SOME MORE CONSIDERATIONS Proving the UNREASONABLENESS OF THE ROMANISTS IN Requiring us to Return TO THE COMMUNION of the Present Romish-Church. By William Squire.  
LONDON, Printed for Simon neal at the Sign of the three Pigeons in Bedford-street in Covent-Garden. MDCLXXIV.   

To the Honourable Sir Robert Shirley Baronet.  
Sir,  
MAny Reasons induce me to Dedicate these Papers to you, your own personal worth, your obliging carriage, and great civilities to all who are honoured with your acquaintance: But chiefly your zeal for Religion and Hereditary affection to the Church of England.  
Sir, the restless endeavours of the Romanists to reduce us to their Communion, called me into the Field; what ever my abilities are, I thought it my duty to contend for the Truth, at least to Alarm others, that they may oppose the encroaching Enemy. If the Romanists were busy in gaining Proselytes, I saw no reason why we should sit still; when they were using their Swords, it would be no prudence to keep ours in the Scabbard; if we judge our Cause good, it would be our shane to betray it by our silence, and we could never answer it before God or our own Consciences, if we were not as zealous to oppose error, as they are to maintain it, and shew'd not as much care to weed up the Tares, as they do to sow them. On this ground I have published some more Considerations to stay the wavering and prevent the ba●● sliding of the Weak, by showing the unreasonableness of the Romanists in requiring our Communion with the present Romish Church. And now my judgement as well as affection prompts me to beg your Patronage of this Work, as being one whom I knew to be a true friend of the Protestant Clergy and a Patron of the Church, one that loved his Religion as well as professed it, and, which will be your comfort as well as credit, that honoured his Profession by constant exercise of Devotion, and a good Conversation.  
Sir, The continuance of your Health and Life, with the abundance of all Spiritual and Temporal blessings, is the hearty Prayer of  
Your most unfeigned and faithful Servant, W. Squire. March 13. 1672.   

THE PREFACE.  
SInce the Reformation from Popery, the Romish Party hath left no ston unturned to reduce us to their Errors. There hath been wanting neither industry nor cunning to promote their Cause; they compass Sea and Land to make Proselytes; we meet with them in City and Country, in public and private; wherever discontents or weakness, ignorance or unconstancy gives them an opportunity, they are seldom absent: we hear of them with the Siek in his Bedchamber, with the Prisoner in the jail, with the Condemned at the Gallows, every where they are busy to reconcile men to the Romish Church. What number of Converts they have gained, I matter not to inquire; for neither is their Cause much credited, nor ours much impaired by many of them; it matters not what mens profession is, if their practise be not answerable, and when men have been loose Protestants, the Romanists gain little, if they become loose Papists: if the principal reason of their conversion was Conscience, and not design, I should expect to find them as well reformed in their lives, as in their Judgments. He that seriously designs the saving of his Soul, would as equally leave his debauched courses as some erroneous opinions, for those do as much, or more than these, occasion his damnation. But when men are as bad as they were, I rather think that they take Popery for the easier way to enjoy their sins here, and be saved hereafter. If these be the good catholics, who are hardly true Christians, I envy them not such Converts: he that lives an Atheist, we lose not much if he turn Papist: he that understands little of any Religion, cannot much brag that he is of the Romish, nor can he be said to change his Religion, that really never had any: we cannot say they went out from us, for they were not of us; if they neither cared to understand the ground of our Religion, nor to practise the duties: if they minded their pleasure more than their devotion, and were indifferent in the exercise of that which they professed to be the truth, I cannot believe they were ever ours; and if they be no better, 'tis no great ground for a Triumph to call them theirs: 'tis a poor conquest to led captive a silly woman laden with divers Lusts, to persuade some discontented person to throw off his Religion in an anger at his Fortunes, to gain some humourist who loves a Fashion by himself, and turns a Papist to be thought some body: or some ignorant person, who troubles himself with no more Religion than the Collier, to believe what the Church believes, and yet what the Church believes he knows not: should they have more such Converts, they may serve to increase their number, but they will hardly credit their Cause. If there be any serious understanding person, that( as he saith) out of a principle of Conscience, and love of Truth, and desire of Salvation entertains any favourable thoughts of the Romish Party, I would have him weigh impartially the true reasons of our differences, and the substantial grounds of our refusal to join with the present Romish Church. We put it to this issue, whether every Doctrine which their late Council of Trent declares to be de fide, and which must be acknowledged for the catholic Faith without which there is no Salvation, be a Divine Truth delivered by Christ or his Apostles? For if there be any thing required to be believed, it must be evident that it was first revealed, and if it cannot be made evident to us that it was revealed, then we have no reason to believe it is Gods Word; and if we have no reason to believe it is so, then if we profess that it is so, we bely God, we add to his Word, and we publish for Doctrine, what( for ought we know) are the Commandements of Men. If you will have communion with the Romish Church, then( say they) you must believe these things, and he that errs in any one Doctrine cannot believe truly the rest, he doth lose all catholic Faith 
* Charity m●i●tained by Catho●. ch 6. s●ct. 29. . 'Tis not enough to judge them probable, or that they may be piously believed; but you must believe them as necessary Articles of Faith, and profess them to be such. But now we desire this may be weighed impartially, whether those Doctrines which are their Additions to the Creed, and must be believed on pain of Damnation, have this evidence or no? If they have not this evidence, then we have no reason to believe them, and by consequence are safe without the belief of them; if they have this evidence, then let us see it; if they have not this evidence, then at best they are uncertain and doubtful, founded on mere conjecture which cannot oblige us to a rational assent: If they have this evidence, and will produce it, then we shall see either that we are obliged to assent, if the evidence, be sufficient or else that we are not in fault, if the evidence upon serious examination appear insufficient. He that imposes any thing on another Mans belief, must first prove what he requires to be believed, and till that be done, no man can be blamed for his dissent, where he sees no reason to assent. We bid none shut their eyes against the light, or oppose that which appears to be truth, but let them prove as clearly as they affirm strongly, and no man that loves truth will think it any disparagement to retract an error. We confess 'tis more ingenuous to confess and amend a fault than persist in it; but then he that would persuade another to amend a fault, must first prove it to be a fault, and till that be done, God will impute our mistakes( if we do err) to the weakness of our understandings, not any pravity of our Wills. Many of the Doctrines which the Romanists impose on us, they tell us are not clear in Scripture without their Churches interpretation, unless the Church by the Spirit of Truth explains those things which were before obscure in Scripture; so saith Canus,( i.e.) in effect to say, we 
* ●●. Cem. l. 3. e. 3. su●d●m. 2.  cannot convince you out of Scripture, the Text is obscure, unless you will believe our interpretation, and then 'tis clear; we can give you no sufficient ground to believe, that this is the meaning of the place, but you must believe that is the meaning which we say is the meaning, though we do like the Gloss interpret statuimus by abrogamus, though the words will not bear that sense which we put upon them. Thus we must renounce our own judgements, and believe they have an immediate revelation of the meaning of many places in Scripture, or else farewell many of those Articles of Faith without which there is no Salvation. Again, many of these Doctrines( they say) are Traditions delivered down from the Apostles, and have been constantly held in their Church, but this is still to resolve all into their own affirmation, they forsooth, must be the Keepers of this Tradition: if we would know what was delivered by the Apostles, we must not consult the writings of the Primitive Times, but the Testimony of the present Church; which is in effect to say, all is Tradition what they call Tradition, and we must believe it, because they say it. And is not this strange that when we question these Doctrines which they impose on us as Articles of Faith, and the lawfulness of many Rites and Ceremonies which they pretend are derived from Apostolical Tradition, that yet we must be content with this proof? There is little for it in Scripture, the Places are obscure, but believe their Interpretation, and then it is proved enough. There is little appearance of these Apostolical Traditions, but believe their words and then you are sure: Grant them this manner of proof, and all is done. Put out our own Eyes, renounce our Judgments, take all they say upon Trust, believe all they require of us, and then we may soon turn Papists: But if no Party of Men can require any thing to be believed as necessary to Salvation without the evidence of a Revelation from God, and whoever requires any thing to be believed under pretence of a Revelation; must give some convincing Proof, that this thing was revealed; if the Council declare an Article to be de fide, there must then be some proof that it was revealed: but till these Doctrines which they require us to believe; are proved to be from God, and that by a better argument than the bare testimony of the Imposer; we have no reason to receive their Additions: Till we see on what ground the Council decreed these Doctrines to be believed, and whether those Arguments by which they were convinced, were a sufficient ground for their Decree, we have no reason to believe these Additions to the Creed. Others tell us we need look no further, than the practise of the present Church, for either it hath been so constantly practised from the Apostles times, or else there must be some Age, which either might not know what was delivered in the Age immediately foregoing, or else did wilfully resolve to deceive their Posterity, in telling them that some thing they had received of their Forefathers which yet they had not received: and either of these things they think absurd to imagine. We are  told that by their way of conveying down their Doctrines by living Voice and practise of the Church, ( i.e.) by catechizing, public Preaching, private discoursing, and consonant living, 'tis made so manifest to the generality what was held in each year immediately before, that no prejudice can make them all so mad as either to mistake or misinterpret it: So saith I. S. 
Raillery against Reason Disc. 16. pag. 152.  And then still we must take their words for true, and believe because they say it. I question whether they do not impose an Error, they tell me they do not, because they have always taught so: but why must I believe they have always taught so? they tell me, because else there must be some Age in which they could not tell what had been taught them, or else that they would wilfully deceive those that followed them: But so long as I see that Errors may creep in by degrees, and de facto usually do so, why should I trouble myself whether they were deceived themselves first, or did wilfully deceive others? Plausible discourses signify nothing against evidence of Fact. The Council of Trent acknowledges that in the Celebration of the Mass many things had cropped in sieve temporum vitio, sieve hominum incuria & improbitate, 
Sess. 22. Decr. de observe. & evitand.  quae a tanti sacrificii dignitate aliena sunt, whether by the fault of the times, or the negligence and perverseness of men, which were far from the dignity of that sacrifice, and therefore bids the Bishops to take away those things which either Covetousness or Irreverence, or Superstition ( falsa imitatrix verae pietatis) had brought in: and now shall I say that no abuses could come into the celebration of the Mass, because men could not be ignorant what was the custom of their immediate Predecessors, nor can be thought wilfully to impose on their Successors? when the Council confesses there are abuses, yea, and crept into that daily Sacrifice, which they esteem with the highest veneration and respect; and these also brought in under a pretence of Piety, and therefore less observed: But now if there were abuses crept into the Mass, abuses in Indulgences through Superstition, Ignorance or Irreverence 
Sess. 25. Decr de Indulgent. , if there might this sensible alteration happen in the practise of the Church, I see no reason why there might not as well creep in an alteration in the Doctrine, and by degrees erroneous Opinions steal in to justify those erroneous Practices. 'Tis then not enough to pretend the present practise of the Church, unless we were first assured that it neither hath nor could practise otherwise, than it first received from Christ and his Apostles. If they prove the Doctrines they require us to believe have been delivered by Christ and his Apostle, then we are bound to receive them; otherwise their present practise is no warrant for us to believe these Additions: If they bring convincing arguments to satisfy our Judgements of the truth of these things, then to disbelieve these Doctrines would be our Sin, and not to return to their Communion would be our Crime. We put it to this issue; Since they would have us believe many things which we cannot find in the Scripture, nor in the Times immediately succeeding the Apostles; let them prove them: The Decrees of their Councils move us not any more than the Testimonies of men in their own Cause. Their expositions of doubtful places, we look upon as their own conjectures; their pretended Traditions are nothing to us, they may be Records of their own making, at best they are in their keeping, and whether they be true or false, corrupted or no they bring us no other proof than the Testimony of them who are Parties themselves: we have learnt to call no man on earth, Master, or take that for Gospel, which any Sect, or Party of Men under what name soever impose on us. Let them prove what they require us to believe, and though we have erred we will not be heretics. Instead of these Arguments we meet with other dealing from the Romish Party, we meet with many plausible insinuations, arguments rather fitted to inveigle ignorant persons, or those who have neither leisure nor ability to dive into the differences betwixt us, than to convince understanding mens arguments, which are more suited to the fancy than the reason, and sometimes such which may be suited to any Religion, to the Mahometan as well as Christian, yea which as soon may make us of no Religion, as of any. I will give you a taste of those tricks and crafty insinuations whereby they beguile some unstable men. They tell them that we are Protestants in policy more than conscience, that were it not for our preferments, for our Livings and our Wives, we would soon turn Papists. That we choose one Religion to live in, another to die in, and therefore though we live Protestants, yet we commonly die Papists: there is one I. S. that in a Treatise called An Invitation to seek the Lord, &c. c. 21. saith so. They tell them, that we never red their Authors, or know what their Doctrine is from their Writers, but, take all on trust, and second hand from our own, and that none who red their Books can continue Protestants. If we writ against their Errors, they tell them, that we do it not for love of Truth, but for Applause and Credit, for Profit and Preferment. There is one I. S. that saith so. As if none were zealous Protestants, but mere Politicians. Sometimes they pretend, that we fasten many Doctrines on them which they do not own, and forge Stories to make them odious, and never answer their Arguments but with Scoffs and Jeers. By these Insinuations they make way for themselves among weaker People. And when they have gained so far credit to their Stories, that the English Clergy are Men of no Conscience nor learning; but merely keep up the difference for Temporal Advantage; then they represent themselves as the only Lovers of Truth, the only Mortified Persons; the only Friends to Religion, who are zealous to Propagate it with their utmost Pains, and seal it with their Blood. They have so many Confessors, so many Martyrs, they can reckon up so many Saints: Whereas among Protestants saith Rushworth, he knew many honest Men, but never any whom themselves call●d holy Men. That in the Romish Church there is nothing but Fasting and Watching, severe Penances and Mortifications; Whippings and Scourgings, &c. Whereas the Protestants Preach up the Flesh, Idleness and Pleasures: Preach down good Works and cry up only Faith; Preach only an hatred of Sin out of Fear of Hell, not out of Love to God, &c. As for their Priests they brag of Demonstrations, Absolute Certainty and Infallibility, Sure and Certain Principles, whereas Protestancy is without Principles, they have no Infallible Teachers, and therefore do not believe infallibly, and therefore are uncertain of the Truth of what they believe; at best their Religion is founded on probabilities, and they have no assurance, but a moral certainty.  
The Romish Party cry up the Church, The Church, as the Jews did the Temple, The Temple. Their Church is Noah's Ark, and who ever will scape the Flood must come into it: Theirs is the catholic Church which is professed in the Creed, we are but heretics, schismatics, without Faith, without Charity. And therefore either we must turn or be damned. With such Arguments they assault many, and no wonder if Paper Pellets knock down some weak Persons; those that have not Time nor Brains to weigh solid Arguments, may be easily cozened with superficial, and a petty fallacy may seem a Demonstration: Hard words and great confidence may puzzle many, and some easy natures may perhaps suspect them to be in the right, because they pretend they cannot be in the wrong. Many think it the easier task to choose their Guide than their Religion, and they'l rather follow where others led them, than seek the way themselves. Some leave our Communion because we damn not all in the Romish, thus making our Charity a pretence for their Errors; if we in pity of their ignorance, or consideration of their general Repentance, hope that God may have mercy on any in that Communion, this presently must be construed for a Confession that the Romish Religion is the safe way to Salvation, and our kindness to some wellmeaning Persons must be used as an Argument to persuade unstable People, that we aclowledge theirs to be the Truth. When I considered these and such like poor Arguments by which many are deluded, I could not think that I could do more service to the Church, than by pressing the unreasonableness of the Romanists requiring us to return to the Communion of the Romish Church. He that thinks that he is bound to leave the Communion of the English, for the Communion of the Romish Church, must consider, whether is the likelier way to Salvation: If a man may be saved that doth continue in the English Church, and there is no danger by his continuance in it; then 'tis no necessity for him to desert the Communion of it: and if he cannot be saved in that Communion, but must return to the Romish Church, then he must consider what is the necessary condition of Communion with it, and that is the Profession of those Doctrines which it requires to be believed as necessary to Salvation, and the public allowance of the general practices in it: and if there be not sufficient reason to oblige us to profess that Doctrine it requires to be believed, and to allow its practices, then there is sufficient reason to excuse our dissent from the Romish Communion. These grounds I have in the former part considered, and shew'd that there are some Articles which by the Creed of pus the fourth we are bound to profess, which are so far from being de side, that they are uncertain and doubtful, and the grounds on which they build these Doctrines wholly perplexed and obscure, and that many of them since the Council of Trent have been forced to acknowledge it. I have instanced in four Articles ( i.e.) in that Article, that the Holy catholic apostolic Roman Church, is the Mother and Mistris of all Churches: In the Article of Transubstantiation, of Invocation of Saints, and of Indulgences: I have also instanced in the Profession which they make, that they do most firmly admit and embrace the Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions, and other observations of that Church: And it's declared by the Council, that the Church hath used in the Sacrifice of the Mass Ceremonies, as Mystical Blessings, Lights, Incense, Garments, &c. from Apostolical Discipline and Tradition: And have shewed that for many of these things, at best, there is no certain ground that they were delivered to the Church by the Apostles; and for others of those pretended Traditions they are vain, foolish, and cannot be excused from all Superstition. I have instanced also in many falsities and untruths in their Prayers, in many impieties in their public Offices, ascribing too much to the Creature, and derogating from the honour of Christ. Lastly, I have shew'd that many Prayers which have been anciently used in their Church are irreconcilable with the grounds of some present Doctrines, and therefore these Doctrines appear plain Innovations. I shall now pursue some other Arguments from the uncertainty of some Doctrines, which they require under pain of damnation to be believed and professed: from the opposition betwixt their Prayers yet retained, and their public Doctrines and Practices: the inconsistency of their Doctrine with the welfare and security of civil Societies: And I shall also add these considerations, That the Protestants in many Doctrines now controverted betwixt them and the Romish Church, take that way which according to the Romish grounds is the safest. But that those Doctrines and Practices in which the Romanists differ from us, plainly tend to the advancement of their Clergy and the subjection of the Laity to the power of their Priests: and if Men will impartially weigh them, appear not to be the fruits of true Piety, but of Covetousness and Ambition. And now though some notwithstanding the cogency of our Arguments change their Religion, yet still our cause is the same. Though some stragglers be cut off, yet the day is not lost. If any do desert the Communion of the Church of England, I pity their weakness, and pray that they may be convinced of their Error, and brought back to the acknowledgement of the Truth; and shall endeavour to satisfy others, as I am satisfied myself, That it is unreasonable for the Romanists to require us to join in the Communion of the present Romish Church.   


CHAP. I.  
I Draw my first consideration from the inconsistency of many of their doctrines with the security of civil societies. When I consider some doctrines defined, and others publicly maintained by the greatest part in that Church, I cannot see that any civil societies can be secure; at least the peace of any Nation and security of the Civil Government,( where such doctrines are avowed,) must needs stand on a sandy foundation. And this even those Princes who adhere to the Romish Church, are in their differences with the Popes sensible of; and therefore they give the Clergy in those cases leave to talk, but they do what they see is necessary for the support of their Civil State: and decry these opinions as absolutely inconsistent with the security and safety of their Kingdoms.  
1. I instance in the Doctrine of the Popes power. If we suppose in a Nation any absolute uncontrollable power distinct from the civil, 'tis impossible to preserve that Nation without constant jars, and quarrels: there must needs be perpetual clashings of jurisdictions, and encroachments one upon another: either power will determine what belongs to its cognizance, and perhaps the one may challenge what really belongs to the other; and while either jurisdiction vindicates its own rights, the people are distracted in their obedience and the peace of the Nation shaken. 'Tis easily observable that the Papal power hath pretended many things to belong to Ecclesiastical jurisdiction which really belong to the Civil. I see no reason why Usury should be more a spiritual crime than Robbery, or why Fornication and Adultery are more of Ecclesiastical cognizance, than Assaults and Batteries: and therefore though these causes as many other may be determined by the Clergy, as well as Laity, where the Prince pleases, as he may appoint several Courts for the audience of several Causes: but now the Papal power hath pretended many things to be of Ecclesiastical cognizance, which properly in themselves are not, and hath published several Laws about them, and excommunicates those who shall intermeddle with any of these causes, praeter juris Canonici dispositionem, besides the appointment of the Cannon Law; so that either the Civil Power must exclude itself from whatever the Popes challenge to belong to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, or if the Civil Magistrate stand upon his right, there must needs follow constant jars and confusions. If the Pope may require the people for the redemption of their souls to visit the Holy Land, or personally to fight against the enemies of the Christian Faith, and if the King by the tenor of their Lands may at the same time oblige them personally to assist in his wars, here must needs follow distractions, and disturbances: if they go to the Holy Land they are liable to the forfeiture of their estates at home; if they tarry to assist their Prince, liable to excommunication for not obeying the Pope: either they must please two Masters, which if their commands be contrary, will prove impossible; or if they do not obey, then they are exposed to endure the punishment, which the offended power can inflict. If the Pope require a tax for his Wars, as Gregory the ninth for his against Frederick, and he had so great an one from the Clergy, that they were forced to sell or pawn the very Vessels of the Altar to pay it, as we are informed by Matthew Paris: 
* Hist. mayor anno 1229.  And if the King command one at the same time, under what poverty and misery must a Nation groan? Or suppose the Pope require from the Clergy resident a third part of their goods, and from the non-residents a moiety, and the King forbid the payment, which case did happen as Matthew Paris 
* Hist. mayor anno 1●46.  relates, how miserable may the people be distracted by these contrary commands? And yet this is but the natural sequel of two equal distinct powers. Our Historians tell us enough of the Popes actions under weak Princes, when their troubles at home made them unable to resist the Popes encroachments: I'll instance in two passages one out of Matthew 
Hist. mayor an●o 1241.  Paris, when Otho the Legate departed home, there was not left so much money in England, excepting the Vessels of the Altars and the Ornaments of Churches, as he had extorted from this Kingdom: another out of Thomas Wal●ingham 
* Hist. Ric. 2. anno 1381.  that when Cardinal Pilous left England, he carried so great a sum of money with him, as was never at any time paid for Tax or Tallage. If then the Ecclesiastical and Civil Powers may according to their pleasures impose Taxes, and that perhaps to maintain their power one against another; I do not see that any Subject can expect to enjoy his estate, or any Nation to live in quiet. Did we suppose the Ecclesiastical and Civil Power thus equal and independent of each other in a Nation, I cannot see but this imperium in imperio must need expose the quiet and safety of a Nation to great hazards. But should we look nearer into the power, which the Pope cha●lenges, and to that which the most Romanists do give him; we should then see the insecurity of any Civil government, no King could sit fast on his Throne, nor any people secure in their Possessions.  
1. Many Popes have challenged a supreme direct power in temporal affairs, that they have jus utriusque Gladii: so Boniface the eighth published in the extravagant, that they were placed by Christ Lords over all Nations to pluck up and destroy, to plant and to build: so said pus the fifth in his Bull against Queen Elizabeth, that the Pope hath power of giving and taking away Kingdoms through the whole Christian World: that whatever any Power or Majesty any Kings or Emperors have, depend on the Roman Church: So Clement the fifth decreed in the Council of 
Clem. pastoralis de Re judic.  Vienna; and when Clement the sixth had in a public Con●istory made Lewis of Spain Prince of the Fortunate Islands, he took this for his Text, faciam principem 
Hist Edw. 3. anno 1344.  supper gentem magnam, as Thomas Walsingham reports. This the Popes have challenged, and by virtue of this power they have disposed Kingdoms and altered Governments. Alexander the sixth gave the Indies to the Spaniard, the Bull is extant, 
* Lopes de Gomara Hist. Indi●. l. 1. c. 19.  wherein( he says) that by the authority of God which was given to the Popes in the person of Peter, and which they hold as Vicars of Christ, we give to you all the Isles and firm Land found and to be found, with their Dominions, Cities, Castles, Villages, Rights and Jurisdictions: and 'tis inserted into the Canon Law that the apostolic See translated the Roman Empire from the Greeks to the Germans; 
* Cap. V●●●ab. de elect.  and Bellarmine pretends that when lo the third did thus, he did it as Pope, and as he had Apostolical power, by which in case it be profitable or necessary for Christianity, he may dispose of the Kingdoms and Empires of Christians. 
* Bellar. risposta al 3. prop. di Gio Marsil.  Now if the Pope doth claim this power as the capo di christianit●, as the head of the Christians, and may thus as he pleases translate Governments, dispose Kingdoms, and change the Laws, I would fain see what Kings and Princes can be secure? Kings must no longer pled that they hold their Crowns by God and their right, but merely as the Popes deputies; and he may call in the patent of their Office when he pleases: no Prince can be secure if an angry Pope take a pique at him; nor keep his Crown on his head if the Pope have a mind to throw it off. Princes must no longer talk of Election or succession, for they have no title but the Popes grant or his permission, and he may by this authority unking them if he think them unfit to govern, as Pope Zachary did chilperic, and to prevent disturbance among Christians ne perturbaretur Christianitatis ordo, by his apostolic authority 
Chron. Regin. lib. 2. anno 749.  commanded that pippin should be made King. Should a Boniface the eighth, a Julius the second, or Paul the third sit in the Chair, let Princes look to themselves, if the Pope challenge this power, they will never want pretences to put it in use: and what security can then their neighbours have when by the fullness of apostolic power they can so soon put down one family and raise another? what assurance of obedience can they have from their popish subjects when the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, to whom all power is given in Heaven and Earth, challenges this power to place and displace? either they must disown obedience to the Pope in what he challenges as the Vicar of Christ, and Successor of St. Peter, or they must be good subjects no longer than he pleases: either they must say the Popes have erred in this power they have challenged, and that they are not bound to obey them in that thing which they pretend to command as Vicars of Christ, or that no King can be secured of his subjects obedience longer than this Lord paramount permits. Thus according to that power which the Popes have challenged, there can be no security for the Civil Government.  
2. Let us see what power the most Romanists do give to the Pope. I will not speak of the Canonists who usually flatter the Popes, and call him the Lord of the whole world; and give him as much power as the most ambitious Popes can challenge: I shall only mention what the Divines of the Romish party generally give him, and they do tell us that all kind of power which may be necessary for his universal pastorship is included in these words, Feed my sheep: that Kings are spiritually subject to Peter and his successors; that this spiritual power is to direct all the acts of subjects by which they may either lose or gain eternal life: that one of these acts in a Christian Prince is the use of his governing power. And therefore say they, it pertains to the spiritual power to direct him in the use of that governing power, and if he fails in the management of that power, and does not manage it according as it shall seem good to the spiritual power, then to restrain him in the exercise of it and prevent any damage which may arise thereby: thus he hath a power indirectè & in ordine ad spiritualia over the temporal. So that by this power which they generally give the Pope, it follows that if the Magistrate make any Laws which( as he thinks) do favour sin, or are any way prejudicial to the interest of the Church; if they hinder good or occasion evi●, these he may correct, either by publishing contrary Laws, or commanding the secular Princes to revoke them: and this( says Suarez) 
* Adv. sect. Augl. l. 3. c. 22.  is the common opinion of Divines, approved by the custom of the Church, and it is not lawful for any catholic to doubt of the Popes power. So again, if the Civil Magistrate make any war which the Pope thinks unlawful, he may forbid it, because by such a war he abuses his power: so if the Pope sees a war necessary for the good of Religion, he may command the Magistrate to make war: And because a directive power is nothing( as they think) without a coactive, therefore if any Prince refuse to obey this command, the Pope may punish him. 
* Suarez 161. c. 23. n. 2.  Now though they do not call this a direct power, yet it is in effect, for he may meddle with temporal affairs with most full authority says Bellarmin, 
* Risposta al 3. propos.  out of the opusculum de regimne principum, l. 3. c. 11. &c. 13. he may depose Kings and make new ones, and this says Victoria 
* Relect. de I●dis. prop. 3.  none that is truly a Christian will deny: and elsewhere he calls 
* Relect. 1. de pot. E●●l. ● 12.  it a most ample power, by which he can make and unmake Kings, divide Kingdoms, &c. This is then the power which the most Romanists ascribe to the Pope, but even according to this there can be no security for any Civil Government longer than he pleases, nor can any Princes be assured of their estates, longer than they submit to the Popes will: whatever Laws they make for the welfare of their estates must pass the Popes approbation: if they raise any Tax, they must ask the Popes leave; if they condemn any subject for Treason, the sentence must be reviewed by the Pope: they must list no Souldiers, raise no Forces, make no War without the Popes licence: For if the Pope have this most ample power to direct the actions of Kings, and restrain them from any act which he judges to be the occasion of sin, or the hindrance of spiritual good: then no King shall be Judge when or what tax he shall lay, for the Pope may call that an oppression of the people: then no King shall be judge when or what forces he shall raise or where he shall make war, for the Pope may say, that the war is unnecessary, and a causeless spilling of Christian blood: then no King can punish a traitor without the Popes liking, for 'tis the Popes office to hinder any public sins, and the moral occasions of them, saith Suarex. 
* Adv sect. A●gl. l. 3. c. 22. n. 14.  If therefore the Pope saith, that there hath been partiality and injustice; that the cause hath not been fully heard, or the proofs not evident enough, or the sentence too much hastened, he may stop the proceedings. Grant once this power in the Pope, which yet as Bellarmine saith 
* Risposta al 3. p. ●p.  all but heretics will grant, and which it is not lawful for any catholic to doubt of, saith Suarez 
* 161. n. 10. ; and then let me see where any temporal government is any thing else, but a mere shadow of power? or any Prince longer secure in his government than he is wholly at the Popes beck? So that in effect this makes the Pope the only Monarch, and all Princes no better than his Legates. I will instance in some things, wherein may appear the inconsistency of this pretended power, with the security and welfare of Civil Societies. 1. I instance in the invalidating and declaring null and voided, Laws which have been made for the welfare of the Civil State. If the Pope have really a power to make null and voided those Laws which the State shall judge necessary for its own security and safety; then the power which is given him is inconsistent with the welfare of a Civil Society. Suppose a Statute of Mortmain, that no gifts of Lands in perpetuum to any Ecclesiastical use, shall be valid without the Magistrates consent. This Law hath been made generally in all Christian states. And 'tis plain that in many Kingdoms there hath been a necessity of restraining the immoderate gifts to Ecclesiastical persons and uses: for Ecclesiastcal persons having many privileges and exemptions by the bounty of Princes, and the Lands coming into the Clergies hands, the burden would wholly lye upon the Laity, and they being oppressed with constant charges and impoverished, the necessities of the Nation could not be supplied, nor the dignity of it upheld. And yet by virtue of this power the Popes have declared this Law null and voided, as contrary to Ecclesiastical liberty. 'Tis plain that if the Clergy might purchase what they please, and enjoy whatever comes to them either by gifts or legacies, and have no power to alienate what once they have got; that by degrees they may get all into their hands. And as the Author of the review of the Council of Trent 
* L. 7. c. 9.  saith, they will have all the Laity only for Renters and Farmers of their goods. And therefore it hath been necessary to forbid the passing of any estates to the Clergy without the Magistrates consent; and yet the Popes by virtue of this power, which is commonly given them, declare these Laws which are merely for self-preservation, voided and null. Suppose a Law, as that which the Venetians made, that none should build a Church or Monastery within the City of Venice, or the Jurisdiction of it without the consent of the Senate, for the soil on which they were built was formerly under the jurisdiction of the State, and it was not reasonable that the State should lose its power and right over the soil without its own consent, and should this be allowed, then every private person might place them where he pleased, and in process of time the multitude of Churches and Monasteries might take up the most part of the City, there might be little space left for the Citizens to inhabit, and the Fortifications of the City might be weakened by the incommodious site of those religious places. Many substantial reasons the State of Venice gave, which may be found in the Aviso di Antonio Quirino, and the Considerationi deal Padre Paolo. And yet Paul the fifth condemns this Law for unjust, and contrary to Ecclesiastical liberty: and this was one reason of the Interdict of Venice. Suppose a Law that the money of the Nation should not be carried beyond Sea, lest the Nation be exhausted, and foreign enemies enriched with the wealth of the Land; for so it might easily be, when the rents of the Clerks Aliens in England in the time of Innocent the fourth, was 70000. marks, and the Ordinary revenue of the King was not computed to the third part: as it was found to be by the reckoning of Robert Bishop of Lincoln, saith Matthew Paris 
* Hist. maj●r anno 1252. : and at one time there were no less than 300. Italians beneficed here. And the wealth that was exported to the Court of Rome, was frequently ●ent by the Pope to the Enemies of the State, as it oft happened in our wars with France: yet still the Popes have pretended a power to condemn this Law as null and voided, and contrary to the power of the Pope, and the dignity of the Roman See. So if the King should forbid any Souldiers going out of the Land, lest it be left naked and exposed to a foreign enemy; and on the other hand, if the Pope may require them to assist in his Wars for the maintenance of St. Peters Patrimony, and the defence of the Church; if now the Pope have this power to null these Laws which he judges prejudicial to his interest, and by virtue of any Superior power( whether we call it a direct, or indirect power) can call these Souldiers away, it will follow that no Civil Society or Government hath any means to preserve itself: there is no proper means left to prevent disorders and confusion, ruin and destruction in a Kingdom: nor can any King secure himself or his people longer than the Pope pleases. Thus even that power which the Romanists generally ascribe to the Pope, is no way consistent with the security of the Civil State. For whatever Laws are made by any Civil State, for the necessary defence and support of itself, may by this power be declared null; whatever course in prudence they take for the preserving the wealth and strength of the Nation, may be condemned as prejudicial to the Ecclesiastical liberty. Whatever forces they raise for their necessary defence, may be called away, and the Nation exposed to foreign enemies. Grant this power in the Pope, and I would fain see which way Princes can secure their Crowns from the Popes usurpations. There is no way but this, that Princes are grown wiser than to be talked out of their power, and if the Pope have the verbalis, yet Princes have the realis potestas, as the French Ambassador answered Boniface the eighth: 
* Hypodigma Neustriae anno 1301.  but were there a Julius the second in the Chair that knew how to manage St. Pauls Sword as well as St. Peters Keys, and would his temporal with spiritual arms as he used to do; Kings and Princes would soon see the fruits of this doctrine. That power which the Popes challenge, and most Romanists give him, is inconsistent with the security of the Civil State; and where Popes can do as much as they pretend they may do, Kings must be mere Vassals to the Pope, and at most but half Kings.  
2. I instance in the doctrine of the Popes power in absolving men from their promissory Oaths. And if the Pope is allowed by their doctrine to dispense with promises, and absolve men from the Oaths they have taken, I know not how any can be secured of the faith and honesty of those who own this power. For if they have promised and sworn never so fully, yet there are many cases in which the Pope can absolve them; and where are we then? And if they are not absolved, it is because they do not make use of that liberty which many times is, and always may be granted to them. If they may be absolved by any, or released from the obligation of that Oath by any, except for whose benefit they have sworn; then it is to no purpose to oblige them by an Oath. It is in vain for Kings to swear to preserve the liberty or rights of the people, or for the people to swear Allegiance to the Prince, or for Princes mutually to swear to observe any leagues and agreements they make one with another; for they can never be tied so fast, but the Pope can loose them. If they should swear that they would seek no dispensation nor absolution, yet you may be dispensed with for that perjury, and absolved from that Oath, as well as from the other. They tell us, 1. That the Pope may dispense with Oaths if there be just cause: so says 
* Sum. Angel. Juran. 6.  Angelus à Clanasio. And that the Pope may upon a cause ex toto liberare free a man wholly from his Oath, even as God himself; for it is very likely that God( where there is cause) hath given his power among men to his Vicar, otherwise he had not been a good Master of a Family, if he had left his Flock without a shepherd, who where there was cause might befriend them. This is the Doctrine of summa Rosellae 
* Sum. Rosellae. Juram. 1. n. 4. 5. : and that he may relax an Oath, both by taking away the bond of the Oath, remitting that obligation 'vice Dei; and by forbidding him to perform the Oath, so says Filliucius 
* case. Conseli. 25. c. 9. n. 281. . 2. If the case seem doubtful whether there be a just cause for dispensing with the Oath or no; that it must be left to the determination of the Pope, and that if the Pope doth judge there is a sufficient cause, and doth dispense with the Oath, that the person is safe in Conscience; and after the Pope hath dispensed with him, he is not bound to perform his Oath: and further, if the Pope did absolve any man from an Oath without cause, the absolution holds; for says Summa Rosellae 
* Verb. Juram. 1. n. 4.  he is above the positive Law, and may dispense with the Divine Law; so that he do not dispense with the Gospel, or the Articles of Faith. 3. They tell us that if a man hath taken any Oath, which is the hindrance of a greater good, the Pope may dispense with it: And though the thing be lawful and honest in itself, and in his power to do it; yet if it hinder him from doing a greater good, the Pope may take off the obligation, by declaring that in this case the Oath doth not bind him, because of the good which would be hindered, or the evil which would follow if such an Oath were kept. 4. They tell us, that the Pope may in some ca●es absolve the Subjects of Princes from their Allegiance: if a Prince be excommunicate, that the bond of the Oath is so long suspended till he be reconciled to the Church; but if a Prince be deprived of his Dominion for heresy, or any other crime, then that the Oath is made voided and null, so saith Suarez 
* Adv. sect. A●● l. l. 6. n. 2. 〈◇〉 : and that there is such a power of absolving Subjects from their Allegiance, he pleads from the ancient custom of the Church, and practise of Popes: and indeed the practise hath been too evident, especially if Princes any way displeased the Pope. I'll instance in the case of Investitures, which was the quarrel with the German Emperor Henry the fourth, upon which account the Pope deposed him, and absolved his Subjects from all Oaths of Allegiance to him: though the Emperour might pled a prescription of 200 years and more, under 60 Popes, for giving bishoprics and abbeys by the Ring and Staff 
* Mat. Paris hist. mayor anno 1112. Sig●hert anno 1111. . And though he might pled the very grant of the Popes themselves, as of Adrian the first in the Roman Synod, to Charles the great; that Archbishops and Bishops should receive their investitures from him, and unless they were name and invested by him they should not be consecrated. 
* Mat. Wes●mon. hist. anno 773.  And though really there was no sin in the Emperors nomination to bishoprics and abbeys,( for what sin is it for the Emperor to give the Ecclesiastical persons possession of their temporalties, and to require an Oath of fealty or homage to them; for those temporalties which had been the gift of former Emperors, and to nominate persons to those dignities, any more than for a Lay Patron, upon the account of endowing the Church, to present to an Ecclesiastical bnfice?) and yet because the Emperor did not appear at the Popes summons to satisfy his demands, he was excommunicate, and his Subjects absolved from their allegiance to him. This is their Doctrine, this their practise. But now I see not how this power to absolve men from their Oaths which are aweful and honest in themselves, merely on p●etence of scandal, or the hindrance of a public good, can be consistent with the security of a Civil Society? Grant the Pope this power which he hath frequenly practised, and the Romish party generally aclowledge to be in him, and no Romanist can be a good Subject longer than he pleases, nor be bound by the foremnest Oaths which Princes have framed for their own security, longer than he allows it: If the Pope invade any neighbour Princes dominions, and that Prince to divert the war fall on the Popes territories, then presently excommunicate him, and absolve his Souldiers from all Oaths to him. Thus did Urban the second to the Souldiers of Count Hugo, for he tells them that stood upon their Oaths to him, that they must obey God and not man, and that they were not bound to pay obedience which they had sworn to any Christian Prince, if he opposed God and his Saints. 
* Urban. 2. epi 〈…〉 ad ●p Vapicens. 1. cause. 15. q 6. can. Jurator.  If any Prince oppose the exactions of the Roman Court, the next is, excommunicate him and free his Subjects from all bonds of Oaths. If any Prince refuse to suffer his Subjects to go out of his Land, lest they discover the secrets of his Kingdom, then excommunicate him, and release them from the Oaths they have taken of Loyalty and Allegiance. Yea if these men swear that they will not go out without the Princes leave, yet the Pope absolves them; so that Oaths can bind no longer than the Pope ju●ges them fit to be observed, and where the Oath they have taken crosses his design, no question but the Pope will judge it unfit to be observed. If they swear to bear true faith to the King and his Successors, all this is to be understood, unless the Pope absolves them, for then the obligation ceases; and the Pope may absolve them, if he thinks this Oath to be an hindrance of a greater good: and now if the Prince to whom they swear allegiance be an heretic, and draw men from their catholic Faith, then the obedience to him may be in the Popes judgement an hindrance of a greater good. Weigh these things seriously, and then tell me what security any Prince can really have of the fidelity and loyalty of these kind of Subjects? For either they must say, that they are still bound, and judge themselves bound by their Oaths, notwithstanding the Popes absolving them, or dispensing with them; which is( as the Romanists generally tell us) to disown the Popes supreme power, and to deny the authority of binding and losing, which was given to St. Peter, and his Successors: or else they must confess that they are bound to obey, till he absolve them, and after he hath absolved them, then they are free: and then what security hath any King of their Allegiance? I do not say but some Roman catholics are and have been Loyal to Heretical Princes, as they call them; my design is not to render their Loyalty suspicious, or exasperate our Superiors against all that profess themselves of the Romish Communion; no question but some do not know these doctrines of their party, and some that know them, yet out of a natural honesty abhor such dangerous opinions; but if they do own this doctrine, which to deny saith Suarez 
* Def. fid. Cath. adv. sect. Angl. l. 6. c. 2. n. 7  is against the custom of the Church, the practise of General Councils, and the appobation of the Canon Law in Cap. 2. de Re Judicatâ in 6. and against the consent of the catholic Doctors: how then can any Prince be secured of their Allegiance longer than the Pope allows it? They may be good Subjects for the present, but what security that they will continue so? They may think themselves bound by their Oaths at present, but should the Pope on any pique or pretence, quarrel with the King, and absolve them from these Oaths, what security that then they will keep these Oaths, and continue good Subjects? I design not by this Discourse to urge the execution of any penal Laws, I wish the Doctrine and practices of the Romanists had never given occasion for the making of them: but if the wisdom of the State shall think fit to suspend the execution of any Law, or moderate the penalty, I wish those who receive any benefit by that Indulgence, may endeavour to deserve the Favour: yet if the Doctrines generally held by any party, are inconsistent with the security of the Kingdom, none can reasonably say, that we design any uncharitableness to their persons, in discovering their errors. I cannot be said to persuade the execution of a Rebel, because I endeavour to convince him of his sin. If the generality of their Writers maintain such Doctrines, I cannot be blamed for discovering the inconsistency of them with the security of the Civil State, though the State endeavours to preserve itself from those who are tainted with such principles and opinions. 'Tis well known that the Romish party generally refuse the Oath of Allegiance, and though some of them at the first framing of the Oath seemed willing to give the State some assurance of their Loyalty by taking of it; but when the Pope heard of it, he sends his Breve dated Septemb. 22. 1606. and tells them, they cannot take that Oath without the great injury of the Divine Honour, nor perform it with a safe Conscience, and that they should suffer all kind of torments, even death itself, rather than offend Gods majesty by such an Oath: and when this Breve was suspected to be forged, or that the Pope did grant it upon misinformation, and at the solicitation of others: He sends therefore another Breve dated Aug. 23. 1607. in which he expostulates with them for questioning that Breve; and declares that those Letters were written not only motu proprio & ex certâ scientiâ of his own motion and certain knowledge, but after long deliberation, and therefore requires them to obey that Breve. And afterwards in a third Breve commands the Archpriest to punish by the deprivation of faculties, all such English Priests of the Seminaries, as being subject to his jurisdiction had already taken the Oath, or had taught it to be lawful to take it. And after this several of the Romish party, as Bellarmine, Becanus, Lessius, Suarez, &c. besides many of our own Country did writ particular Tracts against taking this Oath; and when some few did appear in defence of the lawfulness of it, as Widdrington particularly in his disputatio Theologica de Juramento Fidelitatis, dedicated to Paul the fifth, had defended the Lawfulness of it, the Congregation of Cardinals deputed for the examination of Books doth utterly condemn and prohibit this Book, and another writ by him called the Apology of Cardinal Bellarmine for the right of Princes, &c. and declares, that except the Author who professes himself a catholic, do clear himself forthwith; that he shall be thoroughly punished with censures, and other Ecclesiastical penalties: Thus zealous have the chiefest in the Romish Church been against the taking of this Oath. They pretended that it was more than an Oath of mere Allegiance; that it was covertly a renouncing of the Popes power, for they swear in this Oath that the Pope hath no power to depose Princes, and to absolve Subjects from their Oaths to them, or they tell us that if it were merely an Oath of Civil Obedience, it was lawful, that the King might require such an Oath of his Subjects; that they may safely, yea and ought to take it, when it is required in a convenient way, and also to keep it; and if King James had required no more, that the Pope would not have forbid the catholics to take it, so saith Suarez 
* Def. fid. Cath. ●l. 6. de Jur. deal. in prooemio &c. 1.   
But I ask, is there any Oath of Civil obedience which can bind them if the Pope absolve them? Or is there any Oath which he cannot make null and voided if he account it a hindrance of public good? If they do say this,( as certainly they do say it) then still the King can no way be assured of their Allegiance: and there is no Oath which Princes can frame whereby they may be assured of their Subjects honesty and faith. If they scruple this Oath, because they must swear that the Pope hath no power by himself, nor any other authority of the Church, or Romish See, to depose the King or dispose of his Dominion, or to free his Subjects from their Allegiance to him, and that notwithstanding all such sentence of excommunication or deprivation made or to be made against the said King and his Heirs, they will bear true Faith and Allegiance to them: If they scruple the Oath upon this reason, then what security can they give the King that they will bear true Faith and Allegiance? If they will not renounce such pretended powers as the Pope challenges, and declare that they cannot be freed from the obligation of the Oath which they have taken, then they do implicitly aclowledge, that they own such a power in the Pope to depose the King, and absolve his Subjects, and if the Pope shall do this, they will no longer observe the Oaths to him, and where is then the security of their obedience? The Original ground of the Romish parties opposing King James was Clement the eighth his Bull, whereby any person was declared incapable of the succession to this Crown, that was not a Roman catholic, and they were forbid to admit any one to be King, that was not of that Religion; on this ground did the Conspirators in the Powder-plot lay their design, that is, to destroy the Here●icks, and to plant the Romish catholic Religion; and if the King now to secure himself and his Government against the Romish party( who on these pretences contrived his ruin,) did require them to take this Oath, either they must testify that they believed that they were not absolved from their obedience, nor could on any pretence of excommunication or deprivation, take arms against him, or else the King could not be secured that they would any longer be good Subjects and do their duty, than till they had the Popes warrant to the contrary: And is the case yet altered? Or has His Majesty any more security of their obedience than his Predecessors bad? King James had as unquestionable Right to the Crown as King Charles the Second, and if it was any real ground to debar King James from the Crown, because he was no Roman catholic, 'tis as real a ground to di●possess King Charles of his Crown because he is none: if they hold the same Doctrine, then still there is no security of their obedience. Either they disown this power, to absolve them from their Allegiance, or no; if they disown it, then why do they not take this Oath? if they do not disown it, then the King has no security of their obedience longer than the Pope pleases, and should another Oath be imposed, where these expressions were left out, and the Pope should absolve them from it, either they judge that they are bound still, which they will not say, or else the King has still no further security of their obedience, than while the Pope pleases: and so long as they hold these principles, frame what Oath ye will, the King can have none. The question is not, whether any of the Roman catholics are good subjects, for without question some of them are; and it would be strange if they should not be good subjects, when they have so little pretence to be bad: many of them were exce●ding faithful to his late Majesty in the English Wars, and as I persuade my ●●elf, not only out of respect to their interest, but compliance with their duty; but suppose the Pope should pretend just cau●e to Abs●lve them from the Allegiance to the King; the question then is, what security can the King have from the Oaths of his catholic subjects, that they will continue good subjects? What security, when they are Loyal only by the leave of his Enemies? In the War betwixt the King, and some disloyal subjects, they might side with the King, because there was no pretence of absolving them from their duty, but in the quarrel betwixt the King and Pope, where the Pope does by this power pretend to absolve them, where's then the security? Thus then, if there be once granted a power in the Pope to absolve subjects from their Oaths to their Princes, when he judges that they hinder a greater good, there really can be no security for Princes. The same I say also concerning the Oaths of Princes to subjects, there can beno security in the Oaths of Princes, nor can the people ever have assurance that they shall enjoy the privileges granted by their Kings, if the Popes can absolve them. If Kings pretend that their grants were extorted by force, or their concessions are judged an hindrance to a public good, 'tis but gaining the Popes Dispensation, and they may soon elude their promises and Oaths. This advantage some princes have taken, who upon any necessity of Affairs would easily make large Acts of Grace to their people, and bind themselves by Oath to observe their own grants, but would as easily break them again; as Walsingham 
* Hist. Ed. 1. an. 1307.  observes of Edward the First, quoties sibi tempus commodious arrideret, praetendens semper papalem absolutionem, à praestito juramento; that he used to break his Oaths when he saw a convenient time, & pretended always the Popes absolution: But by this means the people can never be secured by the Word or Oath of Princes, the confidence betwixt them would be destroyed, perpetual jealousies fomented, and the people can never be safe in any concessions of their Kings, unless they have power in their hands to force the observation of them: Grant once this power to the Popes, and Oaths can no longer be accounted an end of strife, they would be but single threads, and if they hold any, 'tis only such tame fellows, who fear an Oath, and think it honesty to perform what they swear, though it be to their hurt: but if men have a mind to be free, 'tis but get a Dispensation, and the Court of Rome is seldom backward in granting a Dispensation, Dummodo affulget aliquid albi vel rubei, as Matthew Paris complained. This is then my second consideration, from the Doctrine of the Popes power of absolving men from their Oaths.  
3. I instance in the Doctrine of deposing and killing Princes heretical, and excommunicate for heresy. For if the Pope can depose Kings and authorize men to kill them, I see not that any Kings, if the Pope have any quarrel with them, can be secure either in their Estates or Lives: Suppose them accountable for their actions, and liable to be depo●ed if they do amiss, their Government then is merely p●ecarious, they hold their Estate by the will of another, and can no longer be secure in the enjoyment of their Crown, than suits with the humour and Caprichio of their Lord Paramount. Grant the Pope this Power, and no King shall be safe that hinders the exactions of the Roman Court, that restrains the exercise of any faculties or grants from the Roman See, howsoever inconvenient in themselves or derogatory to the Laity: that shall stop any frivolous Appeals whereby the Subjects a●e molested, and the money ex●orted. If the Pope shall judge these rest●aints a Violation of the Ecclesiastical Liberty, or a diminution of the Popes privileges, then Excommunicate and Depose him: so that Kings must either betray their own Rights and the privileges of their Crowns, or else they are liable to be deposed; and what Kings can think themselves secure when there may arise so many differences betwixt the Ecclesiastical and Civil Jurisdiction? If there may be many occasions of differences betwixt them, & the Ecclesiastical Power may excommunicate and depose any Lay-Prince that intermedles with that, which it pretends to be of Ecclesiastical cognizance, either Kings must yield to what the Popes demand, and then they make themselves Slaves, or if they may be deposed for defending( what they judge to be) their Rights, contrary to the Popes excommunication, then they can never be secure, nor the people free from troubles: this is the case of Princes, that if they be declared heretics, they may be deposed, and who shall be judge that they are heretics but the Pope? If then the Pope call it heresy,( as the Pope did call the defending the right of Investitures, heresy) then farewell Kings: grant this power of deposing Kings on these accounts, and they hold their Crowns merely at the Pope's pleasure, and can never be secure in their Thrones longer than he permits. And now that this is the commonly received Doctrine of the Romish Party, I shall clearly prove it. I would indeed have none to think that I charge every one of the Romish Communion with this Doctrine; for many who are seduced with some errors of Popery may yet remain faithful Subjects: there are( I doubt not) several that profess themselves of that Communion, that detest those traitorous positions, as the scandal of Religion and the bane of Society, that are faithful to their Prince, as well as constant in their profession. Notwithstanding the sentence of pus the 5th. yet many Roman catholics were loyal to Queen Elizabeth, some offered themselves with their utmost power to oppose the Spanish Invasion, though Sixtus the 5th. had by his Bull deposed the Queen, and given the Kingdom to the Spaniards; and when Parsons talked openly among the Papists about deposing the Queen, some even of themselves had a purpose to complain of him to the Magistrates, as our Historians report. I believe many of them notwithstanding all the Popes threatenings and curses to have continued faithful to their natural Princes in the worst times; but yet I would not have my charity to some misconstrued for the excuse of all. Many can profess Loyalty, that yet can save their opinion by a subtle distinction; they'l say they are bound to obey the King, and that the Pope never forbids them this, but then when the Pope de poses him, he ceases to be King: that's Bellarmin's invention. They'l tell us, that they do utterly renounce all Treasons against their sovereign, but then this must be understood, that he is no longer their sovereign if the Pope depose him, and if they should then kill him, it was no longer Treason. And some of those that professed to hate all disloyal opinions, were yet catched in disloyal practices, as if their large professions were only a Cloak for base Plots and Designs. None seemed more zealous against the Jesuits Doctrine of disloyalty than Watson, who made this solemn protestation in his Books, That not all the art that either the Devil, or Puritans, or Jesuits have, 
Quodlib. p. 350.  should bring him within the compass of a Treasonable thought against God, his sovereign, or the Common-wealth of this Land: and to manifest his hatred of Treason, and his Loyalty to his Prince, conceived the form of an Oath, in effect the same with the Oath of Allegiance, that he did from the bottom of his heart plainly and sincerely without all Equivocation or doubling profess and swear, That he will never give ear to that bloody Doctrine of deposing Kings, or disposing Kingdoms for Heresies sake; that he will never be persuaded either by threatenings or promises of any( be it the Pope himself) to bear Arms against her Highness Queen Elizabeth to the destruction of her Royal Person and State, and that he will be ready to adventure his Goods and Life against him or any that shall assail or invade her Kingdom under pretence of restoring the catholic Faith: and he protests to detest that Doctrine, that Princes heretical may be deposed, & that he absolutely intends( God assisting him with his grace) to remain constant, loyal, serviceable and faithful unto the death; 
* Quod lib. p. 304, 305. 346. 351.  and yet after all this when Pope Clement the Eighth his Breves came out forbidding the Roman catholics to receive any for King after the death of Queen Elizabeth unless he was a catholic, and would take Oath to maintan the catholic Religion in his Dominions, see what a good subject this man proves: for in the beginning of King James he was executed for Treason at Winchester. Some are not yet taught 
Bakers Chron. Re●gn of K. James.  these necessary points for the advancement of the catholic Cause; perhaps they fear the times will not bear them, or they are fit only to be preached when they may have a design that's ripe for Execution: but should the Pope sand a Breve to forbid obedience to the King, and the Jesuits preach this Doctrine again to their Novices, I pray God there do not a●pear too many to p●t it in execution. Those that are taught a blind obedience to renounce their own wills, yea and their judgments too, to think whatever their Superior commands, is the will of God, and though they should judge it a sin, yet if their Superior should tell them it is no sin, and that they are deceived in judging so, that they are bound to believe him. These I cannot think are like to be good subjects longer than their Superiors please. And yet these are the Rules of the Jesuits, this the instruction of Ignatius their Founder; 
* Epist. Ignatii de virt. Obedient. Sect. 19.  but those who follow such instructions are easily cut out to be Boutefeus of their Country and assassins of Princes. There are some who admire that we say, the Romish principles are inconsistent with Civil Governments, 
* Apology for the Papists.  and tell us that this is nothing but the lies and fictions of Protestants, for they preach up Obedience and Loyalty more than the Protestants; and says one, To speak confidently, all Princes are more secure, and have a better tie and obligation from catholics, than from any Lutherans or Calvinists whatever; & 
* Image of both Churches p. 349.  therefore he charges the Lutherans in Germany, the Calvinists in France, Holland, and Scotland, with nothing but disloyal Practices and Doctrines: And( he says) that it is the consent of the more precise Protestants, that subjects by Arms may maintain their Religion, offend as well as defend 
* Image 〈◇〉 both Churches, pag. 352. . Nor doth this Author spare the Clergy of England, for though( saith he) no trial could be made of their spirits; having had no crosses, nor other combat than with sin, and Martin Prelate; and he were not compos mentis, that in so great-Peace and Prosperity would not Preach against disloyalty and tumults: yet that they were not always so peaceable and regular since they first appeared as Antagonists to the Church of Rome, that the Protestants were neither quiet, nor suffered Queen Mary to be quiet, and that in the five years of her reign she had more open and violent opposition and Rebellion by her Subjects than Queen Elizabeth had in 45 years. These things are again revived by Philanax, who hath transcribed the most of that Book, and looked no further for his quotations against Protestants of integrity( as he calls them) than that Author: both his quotations in latin and translations into English, are for the most part there verbatim; and so punctual is he in this theft, that a piece of false Latin can hardly scape his fingers; for that passage which he pretends to be ●ut of Calvin, quibuscunque hujus Evangelii lux affulget, &c. ab omnibus laqueis & juramentis absolvitur, was not his own mistake, but he took it on trust from that Book pag. 354. Compare Philanax his defence of Mariana pag. 94. with what the Author of the Image of Both Churches saith in that behalf, pag. 36●. of the Tornay edition; and you will see that Philanax is little else than a new Title to an old Bo●k to make it vendible. What both of them have said is sufficiently an●wered by that worthy person Dr. Du Moulin, and the Protestants vindicated from those aspersions; yet should any persons that call themselves Protestants, have been guilty of such disloyal and rebellious discourses, I tell them, we justify not the expressions of any private persons, whatever hand they had in the Reformation: we bless God for the good t●ey did, but their words are neither the rule for our faith, nor the warrant for our practise. I do not take any private mans words for the Doctrine of their Church, but the public Confession, in which the Magistrates authority is fully maintained, the bounds of obedience stated, and Rebellion plainly condemned. I will not charge any particular Church with the particular fancies, or odd opinions of here and there a passionate spirit, but with that which is generally preached, publicly maintained without censure, and commonly practised. As for our own Church in which we are most properly concerned, the Doctrine is most clearly delivered, that the King is the only supreme governor, that he is not nor ought to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction. The Doctrine of our Homilies forbids all Rebellion, and teaches the necessity of obedience: That it is not lawful for inferiors and Subjects in any case to resist and stand against the superior Powers. And where we may not obey Kings, when they command us to do any thing contrary to Gods commands; nevertheless in that case we may not in any wise withstand violently, or rebel against Rulers, or make insurrection, sedition, or tumults against the Anointed of the Lord, or any of his Officers. But we must in such case patiently suffer all wrongs and injuries, referring the Judgement only to Almighty God. 
* 1 Book of Homil. 2 part of Serm. of obedience.  The Doctrine of our Church is, that the speedy overthrow of all Rebels of what number, state or condition soever they were, or what colour or cause soever they pretended, is and ever hath been such, that God thereby sheweth, that neither the dignity of any person, nor the multitude of any people, nor the weight of any cause is sufficient, for the which Subjects may move Rebellion against their Princes. 
* 2 Book of Homil. 4 part of the Serm. against wi●f●l Rebellion.  The constant Sermons and Writings of the chiefest persons in our Church declare the power of the Magistrate, and comformably to the Homilies condemn all insurrections against the King under any pretence whatsoever: so that if any who professes himself a member of the Church of England should be guilty of disloyalty against his lawful Prince, none can ascribe it to the badness of his principles, but of his nature; 'tis not his judgement but his ambition, and he never pleads that it is his duty, but sin, nor ever that it is an act meritorious of Heaven, but that it deserves Hell. But now if we consult the Decrees of their Councils, the public Laws of their Church, what the Popes have challenged and practised, what the chiefest of their Writers have maintained, and what the generality of their Priests teach, we shall see that their Doctrine is inconsistent with the security of temporal States. I confess some few Priests at home have scrupled this Doctrine of the Popes power of deposing Princes, and have endeavoured to expound the Decrees of Councils in a more favourable sense, but still they were but few, of little authority in their Church; their writings commonly prohibited, as Roger Widdrington's were, and their persons in danger of censures: but the public Doctrine taught by the head of their Church and generally held by his followers, is inconsistent with the security of the Civil Magistrate: and either they must disclaim this Doctrine which is so generally taught in the Romish Church, or else no Prince can be secure from danger.  
I find this Doctrine in the Decrees of Councils, in the Lateran Council under 
Co●c. Later. can. 3.  Innocent the third; If any temporal Lord being admonished by the Church, shall neglect to purge his Land from the filth of heresy, let him be excommunicated by the Metropolitan; and if he shall refuse to give satisfaction within a year, let it be signified to the Pope, that he may then presently denounce his Vassals to be absolved from their Allegiance, and give their Land to catholics, &c. This is published for a Decree of that Council, in which were present 1200 Prelates, and is now inserted into the body of the Canon Law by Gregory the ninth, 
* C. excommun. moneantur de Hereticis.  and the Gloss there in verbo Absolutus saith, that for heresy the Pope hath power over the Laity as well as Clergy, and may depose them; and the Law there requires the Civil Magistrate to take an Oath to root out heretics,( which as Cardinal Zabarell on this place saith, is not now practised, yet it is the fault of the Bishops or the Inquisitors, that they do not force the Secular power by Ecclesiastical Censures to do it): and if they neglect they must be deposed: and Gregory the ninth in C. absolutos ibi declares the Subjects of all persons who are lapsed to be absolved: this is the substance of the Decree of the Lateran Council, wherein the Popes power to depose Princes is acknowledged, or at least the practise in that case of heresy of deposing them is ordained and determined: I know Widdrington would fain interpret this Decree of those Temporal Lords who have superiors, and not of absolute Princes, and thinks that Kings are not included in a penal Law where they are not expressly mentioned; but if we look into the Decree, I must needs say, that they are sufficiently comprehended in general words, for Dominus Temporalis is a general term including Absolute Princes as well as other Lords, and the Canon speaks of two sorts of Temporal Lords, such as have Principal Lords above them, and such as have none, and of this sort are Absolute Princes who hold of none; and since these who hold of none as well as those who hold of others, were declared by the Canon to be subject to the same penalty, it was needless to name Princes in another manner, as I must needs acknowldge with his Answerer 
* The Reply of T. F. c. 10. . If this then be the meaning of the Lateran Decree, as the words cannot bear any other sense, and generally is so expounded, then Princes had need look to their Crowns, either they must expel heretics, or be expelled themselves: if they be merciful and pitiful, if either in policy of state, or commiseration of their Subjects, or their Consciences perhaps being convinced of the truth, they will not be as bloody and cruel as St. Dominick, that by the Preaching up the War against the Albigenses was the cause of the death of many thousands; if they will not destroy those whom the Pope pronounces to be heretics, then to depose them and take away their Estate is made lawful: and Hostiensis on this Title allows the catholics on their own authority to spoil heretics, and saith, that the Church hath given them that wear the across, power and authority against them, though he thinks it a safer way to stay for a particular commission: but if the Canons of Councils do give this power of destroying heretical Princes, or such who did not at the Popes command root out those, whom he calls heretics, here is little security for Princes. Again, this very power of deposing Kings, the Popes for several ages have claimed, and practised; Indeed Otho Frisingensis 
* I. ib 6. cap. 35.  saith, that he had red over the Actions of the Roman Emperors, and that he could not find any excommunicated and deposed from his Government before Henry the fourth; which perhaps may be true, that of the Western Emperors none were deposed by the Pope before Henry the fourth; but that many Emperors and Kings growing wicked and loose, or by their Idleness becoming unprofitable have been cast off, this is most true, and this sometimes hath been done by the authority of the Popes of Rome, as Urspergensis saith, and he instances in lo the Greek Emperor, that Gregory the third made all Italy to revolt from him, and that he deprived him of his Kingdom. And the Historian adds, talia quoque alibi plerunque leguntur & nostris temporibus fact a fuisse cernuntur; that such things were frequently reported in other places, and had fallen out in his time.  
The Story of Childerick's being deposed 
Chron. Abb. U●sperg. p. 208.  by Pope Zachary, and that pippin who before had been the mayor domo by the Popes appointment was made King, is well known; for the Historians generally say that this was done Authoritate Romani Pontificis, 
* Ursperg p. 123. Rhegino. Chro●. lib. 2. Lamb●rt S●●af●aburg. Annal. an 750.  and this instance is recorded by Gratian, cap. Alius, 15. qu. 6. And Hostiensis in his sum upon the Title de Hereticis, bids us note that Temporal Princes for their neglect of Government may be thus used, and that he gathers from the Decrees. 
* Cap. Si quis d●inceps, 17. qu. 14.  The instance of Gregory the Seventh, deposing Henry the Fourth, is commonly observed; and though he was chosen merely by the Romans without the Emperors consent, which he himself in his Epistle to the Emperour acknowledges to have been unlawful, and therefore begs both his pardon and confirmation; yet no sooner was he well settled, but he Excommunicates the Emperour, and when the Emperour procured the countess Mathilda the Popes great Friend with several of the chiefest of Italy to intercede for him, and they only begged that he might be absolved from the Excommunication, and then that he would when and where the Pope pleased, answer to what was laid to his charge; and if he cleared himself according to the Popes determination to hold his Kingdom; or if he could not clear himself, to lose it. The Pope was unwilling to yield to this motion, but being overcome by their importunity, grants that if we was truly penitent, he should deliver up the Crown and the Ensigns of his Kingdom to the Pope, & profess, that for the contumacy he had been guilty of he was unworthy to Rule: This seemed too hard, but all that could be obtained of him was this, that he might come into the Popes presence and show his Repentance by submitting to his Decrees. The Emperour came to the Castle of Canusium, and leaving all his Company behind, and laying aside all tokens of Royalty, he stood barefoot for three days together before the Gates of the Castle, fasting from Morning till Evening, and on the fourth day being ●et in, he could not get off his Excommunication, save upon these conditions, that he would appear at a General Council where the Pope should appoint, and answer to the Accusations against him, and submit to the Popes Sentence, and in the mean time till the Cause were heard, he should not use any Royal Ornaments, or Tokens of Royal Dignity, nor meddle with the Administration of public Affairs, nor with the Revenue further than for the necessary maintenance of himself and his Family, and that all who had sworn fealty to him should be free before God and Man from the bond of their Oath; but if he failed in any of these things, that the absolution from the Excommunication should be voided, that he should be taken for convict, and confessing that the Princes of the Empire without more ado might choose another Emperour. These were the hard conditions which the Pope forced the Emperour to accept, as Lambertus Schafnaburgensis relates, 
* Annales. p. 536. Edit. Argentor.  and when the Emperour upon after-thoughts being sensible of the disgrace put upon him, and fearing he should be deserted by the Italians, who were exceedingly vexed at this Agreement, refused to perform what the Pope required; after this the Pope Excommunicates him again, deposes him from the Empire, and in the form of Excommunication he desires all the World to take notice that it is in the power of the Pope to take away Empires, Kingdoms, Principalities, and the Possessions of all men, and give them to whomsoever he thinks fit. 
* Baron ad annum 1080. n. 8. Platina in Greg. 7.  Innocent the Fourth in the Council of Lions deposes Frederick the Second the German Emperour, and not only absolved his subjects from the Oath of Allegiance to him, but by his Apostolical Authority forbade that none should hereafter obey him as King or Emperour. Lewis of Bavaria was Excommunicated by John the 22th. and deprived of the Empire as far as words would do it, because he had taken on him the Imperial Power in Italy before his Coronation, and though he oft desired absolution, yet he could not obtain it: 
* Paralcipomena rerum mem. in lord▪ Bavaro.  the writings which past betwixt the Pope and Emperour were to be seen long after as the Author of those Paraleipomena reports, and in them the Pope bragged exceedingly that he had this power both to appoint and depose Emperours and Kings; and this was no more than Celestin the Third shew'd by that significant Ceremony of putting on the Crown on Henry the Sixths Head with his feet, and kicking it off again, which as Baronius 
* Tom. 12. an. 1191. n. 10.  says, was to mind the Emperour by his example that it was in the Popes power to give, preserve, or take away the Empire if there be cause for it. I need instance in no more than the famous Bull of pus the Fifth against Queen Elizabeth, where he says that God hath made the Bishop of Rome Prince over all people, and all Kingdoms, to pluck up, destroy, scatter, consume, plant, and build; & in that Bull, he by the fullness of apostolic power declares her to be an heretic, deprived of her Title to the Kingdom, and all dominions and dignity whatever, and by that Bull did deprive her, and forbade her Subjects to obey Her, her Mandates and Laws, and those who shall do contrary are involved in the same curse. Here is enough to show that this is the constant claim of the Popes: and though the Image of both Churches would fain moderate this harsh passage, that this was done out of a particular provocation from the English Clergy, who frequently called the Pope Antichrist, or else a misinformation of the Queens case and the catholics, and that the Popes by such censures did not disturb the peace of Edward the sixth, of the Kings of Scotland, Sueden, Denmark, &c. and that action doth not touch the catholics and the present state 
* Image of both Churches, pag. 372. : yet all he saith is nothing, for whether the Pope did this upon ground, or no ground, whether he spared other Princes, and deposed only Queen Elizabeth, it will really nothing lessen this charge, for still he claims this power; and if out of the fullness of apostolic power he might dispose her, why then may he not if he thinks fit depose others? What he hath done to one he may do to another, and how then can any Princes be secure longer than he pleases? Perhaps he is wiser than to show his Teeth where he knows that he cannot bite; or to provoke Princes, who are ready to bury his Bulls in the fire, and care no more for him than he doth for them: but so long as the Pope claims this power, and pretends that he can depose Princes, and excommunicate those that obey them, no Princes can be secure: the lion lies still at present, but he is a lion still, and may soon rouse himself when he sees the prey in his power; if the Pope sees an opportunity, he will still pursue the claim; as quiet as the Popes are, yet if the waters once be troubled, they will be fishing. As soon as the Irish Rebellion broken out, a Nuncio was presently sent thither: and what was endeavoured by a great party of the Irish for the Popes interest to the exclusion of the Kings right, is well known. Further the Popes have not only claimed this exorbitant power, but the Romish Priests have generally maintained it; if they have done otherwise, they are but few, inconsiderable, condemned by the Court of Rome for Machiavellianists, Politicians, Court-Flatterers, and Neutrals, suspected of heresy, and commonly excommunicated for their moderation, and should they fall into the Popes hand, in danger of the Inquisition: but the most and most noted in their Church maintain this power of deposing Princes, insomuch that Suarez 
* Def. fid. Cath. adv. sect. A●glic. l. 7. c. 23. n. 16.  saith, It is as certain that the Pope may depose Princes, as that the Church cannot err in Faith and Manners. I wonder indeed at the bold assertion of some late Writers, who deny that this is the Doctrine of any of their party, yea, and tell us, that the whole order of Jesuits have disavowed Mariana's position, and determined Categorically the contrary, so saith Philanax, pag. 94. and gives us some passages out of several Jesuits, who disown this position, that it is lawful to attempt against the life of a Prince; but this he only transcribed out of the Image of both Churches, though I question whether either the one or the other ever preached into those places; for if they did, they would have seen the quiter contrary. It is not lawful say some to attempt against the life of a Prince; that is, for private persons; but what say they if the Pope should declare that he is no King? and command any person to destroy him? Do not they allow it may be done by public authority, and that authority to be in the Pope? The Answerer of Philanax hath plainly discovered this fraud: 
* Cap. 5.  they tell us it is a slander of the Protestants against them, that they allow Subjects to murder their Princes. I grant it is a slander, but how? For Subjects to kill their Princes without authority say they; but for Subjects to do it with the Popes authority is no murder, no more than the execution of a man when he is condemned by the Judge. I confess they forbid any person to attempt against the life of a Prince, but 'tis then before the Pope pass sentence against him, and declares him deprived of his Principality; but if the Pope hath once past sentence against him, and declared him no Prince, and required his Subjects to destroy him, what then? Some indeed were so bold as to maintain that it was a matter of Faith, that whatsoever Prince shall depart from the catholic Religion, and would draw others from it, he doth immediately fall from all Power and Dignity, even before the Popes sentence, and that his Subjects are free from the obligation of any Oath of obedience to him as their Lawful Prince, and that they may and ought if they be strong enough, to eject such an one from the Government of Christians: so said Parsons 
* Philopat. p. 149. , and others who are accounted more moderate will not scruple to tell us, that latâ sententiâ quisque posset institui executionis minister, that after sentence is past any one may be appointed to execute it, so saith Suarez out of Soto concerning a Lawful Prince, that governs tyrannically; and if a King be deposed by the Pope, he may be expelled or slain, by those who are commissioned for that purpose, and if he command none to execute this sentence, then the next Successor may execute it,( and what security then hath any Protestant Prince, if his next Heir turn catholic?) if there be no Heir found, then his Kingdom must do it: 
* defence. fidei Cath. l. 6. c. 4. n. 18.  though Suarez is not so hot headed as Parsons, to bid all rise, and take arms against their Heretical Princes, for he doth not allow a private person to kill a Prince deposed: but this is only unless the Pope command that private person, or that there be a general commission in the sentence; but if the Pope commands any private person to kill the Prince, or if there be such general words in the sentence, empowering the Subjects to rise, then let me see how Princes can be secure? Suarez in that discourse which he writ against the Oath of Allegiance hath taught the English catholics, that Kings may be deposed by the Pope, that if we speak of the sentence of excommunication in common form, a Prince excommunicate, during the excommunication, is deprived of the right of commanding his Subjects, and if he force them, they may resist and that by a just war 
* Suarez def. fid. Cath. l. 6. c. 6. n. 24. . That after a King is lawfully deposed, he is no more a King, nor a Lawful Prince; but if he do retain the Kingdom by force, he is a Tyrant in titulo 
* n. 14. ; that after sentence he cannot hold it by a just title: therefore from thence-forward he may be used as altogether being a Tyrant, and consequently be slain by any private person: that if Subjects do swear to discover any treasons or conspiracies against their King, this only binds while he is not deposed; for if he be deposed then it is unjust to require such a promise, and sacrilegious to swear it; and in this case they must rather keep faith with the Common-wealth, or community of Subjects oppressed with force, than with a Tyrant that unjustly oppresses them, 
* Suarez. ibi c. 3. n. 8.  and though it be not  told to him in confession, yet he would not have a Priest, or any other person to discover it, because of the natural obligation to secrecy when a thing is just, and necessary to the common good of society, &c. And now for any to tell us that it is disowned by the whole order, seems strange, when Suarez 
* C. 6. n. 28.  saith, it is the common consent of the catholics, and all catholics admit this power in the Pope. To tell us, that all whom he had seen, agree in one sentence, and that he had curiously preached for it, 
* Image of both Churches, pag. 368.  seem incredible; when Suarez saith there is no dissension about this point among catholic Divines, and that none can show any that do contradict this truth; for even those Schoolmen, who seem to restrain this power of the Pope, as Ockam, Gerson, &c. never denied this power of deposing Kings that were heretics or destructive to the safety of their Subjects: 
* Def. fid. Cath. l. 6. s. 6. n. 8.  and when King James had said, that this power over Kings was not determined in any General-Council, and that the Schoolmen to this day do quarrel about it; he answers that both this is plainly false, nor could the King affirm it, unless when he could not himself red the Councils or Schoolmen, some Protestant had deceived him 
* C. 6 n. 27. . I instance in these passages of Suarez, whom the Bishop of Conimbra in his licence to the Book calls the Mr. of this age, and another Augustin; and the University of Complutum in their censure saith, that there was nothing in this work different from their judgement, and that they had all the same words, the same thoughts, and the same opinions about these things; and therefore I must needs believe that these Writers who thus mince the Romish opinions, concerning the power of deposing Kings, either never red their own Authors, or else concealed these Doctrines upon some design: For if these things were really known to be so, Princes could never be secure nor safe against the designs of the Romish party. Some perhaps who endeavoured to court Princes into a toleration or some favourable opinion of the Romanists, were loth to show the worst side; some things they must deny, other things they must extenuate; they must pretend that the Protestants belied them, and raised these stories to make them odious; for if their opinions were inconsistent with the security of Kings and Princes, then they saw Princes would unwillingly habour Snakes in their Bosoms, or tolerate them who were good Subjects only while the Pope pleased, or that thought themselves only bound to obey a Prince excommunicated and deposed by the Pope till they had strength to resist him, or that judged themselves no way bound to discover Treasons or Conspiracies, notwithstanding all Oaths which they had taken, if the Pope declare him either for heresy or maladministration to be deprived of his Kingdom. Suppose the King be not excommunicate by name, yet if he be an heretic as the Romanists call us, then he is included in the general excommunication in the Bulla coenae, he is declared by the Council of Constance, excommunicate ipso facto, and deprived of all dignity and honour; and where is his security then? Suppose it is necessary that he must be declared an heretic, and to have incurred the penalty of the Canon, what then must he do? for then his next Heir may deprive him of his Crown: The Son may supplant the Father, as the German Emperor Henry, the fifth did: the Younger may justle out the Elder Brother; those who are far off from the Crown, may yet now step betwixt it and those who are nearly related to it. The Pope may legitimate a Bastard, and put by the Lawful Son, so saith the reply of T. H. to Widdrington 
* Cap. 12.  out of Covarruvius and Molina. If the Lawful Successor neglect to out the heretical Prince, then the Kingdom itself may do it, or desire the assistance of neighbouring Princes. 
* Suarez def. fid. Cath. l. 6. c. 4. n. 19.  This is their Doctrine which exposes the Crowns of Princes to insecurity and hazard. I must needs say it concerns these men to make the best of a bad matter, and to mince those expressions which sound so harshly; but we have proof enough that this is the avowed Doctrine of the Romamists. This is that Doctrine which the Jesuits who came into England in Queen Elizabeths time were bound to maintain; for among the Cases of Conscience wherewith they were furnished, this was one, that if they were asked, credis Romanum Pontificem Elizabetham potuisse exauthorare? Whether they believed the Pope could depose Queen Elizabeth? They were to answer non obstante mortis metu, credo: without fear of death that they do believe it, for this question pertaineth to the faith. Bishop Bilson 
Of Christian subjection, pag. 583.  affirms that this was the fifty fifth article among their Cases of Conscience. This was the Doctrine of Cardinal Allen( one of the chief instruments in founding the Seminary of douai) in his defence of the English catholics; that it was the right and power of St. Gregory to deprive Princes, and that it had been the faith of Christian men ever since our Country was converted: and though he doth seem to disallow private mens taking up of arms for Religion, yet after the Popes sentence, certare pro Catholicâ Religione praeclarum est, then it was commendable to fight for Religion: and he propounds the twenty fifth of Numbers for an example, that the people should not run to arms upon their own heads, but by the direction and advice of the Priests: so that still Princes are little safer; for if the Priests blow the Trumpet, then the people may take arms with a safe Conscience, and their Insurrection passes for holy zeal. And 'tis observable that Parry confessed that he was confirmed in his resolution to kill Queen Elizabeth by Cardinal Allens Book, which taught him that Princes excommunicate for heresy were to be deprived of Kingdom and Life. This was the Doctrine of Sanders, who going into Ireland to encourage the Rebellion there, was forced to wander up and down the Mountains and Bogs, and finding nothing to sustain him, at length perished with famine, and in his Scrip were found certain Orations and Letters written to hearten the Rebels, and promising large rewards from the Pope and King of Spain. This was 
Baker Chron. in the Reign of Qeen Elizabeth.  the common Doctrine all her time maintained generally by the Priests and Jesuits, as our English Chronicles affirm. Campian after his conviction being demanded whether he would stand for the Queen or the Pope, if he should sand an army against her, plainly professed that he would be of the Popes side, and witnessed it under his hand *. And about 
Baker ibi.  this time in the Seminaries beyond Sea amongst other disputations, it was concluded that the Pope hath such fullness of power by Divine Right over the whole Christian world, both in Ecclesiastical and Secular matters, that by virtue thereof it is lawful for him to excommunicate Kings, absolve their Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance, and deprive them. There was indeed a Book writ by some Romanist, exhorting that party to attempt nothing against their Prince, and to use only the Christian Weapons, of Prayers and Tears, Fasting and Watching, but this was nothing( say our Historians) save to make the Queen and her Council secure. For about that time the Treason of Savage was plotted, who being persuaded by one Gifford a Doctor in Divinity, that it was meritorious to take away the lives of Princes excommunicate, vowed to 
〈◇〉 ibi.  kill the Queen. And though this Treason is coloured over by the Image of both Churches as a mixed action, that this was not so much for Religion, as the advancement of the Queen of Scots, whose Title they did more favour than Queen Elizabeths. But I wonder then that after her death none of them should ever appear for the Title of King James; when she was dead all her right devolved to him: but I may ask, as the Answer to the late Apology of the Papists doth to his Adversary, pray Sir name us those Papists, or but one single person of them, that after the Title came to King James, acted or suffered for him, or ever set his Title on foot against her; but had the plots been merely on the account of the Title, then there had been as much reason to stand for the Son, as they had done for the Mother. Our Historians agree, that when King James proved to be a Protestant, they were as busy to put him by the succession as to destroy Queen Elizabeth; for in the Breves of Clement the eighth which he sent when Queen Elizabeth grew old, he commanded the catholics here to admit none( though never so near in blood) to the Crown, unless he were a catholic, and would swear to maintain the catholic Religion; which was in effect not to admit King James, who was not a Roman catholic. And that these Plots and Conspiracies were merely on the account of Religion, and in pursuance of the papal interest, appears from the Famous Gun-powder Treason; for after King James came to the Crown, he makes peace with the Spaniard, he remits the execution of Penal Laws against the Papists, and carries himself so favourably to all, that he tells the Parliament in his Speech to them anno 1605. that these men could not allege so much as a pretended cause of grief, but did this merely on the account of Religion, and that one of them now in their hands did confess that there was no cause moving him and them, but merely and only for Religion. And when Fauks was taken, he would give no other reason for this Plot, but that he was moved for Religion and Conscience sake: that the King was not his lawful sovereign, because he was an heretic: and that it was merely for the advancement 
Discourse of the late intended Treason.  of the catholic Cause. Winter also confessed, as the Lords of the Council attested in that discourse, which was published by Authority. Now though I do not condemn all the Romanists for this Treason, which I believe many of them did abhor; yet as King James saith, 
* His Majesties speech to the last ●ession, &c.  it cannot be denied that it was the blind superstition of their errors in Religion, that lead them to this desperate Device. This was proved, that these Conspirators were animated to this design by the Popes Breves which Garnet shewed Catesby; that none but Roman catholics were in this Plot; that far more appeared in the Rebellion when it broken out at Dunchurch, than were discovered to be privy to the Plot. How far it was the design of that party cannot now be known; for Plots when they miscarry are commonly disowned, none will confess themselves to be in a conspiracy, when they can do no more but hang themselves for talking: the forwardest persons lay the design, but the wi●er commonly stand behind the Curtain, till they see how it succeeds.  
Indeed I cannot but admire that men should at sixty years and upwards question the truth of this Plot, as if they knew better the transactions of those times than they that lived in them. The confessions of several of the Plotters were published, attested by several Commissioners of the chiefest Nobility; the actions succeeding the discovery of the Plot were notorious, being pursued upon their rising by the Sheriffs of Warwickshire and Worcestershire to one Mr. Littleton's house: several of them were slain; Winter was taken; the execution of several of the Plotters was before multitudes. The Writers of those times, whether English or foreigners, aclowledge the Plot to have been laid by some Roman catholics for the destruction of the King and Parliament. Garnet the Provincial of the Jesuits executed for concealing the Plot; and all his excuse for the concealment was, because this Treason was only revealed to him in confession, and this he acknowledged at his death, as Bellarmine saith from the attestation of several witnesses: and yet some now question the truth of this Treason, notwithstanding this plain evidence some whi●per it in private, others openly publish it, that there was no such Plot, but only a device to keep down the Papists. The truth is, those that think 'tis a slain in their blood, would fain have the attainder off the file; those who think 'tis a disgrace to their party would fain wipe it off, by pretending it was a Court Fiction; they are loth to have any of them thought guilty, le●t Princes for the future should be jealous of any of that party, by some of which they had been endangered already. 'Tis the misery of Princes that no Plots are believed to be true, if they miscarry, and when they are acknowledged to be true, 'tis too late to prevent them. If there were no such Plot, how came the Powder under the Billets? How came they into a Room which Piercy hired? How came Faux to stand at midnight without the doors of the House? And what did he with three matches, and other instruments about him for blowing up the Powder, which Sr. Thomas Knevet found when he preached him? What reason to disbelieve the confession which he and Winter made? For if the thing they confessed was only to blind the world, then it would be strange that they should frame a lie to hang themselves; and that they did confess it, was attested by several of the Privy Council, who took their examination, subscribed it, and afterwards their confessions were published in Print. If there were no plot discovered, why did they take arms afterwards? Why did they all meet at Dunchurch, at Sr. Everard Digby's lodging, and publicly invite persons to join with them for the advancement of the catholic Cause? And when they were chased thence, why did they resist the Sheriff of Worcestershire when he pursued them? If the design of blowing up the Parliament House was laid in the dark, yet the rising upon the discovery of it was public and manifest; that some of those who did rise were pursued, some slain, some taken, this is notorious. Lastly, If Garnet was executed for concealing this Treason, and confessed it both under his hand and at the Gallows, and only excused himself that the particulars were revealed to him in confession, and therefore he ought not to discover it; and upon this very account he is highly esteemed as a Martyr for the seal of confession. It is evident then that there was such a Treason. Know it which way soever he did, whether in confession or out of confession, then there must needs have been such a thing, for he could not know it, if there had been no such thing. All these circumstances I have mentioned, that I might silence those suggestions which some Romanists have made against the truth of this story. It is not only a secret whisper among themselves, but some venture to talk it openly. First, They designed( say our Historians) to lay it on the Puritans, afterwards they laid it only on some few Desperado's, but now they are come to it, to tell us that there was no such thing at all; all was but Court-Policy to keep down the Papists, which is in effect to say, that King James was a most cruel Tyrant, to put his Subjects to death for a treason of his own contrivance, and the whole state such wretched Politicians to cousin God and the world by a perpetual thanksgiving, for a deliverance from a Plot of their own making. That there was such a Treason then is evident, and that occasioned by this Doctrine of the Popes power in depriving Princes, whom he calls Heretical, of their Crowns and Dignities; and therefore still this Doctrine of the Popes power must needs be inconsistent with the security of Civil Societies. Further, this was the Doctrine of Bellarmine, Becanus, Suarez, &c. in those discourses which they writ for the instruction of the English catholics about the Oath of Allegiance. For King James observing the conspiracies against Queen Elizabeth and Himself, and that the Treasons by that Party were occasioned by pretence of the Popes power in deposing heretical Princes, and absolving Subjects from their Allegiance, and that he could never be secured of his Subjects obedience even in temporal things, if they did judge that the Pope, his declared enemy, could free them from that duty which he looked on as natural from Subjects to their Princes, therefore he frames that Oath, in which they swear that the Pope neither by himself, nor by any other authority of the Church or See of Rome hath any power or authority to depose the King, or dispose of any of his Majestys Realms and Dominions, and that the Pope cannot free his Subjects from their obedience to him, or give them any liberty to take up arms against him, &c. and that they do abhor this as an Heretical position, That Princes deprived or excommunicated by the Pope, may be deposed and slain by their Subjects, &c. Now though King James, the best Interpreter of that Oath, which he prescribes for his own security, professes, that he doth only require by this Oath from them Civil Obedience; and because that his Subjects cannot perform Civil Obedience to him, so long as they own that the Pope may depose Kings, absolve their Subjects from their obedience, and give them power to rise against their sovereign; therefore King James requires the rejection of these positions, and that they should secure him by their Oath against the fear of any future disturbances. Now these Writers condemn this Oath, and disallow the taking of it; for still they pled, this is to deny the power of the Pope; this is to deny what is universally granted among catholics, that the Pope hath power to punish Heretical Princes by temporal punishments: and so Bellarmine saith, in his answer to the Kings Apology, Inter omnes Theologos & Jurisconsultes convenit posse Pontificem maximum Haereticos Principes jure deponere & subditos eorum ab obedientiâ liberare, &c. That all Divines and Lawyers are agreed, that the Pope hath this power to depose Princes, &c. So Suarez 
* D●●. sid. Cath. l. 3. c. 23. n. 16. & l. 6. c. 2. n. 5.  also, that to deny the Pope this power is contrary to the Doctrine received by the whole Church; and that to say that the Pope hath not power of releasing subjects from their Oaths upon reasonable cause,( and that must be judged a reasonable cause which the Pope judges to be so) is contra Ecclesiasticum morem, Conciliorum generalium usum, & approbationem, contra Doctorum Catholicorum consensum, 
* Sua●●z ibi, n. 7.  against the custom of the Church, the use of General Councils, and the consent of catholic Doctors: and further, to affirm that the Pope hath not power to absolve them from that particular Oath, is an heretical proposition, contrary to that power of binding and losing, given to St. Peter as the catholic Church hath always understood, and practised 
* Suarez l. 6. c. 5. n. 2. ; and that this proposition of the power of the Pope is founded in Scripture, declared by the authority of Popes and Councils, and received by common consent. 
* n. 3.  On these and the like grounds Suarez pleads that the Oath ought not to be taken, and if it be taken, that really there needs no absolution from it, for it binds no man; or however( if any did think it bound them) the Pope hath absolved them, when he declared the Oath to be unlawful, and contrary to their Salvation 
* C. 5. r. 5. . I have been the more prolix in giving the opinions of the chiefest Writers of the Romish Church, who have studiously handled this point, which was so much agitated betwixt us and the Romish catholics, because many now either conceal this Doctrine or at least mince it: I abhor to affix Doctrines to any Party which they do not own, or to charge them with any opinions which they decry: if any say it is not their Doctrine, then let them answer their own Writers, who so stiffly assert that it is; and if it is their Doctrine, then let them show how it can be consistent with the security of civil Societies.  
Fourthly, I instance in the Doctrine of Exemption of the Clergy from the jurisdiction of secular Princes both in their Estates and Persons: We do not deny but Princes have out of a peculiar respect to the Clergy, allowed them many privileges, as the Heathens have indulged much to those who were immediately employed about the service of their Gods, and as the Roman Emperours since they became Christian, bestowed many favours and Immunities on the Clergy, as may be seen in the Imperial Laws: but yet these privileges were not granted all together, but some Emperours privileged them in one thing, some in another, some freed them from any personal Tribute, but left them to pay any Taxes charged on their Lands. So Bellarmine 
* Disp. de exempt. Cleric. c. 1.  observes it to have been the Law before Justinians time. Some freed them in Civil and Criminal Causes from appearing before any except the Archbishop of Constantinople and the Praefectus Praetorii. So Martian privileged the Clergy of Constantinople. 
* L. cum clear. Cod. de Episc. & clear.  But in the Provinces lo and Anthemius ordain that the Priests and Clerks of what degree soever, shall be Convented before the Ordinary Judges( that is) the Governours of the Provinces, and if they come to Constantinople, then before the Praefectus Praetorii 
* L. Omnes S. in hic C. de Epise. & clear. . There is also a Law of Justinian, that in Pecuniary Causes the Business should be tried before the Bishop, but if he could not decide it, then it should be ended by the Civil Judge; and if it be a civil Crime( the Gloss there explains it of Murder, Forgery and Adultery) then the Cause should be heard by the Civil judge, and the Clergy-man should not be punished, before he was degraded by the Bishop. 
* Authentic. clear. quoque C. de Episc. & clear.  Sometimes the privileges were extended, sometimes restrained, as the Emperors were able to support their Power and Dignity against the Papal Usurpations; for the Popes labouring all they could to advance their own Power, endeavoured to exempt the Clergy from any dependence on the secular Magistrate and make them solely depend on themselves: and therefore at length they brought Frederick the second to publish that Law for the abrogation of all Statutes and Laws against the Liberty of the Church, and to forbid the laying of any Taxes on any Churches or Ecclesiastical Persons, and that no such Person should be drawn either in a civil or criminal Cause before any secular Judge 
* Constit. Fred. 2. de Stat. & consuet. contra Libe●t. Eccl. , which was in effect to free half his Subjects from their Obedience, to weaken the Imperial power, and to deprive himself of the assistance necessary for the support of his Government: and yet the Popes pled for these exemptions of the Clergy, not as a bounty but as a duty, not as the favour of Princes, but as what they are obliged to do by the Law of God: but what they do thus challenge as a duty, and what privileges they have allowed the Clergy by the Canons, should they be strictly practised, are inconsistent with the security and safety of civil Governments. Ecclesiastical Liberty is in the Romish sense a strangely comprehensive word, and which usually the Popes make use of to increase their Power and advance those who immediately depend on them. Whatever Laws Temporal Princes make for the security of themselves, may perhaps indirectly hinder the Ecclesiastical Liberty, and yet if they do indirectly hinder that Liberty, they fall under the censure of the Bulla Coenae, and are liable to the penalty of the Canon Law. If we now would know the meaning of this word, or what is properly an hindrance of Ecclesiastical Liberty, they tell us, that if Princes make any Laws by which the Clergy are made more fearful, this is interpnted a violation of Ecclesiastical Liberty 
* B●rt●●us in Au●h●nt. Cassa. C. de sa●rosanct. Eccl. : but who shall be Judge in this Case? who shall Judge whether any Law makes them more fearful and discourages them? if themselves, then whatever Princes shall determine to be conducing to the public safety, though they design no prejudice to any sort of men, but what really conduces to the good of their whole Kingdom, yet this Law may be made voided and null: if so, then Princes shall not be permitted to provide for the safety of themselves and their Kingdoms, and the wisest contrivances for their own security and self preservation against the encroachments of others, shall be wholly frustrate and null. If Princes forbid any persons to travail out of their Country without special Licence, if they forbid any Ships to pass out of their Ports for six moneths, if they forbid them to carry any money to Foreign parts at enmity with them, this may indirectly be a prejudice to the Clergy, for some or other may be hindered in prosecuting an Appeal to Rome, in visiting the thresholds of Saint Peter, or paying some duties to the Roman Court, and therefore on these pretences those Prohibitions must be null. If Princes forbid the payment of any Taxes imposed on the Clergy by the Pope or his Legates( which in case the Pope do side with the Enemies of the Crown is necessary to be done) this presently must be voided, because it is contrary to that temporal Power which the Popes have over the Clergy in all Countries. So that now if the Pope and Princes should quarrel, which often falls out, when their Territories join together, which way shall Princes uphold their Rights and defend themselves? If the Pope may impose Tributes and Taxes on the Clergy( which Suarez 
* D●● fid. Cathol. ●. 4. c. 2. n. 7.  says, he may) without the consent of any Prince, then it's easily in his power to weaken any Prince with whom he contends, and impoverish those that oppose him. If Princes forbid this payment of Taxes upon the Popes demands, then presently say these men, this is to oppose the Ecclesiastical Liberty, this is to take Cognizance of Ecclesiastical Persons, and to meddle with those who are not under their power. So that Princes by this means are put to a strange Dilemma, either to yield to the Popes demands, or else if they use any means to hinder his encroachments, they are presently excommunicated for Infringe●s of the Ecclesiastical Liberty. I will instance in two things which according to their Doctrine are much inconsistent with the public Peace and Security, the Exemption in Criminal Causes, and the Exemption from any public Taxes and Charges.  
First, I instance in the Exemption in Criminal Causes from Secular judgement. The Romanists pretend this Exemption to be by Divine Right; Suarez 
* Suar. ib c. 15. n. 1.  saith, this is a most certain assertion received by all catholic Writers, and cannot be denied without denying some Principle of Faith: Bellarmine 
* Disp● de clear. cap. 1.  pleads for this Exemption both by human and divine Law: the same is affi●med in general of the immunity of the Clergy, that it was instituted by Divine Ordination and caconical Sanctions 
* Conc. tried. Sess. ●5 c. so. de Reformat.  and had also been owned by the Council of Lateran under lo the tenth 
* Conc. Later. Sess. 25. : This business was one of the great grounds of the Quarrel betwixt Paul the fifth and the Venetians: for the Venetians had imprisoned Brandolinus Valdemarinus Abbot of Naruesa, and Scipio Saracinus Canon of Vicenza; the former of which was accused for poisoning several persons, particularly a Priest his domestic, and for living in continual uncleanness with his natural Sister, and for many other Crimes; the later was accused for having disgracefully torn the Mandates of the Magistrates of Vicenza, which had been set upon the Chancery of the bishopric, for the security of the Writings and Accounts of the bishopric, which were kept there: Now though the Venctians did pled a long custom from the Foundation of their City, the privileges granted to them by several Popes for the punishment of such gross Offenders, which privileges were yet extant among their public Records; and though they did pled the necessity for peace sake of punishing such Offenders: yet Paul the fifth did declare it was a breach of the Ecclesiastical Liberty, and that unless they did within twenty four dayes after notice pblickly revoke all their Decrees, and blot them out of their Registers, and promise for the future to abstain from all such Decrees against Ecclesiastical Liberty, Immunity and Jurisdiction, and deliver up those Ecclesiastical Persons to the Nuncio, then he doth excommunicate the Duke and Senate of Venice; and if they continued three days excommunicate, then he puts under interdict the whole dominion of that State. This also was the great quarrel betwixt Henry the Second and Thomas Becket, for there being many complaints made of crimes committed by the Clergy, no less than an hundred being indicted for murders and robberies; the King required they should be tried before his Judges as Lay-men were; the Archbishop opposed it as against the liberty of the Church; the King pleaded that it was the custom of the Land, and to prevent further differences required the Clergy to own these customs under their hands and seals. which they did at Clarendon; and Becket among the rest, omitting those words, salvo ordine suo, which he had for a while insisted upon; but afterwards retracting what he had done, he procured the Popes absolution from this obligation. 
* Diecto anno 1164. Matth Paris Hist mayor in Henr. 2.  This exemption the Romanists challenge jure divino, but should it be granted, I cannot see how it can consist with the safety of Princes, and quiet o● Kingdoms. For, 1. It must needs occasion endless jars betwixt the Clergy and Laity; when for the same crimes the one shall be punished and the other not; when if a Lay-man shall kill a Clergyman, he shall both incur Excommunication from the Ecclesiastical Magistrate, and death from the Temporal; but now if a Clergy-man shall kill a Lay person he cannot by the Canons be punished with death. The usual punishments inflicted by the Canons, are suspension, deprivation, irregularity, &c. And if the crime be so heinous that it is punishable with death among the Laity, yet the Clergy-man can only be adjudged to perpetual imprisonment, or put to perpetual penance, which yet is seldom executed: and he cannot be degraded, and delivered up to the Secular power, except in case of heresy, counteseiting of the Popes Letters, and conspiracy against his own Bishop 
* Gloss. in c. ad abol ●d. Extra. d● Harcticis. Hostiensis in su●ma. ibi.  If then the punishments are thus unequal, then the Laity are less secured from wrongs by the Clergy, than the Clergy are from the wrongs by the Laity. And further then the Magistrate cannot protect his Subjects from the injury of the Clergy, nor prevent the damage and inconvenience which may befall the Laity, which is in effect to set the Clergy and Laity by the cars, and make them perpetually enemies. 2. It will occasion the frequent commission of notorious crimes, for impunity will invite offences, and men will less matter to wrong others, when they know the privilege of their order will exempt them from punishment. Usually where the love of duty doth not dissuade, the fear of punishment doth deter men from many offences; but the less they shall be punished, they are less afraid to commit the fault: and if they know before-hand the worst that can happen is only some small censure which reaches not to life or limb, some Ecclesiastical punishment which upon profession of repentance may be easily taken off, it will embolden men to sin. And this is the case here; for if a Clergy-man be guilty of never so many faults, he knows the worst, no lay Magistrates can convent him before them, no Officer of any Lay Court can arrest him, no temporal Judge can detain him in custody, and whoever lays violent hands on a Clergy-man, though under any pretence whatever, is liable to an excommunication; and if he be brought before an Ecclesiastical judge, the punishment is small, the most he can do is to condemn him to a perpetual penance, which yet may in time be got off; and if the Ecclesiastical Magistrates neglect to redress these faults in the Clergy, the Laity have no power to help themselves; by this means there is a great occasion given of frequent crimes; many are hardened in their wickedness, and their privileges conduce much to encourage mischief. 3. It endangers the safety of Princes, for the rebellion of a Clergyman is no Treason,( as they say) because he is not properly the Kings Subject, 
* E●a●. Sa. Aphorism verbs Clericus.  and that he is not bound by the directive power of Secular Laws, nor is there any obligation on the Conscience by virtue of those Laws to obey them 
* Suarez def. sid. Cathol. 1. 4. c. 17. n. 18. . And therefore Suarez makes them only bound to observe the Laws of any Nation, either by the force of reason, that is, so far as they judge them useful for the public good; or by the force of the Canons, that is, so far as the Popes do allow the Clergy to observe these Laws. But then how can Princes be safe if the Popes do no allow them to observe the Laws of Princes? Where's the Princes security if they may plot, raise tumults, break the peace, and still can be in no fault, because they are not his Subjects, nor are bound to observe any of his Laws further than the Pope pleases? Suppose a quarrel rise betwixt the Pope and any temporal Prince, suppose the Pope claim his estate, or pretend any forseiture of the Crown to him, how shall Princes be secure? For neither are the Clergy of those Countries bound by any Laws for the support and maintenance of their natural Prince longer than the Pope pleases; neither have these Princes power to punish them if they do not. If they hold correspondence with the Kings enemies, if they sand intelligence to them, if they furnish them with men and money, still it is no Treason. The Pope( say they) hath a direct dominion over the Clergy, and therefore they are bound to assist him against all persons whatever, and cannot be punished for doing this by any Secular Magistrate, because he hath no Jurisdiction over them. Suppose a war with the Pope, a Prince can neither command them to assist him, nor restrain them from assisting his enemies: If he banish them as suspected persons; if he disarm them as dangerous persons; if he sorbid them any intercourse with foreign parts, all this is construed as a breach of Ecclesiastical liberty; and Princes for doing thus are ipso facto excommunicate. Thus according to this Doctrine the safety of Princes is endangered, and either they must tamely submit to the Popes pleasure, or they have no way to secure themselves against the Clergy that take his part. According to this Doctrine they are bound to harbour Snakes in their bosoms, and yet are liabel to be punished if they endeavour to pull out their sting.  
2. The exemption from any taxes or public charges; 'tis plain that the Canon Law forbids payment of any taxes or tributes to temporal Princes, and under pain of Excommunication and Interdict forbids those who have temporal jurisdiction to impose any tributes, taxes or any kind of exactions under any colour or pretence whatsoever, on any Churches or Ecclesiastical persons, for their Houses, Lands, or Possessions, 
* Lancelottus Inst. Jur▪ Can. l. 2 Tit. 20. de immun. Eccles.  and this, saith he, is expounded, not only concerning the Goods or Lands which they have in right of their Churches, but of their own patrimonial estate; and so saith Suarez, that the Canonists usually teach. 
* Def. fid. Cath. l. 4. c. 24.  This exemption from all taxes is pretended by the Canons to be derived 
C. quanquam. de ●easibus in 6.  from the Law of God: and so Boniface the eighth affirmed, Ecclesiastice personae & res ipsarum jure divino a secularium personarum exactionibus sunt immunes; and on this reason he most strictly forbids the imposing of any taxes. In the Clementine constitutions 
* Clem. unica. de censibus. , all former Laws against those impositions are renewed, and though the Popes might impose what Taxes they pleased on the Clergy, yet they would not the Laity should do so, and therefore though the Kingdom was in great danger, and the Clergy saw a necessity of contributing to the public charge, yet they were not allowed to contribute without the Popes consent first had; 
* Cap. adversus. Extra. de Immun. Eccles.  and upon this ground the Clergy when these Laws were first made, did refuse to pay any Taxes, and stood stiffly on these Immunities. The quarrels in the time of Edward the first about this thing are memorable in our Chronicles, and the original of them was from the decrees against laying Taxes on the Clergy; winchelsee Archbishop of Canterbury  told them, that it was forbid by the Council of Lions for the Clergy to pay any thing without the Popes leave. The next time therefore that the King demanded aid for his Wars against Scotland, the Clergy by virtue of this exemption would not contribute to his Wars as the Laity did; which so much incensed the King, that he locked up the Barns of Clergy-men, and excluded them from his protection, so that any might sue them, but they could sue no man. And it is observable in our English Histories, that when the rest of the Clergy submitted to pay a proportion of their revenue to the King, all the answer which Winchelsee made was this, that we have under God the universal Lord, two Lords, a spiritual Lord the Pope, and a temporal Lord the King, and though we ought to obey both, yet rather the Spiritual Lord, than the temporal; and therefore using no other words than these, Salvet unusquisque animam suam, he rose up suddenly and departed 
* Godwin. cattle. of Bishops of Cant●r●. in Robert Winchelsy. , but for this contumacy the King seized on his goods.  
Thus stood the case of the Clergies exemption from all Taxes and Payments to the secular Magistrate, the Papal Clergy on pretence of Divine right labouring to free themselves from these payments and leaving the laity to endure the burden. And it is observable, that in the Council of Trent, when the Princes did eagerly insist on a reformation of the Clergy, the Clergy propounded a reformation of the Princes, in which they renewed all the constitutions of Popes, and holy Canons in favour of Ecclesiastical Immunity, commanding under pain of Anathema that neither directly nor indirectly, under any pretence whatever any thing be constituted or executed against the persons and goods of the Clergy, or against their liberty; and this is decreed notwithstanding any privileges or exemptions, though they have been time out of mind. 
* Hist. of the Council 1. 8. p. 771.  So that by the Articles of this reformation Ecclesisticks should not be forced to pay any Taxes, gables, Subsidies, though in the name of a gift or loan, either in respect of their Church-goods or patrimonial estate. Now this privilege which those Canons give to the Clergy are inconsistent with the safety and security of Kingdoms: if we consider, 1. The Lands and Estate which the Clergy may possess; for if the greatest part of the Land become Church-land, or if their proportion far exceed the laity, and yet must necessary be free from all Taxes and Contributions, then this must needs be inconsistent with the security of the Kingdom. It is plain, that if several Princes had not by the statutes of Mortmain, restrained the Clergy from acquiring any more Lands without their consent, the whole Land of those Kingdoms might by degrees have come into the hands of the Clergy. And they pleading their exemptions the whole burden must have been cast on the laity; and they not being able to raise moneys proportionably to the public necessity, the Kingdom must have been exposed to destruction. In France the Clergy( as it is computed) have the fourth part of the Kingdom; and yet amongst the 
* Cap. 1. de Immunit Eccl. in 6.  Decretals there is one of Alexander the fourth, which expressly forbids the French to impose any Taxes, Collections or Exactions upon Churches or Ecclesiastical persons, or to require them of them for their 
* Review of the Council l. 7. c. 2. n. 14.  houses, lands, or other possessions whatsoever heretofore had or purchased, or hearafter to be got and pruchased, &c. If then they have the fourth part now, and must not pay for that which they have, or for that which they shall have, then the people must needs be impoverished, and the Kingdom left without sufficient support.  
2. If we consider the persons that are capable of this privilege, that is, all Clergy-men whether in the higher or lower Orders, even those that have only the first tonsure, are comprehended under this privilege. All that are Clerici, and where the words are without restriction, in favourable causes they are to be extended, and that all Clerici are to have this privilege, is, says Suarez, 
* Dif. sid. cath. l. 4. c. 26 4. 3.  without controversy among catholics: now there being so many that are reckoned for Clerici in a large sense in the Canon law, 
* Cap. cum Coating. Extra. de atate & qualib. ordin. prov. Conust. capquia q●odan. dc temp. mdinand. virgo Caricum.  and these all exempted for their goods and lands from any Taxes whatever, and also it being not allowed that they should renounce their privileges; it follows that this exemption must be inconsistent with the safety of Kingdoms; for if there be no means, or not sufficient left to desray the public charges, if the moneys of the Nation be drained and there cannot be enough raised for the public defence, either the Clergy must be bound to contribute and pay Taxes, or else the Nation, must needs be exposed to ruin: If these immunities stand good according to the rigor of the Canons, then the safety of the Nation must needs be endangered; for if the laity cannot, and the Clergy are not bound, then there is no means left to provide for the public necessities. Indeed they will tell us, that the Canons do require the Clergy to contribute, where they see that the laity are not able, 
* Cap. miaus. Extra. de Immuni. Ecc●●●.  and that though they forbid tributes and taxes as tokens of the subjection of the Clergy to secular Princes, yet not as necessary expenses for the public safety. For in such cases they ought to Contribute. But now when I consider the limitations and restrictions wherewith they clog this concession, I see not how all which they grant can consist with the safety of the Kingdom: for 1. They never make the Clergy properly bound as a duty but as a courtefie, and though they do Contribute for the public safety in which the Clergy as well as the laity are concerned, yet still say the Canons, the laity must receive this as a kindness, Laici humiliter & devotè recipiant cumgratiarum actione. 
* Cap. adversu●. Extra. de ●●nuni. E●cl.  As if it were their courtesy only, that they suffer not the Nation to be destroyed, or a kindness to the laity that they contribute any thing to keep their own throats from being cut. 2. They do not allow the Clergy to contribute save only, ubi non suppetunt laicorum facultates, where the estate of the laity is not sufficient. But now it is hard to prove that the estate of the laity is not sufficient, and if the Clergy are not bound unless it appear that the laity are not able, the Clergy will hardly ever be induced to pay and the Kingdom must be endangered. 3. They do not allow the Clergy to contribute, unless where the Bishop & Clergy consent. 
* Cap adv●r● Extra. de Im●un. Eccl.  If then the secular Magistrate shall declare that there is an imminent necessity, yet still the Clergy are forbid to pay without the Bishop and Clergy in their Diocesan Synod, or at least as others expound it without the c●nsent of the Bishop and Chapter of his Cathedral: but now in many cases it may be impossible to procure a meeting of the Bishop and Clergy, or perhaps they may not judge( as the State does) that there is any necessity of raising Moneys; yet in no case are they bound to contribute without the Bishop and Clergies approbation. 4. Suppose the Bishiop and Clergy do aclowledge that there is a necessity of a general contribution, and that the Tax be allowed by them, yet if any Clergy-man shall refuse to pay, the laity can only entreat and desire, but they cannot compel him, and if the Bishop will not force him to pay, there is no remedy but by a recourse to the Bishop's Superior, which may be difficult and tedious, and perhaps little to the purpose: so that still these restrictions show that the contributions of the Clergy according to these principles are little available to the public safety. Lastly, Though it be reasonable that the Clergy should consent to the public Taxes, as well as the Laity, and that there can be no reason why the Laity should assess the Clergy without their consent, more than the Clergy should assess the Laity; yet here's one thing more in the Canons that though the bishop and Clergy do consent to the Tax, yet still without the Popes consent the Clergy are not bound to contribute, 
* Cap. adversus ioi.  Propter ignorantiam quorundam Rom. pontifex prius consulatur, &c. Thus Innocent the third determined; and Gregory the fourth in his Bulls de Coena Domini, thunders out an excommunication against tho●e who impose any Taxes, Collections, Payments or other charges upon Clerks, Prelates, or other Ecclesiastical persons, or upon the goods of Churches, Monasteries, or other Ecclesiastical benefice, or upon the fruits, rents, and revenues thereof, without special and express Licence from the Pope of Rome. Thus neither 
Review of the Council l. 7. c. 2.  can the State lay a Tax on the Clergy; nor the Clergy consent to pay a Tax without the Popes consent: and now if no Tax can be laid without the Popes consent, nor the Clergy allowed to pay it without the Popes consent, and that though themselves do aclowledge a necessity; then this restriction spoils the former concession, and this privilege they pretend to by the Canons, must be inconsistent with the public safety. For suppose the necessity be occasioned by the Pope himself, suppose the Nation be invaded by the Pope's forces, ' us unlikely, that b● will allow them to contribute against himself, and unless he do allow it, the Clergy are not bound: by this means then the safety of the Nation must be endangered. Or sup-pose the necessity arise any other way, yet it will be long before they can consult the Pope, and receive his consent, so much time may be spent that the remedy comes too late to help the disease. Now though some pretend that this Canon does not hold in case of urgent necessity, that is, as if it be for one tax or payment, or for a short time, in that case necessity hath no Law; yet if the Tax be for any continuance the Popes approbation must be had, so says Suarez: 
* Def. fid. Cato. l. 4. c. 〈◇〉. n. 18.  And yet this is more than the Canon allows; for the Canon in the Council of Lateran allowed the Clergy to contribute only in a case of necessity, and of ●●●s necessity t●emselves were judges, but there is a●●e●wards a restriction in the Cap. ●●versus; that because some out of imp●●dence did contribute, that is without just cause or any real necessity, and because they might pretend a necessity when there was none, therefore the Canon provides that the Pope should always be advised with, and though the Bishop doth judge there is a necessity, yet says the Gloss, 
* Gl. in c. non ●ia●s. Ex●●a de im●nu. Ec●l. verb. tantam  he ought not to contribute unless first the Pope be consulted; and in the Cap. Adversus, ibi, all constitutions, and determinations concerning these Taxes, which are supposed to be without the Popes privity, are declared voided and null. This is the hard case now of Kingdoms, if the Clergy are hindered from the immoderate increase of their revenues to the prejudice of the Laity, then the Laity incurs the sentence of excommunication. If they have got never so much, no revenue of the Clergy can upon any account be aliened without the Popes consent, no Tax imposed without his privity; what necessity soever there is, as they or the Laity judge, yet the Clergy can give nothing without the Pope. Thus no civil Government hath any power to preserve itself or raise means for its own maintenance or support longer than the Pope pleases. If any shall except against this, and say that this doctrine of exemptions is not inconsistent with the security of civil Governments, for in those countries which are entirely Popish the Nation flourishes and the State is preserved? How is this inconsistent with the civil Government of Spain, where the Clergy enjoy both large revenues and great privileges? And why should we think the liberties and immunities are dangerous to the State, when there is no such thing, where these liberties are so fully enjoyed? I answer; That were this doctrine as strictly practised, as it is stiffly maintained, the peace and safety of the Nation must be endangered. In some places they give the Clergy leave to talk, but they will not destroy themselves to satisfy the Popes demands. At present the rigor of these immunities is much restrained by concordats, customs, and privileges, which Princes pled, and either the Popes are willing to gratify Princes w●th these things, or Princes are resolved to take them if the Pope will not give them. Some Princes are too potent to be restrained by Papal threats, and no wonder if the Pope allows them those privileges which he is sure they will have without him. The French King perhaps will not tarry for the Popes consent: and when the Popes forbid any persons to lay impositions on the Clergy, the Lawyers conceit that the King of France is always excepted, 
* Review of the Counc. 1. 7. c. 2 n. 14.  and that this is his special privilege; but the Popes indulge the French no more than others in this point. Alexander the fourth, 
* Cap. 1. de Immunit. Eccl. in 6.  expressly forbids the French to impose any Taxes on the Clergy, and since the Council of Trent maintains these immunities to be by divine ordination, to what purpose should they talk of this privilege? If these immunities are by divine ordination, then to infringe them will be a sin, and there can be no pretence of a privilege to justify a sin. This is the doctrine which the Romanists maintain, and whoever infringes these liberties, breaks, as they say, Gods Law, and are liable to the severest censures of the Church. And therefore 'tis unreasonble to reply, that in some Popish Countrys these liberties are not found so inconsistent with the public security, for even in some popish Countrys they will not permit them, and more value their own security, than the Pope's thunders; and therefore though they own the Popes spiritual power, yet they will not submit to his decrees which are usurpations on the secular power, and inconsistent with the civil State. Perhaps this doctrine might not prejudice the State, when the Pope out of fear, or love is willing to gratify Princes; but if an angry Pope that hath power to back his humour should get the seat, they would soon see that the liberties of the Church which the Popes challenge are incompatible with their security. In quarrels with the Pope if the Clergy should disown to be subject to that temporal Prince who contests with him, if they refuse to contribute for the defence of the Nation, if they foment any secret designs at the Popes command, then the strictest Romanist would presently see the insecurity of that Kingdom. Were the Pope of the French side, the Spaniard would not scruple the assessing of the Clergy for the public necessities without the Popes leave; should the Popes pursue the design against Naples, which is( as they call it) a see of the Church, should they design to out the Spaniard as 'tis said the Barberini in Urban the eighth's time once intended, they would not think these immunities allowable, where the State may be endangered. When Paul the fourth had revoked the grant of the half and quarter fruits which his Predecessors had granted to the Emperour for the maintenance of the War of Germany, still as the Author of the History of the Council tells us, they forced the Clergy by imprisonments and sequestrations to pay, and at this day should the Pope be their enemy they would not question to take without his liking, which they now have with it, or else in the end they would have no means left to preserve themselves. 'Tis indeed the prudence of the Popes to forbid Princes meddling with the goods and persons of Clergy-men, as being contrary to Ecclesiastical liberty, and yet the Popes for the maintenance of their own temporal Dominions never scruple at the violation of it, and what is this but to gain the opportunity of increasing their own power, and getting the sword into their own hands, when others have laid it down? If the Pope may command the Clergy of any quality whatever to carry doslers with earth on their backs for the repair of the walls, as Paul the fourth did, when he was threatened by the Duke of Alva, I see not, but( as Padre 
Hist. of the Council, p. 404.  Pavlo observes) Governours of strong places may do the like, for the Pope as a temporal Prince can have no more power to oblige the Clergy, than other Princes have, nor are the Clergy more concerned in the preservation of the Popes Territories, than they are for those places where they receive protection and maintenance. If the Pope may alienate Church-lands for the defence of his own Territories, which he holds as a temporal Prince, I see no reason why an equal necessity may not justify Princes in the like alienation, for the temporal estate of the Pope is no more Jure Divino, than the estate of other Princes, therefore there is no reason for the one to employ them for a public defence more than the other: but here's the mystery of it, the Popes may use any means to preserve their own Dominions, but Kings may not; which must needs make way for the security of the Popes, and the destruction of the temporal States.   

CHAP. II. Some more Considerations from the doubtfulness, and uncertainty of some Doctrines required of us by the Romish Church to be professed and believed.  
IInstance in the Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass. The Council of Trent Sess. 22. Can. 1. de sacrif. missae, pronounces an Anathema against them that deny, that there is Offered in the Mass a true and proper Sacrifice: and Can. 3. against them that say, it is not a propitiatory Sacrifice, and that it ought not to be Offered for the Living and the Dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions and other necessities; and in the profession of saith by pus 4. they are bound to swear that they do profess, that there is Offered to God in the Mass, a true, pro●●● and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Liv●●nd the Dead. But this Article 〈…〉 ●●ey thus require to be professed and 〈…〉, is uncertain and doubtful; the difference betwixt us and them, lies not about the acknowledgement of a Sacrifice in the Eucharist, but whether there be a true, proper and propitiatory Sacrifice; we do not contend about the calling that Sacrament a Sacrifice, though the Scripture does not give it that name, for since Sacraments are sometimes name from the things they represent, and since in the Eucharist there is a representation and commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ on the across; we do not differ about a word, nor will trouble the peace of the Church about words and names, which antiquity hath and might use in a lawful sense: In that Christ is evidently set forth Crucified, and in the celebration of that Sacrament, there is a showing forth the Lords death till he come; and therefore the members of the English Church have not scrupled to call it a Sacrifice, a spiritual Sacrifice; a pure offering: The question is, whether it be a true, proper and propitiatory Sacrifice as the Council speaks? and in that sense in which they explain this Doctrine, it is uncertain and doubtful, and therefore we cannot be obliged to profess it.  
1. They enjoin us to profess that here is a true and proper Sacrifice: now what they mean by a proper Sacrifice must first be explained. They tell us it is an external Offering to God alone, by which some sensible and permanent thing is by a lawful Minister, with a mystical rite, Consecrated and changed: so says Bellarmin 
* L. 1. de Miss● c. 2. .  
And though a Sacrifice may sometimes in a large sense be defined to be any good work whereby we please God; but properly, to a proper Sacrifice, five things are required: 1. That he who Offers the Sacrifice be a Priest: 2. That the thing Offered be some sensible outward thing: 3. That that sensible thing be changed and destroyed: 4. That either explicitly or implicitly it be referred to the honour of God: Lastly, that the place on which it is Offered be consecrated to this purpose; so says Becanus 
* Sum. Schol. Theol. c. 25. qu. 2. : if then the thing Offered be not a sensible thing, or not done by a Lawful Priest; or if that sensible thing be not changed and destroyed, 'tis not a true proper Sacrifice; we must therefore consider how far these qualifications and conditions are found in the Mass: and if it be doubtful and uncertain whether all these conditions of a true proper Sacrifice be found in it, then it is still uncertain whether there be a true proper Sacrifice, and by consequence we cannot be bound to profess this for an Article of faith.  
1. They require in a true proper Sacrifice a sensible permanent thing: if there be an outward Offering, then there must be some sensible thing Offered; but now what or which is this sensible permanent thing which is here Offered, it is wholly uncertain: some say it is only the Bread and Wine, and not the Body and Blood of Christ; for that properly is Sacrificed, which is changed and destroyed, but the Bread and Wine only are changed, and destroyed: others say it is only Christ which is Offered; and so says the Council, that in this Sacrifice of the Mass, the same Christ is here sacrificed unbloodily, which Offered himself on the across bloodily 
* Sess. 22. cap. 2. : But then Christ here is not a sensible thing; either this Body of Christ which they here Offer must be some thing perceivable by the senses, and that they dare not say; or else the Body of Christ is not the thing here Offered: If the matter of this Sacrifice must be some sensible thing, then how can that be the Body of Christ, which is not perceived by any outward sense to be under the species of Bread and Wine; but rather against sense is believed to be under them? To free themselves from this perplexity, they tell us, that Christ as existing under the Sacramental species, is the thing offered; But how is this? not properly,( says Becanus) as the matter which must be supposed to the action of Sacrificing: but what else do we mean by the thing Offered, but the matter to which the action of Sacrificing is referred? for if I Sacrifice, I must Sacrifice something; and that which I do Sacrifice is the matter, which must be supposed always before the action of Sacrificing. Thus then according to their Doctrine, Christ under the species is the thing Offered; but still not properly as the matter of the Sacrifice;( i.e. e.) he is the thing Offered, but not as the thing Offered; he is properly the matter of the Offering, or else here's an action without an object, an Offering of nothing: and he is not properly the matter of the Offering, which is a plain contradiction. To clear themselves from this perplexity, Becanus tells us further, That Christ under the Sacrameneal species is the thing Offered as the term of the action of Sacrificing; but still this will not clear the perplexity; for, suppose that Consecration( as he fancies) be the action of Sacrificing,( which yet will appear afterwards to be a most intricate and perplexed conceit) and that the terminus ad quem be the Body of Christ brought by the saying of those words, hoc est corpus meum, to exist under those species: but still where is this res sensibilis? this thing which may be perceived by sense? Still here must be a visible Sacrificing an invisible thing, an external Offering of a thing which I must believe to be there, but cannot by any sense perceive to be there; an Offering of a thing sensible, which yet is insensible. Suppose that Christ is the term of the action of Sacrificing, as he exists under the Sacramental species, yet even there he is invisible, and even there we cannot say that he is res sensibilis. Well, but there is another fetch-behind to defend this proper Sacrifice, and that is this, that it is enough that the species of Bread and Wine which contain the Body and Blood of Christ are things subjected to the senses: so says Azorius 
* 〈◇〉. Moral. lib. 10. c 18. , and therefore if we are asked whether the species of Bread and Wine, or rather the Body of Christ be the matter of this Sacrifice? We answer( says he) that the Body of the Lord contained under the species is the matter of the Sacrifice: or we may take Becanus his answer 
* Sum. Schol. Theol. ●. 2. q. 5. , that the Sacramental species of Bread and Wine do intrinsically pertain to the thing Offered, so that Christ with these species make one sacramental suppositum; and as he is visible by these species, is the thing Offered: but still, say I, he is not visible by these species: when we do see the colour or figure of the bread, we do neither see really the colour or figure of the Body of Christ. They all tell us that the accidents of Bread and Wine are not subjected in the Body of Christ, nor can be called the accidents of his body: we may say this is the colour or taste of the Bread, but we cannot say this is the colour or taste of Christs body; so that still I cannot see, how Christ is visible by these species; and therefore how can he be the thing offered? They may say according to their tenants, that they believe he is contained under the species; but still as he is under the species, he is not res sensibilis; for since they are not accidents of his body, they cannot represent his body to the outward senses. Thus then the body of Christ is not here a sensible thing, and therefore what is properly the sensible thing here offered is uncertain: and by consequence the doctrine of this proper Sacrifice is uncertain and doubtful.  
2. In a true and proper Sacrifice there must be some proper action of Sacrificing; but wherein lies this proper action of Sacrificing, they are wholly perplexed and uncertain. It is a condition in a true proper Sacrifice, that that sensible thing which is offered be changed and destroyed, but it is uncertain and doubtful whether there be any action here by which this sensible thing should be changed, and destroyed. Some think the true nature of this Sacrifice consists of three actions of the Priest, Consecration, Oblation and Sumption; some make it to lie in four actions, in the Consecration, Oblation, Fraction and Sumption. Some add to these the commixtion of the species. Some say it is found in two actions, Consecration and Oblation; some, in one, that is, Oblation; others say, it is only in Consecration: so perplexed are they about this action of Sacrificing, as we see by the several opinions recited in Azorius 
* ●●st. Moral. l 10. ●. 19. , yet they will bind us to believe that here is a true proper sacrifice, when themselves are so uncertain wherein the reason of this sacrifice consists. There are nine opinions concerning it, as Malderas 
* Tract. 10. de Just. & Jure c. 3.  reckons them up; and yet though themselves cannot tell us, how the Body of Christ is properly Offered, or which is this proper action of Sacrificing, which is so necessary to a true proper sacrifice, yet still we must believe what they require. The usual opinion is, that the Consecration belongs to the essence of the sacrifice; but even in this they differ, for some think it pertains to the essence of the sacrifice, because by the Consecration there is made a true and real change of the Bread into Christs Body, and a true Sacrifice requires such a change whereby the thing ceases to be; others, because by this Consecration Christ is truly though mystically and unbloodily sacrificed, for since the separation of the Body and Blood is a true and proper sacrificing; and that by the words hoc est corpus meum, the Body without the Blood is placed upon the Altar, and by the words hic est sanguis meus, the Blood is placed there without the Body; therefore they explain the proper action of sacrificing by the consecration in this sense. Bellarmine 
* De Miss● l. 1. c. 27.  dislikes these ways and propounds another. There are three things( says he) found in the consecration of the Eucharist, in which lies the true real ground of a Sacrifice, 1. A profane and earthly thing is made holy. 2. That thing thus made holy is offered to God. 3. That thing thus offered is ordained to a true real and external mutation and destruction. But take now all these ways and it is still wholly perplexed and uncertain how really in this Consecration of the Eucharist there is any external change and destruction of the thing offered: For 1. In the making a profane thing to be holy, that may be without any external sensible change; for this sanctification is only an external denomination which makes no change really in the object. Thus many things are called holy by the dedication of them to the service of God, without any outward change in the things themselves, for they remain what they were before: so that now in the making it holy, here's none of this real outward change: besides, if there were more than an outward denomination in this making holy, yet the same numerical thing which was profane, does not remain when it is made holy, and therefore to be sacrificed as an holy thing; for the Bread and Wine are not made holy but amnihilated according to him, and therefore either here is no external change, or else the same thing is not now sacrificed which was profane: and so Bellarmin acknowledges there, that it is not the Bread which was profane, that is properly sacrificed, but that which was made of the Bread; and yet further, 'tis as perplexed and uncertain how that which was made of the Bread, that is the Body of Christ, can be in this sense properly sacrificed; for as the Bread which was profane, cannot be said to be made holy, because 'tis amnihilated by repeating the words of Consecration, no more can the body which always is holy, ever be said to have been profane: and therefore that which was made of the Bread cannot be said to be sacrificed. 2. Neither in the placing the Sacrifice on the Altar by the words of Consecration is this outward change and destruction wrought, for the effect of the consecration is to bring the Body of Christ to exist under those species, but the existing of it under the species is rather a thing previous to the action of Sacrificing, as the laying the Sacrifice on the Altar was not the sacrificing it; or however still here is no sensible change which yet is necessary to this outward Sacrifice. Lastly, According to Bellarmin's way, the true ground of the Sacrifice must lie in this, that the thing which is offered is ordained to a true real destruction;( i.e. e.) it is by this means made to be food, made capable of being eaten, and therefore may be destroyed. But I ask, in eating the Consecrated Wafer, is Christs Body destroyed or no? They tell us that the Body of Christ here is the same Body with that which is Glorified, and therefore it is now capable of no passion or suffering, of no harm or destruction. If there be a proper Sacrifice, there must be a destruction of the thing sacrificed: for all the Sacrifices mentioned in Scripture, whether of things animate or inanimate, were necessary some way or other to be destroyed: and so much Bellarmin acknowledges 
* L. 1. ●. 2. de Miss●. . But here is no destruction, no real hurt of the thing offered, and therefore still it is uncertain whether it be a true proper Sacrifice, since the Body of Christ is not capable of being destroyed as those true proper Sacrifices were. There is one little shift still which some use, that the Body of Christ loses in being eaten, not its natural being, but itis sacramental being, that it ceases to be sensible food,( i.e. e.) it ceases to be under those species of Bread and Wine: but what real destruction of the Body of Christ is this, to cease only to be where it was? for a thing is not destroyed by leaving its place, nor loses any thing but the respect to that ubi where it was: Whether the Clothes be off or on, yet the Body is the same, and no man will say it's any destruction of the Body, though it be devested of the garments which enclosed it. The sacramental essence is no more according to their explication, than the body existing under those species, as the body under the clothes, which is merely an accidental being. And is all this noise of a real change and destruction of the thing offered come to no more than this? Here's the destruction of an Imaginary being, or at most a destruction of a respect betwixt the Body of Christ, and the outward forms. Here's strange unintelligible things; sometimes the Destruction is made by Consecration, which is as much as that a thing is destroyed by being made to be, and the conversion of the Bread into the Body, whereby the Body is made to exist under these species, should be the external destruction of the Body; sometimes the destruction is in the eating, but others will tell us that a Sacrifice is completed before the eating of it, and that the thing sacrificed was sensibly changed, before they partook of the Sacrifice; so that now where's this outward change which is the proper nature of sacrificing? Or if eating be this Sacrificing, yet where's the real destruction of the Body? here's no alteration in the Body, no harm to the Body; and whether it be supposed under the species, or no, yet still here's no destruction of the Body; whether the outward species be eaten or no, yet still here is no sensible change of the Body; that is neither broken with the teeth, nor chewed, nor swallowed, nor can nourish our bodies; so that when we have tried all ways, still this is unintelligible, still this doctrine of a true, proper sacrifice, is uncertain and doubtful.  
3. There must be a true Priest; for a proper Sacrifice and a proper Priesthood are relatives. Now( saith the Council) Christ in the last Supper declaring himself to be appointed a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech, offered his body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and under these symbols delivered it to the Apostles, whom he then made Priests of the New Testament; and commanded them and their successors in the Priesthood by these words, do this in remembrance of me, that they should offer, &c. 
* Sess. 22. c. 1.  And the Council Anathematizes those who shall deny, that by these words, do this in remembrance of me, the Apostles were appointed to be Priests. 
* Can. 2. ibi.  Thus they make Christs Melchisedechian Priesthood to consist in the offering of his body under the forms of bread and wine. Again, they tell us, Christ could not be a Priest for ever after this Order, unless he left successors to offer the like Sacrifice. Again, they say, that by those words, do this in remembrance of me, he made the Apostles Priests, and commanded them and their successors to offer his body and blood; so that Christ the true Priest by the ministry of the Priest his substitute, doth offer this Sacrifice. But now when we weigh all this heap of intricacies and perplexed Doctrines, we shall see that this Doctrine is wholly uncertain and doubtful. 1. That Melchisedechs Priesthood consisted in the offering of bread and wine, is wholly uncertain: For, 1. It is not certain that Melchisedechs Sacrifice was only bread and wine, though the Scripture saith, he brought forth bread and wine; yet this was to Abraham, and not to God: or suppose what was brought forth to Abraham for the refreshment of him and his followers, was first offered to God; yet it is not certain that he offered nothing else; he might offer ordinary Sacrifices of Beasts as other Priests did: And from one place where Moses occasionally speaks of Melchisedechs bounty to Abraham, that he brought forth bread and wine; we cannot have any certain ground that Melchisedechs sacrifice was nothing but bread and wine. Either they must bring some place that affirms Melchisedech only offered bread and wine; or if he was a Priest of the most high God, 'tis more likely that he offered such sacrifices as other Priests did. Thus here is no certainty of the first ground of this Romish Doctrine; Melchisedechs sacrifice is not certainly known, therefore none can say certainly Melchisedech offered only bread and wine. 2. It is uncertain, that Christs Melchisedechian Priesthood consisted in the offering under these forms; for where Christ is said to be a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, there is nothing mentioned of the Sacrifice that he offered; here is nothing in the Epistle to the Hebrews( where is the only discourse of Christs Melchisedechian Priesthood) concerning any sacrifice under the form of bread and wine: And that he at his last Supper should declare himself a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, and should offer at that time a sacrifice proper to that Priesthood( i.e. e.) himself under the form of bread and wine, is no way evident from any passage at the Supper, recorded by the Evangelists, or any discourse of this order of Melchisedech by the Apostle Paul; and if it be not evident by the History of the Supper, or any discourse concerning the Melchisedechian Priesthood in the Scriptures, then it is uncertain that Christs Melchisedechian Priesthood consisted in offering his body under these forms. 2. It is not certain that Christ could not be a Priest for ever after this Order, unless he left successors to offer the like sacrifice. For, 1. He may be styled a Priest for ever, in regard of the efficacy of his Priesthood, though this Priest offered Sacrifice( i.e. e.) himself once upon the across, yet the virtue of this lasts for ever: for he needed not daily or on a certain day, the day of Expiation every year, as the Aaronical High Priests, to offer sacrifice, for this he did once, when he offered up himself; 
* Heb. 7. 27.  nor did he need to offer himself often, for then he must have suffered often, but now once hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself 
* Heb. 9. 25, 26. . Thus then he might be called a Priest for ever though he left no successors, for so great was the worth of the Sacrifice which this Priest once offered, that it lasts for ever. 2. He might be styled a Priest for ever in respect of the execution of his Priestly Office, for his Office was not only to satisfy for sin by his death, but to make intercession for sinners, and it was as necessary that he should appear in Heaven in the presence of God for us, as to have suffered on the across. If Christ should have continued on earth, he had not been a Priest 
* Heb. 8. 4. ( i.e. e.) had not performed the office of the Priest, both to die for us here, and present his sufferings before his Father in Heaven. Since then he ever lives to make intercession for us, and must still perform that office of the Priest, in interceding with God for us, he may be called a Priest for ever in respect of the execution of his Priestly Office. 3. He may be said to be a Priest for ever, because this Priest lives for ever: and this is sufficiently intimated from the Apostles discourse, 
* Heb. 7. 16, 17, 23, 24.  where he opposes the Aaronical and Melchisedechian Priests, the one was made after the Law of a carnal commandment( i.e. e.) the Law allowed a carnal succession, because those Priests were mortal, but the other was made after the power of an endless life, for he neither succeeded any that went before him nor left any successor after him. Again, in the Aaronical Priesthood there were many Priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death; but this man( i.e. e.) Christ because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable Priesthood. So that though he hath no successor in his Office, yet he is a Priest for ever; and this will further appear from that description of Melchisedech, That he had neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a Priest continually 
* Heb. 7. 3. . The Apostle speaks of Melchisedech as if his Priesthood were an eternal Priesthood, and himself an eternal Priest. But how is that? Because the Scripture never mentioning any successors of Melchisedech doth seem to represent him as one that never died, and therefore he must be an eternal Priest, such a Priest as Christ was, that lives for ever. And therefore the Order of Melchisedech is not to be interpnted from the manner of the Sacrifice, what kind of thing Melchisedech offered; but from the continuance of the Priest: as the Type was without end of days; for there is no successor of his recorded; so Christ the Antitype was really an eternal Priest, for he liveth for ever himself, and needeth no successors. Thus Christ may be styled a Priest for ever,( Estius 
* I● ep. ad Heb. c. 7. v. 17.  acknowledges so much,) ratione personae, because no man succeeds him in his Priesthood, ratione officii, because he always pleads for us in Heaven, and ratione effectus, because by that sacrifice which he offered he is made the Author of eternal Salvation to us. If now Christ is justly styled a Priest for ever upon these grounds, then it's not certain that the eternity of Christs Priesthood requires a successor. Indeed some of them tell us, they do not mean that Christ hath properly successors, for they are substituted into the room of him that is dead or absent; but Christ hath not left his Priesthood, therefore there is no need of successors; and Estius saith, that no catholic,( that speaks advisedly) will say so: yet they tell us that Christ must have some Vicars or Substitutes to sacrifice in his stead, and that he could not be a Priest for ever unless he sacrificed by his Ministers, since he could not properly sacrifice by himself. 
* B●ll. de ●iss●● l. 1. c. 25. ●. quodtim.  But neither is this true, that Christ could not be a Priest for ever, unless he sacrificed by his Ministers. For, 1. This is founded on a false ground, that a Priest continues a Priest no longer than he sacrifices, and therefore Christ could not be a Priest for ever, unless he had something to sacrifice; which is as much, as that a man ceases to have an office, when he ceases to execute that office; the absurdity of which opinion is sufficiently confuted in several instances, by a late learned 
* Dr. Br●vin● of the depth of the Mass. c. 11.  Author, whose particular industry about the Mass might much have super●eded my pains on this Subject, if this Discourse had not been prepared for the Press before I saw his Book, and if I had not designed the handling of the●e things in another manner and method. 2. If they had considered that there was a double duty required of this High Priest, not only the sacrificing of himself here on earth, but the presenting of this sacrifice before his Father in Heaven, they would soon have observed the mistake. For though he had finished that part which was to be done upon the across, yet he had not finished that which remained to be done in Heaven,( i.e. e.) to pled the merit of his death and sufferings before his Father, and to intercede for us within the veil; as it was with his Type the High Priest on the day of expiation; he was not only to sacrifice without the veil, but to enter within the veil into the Holy of Holies, and there to sprinkle the blood before the Mercy-Seat. Now though the sacrifice was killed without, yet he is said to offer this within the veil; just so it was with Christ, he was slain in the outer Court here on earth; but answerable to this Type he entred into the holy place, into Heaven, and there appears in the presence of God for us, neither by the blood of Calves and Goats, but by his own blood he entred in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us: 
* Heb. 9. 12.  and he doth now instead of that blood of Goats and Calves present his own blood before his Father. Thus Christ doth not cease from a Sacerdotal act, and therefore though he doth not now sacrifice, yet he doth not cease to be a Priest, no more than the High Priest when he was within the veil, and was offering that blood before the Mercy-Seat. Thus 'tis not certain what the Romanists lay for a foundation, that Christ could not be a Priest for ever, unless he sacrificed by his Ministers. For he doth still perform a Sacerdotal act appearing before God for us, and so Estius confesses upon Heb. 9. 25.  
3. 'Tis not certain, that by those words, do this in remembrance of me, he made the Apostles Priests, and gave them and their successors power to offer his body and blood. For, 1. Here is no ground from the words that do this should signify offer this or that, do this in remembrance of me should signify, offer this sacrifice; and whether is it more reasonable to expound the words of a sacrifice, of which there is in the foregoing words not the least mention, or that they must be referred to the passage which went immediately before? That as Christ blessed, and broke, and gave, saying take eat, &c. so hereafter they should do this in remembrance of him, do this, which he then did, and commanded them to do, in remembrance of his death and passion. 2. If these words made them Priests to offer up Christs body, then all the faithful are made Priests, for he saith to all, take, eat, this do in remembrance of me: And it's plain as Estius acknowledgeth on 1 Cor. 11. 24. that St. Paul refers those words to the whole Church of Corinth, to whom he writes; for after he had related the institution, that Christ said, take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you, do this in remembrance of me, and again, this cup is the New Testament in my blood, this do as oft as ye shall drink it in remembrance of me, he explains these words in the following verse, for as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lords death, which would not be a convenient explaining of those words, if they did not refer to all the Disciples, but only to the Priests. 'Tis true, the Romanists would fain expound the words that the Priests must do something which Christ did( i.e. e.) sacrifice his body, as well as the people perform these actions of taking, and eating; but still here is no certainty that do this, must refer to something which it is not said there that Christ did, or required others to do; still I say here's no certainty that Christ did bid them sacrifice as Priests, as he had sacrificed in his last Supper, for here is nothing of any sacrifice in his last Supper, here are no words in the History of his last Supper which signify any such thing, here is nothing to be found when he instituted this both for a Sacrifice and for a Sacrament, by what words he particularly appointed the Apostles Priests to offer a sacrifice, different from the institution of the Sacrament, wherein they are commanded to take and eat in remembrance of him. Thus here are many things uncertain and doubtful; we can neither find any institution in these words of a proper Priest to sacrifice, nor any substitution in Christs room to offer sacrifice. And if there be no certainty of this, then there is no certainty of any true proper sacrifice in the Eucharist. When they have considered all this, they will see that this Doctrine is so full of perplexities and uncertainties, that it is unreasonable to make it an article of faith, without which there is no Salvation.  
2. They enjoin us to profess, that there is a propitiatory sacrifice in the Mass for the living and the dead. And truly they are much concerned in the maintenance of this Doctrine; for the people being persuaded that there is a propitiatory sacrifice in the Mass for the living and they dead, that the Priest may apply this sacrifice to whom he pleases, and the more Masses are said for them, the greater benefit they obtain; the people therefore were willingly persuaded to hire the Priests to say Masses for them, some founded chantry Priests to say a Mass perpetually for their souls, others left great Legacies for hundreds or thousands of Masses: one Cardinal appointed fifty thousand Masses to be said for his soul; and there are few so forgetful of the Priests profit or themselves, who do not leave the Priest something for a Mass for them. And the Mass being now considered as a propitiatory sacrifice offered by the Priest, it mattered not whether any were present or no,( and so private Masses stolen into the Church,) for the Priest offered the Sacrifice, as Christs substitute, and whether any were present or no, yet the Sacrifice would have its proper effect. Thus this Doctrine is of high advantage in the Romish Church, but yet really it is wholly uncertain and doubtful: for this sacrifice of the Mass was instituted by Christ( say they) at his last Supper, and either Christ offered a propitiatory Sacrifice at his last Supper or no; if he did not, then there is no propitiatory Sacrifice now offered; if he did, then Christ in his last Supper redeemed the world, and therefore there was need no of the Sacrifice on the across. If it be a properly propitiatory sacrifice, then it properly appeases Gods wrath, satisfies Gods justice, and by consequence takes away the necessity of Christs death; for if the end is fulfilled for which he died, then there is no necessity of his death. If it be propitiatory in the same manner that the sacrifice of the across is, why then doth it not work the same effect? And if it were not propitiatory in the same manner, but only as representing the future sufferings of Christ, then how is it properly propitiatory? He that thinks to satisfy himself by calling it a representative commemorative sacrifice, must consider both how he makes it a true sacrifice, and how he makes it a proper propitiatory sacrifice; for to make it a representative sacrifice there was no need that Christ himself should be sacrificed, no more than it was necessary that Christ himself should be sacrificed really in the old sacrifices, which were the representations of that sacrifice which should be offered on the across. There may be a representation of Christs sufferings, without Christ himself being sacrificed. And also this sacrifice of Christ in the Supper, which is wholly invisible, cannot be a representation of that which is visible; for usually we take things that are seen to represent those things that are not seen; but I know no reason why men should take that which is not seen to represent those things which shall be seen. So that now to call it a representative sacrifice, and yet a true sacrifice, is wholly unintelligible. Again, to make this sacrifice in the Supper representative and yet properly propitiatory, is as hard to be imagined: For we cannot understand how the representation of a propitiatory sacrifice( i.e. e.) of that on the across, can work the same effect with the thing itself, unless the representation in a glass of a man paying a sum of money can work the same effect and discharge a debt, as well as the actual laying down the sum. They require us to profess that there is a propitiatory sacrifice in the Mass, yet when it comes to be enquired into, here's only a commemoration and representation of that sacrifice which is propitiatory. But now the representation of the sacrifice is not the same thing with the sacrifice, no more than the Image or Picture of the man is the same thing with the man himself. They require us to profess that Christs blood here is really  shed for remission of sins, and on this ground they prove it to be a propitiatory sacrifice; yet they will not say here's any satisfying Gods wrath, or paying a price for the sins of men. They tell us we must profess it is propitiatory, but after that they have tired themselves long about the meaning of this propitiatory, they conclude 'tis applicatory,( i.e. e.) a sacrifice applying the propitiation of Christ: but then 'tis uncertain that there needs a sacrifice propitiatory to apply a sacrifice propitiatory. If by the sacrifice on the across he hath satisfied Gods justice, and merited remission of sin, then 'tis uncertain that there needs any more sacrifice for sin; or what reason can there be that there must be a propitiatory sacrifice to apply the benefits purchased by the propitiatory sacrifice on the across? If there was an universal satisfaction made by Christs Sacrifice on the across, then what need a satisfaction to apply that satisfaction? or of a new propitiatory Sacrifice to apply the death of Christ to any particular person? Or when the full sum that we owed to God is already payed upon the across, that yet we ourselves or the Priest for us should tender any sum to God to apply that general payment to us, or to interest us in it? Certainly it cannot be reasonable that the Surety should pay the debt twice, or that he must pay again the same sum to the Creditor, that the person for whom he payed it may receive benefit by the first payment. Further, I would fain understand how the sacrifice of the Mass is truly propitiatory, or how God appeased by this offering giving repentance forgives sins, as the Council says, 
* Sess. 22. c. 2.  for here is more than applying the sacrifice of the across, here is procuring the same things, and making the sacrifice of the Mass of equal value with the sacrifice of the across. Well; but suppose they mean only that it applies the sacrifice of the across, but then still 'tis unintelligible how that which applies the sacrifice of the across is the same thing with that which is applied. They will have the same sacrifice, for there is the same Host, and the same principal Offerer: now how the sacrifice of the Mass can apply the sacrifice of the across, and yet be the same, this is uncertain. Well, but suppose it were applicatory, yet what real value it is of, or how much it can procure, still they are uncertain; If it does not procure some thing infallibly, then all their money is lost, and the frequent use of private Masses spoyled. By no means must they say that this sacrifice is not of a great value; for that were to decry their own ware, and lessen the Priests profit: If there be the same Host and the same principal Priest, then the offering must be of great value; but whether infinite or finite, that troubles them. If the value be infinite, then one Mass will do the work, as well as one oblation upon the across: apply the Mass by your intention, and what need have any to procure more Masses? If a penny will do, what need men lay out a pound? But now here lies the mystery, they dare not say it is infinite, for then it renders after-Masses superfluous, and lessons the Priests trade: 
* Bell. de Missâ l. 2. c. 4. sect. quarta.  well, but then it must be finite, but yet by their principles that is uncertain, for the value of the sacrifice must be from the dignity of the principal Priest offering; if then Christ here Offers his own body, then how can the value be finite? If the sacrifice on the across, and in the Mass differ only ratione, then really they are the same, and why then should the value of the one be infinite, and the value of the other finite? The usual pretence which the Romanists have, why they say the value of the one is infinite, and of the other finite, is this, because in the sacrifice on the across, the Son of God offers by himself, and in the sacrifice of the Mass he Offers by his Minister; and there is a great deal of difference betwixt the action of the Son of God done by himself, and that which is done by his Ministers: 
* Bell de Missâ l. 2. c. 4. sect. Secunda ratio.  but now this seems strange to me, who always think, the alms is the same whether one give it by himself, or by his servant, whether he give it with his own hand, or give it to his servant to carry to the poor. Besides, according to this Doctrine, then the sacrifice in the Supper must be of infinite value, for there Christ offered by himself. And then that sacrifice must infinitely apply, as well as the sacrifice on the across infinitely redeem: and as there is no reason for any other sacrifice on the across, because by that one oblation he hath finished our redemption, because that sacrifice was of infinite worth to satisfy Gods justice; so there would be no reason for any Masses to apply Christs sacrifice, because that sacrifice in the Supper which Christ offered by himself was of infinite worth to apply that sacrifice, which should be offered on the across: Thus here's nothing but perplexity and uncertainty in all this Doctrine: And indeed it can be no otherwise, when men will be wise above what is written, and assert such things for the high mysteries of Religion, which are not clearly revealed by God. They tell us this sacrifice is propitiatory, but will they stick there? No, for sometimes they say it is propitiatory, and sometimes again impetratory: the proper efficiency is by way of impetration says Bellarmin 
* De Missi l. 2. c. 4. ( i.e. e.) by way of supplication and prayers; but if so, then the Sacrifice of the Mass can only procure and impetrate good according to the devotion of the Priest, for prayers of themselves cannot procure any thing from God, but only according to the piety and servency of him that prays: otherwise they must aclowledge that God is pleased with bare repeating of words without affection, which is plainly to turn Prayers into Charms. But now if the sacrifice of the Mass do no more, then the people give much to little purpose, and throw away their money for that which may be very little worth, for they know not whether the Priest be good or bad, whether he Offers this sacrifice with devotion or without devotion; and if he be bad, his sacrifice is not accepted, and he procures nothing for them: well, therefore they have another way, and this Bellarmin 
* 〈◇〉 ●. 2. c. 4.  says, is the common opinion of Divines,( i.e. e.) that the sacrifice procures something ex opere operato: for since there is the same host and the same offerer here, which was in the sacrifice of the across, let the immediate Minister be what he will, still it will work its effect; and the principal effect of this sacrifice does not depend on the goodness of the immediate Minister: and the effect, says Becanus, is ex opere operato infallibly, for it is sounded in an absolute promise in respect of him who doth not ponere obicem,( i.e.) so that he doth not hinder the effect of the sacrifice. And says he, where the sacrifice is applied 
Sum. Schol. Theol. cap. 25. q●. 12.  to any or offered for any, without the special determination of the offerer, then it work ex opere operato. But now here I am puzzled again, if they have such a propitiatory or impetratory sacrifice that can work ex opere operato where the person for whom it's offered doth not ponere obicem, why then are not the souls in Purgatory delivered thence? What needs so many Masses to be said for them? me thinks this should save the Priest much of his labour, and the people much of their money; if this sacrifice be Propitiatory for the dead and that ex Opere Operato, then surely one Mass should help them out of Purgatory. And there can be no reason why a man should be put to procure so many when far less will do? If the souls in Purgatory can put no bar to the efficacy of this Sacrifice, 'tis strange that Purgatory is not long since emptied. If the Priest hath offered this Sacrifice for the dead, and the effect doth follow infallibly, where the person for whom it is offered doth put no impediment, and we cannot see how the souls in Purgatory can put any impediment; then what should keep any there? It would be unreasonable to keep the Prisoner, when the debt is paid, or require the tender of satisfaction for them every day, when the whole hath been payed before; thus here's nothing but uncertainties. As for the living, they tell us, if it be offered for sinners, though it doth not immediately forgive sins, yet by this Sacrifice is procured the gift of repentance; but then are there not sinners that have many Masses said for them; who yet have not this gift of repentance given them? It would be an happy turn if all should have this grace given them, who have Masses said for them, nay it would be strange if any should miss of this grace, if they might have it so easily: they have therefore another fetch, the Sacrifice of the Mass( says Bellarmin 
* I. 2. c. 5. de Missâ. ) when it is offered for sinners, procures a new & certain help whereby sinners may be brought to repentance: but this help hath a divers operation according to the divers disposition of men; for if he be disposed to contrition, then it works contrition, if he be not disposed, it works a new disposition: but if every Mass work a new disposition, how can it be imagined that contrition should not be wrought in the end? and the person at length be Converted? I cannot see how any person can remain unconverted, if the Romish Priests really desire their Conversion; for if every Mass add some new disposition, and the more Masses the more dispositions wrought; I would fain see why they may not at length come to that next disposition to Conversion, and then one Mass more and they will be effectually converted. If there be a certain increase of dispositions by the Masses for them, then unless either they are too sparing in procuring, or the Priests too backward in saying Mass, how could any remain unconverted? They tell us without doubt these Masses do help these persons, but wherein this help lies, and what it does effect is uncertain, and doubtful. They tell us that the Mass is a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and dead, and this we must profess, or else we are heretics: But me thinks 'tis but reasonable we should first understand, how they can benefit the living and the dead, before we be bound to profess it. If they could really convince us that there is any such benefit procured by those Masses, we should not so much question how the benefit is procured, or which way they help us; if we could be really sensible of any help by a certain Medicine, we should not trouble ourselves which way the physic wrought: but we are loth to pay for that physic which we do not understand can do any good, or be tied to use that physic, which though some may fancy help by it, yet we can really find none. Or lastly, to profess that this is a most excellent useful receipt and does good both to the living and dead, when yet we cannot by any observation find it is so. They tell us, that Masses are rightly offered for sins and for punishments; but of what great use they are about sins, or for what kind of sins they are helpful, that's very uncertain. The Council says it serves to procure the pardon of mortal sins. So say many others, that it is Propitiatory not only for small but for great faults, even for mortal sins. 
* Sess. 6. cap. 2. Bicl in Can. Miss. lect. 85. ff. Bell. de miss, l. 2. c. 1.  But yet still 'tis uncertain, for they will not say that the Sacrifice of the Mass merits the pardon of those sins; they will not say it does infallibly procure the pardon of those sins for whom it is offered; they will not say it infallibly procures the grace of repentance; they are not certain what that new and certain help is, which they say it procures: And some seeing these difficulties affirm it only serves to take away venial sins, and that there is no certain effect which is procured by that sacrifice ex opere operato, but merely the pardon of some slight venial sins, which are as well done by sprinkling a little holy water, or by the use of their Sacramentals as they call them.  
They tell us this Sacrifice is rightly offered for whatsoever necessities, and there are some peculiar Masses which we are  told are so useful that they work strange effects; I meet with one, and that is a sovereign remedy against the Plague, it is styled de mortalitate evitandâ 
* Missal. Sarum. fol. 110. , and those that heard it, were to hold a burning candle in their hand during the whole Mass, and to kneel, and then they should not die suddenly; and if one fear this is too good news to be true, the rubric gives you a probatum est, that these cures were wrought at Avignon and the parts thereabouts: there being a great mortality in those parts and many dying suddenly. John 22. composed this Mass, for an infallible remedy. But I would still understand how I may be assured this is an infallible remedy, for why that Mass more than another Mass, or why the Mass of St. Sebastian or St. Roche more than another Mass; or indeed why any Mass should have this infallible effect? Though they tell us of these great matters it procures, as he that would have others buy his commodities usually commends them, but how or which way the Sacrifice of the Mass can procure these things, more than the Prayers said by the Priest, they are much perplexed. How far this sacrifice of the Mass works ex opere operato, how far ex opere operantis, how far ex opere operantis Christi, how far ex opere operantis ministri secundarii, and yet still how far ex opere operato merely by the virtue of the institution itself, without respect to the merit of the offerer, how far it works per modum impetrationis, infallibly, and how far not, they are much perplexed: and these unintelligible distinctions they use to explain their minds, speak the greater uncertainty and perplexity. 
* Fil●●ac. case. Consc. tr. 5. c. Bill. de Missâ. l. 2. c. 4.  The Council promises great matters, that God appeased by this sacrifice does give repentance, forgive sins; and that it ought to be offered for sins, punishments and necessities, for the living or dead; but how or which way we shall receive any advantage by this sacrifice, or what real effect certainly it will produce, or whether it does work such effects as the Council says, themselves are much puzzled to explain; and when they have done all they can, the doctrine still remains doubtful and uncertain, and therefore we cannot be bound to profess it. There is no certainty of any institution of a proper sacrifice: Nothing concerning it certain from scripture; and so George Ataida a Portugal Divine in the Council of Trent stiffly maintained, that the Mass could not be said to be a sacrifice, but by the ground of tradition, and he examined one after another the places of the New Testament alleged by the Divines, showing, that no express signification of the sacrifice could be drawn from them: 
* Hist. of the Counc. of Trent. lib. 6.  No certainty that our Saviour did offer in his last Supper; for those words on which they insist, This is my Body which is broken for you, cannot refer to any Sacrifice of Christs Body there; for the breaking here was before the Consecration, and that merely of Bread, and at that time when he spoken those words, there was no actual breaking of the Body at all. Here's no certainty that the true proper conditions of a true proper sacrifice are here found, for here is no certainty of a sensible thing offered in this sacrifice, no certainty in what the action of sacrificing properly consists, nor any certainty of the institution of any Priests to offer this Sacrifice: here are nothing but unintelligible difficulties, riddles upon riddles; a visible sacrifice of an invisible thing, a sacrificing of bread and no bread, of Christs Body and not of Christs Body, a destruction of a thing which is the production of it, a breaking of Christs Body and yet the Body whole, a shedding of Christs blood and yet none issues out of the veins, an outward sacrifice really sacrificed, and yet all to be believed, and nothing to be perceived by the senses; these uncertainties and doubts we must swallow, ere we can believe this article. And yet further 'tis uncertain that there is any tradition of a true proper sacrifice in the Mass, for many contented themselves with calling it a sacrifice, without further enquiry whether it was a proper or figurative sacrifice: Many called it a sacrifice as it was the representation of the true Sacrifice of Christ on the across; as we call the Images by the names of the things which they represent; and this they cannot deny was one reason why it is so called; celebratio hujus sacrificii Imago quaedam est passionnis Christi repraesentativa; quae est vera ejus immolatio, ideo & ipsa immolatio nominatur, says Biel 
* Lect. in Can. Miss. lect. 85. ff. . In the time of the ancient Schoolmen they gave this as the reason why they called it so; Lombard asks the question whether what was done by the Priest be properly called a sacrifice, and whether Christ be daily offered, or once only? and the answer in short he gave was this 
* Lib. 4. dist. 12. , that which is Offered, and Consecrated by the Priest, is the remembrance and representation of the true sacrifice, and of that holy Oblation on the Altar of the across: and he is daily sacrificed in the Sacrament, because in the Sacrament there is a commemoration of what was once done. If then that was the reason why they called it a sacrifice, then there is no certainty of any tradition of a true proper sacrifice in the Mass. Indeed Bellarmin to solve this doubt interprets this question of Peter Lombard's concerning killing, as if he had asked whether that which the Priest doth, can be called a killing of Christ, and then that he answered most rightly, that Christ was only once truly immolated or sacrificed( i.e. e.) slain, but now that he is not properly sacrificed,( that is) slain, but only in a Sacrament or representation; and he adds that it could not be the question whether it be a proper sacrifice though unbloody, for he supposed that, as well known to all men, from the daily celebration of that sacrifice. But this is a plain evasion, to say that this was well known, which the question here implies was not well known, for the words are, whether that which the Priest does, can be properly called a sacrifice; that is, whether Christ is really in the Supper offered to God for a Sacrifice? and he answers Christ is offered there, not truly and properly but commemoratively and representatively. If then it was so well known, that there was a true, proper sacrifice, it seems strange that he should say it was not a proper sacrifice, but only the remembrance of a true Sacrifice; and therefore we have reason to judge from this plain answer that there was no such proper sacrifice then maintained in the Church. If then that was the reason which Lombard gives why they called it a Sacrifice, then there is no certainty of a true proper sacrifice in the Mass. Again, here is no certainty, that this sacrifice is a propitiatory sacrifice in the sense of the Council: or if it may be called in a large sense a propitiatory sacrifice, that yet it is a true proper propitiatory sacrifice, themselves cannot agree in what sense 'tis properly propitiatory; and many of their explications will not agree with the determination of the Council, or the common practise of their Church. There is no certainty that it was instituted to be a propitiatory sacrifice, for they are not agreed whether the words of Institution, this is the blood of the New Testament which is  shed for you, and for many for remission of sins, be understood of the mystical effusion in the Supper or the bloody effusion on the across? Filliucius 
* Ca. Cons. tract. 5. c. 3. n. 59.  understands them of the bloody effusion; and so both the vulgar translation and the Roman Missal red those words in the future, as referring this effusion to that which shall be on the across. But then where's the institution of a propitiatory sacrifice? And they all grant that there must be an institution, or else 'tis unreasonable to pretend such an effect. On the other hand many understand them of the mystical effusion, so 
* L. 2. de missa c. 2. s●secundum.  Bellarmin, the 
* ●hem. Testam. on Luk. 22 20. & Mat. 26. 28.  Rhemish Translators and 
* Su●. Schol. Th●ol. c. 25. q 11.  Becanus, &c. Here is no certainty that Christ did offer a propitiatory sacrifice in the last Supper, and this the Bishop of Velia in the Council of Trent maintained with very forcible reasons; and the Author of the History says, that the Bishop persuaded so many, that it was almost the common opinion not to make men●ion of the propitiatory sacrifice offered by Christ in the Supper; and if no certainty that there was any propitiatory sacrifice there, then no certainty that there is any propitiatory sacrifice here. There is no certainty of the value of this sacrifice, no certainty of the true proper efficiency of it, no certainty that the Priest has this power to apply the fruit of this sacrifice to whom he will, no certainty that he can determine the virtue of this sacrifice to whom he pleases; for apply it( to whom he will) in his own intention, yet there is no certainty that really the person shall receive any benefit by that application, unless his intention here be conformable to the Divine will; and here is no certainty that it is according to Gods will, except it be miraculously revealed what is Gods will. No man can assign particularly to one, that which is properly anothers to give; and if he do assign it, unless the person confirm the assignment, he may yet go without it. Till then we can be assured, that the Priest applys the virtue or fruit of the sacrifice to them, for whom God intends it, we may be never a penny better by all the Masses that the Priest says for us. Thus here's nothing but uncertainties, and it cannot be otherwise, when doctrines are not founded on Divine Revelation, but human fancies. Should a man inquire into their several discourses about applying the fruit of this sacrifice, he would find nothing but confusion and uncertainty. They all grant that some part of the fruit of this sacrifice must be in his power, or else all this discourse of applying the fruit of this sacrifice is needless. But the question is What part of the fruit is in his power? whether there be a part due to him as a public Minister, or whether a part be due to him as a private person? whether he applies the fruit as due to him as a public person, or as a private? for some think he applies only that which is due to him as a public person, others think that which is due to him as a private person: and some say 
* navarre. Eachi. id. c 25. n. 3.  a Priest may have three parts, as an Offerer, as an Orthodox person, and as a Procurer of the Mass, that is, when he says Mass for nothing; but if one should ask, how they will distinguish these parts? how much is due upon one account, how much upon another, or what assurance they have, that there is really such a division of the fruits of this sacrifice as they tells us? the wisest of them all could not tell what to answer. Suppose the Priest says a Mass for wages, what fruit can he apply to the person for whom he says the Mass? if he saves any part for himself, then it is doubtful whether he do not wrong the person for whom he offered; and therefore some of them think it best particularly to assign that portion to those for whom they offer, though they cannot tell what it is; but others question whether a man is not bound first to apply it to himself( for charity begins at home) before he apply it to others: but then when he has applied any part of the fruit of the Mass to himself, what certainty that there is any part remaining which he can dispose to others? Some distinguish of an application specialissimè to the Priest, generalissime to the whole Church, and specialitèr to the person for whom the Mass is said 
* Ri●l. lect. i● can Miss. ●ect. 26. L. ; but when he applys it most specially to himself, and most generally to the whole Church; whether is there any thing left to be applied specially to the person for whom he offers? Again, that fruit which does apply, doth arise either ex opere operato, or ex opere operantis; but how can he bestow that which is ex opere operato, for that is due to the Church in general? and if he applies only that which is due ex opere operantis; that is, what is due to him as a private person according to his own faith and devotion in the performance of his office, then an evil Priest could not benefit others by his Masses, and he that can apply nothing of this to himself can much less apply it to others: and he that will receive any benefit by a Mass, must be sure he get a good Priest to say it. Thus here is great uncertainty even in that which is the daily employment of the Romish Priests; so much uncertainty that they can never satisfy themselves about this applying the fruit of this sacrifice. They tell us there is a portion of this fruit due to the Church in general, to all that are expressly name by the Priest in the Mass, to all that procure the Priest to say Mass, to all for whom he says Mass and to himself. But then what this proportion is they confess God only knows; 
* Na●arr, E●ch●. c. 25. v. 3.  whether the fruit be equally divided amongst them, or to some more, some less? that's a great question: Navarr thinks that God bestows a certain part to every Orthodox person, which neither is increased because they are fewer, nor decreased because they are many, and a certain proportion to those that are present at Mass, a certain portion to those who are specially name in the Mass, but then the portion for the Priest, and them that are name by him of his own accord, is greater or less according to the number of those that he intends it for: but what certainty that one part is certain or the other uncertain? that the one part is always the same, and that the other rises and falls? that the Church could settle this division of the fruits of the Mass, and that she could assign such a part to such and such uses; and leave another part to the Priest to be disposed as he pleases? and that this part which is in the Priests disposal is that which a man desires, when he would have Mass said for him? as Azorius informs us 
* I●st. Mor. l. 10. c 20. : what assurance that if he does apply it generally to the whole Church, there be any thing left to apply specially? or whether it be not as much profit as if he applied it specially? for the general portion which belongs to the Church is almost infinite, say Gavantius 
* Th●s sa●●it. part. ●tit. 3 p. , whether if he offers specially for several persons, there be several degrees in this application of the Sacrifice? and to some he may apply it specially in the first degree, to some in the second, to some in the third? as Biel says 
* Sect 26 in can. Miss. Q. ; or which way can a Priest satisfy the several obligations which are upon him to say a Mass for several persons? for perhaps he may apply such a part of the fruit to one, which is due to another, as he may apply to Peter, that which is due to Paul; and yet as Filliucius 
* case Co●s●. tract. 5. ●. 3. n. 76.  resolves this case; Peter shall have the Benefit, although the Priest did wrongfully apply it: perhaps he may apply a greater part to one, than he ought: perhaps he may prefer those in applying the Sacrifice to them, to whom he is not so much bound as he is to others: lastly, perhaps he may have so many obligations, that he may not know how to pay all which he ought to pay: and that part which is in the Priests power to dispose, may not serve to discharge all these debts: here are great scruples, and 'tis hard to advice what course to take, whether to make a general ap●lication, and beseech God to accept his oblation for those for whom God knows he is bound to offer, and in that degree God knows he is bound; or to make this special application by name to every person for whom he is bound to say Mass: which for several good causes and considerations 
* ●●ct. 26. in Can. Miss. S.  Biel thinks ought not to be omitted. But yet to avoid those scruples which trouble many about this special application of the sacrifice, there is a wholesome advice which Biel gives us out of John Gerson, and that is to put all thy spiritual goods into Gods hands, and do as men that know not how to pay their debts, they give all their estate up for their creditors, and leave only a maintenance for themselves as the Judge shall think fit. When thou hast confessed what thou owest to this or that person and so on, then desire God to distribute thy estate among thy Creditors. Nolo calculum ponere cum amicis & benefactoribus meis, tu pro parte tuâ recipias Missam, tu orationem, tu bonum opus, tu sapientissime meritorum & sussragiorum ponderator deus distribue singulis, &c. I will not reckon with my friends and benefactors, but do thou for thy part take a Mass, thou a Prayer, and thou a Good work, and thou O wise God that can value the merits and prayers of men, distribute to every one as they have need for their profit and my discharge. Thus they are loth to leave a debt unpaid, but are exceeding careful to assign to their Creditors, these Debenturs which are due from God Almighty, and apply their Masses and Prayers to their friends. But yet when all is seriously weighed, here's nothing but endless scruples, and infinite perplexities and uncertainties about this doctrine; nor can it be otherwise, where the doctrine is not found in the Scripture, nor owned in the primitive times, nor ever heard of till ignorance and covetousness prevailed in the Church. Thus I have handled my second Consideration.   

CHAP. III.  
I Draw a third consideration from the irreconcileableness of their Doctrine and practices, with the Prayers yet retained in their Offices; I instanced in the Doctrine about private Masses, Purgatory and Prayer for the dead, to which I now add the Article about communicating under one kind. The Council of Constance 
* Sess. 13.  acknowledged that Christ did institute and give the Sacrament after Supper in both kinds, and the same is confessed by the Council of Trent, 
* Sess. 21. c. 1.  that Christ did institute this Sacrament in the last Supper under both kinds, and also delivered it to his Apostles, and that in the Primitive times it was not unusual to communicate under both kinds; 
* Sess. 21. c. 2.  but yet the Romish party have taken up this custom of giving only the Bread: and because it might seem strange that the practise of the present Church should so much deviate from the 〈◇〉 of Christ, and the frequent practise of the Ancients, they have therefore now decreed that it is in the power of the Church( saving the substance of the Sacrament) to alter what she sees most expedient for the profit of the receivers, or the veneration of the Sacrament. And they tell us, that though Christ hath instituted and delivered the Sacrament in both kinds, yet that all the faithful are not bound to 
* Sess. 21. c. 1.  receive both kinds: and though from the beginning of Christianity the use of both kinds hath not been unusual, yet the custom by little and little being changed, the Church being moved by just reason hath approved this custom of communicating in one kind: 
* Sess. 21. c. 2.  and they do Anathematize any person, that affirms that the Church hath not had just reasons to communicate with the Bread only the Laity, and Clergy who do not say Mass. 
* Sess. 21. can. 2.  This is their Doctrine, but it is both uncertain, and inconsistent with their own prayers. 1. It is uncertain, For, 1. It is not certain that the faithful are not bound to receive according to Christs institution; for the Sacraments being not natural, but arbitrary signs, they owe their birth and original wholly to the institution: according therefore as Christ hath instituted them, they ought to be received; if therefore Christ hath instituted in both kinds, then the Sacrament ought to be received in both kinds. 2. It is not certain that there is not as much a command to drink the Wine as to eat the Bread, for the words are preceptive, drink ye as well as eat ye, yea drink ye all of this, he that ordained the one, ordained the other in like words, and in like circumstances, and there is nothing from the words of our Saviour which imply a command for eating, more than drinking. 3. Is there any command at all for the Laity to receive the Sacrament? if there be not, then it is free to receive it or not receive it, and if a man should never receive it all his life, yet he should not sin against any Divine Law; if there be a command, then how doth it appear, that the Laity and Clergy who do not celebrate are left free to receive in one kind, or both? For either the command was given to the Apostles barely, and then none should be bound to receive the Sacrament except the Apostles themselves; or to the Apostles as Priests, and if so, then the Cup is due to all Priests whether they celebrate or no, and the Church could have no just cause to restrain the Clergy, when they do not celebrate, from the use of the Cup; for when the Sacrament was instituted in both kinds, the Apostles were not then Celebrators but Receivers, and therefore if they received as Priests, then Priests not celebrating have a right to the Cup. If the Apostles did represent all the faithful, then they all have a right to receive what their representers did receive. Here is but one institution, and how doth it appear that by the same institution the Priests who do say Mass are bound to receive in both kinds, and those who do not say Mass at that time in one kind? Either the institution must oblige all alike or none, and either they must say that the faithful are bound to receive as the Apostles here did, or they may say that there is no obligation on them to receive in one kind or both. 4. It is not certain that the Church hath any power to alter the manner of receiving, for the Priests are servants and not Lords, and are bound as Stewards to dispense their Lords Goods according to his will and not their own pleasure; where the Lord hath left things at liberty to their disposal, there they may alter and vary, but where there is any Divine Institution and appointment they are bound up by it. So that I can see no reason why under pretence of being the Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God, that they can oblige the people to receive in one kind, when Christ hath instituted, and the Apostles first received in both kinds. 5. It is not certain that the Church hath been moved by just causes and reasons to forbid communicating in both kinds; For, 1. The Council gives no reason why it forbids the Cup; and to bind men to believe it was moved with good reason, when it gives no reason, seems strange. 2. Though it were lawful in itself to forbid the use of the Cup, which yet had been used in the first institution of the Sacrament, and practised afterwards; yet still it is no reason to bind men to believe that the Church had just causes and reasons for the forbidding it. Whether it had just causes for the communicating without the Cup is merely a matter of fact, and there can be no reason to ground an Article of faith upon the fact of man, or oblige men jure divino, to believe that thing was justly commanded or forbid, when yet they were bound to observe the decree only jure humano. For though the Church may have power to command where God hath not forbid, yet what she doth command in things which are alterable in their nature, she may upon occasion forbid, yet there is no reason to make it an Article of Faith, that the Church doth always change her determinations upon just reasons, or that the Church in these determinations never abuses her power. 3. The reason assigned from the danger of irreverence was as strong against the first institution, and the primitive practise, as now. If therefore notwithstanding this danger Christ thought fit to institute it in both kinds, and the Church then to practise it, there can be no reason from that pretence to prohibit the receiving in both kinds. And thus the Author of the History of the Council saith 
* ●. 6 p. 521. , that the reasons produced out of Gerson concerning irreve●ence were thought ridiculous, because those dangers might more easily be withstood in these times, than they could in those twelve first ages, when the Church was in greater poverty. So that now to deny the Cup when it was formerly granted, is to deny it where there is the least fear of this inconvenience, and to allow it where there is the most danger. Thus this Doctrine is full of uncertainty, no certainty that the Church hath power to restrain the Laity from either species. Some will have the Bread necessary and not the Cup, and some of them allow the Church a power to forbid the Bread if it give the Cup, so Bellarmine 
* ●. 4. de E●●●●r. c. 27. s. octava ratio. . But here's no certainty of such a power, and no certainty that the Church hath upon just causes forbid the Cup, and therefore we cannot be bound to believe and profess this. Further, as the grounds of this Doctrine and practise are wholly uncertain, so they are inconsistent with the prayers yet retained in their own Offices, and a●pears from some passages yet found in them to be merely a novelty. The Council of Trent acknowledges the frequent use of both kinds in the Primitive Church, yet would persuade us also that the practise in one kind was usual, and especially in the Roman Church, which thing is so far from any colour of truth, that both in the ancient and Modern Offices there appears evidence enough that in the public ordinary Masses there was always a distribution of the Cup, as well as of the Bread. I speak not of extraordinary cases where necessity gives a dispensation from positive Laws, but publicly in the Church the Sacrament was given in both kinds for many ages. Cassander assu●es us for above a thousand years. And that there was no other public usual distribution of the Sacrament than in both kinds, we need no other proof than the prayers and rubrics in their own Offices; and why should the prayers constantly imply the giving of both kinds, if usually in the public administration of the Sacrament it was only given in one kind? Why also should the rubrics and rules in their Offices either expressly require the distribution of the Cup, or at least imply a necessity of the Wine as well as the Bread, if the Bread only was given? Sometimes we find that they gave the Bread dipped in the Wine to the people, so it was practised in the Latin Churches 
* Cassand. de Sa●●. Co●s●o ●●raque p●c. , but even these,( as Cassander observes,) judged that both kinds were necessary to a full and perfect communion: for to what end should they dip the Bread into the mystical wine of the blood of the Lord, if the Bread alone and by itself sufficed to a full and lawful Communion? The Original of that custom was the fear of shedding the blood, and therefore they gave the people not the Bread and Wine severally but the Bread dipped in the Wine; but yet they did not think the Bread alone sufficient, unless they did some way or other partake of the Wine▪ I confess this custom was condemned by Pope Julius,( and the same prohibition is found also in the— 
* Con●. Brat. 3. can. 1. ) who in a letter to the Bishops of Egypt forbids this kind of dipping, and tells them that according to the Lords institution the Bread and the Wine must be received severally. 
* Microlog. c. 19.  Well, but still, whether they used this custom or used it not, yet they did judge that the wine ought to be received as well as the bread, for those who did not like that way of dipping the bread into the Wine, would have the Wine given as well as the Bread, and pled Christs institution for their warrant. And further, if it were not lawful to receive the Bread dipped in the Wine, and that this was unlawful according to the institution in the Gospel, it must needs be as unlawful in their judgement to give the Bread without Wine, for the Church might as well alter the manner of receiving, as take away the use of the Cup, and might as well appoint the receiving of the Wine in the Bread, as forbid the receiving of the Wine at all. Again, we find it was a custom in the Church of Rome, that upon Thursday before Easter, they consecrated the Wine by the Lords Prayer and the immission of the Lords body that the people might fully communicate: 
* Microlog. c. 19.  at that time then they did not think it a complete communion, unless the people did receive the Wine as well as the Bread: and in the Ordo Romanus 
* Qualiter celebr. sit offi●. Miss.  'tis said, that the archdeacon confirms all with the Lords blood whom the Pope had Communicated with the Lords body: and as the archdeacon confirms with the Cup those to whom the Pope had given the Bread, so the Deacons confirm with the Cup those to whom the Bishops and Priests had Communicated the Bread. Bellarmin 
* L. 4. de Euch. c. 24. ss. ordo.  pretends from hence an evidence of communicating in the public solemn administration of the Sacrament in one kind; for the wine with which the archdeacon confirms was not consecrated, but was called the Cup of the Blood, because it was consecrated by the touching of the Lords blood: the blood was( says he) usually consecrated in a small chalice, and then for the peoples communicating that was poured into a great Chalice full of wine and water, and out of this great chalice the people after they had received the body was wont to drink; now this was not consecrated but only by touching that part of the blood which was poured into it. But still it matters not whether this become Christs blood by consecration or contact; for it's enough for my purpose that they judged it was made Christs blood by the contact: and so it is said there, that vinum non cons●cratum said sanguine Domini commixtum sanctificatur per omnem modum, they thought it sanctified to become sacramentally the blood of Christ, and therefore they gave it to the people. This was the custom plainly in the Roman Church, when the Pope said Mass: and though some other places might out of a fancy of greater reverence leave the practise and introduce a receiving in one kind, yet it was but in some places even in Thomas Aquinas his 
* Sum. 5. part q●. 80. ar●. 12.  time. But yet the prayers in the public Offices refer only to this custom of receiving in both kinds; and it would be very strange that the prayers should alway refer to both kinds, when yet it was as usual to receive in one kind; or that those who composed the prayers should constantly mention the receiving of both kinds, when yet they received usually in one kind: he that consults the Missals will see that they did communicate as well as consecrate in both kinds, and that there is not the least syllable whereby we may gather the exclusion of the people from the Cup. In the Prayers at the Mass we find them confessing that they were repleti alimoniâ coelesti & spiritali poculo recreati, filled with Heavenly food and refreshed will spiritual drink; that they were refecti cibo potuque coelesti, refreshed both with meat and drink 
* Miss. Ron. Fest. Inv. S. Cruc F●st. S. Paul. Erem. Post Communic. , that they were corporis sacri & pretios● sanguinis repleti libamine, replenished both with his body and blood. If the general custom( when these prayers were composed) was to communicate in one kind, why should they still mention the refreshing by the Cup, by the drink, by the precious blood, of partaking of his body and blood? why should they say that they have received the Sacraments of his body and blood? 
* Miss. prope F●st. codmi●. F●st. p●oeclar. post come.  The Romanists cannot expound these places of receiving the blood in the body, by the fiction of concomitancy, for then they received only the Sacrament of his body, as the Bread is the Sacrament of his body, but here the Prayer speaks of both, that they had received the Sacraments of both body and blood; and therefore this cannot be salved by the eating barely of the Bread: But this is more plain still from an hymn which was to be sung at the Dedication of a Church, and begins, christ cunctorum; this hymn is extant among the hymns published by George Cassander, and runs thus.  
Haec Domus ritè tibi dedicata  
Noscitur, in quâ populus sacratum  
Corpus assumit, bibit & beatum  
Sanguinis haustum.  
That is; that this Church was Dedicated to God, in which the people received the consecrated body, and drunk the blessed draft of the blood. If at that time the people only received the Bread, how could they then sing that in that Church the people receives the body and drinks the blood? Or if it were only the blood in the body, how could they be said to drink the blood, when they eat the body? For no man can be said to drink when he eats, no more than a man can be said to eat when he drinks: here are the public Prayers, which show that then there was no public communicating in one kind, for why should they say, that then the people drank the blood, when it was plain they were forbid to drink? Why should they say that in the Church the people drank the blood, as well as eat the body, when yet the Romanists pretend that for many ages it was otherwise. They could not certainly use these forms, if they had not received in both kinds, nor in their Offices speak so frequently of receiving in both kinds, if the custom was frequently to receive in one kind: And if there be these forms, then it follows that the Prayers yet retained in the Romish Church do prove this practise a mere innovation.   

CHAP. IV.  
I Propound this consideration that the Protestants in most points now controverted betwixt them and the Romanists take that way, which according to the Romish Concessions is the safest. It is a common rule on which the Romanists do much insist, that where two parties do differ, 'tis the safest way to take that which they agree in: but the most of the Doctrines held by the Protestants are owned by the Papists; it follows therefore that the Protestants take the safest course. As for the proposition on which I found this consideration, I press it no further than according to the opinion of the Romanists, for thus they deal with ignorant Protestants; 'Tis the safest course, say they, in which both parties agree; but both parties agree there is possibility of salvation among Papists, whereas the Papists deny any possibility of salvation among Protestants; therefore it's the safest course to leave the Protestants and turn Papists. Now on this very principle, I argue that the Protestants take the safest way. 1. In the adoration of images, the Protestanrs say they ought to abstain from the worship of images, and they found their judgement on a plain Command, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graved image, nor the likeness of any thing in Heaven or Earth, &c. thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them; now both agree, it is not necessary to adore them, and that no man sins in not adoring them, that there is no Command of God requiring this adoration, and that to give a Religious respect to an Image which God forbids is Idolatry, though they do not give the inward respect. Or else the three Children might have been excused from Idolatry if they had fallen down and worshipped the Image which nabuchadnezzar set up, because they might still pled that they gave only an outward respect without an inward. Both agree that men may perform a true sincere respect to the thing represented( as they think) by the Image, though they do not direct their respect by the Image to the thing represented. As a man may truly love Christ, and inwardly reverence him as the Author of eternal salvation, though he do not express this inward reverence by the outward respect to that which some frame for an Image of him. Both agree that every action which we perform to the Image cannot be warranted by the pretence of the inward intention, that we do intend to honour the thing represented by it: for then a man might pray to the Image of Christ, on pretence of honouring Christ. Take then what both agree in, and it must needs be the safer way according to the Protestants to abstain from the worship of Images, than to practise it according to the Romanists, for the one says it is sin to worship them, the other cannot say 'tis sin abstaining from worshipping them; the one says, 'tis a dishonouring God to worship the Creature, whether they worship it for itself or for another, the other cannot say that 'tis a dishonouring God to abstain from worshipping the Creature and directing our worship immediately to God himself.  
2. I instance in the practise of Invocation of Saints. The Protestants say, that God alone is to be invoked through Christ, that Christ is appointed the Mediator betwixt God and man, both to make reconciliation by his death, and to intercede for us in Heaven, that he is able to save to the uttermost them that come unto God by him, for he ever liveth to perform this Office of Intercession for us, that he is hearty affencted with the miseries of his people, and therefore we may come boldly to the throne of grace and find help in time of need. So that now they think 'tis sufficient to fly to the merits and intercession of Christ, and therefore to make use of the intercession of any other either to God or Christ without a command is either a distrust of his willingness to intercede for them, or of his power to help them. Now both agree, 'tis not necessary to pray to Saints, that there is no command obliging them to pray to them, that no man sins in not making use of the intercession of Saints, yea lastly, the Romanists cannot say, that our prayers are not heard as soon and answered as effectually when we make our requests in the name of Christ to his Father, as when we desire the intercession of Saints. So then if it be the safest way to take that course which both judge farthest from sin, then 'tis safer to abstain from the invocation of Saints( for both agree there is no sin in abstaining) than to practise the invocation of Saints according to the Romanists, for then( say the Protestants) they must sin.  
3. I instance in the practise of denying the Cup to the Laity. The Protestants say that the rule for the Celebration of these Ordinances, is the institution of the Law-giver, and therefore Saint Paul to rectify the abuses crept into the Celebration of the Lords Supper in the Church of Corinth, brings them back to the primitive institution, as the unalterable rule which they ought to follow. They say that Christ administered the Sacrament to his Disciples in both kinds, that they all drank of the Cup as well as ate of the Bread, that there appears as full an obligation that the Priests should deliver the Cup to the Laity as well as the Bread, for he says Drink ye all of this as well as Eat; that they should do the one as well as the other in remembrance of him; and therefore to take away the Cup is a violation of Christs institution, an usupation of authority which Christ never gave. Now the Romanists on the other hand aclowledge, that Christ did institute in both kinds, that the primitive Church for some ages did practise accordingly 
* Conc. Const. sess. 13. Conc. tried. sess. 21. , that since the Sacrament was instituted in both kinds, it must necessary be received by some persons in both kinds, so far Bellarmin confesses 
* L. 4. de ●uch. c. 23. , though he will not have it necessary received by all; that the prohibition of the Cup is only by the Churches authority, and setting that aside, it is no sin to distribute in both kinds, and therefore they allow the Grecians and Maronites( who submit to the Pope) the use of the Cup. Thus then I argue, the practise of the Protestants is the safer way, for there can be no sin in giving the Cup according to Christs institution, and so far they both agree. Now it is the safer to take that course which both judge farther from sin: there can be no sin in adhering to that which Christ instituted, and the primitive Church practised: but both Protestants and Papists aclowledge that Christ instituted in both kinds, and the primitive Church practised in both kinds; therefore the Protestants take the safer way.  
4. I instance in the Adoration of the Sacrament: The Protestants say, that 'tis not lawful to adore the blessed Sacrament, for then they must adore mere Bread and Wine, and give the glory to the creature, which is due to the Creator, God blessed for ever. They say, that they see it is Bread, they taste it is Bread, they smell it is Bread, and unless their reason and sense be deceived it is Bread, and therefore they hold it is Idolatry to worship it. Farther, supposing the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be true, that the Bread was turned into Christs Body, yet still many say, it is still not lawful to adore the Sacrament, for though the body be present under the species of Bread, yet his presence doth not make the things wherein he is present capable of the same Divine honour with himself, or else his very clothes which he wore must needs be worshipped with Divine worship, because he was present under those clothes. 'Tis plain the Sacrament is distinct from the body that is present in the Sacrament, or else when we say, Christs body is in the Sacrament, it would signify no more than if we said, Christs body is present in itself; but now if the body be distinct from the Sacrament, and that the body is in the Sacrament, yet Christs presence in the Sacrament will not make the Sacrament itself to be adored. Many Protestants do say, that though his body be present under the species, yet 'tis Idolatry to worship it, for the primary reason which the Romanists give for the adoration in the Sacrament, is, because Christ hath said, this is my Body, and therefore the proper ground of Adoration must be the bodily presence of Christ; but if the body cannot be the proper object of Worship, because it is a creature, then upon the account of his bodily presence there can be no proper ground of Adoration, and therefore at the best it must be uncertain whether I may worship Christ as present in his human nature there. On this ground they abstain from the Adoration of the Host. On the other hand the Papists cannot say it is necessary to worship the Host; for they cannot say that God commanded the Adoration of the Host, or that the Apostles did Worship it; they cannot say that we sin in not worshipping the Host▪ for though we ought to worship Christ, though in the general it be true that every one ought to worship Christ, yet if I do not bow the knee to him in the Host, I do not sin, for there is no particular command hîc & nunc to perform this external Adoration to him: though I am bound to worship God, yet I am not bound to an external Adoration of him in every place, or in every immediate object in which God is. It does not follow, God is to be worshipped, therefore I must worship him in the Sun or Moon: So it does not ●ollow Christ is to be worshipped, therefore I must worship him in the Host. It does not follow, God is to be worshipped, therefore to be worshipped in this ston, for that would excuse the Idolatry of the wisest Heathens who worshipped( as they say) not the ston, but God in the ston: no more will it follow, Christ is to be worshipped, therefore I am bound to worship him in the Host. Again, the Romanists do not deny but that we may perform a true spiritual worship to Christ, without diminution of our real respect to him, though we direct our worship immediately to Christ in the Heavens, or though we primarily direct our worship to Christ in the Heavens, whose passion is represented to us in the holy Sacrament, and the benefits of whose death are there offered to us. They will not say that no man can give a true inward spiritual worship to Christ, unless he does give this outward worship to Christs body in the Host. They cannot say, that 'tis want of love to Christ, not to worship him there, where they know not whether he be or no; or that 'tis want of true respect to Christ to omit those outward acts of worship, when they know not whether he will accept them or no. Again, they do aclowledge, that if Christ be not there under the species, if the bread be not transubstantiated into the body, that then they must needs be Idolaters, yea guilty of such an Idolatry as had not been seen or heard of in the world; and therefore the error of the Heathens who worshipped Statues of Gold or Silver, or the Lappians that worshipped a read Cloth, or the egyptians that worshipped any living Creature, would be more tolerable, than of the Christians who worship a bit of bread. 
* Coster. E●chir Controv. c. 8. de Euch. sacr. arg. 10.  Again, that it is very possible thàt they may be guilty of Idolatry in worshipping the Host; for if the bread be not transubstantiated, then they do worship only bread, and though they believe the doctrine of transubstantiation to be true, and that by the words of Consecration spoken by a lawful Priest with a right intention this change is wrought; yet in particular they cannot be assured, that this change is wrought, and that this individual bread is turned actually into the body of Christ; for they neither know whether the Priest who Consecrates be a lawful Priest, nor whether he really intended to Consecrate that very Wafer, which they are about to adore. There is none of the Romish Communion but will say, that if it be not transubstantiate, 'tis but bread, and he that worships bread, whatever his intention is, is materially an Idolater: and further, that he can have no other ground to believe that this Wafer is Consecrate, than his hopes of the Priests honesty; but if the Priest should prove a knave and maliciously suspend his intention, then he runs the hazard of committing Idolatry, at best of worshipping he knows not what. And now then the practise of the Protestants must be the ●afer way; for if they say true, then 'tis Idolatry to worship the Host, and the Romanists cannot say that we sin against a Divine Command in not worshipping it. The Protestants say, at best they run the danger of Idolatry, and 'tis the safest course to avoid the danger of sin as much as they c●n▪ the Romanists cannot say that there is any danger of Idolatry in abstaining from giving Adoration. The Protestants say 'tis unlawful to worship the Host, and the Romanists cannot say 'tis necessary to worship it: or that there can be no spiritual worship acceptable to Christ without this external worship of him in the Host.  
5. I instance in the celebration of Divine Service in an unknown tongue. The Protestants say that 'tis fit that all people should offer God a rational service: that if men pray in a language which they do not understand, that they only offer the sacrifice of fools: that it is repugnant to the use of Vocal prayers, which are the expression of our inward desires to God for those things we want; but we cannot be said to express our desires in words, if we do not understand what we say: That Prayer if it be not understood is only the act of the Lips and not of the Heart, and must needs want that inward zeal and earnestness, those acts of faith, and hope, reliance and trusting on God, which make our Prayers properly acceptable to him: that they cannot answer Amen to those Prayers, as the Apostle requires,( i.e. e.) that they consent to those prayers, and join with the Priest in those petitions, unless they understand those prayers. Thus the Protestants condemn those Prayers in an unknown tongue, as unsuitable to the nature and use of Vocal Prayer, and derogating from the true affection and devotion required in Prayer. On the other hand the Papists cannot say it is unlawful to pray in a language, which they do understand, for themselves in their private prayers frequently use that language they do understand. They cannot say that Christ hath commanded the use of the Greek or Latin tongue more than any other in their public Service: or that words spoken in those tongues are of more efficay with God than words spoken in their mother-tongue: or that words which we do not understand conduce more to stir up devotion, than those words which we do understand. I confess some Papists have ventured very far( I'll instance for one in Costerus 
* E●cbir. c●●●r. cap. 17. p. 497. ) and tell us that there is a fruit of prayer, though they understand not what they say, that is, a conjunction of the mind with God, and that in the meditation of him they find an admirable comfort though they know not what they are saying, and that the words which they do speak, though they be not understood, do much increase that comfort, even as the holiness of the place, though they think not of it, does excite and stir up devotion: and he tells us, that if the words of the Charmers have some efficacy on Serpents, though they want understanding, much more do the sacred words of God, though they be not understood, affect and move men. But this is to turn prayers into charms, and ascribe efficacy to the bare sound of words. But many others will not deny, that the people are as much or more edified by the prayers in a known tongue, than an unknown. Estius 
* In 1 Cor. 14. 17.  says, that take it by itself, it is good that divine Offices be celebrated in a tongue which the people understands, for that conduces to edification, and that the text of the Apostle proves it. Cajetane goes higher, and says it is better for their edification: and if it were not, why have some Councils commanded that such as cannot learn distinctly the Lords Prayer and Creed in latin, should be taught them in the vulgar tongue? And yet the Rhemists say this 
Rhemist. test. in 1 Cor. 14.  has been done. And now then the practise of the Protestants must be the safer way, for both agree that prayer in a tongue which they do understand, serves much for edification, and conduces to quicken devotion, and inflame their zeal in Prayer: Both agree that 'tis fit, that people should endeavour to understand the contents of their Prayers; both agree that there is no sin in praying in a language which they do understand. If it be the safest to take that course in which they agree, and leave that in which they differ, then 'tis safer to follow the Protestants in this point than the Papists.  
I might instance in the sacrifice of the Mass. Both parties agree that in the Lords Supper there is a Sacrifice; we only differ what kind of Sacrifice: the Protestants own a Sacrifice of praise, a Sacrifice of Alms, and a Sacrifice of ourselves. And the English Church in her public liturgy after the distribution of the Cup, uses these words, We offer unto thee ourselves, our souls and bodies to be a reasonable, holy and lively Sacrifice unto thee. Besides these Sacrifices the Protestants aclowledge a commemorative Sacrifice, that there is a representation of the Sacrifice on the across, that there is a memorial of his passion, and thus far the Romanists agree. But then they go further, and they oblige us to believe that there is a true real external Sacrifice, a Sacrifice propitiatory for the living and the dead, &c. Now if this principle be true, then 'tis safer to aclowledge a figurative Sacrifice which both own, than a real proper Sacrifice which the Protestants disown.  
I might add, both parties agree that the Scriptures are a rule, and as perfect a rule( saith Knot) as a writing can be:( but if whatever the Apostles Preached▪ they might writ, and whatever traditions the Church hath received it might set down in writing, then a writing may be a perfect rule.) The Protestants deny Doctrinal traditions to be a rule, therefore 'tis safest to follow them. Again, both parties agree that the books of Scripture which the Protestants own to be caconical are caconical, but the Protestants reject the Apocryphal; therefore still it must be safer to follow the Protestants. There is one thing I will particularly insist on; Both parties agree that in the English Liturgy there is no positive error; there are( say some of them) some things wanting which they would have, but there is nothing which they can say is sinful; most of the prayers are taken out of the ancient Liturgies, many of them to be found in their own Missal, as S. C. confesses; and 'tis known the English Reformers did only design to reform, not totally to abolish, to purge out the corruptions, and reform that which they saw unfit in the Offices, and not to abolish what was good and useful. What therefore remains and is used in our Liturgy, cannot be censured for erroneous and sinful. And thus far both agree that the matter of the prayers is good, that the form of the prayers to God through the mediation of Jesus Christ is very good, that there is no rite required in our Offices which is superstitious or unlawful: so that the Romanists cannot say that there is any reason from the prayers and Offices used in our Church why they might not join in them. If the prayers were good in Latin and might be lawfully used when they were not understood, there can be no reason why they should be bad when they were translated into English. The omission of some rites used in the Offices is no substantial alteration, the omission of some Responds, Anthems, Invitatories, &c. which our Reformers judged superfluous or inconvenient, doth not make the rest of the prayers and Offices unlawful; the difference in the method and order of prayers doth not make the service to be sin, for there were diversities in saying and singing within this Realm; some followed the use of Sarum, some of Hereford, some of Bangor, &c. yet all approved; though in the Litany the ora pro nobis to the several ranks and orders of Saints be omitted, yet the supplication to the three persons severally or jointly is good still: though some petitions be left out, the rest which remain, if they might be used before, they may be used still. So that this is granted by the Romanists who have weighed the prayers and service of our Church, that there is no positive error in our Prayers, that there is nothing in the Liturgy of our Church which can be condemned for error or impiety, or give just ground to the Romanists for a refusal to join in the use of it. And therefore during the time of Edward the sixth we hear of no Recusants that refused to be present at the Service; and when Queen Elizabeth came to the Crown( if our English Historians, who generally relate this story, do not bely him) pus the fourth offered to confirm the Liturgy, provided that She would own his Supremacy. I confess the Romanists exclaim heavily against the Sacrament in our Churches, Suarez 
* Def. fid. Cath. l. 6. c. 9. n. 29.  for instance calls it a sacrilegious Supper, and a feigned Eucharist, and saith that those who participate of it do evidently cooperate with an Infidel Superstition, and take that for the Sacrament of Christ whichis nothing. But upon a serious consideration of these things I cannot see what benefit can be had by the Sacrament in the Romish Church, which is not to be had from the Sacrament in ours. Suppose we do not own the corporal presence of Christ under the Species, yet I cannot see any real benefit which the receiver can have from the Sacrament administered among them, and cannot be had from the Sacrament administered among us: for whether it be bread in its own nature, or the body under the bread, yet the bare external eating doth no way confer or increase grace in the receiver. If a wicked as well as godly man may eat Christs body, yea if a Mouse as well as a Man may eat it, then there is no spiritual blessing to the bare eating of the body. Let a man be wicked who eats of the Sacrament, and tell me then whether the eating of Christs flesh would profit any thing; or whether he that eats the flesh and drinks the blood of Christ, whether in its own shape, or under the species of bread and wine, shall live for ever? So that now as to an unworthy Receiver here is nothing to be had, whether the bread be transubstantiate or no. Suppose again, a man be truly godly, what doth the eating of Christs body in their opinion more benefit him, than the Sacrament can do according to ours? Wherein is a man more benefited by eating Christs body under the species, than if he eat that which is bread in its nature, but according to Christs institution represents his body? To talk of Christs body in their sense quickening and forerunning us, is strange, for men may eat the body, and yet continue dead in their sins. To say that by eating of the body in the Sacrament that we abide in Christ, and Christ in us, is very strange too; for neither doth Christs body become part of our bodies, nor can we by receiving his body with our mouths be said to abide in him, unless by eating of Christs body we conceive a conversion of our bodies into his body. To call the body of Christ as it is under the species, a spiritual nourishment of the soul, is as strange a fancy, for I never could see how the food of the body properly nourisheth the soul: if it does nourish the soul it must be done in a moral, not natural way; now I see not why the Sacrament in our way cannot as truly nourish the soul, as they conceive the eating of the body doth in their way. The nourishing of the soul is to be considered not so much from the things we outwardly receive into our mouths, for properly these things can never nourish the soul, as from the sacramental institution. And so the Manna by Gods institution became spiritual food, and the water out of the Rock spiritual drink 
* 1 Cor. 10. 3, 4. ; and though the things in themselves were but bread and water, yet in a spiritual sense they ate and drank Christ: and so here, the bread which we break is the Communion of the body of Christ. And we do as really partake of the benefits of his passion, as we do feed on these outward elements, and we spiritually are nourished, our graces increased, and our hearts refreshed. Thus whatever the Romanists pretend, there's no more benefit to be had by the Sacrament administered in the Romish Church than in ours; our Ministry conveys as great things as they speak of, only according to our Doctrine men must do something more of the work themselves: as one very well adds, We pretend not to sand wicked men to Heaven with a word, but we can help the thoughts and affections of pious souls as much as they with all their skill and power. The Rhemists much censure the celebration of the Eucharist among us, and call it Calvins Supper, 
* Rhem. Annot. on Jo. 4. 4. sect. 4  a Table and Cup of Devils, wherein the Devil is properly served, and Christs honour defiled; 
* Annot. on 1 Cor. 10. 21.  yet really upon a serious perusal of the whole Communion Service, they cannot say that there is any positive error: though the Church of England hath omitted sundry Ceremonies which are now used in the Mass, yet the omission of a Ceremony doth not make the service sinful: though it appoint the bread to be such as is usual to be eaten at the Table, when the Romish Church uses Wafers, yet they cannot say it is unlawful, for our Saviour at the first institution used such bread, and it is no more unlawful here, than among the reconciled Grecians, where the holy bread is made after the manner 
gore. in 〈◇〉. in miss. Chrys. n. 29, 30.  of a Cake, and is cut in pieces by the Priest with a sacred Knife: though it appoint the bread to be broken before the words of consecration are finished, that is, at the mentioning in the rehearsal of the institution those words, he broke, when the Romish Church appoints it afterwards, that the Priest shall break the Host into three parts, and put one of them into the Chalice; yet still it is not unlawful, and more agreeable to our Saviours practise in the first institution, who first blessed and broke before he used those words, this is my body. Though it appoint the bread to be given into the hands of them that do Communicate, whenas the Romish Church requires it to be put into the mouth, yet still the order of the English Church is not unlawful. Though the words of consecration be spoken that all may hear and be instructed, when the Romish Church requires them to be spoken secretly; yet still the order is not unlawful, and certainly more agreeable to the Primitive practise and the Liturgies of the Eastern Churches 
* Litur. Basi●ii & Chrysost; . Though our liturgy requires the consecrated bread to be eaten in the Church, whereas the Romish Church reserves it to be adored, or carried to the sick, &c. yet still the order is not unlawful, for none can say that reservation is always necessary, or that it is an unlawful celebration of the Eucharist because it is omitted. So for mingling water with wine, the Church of Rome practices it, the English omit it; for there being no command for it, nor sufficient evidence that it was universally practised in the Apostles times, the Communion Service is not by the omission of it made unlawful. The Romanists themselves confess, that though water be not mingled with the wine, yet it doth not cease to be a Sacrament 
* Catech. Roman. cap. 4. sect. 16. . Thus though many Ceremonies used by the Romanists be omitted or altered in our liturgy, yet still there is no su●erstition, nor positive error. Again, though there be some alteration in the Prayers, yet there is nothing in the prayers we use, which they do or can except against as erroneous and heretical. They cannot blame the General confession, in which we aclowledge our former transgressions; profess our hearty sorrow for them, desire him to forgive the sins that are past, and beg grace for the future that they may serve and please him in newness of life to the honour and glory of his name. They cannot blame the Absolution which is much the same with that in the Ordo Missae, misereatur vestri oimpotens Deus, &c. that Almighty God would have mercy on them, deliver them from their sins, and bring them to his everlasting Kingdom. They cannot censure the short sentences which follow the Absolution, which are designed for the encouragement, and comfort of poor sinners, who are hearty grieved for their sins. That ancient exhortation, Lift up your hearts, with the versicles following are used by the Romanists; the proper prefaces are on some daies the same which were used in the Romish Church, and those which are used on other daies are more full and express in declaring the blessing which God at that time bestowed on his Church, but no way to be taxed with any error. They cannot blame that prayer in which we disclaim all confidence on our own righteousness, and cast ourselves on Gods mercy, beseeching him that we may so eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, that our bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, &c. for the Romanists do pray that God would give them who trust in the multitude of his mercies a part and fellowship with the Saints, and admit them into their society not weighing their merits but bestowing pardon on them. 
* Can. miss, Oratio, nobis quoque.   
They cannot blame the prayer of Consecration: For the Preface in which we aclowledge the sufficiency of that one oblation on the across for the satisfaction of the sins of the world, and that Christ did command us to keep a continual remembrance of his passion till his coming again, which is one principal end of the institution of the Sacrament: These things they do not blame. For the petition, that receiving these Creatures of Bread and Wine according to Christs holy Institution, we may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood; neither can they fault this, for it is suitable to that very prayer in their Mass, when the Priest preys that the offering may be to them the body and blood of thy most beloved Son Jesus Christs; 
* Can. Missae, Oratio quam oblationem.  and to that in the Mass of St. Basil, where the Priest after he had repeated the words of consecration, says, We thy unworthy servants who are admitted to serve at thy Altar, not for our righteousnesses,( for we have done no good upon the earth) but for thy mercies, and compassions which thou hast  shed abundantly on us, do approach unto it; and placing before us the representations of the holy 
〈◇〉  body and blood of thy Christ, we pray thee, we beseech thee, O holy of holies, for the good pleasure of thy goodness, that thy holy Spirit may come down on us and on these gifts set before us, and bless them, and sanctify them. And afterwards he prays again, Make this Bread the precious body of the Lord and God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, and make this Cup the precious blood, &c. The narration of the Institution( which is the Priests warrant for the use of this rite) they cannot censure, for it is expressly taken out of St. Luke, and if there be any words added to the words of consecration in the Romish Church, which are omitted by us, they themselves cannot affirm that they are essentially necessary in the consecration of the Sacrament. The words which the Priest uses in the delivery of the elements are faultless: the first part, that is the prayer, is much the same with the form in the Romish Church; the latter part is an exhortation to receive these things in remembrance of Christs death and passion. The prayer after the receiving of the holy Sacrament is without the least sign of error: the hymn which follows is the gloria in excelsis mentioned in the Ordo Missae. Thus take the whole service, there is no prayer used which is taxed by the Romanists of error or superstition, nothing prescribed which is simply unlawful. On the other hand we say there is error and superstition in the Mass, in the adoration of the Host, in the invoking Gods protection by the Merits and Prayers of Saints, in the offering up the Host in the honour of the Saints, 
* Can. Miss. Orat. communicants. Ordo Miss. Orat. suscip●.  &c. Now then according to the principle laid down by the Romanists 'tis safest to hold that in which both dissenting parties agree in; but both parties agree there is nor error or superstition in the English Communion service, whereas the Protestants say there is error in the Romish Mass; therefore it is safer to follow the English Protestants.   

CHAP. V.  
I Will add one consideration more, That the greatest part of the Doctrine and practices in which we differ, do plainly tend to the advancement of the Clergy. And he that will seriously consider the design and tendency of those Doctrines may easily guess, that they spring not from piety but covetousness, ambition, and love of worldly greatness, and are crafty contrivances by degrees to subject the Laity to the power of the Romish Priests. 'Tis true the followers of a party may esteem those Doctrines for Divine inspirations, which have been the plausible insinuations of their Ringleaders for their own advantage. Many do like the Israelites, follow Absolom in simplicity of their heart, and being well meaning men are soon apt to believe those opinions which pretend to be ancient truths; but the frame and make of their Doctrines in which we differ, strongly insinuates that they are only contrivances to increase the power, wealth and authority of their Clergy. Though many are taken with the specious pretences of Unity and Antiquity, and when they are once cozened into the belief of any religion they are loth to leave it, and as it falls out often with new proselytes they are the strongest Zealots: but let them seriously consider and they will find that 'tis the interest of the Romish Clergy to maintain those Doctrines in which they differ from us, that all this is worldly policy to advance themselves, and unless they are resolved to be cheated, they will much suspect that Religion which chiefly seems to design the greatness and wealth and absolute authority in the Priests, and principally prescribes such Doctrines for truths which tend to that end. Now 1. The Doctrine of Infallibility is plainly suited to the advancement of the Clergy, nothing tends more to gain authority and power to their Clergy, than the infallibility of their Church,( though themselves are not yet fully agreed about the proper subject of infallibllity.) This makes the people entirely depend on their words, and subject their faith to their determinations; this wholly silemces all doubts of any mistakes in their Teachers; and what ever we see or hear, what ever our senses do judge, or our reasons do conclude of any thing, yet still we must believe that we, but not they are mistaken, for they do not, nor cannot err: and be they never so ignorant and weak, so malicious and sinful, yet still what their Church shall determine to be truth, must be believed as the Oracles of God. Now nothing can more secure them in their power and Authority, in their repute and credit, than this pretence that they cannot err; for by this means they 1. Make all designs and endeavours for Reformation( further than they themselves please) wholly needless. If they reform, then they confess they have erred, but because they pretend that they cannot err, therefore they deny that there is any necessity of Reformation, and so stop all demands and desires for it. Thus then if ignorance or superstition should never so much increase, if any abuses should have crept into the Church, if any Tares should secretly have grown up among the Wheat, yet it would be in vain to desire any reformation, for they have secured themselves by this Doctrine that the Church cannot err, and therefore what ●ve● any persons can pled, still there is no need of Reformation. 2. They destroy all liberty of enquiring after truth, all use of means to find out what is truth; for there can be no means to find out what is truth, unless there be a liberty of examining the arguments on either side, & a readiness to yield to those arguments which are most satisfactory and convincing. But now by supposing that their Church cannot err, they make it unreasonable to inquire further, than what she hath said, and absurd to doubt of any thing she hath once delivered: and if they are once out of the way, 'tis impossible while they stick to this tenant ever to bring them into the way. 3. Granting that in some Case the Church may err, for themselves confess they are only infallible in matters of faith, and that she hath gone beyond its due bounds, and determined in such things in which themselves aclowledge she hath no security from error, yet still on this pretence that she cannot err in matters of faith, they destroy much of the liberty of examining the Churches determinations, and make the people in those cases wholly dependent on the Clergies pleasure: for the question being put whether their Church hath determined in a matter of faith or fact rightfully or wrongfully, whether it hath erred in this particular case or no, and the Church determining it hath not erred, they are wholly bound up by the Churches determination: And though they see that their Church hath erred in determining things beyond its power, yet they are bound to believe she hath not erred, because she hath so determined, that she hath not erred: If therefore she says it's a matter of faith which really is a matter of fact, they are bound to deny their own judgements, and acquiesce in the Churches infallibility. Thus this Doctrine is plainly suited to the advancement of the Pope and his Clergy.  
2. The Doctrine of Traditions is plainly tending to that end; They tell us that we must receive the Scriptures and Traditions with an equal respect. Supposing this true that it was the same word whether written or not written, and that the circumstance of its being written or not written does not make any essential alteration, and that if we did know any Doctrine delivered by God, that we ought to receive it as infallibly true, though it had never been written; yet this being uncertain to us, whether God hath delivered any such thing, which never hath been written, we content our selves with the holy Scriptures, and will not be wise above what is written. But now they tell us, that Traditions must be received with equal respect, and that the way to know which are these Traditions, is not to consult the writings of the primitive times, but the practise of the Church, and because there are many things now practised, which do not appear to have been practised in every Age from the Apostles downward, therefore they tell us that the way to try which are true traditions is by the judgement of the present Church. Thus the doctrine plainly makes for the honour and advancement of the Clergy, for none can tell how many are Apostolical Traditions but by their determination, and what they do say are Apostolical, must be believed to be so, because they call them so.  
3. The forbidding the reading of the Scriptures by the Laity speaks the same end. They pretend that the Scriptures are so obscure, that few can understand the true meaning of the Holy Ghost in the Doctrines and Rules there delivered; that unlearned men wrest them to their own destruction, and that the common reading of them by the Laity is fit for nothing but to beget heresies and divisions in the Church; and therefore the Council of Trent forbids any to red them, unless they be licenced by the Bishop. Now why do they thus forbid the Reading of the Scriptures, unless to persons licenced? Because they think that the best way to preserve the authority of the Priest is by ignorance of the people; that the people are best lead when they are kept blindfold; that they ought to content themselves with the instruction of their Pastors, and that to give the people leave to red and search the meaning of the Scriptures, is to make the Preachers Office needless; that it is enough for them to believe as the Church believes: but if men should red the Scriptures, they might control their Teachers; but now by debarring the Laity from enquiring and searching the Scriptures, they make them wholly dependent on the Priests, and force them to pin their faith on their sleeves.  
4. The same is plain from their keeping the whole Service in an unknown tongue; for by this means they necessitate the common people to live in ignorance, and not to understand what they pray; they necessitate them to patter over certain hard words, and content themselves with seeing the antic gestures or postures of the Priest, or hearing a sound of words, which they can only hope mean well, but they know not whether they be blessings or cursings. But now to satisfy the minds of men, they persuade them that it matters not whether they understand what they say or no; that they are not bound to attend to the words they speak, 
* Suarez. de oratione. l. 3. c. 4.  or know the meaning of them; that it is enough that they can tell this holy orison to be appointed for us to call upon God in all our desires: more than this is not necessary, say the Rhemists; 
* Annot. in 1 Cor. 14.  and that the principal efficacy of Common Prayer consisteth specially of the very virtue of the work( and what is that but the bare repeating of the words themselves?) and of the public office of the Priest, as the Rhemists further instruct us in their notes on that Chapter. He that considers the great precept of their Church, that is, hearing of Mass, and how much Religion they place in that duty, would think, surely they are bound to mind what is said, and understand what he is speaking; but even this is not necessary in their judgements and practise; for a man may red on his book, and yet satisfy this precept of hearing Mass; a man may be saying his Beads in a corner, and know not one word that the Priest said, and yet still satisfy this precept; a man that stands so far off from the Priest, that he cannot hear and understand the words, yet if by rising up, kneeling or otherwise, he does either actually or virtually wish that the Priest who speaks for all may be heard of God, this suffices; 
* 〈◇〉 man. Confiss. c. 21. n. 8.  and says he, no man is bound by the precept of hearing Mass to hear the words, much less to understand them. Further, a man may talk and chat and yet attend enough, for this is sufficient says Filliucius, 
* case. Consc. ton. 1. tr. 5. 6. 7. n. 216.  si confabulatio fit discontinua, he may jest and droll, talk de re levi and yet hear mass; this is their common doctrine. But now by taking away the necessity of attention, and understanding what they say, by restraining the Service to a tongue they understand not, and pretending that the efficacy of Common Prayer depends on the public Office of the Priest, they still strive to magnify the clergy and make the people depend wholly on them.  
5. The same is evident also from the doctrine of Confession: They tell us, that it is not enough that men confess their sins to God, or that they be really and hearty sorry for them, or that they effectually forsake them, but they must confess their sins to the Priest, either actually if they can have a Priest, or at least in desire; that they must confess every mortal sin with the circumstances of it, specially those which change the kind of the sin, and without the Priests absolution no pardon from God; if the Priest does not absolve them, then they are not absolved in Heaven, and what's all this but to oblige the people to a greater reverence of the Priest, and dependence on his authority?  
In the practise of forbidding the Laity the Cup, one reason still is for fear of equalling the people to the Priest; the doctrine of Transubstantiation still has an aspect this way, to procure reverence to the Priest. This is a privilege beyond 
Dialogue 1. s. 5.  mans invention, says Rushworth; and such as if all the great wits who ever lived since the beginning of the world, should have studied to raise, and magnify some one state of men, to the highest pitch of reverence and eminency that could be imagined, they could never have( without special light from Heaven) thought of any thing comparable to this. And he tells us in the same Chapter, that Christ not unmindful of his Ministers, lest to them not only the Churches pomps and solemnities, but specially the Sacraments to advance their credit and authority. The doctrine of the propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and dead still looks at the Priests power and profit. If the Sacrifice be available for the dead, then it extends the Priests power to the other world; if it be a Sacrifice which may be applied according to the Priests intention, and every one receives benefit from the Mass said for them, according as the Priest strongly applies it to them, then still it makes more for the Priest and the better he is paid, 〈◇〉 will help those for whom he is paid with a stronger thought and more intense application. Their doctrine of intention in the Sacraments still increases the Priests power, and the peoples dependence on them; by this means they make the efficacy of the Sacrament wholly depend on the Priests pleasure. If the Priest pleases he may turn all the Bread in a Bakers Shop into Christs body( that is) if he will say over it hoc est corpus meum, and intend to Consecrate it; or if he pleases he may make the Host, though he does say over it hoc est corpus meum, still to be no more than bread, because he does not intend to Consecrate, and he may make the people worship they know not what. The doctrine of private Masses plainly has the same design, for they tell us 'tis a Sacrifice as well as a Sacrament; and though as to the Sacrament they require that some should communicate, yet as to the Sacrifice there is no necessity, for the Priest may say a Mass for such a person or for such a purpose, though none Communicate; but still then this is for the Priests profit, for they persuade the people that the eternal punishment due for sin is changed into a temporal by the power of the Keys in the Sacrament of penance; that this temporal punishment must be endured either here or in Purgatory; that they can take off this temporal punishment by applying to them the merit of Christ in the Sacrifice of the Mass; and therefore the more Masses are said for them, the likelier way either never to come into Purgatory, or get quick riddance thence: but still the Priest gains by this. And if I should run through other doctrines of that Church in which we differ, I could still show the same tendency. And now it is much to be feared, where power and greatness, riches and secular advantages are so plainly designed by the frame and nature of those Doctrines they profess, lest they only be the fruit of ambition and covetousness.  
If any will obtrude on us a Religion, 'tis reasonable that we should first consider what advantages they propound to themselves, and if the doctrines they require us to believe tend mainly to advance their own profit or greatness, we have reason to suspect, they come not from God. No wonder if men cry up a Religion which makes for their own end; and are zealous for those doctrines which serve to raise themselves. And this is the case here; many doctrines of the Romish Church, are plainly squint-eyed: and though they pretend to be the truths of Christ, yet have a strange aspect on the Priests advantage. It has been the great policy of the Romanists to interweave their own profit and secular advantages with their Religion; so that by obliging the Consciences of their followers to own those doctrines as articles of faith, they oblige them to promote the secular greatness and power of the Clergy. Now this I look on, if not as a necessary Argument, yet as a probable motive to dissuade men from returning to the Communion of the Romish Church. For ingenuous persons will hardly like those who speak for their own ends, or turn to that side where a main business of their Religion is to advance the Priests power and the Popes greatness.   
FINIS.