TRUE CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC FAITH maintained in the CHURCH of ENGLAND.  
By ANDREW sal, Doctor in Divinity. Being A Reply to several Books published under the names of J.E. N.N. and J.S. against his Declaration for the Church of England, and against the motives for his Separation from the Roman Church, declared in a Printed Sermon which he Preached in Dublin.  Psal. 27. v. 1. 
One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to inquire in his Temple.  
Printed at the Theatre in OXFORD, 1676.   

IMPRIMATUR  
RAD. BATHURST Vicecan. Oxon. June 23. 1676.   

To his EXCELLENCY The most Honourable Arthur Earl of Essex, Viscount Malden, Baron Capel of Hadham, Lord Lieutenant, General, and General Governor of his Majesty's Kingdom of Ireland, Lord Lieutenant of the County of Hertford, and one of the Lords of his Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council.  
My LORD.  
HERE I present to your Excellency a defence of the true primitive and Catholic Apostolic Faith, maintained and professed in the Church of England, against the assaults of Adversaries, so bold ●s to present the venem they spit against it, one of them to a most Illustrious person of the Court of England, another to the generality of the people, and a third to your Excellency, representative of our Gracious Sovereign in Ireland. This last in a mockery, like that of Judas betraying our Saviour with a kiss, while he endeavours to bereave your Excellency of the life of your soul, telling you that 
* I. S. pag. 140. and 304.  the Church of England, your Mother, is not the Church of Christ, nor any part of it; that no Saint (which is to say, no just man or true servant of God) was ever of it; that you cannot without Blasphemy, allege Scripture for your Tenets, with other like most insolent opprobries, He styles himself your Excellencies most humble and faithful servant. He would have your Excellency burn the defenders of your Church, for offering to deny that we are all confessedly Schismatics.  
When our Adversaries are so bold and active, it is much our concern, to watch and stand on our guard. I should prove undeserving the Gracious protection and favour, I have from your Excellency, enabling me to appear for truth, if in this Exigency I did desert the defence of it. I will therefore, b● God's Holy assistance, betake me to the arms o● his Holy word, to resist the insulting, and detect the fraud of subtle and violent adversaries of the true Catholic Faith, appearing under the veil of defenders of it; and endeavour to show with unfeigned, plain and solid proofs, that the Faith we profess in the reformed Church of England (in which many other Illustrious nations join with us) is the true primitive Catholic Apostolic faith, which our Saviour Jesus, and his sacred Apostles taught and established on earth; that our adversaries, branding us with Heresy and Schism, are themselves the prime cause of all the schisms and confusions, which too long have vexed Christianity; and are guilty of as many Heresies, as Articles coined by them in after ages, which I hope we shall prove to be opposite both to Canonical Scripture, and to the Doctrine and practice of the Primitive Catholic and Apostolic Church. In which opposition certainly the true nature of Heresy doth consist; however they to their own advantage, would make men believe, that the Pope's pleasure and decrees, must be the rule of all, and nothing Heresy, but what is opposite to them.  
His pretended Infallibility, Supremacy, Vice-Godship, and such like big sounding Titles, (but emty, as here will appear) have frighted a great part of men to become slaves unto him. The invention of Purgatory, indulgences, remissions, and other engines of lucre, have increased his means to maintain his usurped power. My work will be to show with plainess of reasons, suitable to the sincerity of my intention, and apposite to overthrow their sophistry, that the forementioned tenets of the Romish faction, fuel of all the Combustions of Christendom, are not from above conveied by the Holy Ghost, but conceived in the mints of earthly passions: for the wisdom that is from above, is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without Hypocrisy. Jam. 3.17. Such is not the wisdom taught by the Roman Court, or Church, (if they will have it so called.) It is not pure, but corrupted with many pernicious errors as will appear in this Treatise. It is not peaceable, but contentious; not easy to be entreated, but obstinate against all reasonable overtures of peace, against the continual and ardent desire of all good Christians for a Council truly Ecumenical and free, wherein the Roman Bishop and faction, as others, may sit with like freedom and indifferency to judge, and to be judged, by the ●ord of God, and rules of Christian sincerity, as practised in those purer ages of primitive Christianity. Nothing will satisfy them, but a blind obedience, and entire submission to their will. Far are they from being full of Mercy: their thoughts are not of peace, but of death and destruction to all their fellow Christians, that will not be of their party.  
All this I shall endeavour to demonstrate by a close and serious Examen of the particulars conducing to the discovery thereof, with no other design then the Glory of God, with no prejudice or Passion against the Roman Church, but with a hearty desire of the happiness of it; that setting aside all profane policy, it may return to that primitive purity and lustre it had, when the Faith of it was praised throughout the whole World, Rom. 1.8. and so join heart and hands with other Christians to the Edification, and thereby to to the Conversion of Infidels, and to the increase and splendour of Christianity. This being my real intention, as well as the hearty wishes of all good men in the reformed Churches; sure I am, that my study, and endeavours to this end, will be protected and countenanced by your Excellency; Whose happiness Eternal, and Temporal, is the hearty and continual Prayer of  
Your Excellencies most Devoted Servant, and Chaplain ANDREW sal.   

THE PREFACE.  
SAINT John tells us, that all the world lieth in wickedness. 1 Jo. c. 5. v. 19 that hatred; envy, malice, avarice, and ambition, are the most common practise of men. If so, who can expect a general applause of his actions, exposed to public view? What ●eed tho in itself just and commendable, did ever ●●ease a bitter enemy? What elegancy of speech, what strength of reasons, could ever sound well in the ears of ●im whose cause they opposed? And if envy reign●●th, could that black passion ever omit to lessen ●he credit of such as were applauded? But if others pretend to be wits, (now called so) it is not for them ●o let any action pass without a Censure; or without ●inding in it a flaw, at least of a sinister intention. Men judicious at this rate must not look upon any action of another, with a right eye. When Vahash the Ammonite reduced the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead to ask quarter, he denied to allow it to them, but on condition ●hat he might thrust out all their right eyes, 1 Sam. 11.2. So doth the Devil when possessed of any man (says 〈◊〉 Peter Blesensis) he pulls out his right eye of Charity ●nd sincerity, and leaves him the left of envy and malice, inclined only to see or to imagine defects.  
men's imaginations are to actions of others as moulds to metal. The same metal poured into a mould of an Angel, will make an Angel, and cast into the mould of Devil, will frame a Devil. And indeed the metal before indifferent, thus ill figured, is revenged of the Devilish mould, declaring by the ●hape he got in it, the condition thereof: So honest and indifferent actions, denigrated by a malicious 
* Hic est oculus corum in universa terre, non dexter sed sinister. Blessens. Epist. 14.  apprehension, do betray the evil temper of th● mind, which thus disfigured them. But if Avarice and Ambition, those ravenous & unmerciful passions do contribute their aid to blow the Coals of Hatred Envy, and Malice, what fume will they not raise to blast the reputation of the best and most laudable endeavours?  
Wherefore he that putteth himself willingly into the Claws of these Monsters, that seeketh applause where such Passions reign, regards little the quiet of his body, or mind. He cannot enjoy himself, not Christ, which is worse (says 
* Non vivit sibi (& quod nequius est nec Christo) qui domificavit in cordibus aliotum. Simon de Cassia. li. 4. de vita Salvatoris. c. 2.  Simon de Cassia) who buildeth in the hearts of others: not himself, whilst he is a Slave to so many Masters as Heads of men, each one more variable than the wind itself; no● Christ, S. Paul affirming, that if he pleased men, he should not be the servant of Christ. Gal. 1.19.  
These considerations made me desire earnestly to spend the remnant of my days, retired and unknown, to prepare the better for the long day of Eternity which I resolved when first I entertained a thought of relinquishing the errors of my former Profession, and sticking to the Evangelical Doctrine of the reformed Church. But it seems that Sovereign Providence vigilant over all, was pleased to dispose otherwise of me. For being actually ordering my concerns for a voyage to the end aforesaid, it pleased God that a paper containing the reasons of my dissatisfaction with the Roman Church, by way of soliloquy with God, (that by further Prayer and consideration, I might be ascertained of his Holy will,) dropped from me, and fell into the hands of some of the Romish Communion, who so incensed my former Friends and relations against me, by a report that I was already become a Protestant Minister, as made them out of a blind Zeal threaten to destroy me, not unlike those who conspiring against S. Paul, swore they would not eat nor drink until they killed him. Act. 23.12. Which being made known to the Lord Archbishop, the Mayor, and other English Gentlemen of the City of Cashel, they bestirred themselves so generously to procure my safety, as may resemble that noble proceeding of the Roman Governor Claudius Lysias, in defending S. Paul from the conspiracy of his Brethren against him. They sent by several ways to seek after me, and acquaint me of the danger I was in: they prepared a party to relieve me if any violence should be offered me, and sent an officer of horse with other Gentlemen, by the way they understood I was to come, to bring me with security into the City, and prevail with me to go directly to the Lord Archbishops Palace, to be under his Protection, being not secure of my life in my former habitations.  
From the place where I had this notice given to me, I wrote immediately to the Noble man from whose House I ●●me, giving him an account of what happened to m●, and withal assuring him, that though necessity forced me to go under that protection, I would never declare against the Roman Church, whilst any hope was left of being satisfied in the doubts I had, and delivered by writing against several tenets and practices of it; which to one of my temper was not to be performed by vulgar cries, or emty pregnancies, but by solld and plain reasons, grounded upon the infallible word of God, such as I humbly conceived those reasons to be, which I proposed for Motives of my discontent with the present practice of the Roman Church. And I desired him to declare so much, and communicate my Letter to several persons of Honour, his Relations, and my good Friends, who had much Experience of my Sincerity and Constancy in asserting what I conceived to be truth on all occasions, that they giving further notice of it might direct to me any person or persons, that should be thought fit to give me the satisfaction I desired.  
Coming to Cashel, I sent the like notice to the Vi●ar General of the Romish Clergy there, desiring him, ●hat if any of their Bishops or other Clergy did intent to give me satisfaction to the reasons contain in my paper, which was among them, they wo● appoint me a time and place of meeting, and t●● should find my heart and ears open to truth, be●● resolved to lose my life, sooner than the true Catho● and Apostolic faith, wheresoever I found it to be p●● and uncorrupted.  
I may truly say that neither I did leave any stounmoved, nor omitted any care, or labour, I co●● imagine conducible for quieting my mind, and setting me in my former profession (no Tree after m●● years growth, and deep rooting in a kind Soil, 〈◊〉 plucked up with more violence, than I was wroug from my natural inclination, and sensible comfort forsake the Society, and Communion of my for● friends and brethren.) Neither did they omit any d● gence or industry to hinder my parting from the●● and to recall me after my separation; of both wh●●● things I will give here a brief and perfect account: the manifestation of truth, and satisfaction of such desire to know it.  
The first return I had to my invitation before motioned, to a trial of my reasons of discontent with 〈◊〉 Romish Communion, was a Letter from the Supe● of the Jesuits in Ireland, dated 12. May 1674. of 〈◊〉 Tenor following  
Dear Sir,  
Being loath to give credit to the strange rep● divulged here of you, I make bold to desire you to me know whether you forsook the Catholic, and do 〈◊〉 with the Protestant Church: for all your best frie● c●iesty I, can hardly believe that your wit 〈◊〉 wisdom should be subject to such inconstancy, un●perhaps by some Melancholy fit, or some other dise●per, proceeding from I know not what discontent jealousy conceived against me, or any other of th● you know. If any such thing there be, I humbly beg of you to acquaint me therewith by your Letter commended to the post Office in Dundalk, and do engage my word to you, that you shall have all satisfaction imaginable that lieth in my power, and that you shall find me always ready to render you any service that may be expected from  
Loving Sir, Your ever assured JOHN FREE alias S. R.  
To this Letter I answered immediately in terms of no less kindness and sincere amity, that I did and would declare wheresoever he was concerned, that neither he nor any other of his Society did ever give me any discontent, which might be the cause of the Resolution I was upon; that my dissatisfaction was of a higher nature, and that it was a great error to imagine that any dislike of particular Persons should work in me an alteration of this kind, it being well known how easily I might remedy any discontents in Ireland, by repairing to the place of my former habitation and employments in Spain, and how good a reception I was to expect there even in that season, as to him was well known.  
This Letter being miscarried, or not reaching to him (as he signified) before my declaration made at C●shel, (after many days retirement, and serious consideration of the matter, and no hope appearing of receiving satisfaction to my scruples) he wrote another to me of the 16. of June following, repeating the same expressions of fear, that either he or some of his brethren might have given me some discontent, to occasion my change, and desiring, if any such did happen, I might give him notice thereof, that I may give you (said he) any satisfaction possible, and that union at least of Christianity if not of Religion, may remain entire among us. He desired further that I would consider seriously unde & quo, whence and whither I was going, and what great inconveniencies might follow.  
To this Letter also I answered immediately, repeating my former assurances given to him, of no injury or discontent received from him, or any of his Society, as a cause or occasion of my change, and that I did hearty embrace his offer of maintaining union of Christianity among us, if not of Religion, which was my own constant inclination and hearty desire. As for considering unde & quo, whence and whither I went, that I did consider it with Prayer and Study of many years, and the grounds of my resolution thereupon would soon appear in public; and I desired he should prevail with some able men of his Fraternity to reply to them with that gravity and modesty, which becometh learned and religious men; that on both sides, we might concur with our studies, to the Glory of God, and manifestation of his truth, setting a side all wont acerbities, which if used would confirm me, and all men of good judgement, in a dislike of their way and spirit.  
Soon after, at my arrival in Dublin, he sent another Letter to me of the 24. of June, with a message by word of mouth, by a Gentleman of my Relation, earnestly craving an opportunity of a private conference with me, with an offer made by the said Gentleman of all favour and assistance, if I did desist even then from proceeding in my resolution, and desired I would signify either in private, or in public, the reasons of my discontent with them. To this I answered, that I conceived some inconveniencies in private Conferences in that occasion, and expected no quiet of mind by them; that the case being already public, I judged the handling of it in public to be more expedient both for the Service of God, and my particular satisfaction, the matter going through a more exact Trial that way; and consequently I did proceed, declaring in a Sermon preached a few days after, to a very great and noble Auditory in Christ's Church of Dublin, the reasons of my discontent with the present practice of the Roman Church, in such moderate terms, as may be seen in the same Sermon printed and extant in the hands of many, desiring to be answered with the like moderation, and formal Style, setting aside satirical, and scurrilous Libels, to which I was not to afford any either reading or answer. And long it was before I heard of any serious reply made to my proposals, but silly Libels of this latter kind, which the sober sort of their own party thought unworthy to be published, and I thought them to be as little worthy of my regard. In the mean time having taken my dwelling, since my coming to Dublin, in Trinity College near it, and that University being pleased to have me incorporated with it, in the quality of Doctor in Divinity, at the performance of Acts usual to such a degree, I published a Divinity Thesis, directly intended for a Justification of my resolution taken, by a strict enquiry and examen of it in a public dispute, and containing to that purpose two conclusions touching the main points of our Controversy, and to which all the rest may be reduced.  
The first was, That out of the Roman Church there is a safe way for Salvation.  
The Second, that the way of the Church of England, is safer to Salvation then that of the Church of Rome. By the former I intended to justify my constant and continual aversion to that horrid and arrogant position of the Romanists, that out of their Communion there is no Salvation, the fountain of so many bloody Tragedies, and unchristian animosities, which have been the disgrace and destruction of the Christian Church these many years. By the Second, I proposed to justify the election I made of the Church of England, as the more sure way to Salvation, each one being obliged by the law of that Charity which every one owes to himself, to take the way he conceives to be most secure in a matter of so high a consequence.  
To these conclusions I invited seriously and earnestly all manner of persons, having obtained free licence for them to come and argue, from the Lor● Primate our Vicechancellor, and from the other Heads of the University concerned, as may appea● by the Letter following, which I wrote with the The●● enclosed to a certain Learned Doctor of the Romis● Communion.  
Honoured Doctor,  
In pursuance of my earnest desire to discover the truth in the matter of greatest concern, by all th● ways I could think expedient for it, I am to defen● by public dispute next Thursday in the Chapel 〈◊〉 this College, the Thesis I send to you enclosed her● in performance of my promise; I signified to my Lor● Primate, to the Provost of the College, and the Moderator of the disputes, my desire, that any learne● man of whatsoever condition, might be permitted 〈◊〉 oppose; and they all granted my request, it being no the custom of the Church, and Universities of England and Ireland, to keep their people from rea●ing, and hearing the reasons of their adversaries, a else where you know 'tis. And as Suarez, Bellarmin, and others, the ablest defenders of the Roma cause, are read here with due regard to their learning, so any learned man will be welcome to our d●sputes, and in his good behaviour will have a surwarrant of his indemnity for what he shall say against us by scripture and reason. And where th● arswer may seem deficient, he may with confident go on with contra sic argumentor by that modest a● clean way of schools. But if his reply should be so●● foul words or rudeness, though I have resolved to pas● over that kind of opposition, I may not assure that the audience here, (which is to be very Illustrious and ●●arned) may bear it. I hearty pray to God, he ●ay send us all Grace to seek after sincerely, and happily find out, the true way of serving and praising him. And so I rest.  
Sir, your Sincere Friend to serve you ANDREW sal.  
At this invitation the said Doctor, with some others of the Romish Communion, came to our di●●utes, but for reasons to them best known, they resolved not to oppose in that public manner; neither did we by their defaults want learned and able opposers; for several of our own Doctors of Divinity, and Masters of Arts members of this University, well furnished with skill in Controversies and the best arguments our adversaries have, did propose them vigorously upon the chief points controverted, reduceable to the Heads I proposed for Thesis, and by vote even of the Romish Auditors present, they were not wanting to the duty of able disputants; nor could I understand that any did miss a satisfactory answer to the Arguments used, which were many, and all in the presence of the most Reverend Father in God, James laboured Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of all Ireland, our Vice- Chancellor, and of the Right Reverend I uther's in God, the Lord Bishop of Kildare, the Lord ●●shop of Ossery, the Lord Bishop of Killalo, and of a very great and flourishing number of learned men ●●th of the Clergy and Gentry.  
This trial being over, my great longing was, for a serious and well considered reply, to my reasons proposed in print, which by that way might be performed, without pretence of fear or want of liberty. Long was I in expectation, when at last came out a shower of Books against me, one upon the back of another. The First that appeared upon the stage, was I E. a fit person to break the Ice, a rough trotter, with a book of a small bulk, and less sense, bearing a Thundering title.  
A sovereign counterpoison prepared by a faithful hand for the speedy reviviscence of Andrew sal, a lat● Sacrilegious Apostate. The rest of the title page, was bestowed in magnifying the force of that Book, 〈◊〉 inform the ignorant, to resolve the wavering, and 〈◊〉 confirm the constant, well principled Roman Catholic Under so magnificent a Title, who would not expect a strong and formal answer to my arguments against the Pope's Infallibility, Supremacy, Transubstantiation Purgatory, indulgences, and other tenets of the Roman Church, that I took in hand to confute? Bu● instead of this, he presented to his Reader two or thre● (we may call) common places, dropped from a student of some College.  
1. Of the happiness of the Restoration of the So● of man.  
2. Of the true essence of the Divine Faith.  
3. Of the happiness of Christian Religion.  
And thence without the least attempt of applying those Documents (which he so calls) to any purpose, he falls abruptly a railing in the rest of his boo● at the Church of England, and at those he conceive to concur to my conversion to it, in such a rude am raving stile, as to all judicious men, he seemed to 〈◊〉 stark mad and unworthy of any regard or answer and that I understand to be the opinion of sober me of his own party. But to my person his term are so Heterogeneous, as may resemble a monste composed of a Siren and a Tiger; extravagantly entoiling me above the skies for what I was before, a● depressing me under the abysms for what I a● at present, now calling me sacrilegious Apostate and now Dear Andrew, sweet Andrew, and what not.  
With what propriety his book may be called a Counterpoison I know not, if it be not, that the commendations he bestows upon me in one place, may be an Antidote against the venem he and his fellow railers spit against me in others. You have been heretofore (says he) known and counted a Philosopher, both by words and deeds, you spoke great things, and did likewise practise them, and after p. 27. before you were vir Apostolicus a most resplendent Star in the Firmament of the true Church, a Religious Priest, conferring life of grace on others, called by the hand of God to a most high and Sovereign dignity and Honour, before a chaste and Evangelical Missioner, raised from a Shall to be a Paul, a Preacher of the word and penance. Now turned to be Saul persecuting, and warring in a most furious manner, against the heavenly fortress of true faith, become a wretched lying and vile Protestant, plunged in all vices contrary to those former virtues, not to repete more of his dirty terms.  
A grave and Honourable prelate reading this strange Contraposition; replied they were beholding to him for giving so good account of what I was before, but needed not his information for what I am now, themselves knowing that better. And this egregious writer, being questioned in a private discourse, with what truth he could say that I was become so deboist, since I came to the reformed Church, living all that time very abstemious, and retired in Trinity College of Dublin, and in a good repute with those that conversed with me, he answered that he never meant that I should be really guilty of those vices, but in a Metaphorical sense, That the Church of England being a Harlot, I embracing the Communion of it, became guilty of a spiritual uncleanness, and all those vices he mentions. He cannot deny that I know this to have been his answer. We thought such equivocations, and mental wind to be only among the prime Politicians of that party, but when we find them in one so simple as Mr. I. E. his book shows him to be, the sickness seems to be too far spread among them. Well contented he would be that his proselytes should understand I should be really guilty of the debauchery he speaks of. But if he be brought to a test, he is provided of the reserve aforesaid to come of.  
This specimen which I give of the man's Genius, will I presume quit me, in good Judgements of all obligations to further regard of what he says to me: but I will not discharge myself of the duty of defending the Church of England, against his barbarous injuries and calumnies, which I will perform God willing in the whole discourse of this Treatise, resolving the objections of others, and with some reflections at the end upon part of his peculiar Extravagances, to let the world know, how different the condition of the Church of England is for Piety and learning, from what his malice would make his blind Flock believe of it.  
The next book of those published against me that came to my hand, was one entitled the Bleeding Iphigenia, by way of a Preface to another greater a preparing, which soon after appeared under the Title of the Dolefull fall of Andrew sal etc. both written by a grave and ancient Prelate of my acquaintance in Spain; who in both of them dolefully laments a supposed fall of mine from the Catholic faith into Heresy, and enlarges in magnifying the virtues and learning of the prime Fathers and Doctors of the Church whose company he says I have forsaken, and cries against the errors and vices of many Heretics which he mentions, drawing their pedegry down from Cain, whose society he says I have embraced, and concludes conjuring me by all that is Holy and precious on earth, and in Heaven, that when the last visit of God comes upon me, I may be found a true professor of the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Faith.  
The good will and Pious intention of this Prelate I truly love and honour, and accordingly will endeavour to satisfy him in sober, serious, and sincere terms.  
If it were so indeed as he supposes, that I should have fallen from the Holy Catholic Apostolic Faith, I should be the most unhappy, and worthy to be lamented of all men; but I am certainly persuaded I have rather fastened myself to it, by the change I made, & I hope shall make it appear so to all  men in the progress of this book. And to his request that I be found a true Professor of the holy Catholic Apostolic faith, I promise him faithfully, it shall be my constant and inflexible resolution to hold that faith to the end of my life, wheresoever it be uncorruptly professed, whether in Rome or Jerusalem, or else where; I know it is not tied to places. And in truth and sincerity of my heart, I say to God in the words of holy David, which I have put for a Motto in the Frontispiece of this work, One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord and to inquire in his Temple. Psal. 27.4. This desire appeared early in me, having betaken myself in my younger years, to that course of life, which I conceived to be most expedient to come to God, and dwell in his house, by the strict practice of Piety and learning, secluded from the world in a society of great reputation for both. And in that course I did persevere, whilst that apprehension lasted: but having discovered errors therein opposite to the primitive Catholic and Apostolic faith, leading to the house of God, and finding by serious and due considerations, the same true faith to be professed uncorruptly in the reformed Church of England, I did constantly resolve to embrace it, in prosecution of my foresaid professed design of dwelling in the house of God, I mean in the true Catholic Apostolic Church. And as no human force or industry, could win me to this change, without a strong interior motion, and full persuasion of being in the right, so all arts and endeavours by terrors or allurements are vain to recall me, this interior persuasion persisting, which I find rather confirmed then weakened by all industry hitherto used to draw me from it, as I hope will appear to the dispassioned reader by the sincerity of my discourses in this Treatise.  
The fourth and last book of those published against me that came to my hands, was one of J. S. bearing Title the unerring unerrable Church. Whosoever the said J. S. be, if we measure him by his conceit of himself, his contemt of his adversaries, his boast of his arguments for unanswerable, and the brags of his Friends in his behalf for matchless, certainly he is the Goliath of their Camp, of Gigantic stature among them. I was not a little joied to find a person of so great repute and trust, engaged in answering my arguments. If I find it easy to render void his answers, and to confute his arguments, then may I expect to be at full quiet in my persuasion, and  against all their oppositions, whereof the prudent Reader will be judge after he hath viewed our encounter.  
And whereas the main strength of this Combatant lies in his calumnies and impostures, wherewith he besets thick the front or Preface of his Book, I will in this place remove that engine. To lessen the weight of my arguments with a great number of Readers, who rely much upon the credit of the writer, he will, he says, strip me of those Titles which my public employments for many years have given me, and with a kind of power never heard of before, will make, that I should not have been what really I was, to the knowledge of many thousands of men living. Finding me styled Professor of controversies, in the Irish College of Salamanca, he says resolutely, that no Controversies were taught in that College these forty years: in which undertaking he has been so unlucky, that several persons of Honour in Ireland, who have been in Spain, and do know the language of it, saw an Instrument in Spanish yet extant in my keeping of the Inquisitor General of Spain, giving me Licence for having and keeping prohibited Books upon the account of being professor of Controversies in the aforesaid College after the Tenor following.  
En la villa de Madrid a 15. de Junio 1652. etc.  
En la villa de Madrid a quinze dias delmes de Junio de mily seiscientios y cinquenta, y does annos. El Illustrissimo y Reverendissimo Sennor Obispo de Placentia Inquisidor General en los Reynos y Sennorios' de su Magestad y de su consejo &c. dio Licentia all P. Andres Salo de la campania de Jesus, Rector del Collegio de Irlandezes de Salamanca, y Lector en el de la catedra de Controversias contra Herejes, paraque por tiempo de un anno, que comience a correr y contarse desde 〈◊〉, dia de la fecha, pueda tener, y leer libros prohibides para el efecto de escrivir y impri●●ir, y dar ala estampa qual quire libro o tratado. y le encargò, que si hallare en algun libro antiguo, o moderno, alguna proposition censurable, no comprehendida en el ex purgatorio, compliendo con sum obligation, lo advierta y de cuenta dello asu Sennoria Illustrissima o all consejo por lo que importa al servicio de dios nuestro Sennor. De lo qual testifico yo e●● infra escrito secretario de camara de su Sennoria Illustrissima.  
El L do Pedro Lopez de Brinnas.  
And at the bottom of the leaf on the left hand corner, are written these words, assentada a fol. 138 which is to say, set down page 138. I suppose of the Book where Licences given were enroled, to preven● the using of supposititious ones. Thither I remit Mr. S. if he doubts of the Legality of this Instruments. The foresaid Instrument turned to English saith thus.  
In the Town of Madrid the 15. day of the month of June 1652. the most Illustrious and Reverend Lord Bishop of Palencia, Inquisitor General in the Kingdoms and Dominions of his Majesty and of his Council etc. gave Licence to Father Andrew Shall of the Society of Jesus, Rector of the Irish College of Salamanca, and Reader in it of the Chair of Controversies against Heretics, that for the time of one year, which shall begin to run and be counted from this day of the date hereof, he may keep and read prohibited Books, for the purpose of writing printing or Publishing any Books or Treatises, and hath charged him, that if he find in any Book ancient or modern, any censurable proposition, not comprehended in the expurgatory, complying with ●is duty, he shall advertise and give notice of 〈◊〉 to his Grace, or to the Council, for the importance of it to the service of our Loird God, of which I certify the undernamed Secretary of the Cabinet to his Grace  
Licentiat Peter Lopez de Brinnas.  
For each one of the three years I was in that Office ●he like instrument was sent to me, and each of the ●id years my name enroled in the matricle or public Books of that University, for Rector of the said College of it, and Reader of Controversies. Mr. ●. S. may go thither, and see himself to his shame ●ound a liar. The like shame he shall meet with, ●or saying I was never a Reader of Moral Theology in ●e Royal College of the Society in that University. The Superiors and Lectors of the said College in the ●ear forementioned, and my Auditors, which were 〈◊〉 chief part of the Students of Divinity of the Jesuits ●n that province of Castille, will be on a trial, witness of the profligat boldness and imposture of I. S. ●et several Jesuits now living in Ireland, who at that ●ime were Students of Divinity in the foresaid College of Salamanca, and saw me sit with the other Divinity Professors examining yearly their sufficiency ●or promotion, and were examined by me, let them 〈◊〉 say be put to their oath, and if they will not forfeit their ears by the law of this land for perjury, they must testify against I.S. and his impostures.  
Finding me styled professor of Divinity in Pa●plona, Palentia, and Tudela, he says that there is no● nor was at any time Divinity taught in the Colleges of Palentia, and Tudela; and he may as we say in some places of Spain, that there is no suc● thing as a Lecture of Divinity in Oxford or Cambridg● With some he may meet in that part of the world, that could not contradict him; and happily it is 〈◊〉 with him now where he is. To some of his familiars he may persuade his saying; but to expose it t● public view by print, shows clearly that passion h●● blinded him not to see his shame: for certainly it would appear no less insolent in Palentia or Tudela, to sa● that there is not, nor was at any time a Lecture 〈◊〉 Divinity in those Colleges, then if you should s●● in Oxford or Cambridg so much of those Universities A numerous Congregation of Priests, and Student of Divinity to be priested, of those two great and famous Cities, and of the Country about, who were my auditors, will cry out against such a blind and bo●● writer, that has no regard to truth in what he says.  
He allows me the honour of having been Reader 〈◊〉 Divinity in the College of Pamplona, which is 〈◊〉 small wonder, that being one of the most famo●● and flourishing Colleges the Jesuits have in Spa●● and consequently to his purpose declared, to rob 〈◊〉 of that Credit, as he may do with the same grou● he did with the rest, that is to say with only his bo●● assertion or fiction, without any proof alleged. B●● he does it to bring upon me a greater discredit, t●ling his Reader that if they h●● been contented w●●● me, I might have continued longer in that employment and this we must take upon his credit, though a convinced bankrupt in truth. But how shall I refu●● him at this distance from those men, and in the present difficulty of getting their testimony in my favo●● I admire and praise God's providence in putting in●● my hands abundant evidences to repulse the spite●● attemt of this virulent Adversary. I will to his con●●sion produce here two testimonies that may suffice ●●r many; the one of a Prelate, the other of a Prince. ●he former is of a grave and aged Bishop, then supplicating to the Provincial of Castille for my continuance at Pamplona, by a letter of the tenor following.  
Admodum Reverendo in Christo Patri Martino de Lesaun Castellanae Provinciae societatis Jesupraeposito provinciali.  
Admodum R do in Christo pater,  
Capiens per ultimum tabellarium rumorem de P. Salo brevi inde abituro jussione tua, in mentem venit quod dixit Job, Venit mihi timor quem timebam: vix enim quidpiam praeter peccatum in Deum meum et cladem Religionis & patriae plus timendum censui ●●t dolendum, quam imperium de ejus migratione. Cur, pater colendissime, scholam ●ampelonensem Magistro tam claro, populum ●cclesiaste, Principes & Magnates regni Con●●liario in foro Conscientiae, & me praesulem afflictum & moerentissimum, ac gementem in exilio, spolias unico meo solatio? Quid aliis nostro incommodo bonus esse vis? Sed haud dubie ibi subditum tuum vivere malis, ub● Deo melius famulans proximo poterit magi● prodesse? Si ita est, relinque illum Pampelon●●bi hactenus praeter obsequia societatis occasione mutuae inter nos consuetudinis (dumibi vixerim) multum profuit patriae su● in spiritualibus, ut modo sit literarum colloquio. Muta igitur obsecro sententiam tuam pr● majori bono animarum, & Salum (ut mecum allaborans multis sternat viam salutis) indulge paulisper mihi & patriae suae, & spond●● fore ut te non poeniteat tam sancti consilii. Multa, si expediret omnia pandere, offer possum, quae monere possent Reverendissimam paternitatem tuam manibus & pedibus ire in meam sententiam. Expectans benignum responsum tuum, deosculor sacratas manus  
Reverendissimae paternitatis tu● Amantissimus in Christo servus Nichol. Episcopus Fernensis.  
For such as understand not Latin thus it goes i● English.  
To the Right Rd Father in Christ Martin de Lezaun Provincial Superior of the Society of Jesus in the Province of Castille.  
Right Rd Father in Christ,  
Understanding by the last post, that Father sal is to remove shortly from that City by your orders, Jobs saying comes to my mind, The thing which I greatly feared is come upon me. For certainly besides my sins against my God, and ruin of my Country and Religion, I could hardly conceive any thing more to be feared and grieved by me, than the order of his departure. Why, most Reverend Father, will you deprive the Schools of Pamplona of so famous a Master, the People of a preacher, the Princes and Peers of the Kingdom of a Counsellor in matters of conscience, and me an afflicted sad Prelate groaning in Banishment, of my only comfort? Why will you be good to others at our loss? But doubtless you will have your subjects to be, where serving God better, he may be more benefiaial to his brethren: if so, leave him at Pamplona, where hitherto besides the functions of the society, by occasion of our mutual communication while I lived in that City, he has done much good to his country in their spiritual concernments, as now is done by exchange of Letters. Altar your opinion therefore, I beseech you, for the greater good of souls, and lend sal for a while to me and to his Country, and I promise you that you shall not repent of so good a resolution. If it were convenient to discover all, I could allege many things which would induce your Reverend Paternity to a free and full consent to my proposal. Expecting your  answer I kiss your sacred hands  
Your most Reverend paternities most affectioned servant in Christ Nichol. Bishop of Fernes.  
The Author of this letter is yet living where Mr. S. may come to him and be certified of the case. And though he be of my present Antagonists, I know he has so much of truth and honesty in him, as not to deny his writing: for even now he confesses that his opinion of me, and the opinion of all that knew me, was conforming to what that letter represents, whatsoever be come of our present Controversies.  
The second testimony I have to be produced here more public and full to this purpose, is that of the Earl of S. Stephen, General of the Spanish army in Castille, Viceroy and Captain General first of the Kingdom of Gallicia, then of Navarr, and last of Peru, a Prince of as great repute for his learning and piety, as for his Government of Kingdoms and arms. Being Viceroy of Navarr, and Resident in Pamplona Metropolis of that Kingdom, all the time I was there teaching Philosophy and Divinity, and being often present at my public functions, as well of moderating disputes in Schools, as of preaching in Churches, and moreover having been pleased to render me very familiar with himself, for his direction and consultation in matters belonging to my profession and calling, at last delivered his opinion of me, for teaching, preaching, and behaviour, in an Elegy inserted among others of men he honoured of his age, and would have to live in the memory of posterity in a book of his works presented by his two Sons to Pope Alexander the 7th entitled horae succisivae Didaci Benavidii comitis S ti Stephani Proregis Navarrae, etc. and printed at Lions in France in the year 1660. In the pag. 278. of the said Book he hath this Elegy touching me.  

R do P. ANDREAESALO Hiberno Societatis Jesus Elogium.  
DIgnus Famâ, & familiâ Ignatianâ  
Vir,  
Hybernus patriâ, & Vernans literis.  
Superasti Haereseos Pelagi, ac  
Mortalitatis saevientes  
Procellas  
In Religionis tutum  
Sinum traductus.  
Salo, Sales, Sapientiam  
Cognomentum, Verba, Mens,  
Promunt.  
Patriae calamitatibus, & Calamo notus.  
A natalitiis oris, ore cum Nestoreo  
Ad Hispanas Scholas accessisti.  
Inservisti etiam sacrâ Eloquentiâ rostris.  
Et quod mirum,  
De Coelesti Patria non Patrio sermone  
Sed Hispano elegantissimè  
Perorasti.  
Vere peregrinus sermo à Peregrino!  
Ac dum te auribus usurpo,  
Quà dissertatorem Scholasticum,  
Quà Coeli Oraculorum interpretem,  
Hinc me sagatum acuminibus  
Armas,  
Hinc me togatum divinis  
Legibus instruis.  
Quod magis  
In tuis literis sine litura  
Mores suspicio.  
Desinis esse Ibernus, factus Iber:  
Desinis esse Iber, JESU assecla  
Factus.  
Hoc cautum ut habeas  
Volo:  
Te exemplo hamare,  
Quem meus amat  
Calamus.   
I forbear turning these words into English, both for the insufficiency I find in me for keeping their Elegancy in the Translation, and for my unwillingness of delivering in words of mine own, Eulogies whereof I acknowledge myself most unworthy, and which I could not behold without confusion. The book was sent unto me by the Bishop of Pamplona to be examined before it was printed, as the custom there is, and so bears my censure and approbation of it in the beginning. But the foresaid elegy was then concealed from me, and inserted among the rest, after the Copy went out of my hands: and truly I was surprised, and is no small confusion finding it in the book after it was printed. But I see God's great providence fore seeing the present malignant attemt of my adversary upon my credit, was pleased to have this Antidote prepared against his venem.  
I hope the judicious Reader will not ascribe to any appetit of vain Glory the exhibiting of the foresaid testimonies, to which the just and necessary defence of my credit did force me. And whereas my adversary is so bold as to appeal even to the Protestant reader, for justifying his attemt in robbing me of the Titles given to me, with a confessed design of weakening thereby my cause and my arguments with the vulgar, I embrace the same appeal, and desire the same reader to judge, whether it be right or reason I should desert his cause, and mine in this exigency. Shall we let their insolent and presumptuous vaunt run unchekt, wherewith they blind the simple, saying that no man of understanding or honesty can leave their Church for the reformed; that both Religion and learning have fixed their tents among them, so as out of their Society neither may be found: that the dullest wits coming to them, are illuminated and refined, and the most sublime, by leaving their Communion, are blinded and stupefied.  
This robber of titles certainly shall meet with something in his Encounter with me, that will trouble him more than those callings of Professor and Rector. Many Professors of Divinity and Rectors of Colleges have I known (without any great presumption I may say it) who in debates of this kind, could not put their opposers into such straits as I. S is like to find himself in, at the trial of his book, now to be taken in hand. But being he conceives that those callings may add force to my arguments with some readers, I will defend them in spite of his malice, and endeavour to forward the truth of God, by all that is mine by right.  
And if it be true what some of his party, to give more credit to this calumny, do report, saying that the Author of it is a Jesuit of my acquaintance in Spain, if so, I say, his guilt is hainoussy aggravated thereby, as being a formal and wilful impostor with certain knowledge of the untruth of what he says, he having been a master of a Grammar School in one of those Colleges where I was Professor of Divinity, and where he says Divinity was never taught, and knowing certainly that I had all those employments which he denies I should have had; for which cause several of the Romish Clergy and Laity in Ireland, who know the same, have detested the impudence of this man, in denying a thing so publicly known.  
I could not but imagine that some person capable himself of so desperate a folly as to take upon him fictitious titles, should be author of this rude calumny: for men's apprehensions of others are commonly a testimony of their own temper, as is observed in the beginning of this Preface. And if the said Jesuit be Author of that book and of the calumnies of it, the observation now mentioned is fully verified in him: for to my certain knowledge, this man being sent away from Spain before he was ripe in learning, to magnify his mission with private friends, gave himself a title, so ridiculously and Chimerically fictitious, that if I did mention it here, it would bring upon him an incurable confusion; not to wound him to deeply, I forbear to unfold the matter further at present. But I have declared it to a person of quality of his acquaintance with a message to him and his brethren, that if they will not stand to the offer of their Superior above mentioned, of union in Christianity and civil demeanour, nor will accept of my invitation to a trial of our cause by a grave and Scholastic way, becoming Christians and learned men, but must force me out of it by calumnies and slanders, they may possibly find, that it is not want of materials, that keeps me from throwing dirt in their face (as others commonly do departing from them) but want of inclination to such practices: and when their 
* Vide Caramvel Theolog, fundamentali fundamento 551. N. 1589.  great Doctors teach them to raise false testimonies whereby to discredit their adversaries, as this man does, I hope they will allow me to repel with truth, though bitter, the assaults of malicious enemies.  
After the publication of these four Books, now mentioned, the last and great engine applied by my former brethren to recall me, was a large and solemn Bull of Pope Clement the 10. now reigning in Rome, signed and Sealed by his Protonotarius Apostolicus, Claudius Agrete, assuring me in terms of full Legality, an entire and absolute Remission of all that is past, and a  reception to my former condition and privileges, if I would return to them. This Bull came into my hands by Dublin post in September last, with a letter about it of few lines in Latin, without subscription, inticeing me to an acceptance of the favour offered, and concluding with admonishing me of evil designed against me, if I did not consent to it; of which designs against me, I have had more notice given to me, than I am willing to publish: I thank God for delivering me hitherto, and I pray that he may correct the ill affected minds that harbour such cruel thoughts.  
To the offer made by that Bull of pardon and favour I answer, that I want a more necessary indult from the true supreme Head of the Church our Saviour Jesus Christ, for submitting to the present Laws and Commands of the Roman Church, opposite, as I do conceive, to the Commandments of God, the Doctrine of Christ, and the practice of the primitive Apostolical Church, as I hope to make appear in the following Treatise to the indifferent Reader, by the help of God.  
And finding the above mentioned I. S. more eager in challenging me to answer his Syllogisms, and his party more confident of them, I hastened my reply to him for the print, but some delays intervening which gave me way to have the second part (which 〈◊〉 intended to be of my reply) finished, before this other could be printed, I have resolved to leave his own place to Mr. I. S. which is the last, and begin with my reply to N. N. declaring by occasion of his objections, that the faith we profess in the Church of England is that (and no other) which Jesus Christ, and his Apostles taught, and was professed by the faithful, in the first and better ages of Christianity; that we have in this Church all those titles, and rights which do qualify a Church for truly Catholic, even according to the rules prescribed by the ablest writers of the Romish party, whereby all those loud cries against us for Heretics and Scismaties appear to be no better then emty bubbles, and mere wind, only apt to delude weak and ignorant people; and thence I will proceed to declare how their ordinary stuff of arguments against us, is bottomed constanly upon false suppositions and misrepresentations of our Doctrine and practices, which if well known to the sober and sincere sort of Roman Catholics, they would be far otherwise affected than they are towards the Church of England, by the false informations of ignorant or malicious instructors.  
O may the Father of light and the God of truth open the eyes of men blinded with earthly passions, that they may see and follow the true way to everlasting happiness declared to us by his dear Son Jesus, that his will and glory may be the common aim of all our wishes and writing, and of all our actions; that our Studies and endeavours be not to make the breach among Christians wider, but to reconcile them in Christ, that thus united in him, we be at length happily united among ourselves in the profession of true faith in our good Saviour Jesus, to whom with the Father and Holy Ghost, be all Honour and Glory for ever and ever Amen.   

A TABLE of CHAPTERS  

Of the First PART.  
CHAP. I. A Summary account of the Contents of N. N. his two Books, and a Distribution of the points to be handled in relation to them. pag. 1.  
CHAP. II. That the Church of England is a true Catholic Church, and the Doctrine professed in it, truly Catholic and Apostolic. pag. 6.  
CHAP. III. Suarez his Argument taken from the propriety of the word Catholic applied to prove that the Church of England is truly Catholic. pag. 14.  
CHAP. IU. The Church of England proved to be Apostolic upon the foundation laid by Suarez to rob it of that calling. pag. 21.  
CHAA. V Of the succession and Lawful Ordination of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons in the reformed Church of England. pag. 27.  
CHAP. VI The Ordination of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons in King Edward the Sixth his time, and after, proved to be legal and valid. pap. 41.  
CHAP. VII. How far the form of Ordination used in the Church of England, agrees with that of the ancient Church declared in the fourth Council of Carthage, and how much the form prescribed by the Roman Pontifical of this time differs from the ancient ●orm. pag. 49.  
CHAP. VIII. How far the Church of England does agree with the Romish, in matter of Ordination, and wherein they do differ, and how absurd the pretention of the Romanists is, that our difference herein with them should annul our orders. pag. 57  
CHAP. IX. That the succession of Bishops and Clergy since the Reformation, is much more sure and unquestionable in the English Church, then in the Romish. pag. 6●.  
CHAP. X. A further cause of Nullity discovered in the Election of Pope Clement the 8 th'. pag. 75.  
CHAP. XI. Nullities declared in the Popedom of Paul the 5 th'. and others following. pag. 81.  
CHAP. XII. Of the large extent of Christian Religion professed in the Church of England. pag. 89.  
CHAP. XIII. Of the several large and flourishing Christian Churches in the Eastern Countries not subject to the Pope. pag. 98.  
CHAP. XIV. Of the Jacobites, Armenians, Maronites, and Indians. pag. 110.  
CHAP. XV. A reflection upon the Contents of the three Chapters precceding, and upon the pride and cruelty of the Romanists in despising and condemning all Christian Societies not subject to their Jurisdiction. pag. 116.  
CHAP. XVI. Inferences from the Doctrine preceding of this who'e Treatise against the several objections of N. N. pag. 121.  
CHAP. XVII. The Reformation of the Church of England, vindicated from the slanderous aspersions of N. N. and other-Romanists. pag. 130.  
CHAP. XVIII. A view of N. N. his discourse upon Transubstantiation, and upon the affinity of the Roman Church with the Grecian. pag. 132.  
CHAP. XIX. N. N. His Book entitled the bleeding Iphigenia examined, his abusive language bestowed therein upon persons of Honour; and his censure upon the King's Majesty reprehended. pag. 140.  
CHAP. XX. That it is not lawful for subjects to raise arms and to go to war with their fellow subjects without the consent of their Prince. The Doctrine of kill men and making war by way of prevention and on pretext of Raligion, confuted. pag. 148.  
CHAP. XXI. A Conclusion of my discourse with N. N. with a Friendly Admonition to him. pag. 171.  
CHAP. XXII. A check to I. E. his Scandalous Libel; and a vindication of the Church of England from his false and slanderous report of it. pag. 178.   

The SECOND PART.  
CHAP. I. AN Anatomy of Mr. I. S. his Genius and drifts appearing in his Dedicatory Epistle to my Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. pag. 1.  
CHAP. II. A vindication of several Saints and worthy Souls, our Ancestors, from the sentence of Damnation passed upon them by I. S. pag. 6.  
CHAP. III. Mr. I. S. His cold defence of the Infallibility of his Church examined. pag. 14.  
CHAP. IU. That Protestants have a greater security for the truth of their Doctrine then Papists have. pag. 19  
CHAP. V Mr. I. S. His prolix Excursion about the Pope's Authority, requisite to know which is the true Scripture, declared to be impertinent, and the state of the question cleared from the confusion he puts upon it. pag. 27.  
CHAP. VI Mr. I. S. His defence of the Pope's pretended infallibility from the censure of Blasphemy, declared to be weak and impertinent, his particular opinion censured for heretical by his own party. pag. 33.  
CHAP. VII. Our Adversaries corruption of Scripture detected. pag. 41.  
CHAP. VIII. Mr. I. S. His horrible Impiety against the Sacred Apostles and malicious impostures upon the Church of England reprehended. pag. 46.  
CHAP. IX. Our Adversartes pretention to prescription and Miracles in favour of the infallibility of their Church rejected: his impostures upon me and upon the Church of England discovered further. pag. 53.  
CHAP. X. A Check to Mr. I. S. his insolent Thesis prefixed for title to the 8th Chapter of his book, that the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ nor any part of it. That they cannot without Blasphemy allege Scripture for their tenets. And his own argument retorted to prove, that the Roman Church is not the Church of Christ. pag. 59  
CHAP. XI. A Refutation of several other engagements of Mr. I. S. in that 8 th'. Chapter. pag. 66.  
CHAP. XII. Mr. I. S. His answer to my objections against the Popes in fallibility refuted, his defence of Bellarmin, of the General Council of Constance, and of Costerus, declared to be weak and vain. pag. 70.  
CHAP. XIII. Our Adversaries foul and greater circle committed, pretending to rid his pretention of infallibility from the censure of a circle, his many absurdities and great ignorance in the pursuit of that attemt, discovered, a better resolution of Faith proposed according to Protestant principles. pag. 77.  
CHAP. XIV. A Reflection upon the perverse Doctrine contained in the resolution of Faith proposed to us by Mr. I. S. and the pernicious and most dangerous consequence of it. pag. 85.  
CHAP. XV. Mr. I. S. his defence of the Pope's Supremacy declared to be vain, their pretence to a Monarchical power over all Christians, whether in Spiritual or Temporal, proved to be unjust and Tyrannical. pag. 92.  
CHAP. XVI. How falsely Mr. I. S. affirms the Irish did not suffer by the Pope's prohibiting them to subscribe to the Remonstrance of fidelity proposed to them. pag. 100  
CHAP. XVII. The complaint of Papists against our King for the Oath of Supremacy he demandeth from his subjects, declared to be unjust. pag. 103.  
CHAP. XVIII. Our Adversaries essay in favour of Transubstantiation examined, his challenge for solving two Syllogisms answered. pag. 110.  
CHAP. XIX. Several answers to my arguments against Transubstantiation refuted. pag. 118.  
CHAP. XX. Ancient School men declare Transubstantiation cannot be proved out of Scripture, and that it was not an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council, Mr. I. S. his great boast of finding in my check to their worship of the host, a prejudice to the Hierarchy of the Church of England, declared to be void of sense and ground. pag. 126.  
CHAP. XXI. Mr. I. S. His weak defence of their half Communion confuted pag. 135.  
CHAP. XXII. The Roman worship of Images declared to be sinful, pag. 142.  
CHAP. XXIII. Mr. I. S. His defence of the Romish Worship of Images from the guilt of Idolatry confuted, the miserable condition of the vulgar, and unhappy engagement of the learned among Romanists touching the worship of Images discovered. pag. 148.  
CHAP. XXIV. Our Adversaries reply to my exceptions against their invocation of Saints declared to be impertinent. pag. 159.  
CHAP. XXV. A great stock of Faults and Absurdities discovered in Mr. I. S. his defence of Purgatory. pag. 168.  
CHAP. XXVI. The Argument for Purgatory taken from the 12 th'. of S. Matth. v. 32. solved. 173.  
CHAP. XXVII. The attemt of our Adversary to make the Doctrine of Purgatory an Article of the Apostles Creed, declared to be vain. pag. 185.  
CHAP. XXVIII. How weak is the foundation of the grand Engine of Indulgences in the Roman Church. pag. 188.  
CHAP. XXIX. The unhappy success of Mr. I. S. his great boast of skill in History, touching the Antiquity of Indulgences, discovered. pag 195.  
CHAP. XXX. Of the strange and absurd terms used in the grants of Indulgences, and the immoderate profuseness wherewith, and slight causes for which they are granted. pag. 199.  
CHAP. XXXI. The Dismal unhapiness of the Romish People in having their Liturgy in a tongue unknown to them. pag. 212.  
CHAP. XXXII. The cruelty of the Roman Church in prohibiting the Reading of Scripture to the People, and their common pretence of Sects and Divisions arising among Protestants refuted. pag 216.  
CHAP. XXXIII. Mr. I. S. His engagement touching the Immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, and the practice of Confession, confuted. pag. 219.  
CHAP. XXXIV. A Reflection upon the many Fallacies, Impertinencies, Absurdities, and Hallucinations of Mr. I.S. his Book, which may justify a Resolution of not mispending time in returning any further reply to such writings, and a conclusion of the whole Treatise, exhorting him to a consideration of his miserable condition in deceiving himself and others with vanity. pag. 222.    

TRUE CATHOLIC & APOSTOLIC FAITH Maintained in the CHURCH of ENGLAND. PART. I.  
Being A Reply to N. N. his two Books, the one entitled, The Bleeding Iphigenia, the other, The doleful fall of etc. with a reflection upon I. E. his Libel entitled, A Sovereign counterpoison, etc. and a Vindication of the Church of England from the calumnies of them, and of their Party.  

CHAP. I. A summary account of the Contents of N. N. his two Books, and a distribution of the points to be handled in relation to them.  
AN useful Proposal being made in the Senate of Athens by a person of ill repute, those wise Senators accorded the same should be tendered by another of a clearer fame, that it might carry by his authority more weight, and be the better accepted. The like seems to have been practised with me by my Brethren of the Romish communion. Reasons of discontent with the Church of England, and great affronts of it being presented to me, by J. E. in his Book or Libel entitled, A Sovereign counterpoison, etc. they justly suspecting that I would slight that onset, out of a dislike to the person, because of his rude and passionate expressions, have taken care that the same and other motives of discontent should be proposed by another of greater repute; an aged, and grave Prelate, renowned for learning and virtue, and one much respected by me. He is pleased to give me marks of former acquaintance for knowing him, but without commission of further discovering him to the Reader, then under the character of N. N.  
In the beginning of his Preface, (which came forth in a separate Tractate) he tells me how much he was surprised and troubled, seeing a Copy (he received in Print from London) of my Declaration for the Church of England. This paper indeed (says he) gave me a great heaviness of heart, for I loved the Man dearly, for his amiable nature and excellent parts, and esteemed him both a pious person and a learned, and so did all that knew him. And after bemoaning my fall (as he calls it) from a little heaven, the state of Religion, wherein (says he) for a time he shined, like a little Star, in virtue and learning, he declares his anger against me, and purpose of serving me not with the Waters of Shiloah that go softly, but with those of Rezin more tumultuous, to wash me from the stains of Heresy.  
And after this, leaving me, he falls abruptly on lamenting the miseries of Ireland, and complaining of injuries done to the natives of it, and justifying their proceed in their late Insurrection, which he will not have to be called Rebellion. In this he spends that Tractate, and then proceeds to the greater Book designed against me, giving to it this title, The doleful fall of Andrew sal, Jesuit of the fourth vow, from the Roman Catholic and Apostolic faith, lamented by his constant friend, with an open rebuking of his embracing the Confession contained in the 39 Articles of the Church of England.  
This Book he gins with a Rhetorical, or Satirical exclamation against my resolution of embracing the said Confession: and proceeds to relate at large the virtues and learning of Saint Hierom, Saint Augustine, Saint Ambrose, and other holy Doctors of the Church, whose company he says I have forsaken: and then makes a large list of Heretics of all ages beginning with Luciser, whom he will have to be the first Heretic before Man's creation, and so coming down all along by Cain, Lamech, the Giants, Cham, Jannes, and Jambre, with others mentioned in holy writ, to these of the latter times, relating their execrable vices and errors; of all which he will have me to be guilty, and an associate of those Heretics, for embracing the Confession contained in the 39 Articles of the Church of England. He pretends to discuss, and censure some of them, as also some parts of my Declaration, and makes a scandalous Narrative of the English Reformation, and finally concludes with a fervent exhortation to me to return to the Roman Church.  
By this Scheme I deliver of that Book, the prudent Reader may judge how tedious a labour it were to take notice of every thing contained in it, and how impertinent, I being so far from what he supposes me to be, and from being concerned in the Heresies, and for the Heretics he mentions. Yet the quality of the person, the sacred tye of friendship which he professes for me, and the good intention I am to believe he had in his writing, and above all the love of truth obliged me to undeceive him, and others that may be of his opinion, in the great and gross mistake he is in touching my condition, and that of the Church of England, whose Communion I have embraced. I will therefore declare,  
First, That the Religion we profess in the reformed Church of England, is no other than the true, Primitive, Catholic, and Apostolic Religion, taught by our Saviour Jesus Christ, and his Apostles, and practised in the first and purer ages by the Primitive Church.  
Secondly, That we have nothing to do with the Heresies N. N. attributes to us: and his Brethren practising such calumnies, do manifest it is not the Spirit of God that moves them.  
Thirdly, That the professors of the Evangelical Doctrine in the Reformed Churches are not so few or despicable, nor the Romish faction so considerable, as they would make the Ignorant believe.  
Fourthly and lastly, I will refute some seditious Doctrines delivered in his first Book, that is a preface to the second, and will conclude with a check to J. E. his calumnies and barbarous abuses fastened on the Protestant Church.   

CHAP. II. That the Church of England is a true Catholic Church, and that the Doctrine professed in it is truly Catholic and Apostolic.  
YOu begin the first Chapter of your Book against me, N. N. (under this character you will be named,) You begin I say, with a Rhetorical exclamation in these terms, O sal, tell us what domincering Spirit of darkness, what black temptation hath drawn you out of the house of God? I may justly return for answer an other exclamation better grounded, and say, O N. N. tell us what domineering spirit of blindness, what black presumption is this, that so generally possesses your faction amidst the light of so learned an age, that a person of your years and degree should not know, that in the House of my Heavenly Father there are many Mansions? that it extends further than the quarters of the Roman Pope? that by quitting his jurisdiction, I forsake not the whole house of God? But though you declare to your Reader, that your purpose is not to deal with me Scholastically, but Historically, that is to say, (as I find) not by reason, but by railing, and by calumnies, wherewith your usual armouries are plentifully stored, and by emty flourishes upon false grounds; I will not engage in like manner with you, but prove Scholastically, that is to say, with formal and solid arguments demonstrate, that in all your cries you beat the air and not me; that all of them are grounded upon a false supposition; that by forsaking the Romish communion I did not forsake the Catholic Church; that the Church of England, whose communion I embraced, is a very noble and sound member of the Catholic Church, and the Doctrine professed in it, & proposed to the People for the object of their belief, is truly Catholic and Apostolic, free from all Heresy and falsehood. And when I have proved so much in a rational and Scholastic style and method, it will appear how vain your attemt is of working on me, by loud cries against Heresies wherein I am not concerned, as if you were hunting a wild Boar in a forest to drive him by clamour and shouting into your nets. It is reason that wins me, and whereby I desire to win others, not exclamations and cries of that kind.  
I will not repete the just complaints delivered by many learned Writers of the arrogance of your party, of their absurdity and impropriety of terms in pretending that they alone are the Catholic, that is to say the Universal Church, being at the best but a part of it, and the same very corrupt, and not the greater part but the less by very much, as hereafter will appear.  
To go through with my engagement of proving by Scholastical exact reasons, that the Church of England is a true Catholic Church, I'll take up the arguments urged against this verity by one of the ablest Schoolmen that ever wrote in favour of your cause, employed by the Pope against our great and learned K. James, I mean Francis Suarez Jesuit; I will I say take up the arguments wherewith this famous Schoolman pretends to rob the Church of England of the glorious title of a Catholic Church, and declare by that way of arguing which Logicians after Aristotle do call argumentum mirabile, that they prove the contrary, and confirm the Church of England in its right to the title of a true Catholic and Apostolic Church. It will indeed appear a singular triumph of truth, that the weakest defender of it should wrest Arms out of the hand of the ablest opposer, and beat him with his own weapons. A trial of this great power of truth, I offer now to the view of the ingenious Reader in my encounter with Suarez on this Subject. I will not pursue all the amplifications and excursions of this voluminous Writer, as not suitable to the brevity and perspicuity I intent to follow; yet I will take up the foundations of all his arguments upon this subject, and apply them to my purpose aforesaid.  
Franciscus Suarez in his volume entitled, defensio Fidei Catholicae & Apostolicae adversus Anglicanae sectae errores, in his first Book from the 12. Chapter of it forward, endeavours to prove, that the Church of England is not a Catholic Church, & therefore that the Faith of it is not a Catholic Faith. The first foundation he lays to this purpose is this, that these two things Catholic Faith and Catholic Church are so united, as the one may not be found separate from the other, so that no Church may be Catholic wherein the Catholic Faith is not professed, neither may the Catholic Faith be found in any Church that is not Catholic. Thence he proceeds to prove, that the Roman Church is Catholic, because it has a continual succession from the first Church that was so called, and retaineth the same Faith which the primitive Catholic Apostolic Church did profess; for which he citys Tertullian saying, Doctrinam Catholicam esse in Ecclesiâ Romanensi, that in the Roman Church Catholic Doctrine is professed, which is as much (says Suarez) as if he had said, it's a Catholic Church: from all which Suarez concludes n. 13. that the Church of England is not Catholic, because it is not the Roman Church, nor united with it, and there is but one Catholic Church, as we confess in the Creed.  
How hard a task Suarez has in proving to complete his argument, that in the present Church of Rome that Faith, and no other, is taught which the ancient Church called Catholic did teach, may appear by all my former discourses against their new coined Articles never mentioned in the Primitive Church.  
But my present work will be to show, how his argument wherewith he pretends to prove the Roman Church to be the Catholic, doth with more force evince the Church of England to be truly Catholic. And thus I form it to that purpose. In whatsoever Church that Faith is professed which was taught in the ancient Church first called Catholic and Apostolic, that Church is truly Catholic and Apostolic: In the Church of England 
Tertul. in praescriptionibus, cap. xx.  is professed that Faith, which was taught by the ancient Church first called Catholic and Apostolic; therefore the Church of England is truly Catholic and Apostolic. If we prove the minor proposition, Suarez cannot in justice deny the consequence. And if he will insist upon his pretention of such a disunion of his Church with that of England that both may not be Catholic, let the second consequence be of his own making, that their Church is no Catholic Church: for it is not my intention to make them worse than the Doctors of the Church of England do, who allow them to be members, though corrupt, of the Catholic Church. The minor proposition wherein the stress of my argument consists, I prove thus; The Faith taught by the ancient Church, first called Catholic and Apostolic, is that contained in the three Creeds, that of the Apostles, of Ne'er and Athanasius, professed and declared in the first four General Councils, of Nice, Ephesus, Constantinople and Chalcedon, received by the faithful in the four first ages of the Christian Church; All this Faith is professed by the Church of England, as Suarez confesses to have been declared by King James, and is to be seen in his Majesty's Epistle to Cardinal Perron written by Isaac Causabon: Therefore that Faith is taught in the Church of England, which was taught by the Primitive Church, first called Catholic and Apostolic; and consequently is a Church truly Catholic and Apostolic, according to the foresaid rule given us by Suarez, and laid for a foundation of his argument to prove the Roman Church to be Catholic. And truly it cannot but appear strange, that any Christian, not blinded with partiality or prejudice, should imagine, that the sacred Apostles, entrusted to preach saving Doctrine to all the World, should not have given a sufficient notice of it in the system of Articles they left to us: That those venerable Fathers of the purer ages of Christianity, congregated in the four first general Councils, should give us but a diminute account of Catholic and Apostolic belief: that the Pope's Infallibility, Supremacy, and other articles of latter impression in the Roman Church, should be so essential to Christian Faith, as none may be saved without a belief of them.  
This argument may be confirmed by the testimony of Athanasius related by Suarez in the chapter above mentioned, num. 2. saying, that the collection of Articles contained in his Creed is the Catholic Faith: haec est Fides Catholica, etc. this is the Catholic Faith, which except a Man believe he cannot be saved: but in the Church of England that Faith called Catholic and contained in the Creed of Athanasius is believed and professed, therefore if any Church professing the Catholic Faith is Catholic itself, the Church of England professing this Catholic Faith, is truly Catholic.  
The second foundation laid by Suarez in the same chapter n. 6. to prove that his Church is Catholic, is to say, that it did in all times profess the Faith of that Creed, wherein the Church is called Catholic: But the Church of England does and always did profess the Faith of the same Creed; therefore it has the same right to the like calling.  
The third foundation laid by Suarez from the 15. num. of the said chapter, is a sign or distinctive used by ancient Fathers for to know a Church or Congregation truly Catholic, and to distinguish it from another not Catholic; That whensoever any Sect takes its name from the master or teacher of such a Doctrine, and the followers of it do call themselves by such a name, neither the Doctrine nor the followers of it are Catholic: For which he alleged the testimony of Athanasius, Chrysostom, Lactantius, and Others. And the reason or cause of this distinctive is, that every Heresy brings in some novelty against the ancient Faith, and new things must have new names whereby to be known and distinguished from others.  
But it is very remarkable how this subtle disputant, otherwise very exact and formal in his discourses, pretending to rob the Church of England of the name of Catholic by the principle now mentioned, comes to confirm the same name upon it, not finding it capable of the foresaid note of a Sect not Catholic. For pretending to name it from Calvin, he finds an obstacle in it, because Calvin does not approve a chief Doctrine of it. Then he passes to call it Henrician from King Henry the vl, because from him the Church of England did learn to acknowledge the King for Head or supreme Governor of the Church in his own dominions. Against this also he meets with several obstacles, to which I will add this other very considerable, that this practice of the Church of England is by many ages more ancient than the time of Henry the Eight, whereas it allows no other Supremacy to our King over the Church, than such as the Godly Kings of Israel, and the Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church did exercise in their respective Dominions, as is declared in the 37. Article, and in the second Canon of the Church of England. Since Suarez, can not find the name of Lutheran, Calvinist, Henrician, or any other taken from any particular Author, or teacher, to be agreeable to this Church, it must follow from the above mentioned note of a Catholic Church delivered by him, and taken out of ancient Fathers, that it is a Church truly Catholic, that being the only name itself own's. And the Preachers of it, praying for our King, do stile him Defender of the Faith truly Catholic and Apostolic; and King James in his Monitory to the Emperor, and other Christian Princes, styles himself, Defender of the Faith truly Christian, Catholic and Apostolic, of the ancient and Primitive Church; and we do all pray hearty, that our Kings may never defend any other Faith then this.   

CHAP. II. Suarez his argument taken from the propriety of the word Catholic, applied to prove that the Church of England is truly Catholic.  
THe fourth foundation laid by Suarez, in the 14th Chap. of his foresaid Book, to prove that the Church of England is not Catholic, he takes from the propriety & meaning of the word Catholic. He supposes, that according to the etymology of the word in Greek, Catholic is the same as Universal, or Common: which Universality he says is fourfold in relation to the present purpose. First, as to the matter or object of our belief, that it be entire, comprehending all points belonging to Christian and saving Faith. Secondly, that it have an Universal or common reason of belief: which common reason or rule must be Divine truth, or the Word of God, whereby he gives testimony to truth, according to that expression of Saint Paul 1 Thess. 2.13. When ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth the word of God. Thirdly, Universality is required in relation to the degrees and orders of persons, according to that description of a Church given by Optatus Milevitanus, Lib. 2. contra Parmenianum. Certa membra sua habet Ecclesia, Episcopos, Presbyteros, Diaconos, Ministers, & turbam fidelium, that the Church has its certain members, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Ministers, and a Congregation of the faithful. The fourth and chief universality required for the propriety of the name Catholic is, that a Church to be such be extended over all the parts of the Earth, according to the declaration of the said Optatus, Lib. 2. Contra Donatistas': ubi ergo erit proprietas Catholici nominis, quod sit rationabilis & ubique diffusat; that the propriety of the name Catholic requires it should be a Church rational and diffused over all places.  
Suarez endeavours to prove, that all these proprieties of Universality belonging to a Catholic Church, are wanting to this of England, that it may be called Catholic. First, as to the material universality or integrity of Articles necessary to a Catholic Faith, he pretends that the Church of England is deficient in several Articles, as he promises to prove elsewhere, but at present singles out as chief that of the Pope's Supremacy, which the Church of England denies, and he promises to prove that it belongs to a Catholic Faith. I commend Suarez his ingenuity and perspicacity in striking the nail in the head. This indeed is that stumbling stone and Rock of offence, This is the chief and I may say the only cause of that irreconcilable disunion of the Roman Church with us. We know by certain and well authorized 
* Tortura torti, Pag. 152.  records, that Pope Paul the Fourth offered Queen Elizabeth to approve of the Reformation, if the Queen would acknowledge his Primacy and the Reformation from him; and he being dead his Successor Plus the 4. prosecuted the same, as appears by his letters written the 5 
* Cambden. Anno 1560.  of 
* Twisden. H. Vind. Cap. IX. n. 5.  May 1560. and sent by Vincentius Parpalia, offering to confirm the Liturgy of the English Church, if she would acknowledge his Supremacy. This being told by Sir Roger Twisden (as he relates himself) to an Italian Gentleman versed in public affairs, together with the grounds on which he spoke it; well, (said the Gentleman) if this were heard in Rome among religious Men, it would never gain credit; but with such as have in their hands the maneggi della corte (the management of the court affairs) it may be held true. And indeed su●h as know the spirit of that Court, may easily believe, that if this great point of the Supremacy, the foundation of their power and grandeur were agreed upon, they would easily wink at other dissensions. Whereof we have a pregnant testimony from Bellarmin, Lib. 3. de Ecclesia Cap. 20. asserting, that even such as have no interior Faith, nor any Christian virtue, are to be taken for members of the Catholic Church, provided they do but outwardly profess the Faith of the Roman Church, and subjection to the Pope, though it be only for some temporal interest. So ready they are in Rome to embrace all sorts of men, provided they acknowledge the Pope's Supremacy. This being established, all is well; being denied, the best of Men and soundest Believers in Christ must be damned Heretics by sentence of that Court.  
But I shall declare sufficiently in the 15. Chapter of the 2d part of this Treatise, how vain the pretence of Suarez and his party is, to make the Pope's Supremacy an article of saving Faith; how unjust and tyrannical an usurpation it is: how far the best Popes in the Primitive Church were from pretending to it, and more from pressing it upon Christians as an article of saving Faith. And indeed it must appear strange to any impartial judgement, that the System of articles contained in the three Creeds and four first general Counsels, which gained the name of Catholic to the Church first called so, should not suffice to make a Church Catholic in all times. Therefore the Church of England professing all those Articles is to be taken for truly Catholic, though denying the Pope's Supremacy, not contained in the foresaid System, nor ever owned by the Church first called Catholic, as hereafter will be proved.  
As to the second sort of Universality, consisting in taking the Word of God for a common reason or rule of belief, how can any pretend the Church of England to be deficient herein, having ever protested that the Word of God contained in Canonical Scripture is the prime and only rule of its belief, while the Roman Church denies to stand to this rule, as unable to make out all the belief it would force upon us. What Suarez pretends, that the Church of England wants a rule infallible for knowing which is true Scripture, and the true meaning of it, which they conceive to have themselves in the Pope's infallibility, I shall declare in the eighth Chap. of the 2d part of this Treatise how vain it is, we having in universal tradition, and in the Writings of the Holy Fathers, means sufficiently certain for knowing which is the true Scripture, and which the true meaning of it in points necessary to Salvation. As for others less necessary, if there be obscurity and diversity of opinions among our Writers, so is there among theirs, nor could their pretended Infallibility ever make them agree. Nay among the best and wisest Fathers of the Church there was always a great diversity of opinions in points not fundamental, without breach of Catholic and Christian union.  
Now concerning the third kind of union or universality, consisting in a hierarchical order of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, etc. Suarez is much mistaken in saying, that we have them not true and legal. I will declare at large from the fifth Chapter following, that we have all the security they have, of a legal sucession and true ordination of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. It's their concern we should not be found deficient herein: for any defect conceived in our hierarchy will reflect upon theirs.  
Finally touching the fourth manner of Universality, signified by the name Catholic, that a Church or Faith so called should be extended over all the Earth, Suarez exceeds much in denying this property to the Church of England or Faith professed in it, saying it passes not the bounds of British land. To which is contrary that grave and modest testimony of King James, related by Suarez in the same place, chapter xv. n 6. Nos Dei benesicio nec numero, nec dignitate ita sumus contemnendi, qui ●●ono vicinis nostris exemplo praeire possimis: quandoquidem Christiani orbis omniumque in eo ordinum inde à Regibus liberisque Principibus usque ad insimae conditionis homines pars propè media in nostram Religionem consensit. We, by the grace of God, are not so despicable either for number or dignity, that we may not be a good example to our Neighbours: whereas near the one half of the Christian World, and all orders of People in it from Kings and Sovereign Princes to the meanest sort of persons, have already embraced our Religion. I shall declare hereafter from the XIX. Chapter descending to particulars, that this saying of King James was both true and modest, and that more than the one half of the Christian World agrees with the Church of England in unity of Faith, sufficient to render them Catholic: and that the Church of Rome may cease bragging of her extent, being now come so short of that latitude which made her swell to the contemt of all other Christian Churches, now far exceeding her in number and lustre of Princes and Kingdoms embracing the Faith professed in them.  
Suarez preventing a check to his argument from this discovery in the XVI. Chapter num. 4. of his said Book, premises, that this general extension of the Catholic Church over all the World, is to be understood of extension either by right or by actual possession, and though the latter be deficient, the former of right cannot want, Christ having commanded that his Gospel should be preached to all the World. But how can Suarez pretend that this right should belong to the Faith of his Church rather than to that of the Church of England? whereas this latter preacheth only for object of belief the Word of God contained in the Gospel, and in the other Canonical Scriptures, while the Roman preaches articles coined by herself, and never given to the Apostles to be preached, as we shall show abundantly hereafter, refuting the errors of it.   

CHAP. IU. The Church of England proved to be Apostolic upon the foundation laid by Suarez to rob it of that Title.  
SVarez, after having used his best endeavours to deprive the Church of England of her right to the name of Catholic, with so little success as we have seen in the precedent Chapter, he passes in the 17. Chapter of his foresaid Book, to rob it of the name of Apostolic, & so to deprive King James of the title he gives himself of Defender of the Faith truly Catholic and Apostolic.  
To prove that the Faith of the Church of England is not Apostolic, he lays this foundation; that two things are requisite to make a Faith or Doctrine Apostolic. The first that it proceed in some manner from the Preaching, words or writings of the Apostles. Secondly, that it be conveyed to us by legal tradition and succession. The first is contained in those words of St. Paul, Ephes. 2.19. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow Citizens with the Saints & of the household of God, & are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. The second requisite is declared by Irenaeus, lib. 3. cap. 3. in these words, Traditionem Apostolorum in omni Ecclesia adest perspicere quae vera velint audire, & habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis & successores eorum usque ad nos. Who are willing to hear truth must look upon the tradition of the Apostles in all Churches, and we can number those that were ordained Bishops by the Apostles and their successors to our own times.  
Suarez pretends these two requisites to be wanting in the Church of England to merit the Name of Apostolic. First, says he, because the Doctrine of it was not preached by the Apostles, neither was it taken out of their Doctrine, or conveyed to us by lawful tradition. Against which position he brings King James protesting himself to believe, admit and reverence the Canonical Scripture, the three Creeds, and the first four General Councils, in which sacred fountains he judged the Apostolic Faith to be contained; and Suarez acknowledges that King James spoke herein not only his own sense but the sense and belief of the whole Church of England, which is no small glory to it.  
But how can Suarez make out, that the Apostolic Faith and Doctrine is not sufficiently contained in those sacred Fountains of the Scriptures, Creeds and Councils received by the Church of England? See Reader and admire his answer. Tho the Doctrine of the said Books considered in itself (says he) be Catholic Apostolic Faith (or rather a part of it, for he pretends that all Catholic Faith is not contained in those fountains) yet as it is received by sectaries, either it is not Apostlic, or it may not be certainly taken for such. First, because they cannot be certain whether those Books they receive be Canonical, or the Councils legal. Secondly, that they cannot be certain of the true meaning of the Scriptures Creeds or Councils. So that in conclusion, the Divinity of our Saviour, preached by a Romish Priest is Catholic Apostolic Faith; but not so, when preached by one of the Church of England. I should indeed think this only consequence to be a sufficient confutation of this unhappy subtlety of Suarez: but further to his reason; when effectively we are secured that the Scripture received by us is truly Canonical and Divine, and our adversaries do allow it, what need is there for quarrelling about the grounds and motives of our security therein? and touching the sense both of Scripture, Creeds & Councils; the 
* Se tria symbola in eo se●su interpretari, quem illis esse voluerunt Patres atque concilia a quibus funt condita atque descripta.  saying of K. James related by Suarez, n. 9 that he does take the Creeds in the same sense which the Fathers and Counsels by whom they were made were willing to give to them, well considered, is both pious and prudent. When the words of a Scripture or article are capable of different senses, all consistent with Christian verity, and none repugnant to sound Doctrine, it is b●t Catholic pretty to suspend a firm assent to one, and keep a readiness to adhere to what may be the real intention of the sacred writer. For example, that article of the Apostles Creed touching our Saviour's descent into Hell, is capable of different senses in relation to the Hell he descended into. It's a groundless conjecture of Suarez that King James and the Church of England with him should deny a real descent, and say he did suffer the pains of Hell in the garden; as may be seen by the grave discourse of learned Dr. Pearson now Bishop of Chester upon that article. We believe he descended really into Hell, that is to say into some place, under the Earth, it may be without any absurdity to the Hell of the damned, as declared in the second part of this Treatise, c. 27. But whether it was that Hell or an other subterranean place he descended into, we may with piety and prudence suspend our judgement, having no Divine oracle to ground upon the determination of the place.  
And Suarez gives us a signal example of this resignation of our intellects to the intention of the Writer, in a matter less sacred than the Articles of the Creed, I mean the expressions of Pope's touching Indulgencies. Finding insuperable difficulties, in giving a congruous sense to terms of that art, which appear nonsense, as those of plena, plenior, plenissima, full, more full, most full. If full or plenary, how can another be more full, etc. He confesses not to understand the propriety of these and other expressions used upon that Subject, but will rest upon the judgement of the Church, which knows the meaning of those measures, as will be seen in the 39 Chapter. And certainly all those of his party have need of this kind of resignation to rest upon, if they will have quiet: for there is no article of Creed or Council without diversity of Opinions touching the true meaning of it among their Doctors.  
But this Author has more to say to us, that the points, wherein we differ from the Roman Church, were never taught by any of the Apostles. For example, saith he, to make the King Supreme Governor of the Church, (this nettles him still) what place of Scripture, what History does warrant this Doctrine? What Christian or Godly King did practise such a Supremacy over the Church? to which I say, that we have a warrant for this subjection to our Princes in the words of St. Paul, Rom. XIII. 1. Let every Soul be subject unto the higher powers, where no distinction is made betwixt the Ecclesa●ic and Secular. We have for the same practice the examples of the Godly Kings of israel, and of Christian Emperors in the Primit●●e Church, as will be declared hereafter Chap. XV. 1. And our Doctrine herein, being built thus on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, appears thereby to be Catholic and Apostolic.  
And if any Doctrine of ours be not found grounded upon the same foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, we are all rea●y to make that pious confession of our great King James, related by Suarez, Chapter XVII. n. 15. Ego vero id ingenuè spondeo, quoties Religionis quam profiteor ullum caput ostendetur non antiquum, Catholicum, & Apostolicum, sed novitium esse ac recens (in rebus sc. spectantibus ad sidem) me statim ab eo d●s●essurum. I do faithfully promise, that whensoever any point of the Religion I profess shall be found not to be ancient, Catholic and Apostolic, but new and modern (as to things belonging to Faith) I will presently departed from it. This much those of the Roman Church cannot say with sincerity and truth, since several of their tenants are not built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, but are contrary to them, as is declared in the second part of this Treatise. Therefore our Church and the Faith of it, rather than that of Rome, is truly Catholic and Apostolic.   

CHAP. V Of the Succession and lawful Ordination of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, in the Reformed Church of England.  
NOthing is affirmed more confidently, nothing more blindly believed by most of the Romish party, than the nullity of the Protestant Clergy, that our Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not such effectively, but nominally, or by title, and therefore unable to give Orders they have not, or administer Sacraments depending upon such Orders. This I find by experience to be the greatest stop, many of the more sober and serious of them have, in embracing the Communion of the Church of England. They see clearly nothing is asserted by it which may be thought Heretical or erroneous. And what it denies of superstructures added in latter Ages by the Roman Church, they easily perceive them not to be essential to Salvation. Their main scruple is, whether in this separation of the reformed Churches from the Roman, a lawful succession of Bishops and Ministers was retained, and a legal ordination of them continued: whether they may live and die confidently relying upon the Ministry of the reformed Ministers for consecrating, absolving, etc. without recourse to a Romish Priest.  
This point I find to be so necessary for settling the minds of many in this wavering age, that I thought convenient to examine it exactly, as far as may consist with the brevity and clearness I aim at in this writing. To relate the reproaches and calumnies of Romish Writers against our Ministry were endless and impertinent. The shorter and readiest way will be, to show the truth and right of our cause by positive undeniable arguments touching the lawful succession and due Ordination of our Clergy. This being established, old stories and slanders will fall of themselves. Who would not think it impertinent in me to take notice of that very rude and ridiculous fable, of the Ordination of Parker and others at the Naggs-head in Cheapside, most vigorously and demonstratively refuted many years ago by Mr. Mason, and unhappily revived of late by a certain Gentleman to his own great shame and discredit of his cause, being evidently convicted of Impostures, by the Lord Bishop Bramhal in a separate Treatise printed upon that Subject? Such base stuff as this, if suitable to ears possessed with fury and blind passion, is unworthy of any mention or regard among serious and sober Men.  
Now coming to the point, after much reading and serious consideration upon the matter, I wish hearty, I could find the succession of lawful Bishops so clear and not interrupted in the Roman Church, from the Apostles times to the Reformation, as we are able to show it in ours from the beginning of the Reformation to our own days. It shall not be my present work to take notice of doubts occurring touching the former. It will suffice for my purpose to demonstrate, that from the beginning of Henry the Eight his reign (when no doubt was of the legality of our Clergy) to this day, there has been a lawful uninterrupted succession and due Ordination of Bishops and other Inferior Clergy in the Churches of England and Ireland. If the testimony of an adversary will avail, we have that of 
* Cudsem. de desper. Calvini causa, Cap. 11. pag. 108.  Cudsemius, who came into England the year 1608. to observe the state of our Church, and the order of our Universities. Concerning the state of the Calvinian Sect in England, (saith he) it so standeth, that either it may endure long or be changed suddenly, or in a trice, in regard of the Catholic order there, in a perpetual line of their Bishops, and the lawful succession of Pastors received from the Church, for the honour whereof we use to call the English Calvinists by a milder term, not Heretics but Schismatics.  
Bellarmin is peremptory upon the contrary saying of all the Reformed Churches: nostri temporis haeretici neutrum habent, id est nec ordinationem nec successionem, the Heretics of our times have neither ordination nor succession.  
Whatsoever be said of other reformed Churches, which I leave to speak for themselves upon this point, we have clear evidences to show the falsity of the Cardinal's assertion as relating to the Reformed Church of England, and the more criminal as more wilful calumny of 
* Bristol, Harding, Sanders, Kellison apud Masonli●. 1. cap. 2. Vindiciae Eccle●ae Anglicanae.  Bristol, Harding, Sanders, Owlet, Kellison, and other English Romanists, whose malice must be Diabolical, or their ignorance supine and unexcusable, in slandering their Country with what they knew, or easily might know to be an untruth, as that stranger Cudsemius with due inquiry came to know.  
For evidencing this point, of so great importance, 
* Papists Prisoners in Framblingham Castle, in Queen Elizabeth's time related by Mr. Mason. 1 Book 3. Chap. of his English Edition.  that it was the cry of Papists to the Protestant Clergy in Queen Elizabeth's time, and is still the challenge of many among them, if you can justify our calling, we will come to your Church and be of your Religion; I am to premise first as to matter of fact, that in all prudence, I am to rely with more satisfaction upon the public authentic records of the Church and state of England, touching the transactions of both, then upon the report of declared bitter Enemies, such as those of the Romish faction are known to be. Whereas it cannot but appear morally impossible, in any impartial judgement, that in so grave, and wise a Nation as England is known to be, the Lords and Officers of Church and State, should conspire and agree in deluding posterity with false records. And on the other side, the Romish party is found guilty, by uncessant experiences of aspersing, without measure or regard of truth, the protestant cause and all defenders of it. Whereof the story of Ordination, at the Nagshead, confidently revived of late by one of a great calling, and confuted to his shame and confusion by the Lord Primate Bramhall, may be a conspicuous evidence. To which I could add not a few more of my own experience and certain knowledge. They got a great Person to relate in Dublin, that I was struck Dumb at making of my Declaration in the Church of Cashel, and that I fell suddenly Dead soon after, going in the Street. A miracle I suppose is put by this time into the annual letters of Rome and Indies, to terrify others from following my Example. An other Person of like quality was employed to testify, that after my foresaid Declaration made at Cashel, an extraordinary concourse of People being present at it, I went to a Nobleman's House where my habitation was formerly, and said Mass in it: whereas I was not out of the Arch-Bishops company from that day, until I came to Dublin with a considerable number of Men and Arms to guard me. And after some Months constant retirement in the College of Dublin, without ever lying out of it, or going abroad, but seldom to the Castle, and few houses of the chief Prelates and Nobility, an Irish Papist told confidently to one of my Lord Chancellor's Gentlemen, (who related it to me after) that he saw me few days before saying Mass at Kilkullen Bridg (where I was not in some years before that time) after my public Sermon of Recantation at Dublin; and the Gentleman ask how that could possibly be so, I being in their sight and company, and never out of Dublin all that time, he took a Book into his hand, and swore by it, that what he said was true. At this very instant it happened, that I should come out of Christ-Church from Prayers in company of an other Gentleman of the College, and my Lord Chancellor's Gentleman seeing me, asked of the swearer whether he did know me if he saw me: he answered, yea; and ask whether I was of those two that went by, he said no. But being told I was one of them, he confessed that he never saw me before. So punctual as this are their reports of us. If they were but seldom, we might take them for mistakes; but seeing them so frequent, and continual, we have too much ground for suspecting a set purpose of imposing upon us, especially their most creditable Doctors, teaching them, that 'tis lawful to raise false testimonies in defence of their credit, that their opposers may not be believed. The authors of this godly Doctrine, confessors and Preachers to Emperors and Princes, you may see quoted by John Caramuel, Titular Bishop of Misia in Theologia fundamentali, fundamento 55. n. 1589. This being so, it appears how little credit is due to their testimonies against our cause and persons.  
I premise secondly, that by sacred orders a character indelible is given to the person ordained whether Bishop, Priest or Deacon, that is to say a spiritual sign or ability to certain functions uncapable of being taken away by humane power, or accident. So 'tis defined in the Council of Trent. sess. 7. can. 9 Si quis dixerit in tribus sacramentis, Baptismo sc. Confirmatione & Ordine, non imprimi characterem in anima, hoc est signum quoddam spirituale & indelibile, unde ea iterari non possunt, anathema esto. If any shall say that in these three Sacraments, Baptism, Confirmation and Order, a character is not left in the Soul, viz. a spiritual and undelible sign (which is the cause they may not be repeated) let him be anathema. It is not my present business to dispute with the Council, upon what account it calls Confirmation and Order Sacraments, but to note, that by it is defined, that sacred orders do leave a character indelible, and that they ought not to be reiterated upon the same person. The same Doctrine is delivered again in the 23. sess. 3. can. of the same Council, adding, that who was once a Priest can never be made a Layman. And in the eighth Council of Toledo cap. 7. and in the Council of Florence under Eugenius the 4th in decree. de union. Hence follows says Bellarmine, that no superior power can hinder a Bishop from confirming and ordaining, if he pleases to do it. And Peter Sotus says, that doubtless no Heresy, excommunication, or even degradation, takes away the power of Orders, though the use of them may be unlawful; so as though a Heretic, excommunicated or degraded person, sin in giving Orders, or administering Sacraments, yet the actions are valid: for where such a character is, says Bellarmine, God, in force of a Covenant, doth concur to produce a supernatural effect, to wit to give an other Character even Episcopal. 
* Bellarmine de confir. cap. 12.  
* Peter Soto lect. 5. de inst. Sacer. lin. 5 fol. 279. edit. diling. an. 1560.  
* Ubicunque est talis character Deus ex pacto concurrit ad effectum supernaturalem producendum. Bellar. de Sacramentorum effectu lib. 2. c. 19   
These two premises supposed, for examining the matters of fact, which is the ground and foundation of this work, we are to rely upon the public authentic Records of the Church of England, faithfully produced by Mr. Francis Mason, and truly examined at the request of Mr. Fitz Herbert, who seeing a mortal wound given to the Romish calumnies, against the lawful ordination of English Clergy, by this narrative of Mr. Mason, desired that those Records related by Mr. Mason should be shown to some learned persons of the Romish communion; which was accordingly done by the most Reverend Father in God George Archbishop of Canterbury, who having read this challenge in Fitz. Herbert's Book, called to him Mr. Collington, then reputed Archipresbyter, Mr. Laithwait, and Mr. Faircloath Jesuits, and Mr. Leagume a secular Priest. All these being brought before the Archbishop the 12. of May 1614 in presence of the Right Reverend Bishops of London, Dunelm, Ely, Bath and Wells, Lincoln, and Rochester, the said Records were given to them to see, feel, read, and turn; and having considered all exactly, they declared that no exception could be taken against that Book in their opinion; and the Archbishop desiring them to signify so much by letters to Fitz Herbert, they promised to do it; as Mr. Champney relates the story. And the same Records are at this day, and always to be seen, if men will not be satisfied otherwise then by eyesight.  
Fitz Herbert, Append. n. 13.  
The Records produced by Mr. Mason being thus justified, we will take our measures by them to clear this point. First our adversaries allow us, that the Bishops ruling in England at the beginning of Henry the Eighth his Reign, were lawful Bishops, and legally ordained according to the Canons and rites of the Catholic Church. With Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury they begin their quarrel. Against him, the Kings and Clergy of England, Becan insults thus. Legitimè consecrati non estis. A quo enim? an à Rege? at is consecrandi potestatem non habet. An ab Episcopo Cantuariensi, vel aliquo simili? ne id quidem. Nam Thomas Cranmerus, qui sub Hemico 8ᵒ Cantuariensem Episcopatum obtinuit, non fuit consecratus ab ullo Episcopo, sed à solo Rege intrusus & designatus; igitur quotquot ab eo postea consceratisunt, non legitime, sed ex praesumtione consecrati sunt. You are not lawfully consecrated: for by whom were you? Whether by the King? but he has not power to consecrate: or by the Bishop of Canterbury, or some other such? neither that truly: for Thomas Cranmer, who under King Henry the Eighth obtained the Bishopric of Canterbury, was not consecrated by any Bishop, but intruded and designed by the King alone; therefore as many as were afterward consecrated by him, were not consecrated lawfully but by presumption.  
I cannot but note Becan's disingenuity, in deluding thus his Reader, as if he would have him believe, that the Kings of England did take upon them, to consecrate Bishops themselves, or to thrust into the Government of Church's men not consecrated, contrary to what he knew well, or might easily know to be true, having Popes, Cardinals, Priests and Jesuits to a●●ertain him of it, such as were Clement the seventh, Paul the fourth, Cardinal Allen, Parsons, Kellison, whose manifold testimonies of Cranmer to have been a true Bishop Mason relates lib. 2. cap. 7. adding for farther evidence this following testimony of the time, place, and persons ordaining him out of the public Records.  
Thomas Cranmerus consecratus 30. Martij, 1533. 24. Hen. à 

Joh. Lincolniensi  
Joh. Exoniensi  
Hen. Asaphensi    
Against all these evidences Henry Fitz Symon● takes up the cudgils in defence of Becan's assertion, that Cranmer was not consecrated by any Bishop but a mere Layman, intruded upon that see of Canterbury by Henry the Eighth his sole will. This he promises to demonstrate, à gravissimorum totius gentis authorum monumentis & consularibus acts, by the testimonies of the most grave Authors of the Nation, and public Act of Parliament. Seeing these big words, and knowing upon what subject, I could not but sigh and grieve, remembering how these Rhetoricians do delude poor credulous People with such swelling phrases, founding high in the ears of Boys and Women, and of Womanish weak Men: whereas being touched close they are found to be no better than a bubble, floating pompously, and containing nought but wind.  
Where he promises the testimonies of the gravest Authors of the Nation, in favour of his pretention, he only brings one testimony: and of whom? of some impartial writer? No, but of 
* Saunder. de Schism. lib. 3. pag. 296.  , the most passionate and bitter Enemy of the reformed Clergy that could be named. But even his testimony how much to Fitz Simons purpose? he relates these words of him: Henricus 8. radix peccati, cum ab Ecclesia & sede Apostolica Regnum suum divisisset, decrevit ne quisquam electus in Episcopum bullas Pontificias, vel mandatum Apostolicum de consecratione requireret, sed regium tantum diploma afferret. Henry the E●ghth the source of evil, having separated his Kingdom from the Church, and from the See Apostolic, hath decreed, that no Bishop elect should look for Bulls from the Pope for his consecration, but only should bring the King's Patent. And here Fitz Symons stops fraudulently, pretending his unskilful Reader should understand by those words, that the King did give the title of Bishops without any consecration. But the words following of Sanders do overthrow his purpose, which run thus; Sed Regium tantum diploma afferret, secundum quod à tribus Episcopis cum consensu metropolitae ordinatus, jubebatur lege comitiorum facta ad imitationem antiquorum canonum, esse verus Episcopus, nec alio modo ordinatum pro Episcopo agnosci oportere, That he should bring the Kings mandat, according to which the person ordained by three Bishops, with the consent of the Metropolitan, was by Act of Parliament, made in imitation of ancient Canons, declared to be a true Bishop, and that any person otherwise ordained should not be taken for a Bishop. And is this to say that Henry the Eighth should give the title of Bishops to, and intrude upon Churches, Persons without any consecration?  
Truly this defence of Becan by Fitz Symons, is like the cause defended, both guilty of fraud and disingenuity, so as we may call it malae causae pejus patrocinium, of a bad cause a worse defence. 
* Ke●lison in replic. contra Doct. Sut. p. 30.  Kellison is more ingenious, saying thus: Cranmerum verè ordinatum non nego, quia ab Episcopis Catholicis munus consecrationis accepit, ita & vixisse eum & mortuum esse verum Episcopum fateor. I do not deny that Cranmer was truly ordained, having received his ordination from Catholic Bishops: so as I confess he lived and died a true Bishop. Let now the Author of Britonomachy, (I mean Fitz Symons) come and reconcile this piece of Romanomachy. In the mean time, be it concluded, that their testimonies against Cranmer are like those of the false witnesses against Christ, which did not agree together. Mark XIV. 56. And let that blessed Martyr, canonised by Christ for such, where he declared blessed them that suffer persecution for justice, as Cranmer did for doing justice to his King and Country, in maintaining their right against the tyrannical usurpations of the Court of Rome, let him I say enjoy in glory the indelible character of Bishop, which all the malice of his adversaries will never be able to take from him. And let their calumny against the Church of England be confounded, wherewith they pretend the ordination of our Clergy to have been vitiated in that of Cranmer.  
By this it appears, that all Bishops made in King Henry the Eighth his reign, were true and lawful Bishops, as being consecrated by three Bishops, and according to the accustomed rites of the Catholic Church, it being 
a 25. Henr. 8. c. 20.  enacted then, that the Consecrations should be solemnised with all due circumstance, and moreover that the Consecrators should give to the consecrated all benedictions, ceremonies, and things requisite for the same. And if thing essential were abolished or omitted, certainly  speaking purposely of this point, would not have concealed it. But he rather says plainly, 
b Sanders de Schism. lib. 3. p. 29●.  it was King Henry's will, that the ceremony and solemn unction, should as yet be used in Episcopal Consecration after the manner of the Church. But the 
c ● Mariae sess. 2. c. 2.  Statute of Qu. Mary putteth the matter out of all doubt, enacting, that all such Divine service and administration of Sacraments, as were most commonly used in this Realm of England in the last Year of King Henry 8. should be used and frequented through the whole Realm of England and all other the Queen's Dominions, and no other in any other manner, form, or degree. The makers of this statute were of opinion, that Holy order was a Sacrament, and therefore was administered in Queen Mary's time, as in King Henry's. They will not pretend, that any form essential was omitted in Queen Mary's time, and consequently must say the same of Orders given in King Henry's reign.  
What Bishops, when, and by whom they were consecrated during King Henry the 8. his time, Mr. Mason relates out of the public Records; as Thomas Cranmer in the Year 1533. as above mentioned, next after,  
Rowland Lee Conse. B. of Lichfield, 14. of Apr. 1534. by 

Thom. Canterb.  
John Lincoln.  
Christ. Sidon.    
George Brown Con. Archbish. of Dub. 19 Mar. 1535. by 

Thom. Canterb.  
John Roffens.  
Nichol. Sarum.    
And so of the rest, until the year 1545. every one being consecrated by three Bishops, and with the usual ceremonies, and the great penalty of praemunire being denounced by Act of 
* 2 5. Henr. 8. c. 20.  Parliament against any Bishop consecrating or consecrated otherwise.   

CHAP. VI The ordination of Bishops, Priests and Deacons in King Edward the Sixth his time and after, proved to be legal and valid.  
THe greatest opposition is against the ordination of our Clergy since the Reformation of the ordinal 
a Vasquez, to. 3. in 3. p. disp. 240. c. 5.  or ceremonies of ordination in time of King Edward the sixth of which, Kellison speaks thus; in King Edward's time neither matter nor form of ordination was used, and so none were truly ordained. Against this rash and slanderous censure of Kellison, I will produce the testimony of Vasquez and Bellarmine, men of greater credit and knowledge touching the matter and form of ordination. Vasqu. declares the matter of Episcopal ordination to be only the imposition of hands, and the form those words, receive the ●oly Ghost, which are said by three Bishops together, & relates Major, and Armilla for the same opinion, proving it first out of Scripture, 1 Timot. IV. 14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by Prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. Out of which place 
b Kellis. reply to Dr. Sutlif fol 31.  Vasquez thus argues solidly, unde sequitur manifeste eam mannum impositionem esse materiam, ac proinde verba quae simul cum eâ proferuntur, esse formam. Nam gratia Sacramentalis in ipsa applicatione materiae & formae, & per ipsam confertur. Whence followeth manifestly, that such imposition of hands is the matter, and consequently the words pronounced with it the form: for Sacramental grace is conferred in the very application of the matter and form and by it. Then he proceeds to prove by testimonies of Fathers, that three Bishops ought to concur in the Ordination of a Bishop, & that what is not performed by all three, belongs not to the essential matter or form. But in all the Roman Pontifical, says he, no other ceremony is appointed to be performed by three Bishops, but only the imposition of hands, therefore that alone must be the matter, and consequently only the words pronounced with it the form of Episcopal Ordination.  
That three Bishops are necessary for ordaining a Bishop, (which was a foundation laid by him for the former argument), he proves, first by the the testimony of Pope Anacletus, 
* Anaclet. in Epist. 2 decretali, c 2. Anicetus, Damas. & alnapod Valgoez. 243. c. 6. an. 63.  affirming that the first Archbishop of Jerusalem, James called the just, Brother of the Lord according to the flesh, was ordained by Peter, James, and John Apostles, giving therein a rule to successors, that a Bishop should not be ordained by less than three Bishops. Anacletus adds, that he learned so much from St. Peter, by whom he was himself Priested. Secondly, Pope Anicetus delivers the same, adding it was so practised instituente Domino, by the institution of Christ. Thirdly, he alleges the first Council of Nice, with several other Councils and Fathers to the same purpose.  
If you oppose, that the foresaid words, Receïve the Holy Ghost are too general for a form to ordain a Bishop: he answers, that being pronounced by three Bishops laying their hands upon the Person ordained, they specify the degree of a Bishop, since thereby they signify, that they receive him to their own proper order and degree: the conjunction of three Bishops laying their hands upon the person ordained, being only proper to the ordaining of a Bishop, as he proves Disp. 243. c. 6. Thus much 
a Vasquez, Disp. 246. n. 60.  Vasquez touching the matter and form of Episcopal ordination.  

b Pellar. de Sacra. in Gen. lib. 1. c. 18.  Bellarmine contributes not little to the proof of this verity (though with less coherence to another Doctrine he supposes, as I will declare after.) For speaking of Sacraments in general, he says, that all Sacraments of the new Law are composed of visible things as matter, and of words, as form. And 
c Idem de Sacra. ordinis. c. 9  coming to speak of Holy Order, which he supposes to be a Sacrament, he says that there is no mention in Scripture of any visible sign that may be a matter of it, but only the imposition of hands. Whence it follows, that holy Order being of Divine institution, and declared in Scripture, as he proves well, the essential constitutes of it must be likewise in Scripture. And therefore no other visible sign or matter proportionable for it being in Scripture, it followeth that only the imposition of hands must be the matter of it.  
How well this agrees with what Bellarmine in the same place supposes, but proves not, that in the Ordination of a Priest, not only the imposition of hands, but also the delivering of the chalice and patin belong to the essential matter, let him consider. He quotes Dominic Soto, and others saying, that the delivering the chalice with Wine, and the patin with Bread, is the only matter, and the words pronounced by the Bishop delivering them, is the form of Ordination of the Priest, the words are these, accipe potestatem offerendi Sacrificium, take power of offering a Sacrifice. Bellarmine proves efficaciously, that the imposition of hands is a matter essential to Ordination, but supposes without exhibiting any proof of it, that the delivering of the chalice and patin is also a part essential of the matter, saying against Sotus, that not only the delivering of the Instruments, but also the imposition of hands, is a matter essential in the ordination. This I say seems not to agree well with what he said before, that in Scripture no mention was made of any Symbol, that could be taken for a matter of Ordination, but only the imposition of hands. And truly the proof he alleges out of Sotus or others, that the words of their Pontifical, accipe potestatem offerendi Sacrificium provivis & defunctis, are contained in those others of our Saviour at the last Supper, hoc facite in meam commemorationem, Do this in remembrance of me, is notoriously weak: gratis dicitur, gratis negatur; as 'tis said without ground, so it may be denied without regard.  
Now as to the form of Ordination 
* Bellar. de Sacramento Ordinis lib. 1. c. 9  Bellarmine tells us, that all agree in taking for form the words that are pronounced by the minister when he exhibits the sensible signs or matter, he adds, that though the Scripture doth not mention particular words to be pronounced in each order, yet the ancient Fathers of the Church, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine, do expressly teach, that a form of words suitable to each Order is required, and was practised so in the ancient Roman Ordinals, and so is practised to this day in the Ordinal of the Church of England, which in King Edward the sixth his time was disposed according to the more qualified ancient Ordinals used in the Catholic Church. In the Ordination of Deacons, the Bishop lays his hands severally upon the Head of every one of them, kneeling before him, saying, Take thou authority to execute the office of a Deacon in the Church of God committed unto thee, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, etc. After delivering to every one of them the New Testament, he saith, Take thou authority to read the Gospel in the Church of God, and to preach the same, if thou be thereto licenced by the Bishop himself.  
In ordaining Priests, the Bishop, with the Priests present, do lay their hands severally upon the Head of every one that receiveth the order of Priesthood, the Receivers kneeling, and the Bishop saying, Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands: whose Sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose Sins thou dost retain, they are retained; and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of his holy Sacraments, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.  
In the consecration of Bishops, the Archbishop and Bishops present, do lay their hands upon the Head of the elected Bishop kneeling before them and the Archbishop, saying,  
Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee, by the imposition of our hands, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen. And remember that thou stir up the Grace of God which is given thee by this imposition of our hands: for God has not given us the Spirit of fear, but of power, and love and soberness.  
The Church of England being thus exact in observing the form and matter essential to holy Orders, it appears how rash and false was Kellison, in saying, that in King Edward's time neither matter nor form of Ordination was used. How vain and windy 
* Fitz Symons Britonomach. p. 3●9.  Fitz Symons his flourish, cum in Sacramento mutatur materia, forma, intentio faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, quae ejus essentiam conficiunt, desinit esse Sacramentum, omnium qui ante te vixerunt, tecum vivunt, & post te victuri sunt, orthodox sentientium consensu. When in the Sacrament the matter, form, and intention of doing what the Church does (which make up the essence of it) are changed, it ceases to be a Sacrament, by the common consent of all Catholics that lived before you, do live with you, and after you shall live. Truly Fitz Symons seemed to study more how his phrase should be round and sounding, then to furnish it with sense and truth, so as without injury I may say here of him, that sine ment sonum. Setting aside what belongs to the matter and form; who told Fitz Symons that the Ministers of the Church of England in the administration of Sacraments have not an intention to do what the true Church of God does? And though their intention were to do expressly what their own Church of England does and not what the Church of Rome, Bellarmin declares that not to be an alteration annulling the Sacrament: non est opus intendere quod facit Ecclesia Romana, sed quod facit vera Ecclesia quaecunque illa sit, vel quod Christus instituit, vel quod faciunt Christiani; imo si quis intendat facere, quod aliqua Ecclesia particularis & falsa, ut Genevensis, & intendat non facere quod Ecclesia Romana, respondeo etiam id sufficere: nam qui intendit facere quod Ecclesia Genevensis, intendit facere quod Ecclesia universalis: It is not necessary, says Bellarmin, to have an intention of doing what the Church of Rome does, but what the true Church which soever that be: nay if he should intent to do what some particular false Church which he thinks to be true, as that of Geneva (saith the Cardinal) even that will suffice: for he that intends to do what the Church of Geneva 
* Bellar. de Sacra. in Gen. lib. 2. c. 27.  does, intends to do what the Universal Church does, of which he believes the Church of Geneva to be a member. Then Fitz Symons was mistaken when he said, that the supposed alteration in the intention of the Ministers did annul the Sacrament by consent of all Catholics, if he will not have Bellarmine to be put out of that number; not to take notice of his extravagancy in making the intention of the Minister, an essential constitute of the Sacrament, nor of the dismal confusion and discomfort he brings upon his proselytes, by making the effects of Sacraments depending upon the foresaid intention, whereof no Man receiving a Sacrament can have a full certainty: the words of the Minister I can hear and his action I can see, but of his intention I can never be entirely assured.  
Then if the matter and form of Order necessary and essential be retained in our Church, as we have seen, and no reasonable doubt is left of the intention of our Ministers to do what the Church of England does (which according to Bellarmin's supposition now mentioned is sufficient,) How comes Fitz Symons to say, that in the matter, and form, and intention of our Ministers, such alteration is made as annuls our Sacraments?   

CHAP. VII. How far the form of Ordination used in the Church of England, agrees with that of the ancient C●●rch, declared in t●e fourth Council of Carthage, and how much the form prescribed by t●e Roman Pontifical of this time, differs from the ancient f●rm.  
AS in many other points, so in this of Crdination especially, I cannot but admire how bold the Romish Writers are in imposing upon the ignorant, that themselves are the observers of antiquity, and the Reformed Churches the contemners of it: whereas indeed the main purpose of the Reformation was, to cut off the superstitious innovations of the Romish Church, and sti●k to the Christian simplicity and gravity of the Primitive Apostolic Church. This will appear evidently by comparing the present form of Ordination used in the Church of England, with the most qualified of ancient formularies established in the fourth Council of Carthage, celebrated by 214. Fathers (whereof St. Augustine was one) in the year 398. Honorius and Arcadius being Emperors, of which Council Baronius gives this honourable Character, Extitit hujusmodi Carthaginense Concilium, veluti Ecclesiasticae promtuarium disciplinae, non quidem recens inventae, sedantiquioribus 
* Baron. An. 393. n. 68  usu receptae, atque ad pristinam consuetudinem revocatae. This Council of Carthage was as it were a treasure of Ecclesiastic Discipline, not newly invented, but used by the ancient, and restored to the former custom. He adds that this Council was taken as a pattern by the other Churches, both Eastern and Western.  
I have perused carefully this Council, and conferred it with our form of ordination set down in the Book of Common Prayers, as also with the form of Ordination used in the Roman Church, as contained in their latter Pontifical, published by Authority of Pope Clement the 8. & printed at Rome in the year 1595. Clement complains of many errors crept into the former Pontificals, and purposes to mend them in this latter according to the rule of ancient integrity: for which purpose, it seems, no better rule could be taken then the foresaid Council of Carthage, for the reasons aforesaid of Baronius.  
Now if we show, that our form of Ordination is more agreeable to that of the Council of Carthage, than the form prescribed in the Roman Pontifical, we shall prove that we stand for the most warrantable antiquity, and consequently for right in this point. I will not dispute now about those called inferior Orders in the Roman Church, both because none will pretend them to be essential to Church Discipline, and the duties appropriated to them are performed in both Churches, sometimes by persons constituted in no order, and sometimes by those in sacred Orders. I will therefore only treat of the three sacred orders proposed by Suarez, out of Optatus Milevitanus, as necessary to the constitution of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, to wit Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.  
And beginning with Deacons, the said Council in the fourth chapter hath only these words, Diaconus cum ordinatur, solus Episcopus, qui eum benedicit, manum super caput illius ponat, quia non ad sacerdotium sed ad ministerium consecratur. When a Deacon is ordained, only the Bishop, who blesseth or ordaineth him, is to lay his hand on his Head, because he is not ordained to Priesthood but to ministry. Here we have three things declared, the Minister, the matter, the order: the Minister is only the Bishop: the matter or the exterior sign, is the imposition of hands: the form is not described in particular, but is included in the word benedicit: for to bless here is nothing else but to pronounce the words by which the power of this order is conferred to the Person ordained; all which is exactly performed in the Ordinationof Deacons by the Church of England, as we have seen in the Chapter precedent.  
Now touching the Ordination of Priests, the Council decrees thus, Presbyter cum ordinatur, Episcopo eum benedicente, & manum super caput illius tenente, etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manus Episcopi super Caput illius teneant. When a Priest is ordained, the Bishop blessing him and laying his hand on his Head, the Priests present are likewise to lay their hands on his Head together with the Bishop's hands. Of this decree likewise the Church of England is as observant, as the Roman is negligent: for in their present Pontifical above mentioned of Clement the Eighth, I see no mention made of what the Council decrees, that the Priests present should lay their hands together with the Bishop's hands upon the Head of him that is to be Priested, and their practice goes accordingly. But in lieu of this ceremony decreed by the Council of Carthage, I find many others substituted in the foresaid Pontifical of which the Council makes no mention, such as those about the amict, albe, girdle, maniple, stole, cope, candles, crosses, oil, and the like. And which is more remarkable, the Council makes no mention of that great and chief ceremony used in the Roman Church and appointed in the aforesaid Pontifical, and wherein some of their Authors will have the very essence of Priestly ordination to consist, as we have seen above out of Bellarmin, that the Bishop is to deliver to the person to be Priested, after having anointed his hands with holy Oil, the Chalice with wine and water, and the Patin over it with the host or wafer, saying, Accipe potestatem offerre Sacrificium Deo, missasque celebrare tam pro vivis, quam per defunctis, Receive power to offer sacrifice unto God, and to celebrate Mass for the living and the dead. If this ceremony were so essential, or the power of sacrificing were so inherent to Priestly ordination, as the present Church of Rome will have it to be, certainly that grave and venerable Council of Carthage would not have passed it over with so deep a silence, when it descended to particularise the duties and performances of inferior Ministers not so necessary as those of Priests, as may be seen in the ensuing Chapters of that Council from the fifth chapter forward.  
Finally touching the Ordination of Bishops, the aforesaid Council of Carthage has these words, Episcopus cum ordinatur, duo Episcopi ponant & teneant Evangeliorum Codicem super Caput & cervicem ejus, & uno super eum fundente benedictionem, reliqui omnes Episcopi qui adsunt manibus suis Caput ejus tangant. When a Bishop is ordained, let two Bishops put and hold the Book of the Gospels over his head and neck, and one blessing him, let all the other Bishops that are there present touch his Head with their hands. Here three things are required, the giving or placing of the Book, the imposition of hands, and the blessing to be given, whereof the placing of the Book is no essential part, as 
* Vasquez in 3. p. disp. 240. w. 63.  Vasquez declares, and so both Churches deviate something from the form mentioned: for if we are to believe Vasquez, and the Pontifical he quotes, the Book of the Gospel is put upon the shoulders of the Bishop consecrated, not by the Bishops consecrating, but by one of the Chaplains; and he relates out of Pope Clement, that anciently it was performed by the Deacons, who are no Ministers of this Order. Neither do I find by Mr. Mason, that the Pontifical he saw, does contradict what Vasquez says; yet I find it otherwise, in the Roman Pontifical forementioned of Clement the Eighth, to be seen in the Library of Dublin University; where it is ordered, that the Bishop consecrating, together with the Bishops assisting to help him, do place the Book over the neck and the shoulders of the Bishop consecrated, without saying any word, one of the Chaplains of the Bishop elect kneeling behind him, and holding the Book, until it be given to his hands; and then the Bishop consecrating, and the other Bishops assisting him, do touch with both their hands the head of the Bishop elect, saying, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, Receive the Holy Ghost. And in supposition that the mode of placing the Book is not essential to this Ordination, certainly the form prescribed by the Church of England in this particular is very decent and apposite to the purpose of this action: the Archbishop, or other Bishop consecrating, delivering the Bible to the Bishop consecrated, saying, give heed unto reading, exhortation and Doctrine, with other wholesome admonitions touching his pastoral duty.  
Now touching the essential parts of this ordination, which do consist in the imposition of hands as matter, and the benediction, or words pronounced by the Bishop consecrating, as form, the Church of England is exact in observing the form prescribed by the foresaid Council of Carthage; since it orders, that all the Bishops present should lay their hands upon the Bishop elect, and only the Archbishop or Bishop consecrating, should bless or pronounce the words of the form, saying, Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee, by the imposition of our hands, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ch●st. Here the Roman Pontifical deviates from the foresaid form prescribed by the Council of Carthage, ordering, that both the Bishop consecrating and the Bishops assisting should pronounce the words of the form, saying, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum.  
By this we see, how exact the Church of England is, in observing all the essential and necessary parts and ceremonies prescribed, by that renowned Council of Carthage, for the ordination of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. As for other ceremonies not essential, the Council of Trent itself declares, that even in the administration of Sacraments (whereof they will have Orders to be a part) they may be altered by the Church, as the condition of matters, times and places may require. Neither is this to be understood of the Church Universal, congregated in a general Council only, but also of each particular Church; whence proceeded the great variety of Rites, in things indifferent, amongst the ancient, and even modern Christians of several places and orders, approved by that grave sentence of 
a Lib. 1. Epist. 41.  Gregory the Great, in una fide nihil ossicit Sanctae Ecclesiae consuetudo diversa. And as the Roman Church upon this account introduces new rites, why may not that of England abolish others, especially such as are found to be superstitious? for which the 
b Distinct. 63. Quia  Canon law giveth this warrant, Docemur exemplo Ezechiae frangentis serpontem aeneum, quae in superstitionem vertuntur, illa sine tarditate aliqua, & cum magna autoritate à posteris destrui posse. We are taught by example of Hezechias, that such things as turn to superstition, may be without delay, and with authority extirpated in after ages. As a good husband cuts off, not only rotten, but superfluous branches, that may suck away the sap from the main tree; so any Church that is free and independent (such as this of England is) may cut off superstitious and superfluous rites and ceremonies, which by their multiplicity may distract both the Ministers and Congregation, and take their attention from the main object of their devotion. And certainly who ever considers the vast number of ceremonies used now by the Roman Church and prescribed in their Pontifical, will find it a task not easy for even a good capacity to comprehend and practise them all, and very hard to think of elevating the mind withal to prayer or meditation.   

CHAP. VIII. How far the Church of England does agree with the Romish in matter of Ordination; wherein they differ; and how absurd the pretention of Romanists is, that our difference herein with them should annul our orders.  
AS the Church of England did not think convenient to follow that of Rome, in all their superfluous ceremonies, especially such of them as are noxious, and opposite to the sincerity of Christian discipline; so it does not grudge to go along and conform with them, in what they retain of ancient integrity.  
In many things we agree with them. First, that only Bishops are to give Orders. Secondly, that none be promoted to Orders without the title of a benefice, or sufficient patrimony (which is far more exactly observed in the English then in the Romish Church.) Thirdly, that the persons to be Ordained be examined as to behaviour and ability. Fourthly, that certain times and days are appointed for Ordination. Fifthly, that the persons to be ordained, aught to appear in the Church. Sixthly, that they receive their Orders on their knees. Seventhly, that they receive the Communion. All this is commonly observed in both Churches (but more exactly and indispensibly in the English) as to Orders in general.  
Now as to particular Orders; we agree in the following points, as to Deacons. First, that the Archdeacon presents them to the Bishop. Secondly, that the Bishop inquires of the Archdeacon, whether he knows them to be worthy of that Order. Thirdly, that the Bishop admonishes the Congregation, that if any person has any thing to say against them, he should declare it. Fourthly, that the Bishop instructs them in the duty they are to perform. Fifthly, that litanies are said, and the Bishop exhorts the Congregation to pray for the Persons to be ordained, that they may be fit Ministers in that sacred Order. Sixthy, that the Bishop gives them the Book of the Gospels, and power to read them in the Church of God. Seventhly, that one of the Deacons newly ordained should read the Gospel. Herein we agree. But we differ from the Roman Church. First, where they add to the litanies the invocation of Saints and Angels. Secondly, where power is given to the Deacons to read the Gospels for the dead. Thirdly, that what is not expressly delivered by the Roman formulary, is more clearly expressed by the English. As for example, the Order of Deacons in the former is given by these words, Receive the Holy Ghost for power to resist the Devil and his temtations in the Name of the Lord, which being too general, and common to all Christians, is made more proper and apposite to the function of Deacons, by these other words used in the English ordinal, Receive authority to exercise the work of a Deacon in the Church of God committed to thee, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Fourthly, that we reduce the tedious variety of vestments and ceremonies used in the Roman Church, to a more grave and decent form, and more suitable to Christian simplicity.  
As to the order of Priesthood, agreeing with them in the essential parts of the matter and form, and some indifferent ceremonies, we differ from them. First, that a Priest with them is anointed with Oil. Secondly, that power is given him to offer a proper sacrifice, and really propitiatory, as well for the dead as for the living, of all which no mention is made in the aforesaid Council of Carthage. Thirdly, that with them only the Bishop lays his hand on the head of the Priest to be ordained; but with us all the Priests present do lay their hands upon his head together with the Bishop's hands, according to the express order of the Council of Carthage.  
Finally touching the Ordination of Bishops, agreeing with them in the essential parts of matter and form, belonging to that Order, and in some accidentaly ceremonies, as before declared, we disagree with them in some considerable superstructures. First, that in both Churches a mandate is required for receiving this order; but in the Romish from the Pope, in the English from the King. Secondly, in both Churches an Oath is required, which in the Romish is in favour of the Pope, in the English in favour of the King. Thirdly, in both Churches an examen is premised; and though the Romish pretends to follow the Council of Carthage herein, yet they insert their decretal Epistles and obedience to be performed to the Bishop of Rome, whereof no mention is made in that Council. Fourthly, they use an heap of vestments and ceremonies, of which neither the Apostles, nor primitive Church ever had notice, which are too tedious to relate, and more to practice. Finally and chief they demand a new Symbol or Creed, coined in the Council of Trent, to be professed by him that is to be ordained Bishop, containing among other articles, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Indulgences, obedience to the Pope of Rome, articles never mentioned by the Apostles, nor by the ancient Creeds, nor by the Council of Carthage, nor by any of the four first general Councils.  
Now Reader consider, how rude and rash are the cries of the vulgar Romish writers and preachers against our Orders, as invalid for not conforming with the whole heap of their ceremonies, though in the substantial and essential parts we agree. For besides the intrinsic falsity of their assertion, it brings a manifest ruin and nullity upon all their own Orders; since both we and they suppose, that inferior Orders may not be given, but by the Bishops, and Bishops may not be made but by other true and lawful Bishops. Then if the whole bulk of ceremonies & requisites prescribed in the present Roman Pontifical (of Clement the 8th above mentioned) be necessary for a valid Ordination of a Bishop, it follows evidently, that there is no lawful Bishop, and consequently no lawful Priest, or Deacon at present in the Church of Rome. This consequence, I prove thus: no Bishop was Ordained after the rites, ceremonies & requisites (above mentioned in the Roman Pontifica) for 300 and more years in the ancient Roman Church; then if the aforesaid stock of ceremonies and requisites be essential to a valid Ordination, no lawful Bishop was made all that while in that Church; & it being necessary, as is supposed before, that Bishops must be made by other lawful Bishops, it follows evidently, that all the train of Bishops or Men so called by the Roman Church in after ages, were no true Bishops, and consequently no Priests, or Deacons made by them, were true Priests, or Deacons.  
That Bishops were not ordained after the present rites and ceremonies of the Rom●n Pontifical for the first 300 and many years after in the Roman Church (which is the ground of all this discourse) requires no more proof then to read over the Roman martyrology used to be publicly read in their Churches, or the lives of Popes written by Platina, or any other of their Historians, where you shall see, that the present heap of ceremonies, rites and requisites prescribed in the said Pontifical, was never introduced at once, but successively; several Popes in several times, and ages signalizing their reign with new rites, ceremonies and requis●tes, whereof their very different Pontificals published in several ages may be a further evidence. Of whose great disconformity that famous 
* Episcopus Pientinus in proaemio Pontificalis ad Innocent.  compiler of ceremonies employed by Innocent the 8th giveth this remarkable testimony in the preface of his Pontifical, speaking to the said innocent. Pontificalis libri emendationem (beatissime Pater) tuo jussu aggressus sum, opus sane laboriosum, varlum, atque ut multis fortasse gratum, ita & invidia plenum. Rei enim vetustate, Ecclesiarum multitudine, temporum & Praelatorum varietate effectum est, ut vix duo aut tres codices inveniantur qui idem tradunt. Eodem modo, quot libri, tot varietates; ille deficit, hic superabundat; alius nihil omnino de eâ re habet, raro autn unquam conveniunt. I have taken upon me (most holy F●ther) by your command the Reformation of the Pontifical Book, a work indeed laborious, various, and as perhaps grateful to many, so likely to beget envy too: for it came to pass by the antiquity of the Subject, the multitude of Churches, and the diversities of times and Prelates, that scarce two or three Books may be found which may deliver the same thing: as many Books as there are, so many are the differences; one is deficient, another superabundant, another has nothing at all of this subject: so that they seldom or never agree.  
By this (Reader) you may see how blind the presumption of Romanists is in pretending our Orders should be null for not conforming with the rites and ceremonies of their present Pontifical, whereas upon that account the ordination of their Bishops and Clergy in precedent ages, must have been null, and consequently their present Bishops and Clergy, derived from them and depending upon them, must partake of the same nullity.   

CHAP. IX. That the Succession of Bishops and Clergy, since the Reformation, is much more sure and unquestionable in the English Church then in the Romish.  
IF Men had a due regard of their own defects, and of the Reformation of them, they would busy themselves less in finding fault with their Neighbours. And if the Ministers and Writers of the Roman Church, did reflect sufficiently upon the lamentable corruptions introduced, and enthronised among themselves, they would be less bold in casting dirt in the face of others, that with more right and ground may cast it in theirs.  
I have declared in the precedent Chapters, by rules and principles generally received, that the form of Ordination used in the Church of Englana since the Reformation is legal and valid, as comprehending the essential parts belonging to each order, & that in the ceremonial part we are more exact in observing the rules of antiquity & the primitive Christian Church, than the Romish party. Now it remains to show, that the succession of our Bishops and Clergy from those of unquestioned legality before the Reformation, and the due Ordination of them according to the said rules and rites, is more clear and unquestionable with us then with the Roman Church.  
As for the Bishops of England Mr. Mason giveth an exact account of their Succession and lawful Ordination, the time and place of it, the persons conscerating them, running upon several Dioceses, especially that of Canterbury, from the time he published his Book, which was the year 1638. to the time of K. Henry the Eighth when the validity of Ordination was not questioned: grounding his narrative upon the authentic Records kept in London. And in the same Records may be found the like account of the ensuing ordinations from Mr. Masons time to this day.  
The like account may be found in the several Registries of the Churches of Ireland from our days up to the aforesaid time of Henry the Eighth, and touching the prime Church that of Armagh, I found the ensuing account of the Succession and Ordination of Arch-Bishops in it, from the present Archbishop, the most Reverend Father in God James Lord Archbishop of Armagh Primate of all Ireland (to the great comfort and benefit of it: since the blindest passion can't miss to see in his Grace the Idea, of a most renowned and perfect Prelate,) In the hands of his worthy Vicar General and Judge of his Prerogative Court the noble and Learned Dudley Loftus Doctor in Laws, I found, I say, the account following of his Grace his lineal succession from the Bishops of unquestioned authority in Queen Mary's time.  
James Margetson, Consecrated the 27. of January, 1660. by John Bramhal Archbishop of Armagh, etc. in the Cathedral Church of St. Patric in Dublin.  
John Bramhal, Doctor of Divinity was Consecrated Bishop of Derry, in the Chapel of the Castle of Dublin, the 26. of May 1634. by James Usher, Archbishop of Armagh, etc.  
James Usher, Doctor of Divinity was Consecrated Bishop of Meath at Droghedah, in the Church of St. Peter Anno 1621. by Christopher Hampton, Archbishop of Armagh, etc.  
Christopher Hampton, Doctor of Divinity was Conseciated Bishop of Derry, May the 5. 1613. in the Cathedral Church of St. Patric, by Thomas Jones, Archbishop of Dublin, etc.  
Thomas Jones, Doctor of Divinity was Consecrated Bishop of Meath, in the Cathedral Church of St. Patric Dublin the 12. of May, 1584. by Adam Loftus, Lord Archbishop of Dublin, etc.  
Adam Loftus, Lord Archbishop of Dublin was Consecrated Archbishop of Armagh in the Church of St. Patric Dublin Anno 1562. by Hugh Curwin Lord Archbishop of Dublin, etc.  
Hugh Curwin, Doctor of Laws was Consecrated Archbishop of Dublin the 8. of September 1555. being the third of Queen Mary, together with James Turbirwill Bishop of Exeter, and William Glin Bishop of Bargor. Each one of the other Bishops of Ireland, may give the like account of their lawful ordination and lineal succession from the Bishops of unquestioned authority in King Henry the Eighth and Queen Mary's time, no exception is known to have been taken against the legality of any of them, and the Laws being so severe and the penalties of praemunire so heavy against any Bishop that would enter otherwise then by the Rites and requisites above mentioned and justified, 'tis morally incredible that any would permit any defect to intervene in his Consecration that might bring upon him so great a damage.  
'Tis not so with the Bishops or Popes of Rome. We have not only conjectures, but clear evidences by a learned and exact Pen of their own party, that none of the Bishops or Popes who usurped that see from Gregory the 13. was a lawful Bishop or Pope. The treatise penned upon this subject in Latin, and dedicated, to King James bore this title, The new Man, or a supplication from an unknown person a Roman Catholic unto James the Monarch of Great Britain, and from him to the Emperor, Kings, and Princes of the Christian World, touching the causes and reasons, that will argue a necessity of a General Council to be forthwith assembled against him that now usurps the Papal chair under the name of Paul the Fifth. This treatise being published by order of so excellent a Prince, as the World knew King James to be, it were a blind insolence to say it should not be real and unfeigned; and a treatise so destructive to the credit and interest of the Roman Court, being not disproved for the space of nine years by any of that party, as reported by Mr. William Crashaw translator of the said treatise from Latin into English, in the year 1622. nor to this day by any that we know, 'tis a clear argument they wanted means to gainsay the truth of it. I will reduce to a brief sum the heads of his proof as well to matter of fact, as of Law, that the election of Pope Sixtus the fifth succeeding Gregory the thirteenth was null and invalid, and consequently the Cardinals created by him were no true Cardinals, nor the Pope's elected by such Cardinal's true Popes.  
For ground of this discourse it is to be supposed, that any simoniacal contract intervening in the election of a Pope, such an election is therefore rendered null and invalid, as is declared in the Bull of Julius the 2d set out against Simonaical elections of the Pope, whose words are as followeth. If it shall hereafter fall out through the Devil's malice the Enemy of Mankind, or the ambition or covetousness of the Elector, that when we, or any of our Successors, shall by God's appointment, be removed from the Government of the Church on Earth, the election of the new Pope be made and done either by him that is ch●sen, or by any other or more of the College of Cardinals, by the Heresy of Simonaical contract, giving, promising, or receiving any goods of any kind, or Lands, or Castles, or offices, or benefices, or by making any other promise or obligation, of what kind soever, whether they do it by themselves, or another, by a few or by many, and whether the election be accomplished by the voices of two parts of the Cardinals divided in three, or by the uniform, consent or voices of them all, whether it be done by way of assumption, or adoration, yea though there be no writing made at all.  
We determine define and declare.  
That not only the election or assumption so made, shall be from that very moment void, and of none effect, and no power or faculty shall accrue to him thereby thrust in, of any administration, government or jurisdiction, in matters spiritual or temporal, but also that it shall and may be lawful to any Cardinal present at the said election, to except against the said intruder, and to call him into question for the crime of Simony, as of a true and undoubted Heresy, that so being an Heretic he may be of all men accountedas no Pope, or Bishop of Rome, etc. Neither shall such simonaical election be any time afterwards made valid by any subsequent inthronization, coronation, no not by any adoration made, or obedience or homage done or sworn to him by the Cardinals, no not though it be done by the whole College, nor by any action that may or can be done, nor by any continuance or course of time. But it shall and may be lawful to all and every Cardinal, yea even those that were present and consenting to the said Simonaical election or assumption, not only before but even after any such enthronization, adoration, homage, or obedience done, and not to them alone, but to the whole Clergy and People of Rome, and to all the subjects of the Roman Church, and to all the Lords, Governors, Captains, and Commanders, as well of the City and palace of St. Angelo within the City, as of all other Castles, Towers, and fortresses, and to all Ministers and officers whatsoever, to refuse to yield him any honour, homage, or obedience, and to revolt from him so chosen and enthronised, and from all obedience to him, and that safely and lawfully they may hold, esteem and eschew him, and all fellowship with him, as a Magician, Ethnic, Publican, and Arch-heretic, And further we determine, that by the authority hereof it shall and may be lawful to the Cardinals, even those that were present at the Simonaical election, and consented not thereunto, and to those that shall afterwards descent and departed from him, to appoint forthwith a general Council, and to call and summon the same, into such a convenient place as to them shall seem expedient, etc. Thus far the words of Julius his Bull.  
Now as to the fact, the said Author tells us a thing known to millions of Men, that when Gregory the thirteenth was deceased, and the Cardinals assembled in the Conclave for the election of a new Pope, the said ●ixtus Quintus being then the Cardinal of Montalto, that himself might be chosen, plainly bought of Aloisius the great Cardinal of Aste, his voice & the voices of all the Cardinals depending of him, which were known to be far the greater number, and able to carry it with whomsoever they went. And in consideration thereof, he promised him not in a word alone, but by open writing, subscribed and ratified under his own hand, that whereas there was a principal Prelate one Hieronymus Mathaeus, whose possibility was great to be a Cardinal, but then was at no little odds with Cardinal Aloisius, Sixtus or Montalto solemnly promised him that during his reign, he would never make the aforesaid Mathaeus Cardinal, if he by his own voice and his complices would make him Pope. Cardinal Aloisius accepted of the condition, and so the Bargain was concluded, and accordingly he gave him his voice, and got all his party and faction to do the like, and so Sixtus carried it from all Competitors, and was chosen Pope; which was so openly known that Aloisius never made bones to say in a public presence, that Pope Sixtus was his Creature and the work of his own hands. This being so, every one may see it is the very case declared in the aforesaid Bull of Julius the second against Simonaical elections.  
If it be objected that the aforesaid decree of Julius binds not, but where the fact is famous eviïdent and notorious, it is answered, that the aforesaid fact of Sixtus was made public and notorious in manner following. Sixtus after his election, violated his Faith, and broke the promise made to the Cardinal of Aste; and contrary thereto made Hieronymus Mathaeus Cardinal; which the Cardinal of Aste took so to heart, that for anger and grief he fell deeply sick: but before his death, to recompense the new and ill made Pope as he deserved, he sent the agreement and covenant he had of Sixtus, to Philip the second King of Spain, even the very Original itself, who hereupon in the year 15●9. sent the Duke of Suez to Rome as his Ambassador extraordinary, to give Sixtus notice hereof, and to intimate to him the present necessity of a general Council for the declaration of his election to be Simonaical, and to require the Lords, the Cardinals such as were created by his predecessors, and the other Prelates and Clergy to whom it belongs, to appear in the said Council to be holden in Spain at the City of Sevil in Andalusia.  
And though this business could not proceed to full effect, for that Sixtus upon this intimation made to him, knowing he should be condemned by his own hand, of mere fear and desperation fell sick and died, (having only that way left to prevent deprivation) yet by this beginning his Simonaical covenant and election thereupon ensuing was called into question, or as the Lawyers say drawn into judgement & made notorious. Neither did the King of Spain more than right, for by divine law all Catholics may rise against an Heretical Pope, and 
a ●n C. si audier is 23. q. 5. Isidorus desummo bono lib. 7. relatus in Cap.  that Law of God is related in the Body of the Canon Law. And in the case of Simonaical election that secular Princes have power to call a Council, is the plain text of Isidore that ancient Father, which is related in the Canon Law.  
To proceed therefore; Sixtus, by the virtue of the said constitution of Julius, which is inscribed in the Body of the Canon Law, being a Magician, an Eth-nic, and an Arch-heretic, could not therefore, nor had power in him to create Cardinals, for as much as he was ipso facto despoiled and deprived of all jurisdiction, power and faculty spiritual and temporal: and all use and exercise of such jurisdiction spiritual and temporal is by the Law so far forbidden him, that all acts by him done in that kind are absolute nullities, as don by him that has no power at all to do them.  
Now from this ground thus laid, it followeth by infallible inference, that all the Popes since 
b Principes scculi 22. q. 3.  Sixtus the fifth were intruders, and not one of them a true Pope. For after his Death Cardinal Montalto his Nephew entering the conclave with forty voices in his faction, by the strength thereof was elected Vrbanus the seventh; who living but a few days, by the same means Gregory the fourteenth was chosen into his place, who continued but ten Months; after whom by the same voices entered Innocentius the ninth who held the Papacy but two Months: at last was chosen Clement the eighth by the same voices; who by the permission of God continued this intrusion and usurpation for thirteen years. Now that none of these were, nor could be true Popes, is thus demonstrated.  
Unto the election of all these concurred the voices of those Cardinals created by Sixtus the fifth, whereupon it followeth inevitably that all those elections are plain nullities, since by the constitution of Pius the fourth touching the Reformation of the conclave in the election of Popes, the power of choosing the Pope is granted only to the College of Cardinals, which is to be understood of true and lawful Cardinals: but the Cardinals who made all those elections were no true Cardinals, being made by Sixtus the fifth who was no true Pope, and therefore had no place nor power to make them, therefore the aforesaid elections of Popes from Sixtus, being made by no true Cardinals, were no elections, but absolute nullities in the Law to all intents and purposes.  
Now that such titular Cardinals as were created by him that is no true Pope are no true Cardinals, and consequently can give no voice, nor make any lawful or good election is evident by continual precedents of former times in the Roman Church. Such is the case of Benedict the thirteenth, who sitting at Avignion created divers Cardinals; but for as much as he was judged no true Pope, but an Antipope, and an usurper, therefore all by him created were no Cardinals, and so were held and reputed till their dying day. And when after the death of Alexander the fifth, he that was called John the 23. in the time of that long and miserable Schism, intruded himself unlawfully into the Papacy at Bononia, where he than was Legate, and so being Pope created divers Cardinals, they were all reputed and judged to be no true Cardinals in the Council of Constance; and a new and true Pope was then chosen, named Martin the fifth, not by the said Cardinals (because they had no power) but by the whole Council. From all which and more of this kind that may be produced, it followeth evidently, that the Cardinals so called, created by Sixtus the fifth being no true Pope, are no true Cardinals, and consequently cannot make election of a Pope, and therefore all by them chosen were no Popes but mere intruders and usurpers.   

CHAP. X. A further cause of nullity discovered in the election of Pope Clement the Eighth.  
BEsides the former cause of no true Cardinals concurring to the election of Clement the 8. it is found to be void in another respect: for two parts of the Cardinals concurred with one consent on another, namely Cardinal San Severine (as the aforesaid nameless Roman Catholic author relates.) For they called him by name, they took him and lead him to the Chapel of St. Saint Paul, where they performed their ceremony of adoration to the new elected Pope: that in this place they make him sit in the Pope's chair of state, and by public scrutiny they proclaim him Pope: and that this make a full and legal election of a Pope, the text of the law expressly teacheth in these words, 
* Ca●licet de vitanda de electione.  He who shall be elected and received by two parts of the Cardinals with uniform consent, let him be held and received of the whole and universal Church as true Pope without all question or contradiction. Now by what's above related by our Author, it appears that the Cardinal Saint Severine was chosen by two parts of the Cardinals with full consent, and by them conducted, and placed in the Pope's seat; therefore he was lawfully chosen Pope, and so ought to have been accepted; but see, Reader, (and admire the Arts of that Court) how this poor Man was put off.  
When this was done, and whilst the rest of the Cardinals that were without were expected (for such is the custom, that when two parts have made election, the third part which consented not, but co●ld not hinder, are expected to come to the place where the new elect is adored by two parts that chose him, and from whence the election is to be published; that so all being together, the election ma● be said to be made by all, without contradiction of any Man while the rest I say, was expected to come in, there came into the Chapel Cardinal Gesualdus and Ssortia (the former whereof was Dean of the College of Cardinals) and by a crafty and wicked device, disturbed the election in truth and in law already made. Gesualdus cries out, my Lords, let us number the voices, to see if two full parts have consented; whereupon he began to count, not hasting to make an end, but leisurely proceeding with intermissions and delays, which he did purposely to a crafty end, that Cardinal Saint Sfortia might have time also to act his part, which he failed not to do: for in that mean time he got two of the Cardinals out of the Chapel who had given their voices, and carried them into another place called Sala Regia; and leaving them there he returned to the rest, and largely lays open to them, the rigour and severity of San Severino (for they feared his justice, he being a just and upright Man) and hereupon the greater part of them most perfidiously got them out of the Chapel, and assembling together with the rest made a new election of Cardinal Aldobrandine, who was called Clement the Eighth; and this is the truth of that business.  
Now that the former election of San Severine was good and effectual in law, is a clear case: for the voices that chose him were for number complete and sufficient, when they pronounced him for Pope, and set him in the chair. And as for the ceremonious solemnity used in the elections, that all the Cardinals sitting in their order together with him that is to be chosen, every one in order shall say, I such a one choose such a one to be Pope; and that the Secretary of the Conclave shall take the scrutiny, and write down every one's voice; it is not an essential part of the election, or necessarily, or essentially required to make an election: for the express words of the Text do declare, define and peremtorily pronounce him to be Pope instantly, as soon as he is chosen and received by two parts of the Cardinals; and he is then by the Law said to be accepted and received of the Cardinals, when they take him and convey him to the Chapel aforenamed, and make him sit down in the Pope's seat; and he is said to be chosen or elected, when the said two parts declare their consent and agreement upon him to be Pope. Now all these concurred in and upon the Cardinal San Severine; & when the election is thus done by public & open denunciation, there needs no Scrutineers to take the voices, as is clear by the law. And this is one way of choosing the Pope, and is called the way of assumption, whereof mention is made in the foresaid Bull of Julius the second, and by this way which is as sufficient and effectual in law as the other, was Cardinal San Severine chosen; and wanted nothing required by the law to the essence of a true election, but only some formalities, which by the law are not necessary. Nor is it material to say, he wanted inthronization or ordination, or kissing of his foot, for all these are but effects and consequences of a true election; and are appointed to be done to him that is elected, but do not help forward his election, and the election is properly held done and perfected before they be performed; as any man may see in the aforesaid Bull of Julius the second.  
Neither is the calling together of all the Cardinals necessarily required; for it is expressly commanded in no law, and as for the text of the Canon law, called licet devitanda; it shows the validity of the election, as is sound proved by Cardinal Jacobatius, who shows, that at least a Council is to be called, to declare whether the election be good or no; and that they may not proceed to the election of another. The election therefore of Clement thus made, is to be held a nullity, as being done by deceit and fraud, according to the express text of the law laid down in these words, 
b ●n. C●in nomine Domin● dist. 28.  But if any shall be elected, ordained, 
a Jacobat. tr. de Concil. part. ●. ar. 4. n. 154.  or enthronized Pope through sedition, presumption, or any ingeny or trick of wit, contrary to this our sentence and Synodical decree pronounced in open Council; by the authority of God and his Apostles Saint Peter and Saint Paul, we pronounce him subject to the great curse, and separated by perpetual Anathema from all Society with God's Church, together with all his authors, factors, and abettors, an Antichrist, an intruder and destroyer of Christian Religion, etc.  

a Abb. in d. licet devitanda n. 11. ver. exposuit Ruffiensis.  And after Cardinal Hostiensis the great Doctor called the Abbot, in his commentaries on the text, expound's the word ingeny to be craft, collusion and deceit, and such like, as was the election of Joh. the 22. that was afterward condemned in the Council of Basil. For when after the Death of Alexander the fifth, the Cardinals assembled at Bononia, and consulted about the choice of a new Cardinal; Cossa, who then was Legate there, a man potent and warlike, obtained of the Electors by his greatness, that they would commit the whole power of the election to him: which they had no sooner granted him, but he forthwith elected himself. But, for as much as upon examination of the matter in public Council, it was found to be compassed by fraud and deceitful tricks, he was therefore deprived by the Council. From whence it followeth, that Clement could not be taken for a true Pope, both for that he was chosen by such as had no power to choose, as also that that choice by them made was wrought by fraud and deceit, and to the injury of another lawfully chosen before: and was therefore void, though it had been done by such as had been lawfully enabled to make such an election.   

CHAP. XI. Nullities declared in the Popedom of Paul the fifth, and others following.  
THe forementioned Roman Catholic author discovereth another egregious fraud and cheat, used in the election of Paul the fifth succeeding Clement the Eighth, wherewith they turned out the Cardinal of Florence lawfully elected, to bring in factiously this Paul before called Cardinal Borg●esius. The particulars of that intrigue are to be seen in the first chapter of the said treatise n. 15. besides whi●h damnable fraud and the nullity of the Cardinal's electing, both rendering the election void; our Author discovereth another foul cause of nullity in the Popedom of Paul the fifth in regard of his notorious Simony. For which it is to be presupposed, that the Pope, as Pope, is not free from the crime of Simony, nor exempted from incurring censures in that case; as Aquinas proves at large, concluding and resolving, that the Pope, as well as any other, may incur the vice, and come within the compass of the crime of Simony, if he takes money for any spiritual thing. Of the same opinion are all the Divines, that writ upon that place of Aquinas. In consequence to which doctrine, the 
* Aquin, 2.2. q. 100 art. 1. ad. 7.  Council of Basil even for this crime and sin of Simony, called in question, examined, convicted, and condemned Eugenius the fourth then Pope, and deprived him of the Papacy. The words of the Councils decree are these. By this definitive sentence of the great and universal Holy Council, which is here recorded in writing, for all the World to know, and all posterity to take notice of, the Council pronounceth, decreeth, and declareth, Gabriel formerly called P. Eugenius the 4. to have been, and so to be a notorious & manifest & contumacious rebel to the warnings and commandments of the universal Church; and that he still persists in the said open rebellion; and doth therefore condemn him for a wilful contemner and violater of the holy ancient Canons, a perturber of the peace and unity of the Church, a notorious scandalizer of the universal Church, a perjured, incorrigible, and Schismatical Simonist, and therefore a forsaker of the Faith, an Heretic, a dilapidator and consumer of the rights and riches of the Church committed to his trust; and hath thereby made himself an unprofitable member, and not only unworthy and unfit for the Papal power, but of all other title, degree, honour or dignity Ecclesiastical. Whom the aforesaid General Council doth by the power of the Holy Ghost, declare and pronounce, to be by the Law deprived of the Papacy and Bishopric of Rome, and by these presents it doth depose, remove, deprive, and throw him out.  
Now that the Pope Paul the fifth was guilty of Simony, and deserves to be treated as Eugenius in the Council of Basil; our Author declares in the foresaid treatise chapter the 2. from the second number, by the words following. In the Datary, which is an office at Rome, wherein all matters of benefices and businesses of that kind are expedited, this is the course and custom at this day. It is duly observed, that the benefices belonging to the Pope's collation, whether reserved to his gift, it falling void in the month that belongs to the Papacy, which in regard of their far distance from Rome, or that they are with cure, cannot be given to his Nephew Borghesius, are given to some of the Suitors or competitors, that are of that Country, or next adjoining to it. For they take order, that none be bestowed presently, but lie vacant for a time; that so a whole concourse of competitors may flock together for it: which is not done for any good end, that so they might know the difference of the suitors, and give it to the worthiest, as by the decree of the Council of Trent they are bound to do: but that they may learn which is the richest, and so may know how to make the best bargain. To this end, the time of this competition is appointed at a certain day, whereof public notice is given, that so all the suitors may come, and that the officers of the datary may learn in that time which of all that seek it, are best able to buy out and extinguish the pension that is laid upon that living. For this is the fashion now in use; the Pope chargeth every living in his gift with a pension more or less: ordinarily it amounts to half of the whole value of the benefice; if but a third part, 'tis held easy and favourable; but sometimes it extends to two parts of the whole divided into three: which done, he provides by an other ordination, that by present payment of five years' profit, the pension shall be exringuished. Now when by this concourse and comparison of competitors, they have found which of them is best able to buy it, on him presently it's conferred, & so not the worthiest but the wealthiest carries it: and thus are all the Pope's live bestowed at Rome. Now he that comes thus to a benefice, by paying down five years' pension before hand, buys it full dear; for he pays for it at the rate of 30. in the 100 over and besides his personal service. For the clearing of this point; Suppose a benefice worth 300 Crowns a year: this is sure to be charged, being so great a Living, with a pension of the largest size, namely some 200; that so one 100 may be left to the Incumbent; he than that comes to it in this manner, pays down a 1000 Crowns for the pension, and an 100 more for writing, and seal of his Bulls, and for expedition; and so all laid together, he buys his living of 300 at the rate of 30. for the hundred, besides his personal service and cure of Souls.  
Moreover whereas in the Council of Trent, certain Simoniacal tricks and devices called regressus & expectatives, are flatly forbidden; the Pope, to delude the Councils decree, grants coadjutorships, with assurance of future succession after his Death to whom he is made coadjutor; but makes them pay one years' profit for the expediting and dispatch of their Bulls. Now these coadjutorships are the very same, and tend to the very same end, even to bring in by hook and crook sums of money: for by these pensions, and buying out of pensions, this Pope has scraped up twenty hundred thousand Scutes, all which he has bestowed in buying lands for his Nephew. He bought of Sarelly a goodly large territory called Rignanum, near unto Rome, at the price of 353000 Scutes. The City of Sulmona in the Kingdom of Naples he bought of the King of Spain, and gave for the same the sum of 150000 Scutes.  
He purchased those goodly demains, called the four Casalia, within the territories of the City of Rome, which cost no less than 700000 Scutes. In the mountainous Countries belonging to the City, which are commonly at six in the hundred, he made a purchase that stood him in 400000 Scutes.  
He has built a palace, and called it after his own name the palace of Burghesius; upon the Fabric whereof he has bestowed 300000.  
He has so enriched the Cardinal Burghesius his Nephew in private Stock and wealth, that his very moveables are esteemed worth 600000 Scutes.  
Good God? what a mighty wealth is here? and I appeal to any that knows the Court of Rome, if this could be got together by any means into the Pope's own Coffers and private purse, but only out of that office of the benefices called the Datary. Therefore this one demonstration is presumption sufficient enough, to prove his foul and detestable Simony; seeing it is certain, that the whole name and blood of the Burghesies were but of a mean estate, nay many of them are known to have run out of their live, and to be little better than bankrupt, when this man got the Popedom.  
Hitherto the words of the foresaid Author, who promised to justify all that he had said to be true out of the Authentical Books, Records, and writings extant in Rome: and that out of the Register of the Pope's Bulls it shall appear, to whom each benefice has been given, and with what pension they were charged. Of all which the Spanish Nation can give a large testimony: for many of them dealing in businesses of benefices at Rome, have transacted them in this manner.  
The conclusion of all before said is, that if Simoniacal contracts do annul the election of a Pope; and the same crime committed after his election, depriveth him of all right to that place, and calling: if all Cardinals made by such unlawful and criminal Popes, were no Cardinals; and Popes made by unlawful Cardinals are no Popes, as is established by the Laws and Canons forementioned; if all those nullities of Simonies, frauds and cheats have intervened in the election of Sixtus and following Popes, as hitherto recorded, and no care has been taken of repairing those nullities, as is manifest, but rather the like practices continued to this day; as is well known to those that are acquainted with that Court; all this being so, it followeth as a forceable consequence, that there is not in the See of Rome any true Pope, nor has been since Gregory the thirteen.  
How strange will all the precedent narrative appear to many poor Irish and English Roman Catholics, who are not permitted to know more than their beads, and some small prayer Book, with the litanies of the conception, of Saint Joseph, Sancta Theresa, etc. and a list of great indulgences for very small devotions? But such as know by sight or faithful relation, the intrigues of Rome (whereof my good friend N. N. who gave me the occasion of this discourse, is one) will easily perceive, that all which is said, is very suitable to the language and practice of that Court.  
Now, therefore, let the poor Souls consider by these particulars, what metal that Roman holiness is, which they so blindly adore. And let their bold and presumptuous instructors forbear to censure the Ordinations of the Church of England, in which no such dirty practices did ever intervene, when their prime See is defaced and disgraced with such public and peremptory exceptions against the usurpers of it: and let them cease boasting as they do, of a wicked practice, reordaining such as were ordained in the Church of England, if they chance to pass to their communion, whereas it is not less sacrilegious and unlawful to reordain persons already lawfully ordained, then to rebaptize such as were lawfully baptised, according to Gregory the great his declaration: 
* Lib. 2. Epist. 32. end. 10. Cap. 58.  Sicut baptizatus semel, iterum baptizari non debet, ita qui consecratus est semel, in eodem iterum ordine consecrari non debet. As those who were baptised before, ought not to be rebaptised again; so he that was once consecrated, ought not to be consecrated again in the same order. The same was decreed in the Council of Carthage, ch. 38. and before in the Council of Capua, as related by the said Council of Carthage, and by Baronius in the year 139. To transgress the decrees of these grave and ancient Councils, is the boast of Romanists, when they brag of not admitting Priests ordained in the Church of England, to the function of Priesthood with them, if they be not ordained again after their ceremonies. Which point of presumption and contemt of ancient Canons, the Church of England refuses to learn from the Romish, admitting to the practice of their respective orders among us such as have been ordained in the Romish Church; though we have far greater reasons to suspect their ordinations, as disagreeing with ancient Canons, than they have to suspect ours; as we have hitherto largely declared.  
By all this discourse it appeareth, how groundless is the scruple of such as refuse to join with the Church of England, for fear that the ordination of its Clergy is not valid; whereas we have all the certainty (and even more) for the validity of our ordination, that the Roman Church hath for hers: & how much Suarez was mistaken in affirming, that the Church of England has not the Ecclesiastic hierarchy composed of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, necessary to the constitution of a Catholic Church.   

CHAP. XII. Of the large extent of Christian Religion professed in the Church of England.  
THe fourth and chief kind of universality proposed by Suarez, as necessary to the constitution of a Catholic Church, is the extent of it over all the parts of the Earth. This he denies to the Church of England, as not passing (says he) the Limits of the British Dominions. But if he speaks of the Faith professed in the Church of England (as he ought to do for the present purpose) he was greatly mistaken. Here I will show, that King James' saying (as Suarez relates) that the one half of the Christian World do join with us in the same Faith, did not exceed the bounds of truth and modesty; and that of three parts of Christians, two do join with us in the profession of the Faith of Christ contained in the Apostles Creed; though not of all contained in the Creed of Trent, whereby the Roman Church alone is singled from us, and from all other Christian Churches: not unlike Ishmael, whose hand was against every one, and every Man's hands against him. And as the Donatists would confine the Church of God to that corner of Africa they inhabited; so the Romanists would not have it extended further than their jurisdiction; declaring for excommunicated and damned, all that join not with them in obedience to their Pope. That they may be ashamed, or weary of their blind presumption and cruelty, in offering to mangle and deface in this manner the Church of God (if avarice and ambition, the genuine cause of this proceeding, is capable of shame or amendment) I will give to the People blinded by them a view of the multitude of illustrious Nations and Religious Believers in Christ, which they do rashly if not maliciously condemn, and segregate from their communion.  
And beginning with Protestants inhabiting Europe, from the remotest parts thereof Eastward, in the Kingdom of Polonia, containing under its dominion Polonia, Lituania, Podolia, Russia the less, Volhinia, Massovia, Livonia, Prussia, all which united in a roundish enclosure are in circuit about 2600 miles, and of no less space than Spain and France laid together. In this so large a Kingdom, the Protestants in great numbers are diffused through all the quarters thereof, having in every Province their public Churches and Congregations, orderly severed and bounded with Dioceses, whence they send some of their chiefest men of worth unto their general Synods, which they have frequently held with great celebrity, and with such prudence and piety, as may be a happy example to be followed by all Christian Churches; and likely would be followed upon a due consideration, if the insatiable avarice and boundless ambition of Rome, aspiring desperately to a monarchical power over all, did not obstruct all the ways, that sincere piety and zeal of Religion can imagine for the peace of Christians.  
For as much as there are divers sorts of these Polonic Protestants, some embracing the Waldensian or the Bohemic, others the Augustan, and some the Helvetian confession, and so do differ in some outward circumstances of discipline and ceremony; yet knowing well, that a Kingdom divided cannot stand, and that the one God, whom all of them worship in Spirit, is the God of peace and concord, they jointly meet at one general Synod: and their first act always, is a religious and solemn profession of their unfeigned consent in the substantial points of Christian Faith necessary to Salvation. Thus in general Synods at Lendomire, Cracovia, Petricove, Woodslave, Torun, they declared upon the Bohememic, and Helvetic and Augustan confessions severally received amongst them, that they agree in the general heads of Faith, touching the Holy Scripture, the sacred Trinity, the person of the Son of God, God and Man; the providence of God, Sin, free will, the Law, the Gospel, justification by Christ, Faith in his name, Regeneration, the Catholic Church, and supreme head thereof, Christ; the Sacraments, their number and use, the state of Souls after Death, the Resurrection, and life Eternal.  
They decreed, that whereas in the forenamed confessions there is some difference in phrases and forms of Speech concerning Christ's presence in his holy Supper, which might breed dissension, all disputations touching the manner of Christ's presence should be cut off, seeing all of them do believe the presence itself; and that the Eucharistical Elements are not naked and emty signs, but do truly perform to the Faithful receiver, that which they signify and represent. To prevent future occasions of violating this sacred consent, they ordained, that no man should be called to the sacred Ministry, without subscription thereunto; and when any person shall be excluded by excommunication from the Congregation of one confession, that he shall not be received by them of another. Lastly, For as much as they accord in the substantial verity of Christian Doctrine, they profess themselves content to tolerate diversity of ceremonies, according to the divers practice of their particular Churches, and to remove the least suspicion of rebelling & sedition wherewith their malicious and calumniating adversaries might blemish the Gospel: though they are subject to many grievous pressures, yet they earnestly exhort one another to follow that worthy and Christian admonition of Lactantius: defendenda Religio est non occidendo, sed moriendo; non saevitiâ, sed patientiâ; non scelere, sed side: illa enim bonorum, haec malorum sunt.  
This is the State of the Professors of the Gospel in the Elective Monarchy of Polonia; who in the adjoining Countries on the fourth, Transylvania and Hungary, are also exceedingly multiplied. In the former by the favour of Gabriel Bartorius Prince of that Region, who not many years since expelled thence all such as are of the Papal faction, in a manner the whole Inhabitants (except some few rotten and putrid limbs of Arrians, Antitrinitarians, Ebionits', Socinians, Anabaptists, who here, as also in Polonia, Lituania, and Borussia have some public assembly) are professed Protestants; and in Hungary the greater part, especially being compared with the Papists.  
Thence Westward in the Kingdom of Bohemia, consisting of 3200 Parishes and its appurtenances, the Marquisates of Lusatia, and Moravia, the Dukedom of Silesia (all which jointly in circuit contains 770. miles) and in Austria itself, and the Countries of Goritia, Tirolis, Cilia, the principalities of Suevia, Alsatia, Brisgoia, Constance, the most part of the People are Protestants, especially of the nobility; and are in regard of their number so potent, that they are formidable to their malignant opposites. And they are near of the same number and strength in the neighbour Countries of the Archduke of Gratzden (a branch of the house of Austria) namely in Stiria, Carrabia, Carniola.  
But the condition of the Protestants residing among the Cantons of Helvetia, and their confederates the City of Geneva, the Town of Saint Gall, the Grisons, Vallesians, seven communities under the Bishop of Sedan, is a great deal more happy and settled: in so much, that they are two third parts, having the public and free practice of Religion: for howsoever of the 13. Cantons, only these five Zuric, Scathausen, Glarona, Basil, Abbaticella are entirely Protestant; yet these in strength and ampleness of territory much exceed the other seven; and hence Zuric in all public meetings and embassies, hath the first place, being chief of the five.  
Now coming to Germany, the whole Empire consisteth of three orders or states; the Prince's Ecclesiastical, the temporal Princes, and the free Cities. Of the Ecclesiastics the Archbishop of Maidenburg and bream, with the Bishoprics thereunto belonging are under the Protestants, as also the Bishoprics of Verden, Halberstad, Osnaburg and Minden.  
The temporal Princes all (none of note excepted) besides the Archduke of Austria, and the Duke of Bavaria, are firmly Protestants. And what the multitudes of Subjects are professing the same Faith with these Princes, we may guests by the ampleness of Dominions under the government of the chief of them, such as are the Prince Elector Palatin, the Duke of Saxony, the Marquis of Brandenburg, the Duke of Wirtenburg, Landgrave of Hesse, Marquis of Baden, Prince of Anhalt, Dukes of Brunswic, Holst, Lunenburg, Meckleburg, Pomeran, Swyburg. Among whom the Marquis of Brandenburg hath for his Dominion not only the Marquisat itself, containing in circuit about 320 miles, and furnished with 50 Cities, and about 60 other walled Towns; but likewise a part of Prussia, the Region of Prignitz, the Dukedom of Crossen, the Seigneuries of Sternberg and Corbus, and lately the three Dukedoms of Cleve, Dulic and Berg, of which the two former have either of them in circuit 130 miles. The free Cities, which were in number 88 before some of them came to the possession of the French, Polanders, and Helvetians, are generally Protestant's, especially those called the Hans Cities, very rich and powerful, situate in the northern part of Germany, inclusively, between Dantisk eastward, and Hamburg westward. As for Ratisbon, Argentine, Augusta, Spire, Worms, Francfort upon Main, both Papists and Protestants in them make public profession.  
Nearer to us are the Provinces of the low Countries, governed by the State's General; namely Zutphen, Vtrecht, Overissel, Gronninghen, Holland, Zealand, West-Friesland, in which only Protestants have the public and free exercise of their Religion. The power and strength of these Provinces is too much known for to need a relation of it. 
* Pagi. Christianography chap. 2.  I find in Mr. Pagit related, that they contain about 210 Cities compassed with walls and ditches, and 6300 Towns and villages, and more; and that they keep about 30000 Men in continual garrisons.  
Now passing from the united Provinces into France, those of the Religion (as they usually style them) are seized of above 70 Towns having garrisons of Soldiers, governed by Nobles and Gentlemen of the Protestant Religion, they have 800 Ministers retaining pensions out of the public finance, and are so dispersed through the chief Provinces of the Kingdom, that in the Principality of Orange, Poiclou almost all the Inhabitants, in Gascony half, in Languedoc, Normandy, and other western Provinces a strong party profess the Protestant Religion. Besides the Castles, and Forts that do belong in property unto the Duke of Bullen, the Duke of Rohan, Count of Laval, the Duke of Trimovil, Monsieur chastilion, the Marshal of Digniers, the Duke of Sully, and others.  
Now if to all the forenamed Kingdoms, Principalities, Dukedoms, States, Cities, abounding with professors of the Reformed Religion, we add the Monarchies of Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden, wholly in a manner protestants, we shall find them not inferior in number and power to the Romish party; especially if we consider, that the main bulk here of Italy and Spain are by a kind of violence and necessity, rather than out of any free choice and judgement detained in their superstition, namely by the jealousy, cruelty, and tyrannous vigilancy of the inquisition, and by their own ignorance; being utterly debarred from all reading of the Holy Scriptures, and of controversial Books, whereby they may come to the knowledge of truth and of their own errors.  
If any shall object that the Protestants, in divers Countries before mentioned, cannot be reputed as one body and one Church; by reason of many differences and contentions among them, let him consider, that however many private persons living among Protestants, rather then of them, have strained their weak understanding to coin several erroneous tenants, and by them have bred dissensions and animosities: yet these wicked practices are not to be imputed to the whole sacred community of Orthodox Churches, whose harmony and agreement in necessary points of Faith are to be seen and esteemed by their public confessions of their Faith, which they have divulged unto the whole World by public authority; and in which they do so agree, that there is a most sacred harmony between them in the more substantial points of Christian Religion necessary to Salvation. This is manifest out of the Confessions themselves, which are the Anglican, Scotian, French, Helvetian, Belgic, Polonic, Argentine, Augustane, Saxonic, Wirtembergic, Palatine, Bohemic, or Waldensian. For there is none of the Churches formerly pointed out in divers places of Europe, which doth not embrace one of those confessions; and all of them do harmoniously conspire in the principal articles of Faith, and which nearest concern our Eternal Salvation; as in the divine essence and divinity of the Everlasting God, the sacred Trinity of the three Glorious Persons, the blessed Incarnation of Christ, the Omnipotent providence of God, the absolute Supreme head of the Church Christ; the infallible verity and full sufficiency of Divine Scriptures for our instruction to life Everlasting, etc. In none of those confessions is to be seen that heap of desperate Heresies which my Antagonist N. N. attributes to the Church I have followed, and wherewith Bellarmine, and Becan, and other Romish controvertists do make their volumes swell, to fill the minds of their proselytes with hatred and animosity against the Reformed Churches, whilst in them such impious Heresies are most seriously rebuked, and learnedly refuted by pen and tongue, from Chairs, and Pulpits, as I am daily seeing, to my great comfort; and no small grief, to consider the disingenuity of Romanists in fomenting animosities among Christians, by calumniating thus the opposers of their errors.   

CHAP. XIII. Of the several large and flourishing Christian Churches in the Eastern Countries not subject to the Pope.  
TO all men truly zealous of the honour of God and of his Son Jesus Christ, it cannot but be comfortable, to see how happily the blessed Apostles have complied with the command of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour; 
* Math. 28 ●9  Go and teach all Nations, baptising in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and how gloriously the Churches planted by them, have persevered in the Faith of our Saviour, in spite of the greatest persecutions, and under the greatest Enemies of the Christian name, such as the Turk is known to be: and yet under his Domions is a numberless number of Christians; of which the Grecians are, for antiquity, number and dignity, the chief. They acknowledge obedience to the Patriarch of Constantinople, under whose jurisdiction are in Asia, the Christians of Anatolia, Circassia, Mengrelia, and Russia, as in Europe also the Christians of Grece, Macedon, Epirus, Thrace, Bulgaria, Servia, Bosnia, Walachia, Moldavia, ●odolia, & Moscovia, together with all the Islands of the Aegean Sea, and others about Grece, as far as Corfu; besides a good part of the large Dominion of Polonia, and those parts of Dalmatia, and Croatia, that are subject to the Turkish Dominion: all which Congregations of Christians, subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople, do exceed in number them of the Romish Communion; as I find recorded by diligent 
a Brerewood inquiries cap. 15. Pagit Christianography. cap. 2.  Writers, whereof Pagit says, that Christians make up the two third parts of the Grand Signiors Subjects.  
All these Churches do deny the Pope's Supremacy: they account the Pope and his Church Schismatical. The Patriarch of Constantinople doth yearly upon the Sunday called Dominica invocavit, solemnly excommunicate the Pope and his Clergy for Schismatics. They deny Transubstantiation; touching which point Cyril Patriarch of Constantinople delivereth this excellent confession, as agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of England, as opposite to the Romish: In the Eucharist (saith 
b Cap. 17. Pag. 60.  he) we do confess a true and a real presence of Christ, but such a one, as Faith offereth us, not such as devised Transubstantiation teacheth: for we believe the Faithful to eat Christ's body in the Lord's Supper, not sensibly champing it with our teeth, but partaking it with the sense of the soul. For that is not the Body of Christ, which offereth itself to our Eyes in the Sacrament; but that which Faith spiritually apprehendeth and offereth to us. Hence ensueth, that if we believe, we eat and participate, if we believe not, we receive no profit by it. Hieremy the Patriarch teacheth a change of bread into the Body of Christ, which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a transmutation: which is not sufficient to infer a Transubstantiation, because it may only signify a mystical alteration, which the Patriarch in the same place plainly showeth; saying, that the mysteries are truly the Body and Blood of Christ, not that these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith he) are changed into humane flesh, but we into them; for the better things have ever the preeminence. The words of Cyril and Hieremy in Greek are to be found with Mr. Pagit in his Christianography Cap. 4.  
They deny Purgatory fire: So Nilus' Archbishop of Thessalonica: 
a Nilus' p 219. de purge. igne.  we have not received by tradition from our teachers, that there is any fire of purgatory, nor any temporal punishment by fire, neither do we know of any such Doctrine, taught in the Eastern Church. 
b Castr. adver. haeres. l. 12. p. 1.8.  Alphonsus de Castro. It is one of the most known errors of the Grecians and Armenians, that they teach there is no place of Purgatory, where Souls after this Life are purged from their corruptions: which they have contracted in their Bodies, before they deserve to be received into the Eternal tabernacles.  
They administer the Eucharist in both kinds, of which 
c Cyr c 17. p. 61.  C●rill the Patriarch: As the institutor speaketh of his Body, so also of his blood: which commandment ought not to be rend asunder, or mangled according to humane arbitrement, but the institution delivered to be kept entire.  

a Resp. p. 129 distinct. 31. aliter.  They allow married Priests. Hier. Patr. We do permit those Priests that cannot contain, the use of marriage.  
They deny the worship of Images. Concerning which point 
b Cyr. resp. ad inter. 4. p. 97.  Cyril speaketh: we forbidden not the historical use of Pictures (Painting being a famous and commendable Art) we grant to them that will have them, the pictures of Christ and Saints; but their adoration and worship we detest, as forbidden by the Holy Ghost in holy Scripture; lest we should, before we are ware, adore colours instead of our Creator and Maker.  
They acknowledge the sufficiency of Scripture for an entire rule of Faith and of our Salvation Of which 
c Damasc. de Orthodoxa fide lib. 1. c. 1.  Damascen giveth this testimony, What soever is delivered unto us in the Law and in the Prophets, by the Apostles and Evangelists, that we receive, acknowledge and reverence, and beside these we require nothing else.  
They do not forbid the laity the reading of Scriptures. As the reading of Scripture is forbidden to no Christian Man (saith Cyril the Patriarch) so no Man is to be kept from the reading of it: for the word is near in their mouth and in their hearts. Therefore manifest injury is offered to any Christian Man of what rank or condition soever he be, who is deprived or kept from reading or hearing the Holy Scripture.  
They allow no private Masses: as Ch●traeus relates: No private Masses (says he) are celebrated among the Grecks, without other communicants, as their liturgies and faithful relations testify.  
They have prayer in a known tongue. They use not prayer for Souls to be delivered out of purgatory, nor the extreme unction, nor elevating and carrying about the Sacrament, that it may be adored; nor indulgences, nor sale of Masses. Neither is there in their Canon, any mention made of the sacrifice of the Body and blood of Christ for the living and dead, as Chytraeus, Guagnirus and others quoted by 
a Pagit. c. 4.  Pagit do relate. Other differences of less account betwixt the Grecian Church and the Roman, you may see related by 
b Brerew. c. 15. Possev. dereb. Muscov. pag. 38.  Brerewood and Possevin.  
Of the same Religion with the Grecians, are the Christians of the vast and mighty Empire of Muscovia and Russia, under their Metropolitan the Archbishop of Moscow, nominated and appointed by the Prince, the Emperor of Russia, and upon this nomination consecrated by two or three of his own suffragans.  
To these may be added the Christians called Nestorians (for having maintained anciently the error of Nestorius) spread over a great part of Asia. For besides the Countries of Babylon, Ass●ria, Mesopotamia, Parthia, and Media, wherein many of them are found; they are scattered far and wide in the East, both northerly to Cathaia, and foutherly to India. So that beyond the river Tigris eastward, there is no other Sect of Christians to be found (as learned Brerewood relates) except only the Portugals, and the Converts made by them in India. The Patriarch of the Nestorians, to whom all those of the East parts acknowledge obedience, hath his seat in the City of Musale, on the River Tigris in Mesopotamia, or in the Patriarchal Monastery of Saint Ermes fast by Musale. In which City, though subject to Mahometans, it is recorded, that the Nestorians retain yet 15. Temples, being esteemed about 40 thousand Souls. Sanders relates the great number of suffragan Bishops and Metropolitans subject to the Patriarch of Musale.  
Next to these, we may name the Christians of Egypt called Cophti under the Patriarch of Alexandria; to whose jurisdiction belong not only the native Christians of Egypt, but also those about the bay of Arabia, and in the Mount Sinai Eastward; and in Afric, as far as the greater Syrtis westward. To him likewise are subject the Christians called Habassins spread over the wide Empire of Aethiopia, with their Prince commonly called Prester John. For though they have a Patriarch of their own, whom they call in their idiom Abuna (our Father) yet are they limited 
b Zaga Zabo de relig. & mor. Aethiop. apud Damian. Goes.  to choose one of the jurisdiction of Alexandria, and a Monk of Saint Anthony he must be. Besides the confirmation and consecration of him belongeth to the Patriarch of Alexandria, and by him is he sent with Ecclesiastical 
a Tho. à Jesul. 7. p. 3. Tho. à Jes. lib. 7. p. 3.  charge into Habasia. The conferring of Bishopries and other Ecclesiastical benefices (except the Patriarcship) belongeth only to the King. Their Priests and other inferior Ecclesiastical Ministers, (as also Monks) live by their labour, as having no tithes nor any Ecclesiastical revenues to maintain them, nor being suffered to crave alms. All which is recorded by Zaga Zabo an Ethiopian Bishop.  
The Christians of Egypt are so constant in the profession of Christianity, that if any of them are by force circumcised by the Turks, he is marked in the forehead or hands with the sign of the Cross, that all Men may know him to be a Christian.  
The Patriarch of Alexandria's dwelling, is now near the Church of Saint Nicholas in Cairo, which City is one of the greatest Cities in the World, reputed to be eight and twenty miles in length, and fourteen in breadth (as 
a Lithgows travels p. 306.  Lithgow reporteth) and that of Greeks, Copates, Armenians & others, there are about two hundred thousand Christians in that City of Cairo.  

b Tho. a Jesus de convers. gent. lib. 7. par. 1. c. 6. p. 363.  Thomas a Jesus relates a foul mistake in Baronius: who in the end of his sixth to me, tells, that in the time of Pope Clement the 8. an Embassage was brought from the Church of Alexandria, to the Roman Bishop: in which the Patriarch and all the Provinces of Egypt, and others adjoining, did acknowledge him chief and universal Pastor of the Church; but the matter being more diligently examined, appeared to be a mere  and fiction of a certain Impostor Bartavis.  
How great is the extent of Christianity in Aethiopia, may appear by the vast extent of that Empire, which according to Mr. Brerewood his dimension, is equal with Germany, France, Spain, and Italy. Others do report it to be as great as all Europe. 
a Apud Pagit. p. 38.  Horatius Malegueius maketh the dominion of the Aethiopian Emperor, larger than any other; excepting the Dominion of the Catholic King.  

b Godig. de Abass. reb. lib. 1. c. 32 p. 195.  Godignus reports, that there are in Aethiopia one hundred and twenty seven Arch-Bishops. 
c Alvares c. 14.  Alvares a Portugese Priest relates, that in Macham Talacem which is the Church of the Holy Trinity, he saw two hundred mitred Priests together; and sixty four Canopies carried over them. Their Churches are built round, and very rich, with hanging of Cloth of Gold, Velvet, and Plate. They have many goodly Monasteries: to the Monasteries of the vision of Jesus belong about 3000 Monks.  
Many were the attacks of Rome upon this flourishing Christianity of Aethiopia; to bring it under the Dominion of the Pope. 
d Godig. p. 367.  The more famous I find recorded, is that of Andreas Oviedo, sent thither with the title of Patriarch, in the year 1557. who coming with his letters to the Emperor Claudius, received this answer from him, That he would never yield obedience to the Bishop of Rome: (he gave him leave to teach the Portugals, but forbade him to speak one word to his Abassins' touching Religion) and that he would not suffer the Roman yoke to be laid on him or his. This Emperor Claudius dying, Adamas succeeded; who banished the said Patriarch Andreas: and this was the issue of the Embassy, as Godignus relates.  
Under the Patriarch of Jerusalem 
a Chytr. de statu Ecclesiae p. 24.  are the Christians inhabiting Palestine, mingled with Turks and others. The Patriarch keeps his residence in Jerusalem, where are now remaining ten Churches of Christians. The Patriarchal Church is the Church of Saint Sepulchre in Jerusalem, and his house is near unto it. To this Patriarch did belong the three Palestines. Tyrius adds two Provinces more, Rubensis & Beritensis. He relateth also five Metropolitans to have belonged to this See, and about 101 Bishops. The Armenians, Georgians, Abassins', and other Christians have several Churches in Jerusalem.  
Under the Patriarch of Antioch, are the Christians, called Syrians, of the place of their chief habitation; and Melchites, which according to the Syrian Etymology, is as much as to say, Royalists; because their Bishops have followed always in Faith, and in their Councils, the example and authority of the Emperors of Constantinople. They inhabit mingled with Mahumetans, part of Syria, Beritus, Tripoli, Aleppo, and other places in Asia.  

b Boter. relat. univers. par. 3. lib. 2.  Boterus saith, they are the most numerous sort of Christians in the East. They live under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Damascus, by the title of Patriarch of Antiochia. For Antiochia itself (where the name of Christians was first heard in the World) lying at present waist, or broken into small villages, the patriarchal seat was translated thence to Damascus, where are reported to be above a thousand houses of Christians.  
For although the Patriarch of the Maronites and of the Jacobites, whereof the former keepeth residence in Libanus, and the latter in Mesopotomia, entitle themselves Patriarches of Antiochia, and by the Christians of their own Sects be so acknowledged, yet do the Melchites, who retain the ancient Religion of Syria, acknowledge none for Patriarch, but the Archbishop of Damascus, reputing both the other for Schismatics, as having departed from the obedience and communion of the true Patriarch.  
And yet beside all these, a fourth there is, of the Pope's designation, that usurpeth the title of Patriarch of Antiochia. For ever si●ce the Latins surprised Constantinople (which was about the year 1200) and held the possession of the Eastern Empire about 70 years: all which time the Patriarches of Constantinople were consecrated by the Pope, as also since the holy Land and the Provinces about it were in the hands of the Christian Princes of the West; which began to be about the year 1100, and so continued about 80 years; during which season, the Patriarches of Anticchia also and of Jerusalem were of the Pope's Congregation; ever since then, I sa●, the Church of Rome hath and doth still create successively, imaginary or titular Patriarches (without jurisdiction) of Constantinople, Antiochia, Jerusalem, and Alexandria: so loath is the Pope to lose the remembrance of any superiority or title, that he hath once compassed.  
The Georgians inhabit the Country anciently named Iberia betwixt the Euxine and the Caspian Seas. The vulgar opinion is that they got the name of Georgians from their devotion to Saint George, whom they honour for their Patron, and whose image they bear in their military ensigns. Yet this seems to be a vulgar error, whereas mention was made of the Nation of the Georgians in those parts both by 
a Mela lib. 1. c. 2 Plin. lib. 6. c. 13. Prateo. de haeres. Sect. Verb. Georgiani.  Mela and Pliny before Saint George was born. Their Religion both in ceremony and substance is that of the Grecians, who yet were never subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople, but all their Bishops, being 18. do profess obedience to their own Metropolitan, without any higher dependence or relation; who yet keepeth residence far off in the monastery of Saint Catherine in the hill of Sinai.  
These Christians live separately by themselves without mixture of Mahumetans or Pagans, under their own King. They are a very warlike People, valiant in Battle, of great strength and might, with an innumerable multitude of Soldiers, very terrible to the Saracens; as it is reported by Vitriacus the Cardinal.  
Neighbouring with the Georgians are the Mengrelians and Circasians, anciently called Colchi and Zychi, both of the Greek Religion, and subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople, as converted by his 
a Belon. observe lib. 1. c. 35,  Ministers, Cyrillus and Metrodius, to Christian Religion. The Mengrelians inhabit Colchis, which lieth near the Euxine Sea. The 
b Mr. Herbert lib. 65.  Circassians Country extendeth itself on the Meotis 500 miles, and within land 200 miles. These Countries bring forth the bravest warriors reputed in the East.   

CHAP. XIV. Of the Jacobites, Armenians, Maronites and Indians.  
THe Jacobites had this name (as Damascen and Nicephorus do relate) of one Jacobus surnamed Zanzalus of Syria, who living about the year 530, was in his time a mighty enlarger of Eutyches his Sect, touching the unity of nature in our Saviour. And his followers are at this day in great numbers known under the name of Jacobites, in Syria, Cyprus, Mesopotamia, Babylon, and Palestine; in which 
a Boter. relat. p. 3. lib. 2. c. de Giacobitis. Breitenbach peregrin. c. de Jacobitis.  Regions they are esteemed to make about a hundred and sixty thousand Families: and are besides so far extended, as they are recorded to be spread abroad in some 40 Kingdoms.  
They have a Patriarch of their own, whose Patriarchal Church is in the Monastery of Saphran, near the City of Merdin, in the north part of Mesopotamia. These 
b Tho. a Jes. de convers. lib. 7. p. 1. c. 14.  Jacobites do condemn Eutyches and his error, who confounded the two natures of Christ; and they confess two natures to be united in Christ, and one personated nature to be made of the two natures not personated, without mixture, or confusion.  
The Armenians for traffic (to which they are exceedingly addicted) are to be found in multitudes in most Cities of great trade, especially in those in the Turkish Empire, having more favour among the Turks, than any other Sect of Christians, by a patent granted to that Nation under Mahomet's own hand; as some 
a Postel. lib. 22. de linguis. tit. de lingua Armenica.  do report. So as no Nation is more spread abroad in Merchandizing then the Armenians, except the Jews; yet the native Regions, where they are found in greater multitude, and their Religion is most supported, are Armenia the greater, named (since the Turks first possession of it) Turcomannia beyond Euphrates, and Cilicia now called Carmania.  
The Armenians were anciently of the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople; but since the time of Photius, they have departed both from the government of that Patriarch, and from the communion of the Grecians, and ever since they acknowledge obedience, without further or higher dependence, to two Patriarches of their own, whom they term Catholics, namely the one of the greater Armenia, under whose jurisdiction are reputed to be above 150000 Families, besides very many Monasteries. 
b Leonard. Sidon. Episc. apud Tho. à Jes. lib. 7. pag. 1. cap. 19  He keepeth his residence at present by the City of Ervan in Persia, being translated at their first reduction to the Pope's obedience, thither, by occasion of the late Wars between the Persians and the Turks; his ancient seat having been Seb●stia the Metropolis of Armenia the greater. The other Patriarch of Armenia the less, the family, of whose jurisdiction are esteemed to be about 20000, anciently kept at Meliteny Metropolis of that Province, but now is resident in the City of Sis not far from Tarsus in Cilicia, the middle limit of the jurisdictions of these two Patriarches being the River Euphrates.  

a Possevin. Apparat. Sacr. in v. Maronitae.  The Maronites were so named, not of an Heretic called Maron, as some did falsely write, but of a holy Man of that name; since in the book of Councils we find mention of the Monasteries of Saint Maron. Their main habitation is in the mountain Libanus: which though it contain in circuit about 700 miles, and is possessed in a manner only by the Maronites, yet of all Sects of Christians they are the least, as being esteemed not to pass in all 12000 Houses. Their Patriarch, who is wont to be a Monk of St. Antony, having under his jurisdiction eight or nine Bishops, keepeth his residence for the most part in Libanus, in a Monastery of Saint Antony. 
b Boter. relat. Pa. 3. lib. 2. c. de Maronitis.  He professed obedience of late together with all the Maronites to the Bishop of Rome, being the only Nation of the East, except the Indians lately brought to the Romish communion, who acknowledge that obedience. Gregory the 13. did found a Seminary in Rome for the training up the youth of that Nation in the Roman Religion.  
The Indian Christians commonly called of St. Thomas, because by his preaching they are supposed to have been converted to Christian Religion, inhabit in the nearer part of India, near to Cape Comori, being esteemed (afore the Portugals frequented those parts) about 15000 Families. Their Archbishop formerly acknowledged obedience to the Patriarch of Masal by the name of the Patriarch of Babylon, as by those Christians of India he is still termed. But the Archbishop revolting from his former Patriarch, submitted himself of late, by the Portugals persuasion, to the Bishop of Rome, retaining notwithstanding the ancient Religion of his Country, which was also permitted by the Pope: in so much that in a Synod held in Goa, for that purpose, he would not suffer any alteration to be made of their ancientrites or Religion, as 
* Linschot. lib. 1. cap. 15.  one that lived in those parts at that time hath recorded. But that Bishop being dead, his successor in another Synod held by the Archbishop of Goa, at Diamper not far from Maliapur, was induced to make profession, together with his suffragans and Priests, both of the Roman obedience and Religion.  
Here the reader may note, how ready the Roman Court is to wink at any errors in the proselytes they can purchase, provided they acknowledge the Pope's Supremacy: that being secured, all is well, the rest will come in with time, as has happened with these Indians. If not, that wise Court will stop where it cannot go further, and allow what they may not deny. For it is to be considered, that these Indians at their first reduction to the Pope's obedience with permission to use their own rites and Religion, being Nestorians, held several Articles contrary to the Roman Faith. First, That there are two Persons in our Saviour as well as two natures. That the blessed Virgin ought not to be termed Mother of God. That Nestorius condemned in the third and fourth general Council, and Diodorus Tarsensis, and Theodorus Mopsuestensis condemned for Nestorianism in the fifth, were holy Men: rejecting for their sake the third general Council held at Ephesus, and all other Councils after it, and especially detesting Cyril of Alexandria. Tho. à Jes. de conv. Gen. lib. 7. c. 2.  

They celebrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist with leavened Bread.  
They communicate in both kinds.  
They use not auricular confession.  
Nor confirmation.  
They celebrated the Communion instead of Wine with the juice of Raisins, softened one night in Water, and so pressed forth.  
They baptised not their Infants, until they were forty days old.  
They used not extreme unction.  
Their Priests were married, and after the Death of their first Wives had the liberty of the second third and oftener Marriage.  
They had no Images of Saints in their Churches but only the Cross.   
Other particular tenets proper to each one of the forementioned societies of Christians inhabiting the East, may be seen with Mr. Brerewood and Mr. Pagit, in their relations of these Churches. In sum, we may say, they agree with our reformed Churches of Europe, as well in asserting the fundamentals of Christian Religion as in reproving the novel errors of the Roman Church, and detesting the arrogancy of it, in pretending to a Supremacy over all other Christian Churches, and condemning all that will not submit to their pretention herein.   

CHAP. XV. A reflection upon the contents of the Chapters preceding, and upon the pride and cruelty of Romanists, for condemning and despising all Christian societies not subject to their jurisdiction.  
CErtainly if those bold and blind Zelots of the Roman Church, who can speak no peaceable word, nor entertain any charitable thought of any man, that is not of their communion, did reflect upon the contents of the three Chapters preceding, and consider how many illustrious Nations, and numerous Societies of Men, do serve God sincerely, both in the Eastern and Western Churches, many under continual persecution and suffering for their Religion; they would abate their pride in despising all, that be not of their way, and moderate their fury, in condemning all to Hell fire, that will not pay subjection to their Pope.  
When the Emperor Charles the fifth reduced the City of Ghent from a revolt, one of his Peers counselled him he should raze down to the ground that great City. The generous Emperor, to win that Counsellor to milder thoughts, brought him to an eminent place, whence he could view the vast extent and rare beauty of that City; which when he had viewed, and considered, he could not find in his heart to continue in his former severe judgement, of having it ruined. Inhumanly cruel he must be, who considering the number and splendour of Nations and People mentioned in the preceding Chapters, serving Christ, without dependence upon the Pope of Rome, will have them all damned to Hell.  
When Scapula precedent of Carthage threatened the Christians with cruel usage; Tertullian bids him bethink himself, 
a Ad Scapulam c. 4. p. 71.  What wilt thou do, says he, with so many thousands of Men and Women, of every Sex age and dignity, as will freely offer themselves? what fires, what swords, wilt thou stand in need of? what is Carthage itself like to suffer, if decimated by thee, when every one shall see there his near kindred and neighbours; and shall see there Matrons, and men perhaps of thy own rank and order, and the most principal persons of either the kindred or friends of those who are thy own nearest friends? Spare them for your own sake, if not for ours.  
And in his Apology speaking of the vast spreading of that party; 
b c. 37. p. 30.  Tho (says he) we be men of quite an other way, yet have we filled all places among you, your Cities, Islands, Castles, Corporations, Councils, nay your Armies themselves, your Tribes, Companies, yea the Palace, the Senate and the Courts of Justice. Certainly these expressions of Tertullian so tender and pressing, could not choose but work upon the mind of Scapula, and win him to a milder dealing with the Christians. I would desire N. N. and others of the Roman Church, severe censurers of their Christian Brethren, to reflect upon the number and quality of those whom they condemn, and endeavour to ruin, by the notices delivered in the three last Chap. preceding: and consider with how much propriety the words of Tertullian may be applied to them. What power will they have need of, to subdue the rest of Christianity, alien from their communion, so far exceeding themselves in number and forces, as above declared? And in case they should subdue them; what fire and sword would suffice to destroy them? And if all should attend their wishes; what heart could endure to see such multitudes of their dear Countrymen, friends and nearest relations perish, whether temporally, by their decrees, tending to the ruin of all Christians, not submitting to their power; or eternally, by the cruel verdict of Eternal damnation, they give against all dissentors?  
I know some of them will say, that this severe sentence is not of their making, but delivered by Christ, against all that will not obey his Vicar upon Earth, the Pope of Rome. And possible it is, that some of the simpler sort may believe it is so. But it's long since I knew and proved, that none sufficiently conversant in the principles of their own Theology, could seriously think it to be so: but that according to their principles, its blasphemy and Heresy, to say without restriction, and in general terms, (as commonly they do) that none may be saved out of the communion of the Roman Church. And my Antagonist I.S. tells us, I did not trespass therein against truth of Doctrine, but against policy or prudence, as he calls it, whereby I put a great stop to the conversion of Protestants, if People did think, that out of the Romish Communion any may be saved. So as the prudence demanded from me, was to fashion my Doctrine to the increase of the Pope's Dominion, be it with truth or untruth; and pronounce sentence of damnation against all Christians, not subject to him, though I should know no such sentence to be against them in the judgement of God.  
I wish my good Brethren of the Roman Church did reflect upon, and acknowledge, the great injury they do to themselves, in breeding and fomenting this unchristian hostility, with the whole Society of Christians separated from their communion, so numerous and illustrious, as we have seen in the preceding Chapters; imprinting hatred towards all, in the hearts of their Children, which forceably must beget a return of hatred, or disaffection and mistrust. How incommodious it's, to create to themselves so many Enemies; how uneasy and disadvantageous, to bereave themselves of the free and amiable society, of so many noble Nations and brave People, which the apprehension of Heresy makes intractable to them?  
What happened to me with a Spanish young Man that came in my company out of Spain into England, makes me more sensible of the misery that Romanists bring upon themselves this way. He was of his own disposition, cheerful and sociable: but as soon as he came among the English People, his heart and countenance fell down, and he appeared sad and melancholic. I enquiring of him the cause of that alteration; he answered, that he looked upon all those men as Heretics, which made their very sight odious to him, and their company displeasing. The man did not well know, what Heresy was; and much less did he know, whether those Men he saw were Heretics or no. He acknowledged them to be good men, just and civil in their dealing, and adorned with noble gifts of God; yet the prejudice he was in against them, by conceiving them to be Heretics, made their sight and company odious to him. Would not this Man have been more happy in conceiving a better opinion of the People? would it not make him live with more ease and comfort among them? not to mention now that higher Emolument and duty, of maintaining charity towards all Men.   

CHAP. XVI. Inferences from the preceding Doctrine of this whole treatise against the several objections of N. N.  
HE that hath not considered the frame I proposed to observe in this treatise, and seethe me go through many Chapters of it, debating with Suarez and other Romish writers, without any mention of N. N. may think I have neglected, or forgotten him and his Book. But if he will take notice of my purpose made in the beginning, of cutting down by the root the whole Fabric of the said Book; he shall find, I am still upon my intended work. The ground and foundation of all the cries and complaint of N. N. against me, is a supposition, that I have left the Catholic Church and Faith, by withdrawing from the communion of the Roman Church, and embracing this of England. In the whole discourse of this Treatise, I have proved, that the Church of England is in all propriety Catholic; and the Faith professed in it truly Catholic and Apostolic; and all this by rules and principles taken from the ablest of Romish Writers, for proceeding in this inquiry: whereby it remains proved, that all the exclamations of N. N. against me, went upon a false supposition, and consequently are vain and groundless.  
Hence I infer, first, how vain is his query, and more vain his divining answer, about what drew me out of God's house. It appears by what is said hitherto, and will be further declared in the rest of this Book; that in my change, I did not leave the house of God, but removed to the best and soundest part of it; that no private spirit, or rash fancy moved me; but a sincere acknowledgement of truth, by the ordinary means God has disposed for us to come by it.  
I infer secondly, how groundless and unreasonable his pretention is, that I should have quitted the holy Doctors, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerom, and all the ancient Fathers and Catholic Doctors. He does not tell how or wherein I have deserted that noble company; neither indeed were it easy for him to tell it. I live, and do firmly resolve to die in the same Catholic Church, which they lived and died in; and in the profession of the same Catholic and Apostolic Faith, which they professed. The same, and no other Faith is professed in the Church of England; whose communion I have embraced, as hath been sufficiently demonstrated hitherto; and I hope by the merits and grace of our Saviour Jesus, to enjoy the company of those blessed Saints in Heaven, maugreall the censures of Rome.  
Neither was I ever closer with those Holy Fathers in the Romish Church, than I am now in the English. It is one of the perverse calumnies of our adversaries, to give forth, that there is not due regard had of them here. I see the contrary. I have observed diligently the ways of the Universities, and method of Study with Learned men in England and Ireland: and I see with them far greater application to the study and reading of holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church, than ever I saw amongst Romanists. Whilst the most learned of these spend their life and forces in speculative notions, only serving School debates, learned Protestants employ their time more happily, in the study of the Holy Scriptures, of Fathers, and credible Histories.  
I infer thirdly, how rash and injurious is his censure, in saying, that by embracing the confession, contained in the 39 Articles of the Church of England, I have made myself partaker of all the Heresies, and an associate of all the Heretics, that were from the beginning of the World to this day. Of these he makes a great list, beginning with Lucifer, whom he will have to be the first Heretic before Man's Creation, and from him proceeds to Lamech, the Giants, all those that entered not into the Ark, but perished in the deluge, who were all Heretics, says he. Then enters Cham, with the bvilders of Babel's, Esau, Jannes and Jambres, Corah and Dathan, Nadah and Abihu, all those strange Kings that made war against the Children of Israel, all the false Prophets of Baal. Of all these Heretics, he says, I am become an associate, by embracing the confession contained in the 39 Articles of the Church of England. But is not all this rage without any mixture of reason? Is it not a sufficient confutation of the Man, and a foul confusion to him, to repete this raving speech of his? In what part of the 39 Articles, or of the three Creeds we use in the Church of England, will he find those Heresies he appropriats to us?  
But he will come nearer home, and make a long narrative of errors and vices related of Luther, Calvin, Melanchton, and others, who contributed with their writings to the reformation of the Church. To which I say, first, that I have but too much reason not to believe all that they say of their opposers. Secondly, that though some of those, who concurred to the Reformation, should have fallen as men, into some vices or errors; the Reformation itself (which certainly was a work of God) ought not to be undervalved for that. The sacred College of the Apostles, first founders of the Christian Church, had in it one as bad as Judas; shall the whole College of the Apostles, and the Religion founded by them be disesteemed for that? Several of those renowned Fathers, preachers, and defenders of the Gospel after the Apostles in the primitive Church, as Origen, Tertullian, etc. through human frailty, were guilty of no few errors; shall we therefore despise the work they did, and the healthful part of their Doctrine? If you did tell me of some Doctrine imposed upon us as an article of belief, and rule of manners, that were Heretical, or opposite to the law of God, that were pertinent to work upon me: but this I am certain you will never be able to do; and no less certain am I, that your Church is guilty of such impositions upon its followers; as I shall demonstrate by several instances in the second part of this treatise. But to tell me of vices and errors of particular persons is both impertinent, and imprudent, I knowing so much how matters go on your side. I appeal to your own knowledge by what you have seen and heard of of the Court of Rome. And if you will conceal your knowledge herein: I remit yourself, and the Reader, not to Protestant Historians, which happily you may suspect, but to your own most qualified, as Platina, Onuphrius, and even Baronius. Read in them the acts and lives of several of those your holy Fathers, and infallible oracles of Doctrine, the Popes of Rome; see the transactions of John the thirteenth about the year 966, or of Sylvester the second, about the year 999. or John the 18. about the year 1003. or Benedict the 9 about the year 1033. or of Gregory the 7. about the year 1080. or Boniface the 8. about the year 1294. or Alexander the 6. and of his outrageous Son Caesar Borgia, about the year 1294. and you shall find them to be such men, as no Epicurean monster storied out to the World, has outgon them in sensuality, cruelty, tyranny, and all manner of vices. And while I have in my memory, and before mine eyes unfeigned Histories of this kind; spare heaping fables against some particular persons concurring to the reformation.  
But who will not admire the man's disingenuity in reproaching me, and the Church of England, with the Tenets, or madness of the Quakers, which he relates at the end of the 16 chapter of his Book; knowing and confessing in the same place, that they are reproved and punished by this Church; and that the author of them James Naylour was condemned to a perpetual imprisonment, after being whipped publicly, and his tongue bored with a burning iron. May not I, with the same reason, reproach him and his Church, with the horrid impieties of the Jews, Moors, and Atheists, as thick set in Spain and Italy, as Quakers among us? But were that fair dealing, I knowing that such Sects are not approved of, but rather punished in those Countries? Why then for shame, will N. N. tell me, I am become of the society of Quakers, by adhering to the Church of England, he telling at the same time how severely they are punished amongst us? And if I were of his temper, for pleasuring vulgar readers, with stories and rarities of this kind, I could with more ground of truth, and therefore more sensibly return upon him a large sum of practices, which to indifferent judgements would appear no better than madness; yet daily used by persons and societies approved and applauded in his Church. But I reserve my time and labour for a more serious and becoming work: in the mean time I remit him to Sir Edwin Sandys his Book, containing a Survey of the Western Church; where he shall see set down, with candour and ingenuity becoming a Gentleman and a Christian, the rites and customs he saw practised in several societies of the Roman Church. He does not grudge to praise them, where he finds them praise worthy, neither does he sour his pen in relating their faults. If you will be ingenuous, you will confess he says nothing but what you know yourself to be in practice; and if long custom and passion got by it has not blinded your judgement, you shall perceive many of those practices to be as unreasonable and mad, as any of those you relate of the Quakers. And if you will have a more exact and vigorous discussion of this point, go to Dr. Stilling fleet his Book, where he speaks of the fanaticism practised in the Church of Rome; and you shall find in it confusion enough, and reason to spare objecting to us the follies of Quakers.  
And whereas you pretend to fright me with representing to me errors of particular persons of the Protestant Church; if I would resolve to make a return to you of that kind, I could make my Book swell, and the Readers heart tremble, by relating the Heresies, Blasphemies, and execrable Doctrines, which I have heard preached, and saw printed by persons of your Church. I will only relate to you, for example, some few propositions of Books that came to my own hands: the one was of a grave preacher, who prepared for the print a large volume of Commentaries upon the Gospel of St. Mark. This book was sent by the Provincial of his order, to be examined by me: and having read it with attention, I voted against the printing of it, for several faults I specified in my censure, but especially for containing some desperate blasphemous propositions, as this following, touching St. John Evangelist. Joannis Excellentia titulo dilecti maxima est: major est quam Redemtoris etiam in deo. Tanta est, quanta esse Deum trinum & unum; imo propter hoc verbum caro factum est.  
For the understanding of which mad piece of Rhetoric, it is to be considered, that there are two Sects of Nuns; the one passionately bend to extol St. John the Evangelist above St. John Baptist; the other preferring, with no less animosity, the Baptist before the Evangelist. Our preacher before mentioned to pleasure the Nuns of the Evangelist, delivers that prodigious Paradox; which in English may be turned thus, exceeding great is the excellency of John, upon the account of being the Beloved. It is greater than that of a Redeemer even in God: it is so great, as to be God in trinity and unity: nay for this cause, the word was made flesh. Go now and compare this piece of Doctrine with any of those you related of the Protestant writers; and if it has not out gone them all, add to it what follows.  
Being advertised by the inquisitor general of Spain, at the second time he sent me a licence for reading prohibited Books, that I had not given him account of what censurable propositions I might have lighted upon in my readings, as he had charged me to do, in the instrument of such a Licence, which he had sent me the year before; I sent to him a list of some perverse Doctrines I saw in Books approved, and in much use among themselves (for Protestant Books I could find none to give account of) among which were the three propositions following prefixed for titles to so many moral discourses of Leander de Murcia in his Commentaries on the book of Esther. The first of which goes thus, Adeo essicax est mortis memoria ad reducendos in meliorem frugem homines, ut non solum ipsi, sed etiam Deus op. Max. proposita ante oculos morte in meliora contendat. The memory of Death is so powerful to reduce Men unto a better life; that not only they, but even God Almighty himself laying death before his eyes becomes better. The second runs thus, Etiam daemon morte ante oculos constituta contendit in meliora; even the Devil looking upon death, mends himself. The third proposition is this, Tanta dilectione prosecutus est filius Dei homines, ut pro ipsis quasi insanire videatur. The Son of God his love to men has been so great, that he seems to be mad for them. And if thus it goes, even in Books current and approved among you, what if I did relate the Doctrines of others censured and prohibited by your inquisitions; as you and your party frequently do upbraid our Church, with erroneous Doctrines of particular Men, which we do utterly detest, and our learned Men do vigorously oppose by word and pen, in Pulpits, Books, and Schools?   

CHAP. XVII. The Reformation of the Church of England vindicated from the slanderous aspersions of N. N. and other Romanists.  
IT is very usual with the Zelots of the Romish Church to make Henry the Eight sole Author of the Reformation of the English Church, loading that Prince with bitter invectives and odious reports, thereby to render the reformation contemptible, to which N. N. in the 14. chapter of his Book adds a slanderous relation of the lives and behaviour of some Monks and Friars come out of Germany, which he pretends to have been the authors and contrivers of the 39 Articles of the Church of England. I will not repete the many idle stories he tells of them, more fit to divertise simple persons of his own credulity in a Winter night at the fire, then to work on serious and knowing Men. I have chosen for a more short and solid way, rather to justify our cause, with positive arguments, then to follow our adversaries in sifting fopperies.  
To this purpose I will lay for foundation of my present discourse, that the whole frame of the Reformation standeth upon two points: whereof the first, and more resented at Rome, is the denying of the Pope's supremacy, and the withdrawing of the Church of England from subjection to him. The second is the Reformation of the Liturgy and Doctrine of the said Church from errors and corruptions introduced in it.  
As for the first it is clear and evident, that neither Henry the 8. nor Luther, nor Calvin, nor any of those strangers mentioned by N. N. were authors or causers of the freedom of the Church of England from subjection to the Pope of Rome; This freedom being by its own right inherent in it from the beginning of its Christianity, however King Henry his valour and resolution broke off effectually the Tyrannical usurpations of Rome, which long time did oppress the English Church and Nation, notwithstanding their continual reluctancy, and complaint against those Romish extortions.  
Far were those good Christians that inhabited England before the time of Gregory the Great, from giving or owning obedience to the Bishop of Rome; and so when Augustin came hither, about the year 590, and demanded their obedience to the Church of Rome, the Abbot of Bangor returned him answer, 
* Concil. Spelm. P. 108.  That they were obedient to the Church of God, to the Pope of Rome, and to every godly Christian; to love every one in his degree in charity, to help them in word and deed, to be the Children of God: and other obedience than this, they did not know due to him, whom he named to be Pope, nor to be Father of Fathers.  
And if Augustin did pretend to such a subjection from England to Rome, as the Popes of it now would have, certainly he exceeded his commission for St. Gregory that sent him, never pretended to that supremacy which his successors do aspire to, as we shall demonstrate in the 15 chapter of the second part of this treatise; and how far he was from pretending England to be of his jurisdiction, may appear by what is related of him, that being told, certain children were de Britannica Insula, he did not know whether the Country were Christian or Pagan.  
The sili●● and voluntary respect and obedience, which the holiness and learning of Gregory and some other good Popes gained among the English, gave occasion to others following of less merit, to pretend to a right to such obedience, which being perceived by the Kings, they prohibited all appeals to Rome, and the coming of Legates thence, and so much as the receiving of letters without the King's licence; as may appear by Paschalis the Second his letter to Henry the first, expostulating with him about this particular, in these words,  
Sedis Apostolicae nuncii vel literae, praeter jussum regiae Majestatis, nullam in potestate tua susceptionem aut aditum promerentur, nullus inde clamour, nullum inde judicium ad sedem Apostolicam destinantur, etc. This happened in an. 1114. notwithstanding the King stood upon his resolution; so as in the year following 1119, sending his Bishops to a Council held by Callixtus the 2. at Rheims at their departing, he gave them instructions; not to complain of each other, because himself would right each of them at home: that they 
* Joh, Diacon. l. 1. c. 21. vita Greg.  should 
a Orderi. Vital is p. 857. Ite & Dominum Papam de parte mea salutate, & Apostolica praecepta humiliter audite; sed superfluas adinventiones regno meo adinferre nolite.  salute the Pope from him, hear his precepts, but bring no superfluous devices or innovations into his kingdom.  
True it is, That several of our Godly Kings did permit appeals should be made to Rome, in matters wherein our own Bishops could not agree, and directions to be sought from thence, as from a flourishing and learned Church, not as a superior Judicature. And when the Roman Bishops did pretend to any such superiority, our Kings did protest against it. So Henry the fifth having demanded of Martin the fourth some particulars, to which his Ambassadors not finding him ready to assent; they 
b Arthur Duc. in vita Henrici Chichly p. 56. 57  told him, That they had orders to protest before him, that the King would use his own right in those particulars, as things which he demanded, not out of necessity, but for the honour & respect he was willing to show to that Sea, that they should make a public protestation thereof before the whole College of Cardinals. And to this purpose are sundry examples remaining on 
c Rot. parliam. 17 Edward 3. n. 59 25. Edw. 3. oct. purif. n. 13. 7. Hen. 4. n. 114. 13. Hen. 6. n. 38.  record; where the King at the Petition of the Commons, for redress of some things amiss belonging to Ecclesiastic cognizance, first chooses to write to the Pope; but on his delay, or failing to give satisfaction, doth either himself by statute redress the inconveniency, or command the Archbishop to see it done.  
For certain it is, by the course of all our Chronicles and histories, that our Kings, together with the convocation of their Bishops and Clergy, had in themselves absolute and entire power of governing and reforming the Church of this kingdom, without any dependency upon any foreign authority. It was never doubted, neither could it be denied upon any warrantable ground, that they had within their own dominions, the same power which Constantine had in the Empire, and that our Bishops had the same which St. Peter had in the Church. For which since the Erection of Canterbury into an Archbishopric, the Bishops of that Sea were held, 
* Malms. de Pontif. lib. 1. in Ansel. fol. 127.15.  Quasi alterius orbis Papae, as Vrban the Second styled them, and did exercise vices Apostolicas in Anglia; that is, they used the same power within this Island which the 
a Eadmer. p. 27.  Pope did in other parts. And in our writers the Archbishop of Canterbury is frequently called Princeps Episcoporum Angliae, 
b ib. p. 107. 33.  Pontifex summus, 
c Gervas'. Boro. ber. col. 1663. 54.  Patriacha. King Edgar asserted this power to be in himself, and in his Clergy, in his memorable speech made to them, 
d Apud Ailred. col. 361.16.  Ego Constantini, vos Petri gladium habetis in manibus. I bear in my hand the sword of Constantin, and you that of Peter. And therefore as the affairs of most concerns in the Church, had their dependence on the Emperor, and the holy men of those times did not doubt to continue to him the style of Pontifex maximus, as 
e Tom. 3. an. 312. n. 106.  Baronius notes, sine ulla christianitatis labe. So 
f Regularis Concordia etc. Not. Seldeni ad Eadmerum. p. 146. 16.  King Edgar was solicito is of the Church of his Kingdom, veluti domini sedulus Agricola, & pastorum pastor. And wrote himself the Vicar of Christ, and by his 
g Concil. Spelm. à p. 444. a● p. 476.  laws and Canons he made known, that he did not assume those titles in vain.  
King 
h Leg. Edw. Confess. c. 17. p. 142. Rex quia vicartus summi Regis est. ad hocest constitutus, ut regnum terrenum & populum dom●ni & s●per omnia sanctam veneretur Ecclesiam ejus, & regat, & ab injurtis defendat.  Edward the Confessor a canonised Saint, did declare the same, and practised accordingly; The King, says he, being vicar of the supreme King, his duty is to govern and defend the earthly Kingdom, and the people of the Lord from injuries, and over all to reverence govern and defend his Church. The same was declared and practised by 
i Leg. Inae in pras. p. 1.  Ina, whom Baronius styles a most pious King, by 
k Leg. fol. 11. p. 109.  Canutus acknowledged for a most bountiful benefactor of Churches, and of the servants of God. Erga Ecclesias atque Dei servos, benignissimus largitor, as 
l Epist. 97. fol. 93. Canut. c  Furbertus Carnotensis relates of him and several other godly Kings of England, whose several laws touching Ecclesiastic affairs, you may see related by Jorvalens. c. 2. col. 761. c. 5. col. 830. c. 23. col. 921. as also the laws of Emperors, to the same purpose in the books of 
m Codex Theodos. de seriis, de nuptiis etc. de s●de Catholica, de Episcopis Ecclesiis & clericis, de monachis, de haereticit, de Apost. de Religione, de Episcopali judicio. & cod. Jast. l. 1. Tit. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. & passim in co.  Theodosius and Justinian.  
The Emperors did employ their Bishops and Divines, in resolving upon wholesome decrees touching Church affairs, and these decrees they espoused themselves for Laws; so as the transgressors of them should be subject to penalties. This same course our Kings have taken as well in former ages as in this latter of the Reformation of our Church. Henry the Eighth having those occasions of discontent with Pope Clement the Seventh (which as too much known I omit to relate,) and being urged by the States of the Kingdom to execute at last what long time was desired, and often attempted in England, viz. to throw off the usurped power and jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over this Kingdom; to proceed with due legality and consideration in so weighty a matter, he wrote to the Universities, and great Monasteries, and Churches of the Kingdom, in the year, 1534. and the eighteenth of May of the same year, to the University of Oxford, requiring them like men of virtue and profound Literature, diligently to entreat, examine, and discuss a certain question, viz. An Romanus Episcopus habeat majorem aliquam Jurisdictionem sibi collatam in Sacra Scriptura in hoc Regno Angliae, quam alius quivis Externus Episcopus. Whether the Bishop of Rome had any greater jurisdiction given to him in holy Scripture over this Kingdom of England, than any other foreign Bishop; and to return their opinion in writing under their common Seal, according to the mere and sincere truth of the same. To which after mature deliberation, and examination, they returned answer; That he hath no such jurisdiction in this land.  
The words of the University of Oxford returning their answer to the King upon this subject the 27. of June, of the aforesaid 1534. which I saw in the Records of that University, are as follow, Post susceptam itaque per nos quaestionem ante dictam, cum omni humilitate, devotione, ac debita reverentia, convocatis undique dictae nostrae Academiae Theologis, habitoque complurium dierum spatio, ac deliberandi tempore satis amplo, quo interim cum omni qua potuimus diligentia, Justitiae Zelo, Religione & conscientia incorrupta, perscrutaremur, tam Sacrae Scripturae libros, quam super cisdem approbatissimos interprete, & eos quidem saepe & saepius à nobis evolutos & exactissime collatos, repetitos & examinatos, deinde & disputationibus solennibus palam & publice habitis, & celebratis, tandem in hanc sententiam unanimiter omnes convenimus, ac concordes fuimus, viz. Romanum Episcopum majorem aliquam jurisdictionem non habere sibi a Deo collatam in Sacra Scriptura in hoc Regno Anglia, quam alium quemvis Externum Episcopum. We therefore, after having taken in hand this question with all humility, devotion and due reverence, the Divines of our University being called together from all places, and the space of many days and time enough bein given for deliberating, whereby with all diligence possible, zeal of Justice, Religion and upright conscience, we should search as well the Books of Holy Scripture, as the most approved interpreters of them, and they being very often turned over by us, and most exactly conferred together, reviewed & examined; & moreover having celebrated & held public & solemn disputes on this subject, at last we have all unanimously agreed upon this sentence, viz. That the Bishop of Rome hath not any more Jurisdiction given to him by God in holy Scripture, in this Kingdom of England, than any other foreign Bishop hath. Having met with this religious and learned declaration of the University of Oxford, I thought convenient to relate it here, as well for the authority the opinion of this great University is apt to give to the matter, as also that it may be to us an argument of the zeal and diligence, wherewith the other Schools, Monasteries, and Churches did proceed to deliver their opinion upon this subject.  
And if it be true, what the famous Canonist 
* Navar. cap. Cum conti got de rescript. remed. 1, n. ●o. qui unius Doctor●s erudition ac animi pretate celebr●s autoritate d●ctus secerit al quid, ex●usatur, etiam●●d non esset justum, & alii contrarium tenerent.  Navarre says, (and now is more commonly said and confirmed by Casuists and Canonists) that who does any thing, following therein the opinion of one Doctor of known learning and piety (though others be of contrary opinion,) is excused, though happily what he did should not be just in itself; and if the authority of one Doctor of learning and piety can justify a man's proceeding, shall not the opinion of so great a number of men famous for learning and piety, that were then in the Universities, Monasteries and Churches of England, justify the proceed of King Henry, in freeing his Kingdom from the slavery it was in under the Bishop of Rome?  
This indeed was to lay the axe to the root of the Romish usurpations and corruptions in this Land. Their pretended authority in it being found and declared not to be from God, nor grounded upon his divine word, but illegally and fraudulently intruded upon the Nation; it followeth that they were all at their own liberty to reform their Church, by a National Synod of their own Prelates and Clergy, under the protection and inspection of their Prince, as in other times was done in this land, & in consequence to this the states of the Kingdom being congregated in 
* Stat. 26. Hen. 8. c. 1. begun Nou. 3. end Dec. 18. 1533.  Parliament an. 1533 have declared, that his Majesty, his heirs and successors Kings of this Realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress all such errors, heresies, abuses, etc. which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction may be lawfully reform, repressed, ordered, redressed, etc. And this was not to assume a new power, but to renew and publish the ancient right of the Kings of this Land.  
It is true that Popes in former ages, not finding means to hinder our Princes from exercising this right of their own, would by privilege continue it unto them. So Pope Nichelas finding our Kings to express one part of their office to be Regere populum Domini & Ecclesiam ejus, wrote to Edward the Confessor, Vobis & posteris ves●ris regibus Angliae committimus convocationem ejusdem loci & omnium totius Angliae Ecclesiarum, & vice nostra cum consilio Episcoporum, & Abbatum constituatis ubique quae justa sunt. We commit unto you and your successors Kings of England the government of that place, and of all the Churches of England, that in our name ye may by the Councils of Bishops and Abbot's order in all places what will be just. The same Pope did allow the like privilege to the Emperor. 
* Bar. 11. Annal. 1059. n. 23.  Nicolaus Papa hoc domino meo privilegium, quod ex paterno jure susceperat, praebuit. Said the Emperor's advocate, Pope Nicholas allowed this privilege to my Master which himself had by his birthright. By the like art, finding the People of England unwilling to acknowledge any Ecclesiastic power besides that of the land, and the Archbishop of Canterbury for supreme of it under the King, the Popes have contrived, that the Archbishop of Canterbury should exercise that power as from them under the name of Legatus natus, or Legate by his place of the Roman Sea.  
This may seem like what they report of the great Cham of Tartary, that after he had dined, he order to give leave by the sound of a Trumpet to all the Kings of the World, that they may go to dinner. But the Pope drives further in his grants, that in time, if power should assist him, he may force upon them a subjection to him, as if really the Princes did owe their power to him. But the arts of Rome are too much known in England, for the people to be further deluded by them.  
And therefore a National Synod, or a Convocation of the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Abbots, and other Clergy of the Kingdom being celebrated at London by order of King Henry the sixth, in the sixth year of his reign, being that of our Lord 1552. a summary of Articles was agreed upon, to remove dissensions in Religion, and reform the Church from corruptions that crept into it, so pious and moderate, so well grounded upon Divine Scripture, and upon the Doctrine and practice of the Primitive Apostolic Church, that Romanists may more easily rail and rant at, then discover any real error in them.  
My adversary N. N. after highly inveighing against these Articles, and boasting to discover Heresies in them, singles out the 22. Article which runs thus, The Roman Doctrine of Purgatory, Indulgences, veneration and adoration as well of Images as of relics, as also of the invocation of Saints is absurd and vainly invented, nor is grounded upon any authority of Scripture, but is rather repugnant to the word of God. Upon which Article, N. N. delivers this heavy censure, that it is false, profane, and Heretical. But in the whole discourse of the second part of this Treatise, I will demonstrate God willing, that it is rather true, Religious, and Catholic; as also I do intent by the help of God, to vindicate the rest of those Articles in a separate Treatise from the cavils of Alexander White and other Romanists, whereby N. N. will find how much he is mistaken in taking the said Alexander White's Book against the thirty nine Articles for unanswerable, as certainly he is far mistaken in saying resolutely, though without having any ground for it, that the aforesaid White hath bestowed more time and deliberation in quitting those Articles, than I have done in deserting the communion of the Roman Church. Seven years he says Mr. White spent in deliberating upon his resolution; but certainly I have spent many more years in deliberating upon mine. How many they were as it is not easy to demonstrate, so it is not material to tell; men may deliberate long and err at last in their resolution. To my reasons alleged for that resolution which I took I appeal, and do willingly expose them to public view and examination, that others as well as I, may judge of the weight of them.  
Very foul and slanderous also has been the mistake of our adversary, in saying that the Authors of our 39 Articles were only some few obscare men, Priests and Friars run out of Germany, and that by them the Church and Kingdom of England, was governed in the Reformation of their Religion. How false their report is, may appear by the public Records and Histories of the Land, and by several Acts of Parliament passed with great deliberation of all the States of the Kingdom upon the settlement of the Reformation, and of those Articles as well in that great Synod or Convocation celebrated under Edward the sixth in the year 1552. above mentioned, as also an other no less famous Synod held at London ten years after, viz. 1562. wherein the said Articles were reviewed, examined, and confirmed.  
I have seen among selden's Books kept in the Bodleian Library of Oxford, an Authentic COpy of these Articles printed at London in the year 1563, and a scroul of parchment annexed to it with the subscriptions (by their proper hands) of the members of the lower house of Convocation, being all Deans, Arch Deacons, and procurators of Clergy, which I found to be in number 104, besides the Arch-Bishops, and Bishops, sitting in the upper house, whose names came not in my way to see, but I am to suppose they were all the Prelates of the Land, as they used to meet in Convocation. And is this to shuffle up a Reformation, and make Articles in clandest in manner, without due examination, as our Adversary would make his Reader believe?   

CHAP. XVIII. A view of N. N. his discourse upon Transubstantiation, and upon the affinity of the Roman Church with the Grecian.  
Tho' N. N. had declared his purpose in the beginning to deal with me not Scholastically, but Historically: yet it seems he would not part with me without disputing upon the point of Transubstantiation. He alleges testimonies and Fathers, and miracles in favour of it: and pretends it to have been a Doctrine of more ancient standing then the Lateran Council. To all which I have given a full answer in what I have delivered by my discourse formerly printed, and in what will follow in the second part of this Treatise from the 18. Chapter forward.  
Only I will reflect here upon two or three very gross mistakes of N. N. in his present discourse with me upon the point. The first is touching my belief of this great mystery. He says resolutely (without giving any ground for his saying, as indeed he could have none for it) that I do not believe Christ to be really present at all in this Sacrament, why then (says he) should he dispute with us about the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, seeing he flatly denies the body and blood of Christ to be really and substantially present in the Sacrament? But good Sir, where have you seen this flat denial of mine. certainly not in my declaration (which seems to be the object of your quarrel) not in the 39 Articles, not in any public Catechism or system of Doctrine generally received by the Church of England: nay the Catechism approved by authority, and commended to the use of all, being inserted into the Common Prayer Book, delivers the Doctrine quite opposite. For to the question proposed, touching the inward or invisible part of this Sacrament, this answer is returned, The Body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper. And is this to deny flatly, that the Body and blood of Christ is really present in the Sacrament, as you impute to us? When a Jesuit in Germany broached the like calumny, in a conserence had with some of the English nobility, waiting upon our King in that Country, in presence of his Majesty and of a Prince Elector in that Empire; both his Majesty and the Noblemen took offence at his Speech, as being a foul Calumny; and therefore desired the Reverend and Learned Doctor Cousin Bishop of Durham, to vindicate the Church of England from that a spersion; as he did abundantly, in a very learned Tract published under the title of Historia Transubstantiationis Papalis. Wherein he proves by the Articles, public Catechisms, and by the testimonies of several 
* Vide Jacobum Armac. in resp. ad Malon. Mont. Norw. in Antidiatribis, Laud. Cantua. in resp. ad Fish. Hooker. Polit. Eccles. l. s, Joh. Roffens. de potest. Pap. in prae fat. stat. Prime Elis. c. 1. & 8. Elis. c. 12, 13. Elis. c. 1.  grave and learned Prelates, that all true Protestants, especially those of the Church of England, do constantly believe and profess, that Christ our Saviour is really and substantially present in the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist; and his Body and blood really and substantially received in it by the faithful: and accordingly he alleges the learned Bilson B. of Wincl ester, declaring the belief and Doctrine of the Church of England touching this point in the words following, Eucharistiam non solum figuram esse Corporis Domini, sed etiam ipsam veritatem, naturam, atque sul stantiam in se comprehendere. ' That the Eucharist is not only a figure or representation of the Body of our Saviour, but that it comprehends also the very truth and nature and substance of his body.  
The very same Doctrine is contained in the 28. Article of the 39 above mentioned in these words, The Body of Christ is given or taken and eaten in the Supper only after an Heavenly and spiritual manner. Here you have a real giving, eating and taking; and consequently a real presence of the Body of Christ confessed by our Church as well as by yours. Our difference is only, touching the mode of his presence. We say that mode or manner to be spiritual; you pretend that it is corporal: with what consequence, or coherence with the rules of common reason, you will never be able to declare; nor how to avoid contradiction, in saying that his flesh and blood is present in the Sacrament after a corporal manner; and with all that none of our corporal senses is able to give testimony of such a presence.  
Neither will you find it an easier task to declare unto us what may be the object of your adoration given to the consecrated bread. If you say it is the person of our Saviour, God and Man, really present, we adore and reverence the same as well as you. If you pretend that your adoration doth extend to more; that must be only the accidents of the Bread and Wine appearing to the senses; which accidents, being in your own confession mere creatures, to give unto them the worship of Latria, cannot with any colour of reason be excused from a formal Idolatry.  
The second very gross error, I find in the discourse of N. N. upon this subject, is, that finding me complain of the Roman Church, for forcing upon Christians a belief of Monstrous miracles, in their Doctrine of Transubstantiation; he cries against me in Tragical terms, as if I had reviled God's wonders, calling miracles monstrous, and appeals to the Catholic Reader for a severe sentence against me in these words, Numquid haec est atrox humuncionis insultantis Christo & Ecclesiae rabbiss? pag. 126. And I appeal to any Reader of sense, whether I may not on good ground return on him this other quere, Anon hic est hominis frigide, id est non opportune excandescentis inconditus clamour? p. 136. Is not this cry a fit of zeal unseasonably burning? To call those miracles they pretend to intervene in the consecrated bread Monstrous, he takes it for a contempt of God's wonders in general. So if I say, a Man born with 2 Heads and 3 Eyes is a Monstrous Man; that must be taken for an affront put upon all humane kind. Sir I reverence God's wonders, and those many miracles wrought by his powerful hand, and I bless his holy name for all. But those miracles you would have us believe to happen in the consecration of the Eucharist; as that the substance of the bread vanishes a way, and the accidents of it remain without any substance to rest upon, etc. these I deny to be true miracles, or works of God, but a product of your erring imagination; and if you will persist in calling them miracles, certainly they must appear monstrous ones. For the proof whereof, you give yourself a very considerable help, by a definition, or description of a miracle, which you produce out of Aquinas, how much to your purpost is not easy to find; but very clearly it serves for my present purpose, of making your pretended miracles in the Eucharist appear most properly monstrous. You tell us that Aquinas says, 
* 1. P. quaes. 105. A. 7.  quod nomen miraculi ab admiratione sumitur: Admiratio autem consurgit, cum effectus sunt manifesti à causa occulta. That the word miracle comes from admiration: and this admiration doth arise, when the effect appears, and the cause is hidden. Here we have the common and ordinary nature of a miracle described; that a wonderful effect should appear, though the cause should be hidden. Now it rests to know what is the proper notion of a Monster. Philosophers do give us this definition of it out of Aristotle, monstrum est effectus à recta & solita secundum speciem dispositione degenerans. A Monster is an effect degenerating from the right and common disposition of things of that kind. So that a Man born with two Heads is called monstrous, because he degenerats from the right and common disposition of other men. The College of 
* Conimb. in Arist. 2. Phy. c. 9 q. 5. Ar. 1.  Coimbra declares this to be Vulgata Monstri desinitio, the vulgar or commonly received definition of a Monster. Now then, if the common and ordinary nature of a miracle is, as you tell us out of Aquinas, that the miraculous effect should be manifest and apparent, though the cause were hidden; then a miracle degenerating from this common course and nature of miracles, so as the effect pretended to be miraculous should not be manifest or known to any, must be according to these rules a monstrous Miracle, deviating and degenerating from the common course of true Miracles. Of this kind are your imaginary Miracles of the Eucharist; that the bread and wine should be substantially converted into the flesh and blood of our Saviour corporally present. If this were so indeed, and therefore a real and true Miracle; this miraculous effect would appear to the senses of men, as that true and miraculous conversion of the Water into Wine, at the wedding in Cana of Calilee, did appear to the senses of the Men present there; and thereby appeared to be a true Miracle, and more fit to breed a belief in the beholders; which is the ordinary aim of Divine providence in working Miracles; and which certainly Christ would not have obtained of the persons then present, if he had only told them, that the water remaining with the same colour, taste and smell which it had before, was really converted into Wine, without letting any of their senses bear testimony of such a conversion. Of this latter kind are your imaginary Miracles, which being of your own making, I may without offence to God, or prejudice to his true Miracles, call them Monstrous, as degenerating from the common course of true Miracles.  
The third mistake that I am to put N. N. in mind of at present, is, concerning his pretention to affinity with the Greek and Ruthenian Church, in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and of other points controverted, with our reformed Churches; for which he pleases himself, in telling us of a favourable relation to his purpose, given by a Muskovite Priest to a French Prelate that feasted him. But that he may see how wide is his mistake herein, and how far the Grecians and Ruthenians are from joining issue with the Roman Church against us, I remit him to what I have related above upon more solid and authorized grounds in the 13. Chapter of this Treatise.  
Neither indeed can I see upon what ground you can pretend to union with the Greek Church in their tenets: if it be not, that several of your greatest Schoolmen, such as are 
a Lomb. 1. Sent. d. 11. Sane sciendum est, quod licet in praesentiarticulo a nobis Graeci verbo discordent, tamen sensu non differunt.  Lombard, 
b Bona. in 1. sent. d. 11. A. 1. q. 1.  Bonaventure, 
c Scot 1. Sent. d. prima, q. 1.  Scotus, 
d Aquin. 1. p. q. 36.42.  Aquinas, and others, do endeavour to excuse the Grecians in their chief error touching the proceeding of the Holy Ghost only from the Father, and not from the Son; saying that therein they differ from the Roman Church only in the manner of speaking, not in the substance of Doctrine.   

CHAP. XIX. N. N. His Book entitled the bleeding Iphigenia examined, his abusive language bestowed therein upon persons of Honour, and his censure upon the King's Majesty reprehended.  
Tho' this Book gins with me, and in the running Title styles itself a preface to the other greater Book designed against me; yet I have so little a share of this preface directed to me, as I hope the discreet Reader will excuse me if I be not so large in discussing it as some may expect. Truly the matter and style of it is of that nature, as made me ambiguous for a time in resolving upon any reply to it. But upon more consideration I conceived it my duty to make the reflections following upon it.  
After having bestowed some few Pages in bemoaning a supposed fall of mine from the Catholic Faith, he falls suddenly to lament the sufferings of the Irish, and to accuse the supposed authors of it. As to the first I have endeavoured to give satisfaction in the whole discourse of this Treatise: if he has true charity for me, he will be glad to find, that I am not in that bad condition he supposed. And if he will be ingenuous, and has not resolved (as 'tis usual with them) to shut his eyes against all evidences, that may let him see his errors, or entertain a charitable thought of his Christian Neighbours, he may see clearly by what I have said hitherto, that by embracing the Communion of the Church of England, I have not forsaken the true Catholic Faith and Church; that I am far from being guilty of the Heresies, or associate of those Heretics he mentions.  
Now as to the second, touching the miseries of the Irish, I hearty condole with him therein, but cannot approve of his manner of pleading for them, nor of some Doctrines he let's fall by the way. I think it to be a more Christian duty, and more becoming a good Pastor, to exhort people in affliction to a conformity with God's Holy will, and to an acknowledgement of their sins that drew his anger upon them, with due repentance of them; then to excuse their errors, and thereby to encourage them to provoke divine justice to further severities against them. The former I have done on all occasions: the second I see you do in the particulars of your Book which I am to examine now.  
I will not debate with you touching the matters of fact you handle, who begun, or were more faulty in those unhappy revolutions. I do not envy you the occasion you had of greater knowledge in that part than I, who departed the Country in my younger age two years before those Tragedies begun, and never returned until some years after our Sovereign's happy Restauration. I leave to others better furnished with notices, to examine what you say that way; But I may judge of the style and Doctrinal part of your Book, grounding my judgement (as I hope I shall do) upon good reasons. And first as touching the style, I am probably persuaded, that no sober or wise man even of the party you pretend to favour, will approve of the harsh and contemtuous language where with you speak of persons of great honour and quality, especially of one of the great Peers of the Realm, an Earl and son to one of the greatest Earls of this Monarchy, Lord Precedent of that fair and goodly Province of Munster, so styled by yourself, not to mention his personal talents, apt to make even one of lower birth noble, and to gain him respect. All these titles & Honourable qualities, could not induce you, to give him once any of those civilities and marks of respect, that are due to persons of his degree and quality. And what is yet more intolerable, not contented to abuse his person, you extend your contemtuous Language to his whole family, linked by manifold ties of consanguinity with the most illustrious families of England and Ireland.  
I know that one of the rules of your Roman 
* Index expurg. noviss. edit. Matrit. 1667. regul. gener. 16. advertent. 5. Todo lo que tiene sonido, ●o apariencia de alabanza se les niegue a los que estan fuera de la yglesia. Specialment todos los epitetoes de bueno, virtuoso y pio, nl●el titulo de Doctor O maestro ni el de theologo. Permittese dar le titulo de Sennor o Don a quien es Sennor temporal, y el de Padre o suegro a quien lo es, por cortezia, aunque no se le deve.  Expurgatory is, to blot out of all Books any honorary title of wit or virtue given to Heretics (which is to say in their Language to any Christian that is not of their communion) a rule indeed rude enough, but I did not hear yet of any rule given for divesting Earls and Lords of their ordinary titles, (rather the said rules permit it of courtesy) if it be not perhaps a branch of that grand power they give to the Pope of deposing Kings, of which N. N. may pretend to partake so much as may enable him to degrade an Earl. Certainly this practice of speaking with contemt to Peers & Precedents of provinces, may be sooner learned in the School of Rome, then in the School of Christ, and of his Apostles. When our dear Saviour was brought before the precedent of Judea, Pilate, and most unjustly sentenced to death by him, he uttered no bitter or contemtuous word against him. When the great Apostle Paul was before Porcius Festus Governor of the same Province, and abused by him, calling his excellent speech madness, Paul answered him in mild and respectful terms, 
* Ac. 2●. 25.  I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness. Can not you likewise speak what you conceive to be truth with soberness, without offending Governors and great men by contemtuous expressions? Doth your calling give you greater right to reprehend Princes and Governors, then that of Christ and St. Paul did to them?  
Thus matters do go in the School of Christ, and of his Apostles, but the Roman School teaches different Lessons: a very famous one, N. N. professes to have learned there, which is, that he honours the Pope or Bishop of Rome whom ●e cal●s Luminare Majus the greater light, more than the King, whom he styles Luminare minus the meaner light. This he saith to be the practice of his Catholics, which was taught to them by Pope Innocent the Third, declaring himself to be as much above Emperors and Kings on Earth, as the sun is above the moon in the heavens; of which and of the stout glosses of his Canonists, we shall say more after. 
a Part 2. l. 15.   
N. N. seems to pretend to a share in this vast Superiority of the Pope over princes. He betakes himself to a seat of Judicature, and pronounces a severe sentence against our gracious Sovereign, his own natural Prince, That he has not been just and impartial in the distribution of his favours to his Subjects, applying to his Majesty that old verse, Non erat Rex Jupiter omnibus idem, That he was not the same King to all, That all being guilty in Ireland, (as he supposes for this complaint) he extended his Royal bounty to one party more than to the other. In which supposition N. N. delivers both the guilt of his judgement, and the defence of our King. If all were guilty, all lost their right to the Royal favours, all forfeited their possessions. Then all was at the will and mercy of his Majesty to confer upon those he thought fit: why will you pretend to deprive him of his liberty herein? May not his Majesty return upon you those words of the Lord of the Vineyard spoken to the envious Laborers, 
b Mat. 20.15.  Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? is thine eye evil because I am good?  
But this is not the only defence his Majesty hath against your rash judgement. It is very manifest, that his Majesty has showed the bowels of a loving Father to all his Subjects, as well in Ireland as in all the rest of his Dominions, and did procure by all the means possible to him the comfort and satisfaction of all, as may consist with right and Justice. And to this purpose for ordering the affairs of Ireland, he hath erected in Dublin a Court of Claims, placing therein Justices, whom I have heard the Irish themselves commend for men of admirable integrity and constancy, in delivering their judgement according to the right without regard of persons. Such as could prove their Innocency in this Court, had the benefit of it, who were many; and very many more, who would not go through that trial, had the benefit of the King's gracious pardon, and Royal bounty in restoring them to their Estates and Possessions. I have heard from a person of great Honour and truth, and of great knowledge in the matter, that of the lands, which by rigour of Law were declared to be forfeited to the King, his Majesty has bestowed already more than the one half upon those that lost them. Neither are the streams of his Royal Clemency put to a stop, but ever flowing graces and favours upon deserving persons, on all occasions possible; though when the pretenders are so numerous, it is impossible to content all, and not easy for standers far off, to judge which of the several pretenders to the same thing, aught to be preferred. Men are apt to speak eagerly, and conceive strongly for their own interest; self love will suggest arguments for that side, and suppress all that favour the contrary. It is for the King, that God has placed on high, to see equally, and accordingly to judge of both sides.  
You plead vigorously for the necessity of a supreme Judge in spiritual matters, to whose decretory judgement all must stand; to resist it, or call it in question, must be taken for a rebellion in religion, for Heresy or Schism; if such a judge were wanting, say you, there would be no end of controversies in religion. How far your pretention goes that way, and how well grounded, will be seen in the second part of this Book, now to our present purpose briefly. Will not you acknowledge in a proportionable parity, the like necessity of a supreme Judge, for civil debates in each Kingdom or State, to whose final judgement the parties must stand? otherwise there will be no end of quarrels, no peace among neighbours. I will not pretend for such a Judge that Sovereign kind of infallibility, absolutely incapable of any error, which you do pretend for your Ecclesiastic. But such authority as Subjects ought to reverence, and stand to his decretory sentence without further appeal, I can prove out of God's words, that a King has it in his Dominions, so as without breach of Loialty and transgression of Gods will and command, a Subject may not resist the judgement of his King, nor call it further in question; much less may he pronounce a judgement against it. See all declared by the Heavenly Preacher, Ecclesiastes 8.4. in these words, Where the word of a King is, there is power, and who may say unto him what dost thou. Certainly it's no act of Loialty to question his actions done with accord and public Legality, as in the case in hand. It is a commenced Rebellion. The first Rebellion of men upon Earth, that of our first Fathers against God in Paradise, whose contriver was the Devil, began with such a question; The hellish Serpent began his conspiracy with Eve, calling in question the Law and Government of their Prince and Master: cur praeceptit vobis Deus, ut non comederetis ex omni ligno paradisi? Why hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the Garden? Thus did the first Rebellion of man against God begin, questioning his decree. Questions against Laws established by a lawful Prince, thus deriving their Progeny from the Devil, should be for that very reason abhorred by Christians. And the rather, if we consider how destructive they must be to peace and human Society, as overthrowing the very nature and intrinsic Constitution of a Magistracy, ordained principally to decide quarrels, and put an end to debates, by a Legal Sentence, which if not obeyed, but exposed to further inquiry and censure of the parties, is fruitless; and debates will be endless.   

CHAP. XX. That it is not lawful for Subjects to raise arms, and go to war with their fellow Subjects without the consent of their Prince. The Doctrine of kill men, and making War by way of prevention, and on pretext of Religion, confuted.  
FRom the Lesson of censuring and murmuring against Royal orders, rebuked in the precedent Chapter, as from a corrupt root, springeth this other very evil branch, that its lawful for Subjects to war with their fellow Subjects without the consent of their Prince, and so we find the one following the other in N. N. his Preface. Neither could we expect less from the antecedent premised. If Subjects will not submit to the Determination of their Prince in their debates, they must appeal to their Swords. And our Antagonist tells us Magisterially, it's the common opinion of Divines, that they may do it: for which he quotes in the Margin 
* 2●. 2ae. q. 40. art. 1. Bannes' ibi. dub. 4.  Aquinas and Bannes. But Aquinas in the place quoted by him, delivers the quite contrary Doctrine, affirming and proving with strong reasons, that no war is just that is not made by the authority of the Prince, and relating for his opinion these grave words of St. Augustin, Ordo naturalis Mortalium paci accommodatus hoc poscit, ut suscipiendi belli autoritas atque consilium penes principem sit. That the natural course accommodated to the peace of men requires, that the authority and resolution of making a war should belong to the Prince.  
I could not but expect that 
* Ba●●es 22. 2a. q. 40. Art. 1. dub. 4.  Bannes a sworn Disciple of Aquinas should be of the same opinion: sure he would not deliver for a comment upon his Master's Text, the contrary Doctrine to it. And so I found it, he delivering upon the present Subject these three conclusions. The First, that it is a mortal sin to make war against any kind of Enemies without the consent of the Prince. And he adds this to be the common opinion of all: and it is to be noted, that he speaks even in case the war should be against the Turks. His Second conclusion is, that Soldiers plundering or burning Towns by their own private authority, are obliged to repair the damage they have done. The Third conclusion of Bannes goes thus, such as fight in a war made without the authority of the Prince, are obliged to make a restitution for all the damages that resulted from such a war to their own Republic or Country.  
Now if such as make a war even against Turks, (as Bannes sayeth and proveth) without the authority of their Prince, do sin mortally, and are obliged to a restitution for all the damages done to friends and foes, those who began that bloody war in Ireland against their fellow Subjects, what account will they give to God for the destruction of so many thousands of men, women, and children on both sides, the devastation of that fair Land, and the burning and desolation of so many goodly towns and houses? Let the counsellors of that blind and furious war, (no less damnable than the actors,) reflect upon the heavy judgement that hangs over them for it, and let N. N. consider better what he writes: let him not be so easily wrought upon by hot headed and shallow brained informers, to deliver in public as a Doctrine of Divines, what the Divines he names do condemn and detest, as all men of sense and conscience must needs do. For certainly to say, that Subjects may go to war without the consent of their Prince, let who will say it, is a perserse and seditious Doctrine, destructive to Loialty and public peace, a fierce error often practised in Ireland to the great damage of it, and which therefore ought to be reprehended sharply, rather than renewed or countenanced by good teachers.  
But our Antagonist tells us he speaks of a defensive war, and brings a heap of Testimonies to prove such a war to be lawful, and to declare how far it may extend. But the main point is, what he supposes, without giving a sufficient proof of it, that the Engagement of the party he pleads for, was only defensive. He allows that the Irish were the first aggressors, but this objection, says he, is easily answered, as thus. It is a common Doctrine of the Divines, that it is lawful to prevent an evil that cannot be otherwise avoided then by preventing it. E. G. I. see you take your Pistol in your hand, cocking it to shoot at me, in that case it is lawful for me to discharge my Pistol and kill you, otherwise I should be killed by you, and relates several Testimonies of Tannerus, Becanus, and others, to prove such a prevention to be lawful. But to evince that to have been the case of the Irish at the beginning of those tumults, (this being the point wherein the consistence and whole strength of his argument was to appear) it is strange how jejune and weak stuff he brings up. They were bolted up in an Island, says he, there was no door open for them, but by preventing the Presbyterians bloody design; if this they had not done, there had been an end of them all. Hore I see words but no substance or ground to build upon a serious conclusion to his purpose. What bloody designs were those he speaks of? how far discovered? how near at hand to be executed? If he knew it, why does he not declare it, being the very foundation of his defence, and precisely necessary to make his allegations appear pertinent? What Pistols were laid to the breast of those that begun in the North, what Canons were charged, what armies were marching against them, so as without killing those that lived peaceably about them, they could not save their own lives? Yet if they were not in such a straight as this, the Testimonies you allege of Divines are misapplied by you, and come very short of proving what you pretend, as appears by the example you relate of one cocking his Pistol to shoot at you, and to prevent him you shoot first at him.  
I have heard of some report spread among the Irish, of a design of a Massacre upon them, and that this report was represented to the state by some Lords of the Pale about Dublin, who being called to assist at the Council, to consult with them, concerning the state wherein the Kingdom was then, and the safety of it, they answered, that having received advertisement, that a member of the Council had uttered at the Council board some speeches tending to execute upon those of their religion a general Massacre, they could not wait on their Lordships, but rather must stand upon their guard till they were secured from perils. Thus I find it written by a credible 
* Sanderson in the History of King Charles the first add ann. 1641. Pag. 451.  Historian of those times, who adds, that to this Letter written by those Lords to the Council of the 7. of December 1641. The state gave answer by Proclamation, with all satisfaction to the Lords, to remove all misunderstandings, and clear the member of the Council aspersed from any such pretended speeches, or any intention thereto, and pray the Lords to attend the board on the 17. day after. But all this it seem was not sufficient to clear them from their apprehension of danger.  
Now if this passed so indeed, to say that a mere apprehension of danger from our Neighbour without any certainty of it, is a sufficient warrant to make war against him, if it be a community, or kill him if he be a Particular (as our Antagonist seems to pretend) is a Doctrine of dreadful consequences both to Societies and particular persons? It is but too much experienced how rash and heady a thing the apprehension of Men is; how ready are false reports to fly; and if an apprehension or report without certain ground be taken for a sufficient cause to kill a Man, or to wage war, who can have security of his life, or how long shall peace and quiet last among us?  
In this discourse I do not intent to favour either of the parties mentioned in that debate handled by N. N. I profess not to be a competent judge of those quarrels, I only attend the pernicious Doctrines I see assumed to maintain the interest of one side, with intention to rebuke the same as universally false and destructive to the public peace and quiet. Neither in truth can I understand which of both parties may fear more prejudice from the Doctrine I am reprehending. I see complaints and jealousies upon both sides, which of both hath more reason for it, as I am not apt to determine, so I do conceive that N. N. (as also any other) may be uncertain to which of the parties he does prepare ruin, by allowing subjects upon suspicion of danger from their fellow subjects, to go to war with them, without the consent of their Prince. If both do complain and fear, why may not either party, as well as the other fall upon his fellow subjects, when opportunity will assist him, in conformity with that Doctrine?  
Truly I cannot but wonder how any one living under a Prince or state that hath several Kingdoms Provinces or Societies to govern, should dare to publish so pernicious a Doctrine as this I am reprehending. If those of Navarre and Arragon, of Sicily and Sardinia, of Brabant and Flanders should renew old quarrels, or stir up new ones, and run to war about them, without the consent of their common Prince, how long would the King of Spain be able to keep peace in his Dominions? If his Ministers did take notice of this Doctrine, and the consequences of it, certainly they would have all Books containing it, banished out of their territories.  
But all this is sanctified with N. N. by telling us that the war was for Religion: and since the law of God and nature do permit a Man to kill an other that pretends to take away his life; with the same or more reason, he may kill one that means to take away his Religion, which ought to be more precious and dear to him then his life. Good God, whether has the perverseness of men arrived, to canonize Murders and the most barbarous cruelties with the sacred name of Religion? This language came not from Heaven. Christ, nor any of his Apostles did never teach it, the Church instructed by them did not practise it. Lactantius sets before us the maxims and practice of Christians in those times by these noble words, Defendenda Religio est non occidendo sed moriendo, non saevitia sed patientia, non scelere sed fide. Religion is to be defended, not by killing but by dying for it, not by cruelty but by patience, not by mischief but by Faith. Thus St. Peter and St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles; thus did the brave Theban Legion defend their Religion, though able to defend it with Sword (as is testified by Tertullian) if the Spirit and Doctrine of Christ then steering the Church had permitted it.  
A particular person to defend his life, say you, may kill by way of prevention an unjust aggressor that pretends to take it from him; to this purpose you quote Divines and Civilians, and from thence) you infer two consequences, the first, that likewise a community or society may war against and destroy another society, from whom it fears the like destruction; the second consequence is, that a private person or a Society may also by way of prevention set upon and kill another whom he suspects doth intent to take his religion from him. You abuse foully the Doctrine above mentioned of Divines and Civilians by misapplying it; both your consequences do not only contain a perverse Doctrine against right Divinity and Christian discipline, as now declared, but also do trespass against the rules of Logic. The former because it is not so easy to surprise a whole society largely dispersed, as it is to surprise one particular person. Evidences requisite to qualify a prudent fear, such as may justify a preventing onset, may not so easily be found against a society: the threatening words or purpose of one particular or more in a society, giveth not so much assurance of the purpose or intention of the whole society, as the words of a particular may give of his intention. Besides the kill of one particular is not so criminal and heinous, nor so much exposed to an oppression of innocents', as the kill and destroying of a whole society is: therefore it's no lawful consequence, a particular person may killby way of prevention another that he fear will kill him, ergo, a society or great party may likewise by way of prevention destroy another from whom it fears the like destruction.  
Your second consequence above mentioned, that if one to defend his life may kill an other that pretends to take it from him, he may likewise kill him or them, that intent to take his Religion from him, this consequence also I say, besides the perverse Doctrine it contains, is a faulty piece of Logic: it is not so easy to take his Religion from a man as his corporal life. Your Religion may not be taken from you by a surprise, or when you are a sleep, or against your will, as your corporal life may be. Wherefore the same prevention cannot be necessary or lawful for the preservation of both. Any that hath true Religion in him, due love to God, and a sincere and serious desire of his own happiness, must take the loss of his corporal life for his Religion, to be the greatest gain he can make, it being the greatest security he can have of gaining life and glory everlasting for his Soul and body, as our Saviour hath declared. And is it not a desirable exchange to leave a painful short and wretched life, for a glorious blessed and everlasting one? Much he hath in him of Earth, and little of Christian Spirit, who would not wish to be dissolved, if he were sure to be after his dissolution with Christ. The only reason that can justify a fear to die and part with this miserable life, is the uncertainty of what may be our doom in the other, and the hopes of securing a good one by further living: but when a security is given to pass by death to a life everlasting (as Christ gives to such as die for God and his holy Faith) what Christian consideration can justify a fear to such a death, so far as to kill those that intent to bring us to it?  
Truly N. N. I have so much of kindness and true friendship left in me for you, as made me sorry, and not a little troubled to see such pernicious Doctrines as these, contained in your book. I took you for a Man better principled, and if I had perceived any such errors in your conversation at the time of our acquaintance in Spain, I would have refuted them, and shown my dislike to them, as freely as I do now. I am willing to imagine, that non ex tuo haec dicis, that it is not your own deliberate sentiment, but imposed upon you by some of those fiery emissaries of Rome, who will not stick to go through streams of blood to extend the Pope's power, and their own earthly advantages with it, under the colour of Catholic Faith. But by what is said hitherto, and will be further confirmed in the discourse following, it will easily appear to the  Reader, that it is no want of true Catholic Faith in the Church of England, nor any true zeal for it in the Roman Court, makes them disturb thus the peace of these Kingdoms, obstinately endeavouring the ruin of them.  
And if the Irish be not quite given over to the Spirit of delusion, they will look upon all bloody suggestions of this kind, as proceeding from him that was the first author of rebellion in Heaven, and upon earth, and a Murderer from the beginning 
a Joh. 8.44. , and they will accordingly reject and detest them not only for 
b Rom. 13.5.  conscience (which ought to be the principal motive) but also for wrath, remembering the sad effects of God's wrath against them in each one of their several rebellions whether for Religion or for any other cause.   

CHAP. XXI. A Conclusion of my Discourse with N. N. with a friendly Admonition to him.  
SIR. if the severe Decree of your Church prohibiting to the common sort the reading of Controversial writings, doth not comprehend you also, I hope you will bestow an attentive reading upon this Book for our old friendship's sake, but more for the love of Truth: and if you have not made a firm inflexible resolution of not yielding to any evidences, be they never so clear, that may justify the way I took, or discover the errors of that which you are in, I may expect that by reading this Treatise, you shall find that I am not in that deplorable condition by my change which you seem to imagine. That by it I have not forsaken the whole house of God, as you say, but removed to the soundest and safest part of it; that I have not deserted the Society of the holy Fathers of the Church, nor am become an associate of Heretics, having come to a Church where I find as much veneration and study of those Fathers, and as much aversion to the Heresies you mention, as ever I saw among you.  
And if you read further the second Part now to follow of this same Book, you shall find that I did not forsake the Communion of the Roman Church without grave and urgent reasons forcing me to it. Those reasons I have laid open in my first Sermon preached at Dublin and printed; great labour and study hath been employed in answering them: yet if you bring indifference with you to read my reply to that answer, you shall find that my reasons alleged do still remain in their force, and that the errors I refuted are further discovered, and cleared by occasion of the defence made of them. But if you resolve either not to read my Book, or bring to the reading of it a firm purpose of not yielding to any reason that may oppose those sentiments you are prepossessed with, than my labour is lost as to you: but I hope not so as to others more rationally disposed. The word of God is a grain of seed, and brings forth its fruit in time differently according to the different disposition of the subjects it meets with: but especially I hope that my endeavours will avail me with God; in whose presence I writ with sincerity what I understand to be conformable to his holy Word & Will, and with a constant desire in all these scrutinies to satisfy my own conscience principally of the righteousness of the way I took, and to help others also to the knowledge of the same truth.  
When St. Paul was brought before King Agrippa, and the Governor of Judaea, Porcius Festus, to give account of himself and his Religion, he gave it so full, that Agrippa said, almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian: To which the great Apostle replied, I would to God that not only thou, but all that hear me were such as I am, except these bonds, Act. XXVI. 29. If you read with indifferency and attention, the account I give of my resolution, and of the Religion I embraced, I am persuaded (whatsoever your outward expression may be) it will work upon your mind a motion like that of Agrippa. And if you ask whether I would have you do what I did in this point, I say freely (as St. Paul did say to Agrippa) that I would to God that both you and your brethren did take the like resolution; but that it may be with less difficulty and reluctancy than I had, and with less crosses and dangers for doing it.  
You tell me I am old; and I have many reasons to believe it by my long continued infirmity of body, but I remember the time, when you called me a young man, and yourself an old man: then I being now old, you must be very old; and therefore both of us ought to measure our resolutions and doctrine with the rules of Religion, and the interest of Eternity, rather than with those of earthly policy and temporal Advantages, in which we can have but a little share, and a short enjoyment. How then come you to speak to me of the loss of Friends, and of infamy got by my change? If it hath been for the best in the presence of God, and I am certainly persuaded it was, I have got by it the grace and favour of God, and given joy to his Angels; and this applause is to be preferred before that of the earthly friends you speak of. I am much afraid that the fear of temporal shame and damages is too strong with you, and many others of your party to keep you from following truth, and from searching after it with due care: I found it to be so in myself (I confess my weakness herein with sorrow, humbly craving pardon of God for it.) The fear of shame and loss among men, more than any superior consideration, made me struggle along time against the inward callings of God from my former errors, and to use all means possible to silence the cries of conscience; but the more I laboured and studied to allay them, the more force they got; and when I saw clearly by a strict inquiry, that they were indeed from God, I yielded to them, notwithstanding my natural reluctancies, and the heap of shames, crosses, and dangers which I saw in the way, looking upon Jesus the Author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross despising the shame, Heb. XII. 2.  
In the life and doctrine of Christ we shall find Lessons of this kind, but never in the dictates of nature. How would you imagine it should be a natural inclination, that a man in his declining Age, should change a state of quiet, honour, and plenty of all things necessary for humane life, into another of troubles, crosses, affronts, no certainty of a competent livelihood, and a certain and continual danger of losing his life. This was my condition at my change of Religion, and I may better declare it to you then to many others. You can remember in what degree of honour, applause and commodity I was where you knew me, plentifully assisted with all things necessary, without any care or trouble in procuring them. Of temporal blessings I could desire no more. Neither would I at any time, though I had a choice of fortune given to me.  
To this condition I might at that time have returned with some special assurances of good reception, when I came over to the Protestant Church, without any bargain made or promise had of a livelihood, relying solely upon Divine providence, that is never wanting, to such as truly confide in it; and with certain knowledge that I was to suffer crosses, calumnies, curses, affronts, false testimonies and conspiracies against my life and credit, of all which I found a plentiful store as I expected: and you tell me that my change was a work of Nature not of grace, one of your very ill grounded assertions. I pray consult the case with your own natural inclination, and be ingenuous. Do but imagine yourself a little while making such a change as I did, and undergoing for it the like danger and damages, (as probably you should, if the case did possibly happen,) certain I am that your nature would represent to you such horrors in the case, that if all the Angels in Heaven did come down furnished with the most divine reasons to persuade you to it, you would take them all for so many Devils, and their reasons for absolute Madness.  
Thus much I can tell you of your own nature: but what grace may work upon you, God the author of it only can tell: and whilst you do not feel this motion upon you so strong as to forsake errors (though known) upon the hard terms now mentioned, I pray spare your ill grounded severe censures against others, that God moves to undergo those difficulties for the truth's sake. Moderate your inconsiderate Zeal, and if you will govern it well, read unpassionately what is written here, and is to follow in this Book, whereby you shall perceive how far mistaken you are in many things about yourself and others. And whereas you acknowledge yourself to be near the end of this mortal life (as a man of your age must needs be) leave to your Friends and Brethren that Legacy, which your good Saviour Jesus left, and with repeated earnestness commended to his Disciples, saying 
* Joh. 14.27.  Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you. Endeavour first to make peace with God by due acknowledgement and repentance of your sins and errors, and then endeavour to sow peace in the hearts of your hearers. Make it your business to quench, rather than to blow up the fire of dissensions and animosities: have a real pity for your poor Country bleeding and groaning under wounds received in barbarous wars and broils, stirred up by blind fiery Zelots. Pour into those wounds the sweet oil of peace; breed in the people by all the means you may, charity with their Neighbours and Loialty to their Sovereign: thus will they recover those blessings, which the bitter Spirit of hatred, envy, revenge, and ambition hath rob them off in former times; and thus will you and other inspires of peace and charity, compass that great blessing reserved for peace makers, that they shall be called the Children of God 
a Math. 5.9. . And now the God of peace be with you 
b Rom. 15.33.  whilst I turn my face to a scold, and after to a Sophister, to vindicate truth from the assaults of both.   

CHAP. XXII. A check to I. E. his scandalous Libel, and a vindication of the Church of England from his false and slanderous report of it.  
ALL that saw I. E. his scolding Libel, agree in saying it deserves no answer: But none will deny it deserves a check. And what check can be so sensible to the Author (if he has any sense in him) as to lay before his eyes a piece of his own work? St. Jerom in the beginning of his Book against Jovinian, to render the man ridiculous, produces a parcel of his franne phrases, and cries at them with his wont sharp eloquence, 
* S. Jer. l. 1. adversus Joviniamum, initio.  Rogo quae surt haec portenta verborum, quod descripti●nis dedecus? nun vel per febrem somniare eum putes, vel arreptum morbo phrenetico Hippocratis vinculis alligandum? Tell me I pray you what monstrous words are those, what shameful contexture of speech? would not you think the man to be dreaming in a fever, or raving in a frenzy fit to be put into the shackles of Hypocrates? The words of Jovinian related by St. Jerom are indeed ridiculous and absurd; but if we compare them with those of our Libeler, I. E. we shall find this latter to have outdon Jovinian by very great odds. he says he will vindicate the Roman Church, from the most mysterious and foul aspersions and rail of the ignorant overweening, and overbiassed sciolist Sectaries, (not to mention some words thereabout worse than ridiculous) he will seasonably control and give a check to the disingenuity, spiteful malice, veneme, and brawny-faced impudence of that renowned wight, vile Apostate, and professed Enemy to Christ, Andrew sal, to dash back all his shameless affronts, and thundering bawling strains of profound, and wonderful non sense etc. He will not have men to trust the Conduct of such Mountebanks, and runagate vagrant Apostates. If St. Jerome did see this rich piece of Rhetoric, would he not cry out, Rogo quae sunt haec portenta verborum, quod descriptionis dedecus? Certainly when the man spoke of shallow Mountebanks, impostors, and runagate vagrant Apostates, that could bear no fruit, whilst united to the stock, he had his imagination placed upon some of those his running friars, that in their travels of a year or two, will view London, Brussels, Prague, Cracovia, Stockolme, Paris, Maarid, Rome, Florence, Jerusalem, Grand Cair, and more Courts or places of fame if to be found, and will return as wise as they went, but commonly worse, loaden with Fables, and furnished with the most corrupt customs of all the places they ran over. To men of this kind, his description of runagate, vagrant, shallow Mountebanks, etc. may seem more suitable then to one who in 26 years for his residency in Spain, never went out of the Province of Castille where he entered first, nor took so much liberty, as to view Madrid, or the famous Escurial not far from him, when others made long voyages to see them; having spent the aforesaid twenty six years thus, (as is known to many.) Two years, retired to exercise of devotion, seven years in learning Philosophy and Divinity, and the 17 remnant in public teaching without intermission; First humanity, Poetry, Oratory, History, Cosmography in the Colleges of Numacia and Villagarcia; Then Philosophy, Logic, Physic, Metaphysic, etc. in the College of Pamplona; and Divinity, scholastic, Moral, Polemic or Controversial in the Colleges of Pamplona, Palencia, Tudela, and Salamanca, joining with these functions of continual teaching (which in those parts are exceedingly laborious) the practice of very frequent preaching, together with a constant and eager study of holy scripture, counsels, Fathers, and History Ecclesiastic, in which kind of study I had always my chief delight, when duty and employments enjoined upon me, forced me to the study of those other faculties. And is this to be a vagrant person, that could bear no fruit united to the stock? what fruit would be man have me bear?  
But what if we refer him to himself few pages after saying (still excessive) that before I was vir Apostolicus, a most resplendent star in the firmament of the true Church etc. now plunged in all the contrary vices, and cries, 
* page 27.  quomodo obscuratum est aurum, mutatus est color optimus? how is the Gold become dim, how is the most fine gold changed? Truly I am to return the same question upon him, How came this change, or 
* Thren. 4.  how came he to know it? For I feel no other change in me but to the better; to a quiet of conscience, and full satisfaction that I am in the right way of worshipping God. But I find in his own words an answer to all, he says I was before vir Apostolicus, now Apostata vilis dictus, a vile Apostate, not really, but called so: and by whom? by a party, which I prove by demonstrative reasons (not railing at random as I. E.) that they have apostatised from the true faith and Doctrine of Christ in several points, as evidenced both in my former discourse printed, and in the second part of this treatise at large: wherefore to be called Apostate by them, is to me the same, as if I were called a Thief or highway Robber, by one that is such himself, I knowing myself to be an Alien from those practices; or as if I were called an Infidel by a Turk or Pagan. If I was induced to make a blind vow of blind obedience to the Pope of Rome, and his Ministers, I made a former vow of Religious obedience to God and his holy Laws in my baptism: if I find the latter vow made to the Pope not to consist with the compliance of the former made to God, (as I found clearly not to consist) then must I stand to my former vow made to God, and rescind the latter made to the Pope.  
If this Libeler were contented to rail at me, his guilt had been less, but he extends his insolent soul language to the whole Protestant Church, belching out streams against it, I know not which more, of brutish ignorance, or hellish malice, in most notorious calumnies. 
* Pag. 30  You deserted a Church (says he) in which only is Faith, Religion, Priests, Sacrifice, Altars, Sacraments, and real remission not only of original sin, but also of actual mortal sins, all which is excluded and exploded and quite abolished by your Protestant Sect. And all this he babbles out boldly without giving one word of reason for all or any part of it: but I have proved with clear demonstrative reasons from the beginning of this Treatise, that in the Protestant Church we have and do profess the same true Catholic faith and Religion, which Jesus Christ and his Apostles taught, and was professed by the Church first called Catholie: That we have a right Hierarchy, and due ordination of Bishop's Priests and Deacons; and therefore a due administration of Sacraments and remission of sins both original by Baptism, and actual by contrition, and also by absolution upon confession, not only allowed, but commended and enjoined to our people, and practised by many; if neglected by others, it's their fault not of our Church; and of the horror some have to this practice, we may well say your Church to be the cause, by its intolerable tyranny over consciences, as well in the reservation of cases, to be absolved only by Prelates, or by the Pope, as in the difficulties daily added touching the mode of Confessions, and circumstances to be declared in them, which deters many even from the right use of it, and is thought to be occasion of more loss then gain of souls among you.  
He tells me, 
* 63. Page  that I know in my conscience that the Protestant Sect doth place all happiness, in the pleasures, honours, liberty, and contentments of the body, and obstructs all means and ways to virtue, to Sanctity, Piety, Mortification etc. and doth stifle the fear of a living & dreadful God, and all this likewise without any proof of it. Was there ever seen a more desperate insolency? false prophet, who dost pretend to dive into the inward of my conscience, known only to God and to myself. I will declare to the glory of God, and edification of the Christian people, miserably deluded by such Slaves of fury and lies, what I know in my conscience to be true, That in the Protestant Church I saw more practice of solid virtue, piety, and devotion, and of the fear of God, more apt means used to purchase those virtues (both by the doctrine of our Church, and by the ordinances of our state) then ever I saw among the Romanists.  
Since my coming to the Protestant Church, my constant habitation has been in Trinity College of Dublin, where I see more practice of sobriety, devotion, and piety then ever I saw in a College of so many young men on the Romish side. Three times a day they go all to prayers to the chapel at six in the morning, ten at noon, and four in the evening, with admirable reverence and attention; their Prayers, most grave and pious for all purposes, and for all sorts of persons, they say kneeling, the Psalms standing, and the sacred Lectures they hear sitting reverently and bareheaded, with a respect due to the Lessons used by them, sacred indeed as taken out of those blessed fountains of Living waters of the old and new Testament, not out of the broken Cisterns of Romantic Legends, all being read in a voice audible, and language intelligible, and thereby suitable to the edification and instruction of all the people present.  
The same order and style I see observed in the Palaces of Princes and Prelates, and in the houses of Gentlemen and godly persons, all the family being called to pray together in the Chapel or other decent room of the house, after the manner now declared. When I come to the Royal Castle or palace of Dublin, there I see the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (to whom a judicious French 
* Georg Fournier in geograph. li. i cujus praecipua inter omnes qui n Europasunt Pro reges eminent authoritas.  writer gives the Chief place among all the Viceroys of Europe) with all his flourishing family, and many Nobles attending on his Excellency, break off discourses and business, though weighty and serious, and answer the found of a Bell calling upon all at set hours to prayers in the Chapel, to which they assist with singular piety and gravity. If I look upon the people flocking to their public Churches on holy days, the very silence and modesty of their carriage in the streets gives me a Testimony of their inward good disposition: and when they are come to the Church, each one retires to his respective seat, all being decently severed to avoid confusion and disorders. Divine Office is performed in a most grave and decent manner, all fitted to the benefit and spiritual food of souls, so as if any Hymm or Psalm be sung, with more exquisite music, the Chanter or some other of the Choir admonishes the people what Psalm or verse is to be sung, that seeing it in their Books they may be furnished with the sense, that thereby the music may work better on their minds to devotion; so great a care is taken, that in all we pay to God rationabile obsequium a rational service with sense and feeling of what we do.  
What if I consider the admirable devotion and reverence wherewith they go to receive the sacred Communion, far greater than ever I saw with Papists, though pretending to believe something more, (they know not themselves what) about the presence of our Saviour in that Sacrament, than Protestants do. A spectacle of this kind, certainly grateful to God and to his Angels, which I saw in Christ's Church of Dublin on Resurrection Sunday last year, sticks fast in my memory with joy. The most Reverend the Lord Archbishop of Dublin, Chancellor of Ireland, having performed the Communion office with singular decency and good order, he took himself first reverently the sacred Communion and gave it to the Minister of the Altar, then to the Lord Leiutenant, to the Peers and the Royal Council, and to a numerous concourse, all receiving it with singular devotion, having for associates in giving it the most Reverend the Archbishop of Armagh Primate of all Ireland, the Right Reverend the Bishop of Meath the chief of the Bishops of Ireland, after the Metropolitans, and three dignitaries of the Church, Doctors in Divinity, to administer the Cup, each one making a Godly brief exhortation to the receiver for a due receiving of it, the Lord Archbishop having read at the Communion Table a grave and pious Homily, exhorting to a right preparation for receiving that venerable Sacrament, as is usually done in all Churches, upon such an occasion.  
Go now Mr. I. E. and compare these practices of piety, and devotion with your number of Ave Maria's ran over Beads of stick or glass sitting or walking, and mixing with them several talks to the people about you, with your Mass mumbled over in haste, and the people thronging to have a sight of the Priest; and a touch of the holy water, without understanding a word of what is saying. This is your ordinary course of devotion, and spiritual assistance given to your people (if some particular persons will not provide otherwise for themselves) And you speak to me of your deiform intentions of ravishing devotions, etc. I saw much of those devotions among your Extatics, and in them much of delusion, cheat, and vanity, I wish I may never see more of them.  
What shall I say of the preaching used in the Protestant Church truly Apostolic and godly, all delivering doctrinam sanam & irreprehensibilem, sound and blameless doctrine. I may say with truth, that I never saw a Protestant preacher, yet giving a Sermon, that was undecent or unbecoming that place: not so with you. There would I see frequently showers of non-sens madness and blasphemies preached; one to magnify his order will make his Friar a Cherubin, another to out go him will make his a Seraphin, and another thinking that but a small purchase will set up his Saint higher than Jesus Christ and the holy Trinity, with other desperate essays, like those I produced above, chap. 26. This lofty style certainly you miss in me when you tell your reader, that though I was a professor of Divinity, yet not of any solid intensive learning; 
a Pag. 56. In Epist. de dica●.  and in all the Doctors of the Protestant Church, when you style them ignorant Sciolists. Good Lord, who knows them and knows you (as any may by your goodly Book) what will he judge of your presumption?  
Finally, will you tell me, what purchase did you expect to make by your defamatory Libel? to get the credit of an eminent Scold? I confeses you deserve it, and the highest chair appointed for persons of that quality. And as for me you have confirmed me in the esteem of the election I made, and in the acknowledgement of the great mercy of God, in drawing me out of a Congregation where the spirit of fury and untruth animating all your Libel is countenanced. If we are to believe you (and shall we?) you had the boldness to present it to a most illustrious person, whom I forbear to name for very reverence, fearing an offence even in mentioning that so dirty a piece of Paper should be put into such hands. You tell us moreover, that it was published by the approbation of your Superiors. If it be so, certainly God has turned the counsel of your Ahitophels' into foolishness Let any man that hath not lost his wits judge, whether it be tolerable that men, who profess to be poor and humble, should speak so scornfully and contemtuously of so great and illustrious a part of Christianity, as we have seen the Protestant Church to be? whether it be prudence in persons complaining that they are persecuted for their Religion, and under the lash of a Protestant Government, to cock and insult upon their masters, with barbarous abusive language, and most gross and manifest calumnies? Mr. I. E. knows that in two visits he was pleased to bestow on me, after he had honoured me with his famous Libel, excusing the harsh Language of it, I told him my discontent was not for any injury done to me, but for the prejudice I conceived such undiscreet writings would bring upon his poor Countrymen and mine of the Romish Communion, of whose welfare I could not omit to be solicitous, and grieve for the harm they have received often by the means of blind Zelots.  
Truly I was much pleased with the knowledge he seemed to have of my temper very alien from spite or malice, and of the spirit of the Protestant Church, in coming so freely to me after such heavy affronts published by him against both. I do admire and honour the singular patience and Christian modesty of the English Government, in not being to severe as Romanists are (where they can command) in punishing such proceed, and if Mr. I. E. and his council were wise, they should rather honour, then abuse this modesty of their Masters.  
When I consider the different procedure of the Protestant Church, and of the Romish, with their desertors, I am strongly confirmed in the choice I made. If any person departs from the Protestant Church to the Romish, they neither curse nor rail, nor plot against his life or credit: they only commiserate his fall, and pray for him, that God may convert him. Herein appears the spirit of Christ, his meekness and charity. But when any comes from the Romish Church to the Protestant, he may be sure to have curses, calumnies, affronts, conspiracies against his life and repute follow him while he lives. A strong point of policy, apt indeed, to terrify weak minds, that they dare not desert their quarrel; but a policy dictated not by that wisdom that is from above, peaceable, gentle, full of mercy, etc. Jam. 3.17. but from that other called by the same Apostle, earthly sensual, devilish. v. 15. Learned, grave and civil discourses about Religion, such as those of Isaac Casaubon with Cardinal Peron, and Fronto-Ducaeus, of Peter Wading with Simon Episcopius and the like, I shall always, honour, and willingly entertain, but with scolds I do not love to spend my time. And so I leave you to God Mr. I. E. to direct you, while I enter into Lists with an other pretending to subtlety in reasoning the case with me. Which is to be the second part of this Book.  
FINIS.    

TRUE CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC FAITH maintained in the CHURCH of ENGLAND.  
THE SECOND PART.   

TRUE CATHOLIC & APOSTOLIC FAITH Maintained in the CHURCH of ENGLAND. PART. II.  
Being A Survey of Mr. I. S. his Book, Entitled, The unerring unerreable Church.  

CHAP. I. An Anatomy of Mr. I. S. his Genius and drifts, appearing in his dedicatory Epistle to my Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.  
THE dissections of Anatomy discover imperfections and diseases in the vitals, and other exterior parts of the body, which a fair skin or cunning dress hides from the eyes of a common beholder. In like manner, a Scholastic examen will lay open the faults and corruptions both in the essential and ornamental parts of a discourse, which upon a transient view appear plausible and commendable. Unto a mind clouded with passion and prejudice, and the favour of an espoused, or the dislikes of an adverse party, the writing of Mr. I. S. may appear without blemish or fault; but an incision being made, the flesh and the skin being cut off, it will be found void of truth in the proposal, of force and form in the argumentation, sincerity in the design, and lastly modesty and ingenuity in the style and terms, which are the several requisites that can make a writing in any degree worth the reading.  
This kind of Anatomy I will now take in hand, and by no other art then plain incision, shall with truth and perspicuity discover the fallacies and gross errors of the before mentioned Author, who delivers boldly his judgement upon what he does not understand; or if he were not really ignorant, yet delivers unsincerely, and misrepresents those things of which he treats: all which I shall demonstrate in the following Chapters.  
After several attacks made by I. E. N. N. and others upon my small Book, upon myself, and the Church of England, comes up confidently to complete the victory Mr. I. S. as Scipio Africanus to the Siege of Numantia, to amend the errors of the preceding warriors. And to appear a Scipio indeed in his present adventure, he promises himself so to beset and straighten us, as to make us burn ourselves, as the Numantines did, to prevent their falling into the hands of the Roman Conqueror.  
To compass this magnificent design, he proposeth to the Earl of Essex Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, my good Lord and Patron, in the dedicatory Epistle of his book to his Excellency, that I should be burned for a crime he calls a Blasphemy, wherein all the learned men of the Church of England are involved with me, viz. to say, that the Roman Church, as now it stands, is not a secure way to Salvation. And the executioner of this severe sentence passed upon us by Mr. I. S. must not be the Inquisitor of Rome or Spain, but our own Kings Prime Minister and Lieutenant in the Kingdom of Ireland.  
He allows me so much wit, as to know that I could not justify my separation from the Church of Rome, if I did hope to be saved in it, whereas believing I may, to forsake it, were a formal schism: thus much of wit he doth very injuriously deny to all other learned Protestants, saying, that all allow the Roman Church to be a secure way to Salvation, which is to say, they are all confessedly Schismatics.  
The inference is but too clear from his Positions, confusedly delivered, if thus ordered, All men that separate from the Roman Church, knowing and allowing it to be a safe way to Salvation, are formally and confessedly Schismatics; all Learned men of the Church of England do acknowledge and allow the Church of Rome to be a safe way to Salvation: Therefore all of them are confessedly and formally Schismatics. This Thesis Mr. I. S. presents to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to win his favour.  
To clear the ground of all this discourse, and see how bold and blind was the attemt of Mr. I. S. his charging me with Blasphemy, see the occasion given to him for it, that in the page 226 of my book (according to the first Edition of it at Dublin) rebuking their ordinary vaunt wherewith they delude the simple, saying that Protestants do allow Papists may be saved, but Papists do not allow that Protestants may be saved, etc. I delivered these words following, but in neither do they say truth, for no Learned Protestant does allow the Popish Religion in general and absolutely speaking to be a secure way to Salvation, for all do agree in affirming that many of their Tenets and practices are inconsistent with Salvation, though ignorance may happily excuse many of the simple sort, but not such as know their error, or with due care and inquiry may know it. On the other side, etc.  
This has nettled the poor man to rage. Happily he found himself to be of those who know, or with due enquiry may know the damnable errors of the Roman Church. Now I desire the judicious Reader to consider, with what propriety of terms Mr. I. S. calls it a Blasphemy in me, to relate this sentiment of Learned Protestants. Tho I were mistaken, to call such a mistake Blasphemy, is extravagant language.  
Three kinds of Blasphemy I find mentioned by Aquinas and other Schoolmen,  
1. To appropriate to God something unbeseeming,  
2. To deprive him of a perfection due to him,  
3. To attribute to a creature any of God's properties. To which of these classes will Mr. I. S. reduce my mistake, if it be not so what I relate of learned Protestants? That one of those who sit in the Market-places selling roots, should call it a Blasphemy in another of her trade, to say, that her Turnips came out of Flanders, not being so, may be a cause of laughing; but that one pretending to learning, and a disputant in divinity should ramble at this rate, I confess plainly it seems to me intolerable, and a sad task to dispute with a person of so irregular a style.  
But if what I related of learned Protestants be so indeed, which way comes it to be a Blasphemy to tell truth? Now to know whether it be so, let any that ever heard learned Protestants deliver their opinion upon that subject, or did read their writings, tell whether he knew any of them say, that the Popish Religion in general, and absolutely speaking, is a sure way to Salvation, or whether they could say it in consequence to their assertions, ever accusing the Church of Rome of Idolatry, superstition, impiety, etc. crimes certainly inconsistent with Salvation, if Ignorance did not excuse, or penitence heal the malady. The Testimony of Learned 
† Chillingworth part. 1. c. 2. n. 17.  Chillingworth, well versed in the Doctrine of both parties, may serve for many to this purpose, who relating, that Franciscus à sancta Clara, and the Jesuit his Antagonist, among other Learned Romanists, do assure that ignorance and repentance may excuse a Protestant from Damnation he dying in his error; adds these words, and this is all the charity which by your own confession also the most  Protestants allow to Papists. Here we have witnesses of both sides affirming, that Protestants do not allow Salvation to Papists, if ignorance or repentance will not protect them: how then comes it to be so great a Paradox in me to tell they say so; a greater Paradox certainly to say it should be blasphemy to tell it.   

CHAP. II. A Vindication of several Saints and worthy souls, our Ancestors, from the sentence of Damnation passed upon them by I. S.  
TO render me odious to my Lord Lieutenant, to my own kindred, and to all good men, he pretends that I adjudge unto Hell his Excellency's Ancestors, my own Ancestors, St. Bernard, Aquinas, and other holy men. The ground he alleges for fathering this severe sentence upon me, is, that I should say, that in the Popish religion none may be saved, and which is more intolerable, that there is no Salvation in the Catholic Church. All men that know my Principles and Temper in writing and speaking, will admire the impudence of this man, imputing to me such desperate rude Positions; That none may be saved in the Romish, or Popish Religion, I never said with that generality, but with a limitation, leaving a gate to Salvation for innumerable good souls, and for the holy and renowned men he mentions, as I shall now declare.  
To declare for damned all the adverse parties of Christians without distinction, is a rashness I ever abhorred, and constantly opposed in the Romanists, when I was on their side, and which I would not imitate against my present adversaries; much less did I, or could I say, that there is no Salvation in the Catholic Church, out of which I expect no Salvation for myself or others.  
I have said indeed, and proved with reasons which I. S. will never solve, that the Roman Church, according to the present profession and practice of it, is not a safe way to Salvation, generally and absolutely speaking; that many of the Tenets and Practices of it, are inconsistent with Salvation, in such, as understanding the error of them, do continue to embrace them. This I have said, and will maintain at all times, by the help of God, and truth; but how different this is from saying, that in the Roman Church a man may not be saved, and that there is no Salvation in the Catholic Church, any man of common sense may easily conceive; and withal judge, how unpleasing a work it is, to spend precious time in debating with a man of so confused brains and ill digested expressions. Now therefore, the foundation laid for the censure of Damnation passed against those Saints and renowned men not being from me, but from the fancy or fiction of I. S. it remains that he is the Author of that malignant Censure: my work will be to vindicate the persons injured from that cruel sentence, by showing that it is not a consequence of my opinion above mentioned, owned and confirmed by many thousands of Learned and pious men.  
The stress of his Argument, and where he hopes to be more successful is, what concerns Thomas of Aquin. He says, that the Sanctuary of ignorance which we allow to others for escaping Damnation can not avail him, being well versed in Scripture, and an eminent Master in most Sciences; and so he conceives his Damnation unavoidable in consequence to my forementioned position, and the common sense of all the reformed Churches; and thence proceeds to sound a Triumph as to a manifest victory. But if Mr. I. S. his Logic makes a Demonstration to him of this consequence, it does not to me, nor will to any ordinary Logician, that understands the terms and state of the Question. If he does not know how to save Aquinas, and several other good learned men of the Roman Church, from damnation, in the opinion of so many thousands of Learned men of the Reformed Churches, I can and will teach him. I am not of those fiery spirits, reproved by the Royal piety of King James, who affirm, that in the Popish Religion none can be saved, as Mr. I. S. does falsely and maliciously to his own knowledge impose upon me. I incline with my study and wishes, and more willingly deliver my opinion for the Salvation then for the Damnation of men, when by the least probability induced thereunto.  
And first for Aquinas and other learned men of his time, I thus plead; The errors and foul practices of the Roman Church were not so many then, as now: they increase daily. They have not been so known, and cleared in the Crucible of public opposition; none dared to check them; and so they kept credit. The impostures, fallacies and absurdities of Mr. I. S. his book, will not be so well known to his proselytes possessed with prejudices, and to others that see it alone, as to indifferent persons, that will confer it with my exceptions against it; so it is with those erroneous tenets that began to be in use in Aquinas his time, or somewhat before, and were not opposed.  
Secondly, for many learned men even of our own time, which seems more difficult, I say invincible ignorance may be pleaded. For which I advertise, that invincible Ignorance (according to the common use of Schools and our present purpose) is not that which by no means absolutely possible may be avoided, but such as one may not remedy by means obvious to him according to his state and condition In this sense Shepherds and the like in Spain and ●taly, that want instruction for knowing the Creed or Ten Commandments, are commonly excused upon the account of invincible Ignorance, and the fault laid upon their fathers, masters, or curates. In like manner I say many professors of philosophy and divinity in Spain and Italy, may be invincibly ignorant of the malice contained in the erroneous Principles they profess, having sucked them in their tender years, as divine verities proceeding from a living reputed Infallible Authority. They never heard them controlled or examined, no books written against them were permitted to come in their sight. They were taught, it was a sin to doubt of the truth of their tenets; ergo those men wanted the ordinary means of instruction, and consequently may have the refuge of invincible Ignorance.  
All this I know to be so by my own experience. Having lived in Spain many years, and having had, for several of them, licence from the Inquisitor general to read all manner of prohibited books, the prohibition was so severe, that I could never find one book of a Protestant to read. And even in Ireland, where more liberty may be expected, there is a severe prohibition of reading books opposing the Romish tenets; which appeared particularly touching that small book I published. For offering it to be read by a Romish priest, Vicar General of a famous Church in that kingdom, that he might see I did not without consideration and reason what I did, he desired to be excused from reading it, fearing it would raise in him doubts which he could not solve: and this injunction being so severe upon persons of that degree, must be more indispensable upon the vulgar.  
Means of instruction for knowing their errors being thus carefully prohibited to them of the Romish Communion in all times and places, we may favourably conceive, that many of them both learned and unlearned may have the excuse of invincible Ignorance, the sin lying upon the Statists, that for temporal ends do debar them from the means of healthful knowledge.  
One touch more in favour of the learned. Very many of them having bestowed the flower of their age in studies of Humanity, Philosophy, and Divinity speculative, are taken up, and often kept all their life time teaching those faculties, without ever reflecting upon, or having means to know the errors of their Church in the points controverted. They take them upon the credit of their instructors, for infallible verities, being continually beaten into their ears, with horror and execration against the opposite doctrine. And how great the power of education and prejudice is, let the Dominicans and Jesuits testify. How fierce and eagerly doth each one act and opine for the School he was educated in, and against the opposite?  
By this it appears how vain the Triumph of I. S. is, as if in my opinion all learned men dying in the communion of the Church of Rome were damned to hell. We have seen that impious sentence to be a product of his fancy, no consequence of any doctrine of mine. More rash and wicked was his attemt in casting the like sentence of Damnation upon those glorious Saints and great Doctors of the Church, St. Augustin, St. Jerome, St Chrysostom. What have they to do with his errors, to be damned for them? Strong opposers, no Patrons of them were they; as partly I have already, and after will more fully declare.  
It appears likewise by this discourse, how ridiculous his charge upon me is, of contradiction and speaking against my conscience in calling Thomas Aquinas a Saint. I have declared how that doth consist with, and contradicteth not what I have delivered, touching the unsecurity of Salvation in the Communion of the Roman Church. He pretends to render me guilty in the Tribunal of the English Inquisition for calling Aquinas a Saint; but the inquisition of England is not so rude as that of Rome in denying common civility to men, and the honorary Titles custom does allow them. He may as well accuse the compilers of the London Gazettes for giving to the Pope the title of Holiness, and will have as much thanks for it, as for his present impeachment of me for calling Aquinas a Saint. We do not take it for a certain proof of holiness to be canonised in the Church of Rome. Many of their own more learned writers deny it to be unerreable therein. It is not merit only gets that honour there. And though we know all this to be so, we do not grudge to call those Saints we find by custom to be called so.  
And by all that is said hitherto, we may see and wonder how rare the boldness of this man is, to term it Blasphemy in me to relate the common opinion of all learned Protestants, or to consent to it; and to propose to have us all burned for it, by sentence of our own chief Governor: to pretend for this wicked attemt, the Authority of our Sovereign King James of glorious memory, whose Decrees and sentiments herein I do most willingly obey, and consent unto: to impose upon me an opinion I never uttered by word, or writing, nor ever harboured in my thought, that there is no Salvation in the Catholic Church; that her errors are inconsistent with Salvation; to clip my words, and force them against my will and well declared meaning to his malicious purposes.  
And notwithstanding these enormous excesses and absurdities of his speech, his presumption is so blind, that he concludes his Dedicatory Epistle, saying, that though his Treatise contained nothing else but this check he gives to me, it must be grateful to his Excellency. If this address were made to a weak or dull person, it were yet criminal enough; but presented to so deep a judgement and well known wisdom as that of my Lord Lieutenant, pardon me sacred laws of modesty, if I say its a very insolent boldness. But now to our chief case in Debate.   

CHAP. III. Mr. S. his cold defence of the Infallibility of his Church examined.  
BOTH in my Declaration and in my printed Sermon or discourse against the errors of the Roman Church, I signified, that the only anchor left to keep me in the communion of it, after a strong apprehension of its erroneous Tenets, was the opinion of Infallibility granted to that Church, and the Head of it; But that anchor being cut off, and a clear discovery made of the fallacy of their pretended Infallibility, I set open my eyes and heart to receive the light which God sent me in his holy Writ, to discover their pernicious errors, and declare for his truth against them.  
My adversary, preceiving this to be the hinge all the Fabric goes on, and that if I were persuaded to that Infallibility, I would blind my eyes and follow, without any further dispute, the conduct of such a Guide, goes about to set up the said Infallibility with all his power, and so entitles his book, The unerring unerreable Church. But his way to compass his design is very odd, which is, yielding to my first and main attack upon it, that is the uncertainty of such an Infallibility to assist them, which I proveed by the disconformity of their Authors in asserting it, and the weakness of the grounds they produce for it. But Mr. I. S. in the page 167. gives me leave to believe what I please therein; It's no article of faith, saith he, that the Pope is infallible. If he misliked that doctrine, he might have denied it, and remain a Catholic. A Catholic I may remain, and do, but not of their communion, that Prop failing for those structures, which I saw clearly to be ruinous without it.  
It is an intolerable cavil to say I should speak of the Pope alone, or of the Roman Diocese, to delude the Reader with impertinent Digressions, as often he doth, I having clearly expressed my meaning to be, that neither the Pope alone, nor in a Council (such as that of Trent,) nor the Congregation under his obedience are infallible. To say the said Congregation should be the Church Universal, (which I allow according to St. Paul's Expression, to be the pillar and ground of truth) is an arrogant begging of a conclusion which will never be allowed to them, all Christian Churches that differ from them, which are far the greater part of Christendom, crying against their blind presumption in appropriateing unto themselves the name of the Catholic Church.  
That the Church truly Universal, composed of all believers in Christ, whether diffusive, or representative in a Council truly Ecumenical and free, such as were the first four General Councils, (and such as was not the Council of Trent) is to have the assistance of the holy Ghost, so that though it be not properly infallible, yet it shall not err in things fundamental to men's Salvation, I do piously believe, and of my meaning therein I gave him no occasion to doubt.  
Therefore if he will speak to the purpose, granting it is not an Article of faith, that the Pope is infallible in the sense I denied infallibility to him, that is to say, in a Council of those depending upon him, or out of it, it follow's they have no certainty for their Tenets relying upon the Pope's Infallibility; which being no article of faith, cannot be certain in itself, nor consequently give certainty to things depending upon it. He only allows Infallibility to the Pope jointly with a general Council. Herein he gratifies the Jansenists, who may by this plead for indemnity, notwithstanding the definitions of Innocent the Tenth and Alexander the Seventh against them; which being not confirmed or authorized by a general Council in conjunction with the Pope, cannot pretend to Infallibility in Mr. I. S. his opinion, who hereby must incense against himself all the party adverse to the Jansenists, which will prove too hard for him.  
But he says all Catholics do agree in the Infallibility of the Pope and a general Council. Therefore Aquinas, Turrecremata and Alphonsus à Castro are in his opinion no Catholics, of whom 
* Can. l. 4. De lo. c. 4. Aquin in 4 d. 6. qu. 1. art. 7. in 3. qu. 2. ad 3. Turrecrem. l. 2. sum. Ecclesiae c. 91. Alphons. à Cast. de just. Haer. pun. l. c. 5. gloss. interlin. in illud Math. 16. portae infer. etc.  Canus relates, that the Church, even Pope and Council together, may err materially in their opinion, as I mentioned in the 30. page of my discourse, which if he did consider and examine, he would not so peremtorily assert, that all Catholics do agree in the Infallibility of Pope and Council jointly.  
Neither indeed does Mr. S. himself s●em to be very strong in the belief of this Infallibility, for in the comfort he gives his brethren on this account, extolling magnificently their happiness herein above Protestants, he so order the matter, that their comfort must not be grounded upon the real existence of that Infallibility; but upon a strong apprehension or belief of it, though not extant. It is a comfort, says he, to an unacquainted Traveller, to be guided by one whom he firmly believes to be acquainted with the way, though really your guide were not acquainted with the way; if you certainly believe that he is, and cannot stray etc. This is such another comfort as the grand Turk gives to his men, that dying in his quarrel they go immediately to Paradise; though it be not so, it's a comfort to think it is. A sad comfort for the unhappy souls lost, but commodious for the Turk, to get by these means people to sight desperately and die for him.  
Thus it is with the Church, or Court of Rome. To believe they are infallible is a satisfaction to the people, and very important for the authority and grandeur of that Court; whether it be so indeed, is not material. The understanding of this mystery we are to owe to Mr. S. his ingenuity. Poor man, he has not been well acquainted with the intrigues of that Court: they do not love to have arcana imperii, the mysteries of their government discovered. He will certainly fall short of his expected remuneration for his writing; and if a Cap be deputed to him for it, sure I am it will not be that of a Cardinal.   

CHAP. IU. That Protestants have a greater security for the truth of their doctrine then Papists have. Mr. I. S. his ridiculous exposition and impious contradicting of St. Paul's Text, in favour of Scripture, rebuked.  
OUR Adversary triumphs upon the aforesaid comfort of Papists, in apprehending their Guide to be Infallible, though he be not so indeed; which comfort he says the Protestants cannot have, being guided by a Church, which they believe is not so well assured of the way but they may err. God forbidden Protestants should not have a better warrant for the truth of their Doctrine, then that he gives to Papists. They have the infallible word of God, delivering all their doctrine, and clearly containing all that is necessary to Salvation, and a perfect life, as appears evidently by what I delivered in the discourse which Mr. I. S. goes about to oppose, and will be further evidenced, by showing how vain and weak the opposition is. They have besides, in the general tradition of the Church, a full and sufficient certainty that the books, commonly received for Canonical, are the true word of God, and therefore are certain of God's infallible authority, assisting in favour of the verities contained in those books: which kind of certainty though only moral, touching the existence of God's revelation in favour of those verities, joined with an absolute and undoubted Certainty, that whatsoever God reveals is infallible verity, makes up all the certainty that a pious and prudent believer ought to expect in matters of divine faith.  
Mr. I. S. talks of a kind of certainty requisite for Divine faith, which I doubt mu●h, whether he, or any of his party, ever had for all those articles they pretend to be of faith. He tells us (and takes it upon credit of his instructors, without much examination, as often he does in other matters) that for all acts of belief touching revealed truths, an absolute certainty is requisite, clearing the believer from all manner of doubt. If you speak of an objective certainty, relating to the mystery revealed, all true believers have it, being fully assured, that God cannot reveal an untruth: but if you speak of a subjective certainty, excluding all manner of doubts as well touching the truth of Divine revelation if extant, as of the existence of it, I do vehemently suspect, that both you and your instructors do speak against your sense and experience, especially touching points controverted, and not explicitly contained in Scripture; such as is Transubstantiation for example, that mystery which Scotus, Ockam, Cajetan, and others of your ablest School men could never find in scripture, nor agreeable to the rules of common reason. I appeal to your breast for judging, whether you have touching this point that degree of certainty excluding all manner of doubt, which you pretend to be necessary for all acts of belief touching revealed truths.  
Mr. I. S. must not expect from me, that I should take notice off, and pursue all the impertinencies he runs upon in his book; my intention being only to clear the truth in our main concern, and therefore to follow him as far as I find him speak pertinently to the points I proposed, for discovering their grosser errors, which forced me to a separation from their communion.  
In the first Chapter of his book, he enlargeth upon points we allow, and know upon firmer grounds than his proofs for them, That God is to be adored; That he has revealed himself what manner of worship he requires; That this worship is true religion; That the same is but one; That God hath afforded sufficient means to know which is the true saving Religion; That divine faith must be grounded upon an infallible authority, fully assuring us of the truth of its proposals. The controversy is, what authority this is, whether of the Scripture as we believe, or of the Pope and Council, as he pretends.  
For a visible Judge to ascertain us of Divine verities, I once argued, that it became Divine wisdom and goodness, to provide us such to determine our controversies, which otherwise would be endless. It was replied, that we ought to be wary in censuring God's wisdom, if this or that seeming to us convenient, were not done in the government of the world. I acknowledged force in the reply, and did further it with an instance, that we may as well say, that it belongeth to the power and goodness of God, not to permit his holy Laws to be transgressed by vile creatures: and as we do not judge it a failure in his goodness to permit sins, so ought we not to waver in the opinion of his goodness, if he has not appointed us a visible Judge for our direction, having given us the Holy Scriptures, which abound with all light and heavenly doctrine to such as are not willfuly obstinate.  
Mr. I. S. not accustomed to approve any thing in his opponents, calls this my acknowledgement weakness, and to my instance, says, it becomes the goodness of God to permit sins, and the scandals of Popes, for the exercise of their liberty. But if this stout disputant were as provident as he is confident in running upon engagements, he might hate foreseen a ready reply to his objection, that liberty is no less necessary to heresy, then to other sins, being an essential requisite to all moral actions good or bad. Neither is the permission of heresy less convenient, whether for the exercise of liberty, or for other reasons, which made the Apostle say, that there must be here sies among men, 1 Cor. 11. 2●. neither doth his pretended infallibility of his Church h●nder heresies, and endless controversies among them.  
But where I prove, that the word of God is able to furnish us with all necessary instruction, out of St Paul, 2 Tim. 3. saying, that holy Scriptures are able to make us wise unto Salvation, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to all good works; this is the gloss of our Antagonist; But I infer the contrary: whereas Scriptures, though replenished they be with heavenly light, are not sufficient to ●eclare unto us what we ought to believe, we might waver in our opinion of God's good●ess, if he did not appoint an infallible living Judge to instruct us. Is this to interpret St. Paul, or clearly to oppose and contradict him? St. Paul says, that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto Salvation, and I. S. says, that they are not sufficient to declare unto us what we ought to believe; which is clearly to say, that they are not able to make us wise unto Salvation: for certainly without due belief we can not be saved. This interpretation is like to another attributed by a Friar to Lyra, being convinced, that the proposition he denied was in Scripture, he replied it was true, the Text said so, but Nicolas de Lyra said the contrary. So 'tis in our case. St. Paul says that the Scripture is able to make us wise unto Salvation; but Mr. I. S. says the contrary: which of them ought we to believe?  
I should expect from the subtlety of our Sophister to tax me with giving my conclusion for reason of itself: such is the identity in sense of my assertion with S. Paul's Text alleged for proof of it. That Holy Scripture is sufficient to instruct us for Salvation and a good life, is what S. Paul says, and what I say, no more nor less; but it is for slow wits to fetch out of a Text only what is contained in it: Sublime understandings must find in it more than the Author did mean, nay, the contrary of his words and meaning. It is not for them to submit to that rule of Canonists, that it is not a right way of interpreting a Text to mend it. Mr. S. mends the Text of S. Paul asserting the contrary of it, and from the contrary assertion by him substituted, he infers a contrary consequence to that I inferred from S. Paul's assertion. I infer thus, Whereas Scripture is sufficient to our full instruction, we ought not to waver in our opinion of God's goodness, if he did not appoint an infallible living Judge to direct us. But Mr. S. thinking that a small discovery, thus resolves; But I infer the contrary, Whereas Scriptures, though replenished with heavenly light, are not sufficient to declare unto us what we ought to believe, we might waver in our Opinion of God's Goodness, if he did not appoint an infallible living Judge for to instruct us. I leave the judicious Reader to reflect upon the stock of insolences heaped up in these lines, to give the he flatly to S. Paul, and pronounce a sentence against the goodness of God, if he did not what Mr. I. S. thinks sit to be done.  
But see how our admirable Doctor teacheth S. Paul to mend his error, that where he said Scripture is able to make us wise to Salvation, he did not say it of Scripture alone, but in conjunction with those Auxiliaries, Mr. I. S. is pleased to appoint. As if one to magnify his strength, did say he could carry two hundred weight, and being on a trial found unable to do it, to verify his saying, should allege, that that he did not mean he could carry so much alone, but he and a Horse with him. Such quibbles as these are more becoming Mr. S. then S. Paul; and so he may keep them for himself, and not father them upon the great Apostle.  
Further he proceeds to oppose St Paul, saying, that when he wrote that Epistle to Timothy, the whole Canon of Scripture was not completed; and only the whole Canon, and no part of it, can be sufficient means for our instruction: therefore the Scripture that S. Paul spoke of, cannot be a sufficient means for instructing us to Salvation. Herein our Sophister is twice impious, first, in taxing the great Apostles assertion with untruth: next, that the Oracle of God, delivered to men in each time for their instruction to Salvation, should not be complete and sufficient.  
By this it appears well how much a stranger this man is to the common Doctrine of Divines, who affirm, that in the Apostles Creed are contained all necessary verities to be believed for Salvation; and in the Ten Commandments, all duties to be performed of necessity to the same end. And may not the Creed, and Ten Commandments be known without a knowledge of the whole Canon of Scripture? His boldness is prodigious, in asserting extravagances, without exhibiting any proof but his bare ipse dixit, Pythagoras-wise.  
Finding me say I was not fit for P●thagoras his School, where ipse dixit was the rule, and men will not give reason for what they teach; he opposes, that if I am to expect reason for what I believe, I am not fit for Christ's School, nor learning from Scripture, which affords nothing but a bare ipse dixit. But if the Man had any ingenuity in him, he would spare this Objection, seeing it prevented in the 18. page of my discourse; where I acknowledge with thanksgiving to God, that I never doubted of the Truth of Holy Scriptures, nor of the Creed proposed to us by the Catholic Apostolic Church, and dictated by God Almighty, worthy to be believed without examen; not so Pythagoras, nor the Pope.   

CHAP. V Mr. S. his prolix excursion about the Pope's Authority requisite to know which is the true Scripture, declared to be Impertinent; and the state of the Question cleared from the confusion he puts upon it.  
OUR Adversary finding the Pope's Infallibility to be an expression odious and ridiculous to all knowing men, and whereof even the sober part of 
* Vid. Cress. in exomologesi cap 4. Sect. 3.  Romanists grow ashamed, endeavours to serve us up the same Dish under another dress, calling it the Authority of the Church Universal. And if therein he did speak properly, or sincerely, he would have less opposition from us. But if you do inquire what he means by Church Universal, he tells you it is the Congregation Subject to the Pope of Rome, excluding all other men, and particularly the Church of England from being any part of that his Universal Church. The said Congregation subject to the Pope, whether diffusive or representative in a general Council depending upon the Pope, and confirmed by him; he pretends to be Infallible. And whatever I allege against the Infallibility of the Roman Church, he thinks to elude by pretending I speak of the particular Diocese of Rome; a gross misunderstanding, or wilful misrepresentation of my meaning, for which I never gave any ground in my writing or discourses. He is to know I speak in proper terms, as used among Learned men speaking upon this Subject, taking the Roman Church for the party following the Pope's faction wheresoever extant, whether congregated or dispersed, prescinding from his Altercations with the rest, or any they have among themselves; for both he and the rest agreeing in making that Infallibility depending ultimately upon the Pope's Authority, we may well represent their assertion, as opposite to the sentiment of all other Christians under the notion of the Pope's infallibility. 
* That all is bottomed upon the Pope's Authority, Bellarmin declares, saying totam firmitatem conciliorum legitimorum esse á Pontifice, non-partim à Pontifice, partim à concilio. lib. 4. de Rom. Pon. c. 3. sect. at contra.   
The terms and state of the Question being thus cleared, it follows to declare how impertinent his prolix excursion and vain ostentation is, in telling us the diversity of Opinions that were in different times about Canonical Scripture, and the difficulty of ascertaining us which is the true one. This is an old device of those of his faction, to decline the main controversy in hand, wherein they still betray the weakness of their Cause. They and he should remember, the points controverted are among parties that agree in reverencing the Bible for the infallible Word of God. And if he thinks the part of it received for Canonical, by common consent, will not suffice for ending our Controversies, we admit willingly St. Augustins rule for clearing the difficulties touching particular Books, the Authority of the Church, and the Tradition of it, as described by Lirinensis, Quod semper, quod ubique, quod apud omnes. What was in all time, in all places, and by all Christians delivered, that we take for a true Apostolic Tradition, and to it we resolve to stand or fall, as well for discerning Canonical Scripture, as for understanding the true meaning of it.  
If Mr. S. did take Church and Tradition in the sense that the Holy Fathers did, and the Learned Men of the Church of England do, he would find in us all due reverence to those sacred Fountains of Christian verities. But to call Church Universal the faction adhering to the Pope of Rome, in opposition to the rest of Christians, is a presumption like that of the Turk, in calling himself King of Kings, and Emperor of all the World; such as are Vassals to him may revere that calling; others do laugh at it. But we do not find the Turk to have pla●'d the sool so far, as to take that his assumed title as granted by other Princes independing upon him, or to allege it for ground of his pretensions with them. This is Mr. S. his folly, in taking for granted in his debates with us, that the Romish faction is the Catholic Universal Church. So great an Intruder upon disputes, should learn that rule of Disputants, Quoth gratis dicitur gratis negatur, what is barely said without proof, is sufficiently refuted with a bare denial.  
This alone, well considered, will suffice to overthrow man Chapters of Mr. S. his Book. What makes him spend time in telling us of the difficulty of finding out which is true Scripture, the rule truly infallible of our belief, when he sees us thus ascertained of it? why does he trouble us with speaking of a Criterion or beam of light pretended by Fanatics, confessing at the same time that to be exploded by Protestants? is it to make his Book swell?  
But finding he cannot hid Scripture from us, he will have us to be beholden to the Pope for the true meaning of it: he musters up a store of Arguments objected by Pagans, Arians and Sabellians against the Mystery of the Trinity: and would have us leave the points present for answering them; let him go to the Fathers that propose the Arguments, they will deliver the anwier. The Councils truly Ecumenical of the Prmitive Church, and universal Tradition do secure us of the right meaning of Scripture, touching those points. Where comes here a need of the Pope and his faction to ascertain us?  
He finds a special mystery in the point of Purgatory, that either we for diminishing, or they for adding to the Words of God, are in a damnable error, deserving to be blotted out of the Book of life, Apoc. xx. 9 The danger is clearly on their side, no mention of Purgatory being in he written Word of God, as shall after appear.  
In the fourth Chapter he is very prolix in telling us the Church is a Body, and must have accordingly a Head and Members subject to it. We allow all, provided Christ be the Head, and all others, both Pastors and flock, Members subject to him, as it was in the Apostles times; each one of them preached Christ, none himself for Head. There is no memory of any pretence in St. Peter over St. Andrew in Achaia, or over St. Thomas in the Indies, or over any other of the Apostles in their respective Provinces, no dependence of them upon him.  
What he adds of Obedience due from the Flock to the Pastors is right, speaking of each Flock in regard of their ordinary lawful Pastors: right also, that in difficulties emergent of greater moment, a National Synod should be congregated; as that he mentions in the United Provinces in Dordrecht. Right, likewise what the Synod of Delpht resolved, that, though the former Synod was fallible, there was no obligation of conscience in obeying the decrees of it, as there is in all Subjects to obey the orders of a lawful Superior, received for such. And the Arminians having submitted to that Synod, and acknowledged it to be lawfully congregated, may well be declared obliged to submit to the Decrees of it, so far as not to disturb the public peace by illegal oppositions? But all this comes very short of Mr. S. his purpose, since the Reformed Churches never submitted to the Council of Trent, nor did acknowledge it for a lawful free Ecumenical Council; and how could they think it to be such, when the party accused, the Pope and his Court, was to be the judge and supreme Arbiter of the cause? His resistance to a true lawful free Council, is the cause of all the combustion and confusion we have in Christendom.  
He takes for an advantage against Scripture, that I said, the reading of it made me doubt of the truth of those Articles the Roman Church pressed upon my belief, as if it were not able to ascertain me: But I thank God and the light of his holy Word, which made me doubt of what your Party would have me swallow without doubt or examen, and from the doubt brought me to a certainty of your corruptions, and of the truth of the Primitive truly Catholic, and of Apostolical Faith professed in the Church of England: such a certainty, as renders my mind quiet and satisfied, that I have the guidance of God's Word for the belief proposed to me, and consequently a sufficient and full assurance of the truth of it.   

CHAP. VI Mr. I. S. his defence of the Pope's pretended Infallibility, from the censure of Blasphemy, declared to be weak and impertinent. His particular opinion censured for heretical by his own party.  
LOW goes the cause with our Adversary, when he pretends to a milder sentence against their error, in attributing Infallibility to the Pope. He will not have it called Blasphemy; we may rest contented with finding it an error of any degree; by that alone the whole structure of their tenets against us falls down: but being mention was made of Blasphemy in their assertion, we will show how faint a defence Mr. I. S. prepares against that censure. It is a wonder that one so prodigal of the like censure as we have seen him to be, in the first Chapter of this Treatise, terming it a Blasphemy in me, to say that the Learned men of the Church of England denied the Roman Church, as now it stands, to be a safe way to salvation: and in the eighth Chapter of his Book, saying, that Protestants may not without Blasphemy allege Scripture for their tenets: should take so great a scandal at saying it is a Blasphemy to make the Pope Infallible; especially when the saying is grounded upon principles of their own Authors. But it is no great wonder that Mr. I. S. opposing this censure should not go the right way to it, nor heed the form or force of my Argument, for that is his constant custom.  
The Argument was ad hominem, grounded upon premises taken out of Authors of his own party: the first was, that it is a Blasphemy to attribute to a creature any of God's properties; so Aquinas 1. p. q. 16. art. 3. ad tertiam. The second Premise was, that Infallibility is a property of God not communicable to any man, so the the same Aquinas, 2a. 2a. q. 13. art. 1. These two Premises being granted, the conclusion is evident, that it is a Blasphemy to attribute Infallibility to the Pope: which conclusion being contained in the two Premises, the truth of it is to stand or fall with Aquinas his Authority. If Mr. I. S. were formal in arguing, his way to answer this Argument were, to examine whether Aquinas delivered the said Premises ascribed to him, and so come directly to my conclusion, that in principles of their own Divines, it is a Blasphemy to make the Pope Infallible.  
But what do we mention Aquinas, and formal disputing to Mr. I. S? he does not seem to be acquainted with that kind of reading or dealing: he will not be tied to their strict rules of reasoning. Now let us follow him in his own way, and see how he argues being set at liberty. He taxes me with ignorance, for not knowing that God may lend his Attributes to men, and the Attribute of Infallibility being but passed over in a grace, and lent to the Pope of Rome, it must not be a Blasphemy to ascribe it to him.  
First I inquire of this Magisterial man, whether Infallibility be an Attribute of God incommunicable to a mutable man, as Aquinas seems to say? and being so, whether it be not likely it may not be lent to another, as his Omnipotency cannot, both representing an unlimited perfection? for as Omnipotency includes a relation to infinite effects produceable, so the Infallibility ascribed to the Pope for determining without error all questions possible to occur about Religion, seems to argue an unlimited perfection, the said questions being endless, the heavenly Preacher declaring, that God having made man upright, he has entangled himself in infinite questions: which the Latin Vulgar Translation delivers thus: Hoc inveni quod fecerit Deus hominem rectum; & ipse se infinitis miscuit quaestionibus. And in the 12. Ch. and 12. v. he saith, That of many Books there is no end. The questions determinable being thus unlimited, the faculty relating to them for an unerring determination must be likewise unlimited, and consequently of infinite perfection. Will he allow so much to the Pope? He challenges me often, and defies all my Divinity to answer his Arguments; will he give me leave to challenge once all his Sophistry for a direct and formal solution of this Query? And whilst he finds it,  
I inquire, secondly, Whether it be granted and allowed that God has lent his Infallibility to the Pope of Rome, to determine without error all questions possible occurring about Religion? whether I have not denved resolutely the said grant to be made; and confuted the foundations they pretend for it, to his knowledge? being so, whether it be a proper kind of arguing to take for a Principle against us, the Conclusion in debate? whether it be not a damnable arrogance, to parallel his Pope with the holy Evangelists and Apostles, which all Christians do acknowledge and reverence for unerring Oracles of God to declare his holy Will to us? whether it be not insolence to say, that our censures upon Romanists for attributing Infallibility to the Pope, should reflect upon the sacred Organs of the Holy Ghost, speaking to us by their mouth, as Mr. I. S. does most impiously pretend?  
And being I signified the censure of Blasphemy upon their pretence to Infallibility to be of their own Authors, not of my making, as not concerned for aggravating their crime, so much as to show they are absolutely in an error, I will further declare, how bitter they are in censuring one another in this particular. How little is Mr. I. S. assisted by his brethren for his singular way to escape?  
In the College of Clermont at Paris the twelfth day of December, of the year 1661. was defended this Thesis as a Catholic assertion against the heresy of the tenth Age; 
* Christum nos ita caput Ecclesiae agnoscimus, ut illius regimen, dum in calos all i●t, primum Petro, tum deinde successer thus commisern, & candem quam habebat ipse Infallibilitatem concesseris quoties ex cathedra loquerentur. Datur crgo in Ecclesià R. controversiarum sidei infallibilis judex, ctiam extra concilium generale, tum in quaestionibus juris, ●nm facti. Unde post Innocentii X. & Alexandri VII. constitutiones fide divina credi potest librum cui titulus, Augustinus Jansenii esse haereticum, & quin●ue propositiones ex co decerptas esse Jansenii & in sensa Jansenii damnatas.  We acknowledge Christ to be so the Head of the Church, that during his absence in heaven he hath delegated the government thereof, first to Peter, and then to his Successors: and does grant unto them the very same Infallibility which himself had, as often as they shall speak è è Cathedra. There is therefore in the Church of Rome an infallible Judge of Controversies of Faith, even without a General Council, as well in questions appertaining to right, as in matters of fact. Therefore since the Constitutions of Innocent the X. and Alexander the VII. we may believe with a divine Faith, that the Book entitled, The Augustin of Jansenius is heretical, and the five Propositions which are gathered out of it, to be Jansenius', and, in the sense of Jansenius, condemned.  
Here we have a great authorized College of his own, declare against Mr. I. S. that the Pope even out of a General Conncil is Infallible; that he hath the very same Infallibility which Christ himself had: and if he slights the Authority of this College (which may not be safe for him, if he be the man some say pretends to have the honour of being Author of this Book) with more consideration he may find the common opinion of the chief Schoolmen of his communion to be against him; such as are 
* Aquin 2.2. q. 1. ar. 10. Cajet. op. de authorit. Pont. & Concil. cap. 9 Suar. d. 5. sect. 8. Ban. in come. brevi dub. conclu. 3. Valen. d. 1. q 1. punct. 7. sect. 39 & 40. Mald. dub. 5. Turri. disp. 16. dub. 1. Can. lib. 6. de locis Theolog. c. 7.8. Bellar. lib. 4. de R. P. c. 2.  Aqui●as, Cajetanus, Suarez, Bannez, Valentia, Malderus, Turrianus, Canus, Bellarmin, and many others; whereof Suarez, Bannez and Valentia declare Mr. I.S. his opinion to be heretical, and branded for such in the Bull of Leo the Tenth, condemning for an error of Luther this Proposition, Si Papa cum magna parte Ecclesiae sic vel sic sentiret, nec etiam erraret, adhuc non est peccatum, aut haeresis, contrarium sentire, praesertim in re non necessariâ ad salutem; donec fuerit per Concilium Vniversale alterum reprobatum, alterum approbatum: and by Sixtus iv in a Council of fifty two Doctors celebrated at Complutum in the year 1479. Alphonsus Carillo Arch- bishop of Toledo, being Precedent in it against Petrus Oxoniensis; among whose Propositions, condemned for erroneous, this was the seventh, Ecclesia Vrbis Romanae errare potest. Here we have our poor Antagonist his peculiar way of defending the Romish quarrel, declared for heretical by Popes, and the common opinion of Popish Doctors.  
Now let us see another party of them censure the foresaid position of the Clermont College for a horrid impiety, and a species of Idolatry: for Idolatry, say they, does not consist merely in giving to man the name of God, but infinitely more when we attribute to him those qualities which are peculiar to God, and when we render him those honours which are alone due to the Deity. Now this entire submission of our Spirit, and of all our intellectuals comprehended in the Act of our Faith, is no other than that adoration which we pay to the prime Verity itself; and therefore whosoever he be that renders it to the word of a man (whatever rank he may hold in the Church) who ever says that he believes with a faith Divine, that which he would not believe, but because a man has affirmed it, does constitute man in the place of God, transfers to the creature that which is alone due to the Creator, and makes (as far as in him lies) a kind of Idol of the Vicar of Jesus Christ. And a little after they declare it to be a formal Blasphemy in these words. But were it possible to offer a greater affront to the prime Minister of Jesus Christ, then to conceive they do him honour by a Blasphemy, so injurious to Jesus Christ, that he should suffer them to equal him with his Master, by ascribing to him the same Infallibility which he alone possesses? and that men should render that Supreme Cultus of a Divine Faith to his words, which is only due to the word of God? Thus the party opposite of the Parisian Doctors in their Declaration against the forementioned Thesis of Clermont College, presented to all the Bishops of France, extant in the hands of many both in French and English.  
And if their reason exhibited for their censure be considered well, we shall find it to comprehend Mr. I. S. his opinion, no less than that of the Clermont Jesuits, since both the one and the other do bottom the pretended Infallibility of their Church upon the Pope's Authority, whether in a Council, or out of it; and so the reason of the Parisian Divines doth conclude in either case, that it is a Blasphemy injurious to Jesus Christ, to ascribe to the Pope that Infallibility which Christ alone possesses, and that men should render that Supreme Cultus of Divine Faith to the words of the Pope, which is only due to the word of God.  
The allegations of our Adversary for obedience due to the Church as to Christ, and of promises made of the assistance of the Holy Ghost to the Apostles, and the Church governed by them, will appear very impertinent to his purpose in favour of the Pope and his faction, when we come to examine the Texts alleged, for which I will assign the Chapter following.  
In the mean time we may conclude from what is said in this Chapter, That, to ascribe Infallibility to the Pope, is Blasphemy in the opinion even of Popish Doctors, and Mr. I. S. his pecular way of defending that tenet declared for heretical by Doctors of his own party, which was my present undertaking. To which may be added the opinion of Mr. 
* Tabul. Suff. cap. 19.20.21.  Thomas White of the same Communion, whose whole Book, called his Tabulae suffragiales, is purposely designed against this doctrine of the Pope's personal Infallibility, affirming it to be not heretical, but Archiheretical: and that the propagating of this doctrine is in its kind a most grievous sin: so weary men of Learning and Parts begin to grow of this intolerable Arrogance of the Roman Church or Court, and of their Flatterers.   

CHAP. VII. Our Adversaries corruption of Scripture detected.  
OUR Adversary certainly never looked into the Bible for the Texts he alleges for the Infallibility of his Church, but snatched them out of some of his old Controvertists, whose custom is to clip and cut Scripture to their own pretences, without regard of their true meaning. Or if he has seen them with their contexts, he has been strangely dull, in not perceiving the right sense of them very obvious to any ordinary good understanding; or malicious in misrepresenting the meaning of them. This is especially seen in his Allegation of these words, Joh. XV. 26. When the Paraclete will come, whom I will send from my Father, the spirit of truth, he will give testimony of me, and ye will give testimony. This he will have us take for a certain testimony of the Holy Ghosts assistance promised to his Church. If he did see the half verse immediately following, which he left out, or his Tutors cut off, he would find, that these words were spoken to the Apostles, with circumstances making them impossible to be applied to his Church. The verse restored to its integrity says thus, And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning. What man in his senses would think those words appliable to the Council of Trent? Were the Fathers of that Council with Christ from the the beginning? was the Holy Ghost not yet descended?  
He confirms further his opinion out of Acts the XV. 28. where the Council of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, deciding the controversy concerning Circumcision, delivers their opinion thus: It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, signifying that the Holy Ghost did assist them: and that grounded on the words aforesaid of our Saviour, Joh. XV. 26. When the Paraclete will come, he shall give testimony of me, and you shall give testimony of me. If that be the ground of the Apostles Phrase, we have seen before to whom that promise was given, whether to the Apostles alone, or the Bishops of Rome to be for ever. We have seen that the Text in its integrity cannot be applied to the latter: But Mr. I. S. of his own authority declares that promise was made by Christ, not only to the Apostles, but to the Roman Church for ever.  
And to make this latter Text sound something like to his purpose, he patches it up with a piece of a verse fetched out of Matth. XXVIII. Until the consummation of the world. This usual art of theirs, of cutting from the Texts what is against their purpose, and patching them with other words far fetched, that may have a gloss or appearance of their pretention, may be practised with more safety in conversation, or in a Sermon to a vulgar Auditory, then in a serious debate by print exposed to a strict examen. This is a cheat like that used in Italy, with rotten Apples, to set them out for sound. They cut off the rotten pieces, and glue together the sound fragments, to an appearance of a fair Apple; but being handled more close, it falls in pieces and discovers the cheat. This abominable Legerdemain is too often seen in their Pulpits, fathering upon the Gospel forsooth most execrable Blasphemies, extolling their several new Saints (to whom they would gain devotion, and by that devotion money to their Coffers) above the Apostles, above the Angels, above Christ, and all that is in heaven, to the perpetual scandal of the discreet part of their own flock, and edification of none. All is sanctified with them, by repeating at the end of every desperate discourse, some words of the Gospel, as a burden of the song, though with no relation in its sense to their purpose. This is the art Mr. I. S. useth with the testimony related of Acts XV. touching the assistance of the Holy Ghost in the Council at Jerusalem, grounded as he confesses upon the aforesaid Text of John XV. 26. declared to relate only to the Apostles then present; and Mr. I. S. of his own head will have it extended to the Roman Church for ever; and his Interpretation must be taken for Canonical Scripture, by closing it up with this fragment of the twentieth verse of Matthew the XXVIII. Until the consummation of the world.  
The Text he corrupts and cuts off, Matth. XXVIII. contains a promise of Christ to the Apostles and Church founded, and Faith preached by them, that he will assist them for ever, saying, I am with you all the days, until the consummation of the world. St. Hierom better than Mr. I. S. will tell us the meaning of these words, glozing thus upon them: qui usque ad consummationem seculi cum discipulis se futurum esse promittit, & illos ostendit semper esse victuros, & se nunquam à credentibus recessurum. In these words our Saviour promises to his Disciples life everlasting, and to the Church founded by them, and to all true believers in him, his perpetual assistance. This assistance of Christ to his own true Church, following the steps and doctrine of the Apostles, we believe with joy, but cannot approve the Arrogancy of Mr. I. S. and his brethren, in appropriating all such promises to their own Faction, and perpetually taking for granted in his Debates with us, that to be the only Church favoured by such gracious promises, being indeed but a very corrupt Member of the Church Universal, to whom these promises were made; a thing which we do not say barely, but prove evidently.  
Another example of their skill in clipping and corrupting Scripture, he fetches out of the same Storehouse, upon the words of John XIV. 16. I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, the spirit of truth, that will abide with you for ever, who will lead you unto all truth. I discovered their abuse of this Text by restoring it to its integrity, which according to their own Bible goes in these words: If ye love me keep my commandments, and I will ask my Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive. By the first words we see this to be a conditional promise, limited to such as love God and keep his Commandments: by the latter words, worldly and sinful men are expressly excluded from receiving that gracious assistance of the Spirit of truth: for which meaning of these words I related the Gloss interlineal and ordinary.  
This discourse our Adversary opposes thus, that after the former clause, if you love me keep my commandments, there is a punctum, and then follows a distinct verse, and I will ask my Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, etc. which makes an absolute sense independent from the former. This is indeed a subtlety well becoming a Sophister; as if a punctum may not be interposed betwixt several clauses of one discourse tending to the same end; or betwixt premises, and a conclusion deduced from them: as if the copulative particle and did not signify a conjunction of both clauses, and an influence of the one upon the other; as if all that were not cleared by the words I quoted in the Margin of the Gloss interlineal, Mundus, i. e. remanens amator mundi, cum quo nunquam est amor Dei; and of the Gloss ordinary, non habent spirituales oculos quibus Spiritum Sanctum videant mundi amatores. Here we see both Glosses denying the effect of that glorious promise to profane worldlings, and consequently the promise made only to lovers of God, and keepers of his holy Commandments. If our Adversary were ingenuous, he would spare his silly subtleties, seeing them obstructed by this stating of the case.   

CHAP. VIII. Mr. I. S. his horrible impiety against the sacred Apostles, and malicious imposing on the Church of England reprehended.  
ANother grand Argument he has, which he says resolutely I can never answer, is this, that if the foresaid promise, John XIV. 16. was conditional, as , it follows, we cannot be sure the Gospel is infallible, whereas no Text of Scripture (says he, pag. 89.) tells us that the Evangelists were in the state of Grace when they wrote the Gospel, nor nothing else gives us assurance of it. My first answer to this so unanswerable Argument is, that if this man had delivered this expression in Spain, and were accused to the Inquisition, his body would suffer for it, if his intellect were not reduced to acknowledge and repent the horrid impiety of it. And I am certainly persuaded, that there is no Christian that has any sense of piety in him, whether Protestant or Papist, but will cry out with horror against the insolent impiety of this man, in speaking so irreverently of those sacred Organs of the Holy Ghost, and blessed Disciples of Christ, confirmed by him in grace, as is the common apprehension and expression of Christians, and replenished with the Holy Ghost, Act. 2.4. for whose perseverance in grace our Saviour prayed so fervently to his heavenly Father, as we see in John the XVII. 11. Holy Father keep through thine own name those thou hast given me. Upon which words Maldonate delivers this Gloss: Non rogat Christus ut nunc à peccatis liberentur, sed ut jam liberati in eo statu quo erant conserventur, ne quis ab eâ decedat gratiâ, quam consecutus suo erat beneficio, quemadmodum Judae contigerat. That our Saviour prayed for their perseverance in grace, that none of them should fall from it as Judas did. And will this rash man say, that the prayer of our Saviour was not heard, nor his request granted by his heavenly Father, in favour of his beloved Disciples? If he will not be so profligately impious, how dares he say, that no Text of Scripture tells us, that the Evangelists were in the state of Grace when they wrote the Gospel, nor nothing else gives us assurance of it? If his Book did contain no other crime than this unchristian expression, any true disciple of Christ, and believer of his Gospel, aught to judge the said Book more worth the burning then the reading.  
He is not yet contented with the damnable expression , but must raise his censure against the truth of the Gospel of Christ to a higher degree, p. 89. saying, that not only we are not sure of the Infallibility of the Gospel, but that we are assured it is not infallible; and this horrible Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and the Gospel dictated by him, he must father upon the Protestant Church; but upon a ground so much of his own making, that any dispassionate man, and not blind, may see the whole assertion to be his own, and a product of his inclination, which appears here, and in many other places, of destroying the foundations of all Christian Belief. The ground he gives for this latter most damnable Blasphemy is, That the common doctrine of the Protestant Church is, That it is impossible to keep God's Commandments; therefore says he, The Evangelists when they wrote did not keep God's Commandments, and consequently they could not have the Paraclete to lead them into truth. I never yet heard any Protestant deliver such a desperate proposition as this he fathers upon them, which thus delivered categorically, without further declaration or limitation, were to say, it were impossible for any man to be saved; our Saviour often declaring, that the only way to life everlasting is to keep God's Commands. It were also to give the lie to our Redeemer, saying, that his yoke is easy, and his burden light, Mat. XI. 30. and that his Commandments are not grievous, 1 Joh. V 3. If he knows any Protestant Writer to have delivered that position in that latitude; why does not he tell me who he is, and where he saith it, that I may judge accordingly of the Author and of the Doctrine? Must I take it upon his credit, having so many experiences of the untruth of his relations? That he must not expect from me. I suppose he found this doctrine, which he says to be common in the Protestant Church, where he found me saying, that there is no Salvation in the Catholic Church, as he does most impudently impose upon me in his Dedicatory Epistle to my Lord Lieutenant. This is their ordinary way of begetting in their Proselytes an abhorrence to their opposers, viz. impostures and calumnies. Of their calumny in this particular learned Le Blane complains, & declares thus in the behalf of Protestants, cum Scriptura dicimus & docemus fideles Dei mandata per Christi gratiam servare, etc. Thesi ●6. & 27. the observant. Leg. We say and teach with the Scripture, that the faithful do keep the Commandments of God by the grace of Christ.  
Let not our Sophister think to appease my just indignation against him, or to escape the censure I pass upon him of a blasphemous contemner of the Gospel of Christ, and the sacred Writers of it, the blessed Evangelists, by saying, he does not assert himself the foresaid affronts he puts on the Gospel and the Evangelists, but that he infers them from positions of the Protestant Church. The whole doctrine and belief of the Protestant Church, is contained in the Canonical Scripture, and in the thirty nine Articles of the Church of England. We are not in that confusion and uncertainty, touching the object of our belief, as he and his party are, betwixt so many Articles daily coined, one overthrowing the other. In what place of Canonical Scripture, or of the foresaid thirty nine Articles, did he find this proposition, which he says is the common doctrine of the Church of England, That it is impossible to keep God's Commandments? which being all the ground he shows for this blasphemous Assertion, that we are assured the Evangelists, when they wrote the Gospel, were not in the love of God and observance of his Commandments, and by that assured the Gospel is not infallible; the said ground, I say, not being to be found in any place of the  Rule and Canon of our Belief: I conclude the Assertion pretended to flow from it, to be of his own invention, and his own sentiment. Let this therefore be known to be his Tenet and Assertion, to his eternal infamy, That we are sure the Evangelists, when they wrote the Gospel, were not in the state of Grace: that we are sure the Gospel is not infallible. One that is found with a stolen horse, is to be taken for the thief, till he prove that he has received it lawfully from another: We find that execrable Blasphemy in the mouth of I. S. Let him be taken and punished for Author of it (if any just inquisition find him) since he can find no other Author for it.  
But all his Sophistry will not afford him even the least colour of excuse, for the former part of his Assertion, for which he will not be beholden to any other, but delivers it for a document of his own, That no Text of Scripture tells us, that the Evangelists were in the state of Grace when they wrote the Gospel, nor any thing else gives us assurance of it. Ask of any boy in Spain or Flanders but meanly catechised, whether he was not taught by his Curate and Parents, that the Apostles, by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them, were confirmed in grace, wherewith we are assured they never lost it after. And in case our Adversary should gain by some pictures or medals the votes of the boys in his favour; other Doctors we have which he shall not so easily gain to his side, who affirm that the sacred Apostles, after receiving the Holy Ghost, were so confirmed and strengthened in grace, that no humane power or temptation could make them fail in their fidelity to God. S. Augustin for one thus delivers his opinion, Homil. 9 the Missione Spiritus Sancti. Ante adventum vero Spiritus Sancti sub ipso crucis dominicae tempore, alii ex discipulis effugantur, alii unius Ancillae voce terrentur, & metu corda trepida penetrante dominum suum negare coguntur. Post illustrationem vero Spiritus Sancti & Confirmationem, custodiis excruciati, verberibus afflicti, ibant gaudentes, quia digni essent pro Christi nomine contumeliam pati. That the Apostles, so frail before, as to run from their Master and deny him, at the instance of a girl, after being confirmed in grace, by receiving the Holy Ghost, were so constant in suffering prisons and scourge, that they rejoiced for being worthy of suffering for Christ. The same doctrine of the Apostles, being confirmed in grace, by the coming of the Holy Ghost upon them, so as they were by God's special protection preserved from falling from it all their life, though otherwise peccable, is delivered by other 
* Tertullian contra Praxed. c. 34. Leo Magnus Ser. 2. de Pentecost. Gregor. Papa, Homil. 30. in Evang. Chrysostom Homil. 4. in acta Apost. Bernard. Ser. in Fest. Pentecostes. Aquinas qu. 24. de Veritate art. 9 ad 2. Justinianus disput. 1. ex praeviis in Paulum, c. 5. nu. 7. Corn. à Lap. ad versum 3. c. 2. Actor.  Fathers and Schoolmen. All this force of testimonies of Scripture, Fathers, and Divines, being in favour of the sacred Apostles, to have been confirmed in grace, and preserved in it all their life, how comes our Adversary to say, we have no assurance of their being in the state of Grace, when they wrote the Gospel? Did they not write it after the Holy Ghost descended upon them? Which shall we admire most, his ignorance, or impiety?  
Truly he has given such testimony of both, in this his undertaking, rebuked in this Chapter, that we might very well bid him farewell here, and leave him as unworthy of any further reply. But whereas he may meet with readers so short sighted, as not to take notice of absurdities and guilts even of this size, we will continue yet helping ●hem to find out gross errors and crimes in his writing.   

CHAP. IX. Our Adversaries pretention to prescription, and miracles in favour of the Infallibility of their Church rejected: his imposing on me, and on the Church of England, discovered further.  
OUR Sophister finding but little right by Scripture, or reason, for the pretended Infallibility of his Church, appeals to the title of Prescription, that they have been long time in possession of this prerogative, and ought not to be disturbed now in the use of it. Here he prepares a defence for thiefs and robbers. If they have our goods long time in their possession, we must leave them to such possessors, and not disturb them in the use of them. The Turk is hereby justified in his possession of the holy Land, and other Dominions of Christian Princes he has rob. The attempt of the said Princes in dispossessing this Robber, is unjust, according to Mr. I. S. his Logic. In it he could not find this rule of Law, Quae ab initio sunt male constituta, tempore non convalescunt, That what was unlawful in the beginning, grows not by continuance lawful: nor this other, Non debet quis commodum reportare ex crimine, none ought to find an advantage in a guilt for his defence. An unjust usurper by a continuance of his usurpation, is rendered rather more guilty than excusable. We have shown by evident proofs, that the pretention of the Roman Church to Infallibility was, and is still an unjust usurpation, a robbery of a privilege belonging unto God and his holy Scripture, communicated to the Apostles, founders of Christian Religion, and to the Church truly Catholic and Universal, sticking to the Doctrine and Belief which Christ and his Apostles left to us, not to that factious party devoted to the Pope of Rome, which Mr. I. S. would have us take for the only Church, committing in all his discourses a perpetual Solecism against the laws of a Disputant, which is, to take for granted the subject of the Debate, which is constantly denied to them. But his Logic will not take notice of these niceties.  
Now therefore to accuse us that we disturb them in the possession of their Infallibility, is like the complaint of a certain Gentleman against a Merchant, calling on him for an old debt. He ranted and swore he was a troublesome companion, for importuning for the payment of a debt of so many years, as if it were but of yesterday; his delay in paying, was an increase of his guilt. The retaining of another man's goods, as well as the taking them away against his will, is robbery. Thus it is in our case: the pretention of the Roman Faction to Infallibility, was a robbery from the beginning, an imposing upon man kind, as I have proved; and the continuance of it is an increase of their guilt: why will Mr. I. S. make this increase of their guilt an excuse of it? Besides, to say, that his Church was in all Ages in peaceable possession of this prerogative of Infallibility, as he does, pag. 76. is a wide mistake, and as he asserts it without proof, he must be contented with a bare denial for an answer, while we leave him to look after any pertinent testimony of the Fathers of the first three hundred, nay for a thousand years for his purpose; which he shall never find.  
In the seventh Chapter of his Book, p. 102. he falls abruptly upon the old armoury of miracles in favour of his Church. Of this I could not but wonder, having seen him, p. 81. engage his whole Logic against the power of Miracles, for breeding in men a saving divine Faith; for said he, Either they are only probable, or evident; if probable only, they are not proportionable to give us that certainty required for divine Faith, if evident absolutely, they can be no motive of Faith which is of its own nature obscure. In which piece of Logic he gives a clear testimony of his Impiety and Ignorance; Impiety in pretending to weaken that strong foundation of Christian Belief, taken from the glory of Miracles, for which I remit him to what he alleges himself from the foresaid p. 102. Ignorance, in pretending that an obscure Conclusion may not be deduced from an evident Premise. To prove notum per ignotius, a Conclusion clear by a Premise or Medium more obscure, is a known fault in arguing; but to prove by an evident Medium a Conclusion obscure, is a fault of arguing never heard of yet before Mr. I. S. his Logic. By this Canon he makes the belief of Martha to be indiscreet, who seeing the resurrection of her brother, and other Miracles our Saviour wrought, concluded, I believe that thou art Christ the son of God. The miracle was evident, but the generation of Christ from his heavenly Father, obscure; And who shall declare his generation? Esa. III. 8. Having thus helped him against himself, for rendering Miracles a congruous way to find out true Religion, I gladly accept the challenge to a trial of our Religion by them. Our Religion, or the object of our necessary Belief, is only what is contained in the word of God by Canonical Scripture. In favour of this Belief, we have all the Miracles written in the Old and New Testament. Their Religion as opposite to ours, and differing from us, are those Articles in debate, introduced by the Roman Church, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Worship of Images, etc. Will he for shame pretend the stock of Romanies produced by them for these Innovations, fit to be compared with the store of glorious Miracles which we have in the behalf of our divine, truly infallible Belief, contained in holy Scripture? While we show his new Belief to be contrary to this divine Faith, confirmed with Miracles of infallible truth, as we do, let him keep to himself his new-coined wonders, and remember that God is not contrary to himself, in putting his Seal to contrary Laws. And if he must believe some of the wonders he proposes, let Lessius and others help him to understand what to make of those miracles or wonders which Valerius Maximus, Titus Livius, and other Roman Historians do relate to have been wrought in favour of their Temples, and heathenish Superstitions: and let him not expect from me, that I should bestow time in examining the truth or falsehood of all his impertinent Allegations.  
In the same seventh Chapter from p. 126. he fastens on me two notorious calumnies; first, that having left the Roman Church, I fixed upon no other to be of; the second, that I said none may be saved in the Roman Church. The falsehood of the first is seen by my public declaration for the Church of England; the untruth of the other I declared in the second Chapter of this Treatise, whereby all his verbosity upon this subject, appears a fret of his Malice, without any real ground, without shame to tax me often with, and repete with his frivolous exclamations, without showing where or when I did say, what indeed I never said or wrote, That there is no salvation in the Roman Catholic Religion. With the same confidence, and the like untruth, he repetes, That it is the constant doctrine of the Church of England, that the Romish Religion is a saving Religion, or a safe way to salvation; which is what we deny them.  
Let the Reader reflect upon what I said in the foresaid second Chapter of this Treatise, and see the confusion of this man's brains, in not understanding or delivering distinctly our sentiments, according to our own expressions; or the corruption of his mind, in deceiving wilfully his Reader, especially that he himself, p. 133. allegeth Doctor Stillingfleet, comparing both Churches, the Romish to a leaky Ship, wherein a man may be saved, but with great danger and difficulties: and the Protestant to a sound Ship, wherein one may be saved without hazard. This is the utmost of courtesy or charity that may be, and is extended to them? Is this to say the Romish Church is a safe way to salsation? Is it safe to venture in a leaky Ship upon a stormy Sea? But what says he to the streams of learned Authors of the Protestant Church, which Dr. Stillingfleet relates, and of the very learned Book he wrote himself, proving with irresistible Arguments, that the Romish Church in several of her present Tenets and Practices, is guilty of Idolatry? Is Idolatry of those pious opinions which matter not for salvation? And let Mr. I.S. know, that I considered long, and examined throughly the doctrine of the Church of England, before I declared for it, and he may spare his labour of catechising me in the Tenets of it.   

CHAP. X. A check to Mr. I. S. his insolent Thesis prefixed for title to the eighth Chapter of his Book: That the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ, nor any part of it. That they cannot without Blasphemy allege Scripture for their Tenets. And his own Argument retorted to prove, that the Roman Church is not the Church of Christ.  
UNder so pregnant and big promising a title as this; That the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ, nor any part of it, that they cannot without Blasphemy allege Scripture for their Tenets, etc. and that in a Book presented to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the Earl of Essex; under so magnificent a title, I say, exposed to the view of so great and judicious a person, who would not expect a very exquisite discourse to go through so stout an undertaking? And, behold Reader, what Mr. I. S. presents to his Excellency for that purpose.  
For a Foundation of his discourse, he will have us premise, that Protestants do allow Papists not to err in points Fundamental to Salvation, that our differences with them are about points not Fundamental. He does not seem to regard or know which be these points called Fundamental, or not Fundamental; which is a bad beginning to be clear and exact in the present Engagement. But he is to suppose with Dr. Stillingfleet, Dr. Potter, and other learned Writers of both Churches, 
* See Chillingworth his Answer to the Book entitled, Charity maintained, etc. c. 4. And Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Fundamentals, c. 2. Stillingfleet in his Rational Account, Part. 1. cap. 2. B. Laud, p. 42.  following therein the common opinion of Fathers, and Schoolmen, that the points Fundamental, or of necessary belief to Salvation, and to the constitution of a true Christian Church, are those contained in the Apostles Creed; which is a system or summary of Articles, which those sacred Founders of Christianity thought fit and sufficient to be proposed to all men, where the Gospel was preached, and necessary to be explicitly believed. So as the Council of Trent calls it Fundamentum firmum & unicum, Sess. 3. not the firm alone, but the only Foundation. Points not Fundamental, or inferior truths, are all other divine Verities contained in the Word of God, whether written in Canonical Scripture, or delivered to us by Apostolical Universal Tradition, implicitly contained in the Creed, where we profess to believe in God, and in the Catholic Church; and explicitly to be believed when we should be ascertained that they are contained in those Oracles of God; called inferior truths, not that they are of less certainty, and objective Infallibility in themselves, than the other called Fundamental; but because the explicit knowledge of them is not so necessary or obvious to all men, and consequently are more capable of inculpable ignorance of them, and errors about them in many men. And because the Roman Church does agree with us in the explicit confession of this Creed, it is said not to err in Fundamental points, though found guilty of pernicious errors touching other points not Fundamental. And with this Supposition, I am confident my Antagonist will not quarrel, if you take him here, before he sees my reflections upon his unwary Argument.  
Upon the foresaid Foundation, Mr. I. S. builds this Thesis, That the Protestant Church, as it is condistinct from the Popish Church, is not the Church of Christ, because, says he, it does not teach the doctrine of Christ, and no Church can be called of Christ further than it teacheth his doctrine.  
That Protestancy, or the doctrine of Protestants as opposite to the Popish, is not the doctrine of Christ, he undertakes to prove with this Syllogism, No fallible doctrine is the doctrine of Christ: but Protestancy is altogether fallible doctrine; Therefore Protestancy, as it is properly the doctrine of the Protestant Church, is not the doctrine of Christ. This Syllogism he chalks out to us in a different Character, for remarkable, as indeed it is, and for unanswerable, for it is in Ferio, says he, pag. 142. The Major Proposition we allow willingly; the Minor, to wit, that Protestancy is altogether fallible doctrine, he says, is manifest by virtue of this other no less remarkable Syllogism, Protestancy, or the doctrine wherein Protestants do differ from Papists, is altogether of points not Fundamental: but the doctrine of points not Fundamental, or inferior truths, is fallible doctrine: therefore Protestancy is but fallible doctrine, and therefore no doctrine of Christ.  
He concludes with these words, I confess ingenuously, I think this Argument cannot be solidly answered. If his confession herein be ingenuous indeed, let him take in return this other ingenuous confession from me, that I think seriously he is a very weak man. If he be sensible himself of the fallacy and falsehood of his Argument, he is unworthy in beguiling his Reader, and unwise in exposing it to a polemical strict debate: and thinking we should want a solid Answer to so silly a Sophism, not to give it yet a more severe check, haply he has that poor excuse in his favour, that he knows not what he says.  
To see whether my Answer be solid, let us examine how solid his Argument is. The stress of it lies in his latter Syllogism, whose major Proposition is, That Protestancy, or the doctrine wherein Protestants do differ from Papists, is altogether of Points not Fundamental. This we allow him to take for granted. Let us proceed to the Minor, But the doctrine of Points not Fundamental, or inferior Truths, says he, is fallible doctrine. Stop here Sir, and if Justice were done to you, a perpetual stop should be put to your tongue, for blasphemons, from speaking any more. It is a formal Blasphemy, and a horrid one to say, that the doctrine of Points not Fundamental, or inferior Truths in general is fallible doctrine. It is to say, that the Word of God is fallible. Remember what is premised a little before, and supposed by yourself in many places of your present discourse, that the Points called not Fundamental, are all those other divine Verities contained in the Word of God, whether written in Canonical Scripture, or delivered to us by Apostolical Tradition, besides the Points contained in the Creed; of equal objective certainty and truth with the other Points. They are of a size, as you speak, all being the Word of God, though not in the same degree of necessity to be explicitly believed by all men. Therefore to say that the doctrine of Points not Fundamental is fallible, is to say, that the Word of God is fallible, which, without Controversy, is a formal Blasphemy. Poor Logician, is this your Argument in Ferio, for which you thought a solid Answer could not be found? For a Syllogism in Feri● to be concluding, the Premises must be allowed; and will you have us allow your Premises, when one of them is found to be a formal Blasphemy?  
But it seems this horrible Blasphemy did not fall from him unawares; it was with deliberation. He goes to prove it, and see how. The Church can err, and is fallible in Points not Fundamental, therefore these Points are fallible. This is another goodly piece of Logic, which proves that Points Fundamental are likewise fallible. Men can err, and have erred in Points Fundamental, therefore these also are fallible in your Dialect. This is not to distinguish Subjective fallibility, from the Objective; to pass the imperfections of the faculty upon the object. Mr. I. S. looks upon the Sun with squint, or dim eyes, therefore the Sun is dim or squint. The Pope can err, and is fallible in declaring the Word of God, therefore the Word of God is fallible. Your brethren of Clermont College, who defended in their Theses, mentioned chap. 6. that the Pope hath the same Infallibility which Christ had, may think that consequence legal, The Pope is fallible about the Word of God, therefore the Word of God is fallible, because the Pope hath the very same Infallibility which Christ the very Word of God hath. But we that a low no such Equality of truth to men, cannot take fallibility in the Word of God, for a consequence of man's fallibility about it.  
From the foresaid Position, you proceed to the second grand Thesis' prefixed to your Chapter, That Protestants cannot without Blasphemy allege Scripture for their Tenets. This is sure a rare show of your wit, a product of your own invention never heard of before. I confess to have never heard the like: and thus you go to prove it. Protestancy, or the points wherein Protestants do differ from Papists, is but a parcel of fallible doctrine, but no fallible doctrine can without Blasphemy be sought for in Scripture; therefore Protestant's cannot without Blasphemy allege Scripture for their Tenets. Make of the Major what you please for the present: what desperate Proposition is that of the Minor, That no fallible doctrine may without Blasphemy be sought for in Scripture? By this all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, all Divines that allege Scripture for their several opinions, which they do not pretend to be infallible, nor more than probable opinions, are guilty of Blasphemy in your esteem.  
But that this so much solemnised Argument may not be altogether useless, I will retort it upon yourself with more force and less cavil; proving by it, that your Church is not the Church of Christ. And thus I argue for it in your own terms. No Church is any further the Church of Christ, then as it teacheth the doctrine of Christ; but the Roman Church, as condistinct from the Reformed Protestant Church, or in as much as it differs from it, doth not teach the doctrine of Christ; therefore the Roman Church as condistinct from the Reformed Protestant Church, is not the Church of Christ. The Minor Proposition, That the Roman Church, as condistinct from the Protestant Church, doth not teach the doctrine of Christ, I prove thus: The doctrine which the Roman Church, as condistinct from the Protestant, and opposite to it doth teach, is, Pope's Infallibility, and Supremacy over all the Christian Church, Transubstantiation, Worship of Images, Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, Indulgences, half Communion, Liturgy in an unknown tongue, prohibiting the people to read holy Scripture, etc. all which I have declared in my former discourse, not to be the doctrine of Christ, but all contrary to it, and in this present Treatise will more fully declare the same: Therefore the Roman Church as condistinct from the Protestant, and opposite to it, doth not teach the doctrine of Christ, and consequently is not the Church of Christ.   

CHAP. XI. A Refutation of several other Attemts of Mr. I. S. in that eighth Chapter.  
YOU are prolix in pretending that Protestants have not unity of Faith with Papists. God forbidden they should agree in all with them: spare bragging that they claim kindred with you. It is a great piece of courtesy and charity in Protestants to admit kindred with you, or allow you to be a part, though infected and corrupted, of the Catholic Church: a courtesy, I say, in some thing like that of Bellarmin, in admitting even the most scandalously wicked of men, Epicures in manners, and Atheists in belief to the Communion of his Church, provided they do but exteriorly own the Romish Religion, and Obedience to the Pope, though but for temporal ends. His kindness to his Lord the Pope, and zeal for his grandeur, makes him extend thus his courtesy. Our love to our Lord Christ makes us admit kindred with you, and to take you for Members of the Church Universal, in as much as you confess with us, though but verbally, the chief Articles of his doctrine contained in the Creed.  
You proceed to exhort Protestants to an examen of their Belief, whether they be in the right. I wish your party did comply so well herein with their duty, or were permitted to do it, as Protestants do, and are allowed. Here they inquire, dispute, and read carefully Books for and against their Tenets. They are permitted to do it, and encouraged in it by their Instructors. You will not allow your people to read, dispute, or doubt at all of your Tenets.  
You say Protestants are obliged in conscience to doubt of their Religion: while you tell your own people, they are obliged in conscience not to doubt of theirs. How came your Church by this Prerogative? because 'tis unerring, and unerrable, as the Title of your Book says, but the Book does not prove, as we are showing. Why are Protestants obliged to doubt of their Religion? because it is new, say you. This was the Argument of Pagans, to stop the preaching of the Gospel; more improperly, and with less ground used by you. Our Religion is the Ancient, and yours the New, as we prove. Where was our Religion, say you, before Luther? A question which for one too old should be cast away. We answer, where yours never was; in the Word of God, and in the true Records of Primitive Christianity.  
You conclude your heterogeneous Chapter, and your first part of your Book, with mentioning the Treatise or Paper I penned some years ago, in favour of the Salvation of Protestants against your vulgar Teachers, damning all to hell for Heretics, without reserve or distinction. You say the doctrine I delivered was true; but it was indiscretion to declare it in Ireland, whither I was sent to convert Protestants. The case was with Papists, who concerned for the Salvation of their Relations and Friends of the Protestant Communion, enquired, whether such believing sincerely they were in the right, never convinced of the contrary, and living religiously in the fear of God, and in the observation of his Commandments, might be saved. I answered they might, and were not Heretics, but Members of the Catholic Church, a dignity received in their Baptism, and not to be lost otherwise, then by formal Heresy or Infidelity, whereof they were not guilty by the foresaid Supposition. You say all is true, but 'tis not discretion to declare truth itself, when there is no obligation of declaring it. Well, but was there not an obligation upon me, when questioned to answer according to truth? No, say you, for if the Inquirers were Papists, they needed not to be instructed in that truth; 'tis no Fundamental Truth. If Protestants; they were not obliged to know it for the same reason, and that the answer was an encouragement to them to remain as they were. A pretty subtlety. We have declared before, how touching Points not Fundamental, there may be pernicious errors. Such is that opposite to the Truth we now speak of: an error subversive of Christian charity, and public peace; a seed of those Animosities, Rebellion, and Combustions which made this Land unhappy. And ought not a sincere Instructor, and faithful Minister of the Word of God, to oppose this error? No, say you, because it was to encourage Protestants to remain as they were, and not to come under the Pope's Obedience. There is the ground of your dislike of me.  
Thus indeed stood the case: and this was one of my chief reasons to be dissatisfied of your way, That the rule of my doctrine among you must not be truth, but the interest of the Bishop of Rome, and the increase of his Dominion, whether by right or wrong. This point of policy or discretion, as you call it, I refused openly to learn from you, choosing rather to be of the Children of Light, though with less prudence in your opinion, then of the Children of this World, by that elevated point of prudence you would teach me, of prostituting truth and honesty to the Pope's pleasure and interest.   

CHAP. VII. Mr. I. S. his Answers to my Objections, against the Pope's Infallibility refuted: his defence of Bellarmin, of the Council of Constance, and of Costerus, declared to be weak and vain.  
OUR Adversary foreseeing what small assistance he could have from Scripture and reason to maintain his Tenets, employs his main forces in setting up their ordinary great engine of the Pope's Infallibility: and having bestowed the far greater part of his Book upon that subject, turns to it again, beginning the second part of his said Book with reflections upon some of my Arguments against their pretention: and wanting, it seems, materials to bring his Book to the intended bulk, repotes much of what he said before: wherein I will not imitate him by repeating my replies, my desire being to abbreviate, as far as may consist with a full satisfaction to all his Objections.  
He pretends to cast a mist over the case, turning the usual term of Pope's Infallibility, to Infallibility of the Church, and by Church he means fraudulently not the Church Universal truly Catholic and Apostolic, (to which I allow all the privileges and assistances of the Holy Ghost promised to it in Scripture, though he signifies that he doubts of my meaning herein) but his own particular Church; I do not mean the Diocese of Rome (as he does wilfully impose upon me, happily to gain time, or draw us from the point) but the Congregation subject to the Pope wheresoever extant. Defenders of a bad cause do love such confusion and obscurities, as Fox's holes, and thickets; but we must keep him to the Light, and to the ordinary use of terms, taking for Pope's Infallibility the same which he, or any of his Communion attributes to their Church depending upon the Pope, as is declared above in the beginning of the fifth Chapter.  
I said I admired that Bellarmin should make it an Argument of the Pope's Infallibility, that the high Priest did bear in his Breastplate two Hebrew words, signifying Doctrine and Truth. I questioned whether he believed all those high Priests, even Caiphas condemning Christ, to be infallible in their judgements. Mr. I. S. to relieve Bellarmin, endeavours to autorize the Affirmative, and to that of Caiphas sa●es nothing, and so gives us leave to think that he held him also infallible, according to that rule, qui tacet consentire videtur. By which we have this further notice of Mr. I. S. his singular doctrine, that he finds Caiphas infallible in his judgement passed against the life of our Saviour, and taxes me with ignorance for not knowing so much.  
I accused them of making the Pope Arbiter and supreme Judge over God's Laws. So Bellarmin, lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 5. sticketh not to say, That if the Pope did command Vices, and prohibit Virtues, the Church would be obliged to believe Vice to be good, and Virtue bad. And the Council of Constance commanded the Decrees of Popes to be preferred before the Institutions of Christ, since having confessed that our Saviour did ordain the Communion under both kinds to the Laity, and that the Apostles did practise it, they command it should be given for the future but in one kind, alleging for reason, that the precedent Popes and Church did practise it so. Which is to extol the Decrees of Popes, above them of Christ. As, if the Laws of England were not to be understood or practised in Ireland, but according to the will and declaration of the King of France, certainly the King of France would be deemed of more power in Ireland, than the King of England, and the People more his subjects.  
To that of Bellarmin you say, he spoke of Vices and Virtues when there is a doubt of their being such; for example, if there should arise a doubt of Usury's being a Vice, and in that case the Pope should command Usury to be practised, we should be obliged to practice Usury. Herein Sir you allow us all that we pretended, and you confess what we condemned in Bellarmin. I could allege many Texts of Scripture, supposing and affirming Usury to be a Vice. But you spare me that labour, presupposing, that Usury of itself is a Vice of its nature bad, (Per se malum,) and that you all know it to be such; and notwithstanding that knowledge, and God's declaration in Scripture, you say if the Pope should command Usury to be practised, we should be obliged to practise it. And so it is indeed with you both in Usury and other Vices. We know all that Rebellion is a sin, and soodious to God, that in Scripture it is compared to Witchcraft and Idolatry, 1 Sam. xv. 23. But if the Pope should command you to rebel against your King for Religion's sake (forsooth,) then would you be obliged to rebel against him; because (say you, with Bellarmin) in dubious Cases the Church is obliged to obey the Pope. Men are apt to doubt of their duties, and the Devil is ready to stir such doubts in them. Thus he wrought the first Rebellion in Paradise, Curio praecepit vobis Deus, etc. Why hath God said ye shall not eat of every tree of the Garden? And if the Pope comes out declaring, that it is lawful and religious to rebel, you must practise accordingly: tho Scripture and reason makes you know, that Rebellion is an heinous vice. This is the great power of the Pope you teach, to metamorphose vice into virtues, and virtues to vices. It is a common boast of your stout Bigots to say, that if the Pope did prohibit them to say the Lords Prayer, Our Father, etc. they would not say it, though Christ did order them to pray so.  
To that of the Council of Constarce, you say, it is false, that they alleged no other reason for prohibiting the Cup to the Laity, than the Decrees of precedent Popes. You affirm, they alleged also for reason, the example of Christ and his Apostles, who gave it in one kind: whereby it appears you did not read the Council. Read the thirteenth Session of it, where this matter is handled, and there you shall find no montion of Christ and his Apostles, to have given the Sacrament in one kind; but the contrary is supposed, as appears by these words of the Decree, Quod licet in Primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur à fidelibus sub utraque specie, postea à conficientibus sub utraque, & à Laicis tantummodo sub specie panis suscipiatur. That though the Sacrament of Communion in the Primitive Church was received by the faithful under both kinds, for the future it is to be received by the Priests consecrating under both kinds, and by the Laity only under the Species of Bread. It is therefore from yourself you say, that Christ and the Apostles did administer it to the Laity under one kind, and the Council does not pretend to know so much, only alleges the custom formerly introduced, saying, Vnde cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab Ecclesia & Sanctis patribus rationabiliter introducta & diutissime observata sit, habenda est pro lege. That this custom being reasonably introduced, and long time observed by the Church and holy Fathers, it is to be taken for a Law. Here you see no mention made of Christ or the Apostles to have done so, as you say. Upon what ground, you do not tell us; you will have it taken upon your credit.  
By saying that I may flatter the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, by telling him, he hath more power in this Kingdom than the King his Master, in whose place and name he acts, because I accused you of giving more power to the Pope then to God, by these privileges of giving to divine Law what sense he pleases, and overthrowing the Ordinances of Christ to set up his own; by this your expression, I say, you are twice criminal in a heinous degree. First, for imagining it should be a way to flatter my Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to say, he had more power in Ireland then the King's Majesty, which he could not hear without horror and indignation. Secondly, for the falsehood of your supposition to frame your parity. When or where did the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland say, that notwithstanding the King of England did ordain this, or that, for the Government of Ireland, himself would order the contrary; as your pretended Vicar of Christ said in the Council of Constance now mentioned, that notwithstanding Christ did order the Communion to be given in both kinds to the Laity, he did order himself the contrary? And all this senseless and groundless extravagancy you run upon, only to find occasion of talking to us of a halter, after your wont grave and modest s●●le. But being convinced of a false accusation, you deserve, by the law of retaliation, the punishment due to the crime you do so falsely impose upon us. Certainly that of the ducking-stool will appear in all good judgements both due and necessary to so foul a mouth.  
Another Example. I produced of your extolling Papal Laws above the Divine, in the case of Costerus, saying, It's a greater sin in a Priest to marry, then to keep a Concubine, the former being but a transgression of a Papal Law, the second of a Divine. You answer, p. 173. that tho it be but a Papal Law, that Priests should vow chastity, yet the vow being made, it is a trangression of Divine Law to violate it. Consult your Casuists Sir, and you shall find them all say, that a vow made in any matter opposite to God's orders, is null or invalid. There is an order of God intimated by St. Paul to the unmarried, that if they cannot contain, let them marry, 1 Cor 7.9. Possible it is, that a Priest should find by experience, that he cannot contain. This you will not deny. Then the vow appears to be null, because by it was promised a thing contrary to that order of God intimated by St. Paul: and consequently the obligation of it ceaseth; only the Pope's Law prohibiting Priests to marry urgeth. To it is opposite that other intimated to the unmarried: if they cannot contain, let them marry. Which of these Laws or Orders must be observed? If you say the Pope's Law, as Costerus does; then follows the Conclusion, that you prefer the Pope's Laws to those of God. You may exclaim at this; but you see the Premises containing in them the Conclusion, is inbred undenied doctrine among you.   

CHAP. XIII. Our Adversary his foul and greater Circle committed, pretending to rid his claim to infallibility from the censure of a Circle. His many absurdities, and great ignorance in the pursuit of this attempt discovered. A better resolution of Faith proposed according to Protestant Principles.  
I accused our Adversaries of a Circle committed in their pretence to Infallibility, because they prove it by Scripture, and the Infallibility of Scripture they prove by the infallibility of their Church, which is to go still round in a Circle. Mr. I. S. to wind himself out of this Circle, presents to us a resolution of his Faith, containing in it a greater Circle, or many Circles together. Having premised some trivial notions touching the obscurity of Faith, and evidence of credibility required to the assent of it, he falls on extolling the power and aptness of Miracles to beget such credibility, reducing all to the advantage of the Roman Church, authorized with Miracles, as he pretends: and from page 180. he enters into his resolution of Faith thus. You ask why I believe the Trinity? I answer because God hath revealed it. You ask why I believe that God revealed it? I answer, because the Church by which God speaks tells us so. You ask why I believe that God speaks by the Church? I must not answer because the Scripture says it; neither must I answer, that I believe God to speak by the Church, because she works Miracles.  
Here I am to doubt whether this be the same man that spoke to us a little before, p. 177. and more at large, p. 102. extolling the force of Miracles to beget an evidence of Credibility in the proposer of divine Verities; or another of his Auxiliaries, that came in his place to carry on the work, without regard to what the former said. But whoever he be, let us see how he disputes against Miracles: If the Miracles be absolutely evident, says he, they can be no motive of Faith, which is of its own nature obscure: and if they be but morally evident Miracles, they can not be the motive, because the motive of Faith must be infallible. How blind is the attemt of this Man against Miracles? how destructive of his own purpose? How absurd and ridiculous his argument against Miracles, I have declared above in Chap. 9 whither I remit the Reader. Now let us see this mysterious work of our Adversary go on. Having excluded Miracles from ascertaining us of the credibility of the Church proposing doctrines to us, he tells us how we must answer that question, Why I believe that God speaks by the Church: and it must be thus, because the Church, by which God speaks, says that God speaks by her, and I am obliged to believe be speaks by her, because he doth credit her with so many Miracles, and supernatural marks, which makes it evidently credible, that he doth speak by her. If it be the same Man that wrote the whole page, it cannot but appear a wonder, that having employed his skill a few lines before, in weakening the force of Miracles to ground the infallibility of the Church on, he should now take up the same Miracles for his ultimate reason of believing in the Church. As a nice Man, who throwing away the paring of his apple, and checking his companion for eating his without paring, fell immediately after upon eating the paring he threw away.  
To cast a patch upon this foul breach of coherence in reasoning, our Adversary shuffles in a distinction betwixt the motive of our act of Faith, and the motive of our obligation of believing, which indeed is nothing else at the present than Culicem excoriare, to flay a flea, after much ado to do nothing. The present question immediately proposed is, why am I to believe that God speaks by the Church? the only reason he gives for believing in the Church, is Miracles. What needs that distinction of motive to my belief, and motive to my acknowledgement of obligation to believe? the same reason that makes me believe, intimates to me my obligation of believing. The primitive Christians who heard the Apostles preach, and saw their Miracles, knew nothing of these distinctions. Seeing those Servants of God confirm their doctrine with Miracles, they believed God spoke by them, and for the same reason or motive thought themselves obliged to believe them. If we have the same Faith that the primitive Christians of Jerusalem and Antioch had, as Mr. I. S. says, p. 183. why shall not we go the same way to believe as they did?  
But our Adversary is upon a design of imposing upon us a Faith which the Apostles did not teach, which he discovers clearly (though happily not so much to his own knowledge) p. 184. in those remarkable words: The chief and last motive, whereupon our Faith must rest, is the Word of God speaking to us by the Church. The Church, I say, by which God actually in this present Age speaks unto us; for we do not believe because God did speak in the first, second or third Age by the Church, etc. Here you see, Reader, a plain Confession of the great guilt of the Roman Church, deserving the most severe resentment of all true Christians, that glorious, truly Catholic, Apostolic and holy Church of the primitive Ages excluded from the office of being Mistress of our belief, and the Church of this corrupt Age, governed by the most corrupt Court in the World (if we are to believe them that are best acquainted with it) that of Rome, substituted in her place: And as this is proposed by our Adversary without any proof, so it ought to be rejected by all true Christians with indignation.  
Only I will reflect upon the inconsequence of the Man, and how far he is from his purpose of ridding himself from a Circle in resolving his Faith. All that great Labyrinth he works from p. 176. to p. 184. in order to declare his procedure to each act of Faith, and able to puzzle the best understanding, will certainly be requisite in his opinion to proceed to this last act of Faith, which he will have to be the guide of all others, that the Roman Church of this Age is infallible in teaching what we ought to believe. This being, as he says, an act of divine Faith, I mean, that the Pope with a General Council, such as that of Trent, is infallible in proposing matters of Faith, how shall he go about to resolve his Faith upon this particular point? Certainly thus, according to his former discourse: I believe that the present Church governed by the Pope of Rome in the Council of Trent is infallible, and God speaks by her, because the Church by which God speaks, says, that God speaks by her, and I am obliged to believe that God speaks by her, because he credits her by so many Miracles, and supernatural marks, which makes it evidently credible that he doth speak by her. These are Mr. I. S. his own words, and his Confession of Faith set down in the 181. page of his Book. And while the Reader reckons how many Circles he commits here, endeavouring to rid himself of one, I ask of him where be those Miracles wrought by the Fathers of the Council of Trent, and the Pope's moderating in it, to breed in me an evidence of credibility that God spoke by their mouth, as the Christians of Jerusalem and Antioch saw the Apostles work for believing that God spoke by them; being he says I must take the objects of Faith upon credit of the present Church, and that credit must be grounded upon Miracles and supernatural marks appearing for it? Will he have us prefer his forged Miracles in favour of his newcoin'd-Faith, to those wrought by the Apostles in confirmation of the Faith preached by them? Turn, Reader, to what I said to this purpose in the 9 Chapter of this Treatise.  
The more I consider this resolution of Mr. I. S. his Faith, the less I find in it of resolution, and the more Circles and obscurities. Now I inquire of him further, why doth he exclude the Church of the first, second, and third Age from the office of declaring Gods will and word to us? He answers, because the declarations of that ancient Church are known to us only by tradition, and tradition, says he, is not the motive, but the Rule of our belief. All this he must say of the Council of Trent, or the Church represented in it of this Age; that alone, and not the Pope out of it, must be in his doctrine our infallible Teacher. Now further, Is not the doctrine of the Council of Trent proposed to us as a Rule of our Faith of equal value and authority with the written word of God, both proceeding from the Holy Ghost? they say it is: Is not moreover that doctrine known to us only by tradition? certainly it is. I have no notice of it, nor can I have but by relation of others, and they of no more credit with me, but rather of far less, than those Venerable Writers that relate to us the doctrine of the primitive Church. Are there not Controversies daily, and endless about the sense and meaning of the Council of Trent, as well as about the more ancient Councils? witness the dismal broils betwixt Jesuists, Jansenists, and Dominicans. Where is now Mr. I. S. his living infallible Judge? The Council of Trent, and the Pope's governing it, are dead and gone. The Pope now living, or any Council he can congregate, less than a general one, is not an infallible Judg. Who then will ascertain him? will he have a general Council congregated for the resolution of his Faith in every doubt that comes into his head?  
How shall we be sure that Pope Innocent and Alexander did not err in their definition of the great debate with the Jansenists? Their definition not being in a general Council cannot be to us a warrant of security in Mr. I. S. his opinion. The Jansenists will triumph at this: and will that please them at Rome, and Paris? while Mr. I. S. agrees with them upon this particular, I ask further. Tho a General Council were congregated now to that effect, such as that of Trent, to ascertain us of the Articles defined against Jansenius, how shall I be sure that God speaks by such a Council, or the Church represented in it? thus in Mr. I. S. his dialect: because the Church by which God speaks says that God speaks by her, because he doth credit her by so many Miracles and supernatural marks, which makes it evidently credible, that he doth speak by her. Well, and where be those Miracles and supernatural marks assisting this Council present, to ascertain us that God speaks by it? are you sure to find them at hand when the Council is joined? likely you are upon the experience of coining Miracles, when occasion requires it.  
By this, Reader, you may see how little Mr. I. S. hath done, after so much ado, to resolve his Faith without a Circle. How rash his assurance was, that Protestants will never resolve theirs without such a fault, I will now show briefly. The Faith of Protestants is that contained in Canonical Scripture, as he often supposes; my Faith touching each point of those contained in Scripture, I resolve thus. I believe the Son of God was made Man, because I find it written in the holy Scripture. I believe what is written in the holy Scripture, because it is the infallible Word of God. And I believe it is the Word of God because the Apostles preaching it did confirm it with such Miracles and Wonders as only God could work. And finally that the Apostles did deliver the Doctrine contained in Scripture, and did confirm it with Miracles, I believe in force of universal tradition, according to that celebrated notion of it, delivered by Vincentius Lyrinensis, quod ubique, quod semper, quod apud omnes est creditum; what was always, in all places, and by all Christians received and believed, is to be taken for Universal and Apostolical Tradition. This common consent of Christians making up universal Tradition we have in what is unanimously delivered by the ancient Fathers, and declared in the first general Councils of those more holy and sincere primitive times. Thither I go to take up my belief, as to streams immediately proceeding from the Fountain of Grace, with more pleasure and satisfaction, then to the muddy Waters of doctrine delivered by the Church of Rome of this corrupt Age, passed through so many hands defiled with ambition, avarice, and other earthly passions repugnant to sincerity: of which we have too much assurance.   

CHAP. XIV. A Reflection upon the perverse Doctrine contained in the resolution of Faith proposed to us by Mr. I. S. and the pernicious and most dangerous consequences of it.  
IT is a Providence of God, and the great force of truth, that our Adversaries should forget themselves sometimes, and discover their wicked intentions, covered under sacred pretexts. All their Novelties they frequently set forth under the venerable cloak of Antiquity. It is a glory of humility, says S. Bernard, that Pride should wear a cloak of it, to be in esteem: Gloriosa res humilitas qua se vestire solet Superbia ne evilescat; and so it is a glory of Antiquity that Novellers should pretend credit to their inventions, by casting on them a colour of Antiquity. It is very frequent with the Romanists to use this stratagem, to cloak their new Decrees with the venerable name of ancient Canons, to call their Church, ancient Church, though composed of Novelties, where it opposes the Reformed. Mr. I. S. hath been pleased to unmask his Church herein to us, declaring that the ultimate ground, and motive of their belief, and their Proselytes, must not be the Testimony of that sacred primitive Church governed by Christ himself, and his blessed Apostles; but the Testimony of the present Church of Rome, infected with the corruptions which the World knows, and both friends and foes do see and cry against with universal scandal.  
Besides the perverseness of this Doctrine, obvious to every one that will not blind himself wilfully, taking from our sighed and view the sweet and comfortable face of primitive Christianity, and willing us only to attend the foul and abominable practices of the Roman Court, calling itself Church, and even the Catholic, Universal, and only Church, to the offence and scandal of all sincere and knowing Men; Besides the perversity of this Doctrine, the dangerous consequences of it are much to be considered; for preventing the growth of this destructive Seed.  
First, it followeth hence that as there is no end of Disputes and Controversies among Men (nor any is like to be,) so there will be no end of coining new Articles of Faith, all tending to the increase of power and splendour of the Pope and his Court, though at the expenses of disturbance, and destructions to Men, Cities, Provinces and Kingdoms, as often happened. This to be their aim, under the pretence of exalting and propagating the Faith of Christ, appears by the next attemt of Mr. I. S. in favour of the Pope's supremacy, to be examined in the Chapter next following.  
Having established the Pope, and his present Church (as he conceives) in the possession of infallible Judges in matters of Faith, the next point he takes in hand to establish, as the chiefest of his concern, is the Pope's supremacy, and absolute power over all Christians, directly forsooth spirituals, but effectively in their temporal concerns; as many powerful Princes, Kingdoms and provinces have experienced to their woe. These two great Prerogatives of absolute power over all Christians, and of infallibility in his Decrees, such as none may oppose or mutter against, being established in the Pope, what security can people or Princes have of their Liberties or Possessions, if liable to be censured Heretics, if they do not receive and submit to any thing the Pope will be pleased to decree and declare for an article of Faith, and being thus censured, to have their Liberties and Lands seized upon, and taken from them, by any that will have force to do it?  
Next we are to consider the dangerous consequences of this Doctrine in the daily extent of the Pope's power and authority, by his Emissaries and flatterers. Hitherto they were contented to assert his infallibility in matters of Right, now of late they extend it to matters of Fact, as appears in the famous Thesis of the Parisian Jesuits, declared above in the ninth Chapter. And though another party opposed that assertion of theirs, as mentioned in the place aforesaid, all men know how little success any may expect to have in the Roman Judicature, against such as will engage in exalting and extending the power and authority of the Pope, and so the Jesuits have not only obtained a censure of heresy and blasphemy, etc. against the Doctrine of Cornelius Jansenius, where the debate was in matter of right, but another arising touching the fact; whether Jansenius did indeed deliver such a Doctrine. They obtained wise from the succeeding Pope Alexander the 7th a Bull and Decree no less peremptory, touching the fact, declaring the said Propositions censured by his Predecessor to be really contained in Jansenius his Book, and, (which is more wonderful he should know) in the sense intended by Jansenius. The foresaid sworn defenders and exalters of the Pope's authority have defended publicly, that we are to believe with divine Faith, the said declaration of the Popes against Jansenius, as well in matter of right as fact, to be infallible, by these notable words, Fide divinâ credi potest librum cui titulus Augustinus Jansenii esse haereticum, & quinque Propositiones ex eo decerptas esse Jansenii, & in sensu Jansenii damnatas: that the Book entitled the Augustin of Jansenius is heretical, and the five Propositions which are gathered out of it, are Jansenius', and in the sense of Jansenius condemned. And there is no reason but we may expect a command of believing the Pope's infallibility in this latter kind in matter of fact, as formerly intimated in matters of right.  
And if this be established, that the Pope is infallible also in matters of fact: and if he be pleased to declare that any of us in particular is an heretic, or hath delivered an heretical Proposition, Woe be to him so declared a heretic by the Pope. All Christians, subject to the Pope, must take him for an heretic, and proceed against him accordingly with all those severities inflicted by Canons against Heretics. Mr. I. S. accuses me to the Lord Licutenant of Ireland that I should have said, that there is no salvation in the Catholic hurch: a proposition, in my own opinion, heretical and blasphemous taken in its proper literal and right sense (not to take notice of some crooked improper sense, which Mr. I. S. may pretend, and may render my discourse obscure.) This testimony so evidently false he imposes upon me, my Book being extant in the hands of many hundred men, and myself living to declare the falsehood of it yet his confidence is such, that having no evidence, nor as much as attempted, to prove the truth of his accusation, he will have my Lord Lieutenant to proceed to the utmost severity against me, commanding me to be burned for blasphemous. Ill may he expect from his Excellency so unjust and rash a judgement: but how far he may speed in Rome with the same accusation, though false, I may not know. Of their integrity, proceeding to judgement without hearing the parties, I can have no assurance. If they declare me for Author of the Proposition imposed upon me by Mr. I. S. That in the Catholic Church there is no salvation, and consequently guilty of heresy and blasphemy, and all must take their declaration therein for infallible, according to that increase of infallibility in matters of fact ascribed of late to the Pope by his prime Favourites: what mischief may not I expect from all those who think it a special service of God to destroy Hereties?  
But my particular concern is not of so great a force to declare the enormity or danger of this consequence. He accuses the whole Church of Protestants of heresy and blasphemy in a high degree, saying it's their common doctrine, that it is impossible to keep God's Commandments: which proposition in its literal full sense is certainly heretical and blasphemous, for derogatory of God's justice and goodness, and diametrically opposite to the doctrine of Christ, as I have declared in the 8th Chapter; where also I have showed how falsely such a doctrine is imposed upon the whole Church of England. But if our Adversary gets a definition of the Pope that we are in effect guilty of that error, in what condition shall we stand with our neighbours? our innocency in the case will not avail. What if Mr. I. S. or other like him, would accuse some great Christian Prince of heresy, though with as little truth as we have seen his accusation of me, and of the Church of England, now mentioned to have proceeded? But if the malice of neighbours, hunting after the Lands of such a Prince, and of his Subjects disposed to rebel against him, should join to accuse him of heretical pravity, and the Pope thereby should proceed to deliver his infallible judgement, touching such a Prince, to be an heretic in effect, in what miserable condition must that Prince be for credit and interest, to be taken by all men for an undoubted heretic? his Subjects absolved from their Allegiance to him, and his Lands exposed to the prey of any stronger hand authorized by the Pope, according to the procedure of that Court, whereof many dismal Tragedies are to be seen in the Chronicles of England, Germany, Navarre, and other Kingdoms of Europe.  
To establish this power in the Pope of Rome, so destructive to the peace and safety of Christian people and Princes, being the aim of Mr. I. S. his tedious and intricate discourses, in favour of his pretended unerring, unerrable Church, and that declared by himself, he may expect the time, when all Christian people are perfectly blind and mad, to have his doctrine received. And now having seen how unsuccessful he hath been in setting up the grand Engine of the Pope's infallibility, or infallibility of the Church governed by the Pope (by which name of either he pleaseth to term it) to put us to silence as to further debates, as truly he had need, accordingly he appears ill furnished to enter into them. We will now proceed to see how ill armed he is to encounter upon the particular points I proposed for motive of my discontent with the Roman Church.   

CHAP. XV. Mr. I. S. his defence of the Pope's Supremacy declared to be vain. Their pretence to a Monarchical power over all Christians, whether in Spiritual or Temporal, proved to be unjust and tyrannical.  
OUR Adversary will have us take for an Article of Faith, the Supreme power of the Pope over all Christians in Spiritual affairs. Whether he hath the like supreme power over Princes in temporal concerns, he leaves to our discretion to believe what we please, the case being disputable. And indeed it is a courtesy in Mr. I. S. to permit us this liberty even touching temporal affairs, and beyond commission from the Court of Rome, as may appear by what we are to say in this Chapter.  
But what he allows him of Supremacy in Spiritual government over all other Bishops, and over all Christians, is certainly more than his right; more than Christ gave him, and more than S. Peter had, whose Successor the Pope pretends to be. He will never find any mention in History Ecclesiastic, of any claim S. Peter should pretend to have of power over S. James in Jerusalem; S. Andrew in Achaia over Thomas in the Indies, or over any other of the Apostles in their respective Provinces, no dependence of them upon him. None of those more worthy first Bishops of Rome (for five hundred years) did ever pretend to any such Supremacy, if we are to believe one of the best of them, St. Gregory the Great, in his many Epistles written against the Ambition of John Patriarch of Constantinople, pretending to such a calling of Universal Bishop.  
Neither did he therein act for himself as he does formally protest, to obviate the malice of those who would cast that aspersion upon his proceeding herein, 
a Gregorius lib. 4. Regist. Ep. 36.  In damnando generalitatis nomine, says he, nostrum specialiter aliquid non amamus. Neither indeed, could the reasons he alleges against the Ambition of John of Constantinople, consist with a pretention to such a Prerogative, in favour of his own See, namely, 
b Jactantiam sumsit, ita ut Universa sibi tentet adscribere, & omnia quae soli uni capiti coherent, videlicet Christo, per elationem pompatici sermonis, ejusdem Christi sibi studeat membra subjugare, & cum fortasse in errore perit, qui Universalis di●●tur, nullus jam Episcopus remansisse in statu veritatis invenitur. ibid.  that it is to rob Christ of his privilege of being Head of the Universal Church; that if the whole Church were subject to, and depending upon one man, he falling into Heresy, all the Church would fall with him.  
How foul an Aspersion Papists do cast upon this good Pope Gregory the Great, saying, he would claim to himself the calling he reprehended in John of Constantinople, may appear by these words of his foresaid Epistle 36. written to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria, and to Athanasius Bishop of Antioch, saying, 
a Vnt per Sanctam Chalcedonensem Synodum Pontifici sedis Apostolica, cui Deo disponente deservio, hec Universitatis nomen oblatum est. Sed nullus unquam decessorum meorum hoc tam profano vocabulo uti consensit, quia videlicet si unus Patriarcha Vniversalis dicitur, Patriarcharum nomen ceteris derogatur. Sed absit absit hoc à Christiani ment, id sibi velle quempiam arripere, unde fratrum suorum honorem imminuere ex quantulacunque parte videatur.  The name of Universal Bishop, was by the holy Council of Chalcedon offered only to the Bishop of the See Apostolic, in which, by God's providence I do serve, but none of my Predecessors did consent to use this profane calling. For if one Patriarch or Bishop be called Universal, the name of a Bishop is taken from the rest. But far be this, far be it from the mind of a Christian, that any should assume to himself any thing, which may seem to diminish in the least the honour of his brethren. How can this consist with saying, that Gregory did claim to himself that calling which he reprehended in John of Constantinople, since he declares that his Predecessors did refuse that calling, and alleges reasons which prove that none ought to admit it.  
The same St. Gregory is the first Author I find to have accused of Anti-Christianism, the pretention of the Pope to Supremacy over all Christians, in the person of the foresaid John Patriarch of Constantinople; of whose ambitious pretention to the like Supremacy, he writes thus to the Empress Constantina: 
b Sed in hac ejus superbia quid aliud nisi propinqua jam Antichristi esse tempora designatur? quia illum videlicet imitatur, qui spretis in sociali gaudio Angelorum legionibus ad culmen conatus est singularitatis erumpere, dicens, etc. Lib. 4. Ep. 34.  And what may we understand by this kind of pride, but that the time of Antichrist is near? since he imitates him who despising the social joy of Angels, did endeavour to rise up to the top of singularity, saying, I will ascend into Heaven, I will exalt my Throne above the Stars of God: I will sit also upon the Mount of the Congregation in the sides of the North, I will ascend above the height of the Clouds, I will be like the most high. This singularity of the Bishops of Rome, in despising a fair and brotherly society with other Bishops, and pretending a Supremacy over all, and an Equality with God in several of his privileges, gave occasion to such, as in after Ages called them Anti-christs.  
Certainly this Ambition of being head of the Universal Church, a privilege granted in Scripture only to Christ, the boldness of preferring his own laws to the Laws of Christ, whereof we gave several instances, have great affinity with the qualities of Anti-christ described in Scripture. And St. Gregory his prediction, that the usurpation of this Supremacy would be a calamity to the Church, is found to be too true. All the Combustions and dismal Contentions that afflicted this Kingdom for a whole Age, did proceed from the Pope's pretention to Supremacy. It is not the intrinsic quality of speculative doctrines of Faith controverted, it is not the alterations of Ceremonies or Language in divine Service did minister fuel to this fatal fire; all these things would be easily agreed upon, if we did allow but Supremacy to the Pope, or he did quit his pretention to it. Of this we have certainty by what Sir Roger Twisden affirms out of warrantable Histories and Relations, that Pope Paulus iv finding his fierceness could not avail with Queen Elizabeth, offered 
a Tortura torti pag. 148.  to let things stand as they were, the Queen acknowledging his Primacy, and the Reformation from him. It is not the loss of Souls, but the loss of Peter-pences, and command did trouble him, and made him and his Successors bring so much trouble on us all.  
His Successor Pius IU. continued the same proffer to the Queen, by Letters written the fifth of May 1560. and sent by Vincentius Parpalia: and gave assurance of it to a noble Man of England, that he would comply with her request to the utmost of his power, provided she would allow his Primacy: In ejus gratiam, quaecunque possim praeterea facturus, dum illa ad nostram Ecclesiam se recipiat, & debitum mihi primatus titulum mihireddat. And surely he that can dispense with the Laws of God, and alter them, as we saw the Popes do, may better dispense with, and alter what other Popes did decree against the Reformation. Priest's may marry, the people may drink consecrated Wine at Communion, they may pray in English, etc. if they did but allow his Primacy, and with it his pence to the Pope. Here lies Petra scandali, the stumbling block, and lapis offensionis. Ambition and Avarice cloaked with Religion did profane the Church, and put the World in confusion. See the Fact here alleged, and proof of it in 
b Twisd. c. 19 p. 177.  Sir Roger Twisden his historical Vindication of the Church of England, chap. IX. Where he adds, that himself relating this passage to an Italian Gentleman versed in public Affairs, had this reply from him, If this were heard in Rome among religious men, it would never gain credit: but with such as have in their hands the Maneggi della Corte, the management of Affairs, it may be held true. Such as understand the mystery of the Roman Court do know, that Ambition and Interest is the primum mobile and Soul that animates all their motions. So true we find Gregory his prediction to be, that the usurpation of this Supremacy would be a calamity to the Church.  
I am to take notice here of another reason St. Gregory gives, why the former good Bishops of Rome his Predecessors would not accept of this proud calling, 
* St. Greg. lib. 4. Ep. 60.76.  Nullus eorum unquam hoc singularitatis vocabulum assumpsit, nec uti consensit, ne dum privatum aliquid daretur uni, honore debito Sacer dotes privarentur Vniversi. No one of the ancient Bishops of Rome (for six hundred years) took upon him the calling of Supreme or Universal Bishop, nor permitted it should be given to them, lest the singularity given to one, should deprive the Clergy of due honour. And this indeed was the consequence of the Pope's immoderate Ambition in this kind. To it we may attribute the too much contemt fallen upon the Clergy in general in this corrupt Age. The extravagant boundless ambition of the Bishops of Rome, makes men fearful to allow even decent and due Authority to the Clergy; lest they should improve it to the prejudice of Christian people and Princes, as now we shall see some Popes did.  
This proud calling, which St. Gregory called Blasphemous and Anti-christian, his Successor Boniface the Third, took upon himself, b● the assistance of the Emperor Phocas, who being offended with Ciriac Patriarch of Constantinople, for sheltering from his fury the Empress Corstantina relict of Maurice, and the immunit of his Church which they made their Sa●ctuar, transferred upon Boniface the Title of Universal Bishop (Baron. an. 606.) which dignity and cal●ing the following Popes did advance so far, that innocent the Third compares the Papal Dignity and Regal to the Sun and Moon; so that the Papal Dignity does exceed the Regal on earth, as much as the Sun exceedeth the Moon in the Heavens. 
a Ad firmamentum coeli, id est, Vniversalis Ecclesia, secit Deus duo luminaria magna, hoc est, duas instituit potestates, Pontificalem & Regalem, etc. ut quanta inter  & Lunam, tanta inter Pontifices & Peges differentia cognoscatur. Innocent. Ter. Ep. ad Imp. Constantin. decret. lib. 1. de Majoritate & Obedientia, tit. 33. cap. solit.  And lest you may not understand how much the Pope is made greater than Kings by this comparison, The Gloss furnishes you with this singular Declaration of it, saying, 
b Igitur cum serra sit septies major Luna, Sol autem octies major Terra, restat ergo ut Pentificalis dignitas quadragesies septies sit major Regali dignitate. Gloss. in decret. praed.  That since the Earth is seven times greater than the Moon, and the Sun eight times greater than the Earth, it must needs follow, that the Pope's power is forty seven times greater than that of Kings. I leave the ingenious Reader to consider the heap of absurdities contained in this Gloss, as suitable to that Text of it; the trespasses against Latin, Arithmetic and Astronony contained in it, and much more against truth; for the Regal Dignity being Solo Deo minor (as 
* Tertul. ad Scap.  Tertullian saith) it cannot be a Moon to any other Sun.  
But all this (says Mr. I. S.) is to be understood of a Spiritual power; that's the pretext, but that Spiritual power must be assisted by the Temporal; and where the word will not do, the sword must follow. So the same Innocent the Third declared in the third Lateran Council, and acted accordingly with King John of England, as other Popes did with several Emperors and Kings, mentioned in the 45. page of my discourse, divesting them of their Kingdoms and Dominions, and absolving their Subjects from their Allegiance to them.  
Mr. I. S. says the Lateran Council did not assume the power of deposing Princes, but finding it a probable Opinion among Divines, grounded their Fact upon that Opinion, and issued their Decree of that Punishment against such Princes. In a good condition the World stands, if 'tis to be governed by such Councils. If any Opinion found probable among Divines, may be a sufficient ground to a conciliary Definition or Decree: what desperate Definitions and Decrees may we not expect from their Councils, when we see so many desperate Opinions come forth daily among their Divines, and all taken for probable, if countenanced by one Author, or two reputed to be Learned?   

CHAP. XVI. How falsely Mr. I. S. affirms that the Irish did not suffer by the Pope's prohibiting to subscribe to the Remonstrance of Fidelity proposed to them.  
I Bemoaned the misery of the Irish, prohibited severely by the Pope, to subscribe a Remonstrance of Fidelity proposed to them, wherein they were to disclaim the Pope's power of deposing Kings, though they should suffer never so many penalties and suspicions for it. This Mr. I. S. calls a Fiction with his Ordinary confidence, not regarding to be openly convicted of untruth. Whether the Irish did not undergo suspicions and disfavors for refusing to subscribe to the said Remonstrance, let themselves tell. Whether such as subscribed were not persecuted by the Pope and his Emissaries, with censures and manifold vexations, let two copious Volumes published upon the subject declare, the one in Latin by Richard Charon, the other in English by Peter Walsh, largely relating, and learnedly refuting the unjust procedure of the Pope and his Emissaries upon this subject. I received myself from Cardinal Rospigliosi, then Internuncius in Brussels, a Copy of Cardinal Francis Barberini his Letter to him, intimating the Pope's will and command, that the Irish should not subscribe to the said Remonstrance, and the censure of the Theological Faculty of Louvain, declaring the said Remonstrance to be repugnant to the truth of Catholic Religion; and therefore unlawful and abominable, such as no man may subscribe to without Sacrilege. And being questioned what part of the Remonstrance merited so grave a Censure, they answered, it was 
* Vid. Charon in Rem. Hibern. contra Lovaniens. part. 1. cap. 5. p. 19  the denial of a power in the Pope, of making war by himself, or by others, against our King, for usurping the Primacy due to the Pope, and retaining unjustly the Lands of the British Church. In which case, say they, it may not be lawful for Catholics to oppose the Pope making war, or favour the King usurping the Pope's rights. Thus the warlike Theologians of Flanders do beat to arms, and denounce war against opposers of their Church, which according to the rules of Mahomet must be defended with the sword, when words will not do. And must not all this administer an occasion of Jealousy to our King? All will not make Mr. I.S. believe, that the practices of the Pope and his Emissaries herein did occasion any sufferings to the Irish.  
It's remarkable what the foresaid 
† Charon supra cap. 4. p. 15.  Author relates, that Cardinal Francis Barbarini being questioned by one of his acquaintance, why the English and Irish Papists may not disclaim that doctrine of King deposing power in the Pope, as the French do; he answered, it is not the fashion with the French to consult them of Rome in such cases. But the Irish and English consulting them, were to expect they would resolve in Rome what was more agreeable to their pretended right. I like of the Cardinal's noble dealing in delivering the truth of the matter; but whether it be a noble proceeding of them in Rome, to aggravate the miseries of the English and Irish suffering for their sake, let Ovid tell, 
At Lupus & turpes instant morientibus Vrsae,  
Et quaecunque minor nobilitate for a est.  That it is for Bears and Wolves, and such like ignoble Brutes, to insult over those that are down, and kill the dying. It behoves men to be stiff with the Pope: for if they stoop, he'll throw them quite down.   

CHAP. XVII. The complaint of Papists against our King, for the Oath of Supremacy he demandeth from his Subjects, declared to be unjust.  
Mr. I. S. slighting that of the Remonstrance, would have me condole the sufferances of the Irish, for not taking the Oath of Supremacy to the King of England as Head of the Church, which he says to be a cruelty against Souls, to demand from them. I do condole hearty the sufferings of the Irish for that, I mean their folly and blindness, in suffering themselves to be deluded by the Arts of Rome, believing rebellion to be Religion; and Catholic Piety, to pass the Obedience due to their natural Prince by God's command to a foreigner, that has no other right over them, than what by craft and cruelty he hath usurped, as is declared in the Chapter preceding.  
All this will be made clear to such as will consider, that our Princes pretend not to any other Supremacy or power over their Subjects, than such as the godly Kings of Israel had in their time over the Jews, and the Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church over their respective Subjects; as is declared in the thirty seventh Article, and seventh Canon of the Church of England, and as indeed our Princes do execute, practising even less power in Church Affairs, than the Kings of Israel, and Christian Emperors did. Do but read the second of Kings, commonly called the fourth, in the 23. Chapter, and see how forward the godly King Josiah was in reforming the Church, both Clergy and Laity, reading himself to them the Book of the Covenant, deposing unworthy Priests, and substituting lawful ones. The same you may see practised by Hezekias in the second Book of Chronicles, chap. XXIX. and the Text approving his proceeding in all this particular; saying, He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all his Father had done. If you do but confer the proceeding of these two good Kings related in the  places, with the behaviour of our Princes in the several Convocations of their Clergy and people for the Reformation of the Church in these Kingdoms; you shall find them not to have taken so much of the work upon them in their own persons, as those Kings of Israel did; but commended to Prelates and Divines the Examination of Points belonging to Religion, and Government of the Church, holding themselves the sword and stern of Government to keep peace at home, and defend them from foreign Enemies.  
Neither did our Saviour diminish, but rather confirm this supreme power of Princes over their Subjects. We have his will herein intimated to us by St. Paul, Rom. XIII. 1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher Powers: where by higher Powers, St. Augustin and the other Ancient Fathers do understand the secular power of Princes, and the context itself is clear enough for that interpretation, as Salmeron confesses: 
a Salmer. disp. 4. in Rom. 13.  Patres Veteres, & praecipuè Augustinus Ep. 54. Apostolum interpretantur de potestate seculari tantum loqui, quod & ipse textus subindicat. And that to this power, not only Seculars, but all sorts of Ecclesiastical persons are subject, S. Chrysostom 
b Chrysost. Hom. 23. in Rom. Etiamsi Apostolus sis; si Evangelista, si Propheta, sive quis tandem fueris.  declares: Omnibus ista imperantur, & Sacerdotibus & Monachis, etc. This is a command said upon all Men, whether they be Priests or Monks, whether Apostles, Evangelists, or Prophets, or whoever they be: and S. Bernard 
c Bernard. Ep. 42. ad Henric. Archiep. Senonens. Siomnis anima & vestra; quis vos excepit ab Vniversitate? etc.  considers well that the very words of the text do declare so much: If every Soul be subject unto the higher power, says he, (writing to an Archbishop) yours also must be likewise subject. Who hath exempted you from the general Rule? etc.  
Neither is it less certain by the practice of the Church, both old and Christian, and by the authority of Fathers, that it belongeth to Princes to protect and have an eye over their people in matters of Religion; to procure the integrity and reformation of it, when decayed. As for the old Law, the cases proposed above of Hezekiah and Josiah do assure us, that this hath been the practice of the best Kings of those times. And if you consult the acts of Constantine the great, of Arcadius and Honorius, of Theodosius the elder, Justinian, Charles the great, and others the best of Christian Emperors, and greatest supporters of the Church's honour; you shall find them intervening frequently, and moderating the greatest consultation touching Religion, and the good conduct of Church affairs.  
It was a wonder to S. Augustin, that any should doubt it should be the duty of an Emperor or Prince to do so. 
a Aug. l. 1. in Epist. contra Ep. Parm, c. 9  An forte de Religione fas non est dicat Imperator, vel quos miserit Imperator? What, doth it not belong to the Emperor, or to him he employs, to deliver his opinion touching Religion? and elsewhere he says, that to be the chief care and charge of the Emperor, of which he is to give account to God; 
b Aug. Ep. 50.162.  ad Imperatoris curam de quâ rationem Deo redditurus est, res illa maximè pertinebat.  
All this being so, that it is the duty of our Princes to govern all the states and affairs of this Kingdom, and the dut● of Subjects to obey them in all, and that for conscience, as S. Paul declareth, Rom. 13.5. That you must needs be subject not only for wrath but also for Conscience sake: how can I omit to condole the misery of my Countrymen, and others so deluded by the arts of Rome, as to take it for a breach of Conscience, what S. Paul declares to be a duty of Conscience; I mean an acknowledgement of their Princes Supreme Authority over all his Subjects, and their obligation of obeying him accordingly? Especially when I see what S. Bernard saw and lamented, that it is not the welfare of Souls, nor the zeal of their Salvation, makes the Court of Rome to put this horror into the hearts of Men against their dutyful obedience and subjection to their Princes: Non quod valdè Romani curant quo fine res terminetur, sed quia valdè diligunt munera, sequuntur retributiones, not that the Ministers of Rome do regard much the end or purpose of Controversies raised, so they obtain their own end of increasing their own interest and power. I wish with all my heart, with S. Bernard, that these corruptions of Rome were not so public and known to all the World. 
* Bernard. Ep. 42. ad Archiep. Senonens.  utinam nobis relinquerent Moderni Noae, unde à nobis possint aliquatenus operiri: nunc vero cernente Orb, mundi fabulam soli tacebimus? I wish these modern Noah's did leave unto us some possibility of covering their shame, but all the World beholding it, shall we alone conceal it?  
This being so, consider Mr. I. S. how blind is your zeal, or great your malice, in saying it should be a cruelty in our Princes to demand from their subjects an acknowledgement of his supreme power over them; and in them a blasphemy to acknowledge it. And to make us believe it is so, you produce the authority of Calvin. When I allege Vasquez or Suarez his doctrine to you, if it be not to your liking, you tell me, they have been mistaken as well as I: so much I say to you at present of Calvin, that, if he be of your mind in this particular, he is mistaken, and in a foul error as well as you. Calvin and Luther have no more authority in the Church of England, than Suarez and Vasquez among you, and I observe you are as singularly impertinent, as unreasonable, wheresoever you speak to me of Luther and Calvin: it is not their writings, which I never saw, brought me to the Church of England, nor conserveses me in it: The Scripture, Fathers, and the History of the Church did work both upon me. Of them you are to speak to me, as I do to you.  
Many a thousand poor simple Souls in these Kingdoms, misled by the Pope, and his busy Emissaries, do cry against the Oath of Supremacy, without knowing, or examining what it means, or what is their Prince's meaning in demanding it: crying up the Pope's Supremacy, much like those 200. seduced by Absalon to follow him out of Jerusalem, to rebel against the King his Father, when they thought they did service to the King. And with Absalon went two hundred men out of Jerusalem that were called: and they went in their simplicity, and they knew not any thing. 2. Sam. 15.11. So it is with many seduced by the art and activity of Rome, to den● due submission to their lawful Prince, and give it to a Foreign usurper; under pretext of following a pretended Vicar of God, to rebel against God; S. Paul declaring that whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the Ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. A conclusion he doth very legally infer from a verity he had immediately before premised, That the powers that be are ordained of God. Rom. 13.1.2. We are to believe in Charity that many have the excuse of those 200. seduced by Absalon: That they went in their simplicity, and they knew not any thing. But the corruptions and impostures of Rome being so universally known, even in S. Bernard's time (as declared above) and much more now, we may fear justly that too many do err with knowledge, or for want of due inquiry: and so resisting lawful power, they may receive to themselves damnation. Of which latter sort Mr. I. S. may seriously fear himself to be one, if he be so conversant in the doctrine of both Churches, Protestant and Popish, and in that of primitive Christianity, as he pretends to be. This I commend to his mature consideration, while I pursue him in his engagement about Transubstantiation.   

CHAP. XVIII. Our Adversaries Essay in favour of Transubstantiation examined. His Challenge for solving two Syllogisms answered.  
MR. I. S. I do generally find you unexact, and much unlike a Scholar in your Arguments, but more when you boast most, and stand in defiances. Now you defy all my Divinity to answer two Syllogisms, you would have us believe to be of your own invention. But a piece of my Logic will make both appear Paralogisms unworthy of any answer, no formal Syllogisms. The first grounded upon Luke. 22.19. Eat, this is my Body which is given for you, runs thus; He gave to them what he gave for them; But what he gave for them, was not a figure, but his real and true Body; therefore what he gave to them was not a figure, but his real and true body. In this Syllogism nothing is new but the form you give it, and that guilty of several vices against the rules of Logic. I say nothing is new in your argument, nor any sense or force added to it, by passing the case from Christ giving the last Supper, to Christ suffering upon the Cross. All your Syllogism may be form in the former case as in the latter, thus; What Christ gave to his Disciples at the last Supper was the same Body they saw speaking to them, and giving them the bread; The body they saw speaking to them, and giving them the Supper was a real body not a figurative; Ergo. Tho you had all the eyes of Argus, you will never discover any sense or force in your new invented Syllogism, that is not in this so trivial and often answered.  
But being you conceive some excellency in the form of our Syllogism, I will let you see some perfections of it. First its guilty of that gross vice in arguing Petitio principii, or a begging of the question. In your major proposition you take for granted that which is constantly denied to you, that he gave to them really, and not only figuratively, his flesh which he gave for them. If you will not take it so, but indeterminatly, touching the mode of giving his Body to them, whether real or figurative; than you fall into another no less notorious vice in arguing, called mutatio suppositi, to change the Supposition. In the major proposition our Saviors Body supposes indeterminatly with you, prescinding from the mode. In the Minor it supposes determinately, affixing it to a real or corporal mode. Hence appears a third vice in your Syllogism of arguing in four terms: taking up in the Minor a term which was not in the Major, to wit, the mode of giving his Body corporally: and thence you proceed to join or identify in the conclusion terms which you did not show identified in any medium, neglecting herein that prime rule of reasoning, Quae sunt eadem uni tertio sunt eadem inter se. To argue right and according to this rule, and without the Vices now discovered in your Syllogism, you should have form it thus: He gave to them what he gave for them, both in mode and substance; what he gave for them was his Body not figurative, but real; Therefore he gave it to them really.  
Thus your Argument would carry the shape of a legal Syllogism, and your next work was to be the proving of the major proposition; That Christ gave to the Disciples what he gave for them, both in mode and substance; that which you will never be able to do. You say the text makes no distinction betwixt what he gave to them, and what he gave for them. But men's eyes did. They saw given for them upon the Cross a real organic human body; such they did not see given to them at the Supper. You say further, not only falsely but blasphemously, that if we say what he gave to them was but figurative, we must say also that what he gave for them was only figurative, and so fetch from Hell again the heresy of Martion, that what suffered for us was but a fantastical body. You are too ready in fetching heresies from Hell, and destroying the foundations of Christianity upon very light or no occasion given to you for it. But we are not so ready to believe you, or let your raw inferences run without a check. S. John that saw our Saviour upon the Cross, the same person he knew so well, how could he imagine it was a Phantasm, and not a real Body? to Hell you must go for men that would abuse their senses so. And thence certainly came your Paradox of imposing upon our senses, and playing the Martion under other terms, pretending its but a Phantasm of bread, not a real one, what our senses do assure us to be true bread in the Eucharist. And by this overthrowing the main Pillar of Christian Belief grounded upon the glory of Miracles proposed to us by the testimony of our senses: and being taught to misbelieve them, a Gate is open for new Marcionists, to say, the resurrection of Lazarus, and other wonders our Saviour and his Apostles wrought in confirmation of their doctrine, were but Phantasms, praestigiae sensuum, some Art of Legerdemain deluding our senses.  
Finally, by this your Illustration of your Syllogism, you render it a formal Paralogism, according to Aristotle his notion of this kind of spurious Syllogism; which is, (says he, 1. top. c. 1.) When you assume for eviaent what is false and impossible. And you assume for as clear and evident, that Christ was corporally present in the bread he gave at the last Supper, as it was clear and evident to the beholders of both, that he was corporally upon the Cross. I have proved with Arguments, which you did not yet, nor ever will solve, this your assumption to be both false and impossible. And while you do not, let it be concluded that your Syllogism you magnify so much, is a mere Paralogism.  
But for such as may not so readily dive into this Logical scrutiny of your Sophistic Syllogism, or Paralogism, and to undeceive yourself so much wedded to your ill digested conceptions, I will let you see the fallacy and weakness of your Argument in another of the very same form, grounded upon words of our Saviour also, Joh. XV. 1. I am the true Vine; upon which words you may argue thus. Christ by his own declaration is a true Vine; but a true Vine is neither God nor man: therefore Christ by his own declaration is neither God nor man. This Syllogism hath the very same form which yours hath, and is grounded upon as Canonical Scripture as yours is: no defect can be imagined in it, which appears not in yours. If you do not think it concluding, expect not to have us believe yours to be concluding; and brag not so much of your Syllogisms for unanswerable, until you answer this.  
The second Syllogism you pray to be answered, is upon those words of the Jews, Joh. VI 52. How can this Man give us his flesh to eat? An Argument I proposed myself more clearly in fewer words, and answered very clearly in the pag. 63. of my discourse, which if you did consider with ingenuity, you might have spared us the labour of seeing your work about it. But the force lies in the form you give it, which is this, A damnal le Vnbeleiver is he who denies a truth sufficiently proposed to him to be revealed by God: the Jews in this occasion were damnable Vnbeleivers, and what they denied was a fleshly eating of his real body, as the Papists believe it. Thus you, p. 189. of your Book.  
In this Syllogism I could reckon up as many vices as I did in your former: but I am tired, and may fear to tyre my Reader with often minceing your raw Arguments; to condemn it in the judgement of any good Logician is sufficient to show it. Surely it has nothing of a formal S●llogism, but that it seems to consist of three propositions. And at this rate you may make a horse of a stool, because both have four feet. But even herein I do your Syllogism favour, in allowing, it should seem to consist of three Propositions, for in truth it hath four, & in them four terms, one of its notorious vices. That which takes place of a minor hath two Propositions in it; The Jews in this occasion were damnable Vnbeleivers, and what they denied was a fleshly eating of his real Body, as Papists do believe it. Where we see two distinct Propositions; the second abruptly intruded without any connexion or affinity with the medium placed in the major. And thence you pass to your third, or rather fourth Proposition, bearing by Ergo or therefore, the mark of a Conclusion, but no more. For a Conclusion, indeed aught to be a verity contained in the Premises; in neither of your Premises is your Conclusion contained, nor in both. What only seemeth to have some affinity with the Conclusion, is that second part of your Minor, That what the Jews denied, was a Fleshly eating of his real Body, as the Papists do believe: but though this be so, it's far from fetching in the Conclusion, That Christ did sufficiently propose unto them a fleshly eating of his real Body; as Papists do believe it. For though they denied a fleshly eating, it was not that only what they denied. They denied also a Spiritual eating: they denied a Fleshly eating, but impertinently to the proposal of Christ. They denied what was not demanded of them, by a mistake of his meaning, which our Saviour corrected immediately, by saying, Joh. VI 63. The words he spoke to them were Spirit and Life.  
You allege that I acknowledged the Jews to have understood Christ of a Corporal and Fleshly eating, as Papists do. But you conceal fraudulently, how I said, and proved that they misunderstood him, and Christ did tax them with a misunderstanding, as now mentioned. Where is now in all this, any even probable ground for your Conclusion, which you pretend to have found out clearly in the foresaid place of St. John; that Christ in that occasion did sufficiently propose to them a Fleshly eating of his real Body, as Papists do believe it; that only in denying such eating, they were damnable Unbelievers? You affirm decretorially, without giving any reason for it, that the words of our Saviour, The Flesh profiteth nothing, it's the Spirit that quickeneth, etc. was not a check to the Jews, for understanding him of a Fleshly eating; but to us for judging of this Mystery by the senses of the Flesh, and by natural reason. Sir, we are ready by the help of divine Grace, to captivate our seizes and reason to the Obedience of Faith in God, wheresoever we find him declare his Will to us, without any further examen. But such captivity of our understanding we do upon good grounds deny to your Decrees, as undue to them. In what the Church of England believes, touching the holy Eucharist, there is a large compass for divine Faith to be exercised. It's no work of nature by sense or reason, to understand or believe so strange an Union, though Spiritual (as the Gospel tells us, and we believe) 'twixt Christ and the faithful Receiver of this Sacrament; such streams of divine Grace, such feeding of Souls to life everlasting. To this we willingly pay a captivity of our understanding, because we find it clearly declared in the Word of God, though never surpassing so much the reach of our natural Understanding. From niceties touching the mode we do religiously abstain, being God was not pleased to declare it: according to that grave and religious expression of King James, Quod legit Ecclesia Anglicana, pie credit; quod non legit pari pietate non inquirit. What the Church of England reads, that it doth piously believe; what it doth not read, with equal Piety omits to pry into.   

CHAP. XIX. Several Answers to my Arguments, against Transubstantiation refuted.  
TO all my Reasons touching the absurdity of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and the repugnance of it with all humane reason, Mr. I. S. gives an easy Answer, that in matters of Faith we must renounce Reason. He should first prove that this is a point of Faith, a doctrine contained in the Word of God. His endeavours for it we have seen and declared to be vain in the precedent Chapter; than it being an Article of their making, he may not expect from us more subjection of our Intellects, than his re●son will gain; and he confessing Reason does not assist him, I take it for a confession that he is cast in the suit.  
I urged, that there was no necessity of forcing men to believe so hard a doctrine, neither for the effect of the Sacrament, nor for the verification of our Saviour's words in the Institution of it. Mr. I. S. confesses the first, but denies the second upon a very trivial, and no less weak Argument, which I will show, rather proves against him then for him. He says, that allowing the word Body is equivocal, and indifferent to be taken for a real or figurative Body; yet put in a Proposition, it's determined to signify that of which only the Predicate can be verified; but only of Christ's real Body, can it be verified that it was given for us: therefore this Proposition, [This is my Body which is given for you] is to be understood of Christ's real Body. Here we have one Proposition made of two, and the Predicate of the former made the Subject of the latter, to frame a designed fallacy. The former Proposition, which is the proper Subject of our debate, is this, Hoc est Corpus meum, this is my Bod. The Subject of this Proposition, is the Bread Christ had in his hands, and gave his Disciples to eat. The Predicate is our Saviour's Body; and the question is how to understand the words of the Predicate, so as they may be agreeable to the Subject. The words of the Predicate are indifferent to be taken for a real or figurative Body, and to be determined according to the quality of the Subject; that so the Identity of both, requisite for a true Proposition, may be seen, according to the rule above mentioned by Mr. I.S. all which proves that the word Body is to be taken rather in a figurative sense then in a real; otherwise it could not be agreeable to the Subject, which was Bread real and visible, and called such before and after Consecration, both by Christ and St. Paul.  
Now take notice Reader, of the egregious fallacy of our Adversary. The foresaid complex Proposition he assumes to work upon, [This is my Body which is given for you,] is composed of two Propositions, the one is hat now declared, relating to what Christ had in his hand, [This is my Body.] The other relating to Christ's Body of which, as subject of the second Proposition, another Predicate is affirmed, that it was given for us upon the Cross, [which was given for you.] Mr. I. S. to do his own work, confounds these two Propositions, and makes the Predicate of the former Proposition a Subject to the latter: and instead of fitting the said Predicate of the former Proposition to the Subject of it (as he should do, being to speak to the purpose) he talks of fitting it to the Predicate of the second Proposition, about which is no question; for none doubts whether it was the real Body of Christ that was given for us upon the Cross. I allow you the benefit of the same rule alleged for the second Proposition, [Christ's Body was given for us,] that the indifferency of the word Body, which is the Subject, may be determined by the quality of the Predicate, and so taken for a real Body, because 'twas a real Body which was given for us upon the Cross. Why will not you allow us the benefit of the same rule for the former Proposition, [This is my Body,] which is the proper Subject of this Debate, that the indifferency of the word Body in the Predicate be determined by the quality of the Subject, which was the Bread Christ had in his hand, and of which, with more propriety and less violence may be affirmed, that its a figurative Body of Christ, than his living Body?  
But if the rules of your Logic must be so extravagant as to demand, that when a discrepancy appears betwixt the Predicate and Subject of a Proposition supposed to be true, it's the Subject must be altered or fashioned to a conformity with the Predicate, not the Predicate to conform with the Subject: what will you make of these two Propositions of our Saviour, I am the true Vine, Joh. XV. 1. I am the bread of life, Joh. VI 48. In which two Propositions a great discrepancy appears betwixt the Predicate and Subject. The person of Christ speaking, is the Subject in both Propositions, Wine and Bread the Predicate. Will you have the person of Christ to be altered and converted to a Vine, and to Bread, to verify those Propositions; I hope you will not be so blasphemous. And why? Because Christ was seen to be a Man, not a Vine, or Bread: and so was the Bread in his hands seen and felt to be true Bread, no humane Body.  
I objected, that the Council of Trent, Sess. 13. Can. 2. accursing such as affirm Bread and Wine to remain in the Eucharist after Consecration, doth oppose St. Paul, calling the consecrated Element Bread. You say he called it Bread, not because it was such then, but because it was Bread before; as in Scripture we read, The blind do see, the lame do walk: not that they were blind and lame when they did see and walk, but because they were such before. I answer, that in these latter cases an Ampliation of the term was necessary, because the senses did assure that those men were not then blind or lame; but not so in St. Paul's case; the senses did see and feel what he called Bread, to be such indeed.  
I produced several clear and express testimonies of the most ancient and renowned Fathers of the Church, delivering our doctrine, that the Elements in the Eucharist do not change their nature, but are Types and Symbols of the Body of Christ abiding still in their proper substance. To all which Mr. I. S. answers, that the Eucharist is indeed a Type and Representation of Christ's Body, but Christ himself is there both representing and represented: as a King that would act a part in a Tragedy of his own Victories, he would be the thing represented, and the representation. Truly I wonder how this old Simile kept credit so long time among Romish Catechists, but more that it should be brought to a serious dispute. I wonder they should not apprehend a great indecency in the parity; if a Tragedy were made of the late Siege of Maestricht, wherein the King of France was in person active; would not a judicious man think it unbecoming the majesty of so great a Prince, to go himself about all the Cities of the Country, acting a part in such a Tragedy, to represent his own Chivalry? Why will not they think it indecent, that the King of Glory, Christ, should act personally and corporally in all corners of the World, where the Eucharist is celebrated, being able to do all intended by it in a more intelligible way, and with more decency.  
But all this while our Adversary slips the main Point intended by the testimony of the Fathers, that the Elements of Bread and Wine remain in their own nature unchanged after Consecration; whereby they seem to lie under the curse of the Council of Trent now mentioned. To which testimonies I will add another out of Dionysius Syrus, writing upon the first Chapter of S. John. v. 14. and the word was made Flesh. His words translated by a most 
* Dr Lofius.  learned and honourable person out of the Syriac Language into English, are these.  
Object. The Heretics demand how was the word made Flesh, being not changed?  
Sol. Even as he appeared to the Prophets in Similitudes without being changed, & as he was before he was made, so was he when he was made, without change. And as the Amianton or Salamander is united with the fire, without being changed; as the Bread is made the Body of Christ, and the waters of Baptism are made Spiritual, without being changed from their nature: so the word was made Flesh, without being changed from what it was as God; that is to say, he took Flesh without being changed.  
From the same hand I had notice that the Ethiopic Liturgy printed at Rome, dn. Dom. 1548. useth these words in the Celebration of the Sacrament, This Bread is my Body; which determination of the Particle hoc, to Bread, disfavoring the doctrine of Transubstantion, the Translator of the Liturgy played the falsary in translating that passage, by the words, Hoc est Corpus meum.  
To all these and the like Testimonies, Mr. I.S. says, they are not so clearly for us, but that Bellarmin, and others of his side do find ways to give them another sense, and therefore we needed an infallible living Judge to determine the sense of the Fathers, as well as of Scripture; and that Judge being to be the Bishop of Rome, he may be sure of a  sentence, if the cause be devolved thither.  
But what if we find a Pope clearly delivering our Opinion twelve hundred years ago, and saying, The Sacramental Elements after Consecration, do not cease to be the substance and nature of Bread and Wine; as we have found Pope Gelasius do, whose words I related, pag. 56. of my  Discourse? Will he find a way to decline such a sentence? Were the Pope's Infallible in that time? Certain I am, they did not pretend to be so. But Mr. I.S. answers, that Bellarmin says, that Gelasius was no Pope but a Monk. Bellarmi● does cast a thick cloud upon History to prove so much, or at least to render the matter obscure; and so does Baronius. But this latter fearing not to carry on that design, or (as he says, too) war with more gallantry and contemt of his Adversaries, will afford them the Arms they pretend, and allow Gelasius the Pope should be Author of those words: And what then? Why Gelasius, by the words substance of Bread and Wine, did mean the Accidents or Species of Bread and Wine, which do remain, and are to us the means of knowing the substance; and may not be called properly Accidents in this Case, because there is no substance left for them to rest upon, as the nature and common notion of an Accident does require. And having delivered this most strange and never heard of complication of contradictory expressions, to make of Accidents a substance, and with all, no substance of Bread to remain; he sounds loudly a triumph over his Adversaries, that he has whipped them like boys with their own arms; and although it be allowed gratis, that the foresaid testimony should be of Pope Gelasius, yet it serves nothing to their purpose. I could enlarge more upon the Absurdities of Baronius his discourse upon that subject, and the injury he does to Gelasius in fathering upon him so ridiculous a paradox: but I think sufficient for the present to let the Reader see how solid and serious, I should say how childish and ridiculous even great Men appear, when engaged in a bad cause. I am apt to think that some will hardly believe so great a Man as Cardinal Baronius should deliver so eminent nonsense as we have now related. Read him in his fifth Tome of his Annals, An. Dom. 406. Gelasii Papae, an. 5. from the first number to the twentieth.  
And conclude Reader from this passage, what little hopes we may have of peace, and end of Controversy among Christians, by allowing the Pope to be infallible, when the most clear and plain words of a Pope are subject to an Interpretation of them so cross, and diametrically opposite to the meaning of them according to common use. As to understand Scripture, a Pope's Declaration is pretended to be necessary; so to understand each Pope his Declaration, another infallible Judge is to be looked after without end.   

CHAP. XX. Ancient Schoolmen declare Transubstantiation cannot be proved out of Scripture, and that it was not an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council. Mr. I. S. his great boast of finding in my Check to their worship of the Host, a prejudice to the Hierarchy of the Church of England, declared to be void of sense and ground.  
MR. I. S. with his usual confidence says it is most false what I imputed to Scotus, Ocham, Cajetan, and other Schoolmen, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not contained in the Canon of Scripture, nor was an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council. He allows Cajetan was of that opinion, and was censored for it; he erred therein, says he, and what then? but he denies resolutely that Scotus should be of such an opinion. Then Bellarmin did him an injur in relating the contrary of him in these words, One thing, says he, Scotus adds, which is not to be approved, that before the Lateran Council, Transustantiation was no Article of Faith. And a little before, he tells us, that Scotus said there is no place in Scripture that proves clearly Transubstantiation to be admitted, if the authority of the Church did not intervene: where Bellarmin adds Scotus his saying not to be improbable; for though the Scripture himself alleged may seem clear to the purpose, yet even that 
* Vnum taemen addit Scotus, qu●d minimè probandum est; ante ●ateranense consilium non fuisse dogina Fides Transidistantia●●enem.  may be doubted; whereas most learned and acute Men, such as Scotus chief was, did hold the contrary. These are the express words of Bellarmin, lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 23. Here you have Bellarmin declaring clearly against Mr. I. S. that Scotus said that Transubstantiation was not an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council, and that both Scotus and other most learned and acute men were of opinion that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not clearly contained in Scripture.  
And truly, though I had not seen Scotus his writing upon the point, I am apt to believe that Mr. I. S. should be mistaken rather than Bellarmin, but I have read over Scotus his discourse upon this subject, not only in the printed Editions, but in the ancient MS. kept in Merton Coll. in Oxon. whereof he was a Fellow, with no small admiration and compassion, to see so noble and excellent a wit forced to opine or seem to opine against his proper sentiment, as he doth protest himself to do, to comply with Pope Innocent and the Lateran Council. Having stated the question of Transubstantiation, related the opinion of Aquinas and others for it, and confuted most vigorously their arguments out of Scripture and reason for it, as not convincing; at last yields to the opinion of Innocent in these words, Teneo igitur istam opinionem ibi positam ab Innocentio, quod substantia panis non maneat, sed quod transubstantiatur in Corpus Christi, non propter rationes praedictas, quia non cogunt. For which opinion to say something, being forced to follow it, he alleges two conveniences. The first, that if the substance of bread did remain under the Accidents of it, a man taking the Body and Blood of our Saviour under such Accidents would not be fasting; and so may not celebrate twice in one day: which is against that Canon de consecrat. distinct. primâ in nocte. The second conveniency is, that the Church prays, as appears in the Canon of the Mass, the bread and wine may be made the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, but prays not for a thing impossible, therefore it is to be said that the substance of bread ceases to be there, and is converted into the Body of Christ.  
Whoever knew the subtlety and exactness of Scotus his reasoning, may easily perceive that he spoke against his own sentiment when he alleged such weak Arguments, as those two now mentioned; and so, not to forfeit the credit of his subtlety, turns to protest with his accustomed ingenuity, that he followed this opinion only for the Authority of the Church, concluding thus: & hoc principaliter teneo propter Authoritatem Ecclesiae, etc. and the same his Scholiasts declares of him upon the foresaid words, saying, Tenet Doctor tertiam sententiam, nempè panem converti in Corpus Christi, quia sic Ecclesia tenet. 
* Edit. Lugdun. an. 1639.  Vid. Scot in 4. dist. 10. q. 3. Scotus holds the bread to be converted into the Body of Christ, because the Church declared it so in the Lateran Council, not for any Authority of Scripture or reason which could move him to it. The same I may easily prove of other learned Schoolmen. By this you may see Mr. I. S. his rashness in saying I did most falsely impose upon Scotus what both Bellarmin and himself declares to be his proper opinion.  
Of the same opinion with Scotus was Durandus, in 4. Sent. didst 11. q. 1. sect. propter 3. where he declares, that the opinion affirming the substance of Bread to remain after Consecration, was more convenient to obviate difficulties, rendering the Mystery more hard to be believed, but that the contrary is to be held for the declaration of the Church. Cajetan said, that only the said declaration could make the words of our Saviour alleged for Transubstantiation, appear convincing to that purpose. And Suarez tells us, his saying was commanded by Pope Pius the V to be expunged.  
An old Copy of Ocham I found in Dublin Library, was more fortunate in escaping their blurs. In his 5th quodlibet q. 30. he relates three opinions touching the Bread in the Eucharist. The first saying, that the Bread which was before, is the Body of Christ after Consecration; of which opinion he delivers this censure, Prima est irrationalis, that it is an unreasonable opinion. The second opinion, says he, is, that the substance of Bread and Wine ceases to be, and only the Accidents do remain, and under them gins to be the Body of Christ: Of this opinion he says, Est communis opinio, quam ten●o propter determinationem Ecclcsiae, & non proper aliam rationem. That to this opinion he consems for the declaration of the Church, in favour of it, and not for any reason assisting it. The third opinion related by him is, that the substance of Bread and Wine remains after Consecration; and of this he says, Tertia opinio esset multum rationabilis, nisi esset determinatio Ecclesiae in contrarium. That this opinion were very rational, if the determination of the Church were not contrary to it. So that it is not any reason, nor any ground they saw for it in Scripture, made these and many other very Learned men consent to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, but only a blind Obedience to Innocents' Decree in the Lateran Council. Bellarmin wishes we should all have this submission to the Authority of the Church; and I wish with all my heart, that both we and he, and his party, and all Christians, should have due submission to the Church truly Catholic, Primitive and Apostolic, declaring to us the Word of God by Canonical Scripture, and Universal Tradition; in which Fountains of Truth neither Transubstantiation will be found, nor any of their Errors which I pointed out for motives of my forsaking their Communion.  
Neither is I S. more fortunate in his attemt of putting a terror upon me, as if I had shocked the Hierarchy of the Church of England, by saying its rashness to give divine Adoration to a Wafer, wherein they cannot be sure Christ to be Present; this depending according to their own Principles, upon the Priest's intention to Consecrate, his due Ordination, and of the Bishop that gave him Orders, his intention and due Ordination, and so upward of endless requisites impossible to be certainly known. And what has all this to do with shocking the Hierarchy of the the Church of England? When I saw the man begin with so great a clap, and sounding already a triumph, I expected the story of the Nagshead, or some other of their old Engines against the Legality of the Protestant Clergy should come down: but all he brings is that we do also allow some things to be essentially requisite for the validity of a Sacrament, the defect of which nullifies the Sacrament. As for Baptism, water is requisite, and the form of words, I baptise you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. The Minister may vitiate this form, and utter somewhat in lieu of it, or omit some words of it, or add some other that would destroy the form. The same may happen in the Ordination of a Minister or Bishop, and there is no certainty that no error of these should have happened in any one of the whole train of our Ordainers, and if it was wanting in any, all the Ordinations derived from him are null. Therefore we can have no Assurance of our Hierarchy.  
I leave the Judicious Reader to see what singular exploit this man hath done herein against the Church of England? his reasons alleged of doubting the Legality of its Ministers, doth prove so much for rendering doubtful the Legality of the Roman Clergy, by his own confession: but much more for what I am to add: first, that we do not make the effects of Sacraments to depend so much upon the intention and quality of the Ministers, as Papists do. We entertain a better opinion of God's goodness, that he will not have pious Souls lose the fruit of their sincere Endeavours; and will supply to that effect the defect of the Minister: secondly, that their practice of muttering the words in a Language unknown to the People, and in a voice not audible, (especially in the consecration of the Eucharist) is more subject to errors and fraud than the way of our Church, where the Minister is to pronounce loudly and intelligibly the words of the form.  
But chief touching the subject of our present discourse (from which our Adversary seems willing to divert) I mean the use and Adoration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, who run more hazard the Papists or we? In case a defect should happen touching the consecration we enjoy the fruit of a spiritual Communion, and are not at the loss that Papists are in the like case, who make the main fruit depend upon the real and corporal presence of Christ in the host. We run no danger of Idolatry, material or formal, giving the worship of Divinity to a thing that is not God; as Papists do, giving that kind of worship to any host reputed to be duly consecrated, which if it happens not to be so indeed, their act of worship is at least a material Idolatry in their own confession: and to expose themselves to a known danger of committing such kind of Idolatry cannot choose but be criminal, as it is generally reputed to be a sin for one to expose himself to a danger of committing a sin. The parity of one honouring his Father, not knowing certainly him to be his true Father, is impertinent and undecent. A bad opinion he must have of his Mother, who doubts his reputed Father to be such in truth. But what if he were in a material error, it is not a sin, but a duty to pay respect unto him that adopts or owns him for a Son.  
I will conclude this matter with letting Mr. I. S. see his rashness, in pretending I was rash in saying its intolerable boldness in some of his fellows to say, there is the same reason for the adoration of the host, as for adoring Christ's Divinity. And he pretends I should seem thereby not to understand their doctrine. Sir, I am not to enter with you in comparison which of us understands better the Doctrine of both Churches: what I see evidently is, that either you do ignorantly misunderstand, or maliciously misrepresent the state of the Question; that wanting an answer to my Arguments in their proper terms, you may fashion them so, as your impertinent Discourses may seem to strike at something, which is properly hostem tibi fingere quem ferias, to create yourself an Adversary, such as you may triumph over, that is, not to fit your answer to my Arguments, but my Arguments to that you will have us take for an answer; being what you have to say. This is very usual with you, as in many occasions I have declared from the beginning of this Discourse, and will further declare in others to the end of it, but in the present you appear notoriously guilty of this foul play.  
I do neither ignore or doubt, that if your doctrine of Christ's personal presence in the consecrated host were true, there is as much reason to adore such an host, as to adore Christ himself; both being the same thing in such a supposition. This is the Mystery you pretend I should not understand, but this is not the state of the Question with me. What I did, and do again, call intolerable boldness, is to say, that (the matter standing, as now it doth, doubtful and controverted) there is as much reason for adoring the host consecrated, as there is for adoring Christ his person: since for adoring Christ we have several express commands laid upon us in Scripture, which I related out of Heb. 1.6. Philip. 2.10. Jo. 5.23. but no intimation given of adoring Christ in the Sacramental bread, supposing him corporally present there.  
But if you go to the object of both worships, Christ living in the World, and your host consecrated: to say that there is as much ground for believing your doctrine of Divinity existent in the latter as in the former, I said, and say still, its intolerable boldness, and a great injury to Christian Religion, to make those two things of equal certainty, whereof I was contented to make Bellarmin 
* Bellarm. de Christo. lib. 1. c. 4.  Judge; who being to prove the Divinity of Christ, goes through six Classes of Arguments out of Scripture with  strength: but being to prove Transubstantiation out of Scripture, his only Argument is out of those words of Matth. 28. Take, eat, this is my Body. Which place how unable it is in the opinion of the gravest Schoolmen, and of Bellarmin himself, to make clear the doctrine of Transubstantiation, we have seen from the beginning of this Chapter. Is it not therefore intolerable boldness to say, there is as much reason to assert that Christ is in the host really and corporally, as there is for saying that Christ is God?   

CHAP. XXI. Mr. I. S. his weak defence of their half Communion confuted.  
HE will have the Precept of Communion run parallel with that of Baptism, wherewith I am well contented. Both are commanded by Christ: Baptism thus, If one be not born again by the Water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, Joh. VI 53. And the Communion thus, If ye do not eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you shall not have life in you. The essential requisites of Baptism are water and a set form of words. In this no alteration may consist with the validity of the Sacrament: not so of the mode or circumstances, whether it be with immersion or sprinkling. Herein alterations may be, and were admitted by the Church. Even so in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the essence of it consists in eating the Flesh, and drinking the Blood of our Saviour. This may not be altered, but the mode or circumstances, whether it be kneeling or standing, whether in leavened or unleavened Bread, whether white or red Wine; touching these Accidents there may be alterations without prejudice to the substance of the Sacrament, but not touching the essential parts of Flesh and Blood: in this much we agree on both sides.  
Now what are we to understand by Flesh, what by Blood our Saviour did not leave obscure, so as we may err in so weighty a matter, wherein the life of our Souls doth consist, but made it clear and visible to us. He took Bread in his hands, and of it, he said, this is my Body; he took likewise Wine in his hand, saying, this is my Blood. The way therefore to take his Body and Blood, is to take consecrated Bread and Wine in remembrance of him. This is the way Christ did establish the taking of this blessed Sacrament, this the Apostles and Primitive Church did practice, and this way all true Christians ought to walk.  
Mr. I. S. censures it as a pusillanimity in me to be surprised at that famous non obstante of the Council of Constance, that notwithstanding Christ did institute this Sacrament in both kinds, and in the Primitive Church they administered it so, yet the Council thought convenient to ordain the contrary: I should have a strong stomach to swallow without chawing or examining what our Lord God the Pope orders, as the Glossist calls him. He is Vicegod upon earth, as all of them style him, and of such privilege that the commands of God must oblige no further than he pleases. If he tells us that virtue is vice, and vice virtue, we are to believe him. Yet Mr. I.S. will reason the case with us. He might have spared that labour, for I declared it was sufficient to my purpose to know they will pretend reason for inverting Christ's Institutions. But how well beseeming the gravity of a Council, are the reasons he alleges, grounded upon principles of nigardliness & nicety. To spare expenses of wine, and hinder the inconveniency of clean people to drink out of the same Cup with the unclean. Is there not so much plenty of Wine now in the World, as was in the Primitive Church, and the Communion less frequent? Were not clean people then in the World? Shall a groundless fear of annoying the body over-weigh a certain danger of losing the Soul. Christ having declared, that if we do not eat his Flesh and drink his Blood, we shall not have life in us. Is it fair that such frivolous reasons as these should suffice for a Pope to alter the Institutions of Christ, and no reason, be it ever so evident, should excuse opposing a Pope's Decree?  
But Mr. I. S. tells us, that in these words of our Saviour, Joh. VI If ye do not eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you shall not have life in you. The Particle [and] must be taken disjunctively for [or,] not copulatively. So as the command must be understood of eating his Flesh, or drinking his Blood; because in the Hebrew Language, wherein our Saviour spoke, the Particle and is capable of such a sense. Bellarmin and Suarez said so. I see they did, and thereby I see that a bad cause will make i●s Patrons run to narrow shifts. At this rate you may pretend to comply with the precept of loving God and your Neighbour, by loving either, though you do not love both. And so of the precept of honouring your Father and Mother, that you observe i● by honouring one, though you deny that duty to the other: because the Particle and in those Precepts, is capable of a disjunctive sense, and may be construed or.  
Moreover, this Argument would prove more than the Council, or Bellarmin, or Suarez himself would have. That there is no command of drinking the Blood of our Saviour. So the Council, and Romish Writers, commonly do pretend, that Christ's living Body being corporally present in the consecrated Bread, and a living Body containing Flesh and Blood, by taking the Bread we take both Flesh & Blood. But the supposition of this Argument, that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament, being pretended, & even proved clearly in our Opinion to be false, it's in vain to persuade us with an Argument upon that Principle. Besides, though that Supposition were true, it's not easy to understand how, by swallowing an Animal consisting of flesh and blood, without separating both, one may be said properly to drink blood. All these Absurdities may be excused by following literally the words and and practice of our Saviour, administering the Sacrament as he did in both kinds.  
Here I am to admire again the good heart and confidence of Mr. I. S. in telling us that we have a positive example of Christ himself, that once gave the Communion in the Accidents of Bread alone to his Disciples, in the way towards Emaus, pag. 217. How come you to be so positive in affirming that of Christ with his Disciples in Emaus, should have been a Communion rather than a common Supper Suarez in 3. p. Dis. 71. Sec. 1. says, the Opinion of many Learned Authors denying it to have been a Communion, seems to him more probable. And Maldonate supposes many good writers to be of the same Opinion. But besides, though it were a Communion, what is your ground for saying he should not have given the Cup in it? That only Bread is mentioned; that the Disciples told he was known of them in breaking of Bread. But it is very frequent in Scripture to express a Dinner or Supper, where both meat and drink is taken, by this term of eating Bread, and the Disciples might have found sufficient signs of knowing Christ by his way of breaking the Bread, without mentioning more of his actions.  
Furthermore, Suarez in 3. p. Dis. 42. Sec. 1. declares it to be the Opinion of all Divines, and his own, that the Species of Bread and Wine are the Essential Constitutes of this Sacrament, Dico 30 Species consecratas esse Eucharistiae Sacramentum, seu ad ejus constitutionem intrinsece & essentialiter pertinere. That the consecrated Species do belong essentially to the Constitution of this Sacrament. How then could he give the Sacrament without the Species of Bread and Wine, if they be essential Constitutes of it. But Suarez, say you in his Disp. 71. says, that the whole Essence of the Sacrament consists in either kind; and therein (say I) contradicts his former doctrine, as also that of Gelasius 
* Gelas. Papa. in cap. comperimus de Consecratione dist. 2.  quoted by himself, Quidam sumt a corporis Christi portione à Calice sacri cruoris abstinent, qui proculdubio aut integra Sacramenta suscipiant, aut ab integris arceantur, quia divisio unius ejusdemque Mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio provenire non potest. Some taking the Body of Christ, do abstain from the Cup of his sacred Blood, who truly should either take all the Sacrament, or leave all; since being but one Mystery, it may not be divided without great Sacrilege. They pretend this should be understood of Priests only, that they should take the Communion under both kinds; but without showing any sufficient ground for it. We have no notice of Priests taking it under one kind, to whom Gelasius his declaration should be directed, and our Saviour did provide in this Sacrament a Spiritual food, not only for Priests, but for all the faithful, and his words, which are the ground of our Assertion, did extend to all.  
Mr. I. S. pretends that my Argument against Transubstantiation, [That neither for the effects of of the Sacraments, neither for verifying the words of the Institution, such a conversion of substances should be necessary,] comes pertinently to his purpose here. That the Communion under both kinds is not needful, either for the effects of the Sacrament, or for verifying the words of Christ in the Institution of it. But the Difference is wide, first as to the effects, Mr. I. S. himself confesses, pag. 201. that Christ might, were he pleased, have given us the effects of the Sacraments with a figurative presence only. Secondly, as to the tenor of our Saviour's words in the Institution of it, many of their own more learned and exact Schoolmen do affirm, that the said words do not convince for Transubstantiation, in force of their proper sense, as we have seen in the precedent Chapter. And 
* Bellarm. lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 23.  Bellarmin confesses, saying, it was the sentiment of most learned and acute Men. Both these things are wanting for making the like Argument serve our Adversary: for we have proved hitherto, that neither for the effect of the Sacrament, nor for verifying the words of our Saviour in the Institution of it, the half Communion may suffice. Certainly he hath no such confession from us to his purpose, as we have from him, and from his brethren to ours.   

CHAP. XXII. The Roman Worship of Images, declared to be sinful.  
Mr. I. S. is very tedious, and no less impertinent, in telling us its not a sin to make Images absolutely, because God made man to his own Image, and Protestants do make Images of the King and Queen, etc. but he might spare this labour, I having declared that it is not only lawful, but commendable to make Images, and good use of them to several purposes. The sin is to adore and worship them, that being directly opposite to God's Commandment set down in the twentieth Chapter of Exodus, in these words, Thou shalt not make to thee any graven Image, etc. thou shalt not bow down thyself to them; of which sin the Roman Church is guilty, by ordering honour and reverence to be given to Images. In what degree, Azorius with several others of their Divines, do tells us, saying, the same honour is to be given to them which is due to the Prototype, and consequently the honour of Latria to the Image of God and Christ, the honour of Dulia to the Images of other Saints. So Azorius says, (and not I, as Mr. I. S. falsifies) in these words, Constans est Theologorum sententia Imaginem codem honore & cultu honorari & coli, quo colitur id cujus est Imago. It is the constant opinion of Divines, that the Image is to be honoured and worshipped, in the same manner as the thing whereof it is an Image. Mr. I. S. says resolutely, Azorius has no such words: but if he did read attentively, the place I quoted of Azorius, Tom. 1. Inst. Moral. lib. 9 c. 6. §. Tota haec controversia, he would find those formal words in him, and others immediately following, wherein he attributes the same opinion to the Council of Trent, Sessione 25. in decret. Fdei de sacris Imaginibus, and to the seventh Synod.  
Vasquez lib. 2. the Adoratione, disp. 6. cap. 2. gives this further Account of the mode of worshipping Images in the Roman Church, Catholica veritas est Imaginibus deferendam esse adorationem, h. e. signa servitutis & submissionis, amplexu, luminaribus, oblatione suffituum, capitis nudatione, etc. That it is a Catholic verity, that worship is to be given to Images, that is to say, expressions of Service and Submission, by embraces, light burning, offering of Incense, uncovering the head. Azorius quotes for the same opinion, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Alensis, Cajetan, and several other ancient and modern Schoolmen. Mr. I. S. will not have us believe all these Doctors in this their Declaration, touching the Romish worship of Images. But who are you good Mr. I. S. Quidam nescio quis, nec puto nomen habet, one I know not who, and as I see nameless, that we must believe you, rather than so many famous Doctors now mentioned.  
Give to your worship of Images what name you please, to worship them at all, is a formal transgression of the divine Precept above mentioned, and therefore a grievous fin. You would fain prove out of Scripture that God ordered Images to be adored, which is to pretend that God should contradict himself, and so it appears in the ill success of your attempt upon finding your doctrine in Scripture. Your first discovery in Scripture is, that God commanded the Brazen Serpent to be put up to be adored, say you. God's command touching that matter is set down, Numb. XXIV. 8. in these words, Make thee a fiery Serpent, and set it upon a Pole, and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it shall live. Here is no mention of adoring that Serpent: you say that looking upon it, was to be with inward reverence and veneration, wherein adoration or worship doth properly consist. Then when we look upon a Church with reverence, as being the house of God, we adore it, the same when we look upon the Bible, when a dutiful child looks reverently upon his Father, all is adored.  
Likely the Israelites in time came to be of your opinion, and to adore the Serpent: but how well was that taken at their hands, you may see in the second of Kings XVIII. 4. That the godly King Ezechias, broke in pieces the brazen Serpent that Moses had made, for unto those days the Children of Israel did burn Ineense to it. While they only looked upon it, according to God's Ordinance, it was beneficial to them, but when their devotion grew to a worship, it provoked God's Indignation declared in that action of Ezechias, which the sacred Writer approves in these words, And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord.  
Your second discovery is, Josue VII. 6. where only we find that Josue, together with the Elders of Israel, fell upon their faces before the Ark, and prayed to God; and that you take for an adoration of the Ark. So whensoever you pray before an Altar or a Bible, you adore the Altar and the Bible. The third Instance, to which you say Protestants will never answer, is, that the Lords Supper is a representation of Christ's Passion, and a figure of his Body, and is religiously worshipped by them, if they do what St. Paul requires, 1 Cor. XI. 28. And what does St. Paul require in that place? This, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup. That Protestants should never answer this Argument is no wonder, what answer can be where no question is: and questionless there is no sign, or the least insinuation of Adoration to be paid unto the Communion Bread in the place you quote. It is a work of your fancy, no discovery of common sense, to imagine worship given by God's Ordinance to the Serpent, to the Ark, or to the Communion Bread, in the places you relate. You are to give me leave to tell you, that your Argument is so frivolous, as requires no more serious answer, then to put you in mind of a Spanish Proverb, Quien Vaccas ha' perdido cencerrosse le antexan, who has lost his Oxen, Bells do ring in his cars. His vehement desire of finding his Oxen, makes him think every noise of a bough, or leaf of a tree stirred be the wind, to be the sound of the Bells his Oxen bare: so your strong fancy for Image-worship, makes you conceive it, even where no shape nor sound of it appears.  
You confess Images were little used in the Primitive Church, nay, were absolutely prohibited in the Council of Eliberis; but that was, say you, to avoid the scandal of Pagans, and the relapse of those converted from Paganism. And are there not Pagans yet in the world? Is not a conversion of them still procured? What consequence is it to decry their adoration of stocks and stones, and when they come to your Churches to see you perform to Images all those acts of worship which they used to their Idols, by genuflexion, thurification, etc. To speak to them of your distinction of terminative and relative worship will be insignificant; as in itself its vain, for the reasen I proposed, pag. 70. of my former discourse, to which you give no answer.  
I alleged Nicephorus, saying, It is an absurd thing to make Images of the Trinity; and yet they do it in the Roman Church. You say, that what Nicephorus and others do hold absurd, is to paint Images of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as they are in their proper substance and nature. Nor do the Catholics use it as you falsely criminate them, say you to me: but herein certainly you do most falsely criminate me in saying, I should impose such a thing upon them. Where have I said that Papists do paint the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as they are in their proper substarce and nature? Or how could any man in his senses conceive Images of that kind could be drawn with material colours? To attemt the drawing of any shape of them, is what Nicephorus called absurd, and 
* Damascen. l. 4. c. 15. ante medium.  Damascen madness and impiety, Insiplentiae summae est & impictatis sigurare quod est divinum. Of this madness, Cajetan more ingenuous than you, confesses your Church to be guilty; who after having said, that in the old Law, certainly Images of God were prohibited, and for the same reason were reprehended as unlawful by several Doctors among Christians, since in both occasions they may engender in men a false conception of God's nature; yet he concludes in these words, In oppositum autem est usus Ecclesiae, admittens Trinitatis Imagines, representantes non solum silium incarnatum sed Patrem & Spiritum Sanctum. That contrary to the said reasons & authority of Damascen, the Church uses to admit Images of the Trinity, representing not only the Son Incarnate, but also the Father and Holy Ghost. To which I add of my knowledge, that they use not only a Picture of the Trinity as you describe, in the forms of an old Man, our Saviour, and a Dove; but in the form of one Man with three heads, or three faces in one head, both undecent and horrible to look upon. And thus much for the matter of fact of your painting the Holy Trinity. Now I will pass to to see how able you are to defend your practice herein, from the guilt of Idolatry.   

CHAP. XXIII. Mr. I. S. his defence of the Romish Worship of Images from the guilt of Idolatry confuted. The miserable condition of the Vulgar, and unhappy exgagement of the Learned among Romanists, touching the Worship of Images discovered.  
YOU pretend, though it be Idolatry, to adore an Image as a God, yet not so, to adore God in an Image. To which, I say first, that very many of your best Authors, such as are Alensis, Albert, Bonaventure, Abulensis, Soto, and others related and followed by Vascuez, in 3. p. disp. 104. c. 2. do affirm, that God, did not only forbid in the second Commandment that which was unlawful by the Law of Nature, as the worship of an image for God, but the worshipping the true God by any Similitude.  
You will not be engaged in defending the coherence of their doctrine herein, with saying, that the same Precept of not adoring God by an Image, should not oblige Christians; neither indeed is it easy to find the coherence of it. Certainly you will never find that God did dispense in the foresaid Law with Christians: neither can any reason be imagined why such a practice should be lawful in one time, and not in another? Why Jews should be further from Idolatry than Christians? This to have been the sin of the Jews in the worship of the golden Calf, which was so offensive to God, I mean, that they did adore it as an Image of God, and not believing it was a real God, is most apparent by the words of the Context, These be thy Gods, Oh Israel, which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt, Exod. XXXII. 4. Who can believe that men not altogether destitute of common sense, would seriously judge that Images made before themselves of their own gold, should be a real God? In what sense or reason could they say it was he that brought them out of the Land of Egypt, which was done long before that Calf was made? If you say that Aaron declared that Calf to be a God, saying, These are thy Gods, or, this is thy God, as you have in the ninth of Nehemiah, the plural being taken for the singular in the former place by a Hebraism: I answer, it was a tropical Expression, as you are wont to say, where Images are of the Apostles, This is St. Peter, and this is St. Paul, meaning the Images of St. Peter, or St. Paul. And as you say, in your Processions of holy Friday, of the Cross you bear in your hand, and raise up to be adored by the people, bowing upon their knees, Ecce lignum crucis in quo salus mundi pependit, Behold the timber of the Cross upon which was fixed the Saviour of the world. Surely you are not so senseless as to think these words should be verified in a literal sense, of the Cross you bear in your hand, but rather in a tropical, relating to the Cross whereon our Saviour was really fixed. In the like sense you are to conceive Aaron did speak of the golden Calf, (if you will not make him quite senseless) when he said, This is thy God, oh Israel, which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, which is to say, This is a Type or Image of thy God who brought thee out of the Land of Egypt: and under that notion the people did adore it. And all this while I hope you will not pretend to absolve them from the guilt of Idolatry, for which they were so severely punished by God; as we read in the 32. ch. of Ex●dus. Therefore Idolatry is not only to adore an Image as God, but also to adore God in an Image.  
If we will give credit to Pagans, touching their belief, they will tell us, they were never so blind as to think the Statues they adored were Gods, Nemo unquam tam fatuus fuit, says Cicero, qui saxum & lapidem Jovem esse credidit. None ever was so void of sense as to say that a stone should be Jupiter. Neither could such a belief consist with what is generally supposed by them, that their Gods are in heaven. So the Inhabitants of Lystra, when they saw Paul and Barnabas heal one that was a Cripple from his birth, said, The Gods are come down to us in the likeness of men, Act. XIV. 11. And if even Pagans thought it a stupidity unbecoming men of common sense, to conceive a stock or stone to be a God, less ought we to imagine, that the Israelites with so much advantage of instruction should be so brutish. Their guilt therefore was not to believe the golden Calf was a God, but to attempt the worshipping of God by an Image, which is your guilt.  
You conclude that to worship the Image of Christ and his Saints, cannot be called Idolatry. For an Idol (say you) is a representation of a Deity that has no being, but Christ and his Saint's ●ave a being, etc. If you speak of the subject of Idolatrous worship tending to something created, it is true that it looks upon a Deity that hath no being. But if you believe S. Paul, the real object of their worship was the true God which he preached, Whom you ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. Acts 17.23. and notwithstanding he rebuked them for Idolaters; therefore Idolatry is not only a worship dedicated to false Gods, but also a worship of the true God by a way prohibited.  
But how will this your discourse reach to save from Idolatry the worship given to Images of Saints, that have in them no Divinity real or apprehended? Is it because they have a being opposite to a Chimaera or nothing? then the adorers of Mars and Apollo in their Statues, (and so of other Idols) were no Idolaters. Those Statues or Idols were representations of men (whether living or dead, is not material) not Chimerical, but such as had a real being. Read the origin of Idolatry described in the 14. Chapter of Wisdom from the 12. verse: you shall find it begun by making Images of men absent or dead to honour their memory. Besides your supposition is clear contrary to what Gods Commandment against the worship of Images supposes, Th●u shalt not make unto the any graven Image, or any likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above, or that is in the Earth beneath, etc. Exod. 20.4. Images of things are prohibited to be worshipped, and of things really being in the Heaven or upon Earth.  
But as you hope to be saved, will you lay aside prejudices and subtleties a while, and speak once sincerely: what it it that makes you so eager for the worship of Images? is it any divine precept that moves or forces to it? we never heard you talk of any such precept, and there is at least a very probable assurance of a precept of God extant, prohibiting under terrible penalty such a worship. There is moreover a certain danger of occasioning, in the ruder sort, a downright gross Idolatry, by an absolute direct worship of the Images you set up to be worshipped, without those distinctions and precisions wherewith you pretend to justify your practice. Of which Ludovicus Vives gives this testimony; 
* Vives in Comm. ad August. de Civitate Dei I. 8. c. ultimo.  Divos divasque non alitèr venerantur quam Deum ipsum, nec video in multis quod discrimen sit inter eorum opinionem de Sanctis, & id quod Gentiles pu tabant de Diis suis. They worship holy Men and Women not otherwise than God himself; neither do I see in many things wherein their opinion touching Saints differs from that of Pagans, concerning their Gods. Polydore Virgil speaks to the same purpose in these words, Multi su●t saltem rudiores qui ligneas, saxeas, marmoreas, aeneas, item in parietibus pictas Imagines colunt, non ut figuras, sed perinde quasi ipsae sensum aliquem habeant, quique eis magis fidunt quam Christo ipsi, aut aliis Divis quibus dicati fuerunt. In the Church of Rome there are many who worship Images of stocks, stones, brass, or painted on Walls, not as figures, but even as if they had some sense in them, and who put more trust in them then in Christ himself, or in the Saints to whom they are dedicated.  
This being so, what prudence can it be to expose your own Salvation and the Salvation of others unto a certain danger, by practising a worship at least very probably prohibited by God under pain of damnation? This is the unhappy condition you are in, and our great advantage of you in our debates, that if you are in an error, as very probably you seem to be, you are liable to damnation: not so we, though you should be in the right; for on our part there is no transgression of any divine precept, & consequently no fear of damnation in not worshipping an Image. In the same case you are in your worship of the Eucharist. If Christ be not there after the manner you pretend, you are damnable Idolaters, as many of your own Authors do, and any that is rational must needs, confess. But on whatsoever side the truth be in that controversy, our practice is free from danger of sinning by not paying the worship of Latria to the Eucharist, whereas no precept of God forces us to give it such worship. This with the like advantages, which we have of you in all other points controverted, made me choose the way of the Church of England as surer to salvation than yours.  
What profit do you expect by the worship of Images? I understand what profit may be in the use of devout Images (if separated from the worship) that they may be a Book to the ruder sort, for raising their minds unto heavenly things. But this benefit is not so great, nor the hope of getting Heaven this way so warrantable: as the danger of losing it by unlawful worship, as imminent. While the use of Images was harmless and beneficial, it was justly retained. It were insolence in a member of any Church or Congregation, to oppose a custom or use introduced in it, while indifferent and not opposite to a higher Law. But if that use did run to an abuse and transgression of God's Commandments, than it is to be reform or rejected. This is what happened in the case of the brazen Serpent, as before related. And this is the case of the Reformed Churches with Images. While and where pious and innocent use was made of them, they permitted them, and so they do yet. But when they saw the abuse of unlawful worship given to them, they removed them from the eyes of the Vulgar, apt to commit those abuses in places of worship.  
Now we have seen how far this kind of abuse hath grown with your people both Learned and Vulgar. As for the latter, reflect upon what we have related out of Vives and Polydor. Add to it the testimony of George Cassander, a man renowned for his calm and even temper as well as for his learning, and who by both might have contributed to the peace and unity of Christian Churches, if the unflexible pride of the Court of Rome would suffer any limit to be put to its Ambition. Of the worship of Images he speaks thus, Manifestius est quam ut multis verbis explicari d●be●t, Imaginum & Simulachrorum cultum multum invaluisse, & affectioni seu potius superstitioni populi plus satis indultum esse, ita ut ad summam adorationem quae vel à Paganis suis Simulachris exhiberi consuevit, etc. It is more clear than needs 
* Cassander consult. art. 21. cap. de Imagine.  many words to declare it, that the worship of Images and Statues is gone too far, and too much liberty given to the devotion or rather superstition of the people, so as it came to the very height of worship, which even Pagans do give to their Idols.  
And truly it is a deplorable thing what Hierom L Lamas 
a Hierom. I. Lam. Sum. p. 3. c. 3. Et adeo gens affecta est truneis 〈…〉 desa 〈◊〉 Imaginibu●, ut, me teste, quoties Episcopi decenti res pon●●● jubent, vereres saas petent ●●rantes, etc. , as an eye-witness of it relates to have happened among the people of Asturias, Cantabria, and Gallicia, no small Provinces of Spain, viz. that they were so addicted to their worm ea●en and deformed Images, that when the Bishops commanded new and handsomer Images to be set up in their rooms, the poor people cried for their old; would not look up to their new, as if they did not represent the same thing; or really, as we may probably guests of their blindness, that they did conceive some peculiar numen or divine virtue to dwell in those old stumps of their former acquaintance, which the do not expect to find in those new and neater Images. And thus goes the matter with the vulgar sort of the people.  
But in my opinion it goes even far worse with the more learned of you. And certainly such were Aquinas, Alexander Alensis, Bonaventure, Albertus ●●agaus, C●jetan, Capreolus, and others quoted by 
b Azor. tom. 1. inst. moral c. 6. Sect. 2. Hac sententia est communi Theologorum censensu recepta.  A●orius, where he says it to be the opinion received by the common consent of Divines, Tha● the Image of Christ is to be adored with the worship of Latria, even the very same wherewith Christ himself is to be worshipped. And so respectively of the Images of other Saints, that they are to be worshipped with the same kind of worship that is due to the Prototype. Neither indeed do they say herein more than the Council of Trent doth teach them to say. For, in the Decree above mentioned touching the worship of Images, it gives such a reason of it, as declares the said worship to be measured by the quality of the Prototype. Quoniam honos qui iis exhibetur refertur ad prototypa, quae illae repraesentant; ità ut per Imagines, quas osculamur & coram quibus caput aperimus, & procumbimus, Christum adoremus, & sanctos, quorum illae similitudinem gerunt, veneremur. The honour which we give to Images, says the Council, is related to the Prototypes, which they do represent; so as that by the Images which we kiss, and before which we uncover our head, and bow down, we adore Christ, and worship the Saints, whose likeness they bear. Whence follows what the forementioned Divines said, That the worship of Images being to be measured by the Quality of their Prototypes, the worship of Latria is due to the Image of Christ; that being the worship which is due to himself. And by your denial of this to be the doctrine of your Church Mr. I. S. you will more easily persuade us that you begin to grow ashamed of your doctrine, as well you may, then that you understand the Tenets of the Roman Church better than Azorius did, or those other Divines of greatest eminency among you, by him quoted.  
This being so, consider the miserable condition of your doctrine, how well you can descend it from the infamous note of Idolatry. If you believe the best Interpreters touching the proper signification of the word Idolum, you shall find them say it signifies no more than Imago. So that an Image adored or worshipped is in propriety of speech an Idol worshipped; and consequently a worship of Latria given to an Image, or Id●l, (for they are the same) is in all propriety of speech Idololatria. Therefore according to the doctrine of the Council of Trent, and your Divines forementioned, by the worship of Latria given by you to the Image of Christ you commit formal Idolatry. I wish with all my heart you did not, and that no Argument of mine nor of any other could prove you guilty of this horrid crime.  
By this you see how the Council of Trent, and the most eminent of your Schoolmen do countenance the stupid error of the vulgar among ●ou, & even exceed it. It is plain they deliver in formal terms what I am certain would be a horror to the meaner Capacities, if these did apprehend the sinful absurdity of it. And your pretention to more prudence in not terming your worship Latria doth not heal the wound, nor so much as cover it from any clear sighted-eys. The real guilt consists in worshipping Images against the Ordinance of God; give that worship what name you please.  
If I do say your people do pray to Images of wood or stone, and therein do practice that great folly, of which the Wise man accuses the Idolater, that he is not ashamed to speak to that which hath no life. For health he calls upon that which is weak, for life prays to that which is dead. Wisdom. 13.17. if I do say moreover that your Church teacheth them to do so: certainly you will say it is a great calumny. But then tell me, I pray, whose words are these you speak to the Cross in the procession of good Friday?  
O Crux! ave spes unica,  
Hoc Passionis tempore,  
Auge piis justitiam,  
Reisque dona veniam.  
Hail o Cross! our only hope, in this time of Passion, give increase of grace to the godly, and pardon to sinners. If you tell me these are the words of the Church (which you will not deny) but spoken to Christ, not to the Cross, Azorius gainsays you; for he declares that by those words the Church speaks to the Cross, Ecclesia cum Crucem veneratur & colit, eam salutat & alloquitur cum ait, O Crux ave, etc. The Church (says he) adoring the Cross salutes it, and speaks to it, saying, Hail o Cross, etc. And is not this to speak to that which hath no life? etc. Thus your people do, and which is worse, thus your Church teaches them to do. And thus we see your Church and People do what all Idolaters do to their Idols.   

CHAP. XXIV. Our Adversaries reply to my exceptions against their Invocation of Saints, declared to be impertinent.  
Mr. I.S. is so exact a Disputant, that he takes it for a sufficient answer to my Arguments, if he does but mention the subject of them, and say something of what his notes or stock of knowledge does afford him, without taking the trouble of examining, whether what he says be to the purpose of my Arguments or no. This is usual with him, but very conspicuous in the present case of their Invocation of Saints. I begun accusing their excesses in calling the Virgin Mary their life and hope, their Redeemeress and Saviouress. This I said to be contrary to St. Peter's declaration, That there is no salvation in any other besides Jesus Christ, and that there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved, Act. IU. 12. To this Mr. I. S. says, it proves we must not ask the Saints on earth to pray for us, which is to prove too much. I hope Mr. I. S. himself will not be so desperate as to call his Colleague, whose prayers he desires, his Life and Hope, his Saviour and Redeemer. But how comes it to prove we must not desire at all the prayers of Saints upon earth?  
Two excesses of Papists in their Invocation of Saints I took in hand to reprehend. To speak of all, the brevity which my business then did confine me to, would not permit. The one is to call the Virgin Mary Saviouress, etc. the other, to dedicate more Churches, and address more prayers to Saints then to Christ. Both which excesses I convinced of error by those passages of Scripture, which declare Christ our Lord to be our only Saviour, and that he is more willing and able to help us then any other Saint, and that he invites us to come to himself for remedy of all our needs. Your way to answer this, were either to purge your Church of those excesses, or to prove that the Scriptures which I alleged did not evince those practices of yours to be excesses. You do neither, but in lieu thereof, you speak only of desiring the prayers of Saints who live yet upon earth: whereby you altar the state and terms of the question. I spoke of praying to Saints who are no more on earth, and fitted my Texts to the Confutation of that practice. You speak of desiring those who are not yet departed this life, to pray for us: which are far different things. And so we find the latter practised in the Gospel, but not the former. But you must say something, and though not to the purpose, it must be called an Answer.  
I related some desperate expressions of your Preachers over-valuing Saints. And you, confessing they were mad, in so much, fall into exclamations against me for leaving the Roman Church, because I saw some mad men in it. And thence you fall to your wont immodest railleries, without regarding how far you go from truth and the purpose. Where did you find me say, that for the madness of those Friars only, I forsook the Roman Church? Did not I allege many other very grave causes of my resolution therein? Did I say this was a cause at all for me to leave that Church? I only reflected upon it as on very bad Fruit that declares the corruption of the Tree. And in case it should be in some measure a cause, how come you to imagine or think to persuade others it should be the only cause? A thief that was hanged for stealing a purse, wherein were twenty pounds and six pence, because you heard in the process of his cause mention made of six pence, were it ingenuous or just to exclaim at the Judges, as if they did condemn a man to be hanged for stealing six pence?  
I confess, your disingenuity herein is hateful to me; but if you think it should not be so, pray then answer me to these two Questions: If a Villain did come by night and cut down a score or two of those fair Trees that grace the Walks of the Royal Park of St. James in Westminster, would you think it too much severity that such a Villain should be whipped about the streets for so great an Insolence? But if after this check he should run about the City and Country with a little branch of one of those Trees in his hand, exclaiming against the cruelty of the Judges, as if they had ordered him to be whipped about the streets of London for cutting that little branch only; would not you think him worthy to be whipped again for his notorious calumny? Behold your case: I expressed many grievous faults of the Roman Church which occasioned my withdrawing from her, Idolatry, Superstition, cruelty in the conduct of Souls, impiety in preferring her own laws to those of God: rashness, and even madness in her worship and Invocation of Saints: and among others, related the frantic expressions of a Friar in extolling his Saint, as one of the Branches proceeding from that vitiated Tree. Of this Branch you lay hold, and cry that I have left the Communion of the Roman Church only, because I saw in it a mad Friar. Give me leave to tell you, that this kind of arguing deserves no better than whipping in the Schools.  
And having answered my Arguments upon this Subject, say you, and having given no Answer to them, say I, as now I have shown: you provoke me to a trial of your Scholastic skill, touching the knowledge that Saints in heaven have of our affairs here, and how far they are concerned for them; a thing whereof even your ablest Schoolmen could never yet give a clear account. Whoever shall please to read their Writings on this Subject, will see a Theatre of confusion. The most that ever could be cleared of what they allege, and you can pick out of them, is that God can, and sometimes did reveal unto Saints in heaven some earthly concerns: but that all the Saints in heaven should know all our thoughts, and all our particular concerns, could never be said upon any probable ground, much less with certain. And yet a certain knowledge of it were requisite to save your practice from the note of blindness and folly, in having such frequent recourse to them by mental and vocal prayers for all your particular concerns. I say moreover, that though you were certain they did see all our peculiar concerns, and were willing to be concerned for us; yet you fall very short of giving a formal answer to my exception, taken against your more frequent recourse to them, then to Christ for Intercession, and dedicating more Temples to their names, then to the name of God and Christ. How can this consist with our Christian acknowledgement of Christ to be our only Mediator and Advocate? And if you deny so much to him, I hope you will not doubt he is at least our chief Mediator and Advocate: & being so, how come you to have less recourse unto him then to inferior Saints? which was that I charged upon your practice. To which you gave no answer, because you saw no rational or Christian answer could be given: and so finding it an easier work to fall upon your accustomed scurrilous Sarcasms, you returned them for answer.  
Only to that of building more Churches, and offering prayers and devotions to your supposed Saints, then unto Christ, because you would seem to say something, though nothing indeed to the purpose, You say at last, that the honour you give to the Saints, you give it to God in them, or to them for God. But who can understand this to be a good way to please God? If an earthly King would have the Prince his Son and Heir, to be Solicitor General to him in favour of his Subjects, and that all Royal graces and favours should pass unto them by the hands of his Son; Can any man rationally imagine it would be pleasing to such a King, that his Subjects neglecting their Applications to the Prince, should make all, or the most frequent to inferior Servants of the Court? Apply this example, and if you do not see by it the unreasonableness of that practice of yours, I think we may conclude that passion and prejudice has blinded you so far as not to see the light of noonday.  
Add to all this that many of your supposed Saints possibly may not be Saints indeed, but wretched Souls damned in Hell. Whereof your own Histories do afford no few instances, and the possibility of the Case is evident: for most of your Saints were Canonised or called Saints by Vulgar opinion; not by that more exact scrutiny, which in latter Ages was ordained to prevent the Invocation of Impostors and Cheats for Saints through Vulgar error. It is manifest that such wicked men are solicitous, and not seldom successful in getting the credit of Saints with the Vulgar. That's the business of hypocrites; when true Saints make it theirs to hid their virtues, and please only the eyes of God.  
And even now, after so many solemnities and scrutinies ordained to proceed to a Canonization, the matter still remains uncertain. Many of your learned Schoolmen deny the Pope to be infallible therein. He may be misinformed, and why not? May not Cheats intervene, and Bribes work in such Informations as in others? A Town or Society that will be engaged to get one of their Members Canonised for Saint, and thereby obtain considerable Emoluments of credit and interest to their body, may possibly use those indirect means which other solicitations of men tending to the like purchase are capable of.  
All this being so, how can you defend at least from blindness and imprudence, your practice of more frequent recourse to your supposed Saints, then to the supreme undoubted Saint of Saints Jesus Christ? Not to treat at present how much this doctrine of the Invocation of Saints is in itself injurious to God, by giving that worship to Creatures which belongs only to himself; as may appear by all those places of Scripture which appropriate our Invocation to God only, in regard of his incommunicable Attributes of Omniscience, infinite goodness, and power: nor how dishonourable it is to Christ, both in regard of his infinite merit, and office of Mediator.  
And finally, the silence of such a practice in the first and better Ages of the Church, so as Cardinal Perron confesses, that in the Authors who lived nearer the Apostles times, in the three first Centuries no footsteps can be found of the Invocation of Saints: this silence, I say, is a sufficient Argument of the unlawfulness of this practice, & how unsuitable it is to the spirit of the Apostles. Origen is not only silent of such a practice, but directly protests against it in several places, affirming that Prayers and Supplications are to be directed only to God by Jesus Christ. For being inquired by Celsus, what opinion Christians had of Angels; he answers, That though the Scripture sometime calls them Gods, it is not with intention that we ought to worship them, For all prayers and Supplications, says he, and Intercession and Thanksgiving are to be sent up to the Lord of all by the high Priest, who is above all Angels, being the living word of God. And reflecting often upon the unreasonableness of making addresses to Angels, by reason of the little knowledge we have of their condition; he adds, That even such a knowledge, if we were furnished with it, 
* Origen contra Celsum lib. 5. p. 233. Edit. Cantab.  would not permit us to presume to pray unto any other but God the Lord of of all, who is abundantly sufficient for all by our Saviour the Son of God. And after he declares how Angels and Saints may assist us, and pray for us to God if we be in the favour of God, and do endeavour to please him, We must endeavour to please God only, says he, who is over all, and pray that he may be propitious to us, procuring his good will with piety and all kind of virtue. And reflecting upon Celsus his proposal of worshipping Demons or Angels, he addeth these remarkable words, 
† Lib. 8. pag. 120.  But if he will yet have us to procure the good will of any other after him, that is God over all, let him consider that as when the body is moved, the motion of the shadow doth follow it; so in like manner, having God  to us, who is over all, it followeth that we shall have all his friends, both Angels, and Souls, and Spirits  to us; for they have a sympathy with them that are thought worthy to find favour with God ....... so as we may be bold to say, that when men, who with a resolution propose to themselves the best things, do pray unto God, many thousands of the sacred powers pray together with them uncalled upon. Here and in other such Testimonies of Origen, and others of his time, we find mention of Angels and Saints, to pray for men, and to help them by God's appointment, but we find no mention at all of such a thing as an Invocation of them. He says they pray together with us, when we pray to God himself, and that not because we prayed first to them to pray with us, but uncalled upon. Here we have the Spirit of that Church truly Catholic and Apostolic declared to us, that we are to make our Addresses of Prayers and Invocations to God alone, and thereby win the assistance and prayers of heavenly Spirits in our favour. For as all the world shall fight with him against the unwise sinners, so all the Court of Heaven will assist their King in favouring his Saints and Servants.   

CHAP. XXV. A great stock of Faults and Absurdities discovered in Mr. I. S. his defence of Purgatory.  
SIR, as you show your special study to be to sour your Pen with all manner of sauciness, even without occasion given to you, and starting often from the point and purpose for to pleasure yourself in the Sea of bitterness: so it is my no small care (and certainly a harder task then to answer your Arguments) to refrain my Pen from pouring upon you continual showers of heavy Censures, whether reflecting upon your boldness, in asserting manifest untruths; or upon your rudeness or malice, in misunderstanding or misrepresenting the state and terms of the Question in every point of my Discourse you pretend to answer; or shunning shamefully or childishly the point and purpose, and proposing another of your own instead of answering, as Schole-boys do with riddles or hard questions, as they call them, when they want an answer to one of them, they return for answer another of that kind of Questions. Of all these faults I could easily convince you guilty in every point you handled from the beginning of your Book to the end: I have abstained from doing it in formal reflections (though in my replies faced with your Proposals, the discreet Reader may easily see your foresaid faults really contained) out of my aversion to offensive expressions, and because I fear to offend my friends and Patrons on this side, as you hope to please yours by bitter Language. But when you tell palpable untruths, shall I desert the defence of truth not to make you a liar? when you clearly abandon the question proposed, and misrepresent the case, or misunderstand it, shall I desist in my serious and close enquiry of the truth, not to discover your ignorance and weakness? So much complacency you are not to expect from me; and by showing you are guilty of all these faults in your reply to my discourse upon the point of Purgatory, you will perceive I have been indulgent to you, in not enlarging upon a formal discovery of them in all the points hitherto treated upon among us. Now to the proof of so much.  
I begun my Discourse upon the point of Purgatory, with the method and order that exact Disputants are wont to observe in handling seriously any subject; First examining what we are to understand under the notion of Purgatory. Seeondly whether such a thing be really extant. As to the first, I told how I did not find the more learned Men of the Roman Church so confident as the Vulgar, in taking for Purgatory a determinate place in the bowels of the Earth, with those frightful qualities their Legends do specify; being contented to conclude from some places of Scripture by conjecture, that after this life there must be some place to expiate sins, without determining whether that place be over, or under, or in the Earth, or whether the pain be heat, or cold, or darkness, or tempest, etc. This you call raillery; but it is not my humour to rally in so serious matters: they are the terms wherewith the more grave and modest Writers of your own party do express the matter. And such is the unhappiness of your engagement, that hardly your doctrine can be mentioned in terms that may not make it ridiculous. All this you say is to no purpose, for the question is not where Purgatory is, or what is the condition of People there, but whether there be any such thing as Purgatory? I would fain know what purpose is that you say this Discourse is not pertinent to? I am confident it is the purpose of fitting my questions to your answers, when you want answers fitting my questions. You saw your shame discovered in deluding the vulgar with Romantic Notions, for which your learned Men could not discover any serious or solid ground; and not finding yourself with stock to answer that charge, you must put it off, and say, it is not to the purpose. You are much a stranger to Disputes and Books, if you do not know that there are questions touching the essence, quality and situation of Purgatory, as well as touching the existence of it. You never knew what is good Logic, and in it an orderly procedure to a demonstration, if you did not learn that the Question, Quid sit, aught to precede in some measure the Question, An sit. That to know whether a thing be existent, we must have a knowledge of the quality of such a thing, at least as far as the understanding of the word, and some knowledge of the thing signified by it. If you send one to the Market to know whether a Camel be there, you must prepare him with some notion of the thing, whereby he may distinguish it from a Cow, or a Goat; otherwise how can he bring you a report of the existence of a Camel in that place. It may happen to him, as to the other Countryman, who hearing a report in his Village of a Monkey which the Bishop of the neighbouring City had, and desirous to see it, having met with an Ass coming out of the Bishop's house, he cried out to his companions they should behold the Bishop's Monkey. If he had been informed before what the word Monkey did signify, he would not have fallen into this ridiculous error. To prevent such mistakes, good Scholars do premise some notion of the Question quid sit, what is the thing they look for, before they enter into the Question An sit, whether such a thing be extant.  
To this purpose I premised a brief discourse touching the quality and notion of Purgatory, and thence proceeded immediately to examine the grounds exhibited by the Roman Church for the existence of it: But Mr. I. S. not finding himself furnished to encounter me this way, taketh another, telling us what is of Faith, and what is not touching Purgatory, and then proposes a stock of Arguments in favour of it, which he will have us take for his own, though very trivial; and falls a quarrelling with other Protestants, I know not what, without any mention or regard in the mean time of answering my Arguments, according to the foresaid rule of young Schoolboys, to propose one question for answer to another.  
But finding the Arguments he produces to be weak for his purpose, he tells us that though the testimony be and others do allege in favour of Purgatory be not convincing, yet their doctrine must stand, because they are many years in possession of it, and so must hold while we do not beat them out of it by positive proofs, and thence expostulates with me that in all my discourse touching Purgatory, I bring no text of Scripture that says there is no such thing.  
Sure there is no man of common sense that understands the English Tongue, now so enriched with Latin and Schole-terms passed into common discourses, but will perceive the strange halluemation of this man in his expression now proposed. It is not for Doctors and Masters in Universities alone, among Englishmen to understand the propriety of these terms, affirmative and negative, and the different duties of him that stands upon the negative, and of the other that stands upon the affirmative in a debate, that it is the latter aught to produce positive proofs of what he affirms, and his Adversary complies with showing that such proofs are not convincing. To understand this much, I say, I need not appeal to great Doctors, any man of common understanding may be a competent judge in it. What kind of people then, did Mr. I. S. pretend to persuade, that I did not comply with the duties of a formal Disputant in refuting the assertors of Purgatory, by showing the Testimonies produced by them were not convincing? My purpose was not to prove the existence of any thing, but the nonexistence of a thing which they call Purgatory. To pretend that a nonexistence of a thing must be proved by positive arguments, is to pretend that a nonentity or nothing should be painted with colours.  
He tells us we are Actors, and they defendants in this Controversy, that it is our part to exhibit proofs. But herein he doth not tell truth. For they are Actors and Imposers upon us of Articles to which they will force our belief. It is their duty to prove that such an Article is contained in the Word of God. And while they do not, we are in possession of our liberty, of which they pretend to rob us, by forcing upon us the belief of Purgatory. He tells us they are a long time in possession of this doctrine. Be it so, may not a possessor be questioned about the title and right of his possession, and dispossessed if his titles be not found justified? This is the case betwixt us and them. We pretend their titles for imposing upon men the belief of Purgatory to be invalid and fictitious, they must show the contrary or forfeit their possession.  
The case thus standing, you are not to expect Mr. I. S. to put me off by stratagems of Schole-Boys, in returning for answer impertinent questions; I must keep you to the point, for I desire in earnest to find out the truth. The point is, whether the Testimonies of Scripture alleged by your Church, for asserting Purgatory, be convincing? I said the chief place alleged by it of the old Testament is the case of Judas Maccabeus, sending money to Jerusalem that Sacrifices should be made for his Soldiers defunct. Herein you say I am mistaken, you have other Testimonies more convincing of your own discovery. But will you dare to prefer your own judgement to the judgement of your Church, which in her Anniversary Mass for the dead, of all Testimonies of the old Testament, makes choice of the foresaid place of Judas Maccabeus, proposing it for Epistle to be read to the People in that Mass? Will you have us say that your Church made choice of that text beyond others to be read in the Anniversary Mass of Souls, because in it is made mention of a weighty sum of money to be given for the dead, and with offerings of this kind your Clergy is much pleased, and so do strike on that string too much in their Funeral Sermons, exhorting to money offerings for the dead, to the no small offence and heavy censure of such of your People as dare speak their sense. By what I see of your temper, I am sure you would say so if you were in my place and case. And while you make your atonement with your Church for undervaluing her judgement in the preference of that text, forbear at last tergiversations, and stand to a trial of the pertinency of the said text reputed for chief to prove the Existence of Purgatory.  
I said that though the Book, relating the foresaid case, were Canonical, and of certain Authority (which is not allowed) yet it was no concluding argument to prove the Existence of Purgatory, since Prayers for the Dead may be made, and were made to different purposes, then that of drawing them out of Purgatory; and if that be so, it is not a good consequence, Judas Maccabeus ordered Prayers to be made for his Soldiers defunct; therefore it was to draw them out of Purgatory. That Prayers may be made for the dead to a different purpose, then to draw them out of Purgatory, I proved first out of a doctrine received among Romish Doctors, that God being present to all the spaces of Eternity, may see now and listen to Prayers that will be made in any Age after, and foreseeing that godly persons shall pray in the future for the assistance of his Grace to one dying now, may yield it accordingly. If this go well, said I, prayers may be commendable and very important for the dead, though no Purgatory were in nature, being conducent to a greater emolument of dying penitently, and thereby escaping the everlasting fire of Hell.  
I have added, that if the case related of Maccabeus be true, it is more likely the prayers made for the slain, should have proceeded in the manner aforesaid, then for bringing them out of Purgatory, since in the same place is related that those men were found to have committed a mortal sin, (which is not pretended to be pardoned in Purgatory) under the Coats of every one that was slain, saith the Text, Maccab. XII. 42. They found things consecrated to the Idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden to the Jews by the Law. And the following Context declares that sin to have been heinous, for as much as it drew upon them God's vengeance, saying, that every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain.  
Mr. I. S. is pleased to approve of that subtlety of Schoolmen, alleged for ground of this reply, that Prayers in the future may avail Souls dying before, to obtain a good death; the only thing I did suspect may not meet with general applause, and which indeed, if certain and accordingly apprehended and believed by men, would make Prayers for the dead to appear more useful and important then ever the doctrine of Purgatory could make them yet appear to serious judgements.  
But my good Antagonist allowing the same doctrine to be very good, tells me it is not to the purpose. None is more apt to call one a thief, than he that is a thief himself; and none so ready to say his opponent speaks not to the purpose, as one that never speaks to the purpose himself. Of this latter sort, I dare make good Mr. I. S. to be in all his encounters upon my discourse, if it were worth my while; in the mean time I appeal to the Reader of common sense, to judge betwixt him and me at present, which of us both doth speak to the purpose, he in saying that my discourse now related, is not to the purpose of proving the case of Judas Maccabeus, does not evince the existence of Purgatory; or I, in ordering thus my Argument to that purpose. The Prayers supposed to be made by the Maccabees might have been, and probably were made to a different purpose, then that of drawing the Souls of their defunct from Purgatory, therefore the case of such Prayers to have been made, doth not evince the existence of Purgatory. The Antecedent of this Argument, as also the proof and declaration of it is allowed and commended by my Adversary. To enlarge upon declaring the legality of the consequence, is to mistrust the understanding of the discreet Reader, and to misspend my time, which I do not resolve to do.  
But shall we see how my subtle Adversary goes about to prove I did not speak to the purpose in my former discourse? For allow, says he, those Prayers made for the slain, might have had that effect in this passage, etc. a penitent death; yet still returns the conclusion pretended by Bellarmin, that the passage proves it was the belief and practice of the people of God, and praised by Scripture to pray for the expiation of the sins of the dead. Good Sir, this is to draw breath a little, but not to escape a deadly blow given to your cause in this occasion. I take up your own words and make them serve my purpose thus; Tho that passage proves it was the belief and practice of the people of God, and praised by Scripture to pray for the expiation of sins of the the dead, yet still returns my Conclusion, that those Prayers might have been made for the expiations of sins committed by the dead in life, and to be pardoned at their death; not of sins remaining after their death, and bringing them to Purgatory, which was Beauties' purpose and yours.  
The Texts he alleges out of St. Dennis and Isidorus for praying for the dead, are capable of the same construction I gave to the prayers of the Maccabees. This Answer he might have expected from me if he were in charity, with more ground than the other, he supposes rashly I should give, that the Ancient Fathers erred. I did not learn in the Church of England to respect them less. I see here far greater reading and regard of them then I saw among you. I know no Gehinus, or others of those you mention, that ascribes to them more errors than Aquinas, Scotus, Suarez, Maldonate, and other your greatest Schoolmen and Scripturians: they allege them frequently for contradictory opinions; and the one side must be in an error. You betray too much of a vulgar temper, in admiring it should be said, that any of the Ancient Fathers hath erred. They confess themselves to have done it: it was far from their modesty and sincerity to deny it.   

CHAP. XXVI. The Argument for Purgatory taken from the 12th of S. Matth. v. 32. solved.  
THE chief testimony out of the New Testament, alleged in favour of Purgatory, is that of Matth. XII. 32. where our Saviour saith, that a sin against the Holy Ghost shall not be pardoned in this world, nor in the world to come, therefore, say they, some sins are pardoned in the other world. I denied the consequence, because out of a Negative a Positive does not follow, as out of this Premise, Joseph knew not his wife until she had brought forth her first born son. This consequence follows not in opinion of good Christians, therefore he knew her after. Mr. I. S. answers, this consequence follows according to the letter of the Text: but the Authority of the Church obligeth to believe it was not so; that's to say, the Church declares against the Text. If you were not tied to this other engagement, you would deem such a saying to be a disrespect to your Church: but hard undertaking puts people to hard shifts.  
Bellarmin was contented to infer the existence of Purgatory out of the foresaid Text of St. Matthew according to the Laws of Prudence, though not according to the rules of Logic. But Mr. I. S. as more stout, will pretend it to be evident according to rules of Faith and Logic. The Text goes thus, He that will speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him, but he that will speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the future: out of which words he argues thus, The Text denies to a blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, what it grants to a blasphemy against the Son of Man, but what it denies to the former is remission in this life and the other; therefore what it grants to the latter, is remission in this life and the other. I answer, that the major Proposition is false, for more is denied to the sin against the Holy Ghost, then allowed to the sin against the Son of Man: for to the former is expressly denied pardon relating to both worlds, and to the latter pardon is promised only indeterminate, and so may be verified with pardoning in one life, though not in the other. And though Major and Minor were true, the Consequence does not follow, according to rules of Logic, which declare, that where all the Premises are particulars (such are those of that Syllogism) the Conclusion is not convincent, as in this Syllogism, A man speaketh, Peter is a man, therefore Peter speaketh.  
Mr. I. S. produces another Argument upon the same Text of a strange contexture. It's evident, says he, out of this Text, that as blasphemy against the Spirit is unpardonable, so all other sins are pardonable; but a blasphemy against the Spirit is unpardonable in this world, and in the future: therefore other sins are pardonable in both. The Major of this Syllogism is false; first, since it will have an adequate parity in both cases relating to the places of pardon, for which there is no ground in the Text, as declared above, touching the Major of the former Syllogism. Secondly, for saying that all other sins are pardonable, for which neither is there any ground in the Text; since from a particular Premise an Universal Conclusion may not be deduced: from saying, that a sin against the Holy Ghost is not pardonable, it follows not by any rule of Faith or Logic, that all other sins are pardonable: for though that occasion did require to speak only of a sin against the Holy Ghost, possible it is, that another sin may likewise be unpardonable: And I can depose, that I saw defended in a famous public Dispute, wherein I had a share myself, that a sin essentially unpardonable is possible, and that distinct from a sin against the Holy Ghost.  
But to make the matter clearer by an example, I will let you see the frame and force of your Syllogism in another of the same Contexture, thus; As the King punisheth Rebels, so he favoreth his loyal Subjects: he denies to every Rebel places of trust and honour in all his Dominions; therefore he allows to every loyal Subject places of trust and honour in all his Domimons. If you do not think this consequence to be legal, give us leave to think the same of your former consequence, for they are both of the same frame. But while you do not show your doctrine of Purgatory to be built upon firmer grounds than such subtleties as these; think not to force it upon us, nor that for being possessors of it many years, as you say, we will judge you therefore to be bonae fidei possessores, or that you possess it with a good conscience.  
And whereas the  Text, Matth. XII. 32. is in so great repute with you for the present purpose, that you say with Bellarmin, it's the only Text wherewith St. Bernard did prove Purgatory. I will declare further by a special doctrine of a great Father of the Church, how inconsequent is the existence of Purgatory to the verity of that Text. The good reception you gave to a subtlety of School men, I produced for sol●ing your Argument out of the Book of Maccabees, in the Chapter precedent, doth encourage me to hope you may give the like reception to another subtlety of a learned and ancient Father of the Church, for answering this other Argument out of Matth. XII. In the 9th Chapter of the Book of Joshua, we find that the Inhabitants of Gibeon hearing of victorious Joshua his approach, and the rigour he used with the conquered places near them, came into him as if they had been Ambassadors sent from foreign Countries to solicit his amity: they came in old , with clouted shoes upon their feet, their bread mouldy, and wine bottles old and rend, as if all did signify the tediousness of the journey which they underwent; and by this meens obtained from Joshua and the Princes of Israel, a promise of safety and freedom. But after three days march the Israelites found those Gibeonites that feigned to have come from a foreign Country to be Inhabitants of that Land they were in, complained to Josua of the fraud put upon them: but he, not to infringe the oath he made, would not consent to destroy them, but punished their cheat with a note of infamy, ordaining they should be hewers of wood, and drawers of water to all the Congregation. Upon which passage Origin delivers this Gloss, that Joshua being a type of our Saviour Christ, and Palestine the promised Land, a Symbol of Heavenly bliss: to let people live in that Land with a note of infamy, signifies that some may enter with some blemish into the joys of Heaven. His words are remarkable, as followeth, 
* Origen hom. in Josuam.  In domo patris mei mansiones multae sunt, Joh. XIV. 2. & multae differentiae eorum quae ad salutem veniunt, unde & Gabaunitas arbitror portiunculam quandam corum esse qui salvandi sunt, sed non sine nota alicujus infamiae. In my Father's house are many mansions, Joh. XIV. 2. many are the differences of them that come to be saved; wherefore I conceive the Gibeonites to be a parcel of those who are to be saved, but not without some note of infamy. And a little after he added these words, Sunt enim in Ecclesiâ credentes quidam & acquiescentes divinis praeceptis, erga servos Dei officiosi & religiosi, & ad ornatum Ecclesiae vel ministorii satis promti, sed in conversatione propriâ impuri, obscoeni & vitiis involuti, nec omnino deponentes veterem hominem cum actibus suis: Istis crgo Christus Jesus salutem concedit, sed quandam infamiae notam non evadunt. There are in the Church some believers and honourers of his Servants, and ready to contribute towards the decency of his Service in the Church: but in their private life impure and liable to vices, not putting off altogether the old man with his works. To these therefore Christ Jesus allows Salvation, but they eat not a certain note of infamy. According to this doctrine of Origen, some may departed this life in state of Salvation, and be received in Heavenly bliss, though with some blemishes of smaller guilt, not inconsistent with God's amity, but occasioning a decrease in their degree of Glory; and therefore capable of a pardon of such blemishes or imperfections even in Heaven; if so, your Text mentioning a pardon of sins in the other life doth not evince the existence of Purgatory.  
If you say that Origen has erred herein, as I conceive you will, than first think it not a scandal to say that some one or other of the ancient Fathers should err. Secondly, acknowledge therein a fault of your Church, in making choice of the foresaid words of Origen for Gloss ordinary of the  passage of Joshua with the Gibeonites, and conclude from all, that this subtlety which clearly solveth your strongest Argument for Purgatory out of the New Testament, is no invention of mine; but a doctrine of a very learned Father of the ancient Church approved and received by yours modern with so public a qualification, as to take it for an ordinary Gloss upon the forementioned passage of Scripture.   

CHAP. XXVII. The attemt of our Adversary to make the doctrine of Purgatory an Article of the Apostles Creed, declared to be vain.  
Mr. I. S. makes sure account he found Purgatory in the Apostles Creed, where it is said, He descended into Hell. And what if you are told those words were not in the Apostles Creed from the beginning, and that the first time and place they were used in it, was in the Church of Aquilcia some four hundred years after Christ; that they are not expressed in those Creeds which were made by the Councils, as larger Interpretations of the Apostles Creed; not in the Nicene or Constantinopolitan, not in that of Ephesus or Chalcedon, not in those confessions made at Sardica, Antioch, Seleucia, Syrmium: not in the Creed expounded by St. Austin, de fide & Symbolo. And 
* Ruffin. in Expositione Symboli.  R●ffinus says, that in his time it was neither in the Roman or Oriental Creeds. Sciendum sanè est, quod in Ecclesiae Romanae Symbolo non habetur additum descendit ad inferna: sed neque in Orientis Ecclesiis habetur hic sermo. It is certain, saith he, that the Article of the descent into Hell was not in the Roman, or any of the Oriental Creeds. It is not mentioned in several Confessions of Faith delivered by particular persons. Not in that of Eusebius Caesariensis presented to the Council of Nice, nor in that of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra delivered to Pope Julius, nor in that of Acatius Bishop of Caesarea, delivered to the Senate of Seleucia, nor in others, mentioned by the learned Bishop of Chester Dr. Pearson, in that his grave and judicious exposition of the Creed writing upon the fifth Article of it. I am persuaded this will appear strange unto you, and though sufficient to weaken the force of your Argument grounded upon the foresaid words of the Creed, my Answer will not rely upon it. I allow the said words to belong to the Catholic Creed long time received in the Church, and embraced by that of England.  
But I deny your inference from those words of the Creed in favour of your doctrine of Purgatory to be pertinent. He descended into Hell: I believe he did. But not into the Hell of the damned, say you, for all Christians abhor the Blasphemy of Calvin, that says Christ's Soul suffered the pains of the damned. What then? therefore he descended into Purgatory. I am sure the more learned and pious men of your Communion will abhor this consequence. I never heard any of them say that descent of Christ should have been to Purgatory. First, because under the notion of Hell they never understood Purgatory. Secondly, if you mean he should descend thither suffering the pains of that place, it's no less blasphemous than that you call Blasphemy in Calvin; for if we believe your Authors, the pains of Purgatory are the same with those of Hell, and inflicted by the same Ministers of divine Justice, that punish the damned souls in hell. If you say he descended thither triumphant and glorious without suffering the pains of that place, to purposes of divine Providence not manifested to us; you may say without any Blasphemy, he descended the same manner into the Hell of the damned triumphant and victorious, without prejudice to his glory and honour, as the Divinity of Christ is there still without prejudice to his glory: why may not his Soul be there for a short time with the same immunity, and to the same purpose of triumphing over Hell and his Enemies? And the words of the Creed being capable of this Exposition more literal and obvious, what need is there of your new Invention of Purgatory unknown to Primitive Christianity, for the right understanding of that Article of our Creed?   

CHAP. XXVIII. How weak is the foundation of the grand Engine of Indulgences in the Roman Church.  
WHEN first I came to examine the grounds of the doctrine of Indulgence used in the Roman Church, I confess I was astonished to see how little ground they could show in the Fountains of divine Faith for this mystery of the Romish belief, of so great noise and so much use among them. I thought it a strong negative argument against such a doctrine, not to be contained in the Word of God; that two so great Champions of the Roman Church, Cajetan and Suarez, both employed by public authority to defend this doctrine, should not meet with any convincing testimony of it in divine Scripture, as both do confess plainly. Both do examine the two chief Testimonies alleged for this doctrine: the first out of John 20.23. Whose soever sins you remit, they are remitted to them. The second out of Matth. 18.18. Whatsoever you shall bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you shall lose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. And both do acknowledge them not to convince the doctrine of Indulgences as now practised in the Roman Church. Cajetan, tom. 1. opusc. tract. 8. q. 4. says the foresaid testimonies are without doubt to be understood of a remission to be given by way of Sacraments, not of the remission of pains in the other life, as the Pope doth practice in the giving of Indulgences, and finally gives for the only reason the Authority of the Church, and of Pope Leo, then governing, which he tells us must suffice, though no other reason should appear, by these remarkable words, Absque hasitatione aliquâ etiamsi nulla adesset ratio fatendum est dicti Thesauri dispensationem non solùm per Sacramenta, quoad merita Christi, sed aliter quam per Sacramenta, qnoad merita Christi & Sanctorum commissam esse Praelatis Ecclesiae, & praecipuè Papae, & hoc tanto magis fatendum est quanto per Leonem decimum determinatum est. We are to believe without staggering (though no reason appear for it) that the dispensing of the Treasure of the Church not only by way of Sacraments as to the merits of Christ, but otherwise then by Sacraments, as to the merits of Christ's and the Saints, is committed to the Prelates of the Church, and especially to the Pope. And this is so much the more to be confessed, because it is so determined by Leo X. A very special reason to convince Luther, and the rest of the World, that do not believe the Pope to be Infallible.  
Suarez, tom. 4. in 3. partem. disp. 49. sect. 1. delivers his opinion of the foresaid Testimonies of Scripture to be insufficient to prove the doctrine of Indulgences. Of that of Joh. 20. he says the same that Cajetan, above mentioned. Of the other touching the power of binding and losing, Matth. 18.18. he says the literal sense of those words to be the power of binding by Laws and Censures, and of absolving from Censures and dispensing in Laws. And finally in the number 17. of the same Section, he concludes, there is no place in the Gospel whence the giving of this power may be concluded, if it be not, Joh. 21.16. where our Saviour said to S. Peter, feed my Sheep, in which words Suarez doth pretend the power Universal, and Supremacy over all the Church to have been given to S. Peter, and under that Universalïty the power of Indulgences to have been given to him. But as S. Peter did never receive such an Universal power over the Church, as the Bishops of Rome do now usurp, so did he never pretend it, nor ever troubled Thomas in India, or Andrew in Achaia, or James in Jerusalem, or any other of his Fellow-Apostles, and Bishops, in their respective Provinces, about a power over them or a dependence of them upon him, all and ea●h one of them complying faithfully with their Ministry, without encroaching one upon the other, nor staining the repute of Christian holiness with the profane spirit of Ambition, which in Rome did grow to the confusion and distraction of Christendom.  
But though such a Supremacy would have been granted to the Pope, and to the succeeding Bishops of Rome, far must Suarez go for a consequence of the doctrine of Indulgences to be inferred from such a grant. If the power of dispensing those immense Treasures of the merits of Christ and all Saints was given to S. Peter in those words of our Saviour, commending to him the feeding of his Sheep, how came he, and the other succeeding Bishops of Rome for so many Ages, to neglect the use of this power to the benefit of Souls, and great advantage of the Roman Church, as now is practised?  
Suarez did easily perceive the weakness of his argument from this testimony, and so betook himself in the second Section following to the common refuge of the use and authority of the Church. That there is such a use, says he, is not denied; we see it: that it is not an abuse but a lawful use is proved, first, by the authority of the Council of Trent last Session, where is added that this use hath been approved by the authority of sacred Councils, for which purpose are wont to be related, the Council of Nice, Can. 11. of Carthage, 4.75. of Neooaesarea, ch. 3. of Laodicea, Can 1.2. but in these Councils, says Suarez, we only find that it was lawful for Bishops to remit some of the public Penitences enjoined by Canons for divers crimes: but that such a remission should be extended to a pardon of penalties due in the Tribunal of God, may not be inferred from those Councils.  
Another main argument for the Antiquity of Indulgences they fetch out of 2. Cor. 2.10. where S. Paul remits a part of the penalty due to an incestuous Person whom he had formerly punished, saving: To whom you forgave any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgive an● thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the p●rson of Christ.  
From these latter words, in the person of Christ, they pretend to infer that the practice of Indulgences now used in the Roman Church had its beginning from Christ, and that S. Paul did practise it in the occalion now mentioned by authority received from Christ. This Argument Suarez proposes in the above mentioned second Section, num. 3. but from the following fourth Number to the 11. he doth most vigorously prove the inefficaciousness of that argument. That the remission given by S. Paul to that incestuous man, did only relate to an exterior penalty due by course or Canon of Ecclesiastical Government, not to penalties of the other life depending from Divine Justice, that the words in the person of Christ only proves it to be an act of Jurisdiction, or power received from Christ, which may be sufficiently verified by a remission of an exterior temporal penalty due by the common course of Ecclesiastical human power: and finally concludes that there is no warrantable history or testimony extant, by which it may be convinced, that the practice of Indulgences now used in the Roman Church was known before the times of Gregory the great, of whom he says is reported, that he gave a Plenary Indulgence: though even of this, says Suarez, I find no written History, but a public report in Rome, and other places.  
And finally, what Suarez says with resolution, is only that this practice is now in use in the Church, so as they are reputed heretics who reprehend such a custom, and it is impossible that the Universal Church should err herein; for it were, says he, an intolerable moral error in practice. If the Universal Church, indeed, did practise now, and always from the beginning and in all places this custom, according to the rules of Apostolic lawful Tradition delivered by Lyrinensis and S. Augustin, l. 4. de Baptismo, cap. 24. we would look upon this argument as of force. But Suarez himself doth acknowledge and confess, that this practice is neither so ancient nor Universal. And therefore it may not be taken for Apostolic tradition, but ranked among the modern Institutions of the present Romish Church, to stand or fall with the authority of it; which we have sufficiently proved not to be infallible. And by this (Reader) you may see, how rashly Mr. I. S. says I did most falsely aver, that Suarez is not so certain, whether the power of absolving given to the Church did extend to the profuse grant of Indulgences practised at present by the Roman Church. Let the Learned Reader reflect upon Suarez his discourse upon this subject in the place forementioned, and he shall find how far he is from any certainty that this doctrine is grounded upon Scripture and primitive Antiquity, but shall find that he only believes it, as Scotus did that of Transubstantiation, Non propter rationes quae non cogunt, not in force of arguments alleged for it, which are not convincing, but for the authority of his Church.  
And mark, Reader, that so great men as Cajetan and Suarez, being employed by public authority in defending this doctrine, after bestowing all their Learning, and no small labour in procuring to establish it, we find them confess they have nothing to say seriously for it, but what the Collier for his Faith, viz. that he believed as the Church believes. And here also they mistake the true notion of the Church and authority of it; a mistake, in truth, more tolerable in a Collier, then in men of the Learning and repute of Cajetan and Suarez. But such is the condition of their cause, that it could not be defended better; and such was their engagement, that they must defend it by right or wrong. I conceive my Antagonist complaining that I have neglected him in this Chapter, and I confess freely I delight more in dealing with people of that Learning and ingenuity I see in Cajetan and Suarez, then with Mr. I. S. but being we are debtors to all, I will give a turn to him also upon this subject, and it will be in the next Chapter.   

CHAP. XXIX. The unhappy success of Mr. I. S. his great boast of skill in History, touching the Antiquity of Indulgences discovered.  
IN the 90th page of my former Discourse, speaking of the Antiquity of Indulgences, I mentioned, that the first notice I had of the grants of them, after the manner now used, is that of Gregory the VII. given to those of his party who would fight against the Emperor Henry III (by error of the Printer iv) in the year 1084. which Baronius relates from his Penitentiary, in which was promised remission of all their sins, to such as would venture their lives in that holy War, for which I quoted Baronius his Annals upon the foresaid year 1084. num. 15. Here Mr. I. S. enters in triumph, and declares, that if I have no more skill in Divinity, or moral Theology, than I seem to have in History, I am but a freshwater Scholar: as for Controversy, says he, my Treatise shows well what I know of it. Be it so Sir, let me have truth on my side, as I hope will appear by this Treatise, and make you much of your skill: in the mean while let us examine, how much it is in the present point of History wherein you pretend to be most Magisterial. First, you mistake most absurdly the state of the Question, as is usual with you, and where I speak of Indulgences given by Gregory the Seventh, to those of his party who would fight against the Emperor Henry the Third, you report such Indulgences to be given by the said Gregory to Henry, to encourage him and the Christians to war against the Saracens. Whoever did read the History of that Gregory, and his fierce persecution of the said Emperor to the end of his life, even as his own Historians, Platina and Baronius more biased to him, do report; will more easily believe, that Gregory should favour the Turk against Henry, then uphold Henry against any Adversary. If ever you had any tincture of the History of Pope Hildebrand or Gregory the Seventh, how could you fall into so ridiculous an equivocation, as to conceive him granting Indulgences in favour of the Emperor Henry III If you did read my Discourse speaking expressly of an Indulgence granted to those that would fight again the Emperor, how come you to pervert the narrative so absurdly, as if I should have spoken of an Indulgence given in favour of that Emperor.  
You say that the Indulgence I speak of, nor any other to any such purpose, was not granted by Gregory the Seventh, but by Vrban the Second. Read the place I quoted of Baronius upon the year 1084. numb. 15, there you shall find Gregory the Seventh employing Anselm Bishop of Luca, to publish Indulgences for all those that would fight in his quarrel against the Emperor Henry the Third. And continuing your strange equivocations you speak of Indulgences given by Vrban the Second to the same Henry the Third, but it was not to him he gave them, but to Alexius Emperor of Constantinople, as Baronius relates at the year 1095. numb. 3. You speak of Indulgences granted by Leo the Third, anno 847. but it was not Leo the Third, but Leo the Fourth that reigned then, and when Suarez finds not him, nor any other, giving Indulgences of so ancient date, sure I am, you never found them upon any warrantable account.  
To one notice of Indulgences I will help you out of Baronius, preceding that I mentioned of Gregory the Seventh, given to them that would fight against the Emperor Henry the Third, in the same year 1084. which I allow you to take for the genuine origin of your present practice of Indulgences, given by profane Cardinals Creatures of Pope, Guibert called Clement the Third Competitor of Gregory the Seventh; of which kind of Cardinals Baronius in the foresaid year, numb. 9 giveth this account, Erant enim cives Romani Vxorati, sive Concubinarii, barbati & Mitrati, peregrinis oratoribus, praecipue vero multitudini rusticanae Longobardorum mentientes, asserentes se Cardinales Presbyteros esse, quique oblationibus receptis Indulgentiam & remissionem omnium peccatorum usu nefari● impudenter praestabant: high & occasione custodiendae Ecclesiae consurgentes intempestae noctis silentio intra & citra candem Ecclesiam impunè homicidia, rapinas, varia stupra & diversa latrocinia exercebant. There were, says he, Roman Citizens', either married or retaining Concubines, shaved and wearing Mitres, imposing upon foreign Ambassadors, but especially upon the rude multitude of Longobards, that they were Presbyter Cardinals, and who receiving offerings did impudently bestow Indulgences and remission of all sins: these under pretext of defending the Church, rising in the deep silence of the night, did commit within and about the Church, without hindrance, horrible murders, robberies, and divers sorts of whoredoms and luxuries. Who were better Popes or better men, Guibert and his Cardinals, or Hildebrand and his, as I do not know, so I will not dispute: but conclude, that such Indulgences as these were given in Rome, by relation of their own hired Historian; and let the Reader see how unhappy Mr. I. S. has been in his pretended triumph over me touching this point of History.   

CHAP. XXX. Of the strange and absurd terms used in the grants of Indulgences, and the immoderate profuseness wherewith, and slight causes for which they are granted.  
TRuly if we do consider the absurd language used in the trade of Indulgences, and the vast boundless profuseness in the grant of them for very slight causes, of all which their most learned Defenders do confess not to be able to give a rational account, we may with some grounds suspect, that some such Lay-cardinals mentioned in the precedent Chapter out of Baronius, granting Indulgences in Rome, should have been the Authors and Inventors of the present practice of Indulgences, and terms of it used in the Roman Church.  
First they divide Indulgences into total and partial. A total Indulgence is a full remission of all the temporal pains due to the man's sins committed. A partial Indulgence is a remission of a part of the penalties, according to the will of the person granting it. A total Indulgence is subdivided again into plena, plenior & plenissima, a plenary or full, more full, and most full. Here the wits of the Learned are strained to find sense in these words, how one Indulgence that is plenary can be capable of these degrees of increase in regard of the same person. If by any plenary Indulgence, he has a total remission of all the penalties due to his sins, how can he have a more total or full remission of them? Suarez, disp. 1. De effectu Indulgent. Sect. 4. finding no ground for these degrees, would fain give some sense to them by a parity of the Virgin Mary, full of grace by the coming of the Angel, more full by the coming of her Son, and most full in her death: but finding himself weary of such bare conjectures, resolves that according to the present state there is no substantial difference, as to the effect in those gradations of plenary Indulgences, whatsoever was the meaning of those terms with the first Authors of them, whereof at present there is no clear knowledge, and relates Sotus saying, that Preachers of Indulgences have introduced those gradations by way of exaggeration.  
Partial Indulgences are likewise subdivided into quadragena, septena, carena, and the like. Quadragena they call an Indulgence of forty days, septena, of seven years, carena, composed of both the former, containing seven years and forty days. And now enters a very perplex difficulty that turns the brains of their ablest Divines, what to understand by these years and days of remission, whether so many years and days of the pains of Purgatory to be remitted, as Viguerius did conceive, or so much time of penance enjoined by Canons for sins: and though this latter be the more received and common opinion, and approved by Suarez in the place now mentioned, yet he finds so many difficulties for a congruous sense of so many thousand years allowed by Indulgences, so little consistence in reasons alleged by several Authors, that he resolves, it's a matter obscure and unknown to us, and that we must rest upon the judgement of the Church which knows the meaning of those measures, concluding thus, Breviter vero assero, de re nobis incertà Authores hos disputare, Ecclesiam vero uti illa mensurâ quae sibi nota est. I say briefly, that these Authors do quarrel about a thing unknown to us, and that the Church uses herein that measure which is known to itself, remitting those pains of Purgatory, which may be proportionable to the penalties of this life enjoined by Canons; and so leaves us as wise as we were before, for understanding what sense so many thousands of years can have, whether relating to the pains of Purgatory, or to penalties enjoined by Canons. But this Language is used and received in the Roman Church, and therefore we must stand to it, let it mean what it will, be it sense or nonsense; and that's all the account that Suarez can give us of it after the trial of his own wit, and examining the discourses of others, being to speak in earnest.  
Now to the cause of giving Indulgences, Mr. I. S. gives us occasion to say something, since he boasts, that Indulgences are not granted so slightly as Protestant Ministers would make their flock believe. It's true that Cajetan teaches, Opusc. de Indulgent. cap. 8. that great Indulgences ought not to be given for small causes, and that there ought to be a proportion betwixt the quality of the Indulgence, and the work performed to obtain it. But how can this consist with what Cajetan tells there? that a plenary Indulgence is given to every one that stands in the Yard of St. Peter's Church, when the Pope gives his blessing to the people there on Easter day. Here he recurs to a mystery, that though to stand in that place be of its own nature of no great consideration, yet relating to the purpose of representing the Members of the Church united under one head, it's of great weight, and proportioned to the Indulgence received. But what mystery shall we find to render decent that famous Indulgence granted by Innocent III. to all such as would marry public Harlots? as Spondanus relates in the year 1198.  
Who would not think that so many loud and learned cries made against the abuses of Indulgences in the Roman Church for more than a hundred years, and the scandal and contemt of them grown among the sober and judicious men even of their own party, would not be a means to moderate at least the boundless profuseness of those grants, feeding continually the hopes of sinners for a remission of all their crimes, and encouraging them to persevere in their wicked ways? But that's the unhappiness of that Church, and the dismal symptom of a disease being mortal, that it grows worse with remedies, and hates a cure. Setting aside numberless instances of their most absurd prodigalities in this kind, whereof many Books are replenished, I will only set down here a Copy of Indulgences granted by the present Pope Clement the Tenth, upon the occasion of Canon zing certain new Saints of late, in which you may see a full Idea of the Romish corruptions in this kind.  
Formula Indulgentiarum cum quibus S. D. N. Clemens Papa X. Coronas, Rosaria, Cruces, sacrasque Imagines, & numismata Medallias vulgo nuncupata benedicir, per occasionem Canonizationis SS. Confessorum Cajetani, Francisci Borgiae, Philippi Benitii, Ludovici Bertrandi, & Sanctae Rosae Virgins Peruanae.  
QVicunque saltem semel in hebdomada Coronam Domini, vel Beatissimae Virgins, aut Rosarium, ejusve tertiam partem, aut Officium divinum vel parvum Beatissimae Virgins, vel defunctorum, vel septem Psalmos poenitentiales, vel graduales recitare, aut detentos in carcere visitare, aut pauperibus subvenire, aut saltem horae quadrante mentali orationi vacare consueverit, si confessus Sacerdoti ab Ordinario approbato sanctissimum Eucharistiae Sacramentum sumserit in quolibet ex diebus infra scriptis, piasque ad Deum preces fuderit pro haeresium extirpatione, fideique Catholicae propagatione, aliisque sanctae Ecclesiae necessitatibus, plenariam suorum peccatorum Indulgentiam corsequetur: nimirum die Festo Nativitatis Domini nostri Jesu Christi, Circumcisionis, Epiphaniae, Resurrectionis, Ascensionis, Pentecostes, Sanctissimae Trinitatis, Corporis Christi, & die Conceptionis, Nativitatis, Praesentationis, Visitationis, Annunciationis, Purificationis, & Assumtionis beatissimae Virgins, tum Nativitatis Sancti Johannis Baptistae, Sanctorum modo Canonizatorum, omnium Sanctorum, dedicationis propriae Ecclesiae & ejusdem Patroni vel tituli.  
Quisquis in vigilia cujuslibet istorum sanctorum jejunaverit, & confessus in ipsius Festo Sanctissimum Eucharistiae Sacramentum sumserit, oraveritque Deum, ut supra dictum est, toties Indulgentiam plenariam consequetur. Quicunque Missam celebrarit, vel confessus, & sacrâ Communione refectus interfuerit Missae ad Altar, in quo Imago aut corpus aut reliquiae cujuslibet praedictorum quinque Sanctorum asservantur, pieque Deum oraverint, at dictum est, die uno quem voluerit cujuslibet Mensis plenariam Indulgentiam lucretur.  
Quisquis vero poenitens peccata commissa emendare firmiter proposuerit, & eadem die visitaverit septem Ecclesias quaslibet, & ubi tot Ecclesiae non reperiuntur, quotquot ibi sint, & si unica tantum Ecclesia sit in loco, omnia ipsius altaria, & pro haeresium extirpatione, etc. pie Deum oraverit semel in anno, fruatur Indulgentiis concessis septem urbis Ecclesias visitantibus.  
Quicunque devotè cogitaverit de aliquo sanctissimae passionis D. N. Jesus Christi mysterio, & in ejusdem passionis honorem septies terram deosculatus fuerit eo die, lucretur Indulgentias concessas ascendentibus Romae per scalam sanctam; hoc autem semel in singulis annis.  
Quisquis praedictorum quinque sanctorum imitatione vel peccata sua vere detestabitur, cum firme proposito non peccandi de cetero, vel actum aliquem virtutis exercebit, toties lucretur Indulgentiam septem annorum & totidem quadragena.  
Quisquis leget aliquod libri caput de vitâ corundem Sanctorum, aut invisitet eorum altar, vel imaginem venerabitur, & eraverit pro felici statu Sancta matris Ecclesiae peccatorumque conversione, singulis vicibus percipiet Indulgentiam ce tum dierum.  
Eandem pariter consequatur qui aliquid pauperibus tribuet, vel eosdem instruet, aut por alios instrui curabit in iis quae pertinent ad fidem bonosque mores.  
Quisquis in Sanctissimae Eucharistiae cultu vel Beatissimae Virginis se exercebit, meditans illius mysterii dignitatem, quantaque ex eo ad nos beneficia manant, aut commiserans ejusdem Beatae Virginis dolores, quibus in passione & morte filii affecta fuit, vel alia qualibet ratione Sanctissimum Sacramentum venerabitur, & pro necessitatibus Ecclesiae orabit; toties Indulgentiam centum dierum consequatur.  
Quilibet in urbe commorans, vel ab ea ultra viginti milliaria non absens, si legitimè impeditus non interfuerit Benedictioni qua Romanus Pontifex in Festo Paschatis, & Ascensionis solemniter benedicere consuevit; confessus autem Sacrosancta Communione reficiatur, & pias ad Deum preces pro haeresium extirpatione, etc. fuderit, Indulgentiis fruatur quibus praesentes fruuntur; eadem vero si adimpleverint longius ab urbe distantes, easdem Indulgentias etiamsi legitime non impediti consequantur.  
Omnes supradictae Indulgentiae fidelibus defunctis applicari possunt per modum suffragii.  
Pro iisdem percipiendis satis est privatim habere apud se aliquam coronam vel crucem, etc. cum praedictis Indulgentiis à Sanctitate suâ benedictam, & quae superius praescripta sint adimplere, licet illa etiam alio nomine impleri forte debuerint.  
Quisquis in articulo mortis se totum Deo commendans praedictos Sanctos vel ex iis unum invocar it, over, si potuerit, sin minus saltem cord, confessus sacraque Communione refectus si potuerit, alioquia saltem contritus, plenariam omnium peccatorum Indulgentiam consequetur.  
In distribuendis hujusmodi Coronis, Crucibus, earumque usu, sanctissimus servari jubet decretum. Fel. record. Alexandri VII. editum sub die sexto Februarii. 1657, nimirùm ut Coronae, Cruces, Rosaria, Numismata, quae vulgo Medalliae nuncupantun, & sacrae Imagines cum praefatis Indulgentiis benedictae non transeant personam ilionum quibus à sanctitate suâ concessae sunt, aut quibus ab his primâ vice distribuentur, neque commodari aut precario dari possunt, alioquin Indulgentiis jam concessis, & aliquatre ex praedictis deperdita, pro ea subrogari altera nullo modo potest quacunque concessione, aut privilegio in contrarium non obstante, Prohibet Sanctitas sua hanc Indulgentiam imprimi extra Vrbem.  
MICHAEL ANGELUS RICCIUS Secret. Romae ex Typographia● Rev. Camerae Apost. 1671.  
Thus Englished.  
A Form of Indulgences, wherewith our holy Father Pope Clement X. did bless Crowns, Rosaries, Crosses, sacred Images and Medals, by occasion of Canonising the holy Confessors, Cajetan, Francis Borgia, Philippus Benitius, Lewis Bertrand, and Sancta Rosa, a Peruvian Virgin.  
Whosoever shall accustom, at least once a week, to say the Crown of our Lord, or of the Blessed Virgin, or her Rosary, or the third part of it, or the Divine Office, or the little Office of the Blessed Virgin, or of the Dead, or the seven Penitential Psalms, or the Gradual Psalms, or to visit Prisoners, or relieve the Poor, or spend at least a quarter of an hour in mental prayer; if he confesses to a Priest approved by the Ordinary, and receive the holy Communion in any of the days below mentioned, and shall pray to God for extirpation of Heresies, the Propagation of Catholic Faith, and for other necessities of the Roman Church, shall obtain a Plenary Indulgence of all his sins; viz. in the day of the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, his Circumcision, epiphany, Resurrection, and Ascension, the day of Pentecost, holy Trinity, and Corpus Christi; and the day of the Conception, Nativity, Presentation, Visitation, Annunciation, Purification and Assumption of the blessed Virgin; the day of the Nativity of S. John Baptist, of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, of the five Saints now canonised, of all Saints, of the Dedication of his proper Church, and of the Patron or Title of it.  
Whosoever shall confess and receive in the Vigil of any of the foresaid Saints, and shall pray to God as aforesaid, shall obtain Plenary Indulgence as often as he doth it.  
Whosoever shall say Mass, or having confessed and received, shall hear Mass at an Altar, in which the Image, or Body, or Relic of any of the foresaid five Saints are kept, and shall pray to God, as aforesaid, in any one day which he pleases of every Month, gains a Plenary Indulgence.  
Whosoever, being truly penitent, will propose firmly to forsake his sins committed, and in the same day will visit any seven Churches, or, where so many Churches are not to be found, shall visit those that be; and if there be but one Church in the place, shall visit all the Altars of it, and pray to God for the extirpation of Heresies once a year, shall enjoy the Indulgences allowed to such as visit the seven Churches at Rome.  
Whosoever shall think devoutly of any Mystery of the Passion of our Saviour, and in honour of the said Passion shall kiss seven times the ground, will in that day obtain the Indulgences allowed to such as go up the holy Stairs in Rome; but this once in every year.  
Whosoever in imitation of the foresaid five Saints, either shall truly detest his sins with a firm purpose of sinning no more, or shall exercise some act of Virtue, shall so many times obtain an Indulgence of seven years, and so many quadragena's or forty day's Indulgence.  
Whosoever shall read any Chapter of the life of the said Saints, or shall visit their Altar, or worship their Image, and pray for the happy state of our holy Mother the Church, and for the Conversion of sinners, shall at every time obtain Indulgence of 100 days.  
The same Indulgence shall any obtain who will give an● Alms to the Poor, or shall instruct them by himself or by another in things belonging to Faith and good manners.  
Whosoever shall exercise himself in the worship of the holy Eucharist, or of the blessed Virgin, meditating upon the dignity of that mystery, and the benefits redounding from it to us, or commiserating the griefs of the said blessed Virgin wherewith she was possessed at the Passion and Death of her Son, or in any other manner shall reverence the blessed Sacrament, and pray for the necessity of the Church, shall obtain Indulgence of 100 days as often as he doth it.  
Any dwelling in Rome, or not distant from it above twenty miles, if he hath a lawful impediment not to be present at the solemn blessing, which the Roman Pope is wont to give in the Festivity of Easter and Ascension, but shall confess and receive, and pray for the extirpation of Heresies, etc. shall enjoy the Indulgences which the people present will enjoy; but such as are further distant from Rome, shall enjoy the same Indulgences performing the said duties, though they have no lawful impediment for absence.  
All the Indulgences aforesaid may be applied to the faithful deceased by way of Suffrages.  
For to gain the said Indulgences it is enough to have privately with you any Crown or Cross, etc. blessed by his holiness with the foresaid Indulgences, and to fulfil the duties before mentioned, even though happily you may be obliged to perform them upon another account.  
Whosoever in the point of death commending himself to God, shall invoke the foresaid Saints, or any of them with his mouth, if he can, having confessed and received the Communion, if he may; otherwise having at least contrition, shall obtain a plenary Indulgence of all his sins.  
In the distribution of the said Crowns, Crosses, etc. and in the use of them, his Holiness commands to observe the Decree of Alexander VII. issued the 6. day of February 1657. viz. that Crowns, Crosses, Rosaries, Medals, and sacred Images blessed with the foresaid Indulgences, may not pass the persons of those to whom his Holiness gave them, or such as from them received those things the first time, and that they may not be lent or be bestowed; otherwise to lose the Indulgences: and any of them being lost, no other may be subrogated for it by any means, notwithstanding any allowance or privilege to the contrary.  
His Holiness prohibits this form of Indulgences to be printed out of Rome.  
MICHAEL ANGELUS RICCIUS Secret. Rome, out of the Print of the Reverend Apostolical Chamber. 1671.  
I leave the judicious Reader to gloss upon this grant and the profuseness of it, whether it be a rare or difficult thing to gain a plenary Indulgence where grants of this kind are frequent. They will tell us it will promote Piety to have such encouragement to Penitence prayers and deeds of Charity. But let them consider whether it may not rather be an occasion of continuing in vices, and a wicked life, if by a verbal Confession and an imperfect kind of contrition, or displeasure with sins for penalties following them, apt to be conceived by the most wicked livers, a security is given of remission of all sins, though never so grievous and repeated, and of the eternal pains due to them: and likewise all the temporal penalties following them, are remitted by a plenary Indulgence, so easy to be obtained as we have seen. Who will not perceive that encouragement is given hereby to persevere in vices, whatsoever other purposes they may have who grant them? And if this be well considered, Mr. I. S. will cease to admire, that Protestant Doctors should accuse the Roman Church of facilitating by these means the way to sinning.   

CHAP. XXXI. The dismal unhappiness of the Romish people in having their Liturgy in a Tongue unknown to them.  
EX ore tuo te judico serve nequam, thus gins Mr. I. S. his answer to my discourse upon this subject, wherein I lamented the misery of the Romish People, in having their Liturgy in a tongue unknown to them; and thus also shall my reply to him begin, which certainly will be to put the Saddle on the right Horse. What is it Sr that I have said which may be a judgement against myself in this case? That the purpose of nature by speaking is to communicate the sense of him that speaks to the hearer, which cannot be obtained if the hearer perceives not the meaning of the words he speaks. This say you proves against myself; for in the Liturgy or public Service of the Church we speak to God, and not to the Congregation, and God can understand us, though we do not ourselves. But stay Sr, is not the Liturgy, or public Service of the Church as well with you, as with us, composed of an exchange of speech betwixt God and his People, they speaking to him in Prayers and Thanksgivings, he speaking to them by the Lessons of sacred Scripture, by the Epistles, Gospels and Psalms? Is it not necessary for both these purposes, that the People should understand what they say to God by Prayer, and what he says to them by Exhortation? And for the first, wherein you think your pretention to be obtained, for praying, I say; is not Prayer a rational and voluntary Elevation of the mind, helped by the expressions and sense of the Prayer read or said? Is not this elevation of the mind mainly advanced by understanding the word of the Prayer read or said? whoever heard a Psalm sung with solemn Music, may well tell how different a feeling and elevation of mind he hath when he sees or knows the words sung and the meaning of them, than when he hears the same Psalm without understanding the words or sense of them.  
Your comparison of a Polander presenting a Petition in English to the King of England, which himself doth not understand, doth aggravate your crime, and publish the misery of the People abused by you. Would not that Polander wish to know the English tongue for acting in his own cause, and to be sure he was not abused by a Notary, who possibly might have framed a Petition for him to the King for hanging his Father or Mother for Traitors. If the King did understand the Polish Language as well as the English, were it not a madness in the said Polander to have his Petition penned in a Tongue he doth not understand with the foresaid disadvantages, being able to do it in his own Tongue with the contrary advantages? What madness then is it in your People to frame their Prayers in a Tongue unknown to them, to speak like Parrots, without feeling or knowing what they say, and exposed to the danger of being abused by a knave, teaching them, or reading before them blasphemous words, in which they are to join with him b● their Amen? And in case the Prayer be good that is read before them, what proportion can it have with elevating the minds of the People to a conjunction in sense with the Minister, if they do not understand what he says? And thus ill it goes with you, even for the act of praying in your Liturgy, which you allow to be an elevation of the mind to God. Even in this point I have your own judgement against you, and so may return your text upon you, saying, Ex ore tuo te judico serve nequam.  
But what of the second part of the Liturgy above mentioned, containing a speech of God to the People by the Epistles, Gospels, Psalms, and other sacred Lectures directed to the Spiritual direction and food of their Souls? can this end be compassed without sense and feeling in the People of what is said to them? You confess that S. Paul 1. Cor. 14. prohibits preaching to the People in a Tongue unknown to them: and are not those sacred Lectures a kind of preaching, exhortation, and instruction of the People, and the best that can be, as proceeding immediately from God himself? Then you act against the Apostles order, by your own confession, proposing such exhortations to the People in a Tongue unknown to them, and so your text returns upon you here in full measure, Ex ore tuo te judico serve nequam. It is a discredit to a cause so clear to make more delay upon it: but let the World cry against the tyranny you use this way with Souls in depriving them of their Spiritual food. What you say of submitting your judgement herein to the Church, is idle and absurd, when our present business is to rebuke the abuses and corruptions of your Church, the causes of our dislike of it.   

CHAP. XXXXII. The cruelty of the Roman Church in prohibiting the reading of Scripture to the people, and their common pretence of Sects and Divisions arising among Protestants refuted.  
FRom the page 101. of my former Discourse, I declared the cruelty used with the faithful people in prohibiting them the reading of Scripture, which is the food of their Souls; how contrary that is to the doctrine of Scripture itself, often inviting us to the reading of it, and to the doctrine and practice of the Fathers, and people of the Primitive Church.  
To all which Mr. I. S. replies, that the fruit we have in the Protestant Church of permitting the people to read the Bible, is the variety of Sects sprung from the reading of it. But this you may tell better to others, then to me that know now matters go on both sides, and am certain that there are more divisions in several Societies of your Communion both in Doctrine and in Ceremonies, then in the Protestant Church. He that knows the differences of opinions betwixt Jesuists and Dominicans, each one condemning the other of heresy, and doctrines destructive of good life, and of the merits of Christ, and the great difference in Rites and Ceremonies used among them, will clearly see they differ more in all the one from the other, than the Orthodox Protestants do from any other Congregation of Christians in the Reformed Church. Their differences are not in matters so fundamental and necessary to Salvation and a good Life, as those of the dissenting Romish Societies. Their censures of one another are not so heavy; yea the very stating of their Questions on both sides do declare so much; both supposing, they are touching things indifferent; the Dissenters or Non-conformists, pretending that the points in Debate, being only Ceremonial and indifferent, not essential to Salvation or good life, ought not to be forced upon them: The Orthodox alleging that very thing to render Dissenters criminal, that the things ordered being of their own nature indifferent, and not opposite to God's Law, there is a necessity upon them of obeying lawful Authority ordering such matters.  
So much we may say in relation to Rites and Ceremonies, that there is not near so great a diversity in them used by Orthodox Protestants, and other Congregations dissenting; as there is in the Ceremonies and Rites used in Colleges of Jesuits, and Convents of Dominicans, Carmelites, Franciscans, Carthusians, and other very many Societies differing both in Habit, Diet, Rites and Ceremonies one from the other. All these differences both of Doctrine and Rites the Pope can wink at, provided they agree in paying obedience to him, and advancing his quarrel. The great Union required by the Church of England makes meaner dissensions appear more sensible, and greater would the Dissensions and Errors be, if the light of holy Scriptures were removed; for St. Hierome saith, that infinite evils do arise from ignorance of Scripture: from hence, saith he, most part of Heresies have come; and so they are of their own nature, and well used not a cause of Dissensions and Errors, but a cure of them. And therefore the Roman Church being resolved not to be cured of her corruptions, decreed the Scriptures to be removed from the eyes of the people; as appears by the Council of Bishops mentioned by Dr. Stillingfleet, and by other grave Writers, of whose Authority you doubt. And what need we the Authority of that Council for a thing that we see with our eyes, and ordered by the Council of Trent, by Pius iv Clement the VIII. and Alexander the VII. in the places alleged in the page 100 of my former Discourse.   

CHAP. XXXIII. Mr. I S. his Engagement, touching the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, and the practice of Confession confuted.  
FOR instance of the cruelty of the Romish Church, in pressing upon the belief of the faithful things uncertain and repugnant to their judgement, I made a brief mention of the opinion about the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary; how they make people swear to defend it, and debar from offices and preferment such as will not take such oaths. And Mr. I. S. must enter into a formal dispute upon the point. The testimony of S. Paul (saying, Rom. v. that all men sinned in Adam, and consequently the Virgin Mary with the rest) he values nothing. It is a general rule, says he, capable of exception; but gives us no testimony to prove the Virgin was excepted from that rule. He admits that Christ was Universal Redeemer, and died for all men, but thinks it not a consequence that the Virgin should have been redeemed, or drawn, but only preserved from sin, and so the consequence of St. Paul was not legal, saying, 2 Cor. v. 14. If one died for all, then were all dead; or if if it be legal, sure the Virgin was dead by Original sin as the rest, or else all were not dead.  
You say it is not unlawful in a community to require certain conditions from such as will be members of it, and so may require of them engagement to defend the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. To demand conditions not including a disturbance of conscience, nor occasioning dissimilations may be lawful; not so to require conditions contrary to a man's conscience and judgement, which was our case. You say the Oath of Supremacy, in opinion of Papists, is an heresy, why then is it required from me? I answer, it is only folly or malice can make it appear such, as I have declared in the 18. Chapter, and the Law is not to be regulated by such passions.  
I gave likewise a short touch to the cruelty used with consciences in the practice of Confession, as well in the manner of its exercise, as the frequent reservation of cases. And here Mr. I.S. must enter again into the deep of the dispute, whether Confession ought to be admitted, which was not the case; in as much as the Church of England doth not only admit, but commend and enjoin the practice of Confession in necessary occasions, though not the unnecessary and pernicious superstructures of the Roman Church, touching the mode prescribed, and the reservation of cases, occasioning lamentable perplexities, and desperate melancholies of Souls, whereof I could declare miserable instances, if certain due considerations did not make me supersede enlarging upon this kind of matter.  
Only I will reflect upon a new addition of rigo● brought in by Mr. I. S. of which he will have St. Augustin to be Author, that the quality of the sin, the place, time, continuance, and diversity of persons must be specified. This makes me doubt and wonder what kind of person my Antagonist is, whether ever he was bred among learned men of the Roman Church, or did read their Books; for certainly any of them that has but the least tincture of moral Theology, will think strange of this paradox, That the place and time of sins are to be declared, as also the diversity of persons, being of the same kind or species. But of these kind of lapses Mr. I. S. his Theology makes no scruple; if ●e were better acquainted with the practice of Doctors in the Roman Church, he would not fetch up doctrines of Father's opposite to the present practice of that Church. If he did but sit certain hours of the day from St. Luke's to May-day, or thereabouts, in the Halls of Divinity of the Colleges of Palentia and Tudela, where he says no Divinity was ever taught, he would learn, that it is not the duty of a Penitent to specify in his Confession the time, place and diversity of persons, wherein and wherewith his sins were committed; and they would tell him, that if St. Augustin said the contrary, it was one of his errors, and a doctrine now out of date. But Mr. I. S. is of a stronger stomach, can swallow by the gross, and cares not so much for chawing or mincing distinctions of doctrines.   

CHAP. XXXIV. A reflection upon the many falsities, impertinences, absurdities, and hallucinations of Mr. I. S. his Book, which may justify a resolution of not misspending time in returning any further reply to such writings: and a conclusion of the whole Treatise, exhorting him to a consideration of his miserable condition in deceiving himself and others with vanity.  
Mr. I. S. concludes his Book as he began, and did proceed in it, pouring out a shower of falsities, non sense, impertinences, and hallucinations, of which I will give some testimonies here, whereby the Reader may see, with how much reason I may resolve not to spend precious time in further answering to, or taking notice of such faulty writings. The very first words of his Dedicatory Epistle to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, contains a heap of the said faults and falsities. He calls his Book A Vindication of both Churches, which a viper has endeavoured to by't, etc. he may better call it an affront of both Churches: of the Protestant, for the rude injuries offered to her, of the Popish for having no better defence of her cause to exhibit. With what truth or propriety can he say, that I endeavoured to by't both Churches? As for the Protestant, I gave sufficient testimony of my endeavours to make the world know, that in her is professed the true Primitive, Catholic, Apostolic Faith, and therefore is the surest way to Salvation; and as for the Roman Church, from which I received the belief of a Christian, if the matter be well considered, I will make good I have not been a Viper, but a dutiful and truly loving Child, and more dutiful and true then Mr. I. S. If a Mother infected with a pestilent canker had two sons, of which the one knowing the remedy would apply it, though with reluctancy and displeasure of the infected Mother; and the other not to displease his Mother, would feed the sickness with lenitives or soothing, pleasing the Mother, but feastering her wound, and hastening her ruin; which of both do you think were the more truly dutiful and loving Child? Certainly the former, who would apply a healing hand to the Mother though against her will. This is the difference betwixt you and me. I saw that Mother (at whose breast I did suck the belief of a Christian, and therefore cannot choose but revere and love her as a Mother) sicken of a pestilent canker, I tried to apply some beginnings of a remedy, and finding her impatient of cure, while in her reach, I betook me to a distance whence I might apply the cure, letting her know, that her Innocations proceeding from Ambition and Avarice, are cause of her Pestilent disease, that renders her odious to God and men. She should return therefore to her former innocency and holiness, practised by St. Peter and his Successors for many Ages, which rendered them glorious and venerable to all the world, when their study was not to make Princes of Nephews and Nieces; and of Peasants, Heroes; pretending to that end to make all mankind tributary to their power and riches; but to purchase heaven for themselves and for others, with a contemt of the earth.  
Soon after he says I should have taught, That there is no Salvation in the Catholic Church, without telling where or when I did deliver such a doctrine (as indeed he could not do,) I professing every day my belief in the Catholic Church, and protesting I do, and will live and die in it. If by Catholic Church he means, only the Popish or Roman, it's a foul abuse of terms, especially speaking to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, or to any other of sense in a polemic discourse; and even speaking of the Roman or Popish Church, it is another great piece of untruth, to say, I should have taught that none may be saved in it, as may appear by the second Chapter of this Treatise. It's another wilful or rude mistake whereinto he falls very often, that by Roman Church I should understand the Diocese of Rome, of which I never took any notice or regard in my discourse, which was of the Roman Church, as opposite to the Reformed, and so containing the whole congregation of men subject to the Pope of Rome; and it is to me a wonder, that this great pretender to skill in Controversies, should not know before now, that to be the meaning of the Roman Church in Controversies of this kind.  
What shall I say of his pitiful spite and envy in his Preface to the Reader, pretending to rob me of those titles my Employments gave me so public and known (as appears in the Preface of of this Treatise) without shame to be convinced of palpable untruths? What of his rashness and rudeness in fixing for a Thesis or Title to the eighth Chapter of his Book, That the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ, nor any part of it; that they cannot without Blasphemy allege Scripture for their Tenets? Of his prosane policy, in accusing me of indiscretion in delivering what I knew to be truth, touching the Salvation of Protestants when I was on the Romish side, as mentioned in the fourteenth Chapter? What of his blasphemous impiety, in saying, that no Text of Scripture tells us, that the Evangelists were in the state of Grace when they wrote the Gospel, nor nothing else gives us assurance of it? Nay further against the Gospel itself he pronounceth this horrible Blasphemy, That not only we are unsure of the Infallibility of the Gospel, but that we are assured it is not infallible. And this hellish conception of his own he must father upon the Protestant Church, saying, it's the common doctrine of it, that it is impossible to keep God's Commandments: the falsehood of which malicious imposture I have declared above in the 8th Chapter of this Treatise. What of his boldness in challenging me and all Protestants to answer his ridiculous and silly Sophisms, with undertake that they shall never be answered, as appears in the eighteenth Chapter touching Transubstantiation, and in the twenty sixth touching Purgatory, in denying that Scotus, Ocham, and other Schoolmen, should declare Transubstantiation not to be proved out of Scripture, as above declared, chap. 20. As a so in denying that Costerus should say it is the common opinion of Romish Divines, that the Image of God and Christ is to be adored by the worship of Latria, as above mentioned, Ch. 23.  
What of his terrible Hallucination in matter of History touching Indulgences declared in Chapt. 29. appearing in every word ridiculously mistaken, when he pretends to be most magisterial in correcting mistakes of his Adversary? And carrying on constantly to the end this spirit of Untruth, Hallucination, and Impropriety of terms, he concludes his Book with telling me, I know in my conscience the Church of Rome is not guilty of the errors I attribute to her for cause of my separation from her. How came you Sr to know the interior state of my conscience? You tell me I know the Pope's Supremacy in temporal affairs over Princes was no article of Faith, but a School question. That the Pope's infallibility was but an opinion of some Divines. As to the Pope's Supremacy I have declared above c. 25. what little comfort is left to Princes by that distinction of the Pope's Supremacy in spirituals from that of his power in temporals, whereas he backs his spiritual power with a temporal to the ruin and deposing of all Princes and Emperors that resist him. The only case of furious Hildebrand with the Emperor Henry the 3d, as related by his own most friendly Historians, even Baronius, is apt to strike a horror into any human heart, and a terror into Princes and people, if the unspeakable arrogance of the Roman Court should not be bridled.  
As for the Pope's Infallibility, I have declared above in the 3d Chapter how impertinent your distinction of Pope alone from Pope and his Council together, is, to escape the force of my Arguments in the present Controversy. How falsely you say I should speak only of the Infallibility of the Pope alone, my Arguments proving he is fallible still, whether alone, or in a Council depending upon him, as that of Trent. You tell me I left the Roman Church, because I saw the Bible prohibited in it to the People, and the Liturgy performed in an unknown Language. But though that is a great crime of the Roman Church (as I have declared in the precedent Chapter) it was not the only cause; others several grievous I produced more immediately touching my own concern and daily practise, wherein I could not continue with quiet or safety of Conscience.  
You tell me I forsook a Church honoured with many Saints, for the Protestant Church, whereof there was never yet any Saint. If this be true, S. Peter and S. Paul and the rest of the Apostles were no Saints, for I am certainly persuaded they were of the Church that I am of: their Doctrine and their Faith and no other being taught in it. But you speak with the vulgar of Protestants as condistinct from Roman Catholics. Well, and how come you to know that none of them was ever a Saint? Were you in the hearts of all, or did you sit in the Tribunal of God, to know what degree of grace they had in his Sovereign inscrutable judgement? What is rashness if this be not? But you have titular Saints who have purchased that calling by public authority, as Dukes, Earls, and Knights do purchase theirs: of such we have none. Then you speak of titular Saints, not of real ones, and upon this account you may not expect to win me from the Protestant Church to yours. I hear of some Sectaries about us, I know not where, who style all of their Congregation Saints; to this degree of Sanctity your Church did not aspire yet: then, if I am to remove to a Church of more titular Saints, to these Sectaries I am to go, not to you. But you speak of Saints that come to Heaven, and thither none may come but under the conduct of the Roman Pope; he hath the keys of Heaven, and none may go thither without his leave. I heard of some Popes that were kept out themselves from entering thither, and I have great reason to believe it was so, and to fear that I following their conduct may have the like repulse. It is one of your damnable errors, and not the least cause of my discontent with you, to say that none may be saved without paying obedience to the Pope of Rome, a spark of Hell-fire, which kindled and conserveses the miserable combustions and distractions of Christendom, the bloody Massacre of so many thousands of Men, and the desolation of so many noble Kingdoms and Provinces; a monstrous Paradox cut out to the measure of the unmeasurable Ambition of the Roman Pope and his Court, to force all the World with the fright of everlasting fire, adding to it the power of the Sword where he can, to resign up their obedience, and contribute their wealth and liberties to the support of that power and grandeur, the greatest that ever was entertained in the fancy of man, if men were so mad as to yield to the proposals of the Pope and his Emissaries.  
To diminish the heat of this hellish Ambition, the Seminary of the miseries of Christendom, I have contributed with my endeavours, even while I was among you, using only the armour of principles learned in your own Schools, and declaring that the practice of the Emissary Sycophants of the Roman Court is contrary, not only to the intrinsic rules of Christian doctrine, but to the very professed tenets of the Romish Church; I do not say of the Romish Court, for though both corrupt, they have their different ways, and to conform with the tenets of the Roman Church was not thought sufficient in me, if I did not also fashion my doctrine to the interest of the Roman Court, and to the extension of the grandeur of it; which is the want of policy or prudence Mr. I. S. accused me of, as before mentioned.  
I will continue now with more liberty and resolution the same endeavours, of letting the World know how false and pernicious this doctrine is; how great the disingenuity of Romish Emissaries in publishing and preaching it to the People, contrary to truth and their own knowledge, to win Proselytes by frights to the Romish faction; but it shall be in the School language and style, to make it more universal, not in the Vulgar, to shun dealing with quiblers and cavillers, such as I find you to be, Mr. I. S. What you are in your person, I know not certainly, but your style and mode of discourse fashioned to a vulgar humour, with a total neglect of what learned and serious men may think of it, makes me conceive you may be one of those Preachers I saw in Pulpits, with a dead man's skull in their hand, or the picture of a Devil, or a damned Soul surrounded with flames, and girded with Snakes and Toads, moving the Vulgar with tragic cries and antic gestures to sighs and sobs, and knocking of their breasts; while those of more sense and discretion did exercise their patience, and by't their lips to refrain laughing at showers of nonsense poured down with confidence. He that will reflect seriously upon the passages of your discourse, I pointed at in this Chapter, and many others of the like sort to be seen in your Book, will see I do you no injury in this Character I give of your writing, resolving to take no notice of any I shall see for the future of this kind, being desirous to make better use of the time God is pleased to lend me, then to spend it in shifting such trifles.  
Here I will add one argument more of this man's weakness and peevish temper, that finding me refuting briefly a reply of Becan to an argument I was urging, and not understanding the drift of my argument, or wanting an answer, he only says that he knows not why I mentioned Becan, if it be not to let men know that I am acquainted with the Books of great Divines. Such as are acquainted with Schools and Books of Divinity, do know for what kind of Dïvines the Summary Theology of Becan was made, for such as have not time or other requisits to go deeper. Truly when I take points of Divinity in hand to resolve upon them, I am not wont rest upon the Memorandums of Becan. I allow Mr. I. S. the glory of being more conversant in this Writer. And indeed I find them sumbolize in one thing, which is to put off pressing arguments of their Adversaries with a flout or sarcasm, fitted more to a vulgar applause than to the satisfaction of solid understandings. This I observed sometimes in Becan (which made me regard him less) but very often in Mr. J. S.  
Another proof of the man's truth and talon, is to say that all the arguments contained in my discourse are found in Bellarmin, as also the answers of them, with which I ought to have been contented without giving him the trouble of answering me. Say you so Sir? then the answers you return to me, either are of Bellarmin, or of your own making: if of Bellarmin, your cause is desperate, when your ablest Champion could produce no better defence of it: if of your own making, you have betrayed your trust in building the credit of your cause upon so weak a ground, and not producing the soundest reasons that were for it in an occasion of so great expectation: for certainly he must be very blind, that will not see by what is said in this Treatise, that your answers are very weak, impertinent, and often ridiculous.  
But of all this you have an excuse in the condition of your cause. The greatest wits are too weak to support it. Look upon Scotus in 4. dist. 10. q. 3. shivering the arguments of Aquinas and others in favour of Transubstantiation, and you will see wit and learning triumph in his discourses. Look upon the same Scotus engaged in defending Transubstantiation, to comply with the Lateran Council against his own fentiments, as he confesses, and you will find him ridiculous, as may appear by what I related of him above, chap. 23. How strong and formal is Suarez in defence of Christian verities against Infidels, how faint and wavering in the defence of Purgatory, Indulgences, etc. as seen above, chap. 31. It's a complaint grown very common among your party against Bellarmin, that the Arguments he objects against the Romish Tenets, are stronger than his Answers to them: and certain I am, it was not for want of wit or will in him to advance the Roman interest, it was the condition of the Cause.  
You brag of Austerities used by some orders of the Roman Church. If this be a rule of perfection, Pagans there be that exceed you in it, afflicting their bodies with desperate Austerities even to the destruction of soul and body together. It is one of your calumnies to say Protestants should condemn fasting and corporal afflictions discreetly used and without Hypocrisy, to curb the lust of the flesh; such they do commend, and many do practice, though with less ostentation than is used among you.  
You tell me that the Precepts of the Roman Church, without Controvers do oblige me, and that by every omission of a Holiday Mass, etc. I commit a heinous sin. Oh great Divine! I have demonstrated with reasons, in my own judgement at least, evidently convincing, that I can not fulfil the Precepts of the Roman Church without infringing the Divine, that in many things they are opposite. Which of them shall I prefer? Is it not so, that we ought to obey God rather than men? Act. v. 29. You speak of vows I made: but if all was grounded upon a blind obedience to the Pope of Rome, including a disobedience to the Laws of God, whereof I am now certainly persuaded, and delivered reasons of it, which after sundry oppositions and straight scrutinies remain still in the same force with me, by the common vote of Divines such vows are null, and I am totally free from obligation of complying with them.  
And finally, whereas you conclude with Exhortations to me of returning to your Communion, I will requite you with an Admonition better grounded, of considering the miserable condition you are in, dazzled with the splendour of the Roman Grandeur, and baited with the strong allurements of it, deceiving the world with colours of Sanctity, when Ambition and Avarice is the primum mobile, and the Soul that animates all your motions. Many simple Souls are not ware of the profane secular drifts of this great Engine of Religion set up by cunning Italians, to make all the world contribute to their Lust and Pride, hooking in with slight, more than those more honest ancient Romans could win with the sword. But you and your like, that pretend to learning and knowledge, are in a worse condition, and we have but too much ground to suspect you are wilfully in an error, and therefore guilty of deceiving the world, and being complices of the destruction and miseries of Christendom, being yourself the most deceived, when your work is to deceive others. This is a matter of greater scruple and consequence, then that you intimate to me of an obligation to hear Mass on every Holiday. I commend it therefore to your serious consideration, and to fear and think upon seriously that woe declared against corrupt Teachers, by the Prophet Ezekiel XXXIV. 2. etc. Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves. Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? .... with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them; and they were scattered because there is no shepherd .... Therefore, Oh ye shepherds, hear the words of the Lord, thus saith the Lord God, Behold I am against the shepherds, and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock, etc.  
O how may we fear this will be the end of your Pride and Cruelty! that pretending to have all, you may lose all; and while you pretend to domineer over all the faithful, you may be trampled under the feet of Infidels. If you continue to set God against you it will be so, he will cause you cease from feeding the flock, and require at your hands the decay of it.  
This is our fear: but our earnest desire and hearty prayer to God is, that he may be graciously pleased to clear your minds from the cloud of earthly passions, which possessed of the will, do blind the understanding; that he may raise your hearts to a real inquiry of God's honour and service, and inspire into your leaders thoughts of peace with your Christian Brethren, and not a further affliction to his holy Church.  
FINIS.