IMPRIMATUR.  
Z. Isham R. P. D. Henrico Episc. Lond. a Sacris, April 6. 1686.   

REMARKS UPON THE REFLECTIONS Of the Author of Popery Misrepresented, etc. ON HIS ANSWERER; Particularly as to the Deposing Doctrine. In a Letter to the AUTHOR of the Reflections. Together with some few Animadversions on the same Author's Vindication of his Reflections.  
LONDON, Printed for Sam. Smith at the Prince's Arms in St. Paul's Churchyard. 1686.   

SIR,  
IT is not any distrust of the Abilities of your former Adversary (which have sufficiently made him known) nor an overweening Opinion of my own undertaking, that hath engaged me in this Controversy, but a design to serve the Interests of Truth, and to assure you, that you have not yet convinced the World, that your Character of your Religion, as you represent it, is so just, and exact, or your Reasonings so cogent, but there is something [perhaps material, and of weight] to be objected to both; and I shall follow the Method, that 
* Refl. p. 1.  you profess to like, to reason as closely, as I can, with all moderation, and calmness, without making any Reflections, but such as cannot be avoided, when I treat of some Subjects, among which, I dare undertake, none shall personally concern you; though you will allow me to tell you, you have not so carefully followed your own prescriptions, when you impeach our 
† Refl. p. 2.  Church in general, reckoning her Books of Homilies among those Books, that have misrepresented Popery; and in particular charge your learned, and modest Adversary with the 
* P. 3, 4, 18.  same crime, and too liberally bestow your Characters on him, charging him 
† Refl. p. 6.  with wronging you, and imposing upon his Reader, with 
* P. 16, 17, 18.  Sophistry, with understanding neither Law, nor Logic, and with being insincere, and using tricks, but probably the Answer hath made you angry, and men in a passion cannot forbear hard Language.  
I do acknowledge, that it is severe dealing to pick up all the extravagant passages in private Authors, and to father them on the whole Church (no Church, of whatever denomination, being without both evil men as to their Morals, and opinionative men as to their Tenets) but withal I must say, that it is one thing to cite Quotations from all sorts of Authors, and another thing to cite Men of Eminence, and Authority in your Church, (and such, whose Station, Learning, and Repute, were as great, as ever the Bishop of Condoms, or Monsieur Veron's, whom yet you rely upon, as you also sometimes quote other men of your Communion to confirm your Opinions) whose Books also have come into the World with Licence, and Privilege, and Commendations of the Authors, and whose Assertions have never been condemned, after they have been published, (and some of them probably Members of that very Trent-Councel, which you stick to for the Articles of your Faith) and in matters of fact, which cannot be foreign to the Controversies between your Church, and ours, there is a necessity of having recourse to such Writers, as I shall be often forced to do in these Remarks.  
And that I may consider every thing methodically, that belongs to this Topick, I cannot but observe your 
* Refl. p. 13, 14.  Reflections on the Opinions of some Eminent men in our Communion, which, say you, we are unwilling to have charged upon our Church. For the first, which you charge on your Antagonist, That, good works of justified persons are not free, I must say, that either I misunderstand your Adversary, or you do misrepresent him; for when 
† Ch. 6. p. 43. Ed. 3.  he says, That, what we pretend to merit by, must be our own free act; (for these are his words, and not as you quote them) citing for it the Authority of the Jesuit Coster's Enchiridion, and adds, That therefore the works of justified persons cannot be said to be their own free acts, because the power of doing them depends upon Divine assistance; and being done by the power of God's grace, which could never have been done without it, cannot be (for that reason) truly meritorious, he is so far from giving an account of the Doctrine of our Church, that he proves from the principles of your own, that, if good works be done only by the Grace of God, and made acceptable only through the merits of Christ, they cannot be truly said to be meritorious, because not the free acts of them, that do them.  
When Mr. Thorndyke allows of prayers for the Dead (though you quote no Book of his for that Assertion) he does no more, than in some sense our Church allows, when it prays for a joyful Resurrection in her Office at Funerals; and whatever the good man might add else of his own, was but his private Opinion (as is also his notion, that the Eucharistical Sacrifice is truly the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross propitiatory, and impetratory, as well as the other, which I take upon your credit, not having the Book by me, out of which you cite the Opinion) however we assert, that Mr. Thornayke never owned Prayers for the Dead, as you do (but in the sense of some of the Ancients) for he denied Purgatory, upon which you ground your Prayers for the Dead, and that our Blessed Saviour is really present in the Sacrament, is the Doctrine and Belief of the Church of England, and did not you limit that Real Presence to Transubstantiation, there would be no difference between you, and us in that point.  
I cannot but observe your disingenuous manner of treating the Author of Jovian, in charging him with a disloyal principle, who hath given as many Instances of his Loyalty, in the most difficult times, as any man of his station; and were there no other, the writing of that excellent Treatise, in that critical juncture, is an undeniable evidence of it, when by defending the Succession, and the Doctrine of Nonresistance, he acquired the ill will, and displeasure of all the disloyal Party. Why did not you, nor any other of the English Roman Catholics, writ then in the defence of those Doctrines, against the disloyal and rebellious Doctrines of Julian?  
The Press was open for you, and perhaps there was reason for your not answering of them, 
* Praefat. Billarm. ante tractat. de potestate summi Pont. adversus G. Barclay.  because the generality of the Writers of your Church agree with that Author in his principles of disloyalty. Well, but you have found out one disloyal principle in Jovian, but are you sure of it? It is not your saying, It is a disloyal principle, that makes it to be so, and therefore I must desire you, and those that perhaps are misled by you, to read the Book from p. 139. to p. 152. out of which you have cited the passage, and then you will find it to be such a disloyal principle, 
Theod. on Rom. 13.1.  as will not allow any Christian subject [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to pray for the death of a Nero, Dioclesian, (though he set up Inscriptions, ob deletum nomen Christianum,) Constantius, or Valens, but only for a Julian, whose Apostasy and Wickedness is fingular in Ecclesiastical History, and the like of whom in all probability can never be expected again.  
Nay Sir, this disloyal principle will not let Christian snbjects pray, for the death of a Julian, though he tyranizes never so much over their bodies, goods and liberties, if he do not blaspheme Christ, and persecute the Church of God, with a diabolical spite, against the evidence of Divine Miracles. It leaves the Christian subjects of all Tyrants, but such as are julian's indeed, under the obligation of praying for them, according to the Apostle's direction, and the practice of the Primitive Christians, which the Author of Jovian hath so much insisted upon, and commended; and his Prince must be a Julian indeed, a Julian in all circumstances, before he can be so much as tempted to pray against him; for he doth not say, that he would pray, but that he should be tempted to pray for the destruction of a Julian indeed. And it had been happy for the Christian world, if the chief Pastors, and Bishops, and Councils, and Doctors, and Casuists, of that which you call the Catholic Church, had never taught any principle more disloyal than this. Now Sir, I beseech you, to tell me, how much disloyalty there is in this principle, which secures all Infidel, Heretical, and Apostate Princes against the Prayers of their Christian subjects, unless they be in all degrees as bad as Julian, and secures even julian's themselves against all resistance? and how much disloyalty there is in a man, who by his principles will pray for all Tyrants, but such an one as Julian was, according to the Author of Jovian? Sir I would to God you, and your Doctors would declare as much Loyalty as this; and I desire you to tell me, that suppose a Roman Catholic Prince should become a Julian indeed, and take up the methods of that Apostate, whether you think his Roman Catholic Subjects would be tempted to pray for his destruction? and if they should do so and no more, do you think they would transgress any rule of Christian Loyalty? Answer me these two questions sincerely and positively; and if your answer to the last, be affirmative, give your arguments for your Opinion, and I dare engage, the Author of Jovian shall submit to your reasons, or answer them.  
For I am confident he hath no fondness for his Opinion, to which it is evident he was led, by his great Charity for the Bishop, and Church of Nazianzum. And though in apologizing for them, he hath asserted, that he should be tempted to pray for the destruction of a Julian indeed, yet he is so Loyal a Person, that I believe he would overcome the temptation, and only forbear praying for him, as having sinned the sin unto death.  
After which Apology you will suffer me to tell you, that your Reflections will hardly be called an answer to the Doctrines, and Practices of the Church of Rome, because in them you have not said a word to some material points of Controversy between you, and us, stated in that Book out of the Trent-Council and Catechism, as if either the right were on your Adversaries side [which, I suppose, you will be loath to acknowledge] or his reasonings were unworthy your second thoughts [which, I suppose, you will not own, and if you do, few wise men will acquiesce in your Sentiments] for you wholly praetermit reflecting upon the Chapters of the Eucharist, of Indulgences, of satisfaction ex condigno, of keeping the Scriptures, and Prayers in an unknown Tongue, of communion in one kind, and of adding the Apocrypha, and traditions to the holy writ, with some others; which, being some of the most material points in difference between your Church, and ours, will either deserve some new thoughts, or you will allow us to say, that that book cannot be thought an answer, which in silence passes by, or leaps over so many weighty things, that make up so much of the Controversy.  
You assure us, 
* Refl. p. 5.  that the Council of Trent is received here, and all the Catholic World over as to its definitions of Faith, though it be not wholly received in some places as to its other decrees, which relate only to discipline. Where I shall not ask, what you mean by the Catholic World, for I am well assured that you mean all Christians of the Roman persuasion, which is a very narrow notion of the Catholic World, excluding all other Christians from being Members of the Catholic Church, but those of your own Opinion; so that neither the Greek Church, nor the rest of the Eastern Christians are in your sense any more Catholics, than the Church of England, and the rest of the Protestants (though anciently any man, or Church of men, were called Catholic, because they agreed with the whole Catholic Church in Faith; but now the holy Catholic Church of Christ must lose its name, if it agree not with the particular Church of Rome) but I would willingly know of you, whence any particular Church hath that power, that it may receive a general Council (as you call that of Trent) in some things, and not in others? I thought, that the highest authority of the Church on Earth had been a general Council, and if so, why its definitions in matters of discipline should not be received and observed by all particular Churches, is to me a great question; for I cannot but see, that one of these two things must follow from your Opinion, either that Councils and Popes are fallible (for if they are deceived in one Opinion, such as that of the power of the Church to depose Princes, why may they not be deceived in another, such as Transubstantiation, or Purgatory?) or else, that they are infallible in greater matters only, and then to me it is a great wonder, that they should err in things of less moment; and I never yet understood, but that if general Councils could decide matters of Doctrine, but that they had also as great a power in matters of discipline (for if it be a lawful preface to the decrees of all Councils, as your men say, Visum est spiritui sancto, & nobis, than the holy spirit is doubtless their guide in matters of discipline, as well as in matters of Doctrine.) I am sure, that the Ancient Councils took upon them to decide both by their authority, and all Christians thought themselves obliged to follow their dictates; so the first general Council of the Apostles bound up all Christians from eating things strangled, and Blood; so the Council of Nice determined the precise day, when Easter should be celebrated, as well as the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father; and so also the second general Council made Constantinople a Patriarchate as well as Rome; to go no further. And I find no persons disputed those constitutions (though only in matters of Discipline, and Government) till the Popes began to assert their Authority in opposition to general Councils.  
And whereas 
* Refl. p. 6.  you say, that your Adversary wrongs you, and imposes upon his Reader, by saying, that you give your private sense, and Opinion only of the Articles of your Religion contrary to the Bull of Pius 4. pleading in your own behalf, that you expound the Canons of the Trent- Council according to the Catechism set forth by the order of the Council, and the Pope, as if both of them allowed of it; I must say, that this cannot be, for the Council never saw the Catechism, and consequently could never approve, that they never saw, unless they also were bound to exercise an implicit Faith; for though they ordered a 
* Sess, 18. & Sess. 25.  Catechism to be published (having observed, how much the Protestants prevailed against their Church by their constant Catechising) they left it wholly to the Pope to see it done, and to give it authority; and this the Author of the Prolegomena to the Paris Edition of that Catechism, An. 1671. fairly acknowledges 
* Proleg. 2. & 3. , affirming, that after the dissolution of the Council, An. 1563. several Fathers were summoned to Rome to make this Catechism, among whom the principal man was S. Barromée (as you call him) Archbishop of Milan; we are also told, that Cardinal Seripandus made the explanation of that Article (one holy Catholic Church) Michael Medina of another, etc. and that after it was finished, it was An. 1566. offered to Pope Pius 5. for his approbation, who committed the examination of it to Cardinal Sirlet, who taking to himself the assistance of other learned men, examined both the matter, and language of it, after which the Pope gave his approbation, and ordered it to be printed by Paulus Manutius, confirming it by his Bulls. And Possevine tells us, that Gregory the 13. made this Catechism the rule, by which he reform the Canon Law; so that if 
Refl. p. 6.  you interpret the Canons of the Council by the Catechism, than the Canons depend upon the Catechism for their meaning, and the sense of the Catechism upon the Pope, who gave it suthority, by which deduction it appears, that your Rengion is still built not on the Council, but on the Pope; and perhaps it was for this reason, that the Italian Bishops in their Synods (as do the Synods of Roven, and Aix in France) call it not the Trent, but the Roman Catechism, for in truth so it is. Against all which I know only this to be objected, that the same men, that made the Canons, made the Catechism (which is hardly true, as to every particular person) but to that I answer, that I believe, you will not aver; that the same men have the same assistances in a Council, and out of it; so that were the assertion true, yet the one being done in Council, had the assistance of the Blessed Spirit (as you hold) to assist the Compilers; which, I presume, you will not say, that the same men had, when out of the Council.  
And if this be so, then does not this make the Pope judge of Controversies of Faith? For, say you, the Church must interpret Scripture, and interpret Articles of Faith declared in Councils, which Church must either be the Church Representative, or the Pope; now to hope for a general Council upon every emergent dispute in matters of Faith, is a vain expectation, and if so, you will do well to show us any other judge in such cases, but the Pope; unless every particular Church must judge for itself, or every private person be his own director, and then, where is the interpretation of the Church Catholic?  
Now if the Pope be the Judge, how know we, but the next Pope may require the belief of the Deposing Doctrine, and expound the passages of former Councils that look that way, as Articles of Faith? what would you do in that case, especially if the generality of the ecclesiastics should sided with him [as they did in the case of the Emperor Henry 4. and of our King John] and in their Synods declare for the Ecclesiastical Monarchy?— and upon this supposition, how know we, but that, although the present Pope hath confirmed the Bishop of Condom's Book, another Pope may condemn his mincing the Articles of Faith? for we do not want Instances of Popes, who have rescinded, not only one another's Acts, and Ordinations, but one another's Decrees, even in what they have called matters of Faith; although I must confess, what is very observable, that though very many Popes have asserted the Ecclesiastical Power over Princes, and their Right of Deposing them, we never read of one of them, that condemned the Doctrine.  
You further say, 
* Refl. p. 7.  that though the Trent Council mention the Aid, and Assistance of the Saints, and Angels over and above their Prayers, yet it means no other Aid, but that of their Prayers, which seem to me not so agreeable to the words of the Council 
† Sess. 25. , which are, That it is good, and useful ad sanctorum orationes, opem, auxiliumque confugere, to fly to their Prayers, Aid, and Assistance. Now I cannot believe, that the Fathers of that Council would have explained a particular act by two more general words, nor when they had mentioned in particular, Prayers, would they, I believe, have afterward inserted in general their Aid, and Assistances, unless the Aid, and Assistances were distinct from their Intercession; and this is agreeable to your allowed Prayers in your Missal, where you beg God, 
* Dec. 6. in fest. S. Nicol.  ut ejus meritis, & precibus, etc. that by the merits, and prayers of St. Nicolas, you may be delivered from the flames of Hell. And again, 
† Jul. 6. Octau. SS. Petri, & Pauli.  That by the merits of St. Peter, and St. Paul, you may attain the glories of Eternity, where the Merits, and Intercessions of the Saints are manifestly distinguished, as they are also in the Trent-Catechism, 
* Part. 3. precept. 1. n. 24.  where in the Margin there is this Note, The Saints help us with their Merits; and in the body of the Catechism these; They always pray for the happiness of men, and God confers many benefits upon us, eorum merito, & gratiâ, for their merits, and sake; and truly, were we assured that the Guardian Angels could hear us, I see no reason why we should scruple any more to pray them to protect us against the Devil, and all other Enemies that may hurt us, than to beg them to intercede for us to God; and this also is agreeable to the Catechism 
† Vbi supr. n. 18. .  
Your next Reflection 
* p. 8.  is about the merit of good works, and yourself, and adversary are agreed, that Can. 32. Sess. 6. of the Council of Trent there is no mention of the qualification of Merit with respect to dependence on God's grace, goodness, and promises; but both in that Canon, and Can. 26. the words are plain, quae ab eo per Dei gratiam (misericordiam) & Jesus Christi meritum, etc. And if so, the Controversy seems to me easily decided; for if it be of grace, how is it then of works? where is the merit?  
Your Answer to the Goliath Argument of your Adversary, as you are pleased to call it, I remit to be considered towards the end of these Remarks, because it ought to be spoken to more largely, and by itself, and proceed to take notice, that 
* Refl. p. 11.  you blame your Adversary for taking the sense of your Church from some expressions in your old Missals, and Rituals, [though I am apt to think, that the Church of England will be contented to be judged by her Liturgy, and Rituals in the like case] but perhaps you are not disgusted at the use of your Missals, but at the use of old Missals; and I am persuaded, that you have reason so to be, because the subtlety of the modern Church hath made itself appear in your present Missals, and Breviaries, as well as in your Edition of the Vulgar Translation of the Bible, and in other Treatises. For instance, in the old Roman Breviary printed at Venice An. 1482. and at Paris An. 1543. Jun. 28. lect. 2. noct. 2. S. Leonis, the words run thus, In eo Concilio damnati sunt Cyrus, & Sergius, Honorius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, etc. in that Synod Cyrus, and Sergius, Honorius, &c, were condemned; but in the new Breviary the name of Honorius is left out, which, had it been left there, would have reflected too much on the Papal Infallibility, and informed the World, that even Popes themselves have fallen into Heresy; while in the same Office they take care to keep up the memory, that that Pope Leo 2. fregit superbiam Ravennatum, brought the Archbishop of Ravenna to acknowledge the Roman Supremacy, which before that time that See did not.  
A second Instance may be this: In all the ancient Missals in Cathedra, S. Petri Antioch, Feb. 22. (as also in the old Diumale printed at Antwerp 1553.) the Prayer is read in these words, Deus qui B. Petro Apostolo collatis clavibus regni coelestis animas ligandi, atque solvendi pontificium dedisti, i. e. O God, who having given thy blessed Apostle St. Peter the Keys of thy heavenly Kingdom, gavest him Episcopal power of binding, and losing Souls; but they have now left out the word Animas, i. e. Souls; for with that limitation the Pope's power was only Priestly to use the Keys in binding, and losing men's Souls, but without that limitation every man is at liberty to believe that St. Peter's Keys may be employed in temporal affairs also, in binding Kings, and setting up a Pontifical Monarchy, to which I shall add one Instance more; that whereas in the Sacramentarium of St. Gregory the Prayer for St. Leo runs thus, Annue nobis, Domine, etc. Grant, O Lord, that this Oblation may be advantageous to the Soul of thy Servant Leo; now the words are altered into, Annue, etc. Grant, Lord, that by the intercession of thy Servant Leo, this Oblation may be profitable to us; the first being an Instance of the Ancients Prayers for the Dead, for Saints, as well as others; the latter an endeavour to countenance Prayers to Saints by asserting their intercession.  
And whereas to requite us for quoting your Missals 
* Ibid. , you object to us all the expressions of Prayer, Preaching, and Devotion in our Church, the parallel doth not hold, unless you mean our authorised Liturgy, in whose collects we are ready to vindicate, whatever is asserted. Nor is it fair to say, that an Atheist may make himself sport with Scripture, if he may be allowed to separate an infinite number of expressions there, i. e. as I understand you, to make use of broken sentences (for if an Atheist uses Scripture in the sense, to which the coherence leads him, he can never make Christianity ridiculous, much less as ridiculous as Turcism) and for the passages quoted out of your Missals, they are quoted in the sense, in which they are meant, and if you deny this, you may right yourself by showing the contrary.  
Nor do you do well with the Church of England to say, 
* Refl. p. 11.  she allows the Psalms in Meeter. I dare be confident to aver, that the Singing Psalms (as they are usally called) were never commanded by our Church to be used, and are no part of our service, as our Rubric's will inform you, where there is not the  mention of them; though we acknowledge, the custom was brought in through the connivance of our Governors, who at that time were intent upon matters of greater moment; nor do we say, that the sense of the Church will help out the nonsense, or ill expressions of any of those Rhymes (which is a subtle insinuation) but withal we say, that since custom hath brought in the use, no Priest of our Communion, that I know of, is so weak (I am sure, no one ought to be so) but he knows how to choose out of that great number some few Psalms, that are pertinently enough translated, and incentive of Devotion, by singing of which neither God is dishonoured, nor the Congregation engaged to any thing, that is either evil, or ridiculous; which Apology cannot be made for any of your Missals, which your Priests were obliged to use without any power left them to choose what Collects, or Antiphona's, &c. they pleased.  
And now you will allow me to smile, when 
† Refl. p. 12.  you say, that if we conclude a Papist guilty of Idolatry, because he bows down, knelt, etc. to an Image, we may as well say, that Abigail was guilty of constructive Idolatry, when she fell on her face before David, and so are Subjects, when they kneel to their Prince, and the Lincolns-Inn-Field Beggars, when they kneel for an Alms to those, who pass by. For these instances do not reach the case, that we are talking of; for if Abigail should have kneeled before the Picture of David, or a Subject before the Picture of his Prince, or a Beggar before a Gentleman's Picture, and begged with earnestness, and seeming devotion any blessing, there is no sober man, but would believe, that they were either very mad, or very foolish; but if they thought them sober, and in their right sense, (as we do believe your people at Church to be) they cannot be acquitted of Idolatry, if so be the honour be Religious (as you acknowledge, your veneration of Images is more than civil honour) so that by these instances you seem to run into the error of those 
* Alens. Aq. Bonav. etc. apud Bellar. to. 2. lib. 2. c 20. § 2. Opinio.  Schoolmen, that the same honour (let it be Latria, hyperdulia, or dulias) is due to the Image, that is, due to the person represented; and if any Law be to be judged of by the common practice (as the Maxim faith, Lex currit cum praxi) this is very plain from the usages of the generality of people in your Church. And I am sure, (to confirm this your way of arguing) that I have somewhere read (though I cannot now readily light on the place) that Scribanius affirms, that Adoration of Saints, and Images is very lawful, because Abraham bowed down to the Children of Heth, Gen. 23.7. Surrexit Abraham, & adoravit populum terrae, filios, viz. Heth. As it is in the Vulgar Latin. And if I must not judge of any man's Idolatry by his outward actions (which is your exception) than I can never know any man to be an Idolater; for a Heathen may fall down before one of his Idols, and call upon it for help, and yet say, that his intention is just, and that he only meant thereby to worship the True God, which is the excuse made by the men of your Church.  
After this, 
* Refl. p. 16.  you compare the Power of the Pope to that of Civil Powers, as to the Obedience due to them from their Subjects; but, pray deal candidly, Do you believe the Pope to have no more Authority in commanding Obedience, than Civil Powers have? Doubtless you do believe him to have more Authority, or else, why do so many of your Church refuse to take the Oath of Allegiance, which yet you 
† Cath. princ. sect. 2. § 4. p. 3.  allow to be a lawful Oath? for you say, they refuse it, not for any unlawfulness in the Oath, but because the Doctrine of Deposing Princes is therein called Heretical, which they cannot allow of, as the word is understood in a Catholic sense (where you will allow me to observe, that for the true notion of Heresy, you depend on the Pope's Breve, and so allow the Pope to be a Judge in matters of Faith; for Heresy is contrary to the Faith, and consequently the Deposing Power, which the Pope hath determined, is a matter of Faith) and why do they follow the Papal Dictates in those things, wherein by the Laws of God, and Nations they are bound to submit to their Superiors?  
Here also I observe, that when 
* Popery misrepresented, p. 46.  you Treat of the Pope's Power, you give yourself a great latitude, when you say, That you never scruple to receive his Decrees, and Definitions, such as are issued forth by his Authority, with all their due Circumstances, and according to Law; but never tell us, what those Circumstances are (as your Adversary well remarks) which puts me in mind of somewhat, which your 
* Tanner disp. 1. the fid. q. 4. dub. 6. n. 263. Compton. in 22. does 22. § 5.  Authors... say concerning the Bull of Sixtus 5. prefixed to his Edition of the Vulgar Translation, which was afterward recalled by Clement 8. That it was true the Bull was printed with the Bible, but that it was not affixed to the Gates of St. Peter 's Church, and in the Campo fiore so long, as it ought to have been according to the Laws of the Romish Chancery, as if such little things as those made Ecclesiastical Decrees more, or less valid.  
And now to show you, that your Answerer did not show his Learnlng in discovering, that the Popes have dispensed only with positive Institutions, but not with the Moral Law, with Lying, and Forswearing, (as if he sought a knot in a Bulrush, and took Sanctuary in a Mystery, as you term it, by talking only in general terms) what think you of the many Dispensations, that have been given by former Popes to the Subjects of this, and other Kingdoms, to break their Oaths of Allegiance, and Duty to their Sovereigns? (the relation between Princes, and their Subjects, being not grounded on their being Christians, but on the Obligation of Civil Society, so that a dispensing with the Oath of Allegiance, is a dispensing with a Duty of Natural Religion, which binds Subjects to obey their Superiors.) For either Subjection to Princes is a Duty of the Fifth Commandment, (as we reckon them) Honour thy Father, and Mother, etc. or it is not; if it be not, you will do well to assert it, and we shall take care to prove it to be a Duty of that Commandment, not only from the Authority of the Ancients, and from Reason, but from the Authority of your own Catechism, which 
† Part. 3. praec. 4. § 3. & 11.2. § 17, 18.  says, That all persons, who are possessors of power, or dignity, are included under the term Parents, which is afterward explained by those, who have Empire, Magistracy, or power committed to them, who govern the Commonwealth. But if to obey Princes be a duty of that Commandment, then to dispense with that duty, is to dispense with a Moral Law, and to dispense with Oaths, that bind to that duty, is to give men a dispensation to be perjured, and to forswear themselves. And because you tell us 
* Pap. repraesent. p. 47, 48. , That the Papist is taught in all Books, that to Lie is a sin, and to call God to witness to an untruth, is damnable, and that the practices of your Church are according to those prescriptions, and that neither the Sacrament, nor an Oath of Secrecy can excuse any man from perjury; nor did you ever hear of any such thing from any Priests in Sermons, or Confessions, never read of them in your Books, or Catechisms, nor saw the practice of any of them in any of your Communion;) in which words there is some Art used; for, do you believe, that any Priest of your Communion may reveal what he hears in confession against the Laws of your Church, which bind him to Secrecy sub sigillo? and when you tell us, You never read of any such thing either in Books, or Catechisms, you mean, I suppose, Books of Devotion; for in other Books, you may undoubtedly read such Doctrines, or else why should the Pope condemn them? And when you say, You never saw any such thing, I hope you mean, it never fell within the reach of your particular observation; but if you read the account of Mr. Garnet, and his accomplices, you will find, that they took the Sacrament as an Oath of Secrecy, to carry on that Hellish design.) And withal subjoin, 
* Ib. p. 66.  That the present Pope hath condemned all Equivocations, and Mental Reservations under the penalty of Excommunication latae sententiae by his Decree March 2. 1679. We do still aver, that your Church hath given dispensations for Lying, and Forswearing, and we know not, but it may be done for the future. For, not to instance in the Jesuit Moralists 
† Filiut. to. 2. tr. 25. n. 325. Sanches oper. moral. l. 3. c. 10. n. 7. & 8. , Filiutius, Sanches, etc. their averring, That if a man promises any thing, and swears to it, yet if he do not intent it, he may without sin break that promise, and that Oath; so that the intention of the Swearer among these Casuists, makes the Oath valid, as the intention of the Priest makes the Sacrament. Some other of the same Order, have given dispensations for the breach of the Moral Law 
* Theol. mor. to. 1. l. 7 c. 20. n. 281, etc. ; Escobar says positively, virtute bullae potest votum non peccandi mutari, i. e. that a man may break his Vow of not sinning by virtue of a Bull, and he instances in the committing of Fornication; he 
† Tr. 7. ex. 4. n. 118.  also says, That a man may Lie even to his Confessor, that a man may promise a general Confession, and yet not confess all his mortal sins, quia quamvis mentiatur, id tamen parum refert ad Confessarii judicium, i. e. for though he Lie, yet that hath little or no relation to the Judgement of his Confessor.  
Now to these proofs probably you will object, that this is not the Opinion of the Church, but of private men; to which I answer, that had it not been the Opinion of your Church, when those Books were written, such men would never have been allowed to be Confessors (which no man can be unless by the allowance of the Pope, the Bishop of the Diocese, etc.) though it is well known, that the Jesuits than were, and still are as Eminent for being Confessors, as any other Order in your Communion, and perhaps more, and this notwithstanding their owning these damnable Doctrines, as both you, and I agree to call them. Nor is it enough to say, that the Book of Escobar, after having been 39 times printed for an excellent Book (which is an argument, it was much bought, and much valued) was the 40th time printed only to be censured, and condemned by the French Bishops (which the poor Jansenists looked upon to have been a condemnation both of the Author, and his Opinions, whereas they found at last to their cost, that themselves were censured at Rome, as the criminals) nor that the present Pope (being more wise, and moderate than some of his Predecessors) hath condemned those Doctrines (which vindicates us, that we have not unjustly charged the men of your Church with such Doctrines) among which propositions if you consult the 26 and 27, it is asserted, That a man may either, being asked, or of his own accord say, and swear, that he did not do a thing, which he really did, and yet by virtue of a secret meaning, be neither a liar, nor perjured. And that this he may do, as often as it is necessary, or profitable to save his Body, Honour, or Estate, or for any other good end. For this is to acknowledge, that your Church for a long time heretofore connived at, or allowed of the breach of plain moral commandments, since the man in authority, that doth not prohibit the sin, that he may hinder, seems to enjoin it. I also observe, 1. That according to your Opinion, whatever the Pope, and Cardinals, or other Bishops do either allow, or condemn, is not binding as to the Faith, since the infallibility is lodged no where, but in a general Council. 2. If we look into the Censure, there is nothing relating to the breach of Oaths given to Princes, which is the highest trust in temporal matters, and withal, that the propositions are not condemned as contrary to the Laws of God, and Nature, as assertions, that promote impiety, and injustice; but ut minimum tanquam scandalosas, & praxi perniciosas, [which is the manner of expression that Alexander 7. makes use of in his censure, An. 1665.] as at least scandalous, and pernicious to practice, and therefore to be condemned, which whether this doth not look like a trick, and juggle (because you have encouraged me to use the word) you yourself shall be the judge; for notwithstanding this censure, whenever the scandal ceases (which no one knows, how soon that may be) and they are judged no longer pernicious, the propositions may be again owned, and maintained. 3. It is moreover observable, that whereas former Popes have allowed these Tenants, and Practices without condemning them, who knows, but the Successors of the present Pope may, when they please, licence anew the propositions, which are now condemned? 4. That some such thing hath been formerly done, your 
* Ch. 26. m. p. 90.  Adversary hath given you an instance, which you did not think fit to meddle with, nor to reflect upon, out of Archbishop Abbot's 
† P. 11.  Preface to his six Lectures, where you will find, that Pius 5. the same Pope, who authorised the Trent-Catechism, gave his resolution to some of the English Missionaries, that whenever any of them were called before a judge in England, he might either refuse the Oath, or Swear, and answer sophistically; potest Catholicus tractus coram haereticis vel recusare juramentum (quod est prudentius) vel sophisticè jurare, & sophisticè respondere suis interrogationibus. And if you look into the Book called Foxes, and Firebrands, you will see there, that Heath the Jesuit had a Bull with him dated An. 1. of the same Pius 5. allowing him to preach what Doctrine the Society of the Jesuits should order him for the dividing of the Protestants, and not to instance in the dispensation given by Eugenius 4. and his Legate Card. Julian to Ladislaus King of Hungary to break his League with the Grand Signior, for which he was so severely punished in the unfortunate Battle of Varna, and some other such examples, the Examination of Mr. Garnet is a very plain proof of this our assertion; for though some men call these little arts equivocation, and mental reservation, as if they were small, or no sins, yet you fairly, and honestly condemn both alike, and I know few wise, and good men, but look upon both as alike sinful, and perhaps the equivocation the more so, because the design is more cunningly laid to deceive.  
And now I am talking of the Jesuits, I think fit to mind you, that whereas you seem to say, 
* Pap. misrepre. p. 69, 70.  that it is a scandal upon your Church to affirm, that 'tis more lawful to be drunk on a Fasting day, than to eat flesh, I have met with a Casuist 
† Escobar. tr. 1. ex. 13. n. 74, 75.  of your commumunion, who will not allow a man to eat Flesh on a Fasting day, but as to drink gives great indulgence, when he says, that a man may drink Wine even in great quantity, and if he happen to be drunk, immoderatio potest temperantiam violare, sed non jejunium He may transgress the Laws of Temperance, but he does not transgress the Laws of Fasting.  
After this I will not decide the controversy between your Adversary, and yourself, whether the story of S. Perpetua's Vision be seriously related, or drolled on (who pay a great veneration to all Ancient writings, and can hardly think, that a Martyr in view of an Eternal Crown of happiness would indulge to any thing, that is light, or deserves to be exposed) but I have some things to say relating to that Vision. As, 1. That it is very probably believed by most learned men, that SS. Perpetua, and Faelicitas were Montanists, among whom there were many visions, which the rest of the World gave no credit to; but this I shall not dispute. But, 2. I aver, that it is very disputable both from the vision itself, and from the quotations in St. Austin, whether Dinocrates were baptised, or no. I know, your 
† Chap. 23. p. 84.  Adversary says, he was baptised, and St. Austin would fain have it so, but there is no convincing proof, that he was so; and the silence of the Writer of that Passion seems to imply, that he was not so. Now than I urge you with this Dilemma, either Dinocrates was baptised, or not; if he were not baptised, (as it is very probable, because his Father was a very violent Heathen, and so in all likelihood would not suffer his Son, being so young, to be baptised) than you have nothing to do with him in Purgatory; for, though you have allotted an apartment there for the unbaptiz'd Children of Christian Parents, yet you allow no place there to the unbaptiz'd Children of Heathen Parents, who with their Pagan Progenitors are condemned to Hell; unless we must reckon this story with those other of St. Thecla's bringing the Soul of Falconilla out of Hell, or St. Gregory's praying thence the Emperor Trajan, which later story the 
* 〈◊〉 Munster. praef. ad Evang. S. Matth. Heb. p. 103/4  Jews, who themselves allow of a sort of Purgatory, make sport of; but if he he were baptised, (as I profess, I cannot believe, though St. Austin says so) than it seems very hard, that a Child of seven years old, (when few Children are capable of understanding enough to choose to be wicked) should be sent to Purgatory for sins, which he knew not of; for if that be true, which St. Austin says, that his Father probably carried him to the Heathen Temples, as we will suppose it to be, this was the Father's sin, and not the Child's, and so I cannot see, why Dinocrates should be punished.  
And to confirm my conjecture, that he was not baptised, I am apt to think, that in the Vision the Water, 
* Pass. s. Perp p. 15. Ed. Oxon.  which Perpetua saw her Brother endeavouring to drink of, but could not come at, was an Emblem of the Waters of Baptism, which he seemed to endeavour after, and at last Perpetua herself says 
* Io. p. 5. , that she herself was a Catechumen, when she was apprehended, and that at that time she had two Brethren both Catechumen; now if we reckon Dinocrates for one of those two Brethren of hers, or allow him to be dead some time before, (as I rather conjecture) I am strongly inclined to believe, that while the Father was an obstinate Pagan, the Sister, and the other Brother's only Catechumen, that this younger Son, who was but seven years old when he died, was not baptised, before he went out of the World; now if he were not baptised, the Fathers tell you, there was no hopes of Salvation for him; for to omit St. Austin, and the African Fathers, I will only instance in two remarkable passages, the one for the Western Church out of 
* De Dog. Eccl. c. 74.  Gennadius, Nullum Catechumenum, etc. That no Catechumen, though he die in a state of good works (which is more than St. Austin says of Dinocrates, for he accuses him of Idolatry) can attain to Eternal life, unless he be a Martyr. And for the Eastern Church out of St. Chrysostom 
† To. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ep. ad Phi. p. 20. , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Mourn over those, who leave the world without Baptism; they deserve your sighs, and lamentations; they are out of the Kingdom of God among the unrighteous, and the condemned.  
And now if all your former Arguments will not make us Converts, you tell us, 
* Refl. p. ult.  that if a man assent to these Articles, as you have stated them, he shall have admittance into your Church, and probably so, for we know, you deal very gently with your new Converts, till you have secured them; but who knows how much further he must go, when he is under new Oaths of Obedience to that Church, who makes her unwritten Traditions (which no man knows, till she reveals them) to be as much the Rule of Faith and Manners, as the Holy Scriptures, and consequently binds all her followers to an Implicit Faith to believe, whatever she shall reveal? And I remember, that Mr. Cambden 
* Annal. an. 1560.  records a report, that once there were more easy terms of Reconciliation proposed by the Pope's Nuncio, viz. the allowance of the Sacrament in both kinds, and the confirmation of the English Lyturgy, and probably many other things, so the Papal Supremacy were acknowledged; but we are very well satisfied, that St. Peter had no more Authority, than the rest of the Apostles, and that every Bishop by Divine Right, is a Successor of the Apostles, and consequently hath equal power in the Church of Christ; that the making more Sacraments, than we are sure Christ instituted, is an encroachment upon his Right, (and that the establishment of your five additional Sacraments, is such an encroachment) that the Jewish Canon of the Old Testament (the Jews, till our blessed Saviour's time, being the only True Church of God) with the uncontroverted Books of the New, are the only divinely inspired Oracles, and a sufficient Rule of Faith, and Manners, without the help of the Apocrypha, or of unwritten Traditions: that General Councils are not infallible, much less the Pope, either singly, or with the College of Cardinals; that giving the Communion in one kind, is robbing the people of what our Saviour gave them a right to; and that Prayers in an unknown Tongue are a contradiction to St. Paul; with many other such points, which it is now needless to mention, for which reason the Members of the Church of England think fit to continue, where they are, where they enjoy all the forementioned blessings, with many others, which must necessarily be forfeited, when they embrace the Romish Communion.  
Thus have I curforily taken notice of your Reflections in whatever material points, you have thought fit to speak to, except that very weighty, and most material point of the power of Deposing Princes, the thorough consideration of which, was the first cause of my present undertaking. Now you encounter your Adversaries Golath-Argument (as you seen in scorn to call it, as Card. Bellarmine in the preface to his Answer to Barclay says, that writing in defence of Princes, Barclay came out like Goliath, to defy all the Armies of Israel) with this distinction 
* Refl. p. 9 , that in all Councils there are some Articles of Faith, which all Catholics receive, and some Constitutions, and Decrees relating to Discipline, and Government, which are not absolutely obligatory, (so that I perceive, that in some sort, and upon some considerations, those other Constitutions, and Decrees relating to Discipline, and Government, are obligatory, i. e. upon condition, though not absolutely) and withal, you tell us as freely, that if the Deposing Doctrine had been as evidently declared in former Councils, as ever Purgatory, or Transubstantiation were in that of Trent, yet with you it should be no Article of Faith. Which way of arguing (though it be very generous) seems to me to destroy your distinction of matters of Faith, and matters of Discipline; for if the Lateran Council had defined the Deposing Doctrine as a matter of Faith, and required the belief of it under the penalty of an Anathema, as the Trent-Council did Purgatory, and Transubstantiation, then either you must have believed, as the Council required, or else in matters of Faith defined by a general Council a man may think himself not bound to believe them; and if so, I see no other reason, why any other man may not as well refuse to believe Purgatory, and Transubstantiation upon your own principles. But if we allow of your distinction in your own sense, I suppose, you will hardly allow another man to make the like deductions, and think himself at Liberty to follow his own dictates; for, if so, than the half communion, Priests Marriages, Prayers in Latin, the Pope's Supremacy, and many other such points being matters of Discipline, every man by parity of reason may give himself a dispensation to believe contrary to the definitions of Councils, if you allow yourself a liberty to believe the Princes cannot be deposed, though it were defined as matter of Faith in a general Council. And it is remarkable, that for the better understanding of this distinction you recommend 
* Refl. p. 10.  Card. Bellarmine to us, who, I am sure, makes the Pope's personal infallibility, his superiority to a general Council, and his power of deposing Princes matters of Faith,  
But to allow of your distinction between matters of Doctrine, and matters of Discipline, and that in matters of Faith from the definitions of a general Council, no man ought to vary, but in matters of Discipline, though defined by the same Cooncil, a man is left at liberty; pray, tell me seriously, is every man left at liberty, or some men only? If every man, than the assertors of the Deposing Doctrine have as much right on their side, as you have, (for the private spirit is not to be your guide in your Church any more, than in ours, and the assertors of that deposing power have Councils on their side, and Popes, and many private Doctors) and if you tell me, that you are not to follow your own prudence, but the Doctors of the Church, where you live, in what a general Council hath not decided as matters of Faith, than you must change Opinions with the climate, you live in (as Pere Cotton said of himself, that in France he believed a general Council to be above the Pope, but in Italy, that the Pope was above a general Council) for if you inquire in France, whence, I suppose, you have your principles, as well as your arguments, they will tell you now, that the Pope hath no superiority over Kings, and that they have condemned Sanctarellus his book, and burned Mariana's; but if you inquire in the Neighbouring Countries, they will tell you the contrary; it is well known, what the belief of Italy is in this point; and for Spain, the Inquisition at Toledo, Jan 10. 1683. condemned the late censure of the Sorbon; and in the Low-countries D'Enghien a Professor of Louvaine hath written in defence of the Pope's power over Princes against Natalis Alexander, and positively averrs, that the French Opinion is either Heresy, or next to Heresy, and that more Authors in your Church assert, than deny the Deposing Doctrine (the present Pope urging that, and several other Universities to censure the Decrees of the French Assembly, 
V d'Engbien. p. 549. etc. & Jucieu. Calvinisme, & Papism mis en parallel. to. 2. part. 3. ch. 3.  An. 1682. Among whom it is observable, that the University of Douai prayed the King of France, their new Master, to whom they were lately made Subjects) that he would not force them to change their Doctrine, lest they should be accused of taking up a new Theology with a new Sovereign) and if you go into Hungary, the Clergy there also condemned the Doctrine of the French Bishops as erroneous, and schismatical Oct. 24. 1682. and when the Archbishop of Gran, the Primate of lower Hungary wrote against the Propositions of the said French Assembly, an order was given to the Sorbon to censure the Archbishop's Book, which they refused to do, but upon this condition, that they might be allowed to condemn the propositions, as if extracted out of some other Author, which looks like a fine fetch of Sophistry. And now, 
† Pap. misrep. p. 50.  Where is three times the number, who disown this Doctrine of deposing to them, that own it, as you say? Whereas, besides what hath been above mentioned, the Author of the first Treatise against the Oath of Allegiance, p. 13. says, that the Deposing Doctrine hath been the common received Doctrine of all School-divines, Casuists, and Canonists, from first to last (afore Calvin's time) in the several Nations of Christendom, yea even in France itself, and even there of those French Divines, that were most eager for their Temporal Princes against the Pope, as Occam, Almain, Joh. Parisiensis, Gerson, etc.  
And is it not an argument of the great care, which your Church hath taken of the Persons and Interests of Princes (which are sacred) that every Writer of your Church, whether Priest, or Layman, shall have liberty freely to publish his thoughts about the rights of Sovereigns, and whether their Subjects, or the Pope may depose them? As if the Doctrine of Obedience to Superiors were such a slight indifferent thing, that a man may with safety to his Religion, and Conscience believe, either that the Pope may, or may not absolve Subjects from their Obedience. A wise man would think, that there were a greater necessity to define such a point (upon which the safety of Kings, and their Kingdoms depends) than to define the precise manner of our blessed Saviour's presence in the Sacrament, which had it never been defined (while all Christians acknowledge him to be there) might have been the occasion of much peace and happiness to Chistendom. And if you plead, that some men among us have asserted the Deposing Doctrine, to this your 
* Ch. 20. p. 75.  Adversary hath given you a full answer. For until you can show, that our Archbishops, Bishops, and inferior Clergy in Convocation have owned any such Doctrine, or countenanced such men in asserting it, you say nothing to the purpose; for we damn the Doctrine, by whomsoever vented, and our superiors are ready to censure the assertors of it, if they durst appear openly. Nor is it enough to say, that this hath been done by the French Clergy, which is equivalent to an act of our Convocation; for the agreement will not hold, because the dispute is not between the English, and the French Church, but between the Church of England, and the Roman-Catholick Church in this point; now we aver, that the whole Church of England damns, and disowns the Doctrine of Deposing; but you tell us, that only a part of your Catholic Church doth so too, whereas a far greater part own, and defend it; we assert, that it is Heresy to own the Doctrine, but you dare not give it that name, lest you offend his Holiness.  
Nay, it is plain from experience, that so far are the Pope, and the great men of your Church from condemning the Deposing Doctrine, that those few men among you, that have been so just, and stout, as to assert the rights of Princes, have fallen under the Church Censures, of which I need quote no more instances, than Widdrington of old, and F. Barnes (if he be yet alive) and F. Welsh at this present Excommunicate for affirming it to be the Duty of Subjects to Swear Allegiance to their Prince, and to defend him even against the Pope himself, and all his Censures; whereas we daily see the assertors of the Deposing Doctrine not only live, and die in your Communion without Censure, but to be the most thriving men, and the soon preferred to dignities. So very true is that saying of 
* Ostens'. err. Suares. c. 3. n. 1. p. 918. ad cali. to. 2. the rep. Eccl.  Marcus Aut. de Dominis Archbishop of Spalleto, that the Pope, and his followers are not pleased with any thing so much, as with the rendering the power of Kings, vile, weak, and contemptible, to which I will add, and the exposing all, who defend it.  
And to convince you, that you yourself have not that venerable Opinion of the Majesty of Princes, and the Duty, which their Subjects own them, as you ought, I cannot but observe, that you not only tell us, 
* Pap. repres. p. 50.  that it is a disputed point among your Doctors (as if it were one of those School-points, which you mention p. 72. which may be maintained this way, or that way, without any breach of Faith, or injury to Religion) but withal, that whereas upon every other head of Doctrine, or Discipline, that you represent, you are frequent in quotations out of holy Scripture to prove your assertions (how pertinently applied, your Adversary hath considered) upon this head of the deposing power (as also when you treat of it more largely than of any other thing in your 
* Sect. 2. § 4. p. 3.  Roman Catholic principles, if that Book be yours) you quote not one text against Rebellion, you confess, that Rebellion against a Prince is contrary to the Fundamental Laws of the Nation, injurious to Sovereign power, destructive to peace, and Government, and by consequence in his Majesty's Subjects impious, and damnable (where I shall not take notice of your limitation of the proposition to his Majesty's Subjects, which hath no relation at all to the question, whether the Subjects of an Heretical Prince, as you account him, may not take up Arms against him) but why do not you speak out, and say it is directly impious and damnable? (if you will not say, it is Heretical) being against an express Law of God, that binds you to obey (even a Nero, or a Dioclesian) 
* Rom. 13.5.  not only for wrath, but for conscience sake; that tells you, that 
† 1 Sam. 26.9.  no man (upon any pretence whatsoever) can lift up his hand against the Lords anointed, and be guiltless. For by your way of arguing, if the Fundamental Laws of a Nation may be secured by such a Rebellion (and you know, the pretence of all Rebels is Liberty, and Property) and the Government duly settled, peace promoted, and the Sovereign power, i. e. the Monarchy not injured, though a particular Monarch may be (and yet your Deposing Divines say, that it is no injury to an Heretical Prince to depose him, but a just Execution of the Laws) than a Rebellion may be lawful. But upon the principles of the Church of England, if all these things could be secured, yet no man can be a Rebel, but he must be damned, because the Laws of God forbidden Rebellion, taking up Arms against a Prince, or endeavouring to depose him; for as long as the word of God stands firm, and the  texts, with many others, are not blotted out of our Bibles, we think it directly damnable (and not only by consequence, as you do) to take Arms against our Sovereign, let his Religion be what it will.  
So that, upon the whole, I cannot but ask you, while you have endeavoured to prove Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, etc. from both Scripture, and Fathers, how happens it, that in the defence of the Rights of Princes, you quote neither? especially, when you cannot but remember, that the Assertors of the Pope's Temporal Monarchy, and his power over Princes, are frequent in their doughty arguments from holy Scripture, such as, God made two great Lights; behold, here, are two Swords; Feed my sheep; rise, Peter, kill, and eat, etc. and is there no place to be found in all the sacred Oracles, that forbids Rebellion, and requires Obedience? does not that inspired Book enjoin all Christians 
* Mat. 22.21. , to render to Caesar the things, that are Caesar 's, and 
† 1 Pet. 2.13.  to submit to every ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake; and if you are a Priest, are you not required to teach others so to do 
* Titus 3.1. ? to put them in mind to be subject to principalities, and powers, to obey Magistrates, and to be ready to every good work? Is there also nothing in the Fathers, that looks this way? doth not Tertullian say, that a Prince is inferior only to God? doth not Irenaeus aver, that by the same power that men are made, are Princes constituted? Doth not Origen tell Celsus, that among the Christians he should not find any act of sedition, or tumult, (notwithstanding all their pressures, and persecutions) and doth not St. Ambrose say to the Emperor, we entreat thee, O Prince, we do not fight? not to multiply quotations.  
And, before I leave this head, I cannot but remark, that whereas the 
* Part. 3. praecep. 4. § 11.  Trent Catechism allows, that Emperors, and Magistrates are called Fathers, and so are included in the Commandment, (Honour thy Father, etc.) which is more, than you acknowledge; yet they quote no place of Scripture to make this good, but the History of Naaman, (sic Naaman à famulis pater vocabatur) where his Servants call him Father, which does not look like fair dealing, for the Example does not reach the Doctrine, unless the Fathers of that Council prevaricate, Naaman being a Subject to the King of Syria, whereas they might have found without much seeking, that 
* 1 Sam. 24.11.  David calls Saul, my Father, who was his King; and in truth, the title was so proper to Princes, that the Kings of the Philistim were always called Abimelech, i.e. my Father the King by a general name, whatever their proper name was. Now I am loath to judge, that those Fathers made use of an instance of a Subject called Father by his Servants, that the Example might limit the Doctrine to subjection to inferior Magistrates, when, had they inserted the Example of David, it would plainly have proved the Obedience of Subjects to Sovereign Princes.  
And whereas the Fathers of the same Council, who were concerned in the Catechism, use to quote such places of the Ancients, as they thought pertinent to the Subject treated of, they having 
* Ibid. § 17.  quoted Rom. 13.1. to prove that men ought to be obedient to the Higher Powers, confirm the Doctrine only by the testimony of Tertullian, (who it is true, speaks plain, and to the purpose) omitting St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and others on the place, who have told the World, that by every Soul, in St. Paul, are meant Priests, and Bishops, as well as Laymen, nay the Pope himself, as says St. Bernard; but this probably would have unriddled the Mystery, and exposed a Doctrine, which they were not willing to disown; the Catechism, like the Canons, leaving every man, in many such things, a great latitude; so that in short, I desire you to answer this Question; Either Rebellion is against a Moral Law, or not; if it be, than the Pope cannot dispense with it, and then, how happens it, that so many things of lesser moment were decided in the Trent Council, while this was forgotten, or passed by? If it be not against a Moral Law, then by your own principles, the Pope may dispense with it, and what then becomes of all Obedience, when another Gregory 7. or Sixtus 5. shall fill the Chair? And though the Council would not condemn the Deposing Doctrine, yet why had not the Authors of the Index Expurgatorius censured such dangerous Books? for if we may judge of the sense of the Trent Council by its Catechism, (though made after the Council broke up) why may we not judge of its sense by the Index, which was ordered to be made at the same time, etc. by the same men, who composed the Catechism? In which Index more than a few passages are expunged, that interfere with the Papal Grandeur, but not one poor sentence condemned, that is destructive to the Rights of Princes.  
Here also, pray, suffer me to mind you of a bold assertion of a private man, as you are, and which, I am sure, as things are now, you cannot accomplish 
* Introd. p. 11. , for you undertake, that all Roman Catholic Nations in the World shall subscribe to the condemnation of all such principles, and practices (i. e. in your own words, of such principles as destroy the peace of Nations with Fires, and Massacres, and rob Sovereigns of their Crowns, and Subjects of their Liberties) for I am sure, there was a time, when all roman-catholics were not of that mind, when the League was rampant against Henry 3. and 4. of France, in which one of them actually fell, and by the principles of which the other also was murdered; (not to mention, what the Emperors Henry 4. and 5. and our King John suffered) and when the Parisian, and Irish Massacres were sufficient proofs to the contrary. Nor is it possible, even now, to make good your promise, since I have told you already, what the belief of the Spanish, netherlands, and Hungarian Churches are in this point, besides what the Italians hold.  
Now against all this Doctrine you have nothing to object, but that this Doctrine hath been condemned 
* Pap. misrepr. p. 51.  in France by the ecclesiastics there, and by the Universities of Caen, Rheims, Poitiers, etc. all which Universities are within the one Kingdom of France, so that (though there be no need of considering the Argument, because it is only the sentiment of one National Church against the rest of what you call Catholic Christendom) if I make it appear, that the French Church hath not always been of this belief, and perhaps is not so now, then all, that you say upon that Topick, will be far from proving your assertion; while withal I profess, that if what I am about to say doth not reach so far as a conviction, and be only a well-meant Essay, yet the cause, which I maintain ought not to be prejudiced by it, because the main position about the rights of Princes hath been already proved by other arguments, and authorities. And to evince this, I shall pursue the method which the famous 
* Calvinisme, & Papism mis en parallel, part. 3. ch. 3.  Monsieur Jurieu hath laid down, adding here, and there my own observations.  
If therefore this be, and always hath been the Doctrine of the Gallican Church, than you have stated your argument aright, but if it hath not been always their belief, than the present Gallican Church may be as well mistaken, as the former, and if so, where is its authority? besides, if the French Church do condemn the Deposing Doctrine, and all the rest of the Catholic World do assert it, than the Tradition is not on the side of the French Church, though never defined as a matter of Faith by a general Council. Now to prove, that the Deposing Doctrine hath been the Opinion of the Gallican Church, I shall produce one remarkable instance, and that is, the deposition of Childerick, and the introducing of Pepin (the first King of the second race) into his Throne, and I shall briefly tell the story out of the French Historian, 
* Girard. du Haillan de l'Estate, etc. l. 1. m.p. 66, etc.  that I have now by me, who relates, that Pepin after his Conquest of the Saracens did so honour, and reverence the Clergy, and repaired so many of their Temples, that had been ruined, that the most holy men of that time thought him a Saint, whereupon aiming at the Crown, and finding nothing stick in his way, but the Oath, which the French had given to their King, he sent to the Pope (whom he had before obliged) for his dispensation (Pepin having already gained the greatest part of the Nobility, Ecclesiasticks, and Commons to his party) the Pope readily granted a dispensation, the Clergy, as well as the Nobility, and Commons acquiesced in what was done, acknowledging Pepin for their rightful King, and thrusting Childerick into a Monastery; and so do Paulus Aemilius, and others also relate the story, and among them Cardinal Perron, and 
* Ch. Childeric. 3. An. 751.  Monsieur Mezeray says, that this was very likely done in that general Assembly held in March, An. 751. The Bishops being there in great numbers, and Boniface Archbishop of Mentz in the head of them, who declared to the rest of the Assembly the validity of the Pope's answer; and he intimates the reason, why they complied so readily with Pepin, because he gave them a great share in the Government.  
It is true, what our King 
† Declaratio pro jureregio. p. 19  James observes, that the elder Historians, Ado Viennensis, etc. say, that the States had dethroned Childerick, and only got the Pope's consent to it, and confirmation of it, and so does 
* Vbi supr.  Mezeray, and Monsieur 
† Prerogat. of the Church of Rome, and her Bishops. ch. 29.  Maimburge,, who is zealous in the case against the Papal power of deposing; but which way soever Childerick were deposed, his deposition is a confirmation of what I undertake to prove; for if the Pope did it, and the French Clergy consented, or the three Estates in France did it (of which the Clergy are the first) and the Pope consented, it is all one, the matter of Fact being plain, that they both thought it lawful to depose their Prince (for a less crime than Heresy) because he was dull, and unfit for Government. And we also know, that when the Line of Pepin was laid aside, and Hugh Capet (the first King of the third Race) came to the Crown, there was a right Heir of the Carolovinian, or second Race of Kings alive, viz. Charles Duke of Austratia, or Lorraine, who was also laid aside by the consent of the States, of which the Clergy were the chiefest; it being 
* Vb. supr. an. 752.  Monsieur Mezeray's observations, that Charles of Lorraine, the last Male of the Line of Pepin, was deprived of the Crown, as Childerick had been; and the same 
† Id. an. 987.  judicious Historian elsewhere gives an account, how it was done, that Charles being a Vassal to another King, and a stranger to his own Country, Hugh Capet being very powerful, and esteemed, was Proclaimed King at Noyon in an Assembly of the Lords, and in a little while after Anointed, and Crowned by the Archbishop of Rheims, not one of those, who were present at either Solemnity, claiming for Charles, but all giving their Oaths as well in writing, as by word of mouth to his Enemy; and when Archbishop Arnold, Brother to Charles was taken with him, the Bishops of France Assembled in Council at Rheims, degraded him of his Prelature for breaking his Oath to King Hugh, whereas all his crime was the assisting Charles of Lorraine, who was his lawful Prince.  
But to come nearer home. In the time of the League it is very plain, that the ecclesiastics generally declared for the Leaguers, and allowed of the deposition of the two Kings, Henry 3. and 4. And whereas you may object, that some Popish Bishops, and many of the Popish Nobility continued with Henry 3. to his death, and after that execrable parricide, with his Successor Henry 4. yet D'Avila, 
* An. 1589.  the Bishop of 
* An. 1589.  Rhodez, and 
* An. 1589.  Mezeray, to name no other Historians, say, that after that barbarous assassinate, the Catholics, who were the greater part of the Army, met, and, though some few were for adhering to the King without any conditions, yet the greatest part thought themselves bound to observe Divine, before humane Laws, (as they phrased it) and at last both parties united in one upon these terms, that they would declare the King of Navarre King of France upon condition, that he would change his Religion, since it would be strange to their consciences, and to the whole Christian World, that one should be established King of France, who was no Catholic; whereupon (many Prelates in the Camp declining even this moderate course) the agreement was made by a writing mutually signed, wherein the King swears, and promises upon the word of a King, to cause himself to be instructed in the Catholic Religion within six Months etc. and to maintain the Catholic Religion, etc. and yet at last this did not please all, but many went over to the Leaguers. Now here you see all the Bishops of France (for they were all either of the party of the League, and it is not doubted, what their Opinion was, or of the Court party,) were of Opinion, that the King of France should not be acknowledged, their rightful Sovereign, unless he declared for the Roman Catholic Religion, nor would his own party admit him, till he had so promised, and sworn, as the Leaguers would not admit him, when he had so done; and this is worth the remembering, that his own party, thinking he would dally with them, set him a certain number of days, wherein to give them his resolution; and in all their conferences with the Leaguers, the Popish Lords, who were Friends to Henry 4 made this their Apology. And upon these terms, says D'Avila, the Duke of Mayenne himself promised by Villeroy his Agent to acknowledge him the King of France, though at the same time the Pope's Legate, and the Sorbon had made a Decree, that no agreement should be made with the Heretics, and particularly with Henry of Bourbon by which passage you may see, what was the Opinion of the Society of the Sorbon at that juncture, as by what else was done you may know the Opinion of the Prelates.  
And further the Bishop of Rhodez confesses, That if the Duke of Mayenne the head of the Leaguers had upon the importunity of the Pope, etc. declared another King of France, upon that nomination there was much appearance, and likelihood, that all the Catholic Potentates of Christendom would have acknowledged that King, whom the States should have Elected, that the Clergy would have done the like, and the Nobility, and People, who followed not Henry 4. But because he had the Title of King, and would have made no conscience to have quitted him for another, to whom the States had granted it. And at last he subjoins, That it was high time for Hemry 4. to enter into the bosom of the Church, or to resolve on a War, of which possibly he might never see the end.  
These things succeeded the death of Henry 3. But there were many remarkable accidents, that preceded it, which give you an account of the Opinion of the French Church of that Age. We know, the Sorbon is, and hath always been accounted the defender of the Gallican Liberties, and yet in the 
* V D'Avil etc.  time of the League the whole College (except Johannes Faber the Dean, and two Signior Doctors) unanimously determined, that Henry 3. by reason of the Murder of the Duke, and Cardinal of Guise had forfeited his right to the Crown, and that his Subjects were free from their Oath of Allegiance; nor were Faber, and the other two Dissenters (says Jurieu) dissatisfied as to the point of Law. i. e. Whether the King were deposable, or not, but as to the matter of fact, whether the crimes charged on him were true, or not, or if true, whether they deserved so heavy a censure; and when the Ambassador of the King of France urged the Pope, Sixtus 5. to condemn the determination of the Sorbon with this argument, that such a business did belong to Christ's Vicar, and not to a petulant College consisting of a few passionate corrupted persons; yet the Pope liked the censure too well to condemn it. Besides, two or three dissenters in so great a body, signify nothing; for, had it been in an Assembly of the Clergy, or in a General Council, the majority would easily have outweighed so small a number of contrary Votes; (and if the Syndick Faber's asserting the Right of Princes, makes this no Decree of the Sorbon, than the Syndick Richer's assertion, An. 1611. in his Book de Ecclesiastica, & politicâ potestate is enough to prove, that the Sorbon does not acknowledge the Government of the Church to be Monarchical) nor were the Sorbonists wanting to countenance this their assertion, ordering Boucher, and others to preach up the Authority of the Pope in such cases, and the Justice of the King's Deposition; and there was a Book written in defence of the Censure (the Author of it believed to be our learned Stapleton, by others more likely, to to be the above named Boucher) de justa abdicatione Henrici 3. and to make it appear, that the Assistants of the League looked on it as a quarrel on the behalf of Religion; it is remarkable, that the Duke of Parma left his own, and the public concerns in Flanders in a very ill posture; only that he might reinforce the League, and relieve Paris, which was likely to have fallen into the hands of Henry 4. who besieged it.  
And now we are come to the Times, that succeeded the Parricide of Henry the Great, (who, though never so hearty reconciled to the Church of Rome, was never forgiven the sin of his first Apostasy, as they called it, till his death) in the minority of whose Son Lewis 13. When the third Estate would have passed a Law, that the King was deposable for no cause whatever, the Clergy violently opposed it, and ordered the Cardinal de Perron to make a Speech against it, which after they had examined, and approved of in the Chamber Ecclesiastic, they attended him to the convention of the three Estates, where he pronounced it An. 1615. (which Speech our King James learnedly answered in his declaratio pro jure regio, where you may see it proved, that the Cardinal took upon him to assert, that the Pope or the Church had power to depose Princes, and that it was universally owned in France ever since their Schools had been opened; and the event made it appear, what the design of the Speech was, after which the third Estate saw it impossible to go on with their design successfully, and so declined it) and whatever F. 
* Vb. supr. c. ult  Maimburge. says to the contrary, yet his own argument confirms what I assert, That when this difference happened between the Clergy, and the third Estate (the two Chambers, as he calls them) the Clergy informed Pope Paul the 5. in their answer to his Breve of Jan. 31. 1615. Angebamur non mediocriter, etc. That they were troubled above measure to see Catholics transported with an undiscreet Zeal meddle with matters of Faith (where you may observe that the deposing power is acknowledged by them to be a matter of Faith, earum rerum, quae ad fidem pertinent, though you deny it to be so) which did not belong to the third Estate, who were Laymen, and Lawyers, but withal, they confess, that the determination of this point did belong to the Church, i. e. to themselves, and the Pope, omnem hanc authoritatem penes Ecclesiam, eosque solos esse, quos illa fidelium gregi praeesse voluerit. By which it is plain, that that Speech was not one Doctors Opinion only, as Monsieur Maimbourge affirms, but the Opinion of the whole Chamber Ecclesiastic, or their whole Clergy. And, that the French Church afterward owned the Opinion of that Speech, seems plain, because the general Assembly of the Clergy An. 1665. gave the Abbot Gentil 6000. Livres to collect the Memoirs of the Gallican Church, which were afterward solemnly reviewed by several Bishops, and Abbots, and then published, among which this Speech of Cardinal de Perron is printed, and approved, the whole scope of which, Maimbourge himself confesses, is inconsistent with the independent right of Princes, and their exemption from any deposing power.  
It is true, this Speech, that so few years since, was Printed among the Memoirs with so much applause, and approbation, is now ordered to be left out of them; which is so far from being an argument to incline any man to acquiesce in the judgement of such a Church, that it may justly affright him from confiding in such volatile changeable men, who in such weighty matters vary their Opinions so often from one extreme to another. And the reason is plain, the French Bishops following the dictates of that Court; so that since the quarrel about the Regale, they have sought to stoop the Pope, and probably to make his Election depend on the present French King, as it did anciently on Charles the Great. And of this I could give some likely proofs, but that the digression would be too long.  
But against all this it is objected, That under the present King Lewis 14. the Sorbon, An. 1663. condemned even the indirect Power of the Pope over Princes, and asserted, that the King of France hath no other Superior but God; to which we answer, that the same College did in the days of the League maintain the contrary, as I have formerly proved; and at last the Sorbon is not the Representative of the French Church; nor can it be imagined, says the 
* Ch. 5. p. 14.  Author of the second Treatise against the Oath of Allegiance, That those men, who took upon them to vary from the Censures, Decrees, or Definitions of Rome, would ever go about to set up an independent, or infallible Chair in the Sorbon, and deliver their Opinion either as an Article of Faith in itself, or as a Rule of Faith to others. But the Objection is strengthened, That the Archbishops, and Bishops assembled at Paris, An. 1682. as Representatives of the French Church, did decree the same; to which we 
† V Jurieu ubi supr.  answer, that the Declaration was made but by thirty or forty Prelates within the verge of the Court, whereas in a free National Council the contrary might have been determined. But put the case that this had been decreed in a full, and free National Synod, yet neither could this have established an indefeasible right; for I remember, that in the Convocation under Henry 8. the King's Supremacy was decreed and established by our Bishops (even by Gardiner, Bonner, etc. who in all other things were zealous Catholics) and yet I suppose you will be loath to grant, that for that reason the King had a just Right to that Supremacy. And this also serves to answer your Objection from the Determinations of the French Universities against the Deposing Doctrine, because not only the greatest part of the Universities of Christendom did allow of Henry the Eighth's Divorce from his first Wife, which the Pope, and perhaps you, would not allow to be lawful; but withal, the two most famous Universities of England, (which to us are equivalent to all those in France) and the most famous Monasteries of the Kingdom, when this Question was proposed to them, a aliquid Autoritatis in hoc regno Angliae Pont. Romano de jure competat, plusquam alii cuicunque Episcopo extero? Whether the Pope had any lawful power in this Kingdom, more than any other foreign Prelate? The Answer was generally returned in the Negative.  
Besides, who knows not, that the generality of men speak as their hopes of Preferment lead them? and that there was a great truth in that Observation of Aeneas Silvius, That many men wrote in vindication of the Pope's Authority, and few for the Authority of a Council, because a Council gave no Dignities nor Benefices; but the Pope did. And I should be glad to see the present French Clergy deal with the present Pope (when he meddles out of his Sphere with the Crowns of Princes) as their Predecessors did with Gregory the Fourth, who under the pretext of being a Mediator between the Emperor Lewis the Debonair, and his Sons, promoted the Rebellion, and was suspected to come with a design to excommunicate the Emperor and his Bishops; for they protested, 
† Ant. Anon. vit. Ludovici Pii.  Si excommunicaturus ad veniret, excommunicatus abiret: i. e. That if the Pope came to excommunicate them, they would excommunicate him for acting contrary to the Authority of the ancient Canons.  
And at last we have Advice given us, 
* Nouvel. de la rep. de Lettres, An. 1685. p. 716, etc.  That June 26. An. 1683. at Clermont in Auvergne, the Jesuits publicly maintained four Theses, in opposition to the decision of the French Clergy, An. 1682. 1. That although they call their Theses Explanations of the Doctrine of the Gallican Church, the first Article of the Decree did not diminish the special Authority of the Church over Kings and Princes Christian. 2. That the second Article was not intended to weaken the Monarchick Primacy of the Pope over the Church. 3. That by the third Article, they intended not to take from the Pope the Sovereign Power of dispensing with Canons, etc. 4. That by the fourth Article, they intended not to deprive the Pope of all Infallibility in matters of Faith. Which Theses, as far as I know, yet pass uncensured. And the Jansenist, who goes under the name of René Clerc Tonsuré à l'Archevesque de Paris, in his System of the Theology of the Gallican Church extracted from their Memoires, proves, that the French Bishops are not such Friends to Crowned heads, as they would appear to be; and that they take the Power from the Pope only to place it in themselves: affirming, That the French King cannot be judged by a Council except the French Bishops be there, (implying, that then he may be judged) as if the last resort were to them; and that the Declarations of the Pope against their King, ought not to be obeyed, till the Kingdom consent thereunto; so that if the Kingdom consent, the Deposition is lawful: with other such Positions. And the same Author affirms, That whereas some English Gentlemen, Decemb. 1. An. 1679. addressing themselves to some Doctors of the Sorbon, had inclined them to decide for the lawfulness of our Oath of Allegiance, the Archbishop of Paris sent to them, that it was the King's pleasure they should not decide it: which makes it plain, that the Allegiance of the French Church is founded on the Catholic Religion, and that an Heretical Prince hath not the same Right with the most Christian.  
And though since that time 
† V Caus. Valesian. append. 6.  the Sorbon, An. 1686. hath given its approbation of the Oath of Allegiance with the word Heretical in it, yet this is only an honest acknowledgement of the Rights of Princes, by one College of learned men; while in the same year the Jesuits at Gaunt, in their Provincial Congregation, expressly condemned the taking of the said Oath. And who knows, but the Sorbonists of the next Age may do as their Predecessors of the last did in the time of the League, contradict all that hath lately been asserted. Nor does the Condemnation signify any thing in your sense, since even a General Council cannot define any thing to be heretical, unless it be de fide, and the belief required under the penalty of an Anathema: and when all this is done, if the matter be of Discipline or Government you profess, you may safely refuse to obey the Council.  
To which Observation I will add one Remark more: That though Monsieur 
* apology pour là Clergy  Arnald. hath written in vindication of the French Church, that they never owned the Deposing Doctrine, yet if he be the Author of the Jesuits Morals, (for though Monsieur Paschal his Nephew have the honour of the Book, yet all men be lief that Arnald had a great hand in the contriving it) he hath not dealt so ingenuously in this case, as he might: for when he quotes so many Passages out of the Moralists of the Society, what liberty they give to violate Sacraments or Oaths, to Lie and Equivocate, and to break all Trusts, Vows, and Promises, he never so much as touches on the many palpable Propositions in their Books, which encourage and allow of the breach of Allegiance to Princes.  
I have little more to subjoin, but this: That whereas you appeal to the Council of Trent for the Faith of your Church, I have observed in that Council some things (how cunningly soever the Decrees were contrived, and how warily soever they were penned) which seem not to accord so well with your Catholic Principles. For instance: 1. 
† Sess. 22. de Sacrif. miss. can. 6.  The Council says, Si quis dixerit, etc. If any man shall say, that the Canon of the Mass contains any Errors in it, let him be Anathema. And in another place 
* cap. 4.  the Mass is said to be free from all Error. Now if it be so, I suppose some of your Doctrines must fall to the ground, being confuted by your Mass. As, 1. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation: for after the Consecration, the Priest calls the Sacrament Bread and Wine; Offerimus panem sanctem vitae aeternae, & calicem salutis perpetuae: And afterward desires God to look down upon it, as he did on the Sacrifices of Abel, Abraham, and Melchizedeck: And prays, That those things might be carried by the hands of the holy Angels of God into Heaven. For how are these Expressions suited to Christ's Corporeal Presence? 2. All the Prayers of the Mass relate to a Communion, and so are a consutation of private Mass; and yet the Priest in a private Mass, when no one but himself receives, says,  quotquot ex hâc altaris, etc. That as many of us as have received the most holy Body of thy Son, etc. 3. To instance in no more, the Prayer for the Dead in this Canon doth not relate to Purgatory: for the Priest says, Memento, Domini, etc. Remember, O Lord, thy Servants, and thy Handmaids (and then names the Persons whom he is to pray for) who have gone before us with the mark of Faith, and sleep in the sleep of Peace. Which are plain demonstrations, that those Prayers were made before those new Doctrines and Practices were the Belief and Customs of your Church, or else there are Errors in the Mass, which the Council under an Anathema forbids any man to affirm.  
2. The Council declares, 
† Sess. 23. cap 4.  Episcopos in Apostolorum locum successisse; That Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles: and if so, then there being an equality among the Apostles, so there is also among Bishops; and where then is the Pope's Supereminent Power as Successor to St. Peter? and how is he above his fellow-Bishops, if they all succeed the Apostles, to use St. Cyprian's Phrase, Pari consordio & potestatis, & honoris; In an equal right to power and honour?  
3. The Council 
* Sess. 4.  commands the interpretation of Scripture according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers: and if so, we are well assured, that the Controversies between us will be easily decided on the side of the Church of England, for to the Fathers we are ready to appeal.  
And now after all this, suffer me to assure you, that though I love your generous dealing in the affixing your anathemas at the end of your 
† Popery Misrepres. p. 117, 118.  Book, (wherein you deal much more candidly than many of your Brethren) yet I cannot but mind you, that you have left yourself and others, by reason of the generality of your Expressions, liberty to explain your meaning; and therefore I have added some Anathema's agreeable to your own notions of things, (if I understand you aright) to which I should be glad to find that you sincerely say Amen: and it is as lawful for me, who am but a private person in the English Church, as it is for you to do so in the name of the Church of Rome. And withal, I do engage to make good, that all these Opinions which I propose to be condemned, are maintained by some Writers of the Church of Rome.  

1. He who pays true and proper Religious Worship to Images, let him be Anathema. Amen.  
2. Whosoever confides in the Intercession of Saints and Angels, as much as in that of Jesus Christ, for Salvation, let him be Anathema. Amen.  
3. Whosoever believes the blessed Virgin to have as much power in Heaven as her Son, and prays to her to command him, and begs from her, pardon of Sins, and the assurance of Salvation, let him be Anathema. Amen.  
4. He who does not believe that the Merits of Jesus Christ are the only meritorious cause of our Salvation, let him be Anathema. Amen.  
5. He who believes that a Papal Indulgence doth remit Sins, or deliver from eternal Death, let him be Anathema. Amen.  
6. He who believes that the performance of Ecclesiastical Penances makes satisfaction for eternal Punishment due to his Sins, let him be Anathema. Amen.  
7. He who speaks irreverently of Holy Scripture, and calls it Aesop 's Fables, a Nose of Wax, and unsensed Characters, etc. let him be Anathema. Amen.  
8. He who believes that the Church hath power (in a General Council, or otherwise) to make additions to the Christian Faith, let him be Anathema. Amen.  
9 He who believes the Pope to have any personal Infallibility, either è Cathedra, or in Conclave, let him be Anathema. Amen.  
10. He who asserts, that the Pope, or any other, hath any power to depose Princes, to dispense with their Subject's Allegiance, and to authorise them to take up Arms against them, either upon the account of Heresy, or for any other cause, let him be Anathema. Amen.  
11. He who asserts, that the Pope, or any other, hath any power to dispense with any Moral Law of God, and to give men a Licence to Murder, Forswear, Lie, or Equivocate, let him be Anathema. Amen.  
12. He who believes any thing contrary to the Word of God, to Reason, and Antiquity, let him be Anathema. Amen.  
13. He who says, that men are not bound to the obligation of the Ten Commandments, (and among them, of what we call the Second, you a part of the First) under pain of eternal Damnation, let him be Anathema. Amen.  
14. He who thinks that Faith is not to be kept with Heretics, and that Mental Reservation may be used with men of another Persuasion, let him be Anathema. Amen.  
15. He who thinks that Attrition is enough to fit a man for Absolution, let him be Anathema. Amen.  
16. He who thinks that any thing besides a sincere and true Repentance, can bring a man to Heaven, let him be Anathema. Amen.  
17. He who believes that the modern Miracles of the Blessed Virgin, etc. are to be credited, as he credits the Miracles of our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles recorded in Scripture, let him be Anathema. Amen.  
18. He who thinks Ignorance to be the Mother of Devotion, and wilfully hides the Holy Scriptures from the sight and knowledge of the People, let him be Anathema. Amen.  
19 He who says a man ought to obey his Superiors (whether Civil or Ecclesiastical) in things that are sinful, let him be Anathema. Amen.  
20. He who maintains any other Doctrines, than what were established by Christ and his Apostles, and believed in the Primitive Church, let him be Anathema. Amen.   
These I give you as a Specimen; and when these are condemned, I shall think myself much more inclinable to be reconciled, than now I am.  
And because you are a private Person, and whatever you say, is but one Doctor's Opinion; and because your Writers differ where your Infallibility is fixed, whether in a General Council, or the Pope, and if in the Pope, whether in his fingle Person, or in Conclave; you will oblige the World, if you use your interest to get these Doctrines Condemned by the Pope, ex Cathedra, (and so you will bind the Jesuits and others, who believe the Personal Infallibility) and by the Conclave of Cardinals, (for this will bind others of your Communion) and by a Council of all the Prelates of your Church, (and this will bind you, the French Church, and all others that call themselves Roman Catholics:) for unless this be done, we are still where we were. And I shall tell you, that the regaining so considerable a part of the Protestants, as the Church of England is, out of a state of Schism and Heresy, (as you are pleased in your great Charity to call it) is a Reason weighty enough to summon such a Council, and to do what is required towards an Accommodation: and till this is done, all that you say else, is but the sprinkling of a little Holy Water, and gratis dictum. And this I writ to you, because you appear the Advocate of your Party, while I acknowledge that I make these Proposals only as a private Person; though I doubt not, but all the Prelates of the Church of England would rejoice to see so much done towards the healing of the Breaches of Christendom. Amen.  
And here I thought to have put a period to this Essay, had not your Vindication of your Reflections come to my hands; upon which I cannot but bestow a few Remarks, while your learned Adversary will take care of a more full Reply. In which, among other things, you undertake to 
† Protest, Popery, etc. p. 16.  prove, by several instances, That our Church is guilty of misrepresenting yours, because it impeaches the Papists of Idolatry in the worshipping of Images: and we acknowledge that she does so impeach you; but withal we affirm, that there is a great difference between what is spoken by any man, or any Society of men, in a Homily or Sermon, and what is thetically laid down as an Article, or maintained in disputation, (you yourselves, as well as we, being often forced to make use of this distinction to salve many Say of the Fathers, that they were spoken not Dogmatically, but Rhetorically;) but we need not depend on this Answer, for our Homily does not speak of the Canons of your Councils, but of the received Opinions and Practices of your Church. Now that 'tis a current Opinion among many of your Schoolmen, That the Image ought to have the same Worship with the Prototype, I have already proved, out of Cardinal Bellarmine; and that the Practice of the Common People in this case, was very disallowable, and much like the Idolatry of the Heathen, as I understand the Trent-Council, is the Complaint in 
† Sess. 25. de Imag.  general of those Fathers, and of some other of your Writers in particular: so that herein the Homily speaks but the sense of your own Authors, and with Justice, censures the Usages of the People of your Communion. And if what your 
* Ibid.  Council says, be true, That the Idolatry of the Heathens did consist in their putting their trust in their Idols, he who considers how much more Worship there is paid to the same Images of the Blessed Virgin, (at Loretto, Monferrat, etc.) than to other her Images elsewhere, (which can as well put the People in mind of the Mother of God, as those famous Shrines) will be persuaded, that the generality of your Communion put their trust also in the Image, as did the Heathens in their Idols.  
Now, to vindicate your Church from Idolatry in this case, though you 
† Protest. Pop. p. 33.  acknowledge, That you do give Religious Honour to Images, yet you say, That that Honour cannot be called Idolatry, unless it makes a God of that to which it is paid. But does not the Second Commandment (as we reckon them) forbidden the worshipping of the true God by an Image? And do not the worst of Idolaters say, That they do not worship the Image, but the God, who is represented by it? Doth not Celsus say so much on the behalf of the Gentile Idolaters to Origen 
* Lib. 7. p. 373. Orig. contr. Cells.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Who, but a perfect Fool, thinks an Image made of Stone or Timber, of Brass or Gold, to be a God? etc. And for the Jews, when they fell into Idolatry in the Wilderness, by worshipping the Golden Calf, they only worshipped it as a representation of the true God: for the Feast that was set apart for it, is called 
† Exod. 32.5.  a Feast held to Jehovah, which is the incommunicable Name of the only true God. (And the like might be said of the Calves in Dan and Bethel.) But perhaps you are of the opinion of some men of Eminence in your own Communion, (and whose Books have never been, that I know of, condemned) who think that the Worship of the Golden Calf was not Idolatry: for so Moncoeus in his Aaron Purgatus expressly affirms, as 
* c. 7. p. 49.  Greg. de Valentia in his Apologetic for Idolatry, (a bold Title for a Book written by a Christian Priest!) argues from 1 Pet. 4.3. that because the Apostle doth forbid unlawful Idolatries, (abominable Idolatries, as our Translation renders it) that therefore there is some Idolatry that is lawful, which is that of the Worship of Images.  
But you object, 
† Protest. Pop. p. 34.  that we ourselves are by this Argument guilty of Idolatry, by bowing to the Altar, and to the Name of Jesus, and by kneeling at the Sacrament, Whereas, I must tell you, that we bow not to the Altar, but towards it, toward the East, where the Christian Altar always used to stand, (and toward which part of Heaven the Primitive Christians used to direct even their private Devotions;) nor do we bow to the Name, but at the Recital of the Name of our blessed Saviour: so that we pay no Religious Worship to the Altar, or to the Syllables of that Venerable Name, (as you confess you do to Images) and when we kneel, we profess we do not worship the Sacramental Elements, nor the Body and Blood of Christ hid under the Accidents of Bread and Wine; but we kneel, because than we pray, and we worship God, to whom we direct our Prayers: so that these actions are not external acts of Adoration to any thing that is seen, or heard, but only to God. But by this way of arguing. I perceive, the Cause wants assistance, when you borrow Arguments from our Dissenters to assault our Church with: for these are their little Objections that have been so often hist off the Stage.  
You further tell us, That it is the intention of the Person who pays the Worship, that makes the Worship either idolatrous or lawful. And if so, pray tell me, if a Christian in the East Indies should go into a Pagod, and bow down before one of their Images, and pay it in all respects the same outward Adoration that its most  Votaries offer it, and at the same time intent his Worship towards the blessed Trinity; does this man, by virtue of his intention, escape the guilt of Idolatry? And I put you this Question the more willingly, because some of your Jesuits have determined it in the affirmitive, and acquit the votary of Idolatry, and I would willingly know your Opinion: for if you consult the 
† Let. 5. p. 61. Edit. Lat. Colon. An. 1658.  Provincial Letters, the Author of them will tell you, that the Jesuits in China, and other places of the Indies, taught the People that they might publicly worship the Idols of the Country, Cacin choan, and Keumfucum, so they directed this Adoration of theirs intentionally to the Image of our blessed Saviour hid under their ; and that this is no Calumny, the same Author says 
* P. 62. , That the Practice was complained of, and censured at Rome, July 9 An. 1646. But notwithstanding that Censure, if your way of arguing be good, the Practice is still lawful.  
Now to evade your Adversaries Argument, That intention cannot alter the nature of actions, which are determined by either Divine or Humane Law; you shift the force of the reasoning, by making a Plea from the same Principle for the Quakers, (and probably it is well done of you, to turn Advocate for a Sect which owes its Original to the Jesuits, and other Emissaries of your own Church) because, if intention cannot alter the nature of actions determined by Law, no Oaths can be lawful, nor the payment of civil Honour allowed of, because the Scripture says, Swear not at all, and let your communication be yea, yea, nay, nay, and you shall not be called Master, etc. And the Answer would signify something, if you could show us any place of Scripture where such Worship hath been paid to Images, notwithstanding the divine determination to the contrary, as we can show you for the allowance of those things which you object: for we there read, that notwithstanding the prohibition, the Apostles did allow of the Title Lord, or Sir, or Master; for St. Philip expressed no dislike, when 
† Johan. 12.21.  the Greeks gave him that appellation; nor St. Paul and Silas, 
* Acts 16.30.  when the Jailor at Philippi treated them with the same Language. And by Swear not at all, etc. the Holy Writ only forbids vain and rash Swearing, and Perjury, and double Dealing, etc. for it in other places tolerates and requires Oaths, which, says the Apostle, are the end of all strife. After which, you will do well to show any place of Holy Scripture, that countenances the Worship of Images, and we shall willingly acknowledge the parity of Reason: for it is not the intention of the Person commanded, but of the Lawgiver, that makes an action lawful: for did a man's own intention legitimate his actions that are otherwise forbidden by any Law divine or humane, than a man may do evil, that good may come there of, expressly against St. Paul; a man may commit Murder, Sacrilege, and every other gross sin, as some men have done, and plead for himself, that he intended nothing but Reformation, and the advancement of Religion; as the men in our Saviour's time persecuted the Apostles to death, with an intention to do God service: but the intention of the Lawgiver, when made known, is that which legitimates the actions of the subject either in matters purely civil, or in matters of Religion, of which latter sort is the Worship of Images; which I shall acknowledge to be lawful, when you shall have shown that it is agreeable to the intention of our supreme Lawgiver.  
But the further management of this Argument, I leave to your other Antagonist, while I observe, that 
† Protest. Pop. p. 25.  you shift him off with no other Answer, but this: That a Question or two is (in his opinion) a confutaof the Reflecter, because you are asked, Whether all your Representations are conformable to the sense of the Trent- Council and Catechism? which I have already proved they are not, particularly in the Doctrine of the assistance of Angels and Saints. which you say, consists only in their Prayers, while the Council and Catechism, besides their Intercession, mention their Merits and Aid. And whereas, when he objects against the Pope's licensing the Bishop of Condom 's Book, that Canus with judgement avers, That whatever the Pope determines privately, maliciously, and inconsiderately, is not to be accounted the judgement of the Apostolic See; you rejoin, that the Pope's private determination of any Opinion, doth not hinder it from being the judgement of the Apostolic See, unless it be also determined maliciously and inconsiderately; I cannot understand Canus in that sense, but that, whatever is determined either privately, or maliciously, or inconsiderately, is not the judgement of the Apostolic See: for if this be not so, than a private determination, how malicious soever it can be, so it be upon due consideration, may be the judgement of the Apostolic See. And who knows, but the present Pope's allowance of the Bishop of Condom's Book, may be the product of malice, of his spleen against the French Heretics, as he calls them, for whose Extirpation he hath so solemnly by his Letters thanked the French King? And if Malice may invalidate the Papal Judgement, why may not Favour, Affection, or Fear, when they interpose in such Determinations, render them equally invalid? And if so, why may not the reason of the present Pope's not censuring the French Clergy in the matters relating to the Papal Power over Princes, be his fear, lest that Victorious Prince should either set up a Patriarch of his own in France, or by an Army establish his Right in Italy, and make the Pope depend on him for his Election.  
But to confirm the Authority of the Bishop of Condom's Book, you say, That it was printed at Rome, translated into divers Languages, and attested by the Pope and divers Cardinals, etc. Will you allow of all that hath been published for Catholic Doctrine at Rome, with the same or the like approbation? Were not Cardinal Baronius' Annals (to instance only in one Book) printed at Rome in the Press belonging to the Vatican-Palace? Did not Pope Sixtus V. prefix a very large Epistle in commendation of the Author, and the Work? Was it not magnified by the Roman Cardinals? Was it not translated into Italian, German, Polish, and other Languages, and the two first Tomes of it into Arabic? Now if such a Recommendation be sufficient to make known the Sentiments of your Church, then how comes it to pass, that those Ecclesiastical Annals are not received in France in those things relating to Regal Power, nor in Spain in what relates to the Right to the Kingdom of Sicily? And if you do allow of the Annals, you must not only interfere with the forenamed Churches of your Communion, but you must also acknowledge, what you will be loath to own, that the Pope hath a right to dispose of his Majesty's Kingdoms, as in truth that Cardinal hath entitled him to almost all the other Kingdoms of the World by name.  
It is also observable, that the Bishop of 
† P. 50. Edit. Noviss.  Condom, when he speaks of the Pope, mentions the Primacy; but for the Deposing Doctrine, he says, It is not necessary to speak of it: adding in general, That all Catholics acknowledge a Head established by God to conduct his whole Flock in his paths, which those who love Concord among Brethren, and Ecclesiastical Unanimity, will most willingly acknowledge. By which expression every man is left to his own Sentiments in that point; and it is no wonder, that the Pope (though he does believe his own Power of Deposing Princes) doth approve of this Book, for the Phrase of conducting the whole Flock of Christ, is as easily to be construed, as pasce oves meas, to signify the Deposing of Princes whenever the Pope pleases. So that we see, that even this seeming Enemy of the Deposing Doctrine, dares not openly condemn it, but leaves it as a probable Opinion, and what 'tis not necessary to speak of; so that every Pope hath still his liberty to declare any Prince a Heretic, and then to proceed to Excommunicate, and to Depose him; after which, a Clement, a Ravilliac, or any other Assasine, may proceed to murder him, because he himself also is left at liberty to believe that the Pope is in the right, when he hath deposed a Prince, and that he ought, as much as lies in him, to obey him in bringing such Criminals to condign punishment.  
At last 
† Protest. Pop. p. 29.  you tell us, That a man may be admitted into your Church, notwithstanding his refusal to admit the Deposing Doctrine, and the Pope's Infallibility, but as they are stated by the Representer, i. e. not as Articles of Faith. But this seems to imply, that no man of your Communion shall dare to condemn the Doctrines, which must still be looked on as probable and disputable; so that the safety of Princes and Kingdoms, and the guidance of the Church in matters of Faith (which depend on the plain stating of the Pope's Power and Infallibility) must still be left at the mercy of opinionative men, who may take liberty to dispute and write about these great and weighty points pro and con, as themselves think fit.  
And whereas your Adversary quotes Bellarmine, and Canus, That General Councils cannot err even in Decrees of Discipline and Government (decrera morum) when they relate to things necessary to Salvation, and concern the whole Church, you 
* Protest. Pop. p. 32.  deny, that the Deposing Doctrine is of that nature. But are not the plain Offices of Morality necessary to Salvation, as well as Articles of Faith? If not, than nothing but Infidelity damns a man; and if a man's Faith be Orthodox, it is no matter for his Conversation: If they are necessary, is not Obedience to Princes one of the moral Commands of God? And if so, is not the practice of that Obedience necessary to Salvation? and is not Disobedience (which necessarily follows the Deposing Doctrine) a great sin? And if so, destructive of the hopes of Salvation. And that it concerns the whole Church, is easily proved, because Princes are its Nursing-fathers'.; and what Evils have fallen upon your own Church by such rash Attempts, some of your own Authors will tell you, is plain from the instance of Henry VIII. Besides, the whole Christian Church and its Welfare, is concerned in the Doctrine: for though all the Princes of Christendom have never been deposed at once, yet what is done in one Country, may be done throughout all Christendom, and so the whole Church actually concerned in the sad effects of the Doctrine: And had the Empire been as entire under Henry IV, as it was under the elder Emperors, his Deposition had actually concerned the whole Church.  
And because you call that assertion, that the Pope hath not condemned the no-deposing Power, because he wants power so to do, an Oracle, and say, you look for an Argument to prove it. It is plain from History, that those Popes who have been rich, and stout, and powerful, have adventured on the practice of Deposing (while others of lower Spirits, less Wealth and Haughtiness, have been afraid of the Attempt) we are not ignorant what the Dictates of Pope Gregory VII. are, and how busy he was, being backed by the Countess Maud, who supported him with her interest; nor what Innocent III, Sixtus V, and some others have done in imitation of him. Nor is it unknown to the World, what Pope Paul V thundered against the Republic of Venice, What Pius V did here in England, and Innocent X. in Ireland during the Rebellion there: for what was it that encouraged those hot Popes to go so far, but that they thought their interest, at least in the Churchmen, so great, that the Countries would immediately have shaken off their Sovereigns? And what is it that causes the present Pope to spare the French King about the Regale, but that he is afraid of him, and knows he wants power to compel him? Nor need the Argument seem so ridiculous to you, since Cardinal Bellarmine (a man from whom most of your Writers borrow all their Materials) doth not only affirm, that the Primitive Christians under the Heathen Emperors, did not take up Arms against them, because they wanted power, but avers against Barclay 
† Tom. 3. Oper. c. 6, 7, 8. p. 874, etc. , that the ancient Popes did not exert their Authority against the Emperor's Constantius and Valens, etc. not because they had no right, sed quod Reges, etc. but because without great damage the Church could not compel them; but that the Popes did exert their Authority against Leo Isauricus, Henry IU. and Childeric because they were able to compel them. That Jusian was very powerful, and attended with many armed Legions, against which an unarmed Multitude signified nothing; that it was a falsehood that all his Army were Christians, and that St. Gregory affirms, that the Church made use of no other Remedy but her Tears, quia decrant vires, because she wanted strength to resist the Tyranny. So that, pray answer your own Cardinal, or else acknowledge, that your Adversary speaks such Oracles as may be confirmed from some other Topick, besides the authority of the Assertor.  
And now I shall put a period to these Remarks, when I have minded you of two things which are your own Concessions.  
1. That 
* Protest. Pop p. 6, 7, 17, 18.  upon the consideration of what is here charged, the salvation of every Roman Catholick's Soul depends, that their Eternity is at stake; and that if Popery be guilty of what your Answerer says it is, it cannot enter into your thoughts, that there is any room for it (or its Followers) in Heaven: That all our Martyrs died for a good Cause, and are doubtless in Heaven: That such Tenants bid open defiance to true Honesty and Christianity, strike at the World's Redeemer, and are impossible to be entertained by any, who is one degree above a Beast. These are the Conclusions I acknowledge, of a wise, a modest, and a good man; but than it behoves you seriously to consider whether this Charge be not true, and whether your Adversary be not to be acquitted of wronging your Church, (of which the impartial Reader will be the most competent Judge) and withal to think, whether those Schoolmen, and other Writers of your Communion, that do own all the Doctrines charged upon you, be not by your own Verdict, Men of no Honesty, no Religion, and but one degree above Beasts: For by this Concession every unbyast person is able to satisfy himself which is the true Religion, that which allows its Followers to assert the Doctrine of Deposing Princes, to pay Religious Worship to Images, to expect more than intercession from Saints, Angels, etc. or that which is directed by the Revelations made in Holy Scriptures, and by the unanimous Interpretations made of those Scriptures by the ancient Fathers, as the Church of England expressly doth.  
2. That you follow the methods of the French Church [which is so far from being the Catholic Church, even in your sense of the word, that it is but a small part of it] from them you take your Principles, from the Bishop of Condom, and Monsieur Veron; and after their Example, you make your complaints of being misrepresented: for so the Gallican Bishops did in their late general Assemblies, held July 11. An. 1685. complain of being misrepresented, and of the Calumnies, Injuries, and Falsities, which the Reformed Churches lay to their charge; desiring that King, in their Petition prefixed to the Acts of that Assembly, to revoke all the Edicts made in behalf of the Hugonots, because permitted only in times of disturbance, and for reasons which no longer subsist: which though they afterwards modify and limit only to the passing an Edict to forbid the calumniating their Religion, yet every considering man sees what they aim at. And upon this Address the King past an Edict, Aug. 23. forbidding all the Reformed to preach or write any thing against the Catholic Religion, either directly or indirectly, and to allow them the liberty of the Press only for printing the Confession of their Faith, their Prayers, and the Rules of their Discipline, but no other Books written by the Reformed Divines of that Kingdom; and what the effects of that and other Edicts have been, every wise Observer hath seen.  
May our blessed and holy Saviour, the true and undoubted Head of the Catholic Church, heal all the Breaches thereof, convert all Heretics to the knowledge of the Truth; shame, and bring back all Schismatics into the Unity of his Mystical Body, that we may be one Sheepfold under one Shepherd, the Bishop of our Souls. Amen.  
FINIS.   

Advertisement of BOOKS Printed for Samuel Smith at the Prince's Arms in St. Paul's Churchyard.  
THE Vanity of all Pretences for Toleration, wherein the Late Pleas for Toleration are fully answered; and the Popular Arguments drawn from the Practice of the United Netherlands are stated at large, and shown to be weak, fallacious, and insufficient. Quarto.  
The Book of Bertram or Ratramnus, Priest and Monk of Corbey, concerning the Body and Blood of the Lord, in Latin: With a New English Translation more exact than the former. Also an Historical Dissertation concerning the Author and this Work, wherein both are vindicated from the Exceptions of the Writers of the Church of Rome.  
Protestancy proved Safer than Popery, by a late Convert to the Church of England.  
Miscellanea in quibus Continentur praemonitio ad Lectorem de infantum Communione apud Graecos. Defensio Libri de Graecae Eccles. statu contra Object. Authoris Hist Criticae, super fide & Ritibus orientalium. Brevis & succincta Narratio de Vita, studiis, Gestis, & Martyrio D. Cyrilli Lucarii, Patriarchae Constantinopolitaniss.  
Commentatio de Hymnis matutino & Vespertino Graecorum. Exercitatio Theologica de Causis remediisque dissidiorum quae orbem Christianum hodie affligunt. Authore Thoma Smith, Becles. Augl. Presbyt. 1686. Octavo.  
History of the Original and Progress of Ecclesiastical Revenues. By the Learned P. Simon. Octavo.  
Enquiry after Happiness, by the Author of Practical Christianity. Octavo.  
The Duty of Servants: containing, 1. How Parents ought to breed up their Children, that they may be fit to be employed and trusted. 2. How Servants may wisely choose a Service. 3. How they are to behave themselves in it, in discharging their Duty towards God, their Master, and themselves, with Prayers suited to each Duty. To which is added a Discourse of the Sacrament, intended chief for Servants. By the Author of Practical Christianity. Octavo.  
Miracles, Works above and contrary to Nature: or, an Answer to a late Translation out of Spinosa's Tractatus Theolog. Politicus, Mr. Hobbs' Leviathan, etc. Quarto.  
A Sermon about Frequent Communion. By Dr. Tho. Smith. Quarto.