anniversary Oblations for the Dead, and for the [Natalitia] of the Martyrs. And presently he adjoins, 
Ibid. cap. 4.  Concerning these and the like Observances, if you require the Authority of Scriptures, you will not find any: Tradition shall be alleged to you for the Author, custom for the confirmer, and Faith the Observer.  
8. After him follows his Scholar blessed St. Cyprian, 
Cypr. Ep. 66.  The Bishops (says he) that went before us, have ordained that not any one of our Brethren at his death shall name in his Will for an Executor, or Guardian, any Ecclesiastical Person; and if any one shall do otherwise, that no Oblation should be made for him, and that the Sacrifice should not be celebrated for him at his death: For such a one deserves not so much as to be named at the Altar in the Priest's Prayer.  
9 Eusebius relates that, at the Obsequies of the Emperor Constantine, 
Euse. de vit. Const. l. 4. c. 71.  the People and Clergy unanimously sent up prayers to God, not without tears and great groan for the Soul of the Emperor. Likewise Epiphanius disputing against the Heretic Aerius, reckons this among his heresies (as St. Augustin likewise does) That he denied Prayers and Oblation for the Dead. 
Epiph. 3. hae●●●.  In opposition whereto he says, Prayers made for the dead profit them, though they do not blot out [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] entirely all (mortal) sins. 
Ibid.  And again, Who shall now have the ●oldnesse to dissolve the Statute of his Mother (the Church) or the Law of his Father? (which Father he there interprets to be the Holy Trinity.) Moreover St. chrysostom, 
Chrysost. in Ep. ad Philip. c. 1. hom. 3.  It is not in vain that the Apostles have instituted this Law, That during the celebration of the dreadful mysteries, commemoration should be made of the dead: for they knew that great benefit and profit would thereby accrue unto them. And yet more expressly in another place, 
Id. hom. in 1 Cor. c. 15. v. 46.  We must (saith he) give our help and assistance to sinners departed, by our Prayers, Supplications, Alms, and Oblations: For these things were not rashly and groundlessly devised: Neither is it in vain, that in the Divine Mysteries we make mention of these who are dead; and approaching to the Altar, address our prayers for them to the Lamb placed there who took away the sins of the World: But we do this to the end that some comfort and refreshment may come to them thereby. Neither is it in vain that he who assists at the Altar at the time when the dreadful Mysteries are communicated, cries out, Pray for all that are dead in Christ, and for those who celebrate their memorial. For were it not that such commemorations were profitable to them, such things would not be spoken. For the matters of our Religion are no sport: No, God forbid. These things are performed by the Order and Direction of God's Spirit.  
10. True it is, that anciently in the public Liturgies a commemoration was made even of the greatest Saints, yes, and prayers were made for them: But yet not such prayers as were made for the imperfect. But, since all future things may be the subject of our prayers, it may become our charity to pray for accession of glory to Saints already glorified, but which at the Resurrection shall be in a yet better State. And therefore when St. Austin says, It is an injury to pray for a Martyr, since we ought rather to commend ourselves to his prayers: he means such prayers, as we make for imperfect Christians, that is, for remission of their sins, refreshment, etc.  
11. Now, tho' some such prayers extant in the Holy Fathers did regard the day of Judgement, and the glory ensuing; yet withal, that they thought, to some Souls a present refreshment did accrue in the intermediat condition, is evident both by the foresaid Testimonies, and many more that may be added: As where St. A●brose says, he would never cease his Intercessions for the Soul of the dead Emperor? till he found a deliverance by them. This is so apparent both out of the Fathers and ancient Liturgies, that Bishop Forbes, 
Forb. de Pur●●. c. 3. §. 27.  Spalleto, and other Protestant Writers, do acknowledge it, and refuse not to assent to the ground of such a practice. The words of Spalleto are these: There would be no absurdity if we should confess, 
Spal. l. 5. cap. 8.  that some lighter sins which have not in this life been remitted (quoad culpam) as to the guilt or fault, may be forgiven after death, and this sometimes a little after the departure of the Soul, etc. by virtue of the Church's intercession.  
12▪ It cannot be denied, but that there are among the Holy Father's great varieties of Opinions touching some particular circumstances regarding the state of Souls after death, and at the present some differences there are between the Roman and Greek Church. In which notwithstanding it will appear to any who will compare them, that the Roman Doctrine is far more moderate, receiveable, and approaching to the grounds of Protestants, than that of the Eastern Church. But however, it is without all controversy, that all Churches who professed Christianity before the Reformation, do agree unanimously in the practice of praying for the Dead, so as to beg forgiveness of sins, a bettering of their state, an assuagement of their sufferings, etc. Which practice they esteem not a voluntary offering, but a duty, to a necessary performance of which, charity obligeth all Christians. And therefore English Protestant's cannot be excused for their neglect of this duty, especially consisidering that the Doctrine upon which this Practice is grounded, is not mentioned at all among those Points which they account Novelties in the Roman Church. On the contrary, the more learned among them have and do, though not in expression, yet in sense agree with Bishop Andrews, conceding in his Reply to Cardinal Perron, 
P. 9  — That for offering doth he not mean here, for offering the Christian sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist for them, for what is more manifest in Antiquity, than this?] and prayer for the Dead, little is to be said against it. No man can deny, but it is very ancient. Since then the Church cannot be thought, from the most ancient times thereof, to have offered up to God all her prayers in all ages pro defunctis in vain, methinks I cannot here, but in this respect also commiserate the condition of those poor Souls, who depart hence un-owned by that Church, and without any share in her prayers (which only like a true Mother, is so solicitous and careful a Supplicant not only for her living, but also deceased children) and who, after a life here not so well spent, seeing themselves going hence only with an inchoated repentance, & an unperfect reformation, and very unprepared to be immediately entertained in that place of bliss, and glorious society into which no impure thing shall enter, yet are content rather to lose the benefit of the daily prayers and oblations for them of this careful Mother, than to render themselves capable thereof by returning into her Communion. And surely much more uncomfortable must such a death be, that is void of the hopes of any such assistance, than theirs is, who, departing hence in the bosom of the Church, and in this blessed communion of Saints with the request of St. Augustine's dying Mother in their mouth, 
Aug. Conf. l. 9 c. 11.  Illud vos rogo, ut ad Domine altare memineritis mei: This I beg of you, that at the Altar of our Lord ye make remembrance of me: are sure to enjoy the last aid of this pious charity, and also the yet more efficacious sacrifice of the Altar to be frequently offered to God in their behalf.  
10. Lastly, to omit particular Quotations out of the ancient public Liturgies of the Church, that of St. james acknowledged by the second General Council, that of St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, etc. in every one of which are express prayers and oblations for the Dead, demanding pardon of their sins, refreshment of their sufferings, etc. I will conclude with a full convincing Testimony of St. Augustin, 
Aug. Ser. 32. de verb. Apost.  whose words are these, That by the Prayers of the Holy Church, and saving Sacrifice, as likewise by Alms expended for their Souls, our departed Brethren are helped, that God may deal with them more mercifully than their sins deserve, not to be doubted. For this the universal Church observes as a Tradition of our Fathers, that for those who are dead in the Communion of the Body and Blood of our Lord, Prayers should be made, when at the holy Sacrifice their Names are in their due place rehearsed, and that it should be signified that the Offering is made for them. And when out of an intention of commending them to God's mercy, works of Charity and Alms are made, who will doubt that these things help towards their good, for whom Prayers are not in vain offered to God? It is not therefore to be doubted but that these things are profitable for the Dead▪ yet only such as before their death have lived so, as that these things may profit them after Death. And again, 
Id. Enchirid. c. 110.  For Martyrs the Sacrifice is offered as a thanksgiving, and for others as a propitiation.  
14. The Doctor cannot but know in his Conscience, (for he is no Stranger to the Fathers) what a great Volume may be written to confirm this: And that not one expression can be quoted against it. Therefore whereas he said without any ground, that Tertullian borrowed from Montanus; I would ask him, From whom did he borrow the omission of this charitable duty to the Dead, but from the Heretie Aerius? Nor is this to be considered as a voluntary courtesy done them, which without any fault may be omited. On the contrary St. Epiphanius will tell him, 
Epiph. l. 3. haer. 75.  the Church does these things necessarily, having received such a Tradition from the Fathers. And St. Augustin, 
Aug. de cur. pro mort. c. 5.  we must by no means omit necessary Supplications for the Souls of the Dead: For whether the Flesh of the dead Person lie here, or in another place, repose aught to be obtained to his Spirit.  
15. If these Souls were believed to be in Heaven would it not be ridiculous? If in Hell would it not be impious to offer the dreadful Sacrifice, to make Supplications▪ to be at charge in Alms for the obtaining them repose, pardon of their sins, refreshment of their sufferings, a translation into the region of Light and peace, and a place in the bosom of Abraham? But if they be neither in Heaven nor Hell, where are they then? He cannot deny a third place, unless he thinks them annihilated: He will not say that third place is Purgatory, because the Church calls it so. But suppose the Church dispense with him for the Name; I would to God he would accept of such a dispensation; one pretence of Schism would quickly be removed.  
16. To conclude; If all the Liturgies of the Church, all the Fathers have not credit enough with him to persuade that this is no Novelty▪ yet greater Antiquity for it he may find in the jewish Church: an express Testimony for which we read in the Book of Macchabees: He will say it is not Canonical: at least let him acknowledge it not to be a Romance: and however, the universal Tradition and practice of the Synagogue will justify it. From the Jews no doubt Plato borrowed this Doctrine, and from Plato Cicero, and from both Virgil. Nay even natural reason will tell him, that Heaven, into which no unclean thing can enter, is not so quickly and easily open to imperfect Souls, as to perfect: nor have we any sign, that merely by dying, sinful livers become immediately perfect.  
17. To fill his learned Margins, he quotes certain Contradictors of Bellarmin, as the Bishop of Rochester, Polydor Virgil, Suarez, and Thomas ex Albiis; but since both Bellarmin himself and all his Contradictors agree with the Church, in contradiction to the Preacher, that there is a Purgatory; what other inducement could he have to mention them▪ unless it were that his Readers might see what his Hearers could not, that he was resolved to pretend, but was not able indeed to produce any thing to purpose against the Catholic Church?   

CHAP. XI.  
Of Transubstantiation, or a Substantial Presence of our Lord's Body in the Sacrament. justified by the Authorities of the Fathers, etc. The Preacher's Objections Answered.  
1. THe three next supposed Novelties of the Catholic Church all regard the most holy Sacrament. That blessed Mystery, which was instituted to be both a Symbal and instrument, to signify and to operate Unity, is, by the cunning of the Devil, and malicious folly of men, become both the work and cause of Dis-union.  
2. Touching this Subject the first of the three Novelties the Doctor says is Transubstantiation 
Serm. p. 9  So far from being from the beginning that it is not much above four hundred years old, 
Ibid. p. 23, 24.  that it was first beard of in the Council of Lateran. For in Pope Nicholas the Second time the submission of Berengarius imports rather a Con— then Transubstantiation. But evident it is, That it was never taught by our Saviour, since he in the same breath wherewith he pronounced, This is my Blood, explained himself by calling it expressly the fruit of the Vins. and there needs no more to make the Romanists ashamed of that Doctrine, than the concession of Aquinas, who says, That it is impossible for one body to be locally in more places than one: From whence Bellarmin angrily infers, that it equally implies a Contradiction for one body to be so much as Sacramentally in more places than one.  
3. In order to the giving some satisfaction touching this matter, I will, as before, set down the Church's Doctrine concerning this most holy Sacrament, which will extend itself to all his three pretended Novelties. In the Profession of Faith compiled by Pope Pius iv. 
Profess. Fid. Pii 4.  out of the Council of Trent it is said, I profess that in the Mass there is offered to God a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and Dead: And that in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly and Substantially the Body and Blood▪ together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord jesus Christ: and that there is a Conversion (or Change) of the whole Substance of Bread into his Body, and of Wine into his Blood: which change the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation. Moreover I confess that under one of the Species alone whole and entire Christ, and a true Sacrament is received.  
4. And if he will needs have it so, let it be granted, that the Latin word Transubstantiation begun commonly to be received among Catholics at the Council of Lateran: Though there was a Greek expression exactly importing as much [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] as old as his Beginning, that is, in the time of the first General Council. But for God's sake let not a new word drive him out of God's Church, as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did the Arians. He may observe with Cardinal Perron that the Church only says, the change made in the holy Sacrament is usually called Transubstantiation: So that on condition he allow a real Substantial change, the word itself shall not hinder us from being good Friends.  
5. The Doctor sees now what our Church holds concerning this Point. She delivers her mind sincerely, candidly, ingenuously. But if I should ask him what his Church holds, it would cost him more labour to give a satisfactory Answer than to make ten such Sermons.  
6. There are among Christians only four ways of expressing a presence of Christ in the Sacrament. 1▪ That of the Zwinglians, Socinians, etc. who admit nothing at all real here; The Presence, say they, is only figurative or imaginary: As we see Bread broken and eaten, etc. so we ought to call to mind that that Christ's Body was crucified, and torn for us, and by Faith (or a strong fancy) we are made partakers of his Body, that is, not his Body, but the blessings that the offering his Body may procure. 2. That of Calvin and English Divines, 
Calvin in ● Cor. cap. 11. 24.  who usually say, as Calvin did, That in the holy Sacrament our Lord offers unto us not only the benefit of his Death and Resurrection, but the very Body itself in which he died and rose again: Or, as King james, We acknowledge a presence no less true and real than Catholics do; 
Casaub. ●p. ad. Card. Per.  only we are ignorant of the manner: [Of which it seems he thought that Catholics were not.] So that this presence is supposed a Substantial presence, but after a spiritual manner: A presence not to all, but to the worthy receivers: Offered perhaps to the unworthy, but only partaken by the worthy: A presence not to the Symbols, but the Receivers Soul only: Or if (according to Mr. Hooker) in some sense the Symbols do exhibit the very Body of Christ, yet they do not contain in them what they exhibit, at least not before the actual receiving. 3. Of the Lutherans, who hold a presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament as real, proper and substantial as Catholics do, but deny an exclusion of Bread. For Bread, say they, remains as before, but to and with it the Body of our Lord (every where present) is in a sort hypostatically united: Yet some among them deny any reverence is to be exhibited to Christ, though indeed substantially present. 4. That of Roman Catholics, whose sense was let down before; whereto this only is to be added, That believing a real conversion of Bread into our Lord's Body, etc. they think themselves obliged, in conformity to the Ancient Church, as to embrace the Doctrine, so to imitate their practice in exhibiting due reverence and worship (not to the Symbols, not to any thing which is the object of sense, as Calvinists slander them; but) to our Lord himself only, present in and under the Symbols.  
7. Now three of these four Opinions, that is, every one but that of English Protestants speak intelligible sense: Every one knows what Zwinglians, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics mean: But theirs (which they call a Mystery) is Indeed a jargon, a Linsey-Wolsey Stuff, made probably to sui● with any Sect according to interests: They that taught it first in England, were willing to speak at least, and, if they had been permitted, to mean likewise as the Catholic Church instructed them, but the Sacrilegious Protector in King Edward's days, and afterward the Privy Council in Queen Elizabeth's, found it for their worldly advantage, that their Divines should, at least in words, accuse the Roman Church for that Doctrine which themselves believed to be true. But now, since the last Restitution, if that renewed Rubric at the end of the Communion, be to be esteemed Doctrinal, than the last Edition of their Religion in this Point is mere Zuinglianism, to which the Presbyterians themselves, if they are true Calvinists, will refuse to subscribe. Thus the new Religion of England is almost become the Religion of New England.  
8. 〈◊〉 remains now that I should by a few authorities justify our Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or real substantial Presence, to be far from deserving to be called a Novelty of ●our hundred years standing. By Catholic Doctrine, I mean the Doctrine of the Church, not of the Schools, the Doctrine delivered by Tradition, not Ratiocination: Not a Doctrine that can be demonstrated by human empty Philosophy. On the contrary, it may be confidently assorted, that all such pretended demonstrations are not only not concluding, but illusory, because that is said to be demonstrated by reason, which Tradition tells us is above reason, and ought not to be squared by the Rule of Philosophy: The presence of Christ in the Sacrament is truly real and Substantial, but withal Sacramental, that is Mystical, inexplicable, incomprehensible. It is a great mistake among Protestants, when they argue that we, by acknowledging a Conversion by Transubstantiation, pretend to declare the modum conversionis. No; that is far from the Churches, or the Ancient Father's thoughts. For by that expression the only signifies, the change is not a matter of fancy, but real, yet withal Mystical. The Fathers, to express their belief of a real conversion, make use of many real changes mentioned in the Scripture, as of Aaron's Rod into a Serpent, of water into wine, etc. But withal they add, That not any of these Examples do fit, or properly represent the Mystical change in the Sacrament: Sense or Reason might comprehend and judge of those changes, but Faith alone must submit to the incomprehensibleness of this. When Water was turned into Wine, the eyes saw, and the palate tasted Wine, it had the colour, extension, and locality of Wine; But so is it not when Bread by consecration becomes the Body of Christ; For aught that Sense can judge, there is no change at all: Christ's Body is present, but without locality: It is present, but not corporally, as natural bodies are present, one part here, and another there. The Quomodo of this presence is not to be inquired into, nor can it without presumption be determined. This is that which the Church calls a Sacramental, Mystical presence. But, that this presence is real and substantial, a presence in the Symbols or Elements, and not only in the mind of the worthy receiver, the Fathers unanimously teach: And indeed if it were not so, none could receive the Body of Christ unworthily, because according to Protestants, it is not the Body of Christ, but mere Bread that an impenitent Sinner receives: And St. Paul's charge would be irrational, when he says, 
1 Cor. 11. 29.  such An one receives judgement to himself in that he does not discern the Body of our Lord. Besides, if the change be not in the Elements, but in the Receivers Soul, what need is there of Consecration? What effect can Consecration have? Why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest, administer this Sacrament? What hinders that such a Presence may not be effected in the mind every Dinner or Supper, and as well when we eat flesh, and drink any other Liquor besides Wine at our own Table, as at that of our Lord.  
9 Now, whether their Doctrine or ours be a Novelty, let Antiquity judge. If I should produce, as he knows I may, hundreds of Testimonies that by conversion a change is made of the Bread into the Body, and Wine into the Blood of Christ, he would think to escape by allowing a change to be made, but only in the Act of worthy receiving. Therefore I will only make use of such Authorities as demonstrate this change to be made before communicating; that it remains, when the Sacrament is reserved, and that immediately after consecration, before any participation of the Symbols, both the Priest and People did perform an act of Adoration to Christ, believed to be really and substantially, though mystically, present.  
10. In all ancient Liturgies (as Blondel 
Blondel.  himself, though a Huguenot, confesses) the prayer in the consecration of the Elements was, That God would by his holy Spirit sanctify the Elements, 
L●turg. S. Basil. Cyril. Hier. Catech. Myst. 5.  whereby the Bread may be made the Body, and the Wine the Blood of our Lord. And, that before communicating, whilst it was on the Altar, it was esteemed and worshipped as the true Body of our Lord, St. chrysostom will witness, 
Chrys. in. 1 Cor. 10. hom. 24.  Let us, saith he, who are Citizens of Heaven, imitate but even the barbarous Magis, (who worshipped our Lord an Infant, etc.) Thou seest him not in the Manger, but on the Altar. Thou dost not see a woman holding him, but the Priest standing by him, and the Spirit with great virtue hover over these (Mysteries) proposed. Thou not only seest the Body itself, as the Magis did, but thou knowest also the virtue of it, etc. The same Body which is the most precious and most honoured thing in Heaven, I will show thee placed upon Earth, etc. Neither dost thou only see it, but touchest and eatest it, and having received it, thou returnest home with it, 
Opta●. lib. 6.  etc. Hence Optatus saith, What other thing is the Altar, but the Seat of the Body and Blood of Christ A yet more irrefragable witness hereof is the General Council of Nice, wherein (Act. l. 3. c. de Divinâ mensâ) are these words, In this Divine Table let us not abase our intentions so as to consider the Bread and Wine set before us, but raising up our mind by Faith, let us understand that upon that holy Table is placed the Lamb of God, which takes away the sins of the World, which is unbloodily immolated by the Priest, and receiving his precious Body and Blood, let us truly believe that these are the Symbols of our Redemption.  
And, that the Elements, once consecrated and after reserved, yet remain the Body of Christ though not participated, St. Cyril of Alexandria expressly ●ectifies, I hear (saith he) there are others who affirm that the Mystical Eulogy, 
Cy●il. Al. Ep. ad Calosyr.  if any thing of it remain till another day, doth profit nothing to sanctification. By'r they are mad who say these things: For Christ is not altered, neither is his holy Body changed; but the virtue of Benediction and quickening grace perpetually remains in it. And as touching Adoration of our Lord, as acknowledged substantially present on the Altar, St. Ambrose expressly asserts it, Adore the footstool of his feet. Therefore by the footstool is understood the Earth; 
Amb●. de Spis. lib. 3. cap. 12.  and the Earth the flesh of Christ, which at this day also we adore in the Mysteries, and which the Apostles adored in our Lord jesus. And from St. Ambrose the same is taught as expressly by St. Augustin, discoursing on the same Text, 
Aug. in Psal. 98. 5.  Adorate Scabellum pedum ejus: Who moreover adds, Christ hath given his flesh to be eaten by us for our▪ Salvation: Now no man eats this, except he first adore it. Yea, moreover he says, We do not only not sin by adoring it, but we should sin if we did not adore it, And in an Epistle to Honoratus, he affirms, 
Id. Epist. 120.  That the rich of the Earth and proud are sometimes brought to the Table of our Lord, and there receive of his Body and Blood, but they only adore it, they are not satiated with it, because they do not imitate him (by humility.) For of the humble it is said, Edent pauperes & saturabuntur.  
11. The same may be inferred by the wonderful niceness and scrupolosity observed in the Primitive Church in the handling, communicating and reserving these Mysteries; what a crime was it esteemed in the Primitive times, if but a crumb or drop of the consecrated Elements should fall to the ground? For fear of that, till about the year six hundred they were received by the Communicants not in their Fingers, as among the Reformed, but in the inside plain of their hands, and in a silver Pipe, etc. But I will conclude this point with a brief Answer to the Doctor's Allegations.  
12. Whereas therefore he says, It is evident that Transubstantiation wa● never taught by our Saviour, since in the same breath wherewith he pronounced these words, This is my Blood, he explained himself by calling it expressly the Fruit of the Vine. On the contrary I do confidently pronounce it to be evident, that those words were neither spoken by our Lord in the same breath after the Consecration of the Chalice, nor had they any regard to the Sacrament. 'Tis true they are mentioned by St. Matthew after the Consecration, but he knows that in St. Luke, who promised to write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those words are mentioned before any Consecration began, and the occasion of them is evidently the eating of the Paschal Supper etc. For this is his Narration: When the hour was come he sat down, 
Luke 22. 14, 18.  and the twelve Apostles with him. And he said unto them with desire I have desired to eat this Passeover with you before I suffer. For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the Cup and gave thanks, and said, Take this and divide it among yourselves, For I say unto you I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. Now after all this follows his own last Supper, the Mystical consecration and communion of his blessed Body and Blood. For the Text thus continues, And he took Bread saying, 
lbid. 10. 19, 20.  This is my Body, etc. likewise also the Cup after Supper, saying, This Cup, etc. This being the order of the words, no Text can possibly with more evidence con●ute the Doctor than this which himself citys: for what can be clearer, if before Consecration our Saviour said, He would drink no ●ore of the fruit of the Vine? then that what he drank after was not of the fruit of the Vine? But besides this, though our Lord should have called it, after Consecration, the fruit of the Vine, as Saint Paul calls the other Symbol Bread: this does not argue against a Change in their nature; For Moses his Rod, after it was changed into a Serpent is called a Rod still, because it had been one [Exod. 7. 12.] and [Io. 2. 9] it is said, That the Master of the Feast tasted the Water that was made Wine.  
13. Is not now the Doctor's Insincerity evident his insincerity even in the Pulpit? has he not palpably misinformed his Majesty and so illustrious an Auditory? And though he should still continue to prefer St. Matthews order of Narration before St. Luke's, yet what St. Luke writes cannot possibly be applied to the Sacrament: For, though those special words, 
Matth. 26. 29. 〈◊〉  I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine until, etc. if they stood alone, might seem applicable to the consecrated Chalice: yet those other of Saint Luke, I will not any more eat of this Pass●over, until, &c. cannot possibly be applied to the consecrated Element of Bread: and therefore since both these Sayings were manifestly intended of the same Subject; It is more than evident they were meant only of the Paschal Supper, and not at all of the Sacrament.  
14. 
Serm. pag. 14.  As for Beauties' quarrel with St. Thomas his affirming that one Body cannot be locally in two places: and his revengeful inference, that neither then ca● they be Sacramentally: All I will say hereto shall be, that if there be any quarrel on Beauties' part, which truly I do not find to be such but may very friendly be composed. Yet however since it is only about a Scholastical Notion of Locality, Circumscription, etc. and it is apparent, that both these Doctors held a true Substantial presence of our Lord's Body in the Sacrament, as the Church teaches, I will not, by troubling myself about composing the matter between them, invite the Doctor hereafter to unnecessary excursions: It is only the Church's Doctrine that I engage myself to justify.  
15. 
Serm. pag. 25.  In the last place, touching Berin arius his submission, if the Form were the same mentioned in the Doctor's Margin from Floriacensis, there is nothing appears in it favouring Consubstantiation. Certainly, it was sufficient, if he spoke sincerely, to acquit him from any suspicion of holding only a Figurative Presence of Christ's Body: and that only was his business. As for his Expressions that Our Lord's Body, not only in Mystery, but Truth is handled, broken and chawed with the teeth of Faithful Communicants, unless they be understood Sacramentally, they are far from being justifiable. And so are all the Capharnaitical Objections that Protestants make against Catholic Doctrine in this matter. We acknowledge more than a Spiritual, an Oral Manducatian, but without any Suffering or Change in the Divine Body itself: We acknowledge it is Nourishment to us, but not after a Carnal manner; Christ is not changed by Digestion into our Bodies; yet sanctifies even our Bodies also, as well as our Souls: 
Greg. Nyss. orat. Catech. c. 37.  Because in Saint Gregory Nyssen his Expression, Insinuating itself into our Bodies, by an union with our Lord's Immortal Body, We are made Partakers of Immortality.   

CHAP. XII.  
Of Communion under one Species-confirmed by the practice of the Primitive Church in private Communions. The Preachers Objections solved.  
1. HIS fifth pretended Novelty, imputed to the Catholic Church is, 
Serm. pag. 9  Communion under one Species, no older, says he, then since the time of Aquinas, unless they will own it from the Manichees. 
Ibid. pag. 25.  But we find our Saviour intended the Chalice to every guest: Drink all of this, says he. And St. Paul speaks as well of drinking the Mystical Blood, as eating the Body of Christ.  
2. To the substance of what is here alleged, we readily subscribe. We acknowledge our Saviour instituted this Mystery in both kinds: That the Apostles received it in both kinds: That St. Paul speaks as well of drinking, etc. That most commonly in the Church till a little before the times of Aquinas, in the public Celebration of these Mysteries, the people communicated in both kinds: All this we agree to.  
3. But the general Tradition of the Church, at least from his beginning, will not permit us to yield, that the receiving in both kinds was esteemed by the Church necessary to the essence of the Communion, or integrity of the participation of Christ's Body and Blood, or that it is fitly called by him a half Communion, when delivered and received only in one kind. On the contrary, we appeal to Dr. Pierces own Conscience, whether, if we should yield this, we should not be overwhelmed with the Depositions of the most ancient Fathers against us: As evidently appears in Communions anciently practised under one kind only, and this upon many occasions: As during the times of persecution in Domestic Communions mentioned by Tertullian, 
Tertull. lib. 2. ad Uxo.  St. Cyprian, and others, in which the holy Eucharist was delivered to the Faithful under the species of Bread alone, 
Cypr. l. de lapsis.  and by them carried home, to be reverently participated by them, 
Ambr. orat. 1. in obitu frat.  according to their particular Devotions: 
Aug. lib. 2. lit. Petil. c. 23.  The same was practised in communicating Infants, or innocent Children of more years, 
Euseb. lib. 5. & lib. 7.  (witness besides the said Fathers, the practice of the Church of Constantinople mentioned by Nicephorus: 
Beda in Mart. ad 15. August. ) In communicating the Sick, and Penitents at the point of death: 
Niseph. hist. lib. 18. cap. 6.  In communions at Sea: In communions sent to other Provinces, etc.  
4. In all these Cases the Communicants were esteemed to be partakers of ●ntire Christ, nor did they think they received more of him at public Communions in the Church, when the Sacrament was delivered in both species, then when at home in one only. They believed it was Christ entire which they received in every divided particle of the species of Bread, and every divided drop of the species of Wine: and that the flesh of Christ could not be participated without a concomitance of his Blood, nor the Blood without the Flesh, nor either of them without a concomitance of his Soul and Divinity. 
Ambr. de ils qui Myster. c. 9  Hence St. Ambrose, Christ is in that Sacrament, because it is the Body of Christ 
Con●yl. Eph. in Ep●st. ad Nestor.  And the Council if Ephesus, That those who approach to the Mystical Benedictions do participate the Flesh of Christ, not as common mere Flesh, 
August. in Psal. 33.  but truly quickening Flesh. And St. Augustin, That Christ, [ferebatur in manibus suis] did carry himself in his own hands: and this in a literal sense. And St. Cyril of Alexandria says, 
Cyril. Alex. lib. 12. in joan. cap. 32.  By the unparted Garment of Christ was mystically signified, that the four parts of the world, being brought to salvation by the Gospel, did divide among themselves his Flesh without dividing it. For (says he) the only begotten Son of God passing into, and, by his Flesh, sanctifying the Soul ●nd Body of each of them severally and in particular, is in each of them entirely and undividedly, being every where one, and in no sort divided.  
5▪ These things thus premised (which are certain Truths, and cannot by the Preacher be denied) since he will needs make a quarrel with the Catholic Church upon this Subject, he must necessarily take upon him to demonstrate, 1. Either, that these Communions under one species, allowed and practised on so many occasions in the Primitive times, were half Communions, sacrilegious Transgressions of the Institution of our Lord, contrary to the teaching of St. Paul, conspiring with the Heresy of the Manichees, etc. And doing so, he will contradict himself, whilst he pretends half Communions to be a Novelty since their times. 2. Or, if these Practices were justifiable, and that the Church had warrant and authority to do as she did, he must prove that such an Authority could be extended only to private Persons or Fanilies, and by no means to public Congregations: That the same was a whole Communion in a Chamber, and but a half Communion in a Church: That a sick man, or one at Sea, etc. broke not the institution of Christ whilst he communicated under one kind, but did break it when he was in health or upon firm ground.  
6. Till these things be proved by him (which will be ad Graecas Calindas he must of necessity grant, that here is no Novelty at all, no change in the present Catholic ●hurch as to Doctrine: And that the change which is made in external Discipline, is of so great importance, that Protestants (who would not have separated from her Communion; if she had given them leave to break our Saviour's Institution only privately) will renounce her, because she thinks and knows that a private House and a Church cannot make the same action both lawful and unlawful, and therefore since she had authority within doors, she cannot be deprived of it abroad.  
7. Nay further, Doctor Pierce's task does not end here: for though he should be able to prove all this, yet if this be one of the provocations, and causes of their separation, he cannot justify that separation till they have made a trial, whether the Church will not dispense with them as to this point of Discipline, and after trial, been refused. For surely he will not esteem Schism a matter so inconsiderable, as to expose themselves to the guilt of it, because others besides them are obliged and content to receive under one species, whilst themselves are left at liberty: They will not unnecessarily make tumults and divisions in the Church by disputing against others, when they themselves are not concerned. Now, that such a dispensation may possibly be had, does appear, in that the Church by a General Council hath either given to, or acknowledged in her Supreme Pastor a sufficient authority to proceed in this matter according to his own prudence, 
Conc. Tried. Ses●. 22. in fin.  and as he shall see it to be profitable to the Church, and for the spiritual good of those that shall demand the use of the Chalice.  
8. As for us Catholics, we are bread up to the Orders established by God's Church: And being assured that our Lord will not forget his Promises, and consequently his Church shall never misled us to our danger, we do not think it our duty to question the Church's prudence, or set up a private Tribunal to censure her Laws: We are not sure we know all the Reasons that induced the Council of Constance to confirm a practice almost generally introduced by custom before. Yet some Reasons we see, which truly are of very great moment for that purpose, to wit, the wonderful increase of the numbers of Communicants, and wonderful decay of their Devotion: From whence could not be prevented very great dangers of irreverences and effusion ofttimes of the precious blood of our Lord, considering the defect of providence, and caution to be expected in multitudes, little sensible of Religion.  
It is probable likewise that the Heresy of Berengarius, who acknowledged no more in the Sacrament, than the mere signs of the body and blood of our Lord, might induce the Catholics publicly to practise what the Primitive Church did privately, to the end they might thereby demonstrate, that though they received not both the Signs, yet they were not defrauded of being partakers of all that was entirely contained under both the Species, which was whole Christ, not his body only, but also his blood, etc.   

CHAP. XIII.  
Of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Asserted Universally by Antiquity. The true Doctrine concerning it explained.  
1. 
Serm. Pag. 13.  HIS sixth supposed Novelty (which is the third that regards the blessed Sacrament) is the Sacrifice of the Mass. But how is this proved to be a Novelty? Ipse dixit. Not one Text, not one Quotation appears in the Margin; and why? Alas! where should he find any? Since there's not a Father in God's Church from the very Apostles, but acknowledged a Christian Sacrifice; nor any old Heretic ever denied it. Nay, who besides himself calls it a Novelty? I am sure Dr. Fulk 
Fulk. con●ut. of Purg. page 362, etc.  expressly confesseth that Te●tullian, Cyprian, Austin, Hierom, and a great many more do witness that Sacrifice, yea, Sacrifice for the Dead is the Tradition of the Apostles. And Mr. Ascham acknowledges that the Sacrifice of the Mass is so ancient, 
Ascham. Apol. pro c●na Dom.  that no first beginning of it can be showed. Yet Dr. Pierce would fain have proved it to be a Novelty Gladly would he have applied to this, his From the beginning it was not so: But could not find one Word in Antiquity for his purpose. However, for all that it must not be omitted. His Auditors would have wondered to hear the Church accused, and the clause touching the Sacrifice left out of the Indictment.  
2. To please therefore popular ears, he named it, as an ill thing: But coming to print his Sermon, he leaves that Margin empty: For what could be in the Fathers to fill it? It was not for his purpose to quote St. Ignatius' saying, 
Ignat. Ep. ad. Smirn. cent. 2. cap. 4.  It is not lawful either to offer, or to immolate the Sacrifice or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the Bishop: (Which, (say the Centurists) are dangerous words, and seeds of Errors) Or St. Ireneus, 
Iren. l. 4. c. 32.  who tells us that our Lord, consecrating the Mystical Elements, Taught us a New Oblation of the New Testament, which the Church having received from the Apostles, offers to God through the whole World. 
Cypr. Epist. ad Cyril.  Or St. Cyprian, whose words are, Who was more a Priest of the most High God, than our Lord jesus Christ? Who offered a Sacrifice to God the Father? and offered the very same that Melchisedech had offered, that is, Bread and Wine, to wit, his own Body and Blood, etc. and commanded the same to be afterward done in memory of him. That Priest therefore doth truly supply the place and function of Christ, and imitates that which Christ did, who undertakes to offer according as he sees Christ himself offered. In which one Epistle he calls the Eucharist a Sacrifice, seven times, and above twenty times he affirms that the Symbols are offered in it.  
3. The truth is, in the writings of Antiquity, the celebration of these Mysteries, is scarce ever called by other name, but Oblation, Sacrifice, Immolation, etc. And because the Fathers may be said to speak figuratively and rhetorically, the Canons also of the Church, which ought to speak properly, scarce ever use any other expression. See the third among the Apostolic Canons; The 58 th'. Canon of the Council of Laodicea: The 20 th'. Canon of the first Council of A●les: The 40 th'. Canon of the Council of Cart●age: And the 18 th'. Canon of the first General Co●ucil of Nice, in which are these words, The Holy Synod is informed, that in some places Deacons administer the Eucharist to Priests: A thing which neither any Canon nor Custom hath delivered, that those who have no power of offering should give the Body of Christ to those who offer. Whole volumes may be transcribed to this effect: I will only therefore refer him to St. Hierom on Titus, 
Hier. on. Ti●. cap. 1. Chrys. 21. hom.  and St. Chrysostom on the Acts, where he will find the Eucharist not only a Sacrifice, but a Sacrifice for remission of sins,; a Sacrifice for the Priest that offers; a Sacrifice for the multitude; a Sacrifice for the procuring of plenty, etc. suitably to the modern and ancient Liturgies.  
4. If after all this he will not allow any of these expressions in Doctors, Canons, Liturgies, etc. to be proper and literal, St. Augustin will contradict him: Who says, Presbyters and Bishops are now in the Church properly called [Sacerdotes] sacrificing Priests. 
Aug. lib. 20. de Civ. D. cap. 10.  And because the fancy which Protestants have entertained against the term Sacrifice, Oblation, etc. proceeds from a mistake of the true sense in which the Church intends it; for ordinarily the conception of a Sacrifice, is supposed to import an immolation, shedding of blood, killing, etc. and no such matter appearing here, but only a commemoration of a former real immolation and shedding of Christ's blood, therefore generally among all Sects, divided from the Church, the title of Sacrifice will not be endured.  
5. To prevent therefore for the future such a misunderstanding, let them be pleased to take notice that all the Sacrifices of the Law were shadows and types of the Sacrifices of our Lord, and the Legal Priesthood a type of his Priesthood: But above all other Sacrifices and functions of Priesthood, those were most lively figures of our Lord, which were performed on a certain day, only once every year, for the sins of the whole Congregation: In the solemn celebration of which Sacrifice, besides the immolation of it on the Altar, the High Priest alone was appointed to carry of the blood of that Victim into the most holy place within the Veil, and there to sprinkle it before the Propitiatory or Mercy-Seat. This is that Sacrifice which St. Paul especially applies to our Lord, and shows that Christ, as a Victim, was once, and but once immolated on the Altar of the Cross for the sins of all mankind: And that for the merit of his obedience to the death even of the Cross, he was raised from death, and made a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, a Kingly Priest, a Priest who had power given him in Heaven and Earth, to apply the merits of his own Sacrifice: And that the proper function of his Regal Priesthood, was the entering with his immolated Body into the Sancta Sanctorum, the highest Heavens, there appearing before his heavenly Father's Throne, and presenting that most precious Victim to him. This function of Priesthood, far more august than the immolation, he does, and will continually exercise to the end of the World. By virtue of this he is made Head of the Church, he has the power of sending the Holy Ghost, etc. and hereby he perfects Redemption.  
6. And withal, knowing of what infinite value and virtue this function of his Priesthood is, he has been pleased to execute, as it were by proxy, the same function on Earth, that himself immediately performs in Heaven. For which purpose he has instituted Bishops and Priests to be not only his Ministers, but Substitutes and Vice-gerents on Earth, giving them power to consecrate, and by cosecrating to place upon the Altar that very Body and Blood which was immolated on the Cross, and is now present before his Father in Heaven. This body and blood they Sacrifice, this they offer, this they with the People participate. It is not a Sacrifice of immolation, in that mistaken sense, for nothing is slain, the Victim suffers nothing: It is but a Commemorative Sacrifice of Immolation: But it is, in the most proper rigorous sense, an Oblation, the very same, of the very same body and blood that our Lord now offers in Heaven: And the same virtue it has, the same effects it produces, propitiation, remission of sins, participation of the graces of Gods holy Spirit, and all blessings both spiritual and temporal. So that in a word, as under the Law the Legal propitiation was said to perfected by the High Priests offering the blood in the most holy place: So by this Oblation of Christ's bood in the Heavenly Sanctuary, perfect Redemption i● obtained, and by the Commemorative Oblation of the same body and blood by his Priests in our earthly Sanctuaries, an application of the benefit and virtue of that only meritorious Sacrifice once offered on the Cross, is then procured unto us for remission of our sins, and the donation of all other benefits, spiritual and temporal.  
7. In regard of this sublime function of the Priest it is, that the holy Fathers exalt his office before that of Princes, yea even of Angels: in this regard they call the oblation itself the most dreadful Mystery▪ at which the Angels themselves assist with reverence and astonishment. To which purpose I will content myself with only one or two passages of St. Chrysost●m: When the Sacrifice, saith he, is brought out of the Choir, 
Chrysost. in Eph. cap. 1. hom. 3.  Christ himself the Lamb of our Lord immolated; When thou shalt hear the Deacons voice crying, Let us pray all in common, when thou seest the Curtains and Veyls of the Gates drawn, then think the Heavens are opened and the Angels descend. And in an other place: 
Id. l. 6. de Sacerdot.  When the Priest has invocated the Holy Spirit and perfected the Sacrifice full of terror and reverence, touching and handling with his Fingers him who is Lord of all things, to how sublime a rank is he elevated, etc. In that time the Angels assist the Priest, and all the Celestical powers send forth cries of joy, all the places about the Altar are filled with Quires of Angels in honour of him who is offered. This we may have ground to believe, if we only consider the supereminent greatness of the Sacrifice then performed. But moreover I have heard from the report of one who learned the story from the mouth of an admirable old man, to whom many revelations of divine Mysteries have been revealed from Heaven: How God was graciously pleased to honour him with a Vision of these things, and how in the time of the Sacrifice he sau suddenly appear, with as much splendour as human sight could support, a multitude of Angels clothed with white Robes encompassing the Altar, and having their heads inclined in the same posture, as we oft see the Soldiers in the presence of the Emperor. Thus Saint Chrysostom.   

CHAP. XIV.  
Of Veneration of Images. The Roman-Churches approved practice of it most suitable to Reason.  
1. THe seventh Novelty produced by the Preacher is the worshipping of Images: but it being only named, without any proofs or quotations, I will spare them too: And to show that the term of worshipping is none of ours, but invented by Protestants to render a most innocent Doctrine odious, and moreover to demonstrate the no grounds such Preachers as he have to accuse the Catholic Church of▪ I know not what, Idolatry in this matter of Images, I will presume to borrow from an Author (who will not be angry with me for it) a passage touching this Point, by which he will see, that Catholics do no more than every man's own reason will justify, in the respect they give to sacred Images. It is the nameless Author of an Answer to Mr. Bagshaw's Treatise of Infallibility: where he will find this following passage, 
Answer to Mr. Bagsh. p. 70, etc.  in which there are some glances, that regard only such furious impertinents as Mr. Bagshaw, which therefore I am far from thinking appliable to Doctor Pierce.  
2. ●hus then writes that Author, intending to demonstrate that in the veneration of Images taught by the Catholic Church there is nothing at all swerving from common rea●on: Give me leave, saith he, to propose to such a sober man as you are, altogether compounded of Reason, some few Questions. First then suppose there were represented to you while you were thinking of other matters, or talking, a Picture of our Lord ha●g●ng on the Cross: cou●d you possibly avoid the calling to mind who our Lord was, and what he had done or suffered for you? And if not being able to forbid the entrance of such thoughts into your mind on such an occasion would your reason dictate to you that you had done ill in changing your thoughts from the World to God, would you repent of it, ask pardon of God, and praying that such a tentation might never befall you afterwards? Does your enlightened reason suggest ●his to you? Truly it i● do, I believe you are of a temper of mind, almost specifically different from all mankind besides, and they must change their nature before you make them of your persuasion, or Church. And yours is no a common sense, if it either tell you, that by your beating down of Crosses and breaking Church windows, our good Countrymen think more of God than they did while those Remembrances were standing: or if they think less, that it is better for them to forget him.  
3. To make a step further, Let it he supposed that at the same time you saw before you several Pictures of several Persons in a contrary manner regarded by you, as of St. Peter and judas, of our late Severaign and Bradshaw: Or put case you had in one hand a Bible, and in the other the infamous story of Pantagruel: does not your common sense and reason tell you, that such Pictures or Books force upon you quite contrary thoughts and affections, which regard those Pictures or Books not simply considered, but as representing such Persons, and containing such matters? Which thoughts being just, and not at all harmful to you, and withal almost impossible to be avoided, I cannot find any reason why Reason should forbid them: I am sure common sense will not.  
4. If then it be according to reason, and common sense, and likewise unavoidably to admit such different thoughts: will not reason also warrant you to express outwardly by words or actions, whatever you may without any fault think inwardly? For my part I cannot imagine any scruple in this. If then I may and must think reverently or contemptuously of the Objects, I may as well speak, or behave myself externally after the same manner to them respectively; For whatsoever is ill or good in words or actions, is so likewise in thoughts.  
5. Now to show that such thoughts or affections regard not the Persons only but the Pictures also as representations of such Persons, ask your own heart and you will find that you would not place St. Peter's picture, or the King's in an unclean, dishonest place. If any one should spit upon either of them, your heart would rise against him, and tempt you to strike him ● which it would not do, if the same contemptuous usage were showed to the picture of judas or Bradshaw. Now this is so naturally imbibed in the hearts of all Mankind, that in all King's Courts a respect and outward mark of reverence is required to the Chamber of Presence, or Chair of State: and a refusal of it, much more a contemptuous behaviour, would be criminal. To apply this to the forementioned Books: You could not bring your reason to permit you to tear out a leaf of the Bible for an unclean use, as you could without the least remorse do to the story of Pantagruel or Aesop's fables..  
6. Let us now consider what kind of respect this is that we express to such Images. Comparing the Images of St. Peter and our Sovereign's together, we find that a respectful regard is had to both, and a contemptuous usage of either would displease us: Yet it is not the same kind of respect: For St. Peter's Image we consider as of a man that puts us in mind of Heaven ann Heavenly things, one highly favoured by Almighty God, a principal Courtier in his Kingdom, and one that by his writings and example has been a great instrument of promoting our eternal happiness. We do not so esteem of every good King. Therefore to show the difference of our respect to each, we would choose to give St. Peter's picture a place in our Oratory, and the Kings in our Gallery. But what Names to give these different respects is not easy to determine. It is plain, that which is given to the King's picture is purely a civil respect. But what shall we call that which is given to St. Peter's? If we say it is Religious, you will quarrel, as derogating from God. Let us therefore call it a sacred Veneration, or honour: For since all things, that are appointed on purpose to mind us of God, of Heaven, and the salvation of our Souls, we call Sacred, this Name may well be applied to such a Picture. But moreover, because there are not invented such variety of Names as there are things, and there are far fewer sorts of outward postures of our bodies denoting respect, than there are Names or Words: Hence it comes to pass that when we would express a Civil and a Sacred, yea a Religious respect, we are forced to to use the same outward behaviour of bowing, kneeling, etc. to Fathers and Magistrates, which we do to God himself: 
1 Chron. 29. 20.  Yea we find in the Scripture Kings adored, and a prostration of Bodies paid to them. Yet for all this no man will suspect that thereby any dishonour was intended to God, or the Honour due only to him was paid to Creatures.  
7. In the next place let reason and common sense give judgement of the distinction between the respect that may be paid to the Picture of St. Peter, and that which ought to be paid to Himself, in case he appeared to us glorified as he is. A Divine respect we pay to neither, though sometimes we use such postures as we do when we pray or worship God. It is then a Sacred Veneration only: But yet there are some expressions of respect which we would use to the Person, that would be ridiculous to the Picture, as reverently to speak to him, to beg his Prayers to God for us, to ask a Question, etc.  
8. Our last Enquiry shall be into the difference of regard (if any there be) to our Saviour's Picture and St. Peter's, the former representing to us him that is both God and Man, the later merely Man. However we shall find that the regard to both the Pictures is of the same species and nature, that is, only Sacred: because a Picture we never look upon, but as an instrument to put us in mind, or to call to our memories an object: And therefore it being of our own framing, is not capable of any respect beyond that which is due to so material, inferior a thing, what ever the object represented by it be. True it is, that the internal affections and thoughts occasionally raised in our minds will be infinitely different, for we shall think upon Christ with Adoration, Love, Resignation and Obedience due to God only: Not so of St. Peter: But the Pictures themselves will be treated by us as Sacred Pictures only, that deserve a respect proportionable: And since it is evident they are capable of a sinful disrespect, consequently a due respect may be paid to them. I say (may) not always aught to be: For than it would never be fit to put on ones Hat, etc. in a Room where there hangs a Crucifix.  
9 To sum up briefly our meaning in this whole matter: We find minds too apt to be distracted from meditating on Divine things: Therefore we help our selus by such as will call to our memories, and fix our thoughts upon objects good for our Souls: Such are holy Pictures both in times of prayer and out, we find this benefit by them. Being such sacred things, we must renounce our reason, if we deny a respect may be due to them: But by honouring with an outward regard a Picture, we intent only to give a testimony what respect we beat to the person or holy thing represented: And though for want of variety of postures, we show some part of the same outward Reverence to the Pictures of St. Peter and our Lord, yet that signifies, we only venerate St. Peter, as a glorious Saint, yet a Creature, but that we adore Christ, as God: And no man that sees or knows us, can think otherwise. So that unless it be a fin to show outwardly what we are obliged to think inwardly, there is not the least fault committed.  
10. And now (Mr. Bagshow) give me leave to acquaint you with your mistakes. First, this respect called by the Church, Honour and Veneration, which we affirm may be paid to Sacred Images, you call Worshipping of Images, merely to make in odious to your ignorant Proselytes; For worship is commonly taken to be that honour which is due only to God, and which we abhor to give to Images. But Secondly, You give it an other name more abominable, calling it Idolatry, such as God punished in the worst of Pagans. Once at least in your life speak your Conscience: Do you think, or only suspect, that we Roman Catholics worship false Gods, and true Devils? Do we consider our Images, as they did their Idols, to which by Magical conjurations they annexed an evil Spirit to do wonders, and to extort Divine worship from the seduced people? Taketheed Sir, how you persist in so unjust a Blasphemy against God's Church A time will come that you will be called to a strict account for it: It concerns you therefore to make some reparation.  
11. But after all this take notice that the Catholic Church, though it declare that such a veneration may fitly be given to holy Images, as common reason, and human nature cannot choose but allow: Yet it commands none to afford them even so much. You may be a Roman Catholic all you life, and never be obliged to perform any external respect to an Image. There is not in Catholic Countries a Groom or Kitchenmaid so ignorant, but would rather burn an Image, then afford it any honour due to God only. And shall those that think thus, and do only what human reason generally approves, and cannot hinder, be esteemed and published by you the only Christians in the World, fit to be thrust out of all Christian Kingdoms, and executed as Traitors, though otherwise they be acknowledg●most faithful, peaceable men, and obedient Subjects? Are you not afraid of, In quo judicio judicaveritis, judicabimini?  
12. You see Sir, how sinee you will not admit of Authorities to justify the Belief and Practice of Roman Catholics, but only common sense and reason, I have complied with you: And now in one world tell you, that you must never hope to make any sober man believe that Roman Catholics are Idolaters, or even faulty in the matter of Images, till you can demonstrate, 1. That it is unlawful to make use of our seeing faculty to put us in mind of God. 2. That he dishonours the King that shall with reverence, bore headed, and in a kneeling posture receive a Letter or Mandate that com●● from him. 3. That it is a contempt of God to go through a Church with ones head uncovered. 4. And that it is unlawful and irreligious to make a scruple of using a Leaf of the Bible in the house of Office.  
13. For a Farewell, I will conclude this Point with a Story, the truth whereof several Gentlemen, Protestants too, in this Town are able to justify. In the Year 1651. a devout Italian Friar, being appointed to preach in the Great Dome at Milan, the Archbishop present, and having been informed that among his Auditors there were some English Protestants, who in discourse had earnestly objected (as you do) Idolatry to Catholics: He therefore that he might encounter such a scandal, made choice of the Doctrine concerning Images for the subject of a great part of his Sermon. And when he came to that Point, holding in his hand a Crucifix, he could his hearers, That that Image did in one glance lively represent, even to the most ignorant beholder, our Lord jesus, God and Man, and almost all the Circumstances of his most bitter and accursed death, so patiently and willingly suffered for us. Thereupon with great Passion and Rhetoric he magnified the love of our Lord hanging on the C●oss, earnestly pressing his Hearers to return a proportionable Love and Duty to him. And during this Discourse, he often, with great reverence and tenderness of affection embraced and devoutly kissed the Crucifix. Having said much to this purpose, after a little pause he pursued his Discourse, telling them he could not believe or suspect that any one who had heard and seen what he had said and done, could reasonably imagine that he had any intention to dishonour our Lord, by that which he had done to the Crucifix which represented him, much less that he adored it, as if he thought it a kind of God, that he put his trust in it, as expecting any good from it, as if (he knew not what) Divinity, Virtue or Sanctity was in that carved piece of wood. Notwithstanding, because he had heard that such a scandalous imputation was by some mispersuaded persons laid on the Church, he would then and there undeceive them. Thereupon he spit upon the Crucifix, threw it scornfully to the ground, and trampled it under his feet.  
14. You see, Mr. Bagshaw, what kind of Idolaters the Papists are. Against this Idolatry, let us see what express Scripture you can produce. This is the great crime for which there can be no expiation but oppressions, Imprisonments, and Gallows. Now if what hath been here said give you no satisfaction, in case you have a mind to reply, do not practise your old way of snatching a phrase or expression out of a single Author, a School-man or Controvertist, making the whole Church answerable for one man's indiscretion. But search what the Church herself has declared in the Council of Trent: Imagines Christi, 
Conc. Trid. Sess. 25.  etc. in Templis praesertim retinendae, etc. Images of Christ, etc. aught to be retained in Churches especially, and due honour and veneration exhibited to them, not that there is believed any Divinity or Virtue in them, for which they ought to be worshipped, or that they are to be petitioned for any thing, or any confidence to be reposed in them, but because the honour exhibited to them is referred to the Prototypes they represent. Dispute against this as well as you can; and be assured you shall either be answered, or told you are unconquerable.   

CHAP. XV.  
The Roman Churches Prudence in restraining the too free use of Scripture from the Unlearned. The miseries of this Kingdom justly ascribed to a defect in such Prudence. Of Prayers not in a Vulgar Tongue; The Causes and Grounds thereof. That practise not contrary to St. Paul.  
I. DOctor Pierce his next (which is a double) Novelty, regards not any Doctrines, but only a Point of Discipline in the Church, 
Serm. pag. 26.  which is, The withholding Scripture from the Vulgar, and practising public Devotions in an unknown Tongue. Concerning the former, he says, The Scriptures were written in Hebrew, the mother-tongue of the jew: and in Greek, a Tongue most known to Eastern Nations: And afterwards were translated into the Dalmatick by St. Hierom, into the Gothick by Vulphilas, into the Arminian by Chrysostom, etc. and the Vulgar Latin was anciently the Vulgar Language of the Italians, etc.  
2. Truly the Doctor has, if it be well considered, made choice of a very proper season to renew a quarrel against the Roman Church, upon this Point, and to endeavour the engaging his Majesty in it, as if the calamities already happened, both to the Royal Family, and the whole Nation, were either too little, or not to be imputed chiefly to that Error. He, and all Christendom, has seen the blessed effects that this prostituting Scripture to the passions and lusts of the rude and common people of all Conditions, Ages and Sexes, has wrought the last twenty years in this Kingdom. What was it but Scripture (as it was used, and of which ill use themselves were the first causes, and hereafter will never be able to prevent) that justified Discontents against the Government, both Civil and Ecclesiastical; that put Swords and Guns into the hands of Subjects against their Kings, and all that were faithful to them; that dissolved the entire frame of the Kingdom; that encouraged men to Plunder, and all manner of Rapines; that Arraigned and Murdered our last most Excellent KING, that endangered his now living Son, our most gracious King's life, and forced him into a long necessitous banishment; that has revived and given strength to old and new Monsters of Heresies, to the astonishment of Mankind, some of which are no where else to be seen, and the rest in no where place so venomous, as in England: Let but the Doctor remember how much mischief the perverse interpretation of this one Text, which none but the ignorant could mistake, produced in this Nation: Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof How did this ring in their ears, and stir them up to reject and hate all set-forms of Prayer! How, with this Text alone, often repeated, and industriously enlarged, and zealously applied by the holy Lecturers, were their very hearts set on fire to burn the grand Idol of the Common Prayer Book! And yet, after all this, the Doctor makes or renews quarrels with the Roman Catholic Church, because she is unwilling, by imitating them, to give a birth from her bowels to such mischiefs as these.  
3. Yet cannot be denied, that Doctor Pierce was subtle, for having a design (in recompense of the service Roman Catholics have done them) to expose them to the common rage of all these Monsters, he could not make choice of a subject more proper for his purpose than this, in which alone they were all interessed, not for the good they reap by Scripture, but because without it, they would not have the advantage to do half so much mischief.  
4. Yet must he not think he can so blind men's eyes, but they know well enough that English Protestants are in their very Souls grieved, That 'tis now too late for them to endeavour how they may imitate both the Prudence and Charity of Catholic Churches in the dispensing of Scripture. Our Pastors do not, as he wrongfully seems to charge them, forbid the Translation of Scripture into Vulgar Tongues, since there is scarce any Nation but hath it. There are Catholic Translations of the Scripture into English, French, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, etc. for the use of those of the Laity, who are by their Spiritual Guides judged such, as that they may reap benefit and no harm by the reading thereof. And what more doth the Preacher show in the practice of the ancient times, in saying that the Holy Scriptures were then translated into the Dalmatick Tongue by St. Hierom, than I show in justification also of the later times (which he would here condemn) in saying as truly, that the Holy Scriptures are also found translated long ago in Wicliffs the Reformers time, by the allowance and Authority of the Catholic Church (of which thus Dr. F●lk) That the Scriptures were extant in English both before and after Wicliffs time, and not of his Translation, beside your conjecture out of Li●d●ood, it is manifestly proved by so many ancient ●riters Copies of the English Bible differing in translation, yet to be showed, of which Wicleffs Translation could be but one. Or in saying, That the same Holy Scriptures have been Translated also of late, since Luther's, a second Reformer's time, with the allowance of the same Church Catholic, by the industry of the Rhemish Divines.  
But Catholic Governors, knowing how impossible it is for ignorant Persons to understand it, and for passionate minds to make good use of it, esteem it more conduceing to their edification and the common peace, that such easily misled Soul● should be instructed in their Duties, both as Christians and Subjects, by plain Catechisms and Instructions prudently and sufficiently, with all plainness gathered out of Scripture, then that the Bible should be put into their hands, a Book, the tenth part whereof scarce concerns them to know, and in which the several Points wherein they are concerned are so dispersed in several places, so variously, and sometimes so obscurely, and so dubiously expressed, that all the learning and subtlety of Doctors, since it was written till these days, have been exercised in enquiring, comparing, discussing several Texts, and clearing the true Doctrine of them fit for the conception of vulgar capacities. The whole Direction, necessary to govern Pastors in their permitting others to read the Holy Scripture●, is fully and excellently contained in that on: Text of the Second Epistle of St. Peter, 3. 16. Wherein (the Epistles of St. Paul) there are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable pervert (as also the other Scriptures) to their own perdition. Two sorts of Readers are here plainly forbidden by the Apostle; for certainly none o● them who we know are apt to pervert the Scriptures, should be permitted to read them. Consider then how far these two words reach, unlearned and unstable: I doubt, to ninety nine of every hundred in England: Which if admitted, not above one in a hundred, were good discipline observed, would be allowed to read the Bible.  
Nor can it be Objected (as usually Protestant's do) that the Scriptures are safely clear to every one in Fundamentals, and mistakable only in Points of lesser consequence, since the very Text says, they are both hard to be understood, and pervertible to the perdition of their Readers; and if such Points as import Salvation or Damnation be not Fundamental, I'm utterly ignorant of the meaning of that word. Let then the Learned, and the steady Christian read, and study, and meditate th● Bible as often and as long as he will, every Catholic will commend him, but by no means should that liberty be given to the unlearned and unstable, lest the Scripture itself condemn it, as a boldness that may endanger their eternal Salvation.  
And 'tis observable in King Henry the 8 th'. who, after he had caused the English Bible to be published, so as to be read by all without any restraint, was forced again, after three years' experience (wherein he saw the many strange and horrid opinions rising among the ignorant people by occasion thereof) by a new Act of Parliament to abridge the liberty formerly granted, 
See Injunctions A. D. 1536 1538. (Fox. p. 1000) set forth by Cromwell. Stat. 34, 35. Hen. 8. c. 1.  and to prohibit upon the penalty of a month's Imprisonment toties quoties, that any Woman, Husbandman, Artificer, Yeoman, Servingman, Apprentice or journy-man Labourer, etc. should read them to themselves or to others, privately or openly. See Stat. 34, 35. Hen. 8. 1. Because (saith the Preface of that Statue) his Highness perceived that a great multitude of his Subjects, most especially of the lower sort, had so abused the Scriptures, that they had thereby grown and increased in divers naughty and erroneous Opinions, and by occasion thereof fallen into great Divisions and Dissensions among themselves. And if you say, the Opinions the King calls here erroneous, were the Protestant Doctrines, discovered by the Vulgar from the new light of the Scriptures, you may see the very Opinions, as the Bishops collected them in Fox, pag. 1136. un-ownable by any sober Protestant or Christian. A thing perhaps not unworthy the serious consideration of the present Governors, who have seen the like effects in these days.  
5. But as for other Lay-people of better judgement and capacities, and of whose submission to the Church's Authority, and aversion from Novelties sufficient proofs can be given, our Ecclesiastical Governors are easily enough entreated, yea, they are well enough inclined to exhort them to read the Scriptures themselves in their vulgar Tongues, and are forward to assist them in explaining difficulties, and resolving doubts that may occur.  
6. And now let Doctor Pierce speak his Conscience, if he dare do it; Is not this way of managing the Consciences of Christ's Flock and this prudent dispensing of Scripture very desirable, yea actually in their hearts here in England, that it may be in practice among them? But it is now too late: Their first Reformers found no expedient so effectual to call followers to them out of God's Church, as by wastefully pouring this Treasure into their hands, and accusing the Church for not doing so, not foreseeing, or not caring, if, in future times, that which was an instrument of their Schism, from the true Church, would be far more effectual to multiply Schisms from their false one. For the making an ill use of Scripture by ignorant or passionate Laics is not altogether so certain or probable to follow in the Catholic Church, where men are bred up in a belief and most necessary Duty of Submission even of their minds to her Authority for the delivering of the only true sense of Scripture: Whereas in such Churches as this, in which not any one Person ever was or can be persuaded that the sense of Scripture given by them can challenge an internal assent from any, or that it may not without sin be contradicted; to give the Scripture indefinitely to all who can read or are willing to hear it read, without a Guide to tell them the true sense which they are bound to believe, is to invite them to ascend into Moses Chair, which such Reformer's themselves have made empty and vacant for them.  
7. The second Part of this pretended Novelty concerns Public Praying in an unknown tongue: 
Serm. p. 9  which, says he, may be fetched indeed as far as from Gregory the Great (that is, ever since this Nation was Christian:) But is as scandalously opposite to the plain sense of Scriptures, 
Ibid. p. 27.  as if it were done in a mere despite to 1. Cor. 14. 13. etc. And, besides Origen, it is confessed by Aquinas and Lyra, that in the Primitive times the public Service of the Church was in the common Language too. And as the Christians of Dalmatia, Habassia, etc. and all Reformed parts of Christendom have God's service in their vulgar tongues, so hath it been in divers places by approbation first had from the Pope himself.  
8. I will acknowledge to D●ctor Pierce, that this is the only Point of Novelty (as he calls it) of which he discourses sensibly, and as it were to the purpose: But withal I must tell him, it is, because he mistakes our Church's meaning. For he charges the Catholic Religion, as if one of its positions were, That God's public Service ought to be in an unknown Tongue, or as if it forbade people to understand it. And truly if it were so, we could never hope to be reconciled with that passage of Scripture out of St. Paul, 1 Cor. 14. 13, etc. But all this is a pure misunderstanding. Therefore I desire him to permit himself for once to be informed how the matter stands in this Point with the Roman Catholic Church.  
9 We Roman Catholics (I) do willingly acknowledge, that in the Primitive times the Public Service of God was (generally speaking) performed in a Tongue better understood than now it is, yet not then for many places and Countries in their vulgar, or native, or best understood tongue; For it is evident by St. Augustin that in Afric it was in the Latin tongue, 
De Doctr.  not in the Punic, 
Christ. l 2. c. 12, 13. Exposit. Psal. 123. Exposit. incho●ta Epist. ad Romanos.  which yet was the only Tongue the Vulgar understood. So the Liturgy of St. Basil was used in the Greek Tongue in most parts of the Eastern Churches. And yet it appears as well out of later History, as out of the Acts 2. 8, 9, 10. etc. 14. v. 11. That Greek was not in those ancient times the vulgar tongue of many of those Eastern Countries, no more than Latin was of the Western. 2. We profess it was not, nor yet is the intention of the Church that the Public Devotions should therefore be in Latin, because it is not vulgarly understood: but this has happened as it were by accident, besides her intention, and only because the Latin Tongue, in which it was first written, by revolution of times and mixture of Barbarous Nations in Europe, has been corrupted, and ceased to be a so commonly understood Language by unlearned people; for indeed probably it was never so well understood, as that other native Language which they used before it, or with it.  
10. Matters standing thus, yet the Church does not think fit to change with the times, but continues Gods public Service as it was at first: And this we may conceive she does. 1. Because no example can be found in antiently-established Churches, that any of them changed the Language of God's public Service entirely. The Greeks now use the Ancient Mass of St. Chrysostom written in pure Greek, as much differing from the Vulgar, as Latin from the Italian, Spanish, etc. The like may be said of the Syrian, Cophtites, etc. among whom the Mass is celebrated in the o●d Language, far from being vulgarly understood. Yea, the jews continue their Devotions, to this day, in the Hebrew, understood by few among them. 2. Because, though the Latin be not now in any place a vulgar Language yet there is no Language so universally understood in Europe as that: And a great fitness there is that the most Public Service should be in the most public Language, in which all Nations may join every where. And by those who most frequently recite the Divine Service in the Catholic Church, viz. the Clergy, and other Religious (for whose proper use a great part of this Service was composed) the Latin Tongue is well understood. 3. Because the Latin ●ongue now that it is not vulgar, being thereby become unchangeable, the Church's Doctrines contained in her Liturgies are so much the more freed from the danger of being innovated. Whereas vulgar Languages almost in every age become un-intelligible, or at least sound very unpleasing in men's ears, as we now see in King Edward the sixth's Common-prayer-book: would it not seem an odd translation now to read, that Saint Philip baptised the Gelding? and Paul the Knave of jesus Christ, yet this was once the English Scripture; Nay more, within this twenty years we find many words and phrases have quite changed their former sense: So that all Nations must be ever and anon altering their Liturgies, to the great danger of changing the Church's belief; And (which is not altogether inconsiderable) for the present good husbandry of the world, to the infinite expenses of moneys in printing etc.  
11. I doubt not but he will reply that not any one, or all these commodities can answer and satisfy for an express, and, as he calls it, a scandalous opposition to the plain sense of Scripture, 1 Cor. 14. I grant it: All these commodities are to be despised, rather than so to oppose the Apostles Doctrine. But what is his Doctrine? For I evidently perceive the Doctor has not well searched into it, much less, rightly applied it. The Apostle says. If I pray in an unknown tongue, my Spirit prays, but my understanding receives no benefit, etc. And how can an unlearned Person say Amen to such Prayers? In which passage seems involved a tacit prohibition at least of public Prayers in an unknown tongue. All this is granted: but yet with this exception mentioned by the Apostle himself, unless either he that prays, or some other interpret. Therefore before he took on him to charge the Catholic Church with a scandalous opposition to this passage of Scripture, he ought to have examined better her doctrine and practice: otherwise he himself will be found guilty of a Scandalous opposition to God's Church.  
Now for a trial of the Church's sense, let him observe the Ordinance of the Council of Trent touching this very Point: the words are these, Though the Mass contain instruction for God's faithful people, 
Conc. Trid. Ses●. 2●. cap. 8.  yet it seemed not expedient unto the Fathers that it should be celebrated every where in the vulgar tongue; wherefore retaining in all places the Churches ancient Rite, approved by the holy Roman Church▪ the Mother and Mistress of all Churches; lest Christ's Sheep should hunger, and Children ask bread, none should be found to break it to them, the Holy Synod commands all 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 other things let them explain the mystery of this most Holy Sacrifice, especially on Sundays and Feasts. The Preacher here may see that the Church does not make such a secret even of the most sublime Mysteries of her Office, as the Court believed upon his report.  
12. Likewise between this speaking in an unknown tongue, mentioned by St. Paul, and the Churches public Latin Service, there is this great disparity, that this later is always a known Language to several of those present, if not to all, and there are always those who understandingly say, Amen. And again being a known set-form in one set-language, recurring continually the same according to the Feast, those who are ignorant of it at first, need not continue so, but by due attention, and other diligence may arrive to a sufficient knowledge at least of the chief parts thereof, they having also in their Manuals, Primers, Psalters, etc. ready translated both the Psalms, Hymns and Prayers, etc. and there being several Books both in English and all vulgar languages, that expound the Church-service even to the meanest capacity. Neither is the Latin tongue, by reason of its affinity with many vulgar tongues, and of the constant use hereof, a language unknown to such a degree in Catholic Conntries, as our English Nation imagine it, and therefore is so much scandalised: Neither is there the same motive for some dispensation of a change in those places, as perhaps would be in a Country less acquainted with the Latin, and of a Language more remote from it. Yet our venerable Beda in his History saith, 
Bed hist. l. 1. c 1.  That in his time to these Northern Languages of ours, English, Scotch, Britan's, Picts, the Latin Tongue, by perusing the Scriptures, was made common to them all. The usual Language therefore wherein the Scriptures were delivered in his times was Latin, and by this that Tongue rendered common, and not unknown even to these Northern people.  
13. Besides all this, several Popes, Patriarches, etc. have approved the Translation of the Missal, etc. into the vulgar Languages, as Pope john the Eighth, 
Hist. Boem. cap. 13.  who was induced thereto by a Miracle related by Aeneas Silvius (afterward Pope Pius the Second) likewise Pope Innocent the Third, Pope Leo the Tenth, Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch, etc.  
To conclude, since the Doctor confesseth that Popes have given leave to some Churches that the Divine Office should be in a vulgar Tongue, he ought not to have made a Quarrel of this to a Separation, till it could be showed, that their first Reformers had demanded a dispensation, and been refused.   

CHAP. XVI.  
Of Invocation of Saints: Proved out of Antiquity. Concessions: Deductions: And Objections answered.  
1. THe next supposed Novelty is the Invocation of Saints departed: which says Doctor Pierce, 
Serm. p. 9  is no doubt an aged error, though not so aged as they would have it, (for the gaining of honour to the invention) because St. Augustin does deny it to have been in his days.  
2. Though perhaps the Preacher may for some ends be unwilling, yet that other Protestants may see the Innocence of the Church in this Point, and how free she is from any intention of deterring any one from having access in Prayer to our Lord immediately; or of diminishing the all-sufficient virtue of our Lords Merits and Intercession; or of inducing men to security by relying on the holiness and intercession of others, and neglecting the means of Salvation themselves, etc. (which are generally the grounds upon which Protestants condemn this practice:) I will first set down the Church's Decision: And next, in order to demonstrate the reasonableness of it, I will show, for preventing such prejudices, what concessions are generally made by Catholics. Thirdly, I will confirm the Churches practise by the Testimonies of the Primitive times. And lastly, answer the Doctor's only argument.  
3. First, then touching the Church's Doctrine, contained in the Council of Trent, 
Conc. Trid. Se●s. 25.  The Holy Synod commands all Bishops and others who sustain the Office and care of teaching, that, according to the use of the Catholic and Apostolic Religion received from the primitive times, the consent of the Holy Fathers, and the decrees of the Sacred Councils▪ especially touching the intercession and invocation of Saints, etc. that they diligently instruct the Faithful, teaching them, that the Saints reigning together with Christ, do offer their Prayers to God for men, and that it is good and profitable hum●ly to invocate them, and to have recourse to their Prayers, help and assistance for the obtaining of benefits from God by his Son jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour. Let them likewise teach, that those who deny that the Saints, enjoying eternal felicity in Heaven, are to be invocated; or who affirm either that they do not pray for men, or that the invocating them to pray for us in particular also, is Idolatry, or that it is repugnant to God's word and contrary to the honour of the one Mediator between God and Men jesus Christ; or that it is a foolish thing to supplicate with words or mind to them reigning in heaven [impie sentiunt] are impiously persuaded.  
4. In the second place, in conformity to the doctrine of this Decree, Catholics believe and acknowledge. 1. That we have only one Mediator jesus Christ, to whom only belongs the Merit that by its just worth redeems us from eternal Death, and purchases for us eternal life: As likewise that as his Merits by satisfaction, so also his Intercession is all-sufficient by way of impetration, to obtain all blessings for us. 2. Yet cannot it be denied but our Lord's intercession is not actually and absolutely beneficial to all, but that some Duties and qualifications on our part are necessary both that his Merits, and the benefits of his Intercession should be effectually applied unto us. 3. Among these Qualifications we are to reckon not only our own Prayers for ourselves, but mutual Prayers for one another: which therefore we may beg from one another, as St. 
inks. 6. 19  Paul himself did from the Ephesians, 
Colos. 4. 3. 2 〈◊〉 3. 1.  Colossians, etc. 4. Because the more holy any person is, the more effectual will his Intercession be with God, therefore we may beg of known Saints their Prayers to God for us with greater hope of success. 5. Such begging of Prayers is far from Idolatry, Superstition or diminution to Christ's honour, since holy Persons (living or dead) are not invocated as Donors but Fellow-beggers with God for us. 6. Though a Christian may be saved who prays to God alone, and requests not the prayers of others, yet to refuse the assistance of those, whose Prayers God more willingly hears, is a neglect at least of using all means helpful to us. 7. 
Chrysost. hom. 23. in Genes.  Nevertheless we say with Saint Chrysostom, God will bestow salvation much rather on us praying for ourselves, than for others▪ praying for us: And we are much more safe by our own Devotions (without others) then by others (alone:) And therefore we ought not to be slothful and secure, depending on other●s merits. For the prayers and supplications of Saints have indeed very great force with God in our behalf, but it is then truly when we with penance and humiliation beg the same thing also of God. And therefore saith the same Saint, Knowing these things, 
Id. ●om. 1. in 1 Thes.  let us neither neglectingly contemn the prayers of Saints, nor cast ourselves wholly upon them.  
5. Whatsoever hath been hitherto said, may indifferently be applied as well to Saints departed, as to Saints alive: If the Prayers to Saints departed be prejudicial to the merits & intercession of our Lord, so is the beging of the prayers of those alive: If one be unlawful, so is the other: nay, most certain it is, that if both be lawful, the prayers of Saints departed will be incomparably more effectual, and therefore will better deserv to be made use of, than the other. Therefore, notwithstanding most of the Arguments of Protestants against the Doctrine of the Church touching Invocation of Saints departed, do prove full as much against Prayer to the Living, and therefore are evidently unconcluding: Yet those, who are most learned and sober, and will not wilfully mistake Catholic Doctrine, do free us from all imputation of Idolatry, superstition, or doing injury to Christ, and reduce the Controversy to a short point: For they question not whether the Saints pray in general for us, but rather willingly acknowledge it; yea they will not positively deny but they may and do pray personally for their former known acquaintance, as St. Augustin believed his Mother did for him: Likewise they will grant that though they be in Heaven, they may either by God's revelation, or by relation from Angels be informed of the Prayers made to them by any others on earth: and that supposing such a knowledge, they will become Intercessors for them in particular.  
6. But, you'll say, since there is no general certainty, that they understand our Prayers or wants, or interest themselves in the particular necessities of the living, Therefore though it be not unlawful, as prejudicial to the honour and duty we owe to God, to invocate them in particular, yet it may be called unlawful, in regard it is uncertain.  
To this Scruple, Catholics acknowledge the Church by no Decision hath declared that the Saints generally hear all the particular prayers of us on Earth: And consequently that it is not any Article of our Faith to believ they do so: Yea, several moderate Catholics refuse to say peremptorily that it is so; yet in all Catholics Opinion this does not, nor aught to hinder them from acknowledging that the practice of Invocating Saints by name, is very beneficial to us, though they should have no particular knowledge of your Prayers.  
7. And the grounds to prove this to be rational are these, First, Because though it were so that the Souls of glorified Saints did not hear our prayers, or know our particular necessities, yet at least, it is certain the Holy Angels are continually present with us on Earth, and that it is by them we are defended from the Devil's malice, who otherwise, having such a wonderful strength exceeding ours, would destroy us all in our sins. Now, since God does not ordinarily interpose his power immediately in natural actions, nor subtract his universal influence on his Creatures, it cannot be imagined (since the Devils will not be hindered by any Law or prohibition) by what other power, but that of Angels, they should be restrained from executing their malice against us. Add to this, that History tells us Magicians have the Devils always ready to come at their call▪ Why then should not Angels be witnesses of our actions, and especially our prayers, which, as the Scripture says, They offer as Incense to God, being always assistant in the houses of Prayer. This being supposed, we are not to imagine that those holy Spirits stand upon niceties, and will not do any good unless particularly called upon: But on the contrary, will be charitably officious in helping and delivering us, whensoever we implore the assistance of any of their fellow Citizens. And it is upon this matter that St. 
Aug. l. de ●ur. pro mort. cap. 26.  Augustin, not doubting at all that great good arrives unto us by invocating the Martyrs, etc. (for the beginning of his Discourse is, Although that Question doth exceed the power of my understanding, How Martyrs succour those which certainly are in effect aided by them, etc.) very subtly Disputes whether the Saints themselves hear us, or the Angels for them: And whether, when they seem to appear unto us, it be not the Angels which take their shape.  
8. Again, How great the Sphere of the activity of the Saints glorified may be in respect of this whole visible World, we know little. That it is finite we know: But how far it may be extended, viz. their faculties of seeing, hearing, and operating, especially since the Ascension and Glorification of our Lord, we know not. Thus the Archbishop of Spalleto, no great Patron of Invocation of Saints: 
Spalat. de Rep. Eccl. l. 3. c. 6.  I do not think it unprobable, saith he, that there should be assigned to every Angel and beatified Soul very vast spaces both of the Superior and Inferior World, wherein they may operate: And perhaps the whole sensible world may be no more to one of them, than its proper body is to a humane Soul informing it. And thus Vossius interprets St. Hieroms Speech of them; 
Voss. Disp. Hist. 2. Thes. ●.  That he held beatified Souls present at their Tombs, and like Angels passing most swiftly through spaces wonderfully distant; moreover, that they there know the necessities, and hear the request of those who have recourse to them. But suppose their agency and intelligence, as Spirits, confined only to the Circuit of Heaven, yet how great the knowledge of these Saints, standing continually in God's presence, may be by way of Revelation of things absent or future, of man's thoughts, etc. in the same manner, (tho' in a higher degree,) as also some special Saints have on earth, who can determine? If God said of Abraham, a Pilgrim on earth, Shall I hide from Abraham the thing that I do? 
Gen. 18. 17.  How much more may we imagine that he hideth not the mighty works of his Providence, Mercy and Justice here on earth from those his Domestic Servants? So we read, not only an Angel, but every one of the Twenty four Elders to have in their hands golden Censers, 
Rev. 8. 3.— Ibid. 5. 8.  and Vials full of odours, which are the Prayers of Saints; that is, of their Brethren on earth.  
9 Again, though there were no certainly in this, that even the Angels are present to us, and execute the things we pray for, yet the practice of Invocating Saints ought not to be neglected; because, considering the unquestionable proofs of a world of miraculous effects of such Prayers, both in modern and ancient times, recorded by the most Learned, Prudent, and Holy among the Primitive Fathers, of many of which themselves were eye witnesses, and the rest confirmed by Testimonies irrefragable; Miraculous effects I say, not only of Prayers here directed to God, with relation to the acceptableness and Intercession of such Saints; but also of Prayers directed to the Saints themselves, as appears by the Quotations below: We may be assured that this practice pleases Almighty God, and is very benefical to us. Among other witnesses of this, I will only name St. Gregory Nyssen, 
Greg. Nyss. or de S. Theod, Theodo. l. 8. de Mart.  and Theodoret for the Greek Church, and St. Augustin for the Roman. The first of these in his Oration on the Martyr St. 
Aug. l. 22. de Civ. Dei. cap. 8. etc.  Theodorus: The second through his whole 8 th'. Book entitled of Martyrs; and St. Augustin in his 22th. Book de Civitate Dei, through several Chapters, show both that frequent Addresses were made to, and many wonderful Miracles performed by the Intercession of Saints, especially Martyrs, which Miracles were showed rather in the places, where those Martyrs were particularly honoured, and where their Relics reposed, then in others; and upon those, who Invocated their Intercession and assistance, then on others, etc. which are demonstrative proofs that the Veneration and Invocation of them are acceptable to God. 
De Civ. Dei. l. 22. c. 8.  St. Augustin relates that the multitude of Miracles which were done at Hippo, the Seat of his Bishopric, at the Memory of St. Stephen, and that within the two first years, after some part of his Relics were brought thither from jerusalem by Orosius, was so great (who also caused them to be enroled, and for God's and the Saints glory, to be recited to the People the next Festival after they were done, of some of which also he was himself an eyewitness) so great I say, as that those that were registered amounted to near 70. (whereof he sets down a considerable number in that 8 th'. Chapter) and those done at Calama to a far greater number. It is not yet two years since the memorial at Hippo Regius was erected, whereas the Books delivered in to us concerning these miraculous effects (yet many other, as we are most certain, not being given in) even to the time when I am writing this, amount to some seventy. But at Calama, where the Memorial was set up sooner, and the Books brought faster, they are incredibly more in number. At Uzala too, a Colony adjoining to Utica, we have been witnesses of sundry things of note done by the same Martyr; whose Memorial was erected there by Bishop Evodius, long before ours. And St. Theodoret also, (who was a member of the 3 d. and 4 th'. General Council) speaks of the people's frequent repairing and presenting their requests to the Martyrs for so many Miracles received by them on this manner— Neither do we resort hither once or twice, or five times in a year, but frequently in them we keep our Festivals, yea, oftentimes for many days together, we sing laud's and Hymns to the Lord of these Martyrs. Where such as are in health petition the Martyrs for the continuance thereof; such as are sick petition them for health, etc. Not conceiting that they approach to Gods, but praying to these Martyrs of God as Divine men, invocating and petitioning them for their Intercessions with God. And that such, who have devoutly and faithfully invocated them, do obtain their requests, those several gifts do witness, which such, obliged by their Vows, do bring thither, being clear evidences of their unfeigned cures. For some hang up their Tablets of eyes, some of feet, others of hands, made of gold or silver. These things therefore exposed to the view of all, do evidence the driving away of their diseases: These I say do demonstrate, what the power of those Martyrs is, which are buried there, etc. Thus Theodoret, whom, tho' some of the Reformed (upon a negative Argument, because Nicephorus mentions not this Book amongst others, but so he omits some which Gennadius (mentions) deny to be the Author of this Book, yet Rivet is more candid, saying, 
Rivet. Crit. Sacr. l. 4. c. 21.  Libris de Graec. affect. curand. nonnulla addita esse malim dicere, quam de Authore dubitare. And lastly, St. Gregory Nyssen speaks thus on the same Subject— After one hath thus delighted his eyes with the building, he desires further to approach the Monument itself, believing the very touching thereof to bring a benediction and hallowing along with it. But if any be suffered to take away any of the dust gathered from off the Martyr's Sepulchre, such dust is taken for a great gift, and this very Earth laid up as a precious Treasure. But if at any time such a happiness befalls any, as to have the privilege to touch the Relics, how earnestly such a thing is to be wished and desired, being the reward of much importunity, they know well, who have sought and obtained it. For than they view and embrace this body, as if it were alive and fresh; apply it to their mouth, their ears, and the other Organs of all their Senses: Moreover, pouring out tears of du●y and affection upon the Martyr, as if he appeared to them sound and entire, they offer up their humble prayers, that he would intercede as an Advocate for them, begging of him as a Courtier of Heaven, and invocating him, as one that can obtain any thing he pleaseth. To what Prince is there such honour given?  
10. In the third place I will adjoin further express Testimonies out of the ancient Fathers, all living within the Doctor's determinate times, and showing the lawfulness and usefulness of this practice of Invocating the glorified Saints. Thus then says St. 
Basil. Orat. 40. Mart.  Basil: Whosoever is in any pressure, let him fly to the assistance of these Martyrs: And again, whoever is in a state of joy, let him pray to them: The former, that he may be delivered from misery: The latter, that he may be preserved in prosperity. 
Chrys. Homil. 66. add pop. Antioch. & Hom. 26. in 2 Corinth.  Thus St. Chrysostom, The Emperor, who is clothed with purple, takes a journey to visit these Sepulchers [of St. Peter and St. Paul] and laying aside his pomp, presents himself to make supplication to them, to the end they may intercede to God for him, be whose Temples are encompassed with a Diadem, prays to a maker of Tents, and a Fisherman, as his Protectors. And to the same purpose, 
Ruffin. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 23. Ambr. de vid.  of the same Emperor, speaks Ruffinus. Thus St. Ambrose, We ought to pray to the Angles which are given us for guards: We ought to pray to the Martyrs, whose Bodies seem to be as it were gauges and hostages, that we may challenge their Patronage and protection, etc. Let us not therefore be ashamed to employ them as Intercessors for our Infirmity; for they themselves by experience knew the infirmity of our bodies, even then when they surmounted it. This St. Ambrose writ not, as Bishop Andrews imagines, when he was a Neophyte, but a Bishop. See Voss. de Invocat. Disp. 2, Thes. 1. and Forbs de Invocat. cap. 3. their more candid concessions concerning this Father. 
Hilar. in Psal. 129.  Thus St. Hilary, It is not the nature of God, but our infirmity that stands in need of the Intercession of Angels: For they are sent for the benefit of those which shall inherit Salvation, God himself not being ignorant of the things which we do, but our infirmity needing this mystery of a spiritual intercession for the imploring and obtaining for us (what is good for us). In which Testimony so much is clear, that the Angels know our necessities, etc. And this is sufficient to infer the lawfulness of requesting them also to intercede for us. To these, many more Testimonies may be added out of other holy Fathers, as likewise the actual Prayers to Martyrs made and recorded by St. Basil, St. Gregory Nyssen, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Ephrem, Theodoret, St. Hierom, St. Paulinus, Prudentius, etc. To which, I hope, Dr. Pierce will forbear to return the usual evasion, that all these are but Rhetorical Apostrophe's: Since other expressions of the same Fathers, viz, That they are well persuaded that those Saints to whom they address these Requests, 
Nazianz. Orat. de 8. Athan. Basil. O●●t. de 40. Mart. Nysien. Orat. de S. Theodoro Mart.  have an inspection from Heaven on their affairs. That they do relieve the necessities of those who supplicate to them. That the people make addresses to these heavenly Courtiers, as to those who obtain gifts from God when they please. And that if the Lamb be every where, these Saints which are with the Lamb, aught to be believed to be any where, (or every where) as they please: Since, I say, these expressions do not consist with such a pretence of their invocating them only in an empty flourish; And since this is a put-off too vain, to get any credit with sober men, to say that such grave and holy Bishops, when preaching to the people, would make petitions to these Saints to exercise their Rhetoric, and yet without any cautioning their hearers, that they did it in such a manner; which, if done seriously, would have been an injury to God, to Christ our Redeemer, ye●, Idolatry, etc. And lastly, since the Doctor may find Vossius and Forbes, for some of them at least, condemning this evasion.  
11. To these Testimonies, I may adjoin the express confessions of Protestants, That Invocation of Saints was commonly in use in the Greek Church long before the 3 d. and 4 th'. General Councils. For which, besides the confession of Chemnitius, 
Chem. exam. Conc. Trid. p. 3. de Invocat. S. S. Vossius Disp. 2 Thes. 1.  Vossius also is clear, whose words are; About the year of Christ, 370. those to whom the care of instructing the people was committed, did by their practice lead them to invocate the Saints departed. And indeed, in the Greek Church the first, or at least very near the first of those which gave such Examples were Basil, Nyssen, Nazianzen: And in the West, at the same time, Ambrose of Milan, a diligent Reader and Imitater of the Greeks, followed the same custom. Now, since Dr. Pierce professes so ready a submission to the Judgement of the four first General Councils, and must grant, that several of these Fathers, whom Vossius acknowledges to have been Patrons of Invocation, and to have used it even in the public Assemblies, (for which they were never censured) did precede many years two of these General Councils; I would gladly know if such a Question had been made before the third or fourth Council, concerning Invocation of Saints, as was, before that of Trent, Whether he can persuade himself, that those Fathers would not have justified such Invocation for lawful in those Councils, which they practised as lawful out of, and before them, and would not have produced at least as high a stating of that Point, as the Council of Trent did? And indeed a particular knowledge and agency of Saints deceased in in human affairs seems to be acknowledged in the fourth General Council, and Invocation in the third Person: 
Act II. Conc. Chalced.  Whose words are, Let Flavian be had in everlasting memory: Behold Vengeance, [i. e. on his murderers.] Behold the Truth! Flavian lives after death! Let Flavian the Martyr pray for us.  
12. It remains in the last place, that an Answer be given to the only Argument out of Antiquity, produced by the Doctor against this Doctrine, and to prove its Novelty. For, says he, 
Serm. pag. ●. Aug de Civ. D. lib. 22. c. 10.  St. Augustin denies invocation of Saints to have been in his days: And his only proof that he does so, is from those words of his, The men of God (that is Sain●s departed) are named indeed in their due place and order, but they are not invoked by the Priest who Sacrifices.  
12. To this passage, our Answer it, 1. That sure the Preacher had forgot he was to reckon, presently after, the Sacrifice of the Mass among Novelties, introduced after the fourth General Council, when he produced this Testimony that expressly proves the contrary: Here is a Sacerdos brought in, and here he is brought in both praying and Sacrificing and yet, says the Doctor, no such thing as any Christian Sacrifice. Or, if a Sacrifice, only a Sacrifice perhaps of praise and thanksgiving. But St. Augustin will contradict him, who as hath been said, calls this indeed a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving in regard of glorified Saints commemorated in it: but a Sacrifice propitiatory in regard of the faithful departed with some stains of sins remaining,  
2. The same thing St. Augustin means here (i. e. That Saints are not sovereignly invocated by way of Sacrifice, as the Supreme Donors and Fountain of all good that descends to mankind,) is taught by the Catholic Church even where she professes Invocation of Saints in the same sense as St. Augustin allows it, that is, as of our fellow-members and citizens, making efficacious intercessions for us to this Supreme Deity to whom we Sacrifice. For thus says the Council of Trent, 
Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. cap. 3.  Although the Church be accustomed to celebrate Masses sometimes in the honour and memory of Saints; yet she does not teach that the Sacrifice should be offered to them, but to God alone who has crowned them: And hence it is that the Priest is never wont to say, O Peter, O Paul, I offer this Sacrifice to thee, but to God, to whom he gives thanks for their Victories, and implores their patronage, that they may vouchsafe to intercede for us in Heaven, whole memory we celebrate on earth. A part of which Decree is taken out of S. 
Aug. de Cir. D. l. 8. c. 37. & lib. 20. cont. Faust. M. c. 21.  Augustin himself in the same Treatise quoted by the Preacher.  
3. Dr. Pierce could not possibly have made a worse choice of a place from whence to select a Testimony (as he would have us believe) denying all Invocation of Saints, whenas in the two Chapters of the same Book immediately preceding this, many stories are largely recounted to certify the great good that Christians had found by the intercession of Saints, and all this, whilst in their Oratories they begged their intercession.  
4 Perhaps he will not yet be content: but with Bishop Andrews 
| Resp. ad Apolog. c. 1. page 46.  will urge, it is not here said by St. Austin, That the Saints are not Sacrificed to, but that they are not so much as invocated at the Altar. And if it be unlawful to invocate them there, it will be as well unlawful any where else. Hereto it is answered, That all this, taken in a right sense, is granted. For first, To this day in the Mass there is no kind of Invocation of Saints; yea more, according to the Council of Carthage, 
3 Conc. Carth. cap. 23.  till the Consecration be perfected, there are no Prayers directed to the Son of God, nor to the Holy Ghost, but only to God the Father. 2. But this argues not that (if the Church had so ordered it) it might not have been lawful even at the Altar to have Invocated the Saints by such an inferior Invocation or Compellation as the Church has determined, which is only according to Card. Perron [prier pour prier] to desire them to pray for us: As even in the Mass itself, the Priest requests the Assistants, saying, Orate fraires, ut meum ac vestrum Sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum, 
Ord. Missae.  etc. To whom the people Answers, Suscipiat Dominus Sacrificium de manibus tuis, etc. 3. But as for the Supreme sort of Invocation, which St. Austi● only intended in this passage, and which he calls Culium latriae, this is only due to God, and without impiety cannot be made to Saints: And thus St. Austin writing against Faustus, 
Aust. cont. Faust. l. 20. c 21.  the Manichean, fully justifies what he saith in this passage.  
5. But after all this, that St. Austin allows Invocation of Saints in an inferior way, do but examine only these places in him— c. 4. De curâ pro mortuis (a Book which he wrote in Answer to a Quere of Paulinus, Whether it doth benefit any one after his death to have his body buried in the Memorial of some Saint)— When as (saith he) such consolations of the living are looked after [that is, of burying their Friends in such sacred places] whereby their pious affection may appear to their Friends. I see not what advantages may accrue [hereby] to the dead, except this; that whilst they call to mind where the Bodies of those who are dear unto them are laid, they with their Prayers commend them to the same Saints, as it were to Patrons, that by them they may be helped with our Lord, which also they might do, although they could not inter them in such places.— Whensoever therefore the mind recounts, where the body of some dear friend lies buried, and straight the place occurs renowned for the name of some Martyr, the devotion of him, who thus remembers and prays, forthwith commends this beloved soul to the same Martyr.  
— There was here in Hippo (saith the same Father) a certain old man called Florentius, 
De Civ. Dei. lib. 22. cap. 8.  poor but pious, and a Tailor by Trade. He had lost his Cloak, and had nothing wherewith to buy him another. He prayed with a loud voice, to the twenty Martyrs, whose Monument here among us is very famous, to reapparel him. Some scoffing young men by chance being near hand, overheard him, and at his going away followed him jeering him, as if he had begged of the Martyrs fifty half pence to buy him clothes.— And afterward,— The Cook (saith he) cutting up the Fish, found in the belly of it a gold ring, which, moved with pity and piety together, he straightway delivered to the poor man, saying, See how the twenty Martyrs have furnished you with clothes.  
De diversis Serm. 32. & 33. (unquestioned that I know of, and which appear sufficiently to be S. Augustine's, by comparing these with the conclusion of cap. 8. l. 22. de Civit. Dei.— A certain woman (saith he there) lost her son, a sucking Infant, being as yet a Catechumen only.— Full of faith she took the dead child, and ran to the memorial of the blessed Martyr Stephen, and began of him to demand her son, and to say, Holy Martyr, you see I have no comfort at all left me; For I cannot so much as say that my son is gone before me (to Bliss) whom you know is utterly perished (because dying unbaptised). You see the cause of this my desolate grief; restore me my Son, etc.  
— De Baptism. l. 7. c. 1.— and l. 5. c. 17. being compared, This Father supposeth the Martyr Cyprian to know his affairs; and, in his handling that Controversy of Rebaptisation, contrary to St. Cyprians former judgement, (in which Point he presumes that Saint now fully illuminated) yet hopes for his favour, and requests the assistance to him herein of his Prayers— Let him help us therefore (saith he) with his Prayers, labouring here in in the mortality of this flesh as in a dark mist, that by God's help we may, as much as we can, imitate the good things that were in him.  
6. Upon these grounds Bishop Forbes grants, 
De Invocatione Sanctotum. c. 4. n. 2.  that St. Austin doth allow Invocation of Martyrs; commends Bishop Montague's candour in acknowledging it; and there also censures Bishop Andrews for denying it, in these words: The Bishop of Ely wrongfully affirms that St. Austin disallowed the Invocation of Saints, the contrary whereof is apparent in his Bood De curâ pro mortuis, etc. And afterwards he adds, Truly I am sorry, that so just a cause is given to john Barclay of expostulating with the most learned Bishop of Ely, who speaks thus concerning him— Here I have a desire to tell the King of Great Britain's Almoner: The King believes him, and so do many others; and yet he is as oft in fault, as he makes others to be so. Let him therefore consider, how erroneously he denies that St. Austin approves the Invocation of Martyrs. Add to Bishop Forbers, and Bishop Montague, the Testimony of Dr. Fulk long ago in his Rejoinder to Bristol— I acknowledge (saith he) St. Ambrose, 
Page 5.  St. Austin, and St. jerom held Invocation of Saints to be lawful, which is an Error— And the Testimony of the Bishop of Spalleto, 
Republ. Eccl. l. 7. c. 12, n. 25.  who numbers this Father among many others that allowed Invocation of Saints: The Fathers (says he) without any hesitancy either Invocate Saints, or grant they may be invocated: the Latin; Hilary, Ambrose, jerom, Paulinus, Maximus, Prudentius, Augustinus,— And the Testimony of Chemnitius also, who, 
Exam. Concil. Trid. 3. p. 197.  upon the former Quotation taken out of St. Austin de Baptismo, l. 7. c. 1. says, Thus St. Austin speaks without ground of Scripture, yielding to the times and common custom. Yet for all this, a confident pronouncing that St. Austin knew nothing of this Doctrine or Practice served the Preachers turn▪ Many of his Auditors knew nothing to the contrary, and therefore believed him, and, according to his desire, detested Roman Catholics the more for this Novelty. And that was enough then; but what will it be when the Righteous Judge shall call that Sermon to a second account?   

CHAP. XVII.  
Celibacy of Priests. Vows of Chastity: The Doctrine and Practice of the Church in both. Objections Answered.  
1. THe Doctors tenth pretended Novelty, is the Roman Churches prohibition of Marriage to Priests and others in holy Orders: 
Serm. pag. 27.  Which, says he, is by some derived from the third Century, by others from the eighth; and in the rigour that now it is, 
Ib. page 9  from Pope Gregory 7. and by Roman Catholics themselves, 'tis dated but from Pope Calixtus. But (says he) both in the old and new Testament, Priests were permitted to have Wives: The Apostles were married: Besides marriage of Priests was asserted by Paphnutius in the Council of Nice: And by one of the Apostolic Canons: And the forbidding of Marriage, with Saturninus and the Gnostics, is worthily called by the Apostle the Doctrine of Devils.  
2. Indeed if the prohibition of Marriage to some certain states of men or women be the Doctrine of Devils, the Preacher has reason rather to separate himself from a Church that enjoins such a Diabolical virtue as Continence, than from a wife that will not permit it, and who perhaps and therefore a great influence upon his zeal, more warm in this Novelty than any of the rest. Though it is not only permitted him, but esteemed meritorious to blaspheme the Church of God, yet let him take heed how he blasphemes the Apostle, who, in the same Epistle out of which the Doctor quotes his Doctrine of Devils, forbids marriage to Widows, who had consecrated themselves to our Lord's service: Younger Widows refuse (says he) for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, 
1 Tim. 5. 11, 12.  they will marry: Having damnation, because they have cast off their first Faith. 
Aug. in Ps. 95. Id. de bon. Vid c. 8.  What means this phrase [They have cast off their first Faith] (saith St. Augustin?) [Voverunt & non red did e●unt. 
Id. de Sanct. Virg. c. 33, 34. ] They vowed (perpetual continence) but they kept not their vow: 
Id. de ●●ult. Conjug. l. 1. c. 24, 2●.  and therefore they have damnation. 
Id. Epist. 70.  This is St. Augustin's constant Doctrine and interpretation of that place of the Apostle, 
Epiph. hier. 43, & 61.  as may be seen by examining the quotations in the Margin. 
Hieron. l. 1. Cont. jovin. Id. in Ep. ad Fu●ia●. Fulg. Ep. 1. c. 6. Conc. Carth●g. 4. c. 104.  The same is taught by St. Epiphanius, St. hieron's, Fulgentius, the fourth Council of Carthage, (at which St. Augustin was present) etc. And it is not contradicted by any one Ancient Doctor, nor any, except ancient Hereties, jovian, Vigilantius, etc. And this surely will suffice to demonstrate it, no Novelty in God's Church, much less that it was esteemed a Doctrine of Devils, to forbid Marriage to Persons consecrated to God's service. Forbid it; I say, not the Gnostics, Manichees, etc. forbade it, as an unlawful thing in its self, but only as an impediment and distraction in a spiritual Vocation. Now whether Widows are esteemed by the Preacher to be more nearly and perfectly consecrated to the Divine service, by the Office of Deaconesses, than men by Priesthood, 'tis expected he should declare.  
3. But for better clearing of this Point, touching the prohibition of Marriage to persons in holy Orders, etc. in charity I must suppose the Doctor will not profess the Heresy of jovinian, who taught that Virginity does not excel Matrimony. An Heresy so contrary to reason, that (as St. Augustin tell us) it was presently extinguished and never could attain to the deceiving so much as one Priest. 
Aug. in. Haeres. 82.  This Heresy formally contradicts St. Paul teaching thus, 
1 Cor. 7. 34.  There is difference between a wife and a Virgin, The (Virgin) unmarried woman careth for the things of our Lord, that show ay be holy both in body and spirit: But she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. Which saying of the Apostle certainly at least declares a state of Virginity and continency much more advantageous to promote the service of God and keep the mind fixed on spiritual and heavenly employments, than a Married state, encumbered with worldly cares, and carnal appetites. Thus much I doubt not will by the Preacher be granted.  
4. But now the Question must be, whether Eunuchism for the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, a perpetual abstinence from Marriage and all carnal lusts may lawfully be by Priests, etc. made the matter of a Vow? That it is a Council of Perfection is evident from our Saviour's speech, Qui potest capere, capiat. But upon supposition that Continency is a special gift of God, not bestowed on all, and that it is infinitely difficult for any one certainly to know he has this Gift: for these and such like reasons the Roformed Churches, in opposition to the Roman Catholic, have generally condemned the practice of such Vows, at least considered as extending itself generally to any whole Order or state of men, and especially an Obligation imposed on them to this practice.  
5. On the other side the Roman Catholic Church, though she acknowledges Continence to be a special Gift of God, and that there may be some difficulty to attain and preserve it, yet esteems not these to be grounds sufficient to relinquish the obligation of Celibacy in Priests, etc. which she submitted to from the Preachchers' Beginning, that is in the primitive times of the Church, at least within the four first General Councils.  
6. It is granted then, that Continency, (that is an ability to abstain (not from all motions of Concupiscence but) from putting in execution all motions, either by a voluntary morose delectation in them, or much more by outward unclean practices of them) is a Gift of God, a fruit of his Holy Spirit, and cannot by natural means be obtained so as to be practised in obedience to him. But so are all Christian virtues: So is Faith, so is Repentance, so is Charity, all which notwithstanding, we vow in our Baptism. And why do we vow a practice of those virtues which are pure Gifts of God? Because we are assured the same God, who commands that Vow, will not be wanting to supply strength to perform it, in all those that sincerely beg those Gifts of him by earnest Prayers made in Faith, and by avoiding all known, and possible-to-beavoided impediments to the practice of those virtues.  
7. But it will be said, that great difference is to be made between that Continence which is a Christian virtue necessary to all; 
Obj.  viz. a Continence from all unlawful Lusts; and such a Continence as is now treated of, which is an Abstinence from Marriage, that is from the lawful Remedies of unlawful Lusts, which Abstinence is so far from being necessary to all, that it is no more than a Council to those that aspire to perfection, which are but few, even in the opinion of the Roman-Church. This Abstinence certainly is a far more special Gift of God, say they, and not too easily and commonly to be presumed on.  
8. All▪ 
Sol.  this likewise understood cum grano Salis, is acknowledged by us. Yet withal Protestants know that even this Abstinence from Marriage, or from exercising the lawful Acts in Marriage is a Gift bestowed on very many, and in some cases necessary to almost every one. For otherwise it would be utterly unlawful for Parents to keep their children unmarried after the time they are capable, and thereby to expose them to unlawful lusts, since it seems they are not sure they have such a Gift: it would be unlawful for Merchants and Travellers to make long voyages abroad, and leave their Wives at home deprived of the necessary lawful Remedies against Lust and Temptations to which they are exposed. All Statutes of Colleges ought to be repealed, which forbid Marriage still to all Fellows, and heretofore to all Precedents, upon penalty of forfeiting their whole subsistence. A long Sickness inflicted by God on either of the married Couples, would be far more dangerous to their Souls than their Bodies, so as if such an Abstinence, as is now spoken of, were such an extraordinary Gift of Perfection, England would have more Saints, or more Adulterers, etc. than she is aware of. And here good Doctor I desire you tell me a thing that perhaps you have not thought on, yet will easily perceive its meaning assoon as you think on't. What is the reason that the Ministers of England generally marry not till they are above thirty years of age? Can they abstain all that while, when their passions are stronger, and their reason weaker, and then, after so long a Continency begin to plead 'tis impossible for them to hold any longer, unless they had the gift of Chastity, which God bestows not on every one? shall I give you my Conjecture? I doubt they force themselves to live single till they have a Benefice, and then, assoon as they can maintain a wife, they get one: is not this mere hypocrisy to talk of Marrying out of tenderness of Conscience, to allay their Concupiscence, when the danger is almost all past; and make no provision to prevent the sins of the unrulyest part of their age? Methinks they should either marry earlyer, when they may justly suspect their Chastity, before they have tried themselves; or live longer Bachelors, when they may prudently hope by the grace of God to persevere after so much experience of their continency.  
9 Catholics therefore, though they confess this continence to be a special Gift of God not bestowed on all, because all do not use the means, yet resolve it is such a special gift as is denied to none, who rightly seek it, and conceive, it also may be made the matter of a vow by those, who have a steady purpose to use the necessary means to attain and conserve it, and by those who by humble and due examining themselves, are persuaded that God calls them to a state of greater Perfection, and being in that state depend on his grace for performing their Vow, seeking his assistance by constant Prayers, watchfulness, and necessary penitential austerities. Now those may be confident they are called to such a state, either in a Monastical or Ecclesiastical Profession, who betake themselves thereto, not out of any worldly respects, for gaining a subsistence or preferment, or other temporal invitations, but purely to avoid the tentations, solicitudes and distractions of the world and flesh, and to devote themselves more to the service of God, and advancing their Souls in virtue and piety. In this state of Perfection, and in complying with this Council of Perfection, those, who duly undertake that state, may as undoubtedly promise to themselves God's assistance whilst they use the means to obtain it, as generally all Christians may after the vow of Baptism. St. Augustin writes thus, 
Aug. in Psal. 131.  David vowed, as having the matter in his own power: And yet he begs withal ●f God that he may perform what ●e vowed. Here is the devotion of one that vows: here is the humity of one that prays. Let no man presume on his own strength, as if he were able of himself to perform what he shall vow. He that exhorts thee to vow [saying Vovete & reddite] the same God helps thee to perform what thou hast vowed.  
10. If then it be lawful for private persons to vow Celibacy, surely it is lawful for the Church to enjoin it: her Doctrine being, That Goddenies not the gift of Chastity to them who ask it aright, 
Conc. Tried, Sess. 24. Can.  nor suffers us to be tempted above what we are able. Which Doctrine is the ground why the Church enjoins Celibacy to Priests: So that Chastity is called a special Gift, not in this sense, as it all men, though using what means ●oever, are not capable of it: But it is such a Gift as many men never actually receive from God, because they do not use the means: and such a Gift as few also will endeavour to use the means to attain, because these means are harder than those by which other Gifts may be attained. That the undertaking by Vow such a life of Chastity, and abstinence from Marriage, yea in Marriage itself, has been approved, commended, and practised in God's Church from the very beginning, if the Preacher will not believe us, let him not suspect at least partiality in his own best Friends. 
Chemnit. exam. part. 3. p. 41.  We are not ignorant, says Chemnitius, that the Fathers did approve the vows of perpetual Celibacy, 
P. Mart. de vot. pag▪ 490.  and acknowledge them to be obligatory. Profession and Vows of Chastity (says Peter Martyr) were extant among Christians in the time of Clement of Alexandria [that is about the year 170. 
Id. ib. p. 524. ] Again, I know, says he, that Epiphanius with many of the Fathers erred in this, that they said it was a sin to violate such a Vow when it was requisite, and that he did ill in referring it to Apostolic Tradition. 
Danaeus coner. Bellarm. part▪ 1. part. a●●cra.  Danaeus says confidently, That St. Augustin and all the Bishops in the Council of Carthage abused manifestly the word of God, saying, upon the Apostles words, If any widows how young soever have vowed themselves to God, etc. and afterwards shall go to secular Marriage, they shall according to the Apostle have damnation: because they dared to make void the vow of Chastity made to God. The Centurists affirm it to be manifest by the Epistles of Ignatius, that in those times men began to have too much liking of the Profession of Virginity: for he says, Let Virgins consider to whom they have consecrated themselves.  
11. And as for the Doctrine of Devils mentioned by the Preacher, he may do well to sit him down and consider the words of the Apostle, and the comments of the Fathers on them a little better. First he will find the Apostle, in his opposing those, who in the latter times should forbid to marry, and command to abstain from meats, to argue against them thus: That every Creature and Ordinance of God is good (according to Gen. 1. 31. & 2. 23, 24.) and therefore, being sanctified first by the word of God and Prayer, may lawfully be used. (See 1 Tim. 4. 3, 4, 5.) which plainly shows, that St. Paul means such Apostates as abstain from, or prohibit Marriage and Meats as in themselves unlawful and unclean and contaminating. Which thing can neither be objected to the ancient nor modern Church-practise, using abstinence from some meats for the chastisement of the body, not for any uncleanness in the food, and not forbidding Marriage to any single person absolutely, but only upon his voluntary undertaking such an employment, with which they imagine a married condition not so well to suit. In which case, if necessary abstinence from Marriage be a fault, the Apostle himself may seem to comply with it in those expressions of his forementioned concerning the Widows, 1 Ti●. 5. 11, 12. 2ly. He will find it manifest by experience, that this prophecy of the Apostle was most eminently fulfilled in other persons of these latter times (whom these Fathers even in these points most vehemently resisted) they affirming downright all Marriage, especially with reference to procreation of children (therefore the married were advised by them in such manner to use their Wives, as to avoid this: See S. Aug. De Morib. Manich. c. 18.) to be unlawful, and the work or dedesign of the Devil, as likewise flesh-diet to be unclean and defiling. They forbid living Creatures as detesting them, 
Haeres. 47.  saith Epiphanius, not in respect of preserving continency, or a virtuous life, but out of fear and fancy, that they might be defiled by eating such living Creatures. Wine they use not at all, saying, 'tis Diabolical. And S. 
Aug. con. 〈◊〉. l. 30. c. 5.  Austin, Contra Faust. l. 30. c. 5. Ye call the Creature unclean, because the Devil (ye say) frames flesh out of the more feculent part of natural matter. Such were some of the Gnostics, Eucratites, M●ntanists, Marcionites, and in the last place the Manichees, who, not holding all things to have been created by the same good God, but this lower world by an evil Principle, or by the Prince of Darkness, as they call him, affirmed in the begetting of a man, that the Soul, which they account to be a part of the substance of God himself, becomes fertered and imprisoned in the walls or handiwork of the Devil, i. e. the body, and therefore was marriage, as occasioning such imprisonment, forborn by all their Elect; and though this was permitted to their Auditors, yet (saith S. Austin) it was not by telling them it was no sin, but by showing favour to the persons thus sinning, because they allowed them maintenance.  
3. 
Conc. Faust. Man▪ lib. 30.  Again he will find, that when they were accused by the Fathers for such errors, it was ordinary with them to recriminate the Orthodox with the same things, both for their frequent abstinences from flesh, and some other Fruits, and for their (to some Persons at least) recommending Virginity, who in this matter were answered by them after the same manner, as the Protestants, objecting the same things, are now by the Church Catholic. See Chrysostom, Ambrose, and lastly Doctor Hamond on this place of Timothy, understanding it of the same Heretics. Lastly he will find that Fa●stus the Manichees made the very same Objection to prove professed Chastity to be the Doctrine of Devils. To whom St. Augustin thus answers, 
Aug. Cont. Faust. Man. l. 30. c 4.  I am now afraid in the behalf even of the Apostle himself, lest he should seem to have introduced the doctrine of Devils into Iconium, when by his Speeches be inflamed a young Maid already betrothed, to a love of perpetual Virginity, and when he pronounced damnation to Widows transgressing their Vow.  
12. To come home to the Celibacy of Priests in particular, whereas the Doctor build much on the Authority of Paphnutius, and the mind of the famous first General Council of Nice thereupon, let him consider what an Author (not partial he may be sure for the Roman Church) has said of that Point, 
Cartw in ●d. Reply, part. 1. p. 4●●.  that is, The Patria●e of Presbyterians, Mr. Cartwright, The Council of Nice (says he) did affirm and teach that to those who are chosen to the Ministry unmarried, it was not lawful to take any wife afterward; only, being married before intrance into the Ministry, it was lawful for them to use the benefit of that precedent Marriage. And Paphnutius shows that not only this was before that Council, but was an ancient Tradition of the Church, in which both himself and the rest of the Council rested, for a motion being made by some in the Council, that the married Presbyters (such as were married before made Presbyters) should after their Ordination be separated from their Wives, this Paphnutius, a Reverend Bishop and a Confessor, though himself never married, opposed, saying, Grave jug●m,— This was a heavy yoke, etc. and that perhaps such a strict rule of Continency could not be observed by all clergymen's wives. [But now mark what follows]. That it was sufficient that those who had entered into the Clergy before they had married Wives secundum veterem Ecclesiae traditionem, according to the Churches ancient tradition, ' should afterward forbear from marrying: But yet that none ought to be separated from his wife that he had married before, when yet a Laic. The story is in Socrates, l. 1. c. 8. & in Z●zomen, l. 1. c. 22. Thus the Preacher gets not much advantage from Paphnutius.  
13. Now for as much as concerns the Controversy touching Marriage of Priests, Bellarmin will grant, 
Bellarm. l. 1.  That the vow of Continence was annexed to Holy Orders only by the Church's Decree: 
〈◊〉 Cleric. c●p. 18.  and consequently that it may be dispensed with. 
Ibid.  Moreover that the Roman Church in several Cases hath permitted the Grecian Priests the use of their wives to whom they were married before their Ordination. And indeed, considering the temper of the Eastern Countries, far more inclined to such passions, than that of the Europeans, we find the Eastern Churches gave themselves far greater liberty than the Western. Yet no ancient Canon ●f either of the Churches can be ●ound that permitted Priests to contract Marriage after Ordination: And even among the Grecians, a cohabitation with their Wives was forbidden to Priests, who attended the Altar.  
14. But what the universal belief and practice of the Western Churches was, our Preacher may collect from the following Testimonies. Therefore not to insist upon the generally esteemed and resolved unlawfulness for Bishops and Priests after their Ordination to contract Matrimony, (of a dispensation from which not one example can be given); It appears, that a Matrimonial use of wives to the formerly married, was forbidden, 1. By the Second Council of Carthage, express in this Point: It was agreed unto by all the Bishops, 
Conc. Carthag. Can. 2.  that Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and such who dispense Sacraments, should be Observers of Chastity, and abstain even from their own wives, that so what the Apostles taught, and Antiquity observed, we likewise may keep. 
Conc. African. cap. 37.  2. The Second African Council thus decreed, Whereas Relation was made of the Incontinence of certain Ecclesiastics, though with their own Wives, this Council thought good that, according to former Decrees, Bishops, Priests and Deacons should contain even from their Wives; which if they do not, let them be removed from their Ecclesiastical Office. As for other inferior Clarks, they are not compelled hereto. But let every Church observe their own custom. 3. Saint Ambrose witnesseth the same, You, (says he) who with pure bodies, 
Ambr. l. 1. de Offic. c. 1. ult.  uncorrupted modesty, and being estranged even from Conjugal conversation, have received the grace of the holy Ministry, know well that we must exhibit the same Ministry without offence, without stain, neither must we suffer it to be violated with any Matrimonial Act. This I have not omitted to speak because in certain remote plates, some have procreated children, when they exercised Priesthood. And again, the Apostle speaking of a Bishop, says, having children, not getting them. 4. Saint Hierom writing against Vigilantius, says, What shall the Churches of the East do? 
Hieron. lib. cont. Vigilant.  What shall the Churches of Egypt do? and of the See Apostolic? all which receive Clerks, either such as are Virgins or Continent, or if they have wives, such as cease to be husbands to them. The like is said in the Conclusion of his book against jovinian. 
Id. Epist. ad P●m●chius.  And he writes to Pamachius thus, If married men like not this, let them not be angry with me, but with the holy Scriptures, with all Bishops, Priests and Deacons, who know they cannot offer Sacrifice, 
Aug. l. a. de Adult. conjug. cap. 20.  if they use the Act of marriage. 5. We are wont (says Saint Augustin) to propose to them the continence of ecclesiastics, who for the most part are compelled against their wills to undergo this burden, and yet having received it, they, by God's assistance, bear it to their end. I will conclude with the Spanish Council of Eliberis, more ancient then St. Augustins' time, nay, ancienter than the First General Council of Nice, The Council hath thought good, 
Concil. Elber. Can● 33.  that it should be absolutely commanded to Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons, to abstain from their Wives, and not to beget children.  
15. That the Eastern Churches took to themselves anciently a greater liberty, is to be understood not generally; for in many of them a● great a strictness was observed: as, besides the forecited testimony of S. Hier●m, concerning the Churches of the East and of Egypt, 
Orig. hom. 23● in num. E●seb. de dem. Evang. lib. 1. cap. 8.  appears from Origen, Eusebius, and Epiphanius, who all require continence in Priests, even from their wives, if they have any; And particularly, S. 
Eph. Haer. 59 & in fine operi●.  Epiphanius says, That to do otherwise is not to observe the Canons, but to follow our natural inclinations, soon weary of such a burden. And ●ow the Doctor may do well to consider what a Novelty he has found out to entertain his Auditors with; especially, since all the forecited Canons and Practices (Which are within the time of the four first Councils) were in force in England at the Reformation, as England was a Member of the Western Patriarchat, and therefore could not, without a transgression of all Ecclesiastical Order, be repealed by this single National Church: much less could this Church without a criminal, formal Schism, make such a generally received practise a pretence for separation.  
16. His Allegation out of Clemens of Alexandria, that some of the Apostles had wives, is granted: But did they, after their executing their Office of Priesthood, lie with them? Did they leave any young Apostles behind them? As for the Apostolic Canon which forbids Priests, etc. to cast off their Wives: what would he infer from hence? Does he think married persons are husbands and wives only in the night? That which the Canon intended was, that Ecclesiastical persons should not make their office a pretence to cast off the care of providing for their wives, or to be divorced from them: that is, such as ●ere married, and had wives before they entered into Orders, who afterwards must not refuse cohabitation with them, except when they officiate, unless with their wife's consent, in the Eastern Church's, That the Priests under the Law were married, cannot be denied: since Priesthood necessarily descending by generation, marriage was thereore necessary. But sure he does not think such a carnal, umbratick Priesthood, is fit to be a Pattern for our Christian Priesthood, wholly spiritual, and withal Elective. Yet he may take notice, that even in that Legal Priesthood, at the times when they solemnly attended on the Altar, they had no Matrimonial Commerce with their wives: They came not reeking out of their beds into God's Sanctuary, as may be gathered from 1 Sam. 2. 4. and the prohibition in Exod. 19 15, 22. Be ready the third day, and cannot at your wives; On which place St. Ambrose discourses thus, 
S. Ambr. Offic. l. 1. cap. 50. Zach. 7. 3. 1 Cor. 7. 5.  Filios susceperunt & id tanquam usu veteri defendunt; There are Priests and Deacons in some secret places that defend their use of marriage by the Practice of old, when the duty of sacrificing had its interval of days. And yet then even the people were sanctified by abstaining from their wives two or three days before, and washed their garments, that they might approach pu●● unto the Sacrifice, Si tanta in figura observanti● quanta in veritate, If the observation [of chastity] were so strict in the figure what ought i● to be in the truth, Disce sacerdos atque Levi● quid sit lavare vestimenta tua ●t mund●m corpus 〈◊〉 lebr and is exhibeas Sacramentis.  
17. To conclude, Celibacy to the Clergy being only enjoined by an Ecclesiastical Law, as being a thing at the lest no way repugnant to the Divine Law, nay, much recommended therein; it is certainly lawful enough, though from the beginning it had been otherwise: For the Church hath liberty of making Laws concerning such things from time to time, as she sees fit, and her subjects are obliged to obey them.   

CHAP. XVIII.  
Of Divorce. The Practice of the Roman Church manifestly mistaken by the Preacher.  
1. THe Doctors last Novelty is, the Church of Rome's allowing Liberty of Divorce betwixt man and wife, 
Serm. pag. 19  for many more causes then the cause of fornication, contrary, says he, to the Will of our blessed Saviour, revealed to us without a Parabl●, as if they meant nothing more than the opening a way to rebel against him. A heavy charge: But for the Legality of it, he alleges in the Margin an express Canon of the Council of Trent, which, whether he reads à toto, or à toro, says nothing at all to his purpose, proper Divorce being therein not so much as thought of. And he himself see and proved, it made nothing to his purpose, yet served his turn, because Chemnitius, a malicious Lutheran, said falsely and ridiculously▪ That the Papal separation from Bed and Board 〈◊〉 in many ways a dissolution of the Conjugal Tie. He would ●ain have Maldonate thought to speak on his side too, but it is apparently otherwise.  
2. Truly this is a Quarrel so properly al' Alamand, that one would think the Doctor took only an occasion thereby to let the Court see his critical diligence in observing the false and true Impressions of the Canons of the Council of Trent, in some of which he has read [● toto] which makes no sense: and in others [a to●o] which only could be the Councils ●xpression. But we hope an undiligent Prin●ter (who for all that may be good Roman Catholic) shall not make the Roman Church itself causally Schismatical, and thereby excuse the Preachers separation.  
3. It is pity to lose time about such a trifle, which, I think, never before this Sermon, was by any English Protestant reckoned among the pretended Criminal Novelties of the Roman Church. (Yet I may be mistaken, for there are a world of Sermons and Treatiser, like his, in intrinsic value, which never had the fortune to be made so current.) Howe'er, left he should be angry if so materlal a part of his Sermon be neglected, a little pains shall not break squares between us.  
4. He may therefore take notice, that in the business of Marriage there are, among Catholic Writers, distinguished four sorts of Separations: 1. A jewish Divorce, which in Latin we seldom call Divortium, but Repudium. 2. A Christian Divorce, properly so called. 3. A Separation a toro. 4. A Separation both a toro & cohabitatiore.  
5. Touching the first, if we have regard to the direct intention of God and his Servant Moses, it was no other, nor aught to have been put in practice upon other grounds than the Christian Divorce, allowed by our Saviour, that is, for Fornication only. But by the permission in the Old Law, 
Deut. 24●  there might follow that Divorce, a second Marriage by either of the parties, whether innocent or guilty: Yet not upon every cause a● the jews practised it, but besides Adultery only propter turpitudinem, for some notorious uncleanness extremely distasteful. Now, notwithstanding such permission, which was merely for the hardness of jewish hearts, their Divorce ●or any other cause, and especially their second Marriage after it, was not excused from sin, but only from a legal punishment: And the principal motive was, left worse effects, as poisoning, or any other way of murdering, etc. should be practised by the discontented party, in case a total separation might not be permitted. This Supremest Degree of Jewish Separation (or Repudium) does not entirely dissolve the Matrimonial Contract, which being consummate of its own nature i● indissoluble; for the parties, being by Matrimony become One flesh; and one Principle of a new stock, cannot by any following act or accident, but only Death, become two again, so as to be in the same capacity as they were before they were married▪ And for this reason the jews, though permitted to marry afterward, yet sinned in so doing against the primary Precept of God. Those whom God hath joined, let no man separate.  
6. Much less does the second species of Separation, or the proper Christian Divorce dissolve this tye. The only lawful cause of which Separation is by our Saviour allowed, and by the Catholic Church acknowledged to be Fornication, (that is indeed, Adultery:) under which are likewise comprehended, as our most learned Doctors say, other more grievous sins of unnatural Lusts. And the reason why only such sins may (not must) cause such a perpetual separation is, because they alone are directly contrary to Conjugal Faith▪ By this separation, whensoever it is caused by the crime of the one party,) neither of them, (not the innocent party) are permitted to betake themselves to a second Marriage: for than they could no be reconciled but by a new Marriage: And here the Preacher may do well to consider what 〈◊〉 Patron he has betaken himself to, which 〈◊〉 Chemnitius, who, against our Saviour's Law (as all Antiquity, and the practice of the English Reformed Church interpret it) contends for the lawful Marriage of the innocent party, so teaching formal Adultery. This separation for such a legal cause is perpetual, that is, the innocent persons may deprive the others of the right they have over their bodies, and are in a free condition even after the faulty persons repentance, whether or no to receive them again into their former condition: Neither can it be imputed to the innocent person, if the criminal should by such a separation fall into the sin of adultery.  
7. The other two Separations (not Divorces) one whereof is only [a toro] from the Bed, the other from Cohabitation also, may be made for other causes, besides fornication. As for s●m very infectious diseases; for almost irreconcilable quarrels, for attempts of killing or wounding one another, etc. Such Separations are not so perpetual as Divorces, each of the parties being bound; assoon as these impediments of conjugal conversation are removed, to return, as before, to a Matrimonial Amity and Correspondence; And till then, I would ask the Doctor, whether he have the courage to admit into his Bed, or even his house, a Serpent not only full of venom, but ready and attempting to kill him with it? Or if he have not this courage, whether he will acknowledge such a separation so necessary, even to the preservation of life, to be a Divorce damnable, because not for fornication? What he will answer, I know not; But what he must, if he go about to maintain his Assertion, I am certain will be very irrational.  
8. Let him reflect on the practice of his own Church, where he cannot but have heard of the common distinction of Divorces A Vinculo Matrimonii, & à mensa & toro: these two are both allowed in England: now I ask the Doctor, of which does our Saviour speak? If he say of the first, then clearly the Husband of an Adultress may marry again; which is contrary to the Law: if he say of the second, still ●e contradicts his own Law, which every day allows a separation for other Causes, besides that of Fornication. Can we believe the Doctor never read the ordinary Cases wherein Di●orses are granted, as Precontract, Fear, Frigidity, Consanguinity? etc. all which dissolve the very Marriage itself, and yet in all these the Marriage was valid, till actual divorce, and the children shall bear the Father's name, and inherit his lands, if there never happen an actual divorce; this the wise men of our Nation do, and never think they open a way to rebel against Christ 
Pag. 29.  Something like this, for the second branch of the distinction, 
1 Cor. 7.  St. Paul himself does, and sure he cannot be opposite to the will of our Saviour; If, says he, the unbeliever depart, let him depart, a Brother or Sister is not subject in such cases, that is, the Innocent may remain separate: and why may not the laws of a Nation regulate that liberty, which the Apostle allows to every private Person? or why may not a General Council determine such points as well as the laws of a particular Nation? Thus I conceive it cleared, that You and We are in this particular either Both innocent, or Both guilty.   

CHAP. XIX.  
Of SCHISM. The unpardonableness of that Crime, acknowledged by Antiquity, etc. No cause or pretence can excuse it.  
1. HAving followed the Doctor through all his vainly pretended Novelties of Doctrine: We are at last arrived to the most concerning Point of all, Schism: Most concerning certainly; for there is not any one of the forementioned Doctrines, which in themselves considered, would absolutely destroy Souls, though they erred about them; But Schism alone, whatsoever Error of Doctrine, yea though no Error of Doctrine, were either indeed, or pretended to be a cause of it, will be inevitably damning to every Soul guilty of it; which damnation neither rectitude of Faith, nor any good Works, nor even Martyrdom itself will be able to prevent. 
Aug. de Symb. ad Carech. l. 4. c. 10.  For this cause, (says St. Augustine) our Christian Creed concludes with the Articles touching the Church, because if any one be found separated from her, he shall be excluded out of the number of God's Children: neither shall he have God for his Father, who will not have the Church for his Mother. It will nothing profit such an one that he hath been Orthodox in belief, done so many good works, etc.  
2. This is a Truth generally testified by the ancient Doctors of God's Church, and not at all questioned by the more sober Writers of the English Church who have written of Schism, etc. They all are ready, in words at least, to say with St. Denys of Alexandria, 
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. 6.  That we ought rather to endure any torments, than consent to the division of God's Church, since the Martyrdom to which we expose ourselves by hindering a division of the Church, is no less glorious, then that which is suffered for refusing to sacrific● to Idols. 
Pacian ad Sympr. Epist. 2.  And with St. Pacian, Though (the Schismatic) Novatian hath been put to death (for the Faith) yet he hath not been crowned: Why not crowned? Because he died out of the peace, concord and Communion of the Church, separated from that comm●● Mother, of whom, who ever will be a Marly● must be a Member. 
Iren. l. 4. c. 62.  And with St. Iren●us, There cann●t possibly be made any Reformation of such importance, as the mischief 〈◊〉 Schism is pernicious, etc.  
3. But I do not find that Protestant Doctors have endeavoured to penetrate into the true grounds, why, above almost all other sins a Christian is capable of committing, Schism, that is the setting up an Altar against an Altar, or the relinquishing the external Communion of the Church, the making Collects or Assemblies without, yea against the consent of Bishops or Church Governors, etc. should be a sin so unpardonable, that no ignorance (unless supposed such as is invincible; which I fear much fewer than is ordinarily imagined, of those, who have any liberal Education can pretend to, in that great evidence and light which they have of the continued succession, unity of Doctrine, perfect obedience to their spiritual Superiors, penances, and retirements from the world, and several other signal marks of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church) no ignorance, I say, no surreption, provocation, etc. can excuse it. Some may be more deeply guilty, and obnoxious to a heavier damnation than others, as Ringleaders more than followers; but damnation is by the Fathers generally denounced as the portion of all.  
4. The true Reason whereof may be deduced from the example of all other Governments whatsoever. The greatest offence a Subject can commit against Monarchy, is an actual attempt, or rather the attempt executed, by which Monarchy is dissolved: Inwardly to condemn the Laws of such a Government, to entertain Principles, which if put in practice, would withdraw Subjects from their due Obedience, is an offence of an high nature, but the actual cantonising of a Kingdom, and the raising in it Courts, or judicatories independent on, and opposite to the Common Tribunal of the Country, is the utmost of all crimes: both the Seducers and Seduced are not only deprived of the privileges belonging to good Subjects, but pursued by Arms as the worst of all enemies.  
5. It is so in God's Church; The main thing our Creed teaches us to believe of it, is its unity, without which it is not a Church: Now if Unity, than Order, than Subordination of Governors, etc. what therefore is the great sin against this fundamental constitution of the Church, but Schism? a dissolving the Communion and connexion that the members of this great Body have among themselves, and with relation to the whole? We all willingly acknowledge, that the great sin of the Synagogue, the sin that filled up the measure of the crimes of the jews, was their murdering our Lord. 
Chrysost. ad Eph. hom. 11.  Now says St. Chrysostom, We shall not merit and incur●d less cruel punishment, if we divide the unity and plenitu● of the Church (the mystical Body of our Lord) than those have done which pierced, mangled and tore his own Body. 
Cypr. de unit. Eccles.  And the very like expression hath St. Cyprian.  
6. There are very few Heresies (that is, only such Errors as are formally destructive to those very few verities or Articles of Faith, without an explicit belief whereof no man can be saved) which do in themselves, simply, as false opinions, universally destroy Salvation: Indeed, if they have the formality of Heresy joined to them, and be maintained with a knowledge that they are contrary to the sense and authority of the Church, than they have involved in them something of Schism, or at least they are in an immediate disposition to Schism, and in that regard all Heresies, though in Points of themselves less important, are damnative. But Schism alone, though there be no Heresy joined with it, immediately divides from the Body of Christ, and consequently from Christ himself.  
7. But may not ignorance excuse the guilt of Schism? No: on the contrary in some regard it aggravates it. For though Pride and Malice be far greater in the Leading Schismatics, persons of wit and learning: yet ignorant souls and idiots seem more to contradict human reason; because the more ignorant they ought to know they are, and being confessedly no Pastors, the more ought they to submit their judgements to Authority, and consequently the preferring their own conduct; or the conduct and direction of particular men or Churches, before the universal Authority of the Church, the excommunicating (as it were) the whole Church of God, the esteeming all Christians, both Pastors and Flocks, as Heathens and Publicans, is a presumption so contrary to human nature and reason, that their want of learning is that which will most condemn them. I speak not now of persons absolutely idiots, who scarce know there are any other Pastors, or any other Church then their own, who pretend not at all to pass their judgements on other Religions; but know only what their Pastors teach them, having no ability, by reason of their condition, to examine Scriptures and Churches: For such no doubt, may by their simplicity and absolute invincible ignorance, escape the malignity of Schism. But I speak of inferior Tradesmen, of Gentlemen and Gentlewomen, who have a capacity of being rightly instructed, and better informed of that spiritual authority to which they owe their subjection, and yet who, by their own perverseness, become trouble● of the Church, and who, because they ca● read the Scriptures, take upon them to judge of the sense of them, both for themselves and their Pastors, etc. Such as these no doubt have drunk in the very gall of Schism, by usurping an authority, which express Scripture says belongs only to Pastors.  
8. Some learned persons (particularly Doctor Steward) attribute much to the temper of the English Church, which he says is like St. Cyprians, Neminem condemantes, aut a communione separantes: and this alone they suppose will exempt Protestants (as it did St. Cyprian) from the imputation and penalty of Schism, to which other violent Calvinistical Congregations are more obnoxious. But the case is not the same: This indeed did exempt St. Cyprian, because as St. Augustin says, the Church had not then decided the dispute, to whose decision St. Cyprian would certainly have submitted. The case of Protestants is evidently different. If a Province in England had withdrawn itself from the public civil authority, would this excuse serve them to say, We do not intend to quarrel with those that continue in obedience to the King, we mean neither him nor them any harm, they shall be welcome to come among us, if they will, we will be good friends, we will not meddle with their doings: But we will be governed only by our own Laws and Magistrates & c? I believe not: Their civility in their rebellion, will not change the Title of their crime, nor free them from the punishment due to it: it may perhaps qualify the Prince's resentment; but the civilest Treason is Treason.  
9 Being to examine the Doctor's Plea, touching the Point of Schism, I thought requisite to premise this consideration of its heinousness, that both he and myself also, should consider it as the most important of all other, in which the least mistake will prove mortal. I will add a bold word, and undertake to justify it: Though it were far more probable that the Catholic Church had been guilty of Innovation in all the Points mentioned by the Doctor: yet since by the Protestants confession those Points are not fundamental, their voluntary separating themselves from her Communion, will be in God's esteem very Schism.   

CHAP. XX.  
How the Preacher vainly endeavours to excuse his Church from Schism. Of the Subordination of Church Governors and Synods. The breach of their Subordination, is the cause of all dis-unions and Schisms. The unappealable Authority of general Councils, acknowledged by Antiquity.  
1. IN this point of Schism, to the end the Doctor may clear Protestants, and lay the weight of so great a crime on the Catholic Church, he argues thus, Since besides corruptions in practice (which yet alone cannot justify separation) there were in the Roman Church so many corruptions in Doctrine likewise entrenching on Fundamentals, the Schism could not be on the Church of England's side, which was obliged to separate, so just a cause being given, but on theirs, who gave the cause of the separation? Now, that particular Nations have a power to purge themselves from corruptions without leave from the See of Rome, appears 1. By the concession of the most learned Popish Writers. 2. From the ancient practice of the Kings of England, who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 3. Likewise from the Codes and Novels of Justinian, the capitulare of Charlemain, and the endeavours of two late Emperors. 4. From the examples of the Kings of Juda. He concludes, that had the Pope been content with his Primacy of Order, they would never have cast off the yoke, which never had been put upon their necks; whence appears, says he, that the Usurper made the Schism. This is the substance of his Discourse.  
2. In answering this, I will proceed according to this method. 1. I will show out of Antiquity, from the example of all orderly Governments, from evident reason, etc. what obedience every Christian is obliged to perform to Church Governors, in the obstinate refusal of which, consists Schism. 2. I will apply this to the present controversy, between the English and Roman Church. I will consider the validity of his allegations, and leave it to any indifferent man's conscience to judge whether they are sufficient to justify the separation.  
3. Touching the first Point, I take it for granted, that we both agree that our Lord has placed in his Church, Ecclesiastical Governors, to continue by a legitimate succession, to the end of the world: And that the exercise of their Authority, consists partly in proposing Doctrines to be believed, partly in making Laws for Discipline and Order. And that the Doctrines are to be no other, than such as either are expressly, or at least, in their immediate necessary Principles, contained in Divine Revelation: no innovation, no change must be in them; whereas orders for Discipline may, according to the prudence of the Church, sometimes admit alteration. Likewise I believe, we agree that this lawful Authority of Church Governors, or Bishops, may be differently exercised, that is, either by their single persons, or in conjunction with others, meeting in Synods Diocesan, Provincial, National, Patriarkical, and Ecumenical: The Authority of which Synods, is by degrees respectively increased, according to the quality of them; the lowest degree among these, being Diocesan, and the Supreme unappealable authority being in Ecumenical Synods. To deny this in gross, is to make them ridiculous Conventicles; and the more plenary they are, the more dangerous and destructive of unity will they be, if they may be repealed by others less plenary.  
4. Thus far we agree; but when we come to a precise declaration of the quality of that Authority, by both sides agreed on in the general, here we begin to differ; wherefore to the end, indifferent Readers may be enabled distinctly, to view and judge on which side Justice and Truth lies; I will, besides what has already been said of infallibility, plainly set down the Catholic Doctrine concerning this matter, with the exceptions, which the most learned Controvertists of the English Church have interposed against it.  
5. 
Clem. Constit. l. 6. cap. 14.  There is in St. Clement's Constitutions, a saying, that to every Bishop is entrusted [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the Episcopal Office universally. In like manner St. Cyprian says, [Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur] The Episcopal Office is but one, 
Cypr. l. de. unit. Eccles.  of which every Bishop holds his portion in common. The meaning of which speeches is not, that every particular Bishop is, in regard of his Jurisdiction, an Ecumenical Bishop: But since the Church in general is truly and perfectly one Body, each Bishop in it is so to administer his Charge, as that he must have an eye to the whole. Dioceses and Provinces, etc. are not to be esteemed as so many Secular Principalities independent and absolute, which can publish Declarations and Laws without any regard to their Neighbour's profit, or liking: It is not so in the Church; But every Bishop, in executing his Episcopal Office, ought much more to be solicitous of the general Unity, Peace, and Edification of the whole Church, than of his own Diocese: So that if any Law, Custom, or Doctrine in it be discordant from, but especially if it condemn what is by Law in force in the Province, Patriarchat, or much more the Universal Church, such a Law ought not to be made, or being made, aught to be Repealed.  
6. As for the Authority of Bishops in Synods, particularly in declaring Doctrines, (for in that we are at present principally concerned) Such Authority may be conceived to extend itself either to the notout-ward-contra-Profession only, or to the inward assent, etc. Between which two there is a great difference.  
7. The common received Catholic Doctrine teacheth, that whereas in General Councils (the only Tribunal which is by all acknowledged to be infallible) there may be either, 1. A Declaration of Traditionary Doctrines, which formerly before such Declaration did not evidently and universally appear to be Traditionary: 2. Or a Decision of Debates about clear and immediate Consequences of such Doctrines. In both these the Church is infallible, Infallible I say (not to enlarge Disputes beyond the present exigence) at least in all points any way necessary to our Salvation; and this grounded upon those sure Promises of our Lord made to these Guides of his Church mentioned before, Cap. 9 11, 12. And hence such both Declarations and Decisions are to be not only not contradicted, but submitted to by an internal assent; the undiscovered refusal of which assent, though it doth not render the refusers Heretics in the judgement of the Church, as upon contradiction or refusal of assent would (for Ecclesia non judicat de internis:) Yet since such Declarations and Decisions are always attended either with express, or at least employed Anathemas to contrary Doctrines, the contrary internal Judgements are Heretical.  
8. Of the acknowledged Infallibility of the Representative Church in Declarations of Traditionary Doctrines, we have sufficient Testimonies from Antiquity. St. 
Athan. Ep. ad Epict. Epiph. Haer. 77.  Athanasius, quoted also by St. Epiphanius, professes, That he wonders how any one dares move a question touching matters defined in the Nicen Council, since, the Decrees of such Councils cannot be changed without error; Therefore they are unalterable, and in our sense infallible. Nor can there be any doubt, but those matters defined, were Ancient and Traditionary Doctrines. 
Aug. Epist. 162. id. lib. 4. de Trin.  And St. Augustin says, The last judgement of the Church is a General Council. The same holy Father, treating of Rebaptization formerly held by St. 
Id, lib. 1. de Bapt. cont. Donat, l. 1. c. 7.  Cyprian, and after by the Donatists, says, That for that Doctrine (which was truly Traditionary) the Donatists were Heretics, but St. Cyprian not: Why? Because it was permitted to the former Fathers and Bishops to debate, and, without breaking Communion, to determine oppositly to one another in Provincial Councils: Till in a General Council, the true Orthodox Doctrine were without all further doubts confirmed. 
Ibid. l. 2. c. 4.  Which Authority (says he) St. Cyprian, if it had been declared in his time, would without any doubt at all have believed.  
9 In the next place, as touching Decisions of Controversies about (not expressly Traditionary Doctrines, but) clear and immediate consequences of such Doctrines, it is absolutely necessary ofttimes, for the Church to make such Decisions; for otherwise the Devil would have power to undermine a great part of our Faith, if permission were given to maintain freely, any thing that does not appear to any one expressly, either in Scripture or in Tradition. Thus, many of the Articles of the Nicen, Constantinopolitan, and Athanasian Creeds, are only the clear and immediate Consequences of express Traditions, which Articles, in the Terms wherein they were there conceived, were not absolutely necessary to be believed, before the arising of Heresies, forced the Church further to explain the Faith. And hence it is, that the Enlargements and clearer Explanations of our Faith, in many Doctrines, otherwise not necessary to be so generally known, must and will increase to the world's end, in case New Heresies arise.  
10. Now such Decisions are truly the fide, or objects of our Faith: For though it be most certain, that the Church neither hath, nor pretends to have any New Revelations; of Christian verities, but the same Faith which was delivered by the Apostles, is still the Faith of the Church, and no more: There are no Additions made, no new Articles invented: Notwithstanding the same Articles, by occasion of Heresies arising, may in succeeding times be further explained, and the Truths implicitly involved in them may be discovered.  
In like manner, some Traditionary points conveyed by the general practice of the Church, when they come to be questioned or denied by Heretics, are often explicitly declared in Councils to be Traditions, by which Declaration, there is no new thing taught, but that which was formerly involved, is more clearly manifested, and that which was taught by practice is declared by words, and that which was known to the learneder part of Christians, becomes extended to all: Thus the Doctrine of Purgatory, Prayer for the Dead, Invocation of Saints, etc. have been in later Councils made Articles, not the novo, (as the Doctor misapprehends) but they are lately testified to have been so anciently believed; and so are all other new decisions of later Councils, Points of ancient Faith, either in themselves explicitly, or in their necessary principles implicitly. And if, after such decisions of Councils, there ariseth a new obligation; that none can descent from them without incurring the guilt of Disobedience, so was there before an obligation of non-dissenting from the same Points without falling into Error; and that in a matter of Divine Revelation. Such Points were always matter of faith, if we would believe, in those particulars, what was Divine Truth; though now indeed more necessary matter of our faith, out of the obedience also and submission that we owe to the Church's judgement; to which judgement we could have no obligation, before she declared it. Neither can this be avoided when ever the Church is by new risen Errors necessitated to state or declare such a Divine Truth, but that such a new obligation will arise to Christians, in relation to Her, of believing it; else to what end does the state it? Which obligation is also a restraint of our former liberty indeed, whereby we might then believe an error in divine matters, without the guilt of disobeying the Church; but this restraint is much for our benefit in our knowing and holding some truth now, which perhaps we did not formerly, and that in a time, when we are in more danger, from Seducers, of falling into the contrary Error. And now behold, these necessary decisions are called the Church's new Articles of Faith; this is her chief accusation; and the same clamour now raised by the Preacher against the Council of Trent for this matter, as was anciently by the Arrians against the first General Council, who cried out against the new Article and word Consubstantiality, which was not found in their former Creed; as was anciently by the Nestorians against the third General Council, and by the Eutychians against the fourth. And therefore, why may not the Council of Trent, for its defence, return the same answer to the Preacher, as the fourth General Council, which he professeth to allow, did to the Eutychians? 
‖ Conclus. of the Synod ad Marcianum Imperat. — A not-much-discussed explication of the faith is sufficient (say they) for the benefit of sincere Believers. But for those who endeavour to pervert the true Doctrine, 'tis necessary to make opposition to all those things which they erroneously broach, and to provide fit remedies to their objections. For if all would willingly acquiesce to the establishment of the [Nicene] Faith, and would disturb this clear way of Piety with no innovation, it were meet, for the posterity of the Church, to excogitate [in their Councils] no new additions. But because there are many that decline from this right line, through the crooked paths of error, we are confirained with new discovery of truth to reduce them, and to refute their straying opinions with wholesome additions [i. e. to the former Doctrines of the Church.] Not, as if we were ever seeking out some new thing tending to Godliness, as though the former faith were defective, but that we may seek out those things which are judged salutary and beneficial in opposition to those things which are innovated by them. Thus that Council, whose words clearly demonstrate, that Councils may define, not only traditionals in matters of Faith, but any new conclusions which are necessarily and evidently derivative from them. And here let the equal Reader judge, whether the Doctor hath more reason to complain of the Councils new Articles, or the Council of his, and his Predecessors new Errors. Out of which evil yet, the wisdom of God, in the several ages, brings this good (as Evagrius ● accutely observes to the Pagans, 
‖ Hist. 1. lib. 11. c.  scandalised at the divisions and novelties of opinions that arose amongst Christians) that by occasions of Heresies the Orthodox dogmes are more accurately polished, and more entirely compiled, and that by this means the Church every day increaseth in knowledge: i. e. by having the explicit Articles of her Faith more and more enlarged. As we see how much even in early times the Athanasian Creed (by the springing up of several Heresies in those days) had enlarged the Apostolic.  
11. All these Declarations and Decisions framed by General Councils, we Roman Catholics do esteem ourselves obliged to the assent unto, which is far more than not to contradict. And this obligation is founded on the Infallible Authority which we acknowledge in the Catholic Church, derived from the promises of Christ, whose Spirit shall lead her into all Truth: The denial of which assent we affirm to be formal Heresy: and an open contradiction to which Authority; is formal Schism.  
12. This we are taught concerning our Duty and Submission to General Councils. And hereto we must add, that considering the present distracted state of the Christian world, and especially the Schism pertinaciously persisted in by the Eastern Patriarches, who live under the Tyranny of the Turk, and therefore will never probably be permitted to convene for the general Union of Christendom, it is almost become impossible that such General Councils should now be assembled with all formalities, as the four first were, wherein all the five Patriarches were present, at least by their Deputies. Yet, notwithstanding all this, we cannot without infidelity doubt that God will be wanting to his Church to preserve it in Truth and Unity. Since therefore such an Ecumenical Council cannot be expected, as was during the times of the Roman Empire, the Supremest that can now be had, aught to have the force and virtue of obliging, which the former ones had; the Anathemas of it must be as valid; the Decisions of it as much to be submitted to, and a renunciation of its Doctrine and Laws as heinously Schismatical, as of any Council that ever went before: Therefore Doctor Bramhal, Lord Primate of Armagh, in the Preface of his Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon, declaring that he submits himself to the Representative Church, that is, to a free General Council, most rationally adds this clause, or to so General, as can be procured.  
13. Thus of General Councils. As for inferior subordinate Councils, though their Decrees touching Doctrines and Laws for Discipline are not unappealable, yet an obligation, in both these respects, they impose on Christians living respectively within their Precincts. The Decisions of a Provincial Synod are to be internally assented to, except they be evidently erroneous, or contradictory to those of a Superior Synod, so that without Schism they cannot be openly contradicted. Yet the same Decisions may be annulled by a Patriarchical Synod: And all by an Ecumenical, of which alone all the Decisions and Laws are irreversible, because there is no Authority upon earth superior to it, and in all Governments an inferior Authority can never reverse what hath once been established by a Superior, especially if that establishment hath been actually submitted to: For, if a Provincial Synod could annul the formerly received Acts of a National, or a National of a Patriarchical, there must of necessity follow a Dissolution of all Government and Unity, as to the whole Catholic Church, yet we profess in our Creed, Vnam Catholicam— Add to this, that in all Synods the Major part always must decide: so that the fewer, however they may be esteemed the better or more learned, must submit to them: These likewise all use of meetings and consultations will be evacuated.  
14. This fundamental Rule of all Government and Unity is the only true, unering Touchstone, by which a judgement is to be made concerning Schism; If Doctor Pierce can furnish us with a better, let it be produced: but that being impossible, he must give us leave to make use of this to examine the cause between the Roman Catholic Church, and all other Congregations that call themselves Reform. But indeed it is lost labour to apply such a Rule as this to any Calvinistical, Independent, or Fanatic Congregations, because they renounce both all such Laws, and the whole Authority and Offices of those that made them: Therefore (leaving them to the severe judgement of him who said, Where are those my enemies that will not have me to rule over them? 
Luke 19 ) I will consider the Controversy, as the Preacher stated it, between the Roman Catholic and English Protestant Churches, I say [as he hath stated it] because being to treat of Schism, he hath given the right notion of it, and not misspent time and paper, as some others have done, with vain discourses of an Internal and External separation, etc. as if there were no danger in external Schism or dividing of Communion, unless men also have, with the Presbyterians, etc. lost all even appearance of charity to all Christian Churches before them, damning all who believe that Artiticle of our Creed concerning the Unity and Authority of the Church.   

CHAP. XXI.  
The Fundamental RULE of Church-Government. Limitations of the Authority of Gen Councils. Their Grounds made by Arch Bishop Lawd, Dr. Feild, etc. Of Points Fundamental, and Non-fundamental. Protestants allow not so much Authority to Gen. Councils, as God commanded to be given the jewish Sanedrim. Of the pretended Independence of the English Church, from the Example of Cyprus.  
The foresaid fundamental Rule of all Government, That no Laws can validly be repealed by an Authority Inferior to that, by which they were Enacted, is a Rule not now invented to serve our present purpose, but written in the hearts of all mankind, that consider what Government is; and it is, as to Church-matters, particularly taken notice of by St. Augustine, when he declares the Order that is in the Church, and which alone can keep it in unity; Particular Writings of Bishops, 
Aug. de Bapt. cont. Donat. l. 2. c. 3.  says he, if any Error be in them, may be corrected by others more learned, or by Synods; and Synods themselves assembled either in Provinces, or Regions ought without any tergiversation to yield and submit to the Authority of Plenary Councils; and oftimes former Plenary Councils, may be corrected by other following Plenary Councils.  
2. This most Irrefragable Rule, is that by which Schism may most certainly, and undeniably be discovered. And therefore though in gross it be admitted by Protestants, (I mean the wisest and most learned among them) yet out of a necessity of maintaining the grounds of the English Reformation, they put such restrictions & exceptions to it, as utterly take away all use of it. For whereas S. Augustine makes the Supreme Authority of the Church, to reside in plenary or general Councils, because he withal implies, that such Councils may be corrected, they therefore take the liberty to reject them, at least in decisions in their esteem of less importance, and by that means altogether inervate their Authority: Not considering that in case the Decisions, which he says, may be mended, should regard matters of belief, which perhaps, upon better consideration, may be expressed more commodiously, and so, as that they may be less liable to misconstruction; yet it belongs not to any particular men or Churches to correct them, but only to succeeding Councils of equal Authority. To demonstrate this, I will here set down what Authority learned Protestants, such as Doctor Field, the late Archbishop Lawd, etc. acknowledge in general Councils, and withal, how they circumscribe the same Authority.  
3. These agree, that the Universal Church is infallible in fundamentals: Hence says the Archbishop, 
Archb. Lawd, Conser. Sect. 37. Numb. 3.  The visible Church hath in all ages taught that unchanged faith of Christ in all Points fundamental: Doctor White had reason to say this, etc. 
Id. ib. sect. 21. n. 5.  Again, The whole Church cannot universally err in absolutely fundamental Doctrines, therefore it is true also that there can be no just cause of making a Schism from the whole Church. 
Ibid.  Again, quoting Kickerman, he saith, That she cannot err, neither in the Faith, nor in any weighty point of Faith. And from Doctor Field he asserts, 
Ibid.  That she cannot fall into Heresy, etc. That she may err indeed in superstructions and deductions, and other unnecessary Truths, from her curiosity or other weakness. But if she can err either by falling away from the Foundation totally, or by heretical error in it, she can no longer be holy: (for no Assemblies of Heretics can be holy:) And so that Article of the Creed, [I believe the holy Catholic Church] is gone. Now this holiness, saith he, Errors of a meaner allay take not away from the Church. 
Id. sect. 33. a. 14.  The same Archbishop likewise acknowledges, that a General Council de post facto is unerrable: that is, when the Decisions of it are received and admitted generally by Catholics.  
4. Thus far goes the Archbishop, attended by Doctor Field, Doctor White, etc. But being necessarily obliged to maintain the separation of his own Church from the Roman, etc. he (treating of that point) extends most enormously the Errors of the Church in nonfundamentals; for then, forgetting his former phrases of unprofitable curiosities, unnecessary subtleties, unnecessary Doctrines, 
Id. Sect. 21. n. 5.  to which her curiosity or weakness, may carry her beyond her Rule, he saith, 
Id. Sect. 37. ●. 5. 6.  The Roman Church held the Fundamentals literally, yet she erred grossly; dangerously, nay damnably in the exposition of some of them: That she had Errors, though not Fundamental, yet grating upon the Foundation, etc. Now what he speaks of the Roman, is manifest, must as well be applied to the Eastern Church too; and so to the whole Church Catholic at Luther's discession, for most of the Doctrines found fault with by Protestants in the Roman Church, themselves see to have been, and still to be taught by the Eastern, etc. with an accession on of other Errors, from which the Roman is free.  
5. Hitherto these Writers speak of the Authority of the Church only in generals: The Church, say they, cannot Err in Fundamentals; She may Err in nonfundamentals: But who is to discern between Fundamentals and nonfundamentals? And who is to judge of the Church's Error in nonfundamentals? Doctor Field will tell us to this purpose, 
Dr. Field of the Church cap. 5. p. 666.  That no particular man or Church, may so much as profess publicly, that they think otherwise then has been determined in a general Council, except with these three limitations. 1. Unless he know most certainly the contrary to what the Church has determined. 2. If there be no gainsaying of men of worth, place and esteem? 3. If there appear nothing that may argue an unlawful proceeding. And the Archbishop briefly to this effect, 
Lawd Sect. 33. con. 5. n. 1.  states the Point: That General Councils, lawfully called and ordered, and lawfully proceeding, are a great and awful representation, and cannot err in matters of Faith, upon condition. 1. That they keep themselves to God's Rule, and not attempt to make a new one of their own. 2. And they are with all submission to be observed by every Christian, where Scripture, or evident demonstration come not against them.  
6. These are their limitations, and sure it was a very great necessity, that forced such wise and learned men, to grant so licentious a liberty, for annulling what ever hath been, or shall be determined by the Supreme Tribunal in God's Church. A liberty never heard, or thought of from Doctor Pierces beginning, I am certain. A liberty manifestly destructive to all their own Articles, Canons, and Acts of Parliament: For sure they will not say, that these are of more sacred and inviolable Authority, than those of the whole Church: Do none pretend to know most certainly the contrary to those determinations? or do none of worth, place, and esteem, gainsay them, when all the Christian world Reformed, and non-reformed, except a little portion of England, absolutely reject them? Lastly, does nothing appear, that may argue an unlawful proceeding in Hen. the Eighths first Reformation, or K. Edward's, or Q. Elizabeth's? But there was no possible avoiding the concession of this liberty, apparently ruinous to themselves; because they have usurped it against the whole Church, could not refuse it to any that would make use of it to destroy their own.  
7. Let us here briefly examine these Grounds, laid by the Archbishop, etc. viz. 1. The Church is unerrable in Fundamentals, but subject to error in nonfundamentals. 2. The Decisions of General Councils, are to be observed, where Scripture, or evident Demonstration come not against them.  
8. In these Assertions is included a Supposition not denied by Catholics, That even among Doctrines determined by the Church, there are some which are in themselves fundamental, others not so: but yet withal those Doctrines which in themselves are not fundamental, being once determined by the Church, are necessary to be assented to by all Catholics, to whom they are so represented, for in those circumstances, Obedience is a fundemental duty. But though Catholics allow this distinction in general, they withal profess, it is impossible for any particular persons of themselves to determine among all the Church's Decisions, and say, this or this Point is necessary and fundamental, the others not. And the reason is, because the terms Necessary, Fundamental, etc. are relative terms when applied: for that is necessary to be believed and known by one, which is not so by another: Many Doctrines are necessary to Churches for their well ordering, which are not so to any single persons, Parishes, etc. etc. For this reason all Decisions of the Church are sacred to them; no permission to question any of them is allowed: and by this means the Church is continued in unity, and by assenting to all Decisions, they are sure never to descent from those that are necessary. Whereas Protestant's taking a liberty of discerning between fundamentals and nonfundamentals, and of dissenting in nonfundamentals at least, wherein they think the Church Catholic may be fallible (though they have no Rule by which to judge so) are, besides a certainty of dis-union, exposed to errors even in fundamentals.  
9 The ground upon which those learned Protestants conclude a fallibility even in the universal Church as to Doctrines not fundamental [besides the manifest interest of their own Church] is because the end why Christ made such promises of leading his Church into all Truth, was, lest the Gates of Hell should prevail against her, which can be done only by Heresies against fundamental Doctrines: and therefore God's assistance for other Points not fundamental, is not to be presumed on.  
10. But, though this Position in general were allowed them, That the Church is fallible in unnecessaries, this will not excuse them for dissenting from the Church in any particular Doctrines actually decided by a General Council. Themselves acknowledge that all dissenting even internal is unlawful without a certain demonstration, that the Church hath actually erred in such and such Doctrines. But which way possibly can any particular, person, or Church, arrive to such a demonstration? It must be by producing express Scripture, or universal Tradition, formally opposite and contradictory to what the universal Church hath declared. Who can think, who dares believe, that those supreme Guides of all Christians, who were by our Lord placed in the Church, and graced with such promises, who are the only Guardians of the Scripture itself, and only unappealable judges of the sense of it, should conspire to propose Doctrines formally and manifestly contrary to express Scripture or evident demonstration? And as for universal Tradition, there can be no judge of it, but the whole Church: particular persons, or Churches, are utterly uncapable of making such a judgement, especially in opposition to the whole Church.  
11. It were happy therefore, if Protestants, considering the Promises of Christ, and the necessity of unity in the Church, would allow but as much submission to the Supreme Tribunal of his Church, as God obliged the jews to perform to their Sanedrim, to which no such Promises were made. For then, though in Thesi they did affirm the Church to be fallible, yet they would acknowledge, that not only all declaration of non-assenting is forbidden, but an internal assent is of necessary obligation to every one of her Decisions.  
12. Let them seriously consider the passage of Deuteronomy heretofore produced, 
Deut. 17.  in which God commands the Jews under the penalty of death, to obey whatsoever sentence should be pronounced by the present judges of those days in any Controversies touching the Law. This Precept argues that the Supreme Council of the jews was infallible in Fundamentals. And indeed God had promised that the Sceptre should not depart from Judah, 
Gen. 49. 10.  nor a Lawgiver from between his knees till Shiloh (that is the Messias) came. By virtue of which Promise the jewish Religion could not fail in Fundamentals: and the effect of this Promise was manifestly performed: For as to the outward pro●ession and practices of the Mosaical Law, it was always continued, in so much as our Saviour himself enjoined Obedience to all the Commands of those who sat in Moses his Chair. 
Matth. 23.  I say as to the outward practices of it: For in the Spiritual sense of it, the jewish Ecclesiastical Magistrates were horribly perverted, so far as to oppose and Murder the Messiah himself, typified therein; But now Shiloh was already come, and God's promise of Indefectibility rested in this New High Priest, and his Successors.  
13. Notwithstanding all this, yet Errors might creep in about nonfundamentals, as the Rabbins confess, when they suppose a future Sanedrim might annul the Decisions of a former Council; in which case the Ordinances of the later must take place, and without all tergiversation be obeyed. So as though they, being indeed in such things fallible, should command any thing contrary to the true sense of the Law, the jews were under the utmost penalty obliged to obey them, which obedience required a submission of Judgement and internal assent to such Commands, that they were agreeable to God's Law, because it would be utterly unlawful to obey any commands of men, which the Subject believed to be contrary to God's Law. Now the reasonableness of this Command of God appears in this, That it was a less evil and inconvenience that some Legal Precepts of no great importance should be transgressed, than that Contentions and Disputes should be endless 14. From this pattern Protestants may be instructed, that though they should allow a General Council no more obliging Authority, than the jews did to their Sanedrim, which was infallible in fundamentals, but subject to Error in nonfundamentals, they can never have a warrant to Dissent from any Decisions of such a Council, but aught to submit their internal Judgement to them. For, since it is impossible they should have any demonstrative proofs that such Councils have de facto erred, I mean in matter of Doctrine; all other inferior Judgements, all only probable Arguments against them, aught to cease; the Judgement of the whole Church rendering all contrary opinions altogether improbable. So that though (upon their Supposition that the Church in nonfundamentals is fallible) she should have erred in such not-much-concerning Decisions, and by consequence their assent would be erroneous, yet that small incommodity would be abundantly recompensed with the most acceptable virtue of Obedience, humble submission of Judgement, love of Peace and Unity which accompanies it. Besides, that both Truth and Error in such things lies only on the Churches, and not at all on their account.  
15. But since Protestants find an extraordinary difficulty more than Catholics, to submit their Judgements to Authority, and are apt to think all their opinions and persuasions to be certain knowledges; Let it be supposed that their first Reformers not being able to persuade themselves to renounce their Opinions, should thereupon have been excommunicated by the Church: In this case they ought to have suffered such Censures with patience, and not voluntarily forsake her Communion; and much less ought they to have set up, or repair to an Anti-communion: For that was in the highest degree a Formal Schism.  
16. In all this discourse touching the Infallibility of the Church, and the unlawfulness of separation from it; I do not mean a Church of one denomination, no, not the Roman, as such, for so we ascribe not Infallibility to her: But I intent the Universal Church, which we call Roman Catholic, because all true Orthodox Churches (an union of which, constitutes the Universal Church, acknowledge the Roman Church, to be the Root of their Unity. Therefore Protestants, in vain, seek to excuse their separation, upon pretence it was only from the Roman, not from the Universal Church: because, 1. A separation from the external Communion of any one true Member of the Catholic Church, for Doctrines which are commonly held by other Churches in communion with that Member, is indeed a separation from all Churches; which is manifestly the case of the English separation. 2. Because it is evident, that the pretended Reformed Churches, really separated themselves a toto mundo. A thing which Calvin confesseth in an Epistle of his to Melancthon, in these words, Nec non parvi refert, etc. For it doth not a little concern us, that not the least suspicion of any discord risen among us, descend to posterity: For it were a thing more than absurd, after we have been constrained to make a discession from the whole world, if we, in our very beginnings, should also divide from one another. And which Chillingworth also confesseth in several places, cap. 5. sect. 55. As for the external Communion of the visible Church, (saith he) we have, without scruple formerly granted, that Protestants did forsake it: that is, renounce the practice of same observances, in which, the whole visible Church before them, did communicate. And sect. 56. What do you conclude (saith he) from ●ence, but that seeing there was no visible Church, but corrupted, [where note, that he must affirm not only corruptions in manners, but also in Doctrines and Laws, for from several of these, he will not deny Luther to have made a discession] Luther forsaking the external Communion of the corrupted Church, could not but forsake the external communion of the Catholic Church. Well, let this be granted; what will come of it? That Luther must be a Schismatic? By no means. I say, it is evident (as these confess) that the pretended Reformed Churches really separated themselves from the whole world, that is, from that holy Catholic Church which we believe is to continue so in every Age: Since not one Church upon earth antecedent to their separation, can be found out with which they are joined in external Communion, not one which has Laws, or Governors in common with them, not one that will join with them, or with which they will join in public Offices, Liturgies, Sacrifices and Synods. The English Church doth not pretend a Communion with Churches manifestly Heretical, as the Armenian, Coptite, Abissine, Nestorian, jacobite, Georgian Churches, etc. And for the Grecian, the Reformers, at their first separation, were actually divided from her; and sure they will not say, that by separation from the Roman, they became ipso facto in communion with the Grecian; or if they would say so, the Grecian would protest against them, as we see their Patriarch Hieremias did, etc.  
17. And that is but a very ineffectual Salve, 
Dr. Bramhall.  which a late learned Protestant Writer in his discourse of Schism, insists upon, when, seeing clearly the English Church could not pretend a Communion with any other Ancient Churches in the world, he therefore claims privileges of the English Church, equal to those ancient ones of Cyprus; which was a Church independent of all other, and exempted from the Jurisdiction of the Eastern Patriarch of Antioch: For though this pretention could be made good, which is impossible, yet this would not serve their turn, considering the English Church, ever since her Conversion, acknowledged herself a Member of the Western Patriarchate: But though she had indeed such a privilege, and never renounced it, who will say the Cyprian Church, (because exempted from certain Acts of Patriarckical jurisdiction, as Ordinations, Visitations, etc.) could therefore independently of all the world, frame or change Articles of Faith, or be excused from subscribing to the Decisions of Councils, though only Patriarckical?   

CHAP. XXII.  
The limitations of the Church's Authority, made by Archbishop Lawd, etc. examined. Objections against the Proceedings in the Council of Trent, answered. Manifest Illegality in Q. Eliz. Reformation. Secular and Carnal ends in it.  
1. HAving showed the indispensible obligation of even an internal assent that Roman Catholics acknowledge due to the Decisions of General Councils, as being infallible, and which Protestants aught also to perform, though they acknowledge such an infallibility to extend only to Doctrines Fundamental; since the Church herself hath not declared which of her Decisions are Fundamental, and which not, for she hath affixed Anathemas to many, which in themselves are not Fundamental, and hath said only, si quis dixerit (not) si quis non crediderit, concerning Doctrines which are unquestionably Fundamental and necessary: We will now examine the forementioned Limitations or cases in which it is said particular persons or Churches may and aught to be dispensed with for yielding an assent to Decisions of General Councils touching matters not Fundamental, or even for not contradicting them; which limitations have been fixed by Archbishop Lawd, Doctor Field, etc.  
2. In the first place, An assent even internal, say they, is to be given indispensably to all Decisions of General Councils touching such Doctrines (only) as are Fundamental, or Points of necessary Faith, because so far and no farther their Infallibility extends. But who shall, or can judge what Points are or are not of necessary Faith with respect to all particular states of men or Churches, when the Church herself hath not made any distinction between them, and perhaps cannot? Surely Prudence, and a most necessary care of our own Salvation, by continuing in the Unity of the Church, would dictate to us, that since the Church is as to Fundamentals infallible, and therefore cannot misled us to our danger, there can be no safety but in assenting to all her Decisions, as if they were of necessary Faith, for only by doing so, we can be sure not to err in necessary Points, and we shall be certainly free from all danger of Schism.  
3. Secondly, As to Decisions made by General Councils of Doctrines not necessary (if we could find them out) the same internal assent, say they, is due, except in two cases. i. Unless Scripture or evident demonstration come against them, whereby we know most certainly the contrary to what they have determined, in which case it is unlawful to assent, yea it is permitted rather to contradict and separate. But let any Christian man's conscience judge, whether this be to be admitted as a fitting, respectful, or even possible supposition, that the whole Church should conspire to frame Decisions in matters of Christian Doctrine, against which express Scripture or evident demonstration can be produced. This licence being admitted, who shall be judge, whether that which is pretended to be a Demonstration, be really one, or no? Or whether a person do know most certainly the contrary to what the whole Church hath decided? None can judge of the thoughts of another: So that upon these grounds, whoever shall say he is certain the Church hath erred, must be believed, or however cannot be found fault withal for his renouncing obedience to the Universal Church. What Presbyterian, writing or disputing against Episcopacy or other Doctrines of this Church, will doubt to say, that he does most certainly believe and know such Doctrines to be Errors? And if he say so, who can demostrate, that he does not think so? And if he think so, he may question, contradict, and make parties to reverse all the Laws, Decisions, etc. both of the English and God's Church too, by the Archbishop's warrant; for he taking notice (page 245.) that such an Objection will be made, resolves it thus, That a General Council (he means another (General Council) must decide, whether it be a demonstration or not; Hence it will follow, 1. That when any one cries a Demonstration, he cannot be reduced to obedience till another General Council be called. 2. But if another General Council must decide it, why hath not the last General Council, which he disobeys, decided it? Or if this may not oblige him, why should the next? But this is not yet judged to be dispensation enough; For according to the foresaid limitations, One may be excused from assenting to Decisions of General Councils, about Points not of necessary Faith, in case they be gainsaid by men of worth, place and esteem: So that if any such persons do contradict General Councils (whether in or out of the Council, He mentions not) ignorant men may lawfully join with them, and in comparison esteem all other Pastors of God's Church to be of less worth, place or esteem. What a broad Gate, yea how vast a breach have these Doctors, with all their learning and prudence, made in the walls of God's Church, to let in all manner of confusion? Can any Protestant now deny Sme●●ymnuus, Mr. Prinn, the Rump Parliament to have been persons of worth, place and esteem? At least the generality of England once thought them so, and themselves challenged those Titles, and whilst they were the strongest, enjoyed them. To what miserable straits a necessity of justifying the English Separation reduced such wise and learned men?  
4. In the third place, according to the same Writers Position, all manner of Decisions made by Councils, both in necessary and unnecessary Doctrines, cease to be obligatory, in case something appears that may argue an unlawful proceeding in the Council, out of passion, interest, want of liberty, etc. But still who shall be judges of Councils proceedings? Among Catholics, when there are perhaps suspicions of some irregular proceedings, yet if the Points decided be embraced by the particular Catholic Churches, generally speaking, they then have the force of unquestioned Catholic Doctrines. But as for those, who are enemies to Councils, in which their Doctrines have been condemned, such will be sure to charge them with unlawful proceedings. For did not the Arians urge that Plea against the Council of Nice? The Nestorians against that of Ephesus? The Eutychians against that of Chalcedon?  
5. This clause in all probability was put in to exclude the Authority of the Council of Trent; against the proceedings of which therefore, very loud and very unjust clamours were made by Protestants, imputing especially to the Court of Rome many policies and attempts either to intimidate the Fathers of the Council, or to induce them to favour, and enlarge the Grandeurs of the Pope. But who ever shall unpassionately read the History of that Council, compiled by the most learned and eminent Cardinal Palavicino from authentic Records yet extant, will be satisfied. 1. That the liberty of the Bishops was only straitened by their own respective temporal Princes, and not by the Roman Court. 2. That the Pope was so far from gaining an access to his Authority, that when a far greater number of the Bishops would have concurred thereto, the Pope himself forbade it, merely because the French Bishops, inconsiderable for their numbers, did join to oppose it.  
6. But there is no necessity that Catholics should trouble themselves with making Apologies for that Council. 1. Because all the Doctrines of it, opposed by Protestants, as Novelties, were manifest in the general Writings and Practice of the Western Church long before that Council; and most of them in the Eastern. 2. Because they are now actually embraced by all Catholic Congregations, as Declared Doctrines of the Church: in which case by the Archbishop's own Concessions, they are to be esteemed infallibly true. 3. Because the principal Doctrines, censured in the Preacher's Sermon, had been expressly determined by former either General, or at least Patriarkical Councils, admitted in this Kingdom: as Transubstantiation, Veneration of Images, Prayers not in a vulgar tongue, Communion under one Species, Celibacy of Priests, the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, etc. 4. And lastly, because, in condemning the Protestant Doctrines opposite to them, the Bishops of the Council of Trent are found, even by 
* See the English Edition of that History, concerning Transubstantiation and Adoration of the Eucharist, pag. 324, & 326.— Concerning the Mass, that it is a Propitiatory sacrifice, p. 544, 545, & 738.— Concerning the Lawfulness & Sufficiency of Communicating in one kind, pag. 324, 325, 519.— Concerning Purgatory; the Lawfulness of Invocation of Saints, and of Veneration of Images, p. 799, 803.— Concerning the Lawfulness of not using some part of the Divine Service in a vulgar Language, p. 573, 574.— Concerning Priests not Marrying; and the universal Capacity of the Gift of Chastity; and the Lawfulness of Vowing it, p. 783, 747, and likewise, p. 678, 679.]  Padre Paulo's Relation (no favourer of that Council) unanimous in their Judgement; which the Reader may there see, if he please to examine their Votes concerning those Points. Neither did, nor needed the Pope, or his adherents, to use any artifice herein to gain the Suffrages of a Major part: And this is, in that History of his, only pretended to be done in other matters of Contest among Catholics themselves.  
7. Therefore it would certainly be much more for the good of Conscientious Protestants to reflect seriously on the method of their Reformations: and then let them be Judges of the legality of their proceedings, and the disinteressedness of their first Reformers. I speak not now of Presbyterian Reformations, which in all Countries have been ushered in with Tumults, Rebellions, Murders, Rapines, Dissolution of Monarchies, etc. but of the English Reformation only, which though free from such horrible Crimes, yet how legal it was, how free from worldly and carnal Interests, let their own Historians be Judges.  
8. And first, This Relation is made of it in general by Dr. Heylin; 
Reform. Justified, pag. 37.  In Queen Elizabeth's time (saith he) before the new Bishops were well settled [I need not mind the Reader here, that all her former Bishops, save on, had deserted her] and the Queen, assured of the affections of her Clergy, went that way to work in Her Reformation, which not only her two Predecessors, but all the godly Kings and Princes in the jewish State and many of the Christian Emperors in the primitive times had done before her, in the well ordering of the Church and People committed to their care and government by Almighty God. And to that end she published her Injunctions, Ann. Dom. 1559. A Book of Orders, 1561. Another of Advertisements, 1562. All leading unto the Reformation, with the Advice and Consent of the Metropolitan, and some other Godly Prelates who were then about Her [these were those newly Ordained, the former Bishops being ejected] by whom they were agreed on, and subscribed unto, before they were presented to Her. But when the times were better settled, and the first difficulty of her Reign passed over, she left Church-work to the disposing of Churchmen, who, by their place and calling, were most proper for it; and they, being met in Convocation, and thereto authorized as the Laws required, did make and publish several Books of Canons, etc. Thus that Doctor; the sum of which is, That the Queen, finding no foundation to build upon, because all the Innovations begun by her Father and young Brother, had been utterly demolished by her Sister Queen Mary, and withal perceiving the main Body of her Clergy, as well as her Bishops, except such as the caused to be made de novo, to be generally averse from her proceedings, was fain to do all the Ecclesiastical work herself, assisted with some of her New Bishops, without the Concurrence of any Synodal Authority; till, having first by her Orders sufficiently purged the Clergy, she saw, she could securely now do Church-work by Churchmen.  
9 But Mr. Fuller 
Fuller Hist. l. 9 p. 54.  is more punctual in delivering the retail of these her first proceedings, which he extracted out of the authentic Synodals, 1559. He tells us then, That in the beginning of her Reign, the Queen called both a Parliament and a Convocation of the Clergy: Which Convocation unanimously persisted in a resolution not to forsake the old Religion restored by Queen Mary, and publicly declared against such an intended Reformation. Particularly the body of the inferior Clergy composed certain Articles of Religion, which they tendered to the Bishops, and the Bishops in the Name of the whole Clergy, presented them to the Lord Keeper. The said Articles were these five, 1. Of the real substantial presence of our Lord's body after Consecration. 2. Of the non-remaining of the substance of Bread and Wine. 3. Of the Propitiatory Sacrifice in the Mass. 4. Of the Supreme Spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope. 5. That the power not only of defining, but even treating and ordering of Ecclesiastical matters touching Doctrine and Discipline pertains only to Spiritual Pastors, and not at all to Lay persons. A little after this, during the same Convocation, there came from both the Universities a Writing signed by a Public Notary, by which they both signified their Concurrence to the aforesaid Articles, only with a little alteration of the last.  
10. I have thought fit to annex here the very words of that Convocation, as Dr. Fuller transcribed them out of the Synodal Book, 1559.  

Reverendi in Christo Patres as Domini Colendissimi.  
QVoniam Famâ Public● referente ad nostram nuper notitiam pervenit ● multa Religionis Christianae Dogmata publico & unanimi gentium Christianarum consensu hactenus recepta & probata, atque ab Apostolis ad nos usque concorditer per manus deducta praesertim Articulos infra scriptos, in dubium vocari. Hinc est, quod Nos Cantauriensis Provinciae inferior Secundarius Clerus in uno (Deo sic disponente, ac Sereniissimae Dominae nostrae Reginae, Decani & Capitali Cant: Mandato Brevi Parliamenti ac monitione Ecclesiasticâ solitâ declaratâ id exigente) convenientes, partium nostrarum esse existimavimus, tum nostrae, tum eorum, quorum cura nobis committitur, saluti, omnibus quibus poterimus modis prospicere. Quocirca Majorum nos●rorum exemplis commoti; qui in similia saepe tempora inciderunt, fidem, quam in Articulis infra Scriptis veram esse credimus, & ex animo profitemur, ad Dei laudem & honorem, Officiisque, & aliarum nostrae curae commissarum animarum exonerationem, presentibus, duximus, publice afferendam, affirmantes, & sicut Deus nos in die judicij adiuve●, asserentes.  
1. Quod in Sacramento Altaris, virtute Christi verbo suo à Sacerdote de●ite prolato assistentis, praesens est realiter sub speciebus panis & vini naturale Corpus Christi conceptum de Virgine Mariâ. Item naturalis ejus sanguis.  
2. Item. Quod post Consecrationem non remanet substantia panis & vini, neque ulla alia substantia, nisi substantia Dei & Hominis.  
3. Item. Quod in Miss● offertur verum Christi corpus & verus ejusdem sanguis, Sacrificium propitiatorium pro vivis & defunctis.  
4. Item. Quod Petro Apostolo & ejus legitimis Successoribus in sede Apostolicâ tanquam Christi Vicario data est suprema potestas pascendi & regendi Ecclesiam Christi militantem, & fratres suos confirmandi.  
5. Item. Quod authoritas tractandi & definiendi de iis quae spectant ad fidem, Sacramenta, & disciplinam Ecclesiasticam, hactenus semper spectavit & spectare debet tantum ad Pastores Ecclesiae, quos Spiritus Sanctus in hoc, in Ecclesia Dei, posuit; & non ad Laicos.  
Quam nostram assertionem, affirmationem & fidem, nos inferior Clerus praedictus vestris Paternitatibus tenore praesentium exhibemus; humiliter supplicantes, ut quia nobis non est copia hanc nostram sententiam et intentionem aliter illis, quorum in hac parte interest, notificandi, Vos qui Patres estis, ista superioribus ordinibus significare velitis. Qua in re officium charitatis ac pietatis (ut arbitramur) praestabitis, & saluti gregis vestri, ut par est prospicietis, & vestras ipsi animas liberabitis.   
But what effect had these Declarations and Protestations of the whole representative Clergy and Universities? All that could be got was a Disputation, the orderly proceeding whereof, and conclusion, may be seen in Fox and Camden, A. D. 1559.  
Neither can the salvo used by M. Thorndick, who proceeds somewhat otherwise in this point, than the Archbishop, or Dr. Field, be rationally admitted here. 
‖ Right of Church in a Christian s●ate p. 247. 248. etc.  Who first yields, that if the Clergy of that time when the Reformation began, (he means the Clergy in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign) had been supported in that Power, which by the premises [in his Book] is challenged on behalf of the Clergy, the Reformation could not have been brought to pass, and grants, 
‖ Ibid. p. 251.  that secular power gave force to that which was done contrary to the Rule, wherein the Unity of the Church consisted: But yet justifies the Reformation thus, 
‖ Pag. 273, etc.  He saith, that as the power of the Church (obliging Christians to their Dicisions) is a Law ordained by the Apostles, for the Unity and edification of the Church, etc. So, also there are abundance of other Laws given to the Church, by our Lord and his Apostles: And that therefore, if by injury of the times, the practice (of the Church) become contrary to these Laws, [given by Christ and his Apostles]; or if those, whom the power of the Church is trusted with, shall hinder the restoring of such Laws; (of Christ and his Apostles) the Sovereign Power being Christian, may and aught to suppress their power, (though he grants this their power to be an Ordinance of the Apostles, necessary to the Unity of the Church); that so their power may be committed to such as are willing to submit to the Superior Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles. A thing (saith he) 
‖ Pag. 275.  throughly proved, both by the right of Secular powers in advancing Christianity with penalties, and in establishing the exercise of it, and in particular, by all the examples of the pious Kings of God's people, reducing the Law into practice, and suppressing the contrary thereof. Thus Mr. Thorndicke takes this way of freeing the English Reformation from Schism, upon the just Reforming power of the secular Prince against all, or most of his Clergy, when he judgeth them to teach or practise against the Doctrine of our Lord and his Apostles. But all this while, he never so much as asks the question, what if the Prince be mistaken in these Doctrines which he calls of our Lord and his Apostles; Or be mistaken in what the Ancient Church, and primitive times have delivered for such? And what if all the Clergy which he opposeth be in the right? Nor this, What if our Lord hath committed this to the Clergy, and Successors of the Apostles, to judge and decide for ever (when any doubt or dispute ariseth) what are the true Laws of our Lord and his Apostles? Or, what ancient Tradition hath delivered to posterity for such? But he discourseth so, as if the Christian Prince were herein infallible, when yet he supposeth, that all his Clergy may be herein deceived: As if Queen Elizabeth understood the Scriptures, and ancient Tradition, aright in these Laws, whilst her Bishops and Convocation erred in both, till she had new-moulded them. Is not this a strange way to justify a Church-Reformation?  
For the Kings of judah, it shall be spoken to by and by, 
‖ Chap. 23. n. 7.  and as to what he urgeth concerning the power of Kings, it is by no means denied, that these have Supremacy proper to them, to command obedience from all their Subjects, and that as well from a Clergyman, as any other, to the Laws of Christ and his Apostles with the civil Sword, and with temporal penalties (a Supremacy to which the Church lays no claim). But when any doubt or controversy ariseth, what, or which these Laws be, (as there was in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign in many points) Secular Princes as well as others, are Sons of the Church, and are to learn this from the Expositions of their Spiritual Fathers, the Churchmen. I mean that body of them, which hath the just and Superior Authority of deciding such controversies. And let this suffice to show the legality of the first proceedings of the Reformation, in opposition to the unanimous Votes of the whole Clergy, or of those therein, who clearly had the decisive power of Ecclesiastical Controversies either concerning the sense of Scriptures or Truth of ancient Tradition.  
12. Then comparing this Reformation with the Council of Trent, in regard of worldly or carnal interests, let any indifferent man judge between them. Was not the liberty obtained by King Henry the Eighth, to bring into his Bed, a new handsome Wife, instead of his former virtuous Queen, a very carnal Interest? Was not his invading all the possessions and treasure of Monasteries a great secular Interest? was not the dividing the said Lands, among the Nobility and Gentry at very easy rates, a very great interest? In King Edward's days, was not the Protectors seizing on the remainder of Church-spoils a great Interest? Was not the freeing of Clergymen, from a necessity of saying daily, and almost hourly, long Ecclesiastical Offices, from lying a loan without bedfellows, etc. Matters of great, both carnal and secular Interests? Was not the exempting of all, both laity and ecclesiastics from the Duty of confessing their sins, and submitting themselves to penitential satisfactions; from rigorous Fasts out of Conscience and Religion, and other austerities, a matter of considerable interest, to flesh and corrupt nature? Can any such interests as these be proved to have been operative in the Council of Trent? How far all these interests of the world and flesh, had influence on the first godly Reformers, we may rationally suspect, but God only knows, and themselves long before this time feel; God is not mocked.  
13. By what hath been hitherto said appears but even too clearly, how that Fundamental Rule of all Government and subordination was utterly neglected in England, at the time that the pretended Reformation was contrived and executed. Here is a new and thorough moulding of a Church, both a Doctrines and Discipline, called a Reformation, wherein all the Synodical Acts of this Church, since Christianity entered among us, are as to any obliging power by their Authority reversed: wherein all the Decisions of Patriarchical Councils, yea of Ecumenical Synods are called into examination; all their Laws, so far as seemed meet reformed, the whole regard that England had to all other Catholic Churches, as a Member of the whole, is utterly broken by one National Church: Nay not so much, but by one luxurious King, by one Child, and by one Woman, even when the whole Body of the Clergy protested against it. And yet after all this, 
Pag. 35.  if Doctor Pierce may be believed, thus to reform was to write after the Copy which had been set to the Reformers in his Text, by the blessed Reformer of all the World; which was so to reform as not to innovate, and to accommodate their Religion to what they found in the Beginning: In the mean time accusing the Church of Rome (as he expresseth it, but indeed the whole Catholic Church, as he must, and as others grant) of not only horrible corruptions in point of Practice, but hideous errors in matters of Faith too, & such as trench upon Foundations.  
14. But the Preacher must not expect his confident asseveration without proof can seduce the judgement of any considering man to believe him against evidence and experience. 
Pag. 12.  Nothing is more plain than that the Catholic Church, by observing the foresaid Fundamental Rule, is and will be eternally free from danger, either of causal or formal Schism. And as plain it is, that no Churches can be separate from the Catholic Communion but by transgressing that Rule: For if Diocesan Churches and Synods would submit to Provincial; and Provincial to National, and these to Patriarchical, and all to Ecumenical, how could Unity be dissolved? But on the contrary, if subordinate Councils shall take on them to reverse the Acts and Decisions of Superior ones, especially of Ecumenical; how can Schisms possibly be avoided? And with what show of reason can any particular Churches thus breaking Ecclesiastical Orders, charge other Churches with Schisms, because they will not break them too?   

CHAP. XXIII.  
An Answer to the Doctor's Proofs alleged to justify the lawfulness of the English Separation: As, 1. From the Independent Authority of our Kings. 2. From the Examples of Justinian and other Emperors. 3. From the practices of fourteen of our Kings. 4. From the Examples of the Kings of Juda. In what sense New Articles of Faith are made by the Church in the Council of Trent.  
1. IT remains now that I answer the examples produced by the Preacher to justify their Separation to be no Schism; he says, 
Pag. 33.  That by the concessions of the most learned Popish Writers, particular Nations had still a power to purge themselves from their corruptions, as well in the Church as in the State, without leave had from the See of Rome: This is willingly granted. But do those Writers concede such a purgation as their first Reformers administered to this Kingdom? not only without, but against the consent of the See of Rome, nor only of Rome, but of the whole Catholic Church? A Purgation from the whole Faith and Discipline, in any thing they judged fit to be rectified, that by the Authority of Councils and Laws of Princes had been received and in force ever since the Nation was Christian: and by which they declared themselves Members of the whole Catholic Church? On the contrary, from the beginning of Christianity he will not be able to produce one example, either of States or Princes, except professed Heretics, (such as the Emperors Constantius, Valens, Zeno, etc.) that ever made any Laws to repeal any Doctrines declared or Disciplines established in the Church. The Purgations conceded and executed by Princes truly Catholic was to extirpate all Innovations in Doctrine, all transgressions of Discipline that swerved from the Decrees and Ordinations of the Church, and no other.  
2. Surely the Doctor doth not think Christian Princes, as such, cease to be sons of the Church, they must be saved as well as their Subjects, and therefore are not dispensed from that speech of our Lord, Qui vos audit, me audit. They are not Pastors, but Sheep. Yet Catholic Religion obliges us to acknowledge, that their Civil power extends itself to all manner of causes, though purely Ecclesiastical; so as to make use of the Civil Sword in constraining even their Ecclesiastical Subjects to perform that duty which either the Moral and Divine Law (according to the Church's exposition thereof) or the Laws of the Church require. Such a power, yea a Supremacy in such a Power we acknowledge to be in Princes. But withal we cannot find either in reason or Antiquity any ground to apply to Princes that Commission which our Saviour only gave to the Apostles and their Successors [Sicut misit me Pater, etc.] As my Father sent me, so send I you: Receive the holy Ghost, etc. Teach all Nations, etc. No promise hath been made to Princes, that God's Spirit shall lead them into all Truth, any other way, then whilst they follow the direction of their Ecclestical Pastors, to whom only that Promise was made.  
3. Nay, that very Argument by which he would assert his cause, is a Demonstration against him. He says, and that very truly, Our Kings are as much as any in the world, 
Serm. pag. 33.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they hold their Regal Authority immediately from God, without any dependence on any other authority on earth. The like must be said of other absolute Princes too. Now this independency of Princes demonstrates, that the regulation of their power in Ecclesiastical matters, must of necessity be made according to an Authority and jurisdiction purely spiritual common to them all, which is in the Church. For otherwise, being independent and absolute, they may perhaps be able to preserve a kind of Unity in their respective Kingdoms, by forcing from their Subjects an Obedience to a Religion and Church-policy framed by themselves, contrary to the Law of the Catholic Church: But how shall the whole Church be preserved in Unity by this means? Other Princes are independent as well as they; and therefore may frame a Religion which they may call Reformation, as well as they: So that if there be not a spiritual Director and Ecclesiastical Laws common to them all, and submitted to by all, what will become of Unity? Which of these Independents will make himself a Dependent on another? Shall there be patriarchical, or General Councils of Kings meet together? Who shall summon them? In such Royal Synods there must be order: which of them shall challenge a Primacy, even of Order? Doctor Pierce may see what consequences naturally and unavoidably flow from his Positions.  
4. Touching the Code and Novels of justinian, 
Pag. 34.  and the practice of Charlemagne (for the Emperor Zenos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we leave to himself) he may please to cast a serious eye on their Laws, and will find they were all regulated by the Law of the present Church in their Times: The Church's Faith and her Canons for Discipline they reduced into Imperial Laws, to the end their Subjects might be more obedient to the Church, more averse from innovations in Doctrine, and irregularity in manners. And doth all this suit with the case of English Protestants? Can he justify King Henry the Eighths' Oath of Supremacy and Head-ship of the Church: or King Edward the Sixths' Reformation legum Ecclesiasticarum, or Q. Eliz. new Articles and Canons, by these Laws of the Code or Capitulare? Let the Emperor justinian pronounce his Sentence in this matter [Sancimus vicem Legum obtinere, 
Justin. in Authent. de Eccles. Tit. & Privileg.  &c] We ordain and command that the holy Ecclesiastical Rules declared and established by holy Councils shall obtain the force of Laws: For their Doctrines we receive as the Holy Scriptures themselves, and their Rules we observe as Laws. Add again, to show that the Laws, enacted by him, touching Ecclesiastical matters, were intended not as Acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy, but as consequences of the Church's Authority, 
Id. in Authent. ut Cler. ap. prop. Ep. 10. Conven.  he says, Our Laws disdain not to follow the holy and Divine Rules (of the Church). These were indeed Laws of Reformation, fit for glorious Princes, devout Sons of the Church, to make but surely very incommodious patterns for the Preachers purpose.  
5. What the late Emperors, Fardinand the first, and Maximilian the second did, neither his Sermon, 
Serm. pag. 34.  nor Margin tell us, but only that something was done, which he, it seems, thought for his advantage; I'll tell him what it was: Their Reformers in Germany were grown very powerful; yet not so, but that they made a show of harkening to some composition. Those worthy Emperors, for peace sake, made several consultations with learned and moderate Catholics, (some indeed too moderate, as Cassander, etc.) how the Church- Doctrines and Ordinances might be qualified. Hereupon divers expedients were proposed, Treatises written, etc. by which the Emperors were in hope debates might be ended, But how? By betraying the present Church's Faith? By renouncing the Pope's jurisdiction, or consent to a composition? Far otherwise; For when they saw no agreement would please the Lutheran Electors and their Divines, but such as was derogating from the Authority of the Supreme Pastor, and prejudicial to the Laws of the Church, they surceased all motions of reconciliation; rather choosing to expose themselves to all the dangers that might come from their arms and Rebellion.  
6. Touching the many Kings of England, as he says, 
Ibid.  in Popish times, whose actions in his opinion, showed, that the work of Reformation, belonged especially to them in their Kingdom: His Margin, indeed, quotes the Names of fourteen of our Kings since the conquest, as if he would have the world believe, the pure Reformed Religion were almost six hundred years old: But what Reformations were made by any of them, either in Religion or Church-Discipline, neither I, nor himself can show, except by the last King Henry the Eighth, who was indeed a Reformer of the new fashion. 'Tis true, the former Kings had frequent quarrels with the Court of Rome, touching Investitures, procuring of Bulls for determining causes belonging to the King's Courts, usurping a disposal of Bishoprics, and other Benefices, etc. But what is all this to Religion? Such debates as these, he may see at this day, between the Roman Court, and the Kings of France, Spain, etc. in all which, commonly the Pope is but little a gainer; yet, notwithstanding all these, he will not sure deny, but that the Kings of France and Spain; and 'tis as certain, that all those former Kings of England, except one, were perfect Roman Catholics; not any of them ever did believe, that their Supremacy could allow them to alter the Religion of their Forefathers: even King Henry the Eighth, for all his Headship, never pretended so far. 
Coke 5. Report.  Of this I dare accept, as Judge, even Sir Edward Coke himself, 
Balsamon.  and Balsamon likewise, though a malicious Schismatic, therefore the fitter to be quoted by him; yet all he says is, That the Emperor has an inspection over the Churches, that he can limit or extend the jurisdiction of Metropolitans, erect new ones, etc. which, whether by the ancient Laws of the Church, he can do or no, is little for the Preachers purpose: I am sure he is not able to prove it, or if he could, it is a Reformation which will not serve his turn.  
7. His last Examples of Reformations made by Princes, is that of the Kings of juda, in which indeed Religion itself was Reform. But withal, the Doctor may do well to take notice. 1. That those Kings are no where said to have reform all the Priests, or the High Priest, or not to have found him as Orthodox as themselves. 
See 2 Chron. cap. 29. 4. 12. 16. Ibid. cap. 34.  2. They are not said to have reform the people against the Priests. 3. Or without the Priests. 4. Yea in several places we read, they were by the Priests assisted in their Reformation. And therefore Bishop Andrews, who was willing to make as much advantage of this example against the Roman Church, 
To●t. To●ti. p. 365.  as might be, says only, that those Kings did reform citra or ante, declarationem Ecclesiae, but he says not, contra. And, to make good his citra or ante, hath only the strength of the weakest of all Arguments, a Negative, thus, There is recorded no such Declaration of the Church in Scripture, ergo there was none. The infirmity of which argument is much more visible, if applied to such a short History as that of the Kings and Chronicles, containing a relation of so many hundred years, and chiefly of the actions of Kings, not of the Clergy.  
8. It cannot indeed be denied, but that in such public changes, the Power of Kings is more Operative and Illustrious then of the Priests, because their Civil Sword awes more than the others Spiritual▪ and therefore no wonder, if their part in such Reformations is more spoken of, especially in so very short a story. But certainly, 
Mal. 2. 7.  according to God's Institution, the Priest's lips are to preserve knowledge, and it is from their mouths that (Kings) are to learn God's Law, and what they are to Reform, because they are the Angels of our Lord. Now, for Reformations, or other Ecclesiastical Ordinances made by such Kings as David, Solomon, etc. who, besides a Regal Authority, were Prophets likewise, immediately inspired and so employed by God, I suppose the Doctor will not draw such into consequence, to justify the actions of a King Henry the Eighth, the young child his Son, or youngest Daughter; no Prophets surely.  
9 To these examples alleged by Doctor Pierce, but very insufficient to justify the English Reformation, I will in the last place take notice briefly of one great motive, which, as he says, set on work the English Reformers (of happy Memory); which was their observing that in the Council of Trent, 
Serm. pag. 13.  the Roman Partisans, were not afraid to make new Articles of Faith, commanded to be embraced under pain of Damnation, as it were in contempt of the Apostles Denunciation, Gal. 1. 8.  
10. But to omit his contradictions, charging us with hideous errors in Faith, 
Pag. 12.  which yet he dare not say are Fundamental, 
Pag. 8.  lest he ruin his own Church: To omit his uncivil language to the Bishops of that Council, persons of too honourable a quality, to be called, by a little Doctor, contemners of the Apostles denunciation, conspirators liable to a curse: 
Pag. 13.  To omit his commending the first English Reformers, our Kings, etc. that they consulted not with fleth and blood, than which, what could be said more unluckily to himself? Did not our first Reformer consult sometimes with flesh and blood? Was Henry the Eighth so wholly spiritual? Do not yourself confess, that Sacrilege and Rebellion helped Reformation? 
Pag. 35.  To omit his petty Quibble, that the Church of Rome is but the younger Sister to that of Britain: Directly contrary, not only to many of his brother Divines, but to the Head of his Church, King james, who, in a public Speech to his Parliament, says, I acknowledge the Church of Rome to be our Mother Church. 
Stow. p. 840. Anno. 1603. — To omit all these, and more, I shall desire the Doctor to take notice, that neither what the Church hath done in the Council is any Novelty, nor is it a Novelty that the Church's Adversaries should make such an objection: concerning which, the Reader may please to review what has been said before, chap. 20. Sect. 9 10. & 11.  
11. Protestants must impute this to their first Reformers, that the Church hath been forced to make such (as they call them) new Articles of Faith. For what would they have advised the Council of Trent to do, when the Churches ancient Doctrines and Traditionary practices were questioned and condemned by Innovators? As yet such Doctrines, etc. having never formerly been opposed, except by inconsiderable Heretics; Such as jovinian, Vigilantius, etc. whose Errors (before any Council could take notice of them, soon after they appeared, withered away again) were visible only in the consent and practise of Catholics. But now it was necessary to declare Conciliariter, that they were unjustly questioned, either of Error or Novelty. Must there be no decisions in God's Church after the four first General Councils? For fear of new Articles, must liberty be given to new Heresies? Old Articles, such, as the Church had formerly occasion from time to time to mention in her Creeds and Canons, will not serve the turn explicitly to condemn them, therefore new ones must be excogitated says the Council. 
‖ Conc. Chalcedon. ad Imperat. Marcian.  New ones, that is, Old ones further explained: Or, Old Practices newly declared to be Traditions.  
12. But surely these which are mentioned by the Doctor, and related to in his margin, are no new Articles; Most of them had been expressly declared in former Councils; and all were as old at least as Christianity in England. For even St. Gregory, who sent St. Austin hither to Preach the Gospel, is accused by learned Protestants of all, or most of these very Novelties which the Preacher objects. Doctor Humphrey 
‖ In Jesuitism. Part. 2.  accuseth him and St. Austin the Monk— Quod invexerunt in Angliam Purgatorium, etc. that they brought into England Purgatory; Oblation of the salutary Host, and Prayers, for the Dead; Relics; Transubstantiation. To which 
‖ Epist. Hist. Eccles. Cent 6.  Osiander adds,— That the same Gregory vehemently urged Celibacy of the Clergy; Invocation and Worship of Saints; nay, that the Idolatrous Veneration of Images also was by him approved, excused, defended. To which Carrion, in his Relation of the state of the CHURCH in those days, adds, That, when he tragically exclaimed, that he abhorred the Appellation of Universal Bishop; yet at the same time he sufficiently declared his vehement desire of the thing which this Title signifies, in his assuming to himself such Authority over other Churches. Here then are Seven of the Doctor's Novelties, confessed by Protestants themselves, to have been the Doctrines of St. Gregory, which the English here received with their Christianity (which also sufficiently appears, to those who are yet unsatisfied, out of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England, written about an hundred years after St. Gregory: of whom the same O●iander also relates, That he was involved in all the Romish Errors concerning those Articles wherein (saith he) we descent at this day from the Pope: And for the Two others of the Doctor's Points, 1. Public Prayers in an unknown Tongue, And, 2. Infallibility; himself confesseth the first of these to have been in Gregory's time; For thus he, 
* Serm. pag. 27.  The Public Prayers of the Romanists have been a very long time in an unknown Tongue, even as long as from the time of Pope Gregory the Great. And the second he must grant to have been pretended to before Gregory, in that the Preacher allows the proceedings of the Four first General Councils; for these required several Points not before determined to be believed by all Christians under pain of Anathema, and also inserted them into the body of the Christian Creeds. Which thing the Doctor sometimes thinks unreasonable, that any fallible Authority should assume to itself. For surely upon this ground it is, that he condemns the Council of Trent for presuming to make new Articles of Faith, though they have put none such in our Creeds.  
13. By which it appears, that this Sermon, and all the severity practised against us in consequence of it, might as justly have been preached and executed against our first Apostles, St. Gregory and St. Augustin the Monk, as against us. And if against them, then against the Universal Church both Eastern and Western; since it is evident that in St. Gregory's time they were in perfect Unity both for Doctrine and Discipline; And consequently, if such pretended new Articles can justify the English Separation from the present Church, the same Separation ought to have been made from the universal Church above a Thousand years since. I might go higher, but this is even too too much. That man surely must have a prodigious courage, who dares venture his Soul and Eternity rather upon Scripture interpreted by an Act of Parliament, or the 39 Articles, than by the Authority and consent of the Universal Church for so many Ages.  
I will conclude this so important Argument of Schism by a closer Application, which may afford more light to discover on which side the Gild lies. And this shall be done by making some Concessions, and proposing some other Considerations, etc.   

CHAP. XXIV.  
Of Causal and Formal Schism or Separation; and the vanity of their Distinctions. Considerations proposed for a clear Examination on which side the Gild of Schism lies. The manifest Innocency of the Roman Church.  
1. FIrst, As to the Preacher's so commended Distinction of Causal and Formal Schism, it is borrowed from the late Archbishop: The former member whereof only he applies to the Roman Catholic Church, the later to no body: He must give me leave to propose to his Consideration a Saying or two of St. 
Aug. Epist. 43.  Augustin, thus writing to the Donatists, Si possit, quod fieri non potest, etc. If any could have, which really he cannot possibly, a just cause for which he should separate his Communion from the Communion of the whole World, How do you know, etc. A●d again in the same Epistle, There is the Church where first that (Separation) was made which you after perfected, if there could be any just cause for you to separate from the communion of all Nations. For we are certainly assured that no man can justly separate himself from the communion of all Nations, because not any of us seeks the Church in his own justice or Holiness (as you Donatists do) but in the Divine Scriptures, where he sees the Church really become, as she was promised to be, spread through all Nations, a City on a Hill, etc. Hence it is, that the same Saint, though he wrote several Books against the special Doctrines of the Donatists, yet whensoever he treats of their Schism, he never meddles with any of their Opinions, but absolutely proves their Separation unlawful from the Texts of Scripture, and Promises of Christ, which are absolute and unconditional: So that the alleging Causes to justify Separation, for which there can be no just one, is vain and fruitless; And this way of Arguing is far more forcible against English Protestants, than it was against the Donatists, because all their sober Writers acknowledge the Church of Christ was, and always will be unerrable in Fundamentals; and this as she is a Guide: And further, that the Roman is either this Church, or at least a true Member of it.  
2. But Secondly, whatever becomes of this Distinction, 
Pag. 32.  his concession is, That really a Formal Schism there is between us: nay more, that the Protestants made the actual departure, and indeed they must put out their eyes, who see it not. The visible Communion between the now English Church, and all other in being before it beyond the Seas, is evidently changed and broken. The same Public Service of God, which their first Reformers found in God's Church all the World over, they refuse to join in, for fear of incurring sin: Most of the Ecclesiastical Laws, every where formerly in force, they have abrogated, and without the consent of any other Churches have made new: they were formerly Members of a Patriarchical Church▪ (which they esteemed the only Orthodox Universal Church) to the Government of this Common Body they acknowledged themselves subject: And a denial of subjection to the Common Governors of this Body, and especially the Supreme Pastor, they judged to be a formal Act of Schism: Lastly, the common Doctrines of the Church they formerly embraced as of Divine Authority, Traditionary, only ancient and Primitive: Now they called Apostatical Novelties. Any of those changes conclude a Schism on one side or other, but all of them more than demonstrate it. A Schism then there is, therefore one of the parties is guilty (not of causing, but) of being Schismatics, properly, formally, Schismatics. Now would it not be hard for the Doctor to speak his conscience, and declare once more at Court, which of us two are properly Schismatics? It could not indeed be expected he should answer as a young maid did to my old Lady Falkland, when she asked, if she were a Catholic? No Madam, (said she with a low courtesy) if it please your Ladyship, I thank God I am a Schismatic; but withal, his tongue would not readily pronounce Roman Catholics to be Schismatics from the English, Reformed Church.  
3. That which is opposed to Schism, is Catholic Communion. 
August. Collatine Carth. c. 3.  We show, saith Saint. Augustine, by our Communion, that we have the Catholic Church. Therefore in discourse of Schism, 
Serm. pag. 32.  one while to talk of Innovations of Doctrine, or of making a secession from a Church, twelve hundred years since, etc. and perhaps, charging us with causal Schism: And on the other side, to acknowledge that the actual departure was indeed theirs, yet they are not schismatics, they left the errors of Catholics, rather then them: Is indeed to act the very part of the Donatists, who, as Saint Augustine says, affirmed that the word Catholic was not derived from the universality of Nations, 
Aug. Brevic. Collat. lib. 3.  but from the plenitude of Sacraments, that is, from the integrity of Doctrine. And in another place, writing to a Donatist, Thou thinkest (says he) that thou hast spoken acutely, 
Epist. 48.  when thou interpretest the Name Catholic, not of Universal Communion, but of observation of all Precepts, and Divine Mysteries. And hence it was that the Donatists called their Bishops, Bishops of Catholic Verity, not of Catholic Unity, as St. Augustine says in the same Epistle.  
4. I desire to know, whether before their Reformation, our Church was Schismatical, or it began afterwards so to be? If it was so before, where was that Church from which we separated? no where on earth sure: And by consequence either a separation may be from no body, or the whole Church failed, the gates of Hell (contrary to our Saviour's promise) prevailed against it. Again, if our Church became Schismatical, after their deserting us, because she would not imitate them, or because she would communicate with those who held such Doctrines; than it will follow (since the Church that was then, did in this, nothing vary from its predecessors in a former age) that a Church remaining the same without any alteration at all, may be the only true Church of Christ to day, and the Synagogue of Satan to morrow. These are Riddles unconceivable.  
But, to demonstrate that, even in Protestants opinion, we are not Schismatics, there needs only this Proof, that generally Protestant's, yea even Huguenots, acknowledge, that Salvation may be had in Our Church; which no man, charging us with Schism, can say, if he knows the nature of Schism; how grievous and unpardonable a crime it is, that cuts off from the Mystical Body of Christ.  
5. On the other side, That the crime of Schism is truly and only to be charged on them (besides the visible marks of leaving Communion, changing Government, Laws, etc.) may be demonstrated thus. There is no particular true Church, which is a Member of the Catholic, but thereby hath a power validly to excommunicate all those that desert her Communion, transgress her Laws, etc. And whoever are so excommunicated by her, are esteemed excommunicated by all other Catholic Churches. So that, if another Bishop or Church, after information of this, shall receive them into their Communion, that Bishop, etc. ipso facto incurs excommunicaion himself. Which excommunication, being according to the Laws of the Church, is valid and ratified in Heaven. Now suppose an English Bishop should excommunicate one of his Subjects for a total renouncing Episcopal Government and Ordination, and the person so excommunicated should adjoin himself to a Congregation of Presbyters in Scotland, France, Holland, etc. They would no doubt receive him: and being so received, he is, even in the Bishop's own judgement, in as undoubted (though not so strait) a way to Heaven, as he was before: because the Bishop himself acknowledges Presbyterian Congregations to be true Reformed Churches of God: so that by their Excommunication he is not cut off from Christ, but from preferments only. The late Act of Uniformity doth far more validly excommunicate Non-Conformists, than all their Bishop's Courts.   

CHAP. XXV.  
The Doctor's desire of Reconcilement, and the conditions of it. The necessary preparations thereto. Of the Court, and Church of Rome.  
1. AFter all the Doctors triumphant Invectives▪ against the Catholic Church, he yet concludes his Sermon in a less tempestuous stile▪ 
Pag: 36.  He says, he hath the Charity to wish for Reconcilement: That they departed with higher Degrees of Indignation from the insolent Court, than Church of Rome. That Court which proudly trod upon Crowns, and made Decrees with a non-obstante to Apostolical constitutions, etc. That they were called Protestants, because they protested not so much against the Church, as against the cruel Edict made at Worms, etc. But yet when they wish a Reconcilement, they do not mean by compliance with any the least of our defilements, but by our Harmony with them in being clean.  
2. If Doctor Pierce hath indeed the charity, and if he doth any more than with his tongue say, they wish for Reconcilement; they, that do so, will not want a reward from God for so much charity: And I doubt not there are a world of English Protestants (with him) who heartily wish the same. And they that have charity, will easily believe we wish so too. So that both parties being so far on the way to agreement, as to wish it: the next step must be to endeavour to procure it. Our frequent endeavours, they know, have been to little purpose; We have oft in vain protested, that our Doctrines, practices, etc. have been misunderstood: we still persist in the same protestation: and perceive by this very Sermon that they are still misunderstood: And whilst they are so, that condition of Reconcilement which he makes is not unreasonable, that they will have no Reconcilement by a compliance with our defilements. Therefore to take away this misunderstanding, let them obtain that for us, which we yet could never be able to do, a permission to be heard speak for ourselves.  
3. We pass for Traitors, but cannot obtain to be informed wherein our Treason ●ies, nor what we must do to prove our selves no Traitors. If the ackowledgement of his Majesty's Supremacy in as high a degree as they themselves will allow, with exclusion of all manner of Temporal Authority in any other, be no Treason: If the exposing our lives as willingly for Monarchy as they can do, be no Treason: If there be not any proof of faithfnl Allegiance which is refused to be submitted to by us, what suspicion can they have that we are Traitors? But our present a la mode Treason is, that our Priests receive their Ordination from Rome: and do not they so to? I am sure we cannot anger them worse, then to question or doubt whether the Church of England hath received her Mission, Orders and jurisdiction from the Roman Church.  
4. For our Doctrines: I am persuaded, if only this poor Answer fall into the hands of any ingenuous Protestants, who will seriously consider the several Points so Tragically declam'd against by the Preacher, they will think even the Church of England little beholding to him for his Sermon, and Truth much less. But since small effect can be expected from such 〈◊〉 Treatise as this, bound up to his blundering method; therefore, unless it be their interest, or as they may think, their safety, that our innocence should be stifled and oppressed, if they have the charity indeed to wish for a Reconcilement, let them procure for us a peaceable authorized Conference, in which the only Design may be by consent to inquire and set down clearly upon what terms a Reconcilement may follow, and without which it must not, nor aught to be expected. Let us understand one another's Churches; let us know one another's essential Doctrines: If there be any mistakes, any misinterpretations on either side, let them be cleared: But till this be done, and it can only be effected by them, they must pardon us, if according to the temper of calamitous, unjustly oppressed persons, we suspect that this last seemingly moderate passage of his Sermon, is in effect the most severe and bitter against us, as declared to be persons with whom all Reconcilement is unlawful.  
5. Certain I am this zealous Preacher is far from the prudent temper of King james, whose authority (being his Supreme Governor in all spiritual things as well as temporal) should surely have more than an ordinary influence over him; That learned King in his before mentioned Speech, 
Stow. Chron. pag. 84.  hath these remarkable words, I could wish from my heart it would please God to make me one of the Members of such a general Christian union in Religion, 
Anno 1603.  as, laying wilfulness aside on both hands, we might meet in the midst, which is the Centre and perfection of all things; For if they (of the Roman Church) would leave and be ashamed of such new and gross corruptions of theirs, as themselves cannot maintain, nor deny to be worthy of Reformation; I would f●r my own part be content to meet them in the midway, so that all novelties might be renounced on either side. See the condescence of this great King, and compare it with the stiff humour of this little Doctor— He'll not comply with the least of our defilements; not he, 
Pag. 36.  Softly, good Sir, do you not as ill, when you comply with the Lutherans, who surely are not without some little stains? Do you not. as ill, when you comply with the Huguenots, who are not at so perfect a harmony with you in your being clean? Look soberly into your own rashness: you began the Separation (that hath bred so many wars, and so much licentiousness both in faith and manners) upon points which yourselves confess are not fundamental; and now you solemnly protest to continue it without complying in the least difference between us. Go now, and close your Sermon with a few soft words— Your arms are open to embrace, etc. your hearts are wide open to pray to God to bind up the breaches, 
Pag. 36.  etc. of his divided, defiled, disgraced Spouse— And when all's done, you'll not stir an inch towards the peace you so gloriously talk of. If this be Hypocrisy, remember, Doctor, the woes that attend it, if not, express yourself so sincerely hereafter that we may not suspect it. For my part of all the faults in a Sermon, to that of dissembling I here declare a Vitinian hatred, as you learnedly call it.  
Much more moderate were Vives and Cassander, whom you commend for complaining of some abuses in the Church (among other Authors which you there cite, jumbling Protestants and Catholics confusedly together) for after all their zeal they died quietly in her bosom, and did not, like you, tear in pieces the seamless Coat of our SAVIOUR, and reject all terms of peace, unless every pretence of yours be satisfied to a tittle.  
I remember too a dogged word you gave us, 
Pag. 7, 8.  not far from the beginning of your Sermon; where after you had reckoned up Socinians, Antinomians, Ranters, Solifidians, Millenaries, Reprobratarians, etc. (a fine Peal to make a Pulpit ring) to all which you yield more antiquity than any will allow your Reformation, you pass them over with the gentler names of Heresy and Usurpation, but when you come to the Pontificians, you immediately grow high and rage, and resemble them to the Mahometans, etc.— blind and impertinent Passion! Do you not see abroad a civil and learned portion of Christians in Communion with the Bishop of Rome, and are they no better than Mahometans? Do you not see, in your own Country, and at Court too, Persons so qualified, that you should blush at your own unmannerliness to compare them to Mahometans?  
6. If their chief quarrel be against the Court of Rome for proudly treading upon Crowns, and making Decrees with a non-obstante to, etc. This might perhaps have been more seasonable five or six hundred years since. But surely they know Catholic Princes are wiser now, and the Court of Rome too. This needs not be the least hindrance to a Reconcilement: On the contrary by a Reconcilement this Church and Kingdom would receive from the Court of Rome, only what France, Spain, etc. find extremely advantageous, both to the honour and safety of their Churches and States. And as for Decrees with a non-obstante, he mistakes the terms of Apostolic Constitutions, by which is intended Constitutions not made by the Apostles, but former Popes. 
Pag. 35.  And touching the Decree of the Council of Constance in his Margin, let me ask him a Question or two: Do not Protestants in Baptism use sprinkling instead of dipping, non obstante that our Saviour and his Apostles instituted it otherwise? Do they not think themselves obliged to communicate fasting, non-obstante, that our Saviour instituted the Sacrament after Supper? Do they not without scruple eat Black-puddings, non-obstante the Apostles gave a command to the contrary? All this they do, because they think these things not essential or unalterable, but left to the prudence of their particular Church: Let them permit therefore the same liberty to a General Council.  
And here give me leave to insert some few Citations concerning the Protestant-acknowledgments of the Authority of Councils. 
Act. Mon. pag. 1288.  Mr. Ridley says, Councils indeed represent the Universal Church, and being so gathered together in the Name of Christ, they have the promise of the Gift and guiding of the Spirit into all Truth. Doctor Bilson plainly confesses, 
Perpet. Gou. p. 372, 373.  the Presence and Assistance of the Holy Ghost for Direction of General Councils into all Truth; And after fairly says, 
Pag. 374.  The Fathers in all Ages, as well before as since the Great Council of Nice, have approved and prastised this of Councils as the surest means to decide Doubts.— Hooker professes, 
Pref. to Eccl. Pol. pag. 28.  The Will of God is to have us do whatever the Sentence of judicial and final Decision shall determine, yea, though it seem utterly to swerve from what is right in our opinion.— Their Authority (General Councils) is immediately derived and delegated from Christ, 
Dr. Potter. pag. 30.  says Potter.— And if Doctor Peirce agree with these his Brethren, I might say Fathers, in this Point, I shall not easily fall out with him about it, but rather endeavour a further approach by offering this fair Proposal; I will not require of him to hold that the Fathers meet in Council to make question of the matters of Faith, for those they were taught from their Childhood; but to consult about their adversaries proofs, and what arguments should be alleged against them; to consult how to express the Catholic Doctrine in such words as might best instruct the people, and prevent Heretics from abusing them; Hence it was St. 
Athan. in Ep. de Syn.  Athanasius said, We meet here, not because we wanted a Faith, i. e. were incertain what to hold, but to confound those who go about to contradict the Truth. Which Rule, if Councils observe, I think the Doctor would scarce refuse to obey them; and our only difference in this point, I hope, is, he thinks they do not observe this Rule, and I think they do.   

CHAP. XXVI.  
The Preacher's boasting. Catholics cannot justly be obliged to show from Antiquity Evidences of their Doctrines. Conditions necessary to be Observed by the Doctor, in case he Reply. Of the Name Protestant.  
1. THus I have gone through, and examined (except to those who love to be contentious) sufficiently, all the pretended Novelties imputed by Dr. Pierce to the Roman Catholic Church; I have likewise brought to the Test all the Allegations made by him, either to excuse the English Churches Separation from the Roman Catholic, or at least to persuade us not to call it Schism: And it seems to me, I have demonstrated him unsuccessful in both. Nay more, (which is a great misery, if he would consider it with that seriousness, which Eternity deserves) I think I have proved that the fearful crime of Schism will lie heavy upon his Church, though he had showed all the Points by him mentioned, to be Novelties. And having done this, I must say with St. Augustin, utinam verba ista infuderim, & non effuderim. But considering the present temper of this Age, I doubt, I shall have reason to fear, according to the same holy Father's expression, lest, when I beg them to afford their ears, they should make ready their teeth.  
2. However I hope the Doctor will no more be believed with any reason to complain (as he doth in his Sermon) of one remarkable infirmity in the Popish Writers,— They ever complain we have left their Church, 
Pag. 14.  but never show that jota as to which we have left the Word of God, or the Apostles, or the yet uncorrupted and Primitive Church, or the Four first General Councils. Truly, this Speech of his seems to me so vain, and rash, and shameless a boast, that I cannot but blush for him, when I read it, and tremble for him when I see Truth so little considered by a Preacher, sustaining God's Person, as he pretended.  
3. But perhaps I understand not his phrase of [showing that jota as to which they have left, etc.] If he mean we have not demonstrated their deserting Antiquity, or, that we believe not, even since we have seen their Answers, that our demonstrations are unanswerable; there are extant whole Libraries of our Controvertists, sufficient to overwhelm him. Particularly, before he say so again, let him inquire out and consider a Book, written by Simon Vogorius, Counsellor to the French King, entitled, An Assertion of the Catholic Faith out of the Four first Ecumenical Councils, and other received Synods within that time. Or even, let him review what is quoted against him here 
‖ Cham 17. Sect. 10.  concerning one of his own Points, Celibacy of the Clergy, out of the Four first General, and several other, as ancient, Provincial Councils. Before all which Councils there is found an Injunction of it as high as Calixtus his days about A. D. 220. which also Doctor Peirce mentions. 
Pag. 9  Doth not this prohibition of the Priests from Marriage amount to the magnitude of an jota with him? How comes it then to be one of his Grievances in this Sermon, and that under no milder a phrase than the Doctrine of Devils? Or will not such Antiquity pass for Primitive, and Antiquity Antique enough (to use his words)? Unless he will shrink up Primitive Antiquity from the 6th Age to the 4th, from the 4th to the 3d. (where few Writings being extant, less of the Church's Doctrines and Customs can be shown in them) Or from the 3d to the 1st Age and the Apostles times (as the Presbyterians, in the Plea of Antiquity, treat the Prelatists.) For on this manner even the most learned of the Protestant Writers, when they are straitened with proofs, are wont to retire. So Bishop jewel long ago made a bold challenge to be tried by Antiquity for the first 600 years.  
But after many hot Encounters between the Controvertists, and after Antiquity better discovered to the later Pens on the Protestant Party than to the first, A. Bp. Lawd, more cautious, contracts the Protestants Challenge somewhat narrower to the Fathers of the first 400 years, or thereabouts, The Protestants (saith he 
‖ Sect. 28. p. 217 ) offer to be tried by all the ancient Councils and Fathers of the Church within the first 400 years, and somewhat further. And, since the A. Bp. Doctor Hammond makes his Plea of Antiquity yet shorter, viz. for the Fathers of the first 300 years; For the particular Doctrines (saith he 
‖ Of Schism, c. 8. sect. 7. ) wherein we are affirmed by the Romanists to depart from the Unity of the Faith, we make no doubt to approve ourselves to any that will judge of the Apostolical Doctrines and Traditions by the Scriptures, and consent of the first 300 years, or the Four General Councils.— And again, We profess (saith he 
‖ Ibid. c. 9 sect. 7. ) to believe so much, and not to be convinced by all the Reasons, and Authorities, and Proofs from Scriptures, or the first Christian Writers, those of the first 300 years, or the Four General Councils. Where by submission to the Four first General Councils, he means only to the bare decisions of these Councils in matters of Faith concerning our Saviour and the Holy Ghost, not obliging himself also to the Authority of those Fathers, who flourished in the time of these Four Councils, and sat in them. For, though the last of these Councils was held in the middle of the 5th Age, yet he claims a trial by the Father's only to the end of the 3d Age. Again, by this submission to the Writers of the Three first Ages only, he bars most of the chief Fathers, and all those that are more large and Voluminous, from bearing any witness against Protestants, and leaves scarce half a score Authors of Note now extant, and several, writing only some short Treatises or Epistles, whereby they are content to try all the Doctrine and Discipline of Antiquity.  
4. But these were timorous Souls that would fain be thought to deal civilly with antiquity; let us hear two or three bolder spirits, that speak plain and freely: What says Doctor Willet? 
willet's Survey of Common-Prayer. p. 18.  Let not your Majesty be deceived by the Popish Arguments of supposed antiquity, as Joshua was with the old and mouldy bread of the Gibeonites; and the reason is given, for Anti-christ began to reign in the Apostles days, in St. Paul's days. What says Acontius? 
Strang. li. 6. pag. 296.  Some of us are come to that, that they will fill up their Writings with the Authority of the Fathers, which I would to God they had performed with prosperous success, as they hopefully attempted it, etc. I only think this custom is most dangerous, and altogether to be eschewed. What says the witty Whitacre? 
Contr. Dur. lib. 6. p. 423.  The Popish Religion is a patched coverlet of the Father's Errors sewn together. And again, to believe by the Testimony of the Church (not excepting any Age) is the plain Heresy of the Papists. 
Idem. lib. 1. de script p. 39  To conclude (for I might quote all day long upon this Subject) what says the Patriarch of Protestancy, Luther, 
Luth. in Act. Apost. ca 15.  There never was any one pure Council, but either added something to the faith or substracted. And now, what shall we say ourselves in this confused variety? Against some of our Adversaries, we must cite antiquity, or else we do nothing; against others, if we cite all the antiquity that ever was baptised, we do nothing. God deliver them from their cross and incertain wander, and me from the weariness of following them in their wild chase.  
5. But, if the Doctor means by [showing that jota, as to which, etc.] that we have not so showed it, as to stop their mouths, or to force them to confess and repent of their fault, than there can be no showing any thing by any one party to another, as long as the dissension lasts between them. In this sense they have never showed one jota to the Presbyterians, Anabaptists, Quakers, &c who (after all their Books, Canons, Acts of Uniformity, etc. which those Sects call Antichristian, tyrannical Popery, as the Protestants did ours) still persist in separation from them. Then neither the Apostles, ancient Fathers, or Councils ever showed one jota to ancient Pagans or Heretics: because, for all their showing, others remained Pagans and Heretics afterward. And yet, even in this particular, though a very unreasonable one▪ we Cath●lics can confidently affirm, that we have defeated this bravado of the Preacher. For evident Truth on our side has extorted from the mouths and pens of a world of the most learned among the Reformed Writers, a Confession both in general and in every particular Controversy, that Antiquity declares itself for the Roman Church against them. Thousands of such proofs may be read in the Protestants Apology, the Triple Cord, etc. Books written on purpose to reckon up such Confessions. This is truly, if well considered, an advantage strange and extraordinary▪ for I believe never did any of the Antie●t Heretics so far justify the Catholic Church. No such confessions of theirs are recorded by the Antie●t Fathers: which shows that, above all former examples, the Heretics and Schismatics of this last Age are most properly [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] condemned by their own Consciences.  
6. But withal the Doctor must take notice of this one thing, That it does not belong to us Catholics to be obliged to show that jota, in which they (who have set up a new and separated Church from us but the other day) have left the word of God or Primitive antiquity, or the four first General Councils; a● it belongs to them, who have thus divided themselves, not only to show, but to demonstrate first most clearly, that there is such a discession from those Scriptures, Fathers, and Councils, by that former Church (which they deserted) not in an jota but in some grand principle of our Faith, which admitted no longer safety to them in her Communion; because the Roman Catholic Church is in possession: and, by our Adversaries own Confession, has been unquestionably so for above a Thousand years, of all or most of her present Doctrines for which they have relinquished her. 
See cap. 23. Sect. 13.  Particularly the Pope has enjoyed an Authority and Supremacy of Jurisdiction a longer time, than any succession of Princes in the world can pretend to; A Jurisdiction acknowledged as of Divine Right, and as such submitted to by all our Ancestors, not only as Englishmen, but as Members of the whole Western Patriarchal, yea of the Universal Church, and this as far as any Records can be produced. He is now, after so many Ages, questioned and violently deposed from this Authority by one National Church, nay by one single Woman and her Counsel (the universality of her Clergy, protesting against her proceedings) and much more against her destroying a Religion from the Beginning established among us, and which had never been questioned here in former times but by a Wiclef, or a Sir john Oldcastle, etc. manifest Heretics and Traitors. Now it is against all Rules of Law, justice and Reason, that such as are Possessores bonae fidei, should be obliged to produce their evidences: This belongs only to the Plaintiffs▪ and no Evidences produced by them against such a Possession can be of any force, except such as are manifest demonstrations of an Usurpation, yea such an Usurpation as cannot either be exercised, or submitted to without sin.  
7. The Doctor is likewise to consider, tha● if, ex super abundanti, we should yield so far as out of Ancient Records of Councils or Fathers to allege any Proofs to enervate their claim to them, and justify our Possession: Such Proofs of ours, though considered in themselves, were only probable, yet in effect would have the force of demonstrations against English Protestants: But on th'other side, unless they can produce from Scripture or Antiquity evident demonstrations against us, they are not so much as probabilities: all this by their own confession. For, as has been showed, they lay it for a ground, and acknowledge the Catholic Church (of which according to their own Doctrine the Roman is at least a Member) to be in all fundamental Points infallible: and that in all other Points, now in debate, which are not fundamental, it would be unlawful for particular Churches to profess any dissent from her, without an evident demonstration, that she has actually and certainly erred in them; yea moreover, that she will admit none of the Dissenters into her Communion, except such as (though against their Consciences and Knowledge) will subscribe to her Errors; Errors so heinous, as to deserve and justify a separation.  
8. These things premised, my last care must be to provide, that, in case a Reply be intended to this Treatise, it may not be such an one as may abuse the world. The Preacher must consider it is not such another blundering Sermon that will now serve his turn to give satisfaction, so much as to any Protestant, who has a Conscience guided by the light of Reason, or thinks Schism not to be a sleight P●ecadillo. Therefore that he may know, what Conditions are necessary to render an Answer not altogether impertinent and insupportable▪ I here declare, that, in case he shall undertake a confutation of what is here alleged by me to disprove the charge of Novelties by him laid on the Roman Catholic Church, and the excusing of Schism in his own, he will be a betrayer of his own Soul, and the Souls of 〈◊〉 those that rely on him, unless he observe the Conditions following.  
9 The first is, since if Protestants have in truth an evident demonstration that the Roman Doctrines, for which they separate, are indeed such pernicious errors and Novelties, we readily grant they are not obliged to subscribe them; And it being supposed by the Archbishop, etc. that, without such a certainty. it would have been unlawful for Protestants to question or censure such former Doctrines of the Church; The Doctor is bound, and ●here adjure him to declare expressly. as in the presence of Him, who is. Supreme Head of the Church, and will revenge severely all calumnious persecutions of it, that he is demonstratively certain, that in all these Points, charged by him on the Church of later times as Novelties and Errors introduced since the four first Councils, she is manifestly guilty: and that nothing appears in this, or any other Catholic book of his Acquaintance, which deserves to be esteemed so much as a probable proof to the contrary. For my part I here protest on the other side, that I find not any one concluding allegation in his Sermon, nor believe there can any be produced; which can warrant him to make such a Declaration.  
10. The second Condition is, That in like manner he profess he can or hath demonstratively proved by Scripture or Primitive Antiquity, the main grounds, upon which they pretend to justify their separation to be no Schism, to wit, these. 1. That the universal Church, represented in a Lawful General Council may in points of doctrine not fundamental so misled the Church by errors, that a particular Church, etc. discovering such errors, may be obliged to separate externally. 2. That a particular Christian or a Congregation Diocesan may lawfully reverse Decisions formerly made by a Nationa● Synod, and assented to by it; and that a Nationa● Council may do the like in regard of a Patriarchical, or any of them, in regard of an Ecumenical formerly accepted and admitted. If these Ass●ri●ous he Innovations, as in our persuasion they are, it is clear they destroy all possible unity: If they be not, let some demonstrative Proofs and Examples be produced out of Antriquity, that a reversing of such order and subordination has been practised and approved in the Catholic Church. 3. That a particular Church, etc. in opposition to the Universal, can judge what Doctrines are fundamental or necessary to all Persons, 〈◊〉 Communities, etc. and what not: And that a Catalogue of such Doctrines be given by the Respondent, or demonstrative reasons alleged why such an one is not necessary.  
11. Thirdly, if he will deny the Church of England has separated externally from the present Universal Church, but only from the Roman; then, to make this good, he is obliged to name what other visible Member of the Universal Church they continue in Communion with, in whose public Service they will join or can be admitted, and to whose Synods they ever have, or can repair. And, since at the time of their first Separation, they were only in Communion with the Roman-Catholic Church, and the Members of it, be must show how, when, and where they entered into any other new Communion. Lastly, Since the English Church, by renouncing not only several Doctrines, but several Councils acknowledged for General, and actually submitted to both by the Eastern and Western Churches, hath thereby separated from both these, he must find out some other pretended Members of the Catholic Church divided from both these, (that is, some that are not manifestly heretical,) with whom the English Church communicates.  
12. A fourth Condition is, that he must either declare other Calvinistical Reformed Churches, which manifestly have no succession of lawflly Ordained Ministers, enabled validly to celebrate and administer Sacraments, to consecrate, confirm, preach God's Word, etc. to be no heretical or Schismatical Congregations: Or if they be, he must demonstrate how the English Church can acquit herself from Schism, since her Bishops and Divines have authoritatively repaired to their 
* A. D. 1618. at Dort.  Synods, and a general permission is given to any Protestant Writers to acknowledge them true, reformed, and sufficiently Orthodox Congregations.  
13. The last shall be, that he abstain from imputing to the Catholic Church the opinions or sayings of particular Writers. The Church herself having sufficiently declared her Doctrines in her Councils, especially that of Trent. If he will combat against her, there he has a fair and open field, and charity requires that he affix to her Decisions the most moderate and best qualified sense: Otherwise he will declare himself as one, who is sorry his Mother should not be ill reputed. Now in exchange, I for my part am extremely willing to proceed in the same manner with the English Church. I would said charge her with nothing but her own declared Doctrines and Decisions. But truly I know not where to find them, except only in the little primer and Catechism for Children. For the 39 Articles, being almost all Negatives, may as well be reputed the Doctrines of jewish, or Turkish Congregations, since these also deny the Sacrifice of the Mass, Purgatory, Infallibility of Councils, etc. other Reformed Churches have published reasonably large Professions of their Faith, they have declared their own positive sense in almost all Points of Christian Belief, as the Huguenots in France, etc. the Lutherans in Germany, &c: only the English Church seems to have made a secret of her Faith; upon what motive I am unwilling to guests.  
14. These Conditions in themselves so reasonable, and even according to Protestants grounds also, so necessary, if the Replyer shall refuse to perform, he will, in the judgement of all discerning Readers, be himself the Answerer and Confuter of his own Reply; and withal, will show it is not Truth or Peace he aims at, but the satisfying his own, or others interests, passions and revenge against those who least deserve it. All subterfuges, all involved intricacies in answering, all discourses which are not open, candid, and sincere, will be confessions of guilt: He may perhaps hide the weakness of his cause from credulous Women, Tradesmen, or possibly the more unlearned part of our Gentry; but to all considering Readers, his Art of hiding will be his most manifest discovery. Aristotle says, the Sepi● is the wisest of all Fishes, because she conceals herself by casting forth round about her a black humour, which hinders the sight of her. But on the contrary, julius Caesar Scaliger affirms she is of all Fishes the most imprudent, Quia cum se putat latere, prodit seipso latib●lo; for the Fishermen are sure to find her under her inky humour.  
15. And now having finished our Answer to the substance wherein we differ, let us conclude with the Name that distinguishes us: He puts us in mind of the reason why the Lutherans, and from them other Reformerd took the name, 
Page 36.  Protestants, for protesting against the bloody Edict of Worms, Spires, etc. we find little ground why the Reformers in England should borrow that title. Against what Arms or Armies did they ever protest? What Edicts were made against them? We Catholics might rather assume such a title, if it were of any special honour, having seen (and felt too) Edicts of another and far more bloody nature made against us: Nay (thanks to such Sermons) we see at this day Edicts, severe enough, published, and worse preparing, not against Subjects in Arms and actual Rebellion, as the Lutherans were against the Empire, but against such, as the Lawgivers, and Law-perswaders know mean no harm; against such as would be both most watchful & assisting to establish the peace of the Kingdom: Edicts, to draw all the remainder of blood out of our vein●, which have been almost emptied in our Kings and Country's Cause; though our hope is still in the mercy of our gracious Sovereign, and the prudent moderation of those about him.  
16. Yet sanguinary Sermons are greater Persecutions than sanguinary Laws; for Laws may and sometimes are qualified by the equity of Judges, and in particular those against Roman Catholics have often been allayed by the gracious clemency of our Kings. But the uncharitable Sermons, that call for blood, inspire fury into men's hearts, make compassion esteemed unlawful, and the most savage cruelty the best Sacrifices of Religion. The truth is, Pulpits have been the Sources whence so much blood has flowed in this Kingdom, which Sources, if they had been opened by such as Smectymn●us, whose vocation is Rebellion against the Princes, and barbarous inhumanity to all that are not of their fiction, Sustinuissemus utique— and so we shall do still with the help of Grace, by whose hands soever Almighty God presents us this Cup. Quod voluit factum est, & quod fecit bonum est. Sit nomen Domini benedictum. AMEN.  PSAL. 108. 3. & 73. 2. 
Pro co ●t me d●ligerent, detrahebant mihi:  
Ego autem or aham,  
Memento Congregationis tue, quam poss●disti  
AB INITIO.  
FINIS.   

The CONTENTS.  

CHAP. I.  
OF Doctor Pierce's Sermon in general. Sect. 1, 2.  
What was probably the design of it. 3, 4.  
Catholics persecuted, though their best friends. 6, 7.   

CHAP. II. Page 8.  
Eleven Novelties charged on Catholics. 2.  
Schism imputed is them. 3.  
Why necesssary the Sermon should be refuted. 4, 5.  
The Answerers' Protestation of sincerity. 6, 7.   

CHAP. III. Page 13.  
B. Jewels Challenge imitated by the Doctor. 1, 5.  
Primitive Reformers Acknowledgement. 2, 3, 4.  
The Doctor's Notion of Beginning, 6.  
Questions proposed touching that Notion. 8. 9, 10, 11.   

CHAP. IV. Page 29.  
The sum of the Doctor's Discourse against the Pope's Supremacy enervated by himself. 1. 2, 3.  
The Church's Doctrine therein. 4.  
The Text, Mark 10. 42. cleared. 5, 6.   

CHAP. V. Page 36.  
The Doctor obliged to acknowledge submission due to the Pope's Authority, as exercised during the Four General Councils. 1, 2.  
Of the Title of Universal Bishop. 3, 4, 5.  
Not generally admitted at this day. 6, 7.   

CHAP. VI Page 44.  
The absolute necessity of a Supreme Pastor in the Church. 1, 2, 3.  
Supremacy of jurisdiction exercised by Boniface III. his Predecessors. 4, 5, 6, 7.  
The 28. Canon of Chalcedon Illegal. 8.  
Of the second Canon of the Council of Constantinople. Sect. 9, 10.   

CHAP. VII. Page 54.  
The Pope's Supremacy confirmed by a Law of the Emperor Valentinian. 1, 2.  
Decrees of Popes, their Ancient force. 3, 4.  
The Pope's Supreme jurisdiction confirmed by the Eastern Church. 5▪ 6, 7, 8, 9  
Appeals to the See Apostolic decreed at Sardiea; British Bishops present. 11, 12.  
Of the first Council at Arles. 13, 14.  
Sixth Canon of the Nicene Council explained. 15. 16, 17.   

CHAP. VIII. Page 67.  
Proofs of the Pope's Supreme Jurisdiction, before first Council of N●ce. 2, 3, 5.  
How all Apostles and all Bishops equal, and how subordinate. 6, 7.  
St. Peter had more than a Primacy of Order. 8. 9, 10.  
Of St. Paul's resisting St. Peter. 11, 12.  
Objections Answered. 13, 15.  
The Pope's Supremacy not dangerous to States. On the contrary, etc. 18, 20, 22.  
Protestant's writing in favour of it. 25, 26.   

CHAP. IX. Page 89.  
The Church's Infallibility. 2, 3, 4.  
The Necessity thereof. 8, 9  
The Grounds whereon she claims it. 10, 12, 14, 15.—  
Objections Answered. 16, 18.   

CHAP. X. Page 109.  
Prayer for the dead. 3, 4, 5.  
It's Apostolic Antiquity. 6, 7, 9  
Purgatory necessarily supposed in it. 11, 12.  
Objections Answered.   

CHAP. XI. Page 121.  
Transubstantiation. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8.  
justified by Authority of the Fathers. 10.  
Objections Answered Sect. 12, 14, 1●▪   

CHAP XII Page 137.  
Communion under one Species. 2.  
●onfirm●d by the practice of the Primitive Church in private Communions. 3, 4, 5, 6.  
No cause of Separation. 7, 8.   

CHAP. XIII Page 143.  
The Sacrifice of the Mas●. 1.  
Asserted universally by Antiquity. 2, 3, 4.  
The true Doctrine concerning it explained. 5▪ 6, 7.   

CHAP. XIV. Page 151.  
Veneration of Images. 1.  
The Churches Approved practice of it most suitable to reason. 2— 13.   

CHAP. XV. Page 163.  
The Church's prudence in restraining the too free use of Scripture from the unlearned. 2. 4, 5.  
Our late miseries justly ascribed to a defect in such Prudence. 6.  
Of Prayer not in a vulgar Tongue. 7, 8.  
The Causes and Grounds thereof. 9 10.  
That Practice not contrary to St. Paul. 11, 12, 13.   

CHAP. XVI. Page 178.  
Invocation of Saint●. 2▪ 3, 4, 5, 6.  
Proved out of Antiquity. 7, 8, 9, 10.  
Concessions, Deductions, and Objections Answered. ●1. adult.   

CHAP. XVII. page 201.  
Celibacy of Priests. 2, 3, 4.  
Vows of Chastity. 5, 6.  
The Doctrine and Practice of the Church in both. 9, 10.  
Objections Answered. 10, 13, 14, 15,   

CHAP. XVIII. page 219.  
Dovorce, and the several kinds of it. 2. 3— 7. The Practice of the Roman Church manifestly mistaken by the Pr●●cher. 8 to 17.   

CHAP. XIX. page 225.  
Of Schism. Sect. 1.  
The unpardonableness of that o●ime acknowledged by Antiquity. 2, 4, 6.  
No cause or pretence can excuse it. 7, 8.   

CHAP. XX. page 233.  
The Preacher vainly endeav●rs to excuse his Church from Schism. 3, 4, 5. and chapter 21.  
Sect. 15, 16.  
Of the Subordination of Church-governors and Synods. 13  
The unappealable Authority of General Councils acknowledged by Antiquity. 8.  
Of the decisions of later Councils. 9, 10, 11, 12.   

CHAP. XXI. page 249.  
The Fundamental Rule of Church Government. 1, 2  
Limitations of the Authority of General Councils. 5, 6.  
Their Grounds made by A. B. Lawd, Dr. Field, etc. 3, 4.  
Of Points Fundamental and non— 7, 8, 12,  
Protestants allow not so much Authority to General Councils as God commanded to be given the Sa●hedrim. 13, 14.  
Of the pretended Independence of the English Church from the Example of Cyprus. 17.   

CHAP. XXII. page 265.  
Limitations of the Church's Authority, by A. B. Lawd, etc. examined. 1, 2, 3, 4.  
Objections against the proceedings in the Council of Trent answered. 5, 6.  
Manifest Illegality in Q. Eliz. Reformation. 7. 8, 9, 10, 11●  
Secular and carnal ends in it. 12, 13.   

CHAP. XXIII. page 28.  
The Doct●rs Proofs alleged 〈◊〉 justify the  
English Separation, answered. 1, 2.  
1. From the independent Authority of our Kings. 3.  
2. From the Example of Justinian and other Emperor's. 4, 5.  
3. From the practice of fourteen of our Kings. 6.  
4. From the Example of the Kings of Judah. 7, 8.  
In what sense new Article● of Faith are made by the Church in the Council of Trent. 10. 11, 12, 13.   

CHAP. XXIV. page 291.  
Of Causal and For●al Schism: and the vanity of their distinctions. 1, 2.  
Considerations for a clear Examination, on which side the guilt of Schism lies. 3, 4.  
The manifest Innocency of the Roman Church. 5.   

CHAP. XXV. page 298.  
The Doctors desire of Reconcilement, and the Conditions of it. 1, 2, 3.  
The necessary Preparations to it. 4, 5.  
Of the Court and Church of Rome. 6.   

CHAP. XXVI. page 307.  
The Preachers boasting. 1, 2, 3.  
Catholics cannot justly be obliged to show from Antiquity Evidences of their doctrines. 6, 7.  
Conditions necessary to be observed by the Doctor, in case he Reply. 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14.  
Of the name Protestant. 15, 16.   
FINIS.   

ERRATA  
PAge 11. line 15. read wllful 〈◊〉▪ p. 15. 〈…〉