The Second Part OF THE DISSUASIVE FROM POPERY: In Vindication of THE FIRST PART And further REPROOF and CONVICTION OF THE ROMAN ERRORS.  
By Jer. Taylor Chaplain in Ordinary to King CHARLES the First, and late Lord Bishop of Downe and Conner.  
Curavimus Babylonem & non est Sanata.  
LONDON, Printed for R. Royston, Bookseller to the Kings most Excellent Majesty, at the Angel in S. Bartholomew's Hospital, MDCLXVII.   


DIEV ET MON DROIT  
SOIT · QVI · MAL · Y · PE●●●●    

A Table of the SECTIONS.  

The Introduction in Answer to J. S.   

The first Book contains Eleven Sections.  

SECTION I.  
OF the Church: showing, That the Church of Rome relies upon no certain foundation for their faith. Page 1  
Sect. II. Of the sufficiency of Scriptures to Salvation 63  
Sect. III. Of Traditions 102  
Sect. IU. That there is nothing of necessity to be believed which the Apostolical Churches did not believe 144  
Sect. V. That the Church of Rome pretends to a power of introducing into the Confessions of the Church new Articles of Faith, and endeavours to alter and suppress the old Catholic Doctrine 171  
Sect. VI Of the Expurgatory Indices in the Roman Church 192  
Sect. VII. The uncharitableness of the Church of Rome in her judging of others 205  
Sect. VIII. The insecurity of the Roman Religion 222  
Sect. IX. That the Church of Rome does teach for Doctrines the Commandments of Men 236  
Sect. X. Of the Seal of Confession 239  
Sect. XI. Of the imposing Anricular Confession upon Consciences without authority from God 249    

The Second Book contains Seven Sections.  

SECTION I.  
OF Indulgences Page 1  
Sect. II. Of Purgatory 13  
Sect. III. Of Transubstantiation 56  
Sect. IV. Of the half Communion 86  
Sect. V. Of Service in an unknown Tongue 98  
Sect. VI Of the worshipping of Images 106  
Sect. VII. Of Picturing God the Father, and the Holy Trinity 145     

IMPRIMATUR  
THO. TOMKINS R. R more. in Christo Patri ac Domino Dno. GILBERTO Divinâ Providentià Archi-Episcopo Cantuariensi à Sacris Domesticis. Junii 29o 0 1667. Ex Aedibus Lambethanis.   

THE INTRODUCTION BEING An Answer to the fourth Appendix to J. S. his Sure Footing; intended against the General way of procedure in the Dissuasive from Popery.  
WHen our Blessed Saviour was casting out the evil spirit from the poor Daemoniac in the Gospel, he asked his name; and he answered, My name is legion, for we are many. Legion is a Roman word, and signifies an Army, as Roman signifies Catholic; that is, a great body of men which though in true speaking they are but a part of an Imperial Army, yet when they march alone, they can do mischief enough, and call themselves an Army Royal. A Squadron of this legion hath attempted to break a little Fort or Outwork of mine, they came in the dark, their names concealed, their qualities unknown, whether Clergy or Laity not to me discovered, only there is one pert man amongst them, one that is discovered by his sure footing. The others I know not, but this man is a man famous in the new science of controversy (as he is pleased to call it) I mean in the most beauteous and amiable part of it, railing and calumny; The man I mean is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Confident, the man of principles, and the son of demonstration; 
Dr. H. H.  and though he had so reviled a great Champion in the Armies of the living God, that it was reasonable to think he had cast forth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all the fiery darts of the wicked one; yet I find that an evil fountain is not soon drawn dry, and he hath indignation enough and reviling left for others, amongst whom I have the honour not to be the least sufferer and sharer in the persecution. He thought not fit to take any further notice of me but in an Appendix; 
The fourth appendix to sure footing.  the Viper is but little, but it is a Viper still, though it hath more tongue than teeth. I am the more willing to quit myself of it, by way of introduction, because he intends it as an Organum Catholicum against the General way of the procedure which I have used in the Dissuasive; and therefore I suppose the removing this, might 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make my way smother in the following discourses.  
I will take no other notice of his evil language, his scorn and reproach, his undervaluing and slighting the person and book of the Dissuader, (as he is pleased sometimes to call me) but I shall answer to these things as S. Bernard did to the temptation of the Devil endeavouring to hinder his preaching by tempting to vanity; I neither began for you, nor for you will I make an end: but I shall look on those Rhetorical flowers of his own but as a fermentum, his spirit was troubled, and he breathed forth the froth as of an enraged Sea; and when he hath done, it may be he will be quiet, if not, let him know God will observe that which is to come, and require that which is past.  
But I will search and see what I can find of matter that is to be considered, and give such accounts of them as is necessary, and may be useful for the defence of my Book, and the justification of myself against all ruder charges. And after I have done so, I shall proceed to other things which I shall esteem more useful.  
The first thing I shall take notice of, is his scornful and slight speaking of Scripture, affirming that he is soon beaten at this weapon, that it is Sampsons' hair; it is the weakest part in the man: And yet if it be the weakest, it is that which S. Paul calls the weakness and foolishness of preaching, more strong and more wise than all the wisdom of man: When the Devil tempted our Blessed Saviour, he used Scripture; but Christ did not reprove his way of arguing, but in the same way discovered his fraud. Scriptum est said the Tempter; yea, but scriptum est said Christ, to other purposes than you intent; and so would I. S. have proceeded if he had been at all in love with the way. But he thinks he hath a better; and the wonder is the less that the Gentleman does not love the Scriptures, or at least gives too much suspicion that he does not; for he hath not yet proved himself by his writings to be so good a Christian as to love his enemies, or his reprovers: But however he is pleased to put a scorn on Scripture expressions, it were much better if he and his Church too would use them more, and express their articles they contend for, and impose them on the Christian world in the words and expressions of Scripture, which we are sure express the mind of God with more truth and simplicity, than is done by their words of art and expressions of the Schools. If this had been observed, Christendom at this day had had fewer controversies, and more truth, and more charity, we should not have been puzzled to unriddle the words of transubstantiation, and hyperdulia, and infallibility, and doctrines ex Cathedra, and fere de fide, and next to heresy, and temerarious, and ordo ad spiritualia, and S. Peter's chair, and supremacy in spirituals, and implicit faith, and very many more profane or unhallowed novelties of speech, which have made Christianity quite another thing than it is in itself, or then it was represented by the Apostles and Apostolic men at first, as the plain way of salvation to all succeeding ages of the Church for ever.  
But be it as it will; for he will neither approve of Scripture language, nor is he pleased that I use any handsome expressions, for that is charged upon me as part of my fault; only to countenance all this, he is pleased to say that all these are but division upon no grounds; and therefore to grounds and first principles I must be brought, and by this way he is sure to blow up my errors from the foundation; that's his expression, being a Metaphor I suppose taken from the Gunpowder treason, in which indeed going upon Popish grounds they intended to blow up [something or other that was very considerable] from its very foundations.  
To perform this effect I. S. hath eight several mines, all which I hope to discover without Guido Faux his Lantern.  

The First Way.  
HIS first Way is, That I have not one first or self evident principle to begin with, on which I build the Dissuasive; but he hath, that is, he says he hath; for he hath reproved that oral tradition, on which he and his Church relies, is such a principle; He thought (it may be) he had reason then to say so; but the Scene is altered, and until he hath sufficiently confuted his adversaries who have proved his self evident principle to be an evident and pitiful piece of Sophistry, his boasting is very vain. However, though he hath failed in his undertaking, yet I must acquit myself as well as I can. I shall therefore tell him that the truth, fullness, and sufficiency of Scripture in all matters of faith and manners, is the principle that I and all Protestants rely upon. And although this be not a first and self-evident principle, yet it is resolved into these that are. 1. Whatsoever God hath said is true. 2. Whatsoever God hath done is good. 3. Whatsoever God intends to bring to pass, he hath appointed means sufficient to that end. Now since God hath appointed the Scriptures to instruct us, and make us wise unto salvation, and to make the man of God perfect, certain it is, that this means must needs be sufficient to effect that end. Now that God did do this, to this end, to them that believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God, is as evident as any first principle. And let these Scriptures be weighed together, and see what they do amount to. 
John. 5. 39  Search the Scriptures for therein ye think to have eternal life. The Jews thought so, that is, they confessed and acknowledged it to be so; and if they had been deceived in their thought, besides that it is very probable Christ would have reproved it, so it is very certain he would not have bidden them to have used that means to that end. And if Christ himself and the Apostles did convince the Jews out of the Scriptures of the old Testament, proving that Jesus was the Christ: if Christ himself and the Apostles proved the resurrection, and the passion, and the supreme Kingdom of Christ out of the Scriptures, if the Apostle proved him to be the Messiah, and that be aught to suffer and to rise again the third day by no other precedent topic, and that upon these things Christian religion relied as upon its entire foundation, and on the other side the Jewish Doctors had brought in many things by tradition, to which our Blessed Saviour gave no countenance, but reproved many of them, and made it plain that tradition was not the first and self evident principle to rely upon in religion, but a way by which they had corrupted the Commandment of God: It will follow from hence, that the Scriptures are the way that Christ and his Apostles walked in, and that oral tradition was not. But then to this add what more concerns the N. T. when S. Luke wrote his Gospel, in the preface he tells us, That many had taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things, which are most surely believed amongst us [Christians,] and that he having perfect understanding of all things (viz. which Christ did and taught) from the very first did write [this Gospel] that Theophilus might know the certainty of those things in which he had been instructed: Now here (if we believe S. Luke) was no want of any thing; he was fully instructed in all things; and he chose to write that book, that by that book Theophilus might know the truth, yea, the certainty of all things. Now if we be Christians and believe. S. Luke to be divinely inspired, this is not indeed a first but an evident principle; that a book of Scripture can make a man certain and instructed in the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ. To the same purpose is that of S. John These things are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, 
John. 20. 31.  and that believing ye might have life through his name. The end is salvation by Jesus Christ; the means of effecting this, was this writing the Gospel by S. John; and therefore it is a sure principle for Christians to rely upon, the word of God written by men divinely inspired, such as Christians believe and confess S. Luke and S. John to be. Hear S. Luke again, 
Acts 1.  The former treatise have I made O Theophilus of all that Jesus began both to do and teach until the day he was taken up. No man then can deny but all Christ's doctrine and life was fully set down by these Evangelists and Apostles; whether it were to any purpose or no, let I. S. consider, and I shall consider with him in the sequel. But first let us hear what S. Paul saith in an Epistle written as it is probable not long before his death; but certainly after three of the Gospels, and divers of the Epistles were written, and consequently related to the Scriptures of the old and new Testament. [Continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, 
2 Tim. 5. 14.  knowing of whom thou hast learned them: And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.] Now I demand; Does I. S. believe these words to be true? Are the Scriptures able to make us wise unto salvation? Are they profitable to all intents and purposes of the spirit, that is, to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct? Is the end of all this Oeconomy, to make a Christian man, yea a Christian Bishop perfect? Can he by this dispensation be throughly furnished unto all good works, and that by faith in Jesus Christ? If so, than this is the true principle, the Apostolical way, the way of God, the way of salvation: And if Scriptures, [the books written by the finger of God, and the pen of Apostles] can do all this, than they are something more than Ink varied into divers figures, unsensed characters, and I know not what other reviling Epithets I. S. is pleased to cast upon them.  
Yea, but all this is nothing, unless we know that Scriptures are the word of God, that they were written by the Apostles; and of this, the Scriptures cannot be a witness in their own behalf: And therefore oral tradition must supply that, and consequently is the only first and self-evident principle. To this I answer; that it matters not by what means it be conveyed to us that the Scriptures are the Word of God. Oral tradition is an excellent means; but it is not that alone by which it is conveyed. For if by oral tradition he means the testimony of the Catholic Church; it is the best external ministry of conveyance of this, being a matter of fact, and of so great concernment. To which the testimony of our adversaries Jews and Heathens adds no small moment; and the tradition is also conveyed to us by very many writings. But when it is thus conveyed, and that the Church does believe them to be the Word of God, than it is that I inquire, whether the Scriptures cannot be a witness to us of it's own design, fullness, and perfection. Certainly no principle is more evident than this, none more sure and none before it; Whatever God hath said is true, and in Scripture God did speak, and speak this; and therefore this to us is a first, at least an evident principle.  
Yea, but if this proposition, that the Scriptures are the Word of God, is conveyed to us by oral tradition, this must needs be the best and only principle; for if it be trusted for the whole, why not for every particular. This Argument concludes thus. This is the gate of the House, therefore this is all the house. Every man enters this way; and therefore this is the Hall and the Cellar, the Pantry and Dining room, the Bedchambers and the Cocklofts. But besides the ridiculousness of the argument, there is a particular reason why the argument cannot conclude: The reason in brief is this, because it is much easier for any man to carry a letter, than to tell the particular errand; It is easier to tell one thing, than to tell ten thousand; to deliver one thing out of our hand, than a multitude out of our mouths; one matter of fact, than very many propositions; as it is easier to convey in writing all Tully's works, than to say by heart with truth and exactness any one of his Orations. That the Bible was written by inspired men, God setting his seal to their doctrine, confirming by miracles what they first preached, and then wrote in a book, this is a matter of fact, and is no otherwise to be proved (unless God should proceed extraordinarily and by miracle) but by the testimony of wise men, who saw it with their eyes, and heard it with their ears, and felt it with their hands. This was done at first, then only consigned, then witnessed, and thence delivered. And with how great success, and with the blessing of how mighty a providence, appears it in this; because although as S. Luke tells us, many did undertake to write Gospels, or the declaration of the things so surely believed amongst Christians; and we find in S. Clement of Alex. Origen, S. Irenaeus, Athanasius, Chrysostom and S. Hierom mention made of many Gospels, as that of the Hebrews, the Egyptians, Nazarenes, Ebionites, the Gospel of James, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas and divers more, yet but four only were transmitted and consigned to the Church; because these four only were written by these whose names they bear; and these men had the testimony of God, and a spirit of truth, and the promise of Christ, that the spirit should bring all things to their minds, and he did so: Now of this we could have no other testimony but of those who were present, who stopped the first issue of the false Gospels, and the sound of the other four went forth into all the world, according to that of Origen, Ecclesia cum quatuor tantum Evangelii libros habet, per universum mundum Evangeliis redundat; heresies cum multa habeant, unum non habent. Those which heretics made are all lost, or slighted, those which the spirit of God did write by the hands of men divinely inspired, these abide, and shall abide for ever. Now than this matter of fact how should we know, but by being told it by credible persons who could know, and never gave cause of suspicion that they should deceive us. Now if I. S. will be pleased to call this Oral tradition, he may; but that which was delivered by this Oral tradition was not only preached at first, but transmitted to us by many writings, besides the Scriptures, both of friends and enemies. But suppose it were not; yet this book of Scriptures might be consigned by Oral tradition from the Apostles and Apostolic men, and yet tradition become of little or no use after this consignation and delivery. For this was all the work which of necessity was to be done by it; and indeed this was all that it could do well.  
1. This was all which was necessary to be done by Oral tradition; because the wisdom of the divine spirit having resolved to write all the doctrine of salvation in a book, and having done it well and sufficiently in order to his own gracious purposes, (for who dares so much as suspect the contrary) there was now no need that Oral tradition should be kept up with the jointure of infallibility, since the first infallibility of the Apostles was so sufficiently witnessed, that it convinced the whole world of Christians; and therefore was enough to consign the Divinity and perfection of this book for ever. For it was in this as in the doctrine itself contained in the Scriptures, God confirmed it by signs following; that is by signs proving that the Apostles spoke the mind of God, the things which they speak were proved and believed for ever; but then the signs went away, and left a permanent and eternal event. So it is in the infallible tradition delivered by the Apostles and Apostolic age, concerning the Scriptures being the word of God; what they said was confirmed by all that testimony, by which they obtained belief in the Church, to their persons and doctrines; but when they had once delivered this, there needed no remaining miracle, and entail of infallibility in the Church, to go on in the delivery of this; for by that time that all the Apostles were dead, and the infallible spirit was departed, the Scriptures of the Gospels were believed in all the world, and then it was not ordinarily possible ever any more to detract faith from that book; and then for the transmitting this book to after ages, the Divine providence needed no other course, but the ordinaary ways of man, that is, right reason, common faithfulness, the interest of souls, believing a good thing, which there was and could be no cause to disbelieve; and an Universal consent of all men, that were any ways concerned for it, or against it, and this not only preached upon the house tops, but set down also in very many writings. This actually was the way of transmitting this book, and the authority of it, to after ages respectively.  
These things are of themselves evident, yet because I. S. still demands we should set down some first and self evident principle, on which to found the whole procedure, I shall once more satisfy him; And this is a first and self evident principle, whatsoever can be spoken can be written; and if it he plain spoken, it may be as plain written. I hope I need not go about to demonstrate this; for it is of itself evident, that God can write all that he is pleased to speak; and all good scribes can set down in writing whatsoever another tells them; and in his very words too if he please, he can as well transcribe a word spoken, as a word written. And upon this principle it is, that the Protestants believe that the words of Scripture can be as easily understood after they are written in a book, as when they were spoken in the Churches of the first Christians; and the Apostles and Evangelists did write the life of Christ, his doctrines, the doctrines of faith, as plain as they did speak them, at least as plain as was necessary to the end for which they were written, which is the salvation of our souls. And what necessity now can there be, that there should be a perpetual miracle still current in the Church, and a spirit of infallibility descendant to remember the Church of all those things, which are at once set down in a book, the truth and authority of which was at first proved by infallible testimony, the memory and certainty of which is preserved amongst Christians by many unquestionable records, and testimonies of several natures.  
2. As there was no necessity that an infallible Oral tradition should do any more but consign the books of Scripture; so it could not do any more, without a continual miracle. That there was not continued miracle is sufficiently proved, by proving it was not necessary it should; for that also is another first and self-evident principle, that the All wise God does not do any thing, much less such things as miracles, to no purpose, and for no need. But now if there be not a continued miracle, then Oral tradition was not fit to be trusted, in relating the particulars of the Christian Religion. For if in a succession of Bishops and Priests from S. Peter down to P. Alexander the seventh, it is impossible for any man to be assured that there was no nullity in the ordinations, but insensibly there might intervene something to make a breach in the long line, which must in that case be made up as well as they can, by tying a knot on it: It will be infinitely more hard to suppose, but that in the series and successive talk of the Christian religion, there must needs be infinite variety, and many things told otherwise, and somethings spoken with evil purposes, by such as preached Christ out of envy; and many odd things said, and doctrines strangely represented by such as creep into houses, and lead captive silly women: It may be the Bishops of the Apostolical Churches did preach right doctrines for divers ages; but yet in Jerusalem, where fifteen Bishops in succession were circumcised, who can tell how many things might be spoken in justification of that practice, which might secretly undervalue the Apostolical doctrine. And where was the Oral tradition then of this proposition; If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing. But however, though the Bishops did preach all the doctrine of Christ; yet these Sermons were told to them that were absent, by others who it may be might mistake something, and understand them to other senses than was intended. And though infallibility of testifying might be given to the Church, that is, to the chief Rulers of it, (for I hope I. S. does not suppose it subjected in every single Christian man or woman) yet when this testimony of theirs is carried abroad, the reporters are not always infallible: And let it be considered, that even now since Christianity hath been transmitted so many ages, and there are so many thousands that teach it, yet how many hundreds of these thousands understand but very little of it, and therefore tell it to others but pitifully and imperfectly; so that if God in his Goodness had not preserved to us the surer word of the prophetical and Evangelical Scriptures, Christianity would by this time have been a most strange thing, litera scripta manet. As to the Apostles while they lived it was so easy to have recourse, that error durst not appear with an open face, but the cure was at hand: so have the Apostles when they took care to leave something left to the Churches to put them in mind of the precious doctrine; they put a sure standard, and fixed a rule in the Church, to which all doubts might be brought to trial, and against which all heresies might be dashed in pieces. But we have lived to see the Apostolical Churches rend from one another, and teaching contrary things, and pretending contrary traditions, and abounding in several senses, and excommunicating one another; and it is impossible (for example) that we should see the Greeks going any whither, but to their own superior and their own Churches to be taught Christian Religion; and the Latins did always go to their own Patriarch, and to their own Bishops and Churches, and it is not likely it should be otherwise now, than it hath been hitherto, that is, that they follow the religion that is taught them there, and the tradition that is delivered by their immediate superiors. Now there being so vast a difference, not only in the Great Churches, but in several ages, and in several Dioceses, and in single Priests, every one understanding as he can, and speaking as he please, and remembering as he may, and expressing it accordingly, and the people also understanding it by halves, and telling it to their Children, sometimes ill, sometimes not at all, and seldom as they should; and they who are taught, neglecting it too grossly, and attending to it very carelessly, and forgetting it too quickly; and which is worse yet, men expounding it according to their interests, or their lusts, out of faction, or as they are misled, and then report it accordingly: These and a thousand things more, convince us of the easiness of being deceived by Oral tradition of doctrines, which can insensibly and unavoidably be changed in great differences and mistakes; but can never suffer any considering Person to believe, that mouth delivery is a better way of keeping records than writing in a book.  
So that now I wonder that I. S. is pleased to call traditions certainty, the first principle of controversy; the pretence of it is indeed the mother and nurse of controversy; for in the world there is not any thing more uncertain than the report of men's words. How many men have been undone by mistaken words? And it is well remembered that in the last unhappy Parliament, a Gentleman was called to the Bar for speaking words of truth and honesty, 
1641.  but against the sense of the House: The words were spoken in a great assembly, before many witnesses; curious and malicious observers spoken at that very time; and yet when the words were questioned, they could not agree what they were; and consequently the sense of them might be strangely altered, since a word, the misplacing of a word, an accent, a point, any ambiguity, any mistake might change the sense; well upon this accident the Speaker called to a Gentleman whom he had observed to write the words; and to him they appealed, and he told them that which I supposed was said, but wholly differing from them that speak it, the traditionary part of the Parliament.  
All the rest which I. S. says in his first Way, is nothing but a strange and arrogant bragging, which as it is inconsistent with the modesty of a Christian, so it is an ill sign of a sober and wise conviction; for if he had demonstrated the certainty of Oral tradition, he needed no such noises; they that speak truest, make the least stir, and when they are at peace in the truth of the thing, they are pleased it is well, and so they leave it to prevail by its native strengths.  
But after all this noise made by I. S. why is he so fierce to call me to first and self evident principles? Does any school of Philosophy do so in their Systems and discourses? Are there not in every Science divers praecognita, things to be presupposed and believed before we can prove any thing? Is it reasonable when I reprove any vicious person for dishonouring God, and dissuade him from his wicked courses, that he should tell me he will not be dissuaded by my fine words, but if I will go to principles and first grounds, he will hear me; and I must first prove what dishonouring is, and how God can be dishonoured, and whether it be only by fiction of law, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and by way of condescension it is so said; and yet after all this, I must prove that God does care at all whether the Man say such things or no, or lastly I must prove that there is a God, before he can suffer me to reprove him upon such ungrounded discourses. Theology, and the Science of the Scriptures supposes divers grounds laid down before and believed; and therefore it were a wild demand, that in every book we should make a Logical system, or a formal analysts of all our discourses, and make a map describing all the whole passage from the first truth, to the present affirmative.  
But if I. S. will but consider what the Design of the Dissuasive was, and that the purpose of it was to prove, that the doctrine of Popery as such, is wholly an Innovation, neither Catholic, nor Apostolic; there was no need of coming to any other first grounds, but to show the time when the Roman propositions were not Catholic doctrines, and when they began to be esteemed so. These things are matters of fact, and need no reduction to any other first principles, but the credible testimony of men fit to be believed. But yet because I will humour. I. S. for this once; even here also the Dissuasive relies upon a first and self evident principle as any is in Christianity; and that is, Quod primum verum. And therefore if I prove that the Roman doctrines now controverted were not at first, but came in afterwards, than I have built the Dissuasive aright; and now I have pointed it out, and have already in part, and in the following book have more largely done it; therefore I hope I. S. will be as good as his word and yield himself absolutely confuted. But because there are some other reasons inclining me to think he will not perform his promise, and particularly because of the ill naturedness of [his own] principles, (that I may use his own expression in in his postscript) yet if I have failed in my proofs, it is not for want of clear and evident principles, but of right deductions from them; and therefore he is mistaken in his first way of mining, and whether there be any defect in any thing else, will be put to trial in the sequel; In the mean time, the Lion is not so terrible as he is painted.   

The second Way.  
IN the next place I shall try his second mine; and believe I shall find it big with a brutum fulmen, and that it can do no hurt but make a noise, and scare the boys in the neighbourhood.  
For now though in the first way he blamed me for relying upon no first and self evident principle; in the second he excludes me from all right of using any, unless I will take his. He says, I have no right to allege Scriptures or Fathers, Councils, or reason, history or instances. But why, I pray? 'tis done thus: All discourse supposes that certain upon which it builds. That is his first proposition; what he makes of it afterwards we shall see; In the mean time, he may consider that though all his discourses suppose that certain on which they build, because his Geese are Swans, and his arguments are demonstrations, yet there are many wiser discourses which rely upon probable arguments: And so does a moral demonstration; and such a great wit of France, Mr. Silhon supposed to be his best way of proving the immortality of the soul. Now this is nothing but a coacervation of many probabilities, which according to the subject matter (as not being capable of any other way of probation) amounts to the effect of a demonstration. And however this Gentleman looks big upon it, the infallibility of the Church of Rome is by the wisest of his own party acknowledged to rely but upon prudential motives; and he is a mad man says Artistotle, who in some cases (in which yet a man may discourse wisely enough) looks for any more than arguments of a high probability. But what does I. S. think of arguments ad hominem? do they suppose that certain which they build upon? or if they do not, can there be no good discourses made upon them? what are the wise consultations of States and Councils? do they always discourse foolishly when they proceed and argue, but upon probabilities? Nay what does I. S. think of General Councils who are fallible in their premises though right in their Conclusions? do their conclusions suppose their premises, upon which they build their conclusions to be certain? If not, than I. S. hath affirmed weakly, that all discourse supposes that certain upon which it builds.  
Well! but how does he build upon this rotten foundation, who hath already in this very procedure confuted his following discourse, as being such which does not, I am sure ought not (as appears by the reasons I have brought against it) suppose that certain on which it is built: Thus, if tradition or the way of conveying down matters of fact by the former ages testifying can fail, none of these (viz. Scripture, reason, history, Fathers, Councils, yea instances) are certain. This is his assumption; and this besides that it is false, is also to none of his purposes. 1. It is false, For suppose tradition be not certain, how must all reason therefore fail? for first there must be some reason presupposed, before the certainty of tradition can be established; and if there be not, why does I. S. offer at a demonstrative reason to prove the certainty of tradition: (though if there be no better reasons for it, than he hath yet shown, his reason and tradition fail together) 2. Supposing tradition should fail, yet there may be reasons given for the excellency of Christianity, which as they confirm Christians in their faith, and beget love to the articles, so they may be sufficient to invite even the wiser heathens to consider it, and choose it.  
But then suppose that these things should be uncertain upon the supposal of the uncertainty of tradition of matters of fact, yet it will avail I. S. nothing; for it will only follow that then those things which only rely upon that matter of fact are not demonstratively certain; but though it may fail in some things, it may be right in others, and we may have reason for one, and not for another, and then either those things must be proved some other way, or else they can be believed but only so far as the first topic will extend; which yet though so uncertain as not to be infallible or demonstrative, may be certain enough to make men believe, and live and die accordingly. For if we have no better, God requires no better, and by these things will bring his purposes to pass; and if this were not true what will become of the Laity, and many the ignorant Priests of his own Church, who do not rely upon the certainty of Universal tradition, but the single testimony of their Parents or their Parish Priest? But of this afterwards.  
But to come closer to the thing? suppose tradition of fact be certain (for so it is in many instances, and if it be Universal, it will be allowed to be so in all) yet it is but so certain, that yet there is a natural possibility that it should be false; and it is possible that what the Generality of one sort of men do jointly testify, may yet be found false, or at least uncertain; as the burial of Mahomet in Mecha, and his being attracted by a Loadstone, of which the Mahometans have a long and general tradition, at least we in Christendom are made to believe so; and if it be not so, yet it is naturally possible that they should all believe and teach a lie, and they actually do so; yet I will allow Ecclesiastical Catholic tradition speaking morally to be certain and indubitable; and that if this should fail, much of our comfort and certainty of adherence to Christian Religion would fail with it; but than it is to be considered, that the certainty of tradition which is allowed, is but in matters of fact, not in doctrines, because the fact may be one, the doctrines many; that soon remembered, these soon forgotten; that perceived by sense, these mistaken and misunderstood; And though it is very credibly reported and easily believed that Julius Caesar was killed in the Senate, yet all that he said that day, and all the unwritten orders he made, and all his orations will not, cannot so easily be trusted upon Oral tradition. So that Oral tradition is a good ministry of conveying a record, but is not the best record; and the principle office of Oral tradition is done when the record is verified by it, when the Scripture is consigned; and though still it is useful, yet it is not still so necessary: For when by tradition or Oral testimony we are assured that the Bible is the word of God, and the great record of salvation, than we are sure that God who gave it, will preserve it, or not require it, and he that designed it to such an end, will make and keep it sufficient to that end, and that he hath done so already is therefore notorious, because God hath been pleased to multiply the copies, and enwrap the contents of that book with the biggest interests of mankind; that it is made impossible to destroy that divine repository of necessary and holy doctrines; And when the Christians were by deaths and tortures assaulted to cause them to deliver up their Bibles, that they might be destroyed, the persecutors prevailed not; they might with as much success have undertaken to drink up the sea. And that providence which keeps the whole from destruction, will also keep all its necessary parts from corruption, lest the work of God become insufficient to the end of its designation; And he that will look for better security, than we can have from the certain knowledge and experience of the infallibility of the Divine providence and never failing goodness, must erect a new office of assurance.  
The effect of this discourse is this; that Oral tradition may be very certain, and in some case, is the best evidence we have in matters of fact, unless where we are taught by sense or revelation, and if it were not certain, we should be infinitely to seek for notices of things that are past; but this is but a moral certainty, though it be the best we have; and this is but in matters of fact, not in doctrines and orations, or notions delivered in many words; and after all this, when tradition hath consigned an instrument or record, a writing or a book, it may then leave being necessary, and when the providence of God undertakes to supply the testimony of man, the change is for our advantage.  
Well! now having considered this second proposition, let us see what his Conclusion is; for that also hath something of particular consideration, as having in it something more than was in the premises. The Conclusion is this. [Therefore a Protestant or a renouncer of tradition cannot with reason pretend to discourse out of any of these] To which I shall reply these things. 1. This Gentleman wholly mistakes us Protestant's, as he did the Protestant Religion when he weakly forsook it. Protestants are not renouncers of tradition; for we allow all Catholic traditions that can prove themselves to be such; but we finding little or nothing (excepting this, that the Bible is the word of God, and that the Bible contains all the will of God for our salvation, all doctrines of faith and life) little or nothing else, I say, descending to us by an Universal tradition, therefore we have reason to adhere to Scripture, and renounce (as I. S. is pleased to call it) all pretence of tradition of any matters of faith not plainly set down in the Bible.  
But now since we renounce no tradition but such as is not and cannot be proved to be competent and Catholic, I hope with the leave of I. S. we may discourse out of Scriptures and Councils, Fathers and reason, history and instances. For we believe tradition when it is credible, and we believe what two or three honest men say upon their knowledge, and we make no scruple to believe that there is an English Plantation in the Barbadoss, because many tell us so, who have no reason to deceive us; so that we are in a very good capacity of making use of Scriptures and Councils, etc. But I must deal freely with Mr. S. though we do believe these things upon credible testimony, yet we do not think the testimony infallible, and we do believe many men who yet pretend not to infallibility: And if nothing were Credible but what is infallible, than no man had reason to believe his Priest or his Father: We are taught by Aristotle that that is credible, Quod pluribus, quod sapientibus, quod omnibus videtur; and yet these are but degrees of probability, and yet are sufficient to warrant the transaction of all humane affairs, which (unless where God is pleased to interpose) are not capable of greater assurance. Even the miracles wrought by our Blessed Saviour though they were the best arguments in the world to prove the Divinity of his person and his mission, yet they were but the best argument we needed and understood; but although they were infinitely sufficient to convince all but the malicious, yet there were some so malicious who did not allow them to be demonstrations, but said, that he did cast out Devils by Beelzebub. Here we live by faith and not by knowledge, and therefore it is an infinite goodness of God to give proofs sufficient for us, and fitted to our natures, and proportioned to our understanding; but yet such as may neither extinguish faith, nor destroy the nature of hope, which although it may be so certain and sure as to be a steadfast anchor of the soul, yet it may have in it something of Natural uncertainty; and yet fill us with all comfort and hope in believing: So that we allow tradition to be certain if it be universal, and to be credible according to the degrees of its Universality and disinterested simplicity; and therefore we have as much right to use the Scriptures and Fathers as I. S. and all his party: and all his following talk in the sequel of this second way, relying upon a ground which I have discovered to be false, must needs fall of itself, and signify nothing. But although this point be soon washed off, yet I suppose the charge which will recoil upon himself will not so easily be put by. For though it appears that Protestants have right to use Fathers and Councils, Scriptures and reason, yet I. S. and his little convention of four or five Brothers of the tradition have clearly disintitled themselves to any use of these. For if the oral tradition of the present Church be the infallible and only rule of faith, then there is no Oracle but this one; and the decrees of Councils did bind only in that age they were made, as being part of the tradition of that age; but the next age needed it not, as giving testimony to itself, and being it's own rule. And therefore when a question is to be disputed, you can go no whither to be tried but to the tradition of the present Church, and this is not to be proved by a series and order of records and succession; but if you will know what was formerly believed, you must only ask, what is believed now; for now rivers run back to their springs, and the Lamb was to blame for troubling the Wolf by drinking in the descending river, for the lower is now higher, and you are not to prove by what is past, that the present is right, but by the present you prove what was past, and Harry the seventh is before Harry the sixth, and Children must teach their Parents, and therefore it is to be hoped in time may be their Elders. But by this means, Fathers and Councils are made of no use to these Gentlemen who have greatly obliged the world by telling us a short way to Science; and though our life be short, yet art is shorter, especially in our way, in Theology; Concerning which there needs no labour, no study, no reading, but to know of the present Church what was always believed, and taught, and what ought to be so; Nay what was done, or what was said, or what was written is to be told by the present Church, which without further trouble can infallibly assure us. And upon this account the Jesuits have got the better of the Jansenists; for though these men weakly and fond deny such words to be in Jansenius, yet the virtual Church can tell better, whether they be or no in Jansenius, or rather it matters not whether they be or no; for it being the present sense of the Pope, he may proceed to condemnation.  
But I. S. offers at some reason for this: For (saith he) Fathers being eminent witnesses to immediate posterity or children of the Church's doctrine received, and Councils representatives of the Church; their strengths as proofs, nay their very existence is not known till the notion of the Church be known, which is part of their definition, and to which they relate. This is but part of his argument, which I yet must consider apart, because every proposition of his argument hath in it something very untrue; which when I have remarked I shall consider the whole of it altogether.  
And here first I consider that it is a strange proposition to say that the existence of the Fathers is not known till the notion or definition of the Church be known. For who is there of any knowledge in any thing of this nature that hath not heard of S. Austin, S. Jerom, S. Ambrose, or S. Gregory. The Spaniards have a proverb, There was never good Oglio without Bacon, nor good Sermon without S. Austin; and yet I suppose all the people of Spain that hear the name of S. Austin it may be five hundred times every Lent, make no question of the Existence of S. Austin, or that there was such a man as he; and yet I believe, not very many of them can tell the definition of the Church. Thousands of the people and the very boys see the pictures of S. Austin sold in Fairs and Markets, and yet are not so wise as to know the notion or nature of the Church; and indeed many wiser people both among them and us will be very much to seek in the definition, when your learned men amongst yourselves dispute what that nature or definition is.  
But it may be though I. S. put Fathers and Councils into the same proposition, yet he means it of Councils only, and that it is the existence of Councils which is not to be had without the notion or definition of Church, and this is as false as the other; for what tradesman in Germany, Italy, France or Spain is not well enough assured that there was such a thing as the Council of Trent; and yet to the knowing of this, it was not necessary that they should be told how Church is to be defined. Indeed they can not know what it is to be Church-Councils, unless they know as much of Church as they do of Councils. But what think we? Can not men know there was a Council at Ariminum more numerous than that at Nice, unless they had the notion of Church? Certainly the Church was no part of the definition of that Council, nor did it relate, save only as enemies are relatives to each other; and if they be, yet it is hard to say they are parts of each others definition. But it may be I. S. means this saying of good and Catholic Councils; yet they also may be known to have been, without skill in definitions. Definitions do not tell An sit, but quid sit; the first is to be supposed before any definition is to be enquired after.  
Well! but how shall the being or nature of Church be known? that's his second proposition, and tells us a pretty thing, [Nor is the being or nature of Church known till it be certainly known who are faithful or have true faith, who not; which must be manifested by their having or not having the true Rule of faith.] Why, but does the having the true rule of faith make a man faithful? Cannot a man have the true rule of faith, and yet forsake it, or not make use of it, or hid the truth in unrighteousness? Does the having the best antidote in the world make a man healthful, though he live disorderly, and make no use of it? But to let that pass among the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That which is more remarkable, is, That the being or Nature of Church is not known, till it be certainly known who are faithful or have true faith. I had thought that the way in the Church of Rome of pronouncing men faithful, or to have true faith, had been their being in the Church, and that adhering to the Church (whose being and truth they must therefore be presupposed to believe) had been the only way of pronouncing them faithful; which I supposed so certain amongst them, that though they have no faith at all, but to believe as the Church believes, had been a sufficient declaration of the faith of ignorant men. But it seems the Tables are turned. It is not enough to go to the Church; but first they must be assured that they are faithful and have true faith, before they know any thing of the Church.  
But if the testimony of the present Church be the only rule of faith (as I. S. would fain make us believe) than it had been truer said; a man can not know the being or nature of faith, till he be well acquainted with the Church. And must the Rule of faith be tried by the Church, and must the Church be tried by the rule of faith? Is the testimony of the Church the measure and touchstone of faith, and yet must we have the faith before we have any knowledge whether there be a Church or no? Are they both first, and both prove one another, and is there here no circle? But however I am glad that the evidence of truth hath brought this Gentleman to acknowledge that our way is the better way; and that we must first choose our religion and then our Church; and not first choose our Church, and then blindly follow the religion of it whatsoever it be. But then also it will follow that I. S. hath destroyed his main hypothesis, and the oral tradition of the present Church is not the Rule of faith; for that must first be known before we can know whether there be such a thing as the Church or no; whose rule that is pretended to be.  
And now follows his conclusion, which is nought upon other accounts; [Wherefore (saith he) since the properties of the Rule of Faith do all agree to Tradition our Rule, and none of them to theirs, it follows the Protestant or Renouncer of Tradition knows not what is either right Scripture, Father or Council, and so ought not to meddle with either of them.] To this I have already answered, and what I. S. may do hereafter when he happens to fall into another fit of demonstration I know not, but as yet he hath been very far from doing what he says he hath done, that is, evidently proved what he undertook in this question. And I suppose I have in a following Section of this book evidently proved that Tradition, such I mean as the Church of Rome uses in this inquiry, leads into error or may do, as often as into truth; and therefore though we may and do use tradition as a probable argument in many things, and some as certain in one or two things to which in the nature of the thing it is apt to minister, yet it is infinitely far from being the rule of faith, the whole Christian faith.  
But I wonder why I. S. saith that for want of Tradition, we cannot know either right Scripture, Fathers or Councils. I do not think that by tradition they do know all the books of Scriptures. Do they know by Universal or Apostolical Tradition that the Epistle to the Hebrews is Canonical Scripture? The Church of Rome had no tradition for it for above four hundred years, and they received it at last from the tradition of the Greek Church; and then they, not the Roman Church are the great conservers of tradition, and they will get nothing by that. And what universal tradition can they pretend for those books which are rejected by some Councils; as particularly that of Laodicea (which is in the Code of the Universal Church, and some of the Fathers,) which yet they now receive; certainly in that age which rejected them, there was no Catholic tradition for them and those Fathers, which as (I. S. expresses it) were eminent witnesses to their immediate posterity or children of the Church's doctrine received, in all likelihood did teach their posterity what themselves professed; and therefore it is possible the Fathers in that Council and some others of the same sentiment might join in saying something which might deceive their posterity, and consequently the very ground of I. S. his demonstration is digged up, for it was very possible the Fathers might teach something that contradicts the present oral tradition of the Church; because when they were alive they believed the contradictory.  
But further yet, can I S. affirm that by the oral tradition of the present Church we can be infallibly taught which books were written by the Fathers, and which not? If he can, how haps it that the Doctors of his Church are not agreed about very many of them, some rejecting that as spurious, which others quote as Genuine. If he cannot, than we may have a title to make use of the Fathers though we did renounce tradition; because by tradition certain and infallible they do not know it; and than if either they do not know it at all, or know it any others ways than by tradition, we may know it that way as well as they, and therefore have as good a title to make use of them as themselves.  
But the good man proceeds, Since pretended instances of traditions failing depend on history, and historical certainty cannot be built upon dead characters, but on living sense in men's hearts delivered from age to age that those passages are true, that is, on Tradition, it follows that if the way of tradition can fail, all history is uncertain, and consequently, all instances as being matters of fact depending on history. To this I answer; that it is true that there are many instances in which it is certain that tradition hath failed, as will appear in the following Section; and it is as true, that the record of these instances is kept in books, which are very Ancient and written by Authors so credible, that no man questions the truth of these instances: Now I grant that we are told by the words delivered by our Forefathers▪ that these books were written by such men; but than it may be our Forefathers though they kept the books safe, yet knew not what was written in them; and if all the contents of the book had been left only to rely upon the living sense in their hearts, and the hearts of their posterity, we should have had but few books, and few instances of the failing of tradition, only one great one would have been left, that is, the losing of almost all, that that is now recorded would have been a fatal sign that Traditions fail was the cause of so sad a loss. It is well, tradition hath helped us to the dead characters; they bear their living sense so within themselves, that it is quickly understood when living men come to read them. But now I demand of I. S. whether or no historical certainty relies only on certain and indefectible tradition? If it does not, than a man may be certain enough of the sacred history, though there be no certain oral tradition built on living sense in men's hearts delivered from age to age. If he does, than I must ask whether I. S. does believe Tacitus, or that there was such a man as Agricola, or that the Senate decreed that Nero should be punished more majorum. If he does believe these stories, and these persons, than he must also conclude that there is an Oral indefectible tradition that Tacitus wrote this book, and that every thing in that book was written by him, and it remains at this day as it was at first, and that all this was not conveyed by dead and unfensed characters, but by living sense in our hearts. But now it will be very hard for any man to say that there is such an infallible Tradition delivering all that Roman story which we believe to be true. No man pretends that there is; and therefore, 1. History may be relied on without a certain indefectible oral tradition. And 2. The tradition that consigns history to after ages may be, and is so most commonly, nothing but of a fame that such a book was written by such a famous person who lived in that age, and might know the truth of what he wrote, and had no reason to lie, but was in all regards a very worthy and a credible person. Now here is as much certainty as need to be; the thing itself will bear no more; and almost all humane affairs are transacted by such an Oeconomy as this; and therefore it is certain enough, and is so esteemed, because it does all its intentions, and loses no advantage, and persuades effectually, and regularly engages to all those actions and events, which history could do, if the certainty were much greater. For the certainty of persuasion, and prevailing upon the greatest parts of mankind, may be as great by history, wisely and with great probability transmitted, as it can be by any imaginary certainty of a tradition that any dreamer can dream of. Nay, it may be equal to a demonstration, I mean, as to the certainty of prevailing: For a little reason to a little understanding as certainly prevails, as a greater to a deep and inquisitive understanding; and mankind does not need demonstrations in any case, but where reason is puzzled with an aequilibrium, and that there be great probabilities hinc inde. And therefore in these cases where is a probability on one side and no appearance of reason to the contrary; that probability does the work of a demonstration. For a reason to believe a thing, and no reason to disbelieve it, is as proper a way to persuade and to lead to action as that which is demonstrated. And this is the case of history, and of instances; which though they cannot (no not by an Oral tradition) be so certain, as that the thing could not possibly have been otherwise; yet when there is no sufficient cause of suspicion of fraud and imposture, and great reason from any topic to believe that it is true, he is a very fool that will forbear to act upon that account, only because it is possible that that instance might have been not true, though he have no reason to think it false. And yet this foolish sophism runs mightily along in I. S. his demonstrations, he cannot for his life distinguish between credible and infallible; Nothing by him can make faith unless it demonstrate; that is, nothing can make faith but that which destroys it, by turning it into Science.  
His last argument for his second way of mining is so like the other that it is the worse for it: [Since reasons are fetched from the Natures of things, and the best nature in what it is (abstracting from disease and madness) unalterable, is the ground of the humane part of Christian tradition, and most incomparable strength is supperadded to it as it is Christian, by the supernatural assistances of the Holy Ghost. It is a wild conceit to think any piece of nature or discourse built on it can be held certain, if Tradition (especially Christian tradition) may be held uncertain.]  
In this Jargon, for I know not what else to call it, there are a pretty company of nothings put together; that indeed they are ink varied in divers figures, and unsensed characters, they are nothing else. For 1. It is false that all reason (for so he must mean, if he would speak to any purpose) is fetched from the natures of things; some rely upon Concessions and presuppositions only; some upon the state of exterior affairs, and introduced Oeconomies, or accidental mesnage of things; some upon presumptions, and some even upon the weaknesses of men, upon contingencies; and some which pretend to be reasons rely upon false grounds, and such are I. S. his demonstrations.  
But suppose they did, as indeed the best reasons do, what then? Why then, the best nature, that is, I suppose he means (the humane) unalterable (abstracting from disease and madness) is the ground of the humane part of Christian tradition. This proposition hath in it something that is false, and something that is to no purpose. That which is false is, that the nature of man unless he be mad, or diseased in his brain, is Unalterable. As if men could not be changed by interest or ambition, pride or prejudice, by weakness and false Apostles, mistake or negligence. And by any of these a man, that naturally hath faculties to understand, and capacity of learning, and speaking truth may be so changed, that he is very alterable from good to bad, from wise to foolish, from the knowledge of the truth to believe a lie, and be transported by illusions of the Devil: Every man naturally loves knowledge, that's his nature; and it is the best nature; but yet it is so alterable, that some men who from the principles of this best nature are willing to learn, and they are ever learning, yet they are so altered, that they never come to the knowledge of truth.  
But supposing that this best nature is the ground of the humane part of tradition, yet it is not the ground of the humane part of tradition as it is unalterable; but as it hath a defectible understanding, and a free and a changeable will, and innumerable weaknesses, for these are so in this best nature, that it can never be without them. And therefore because this ground may be slippery, there will be no sure footing here: Especially since it is but the ground of the humane part of tradition, for which cause it can be no more ground of truth in religion, than the Roman story, than Plutarch or Livy is of infallible indefectible truth in history; and therefore I. S. does very wisely add to this, the incomparable strengths of the supernatural assistances of the Holy Ghost. But these alone can be sufficient, if they could be proved to be given infallibly, absolutely, and without the altering condition of our making right use of them, without grieving the Holy Spirit; of which because there is no promise, and no experience, it is no wild Conceit to think tradition may be uncertain, and yet our discourses in Religion by other principles be certain enough. But now I perceive that I. S. is no such implacable man, for all the seeming fierceness of his persuasion in his new mode of Oral tradition, but that in time he may be reduced to the old way of this Church; and ground (as he does mainly here) her infallibility not upon new demonstrations taken from the nature of things, but upon the continual assistances and helps of the only infallible spirit of God. That indeed is a way possible, if it were to be had; but this new way hath neither sense nor reason: And therefore in this place he wisely puts the greatest stress upon the other. I should have proceeded a little further, if I could have understood what I S. means, by [any piece of nature built on Tradition;] and if he had not here put in the phrase of a wild Conceit, I should have wanted a name for it; but because it is no other, I shall now let it alone, and dig into the other mines, and see if they be more dangerous than these Bugbears.   

The third Way.  
THe third Way I must needs say is a fine one, He offers to prove my Dissuasive to be no Dissuasive, no nor can it be a Dissuasive. And why? because to Dissuade, is to unfix the understanding from what it held before; which includes to make it hold or assent, that what it held before certain, is false or at least uncertain. And here before I proceed further, it is fit we acknowledge, that we own to I. S. the notice of these two mysteries. 1. What is meant by Dissuading, and that it is making a man to change his opinion, an unfixing of his mind: And the second, That this unfixing the mind makes the mind to shake, or to be changed, to be uncertain or to think the proposition fit to be held: we being thus instructed in these grounds of some new designed demonstration, may the surer proceed: For wisely he adds a conjecture, that surely by my Dissuasive from Popery, I intent to oblige men to assent to the contrary. I do believe indeed I did; but my first aim was to dissuade, that is to unfixe them, and afterwards to establish them in the contrary. Well! thus far we are agreed; but for all this, The thing I intent cannot be done by me; I cannot dissuade; because I have no peculiar method of my own; but I use those means which others use to prove errors by, and if the way I take be common to truth and error, It is good for nothing, error shall pretend to it as well as truth: I must have a particularity of method above what is in others. Now this is strange, that I should be so severely dealt with; why is more required of me than of others? I take the same way that the writers of books of controversy used to take; I quote Scriptures, and Fathers, and Histories, and instances, and I use reason as well as I can: I find that Bellarmine and Baronius, Card. Perron and Gregory de Valentia, Stapleton and Hart, Champion and Reynolds use the same Dull way as I do; and yet they hope to persuade and Dissuade according to the subject matter, and why my penny should not be as good silver as theirs I know not; but I hope I shall know by and by, why, the true reason why I cannot Dissuade, and that I miscall my book a Dissuasive is, because the method which I take is common to those discourses which have in them power to satisfy the understanding, and those who have no such power. But herein is a wonderful thing, my book cannot dissuade; because I take a way which is taken in discourses which can satisfy the understanding. For if some discourses proceeding my way can satisfy the Understanding, as I. S. here confesses, than it is to be hoped, so may mine; at least there is nothing in my method to hinder it, but it may: yea, but this method is also used in Discourses which have no such power, well! and what then? Is not therefore my method as good a method as can be, when it is the method that all men use; they that can satisfy the Understanding and they that cannot. And is there any thing more ignorant than to think a method, or way of proof is nought, because some men use it to good purposes, and some to bad? And is not light a glorious covering, because the evil spirit sometimes puts it on? Was not our Saviour's way of confuting the Devil by Scripture very good, because the Devil used the same way, and so it was a way common to discourses, that have in them the power to satisfy the understanding, and those which have no such power. Titius is sued by Sempronius for a farm which he had long possessed and to which Titius proves his title by indubitable records and laws and patents. Sempronius pretends to do so too; and tells the Judge that he ought not to regard any proof of Titius' offering, because he goes upon grounds which himself also goes upon; and so they are not apt to be a ground of determining any thing, because they are Common to both sides. The Judge smiles, and inquires who hath most right to the pretended grounds, but approves the method of proceeding, because it is common to the contrary pretender: And this is so far from being an argument against my method, that in the world nothing can be said greater in allowance of it; even because I proved upon principles allowed by both sides, that is, I dispute upon principles, upon which we are agreed to put the cause to trial. Did the primitive Fathers refuse to be judged by, or to argue from Scriptures, because the heretics did argue from thence too? Did not the Fathers take from them their armour in which they trusted? And did not David strike with the sword of Goliath, because that was the sword which his Enemy had used? David proved that way apt to prevail by cutting off the Giant's head. But what particularity of method would I. S. have me to use? shall I use reason? To that all the world pretends, and it is the sword that cuts on both sides, and it is used in discourses that can, and that cannot satisfy. Shall I use the Scriptures? in that I. S. is pleased to say, the Quakers outdo me? Shall I use the Fathers? The Smectymnuans bring Fathers against Episcopacy. What shall I bring? I know not what yet, but it ought to be something very particular; that's certain. Shall I then bring Tradition? will Oral tradition do it? I hope I. S. will for his own and his three or four friends sake like that way. But if I should take it, I. S: might very justly say, that I take a method that is common to those discourses, which have in them power to satisfy the understanding, and those which have no such power: Whether this method is used or no in discourses satisfactory, let I. S. Speak; but I am sure it is used of late in some discourses, which are not satisfactory, and the name of one of them is Sure footing. And do not the Greeks pretend tradition against the Roman doctrine of Purgatory, the procession of the Holy Ghost, the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome? whether right or wrong I inquire not here, but that they do so is evident; and therefore neither is it lawful for me to proceed this way, or even then to call my book a Dissuasive. For it is plain to common sense, that it can have in it no power of moving the understanding one way or other, unless there be some particularity in the method above what is in others; which it is certain can never be, because there is no method, but some or other have already taken it. And therefore I perceive plainly, my book is▪ not any more to be called a Dissuasive, till I can find out some new way and method which as yet was never used in Christendom. And indeed I am to account myself the more unsuccessful in my well meant endeavours, because I. S. tells us that he sees plainly that in the pursuit of truth, Method is in a manner All; I. S. hath a method new enough, not so old as Mr. White, and he desires me to get such another; but nobis non licet esse tam beatis; and I am the less troubled for it, because I. S. his Method is new, but not right, and I prove it from an argument of his own; For (saith he) it is impossible any controversy should hover long in debate, if a right method of concluding evidently were carefully taken, and faithfully held to. Now because I see that I. S. his method or new way hath made a new controversy, but hath ended none, but what was before and what is now is as likely as ever, still to hover in debate; I. S. must needs conclude, that either he hath not faithfully held to it, or his way is good for nothing.  
Other things he says here, which though they be rude and uncivil, yet because he repeats them in his Sixth way, I shall there consider them altogether, if I find cause.   

The fourth Way.  
THis fourth mine hath (as good luck would have it) nothing of demonstration, nor is his reason founded upon the nature of the thing (as before he boasted) but only ad hominem. But such as it is, it must be considered. The argument is this, That though I produce testimony from Fathers, yet I do not allow them to be infallible, nor yet myself in interpreting Scripture; nor yet do I with any infalliable certainty see any proposition, I go about to deduce by reason, to be necessarily consequent to any first or self evident principle, and therefore I am certain of nothing I allege in my whole book. The sum is this, No man is certain of any thing, unless he be infallible. I confess I am not infallible, and yet I am certain this must be his meaning, or else his words have no sense; and if I say true in this, than fallibility and certainty are not such incompossible and inconsistent things. But what does I. S. think of himself? is he infallible? I do not well know what he will answer, for he seems to be very near it, if we may guests by the glorious opinion he hath of himself; but I will suppose him more modest than to think he is, and yet he talks at that rate, as if his arguments were demonstrations, and his opinions certainties. Suppose his grounds he goes upon are as true, as I know they are false; yet is he infallible in his reasoning, and deducing from those principles such feat conclusions, as he offers to obtrude upon the world? If his reason be infallible, so it may be, mine is for aught. I know, but I never thought it so yet; and yet I know no reason to the contrary, but it is as infallible as his: but if his be not, it may be all that he says is false, at least he is not sure any thing of it is true; and then he may make use of his own ridiculous speech he made for me [I know not certainly that any thing I say against your religion is true, 
Page 258.  etc.] All the men that tell us that Cardinal Chigi is now Pope, are fallible, they may be deceived and they may deceive; and yet I suppose Mr. White, though he also be fallible, is sufficiently certain he is so; and if he did make any doubt, if he would sail to Italy, he would be infallibly assured of it by the Executioners of the Pope's Censures, who yet are as fallible as any the officers of Montfalcon.  
But I. S. however says, I ought to confess that I ought not to dissuade from any thing, in case neither the Fathers nor myself be infallible in any saying or proof of theirs. For the infallibility of the Fathers, I shall have a more convenient time to consider it under his eighth way. But now I am to consider his reason for this pretty saying, which he says he evinces thus. Since to be infallible in none, hic & nunc (taking in the whole complexion of assisting circumstances) is the same as to be hic & nunc fallible in all or each; and if they be fallible, or may be deceived in each, they can be sure of none, it follows that who professes the Fathers and himself (though using all the means he can to secure him from error) fallible in each, must, if he will speak out like an honest man, confess he is sure of none.] This is the evident demonstration, and indeed there are in it some things evidently demonstrative. The first is, That to be infallible in none, is the same as to be fallible in all. Indeed I must needs say, that he says true and learnedly, and it being a self evident Principle he might according to his custom have afforded demonstrations enough for this, but I shall take it upon his own word at this time, and allow him the honour of first communicating this secret to the ignorant world; that he that is not infallible is fallible. Another deep note we have here; his words laid plain without their Parentheses, can best declare the mystery [If they be infallible, or may be deceived in each, they can be sure of none; it follows that they that profess they are fallible in each, must confess they are sure of none. If I. S. always writ thus subtly, no man will ever be able to resist him: For indeed this is a demonstration, and therefore we hope it may be aeternae veritatis, for it relies upon this first and self evident principle, idem per idem semper facit idem. Now having well learned these two deep notes out of the school, and deep discourses of I. S. let us see what the man would be at for himself: and though we find it in his Parentheses only, yet they could not be left out, and sense be entire without them.  
When he talks of being infallible, if the notion be applied to his Church, than he means an infallibility, antecedent, absolute, unconditionate, such as will not permit the Church ever to err. And because he thinks such an infallibility to be necessary, for the settling the doubting minds of men; he affirms roundly, if infallibility be denied, than no man can be sure of any thing. But then when he comes to consider the particulars, and cannot but see, a man may be certain of some things, though he have not that antecedent infallibility, that quality and permanent grace; yet because he will not have his Dear notion lost, that infallibility and certainty live and die together, he hath now secretly put in a changeling in the place of the first, and hath excogitated an infallibility consequent, conditionate, circumstantiate, which he calls hic & nunc, taking in the whole complexion of assisting circumstances; Now because the first is denied by us to be in any man or company of men, and he perceives that to be uncertain in every thing, will not be consequent to the want of this first sort, he secretly slides into the second, and makes his consequent to rely upon this deceitfully. And if the argument be put into intelligible terms, it runs thus: If when a whole complexion of assisting circumstances are present; that is, a proposition truly represented, apt to be understood, necessary to be learned, and attended to by a person desirous to learn, when it is taught by sufficient authority, or proved by evidence, or confirmed by reason; when a man hath his eyes and his wits about him, and is sincerely desirous of truth, and to that purpose, himself considers, and he confers with others and prays to God; and the thing itself is also plain and easy; then if a man can be deceived, he is sure of nothing: And this is infallibility hic & nunc. But this is not that which he and his parties contend to be seated in his Church; for such a one as this we allow to her, if she does her duty, if she prays to God, if she consider as well as she can, and be no way transported with interest or partiality; then in such propositions which God hath adopted into the Christian faith, and which are plain and intended to be known and believed by all, there is no question but she is infallible, that is, she is secured from error in such things. But then every man also hath a part of this infallibility. Some things are of their own nature so plain, that a man is infallible in them, as a man may infallibly know, that two and two make four. And a Christian may be infallibly sure that the Scriptures say, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that there shall be a resurrection from the dead, and that they who do the works of the flesh shall not inherit the kingdom of God; And as fallible as I, or any Protestant is, yet we cannot be deceived in this; if it be made a question whether fornication be a thing forbidden in the New Testament we are certain and infallibly so, that in that book it is written, flee fornication. An infallibility hic & nunc, if that will serve I. S. his turn, we have it for him; and he cannot say, that we Protestants affirm that we are fallible when we do our duty, and when all the assisting circumstances, which God hath made sufficient and necessary, are present: we are as certain as infallibility itself, that among the ten Commandments, one is, Thou shalt not worship any graven Images: and another, Thou shalt not commit adultery: and so concerning all the plain say in Scripture, we are certain that they carry their meaning on their forehead, and we cannot be deceived, unless we please not to make use of all the complexion of assisting circumstances. And this certainty or circumstantiate infallibility we derive from self evident principles; such as this, God is never wanting to them that do the best they can, and this, In matters which God requires of us, 
Deus neminem deserit nisi prius deserentem.  if we fail not in what is on our part, God will not fail on his. And this infallibility is just like to what is signified by what God promised to Joshua, I will never leave thee nor forsake thee, 
Josh. 1. 5. 7.  only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law. Nothing was more certain than that Joshua should be infallibly conducted into the land of promise, and yet it was required of him to be courageous, and to keep all the Law of Moses; and because Joshua did so, the promise had an infallibility, hic & nunc: And so it is in the finding out the truths of God, so said our Blessed Saviour, If ye love me keep my Commandments, and I will pray to the Father, 
Joh. 14. 15, 16, 17.  and he shall give you another Comforter that he may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive. If we open our eyes, if we suffer not a Veil to be over them, if we inquire with diligence and simplicity, and if we live well, we shall be infallibly directed, and upon the same terms it is infallibly certain that every man shall be saved. And the Gospel is not hid, but to them that are lost (saith the Apostle) in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. So that it is certain that in things necessary, a man need not be deceived unless he be wanting to himself; and therefore hic & nunc he is infallible: But if a man will lay aside his reason and will not make use of it, if he resolves to believe a proposition in defiance of all that can be said against it; if when he sees reason against his proposition, he will call it a temptation, which is like being hardened by miracles, and slighting a truth, because it is too well proved to him; if he will not trust the instruments of knowledge that God gives him, if he sets his face against his reason, and think it meritorious to distrust his sense, and seeing will not see, and hearing he will not understand, (And all this is every day done in the Church of Rome) then there is nothing so certain, but it becomes to him uncertain; and it is no wonder if he be given over to believe a lie. It is not confidence that makes a man infallibly certain, for than I. S. were the most infallible person in the world; but the way to make our calling and election sure, is to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Modesty is the way to knowledge, and by how much more a man fears to be deceived, by so much the more will he walk circumspectly and determine warily, and take care he be not deceived; but he that thinks he cannot be deceived, but that he is infallible, as he is the more liable to error, because by this supposed infallibility he is tempted to a greater inconsideration, so if he be deceived, his recovery is the more desperate. And I desire that it be here observed, that it is one thing to say, I cannot be deceived, and another to say, I am sure I am not deceived. For the first no man can say; but the latter every wise and good man may say if he please; That every man is certain of very many things is evident by all the experience of mankind; and in many things this certainty is equivalent to an infallibility, that is, hic & nunc: And that relys upon this ground (for I must be careful to go upon grounds for fear of I. S. his displeasure) Quicquid est, quamdiu est, necesse est esse; while a truth prevails, and is invested with the whole complexion of assisting circumstances, it is an actual infallibility, that is, such a certainty, cui falsum subesse non potest; for else no man could tell certainly and infallibly, when he is hungry or thirsty, awake or weary; when he hath committed a sin against God, or when he hath told a lie: and he that says a fallible Christian is not infallibly certain, that it is a good thing to say his prayers, and to put his trust in God, and to do good works, knows not what he says.  
But besides this, it were well if I. S. would consider what kind of certainty God requires of us in our faith; for I hope I. S. will then require no more. Our faith is not Science, and yet it is certainty; and if the assent be accoring to the whole design of it, and effects all its purposes and the intention of God, it cannot be accepted though the ways of begetting that faith be not demonstrative arguments. There had but five or six persons seen Christ after his resurrection, and yet he was pleased to reprove their unbelief, because the Disciples did not believe those few who said they had seen him alive. Faith is the foundation of good life; and if a man believes so certainly that he is willing to live in it, and die for it, God requires no more, and there is no need of more; and if a little thing did not do that, what shall become of those innumerable multitudes of Christians, who believe upon grounds which a learned man knows are very weak, but yet are to those people as good as the best, because they are not only the best they have, but they are sufficient to do their work for them. Nay God is so good, and it is so necessary in some affairs to proceed so, that a man may be certain he does well, though in the proposition or subject matter he be deceived. Is not a Judge infallibly certain, that he does his duty, and proceeds wisely, if he gives sentence Secundum allegata & probata, though he be not infallibly certain that the witnesses depose truth. Was not S. Paul in the right, and certainly so, when he said it was better for the present necessity, if a Virgin did not marry; and yet he had no revelation, and no oral infallible tradition for it; this speak I (saith he) not the Lord; and he did not talk confidently of his grounds, but said modestly, I think I have the Spirit of God; and yet all Christians believe that what he then said was infallibly enough true. We see here through a glass darkly, saith the Apostle, and yet we see; and what we see we may be certain of, I mean, we Protestants may, indeed the Papists may not, for they denying what they see, call bread a God: so that they do not so much as see darkly, they see not at all, or what is as bad, they will not believe the thing to be that which their eyes, and three senses more tell them that it is. But is a wonder that they who dare not trust their senses, should talk of being infallible in their argument.  
And now to apply this to the charge I S. lays on me, Because I do not profess to be infallible, I am certain in nothing, and without an infallible oral tradition, it is impossible I should be certain of any thing. In answer to this, I demand why I may not be as certain of what I know or believe, as Mr. White or I. S.? Is the doctrine of Purgatory fire between death and the day of judgement, and of the validity of the prayers and Masses said in the Church of Rome to the freeing of souls from Purgatory long before the day of judgement, is this doctrine (I say) delivered by an infallible oral tradition, or no? If not, than the Church of Rome either is not certain it is true, or else she is certain of it by some other way than such a tradition. If yea, then how is Mr. White certain that he speaks true in his book de statu animarum, where he teaches that prayers of the Church do no good, and free no souls before the day of judgement, for he hath no oral tradition for his opinion; for two oral traditions cannot be certain and infallible, when they contradict one another; and if the traditions be not infallible, as good for these men that they be none at all. So that either Mr. White cannot be certain of any thing he says, by not relying on oral tradition, or the Church of Rome cannot be certain; and therefore he or she may forbear to persuade their friends to any thing. And for my present adversary I. S. who also affirms, that oral tradition of the present Church is the whole rule of faith, how can he trust himself or be certain of any thing, or teach any thing, when his Church says otherwise than he says, and makes tradition to be but a part of the rule of faith, as is to be seen in the Council of Trent itself in the first decree of the fourth Session. 
Perspiciensque hanc verita tem, & disciplinam contineri in libris scriptis & sine scripto traditionibus— omnes libros tamveteris quam N. T. nec non Traditiones ipsa●, etc. pari pietatis affectu ac reverentiâ suscipit & veneratur.  So that in effect here are two rules of faith, and therefore two Churches; Mr. I. S.'s is the traditionary Church, so called from relying solely on tradition, the other (what shall we call it for distinction sake) the Purgatorian Church from Purgatory, or if you will, the imaginary Church from worshipping images: And since they do not both follow the same rule of faith, the one making tradition alone to be the ground, the other not so; it will follow by Mr. I. S. his argument, that either the one or the other missing the true ground of faith, cannot be certain of any thing that they say. And now when he hath considered these things, let him reckon the advantage which his Catholic faith gains by the opposition from her adversaries if they be rightly handled, (as Mr. S. hath handled them, and brought to his grounds) But however the opposition which I have now made, hath its advantages upon the weakness of Mr. Whites grounds, and I. S.'s demonstrations, yet I shall without relation to them, but upon the account of other grounds which his wiser and more learned brethren of the other Church do lay, make it appear that there is indeed in the Church of Rome no sure footing, no foundation of faith upon which a man can with certainty rely, and say, Now I am infallibly sure that I am in the right.   

The fifth Way.  
THe fifth way I. S. says is built on the fourth, which being proved to be a ruinous foundation, I have the less need to trouble myself about that which will fall of itself, but because he had no reason to trust that foundation, for all his confidence he is glad to build his fifth way on the Protestants voluntary Concession, for they granting they have no demonstration for the ground of their faith, must say they have only probability. But I pray who told I. S. that we grant we have no demonstration for the ground of our faith? Did ever any Protestant say that there is no moral demonstration of his faith? or that it cannot be proved so certain, so infallible, that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it? If I. S. will descend so low as to look upon the book of a Protestant, besides many better, 
Book 1. chap. pag. 124.  he may find in my Cases of Conscience a demonstration of Christian Religion; and although it consists of probabilities, yet so many, so unquestioned, so confessed, so reasonable, so uncontradicted pass into an argument of as much certainty, as humane nature without a Miracle is capable of; as many sands heaped together make a bank strong enough to resist the impetuosity of the raging sea. But I have already shown upon what certainties our faith relies, and if we had nothing but high probabilities, it must needs be as good as their prudential motives; and therefore I shall not repeat any thing, but pass on to consider what it is he says of our high probabilities, if they were no more: If there be probabilities on both sides, than the greatest must carry it, so he roundly professes, never considering that the latter Casuists of his Church, I mean those who wrote since Angelus, Silvester, Cordubensis and Cajetan, do expressly teach the contrary, viz. that of two probabilities the less may be chosen; and that this is the common and more received opinion. But since I. S. is in the right, let them and he agree it, as we do, if they please. I hope he relates this only to the Questions between us, and Rome, and not to the Christian Faith; well, but if the matter be only between us, I am well enough content, and the greater probability, that is, the better argument shall carry it; and I will not be ask any more odd Questions, as why, I. S. having so clearly demonstrated his religion by grounds firm as the land of Delos or O Brasile, he should now be content to argue his cause at the bar of probability? Well, but let us see what he says for his party: That there is no probability for our side (says I S.) is very hard to be said, since the whole world sees plainly we still maintain the field against them, nay dare pretend without fearing an absolute baffle, which must needs follow (had we not at least probabilities to befriend us) that our grounds are evidently and demonstrably certain.] Here I. S. seems to be afraid again, of his probabilities, that he still runs to covert under his broad shield of demonstration: but his postulatum here is indeed very modest; he seems to desire us to allow that there are some probable things to be said for his side, and indeed he were very hard hearted that should say, there are none at all; some probabilities we shall allow, but no grounds evidently and demonstratively certain: good Sir, And yet let me tell you this, There are some of your propositions for which there is probable reason or fair pretence in the world: Nothing that can handsomely or ingeniously deceive a man: Such as is your half Communion, worship of images, prayers not understood and some others: And therefore you may be ashamed to say, you still maintain the field against us, for if you do not, why do you say you do? but if you still maintain the field, you may be more ashamed, for why will you stand in a falsehood, and then call yourselves equal combatants, if not Conquerors. But you may if you please look after victory, I am only in the pursuit of truth.  
But to return, It seems he knows my mind for this, and in my liberty of prophesying, my own words will beyond all confute evince it, that they have probabilities, and those strong ones too. But now (in my Conscience) this was unkindly done, that when I had spoken for them what I could, and more than I knew that they had ever said for themselves, and yet to save them harmless from the iron hands of a tyrant and unreasonable power, to keep them from being persecuted for their errors and opinions, that they should take the arms I had lent them for their defence, and throw them at my head. But the best of it is, though I. S. be unthankful, yet the weapons themselves are but wooden daggers, intended only to represent how the poor men are cozened by themselves, and that under fair and fraudulent pretences even pious well meaning men, and men wise enough in other things may be abused: And though what I said was but tinsel and pretence, imagery and whipped Cream, yet I could not be blamed to use no better than the best their cause would bear; yet if that be the best they have to say for themselves, their probabilities will be soon out-ballanced by one Scripture testimony urged by Protestants; and Thou shalt not worship any graven images will out weigh all the best and fairest imaginations of their Church. But since from me they borrow their light armour which is not Pistol proof, from me if they please they may borrow a remedy to undeceive them, and that in the same kind and way of arguing: If I. S. please to read a letter or two of mine to a Gentlewoman not long before abused in her religion by some Roman Emissaries, there he shall see so very much said against the Roman way, and that in instances evident and notorious, that I. S. may if he please (he hath my leave) put them in balance against one another, 
Collection of Polemical and moral discourses, Pag. 703,  and try which will preponderate. They are printed now in one Volume, and they are the easier compared. But then I. S. might if he had pleased have considered, that I did not intent to make that harangue, to represent, that the Roman Religion had probabilities of being true, but probabilities that the religion might be tolerated, or might be endured, that is, as I there expressed it, whether the Doctrines be commenced upon design, and managed with impiety, and have effects not to be endured; and concerning these things I amassed a heap of considerations, by which it might appear probable, that they were not so bad as to be intolerable; and if I was deceived, it was but a well meant error, hereafter they shall speak for themselves, only for their comfort this they might have also observed in that book, that there is not half so much excuse for the Papists, as there is for the Anabaptists; and yet it was but an excuse at the best, as appears in those full answers I have given to all their arguments, in the last edition of that book, amongst the Polemical discourses in folio.  
I shall need to say no more for the spoiling this Mine, for I. S. hath not so much as pretended that the probabilities urged for them can outweigh or come to equal what is said against them; and I humbly suppose that the difficulties will be increased by the following book.   

The sixth and seventh Ways.  
THE sixth mine is most likely at the worst to prove but a squib. I. S. says I should have made a preface, and before hand have proved that all the arguments I used were unanswerable, and convictive, which indeed were a pretty way of making books; to make a preface to make good my book, and then my book cannot but in thankfulness make good the preface; which indeed is something like the way of proving the Scriptures by the Church, and then back again proving the Church by the Scriptures. But he adds that I was bound to say, That they were never pretended to be answered, or could not, or that the Protestants had the last word. But on the contrary I acknowledge, that the evidences on both sides have been so often produced, that it will seem almost impossible to bring in new matter, or to prevail with the old. This is the great charge, the sum of which is truly this. I have spoken modestly of my own undertaking, and yet I had so great reason to deplore the obstinacy of the Roman Priests, their pertinacy and incorrigible resolution of seeming to say something, when they can say nothing to the purpose, that I had cause to fear, the event would not be so successful as the merit of our cause, and the energy of the arguments might promise. I confess I did not rant as I. S. does, and talk high of demonstrations, and unmistakable grounds, and scientifical principles, and Metaphysical nothings; but according as my undertaking required, I proceeded upon principles agreed on both sides. If Scripture and Fathers, Councils and reasons, the analogy of faith, and the Doctrines of the Primitive Church (from which I proved, and shall yet more clearly prove the Church of Rome hath greatly revolted) will not prevail, I have done; I shall only commit the cause to God and the judgement of wise and good men, and so sit down in the peace of my own persuasions, and in a good Conscience, that I have done my endeavour to secure our own people from the temptation, and to snatch others as brands from the fire.  
Only I wish here I had found a little more worthiness in I. S. than to make me speaking that I have brought nothing but common objections, or nothing new: I suppose they that are learned know this to be a Calumny; and by experience they and I find, that whether the objections be new or old, it is easier to rail at them all, than answer any. To this as it is not needful to say any more, so there cannot any thing else well be said, unless I should be vain, like the man whom I now reprove, and go about to commend myself, which is a practice I have neither reason nor custom for.  
But the seventh Way is yet worse. For it is no thing but a direct declamation against my book, and the quotations of it, and having made a ridiculous Engine of Corollaries in his Sure-footing against the quotations in Dr. P. his Sermon, without meaning my book, for that came out a pretty while after; he does like the two penny Almanac-makers, though he calculated it for the meridian of the Court Sermon (as he calls it) yet without any sensible error it may serve for Ireland: It may be I. S. had an oral tradition, for this way of proceeding, especially having followed so authentic a precedent for it as the Author of the two Sermons called the Primitive rule before the reformation, who goes upon the same infallible and thrifty way, saying [These two tracts as they are named Sermons are an answer to Dr. Pierce, but as they may better be styled two common places, so they are a direct answer to Dr. Taylon. So that here are two things which are Sermons and no Sermons, as you please not Sermons, but common places; and yet they are not altogether common places, but they in some sense, are Sermons; unless Sermon and common place happen to be all one; but how the same thing should be an answer to Dr. P. as he gives them one name, and by giving them another name, to the same purpose should be a direct answer to me, who speak of other matters, and by other arguments, and to other purposes, and in another manner, I do not yet understand. But I suppose it be meant as in I. S. his way, and that it relies upon this first and a self evident principle, That the same thing when called by another name is apt to do new and wonderful things. It is a piece of Mr. White's and I. S. his new Metaphysics which we silly men have not the learning to understand. But it matters not what they say, so they do but stop the mouths of the people, that call upon them to say something to every new book, that they may without apparent lying, telling them the book is answered. For to answer to confute, means nothing with them but to speak the last word.  
Well! but so it is, I. S. hath ranged a great many of my quotations under heads, and says, so many are confuted by the first Corollary, and so many by the second, and so on to the ninth and tenth, and some of them are raw and unapplyed, some set for show, and some not home to the point, and some wilfully represented, and these come under the second or third head, and perhaps of divers of the others. To all this I have one short answer; that the quotations which he reduces under the first head, or the second, or the third might for aught appears be ranked under any other as well as these: For he hath proved none to belong to any; but Magisterially points with his finger and directs them to their several stations of confutation. Thus he supposes I am confuted, by an argument of his, next to that of Mentiris Bellarmine. And indeed in this way it were easy to confute Bellarmine's three Volumes with the labour of three pages writing. But this way was most fit to be taken by him, who quotes the Fathers by oral tradition, and not ocular inspection; however if he had not particularly considered these things, he ought not generally to have condemned them, before he tried. But this was an old trick, and noted of some by S. Cyprian, 
Corneli● Fr. epist. 42. edit.  Viderint autem qui vel furori suo, 
Rigalt. Paris, 1648.  vel libidini servientes & divinae legis ac sanctitatis immemores, jactitare interim gestiunt quae probare non possunt, & cum innocentiam destruere atque expugnare non valeant, satis habent fama mendacii & falsorum ore maculas inspergere. I have neither will nor leisure to follow him in this extravagancy; it will I hope be to better purpose, that in the following Sections I shall justify all my quotations, against his, and the calumnies of some others; and press them and others beyond the objections of the wiser persons of his Church, from whence these new men have taken their answers, and made use of them to little purposes; and therefore I shall now pass over the particulars of the quotations referring them to their places, and consider if there be any thing more material in his eighth Way, by which he pretends to blow up my grounds and my arguments derived from reason.   

The eighth Way.  
THe eighth Way is to pick out the principles I rely on, and to show their weakness. It is well this eighth Way is a great distance off from his first way; or else I. S. would have no excuse for forgetting himself so palpably; having at first laid to my charge that I went upon no grounds, no principles. But I perceive, principles might be found in the Dissuasive if the man had a mind to it: nay main and fundamental principles, and self evident to me. And yet such is his ill luck, that he picks out such which he himself says I do not call so; And even here also he is mistaken too; for the first he instances is Scripture; and this, not only I but all Protestants acknowledge to be the foundation of our whole faith. But of this he says we shall discourse afterwards.  
The second principle I rely upon, at least, he says I seem to do so, is, [We all acknowledge that the whole Church of God kept the faith entire, and transmitted faithfully to after ages the whole faith.] Well what says he to this principle? He says, this principle as to the positive part is good, and assertive of tradition: It is so of the Apostolical tradition; for they delivered the doctrine of Christ to their Successors, both by preaching and by writing. And what hath I. S. got by this? Yes, give him but leave to suppose that this delivery of the doctrine of Christ was only by oral tradition for the three first ages, (for he is pleased so to understand the extent of the primitive Church) and then he will infer that the third age could deliver it to the fourth, and that to the fifth; and so to us: If they were able, there is no question but they were willing, for it concerned them to be so, and therefore it was done. Though all this be not true, for we see by a sad experience, that too few in the world are willing to do, what it concerns them most to do: Yet for the present I grant all this. And what then? therefore oral tradition is the only rule of faith. Soft and fair, therefore the third age delivered it to the fourth, and so on, but not all the particulars by oral tradition, but by the holy Scriptures, as I shall largely prove in the proper place. But to I. S. the Bells ring no tune, but Whittington.  
A third principle he says is this, The present Roman doctrines which are in difference were invisible and unheard of in the first and best antiquity.] I know not why he calls this one of my principles, unless all my propositions be principles, as all his arguments are demonstrations. It is indeed a conclusion which I have partly, and shall in the sequel largely make good. In the mean time whether it be principle or conclusion, let us see what is objected against it, or what use is made of it: For I. S. says it is an improved and a main position. But then he tells us, the reason of it is, because No heretic had arisen in those days denying those points, and so the Fathers set not themselves to write expressly for them, but occasionally only.] Let us consider what this is, no heretic had arisen in those days denying these points: True, but many Catholics did, and the reason why no heretics did deny those things was, because neither Catholic nor heretic ever affirmed them. Well! but however, the Roman controvertists are frequent for citing them for divers points. Certainly not for making vows to Saints; not for the worship of images; nor for the half Communion, for these they do not frequently cite the Fathers of the first 300. years: It may be not, but for the ground of our faith, the Church's voice or tradition they do, to the utter overthrow of the Protestant cause. They do indeed sometimes cite something from them for tradition; and where ever the word tradition is in Scripture, or the Primitive Fathers, they think it is an argument for them, just as the Covenanters in the late wars, thought all Scripture was their plea, where ever the word Covenant was named. But to how little purpose they pretend to take advantage of any of the primitive Fathers speaking of tradition, I shall endeavour to make apparent in an inquiry made on purpose. Sect. 3. In the mean time it appears, that this conclusion of mine was to very good purpose, and in a manner, confessed to be true in most instances; and that it was so in all, was not intended by me.  
Well! but however it might be in the first three ages, yet he observes that I said, that in the succeeding ages secular interest did more prevail, and the writings of the Fathers were vast and voluminous, and many things more, that both sides eternally and inconfutably shall bring sayings for themselves respectively. And is not all this very true? He cannot deny it; but what then? why than he says, I may speak out and say, all the Fathers after the first three hundred years are not worth a straw in order to decision or controversy; and the Fathers of the first three hundred years spoke not of our points in difference, and so there is a fair end of all the Fathers and of my own Dissuasive too; for that part which relies on them, which looks like the most authoritative piece of it: There is no great hurt in this, If the Fathers be gone, my Dissuasive may go too; it cannot easily go in better company, and I shall take the less care of it, because I have I. S. his word, that there is a part of it, which relies upon the Fathers. But if the Fathers be going, it is fit we look after them, and see which way they go: For if they go together (as in many things they do) they are of very good use in order to decision of controversy; if they go several ways, and consequently that Controvertists may eternally and irrefutably bring say out of them against one another, who can help it? No man can follow them all; and than it must be tried by some other topic which is best to follow; but then that topic by itself would have been sufficient to have ended the Question. Secondly, If a disputer of this world pretends to rely upon the authority of the Fathers, he may by them be confuted, or determined. The Church of Rome pretends to this, and therefore if we perceive the Fathers have condemned doctrines, which they approve of, or approve what they condemn, which we say in many articles is the case of that Church, than the Dissuasive might be very useful, and so might the Fathers too, for the condemnation of such doctrines, in which the Roman Church are by that touchstone found too blame.  
And where as I. S. says, that the first three ages of Christianity meddled not with the present controversies; it is but partly true, for although many things are now adays taught, of which they never thought, yet some of the errors which we condemn were condemned then, very few indeed by disputation, but not a few by positive sentence, and in explications of Scripture, and rational discourses, and by parity of case, and by Catechetical doctrines. For rectum est Index sui & obliqui; they have without thinking of future controversies and new emergent heresies, said enough to confute many of them when they shall arise. The great use of the Fathers, especially of the first three hundred years is to tell us what was first, to consign Scripture to us, to convey the Creed, with simplicity and purity to preach Christ's Gospel, to declare what is necessary and what not: And whether they be fallible or infallible, yet if we find them telling and accounting the integrity of the Christian faith, and treading out the paths of life; because they are persons whose conversation, whose manner and time of living, whose fame and Martyrdom, and the venerable testimony of after-ages have represented to be very credible, we have great reason to believe that alone to be the faith, which they have described, and consequently that whatever comes in afterwards and is obtruded upon the world, as it was not their way of going to heaven, so it ought not to be ours. So that here is great use of the Father's writings, though they be not infallible, and therefore I wonder at the prodigious confidence (to say no worse) of I. S. to dare to say; that [as appears by the Dissuader the Protestants neither acknowledge them infallible, nor useful, Nay that this is my fourth Principle.] He that believes Transubstantiation, can believe any thing; and he that says this, dares say every thing; for as that is infinitely impossible to sense and reason, so this is infinitely false in his own Conscience and experience. And the words, which in a few lines of his bold assertion he hath quoted out of my book, confute him but too plainly. [He tells us, (so saith I. S.) the Fathers are a good testimony of the doctrine delivered from their Forefathers down to them, of what the Church esteemed the way of salvation.] Do not I also (though he is pleased to take no notice of it) say, that although we acknowledge not the Fathers as the Authors and finishers of our faith, yet we own them as helpers of our faith, and heirs of the doctrine Apostolical: That we make use of their testimonies as being (as things now stand) to the sober and the moderate, the peaceable and the wise, the best, the most certain, visible and tangible, most humble and satisfactory to them that know well how to use it. Can he that says this, not acknowledge the Father's useful? I know not whether I. S. may have any credit as he is one of the Fathers, but as he is a witness, no man hath reason to take his word.  
But to the thing in question, Whatever we Protestants think or say; yet I. S. saith [our constant and avowed doctrine (meaning of the Church of Rome) is, that the testimony of Fathers speaking of them properly as such is infallible. If this be the avowed doctrine of the Roman Church, than I shall prove, that one of the avowed doctrines of that Church is false. And secondly, I shall also prove that many of the most eminent Doctors of the Church, are not of that mind, and therefore it is not the constant doctrine, as indeed amongst them few doctrines are.  
1. It is false that the Testimony of the Father's speaking of them properly as such is infallible. For God only is true, and every man a liar; and since the Fathers never pretended to be assisted by a supernatural miraculous aid, or inspired by an infallible spirit; and infallibility is so far beyond humane nature, and industry, that the Fathers may be called Angels much rather than infallible; for if they were assisted by an infallible spirit, what hinders but that their writings might be Canonical Scriptures? And if it be said they were assisted infallibly in some things and not in all, it is said to no purpose; for unless it be infallibly known where the infallibility resides, and what is so certain as it cannot be mistaken, every man must tread fearfully, for he is sure the Ice is broken in many places, and he knows not where it will hold. It is certain S. Austin did not think the Fathers before him to be infallible, when it is plain that in many doctrines, as in the damnation of infants dying Unbaptised, and especially in questions occurring in the disputes against the Pelagians about free will, and predestination, without scruple he rejected the doctrines of his predecessors. And when in a question between himself and S. Hierom about S. Peter, and the second chapter to the Galatians, he was pressed with the authority of six or seven Greek Fathers; he roundly answered, that he gave no such honour to any writers of books, but to the Scriptures, only as to think them not to have erred; 
Ep. S. Aug. ad Hierom. qu● est. 19 Inter oper● Hierom. 97. & multi●●liis locis.  other Authors he read so as to believe them if they were proved by Scriptures, or probable reason. Not because they thought so, but because he thought them proved. And he appeals to S. Hierom, whether he were not of the same mind concerning his own works. And for that S. Hierom hath given satisfaction to the world in divers places of his own writings. 
* S. Hierom. l. 2. apelog. contr. Ruff Epist. 62. ad Theoph. Alex Epist. 65 ad Pammach. & Ocean. & Epist. 76. add Tranquil. epist. 13. ad Paulinum. & praefat. in lib. de Hebr. nomin.  I suppose Origen is for his learning to be read as Tertullian, Novatus, Arnobius, Apollinarius, and some writers Greek and Latin, that we choose out that which is good and avoid the contrary. So that it is evident the Fathers themselves have no conceit of the infallibility of themselves or others (the Prophets, and Apostles, and Evangelists only excepted,) and therefore if this be an avowed doctrine of the Roman Church, there is no oral tradition for it, no first and self evident principle to prove it; and either the Fathers are deceived in saying they are fallible, or they are not: If they be deceived in saying so, then that sufficiently proves that they can be deceived, and therefore that they are not infallible; but if they be not deceived in saying that they are fallible; than it is certain that they are fallible, because they say they are, and in saying so are not deceived. But then, if in this the Fathers are not deceived, than the Church of Rome in one of her avowed doctrines is deceived, saying otherwise of the Fathers than is true and contrary to what themselves, said of themselves.  
But 2. If it be the avowed doctrine of the Church of Rome, (as I. S. says it is) yet I am sure it is not their constant doctrine. Certain it is S. Austin was not infallible, for he retracted some things he had said; and in Gratians time, neither S. Austin nor any of the Fathers were esteemed infallible, and this appears in nine chapters together of the ninth distinction of Gratians decree, 
Dist. 9 Decret. cap. Nolo meis.  but because this truth was too plain to serve the interest of the following ages; the gloss upon cap. Nolo meis, tells us plainly, that this was to be understood according to those times, when the works of S. Austin and of the other holy Fathers were not authentic, but now all of them are commanded to be held to the last title; and a marginal note upon the gloss says, Scripta Sanctorum sunt ad unguem observanda. So that here is plain variety, and no constant oral tradition from S. Augustine's time downwards, that his and the father's writings were infallible, till Gratians time it was otherwise, and after him, till the gloss was written. It is as Solomon says, There is a time for every thing under the Sun. There is a time in which the writings of the Fathers are authentic, and a time in which they are not: But then this is not settled, no constant business. Now I would fain know whether Gratian spoke the sense of the Church of his age or no? If not, than the Fathers were of one mind, and the Church of his age of a contrary; and than which of them was infallible? But if yea, then how comes the present Church to be of another mind now? And which of the two ages that contradict each other hath got the ball, which of them carries the infallibility? Well! however it come to pass; yet the truth is, I. S. does wrong to his own Church, and they never decreed or affirmed the Fathers to be infallible. And therefore the Glossator upon Gratian was an ignorant man, and his gloss ridiculous, Ecce quales sunt decretorum glossatores, quibus tanta fides adhibetur; said A. Castor, and Duns Scotus gave a good character of them; Mittunt & remittunt & tandem nihil ad propositum. But the mistake of this ignorant Glossator is apparent to be upon the account of the words of Gelasius in dist. 15. cap. Sancta Rom. Eccl. where when he had reckoned divers of the Father's writings, which the Church receives; he hath these words, Item Epistola B. Leonis Papae ad Flavianum Episcopum C. P. destinatum, cujus textum aut unum iota si quisquam idiota disputaverit, & non eam in omnibus venerabiliter acceperit, anathema fit Now although this reaches not near to infallibility, but only to a non disputare, and a venerabiliter accipere, and that by idiots only, and therefore can do I. S. no service, yet this which Gelasius speaks of S. Leo's Epistle to Flavianus the Glossator falsely applies to all the works of the Fathers, against the mind of the Fathers themselves quoted by Gratian in the ninth distinction, and against the sense of Gelasius himself in that very chapter which he refers to in the fifteenth distinction. It may be I. S. had not so much to say for his bold proposition as this itself comes to, which if he had ever seen, he must needs have seen in the same place very much to the contrary. But that not only the Fathers themselves have taught him to speak more modestly of them than he does, and that divers leading men of his Church have reproved this foolish affirmative of his, he may be satisfied if he please to read Aquinas Authoritatibus Canonicae Scripturae utitur sacra doctrina ex necessitate argumentando, 
Primâ parte q. 1. part. 8. ad 2. arg.  authoritatibus autem aliorum Doctorum Ecclesiae quasi arguendo ex propriis sed probabiliter. Now I know not what hopes of escaping I. S. can have by his restrictive terms [the testimony of Fathers speaking of them properly as such] for besides that the words mean nothing, and the testimony of Fathers is the testimony of Fathers as such, or it is just nothing at all: Besides this I say, that Aquinas affirms that their whole authority (and therefore of Fathers as such) is only probable, and therefore certainly not infallible. But this is so fond a proposition of I. S. that I am ashamed to speak any more of it; and if he were not very ignorant of what his Church holds, 
Lib. 1. adv. haeres. c. 7.  he would never have said it. 
Lib. 7. loc. Theol c. 3. n. 4. etc.  But for his better information, I desire the Gentleman to read Alphonsus a Castro, Melehior Canus and Bellarmine. 
De verb. Dei lib. 3. c. 10. Sect. Dices.   
It is not therefore the constant doctrine of the Romanists, that the Fathers are infallible; for I never read or heard any man say it but I. S. and neither is it the avowed doctrine of that Church, unless he will condemn all them for heretics that deny it; some of which I have already named, and more will be added upon this occasion.  
Well! but how shall we know that the Father's testimony, is a testimony of Fathers speaking properly as such? for this doughty Question we are to inquire after in the pursuit of I. S. his mines and crackers: He says in two cases they speak as Fathers. 1. When they declare it the doctrine of the present Church of their time. 2. When they writ against any man as an heretic, or his Tenet as heresy. It seems then in these the Father's testimony is infallible. Let us try this, 1. All or any thing of this may be done by Fathers supposed such, but really, not so: and if it be not infallibly certain which are and which are not the writings of the Fathers; we are nothing the nearer though it were agreed, that the true Father's testimony is infallible. Or 2. If the book alleged was the book of the Father pretended, and not of an obscure or heretical person; yet it may be the words are interpolated, or the testimony some way or other corrupted; and then the testimony is not infallible, when there is no absolute certainty of the witnesses themselves or the records: and what causes there are of rejecting very many, and doubting more; and therefore in matters of present interest and Question of Uncertainty and fallibility in too many, is known to every learned man, and confessed by writers of both sides. 2. It is very seldom that any of the Fathers do use that expression of saying, This or this is the doctrine of the Church; and therefore if they speak as Fathers, never but when these two cases happen; the writings of the Fathers will be of very little use in I. S.'s way. 3. And yet after all this, if we shall descend to instances I. S. will not dare to justify what he says. Was Justin Martyr infallible, when he said that all Christians who were pure believers did believe the Millenary doctrine? Certainly they were the Church, for the others he says were such as denied the resurrection. But was Gennadius or else S. Austin fathers; and they infallible in the book de dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis, in which he intends to give an account of the doctrine of the Church; I. S. Seems to acknowledge it by affirming a saying out of that book to have been then the fide; which because it had been opposed by very many of the fathers, he had no reason to affirm, but upon the witness of Gennadius putting it into his book of Ecclesiastical doctrines; and he afterwards calls it the testimony of Gennadius delivering the doctrine of the Catholic Church. 
Pag. 315.  It is there said, that all men shall die (Christ only excepted) that death might reign from Adam upon all. Hanc rationem maxima Patrum turba tradente suscepimus: This account we have received from the tradition of the greatest company of the Fathers. If this be a tradition delivered by the greatest number of the fathers, than 1. Tradition is not a sure rule of saith; for this tradition is false, and expressly against Scripture: and 2. It follows that Tradition was not then esteemed a sure rule of faith; for although this was a tradition from so great a troop of fathers (at he says it was) yet there were in his time, alii aeque Catholici & eruditi viri, others as good Catholics and as learned, that believed (as S. Paul believed) that we shall not all dye, but we shall all be changed; and however it be; yet all that troop of fathers he speaks of, from whence the tradition came, were not infallible, for they were actually deceived. Now this instance is of great consideration and force, against I. S. his first and self evident principle concerning oral tradition. For all that number of fathers if the rule of faith had been only oral tradition, would horribly have disturbed the pure current of tradition, and of necessity must have prevailed in I. S. his way, or at least the contrary (which is the truth, and expressly affirmed in Scripture) could never have had the irrefragable testimony of oral tradition. But thanks be to God, in this the Church adhered to the surer word of Prophecy, the Scripture proved the surer rule of faith. But again S. Austin or Gennadius says, That after Christ's resurrection the souls of all the Saints are with Christ, and that going forth from the body, they go to Christ expecting the resurrection of their bodies. This he delivers as the Ecclesiastical doctrine; and do the Patrons of Purgatory believe him in this to be infallible? for my part I think S. Austin is in the right; but I think I. S. will not grant this to be the avowed and constant doctrine of his Church.  
The second case, in which they speak as Fathers, is when they writ against any man as an heretic, or his tenet as heresy. But this is so notoriously false, as nothing is more; and it is infinitely confuted by all the Catalogues and books of the father's reckoning the heresies; where they are pleased to call all opinions they like not, by the names of heresy. 
Haeres. 90.  Philastrius writes against them as heretics, and puts them in his black Catalogue, who expounds that of making man in the image and likeness of God, spoken of in Genesis, to signify the reasonable soul, and not rather the Grace of the Holy Spirit. He also accounts them heretics who rejected the LXX, and followed the translation of Aquila, which in the Ancient Church was in great reputation. Some there were who said that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, 
Haeres. 77.  and these he calls heretics, and yet this heresy is the very words of Scripture; 
Haeres. 71.  and some are reckoned heretics for saying that the Deluge of Deucalion and Pyrrha was before Noah's flood. But more consider able is that heresy, 
Haeres. 74.  which affirmed that Christ descended into hell, and there preached to the detained, that they who would confess him might be saved. Now if Philastrius or any other writer of heretics, were in this case infallible, what shall become of many of the Orthodox fathers who taught this now condemned doctrine. So did Clemens Alexandrinus, Anastasius Sinaita, S. Athanasius, S. Hierom, S. Ambrose, and divers others of the most eminent fathers; and S. Austin affirmed that Christ did save some; but whether all the damned then or no; he could not resolve Euodius who asked the question 
* Vide Jacob. Vsser▪ primate. Hibern. cap. de limbo PP. .  
That it was not lawful for Christians to swear at all upon any account, was unanimously taught by S. Hilary, and S. Hierom, S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, and Theophylact, 
* Vide Erasmum in declarat. ad Censuras Facult. Thed. Paris. p. 52. edit. Froben. A. D. 1532  no not cum exigitur jusjurandum, aut cum urget necessitas; and that it is crimen Gehenna dignum, a damnable sin. Whether that was the doctrine of the Church of Rome in those days, I say not; but if it were, why is the Church of Rome of a contrary judgement now? If it were not, than a consenting testimony of many fathers even of the greatest rank, is no irrefragable argument of the truth, or Catholic tradition; and from so great an union of such an authority, it was not very hard to imagine, that the opinion might have become Catholic; from a lesser spring greater streams have issued; but it is more than probable, that there was no Catholic oral tradition concerning this main and concerning article; and I am sure I. S. will think, that all these fathers were not only fallible, but deceived actually in this point.  
By these few instances we may plainly see, what little of infallibility there is in the father's writings, when they writ against heretics or heresies, or against any article; and how then shall we know that the fathers are at all, or in any case infallible? I know not from any thing more that is said by I. S. But this I know, that many chief men of his side do speak so slightly, and undervalue the fathers so pertly, that I fear it will appear that the Protestants have better opinion of them, and make better use of the Fathers than themselves. 
Praefat. in Pentateuch.  What think we of the saying of Cardinal Cajetan? If you chance to meet with any new exposition which is agreeable to the Text, etc. although perhaps it differ from that which is given by the whole current of the Holy Doctors, I desire the Readers that they would not too hastily reject it. And again, Let no man therefore reject a new exposition of any passage of Scripture, under pretence that it is contrary to what the Ancient Doctors gave. 
In Epiph. p. 244.  What think we of those words of Petavius? There are many things by the most Holy Fathers scattered, especially S. Chrysostom in his Homilies, which if you would accommodate to the rule of exact truth, they will seem to be void of good sense. 
P. 110.  And again, there is cause why the authority of certain Fathers should be objected, for they can say nothing but what they have learned from S. Luke; neither is there any reason, why we should rather interpret S. Luke by them, than those things which they say by S. Luke. And Maldonate does expressly reject the exposition which all the Authors, 
In Matth. 16. 18.  which he had read except S. Hilary, give of those words of Christ, The gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 
De sacr. tom. orig. & continentiâ apud Bellar. de Cler. lib. 1. cap. 15. vide etiam hist. Conc. Trident. l. 7.  Michael Nedina accuses S. Hierom as being of the Aerian heresy, in the Qu. of Episcopacy, and he proceeds further to accuse S. Ambrose, S. Austin, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius and Theophylact of the same heresy. And Cornelius Mussus the Bishop of Bitonto, expressly affirms, that he had rather believe one single Pope, 
In Epist. ad Rom. c. 14.  than a thousand Augustine's, Hierom's or Gregory's. I shall not need any further to instance how the Council of Trent hath decreed many things against the general doctrines of the fathers; as in the placing images in Churches; the denying of the Eucharist to Infants; the not including the Blessed Virgin Mary in the general evil of Mankind in the imputation of Adam's sin, denying the Chalice to the Laity, and Priests not officiating, the beatification and Divine vision of Saints before the day of judgement. If it were not notorious, and sometimes confessed, that these things are contrary to the sense of a troop of fathers, there might be some excuse made for them, who give them good words, and yet reject their authorities so freely, that it sometimes seems to pass into scorn. But now it appears to be to little purpose, 
Sess. 4.  that the Council of Trent enjoins her Clergy, that they offer not to expound Scripture against the unanimous consent of the fathers; for (though this amounts not to the height of I. S. his saying, it is their avowed and constant doctrine, that they are infallible, but ad coercenda petulantia ingenia) the contrary is done and avowed every day. And as the fathers proved themselves fallible, both as such in writing against heretics, and in testifying concerning the Church's doctrine in their age; so in the interpretations of Scripture, in which although there be no Universal consent of Fathers in any interpretation of Scripture, concerning which questions moved; so the best and most common consent that is, men of great note recede from it with the greater boldness, by how much they hope to raise to themselves the greater reputation for wit and learning. 
Sess. 11.  And therefore although in the sixth General Council, the Origenists were condemned, for bringing in interpretations differing from those that went before them; and in the Synod in Trullo 
* Canon. 19 ex divinâ scripturâ Colligentes intelligentias. , all Curates of souls were commanded to interpret Scriptures, so as not to transgress the bounds and tradition of the fathers; and the same was the way taken in the Council of Vienna, and commanded since in the Lateran under Leo the tenth, and at last in Trent, yet all this was but good advice, which when the following Doctors pretended to follow, they nevertheless still took their liberty, and went their own way, and if they followed some of the Fathers, they receded from many others; for none of them esteemed the way infallible; but they that did not think their own way better, left their own reason and followed their authority. But of late, knowledge is increased, at least many writers think so; and though the Ancient interpretations were more honoured, 
In Epist. ad Rom. 5 disp. 51 p. 468.  than new; yet Salmeron says plainly, that the younger Doctors are better sighted and more perspicacious. And the Question being about the conception of the Blessed Virgin, without original sin; against which a multitude of fathers are brought: the Jesuit answers the argument with the words in Exodus 23. Thou shalt not follow a multitude to sin. And to the same purpose S. Austin answered the Donatists. 
L. ●●ntr. Donat.  But of this I shall afterwards have occasion to speak more particularly. In the mean time it must needs be acknowledged, that the Protestants cannot more slight the Fathers, than the Jesuits do, and divers other Doctors of the Church of Rome; though I think both of them do equally think them to be fallible.  
Well! but at last, of what use are the Fathers to Protestants in their writings? And what use do I or can I make of them in my Dissuasive? First for the Protestants, the Church of England can very well account by her Canon, in which she follows the Council in Trullo, and the sixth General Synod, and ties her Doctors, as much as the Council of Trent does, to expound Scriptures according to the sense of the Ancient Fathers; and indeed it is the best way for most Men, and it is of great use to all men so to do. For the Fathers were good men and learned; and interest, and partiality, and error had not then invaded the world so much, as they have since done. The Papacy, that great fountain of error and servile learning, had not so debauched the world, and all that good which can be supposed could be ministered by the piety and learning of so many excellent persons, all that we can use, and we do make use of it upon all just occasions. They speak reason and religion in their writings, and when they do so, we have reason to make use of the good things, which by their labours God intended to convey to us. They were better than other men, and wiser than most men, and their Authority is not at all contemptible, but in most things highly to be valued: And is at the worst a very probable inducement. Are not the books of the Canonists and Casuists in a manner little else than a heap of quotations out of their predecessors writings? Certainly we have much more reason to value the authority of the Ancient Fathers.  
And now since I. S. requires an account from me in particular, and thinks I have no right to use them; 
Pag. 312.  I shall render him an account of this also. But first let us see what his charge is. He says indeed I tell him, that the Fathers are a good testimony of the doctrine delivered from their Forefathers down to them of what the Church esteemed the way of salvation. I did tell them so indeed; and in the same place I said, that we admit the Fathers, as admirable helps for the understanding of the Scriptures. I told them both these things together; and therefore I. S. may blush with shame for telling us, that it appears by the Dissuader that the Protestants do not acknowledge the Father's infallible or useful. But then in what degree of usefulness the Fathers are admitted by us, we may perceive by the instances, of which the one being the interpretation of Scriptures, it is evident, because of their great variety and contrariety of interpretations, we do not admit them as infallible, but yet of admirable use; so in the testimony which they give of the doctrines of their forefathers concerning the way of salvation, we give as great credit as can be due to any relator, except him that is infallible. 
— Pro magno teste vetustas  
Creditur, 
●vid.  acceptam parce movere fidem.   
Nay we go something further; for although in asserting and affirming, in teaching and delivering positively, we do believe them with great veneration, but not without liberty and inquiry; yet when we make use of them in a negative way, we find use of them, much nearer to infallibility, than all the demonstrations of surefooting. For the argument lies thus: 
Chap. 1. Sect. 1: Dissuasive.  In the ages succeeding the three first, secular interest did much prevail, the writings of the Fathers were vast and voluminous, full of controversy and ambiguous senses, fitted to their own times and questions, full of proper opinions and such variety of say, that both sides eternally and inconfutably shall bring sayings for themselves respectively. This ground I lay of the ensuing argument, and upon this I build immediately; That things being thus, that is, in the ages succeeding the first three (the primitive and purest) the case being so vastly changed, the books so vast, the words so many, the opinions so proper, the contrariety so apparent; it is very possible that two litigants shall from them pretend words serving their distinct hypothesis, especially when they come to wrangle about the interpretations of ambiguous say, and of things so disputed there can be no end, no determination. And therefore it will be impossible for the Roman Doctors to conclude from the say of a number of Fathers, (viz. in the latter and succeeding ages of the Church; for of them only the argument does treat) that their doctrine which they would prove thence was the Catholic doctrine of the Church. And the reason of this is derived from the ground I laid for the argument, because these Fathers are oftentimes gens contra gentem; and sometimes one man against himself, and sometimes changing his doctrine, and sometimes speaking in heat, and disputing fiercely, and striving by all means to prevail and conquer heretics; and therefore a testimony of many of them consenting, is not a sufficient argument to prove a doctrine Catholic; unless all consent in this case, the major part will not prove a doctrine Catholic: Of this I have given divers instances already, and shall add more in the Section of Tradition; for the present I shall only recite the words of the Bishop of the Canaries (a great Man amongst them) to attest what I say. 
Melch. 〈◊〉 loc. Theol. lib. 7. cap. 3. n. 8.  Tertia Conclusio. Plurium sanctorum authoritas, reliquis licet paucioribus reclamantibus firma argumenta Theologo sufficere & praestare non valet. If the Major part of Father's consenting be not a sufficient argument, as Canus here expressly says, than no argument from the authority of Fathers can prove it Catholic, unless it be Universal. Not that it is required, that each single point be proved by each single Father, as I. S. most weakly would infer; for that indeed is morally impossible; but that when the Fathers of the later ages of whom we speak are divided in sentence and interest, neither from the lesser number nor yet from the greater can you conclude any Catholic consent. Ecclesia Universalis nunquam errat quia nunquam tota errat; it is not to be imputed to the Universal Church, unless all of it agree, and by this Abulensis asserts the indefectibility of the Church of God; 
Abulens. praef. in Matth. q. 3.  it never errs because all of it does never err.  
And therefore here is wholly a mistake; for to prove a point de fide from the authority of the Fathers, we require an Universal consent. Not that it is expected that every man's hand that writes should be at it, or every man's vote that can speak should be to it, for this were unreasonable; but an Universal consent is so required, that is, that there be no dissent by any Fathers equally Catholic and reputed. Reliquis licet paucioribus reclamantibus; if others though the fewer number do dissent, than the Major part is not testimony sufficient. And therefore when Vincentius Lirinensis and Thomas of Walden affirmed, that the consent of the Major part of Fathers from the Apostles downwards is Catholic; Canus expounds their meaning to be, in case that the few Dissentients have been condemned by the Church, than the Major part must carry it; Thus when some of the Fathers said that Melchisedeck was the Holy Ghost, here the Major part carried it, because the opinion of the Minor part was condemned by the Church. But let me add one caution to this, that it may pass the better. Unless the Church of that age, in which a Minor part of Fathers contradicts a greater, do give testimony in behalf of the Major part, (which thing I think never was done, and is not indeed easy to be supposed) though the following ages reject the Minor part, it is no argument that the doctrine of the Major part was the Catholic doctrine of that age. It might by degrees become Universal, that was not so at first; and therefore, unless the whole present age do agree, that is, unless of all that are esteemed Orthodox there be a present consent, this broken consent is not an infallible testimony of the Catholicism of the doctrine. And this is plain in the case of S. Cyprian and the African Fathers, 
I. S. p. 3. 4.  denying the baptism of heretics to be valid: Supposing a greater number of Doctors did at that time believe the contrary; yet their testimony is no competent proof, that the Church of that age was of their judgement; No, although the succeeding ages did condemn the opinion of the Africans; for the question now is not whether S. Cyprians doctrine be true or no, but whether it was the Catholic doctrine of the Church of that age. It is answered, it was not, because many Catholic Doctors of that age were against it, and for the same reason, neither was their doctrine the Catholic, because as wise and as learned men opposed them in it; and it is a frivolous pretence to say, that the contrary (viz. to S. Cyprians doctrine) was found and defined to be the faith and the sense of the Church; for suppose it was, but than it became so by a new and later definition, not by the oral tradition of that present age; and therefore this will do I. S. no good, but help to overthrow his fond hypothesis. This or that might be a true doctrine, but not the doctrine of the than Catholic Church, in which the Catholics were so openly and with some earnestness divided. And therefore it was truly said in the Dissuasive, That the clear saying of one or two of those Fathers, truly alleged by us to the contrary, will certainly prove that what many of them (suppose it) do affirm, and which but two or three as good Catholics do deny, was not then a matter of faith or a doctrine of the Church: If it had, these dissentients publicly owning and preaching that doctrine, would have been no Catholics but Heretics.  
Against this I. S. hath a pretty sophism, or if you please let it pass for one of his demonstrations. 
Ibid.  If one or two denying a point, which many (others) affirm, argues that it is not of faith; then a fortiori, if one or two affirm it to be of faith, it argues it is of faith, though many others deny it. This consequent is so far from arising from the antecedent, that in the world nothing destroys it more. For, because the denial of one or two argues a doctrine is not Catholic though affirmed by many, therefore it is impossible that the affirmation of one or two (when there be many dissentients) should sufficiently prove a doctrine to be Catholic. The antecedent supposes that true which therefore concludes the consequent to be false; for therefore the affirming a thing to be Catholic, by two or three, or twenty, does not prove it to be so, unless all consent, because the denying it to be Catholic (which the antecedent supposes) by two or three, is a good testimony that it is not Catholic. I. S. his argument is like this; If the absence of a few makes the company not full, than the presence of a few when more are absent, a fortiori makes the company to be full. But because I must say nothing but what must be reduced to grounds, I have to show the stupendious folly of this argument, a self evident Principle, and that is, Bonum, and so, Verum, is ex integra causa, malum ex qualibet particulari; and a cup is broken, if but one piece of the lip be broken; but it is not whole, unless it be whole all over. And much more is this true, in a question concerning the Universality of consent, or of tradition. For I. S. does prevaricate in the Question, which is, whether the testimony be Universal if the particulars be not agreed; and he instead of that thrusts in another word which is no part of the Question: for so he changes it, by saying, the dissent of a few does not make but that the article is a point of faith; for though it cannot be supposed a point of faith, when any number of the Catholic Fathers do profess to believe a proposition contrary to it; yet possibly it will by some of his side be said to be a point of faith upon other accounts; as upon the Church's definition, or the authority of plain Scriptures, but this will be nothing to I. S. his hypothesis; for if a part of the Catholic Fathers did deliver the contrary, there was no irrefragable, Catholic, Oral tradition of the Church, when so considerable a part of the Church delivered the contrary as their own doctrine, which is not to be imagined they would have done, if the consent of the Church of that age was against it. And if we can suppose this case that one part of the Fathers should say, this is the doctrine of the Church, when another part of the Fathers are of a contrary judgement, either they did not say true, and then the Father's testimony, speaking as witnesses of the doctrine of the Church of their age, is not infallible, or if they did say true, yet their testimony, was not esteemed sufficient; because the other Fathers who must needs know it, if it was the Catholic doctrine of the Church then, do not take it for truth or sufficient. And that Maxim which was received in the Council of Trent, that a Major part of voices was sufficient for decreeing in a matter of reformation; but that a decree of faith could not be made, if a considerable part did contradict, relies upon the same reason; faith is every man's duty, and every man's concern, and every man's learning; and therefore it is not to be supposed that any thing can be an article of faith, in which a number of wise and good men are at difference, either as Doctors, or as witnesses. And of this we have a great testimony from Vincentius Lirinensis. 
Common. c. 3.  In ipsa item Ecclesia magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est: hoc est enim verè propriéque Catholicum. Not that which a part of the Fathers, but that which is said every where, always, and by all, that is truly and properly Chatholic; and this (says he) is greatly to be taken care of in the Catholic Church.  
From all these premises it will follow, that the Dissuasive did, or might to very good purpose, make use of the Fathers; and if I did there or shall in the following Sections make it appear, that in such an age of the Ancient Church, the doctrines which the Church of Rome at this day imposes on the world as articles of faith, were not then accounted articles of faith, but either were spoken against, or not reckoned in their Canon and Confessions, it will follow that either they can make new articles of faith, or at lest cannot pretend these to be articles of faith upon the stock of Oral Catholic tradition; for this cannot be at all, if the Catholic Fathers were (though Unequally) divided in their testimony.  
The rest of I. S. his last Way or Mine is but bragging, and indeed this whole Appendix of his is but the dregs of his sure-footing, and gives but very little occasion of useful and material discourse. But he had formerly promised that he would give an account of My relying on Scripture, and here was the place reserved for it; but when he comes to it, it is nothing at all, but a reviling of it, calling of it a bare letter Unsensed, outward characters, Ink thus figured in a book; but whatsoever it is, he calls it my main, most fundamental, and in a manner my only principle; though he according to his usual method of saying what comes next, had said before that I had no Principle, and that I had many Principles. All that he adds afterwards is nothing but the same talk over again concerning the Fathers, of which I have given an account I hope full enough; and I shall add something more when I come to speak concerning the justification of the grounds of the Protestant and Christian religion. Only that I may be out of I. S. his debt, I shall make it appear that he and his party are the men that go upon no grounds, that in the Church of Rome there is no sure-footing, no certain acknowledged rule of faith; but while they call for an assent above the nature and necessity of the thing, they have no warrant beyond the greatest Uncertainty, and cause their people to wander (that I may borrow I. S. his expression) in the very sphere of contingency.    

THE SECOND PART OF The Dissuasive from Popery.  

The first Book.  

SECTION I.  
Of the Church: showing that, The Church of Rome relies upon no certain foundation for their faith.  
THat the Scriptures are infallibly true, though it be acknowledged by the Roman Church, yet this is not an infallible rule to them, for several reasons: 1. Because it is imperfect and insufficient (as they say) to determine all matters of Faith. 2. Because it is not sufficient to determine any that shall be questioned: not only because its authority and truth is to be determined by something else that must be before it; but also because its sense and meaning must be found out by something after it. And not he that writes or speaks, but he that expounds it, gives the Rule; so that Scripture no more is to rule us, than matter made the world: until something else gives it form and life, and motion and operative powers, it is but iners massa, not so much as a clod of earth. And they, who speak so much of the obscurity of Scripture, of the seeming contradictions in it, of the variety of readings, and the mysteriousness of its manner of delivery, can but little trust that obscure, dark, intricate, and at last, imperfect book, for a perfect clear Rule. But I shall not need to drive them out of this Fort, which they so willingly of themselves quit. If they did acknowledge Scripture for their Rule, all Controversies about this, would be at an end, and we should all be agreed: but because they do not, they can claim no title here.  
That which they pretend to be the infallible Judge, and the measure of our faith, and is to give us our Rule, is the Church; and she is a rock; the pillar and ground of truth, and therefore here they fix. Now how little assurance they have by this Confidence, will appear by many considerations.  
1. It ought to be known and agreed upon, what is meant by this word Church, or Ecclesia. For it is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and the Church cannot be a Rule or Guide if it be not known what you mean when you speak the word. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, said Suidas. His body, viz. mystical, Christ calls his Church: Among the Greeks it signifies, a Convention or Assembly met together for public employment, and affairs; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so Aristophanes understands it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Is there not a Convocation or an Assembly called for this Plutus? Now by Translation this word is used amongst Christians to signify all them who out of the whole mass of mankind are called and come, and are gathered together by the voice and call of God, to the worship of God through Jesus Christ, and the participation of eternal good things to follow: So that, The Church is a Company of men and women professing the saving doctrine of Jesus Christ This is the Church in sensu forensi, and in the sight of men; But because glorious things are spoken of the city of God; the Professors of Christ's Doctrine are but imperfectly and inchoatively the Church of God; but they who are indeed holy and obedient to Christ's laws of faith and manners; that live according to his laws, and walk by his example; these are truly and perfectly the Church, and they have this signature, God knoweth who are his. These are the Church of God in the eyes and heart of God. For the Church of God are the body of Christ; but the mere profession of Christianity makes no man a member of Christ; Nither circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth any thing in Christ Jesus, nothing but a new creature; nothing but a faith working by love; and keeping the Commandments of God. Now they that do this are not known to be such, by Men; but they are only known to God; and therefore it is in a true sense the invisible Church; not that there are two Churches, or two Societies, in separation from each other; or that one can be seen by men, and the other cannot: for then either we must run after the Church, whom we ought not to imitate; or be blind in pursuit of the other that can never be found; and our eyes serve for nothing but to run after false fires. No, these two Churches are but one Society; the one is within the other, They walk together to the house of God as friends, they take sweet Counsel together, and eat the bread of God in common: but yet though the men be visible, yet that quality and excellency by which they are constituted Christ's members and distinguished from mere Professors and outsides of Christians, this, I say, is not visible. All that really and hearty serve Christ in abdito, do also profess to do so; they serve him in the secret of the heart, and in the secret chamber, and in the public Assemblies, unless by an intervening cloud of persecution they be for a while hid, and made less conspicuous: but the invisible Church ordinary and regularly is part of the visible, but yet that only part that is the true one; and the rest but by denomination of law, and in common speaking are the Church: not in mystical union, not in proper relation to Christ, they are not the House of God, not the Temple of the Holy Ghost, not the members of Christ; and no man can deny this. Hypocrites are not Christ's servants, and therefore not Christ's members, and therefore no part of the Church of God, but improperly and equivocally, as a dead man is a man; all which is perfectly summed up in those words of S. Austin, 
De doctr. Christ. lib. 3. cap 22  saying, that the body of Christ is not bipartitum, it is not a double body. Non enim revera Domini corpus est, quod cum illo non erit in aeternum, All that are Christ's body shall reign with Christ for ever.] And therefore they who are of their father the Devil, are the synagogue of Satan, and of such is not the Kingdom of God: and all this is no more than what S. Paul said, 
Rom. 9 6.  They are not all Israel, who are of Israel: 
Rom. 2. 28, 29.  and, He is not a Jew that is one outwardly, but he is a Jew that is one inwardly. Now if any part of mankind will agree to call the universality of Professors by the title of the Church, they may if they will; any word, by consent, may signify any thing: but if by Church we mean that Society which is really joined to Christ, which hath received the holy Spirit, which is heir of the Promises, and the good things of God, which is the body of which Christ is head; then the invisible part of the visible Church, that is, the true servants of Christ only are the Church; that is, to them only appertains the spirit, and the truth, the promises, and the graces, the privileges and advantages of the Gospel: to others they appertain, as the promise of pardon does; that is, when they have made themselves capable.  
For since it is plain and certain, that Christ's promise of giving the spirit to his Apostles was merely conditional, 
Joh. 14. 15, 16.  If they did love him, If they did keep his Commandments: Since it is plainly affirmed by the Apostle, that by reason of wicked lives men and women did turn Apostates from the faith, since nothing in the world does more quench the spirit of wisdom and of God than an impure life; it is not to be supposed that the Church, as it signifies the Professors only of Christianity, can have an infallible spirit of truth. If the Church of Christ have an indefectibility, than it must be that which is in the state of grace, and the Divine favour. They whom God does not love, cannot fall from God's love; but the faithful only and obedient are beloved of God: others may believe rightly; but so do the Devils who are no parts of the Church, but Princes of Ecclesia Malignantium; and it will be a strange proposition which affirms any one to be of the Church for no other reason but such as qualifies the Devil to be so too. For there is no other difference between the Devil's faith and the faith of a man that lives wickedly; but that there is hopes the wicked man may by his faith be converted to holiness of life, and consequently be a member of Christ and the Church; which the Devils never can be. To be converted from Gentilism, or Judaisme to the Christian faith is an excellent thing; but it is therefore so excellent, because that is God's usual way by that faith to convert them unto God, from their vain conversation unto holiness. That was the Conversion which was designed by the preaching of the Gospel; of which, to believe merely, was but the entrance and introduction.  
Now besides the evidence of the thing itself and the notice of it in Scripture; 
Ephes. 2. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  let me observe, that this very thing is in itself a part of the article of faith; for if it be asked What is the Catholic Church? the Apostles Creed defines it; it is Communio Sanctorum, I believe the holy Catholic Church, that is, the Communion of Saints, the conjunction of all them who hearty serve God through Jesus Christ; the one is indeed exegetical of the other, as that which is plainer is explicative of that which is less plain; but else they are but the same thing: which appears also in this, that in some Creeds the latter words are left out, and particularly in the Constantinopolitan, as being understood to be in effect but another expression of the same Article. To the same sense exactly Clemens of Alexandria defines the Church to be, 
Clem. Alex. storm. lib. pag. 715. edit. Paris. A. D. 1629.  the Congregation of the Elect. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. By the Church, I do not mean the place, but the gathering, or heap of the Elect; for this is the better Temple for the receiving the greatness of the dignity of God. For that living thing which is of great price, to him who is worthy of all price, yea to whose price nothing is too great, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is consecrated by the excellency of holiness]. But more full is that of Saint Austin, 
De Papt contr. Donatist. lib. ●. cap 51. & 52.  who spends two chapters in affirming, that only they who serve God faithfully are the Church of God. [The temple of God is holy, which Temple ye are. For this is in the good and faithful, and the holy servants of God, scattered every where, and combined by a spiritual union in the same communion of Sacraments, whether they know one another by face or no. Others it is certain are so said to be in the House of God, that they do not pertain to the structure of the house, nor to the society of fructifying and peacemaking justice, but are as chaff in the wheat. For we cannot deny that they are in the house, the Apostle Paul saying, That in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but wood and earth, some for honour and some for dishonour.] And a little before [I do not speak rashly, when I say, Some are so in the house of God, that they also are that very house of God, which is said to be built upon a rock, which is called the only dove, the fair spouse without spot or wrinkle, the garden shut up, a fountain sealed, a pit of living water, a fruitful paradise. This is the house which hath received the Keys, and the power of losing and binding; whosoever shall despise this house (reproving and correcting him, he saith) let him be as an heathen and a Publican.] And then he proceeds to describe who are this house, by the characters of sanctity, 
S. Aug. lib. 2. c●nt●. Cres●n. cap. 21. vide eund. lib. ●. contr. Pet●. cap. ult. l. ●. de bapt. cap. 3. l. 6. c. 3.  of charity, and unity. Propter malam pollutámque conscientiam damnati à Christo, jam in corpore Christi non sunt, quod est Ecclesia, quoniam non potest Christus habere damnata membra, Those who are condemned by Christ for their evil and polluted consciences are not in Christ's body which is the Church; for Christ hath no damned members.  
And this, besides that it is expressly taught in the Augustan Confession; 
Mali quidem sunt in Ecclesi●, sed non de Ecclesiâ; quia mali non su●t de regn●● ei, sed de regn Diaboli. Vide etiam Gregor. M. lib. 28. Moral. c 9  it is also the Doctrine of divers Roman Doctors; that wicked men are not true members of the body of the Church, but equivocally. So Alexander of Hales, Hugo, and Aquinas, as they are quoted by Turrecremata; so Petrus à Soto, Melchior Canus, 
Lib. 1. cap. 57 apud B. ll. l. 3. cap. 9 De Ecclesiâ mil●tante.  and others, as Bellarmine himself confesses; so that if it be said that evil men are in the Church, it is true, but they are not of the Church, as S. John's expression is, for if they had been of us, they would have tarried with us: which words seem to be of the same sense with those Fathers, who affirm the Church to be, The number of the predestinate, whom God loves to the end. But however, the wicked are only in the body of the Church, 
Tract. 3. in Epist. Johan Bellar. ubi suprà. Sect. Idem Augustinus.  as peccant humours, and excrements, and hair, and putrefaction; so said S. Austin as Bellarmine quotes him: and the same thing in almost the same words is set down by 
* Coster. ap. logpro parte 3●. Enchirid. c. 12. Sect. Qui non.  Coster the Jesuit: and when Bellarmine attempts to answer this saying of S. Austin; he says, he means that the wicked are not in the Church in the same manner as the godly are; that is, not as living members: which though it be put in the place of an Answer to amuse the young fellows that are captivated with the admirable method of Ob. and Sol. yet it plainly confesses the point in question; viz. that the wicked are not members of Christ's body; and if they be not, then to them belong not the Privileges and Promises which God gave and promised to his Church: for they were given for the sake of the Saints only, 
Ibid. Sect. Respondeo, Augusti●um.  saith S. Austin; and Bellarmine confesses it. But I need not be digging the Cisterns for this truth; Christ himself hath taught it to us very plainly; 
Joh. 15. 14. & Joh. 14. 21.  Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you:] not upon any other terms; and I hope none but friends are parts of Christ's mystical body, members of the Church whereof he is head; and the only condition of this, 
ver. 15.  is, if we do whatsoever Christ commands us. And that this very blessing and promise of knowing and understanding the will of God appertains only to the godly, Christ declares in the very next words; Henceforth I call you not servants, for the servant knoweth not what his Lord doth; but I have called you friends, for all things I have heard from my Father I have made known unto you.] So that, being the friends of God, is the only way to know the will of God; None are infallible but they that are holy; and they shall certainly be directed by Christ, and the Spirit of Christ. 
Joh. 7▪ 17.  If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself, said our Blessed Lord. And S. John 
1 Joh. 2. 27.  said; Ye have received the unction from above, and that anointing teacheth you all things. The Spirit of God is the great teacher of all truth to the Church; but they that grieve the holy Spirit of God, they that quench the Spirit, they that defile his Temple, from these men he will surely departed: That he shall abide with men unto the end of the world, is a promise not belonging to them, but to them that keep his Commandments: The external parts of Religion may be ministered by wicked persons, and by wicked persons may be received; but the secrets of the Kingdom, the spiritual excellencies of the Gospel, that is, truth and holiness, a saving and an unreprovable faith, and an indefectible love, to be United to Christ, and to be members of his body; these are the portions of Saints, not of wicked persons, whether Clergy or Laity. The mouth of the just bringeth forth wisdom, 
Prov. 10. 31.  and the lips of the righteous know what is acceptable, said Solomon: but when we consider those men who detain the Faith in unrighteousness, it is no wonder that God leaves them and gives them over to believe a Lie, and delivers them to the spirit of Illusion; and therefore it will be ill to make our Faith to rely upon such dangerous foundations. As all the Principles and graces of the Gospel are the propriety of the Godly; so they only are the Church of God, of which glorious things are spoken, and it will be vain to talk of the infallibility of God's Church: the Roman Doctors either must confess it Subjected here, that is, in the Church in this sense, or they can find it no where. In short; This is the Church (in the sense now explicated) which is the pillar and ground of truth; but this is not the sense of the Church of Rome, and therefore from hence they refusing to have their learning, can never pretend wisely, that they can be Infallibly directed.  
We have seen what is the true meaning of the Church of God, according to the Scriptures, and Fathers, and sometimes Persons formerly in the Church of Rome: In the next place, let us see what now a days they mean by the Church, with which name or word they so much abuse the world.  
1. Therefore, by Church sometimes they mean the whole body of them that profess Christianity; Greges pastoribus adunatos, Priest and People, Bishops and their Flocks, all over the world, upon whom the name of Christ is called, whether they be dead in sins, or alive in the spirit, whether good Christians or false hypocrites: but all the number of the Baptised, except Excommunicates that are since cut off, make this body.  
Now the word Church, I grant may and is given to them, by way of supposition and legal presumption; as a Jury of twelve men, are called, Good men and true: that is, they are not known to be otherwise, and therefore presumed to be such: And they are the Church in all humane accounts; that is, they are the Congregation of all that profess the name of Christ; of whom every particular that is not known to be wicked, is presumed to be good; and therefore is still part of the External Church, in which are the wheat and the tares: and they are bound up in Common by the Union of Sacraments and external rites, 
De doctr. Christ. lib. 3. c. 32.  name, and profession, but by nothing else. This Doctrine is well explicated by S. Austin [That is not the body of Christ which shall not reign with him for ever. And yet we must not say it is bipartite; but it is either true or mixed, or it is either true, or counterfeit; or some such thing. For not only in eternity, but even now, hypocrites are not to be said to be with Christ, although they may seem to be of his Church. But the Scripture speaks of those and these as if they were both of one body, propter temporalem commixtionem & communionem Sacramentorum: they are only combined by a temporal mixtion, and united by the common use of the Sacraments.] And this, to my sense, all the Churches of the world seem to say; for when they excommunicate a person, than they throw him out of the Church; meaning, that all his being in the Church of which they could take cognisance, is but by the Communion of Sacraments and external society. 
Imped ri non debet fides aut charitas nostra, ut, quoniam zizania esse in Ecclesiâ cernimus, ipsi de Ecclesiâ recedamus. ●. Cypr. lib. 3. ep. 3. ad Maximum.  Now out of this society no man must departed; because although a better union with Christ and one another is most necessary, yet even this cannot, ought not, to be neglected; for by the outward, the inward is set forward and promoted: and therefore to departed from the external communion of the Church upon pretence that the wicked are mingled with the godly, is foolish and unreasonable; for by such departing, 
Scil. ep. 51. edit. Rigaltianae.  a man is not sure he shall departed from all the wicked, but he is sure he shall leave the communion of the good, who are mingled in the common Mass with the wicked, or else, all that which we call the Church is wicked. And what can such men propound to themselves of advantage, when they certainly forsake the society of the good, for an imaginary departure from the wicked; and after all the care they can take, they leave a society in which are some intemperate, or many worldly men, and erect a Congregation, for aught they know, of none but hypocrites?  
So that which we call the Church is permixta Ecclesia, as S. Austin is content it should be called, a mixed Assembly; 
Vbi suprà.  and for this mixture sake, under the cover and knot of external communion, the Church, that is, all that company, is esteemed one body; and the appellatives are made in common, and so are the addresses, and offices and ministeries: because, of those that are not now, some will be good; and a great many that are evil, are undiscernably so; and in that communion are the ways, and ministeries, and engagements of being good; and above all, in that society are all those that are really good; therefore it is no wonder, that we call this Great mixtion by the name of Ecclesia, or the Church: But then, since the Church hath a more sacred Notion, it is the spouse of Christ, his dove, his beloved, his body, his members, his temple, his house in which he loves to dwell, and which shall dwell with him for ever; and this Church is known, and discerned, and loved by God, and is United unto Christ: therefore although, when we speak of all the acts and duties, of the judgements and nomenclatures, of outward appearances and accounts of law, we call the mixed Society by the name of the Church. Yet when we consider it in the true, proper, and primary meaning, by the intention of God, and the nature of the thing, and the Intercourses between God and his Church; all the promises of God, the Spirit of God, the life of God, and all the good things of God are peculiar to the Church of God, in God's sense, in the way in which he owns it, that is, as it is holy, United unto Christ, like to him and partaker of the Divine nature. The other are but a heap of men keeping good Company, calling themselves by a good name, managing the external parts of Union and Ministry; but because they otherwise belong not to God, the promises not otherwise belong to them, but as they may, and when they * 

In Ecclesiâ non est macula aut ruga; quia peccatores, donec non poenitet eos vitae prioris, n●n sunt in Ecclesiâ; cum autem poenitel, jam sani sunt. Pacian ep. 3. ad Symp onium.  
Idem a●t S. Hieron. comment. in Ephes. c. 5. Macula●i ab eâ [Ecclesiâ] alieni esse censentur▪ nisi rursum per poenitentiam fuerint expurgati.   do, return to God. Here then are two senses of the word Church, God's sense and Man's sense: The sense of Religion, and the sense of Government; common rites, and spiritual union.  
II. Having now laid this foundation, that none but the true servants of Christ make the true Church of Christ, and have title to the promises of Christ, and particularly of the Spirit of truth; and having observed that the Roman Church, relies upon the Church under another notion and definition: the next inquiry is to be, What certainty there is of finding truth in this Church, and in what sense and meaning it is, that in the Church of God we shall be sure to find it.  
Of the Church in the first sense, 
1 Tim. 3. 15, ●6.  S. Paul affirms; it is the pillar and ground of truth. He spoke it of the Church of Ephesus, or the Holy Catholic Church over the world; for there is the same reason of one and all; if it be, as S. Paul calls it, Ecclesia Dei vivi, if it be united to the head Christ Jesus, every Church is as much the pillar and ground of truth, as all the Church; which that we may understand rightly, we are to consider that what is commonly called the Church, is but Domus Ecclesiae verae, as the Ecclesia vera is Domus Dei: it is the School of Piety, the place of institution and discipline. Good and bad dwell here; but God only and his Spirit dwells with the good. They are all taught in the Church; but the good only are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taught by God, by an infallible Spirit, that is, by a Spirit which neither can deceive nor be deceived, and therefore by him the good, and they only, are lead into all saving truth; and these are the men that preserve the truth in holiness; without this society, the truth would be hidden and held in Unrighteousness; so that all good men, all particular Congregations of good men, who upon the foundation Christ Jesus build the superstructure of a holy life, are the pillar and ground of truth; that is, they support and defend the truth, they follow and adorn the truth; which truth would in a little time be suppressed, or obscured, or varied, or concealed, and misinterpreted, if the wicked only had it in their conduct. That is: Amongst good men we are most like to find the ways of peace and truth, all saving truth, and the proper spiritual advantages and loveliness of truth. Now then, this does no more relate to all Churches, then to every Church, God will no more leave or forsake any one of his faithful servants, than he will forsake all the world. And therefore here the Notion of Catholic is of no use; for the Church is the Communion of Saints, wherever it be, or may be; and that this Church is Catholic, it does not mean by any distinct existence; but by comprehension and actual and potential enclosure of all Communions of holy people in the unity of the spirit, and in the band of peace; that is, both externally and internally: Externally means the common use of the Symbol and Sacraments; for they are the band of peace; but the unity of the Spirit is the peculiar of the Saints, and is the internal confederation and conjunction of the members of Christ's body in themselves, and to their head. And by the Energy of this state, wherever it happens to be, all the blessings of the Spirit are entailed; every man hath his share in it, he shall never be left or forsaken, and the Spirit of God will never departed from him; as long as he remains in, and is of the Communion of Saints. But this promise is made to him only as he is part of this Communion, that is, of the body of Christ; Membrum divulsum, if a limb be cut off from the union of the body, it dies. No man belongs to God but he that is of this Communion; but therefore the greater the Communion is, the more abundance of the Spirit they shall receive; as there is more wisdom in many wise men, than in a few: and since every single Church or Convention receives it in the virtue of the whole Church, that is, in conjunction with the body of Christ; it is the whole body to whom this appellative belongs, that she is the pillar and ground of truth. But as every member receives life and nourishment, and is alive, and is defended and provided for, by the head and stomach, as truly and really as the whole body: so it is in the Church; every member preserves the saving truth, and every member lives unto God, and so long as they do so they shall never be forsaken by the Spirit of God; and this is to every man as really as to every Church; and therefore every good man hath his share in this appellative; 
Apud Euseb. Eccles. hist. lib. 5. c. 1.  and the Saints of Vienna and Lyons called Attalus the Martyr, a pillar and ground of the Churches; and truly he seems to have been a man that was fully grounded in the truth, one that hath built his house upon a rock, one with whom truth dwells, to whom Christ the fountain of truth will come and dwell with him; for he hath built upon the foundation, Christ Jesus being the chief cornerstone; and thus Attalus was a pillar, one upon whose strength others were made more confident, bold and firm in their persuasion; he was one of the Pillars that helped to 
* Pu●o quod convenienter hi qui Episcopa●um benè administrant in Ecclesiâ, Trabes dici possunt quibus sustentatur & tegitur omne aedifici●m. Origen. homil. in Cantica.  support the Christian faith, and Church; and yet no man supposes that Attalus was infallible; but so it is in the case of every particular Church as really as of the Catholic, that is, as to all Churches; for that is the meaning of the word Catholic; not that it signifies a distinct being from a particular Church; and if taken abstractly, nothing is effected by the word; but if taken distributively, than it is useful, and material, for it signifies, that in every Congregation where two or three are gathered in the name of Christ, God is in the midst of them with his blessing and with his Spirit; it is so in all the Churches of the Saints, and in all of them, (as long as they remain such) the truth and faith is certainly preserved. But then that in the Apostolical Creed the Church is recommended under the notion of Catholic, it is of great use and excellent mystery, for by it we understand that in all ages there is, and in all places there may be a Church or Collection of true Christians; and this Catholic Church cannot fail; that is, all particular Churches shall not fail; for still it is to be observed, there is no Church Catholic really distinct from all particular Churches; and therefore there is no promise made to a Church in the capacity of being Catholic or Universal; for that which hath no distinct Being can have no distinct Promises, no distinct capacities, but the promises are made to all Churches and to every Church: only there is this in it, if any Church of one denomination shall be cut off, other branches shall stand by faith and still be in the vine: The Church of God cannot be without Christ their head, and the head will not suffer his body to perish. Thus I understand the meaning of the Churches being the pillar and ground of truth. Just as we may say, Humane understanding, and the experience of mankind, is the pillar and ground of true Philosophy: but there is no such abstracted Being as Humane understanding, distinct from the understanding of all individual men. Every Universal is but an intentional or notional Being: so is the word Catholic relating to the Church, if it be understood as something separated from all particular Churches; and I do not find that it is any other ways used in Scripture than in the distributive sense. So S. Paul, The care of all the Churches is upon me: that is, he was the Apostle of the Catholic Church of the Gentiles: And so I teach in all the Churches of the Saints: And in this sense it is, that I say, the Apostles have in the Creed comprehended all the Christian world, all the the congregations of Christ's servants, in the word Catholic.  
But then 2. It is to be considered that this Epithet of the Church to be the pillar and ground of truth is to be understood, to signify in opposition to all Religions that were not Christian. The implied Antithesis is not of the whole to its parts, but of kind to kind; it is not so called to distinguish it from conventions of those who disagree in the house of God, but from those that are out of the house; meaning that whatever pretences of Religion the Gentile Temples, or the Jewish Synagogues could make, truth could not be found among them; but only in those who are assembled in the name of Christ, who profess his faith, and are of the Christian Religion: for they alone can truly pretend to be the conservers of truth; to them only now are committed the Oracles of God, and if these should fail, Truth would be at a loss, and not be found in any other Assemblies. In this sense S. Paul spoke usefully and intelligibly; for if the several conventions of separated and disagreeing Christians should call themselves, as they do and always did, the Church; the question would be, which were the Church of God; and by this rule you were never the nearer to know where truth is to be found: for if you say, In the Church of God; several pretend to it, who yet do not teach the truth: and then you must find out what is truth, before you find the Church. But when the Churches of Christians are distinguished from the Assemblies of Jews, and Turks, and Heathens; she is visible and distinguishable, and notorious: and therefore they that love the truth of God, the saving truth that makes us wise unto salvation, must become Christians; and in the Assemblies of Christians they must look for it as in the proper repository, and there they shall find it.  
3. But than it is also considerable, What truth that is, of which the Church of the living God is the pillar and ground? It is only of the saving truths of the Gospel, that whereby they are made members of Christ, the house of God, the temples of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit of God being the Church's teacher; he will teach us to avoid evil and to do good, to be wise and simple, to be careful and profitable, to know God, and whom he hath sent Jesus Christ, to increase in the knowledge and love of them, to be peaceable and charitable, but not to entertain ourselves and our weak Brethren with doubtful disputations, but to keep close to the foundation, and to superstruct upon that a holy life; that is, God teaches his Church the way of salvation, that which is necessary, and that which is useful 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that which will make us wise unto salvation. But in this School we are not taught curious questions, Unedifying notions, to untie knots which interest and vanity, which pride and covetousness have introduced; these are taught by the Devil, to divide the Church, and by busying them in that which profits not, to make them neglect the wisdom of God and the holiness of the Spirit. And we see this truth by the experience of above 1500 years. The Churches have troubled themselves with infinite variety of questions, & divided their precious unity, & destroyed charity, and instead of contending against the Devil and all his crafty methods, they have contended against one another, and excommunicated one another, and anathematised and damned one another; and no man is the better after all, but most men are very much the worse; and the Churches are in the world still divided about questions that commenced twelve or thirteen ages since; and they are like to be so for ever till Elias come; which shows plainly, that God hath not interested himself in the revelations of such things; and that he hath given us no means of ending them, but Charity, and a return to the simple ways of Faith. And this is yet the more considerable, because men are so far from finding out a way to end the questions they have made, that the very ways of ending them which they propounded to themselves are now become the greatest questions; and consequently themselves, and all their other unnecessary questions, are indeterminable: their very remedies have increased the disease. And yet we may observe, that God's ways are not like ours, and that his ways are the ways of truth and Everlasting; he hath by his wise providence preserved the plain places of Scripture, and the Apostles Creed in all Churches to be the rule and measure of that faith by which the Churches are saved, and which is only that means of the unity of Spirit, which is the band of peace in matters of belief. And what have the Churches done since? To what necessary truths are they, after all their clampers, advanced since the Apostles left to them that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that sound form of words and doctrine? What one great thing is there beyond this, in which they all agree, or in which they can be brought to agree? He that wisely observes the ways of God, and the ways of man, will easily perceive that God's goodness prevails over all the malice and all the follies of mankind; and that nothing is to be relied upon as a rule of truth, and the ways of peace, but what Christ hath plainly taught, and the Apostles from him; for he alone is the Author and Finisher of our Faith; he began it, and he perfected it: and unless God had mightily preserved it, we had spoiled it.  
Now to bring all this home to the present Inquiry. The event and intendment of the premises is this. They, who slighting the plain and perfect rule of Scripture, rely upon the Church as an infallible guide of faith, and judge of questions; either by the Church mean the Congregation and Communion of Saints, or the outward Church mingled of good and bad: and this is intended either to mean a particular Church of one name; or by it they understand the Catholic Church. Now in what sense soever they depend upon the Church for decision of questions, expecting an infallible determination and conduct; the Church of Rome will find she relies upon a Reed of Egypt, or at least a staff of wool. If by the Church they mean the Communion of Saints only; though the persons of men be visible, yet because their distinctive cognisance is invisible, they can never see their guide; and therefore they can never know whether they go right or wrong. 
Lib. 3. de Eccl. milit. cap 10.  And the sad pressure of this argument Bellarmine saw well enough. 
Sect. Ad hoc, necesse est.  It is necessary (saith he) it should be infallibly certain to us which Assembly of men is the Church. For, since the Scriptures, traditions, and plainly all Doctrines depend on the testimony of the Church, unless it be most sure which is the true Church, all things will be wholly uncertain. But it cannot appear to us which is the true Church, if internal faith be required of every member or part of the Church.] Now how necessary true saving Faith, or holiness is (which Bellarmine calls internal faith,) I refer myself to the premises. It is not the Church, unless the members of the Church be members of Christ, living members; for the Church is truly Christ's living body. And yet if they by Church mean any thing else, they cannot be assured of an infallible guide; for all that are not the true servants of God have no promise of the abode of the Spirit of truth with them: so that the true Church cannot be a public Judge of questions to men, because God only knows her numbers and her members; and the Church in the other sense, if she be made a Judge, she is very likely to be deceived herself, and therefore cannot be relied upon by you; for the promise of an infallible Spirit, the Spirit of truth was never made to any but to the Communion of Saints. 3. If by the Church you mean any particular Church, which will you choose; since every such Church is esteemed fallible? But if you mean the Catholic Church; then if you mean her an abstracted separate Being, from all particulars, you pursue a cloud and fall in love with an Idea, and a child of fancy: but if by Catholic you mean all particular Churches is the world; then though truth does infallibly dwell amongst them, yet you can never go to school to them all to learn it; in such questions which are curious and unnecessary, and by which the salvation of Souls is not promoted, and on which it does not rely: not only because God never intended his Saints and servants should have an infallible Spirit, so to no purpose; but also because no man can hear what all the Christians of the world do say; no man can go to them, nor consult with them all; nor ever come to the knowledge of their opinions and particular sentiments. And therefore in this inquiry to talk of the Church in any of the present significations, is to make use of a word that hath no meaning serving to the end of this great Inquiry.  
The Church of Rome, to provide for this necessity, have thought of a way to find out such a Church as may salve this Phaenomenon: and by Church they mean the Representation of a Church; The Church representative is this infallible guide; The Clergy they are the Church; the teaching and the judging Church. And of these we may better know what is truth in all our Questions; for their lips are to preserve knowledge; and they are to rule and feed the rest; and the people must require the law from them; and must follow their faith. 
Heb. 13. 7.  Indeed this was a good way once, even in the days of the Apostles, who were faithful stewards of the mysteries of God. And the Apostolical men, the first Bishops who did preach the Faith, and lived accordingly, these are to be remembered, that is, their lives to be transscribed, their faith and perseverance in faith is to be imitated: To this purpose is that of S. Irenaeus to be understood. Tantae ostensiones cum sint, 
Lib. 3. cap. 3. in principis.  non oportet adhuc quaerere apud alios veritatem, quam facile est ab Ecclesiâ sumere; cum Apostoli quasi in repositorium dives plenissimè in eâ contulerint omnia quae sint veritatis, ubi omnis quicunque velit sumat ex eâ potum vitae. Haec est enim vitae introitus. Omnes autem reliqui fures sunt & latrones, propter quod oportet devitare quidem illos. As long as the Apostles lived, as long as those Bishops lived, who being their Disciples, did evidently and notoriously teach the doctrine of Christ, and were of that communion; so long they, that is, the Apostolical Churches, were a sure way to follow; because it was known and confessed, These Clergy-guides had an infallible Unerring spirit. But as the Church hath decayed in Discipline, and Charity hath waxen-cold, and Faith is become interest and disputation, this Counsel of the Apostle, and these words of S. Irenaeus come off still the fainter. But now here is a new question, viz. Whether the Rulers of the Church be the Church, that Church which is the pillar and ground of truth; whether, when they represent the diffusive Church, the Promises of an indeficient faith, and the perpetual abode of the Holy Spirit, and his leading into all truth, and teaching all things, does in propriety belong to them? For if they do not; then we are yet to seek for an Infallible Judge, a Church on which our Faith may rely with certainty and infallibility.  
In answer to which I find that in Scripture the word Ecclesia or Church is taken in contradistinction from the Clergy; but never that it is used to signify them alone. 
Act. 15. 22.  Then it pleased the Apostles and the Elders with the whole Church to choose men of their own company, etc. And the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the Church of God. 
Act. 20. 28.  And Hilarius Diac. observes, that the Apostle to the Church of Coloss sent by them a message to their Bishop: 
In Col. 4. 16.  Praepositum illorum per eos ipsos commonet ut sit sollicitus de salute ipsorum, & quia plebis solius scribitur epistola, ideò non ad rectorem ipsorum destinata est, sed ad Ecclesiam: observing that the Bishop is the Ruler of the Church, but his Flock is that which he intended only to signify by the Church. The Clergy in their public capacity are not the Church, but the Rulers of the Church; Ecclesiastici, but not Ecclesia; they are denominatives of the Church; Bishops and Pastors of the Church: and in their personal capacity are but parts and members of the Church; and are never in the New Testament called the Church indefinitely; and this is so notorious and evident in Scripture that it is never pretended otherwise, but in 18 of S. Matthew, Dic Ecclesiae; If thy Brother offend thee, rebuke him; and then, before two or three; and, if he neglect them, tell it unto the Church, that is, to the Rulers of the Church, say the Roman Doctors. But this cannot be directly so, for Ecclesia or Church is, the highest degree of the same ascent; first in private, to one of the Church surely, for they had no society with any else, especially in the matter of fraternal correption: then in the company of some few [of the Church still;] for not to heathens: and at last, of the whole Church, that is, of all the Brethren in your public Assembly: this is a natural Climax; and it is made more than probable by the nature of the punishment of the incorrigible; they become as Heathen, because they have slighted the whole Church; and therefore are not to be reckoned as any part of the Church: And then lastly, this being an advice given to S. Peter and the other Apostles; that they in this case should tell the Church; by the Church must be meant something distinct from the Clergy, who are not here commanded to tell themselves alone, but the whole Congregation of Elders and Brethren, that is, of Clergy and people. It is not to be denied but every National Church, whereof the King is always understood to be the supreme Governor, may change their form of Judicature, in things (I mean) that are without; that is, such things which are not immediately by Christ, entrusted to the sole conduct of the Bishops and Priests, such as are the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments; and the immediate cure of Souls. Concerning other things S. Paul gave order to the Corinthians that in the cases of law, and matters of secular division upon interest, which the Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
1 Cor. 6. 2, 3, 4.  those who are least esteemed in the Church should be appointed to judge between them by way of reference; But, by the way, this does not authorise the Rulers of Churches, the Pastors and Bishops to intermeddle; for they are most esteemed, that is, the Principals in the Church: but then this very thing proves that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the duty and right of judging is in the whole Church of the Saints; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Know ye not that the Saints shall judge the world; that is, the Church hath the power of judging; and it is yet more plain, because he calls upon the Church of Corinth to delegate this judicature, this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this little, this least Judgement, though now it is esteemed the Greatest; but little or great, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do you appoint the Judges; those that are least esteemed. And for other things they may appoint greater Judges, and put their power in execution by such ministeries which are better done by one or by a few persons, than by a whole multitude; who in the declension of piety would rather make Tumults than wise Judgements. And upon this account, though for a long time the people did interest themselves in public Judicatures, and even in elections of Bishops, which were matters greater than any of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and this S. Cyprian said was their due by Divine right, 
Vide S. Cypr. ep. 68 32. 28.  (let him answer for the expression) yet in these affairs the people were also conducted, and so ought to be by their Clergy-guides, who by their abilities to persuade and govern them were the fittest for the execution of that power. But then that which I say is this, that this word Ecclesia or Church signifying this Judicatory, does not signify the Clergy, as distinct from their flocks; and there is not any instance in the New Testament to any such purpose; and yet that the Clergy may also reasonably, but with a Metonymy, be represented by the word Church, is very true; but this is only by the change of words and their first significations. They are the fittest to order and conduct the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the whole Ecclesiastical Judicature. Vt omnis actus Ecclesiae per Praepositos gubernetur, 
Epist. 27.  it is S. Cyprian's expression; That whatever act the Church intends to do, it should be governed by their Rulers; viz. by consent, by preaching, by exhortation, by reason and experience, and better knowledge of things: but the people are to stand or fall at these Judicatories, not because God hath given them the judgement of an infallible Spirit, more than to the whole Church or Congregation; but because they are fittest to do it, and for many other great reasons. And this appears without contradiction true, because even the Decrees of General Councils bind not but as they are accepted by the several Churches in their respective Districts and Dioceses: of which I am to give an account in the following Periods.  
But if this thing were otherwise; yet if by the Church they understand the Clergy only, it must be all the Clergy that must be the judge of spiritual questions; for no example is offered from the N. T. no instance can be produced that by Ecclesia is meant the Clergy, and by Clergy is meant only a part of the Clergy; these cannot in any sense be the Catholic Church; and then, if this sense were obtained by the Church of Rome, no man were the better, unless all the Bishops and Priests of the world were consulted in their Questions.  
They therefore think it necessary to do as God did to Gideon's Army; they will not make use of all, but send away the multitude, and retain the 10000; and yet because these are too many to overthrow the Midianites, they Reduce them to 300. The Church must have a representative; but this shall be of a select number; a few, but enough to make a Council: A General Council is the Church Representative, and it is pretended here, they can set their foot, and stand fast upon infallibility; for all the promises made to the Church, are crowded into the tenure and possession of a General Council: 
Archidiac: in cap. Praecipu. 11. q. 3.  and therefore Dic Ecclesiae is, Tell it to the Council, that's the Church, said a great Expositor of the Canon Law.  
This indeed is said by very many of the Roman Doctors, but not by all; and therefore this will at first seem but a trembling foundation, and themselves are doubtful in their confidences of it; and there is an insuperable prejudice laid against it, by the title of the first General Council that ever was; 
Acts 15. 4.  that, I mean, of Jerusalem, where the Apostles were precedents, and the Presbyters were assistants, but the Church was the body of the Council [When they were come to Jerusalem they were received of the Church, 
22.  and of the Apostles and Elders: And again; Then it pleased the Apostles and Elders with the Church to send chosen men:] 
23.  and they did so, they sent a Decretal, with this style; The Apostles, and Elders, and Brethren, send greeting to the Brethren which are of the Gentiles. Now no man doubts but the Spirit of Infallibility was in the Apostles; and yet they had the consent of the Church in the Decree; which Church was the company of the converted Brethren; and by this it became a Rule: certainly, it was the first precedent, and therefore aught to be the measure of the rest, and this the rather because from hence the succeeding Councils have derived their sacramental sanction, of Visum est Spiritui sancto & nobis: now as it was the first, so it was the only precedent in Scripture; and it was managed by the Apostles, and therefore we can have no other warrant of an Authentic Council, but this; and to think that a few of the Rulers of Churches should be a just representation of the Church, for infallible determination of all questions of Faith is no way warranted in Scripture: and there is neither here, nor any where else, any word or commission that the Church ever did or could delegate the Spirit to any representatives, or pass Infallibility by a Commission or Letter of Attorney: and therefore to call a General Council the Church, or to think that all the privileges and graces given by Christ to his Church is there in a part of the Church, is wholly without warrant or authority.  
But this is made manifest by matter of fact; and the Church never did intent to delegate any such power, but always kept it in her own hand; I mean the supreme Judicature, both in faith and discipline. I shall not go far for instances, but observe some in the Roman Church itself, which are therefore the more remarkable, because in the time of her Reign, General Councils were arrived to great heights, and the highest pretensions. Clement the 7th. calls the Council of Ferrara, 
Vide edit. Roman. Actorum Generalis octavae Syn●di per Anton. Bladrum 1516.  the Eighth General Synod, in his Bull of the 22th. of April, 1527. directed to the Bishop of Fernaesia, who it seems had translated it out of Greek into Latin: yet this General Council is not accepted in France; but was expressly rejected by King Charles the 7th. and the instance of the Cardinals who came from P. Eugenius, to desire the acceptation of it, was denied. This Council, 
A. D. 1431.  was it seems, begun at Basil; and though the King did then, and his Great Council and Parliament, and the Church of France then assembled at Bruges, accept it; yet it was but in part: for of 45 Sessions of that Council, France hath received only the first 32. and those not entirely as they lie, but with certain qualifications, Aliqua simpliciter ut jacent, alia verò cum certis modificationibus & formis; as is to be seen in the pragmatic Sanction. To the same purpose is that which happened to the last Council of Lateran, which was called to be a countermine to the second Council of Pisa, and to frustrate the intended Reformation of the Church in head and members: This Council excommunicated Lewis the XII th'. of France, repealed the Pragmatical Sanction, and condemned the second Council of Pisa. So that here was an end of the Council of Pisa, by the Decree of the Lateran; and on the other side, the Lateran Council had as bad a Fate; for, besides that it was accounted in Germany, and so called by Paulus Langius a Monk of Germany, 
In Chron. Sitizensi, A. D. 1513.  A pack of Cardinals; it is wholly rejected in France: and an appeal to the next Council put in against it by the University of Paris. And as ill success hath happened to the Council of Trent; which it seems could not oblige the Roman Catholic countries without their own consent: But therefore there were many pressing instances, messages, petitions, and artifices to get it to be published in France. First to Charles the IX th'. by Pius Quartus, An. Dom. 1563. than by Cardinal Aldobrandino the Pope's Nephew 1572: then by the French Clergy 1576 in an Assembly of the States at Blois, Peter Espinac Arch Bishop of Lions being Speaker for the Clergy; after this, by the French Clergy at Melun 1579. the Bishop of Bazas making the Oration to the King; and after him, the same year they pressed it again, Nicolas Angelier the Bishop of Brien being Speaker. After this, by Renald of Beaune, Archbishop of Bruges 1582. 
Vide Thuan. hist. lib. 105. & revieu du Concile de Trent. lib. 1.  and the very next year by the Pope's Nuncio to Henry the 3d. And in An. Dom. 1583. and 88 and 93. it was pressed again and again; but all would not do: By which it appears, that even in the Church of Rome, the Authority of General Councils is but precarious; and that the last resort is to the respective Churches, who did or did not send their delegates to consider and consent. Here then is but little ground of confidence in General Councils; whom surely the Churches would absolutely trust, if they had reason to believe them to be infallible.  
But there are many more things to be considered. For there being many sorts of Councils; General, Provincial, 
Gratian dist. 3. ca●. P●rrè.  National, Diocesan; the first inquiry will be which of all these, or whether all of these, will be an infallible guide, and of necessity to be obeyed. I doubt not, but it will be roundly answered; that only the General Councils are the last and supreme Judicatory, and that alone which is infallible. But yet how Uncertain this Rule will be, 
Vbi supra. act. 3.  appears in this, that the gloss of the Canon Law * says, Non videtur, Metropolitanos posse condere Canon's in suis Conciliis; at least not in great matters, imò non licet: yet the VII th'. Synod allows the Decrees, Decistones localium Conciliorum, the definitions of local Councils. But I suppose it is in these as it is in the General: they that will accept them, may; and if they will approve the Decrees of Provincial Councils, they become a Law unto themselves; and without this acceptation, General Councils cannot give Laws to others.  
2. It will be hard to tell, which are General Councils, 
Lib. 1. c. 4. de Concil. & Eccles. Sect. Vocuntur enim.  and which are not; for, the Roman Councils under Symmachus, all the world knows can but pretend to be local or provincial, consisting only of Italians, and yet they bear Universal in their Style; and it is always said (as Bellarmine * confesses) Symmachus Concilio Generali praesidens, and the 3d. Council of Toledo, in the 18th Chapter, uses this mandatory form, Praecipit haec sancta & Vniversalis Synodus.  
3, But if we will suppose a Catachrêsis in this style; and that this title of Universal, means but a Particular, that is, an Universal of that place; though this be a hard expression; because the most particular or local Councils are or may be universal to that place; yet this may be pardoned; since it is like the Catholic Roman style, that is, the manner of speaking in the Universal particular Church; but after all this, it will be very hard in good Earnest to tell which Councils are indeed Universal, or General Councils. Bellarmine reckons eighteen from Nicene to Trent inclusively; so that the Council of Florence is the sixteenth; and yet Pope Clement the seventh calls it the eighth General; and is reproved for it by Surius, who, for all the Pope's infallibility, pretended to know more than the Pope would allow. The last Lateran Council, viz. the fifth, is at Rome esteemed a General Council; In Germany and France it passes for none at all, but a faction and pack of Cardinals.  
4. There are divers General Councils, that, though they were such, yet they are rejected by almost all the christian world. It ought not to be said, that these are not General Councils, because they were conventions of heretical persons; for if a Council can consist of heretical persons (as by this instance it appears it may) than a General Council is no sure rule or ground of faith. And all those Councils which Bellarmin calls reprobate are as so many proofs of this. For what ever can be said against the Council of Ariminum; yet they cannot say but it consisted of DC▪ Bishops: and therefore it was as general as any ever was before it, but the faults that are found with it, prove indeed that it is not to be accepted; but then they prove two things more, First, That a General Council binds not till it be accepted by the Churches; and therefore that all its authority depends on them; and they do not depend upon it. And secondly, that there are some General Councils which are so far from being infallible, that they are directly false, schismatical, and heretical. And if when the Churches are divided in a question, and the communion, like the Question, is in flux and reflux; when one side prevails greatly they get a General Council on their side, and prevail by it; but lose as much, when the other side play the same game in the day of their advantages. And it will be to no purpose to tell me of any Collateral advantages that this Council hath more than another Council; for though I believe so, yet others do not; and their Council is as much a General Council to them as our Council is to us. And therefore if General Councils are the rule and law of faith in those things they determine, than all that is to be considered in this affair, is, Whether they be General Councils. Whether they say true or no, is not now the question, but is to be determined by this, viz. whether are they General Councils or no; for relying upon their authority for the truth, if they be satisfied that they are General Councils; that they speak and determine truth will be consequent and allowed. Now than if this be the question, then since divers General Councils are reprobated, the consequent is, that although they be General Councils, yet they may be reproved. And if a Catholic producing the Nicene Council be r'encontred by an Arian producing the Council of Ariminum which was fare more numerous; here are aquilis aquilae & pila minantia pilis; but who shall prevail? If a General Council be the rule and guide they will both prevail; that is, neither. And it ought not to be said by the Catholic; Yea, but our Council determined for the truth, but yours for error; for the Arian will say so too. But whether they do or no; yet it is plain, that they may both say so: and if they do, than we do not find the truth out by the conduct and decision of a General Council; but we approve this General, because upon other accounts we believe that what is there defined is true. And therefore S. Austin's way here is best; Neque ego Nicenum Concilium, neque tu Ariminense, etc. both sides pretend to General Councils: that which both equally pretend to, will help neither; therefore let us go to Scripture. But there are amongst many others two very considerable instances, by which we may see plainly at what rate Councils are declared General. 
A. D. 755.  There was a Council held at C. P. under Constantinus Copronymus of 338 Bishops. It was in that unhappy time when the question of worshipping or breaking images was disputed. 
A D. 786. aut 789.  This Council commanded images to be destroyed out of Churches; and this was a General Council: and yet 26, or, as some say, 31 years after, this was condemned by another General Council, viz. the second at Nice which decreed images to be worshipped; not long after, about five years, this General Council of Nice, for that very reason was condemned by a General Council of Francford, and generally by the Western Churches. Now of what value is a General Council to the determination of questions of faith, when one General Council condemns another General Council with great liberty, and without scruple. And it is to no purpose to allege reasons or excuses why this or that Council is condemned; for if they be General, and yet may without reason be condemned, than they have no authority; but if they be condemned with reason, than they are not infallible. The other instance is in those Councils which were held when the dispute began between the Council and the Pope. The Council of Constance consisting of almost a thousand Fathers first and last, defined the Council to be above the Pope; the Council of Florence, and the fift Council in the Lateran, have condemned this Council so far, as to that article. The Council of Basil, all the world knows how greatly they asserted their own Authority over the Pope; but therefore though in France it is accepted, yet in Italy and Spain it is not.  
But what is the meaning, that some Councils are partly approved and partly condemned, the Council of Sardis, that in Trullo, those of Francfort, Constance, and Basil? but that every man, and every Church accepts the General Councils, as far as they please, and no further? The Greeks receive but seven General Councils, the Lutherans receive six, the Eutychians in Asia receive but the first three, the Nestorians in the East receive but the first two, the Anti-trinitarians in Hungary and Poland receive none. The Church of England receives the four first Generals as of highest regard, not that they are infallible; but that they have determined wisely and holily. Pro captu lectoris habent sua fata— It is as every one likes: for the Church of Rome that receives sixteen, are divided; and some take-in others, and reject some of these, as I have shown.  
5. How can it be known which is a General Council, and how many conditions are required for the building such a great House? The question is worth the ask, not only because the Church of Rome teaches us to rely upon a General Council as the supreme Judge and final determiner of questions; but because I perceive that the Church of Rome is at a loss concerning General Councils. 
A. D. 1409. de●●o●cil. & Eccles. l. ●. c. 8.  The Council of Pisa, Bellarmine says, is neither approved, nor reproved; for Pope Alexander the 6th approved it, because he acknowledged the Election of Alexander the 5th, who was created Pope by that Council: and yet Antoninus called it Conciliabulum illegitimum, an unlawful Conventicle. But here Bellarmine was a little forgetful; for the fift Lateran Council which they in Rome will call a General, hath condemned this Pisan, with great interest and fancy; and therefore it was both approved and reproved.  
But it is fit that it be enquired, How we shall know which, or what, is a General Council; and which is not. 1. If we inquire into the number of the Bishops there present, we cannot find any certain Rule for that: but be they many or few, the parties interested will, if they please, call it a General Council. And they will not, dare not, I suppose at Rome, make a quarrel upon that point; when in the sixth Session of Trent, as some printed Catalogues 
* 1546.  inform us, they may remember there were but 38 persons in all, at their first sitting down, of which number some were not Bishops: and at last, there were but 57 Archbishops and Bishops in all. In the first Session were but three Archbishops, and twenty three Bishops; and in all the rest about sixty Archbishops and Bishops was the usual number till the last; and yet there are some Councils of far greater antiquity who are rejected, although their number of Bishops very far surpass the numbers of Trent: In Nice, were 318 Bishops; in that of Chalcedon were 600; and in that of Basil were above 400 Bishops, and in that of Constance were 300, besides the other Fathers (as they call them.) But this is but one thing of many; though it will be very hard to think that all the power and energy, the virtual faith, and potential infallibility of the whole Christian Church should be in 80 or 90 Bishops taken out of the neighbour-countries.  
6. But then if we consider upon what pitiful pretences the Roman Doctors do evacuate the Authority of Councils; we shall find them to be such, that by the like, which can never be wanting to a witty person, the authority of every one of them may be vilified, and consequently, they can be infallible security to no man's faith. Charles the 7th of France, and the French Church assembled at Bruges, rejected the latter Sessions of the Council of Basil; because they deprived P. Eugenius, and created Felix the 5th; and because it was doubtful whether that Assembly did sufficiently represent the Catholic Church. But Bellarmine says, that the former Sessions of the Council of Basil, are invalid and null; because certain Bishops fell off there, and were faulty. Now if this be a sufficient cause of nullity; then if ever there be a schism, or but a division of opinions, the other party may deny the Authority of the Council; and especially, if any of them change their opinion, and go to the prevailing side; the other hath the same cause of complaint: but this ought not at all to prevail, till it be agreed how many Bishops must be present; for if some fail, if enough remain there is no harm done to the Authority. But because any thing is made use of for an excuse; it is a sure sign they are but pretended more than regarded, but just when they serve men's turns. The Council of C. P. under Leo Isaurus is rejected by the Romanists; because there was no Patriarch present but S. Germane; though all the world knows, the reason is because they decreed against images. But if the other were a good Reason; than it is necessary that all the old Patriarches should be present; and if this be true, than the General Council of Ephesus is null; because all the Patriarches were not present at it; and particularly the Patriarch of Antioch; and in that of Chalcedon there wanted the Patriarch of Alexandria. And the first of C. P. could not have all the Patriarches, neither could it be Representative of the whole Church; because at the same time there was another Council at Rome: and, which is worse to the Romanists than all that, the Council of Trent upon this, and a 1000 more is invalid; because themselves reckon but three Patriarches there present; one was of Venice, another of Aquileia, and the third was only a titular of Jerusalem; none of which were really any of the old Patriarches, whose Authority was so great in the Ancient Councils.  
7. It is impossible as things are now that a General Council should be a sure Rule or Judge of Faith, 
Bellarm. lib. 1. de Concil. & Eccles. cap. 15.  since it can never be agreed who of necessity are to be called, and who have decisive voices in Councils. 
Sect. At ath●licorum.  At Rome they allow none but Bishops to give sentence, and to subscribe: and yet anciently not only the Emperors and their Ambassadors did subscribe; but lately at Florence, Lateran, and Trent, Cardinals and Bishops, Abbots and Generals of Orders did subscribe; and in the Council of Basil, Priests had decisive voices, and it is notorious that the ancient Councils were subscribed by the Archimandrites who were but Abbots, not Bishops: 
L ●b. 2. de Concil. act. 6.  and Cardinal Jacobatius affirms, that sometimes Laymen were admitted to Councils, to be Judges between those that disputed some deep Questions. Nay, Gerson says, that Controversies of Faith were sometimes referred to Pagan Philosophers, who though they believed it not, yet, supposing it such, they determined what was the proper consequent of such Principles; which the Christians consented in: and he says, 
Socrat. l. ●. c 5. Eccles. hist.  it was so in the Council of Nice, as is left unto us upon record. * And Eutropius a Pagan, was chosen Judge between Origen and the Marcionites; and against these he gave sentence, and in behalf of Origen. Certain it is, that the States of Germany in their Diet at Noremberg propounded to Pope Adrian the VI th' that Laymen might be admitted as well as the Clergy and freely to declare their judgements without hindrance. And this was no new matter; for it was practised in all Nations; in Germany, France, England, and Spain itself; as who please may see in the 6th 8th and 12th Councils of Toledo. So that it is apparent that the Romanists, though now they do not, yet formerly they did; and were certainly in the right: 
Vide Marsil. Patau. in defence: pacis.  and if any man shall think otherwise, he can never be sure that they were in the wrong: 
Part. 2. c. 20.  especially when he shall consider that the Council of the Apostles, not only admitted Presbyters, but the Laity; who were parties in the Decree: as is to be seen in the 
* Cap. 15. V 22. 23.  Acts of the Apostles: And that for this there was also a very great Precedent in the Old Testament in a case perfectly like it; when Elijah appealed to the people to Judge between God and Baal, 
1 Kings 18.  which of them was the Lord, by answering by fire.  
8. But how if the Church be divided in a Question which hath caused so great disturbances that it is thought fit to call a Council: here will be an Eternal Uncertainty. If they call both sides, they will never agree. If they call but one, than they are Parties and Judges too. 
Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 16.  In the General Council of Sardis, by command of the two Emperors Constans and Constantius, 
Sozomen. l. 3. c. 10.  all Bishops, Catholic and Arians, were equally admitted; so it was also both at Ariminum and Seleucia; and so it was at Ferrara, where the Greeks and Latins sat together. But if one side only, exclude all the adversaries, and declare them criminals before hand, as it happened at Trent and Dort, how is that one party a representative of the Church; when so great a part of Christendom is not consulted, not heard, not suffered?  
9 Suppose, a Council being called, the Bishops be divided in their opinion, how shall the decision be? By the major number of voices, surely. But how much the major? shall one alone above the equal number carry it? That were strange that one man should determine the faith of Christendom? Must there be two thirds, as it was propounded in Trent, in some cases; but if this be, who shall make any man sure that the Holy Spirit of God shall go over to those two thirds, and leave the remaining party to themselves? And who can ascertain us that the major part is the more wise and more holy; or, if they be not, yet that they shall speak more truth? But in this also, the Doctors are uncertain and divided; and how little truth is to be given to the major part in causes of faith, the Roman Doctors may learn from their own Abbot of Panormo, 
Panorm. in corp. s ignificasti▪ de Elect.  and the Chancellor of Paris. The first saying, The opinion of one Godly man ought to be preferred before the Pope's, if it be grounded upon better authorities of the Old and New Testament: and the latter saying, Every learned man may and aught to withstand a whole Council, if he perceive it errs of malice or ignorance.  
10. The world is not yet agreed, in whose power it is to call the Councils; and if it be done by an incompetent authority, the whole convention is schismatical; and therefore not to be trusted as a Judge of Consciences and questions of faith. The Emperors always did it of old; and the Popes of late: but let this be agreed first, and then let the other questions come before them; till then, we cannot be sure.  
11. Lastly, if General Councils be supposed to be the rule and measure of Faith; Christendom must needs be in a sad condition and state of doubt for ever: not only because a Council is not called, it may be, in two or three Ages; but because no man can be sure that all things are observed which men say are necessary: neither did the several Churches ever agree what was necessary, nor did they ever agree to set down the laws and conditions requisite to their being such: and therefore they have well and wisely comported themselves in this; that never any General Council did declare that a General Council is infallible. Indeed Bellarmine labours greatly to prove it out of Scripture: his best argument is the promise that Christ made, that when two or three are gathered in my name, I will be in the midst of them; and, I will be with you to the end of the world. Now to these authorities I am now no other way to answer but by observing that these arguments do as much prove every Christian-meeting of any sort of good Christians to be as infallible as a Council, and that a Diocesan Council is as sure a guide as a General: and it is impossible, from those, or any other like words of Christ, to prove the contrary; and therefore gives us no certainty here.  
But if General Councils in themselves be so uncertain, yet the Roman Doctors now at last are come to some certainty; for if the Pope confirm a Council, than it is right and true, and the Church is a rule which can never fail, and never can deceive, or leave men in uncertainty; for a spirit of infallibility is then in the Churches representative, when head and members are joined together. This is their last stress, and if this cord break they have nothing to hold them.  
Now for this, there are divers great Considerations which will soon put this matter to issue. For although this be the new device of the Court of Rome, and the Pope's flatterers, especially the Jesuits, and that this never was so much as probably proved; but boldly affirmed and weakly grounded: yet this is not defined as a doctrine of the Roman Church. 
Lib. 3. cap. 9 de Concil. & Ecclesia.  For 1. we find Bellarmine reckoning six cases of necessity or utility of calling General Councils; and four of them are of that nature, that the Pope is either not in being, or else is a party, the person to be judged: As, 1. if there be a schism amongst the Popes of Rome, as when there happen to be two or three Popes together; which happened in the Councils of Constance and Basil. Or 2. if the Pope of Rome be suspected of heresy. Or 3. when there is great necessity of reformation of manner in head and members; which hath been so notoriously called for above 400 years. Or 4. if the election of the Pope be questioned. Now in these cases it is impossible that the consent of the Pope should be necessary to make up the Authority of the Council, since the Pope is the pars rea, and the Council is the only Judge. And of this there can be no question: And therefore the Pope's authority is not necessary, nor of avail to make the Council valid.  
2. If the Pope's approbation of the Council make it to be an infallible guide, then since without it, it is not Infallible, not yet the supreme Judicatory, it follows that the Pope is above the Council: which is a thing very uncertain in the Church of Rome; but it hath been denied in divers General Councils, as by the first Pisan; by the Council of Constance, the fourth and fifth Sessions; by the Council of Basil in the second, the sixteenth and eighteenth and 33d Sessions; by the Council of Bruges under Charles the VIIth, and by the pragmatic Sanction: all which have declared that [A General Council hath its authority immediately from Christ (and consequently not depending on the Pope) and that it is necessary that every person in what dignity soever, though Papal, should be obedient to it, in things that concern faith, the extirpation of schism, and the reformation of the Church of God both in head and members] This is the decree of the Council of Constance; which also adds further [That whosoever shall neglect to obey the commands, statutes, ordinances and decrees of this or any other General Council lawfully assembled, in the things aforesaid, or thereunto pertaining [viz. in matters of faith, or manners] made or to be made, if he do not repent of it, he shall undergo a condign penance; yea, and with recourse to other remedies of law against him, of what condition, estate or dignity soever he be, though he be the Pope.] The same was confirmed in the Council of Lausanna, and the second Pisan in the third Session: so that here are six General Councils all declaring the Pope to be inferior and submitted to a Council; They created Popes in some of them; they decreed when Councils should be called, they Judged Popes, they deposed them, they commanded their obedience, they threatened to impose penances if they obeyed not, and to proceed to further remedies in law; and the second Pisan, beside the former particulars, declared that the Synod neither could nor should be dissolved without their universal consent; nevertheless, by the common consent it might be removed to a place of safety, especially with the Pope, if he could be got to consent thereunto; always provided it be not at Rome. And yet this very Council was approved and commended by Pope Alexander the 5th, 
Platina in Alex. Quinto. Naucl. tom. 2. generat. 47.  as both Platina, and Nauclerus witness: and the Council of Constance was called by Pope John the 23. He presided in it, and was for his wicked life deposed by it; and yet Platina in his life, says, he approved it; and after him so did Pope Martin the 5th (as is to be seen in the last Session of that Council,) and Eugenius the 4th, 
Vide 16. c. 18. Session.  and the Council of Basil, and Lausanna was confirmed by Pope Nicolas the 5th, as is to be seen in his Bull; and not only Pope Martin the 5th, but Pope Eugenius the 4th, approved the Council of Basil. It were a needless trouble to reckon the consenting testimonies of many learned Divines and Lawyers, bearing witness to the Council's superiority over Popes. More material it is that many famous Universities, particularly that of Paris, Erford, Colein, Vienna, Cracovia; all unanimously did affirm the power of General Councils over Popes, and principally for this thing relied upon the Authority of the General Councils of Constance and Basil.  
Now if a General Council, confirmed by a Pope, be a Rule or Judge of Faith and Manners; then this is an Article of Faith, that the Authority of a General Council does not depend upon the Pope, but on Christ immediately; and then the Pope's confirmation does not make it valid, any more than the confirmation or consent of the other Patriarches for their respective Provinces. For here are many Councils, and they confirmed by divers Popes.  
But that it may appear how Uncertain all, 
De comparatione authoritatis Papae & Conci. two.  even the Greatest things are at Rome, Cardinal Cajetan wrote a Book against this doctrine, and against the Councils of Constance, Basil, and Pisa, and Gerson the Chancellor of Paris: which book King Lewis the XII th' of France, required the University of Paris to examine; which they did to very good purpose. And the latter Popes of Rome have used their utmost diligence to disgrace and nullify all these Councils, and to stifle the voice and consciences of all men, and to trample General Councils under their feet. Now how can the Souls of Christian people put their questions and differences to their determination, who themselves are biting and scratching one another? He was likely to prove but an ill Physician, who gave advices to a woman that had gotten a cold, when himself could scarce speak for coughing. I am not concerned here to say what I think of the question, or whether the Council or the Pope be in the right; for I think, as to the power of determining matters of Faith infallibly, they are both in the wrong. But that which I observe, is, That the Church of Rome is greatly divided about their Judge of Controversies, and are never like to make an end of it, unless one Party be beaten into a good compliant belief with the other. I shall only add a conclusion to these premises in the words of Bellarmine; 
De Council cuthor. l. 2. c. 24. Sect. Accedit.  Si Concilia Generalia possent errare, nullum esset in Ecclesia firmum judicium, quo Controversiae componi, & Vnitas in Ecclesiâ servari possit, If a General Council can err, there is no sure judgement in Church for the composing Controversies, and preserving Unity. I shall not need to take advantage of these words, by observing that Bellarmine hath by them evacuated all the Authority of the Pope's defining questions in Cathedrâ for if a General Council can fail, nothing amongst them can be certain. This is that which I observe; that since this thing is rendered so Uncertain upon the stock of their own wranglings, and not agreeing upon which are General Councils; one part condemning some, which very many others among them acknowledge for such: it is impossible, by their own Doctrine, that they can have any place where to set their foot, and say, Here I fix upon a Rock, and cannot be moved. And there being so many conditions required, and so many ways of failing laid to their charge, and many more that may be found out; and it being impossible that we can be infallibly assured that none of them hath happened in any General Council that comes to be questioned: How can any man rely upon the decision of a Council as infallible, of which he cannot ever be infallibly assured that it hath proceeded Concilialiter (as Bellarmine's new word is,) or that it hath in it nothing that does evacuate or lessen its authority. And after all this, suppose we are all agreed about any Convention, and allow it to be a General Council; yet they do not always end the questions when they have defined them; and the Decrees themselves make a new harvest of Uncertainties: Of this we have too many witnesses, even all the Questions which in the world are made concerning the sense and meaning of the Decrees and Canons in the respective Councils. And when Andreas Vega, and Dominicus à Soto, and Soto, 
A. D. 1546.  and Catarinus (who were all present at the Council of Trent, and understood the meaning of the Council as well as any, except the Legates and their secret Juncto) wrote books against one another, and both sides brought the words of the Council for themselves, and yet neither prevailed; Sancta Croce the Legate, who well enough understood that the Council intended not to determine the truth, yet, to silence their wranglings in the Council, let them dispute abroad; but the Council would not end it, by clearing the ambiguity. And since this became the mode of Christendom to do so upon design; it can be no wonder that things are left Uncertain for all the Decrees of Councils.  
It is well therefore that the Church of Rome requires Faith to her Conclusions, greater than her Premises can persuade. It is the only way of escaping that is left them, as being conscious that none of their Arguments can enforce what they would have believed. And to the same purpose it is, that they teach the Conclusions and definitions of Councils to be infallible, though their Arguments and Proceed be fallible, and pitiful and false. If they can persuade the world to this, they have got the Goal; only it ought to be confessed by them that do submit to the definition, that they do so, moved to it by none of their Reasons, but they know not why.  
I do not here enter into the particular examination of the matters determined by many Councils; by which it might largely and plainly appear how greatly General Councils have been mistaken. This hath been observed already by many very learned men: And the Council of Trent is the greatest instance of it in the world, as will be made to appear in the procedure of this Book. But the Romanists themselves by rejecting divers General Councils have (as I have above observed) given proof enough of this. That all things are here Uncertain I have proved; and that if there be error here, there can be no certainty any where else, Bellarmine confesses: So that I have thus far discharged what I undertook.  
But beyond this, there are some other particulars fit to be considered, by which it will yet further appear that in the Church of Rome, unless they will rely upon the plain Scriptures, they have no sure foundation: instance in those several Articles, which some of the Roman Doctors say are de fide; and others of their own party, when they are pressed with them, say they are not the fide, but the opinions of private Doctors; That, if a Prince turn Heretic, that is, be not of the Roman party, he presently loses all right to his temporal Dominions; That the Pope can change Kingdoms, taking from one, and giving to another, this is esteemed by the Jesuits a matter of Faith. It is certa, indubitata, definita virorum clarissimorum sententia; said Creswel the Jesuit in his Philopater. F. Garnet said more, it is, Totius Ecclesiae & quidem ab antiquissimis temporibus consensione recepta doctrina. It is received, saith Creswel, by the whole School of Divines and Canon-Lawyers; nay it is Certum & de fide, It is matter of Faith. I know that the English Priests will think themselves injured if you impute this Doctrine to them, or say, It is the Catholic Doctrine: and yet, that this power in Temporals that he can depose Kings sometimes, is in the Pope, 
Contr. Barclai. cap. 3.  Non opinio, sed certitudo apud Catholicos est, said Bellarmine, It is more than an opinion, it is certain amongst the Catholics. Now since this is not believed by all that call themselves Catholics, and yet by others of greatest note it is said to be the Catholic Doctrine, to be certain, to be a point of Faith; I desire to know, Where this Faith is founded, which is the house of Faith, where is their warrant, their authority and foundation of their Article. For if an English Scholar in the College at Rome, had, in confession to F. Parsons, Creswel, Garnet, Bellarmine, or any of their parties, confessed that he had spoken against the Pope's power of deposing Kings in any case, or of any pretence of kill Kings: it is certain they could not have absolved him, till he had renounced his Heresy; and they must have declared that if he had died in that persuasion, he must have been damned; what rest shall this poor man have, or hope for? He pretends that the Council of Constance had declared for his opinion; and therefore that his and not theirs, is certain and matter of Faith: They, tell him no; and yet for their Article of Faith, have neither Father nor Council, Scripture nor Reason, Tradition, nor Ancient Precedent; where then is this foundation upon which the article is built? It lies low, as low as Hell, but can never be made to appear; and yet amongst them, Articles of faith grow up without root and without foundation; but a man may be threatened with damnation amongst them for any trifle, and affrighted with clappers and men of clouts. If they have a clear and certain rule, why do their Doctors differ about the points of faith? They say some things are articles of faith, and yet do not think fit to give a reason of their faith; for indeed they cannot. But if this be the way of it amongst Roman Doctors, they may have many faiths, as they have Breviaries in several Churches; secundum usum Sarum, secundum usum Scholae Romanae; and so, without ground or reason, even the Catholics become heretics one to another: it is by chance if it happen to be otherwise.  
2. What makes a point to be de fide? If it be said, The decision of a General Council; Then since no General Council hath said so; then this proposition is not the fide? that what a General Council says is true, is to be believed as matter of faith; for if the authority be not de fide, then how can the particulars of her determination be de fide? for the conclusion must follow the weaker part; and if the Authority itself be left in uncertainty, the Decrees cannot be infallible.  
3. As no man living can tell, that a Council hath proceeded rightly; so no man can tell when an Article of faith is firmly decreed, or when a matter is sufficiently propounded, or when the Pope hath perfectly defined an article: of all this the Canon law is the Greatest testimony in the world, where there is Council against Council, Pope against Pope; and among so many decrees of faith and manners it cannot be told what is, and what is not certain. For when the Popes have sent their rescripts to a Bishop, or any other Prelate, to order an affair of life or doctrine; either he wrote that with an intent to oblige all Christendom, or did not. If not, why is it put into the body of the laws; for what is a greater signature, or can pass a greater obligation than the Authentic Code of laws? But if these were written with an intent to oblige all Christendom; how come they to be prejudiced, rescinded, abrogated, by contrary laws; and desuetude, by change of times and changes of opinion? And in all that great body of laws registered in the decretum, and the Decretals, Clementins, and Extravagants, there is no sign or distinctive cognisance of one from another, and yet some of them are regarded, and very many are not. When Pope Stephen decreed that those who were converted from heresy should not be rebaptised; 
Euseb. lib. 7. hist. 4. c. 3 & 4. lib. de unico baptis. c. 14.  and to that purpose wrote against S. Cyprian in the Question, and declared it to be unlawful, and threatened excommunication to them that did it (as S. Austin tells); S. Cyprian regarded it not, but he and a Council of fourscore Bishops decreed it ought to be done, and did so to their dying day. Bellarmine admits all this to be true; but says, that Pope Stephen did not declare this tanquam de fide; but that after this definition it was free to every one to think as they list; nay, 
Bellar. lib. 4. de Pont. Rom. c. 7. Sect. Et per hoc.  that though it was plain that S. Cyprian refused to obey the Pope's sentence, yet non est omninò certum, that he did sin mortally. By all this he hath made it apparent, that it cannot easily be known when a Pope does define a thing to be de fide, or when it is a sin to disobey him, or when it is necessary he should be obeyed. Now then since in the Canon law there are so very many decrees, and yet no mark of difference, of right or wrong, necessary or not necessary; how shall we be able to know certainly in what state or condition the soul of every of the Pope's subjects is? especially since without any cognisance or certain mark all the world are commanded under pain of damnation to obey the Pope. In the Extravagant de Majoritate & Obedientiâ are these words, Dicimus, definimus, pronunciamus absolutè necessarium ad salutem omni humanae creaturae, subesse Romano Pontifici. Now when can it be thought that a Pope defines any article in Cathedra, if these words, Dicimus, definimus, pronunciamus, & necessarium ad salutem, be not sufficient to declare his intention? Now if this be true that the Pope said this; he said true or false. If false, how sad is the condition of the Romanists, who are affrighted with the terrible threaten of damnation for nothing? And if it be true, what became of the souls of S. Cyprian and the African Bishops, 
Epist. S. Cyprian. ad Pompeium.  who did not submit to the Bishop of Rome, but called him proud, ignorant, and of a dark and wicked mind? Seriò praecepit, said Bellarmine; he seriously commanded it, but did not determine it as necessary: and how in a Question of faith, and so great Concern this distinction can be of any avail, can never be known, and can never be proved; since they declare the Pope sufficiently to be of that faith against S. Cyprian, and the Africans, and that in pursuance of this his faith he proceeded so far, and so violently. But now the matter is grown infinitely worse. For 1. the Popes of Rome have made innumerable decrees in the Decretum, 
In l. Benè à Zeno●e c. de quadrien. prescript.  Decretals, Bulls, Taxes, Constitutions, Clementines, and Extravagants. 2. They, as Albericus de Rosate, a Great Canonist, affirms, sometimes exalt their constitutions, and sometimes abase them, according to the times. And yet 3. All of them are verified and imposed under the same Sanction by the Council of Trent; 
Sess. 25. c. 20.  all, I say, which were ever made in favour of Ecclesiastical Persons, and the Liberties of the Church; which are indeed the greater part of all after Gratians decree: witness the Decretals of Gregory the 9th, Boniface the 8th, the Collectio diversarum Constitutionum & literarum Romanorum Pontificum, and the Decretal Epistles of the Roman Bishops in three Volumes, besides the Ecloga Bullarum & motuum propriorum. All this is not only an intolerable burden to the Christian Churches, but a snare to consciences, and no man can tell by all this that is before him, whether he deserve love or hatred, whether he be in the state of mortal sin, of damnation, or salvation. But this is no new thing: More than this was decreed in the Ancient Canon law itself. 
Decret. dist. 19 c. Sic omnes, C. Eni●vero.  Sic omnes Sanctiones Apostolicae sedis accipiendae sunt tanquam ipsius Divinâ voce Petri firmatae. And again, Ab omnibus quicquid statuit, quicquid ordinat, perpetuò quidem & infragibiliter observandum est. All men must at all times with all submission observe all things whatsoever are decreed or ordained by the Roman Church. Nay, licèt vix ferendum, although what that holy See imposes, be as yet scarce tolerable, yet let us bear it, and with holy devotion suffer it, says the Canon, 
Ibid.  In memoriam. And that all this might indeed be an intolerable yoke, the Canon, Nulli fas est, adds the Pope's curse and final threaten. Sit ergo ruinae suae dolore prostratus, quisquis Apostolicis voluerit contraire decretis; and every one that obeys not the Apostolical decrees is majoris excommunicationis dejectione abjiciendus. The Canon is directed particularly against the Clergy. And the gloss upon this Canon affirms, that he who denies the Pope's power of making Canons, (viz. to oblige the Church) is a heretic. Now considering that the decree of Gratian is Concordantia discordantiarum, a heap or bundle of Contrary opinions, doctrines and rules; and they agree no otherwise then a Hyaena and a Dog catched in the same snare, or put into a bag; and that the Decretals and Extravagants are in very great parts of them nothing but boxes of tyranny and error, usurpation and superstition; only that upon those boxes they writ Ecclesia Catholica, and that all these are commanded to be believed and observed respectively; and all gainsayers to be cursed and excommunicated; and that the twentieth part of them is not known to the Christian world, and some are rejected, and some never accepted, and some slighted into desuetude, and some thrown off as being a load too heavy, and yet that there is no rule to discern these things: it must follow that matters of faith determined and recorded in the Canon law, and the laws of manners there established, and the matter of salvation and damnation consequent to the observation or not observation of them, must needs be infinitely uncertain, and no man can from their grounds know, what shall become of him.  
There are so very many points of faith in the Church of Rome, and so many Decrees of Councils, which, when they please, make an Article of faith, and so many are presumptuously by private Doctors affirmed to be de fide which are not; that, considering that the common people are not taught to rely upon the plain words of Scripture, and the Apostles Creed, for a sufficient rule of their faith, but are threatened with damnation, if they do not believe whatever their Church hath determined; and yet they neither do, nor can know it but by the word of their Parish Priest, or Confessor; it lies in the hand of every Parish Priest to make the People believe any thing, and be of any religion, and trust to any Article, as they shall choose and find to their purpose. The Council of Trent requires Traditions to be added and received equal with Scriptures; they both, not singly but in conjunction making up the full object of faith; and so the most learned, and indeed generally their whole Church understands one to be incomplete without the other: and yet Master White, who I suppose tells the same thing to his Neighbours, affirms that it is not the Catholic position, That all its doctrines are not contained in Scripture: which proposition being tied with the decree of the Council of Trent, gives a very good account of it, and makes it excellent sense. Thus, Traditions must be received with equal authority to the Scripture, (saith the Council) and wonder not; for (saith Master White) all the Traditions of the Church are in Scripture. You may believe so, if you please; for the contrary is not a Catholic doctrine. But if these two things do not agree better; than it will be hard to tell what regard will be had to what the Council says: the People know not that, but as their Priest teaches them. And though they are bound under greatest pains to believe the whole Catholic Religion: yet that the Priests themselves do not know it, or wilfully misreport it; and therefore that the people cannot tell it; it is too evident in this instance, and in the multitude of disputes which are amongst themselves, about many considerable Articles in their Catholic religion. 
Vide Wadding of Immac. oncept. p. 282. & p. 334. & alibi.  Pius Quintus speaking of Thomas Aquinas calls his doctrine the most certain rule of Christian religion. And divers particulars of the religion of the Romanists are proved out of the revelations of S. Bridget, which are contradicted by those of S. Katherine of Sienna. Now they not relying on the way of God, fall into the hands of men, who teach them according to the interest of their order, or private fancy, and expound their rules by measures of their own, but yet such which they make to be the measures of salvation and damnation. They are taught to rely for their faith upon the Church, and this when it comes to practise is nothing but their private Priest; and he does not always tell them the sense of their Church, and is not infallible in declaring the sense of it, and is not always (as appears in the instance now set down) faithful in relating of it, but first consens himself by his subtlety, and then others by his confidence; and therefore in is impossible there can be any certainty to them that proceed this way, when God hath so plainly given them a better, and requires of them nothing but to live a holy life, as a superstructure of Christian Faith described by the Apostles in plain places of Scripture, and in the Apostolical Creed; in which they can suffer no illusion, and where there is no Uncertainty in the matters to be believed.  
iv The next thing I observe, is, that they all talking of the Church, as of a charm and sacred Amulet, yet they cannot by all their arts make us certain where, or how, infallibly to find this Church. I have already in this Section proved this in the main Inquiry; by showing that the Church is that body, which they do not rely upon: but now I shall show that the Church which they would point out, can never be certainly known to be the true Church by those indications and signs which they offer to the world as her characteristic notes. S. Austin in his excellent Book De Vnitate Ecclesiae, 
Lib. de Vnit. Eccles. cap. & cap. 17. Ergo in Scriptures Canonicis eam (Ecclesiam) requiramus. cap. 3.  affirms, that the Church is not whereto be found, but in Praescripto legis, in prophetarum praedictis, in Psalmorum cantibus, in ipsius Pastoris vocibus; in Evangelistarum praedicationibus & laboribus; hoc est, in omnibus Sanctorum canonicis authoritatibus; in the Scriptures only. And he gives but one great note of it; and that is, adhering to the head Jesus Christ; for the Church is Christ's body, who by charity are united to one another, and to Christ their Head; and he that is not a member of Christ cannot obtain salvation. And he adds no other mark; but that Christ's Church is not this, or that, viz. not of one denomination; but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dispersed over the face of the earth. The Church of Rome makes adhesion to the head, 
Bellarm. de Eccles. Militant lib. 3. cap. Sect. Nostra autem Sententia.  (not Jesus Christ, but) the Bishop of Rome to be of the essential constitution of the Church. Now this being the great Question between the Church of Rome, and the Greek Church, and indeed of all other Churches of the world; is so far from being a sign to know the Church by, that it is apparent, they have no ground of their Faith; but the great Question of Christendom, and that which is condemned by all the Christian world but themselves, is their foundation.  
And this is so much the more considerable, because concerning very many Heads of their Church, it was too apparent that they were not so much as members of Christ, but the basest of Criminals, and Enemies of all godliness. And concerning others that were not so notoriously wicked, they could not be certain that they were members of Christ; or that they were not of their Father the Devil. The spirit of truth was promised to the Apostles upon condition; and Judas fell from it by transgression. But the uncertainties are yetgreater.  
Adhering to the Pope cannot be a certain note of the Church; because no man can be certain, who is true Pope. For the Pope, if he be a Simoniac, is ipso facto no Pope: as appears in the Bull of Julius the 2d. And yet besides that he himself was called a most notorious Simoniac, Sixtus Quintus gave an obligation under his hand upon condition that the Cardinal d'Este would bring over his voices to him and make him Pope, that he would never make Hierom Matthew a Cardinal; which when he broke, the Cardinal sent his Obligation to the King of Spain, who intended to accuse him of Simony, but it broke the Pope's heart, and so he escaped here, and was reserved to be heard before a more Unerring Judicatory. And when Pius Quartus used all the secret arts to dissolve the Council of Trent, and yet not to be seen in it, and to that purpose dispatched away the Bishops from Rome, he forbade the Archbishop of Turris to go, 
Hist. Concil. Trid. lib. 7, ●. D. 156●.  because he had been too free in declaring his opinion for the Jus Divinum of the Residence of Bishops; he at the same time durst not trust the Bishop of Cesena, for a more secret reason; but it was known enough to many. He was a familiar friend of the Cardinal of Naples, whose Father the Count of Montebello had in his hand an Obligation, which that Pope had given to the Cardinal for a sum of money for his Voice in the Election of him to the Papacy. And all the world have been full of noises and Pasquil's, sober and grave, Comical and Tragical accusations of the Simony of the Popes for divers ages together; and since no man can certainly know that the Pope is not Simoniacal, no man can safely rely on him as a true Pope, or the true Pope for an infallible Judge.  
2. If the Pope be a Heretic, he is ipso facto, no Pope; now that this is very possible Bellarmine supposes, because he makes that one of the necessary cases in which a General Council is to be called; as I have showed above. And this uncertainty is manifest in an instance that can never be wiped off; for when Liberius had subscribed Arianism, and the condemnation of S. Athasius, and the Roman Clergy had deprived Liberius of his Papacy, S. Felix was made Pope; and then either Liberius was no Pope, or S. Felix was not; and one was a Heretic, or the other a Schismatic; and then as it was hard to tell who was their Church's head, so it was impossible that by adherence to either of them, their subjects could be proved to be Catholics.  
3. There have been many Schisms in the Church of Rome, and many Anti-popes' which were acknowledged for true and legitimate by several Churches and Kingdoms respectively; and some that were chosen into the places of the deposed even by Councils, were a while after disowned and others chosen; which was a known case in the times of the Councils of Constance and Basil. And when a Council was sitting, and it became a Question, who had power to choose; the Council, or the Cardinals? What man could cast his hopes of Eternity upon the adherence to one, the certainty of whose legitimation was determined by power and interest, and could not, by all the learning and wisdom of Christendom?  
4. There was one Pope who was made head of the Church before he was a Priest: It was Constantine the second; who certainly succeeded not in S. Peter's Privileges, when he was not capable of his Chair; and yet he was their head of the Church for a year; but how adherence to the Pope should then be a note of the Church, I desire to know from some of the Roman Lawyers; for the Divines know it not. I will not trouble this account with any questions about the Female-head of their Church; I need not seek for matter, I am pressed with too much; and therefore I shall omit very many other considerations about the nullities, and insufficiencies, and impieties, and irregularities of many Popes; and consider their other notes of the Church, to try if they can fix this inquiry upon any certainty.  
Bellarmine reckons fifteen notes of the Church. It is a mighty hue and cry after a thing that he pretends is visible to all the world. 1. The very name Catholic, is his first note: he might as well have said the word Church, is a note of the Church; for he cannot be ignorant but that all Christians who esteem themselves members of the Church, think and call themselves members of the Catholic Church; and the Greeks give the same title to their Churches. Nay all Conventions of Heretics anciently did so; and therefore I shall quit Bellarmine of this note by the words of Lactantius, which himself 
* Bellarm. l. 4. de Notis Eccles. cap. 1. Lact. lib. 3. Divinar. institut. cap. ult.  also (a little forgetting himself) quotes. Sed tamen singuli quique Haereticorum coetus, se potissimum Christianos, & suam esse Catholicam Ecclesiam putant. 2. Antiquity indeed is a note of the Church, and Salmeron proves it to be so, from the Example of Adam and Eve, most learnedly. But it is certain, that God had a Church in Paradise, is as good an argument for the Church of England and Ireland, as for Rome; for we derive from them as certainly as do the Italians, and have as much of Adam's religion as they have. But a Church might have been very ancient, and yet become no Church; and without separating from a greater Church. The Church of the Jews is the great example; and the Church of Rome, unless she takes better heed, may be another. 
Rom. 11. 20, 21.  S. Paul hath plainly threatened it to the Church of Rome. 3. Duration is made a note, now this respects the time past, or the time to come. If the time past, than the Church of Britain was Christian before Rome was; and blessed be God are so at this day. If Duration means the time to come; for so Bellarmine says, 
Denotis Eccles. lib. 4. cap. 6.  Ecclesia dicitur Catholica, non solùm quia semper fuit, sed etiam quia semper erit: so we have a rare note for us who are alive to discern the Church of Rome to be the Catholic Church, and we may possibly come to know it by this sign many ages after we are dead; because she will last always. But this sign is not yet come to pass; and when it shall come to pass, it will prove our Church to be the Catholic Church, as well as that of Rome, and the Greek Church as well as both of us; for these Churches, at least some of them, have begun sooner, and for aught they, or we know, they all may so continue longer. 4. Amplitude was no note of the Church when the world was Arian; and is as little now, because that a great part of Europe is Papal. 5. Succession of Bishops is an excellent conservatory of Christian doctrine, but it is as notorious in the Greek Church as in the Roman; and therefore cannot signify which is the true Church, unless they be both true, and then the Church of England can claim by this tenure, as having since her being Christian, a succession of Bishops never interrupted, but, as all others have been, in persecution. 6. Consent in doctrine with the Ancient Church may be a good sign or a bad, as it happens; but the Church of Rome hath not, and never can prove, the pure and prime Antiquity to be of her side. 7. Union of members among themselves and with their head, is very good; if the members be united in truth (for else it may be a Conspiracy); and if by head be meant Jesus Christ; and indeed this is the only true sign of the Church: but if by head be meant the Roman Pope, it may be Ecclesia Malignantium, and Antichrist may sit in the chair. But the uncertainty of this note, as it relates to this question, I have already manifested; and what excellent concord there is in the Church of Rome, we are taught by the Question of supremacy of Councils or Popes; and now also by the strict and loving concord between the Jansenists and Molinists; and the abetters of the immaculate conception of the B. Virgin-Mother, with their Antagonists. 8. Sanctity of doctrine is an excellent note of the Church: but that is the question amongst all the pretenders; and is not any advantage to the Church of Rome, unless it be a holy thing to worship images, to trample upon Kings, to reconcile a wicked life with the hopes of heaven at the last minute, by the charm of external ministeries; to domineer over Consciences, to impose useless and intolerable burdens, to damn all the world that are not their slaves, to shut up the fountains of salvation from the people; to be easier in dispensing with the laws of God, than the laws of the Church; to give leave to Princes to break their Oaths; as Pope Clement the 7th did to Francis the first of France to cozen the Emperor; 
Vid. The Legend of Flamens, & Revieu. de Concile de Trent. l. ●, ●. 7.  and as P. Julius the second did to Ferdinand of Arragon, sending him an absolution for his treachery against the King of France; not to keep faith with heretics; to find out tricks to entrap them that trusted to their letters of safe conduct; to declare that Popes cannot be bound by their promises: for Pope Paul the 4th in a Conclave, A. D. 1555. complained of them that said he could make but four Cardinals, 
Hist. Concil. Trident. lib. 5.  because (forsooth) he had sworn so in the Conclave; saying, This was to bind the Pope, whose authority is absolute, that it is an Article of faith that the Pope cannot be bound, much less can he bind himself; that to say otherwise was a manifest heresy; and against them that should obstinately persevere in saying so, he threatened the Inquisition. These indeed are holy doctrines taught and practised respectively by their Holinesses at Rome, and indeed are the notes of their Church; if by the doctrine of the head to whom they are bound to adhere, we may guests at the doctrine of their body. 9 The prevalency of their doctrine is produced for a good note; and yet this is a greater note of Mahumetanism, than of Christianity; and was once of Arianism: and yet the Argument is not now so good at Rome, as it was before Luther's time. 10. That the chiefs of the Pope's religion lived more holy lives than others, giveth some light that their Church is the true one. But I had thought that their Popes had been the chiefs of their religion, till now; and if so, than this was a good note while they did live well; but that was before Popery: Since that time, we will guests at their Church by the holiness of the lives of those that rule and teach all; and than if we have none to follow amongst us, yet we know whom we are to fly amongst them. 11. Miracles were in the beginning of Christianity a note of true believers; 
Marc. 16. 17.  Christ told us so. And he also taught us that Antichrist should be revealed in lying signs and wonders; and commanded us by that token to take heed of them. And the Church of Rome would take it ill, if we should call them, as S. Austin did the Donatists, Mirabiliarios Miracle-mongers; concerning which he that pleases to read that excellent Tract of S. Austin, De Vnitate Ecclesiae, cap. 14. will be sufficiently satisfied in this particular, and in the main ground and foundation of the Protestant Religion. In the mean time, 
Tom. 13. p. 193.  it may suffice, that Bellarmine says, Miracles are a sign of the true Church; and Salmeron says, that they are no certain signs of the true Church; but may be done by the false. 12. The Spirit of Prophecy is also a pretty sure note of the true Church, and yet, in the dispute between Israel and Judah, Samaria and Jerusalem, it was of no force, but was really in both. And at the day of Judgement Christ shall reject some, who will allege that they prophesied in his name. I deny that not but there have been some Prophets in the Church of Rome, Johannes de Rupe seissâ. Anselmus Marsicanus; Robert Grosthead, Bishop of Lincoln, S. Hildegardis, Abbot Joachim; whose prophecies and pictures prophetical were published by Theophrastus Paracelsus, and John Adrasder, and by Paschalinus Rigeselmus at Venice 1589; but (as Ahab said concerning Micaiah) these do not prophecy good concerning Rome, but evil: and that Rome should be reform in o'er gladii cruentandi was one of the Prophecies; and, Vniversa Sanctorum Ecclesia abscondetur, that the whole Church of the Saints shall be hidden, viz. in the days of Anti-christ; and that in the days of darkness, the elect of God shall have that faith, or wisdom to themselves, which they have; and shall not dare to preach it publicly,] was another prophecy, and carries its meaning upon the forehead, and many more I could tell; but whether such prophecies as these be good signs that the Church of Rome is the true Church, I desire to be informed by the Roman Doctors, before I trouble myself any further to consider the particulars. 13. Towards the latter end of this Catalogue of wonderful signs, the confession of adversaries is brought in for a note; and no question, they intended it so! But did ever any Protestant, remaining so, confess the Church of Rome to be the true Catholic Church? Let the man be named, and a sufficient testimony brought, that he was mentis compos, and I will grant to the Church of Rome this to be the best note they have. 14. But since the enemies of the Church have all had tragical ends; it is no question but this signifies the Church of Rome to be the only Church. Indeed if all the Protestants had died unnatural deaths; and all the Papists, nay if all the Popes had died quietly in their Beds, we had reason to deplore our sad calamity, and enquired after the cause; but we could never have told by this: for by all that is before him, a man cannot tell whether he deserves love or hatred. And all the world finds, that, As dies the Papist, so dies the Protestant; and the like event happens to them all: excepting only some Popes have been remarked by their own Histories, for funest and direful deaths. 15. And lately, Temporal Prosperity is brought for a note of the true Church; and for this there is great reason: because the Cross is the highway to Heaven, and Christ promised to his Disciples for their Lot in this world great and lasting persecutions, and the Church felt this blessing for 300 years together. But this had been a better argument in the mouth of a Turkish Mufty, than a Roman Cardinal.  
And now if by all these things we cannot certainly know that the Church of Rome is the true Catholic Church, how shall the poor Roman Catholic be at rest in his inquiry? Here is in all this, nothing but uncertainty of truth, or certainty of error.  
And what is needful to be added more? I might tyre myself and my Reader, if I should enumerate all that were very considerable in this inquiry. I shall not therefore insist upon their uncertainties in their great and considerable Questions about the number of the Sacraments: which to be Seven is with them an Article of Faith; and yet since there is not amongst them any authentic definition of a Sacrament; and it is not, nor cannot be a matter of Faith, to tell what is the form of a Sacrament; therefore it is impossible it should be a matter of Faith, to tell how many they are: for in this case they cannot tell the number, unless they know for what reason they are to be accounted so. The Fathers and Schoolmen differ greatly in the definition of a Sacrament; and consequently in the numbering of them. S. Cyprian and S. Bernard reckon washing the Disciples feet to be a Sacrament; and S. Austin called omnem ritunt cultus Divini, a Sacrament; and otherwhile, he says, there are but two: and the Schoolmen dispute whether or no, a Sacrament can be defined. And by the Council of Trent, Clandestine Marriages are said to be a Sacrament; and yet that the Church always detested them: which indeed might very well be, for the blessed Eucharist is a Sacrament, but yet private Masses and Communions the Ancient Church always did detest, except in the cases of necessity. But then, when at Trent they declared them to be Nullities, it would be very hard to prove them to be Sacraments. All the whole affair in their Sacrament of Order, is a body of contingent propositions. They cannot agree where the Apostles received their several Orders, by what form of words; and whether at one time, or by parts: and in the Institution of the Lord's Supper, the same words by which some of them say they were made Priests, they generally expound them to signify a duty of the Laity, as well as the Clergy; Hoc facite, which signifies one thing to the Priest, and another to the People, and yet there is no mark of difference. They cannot agree where, or by whom, extreme Unction was instituted. They cannot tell, whether any Wafer be actually transubstantiated, because they never can know by Divine Faith, whether the supposed Priest be a real Priest, or had right intention; and yet they certainly do worship it in the midst of all Uncertainties. But I will add nothing more, but this; what Wonder is it, if all things in the Church of Rome be Uncertain; when they cannot, dare not, trust their reason or their senses in the wonderful invention of Transubstantiation? and when many of their wisest Doctors profess that their pretended infallibility does finally rely upon prudential motives?  
I conclude this therefore with the words of S. Austin. Remotis ergo omnibus talibus, 
De Vnit. Eccles. cap. 16.  etc. All things therefore being removed, let them demonstrate their Church if they can, not in the Sermons and Rumours of the Africans [Romans,] not in the Councils of their Bishops, not in the Letters of any disputers, not in signs and deceitful Miracles; because against these things, we are warned and prepared by the word of the Lord: But in the prescript of the Law, of the Prophets, of the Psalms, of the Evangelists, and all the Canonical authorities of the Holy Books.] And that's my next undertaking; to show the firmness of the foundation, and the Great Principle of the Religion of the Church of England and Ireland; even the Holy Scriptures.   

SECTION II.  
Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to Salvation, which is the great foundation and ground of the Protestant Religion.  
THis question is between the Church of Rome and the Church of England; and therefore it supposes that it is amongst them who believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God. The Old and New Testament are agreed upon to be the word of God; and that they are so, is delivered to us by the current descending testimony of all ages of Christianity: and they who thus are first lead into this belief, find upon trial great after-proofs by arguments both external and internal, and such as cause a perfect adhesion to this truth; that they are God's Word: an adhesion (I say) so perfect, as excludes all manner of practical doubting. Now then amongst us so persuaded, the Question is, Whether or no the Scriptures be a sufficient rule of our faith, and contain in them all things necessary to salvation? or, Is there any other word of God besides the Scriptures, which delivers any points of faith or doctrines of life necessary to salvation? This was the state of the Question till yesterday. And although the Church of Rome affirmed Tradition to be a part of the object of faith, and that without the addition of doctrine, and practices delivered by tradition, the Scriptures were not a perfect rule; but together with tradition they are: yet now two or three Gentlemen have got upon the Coach-wheel, and have raised a cloud of dust, enough to put out the eyes even of their own party, 
Vid. hist. council. Trident. sub Paul. 3. A. D. 1546.  making them not to see, what till now all their Seers told them; and Tradition is not only a suppletory to the deficiencies of Scripture, but it is now the only record of faith. But because this is too bold and impossible an attempt, and hath lately been sufficiently reproved by some learned persons of our Church; I shall therefore not trouble myself with such a frontless error and illusion; but speak that truth which by justifying the Scripture's fullness and perfection will overthrow the doctrine of the Roman Church denying it, and, ex abundanti, cast down this new mudwall, thrown into a dirty heap by M. W. and his under-dawber M. S. who with great pleasure behold and wonder at their own work, and call it a Marble Building.  
1. That the Scripture is a full and sufficient rule to Christians in faith and manners, a full and perfect Declaration of the will of God, is therefore certain because we have no other. For if we consider the grounds upon which all Christians believe the Scriptures to be the word of God, the same grounds prove that nothing else is. These indeed have a Testimony that is credible as any thing that makes faith to men, The universal testimony of all Christians: In respect of which S. Austin said, Evangelio non crederem, etc. I should not believe the Gospel, if the Authority of the Church, (that is, of the universal Church) did not move me. The Apostles at first owned these Writings; the Churches received them; they transmitted them to their posterity; they grounded their faith upon them; they proved their propositions by them; by them they confuted heretics; and they made them the measures of right and wrong: all that collective body of doctrines, of which all Christians consentingly made public confessions, and on which all their hopes of salvation did rely, were all contained in them; and they agreed in no point of faith which is not plainly set down in Scripture. And all this is so certain, that we all profess ourselves ready to believe any other Article which can pretend and prove itself thus proved, thus descended. For we know, a doctrine is neither more nor less the word of God for being written or unwritten; that's but accidental and extrinsical to it; for it was first unwritten, and then the same thing was written; only when it was written it was better conserved, and surer transmitted, and not easily altered, and more fitted to be a rule. And indeed only can be so: not but that every word of God is as much a rule as any word of God; but we are sure that what is so written, and so transmitted, is God's Word; whereas concerning other things which were not written, we have no certain records, no evident proof, no sufficient conviction; and therefore it is not capable of being owned as the rule of faith or life, because we do not know it to be the Word of God. If any doctrine which is offered to us by the Church of Rome, and which is not in Scripture, be proved as Scripture is, we receive it equally: but if it be not, it is to be received according to the degree of its probation; and if it once comes to be disputed by wise and good men, if it came in after the Apostles, if it rely but upon a few Testimonies, or is to be laboriously argued into a precarious persuasion, it cannot be the true ground of faith; and salvation can never rely upon it. The truth of the assumption in this argument will rely upon an Induction, of which all Churches have a sufficient experience, there being in no Church any one instance of doctrine of faith or life, that can pretend to a clear, universal Tradition and Testimony of the first and of all ages and Churches, but only the doctrine contained in the undoubted Books of the Old and New Testament. And in the matter of good life, the case is evident and certain; which makes the other also to be like it; for there is no original or primary Commandment concerning good life, but it is plainly and notoriously found in Scripture: Now faith being the foundation of good life, upon which it is most rationally and permanently built; it is strange that Scripture should be sufficient to teach us all the whole superstructure, and yet be defective in the foundation.  
Neither do we doubt but that there were many things spoken by Christ and his Apostles which were never written; and yet those few only that were written, are, by the Divine Providence and the care of the Catholic Church of the first and all descending ages, preserved to us, and made our Gospel. So that as we do not dispute, whether the words which Christ spoke, and the Miracles he did, and are not written, be as holy and as true as those which are written; but only say, they are not our rule and measures, because they are unknown: So there is no dispute, whether they be to be preferred or relied upon, as the written or unwritten Word of God; for both are to be relied upon, and both equally; always provided that they be equally known to be so. But that which we say, is, That there are many which are called Traditions, which are not the unwritten Word of God; at least not known so to be; and the doctrines of men are pretended and obtruded as the Commandments of God; and the Testimony of a few men is made to support a weight as great as that which relies upon universal Testimony; and particular traditions are equalled to universal, the uncertain to the certain; and traditions are said to be Apostolical if they be but ancient; and if they come from we know not whom, they are said to come from the Apostles; and if postnate, they are called primitive; and they are argued and laboriously disputed into the title of Apostolical traditions by not only fallible but fallacious arguments (as will appear in the following numbers.) This is the state of the Question; and therefore 1. It proves itself, because there can be no proof to the contrary; since the elder the tradition is, the more likely it can be proved, as being nearer the fountain, and not having had a long current; which, as a long line is always the weakest, so in long descent is most likely to be corrupted, and therefore a late tradition is one of the worst arguments in the world; it follows that nothing can now, because nothing of Faith yet hath been sufficiently proved.  
2. But besides this consideration; the Scripture itself is the best testimony of its own fullness and sufficiency. I have already in the Introduction against I. S. proved from Scripture, that all necessary things of salvation are there abundantly contained: that is, I have proved that Scripture says so. Neither ought it to be replied here; that no man's testimony concerning himself is to be accepted. For here we suppose that we are agreed, that the Scripture says true, that it is the word of God, and cannot be deceived; and if this be allowed, the Scripture then can give testimony concerning itself: and so can any Man if you allow him to be infallible, and all that he says to be true; which is the case of Scripture in the present Controversy. And if you will not allow Scripture to give testimony to itself; who shall give testimony to it? Shall the Church, or the Pope; suppose which we will? But who shall give testimony to them? Shall they give credit to Scripture, before it be known how they come themselves to be Credible? If they be not credible of themselves, we are not the nearer for their giving their testimony to the Scriptures. But if it be said, that the Church is of itself credible upon its own authority; this must be proved before it can be admitted, and then how shall this be proved? And at least, the Scripture will be pretended to be of itself credible as the Church. And since it is evident that all the dignity, power, authority, office, and sanctity it hath, or pretends to have, can no other way be proved but by the Scriptures, a conformity to them in all Doctrines, Laws, and Manners being the only Charter by which she claims: it must needs be, that Scripture hath the prior right; and can better be primely credible, than the Church, or any thing else that claims from Scripture. Nay therefore, quoad nos, it is to be allowed to be primely credible; because there is no Creature besides it that is so. Indeed God was pleased to find out ways to prove the Scriptures to be his Word, his immediate Word, by miraculous consignations, and sufficient testimony, and confession of enemies, and of all men that were fit to bear witness that these Books were written by such men, who by miracle were proved to be Divini homines, Men endued with God's Spirit, and trusted with his Message; and when it was thus far proved by God, it became the immediate & sole Ministry of entire Salvation, and the whole Repository of the Divine will; and when things were come thus far, if it enquired whether the Scriptures were a sufficient institution to salvation, we need no other, we can have no better testimony than itself, concerning itself. And to this purpose I have already brought from it sufficient affirmation of the point in Question: in the preceding answer to I. S. his first Way in his fourth Appendix.  
3. It is possible that the Scriptures should contain in them all things necessary to salvation. God could cause such a Book to be written. And he did so to the Jews; he caused his whole Law to be written, he engraved in Stones, he commanded the authentic Copy to be kept in the Ark, and this was the great security of the conveying it; and Tradition was not relied upon: it was not trusted with any law of Faith or Manners. Now since this was once done, and therefore is always possible to be done; why it should not be done now, there is no pretence of reason, but very much for it. For 1. Why should the Book of S. Matthew, be called the Gospel of Jesus Christ; and this is also the very Title of S. Mark's Book; and S. Luke affirms the design of his Book is to declare the certainty of the things then believed, and in which his Friend was instucted, which we cannot but suppose to be the whole Doctrine of salvation? 2. What end could there be in writing these Books, but to preserve the memory of Christ's History and Doctrine? 3. Especially if we consider that many things which were not absolutely necessary to salvation, were set down; and therefore to omit any thing that is necessary, must needs be an Unreasonable, and Unprofitable way of writing. 4. There yet never was any Catholic Father that did affirm in terms, or in full and equivalent sense, that the Scriptures are defective in the recording any thing necessary to salvation; but Unanimously they taught the contrary, as I shall show by and by. 5. The enemies of Christian Religion opposed themselves against the Doctrine contained in the Scriptures; and supposed by that means to conclude against Christianity, and they knew no other repository of it, and estimated no other. 6. The persecutors of Christianity, intending to destroy Christianity, hoped to prevail by causing the Bible's to be burnt; which had been a foolish and unlikely design, if that had not been the Ark that kept the Records of the whole Christian Law. 7. That the revealed will of God, the Law of Christ, was not written in his life-time, but preached only by word of mouth, is plain, and reasonable; because all was not finished; and the salvation of man was not perfected till the Resurrection, Ascension, and Descent of the Holy Ghost; nor was it done presently. But than it is to be observed, that there was a Spirit of infallible Record put into the Apostles, sufficient for its publication, and continuance. But before the death of the Apostles, that is, before this Spirit of infallibility was to departed, all was written, that was intended; because no thing else could infallibly convey the Doctrine. Now this being the case of every Doctrine as much as of any, and the case of the whole, rather than of any part of it; it must follow, that it was highly agreeable to the Divine wisdom, and the very end of this Oeconomy that all should be written; and for no other reason could the Evangelists and Apostles writ so many Books.  
4. But of the sufficiency of Scripture we may be convinced by the very nature of the thing. For the Sermons of Salvation being preached to all, to the learned and unlearned; it must be a common Concern, and therefore fitted to all capacities; and consequently made easy, for easy learners. Now this design is plainly signified to us in Scripture by the abbreviatures, the Symbols and Catalogues of Credenda: which are short and plain, and easy; and to which salvation is promised. Now if he that believes Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, 
1 John 5. 10.  hath eternal life; 
John 17. 3.  that is, so far as the value and acceptability of believing does extend, this Faith shall prevail unto salvation; it follows, that this being the affirmation of Scripture, and declared to be a competent foundation of Faith; the Scripture that contains much more, even the whole Oeconomy of salvation by Jesus Christ, cannot want any necessary thing, when the absolute necessities are so narrow. Christ the Son of God is the great adequate object of saving Faith; 
John 17. 3.  to know God, and whom he hath sent Jesus Christ; this is eternal life. Now this is the great design of the Gospel; and is revealed largely in the Scriptures: so that there is no adequate object of Faith, but what is there. 2. As to the Attributes of God, and of Christ, that is, all that is known of them and to be known is set down in Scripture; That God is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; that he is the fountain of wisdom, justice, holiness, power; that his providence is over all, and mercy unto all: And concerning Christ; all the attributes and qualifications, by which he is capable and fitted to do the work of redemption for us, and to become our Lord, and the great King of Heaven and Earth; able to destroy all his Enemies eternally, and to reward his servants with a glorious and indefectible Kingdom; all this is declared in Scripture. So that concerning the full object of Faith manifested in the whole design of the Gospel, the Scriptures are full, and whatever is to be believed of the attributes belonging to this prime and full object, all that also is in Scripture fully declared. And all the acts of Faith, the antecedents, the formal, and the consequent acts of faith, are there expressly commanded; viz. to know God, to believe in his name and word, to believe in his Son; and to obey his Son, by the consequent acts of Faith; all this is set down in Scripture: in which not only we are commanded to keep the Commandments, but we are told which they are. There we are taught to honour and fear, to love and obey God, and his Holy Son; to fear and reverence him, to adore and invocate him, to crave his aid, and to give him thanks; not to trust in, or call upon any thing that hath no Divine Empire over us, or Divine Excellence in itself. It is so particular in recounting all the parts of Duty, that it descends specially to enumerate the duties of Kings and subjects, Bishops and people, Parents and children, Masters and servants; to show love and faithfulness to our equals; to our inferiors counsel and help, favour and good will, bounty and kindness, a good word and a good deed: The Scripture hath given us Commandments concerning our very thoughts; to be thankful and hospitable, to be humble and complying; what ever good thing was taught by any or all the Philosophers in the world, all that and much more is in the Scriptures, and that in a much better manner: And that it might appear that nothing could be wanting, the very degrees and the order of virtues is there provided for. And if all this be not the high way to salvation, and sufficient to all intents of God and the souls of men; let any man come forth and say as Christ said to the young man, Restat adhuc unum, there is one thing wanting yet, and let him show it. But let us consider a little further.  
5. What is, or what can be wanting to the fullness of Scripture? Is not all that we know of the life and death of Jesus, set down in the writings of the New Testament? Is there any one Miracle that ever Christ did, the notice of which is conveyed to us by tradition? Do we know any thing that Christ did or said but what is in Scripture? Some things were reported to have been said by Christ secretly to the Apostles, and by the Apostles secretly to some favourite Disciples; but some of these things are not believed; and none of the other is known: so that either we must conclude that the Scripture contains fully all things of Faith and Obedience, or else we have no Gospel at all; for, except what is in Scripture, we have not a sufficient record of almost one saying, or one miracle. S. Paul quotes one saying of Christ which is not in any of the four Gospels, but it is in the Scriptures, It is better to give then to receive; and S. Hierom records another, Be never very glad, but when you see your Brother live in charity. If S. Paul had not written the first and transmitted it in Scripture, we had not known it any more than those many other which are lost for not being written: and for the quotation of S. Hierom, it is true, it is a good saying; but whether they were Christ's words or no, we have but a single testimony. Now then, how is it possible that the Scriptures should not contain all things necessary to salvation; when of all the words of Christ in which certainly all necessary things to salvation must needs be contained, or else they were never revealed; there is not any one saying, or miracle, or story of Christ in any thing that is material, preserved in any indubitable record, but in Scripture alone?  
6. That the Scriptures do not contain in them all things necessary to salvation, is the fountain of many great and Capital errors; I instance in the whole doctrine of the Libertines. Familists, Quakers, and other Enthusiasts, which issue from this corrupted fountain. For this, that the Scriptures do need a Suppletory, that they are not perfect and sufficient to salvation of themselves, is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great Fundamental both of the Roman religion, and that of the Libertines and Quakers, and those whom in Germany they call Spirituales; such as David George, Harry Nicholas, Swenckfeld, Sebastian Franc, and others. These are the men that call the Scriptures, The letter of the Scripture, the dead letter, insufficient, inefficacious. This is but the sheath and the scabbard, the bark and the shadow, a carcase void of the internal light, not apt to imprint a perfect knowledge in us of what is necessary to salvation. But the Roman Doctors say the same things. We know who they are that call the Scriptures, the Outward letter, Ink thus figured in a book, 
J. S. in Sure scoting, and in 4. Append.  Unsensed characters, waxen-natured words not yet sensed, apt to blunder and confound, but to clear little or nothing; these are as bad words as the other, and some of them the same; and all draw a long tail of evil consequents behind them. 1. From this Principle as it is promoted by the fanatics, they derive a wand'ring, unsettled, and a dissolute religion. For, they supplying the insufficiency of Scripture by an inward word, which being only within, it is subject to no discipline, reducible into no order, not submitted to the spirits of the Prophets, and hath no rule by which it can be directed, examined or judged; Hence comes the infinite variety and contradictions of religion, commenced by men of this persuasion. A religion that wanders from day to day, from fancy to fancy, and alterable by every new illusion. A religion in which some man shall be esteemed an infallible Judge to day; and next week, another: but it may happen that any man may have his turn, and any mischief may be believed and acted, if the Devil get into the chair. 2. From this very same Principle, as it is promoted by the Papists, they derive a religion imperious, interested, and tyrannical. For, as the fanatics supply the insufficiency of Scripture by the word internal; so do the Roman Doctors by the authority of the Church: but when it comes to practice, as the Fanatic give the supreme power of teaching and defining to the chief Elder in the love; so do the Papists, especially the Jesuits, give it to the Pope: and the difference is not, that the fanatics give the supreme judgement to some one, and the Papists give it to the whole Church; for these also give it but to one man, to the Pope, whose judgement, voice, and definition must make up the deficiencies of Scripture. But because the fanatics (as it happens) change their Judge every month, therefore they have an ambulatory religion: but that of the Roman way establishes Tyranny; because their Judge being one, not in person but in succession, and having always the same interest, and having already resolved upon their way, and can when they list go further upon the stock of the same Principles, and being established by humane power will unalterably persist in their right and their wrong, and will never confess an Error, and are impatient of contradiction; and therefore they impose irremediably, and what they please, upon Consciences, of which they have made themselves Judges. Now for these things there is no remedy but from Scripture; which if it be allowed full, perfect, and sufficient unto all the things of God, than whatsoever either of these parties say, must be tried by Scripture, it must be showed to be there, or be rejected. But to avoid the trial there, they tell you the Scripture is but a dead letter, Unsensed Characters, words without sense, or unsensed; and therefore, this must be supplied by the inward word (says one;) by the Pope's word in Cathedrâ, says the other; and then both the Inward word, and the Pope's word, shall rule and determine every thing; and the Scriptures will signify nothing: but as under pretence of the word Internal, every new thing shall pass for the word of God; so it shall do also under the Roman pretence. For not he that makes a Law, but he that expounds the Law, gives the final measures of Good or Evil. It follows from hence that nothing but the Scripture's sufficiency, can be a sufficient limit to the inundation of evils, which may enter from these parties relying upon the same false Principle. My Last argugument is from Tradition itself: For,  
7. If we inquire upon what grounds the primitive Church did rely for their whole Religion, we shall find they knew none else but the Scriptures; Vbi Scriptum? was their first inquiry: Do the Prophets and the Apostles, the Evangelists, or the Epistles say so? Read it there, and then teach it; else reject it: they call upon their Charges in the words of Christ, Search the Scriptures; they affirm that the Scriptures are full, that they are a perfect Rule, that they contain all things necessary to salvation: and from hence they confuted all Heresies.  
This I shall clearly prove by abundant testimonies: Of which though many of them have been already observed by very many learned persons; yet because I have added others, not so noted, and have collected with diligence and care, and have rescued them from Elusory answers; I have therefore chosen to represent them together; hoping they may be of more usefulness than trouble, because I have here made a trial, whether the Church of Rome be in good earnest or no, when she pretends to follow Tradition; or how it is that she expects a tradition shall be proved. For this Doctrine of the Scripture's sufficiency I now shall prove by a full tradition; therefore, if she believes Tradition, let her acknowledge this tradition which is so fully proved; and if this do not amount to a full probation, than it is but reasonable to expect from them, that they never obtrude upon us any thing for tradition, or any tradition for necessary to be believed, till they have proved it such; by proofs more, and more clear, than this Essay concerning the sufficiency and perfection of the Divine Scriptures.  
I begin with S. Irenaeus. 
* Rectissimè quidem scientes quia Scripturae quidem perfectae sunt, quip à verbo Dei & Spiritu ejus dictae. lib. 2. cap. 47. &  [We know that the Scriptures are perfect, for they are spoken by the word of God, and by his Spirit. [Therefore] 
* Lib. 4. c. 66. Legite diligentius id quod ab Apostolis est Evangelium nobis datum, & legite diligentius Prophetas, & invenietis Vniversam actionem, & omnem doctrinam Domini nostri praedicatam in ipsis.  read diligently the Gospel, given unto us by the Apostles; and read diligently the Prophets, and you shall find every action and the whole doctrine, and the whole passion of our Lord preached in them. [And indeed] we have received the Oeconomy of our salvation by no other but by those, by whom the Gospel came to us; which truly they then preached, but afterwards by the will of God delivered to us in the Scriptures, which was to be the pillar and ground to our Faith] These are the words of this Saint, who was one of the most ancient Fathers of the Church, a Greek by birth, by his dignity and employment a Bishop in France, and so most likely to know the sense and rule of the Eastern and Western Churches.  
Next to S. Irenaeus, 
Strom. lib. 7. P. 757 edit. Par●s 1629.  we have the Doctrine of S. Clemens of Alexandria in these words. He hath lost the being a man of God, and of being faithful to the Lord, who hath kicked against Tradition Ecclesiastical, and hath turned to the opinions of humane Heresies.] What is this Tradition Ecclesiastical; and where is it to be found? That follows But he, who returning out of Error, obeys the Scriptures, and hath permitted his life to truth, he is of a Man in a manner made a God. For the Lord is the principle of our Doctrine, who by the Prophets and the Gospel, and the blessed Apostles at sundry times, and in divers manners, leads us from the beginning to the end. He that is faithful of himself is worthy of faith in the Voice and Scripture of the Lord, which is usually exercised through the Lord to the benefit of men; for this (Scripture) we use for the finding out of things, this we use as the rule of judging— But if it be not enough to speak our opinions absolutely, but that we must prove what we say, we expect no testimony that is given by men, but by the voice of the Lord we prove the Question; and this is more worthy of belief than any demonstration, or rather it is the only demonstration, by which knowledge they who have tasted of the Scriptures alone, are faithful.] Afterwards he tells how the Scriptures are a perfect demonstration of the Faith: Perfectly demonstrating out of the Scriptures themselves, concerning themselves; we (speak or) persuade demonstratively of the Faith. Although even they that go after Heresies, do dare to use the Scriptures of the Prophets. But first they use not all, neither them that are perfect, nor as the whole body and contexture of the Prophecy does dictate: but choosing out those things which are spoken ambiguously, they draw them to their own opinion.] Then he tells how we shall best use and understand the Scriptures [Let every one consider what is agreeable to the Almighty Lord God, and what becomes him, and in that let him confirm every thing from those things which are demonstrated from the Scriptures, out of those and the like Scriptures. And he adds that, It is the guise of Heretics, when they are overcome by showing that they oppose Scriptures,— Yet still they choose to follow that which to them seems evident, rather than that which is spoken of the Lord by the Prophets, and by the Gospel, and what is proved and confirmed by the testimony of the Apostles:] and at last concludes, 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. pag. 755.  they become impious, because they believe not the Scriptures;] and a little before this, he asks the Heretics, [Will they deny, or will they grant there is any demonstration? I suppose they will all grant, there is; except those, who also deny that there are senses. But if there be any demonstration, it is necessary to descend to Questions, and 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  from the Scriptures themselves to learn demonstratively, how the Heresies are fallen; and on the contrary, how the most perfect knowledge is in the truth and the ancient Church. But again, they that are ready to spend their time in the best things, will not give over seeking for truth, 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  until they have found the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves. And after this, adds his advice to Christians, To wax old in the Scriptures, and thence to seek for demonstrations. These things he spoke, not only by way of Caution to the Christians, but also of Opposition to the Gnostics; who were very busy in pretending ancient traditions. This is the discourse of that great Christian Philosopher S. Clement; from which, besides the direct testimony given to the fullness and sufficiency of Scripture in all matters of Faith, or Questions in Religion; we find him affirming that the Scriptures are a certain, and the only, demonstration of these things; they are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the rule of judging the controversies of faith; that the tradition Ecclesiastical, that is, the whole doctrine taught by the Church of God, and preached to all men, is in the Scripture; and therefore that it is the plenary and perfect repository of tradition, that is, of the doctrine delivered by Christ and his Apostles: and they who believe not these, are Impious. And lest any man should say that, suppose Scripture do contain all things necessary to Salvation, yet it is necessary that tradition, or some infallible Church do expound them, and then it is as long as it is broad, and comes to the same issue; S. Clement tells us how the Scriptures are to be expounded; saying, that they who rely upon them, must expound Scriptures by Scriptures, and by the analogy of faith, Comparing spiritual things with spiritual, one place with another, a part with the whole, and all by the proportion to the Divine Attributes. This was the way of the Church in S. Clement' s time; and this is the way of our Churches. But let us see how this affair went in other Churches and times, and whether there be a succession and an Universality of this doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture in all the affairs of God.  
The next is Tertullian, 
Contr. Hermog. cap. 22.  who writing against Hermogenes that affirmed God made the world not out of nothing, but of I know not what preaexistent matter; appeals to Scripture in the Question, whose fullness Tertullian adores; Let the shop of Hermogenes show that this thing is written. If it be not written, let him fear the Woe pronounced against them that add to or take from Scripture.] Against this testimony it is objected, that here Tertullian speaks but of one question: 
De verb. Dei, lib 4. c. 11. Sect.  So Bellarmine answers: and from him E. W. and A. L. To which the reply is easy: 
Profert undecimo.  For when Tertullian challenges Hermogenes to show his proposition in Scripture, he must mean that the fullness of the Scripture was sufficient not only for this, but for all Questions of religion, or else it had been an ill way of arguing, to bring a negative argument from Scripture, against this alone. For why was Hermogenes tied to prove this proposition from Scripture more than any other? Either Scripture was the rule for all, or not for that. For suppose the heretic had said, It is true, it is not in Scripture; but I have it from tradition, or it was taught by my forefathers: there had been nothing to have replied to this; but that, It may be, he had no tradition for it. Now if Hermogenes had no tradition, than indeed he was tied to show it in Scripture; but then Tertullian should have said, let Hermogenes show where it is written, or that it is a tradition: for if the pretending and proving tradition (in case there were any such pretence in this Question) had been a sufficient answer; then Tertullian had no sufficient argument against Hermogenes by calling for authority from Scripture: but he should have said, If it be not scriptum, or traditum, written or delivered; let Hermogenes fear the woe to the adders or detractors. But if we will suppose Tertullian spoke wisely and sufficiently, he must mean, that the Scripture must be the Rule in all Questions, and no doctrine is to be taught that is not taught there. But to put this thing past dispute, Tertullian himself extends this rule to an universal comprehension; And by this instrument declares, that heretics are to be confuted, [Take from the heretics that which they have in common with the heathens; viz. (their Ethnic learning), and let them dispute their questions by Scripture alone, and they can never stand.] By which it is plain, that the Scripture is sufficient for all faith, because it is sufficient to convince all heresies and deviations from the faith; For which very reason the heretics also (as he observes) attempted to prove their propositions by arguments from Scripture; for indeed, there was no other way; because the Articles of faith are to be proved by the writings of faith, 
De Prescript.  that is, the Scripture; that was the Rule: How contrary this is to the practice and doctrine of Rome at this day, we easily find by their Doctors charging all heresies upon the Scriptures, as occasioned by them; and forbidding the people to read them for fear of corrupting their weak heads; nay, it hath been prohibited to certain Bishops to read the Scriptures, lest they become heretics. And this folly hath proceeded so far that Erasmus tells us of a Dominican, 
In Epist.  who being urged in a Scholastical disputation, with an argument from Scripture, cried out, It was a Lutheran way of disputation, and protested against the answering it: which, besides that it is more than a vehement suspicion that these men find the Scriptures not to look like a friend to their propositions; it is also a manifest procedure contrary to the wisdom, religion, and Oeconomy of the primitive Church.  
The next I note, 
Tract. 5. in Matth. versus finem.  is Origen: who when he propounded a Question concerning the Angel's Guardians of little children, viz. When the Angels were appointed to them? at their Birth, or at their Baptism? He adds, [You see, 
Vide etiam Origen. bomil. 25. in Matth. homil. 7. in Ezek. hom l. ●. in Jerem. Quos locos citat Bellarm. ubi supra, Sect. Secundò profert.  he that will discuss both of them warily, it is his part to produce Scripture for testimony, agreeing to one of them both.] That was the way of the Doctors then. And Scripture is so full and perfect to all intents and purposes, that for the confirmation of our discourses, Scripture is to be brought, saith Origen. 
* Jesum Christum scimus Deum: quaeri●us verba quae dicta sunt, juxta personae exponere dignitatem. Quapropter necesse nobis est Scripturas sanctas in testimonium vocare: sensus quippe nostri, & enarrationes, sine his testibus non habent fidem.  We know Jesus Christ is God, and we seek to expound the words which are spoken according to the dignity of the person. Wherefore it is necessary for us to call the Scriptures into testimony; for our meanings and enarrations, without these witnesses have no belief.] To these words Bellarmine answers most childishly: saying, that Origen speaks of the hardest questions, such as for the most part traditions are not about. But it is evident that, therefore Origen requires testimony of Scriptures, not because of the difficulty of things to be enquired; but because without such testimony, they are not to be believed. For so are his very words, and therefore whether they be easy or hard, if they be not in Scripture, the Questions will be indeterminable. That is the sense of Origen' s argument. 
In Epist. ad Rom. lib 3.  But more plainly yet; [After these things, as his custom is, he will affirm (or prove) from the holy Scriptures what he had said; and also gives an example to the Doctors of the Church, that those things which they speak to the people, they should prove them, not as produced by their own sentences, but defended by divine testimonies; for if he so great, and such an Apostle, believes not that the authority of his saying can be sufficient, unless he teaches that those things which he says are written in the Law, and the Prophets: how much rather ought we who are the least, observe this thing, that we do not, when we teach, produce our own, but the sentences of the Holy Ghost:] Add to this what he says in another place; 
Tract. 23. in Matth.  As our Saviour imposed silence upon the Sadduces by the word of his Doctrine, and faithfully convinced that false opinion which they thought to be truth; so also shall the followers of Christ do, by the examples of Scripture, by which according to sound Doctrine, every voice of Pharaoh ought to be silent.  
The next in order is S. Cyprian; who indeed speaks for tradition: not meaning the modus tradendi, but the doctrina tradita; for it is such a tradition as is in Scripture; the doctrine delivered first by word of mouth, and then consigned in Scripture. 
Epist. ad Pompeium.  [Let nothing be innovated but that is delivered: Whence is that tradition? whether descending from the Lord's, and from the Evangelical authority, or coming from the Commandments and Epistles of the Apostles? For that those things are to be done which are written, God witnesses, and propounds to Jesus Nave, saying; The Book of this Law shall not departed out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayst observe to do all things which are written. Our Lord also sending his Apostles, commands the nations to be baptised and taught, that they may observe all things whatsoever he hath commanded. If therefore it be either commanded in the Gospel, or in the Epistles of the Apostles, that they that come from any Heresy, should not be baptised, but that hands should be imposed upon them unto repentance, then let even this holy tradition be observed] This Doctrine and Counsel of S. Cyprian, 
lib. 4. de Bapt. contra Donatist. cap. 3. etc. 5.  Bellarmine says was one of the Errors of S. Cyprian: but S. Austin commends it as the best way. And this procedure is also the same that the Church in the descending ages always followed: of which there can in the world be no plainer testimony given, than in the words of S. Cyril of Jerusalem; and it was in the High Questions of the Holy and mysterious Trinity; 
Catech. ●. & 5. & 12. & 16. & 18. Illuminat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Catech. 4. Illuminat.  concerning which, he advises them to [retain that zeal in their minds, which by heads and summaries is expounded to you, but, if God grant, shall according to my strength be demonstrated to you by Scripture. 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  For it behooveth us not to deliver, no not so much as the least thing of the holy mysteries of Faith without the holy Scriptures. Neither give credit to me speaking, unless what is spoken be demonstrated by the Holy Scriptures. For that is the security of our Faith, not which is from our inventions, but from the demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.]  
To the same purpose in the Dissuasive was produced the Testimony of S. Basil; 
S. Basil. moral.  but the words which were not there set down at large, 
Reg. 8. c. 12. edit. Paris. 1547. ex officinâ Carol▪ ●uillard.  are these. [What's proper for the faithful man? That with a certain fullness of mind, he believes the force of those things to be true, which are spoken in the Scripture, and that he rejects nothing, and that he dares not to decree any thing that is new. For whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin, but Faith is by hearing, 
Vide etiam Epist. 80. Stemus itaque arbitratui à Deo inspiratae Scripturae.] Questio erat an dicendum in Deo tres hypostases, & unam naturam; apud Bellar. de verbo Dei non scripio lib. 4. cap. 11. Sect. Alium locum.  and hearing by the word of God: without doubt, since whatsoever is without the Scripture is not of Faith, 
Vide etiam Reg. 72. c. 1. cum ti●ulo praefixo. capiti.  it is a Sin.] These words are so plain, as no Paraphrase is needful to illustrate them, to which may be added those fiercer words of the same Saint. [It is a manifest defection from the Faith and a conviction of Pride, 
Homil. de vera fide. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  either to reject any thing of what is written, or to introduce any thing that is not, since our Lord Jesus Christ hath said, My sheep hear my voice; and a little before he said the same thing: A stranger they will not follow, but will fly from him; because they know not the voice of strangers.] By which words S. Basil plainly declares, that the whole voice and words of Christ are set down in Scripture, and that all things else is the voice of strangers. And therefore [the Apostle does most vehemently forbidden (by an example taken from men) lest any thing of those which are in Scripture be taken away, or (which God forbidden) any thing be added.] To these words Bellarmine, and his followers that writ against the Dissuasive, answer, that S. Basil speaks against adding to the Scripture things contrary to it, and things so strange from it, as to be invented out of their own head: and that he also speaks of certain particular Heresies. 
〈◊〉 in the Pr●face 2.  Which endeavour to escape from the pressure of these words, is therefore very vain, because S. Basil was not then disputing against any particular Heresies, as teaching any thing against Scripture, or of their own head; but he was about to describe the whole Christian Faith: And that he may do this with faithfulness and simplicity, and without reproof, he declares he will do it from the holy Scriptures; for it is infidelity and pride to do otherwise; and therefore what is not in the Scriptures, if it be added to the faith, it is contrary to it, as contrary as unfaithfulness or infidelity: and what soever is not delivered by the Spirit of God, is an invention of man, if offered as a part of the Christian Faith. And therefore Bellarmine and and his followers, make here a distinction where there is no difference. S. Basil here declared, that as formerly he had it always fixed in mind to fly every voice, & every sentence which is a stranger to the doctrine of the Lord, so now also at this time.] 
Ibidem in seq●entibus.  viz. when he was to set down the whole Christian Faith. Neither can there be hence any escaping by saying 
* Truth will out pag. 3.  that nothing indeed is to be added to the Scriptures; but yet to the faith something is to be reckoned, which is not in Scripture. For although the Church of Rome does that also, putting more into the Canon than was among the Jews acknowledged, or by the Primitive Church of Christians; yet besides this, S. Basil having having said, 
Vbi supra.  Whatsoever is not in the Scriptures, is not of faith, and therefore it is a sin; he says also by certain consequence, That to add to the Scriptures, is all one, as to add to the Faith. And therefore he exhorts even the Novices to study the Scriptures: 
In Regul. brev. reg. 95. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  for to his 95th question, Whether it be fit for Novices presently to learn the things of the Scripture? he answers, It is right, and it is necessary, that those things which appertain to use, every one should learn from the Scriptures, both for the replenishing of their mind with piety, as also that they may not be accustomed to humane traditions. By which words he not only declares, that by the Scriptures our minds are abundantly filled with piety; but that humane traditions (by which he means every thing that is not contained in Scripture) are not to be received, but aught to be, and are best of all banished from our minds by entertaining of Scripture. To the same purpose are his words in his Ethics, 
Moral. Regul. 26.  [Whatsoever we say or do aught to be confirmed by the testimony of Divinity inspired by Scriptures, both for the full persuasion of the good, and the confusion or damnation of evil things.] There's your rule; that's the ground of all true faith.  
And therefore S. Athanasius speaking concerning the Nicene Council, 
Epist. ad Epicte●um Corinthiorum Episc.  made no scruple that the question was sufficiently determined concerning the proper Divinity of the Son of God, because it was determined, and the faith was expounded according to the Scriptures; and affirms that the faith so determined was sufficient for the reproof of all impiety (meaning in the Article of Christ's Divinity) and for the establishment of the Orthodox faith in Christ] 
De Incarnate.  Nay, he affirms that the Catholic Christians will neither speak, nor endure to hear any thing in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written.] Which words I the rather remark, 
Idem Athanas. in Exhort. ad Monachos.  because this Article of the Consubstantiality of Christ with the Father, is brought as an instance (by the Romanists) of the necessity of tradition, to make up the insufficiency of Scripture. But not in this only, but for the preaching of the truth indefinitely, 
Moral. contra Gentiles, in 〈◊〉.  that is, the whole truth of the Gospel, he affirms the Scriptures to be sufficient. For writing to Macarius a Priest of Alexandria, he tells him that the knowledge of true and divine religion and piety, does not much need the ministry of man; and that he might abundantly draw this forth from the divine books and letters: for truly the holy and divinely-inspired Scriptures are sufficient for the preaching of the truth; 
Coloniae ex offic●● Melc●●●●● Novefiani. 1548.  ad omnem instructionem veritatis; so the Latin Translation; for the whole instruction of truth; or the instruction of all truth. But because Macarius desired rather to hear others teach him this doctrine and true religion, than himself to draw it from Scripture, S. Athanasius tells him, that there are many written monuments of the Holy Fathers, and our masters, which if mwn will diligently read over, he shall learn the interpretation of Scriptures, and obtain that notion of truth which he desires.] Which is perfectly the same advice which the Church of England commands her Sons; that they shall teach nothing but what the Fathers and Doctors of the Church draw forth from Scriptures.  
The same principal doctrine in the whole is taught frequently by S. Chrysostom, 
Homil. 58. 〈◊〉 Johan.  who compares the Scriptures to a Door, which is shut to hinder the heretics from entering in, and introduce us to God, and to the knowledge of God.] This surely is sufficient; if it does this, it does all that we need; and if it does not, S. Chrysostom was greatly deceived; and so are we, and so were all the Church of God in all the first ages. But he is constant in the same affirmative: 
Homil 9 in 2 Timoth.  [If there be need to learn, or to be ignorant, thence we shall learn it; 
Idem in Psal. 95. versus finem.  if to confute or argue that which is false, thence we shall draw it: if to be corrected or chastised to exhortation; if any thing be wanting for our comfort, and that we ought to have it, nevertheless from thence (from the Scriptures) we learn it. That the man be perfect: therefore without it he cannot be perfected. In stead of me (he saith) thou hast the Scriptures; if thou desirest to learn any thing, hence thou mayest. But if he writes these things to Timothy, who was filled with the holy Spirit, how much more must we think these things spoken to us? To the same purpose he discourses largely in his eighth Homily on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
Homil. 9 in Coloss. & in 2 Thess. 2.  which is here too long to transcribe. Let no man look for another master. 
Homil. 49. in Matth. 23. oper. imperfecti.  Thou hast the Oracles of God; No man teaches thee like to them.] Because ever since heresy did infest those Churches, there can be no proof of true Christianity, nor any other refuge for Christians, who would know the truth of faith, but that of the Divine Scripture: but now by no means is it known by them, who would know which is the true Church of Christ, but only by the Scriptures.] 
De verbo Dei, l. 4. c. 11. Sect. Sextò profert.  Bellarmine, very learnedly, says that these words were put into this book by the Arians, but because he offers at no pretence of reason for any such interpolation, and it being without cause to suspect it, though the Author of it had been an Arian: because the Arians were never noted to differ from the Church in the point of the Scriptures sufficiency; I look upon this as a pitiful shift of a man that resolved to say any thing rather than confess his error. And at last he concludes with many words to the same purpose, [Our Lord therefore knowing what confusion of things would be in the last days, therefore commands that Christians, who in Christianity would receive the firmness of true faith, should fly to nothing but to the Scriptures; otherwise, if they regard other things, they will be scandalised and perish, not understanding which is the true Church, and by this shall fall into the abomination of desolation, which stands in the holy places of the Church.] 
Idem homil. 41. in Matth.  The sum is this, delivered by the same Author, Whatsoever is sought for unto salvation it is now filled full in the Scriptures. Therefore there is in this feast, nothing less than what is necessary to the salvation of mankind.] Sixtus Senensis, though he greatly approves this book, and brings arguments to prove it to be S. Chrysostom's, and alleges from others, that it hath been for many ages approved by the Commandment of the Church, which among the Divine laws reads some of these Homilies as of S. Chrysostom; and that it is cited in the ordinary and authentic glosses, in the Catena's upon the Gospels, in the decrees of the Popes, and in the Theological sums of great Divine; yet he would have it purged from these words here quoted (as also from many others.) But when they cannot show by any probable argument that any heretics have interpolated these words; and that these are so agreeing to other words of S. Chrysostom, spoken in his unquestioned works; he shows himself and his party greatly pinched, and for no other reason rejects the words, but because they make against him, which is a plain self-conviction and self-condemnation. 
Dissuasive in the Preface.  Theophilus Alexandrinus is already quoted in these words, and they are indeed very severe; It is the part of a Devilish spirit to think any thing divine without the authority of the holy Scriptures.] Here E. W. and A. L. say, the Dissuasive left out some words of Theophilus. It is true, but so did a good friend of theirs before me; for they are just so quoted by 
* Lib. 4. de verbo Dei, cap. 11. Sect. Profert nonò Theophilum.  Bellarmine; who in all reason would have put them in, if they had made way for any answer to the other words. The words are these as they lie entirely. Truly I cannot know with what temerity Origen, speaking so many things, 
* In censuris super Matth. expositoribus.  and following his own error, not the authority of Scriptures, does dare to publish such things which will be hurtful. And a little after adds, Sed ignorans quod demoniaci spiritus esset instinctus, sophismata humanarum mentium sequi & aliquid extra Scripturarum authoritatem putare Divinum.] Sophisms of his own mind, and things that are not in Scriptures are explicative one of another: and if he had not meant it merely diabolical to induce any thing without the authority of Scripture, he ought to have added the other part of the rule, and have called it Devilish, to add any thing without Scripture or tradition, which because he did not, we suppose he had no cause to do; and than whatsoever is not in Scripture Theophilus calls the sophism of humane minds. He spoke it indefinitely and universally; 
Paschal. 11. vide etiam, Paschal. 3.  It is true, it is instanced in a particular against Origen, but upon that occasion he gives a general rule. And therefore it is a weak subterfuge of Bellarmine to say, that Theophilus only speaks concerning certain Apocryphal books, which some would esteem Divine: but, by the way, I know not how well Bellarmine will agree with my adversaries; for one or two of them say, 
A. L. and E. W. page 4.  Theophilus spoke against Origen, for broaching fopperies of his own; and particularly, that Christ's flesh was consubstantial with the Godhead: and if they say true, than Bellarmine in his want invented an answer of his own without any ground of truth. But all agree in this, that these words were spoken in these cases only: 
Lib. 4. De verb. Dei, cap. 11.  and it is foolish (says Bellarmine) to wrest that which is spoken of one thing, to another. But I desire that it may be observed, that to the testimony of Tertullian, it is answered, He speaks but of one particular. To that of S. Basil, it is answered, He spoke but against a few particular heresies. And to one of the testimonies of S. Athanasius, it is answered, He spoke but of one particular, viz. the heresy of Samosatenus; and to this of Theophilus Alexandrinus it is just so answered; he spoke likewise but of this particular, viz. that against Origen: and to that of S. Hierom 
* Cited in the next page.  in 23. Matth. he only spoke of a particular opinion pretended out of some apocryphal book; and to another of S. Austin, It is spoken but of a particular matter; 
Lib. de bono vid●itatis, c. 1.  the case of widowhood. But if Hermogenes, and Origen, and Samosatenus, and the heretics S. Basil speaks of, and they in S. Hierom, be all to be confuted by Scripture, and by nothing else; nay, are therefore rejected, because they are not in Scripture; if all these Fathers confute all these heresies by a negative argument from Scripture; then the rule which they establish must be more than particular. It is fitted to all as well as to any: for all particulars make a general. This way they may answer 500 testimonies; if 500 Authors should upon so many several occasions speak general words. But in the world no answer could be weaker, and no elusion more trifling and less plausible could have been invented. However, these and other concurrent testimonies will put this question beyond such captious answers.  
S. Hierom was so severe in this Article, that disputing what Zechary it was, who was slain between the Porch and the Altar, Whether it was the last but one of the small Prophets, 
S. Hierom. in 23. Matth. Hoc quiae de Scripturis non habet authoritatem, eâdem facilitate contemnitur quâ pr●batur. Et 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Titum. Sine authoritate Scripturarum garrulitas non habet fidem, nisi viderentur perver same doctrinam etiam Divi●is testimoniis roborare. Sic citantur verba apud Bellarm. qui secutus Kemnitium in objectionibus responsi●nem de bene esse paravit. Non curavit tamen nec metuit ne non recte cuarentur verba.  or the Father of the Baptist; he would admit neither, because it was not in the Scriptures; in these words [This because it hath not authority from Scripture, is with the same easiness despised as it is approved] And they that prattle without the authority of Scriptures have no faith, or trust; that is, none would believe them; unless they did seem to strengthen their perverse doctrine with Divine testimonies: but most pertinent and material to the whole inquiry are these words; 
In c. 1. Aggaei. Sed & alia, quae absque authoritate & testimoniis Scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolicâ sponte reperiunt atque contingunt, percu it gladius Dei.  [Those things which they make and find as it were by Apostlical tradition, without the authority and testimonies of Scripture, the word of God smites.] By which words it appears, that in S. Hierom's time it was usual to pretend traditions Apostolical: and yet that all which was then, so early, called so, was not so; and therefore all later pretences, still as they are later, are the worse: and that the way to try those pretences, was the authority and testimony of Scriptures; without which testimony they were to be rejected, and God would punish them. 
Adver● Helvid.  And disputing against Helvidius, in defence of the perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin. [But as we deny not those things which are written; so, we refuse those things which are not written: We believe our Lord to be born of a Virgin, because we read it: We believe not, Mary was married after her delivery, because we read it not.] And therefore this very point the Father's endeavour to prove by Scripture; 
Ambr. tom. ●.  particularly, 
Ep. 9 Epiphan. haeres. 78.  S. Epiphanius, S. Ambrose, and S. Austin; 
August. de haeres. 84. S. Basil▪ de human. gen Christi Homil. 25.  though S. Basil believed it not to be a point of faith: and when he offered to prove it by a tradition concerning the slaying of Zechary upon that account, S. Hierom rejects the tradition as trifling; as before, I have cited him. And therefore S. John Damascen going upon the same Principle, 
Lib. 1. de orthod. fide cap. 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  says, We look for nothing beyond these things which are delivered by the Law and the Prophets, the Apostles and Evangelists.  
And after all this, S. Austin, who is not the least amongst the greatest Doctors of the Church, is very clear in this particular [If any one, 
Lib. 3. cont. lit.  concerning Christ, or his Church, 
Pet●●●ani. c. 6.  or concerning any other thing which belongs to faith, or our life; I will not say, if we, but (what Paul hath added) if an Angel from Heaven shall preach unto you, Praeter quam in Scriptures legalibus & Evangelicis accepistis, beside what ye have received in the legal and Evangelical Scriptures, let him be accursed.] The words Bellarmine quotes, and for an answer to them, says, that praeter must signify contra; besides, that is, against: and the same is made use of by Hart the Jesuit, in his Conference; and by the Louvain Doctors. But if this answer may serve; Non habebis Deos alienos praeter me, may signify, contra me; and then a man may, 
Absit mihi gloriari praeterquam in Cruse Jesus Christi.  for all this Commandment, say, there are two Gods, so one be not contrary to the other; and the Apostle may glory in any thing else in that sense, in which he glories in the Cross of Christ; so that thing be not contrary to Christ's Cross. But S. Austin was a better Grammarian than to speak so improperly. Praeter, 
Elegant. lib. 3. cap. 54.  and Praeterquam are all one; as, I am covetous of nothing praeter laudem, vel praeterquam laudis: Nulli places praeterquam mihi; vel, praeter me. And indeed Praeterquam, eandem aut prope parem vim obtinet, quam Nisi, said Laurentius Valla: but to make praeterquam to signify contra quam, is a violence to be allowed by no Master of the Latin tongue; which all the world knows, S. Austin was. And if we inquire what signication it hath in law; 
In vocabular. utriusque Juris.  we find it signifies variously indeed, but never to any such purpose. When we speak of things whose nature is wholly separate, than it signifies Inclusively: As I give all my vines praeter domum, besides my house; there the house is supposed also to be given. But if we speak of things which are subordinate and included in the general, then praeter signifies Exclusively; as I give unto thee all my Books praeter Augustinum de civitate Dei, besides or except S. Austin of the City of God: there S. Augustine's Book is not given: And the reason of this is, because the last words in this case would operate nothing, 
S. August. vocat Scripturas sac●as Divinam stateram. l. 2. contr.  unless they were exclusive; and if in the first they were exclusive, they were not sense. But that praeterquam should mean only what is contrary; 
Donat. c. 1●.  is a Novelty taken up without reason, but not without great need. 
Lib. ●. de doctr.  But however, that S. Austin did not mean only to reprove them that introduced into faith and manners, 
Christ. c. 9 vide eundem l. 1. c. ult. de Consens● Evangelistarum. [Quicquid Servator de suis factis & dictis nos legere voluit, hoc scribendum illis tanquam suis manibus imperavit.]  such things which were against Scripture; but such which were besides it, and whatsoever was not in it, is plain by an established doctrine of his, affirming that all things which appertain to life and doctrine, are found in those things which are plainly set down in the Scriptures. And if this be true (as S. Austin supposed it to be) than who ever adds to this any thing of faith and manners, though it be not contrary, yet if it be not here, aught to be an anathema, because of his own he adds to that rule of faith & manners which God (who only could do it) hath made. To this, 
Lib. 4. de verbo Dei non sc●ipto c. 11.  Bellarmin answers; that S. Austin speaks only of the Creed, and the ten Commandments: such things which are simply necessary to all. He might have added, that he speaks of the Lord's Prayer too; and all the other precepts of the Gospel; and particularly the eight Beatitudes, and the Sacraments. And what of the infallibility of the Roman Church? Is the belief of that necessary to all? But that is neither in the Creed, nor the ten Commandments. And what of the five Precepts of the Church; are they plainly in the Scripture? And after all this, and much more; if all that belongs to faith and good life be in the plain places of Scripture; then there is enough to make us wise unto salvation. And he is a very wise and learned man that is so. For as by faith, S. Austin understands the whole Christian Faith; so by mores vivendi he understands hope and charity, as himself in the very place expresses himself. And beyond faith, hope, and charity, and all things that integrate them, what a Christian need to know, I have not learned: But if he would learn more yet; there are, in places less plain, things enough to make us learned unto Curiosity. Briefly, by S. Austin's doctrine, the Scripture hath enough for every one; and in all cases of necessary Religion; and much more then, what is necessary: nay, there is nothing besides it that can come into our rule. 
a Lib. de bono vidui●a●. cap. 1.  The Scripture is the consummation or utmost bounded rule of our doctrine that we may not dare to be wiser than we ought.] And that not only in the Question of widowhood, but in all questions, which belong unto life and manners of living; as himself in the same place declares. And it is not only for Laics and vulgar persons, but for all men: and not only for what is merely necessary; 
2. Tim. 3.  but to make us wise, to make us perfect, 
Salmeron in hun● locum tom. 15. p. 607. vide plura apud eandem: p. 606.  saith the Apostle. And how can this man say, that the Scriptures makes a man perfect in justice? And he that is perfect in justice, needs no more revelation: which words are well enlarged by S. Cyril. [The Divine Scripture is sufficient to make them who are educated in it wise and most approved, 
Cyril. Alex. l. 7. contr. Julian.  and having a most sufficient understanding: And to this we need not any foreign teachers.] But lastly, if in the plain words of Scripture be contained all that is simply necessary to all; than it is clear, by Bellarmine's confession, that S. Austin affirmed, that the plain places of Scripture are sufficient to all Laics and all Idiots, or private persons: and then as it is very ill done to keep them from the knowledge and use of the Scriptures, which contain all their duty, both of faith and good life; so it is very unnecessary to trouble them with any thing else: there being in the world no such treasure and repository of faith and manners, and that so plain, that it was intended for all men, and for all such men is sufficient. 
S. August. ser. 38. ad fratres in erem●.  [Read the holy Scriptures, wherein you shall find some things to be holden, and some to be avoided.] This was spoken to the Monks and Brethren in the Desert, and to them that were to be guides of others, & the pastors of the reasonable flock; and in that whole Sermon he enumerates the admirable advantages, fullness and perfection of the Holy Scriptures, out of which themselves are to be taught, and by the fullness of which they are to teach others in all things. I shall not be troublesome by adding those many clear testimonies from other of the Fathers. But I cannot omit that of Anastasius of Antioch [It is manifest that these things are not to be enquired into, 
Lib. 8. anagogics contempt. in Hexameron.  which the Scripture hath passed over in silence. For the Holy Spirit hath dispensed and administered to us all things which conduce to our profit.] 
De voca●. gentium in 2. tem. operum S. Ambros. l. 2. c. 3.  If the Scriptures be silent, who will speak? said S. Prosper: what things we are ignorant of, from them we learn said Theodoret, 
a In 2. t●m. 3. in illud [ad docendu●.]  and there is nothing, which the Scriptures deny to dissolve, said Theophylact. 
b Ibidem.  And the former of these, brings in the Christian, saying to Eranistes. 
c Dial. 1.  Tell not me of your Logisms and Syllogisms; I rely upon Scripture only. But Rupertus Tuitiensis 
d Commen●. in ●ib. Regum. lib. 3. c. 12.  his words are a fit conclusion to this heap of testimonies [Whatsoever is of the word of God, whatsoever ought to be known and preached of the Incarnation, of the true Divinity, and humanity of the Son of God, is so contained in the two Testaments, that besides these there is nothing aught to be declared or believed. The whole celestial Oracle is comprehended in these; which we ought so firmly to know, that besides these, it is not lawful to hear either Man or Angel.] And all these are nothing else, but a full subscription to, and an excellent commentary upon, those words of S. Paul, Let no man pretend to be wise above what is written.  
By the concourse of these testimonies of so many Learned, Orthodox, and Ancient Fathers we are abundantly confirmed in that rule and principle upon which the whole Protestant, and Christian Religion is established. From hence we learn all things, and by these we prove all things, and by these we confute Heresies, and prove every Article of our Faith; according to this we live, and on these we ground our hope; and whatsoever is not in these, we reject from our Canon. And indeed, that the Canonical Scriptures should be our only and entire Rule, we are sufficiently convinced by the title which the Catholic Church gives, and always hath given to the holy Scriptures; for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the Rule of Christians for their whole Religion: The word itself, ends this Enquiry; for it cannot be a Canon if any thing be put to it or taken from it, said 
a lib. 1. contr. Eunom.  S. Basil, 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, S. Chrysost. Hom. 12. In 3. Philip. Idem dixit Theophyl.  S. chrysostom, and 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Varinus.  Varinus.  
I hope I have competently proved the tradition I undertook; and by it, that the holy Scriptures contain all things that are necessary to salvation. The sum is this, If tradition be not regardable, than the Scriptures alone are: but if it be regarded, then here is a full Tradition, That the Scriptures are a perfect rule: for that the Scriptures are the word of God, and contain in them all the word of God (in which we are concerned,) is delivered by a full consent of all these, and many other Fathers, and no one Father denies it; which consent therefore is so great, that if it may not prevail, the topic of Tradition will be of no use at all to them who would fain adopt it into a part of the Canon. But this I shall consider more particularly.  
Only one thing more I am to add, Concerning the interpretation and finding out the sense and meaning of the Scriptures. For though the Scriptures be allowed to be a sufficient repository of all that is necessary to salvation; yet we may mistake our way, if we have not some infallible Judge of their sense.  
To him therefore that shall ask, How we shall interpret and understand the Scriptures? I shall give that answer which I have learned from those Fathers, whose testimony I have alleged, to prove the fullness and sufficiency of Scripture. For if they were never so full, yet if it be fons signatus, and the waters of salvation do not issue forth, to refresh the souls of the weary, full they may be in themselves, but they are not sufficient for us, nor for the work of God, in the salvation of man. But that it may appear that the Scriptures are indeed written by the hand of God, and therefore no way deficient from the end of their design, God hath made them plain and easy to all people that are willing and obedient.  
So S. Cyril, 
Lib. 9 contr. Julian.  Nihil in Scriptures difficile est iis qui in illis versantur ut decet. It is our own fault, our prejudice, our foolish expectations, our carnal fancies, our interests and partialities make the Scriptures difficult. The Apostles did not, would not, could not understand their Master and Lord, when he told them of his being put to death; They looked for some other thing: and by that measure they would understand what was spoken, and by nothing else. But to them that are conversant in Scriptures as they ought, nothing is difficult; So S. Cyril: That is, nothing that is necessary for them to know; nothing that is necessary to make us wise unto salvation, which is the great end of man. To this purpose are the words of S. Austin, 
In Psal. 8.  Inclinavit Deus Scripturas ad infantium & lactentium Capacitatem. God hath made the Scriptures to stoop to the Capacity of babes and sucklings.] that so out of their mouths he may perfect praise. 
Homil. primâ in Matth.  And S. Chrysostom says, that the Scriptures are faciles ad intelligendum, & prorsus expositae, they are expounded and easy to be understood, to the servant and the countryman, to the widow and the boy, and to him that is very unskilful. 
Homil. 3. in 2 Thess.  Omnia clara sunt & plana in Divinis literis; all things are clear and plain in the Divine writings; All things, that is, saith S. Chrysostom, Omnia necessaria aperta sunt & manifesta, All that is necessary, is open and manifest.  
2. The Fathers say, that in such things (viz. in which our Salvation is concerned) the Scriptures need no interpreter; but a man may find them out himself by himself. Apostoli verò & Prophetae omnia contrà fecerunt manifesta, claráque; quae prodiderunt, exposuerunt nobis veluti communes orbis Doctores, 
Homil. 3. de Lazaro, & homil. 3. in 2 Thess.  ut per se quisque discere possit ea, quae dicuntur, ex solâ lectione. So S. Chrysostom, and therefore (saith he) what need is there of a Preacher? All things are clear and plain out of the Divine Scriptures. But ye seek for Preachers, because you are nice and delicate, and love to have your ears pleased.] To the same purpose are those words of S. Cyril. Alex. 
Lib. 7. 〈◊〉. Julian.  The Divine Scripture is sufficient to make them who are educated in it, wise and most approved, and having a most sufficient understanding. And to this we need not any foreign teachers. There is no question but there are many places in the Divine Scriptures, mysterious, intricate and secret: but these are for the learned not the ignorant; for the curious and inquisitive, not for the busied and employed, and simple: they are not the repositories of salvation; but instances of labour, and occasions of humility, and arguments of forbearance, and mutual toleration, and an indearment of reverence and adoration. But all that by which God brings us to himself is plain and easy. In S. Paul's Epistles, S. Peter said, there were some things hard to be understood; but they were but quaedam, some things; there are enough besides which are very plain and easy, and sufficient for the instruction and the perfecting the man of God. S. Peter is indeed supposed to say; that in S. Paul's Epistles some things were hard; yet if we observe it rightly, he does not relate to S. Paul's writings, and way of expressing himself, but [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which] relates too the mysterious matters contained in S. Paul's Epistles, 
2 Pet. 3. 16.  of which S. Peter also there treats: the mysteries were so deep and sublime, so far removed from sense and humane experience, that it is very hard for us, poor ignorants, to understand them without difficulty, and constancy of labour and observation. But then, when such mysterious points occur, let us be wary and wise, not hasty and decretory, but fearful and humble, modest and inquisitive. S. Paul expressed those deep mysteries, of the Coming of Christ to Judgement, and the conflagration of the world, as plainly as the things would easily bear; and therefore the difficulty was not in the style, but in the subject matter; nor there indeed, as they are in themselves, so much as by the ignorance and instability, or unsetledness of foolish people: and although when things are easy there needs no interpreter, but the very reading, and observing; and humility and diligence, simplicity and holiness are the best expositors in the world; yet when any such difficulty does occur, we have a guide sufficient to carry us as fare as we need or aught to go. Therefore,  
3. The way of the Ancient and Primitive Church was to expound the Scriptures by the Scriptures. So S. Clemens of Alexandria: 
Stromat. lib. 7. p. 757. & 758.  perfectly demonstrating out of the Scriptures themselves concerning themselves: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Confirming every thing from those things which are demonstrated from the Scriptures out of those and the like Scriptures. 
Contr. Gentil. in initio.  To the same purpose are the words of S. Athanasius [The knowledge of true and Divine religion and piety does not much need the Ministry of man, and he might abundantly draw this forth from the Divine books and Letters.] S. Paul's way of teaching us to expound Scripture, is, that he that prophecies should do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the analogy of faith; the fundamental proportions of faith are the measures by which we are to exact the sense and meaning of points more difficult and less necessary. This way S. Clement urges in other expressions. [Truth is not found in the translation of significations, 
Ubi suprà, pag. 758.  for so they might overthrow all true doctrine: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in this, that every one consider what is perfectly agreeable to our Lord the Almighty God, and what is decent, or fit to be said of him.] If we follow this way close, our interpretations of Scripture can never be impious, and can never lead into dangerous error.  
4. In pursuance of this, the Ancient Fathers took this way, and taught us to do so too; to expound difficult places by the plain. 
Lib. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 6.  So S. Austin: Magnificè & salubritèr Spiritus Sanctus, etc. The Holy Spirit hath magnificently, and wholesomely, qualified the Holy Scriptures, that in the more open (or plainer) places, provision is made for our hunger, (viz. for our need) and in the obscure there is nothing tedious (or loathsome.) Nihil enim ferè de illis obscuritatibus eruit quod non planissimè dictum alibi reperiatur. For there is scarce any thing drawn from those obscure places, but the same in other places may be found spoken most plainly.] Bellarmine observes, 
De verbo Dei l. 3. cap. 2. Sect. Respondeo i●pimis.  that S. Austin uses the word ferè, almost; meaning, that though by plainer places, most of the obscure places may be cleared; yet not all. And truly it is very probable, that S. Austin did mean so. But then if there be any obscure places that cannot be so enlightened; what is to be done with them? S. Austin says, 
Lib. de Vnit. Ecclesiae c. 16.  that in such places, let every one abound in his own sense, and expound as well as he can: quae obscurè vel ambiguè, vel figuratè dicta sunt, quae quisque sicut voluerit interpretetur secundum sensum suum. But yet still he calls us to the rule of plain places; Talia autem rectè intelligi exponique non possunt nisi priùs ea quae apertissimè dicta sunt, firma fide teneantur. The plain places of Scripture are the way of expounding the more obscure, and there is no other, viz. so apt, and certain.  
And after all this; I deny not but there are many other external helps. God hath set Bishops and Priests; Preachers and Guides of our Souls over us; and they are appointed to teach others as far as they can, and it is to be supposed they can do it best; but then the way for them to find out the meaning of obscure places is that which I have now described out of the Fathers, and by the use of that means they will be best enabled to teach others.  
If any man can find a better way than the Fathers have taught us, he will very much oblige the world by declaring it; and giving a solid experiment that he can do what he undertakes. But because no man, and no company of men, hath yet expounded all hard places with certainty and without error; it is an intolerable vanity to pretend to a power of doing that which no charity hath ever obliged them to do for the good of the Church, and the glory of God, and the rest of enquiring Souls.  
I end this tedious discourse, with the words of S. Austin. 
De Vnit. Eccles. cap. 3.  Nolo humanis documentis, sed Divinis oraculis Ecclesiam demonstrari. If you inquire where, or which is the Church; from humane teachings you can never find her: she is only demonstrated in the Divine Oracles.] 
1 Pet. 4. 1.  Therefore if any man speak, let him speak as the Oracles of God.   

SECTION III.  
Of Traditions.  
TRadition is any way of delivering a thing, or word to another; and so every doctrine of Christianity, is by Tradition. 
1 Thes. 2. 15.  I have delivered unto you saith S. Paul, that Christ died for our sins. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Sic S. Pasilius lib. 3. contr. Eunomium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, say the Grammarians; and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Judas, the faith delivered, is the same which S. Paul explicates by saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the traditions, that is, the doctrines ye were taught. And S. 
* Lib. 3. c. 4.  Irenaeus calls it a tradition Apostolical that Christ took the Cup, and said it was his blood; and to believe in one God, and in Christ who was born of a Virgin, was the old tradition; that is, the thing delivered, & not at first written; which the Barbarians kept diligently. But Tradition signified either. Preaching or Writing, as it happened. When it signified Preaching, it was only the first way of communicating the Religion of Jesus Christ: and until the Scriptures were written, and consigned by the full testimony of the Apostles, and Apostolical Churches respectively; they, in the Questions of Religion, usually appealed to the tradition, or the constant retention of such a doctrine in those Churches where the Apostles first preached, and by the succession of Bishops in those Churches, who without variety or change, had still remembered and kept the same doctrine, which at first was delivered by the Apostles! So Irenaeus, If the Apostles had not left the Scriptures to us, 
Ibid.  must not we (viz. in this case) have followed the order of tradition which they delivered to them, to whom they entrusted the Church; to which ordination many Nations of Barbarians do assent? And that which was true then, is also true now; for, if the Apostles had never written at all, we must have followed tradition; unless God had provided for us some better thing. But it is observable that Irenaeus says, That this way is only in the destitution of Scripture. But since God hath supplied not only the principal Churches with the Scriptures; but even all the Nations which the Greeks and Romans called Barbarous; now to run to Tradition, is to make use of a staff or a wooden Leg, when we have a good Leg of our own. The traditions at the first publication of Scriptures were clear, evident, recent, remembered, talked of by all Christians, in all their meetings, public and private; and the mistaking of them by those who carefully endeavoured to remember them, was not easy; and, if there had been a mistake, there was an Apostle living, or one of their immediate Disciples, to set all things right. And therefore until the Apostles were all dead, 
Heg●sip. apud Eccles. li●. 38. c. 32. Grec. 26. Latin.  there was no dispute considerable amongst Christians, but what was instantly determined, or suppressed; and the Heresies that were, did creep and sting clancularly, but made no great show. But when the Apostles were all dead; then that Apostasy foretold, began to appear; and Heresies, of which the Church was warned, began to arise. But it is greatly to be remarked; There was then no Heresy that pretended any foundation from Scripture; 
Acts 20. 29. 30.  but from tradition, many: 
1 Tim. 4. 1. etc.  for it was accounted so glorious a thing to have been taught by an Apostle, 
2 Tim 3. ●. etc. & 4. 3.  that even good men were willing to believe any thing which their Scholars pretended to have heard their Masters preach; 
2 Thes. 2. 3.  and too many were forward to say, 
2 Pet. 2. ●. etc.  they heard them teach what they never taught; 
1 Joh. 2. 18. 19  and the pretence was very easy to be made by the Contemporaries or Immediate descendants after the Apostles; 
Judas. 4. v. etc.  and now that they were dead, it was so difficult to confute them, that the Heretics found it an easy game to play, to say, They heard it delivered by an Apostle. Many did so, and some were at first believed, and yet were afterwards discovered; some were cried down at first, and some expired of themselves, and some were violently thrust away. But how many of those which did descend and pass on to custom were of a true and Apostolical original, and how many were not so, it will be impossible to find now; only, because we are sure there was some false dealing in this matter, and we know there might be much more than we have discovered, we have no reason to rely upon any tradition for any part of our faith; any more than we could do upon Scripture, if one Book or Chapter of it should be detected to be imposture. But there were two cases, in which tradition was then used: The one was, when the Scriptures had not been written or communicated, as among divers nations of the Barbarians. The other was, when they disputed with persons who received not all the Scriptures; as did the Carpocratians, of whom 
* Lib. 1. c. 1. etc. 24.  Irenaeus speaks. In these cases tradition was urged, that because they did not agree about the authority of one instrument, they should be admitted to trial upon the other. For as Antonius Marinarius said truly and wisely, The Fathers served themselves of this topic only in case of necessity, never thinking to make use of it in competition against holy Scripture.  
But than it is to be observed, that in both these cases the use of tradition is not at all pertinent to the Question now in hand. For, first, the Question was not then, as now it is, between personn who equally account of Scriptures as the word of God; and to whom the Scriptures have been from many generations consigned. For they that had received Scriptures at the first, relied upon them; they that had not, were to use tradition, and the topic of succession, to prove their doctrine to have come from the Apostles: that is, they were fain to call Witnesses, when they could not produce a Will in writing. But secondly, in other cases the old heretics had the same Question as we have now. 
S. Irenaeus, l. 1. c. 24.  For besides the Scripture, they said that, Jesus in mystery spoke to his disciples and Apostles some things in secret and apart, 
S. August. tract: 97. in Johan.  because they were worthy. And so Christ said, I have many things to say, but ye cannot hear them now. For this place of Scripture was to this purpose urged by the most foolish heretics: Just thus do the Doctors of the Church of Rome at this day. 
De verb. Dei, non script. lib. 4. ca 11. Sect. His notatis.  So Bellarmine [They preached not to the people all things, but those which were necessary to them, or profitable, but other things they delivered apart to the more perfect.] Here then is the popish ground of their traditions; they cannot deny but necessary and profitable things were delivered in public, and to all: but some secret things were reserved for the secret ones. For the Scriptures are as the Credential Letters to an Ambassador; but traditions are as the private Instructions. This was the pretence of the old Heretics, and is of the modern Papists: who while they say the same thing, pretend for it also the same authority, saying, that Traditions also are to be received, 
Pag. 16.  because they are recommended in Scripture. Of this I shall hereafter give account: In the mean time,  
Concerning this, I remember that a great man of the Roman party falls foul upon Castellio, 
Salmeron tom. 15. in 2 Tim. 3. disp. 4. p. ●07.  for saying, The Apostle had some more secret doctrine which he did not commit to writing, but delivered it to some more perfect persons; and that the word of God was not sufficient for deciding controversies of religion, however it be expounded, but that a more perfect revelation is to be expected. Upon which he hath these words, Intolerabile est, ut Paulus, quam accepit reconditiorem doctrinam, non scripto consignaverit; fuisset enim alioqui infidelis depositi Minister. And it was most reasonable which Antonius Marinarius, a Friar Carmelite, did say, If some things were delivered in secret, it was under secret; because the Apostles might as well have published it as their disciples: but if it was delivered as a secret, and consequently to be kept as secret, how came the successors of the Apostles to publish this secret? to break open the seal, and reveal the forbidden secret? And secondly, If the secret tradition which certainly was not necessary to all, be made public, how shall we know which traditions are necessary, and which are not? Certain it is, the secret tradition could not of itself be necessary; and therefore if it becomes so by being made public, it is that which the Apostles intended not, for they would have it secret. And therefore it follows that now no man can tell that any of their traditions was intended as necessary; because the only way by which we could know which was and which was not necessary, viz. the making the one public and keeping the other private, is now destroyed, since they are all alike common. All that which was delivered to all and in public, was, by the providence of God ministering apt occasions, and by the Spirit of God inspiring the Apostles and Evangelists with a will to do it, set down in writing, that they might remain upon record for ever to all generations of the Church: So S. Peter promised to the Jews of the dispersion, that he would do some thing to put them in remembrance of the things he had taught them; and he was as good as his word, and employed S. Mark to write the Gospel: others also of the Apostles took the same care; and all were directed by God, and particular occurrences were concentred in the general design and counsel of God. 
Lib. 3. c. 1.  So S. Irenaeus, [The Gospel which the Apostles preached, afterwards by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures.] It was a Tradition still; but now the word signified in its primitive and natural sense, not in the modern and Ecclesiastical. But Irenaeus speaks of the Gospel; 
Tract. 49. in Johan.  that is, the whole Gospel of God: not all the particulars that Jesus spoke and did, 
S. Augustin. lib. 1. c. 35. de consensu Evangel.  but [What ever Christ would have us to read of his words and works, he commanded them to write, as if it were by his own hands.] And therefore Electa sunt quae scriberentur, quaè saluti credentium sufficere videbantur. There was a choice made of such things as were to be written: It was not therefore done by chance and contingency (as many of the Roman Doctors in disparagement of the Scriptures sufficiency do object) but the things were chosen, saith S. Austin; it was according to the will of God, said S. Irenaeus; and the choice was very good; all that sufficed to the salvation of believers: according to the words of S. John, These things were written that ye might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, 
Joh. 20. 30, 31.  and that believing ye might have life through his name. And indeed there cannot be any probable cause inducing any wise man to believe that the Apostles should pretend to write the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and that they should insert many things more than necessary, and yet omit any thing that was, and yet still call it the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Nicephorus calls the Epistles of S. Paul, 
Lib. 2. hist. c. 34.  A summary of what he plainly and explicitly did teach; much more is every Gospel. But when all the four Gospels, and the Apostolical Acts, and Epistles, and the Visions of S. John were all tied into a Volume, by the counsel of God, by the dictate of the Holy Spirit, and by the choice of the Apostles; it cannot be probable that this should not be all the Gospel of Jesus Christ, all his Will and Testament. 
Country le Roy Jaq. p. 715.  And therefore in vain does the Cardinal Perron strive to escape from this by acknowledging that the Gospel is the foundation of Christianity, as Grammar is the foundation of Eloquence; as the Institutions of Justinian, is of the study of the law; as the principles and institutions of a science are of the whole profession of it. It is not, in his sense, the foundation of Christian doctrine, but it contains it all; not only in general, but in special; not only virtual, but actual; not mediate, but immediate; for a few lines would have served for a foundation General, virtual and mediate; If the Scripture had said, The Church of Rome shall always be the Catholic Church, and the foundation of faith; she shall be infallible, and to her all Christians ought to have recourse for determination of their Questions; this had been a sufficient virtual and mediate foundation: But when four Gospels containing Christ's Sermons and his Miracles, his Precepts and his Promises; the Mysteries of the Kingdom, and the way of Salvation; the things hidden from the beginning of the world, and the glories reserved to the great day of light and manifestation of Jesus; to say, that yet all these Gospels, and all the Epistles of S. Paul, S. Peter, S. James and S. John, and the Acts and Sermons of the Apostles, in the first establishing the Church, are all but a foundation virtual; and that they point out the Church indeed, by saying, she is the pillar and ground of truth; but leave you to her for the foundation actual, special and immediate; is an affirmation against the notoreity of fact. Add to this, that S. Irenaeus spoke these words concerning the Scriptures; 
Lib. 3. cap. 2.  in confutation of them, who leaving the Scriptures, did run to Traditions, pretendedly Apostolical.  
And though it be true, that the traditions they relied upon were secret, Apocryphal, forged and supposed; yet because even at that time there were such false wares obtruded, and even then the Heretics could not want pretences sufficient to deceive, and hopes to prevail; How is it to be imagined, that in the descent of sixteen ages, the cheat might not be too prevalent? when, if the traditions be questioned, it will be impossible to prove them; and if they be false, it will (except it be by Scripture) be impossible to confute them. And after all; if yet there be any doctrines of faith or manners which are not contained in Scripture, and yet were preached by the Apostles, let that be proved, let the traditions be produced, and the records sufficient, primely credible and authentic, and we shall receive them. So vain a way of arguing it is, to say, The Traditions, against which S. Irenaeus speaks, were false, but ours are true; Theirs were secret, but ours were open and notorious: For there are none such: And Bellarmine himself, acknowledges, that the necessary things are delivered in Scriptures; and those which were reserved for tradition, were delivered apart; that is, secretly by the Apostles. Now if they were so on all sides; what rule shall we have to distinguish the Valentinian Traditions from the Roman? 
Vbi supra c. 11. de verb. Dei non Script. l. 4.  and why shall we believe these more than those; since all must be equally taken upon private testimony at first? And although it will be said, That the Roman Traditions were received by after-ages, and the other were not: yet this shows nothing else, but that some had the fate to prevail, and others had not. For it is certain; that some were a long time believed, even for some whole ages, under the name of Apostolical Tradition; (as the Millenary opinion, and the Asiatic manner of keeping Easter) which yet came to be disbelieved in their time: and also, it is certain that many which really were Apostolical Traditions, perished from the memory of men, and had not so long lives, as many that were not: So that all this is by chance, and can make no difference in the just authority. And therefore it is vainly said of Cardinal Perron, That the case is not the same, because theirs are wrong, and ours are right. For this ought not to have been said, till it were proved; and if it were proved, the whole Question were at an end: for we should all receive them which were manifested to be doctrines Apostolical. But in this, there need no further dispute from the authority of Irenaeus: his words concerning the fullness of Scripture, as to the whole doctrine of Christ, being so clear and manifest, as appears in the testimonies brought from him in the foregoing Section. Optatus compares the Scriptures to the Testator's Will: 
l. 5. contr. Parmer. biblioth. Patrum per Binium ●om. 4. Paris. 1589. pag. 510.  If there be a controversy amongst the descendants of the house, run to the Scriptures, see the Original will; The Gospels are Christ's Testament; and the Epistles are the Codicils annexed, and but by these we shall never know the will of the Testator. But because the Books of Scripture were not all written at once; nor at once communicated, nor at once received, therefore the Churches of God at first, were forced to trust their memories, and to try the doctrines, by appealing to the memories of others; that is, to the consenting report, and faith delivered and preached to other Churches, especially the chiefest, where the memory of the Apostles was recent, and permanent. The mysteriousness of Christ's Priesthood, the perfection of his sacrifice, and the unity of it, Christ's advocation, and Intercession for us in Heaven, might very well be accounted traditions, before Saint Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, was admitted for Canonical; but now they are written truths: and if they had not been written, it is likely we should have lost them. But this way could not long be necessary, and could not not long be safe. Not necessary, because it was supplied by a better; and to be tied to what was only necessary in the first state of things, is just as if a man should always be tied to suck milk, because at first in his infancy, it was fit he should. Not safe, because it grew worse and worse every day. And therefore in a little while, even the Traditions themselves were so far from being the touchstone of true doctrine, that themselves were brought to the stone of trial; And the Tradition would not be admitted, unless it were in Scripture. By which it appears, that Tradition could not be a part of the rule of faith, distinct from the Scriptures, but itself was a part of it; that is, whatsoever was delivered and preached, was recorded; which they so firmly believed, that they rejected the Tradition, unless it were so recorded: and 2. It hence also follows, that Tradition was, and was esteemed, the worse way of conveying propositions and stories; because the Church required that the Traditions should be proved by Scriptures; that is, the less certain by the more: 
Epist. ad Pompeium contra epist. Stephani.  That this was so, S. Cyprian is a sufficient witness. For when Pope Stephen had said, Let no thing be changed; only that which is delivered, meaning the old Tradition, that was to be kept; S. Cyprian inquires from whence that Tradition comes? Does it come from the Gospels, or the Epistles, or the Acts of the Apostles? So that after the writing and reception of Scriptures, Tradition meant the same thing which was in Scripture; or if it did not, the Fathers would not admit it. 
Damasc. de orthod. fide c. 1.  All things which are delivered to us by the Law and the Prophets, the Apostles and Evangelists, we receive, and know, and reverence: But we inquire not further; 
Apud Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  nothing beyond them. If the Traditions be agreeable to Scripture, (said S. Irenaeus;) that is, if that which is pretended to be taught at first, be recorded by them who did teach it, than all is well. And this affair is fully testified by the words of Eusebius, 
Lib. 5. cap. 8.  which are greatly conclusive of this Inquiry. [We have (saith he) promised that we would propose the voices of the old Ecclesiastical Presbyters and Writers; by which they declared the traditions by the authority witnessed and consigned of the approved Scriptures.] Amongst whom was Irenaeus, says the Latin version.  
But I shall descend to a consideration of the particulars, which pretend to come to us by tradition, and without it cannot (as it is said) be proved by Scripture.  
1. It is said that the Scripture itself is wholly derived to us by tradition; and therefore, besides Scripture, Tradition is necessary in the Church. And indeed no man that understands this Question, denies it: This tradition, that these books were written by the Apostles, and were delivered by the Apostles to the Churches as the word of God, relies principally upon Tradition Universal; that is, it was witnessed to be true by all the Christian world at their first being so consigned. Now than this is no part of the word of God; but the notification, or manner of conveying the word of God; the instrument of its delivery. So that the tradition concerning the Scripture's being extrinsical to Scripture is also extrinsical to the Question; This Tradition cannot be an objection against the sufficiency of Scripture to salvation: but must go before this question. For no man inquires, Whether the Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation? unless he believe that there are Scriptures; that these are they; and that they are the word of God: All this comes to us by Tradition, that is, by universal undeniable testimony. After the Scriptures are thus received, there is risen another Question, viz. Whether or no these Scriptures so delivered to us, do contain all the word of God; or, Whether or no, besides the Tradition that goes before Scripture, which is an instrumental Tradition only of Scripture, there be not also something else that is necessary to salvation consigned by Tradition, as well as the Scripture; and of things as necessary or useful as what is contained in Scripture, and that is equally the Word of God as Scripture is? The Tradition of Scripture we receive; but of nothing else but what is in Scripture. And if it be asked, 
It is therefore weakly said by E. W. pag 5. If he says, that he impugns all tradition in General, all doctrine not expressly contained in Scripture; forced he is to throw away Scripture itself, etc.  Why we receive one, and not the rest: we answer, because we have but one Tradition of things necessary; that is, there is an Universal Tradition of Scripture, and what concerns it; but none of other things which are not in Scripture: And there is no necessity we should have any; all things necessary and profitable to the salvation of all men, being plainly contained in Scriptures; and this sufficiency also, being part of that Tradition as I am now proving.  
But because other things also are pretended to be, 
E. W. ibid. He is forced not only to throw away Scripture itself, and the Nicene definitions; not only to disclaim a Trinity of persons in one Divine essence, Baptising of children, etc. but every tenet of Protestant religion (as Protestantism,) E. g. The belief of two Sacraments only, etc.  or are necessary, and yet are said not to be in Scripture, it is necessary that this should be examined, 1. First, all the Nicene definitions, Trinity of persons in one Divine essence. This I should not have thought worthy of considering in the words here expressed, but that a friend, 
The same also he says concerning the Nicene and the other three Councils, and S. Athanasius Creed p. 8.  it seems, of my own, whom I know not, but yet an adversary, as he who should know him best (that is, himself) assures me, is pleased to use these words in the objection. To this I answer first, that this Gentleman would be much to seek if he were put to it, to prove the Trinity of persons in one Divine essence to be an express Nicene definition; and therefore, if he means that as an instance of the Nicene definitions, he will find himself mistaken. Indeed at Nice, the Consubstantiality of the Father and the Son was determined; but nothing of the Divinity of the holy Ghost, That was the result of after-Councils. But whatever it was which was there determined, I am sure it was not determined by tradition, but by Scripture. So S. Athanasius tells us of the faith which was confessed by the Nicene Fathers; 
Epist. ad Epictet. Corinth. Episc.  it was the faith confessed according to the holy Scriptures: and speaking to Serapion of the holy Trinity, 
Lib. 3. ad Serap. de Spir. S. Id. de Incarnate.  he says, Learn this out of the holy Scriptures. For the documents you find in them, are sufficient. And, writing against Samosatenus, he proves the Incarnation of the Son of God out of the Gospel of S. John, saying, It becomes us to stick close to the word of God. 
Theodoret. l. 1. c. 7.  And therefore when Constantine the Emperor exhorted the Nicene Fathers to concord in the question then to be disputed; they being Divine matters, he would they should be ended by the authority of the Divine Scriptures. [For, saith he, the books of the Evangelists and Apostles, 
Et apud Gelas. Cyzicen. in acts Concil. Nicen. l. 2. c. 7.  as also the Oracles of the old Prophets, do evidently teach us what we are to think of the Deity. Therefore all seditious contention being laid aside, let us determine the things brought into question by the testimonies of the divinely inspired Scriptures.] And they did so. And by relying on Scriptures only, we shall never be constrained to quit these glorious portions of Evangelical truth, the Incarnation of the eternal Word, and the Consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. Whatsoever ought to be known of these mysteries is contained in both Testaments; saith Rupertus Tuitiensis, before quoted. And if the holy Scriptures did not teach us in these mysteries, we should find Tradition to be but a lame leg, or rather a reed of Egypt. 
Apud Euseb. Eccles. hist. lib. 5. c. 27.  For Artemon, who was the first founder of that error which afterwards belched into Arianism, pretended a tradition from the Apostles, that Christ was a mere man. And that Tradition descended to the time of Pope Zepherinus, 
Dial. contr. Tryph. Jud.  who first gave a stop to it: and Justin Martyr says, that divers among the Christians, affirmed Christ to be not God of God, but man of man. 
Vide etiam Theodor. l. 1. Eccles. hist. c. 8.  And the Arians offered to be tried by Tradition; and therefore pretended to it, and therefore, the Catholics did not; at least according to the new doctrine, That if one pretends Tradition, the other cannot. But (for all that trifle) S. Athanasius did sometimes pretend to it, though not always; and this shows that there was no clear, indubitate, notorious, universal Tradition in the Question; and if there were not such an one, as good none at all; for it could not be such a foundation as was fit to build our faith upon, especially in such mysterious articles. But it is remarkable what Eusebius recites out of an old Author, who wrote against the heresy of Artemon, which afterwards Samosatenus renewed, and Arius made public with some alteration [They all say (says he) that our Ancestors and the Apostles themselves, 
Euseb. Eccles. hist. lib. 5 c. 27. Lat. 28. Gr.  not only to have received from our Lord those things which they now affirm, but that they taught it to others; and the preaching or tradition of it run on to the days of Pope Victor, and was kept entire, but was depraved by Pope Zepherin. And truly that which was said by them might seem to have in it much of probability, if the Divine Scriptures did not first of all contradict them, and that there were writings of some Brethren elder than the times of Victor. The Brethren, whose writings he names, are, Justin, Militiades, Tatian, Clemens, Irenaeus, and the Psalms and Hymns of divers, made in honour of Christ] From all which it is evident; that the Questions at Nice, were not, and could not be determined by tradition. 2. That Tradition might be, and was pretended on both sides. 3. That when it is pretended by the contradicting parties with some probability, it can effectually serve neither. 4. That the Tradition the Samosatenians and Arians boasted of, had in it much probability, when looked upon in its own series and proper state. 5. That the Divine Scriptures were at that time, the best firmament of the Church, and defended her from that abuse, which might have been imposed upon her, under the title of Tradition. 6. That even when tradition was opposed to tradition, and the right to the wrong, yet it was not Oral or Verbal tradition (according to the new mode) but the writings of the Doctors that were before them. But after all this, I cannot but observe and deplore the sad consequents of the Roman Doctors pretention that, This great mystery of Godliness, God manifested in the Flesh, relies wholly upon unwritten traditions. For the Socinians, knowing that tradition was on both sides claimed in this Article, please themselves in the Concession of their adversaries, that this is not to be proved by Scripture. So they allege the testimony of Eccius, and Cardinal Hosius, one of the Legates, presiding at Trent; Doctrinam de Trino & Vno Deo, 
In locis Commun. pag. 208. 209.  esse dogma Traditionis, & ex Scripturâ nullâ ratione probari posse. The same was affirmed by Tanner, and all that were on that side, in the Conference at Ratisbon, by Hieronymus à S. Hyaeintho, and others. Now they being secured by their very enemies, that they need not fear Scriptures in this question; and knowing of themselves that tradition cannot alone do it; they are at peace, and dwell in confidence in this their Capital Error: and the false peace is owing to the Roman Doctors; who in Italy help to make Atheists, 
Confessionis Christianae ad rogum damnatae & combustae Manium à R. D. Nicolao Cichovio lacessitorum, sui vindices. Impress. A. D. 1652.  and in Polonia, Socinians: and as a Consequent to all this, I remember they scorn Cichovius who endeavoured to confute them by a hundred arguments from Scriptures, since his own parties do too freely declare, that not one of those hundred prove the Question.  
2. The next necessary Article pretended to stand upon Tradition, is, The baptising Children. Concerning which, I consider either the matter of fact, or matter of doctrine. The matter of fact is indifferent, if abstracted from the doctrine. For at the first, they did, or they did not, according as they pleased; for there is no pretence of Tradition, that the Church in all ages, did baptise all the Infants of Christian Parents: It is more certain, that they did not do it always, than that they did it in the first age. S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, and S. Austin were born of Christian Parents, and yet not baptised until the full age of a man, and more. But that the Apostles did baptise any Children, is not at all reported by a primely credible Tradition, or a famous report: but that they did so is only conjectured at; or if it be more, yet that more, whatsoever it be, relies upon the testimony of Scripture; as S. Paul's baptising the households of Stephanas, and the Jailor. But then if they did, or if they did not, yet without an appendent doctrine, this passes on by the voluntary practice of the Church; and might be, or not be, as they pleased; as it was in the case of confirming them, and communicating them at the same time they baptised them; Concerning which, because we live to have seen and read of several Customs of the Church in several ages; it is also after the same manner in baptism, if we consider it only in the matter of fact.  
But then if we consider the doctrine appendent to it, or the cause why it is pretended they were baptised; even that children should be brought to Christ, should receive his blessing, should be adopted into the Kingdom of God, should be made members of the second Adam, and be translated from the death introduced by the first, to the life revealed by the second, and that they may receive the Holy Spirit, and a title to the promises Evangelical, and be born again, and admitted into a state of Covenant, in which they can receive the gift of eternal life (which I take to be the proper reasons, why the Church baptises Infants:) all these are wholly derived to us from Scripture-grounds. But then as to that Reason, upon which the Church of Rome baptises Infants, even because it is necessary, and because without it, children shall not see God; it is certain there is no Universal, or prime Tradition for that S. Austin was the hard Father of that doctrine. And if we take the whole doctrine and practice together without distinction, that it was the custom so to do in some Churches, and at sometimes, is without all question; but that there is a tradition from the Apostles so to do, relies but upon two witnesses, Origen, and S. Austin; and the latter having received it from the former, it relies wholly upon his single testimony, which is but a pitiful argument to prove a tradition Apostolical. 
* Secundum Ecelesiae observantiam (a●) in Levit. c. 12. 13. Hom. 8. quem locum citat Perron: haec autem verba non aiunt, ab Apostolis hanc manasse observantiam. Lib. de baptis. cap. 18.  He is the first that spoke it; but Tertullian, that was before him, seems to speak against it; which he would not have done, if it had been a tradition Apostolical. And that it was not so, is but too certain, if there be any truth in the words of Ludovicus Vives, 
In S. August. de civet. Dei l. 1. c. 27.  saying, that anciently none were baptised, but persons of ripe age: which words I suppose are to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and for the most part. But although the tradition be uncertain, weak, little and contingent; yet the Church of God, when ever she did it (and she might do it at any time,) did do it upon Scripture-grounds. And it was but weakly said by Cardinal Perron, 
Replique à la response du Roy Jaques. p. 701.  that There is no place of Scripture by which we can evidently, and necessarily convince the Anabaptists. For 1. If that were true, yet it is more certain, that by Tradition they will never be persuaded; not only because there is no sufficient, and full tradition; but because they reject the Topick. 2. Although the Anabaptists endeavour to elude the arguments of Scripture, yet it follows not that Scripture is not clear and certain in the Article: for it is an easy thing, to say something to every thing; but if that be enough against the argument, than no Heretic can be convinced by Scripture, and there is in Scripure; no pregnant testimony for any point of faith, for in all questions, all Heretics prattle something. And therefore, it is not a wise procedure, to say; The adversaries do answer the testimonies of Scripture; and by Scripture, cannot be convinced; and therefore choose some other way of probation. For when that is done, will they be convinced? and cannot the Cardinal satisfy himself by Scripture, though the Heretic will not confess himself confuted? The Papists say, They answer the Protestants Arguments from Scripture; but though they say so to eternal ages, yet in the world nothing is plainer, than that they only say so; and that, for all that confident and enforced saying, the Scriptures are still apparently against them. 3. If the Anabaptists speak probably, and reasonably in their answers; than it will rather follow, that the point is not necessary, than that it must be proved necessary by some other Topick. 4. All people that believe Baptism of Infants necessary, think that they sufficiently prove it from Scripture; and Bellarmine, though he also urges this point as an argument for Traditions; yet, upon wiser thoughts, he proves it, (and not Unsuccessfully) by three arguments from Scripture.  
3. Like to this, is the pretence of the validity of the Baptism of Heretics: It is Cardinal Perron's own instance, and the first of the four he alleges for the necessity of Tradition, This he holds for a doctrine Orthodox, and Apostolic; and yet (says he) there is no word of it in Scripture. Concerning this, I think the issue will be short; If there be nothing of it in Scripture, it is certain, there was no Apostolical tradition for it. For S. Cyprian and all his Colleagues were of an opinion contrary to that of the Roman Church in this Article; 
Epist. ad Pompeium.  and when they opposed against S. Cyprian a Tradition, he knew of no such thing, and bade them prove their tradition from Scripture. 2. S. Austin, who was something warm in this point, yet confesses, the Apostles commanded nothing in it; but then he does almost begus to believe, it came from them. Consuetudo illa quae opponebatur Cypriano, ab eorum traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est; si cut sunt multa quae universa tenet Ecclesia, & ob hoc ab Apostolis benè praecepta traduntur, quanquam scripta non reperiantur: which in plain meaning is this; We find a Custom in the Church, and we know not whence it comes; and it is so in this, as in many other things; and therefore let us think the best, and believe it came by tradition from the Apostles. But it seems, himself was not sure that so little a foundation could carry so big a weight, he therefore plainly hath recourse to Scripture in this Question. 
Contra Donatist. l. 4. c. 14. etc. 17. & 24.  [Whether is more pernicious, not to be baptised, or to be rebaptised, is hard to judge: nevertheless, having recourse to the standard of our Lord, where the monuments of this are not estimated by humane sense, but by Divine authority, I find concerning each of them, the Sentence of our Lord; to wit, in the Scriptures.] But 3. The Question itself, is not a thing necessary; for S. Cyprian and the Bishops of Cappadocia and Galatia, and almost two parts of the known world, whose sentiment was differing from others, yet lived and died in the Communion of those Churches, who believed the contrary doctrine: and so it might have been still, if things were estimated but according to their intrinsic value. 
Lib. 1. de Baptist. cap. 18.  And since, as S. Austin says, they might safely differ in judgement before the determination of this Question in a Council; it follows evidently, that there was no clear tradition against them; or, if there were, that was not esteemed a good Catholic, or convincing argument. For as it is not imaginable, so great and wise a part of the Catholic Church should be ignorant of any famous Apostolical tradition; especially when they were called upon to attend to it, and were urged and pressed by it: so, it is also very certain, there was none such in S. Cyprian's time, because the sixth general Council approved of the Canon made in the Council of Carthage, 
Can. 2.  because in praedictorum praesulum locis & solum secundùm traditam eis consuetudinem servatus est. 4. It had been best, if the Question had never been moved; and the next best had been to have suppressed and forgotten it instantly; for as it came in by zeal and partiality in the hands of the Cappadocian Bishops, so it was fed by pride and faction in the hands of the Donatists; and it could have no determination, but the mere nature of the thing itself; all the Apostles and Ministers of Religion were commanded to baptise in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and this was an admission to Christianity, not to any sect of it; and if this had been considered wisely, so it had been done by a Christian Minister in matter and form, there could be no more in it. And therefore the whole thing was to no purpose: so far was it from being an Article of Faith.  
4. The next pretence is, that the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, is an Article of our Faith, and yet no no where told in Scripture; and consequently tradition must help to make up the object of our Faith. To this some very excellent persons have opposed this Consideration, that the Greeks and Latins differ but in modo loquendi; and therefore both speaking the same thing in differing words, show, that the Controversy itself is trifling or mistaken. But though I wish them agreed; yet when I consider, that in all the endeavours for Union at the Council of Florence, they never understood one another to purposes of peace; I am apt to believe that those who would reconcile them, show their piety more than the truth of the thing, and that the Greeks and Latins differed entirely in this point. But then that on the Latin side, there should be a tradition Apostolical, can upon no other account be pretended, but that they could not prove it by Scripture, or show any Ecclesiastical law or authority for it. Now if we consider that the Greeks pretend their doctrine, not only from Scripture, but also from immemorial tradition, that is, that they have not innovated the doctrine which their Fathers taught them; and on the other side, that the Latins have, contrary to the Canon of the Council of Ephesus, superadded the clause of Filióque to the Constantinopolitan-Creed, and that by authority of a little Convention of Bishops at Gentilly, near to Paris, without the consent of the Catholic Church; and that by the Confession of Cardinal Perron, 
Contr. le R●y Jaques. p. 709.  not only the Scripture favours the Greeks, but Reason also; because it is unimaginable, that the same particular effect should proceed from two principles in the same kind; and although the three Persons created the world, yet that production was from the Divine essence, which is but one principle; but the opinion of the Latius is, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from two Persons, as Persons, and therefore from two principles, it will be very hard to suppose, that because all this is against them, therefore it is certain, that they had this from Apostolical tradition. The more natural consequence is, that their proposition is either mistaken, or uncertain, or not an article of Faith, (which is rather to be hoped, lest we condemn all the Greek Churches as Infidels, or perverse Heretics,) or else that it can be derived from Scripture; which last is indeed the most probable, and pursuant to the doctrine of those wiser Latins, who examined things by reason, and not by prejudice. But Cardinal Perron's argument is no better than this: Titius was accused to have deserted his station in the Battle, and carried false Orders to the Legion of Spurinna; He answers, I must either have received Orders from the General, or else you must suppose me to be a Coward, or a Traitor; for I had no warrant for what I did from the Book of Military Discipline: Well, what if you be supposed to be a Coward, or Traitor; what hurt is in that supposition? But must I conclude, that you had Order from the General, for fear I should think you did it on your own head, or that you are a Traitor? That's the case; Either this proposition is derived to us by Apostolical tradition, or we have nothing else to say for ourselves: well! Nempe hoc Ithacus velit; The Greeks allow the argument, and will say thus: You had nothing to say for yourselves, unless we grant that to you which is the Question, and which you can never prove, viz. that there is for this Article, an Apostolical tradition: but because both sides pretend that, let us try this thing by Scripture. And indeed that's the only way. And Cardinal Perron's argument may by any Greek be inverted, and turned upon himself. For he saying, It is not in Scripture; therefore it is a tradition of the Church: it is as good an argument; It is not delivered to us by universal Tradition, therefore either it is not at all, or it is derived to us from Scripture: and upon the account of this, for my part, I do believe it.  
5. The last instance of Cardinal Perron, is the observation of the Lord's Day; but this is matter of discipline and external rite; and because it cannot pretend to be an article of faith, or essentially necessary doctrine, the consideration is differnt from the rest. And it is soon at an end; but that the Cardinal would fain make some thing of nothing, by telling that the Jews complain of the Christians for changing Circumcision into Baptism, and the Saturday-sabbath into the Dominical, or Lord's-day: He might as well have added, They cry out against the Christians for changing Moses into Christ, the Law into the Gospel, the Covenant of works into the Covenant of faith, Ceremonies into substances, and rituals into spiritualities. And we need no further inquiry into this Question, but to consider, 
Perron ibid. 710.  what the Cardinal says, that God did the Sabbath a special honour by writing this ceremonial alone into the summary of the moral law. Now I demand, Whether there be not clear and plain Scripture, for the abolishing of the law of Ceremonies? If there be, than the law of the Sabbath is abolished. It is part of the hand-writing of ordinances, which Christ nailed to his Cross. Now when the Sabbath ceases to be obligatory, the Church is at liberty: but that there should be a time sanctified, or set apart for the proper service of God, I hope is also very clear from Scripture; and that the circumstances of religion are in the power of the precedents of religion; and than it will follow from Scripture, that the Apostles, or their Successors, or whoever did appoint the Sunday-festival, had not only great reason, but full authority, to appoint that day; and that this was done early, and continued constantly for the same reason, and by an equal authority, is no question. But as to the Sabbath, S. Paul gave express order that no man should be judged by any part of the ceremonial law, and particularly name's the Sabbath-days, 
Colos. 2. 16.  saying, They all were a shadow of things to come, but Christ is the substance. And yet after all this, The keeping of the Lord's-day was no law in Christendom till the Laodicean-Council; but the Jewish Sabbath was kept as strictly as the Chrisian Lord's-day; and yet both of them with liberty, but with an intuition to the avoiding offence, and the interests of religion: and the Lord's-day came not in stead of the Sabbath, and it did not succeed in the place of the Sabbath, but was merely a Christian festival, and holy day. But at last; That the keeping of the Lord's-day be a Tradition Apostolical, I desire it were hearty believed by every Christian; for though it would make nothing against the sufficiency of Scriptures in all Questions of faith and rules of manners, yet it might be an engagement on all men to keep it with the greater religion.  
6. At the end of this, it is fit I take notice of another particular offered by the By, not in justification of Tradition, but in defiance of them that oppose it. If the Protestants oppose all Tradition in General, 
E. W. p. 5.  they must quit every Tenet of Protestant religion (as Protestantism:) for Example sake: The belief of two Sacraments only, etc. The charge is fierce, and the stroke is little. It was unadvisedly said, That every Protestant Doctrine quâ talis, must be quitted if Scripture be the rule: for this very Proposition, That Scripture is the rule of our faith, is a main Protestant doctrine; and therefore certainly must not be quitted: if Scripture be the rule, that is, if the doctrine be true it must not be forsaken. And although in the whole progress of this book, Protestant religion will be greatly justified by Scripture, yet for the present I desire the Gentleman to consider a little better about giving the Chalice to all Communicants; whether their denying it to the Laity be by authority of Scripture? and I desire him to consider what place of the Old or New Testament he hath for worshipping and making the images of God the Father, and the Holy Ghost, or for having their public Devotions in an unknown tongue. But of these hereafter.  
As to the instance of two Sacraments only, I desire the Gentleman to understand our doctrine a little better. It is none of the Doctrine of the Church of England that there are two Sacraments only; But that, of those Rituals commanded in Scripture which the Ecclesiastical use calls Sacraments (by a word of art) Two only are generally necessary to Salvation. And although we are able to prove this by a Tradition much more Universal, than by which the Roman Doctors can prove seven, yet we rely upon Scripture for our Doctrine: and though, it may be, I shall not dispute it with this Gentleman that sends his chartel, unless he had given better proof of his learning and his temper; yet, I suppose, if he reads this book over, he shall find something first or last to instruct him, or at least to entertain him in that particular also. But for the present, lest such an unconcerning trifle be forgotten, I desire him to consider that he hath little reason to concern himself in the just number of seven Sacraments; for that there are brought in amongst them some new devices, I cannot call them Sacraments, but something like what they have already forged, which being but external rites, yet outdo most of their Sacraments. About the year 1630. there were introduced into Ireland by the Franciscans and Carmelite Friars three pretty propositions. 1. Whosoever shall die in the habit of S. Francis shall never be prevented with an unhappy death. 2. Whosoever shall take the Scapular of the Carmelites, and die in the same, shall never be damned. 3. Whosoever shall fast the first Saturday after they have heard of the death of Luissa, a Spanish Nun of the Order of S. Clare, shall have no part in the second death. Now these external rites promise more grace than is conferred by their Sacraments; for it promises a certainty of glory, and an intermediat certainty of being in the state of Grace; which to them is not and cannot be done (according to their doctrine) by all the other Sacraments and Sacramentals of their Church. Now these things are derived to them by pretended revelations of S. Francis, and S. Simon Stoc. And though I know not what the Priests and Friars in England will think or say of this matter, yet I assure them, in Ireland they are of great account, and with much fancy, religion and veneration used at this day. And not long since visiting some of my Churches I found an old Nun in the Neighbourhood, a poor Clare (as I think;) but missing her Cord about her, which I had formerly observed her to wear, I asked the cause, and was freely answered, that a Gentlewoman who had lately died had purchased it of her, to put about her in her grave. And of how great veneration the Saturday-fast is here, every one knows, but the cause I knew not, till I had learned the story of S. Luissa; and that Fleming, their Archbishop of Dublin, had given countenance to it by his example and credulity. But now it may be perceived that the question of seven Sacraments is outdone by the intervention of some new ones, which although they want the name, do greater effects, and therefore have a better title.  
But I proceed to more material considerations. Cardinal Perron hath chosen no other instances of matters necessary (as he supposes them;) but there are many ritual matters, customs, and ceremonies which were (at least it is said so) practised by the Apostolical Churches; and some it may be are descended down to us: but because the Churches practise many things which the Apostles did not; and the Apostles did and ordained many things, which the Church does not observe; it will not appertain to the Question, to say, There are, or are not, in these things Traditions Apostolical. The College of Widows is dissolved; the Canon of abstaining from things strangled, 
Vide Ductor. dub tantium, Rule of Conscience lib. 3. Reg. 11. n. 5. 6.  obliges not the Church: and S. Paul's rule of not electing a Bishop that is a Novice, or young Christian, is not always observed at Rome; nay S. Paul himself consecrated Timothy, when he was but twenty five years of age: and the 
* Regirald. Pra●is sori pae ●i. l. ●. c. 12. Sect. 3. n. 133.  Wednesday and Friday Fast, is pretended to have been a precept from the very times of the Apostles; and yet it is observed but in very few places: and of the fifty Canons called Apostolical, very few are observed in the Church at this day; and of 84 collected by Clement (as was supposed,) 
de Sacr. h●m. conti. l. 5. c. 105. Peres. de tradi●. part. 3. c. de author. Canon. Apost.  Michael Medina says, scarce six or eight are observed by the Latin Church. For in them many things are contained, saith Peresius, which by the corruption of times are not fully observed; others according to the quality of the matter and time being obliterated, or abrogated by the Magistery of the whole Church. 
De Coron. milit. cap. 3. & ●.  Tertullian speaks of divers unwritten Customs; of which tradition is the author, custom is the confirmer, and faith is the observer. Such are the renunciations in the office of Baptism, trine Immersion, tasting milk and honey; abstinence from the Bath, for a week after; the receiving the Eucharist before day, or in the time of their meal from the hand of the presisidents of Religion; anniversary oblations on birth-days, and for the dead; not to fast, not to kneel on Sundays; perpetual festivities from Easter to Whitsuntide; not to endure, without great trouble, bread or drink to fall upon the ground; and at every motion, to sign the forehead, with the sign of the Cross. Some of these are rituals, and some are still observed, and some are superstitious and observed by no body; and some that are not, may be if the Church please: these indeed were traditions, or customs before his time; but not so much as pretended to be Apostolical; but if they were, are yet of the same consideration with the rest. If they be customs of the Church, they are not, without great reason and just authority, to be laid aside: But are of no other argument against Scripture, than if all the particular customs of all Churches were urged. For, if they had come from the Apostles (as these did not,) yet if the Apostles say, dicit Dominus, they must be obeyed for ever; but if the word be, dico ego, non Dominus, the Church hath her liberty to do what in the changing times is most for edification. And therefore in these things, let the Church of Rome pretend what traditions Apostolical she please of this nature, the Church may keep them, or lay them aside, according to what they judge is best. For if those Canons and traditions of the Apostles, of which there is no question, and which are recorded in Scripture, yet are worn out, and laid aside; those certainly which are pretended to be such, and cannot be proved, cannot pass into perpetual obligation, whether the Churches will or no.  
I shall not need upon this head, to consider any more instances; because all the points of Popery are pretended to rely upon Tradition. The novelty of which, because I shall demonstrate in their proper places, proving them to be so far from being traditions Apostolical, that they are mere Innovations in Religion: I shall now represent the uncertainty and fallibility of the pretence of Traditions in ordinary; and the certain deceptions of those who trust them, & the impossibility of ending many questions by them. I shall not bring the usual arguments which are brought from Scriptures against traditions; because although those which Christ condemns in the Pharisees, and the Apostles in Heretical persons, are not reproved for being Traditions, but for being without Divine authority; that is, they are either against the Commandment of God, or without any warrant from God: yet if there be any traditions, real and true; that is, words of God not written, they (if they could be shown) would be very good. But then I desire the same ingenuity on the other side; and that the Roman Writers would not trouble the Question, or abuse their Readers, by bringing Scriptures to prove their traditions: not by showing they are recorded in Scripture; 
2. Thes. 2.  but by bringing Scriptures where the word tradition is named. 
2. Tim. 2.  For besides that such places cannot be with any modesty pretended, as proofs of the particular traditions; it is also certain, that they cannot prove that in General there are, or can be, any unrecorded Scripture, when the whole Canon should be written, consigned, and entertained. For it may be necessary, that traditions should be called on to be kept before Scriptures were written, and yet afterwards not necessary; and those things which were delivered and are not in Scripture, may be lost, because they were not written; and then that may be impossible for us to do, which at first might have been done. But this being laid aside, I proceed to Considerations proper to the Question.  
1. Tertullian, S. Hierom, and S. Austin are pretended the Great Patrons of Tradition; and they have given rules by which we shall know Apostolical Traditions: and it is well they do so; for sand ought to be put into a glass, and water into a vessel; something to limit the running element, that when you have received it, you may keep it. A nuncupative record is like figures in the air, or diagrams in sand; the air and the wind will soon disorder the lines. And God knowing this, and all things else, would not trust so much as the Ten words of Moses to oral tradition, but twice wrote them in Tables of Stone with his own singer. 
Clem. Alexan. Strom. lib. 1. pag. 276.  [I know (said S. Clement) that many things are lost by length of time, for want of writing; and therefore I of necessity make use of memorial, and collection of Chapters, to supply the weakness of my memory.] And when S. Ignatius, in his journey towards Martyrdom, confirmed the Churches through which he passed, by private exhortations, as well as he was permitted; he exhorted them all, to adhere to the tradition of the Apostles, (meaning that doctrine which was preached by them in their Churches) and added this advice, or caution, 
Eusib lib. 3.  That he esteemed it was necessary, that this Tradition should be committed to writing, 
Eccles. hist. c. 35. Graec.  that it might be preserved to posterity: and Reports by word of mouth are uncertain, that for want of good Records, we cannot tell who was S. Peter's Successor immediately; whether Clemens, 
Theo loret. l. r. c. 8. Eccles. hip●.  Linus, or Anacletus; and the subscriptions of S. Paul's Epistles, having no record but the Uncertain voice of Tradition, are in some things evidently mistaken, and in some others, very uncertain. And upon the same account, we cannot tell how many Bishops were convened at Nice: Eusebius says they were 250. S. Athanasius says, they were just 300. Eustratius in Theodoret, 
Bellar. de Concil. & Eccles. l. 1. c. 5. Sect. De numer●.  says they were above 270. Sozomen says, they were about 310. Epiphanius and others, say they were 318. And when we consider how many pretences have been, and are daily made of Traditions Apostolical, which yet are not so, a wise man will take heed, lest his credulity and good nature, make him to become a fool. S. Clemens Alexandrinus says, that the Apostles preached to dead Infidels, and then raised them to life: and that the Greeks were justified by their Philosophy; and accounts these among the Ancient Traditions. 
Epist. ad Episc. Antioch.  Pope Marcellus was bold to say, that it was an Apostolical Tradition or Canon, that a Council could not be called but by the authority of the Bishop of Rome: but the Churches in the first ages practised otherwise, and the Greeks never believed it; nor are all the Latin Churches of that opinion, as shall be shown in the sequel: The second Canon of the Council in Trullo, commands observation of no less than fourscore and five Canons Apostolical delivered to the Church; but, besides that no Church keeps them, there are not many who believe that they came from the Apostles. S. Austin said that the Communicating of Infants was an Apostolical Tradition; but neither the Protestants, nor the Papists, believe him in that particular. 
Stromat. lib. 1. lib. 2. c. 39  Clemens Alexandrinus said, that Christ preached but one year; S. Irenaeus confutes that Tradition vehemently, and said it was an Apostolical Tradition, That Christ was about 50 years of age when he died, and therefore it must be, that he preached almost 20 years; for the Scripture says, 
Matth. 4. 17.  Jesus began to be about 30 years old, 
Marc. 1. 14.  when he was baptised; and presently after he began to preach. 
Luc. 3. 23.  Now this story of the great age of Christ, Irenaeus says, That all the old men that were with Saint John the Disciple of our Lord, say, that S. John did deliver unto them. Nay, not only so, but some of them heard the same from others also of the Apostles. There were many more of such traditions; the day would fail to reckon all the Unwritten Mysteries of the Church, 
Cap. 29.  said the Author of the last Chapters of the Book de Spiritu Sancto, falsely imputed to S. Basil: and yet he could reckon but a few; all the rest are lost: and of those that remain, some are not at all observed in any Church. But there cannot be a greater instance of the vanity of pretending Traditions, than the collection of the Canons Apostolical by Clement, 
Lib. 1. c. 18. C●●h. fide.  which Damascen reckons as parts of the New Testament, that is, equal to Canonical Writings of the Apostles; but Isidore Hispalensis says, they were Apocryphal, made by heretics, and published in the name of the Apostles; 
Apud Gratian. dist. 16. c. Canon's.  but neither the Fathers nor the Church of Rome did give assent to them: and yet their authority is received by many in the Church of Rome even at this day. But it is to be observed, that men accept them, or refuse them, not according to their authority, which in all the first fifty, at least, is equal: But if they be for their interest, than they are Apostolical; if against them, than they are interpolated, and Apocryphal, and spurious, and heretical: as it hath happened in the fifth Canon, and the 8⅘.  
But this is yet more manifest, if we consider what 
* Tract. 26. in Matth. Oportet causè considerare, ut nec omnia secreta, quae feruntur nomine Sanctorum, suscipiamus, propter Judae●s, qui fortè ad destructionem veritatis Scripturarum nostrarum quaedam finxerunt confirmantes dogmata falsa; nec omnia abjiciamus, quae pertinent ad demonstrationem Scripturarum nostrarum: magni ergo viri est audire & adimplere quod dictum est, Omni probate, quod bonum est tenere. Tamen propter eos qui non possunt quasi Trapezitae inter verba discernere, vera hobeantur an falsa, & non possunt semetipsos cautè● servare ut verum quidem teneant apud se, ab omni autem specie malâ abstineant, nemo uti d●b●t ad confirmationem dogmatum libris qui sunt extra Canonizatas Scripturas]  Origen says, No man ought for the confirmation of doctrines (or opinions) to use books which are not Canonised Scriptures. Now, for aught appears to the contrary, many Traditions were two or three hundred years old the first day they were born; and it is not easy to reckon by what means the Fathers came, or might come, to admit many things to be Tradition; and themselves were not sure: therefore they made rules of their conjecture, presumptions, and sometimes weak arguings. It will be much more hard for us to tell which are right and which are wrong; who have nothing but their rules, which were then but conjectural, and are since proved in many instances to be improbable.  
1. Such is that rule of S. Austin, 
Lib. 4. de baptis. contr. Donat. c. 24. etc. 6.  Whatsoever was anciently received, and not instituted (so far as men looking back may observe) by posterity, that is, not decreed by Councils, may most rightly be believed to descend from Apostolical Tradition: That is, if we do not know the beginning of an universal custom, we may safely conclude it to be Primitive, and Apostolic. Which kind of rule is something like what a witty Gentleman said of an old man and an old woman in Ireland; that if they should agree to say that they were Adam and Eve, no man living could disprove them. But though these persons are so old that no man remembers their beginning, and though a custom be immemorial, and hath prevailed far and long; yet to reduce this to the beginning of things may be presumed by him that a mind to it, but can never convince him that hath not. And it is certain, this rule is but a precarious pitiful Presumption, since every ancient custom that any succeeding age hath a mind to continue, may, for the credit of it, and the ignorance of the original, like new upstart Gentlemen, be entitled to an Honourable House. Every one believes the Commandments of his Ancestors to be Traditions Apostolical, said S. Hierom: And that these came in by private authority, and yet obtained a public name, we have competent warranty from Tertullian, 
De Coronâ Milit. c. 4.  who justifies it thus far. [Do you not think it lawful for every faithful man to appoint what ever he thinks may please God, unto discipline and salvation? And [From whomsoever the Tradition comes, regard not the Author, but the Authority.] And S. Irenaeus tells, 
Apud Euseb. l. 5. c. 26. Gr. 24. L●t.  that the variety of keeping Lent (which puts in strongly also to be an Apostolical Tradition) began among his Ancestors [who did not accurately observe their customs, who by a certain simplicity or private authority appointed any thing for their posterity.] So that here it is apparent that every private man that was of an ancient standing in the Church, might introduce customs and usages which himself thought pious. And next, it is also evident, that when these customs derived from their Ancestors, happened to continue in a lasting use, their posterity was very apt to call them Traditions Apostolical: according to 
* Lib. de Coronâ Militis. Si legem nusquam reperio, sequitur ut Traditio consuetudini morem hunc dederit, habitu um quandóque Apostoli authoritatem ex interpretatione rationis.  Tertullian, who confessed this very thing. Thus things indifferent being esteemed useful or pious, became customary, and then came for reverence into a putative and usurped authority: But they who, having this warning from the very persons whence the mistake comes, will yet swallow the hook, deserve to live upon air and fancy, and to chew deceit.  
But this Topick of pretended Tradition is the most fallible thing in the world; for it is discovered, of some things that are called Apostolical tradition, that they had their original of being so esteemed upon the authority and reputation of one man. Some I say have been so discovered. Papias was the Author of the Millenary opinion, which prevailed for about three whole ages; and that so Universally, that Justin Martyr said it was believed by all that were perfectly Orthodox; and yet it recurres to him only as the fountain of the Tradition. But of this I shall say no more, because this instance hath been by others examined and cleared. The assumption of the Virgin Mary is esteemed a Tradition Apostolical, but it can derive no higher than S. Austin, 
In serm. de Assumptione.  whose doctrine alone brought into the Church the veneration of the Assumption; which S. Hierom yet durst not be confident of. But the Tradition of keeping Easter the fourteen day of the Moon, derived only from S. John, 
Salmeron tract. 51. in Rom. 5. p. 468 in marg.  and the Asiatic Bishops: but the other from S. Peter, and S. Paul prevailed, though it had no greater authority. But the Communicating of Infants prevailed for many ages in the West, 
S. Hierom. dial. adv. Lucifer.  and to this day in the East, and went for an Apostolical Tradition; but the fortune of it is changed, and it now passes for an error: and S. Hierom said, It was an Apostolical Tradition, that a Priest should never baptise without Chrism; but of this we have scarce any testimony but his own.  
But besides this, there was in the beginning of Christianity, some Apocryphal books: of these, Origen gave great caution; 
Tract. 26. in Matth.  and because the falsity of these, every good man could not discover, therefore he charges them, that they should offer to prove no Opinion from any books, but from the Canonical Scriptures, as I have already quoted him; but these were very busy in reporting traditions. The book of Hermes seduced S. Clemens of Alexandria into a belief, that the Apopostles preached to them that died Infidels, and then raised them to life: and the Apocryphal books under the title of Peter and Paul, make him believe that the Greeks were saved by their Philosophy: and the Gospel of Nicodemus (so far as yet appears) was author of the pretended tradition of the signing with the Sign of the Cross, at every motion of the body; and led Tertullian, and S. Basil, and, in consequence, the Churches of succeeding ages, into the practice of it. A little thing will draw on a willing mind; and nothing is so credulous, as piety and timorous Religion; and nothing was more fearful to displease God, and curious to please him than the Primitive Christians; and every thing that would invite them to what they thought pious was sure to prevail; and how many such pretences might enter in at this wide door, every man can easily observe.  
Add to this, that the world is not agreed about the competency of the testimony; or what is sufficient to prove tradition to be Apostolical. Some require and allow only the testimony of the present Catholic Church, to prove a Tradition: which way if it were sufficient, than it is certain, that many things which the primitive Fathers and Churches esteemed tradition, would be found not to be such; because (as appears in divers instances above reckoned) they admitted many traditions which the present Church rejects. 2. If this were the way, than truth were as variable as time; and there could be no degrees of credibility in testimony, but still the present were to carry it; that is, every age were to believe themselves, and no body else. And the reason of these things is this, because some things have in some ages been universally received, in others universally rejected. I instance in the state of Saints departed, which once was the opinion of some whole ages; and now we know in what ages it is esteemed an error. 3. The Communicating Infants, before instanced in, was the practice of the Church for 600 years together. 
Maldonat. in 6. Joh. 53. videetiam Espéncaeu● de adorat. Eucharist. l. 2. c. 12.  Now all that while, there was no Apostolical tradition against this doctrine and practice, or at lest none known: for, if there had, these Ages would not have admitted this doctrine: But if there were no tradition against it at that time, there is none now. And indeed the Testimony of the present Church cannot be useful in the Question of Tradition, if ever there was any age or number of orthodox and learned men, that were against it: only in a negative way it can be pretended; that is, if there was no doctrine, or practice, or report ever to the contrary, than they that have a mind to it, may suppose, or hope, it was Apostolical; or at least, they cannot be sure that it was not. But this way can never be useful in the Questions of Christendom, because in them there is Father against Son, and Son against Father; Greeks against Latin: and their minds differ as far, as East and West; and therefore it cannot be in our late Questions, that there was never any thing said to the contrary; but if there was, than the testimony of the present Church is not sufficient to prove the tradition to be Catholic and Apostolic. 4. If the testimony of the present Church were a sure record of Tradition Apostolical, than it is because the present Church is infallible; but for that, there is neither Scripture, nor Tradition: or, if there were for its infallibility in matter of faith, yet there is none for its infallibility in matter of fact; and such is the Tradition: concerning which the Question only is, Whether such a thing was actually taught by an Apostle, and transmitted down by the hand of uninterrupted succession of Sees and Churches. Antiquissimum quodque, verissimum. We know the fountains were pure; and the current, by how much the nearer it is to the spring, it is the less likely to be corrupted. And therefore it is a beginning at the wrong end, to say, The present Church believes this, therefore so did the primitive: but let it be showed that the primitive did believe this; for else it is Outfacing of an Opponent; as if he ought to be aashamed to question whether you have done well, or no. For, if that question may be asked, it must be submitted to trial, and it must be answered; and the holding the opinion, will not justify the holding it; that must be done by something else: therefore the sampler and the sampled must be compared together; and it will be an ill excuse, if a servant, who delivers a spotted garment to his Lord, and tells him, Thus it was delivered to me, for thus you see it is now. If he can prove it was so at first, he may be justified, but else at no hand. And I and all the world will be strangely to seek what the Church of Rome means, by making conformity to the Primitive Church, a note of the true Church; if [being now as it is] be the rule for what it ought to be: For if so, then well may we examine the primitive Church by the present, but not the present by the primitive. 
5.  5. If the present Catholic Church were infallible, yet we were not much the nearer, unless this Catholic Church could be consulted with, and heard to speak; not then neither, unless we know which were indeed the Catholic Church. There is no word in Scripture, that the testimony of the present Church, is the infallible way of proving the unwritten word of God; and there is no tradition. that it is so, that I ever yet heard of; and it is impossible it should be so, because the present Church of several ages have had contrary traditions: And if neither be, why shall we believe it? if there be, let it be showed. In the mean time, it is something strange, that the infallibility of a Church, should be brought to prove every particular tradition; and yet itself be one of those particular traditions which proves itself.  
But there is a better way: Vincentius Lerinensis his way, of judging a traditional doctrine to be Apostolical and Divine, is, The consent of all Churches, and all Ages. It is something less that S. Austin requires, 
Lib. 2. de doct. Christiana. c. 8.  Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quamplurimùm sequatur (authoritatem,) inter quas sane illae sunt quae Apostolicas sedes habere, & Epistolas accipere meruerunt. He speaks it of the particular of judging what Books are Canonical; In which, as tradition is the way to judge, so the rule of tradition is the consent of most of the Catholic Churches; particularly, those places where the Apostles did sit, and to which the Apostles did write. But this fancy of S. Austin's, is to be understood so, as not to be measured by the practice, but by the doctrine of the Apostolical Churches. For that any, or more of these Churches did, or did not do so, is no argument, that such a Custom came from the Apostles; or if it did, that it did oblige succeeding ages: unless this Custom began by a doctrine, and that the tradition came from the Apostles, with a declaration of its perpetual obligation. And therefore this is only of use in matters of necessary doctrine. But because there is in this question, many differing degrees of authority; he says that our assent is to be given accordingly. Those which are received of all the Catholic Churches are to be preferred, before those which are not received by all; and of these, those are to be preferred, which have the more and the graver testimony: but if it should happen (which yet is not) that some are witnessed by the more, and others by the graver, let the assent be equal.] This indeed, is a good way to know nothing; for if one Apostolical Church differ from another in a doctrinal tradition, no man can tell whom to follow, for they are of equal authority; and nothing can be thence proved, but that Oral tradition is an uncertain way of conveying a Doctrine. But yet this way of S. Austin, is of great and approved use, in the knowing what Books are Canonical; and in these things it can be had, in some more, in some less, in all more than can be said against it: and there is nothing in succeeding times, to give a check to our assents in their degrees, because the longer the Succession runs, still the more the Church was established in it. But yet concerning those Books of Scripture, of which it was long doubted in the Church, whether they were part of the Apostolical Canon of Scripture; there ought to be no pretence, that they were delivered for such by the Apostles, at least not by those Churches, who doubted of them: unless they will confess, that either their Churches were not founded by an Apostle; or that the Apostle, who founded them, was not faithful in his Office, in transmitting all that was necessary; or else that those Books (particularly, the Epistle to the Hebrews, etc.) were no necessary part of the Canon of Scripture; or else, lastly, that that Church was no faithful keeper of the Tradition which came from the Apostle. All which things, because they will be denied by the Church of Rome concerning themselves; the consequent will be, that Tradition is an Uncertain thing; &, if it cannot be entire and full in assigning the Canon of Scripture, it is hardly to be trusted for any thing else which consists of words subject to divers interpretations. But in other things (it may be) the case is not so: For we find that in divers particulars, to prove a point to be a Tradition Apostolical, use is made of the testimony of the three first Ages. Indeed, these are the likest to know; but yet they have told us of some things to be Traditions, which we have no reason to believe to be such. Only thus far they are useful; If they never reported a doctrine, it is the less likely to descend from the Apostles; and if the order of succession be broken any where, the succeeding ages can never be surer. If they speak against a doctrine, as for example, against the half-Communion, we are sure, it was no Tradition Apostolical; if they speak not at all of it, we can never prove the Tradition; for it may have come in since that time, and yet come to be thought or called Tradition Apostolical from other causes, of which I have given account. And indeed there is no security sufficient, but that which can never be had; and that is, the Universal positive testimony of all the Church of Christ; which he that looks for in the disputed Traditions, pretended by the Church of Rome, may look as long as the Jews do for their wrong Messiah. So much as this is, can never be had; and less than this, will never do it. I will give one considerable instance of this affair: The Patrons of the opinion of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin-mother, 
Salmeron. disp. 51. in Rom. 5.  allege, that they have the consent of almost the Universal Church, and the agreeing sentence of all Universities, especially of the chief, that is, of Paris; where no man is admitted to be Master in Theology, unless he binds himself by oath to maintain that doctrine. They allege, that since this question began to be disputed, almost all the Masters in Theology, all the Preachers of the Word of God, all Kings and Princes, republics and peoples, all Popes and Pastors, and Religions (except a part of one) consent in this doctrine. They say, that of those Authors which are by the other side pretended against it, some are falsely cited, others are wrested and brought in against their wills; some are scarce worth the remembering, and are of an obsolete and worn-out authority.] Now if these men say true, than they prove a tradition, or else nothing will prove it but a consent absolutely Universal, which is not to be had. For, on the other side, They that speak against the immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, particularly Cardinal Cajetan, bring (as he says) the irrefragable testimony of fifteen Fathers against it: others bring no less than two hundred; and Bandellus brings in almost three hundred:] and that will go a great way to prove a Tradition. But that this also is not sufficient, see what the other side say to this. They say [that Scotus, and Holcot, and Vbertinusde Casalis, and the old Definition of the University of Paris, and S. Ambrose, and S. Augustine are brought in falsely or violently; and if they were not, yet they say it is an illiteral disputation, and not far from Sophistry, to proceed in this way of arguing: For it happens sometimes that a multitude of Opiners proceeds only from one famous Doctor; and that when the Donatists did glory in the multitude of Authors, S. Austin answered, that it was a sign the cause wanted truth, when it endeavoured to rely alone upon the authority of many: and that it was not fit to relate the sentiment of S. Bernard, Bonaventure, Thomas, and other Devotees of the Blessed Virgin, as if they were most likely to know her privileges, and therefore would not have denied this of Immaculate Conception, if it had been her due. For she hath many devout servants the world knows not of: and Elisha, though he had the spirit of Elias doubled upon him, yet said, Dominus celavit à me, & non indicavit mihi; and when Elias complained he was left alone, God said he had 7000 more. And the Apostles did not know all things; and S. Peter walked not according to the truth of the Gospel; and S. Cyprian erred in the point of rebaptising heretics. For God hath not given all things unto all persons, that every age may have proper truths of its own, which the former age knew not.] Thus Salmeron discourses, and this is the way of many others, more eminent; who make use of authority and antiquity when it serves their turn; and when it does not, it is of no use, and of no value.  
But if these things be thus, then how shall Tradition be proved? if the little remnant of the Dominican party, which are against the Immaculate Conception, should chance to be brought off from their opinion (as, if all the rest of the other Orders, and many of this be already, it is no hard thing to conjecture, that the rest may) and that the whole Church (as they will then call it) be of one mind, shall it then be reasonable to conclude, that then this doctrine was and is an Apostolical Tradition; when as yet we know and dare say, it is not? That's the case, and that's the new doctrine: but how impossible it is to be true, and how little reason there is in it, is now too apparent. I see that Vowing to Saints is now at Rome accounted an Apostolical doctrine: but with what confidence can any Jesuit tell me that it is so, when by the Confession of their chief parties it came in later than the fountains of Apostolical Doctrines. 
De cultu S S. lib. 3. c. 9 Sect. Praetereà.  When the Scriptures were written, the use of vowing to Saints was not begun, saith Bellarmine; and Cardinal 
* Country le Roy Jaques.  Perron confesses that in the Authors more near to the Apostolical age, no footsteps of this custom can be found. Where then is the Tradition Apostolical? or can the affirmation of the present Church make it so? To make a new thing, is easy; but no man can make an old thing.  
The consequence of these things is this: All the doctrines of faith and good life are contained and expressed in the plain places of Scripture; and besides it, there are and there can be no Articles of faith: and therefore they who introduce other articles, and upon other principles, introduce a faith unknown to the Apostles and the Fathers of the Primitive Church. And that the Church of Rome does this, I shall manifest in the following discourses.   

SECTION IU.  
There is nothing of necessity to be believed, which the Apostolical Churches did not believe.  
IN the first Part of the Dissuasive, it was said, that the two Testaments are the Fountains of Faith; and whatsoever (viz. as belonging to the faith) came in after these, foris est, is to be cast out; it belongs not to Christ: and now, I suppose, what was then said is fully verified. And the Church of Rome, obtruding many propositions upon the belief of the Church, which are not in Scripture, and of which they can never show any Universal or Apostolical Tradition, urging those upon pain of Damnation, imposing an absolute necessity of believing such points, which were either denied by the Primitive Church, or were counted but indifferent, and matters of opinion, hath disordered the Christian Religion, and made it to day a new thing, and unlike the great and glorious Founder of it, who is the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. The charge here then is double, they have made new Necessities, and they have made new Articles.  
I choose to speak first of their tyrannical Manner of imposing their Articles; viz. every thing under pain of damnation: The other of the new Matter, is the subject of the following Sections.  
First then, I allege that the primitive Church being taught by Scripture and the examples Apostolical, affirmed but few things to be necessary to salvation. They believed the whole Scriptures; every thing they had learned there, they equally believed: but because every thing was not of equal necessity to be believed, they did not equally learn and teach all that was in Scripture. But the Apostles (say some,) oaths say that immediately after them the Church, did agree upon a Creed, a Symbol of Articles which were in the whole, the foundation of Faith, the ground of the Christian hope; and that, upon which charity, or good life, was to be built. There were in Scripture many Creeds; the Gentiles Creed, 
Matth. 16. 16.  Martha's Creed, the Eunuches Creed, S. Peter's Creed, 
1 Joh. 4. 2. & 15.  S. Paul's Creed; To believe that God is, and that he is the rewarder of them that seek him diligently: To believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God, 
Joh. 20. 31. & 11. 27.  that Jesus is come in the flesh; 
Hebr. 11. & 6. 69.  that he risen again from the dead; these Confessions were the occasions of admirable effects; by the first the Gentiles come to God; by the following, 
Matth. 16. 17.  blessedness is declared, salvation is promised to him that believes, and to him that confesses this, God will come and dwell in him, and he shall dwell in God; and this belief is the end of writing the Gospel, as, having life through Christ, is the end of this belief: 
Rom. 10▪ 8.  and all this is more fully explicated by S. Paul's Creed; 
M●tth. 10. 32.  This is the word of faith which we preach, that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, 
Marc. 8. 38.  and shalt believe in thine heart, 
Luc. 9 26. & 12. 8.  that God hath raised him from the Dead, thou shalt be saved. 
2 Tim. 2. 12.  This is the word of faith; 
Apocal. 3. 5.  which if we confess with our mouths, and entertain and believe in our heart; that is, do live according to it, we shall certainly be saved. If we acknowledge Christ to be our Lord, that is, our Lawgiver, and our Saviour, to rescue us from our sins and their just consequents, we have all faith; and nothing else can be the foundation, but such Articles which are the confession of those two truths, Christ Jesus our Lord, Christ Jesus our Saviour; that by Faith we be brought unto Obedience and Love; & by this love we be brought to Christ, and by Christ unto God; this is the whole complexion of the Christian faith, the Oeconomy of our salvation. There are many other doctrines of Christianity of admirable use, and fitted to great purposes of knowledge and Government; 
Rom. 10. 8.  but the word of faith (as S. Paul calls it) that which the Apostles preached, viz. to all, and as of particular remark, and universal efficacy, and absolute sufficiency to salvation, is that which is described by himself, in those few words now quoted. Other foundation than this, no man can lay, that is, Jesus Christ Every thing else is but a superstructure; and though it may, if it be good, be of advantage; yet if it be amiss, so the foundation be kept, it will only be matter of loss and detriment, but consistent with salvation. And therefore S. Paul judged, that he would know nothing but Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And this is the sum total of all; This is the Gospel: so S. Paul, most fully; I declare unto you the Gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand, by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I have preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain: And what is this Gospel, this word preached and received, that by which we stand, and that by which we are saved? It is nothing but this, I delivered unto you first of all that which I received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he risen again the third day, according to the Scriptures. This was the traditum, the depositum, this was the Evangelium; Christ died: he died for our sins, and he risen again for us; and this being the great Tradition, by which they tried the Spirits, yet was it laid up in Scriptures. 
1 Cor. 3. 11.  That Christ died, was according to the Scriptures; that he risen again, was according to the Scriptures; and that S. Paul twice, 
* 1 Cor. 15. 3. 4. 1 Cor. 2. 2.  and that so immediately, remarks this, is not without mystery; but it can imply to us nothing but this, that our whole faith is laid up in the Scriptures; and this faith is perfected, as to the essentiality of it, in the Death and Resurrection of Christ; as being the whole Oeconomy of our pardon, and Justification. And it is yet further remarkable, that when S. Paul (as he often does) renews and repeats this Christian Creed; 
1 Cor. 4. 6.  he calls upon us, 
Rom. 12. 3.  not to be wise above what is written; and to be wise unto sobriety. Which he afterwards expounding, says; 
vers. 5.  He that prophesies, let him do it according to the proportion of Faith; that is, if he will enlarge himself he may, and prophesy greatly; but still to keep himself to the analogy of Faith; not to go beyond that, not to be wiser than that measure of sobriety. And if we observe the three Sermons of S. Peter, the Sermon of S. Philip, and S. Silas, 
Acts 2. 24. & 3. 12.  the Sermons of S. Paul often preached in the Synagogues; they were all but this: that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; that he is the Lord of all; 
Acts 8. 12. 37, 38.  that he is the Christ of God, that God anointed him, 
Acts 9 20. & 17. 2. & 16. 31. & 1●. 2. 18. 2. 31.  that he was crucified and raised again from the dead; and that repentance, and remission of sins, was to be preached in his name.  
But as the Spirit of God did purpose for ever with strictness to retain the simplicity of Faith, so also he was pleased so far to descant upon the plain ground, as to make the mystery of godliness to be clearly understood by all men. And therefore that we might see it necessary to believe in Jesus, it was necessary we should understand he was a person to be relied upon, that he was infinitely credible, powerful, and wise, just and holy; and that we might perceive it necessary and profitable to obey him, it was fit we understood Why; that is, What good would follow him that is obedient, and what evil to the refractory. This was all; and this indeed was the necessary appendage of the simple and pure word of Faith; and this the Apostles drew into a Symbol, and particular minute of Articles. Now although the first was sufficient; yet they knowing it was fit we should understand this simplicity, with the investiture of some circumstances; and yet knowing, that it was not fit, the simplicity of Faith, should be troubled with new matter, were pleased to draw the whole into a Scheme, sufficient and intelligible, but nothing perplexed, nothing impertinent: and this the Church hath called the Apostles Creed; which contains all that which is necessary to be enquired after, and believed by an Universal and prime necessity.  
True it is, other things may become necessary, by accident, and collateral obligations; and if we come to know what God in the abundance of his wisdom and goodness, hath spoken to mankind, we are bound to believe it: but the case is different. Many things may be necessary to be believed, that we may acknowledge God's veracity: and so also many things are necessary to be done, in obedience to the empire and dictates of the conscience; which oftentimes hath authority, when she hath no reason; and is a peremptory Judge, when she is no wise Counsellor. But though these things are true; yet nothing is a necessary Article of Faith, but that which ministers necessarily to the great designs of the Gospel, that is, a life conformable to God, a Godlike life, and an imitation of of the Holy Jesus. To believe, and to have faith in the Evangelical sense, are things very different. Every man is bound to have Faith in all the proper objects of it. But only some men are bound to believe truths, which are not matters of Faith. This obliges upon supposition of a manifest discovery, which may, or may not happen; but in the other case, we are bound to inquire; and all of us must be instructed, and e'er man must assent: and without this, we cannot be Christ's Disciples; we are rebels, if we oppose the other, and no good man can or does.  
For if he be satisfied, that it is the word and mind of God, he must and will believe it, he cannot choose; and if he will not confess it, when he thinks God bids him, or if he opposes it when he thinks God speaks it, he is malicious and a villain; but if he does not believe God said it, than he must answer for more than he knows, or than he ought to believe, that is, the Articles of Faith: but we are not Subjects or Children, unless we consent to these. The other cannot come into the common accounts of mankind, but as a man may become a law unto himself, by a confident, an unnecessary, and even a false persuasion (because, even an erring conscience, can bind) so much more can God become a law unto us, when we by any accident, come into the knowledge of any Revelation from God: but these are not the Christian Faith (in the strict and proper sense;) that is, these are not the foundation of our Religion: many a man is a good Christian without them; and goes to Heaven, though he know nothing of them; but without these, no Christian can be saved.  
Now then, the Apostles, the founders of Christianity, knowing the nature, design, efficacy and purpose of the Articles of Faith, selected such propositions, which in conjunction did integrate our Faith, and were therefore necessary to be believed unto salvation; not because these Articles were for themselves commanded to be believed; but because, without the belief of them, we could not obtain the purposes and designs of faith; that is, we could not be enabled to serve God, to destroy the whole body of sin, to be partakers of the Divine Nature. This Collect or Symbol of propositions is that which we call the Apostles Creed, which I shall endeavour to prove to have been always in the Primitive Church esteemed a full and perfect Digest of all the necessary and fundamental Articles of Christian Religion: and that beyond this, the Christian faith or the foundation was not to be extended; but this, as it was in the whole Complexion necessary, so it was sufficient for all men unto Salvation.  
S. Paul gave us the first formal intimation of this measure, 
2 Tim. 1. 13.  in his advices to S. Timothy: Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me in faith and love, which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost, which dwelleth in us.] This was the depositum that S. Paul left with Timothy; the hypotyposis or summary of Christian Belief, the Christian Creed; which S. Paul opposes to the profane new talk, 
1 Tim. 6. 20.  and the disputations of pretended learning: meaning, that this Symbol of faith is the thing on which all Christians are to rely; and this is the measure of their faith; other things, it is odds, but they are babble, and profane quarrelling, and unedifying argumentations. S. Ignatius recites the substance of this Creed in four of the Epistles usually attributed to him; 
Epist 3. ad Magnes. & 5. add Philipp. & 7. ad Smyrnens. & 11. add Eph●sio.  some of which are witnessed by Eusebius and S. Hierom; and adds at the end of it this Epiphonema; Haec qui planè cognôrit & crediderit, beatus est. And S. Irenaeus reciting the same Creed, or form of words, differing only in order of placing them, 
S. Irenaeus, lib. 1. ca ●▪ 2.  but justly the same Articles and Foundation of faith, affirms that this is the faith which the Catholic Church to the very ends of the Earth hath received from the Apostles and their disciples. And this is that Tradition Apostolical of which the Churches of old did so much glory, and to which with so much confidence they appealed, and by which they provoked the heretics to trial. 
Et. cap. 3.  [This Preaching and this Faith when the Church scattered over the face of the world had received, she keeps diligently as dwelling in one house; and believes, as having one soul and one heart; and preaches and teaches, and delivers these things, as possessing one mouth. For although there are divers speeches in the world, yet the force of the Tradition is one and the same. Neither do the Churches founded in Germany believe otherwise, aut aliter tradunt, or have any other tradition; nor the Iberian Churches, or those among the Celtaes, nor the Churches in the East, in Egypt, or in Lybia, nor those which are in the midst of the world.] But he adds, that this is not only for the ignorant, the idiots or Catechumeni; but [neither he who is most eloquent among the Bishops can say any other things than these: for no man is above his Master: neither hath he that is the lowest in speaking lessened the tradition. For the faith is one and the same; he that can speak much, can speak no more; and he that speaks little, says no less.] This Creed also he recites again, affirming that even those Nations, who had not yet received the books of the Apostles and Evangelists, yet by this Confession and this Creed, 
Lib 3 cap. 4. Propter fidem per quam sapientissimi sunt.  did please God, and were most wise through faith: for this is that which he calls, the tradition of the truth; that is, of that truth which the Apostles taught the Church; and by the actual retention of which truth, it is, that the Church is rightly called, the pillar and ground of truth, by S. Paul; 
Lib. 4. cap. 62.  and in relation to this, S. Irenaeus reckoned it to be all one; extra veritatem, id est, extra Ecclesiam. Upon this Collect of truths the Church was founded, and upon this it was built up; and in this, all the Apostolical Churches did hope for life eternal; and by this they opposed all schisms and heresies; as knowing what their and our great Master himself said in his last Sermon, 
John 17. 3.  This is life eternal to know thee the only true God, and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ.  
This also is most largely taught by Tertullian, 
Tertul de prescript. adv. haer●t. c. 13. & 14.  who when he had recited the Apostolical Creed, in the words and form the Church then used it, calls it the Rule of faith; he affirms this Rule to have been instituted by Christ; he affirms that it admits of no questions; and hath none but those which the heresies brought in, and which indeed makes heretics. But this form remaining in its order, you may seek and handle, and pour out all the desires of Curiosity, if any thing seems ambiguous or obscure; in case any Brother be a Doctor endued with the grace of knowledge; but be curious with yourself, and seek with yourself: but at length, it is better for you to be ignorant, lest you come to know what ye ought not, for you already know what you ought. Faith consists in the rule. 
Lib. de veland.  To know nothing beyond this, is to know all things. 
Virg. c. 1. Regula quidem fidei una ●mnino est, sola immobilis & irreformabilis. ] To the same purpose he affirms, that this Rule is unalterable, is immovable, and irreformable; it is the Rule of faith, and it is one; unchangeably the same: which when he had said, he again recites the Apostles Creed; 
Lib. de veland. Virg. c. ●.  he calls it legem fidei; this law of faith remaining; in other things of discipline and conversation, the grace of God may thrust us forward, and they may be corrected and renewed:] But the faith cannot be altered, there is neither more nor less in that. And it is of great remark what account Tertullian gives of the state of all the Catholic Churches, and particularly of the Church of Rome in his time. [That Church is in a happy state into which the Apostles with their blood poured forth all their doctrine: 
De prescript. c. 36.  let us see what she said, what she taught, what she published in conjunction with the African Churches: she knows one God, the creator of the World; and Jesus Christ of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God the Creator; and the resurrection of the flesh: she mingles the Law and the Prophets, with the Evangelical, and Apostolical writings, and from thence she drinks that faith: she sings with Water, she clothes with the holy Spirit, she feeds with the Eucharist, she exhorts to Martyrdom, and against this Institution receives none.] This indeed was a happy state; and if in this she would abide, her happiness had been as unalterable, as her faith. But from this, how much she hath degenerated, will too much appear, in the order of this discourse.  
In the confession of this Creed, the Church of God baptised all her Catechumen; to whom in the profession of that faith, they consigned all the promises of the Gospel. 
S. Hilar. l. 10. de Trinit. vers. finem.  For the truth of God, the faith of Jesus Christ, the belief of a Christian is the purest, simplest thing in the world. In simplicitate fides est, in fide justitia est, in confession pietas est: Nec Deus nos ad beatam vitam per difficiles quaestiones vocat, nec multiplici eloquentis facundiae genere sollicitat; in absoluto nobis ac facili est aeternitas. Jesum Christum credimus suscitatum à mortuis per Deum, & ipsum esse Dominum confitemur. This is the Breviary of the Christian Creed: and this is the way of salvation, 
lib. de Synodis.  saith S. Hilary. But speaking more explicitly to the Churches of France and Germany; he calls them happy and glorious, qui perfectam atque Apostolicam fidem conscientiâ & professione Dei retinentes, conscriptas fides hûc usque nescitis; because they kept the Apostolical Belief: for, that is perfect.  
Thus the Church remaining in the purity, and innocent simplicity of the Faith; there was no way of confuting Heretics, but by the words of Scripture, or by appealing to the tradition of this Faith, in the Apostolical form: and there was no change made till the time of the Nicene Council; but then, it is said, that the first simplicity began to fall away, and some new thing to be introduced into the Christian Creed. True it is, that then Christianity was in one complexion with the Empire; and the division of Hearts, by a different Opinion, was likely to have influence upon the public peace, if it were not composed by peaceable consent, or prevailing authority; and therefore the Fathers there assembled, together with the Emperor's power, did give such a period to their Question as they could; but as yet it is not certain, that they at their meeting recited any other Creed than the Apostolical; for that they did not, 
In Antidoto ad Nicolaum 5. Papam.  Laurentius Valla, a Canon in the Lateran Church, affirms, that himself hath read in the ancient Books of Isidore, who collected the Canons of the ancient Councils. Certain it is, the Fathers believed it to be no other than the Apostolical faith; and the few words they added to the old form, was nothing new, but a few more explicate words, of the same sense intended by the Apostles, and their Successors; as at that time the Church did remember by the successive preach, and written Records which they had, and we have not; but especially by Scripture. But the change was so little, or indeed so none as to the matter, that they affirmed of it; 
Epiphan. in. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  This was the Creed delivered by the Holy Apostles; and in the old Latin Missal, published at Strasburgh, An. Dom. 1557. after the recitation of the Nicene Creed (as we usually call it) it is added in the Rubric; Finito Symbolo Apostolorum dicat Sacerdos, Dominus vobiscum. So that it should seem, the Nicene Fathers used no other Creed, than what themselves thought to be the Apostolical. And this is the more credible, because we find that some other Copies of the Apostles Creed; particularly, that which was used in the Church of Aquileia, hath divers words and amplifications of some one Article; as, to the Article of, God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, is added invisible and impassable: which, though the words were set down there, because of the Sabellian Heresy; yet they said nothing new, but what to every man of reason was included in the very nature of God; and so was the addition of Nice, concerning the Divinity of the Son of God, included in the very natural Filiation expressed in the Apostles Creed: and therefore this Nicene Creed, was no more a new Creed, than was that of Aquileia; which although it was not in every word, like the Roman Symbol, yet it was no other, than the Apostolical. And the same is the case even of those Symbols, where something was omitted, that was sufficiently in the bowels of the other Articles; Thus in some Creeds, Christ's Death is omitted; but his Crucifixion and Burial are set down. The same variety also is observable in the Article of Christ's descent into Hell; which as it is omitted in that form of the Apostolical Creed, which I am now saying was used by the Nicene Fathers; so was it omitted in the six several Recitations and Expositions of it, made by Chrysologus, and in the five Expositions made of it by S. Austin, in his Book de Fide & Symbolo, and in his four Books, de Symbolo ad Catechumenos, and divers others. So the Article of the Communion of Saints, which is neither in the Nicene, nor Constantinopolitan Creed, nor in the ancient Apostolical Creeds, expounded by Marcellus, Ruffinus, Chrysologus, Maximus Taurinensis, Venantius Fortunatus, Etherius and Beatus: 
Lib. 1. contra. Elipand. Tolet.  yet because it is so plain in the Article of the Church; as, the omission is no prejudice to the integrity of the Christian Faith, so the inserting it is no addition of an Article, or Innovation. So these Copies now reckoned, omit in the beginning of the Creed, Maker of Heaven and Earth; but out of the Constantinopolitan Creed, it is now inserted into all the Copies of the Apostolical Symbol. Now, as these omissions, or additions respectively, that is, this variety is no prejudice to these being the Apostles Creed; So neither is the addition made at Nice, any other, but a setting down what was plainly included in the Filiation of the Son of God; and therefore was no addition of an Article, nor properly an explication, but a saying in more words what the Apostles, and the Apostolical Churches did mean in all the Copies, and what was delivered before that Convention at Nice. But there was ill use made of it; and wise men, if they had pleased, might easily have foreseen it. But whether it was so, or no (for I can not otherwise affirm it, than as I have said) yet to add any new thing to the Creed, or to appoint a new Creed, was at that time so strange a thing, so unknown to the Church, that though what they did, was done with pious intention, and great advantage in the Article itself; yet it did not produce that effect, which from such a concurrence of sentiments, might have been expected. For first, even some of the Fathers then present, refused to subscribe the Additions, some did it (as they said) against their will, some were afraid to use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Consubstantial: and most men were still so unsatisfied, that presently after, Council upon Council, was again called, at Sirmium, Ariminum, Seleucia, Sardis, to appease the new stirs, rising upon the old account; and instead of making things quiet, they quenched the fire with oil: and the Principal persons in the Nicene Council, 
Casu Hosii, planè miserab●li, Cathulicus Orbis contrem●it, concussaeque sunt solidissimae petrae. Baron. A. C. 347. 17. 18.  changed their minds, and gave themselves over to the contrary temptation. Even Hosius himself, who presided at Nice, and confirmed the former Decrees at Sardis; yet he left that Faith, and by that desertion affrighted, and shook the fabric of the Christian Church, in the Article added or explained at Nice. In the same sad condition was Marcellus of Ancyra, 
Vide Epist. Marcellinorum ad Episcipos in Dio-Caesarea exulantes.  a great friend of S. Athanasius, and an earnest opposer of Arius; so were the two Photinus', Eustathius, Elpidius, Heracides, Hygin, Sigerius, the Precedent Cyriacus, and the Emperor Constantine himself; who by banishing Athanasius into France, by becoming Arian, and being baptised by an Arian Bishop, secured the Empire to his sons; as themselves did say, as it is reported by Lucifer Calaritanus 
* Pro S. Athanas. l. 1. apud Baron. A. ●. 336. 13.  and that he was vehemently suspected by the Catholics, is affirmed by Eusebius, Hierom, Ambrose, Theodoret, Sozomen, and Socrates. But Liberius Bishop of Rome was more than suspected to have become an Arian, 
Idem aiunt Martinus Pol●nus, Alphonsus de Castro, & Volaterranus.  as Athanasius himself, S. Hierom, Damasus, and S. Hilary report. So did Pope Felix the second, and Leo his successor. It should seem by all this, that the definitions of General Councils were not accounted the last determination of truths, or rather that what propositions General Councils say are true, are not therefore part of the body of faith, though they be true; or else that all these persons did go against an established rule of faith and conscience; which if they had done they might easily have been oppressed by their adversaries urging the plain authority of the Council against them. But, Neither am I to urge against thee the Nicene Council, nor thou the Council of Ariminum against me, was the saying of S. Austin; even long after the Council of Nice had by Concession obtained more authority than it had at first. Now the reason of these things can be no other than this; not that the Nicene Council was not the best that ever was since the day that a Council was held at Jerusalem by all the Apostles; but that the Council's adding something to the Creed of the Church, which had been the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Christian faith for 300 years together, was so strange a thing, that they would not easily bear that yoke. And that this was the matter, appears by what the Fathers of the Church after the Council did complain. 
Dum in verbis pugna est, dum de novitatibus quaestio est, dum de ambiguis, dum de Authoribus querelae est; dum de studiis certamen est, dum in consensu difficultas est, dumque alter alteri anathema esse coepit, prope jam nemo est Christi. S. Hilar.  [After the Nicene Synod we writ nothing but Faiths, viz. (new Creeds:) while there is contention about Words, while there is question about Novelties, while there is complaint of ambiguities, and of Authors, while there is contention of parties, and difficulty in consenting, and while one is become an Anathema to another, scarce any man now is of Christ] And again, [We decree yearly and monthly faiths of God; we repent when we have decreed them; we defend them that repent, we anathematise them that are defended; we either condemn foreign things in our own, or condemn our own in foreign things; and biting one another we are devoured of one another.] This was the product of leaving the simplicity and perfection of the first rule; by which the Church for so many ages of Martyrdom was preserved and defended, and consummated their religious lives, and their holy baptism of blood, and which they opposed as a sufficient shield against all heresies arising in the Church.  
And yet the Nicene Fathers did add no new Article, 
Quid unquam aliud Ecclesia Conciliorum decretis enisa est, nisi ut, quod antea simpliciter credebatur, h●c idem posteà diligentiùs crederetur. Vincent. Lirin. contr. haeres. cap. 32.  of new matter; but explicated the Filiation of Jesus Christ, saying in what sense he was the Son of God; which was in proper speaking an interpretation of a word in the Apostles Creed: and yet this occasioned such stirs, and gave so little satisfaction at first, and so great disturbances afterward; that S. Hilary 
* Lib. de Synodis.  called them happy, who neither made, nor knew, nor received any other Symbol besides that most simple Creed used in all Churches ever since the Apostles days.  
However, it pleased the Divine Providence so to conduct the spirits of the Catholic Prelates, that by their wise and holy adhering to the Creed as explicated at Nice, they procured great authority to the Nicene faith, which was not only the truth, but a truth delivered and confirmed by the most famous and excellent Prelates that ever the Christian Church could glory in, since the death of the Apostles. But yet that the inconvenience might be cut off which came in upon the occasion of the Nicene addition; (for it produced thirty explicative Creeds more in a short time, as Marcus Ephesius openly affirmed in the Council of Florence;) in the Council of Ephesus, which was the third general, it was forbidden that ever there should be any addition to the Nicene faith; 
Concil. Ephes. Can. 7.  [That it should not be lawful from thence forward, for any one to produce, to write, or to compose any other faith [or Creed] besides that which was defined by the Holy Father's meeting at Nice in the Holy Spirit.] Here the supreme power of the Church, a General Council, hath declared that it never should be lawful to add any thing to the former confession of faith explicated at Nice; and this Canon was renewed in the next General Council, that of Chalcedon; [That the faith formerly determined should at no hand, in no manner be shaken or moved any more:] 
The Author of the Letter] p. 7.  meaning, by addition or diminution. There are some so impertinently weak as to expound these Canons to mean only the adding any thing contrary to the Nicene faith; which is an answer against reason and experience; for it is not imaginable that any man, admitting the Nicene Creed, can by an addition intent expressly to contradict it; and if he does not admit and believe it, he would lay that Confession aside, and not meddle with it: but if he should design the inserting of a clause that should secretly undermine it; he must suppose all men that see it to be very fools, not to understand it, or infinitely careless of what they believe and profess: but if it should happen so; then this were a very good reason of the prohibition of any thing whatsoever to be added, lest secretly and undiscernably the first truth be confuted by the new article: And therefore it was a wise caution to forbid all addition, lest some may prove to be contrary. And then secondly, it is against the experience of things; for first the Canon was made upon the occasion of a Creed brought into the Council by Charisius; but all Creeds thereupon were rejected, and the Nicene adhered to, and commanded to be so for ever. 
In Can. 7. vide Balsam. in ●un●.  For as Balsamon observes, there were three things done in this Canon; 1. There was an Edict made in behalf of the things decreed at Ephesus. 2. In like manner the holy Creed being made in the first Synod, this Creed was read aloud, and caution was given that no man should make any other Creed upon pain of deposition, if he were an Ecclesiastic; of excommunication, if he were a Laic. 3. The third thing he also thus expresses [The same thing also is to be done to them who receive and teach the decrees of Nestorius.] So that the Creed that Charisius brought in was rejected, because it was contrary to the Nicene faith; but all Symbols were for ever after forbidden to be made, not only lest any thing contrary be admitted, but because they would admit of no other; and this very reason S. Athanasius assigned why the Fathers of the Council of Sardis denied the importunity of some, 
Epist ad Epict.  who would have something added to the Nicene confession; they would not do it, lest the other should seem defective. And next to this, it was carefully observed by the following Councils, 4. 5. 6. and 7. and by itself in a great Affair: for 1. though this Council determined the Blessed Virgin Mary to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God, against Nestorius; yet, 2. the Fathers would not put the Article into the Creed of the Church; but esteemed it sufficient to determine the point and condemn Nestorius: And 3. the Greek Church hath ever since most religiously observed this Ephesine Canon: And, 4. upon this account have vehemently spoken against the Latins, for adding a clause at Gentilly in France. 
Epist▪ ad Epict.  5. S. Athanasius speaking of the Nicene Faith or Creed, says, It is sufficient for the destruction of all impiety, and for the confirmation of all the Holy Faith in Christ: and therefore, there could be no necessity of adding any thing to so full, so perfect an Instrument; and consequently, no reasonable cause pretended, why it should be attempted: especially since there had been so many, so intolerable inconveniencies already introduced by adding to the Symbols their unnecessary Expositions. 6. The purpose of the Fathers is fully declared by the Epistle of S. Cyril, 
Cyril. Alex. ad Johan. Antioch. Sess. 5.  in which he recites the Decree of the Council, and adds, as a full explication of the Council's meaning, We permit neither ourselves nor others, to change one word or syllable of what is there. The case is here, as it was in Scripture, to which no addition is to be made; nothing to be diminished from it. But yet every Doctor is permitted to expound, to enlarge the expressions, to deliver the sense, and to declare (as well as they can) the meaning of it. And much more might the Doctors of the Church do to the Creed: To which, although something was added at Nice, and Constantinople; yet from thence forward they might in private, or in public, declare what they thought was the meaning, and what were the consequents, and what was virtually contained in the Articles; but nothing of this by any authority whatsoever, was to be put into the Creed. For in Articles of Belief, simplicity is part of its excellency and sacredness; and those mysteriousnesses, and lifegiving Articles which are fit to be put into Creeds, are, as Philistion said of Hellebore, medicinal when it in great pieces, but dangerous, or deadly, when it is in powder. And I remember what a Heathen aid of the Emperor Constantius, who troubled himself too much in curiosities, and nice arguings about things Unintelligible, and Unnecessary: Christianam religionem absolutam & simplicem anili superstitione confudit. In qua scrutandâ perplexiùs quàm in componendâ graviùs excitavit dissidia, quae progressa fusiùs aluit concertatione verborum, dum ritum omnem ad suum trahere conatur arbitrium. Christian Religion is absolute, and simple; and they that conduct it, should compose all the parts of it with gravity, not perplex it with curious scrutinies; not draw away any word or Article, to the sense of his own interest. For if it once pass the bounds set by the first Masters of the Assemblies, and lose that simplicity, with which it was invested; there is no term or limit, which can be any more set down. Exempla non consistunt, sed, quamvis in tenuem recepta tramitem, latissimè evagandi sibi faciunt potestatem. The divesting the Church from the simplicity of her Faith; is like removing the ancient Landmark: you cannot tell by the mark, in what Country you are in, whether in your own, or in the Enemies. And in the world nothing is more unnecessary. For if that faith be sufficient; if in that faith the Church went to Heaven, if in that she preserved unity, and begat Children to Christ, and nursed them up to be perfect men in Christ, and kept herself pure from Heresy, and unbroken by Schism; whatsoever is added to it, is either contained in the Article virtually, or it is not. If not, than it is no part of the Faith, and, by the laws of Faith, there is no obligation passed upon any man to believe it. But if it be, than he that believes the Article, does virtually believe all that is virtually contained in it: but no man is to be pressed with the consequents drawn from thence; unless the Transcript be drawn by the same hand, that wrote the Original; for we are sure it came in the simplicity of it, from an infallible Spirit; but he that bids me believe his Deductions under pain of damnation, bids me under pain of damnation, believe that he is an Unerring Logician: for which, because God hath given me no command; and himself can give me no security; if I can defend myself from that man's pride, God will defend me from Damnation.  
But let us see a little further, with what constancy, That, and The following Ages of the Church, did adhere to the Apostles, Creed, as the sufficient, and perfect Rule of Faith. There was an Imperial Edict of Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius; Cunctos populos quos clementiae nostrae regit imperium, in eâ volumus religione versari, quam Divinum Petrum Apostolum tradidisse Romanis, religio usque nunc ab ipso insi nuata declarat; quámque pontificem Damasum sequi claret, & Petrum Alexandriae Episcopum, virum Apostolicae sanctitatis: hoc est, ut, secundum Apostolicam disciplinam, Evangelicamque doctrinam, Patris, & Filii, & Spiritus sancti Vnam Deitatem, sub pari majestate, & sub piâ Trinitate, credamus. Hanc legem sequentes Christianorum Catholicorum nomen jubemus amplecti: reliquos verò dementes vesanósque judicantes, Haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere, divina primùm vindictâ, pòst etiam motu animi nostri, quem ex coelesti arbitrio sumpserimus, ultione plectendos. Part of this being cited in the Dissuasive; to prove that in the early Ages of the Church, the Christian Faith was much more simple than it is now in the Roman Church; 
The Letter to a friend. p. 4.  and that upon easier terms, men might then be Catholic: It was replied by some one of the Opponents, That by this law was not meant, that all who believed the Trinity, were Catholics absolutely, but only as to those points: and the Reason given, is this, Because after this law, the Novatians, Donatists, Nestorians, Eutychians, etc. were proceeded against as Heretics and Schismatics, notwithstanding their belief of the Trinity and Unity of the Godhead:] But this thing was spoken, without all care whether it were to the purpose or no. For when this law was made, that was the Rule of Catholicism (as appears by the words of the law:) and if afterward, it became altered, and the Bishops became too opinionative, or thought themselves forced into further declarations; must therefore the precedent law be judged ex post facto by what they did afterwards? It might as well have been said; the Church was never content with the Apostles Creed, because afterwards the Lutherans and Calvinists, and Zwinglians, etc. were proceeded against as Heretics and Schismatics, notwithstanding their belief of all that is in the Apostles Creed. Ex post facto nunquam crescit praeteriti aestimatio, says the law. But for the true understanding of this Imperial law, we must know that the confession of the Holy Trinity and Unity, was not set down there, as a single Article, but as a Summary of the Apostles Creed; the three parts of which, have for their heads, The three Persons of the holy and undivided Trinity. And this appears by the relation, the law makes to the faith Saint Peter taught the Church of Rome; and to the Creed of Damasus, which may be seen in Saint Hierom, who rejects the Creed of that worthy Prelate, in the second Tome of his Works; in which the Apostolical Creed is explicated, that what relates to the Trinity and Unity, spoken of in the Imperial Law, or Rule of Catholics and Christians, is set down in its full purpose and design: And this thing may better be understood by an instance in the Catechism of the Church of England; for when the Catechumen hath at large recited the Apostles Creed; he is taught to sum it up in this manner: First, I learn to believe in God the Father, who hath made me, and all the world: Secondly, In God the Son, who hath redeemed me, and all mankind: Thirdly, In God the Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth me, and all the elect people of God. This is the Summary of the Creed; and these things are not to be considered as Articles distinct and complete, and integrating the Christian Faith, but as a breviary of that Faith, to which in the same place it is made to relate; just as the Imperial Law does relate to the Faith of S. Peter, and the Creed of Damasus, and Peter of Alexandria: Concerning which, he that says much, says no more; and he that says little, says no less; for the Faith is the same, as I have already cited the words of S. Irenaeus. Since then the Emperors made the summary of the Apostles Creed, to be the rule of discerning Catholics from Heretics; it follows, that the Roman Church, Catholic, signifies something else than it did in the primitive Church. S. Ambrose says, Faith is conceived by the Apostles Creed; all Faith lies in that, as the Child in the Mother's Womb; and he compares it to a Key, because by it the darknesses of the Devil are unlocked, that the light of Christ might come upon us; and the hidden sins of conscience are opened, that the manifest works of righteousness may shine. This Key is to be shown to our Brethren, that by this, as Scholars of S. Peter, they may shut the gates of Hell, and open the doors of Heaven. He also calls it, The Seal of our Heart, and the Sacrament of our Warfare. S. Hierom speaking of it, 
Epist. ad Pammach. contra ●rro es Johan. Hierosolymit. Exp si●. Symbol. c. 2, 3. l. 6. Orig. c. 9  says, The Symbol of our Faith and Hope, which was delivered by the Apostles, is not written in Paper and Ink, but in the fleshy tables of our hearts. After the confession of the Trinity, and Unity of the Church, the whole, or every Sacrament of the Christian Religion, is concluded with the resurrection of the flesh. Which words are intimated, and in part transcribed by Isidore of Sevil. Ruffinus says, The Apostles being to separate, and go to their several charges, appointed, Normam futurae praedicationis, regulam dandam credentibus, unanimitatis & fidei suae indicium; the Rule of what they were to preach to all the world, the measure for believers, the Index of Faith and Unity; Not any speech, not so much as one, even of them that went before them in the faith, was admitted or heard by the Church. By this Creed the foldings of infidelity are loosed; by this, the gate of life is set open; by this, the glory of Confession is shown. It is short in words, but great in Sacraments. It confirms all men with the perfection of believing, with the desire of confessing, with the confidence of the Resurrection. Whatsoever was prefigured in the Patriarches, whatsoever is declared in the Scriptures, whatsoever was foretold in the Prophets, of God who was not begotten, 
Serm. 131. de tempore, sive Serm. 2. de exposit Symboli ad Competente●.  of the Son of God who is the only begotten of God, or the Holy Spirit, etc. Totum hoc breviter juxta oraculum propheticum Symbolum in se continet confitendo.] So S. Austin, who also calls it, [The fullness of them that believe. It is the rule of faith, the short, the certain rule, which the Apostles comprehended in twelve Sentences, that the believers might hold the Catholic Unity, and convince the heretical pravity. The comprehension and perfection of our faith.] 
Serm. 181. de tempore. Hom. 115.  The short and perfect Confession of the Catholic Symbol is consigned with so many Sentences of the twelve Apostles, 
Epist. 13. ad Pulcher. Augustum.  is so furnished with celestial ammunition; that all the opinions of Heretics may be cut off with that sword alone, said Pope Leo.] I could add many more testimonies declaring the simplicity of the Christian faith, and the fullness and sufficiency of the Apostolical Creed. But I sum them up in the words of Rabanus Maurus, [In the Apostles Creed there are but few words, 
Lib. 2. de institut. Clericorum, cap. 56.  but it contains all Religion, (Omnia in eo continentur Sacramenta:) for they were summarily gathered together from the whole Scriptures by the Apostles; that because many Believers cannot read, or if they can, yet by their secular affairs are hindered that they do not read the Scriptures, retaining these in their hearts they may have enough of saving knowledge.]  
Now then since the whole Catholic Church of God in the primitive ages, having not only declared that all things necessary to salvation are sufficiently contained in the plain places of Scripture; but that all, which the Apostles knew necessary, they gathered together in a Symbol or form of Confession, and esteemed the belief of this sufficient unto salvation; and that they required no more in credendis, as of necessity to Eternal life, but the simple belief of these articles: these things ought to remain in their own form and order. For, what is and what is not necessary, is either such by the Nature of the Articles themselves, or by the Oeconomy of God's Commandment: and what God did command, and what necessary effect every Article had, the Apostles only could tell, and others from them. They that pretend to a power of doing so as the Apostles did, have shown their want of skill; and by that, confess their want of power of doing that which to do is beyond their skill. For, which sins are venial and which are mortal, all the Doctors of the Church of Rome cannot tell; and how then can they tell this of Errors, when they cannot tell it of Actions? But if any man will search into the harder things, or any more secret Sacrament of Religion, by that means to raise up his mind to the contemplation of heavenly things, and to a contempt of things below, he may do it if he please, so that he do not impose the belief of his own speculations upon others, or compel them to confess what they know not, and what they cannot find in Scriptures, or did not receive from the Apostles. We find by experience, that a long act of Parliament, or an Indenture and Covenant that is of great length, ends none, but causes many contentions; and when many things are defined, and definitions spun out into declarations, men believe less, and know nothing more. And what is Man, that he who knows so little of his own body, of the things done privately in his own house, of the nature of the meat he eats; nay, that knows so little of his own Heart, and is so great a stranger to the secret courses of Nature? I say, what is man, that in the things of God he should be ashamed to say, This is a secret; This God only knows; 
S. Athanas. ep. ad Serapion.  This he hath not revealed; This I admire, but I understand not; I believe, but I understand it to be a mystery? And cannot a man enjoy the gift which God gives, and do what he commands, but he must dispute the Philosophy of the gift, or the Metaphysics of a Command? Cannot a man eat Oysters, unless he wrangle about the number of the senses which that poor animal hath? and will not condited Mushrooms be swallowed down, unless you first tell whether they differ specifically from a sponge? 
S. Basil. de Spir. S. c. 13.  Is it not enough for me to believe the words of Christ, saying, This is my body? and cannot I take it thankfully, and believe it hearty, and confess it joyfully; but I must pry into the secret, and examine it by the rules of Aristotle and Porphyry, and find out the nature and the undiscernible philosophy of the manner of its change, and torment my own brains, and distract my heart, and torment my Brethren, and lose my charity, and hazard the loss of all the benefits intended to me, by the Holy Body; because I break those few words into more questions, than the holy bread is into particles to be eaten? Is it not enough, that I believe, that, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's, in case we serve him faithfully? but we must descend into hell, and inquire after the secrets of the dead, and dream of the circumstances of the state of separation, and damn our Brethren if they will not allow us and themselves to be half damned in Purgatory? Is it not enough that we are Christians? that is, that we put all our hope in God, who freely giveth us all things by his Son Jesus Christ; that we are redeemed by his death, that he risen again for our justification; that we are made members of his body in Baptism, that he gives us of his Spirit, that being dead to the lusts of this world we should live according to his doctrine and example; that is, that we do no evil, that we do what good we can; that we love God, and love our Brother; that we suffer patiently, and do good things in expectation of better, even of a happy Resurrection to eternal life, which he hath promised to us by his Son, and which we shall receive, if we walk in the Spirit, and live in the Spirit? What is wanting to him that does all this? but that he do so still? Is not this faith unto righteousness, and the confession of this-faith, unto salvation? We all believe we shall arise from our graves at the last day; one sort of Christians thinks with one sort of body, and another thinks with another; but these conjectures ought not to be accounted necessary; and we are not concerned to dispute which it is; for we shall never know by all our disputing; but we may lose the good of it, if we make it an argument of Uncharitableness. But besides this,  
Did not the Apostles desire to know nothing but Christ Jesus, and him crucified, and risen again? and did not they preach this faith to all the world, and did they preach any other; but severely reprove all curious and subtle questions, and all pretences of science, or knowledge falsely so called, when men languished about Questions and strife of words? Are we not taught by the Apostles, that we ought not to receive our weak Brother unto doubtful disputations; and that the servant of God ought not to strive? Did not they say, that all that keep the foundation shall be saved; some with, and some without loss? and that erring brethren are to be tolerated; and that if they be servants of God, and yet, in a matter of doctrine or opinion, otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this also unto them? And if these things be thus, Why shall one Christian Church condemn another, which is built upon the same foundation with herself? And how can it be imagined, that the servants of God cannot be saved now as in the days of the Apostles? Are we wiser than they, are our Doctors more learned, or more faithful? Is there another Covenant made with the Church since their days? or is God less merciful to us, than he was to them? Or hath he made the way to heaven narrower in the end of the world, than at the beginning of the Christian Church? Do men live better lives now, than at the first; so that a holy life is so enlarged, that the foundation of faith laid at first is not broad enough to support the new buildings? We find it much otherwise. And men need not enlarge the Articles and Conditions of Faith in these degenerate ages, wherein when Christ comes he shall hardly upon earth find any faith at all: and, if there were need, yet no man is able to do it, because Christ only is our Lord and Master, and no man is Master of our faith.  
But to come closer to the thing. It is certain, There is nothing simply necessary to salvation now, that was not so always: and this must be confessed by all that admit of the so much commended rule of Vincentius Lirinensis; That which was always, and every where believed by all; that's the rule of faith: and therefore, there can be no new measure, no new Article, no new determination, no declaration obliging us to believe any proposition that was not always believed. And therefore as, that which was first is true, that which was at first, and nothing else, is necessary. Nay, suppose many truths to be found out by industry, and by Divine Assistances, yet no more can be necessary; because nothing of this could ever be wanting to the Church. Therefore the new discovered truth cannot of itself be necessary. Neither can the discovery make it necessary to be believed, unless I find it to be discovered and revealed by him, whose very discovery, though accidental, yet can make it necessary; that is, unless I be convinced that God hath spoken it: Indeed, if that happen, there is no further inquiry. But, because there are no new revelations since the Apostles died, whatever comes in after them is only by man's ratiocination: and therefore can never go beyond a probability in itself, and never ought to pretend higher, lest God's incommunicable right be invaded, which is to be the Lord of humane Understandings. The consequent of all this is, There can be nothing of necessity to be believed, which the Church of God, taught by the Apostles, did not believe necessary.   

SECTION V.  
That the Church of Rome pretends to a power of introducing into the Confessions of the Church, new Articles of faith; and endeavours to alter and suppress the old Catholic Doctrine.  
NOw then having established the Christian Rule and Measure, I shall in the next place show how the Church of Rome hath usurped an Empire over Consciences, offering to enlarge the Faith, to add new propositions to the Belief of Christians; and imposes them under pain of damnation. And this I prove, 1. Because they pretend to a power to do it. 2. They have reason and necessity to do so in respect of their interest, and they actually do so both in faith and manners. 3. They use indirect and unworthy arts that they may do it without reproach and discovery. 4. Having done this, they, by enlarging Faith, destroy Charity.  
1. They pretend to a power to do it. The Authorities which were brought in the first part of the Dissuasive, 
Chapt. 1. Sect. pag. 10. edit. Dublin 1664.  did sufficiently prove this; but because they were snarled at, I shall justify, and enlarge them, and confirm their sense by others. First, the Pope hath authority (as his Doctors teach the world) to declare an Article of Faith, and this is as much as the Apostles themselves could do; that is, As the Apostles, by gathering the necessary Articles of Faith, made up a Symbol of what things are necessary, and by their imposing this Collection on all Churches, their baptising into that Faith, their making it a Rule of Faith to all Christians, did declare, not only the truth, but the necessity of those Articles to be learned, and to be believed; So the Pope also pretends he can declare. For declaring a thing to be true, and declaring it to be an Article of Faith, are things of vast difference. He that declares it only to be true, imposes no necessity of believing it; but if he can make it appear to be true, he, to whom it so appears, cannot but believe it. But if he declares it to be an Article of Faith, he says, that God hath made it necessary to be known, and to be believed; and if any hath power to declare this, to declare I say, not as a Doctor, but as an Apostle, as Jesus Christ himself, he is Master and Lord of the Conscience. Now that the Pope pretends to this, we are fiercely taught by his Doctors, and by his Laws. Thus the Gloss upon the Extravagant de verborum significatione, 
Gloss ibid.  Cap. Cum inter. verb. Declaramus, says, He being Prince of the Church, and Christ's Vicar, can in that capacity make a declaration upon an Article of the Catholic Faith. He can declare it authoritatiuè, not only as a Doctor, but as a Prince; by Empire and Command, as Princeps Ecclesiae. The Sorbon can Declare as well as he upon the Catholic Faith, if it be only matter of skill and learning; but to declare so, as to bind every man to believe it; to declare so, as the Article shall be a point of Faith, when before this Declaration, it was not so quoad nos; this is that, which is pretended be declaring: And so this very Gloss expounds it; adding to the former words [The Pope can make an Article of Faith, if an Article of Faith be taken not properly, but largely, that is, for a Doctrine which now we must believe, whereas, before such declaration, we are not tied to it. These are the words of the Gloss. The sense of which is this; There are some Articles of Faith, which are such before the declaration of the Church, and some which are by the Church's declaration made so: some were declared by the Scriptures, or by the Apostles; and some by the Councils, or Popes of Rome: after which declaration, they are both alike, equally necessary to be believed; and this is that which we charge upon them, as a dangerous and intolerable point. For it says plainly, that whereas Christ made some Articles of Faith, the Pope can make others; for if they were not Articles of Faith, before the declaration of the Pope, than he makes them to be such; and that is truly (according to their own words) facere Articulum fidei: this is making an Article of Faith. Neither will it suffice to say; that this Proposition, so declared, was, before such a declaration, really and indeed, an Article of Faith in itself; but not in respect of us. For this is all one in several words. For an Article of Faith is a relative term; it is a Proposition which we are commanded to believe, and to confess: and to say, This is an Article of Faith, and yet that no man is bound to believe it, is a contradiction. Now then, let it be considered: No man is bound to believe any Article till it be declared; as no man is bound to obey a Law, till it be promulgated; Faith comes by hearing; till there be hearing, there can be no Faith; and therefore no Article of Faith. The truth is Eternal; but Faith is but temporary, and depends upon the declaration. Now then, suppose any Article: I demand, did Christ and his Apostles declare it to the Church? If not, how does the Pope know it, who pretends to no new Revelations? If the Apostles did not declare it, how were they faithful in the house of God? 
Acts 20. 27.  and how did S. Paul say truly, I have not failed or ceased, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to declare, to annunciate to you all the whole Counsel of God. But if they did say true, and were faithful, and did declare it all; then was it an Article of Faith, before the Pope's Declaration; and than it was a sin of ignorance not to believe it, and of malice, or pusillanimity not to confess it, and a worse sin to have contradicted it. And who can suppose that the Apostolical Churches and their descendants should be ignorant in any thing that was then a matter of Faith? If it was not then, it cannot now be declared that it was so then; for to declare a thing properly, is to publish what it was before; if it was then, there needs no declaration of it now, unless by declaring, we mean preaching it, and then every Parish Priest is bound to do it, and can do it as well as the Pope. If therefore they mean more, as it is certain they do, then, Declaring an Article of Faith is but the civiller word for Making it. Christ's preaching, and the Apostles imposing it, made it an Article of Faith, in itself and to us; other declaration excepting only teaching, preaching, expounding and exhorting we know none, and we need none; for they only could do it, and, it is certain, they did it fully.  
But I need not argue, and take pains to prove that by Declaring, they mean more than mere Preaching; Themselves own the utmost intention of the Charge. The Pope can statuere Articulos fidei; that's more than declare merely; it must be to appoint, to decree, to determine that such a thing is of necessity to be believed unto salvation; 
Art. 27. Certum est in man● Ecclesiae aut Papae prorsus non esse, statuere articulos fide, etc.  and because Luther said, the Pope could not do this, he was condemned by a Bull of Pope Leo. But we may yet further know the meaning of this; For their Doctors are plain in affirming, that the Pope is the Foundation, 
Turrecrem. l. 2. cap. 107.  rule, and principle of faith. So Turrecremata: For to him it belongs to be the measure and rule, and science of things that are to be believed, and of all things which are necessary to the direction of the faithful unto life Eternal. And again, It is easy to understand that it belongs to the Authority of the Pope of Rome, 
Idem ibid.  as to the general and principal Master and Doctor of the whole World, to determine those things which are of faith; and by consequence to publish a Symbol of Faith: to interpret the senses of Holy Scriptures: to approve and reprove the say of every Doctor belonging to Faith. Hence comes it to pass, that the Doctors say, that the Apostolical See, is called the Mistress, and Mother of Faith.] And what can this mean; but to do that, which the Apostles could not do; that is, 
Extravag. de v●rb. signifis. cap quia Quorundum gloss.  to be Lords over the Faith of Christendom. For to declare only an Article of Faith, is not all they challenge; they can do more: As he is Pope, he can, not only declare an Article of Faith, but introduce a new one. And this is that, which I suppose Augustinus Triumphus to mean, 
Qu. 59 art. 1.  when he says; Symbolum novum condere ad Papam solum spectat: and, if that be not plain enough, he adds. 
Art. 2.  As he can make a new Creed, or Symbol of Faith; so he can multiply new Articles, one upon another. 
Vide Salmeron. orolog. in comment. in Epist. ad Roman. part. 3 p. 176. Sect. Tertiò dicitur.  For the conclusion of this particular, I shall give a very considerable Instance, which relies not upon the Credit and testimony of their Doctors, but is matter of fact, and notorious to all the World. For it will be to no purpose for them to deny it, and say, that the Pope can only declare an Article, but not make a new one. For it is plain, that they so declare an old one, that they bring a new one in; they pretend the old Creed to be with Child of a Cushion, and they introduce a suppositious Child of their own. The Instance I mean, is, that Article of the Apostles Creed, I believe the holy Catholic Church: The Question is made, What is meant by it? They that have a mind to it, understand it easily enough; it was a declaration of the coming of the Messiah into the world; the great proof that Jesus of Nazareth was the Shiloh, or he that was to come. For whereas the Jews were the Enclosure, and peculiar people of God; at the coming of the Messiah it should be so no more; but the Gentiles being called, and the sound of the Gospel going into all the world, it was no more the Church of the Jews, but Ecclesia totius mundi, the Church of the Universe, the Universal, or Catholic Church; of Jews and Gentiles, of all people, and all Languages. Now this great and glorious mystery, we confess in this Article; that is, we confess, that God hath given to his Son, the Heathen for an Inheritance, and the utmost parts of the world for a possession; that God is no respecter of persons, 
Acts 10. 35.  but in every Nation, he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. This is the plain sense of the Article, and renders the Article also highly considerable, and represents it as Fundamental; and it is agreeable with the very Oeconomy of the Gospel; and determines one of the greatest questions that ever were in the world, the dispute between the Jews and Gentiles; and is not only easy, and intelligible, but greatly for Edification.  
Now then, let us see how the Church of Rome, by her Head and Members, expound, or declare this Article, I believe the Holy Catholic Church; so it is in the Apostles Creed. I believe one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church; so the Nicene Creed. Here is no difference, and no Commentary; but the same thing with the addition of one word to the same sense; only it includes also the first Founders of this Catholic Church; as if it had been said, I believe that the Church of Christ is disseminated over the world, and not limited to the Jewish pale; and that this Church was founded by the Apostles upon the rock Christ Jesus. But the Church of Rome hath handled this Article after another manner; she hath explained it so clearly, that no wise man can believe it; she hath declared the Article so as to make it a new one, and made an addition to it that destroys the principal: Sanctam Catholicam & Apostolicam Romanam Ecclesiam, omnium Ecclesiarum Matrem & Magistram agnosco, I acknowledge the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, the Mother and Mistress of all Churches. And at the end of this declaration of the Creed, it is added as at the end of the Athanasian; This is the true Catholic faith, without which no man can be saved. And this is the Creed of Pope Pius the fourth, enjoined to be sworn by all ecclesiastics, secular or Religious. Now let it be considered, Whether this Declaration be not a new Article, and not only so, but a destruction to the old. 1. The Apostolical Creed professes to believe the Catholic or Universal Church: The Pope limits it, and calls it the Catholic Roman Church; that, by all he means some, and the Universal means but particular. But besides this, 2. It is certain, this must be a piece of a new Creed; since it is plain, the Apostles did no more intent the Roman Church should be comprehended under the Catholic Church, than as every other Church which was then, or should be after. And why Roman should be put in, and not the Ephesine, the Caesarean, or the Hierosolymitan, it is not to be imagined. 3. This must needs be a new Article, because the full sense and mystery of the old Article was perfect and complete before the Roman Church was in being. I believe the holy Catholic Church, was an Article of faith before there was any Roman Church at all. 4. The interposing the Roman into the Creed, as equal, and of the extent with the Catholic, is not only a false, but a malicious addition. For they having perpetually in their mouths, That out of the Catholic Church there is no Salvation; and now against the truth, simplicity, interest and design of the Apostolical Creed, having made the Roman and Catholic to be all one: they have also established this doctrine as virtual part of the Creed, that out of the Communion of the Church of Rome there is no Salvation to be hoped for; and so by this means damn all the Christians of the world who are not of their Communion; and that is the far biggest part of the Catholic Church. 5. How intolerable a thing it is to put the word Roman to expound Catholic in the Creed; when it is confessed among 
* Driedo de dogmat. Eccl. lib. 4. c. 3. p. 3.  themselves that it is not of faith, that the Apostolic Church cannot be separated from the Roman; and 
* Lib. 4. de Pontif. Rom. c. 4. Sect. At secundum.  Bellarmine proves this; because there is neither Scripture nor Tradition that affirms it: and then if ever they be separated, and the Apostolic be removed to Constantinople, than the Creed must be changed again, and it must run thus, I believe the holy Catholic, and Apostolic Constantinopolitan Church. 6. There is, in this declaration of the Apostolical Creed, a manifest untruth decreed, enjoined, professed and commanded to be sworn to, and that is, that the Roman Church is the Mother of all Churches: when it is confessed that S. Peter sat Bishop at Antioch seven years before his pretended coming to Rome: and that Jerusalem is the Mother of all Churches. For the Law went forth out of Zion, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem: 
Apud Baron. AD. 382. n 15.  and therefore the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in the Consecration of S. Cyril, said, 
Vide etiam S. Basil, tom. 2. ep. 30. & Greg. Theol.  We show unto you Cyril the Bishop of Jerusalem, which is the Mother of all other Churches. The like is said of the Church of Caesarea, (with an exception only of Jerusalem,) quae prope mater omnium Ecclesiarum, & fuit ab initio, & nune quoque est, & nominatur: quam Christiana respublica, velut centrum suum circulus, undique observat. How this saying of S. Gregory the Divine can consist with the new Roman Creed, I leave it to the Roman Doctors to consider. In the mean time, it is impossible that it should be true, that the Roman Church is the Mother of all Churches, not only because it is not imaginable she could beget her own Grandmother; but for another pretty reason, which Bellarmine hath invented; [Though the Ancients every where call the Roman Church the Mother of all Churches, 
Lib. 1. de Rom.  and that all Bishops had their Consecration and Dignity from her; 
Pontif. c. 23. Sect. Secunda ratio.  yet this seems not to be true, but in that sense, because Peter was Bishop of Rome: he ordained all the Apostles and all other Bishops, by himself, or by others. Otherwise since all the Apostles constituted very many Bishops in divers places, if the Apostles were not made Bishops by Peter, certainly the greatest part of Bishops will not deduce their original from Peter.] This is Bellarmine's argument, by which he hath perfectly overthrown that clause of Pius quartus his Creed; that the Roman Church is the Mother of all Churches. He confesses she is not, unless S. Peter did consecrate all the Apostles; he might have added, No, nor then neither, unless Peter had made the Apostles to be Bishops, after himself was Bishop of Rome; for what is that to the Roman Church, if he did this before he was the Roman Bishop? But then that Peter made all the Apostles Bishops is so ridiculous a dream, that in the world nothing is more unwarrantable. For, besides that S. Paul was consecrated by none but Christ himself, it is certain that he ordained Timothy and Titus, and that the succession in those Churches ran from the same Original in the same Line; and there is no Record in Scripture that ever S. Peter ordained any; not any one of the Apostles who received their authority from Christ and the Holy Spirit, in the same times altogether: which thing is also affirmed by 
a Institut. moral. part. 2 l. 4. c. 11. Sect. Altera opinio.  Azorius, and 
b De tripl. virt. Theolog. disp. 10. Sect. 1. n. 5. & 7.  Suarez, who also quotes for it the Authority of S. 
c Quaest Vet. & N. Test. q. 97.  Austin, and the Gloss. So that from first to last, it appears that the Roman Church is not the Mother-Church, and yet every Priest is sworn to live and die in the belief of it, that she is. However, it is plain, that this assumentum and shred of the Roman Creed, is such a declaration of the old Article of believing the Catholic Church, that it is not only a direct new Article of faith but destroys the old.  
By thus handling the Creed of the Catholic Church we shall best understand what they mean, when they affirm that the Pope can interpret Scripture authoritatiuè, and he can make Scripture. Ad quem pertinet sacram Scripturam authoritatiuè interpretari: Ejus enim est interpretari, cujus est condere. He that can make Scripture can make new Articles of faith surely. Much to the same Purpose are the words of Pope Innocent the fourth, 
Innocent. 4. in cap. super eo. de Bigamis.  He cannot only interpret the Gospel, but add to it. Indeed if he have power to expound it authoritatiuè, that is as good as making it; for by that means he can add to it, or take from the sense of it. But that the Pope can do this, that is, can interpret the Scriptures authoritatiuè, sententialitèr, obligatoriè, so as it is not lawful to hold the contrary, is affirmed by Augustinus Triumphus 
a Qu. 67. a. 2. , Turrecremata 
b Lib. 2. c. 107. , and Hervey 
c De potestate Papae. . And Cardinal Hosius 
d De expresso Dei verbo & in Epilogo.  goes beyond this, saying, That although the words of the Scripture be not open, yet being uttered in the sense of the Church, they are the express words of God; but uttered in any other sense, are not the express word of God, but rather of the Devil.] To these I only add what we are taught by another Cardinal; who persuading the Bohemians to accept the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in one kind, tells them; and it is that I said before; If the Church, 
Card. Cusan. Ep●st. 2. ad B●h●m●s, de usu Communionis, p. 833.  viz. of Rome (for that is with them the Catholic Church) or if the Pope, that is, the Virtual Church, do expound any Evangelical sense contrary to what the current sense and practice of the Catholic Primitive Church did; not that, but this present interpretation must be taken for the way of Salvation. For God changes his judgement as the Church does. 
Epist. 3. p. 838.  So that it is no wonder, that the Pope can make new Articles, or new Scriptures, or new Gospel; it seems the Church of Rome can make contrary Gospel: that if in the primitive Church to receive in both kinds was via salutis, because it was understood then to be a precept Evangelical; afterwards the way of Salvation shall be changed, and the precept Evangelical must be understood, To take it in one kind. But this is denied by Balduinus, 
In 1. Decret. de summa Trinitate & fide Cathol. n. 44. 15. dist. Canon's.  who, to the Question Whether can the Pope find out new Articles of Faith? says, I answer, Yes: But not contrary. It seems the Doctors differ upon that point: but that which the Cardinal of Cusa, the Legate of P. Nicolas the fifth, taught the Bohemians, was, how they should answer their objection: for (they said) if Christ commanded one thing, and the Council, or the Pope, or the Prelates commanded contrary, they would not obey the Church but Christ. But how greatly they were mistaken, the Cardinal Legat told them, 
Epist 2. add Bohemos, p. 834. edit. Basil. A. D. 1565.  Possible non est, Scripturam quamcunque, sive ipsa praeceptum sive consilium contineat, in eos qui apud Ecclesiam existunt, plus auctoritatis ligandi haebere aut solvendi fideles, quàm ipsa Ecclesia voluerit, aut verbo aut opere expresserit: and in the third Epistle he tells them, The authority of the Church is to be preferred before the Scriptures. 
In piorum Clypeo. qu 29. artit. 5.  The same also is taught by Elysius' Nepolitanus.  
It matters not what the primitive Church did; no, nor much what the Apostolical did: 
Pighius Hierarch. l. 1. c. 2.  For the Apostles indeed, wrote some certain things, not that they should rule our Faith, and our Religion, but that they should be under it; that is, they submit the Scriptures to the Faith, nay, even to the Practice of the Church. For the Pope can change the Gospel, said Henry, the Master of the Roman Palace, 
Ad legatos ●ohemicos sub Felice Papa. A. D. 1447. vide Polan. in Dan. 11. 371.  and, according to place and time, give it another sense: insomuch, that if any man should not believe Christ to be the true God and man, if the Pope thought so too, he should not be damned, said the Cardinal of S. Angelo; And Silvester Prierias 
* Sylvest. Prierias cont. Lutherum, Conclu. 56.  expressly affirmed, that the authority of the Church of Rome, and the Pope's, is greater than the authority of the Scriptures. These things being so notorious, I wonder with what confidence Bellarmine can say, That the Catholics, meaning his own parties, do not subject the Scripture, but prefer it before Councils; and that there is no controversy in this; when the contrary is so plain in the pre-alledged testimonies: but because his conscience checked him in the particular, he thinks to escape with a distinction: If the Catholics sometimes say, That the Scriptures depend upon the Church, or a Council, they do not understand it, in respect of authority, or in themselves; but by explication, and in relation to us 
* Bellarm. de Concil. author. lib. 2. cap. 12. Sect. Diximus. . Which is too crude an affirmative to be believed: for, besides that Pighius in his Epistle to Paul III. before his Books of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy affirms, that the whole authority of the Scripture, depends upon the Church; and the Testimonies, above cited, do in terms confute this saying of his; the distinction itself, helps not all: for if the Scriptures have quoad nos, no authority, but what the Pope, or the Church is pleased to give them; then they have in themselves none at all. For the Scriptures were written for our learning; not to instruct the Angels, but to conserve the truths of God for the use of the Church; and they have no other use or design; And if a man shall say the Scriptures have in themselves great authority; he must mean that in themselves they are highly credible quoad nos, that is, that we are bound to believe them for their own truth and excellency. And if a man shall say, They have no authority quoad nos, but what the Church gives them; he says, They are not credible in themselves, and, in se, have no authority; so that this distinction is a Metaphysical Nothing, and is brought only to amuse men that have not leisure to consider. And he that says one, says the other; or as bad, under a thin and transparent cover. The Church gives testimony external, to the Scripture; but the internal authority is inherent and derives only from God. But let the witness of the Church be of as perfect force, as can be desired, I meddle not with it here; but that which I charge on the Roman Doctors, is, that they give to their Church a power of introducing, and imposing new Articles of Belief; and pretending that they have power so to do; and their definitions are of authority equal (if not superior) to the Scriptures. And this I have now proved by many testimonies: to all which I add that of the Canon Law itself. 
Dist. 19 Can. in Canonicis.  In which Gratian most falsely alleges pretended words of Saint Austin (which Bellarmine 
* De Concil. authorit. lib. 2. cap. 12. Sect. Respond●o ad Gra●ianum.  calls a being deceived by a false Copy) and among the Canonical Scriptures, reckons the decretal Epistles of the Popes; inter quas sanè illae sunt, quas Apostolica Sedes habere, & ab eâ alii meruerunt accipere Epistolas: Now who can tell of any Copy of S. Austin, or heard of any, in which these words were seen? Certainly, no man alive; but if Gratian was deceived, the deceivers were among themselves; and yet they loved the deception, or else they might have expunged those words, when Gregory the 13th. appointed a Committee of learned men to purge that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But it yet remains; and if they do not pass for Saint Austin's words, yet they are good Law at Rome. 
100LS. Com. tit. 1. de Ecclesiâ & ejus authorit.  And Heretics indeed talk otherwise, said Eckius. Objiciunt Haeretioi, Major est authoritas Scripturae quam Ecclesiae; but he hath confuted them with an excellent Argument. The Church using blood and strangled, hath by authority changed a thing, defined by the Scripture. Behold (says he) the power of the Church over Scripture! I love not to take in such polluted channels; he that is pleased with it, may find enough to entertain his wonder, and his indignation, if he please to read 
a fol. 126. 1. b. & 104. b. & 133. b.  Capistrano, 
b pag. 42. n. 15. & p. 11. n. 18. & 124. n. 9  Cupers, 
c defence. Trid. l. 1. & l. 2. & explic. orthod. l. 2.  Andradius, 
d pag. 3. l. 22. cap. 3. Sect. 3.  Antonius, 
e de fide & justif. 74. 6. & hierarch. Eccl. l. 1. c. 2. 3. 4. & in praefatione ad Paulum ter●ium.  Pighius, 
f Contr. Luth●. Concl. 56.  Sylvester Prierias, 
g dis. contr. Luther. 8. de Eccl. Concl. 1. l. edit. 1554.  Johannes Maria Verratus, 
h Encherid. cap. 1.  Coster, 
i in 3. l. decretal. de convers. conjug. c. ex publico. n. 16.  Zabarel, and 
k de verb. Dei l. 3. c. 10. Sect. Ad decimum quintum.  Bellarmine himself, who yet, with some more modesty of expression, affirms the same thing in substance, which according as it hath been, is, and is still likely to be made use of, is enough to undo the Church; The word of the Pope, teaching out of his Chair, is non omnino, not (altogether, or not at all) the word of man, that is a word liable to error, but in some sort the word of God, etc. Agreeable to which is that which the Lawyers say, that the Canon Law is the Divine Law; so said 
* Super. 2. decret. de jurejur. c. Nimis. n. 1.  Hostiensis. I hope, I shall not be esteemed to slander her, when these writers think they so much honour the Church of Rome in these say. In pursuance of this power and authority, Pope Pius the 4th. made a new Creed; and putting his power into act, did multiply new Articles, one upon another. And in the Council of Trent, amongst many other new, and fine Doctrines, this was one, That it is Heresy to say, That Matrimonial Causes do not pertain to Ecclesiastical Judges: and yet we in England own this privilege to the favour and bounty of the King, and so did the Ancient Churches to the kindness and Religion of the Emperor; and, if it were so, or not so, it is but matter of Discipline, and cannot by a simple denial of it, become an Heresy. So that what I have alleged, is not the opinion of some private Doctors, but the public practice of the Roman Church. 
Lib. Benedicti de Benedict. Bon niae excusus. A. D. 1600.  Commissum ei (Papae) munus non modò articulos indeterminatos determinandi, sed etiam fidei Symbolum condendi: atque hoc ipsum Orthodoxos omnes omnium saeculorum agnovisse, & palam confessos esse; it was said to Paulus Quintus, in an address to him. And how good a Catholic Baronius was in this particular, 
An. Dom. 373. n. 22.  we may guests by what himself says concerning the business of the Apollinarists, in which the Pope did, and undid; Vt planè appareat, says Baronius, ex arbitrio pependisse Romani Pontificis, Decreta sancire, & sancita mutare.  
2. That which I am next to represent, is, that the Church of Rome hath reason and necessity to pretend to this power of making new Articles; for they having in the body of their Articles, and in the public Doctrines allowed by them, and in the profession and practices of their Church, so many new things, which at least seem contrary to Scripture, or are not at all in Scripture; and such for which it is impossible to show any Apostolical, or Primitive tradition, do easily and openly betray their own weakness and necessity in this affair. My first Instance is of their known Arts of abusing the people, by pretended Apparitions, and false Miracles, for the establishing of strange Opinions. Non obscurum est quot opiniones invectae sunt in orbem per homines, ad suum quaestum callidos, confictorum miraculorum praesidio, said Erasmus. These Doctrines must needs be things that come over the Walls, and in at the Windows; they come not the right way. For besides that, 
In 1 Cor. 2.  as S. chrysostom says, It was at first profitable, 
Tom. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that miracles should be done; and now it is profitable, that they be not done: for then our Faith was finished by Miracles, but now by the Divine Scriptures:] Miracles are like watering of plants, to be done when they are newly set, and before they have taken root. Hence the Apostle saith, Tongues are for a sign to them that believe not, and not for them that believe.] So S. Gregory, 
a Homil. 29. in Evangel.  Our Ancestors followed after signs; by which it came to pass, that they should not be necessary to their posterity; And 
b S. Aug. de verâ relig. c. 25.  he that yet looks for Miracles that he may believe, is himself a Miracle. Nay, to pretend Miracles now adays, is the worst sign in the world. And here S. Austin in great zeal, gives warning of such things as these. [
c Id de civet. Dei l. 22. c. 8.  Let not a man say, This is true, because Donatus, Pontius, or another, hath done wonderful things; or because men praying at the memories of Martyrs are heard; or because such, or such things there happen, or because that Brother of ours, or that Sister of ours waking saw such a Vision, or sleeping dreamt such a Dream: let those fictions of lying men, or wonders of deceitful spirits, be removed. For either those things which are spoken, are not true, or if any miracles of Heretics be done, we ought to take heed the more. Because when our Lord said, Some deceivers should arise, which should do signs, and deceive, if it were possible, the very Elect; he, 
August. tract. 13. in Evang▪  commending this saying, vehemently added, Behold, I have told you of it before.]; This same is also taught by the Author of the imperfect work on S. Matthew, 
Johan. Homil. 49.  imputed to Saint Chrysostom, who calls the power of working Miracles (after the first vocation of the Gospel) seductionis adjutoria, the helps of seduction; as at first they were used by Christ, and Christ's servants, as instruments of vocation; and affirms, These helps of deceit were to be delivered to the Devil.] It was the same in the Gospel, as it was in the Law of Moses; after God had by signs and wonders in the hand of Moses, fixed and established his Law, which only was to be their Rule; and Caution was given, Deuter. 1. 13. that against that Rule, no man should be believed, though he wrought miracles. 
Quest. in Deuter.  Upon which words Theodoret says, [We are instructed, that we must not mind signs, when he that works them, teaches any thing contrary to piety.] And therefore these things can be to no purpose, unless it be to deceive; except this only, that where miracles are pretended, there is a warning also given, that there is danger of deception, and there is the Seat of Anti-christ, who is foretold should come in all signs, & lying wonders. 
Hic. 11. 1●. vide Stellam; ibid.  Generatio nequam signum quaerit, said Christ. But it is remarkable by the Doctrines, for which in the Church of Rome, Miracles are pretended, that they are a Cover fitted for their Dish; new miracles to destroy the old truths, and to introduce new opinions. For to prove any Article of our Creed, or the necessity of a Divine Commandment, or the Divinity of the Eternal Son of God, there is now no need of miracles, and for this way of proving these, and such Articles as these, they trouble not themselves; but for Transubstantiation, Adoration of the consecrated Bread and Wine, for Purgatory, Invocation, and worship of Saints, of their Relics, of the Cross, Monastical Vows, Fraternities of Friars and Monks, the Pope's Supremacy, and double Monarchy in the Church of Rome, they never give over to make, and boast Prodigious Miracles. But with what success, we may learn from some of the more sober and wise amongst them. In Sacramento apparet Caro, 
In quartam sent. qu. 53.  interdum humanâ procuratione, interdum operatione diabolica, said Alexander of Alice: this indeed was an old trick, and S. Irenaeus reports, 
Iren l. 1. c. 9  that it was done by Marcus, that great Haersiarch, that by this prayer he caused the Eucharistical Wine to appear as if it were turned into Blood; 
In Canon Missae. lect. 49.  and Biel affirms, that Miracles are done to men who run to Images, sometimes by operation of Devils, to deceive those inordinate worshippers; God permitting it, and their infidelity exacting it. And when, in the Question of the immaculate Conception, there are miracles produced on both sides (as the learned Bishop of the Canaries tells us) it must needs be, 
Melchior. can●s lo●. Com. mun. l. 11. c. 6.  that on one side the Devil was the Architect, if not on both. And such stories are so frequently related by the Romish Legends, by S. Gregory Bishop of Rome, by Beda, by Vincentius Belvacensis Antoninus, by the Speculum Exemplorum, and are accounted Religious stories, and are so publicly preached and told by the Friars in their Sermons, and so believed by the people, and the Common sort of Roman Catholics, and indifferently amongst many of the better sort, that their minds are greatly possessed with such a superstitious credulity, and are fed with such hypochondriacal, and fond opinions, that it is observable, how they, by those usages, are become fond News-mongers, and reporters of every ridiculous story. Hi piè nonnihil admentientes, supponunt reliquias, fabricant miracula, confinguntque (quae Exempla vocant) vel plausibiles; vel terribiles fabulas: 
De vanit. Scier. cap. 97.  So Cornelius Agrippa complains of the Writers of such ridiculous stories in that Church; that, as one of their own Writers said, they equal, if not exceed, Amadis and Clarianus. Who please to see more of this, may be satisfied with reading Canus, in the Chapter above quoted: or, if he please, he may observe it in Bellarmine himself; who out of those very legends and stories, which are disallowed by Canus, and out of divers others, as Garetius, Tilmanus; Bredenbachius, Thomas of Walden, and I know not who besides, recount seven miracles, to prove the proper natural presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament; amongst which, it is not the least which he tells; of the fellow's beast, 
Bellar. lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 8.  who left his barley at the Command of S. Anthony of Milan, and went to worship the Sacrament. Such things as these it is no wonder that they are either acted or believed in the Church of Rome, since so many Popes and Priests are Magicians; and since that villain of a man, Pope Hildebrand (as Cardinal Beno relates in his life) could by shaking of his Sleeve make sparks of fire fly from it. I end this, and make no other use of it then what is made by Aventinus, 
Lib. 5. & l. 7.  saying, That this Pope under show of Religion is said to have laid the foundation of the Empire of Antichrist. Multi falsi prophetae nebulas offundunt; fabulis, miraculis (Exempla vocant) à veritate Christi plebem avertunt. Falsi tum prophetae, falsi Apostoli, falsi sacerdotes emersêre, qui simulatâ religione populum deceperunt, magna signa atque prodigia ediderunt, & in templo Dei sedere atque extolli super id quod colitur, coeperunt. Dumque suam potentiam, dominationémque stabilire conantur, charitatem, & simplicitatem Christianam extinxerunt.] And they continue to do so to this day, where they have any hopes to prevail without discovery. Secondly, themselves acknowledge, That there are many things of which was no inquiry in the Primitive Church▪ which yet upon doubts arising are now become perspicuous by the diligence of aftertimes; it is the acknowledgement of the Cardinal of Rochester. 
Lib. 3. De cultu sanctorum, c. 9  And Bellarmine helps to make this good with a considerable instance, 
Sect. Praetered.  Cum scriberentur Scripturae nondum coeperat usus vovendi sanctis; 
Country le Roy de la Grand Bretaigne.  and Cardinal Perron adds, Et quant aux autheurs plus proche du siccle Apostolic, encore qu'il ne se trouve pas de vestiges de ceste coustume, etc. Neither in the age of the Apostles, that is, when the Scriptures were written, nor in the age next to it, are there any footsteps of Vowing to Saints; for then the custom was not begun. The Pope's infallibility goes amongst very many for a Catholic doctrine; In Spain and Italy, in Austria and Poland it is so, 
Lib. 4. De Pontifice 〈◊〉, cap. 2. Sect. Secunda 〈◊〉. & Sect. Ex 〈…〉.  and every where else where the Jesuits prevail: but when Bellarmine had affirmed that Nilus, Gerson, Almain, Alphonsus à Castro, and Pope Adrian the VI had taught that the Pope might be a heretic, if he defines without a General Council; and in his censure of them, affirmed that this opinion is not propriè haeretica, he plainly, by certain and immediate consequence, confesses that for 1400 or 1500 years the Judgement of the Pope was not esteemed infallible. Now if this be true, it is impossible that it can ever be determined as a Catholic truth; for there is no Catholic Tradition for it. There was not for many ages; and therefore, either there is no Tradition in the present Church for it, or if there be, it is contrary to the old Tradition: and therefore, either the Tradition of the present Church is no rule, or, if it be, it is a very new one; and several ages are bound to believe contradictory propositions. That the Pope is above a Council is held by some Roman Catholics, and it is held so by all the Popes, and hath without scruple been determined in the chair, and contended for earnestly, for about two hundred years past; and yet all the world knows, it was not so of old. 
Lib. 2. de Concil. author. c. 14.  For we know when the Question began, 
Sect. Vltima sententia, & ca 17. Sect. Tertia propositi●.  even in the time of the first Council of Pisa, a little before the Council of Constance; and now, that the Pope is above the Council, is sententia ferè communis; nay, it is ferè de fide, saith Bellarmine. Which expression of his shows plainly, that Articles of faith grow in the womb of the Roman Church, as an Embryo, to be perfected when the Pope shall see his time. Nay, if the Pope's definition in Cathedrâ be infallible, or if it can be known where the Popes does define in Cathedrâ this proposition that the Pope is above a Council is more than ferè de Fide: for, that the Council is superior, is an heretical opinion, and the favourers of it Heretics, Pius quartus affirmed in his Complaint against Lansack the French Ambassador in the Council of Trent, 
A D. 1562.  and he threatened to persecute and chastise them. And the like is to be said concerning that fine new Article of faith made by Pope Paul the fourth (of which I have spoken in the first Section) that a Pope cannot be bound, much less can be bind himself, viz. by any Oath; for that was the Subject matter of the discourse. The number of the seven Sacraments is now an Article of the Roman faith, taught in their Catechisms, determined in their Councils, preached in their Pulpits, disputed for against their adversaries; and yet the Council of Florence was the first Council, and Peter Lombard was the first man we find ever to have precisely fixed upon that number, as Bellarmine 
a Lib. 2. De effect. Sacr. c. 25. Sect. Secunda probatio. , and Valentia 
b In Thom. tom. 4. disp. 3. q. 6. punct. 2. Sect. Tertiò objiciunt, etc.  sufficiently acknowledge, even when they would fain deny it. Here I might instance in the Seal of Confession, which as they have at Rome passed it under a Sacramental lock and key, and founded upon a Divine law (for so they pretend,) is one of the new Articles of Faith, which wholly depends upon the authority of the Church of Rome; who for the sake of this, and many other Articles, is compelled to challenge a strange power even of making and imposing new Creeds, or of quitting her new Articles. But the whole order of Sections in this Chapter will be one continued argument of this particular.   

SECTION VI.  
Of the Expurgatory Indices in the Roman Church.  
THey use indirect and unworthy arts, that they may do it without reproach and discovery: and for this I instance in the whole affair and annexes of their Expurgatory Indices. Concerning which, three things are said in the first part of this Dissuasive. 1. That the King of Spain gave a Commission to the Inquisitors to purge all Catholic Authors, but with a clause of secrecy. 2. That they purged the Indices of the Father's works. 3. That they did also purge the works of the Fathers themselves. The first and the last are denied by them that wrote against the Dissuasive: The second they confess, and endeavour to justify. But how well, will appear when I have first made good the first and the last.  
1. That the King of Spain gave a clancular Commission to the Inquisitors, can be denied by no man but by him that hath ignorance for his excuse; and then also the ignorance ought rather to be modestly confessed, 
E. W. page. 17. He is false and faulty through this whole Section; faulty in telling us of a clancular Commission given by the King of Spain to the Inquisitors, etc. without directing us to either Book or Index where to find it.] This Commission is in Junius his Edition of the Indices Expurgatorii; and of this Book the author of a Letter to a friend did make use, as appears in his 6. page under n. 16.  than a fault charged upon him, who knowing it, did affirm it. But the Commission is printed both in Dutch and Latin, together with the Expurgatory Indices of Belgium and Madrid, at Henovia or Henault by Guilielmus Antonius, 1611. in which the King affirms that he caused the Belgic Index to be printed by his own chief Printer, at his own charge, Non quidem evulgandum, distrahendúmque; sed distribuendum solis Cognitoribus, etc. And a little after, giving faculty to the Prelates to choose one or more Assistants, he adds, Itque ipsi privatim nullisque consciis apud se Indicem Expurgatorium habebunt, quem eundem neque aliis communicabunt, neque ejus exemplum ulli dabunt, etc. This then is soon at an end.  
2. But Junius that published the Indices seems to say that they did not purge the works of the Fathers. To this the Answer that Junius himself makes is sufficient; for he instances in their purgation of Bertram, who yet was elder than Haymo, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and almost two hundred years before S. Bernard; and yet they openly professed to use him as they please: and when Bertram had said visibilitèr, they commanded he should be read invisibilitèr: which is a pretty little change, and very meet to Bertrams sense surely. But Bellarmine is also in this particular a witness beyond exception; 
lib. 4. De verb● Dei, cap. 11.  for when he had recited an objection out of S. Chrysostom, 
Sect. Sext● profert.  proving that in the times of heresy there is no way of finding truth but by the Scripture; having nothing else to answer, he says, The book was either written or interpolated by an Arian; Et propterea totus hic locus, tanquam ab Arianis insertus, è quibusdam codicibus nuper emendatis sublatus est. But the thing is plain also in the Indices themselves; for in the Spanish Index by the Command of Gaspar Quiroga Archbishop of Toledo, and in that also of Sandoval, the purge hath passed upon the Bibliotheca sanctorum Patrum collected by Binius; where not only the Gloss upon S. Gregory of Neocaesarea, but the works of S. Anthony the Abbot, 
Pag. 282. Edit.  S. Melito, Mark the Hermit, Dorotheus, and divers others, 
Hanou. 1611.  are purged; and that the Reader may be satisfied in the manner and design of the proceeding, the doctrines or saying to be blotted out are these: [We have learned to worship and venerate that nature only that is Uncreated: deal [solummodò] said the good Fathers of the purges: Prudence, and Life, and Piety, make the Priest. A wicked mind cannot be justified. He that keeps not the Commandments, does not believe rightly. Only the Holy Trinity is properly incorporeal. A spiritual prayer helps not an unclean mind. These are all doctrines very dangerous and heretical, and therefore though the Fathers teach them, yet deleantur; let them pass through the fire, and leave their dross behind them. But I desire the Reader to observe that when in the Sandoval Edition of the Index, and order was taken for the purging the Bibliotheca Patrum in the Edition of it at Colein, the Sandoval Canon was not observed; and the reason given for it, was this, Lest the heretics may have occasion given them to insult; which they could not do, unless they had taken their adversaries in their tampering. But they are gone yet one step further in this particular: for in the latter Editions of the Bibliotheca, 
Edit. Paris. 1610.  they do not add the title of Sanctorum to them; but Patrum only, and Ecclesiasticorum Scriptorum; according to the order of the Sandoval Expurgatory Index, printed at Madrid, 1612. and of the Quirogian Index, printed there 1583. So that, as they are forced secretly to imply that they are not so right for their Catholic cause, as they would have them: so they are resolved, whatsoever is not so, shall not pass with them for Holy. And in this diminution and dishonour of the memory of these Ancient Fathers, S. Clement of Alexandria his good name hath suffered shipwreck; for in 
* Index Expurg. Saniov. p. 83.  Clement Alexandrino, in duplici titulo operis, deal titulum Divi; for now it happens in some measure to them that have in honour the memory of such men that seemed to speak any thing against the errors of the Roman Church, as it did to Arulenus Ruslicus praising of Paetus Thrasea, and to Herennius Senecio commending Helvidius Priscus, Capitale fuit, said Tacitus; and this is notorious in their Tables, their new-fashioned diptyches; where men of honourable name and great worth are called damnati Authores, and their very name commanded to be put out, and some Periphrasis set down for them. 2. But that I may give one pregnant instance of their purging the Fathers; I desire him that is curious and would be satisfied in this thing, to see the Edition of S. Austin, at Venice; and in the inscription of his Works he shall find this Confession, [In quo, praeter locorum multorum restitutionem secundum collationem veterum Exemplarium, curavimus removeri illa omnia quae fidelium mentes haereticâ pravitate possent inficere, aut à Catholicâ Orthodoxâ fide deviare.] And in the Quirogian Index, which hath these words, Sunt autem ferè omnia quae offendunt in Prologis & Marginalibus Annotationibus, we may easily see, that not the Prologues and Annotations alone are guilty, but even S. Austin's text. But beyond conjecture, the thing is in itself evident. But the Father's words are expunged in one place, and consequently condemned in every place; which is that I intended in the citation of those words by Junius, and which were also set down in the first part of this Dissuasive. But both in the text and Index of S. Cyril of Alexandria, 
In Esai. lib. 1. c. 51. in fin.  these words are, and yet commanded to be blotted, Habitat Jesus per fidem in cordibus nostris. 
Ephes. 3. 17.  Which very words are not in S. Cyril only, but in S. Paul too; and by S. Cyril quoted with a sicut scriptum est.  
And again, 
Index Quirog. p. 74.  Deleantur ex textu illa verba, Fidei autem gratiam cum his qui valdè inquinati sunt, tum etiam paulum morbo affectis, satis ad emendationem valituram esse fidem, dicens] Fides sola justificat, are commanded to be blotted, and yet they are both in the Index and the text of S. Hierom. 
In Epist. ad Rom. c. 10. haeres. 69.  So the Gloss of Epiphanius of Creaturam non adorare is commanded to be blotted out; when the words of Epiphanius Text are, Sancta Dei Ecclesia creaturam non, adorat, and it is so in other places; of which the Indices themselves are the best testimony. And that no man may question whether they purged the Fathers, yea or no, Sixtus Senensis said it to Pius Quintus, Deinde expurgari & emaculari curasti omnia Catholicorum Scriptorum, ac praecipuè veterum Patrum Scripta: especially the Writings of the ancient Fathers were purged.  
Now true it is, that in the following words, he pretends a reason why he did so, and tells what things were purged; even those things which were infected, and poisoned by the Heretics of our age. These last words, and this reason, was not cited in the first part, when the former words were made use of; and therefore an outcry was raised by them that wrote against it, 
* F. W. p. 12. and the Author of a Let. pag. 7.  as if they had been concealed by fraudulent design. To which I answer, that I was not willing to interrupt the order of my discourse, with quoting words which are neither true, nor pertinent. For they have in them no truth, and no good meaning. They are protestatio contra factum; as being set there to persuade the world, that none of the Fathers, or modern Catholics were purged, unless the Lutherans had corrupted them; when all the world knows, they have purged the Writings of the Catholics old and new, Fathers and Moderns, which themselves had printed, and formerly allowed; but now being wiser, and finding them to give too much evidence against them, they have altered them. I could instance in many; but I shall not need, since enough may be seen in Doctor James his Table of Books, which were first set forth and approved, and afterwards censured by themselves. I shall trouble my Reader but with one instance. That one is, the work of Ferus upon S. John's first Epistle, which was printed at Antwerp 1556. with the privilege given by King Philip, to Martinus Nutius, with this Elegy. Nam suae Majestati patuit librum esse omnino utilem, & nihil continere quod pias aures meritò offendere possit. The same Book was printed at Paris, 1555. by the Marnet, and 1556. by Audoën Petit, or Parvus; at Lions, 1559. by Jacobus de Mellis; and the same year at Louvain, by Servatius Sessenus, and at Mentz, where he was Preacher, by Francis Behem; and after all this, it was printed at Paris, 1563. by Gabriel Buon, and at Antwerp, 1565. by the heirs of Nutius. Now all these Editions were made by the Papists, and allowed of; and no Protestant, no Heretic of that age (that I may use the words of Senensis) had corrupted them; neither is it pretended that they did: and yet this Book was purged at Rome, 1577. and altered, added, and detracted in 194. places: of the nature and consequence of which alterations, I give this one Instance: In the second Chapter, where Ferus, in the old Edition of Mentz, Louvain, Antwerp, etc. had these words, Scriptura Sacra data est nobis ceu certa quaedam regula Christianae doctrinae; But in the Roman Edition, 1577. the words are changed thus; Sacra Scriptura & Traditio nobis data sunt ceu certa quaedam regula Christiadae doctrinae. By which Instance it plainly appears, that the Inquisitors General, and the Pope, purge others than what the Heretics have corrupted, and that these words of Sixtus Senensis, are but a false cover to a foul dish, when they could no longer hid it. Nay, even the Rules given by the Pope himself, Clement the VIII th'. give order for prohibiting the Books of the Catholics, 
Reg. 6.  before they be purged. Si nonnulla contineant quae sine delectu ab omnibus legi non expedit: and in the Preface to the Sandoval Index, it is said; Obiter autem in quorundam orthodoxorum libris nonnulli lapsus aut quaedam obscurius dicta deprehensa, quibus expurgatio, explicatio, aut cautio prudenter adhibita, ne minus cautos lectores contingat impingere. Which is a plain indication, that the Church of Rome proceeds in her purging of Books upon other accounts than removing the corruptions lately introduced by the Lutherans or Calvinists. And all this, and much more being evident and notorious, there was reason then to think, as I do still, that those words were of no use to be added, unless to give occasion of impertinent wrangling, but that there could be no other design in it, is manifest by what I have now said. 3. But the expurgatory Indices had the less need to do much of this, since their work was done to their hands. For the Father's works had passed though fire Ordeal, 
By the Author of the Letter and E. W.  many times before. I instanced in the Edition of S. Ambrose, by Ludovicus Saurius, wherein many lines were cancellated, and the Edition spoilt; and this was done by the authority of two Franciscans; 
Junius in Praefat. ad. Ind. Expurg. Belgic.  qui pro authoritate has omnes paginas dispunxerunt ut vides, & illas substitui in locum priorum curaverunt, praeter omnem librorum nostrorum fidem, said Saurius. Against this, it is said, that it is a slander, because the Index Expurgatorius, was not appointed till the end of the Council of Trent, which was An. Dom. 1563. and therefore could not put a force upon Saurius, who corrected this Book, and assisted at the Edition of it, 1559. To which I answer; that it was not said, that the Index Expurgatorius, put a force upon Saurius; but only a force was put upon him: and, that it was so by two Franciscans, Jnnius, who tells the story, does affirm. 2. For aught appears to the contrary, nay, most probable it was so, that this force was put upon him by the authority of the Expurgatorius Index; for though the Council of Trent appointed one a little before its ending, which was in 1563; yet there was an Index made before that, by P. Paul the 4th. who died four years before the end of the Council; and this he made by the Council of all the Inquisitors, 
Concil. Trident. in primâ Sessione sub Pio Quarto.  and of many famous men, who sent him advice from all parts, and he made a most complete Catalogue, to which nothing can be added, except some Book come forth within two years, said Friar Augustin Selvago, Archbishop of Genua. So that here was authority enough, and there wanted no zeal, and here is matter of fact complained of, by the parties suffering. 4. It would indeed have been matter of great scandal and reproach, to have openly handled all the Fathers indifferently, as they used the Moderns; and though (as I have proved) this did not wholly restrain them, yet it abated much of their willingness; but there was less need of it, because they had very well purged them before; by cancellating the lines, by parting the pages, by corrupting their Writings, by putting Glosses in the Margin, and afterwards putting these Glosses into the Text. Quod lector ineptiens annotârat in margin sui codicis, Scribae retulerunt in contextum; said Erasmus in his Preface to the Works of S. Austin, to the Archbishop of Toledo; and the same also is observed by the Paris-overseers of the press, in their Preface to their Edition of S. Austin's Works at Paris 1571. by Martin and Nivellius. And this thing was notorious in a considerable instance, in S. Cyprian, 
* Vide Pamelii annot. in librum.  de Vnitate Ecclesiae; where after the words of Christ spoken to S. Peter, and recorded by S. Matthew; there had been a marginal note, Hîc Petro primatus datur; which words they have brought into the Roman, and Antwerp Editions; but they have both left out Hîc, and the Roman, instead of it, hath put Et. And whereas in the old Editions of Cyprian, even the Roman itself, these words were, He who withstandeth, and resisteth the Church, doth he trust himself to be in the Church? some body hath made bold to put the words thus, in the Text of the Edition of Antwerp; He who forsaketh Peter's Chair, on which the Church is founded, doth he trust himself to be in the Church? But in how many places that excellent Book of S. Cyprian's is interlined, and spoiled by the new Correctors, is evident to him that shall compare the Roman Edition with the elder Copies, and them with the later Edition of Antwerp; and Pamelius himself, concerning some words, saith, 
ibid.  Atque adeò non sumus veriti in textum inserere. I could bring in many considerable instances, though it be more than probable, that of forty falsities in the abusing the Father's Writings by Roman hands, there was not perhaps above one or two discoveries; yet this, and many other concurrences might make it less needful to pass their Sponges upon the Fathers. But when the whole charge of printing of Books at Rome, lies on the Apostolical See, as 
a Epist. l. 9 ad Jacobum Gorseium.  Manutius tells us; it is likely enough, that all shall be taken care of, so as shall serve their purposes. And so the Printer tells us, viz. 
In Praef. ad Pium, Quartm in librum Cardinalis Poli de C●ncilio.  That such care was taken to have them so corrected, that there should be no spot which might infect the minds of the simple, with the show or likeness of false doctrine. And now by this, we may very well perceive, how the force was put upon Saurius, in the purging S. Ambrose, even by the Inquisitors; and that by the authority and care of the Pope: and therefore though the Works of most of the greater Fathers were not put into the Expurgatory Indices, yet they were otherwise purged, that is, most shamefully corrupted, torn and maimed, and the lesser Fathers passed under the file in the Expurgatory Indices themselves.  
3. But then, 
The Author of a Letter to a friend, pag 7. E. W. p. 20.  that they purged the Indices of the Father's Works, is so notorious, that it is confessed, and endeavoured to be justified. But when we come to consider, that many times the very words of the Fathers which are put into the Index, are commanded to be expunged, it at once shows, that fain they would, and yet durst not expunge the words out of the Books, since they would be discovered by their adversaries, and they would suffer reproach without doing any good to themselves. Now whereas it is said, [that therefore the words of the Fathers are blotted out of the Indices, 
E. W. p. 1●.  because they are set down without antecedents, and consequents; and prepare the Reader to an ill sense:] this might be possible, but we see it otherwise in the Instances themselves, which oftentimes are so plain, that no context, no circumstances, can alter the proposition: which is most of all notorious in the deleaturs of the Indices of the Bible set forth by Robert Stephen. Credens Christo non morietur in aeternum, this is to be blotted out; 
Joh. 11. 26.  and yet Christ himself said it, Every one that lives, and believes in me shall never die. Justus coram. Deo nemo, is to be blotted out of Robert Stephen's Index; 
Psal. 142. v. 1. alias 143.  and yet David prayed, Enter not into judgement with thy servant, O Lord; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. Now what antecedent, or what context, or what circumstances can alter the sense of these places; which being the same in the Text and the Index, shows the good will of the Inquisitors; and that like King Edward the 6th. his Tutor, they corrected the Prince upon his Page's back; and they have given sufficient warning of the danger of those words wherever they find them in the Fathers, since they have so openly rebuked them in the Indices. And therefore I made no distinction of places; but reckoned those words censured in the Expurgatory Tables as the Father's words censured or expunged; and in this I followed the style of their own Books, for in the Belgic Index, the style is thus; In Hieronymi Operibus expungenda, 
pag. 70. Edit. 1611.  quae sequuntur, and yet they are the Scholia, Indices, and sense of the Fathers set down, and printed in the same volume altogether; and, having the same fate, and all upon the same account, I had reason to charge it as I did.  
And how far the evil of this did proceed, may easily be conjectured by what was done by the Inquisition in the year 1559. in which there was a Catalogue of 62 Printers; and all the books which any of them printed, of what author, or what language soever, prohibited; and all books which were printed by Printers, that had printed any books of Heretics: insomuch that not only books of a hundred, two hundred, three hundred years ago, and approbation, were prohibited, but there scarce remained a book to be read.  
But by this means they impose upon men's faith and consciences; suffering them to allow of nothing in any man, no not in the Fathers, but what themselves mark out for them; not measuring their own doctrines by the Ancients, but reckoning their say to be, or not to be Catholic, according as they agree to their present opinions: which is infinitely against the candour, ingenuity, and confidence of truth, which needs none of these arts. And besides all this, how shall it be possible to find out tradition by succession, when they so interrupt and break the intermedial lines? And this is beyond all the foregoing instances very remarkable in their purging of Histories. In Munster's Cosmography, there was a long Story of Ludovicus the Emperor of the house of Bavaria, that made very much against the See of Rome. It is commanded to be left out; and in illius loco inseratur, si placet, sequens historia: 
Index. Beig. p. 161. Impres. A. D. 1611. Hanoviae.  and then there is made a formal story not consonant to the mind of the Historian. And the same Lewis of Bavaria published a smart answer to the Bull of P. John. 22. an information of the nullity of the Pope's proceed against him: 
Cantellarius Bavariae egregiè vindicavit principis sui memoriam à Bz●vianis impostu. is.  but the records and monuments of these things they tear out by their Expurgatory Tables; lest we of latter ages should understand how the Popes of Rome invaded the rights of Princes, and by new doctrines and occasions changed the face, the body, the innocence and the soul of Christian Religion. The whole Apology of the Emperor Henry the fourth, and the Epistles of Prince Frederick the second, they pull out of the fift Tome of the Writers of the German affairs, 
In vitâ Julii Agric.  Neque in ipsos modò Authores, sed in libros quoque eorum saevitum (that I may use the words of Tacitus complaining), delegato Triumviris Ministerio ut Monumenta clarissimorum ingeniorum in comitio ac foro urerentur: scilicet illo igne vocem populi Rom. & libertatem Senatûs, & conscientiam generis humani, aboleri arbitrabantur, expulsis insuper sapientiae professoribus, atque omni bonâ arte in exilium actâ, ne quid usquam honestum occurreret. For thus they not only destroy the liberty of the Church, and the names of the honourable, and the Sentences of the wise; but even hope to prevail upon the consciences of all mankind, and the History of the World, that nothing may be remembered by which themselves may be reproved. But this is not agreeable to the simplicity and ingenuity of the Christian Religion. 
Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis  
Christus eget.   
But what Arnobius said to the heathen, 
Lib. 3. adv. gentes.  in their violent and crafty arts to suppress of growth of Christianity, may be a good admonition to these Artists of the Inquisition, Intercipere scripta, & publicatam velle submergere lectionem, non est Deum defendere, sed veritatis testificationem timere.  
One thing more I am to add here, that they are so infinitely insecure in their errors, and so unsatisfied with the learning of the world, and they find it so impossible to resist the frequent and public testimonies of truth; or indeed rather they so grow in error, and so often change their propositions; that they neither agree at one time, nor does one time agree with another, in their Purgations; that a Saint to day may be a common person to morrow; and that which is an allowed doctrine now, next year may be heretical, or temerarious, or dangerous. The Speculum Oculare of Johannes Capnio was approved by Pope Leo the tenth. It was afterwards rejected by Pope Paul the fourth; and him the Council of Trent following, and rejecting the sentence of Pope Leo, did also condemn it; and the Inquisitors, to whom the making of the Index was committed by Paul the fourth, caused it to be burnt: but afterwards the Censors of Douai permit the book, and so it is good again. What uncertainty can be greater to consciences than what the ignorance or faction of these men cause? Here is Pope against Pope, a Council against the Pope; and the Monk's Inquisitors of Douai against both Pope and Council; and what can be the end of these things? When the Quirogian Index came forth, a man would think, there had been an end of so much as was there purged: and certain it is, they were cautious enough, and they purged all they thought deserved it: 
Vide Praefaticnem ad Lectorem in Ind. Sandov.  but yet when they of Salamanca published the Bible of Robert Stephens, and strictly had observed the Rules of Cardinal Quirago, Ita ut in contextu pauca, in Annotationibus plurima omiserint; yet other Inquisitors, being wiser by a new light, did so blot and raze, and scratch out many things more, that the Bible, which was a very fair one in A. D. 1584. came forth exceedingly defaced and spoiled in the year 1586.  
I need not observe, That in all the Expurgatory Indices you shall not find Gasper Schioppius, or the Jesuits censured; nor Baronius, although he declared the Kingdom of Sicily to belong to the Pope, and not to the King of Spain; but if any thing escape which lessens the Pope's Omnipotence, (it is their own word) than it is sure to fall under the Sponges and the Razor: so that this mystery of iniquity is too evident to be covered by the most plausible pretences of any interested advocate. But if this be the way, to stop all mouths, but those that speak the same thing, it is no wonder if they boast of unity: they might very well do so; but that the providence of God, which overrules all events, hath by his Almighty power divided them, in despite of all their cunning arts to seem to be sons of one mother: only it will be now a much more hard province, to tell when their errors first began, since they have taken order to cut out the tongues of them that tell us. And this they have done to their own Canon-law itself, and to the old Glosses, in which there were remaining some footsteps of the Ancient and Apostolical Doctrine; upon which the craft of the enemy of Mankind, 
Imprimebantur etiam Hanoviae, procurantibus Junio & Papp●. 1611.  and the arts of interested persons had not quite prevailed: as is largely to be seen in the very Censures themselves upon the Glosses, published by the Command of Pope Pius quintus 1580.   

SECTION VII.  
The uncharitableness of the Church of Rome in her judging of others.  
4. THe next thing I charge upon them, is, That having done these things to propagate their new doctrines, and to suppress those which are more Ancient and Catholic; they are so implacably angry at all that dissent from them, that they not only kill them (where they have power;) but damn them all, as far as their Sentence can prevail. If you be a Roman Catholic, let your life be what it will; their Sacrament of Penance is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it takes away all their sins in a quarter of an hour: but if you differ from them, even in the least point they have declared, you are not to be endured in this world, nor in the world to come. Indeed this is one of the inseparable Characters of an Heretic; he sets his whole Communion and all his charity upon his article; For to be zealous in the Schism, that is the Characteristic of a good man, that's his note of Christianity: In all the rest he excuses you or tolerates you, provided you be a true believer; than you are one of the faithful, a good man and a precious, you are of the Congregation of the Saints, and one of the godly. All Solifidians do thus; and all that do thus are Solifidians', the Church of Rome herself not excepted; for though in words she proclaims the possibility of keeping all the Commandments; yet she dispenses easier with him that breaks them all, than with him that speaks one word against any of her articles, though but the least; even the eating of fish, and forbidding flesh in Lent. So that it is faith they regard more than charity, a right belief more than a holy life; and for, this you shall be with them upon terms easy enough, provided you go not a hairs breadth from any thing of her belief. For if you do, they have provided for you two deaths and two fires, both inevitable and one Eternal. And this certainly is one of the greatest evils, of which the Church of Rome is guilty: For this in itself is the greatest and unworthiest Uncharitableness. But the procedure is of great use to their ends. For the greatest part of Christians are those that cannot consider things leisurely and wisely, searching their bottoms, and discovering the causes, or foreseeing events, which are to come after; but are carried away by fear and hope, by affection and prepossession: and therefore the Roman Doctors are careful to govern them as they will be governed; If you dispute, you gain, it may be, one, and lose five; but if ye threaten them with damnation, you keep them in fetters; for they that are in fear of death, 
Heb. 2. 15.  are all their life time in bondage (saith the Apostle:) and there is in the world nothing so potent as fear of the two deaths, which are the two arms and grapples of iron by which the Church of Rome takes and keeps her timorous, or conscientious, Proselytes. The easy Protestant calls upon you from Scripture, to do your duty, to build a holy life upon a holy Faith, the Faith of the Apostles, and first Disciples of our Lord; he tells you, if you err; and teaches you the truth; and if ye will obey, it is well; if not, he tells you of your sin, and that all sin deserves the wrath of God; but judges no man's person, much less any states of men. He knows that God's Judgements are righteous and true; but he knows also, that his Mercy absolves many persons, who, in his just Judgement were condemned: and if he had a warrant from God to say, that he should destroy all the Papists, as Ionas had, concerning the Ninevites; yet he remembers that every Repentance, if it be sincere, will do more, and prevail greater, and last longer, than God's anger will. Besides these things, there is a strange spring, and secret principle in every man's Understanding, that it is oftentimes turned about by such impulses, of which no man can give an account. But we all remember a most wonderful Instance of it, in the Disputation between the two Reynolds, John and William; the former of which being a Papist, and the later a Protestant, met, and disputed, with a purpose to confute, and to convert each other; and so they did: for those Arguments which were used, prevailed fully against their adversary, and yet did not prevail with themselves. The Papist turned Protestant, and the Protestant became a Papist, and so remained to their dying day. 

Bella, inter geminos, plusquam civilia, fratres  
Traxerat ambiguus Religionis apex.  
Ille reformatae fidei pro partibus instat:  
Iste reformandam denegat esse fidem.  
Propositis causae rationibus; alter utrinque  
Concurrêre pares, & cecidêre pares.  
Quod fuit in votis, fratrem capit alter uterque:  
Quod fuit in fatis, perdit uterque fidem.  
Captivi gemini sine captivante fuerunt,  
Et victor victi transfuga castra petit.  
Quod genus hoc pugnae est, ubi victus gaudet uterque;  
Et tamen al●eruter●se su●erâsse dolet?   Of which some ingenious person gave a most handsome account, in an excellent Epigram, which for the verification of the story, I have set down in the Margin. But further yet, he considers the natural and regular infirmities of mankind; and God considers them much more; he knows that in man there is nothing admirable but his ignorance, and weakness; his prejudice, and the infallible certainty of being deceived in many things: he sees, that wicked men oftentimes know much more than many very good men; and that the Understanding is not of itself considerable in morality, and effects nothing in rewards and punishments: It is the will only that rules man, and can obey God. He sees and deplores it, that many men study hard, and understand little; that they dispute earnestly, and understand not one another at all; that affections creep so certainly, and mingle with their arguing, that the argument is lost, and nothing remains but the conflict of two adversaries affections; that a man is so willing, so easy, so ready to believe what makes for his Opinion, so hard to understand an argument against himself, that it is plain, it is the principle within, not the argument without, that determines him: He observes also that all the world (a few individuals excepted) are unalterably determined to the Religion of their Country, of their family, of their society; that there is never any considerable change made, but what is made by War and Empire, by Fear and Hope: He remembers that it is a rare thing, to see Jesuit of the Dominican Opinion; or a Dominican (until of late) of the Jesuit; but every order gives Laws to the Understanding of their Novices, and they never change: He considers there is such ambiguity in words, by which all Lawgivers express their meaning; that there is such abstruseness in mysteries of Religion, that some things are so much too high for us, that we cannot understand them rightly; and yet they are so sacred, and concerning, that men will think they are bound to look into them, as far as they can; that it is no wonder if they quickly go too far, where no Understanding, if it were fitted for it, could go far enough: but in these things it will be hard not to be deceived; since our words cannot rightly express those things; that there is such variety of humane Understandings, that men's Faces differ not so much as their Souls; and that if there were not so much difficulty in things, yet they could not but be variously apprehended by several men; and then considering that in twenty Opinions, it may be not one of them is true; nay, whereas Varro reckoned, that among the old Philosophers, there were 800 Opinions concerning the summum bonum, and yet not one of them hit the right: They see also that in all Religions, in all Societies, in all Families, and in all things, opinions differ; and since Opinions are too often begot by passion, by passions and violences they are kept; and every man is too apt to over-value his own Opinion; and out of a desire that every man should conform his judgement to his that teaches, men are apt to be earnest in their persuasion, and overact the proposition; and from being true, as he supposes, he will think it profitable; and if you warm him either with confidence, or opposition, he quickly tells you, It is necessary; and as he loves those that think as he does, so he is ready to hate them that do not; and then secretly from wishing evil to him, he is apt to believe evil will come to him; and that it is just it should: and by this time, the Opinion is troublesome, and puts other men upon their guard against it; and than while passion reigns, and reason is modest and patiented, and talks not loud like a storm, Victory is more regarded than Truth, and men call God into the party, and his judgements are used for arguments, and the threaten of the Scripture are snatched up in haste, and men throw arrows, firebrands, and death, and by this time all the world is in an uproar. All this, and a thousand things more, the English Protestants considering, deny not their Communion to any Christian who desires it, and believes the Apostles Creed, and is of the Religion of the four first General Councils; they hope well of all that live well; they receive into their bosom, all true believers of what Church soever; and for them that err, they instruct them, and then leave them to their liberty, to stand or fall before their own Master.  
It was a famous saying of Stephen, the Great King of Poland; that God had reserved to himself three things. 1. To make something out of nothing. 2. To know future things, and all that shall be hereafter. 3. To have the rule over Consciences. It is this last, we say, the Church of Rome does arrogate and invade.  
1. By imposing Articles, as necessary to salvation, which God never made so. Where hath God said; That it is necessary to salvation, that every humane Creature should be subject to the Roman Bishop? 
Extrav. de Majorit. & obedien. Dicimus, definimus, pronunciamus absolutè necessarium ad salutem omni humanae Creaturae subesse Romano Pontifici.  But the Church of Rome says it; and by that, at one blow, cuts off from Heaven, all the other Churches of the world, Greek, Armenian, Ethiopian, Russian, Protestants: which is an Act so contrary to charity, to the hope and piety of Christians, so dishonourable to the Kingdom of Christ, so disparaging to the justice, to the wisdom and the goodness of God, as any thing which can be said. Where hath it been said, That it shall be a part of Christian Faith, To believe, that though the Fathers of the Church did Communicate Infants, yet they did it without any opinion of necesty? And yet the Church of Rome hath determined it, in one of her General Councils, 
Sess. 1. cap. 4  as a thing, Sine Controversiâ Credendum, to be believed without doubt, or dispute: It was indeed the first time that this was made a part of the Christian Religion; but then let all wise men take heed how they ask the Church of Rome; Where was this part of her Religion before the Council of Trent? for that's a secret: and, that this is a part of their Religion, I suppose will not be denied, when a General Council hath determined it to be a truth without controversy, and to be held accordingly. Where hath God said, that those Churches that differ from the Roman Church in some propositions cannot confer true Orders, nor appoint Ministers of the Gospel of Christ? and yet, Super totam materiam, the Church of Rome is so implacably angry, and imperious with the Churches of the Protestants, that, if any English Priest turn to them, they re-ordain him; which yet themselves call sacrilegious, in case his former Ordination was valid; as it is impossible to prove it was not, there being neither in Scripture, nor Catholic tradition any Laws, Order, or Rule, touching our case in this particular. Where hath God said, that Penance is a Sacrament, or that without confession to a Priest, no man can be saved? If Christ did not institute it, how can it be necessary? and if he did institute it, yet the Church of Rome ought not to say, it is therefore necessary; for with them an Institution is not a Command, though Christ be the Institutor; and if Institution be equal to a Commandment, how then comes the Sacrament not to be administered in both kinds; when it is confessed, that in both kinds it was instituted?  
2. The Church of Rome does so multiply Articles, that few of the Laity know the half of them, and yet imposes them all under the same necessity; and if in any one of them, a man make a doubt he hath lost all Faith, and had as good be an Infidel; for the Church's Authority being the formal object of Faith, that is the only reason why any Article is to be believed; the reason is the same in all things else: and therefore you may no more deny any thing she says, than all she says; and an Infidel is as sure of Heaven, as any Christian is that calls in question any of the innumerable propositions, which with her are esteemed de fide. Now if it be considered, that some of the Roman doctrines are a state of temptation to all the reason of mankind, as the doctrine of Transubstantiation; that some are at least of a suspicious improbity, as worship of Images, and of the consecrated Elements, and many others; some are of a nice and curious nature, as the doctrine of Merit, of Condignity and Congruity; some are perfectly of humane inventions, without ground of Scripture, or Tradition, as the forms of Ordination, Absolution, etc. When men see, that some things can never be believed hearty, and many not understood fully, and more not remembered, or considered perfectly, and yet all imposed upon the same necessity; and as good believe nothing, as not every thing; this way is apt to make men despise all Religion, or despair of their own Salvation. The Church of Rome hath a remedy for this; and by a distinction undertakes to save you harmless: you are not tied to believe all with an explicit Faith; it suffices that your Faith be implicit, or involved in the Faith of the Church; that is, if you believe that she says true in all things, you need inquire no further: So that by this means, the authority of their Church is made authentic, for that is the first and last of the design; and you are taught to be saved by the Faith of others; and a Faith is preached, that you have no need ever to look after it; a Faith, of which you know nothing; but it matters not, as long as others do: but than it is also a Faith, which can never be the foundation of a good life; for upon ignorance, nothing that is good, can be built; no not so much as a blind obedience; for even blindly to obey, is built upon something, that you are bidden explicitly to believe; viz. the infallibility, or the authority of the Church: but upon an implicit Faith, you can no more establish a building, than you can number that which is not. Besides this, an implicit Faith in the Articles of the Church of Rome, is not sense; it is not Faith at all, that is not explicit; Faith comes by hearing, and not by not hearing: and the people of the Roman Church believe one proposition explicitly, that is, that their Church cannot err; and then indeed, they are ready to believe any thing they tell them; but as yet they believe nothing but the infallibility of their Guides: and to call that Faith, which is but a readiness, or disposition to have it, is like filling a man's belly with the meat he shall eat to morrow night; an act of Understanding antedated. But when it is considered in its own intrinsic nature and meaning; it effects this proposition, that these things are indeed no objects of that Faith, by which we are to be saved (for it is strange, that men having the use of reason, should hope to be saved by the merit of a Faith that believes nothing, that knows nothing, that understands nothing) but that our Faith is completed in the essential notices of the Evangelical Covenant, in the propositions which every Christian man and woman is bound to know; and that the other propositions are but arts of Empire, and devices of Government; or the Scholastic confidence of Opinions; something to amuse consciences, and such by which the mystic persons may become more knowing and revered than their poor Parishioners.  
3. The Church of Rome determines trifles and inconsiderable propositions, and adopts them into the family of faith; Of this nature are many things which the Popes determine in their chairs, and send them into the world as oracles. What a dangerous thing would it be esteemed to any Roman Catholic, if he should dare to question, Whether the Consecration of the Bread and Wine be to be done by the prayer of the Priest, or by the mystic words of Hoc est corpus meum, said ove the Elements? For, that by the force of those words, said with right intention, the bread is transsubstantiated, 
Lib. 1. de Sacr. Euchar. cap. 12. Sect. Est igitur.  and made the body of Christ, Ecclesia Catholica magno consensu docet, said Bellarmine; so it is also in the Council of Florence, in the Instruction of the Armenians; 
Lib. 1. Sent. dist. 8.  so it is taught in the Catechism of the Council of Trent; so it is agreed by the Master of the Sentences and his Scholars; by Gratian, and the Lawyers; and so it is determined in the law itself, Cap. Cum Martha extr. de celebratione Missarum. And yet this is no certain thing; and not so agreeable to the spirituality of the Gospel, to suppose such a change made by the saying so many words. And therefore although the Church does well in using all the words of Institution at the Consecration; for so they are carefully recited in the Liturgies of S. James, S. Clement, S. Basil, S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, the Anaphora of the Syrians, 
Inter Evangelistas quae omittuntur ab uno supplentur ab alio. Innocentius de offic.  in the Universal Canon of the Ethiopians, only they do not do this so carefully in the Roman Missal, but leave out words very considerable, words which S. Luke, and S. Paul recite; viz. which is broken for you; 
Missae l. 3. c. 17.  or which is given for you: and to the words of Consecration of the Chalice, they add words which Christ did not speak in the Institution and Benediction; yet besides this generally the Greek Fathers, and divers of the Latin, do expressly teach, that the Consecration of the elements is made by the prayers of the Church, recited by the Bishop or Priest: For the Scripture tells us, that Christ took the bread, he blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, Take, eat. It is to be supposed that Christ consecrated it before he gave it to them; and yet if he did, all the Consecration was effected by his Benediction of it: And if (as the Romanists contend) Christ gave the Sacrament of the Eucharist to the two Disciples at Emmaus, it is certain there is no record of any other Consecration, but by Christ's blessing or praying over the elements. It is indeed possible that something more might be done than was set down, but nothing less; and therefore this Consecration was not done without the Benediction; and therefore Hoc est corpus meum alone cannot do it; at least there is no warrant for it in Christ's Example. And when S. Peter in his Ministry did found and establish Churches, Orationum ordinem quibus oblata Deo sacrificia consecrantur à S. Petro primò fuisse institutum, said Isidore, Remigius, Hugo de S. Victore, and Alphonsus à Castro; S. Peter first instituted the order of Prayers by which the sacrifices offered to God were consecrated: and in the Liturgy of S. James, after the words of Institution are recited over the Elements, there is a Prayer of Consecration, O Lord, make this Bread to be the body of thy Christ, etc. Which words although Bellarmine troubles himself to answer, as Cardinal Bessarion did before him; yet we shall find his answers to no purpose; expounding the prayer to be only a Confirmation, or an Amen to what was done before; for if that Consecration was made before that Prayer, how comes S. James to call it Bread after Consecration? And as weak are his other answers, saying, The Prayer means that God would make it so to us, not in itself: which although S. James hath nothing to warrant that Exposition; yet it is true upon another account, that is, because the Bread becomes Christ's body only to us, to them who communicate worthily; but never to the wicked, and it is not Christ's body but in the using it, and that worthily too. And therefore his third Answer (which he uses first) is certainly the best; and that is the answer which Bessarion makes, That, for aught they know, the order of the words is changed; and that the Prayer should be set before, not after the words of Consecration. Against which, although it is sufficient to oppose, that, for aught they or we know, the order is not changed; for to this day, and always (so far as any record remains) the Greeks kept the same order of the words; and the Greek Fathers had their sentiment and doctrine agreeable to it. And as in S. James his Liturgy, so in the Missal said to be of S. Clement, the same order is observed; and after the words of the Institution or Declaration, God is invocated to send his Holy Spirit to make the oblation to become the body and blood of Christ. And in pursuance of this Justin Martyr calls it, 
Apol. 2. lib. 8. cont. Celsum.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Origen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Ad quorum preces Christi corpus sanguisque conficitur, 
Lib. 3. de Trinit. c. 4.  said S. Hierom; and S. Austin calls the Sacrament, Prece mystica consecratum. 
Vide Divine instit. of the Office Ministeri●l, ●ect 7. Of the Real and Spi●. presence, Sect. 4.  But of this thing I have given an account in other places: The use I make of it now, is this; that the Church of Rome is not only forward to decree things uncertain, or to take them for granted, which they can never prove; but when she is by chance or interest, or mistake fallen upon a proposition, she will not endure any one to oppose it; and indeed, if she did suffer a change in this particular, not only a great part of their Thomistical Theology would be found out to be sandy and inconsistent; but the whole doctrine of Transubstantiation would have no foundation. True it is, this is a new doctrine in the Church of Rome; for Amularius affirms that the Apostles did consecrate only by Benediction; and Pope Innocent the third, and Pope Innocent the fourth, taught that Christ did not consecrate by the words of Hoc est corpus meum: so that the doctrine is new; and yet I make no question, he that shall now say so, shall not be accounted a Catholic.  
But the instances are many of this nature, not necessary to be enumerated, because they are notorious; and when the Quaestiones disputatae, as S. Thomas Aquinas calls a Volume of his Disputation, are (at least many of them) passed into Catholic propositions, and become the general doctrine of their Church; they do not so much insist upon the nature of the propositions, as the securing of that authority by which they are taught. If any man dissent in the doctrine of Purgatory, or Concomitancy, and the half Communion, then presently Hannibal ad portas; they first kill him, and then damn him (as far as they can.) But in the great questions of Predetermination, in which man's duty, and the force of laws, and the powers of choice, and the attributes of God are deeply concerned, they differ infinitely, and yet they endure the difference, and keep the Communion. But if the heats and interests that are amongst them had happened to be employed in this Instance; they would have made a dissent in these questions as damnable as any other. But the events of salvation and damnation (blessed be God) do not depend upon the votes and sentences of men, but upon the price which God sets upon the propositions; and it would be considered, that there are some propositions in which men are confident and err securely, which yet have greater influence upon the honour of God, or his dishonour, or upon good or bad life respectively, than many others, in which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make more noise, and have less consideration. For these things they teach not, as the scribes, but as having authority; not as Doctors but as Lawgivers; which because Christ only is, the Apostles by the assistance of an infallible spirit did publish his Sanctions; but gave no laws of faith, but declared what Christ had made so; and S. Paul was careful to leave a note of difference, with a. hoc dico ego, non Dominus: it follows that the Church of Rome does dominari fidei & conscientiis, make herself mistress of faith and consciences: which being the prerogative of God, it is part of his glory that he will not impart unto another. But this evil hath proceeded unto extremity, and armies have been raised to prove their propositions; and vast numbers of innocent persons have been put to the sword, and burnt in the fire, and exposed to horrible torments, for denying any of their articles; and their Saints have been their Ensign bearers, particularly S. Dominick; and an office of torment and Inquisition is erected in their most zealous Countries. Nempe hoc est esse Christianum, this is the Roman manner of being Christian: And whom they can, and whom they cannot kill they excommunicate, and curse, and say, they are damned. This is so contrary to the communion of Saints, and so expressly against the rule of the Apostle commanding us to receive them that are weak in faith, but not to receive them unto doubtful disputations; and so ruinous to the grace of charity, which hopes and speaks the best, and not absolutely the worst thing in the world; and so directly opposed to Christ's precept, which commands▪ us, not to judge, that we be not judged; and is an enemy to public peace, which is easily broken with them whom they think to be damned wretches; and is so forgetful of humane infirmity; and but little considers, that in so innumerable a company of old and new propositions, it is great odds but themselves are or may be deceived; and lastly, it is so much against the very law of nature, which ever permits the Understanding free, though neither tongue nor hand; and leaves all that to the Divine Judgement, which ought neither to be invaded nor antedated; that this evil doctrine and practice is not more easily reproved than it is pernicious and intolerable, and of all things in the world the most unlike the spirit of a Christian. I know that against this they have no answer to oppose, but to recriminate; and say that we in the Church of England do so; and hang their priests, and punish by fines and imprisonment their lay Proselytes. To which the answer need not be long, or to trouble the order of the discourse. For 1. we put none of their Laity to death for their opinion; which shows that it is not the Religion is persecuted, but some other evil appendix. 2. We do not put any of their Priests to death who is not a native of the Kingdoms; but those subjects who pass over hence, and receive orders abroad, and return with evil errands. 3. Neither were these so treated, until by the Pope our Princes were excommunicated, and the Subjects absolved from their duty to them, and encouraged to take up arms against them; and that the English Priests returned with traitorous desing, and that many conspiracies were discovered. 4. And lastly, when much of the evil and just causes of fear did cease, the severity of procedure is taken off, and they have more liberty than hitherto they have deserved. Now if any of these things can be said by the Church of Rome in her defence, I am content she shall enjoy the benefit of her justification. For her rage extends to all, Laity as well as Clergy; foreign Clergy as well as Domestic, their own people and strangers, the open dissentients and the secretly suspected; those that are delated and those whom they can inquire of; and own that, which we disavow; and which if we did do, we should be reproved by our own sentences and public profession to the contrary.  
But now after all this, if it shall appear that the danger is on the part of the Roman Church, and safety on our side, and yet that we in our censure of their doctrines are not so fierce, and in our fears of their final condition not so decretory and rash; then this doctrine of theirs against us, is both the more uncharitable, and the more unreasonable.  
1. That the Church of Rome is infinitely confident they are in the right I easily believe, because they say they are; and they have causes but too many to create, or to occasion that confidence in them: for they never will consider concerning any of their Articles; their unlearned men not at all, their learned men only to confirm their own, and to confute their adversaries, whose arguments though never so convincing, they are bound to look upon as temptations, and to use them accordingly; which thing (in case they can be in an error) may prove so like the sin against the Holy Ghost, as Milk is to Milk; if at least all conviction of error; and demonstrations of truth, be the effect and grace of the Spirit of God: which ought very warily to be considered.  
But this confidence is no argument of truth: for they telling their people, that they are bound to believe all that they teach with an assent, not equal to their proof of it, but much greater, even the greatest that can be; they tie them to believe it without reason, or proof: for to believe more strongly than the argument infers, is to believe something without the argument; or at least to have some portions of Faith, which relies upon no argument; which if it be not effected by a supreme, and more infallible principle, can never be reasonable: but this they supply with telling them, that they cannot err; and this very proposition itself, needing another supply (for why shall they believe this, more than any thing else, with an assent greater than can be effected by their argument?) they supply this also, with affrighting Homilies and noises of damnation. So that it is no wonder, that the Roman people are so confident; since it is not upon the strength of their argument, or cause (for they are taught to be confident beyond that) but it is upon the strength of passion, credulity, interest and fear, education, and pretended authority: all which, As, we hope God will consider in passing his unerring sentence upon the poor misled people of the Roman Communion; So, we also, considering their infirmity and our own, dare not enter into the secret of God's judgement concerning all, or any of their persons; but pray for them, and offer to instruct them; we reprove their false doctrines, and use means to recall them from darkness, into some more light than there they see; but we pass no further; and we hope that this charity and modesty will not, (we are sure it ought not) be turned to our reproach, for this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that toleration of our erring Brethren, 
Rom. 2. 4.  and long sufferance, which we have learned from God, and it ought to procure Repentance in them; and yet if it does not, we do but our duty, always remembering the words of the Great Apostle which he spoke to the Church of Rome, Thou art inexcusable, 
v. 1.  O man, whosoever thou art, that judgest another; for in what thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; and we fear, and every man is bound to do so too, lest the same measure of judgement we make to the errors of our Brother, be heap▪ d up against our own, in case we fall into any. And the Church of Rome should do well to consider this; for she is not the less likely to err, but much more for thinking she cannot err; her very thinking and saying this thing, being her most Capital error, as I shall afterwards endeavour to make apparent. I remember that Paganinus Gaudentius, a Roman Gentleman, tells that Theódore Beza, being old, and coming into the Camp of Henry the 4th. of France, was asked by some Whether he were sure that he followed the true Religion. He modestly answered, That he did daily pray to God, to direct him with his holy Spirit, and to give him a light from Heaven to guide him. Upon which answer, because they expounded it to be in Beza, uncertainty, and irresolution, he says that may who heard him, took that hint, and became Roman Catholics. It is strange it should be so, that one man's modesty should make another man bold; and that the looking upon a sound eye, should make another sore. But so it is; that in the Church of Rome, very ill use is made of our charity and modesty. However, I shall give a true account of the whole affair as it stands, and then leave it to be considered.   

SECTION VIII.  
The Insecurity of the Roman Religion.  
1. AS to the security which is pretended in the Church of Rome; it is, confidence rather than safety, as I have already said; but if we look upon the propositions themselves, we find that there is more danger in them than we wish there were. I have already in the preface to the First Part instanced in some particulars, in which the Church of Rome hath suffered infirmity, and fallen into error; and the errors are such, which the Fathers of the Church (for we meddle not with any such judgement) call damnable. As for example; to add any thing to Scriptures, or to introduce into the Faith, any thing that is not written; or to call any thing Divine, that is not in the authority of the Holy Scriptures; which Tertullian says, whosoever does may fear the woe pronounced in Scripture against adders and detractors; and S. Basil says, is a manifest note of infidelity, and a most certain sign of pride; and others add, it is an evil heart of immodesty, and most vehemently forbidden by the Apostles. Against the testimonies then brought, some little cavils were made, and many evil words of railing published, which I have not only washed off in the second Section of this Second part, but have, to my thinking, clearly proved them guilty of doing ill in this question, and receding from the rule of the primitive Church; and have added many other testimonies concerning the main Inquiry, to which the weak answers offered can no way be applied, and to which the more learned answers of Bellarmine and Perron, are found insufficient; as it there is made to appear. So that I know nothing remains to them to be considered, but Whether or no, the primitive, and holy Fathers, were too zealous in condemning this doctrine and practice of the Roman Church too severely? We are sure the thing which the Fathers so condemn, is done without warrant, and contrary to all authentic precedents of the purest and holiest Ages of the Church, and greatly derogatory to the dignity and fullness of Scripture; and infinitely dangerous to the Church for the intromitting the doctrines of men into the Canon of Faith, and a great diminution to the reputation of that providence, by which it is certain, the Church was to be secured in the Records of Salvation; which could not be done by any thing so well, as by writing what was to be kept inviolate; especially in the propositions of Faith, relying oftentimes upon a word, and a phrase, and a manner of expression; which in the infinite variety of reporters, might too easily suffer change. Thus far we can safely argue concerning the error of the Church of Rome; and to this not we, but the Fathers, add a severe Censure. And when some of these censures were set down by way of caution and warning, not of judgement and final sentence; it seems a wonder to me how these Gentlemen of the Roman Communion, 
Letter, and Truth will out, etc.  that wrote against the Book, should recite all these terrible say out of the Fathers against their superaddition of Articles to the Faith contained in Scriptures, and be so little concerned as to read them with a purpose only to find fault with the quotations, and never be smitten with a terror of the judgement which the Fathers pronounce against them that do so. Just as if a man being ready to perish in a storm, should look up and down the ship to see if the little paintings were exact; or as if a man in a terrible clap of thunder should consider whether he ever heard so unmusical a sound, and never regard his own danger. 2. The same is the case in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, worshipping of consecrated Bread: in which, if they be not deceived; all the reason, and all the senses of all the men in the world are deceived; and if they be deceived, than it is certain, they give Divine worship to what they naturally eat and drink; and how great a provocation of God that is, they cannot but know by the whole analogy of the Old and New Testament, and even by natural reason itself, and all the dictates of Religion which God hath written in our hearts. On the other side, if we consider that if the Divine worship they intent to Christ were passed immediately to him sitting in Heaven, and not thorough that blessed thing upon the Altar, but directly and primarily to him whose passion there is represented, and the benefits of whose death are there offered and exhibited; there could be no diminution of any right due to Christ. Nay to them who consider, that in the first institution and tradition of it to the Apostles, Christ's body was still whole and unkroken, and separate from the Bread, and could not then be transubstantiate and pass from itself into what it was not before, and yet remain still itself what it was before; and that neither Christ did command the Apostles to worship, neither did they worship any thing but God the Father, at that time; it must needs seem to be a prodigious venture of their souls, to change that action, into a needless, and ungrounded superstition: especially since after Christ's ascension, his body is not only in Heaven, which must contain it until his coming to judgement; but is so changed, so immaterial, or spiritual, that it is not capable of being broken by hands or teeth. In not adoring that which we see to be Bread, we can be as safe as the Apostles were, who, (that we find) did not worship it; but in giving Divine honours to it, we can be no more safe (in case their proposition be amiss) than he that worships the Sun, because he verily believes he is the God of Heaven. A good meaning in this case will not justify his action; not only because he hath enough to instruct him better, and to bring him to better understanding, but especially because he may mean as well, if he worships Christ in Heaven, Ad sua templa oculis, animo ad sua numina spectans; yea, and better, when he does actually worship Christ at that time, directing the worship to him in Heaven, and would terminate his worship on the Host, if he were sure it were Christ, or were commanded so to do. Add to this, that to worship Christ is an affirmative precept, and, so it be done in wisdom and holiness, and love, in all just ways of address to him, in praying to him, reciting his prayers, giving him thanks, trusting in him, hoping in him, and loving him with the best love of obedience: not to bow the knee, hîc & nunc when we fear to displease him by so doing, cannot be a sin, because for that hîc & nunc there is no commandment at all. And after all; if we will suppose that the doctrine of Transubstantiation were true; yet because the Priest that consecrates may indeed secretly have received invalid Orders, or have evil Intention, or there may be some undiscernible nullity in the whole Oeconomy and ministration; so that no man of the Roman Communion can say, that by Divine faith he believes that this Host is at this time transubstantiated; but only hath conjectures and ordinary suppositions, that it is so, and that he does not certainly know the contrary. He that certainly gives Divine Honour to that which is not certain to be the Body of Christ, runs into a danger too great, to promise to himself he shall be safe. Some there are who go further yet, and consider that the Church of Rome say only, that the bread is changed into the body of Christ, but not into his soul; for then the same bread would be at the same time both material and immaterial; and that if it were, that to give honours absolutely Divine to the humanity of Christ, abstracted from consideration of his Divinity, into which certainly the bread is not transubstantiated, is too near the doctrine of the Socinians, who suppose the humanity to be absolutely Deified; and Divine Honours to be due to Christ as a man whom God hath exalted above every name. But if they say, that they worship the body in concretion with the Divinity; it is certain that may be done at all times by looking up to heaven in all our religious addresses. And therefore that is the safe way, and that's the way of the Church of England. The other way, viz. of the Church of Rome, at the best is full of dangers, and qui amat periculum peribit in illo, was the wise man's caution.  
3. The like to this is the Practice of the Church of Rome in worshipping Angels; which as it is not where commanded in the New Testament, so it is expressly forbidden by an Angel himself twice, 
Revel. 22.  to S. John, adding an unalterable reason; for I am thy fellow-servant, worship God; or as some Ancient Copies read it, worship Jesus: meaning that, although in the Old Testament the Patriarches and Prophets did bow before the Angels that appeared to them as God's Ambassadors, and in the Person of God; and to which they were greatly inclined, because their law was given by Angels: yet when God had exalted the Son of Man to be the Lord of Men and Angels, we are all fellow-servants; and they are not to receive religious worship as before, nor we to pay it them. And by this we understand the reproof which S. Paul makes of the Gnostics, 
Col. 2.  of whose practice he forewarns the Christians that they suffer not themselves to be deceived by the worshipping of Angels. Now by these authorities it is plain, that it can at least be no duty to worship Angels; and therefore they that do it not, cannot be blamed: but if these words mean here, as they do in all other places, there is at least great danger to do it.  
4 And of the like danger is Invocation of Saints; which if it be no more than a mere desire to them to pray for us, why is it expressed in their public Offices in words that differ not from our Prayers to God? if it be more, it creates in us, or is apt to create in us, confidence in the creatures; it relies upon that which S. Paul used as an argument against worship of Angels, and that is, intruding into those things we understand not; for it pretends to know their present state, which is hid from our eyes; and it proceeds upon the very reason upon which the Gnostics and the Valentinians went; that is, that it is fit to have mediators between God and us: that we may present our prayers to them, and they to God. To which add, that the Church of Rome presenting Candles and other Donaries to the Virgin Mary as to the Queen of Heaven, do that which the Collyridians' did; the gift is only differing, as Candle and Cake, Gold and Garments, this vow or that vow. All which being put together makes a dangerous Liturgy; not like to the Worship and Devotion used in the Primitive Church, but so like to what is forbidden in Scripture, that it is much the worse. The advantage got by these things cannot countervail the evil of the suspicion; and the wit of them that do so, cannot by a secure answer escape the force of a prohibition; and therefore it were infinitely more safe to let it alone; and to invocate and adore him only who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Father of the Aeönes, the Father of Men and Angels, and God, through Jesus Christ; and that answers all objections.  
5. What good does the worship of Images do to the souls of Christians? What glory is done to God by being represented in little shapes, and humane or fantastic figures? What Scripture did ever command it? what prophet did not reprove it? Is it not in all appearance, and grammatical and proper understanding of words, forbidden by an express Commandment of God? Is there any duty incumbent on us to do it? Certainly, all the arts of witty men of the Roman side, are little enough, and much too little to prove, that it is lawful to make and worship them: and the distinctions and elusions, the tricks and artifices are so many, that it is a great piece of impertinent learning to remember them, and no small trouble to understand them; and they that most need the distinctions (that is, the common people) cannot use them; and at the best, it is very hard to think it lawful, but very easy to understand that it is forbidden; and most easy to be assured it is very innocent to let it alone. Where an image is, there is no religion, said Lactantius; and we ought rather to die than to pollute our faith with such impieties, said Origen. Now let us suppose that these fathers speak against the heathen superstition of worshipping the images of their gods; 
Against these quotations used in the Preface of the first Part, the Author of the Letter to a friend, page 3. And the Author of Truth will out, page 6. object that these Fathers speak against the worshipping of the images of heathen gods, not of the use of images amongst Christians: which cavil the Reader may see largely refuted in the Sect. Of Images.  certainly, if it was a fault in them, it is worse in Christians, who have received so many Commands to the contrary, and who are tied to worship the Father in spirit and in truth, and were never permitted to worship him by an image. And true it is, that images are more fit for false gods, than for the true God, the Father of Spirits; the superstition of images is more proportioned to the Idolatry of false gods, than to true religion and the worship of him whom eye hath not seen, and cannot see, nor heart can comprehend. And it is a vain Elusion to say, that these Fathers did not severely censure the use of images among Christians; for all that time among the Christians there was no use of images at all in religion; and for the very reasons by which they condemned the heathen superstition of image-worship, for the same reasons they would never endure it at all amongst Christians. But then if this be so highly criminal (as these Ancient Fathers say) I desire it may be considered, for what pretended reasons the Church of Rome should not only permit, but allow, and decree, and urge the use of images in their religious adorations? If it be only for instruction of the Laity, that might be better supplied by Catechise, and frequent Homilies; and if instruction be intended, than the single Statues are less useful; but Histories and Hieroglyphics are to be painted upon Tables; and in them I suppose there would be less temptation of doing abomination. But when the images simple or mixed are painted or carved, the people must be told what their meaning is; and then they will not need such books, who may with less danger learn their lesson by heart: and besides this, they are told strange stories of the Saints whose images they see, and of the images themselves that represent the Saints; and than it may be these laymen's books may teach them things that they must unlearn again. But yet if they be useful for instruction, what benefit is done to our spirits by giving them adoration? That God will accept it as an honour done to himself, he hath no where told us; and he seems often to have told us the contrary; and if it be possible by man's wit to acquit this practice from being (what the prophets so highly reprove) spiritual whoredom, in giving Gods due to an image; yet it can never be proved to be a part of that worshipping of God in spirit and in truth which he requires. And though it would never have been believed in Origen's, Tertullian's, or Lactantius' days, that ever there would arise a sort of Christians that should contend earnestly for the worshipping images, or that ever the heathen way of worship, viz. of what they called God, by an image, should become a great part of Christianity, or that a Council of Bishops should decree the worship of images, as an article of faith; or that they should think men should be damned for denying worship to images; yet after all this, when it is considered that the worshipping of images by Christians is so great a scandal to the Indians, that they think themselves justified in their religion by this; and so great a scandal to Jews and Turks, that they hate Christianity itself for that very reason; it is a strange pertinacy in the Church of Rome to retain this practice for so little pretensions of good, and with so evident a mischief: To which, if this be added, that many of the ruder people do downright worship the image without a distinction, or scruple, or difference; and that for aught we know, many souls perish by such practices, which might be secured by the taking away the images and forbidding the superstition: I for my part cannot imagine how the Guides of souls can answer it to God, or satisfy their consciences in their so vilely and cheaply regarding Souls, and permitting them to live in danger, and die in sin, for no spiritual good which can accrue to the Church, which can countervail the danger, much less the loss of one Soul. However, it will be very hard from any principle of Christian Religion, to prove it is a damnable sin, not to worship Images; but every man that can read, hath very much to say, that to worship them, is a provocation of God to anger, and to jealousy.  
6. Thus also it must needs be confessed, that it is more safe for the Church of God, to give the Holy Communion in both kinds then but in one; and Bellarmine's foolish reason of the Wine sticking to lay men's Beards, is as ridiculous, as the doctrine itself is unreasonable; and if they would shave laymen's Beards, as they do the Clergy, it would be less inconvenience than what they now feel; and if there be no help for it, they had better lose their Beards, than lose their share of the Blood of Christ. And what need is there to dispute such uncertain and unreasonable propositions, as that Christ's Blood is with the Body, by way of Concomitancy, as if the Sacrament were not of Christ's Body broken, and the Blood poured out; and as if, in case it be so, Christ did not know, or not consider it, but, for all that, instituted the Supper in both kinds. And what more is gotten by the Host alone, than by that and the Chalice too? And what can be answered to the pious desires of so many Nations, to have the Chalice restored; when they ask for nothing but their part of the Legacy which Christ left them in his Testament? And the Church of Rome, which takes upon her to be sole Executrix, or at least, Overseer of it, tells them, that the Legacy will do them no good; and keeps it from them, by telling them, It is not necessary, nay, it is worse than so; for when in the time of the Council of Trent, instance was made, that leave might be given to such as desire it; the Oracle was uttered by the Cardinal of Alexandria, 
Concil. Trident. lib. 5. A. D. 1561. Sub Pio Qua●●●.  but was given after the old manner, so that no man was the better. For no man was capable of receiving the favour but he that professed he did not believe it necessary; and then there could be no great reason to desire it: He that thought he needed it, could not receive it; and he that found no want of it, in all reason would not be importunate for it, and then he should be sure not to have it: So that, in effect, there were two sorts of persons denied it; Those that required it, and those that did not require it. And to what Christian grace to refer the wisdom and piety of this answer, I cannot yet learn. Neither can I yet imagine why the Cardinal S. Angelo should call Giving the Cup to the Laity, 
Ibid.  a giving them a Cup of deadly poison; since certain it is, that the Blood of Christ is a savour of life, and not of death; and, as the French Ambassador replied, The Apostles who did give it, were not empoisoners; and the many ages of the primitive Church did receive it with very great emolument and spiritual comfort. To this I know it will be said by some, who cannot much defend their Church in the thing itself, That it is no great matter; and if all things else were accorded, this might be dispensed withal; and the Pope could give leave to the respective Churches, to have according as it might be expedient, and fit for edification. But this will not serve the turn: For first the thing itself, is no small matter, but of greatest concernment. It is the Sacramental Blood of Christ. The Holy Bread cannot be the Sacrament of the Blood; and if Christ did not esteem it as necessary, to leave a Sacrament of his Blood, as of his Body, he would not have done it; and if he did think it as necessary, certainly it was so. But 2. Suppose the matter be small; why then shall a Schism be made by him that would be thought the Great Father of Christians? and all Christendom almost displeased and offended, rather than he will comply with their desires of having nothing but what Christ left them? If the thing be but little, why do they take a course to make it (as they suppose) damnation to desire it? And if it be said, Because it is Heresy, to think the Church hath erred all this while in denying it; to this, the answer will be easy, that themselves who did deny it, have given the occasion, and not they who do desire it; neither have all the Christian Churches denied it; for I think none but the Roman Church does; and if the Roman Church by granting it now to her own Children, will be supposed to have erred in denying it; to continue this denial, will not cure that inconvenience: for that which at first was but an Error, will now become Heresy, if they be pertinacious in the refusal. But if it were not for political, and humane considerations, and secular interests, there will be little question, but that it will be safer, and more agreeable to Christ's institution, and the Apostolical doctrine, and the primitive practice, to grant it lovingly, than to detain it sacrilegiously: For at least, the detention will look like Sacrilege; and the granting it, cannot but be a Fatherly, and pious ministration: especially since when it is granted, all parties are pleased, and no man's authority real, or pretended, is questioned. But whatever become of this consideration which is nothing but a charitable desire, and way of peace with our adversaries, and a desire to win them by our not intermeddling with their unalterable, and pertinacious interest; yet as to the thing itself, it is certain, that to communicate in both kinds, is justifiable by the institution of Christ, and the perpetual practice of the Church for many ages; which thing certainly is, or aught to be, the greatest Rule for the Church's imitation. And if the Church of Rome had this advantage against us in any Article, as I hope there would not be found so much pertinacy amongst us, as to resist the power of such an argument; so it is certain there would not be amongst them so much modesty as to abstain from the most absolute triumph, and the fiercest declamations: In the mean time, our safety in this Article also is visible and notorious. Against the saying of Saint Ambrose, which in the Preface to the first part I brought to reprove this practice; those who thought themselves obliged to object, will find the quotation justified in the Section of the Half-Communion; to which I refer the Reader.  
7. What a strange Uncharitableness is it, to believe and teach, that poor babes, descending from Christian Parents, if they die unbaptised, shall never see the face of God, and that of such is not the Kingdom of Heaven? The Church of England enjoins the Parents to bring them; and her Priests to baptise them, and punishes the neglect where it is criminal, and yet teaches no such fierce and uncharitable proposition, which can serve no end, but what may with less damage and affrightment, be very well secured; and to distrust God's goodness to the poor Infants, whose fault it could not be, that they were not baptised; and to amerce their no-fault with so great a fine, even the loss of all the good which they could receive from him that created them, and loves them, is such a playing with Heads, and a regardless treatment of Souls, that for charity sake, and common humanity, we dare not mingle in their Counsels. But if we err, it is on the safer side; it is on the one side of mercy and charity. These seven particulars are not trifling considerations; but as they have great influence into the event of Souls, so they are great parts of the Roman Religion, as they have pleased to order Religion at this day. I might instance in many more, if I thought it necessary, or did not fear they would think me inquisitive for objections: therefore I shall add no more; only I profess myself to wonder at the obstinacy of the Roman Prelates, that will not consent, that the Liturgy of their Church should be understood by the people. They have some pretence of politic reason, why they forbidden the translation of the Scriptures; though all wise men know they have other reasons, than what they pretend, yet this also would be considered; that if the people did read the Scriptures, and would use that liberty well, they might receive infinite benefit by them; and that if they did abuse that liberty, it were the People's fault, and not the Rulers; but that they are forbidden, that is the Ruler's fault, and not the People's: But for prohibiting the understanding of their public, and sometimes of many of their private devotions, there can be no plausible pretence, no excuse of policy, no end of piety; and if the Church of England be not in this also, of the surer side, than we know nothing, but all the reason of all mankind is fallen asleep.  
Well, however these things have at least, very much probability in them; yet for professing these things according to the Scriptures, and Catholic tradition, and right Reason (as will be further demonstrated in the following paragraphs) they call us Heretics, and sentence us with damnation; 
Suarezius and Bellarmine confess, that to believe Transubstantiation, is not absolutely necessary to salvation.  with damnation, I say; for not worshipping of Images; for not calling the Sacramental Bread, our God & Saviour; for not teaching for doctrines, the Commandments of men; for not equalling the say of men, to the say of God; for not worshipping Angels, for not putting trust in Saints, and speaking to dead persons, who are not present; & for offering to desire to receive the Communion, as Christ gave it to his Disciples, & they to all to whom they preached. If these be causes of damnation; what shall become of them that do worship Images; and that do take away half of the Sacrament from the people, to whom Christ left it? and keep knowledge from them, and will not suffer the most of them to pray with the Understanding; and worship Angels, and make dead men their Guardians, and erect Altars, and make Vows, and give consumptive Offerings to Saints, real, or imaginary? Now truly, we know not what shall become of them; but we pray for them as men not without hope: only as long as we can, we repeat the words of our Blessed Saviour, He that breaks one of the least Commandments, 
Matth. 5. 19  and teaches men so, shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.   

SECTION IX.  
That the Church of Rome does teach for Doctrines, the Commandments of Men.  
THe former Charge hath occasioned this, which is but an instance of their adding to the Christian Faith new Articles upon their own authority. And here, first, I shall represent what is intended in the reproof which our Blessed Saviour made of the Pharisees; saying, They taught for doctrines, the Commandments of men. And 2. I shall prove that the Church of Rome is guilty of it, and the Church of England is not.  
1. The words of our Blessed Saviour are to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Conjunctively; that is, In vain do ye worship me, 
Matth. 15. 9  teaching doctrines, and Commandments of men; that is, things which men only have delivered; and if these once be esteemed to be a worshipping of God, it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a vain worship. Now this expressed itself in two degrees; The first was in over-valuing humane ordinances; that is, equalling them to Divine Commandments; exacting them by the same measures, by which they require obedience to God's laws, and this with a pretended zeal for God's honour and service. Thus the Pharisees were noted and reproved by our Blessed Saviour.  
1. The things of decency, or indifferent practices, were counselled by their Forefathers; in process of time they became approved by use and Custom; and then their Doctors denied their Communion to them that omitted them, found out new reasons for them, were severe in their censures concerning the causes of their omission, would approve none, no not the cases and exceptions of charity or piety. And this is instanced in their washings of cups and platters, and the outside of dishes; which either was at first instituted for cleanliness and decency, or else as being symbolical to the Purifications in the Law: but they changed the Scene, enjoined it as necessity; were scandalised at them that used it not; practised it with a frequency, passing into an intolerable burden; insomuch that at the marriage of Cana in Galilee there were six water-Pots set after the manner of the Purification of the Jews; because they washed often in the time of their meals; and then they put new reasons, and did it for other causes than were in the first institution. And although these washings might have been used without violation of any Commandment of God; yet even by this Tradition they made God's Commandment void, by making this necessary, and imposing these useless and unnecessary burdens on their brethren, by making snares for Consciences, and making Religion and the Service of God to consist in things indifferent. So they made void God's Commandment by turning Religion into superstition.  
2. Whereas humane laws, customs and traditions may oblige in public, and for order sake, and decency, and for reputation and avoiding scandal, and to give testimony of obedience; and are not violated if they be omitted without scandal and contempt, and injury, with a probable reason: yet to think they oblige beyond what man can see, or judge, or punish, or feel, is to give to humane laws the estimate which is due to divine laws. So did the Pharisees: Quicquid sapientes vetant palàm fieri, id etiam in penetralibus vetitum est, said Rabbi Bachai. But this is the Prerogative of Divine Laws which oblige as much in private as in public; because God equally sees in the Closet and in the Temple: Men cannot do this, and therefore cannot make Laws to bind, where they can have no cognisance and no concern.  
3. Humane authority is to command according to its own rate; that is, at the rate of humane understanding; where the obedience may be possibly deficient, because the understanding is fallible. But the Divine authority is infallible, and absolute, and supreme: and therefore our obedience to it must be as absolute, perpetual, and indeficient. But the Pharisees had a saying, and their practice was accordingly; Si dixerint scribae dextram esse sinistram, & sinistram esse dextram, audi eos, said the forenamed Rabbi.  
2. The second degree in which this expressed itself among the Pharisees, was, that they did not only equal, but preferred the Commandments of men before the Commands of God. Plus est in verbis scribarum quam in verbis legis 
* In ●itulis Thalmudicis Baba Metzias B. recho●h, etc. ; and of this the instance that our Blessed Saviour gives is in the case of the Corban, and not relieving their Parents. Sacrum erit quicquid paravero in futurum ad os patris 
* Rabbi Nissim. , If they said it was dedicated; their Father's hungry belly might not be relieved by it. And this our Blessed Saviour calls, as being the highest degree of this superstition, a making the Commandment of God of no effect by their tradition; this does it directly; as the other did it by necessary and unavoidable consequence.  
Now that the Church of Rome is greatly guilty of this criminal way of teaching and mis-leading the Consciences of her disciples, will appear in these (amongst many other) instances.   

SECTION X.  
Of the Seal of Confession.  
1. I First instance in their Seal of Confession; And the question is not, Whether a Priest is to take care of his Penitent's fame, or whether he be not in all prudent and pious ways to be careful, lest he make that Intercourse odious: For certainly he is. But whether the Seal of Confession be so sacred and impregnable that it is not to be opened in the imminent danger of a King, or Kingdom; or for the doing the greatest good, or avoiding the greatest evil in the world: that's now the question, and such a Broad Seal as this, is no part of the Christian Religion, was never spoken of by the Prophets or Apostles, in the Old or the New Testament, never was so much as mentioned in the Books of the Ancient Fathers and Doctors, not so much as named in the Ancient Councils of the Church; and was not heard of until after the time of Pope Gregory the seventh. Now how this is determined & practised in the Church of Rome, we may quickly see. The first direct Rule in the Western Church we find in this affair, 
Decretal. de poenitent●is & remissionibus.  is the Canon of the Lateran Council; Cap. Omnis utriusque, in which to Confess at Easter, was made an Ecclesiastical Law; and, as an Appendix to it, this caution, Caveatautem omninò, ne verbo aut signo aut alio quovis modo aliquatenus prodat peccatorem: sed si prudentiore consilio indiguerit, illud absque ullâ expressione personae requirat. This Law concerning them that do confess their secret sins to a Priest, in order to Counsel, comfort, and pardon from God by his Ministry, is very prudent and pious; and it relates only to the person, not to the crimes: these may upon the account of any doubt, or the advantage of better counsel and instruction be revealed; the person upon such accounts may not, Nisi veritas aut obedientia aliud exigat, 
In 3. dist. 21.  as S. Bonaventure said well; Unless truth, or obedience require the contrary: for indeed the person is not often so material as to the inquiry of future counsel, or present judgement, as the greatness, and other circumstances of the sin. But this was an ancient Ecclesiastical Rule, 
●ib. 7. cap. 16. hist. Eccles.  as we find it related by Sozomen, Presbyterum aliquem vitae integritate quam maximè spectabilem, secretorum eitam tenacem ac sapientem huic officio praefecerunt, A penitentiary Priest was appointted for the Penitents, a man that was of good life, wise, and secret. So far was well, and agreeable to common prudence, and natural reason, and the words of Solomon; 
Prov. 11. 13.  Qui ambulat fraudulenter revelat arcanum, qui autem fidelis est celat amici commissum. There is in this case, some more reason than in ordinary secrets; but still the obligation is the same, and to be governed by prudence, and is subject to contradiction, by greater causes. The same also, is the Law in the Greek Church, 
Epist. ad Amphilochium.  mentioned by S. Basil, Our Fathers permitted not that women, that had committed Adultery, and were penitent, should be delated in public 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A. D. 1603. . This is the whole ground and foundation, on which the Seal of Confession does, or can rely, save only that in several Churches there were several Laws in after-ages to the same purpose, and particularly, in the 11th. Canon of the Church of England; adding also the penalty of irregularity, to every Priest that shall reveal any thing committed to him in private Confession, but with this Proviso; that it be not binding, in such cases where the concealment is made capital, by the Laws of the Kingdom: which because it is very strict, and yet very prudent, I shall make it appear, that the Church of England walks wisely in it, and according to the precedents of the Ancient Catholic Church, in commanding the Seal to be broken up in some cases; and yet she hath restrained it more than formerly was observed in the Churches of God.  
Burchard expressly affirms, 
Lib. 19 Decreti sui. c. 37. Council Mogua●. cap. 10. & 21.  that before the Nicene Council, the penitentiary Priest might publish what he heard in Confessions, if it were for the good of the penitent, or, for the greatness of the crime, it seemed fit to the Confessor.  
And that he says true, we have sufficient testimony from Origen. 
Homil. 2. in Psal. 37.  Tantum modo circumspice diligentius cui debeas confiteri peccatum tuum— Si intellexerit & praeviderit talem esse languorem tuum qui in conventu totius Ecclesiae exponi debeat & curari, ex quo fortassis & caeteri aedificari poterunt, & tu ipse facilè sanari, multâ hoc deliberatione & satis perito medici illius consilio procurandum est. By which words he affirms, 1. That it was in the power of the Confessor, to command the publication of certain crimes, 2. That though it was not lightly to be done, yet upon great reason it might. 3. That the spiritual good of the penitent, and the edification of others, were causes sufficient for the publication. 4. That of these; the Confessor was judge. 5. That this was not otherwise done by the consent of the party, but because he was bound to consent when the Confessor enjoined it: And the matter is evident, in the case of the incestuous Corinthian; who either was restored without private Confession; or, if he was not, S. Paul caused it to be published in the Church, and submitted the man to the severest discipline and yet public, that was then or since in the world. The like to this, we find in a decretal Epistle of Pope Leo; 
Epist. 80. ad Epist● Companiae.  for when some Confessors, exceeding the ancient Ecclesiastical Rule, were not so prudent and deliberate in conducting their Penitents, as formerly they were, but commanded that all their whole Confessions should be written down, and publicly read; he says, Though the plenitude of Faith might be landable, that is not afraid to blush in public, yet the Confession is sufficient, if it be made in secret first to God, and then to the Priest: and adds, Non omnium hujusmodi sunt peccata, ut ea quae poenitentiam poscunt, non timeant publicare; All sins are not of that nature, that are fit to be published: and therefore removeatur tam improbabilis consuetudo; let such a reprovable custom be taken away.] In which words of S. Leo; we find, 1. That the Seal of Confession (as at this day it is understood at Rome,) was no such inviolable, and religious secret; for by a contrary custom it was too much broken. 2. That he blames not the publication of some sins, but that they indiscriminately did publish all. 3. That the nature of some sins did not permit it: for (as he adds afterwards) men by this means were betrayed to the malice of their Enemies, who would bring them before tribunals, in some cases. 4. That this was not spoken in case of public Crimes, delated, and brought into public notice, but such as were spoken in private Confession. And here I cannot but desire, there had been some more ingenuity in Bellarmine, who relating to this Epistle of S. 
De poenitentiâ lib. 3. cap. 14. Sect. Denique cum secreta.  Leo, affirms, that S. Leo says, It is against the Apostolical Rule, to reveal secret sins, declared in Confession; when it is plain, that S. Leo only blames the Custom of revealing all; saying, that all sins are not of that nature, as to be fit to be revealed. And by these precedent authorities, we shall the easier understand that famous fact of Nectarius, who abolished the Custom of having sins published in the Church, and therefore took away the penitentiary Priest, whose Office was (as I proved out of Origen, Sozomen, and Burchard) to enjoin the publication of some sins, according to his discretion. It happened in Constantinople, that a foul fact was committed, and it was published in the ears of the people, and a tumult was raised about it; and the Remedy was, that Nectarius took away the Office, and the Custom together. Consulentibus quibusdam ut Vnicuique liberum permitteret, prout sibi ipse conscius esset & consideret, ad mysteriorum Communionem accedere, poenitentiarium illum presbyterum exauthoravit. Every man was thenceforth left to his liberty, according to the dictate and confidence of his own conscience, to come to the Communion; and this afterwards passed into a Rite: for the manners of men growing degenerate, and worse sins being now confessed than (as he supposes) formerly they had been; the judges having been more severe, and the people more modest, it was fit enough that this Custom, upon the occasion of such a scandal, and so much mischief like to follow it, should be laid aside wholly; and so it was. Here is a plain story, truly told by Sozomen, and the matter is easy to be understood. But Bellarmine, seeing the practice, and doctrine of the Church of Rome pinched by it, makes a distinction (derived from the present Custom of his Church) of public Confession and private, saying, That Nectarius took away the public, and not the private. This I shall have occasion to discuss in the next Section. I am now only to speak concerning the Seal of Confession; which from this authority is apparent was not such a sacred thing, but that it was made wholly to minister to the public and private edification of the penitent, and the whole Church.  
Thus this Affair stood in the Primitive Church. In descending ages when private Confessions grew frequent, and were converted into a Sacrament; the Seal also was made more tenacious; and yet by the discipline of the Church, there were divers Cases in which the Seal might be broken up. 1. There is a famous Gloss in Cap. Tua nos. lib. 4. Decretal. tit. 1. De Sponsalibus & Matrimonio; where the Pope answering to a question concerning a pretended contract of marriage, says, that the marriage is good, unless the Enquiring Bishop of Brescia could have assured him, that the man did never consent, or intent the marriage, Quod qualiter tibi constiterit, non videmus: The Gloss upon these words says, Imò benè potuit constare; quia vir ille hoc ei confitebatur, The Bishop might well know it, because the man had confessed it to him; or because he had revealed it to him in penitential confession. For though in Judicial confession before a tribunal no man is to be believed to the prejudice of a third person, yet in penitential Confession he is to be believed; because it is not to be supposed that he than is unmindful of his salvation.] Where the Gloss observing that he did or might have received it in Confession, and yet make use of it in Consultation with his superiors, and upon that answer was to pronounce it to be, or not to be, a marriage, and to treat the persons accordingly; it follows that the thing itself might be revealed for the good of the penitents soul, and this was done by the Cardinal of S. Laurence in the case of a woman introducing a supposititious Child to the inheritance of her husband; 
Lib. 5. decret. tit 38.  and this revelation of the Confession produced a decretal Epistle from the Pope in that particular case; 
Cap. officii. de poenit. & remiss.  and of this the Doctors give this reason; 
Vide Suarez. 〈◊〉 Paz. in practica▪ Criminal. Eccles. cap. 100L.  because a thing so odious, and that would bring so certain ruin to souls, might not be permitted, with so great scandal, and so great mischief. 2. And that Confession may be revealed for the regulating a doubtful case of marriage, is the opinion of many great Canonists. 3. That it may be revealed in the case of Heresy confessed, I think there was no doubt of it at any time. 4. And that every Confessor may reveal the Confession by the Penitent's leave, is taught by Durandus, Almain, Medina, and Navarre; and generally by all the ancient Scholars of S. Thomas. Now if a law be made that in certain cases, the Confessor shall publish the Confession, than every man's consent is involved in it, as his private right is in the public interest; of which it is a part, and to which it is subordinate and must yield. But who pleases to see how this affair once did stand in the Church of Rome, and more especially in the Catholic Church, if he be not yet, may be satisfied by the proofs which Altisiodorensis gives of the lawfulness of publishing Confessions in certain cases. 5. Lastly, if a sinful intention of committing a grievous Crime be revealed in Confession, and the person confessing cannot desist from, or will not alter his purpose; then that the Seal of Confession may be broken open, is affirmed by 
a Part. 4. Q. 28. memb. 2. art. 2. in resp ns.  Alexander of Alice, by the 
b Confessio ult. num. 7.  Summa Angelica, which also reckons five cases more, in which it is lawful to reveal Confessions. The same also is taught by 
c Cap. Omnis. de poenit. & remis. num. 24.  Panormitan, 
d Super 5. cap. Omnis.  Hostiensis, the 
e In Confess. 3. num. 2.  Summa Sylvestrina, and by Pope 
f In Cap. Omnis. verb. prodit.  Innocent himself.  
But now if we consider how it is in the Church of Rome at this day, and hath been this last age for the most part; we shall find that this humane constitution, relying upon prudent and pious considerations, is urged as a Sacramental Obligation, and a great part of the Religion; and is not accounted obliging only for the reasons of its first Sanction; nor as an act of obedience to the positive law, but as a Natural, Essential, Divine and unalterable Obligation. And from thence these doctrines are derived. 1. That what a Priest knows in Confession, he knows it not as a man, but as God: which proposition (as it is foolish, and too near to blasphemy, and may as well infer, that the Priest may be then adored by the penitent with the distinction, viz. not as man, but as God; so) is expressly confuted by the Gloss abovecited, 
In quartum librum scent. dist. 21.  and by Scotus; but taught by the Modern Casuists, and is the ground of a strange practice. For 2. as a consequent of the former, it is taught in the Church of Rome by their greatest Guides, that if a Priest having heard a thing only in Confession; 
a Vide Richard. in l●b 4. sent. d●st. eâd. art. 4. q. ●.  If being asked, and sworn, he shall say, he never heard that thing, he neither lies nor forswears. So Emanuel 
b Aph●r. v. Confessor. n. 23.  Sa teaches; and adds, that in the same manner the penitent may also swear, that he said nothing, or no such thing in Confession. But how this should be excused, or whether they think the Penitent to have spoken to none but God; I am not yet satisfied. 3. It is not lawful to reveal any thing that is told only in Confession, though it be to avoid the greatest evil that can happen, so said 
c Apolog. adv. Reg. M. Brit.  Bellarmine; to save a whole Commonwealth from damage temporal or spiritual, so 
d Disp 33. in 3. part. ●. Thom. Sect. 1. n. ●.  Suarez; to save the lives of all the Kings in Christendom, so 
e Praestaret Reges omnes pe●ire quam si vel semel Confessionis sigillum violaretur. Epist. ad Fontonem Ducaeum. p. 140.  Binet told Isaac Causabon in the King's Library at Paris. The same is openly avowed by Eudaemon Johannes, 
f Apolog. pro Garnett●. c. 13.  That there is no evil so great, for the avoiding of which it can be lawful to reveal Confession; and that this may appear to be a Catholic doctrine, the same Author reckons up so many Moderns teaching the same, that the very names of the Authors and Books fills up several pages: and that it is the Catholic doctrine, is expressly taught by the Author of the famous Apology made for the Jesuits, after the horrid parricide of Henry the fourth of France. They add, even beyond this, all the Curiosity of the very circumstances of silence; That this silence does not only oblige in the case of perfect Confession, but, if it be begun, not only in case of Confession clear and express, but if it be so much as in relation to Confession: not only the Confessor, but the Messenger, the Interpreter, the Counsellor, he that hears it by chance, or by stealth: and he that was told of it by him that should but did not conceal it; the Seal is to be kept by all means, directly and indirectly, by words and signs, judicially and extrajudicially, unless the penitent give leave: but that leave is to be express, and is not to be asked but in the case of a compelling necessity; neither can the Confessor impose a public penance upon him, who hath confessed privately. Which things, especially the last, are most diametrically opposed to the doctrine and discipline of the Primitive Church, as I have already proved; but these things are expressly taught as the doctrine of the most famous Casuists of the Church of Rome, 
Moral. Theol. 1 act. 7. Examen. 4. de poe●it. Sect. 6. n. 63, 64, 65, etc.  by Escobar, who comparing his Book in method to the seven Seals of the Revelations, which the four living Creatures read; Suarez the Ox, Molina the Man, Vasques the Eagle, and Valentia the Lion; and 24. Elders, that is, 24. Jesuits also read these seven Seals; though when they come to be reckoned, they prove 25. so fatal is that Antichristian number to the Church of Rome, that it occurs in every accident: but his meaning is, that the doctrines he teaches are the doctrines of all those 25. famous leading men; Penes quos Imperium I●terarum & Conscientiarum. If now it be not the Catholic doctrine, then is it heretical? and then, why is it not disowned? why are not they that say so, censured? why is not the doctrine condemned? why is it publicly maintained and allowed by authority? why is it pleaded in bar against execution of justice in the case of treason; as it was by F. Garnet himself, and all his Apologists? But if this be the Catholic doctrine, then let it be considered how cheap are the lives of Kings in their eyes, who consult more with the safety of a Villain, whom they dare not absolve 
* Script. Garnetti apud Is. Casaub ni Epist. ad Fron. Du caeum, p. 13●. , than of a King, who is worthy ten thousands of his people; and let it be also considered, that by using all the ways in the world to make Confession easy to Traitors and Homicides, they make it odious to Kings and Princes, and to all that love the safety of their Sovereigns, and of the public. We find that the laws of God yield to charity and necessity, and Christ followed the act of David; who, when he was hungry, eat the Shewbread, which was unlawful to be eaten but by the Priest alone: and he that commanded us to go, and learn what that means, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, intended not that the Seal of Confession should upon pretence of Religion be used to the most uncharitable ends in the world; no, though it had been made sacred by a Divine Commandment; which it is not, but is wholly introduced by Custom and Canons Ecclesiastical: And when we see that things dedicated to God, and made sacred by Religion, and the laws of God confirming such Religion, can be aliened and made common in cases of extreme necessity, or great charity; it is a strange superstition, that shall hold that fast with teeth and nails, and never let it go, no not to save a soul, not to preserve the life of Kings, not to prevent the greatest mischief in the world; This is certainly a making the Commandments of men greater and more sacred than the Commandments of God, and a passing them into a doctrine, great, necessary and unalterable, as a Fundamental Article.   

SECTION XI.  
Of the imposing Auricular Confession upon Consciences, without authority from God.  
THat Confession to a Priest, is a Doctrine taught as necessary in the Church of Rome, is without all question; and yet that it is but the Commandment of men, I shall (I hope) clearly enough evince; and if I do, I suppose the Charge laid against the Church of Rome, which is the same Christ laid against the Pharisees, will be fully made good, as to this instance; For this is one of the sorts of that Crime, to say, Dixit Dominus, Dominus autem non dixit; to pretend a Rite to be of Divine institution when it is not so, but humanum inventum, a device of man's brain. The other (which is, still supposing an institution to be humane and positive, yet to urge it with the same severe Religion, as they do a Divine Commandment) I shall consider in other instances. For the present, the inquiry is concerning Auricular Confession, and its pretended necessity. The first Decree concerning it, was in the Lateran Council; 
Can. 21.  in which every person of years of discretion, is commanded to confess all his sins to his own Priest, at lest once in the year; or to another Priest, with the leave of his own; otherwise, while he is living, he must be driven from entrance into the Church; and, when he is dead, he must have no Christian Burial. This is very severe; but yet here is no damnation to them that neglect it; and the duty is not pretended to be by Divine Commandment: and therefore lest that severity might seem too much to be laid upon humane Law, they made it up in the new forge at Trent; and there it was decreed that, To confess all, and every mortal sin, which after diligent inquiry we remember, and every evil thought or desire, 
Sess. 14. Capp. 6. & 7.  and the circumstances that change the nature of the sin, is necessary for the remission of sins, and of Divine institution; and he that denies this, is to be Anathema.  
Whether to confess to a Priest, be an adviseable discipline, and a good instance, instrument, and ministry of Repentance, and may serve many good ends in the Church, and to the souls of needing persons, is is no part of the Question. We find that in the Acts of the Apostles, divers converted persons came to S. Paul, either publicly, or privately, and confessed their deeds; 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. magicas incantationes; simile illud ibidem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nimirum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and burned their books of Exorcism, that is, did what became severe, and hearty penitents, who needed Counsel and Comfort, and that their Repentance should be conducted by wise Guides. And when S. James exhorts all Christians to confess their sins to one another, certainly it is more agreeable to all spiritual ends, that this be done rather to the Curates of Souls, than to the ordinary Brethren. The Church of England is no way engaged against it, but advises it, and practices it. The Calvinist-Churches do not practise it much, because they know not well how to divest it from its evil appendages which are put to it by the customs of the world, and to which it is too much exposed by the interests, weaknesses, and partialities of men. But they commending it, show they would use it willingly, if they could order it unto edification. 
a Calvin. Instit. lib. 3. cap. 4. Sect. 12. 13.  Interim quin sistant se Pastori oves, quoties sacram Coenam participare volunt, adeò non reclamo, ut maximè velim hoc ubique observari. And for the Lutheran Churches, that it is their practice, we may see it in 
b 2. Part. Exam. Concil. Trid. cap. 5. de poenit.  Chemnitius, who was one of greatest fame amongst them; and he is noted to this purpose by 
* Lib. 3. de poenit. cap. 1. Sect. Martinus Kemnitius.  Bellarmin, only they all consent, that it is not necessary nor of Divine institution; and being but of man's invention, it ought not to pass into a doctrine; and, as the Apostles said in the matter of Circumcision, a burden ought not to be put upon the necks of the Disciples: and that, in lege gratiae, 
In ●. didst, 17. q. 2. ex Scoto.  longè difficilimum too, as Mayor observes truly, by far greater than any burden in the Law of Grace, the time of the Gospel. Let it be commanded to all, to whom it is needful, or profitable; but let it be free, as to the Conscience precisely, and bound but by the cords of a man, and as other Ecclesiastical Laws are, which are capable of exceptions, restrictions, cautions, dispensations, rescinding, and abolitions, by the same authority, or upon greater reasons.  
The Question than is, Whether to confess all our greater sins to a Priest, all that upon strict enquiry we can remember, be necessary to salvation? This the Church of Rome now affirms; and this the Church of England, and all Protestant Churches deny; and complain sadly, that the Commandments of men are changed into the doctrines of God, by a Pharisaical empire, and superstition. Here than we join issue.  
1. And in the first place, I shall represent that the doctrine of the necessity of Confession to a Priest is a new doctrine, even in the Church of Rome, and was not esteemed any part of the Catholic Religion before the Council of Trent. For first, the Gloss de poenit. dist. 5. c. in poenitentiâ, enquiring where, or when Oral Confession was institued, says, Some say it was instituted in Paradise, others say it was instituted when Joshuah called upon Achan to confess his sin: others say it was instituted in the new Testament by S. James: It is better said, that it was instituted by a certain universal tradition of the Church, and the tradition of the Church is obligatory as a precept. Therefore confession of deadly sins is necessary with us (viz. Latins) but not with the Greeks; because no such tradition hath come to them.] This is the full state of this affair, in the age when Semeca, who was the Glossator, lived; and it is briefly this. 1. There was no resolution, or agreement whence it came. 2. The Glossator's opinion was, it came from the Universal tradition of the Church. 3. It was but a kind of Universal tradition; not absolute, clear, and certain. 4. It was only a tradition in the Latin Church. 5. The Greeks had no such tradition. 6. The Greeks were not obliged to it; it was not necessary to them. Concerning the Greek Church, I shall afterwards consider it in a more opportune place; here only I consider it as it was in the Latin Church: and of this I suppose there needs no better Record than the Canon Law itself, and the authentic Glosses upon it; which Glosses, although they be not Law, but as far as they please, yet they are perfect testimony as to matter of fact, and what the opinions of the Doctors were at that time. And therefore to the former, I add this; that in cap. Convertimini, Gratian hath these words, Vnde datur intelligi, quod etiam ore tacente veniam consequi possumus, Without confession of the mouth we may obtain pardon of our sins; and this point he pursues in all that long Chapter; and in the chapter Resuscitatus, out of S. Austin's doctrine; and in the Chapter Qui natus, out of the doctrine of S. John's Epistle; the conclusion of which Chapter is, Cum ergo ante Confessionem (ut probatum est) sumus resuscitati per gratiam, & filii lucis facti; evidentissimè apparet quod solâ cordis contritione sine Confessione oris, peccatum remittitur: and, in the Chapter Omnis qui non diligit, he expressly concludes out of S. John's words: Non ergo in confession peccatum remittitur, quod jam remissum esse probatur: fit itaque confessio ad ostensionem poenitentiae, non ad impetrationem veni●. And at the end of this Chapter, according to his custom in such disputable things; when he says, Alii è contrario testantur; others witness to the contrary, that without confession Oral, and works of satisfaction, no man is cleansed from his sin; the Gloss upon the place, says thus: Ab hoc loco usque ad Sed his authoritatibus; pro aliâ parte allegat, quod scil. adulto peccatum non dimittitur sine oris Confession, quod tamen falsum est: Only he says, that Confession doth cleanse, and Satisfaction doth cleanse: so that though by contrition of the heart, the sin is pardoned; yet these still cleanse more and more, as a man is more innovated] or amended. But these authorities brought in, (viz. that sin is not pardoned without confession) if they be diligently expounded, prove but little.] But Friar Maurique, who by Pius Quintus, made and published a censure upon the Glosses, appointed these words (quod tamen falsum est) to be left out; but the Roman Correctors under Greg. 13th. let them alone; but put in the Margin a mark of contradiction upon it; saying, Imò verissimum est. But that was new doctrine, and although Semeca, the Author of the Gloss, affirmed it expressly to be false, yet Gratian himself was more reserved; but yet not of the new opinion, but left the matter indifferent: for after he had alleged Scripture, and authorities of Fathers on one side, and authority of Fathers on the other; 
De poe●it. ●. ●. cap. Quamvis plentitudo.  he concludes, Quibus authoritatibus vel quibuslibet rationum firmamentis utraque sententia Satisfactionis & Confessionis innitatur, in medium breviter exposuimus. Cui autem harum potius adhaerendum sit, lectoris judicio reservatur. Vtraque enim fautores habet sapientes & religiosos viros. Now how well this agrees with the determination of the Council of Trent, 
Lib. de 5. decret. de poeni●. & rem. in cap. Omnis utriusque sexus.  every man, by comparing, can easily judge; only it is certain, this doctrine cannot pretend to be derived by tradition from the Apostles. Of the same opinion was the Abbot of Panormo; saying, That opinion (viz. of the Gloss) does much please me: because there is no manifest authority that does intimate, that either God or Christ instituted Confession to be made to a Priest. But it were endless to name the Sentences of the Canonists in this question; once for all, the testimony of Maldonat may secure us, 
Disp. de Sacr. tom. 2. de Confess. Orig. c. 2.  Juris Pontificii periti, secuti suum primum interpretem, omnes dicunt Confessionem tantum esse introductam jure Ecclesiastico. But to clear the whole Question, I shall first prove, that the necessity of confessing our sins to a Priest is not found in Scripture; but very much to disprove it. 2. That there is no reason enforcing this necessity, but very much against it. 3. That there is no Ecclesiastical Tradition of any such necessity; but apparently the contrary: and the consequent of these things will be, that the Church of Rome hath introduced a new doctrine, false, and burdensome, dangerous and superstitious.  
1. If we consider how this Article is managed in Scripture, we shall find that our Blessed Saviour said nothing at all concerning it; the Council of Trent indeed makes their new doctrine to rely upon the words of Christ recited by S. John, 
John 20. 21.  Whose sins ●e remit they are remitted, etc. But see with what success: for, besides that all the Canonists allow not, that Confession was instituted by Christ; Aquinas, Scotus, Gabriel Clavasinus, the Author of the Summa Angelica, Hugo de S. Victore, Bonaventure, Alensis, Tho. Waldensis, Ferus, Cajetan, Erasmus, B. Rhenanus, and Jansenius, though differing much in the particulars of this question, yet all consent that precisely from the words of Christ, no necessity of Confession to a Priest can be concluded. 2. Amongst those of the Roman Church who did endeavour to found the necessity of Confession upon those words, None do agree about the way of drawing their argument; 
In lib. 4. sent. dist. 17.  as may be seen in Scotus, Aureolus, Johannes Maior, Thomas de Argentina, Richardus, Durandus, Almain, Dominicus à Soto, Alphonsus à Castro, Adrianus, Petrus dae Aquilae, and others, before the Council of Trent. 3. Though these men go several ways (which shows, as Scotus expresses it, hoc verbum non est praecisum) yet they all agree well enough in this, that they are all equally out of the story, and none of them well performs what he undertakes; It is not mine alone, but the judgement which 
* Qu. 90. in 3●. Thom. dub. 2.  Vasquez makes of them, who confuted many of them by arguments of his own, and by the arguments which they use one against another, and gives this censure of them, Inter eos qui planè fatentur ex illis verbis Joh. xxᵒ necessitatem Confessionis (supple, elici) vix invenias qui efficaciter deducat. And therefore this place of S. John is but an infirm foundation to build so great a structure on it as the whole Oeconomy of their Sacrament of Penance, and the necessity of Confession upon it; since so many learned and acute men, master-builders believe nothing at all of it; and others that do, agree not well in the framing of the Structure upon it, but make a Babel of it, and at last their attempts prove vain and useless, by the testimony of their fellow-labourers.  
There are some other places of Scripture which are pretended for the necessity of Confession, but they need no particular Scrutiny; 
Primum istorum esse● magis conveniens lenend●m, si posset evidenter haberi istud praeceptum ex Evangelio. Nec oporiet ad hoc adducere illud Matthaei 16. Tibi dabo claves regni coelorum, quia non est nisi promissio de datione futura. Sed si aliquid in Evangelio, videlicet, ad hoc videtur illud Joh. xx. Accipi●e Spir. S. Quorum remiseritis, etc.  not only because they are rejected by their own parties as insufficient; but because all are principally devolved upon the twentieth of S. John, and the Council of Trent itself wholly relies upon it. 
Dicitur quod sic, de illo verbo Jacob. 5. Confiremini alter utrum peccata, etc. sed nec per hoc videretur mihi quod Jacobus praeceptum hoc dedit, nec praecepum à Christo promulgavit. Scotus in l. 4. dist. 17. Sect. De Secundo.  This therefore being the foundation, if it fails them as to their pretensions, their building must needs be ruinous. But I shall consider it a little.  
When Christ said to his Apostles, Whose sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to them; and whose sins ye retain, they shall be retained; he made (says Bellarmine, and generally the latter School of Roman Doctors) the Apostles, and all Priests, Judges upon earth; that, without their sentence, no man that hath sinned after Baptism, can be reconciled. But the Priests who are Judges can give no right or unerring sentence, unless they hear all the particulars they are to judge. Therefore by Christ's law they are tied to tell in Confession all their particular sins to a Priest: This is the sum of all that is said in this affair. Other light skirmishes there are, but the main battle is here.  
Now all the parts of this great Argument must be considered: And 1. I deny the argument; and supposing both the premises true, that Christ had made them judges, and that without particular cognisance they could not give judgement according to Christ's intention; yet it follows not, that therefore it is necessary, that the penitent shall confess all his sins to the Priest. For, Who shall compel the penitent to appear in judgement? Where are they obliged to come and accuse themselves before the judges? Indeed if they were before them, we will suppose the Priests to have power to judge them; but how can it be hence deduced, that the penitents are bound to come to this Judicatory, and not to stand alone to the Divine tribunal. A Physician may have power to cure diseases, yet the Patients are not bound to come to him; neither it may be will they, if they can be cured by other means. And if a King sends a Judge with competent authority to judge all the Questions in a Province; he can judge them that come, but he cannot compel them to come; and they may make an end of their quarrels among themselves, or by arbitration of neighbours; and if they have offended the King, they may address themselves to his clemency, and sue for pardon. And since it is certain by their own confession, that a penitent cannot by the force of these words of Christ be compelled to confess his venial sins, how does it appear, that he is tied to confess his mortal sins? For if a man be tied to repent of all his sins, than repentance may be performed without the ministry of the Priest, or else he must repent before the Priest for all his sins. But if he may repent of his venial sins, and yet not go to the Priest; then to go to the Priest is not an essential part of the repentance: and if it be thus in the case of venial sins, let them show from the words of Christ any difference in the case between the one and the other, especially if we consider, that though it may be convenient to go to the Priest to be taught and guided, yet the necessity of going to him is to be absolved by his Ministry. But that of this there was no necessity believed in the Primitive Church, appears in this; because they did not expect pardon from the Bishop or Priest in the greatest Crimes, but were referred wholly to God for the pardon of them: Non sine spe tamen remissionis, quàm ab eo planè sperare debebit qui ejus largitatem solus obtinet; & tam dives misericordiae est, ut nemo desperet: So said the Bishops of France in their Synod held about the time of Pope Zephyrinus. To the same purpose are the words of Tertullian; Saluâ illâ poenitentiae specie post fidem, quae aut levioribus delictis veniam ab Episcopo consequi poterit, aut majoribus & irremissibilibus à Deo solo. The like also is in the 31th Epistle of S. Cyprian. Now first it is easy to observe how vast the difference is between the old Catholic Church and the present Roman: these say, that venial sins are not of necessity to be confessed to the Priest or Bishop; and that without their Ministry they can be pardoned: But they of old said, that the smaller sins were to be submitted to the Bishop's Ministry. On the other side, the Roman Doctors say, it is absolutely necessary to bring our mortal sins, and confess them, in order to be absolved by the Priest; but the old Catholics said, that the greatest sins are wholly to be confessed and submitted to God, who may pardon them if he please, and will if he be rightly sought to; but to the Church they need not be confessed, because these were only and immediately fit for the Divine Cognisance. What is now a-days a reserved case to the Pope, was anciently a case reserved to God; and what was only submitted formerly to the Bishop, is now not worth much taking notice of by any one. But now put these together. By the Roman doctrine, you are not by the duty of repentance tied to confess your venial sins; and by the Primitive, it is to no purpose to bring the greatest crimes to Ecclesiastical repentance; but by their immediate address to God they had hopes of pardon: From hence it follows, that there is no necessity of doing one or other, that is, there is no Commandment of God for it; nor yet any necessity in the Nature of the thing requiring it.  
Venerable Bede had an opinion that those sins only which are like to leprosy ought to be submitted to the judgement of the Church: 
In Lucae Evang. cap. 69. tom. 5. Colon Agripp. 1612.  Caetera verò vitia tanquam valetudines, & quasi membrorum animae atque sensuum per semetipsum interius in conscientiâ & intellectu Dominus sanat. 
Lib. 5. ep. 16.  And Goffridus Vindocinensis tells of one William a learned man, whose doctrine it was, That there were but four sorts of sins, which needed Confession, the Error of Gentilism, Schism, Heretical pravity, and Judaical perfidiousness: 
Concil. Tried. sess. 14. c. 5. Nam venialia quibus à gratia Dei non excludimur, & in quae frequentiùs labimur, quanquam rectè & utiliter citráque omnem praesumptionem in confession dicantur, quod piorum h●minum usus demonstrat, tateri tamen citrà culpam, multisque al●is remediis expiari possunt.  Caetera autem peccata à Domino sine confessione sanari. But besides this, I demand, Whether or no hath the Priest a power to remit venial sins, and that this power (in the words of S. John, Chap. XX.) was given to him by Christ? If Christ did in these words give him power to remit venial sins, and yet the penitent is not bound to recount them in particular, or at all to submit them to his Judicatory; it will follow undeniably, that the giving power of remission of sins to the Priest, does not infer a necessity in the penitent to come to confess them. And these things I suppose Vasquez understood well enough; when he affirms expressly, that it may well stand with the ordinary power of a Judge, that his power be such as that it be free for the subjects to submit to it, or to end their controversies another way. And that it was so in this case, is the doctrine of 
* Vide Vasquez. in 3. tom. 4. q. 90. art. 1. dub. 2. Sect. 3.  Scotus, above cited, and many others. Add to this, the Argument of 
* Vbi supra.  Scotus, The Priest retains no sins, but such, which some way or other are declared to him to have no true signs of repentance; & yet those which are no way manifested to the Priest, God retains unto the vengeance of Hell: therefore neither is that word (whose sins ye remit) precise; that is, If God retains some which the Priest does not retain, than also he does remit some which the Priest does not remit; and therefore there is no negative affixed to the affirmative, which shows that the remission, or retention does not necessarily depend on the Priest's ministration. So that, supposing it to be true, that the Priest hath a power to remit, or retain sins, as a Judge, and that this power cannot be exercised without knowing what he is to judge; yet it follows not from hence, that the people are bound to come this way, and to confess their sins to them, or to ask their pardon. But  
2. The second proposition is also false: for, supposing the Priest by the words of Christ, hath given to him the ordinary power of a Judge; and that, as such, he hath power of remitting and retaining sins: yet this power of judging may be such, as that it may be performed without enumeration of all the particulars we remember. For the Judgement the Priest is to make, is not of the sins, but of the persons. It is not said Quaecunque, but Quorumcunque remiseritis peccata. Our Blessed Saviour in these words did not distinguish two sorts of sins, one to be remitted, and an other to be retained; so that it should be necessary to know the special nature of the sins: he only reckoned one kind, that is, under which all sins are contained. But he distinguished two sorts of sinners; saying, Quorum, and Quorum; the one of Penitents (according to the whole design and purpose of the Gospel) and their sins are to be remitted; 
Vid. Padre Paolo hist. Conc. Trid. lib. 4.  and an other of Impenitent, whose sins are not to be remitted, but retained. And therefore it becomes the Ministers of Souls, to know the state of the penitent, rather than the nature and number of the sins. Neither gave he any power to punish, but to pardon, or not to pardon. If Christ had intended to have given to the Priests a power to impose a punishment according to the quality of every sin; the Priest indeed had been the Executioner of the Divine wrath: but then, because no punishment in this life can be equal to the demerit of a sin which deserves the eternal wrath of God; it is certain, the Priest is not to punish them by way of vengeance. We do not find any thing in the words of Christ, obliging the Priest directly to impose penances on the penitent sinner; he may voluntarily submit himself to them if he please, and he may do very well, if he do so: but the power of retaining sins, gives no power to punish him whether he will or no; for the power of retaining is rather to be exercised upon the impenitent, than upon the penitent. Besides this, the word of [remitting] sins, does not certainly give the Priest a power to impose penances; for it were a prodigy of interpretation to expound remittere by punire. But if by [retaining] it be said, this power is given him; then this must needs belong to the impenitent, who are not remitted; and not to the penitent, whose sins at that time, they remit, and retain not: unless they can do both at the same time. But if the punishment designed, be only by way of Remedy, or of disposing the sinners to true penitence; then if the person be already truly penitent, the Priest hath nothing to do, but to pardon him in the name of God. Now certainly both these things may be done without the special enumeration of all his remembered sins. For 1. The penitent may, and often does, forget many particulars; and then in that case, all that the Priest can expect, or proceed to judgement upon, is the saying in general, He is truly sorrowful for them, and for the time to come will avoid them: and if he then absolve the penitent, as he must, and usually does; it follows, that if he does well (and he can do no better) he may make a judgement of his penitent without special enumeration of his sins; and if the Priest pardons no sins but those which are enumerated, the penitent will be in an evil condition in most cases: but if he can and does pardon those which are forgotten, than the fpecial enumeration is not indispensably necessary; for it were a strange thing, if sins should be easier remitted for being forgotten, and the harder for being remembered; there being in the Gospel no other condition mentioned, but the confessing, and forsaking them: and if there be any difference, certainly he, who out of carelessness of Spirit, or the multitude of his sins, or want of the sharpness of sorrow (for these commonly are the causes of it) forgets many of his sins, is in all reason further from pardon, than he whose conscience being sore wounded, cannot forget that which stings him so perpetually. If he that remembers most, because he is most penitent be tied to a more severe Discipline, than he that remembers least; then according to this discipline, the worst man is in the best condition. But what if the sinner, out of bashfulness, do omit to enumerate some sin? Is there not consulting with his modesty? Is there no help for him, but he must confess, or die? S. Ambrose gives a perfect answer to this case, Lavant lachrymae delictum quod voce pudor est confiteri, 
In Lucam. lib. 10. cap. 22.  & veniae fletus consulunt, & verecundae lachrymae sine horrore culpam loquuntur. Lachrymae crimen sine offensione verecundiae confitentur. And the same is almost in words affirmed by Maximus Taurinensis. 
Homil. 2. de poenitentiâ Petri.  Lavat lacryma delictum, quod voce pudor est confiteri: lachrymae ergo verecundiae pariter consulunt & saluti; nec erubescunt in petendo, & impetrant in rogando. And that this may not seem a propriety of S. Peter's repentance, because Sacramental Confession was not yet instituted (for that Bellarmine offers for an answer;) besides that Sacramental Confession was (as I have made to appear) never instituted, either then, or since then, in Scripture, by Christ, or by his Apostles; besides this, I say, S. Ambrose applies the precedent of S. Peter to every one of us. 
Collat. 20. c. 8.  Flevit ergo amarissimè Petrus: flevit ut lachrymis suum posset lavare delictum; & tu si veniam vis mereri, dilue culpam lachrymis tuam. And to the same sense also, is that of Cassian; Quod si, verecundiâ retrahente, revelare [peccata] coram hominibus erubescis, illi quem latere non possunt, confiteri ea jugi supplicatione non desinas, ac dicere, Tibi soli peccavi, & malum coram te feci, qui & absque illius verecundiae publicatione curare, & sine improperio peccata donare consuevit. To these I shall add a pregnant testimony of Julianus Pomerius, or of Prosper (de vitâ contemplativa lib. 2. cap. 7.) Quod si ipsi sibi Judices fiant, & veluti suae iniquitatis ultores hic in se voluntariam poenam severissimae animadversionis exerceant, temporalibus poenis mutaverint aeterna supplicia, & lachrymis ex verâ cordis compunctione fluentibus restinguent aeterni ignis incendia. And this was the opinion of divers learned persons in Peter Lombard's time, 
Lombard. se●t. l. 4. d. 7. ad finem lit. C.  that if men fear to confess lest they be disgraced, or lest others should be tempted by their evil example; and therefore conceal them to man, and reveal them to God; they obtain pardon.  
Secondly, 
2  for those sins which they do enumerate; the Priest by them cannot make a truer judgement of the penitent's repentance and disposition to amendment, than he can by his general profession of his true and deep contrition, and such other humane indications, by which such things are signified. For still it is to be remembered he is not the judge of the sin, but of the man. For Christ hath left no rules by which the sin is to be judged; no penitential tables, no Chancery tax, no penitential Canons; neither did his Apostles: and those which were in use in the Primitive Church, as they were vastly short of the merit of the sins, so they are very vastly greater than are now in use, or will be endured: By which it plainly enough appears, that they impose penances at their pleasure, as the people are content to take them; and for the greatest sins we see they impose ridiculous penances; and themselves profess they impose but a part of their penance that is due: which certainly cannot be any compliance with any law of God, which is always wiser, more just, and more to purpose. And therefore to exact a special enumeration of all our sins remembered, to enable the Priest only to impose a part of penance, is as if a Prince should raise an army of 10000 men to suppress a tumult raised in a little village against the petty Constable. Besides which, in the Church of Rome they have an old rule which is to this day in use among them; 
Sìtque modus poenae justae moderatio culpae;  
Quae tanto levior, quanto contritio major.   
And therefore, fortiter contritus leviter plectatur; He that is greatly sorrowful, needs but little penance. By which is to be understood, that the penance is but to supply the want of internal sorrow; which the Priest can no way make judgement of, but by such signs as the penitent is pleased to give him. To what purpose then can it be to enumerate all his sins; which he can do with a little sorrow, or a great one, with Attrition, or Contrition, and no man knows it, but God alone; and it may be done without any sorrow at all, and the sorrow may be put on, or acted; and when the penance is imposed, as it must needs be less than the sin, so it may be performed without true repentance. And therefore neither is the imposing penance any sufficient signification of what the Priest inquires after. And because every deliberate sin deserves more than the biggest penance that is imposed on any man for the greatest, and in that as to the sin itself there can be no error in the greatness of it; it follows that by the particular enumeration the Priest cannot be helped to make his judgement of the person; and by it or any thing else he can never equally punish the sin; therefore supposing the Priest to be a judge, the necessity of particular confession will not be necessary: especially if we consider,  
Thirdly, That by the Roman doctrine it is not necessary to salvation that the penitent should perform any penances, he may defer them to Purgatory if he please; so that, special Confession cannot be necessary to salvation for the reason pretended, viz. that the Priest may judge well concerning imposing penances, since they are necessary only for the avoiding Purgatory, and not for the avoiding damnation. 4. This further appears in the case of Baptism; which is the most apparent and evident use of the power of the Keys, it being truly and properly the intromission of Catachumen into the house of God, and an admitting them to all the Promises and Benefits of the Kingdom, and, which is the greatest, the most absolute and most evident remission of all the sins precommitted; and yet towards the dispensing this pardon, no particular Confession of sins is previous, by any necessity or Divine Law. Repentance in persons of choice and discretion is and was always necessary: but because persons were not tied to confess their sins particularly to a Priest before Baptism; it is certain, that Repentance can be perfect without this Confession. And this argument is yet of greater force and persuasion against the Church of Rome; for since Baptising is for remission of sins, and is the first act of the power of the Keys, and the evident way of opening the doors of the house of God, and yet the power of baptising is, in the Church of Rome, in the absence of a Priest, given to a layman, and frequently to a Deacon; it follows, that the power of the Keys, and a power of remitting sins is no Judiciary act; unless a Layman be declared capable of the power of judging, and of remitting sins. 5. 
5  If we consider, that without true repentance no sin can be pardoned; and with it all sins may; and that no one sin is pardoned as to the final state of our souls, but at the same time all are pardoned: it must needs follow, that it is not the number of sins, but the condition of the person, the change of his life, the sorrow of his heart, the truth of his Conversion, and his hatred of all sin, that he is to consider. If his repentance be a true change from evil to good, from sin to God, a thousand sins are pardoned as soon as one; and the infinite mercy of God does equally exceed one sin and one thousand. Indeed, in order to counsel or comfort, it may be very useful to tell all that grieves the penitent, all that for which he hath no rest, and cannot get satisfaction: but as to the exercising any other judgement upon the man, either for the present, or for the future; to reckon up what is passed seems not very useful, or at all reasonable: But as the Priest, who baptises a Convert, judges of him, as far as he can, and aught; that is, whether he hath laid aside every hindrance, and be disposed to receive remission of sins by the Spirit of God in Baptism: so it is in Repentance, the man's conversion and change is to be considered; which cannot be by what is past, but by what is present, or future.  
And now, 3: 
3  Although the judicial power of the Priest cannot infer the necessity of particular Confession; yet if the judicial power be also of another nature than is supposed, or rather be not properly judicium fori, the judgement of a tribunal, coercive, penal, and exterminating by proper effect, and real change of state and person; then the superstructure, and the foundation too, will be digged down. And this therefore shall be considered briefly. And here the Scene is a little changed, and the words of Christ to S. Peter, are brought in as auxiliaries, to prove the Priest's power to be judicial; and that, with the words of Christ to his Apostles, John XX, must demonstrate this point. 1. Therefore I have the testimony and opinion of the Master of the Sentences, affirming that the Priest's power is declarative, not judicial; the Sentence of an Ambassador, 
Sent. lib. 4. dist. 18. lit. F.  not of a Judge; Sacerdotibus tribuit potestatem solvendi & ligandi; id est, ostendendi homines ligatos vel solutos;] The Priest's power of losing and binding, is a power of showing and declaring who are bound, and who are loosed. For when Christ had cured the Leper, he sent him to the Priest, by whose judgement he was to be declared clean: and when Lazarus was first restored to life by Christ, than he bade his Disciples lose him and let him go.] And if it be enquired, To what purpose is the Priest's Solution, if the man be pardoned already? It is answered; that Although he be absolved before God, yet he is not accounted loosed in the face of the Church, but by the judgement of the Priest.] But we have the Sentence of a greater man in the Church, 
S. Hierom in Matth. lib. 3. ad cap. 16.  than Peter Lombard; viz. of S. Hierom himself, who discourses this affair dogmatically and fully, and so as not to be capable of evasion: speaking of those words of Christ to S. Peter, I will give to thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; whatsoever thou shalt bind ●n Earth, shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt lose in Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven: This place (saith S. Hierom) some Bishops and Priests not understanding, take upon them something of the superstitiousness of the Pharisees, so as to condemn the Innocent, or think to acquit the Guilty; whereas God inquires not, what is the Sentence of the Priest, but the life of the Guilty. In Leviticus, the Lepers were commanded to show themselves to the Priests, who neither make them leprous, nor clean; but they discern, who are clean, and who are unclean. As therefore there, the Priest makes the leprous man clean, or unclean: So here, does the Bishop, or the Priest bind or lose; i. e. according to their Office, when he hears the variety of sins, he knows who is to be bound, and who is to be loosed.] S. Ambrose adds one advantage more, as consequent to the Priest's absolving of penitents; but expressly declares against the proper judicial power. [Men give their Ministry in the remission of sins, 
Homines in remissione peccatorum ministerium suum exhibent, non jus alicujus potestatis exercent: Neque enim in suo, sed in Nomine Patris, Filii, & Spiritus Sancti, peccata dimittuntur. Ist●rogant, Divinitas donat, etc. S. Ambrose: de Spir. S. lib. 3. cap. 19  but they exercise not the right of any power: neither are sins remitted by them in their own, but in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Men pray, but it is God who forgives: It is man's obsequiousness, but the bountiful gift is from God. So likewise, there is no doubt, sins are forgiven in Baptism, but the operation is of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.] Here, S. Ambrose affirms the Priest's power of pardoning sins, to be wholly Ministerial, and Optative or by way of Prayer. Just as it is in Baptism, so it is in Repentance after Baptism: Sins are pardoned to the truly penitent; but here is no proper Judicial power. The Bishop prays, and God pardons: the Priest does his Ministry, and God gives the gift. Here are three witnesses against whom there is no exception; and what they have said, was good Catholic doctrine in their ages; that is, from the fourth age after Christ, to the eleventh: How it hath fallen into Heresy since that time, is now not worth enquiring; but yet how reasonable that old doctrine is, is very fit to consider.  
4. Of necessity it must be true; because what ever kind of absolution, or binding it is, that the Bishops and Priests have power to use; it does its work intended, without any real changing of state in the penitent. The Priest altars nothing; he diminishes no man's right; he gives nothing to him but what he had before. The Priest baptises, and he absolves, and he communicates, and he prays, and he declares the will of God; and, by importunity, he compels men to come, and if he find them unworthy, he keeps them out; but it is such, as he finds to be unworthy: Such who are in a state of perdition, he cannot, he ought not to admit to the Ministeries of life. True it is, he prays to God for pardon, and so he prays that God will give the sinner the grace of Repentance; but he can no more give Pardon, than he can give Repentance; he that gives this, giveth that.  
And it is so also in the case of Absolution; he can absolve none but those that are truly penitent: he can give thanks indeed to God on his behalf; but as that Thanksgiving supposes pardon, so that Pardon supposes repentance: and if it be true Repentance, the Priest will as certainly find him pardoned, as find him penitent. And therefore we find in the old Penitentials and Usages of the Church, that the Priest did not absolve the penitent in the Indicative or Judicial form. To this purpose it is observed by Gore, 
Pag. 676.  in the Euchologion; that now, many do freely assert, and tenaciously defend, and clearly teach, and prosperously write that the solemn form of reconciling, Absolvo te à peccatis tuis, is not perhaps above the age of 400 years; and that the old form of Absolution in the Latin Church, was composed in words of deprecation, so far forth as we may conjecture out of the Ecclesiastical history, ancient Rituals, Tradition, and other Testimonies without exception.] And in the Opuscula of Thomas Aquinas, 
Opusc. 22.  he tells that a Doctor said to him, that the Optative form, or deprecatory, was the Usual; and that then it was not thirty years since the Indicative form of, Ego te Absolvo, was used; which computation, comes near the computation made by Goar. And this is the more evidently so, in that it appears, that in the ancient Discipline of the Church, a Deacon might reconcile the penitents, if the Priest were absent: 
Alevin. de Divini Offic. cap. De●jejunio.  Si autem necessitas evenerit, & Presbyter non fuerit praesens, Diaconus suscipiat poenitentem, ac det Sanctam Communionem: And if a Deacon can minister this affair, than the Priest is not indispensably necessary, nor his power judicial and pretorial.  
But besides this, the power of the Keys is under the Master in the hands of the Steward of the house; who is the Minister of Government: and the power of remitting and retaining being but the verification of the Promise of the Keys, is to be understood by the same analogy, and is exercised in many instances, and to many great purposes, though no man had ever dreamt of a judicial power of absolution of secret sins; viz. in discipline and government, in removing scandals, in restoring persons overtaken in a fault to the peace of the Church, in sustaining the weak, in cutting off of corrupt members, in rejecting heretics, in preaching peace by Jesus Christ, and repentance through his name, and ministering the word of reconciliation, and interceding in the ministry of Christ's mediation; that is, being God's Ambassador, he is God's Messenger in the great work of the Gospel, which is Repentance and Forgiveness. In short, Binding and Losing, remitting and retaining, are acts of Government, relating to public discipline. And of any other pardoning or retaining, no Man hath any power but what he ministers in the Word of God and prayer, unto which the Ministry of the Sacraments is understood to belong. For what does the Church, when she binds a sinner, or retains his sin, but separate him from the communication of public Prayers and Sacraments? according to that saying of Tertullian, 
Apolog. c. 39  Summum futuri judicii praejudicium est, si quis ita deliquerit, ut à communicatione orationis & conventus & omnis sancti commercii relegetur. 
Homil. 50. c. 9  And the like was said by S. Austin, Versetur ante oculos imago futuri judicii, ut cum alii accedunt ad altare Dei, quo ipse non accedit, cogitet quàm sit contremiscenda illa poena, qua percipientibus aliis vitam aeternam, alii in mortem praecipitantur aeternam. And when the Church, upon the sinner's repentance, does restore him to the benefit of public Assemblies and Sacraments; she does truly pardon his sins, that is, she takes off the evil that was upon him for his sins. For so Christ proved his power on Earth to forgive sins by taking the poor man's palsy away: and so does the Church pardon his sins by taking away that horrible punishment of separating him from all the public communion of the Church: and both these are, in their several kinds, the most material and proper pardons.  
But then▪ is the Church gives pardon propertionable to the evil she inflicts, which God also will verify, if it be done here in truth, and righteousness; so there is a pardon, which God only gives. He is the injured and offended Person, and he alone can remit of his own right. But yet to this pardon the Church does cooperate by her Ministry. Now what this pardon is we understand best by the evils that are by him inflicted upon the sinner. For to talk of a power of pardoning sins, where there is no power to take away the punishment of sin, is but a dream of a shadow: sins are only then pardoned, when the punishment is removed. Now who but God alone can take away a sickness, or rescue a soul from the power of his sins, or snatch him out of the Devil's possession? The Spirit of God alone can do this, It is the spirit that quickeneth, and raiseth from spiritual death, and giveth us the life of God. Man can pray for the spirit, but God alone can give it; our Blessed Saviour obtained for us the Spirit of God by this way, by prayer; I will pray unto the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, even the spirit of truth; and therefore much less do any of Christ's Ministers convey the spirit to any one, but by prayer and holy Ministeries in the way of prayer: But this is best illustrated by the case of Baptism. 
Summ. part. 4. q. 21. memb. 1.  It is a matter of equal power (said Alexander of Alice) to baptise with internal Baptism, and to absolve from deadly sin. But it was not fit that God should communicate the power of baptising internally unto any, lest we should place our hope in Man. 
Tom. 9 operum Aug●st. Scola Parad. cap. 3.  And S. Austin (if at least he be the author of the Scala Paradisi) says, The office of baptising, the Lord granted unto many; but the power and authority of remitting sins in Baptism, he retained unto himself alone; wherefore S. John, antonomasticè & discretiuè, by way of distinction and singularity, affirms, that He it is who baptises with the holy Ghost. And I shall apply this to the power of the Keys in the ministry of repentance, by the words of S. Cyprian; 
De operibus Card●nalibus Christi inter Cypriani opera; sed varius Arn●l●i Bonaevalle●sis.  Remissio peccatorum, sive per Baptismum sive per alia Sacramenta donetur, propriè Spiritûs Sancti est, & ipsi soli hujus efficientiae privilegium manet. As therefore the Bishop, or the Priest, can give the holy Ghost to a repenting sinner; so he can give him pardon, and no otherwise: that is, by prayer, and the ministry of the Sacraments to persons fitly disposed, who also can and have received the holy Ghost, without any such ministry of man; as appears in S. Peter's Question, What hinders these men to be baptised, who have received the holy Ghost as well as we? And it is done every day, and every hour, in the Communion of Saints, in the Immissions and visitations from heaven, which the Saints of God daily receive and often perceive and feel. Every man is bound by the cords of his own sins, which ropes and bands the Apostles can lose, imitating therein their Master, who said to them, Whatsoever ye shall lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Solvunt autem eos Apostoli, sermone Dei, 
Lib. 6. Comment. in Isai. cap. 14.  & testimoniis Scripturarum, & exhortatione virtutum, saith S. Hierom. For the word of God, which is entrusted to the Ministry of the Church, is that rule and measure by which God will judge us all, at the last day; and therefore by the word of God we stand or fall, we are bound or loosed: which word when the Ministers of the Gospel dispense rightly, they bind or lose; and what they so bind or lose on earth, God will bind and lose in heaven. That is, by the same measures he will judge the man, by which he hath commanded his Ministers to judge them by; that is, they preach remission of sins to the penitent, and God will make it good; and they threaten eternal death to the impenitent, and God will inflict it. But other powers of binding and losing than what hath been already instanced, those words of Christ prove not. And these powers, and no other, do we find used by the Apostles. 
2 Cor. 5. 19, 20.  To us (saith S. Paul) is committed the word of reconciliation: Now than we are Ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. Christ is the great Minister of Reconciliation; we are his Ambassadors to the people to that purpose: and we are to preach to them, and to exhort them; to pray them, and to pray for them; and we also by our Ministry reconcile them; and we pardon their sins; for God hath set us over the people to that purpose: but than it is also in that manner that God set the Priest over the leprous; 
Leu. 13. 44. v. 5. 7.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The priest with pollution shall pollute them; and the priest shall cleanse him, that is, shall declare him so. And it is in the same manner that God set the Prophet Jeremy over the nations, 
Jer. 1. 10.  to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, to throw down, to build, and to plant; that is, by putting his word into his mouth to do all this, to preach all this, to promise or to threaten respectively, all this. The Ministers of the Gospel do pardon sins, just as they save men; 
1 Tim. 4. 16.  This doing, thou shalt save thyself, and them that hear thee; that is, by attending to and continuing in the doctrine of Christ: and he that converts a sinner from the error of his way, saves a soul from death, and covers a multitude of sins. 
Jam. 5. 20.  Bringing the man to repentance, persuading him to turn from vanity to the living God; thus he brings pardon to him, and salvation. And if it be said, that a layman can do this: I answer, It is very well for him if he does; and he can, if it please God to assist him: but the ordinary ministry is appointed to Bishops and Priests: so that although a layman do it extraordinarily, that can be no prejudice to the ordinary power of the Keys in the hands of the Clergy; which is but a ministry of prayer, of the Word and Sacraments: according to the saying of their own Ferus upon this place; Christ in this word shows how, and to what use, he at this time gave them the Holy Ghost, 
John 20.  to wit, for the remission of sins: neither for the Apostles themselves alone; sed ut eundem Spiritum, eandemque remissionem peccatorum Verbo praedicationis, & Sacramentis verbo annexis, distribuerent. And again, he brings in Christ saying, I therefore choose you, and I seal your hearts by the Holy Ghost unto the word of the Gospel, and confirm you, that going into the world, ye may preach the Gospel to every Creature, and that ye may distribute that very remission by the word of the Gospel, and the Sacraments.] For the words of Christ are general and indefinite; and they are comprehensive of the whole power and ministry Ecclesiastical: and in those parts of it which are evident, and confessed, viz. preaching remission of sins and Baptism, a special enumeration of our sins is neither naturally necessary, nor esteemed so by custom, nor made so by virtue of these words of Christ; therefore it is no way necessary, neither have they at all proved it so by Scripture. And to this I add only what Ambrose Pelargus, a Divine of the Elector of Triers, said in the Council of Trent; 
Hist. Concil. Tried. A. D. 155. sub Julio Te●●io.  That the words of our Lord, Quorum remiseritis, were perhaps not expounded, by any Father, for an institution of the Sacrament of Penance: and that by some they were understood of Baptism; by others, of any other thing by which pardon of sins is received.]  
But since there is no necessity declared in Scripture of confessing all our sins to a Priest, no mention of sacramental penance, or confession, it must needs seem strange that a doctrine of which there is no Commandment in Scripture, no direction for the manner of doing so difficult a work, no Office, or Officer described to any such purpose; that a doctrine, I say, of which in the fountains of salvation there is no spring, should yet become in process of time to be the condition of salvation: And yet for preaching, praying, baptising, communicating, we have precept upon precept, and line upon line; we have in Scripture three Epistles written to two Bishops, in which the Episcopal Office is abundantly described; and excellent Canons established; and the parts of their duty enumerated: and yet no care taken about the Office of Father Confessor. Indeed we find a pious exhortation to all spiritual persons, that; If any man be overtaken in a fault, they should restore such a one in the spirit of meekness; restore him, that is, to the public peace and communion of the Church, from which by his delinquency he fell; and restore him also, by the word of his proper Ministry, to the favour of God; by exhortations to him, by reproving of him, by praying for him: and besides this, we have some little limits more, which the Church of Rome, if they please, may make good use of in this Question; 
1 Tim. 5. 20.  such as are, That they who sin should be rebuked before all men, that others also may fear; which indeed is a good warranty for public Discipline, but very little for private Confession. And Saint Paul charges Timothy, that he should should lay hands suddenly on no man, that he be not partaker of other men's sins; which is a good caution against the Roman way of absolving them that confess, as soon as they have confessed, before they have made their Satisfactions. The same Apostle speaks also of some that creep into houses, and lead captive silly women; I should have thought he had intended it against such as then abused Auricular Confession; it being so like what they do now; but that S. Paul knew nothing of these lately-introduced practices: and lastly, he commands every one that is to receive the Holy Communion to examine himself, and so let him eat: he forgot, it seems, to enjoin them to go to confession to be examined: which certainly he could never have done more opportunely than here; and if it had been necessary, he could never have omitted it more undecently. But it seems, the first Christians were admitted upon other terms by the Apostles, than they are at this day by the Roman Clergy. And indeed it were infinitely strange, that since in the Old Testament remission of sins was given to every one that confessed to God, & turned from his evil way, 
* Isai. 1. 16. 17. 18.  that, 
* Ezek. 18. 22.  in the New Testament, 
* Ezek. 33. 15. 16.  to which liberty is a special privilege, 
* Isai. 30. 15. secundum.  and the imposed yoke of Christ infinitely more easy than the burden of the Law; 
* LXX. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and Repentance is the very formality of the Gospel-Covenant; and yet that, pardon of our sins shall not be given to us Christians on so easy terms as it was to the Jews; but an intolerable new burden shall be made a new condition of obtaining pardon. And this will appear yet the more strange; when we consider that all the Sermons of the Prophets concerning Repentance, were not derivations from Moses' Law, but Homilies Evangelical, and went before to prepare the way of the Lord; and John Baptist was the last of them; and that, in this matter, the Sermons of the Prophets were but the Gospel antedated; and in this affair there was no change but to the better and to a clearer manifestation of the Divine mercy, and the sweet yoke of Christ: The Disciples of Christ preached the same doctrine of Repentance that the Baptist did, and the Baptist the same that the Prophets did, and there was no difference; Christ was the same in all, and he that commanded his Disciples to fast to God alone in private, intended that all the parts of Repentance transacted between God and our consciences, should be as sufficient as that one of Fasting, and that other of Prayer: and it is said so in all; for if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. It it is God alone that can cleanse our hearts, and he that cleanses us, he alone does forgive us; and this is upon our confession to him: his justice and faithfulness, is at stake for it; and therefore it supposes a promise: which we often find upon our confessions made to God, but it was never promised upon confession made to the Priest.  
But now in the next place if we consider, Whether this thing be reasonable, to impose such a yoke upon the necks of the Disciples, which upon their Fathers was not put in the Old Testament, nor ever commanded in the New; we shall find that although many good things, might be consequent to the religious and free, and prudent use of Confession; yet by changing into a Doctrine of God, that which at most, is but a Commandment of man, it will not, by all the contingent good, make recompense for the intolerable evil it introduces. And here first I consider, that many times things seem profitable to us, and may minister to good ends; but God judges them useless and dangerous: for he judges not as we judge. The worshipping of Angels, and the abstaining from meats, which some false Apostles introduced, looked well, and pretended to humility, and mortificatioh of the body; but the Apostle approved them not: and of the same mind was the succeeding ages of the Church, who condemned the dry Diet, and the ascetic Fasts of Montanus, though they were pretended only for discipline; but when they came to be imposed they grew intolerable. Certainly, men lived better lives, when by the discipline of the Church, sinners were brought to public stations and penance, than now they do by all the advantages, real or pretended, from Auricular Confession; and yet the Church thought fit to lay it aside, and nothing is left but the shadow of it.  
2. This whole topic can only by a prudential consideration, and can no way infer a Divine institution; for though it was as convenient before Christ, as since, & might have had the same effects upon the public or private good, then, as now; yet God was not pleased to appoint it in almost forty ages; and we say, He hath not done it yet. However let it be considered, that there being some things which S. Paul says are not to be so much as named amongst Christians; it must needs look undecently, that all men & all women should come and make the Priests Ears a Common-shore to empty all their filthiness; and that which a modest man would blush to hear, he must be used to, and it is the greatest part of his employment to attend to. True it is, that a Physician must see and handle the impurest Ulcers; but it is, because the Cure does not depend upon the Patient, but upon the Physician, who by general advertisement cannot cure the Patient, unless he had an Universal medicine, which the Priest hath; the medicine of Repentance, which can indifferently cure all sins, whether the Priest know them or no. And therefore, all this filthy communication is therefore intolerable because it is not necessary: and it not only pollutes the Priest's Ears, but his Tongue too; for, lest any circumstance, or any sin be concealed, he thinks himself obliged to interrogate, and proceed to particular questions in the basest things. Such as that which is to be seen in Burchard, 
Lib. 19 decret. de Matrimonio.  and such which are too largely described in Sanchez,; which thing does not only deturpate all honest and modest conversation, but it teaches men to understand more sins than ever they (it may be) knew of. And I believe, there are but few in the world at this day, that did ever think of such a Crime, as Burchard hath taught them by that question; and possibly it might have expired in the very first instances, if there had been no further notice taken of it. I need not tell how the continual representment of such things to the Priest, must needs infect the fancy and the memory with filthy imaginations, and be a state of temptation to them that are very often young men and vigorous, and always unmarried and tempted. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aretine's Tables do not more pollute the heart through the eyes, than a foul narrative of a beastly action with all the circumstances of perpetration do through the ears; for, as it was said of Thomas Cantipratanus, 
In vitâ ejus apud Hagiolog. B●a●ant.  Vexatis exteriùs auribus, interiùs tentationum stimulis agitabitur. And Marcus Eremitae that lived in that age in which this Auricular Confession began to be the mode of the Latin Church, 
De ●is qui putant se operibus justificari.  he speaks against it severely. 
Biblioth. Patram, tom. ●. Gr. Lat.  If thou wilt offer to God an unreprovable Confession, do not recount thy sins particularly, for so thou dost greatly defile thy mind; but generously endure their assaults, or what they have brought upon thee. We need no further witness of it, but the Question and Case of Conscience which Cajetan puts, 
Opusc. Cajet. tract. 22.  Vtrum Confessor cognoscens ex his quae audit in Confession, sequi in seipso Emissionem seminis sibi displicentem, peccet mortaliter audiendo vel prosequendo tales Confessiones? The question is largely handled, but not so fit to be read; but in stead of it, I shall only note the answer of another Cardinal: 
Lib. ●. inst. S●cerd. c. ●3. subfig. 5. edit.  Confessarius si fortè dum audit Confessiones in tales incidit pollutiones non ob id tenetur non audire alios, nisi sit periculum complacentiae in pollutione; 
Paris. 1619. p. 372.  tunc enim tenetur relinquere confessiones, & auferre peccati occasionem; secus non. This Question and this Answer I here bring to no other purpose, but to represent that the Priests dwell in temptation; and that their manner of receiving Confessions is a perpetual danger, by which he that loves it may chance to perish. And of this there have been too many sad examples remarked, evidencing that this private Confession hath been the occasion and the opportunity of the vilest crimes. There happened but one such sad thing in the ancient Greek Church, which became public by the discipline of public Confession, but was acted by the opportunity of the private Intercourse; and that was then thought sufficient to alter that whole discipline: but it is infinitely more reasonable, to take off the law of private Confession, and in that manner as it is enjoined; if we consider the intolerable evils which are committed frequently upon this scene. Erasmus makes a sad complaint of it, that the penitents do often light upon Priests, who under the pretext of Confession, 
In Exomolog. p. 128, 129, etc.  commit things not to be spoken of; and, in stead of Physicians, become partners, or masters, or disciples of turpitude. The matter is notorious and very scandalous, and very frequent: insomuch that it produced two Bulls of two Pope's contra sollicitantes in Confession; the first was of Pius quartus to the Bishop of Sevil, A. D. 1561. April the 16. The other of Gregory the fifteenth, 1622. August 30. which Bulls take notice of it, and severely prohibit the Confessors to tempt the women to Undecencies when they come to confession. Concerning which Bulls, and the sad causes procuring them, even the intolerable and frequent impieties acted by and in Confessions, who desires to be plentifully satisfied may please to read the book of Johannes Escobar à Corro, 
Videatur etiam Orlandini hist.  a Spanish Lawyer, which is a Commentary on these two Bulls; 
Societ. J. lib. 9  and in the beginning he shall find sad complaints and sadder stories. 
Sect. 70.  But I love not to stir up so much dirt. That which is altogether as remarkable, and, it may be, much more, is, that this Auricular Confession not only can, but oftentimes hath been made the most advantageous way of plotting, propagating, and carrying on treasonable propositions and designs. I shall not instance in that horrid design of the Gunpowder treason; for that is known every where amongst us; but in the Holy Ligue of France. When the Pulpits became unsafe for tumultuous and traitorous preachers, the Confessors in private Confessions did that with more safety; they slandered the King, endeavoured to prove it lawful for Subjects to Covenant or make Leagues and Confederacies without their King's leave; they sometimes refused to absolve them, unless they would enter into the Ligue; and persuaded many miserable persons to be of the faction. But this thing was not done so secretly, but notice enough was taken of it; and complaint was made to the Bishop, and then to Franciscus Maurocenus the Cardinal Legat; who gave notice and caution against it: and the effect it produced was only this; they proceeded afterwards more warily; and began to preach this doctrine; That it was as great a fault if the Confitent reveal what he hears from the Confessor in Confession, as if the Priest should reveal the sins told him by the penitent. 
Hist. l. ●5. pag. 100 in Leida. 1646.  This Narrative I have from Thuanus. To which I add one more, related in the life of Padre Paolo; that Hippolito da Lucca fù in fama sinistra d' haver nelle confessioni, e raggi onamenti corrotto con larghe promise e gran Speranza persuaso alla Duchessa d' adherir alla fattione Ecclesiastica.] Hippolytus of Lucca was evil reported to have in discourse or in confession persuaded the Duchess of Urbin against Caesar d' Este, and to have corrupted her into the faction of the Church. 
By Card. Aldobrandino ●he Nephew of P. Clement 8.  For which he was made a Bishop, and in Rome was always one of the Prelates deputed in the examination of that controversy. If it were possible, and if it could be in the world, I should believe it to be a base prostitution of religion to temporal designs, 
Memoires damn Duc de Roban. lib. 1.  which is written of F. Arnold the Jesuit, Confessor to Lewis the thirteenth of France; that he caused the King at Confession solemnly to swear, never to dislike what Luines the great favourite did, nor himself to meddle with any State-affair. Now what advantage the Pope hath over Christian Princes in this particular, and how much they have, and how much more they may suffer by this Oeconomy, is a matter of great consideration: Admonetur omnis aetas posse fieri, quod jam factum vidimus.  
3. There is yet another very great evil that attends upon the Roman way of Auricular Confession; and that is, an eternal scruple of conscience, which to the timorous and to the melancholy, to the pious and considering, and zealous, is almost unavoidable. For, besides that there is no certainty of distinction between the mortal and venial sins; there being no Catalogues of one and the other, save only that they usually reckon but seven deadly sins; and the rest are, or may be easily by the ignorant supposed to be venial; and even those sins which are under those seven heads, are not all mortal; for there are amongst them many ways of changing their mortality into veniality; and, consequent to all this, they are either tempted to slight most sins, or to be troubled with perpetual disputes concerning almost every thing: besides this, I say, there can be no peace (because there can be no certain rule given) concerning the examination of our Consciences; for who can say, he hath done it sufficiently, or who knows what is sufficient; and yet if it be not sufficient, than the sins which are forgotten by carelessness, and not called to mind by sufficient diligence, are not pardoned, and then the penitent hath had much trouble to no purpose. There are some Confessions imperfect but valid, some invalid for their imperfection, some perfect, and yet invalid: and they that made the distinction, made the Rule, and it binds as they please; but it can cause scruples beyond their power of remedy; because there is no certain principle from whence men can derive peace and a certain determination, some affirming, and some denying, and both of them by chance, or humour. There are also many reserved cases; some to the Bishop, some to the Patriarch, some to the Pope; and when you shall have run through the fire for these before the Priest, you must run once or twice more; and your first absolution is of no force: and amongst these reserved cases, there is also great difference; some are reserved by reason of censures Ecclesiastical, and some by reason of the greatness of the sin; and these things may be hidden from his eyes, and he supposing himself absolved, will perceive himself deceived; and absolved but from one half. Some indeed think, that if the superior absolve from the reserved cases alone, that grace is given by which all the rest are remitted; and on the other side, some think if the inferior absolves from what he can, grace is given of remitting even of the reserved: but this is uncertain, and all agree, that the penitent is never the nearer but that he is still obliged to confess the reserved cases to the superior, if he went first to the inferior; or all to the inferior, in case he went first to the superior, confessing only the reserved. There are also many difficulties in the Confession of such things, in which the sinner had partners: for if he confess the sin so, as to accuse any other, he sins; if he does not, in many cases he cannot confess the circumstances that altar the nature of the crime. Some therefore tell him, he may conceal such sins till a fit opportunity; others say, he may let it quite along: others yet say, he may get another Confessor; but then there will come another scruple, whether he may do this with leave, or without leave; or, if he ask leave whether or no in case it be denied him, he may take leave in such an accident. Upon these and many other like accounts, there will arise many more Questions concerning the iteration of his confession; for if the first confession be by any means made invalid, it must be done over again. But here in the very beginning of this affair, the penitent must be sure that his former confession was invalid. For if it was, he cannot be pardoned unless he renew it; and if it was not, let him take heed: for to confess the same things twice, and twice to be absolved, it may be is not lawful; 
Qaest quod libet Quaest 6. de confess.  and against it, Cajetan, after the scholastical manner, brings divers reasons. But suppose the penitent at peace for this, than there are very many cases, in which Confession is to be repeated; and though it was done before, yet it must be done over again. As if there be no manner of contrition, without doubt it must be iterated; but there are many cases concerning Contrition: and if it be at all, though imperfect, it is not to be iterated. But what is, and what is not contrition; what is perfect, and what is imperfect; which is the first degree that makes the Confession valid, can never be told. But then there is some comfort to be had; for, the Sacrament of Penance may be true, 
Cajetan: sum. verb. Confessio.  and yet without form or life, at the same time. And there are divers cases, in which the Confession that is but materially half, may be reduced to that which is but formally half: and if there be but a propinquity of the mind to a carelessness concerning the integrity of confession; the man cannot be sure, that things go well with him. And sometimes it happens that the Church is satified, when God is not satisfied, as in the case of the informis confessio; and then the man is absolved, but his sin is not pardoned; and yet, because he thinks it is, his soul is cozened. And yet this is but the beginning of scruples. For, suppose the penitent hath done his duty, examined himself strictly, repent sadly, confessed fully, and is absolved formally; yet all this may come to nothing by reason that there may be some invalidity in the Ordination of the Priest, by crime, by irregularity, by direct deficiency of something in the whole Succession and Ordination; or it may be he hath not ordinary, or delegat jurisdiction; for, it is not enough that he is a Priest, unless he have another authority, 
Summ. verb. Absolutio.  says Cajetan; besides his Order, he must have Jurisdiction, which is carefully to be enquired after, by reason of the infinite numbers of Friars, that take upon them to hear Confessions; or if he have both, yet the use of his power may be interverted or suspended for the time, and then his absolution is worth nothing. But here there is some remedy made to the poor distracted penitent; for by the constitution of the Council of Constance, under Pope Martin the 5th. though the Priest be excommunicate, the confession is not to be iterated: but then this also ends in scruples; for this constitution itself does not hold, if the excommunication be for the notorious smiting of a Clergyman; or if it be not, yet if the excommunication be denounced, be it for what it will, his absolution is void: and therefore the penitent should do well to look about him; especially since, after all this, there may be innumerable deficiencies; yea some even for want of skill and knowledge in the Confessor; and when that happens, when the confession is to be iterated, there are no certain Rules but it must be left to the opinion of another Confessor. And when he comes, the poor penitent, it may be, is no surer of him than of the other; for if he have no will to absolve the penitent, let him dissemble it as he list, the absolution was but jocular, or pretended, or never intended; or, it may be, he is secretly an Atheist, and laughs at the penitent & himself too, for acting (as he thinks) such a troublesome, theatrical Nothing; and then the man's sins cannot be pardoned. And, is there no remedy for all this evil? It is true, the cases are sad and dangerous, but the Church of Rome hath (such is her prudence & indulgence) found out as much relief as the wit of man can possibly invent. For though there may be thus many and many more deficiencies; yet there are some extraordinary ways to make it up as well as it can. For, to prevent all the contingent mischiefs, let the penitent be as wise as he can, and choose his man upon whom these defailances may not be observed; For a man in necessity, as in danger of death, may be absolved by any one that is a Priest; but yet, if the penitent escape the sickness, or that danger, he must go to him again, or to somebody else; by which it appears that his affair was left but imperfect. But some persons have liberty by reason of their dignity, & some by reason of their condition, as being pilgrims or wanderers; and they have greater freedom, and cannot easily fall into many nullities; or they may have an explicit, or an implicit licence: but then they must take heed; for, besides many of the precedent dangers, they must know that the licence extends only to the Paschal Confessions, or the usual; but not the extraordinary or emergent: and moreover, they can go but to the appointed Confessors, in the places where they are present; and because under these there is the same danger, as in all that went before, the little more certainty which I hoped for in some few cases, comes to nothing. But I go about to reckon the sands on the shore. I shall therefore sum this up with the words of a famous preacher, 
Praesat. in lib. Tertul. de poeniter.  reported by Beatus Rhenanus to have made this observation, that Thomas Aquinas and Scotus, men too subtle, have made Confession to be such, that, according to their doctrines, it is impossible to confess: and that the consciences of penitents, which should be extricated and eased, are (by this means) catched in a snare, 
Consult. art. 11. videatur etiam Johannes de Sylva in fine tractat. de jurejurando.  and put to torments, said Cassander; so that although Confession to a Priest prudently managed, without scruple, upon the case of a grieved and an unquiet conscience, and in order to Counsel and the perfections of Repentance, may be of excellent use; yet to enjoin it in all cases, to make it necessary to salvation, when God hath not made it so; to exact an Enumeration of all our sins in all cases, and of all persons; to clog it with so many questions and innumerable inextricable difficulties, and all this, besides the evil manage and conduct of it, is the rack of Consciences, the slavery of the Church, the evil snare of the simple, and the artifice of the crafty: it was or might have been as the brazen serpent, a memorial of duty, but now it is Nehushtan, aes eorum; something of their own framing.  
And this will yet further appear in this, That there is no Ecclesiastical tradition of the necessity of confessing all our sins to a Priest in order to pardon. That it was not the established doctrine of the Latin Church, I have already proved in the beginning of this Section; The case is notorious; and the Original law of this we find in Platina, in the life of Pope Zephyrinus. Idem praetereà instituit, ut omnes Christiani, annos pubertatis attingentes, singulis annis in solenni die paschae publicè communicarent. Quod quidem institutum Innocentius tertius deinceps non ad Communionem solum, verum etiam ad Confessionem delictorum traduxit. Platina was the Pope's Secretary, and well understood the interests of that Church, and was sufficiently versed in the records and monuments of the Popes; and tells, that as Zephyrinus commanded the Eucharist to be taken at Easter; so Innocent 3. commanded Confession of sins.] Before this, there was no command, no decree of any Council or Pope enjoining it: only in the Council of Cabailon, Can. 8. it was declared to be profitable, that Penance should be enjoined to the penitent by the Priest, after Confession made to him. But there was no command for it; and in the second Council of Cabailon, 
C. 33.  it was but a disputed case, Whether they ought to confess to God alone, or also to the Priest. Some said one, and some said another, Quod utrumque non sine magno fructu intra sanctam fit Ecclesiam. 
In Tom. 2. Conci. Gallic. c. 30. p. 219.  And Theodulsus Bishop of Orleans, tells the particulars. The Confession we make to the Priests gives us this help, that, having received his salutary counsel, by the most wholesome duties of repentance, or by mutual prayers, we wash away the stains of our sins. But the Confession we make to God alone, avails us in this, because by how much we are mindful of our sins, by so much the Lord forgets them; and on the contrary, by how much we forget them, by so much the Lord remembers them, according to the saying of the prophet, and I will remember thy sins.] But the Fathers of the Council gave a good account of these particulars also. Confessio itaque quae Deo fit, purgat peccata: ea verò quae sacerdoti fit, docet qualiter ipsa purgentur peccata? Deus enim, salutis & sanitatis Author & Largitor, plerunque hanc praebet suae potentiae invisibili administratione, 
* Sola contritione, ait glossa, ibid. & habetur de poenit dist. 1. cap. Quidam Deo.  plerunque medicorum operatione: which words are an excellent declaration of the advantages of Confession to a Priest, but a full argument that it is not necessary, or that without it pardon of sins is not to be obtained. Gratian quoting the words citys Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury; but falsely: for it is in the second Council of Cabailon, and not in Theodore's Penitential. But I will not trouble the Reader further, in the matter of the Latin Church; in which it is evident, by what hath been already said, there was concerning this not Apostolical Tradition.  
How it was in the Greek Church is only to be enquired. Now we might make as quick an end of this also, 
De poenit. dist. 5. c. In poenit.  if we might be permitted to take Semeca's word, the gloss of the Canon Law; which affirms that, Confession of deadly sins is not necessary among the Greeks, because no such tradition hath not descended unto them. This acknowledgement and report of the Greeks not esteeming Confession to a Priest to be necessary, is not only in the Gloss above cited; 
De poenit. dist. 1. c. Quidam Deo.  but in Gratian himself, and in the more ancient Collection of Canons by Burchard, and Ivo Carnotensis. Bellarmine fancies that these words [ut Graeci] are crept into the Text of Gratian out of the Margin. Well! suppose that; but then how came they into the elder Collections of Burchard, and Ivo? That's not to be told; [but creep in they did, some way or other; because they are not in the Capitular of Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury; and yet from thence this Canon was taken; and that Capitular was taken from the second Council of Cabaillon; 
De poenit. lib. 3. cap. 5.  in which also, there are no such words extant:] So the Cardinal. In which Bellarmine betrays his carelessness, or his ignorance, very greatly. 1. Because there is no such thing extant in the world, that any man knows and tells of, as the Capitular of Theodore. 2. He indeed made a Penitential, a Copy of which is in Benet College Library in Cambridge, from whence I have received some Extracts, by the favour and industry of my friends; and another Copy of it, is in Sir Robert Cotten's Library. 3. True it is, there is in that Penitential no such words as [ut Graeci] but a direct affirmation, Confessionem suam Deo soli, si necesse est, licebit agere. 4. That Theodore should take this Chapter out of the second Council of Cabaillon, is an intolerable piece of ignorance or negligence in so great a Scholar as Bellarmine; when it is notorious that the Council was after Theodore, above 120. years. 5. But than lastly, because Theodore, though he sat in the Seat of Canterbury, yet was a Greek born; his words are a good Record of the opinion of the Greeks, that Confession of sins is (if there be need) to be made to God alone. But this I shall prove with firmer testimonies; not many, 
Epist. Canon. ad Letorum.  but pregnant, clear and undeniable.  
S. Gregory Nyssen observed that the ancient Fathers before him in their public discipline, did take no notice of the sins of Covetousness, that is, left them without public penance, otherwise than it was ordered in other sins; and therefore he interposes his judgement thus. [But concerning these things, because this is praetermitted by the Fathers, I do think it sufficient to cure the affections of Covetousness with the public word of doctrine, or instruction, curing the diseases, as it were, of repletion by the Word. That is plainly thus: The sins of Covetousness had no Canonical Penances imposed upon them: and therefore many persons thought but little of them: therefore, to cure this evil, let this sin be reproved in public Sermons, though there be no imposition of public penances. So that here is a Remedy without Penances, a Cure without Confession, a public Sermon instead of a public or private Judicatory.  
But the fact of Nectarius in abrogating the public penitentiary-Priest upon the occasion of a scandal, does bear much weight in this Question. I shall not repeat the story; who please, may read it in Socrates, Sozomen, Epiphanius, Cassiodore, and Nicephorus; and it is known every where. 
Relect. de poenit. part. 5. Sect.  Only they who are pinched by it, endeavour to confound it, as Waldensis and Canus; some by denying it, 
Ad sextum. p. 31. edit. Salmanticae. 1563. per Matthiam Gartium.  as Latinus Latinius; others by disputing concerning every thing in it; some saying, that Nectarius abrogated Sacramental Confession; others, that he abrogated the public only, so very many say: and a third sort (who yet speak with most probability,) that he only took away the office of the public Penitentiary, which was instituted in the time of Decius, and left things as that Decree found them; that is, that those who had sinned those sins which were noted in the Penitential Canons, should confess them to the Bishop, or in the face of the Church, and submit themselves to the Canonical penances. This passed into the office of the public Penitentiary; and that into nothing, in the Greek Church. But there is nothing of this that I insist upon; but I put the stress of this Question upon the product of this. For Eudaemon gave counsel to Nectarius and he followed it, that he took away the penitentiary Priest, 
Lib. 5. cap. 19  ut liberam daret potestatem utì pro suâ quisque conscientiâ, 
Eccl. hist. lib. 7●. cap. 16.  ad mysteria participanda accederet. So Socrates, and Sozomen, to the same purpose; ut Vnicuique liberum permitteret, prout sibi ipse conscius esset & confideret, ad mysteriorum Communionem accedere, poenitentiarium illum Presbyterum exauthoravit. Now if Nectarius by this Decree took away Sacramental confession (as the Roman Doctors call it) than it is a clear case, the Greek Church did not believe it necessary; if it was only the public Confession they abolished, then, for aught appears, there was no other at that time; I mean, none commanded, none under any law, or under any necessity: but whatever it was that was abolished, private Confession did not by any decree succeed in the place of it; but every man was left to his liberty, and the dictates of his own Conscience, and according to his own persuasion, to his fears or his confidence, so to come and partake of the Divine mysteries. All which is a plain demonstration, that they understood nothing of the necessity of Confession to a Priest of all their sins, before they came to the holy Sacrament.  
And in pursuance of this, are those many Exhortations and discourses of S. Chrysostom, who succeeding Nectarius, by his public doctrine could best inform us how they understood the consequence of that decree, and of this whole Question. The sum of whole doctrine is this; It is not necessary to have your sins revealed, or brought in public, not only in the Congregation, but not to any one, but to God alone. 
Homil. 56. sieve 8. de Poenit. tom. 1.  Make a scrutiny, and pass a judgement on your sins inwardly in your Conscience, none being present but God alone that seethe all things. And again, Declare unto God alone thy sin, 
Homil. 9 de Poenit. sive Homil. 59  (saying) Against thee only have I sinned and done evil in thy sight; and thy sin is forgiven thee. 
Homil. 2. in Psal. 50.  I do not say, tell to thy fellow-servant, who upbraids thee, but tell them to God who heals thy sins.] And, 
Homil. Quod peccata non sint evulganda. vid. tom. 57  that after the abolition of the Penitentiary-Priest nothing was surrogated in his stead, but pious Homilies and public Exhortations, we learn from those words of his, [We do not bring the sinners into the midst, and publish their sins; but having propounded the common doctrine to all, we leave it to the Conscience of the Auditors, that out of those things which are spoken every one may find a medicine fitted for his wound.] 
Homil. de Poenit. & Confession. tom. 58. tom. 5.  Let the discussion of thy sins be in the accounts of thy Conscience; let the judgement be passed without a witness: 
Homil. 68 tom. 5.  let God alone see thee confessing; God who upbraids not thy sins, but out of this Confession blots them out.] Hast thou sinned, enter into the Church, say unto God, I have sinned. I exact nothing of thee, but that alone.] 
Homil. 31. in Ep. ad Hebr. Homil. 2o. in Matth.  The same he says in many other places: Now against so many, so clear and dogmatical testimonies it will be to no purpose to say, that S. Chrysostom only spoke against the Penitentiary-Priest set over the public penitents; 
Homil. 28. in 1 Cor.  and this he did, 
Homil. 21. add Pop. Antioch. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Homil. 4. de Lazaro.  in pursuance of his predecessors act. For, besides that some of these Homilies were written before S. Chrysostom was Bishop, viz. his one and twenty Homilies to the people of Antioch, and the fourth Homily of Lazarus which was preached at Antioch before he came to Constantinople, when he was but a Priest under Flavianus his Bishop; and his Homilies on S. Matthew; besides this, it is plain that he not only speaks against the public judicial Penance and Confession; but against all, except that alone which is made to God; allowing the sufficiency of this for pardon, and disallowing the necessity of all other. To these things Bellarmine, Perron, Petrus de Soto, Vasquez, Valentia, and others, strive to find out answers; but they neither agree together, neither do their answers fit the testimonies; as is evident to them that compare the one and the other, the chief of which I have remarked, in passing by. The best Answers that can be given are those which Latinus Latinius, and Petavius, give; The first affirming, that these homilies 1. are not S. Chrysostom's. Or 2. that they are corrupted by heretics; and the latter confessing they are his, but blames S. Chrysostom for preaching such things. And to these answers I hope I shall not need to make any reply. 
In 3. part. Th●. tom. 4 q. 90. a. 1. dub. 3. n. 31.  To the two first of Latinus, Vasquez hath answered perfectly; and to that of Petavius, there needs none; Petavius, in stead of answering, making himself a Judge of S. Chrysostom. I suppose if we had done so in any question against them, they would have taken it in great scorn and indignation; and therefore we choose to follow S. Chrysostom, rather than Master Petavius.  
I do not deny, but the Roman Doctors do bring many say of the Greek and Latin Fathers, showing the usefulness of Confession to a Priest, and exhorting and pressing men to it: But their arts are notorious, and evident; and what (according to the discipline of the Church at that time) they spoke in behalf of the Exomologesis or public discipline, that these Doctors translate to the private Confession; and yet what ever we bring out of Antiquity against the necessity of confession to a Priest, that they will resolvedly understand only of the public. But, besides what hath been said to every of the particulars, I shall conclude this point with the say of some eminent men of their own, who have made the same observation. In hoc labuntur Theologi quidam parùm attenti, quòd, quae veteres illi de hu jusmodi publicâ & generali confession, quae nihil aliud erat quàm signis quibusdam & piaminibus ab Episcopo indictis, se peccatorem, & bonorum communione indignum agnoscere, 
In. S. Hierom. Epist. ad Oceanum, sive Epitaph. Fabiolae.  trahunt ad hanc occultam & longè diversi generis: So Erasmus. And B. Rhenanus says, Let no man wonder that Tertullian speaks nothing of the secret or clancular confession of sins; 
Praefat. in l. Tertul. de Poeni●.  which, so far as we conjecture, was bred out of the (old) Exomologesis, by the unconstrained piety of men. For we do not find it at all commanded of old.  
The Conclusion of these Premises is this, That the old Ecclesiastic discipline being passed into desuetude and indevotion, the Latin Church especially, kept up some little broken planks of it; which so long as charity and devotion were warm, and secular interest had not turned religion into arts, did in some good measure supply the want of the old better discipline; but when it had degenerated into little forms, and yet was found to serve great ends of power, wealth, and ambition, it passed into new doctrines, and is now bold to pretend to divine institution, though it be nothing but the Commandment of men, a snare of Consciences, and a ministry of humane policy; false in the Proposition, and intolerable in the Conclusion.  
There are divers other instances reducible to this charge, and especially the Prohibition of Priest's marriage, and the abstinence from flesh at certain times; which are grown up from humane-Ordinances to be established Doctrines, that is, to be urged with greater severity than the Laws of God; insomuch that the Church of Rome permits Concubinate and Stews at the same time when she will not permit chaste Marriages to her Clergy. And for abstinence from flesh at times appointed, Veluti parricida penè dixerim rapitur ad supplicium, qui pro piscium carnibus gustârit carnes suillas. 
Rule of Conscience, lib. 3. cap. 4.  But I shall not now insist upon these; having so many other things to say, and especially, having already in another place verified this Charge against them in these Instances. 
Rule 13. and Rule 19 and 20.  I shall only name one testimony of their own, which is a pregnant Mother of many instances: 
Caus. 25. qu. 1. c. Violatores Canonum.  and it is in their own Canon Law. [They that voluntarily violate the Canons, are heavily judged by the Holy Fathers, and are damned by the holy Ghost, by whose instinct they were dictated. 
* Dicati prodictati. . For they do not incongruously seem to blaspheme the holy Ghost.] And a little after [Such a presumption is manifestly one of the kinds of them that blaspheme against the holy Ghost.] Now if the laws of their Church, 
Vide quae supra annotavi e● Decreto Gratiani. Sect. 1.  which are discordant enough, and many times of themselves too unblamable, be yet by them accounted so sacred, that it is taught to be a sin against the holy Ghost, willingly to break them; in the world there cannot be a greater verification of this charge upon them: it being confessed on all hands, that, Not every man who voluntarily violates a Divine Commandment does blaspheme the holy Ghost.  
The End of the First Book.    

THE SECOND BOOK.  

SECTION I.  
Of Indulgences.  
ONE of the great instances to prove the Roman Religion to be new; not primitive, not Apostolic, is the foolish and unjustifiable doctrine of Indulgences. This point I have already handled; so fully and so without contradiction from the Roman Doctors (except that they have causelessly snarled at some of the testimonies) that for aught yet appears, that discourse may remain a sufficient reproof of the Church of Rome until the day of their reformation. The first testimony I brought, is the confession of a party: for I affirmed that Bishop Fisher of Rochester did confess, That in the beginning of the Church there was no use of Indulgences, and that they began after the people were a while affrighted with the torments of Purgatory.] To this there are two answers, The first is, that Bishop Fisher said no such words. No? proferte tabulas. His words are these, 
In art. 18. contr▪ Luther.  Who can now wonder that in the beginning of the Primitive Church there was no use of Indulgences? And again, Indulgences began a while after men trembled at the torments of Purgatory. These are the words of Roffensis. What in the world can be plainer? And this is so evident, that Alphonsus a Castro thinks himself concerned to answer the Objection, 
Lib. 8. adv. haeres. t●t. Indulgen●iae.  and the danger of such concessions [Neither upon this occasion are Indulgences to be despised because their use may seem to be received lately in the Church, because there are many things known to posterity which those Ancient Writers were wholly ignorant of. Quid ergo mirum si ad hunc modum contigerit de indulgentiis ut apud priscos nulla sit de iis mentio.] Indeed Antiquity was wholly ignorant of these things: 
H●stiensis in summâ l. 5. tit. de remiss. Biel in Canon. Missae. lect. 57 vide Bellarm. l. 1. c. 14. de Indul. Sect. Quod ad primam.  and as for their Catholic posterity, some of them also did not believe that Indulgences did profit any that were dead. Amongst these Hostiensis and Biel were the most noted. But Biel was soon made to alter his opinion; Hostiensis did not, that I find.  
The other answer is, by E. W. That Roffensis saith it not so absolutely, but with this interrogation. Quis jam de indulgentiis mirari potest? Who now can wonder concerning Indulgences? Wonder! at what? for E. W. is loath to tell it: But truth must out. Who now can wonder that in the beginning of the Church there was no use of Indulgences? So Roffensis; which first supposes this; that in the Primitive Church there was no use of Indulgences; none at all: And this which is the main question here, is as absolutely affirmed as any thing; it is like a praecognition to a scientifical discourse. And then the question having presupposed this, does by direct implication say, it is no wonder that there should be then no use of Indulgences. That is, it not only absolutely affirms the thing, but by consequence, the notoreity of it and the reasonableness. Nothing affirms or denies more strongly than a question. Are not my ways equal, said God, and are not your ways unequal? that is, It is evident and notorious that it is so. And by this we understand the meaning of Roffensis; in the following words [Yet (as they say) there was some very Ancient use of them among the Romans.] They say, that is, there is a talk of it amongst some or other; but such they were, whom Roffensis believed not; and that, upon which they did ground their fabulous report, was nothing but a ridiculous legend, 
Dissuasive. 1. part. Sect. 3.  which I have already confuted.  
The same doctrine is taught by Antoninus, who confesses that concerning them we have nothing expressly either in the Scriptures, or in the say of the Ancient Doctors.] And that he said so cannot be denied; but E. W. says, that I omit what Antoninus adds [That is] I did not transcribe his whole book. But what is it that I should have added? This. Quamvis ad hoc inducatur illud Apostoli. 2 Cor. 2. Si quid donavi vobis, propter vos in persona Christi. Now to this there needs no answer, but this; that it is nothing to the purpose. To whom the Corinthians forgave any thing; to the same person S. Paul for their sakes did forgive also. But what then; Therefore the Pope and his Clergy have power to take off the temporal punishments which God reserves upon sinners after he hath forgiven them the temporal? and that the Church hath power to forgive sins before hand, and to set a price upon the basest crimes and not to forgive, but to sell Indulgences? and lay up the supernumerary treasures of the Saints good works, and issue them out by retail in the Market of Purgatory? Because S. Paul caused the Corinthians to be absolved and restored to the Church's peace after a severe penance; so great, that the poor man was in danger of being swallowed up with despair and the subtleties of Satan; does this prove that therefore all penances may be taken off when there is no such danger, no such pious and charitable consideration? And yet besides the inconsequence of all this; S. Paul gave no indulgence, but what the Christian Church of Corinth (in which at that time there was no Bishop) did first give themselves. Now the Indulgence which the people give will prove but little warrant to what the Church of Rome pretends; not only for the former reasons, but also because the Primitive Church had said nothing expressly concerning Indulgences; and therefore did not to any such purpose expound the words of S. Paul; but also because Antoninus himself was not moved by those words to think they meant any thing of the Roman Indulgences; but mentions it as the argument of other persons. Just as if I should write that there is concerning Transubstantiation nothing expressly said in the Scriptures, or in the writings of the Ancient Fathers; although Hoc est corpus meum be brought in for it: Would any man in his wits say, that I am of the opinion that in Scripture there is something express for it, though I expressly deny it? I suppose not.  
It appears now that Roffensis and a Castro declared against the Antiquity of Indulgences; Their own words are the witnesses; and the same is also true of Antoninus; and therefore the first discourse of Indulgences [in the Dissuasive] might have gone on prosperously and needed not to have been interrupted. For if these quotations be true as is pretended, and as now appears, there is nothing by my Adversaries said in defence of Indulgences, no pretence of an argument in justification of them; the whole matter is so foul, and yet so notorious that the novelty of it is plainly acknowleged by their most learned men and but faintly denied by the bolder people that care not what they say. So that I shall account the main point of Indulgences to be (for aught yet appears to the contrary) gained against the Church of Rome.  
But there is another appendent Question that happens in by the by; nothing to the main inquiry, but a particular instance of the usual ways of earning Indulgences, viz. by going in pilgrimages; which very particularly I affirmed to be reproved by the Ancient Fathers: and particularly by S. Gregory Nyssen, in a book or Epistle of his written wholly on this subject, (so I said) and so Possevine calls it, librum contra peregrinationes; the book against Pilgrimages. The Epistle is large and learned and greatly dissuasive of Christians from going in Pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Dominus profectionem in Hierosylma inter recte facta quae eo (viz. ad regni coelorum haereditatem consequendam) dirigant non enumeravit; ubi beatitudinem annunciat, tale studium, talemque operam non est complexus. And again, spiritualem noxam affricat accuratum vitae genus insistentibus. Non est ista tanto digna study, imo est vitanda summo opere. And if this was directed principally to such persons, who had chosen to live a solitary and private life; yet that was, because such strict and religious persons where those, whose false show of piety he did in that instance reprove; but he reproves it by such arguments all the way, as concern all Christians, but especially women; and answers to an objection made against himself for going; which he says he did by command, and public charge, and for the service of the Arabian Churches, and that he might confer with the Bishops of Palestine. This Epistle of S. Gregory Nyssen de adeuntibus Hierosolymam was printed at Paris in Greek by Guilielmus Morellus, and again published in Greek and Latin with a double version by Peter du Moulin, and is acknowledged by Baronius to be legitimate; 
Tom. 4. ad A. D. 386. num. 39  and therefore there is no denying the truth of the quotation; the Author of the letter had better to have rubbed his forehead hard and to have answered as Possevine did [Ab haereticis prodiit liber sub nomine Gregorii Nysseni; 
Lib. 3. de cultu SS. cap. 8. Sect. Ad Magdeburgenses.  and Bellarmine being pinched with it, says, Forte non est Nysseni; nec scitur quis ille verte●●t in sermonem latinum, & forte etiam non invenitur Graece. All which is refuted by their own parties.  
That S. Chrysostom was of the same judgement, 
1 Homil. in Philom.  appears plainly in these few words. Namque ad impetrandum nostris secleribus veniam, non pecunias impendere nec aliud aliquid hujusmodi facere: sola sufficit bonae voluntatis integritas. 
A. L. p. 9 n. 23.  Non opus est in longinqua peregrinando transire, nec ad remotissimas ire nationes, etc. S. Chrysostom, according to the sense of the other Fathers, teaches a Religion and Repentance wholly reducing us to a good life, a service perfectly consisting in the works of a good conscience. And in the exclusion of other external things, he reckons this of Pilgrimages. For, how travelling into Foreign Countries for pardon of our crimes differs from Pilgrimages, I have not been yet taught.  
The last I mentioned is S. Bernard; 
A. L. ibid. p. 9 num. 24.  his words are these, It is not necessary for thee to pass over Sea to penetrate the clouds, to go beyond the Alps; there is I say, no great journey proposed to you; meet God within yourself, for the word is nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, etc. So the Author of the letter acknowledges S. Bernard to have said in the place quoted: yea but says this objector, 
Non oportet ô homo maria transfretare, non penetrare nubes, non transalpinare necesse est. Non grandis inquam tibi ostenditur via: usque temet-ipsum occurrere Deo tuo.  I might as well have quoted Moses, Deut. 13. 14.] Well, what if I had quoted Moses; had it been ever the worse? But though I did not, yet S. Bernard quoted Moses, and that it seems troubled this Gentleman. But S. Bernard's words are indeed agreeable to the words of Moses, but not all out the same: For Moses made no prohibition of going to Rome, which I suppose S. Bernard meant by▪ transalpinare.  
There remains in A. L. yet one cavil, but it is a question of diligence and not to the point in hand. The authority of S. Austin I marked under the title of his Sermon de Martyribus. 
Ibid. num. 25.  But the Gentleman to show his Learning tells us plainly that there is but one in S. Augustine's works with that title, to wit his 117. Sermon de diversis, and in that there is not the least word to any such purpose. All this latter part may be true, but the first is a great mistake; for if the Gentleman please to look in the Paris Edition of S. Austin 1571. tom. 10. pag. 277. he shall find the words I have quoted. And whereas he talks of 117. Sermons de diversis, and of one only Sermon de martyribus, I do a little wonder at him to talk so confidently; whereas in the Edition I speak of, and which I followed, there are but 49. Sermons, and 17. under the title de diversis, and yet there are six Sermons that bear the title de Martyribus, but they are to be found under the title de Sanctis; so that the Gentleman looked in the wrong place for his quotation; and if he had not mistaken himself he could have had no colour for an objection. But for the satisfaction of the Reader; the words are these in his 3. Sermon de Martyribus diversis. Non dixit vade in orientem & quaere justitiam, naviga usque ad occidentem ut accipias indulgentiam. Dimitte inimico tuo & dimittetur tibi: indulge & indulgetur tibi, da & dabitur tibi; nihil a te extra te quaerit. Ad teipsum & ad conscientiam tuam te Deus diriget. In te enim posuit quod requirit. But now let it be considered that all those charges which are laid against the Church of Rome and her greatest Doctors respectively in the matter of Indulgences are found to be true; and if so, let the world judge whether that doctrine and those practices be tolerable in a Christian Church.  
But that the Reader may not be put off with a mere defence of four quotations; I shall add this; that I might have instanced in worse matters made by the Popes of Rome to be the pious works, the condition of obtaining Indulgences. Such as was the Bull of Pope Julius the second, giving Indulgence to him that meeting a Frenchman should kill him, and another for the kill of a Venetian. But we need not to wonder at it, since according to the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, We ought to say that in the Pope is the fullness of all graces; 
De regimine principum l. 3. c. 10. inter opuscula. num. 20.  because he alone bestows a full Indulgence of all our sins; so that what we say of our chief Prince and Lord (viz. Jesus Christ) does fit him, for we all have received of his fullness. Which words besides that they are horrid blasphemy; are also a fit principle of the doctrine and use of Indulgences to those purposes, and in that evil manner we complain of in the Church of Rome.  
I desire this only instance may be added to it, that P. Paul the third, he that convened the Council of Trent, and Julius the third, for fear (as I may suppose) the Council should forbid any more such follies, for a farewell to this game gave an Indulgence to the Fraternity of the Sacrament of the Altar, 
Impress. Paris per Philippum Hotot. 1550.  or of the Blessed Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, of such a vastness and unreasonable folly, that it puts us beyond the Question of Religion, to an inquiry whether it were not done either in perfect distraction, or with a worse design to make Religion to be ridiculous, and expose it to a contempt and scorn. The conditions of the Indulgence are either to visit the Church of S. Hilary of Charters, to say a Pater Noster, and an Ave Mary every Friday, or at most to be present at processions and other Divine Service upon Corpus Christi day. The gift is as many privileges, indults, exemptions, liberties, immunities, plenary pardon of sins and other spiritual graces as were given to the Fraternity of the Image of our Saviour ad Sancta Sanctorum; the Fraternity of the Charity and great Hospital of S. James in Augusta of S. John Baptist, of St. Cosmus and Damianus; of the Florentine Nation, of the Hospital of the Holy Ghost in Saxia, of the order of S. Austin and S. Champ, of the Fraternities of the said City; of the Churches of our Lady de populo & de verbo: and all those which were ever given to them that visited these Churches; or those which should be ever given hereafter. A pretty large gift. In which there were so many pardons, quarter pardons, half pardons, true pardons, plenary pardons, Quarentaines, and years of Quarentaines; that it is a harder thing to number them, than to purchase them. I shall remark in these some particulars fit to be considered.  
1. That a most scandalous and unchristian dissolution and death of all Ecclesiastical discipline, is consequent to the making all sin so cheap and trivial a thing; that the horrible demerits and exemplary punishment and remotion of scandal and satisfactions to the Church are indeed reduced to trifling and Mock-penances. He that shall send a servant with a Candle to attend the Holy Sacrament when it shall be carried to sick people, or shall go himself, or if he can neither go nor send, if he say a Pater Noster and an Ave; he shall have a hundred years of true pardon. This is fair and easy. But then,  
2. It would be considered what is meant by so many years of pardon, and so many years of true pardon. I know but of one natural interpretation of it; and that it can mean nothing, but that some of the pardons are but fantastical, and not true: and in this I find no fault, save only that it ought to have been said; that all of them are fantastical.  
3. It were fit we learned how to compute four thousand and eight hundred years of Quarantines; and remission of a third part of all their sins; for so much is given to every Brother and Sister of this Fraternity, upon Easter day and eight days after. Now if a Brother needs not thus many, it would be considered whether it do not encourage a Brother or a frail Sister to use all their Medicine and to sin more freely, lest so great a gift become useless.  
4. And this is so much the more considerable because the gift is vast beyond all imagination. The first four days in Lent they may purchase 33000 years of pardon, besides a plenary remission of all his sins over and above. The first week of Lent a hundred and three and thirty thousand years of pardon, besides five plenary remissions of all their sins, and two third parts besides, and the delivery of one soul out of Purgatory. The second week in Lent a hundred and eight and fifty thousand years of pardon besides the remission of all their sins and a third part besides; and the delivery of one soul. The third week in Lent, 80000 years besides a plenary remission, and the delivery of one soul out of Purgatory. The fourth week in Lent; threescore thousand years of pardon besides a remission of two thirds of all their sins; and one plenary remission and one soul delivered. The fifth week 79000. years of pardon and the deliverance of two souls, only the 2700. years that is given for the Sunday may be had twice that day, if they will visit the Altar twice; and as many Quarantines. The sixth week 205000. years besides Quarantines; and four plenary pardons. Only on Palm Sunday whose portion is 25000. years it may be had twice that day. And all this is the price of him that shall upon these days visit the Altar in the Church of S. Hilary. And this runs on to the Fridays, and many Festivals and other solemn days in the other parts of the year.  
5. Though it may be that a Brother may not need all this; at least at that time, yet that there may be no insecurity, the said Popes give to every Brother and Sister of the Fraternity, plenary pardon and Indulgence of all their sins thrice in their life, upon what day and hour they please. I suppose that one of the times shall be in the article of death; for that's the surest way for a weak Brother. 
Vide revie●, d● Concile de Trent. l. 5. c. 1.  I have read that the Popes do not only give remission of sins already committed, but also of such as are to be committed. But whether it be so or no; There is in the Bulls of this Fraternity as good provision; for he, that hath a dormant faculty for▪ a plenary pardon laying by him to be used at what hour he please; hath a Bull before hand for pardon of sins afterwards to be committed when he hath a mind to it.  
6. To what purpose is so much waste of the Treasure of the Church? Quorsum perditio haec? Every Brother or Sister of this Fraternity may have for so many times visiting the Altar aforesaid, fourteen or fifteen plenary pardons. Certainly the Popes suppose these persons to be mighty Criminals, that they need so many pardons, so many plenaries. But two Alls of the same thing is as much as two Nothings. But if there were not infinite causes of fear that very many of them were nullities, and that none of them were of any certain avail, there could be no pretence of reasonableness in dispensing these Jewels with so lose a hand, and useless a freedom, as if a man did shovel Mustard, or pour Hogsheads of Vinegar into his friend's mouth, to make him swallow a mouthful of Herbs.  
7. What is the secret meaning of it, that in divers clauses in their Bulls of Indulgences, 
Bull. Julii. 3. de an. Jubilii.  they put in this clause, A pardon of all their sins [be they never so heinous] The extraordinary cases reserved to the Pope; and the consequent difficulty of getting pardon of such great sins, because it would cost much more money, was or might be some little restraint to some persons from running easily into the most horrible impieties; but to give such a lose to this little, and this last rain and curb; and by an easy Indulgence to take off all, even the most heinous sins, what is it but to give the Devil an argument to tempt persons that have any conscience or fear left, to throw off all fear, and to stick at nothing.  
8. It seems hard to give a reasonable account, what is meant by giving a plenary pardon of all their sins; and yet at the same time an Indulgence of 12000. years, and as many Quarentaines; it seems the bounty of the Church runs out of a Conduit, though the Vessels be full, yet the water still continues running and goes into waist.  
9 In this great heap of Indulgences (and so it is in very many other) power is given to a Lay Sister or Brother to free a soul from Purgatory. But if this be so easily granted, the necessity of Masses will be very little; what need is there to give greater fees to a Physician when a sick person may be cured with a Posset and Pepper. The remedy of the way of Indulgences is cheap and easy, a servant with a Candle, a Pater and an Ave, a going to visit an Altar, wearing the Scapular of the Carmelites, or the Chord of S. Francis: but Masses for souls are a dear commodity, five pence or six pence is the least a Mass will cost in some places; nay it will stand in nine pence in other places. But then if the Pope can do this trick certainly, then what can be said to John Gersons question. 
Arbitrio Papa proprio si clavibus uti  
Posset, cur sinit ut poena pios cruciet?  
Cur non evacuat loca purgandis animabus  
Tradita? The answer makes up the Tetrastic;  
sed servus esse fidelis amat.   
The Pope may be kind, but he must be wise too; a faithful and wise Steward; he must not destroy the whole state of the purging Church; if he takes away all the fuel from the fire; who shall make the Pot boil? This may not be done, Ut possint superesse quos peccasse poeniteat: Sinners must pay for it, in their bodies or their purses.   

SECTION II.  
Of Purgatory.  
THat the doctrine of Purgatory as it is taught in the Roman Church is a Novelty, and a part of their New Religion, is sufficiently attested by the words of the Cardinal of Rochester, and Alphonsus a Castro; whose words I now add that he who pleases may see how these new men would fain impose their new fancies upon the Church, under pretence and title of Ancient and Catholic verities. The words of Roffensis in his eighteenth article against Luther are these, 
* A letter to a friend touching Dr. Taylor▪ Sect. 4. n. 26. p. 10. which if the Reader please for his curiosity or his recreation to see, he shall find this pleasant passage, of deep learning, and subtle observation (Dr. Tay. had said that Roffensis and P. V affirm, that who so searcheth the Writings of the Greek Fathers, shall find that none, or very rarely any one of them ever makes mention of Purgatory.) Whereas Pol. Virgil affirms no such thing; nor doth Roffensis say, That very rarely any one of them menti●ns it, but only, that in th●se Ancient Writers, he shall find none, or but very rare mention of it. If this man were in his wits when he made this answer (an answer which no man can unriddle, or tell how it opposes the objection) than it is very certain, that if this can pass among the answers to the Protestants objections, the Papists are in a very great strait; and have very little to say for themselves: and the letter to a friend was written by compulsion, and by the shame of confutation; not of conscience or ingenuous persuasion. No man can be so foolish, as to suppose this fit to be given in answer to any sober discourse▪ or if there be such pitiful people in the Church of Rome, and trusted to write Books in defence of their Religion; it seems they care not what any man says or proves against them; if the people be but co●●n'd with a pretended answer; for that serves the turn, as well as a wiser.  Legate qui velit Graecorum veterum commentarios, & nullum, quantum, opinor; aut quam rarissimum de purgatorio sermonem inveniet. Sed neque latini simul omnes, at sensim hujus rei veritatem conceperunt. He that pleases, let him read the Commentaries of the Old Greeks and (as I suppose) he shall find none, or very rare mention (or speech) of Purgatory. But neither did all the Latins at one time, but by little and little conceive the truth of this thing. And again [Aliquandiu incognitum fuit, sero cognitum Universae Ecclesiae. Deinde quibusdam pedetentim, partim ex Scriptures, partim ex revelationibus creditum fuit. For somewhile it was unknown; it was but lately known to the Catholic Church. Then it was believed by some, by little and little; partly from Scripture, partly from revelations.] And this is the goodly ground of the doctrine of Purgatory, founded no question upon tradition Apostolical; delivered some hundreds of years indeed after they were dead; but the truth is, because it was forgotten by the Apostles, and they having so many things in their heads, when they were alive wrote and said nothing of it, therefore they took care to send some from the dead, who by new revelations should teach this old doctrine. This we may conjecture to be the equivalent sense of the plain words of Roffensis. But the plain words are sufficient without a Commentary. 
Lib. 8. cap. 1. de inven. rerum.   
Now for Polydore Virgil his own words can best tell what he says, 
Ego vero Originem quod mei est muneris quaeritans non reperio ante fuisse, quod sciam, quum D. Gregorius ad suas stationes id praemii proposuerit. Qua propter in re parum perspicuâ, utar testimonio Johannis Roffensis Episcopi, qui in eo opere quod nuper in Lutherum scripsit, sic de ejusmodi veniarum initio prodit. Multos fortasse movit indulgentiis istis non usque adeò fidere, quod earum usus in Ecclesiâ videatur recentior, & admodum serò apud Christianos repertus. Quibus ego respondeo, non certò constare a quo primum tradi caeperint. Fuit tamen nonnullus earum usus (ut aiunt) apud Romanos vetustissimus, quod ex stationibus intelligi potest & subiit. Nemo certe dubitat orthodoxus an purgatorium sit, de quo tamen apud priscos nonnull● vel quam rarissime fiebat mentio. Sed & Graces ad hunc usque diem, 〈◊〉 est creditum esse ● quam di● enim nulla fuerat de purgatorio cura. nemo quaesivit Indulgentias; nam ex illo pendet omnis indulgentiarum existimatio: si ●oll●● purgatorium, quorsum indulgentiis opus erit? caeperunt igitur indulgentiae postquam ad purgatorii cruciat●● aliquandiu trepid●tum est.  The words I have put into the Margin because they are many; the sense of them is this. 1. He finds no use of Indulgences before the stations of S. Gregory; the consequent of that is, that all the Latin Fathers did not receive them before S. Gregory's time; and therefore they did not receive them altogether. 2. The matter being so obscure, Polydore chose to express his sense in the testimony of Roffensis. 3. From him he affirms, that the use of Indulgences is but new, and lately received amongst Christians. 4. That there is no certainty concerning their original. 5. They report, that amongst the Ancient Latins there was some use of them. But it is but a report, for he knows nothing of it before S. Gregory's time, and for that also he hath but a mere report. 6. Amongst the Greeks it is not to this day believed. 7. As long as there was no care of Purgatory, no man looked after Indulgences; because if you take away Purgatory, there is no need of Indulgences. 8. That the use of Indulgences began after men had a while trembled at the torments of Purgatory.] This if I understand Latin or common sense, is the doctrine of Polydore Virgil; and to him I add also the testimony of Alphonsus a Castro. 
Lib. 8. verb. Indul. vide etiam lib. 12. lil. purgatorium.  De Purgatorio fere nulla mentio, potissimum apud Graecos scriptores. Qua de causa usque hodiernum diem purgatorium non est a Graecis creditum. The consequent of these things is this. If Purgatory was not known to the Primitive Church; if it was but lately known to the Catholic Church; if the Fathers seldom or never make mention of it; If in the Greek Church especially there was so great silence of it, that to this very day it is not believed amongst the Greeks; then this doctrine was not an Apostolical doctrine, not Primitive, not Catholic, but an Innovation and of yesterday.  
And this is of itself (besides all these confessions of their own parties) a suspicious matter, because the Church of Rome does establish their doctrine of Purgatory upon the Ancient use of the Church of praying for the dead. But this consequence of theirs is wholly vain; because all the Fathers did pray for the dead, yet they never prayed for their deliverance out of Purgatory, nor ever meant it. To this it is thus objected, It is confessed that they prayed for them that God would show them a mercy. 
E. W. Truth will out. cap. 3. pag. 23.  Now, Mark well, If they be in heaven they have a mercy, the sentence is given for Eternal happiness. If in Hell, they are wholly destitute of mercy; unless there be a third place where mercy can be showed them.] I have according to my order marked it well; but find nothing in it to purpose. For though the Fathers prayed for the souls departed that God would show them mercy; yet it was, that God would show them mercy in the day of judgement, In that formidable and dreadful day, than there is need of much mercy unto us, saith S. Chrysostom. And methinks this Gentleman should not have made use of so pitiful an argument, and would not, if he had considered that S. Paul prayed for Onesiphorus, that God would show him a mercy in that day; that is in the day of judgement, as generally interpreters Ancient and Modern do understand it, and particularly S. Chrysostom now cited. The faithful departed are in the hands of Christ as soon as they die, and they are very well; and the souls of the wicked are where it pleases God to appoint them to be, tormented by a fearful expectation of the revelation of the day of judgement; but heaven and hell are reserved till the day of judgement; 
Vers. 6.  and the Devils themselves are reserved in chains of darkness unto the judgement of the great day, saith S. Judas; and in that day they shall be sentenced, and so shall all the wicked, to everlasting fire, which as yet is but prepared for the Devil and his Angels for ever. But is there no mercy to be showed to them unless they be in Purgatory? Some of the Ancients speak of visitation of Angels to be imparted to the souls departed; and the hastening of the day of judgement is a mercy; and the avenging of the Martyrs upon their adversaries is a mercy for which the souls under the Altar pray, saith S. John in the Revelation: and the Greek Fathers speak of a fiery trial at the day of judgement through which every one must pass; and there will be great need of mercy. And after all this; there is a remission of sins proper to this world, when God so pardons that he gives the grace of repentance, that he takes his judgements off from us, that he gives us his holy spirit to mortify our sins, that he admits us to work in his laboratory, that he sustains us by his power, and promotes us by his grace, and stands by us favourably while we work out our salvation with fear and trembling; and at last he crowns us with perseverance. But at the day of Judgement there shall be a pardon of sins, that will crown this pardon; when God shall pronounce us pardoned before all the world; and when Christ shall actually and praesentially rescue us from all the pains which our sins have deserved; even from everlasting pain: And that's the final pardon, for which till it be accomplished, all the faithful do night and day pray incessantly: although to many for whom they do pray, they friendly believe that it is now certain, that they shall then be glorified. Saepissime petuntur illa quae certo sciuntur eventura ut petuntur, 
Contr. haeres. lib. 12. tit. purgator. Jo. Med●na de poenit. tract. 6. q. 6.  & hujus rei plurima sunt testimonia, said Alphonsus à Castro: and so also Medina and Bellarmine acknowledge. 
Cod. de oratione.  The thing is true, they say; but if it were not, 
Bellar. de purgat. lib. 2. cap. 5.  yet we find that de facto they do pray Domine Jesus Christ, rex gloriae libera animas Fidelium defunctorum de poenis Inferni & de profundo lacu: libera eos de ore leonis, ne abforbeat eos Tartarus, ne cadant in obscurum. So it is in the Masses pro defunctis. 
Vide missam in commemorationem omnium defunctorum.  And therefore this Gentleman talking that in Heaven all is remitted, and in Hell nothing is forgiven, and from hence to conclude that there is no avoiding of purgatory; is too hasty a conclusion: let him stay till he comes to Heaven, and the final sentence is past, and then he will (if he finds it to be so) have reason to say what he does; but by that time the dream of Purgatory will be out; and in the mean time let him strive to understand his Mass-book better. S. Austin thought he had reason to pray for pardon and remission for his Mother; for the reasons already expressed, though he never thought his Mother was in Purgatory. It was upon consideration of the dangers of every soul that dies in Adam; and yet he affirms she was even before her death alive unto Christ. And therefore she did not die miserable, nor did she die at all (said her son,) 
Confess. lib. 9 cap. 12. & 13.  Hoc & documentis ejus morum, & fide non ficta, rationibus certis tenebamus; and when he did pray for her; Credo jam feceris quod te rogo, sed voluntaria oris mei approba Domine: which will yet give another answer to this confident Gentleman; S. Austin prayed for pardon for his Mother, and did believe the thing was done already; but he prayed to God to approve that voluntary oblation of his mouth. So that now all the objection is vanished; S. Austin prayed (besides many other reasons) to manifest his kindness, not for any need she had. But after all this, was not S. Monica a Saint? Is she not put in the Roman Calendar, and the fourth of May appointed for her festival? And do Saints, do Canonised persons use to go to Purgatory? But let it be as it will, I only desire that this be remembered against a good time; that here it is confessed that prayers were offered for a Saint departed. I fear it will be denied by and by.  
But 2. The Fathers made prayers for those who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory; for the Patriarches, Apostles, etc. and especially for the Blessed Virgin Mary; this which is a direct and perfect overthrow of the Roman doctrine of Purgatory, and therefore if it can be made good, they have no probability left, upon the confidence of which they can plausibly pretend to Purgatory. I have already offered something in proof of this, which I shall now review, 
Letter pag. 11. n. 31.  and confirm fully. I begin with that of Durantus, whom I alleged as confessing that they offered 
* But than it is to be remembered, that they made prayers, and offered for those who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory: so we find in Epiphanius, S. Cyril, the Canon of the Greeks, and so (viz. that they offered) is acknowledged by their own Dura●us. Dissuasive, pag. 27. line 30. etc. Lib. 2. de ritibus cap. 35.  for the Patriarches, and Prophets, and the Blessed Virgin: I intent him for no more; for true it is, he denies that the Church prayed for them, but that they communicated and offered sacrifice for them, even for the Blessed Virgin Mary herself, this he grants. I have alleged him a little out of the order, because observing where Durantus and the Roman Doctors are mistaken, and with what boldness they say, that offering for them is only giving thanks, and that the Greek Fathers did only offer for them Eucharists, but no Prayers; I thought it fit first to reprove that initial error, viz. [that Communicantes, & offerentes pro sanctis is not Prayer;] and then to make it clear that they did really pray, for mercy, for pardon, for a place of rest, for eternal glory for them who never were in Purgatory, for it is a great ignorance to suppose, that when it is said the sacrifice or oblation is offered, it must mean only thanksgiving. For it is called in S. Dionys, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Eucharistical prayer; and the Lords Supper is a sacrifice in genere orationis, and by themselves is intended as propitiatory for the quick and dead. 
Lib. 1: Epist. 9  And S. Cyprian speaking of Bishops, being made Executors of Testaments, saith, Si quis hoc fecisset, non offerretur pro eo, nec sacrificium pro dormitione ejus celebratur. Neque enim ad altare Dei meretur nominari in sacerdotum prece, qui ab altari sacerdotes avocare voluit. Where offer and celebrare sacrificium pro dormitione is done sacerdotum prece, it is the oblation and sacrifice of prayer: and S. Cyprian presently after joins them together, pro dormitione ejus oblatio aut deprecatio. And if we look at the forms in the old Roman Liturgy used in the days of Pope Innocent the third we shall find this well expounded, prosit huic sancto vel illi talis oblatio ad gloriam. They offered, but the offering itself was not Eucharistical but deprecatory. And so it is also in the Armenian Liturgy published at Crackow: per hanc etiam oblationem da aeternam pacem omnibus qui nos praecesserunt in fide Christi, sanctis Patribus, Patriarchis, Apostolis, Prophetis, Martyribus, etc. which testimony does not only evince, that the offering sacrifices and oblations for the Saints, did signify praying for them; but that this they did for all Saints whatsoever. And concerning S. Chrysostom, 
Lib. 6. biblioth. Annot. 47.  that which Sixtus Senensis says is material to this very purpose. Et in Liturgia Divini sacrificii ab eo edita, & in variis homiliis ab eodem approbata, conscripsit formulam precandi, & offerendi; pro omnibus fidelibus, defunctis, & praecipue pro animabus beatorum, in haec verba, offerrimus tibi rationalem hunc cultum pro in fide requiescentibus Patribus, Patriarchis, Prophetis, Apostolis & Martyribus, etc. By which confession it is acknowledged not only that the Church prayed for Apostles and Martyrs, but that they intended to do so, when they offered the Sacramental oblations; and offerimus is offerimus tibi preces. Now since it is so, I had advantage enough in the confession of their own Durantus, that he acknowledged so much, that the Church offered sacrifice for Saints. Now though he presently kicked this down with his foot, and denied that they prayed for Saints departed; I shall yet more clearly convince him and all the Roman contradictors of their bold and unreasonable error in this affair. Epiphanius is the first I mentioned as a witness, 
Haeres. 75.  but because I cited no words of his, and my adversaries have cited them for me, but imperfectly, and left out the words where the argument lies, I shall set them down at length. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. We make mention of the just and of sinners, for sinners that we may implore the mercy of God for them. For the just, the Fathers, the Patriarches, the Prophets, Evangelists and Martyrs, Confessors, Bishops and Anachorets, that prosecuting the Lord Jesus Christ with a singular honour, we separate these from the rank of other men, and give due worship to his Divine Majesty, while we account that he is not to be made equal to mortal men, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, although they had a thousand times more righteousness than they have.] Now first here is mention made of all in their prayers and oblations, and yet no mention made that the Church prays for one sort, and only gives thanks for the other, 
Letter pag. 10. Truth will out, pag. 25.  (as these Gentlemen the objectors falsely pretend.) But here is a double separation made of the righteous departed; one is from the worse sort of sinners, the other from the most righteous Saviour. True it is, they believed they had more need to pray for some than for others; but if they did not pray for all, when they made mention of all, how did they honour Christ by separating their condition from his? Is it not lawful to give thanks for the life and death, for the resurrection, holiness and glorification of Christ? And if the Church only gave thanks for the departed Saints, and did not pray for mercy for them too, how are not the Saints in this made equal to Christ? So that I think the testimony of Epiphanius is clear and pertinent: 
In Psal. 36. Conc. 2. To. 8. p. 120.  To which greater light is given by the words of S. Austin, Who is he for whom no man prays, but only he who intercedes for all men? viz. our Blessed Lord. And there is more light yet, by the example of S. Austin, who though he did most certainly believe his Mother to be a Saint, and the Church of Rome believes so too, yet he prayed for pardon for her. Now by this it was that Epiphanius separated Christ from the Saints departed, for he could not mean any thing else; and because he was then writing against Aerius who did not deny it to be lawful to give God thanks for the Saints departed, but affirmed it to be needless to pray for them, viz. he must mean this of the Churches praying for all her dead, or else he had said nothing against his adversary, or for his own cause.  
S. Cyril (though he be confidently denied to have said what he did say yet) is confessed to have said these words, 
A. L p. 11.  Then we pray for the deceased Fathers and Bishops, and finally for all who among us have departed this life. Believing it to be a very great help of the souls, 
Mysta. Catech. 5.  for which is offered the obsecration of the holy and dreadful sacrifice.] If S. Cyril means what his words signify, than the Church did pray for departed Saints; for they prayed for all the departed Fathers and Bishops, it is hard if amongst them there were no Saints: but suppose that, yet if there were any Saints at all that died out of the militant Church, yet the case is the same; for they prayed for all the departed: And 2. They offered the dreadful sacrifice for them all. 3. They offered it for all in the way of prayer. 4. And they believed this to be a great help to souls. Now unless the souls of all Saints that died then, went to Purgatory (which I am sure the Roman Doctors dare not own) the case is plain that prayer, and not thanksgivings only were offered by the Ancient Church for souls, who by the Confession of all sides never went to Purgatory; and therefore praying for the dead is but a weak argument to prove Purgatory. Nicolaus Cabasilas hath an evasion from all this; as he supposes, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the word used in the memorial of Saints, does not always signify praying for one, but it may signify giving of thanks; This is true, but it is to no purpose; for when ever it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we pray for such a one, that must signify to pray for, and not to give thanks, and that's our present case: and therefore no escape here can be made; the words of S. Cyril are very plain.  
The third allegation is of the Canon of the Greeks; which is so plain, evident and notorious, and so confessed even by these Gentlemen the objectors, that I will be tried by the words which the Author of the letter acknowledges. So it is in the Liturgy of S. James, Remember all Orthodox from Abel the just unto this day, make them to rest in the land of the living, in thy Kingdom, and the delights of Paradise. Thus far this Gentleman quoted S. James, and I wonder that he shall urge a conclusion manifestly contrary to his own allegation. Did all the Orthodox from Abel to that day go to Purgatory? Certainly Abraham, and Moses, and Elias, and the Blessed Virgin did not, and S. Stephen did not, and the Apostles that died before this Liturgy was made did not, and yet the Church prayed for all Orthodox, prayed that they might rest in the land of the living, etc. and therefore they prayed for such which by the confession of all sides never went to Purgatory. In the other Liturgies also, the Gentleman sets down words enough to confute himself, as the Reader may see in the letter if it be worth the reading. But because he sets down what he list, and makes breaches and Rabbit holes to pop in as he please, I shall for the satisfaction of the Reader set down the full sense and practice of the Greek Canon in this question.  
And first for S. James his Liturgy, 
Biblioth. Sanct. 1. 6. Annot. 345▪ Sect. Jacob. Apostolus.  which, being merrily disposed and dreaming of advantage by it, he is pleased to call the Mass of S. James, Sixtus Senensis gives this account of it [James the Apostle in the Liturgy of the Divine sacrifice prays for the souls of Saints resting in Christ, so that he shows they are not yet arrived at the place of expected blessedness. But the form of the prayer is after this manner, Domine Deus noster, etc. O Lord our God remember all the Orthodox, and them that believe rightly in the faith from Abel the just unto this day. Make them to rest in the region of the living, in thy Kingdom, in the delights of Paradise, in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob our Holy Fathers; from whence are banished grief, sorrow and sighing, where the light of thy countenance is precedent and perpetually shines.]  
In the Liturgy of S. Basil, 
Basilii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab Andrea Masio ex Syriaco conversa.  which he is said to have made for the Churches of Syria, is this prayer, [Be mindful, O Lord, of them which are dead and departed out of this life, and of the Orthodox Bishops, which from Peter and James the Apostles unto this day, have clearly professed the right word of faith, and namely, of Ignatius, Dionysius, Julius and the rest of the Saints of worthy memory. Nay, not only for these, but they pray for the very Martyrs. O Lord remember them who have resisted (or stood) unto blood for religion, and have fed thy holy flock with righteousness and holiness.] Certainly this is not giving of thanks for them, or praying to them, but a direct praying for them, even for holy Bishops, Confessors, Martyrs, that God (meaning in much mercy) would remember them, that is, make them to rest in the bosom of Abraham, in the region of the living, as S. James expresses it.  
And in the Liturgies of the Churches of Egypt attributed to S. Basil, Greg. Naz. and S. Cyril, the Churches pray; [Be mindful O Lord of thy Saints, vouchsafe to receive all thy Saints which have pleased thee from the beginning, our Holy Fathers, the Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, Preachers, Evangelists, and all the Souls of the just which have died in the faith, but chief of the holy, glorious and perpetual Virgin Mary the Mother of God, of S. John Baptist the forerunner and Martyr, S. Stephen the first Deacon and first Martyr, S. Mark Apostle, Evangelist and Martyr.]  
Of the same spirit were all the Ancient Liturgies or Missals, and particularly that under the name of Saint Chrysostom is most full to this purpose; Let us pray to the Lord for all that before time have laboured and performed the holy offices of Priesthood. For the memory and remission of sins of them that built this holy house, and of all them that have slept in hope of the resurrection and eternal life in thy society: of the Orthodox Fathers and our Brethren. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O thou lover of men pardon them.] And again, [moreover we offer unto thee this reasonable service for all that rest in faith, our Ancestors, Fathers, Patriarches, Prophets and Apostles, Preachers, Evangelists, Martyrs, etc. especially the most holy and unspotted Virgin Mary] and after concludes with this prayer [Remember them all who have slept in hope of Resurrection to Eternal life, and make them to rest where the light of thy countenance looks over them.] Add to these if you please, the Greek Mass of S. Peter: To them, O Lord, and to all that rest in Christ, we pray that thou indulge a place of refreshing light and peace.] So that nothing is clearer than that in the Greek Canon they prayed for the souls of the best of all the Saints, whom yet because no man believes they ever were in Purgatory; it follows that prayer for the dead used by the Ancients does not prove the Roman Purgatory.  
To these add the doctrine and practice of the Greek Fathers: 
Eccles. hier. Cap. 7. in theoria.  Dionysius speaking of a person deceased, whom the Ministers of the Church had publicly pronounced to be a happy man, and verily admitted into the society of the Saints, that have been from the beginning of the world, yet the Bishop prayed for him, that God would forgive him all the sins which he had committed through humane infirmity, and bring him into the light and region of the living, into the bosoms of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, where pain and sorrow and sighing have no place; To the same purpose is that of S. Gregory Naz. 
Naz. in fu●●s Caesarii. orat. 10.  in his funeral Oration upon his Brother Caesarius, of whom he had expressly declared his belief, that he was rewarded with those honours which did befit a new ●reated soul; yet he presently prays for his soul; Now, O Lord, receive Caesarius. I hope I have said enough concerning the Greek Church, their doctrine and practice in this particular: and I desire it may be observed, that there is no greater testimony of the doctrine of a Church than their Liturgy. Their Doctors may have private opinions which are not against the doctrine of the Church; but what is put into their public devotions, and consigned in their Liturgies, no man scruples it, but it is the confession and religion of the Church.  
But now that I may make my Reader some amends for his trouble in reading the trifling objections of these Roman adversaries, and my defences; I shall also for the greater conviction of my Adversaries show, that they would not have opposed my affirmation in this particular, if they had understood their own Mass-book, for it was not only thus from the beginning until now in the Greek Church, but it is so to this very day in the Latin Church. In the old Latin Missal we have this prayer, 
Missa latina Antiqua edit. Argentinae. 1557. pag. 52.  [Suscipe sancta Trinitas hanc oblationem quam tibi offerimus pro omnibus in tui nominis confessione defunctis, ut te dextram auxilii tui porrigente vitae perennis requiem habeant, & à poenis impiorum segregati semper in tuae laudis laetitia perseverent. And in the very Canon of the Mass, which these Gentlemen I suppose (if they be Priests) cannot be ignorant in any part of, they pray, Memento Domine famulorum famularumque tuarum qui nos praecesserunt cum signo fidei, & dormiunt in somno pacis. Ipsis Domine & omnibus in Christo quiescentibus, locum refrigerii, lucis & pacis, ut indulgeas deprecamur. Unless all that are at rest in Christ go to Purgatory, it is plain that the Church of Rome prays for Saints, who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory. I could bring many more testimonies if they were needful; but I sum up this particular with the words of S. Austin: 
De curapto mortuis, cap. 4.  Non sunt praetermittendae supplicationes pro spiritibus mortuorum; quas faciendas pro omnibus in Christiana & Catholica societate defunctis etiam tacitis nominibus quorumque, sub generali commemoratione suscepit Ecclesia. The Church prays for all persons that died in the Christian and Catholic faith. And therefore I wonder how it should drop from S. Augustine's pen, 
De verbis Apostoli Serm. 17.  Injuriam facit Martyri qui orat pro Martyr. But I suppose he meant it only in case the prayer was made for them, as if they were in an uncertain state, and so it is probable enough, but else his words were not only against himself in other places, but against the whole practice of the ancient Catholic Church. I remember that when it was asked of Pope Innocent by the Archbishop of Lions, 
Sacramentarium Gregor. antiquum.  why the prayer that was in the old Missal for the soul of Pope Leo; Annue nobis Domine, animae famuli tui Leonis haec profit oblatio, it came to be changed into Annue nobis Domine ut intercessione famuli tui Leonis haec profit oblatio; Pope Innocent answered him, that who changed it or when, he knew not, but he knew how, that is, he knew the reason of it, because the authority of the Holy Scripture said, he does injury to a Martyr that prays for a Martyr, the same thing is to be done for the like reason concerning all other Saints.] The good man had heard the saying somewhere, but being little used to the Bible, he thought it might be there, because it was a pretty saying. However though this change was made in the Mass-books, and prayer for the soul of S. Leo, was changed into a prayer to S. Leo 
* Vide Missal. Roman. Paris 1529. ; and the Doctors went about to defend it as well as they could, 
Cap. cum Marthae. Extrav. de celebrat Missarum in Gloslâ.  yet because they did it so pitifully, they had reason to be ashamed of it; and in the Missal reform by order of the Council of Trent, it is put out again, and the prayer for S. Leo put in again 
* Missale Rom. in decreto Council Trid. restit. in festo S. Leonis. , That by these offices of holy atonement (viz. the celebration of the Holy Sacrament) a blessed reward may accompany him, and the gifts of thy grace may be obtained for us.  
Another argument was used in the Dissuasive, against the Roman doctrine of Purgatory, viz. How is Purgatory a Primitive and Catholic doctrine, when generally the Greek and many of the Latin Fathers taught, that the souls departed in some exterior place expect the day of judgement, but that no soul enters into the supreme heaven, or the place of Eternal bliss till the day of judgement; but at that day, say many of them, all must pass through the universal fire. To these purposes respectively the words of very many Fathers are brought by Sixtus Senensis; to all which being so evident and apparent, the Gentlemen that writ against the Dissuasive are pleased not to say one word, 
Letter to a friend, pag. 12.  but have left the whole fabric of the Roman Purgatory to shift for itself against the battery of so great authorities, only one of them, striving to find some fault, says, that the Dissuader quotes Sixtus Senensis, as saying, That Pope John the 22. not only taught and declared the doctrine (that before the day of judgement the souls of men are kept in certain receptacles) but commanded it to be held by all, as saith Adrian in 4. Sent. when Sixtus Senensis saith not so of Pope John, etc. but only reports the opinion of others. To which I answer, that I did not quote Senensis as saying any such thing of his own authority. For besides that in the body of the discourse there is no mention at all of John 22. in the margin, also it is only said of Sixtus, Enumerat S. Jacobum Apostolum— & Johannem Pontif. Rom. but I add of my own afterwards, that Pope John not only taught and declared that sentence, 
And these are the words of Senensis concerning P. John 22. and P. Adrian.  but commanded it to be held by all men, as saith Adrian. Now although in his narrative of it, Adrian begins with novissime fertur, it is reported, yet Senensis himself when he had said, Pope John is said to have decreed this; he himself adds that Ocham and Pope Adrian are witnesses of this decree. 2. Adrian is so far a witness of it, that he gives the reason of the same, even because the University of Paris refused to give promotion to them who denied, or did refuse to promise for ever to cleave to that opinion. 3. Ocham is so fierce a witness of it, that he wrote against Pope John the 22. for the opinion. 4. Though Senensis be not willing to have it believed; yet all that he can say against it, is, that apud probatos scriptores non est Undequaque certum. 5. Yet he brings not one testimony out of antiquity, against this charge against Pope John, only he says, that Pope Benedict XI. affirms, that John being prevented by death could not finish the decree. 6. But this thing was not done in a corner, the acts of the University of Paris and their fierce adhering to the decree were too notorious. 7. And after all this it matters not whether it be so or no, when it is confessed that so many Ancient Fathers expressly teach the doctrine contrary to the Roman, as it is this day, and yet the Roman Doctors are not what they say, insomuch that S. Bernard having fully and frequently taught, That no souls go to Heaven till they all go, neither the Saints without the common people, nor the spirit without the flesh; that there are three states of souls, one in the tabernacles (viz. of our bodies) a second in atriis or outward Courts, and a third in the house of God; Alphonsus à Castro admonishes that this sentence is damned; and Sixtus Senensis adds these words, (which thing also I do not deny) yet I suppose he ought to be excused ob ingentem numerum illustrium Ecclesiae patrum, for the great number of the illustrious Fathers of the Church, 
Annot. 345.  who before by their testimony did seem to give authority to this opinion.  
But that the present doctrine of the Roman Purgatory is but a new article of faith, is therefore certain, because it was no article of faith in S. Augustine's time, for he doubted of it. And to this purpose I quoted in the margin two places of S. Austin. 
Enchirid. cap. 68, 69.  The words I shall now produce, because they will answer for themselves. In the 68 chapter of his Manual to Laurentius he takes from the Church of Rome their best armour in which they trusted, 
1 Cor. 3.  and expounds the words of S. Paul, he shall be saved yet so as by fire] to mean only the loss of such pleasant things as most delighted them in this world. And in the beginning of the next chapter he adds, 
Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est, & utrum ita sit qu●ri potest.  [That such a thing may also be done after this life is not incredible, and whether it be so or no it may be enquired, & aut inveniri aut latere, and either be found or lie hid. Now what is that which thus may, or may not be found out? This, that [some faithful by how much more or less they loved perishing goods, by so much sooner or later they shall be saved by a certain Purgatory fire.] This is it which S. Austin says is not incredible, only it may be enquired whether it be so or no. And if these be not the words of doubting, [it is not incredible, such a thing may be, it may be enquired after, it may be found to be so, or it may never be found, but lie hid] then words signify nothing: yea [but the doubting of S. Austin does not relate to the matter or question of Purgatory, but to the manner of the particular punishment, viz. whether or no that pain of being troubled for the loss of their goods be not a part of the Purgatory flames? (says E. W. 
* E. W. pag. 28. ) A goodly excuse! as if S. Austin had troubled himself with such an impertinent Question, whether the poor souls in their infernal flames be not troubled that they left their lands and money behind them? Indeed it is possible they might wish some of the waters of their springs or fishponds to cool their tongues: but S. Austin surely did not suspect that the tormented Ghosts were troubled they had not brought their best clothes with them, and money in their purses; This is too pitiful and strained an answer; the case being so evidently clear, that the thing S. Austin doubted of was, since there was to some of the faithful, who yet were too voluptuous or covetous persons, a Purgatory in this world, even the loss of their Goods which they so loved, and therefore being lost so grieved for, whether or no they should not also meet with another Purgatory after death: that is, whether besides the punishment suffered here, they should not be punished after death; how? by grieving for the loss of their goods? Ridiculous! what then, S. Austin himself tells us, by so much as they loved their goods more or less, by so much sooner or later they shall be saved. And what he said of this kind of sin, viz. too much worldliness, with the same reason he might suppose of others; this he thought possible, but of this he was not sure, and therefore it was not then an article of faith, and though now the Church of Rome hath made it so, yet it appears that it was not so from the beginning, but is part of their new fashioned faith. And E. W. striving so impossibly, and so weakly to avoid the pressure of this argument, should do well to consider, whether he have not more strained his Conscience, than the words of S. Austin. But this matter must not pass thus. S. Austin repeats this whole passage verbatim in his answer to the 8. Quest. of Dulcitius, Qu. 1. and still answers in this and other appendent Questions of the same nature, viz. whether prayers for the dead be available, etc. Quest. 2. and whether upon the instant of Christ's appearing, 
De octo Quest. Dulcit. Qu. 3.  he will pass to judgement, Qu. 3. In these things which we have described, our and the infirmity of others may be so exercised and instructed, nevertheless that they pass not for Canonical authority. And in the answer to the first Question he speaks in the style of a doubtful person [whether men suffer such things in this life only, or also such certain judgements follow even after this life, this Understanding of this sentence, is not as I suppose abhorrent from truth.] The same words he also repeats in his book de fide & operibus, Chap. 16. There is yet another place of S. Austin, in which it is plain he still is a doubting person in the Question of Purgatory. His sense is this; 
S. Aug. de civet. Dei. lib. 21 cap. 26.  After the death of the body until the resurrection, if in the interval the spirits of the dead are said to suffer that kind of fire, which they feel not, who had not such manners and loves in their life-time, that their wood, hay and stubble ought to be consumed; but others feel who brought such buildings along with them, whether there only, or whether here and there, or whether therefore here that it might not be there, that they feel a fire of a transitory tribulation burning their secular buildings, (though escaping from damnation) I reprove it not; for peradventure it is true.] So S. Austin, peradventure yea, is always, peradventure nay; and will the Bigots of the Roman Church be content with such a confession of faith as this of S. Austin in the present article? I believe not.  
But now after all this, I will not deny but S. Austin was much inclined to believe Purgatory fire, and therefore I shall not trouble myself to answer the citations to that purpose, which Bellarmine, and from him these transcribers bring out of this Father, though most of them are drawn out of Apocryphal, spurious and suspected pieces, as his Homilies de S. S. etc. yet that which I urge is this, that S. Austin did not esteem this to be a doctrine of the Church, no article of faith, but a disputable opinion; and yet though he did incline to the wrong part of the opinion, yet it is very certain that he sometimes speaks expressly against this doctrine, and other times speaks things absolutely inconsistent with the opinion of Purgatory, which is more than an argument of his confessed doubting; for it is a declaration that he understood nothing certain in this affair, but that the contrary to his opinion was the more probable. And this appears in these few following words. 
De C. Dei. lib. 21. c. 13.  S. Austin hath these words; some suffer temporary punishments in this life only, others after death, others both now and then: Bellarmine, and from him Diaphanta urges this as a great proof of S. Augustine's doctrine. But he destroys it in the words immediately following, and makes it useless to the hypothesis of the Roman Church; This shall be before they suffer the last and severest judgement (meaning as S. Austin frequently does such say, of the General conflagration at the end of the world.) But whether he does so or no, 
Ibid.  yet he adds; But all of them come not into the everlasting punishments, which after the Judgement shall be to them who after death suffer the temporary.] By which doctrine of S. Austin, viz. that those who are in his Purgatory shall many of them be damned; and the temporary punishments after death, do but usher in the Eternal after judgement; he destroys the salt of the Roman fire, who imagines that all that go to Purgatory shall be saved: Therefore this testimony of S. Austin, as it is nothing for the avail of the Roman Purgatory, so by the appendage it is much against it, which Coquaeus, Torrensis, and especially Cardinal Perron, observing, have most violently corrupted these words, by falsely translating them. So Perron, Tous ceux qui souffrent des peines temporelles apres la mort, ne viennent pas aux peines Eternelles qui auront tien apres le judgement, which reddition is expressly against the sense of S. Augustine's words.  
2. But another hypothesis there is in S. Austin, to which without dubitation he does peremptorily adhere, which I before intimated, viz. that although he admit of Purgatory pains after this life, yet none but such as shall be at the day of Judgement, 
Purgatorias autem poenas nullas futuras opinetur, nisi ante illud ultimum tremendumque judicium. Cap. 16.  [Whoever therefore desires to avoid the eternal pains, let him be not only baptised, but also justified in Christ, and truly pass from the Devil into Christ. But let him not think that there shall be any Purgatory pains but before that last and dreadful Judgement] meaning not only that there shall be none to cleanse them after the day of judgement, but that then, at the approach of that day the General fire shall try and purge: And so himself declares his own sense; 
In Psal. 6.  All they that have not Christ in the foundation are argued or reproved; when? in the day of Judgement; but they that have Christ in the foundation are changed, that is purged, who build upon this foundation wood, hay, stubble.] So that in the day of Judgement the trial and escape shall be; for than shall the trial and the condemnation be. But yet more clear are his words 
* De C. D. lib. 16. c. 24. & lib. 20. c. 25.  in other places: So, at the setting of the Sun, that is, at the end (viz. of the world) the day of judgement is signified by that fire, dividing the carnal which are to be saved by fire, and those who are to be damned in the fire;] nothing is plainer that that S. Austin understood that those, who are to be saved so as by fire, are to be saved by passing through the fire at the day of judgement; that was his opinion of Purgatory. And again [out of these things which are spoken it seems more evidently to appear, that there shall be certain purgatory pains of some persons in that judgement. For what thing else can be understood, where it is said, who shall endure the day of his coming, etc.  
3. S. Austin speaks things expressly against the doctrine of Purgatory; [know ye that when the soul is plucked from the body presently it is placed in Paradise, according to its good deservings, or else for her sins is thrown headlong in inferni Tartara, 
Aug. tam. 9 de vanitate saeculi, c. 1. & de consolation mortuorum Serm. 2. cap. 1.  into the hell of the damned; for I know not well how else to render it.] And again [the soul retiring is received by Angels and placed either in the bosom of Abraham, if she be faithful, or in the custody of the infernal prison, 
De D●gmat. 6. Eccles. cap. 79.  if it be sinful, until the appointed day comes, in which she shall receive her body:] pertinent to which is that of S. Austin, 
Aut Augustini aut Gennadii.  if he be Author of that excellent book de Eccles. dogmatibus, which is imputed to him. [After the ascension of our Lord to the Heavens, the souls of all the Saints are with Christ, and going from the body go unto Christ, expecting the resurrection of their body.]  
But I shall insist no further upon these things; I suppose it very apparent, that S. Austin was no way confident of his fancy of Purgatory, and that if he had fancied right, yet it was not the Roman Purgatory that he fancied. There is only one objection which I know of, which when I have cleared I shall pass on to other things. S. Austin, speaking of such who have lived a middle kind of an indifferent pious life, saith, Constat autem, etc. but it is certain, that such before the day of judgement being purged by temporal pains which their spirit suffer, when they have received their bodies, shall not be delivered to the punishment of Eternal fire;] here is a positive determination of the article, by a word of confidence, and a full certificate; and therefore S. Austin in this article was not a doubting person. To this I answer, it may be he was confident here, but it lasted not long; this fire was made of straw and soon went out; for within two Chapters after, he expressly doubts, as I have proved. 2. These words may refer to the purgatory fire at the general conflagration of the world; and if they be so referred, it is most agreeable to his other sentiments. 3. This Constat, or decretory phrase, and some lines before or after it, are not in the old books of Bruges and Colein, nor in the copies printed at Friburg; and Ludovicus vives supposes they were a marginal note crept since into the Text. Now this objection being removed, 
Contra Pharis. tit. 8.  there remains no ground to deny, that S. Austin was a doubting person in the article of Purgatory. And this Erasmus expressly affirmed of him; 
In exposit precationis missae. Advers. haeres. lib. 12. tit. Purgatorium.  and the same is said of him by Hofmeister, but modestly; and against his doubting in his Enchiridion he brings only a testimony in behalf of prayer for the dead, which is nothing to the purpose; and this is also sufficiently noted by Alphonsus a Castro, 
In Cathol. Romao pacifico 9▪ de purgat.  and by Barnesius. Well! but suppose S. Austin did doubt of Purgatory? This is no warranty to the Church of England, for she does not doubt of it as S. Austin did, but plainly condemns it. So one of my adversaries objects; To which I answer, that the Church of England may the rather condemn it, because S. Austin doubted of it; for if it be no Catholic doctrine, it is but a School point, and without prejudice to the faith may be rejected. But 2. I suppose the Church of England would not have troubled herself with the doctrine, if it had been left as S. Austin left it; that is, but as a mere uncertain opinion, but when the wrong end of the opinion was taken, and made an article of faith, and damnation threatened to them that believed it not; she had reason to consider it, and finding it to be chaff, wholly to scatter it away. 3. The Church of England is not therefore to be blamed, if in any case she see more than S. Austin did, and proceed accordingly; for it is certain the Church of Rome does decree against divers things, of which S. Austin indeed did not doubt, but affirmed confidently; I instance in the necessity of communicating infants, and the matter of appeals to Rome.  
The next Authority to be examined is, that of Otho Frisnigensis, concerning which there is a heavy quarrel against the Dissuasive, for making him to speak of a Purgatory before, whereas he speaks of one after the day of judgement, with a Quidam asserunt, some affirm it, viz. that there is a place of Purgatory after death; nay but you are deceived says E. W. and the rest of the adversaries; he means that some affirm there is a place of Purgatory after the day of judgement. Now truly that is more than I said; but that Otho said it, is by these men confessed. But his words are these; [I think it ought to be searched, 
Esse quippe apud inferos locum purgationum in quo salvandi vel tenebris tantum afficiantur, vel expiationis igne decoquantur quidam asserunt.  whether the judgement being passed, besides the lower hell, there remain a place for lighter punishments; for that there is (below, or) in hell a Purgatory place, in which they that are to be saved are either affected (a●ficiantur, invested, punished) with darkness only, or else are boiled in the fire of expiation, some do affirm.] What is or can be more plainly said of Purgatory; for the places of Scripture brought to confirm this opinion are such, which relate to the interval between death and the last judgement; juxta illud Patriarchae, lugens descendum ad inferos; & illud Apostoli, ipse autem salvus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem; I hope the Roman Doctors will not deny, but these are meant of Purgatory before the last day: and therefore so is the opinion for the proof of which these places are brought. 2. By post judicium, in the title, and transacto judicio in the Chapter, Otho means the particular judgement passing upon every one at their death: which he in a few lines after calls terminatis in judicio causis singulorum. 3. He must mean it to be before the last great day; because that which he says, some do affirm, quidam asserunt; is, that those which are salvandi, to be saved hereafter, are either in darkness or in a Purgatory fire; which therefore must be meant of the interval; for after the day of judgement is passed, and the books shut, and the sentence pronounced, none can be saved that are not then acquitted, unless origen's opinion of the salvation of Devils and damned souls be reintroduced. which the Church before Otho many ages had exploded, and therefore so good and great a person would not have thought that fit to be then disputed: and it was not then a Question, nor a thing Undetermined in the Church. 4. Whether Otho means it of a Purgatory before or after the day of the last judgement, it makes very much against the present Roman doctrine; for Otho applies the Question to the case of infants dying without Baptism; now if their Purgatory be before the day of judgement, than I quoted Otho according to my own sense and his; but if he means it to be after the day of judgement, than the limbus infantum of the Roman Church is vanished. (for the scruple was moved about infants) Quid de parvulis qui solo Originali delicto tenentur fiet? and there is none such till after doom's day; so that let it be as it will, the Roman Church is a loser, and therefore let them take their choice on which side they will fall.  
But now after S. Augustine's time; especially in the time of S. Gregory, and since, there were many strange stories told of souls appearing after death, and telling strange things of their torments below; many of which being gathered together by the speculum exemplorum, the legend of Lombardy and others, some of them were noted by the Dissuasive to this purpose to show, that in the time when these stories were told, the fire of Purgatory did not burn clear; but they found Purgatory in baths, in Eves of houses, in frosts and cold rains, upon spits roasting like Pigs or Geese, upon pieces of Ice. Now to this there is nothing said; but that in the place quoted in the speculum there is no such thing: which saying as it was spoken invidiously, so it was to no purpose; for if the objector ever hath read the distinction which is quoted, throughout; he should have found the whole story at large. It is the 31. example page 205. Col. 1. printed at Douai 1603. And the same words are exactly in an Ancienter edition printed at the Imperial Town of Hagenaw 1519. Impensis Johannis Rynman. But these Gentlemen care not for the force of any argument, if they can any way put it off from being believed upon any foolish pretence.  
But then as to the thing itself, 
Post hoc apparuit eidem presbytero columna quaedam jubaris immensi, cujus claritas ultra communem solis valentiam, coruscare videbatur, de coel● usque ad terram porrecta, per quam anima quaedam Angelico ductu ad sydera contendebat. Sciscitante verò presbytero, quidnam hoc esset Respondit alter, ipsa est anima Constantini quondam Judicius & domini Turritani, haec autem per novem annos ventis & pluviis & algoribus semper exposita à die exitus sui usque nunc in stillicidi● domus suae constitit, ibique suorum excessuum poenas luit, sed qui misericors & liberalis in pauperes extitit, & judicium injuria● patientibus fecit, in super etiam de malis quae commisit confessa & poenitens à corpore exivit, idcircò misericordiam à Deo consecuta, hodiernâ die meretur ab omnibus malis liberari, etc. Haec & multa alia sacerdos ille vidit & audivit de secretis alterius vitae.  though learned men deny the Dialogues of S. Gregory, from whence many of the like stories are derived, to be his, as Possevine confesses, and Melchior Canus though a little timorously affirms; yet I am willing to admit them for his, but yet I cannot but note; that those Dialogues have in them many foolish, ridiculous and improbable stories, but yet they and their like are made a great ground of Purgatory; but then the right also may be done to S. Gregory, his doctrine of Purgatory cannot consist with the present article of the Church of Rome, so fond they are in the alleging of authorities; that they destroy their own hypothesis by their undiscerning quotations. For 1. S. Gregory P. affirms that which is perfectly inconsistent with the whole doctrine of Purgatory. 
S. Greg. M. lib. 13. in. Jobum. c. 15. c: 17.  For he says, That it is a fruit of our redemption by the grace of [Christ] our author, that when we are drawn from our dwelling in the body, Mox, forthwith we are lead to celestial rewards; and a little after speaking of those words of Job, 
Cum constat quod apud inferos justi non in locupoenalibus, sed in superiori quietis sinu tenerentur, magna nobis o●oritur questio quidnam sit quod B. Job. asserit.  In profundissimum infernum descendunt omnia mea] he says thus [Since it is certain that in the lower region the just are not in penal places, but are held in the superior bosom of rest, a great question arises, what is the meaning of Blessed Job.] If Purgatory can stand with this hypothesis of S. Gregory, than fire and water can be reconciled. This is the doctrine of S. Gregory in his own works: for whether the Dialogues under his name be his or no, I shall not dispute; but if I were studying to do honour to his memory, I should never admit them to be his, and so much the rather because the doctrine of the Dialogues contradicts the Doctrine of his Commentaries, and yet even the Purgatory which is in the Dialogues is unlike that which was declared at Basil; 
Lib. 4. Dialog. c. 39  for the Gregorian Purgatory supposed only an expiation of small and light faults, as immoderate laughter, impertinent talking, 
Cap. 46.  which nevertheless he himself says are expiable by fear of death; 
In summa sacram.  and Victoria, and Jacobus de Graffis say, are to be taken away by beating the breast, holy water, 
Eccles. n. 110.  the Bishops blessing; 
Decis. cas. conf●ient. part 1. lib. 1. c. 6. n 10.  and S. Austin says they are to be taken off by daily saying the Lords prayer; and therefore being so easily, so readily, so many ways to be purged here, it will not be worth establishing a Purgatory for such alone, but he admits not of any remaining punishment due to greater sins forgiven by the blood of Christ. But concerning S. Gregory I shall say no more, but refer the Reader to the Apology of the Greeks, who affirm that S. Gregory admitted a kind of Purgatory, but whether allegorically or no, or thinking so really, they know not; but what he said was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and by way of dispensation, and as it were constrained to it, by the arguments of those who would have all sins expiable after death, against whom he could not so likely prevail, if he had said that none was; and therefore he thought himself forced to go a middle way, and admit a Purgatory only for little or venial sins, which yet will do no advantage to the Church of Rome. And besides all this, S. Gregory or whoever is the Author of these Dialogues hath nothing definite, or determined, concerning the time, manner, measure or place; so wholly new was this doctrine then, that it had not gotten any shape or feature.  
Next I am to account concerning the Greeks, whom I affirm always to have differed from the Latins, since they had forged this new doctrine of Purgatory in the Roman laboratories: 
The letter pag. 14.  and to prove something of this, I affirmed that in the Council of Basil they published an Apology directly disapproving the doctrine of Purgatory.] Against this, up starts a man fierce and angry, and says there was no such Apology published in the Council of Basil, for he had examined it all over, and can find no such Apology. I am sorry for the Gentleman's loss of his labour, but if he had taken me along with him, I could have helped the learned man. This Apology was written by Marcus Metropolitan of Ephesus as Sixtus Senensis confesses, 
Biblioth. lib. 6.  and that he offered it to the Council of Basil. 
Annot. 259.  That it was given and read to the deputies of the Council, 
Lib. 2. p. 186.  June 14. 1438. is attested by Cusanus, and Martinus Crusius in his Turco-Graecia. But it is no wonder if this over-learned author of the letter missed this Apology in his search of the Council of Basil, for this is not the only material thing that is missing in the editions of the Council of Basil; for Linwood that great and excellent English Canonist made an appeal in that Council, and prosecuted it with effect in behalf of King Henry of England, Cum in temporalibus non recognoscat superiorem in terris, etc. But nothing of this now appears, though it was then registered, but it is no new thing to forge or to suppress acts of Councils: But besides this, I did not suppose he would have been so indiscreet as to have looked for that Apology in the editions of the Council of Basil, but it was delivered to the Council by the Greeks, and the Council was wise enough not to keep that upon public record; however if the Gentleman please to see it, he may have it among the Booksellers, if he will please to ask for the Apologia Graecorum de igne purgatorio published by Salmasius; it was supposed to be made by Marc Archbishop, 
P. 93.  but for saving the Gentleman's charge or trouble, I shall tell him a few words out of that Apology which will serve his turn, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. For these reasons the doctrine of a Purgatory fire is to be cast out of the Church, as that which slackens the endeavours of the diligent, as persuading them not to use all means of contention to be purged in this life, since another purgation is expected after it. And it is infinitely to be wondered at the confidence of Bellarmine (for as for this objector, 
De purgat●rio lib. 1. c. 15. Sect.  it matters not so much) that he should in the face of all the world say, 
Ad secundum dico.  that the Greek Church never doubted of Purgatory: whereas he hath not brought one single, true and pertinent testimony out of the Greek Fathers for the Roman doctrine of Purgatory, but is forced to bring in that crude allegation of their words for prayer for the dead, which is to no purpose, as all wise men know; Indeed he quotes the Koran▪ for Purgatory, 
Bellar. lib. 1. c. 11. Sect. de Mahumetanis.  an authentic author (it seems) to serve such an end. But besides this, two memorable persons of the Greek Church, Nilus' Archbishop of Thessalonica, and Marc Archbishop of Ephesus, have in behalf of the Greek Church written against the Roman doctrine in this particular. And it is remarkable that the Latins were and are so put to it to prove Purgatory fire from the Greek Fathers, that they have forged a citation from Theodoret, 
* In 1 Cor. 3.  which is not in him at all, but was first cited in Latin by Tho. Aquinas either out of his own head, or cozened by some body else; And quoted so by Bellarmine 
* Lib. 1. de purgat. c. 5. Sect. ex Graecis , which to wise men cannot but be a very great argument of the weakness of the Roman cause in this Question from the Greek Fathers, and that Bellarmine saw it, but yet was resolved to run through it and outface it; but Nilus taking notice of it, says that there are no such words in Theodoret in the many copies of his works which they had. In Greek it is certain they are not, and Gagneius first translated them into Greek to make the cheat more prevalent, but in that translation makes use of those words of the wisdom of Solomon, 
Sap. 3. v. 6.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as gold in the furnace (meaning it of the affliction of the righteous in this world) but unluckily he made use of that Chapter: In the first verse of which chapter, it is said, The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God, and no torment shall touch them, which is a testimony more pregnant against the Roman Purgatory, than all that they can bring from the Greek Fathers for it. And this Gentleman confutes the Dissuasive, as he thinks, by telling the story according as his own Church hath set it down, who as with subtle and potent arts they forced the Greeks to a seeming Union, so they would be sure not to tell the world in their own records how unhandsomely they carried themselves. But besides this, the very answer which the Archbishop of Ephesus gave to the Latins in that Council (and which words the objector here sets down and confesses) are a plain confutation of himself, for the Latins standing for a Purgatory fire, temporary; the Archbishop of Ephesus denies it, saying, That the Italians, confess a fire, both in the present world and purgatory by it (that is, before the day of Judgement) and in the world to come, but not Purgatory but Eternal; But the Greeks hold a fire in the world to come only, (meaning Eternal) and a temporary punishment of souls, that is, that they go into a dark place, and of grief, but that they are purged, that is, delivered from the dark place, by Priests prayers and sacrifices, and by alms, but not by fire.] Then they fell on disputing about Purgatory fire, to which the Greeks delayed to answer: And afterwards being pressed to answer, they refused to say any thing about Purgatory, and when they at the upshot of all were utcunque United, Joseph the Patriarch of C. P. made a most pitiful confession of Purgatory in such general and crafty terms, as sufficiently showed, that as the Greeks were forced to do something, so the Latins were content with any thing, for by those terms, the Question between them was no way determined, Romae veteris Papam Domini nostri Jesu Christi vicarium esse concedere, atque animarum purgationem esse non in●icior. He denied not that there is a Purgatory. No, for the Greeks confessed it, in this world before death, and some of them acknowledged a dark place of sorrow after this life, but neither fire nor Purgatory; for the purgation was made in this world, and after this world by the prayers of the Priests, and the alms of their friends, the purgation was made, not by fire, as I cited the words before. The Latins told them there should be no Union without it; The Greek Emperor refused, and all this the objector is pleased to acknowledge; but after a very great bustle made, and they were forced to patch up a Union, hope to get assistance of the Latins: But in this also they were cozened, and having lost C. P. many of the Greeks attributed that fatal loss to their dissembling Union made at Florence; and on the other side the Latins imputed it to their opinion of the procession of the Holy Ghost: however, the Greek Churches never admitted that union as is averred by Laonicus Chalcondylas, de rebus Turcicis. lib. 1. non longe ab initio. And it is a strange thing that this affair, of which all Europe was witness, should with so little modesty be shuffled up, and the Dissuasive accused for saying that which themselves acknowledge. But see what some of themselves say, Unus est ex notissimis Graecorum & Armenorum erroribus quo docent nullum esse purgatorium, quo animae ex hac luce migrantes purgentur sordibus quas in hoc corpore contraxerunt, 
Lib. 12. tit purgatorium.  saith Alphonsus a Castro. It is one of the most known errors of the Greeks and Armenians that they teach there is no Purgatory: And Aquinas writing contra Graecorum errores labours to prove Purgatory: 
See Binius tom. 4. Concil.  And Archbishop Antoninus who was present at the Council of Florence, after he had rejected the Epistle of Eugenius, adds, Errabant Graeci purgatorium negantes quod est haereticum, Add to these the testimony of Roffensis and Polydore Virgil before quoted, 
Art. 18. contr. Luther.  Usque ad hunc diem Graecis non est creditum purgatorium: and Gregory de Valentia. 
* Disp. 11. Qu. 1. punctum. 1. Sect. 5.  saith, Express autem purgatorium negarunt Waldenses haeretici, 
* De locis animarum post mortem.  ut refert Guido Carmelita in summa de haeresi: Item schismatici Graeci recentiores, ut ex concilio Florentino apparet. And Alphonsus a Castro 
* Lib. 8. adv. haeres. tit. Indulgentiae.  saith, Unto this very day, Purgatory is not believed by the Greeks. And no less can be imagined, since their prime and most learned Prelate, besides what he did in the Council, did also after the Council publish an Encyclical Epistle against the definition of the Council, as may be seen in Binius his narrative of the Council of Florence: By all which appears how notoriously scandalous is the imputation of falsehood laid upon the Dissuasive by this objector; who by this time is warm with writing, and grows uncivil, being like a baited Bull, beaten into choler with his own tail, and angered by his own objections.  
But the next charge is higher; it was not only doubted of in S. Augustine's time, and since; but the Roman doctrine of Purgatory without any haesitation or doubting is against the express doctrines delivered by divers of the Ancient Fathers; and to this purpose some were remarked in the Dissuasive, which I shall now verify and add others very plain and very considerable.  
S. Cyrian exhorts Demetrianus to turn to Christ while this world lasts, 
Ad Demetrian.  saying, 
Sect. 16. & Sect. 22.  that after we are dead there is no place of repentance, no place of satisfaction.] To this the letter 
* Pag. 17.  answers; It is not said when we are dead, but when you are dead, meaning that this is spoken to heathens, not to Christians. As if quando istinc excessum fuerit, being spoken impersonally, does not mean indefinitely all the world, and certainly it may as well one as the other, Christians as well as Heathens, for Christians may be in the state of deadly sin, and aversion from God as well as Heathens, and then this admonition and reason fits them as well as the other. E. W 
Pag. 32. . answers, that S. Cyprian means that after death there is no meritorious satisfaction; he says true indeed, there is none that is meritorious, neither before nor after death, but this will not serve his turn, for S. Cyptrian says, that after death there is none at all; no place of satisfaction] of any kind whatsoever, no place of wholesome repentance. And therefore it is vain to say that this Council was only given to Demetrianus, who was a Heathen; for if he had been a Christian, he would or at least might have used the same argument, not to put any part of his duty off upon confidence of any thing to be done or suffered after this life. For his argument is this, this is the time of repentance, after death it is not; now you may satisfy (that is, appease) the Divine anger, after this life is ended, nothing of this can be done. For S. Cyrian does not speak this dispensative, 
Donec aevi temporalis fine completo ad aeternae vel mortis vel immortalitatis hospitia dividamur. Ibid.  or by relation to this particular case, but assertive, he affirms expressly speaking to the same Demetrian; [that when this life is finished we are divided, either to the dwellings of death or of immortality. And that we may see this is not spoken of impenitent pagans only, 
Sect. 16.  as the letter to a friend dreams, S. Cyprian renews the same caution and advice to the lapsed Christians: 
Serm. de lapsis.  [O ye my Brethren let every one confess his sin, 
Confiteantur singuli vos fratres delictum suum, dum adhuc qui deliquit i● saeculo est, dum admit●i confessio ejus potest, dum satisfactio, & remissio facta per sacerdotes apud Dominum grata est.  while he that hath sinned is yet in this world, while his confession can be admitted, while satisfaction and pardon made by the Priests is grateful with God.] If there had been any thought of the Roman Purgatory in S. Cyprians time, he could not in better words have impugned it, than here he does. All that have sinned must here look to it, here they must confess, here beg pardon, here make amends and satisfy, afterwards neither one nor the other shall be admitted. Now if to Christians also there is granted no leave to repent, no means to satisfy, no means of pardon after this life, these words are so various and comprehensive that they include all cases; and it is plain S. Cyprian speaks it indefinitely, there is no place of repentance, no place of satisfaction; none at all, neither to Heathens nor to Christians. But now let these words be set against the Roman doctrine, viz. that there is a place called Purgatory, in which the souls tormented do satisfy, and come not out thence till they have paid, (viz. by sufferings, or by suffrages) the utmost farthing, and then see which we will follow: for they differ in all the points of the Compass. And these men do nothing but betray the weakness of their cause by expounding S. Cyprian to the ●ense of new distinctions, made but yesterday in the forges of the Schools. And indeed the whole affair upon which the answer of Bellarmine relies, which these men have translated to their own use, is unreasonable. For is it a likely business, that when men have committed great crimes they shall be pardoned here by confession, and the ministeries of the Church, etc. and yet that the venial sins though confessed in the general, and as well as they can be, and the party absolved, yet there should be prepared for their expiation the intolerable torments of hell fire for a very long time; and that for the greater sins, for which men have agreed with their adversary in the way, and the Adversary hath forgiven them, yet that for these also they should be cast into prison, from whence they shall not come till the utmost farthing be paid; that's against the design of our Blessed Saviour's Counsel, for if that be the case, then though we and our adversaries are agreed upon the main, and the debt forgiven, yet nevertheless we may be delivered to the tormentors. But then concerning the sense of S. Cyprian in this particular, no man can doubt that shall have but read his excellent treatise of mortality: that he could not, did not admit of Purgatory after death before the day of judgement, for he often said it in that excellent treatise which he made to comfort and strengthen Christians against the fear of death; that immediately after death we go to God or the Devil: and therefore it is for him only to fear to die, who is not willing to go to Christ, and he only is to be unwilling to go to Christ who believes not that he gins to reign with Christ] That we in the mean time die, we pass over by death to immortality. It is not a going forth, but a pass over, and when our temporal course is run, a going over to immortality. ● Let us embrace that day, which assigns every one of us to our dwelling, and restores those which are snatched from hence, and are disintangled from the snares of the world to Paradise, and the Heavenly kingdom.] There are here many other things so plainly spoken to this purpose, that I wonder any Papist should read that treatise, and not be cured of his infirmity.  
To the same purpose is that of S. Dionys, 
S. Dionys.  calling death the end of holy agonies;] and therefore it is to be supposed they have no more agonies to run through immediately after death. To this E. W. answers; that S. Denis means, 
Pag. 32.  that death is the end of all the agonies of this life. A goodly note! and never revealed till then and now; as if this were a good argument to encourage men to contend bravely, and not to fear death, because when they are once dead, they shall no more be troubled with the troubles of this life; indeed you may go to worse, and death may let you into a state of being as bad as hell, and of greater torments than all the pains of this world put together amount to.] But to let alone such ridiculous subterfuges, see the words of S. Dionys, [They that live a holy life, looking to the true promises of God, as if they were to behold the truth itself in that resurrection which is according to it, with firm and true hope, and in a Divine joy come to the sleep of death, as to an end of all holy contentions;] now certainly if the doctrine of Purgatory were true, and that they who had contended here, and for all their troubles in this world were yet in a tolerable condition, should be told, that now they shall go to worse, he that should tell them so would be but one of Jobs comforters. No, the servant of God [coming to the end of his own troubles (viz. by death) is filled with holy gladness, and with much rejoicing ascends to the way of Divine regeneration, ● viz. to immortality] which word can hardly mean, that they shall be tormented a great while in hell fire.  
The words of Justin Martyr, 
Justin Martyr resp. ad Quest. 75.  or whoever is the Author of those Questions & Answers imputed to him, affirms that presently after the departure of the soul from the body, a distinction is made between the just and unjust, for they are brought by Angels to places worthy of them; the souls of the just to Paradise, where they have the conversation and sight of Angels and Archangels, but the souls of the unrighteous to the places in Hades, ● the invisible region or Hell. ● Against these words because they pinch severely, 
Pag▪ 33.  E. W. thinks himself bound to say something; and therefore 1. whereas Justin Martyr says, after our departure presently there is a separation made, he answers, that Justin Martyr means here to speak of the two final states after the day of judgement, for so it seems he understands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or presently after death, to mean the day of judgement; of the time of which neither men nor Angels know any thing. And whereas Justin Martyr says, that presently the souls of the righteous go to Paradise, 
Pag. 33.  E. W. answers: 2. That Justin does not say that all just souls are carried presently into Heaven; no, Justin says, into Paradise, true, but let it be remembered that it is so a part of Heaven, as limbus infantum is by themselves called a part of hell; that is, a place of bliss; the region of the blessed. But 3. Justin says that presently there is a separation made, but he says not that the souls of the righteous are carried to Paradise.] That's the next answer, which the very words of Justin do contradict. There is presently a separation made of the just and unjust, for they are by the Angels carried to the places they have deserved. This is the separation which is made, one is carried to Paradise, the other to a place in hell. But these being such pitiful offers at answering, the Gentleman tries another way, and says, 4. That this affirmative of Justin contradicts another saying of Justin, which I cited out of Sixtus Senensis, that justin Martyr and many other of the Fathers, affirmed that the souls of men are kept in secret receptacles, reserved unto the sentence of the great day; and that before then no man receives according to his works done in this life. To this I answer, that one opinion does not contradict another; for though the Fathers believed that they who die in the Lord rest from their labours, and are in blessed places, and have antepasts of joy and comforts, yet in those places they are reserved unto the judgement of the great day: The intermedial joy or sorrow respectively of the just and unjust does but antedate the final sentence; and as the comforts of God's spirit in this life are indeed graces of God and rewards of piety, as the torments of an evil conscience are the wages of impiety, yet as these do not hinder, but that the great reward is given at doomsday and not before, so neither do the joys which the righteous have in the interval. They can both consist together, and are generally affirmed by very many of the Greek and Latin Fathers. 
E. W. pag. 36.  And methinks this Gentleman might have learned from Sixtus Senensis how to have reconciled these two opinions; for he quotes him, saying there is a double beatitude, the one imperfect of soul only, the other consummate and perfect of soul and body. The first the Fathers called by several names of Sinus Abrahae, Atrium Dei, sub Altar, etc. The other, perfect joy, the glory of the resurrection, etc. But it matters not what is said, or how it be contradicted, so it seem but to serve a present turn. But at last, if nothing of this will do, these words are not the words of justin, for he is not the Author of the Questions and Answers ad orthodoxos. To which I answer, it matters not whether they be justins or no: But they are put together in the collection of his works, and they are generally called his, and cited under his name, and made use of by Bellarmine 
* Lib. de baptis. c. 25. & 26. lib. de confirmat▪ c. 5 l. 3. de Euchar. c. 6. , when he supposes them to be to his purpose. However the Author is Ancient and Orthodox, and so esteemed in the Church, and in this particular speaks according to the doctrine of the more Ancient Doctors; well! but how is this against Purgatory? says E. W. 
P. 36. line 29.  for they may be in secret receptacles after they have been in Purgatory. To this I answer, that he dares not teach that for doctrine in the Church of Rome, who believes that the souls delivered out of Purgatory go immediately to the heaven of the Blessed, and therefore if his book had been worth the perusing by the Censors of books, he might have been questioned, and followed Mr. Whites fortune. And he adds, it might be afterwards according to origen's opinion; that is, Purgatory might be after the day of judgement, for so Origen held, that all the fires are Purgatory, and the Devils themselves should be saved. Thus this poor Gentleman thinking it necessary to answer one argument against Purgatory brought in the dissuasive, cares not to answer by a condemned heresy, rather than reason shall be taught by any son of the Church of England. But however, the very words of the Fathers cross his slippery answers so, that they thrust him into a corner; for in these receptacles the godly have joy, and they enter into them as soon as they die, and abide there till the day of judgement.  
S. Ambrose is so full, 
De bono mortis cap. 4.  pertinent and material to the Question in hand, and so destructive of the Roman hypothesis, that nothing can be said against it. His words are these, [therefore in all regards death is good because it divides those that were always fight, that they may not impugn each other, and because it is a certain port to them, who being tossed in the sea of this world require the station of faithful rest; and because it makes not our state worse, but such as it finds every one, such it reserves him to the future judgement, and nourishes him with rest, and withdraws him from the envy of present things, and composes him with the expectation of future things.] E. W. 
Pag. 34.  thinking himself bound to say something to these words; answers, It is an excellent saying, for worse he is not, but infinitely better, that quit off the occasions of living here, is ascertained of future bliss hereafter, which is the whole drift of the Saint in that Chapter: Read it, and say afterwards if I say not true.] It is well put off. But there are very many that read him, who never will or can examine what S. Ambrose says, and withal such he hopes▪ to escape. But as to the thing: That death gives a man advantage, and by its own fault no disadvantage is indeed not only the whole drift of that Chapter, but of that whole book. But not for that reason only is a man the better for death, but because it makes him not worse in order to Eternity; nay, it does not alter him at all as to that, for as death finds him, so shall the judgement find him (and therefore not purified by Purgatory) for such he is reserved; and not only thus, but it cherishes him with rest, which would be very ill done if death carried him to Purgatory. Now all these last words and many others, E. W. is pleased to take no notice of, as not being for his purpose. But he that pleases to see more, may read the 12. and 18. Chapters of the same Treatise.  
S. gregory's saying, 
S. Greg. Nazianz. orat. 15. in plagam grandi●is. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that after this life there is no purgation, can no way be put off by any pretences. For he means it of the time after death before the day of judgement, which is directly opposed to the doctrine of the Church of Rome; and unless you will suppose that S. Gregory believed two Purgatories, it is certain he did not believe the Roman; for he taught that the purgation which he calls Baptism by fire, and the saving, yet so as by fire, was to be performed at the day of judgement: and the curiosity of that trial is the fierceness of that fire, as Nicetas expounds S. Gregory's words in his oration in sancta lumina. So that S. Gregory affirming that this world is the place of purgation, and that after this world there is no purgation, could not have spoken any thing more direct against the Roman Purgatory.  
S. Hilary, 
In Psalm.  and S. Macarius speak of two states after death, and no more. True says E. W. but they are the two final states. That is true too, in some sense, for it is either of eternal good, or evil; but to one of these states they are consigned and determined at the time of their death, at which time every one is sent either to the bosom of Abraham, or to a place of pain, where they are reserved to the sentence of the great day. S. hilary's words are these [There is no stay or delaying. For the day of judgement is either an eternal retribution of beatitude or of pain: But the time of our death hath every one in his laws whiles either Abraham (viz. the bosom of Abraham) or pain reserves every one unto the Judgement.] These words need no Commentary. He that can reconcile these to the Roman Purgatory, 
Homil. 22. vide etiam homil. 26.  will be a most mighty man in controversy. And so also are the words of S. Macarius, when they go out of the body, the quires of Angels receive their souls, and carry them to their proper place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a pure world, and so lead them to the lord] Such words as these are often repeated by the Holy Fathers, and Doctors of the Ancient Church; I sum them up with the saying of S. Athanasius, 
De Virgin:  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. It is not death that happens to the righteous, but a translation: For they are translated out of this world into everlasting rest. And as a man would go out of prison, so do the Saints go out of this troublesome life, unto those good things which are prepared for them.] Now let these and all the precedent words be confronted against the sad complaints made for the souls in Purgatory by Joh. Gerson, in his querela defunctorum, and Sr. Tho. More in his supplication of souls, and it will be found that the doctrine of the Fathers differs from the doctrine of the Church of Rome as much as heaven and hell, rest and labour, horrid torments and great joy. I conclude this matter of quotations by the saying of Pope Leo, 
Letter p. 18.  which one of my adversaries could not find, because the printer was mistaken; It is the 91. Epistle, so known, and so used by the Roman writers in the Qu. of Confession, that if he be a man of learning it cannot be supposed, but he knew where to find them. The words are these But if any of them, for whom we pray unto the Lord being intercepted by any obstacle, falls from the benefit of the present Indulgences, and before he comes to the constituted remedies shall end his temporal life by humane condition (or frailty) that which abiding in the body he hath not received, being out of the flesh he cannot. Now against these words of S. Leo, set the present doctrine of the Church of Rome; [that what is not finished of penances here, a man may pay in Purgatory] and let the world judge whether S. Leo was in this point a Roman Catholic. Indeed S. Leo forgot to make use of the late distinction of sins venial and mortal, of the punishment of mortal sins remaining after the fault is taken away; but I hope the Roman Doctors will excuse the Saint, because the distinction is but new and modern. But this Testimony of S. Gregory must not go for a single Testimony: That, which abiding in the body could not be received, out of the body cannot; that is, when the soul is gone out of the body, as death finds them, so shall the day of judgement find them. And this was the sense of the whole Church; for after death there is no change of state before the General Trial: no passing from pain to rest in the state of separation, and therefore either there are no Purgatory pains, or if there be, there is no ease of them before the day of judgement; and the Prayers and Masses of the Church cannot give remedy to one poor soul; and this must of necessity be confessed by the Roman Doctors, or else they must show that ever any one Catholic Father did teach, that after death, and before the day of Judgement, any souls are translated into a state of bliss out of a state of pain: that is, that from Purgatory they go to heaven before the day of Judgement. He that can show this, will teach me what I have not yet learned, but he that cannot show it, must not pretend that the Roman doctrine of Purgatory was ever known to the Ancient Fathers of the Church.   

SECTION III.  
Of Transubstantiation.  
THE purpose of the Dissuasive was to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be new, neither Catholic nor Apostolic. In order to which I thought nothing more likely to persuade or dissuade, than the testimonies of the parties against themselves. And although I have many other inducements (as will appear in the sequel;) yet by so earnestly contending to invalidate the truth of the quotations, the Adversaries do confess by implication, if these say be as is pretended, than I have evinced my main point, viz. that the Roman doctrines, as differing from us, are novelties, and no parts of the Catholic faith.  
Thus therefore the Author of the letter gins. He quotes Scotus, 
P. 18.  as declaring the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible; which he saith not. To the same purpose he quotes Ocham, but I can find no such thing in him. To the same purpose he quotes Roffensis but he hath no such thing.] But in order to the verification of what I said, I desire it be first observed what I did say, for I did not deliver it so crudely as this Gentleman sets it down: For 1. These words [the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible] are not the words of all them before named, they are the sense of them all, but the words but of one or two of them. 2. When I say that some of the Roman Writers say that Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Scripture, I mean, and so I said plainly, [as without the Church's declaration to compel us to admit of it.] Now then for the quotations themselves, I hope I shall give a fair account. 1. The words quoted, 
Lect. 40. in Can. Missae.  are the words of Biel, when he had first affirmed that Christ's body is contained truly under the bread, and that it is taken by the faithful (all which we believe and teach in the Church of England) he adds; Tamen quomodo ibi sit Christi corpus, an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum (that is, the way of Transubstantiation) an sine conversione incipiat esse Corpus Christi cum pane, manentibus substantia & accidentibus panis non invenitur expressum in Canone Biblii: and that's the way of Consubstantiation; so that here is expressly taught what I affirmed was taught, that the Scriptures did not express the doctrine of Transubstantiation; and he adds, that concerning this, there were Anciently divers opinions. Thus far the quotation is right: But of this man there is no notice taken. But what of Scotus? He saith no such thing; well suppose that, yet I hope this Gentleman will excuse me for Bellarmine's sake, who says the same thing of Scotus as I do, and he might have found it in the Margin against the quotation of Scotus if he had pleased. 
Lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 23.  His words are these [Secondly he saith (viz. 
Sect. Secundò dicit.  Scotus) that there is not extant any place of Scripture so express, without the declaration of the Church, that it can compel us to admit of Transubstantiation: And this is not altogether improbable: For though the Scriptures which we brought above seem so clear to us, that it may compel a man that is not wilful, yet whether it be so or no, it may worthily be doubted, since most learned and acute men (such as Scotus eminently was) believe the contrary.] Well! But the Gentleman can find no such thing in Ocham: I hope he did not look far, for OCham is not the man I mean; however the printer might have mistaken, but it is easily pardonable, because from O. Cam. meaning Odo Cameracensis, it was easy for the printer or transcriber to write Ocam, as being of more public name; But the Bishop of Cambray is the man, that followed Scotus in this opinion, 
Vbi suprae.  and is acknowledged by Bellarmine to have said the same that Scotus did, he being one of his docti & acutissimi viri there mentioned. 
Contra. Captiv.  Now if Roffensis have the same thing too, 
Babyl. c. 1.  this Author of the letter will have cause enough to be a little ashamed: And for this, I shall bring his words, speaking of the whole institution of the Blessed Sacrament by our Blessed Saviour, he says, [Neque ullum hic verbum positum est quo probetur in nostra Missa veram fieri carnis & sanguinis Christi praesentiam. I suppose I need to say no more to verify these citations, but yet I have another very good witness to prove that I have said true; and that is Salmeron who says that Scotus out of Innocentius reckons three opinions] not of heretics, 
Tom. 9 tract. 16. p. 108. p. ●10.  but of such men who all agreed in that which is the main; but he adds, [Some men and writers believe that this article cannot be proved against a heretic, by Scripture alone, or reasons alone. 
Lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 34.  And so Cajetan is affirmed by Suarez and Alanus to have said; and Melchior Canus; perpetuam Mariae virginitatem— conversionem panis & vini in corpus & sanguinem Christi— non ita expressa in libris Canonicis invenies, 
Page 37. vide Letter. p. 18.  sed adeo tamen certa in fide sunt ut contrariorum dogmatum authores Ecclesia haereticos judicarit. So that the Scripture is given up for no sure friend in this Q. the article wholly relies upon the authority of the Church, viz. of Rome, who makes faith, and makes heresies as she please. But to the same purpose is that also which Chedzy said in his disputation at Oxford; In what manner Christ is there, whether with the bread Transelemented or Transubstantiation the Scripture in open words, tells not.]  
But I am not likely so to escape, 
Pag. 38.  for E. W. 
See also the letter to a friend, p. 19  talks of a famous or rather infamous quotation out of Peter Lombard, and adds foul and uncivil words, which I pass by: but the thing is this; that I said, Petrus Lombardus could not tell whether there was a substantial change or no. I did say so, and I brought the very words of Lombard to prove it, and these very words E. W. himself acknowledges. Si autem quaeritur qualis fit ista conversio, an formalis an substantialis, vel alterius generis, definire non sufficio: [I am not able to define or determine whether that change be formal or substantial:] So far E. W. quotes him, but leaves out one thing very material, viz. whether besides formal, or substantial, it be of another kind. Now E. W. not being able to deny that Lombard said this, takes a great deal of useless pains, not one word of all that he says being to the purpose, or able to make it probable that Peter Lombard did not say so, or that he did not think so. But the thing is this: Biel reckoned three opinions which in Lombard's time were in the Church; the first of Consubstantiation which was the way which long since then, Luther followed. The second that the substance of bread is made the flesh of Christ, but ceases not to be what it was. But this is not the doctrine of Transubstantiation for that makes a third opinion, which is that the substance of bread ceases to be, and nothing remains but the accident. Quartam opinionem addit Magister, that is, Peter Lombard adds a fourth opinion; that the substance of bread is not converted, but is annihilated: this is made by Scotus to be the second opinion] Now of these four opinions, all which were then permitted and disputed; 
Vbi supra.  Peter Lombard seems to follow the second; but if this was his opinion it was no more, for he could not determine whether that were the truth or no. But whether he does or not truly, I think it is very hard for any man to tell; for this question was but in the forge, not polished, not made bright with long handling. And this was all that I affirmed out of the Master of Sentences, I told of no opinion of his at all, but that in his time they did not know whether it (viz. the doctrine of Transubstantiation) were true or no, that is, the generality of the Roman Catholics did not know: and he himself could not define it. And this appears unanswerably by Peter Lombard's bringing their several sentiments in this article: and they that differ in their judgements about an article, and yet esteem the others Catholic, may think what they please, but they cannot tell certainly what is truth. But then as for Peter Lombard himself, all that I said of him was this, that he could not tell, he could not determine whether there was any substantial change or no. If in his after discourse he declares that the change is of substances, he told it for no other than as a mere opinion: if he did, let him answer for that, not I; for that he could not determine it, himself expressly said it, in the beginning of the eleventh distinction. And therefore these Gentlemen would better have consulted with truth and modesty, if they had let this alone, and not have made such an outcry against a manifest truth. Now let me observe one thing which will be of great use in this whole affair, and demonstrate the change of this doctrine. These three opinions were all held by Catholics, 
Innocent. de offic. Mis. part. 3. cap. 18.  and the opinions are recorded not only by Pope Innocentius 3. but in the gloss of the Canon Law itself. 
Cap. cum Martha in gloss. ●●trav. de celebr. miss.  For this opinion was not fixed and settled, nor as yet well understood, but still disputed (as we see in Lombard and Scotus:) And although they all agreed in this (as Salmeron observes of these three opinions, as he citys them out of Scotus) that the true body of Christ is there, because to deny this were against the faith; and therefore this was then enough to cause them to be esteemed Catholics, because they denied nothing which was then against the faith, but all agreed in that, yet now the case is otherwise; for whereas one of the opinions was, that the substance of bread remains, and another opinion, that the substance of bread is annihilated, but is not converted into the body of Christ; now both of these opinions are made heresy, and the contrary to them, which is the third opinion passed into an article of faith. 
Vbi supra.  Quod vero ibi substantia panis non remanet, jam etiam ut articulus fidei definitum est, & conversionis sive transubstantiationis nomen evictum. So Salmeron. Now in Peter Lombard's time; if they who believed Christ's real presence were good Catholics, though they believed no Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation, that is, did not descend into consideration of the manner, why may they not be so now? Is there any new revelation now of the manner? Or why, is the way to Heaven now made narrower than in Lombard's time? For the Church of England believes according to one of these opinions; and therefore is as good a Catholic Church as Rome was then, which had not determined the manner. Nay if we use to value an article the more, by how much the more Ancient it is, certainly it is more honourable that we should reform to the Ancient model, rather than conform to the new. However, this is also plainly consequent to this discourse of Salmeron; The abettors of those three opinions, some of them do deny something that is of faith, therefore the faith of the Church of Rome now is not the same it was in the days of Peter Lombard. Lastly, this also is to be remarked, that to prove any ancient Author to hold the doctrine of Transubstantiation, as it is at this day an article of faith at Rome, it is not enough to say, that Peter Lombard, or Durand, or Scotus, etc. did say that where bread was before, there is Christ's body now; for they may say that and more, and yet not come home to the present article; and therefore E. W. does argue weakly, when he denies Lombard to say one thing, [viz. that he could not define whether there was a substantial change or no, (which indeed he spoke plainly) because he brings him saying something as if he were resolved the change were substantial, which yet he speaks but obscurely. And the truth is, this question of Transubstantiation is so intricate and involved amongst them, seems so contrary to sense and reason, and does so much violence to all the powers of the soul, that it is no wonder, if at first the Doctors could not make any thing distinctly of it. However, whatever they did make of it, certain it is they more agreed with the present Church of England, than with the present Church of Rome; for we say as they said, Christ's body is truly there, and there is a conversion of the Elements into Christ's body, for what before the Consecration in all senses was bread, is after Consecration in some sense, Christ's body; but they did not all of them say, that the substance of bread was destroyed, and some of them denied the conversion of the bread into the flesh of Christ; which whosoever shall now do, will be esteemed no Roman Catholic. 
E. W. pag. 37.  And therefore it is a vain procedure to think they have proved their doctrine of Transubstantiation out of the Fathers also; if the Fathers tell us, [That bread is changed out of his nature into the body of Christ: that by holy invocation it is no more common bread: that as water in Cana of Galilee was changed into wine; so in the Evangelist, wine is changed into blood: That bread is only bread before the sacramental words, but after consecration is made the body of Christ] For though I very much doubt, all these things in equal and full measures cannot be proved out of the Fathers, yet suppose they were, yet all this comes not up to the Roman Article of Transubstantiation: All those words are true in a very good sense, and they are in that sense believed in the Church of England; but that the bread is no more bread in the natural sense, and that it is naturally nothing, but the natural body of Christ, that the substance of one is passed into the substance of the other, this is not affirmed by the Fathers, neither can it be inferred from the former propositions, if they had been truly alleged; and therefore all that is for nothing, and must be intended only to cousin and amuse the Reader that understands not all the wind of this labyrinth.  
In the next place, I am to give an account of what passed in the Lateran Council upon this article. For says E. W. 
Pag. 37.  the doctrine of Transubstantiation was ever believed in the Church, though more fully and explicitly declared in the Lateran Council. But in the Dissuasive it was said, 
Letter to a friend pag. 18.  that it was but pretended to be determined in that Council, where many things indeed came then in consultation, yet nothing could be openly decreed. Nothing, (says Platina) that is, says my Adversary, nothing concerning the holy land, and the aids to be raised for it: but for all this, there might be a decree concerning Transubstantiation. To this I reply, that it is as true that nothing was done in this question, as that nothing was done in the matter of the Holy War; for one was as much decreed as the other. For if we admit the acts of the Council, that of giving aid to the Holy Land was decreed in the 69. Canon, 
Ad liberandum terram sanctam de manibus impiorum. Extrav. de Judaeis & Saracenis. Cum sit.  alias 71. So that this answer is not true: But the truth is, neither the one nor the other was decreed in that Council. For that I may inform this Gentleman in a thing which possibly he never heard of; this Council of Lateran was never published, nor any acts of it till Cochlaeus published them A. D. 1538. For three years before this John Martin published the Councils, and then there was no such thing as the acts of the Lateran Council to be found. But you will say, how came Cochlaeus by them? 
Vide praefat. Later. Concil. secundum p. Crab.  To this the answer is easy: There were read in the Council sixty Chapters, which to some did seem easy, to others burdensome; but these were never approved, but the Council ended in scorn and mockery, and nothing was concluded, neither of faith nor manners, nor war, nor aid for the Holy Land, but only the Pope got money of the Prelates to give them leave to departed. But afterwards Pope Gregory IX. put these Chapters, or some of them into the Decretals; but doth not entitle any of these to the Council of Lateran, but only to Pope Innocent in the Council, which Cardinal Perron ignorantly, or wilfully mistaking, affirms the contrary. But so it is that Platina affirms of the Pope plurima decreta retulit, improbavit Joachimi libellum, damnavit errores Almerici. The Pope recited 60. heads of decrees in the Council, but no man says the Council decreed those heads. Now these heads Cochlaeus says he found in an old book in Germany. And it is no ways probable, that if the Council had decred those heads, that Gregory IX. who published his Uncle's decretal Epistles, which make up so great a part of the Canon Law, should omit to publish the decrees of this Council; or that there should be no acts of this great Council in the Vatican, and that there should be no publication of them till about 300. years after the Council, and that out of a blind corner, and an old unknown Manuscript. But the book shows its original, it was taken from the Decretals; for it contains just so many heads, viz. LXXII. and is not any thing of the Council in which only were recited L. X. heads, and they have the same beginnings and end, and the same notes and observations in the middle of the Chapters: which shows plainly they were a mere force of the Decretals. The consequent of all which is plainly this, that there was no decree made in the Council, but every thing was left unfinished, and the Council was affrighted by the warlike preparations of them of Genoa and Pisa, and all retired. Concerning which affair, the Reader that desires it may receive further satisfaction, if he read the Antiquitates Britannicae in the life of Stephen Langton out of the lesser History of Matthew Paris; 
Vide Matth. Paris, ad A. D. 1215. & Na●cteri generat. 41. ad eundem annum. Et Sabellicum Ennead. 9 lib. 6. & Godfridum Monachum ad A. D. 1215.  as also Sabellicus, and Godfride the Monk. But since it is become a question what was or was not determined in this Lateran Council, I am content to tell them that the same authority, whether of Pope or Council which made Transubstantiation an article of faith, made Rebellion and Treason to be a duty of Subjects; for in the same collection of Canons they are both decreed and warranted under the same signature, the one being the first Canon, and the other the third.  
The use I shall make of all is this; Scotus was observed above to say, that in Scripture there is nothing so express as to compel us to believe Transubstantiation, meaning, that without the decree and authority of the Church, the Scripture was of itself insufficient. And some others as Salmeron notes, 
Tract. 16. tom. 9 p. 110.  affirm, that Scripture and Reason are both insufficient to convince a heretic in this article; this is to be proved ex Conciliorum definitione, & Patrum traditione, etc. by the definition of Councils, and tradition of the Fathers, for it were easy to answer the places of Scripture which are cited, and the reasons. Now then, since Scripture alone is not thought sufficient, nor reasons alone, if the definitions of Councils also shall fail them, they will be strangely to seek for their new article. Now for this their only Castle of defence is the Lateran Council. Indeed Bellarmine produces the Roman Council under Pope Nicholas the second, in which Berengarius was forced to recant his error about the Sacrament, but he recanted it into a worse error, and such which the Church of Rome disavows at this day: And therefore ought not to pretend it as a patron of that doctrine which she approves not. And for the little Council under Greg. 7. it is just so a general Council, as the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church, or a particular is an Universal. But suppose it so for this once; yet this Council meddled not with the modus, viz. Transubstantiation, or the ceasing of its being bread, but of the Real Presence of Christ under the Elements, which is no part of our question. Berengarius denied it, but we do not, when it is rightly understood. Pope Nicholaus himself did not understand the new article; for it was not fitted for publication until the time of the Lateran Council, & how nothing of this was in that Council determined, I have already made appear: and therefore as Scotus said, the Scripture alone could not evict this article; so he also said in his argument made for the Doctors that held the first opinion mentioned before out of Innocentius: Nec invenitur ubi Ecclesia istam veritatem determinet solenniter. Neither is it found where the Church hath solemnly determined it. And for his own particular, though he was carried into captivity by the symbol of Pope Innocent 3. for which by that time was pretended the Lateran Council; 
Lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 23. Sect. Vnum tamen.  yet he himself said, that before that Council it was no article of faith: and for this thing Bellarmine reproves him, and imputes ignorance to him, saying, that it was because he had not read the Roman Council under Greg. 7. 
Scotus negat doctrinam de conversione & transubst. esse antiquam. Henriquez lib. 8. c. 23. in Marg. ad litter. h.  nor the consent of the Fathers. And to this purpose I quoted Henriquez, saying, that Scotus saith the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not ancient; the Author of the Letter denies that he saith any such thing of Scotus: But I desire him to look once more, and my Margin will better direct him.  
What the opinion of Durandus was in this Question, if these Gentlemen will not believe me, let them believe their own friends. But first let it be considered what I said, viz. that he maintained (viz. in disputation) that even after consecration the very matter of bread remained. 2. That by reason of the Authority of the Church, it is not to be held. 3. That nevertheless it is possible it should be so. 4. That it is no contradiction, that the matter of bread should remain, and yet it be Christ's body too. 5. That this were the easier way of solving the difficulties. That all this is true, I have no better argument than his own words, which are in his first question of the eleventh distinction in quartum numb. 11. & n. 15. For indeed the case was very hard with these learned men, who being pressed by authority, did by't the file, and submitted their doctrine, but kept their reason to themselves: and what some in the Council of Trent observed of Scotus, was true also of Durandus and divers other Schoolmen, with whom it was usual to deny things with a kind of courtesy. And therefore Durandus in the places cited, though he disputes well for his opinion, yet he says the contrary is modus tenendus de facto. But besides that his words are, as I understand them plain and clear to manifest his own hearty persuasion, yet I shall not desire to be believed upon my own account, for fear I be mistaken; but that I had reason to say it, 
Summa. l. 8. c. 23. p. 448. lit. C in Marg.  Henriquez shall be my warrant: Durandus dist. qu. 3. ait esse probabile sed absque assertione, etc. He saith it is probable, but without assertion, that in the Eucharist the same matter of bread remains without quantity. And a little after he adds out of Cajetan, Paludanus and Soto, that this opinion of Durandus is erroneous, but after the Council of Trent it seems to be heretical: And yet (he says) it was held by Aegidius, and Euthymius, who had the good luck it seems, to live and die before the Council of Trent, otherwise they had been in danger of the inquisition for heretical pravity. But I shall not trouble myself further in this particular; 
Lib. 3. de Euchar. cap. 13.  I am fully vindicated by Bellarmine himself, who spends a whole Chapter in the confutation of this error of Durandus, viz. that the matter of bread remains, he endeavours to answer his arguments, and gives this censure of him. Itaque sententia Durandi haeretica est; Therefore the sentence of Durandus is heretical, although he be not to be called a heretic, because he was ready to acquiesce in the judgement of the Church. So Bellarmine, who if he say true, that Durandus was ready to submit to the judgement of the Church, than he does not say true when he says the Church before his time had determined against him: but however, that I said true of him, when I imputed this opinion to him, Bellarmine is my witness. Thus you see I had reason for what I said, and by these instances it appears how hardly, and how long the doctrine of Transubstantiation was before it could be swallowed.  
But I remember that Salmeron tells of divers, who distrusting of Scripture and reason, had rather in this point rely upon the tradition of the Fathers, and therefore I descended to take from them this armour in which they trusted. And first, to ease a more curious inquiry, which in a short dissuasive was not convenient, I used the abbreviature of an adversaries confession. For Alphonsus à Castro confessed that in ancient writers there is seldom any mention made of Transubstantiation:] 
Letter. p. 21.  one of my adversaries says this is not spoken of the thing, but of the name of Transubstantiation, but if a Castro meant this only of the word, he spoke weakly when he said, that the name or word was seldom mentioned by the Ancients. 1. Because it is false that it was seldom mentioned by the Ancients, for the word was by the Ancient Fathers never mentioned. 2. Because there was not any question of the word where the thing was agreed; and therefore as this saying so understood had been false, so also if it had been true, it would have been impertinent. 3. It is but a trifling artifice to confess the name to be unknown, and by that means to insinuate that the thing was then under other names; It is a secret cozenage of an unweary Reader to bribe him into peace and contentedness for the main part of the Question, by pleasing him in that part which it may be makes the biggest noise, though it be less material. 4. If the thing had been mentioned by the Ancients, they need not, would not, ought not to have troubled themselves and others by a new word; to have still retained the old proposition under the old words, would have been less suspicious, more prudent and ingenious: but to bring in a new name is but the cover for a new doctrine; and therefore S. Paul left an excellent precept to the Church to avoid prophanas vocum novitates, the profane newness of words, that is, it is fit that the mysteries revealed in Scripture should be preached and taught in the words of the Scripture, and with that simplicity, openness, easiness, and candour, and not with new and unhallowed words, such as is that of Transubstantiation. 5. A Castro did not speak of the name alone; but of the thing also, de transubstantiatione panis in Corpus Christi; of the Transubstantiation of bread into Christ's body; of this manner of conversion, that is, of this doctrine; now doctrines consist not in words but things, however his last words are faint and weak and guilty; for being convinced of the weakness of his defence of the thing, he left to himself a subterfuge of words.  
But let it be how it will with a Castro, whom I can very well spare if he will not be allowed to speak sober sense, and as a wise man should, we have better and fuller testimonies in this affair; That the Fathers did not so much as touch the matter or thing of Transubstantiation, said the Jesuits in prison, as is reported by the Author of the modest discourse; And the great Erasmus who lived and died in the Communion of the Church of Rome, and was as likely as any man of his age to know what he said, gave this testimony in the present Question; In synaxi transubstantiationem sero definivit Ecclesia, 
In priorem Epist. ad Corinthios. citante etiam Salmeron. tom. 9 tract. 16. p. 108.  & re & nomine veteribus ignotam. In the Communion the Church hath but lately defined Transubstantiation, which both in the thing and in the name was unknown to the Ancients.  
Now this was a fair and friendly inducement to the Reader to take from him all prejudice, 
Videat lector Picherellum exposit: verborum institutionis coenae Domini, & ejusdem dissertationem de Missâ.  which might stick to him by the great noises of the Roman Doctors, made upon their pretence of the Father's being on their side; yet I would not so rely upon these testimonies, but that I thought fit to give some little Essay of this doctrine out of the Fathers themselves.  
To this purpose is alleged Justin M. saying of the Eucharist, that it was a figure, which our Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his Passion] These were quoted not as the words, but as the doctrine of that Saint; and the Letter will needs suppose me to mean those words, which are (as I find) in 259, and 260. page of the Paris edition; 
1615.  [The oblation of a Cake was a figure of the Eucharistical bread which the Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his Passion.] These are Justins' words in that place, with which I have nothing to do (as I shall show by and by:) But because Card. Perron intends to make advantage of them, I shall wrest them first out of his hands, and then give an account of the doctrine of this holy man in the present article; both out of this place and others. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The oblation of a Cake was a figure of the bread of the Eucharist, which our Lord delivered us to do; therefore says the Cardinal, the Eucharistical bread is the truth, since the Cake was the figure or the shadow.] To which I answer, that though the Cake was a figure of the Eucharistical bread, yet so might that bread be a figure of something else: Just as baptism, I mean, the external rite, which although itself be but the outward part, and is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or figure of the inward washing by the spirit of grace, and represents our being buried with Christ in his death, yet it is an accomplishment in some sense of those many figures, by which (according to the doctrine of the Fathers) it was prefigured. Such as in S. Peter the waters of the deluge, in Tertullian were the waters of Jordan into which Naaman descended, in S. Austin the waters of sprinkling: These were types, and to these baptism did succeed, and represented the same thing which they represented, and effected or exhibited the thing it did represent, and therefore in this sense they prefigured baptism: And yet that this is but a figure still, we have S. Peter's warrant; The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away the filth of the flesh, 
1 Pet. 3. 21.  but the answer of a good conscience towards God. The waters of the flood were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a type of the waters of baptism; the waters of baptism were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, a type answering to a type: and yet even here there is a typical representing, and signifying part, and beyond that there is the veritas, or the thing signified by both. So it is in the oblation of the Cake, and the Eucharistical bread, that was a type of this, and this the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or correspondent of that; a type answering to a type, a figure to a figure; and both of them did and do respectively represent a thing yet more secret. For as S. Austin said, these and those are divers in the sign, but equal in the thing signified, divers in the visible species, but the same in the intelligible signification; those were promissive, and these demonstrative, or as others express it, those were pronunciative, and these of the Gospel are contestative. 
A. D. 1547.  So Friar Gregory of Milan noted in the Council of Trent: And that this was the sense of Justin M. appears to him that considers what he says. 1. He does not say the Cake is a type of the bread, but the oblation of the Cake, that is, that whole rite of offering a Cake after the Leper was cleansed in token of thankfulness, and for his legal purity, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, which for the remembrance of the passion which he suffered for these men whose minds are purged from all perverseness, Jesus Christ our Lord commanded to make or do.] To do what? To do bread? or to make bread? No, but to make bread to be Eucharistical, to be a memorial of the Passion, to represent the death of Christ: so that it is not the Cake and the bread that are the type and the Antitype; but the oblation of the Cake, was the figure, and the Celebration of Christ's memorial, and the Eucharist are the thing presignified and prefigured; But than it remains, that the Eucharistical bread is but the instrument of a memorial or recordation, which still supposes something beyond this, and by this to be figured and represented. For as the Apostle says, Our Fathers did eat of the same spiritual meat, that is, they eat Christ, but they eat him in figure, that is, in an external symbol: so do we, only theirs is abolished, and ours succeeds the old, and shall abide for ever. Nay the very words used by Justin M. do evince this, it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when it is an Eucharist, it is still but bread; and therefore there is a body of which this is but an outward argument, a vehicle, a channel and conveyance, and that is the body of Christ; for the Eucharistical bread is both bread, and Christ's body too. For it is a good argument to say, this is bread Eucharistical, therefore this is bread; and if it be bread still, it must be a figure of the bread of life; and this is that which I affirmed to be the sense of Justin M. The like expression to this is in his second Apology; It is not common bread, meaning, that it is sanctified and made Eucharistical. But here, it may be, the argument will not hold; it is not common bread, therefore it is bread: for I remember that Cardinal Perron hath some instances against this way of arguing. For the Dove that descended upon Christ's head was not a common Dove, and yet it follows not; therefore this was a Dove. The three that appeared to Abraham were not common men; therefore they were men, it follows not. This is the sophistry of the Cardinal, for the confutation of which I have so much Logic left as to prove this to be a fallacy, and it will soon appear if it be reduced to a regular proposition. This bread is not common, therefore this bread is extraordinary bread, 
A propositione tertii adjecti, ad propositionem secundi adjecti valet consequentia, si subjectum supponat realiter. Reg. Dialect. Vide Sect. 5. n. 10. Of Christ's real presence and spiritual.  but therefore this is bread still; here the Consequence is good; and is so still, when the subject of the proposition is something real, and not in appearance only: Because whatsoever is but in appearance and pretence, is a Nonens in respect of that real thing which it counterfeits. And therefore it follows not, This is not a common dove; therefore it is a Dove; because if this be modelled into a right proposition, nihil supponit; there is no subject in it, for it cannot in this case be said, This Dove is no common Dove; but this which is like a Dove, is not a common Dove; and these persons which look like men, are not common men. And the rule for this and the reason too is, Non entis nulla sunt praedicata. To which also this may be added, that in the proposition as C. Perron expresses it, the negation is not the adjective, but the substantive part of the predicate; It is no common Dove; where the negative term relates to the Dove, not to common; It is no Dove, and the words not common are also aequivocal, and as it can signify extraordinary, so it can signify Natural. But if the subject of the proposition be something real, than the consequent is good; as if you bring a Pigeon from Japan, all red, you may say, This is no common Pigeon, and your argument is still good; therefore it is a Pigeon. So if you take sugared bread, or bread made of Indian wheat, you saying this is no common bread, do mean it is extraordinary or unusual, but it is bread still; and so if it be said, this bread is Eucharistical, it will follow rightly, therefore this is bread. For in this case the predicate is only an infinite or Negative term, but the subject is supposed and affirmed. And this is also more apparent if the proposition be affirmative, and the terms be not infinite, as it is in the present case; This bread is Eucharistical. I have now I suppose cleared the words of Justin M. and expounded them to his own sense and the truth, but his sense will further appear in other words which I principally rely upon in this quotation. For speaking that of the Prophet Isai, Panis dabitur ei, & aqua ejus fidelis; he hath these words, It appears sufficiently [That in this prophecy he speaks of bread which our Lord Christ hath delivered to us to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a memorial that he is made a body for them that believe in him, for whose sake he was made passable; and of the Cup which for the recordation of his blood he delivered to them to do, that is [give thanks] or celebrate the Eucharist.] These are the words of Justin: Where 1. According to the first simplicity of the primitive Church, he treats of this mystery according to the style of the Evangelists and S. Paul, and indeed of our Blessed Lord himself, commanding all this whole mystery to be done in memory of him. 2. If S. Justin had meant any thing of the new fabric of this mystery he must have said, 
Pag. 296.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the bread made his body, though this also would not have done their work for them; but when he says, he gave the bread only for the remembrance of his being made a body, the bread must needs be the sign, figure and representation of that body. 3. Still he calls it bread even then when Christ gave it; still it is wine when the Eucharist is made, when the faithful have given thanks; and if it be bread still, we also grant it to be Christ's body, and then there is a figure and the thing figured, the one visible and the other invisible; and this is it which I affirmed to be the sense of justin Martyr. 
Oratio 2. in Pascha.  And it is more perfectly explicated by Saint Greg. Naz. calling the Paschal Lamb a figure of a figure, of which I shall yet give an account in this Section. But to make this yet more clear, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. We do not receive these as common bread or common drink; but as by the word of God, Jesus Christ our Lord was made flesh, and for our salvation had flesh and blood: so are we taught, that that very nourishment on which by the prayers of his word thanks are given, by which our flesh and blood are nourished by change, is the flesh and blood of the incarnate jesus.] Here S. Justin compares the consecration of the Eucharist by prayer to the incarnation of Christ, the thing with the thing, to show it is not common bread, but bread made Christ's body; he compares not the manner of one with the manner of the other (as Cardinal Perron would fain have it believed 
* Sic solem●● loqui: sicut panis est vita corporis: ita verbum Dei est vita animae. Non scil. eundem conversionis aut nutriendi modum connot ando, sed similem & analogicum effectum ●triusque nutrimenti observando. ) for if it were so, it would not only destroy an article of Christian faith, but even of the Roman too; for if the changes were in the same manner, then either the man is Transubstantiated into God, or else the bread is not Transubstantiated into Christ's body; but the first cannot be, because it would destroy the hypostatical Union, and make Christ to be one nature as well as one person; but for the latter part of the Dilemma, viz. that the bread is not Transubstantiated, whether it be true or false it cannot be affirmed from hence: and therefore the Cardinal labours to no purpose, and without consideration of what may follow. But now these words make very much against the Roman hypothesis, and directly proves the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the consecrated bread, that is, after it is consecrated to be natural nourishment of the body, and therefore to be Christ's body only spiritually, and Sacramentally: unless it can be two substances at the same time; Christ's body and bread in the Natural sense, which the Church of Rome at this day will not allow; and if it were allowed, it would follow that Christ's body should be Transubstantiated into our body, and suffer the very worst changes which in our eating and digestion and separation happen to common bread. This argument relies upon the concurrent testimony of many of the ancient Fathers besides justin Martyr, 
Lib. 4. c. 34. & lib. 5. c. 2.  especially S. Irenaeus, and certainly destroys the whole Roman article of Transubstantiation; for if the Eucharistical bread nourishes the body, than it is still the substance of bread: for accidents do not nourish, and quantity or quality is not the subject or term of Nutrition; but reparation of substance by a substantial change of one into another. But of this enough.  
Eusebius is next alleged in the Dissuasive, but his words, though pregnant and full of proof against the Roman hypothesis are by all the Contra-scribers let alone, 
A. L.  only one of them says, that the place of the quotation is not rightly marked, for the first three chapters are not extant: well! but the words are; and the last chapter is, which is there quoted, and to the 10. chapter the Printer should have more carefully attended, and not omit the cipher, which I suppose he would, if he had foreseen he should have been written against by so learned an adversary. But to let them agree as well as they can, the words of Eusebius, 
Demonstr. Evang. l. 1. c. ult. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Apostle received a command according to the constitution of the N. T. to make a memory of this sacrifice upon the table by the symbols of his body and healthful blood.) So the words are translated in the Dissuasive. But the letter translates them thus. Seeing therefore we have received the memory of this sacrifice to be celebrated in certain signs on the Table, and the memory of that body and healthful blood, as is the institute of the new Testament.)  out of his last chapter, I translated as well as I could; the Greek words I have set in the Margin, that every one that understands may see I did him right; and indeed to do my Adversary right, when he goes about to change, not to mend the translation, he only changes the order of the words, but in nothing does he mend his own matter by it: for he acknowledges the main Question, viz. that the memory of Christ's sacrifice is to be celebrated in certain figns on the Table; but then that I may do myself right, and the question too; whosoever translated these words for this Gentleman hath abused him, and made him to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and hath made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is so far off it, and hath no relation to it, and not to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with which it is joined, and hath made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when it hath a substantive of its own [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] and he repeats 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 once more than it is in the words of Eusebius, only because he would not have the Reader suppose that Eusebius called the consecrated Elements, the symbols of the body and blood. But this fraud was too much studied to be excusable upon the stock of humane infirmity, or an innocent persuasion. But that I may satisfy the Reader in this Question, so far as the testimony and doctrine of Eusebius can extend, he hath these words fully to our purpose. 
Lib. 5. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉]  [First, our Lord and Saviour, and then after him his Priests of all Nations celebrating the spiritual sacrifice according to the Ecclesiastic Laws, by the bread and the wine signify the mysteries of his body and healing blood.] 
Et lib. 8. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] Et Paulo post: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.]  And again, [By the wine which is the symbol of his blood, he purges the old sins of them who were baptised into his death, and believe in his blood.] [Again he gave to his Disciples the symbols of the divine Oeconomy, commanding them to make the image (figure or representation) of his own body.] 
[〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.]  And again, [He received not the sacrifices of blood, nor the slaying of divers beasts instituted in the Law of Moses, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but ordained we should use bread, the symbol of his own body.] So far I thought fit to set down the words of Eusebius, to convince my Adversary that Eusebius is none of theirs, but he is wholly ours in the doctrine of the Sacrament.  
S. Macarius is cited in the Dissuasive in these words, 
Macarius' homil. 27.  [In the Church is offered bread and wine, the Antitype of his flesh and blood, and they that partake of the bread that appears, do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ] 
* Pag. 22.  A. L. saith, Macarius saith not so, but rather the contrary, viz. bread and wine exhibiting the Exemplar [or an antitype] his flesh and blood.] Now although I do not suppose many learned or good men will concern themselves with what this little man says; yet I cannot but note [that they who gave him this answer, may be ashamed,] for here is a double satisfaction in this little answer. First, he puts in the word exhibiting of his own head, there being no such word in S. Macarius in the words quoted. 2. He makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be put with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of apposition, expressly against the mind of S. Macarius, and against the very Grammar of his words. And after all, he studies to abuse his Author, and yet gets no good by it himself; for if it were in the words as he hath invented it, or some body else for him, yet it makes against him as much, saying, bread and wine exhibit Christ's body; which is indeed true, though not here said by the Saint, but is directly against the Roman article, because it confesses that to be bread and wine by which Christ's body is exhibited to us: but much more is the whole testimony of S. Macarius, which in the Dissuasive are translated exactly, as the Reader may see by the Greek words cited in the Margin.  
There now only remains the authority of S. Austin, 
Pag. ibid.  which this Gentleman would fain snatch from the Church of England, and assert to his own party. I cited five places out of S. Austin, to the last of which but one, he gives this answer; that S. Austin hath no such words in that book, that is, in the 10. book against Faustus the Manichee. Concerning which, I am to inform the Gentleman a little better. These words [that which by all men is called a sacrifice, is the sign of the true sacrifice] are in the 10. book of S. Austin de C. D. cap. 5. and make a distinct quotation, and aught by the Printer to have been divided by a column, as the other. But the following words [in which the flesh of Christ after his assumption is celebrated by the sacrament of remembrance,] are in the 20. book cap. 21. against Faustus the Manichee 
* Hujus sacrificii caro & sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur: in passione Christi per ipsa● veritatem reddebatur, [po● ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoriae celebratur.] lib. 20. c. 21. contr. Faustum Manich.  All these words and divers others of S. Austin I knit together into a close order, like a continued discourse; but all of them are S. Augustine's words, as appears in the places set down in the Margin. But this Gentleman cared not for what was said by S. Austin, he was as well pleased that a figure was false Printed; but to the words he hath nothing to say. To the first of the other four only he makes this crude answer; that S. Austin denied not the real eating of Christ's body in the Eucharist, but only the eating it in that gross, carnal, and sensible manner, as the Capharnaites conceived. To which I reply, that it is true, that upon occasion of this error S. Austin did speak those words: and although the Roman error be not so gross and dull as that of the Capharnaites, yet it was as false, as unreasonable, and as impossible. And be the occasion of the words what they are, or can be, yet upon this occasion S. Austin spoke words, which as well confute the Roman error as the Capharnaitical. For it is not only false which the men of Capernaum dreamt of, but the antithesis to this is that which S. Austin urges, and which comes home to our question, [I have commended to you a sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you:] But because S. Austin was the most diligent expounder of this mystery among all the Fathers, I will gratify my Adversary, or rather indeed my Unpraejudicate Readers, by giving some other very clear and unanswerable evidences of the doctrine of S. Austin, agreeing perfectly with that of our Church. [At this time after manifest token of our liberty hath shined in the resurrection of our Lord jesus Christ, 
De doctr. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 9  we are not burdened with the heavy operation of signs, but some few instead of many, but those most easy to be done, and most glorious to be understood, and most pure in their observation, our Lord himself, and the Apostolical discipline hath delivered: such is the sacrament of Baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of our Lord, which when every one takes, he understands whether they may be referred, that he may give them veneration, not with carnal service, but with a spiritual liberty. For as to follow the letter, and to take the signs for the things signified by them, is a servile infirmity; so to interpret the signs unprofitably is an evil wand'ring error. But he that understands not what the sign signifies, but yet understandeth it to be a sign, is not pressed with servitude. But it is better to be pressed with unknown signs so they be profitable, than by expounding them unprofitably to thrust our necks into the yoke of slavery, from which they were brought forth.] All this S. Austin spoke concerning the sacramental signs, the bread and the wine in the Eucharist; and if by these words he does not intent to affirm, that they are the signs signifying Christ's body and blood; let who please to undertake it make sense of them, for my part I cannot.  
To the same purpose are these other words of his, 
Epist. 23.  [Christ is in himself once immolated, and yet in the sacrament he is sacrificed not only in the solennities of Easter, but every day with the people. Neither indeed does he lie who being asked, shall answer, that he is sacrificed: For if the sacraments have not a similitude of those things of which they are sacraments, they were altogether no sacraments; but commonly for this similitude they take the names of the things themselves, sicut ergo secundum quendam modum, etc. As therefore after a certain manner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ, the sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ; so the sacrament of faith (viz. Baptism) is faith.] Christ is but once immolated or sacrificed in himself, but every day in the sacrament; that properly, this in figure; that in substance, this in similitude; that naturally, this sacramentally and spiritually. But therefore we call this mystery a sacrifice, as we call the Sacrament Christ's body, viz. by way of similitude or after a certain manner, for upon this account the names of the things are imputed to their very figures. This is S. Augustine's sense: which indeed he frequently so expresses. Now I desire it may be observed, that oftentimes when S. Austin speaking of the Eucharist, calls it the body and blood of Christ; he oftentimes adds by way of explication, that he means it, in the Sacramental, figurative sense; but when ever he calls it, the figure or the Sacrament of Christ's body, he never offers to explain that by any words, by which he may signify such a real or natural being of Christ's body there, as the Church of Rome dreams of; but he ought not, neither would he have given offence or Umbrage to the Church, by any such incurious and lose handling of things, if the Church in his age had thought of it otherwise, than that it was Christ's body in a Sacramental sense.  
Though I have remarked all that is objected by A. L. yet E. W. is not satisfied with the quotation out of Greg. Naz. not but that he acknowledges it to be right, 
P. 41. Orat. 2. in pascha. Jam verò paschlis participes erimus, nunc quidem adhuc typicè, tametsi apertiùs licet quam in veteri; legale siquidem pascha (nec enim dicere verebor) figurae figurae erat obscurior.  for he sets down the words in Latin; but they conclude nothing against Transubstantiation. Why so? because, though the Paschal was a type of a type, a figure of a figure, yet [in S. Gregory's sense Christ concealed under the species of bread may be rightly called a figure of its own self, more clearly hereafter to be showed us in heaven.] To this pitiful answer the reply is easy. S. Gregory clearly enough expresses himself, that in the immolation of the Passeover Christ was figured; that in the Eucharist he still is figured, there more obscurely, here more clearly, but yet still but typically, or in figure; nunc quidem adhuc typice: here we are partakers of him typically. Afterwards we shall see him perfectly, meaning in his Father's Kingdom. So that the Saint affirms Christ to be received by us in the Sacrament after a figurative, or typical manner: and therefore, not after a substantial, as that is opposed to figurative. Now of what is this a type? of himself to be more clearly seen in heaven hereafter. It is very true, it is so; for this whole ceremony, and figurative, ritual receiving of Christ's body here, does prefigure our more excellent receiving and enjoying him hereafter; but than it follows that the very proper substance of Christ's body is not here; for figure or shadow and substance cannot be the same, to say a thing that is present is a figure of itself hereafter, is to be said by no man but him that cares not what he says. 
Lib. de Synod.  Nemo est sui ipsius imago, saith S. Hilary; and yet if it were possible to be otherwise, yet it is a strange figure or sign of a thing, that what is invisible should be a sign of what is visible. 
De Euchar. l. 2. c. 15. Sect. est igitur tertia.  Bellarmine, being greatly put to it by the Father's calling the Sacrament the figure of Christ's body, says, it is in some sense a figure of Christ's body on the Cross; and here E. W. would affirm out of Naz. that it is a figure of Christ's body glorified. Now suppose both these dreamers say right, than this Sacrament which whether you look forwards or backwards is a figure of Christ's body; cannot be that body of which so many ways it is a figure. So that the whole force of E. W s. answer is this, that if that which is like be the same, than it is possible that a thing may be a sign of its self, and a man may be his own picture, and that which is invisible may be a sign to give notice to come see a thing that is visible.  
I have now expedited this topic of Authority in in this Question, amongst the many reasons I urged against Transubstantiation: 
E. W. p. 42.  (which I suppose to be unanswerable, and if I could have answered them myself, I would not have produced them;) these Gentlemen my adversaries are pleased to take notice but of one; But by that it may be seen how they could have answered all the rest, if they had pleased. The argument is this, every consecrated wafer (saith the Church of Rome) is Christ's body; and yet this wafer is not that wafer, therefore either this, or that is not Christ's body, or else Christ hath two natural bodies; for there are two Wafers.] To this is answered, the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies to Christ, no more than head and feet infer two souls in a man, or conclude there are two Gods, one in heaven, and the other in earth, because heaven and earth are more distinct than two wafers. To which I reply, that the soul of man is in the head and feet as in two parts of the body which is one and whole, and so is but in one place, and consequently is but one soul. But if the feet were parted from the body by other body's intermedial, then indeed, if there were but one soul in feet and head, the Gentleman had spoken to the purpose. But here these wafers are two entire wafers, separate the one from the other; bodies intermedial put between; and that which is here is not there; and yet of each of them it is affirmed, that it is Christ's body; that is, of two wafers, and of two thousand wafers, it is at the same time affirmed of every one that it is Christ's body. Now if these wafers are substantially not the same, not one, but many; and yet every one of these many is substantially and properly Christ's body, than these bodies are many, for they are many of whom it is said, every one distinctly and separately, and in its self is Christ's body. 2. For his comparing the presence of Christ in the wafer, with the presence of God in heaven, it is spoken without common wit or sense; for does any man say that God is in two places, and yet be the same-one God? Can God be in two places that cannot be in one? Can he be determined and numbered by places, that fills all places by his presence? or is Christ's body in the Sacrament, as God is in the world, that is, repletive, filling all things alike, spaces void and spaces full, and there where there is no place, where the measures are neither time nor place, but only the power and will of God. This answer, besides that it is weak and dangerous, is also to no purpose, unless the Church of Rome will pass over to the Lutherans and maintain the Ubiquity of Christ's body. 
In Ps. 33.  Yea but S. Austin says of Christ, Ferebatur in manibus suis, etc. he bore himself in his own hands: and what then? Then though every wafer be Christ's body, yet the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies: for then there would be two bodies of Christ, when he carried his own body in his hands. To this I answer, that concerning S. Augustine's mind we are already satisfied, but that which he says here is true, as he spoke and intended it; for by his own rule, the similitudes and figures of things are oftentimes called by the name of those things whereof they are similitudes: Christ bore his own body in his own hands, when he bore the Sacrament of his body; for of that also it is true, that it is truly his body in a Sacramental, spiritual, and real manner, that is, to all intents and purposes of the holy spirit of God. According to the words of S. Austin cited by P. Lombard, 
Lib. 3. de Trin. c. 4. in fine P. Lombard dist. 11. lib. 4. ad finem. lit. C.  [We call that the body of Christ which being taken from the fruits of the Earth, and consecrated by mystic prayer, we receive in memory of the Lords Passion; which when by the hands of men it is brought on to that visible shape, it is not sanctified to become so worthy a Sacrament, but by the spirit of God working invisibly.] If this be good Catholic doctrine, and if this confession of this article be right, the Church of England is right; but then when the Church of Rome will not let us alone in this truth and modesty of confession, but impose what is unknown in Antiquity, and Scripture, and against common sense, and the reason of all the world; 
Christ's real and spiritual presence in the Sacrament against the doctrine of Transubstantiation, printed at London by R. Royston.  she must needs be greatly in the wrong. But as to this question, I was here only to justify the Dissuasive; I suppose these Gentlemen may be fully satisfied in the whole inquiry, if they please to read a book I have written on this subject entirely, of which hitherto they are pleased to take no great notice.   

SECTION IU.  
Of the half Communion.  
WHen the French Ambassador in the Council of Trent A. D. 1561. made instance for restitution of the Chalice to the Laity, among other oppositions the Cardinal S. Angelo answered; that he would never give a cup full of such deadly poison to the people of France, instead of a medicine, and that it was better to let them die, than to cure them with such remedies. The Ambassador being greatly offended, replied: that it was not fit to give the name of poison to the blood of Christ, and to call the holy Apostles poisoners, and the Fathers of the Primitive Church, and of that which followed for many hundred years, who with much spiritual profit have ministered the cup of that blood to all the people: this was a great and a public, yet but a single person, that gave so great offence.  
One of the greatest scandals that ever were given to Christendom was given by the Council of Constance; 
Sess. 13.  which having acknowledged that Christ administered this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of bread and wine, and that in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received of the faithful under both kinds, yet the Council not only condemns them as heretics, and to be punished accordingly, who say it is unlawful to observe the custom and law of giving it in one kind only; but under pain of excommunication forbids all Priests to communicate the people under both kinds. This last thing is so shameful and so impious, that A. L. directly denies that there is any such thing: which if it be not an argument of the self-conviction of the man, and a resolution to abide in his error, and to deceive the people even against his knowledge, let all the world judge: for the words of the Councils decree, as they are set down by Carranza, 
Lugduni. A. D. 1600. apud Hiratium Cardon. p. 440.  at the end of the decree are these [Item praecipimus sub poena excommunicationis quod nullus presbyter communicet populum sub utraque specie panis & vini.] I need say no more in this affair: To affirm it necessary to do in the Sacraments what Christ did, is called heresy; and to do so is punished with excommunication. But we who follow Christ, hope we shall communicate with him, and then we are well enough, especially since the very institution of the Sacrament in both kinds, is a sufficient Commandment to minister and receive it in both kinds. For if the Church of Rome upon their supposition, only, that Christ did barely institute confession, do therefore urge it as necessary, it will be a strange partiality, that the confessed institution by Christ of the two Sacramental species, shall not conclude them as necessary, as the other upon an Unprov'd supposition. And if the institution of the Sacrament in both kinds be not equal to a command, than there is no command to receive the bread, or indeed, to receive the Sacrament at all: but it is a mere act of supererogation, that the Priests do it at all, and an act of favour and grace, that they give even the bread itself to the Laity.  
But besides this, it is not to be endured that the Church of Rome only binds her subjects to observe the decree of abstaining from the cup jure humano, and yet they shall be bound jure Divino to believe it to be just, and specially since the causes of so scandalous an alteration are not set down in the decree of any Council; and those which are set down by private Doctors, besides that they are no record of the Church, they are ridiculous, 
A. D. 1562.  weak and contemptible. But as Granatensis said in the Council of Trent this affair can neither be regulated by Scripture nor traditions, (for surely it is against both) but by wisdom; wherein because it is necessary to proceed to circumspection, I suppose the Church of Rome will always be considering, whether she should give the chalice or no; and because she will not acknowledge any reason sufficient to give it, she will be content to keep it away without reason: And which is worse, the Church of Rome excommunicates those Priests that communicate the people in both kinds; 
Vide Preface to the Dissuasive part 1. Canon comperimus de consecrat. dist. 2.  but the Primitive Church excommunicates them that receive but in one kind. It is too much that any part of the Church should so much as in a single instance administer the Holy Sacrament otherwise than it is in the institution of Christ; there being no other warrant for doing the thing at all, but Christ's institution, and therefore no other way of learning how to do it, but by the same institution by which all of it is done. And if there can come a case of necessity, (as if there be no wine, or if a man cannot endure wine) it is then a disputable matter whether it ought or not to be omitted; for if the necessity be of Gods making, he is supposed to dispense with the impossibility: But if a man altars what God appointed he makes to himself a new institution; for which in this case there can be no necessity, nor yet excuse. But suppose either one or other; yet so long as it is, or is thought a case of necessity, the thing may be hopefully excused, if not actually justified; and because it can happen but seldom, the matter is not great: let the institution be observed always where it can. But then in all cases of possibility let all prepared Christians be invited to receive the body and blood of Christ according to his institution; or if that be too much, at least let all them that desire it, be permitted to receive it in Christ's way: But that men are not suffered to do so, that they are driven from it, that they are called heretic for saying it is their duty to receive it as Christ gave it and appointed it, that they should be excommunicated for desiring to communicate in Christ's blood, by the symbol of his blood, according to the order of him that gave his blood; this is such a strange piece of Christianity, that it is not easy to imagine what Antichrist can do more against it, unless he take it all away. I only desire those persons who are here concerned to weigh well the words of Christ, and the consequents of them: He that breaketh one of the least of my Commandments, and shall teach men so, (and what if he compel men so?) shall be called the least in the Kingdom of God.  
To the Canon last mentioned it is answered, that the Canon speaks not of receiving the sacrament by the communicants, but of the consummating the sacrifice by the Priest. To this I reply, that it is true that the Canon was particularly directed to the Priests, by the title which themselves put to it; but the Canon meddles not with the consecrating or not consecrating in one kind, but of receiving; for that is the title of the Canon. The Priest ought not to receive the body of Christ without the blood; and in the Canon itself, Comperimus autem quod quidam sumpta corporis sacri portione, à calice sacrati cruoris abstineant. By which it plainly appears, that the consecration was entire; for it was calix sacrati cr●ioris, the consecrated chalice, from which out of a fond superstition some. Priests did abstain; the Canon therefore relates to the sumption or receiving, not the sacrificing (as these men love to call it) or consecration, and the sanction itself speaks indeed of the reception of the sacrament, but not a word of it as it is in any sense a sacrifice; aut integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur. So that the distinction of sacrament and sacrifice in this Question will be of no use to the Church of Rome. For if Pope Gelasius (for it was his Canon) knew nothing of this distinction, it is vainly applied to the expounding of his words; but if he did know of it, than he hath taken that part which is against the Church of Rome; for of this mystery as it is a sacrament Gelasius speaks, which therefore must relate to the people as well as to the Priest. And this Canon is to this purpose quoted by Cassander. 
In consult. de sacra Commun.  And 2. no man is able to show that ever Christ appointed one way of receiving to the Priest, and another to the people. The law was all one, the example the same, the Rule is simple and Uniform, and no appearance of difference in the Scripture, or in the Primitive Church: so that though the Canon mentions only the Priest, yet it must by the same reason mean all; there being at that time no difference known. 3. It is called sacrilege to divide one and the same mystery; meaning that to receive one without the other, is to divide the body from the blood, (for the dream of concomitancy was not then found out) and therefore the title of the Canon is thus expressed, Corpus Christi sine ejus sanguine sacèrdos non debet accipere; and that the so doing, viz. by receiving one without the other, cannot be without sacrilege. 4. Now suppose at last, that the Priests only are concerned in this Canon, yet even then also they are abundantly reproved, because even the Priests in the Church of Rome (unless they consecrate) communicate but in one kind. 5. It is also remarkable, that although in the Church of Rome there is great use made of the distinction of its being sometime a sacrifice, sometime only a sacrament, as Friar Ant. Mondolphus said in the Council of Trent, yet the arguments, by which the Roman Doctors do usually endeavour to prove the lawfulness of the half communion, do destroy this distinction, viz. that of Christ's ministering to the Disciples at Emaus, and S. Paul in the Ship, in which either there is no proof or no consecration in both kinds, and consequently no sacrifice: for there is mention made only of blessing the bread, for they received that which was blessed; and therefore either the consecration was imperfect, or the reception was entire.  
To this purpose also the words of S. Ambrose are severe, and speak clearly of communicants without distinction of Priest and People: which distinction, though it be in this article nothing to the purpose, yet I observe it to prevent such trifling cavils, which my Adversaries put me often to fight with. His words are these: [He (viz. the Apostle S. Paul) saith, 
In Corinth. 11. Indignum dicet esse Domino qui alitèr mysterium celebrat quam ab eo traditum est. Non enim potest devotus esse qui aliter praesumit quam datum est ab Authore. Ideóque praemonet ut secundum ordinem traditum devota mens sit accedentis ad Eucharistiam Domini: quoniam futurum est judicium, ut quemadmodum accedit unusquisque. veddat causas in Die Domini Jesu Christi, quia sine disciplinâ traditionis & conversationis qui accedunt rei sunt corporis & sanguinis Domini.  that he is unworthy of the Lord who otherwise celebrates the mystery than it was delivered by him. For he cannot be devout that presumes otherwise than it was given by the Author: Therefore he before admonishes, that according to the order delivered, the mind of him that comes to the Eucharist of our Lord be devout; for there is a judgement to come, that as every one comes, so he may render an account in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ, because they who come without the discipline of the delivery (or tradition) and of conversation are guilty of the body and blood of our lord] One of my Adversaries says these words of S. Ambrose are to be understood only of the Priest: 
A. L. p▪ 4.  and it appears so, by the word celebrat, not recipit; he that celebrates otherwise than is delivered by Christ. To this I answer, that first it is plain, and S. Ambrose so expresses his meaning to be of all that receive it, for so he says [that the mind of him that cometh to the Eucharist of our Lord ought to be devout.] 2. It is an ignorant conceit, that S. Ambrose by celebrat, means the Priest only, because he only can celebrate. For however the Church of Rome does now almost impropriate that word to the Priest, yet in the Primitive Church it was no more than recipit or accedit ad Eucharistiam, which appears not only by S. Ambrose his expounding it so here, 
Serm. 1. de eleemos.  but in S. Cyprian, speaking to a rich Matron, Locuples & dives Dominicum celebrare te credis, & corban omnino non respicis? Dost thou who art rich and opulent suppose that you celebrate the Lords Supper, (or sacrifice) who regardest not the poor man's basket? Celebrat is the word, and receive must needs be the signification, and so it is in S. Ambrose; and therefore I did (as I ought) translate it so. 3. It is yet objected, that I translate [aliter quam ab eo traditum est] otherwise than he appointed; whereas it should be, otherwise than it was given by him. And this surely is a great matter, and the Gentleman is very subtle. But if he be asked, whether or no Christ appointed it to be done as he did, to be given as he gave it? I suppose this deep and wise note of his will just come to nothing. But ab eo traditum est, of itself signifies, appointed; for this he delivered not only by his hands, but by his commandment of Hoc facite; that was his appointment. Now that all this relates to the whole institution and doctrine of Christ in this matter, and therefore to the duplication of the Elements, the reception of the chalice, as well as the consecrated bread, appears first by the general terms; qui aliter mysterium celebrat, he that celebrates otherwise than Christ delivered. 2. These words are a Commentary upon that of Saint Paul, He that eats this bread, and drinks the Cup of the Lord Unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the lord] Now hence S. Ambrose arguing that all must be done, as our Lord delivered, says also that the bread must be eaten, and the cup drunk as our Lord delivered: and he that does not do both, does not do what our Lord delivered. 3. The conclusion of S. Ambrose is full to this particular: They are guilty of the body and blood of Christ, who came without the discipline of the delivery and of conversation, that is, they who receive without due preparation, and not after the manner it was delivered, that is, under the differing symbols of bread and wine. To which we may add that observation of Cassander, 
Disp. 5. de sacra coena.  and of Vossius; that the Apostles represented the persons of all the faithful, & Christ saying to them, take & eat, he also said, Drink ye all of this; he said not, Eat ye all of this; and therefore if by virtue of these words, Drink ye all of this, the Laity be not commanded to drink, it can never be proved that the Laity are commanded to eat; Omni is added to bibite, but it is not expressly added to Accipite & Comedite, 
Lib. de corp. & sang. Domini. cap. 15.  and therefore Paschasius Radbertus, who lived about eight hundred and twenty years after Christ's incarnation, so expounds the precept without any haesitation, Bibite ex hoc omnes, i. e. tam Ministri quam reliqui credentes, Drink ye all of this, as well they that Minister, as the rest of the believers. And no wonder, since for their so doing they have the example and institution of Christ; by which as by an irrefragable and undeniable argument, the Ancient Fathers used to reprove and condemn all usages which were not according to it. For saith Saint Cyprian, [If men ought not to break the least of Christ's commandments, 
Epist. 63.  how much less those great ones which belong to the Sacrament of our Lord's passion and redemption, or to change it into any thing but that which was appointed by him?] Now this was spoken against those who refused the hallowed wine, but took water instead of it; and it is of equal force against them that give to the Laity no cup at all; but whatever the instance was or could be, S. Cyprian reproves it upon the only account of prevaricating Christ's institution. The whole Epistle is worth reading for a full satisfaction to all wise and sober Christians; Ab eo quod Christus Magister & praecepit & gessit humana & novella institutione decedere, by a new and humane institution to departed from what Christ our Master commanded and did; that the Bishops would not do; tamen quoniam quidam, etc. because there are some who simply and ignorantly [In chalice Dominico sanctificando & plebi ministrando non hoc faciunt quod Jesus Christus Dominus & Deus noster sacrificii hujus author & Doctor fecit & docuit, etc.] In sanctifying the cup of the Lord, and giving it to the people do not do what Jesus Christ did and taught, viz. they did not give the cup of wine to the people; therefore S. Cyprian calls them to return ad radicem & originem traditionis Dominicae, to the root and original of the Lords delivery. Now besides that S. Cyprian plainly says, that when the chalice was sanctified, it was also ministered to the people; I desire it be considered, whether or no these words do not plainly reprove the Roman doctrine and practice, in not giving the consecrated chalice to the people: Do they not recede from the root and original of Christ's institution? Do they do what Christ did? Do they teach what Christ taught? Is not their practice quite another thing than it was at first? Did not the Ancient Church do otherwise than these men do? And thought themselves obliged to do otherwise? They urged the doctrine and example of our Lord, and the whole Oeconomy of the Mystery was their warrant and their reason: for they always believed that a peculiar grace and virtue was signified by the symbol of wine; and it was evident that the chalice was an excellent representment and memorial of the effusion of Christ's blood for us, and the joining both the symbols signifies the entire refection and nourishment of our souls, bread and drink being the natural provisions; and they design and signify our redemption more perfectly, the body being given for our bodies, and the blood for the cleansing our souls, the life of every animal being in the blood: and finally, this in the integrity, signifies and represents Christ to have taken body and soul for our redemption. For these reasons the Church of God always in all her public communions gave the chalice to the people for above a thousand years. This was all I would have remarked in this so evident a matter, but that I observed in a short spiteful passage of E. W. Pag. 44. a notorious untruth spoken with ill intent concerning the Holy Communion as understood by Protestants. The words are these, [seeing the fruit of Protestant Communion is only to stir up faith in the receiver, I can find no reason why their bit of bread only, may not as well work that effect, as to taste of their wine with it.] To these words, 1. I say, that although stirring up faith is one of the Divine benefits and blessings of the Holy Communion, yet it is falsely said, that the fruit of the Protestant Communion is only to stir up faith. For in the Catechism of the Church of England it is affirmed, that the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithful in the Lord's Supper; and that our souls are strengthened and refreshed by the body and blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread and wine,] and that of stirring up our faith is not at all mentioned: So ignorant, so deceitful, or deceived is E. W. in the doctrine of the Church of England. But then as for his foolish sarcasm, calling the hallowed Element a bit of bread, which he does in scorn; he might have considered, that if we had a mind to find fault whenever his Church gives us cause, that the Papists wafer is scarce so much as a bit of bread, it is more like Marchpane than common bread, and besides that (as Salmeron acknowledges) anciently, 
Salmer. in 11. Cor. 10. disp. 17. pag. 138.  Olim ex pane uno sua cuique particula frangi consueverat, that which we in our Church do was the custom of the Church; out of a great loaf to give particles to every communicant, by which the Communication of Christ's body to all the members is better represented, 
Durand. ration. Divin. offic. l. 4. c. 53.  and that Durandus affirming the same thing, says that the Grecians continue it to this day; besides this (I say) the Author of the Roman order (says Cassander) took it very ill, 
Cassand. liturg. c. 27. Sect. Et cum mensa.  that the loaves of bread offered in certain Churches for the use of the sacrifice should be brought from the form of true bread to so slight and slender a form, which he calls Minutias nummulariarum oblatarum, scraps of little penies or pieces of money,] and not worthy to be called bread, being such which no Nation ever used at their meals for bread. But this is one of the innovations which they have introduced into the religious Rites of Christianity, and it is little noted, they having so many greater changes to answer for.  
But it seems this Section was too hot for them, they loved not much to meddle with it; and therefore I shall add no more fuel to their displeasure, but desire the Reader, who would fully understand what is fit to be said in this Question, 
Lib. 2. Chap. 3. Rule 9  to read it in a book of mine which I called Ductor dubitantium, or the Cases of Conscience; only I must needs observe, that it is an unspeakable comfort to all Protestants, when so manifestly they have Christ on their side in this Question against the Church of Rome. To which I only add, that for above 700. years after Christ, it was esteemed sacrilege in the Church of Rome to abstain from the Cup, and that in the ordo Romanus the Communion is always described with the Cup; how it is since, and how it comes to be so, is too plain. But it seems the Church hath power to dispense in this affair, because S. Paul said, that the Ministers of Christ are dispensers of the mysteries of God: as was learnedly urged in the Council of Trent in the doctrine about this question.   

SECTION. V  
Of the Scriptures and Service in an unknown Tongue.  
THe Question being still upon the novelty of the Roman doctrines, and Practices; I am to make it good that the present article and practice of Rome is contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church. 
E. W. p. 45. and A. L. p. 25  To this purpose I alleged S. Basil in his Sermon or book de variis scripturae locis: But say my adversaries, there is no such book.] Well! was there such a man as S. Basil? If so, we are well enough; and let these Gentlemen be pleased to look into his works printed at Paris 1547. by Carola Guillard, and in the 130. page, he shall see this Book, Sermon, 
Recordemini quae●, ex his spiritualibus sermonibus qui lecti sunt medicinae. Reminiscamini earum quae sunt in psalmis monitionum proverbialia praecepta, historiae pulchritudinem, examplaque investigate. His addite Apostolica mandata. In omnibus verò tanquam coronida, perfectionemque verba evangelica conjungite, ut ex omnibus utilitatem capientes, ad id demum convertatis & revertamini ad quod quisque jucundè est affectus, & ad quod obeundum gratiam à spiritu sancto accepit.  or Homily, in aliquot scripturae locis, at the beginning of which he hath an exhortation in the words placed in the Margin, there we shall find the lost Sheep: The beginning of it is an exhortation to the people, congregated to get profit and edification by the Scriptures read at morning prayer, the Monitions in the Psalms, the precepts of the Proverbs; Search ye the beauty of the history, and the examples, and add to these the precepts of the Apostles. But in all things join the words of the Gospel, as the Crown and perfection, that receiving profit from them all, ye may at length turn to that to which every one is sweetly affected, and for the doing of which he hath received the grace of the Holy Spirit.]  
Now this difficulty being over, all that remains for my own justification is, that I make it appear that S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, S. Austin, Aquinas and Lyra do respectively exhort to the study of the Scriptures, exhorting even the Laity to do so, and testify the custom of the Ancient Church in praying in a known tongue, and commending this as most useful, and condemning the contrary as being useless and without edification. I shall in order set down the doctrine they deliver in their own words, and then the impertinent cavils of the adversaries will of themselves come to nothing.  
S. Chrysostom commenting upon S. Paul's words concerning preaching and praying for edification, 
35. Homil. in 1 Cor. 14. chap.  and so as to be understood; coming to those words of S. Paul, If I pray with my tongue, my spirit prayeth but my mind is without fruit [you see (saith he) how a little extolling prayer he shows, that he who is such a one (viz. as the Apostle there describes) is not only unprofitable to others, but also to himself, since his mind is without fruit.] Now if a man praying what he understands not, does not, cannot profit himself; how can he that stands by, who understands no more, be profited by that which does him that speaks no good? For God understands though he does not, and yet he that so prays reaps no benefit to himself, and therefore neither can any man that understands no more. The affirmation is plain, and the reason cogent: To the same purpose are the words of S. Chrysostom which A. L. himself quotes out of him [If one speaks in only the Persian tongue, 
Pag. 25.  or some other strange tongue, but knows not what he saith, certainly he will be a barbarian even to himself, and not to another only, because he knows not the force of the words.] This is no more than what S. Paul said before him; but they all say, that he who hears and understands not whether it be the speaker or the scholar, 
In 1 Cor. 14.  is but a Barbarian. Thus also S. Ambrose in his Commentary upon the words of S. Paul [The Apostle says, 
Vtilius dicit (Apostolus) paucis verbis in apertion● sermonis loqui, quod omnes intelligant, quam prolxam orationem habere in obscuro. Imperitus enim audiens quod non intelligit, nescit finem erationis, & non respondet Amen, id est, verum, ut confirmetur benedictio. Et in haec verba Nam tu quidem bene gratias agis] De eo dicit qui cognita sibi loquitur quia scit quid dicit, (sed alius non aedificatur) si utique ad Ecclesiam aedificandam convenitis, ea debent dici quae intelligant audientes. Nam quid prodest ut lingua loquatur quam solus scit, ut qui audit, nihil proficiat. Ideò tacere debet in Ecclesiâ, ut two loquantur qui prosunt audientibus.  It is better to speak a few words, that are open or understood, that all may understand, than to have a long oration in obscurity: That's his sense for reading and preaching: Now for prayer he adds, [The unskilful man hearing what he understands not, knows not when the prayer ends, and answers not Amen, that is, so be it, or it is true, that the blessing may be established: and a little after, If ye meet together to edify the Church, those things ought to be said, which the hearers may understand. For what profit is it to speak with a tongue, when he that hears is not profited? Therefore he ought to hold his peace in the Church, that they who can profit the hearers may speak. 
* S. August. in 2. Comment. in ps. 18. Deprecati Dominum ut ab occultis nostris mundet nos, & ab alienis parcat servis suis, quid hoc sit intelligere debemus, ut humanâ rati●ne non quasi avium voce cantemus. Name & Meruli, & Psittaci, & Corvi, & Picae, & hujusmodi volucres saepe ab hominibus docentur sonare quod nesciunt. Scienter autem cantare non avi sed homini Divinâ voluntate concessum est. Et paulo post. Nos autem qui in Ecclesiâ divina eloquia cantare didicimus simul etiam instare debemus esse quod scriptum est, Beatus populus qui intelligit jubilationem: proinde charissimi quod consonâ voc● cantavimus, sereno etiam corde nosse ac videre debemus.  S. Austin compares singing in the Church without understanding to the chattering of Parrots and Magpies, Crows and Jackdaws. But to sing with understanding is by the will of God given to man. And we who sing the Divine praises in the Church, must remember that it is written, Blessed is the people that understands singing of praises. Therefore most beloved, what with a joined voice we have sung we must understand and discern with a serene heart.] To the same purpose are the words of Lyra and 
* Tho. Aquin. in 1 Cor. 14. Ille qui intelligit reficitur, & quantum ad intellectum & quantum ad affectum; sed mens ejus qui non intelligit, est sine fructu refectionis. And again, quantum ad fructum devotionis spiritualis privatur qui non atendit ad ea quae orat, seu non intelligit. Lyra. Caeterum hic consequenter idem ostendit in oratione publicâ, quia si populus intelligat orationem seu benedictionem facerdnis, m●lius reducitur in Deum & devotius Amen. And again, propter quod in Ecclesiâ primitiuâ benedictiones & coeterae omnia lege communia * fiebant in vulgari. * For of common things, that is, things in public the Dissuasive speaks, Common prayers, common preach, Common Eucharists and thanksgivings, common blessings. All these and all other public and common things being used in the vulgar tongue in the Primitive; Communia and omnia are equivalent, but Communia is Lyra ' s word.  Aquinas, which I shall not trouble the Reader withal here, but have set them down in the Margin, that the strange confidence of these Romanists outfacing notorious and evident words may be made, if possible, yet more conspicuous.  
In pursuance of this doctrine of S. Paul and the Fathers, the Primitive Christians in their several ages and Countries were careful, that the Bible should be translated into all languages where Christianity was planted. That the Bibles were in Greek is notorious; and that they were used among the people S. Chrysostom homil. 1. in Joh. 8. is witness, that it was so, or that it ought to be so. For he exhorts, Vacemus ergo scripturis dilectissimi, etc. Let us set time apart to be conversant in the Scripture, at least in the Gospels, let us frequently handle them to imprint them in our minds, which because the Jews neglected they were commanded to have their books in their hands, but let us not have them in our hands, but in our houses and in our hearts] by which words we may easily understand that all the Churches of the Greek communion had the Bible in their vulgar tongue, and were called upon to use them as Christians ought to do, that is to imprint them in their hearts: 
Homil. 1. in 8. Johan. Videat. lector. s. Basil. in Ascert. in 278. resp. in regul. brevior. & Cassidore.  and speaking of S. John and his Gospel, he says that the Syrians, Indians, Persians and Ethiopians and infinite other nations, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; they grew wise by translating his (S. john's) doctrines into their several languages. 
De doctrine: Christianâ lib. 2. c. 5. Ex quo factum est, ut etiam scriptura divina, quâ tantis morbis humanarum voluntatum subvenitur, ab unâ linguâ profecta, quae opportunè potuit per ●rbem terrarum disseminari, per varias interpretum linguas longè latéque diffusainnotesceret gentibus ad salutem. Theodoret. lib. 5. de curand. Graec. affect. Nos autem verbis Apostolicae propheticaeque doctrinae inexhaustum robur manifestè ostendimus. Vniversa enim facies terrae quantacunque soly subiicitur, ejusmodi verborum plena jam est. Hebraei verò libri non modo in Graecum idioma conversi sunt, sed in Romanam quoque linguam, Egyptiam, Persicam, Indicam, Armenicamque & Scythicam, atque adeò Sauromaticam, semelque ut dicam in linguas omnes quibus ad hunc diem nationes utuntur.  But it is more that S. Austin says, The divine Scripture by which help is supplied to so great diseases proceeded from one language which opportunely might be carried over the whole world, that being by the various tongues of interpreters scattered far and wide, it might be made known to the Nations for their salvation. And Theodoret speaks yet more plainly, [we have manifestly shown to you the inexhausted strength of the Apostolic and prophetic doctrine; for the Universal face of the earth, whatsoever is under the sun is now full of those words. For the Hebrew books are not only translated into the Greek idiom, but into the Roman tongue, the Egyptian, Persian, Indian, Armenian, Scythian, Sauromatic languages, and that I may speak once for all, into all tongues which at this day the Nations use.] By these authorities of these Fathers we may plainly see how different the Roman doctrine and practice is from the sentiment and usages of the Primitive Church, and with what false confidence the Roman adversaries deny so evident truth, having no other way to make their doctrine seem tolerable, but by outfacing the known sayings of so many excellent persons; and especially of S. Paul, who could not speak his mind in apt and intelligible words: if he did not in his Epistle to the Corinthians exhort the Church to pray 
* Quamvis per se bonum sit ut officia divina celebrentur eâ linguâ quam plebs intelligat, id enim per se confert ad aedificationem, ut bene probat hic locus. Estius in 1. ep. Corin. cap. 14.  and prophecy so as to be understood by the Catechumen, and by all the people; that is, to do otherwise than they do in the Roman Church: Christianity is a simple, wise, intelligible and easy Religion; and yet if a man will resolve against any proposition, he may wrangle himself into a puzzle, and make himself not to understand it so, though it be never so plain; what is plainer than the testimony of their own Cajetan [that it were more for the edification of the Church that the prayers were in the vulgar tongue.] 
Respon add artic. pacis. magis fore ad aedificationem Ecclesiae, ut preces vulgari linguâ conciperentur. Ex hâc doctrinâ Pauli, habetur quod melius ad aedificationem Ecclesiae est orationes publicas quae audiente populo dicuntur, dici linguâ communi Clericis & populo, quam dici latina. Idem in 1 Cor. 14.  He says no more than S. Paul says; and he could not speak it plainer. And indeed no man of sense can deny it, unless he affirms at the same time that it is better to speak what we understand not, than what we do; or that it were better to serve God without that noble faculty than with it; that is, that the way of a Parrot, and a Jackdaw, were better than the way of a man; and that in the service of God, the Priests and the people are to differ as a man and a bird.  
But besides all this; was not Latin itself when it was first used in Divine service the common tongue, and generally understood by many Nations and very many Colonies? and if it was then the use of the Church to pray with the understanding, why shall it not be so now? however, that it was so then, and is not so now, demonstrates that the Church of Rome hath in this material point greatly innovated: Let but the Roman Pontifical be consulted, and there will be yet found a form of ordination of Readers, 
Studete verba Dei, viz. Lectiones sacras distinctè & apertè ad intelligentiam & aedicationem fidelium absque omni mendacio falsitatis proffer, etc.  in which it is said, that they must study to read distinctly and plainly, that the people may understand: But now it seems that labour is saved. And when a notorious change was made in this affair, we can tell by calling to mind the following story. The Moravians did say Mass in the Slavonian tongue; for which Pope John the eighth severely reproved them, and commanded them to do so no more; but being better informed, he wrote a letter to their Prince Sfentoputero, in which he affirms, that it is not contrary to faith and found doctrine to say Mass and other prayers in the Slavonian tongue, and adds this reason; because he that Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, hath made the others also for his glory; and this also he confirms with the authority of S. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, and some other Scriptures, only he commanded for the decorum of the business, the Gospel should first be said in Latin and then in the Slavonian tongue. But just two hundred years after this, the Tables were turned, and though formerly these things were permitted, yet so were many things in the Primitive Church; but upon better examination they have been corrected. And therefore P. Gregory the seventh wrote to Vratislaus of Bohemia, that he could not permit the celebration of the divine offices in the Slavonian tongue, and he commanded the Prince to oppose the people herein with all his forces. Here the world was strangely altered, and yet S. Paul's Epistle was not condemned of heresy; and no Council had decreed that all vulgar languages were profane; and no reason can yet be imagined why the change was made, unless it were to separate the Priest from the people, by a wall of Latin, and to nurse stupendious ignorance in them, by not permitting to them learning enough to understand their public prayers, in which every man was greatly concerned. Neither may this be called a slight matter; for besides that Gregory the seventh thought it so considerable, that it was a just cause of a war or persecution, (for he commanded the Prince of Bohemia to oppose the people in it with all his forces;) besides this (I say) to pray to God with the understanding, is much better, than praying with the tongue; that alone can be a good prayer, this alone can never; and then the loss of all those advantages which are in prayers truly understood, the excellency of devotion, the passion of desires, the ascent of the mind to God, the adherence to and acts of confidence in him, the intellectual conversation with God, most agreeable to a rational being, the melting affections, the pulses of the heart to & from God, to and from ourselves, the promoting and exercising of our hopes, all these and very many more (which can never be entire but in the prayers and devotions of the hearts, and can never be in any degree but in the same, in which the prayers are acts of love and wisdom, of the will and the understanding) will be lost to the greatest part of the Catholic Church, if the mouth be set open, and the soul be gauged; so that it shall be the word of the mouth, but not the word of the mind.  
All these things being added to what was said in this article by the Dissuasive, will more than make it clear, that in this article (the consequents of which are very great) the Church of Rome hath causelessly troubled Christendom, and innovated against the Primitive Church, and against her own ancient doctrines and practices, and even against the Apostle: But they care for none of these things. Some of their own Bigots profess the thing in the very worst of all these expressions; for so Reynolds and Gifford in their Calvino Turcismus complain that such horrid and stupendious evils have followed the translation of Scriptures into vulgar languages, that they are of force enough ad istas translationes penitus supprimendas, etiamsi Divina vel Apostolica authoritate niterentur: Although they did rely upon the authority Apostolical or Divine, yet they ought to be taken away. So that it is to no purpose to urge Scripture, or any argument in the world against the Roman Church in this article; for if God himself command it to be translated, yet it is not sufficient: and therefore these men must be left to their own way of understanding, for beyond the law of God, we have no argument. I will only remind them, that it is a curse which God threatens to his rebellious people, [I will speak to this people with men of another tongue, 
Isa. 25. 11.  and by strange lips, and they shall not understand. This is the curse which the Church of Rome contends earnestly for, in behalf of their people.   

SECTION VI.  
Of the Worship of Images.  
THat society of Christians will not easily be reform, that think themselves obliged to dispute for the worship of Images, the prohibition of which was so great a part of the Mosaic Religion, and is so infinitely against the nature and spirituality of the Christian; a thing which every understanding can see condemned in the Decalogue, & no man can excuse, but witty persons that can be bound by no words, which they can interpret to a sense contradictory to the design of the common: a thing for the hating of, and abstaining from which the Jews were so remarked by all the world, and by which as by a distinctive cognisance they were separated from all other Nations, and which with perfect resolution they keep to this very day, and for the not observing of which, they are intolerably scandalised at those societies of Christians, who without any necessity in the thing, without any pretence of any Law of God, for no good, and for no wise end, and not without infinite danger, at least, of idolatry, retain a worship and veneration to some stocks and stones. Such men as these are too hard for all laws, and for all arguments; so certain it is, that faith is an obedience of the will in a conviction of the understanding; that if in the will and interests of men there be a perverseness and a noncompliance, and that it is not bend by prudent and wise flexures and obedience to God, and the plain words of God in Scripture, nothing can ever prevail, neither David, nor his Sling, nor all the worthies of his army.  
In this question I have said enough in the Dissuasive, and also in the Ductor dubitantium; but to the arguments and fullness of the persuasion, they neither have, nor can they say any thing that is material; but according to their usual method, like flies they search up and down, and light upon any place which they suppose to be sore, or would make their proselytes believe so. I shall therefore first vindicate those few quotations which the Epistles of his brethren except against; (for there are many, and those most pregnant which they take no notice of) as bearing in them too clear a conviction. 2. I shall answer such testimonies, which some of them steal out of Bellarmine, and which they esteem as absolutely their best. And 3. I shall add something in confirmation of that truth of God, which I here have undertaken to defend.  
First, for the questioned quotations against the worship of images; S. Cyril was named in the Dissuasive as denying that the Christians did give veneration and worship to the image even of the cross itself, but no words of S. Cyril were quoted; for the denial is not in express words, but in plain and direct argument: for being by Julian charged with worshipping the cross, S. Cyril in behalf of the Christians takes notice of their using the cross in a religious memory of all good things, to which by the cross of Christ we are engaged, that is, he owns all that they did, and therefore taking no notice of any thing of worship, and making no answer to that part of the objection, it is certain that the Christians did not do it, or that he could not justify them in so doing. But because I quoted no words of S. Cyril, I now shall take notice of some words of his, which do most abundantly clear this particular by a general rule; 
N●mo autem ignorat nulli prorsus naturae, praeterquam Dei, adorationem à scrip●uris contribui.  [Only the Divine Nature is capable of adoration, and the Scripture hath given adoration to no nature but to that of God alone;] that, and that alone aught to be worshipped. But to give yet a little more light to this particular; it may be noted that before S. Cyrils' time this had been objected by the Pagans, 
Thesaur. l. 2. c. 1. & alibi. una Natura est deitatis quam solummodo adorare oportet.  particularly by Caecilius, to which Minutius answers by directly denying it, and saying, that the Pagans did rather worship erosses, that is, the wooden parts of their Gods. The Christians indeed were by Tertullian called Religiosi crucis, because they had it in thankful use and memory, and used it frequently in a symbolical confession of their not being ashamed, but of their glorying in the real cross of Christ: But they never worshipped the material cross, or the figure of it, as appears by S. Cyrils' owning all the objections, excepting this only, of which he neither confessed the fact, nor offered any justification of it when it was objected, but professed a doctrine with which such practice was inconsistent. And the like is to be said of some other of the Fathers who speak with great affections and veneration of the cross, meaning, to exalt the passion of Christ; and in the sense of S. Paul to glory in the cross of Christ, not meaning the material cross, much less the image of it, which we blame in the Church of Rome: And this very sense we have expressed in S. Ambrose, 
Orat. de obitu Tbecdos.  Sapiens Helena egit, quae crucem in capite regum levavit, ut Christi Crux in Regibus adoretur. The figure of the material cross was by Helena placed upon the heads of Kings, that the cross of Christ in Kings might be adored:] How so? He answers, Non insolentia ista sed pietas est cum defertur sacrae redemptioni. It is to the holy redemption, not to the cross materially taken; this were insolent, but the other is piety. In the same manner also S. Chrysostom is by the Roman Doctors, and particularly by Gretser, 
E. W. pag 57  and E. W. urged for the worshipping Christ's cross. But the book de cruse & latrone, whence the words are cited; Gretser and Possevine suspect it to be a spurious issue of some unknown person: It wants a Father; and sometimes it goes to S. Austin, and is crowded into his Sermons de Tempore: 
Serm. 30.  But I shall not trouble my discourse any farther with such counterfeit ware. What S. Chrysostoms' doctrine was in the matter of images, is plain enough in his indubitate works, as is, and shall be remarked in their several places.  
The famous testimony of Epiphanius, against the very use of images in Churches, being urged in the Dissuasive as an irrefragable argument that the Roman doctrine is not Primitive or Catholic, the contra-scribers say nothing; 
A. L.  but that when S. Hierome translated that Epistle of S. Epiphanius, it appears not that this story was in that Epistle that S. Hierome translated; which is a great argument that that story was foisted into that Epistle after S. Hieromes time.] A likely matter! but spoken upon slight grounds. It appears not, saith the Objector, that this story was in it then: To whom does it not appear? To Bellarmine indeed it did not, nor to this Objector who writes after him. Alan Cope denied that Epiphanius ever wrote any such Epistle at all, or that S. Hierome ever translated any such; but Bellarmine, being ashamed of such unreasonable boldness, found out this more gentle answer, which here we have from our Objector: well! but now the case is thus; that this story was put into the Epistle by some Iconoclast is vehemently suspected by Bellarmine and Baronius. But this Epistle vehemently burns their fingers, and the live coal sticks close to them, and they can never shake it off. For 1. who should add this story to this Epistle? Not any of the reformed Doctors; for before Luther's time many ages, this Epistle with this story was known, and confessed, and quoted, in the Manuscript copies of divers Nations. 2. This Epistle was quoted, and set down as now it is, with this story by Charles the great above DCCC. years ago. 3. And a little after by the Fathers in the Council of Paris; only they call the Author John Bishop of C. P. instead of Jerusalem. 4. Sirmondus the Jesuit citys this Epistle as the genuine work of Epiphanius. 
Sirmond. Not. in Concil. Norbon. c. 13. l. ●. Concil. Gal.  5. Marianus Victor, and Dionysius Petavius a Jesuit of great and deserved fame for learning in their Editions of Epiphanius, have published this whole Epistle; and have made no note, given no censure upon this story. 6. Before them 
* Tom. 3. lit. 19 c. 157. & apud Bellarm. lib. 2. de imag. c. 9  Thomas Waldensis, and since him Alphonsus a Castro acknowledge this whole Epistle as the proper issue of Epiphanius. 7. Who can be supposed to have put in this story? The Iconoclasts? Not the Greeks, because if they had, they would have made use of it for their advantage, which they never did in any of their disputations against images; 
Lib. 2. de imag. cap 9 Sect. secundò quia heretici.  insomuch that Bellarmine makes advantage of it, because they never objected it. Not the Latins that wrote against images; for though they were against the worship of images, yet they were not Iconoclasts: Indeed Claudius Taurinensis was, but he could not put this story in, for before his time it was in, as appears in the book of Charles the great before quoted. These things put together are more than sufficient to prove that this story was written by Epiphanius, and the whole Epistle was translated by S. Hierome, as himself testifies. 
In Epist. 61. & 101. add Pammach.  But after all this, if there was any foul play in this whole affair, the cozenage lies on the other side; for some or other have destroyed the Greek original of Epiphanius, and only the Latin copies remain; and in all of them of Epiphanius' works, this story still remains. But how the Greek came to be lost, though it be uncertain, yet we have great cause to suspect the Greeks to be the Authors of the loss: And the cause of this suspicion is the command made by the Bishops in the seventh Council, 
Syn. 7. Act. 8. Can. 9  that all writings against images should be brought in to the Bishop of C. P. there to be laid up with the books of other heretics. It is most likely here it might go away: But however, the good providence of God hath kept this record to reprove the follies of the Roman Church in this particular.  
The authority of S. Austin, reprehending the worship of images, 
De moribus Eccles. lib. 1. c. 34.  was urged from several places of his writings cited in the Margin. In his first book de moribus Ecclesiae, 
Jam videbitis quid inter ostentationem & sinceritatem— postremo quid inter superstitionis Sirenas & portum religionis intersit. Nolite mihi colligere professores Nominis Christiani, nec professionis suae vim aut scientes aut exhibentes. Nolite consectari turbas imperitorum, qui vel in ipsâ verâ religione superstitiosi sunt, vel ita libidinibus dediti, ut obliti sint quid promiserint Deo. Novi multos esse sepulchrorum & picturarum adoratores, novi multos esse qui luxuriosissimè super mortuos vivant.  he hath these words which I have now set down in the Margin; in which, describing among other things the difference between superstition and true religion, he presses it on to issue; [Tell not me of the professors of the Christian name. Fellow not the troops of the unskilful, who in true religion itself either are superstitious, or so given to lusts, that they have forgotten what they have promised to God. I know that there are many worshippers of sepulchres and pictures, I know that there are many who live luxuriously over [the graves of] the dead.] That S. Austin reckons these that are worshippers of pictures among the superstitious and the vicious, is plain, and forbids us to follow such superstitious persons. 
Sed & illa quàm vana sint, quàm noxia, quàm sacrilega, quemadmodum à magnâ parte vestrum, atque adeò penè ab omnibus v●bis non observentur, alio volumine oftendere instit●i. Nunc vos illud admaneo, ut aliquando Ecclesiae Catholicae maledicere definatis, vituperando mores hominum quos & ipsa condemnat, & quos quotidie tanquam malos filio● corrigere studer.  But see what follows, [But how vain, how hurtful, how sacrilegious they are, I have purposed to show in another volume.] Then addressing himself to the Manichees, who upon the occasion of these evil and superstitious practices of some Catholics, did reproach the Catholic Church, he says, [Now I admonish you that at length you will give over the reproaching the Catholic Church, by reproaching the manners of these men, (viz. worshippers of pictures, and sepulchres, and livers riotously over the dead,) whom she herself condemns, and whom as evil sons she endeavours to correct.] By these words now cited, it appears plainly, that S. Austin affirms that those few Christians, who in his time did worship pictures, were not only superstitious, but condemned by the Church. This the Letter writer denies S. Austin to have said; but that he did say so, we have his own words for witness. Yea, but 2. S. Austin did not speak of worshippers of pictures alone: what then? Neither did he of them alone say they were superstitious, and their actions vain, hurtful and sacrilegious. But does it follow that therefore he does not say so at all of these, because he says it of the others too? But 3. neither doth he formally call them superstitions,] I know not what this offer of an answer means, certain it is, when S. Austin had complained that many Christians were superstitious, his first instance is of them that worship pictures and graves. But I perceive this Gentleman found himself pinched beyond remedy, and like a man fastened by his thumbs at the whipping-post, he wries his back and shrinks from the blow, though he knows he cannot get lose.  
In the Margin of the Dissuasive, 
De fide &. symb. c. 7. Contr. Adimant. c. 13.  there were two other testimonies of S. Austin pointed at; but the 
* Pag. 27.  Letter says, that in these S. Austin hath not a word to any such purpose: That is now to be tried. The purpose for which they were brought, is to reprove the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome in the matter of images: It was not intended that all these places should all speak or prove the same particular; but that which was affirmed in the text being sufficiently verified by the first quotation in the Margin, the other two are fully pertinent to the main inquiry, and to condemnation of the Roman doctrine, as the first was of the Roman practice. The words are these, [Neither is it to be thought that God is circumscribed in a humane shape, that they who think of him should fancy a right or a left side, or that because the Father is said to sit, it is to be supposed, that he does it with bended knees, lest we fall into that sacrilege, for which the Apostle Execrates them that change the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a corruptible man. For, for a Christian to place such an image to God in the Church is wickedness, but much more wicked is it to place it in our heart.] So S. Austin. Now this testimony had been more properly made use of in the next Section, as more relating to the proper matter of it, as being a direct condemnation of the picturing of God; but here it serves without any sensible error, and where ever it is, it throws a stone at them, and hits them. But of this more in the sequel.  
But the third testimony (however it pleases A. L. to deny it) does speak home to his part of the question, 
Contr. Adimant. c. 13.  and condemns the Roman hypothesis: the words are these, [See that ye forget not the testimony of your God which he wrote, or that ye make shapes and images:] But it adds also saying, Your God is a consuming fire, and a zealous God. These words from the Scripture Adimantus propounded; [Yet remember not only there, but also here concerning the zeal of God, he so blames the Scriptures, that he adds that which is commanded by our Lord God in those books, concerning the not worshipping of images; as if for nothing else he reprehends that zeal of God, but only because by that very zeal we are forbidden to worship images. Therefore he would seem to favour images, which therefore they do that they might reconcile the good will of the Pagans to their miserable and mad sect,] meaning the sect of the Manichees, who to comply with the Pagans, did retain the worship of images. And now the three testimonies are verified; and though this was an Unnecessary trouble to me, and I fear it may be so to my Reader, yet the Church of Rome hath got no advantage but this, that in S. Augustine's sense, that which Romanists do now, the Manichees did then; only these did it to comply with the Heathens, and those out of direct and mere superstition. But to clear this point in S. Augustine's doctrine, the Reader may please to read his 19 book against Faustus the Manichee, cap. 18. and the 119. Epistle against him, chap. 12. where he affirms that the Christians observe that, which the Jews did in this, viz. that which was written, Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God, thou shalt not make an idol to thee, and such like things: and in the latter place, he affirms that the second Commandment is moral, viz. that all of the Decalogue are so, but only the fourth. I add a third as pregnant as any of the rest: for in his first book de consensu Evangelistarum, speaking of some who had fallen into error upon occasion of the pictures of S. Peter and S. Paul, he says, Sic nempe errare meruerunt qui Christum & Apostolos ejus non in sanctis condicibus sed in pictis parietibus quaesiverunt.  
The Council of Eliberis is of great concern in this Question, and does great effort to the Roman practices. 
E. W. pag. 57  E. W. takes notice of it, and his best answer to it is, that it hath often been answered already. He says true; it hath been answered both often and many ways. The Council was in the year 305. of 19 Bishops, who in the 36. Canon, decreed this [placuit picturas in Ecclesiis esse non debere.] It hath pleased us that pictures ought not to be in Churches; That's the decree: The reason they give is, ne quod colitur & adoratur in parietibus depingatur, lest that which is worshipped be painted on the walls. So that there are two propositions; 1. Pictures ought not to be in Churches. 2. That which is worshipped ought not to be painted upon walls. 
Pag. 57  E. W. hath a very learned Note upon this Canon. Mark, first the Council supposeth worship and adoration due to pictures, ne quod colitur & adoratur. By which mark, E. W. confesses that pictures are the object of his adoration, and that the Council took no care and made no provision for the honour of God, (who is and aught to be worshipped and adored in Churches, & illi soli servies) but only were good husbands for the pictures for fear, 1. they should be spoiled by the moisture of the walls, or 2. defaced by the Heathen; the first of these is Bellarmine's, the latter is perron's answer: But too childish to need a severer consideration. But how easy had it been for them to have commanded that all their pictures should have been in frames, upon boards or cloth, as it is in many Churches in Rome, and other places. 2. Why should the Bishops forbidden pictures to be in Churches; for fear of spoiling one kind of them, they might have permitted others, though not these. 3. Why should any man be so vain as to think, that in that age, in which the Christians were in perpetual disputes against the Heathens for worshipping pictures and images, they should be so curious to preserve their pictures, and reserve them for adoration. 4. But then to make pictures to be the subject of that caution, ne quod colitur, & adoratur, and not to suppose God and his Christ to be the subject of it, is so unlike the religion of Christians, the piety of those ages, the Oeconomy of the Church, and the analogy of the Commandment, that it betrays a refractory and heretical spirit in him, that shall so perversely invent an Unreasonable Commentary, rather than yield to so pregnant and easy testimony. But some are wiser, and consider, that the Council takes not care that pictures be not spoiled, but that they be not in the Churches; and that what is adorable be not there painted, and not, be not there spoiled. The not painting them is the utmost of their design, not the preserving them; for we see vast numbers of them every where painted on walls, and preserved well enough, and easily repaired upon decay, therefore this is too childish; to blot them out for fear they be spoiled, and not to bring them into Churches for fear they be taken out. Agobardus Bishop of Lions, above 800. years since cited this Canon in a book of his which he wrote de picturis & imaginibus, which was published by Papirius Massonus; and thus illustrates it, Recte (saith he) nimirum ob hujusmodi evacuandam superstitionem ab Orthodoxis patribus definitum est picturas in Ecclesia fieri non debere [Nec] quod eolitur & adoratur in parietibus deping atur. Where first he expressly affirms these Fathers in this Canon to have intended only rooting up this superstition, not the ridiculous preserving the pictures. So it was Understood then. But then 2. Agobardus reads it, Nec, not [Ne] quod colitur, which reading makes the latter part of the Canon, to be part of the sanction, and no reason of the former decree; pictures must not be made in Churches, neither aught that to be painted upon walls which is worshipped and adored. This was the doctrine and sentiment of the wise and good men above 800. years since. By which also the Unreasonable supposition of Baronius, that the Canon is not genuine, is plainly confuted; this Canon not being only in all copies of that Council, but owned for such by Agobardus so many ages before Baronius, and so many ages after the Council. And he is yet farther reproved by Cardinal Perron, who tells a story, that in Granada in memory of this Council, they use frames for pictures, and paint none upon the wall at this day. It seems they in Granada are taught to understand that Canon according unto the sense of the Patrons of images, and to mistake the plain meaning of the Council. For the Council did not forbid only to paint upon the walls, for that according to the common reading is but accidental to the decree; but the Council commanded that no picture should be in Churches. Now-then let this Canon be confronted with the Council of Trent, Sess. 25. decret. de S. S. invoc. [Imagines Christi, Deiparae virgins, & aliorum sanctorum in Templis praesertim habendas & retinendas, that the images of Christ, and of the Virgin Mother of God, and of other Saints be had and kept especially in Churches:] and in the world there cannot be a greater contradiction between two, than there is between Eliberis and Trent, the old and the new Church: for the new Church not only commands pictures and images to be kept in Churches, but paints them upon walls, and neither fears thiefs nor moisture. There are divers other little answers amongst the Roman Doctors to this uneasy objection; but they are only such as venture at the telling the secret reasons why the Council so decreed; as Alan Cope saith, it was so decreed, lest the Christians should take them for Gods, or lest the Heathen should think the Christians worshipped them; so Sanders. But it matters not for what reason they decreed: Only if either of these say true, than Bellarmine and Perron are false in their conjectures of the reason. But it matters not; for suppose all these reasons were concentred in the decree, yet the decree itself is not observed at this day in the Roman Church, but a doctrine and practice quite contrary introduced. And therefore my opinion is, 
joc. Theol. lib. 5. c. 4.  that Melchior Canus answers best, [aut nimis duras aut parum rationi consentaneas a Consiliis provincialibus interdum editas, non est negandum. Qualis illa non impudenter modo verum etiam impie a Consilio Elibertino de tollendis imaginibus. By this we may see not only how irreverently the Roman Doctors use the Fathers when they are not for their turns; but we may also perceive how the Canon condemns the Roman doctrine and practice in the matter of images.  
The next inquiry is concerning matter of History, relating to the second Synod of Nice in the East, and that of Francfurt in the West. In the Dissuasive it was said, that Eginardus, Hincmarus, Aventinus, etc. affirmed, 1. That the Bishops assembled at Francfurt, and condemned the Synod of Nice. 2. That they commanded it should not be called a General Council. 3. They published a book under the name of the Emperor confuting that Unchristian Assembly. These things were said out of these Authors, not supposing that every thing of this should be proved from every one of them, but the whole of it by its several parts from all these put together.  
1. That the Bishops of Francfurt condemned the Synod of Nice or the seventh General. Whether the Dissuasive hath said this truly out of the Authors quoted by him, we need no further proof, but the confession of Bellarmine. 
Lib. 2. de imagine. c. 14. Sect. secundò quia.  Auctores antiqui omnes conveniunt in hoc, quod in concilio Francofordiensi sit reprobata Synodus VII. quae decreverat imagines adorandas. Ita Hincmarus, Aimoinus, Rhegino, Ado, & alii passim docent. So that if the objector blames the Dissuasive for alleging these authorities, let him first blame Bellarmine, who confesses that to be true, which the Dissuasive here affirms. Now that by the VII. Synod Bellarmine means the II. Nicene, 
Sect. neque obstat.  appears by his own words in the same chapter. Videtur igitur mihi in Synodo Francofordiensi vere reprobatam Nicaenam II. Synodum; sed per errorem, & materialiter, etc. And Bellarmine was in the right; not only those which the Dissuasive quoted, but all the Ancient writers saith Bellarmine. So the Author of the life of Charles the Great, speaking of the Council of Francfurt; [There Queen Fastrada died. Pseudosynodus Graecorum quam falso septimam vocabant pro imaginibus, rejecta est a pontificibus. The same is affirmed by the Annals of the Francs 
a Ad annum 794. ; by Adhelmus Benedictinus in his Annals, in the same year; by Hincmarus Rhemensis 
b Opusc. 55. N. cap. 20.  in an Epistle to Hincmarus his Nephew; by Strabus the Monk of Fulda, Rhegino prumiensis, Urspergensis, and Hermanus Contractus in their Annals and Chronicles of the year 794. By Ado viennensis 
c Chron. aetat. 6 ad annum Christi eundem & 792. ; sed pseudosynodus, quam septimam Graeci appellant, pro adorandis imaginibus, abdicata penitus; the same is affirmed by the Annals of Eginhardus 
d Ad eund. annum. ; and by Aimoinus 
e Lib. 4. c 85.  and Aventinus. I could reckon many more, if more were necessary, but these are they whom the Dissuasive quoted, and some more; against this truth nothing material can be said, only that Hincmarus and Aimoinus (which are two whom the Dissuasive quotes) do not say that the Synod of Francfurt rejected the second Nicene, but the Synod of C. P. But to this Bellarmine himself answers, that it is true they do so, but it is by mistake; and that they meant the Council which was kept at Nice: so that the Dissuasive is justified by his greatest adversary. But David Blondel answers this objection, by saying that C. P. being the head of the Eastern Empire, these Authors used the name of the Imperial city for the provinces under it: which answer though it be ingenious, yet I rather believe that the error came first from the Council of Francfurt, who called it the Synod at C. P. and that after it, these Authors took it up: but that error was not great, but always excusable, if not warrantable; because the second Nicene Council was first appointed to be at C. P. but by reason of the tumults of the people, was translated to Nice. But to proceed, That Blondus (whom the Dissuasive also quotes) saith, the Synod of Francfurt abrogated the seventh Synod, the objector confesses, and adds, that it confuted the Felician heresy for taking away of images: concerning which, lest the less wary Reader should suppose the Synod of Francfurt to have determined for images, as Alan Cope, Gregory de Valentia, Vasquez, Suarez, and Binius would feign have the world believe; I shall note, that the Synod of Francfurt did at the same time condemn the Heresy of Felix Urgetitanus, which was, that Christ was the adopted son of God. Now because in this Synod were condemned the breakers of Images, and the worshippers of images; some ignorantly (amongst which is this Gentleman the objector) have supposed that the Felician Heresy was that of the Iconoclasts.  
2. Now for the second thing which the Dissuasive said from these Authors; that the Fathers at Francfurt commanded that the second Nicene should not be called a general Council, that matter is sufficiently cleared in the proof of the first particular; for if they abrogated it, and called it pseudosynodum, and decreed against it; hoc ipso, they caused it should not be, or be called a General Synod. But I shall declare what the Synod did in the words of Adhelmus Benedictinus; 
In annal.  Synodus etiam quae paucos ante annos C. P. sub Helena & Constantino filio ejus congregata, & ab ipsis non tantum septima, verum etiam Universalis est appellata, ut nec septima nec Universalis diceretur, habereturque quasi supervacua, in totum ab omnibus abdicata est.  
3. Now for the third thing, which the Dissuasive said, that they published a book under the name of the Emperor; I am to answer that such a book about that time, within three or four years of it, was published in the name of the Emperor, is notoriously known, and there is great reason to believe it was written three or four years before the Synod, and sent by the Emperor to the Pope; but that divers of the Church of Rome did endeavour to persuade the world that the Emperor did not write it, but that it was written by the Synod, and contains the acts of the Synod, but published under the Emperor's name. Now this the Dissuasive affirmed by the authority of Hincmarus, who does affirm it, 
Vide supra. Sect. primò quia.  and of the same opinion is Bellarmine; Scripti videntur in Synodo Francofordiensi & acta continere synodi Francofordiensis: & enim asserit Hincmarus ejus temporis Author.] So that by all this the Reader may plainly see how careful the Dissuasive was in what was affirmed, and how careless this Gentleman is of what he objects: Only this I add, that though it be said that this book contained the acts of the Synod of Francfurt, though it might be partly true, yet not wholly. For this Synod did indeed do so much against that of the Greeks, and was so decretory against the worship of images, (quod omnino Ecclesia Dei execratur, 
A. D. 793.  said Hoveden, and Matthew of Westminster) that it is vehemently suspected, that the Patrons of Images (the objector knows whom I mean) have taken a timely course with it, so that the monuments of it are not to be seen, nor yet a famous and excellent Epistle of Alcuinus written against the Greek Synod, though his other works are in a large volume carefully enough preserved.  
It was urged as an argument a minori ad majus, 
Of making of images.  that in the Primitive Church it was accounted unlawful to make images; and therefore it was impossible that the worship of images should then be the doctrine or practice of the Catholic Church. 
A. L. p. 27.  To this purpose Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian and Origen were alleged. First for Tertullian, of whom the Letter says, that he said no such thing: sure it is, this man did not care what he said; supposing it sufficient to pass the common Reader, to say Tertullian did not say for what he is alleged: for more will believe him, than examine him. But the words of Tertullian shall manifest the strange confidence of this person. The Quotations out of Tertullian are only noted in the Margin, but the words were not cited, but now they must, to justify me and themselves. 
Cap. 3.  1. That reference to Tertullia's book of idolatry, the objector takes no notice of, as knowing it would reproach him too plainly: see the words, [the artificers of statues and images, and all kind of representations, 
Diabolum soeculo intulisse artifices statuarum & imaginum & omnis generis simulachrorum.  the Devil brought into the world,] and when he had given the Etymology of an Idol, saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is formula, he adds, Igitur omnis forma vel formula idolum se dici exposcit: Ind omnis Idoli artifex ejusdem & Unius est criminis. And a little before. Exinde jam caput facta est Idololatriae ars omnis quae Idolum quoquo modo edit. And in the beginning of the fourth chapter, Idolum tam fieri quam coli Deus prohibet. Quanto praecedit ut fiat quod coli possit, tanto prius est ne fiat si coli non licet. And again, toto mundo ejusmodi artibus interdixit servis Dei. And a little after he brings in some or other objecting; Sed ait quidam adversus similitudinis interdictae propositionem, cur ergo Moses in eremo simulachrum serpentis ex aere fecit? To this at last he answers. Si eundem Deum observas habes legem ejus, ne feceris similitudinem, si & praeceptum factae postea similitudinis respicis & tu imitare Moysen. Ne facias adversus legem simulachrum aliquod, nisi & tibi Deus jusserit. Now here is no subterfuge for any one: For Tertullian first says, the Devil brought into the world all the artists and makers of statues, images and all sorts of similitudes. 2. He makes all these to be the same with Idols. And 3. that God as well forbade the making of these and the worship of them, and that the maker is guilty of the same crime; and lastly I add, his definition of Idolatry, Idololatria est omnis circa omne idolum famulatus & servitus. Every image is an idol, and every service and obeisance about any or every idol is idolatry. I hope all this put together will convince the Gentlemen that denied it, that Tertullian hath said some such thing as the Dissuasive quoted him for. Now for the other place quoted, 
Lib. 2. advers. Marc. c. 22.  the words are these; proinde & similitudinem vetans fieri omnium quae in coelo & in terra & in aquis, ostendit & causas, idololatriae scilicet substantiam exhibentes. God forbidding all similitude to be made of things in Heaven and Earth, and in the Waters, shows the causes that restrain idolatry: the causes of idolatry he more fully described in the forecited place; Quando enim & sine idolo idololatria fiat: for he supposes the making of the images to be the cause of their worshipping, and he calls this making statues and images Daemoniis corpora facere. 
Lib. 4. c. 22.  But there is yet another place in his books against Martion, where Tertullian affirming that S. Peter knew Moses and Elias on Mount Tabor by a spiritual ecstasy, says it upon this reason, Nec enim imagines eorum aut statuas populus habuisset aut similitudines lege prohibente. The same also is to be seen in his book De spectaculis, c. 23. Jam vero ipsum opus personarum quaero an Deo placeat qui omnem similitudinem vetat fieri, quanto magis imaginis suae. By this time I hope the Gentleman thinks himself in some shame, for denying that Tertullian said the making of images to be Unlawful.  
Now let us see for the other two Authors quoted by the Dissuasive; 
Pag. 27.  The objector in the Letter says, they only spoke of making the Images of Jupiter and the other heathen Gods: but E. W. says he cannot find those quotations out of Clemens Alexandria, 
Pag. 54. 55.  because the books quoted are too big, and he could not espy them. The author of the Letter never examined them, but took them for granted; but E. W. did search a little, but not exactly. However he ought not to have looked in the sixth book of the Stromata for the words there quoted, but in the protrepticon, as I shall show by and by. That other quotation in the Stromata is the sixth book, and is only referred to, as to the question in general against images, for so, S. Clement calls it spiritual adultery to make idols or images. Now to this E. W. says, although he did not find what he looked for, yet he knows beforehand, that the word in the Latin translation is simulachrum, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Idol. 
Strom. l. 6. p. 687. edit. Paris. 1629.  It is indeed well guessed of E. W. for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and if he had seen the place, he now tells us what answer we might have expected. But I am beforehand with him in this particular, and out of Tertullian have proved, idolum to be the same with formula, derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and consequently means the same with an image. And he had a good warrant from the greatest Master of the Latin tongue. Imagines quae idola nominant, 
Lib. 1. de fin. bon. & malor.  quorum incursione non solum videamus, sed etiam cogitemus, etc. said Cicero: and the same notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in a great Master of the Greek, S. Chrysostom, who speaking of the statues and images with which they adorned their houses, calls them idols. 
In cap. 3. Epist. ad Philip. hom. 10.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But it matters not so much what Greek or Latin word is used in any translation, for in the Hebrew in which the spirit of God spoke, when he forbade the worship of images, he used two words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pesel and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Themunah, and the latter of these signifies always an image or similitude, and that most properly, and is always so translated; and the former of these is translated indifferently by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, image, carved image and idol, for they are all one. And therefore proportionably Justin Martyr reciting this law of God, says, that God forbade every image and similitude, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the words. But suppose that idolum and imago were not the same; yet because the Commandment forbids not only idolum but imago, not only Pesel, but Themunah; they do not observe the Commandment, who make to themselves, viz. for worship, either one or the other. But to return to S. Clement, of whom our present inquiry is. And to deal most clearly in this affair, as in all things else, that out of the Stromata of S. Clement, that I rather remark, is not this of the sixth book, but out of the fifth. 
Lib. Strom. 5. Pag. 559. Paris. 1629. Gr. Lat.  S. Clement of Alexandria saith; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Pythagoras commanded that his disciples should not wear rings, or engrave them with the images of their Gods, as Moses many ages before made an express law, that no man should make any graven, cast or painted image; and of this he gives two reasons. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that we may not attend to sensible things, but pass on to the things discernible by the Understanding. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The custom of seeing so readily causes that the Majesty of God becomes vile and contemptible, and by matter to worship that which is perceived intellectually, is to disesteem him by sensation.] Now the Reader may perceive that S. Clemens speaks against the making of any images, 
Vide etiam eundem in Pretreptico. pag. 41. Nobis enim est apertè vetitum fallacem artem exercere. Non facies enim (inquit Propheta) cujusvis rei similitudinem. Id. Stromat. lib. 6. p. 687.  not only of Jupiter and the Heathen Gods, but of the true God, of whatsoever intelligible being we ought to worship; and that upon such reasons which will greatly condemn the Roman practices. But hence also it is plain, how careless and trifling this objector is, minding no truth but the number of objections. See yet further out of S. Clement. Nobis enim est aperte vetitum fallacem artem exercere. Non facies enim (inquit Propheta) cujusvis rei similitudinem, we are forbidden to exercise that cozening art, (viz. of making pictures or images) for says the Prophet (meaning Moses) thou shalt not make the likeness of any thing. 
Pag. 55.  E. W. it seems could not find these words of S. Clement in his Paraenetic: He should have said his Protreptic, for I know of no Paraenetic that he hath written. But E. W. followed the Printers error in the Margin of the Dissuasive, and very carefully turned over a book that was not, and compared it in bigness with a book that was. But I will not suppose this to be ignorance in him, but only want of diligence: however the words are to be found in the 41. page of this Protreptic, or his admonition to the Gentiles, and now they are quoted, and the very page named; only I desire E. W. to observe, that in this place S. Clement uses not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not simulachrum, but cujusvis rei similitudinem.  
In the place which was quoted out of Origen in his fourth book against Celsus, 
Pag. 181. edit. G. L. Cantab. 1658.  speaking of the Jews, he hath these words: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. All makers of images were turned from their commonwealth: for not a painter or statuary was admitted, their laws wholly forbidding them, lest any occasion should be given to dull men, or that their mind should be turned from the worship of God to earthly things by these temptations.] Then he quotes the law of God against making images, and adds, by which law this was intended, that being content with the truth of things they should beware of lying figments.] There it is plain that Origen affirms the law of God to have forbidden the making images, any similitude of things in Heaven, Earth or Waters: which law also he in another place 
* Homil. 8 in Exod. apud Bellarm. imagine l. 2. c. 7. Sect. sed haec.  affirms to be of a moral and eternal obligation, that is, not to be spoken to them only who came out of the terrestrial Egypt; and therefore is of Christian duty. And of the same mind are S. Irenaeus 
a L. 4 c. 31. & 32 , Tertullian 
b L. de idololat. cap. 5. , S. Cyprian 
c L▪ 3. ad Quirinum c. 59 & de exhort. martyrii. c 1.  and S. Austin 
d L. 15. contra Faustum c. 4. & 7.  affirming the whole decalogue, except the law of the Sabbath to be an unalterable, or natural law. But for the further verification of the testimony from Origen against the worship of images in the Primitive Church, I thought fit to add the concurrent words of the prudent and learned Cassander 
* Consult. de imagine. & simulachris. : Quantum autem veteres initio Ecclesiae ab omni veneratione imaginum abhorruerunt declarat unus Origines adversus Celsum: but of this I shall have occasion to speak yet once more. And so at last all the quotations are found to be exact, and this Gentleman to be greatly mistaken.  
From the premises I infer; if in the Primitive Church it was accounted unlawful to make images, certainly it is unimaginable they should worship them, and the argument is the stronger, if we understand their opinion rightly; for neither the second Commandment, nor yet the Ancient Fathers in their Commentaries on them, did absolutely prohibit all making of images; but all that was made for religious worship, and in order to adoration, according as it is expressed in him, who among the Jews collected the negative precepts, which Arias Montanus translated into Latin: 
Lib. 4. de generat. & regeneratione Adam.  the second of which is, signum cultus causa ne facito; the third, simulachrum Divinum nullo pacto conflato; the fourth, signa religiosa nulla ex materia facito.  
The authorities of these Fathers being rescued from slander, and proved very pungent and material. I am concerned in the next place to take notice of some authorities which my adversaries urge from antiquity, 
E. W. pag. 49.  to prove that in the Primitive Church they did worship images. Concerning their general Council, viz. the second Nicene, I have already made account in the preceding periods; The great S. Basil is with great solemnity brought into the Circus, and made to speak for images as apertly, plainly and confidently, as Bellarmine or the Council of Trent itself. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  His words are these, [I admit the holy Apostles, and Prophets, and Martyrs, and in my prayer made to God call upon them, that by their intercession God may be propitious unto me. Whereupon I honour and adore the characters of their images; and especially those things being delivered from the holy Apostles, and not prohibited, but are manifested, or seen in all our Churches.] Now I confess these words are home enough, and do their business at the first sight; and if they prove right, S. Basil is on their side, and therefore E. W. with great noise and preface insults, and calls them Unanswerable. The words he says are found in S. Basils' 205. Epistle ad Julianum. I presently consulted S. Basils' works, such as I had with me in the Country, of the Paris Edition by Guillard 1547. and there I found that S. Basil had not 205. Epistles in all; the number of all written by him and to him being but 180. of which, that to Julianus is one, viz. Epistle 166. and in that there is not one word to any such purpose as is here pretended. I was then put to a melius inquirendum. Bellarmine (though both he, and Lindan and Harding cry up this authority as irrefragable) quotes this authority not upon his own credit, 
Appendix ad Tract. de cultu imaginum in prooem. ante Cap. 1. & in Cap. 4.  but as taking it from the report of a book published 1596, called Synodus Parisiensis, which Bellarmine calls, Unworthy to see the light. From hence arises this great noise; and the fountain being confessedly corrupt, what wholesome thing can be expected thence? But in all the first and voluminous disputations of Bellarmine upon this Question, he made no use of this authority, he never saw any such thing in S. Basils' works, or it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted it. But the words are in no ancient Edition of S. Basil, nor in any Manuscript that is known in the world. 2. john Damascen, and Germanus Bishop of C. P. who wrote for the worship of images, and are the most learned of all the Greeks that were abused in this Question; yet they never urged this authority of S. Basil, which would have been more to their purpose than all that they said beside. 3. The first mention of this is in an Epistle of Pope Adrian to the Emperors in the seventh Synod, and that makes the business more suspicious; that when the Greek writers knew nothing of it, a Latin Bishop, a stranger, not very well skilled in Antiquity, should find this out, which no man ever saw before him, nor since in any Copy of S. Basils' works: But in the second Nicene Council such forgeries as these were many and notorious. S. Gregory the Great is there quoted as Author of an Epistle de veneratione imaginum; when it is notorious, it was writ by Gregory III. and there were many Basils, and any one of that name would serve to give countenance to the error of the second Nicene Synod; but in S. Basil the Great there is not one word like it. And therefore they who set forth S. Basils' works at Paris 1618. who either could not, or ought not to have been ignorant of so vile a cheat, were infinitely to blame to publish this as the issue of the right S. Basil, without any mark of difference, or note of inquiry.  
There is also another saying of S. Basil, of which the Roman writers make much, and the words are by Damascen imputed to the Great S. Basil; Imaginis honor exemplum transit, which indeed S. Basil speaks only of the statues of the Emperors, and of that civil honour, which by consent and custom of the world did pass to the Emperor, and he accepted it so; but this is no argument for religious images put up to the honour of God, he says not, the honour of any such images passes to God; for God hath declared against it, (as will appear in the following periods) and therefore from hence the Church of Rome can have no argument, no fair pretence; and yet upon this very account, and the too much complying with the Heathen rites and manners, and the secular customs of the Empire, the veneration of images came into Churches. But suppose it be admitted to be true; yet although this may do some countenance to Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventures way of worshipping the image and the sampler with the same worship; yet this can never be urged by all those more moderate Papists, who make the worship to an image of a lower kind: For if it be not the same worship, than they that worship images, worship God and his Saints by the image not as they deserve, but give to them no more than the image itself deserves: let them take which part they please, so that they will but publicly own it. But let this be as it will, and let it be granted true, that the honour done to the image can pass to the sampler, yet this is but an arbitrary thing, and a King may esteem it so if he please, but if the King forbids any image to be made of him, and counts it a dishonour to him, than I hope it is; and that's the case now, for God hath forbidden any such way of passing honour to him by an image of him; and he hath forbidden it in the second Commandment, and this is confessed by Vasquez 
* Tom. 3. Comment. in 3. part. Qu. 25. art. 3. disp. 94. c. 3. : So that upon this account, for all the pretence of the same motion to the image and the sampler, to pass such a worship to God is no better than the doing as the Heathen did, when they worshipped Mercury by throwing stones at him.  
An other authority brought by E. W. for veneration of images, 
Pag. 50.  is from Athanasius, but himself damns it in the Margin, with and without ingenuity; for ingenuously saying, that he does not affirm it to be the Great Athanasius, yet most disingenuously he adds, valeat quantum valere potest, that is, they that will be cozened let them. And indeed these Questions and Answers to Antiochus are notoriously spurious, for in them are quoted S. Epiphanius, and Gregory Nyssen, Chrysostom, Scala Johannis, Maximus, and Nicephorus, who were after Athanasius; and the book is rejected by Delrio, 
Martinus Delrio Vindiciae Areopag. c. 14.  by Sixtus Senensis, and Possevine. But with such stuff as this the Roman Doctors are forced to build their Babel; and E. W. in page 56. quotes the same book against me for worshipping the Cross, together with another spurious piece the Cruse & passione Domini, which Nannius, a very learned man of their own and professor at Louvain, rejects, as it is to be seen in his Nuncupatory Epistle.  
Yea, but S. Chrysostoms' Liturgy is very clear, for it is said, that the Priest turns himself to our Saviour's picture, and bows his head before the picture, and says this prayer; These words indeed are very plain, but it is not plain that these are S. Chrysostoms' words, for their are none such in S. Chrysostoms' Liturgy in the Editions of it by Claudius de Saintes, or Morellus, and Claudius Espencaeus acknowledges with great truth and ingenuity, that this Liturgy begun and composed by S. Chrysostom was enlarged by many things put into it, according to the variety of times. And it is evidently so, because divers persons are there commemorated, who lived after the death of Chrysostom, as Cyrillus, Euthymius, Sabas, and johannes Eleemosynarius, whereof the last but one lived 126. years, the last 213. years after S. Chrysostom. Now how likely, nay how certain it is that this very passage was not put in by S. Chrysostom, but is of later interpolation, let all the world judge by that known saying of S. Chrysostom; 
Comment● in Isai. c. 2. T 3.  Quid enim est vilius atque humilius homine ante res inanimatas se incurvante & saxa venerante? What in the world is base and more abject than to see a man worshipping stones, and bowing himself before inanimate things?] These are his great authorities which are now come to nothing; what he hath from them who came after these, I shall leave to him to make his best of them: for about the time of Gregory some began to worship images, and some to break them, the latter of which he reproves, and the former he condemns; what it was afterwards all the world knows.  
But now having cleared the Question from the trifling arguments of my adversaries, I shall observe some things fit to be considered in this matter of images. 1. It came at first from a very base and unworthy stock. I have already pointed at this, but now I shall explain it more fully; it came from Simon Magus and his crew; Theodoret says, that the followers of Simon brought in the worship of images, viz. of Simons in the shape of Jupiter, 
De haeres ad qued vult Deum paulò ab initio. haeres. 1. E. W. pag. 51.  and Helena in the figure of Minerva; but S. Austin says that Simon Magus himself, imagines & suam & cujusdam meretricis quam sibi sociam scelerum fecerat discipulis suis praebuisse adorandas. E. W. upon what confidence I know not, says, that Theodoret hath nothing like it, either under the title de Simone or Carpocrate. And he says true, but with a shameful purpose to calumniate me, and deceive his Reader; as if I had quoted a thing that Theodoret said not, and therefore the Reader ought not to believe me. But since in the Dissuasive Theodoret was only quoted lib. 5. haeret. 
Cum ejus statuam in Jovis figuram construxissent, Helenae autem in Minervae speciem, eye thura adolebant, & libabant, & tanquam Deos adorabant, Simonianos' seipsos nominantes. Theodoret. haeret. fab. lib. 1. tit. Simonis haeresis in fin.  fabul. and no title set down; if he had pleased to look to the next title, Simonis haeresis, where in reason all Simons heresies were to be looked for, he should have found that which I referred to. But why E. W. denies S. Austin to have reported that for which he is quoted, viz. that Simon Magus brought in some images to be worshipped, I cannot conjecture, neither do I think himself can tell; but the words are plain in the place quoted, according to the intention of the Dissuasive. But that he may yet seem to lay more load upon me, he very learnedly says that Irenaeus, in the place quoted by me, says not a word of Simon Magus being Author of images; and would have his Reader believe that I mistook Simon Magus for Simon Irenaeus. 
Vide Irenae. lib. 1. adv. haeres. c. 23. & 24.  But the good man I suppose wrote this after supper, and could not then read or consider that the testimony of Irenaeus was brought in to no such purpose; neither did it relate to any Simon at all, but to the Gnostics or Carpocratians, who also were very early and very deep in this impiety; only they did not worship the pictures of Simon and Selene, 
Vbi suprà haeres. 7.  but of jesus, and Paul, and Homer, and Pythagoras, as S. Austin testifies of them; But that which he remarks in them is this, that Marcellina, one of their sect, worshipped the pictures of jesus, etc. adorando, incensumque ponendo, they did adore them, and put incense before them: I wish the Church of Rome would leave to do so, or acknowledge whose Disciples they are in this thing. The same also is said by Epiphanius; and that the Carpocratians placed the image of jesus with the Philosophers of the world, collocatasque adorant, & gentium mysteria perficiunt. But I doubt that both Epiphanius and S. Austin, who took this story from Irenaeus, went farther in the Narrative than Irenaeus; for he says only that they placed the images of Christ, etc. Et has coronant: No more, and yet even for this, for crowning the image of Christ with flowers 
* Iren. reliquam observationem circa eas similitèr ut gentes faciunt, i. e. sicut coeterorum illustrium virorum imaginibus consueverunt facere. , though they did not so much as is now adays done at Rome; S. Irenaeus made an outcry and reckoned them in the black Catalogue of heretics, not for joining Christ's image with that of Homer and Aristotle, Pythagoras and Plato, but even for crowning Christ's image with flowers and coronets, as they also did those of the Philosophers; for though this may be innocent, yet the other was a thing not known in the religion of any, that were called Christians, till Simon and Carpocrates began to teach the world.  
2. We find the wisest and the most sober of the Heathens speaking against the use of images in their religious rites. So Varro, when he had said that the old Romans had for 170. years worshipped the Gods without picture or image, adds, quod si adhuc mansissent, castius Dii observarentur, and gives this reason for it, qui primi simulachra Deorum populis posuerunt, & civitatibus suis & metum dempsisse, & errorem addidisse. The making images of the Gods took away fear from men and brought in error: 
Prudenter existimavit Deos facile posse in simulachrorum stoliditate contemni.  which place S. Austin quoting, commends and explicates it, saying, he wisely thought that the Gods might easily be despised in the blockishness of images. The same also was observed by Plutarch, 
Plut. in Numâ.  and he gives this reason, nefas putantes augustiora exprimere humilioribus, neque aliter aspirari ad Deum quam ment posse. They accounted it impiety to express the Great Being's with low matter, and they believed there was no aspiring up to God but by the mind.] This is a Philosophy which the Church of Rome need not be ashamed to learn.  
3. It was so known a thing, that Christians did abominate the use of images in religion, and in their Churches; that Adrian the Emperor was supposed to build Temples to Christ, 
Aelius Lamprid. in Alexandro Severo. edit. Salmat. p. 120.  and to account him as God, because he commanded that Churches without images should be made in all Cities, as is related by Lampridius.  
4. In all the disputations of the Jews against the Christians of the Primitive Church, although they were impatient of having any image, and had detested all use of them, especially ever since their return from Babylon, and still retained the hatred of them, even after the dissolution of their Temple, even unto superstition (says Bellarmine;) 
De imag. c. 7. Sect. Ad primum.  yet they never objected against Christians their having images in their Churches, much less their worshipping them. And let it be considered, that in all that long disputation between justin Martyr and Tryphon the jew, in which the subtle jew moves every stone, lays all the load he can at the Christians door, makes all objections, raises all the envy, gives all the matter of reproach he can against the Christians, yet he opens not his mouth against them concerning images. The like is to be observed in Tertullia's book against the jews; no mention of images, for there was no such thing amongst the Christians, they hated them as the jews did; but it is not imaginable they would have omitted so great a cause of quarrel. On the other side, when in length of time images were brought into Churches, the jews forbore not to upbraid the Christians with it. There was a dialogue written a little before the time of the seventh Synod, in which a jew is brought in saying to the Christians, [I have believed all ye say, and I do believe in the crucified Jesus Christ, that he is the son of the living God; 
Synod. 7. Act. 5.  Scandalizor autem in vos Christiani quia imagines adoratis, I am offended at you Christians that ye worship images; for the Scripture forbids us every where to make any similitude or graven image. And it is very observable that in the first and best part of the Talmud of Babylon, called the Misna, published about the end of the second Century, the Christians are not blamed about images; which shows they gave no occasion: but in the third part of the Talmud about the 10. and 11. age after Christ, the Christians are sufficiently upbraided and reproached in this matter. In the Gemara, which was finished about the end of the fifth Century, I find that learned men say the jews called the Christian Church the house of Idolatry; which though it may be expounded in relation to images, which about that time began in some Churches to be placed and honoured; yet I rather incline to believe, that they meant it of our worshipping Jesus for the true God and the true Messiah; for at this day they call all Christians Idolaters, even those that have none, and can endure no images in their Religion or their Churches. But now since these periods, it is plain that the case is altered, and when the learned Christians of the Roman communion write against the Jews, they are forced to make apologies for the scandal they give to the jews in their worshipping of images, as is to be seen (besides Leontius Neopolitanus of Cyprus his apology which he published for the Christians against the jews;) in Ludovicus Carretus his Epistle, in Sepher Amana, and Fabianus Fioghus his Catechetical Dialogues. But I suppose this case is very plain, and is a great conviction of the innovation in this matter made by the Church of Rome.  
5. The matter of worshipping images looks so ill, so like Idolatry, so like the forbidden practices of the Heathens, that it was infinitely reasonable, that if it were the practice and doctrine of the Primitive Church, the Primitive Priests and Bishops should at least have considered, and stated the question how far, and in what sense it was lawful, and with what intention, and in what degrees, and with what caution, and distinctions this might lawfully be done; particularly when they preached, and wrote Commentaries and explications upon the Decalogue; especially since there was at least so great a semblance of opposition and contradiction between the commandment and any such practice; God forbidding any image & similitude to be made of himself, or any thing else in Heaven, or in Earth, or in the Sea, and that with such threaten and interminations of his severe judgements against them that did make them for worship, and this thing being so constantly objected by all those many that opposed their admission and veneration; it is certainly very strange that none of the Fathers should take notice of any difficulty in this affair. They objected the Commandment against the Heathens for doing it; and yet that they should make no account, or take notice how their worshipping Saints and God himself by images, should differ from the Heathen superstition that was the same thing to look upon: This indeed is very Unlikely. But so it is; justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus speak plainly enough of this matter, and speak plain downright words against making and worshipping images, and so careless they were of any future chance, or the present concern of the Roman Church, that they do not except the image of the true God, nor the image of Saints and Angels, no not of Christ, 
Homil. 8. in Exod.  or the Blessed Virgin Mary herself. Nay Origen expounds the Commandments, and S. Austin makes a professed commentary upon them, but touched none of these things with the top of his finger, only told that they were all forbidden: we are not so careless now adays in the Church of Rome; but carefully expound the Commandments against the unsufferable objections of the Heretics of late, and the Prophets and the Fathers of old. But yet for all this, a suspicious man would conclude that in the first 400. years, there was no need of any such explications, inasmuch as they had nothing to do with images, which only could make any such need.  
6. But then in the next place I consider, that the second Commandment is so plain, so easy, so peremptory against all the making and worshipping any image or likeness of any thing, that besides that every man naturally would understand all such to be forbidden, it is so expressed, that upon supposition that God did intent to forbid it wholly, it could not more plainly have been expressed. For the prohibition is absolute and universal, and therefore of all particulars; and there is no word or sign by the virtue of which it can with any probability be pretended that any one of any kind is excepted. Now then to this, when the Church of Rome pretends to answer they overdo it, and make the matter the more suspicious. Some of them answer by saying, that this is no moral Commandment not obligatory to Christians, but to the jews only: Others say, that by this Commandment it is only forbidden to account an image to be very God; so Cajetan: Others say that an idol only is forbidden, and that an image is no idol. Others yet distinguish the manner of worshipping, saying that the image is worshipped for the Samplers sake, not for its own. And this worship is by some called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or service; by others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; saying that the first is to images of Saints, the other to God only. And yet with this difference; Some saying that the image of God is adored with the same kind of adoration that God is; only it is to the image for God's sake; so S. Thomas of Aquine, and generally his scholars. Others say that it is a religious kind of Worship due to Images, but not at all Divine; some say it is but a civil worship. And then it is for the image sake, and so far is intransitive, but whatever is paid more to the image is transitive, and passes further. And whatsoever it be, it cannot be agreed how it ought to be paid: whether properly or improperly, Univocally or aequivocally, for themselves or for something else, whether analogically or simply, whether absolutely or by reduction. And it is remarkable what Bellarmine answers to the Question, with what kind of worship images may be adored? He answers with this proposition; 
Lib. 2. de imagine. S. 8. Cap. 25.  [The worship which by itself and properly is due to images, is a certain imperfect worship, which analogically and reductively pertains to a kind of that worship, which is due to the Exemplar:] and a little after, to the images a certain inferior worship is due, and that not all one, but various according to the variety of images. To the images of Saints is due dulia secundum quid, which if you do not understand, Bellarmine in the next words explains most clearly; dulia secundum quid, is as a man may say, reductive and analogical. But after all this we may be mistaken, and we cannot tell whom to follow nor what to do in the case. Thomas and his Scholars warrant you to give the same worship to God's image as to God: And is the easiest way indeed to be understood, and indeed may quickly be understood to be direct idolatry. Bellarmine and others tell you, stay, not so altogether; but there is a way to agree with S. Thomas, that it shall be the same worship, and not the same worship; for it is the same by reduction, that is, it is of the same kind, and therefore Divine, but it is imperfectly divine, as if there could be degrees in Divine worship; that is, as if any worship could be divine, and yet not the greatest. But if this seems difficult, Bellarmine illustrates it by similitudes. This worship of images is the same with the worship of the Example, viz. of God, or of Christ, as it happens, just as a painted man is the same with a living man, and a painted horse with a living horse, for a painted man and a painted horse differ specifically; as the true man and the true horse do; and yet the painted man is no man, and the painted horse is no horse.] The effect of which discourse is this, that the worship of images, is but the image of worship; hypocrisy and dissimulation all the way; nothing real, but imaginative and fantastical; and indeed though this gives but a very ill account of the agreement of Bellarmine, with their Saints, Thomas and Bonaventure, yet it is the best way to avoid idolatry, because they give no real worship to images: But then on the other side, how do they mock God and Christ, by offering to them that which is nothing; by pretending to honour them by honouring their images; when the honour they do give to images, is itself but imaginary, and no more of reality in it, than there is of humane Nature in the picture of a man. However, if you will not commit downright idolatry, as some of their Saints teach you, than you must be careful to observe these plain distinctions, and first be sure to remember that when you worship an image, you do it not materially, but formally; not as it is of such a substance, but as it is a sign; next take care that you observe what sort of image it is, and then proportion your right kind to it, that you do not give latria to that where hyperdulia is only due; and be careful that if doulia only be due that your worship be not hyperdulical. In the next place consider that the worship to your image is intransitive but in few cases, and according but to a few Doctors; and therefore when you have got all these cases together, be sure that in all other cases it be transitive. But then when the worship is passed on to the Exemplar, you must consider, that if it be of the same kind with that which is due to the Example, yet it must be an imperfect piece of worship, though the kind be perfect; and that it is but analogical, and it is reductive, and it is not absolute, not simple, not by itself; not by an act to the image distinct from that which is to the Example, but one and the same individual act, with one intention, as to the supreme kind, though with some little variety, if the kinds be differing. Now by these easy, ready, clear, and necessary distinctions, and rules and cases, the people being fully and perfectly instructed, there is no possibility that the worship of images should be against the second Commandment, because the Commandment does not forbid any worship that is transitive, reduct, accidental, consequential, analogical and hyperdulical, and this is all that the Church of Rome does by her wisest Doctors teach now adays. But now after all this, the easiest way of all certainly is to worship no images, and no manner of way, and trouble the people's heads with no distinction; for by these no man can ever be at peace, or Understand the Commandment, which without these laborious devices (by which they confess the guilt of the Commandment, does lie a little too heavy upon them) would most easily by every man and every woman be plainly and properly understood. And therefore I know not whether there be more impiety, or more fearful caution in the Church of Rome in being so curious, that the second Commandment be not exposed to the eyes and ears of the people; leaving it out of their manuals, breviaries and Catechisms, as if when they teach the people to serve God, they had a mind they should not be tempted to keep all the Commandments. And when at any time they do set it down, they only say thus, Non facies tibi Idolum, which is a word not used in the second Commandment at all; and if the word which is there used be sometimes translated Idolum, yet it means no more than similitude; or if the words be of distinct signification, yet because both are expressly forbidden in that Commandment, it is very ill to represent the Commandment so, as if it were observed according to the intention of that word, yet the Commandment might be broken, by the not observing it according to the intention of the other word, which they conceal. But of this more by and by.  
7. I consider that there is very great scandal and offence given to Enemies and strangers to Christianity; the very Turks and Jews, with whom the worship of images is of very ill report, and that upon (at least) the most probable grounds in the world. Now the Apostle having commanded all Christians to pursue those things which are of good report, and to walk circumspectly & charitably towards them that are without, and that we give no offence neither to the Jew nor to the Gentile: Now if we consider, that if the Christian Church were wholly without images, there would nothing perish to the faith or to the charity of the Church, or to any grace which is in order to Heaven; and that the spiritual state of the Christian Church may as well want such Baby ceremonies as the Synagogue did; and yet on the other side, that the Jews and Turks are the more, much more estranged from the religion of Christ Jesus, by the image-worship done by his pretended servants; 
1 Cor. 8. 13.  the consequent will be, that to retain the worship of images is both against the faith and the charity of Christians, and puts limits, and retrenches the borders of the Christian pale.  
8. It is also very scandalous to Christians, that is, it makes many, and endangers more to fall into the direct sin of idolatry. 
* De invent. rerum l. 6. c. 13. E● insaniae deventum est, ut haec pietatis pars parum differat ab impietate. Sunt enim benè multi rudiores stupidioresque qui saxeas vel ligneas, seu in parietibus pictas imagines colant, non ut figuras, sed. perinde acsi ipsae sensum aliquem habeant, & eye magis fidant quam Christ, Polyd. Virg. lib. 6 c. 13. de invent. rerum. Lilius Giraldus in Syntag. de Diis Gentium loquens de excessu Romanae Ecclesiae in negotio imaginum, praefatur, [Satius esse ea Harpocrati & Angeronae consignare. Illud certè non praetermittam, nos dico Christianos, ut aliquando Romanos fuisse sine imaginibus in primitiuâ quae vocatur Ecclesia.] Erasmus in Catechesi ait, usque ad aetatem Hieronymi erant probatae religionis viri, qui in Templis nullam ferebant imaginem, nec pictam, nec sculptam, nec textam, ac ne Christi quidem.]  Polydore Virgil observes out of S. Jerome, that almost all the holy Fathers damned the worship of Images, for this very reason, for fear of idolatry; and Cassander says, that all the ancients did abhor all adoration of images; 
Et ibid. Vt imagines sint in Templis nulla praecepit vel humana co●s●itutio, & ut facilius est, ita lutius quoque omnes imagines è Templis submavere.] Videatur etiam Cassandri consultatio; sub hoc titul● & Masius in Jesuah cap. 8. Sic autem queritur Ludovicus Vives Comment. in lib. 8. c. ult. de civet. Dei. Divos Divasque non alitèr venerantur, quàm Deum ipsum. Non video in multis quid discrimen sit inter eorum opinionem de sa●ctis, & id quod Gentiles putabant de Diis suis. Diodorus Siculus dixit de Mose, imaginem statuit nullam, ideo quod non erederet Deum homini similem esse, & Dion. lib. 36 Nullam effigi●m in Hieroso●ymis habuere, quod Deum crederent ut ineffabilem, ita inaspicuum [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.]  and he citys 
* Consul. de imagine. ex Origene contr. Celsum. lib. 7. versus finem.  Origen as an instance great enough to verify the whole affirmative. Nos vero ideo non honoramus simulachra, quia quantum possumus cavemus, ne quo modo incidamus in eam credulitatem, ut his tribuantus divinitatis aliquid. This authority E. W. page 55. is not ashamed to bring in behalf of himself in this question, saying, that Origen hath nothing against the use of images, and declares our Christian doctrine thus, than he recites the words above quoted; than which, Origen could not speak plainer against the practice of the Roman Church; and E. W. might as well have disputed for the Manichees with this argument: The Scripture doth not say that God made the world, it only declares the Christian doctrine thus, In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth, etc. But this Gentleman thinks any thing will pass for argument amongst his own people. And of this danger S. Austin 
* Epist. 49. q. 3.  gives a rational account; [No man doubts but idols want all sense: But when they are placed in their seats, in an honourable sublimity, that they may be attended by them that pray and offer sacrifice, by the very likeness of living members and senses, although they be senseless and without life, they affect weak minds, that they seem to live and feel, especially when the veneration of a multitude is added to it, by which so great a worship is bestowed upon them.] Here is the danger, and how much is contributed to it in the Church of Rome, by clothing their images in rich apparel, and by pretending to make them nod their▪ head, to twinkle the eyes, and even to speak, the world is too much satisfied. Some such things as these, and the superstitious talk and actings of their Priests made great impressions upon my Neighbours in Ireland; and they had such a deep and religious veneration for the image of our Lady of Kilbrony, that a worthy Gentleman, who is now with God, and knew the deep superstition of the poor Irish, did not distrain upon his Tenants for his rents, but carried away the image of the female Saint of Kilbrony; and instantly the Priest took care that the Tenants should redeem the Lady, by a punctual and speedy paying of their rents; for they thought themselves Unblessed as long as the image was away; and therefore they speedily fetched away their Ark from the house of Obededom, and were afraid that their Saint could not help them, when her image was away. Now if S. Paul would have Christians to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols, to avoid the giving offence to weak brethren, much more ought the Church to avoid tempting all the weak people of her Communion to idolatry, by countenancing, and justifying, and imposing such acts, which all their heads can never learn to distinguish from idolatry.  
I end this with a memorial out of the Councils of Sens and Mentz, 
C. 14.  who command moneri populum ne imagines adorent: 
C. 41. apud Bellarmin. lib. 2. de imag. S. S. c. 22. Sect. Secunda propositio.  The Preachers were commanded to admonish the people that they should not adore images. And for the Novelty of the practice here in the British Churches, it is evident in Ecclesiastical story, that it was introduced by a Synod of London, about the year 714. under Bonifacius the Legate, and Bertualdus Archbishop of Dover; and that without disputation or inquiry into the lawfulness or unlawfulness of it, but wholly upon the account of a vision pretended to be seen by Eguinus Bishop of Worcester; the Virgin Mary appearing to him, and commanding that her image should be set in Churches and worshipped. That Austin the Monk brought with him the banner of the Cross, and the image of Christ, Beda tells; and from him Baronius, and Binius affirms, that before this vision of Egwin the cross and image of Christ were in use; but that they were at all worshipped or adored Beda saith not; and there is no record, no monument of it before this Hypochondrical dream of Egwin: and it further appears to be so, 
A. D. circiter 792.  because Albinus or Alcuinus an Englishman, Master of Charles the Great, when the King had sent to Offa the book of C. P. for the worship of images, wrote an Epistle against it, ex authoritate-Divina scripturarum mir abiliter affirmatum; and brought it to the King of France in the name of our Bishops and Kings, 
Annal. part. 1.  saith Hovedon.   

SECTION. VII.  
Of Picturing God the Father, and the Holy Trinity.  
AGainst all the authorities almost which are or might be brought to prove the Unlawfulness of Picturing God the Father, or the Holy Trinity, the Roman Doctors generally give this one answer; That the Fathers intended by their say, to condemn the picturing of the Divine Essence; but condemn not the picturing of those symbolical shapes or forms in which God the Father, or the Holy Ghost, or the Blessed Trinity are supposed to have appeared. To this I reply, 1. That no man ever intended to paint the essence of any thing in the world. A man cannot well understand an Essence, and hath no Idea of it in his mind, much less can a Painter's Pencil do it. And therefore it is a vain and impertinent discourse to prove that they do ill who attempt to paint the Divine Essence. 
Vide Plutarch. de Iside & Osir.  This is a subterfuge which none but men out of hope to defend their opinion otherwise, can make use of. 2. To picture God the Father in such symbolical forms in which he appeared, is to picture him in no form at all; for generally both the Schools of the Jews and Christians consent in this, that God the Father never appeared in his person; for as S. Paul affirms, he is the invisible God whom no eye hath seen or can see; He always appeared by Angels, or by fire, or by storm and tempest, by a cloud or by a still voice; he spoke by his Prophets, and at last by his Son; but still the adorable majesty was reserved in the secrets of his glory. 3. The Church of Rome paints the Holy Trinity in forms and symbolical shapes in which she never pretends the Blessed Trinity did appear, as in a face with three Noses and four Eyes, one body with three heads, and as an old man with a great beard, and a Pope's Crown upon his head, and holding the two ends of the transverse rafter of the Cross with Christ leaning on his breast, and the Holy Spirit hover over his head: And therefore they worship the images of God the Father, & the Holy Trinity, figures which (as is said of Remphan and the Heathen Gods and Goddesses) themselves have made; which therefore must needs be idols by their own definition of idolum; s●mulachrum rei non existentis; for never was there seen any such of the Holy Trinity in Unity, as they most impiously represent. And if when any thing is spoken of God in Scripture allegorically, they may of it make an image to God, they would make many more Monsters than yet they have found out: For as Durandus 
* In 3. sent. dist. 9 q. 2. n. 15.  well observes, If any one shall say, that because the Holy Ghost appeared in the shape of a Dove, and the Father in the old Testament under the Corporal forms, that therefore they may be represented by images, we must say to this, that those corporal forms were not assumed by the Father and the Holy Spirit; and therefore a representation of them by images is not a representation of the Divine person, but a representation of that form or shape alone. Therefore there is no reverence due to it, as there is none due to those forms by themselves. Neither were these forms to represent the Divine persons, but to represent those effects which those Divine persons did effect.] And therefore there is one thing more to be said to them that do so; 
Rom. 1. 23.  They have changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a mortal man. Now how will the Reader imagine that the Dissuasive is confuted, and his testimonies from Antiquity answered? 
Pag. 60.  Why, most clearly E. W. saith, that one principle of S. John Damascen doth it, it solves all that the Doctor hath or can allege in this matter. Well! what is this principle? The words are these; (and S. Austin points at the same) Quisnam est qui invisibilis & corpore vacantis ac circumscriptionis & figurae expertis Dei simulachrum effingere queat? 
De fide & symbol. c. 7.  Extremae itaque dementiae atque impietatis fuerit Divinum numen fingere & figurare. 
Damasc. lib. 4. ] This is the principle to confute the Doctor: 
Orthod. fidei. cap. 17. ] why, but the Doctor thinks that in the world there cannot be clearer words for the reproof of picturing God and the Holy Trinity. For to do so is madness and extreme impiety, so says Damascen: But stay says E. W. 
E. W. pag. 60.  these words of Damascen are [as who should say, He that goes about to express by any image the perfect similitude of Gods intrinsical perfections or his Nature, (which is immense without body or figure) would be both impious, and act the part of a Madman.] But how shall any man know that these words of Damascen are as much as to say this meaning of E. W. and where is this principle (as he calls it) of Damascen, by which the Doctor is so every where silenced? Certainly E. W. is a merry Gentleman, and thinks all mankind are fools. This is the ridiculous Commentary of E. W. but Damascen was too learned and grave a person to talk such wild stuff. And Cardinal Cajetan gives a better account of the doctrine of Damascen. 
Authoritas Damasceni in literâ damnat illas (imagines Dei) ins●pientiae & impietatis. Et eadem est ratio nunc de Deitate quae erat in veteri 〈◊〉 quoad rem fig●rabilem vel non secundum se. Constat autem in veteri lege imagines Dei esse prohibitas.  [The Authority of Damascen in the (very) letter of it condemns those images, (viz. of God) of folly and impiety. And there is the same reason now concerning the Deity which was in the old law. And it is certain, that in the old law the images of God were forbidden.] 
Videat (si placet) lector Lucum Eudensem adv. Albig. error. l. 2. c. 9  To the like purpose is that of the famous Germanus, who though too favourable to pictures in Churches for veneration, yet he is a great enemy to all pictures of God. Neque enim invisibilis Deitatis imaginem, 
Tom. 4. Bibl. p. p. part 2.  & similitudinem, vel schema, vel figuram aliquam formamus, etc. as who please may see in his Epistle to Thomas Bishop of Claudiopolis; 
Apud. Nicen.  But let us consider when God forbade the children of Israel to make any likeness of him, 
Synod. 11. Act. 5.  did he only forbidden them to express by any image the perfect similitude of his intrinsical perfections? Had the children of Israel leave to picture God in the form of a man walking in Paradise? Or to paint the Holy Trinity like three men talking to Abraham? Was it lawful for them to make an image or picture, or (to use E. W. his expression) to exhibit to their eyes those visible or circumscribed lineaments, which any man had seen? And when they had exhibited these forms to the eyes, might they then have fallen down and worshipped those forms, which themselves exhibited to their own and others eyes? I omit to inquire how they can prove that God appeared in Paradise in the form of a man, which they can never do, unless they will use the Friar's argument; Faciamus hominem ad similitudinem nostram, etc. and so make fair way for the Heresy of the Anthropomorphites.  
But I pass on a little further; Did the Israelites, when they made a molten calf, and said, These are thy Gods O Israel, did they imagine that by that image they represented the true form, essence or nature of God? Or did the Heathens ever pretend to make any image of the intrinsical perfections of any of their Majores or Minores Dii, or any of their Daemons and dead Heroes? And because they neither did nor could do that, may it therefore be concluded, that they made no images of their Gods? Certain it is, the Heathens have as much reason to say they did not picture their Gods, meaning their nature and essence, but by symbolical forms and shapes represented those good things which they supposed them to have done. Thus the Egyptians pictured Joseph with a Bushel upon his head, and called him their God Serapis; but they made no image of his essence, but symbolically represented the benefit he did the nation by preserving them in the seven years' famine. Thus Ceres is painted with a Hook and a Sheaf of corn, Pomona with a Basket of Apples, Hercules with a Club, and Jupiter himself with a handful of symbolical Thunderbolts; This is that which the Popish Doctors call picturing God, not in his Essence, but in history, or in symbolical shapes: For of these three ways of picturing God, Bellarmine says, the two last are lawful. And therefore the Heathens not doing the first, but the second, and the third only, are just so to be excused as the Church of Rome is. But then neither these nor those must pretend that they do not picture God: For whatever the intention be, 
Observandum est tribus mo●i● posse aliquid pingi. Vno modo ad ●xpri● mendam perfectam similitudinem formulae, & naturae rei ipsius. Altero modo ad historiam aliquam oculis exhibendam. Tertio potest aliquid pingi extra historiam ad explicandam naturam rei, non per immediatam & propriam similitudinem, sed analogiam, sive metaphoric●, mysti●asque significationes. Be●. de imag lib. 2. c. 8. Sect. pro solutione. Hoc modo pingimus Deum ibid. Sect. Hoc modo.  still an image of God is made, or else why do they worship God by that, which if it be no image of God, must by their own doctrine be an Idol? And therefore Bellarmine's distinction is very foolish, and is only crafty to deceive; for besides the impertinency of it in answering the charge, only by declaring his intention, as being charged with picturing God; he tells he did it indeed, but he meant not to paint his nature, but his story or his symbolical significations, which I say is impertinent, it not being enquired with what purpose it is done, but whether or no; and an evil thing may be done with a good intention: Besides this I say, that Bellarmine's distinction comes just to this issue: God may be painted or represented by an image, not to express a perfect similitude of his form or nature, but to express it imperfectly, or rather not to express it, but ad explicandam naturam, to explain it, not to describe him truly, but historically; though that be a strange history, that does not express truly and as it is: But here it is plainly acknowledged, that besides the history, the very Nature of God may be explicated by pictures or images, provided they be only metaphorical and mystical, as if the only reason of the lawfulness of painting God is, because it is done imperfectly and unlike him; or as if the metaphor made the image lawful; just as if to do Alexander honour, you should picture him like a Bear, tearing and trampling every thing, or to exalt Caesar, you should hang upon a table the pictures of a Fox and a Cock and a Lion, and write under it, This is Cajus Julius Caesar. But I am ashamed of these prodigious follies. But at last, why should it be esteemed madness and impiety to picture the nature of God, which is invisible, and not also be as great a madness to picture any shape of him, which no man ever saw? But he that is invested with a thick cloud, and encircled with an inaccessible glory, and never drew aside the Curtains to be seen under any representment, will not suffer himself to be exposed to vulgar eyes, by fantastical shapes, and ridiculous forms.  
But it may be, the Church of Rome does not use any such impious practice, much less own so mad a doctrine; for one of my adversaries says, that the picturing the forms or appearances of God is all that some (in their Church) allow, that is, some do, and some do not: So that it may be only a private opinion of some Doctors, and then I am to blame to charge Popery with it. 
Lib 2. de reliq. & imagine. S.  To this I answer, that Bellarmine indeed says, 
S. cap 8. Sect.  Non esse tam certum in Ecclesia an sint faciendae imagines Dei sive Trinitatis, 
Ego dico tria.  quam Christi & Sanctorum; It is not so certain, viz. as to be an article of faith. But yet besides that Bellarmine allows it, and citys Cajetan, Catharinus, Payva, Sanders and Thomas Waldensis for it; this is a practice and doctrine brought in by an unproved custom of the Church; Constat quod haec consuetudo depingendi Angelos & Deum modo sub specie Columbae, modo sub Figura Trinitatis, sit ubique inter Catholicos recepta: The picturing Angels, and God sometimes under the shape of a Dove, and sometimes under the figure of the Trinity▪ is every where received among the Catholics, 
Pujol. de adorat. disp. 3.  said a great Man amongst them. 
Sect. 4.  And to what purpose they do this, we are told by Cajetan, speaking of images of God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost saying, 
In 3. part. Tom. q. 25. a. 3.  Haec non solum pinguntur ut ostendantur sicut cherubim olim in Templo sed ut adorentur. They are painted, that they may be worshipped, ut frequens usus Ecclesiae testatur: This is witnessed by the frequent use of the Church. So that this is received every where among the Catholics, and these images are worshipped, and of this there is an Ecclesiastical custom; and I add, In their Mass-book lately printed, these pictures are not infrequently seen. So that now it is necessary to show that this, besides the impiety of it, is against the doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church, and is an innovation in religion, a propriety of the Roman doctrine, and of infinite danger and unsufferable impiety.  
To some of these purposes the Dissuasive alleged Tertullian, 
Pag. 28.  Eusebius and S. Hierom; but A. L. says, these Fathers have nothing to this purpose. This is now to be tried. These men were only named in the Dissuasive. Their words are these which follow.  
1. For Tertullian, 
De coronâ milit.  A man would think it could not be necessary to prove that Tertullian thought it unlawful to picture God the Father, when he thought the whole art of painting and making images to be unlawful, as I have already proved. But however let us see. He is very curious that nothing should be used by Christians or in the service of God, which is used on, or by, or towards idols; and because they did paint and picture their idols, cast, or carve them, therefore nothing of that kind ought to be in rebus Dei, as Tertullian's phrase is. But the sum of his discourse is this, [The Heathens use to picture their false Gods that indeed befits them, 
De Cor. Milit. Johannes Filioli inquit, Custodite vos ab idolis, non jam ab idololatria quasi ab officio, sed ab idolis, id est, ab ipsâ effigie eorum: Indignum enim est ut imago Divini, imagoidoli & mortui fiat: Si enim verbo nudo conditio polluitur ut Apostolus docet, si quis dixerit idolothytum est, non contigeris, multo magis cum habitu, & ritu, & apparatu, etc. Quid enim tam dignum Deo quàm quod indignum idolo?  but therefore is unfit for God; and therefore we are to flee, not only from idolatry, but from idols: in which affair a word does change the case, and that, which before it was said to appertain to idols, was lawful, by that very word was made Unlawful, and therefore much more by a shape or figure; and therefore flee from the shape of them; for it is an Unworthy thing, that the image of the living God, should be made the image of an idol or a dead thing. For the idols of the Heathens are silver and gold, and have eyes without sight, and noses without smell, and hands without feeling.] So far Tertullian argues. And what can more plainly give his sense and meaning in this Article? If the very image of an idol be Unlawful, much more is it unlawful to make an image or idol of the living God, or represent him by the image of a dead man.  
But this argument is further and more plainly set down by Athanasius, whose book against the Gentiles is spent in reproving the images of God real or imaginary; insomuch that he affirms that the Gentiles dishonour even their false Gods, by making images of them, and that they might better have passed for Gods, if they had not represented them by visible images. And therefore, that the religion of making images of their Gods, 
Nam si ut dicitis literarum instar Dei praesentiam signant, atque adeò acsi Deum significantia Divinis dignae censentur honoribus, cerrè qui ea sculp●it, eisque effigiem dedit, multo magis hos promerebatur honores. Et paulò post. Quocircae hujusmodi religio, Deorumque fictio non pietatis esse, sed iniquitatis invectio— Veritatis via ad eum qui veru● Deus est diriget. Ad eum verò ●ognoscendum & exactissimè intelligendum nullius extrà nos positae rei opem necessariam haebemus— Quod si quis interrogat quanam ista sit? V●iuscujusque animam esse dixerim, atque insitam illam intelligentiam, per ipsam enim solam Deus inspiciet, & intelligi potest. Orat. contr, gentiles.  is not piety, but impious. For to know God we need no outward thing; the way of truth will direct us to him. And if any man ask which is that way, viz. to know God, I shall say, it is the soul of a man, and that understanding which is planted in us; for by that alone God can be seen and Understood.] The same Father does discourse many excellent things to this purpose, as that a man is the only image of God; Jesus Christ is the perfect image of his Glory, and he only represents his essence; and man is made in the likeness of God, and therefore he also in a less perfect manner represents God: Besides these, if any man desires to see God, let him look in the book of the creature, and all the world is the image and lively representment of God's power, and his wisdom, his goodness and his bounty. But to represent God in a carved stone, or a painted Table, does depauperate our understanding of God, and dishonours him below the Painter's art; for it represents him lovely only by that art, and therefore less than him that painted it. But that which Athanasius adds is very material, and gives great reason of the Command, why God should severely forbid any image of himself: Calamitati enim & tryannidi servientes homines Unicum illud est nulli Communicabile Dei nomen lignis lapidibusque imposuerunt: Some in sorrow for their dead children, made their images and fancied that presence; some desiring to please their tyrannous Princes, put up their statues, and at distance by a fantastical presence flattered them with honours. And in process of time, these were made Gods; and the incommunicable name was given to wood and stones.] Not that the Heathens thought that image to be very God, but that they were imaginarily present in them, and so had their Name. Hujusmodi igitur initiis idolorum inventio Scriptura teste apud homines coepit. Thus idolatry began saith the Scripture, and thus it was promoted; and the event was, they made pitiful conceptions of God, they confined his presence to a statue, they worshipped him with the lowest way imaginable, they descended from all spirituality and the noble ways of Understanding, and made wood and stone to be as it were a body to the Father of Spirits, they gave the incommunicable name not only to dead men, and Angels, and Daemons, but to the images of them; and though it is great folly to picture Angelical Spirits, and dead Heroes, whom they never saw, yet by these steps when they had come to picture God himself, this was the height of the Gentile impiety, and is but too plain a representation of the impiety practised by too many in the Roman Church.  
But as we proceed further, the case will be yet clearer. Concerning the testimony of Eusebius, I wonder that any writer of Roman controversies should be ignorant, and being so, should confidently say, Eusebius hath nothing to this purpose, viz. to condemn the picturing of God, 
Synod. 7. act. 6.  when his words are so famous, that they are recorded in the seventh Synod; and the words were occasioned by a solemn message sent to Eusebius by the sister of Constantius and wife of Licinius, lately turned from being Pagan to be Christian, desiring Eusebius to send her the picture of our Lord Jesus; to which he answers: Quia vero de quadam imagine, quasi Christi, scripsisti, hanc volens tibi à nobis mitti, quam dicis, & qualèm, hanc quam perhibes Christi imaginem? Utrum veram & incommutabilem, & natura characteres suos portantem? An istam quam propter nos suscepit servi formae schemate circumamictus? Sed de forma quidem Dei nec ipse arbitror te quaerere semel ab ipso edoctam, quoniam neque patrem quis novit nisi filius, neque ipsum filium novit quis aliquando digne, nisi solus pater qui eum genuit. And a little after, Quis ergo hujusmodi dignitatis & gloriae vibrantes, & praefulgentes splendores exarare potuisset mortuis & inanimatis Coloribus & scriptures Umbraticis? And then speaking of the glory of Christ in Mount Thabor, he proceeds; Ergo si tunc incarnata ejus forma tantam virtutem sortita est ab inhabitante in se Divinitate mutata, quid oportet dicere cum mortalitate exutus, & corruption ablutus, speciem servilis formae in gloriam Domini & Dei commutavit? Where besides that Eusebius thinks it unlawful to make a picture of Christ, and therefore consequently, much more to make a picture of God; he also tells Constantia, he supposes she did not offer at any desire of that.] Well, for these three of the Fathers we are well enough, but for the rest, the objector says, that they speak only against representing God as in his own essence, shape or form. To this I answer, that God hath no shape or form, and therefore these Fathers could not speak against making images of a thing that was not; and as for the images of his essence, no Christian, no Heathen ever pretended to it; and no man or beast can be pictured so: No Painter can paint an Essence. And therefore although this distinction was lately made in the Roman Schools, yet the Fathers knew nothing of it, and the Roman Doctors can make nothing of it, for the reasons now told. But the Gentleman saith, that some of their Church allow only and practise the picturing those forms, wherein God hath appeared. It is very well they do no more; but I pray in what forms did God the Father ever appear, or the Holy and Mysterious Trinity? Or suppose they had, does it follow they may be painted? We saw but now out of Eusebius, that it was not esteemed lawful to picture Christ, though he did appear in a humane body: And although it is supposed that the Holy Ghost did appear in the shape of a Dove, 
Concil. ●. P. Ca● 82.  yet it is forbidden by the sixth General Council to paint Christ like a Lamb, or the Holy Spirit like a Dove. Add to this, where did ever the Holy and Blessed Trinity appear like three faces joined in one, or like an old man with Christ crucified, leaning on his breast, and a Dove hover over them; and yet however the objector is pleased to mince the matter, yet the doing this is ubique inter Catholicos recepta; and that not only to be seen, but to be adored, as I proved a little above by testimonies of their own.  
The next charge is concerning S. Hierom, that he says no such thing; which matter will soon be at an end, if we see the Commentary he makes on these words of Isaiah; Cui ergo similem fecisti Deum?] 
In Cap. 40. Isai.  To whom do you liken God?] 
A●t quam imaginem ponetis ei, qui spiritus est, & in omnibus est, & ubique discurrit, & terram quasi pugillo continet? Simulque irridet stultitiam nationum, quod artifex sive Faber aerarius, aut auri●ex a●t argentarius Deum sibi faciant.  Or what image will ye make for him, who is a Spirit, and is in all things, and runs every where, and holds the earth in his fist? And he laughs at the folly of the nations, that an Artist, or a Brazier, or a Goldsmith, or a Silversmith makes a God,] viz. by making the image of God. But the objector adds, that it would be long to set down the words of the other Fathers quoted by the Doctor: And truly so the Doctor thought so too at first; but because the objector says they do not make against what some of his Church own and practise, I thought it might be worth the Readers pains to see them.  
The words of S. Austin in this question are very plain and decretory. 
De fide & symb. c. 7. Tale enim simul●chrum Deo nefas est Christiano in Templo collocare, multò magis in cord nefarium est, ubi uérè Templum est.  For a Christian to place such an image to God, (viz. with right and lefthand, sitting with bended knees, that is, in the shape of a man) is wickedness; but much more wicked is it to place it in our hearts. But of this I have given account in the preceding Section.  
Theodoret, Damascen, and Nicephorus do so expressly condemn the picturing God, that it is acknowledged by my adversaries, only they fly for secure to the old mumpsimus; they condemn the picturing the essence of God, but not his forms and appearances; a distinction which those good old writers never thought of, but directly they condemned all images of God and the Holy Trinity. And the Bishops in the seventh Synod, though they were worshippers of images, yet they thinking that Angels were Corporeal, believed they might be painted, but denied it of God expressly. And indeed it were a strange thing that God in the old Testament should so severely forbidden any image to be made of him, upon this reason because he is invisible; and he presses it passionately by calling it to their memory, that they heard a voice, but saw no shape; and yet that both he had formerly and did afterwards show himself, in shapes and forms which might be painted, and so the very reason of the Commandment be wholly void. To which add this consideration, that although the Angels did frequently appear, and consequently had forms possible to be represented in imagery, yet none of the Ancients did suppose it lawful to paint Angels, but they that thought them to be corporeal. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Lib. de legate.  said Philo. To which purpose is that of Seneca, 
Natur. q. 8. 30.  Effugit oculos, cogitation visendus est: And Antiphanes said of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: God is not seen with eyes, he is like to no man; therefore no man can by an image know him. By which it appears plainly to be the General opinion of the Ancients, that whatever was incorporeal was not to be painted, no, though it had appeared in symbolical forms, as confessedly the Angels did. And of this the second Synod of Nice itself is a sufficient witness; 
Act. 5.  the Fathers of which did all approve the Epistle of John Bishop of Thessalonica, in which he largely discourses against the picturing of any thing that is incorporeal. He that pleases to see more of this affair, may find much more, and to very great purpose in a little book de imaginibus, 
Pag. 734. etc.  in the first book of the Greek and Latin Bibliotheca Patrum; out of which I shall only transcribe these words: Non esse faciendum imagines Dei: imo si quis quid simile attentaverit, hunc extremis suppliciis, veluti Ethnicis communicantem dogmatis, subjici. Let them translate it that please, only I remember that Aventinus tells a story, 
Annal. Biorum. l. 7.  that Pope John XXII. caused to be burnt for Heretics, those persons who had painted the Holy Trinity, which I urge for no other reason, but to show how late an innovation of religion this is in the Church of Rome. The worship of images came in by decrees, and it was long resisted, but until of late, it never came to the height of impiety as to picture God, and to worship him by images: But this was the state and last perfection of this sin, and hath spoiled a great part of Christianity, and turned it back to Ethnicism.  
But that I may sum up all; I desire the Roman Doctors to weigh well the words of one of their own Popes, 
In Epistolâ quam Baroni● Gracè edidit Tom. 9 Annal. ad A. D. 726. in Margin.  Gregory II. to the Question, Cur tamen Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi non oculis subjicimus? Why do we not subject the Father of our Lord Jesus to the eyes? He answers, Quoniam Dei natura spectanda proponi non potest ac fingi: The nature of God cannot be exposed to be beheld, nor yet feigned.] He did not conclude that therefore we cannot make the image of his essence, but none at all, nothing of him to be exposed to the sight. And that this is his direct and full meaning, besides his own words, we may conclude from the note which Baronius makes upon it. Postea in usu venisse ut pingatur in Ecclesia Pater & Spiritus Sanctus. Afterwards it became an use in the Church (viz. the Roman) to paint the Father and the Holy Ghost. And therefore besides the impiety of it, the Church of Rome is guilty of innovation in this particular also, which was the thing I intended to prove.  
FINIS.