Romish Doctrines NOT FROM THE BEGINNING, OR A REPLY To what S.C. (or Serenus Cressy) A ROMAN CATHOLIC hath returned to Dr. PIERCES SERMON Preached before his MAJESTY at WHITEHALL, Feb. 1. 1662.  
IN Vindication of Our CHURCH Against the NOVELTIES of ROME.  
By DANIEL WHITBIE M.A. and Fellow of Trin. Coll. Oxon.  1 Jo. 2.24. Let that therefore abide in you which ye have heard from the beginning. 
LONDON, Printed by R. W. for Tho. Basset in St. Dunstan's Churchyard in Fleetstreet, and Ja. Magnes in Coven-Garden. 1664.   

Imprimatur,  
Nou. 6. 1663. Tho. Grig. R. in Christo P.D. Humfr. Epis. Lond. à Sac. Domesticis.   

To the Right Reverend Father in God SETH Lord Bishop of Exeter.  
My very good Lord,  
BEing informed of a Book which passed the decretorial sentence against our Church, and that it was written by an Author grave and sober, whose reason was very keen and sharp, one who was the Coryphaeus of the Roman Party, and therefore from whom I might expect all that the matter could well bear; one lastly who was once a professed son of the Church of England, and therefore would not be so ungrateful to his Mother as to pass so heavy a doom upon her without the greatest evidence, and conviction; I first set upon perusing it, big with expectations, but finding myself miserably disappointed, I was put into such a passion, as vented itself into this Reply, which humbly lies prostrate at your Lordship's feet, begging the favour and honour of your acceptance, and that you would be pleased to take it into your protection. And indeed what can be more proper then to commit a discourse of this nature to the protection of such a Father of the Church, whose zeal for the Churches good is as ardent, as her enemy's rage and fury violent? What therefore my former promises of tendering my first fruits unto your Lordship, and the influence of your instructions and encouragement have made your own, flies to the shelter of your goodness, where leaving it, I securely rest,  
Your Lordship's most humbly devoted Servant, DANIEL WHITBIE.   

TO THE READER.  
Courteous Reader,  
I Cannot but expect to be censured as a bold adventurer, as one who hath pulled upon himself a burden, not sufficiently considering, 
Quid far recusant;  
Quid valeant humeri.  In that I have dared to appear in a matter of such concernment as this I have undertaken, you will happily cry out of an impar congressus betwixt one of yesterday, and Father Cressy; But notwithstanding this objection which lies so fair in the view of all men, I shall not despair of a milder censure, if it be considered,  
1. That I did not presume to venture upon the Work till I had found that every citation produced from the Fathers, by S.C. was already Answered to my hands by the Champions of our Cause, so that when any matter of Antiquity is scanned by me, know that I steared my course by the greatest lights our Nation or other reformed Churches would afford me; that I speak the mind of an Hammond, Field, Salmasius, or a Baron in the business of the Pope's Supremacy; of an Usher, Fern, and Dally, in that of Purgatory; of a Tailor, and Featly in the business of Communion in one kind; of a Crakanthorp and Dally, in that of Images; of an Usher, Andrews and Crakanthorp, in that of Invocation of Saints; of an Hall, Taylor and Calixtus, touching Celibacy of Priests; of a Chillingworth in the two great Controversies of the Infallibility of the Church, and Schism; of a Chamier, and a Lord du Plessis, in them all; and if you will but acknowledge that Bellarmine hath been Answered, and that it is not a thing impossible for such an one as I am, to have seen those Answers, and to be able to transcribe them, you will consequently be obliged to grant, that it was possible for me to have returned an Answer to this Epitome of him, which our Author hath produced.  
And yet after all this I must say, 2. That these collections (for so I am content they should be called) have not passed without the censure of some Critical eyes to whom I have wholly referred myself for the addition to, or alteration of what ever seemed good unto them so to do; and that I have moreover omitted many things of lesser moment, wherein I had clearly the advantage of my Adversary, that I might not be too much burdensome to the Readers patience. Now if these things be impartially considered, I hope the Objection which before appeared so considerable, will vanish; and this poor Treatise (which intends only to tell the world that the advantage of our Cause is such, as that the wisest of our Antagonists may be encountered by even the meanest sons of the Church of England; that to plead for Popery, is but to give us the trouble of transcribing the Answers of our learned Protestants) may find a favourable acceptance from thee.  
Farther, I entreat thee not to be offended either with the breach of Pages, which was necessary from the employment of divers Printers in this work, or with some false Pointings, which may easily be rectified, or lastly, with some few Marginal citations not very appositely placed, which hoping thou wilt gratify me in, I bid thee farewell.  
D. W.   

A Catalogue of some Books Printed for T. Basset in St. Dunstan's Churchyard in Fleetstreet.  
SCintilla Altaris, or Primitive Devotion in the Feasts and Fasts of the Church; the third Edition, by E. Spark D.D.  
Dr. Collets Devotions for every day of the week.  
The new Book of Common-Prayer, with choice Cuts in Brass, suited to all the Feasts and Fasts of the Church of England throughout the year, in a Pocket volume.  
ΛΟΓΙΚΗΛΑΤΡΕΙΑ, The Reasonableness of Divine Service, in Answer to the contrary pretensions of H. D. in a late Discourse concerning the interest of words in Prayer and Liturgies, by Ir. Freeman, M A.  
An exact Abridgement of all the Acts of Parliament in force and use since the 16. K Ch. 1. to this present, by W. Hugh's of Grayes-Inn Esquire.  
A Synoptical Directory on the Canons of the Scripture, by Ferdinando Parkhurst.  
The Extravagant Shepherd, an Anti-Romance in fol.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 3. l. ult. r. Morton. p. 10. l. 26. r. abundantia. p 20. l. 9 r. E Cathedra. l. 15. r. secondly. p. 33. l. 33. add to. p 38. l. 8. r. now p. 46. l. 33. add illi. l. 34. r. praeceptio. p. 52. l. 22. r. or. p 60. l. 8. r. it. l. 27. r. his. p. 67. l. 29. del. S. 15. p. 76. l. 17. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p 84. l 27. deal not. p. 94. l. 26. r. next query. p. 106. l. 7. r. propositions. l 33. r. can we. p. 112. l. 34. add are. p. 117. l. 1. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 118. l. 20. add etc. p. 172. l. 5. r. that. p. 176. l. 4. r. not. p. 182. l. 28. add the. p. 194. l. 32. r. they. p 200. l. 14. deal Answ. p. 201. l. 1. r. of. p. 204. l. 31. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p 205. l. 23. deal by. p. 208. l. 1. r. eat. p. 225. l. 20. r. and. p. 230. l. ult. deal if. p. 233. l. 32. r. the. p. 237. l. 5. r them. l. 25. r. non negant. p. 239. l. 16. r. as that. l 23. r. the. p 242 l. 12. r. Cabrera. p. 249. l. 27. r. enormities. l. 40. r. what p. 158. l. 20. r. retractations. p. 262 l. 38. r. or two. p. 267. l. 17. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 277. l. 16. deal of. p. 283. l. 26. r. the. l. 28. r. this. p. 284. l. 35. r. Saint. p. 371. l. 6. add the. p. 376. l. 34. r. this. p. 377. l. 21. r. it. p. 391. l. 14. r. intimated. p. 395. l. 20. deal that. p. 397. l 25. r. the. p. 398. l. 19 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 410. l. 23. r. theses. p. 422. l. 6. r. think. p. 448. l. 32. r. ridiculous and so elsewhere. p. 461. l. 4. r. it. l. 8. r our. p. 475. l 5 r. hath. p. 487 l. 37. r. they. in the Margin p. 4. r. Print. p. 41 add lib. 2 Indic 11. p 45. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 61. add D. Field. p. 81. r. ut vos. p. 182. r. Scr. p 38●. r. dist. 82 and Cap. plurimos, and Taraca, and Wigorn. p. 388. add common. p. 402 r. ablutionis. p. 473. r. Greg.   


CHAP. I.  
Popish Cruelties, Sect. 3. No evidence of their fidelity, Sect. 4, 5. The Council of Lateran is for the destruction of those whom they call Heretics, Sect. 6. Which is the judgement of the most eminent Papists, ibid.  
I Cannot forbid myself to wonder, Sect. 1 that an Author by some esteemed so irrefragable, a book which gives such cause of triumph to the Adversary, and obtains a Commendam from many Protestants, should yet lie open to so many and so plain exceptions, such as, if all advantages were taken, would stretch an Answer into many Volumes; for to return our Antagonists words upon him, I protest that not one period can I find that is extraordinary, not one instance but I will undertake to show, that it is either very impertinent, ushered in with disadvantages to the truth, or open forgery; or lastly, such as hath frequently received a full and satisfactory answer from others heretofore.  
And are we not come to a fine pass, Sect. 2 when such a Pamphlet can be esteemed a demonstration of the Problem? when to transcribe, a Bellarmine should I say? or rather the objection of a Field and Hammond, should be esteemed sufficient proofs of the Pope's Supremacy? (as if we had not been able to transcribe their Answers) when that which may sufficiently be answered by the meanest Son of the Church of England shall be thought sufficient to load her with the guilt of Schism, to unchurch her, and pronounce the sentence of damnation upon all her members.  
And first, Sect. 3 With what truth do you insinuate that the Doctor's Sermon is of a stile so different from the Court Sermons which the times of our late glorious Sovereign and Martyr did produce? 
Pag. 3.  can you not remember one single instance of a Sermon in those days, that hath employed your pens for an Answer? 
Pag 4.  yea with what face can you charge the Doctor with any bitterness, in saying, That his Sermon might be like to meet with men that are apt to confute their opponents with fire and faggot? for are not you the men that have disputed against us with Flame and Gunpowder, with Armies and Navies? are not you the men that murdered so many thousands in cold blood in Ireland? that destroyed the Monks of Bangor for living contrary to the manner of the Roman Church? who can be ignorant of the floods of Christian blood that have been shed by the Roman hands in Savoy, France, Poland, Germany, Bohemia, Ireland, England? of the treacherous conspiracies that have been made by these Popish Emissaries against our Kings, and Queen in England? of the butcheries of Princes, and Nobles committed by them elsewhere? how truly have they been drunk with the blood of Saints? and would not these bloodthirsty men pretend as high to Loyalty as you now do? was it not the Papal interest (which you jointly manage) that prompted them to the commission of such execrable facts? was it not an opinion that we were Heretics (which you also passionately assert) that emboldened them to these actions? and can you blame his Majesty, or his Parliament, if they endeavour to secure their Protestant Friends and Subjects from such cruel and unreasonable men?  
Be it acknowledged that Catholic Religion cannot stand justly charged with these crimes, Sect. 4 yet must it be acknowledged also, that many, yea the greater part of Papists, are guilty of a world of bloodshed upon this account; and that you are not such who sojourn with us, but Loyal to his Majesty, what security will you give us? shall it be your Oath of Allegiance to our King? 
Fr. White against Fisher, p. 571.  many Papists refuse it, yea persecute those who hold it lawful to be taken. Shall it be your subscriptions to any form acknowledging his due Supremacy? Alas do not we know, that (1.) many amongst you allow of mental reservations, and equivocations, an Artifice that will excuse and free you from the most accurate Oath imaginable; and what if you swear that you take your Oath without any mental reservation? may you not mean any that you intent to acquaint us with? how can any man be assured that you do not all hold these mental reservations, seeing you may deny the tenant by a mental reservation, and yet hold it? but admit that none of you held this Tenent, yet do not many of you say, That you may break your faith with an 
* Vide Crakenth. def. Ecc. Ang. where you have the judgement of Symancha, Thom. Aquin. and the Counc. of Constance for it. p. 625. See also Dr. Mortons' Popish posit. and practices for Rebel. Pacenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. monit. Jac. Regis. Tit. B. 2. & 3. Dr Morton. ib.  Heretic, and all of you that we are Heretics? but were this otherwise, Thirdly, Do not many of you hold that if the Pope dissolve the Oath, you are freed from it? as also when he declareth it unjust, which when he pleaseth he may do; hear the excuser of the Powder Plot from the imputation of cruelty (because both seed and root of an evil herb must be destroyed) thus deriding the simplicity of his Majesty in composing and requiring the Oath of Allegiance; He thought (saith he) that no man could any way dissolve, with a safe conscience, the Oath which he had made; but he could not see, that if the Pope dissolve the Oath, all its knots, whether of being faithful to the King, or of admitting no dispensation, are dissolved; yea, I will say a thing more admirable, you know I believe that an unjust Oath, if it be evidently known to be such, or openly declared such, obligeth no man; that the King's Oath is unjust, is sufficiently declared by the Pastor of the Church himself, you see now that the obligation of it is vanished into smoke; and that the bond which so many wise men thought was made of Iron, is less than straw. Yea further, cannot good Pope 
* Cardinal Ossatus Ep. 87. ad D. de ville-roy. Suarez. adv. sect: Aug. l. 6. c. 4. s. 14 etc. 6. s. 22, 24. Azorius I●st. Moral. part. 1. l 8. c. 13. See the Jansenians mystery of iniquity. Abbots Antilogia.  Clement the VIII. suggest to You (as he did to the King of France, tied by the bond of a Sacred Oath to the Queen of England) that your Oath is made to an Heretic, but you stand bound (against her and her sucessors) in another Oath to God, and to the Pope? Fourthly, What is his Majesty the better for your subscriptions to his due Supremacy, whereas many of you hold that when the Pope hath deposed him, no obedience is due unto him, yea that then ipso facto he becomes a Tyrant, and may be dealt with as such an one, and consequently be slain by a private man? Suarez defence. fid. Cathol. l. 6. c. 4. Norson ubi supra.  
Will you plead your fidelity, Sect. 5 and zeal, in serving and defending of our Princes, 
See p. 7.  and even the Religion of the Kingdom, in sacrificing your blood and fortunes for his Majesty? 1. With what confidence can this be pleaded by you? when the whole College of your Jesuits in London say, 
Mr. Baxter's Key for Cath. c. 45.  That they will rather promote the cutting off of the King's Majesty, (than hinder it) lest they (the Puritans) should make use of his extremities to any advantage; nor are we ignorant who it was that hath of late been convicted of rejoicing at that unsavage butchery. 2. For shame do not say you were unanimously so, was it so in Ireland? 
In two Letters to Arch B. Laud extant in Print introduc. p. 102, 112. Vide Bax. ibid.  no, Bishop Bedle will assure us his Majesty was with the greatest part of Ireland as to their hearts and consciences King, but at the Pope's discretion, and that in Ireland the Pope had another Kingdom far greater in number then his Majesties, and as he had heretofore signified to the Lords Justices and Council (which since is justified by themselves in Print) constantly directed and guided by the order of the new congregation, de propaganda fide, lately erected at Rome. 3. What reason do some of you give why you should be quiet under his Majesty's dominions? even this, because you are not able to manage a war against him; 
In Th. 22. qu. 13. art. 2. non licet eis tol●rare talem Regem. Bell. l. 5. de Paul. c. 7. s. 3. And again, they are obliged not to suffer him. s. probatur they are bound to deprive him of his dominions. Bull. Pauli. 5. cont. Hen. 8. yea 'tis meritorious of eternal life, saith Card. commons. in his letter to Pareus.  thus Bannes, The faithful (Papists) in England and Saxony are to be excused that they do not free themselves from the power of Superiors, nor make war against them, because commonly they are not strong enough to manage these wars, and great dangers hang over them: were they then strong enough, not to rebel would be unexcusable.  
But that which without doubt you plead with greatest confidence, Sect. 6 
Pag. 4.  is, That if all the received Canons of the Church were searched, not one could be found to testify the shedding of blood simply on the account of Religion. In Answer to this, I shall return you the words of one of your approved General Councils, the fourth at Lateran under Innocent the third, as Binius and others of your own record it, where in the first Chapter they set down their Catholic Faith, two Articles of which are, 1. That no man can be saved out of their universal Church. And 2. That the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of the Altar are transubstantiate into the body and blood of Christ, the appearances remaining. And in the third Chapter, they say We Excommunicate and Anathematise every Heresy extolling itself against this holy Orthodox Catholic Faith, which we have before exponed, condemning all Heretics, by what names soever they be called. And being condemned, let them be left to the present secular powers, or their Bailiffs, to be punished, the Clergy being first degraded of their orders, and let the goods of such condemned one's be confiscate, if they be Laymen; but if they be Clergymen, let them be given to the Churches whence they had their Stipends. And those that are found notable only by suspicion, if they do not by congruous purgation demonstrate their innocency; according to the considerations of the suspicion, and the quality of the person, let them be smitten with the sword of Anathema, and avoided by all men, till they have given sufficient satisfaction; and if they remain a year excommunicate, let them then be condemned as Heretics. And let the secular powers, in what office soever, be admonished, and persuaded, and, if necessary, compelled by Ecclesiastical censure, that as they would be reputed and accounted believers, so for the defence of the faith, they take an Oath publicly, that they will study in good earnest, according to their power, to exterminate all that are by the Church denoted Heretics from the Country's subject to their Jurisdiction. So that when any one shall be taken into Spiritual, or Temporal power, he shall by his Oath make good this Chapter. But if the Temporal Lord being required or admonished by the Church, shall neglect to purge his Country of Heretical defilement, let him by the Metropolitan and Comprovincial Bishops be tied by the bond of Excommunication. And if he refuse to satisfy within a year, let it be signified to the Pope, that he from thenceforth may denounce his Vassals absolved from his fidelity, and may expose his Country to be Seized on by Catholics, who rooting out the Heretics, may possess it without contradiction, and may keep it in the purity of faith; saving the right of the principal Lord, so be it that he make no hindrance hereabout, and oppose not any impediment: and the same Law is to be observed with them that are not principal Lords. And the Catholics that taking the sign of the Cross shall set themselves to the rooting out of the Heretics, shall enjoy the same Indulgences and holy privileges, which were granted to those that go to the relief of the Holy Land. Moreover we decree that the Believers, Receivers, Defenders, and favourers of Heretics, shall be excommunicate, firmly decreeing, that after any such is noted by excommunication, if he refuse to satisfy within a year, he shall from thenceforth be ipso Jure infamous, and may not be admitted into public offices, or councils, or to the choice of such, nor to bear witness. And he shall be intestate, and not have power to make a Will, nor come to succession of inheritance. And no man shall be forced to answer him in any cause, but he shall be forced to answer others. And if he be a Judge, his sentence shall be invalid, and no causes shall be brought unto his hearing. If he be an advocate, his Plea shall not be admitted. If a Notary (or Register) the Instruments made by him shall be utterly void, and damned, with the damned Author. And so in other the like cases we command that it be observed: Thus the Council. The Sum of which is, that all the Pope calls Heretics, must be condemned and destroyed, That all Kings, Princes, or Lords that will not execute his sentence, and root them out; must be dispossessed of their Dominions, and the subjects absolved from fidelity, (whatever Oaths they had taken) and all others that do but favour or receive them, be utterly undone, and exterminated. Now seeing our Author tells us that the determination of a general Council is infallible truth, and we have this with the decernimus & firmiter statuimus of a general Council, this must be acknowledged to be so. Indeed I confess that some Romanists do affirm that this is not the genuine Decree of the Lateran Council, but only of Pope Innocent foisted in amongst the genuine Decrees; 
Epist. Monit. ad Johannem Barclaium.  But against this Eudaemo-Johannes asks, if the business were so, Cur in editione hujus Canonis ne Vnus quidem reclamavit? cur ne unus quidem ex tot Imperatorum et Regum oratoribus mutire ausus sit? Yea, why is it so generally Extant in all Editions? 
Co●t. Barclaium.  (2.) Bellarmine tells us that it was defined in a general Council at Leyden under Innocent the fourth, in a Roman Synod under Gregory the seventh, 
Ad quam plurimi Episcopi undique convenerant omnibas consentientibus & laudantibus.  to which there was a general Conflux of Bishops from every place, who all consented to, and applauded the determination, and by another at Rome under Paschal the second, by one at Colen under Gelasius the second, at Rheims under Calixtus the second, at Beneventum under Victor the third, at Placentia under Vrbane the second, and further that it was the judgement of twenty one prime leading men in Italy, and as many in Spain, fifteen in France, twelve in Germany, England and Scotland seven, (besides many others which unquestionably he had not read) I say he tells us that it was the judgement and definition of all these, that it was in the power of the Pope to Excommunicate Kings and Emperors, and deprive them of their Kingdoms, if they be Heretics, and must it not thence follow that this (Dominus fac totum) this Lord Paramount may dispose of their Dominions to others, and they obtaining thus a right may invade the King, and exterminate all that do oppose them, all that are Loyal to their Sovereigns? doth it not hence follow that their subjects thence forwards are absolved from their obedience to them, and may make insurrections against them without scruple? and then (not to add their Jesuits Oaths of blind obedience to go whethersoever, and do whatsoever the Pope shall be pleased to require) is it not sufficiently evident that even the Canons of the Church of Rome do allow the effusion of blood upon religious accounts?   

CHAP. II.  
Why this Work was undertaken by the Author, Sect. 1. M. C '. Protestation incredible, Sect. 2. His Slur cast upon his Majesty, Sect. 3.  
OCcasionally perusing this Author, Sect. 1 and examining his arguments and quotations, I found by a little enquiry that there was scarce one single allegation in his book, that was not either disingenuously forged, or fully and satisfactorily answered already by Protestant Divines, and therefore I thought it proper for such a one as I, though I should profess no greater abilities then to write and read, to evince this unto the world, and to make it appear that the greatest Champions of the Roman Church, are able to bring nothing in the defence of their Novelties, but old and baffled arguments; such as any man may Answer, who can write and read.  
And here I tremble to consider, Sect. 2 that our Author should be so imprudent (to say no worse) to call God to witness upon his soul, 
Pag. 10.  that his purpose was studiously to avoid all cavilling distortions, either of Text of Scripture, or the holy Fathers, and much more those falsely called p●as frauds, corruptions of either; And that he would allege nothing as a proof which for the present he thought could possibly be answered. For let any man read what is answered to his defence of the infallibility of the Church, Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Celibacy of Priests, but especially Transubstantiation, and the Pope's Supremacy, and if he do not find Scriptures miserably distorted, Fathers not only wrested, but corrupted, I will forfeit presently my life. And is it possible that any man should believe him, persuaded that his proofs are unanswerable, who knows that he hath read and so diligently perused the famous Chillingworth, and Reverend Dr. Hammond, out of whom I have transcribed so many satisfactory Answers to his arguments? He that considereth his Discourse upon the Church's practice of Praying in the Latin tongue, will find it altogether impossible for him to imagine that there is any thing of truth in what he here asserts with such a solemn invocation of Almighty God.  
And Thirdly, Sect. 3 Whereas he accuseth the learned Doctor of open Disobedience to his Majesty, 
Pag. 11.  of transgressing his injunctions to his very face, doth he not cast a slur upon his Majesty, in making him so highly pleased with such notorious disobedience, as to give special command that his Sermon should be Published, and consequently others be encouraged to commit the like enormities to his face?   

CHAP. III.  
The Challenge of Bishop. Jewel owned by us, Sect. 1. M. C's. malicious accusation of our Church, Sect. 2. His mistake, Sect. 3. Antiquity not acknowledged to run contrary to us, Sect. 4. His abuse of Dr. Hammond ib. Not We, but the Romanist, self-condemned, Sect. 5. This evidenced from their Indices expurgatorii, Sect. 6. M. C's. Mistake rendering his whole Book impertinent, Sect. 7. An Answer to his Questions, Sect. 9 Scripture not abused by the Doctor, ib.  
IN this third Chapter, You begin with a bold assertion, Sect. 1 
Defen. Eccl. Ang. c. 15. and again c. 18. s. 3. Ecclesia illius temporis (ad 600. annos) sola nostra est; nihil omnino ab ea vel decretum vel receptum pro sidei dogmate quod non est nostrum: vide quae sequuntur. Demonst. of the Problem in fine. Defence of the way, c. 43. F. Ap to his third Book.  That Bishop Jewel and the Doctor are singular in the matter of challenging the concurrence of Antiquity for themselves, and imputing Novelty to the Catholic Church; whereas we persist in Bishop Jewels challenge unanimously, and are rather willing to enlarge it, then contract it. Dr. Crackentborp doth not only tell you, That Bishop Jewels provocation was most just, but reitterates it himself, and adds, that albeit this worthy Prelate (the Chariots of our Israel and the Horsemen thereof) is now in Heaven, yet hath he left behind him in the Camp of the Lord many Valiant men who dare without the least fear provoke all your Philistines and Goliahs to the like Battle. Yea further, that he would not be very bold or rash, qui numerum istum plusquam duplicet: which is consonant to that of Mr. Perkins, No Apostle, no holy Father, no sound Catholic, for 1200. years after Christ, did ever hold or profess that Doctrine of all the principles and grounds of Religion, that is now taught by the Church of Rome, and authorized by the Council of Trent. Dr. White you know riseth up to 800. years, and Dr. Fields Appendix clearly proves that the Latin or West Church in which the Pope Tyrannised, was and continued a true Orthodox and Protestant Church, and that the devisers and maintainers of Romish errors and superstitious abuses were only a faction in the same, at the time when Luther, not without the applause of all good men, published his propositions against the profane abuse of Papal indulgences. Yea Mr. Baxter insults over you in this matter, and tells you There was never such a creature as a Papist known in all the world till 600. 
Safe Rel. p. 175.  years after the birth of Christ; we confidently affirm (saith he elsewhere) and challenge all the Papists in the world to dispute the point with us; 
P. 118.119.  that Popery is a Fardel of new Doctrines unknown to the first Churches. And again let any Papist living bring out their cause to the trial of Antiquity, and let them that are of the most ancient Church and Religion carry the cause; yea further, he desires no better recreation then to entertain a dispute about it with any Papist that will undertake their cause: I hope you will take up the Cudgels.  
To pass over your impertinent Citation of Beza, Sect. 2 Melancthon, 
p. 17.  etc. persons that are strangers to us (1.) You maliciously accuse our Church for leaving out these words in the Roman office, 
V Be mindful of thy Congregation, (O Lord)  
R. Which thou didst possess from the beginning.  Because say You apparently, the Church from the beginning could not be ours: Yea You add We had rather no Prayers at all should be made for the Church, then for that which was from the beginning.  
Answ. This is a very uncharitable surmise, and it might as well have been concluded, that because the first Reformers have left out the words immediately ensuing, 
V Fiat pax in virtute tua.  
R. Et abundatia in turribus tuis.  That they had rather the English Church should have no Prayers, then that she should pray for the peace and prosperity of the Church Catholic. (2.) The surmise is the more uncharitable in that our first Reformers so solemnly profess they rejected nothing but your innovations and superstitions; and that the Religion they had chosen was everywhere conformed to the primitive Purity; how unreasonable is it upon such pitiful surmises to conclude that all these Reformers should be such gross and notorious Hypocrites? and should so solemnly profess what was so great a contradiction to the convictions of their conscience? (3.) Yet had it been purposely left out by them lest it should be offensive to some weak people, not able to distinguish betwixt a Reformation, and an Innovation, betwixt the Purgation of a Church from its superstitions, and the introducing of a new Religion; would it have deserved such Sinister Constructions, or have been blame worthy?  
You tell us Bishop Jewel had not the confidence to reckon in his Catalogue, as novelties, the infallibility of the Church, Sect. 3 
P. 19  invocation of Saints, purgatory, prayer for the dead, celibacy of the Clergy, or Sacrifice of the Mass.  
Answ. You are still weak in your deductions (to let pass your mistake of the sacrifice of the Mass, which was one of the Novelties he charged you with) may I not in like manner argue that M. C. had not the confidence to defend traditions not mentioned in Scripture, as necessary to salvation, and to be embraced with equal authority to the Word of God, nor the Trent Canon of Scripture, because he declined the doing of it?  
In your twentieth Chapter You renew the discourse of Antiquity, Sect. 4 
P. 309, etc.  and when the Doctor had most truly said that you never have showed that jota in which we have left the yet uncorrupted or primitive Church or the four first general Councils, you are put into a passion, and call this most palpable and notorious truth a shameless boast. And then you send us to Simon Vogorius, 
Ibid.  as if we could not send you to twenty Authors that have answered, and baffled, what ever he or others of your party can allege; You send us to your Chapter of the Celibacy of Priests, to view your forgeries there. 
Pag 3 12●  Again You cite such concessions of men (some of which are mere strangers to us) as that no rational man can think you did believe them to be pertinent; for what if Luther saith there was never any one pure Council, but either added something to the faith, or substracted, must we be accountable for all Luther's words? (2.) How will you evince that he speaks of such things as are matters of dispute betwixt us? or that we esteem these things to be additions or subtractions which he did? and what if D. Whitaker assert that to believe by the testimony of the Church, is the plain Heresy of the Papists, did ever any Protestant say otherwise? do not the Fathers require us to believe them upon the sole authority of Scripture reason, or tradition, handed down from the Apostles? which to be sure the Doctor never dreamt of; but the Carbonaria fides, you so often speak of; and whereas he saith that the Popish Religion is a patched coverlet of the father's errors sown together (viz. Origen, Tertullian, etc.) 
See the fragments of old Heresies, out of which he proves Pope●y to have risen, and with which to symbolise; To. 2. p. 800. 2 Thes. 3.  is it not perfectly ridiculous hence to conclude that we deserted Antiquity in deserting these errors? And again, to what end do you cite Dr. Willet speaking of your supposed Antiquity? is that a confession that Antiquity is Yours! then must he confess, that all the Doctrines which you maintain are real truths, because by you they are supposed to be so; What if he tell us from Scripture, Antichrist began to reign in St. Paul's days, that the Mystery of iniquity did then work? did he speak of your Papal Supremacy! then evidently did the Apostle also, for to his sentence he refers; did he not! then is you citation still impertinent; Again, is it not a wonder that you should so confidently tell us that Dr. 
P. 310.  Hammond should contract his challenge to three hundred years; when as he himself hath twice considered this Calumny, 
P. 142.  (1.) in his reply, where he tells us that it was nowhere intimated in that treatise, that we were not ready to stand to the fourth age, but only that the three first ages, and four general Councils, were competent witnesses of the Apostolical Doctrines, and traditions, it being unimaginable that any thing should be so per saltum conveyed to us from the Apostles, 
P. 141.  as to leap over those three Centuries next to them without leaving any footstep discernible among them; the like we have in his Schism disarmed: 
C●●. S. 4.  and yet these things so manifestly disclaimed, must be still objected without the least regard of ingenuity or truth. And when Bishop Laud tells you, 
〈◊〉. 28. p. 2●7.  that we offer to be tried by all the Ancient Councils and Fathers of the Church for four hundred years, and somewhat further, doth he not give you scope enough? if you cannot find any of your doctrines, received by the Church of God, as Articles of faith, or necessary to be believed within that time, is it not a shrewd sign, that they were not traditions received from Christ or his Apostles?  
At last you tell us that evident truth on your side hath extorted a confession from the mouths and pens of a world of the most Learned Writers, 
〈◊〉. 5.  that antiquity declares itself for the Roman Church; and for proof of this, you refer us to the Protestants Apology, the triple cord, with an etc. 
Pag. 313.  at the end of it, and then please yourself in this extraordinary advantage, and infer that we are properly condemned by our own consciences. 
Add to this Dr. James his confutation of Romish Superstitions by their own testimonies. Dr. Fields Appendix, etc. De usu patrum l. 1. c. 4. Excogitato commento persaepe negamus & comm dum iis sensum affingimus.  Answ. 1. Sure you are not such a stranger in England, as to be ignorant, that your Catholic Apology hath been answered by the Reverend Bishop Morton, in folio, and the Antiquity of our Religion showed from many thousand Confessions of the Roman Doctors; and must not you then be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by your own argument? nay let a man consult your Indices expurgatorii, how many thousand sentences of your own Authors, will he find condemned, and ordered to be expunged, only because the evidence of truth forceth them to speak like Protestants? Yea the Authors of the Belgian Index stick not to confess (as Mr. Dally hath it) That when we oppose unto them in disputation, the errors (as they are pleased to call them) of the Ancient Catholics, they do either extenuate, or excuse them, or very frequently find out some artifice, or invention to deny them, or feign some sense that they may commodiously put upon them; and therefore they will afford the like ingenuity to Bertram (albeit it would not much trouble them were he out of the world) and having expunged some of the most evident places against them, will let him pass thus gelt (as they have done many other writings of ancient Catholics) into the world, that so heretics may not object that they burn and prohibit Antiquity when it makes against them: Yea to pass over your additions to, detractions from, 
De usu Patrum l. 1. c. 4. Def. Ecc. Ang. c. 13. s. 10. Index Belgicus.  yea and prohibitions of the Ancient Fathers, of which tho learned Dally, Chrakanthorp, and others afford sufficient instances: let us but see a little how one single Index expurgatorius hath dealt with the Indices of the Fathers in that very point of Justification, in which you would have us confess Antiquity to be our adversary: Out of the Index of St. Austin must be expunged Fides sola justificat; Opera et si non justificent, sunt tamen ad salutem necessaria: out of the Index of St. Chry. sost. Fide sola hominem justificari; salutem esse ex sola gratia, non ex eporibus: out of Hilary's, Fides sola justificat (albeit they be his very words) out of Ambrose, Impius per solam fidem justificatur apud deum? Abraham non ex operibus legis, sed sola fide justificatum vident: out of the Index of St. Jerom, Impium per solam fidem justificat deus;  Abrahae, ita omnibus qui ex gentibus credunt, sola fides ad justitiam reputatur: out of St. Basils', Hae● est perfecta gloriatio apud deum, quando non ob justitiam suam quis se jactat, sed novit quidem seipsum verae justitiae indignum esse, sola autem fide in Christum justificatum; with other passages of the like import, which evidently speak the mind (if not the words) of the text itself: what can more clearly evidence that you sufficiently know Antiquity to be against you, then that you use all means imaginable to conceal it from us, or make it speak what you know it doth not?  
In the same Section, Sect. 6 You tell us that the citations and arguments the Doctor useth, 
Pag 19  have been produced 100 times; whither this be so or no, I am sure the same may be evidenced of all that you have produced against him.  
You go on and say, Sect. 7 That he did well to fix a distinct measure of time after which only whatever doctrines are broached, 
Pag. 20.  ought in his opinion to be esteemed Novelties, viz. The time of the Apostles and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively.  
Ans. This is an evident untruth; but yet it was necessary to be told in the Proem, or else every citation of your book would have been impertinent, nor would you have been able to have found any thing, which could have been nicknamed an Answer to Dr. Pierce. What other ground Mr. C. had to insinuate this palpable untruth, is not imaginable; the Doctor upon this account defies this Antagonist, and rejoices to find that his Sermon cannot be confuted without the Artifice of more falsehoods than he hath pages; but surely the Doctor must have somewhat whence this saying of Mr. C. takes its rise, it being not imaginable that even a Papist (though impudent enough to do it) should be so imprudent as to fasten this upon the Doctor without the least show of evidence. Ans. Assuredly there is nothing in the Doctor's Sermon from whence it can tolerably be argued. Indeed the Doctor saith, They ever complain we have left their Church, but never show us that jota, as to which we have left the Word of God, or the Apostles, or the yet uncorrupted and Primitive Church, or the four first General Councils; now I hope to say, We have not left the Doctrine of the four first General Councils or deserted them; is not to say, That from after the time of their convention, all novelties must be dated; then could not Socinianism, Anabaptism, Presbyterianisme, be esteemed novelties by the Doctor; for he acknowledgeth them to have been within the time of these four Councils; nor was our Author ignorant of this; for speaking of the appeal of Dr. Hammond to the three first Centuries or the four General Councils, he thus paraphraseth it: 
Pag. 311.  Where by submission to the four first General Councils, he means only to the bare decisions of these Councils in matters of faith, not obliging himself also to the authority of those Fathers who flourished in the time of these four Councils and sat in them.  
He goes on and tells us, Sect. 8 That the Doctor did this (which he never did) not out of a voluntary liberality, 
Ibid.  but because an Act of Parliament obligeth him; wherein it is said, that such persons to whom Queen Elizabeth should give authority to execute any jurisdiction spiritual, should not judge any matter or cause to be Heresy, but only such as heretofore hath been determined to be Heresy by the Authority of Canonical Scriptures, or by the first four General Councils; which Argument runs thus; If no person authorized by Queen Elizabeth to execute any spiritual jurisdiction, must adjudge any matters to be Heresy, which were not determined to be so by the first four General Councils, then is Dr. Pierce obliged to fix the times of the Apostles, and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively, as that distinct measure of time, after which Only whatever Dctrines are broached, ought in his opinion to be esteemed novelties: But; verum prius; ergo. Truly Sir, you yourself when you wrote it, might think the inference valid, but no man else now can.  
He comes next to propound some questions (the shrewdest way of arguing when dexterously managed) And the first brings the Doctor to this great absurdity, to acknowledge, Sect. 9 
Pag. 21.  with the rest of his fellow-Protestants, that Scripture alone is the rule of Faith.  
The second, to acknowledge what we generally do, that no Authority on earth obligeth to internal assent: shrewd conclusions ushered in with a train of blunt Dilemmas.  
Your third Question shall be considered in Answering the twelfth Section of your last Chapter.  
Fourthly, He asks What answer the Doctor will make to God for abusing Scripture? 
Pag. 25.  Ans. He will plead not guilty.  
But how can that be, object. when he pretends to prove the lawfulness of the English Reformation, because the Doctrines imposed upon them are novelties, and from the beginning it was not so: whereas he should have evinced that it was contrary, that being the import of our Saviour's words? reply. Rep. The Doctor will have little cause to fear his doom if no better plea can be brought against him: for (I pray you tell me) doth he not either confront the evidence of Scripture against you (as in the doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy, and Transubstantiation, and Communion in one kind, forbidding Marriage) or the intent of the Apostles, or rather of God himself (as in the restraint of Scripture from the Vulgar) or Thirdly, tell you expressly that you oppose the verdict of God's Word (as in the matter of Divorces, and Prayers in an unknown tongue.) Secondly, When you confess that the things defined by your Councils are only such as were always matters of faith, 
Pag. 241.  and conveyed to us by the general practice of the Church, is it not enough to show our innocency, in not accepting them for such, because ab initio non fuit sic? especially, when (thirdly) you know we hold, that in all matters of faith, 'tis all one with us to be praeter Scripturam, and to be contra; 
Pag. 25.  but you ridiculously add, That he should have cited such Scriptures as these," S. Peter & his Successors never had, nor aught to have any Supremacy of jurisdiction, etc. Which here I bind myself to do, when you can make it appear that the Doctor was obliged to do so, or that the Scripture anywhere saith, That the Trent Councils definitions are to be received as a rule of Faith, The body of Christ is transubstantiated, 'tis unlawful to give the Scriptures to Laymen to peruse, The English Church is guilty of formal Schism, and such like stuff which you pretend to deduce from Scripture.  
Lastly, Sect. 10 You tell us that the Fathers cry out against innovations, 
Pag. 27.  and therefore cannot be thought to have introduced any. Answ. Presbyterians cry out of Innovations by Bishops, the Greek Church and the reform condemn the Romanist as an Innovator; the Arrians, the Nicene Fathers; therefore it cannot reasonably be thought that any of these are Innovators by Mr. C.   

CHAP. IU.  
Mr. Cs. mistake, Sect. 1. His first Argument from the necessity of an universal Bishop to hinder Schism considered, Sect. 2. His second Argument from the Presbyterians, Sect. 3. The Doctor's first Argument from Mark. 10.42. defended Sect. 4. His second from Rev. 21.14. Sect. 5. His third from Gal. 2. Sect. 6. His Argument from the notion of an Head strengthened, Sect. 7, 8, 9 A further evidence of the no necessity of such an Head, Sect. 10.  
THE first Novelty, Sect. 1 of which his Church stood charged by the Doctor, is the usurpation of their Pope, from which usurpation he tells him our Church hath separated; 
Cap. 4. s. 1.  but whereas he would make him moreover to assert, That this Authority was never acknowledged in the Church till the time of Boniface; And further, that we have not separated from any Authority, if any were exercised by the former Popes, during the times of the four first General Councils, he deals disingenuously with the Doctor, in whom no footsteps of this assertion can be found, albeit it be a great and evident truth. But whereas he would make him further to affirm of the whole heap of Roman Novelties, That there was no mention of them in the time of the four first General Councils, he doth more grossly and palpably abuse him, only that he might make room for those Citations, which otherwise would have been evidently impertinent, and might seem to fight against the Doctor's Sermon, when he is only beating that man of clouts, which himself hath made. Nay Dr. Pierce evidently acknowledgeth, that some of their Heresies may be derived from Origen, Tertullian, etc. So, that our Author (which is a bad omen) stumbles at the threshold, builds his whole Fabric on a mistake, and confutes only what himself hath fancied, not what the Doctor hath asserted. Well then, that which he hath to do, if he would contradict his assertion, is, to show, not whither the Pope's preceding challenged a supremacy of jurisdiction, but whither the Roman Bishop was acknowledged of the Church of God, as an universal head; as one who had received from the beginning, a power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church. Now in returning an answer to what is delivered for the proof of this, we shall consider, first, his reasons; secondly, his testimonies; thirdly, his returns to what the Dr. brought to confute this Supremacy.  
Well then to make it appear reasonable, Sect. 2 he tells us, That since General Councils (the only absolute supreme Authority Ecclesiastical) either for want of agreement among Princes, 
Pag. 45.  or by the inconvenience of the long absence of Prelates, or their great expenses, etc. can very seldom be summoned, it would be impossible without an ordinary constant standing supreme Authority to prevent Schism, that is, it is impossible the Church should subsist. This Argument reduced into Syllogisms sounds thus: That without which the Church cannot subsist, ought in all reason to be granted; But, Without the supreme jurisdiction of the Pope, the Church cannot subsist. Ergo. The major we pass as evident by its own light; The minor is thus proved; That without which it is impossible to prevent Schisms, is that without which 'tis impossible the Church should subsist; but this supreme jurisdiction of the Pope, is that without which 'tis impossible to prevent Schisms. To give a satisfactory Answer to this, it will be necessary to premise, that Schism is a rapture of one part from another, and that of the visible Church, as appears, because 'tis a crime punishable by the Ecclesiastical Magistrate, which it could not be, if it were a secession from the invisible Church only, 2. This Schism may be either of one particular Church from another, or of one member of that particular Church from the same Church; and I hope our Author will not say that to the redressing of this Schism, The Supreme Authority of the Pope is necessary, seeing he must necessarily permit this to these Rulers, which he imagines inferior to him, and therefore must acknowledge them sufficient to redress the said miscarriages. 3. The Schism of one particular Church from another, may be either in things necessary to salvation, or in things not necessary, but of lighter moment. Now then to answer to his Major, if he intended it of Schisms of the former nature, 'tis true; for errors in things necessary to salvation destroy the very being of a Church: In this sense therefore we grant the Major, but deny the Minor; If he understand it in the latter sense, we deny the Major, as holding that not every breach upon such slight accounts, or circumstantial businesses, doth dissolve the visible Church, but it may subsist with such a breach, if so be the essentials and vitals of Religion be still preserved, and the Sacraments truly administered; For if the Church of God remained at Corinth, when there were divisions, Sects, emulations, contentions, quarrels, and the practice of such things which were execrable to the very Heathens, and of such whereof the Apostle expressly saith, We have no such custom, who dares deny them to be the Churches of God, who differ from others only in circumstantials? What would such men have said to the Galatians, who so far adulterated the Gospel of Christ (purely kept and preserved in other Churches) that the Apostle pronounceth concerning them, that they were bewitched; and if they still persisted to join Circumcision and the Law together with Christ, they were fallen from Grace, Christ would profit them nothing, whom yet the Apostle acknowledgeth to be the Church of God, writing to the Church which is in Galatia. Secondly, Suppose a Supreme jurisdiction were necessary to the preventing Schisms, must it needs be the Supremacy of the Pope? why may it not as well be the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Patriarch of Constantinople, or one elected by the suffrages of particular Churches? 3. We deny, that the Authority of the Pope is necessary to this end, even to the suppression of lesser Schisms, yea or expedient; for were it so, then either of Schisms arising from breach of charity, or difference of judgement; Not the first; for 'tis not possible for the Pope, to infuse charity into any party, or to use other means to effect it then rational motives from Scripture, which any other man may do: If it be expedient for difference of judgement, seeing the Schisms that arise from that difference concern himself, it would then, 1. Be expedient, that he should be judge in his own cause; as for instance, 'tis doubted whither the Pope of Rome hath any Authority delegated to him from Christ over the Universal Church; whither 'tis expedient, such an Authority should be admitted; whither the Authority of a Pope should transcend that of a General Council; whither the Religion the present Pope subscribes to, and publicly maintains, be true; whither the contrary which he persecutes, be false; whither he be infallible, in his sentence and Cathedra; and whither the interpretation of Tues Petrus, and Pasce Oves, be to be sought from his mouth or no. Is it expedient, will the Church of France say, that he should judge in all these Causes? the Church of England, that in any? and doth not reason say so to? and what madness were it for each to hold so stiffly the contrary, if we could persuade ourselves, that it were thus? or if this were so necessary, that without the acknowledgement of such a power and submission to it, it were impossible to prevent Schisms, and the destruction of the Church thereby; is it not wonderful, that in the whole Scripture there should not be any thing directing us to go to the Church of Rome to have these Schisms, which are so destructive to the Church, prevented? That the Apostle among all his charges to the Church of Corinth, to break off their Schisms, all the means to prevent it, should neglect that without which it was not feasible? that speaking of the damnable Doctrines that should spring up in the latter time, we should have no Items where the truth was to be kept inviolable, and whither to have recourse to avoid them? If a Jesuit had been at St. Paul's elbow, when after the rehearsal of those Doctrines he saith to Timothy, If thou put the Brethren in mind of these things, etc. he would have added [and sendest them to the Pope for Preservatives against them] thou shalt then be a good Minister of Jesus Christ; otherwise no Minister at all, but an Heretic. And when he tells them, that perverse Teachers should arise, and commends them thereupon to the Word of God, a Jesuit would have told him that this was the way to make them Heretics, nothing more pernicious, and that he should commend them to the Pope. Yea (3.) That the Scripture should exhort us on the contrary to run to the Law and to the Testimonies, and tell us that if they speak not agreeable thereto, there is no truth in them, when we ought not to meddle with them, especially so, as to judge with the judgement of discretion, what's Truth and Error, that the Apostle should bid us try the spirits, Yea try all things, and hold fast the Truth, and that directing us to no other touchstone than Scripture, and reason; that sure word by which we are to take heed, is not agreeable to these pretensions; for should it be that we may try no other truth, yet assuredly we must try whether the Pope hath the supreme authority or no, and so be Judges of our Judge, which sure is dangerous. Yea (4) Is it not wonderful, that St. Paul amidst all the bands of Unity so carefully reckoned up, Eph. 4.4. One Body, one Spirit, one Hope, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God, should forget, one Bishop of Rome, or spiritual Monarch, without whose Sovereign power, if our Author may be believed, the Church of God cannot subsist? Sure if there had been any such thing, this had been a proper place, wherein to mention it. No, had the Apostle thought of the delegacy to St. Peter and his Successors, it would not have been to the Law, and to the Testimonies; but to the Popes, Council and his Cardinals? (4.) To multiply no more, the prevention of Schisms of the latter sort is not necessary to the subsistence of the Church simpliciter, but to its subsistence in statu meliori. Now thence to infer, that God hath provided an Head to govern the Universal Church, is as Illogical, as if because the Church Militant would be in a better Condition, were its members impeccable, to infer that God hath provided some external means to effect it: Or because the making them all of one mind, or enlightening them with the truth, would prevent Schism and Heresy, therefore God should do so, or provide other means beside his word to bring it to pass; To infer, that thence the members of the Church should spontaneously submit to one such single persons judgement, so as to have their Conscience guided by his Verdict, is to submit religion to the mercy of a man as fallible as themselves; to slight the judgements of many thousands, that we may rest in One as weak as any of these we neglect, is to endanger even the being of Religion, that we may the better secure its Circumstantials. Undeniable is that of Mr. Chillingworth, He that affirms the Pope's infallibility, puts himself into his hands to be led by him at his pleasure into all Heresy (especially seeing it is notoriously evident that many of them have been Heretics, and 'tis Granted they may be so) and even to hell itself, and cannot with reason say (so long as he is constant to his Grounds) cur ita facis, but must believe white to be black and black to be white; virtue to be vice, nay (which is most Horrible, yet a certain truth) Christ to be Antichrist, and Antichrist to be Christ, if it be possible for the Pope (who hath been known to esteem the Gospel a very fable) so to say. Which I say and maintain, however you daub and disguise it, is indeed to make men Apostate from Christ, to his pretended Vicar but real enemy. Lastly, to submit to him so, as not to bind our Consciences to consent, but ourselves not to practise or declare contrary to his determinations, is (1) That which our Author and his party explode as ridiculous; (2) 'tis very Dangerous, seeing by these means the practice of Religion, the worship of Jesus may be exploded in most Churches in Christendom, the witnesses of the truth silenced, and men be hindered from confessing with their mouths the Lord Jesus, which yet is necessary to salvation. Yea (3) Is it not more safe to submit to any particular provincial Council in this matter then to one man, and to a General one (when it may be had) then to that? Sect. 3  
Well, 
Pag 45.  But our Author will borrow an argument from the Presbyterians, and it is this, If there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for the prevention of schism, there is (say they) as great a necessity of setting up one Archbishop over many Bishops, and one Patriarch over many Archbishops, and one Pope over all, unless we will imagine that there is danger of Schism among Presbyters only, and not among Bishops, Archbishops, etc. which is contrary to reason, truth, history & experience.  
Answ. I cannot tell what you would imagine in answer to this stolen argument, but I can tell what returns have been made to it, before ere it was managed by the Presbyter. And had they not been like you, at least some of them, in overlooking Answers given to their Arguments, they might have spared all their pains in this particular. (1.) Then, let Ocham tell us, the same form of Government is not always most expedient for the whole and for each part, seeing one may sustain the Hearing, Dispatching and Determining the greater causes and more important matters in one Kingdom, or Country; but no one can so manage the weightiest business of the whole world; In like sort, though it be expedient (sc. for the preventing of Schism) that there should be one Bishop over some part of the Church, yet there is not the same reason, that there should be one over the whole; 
Pontificis unius arbitrio subjicere sidem totius Ecclesiae expedita via est ad unitatem, add tamem proclivis ad errorem; nam talem unitatem Turcae, talem Haeretici talem ipsi, Philesophi habere possunt, si ex caetu suo unum aliquem eligant cui caeteri omnes teneantur fidem adhibere; sed sapienter de hac re scripsit Archidiac. Bonon. Periculosum esset fidem nostram unius hominis arbitrio committere; quis enim ausit praestare hunc hominem nunquam erraturum? Davenant, de sup. Judice controversiarum.  seeing no one can dispatch the greater businesses, and manage the weightier matters of the whole Christian world. Besides saith he, it would be most dangerous, to assign any particular person as the supreme ruler of the whole Church; for if he should fall into Error or Heresy, all the whole would be in great danger of seduction by him; the members for the most part conforming themselves to the head (especially when they are taught, that he is Infallible.) Out of all that hath been said, we have three Answers. (1.) That the Argument is not good from a Bishop to a Pope; because the one is able to hear and dispatch Causes so as to prevent Schism, which the other is not. (2.) That this Argument will as well prove an Universal Monarch, it being once granted that Monarchy in a particular Province is the best Government for the preventing of Political Schism. (3.) If it were expedient to prevent Schism, yet the danger and mischief of it would be worse than the disease, whereas no such thing can be asserted of a regular Episcopacy. But (2) I answer that in respect of a Diocese, or Parish, there is a particular Authority resting in one, and therefore if this one Minister of a Parish should have Authoritatem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all might be filled with Schisms; so also Bishops may abuse their peculiar Authority, and therefore to the prevention of Schism, 'tis meet they should have an Authority to bond them; But now for a Metropolitan, he hath no jurisdiction over Bishops he can do nothing (out of his own Diocese, in which he is a Bishop) without the concurrence of the Major part of the Bishops of the province, though he be in order and honour the first; so in like sort, the Patriarch may do nothing without the advice and consent of the Metropolitans and Bishops subject to him; seeing therefore these have no power of Jurisdiction, but only a Primacy of Order and Honour, there needs none over them, especially with a power of Jurisdiction, to prevent their Schisms; so then (saith Cham. 
De Oecum. Pontis. l 9 c. 14. s. 12. ) here is a ridiculous comparison of things dislike, as if one should say, 'tis convenient, that there should be one Primate over Bishops, but so as to be able to do nothing without their sentence; therefore there ought to to be one over these Primates, endued with full power of jurisdiction. (3.) The Fathers, which are for one Bishop over Presbyters, upon the account that Schism might be prevented, yet never resorted to this one Universal Bishop for the same end; but redressed all Schism by calling Synods; neither is there any Unity employed in the whole Church, or Churches of divers Provinces, which may not be preserved by the multitude of divers Pastors, conspiring and consenting together, as well as by the Unity of one chief Pastor. And in this sort we shall find the Church of God to have stood in perfect Unity in the first and best ages thereof, without finding any want of the help of one chief Pastor. Oh but Ecumenical Synods cannot be had always. Answ. Nor is it needful: for the most part Provincal one's will serve the turn; But if the Schism be very dangerous, and betwixt Province and Province, 
Apud Cham. ibid. c. 13. s. 10.  then will Pope Innocent tell us (not that we must run to him, but) that we wust necessarily have recourse to a Synod, quam quidem donec consequamur, expedit medelam Calamitatis hujus committere voluntati Magni Dei, ac Christi ejus, Domini nostri, who will be sure to provide sufficiently for his Church. And indeed to what purpose should they go to one man, till it can be proved, and not Begged, that God hath set him over the persons that are to be reconciled? will his Verdict put an end to their Schism, that think him as fallible as themselves? And can we think that God appointed such a Mediator. whom all the world in case of Trial would undoubtedly refuse, till they had evidence of his infallibility, or the Delegacy of his power from Christ, and yet not give us one jota to persuade us of his will in this matter? What he hath in the third section of the sixth Chapter, are but the presumptuous Dictates of a bold Romanist in despite of truth, as our Answers to the Fathers alleged by him will evidence. Thus having answered his reasons for the supreme jurisdiction of the Pope, we come now to consider, what he hath to return upon the Doctor.  
And first, Sect. 4 the Doctor (saith he) accuseth it of opposition to the precept of Christ, Mark. 10.42, 43, 44. 
S. 5. p. 33.  They that rule over the Gentiles, exercise Lordship over them: but so shall it not be among you. Now (1.) he will tell us, 
Pag. 34.  that not the affecting, but lawful exercising of supremacy of power and jurisdiction is so far from being an impudent opposition to the precept, that it is established by the Text, for as much as it makes mention of some that are Chief. To this stolen argument, it hath been Answered, that to argue from this, Mark 10.44. Whosoever will be chief, that there was one appointed to be chief among the Apostles, is as ridiculous, as from Luk. 9.48. He that is least among you, the same shall be greatest, to argue, that there was some one Apostle of less power and dignity than any of the rest; or from Luk. 22.26. He that is Chief, as he that doth serve, that some of the Apostles waited upon the rest.  
2. He tells us, that this is so evident, in the next verse, 
Ibid.  that had the Doctor but rehearsed it, he would have published to his meanest reader his abuse of Scripture. It seems the Doctor is very much to blame: but let us hear the Objection, which Bellarmine will lend him, which is this, that our Saviour gives them his example to confirm his Exhortation, who surely had Authority, yea Supremacy of Jurisdiction over the Church; How then are they to imitate Christ? in renouncing their Superiority? did he himself do so? No. Well then, they are to do it in keeping their humility with that supremacy of Jurisdiction. Answ. This Argument hath been answered several times, by telling Bellarmine, that 'tis true, in Christ there was supreme Authority, as well as humility, but the latter only was the thing propounded to their imitation; thence therefore to infer, that this supremacy of power is not inconsistent with that Command of his, is as vain a Fancy, as because he that Commanded them his humility, thought it no roberry to be equal with God; thence to infer, that therefore this humility was not inconsistent with the pride of Lucifer. (2) Christ though he had this power, yet never exercised it upon Earth, but was in the form of a servant, and this he propounds to their imitation.  
3. 
Ibid.  Whereas he tells us, The Apostles were Church rulers, what inference can he make? For can he think that the Doctor esteemed himself and all our Hierarchy impudent opposers of the letter and sense of this precept? If so, he is more impudent than this opposition; if not, then is that spoken besides the purpose, and without any Contradiction to the Doctor: Well then, What is it, that is forbidden? viz. 
Pag. 35.  (quoth he) The exercising it with such an arrogant pride, as Heathen Princes usually do, Ambitious seeking of Authority, and after a secular manner Lording it over God's Heritage; Now here he jumps with the Doctor, whose words are: For any Bishop to affect over his Brethren a supremacy of Power, is a most impudent opposition both to the sense and letter of our Saviour's precepts; Now that the Pope affects this, may be argued in that without any tolerable pretence from Scripture, with manifest opposition to the primitive Fathers, and invading the rights of others, he bandies for it, and albeit he knows 'tis one great occasion of Schism, and of the breach of the Church's peace, yet would he force all upon pain of Damnation to acknowledge it, and excommunicates all, who do not; than which, greater Tyranny and Ambition cannot well be found. But yet there may be an Argument framed out of the text from this, 
Abalens. in Math. quaest. 83.  that the Apostles even to the last contended who should be greatest, which sure they would not have done, if they had thought that Peter by the giving of the Keys or any other act of Christ was preferred before them. Yea 'tis wonderful, that when (as our Adversaries say) this contention came before Christ, four several times, he would never intimate to them, that which was so necessary to prevent Schism, that he intended St. Peter for the chief: when those that contended for it so strongly, and especially their Followers, were not likely to afford it him, without some express from Christ.  
In answer to the Doctors second Argument from Rev. Sect. 5 21.14. he tells us, 
P. 71. s. 6.  That he will acknowledge all the twelve Apostles to be equally foundations of the Church's building, and that the same Authority that was first given to St. Peter, was afterward given to the rest of the Apostles, that (as St. Cyprian saith) the same that Peter was, the rest of the Apostles likewise were, endowed with an equal participation of Honour and Power. Thus he; but I doubt he will hereafter be more cautious of such liberal concessions; for out of these I argue ad hominem (1.) The same that St. Peter was, the rest of the Apostles likewise were; But St. Peter by the verdict of the Council of Florence was Prince of the Apostles: ergo, The rest of the Apostles were Princes over St. Peter. (2. St. Peter had a supremacy of power over the whole Church; but the rest of the Apostles had equal power with him, ergo, The rest of the Apostles had a supremacy over the whole Church, and consequently every member beside themselves. Now then, either Christ, who gave them this power, gave them a liberty to exercise it, or forbade them the external administration of it. If the first, than was there no subordination in the exercise of this power, to Peter, unless the same person can be sub and equal too; If the second, than did he give them it perfectly in vain; for Authority can be to no end, but to exercise it on those, over whom 'tis given; Nay 'tis a contradiction to say a man hath power over another, when he cannot exercise it de jure, when as power over him supposes a right to exercise Authority: and when will they be able to evince such a prohibition? Yea (3) how have they equal power (not to speak of honour) whereof one may exercise authority over the world, the other may not? by the same reason it may be said that a Presbyter hath equal power with a Bishop. Well, but saith our Author, we must give leave to Scripture and Fathers to interpret themselves; than it follows, 
Ibid.  We grant therefore (as if we Benedictines were Scripture and Fathers) that all the Apostles, and all Bishops their successors, enjoy the whole latitude of Episcopal jurisdiction, for as much as concerns the internal essential qualifications of either; but for the external administration, there may be, and always was acknowledged a subordination, and different latitude in the exercise of the same Authority both among Apostles, 
Ibid.  and Bishops. Answ. He did wisely to add, let him not find fault with this distinction, for 'tis as liable to exception, as any can be. For (1.) What is it that qualifies Peter for the external administration over the rest of the Apostles? 
See Mr C. Pag. 73. Pag. 71.  Is it, that Christ gave him the name of a Rock? surely no; seeing we have it acknowledged, that all the rest of the Apostles were equally foundations of the Church, and consequently equally Rocks; for Peter is therefore so, because our Saviour tells him he would build his Church upon him, or because he was one, upon which the Church was to be founded. Yea further, among foundation stones there is but one that hath any eminence above other, and that is Christ, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is appropriated to him, Eph. 2.20. And so still nothing pertains to St. Peter in the matter of being a Stone, or foundation, which doth not appear equally to belong to the others also. Yea last, Peter is not called a Rock, as the Romanists would have him; for seeing upon this Rock the Church was built, and Peter was a member of that Church, it would follow hence, that Peter and all the Popes his Successors must be built upon themselves; Evident is that of St. 
Serm. 13. de verbis Domini.  Austin, Upon that Rock which thou confessedst will I build my Church, that is, upon myself, upon me will I build thee, not me upon thee. And again, in his Retractations, 
L. 1. C. 21.  'tis not said, Thou art Petra, but thou art Petrus: Petra autem erat Christus, 
Mr C. p. 73. And what if in the Syriack there be no such difference, seeing in the Greek which is Authentic it is observed.  quem confessus est Simon. 2. Is it because he is always in the Gospel placed first, and called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first? Alas, 'tis otherwise; for we find Joh. 1.44. The City of Andrew and Peter. Mark 16.7. The Disciples and Peter: and what is it to the purpose, that he is reckoned first in the Evangelists, when almost always he is put last in the Epistles? 1 Cor. 3.22. Chap. 9.5. Or in the midst, as Gal. 2.9. 2. That this ordering of the names of the Apostles, is no argument of their different Authority, is evident from this, that albeit there were some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet are they not placed next to Peter. And then for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it cannot give him this supremacy; for it is afterwards promised to him, you say, Matth. 16. I will give thee the Keys, etc. It being then afterward promised, cannot be supposed to be already possessed by him, when it is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2. We know that all the time of Christ's life, John had the dignity of place next Christ; (for he was the Disciple whom he loved, and who lay in his bosom) and therefore Peter had not the superiority. For though the dignity of the place may be without superiority; yet superiority of Jurisdiction is never to be found in any without the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or priority of place; yea, it is sufficiently evident, that the Church of God thought as highly of St. John, as of St. Peter, in that they stood upon his example for the celebration of Easter, against Peter's. 3. We say, that, notwithstanding his contradiction, Peter is called first, 
Pag. 73.  either because of his zeal and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in confessing Christ, or because he was the Apostle first called, or else only as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a numeral; Or if it intimate any priority, 'tis of order, not of superiority; as we have proved.  
Nor, 3 Was this power of Administration given him, 
See Mr. C. pag. 73.  because Christ bids him feed his Sheep indefinitely; For sure the other Apostles were commissionated to feed them too; and that they were to do it indefinitely, appears, because they are sent by him to all Nations, not fixed to any part of his flock. Yea I demand, whether, when St. Paul Act. 20. gave commandment to the Bishops of Ephesus, to feed the flock, over which Christ had made them overseers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he might not have charged them in these words, feed the sheep of Christ. Whether, seeing he had a Commission to go teach all Nations, common to him with the rest, he might not indefinitely have constituted Bishops, and given them this charge; or whether he that had this indefinite power of commanding others, were not an indefinite Pastor, and had not a commission of feeding Christ's Sheep or Lambs, which is all that is affirmed of St. Peter? If therefore, what was given to St. Peter, was likewise conferred upon all the rest, how can it be, that hence a supremacy of St. Peter above the rest of the Apostles should be concluded? And, whereas 'tis argued, that St. Peter is constituted Pastor of Christ's flock indefinitely, and therefore of the Apostles, seeing they are Christ's Sheep, may it not with equal reason be concluded, that seeing the Apostles had commission given to teach all Nations, and every creature, they were commissionated teachers of St. Peter, and he ought to be subject to them, as a Disciple to his Teacher? Yea the argument is more forcible, seeing here we have mention made of every creature, whereas St. Peter is not bid to feed all Christ's Sheep. 
De Agon. Christi. c. 30.  Add to this the suffrage of St. Austin, Cum dicitur Petro, ad omnes dicitur, Pasce oves meas.  
Nor, 
Mr. C. p. 73.  4. In that he had the power of the Keys assigned to him, it being manifest that the same power was given to the rest of the Apostles, Matth. 18.18. Thus Origen in Matth. Hom. 1. Were the Keys given by Christ to Peter only? no; this is common to them all; for when in the Gospel of St. John, Jesus said to his Disciples, Receive the Holy Ghost, he constituted them all such as was Peter: to which Testimony may be added Hieron. Ambrose, Cyprian, Hilary, Austin, Theophylact, Leo, Euthym. Bed. Anselm, Hugo, Lyran, and the Council of Colen. All which you may see in the Learned Crackenthorp, de Eccl. Angl. c. 22. s. 6.  
Nor, 
Mr. C. ib.  5. From this, that St. Peter was made the Minister of Circumcision; for so was St. Paul of the Uncircumcision, or the Gentiles, who yet will not be allowed to have this external administration. 
Ibid.  And to talk of a dedication of St. Paul's office by St. Peter's going to Cornelius a Proselyte, when St. Paul was at Tarsus, is so weak a proof of his supremacy over him, that I will not disparage any Reader so much as to think it needs a confutation: Especially if it be considered, that notwithstanding this St. 
Lib. 1. de prov. Dei. Hom. 8. de laud. Pauli. Hom. 2. ad Rom. Hem. 18. ad Rom. Hom. 25. in 2. ad Corin. V. de Crak. ubi supra.  Chrysostom will tell us, That there was none greater than blessed St. Paul, nay nor equal to him: That he, as another Aaron, was anointed Priest over the whole world: That he was a Pillar of the Church, more firm (not only than Peter, but) than any stone, rock, or iron: To whom the universal dispensation through the whole world was committed. And (which is most observable) that he governed the whole world as one house, or one ship: In which ship (as St. Ambrose tells us) Christ is the foundation, the Father is the Pilot, the Holy Spirit Proram servat, and which the twelve Apostles, as her bank of Oars bring into the Haven. So that here is no peculiar place assigned to St. Peter. Now than these things being so, I argue thus; Either in these places, our Saviour did give St. Peter this external administration, or he did not; if he did, than it follows evidently, that he gave the same power to the Apostles also, seeing what he gave to St. Peter, we have proved he gave to them; if not, then let them tell us, where Christ gave this power to St. Peter, and what more likely arguments can be produced to conclude it. 2. It is manifest, 1. That Christ immediately constituted Apostles, and that they received not their Apostleship from St. Peter; for he saith, have not I chosen you twelve? Joh. 6.70. Joh. 20.21. as my Father sent me, so send I you. 2. It is manifest that Christ gave supreme jurisdiction to the whole company of Apostles; and this your Bellarmine confesseth, 
De Pontis. l. 4. c. 23.  yea that he gave them all power, whether external or internal; yea he proves it too; 1. Because he saith, as my Father sent me, so send I you, whosesoever sins ye remit, etc. But now (saith he) Christ without all controversy was sent with full and absolute power, and therefore his Apostles must be so; and this Exposition or Argument from the place, he backs with the Fathers; and Maldonate with Jansenius say the like. 2. 
In locum.  He proves it hence, that the Apostle St. Paul making mention of the distinct orders of officers in the Church, doth it thus; first Apostles, secondarily Teachers, thirdly Prophets, etc. And this he doth, when his design is to show that some part of the Church hath more abundant honour than the rest; and having done so, puts the question, Are all Apostles? can they all plead to equal power with them? Now had there been one supreme over the Apostles, why doth he say in general, first Apostles? when 'tis his design to speak of the degrees which God had placed in the Church: why doth he leave out the chief? Certainly if the Apostles were all first, 
Chilling.  to me it is very probable, that no one was before the other; for by first all men understand, either that which is before all, or that before which is nothing; Now in the former sense, the Apostles could not be all first; for then every one of them must be before every one of the rest; (or if you say, that all the Apostles were before all other Pastors, but St. Peter first of all, then why doth not the Apostle say first St. Peter, than the rest of the Apostles?) and therefore they must be first in the other sense, and therefore no man, and therefore not St. Peter must be before them. Bellarmine elsewhere saith, that St. Paul speaks not of the Hierarchy of the Church, but of those that were endowed with extraordinary gifts, and that therefore he leaves out St. Peter. But, 1. What doth he think of Teachers, were they extraordinary persons? 2. If this be the reason, why have we no mention of him Eph. 4.11. where we have Pastors, Evangelists, Prophets, Apostles, (without any distinction) set over us, till we all come in the unity of faith unto perfect men? 3. He proves it, because they had commission from Christ to go teach all Nations, and out of those whom they taught, to ordain some Pastors wherever they came; which shows they had an universal jurisdiction from Christ, and a power to exercise it: and so much for the second proposition.  
3. Hence it follows, that they could not be limited in this power by St. Peter; for Par in parem non habet potestatem. Now to restrain another's power as to its exercise, is evidently to exercise power over him; And hence it follows, that they had equal power of Administration with St. Peter. And indeed, that St. Peter should have authority over all the Apostles, and yet not exercise one act of it upon them, and that they should show to him no sign of subjection, methinks is as strange, as that a King of England for 24 years should exercise no act of regality, nor receive any one acknowledgement of it; as strange methinks it is, that you so many ages after should know this so certainly, as you pretend to, and yet the Apostles (after these words were spoken in their hearing, by virtue whereof St. Peter is pretended to have been made their head) should still be so ignorant of it, as to question which of them should be the greatest; yet more strange, that our Saviour should not bring them out of their error by telling them St. Peter was the man; No less a wonder was it, that St. Paul so far should forget St. Peter and himself, as that 1. Mentioning him often, he should do it without any title of honour, yea further, that speaking of himself in particular, and perhaps comparing himself with St. Peter rather than any other, he should say in plain terms, I am in nothing behind the very chiefest of the Apostles. How is it, that the other Apostles fall foul upon St. Peter for going in unto the Gentiles, Act. 11.23. so that he is compelled to defend himself by that special revelation made unto him? How is it that he passed not the Decretorial sentence in the Synod? Acts 15. did he transfer his power to St. James?  
4. 
See Mr. C. p. 71.  The distinction of Archbishop Whitgift serves him not at all; for he saith only this, that Quoad ministerium, viz. as to Preaching, Administering the Sacraments, Absolving and Remitting, and such things, which are done by Pastors, (and carrying not Jurisdiction in them, but Ministry or Service) they are equal, but Quoad Politiam, as to Government, they are unequal; and what is this to the purpose? 
Mr. C. p. 72.  Nor doth his example of my Lord of Canterbury help out the matter; For, 1. His grace hath no power of Jurisdiction over a Bishop, as Dr. Feild, and Dr. Hammond will tell him. 2. If he be said to have it, 'twere ridiculous to say that the Bishops of single Dioceses are of equal Authority, Jurisdiction, or Power with him, seeing he hath Power over them, which Par in parem non habet.  
To the two Testimonies of St. Cyprian and St. Jerome, we have no other Answer then what in general is given to these Scriptures: Whereas, 1. The words of St. Cyprian afford not the least ground of this evasion; nay the words seem unconsistent with it; for having told us that Christ had given the Keys to St. Peter, bid him seed his sheep, told him that what he bond, should be so, and that upon him he would build his Church, he presently adds, That he did this, 
Pari consertio praediti hovoris & potestatis, sed exordium ab vaitate proficiscitur.  albeit he had given to the rest of the Apostles parem potestatem, and so intended not any superiority in him above the rest, but only to show the necessity of unity. And then for St. Jerome, he doth not only say, that the Bishop at Rome and Eugubium are of the same merit, but infers it hence that all are Successors of the Apostles; and that one City, though Rome itself, is not be objected against the custom of other parts of the world; but for the defence of this citation I refer you to the Learned Dr. Feild. p. 548.  
In the second Chapter of St. Sect. 6 Paul's Epistle to the Galathians, we have many things which are inconsistent with the Supremacy of St. Peter contended for. And, 1. Whereas he mentions James, Cephas, and John, and calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; may it not plausibly be argued from the order of the names that St. Paul esteemed not St. Peter Superior to the rest, because he mentions him in the middle? for if this be a sufficient evidence of his Supremacy, that the Evangelists put him in the front of the Apostles, why should it not be as good a plea against it, that the Apostle St. Paul, when speaking of the chiefest Apostles, should not do so? 2. Why doth he mention them all as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and put no difference betwixt them, if indeed St. Peter were Superior to them? especially if it be considered that he elsewhere calls them (if we may believe St. chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecum. Aquinas, Hugo, Salmero, Justinian, Cornelius a Lapide, and others) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, putting no difference at all betwixt them. And that, 3. This being evidently his scope to show that there was no reason to reject his doctrine touching the no necessity of circumcision, because these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were pleased to admit of it, (and indeed that he was not inferior to these Apostles, whose Authority they urged against him) had St. Peter been constituted in such a degree of Supremacy over the Apostles, how had it concerned his design to have told us (not thus in general these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but in particular) that even St. Peter the chief of the Apostles had given him the right hand of fellowship? and therefore his neglecting of this is a shrewd argument against this Supremacy; and persuades me to believe with the Doctor, that St. James and St. John were St. Peter's Peers. Again, ver. 7. the Apostle tells us, that even these Pillars saw it evident, that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to him, as the Gospel of the circumcision was to St. Peter, and that hereupon it was agreed, that St. Paul with his companions should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the Jews, or circumcision. Now, 1. By whom was the Gospel of uncircumcision committed to St. Paul? was it not by Christ? by him that wrought effectually in them both, ver. 8. Now then, if Christ committed to St. Paul the uncircumcision, to St. Peter the circumcision, is it not evident that he esteemed not St. Paul inferior to him? did ever any body hear that his Majesty divided the Government equally betwixt his Viceroy in Ireland or Scotland, & the inferior Governors under him? yea committed the greater part of the Government to the inferior; especially if it be considered that St. Paul tells us, 2. The uncircumcision was committed to him, sicut Petro circumcisio, 
In locum. Ibid.  whence the Fathers usually infer his equality with St. Peter: St. Ambrose saith he had primacy over the Gentiles parimodo, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. id. in ch. 1. ad. Gal.  in like manner as St. Peter over the Jews: St. Chrysost. That he showed himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of equal honour with the best and chiefest of the Apostles, and that he was equal to St. Peter; and Oecumenius cries out, See how he makes himself equal to St. Peter: to whom you may add St. Austin in c. 1. ep. ad Gal. 3. Was it ever heard, that a Prince should consent to the division of his Province betwixt himself and his inferior? yea afford him the largest portion in this division, as here St. Peter doth; yea, why was no special power exercised in this case by the Prince of the Apostles, if he were such, but the matter indifferently determined by all three?  
3. 'Tis further argued, that if St. Peter had been Prince of the Apostles, St. Paul would not have had the confidence to resist him to the very face: Bellarmine will tell us, that an inferior may rebuke a superior.  
Answ. But let it be considered that this rebuke was public, and a resistance of him, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) that he charges him of not walking uprightly, not agreeably to the truth of the Gospel, but doing things for which he deserved to be rebuked by him, and all this without the least show of reverence, and submission, without any artificial preface, begging the pardon, or deprecating the anger and displeasure of his Superior, which seems sufficiently to argue that he did not thus esteem him. When St. Paul had rounded the High Priest, and told him that God would smite him for judging and condemning him to be smitten contrary to the Law, how presently doth he correct himself upon information given that he spoke to the High Priest? and when he takes up St. Peter in this manner, might he not as truly have said, I witted not that he was the High Priest, the Prince of the Apostles? 
Mr C. p. 75. l. 2. de Bapt. cont. Donatum.  Now all the answer which is returned to this objection, is, that St. Austin saith, The Superior was reproved of the Inferior: Now here let it be considered, 1. That this will do him little service, unless he will be pleased to grant that the inter pretation of one single Father, or two at the most, is a sufficient evidence and ground of receiving such a sense of any Paragraph of the Word of God; which I am confident he dareth not assert. 2. I Answer, that what he rendereth Inferiors, is in St. Austin posteriores, such as were made Apostles after him; now the same Austin informeth us that ejus honorem implet clarificatio Domini, 
Vbi supra c. 1. cp. ad Gal.  si quid habebat ordo temporis minus; and as for his first citation, That St. Peter being reprehended did not answer that the Supremacy belonged to him, and therefore he would not be reprehended by a novice, and one that was posterior: I answer, That he hath gelded the place and made it look otherwise then indeed it doth; 
Ib. l. 2. de Bapt.  for the words of St. Austin are Nec Petrus sevindicavit, aut arroganter aliquid aut insolenter assumpsit ut diceret se primatum tenere, Peter did not arrogantly and insolently take upon himself to say that the Primacy belonged to him; which shows that to have challenged such a Primacy would have been insolence and arrogance in St. Peter, according to the judgement of St. Austin.  
The Doctor goes on to argue thus, Sect. 7 If the Pope be head of the Catholic Church, 
Mr C. p. 78. s. 15.  then when there is no Pope at all (which is very often) the Catholic Church must have no head. Now here having told us that never did old Heretics make use of such an argument to invalidate the Pope's authority, which is very true, because they were elder brothers to it: He further answers, That for all this Papacy is immortal, and in some sense it may be said, 
Mr C. p. 78.  that Popes die not, because their Jurisdiction remains in the body of Electors: And secondly, When an Ecclesiastical Superior dies, there remains by Christ's ordination a vis generativa in the Church to constitute another in his place. I answer, There may be a vacancy not only by death, but Heresy, Paganism, things incident to Popes, as may be seen in Mr. 
Pag. 22, 23, 24.  Baxters' Key for Catholics, and yet the power doth not devolve itself upon the Electors; and if it doth, what if they also prove Heretics? as 'tis sure they may, and ten to one but they did in the time of Liberius, when none were suffered to be in public places but such as were Arrians; then sure he must grant a vacarcy: Again, when anciently the people were Electors, did the power devolve itself upon them? in a word, either the Pope is an essential head, or an accidental; if the last, then may the Church subsist without him, and the being of a Pope is not necessary to the being of a Church, seeing accidents potest abesse sine subjecti interitu, the contrary to which you above assert, and thence conclude the necessity of a Pope; If the first, than 1. May the Church be unholy, because an essential part of the Church may be so, unless you will have the confidence to assert that all the Popes that have been or shall be, must necessarily be holy. Then 2. must the Pope be head when a general Council is convened, and consequently be superior to that, seeing an essential head can never cease to be so: And 3. He that doth not acknowledge the Pope, can be no member of the Church, as not being united to this visible essential head, and so God must necessarily damn all those righteous souls that live not in communion with him, both in all the reformed Churches, and all the other parts of the world; a thing so contrary to the goodness of God, that none but Papists can believe it; and a thousand such absurdities, as you may see them reckoned up if you please in Mr. Baxters' Key for Catholics, Part the second.  
The Doctor's second inference was, Sect. 8 That when there were many Popes, there would be many Heads, and so the Church would become a Monster. To this he Answereth That as when after the death of the King, 
Mr. C. p. 79. s. 16.  several pretenders to the Crown appear, there is still by right but one Legitimate Successor, and all the rest are Tyrants; (yea and their adherents rebels) so likewise when such a Schism happeneth, he that is Legitimately elected is the right head, all the rest are Schismatics.  
Rep. And so must their Adherents also; so then in the time of the Schism from Vrban the sixth, to Martin the fifth, which lasted forty years: The Schism betwixt Alexander the third and four Schismatics which lasted seventeen years; the Schism betwixt Benedict the ninth, and five others; all those that were not with the right Popes, were schismatics, and consequently cut off from the Church of Christ; so that for forty years together haply half the Roman Church was unchurched; for seventeen year haply four parts were cut off from the body of Christ: In the time of Benedict the ninth, five parts at least must be absciended: If the Pope be an essential head of the Church, (as they must necessarily hold) it necessarily follows, that all the poor Christians, even in America, must be unchurched, if they side with no Pope; and damned, if with the Schismatic; albeit it sometimes happeneth, that the most conscientious men cannot tell whom they should acknowledge as Legitimate: how can any man that believes God to be infinite in goodness, be tempted to imagine that he will damn all those that after their diligence in this search, mistake the true Pope, and so become Schismatics? or can any sober man think, that this is sufficient to unchurch them who walk in love to God, and endeavour to their utmost to glorify his name, and to make them presently be rejected by him, and if they die thus, perish everlastingly?  
2. I ask (seeing you acknowledge it contrary to his providence, not to have provided against Shism (what expedient God hath provided in this case? Mr. C. tells us a General Council cureth all. 
P. 80.  Rep. But who shall call it when 'tis asserted that the power is peculiarly the Popes? and consequently when we know not who is Pope, we know not who is to convocate the Synod. 2. How difficult is it to assemble them? 3. Who shall have place there, seeing one part of the Church must necessarily be Schismatical, and consequently have no right to Vote in General Councils? 
Mr. C. p. 80. s. 17.   
3. The Doctor saith, if the Pope should prove an Heretic, the Church would deserve to be bereft of her head; Sect. 9 to which he Answes, that in this case the Pope ceaseth to be (not only on head, but) member of the Church, and the See presently becomes vacant, to which we have sufficiently replied above.  
Now for a conclusion of this business, Sect. 10 let any man consider what probability there is that such an headship should be so necessary to the very being of the Church, and the continuation of its Unity, and yet our blessed Saviour (so desirous of his Church her welfare, so well acquainted with the difficulty that we find of yielding subjection unto others, and foreseeing all the schisms that were like to happen about this matter) should be wholly silent in so great a point, not giving us either the name or titles of this head, nor the seat of his Empire (to prevent the claim of others) nor appointing him his work, nor directing him how to do it (albeit inferior Bishops have their instructions very clearly given them) when he hath the greatest work in the world to do, and such as surpasseth the strength of many thousands, never giving him any advice and direction for the determining of his very many occurring difficulties, (albeit St. Paul sends instructions unto Timothy to direct him, 
1 Tim. 3.14, 15.  how he should behave himself in a particular Church until his coming) nor giving us any notice of his power, nor telling us of his prerogative, nor what officers he shall appoint under him, and how, nor acquainting us with our duty to obey him, never telling us of the succession of this Sovereign, in whom it shall reside, of any successor of St. Peter, rather than St. Paul? I say that not a word of this should be mentioned by Christ, or his Apostles, even when there was so great occasion, and so many opportunities, when Peter was among them, when there was striving for supremacy, when the Churches were lamentably contending about the pre-eminence of their teachers, and some were for one, some for another, some for Cephas himself, when so many Heresies arose and hazarded the Churches, as among the Corinthians, Galathians, and others there did, yea when an Epistle was written to the Romans themselves, that in that Epistle there should be no instructions touching this head; when Ignatius was so vehement for the rendering of obedience to the Bishops constituted over us by God, that he should not have one intimation of the obedience due unto the Pope; yea that Clemens Romanus (though Bishop of Rome) should write so earnestly to the Corinthians for the avoiding of Schism to obey their own Bishops, and not add one syllable in behalf of his own authority: these are things so hard to be believed by one that believeth the wisdom and love of Christ, his Apostles, and the zeal of these Primitive Fathers against Schism, that I should sooner persuade myself of the truth of Mahomet's fables, then of this pretention.   

CHAP. V.  
The impertinence of Mr. C's citation of Popes in their own cause, Sect. 1. The testimonies of Pope Leo, Pelagius, Gregory, and Gelasius, Sect. 2, 3, 4. Evidence against this Supremacy from Pope Julius, Leo, Gregory, Agatho, and others, Sect. 5.  
THus having encountered our Author's reasons (in which he doth not usually abound) we come now to a consideration of those authorities in which he is more copious. Sect. 1 And here I might without the least disparagement unto our cause, pass over all the Authorities his sixth Chapter doth produce, it being little better than one great Petitio principii, made by many Popes, and reiterated by Mr. Cressy, who loves to beg the thing in question rather than evince it. His work was to evidence from the undoubted records of Antiquity, that the Pope's Supremacy over the world was a thing acknowledged ab initio, by the Universal Church; instead of doing this, our Author puts us off with the pretences of some Popes, derided, and contemned by their fellow Patriarches, and branded with the names of Pride and Tyranny. Pope Leo is mentioned to advance the number; but seeing he is not pleased to produce his words, 
Spalat. l. 4. c. 4. Dr. Field on the Church, l. 5. Satlivius, etc. Mr. C. p. 31. Hesye. apud Phot●●●pro●. p. 125. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 1.  we refer him to those in the Margin, that have both produced and answered them to our hand, only noting that to receive his authority from St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, which is the utmost that he pretends to from these three citations, will be no tolerable proof of universal jurisdiction in the Pope, till it can be made evident, 1. That to be called Princeps Apostolorum gives authority to St. Peter over his fellow Apostles, and the whole world; and to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Bishop of the Apostles, can give no such authority to St. James and his Successors. 2. That to be Princeps Apostolorum, doth infer not only a Primacy of order, which we grant, but also of dignity which we deny. And 3. That St. Peter's authority was necessarily conferred upon his successors at Rome in the same latitude as it was delegated to him; if our Author can produce no better testimonies out of St. Gregory, Protestants will have no further cause to complain against him, as he saith they do.  
But alas this is the least of our Author's excellencies to be impertinent; Sect. 2 he hath the faculty of quoting spurious Authors too, as will be seen throughout. 
In Decrex Ep. p. 645.  And such is that second Epistle of Pelagius, as you may see evinced by the Learned Blondel.  
St. Sect. 3 Gregory is brought upon the stage to●plead for that Title which he so passionately condemns in his fellow Patriarch: And he tells us, 
Mr. C. p. 48. indic. Ep. 3.  The See Apostolic is preferred before all Churches.  
Answ. True we acknowledge, with the Council of Chalcedon, that being the Emperor's Seat, it had a Primacy of order conferred upon it; but how will he be able to conclude a Primacy of jurisdiction from this testimony?  
His second citation as it is frivolous, and already answered, 
Ibid.  so is it false and not to be found but in some Utopian Edition.  
A third is very unsuitable to his protestation, P. 10. Sect. 6. 
Ibid. L. 5. Indic. 14. Ep. 24. Dr. Ham. 3. defence c. 5. s. 9 Nu. 42.  For whereas the words of the Epistle tell us, that Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople acknowledged the Supremacy of the See of Rome, he knowing that there was no such Eusebius contemporary to St. Gregory, and consequently the Epistle must needs be spurious, as Protestants do generally thence conclude, claps in John Bishop of Constantinople; 
L. 2. indic. 10. Ep 37, Ibid.  a very palpable deceit.  
His next quotations will afford us, as he reads it, this, that if any of the four Patriarches had committed such an act (as the person he complains of did) such disobedience would not have passed without great scandal: whereas the Latin runs tanta contumacia; and who knows not, that stubbornness is a disease incident to equals, 
L. 7. ind. 2. Ep. 64.  though disobedience be proper to inferiors? Another of his testimonies speaks thus, When any fault is found in any Bishop, I know no Bishop that is not subject to the See of Rome: but in the Latin tis, subjectus sit, may not be subject to the See of Rome, viz. may not be subject, if the Emperor refer the cause to his decision, 
C. 5. S. 9  which here was evidently the case; and if the Pope himself had been found faulty, he might have thus been subjected to the Patriarch of Constantinople, 
L. 5. indic. 14. Ep. 24.  as the Reverend Dr. Hammond proves in his third defence where you have this citation shamefully exposed: that which brings up the rear is this, that in a cause of John the Priest against John of Constantinople, he according to the Canons had recourse to the See Apostelick, 
Ibid.  and that the cause was determined by his sentence.  
Now to this the same Doctor Answers, That here was no appeal from an inferior to a superior, but only a desire of help from the Bishop of Rome, who accordingly writeth to John of Constantinople, tells him what was to be done in this matter, according to the rules of justice; accordingly the Patriarch though he dislikes the interposing of the Pope, yet it seems he doth justice to the injured person, 
Pope Leo pretended the Nicene Canons in the Council of Chalcedon, and P. Julias in the matter of Athanasius.  and this is the defining of the cause here spoken of; And where he talks of the Canons of the Church, the Doctor calls it a pretence of Canons, a device which sometimes Popes made use of. Thus Zezimus pretended the Canons of the Nicene Council for the subjecting the Africans unto him, but was found a falsifier, as you may see in the learned Chamier; and what wonder, if his successors were in this his followers?  
2. What if there were such Canons as allowed appeals, to this end that the Bishop of Rome might admonish the Patriarch, 
De Occ. Pon. l. 13. C. 7. S. 6. See our proofs from pope's.  what his duty was, and intercede in the Priest's behalf? might not this be done without an universal Pastorship? but I refer you to the Learned Doctor in the Section cited.  
Indeed the words of Pope Gelasius sound higher; for they pretend, that The See of the blessed Apostle St. Peter has a power to lose whatsoever things shall be bound by the sentences of any Bishops whatsoever, Sect. 4 
Mr. C. p. 50.  as being the Church which has a right to judge every other Church, neither is it permitted to any one to censure its judgement, seeing the Canons have ordained, that appeals should be made to it from every part of the world: but then the Epistle comes from the Vatican, ex vetusto codice Vaticano, saith Binius; and what false ware he hath brought us thence, who can be ignorant? this Epistle, I am sure, smells rank of forgery. Sutlivius calls it an impudent fiction and makes it evident.  
1. Because it saith that Dioscorus Alexandrinus was condemned by the authority of the See Apostolic, 
Act. 1. et 2.  whereas the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon show, that he was condemned and deposed by the Fathers of that Council, 
L. 2. c. 18.  which Evagrius also witnesseth, to which he might have added, that the same Epistle tells us the Council of Chalcedon was called by the Authority of the Roman See, 
Act. 1.  when as the very Synod tells us that they were called by the Decree of the Emperor's Valentinian and Martian.  
2. (Saith he) the Epistle tells another lie, 
L. 4. C.  in saying that Peter of Alexandria was condemned by the Apostolic See, whereas this Peter was Athanasius his Successor, and as Socrates saith, Vir valde pius & eximius, and consequently such a one as no honest man would offer to condemn.  
And thus we have considered the pretences of their Popes for this Supremacy; 
See. 5.  let us see what we can deduce from them against it, and  
1. Pope Julius, 
Dr. Ham. 3. def. c. 2. s. 4.  who was willing enough not only to defend, but take advantage to exalt his power, doth yet in his Epistle written upon the occasion of his interposing to absolve Athanasius, 
Ep. Jul. p. 741, 753.  defend the right of his act by an ancient custom especially, and by the Canon of Nice (which yet 'tis plain would not justify it) and not by pretence of any Divine Authority, or in any such Dialect that could intimate his pretention, that from St. Peter this belonged unto him, which sure he would have done, and thereby have silenced all Catholic opposers, if thus it had then been believed by them, or even by himself to have belonged to him.  
2. So in that African Council where St. Austin was present, and the Pope's pretensions were disputed, and his power in their Churches denied, he made no such challenge from Christ's donation to St. Peter, but from the Canons of Nice, which yet were so far from justifying his pretensions (no such Canon being found upon examination) that if he could have thought that other pleadable, he would certainly have discerned cause to make use of it.  
Add to this, 3. That other instance of Pope Leo in the great cause of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Council of Chalcedon, of which anon; where note  
1. That the Pope interprets the injury done in that Council to have been a breach against the Nicene Canons and dispositions of Ecclesiastical affairs without mention of any others.  
2. That through the Epistles written on that occasion, he deduceth not his Primacy from St. Peter.  
3. That he takes no notice of any injury done to himself in that Council, but only to the Bishop of Alexandria, Antioch, and other Metropolitans.  
4. That the deducing the dignity of the Roman See from the greatness of that imperial City, which was more than pretended by that Council, was never so much as quarrelled at by the Pope's Legates in that controversy; which sure is a competent prejudice to the deducing it from St. Peter.  
Add 4. That solemn prohibition of Gregory to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria, 
Ep. ex. reg. l. 7. indic. 1. c. 30.  enjoining him not to call him universal Father, that being derogatory to his brethren, etc. a manifold testimony that this did not in his opinion belong to him, by the law of Christ; for than  
1. According to Christ's own rule (You call me Lord and Master, 
Joh. 13.13.  and you do well, for so I am) he had done well in giving him this title.  
2. It could not have been derogatory to his brethren.  
3. Reason could not have required the contrary as he saith it did.  
4. He could not have averted it with an absit recedant, without even fight against God, much less could he have spoken those things of it which we have mentioned elsewhere.  
Add fifthly, The clear confession and manifest declaration of Pope Agatho (in his letters sent to the Emperor concerning a General Council) that his Primacy did extend only to the Bishops of the West and not to the East, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act. 4. p. 45. to 2. Con. And again p 47. he excuseth himself for sending so late. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: ergo, beyond the Ocean than it was not. 2. Because he hoped that Theodorus his fellow Bishop, and Archbishop of the Great Island of Britain with others there living would join with him; the words run thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a clear evidence, 1. That the Patriarchate of Rome even in Agathos time extended no farther than the Ocean, and so not to Britain. And, 2. That Britain was not numbered by him amongst the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the multitude of those who were under the inspection of the Pope, or belonged to his Patriarchate.  which is a sufficient evidence that at that time the Bishops of Rome had no such universal Primacy.   

CHAP. VI  
The Law of the Emperor Valentinian considered, Sect. 1. St. Basils' testimony not concluding, Sect. 2. The Ecclesiastical Canon interpreted, Sect. 3. The Pope's restoring Athanasius and others, Sect. 4. The Argument from the Council of Ephesus, Sect. 5. From the Council of Sardica, Sect. 6 Of Arles, Sect. 7. His negative Argument from St. Cyprian, Sect. 8. His persuading the Pope to depose Marcianus, Sect. 9 His Argument from his 68 Epistle not concluding, Sect. 10. The example of Pope Victor, Sect. 11. Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae against them, Sect. 12. St. Jeroms testimony of an Head constituted to avoid Schism, Ibid. And St. Cyprians of the Chair of St. Peter, no evidences of the Pope's Supremacy, Sect. 12, 13. Nor that of Optatus, Sect. 14. Nor that of St. chrysostom, Sect. 15. Nor that of St. Austin, Sect. 16. We not members of the Roman Patriarchiate; the invalidity of the inference thence, Sect. 17. The conclusion of the Chapter, Sect. 18.  
IN the seventh Chapter Mr. C. Sect. 1 confirms the supremacy of the Pope by a Law of the Emperor Valentinian, which runs thus, That whatever had been or should be established by the See Apostolic, 
Mr. C. p 54. Novel. Theo. of. Tit. 24.  should have the force of a Law to the Bishops of France, and all others, and that secundum veterem consuetudinem; Yea further he adds, That this Supremacy of the See Apostolic has been established both by the merit of St. Peter, who is the Prince of Episcopal society, and by the dignity of the City, and by the Sacred Authority of a Synod.  
Ans. 1. All this falls short of an universal Jurisdiction, which Valentinian being only Emperor of the West, could not be imagined to confer upon the Pope, nor can his Edict be supposed to reach those Bishops which came not within the compass of his Empire.  
2. Consider who was it that made this Edict; Valentinian a young Emperor, and as yet sub potestate matris; yea saith the great Salmasius, 
De primatu Papae, c. 17.  it was procured a Principe intertissimo, imbelli, desidiaque ac luxurie perditissimo. And further, against whom was it framed? even against pious and learned St. Hilary, a man acquainted I presume with the ancient customs of the Church, as well as this young Emperor or his instructor Pope Leo.  
3. This Law was got from him by the suggestion and false dealing of the Pope, and that manifestly ambitious of and yawning after this Supremacy: and hence it is that the Edict saith, Hilary (as we have found by the faithful relation of that venerable man the Pope of Rome) vindicates his unjust ordination of Bishops used only out of temerity, not consulting Pontificem Romanae Ecclesiae; which is sufficient evidence (saith Salmasius) that this Edict was put forth by the arts and suggestions of the Roman Pontifex; as also he gathers from another clause, viz. Sola mansueti praesulis humanitas permittit Hilarium adhuc Episcopum nominari, words that smell rank of a Pope, and are exactly parallel to what Leo writes in his Epistle to the Bishops of the Province of Vienna; that as for St. Hilary, suae civitatis sacerdotium pro sedis Apostolicae pietate perceptio nostra servaverit.  
4. (Saith he) he restrains the authority of the Pope, and will have it only acknowledged, Si quid a quopiam contra veterem consuetudinem tentaeretur; and in the beginning of his Edict ne quid praeter authoritatem sedis Romanae illicitum praesumptio adtentare nitatur, and therefore the Pope hath nothing to do, when all things are done rightly, and according to ancient custom, so that this Edict sends us only to look what that was.  
5. He sums up all and concludes that this Edict should not seem to have much authority, if it be considered that it was suggested by a false relation, (viz. that St. Hilary did against right and the ancient customs, in ordaining Bishops without consulting the Pope, which is very false) that this relation was made by him whose interest it was to say so, and who was manifestly ambitious to Lord it over God's Heritage, that this Edict was made, St. Hilary not being heard to plead for himself; that it was extorted from a young Prince and ignorant of these things.  
And lastly, That this Edict had very little or no authority in following times; for divers Councils (a thing which contains the height of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, and which Leo for bad to Hilary) were called without the authority of the Pope, in divers parts and Cities of France, to define weighty matters of Faith and Discipline; thus we find it in Synodis, Agathensi prima, Epaunensi, Aureliensibus aliquot, Turonensi, Matisconensi, Avernensi, and many more, all affirming that they came together, Solo deo authore ac moderatore, and by the permission, or command of the Emperor, whither he were Gothus Burgundus, vel Francus; and thus I hope Mr. C. hath little cause to brag of the weight this testimony carries with it, especially seeing were it all as true as Gospel, yet doth it not reach to a jus divinum, and so is mutable.  
As for the decrees of Pope Zosimus, Innocent, and Siricius, 
Mr. C. p. 56.  so trivial and impertinent, that he dares not transcribe them, I refer him to the answers of Dr. Field, Sutlivius, 
Pag. 527. cont. Bellar. l. 2. de Summo Pontif. Turon. 11. Can. 20.  and Chamier, made to them long ago. Nor will I trouble myself with what the Council of Toledo held An. Dom. 633. or that of Tours 570. seeing these Councils concern only France, or Spain; and moreover this last saith only this, That it would be a piece of arrogance or presumption for a Priest (who by Mr. Cr. was made a Bishop) to contradict the determination of the Apostles See; 
Can. 4.  and the first speaking of the use of trine immersion, tells us how that Leander Bishop of Spain desired the advice of Pope Gregory, who answers that in such matters as these it was indifferent what custom they observed; yet to avoid any symbolising with Heretics; one simple immersion might be more convenient: this now is called his Precept, and this for the reason assigned by the Pope, they agree to follow: but yet that the Pope's decrees were received as Laws in France or Spain, neither do these citations prove, nor hath the assertion in it any thing of truth.  
The great St. Sect. 2 Basil with whom he next assaults us, will do him little service; 
Ep. 52. Mr. C. p. 57  for his words are only these; It seems convenient to us to write to the Bishop of Rome, to consider our affairs, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and give his advice, or acquaint us with his mind, and sentence (not interpose the judgement of his decree, as Mr. C. hath rendered it) and because 'tis difficult to send any thence by a common Synodical decree, that he using his own Authority (which in the other case he could not have) should choose men fit to under go the trouble of the journey, 
The Greek runs thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Pag. 534.  and also able by their meekness and dexterity (not by power delegated from the Pope) to correct the perverse and thwarting spirits amongst us, fitly tempering and dispensing their words, and having all things with them that were done at? Ariminum, to the rescinding of what was there done, or rather that so what was there done by force and violence may be rescinded. And had not Dr. Field cause to say, That the alleging of this testimony showeth they have very little conscience that allege it? for these are the circumstances of Basils' Epistle, whereof let the Reader judge. Basil writing to Athanasius, adviseth him that the only way to settle things put out of order in the Eastern Churches by the Arrians, was the procuring of the consent of the Western Bishops, if it were possible to entreat them to interpose themselves; for that undoubtedly the Rulers would greatly regard, and much reverence the credit of their multitude; and people everywhere would follow them without gainsaying; but seeing this which was rather to be desired would not in likelihood easily be obtained, he wisheth that the Bishop of Rome might be induced to send some of good discretion, and moderation, who by gentle admonitions might pacify the minds of men, and might have all things in readiness that concerned the Arimine Council; so that this Epistle makes very much against their opinion, that allege it; for he preferreth and rather wisheth a (particular) Council, than this interposition of the Pope alone, if there had been any hope of a Council; besides, those whom the Pope was to send were not to proceed judicially and authoritatively, but by entreaty and gentle admonitions to pacify the minds o● men; and therefore here is nothing of visiting the Eastern Churches and voiding the acts of the Council of Ariminum by way of setence.  
The Argument taken from the Ecclesiastical Canon, Sect. 3 
Mr C. p. 57, 58.  viz that no decrees should be established in the Church without (not the assent as he would have it, but) the opinion and the advice of the Bishop of Rome, upon which ground the new confession of the Council of Nice, was argued of nutley, which he confirms from Socrates, Hist. Eccles l. 2. ca● 5. Athanas. Apol. sec. Sozom. Hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 9 Valentinian, &c is fully answered by the Author of the review of the Trent Council, 
Pag 155.  who tells him that all that can be proved hence, is, That a General Council cannot be holden, unless they (viz. the Popes) be called to it, and this (saith he) appears from the application which Pope Julius makes of it, when he complains that he was not called to the Council of Antioch, where Athanasius was condemned, charging them for that with the breach of that Canon; 
Lib. 2 ● 13.  Julius (saith Socrates) in his letters to the Bishops of the Council of Antioch, tells them they had offended against the Canons of the Church, in that they called him not to the Council; for as much as the Ecclesiastical Canon forbids the making of any decrces in the Church, without the opinion and advice of the Bishop of Rome: And Sozomen saith, 
Lib. 3. c. 9  that Julius writ to the Bishops which were assembled at Antioch, accusing them for seeking after novelties, contrary to the faith and belief of the Nicene Council, and contrary to the Laws of the Church, for not calling him to the Council; forasmuch as by virtue of a Law made in behalf of the dignity of Priests, all decrees, viz. made in a General Council are invalid, which are enacted without the opinion and advice of the Pope of Rome; and of this, Pope Julius had reason to complain, considering that a Council cannot be termed General, nor any decrees and Canons made to bind the whole Church Catholic, unless all those which ought to be present, especially the Patriarches, be lawfully called thereunto. 
Ib s. 5.  Secondly, He tells us, this was no special privilege of the Bishop of Rome, but a right common to him with all other Patriarches, who ought of necessity to be summoned to all General Councils; and this is the reason, why the second Council of Constantinople is not accounted properly General, because all the Patriarches were not there; however saith Balsamon, 
In Com. ad Synod. Constant. 1. ad finem.  the Synod of Constantinople be no General Council, because the other Patriarches were not there, yet it is greater than all other Synods; and the Archbishop of that See was styled, Universal Patriarch: For this cause also Nestorius when he was summoned to appear at the Council of Ephesus, S. 6 
Socrat. l. 7. c. 33.  answered, that he would so, as soon as John the Patriarch of Antioch was come thither; and this was the reason why the Patriarch of Antioch was so highly offended with Cyril, (who would not vouchsafe to stay for him) that being come after the sentence of deposition against Nestorius, he banded with his own Bishops against Cyril, S. 7 and excommunicated him. And the eighth General Council after the arrival of the Patriarch of Alexandria's Deputy, who came somewhat tardy, gave thanks to God at his coming, because he supplied what was wanting to a General Council, and made it most complete. Nay they were not only called to General Councils, but the custom was, for honour's sake, to wait for them certain days when they did not come at the day appointed: So at the Council of Ephesus, they stayed sixteen days after the time was expired for the Patriarch of Antioch. And the eighth General Council having expected the Pope's Legates for certain days, 
Id. s. 10.  and seeing they came not, took this ensuing resolution; Considering the deputies for the See of old Rome have been a long time expected, and that it is against all reason to wait for them any longer, we hold it an unbeseeming thing to slight and endanger the tottering Church of our Saviour Christ by such delays: and thus much for that Argument.  
He comes now to add a few examples more, viz. Sect. 4 When some Eastern Councils had deposed Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria, Paul Bishop of Constantinople, 
P 58. s. 8. L 3 c. 7. Non sinesadissima labe & lapsu cum à Julio restitutum dicit Sozamenus. Crakenth. def. Ecc. Ang. c. 22. s. 69. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 4.  Marcellus. Primate of Ancyra, and Asclepas Bishop of Gaza; the Bishop of Rome (saith Sozomen) to whom for the dignity of his Throne the care of All things doth pertain, restored to every one of them their own Church; and he adds further, that he commanded them, who had deposed them, to appear on a day appointed at Rome, to give an account of their judgement, threatening that he would not leave them unpunished, if they would not cease from innovating; all this he did (saith Theodoret) not by usurping, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Law of the Church. Now to this we answer, 
Lib. 4. c. 4. s. 10.  in the words of the same Author, who replies to Bellarmin, that he takes out of Sozomen what makes against him: For, 1. He doth not any way speak of appealing from the Council to the Pope, for that was not then in use. He saith indeed, that Athanasius and some other Bishops being deprived of their Sees, and persecuted by the Arrian Bishops, which were in the East, fled to Rome, as to an Haven of refuge, that the Pope having heard their Confessions according with the Nicene Creed, received them into Communion, restored them to their Churches, and writ to the Eastern Bishops, whom he rebuked for deposing them; but we must always remember, that they were Arrians and Persecutors, and that the Controversy was not between party and party. If Bellarmine deny it, or if he answer, that he must look here only to the form of proceeding, which was ordinary, we will take him at his word, and presently oppose to him the Authority of his own Author; who saith, that these Bishops, so soon as they had received these letters, framed an answer full of Ironies and threats, and confessed (as he said) that the Church of Rome was the principal, as that which was from the Prime of the Apostles, and the Metropolitan from the beginning for Piety (howbeit these that planted Christian Religion there, came first out of the East) but they were displeased, that he should think they were inferior to himself, because his Church was of greater lustre, though they excelled him in Virtue, and Sanctity of life; they objected also against him as a crime, that he had communicated with Athanasius and the other Bishops, and that they could not endure to see their sentence made invalid by him, as if it were by a Council; so that what he did was by way of Usurpation, and not by Right: and that which our Author citys out of Theodoret for the contrary is very disingenuous. 
Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 4. Mr. C. p. 59  For Theodoret saith only thus; That Athanasius foreseeing, what designs were on foot against him, fled to Rome to Pope Julius; and those that were Eusebians, sent many Calumnies against him to the Pope; But Julius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following the way of the Church (in not condemning a Bishop before he hath been heard, and put in his plea for himself) bids them come to Rome to make good their Accusations, and show that their proceed were just and equal, and accordingly appointed a day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the deciding of the Case, at which Athanasius was ready to appear, but these liars would not. In this therefore he followed the Law of the Church, that he required evidence of the fact, before he renounced his Communion; but Theodoret doth not so much as mention the other Circumstances, which we meet with in Sozomen; much less say, that the Pope followed the Law of Custom of the Church in them: and so much for that instance. Nor doth it at all conclude his Supremacy, that he is said to have the care of all the Churches upon him; for this was common to him, not only with other Patriarches, but other Bishops, as the Fathers everywhere speak; I will cite Origen for them all, who in his sixth Hom. on Isaiah, saith, He that is called to a Bishopric, is called ad servitutem totius Ecclesiae: which you may see confirmed by Mr. Collins his Defence of the Bishop of Ely p. 174. and more copiously elsewhere; yet the Bishop of Rome was to do it more especially for the dignity of his Seat, which made him Prime in order of the Bishops.  
Again, Sect. 5 He tells us p. 59 s. 9 That the Council of Ephesus entering into a debate about the cause of John Patriarch of Alexandria, the Bishop of Jerusalem interposed, affirming that according to the ancient custom, the Church of Antioch was always governed by the Roman, whereupon the whole Council referred the judgement of that cause to the Pope. And for this he citys Conc. Eph. p. 2. Art. 5. in relat. ad Caelestin; But he might as well have cited Aristotle; for there it not one jota of any Bishop of Jerusalem in that place, nor one syllable of any such affirmation of his, nor any such reason alleged to Caelestinus, but there say they, we deliberated of passing the same sentence upon him, which he did upon them who were condemned of no crime; but that we might overcome his temerity with long suffering, albeit we might justly have done it, or he would justly have suffered it, yet have we referred it to the judgement of your Holiness. Indeed Act. 4. The Bishop of Jerusalem saith, that John ought presently to have had recourse to the Apostolic seat sitting with him, viz. by his Legates in the Synod, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But 'tis the Apostlique seat of Jerusalem, not of Rome, which he tells us he ought to have been directed and guided by; Well then, this John of Antioch being a Patriarch, and Cyrill being his enemy, they did well to stay their sentence against him, till they knew the mind, and had the suffrage of the Patriarch of Rome, who was Prime of the Patriarches. But sure our Author did not so well in foisting in Rome for Jerusalem, albeit Binnius was his warrant for it. Add to this that even this fiction makes against them; for had the Pope received an universal jurisdiction, and that from Christ, why doth the Bishop of Jerusalem omit the delegation of the power from Christ, and sink down as low as custom? why doth he particularise Antioch, when not only that, but all other Patriarchical Sees (if we may believe our Adversaries) were to be guided and directed by the See of Rome, or by his Holiness?  
We are told further, Ibid, Sect. 10. That when Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria, in the Schismatical Council of Ephesus had deposed Flavian Bishop of Constantinople, Flavian appealed to the Pope, and this he did saith the Emperor Valentinian, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according the custom of Synods.  
To this it is Answered by the same Author, 
Review l. 4. c. 4. s. 11. Act 1. Con. Chal. Evag. l. 2. c. 2. Act. 3 Con. Chal.  It is easy to make it appear, that it was not so.  
For first, It is plain from the Acts, that the appeal was put in simply by the word Appello, without mentioning to whom.  
2. The Appealants presented a petition to the Em●epours tending to this offect, that they would be pleased to refer the cause unto a Council.  
3. The Council passeth the judgement upon the case of the Appeal.  
And 4. The Pope himself was condemned by that Synod; He was one of the Plaintiffs against Dioscorus, the head of it. Whereupon it was said to his Legates by the Precedents of the Council of Chalcedon, 
Act. 1. Con. Chal. Nichol. in Epist. ad Michael. Imperat.  that they being accusers, could not be judges. Yea Pope Nicholas himself testifies, that Dioscurus was not so much condemned for his Heresy, as for daring to pass sentence against the Pope; to what end then had it been to appeal to him, seeing he himself was condemned, and was a Plaintiff? Indeed the Epistle of Valentinian tells us that he appealed to the Pope, 
Ad Theodos. in Praeamb. Con. Chal.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but it appears to have been no otherwise, then to procure his intermediation to the Emperor for the Calling of a Synod, and this he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because it was the custom, when contentions arose about the faith, to Call Synods.  
2. What is said to be given to the Pope, was only given to the Legates, that so he might be acquainted with the business, and know that he had appealled, as appears from the 23. Ep. of Leo to Theodosius, Because our Legates have stoutly stood it out against the Synod, and this Bishop [Flavian] given them a bill of Appeal, we beseech your Gentleness to command a General Synod to be Celebrated in Italy.  
And thus we let him pass to the Council of Sardica, Sect. 6 which hath a Canon to this effect, 
Mr. C. p. 59 s. 11.  That in any Controversy between Bishops, which could not be determined in their own respective Provinces, the person aggrieved must appeal to the Bishop of Rome, who might renew the process, and appoint judges; and when such a case happened, till the Pope had determined the cause, it was not permitted that another Bishop should be chosen in his place. 
De Oec. Pout. l. 13. c. 7.   
But 1. Saith Chamier, this Council was not Ecumenical, but only made up of the Western Bishops. For Sozomen L. 3. C. 10. tell us, that the Bishops of the East and West could not agree, but severally set forth their Decrees, and therefore it useth not to be reckoned among the General Councils. 'tis true, as Sulpitius saith, 
Sac. Hist. l. 2.  it was called from each part of the world, but of the Eastern Bishops came but seventy six to Sardis, and these (saith Socrates) would not once come into the sight of the Western Bishops; but their conditions being denied, Confestim discedunt, they presently departed.  
2. This Canon is manifestly contrary to the fifth of the General Council of Nice, which refers the final determination of all causes of Bishops to the Primate or Patriarch, which the Emperor also confirmeth, and will have no man to have power to contradict the sentence which the Primate or Patriarch shall give.  
3. The Africans took not notice of this Decree, 
Dr. Field p. 566.  and yet there were Bishops of Africa at the Council, so that in likelihood this decree was not confirmed by subsequent practice, acceptation, and execution. Yea they willed the Pope to send no more any of his Clarks to dispatch causes at any man's suit; for that this was the way to bring in the Smoky puff of worldly pride into the Church; and in very earnest besought him not to be easy in admitting any Appeals brought from them.  
4. This Canon makes rather against them; for by it all matters must be ended at home, or in the next Province to that wherein they arise; And the Pope may not call matters to Rome there to be heard, but is only permitted in some cases to send a Presbyter, having his authority, and to put him in Commission with the Bishops of the Province, that so he and they may jointly re-examine things formerly judged.  
To which you may add 1. That it was not in the power of the Pope to command Appeals to himself, but only to receive them, when brought.  
2. That this power of Appealing was Ad Julium Romanum not ad Papam Romanum, and therefore a personal privilege, which was to cease on the death of Julius.  
3. That the very same thing, viz. the like power of Appealing to the Bishop of Constantinople was defined in the General Council of Chalcedon, 
Ca●. 9.17.  as you may see evinced by the learned Crakenthorp, Defence. Eccl. Angl. C. 31. Sect. 7. And therefore if the Argument hold good for the Supremacy of the Pope, it must infer the same in the behalf of the Bishop of Constantinople. As to what he adds of the second proposal of Gaudentius, he might have done well to have told us that the Synod would not add their Placets to it as you may see in the three copies of it extant in Binnius; but alas then it would have been unserviceable to them, yea evidently on our sides; for why should they have denied this to the Pope, or he sued for it, if an universal inspection of the whole world were by Christ allowed him?  
His second Council is that of Arles. Sect. 7 Here (saith he) we have a Patriarchical Council sending their Decrees to the Bishop of Rome, as being the chief person, from whom all Christians ought to receive information of what they ought to believe and practise, and by whom, no doubt, they were to be obliged thereto.  
Answ. Our Author doth well to beg the question, when he cannot prove it. In all this (were it perfectly as he relates it) there is nothing at all of jurisdiction, but only somewhat of trouble to the Pope, viz. to acquaint all whom it concerned, what the Council had decreed; which the King may command the Master of the Post-office to do in his Dominions; and this He saw, and therefore thought it necessary to add, by whom no doubt they were to be obliged thereto. But indeed he must give us leave to doubt it, till we have a better argument (than his confidence in asserting any thing) to prove it.  
2. 
Vide Samasium de Primatu Papae. c. 21. and especially, c. 10.  Is it not perfectly ridiculous to prove an acknowledgement of his universal jurisdiction from this, that a Patriarchical Council sent their Decrees to him?  
Especially 3. When they declare that they send their Decrees to him upon this account, quod majores teneat Dioeceses, or which is the same, because he was the greater Metropolitan. Had the whole world been his Diocese, they might well have said, Majores teneat Dioeceses, albeit they could not have given this reason.  
2. The Council seems rather, to bind the Pope with the rest, We have signified to thee, what we have decreed in Common Council, that all might know hereafter what they ought to receive. What then, Will he lay hold on the title Lord? he knows 'tis frequently given even by Popes to other Bishops. Thus Liberius in his Epistle to Vrsacius Valens, and Geminius, His Literis Convenio vos Domini Fratres Charissimi; See more of this in Salmas. p. 155. the Primate. Pap. Is it lastly, that they bid him according to custom to write letters to all? alas, what of Jurisdiction is there in this?  
2. This being a Patriarchical Council only, this all can extend itself no further than the Western Patriarchate, and then it will be unserviceable to conclude the Pope's Supremacy over all the world.  
We come now to consider the testimonies of the Fathers, Sect. 8 in behalf of this universal Jurisdiction of the Pope, which he endeavours to conclude from these things;  
1. 
Eusch Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 4, 6. Mr. C. p. 70. s. 5.  Because when the Pope inflicted or at least threatened excommunication to some of the Churches of Asia, that held a necessity of rebaptisation, after Baptism received by Heretics, St. Cyprian, and Firmilian never questioned his authority, though as they thought unjustly employed.  
Answ. This argument falls very short of the thing intended; for first, 
See infra, s. 11.  as to his refusal to communicate with the Eastern Bishops, which is all that Eusebius saith of him, how unserviceable, is it to infer an universal Jurisdiction, seeing other Bishops likewise frequently threaten, upon the dislike of the Pope's actions, that they would not have communion with him? Secondly, No wonder then if these Bishops did not question this universal Jurisdiction, seeing the Pope in this matter never pretended it, 
Vid Epist. 75. inter. Epist. Cyp. qu●● est Firmil.  but an ancient tradition of keeping Easter contrary to their custom, as appears evidently from their answers.  
He tells us further, that St. Cyprian endeavoured to persuade the Pope to depose Marcianus, a Metropolitan Bishop of Arles siding with Novatian. Sect. 9  
To which it is answered, by the learned Doctor Field, 
Mr. C●p. 70. Cyp. Ep. 67. P. 551.  This allegation is too weak to prove the intended conclusion; for it is most certain by all circumstances of the Epistle of Cyprian, that Stephen the Bishop of Rome, did not depose Martianus by himself alone, and therefore Cyprian doth not send to Stephen, that he should suspend Martianus, but that he should write to the Bishops of France to do it, and not to suffer him any longer to insult over the company of Catholic Bishops, for that he was not yet suspended and rejected from their communion; but some man perhaps will ask, why Cyprian desireth Stephen to write to the Bishops of France, and writeth not himself.  
Answ. Surely there may be three reasons given of his so doing; the first because he was nearer to them then St. Cyprian. The second because he as Patriarch of the West, with his Bishops was more likely to prevail, than Cyprian with his Africans only. The third for that as Cyprian observeth in the end of the Epistle, it more concerned him then any other, to maintain the reputation of Lucius and Cornelius his predecessors, and to oppose himself against Martianus, who joined himself with Novatianus, that had Schismatically divided himself from them, and made a breach in the Church. But you will say that he is bid to write, commanding that Marcianus be excommunicated.  
Answ. True Mr. C. tells us so, but 'tis his own addition; for Cyprian saith only, let Letters be directed to the people, and Province of Arles, quibus abstento Marciano; by reason of which Marcian being excommunicated (viz by the Bishops following his advice) another may be substituted in his room, viz. chosen by the people with the directions of the Bishops of France, as appears from his words, (qua propter facere te oportet plenissimas literas, ad coëpiscopos nostros in Gallia constitutos, ne ultra Marcianum pervicacem & superbum, & Divinae pietatis, ac fraternae salutis inimicum, collegio nostro insultare patiantur) and yet if all this answer was waved, the instance infers this only that the Pope had power over France, as being Patriarch, not over the whole world, as universal Bishop.  
That which he citys out of the sixty eighth Epistle, Sect. 10 is to this effect; Cyprian writes to the Clergy and People of Spain, that they had rightly deposed Basilides, and Martial, and substituted in their room Sabinus, and Faelix, and that it was not sufficient to rescind their ordination; That Basilides after his crime manifested, went to Rome, and there deceived Stephen, being far distant from Spain, and ignorant of the thing done, and of the truth concealed, to the intent that he might request (Exaembiret) to be injustly reposed in his Bishopric, from which he was justly deposed; Stephen hereupon with his Bishops communicateth with him, and so (as much as in them lieth) restoreth him to his former Bishopric. Cyprian condemneth the false and ill dealing of Basilides, and reproveth also the negligence of Stephen, that suffered himself so easily to be misled, taxing him, and such as consented with him, for communicating with such wicked ones, showing that they are partakers of their sins, and that they violate the Canon of the Church, which the Bishops of Africa, and all the Bishops of the world, yea even Cornelius the predecessor of this Stephen had consented on to wit, That men so defiled with Idolatry, as Martialis and Basilides were, should be received to penitency, but be kept from all Ecclesiastical honour; these are the circumstances of Cyprians Epistle, wherein he relateth the proceed against Basilides and Martialis justly put from their office and dignity, and the inconsiderate course of the Bishop of Rome, hastily communicating with them; whereby we may see how wisely and advisedly, our adversaries urge Cyprian to prove, that in ancient times the Bishops of Rome had power to restore such Bishops to their places again, as were deposed by others; for thus they must reason from this place of Cyprian, if they will make any use of it, Basilides, and Martialis justly put from their office, fly to Stephen Bishop of Rome, hoping by his means to procure the reversing of that which was done against them; he with such as adheared to him, though they could not restore them to their places, yet communicated with them; Cyprian offended herewith chargeth Basilides with execrable wickedness, for abusing Stephen, and misinforming him, and Stephen with intolerable negligence, and unexcusable violation of the Canons, for partaking with such wicked persons, and wisheth all his Brethren, and Colleagues constantly to hold on their course against them, notwithstanding the failing of Stephen, and his adherents; therefore the Ancient Bishops of Rome restored to their places such as were judicially deposed by others, and were acknowledged by the Fathers to have power and authority so to do; which kind of reasoning is like all the rest in this Chapter, that is, evidently weak; but happily you will say, Why doth not Cyprian tell them, that the Pope hath not power to restore them?  
Answ. Doth he yet not sufficiently, in advising them to hold on their course against them, which sure he would not have done had he acknowledged any such power in the Bishop of Rome? for this would have been to contradict lawful authority.  
2. St. Cyprian is discontented with the proceed of these Bishops, in going to Stephen so far distant, which sure he would not have been, if he had thought him to have had such an universal Jurisdiction, as our Author pleads for; no certainly, these words savour strongly of what St. Cyprian tells us of Fortunatus and Felicissimus, their appeal to Rome, when condemned in afric, Ep. 55. ad Cornelium, that it is just and equal, that every one's cause should be there heard, where the crime is committed, and that it behoved not their Bishops over whom they were set, to run about (as these did to Rome) but to plead their cause there, where their accusers, and their witnesses might be had, unless a few desperate wretches will think, that the authority of the Bishops of Africa is less, (viz. then that to which they run) What evasions are made against this saying of Cyprian by Bellarmine, and Pamelius, are taken off by Chamier in the fourteenth Book, 
De Oec. Pent.  the second Chapter, from the sixth section to the two and twentieth.  
Another negative Argument we have from Pope Victors excommunicating the Asian Bishops, Sect. 11 as differing from him in the Celebration of the Eastern Festival; now here saith he, It was not imputed to Victor by Irenaeus or Polycrates, that he exercised an usurped Authority over Bishops not subject to him; ergo, he had Authority over these Asian Bishops.  
Answ. This (saith Mr. Chillingworth) is to suppose that excommunication is an act, or Argument, or sign of Power and Authority in the party excommunicating, over the party excommunicated, whereas it is undeniably evident out of the Church story, that it was often used by Inferiors upon Superiors, and by Equals upon Equals, if the Equals or Inferiors thought their Equals or Superiors did any thing which deserved it.  
2. Saith he, When they admonish him, that for so small a cause he should not cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church; what is this, but to esteem that as a small and unsufficient cause of excommunication, which Victor and his adherents thought great and sufficient; and consequently, that Victor and his party declared that to be a matter of faith and necessity, which they thought not so, and where was then their conformity?  
To what he adds further out of Cyprian, Sect. 12 de unitate Ecclesiae, that our Lord built his Church upon one Person, etc. the same most learned Author returns this Answer; That whosoever will but read over that Book, shall find most certainly, and undoubtedly, that he speaketh not in that Book of St. Peter's Headship of the universal Church as our Author phansieth, but of the Head Original; and first beginning of Pastoral commission, which he makes appear by laying down the principal and most material circumstances of this Book, written upon occasion of the Schism of the Novatians; The first thing that occurs in the whole discourse of the Book, is the observation of the malice of Satan, in finding out Schisms and Heresies to subvert the faith. 2. He showeth, that this so falls out, because men return not back to the first Origen of Truth, because they seek not the Head, nor keep the doctrine of the Heavenly Master; which if a man would consider, there would be no need of many Arguments, but the truth without any great search would offer itself unto him; for therefore did Christ when he was to lay the foundations of the Christian Church, say especially to Peter, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church: and again after the Resurrection, Feed my sheep, because, though rising again from the dead, he gave like power to all the Apostles, when he said, As my Father sent me, so send I you; Whose sins ye remit, etc. Joh. 20.21, 23. Yet he would by speaking especially to one, and by appointing one Chair, show what unity should be in the Church; the rest of the Apostles, saith St. Cyprian, were undoubtedly the same that St. Peter was, equal in honour and power, but therefore did Christ in the first place give, or at least promise to give; especially, or particularly to one, that Apostolic Commission which he meant also to give to the rest, that he might thereby show that the Church must be one, and that there must be but one Episcopal Chair in the World; all the Apostles saith Cyprian are Pastors, but the Flock of Christ is but one, which they are to feed with unanimous consent; there is but one Body of the Church, one Spirit, one Hope of our Calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God; this unity all men must endeavour to keep, especially Bishops, that they may make it appear that there is but one Episcopal Commission in the Christian Church, cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur, whereof every one indifferently, and in equal sort hath his part: Here is nothing that proveth the universality of the Papal power, but this place most plainly overthroweth it; for Cyprian teacheth, that Christ meant to give equal Power and Authority to all his Apostles; and the reason why intending no more to one than to the rest, yet he more especially directed his speech to one than to the rest, was only to show that there must be an unity in the Church, which He settled in that beginning with one, from him he proceeded to the rest, not meaning that the rest should receive any thing from him, but that from himself immediately they should receive that in the second place, which he had first, and that they should receive the same Commission together with him, into which he was put first, that they might know him to be the first of their Company; for it cannot consist (saith he) either with truth, with the opinion of St. Cyprian, or of our Adversaries themselves, that the rest of the Apostles received their Ministerial Power from Peter, and were subject to him, as to an Head and absolute Commander over them, seeing he saith expressly that they were the same that Peter was, and equal to him both in honour, and power; and besides both in this book, and in many other places, he is wont to derive the original of Schisms, and Heresies, from the intrusion of men into places, without due admittance and allowance of them that in a kind of coherent concord rule and govern the Church, and never from the resistance of one Supreme Commander set over all: Well then to the places objected, upon that one, viz. St. Peter, he builds his Church, we Answer in the words of St. Jerome preceding, The Church was built upon St. Peter; but yet true it is, the same thing is done upon others, and the strength of the Church equally rests upon all. But you will say that St. Jerome there asserts, That among the twelve one was chosen, 
Cont. Jovin. l. 2.  that an head being constituted, the occasion of Schism might be taken away, which seems to advance St. Peter above the rest.  
Answ. Not as to any thing of Authority; for then St. Jerome would contradict himself, when he saith, that the Church was founded ex aequo upon the twelve: so that his meaning is, that before the Apostles were sent over the World, and whilst they made up one particular company, for better orders sake, he was chosen Head, that so things might be done communi concilio, and there might be no Schism between them.  
2. He tells us this was given to Peter, quia Petrus crat senior, which being but a personal advantage, cannot be applied to the benefit of the Romanist, who is to prove the Pope's Supremacy, and not only the Primacy of St. Peter; not to mention that these words are not St. Jeroms, but Jovinians, and speak not of a plenitude of Power but only Primacy, with many other Answers which you have in Dr. Ham. Sch. dis. p. 238.  
And for the second citation from St. Cyprian, Sect. 13 that he who forsakes the Chair of St. Peter upon which the Church is founded, cannot think that he is in the Church: 
Lib. 12 de Oec. Pont. c. 5. s. 3.  He might have learned from Chamier, that it is a mere gloss crept into the Text, and not to be found in some Editions; but if it could deserve an Answer, the learned Dr. Field will inform him; That St. Cyprian by that Chair intendeth not one particular Chair appointed for a General Teacher of all the World to sit in, but the joint commission, unity and consent of all Pastors, which is and must be such, as if they did all sit in one Chair; which sense of one Chair founded upon Peter you may find in the same Cyprian ad universam plebem, 
Lib. ep. 8,  where he urgeth the unity of the Church and Chair (not to show that obedience was to be given to the Church of Rome, but) to show that against them that are lawfully placed in a Bishopric with consenting allowance of the Pastors at unity, others may not be admitted; and that they who by any other means get into places of Ministry, then by consenting allowance of the Pastors at unity among themselves, are in truth and indeed no Bishops at all.  
And this is a sufficient Answer to that passage of Optatus cont. Sect. 14 
This would have perfect truth● in it (saith Dr. Ham. Sch dis p. 192) had it been spoken of any other plantations of the Apostles, the Chair of St. John in Asia &c Seeing the meaning of the Chair doth evidently signify the Church brought down by succession from the Apostles, which the Donatists could not pretend to; see him exactly scanning the whole place, p. 190, 192, 193.  Parmen. l. 2. At Rome a Chair was placed for St. Peter, to the end that unity might be preserved of all, and for fear the other Apostles should challenge to themselves each one his particular Chair: And sure you could not be ignorant of the Answer returned to the passage by the incomparable Chillingworth, viz. The truth is, the Donatists had set up at Rome a Bishop of their Faction, not with intent to make him Bishop of the whole Church, but of that Church in particular; now Optatus going upon St. Cyprians above mentioned grounds, of one Bishop in one Church, proves them Schismatick● for so doing, and he proves it by this Argument; St. Peter was first Bishop of Rome, neither did the Apostles attribute to themselves each one his particular Chair, (understand in that City, for in other places others had Chairs beside St. Peter) and therefore he is a Schismatic, who against that one single Ch●ir erects another; Understand (as before, in that place) making another Bishop of that Diocese besides him who was lawfully elected to it.  
We pass on to St. chrysostom, from whom two sentences are pressed for the service of the Pope; but to the first I return a Non est inventus; after twice reading the third Hom. cited by him, 
* In Act. Apost. c. 1.4.  I can find nothing like the words produced; In the second is evident prevarication, for having told us that these words Fellow me, shown his special care he had of St. Peter, he adds, How then was it, may some say, that St. James 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; to this I Answer saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he (that is Christ) ordained him Teacher, or if you will Master, not of any Throne, but of the whole World, (as he did also the rest of the Apostles) for which our Author hath it (not of that See of Rome alone) in which the fraud is manifest; 'tis true, Sect. 15 the Scholiast tells us, that either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be left out as the Interpreter hath done, or else 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be added, but than it must evidently refer to the See of Jerusalem, and can by no stratagems be drawn to the See of Rome; well than if he would have this citation serviceable to him, he must first show that St. Peter was by Christ constituted Bishop of Rome, and by so doing he will contradict St. Chrysostoms' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
2. That only St. Peter and not any of the Apostles besides him were appointed to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by our Saviour.  
3. Which is the most difficult of all, that the Bishops of Rome are to succeed him in being so.  
There is one passage remaining of St. Augustine's, who tells us, Sect. 16 That Melchiades judged the cause of the Donatists in afric. 
Judicante Melchiade sedis Romanae Episcopo cum collegis suis, quos ad preces Donatistarum miserat Imperator. ibid. ep. 162. Third def. c. 2. s. 4. Non provocent nisi ad Africana concilia, etc. Ad transmarina autem qui putaverint appellandum, à nullo intra Africam in communionem recipiantur. Reply p. 40.  Where (not to take notice of his interpreting the collegio suo removere to remove from his Communion.) 1. This was no Authoritative, but only a brotherly decision. 2. Done at the prayers of the Donatists. 3. By power delegated from the Emperor. 4. All this we find in Reverend Dr. Ham. together with a complaint that many other things offered by him in consideration of this passage could find no Answer: Now seeing all these Answers are clearly satisfactory, is it not strangely absurd, that the objection should be brought upon the stage afresh, without the least considerations of the returns that were made unto it? Now that St. Austin was far enough from acknowledging the Supremacy contended for, as well as the rest of the African Bishops, is argued from this, that in the Milevitan Council where he was present, speaking of Appeals from their Bishops, their rule is cap. 22. that they should appeal to none but the African Councils, or the Primates of their own Provinces; and if any shall think fit to appeal to any transmarine (or foreign) Judicature they are not to be admitted into Communion by any within Africa, and this they determined agreeably to the Council of Nice, and declare as much to Pope Celestine, as you may see in the Reverend Dr. Hammond.  
'tis a common Proverb, that the Devil will play at small game, rather than stick out; Sect. 17 so if the Bishop of Rome cannot be Universal Monarch, he will plead for him as Patriarch over the West, and thereby think to bring us into subjection to him; but seeing it is notorious and almost generally confessed that the power of Patriarches is not of Divine but humane institution; if he will affirm that this Dignity was given to him by the Fathers, he must either allow and acknowledge that they never dreamed of his being Universal Monarch, or else were so wise as to decree that he should have allotted to his Jurisdiction the third or fourth part of the World, whom they knew to have received from Christ a title to the whole. 2. Were he Patriarch over all the West, and we included in the circuit of his Patriarchate, yet would not this afford him any Authority over England: 
Dr. Ha●. third def. p. 124.  Seeing the dignity of a Patriarch includes not any Authority over more than the Province or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that belongs to him as a Primate or Metropolitan, and therefore infers no kind of Authority over all those that belong to the circuit of his Patriarchate: 
Just. vinet c. p. 249:  Bishop Bramhal gives him three further Answers. 1. That the British neither were, nor aught to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarch, as is irrefragably proved in his third conclusion. 2. That Patriarchical power being not of Divine right may be quitted (and that this the Pope hath done by taking up an Universal Monarchy unconsistent with it) forfeited (by many exerbitant abuses of which the Roman Bishops have been guilty beyond expression) or lawfully transferred as was done by the King and the whole body of the Kingdom. And, 3. That the power which we have cashiered, nor any part of it was ever given to any Patriarch by ancient Canons; so then 'tis superfluous to consider his Authorities, only in short. 1. Zonaras and Balsamon are esteemed Heretics by himself: And secondly, are affirmed by the Learned Salmasius to have mistaken the mind of the Canon. 
Salmas. de pr●matu Papae. c. ult.  2. St. Basils' calling the Bishop of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes him only the chief in order and most eminent Bishop of the West, which title we can very well allow him. 
Salmas. 16.  3. In the testimony of St. Austin he hath foisted in the Western Church, whereas St. Austin speaks only of the Church in which St. Peter suffered Martyrdom, that is the Church of Rome; it being searce ever heard, that any one was said to have suffered Martyrdom in the West. 3. Nor can it be inferred from that place of St. Jeromes, Let them condemn me with the West, that is with Damasus, that he thought him Patriarch of all the West; but his meaning is this, 
Salmas. ib.  Let them condemn me with the most famous men and Churches in the World; of which having mentioned two, he leaves the rest to be understood. Lastly, 'Tis objected that Justinian the Emperor affirms, that the whole World was subject to five Partriarches, that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Western Rome, Constant. Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem; 
Nevel. 123:  now saith he unless Hesperia signifies the whole West, to what Patriarch was France, Spain, Africa, etc. subject? Ans. 'Tis true the Emperor reckoneth up five Patriarches, but doth he any where say, that all the World was necessarily subject to them? doth he deny that it was in the power of Princes to make more, or limit the Dominions of these? did not he create de novo, Carthage, and Justiniana prima? and give them all power of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, the Supreme Priesthood, Supreme Honour and Dignity; and ordain that final appeals and the Dignity of Apostolical Sees shall be given to them, as is evident from his very words cited by Dr. Hammond in his ●ract of Schism, 
Pag. 101, 102, 103.  and then what service can you have from this his testimony? Lastly, Notwithstanding this, there were many Provinces that were not subject to the Jurisdiction of any of the forementioned Patriarches.  
I should now cite Fathers against Fathers, Sect. 18 but then this Pamphlet would swell too much; I will therefore conclude with that of the worthy Dr. Crakanthorp, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 22. 〈◊〉. 56.  Poteram integras patrum phalanges per singula saecula agglomerare (vide ●. 15. praestitum a celeberrimo Blondello) qui omnes velut agmine facto suprematum tuum (Spalatensem alloquitur) appugnent, sed quidopus? d●●rtho loxis ad unumomnthus ●●ipso qu●● conciliis quinque primis consensisse eos non est du●●●● 〈…〉 ab omnibus suprematum istum tuum qui in e●s ●amnatur anathematizari; in which one sentence he evinceth the concurrence of above 1000 Fathers, besides some 1000s more cited by him, when he produceth 26 Councils for the condemnation of this Supremacy of the Pope, and we can be contented to be accounted Heretics, when we have six or seven thou●and Fathers at the least that must be thrust into the Catalogue, yea the infallible Church of God, stablishing by their reiterated decrees this newfound Heresy.   

CHAP. VII.  
The Argument from the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon largely vindicated, Sect. 1. As also another from that of Nice, Sect. 2. Four Councils of Carthage deny the Pope's Supremacy, Sect. 3. So also doth this second General Council, Sect. 4. As also two British Councils, Sect. 5.  
I Pass now to the Vindication of what the worthy Doctor brought against the Usurpation of the Pope's Supremacy over the World by Divine Right: Sect. 1 And, 1. The Canon of the Council of Chalcedon sticks very much in Mr. C.'s stomach, and what Arts doth he not use to avoid its stroke? and reason good, for 'tis a most clear and perspicuous refutation of that dream.  
For, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. can. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid. P. 76. s. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ibid.  1. The Fathers of the Council tell us, that the privileges of Rome (above other Patriarches) were given her by the Fathers of the Church; whence it is evidently inferred, that the Primacy of the Pope of Rome (albeit it were a Primacy of order only) was not from any appointment of Christ, but the constitutions of the Church.  
2. They tell us, this Primacy was by the Fathers allowed unto him (not because he was the Vicar of Christ, or Successor of St. Peter, but) upon this account that the City he presided in, was the Imperial City; this * Mr. C. would have done by John of Constantinople, that so he might avoid the evidence it carrieth in it.  
3. They decree that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal privileges to the Pope (the first seat excepted) and be advanced to the like greatness in Ecclesiastical affairs indefinitely and Universally, as appears, 1. From the only exception mentioned, that of place; for exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis. 2. From the ground of those equal privileges, the equal dignity of the City, which evidently destroys all the pretensions of the Pope to an universal jurisdiction, seeing he could have no jurisdiction over the Bishop of Constantinople, thus made equal to him.  
4. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act. ib.  That this Decree was made with the full concurrence of the Council, consisting of six hundred and thirty Bishops (the Legates of the Pope excepted only) for after the canvasing of the business, when the Judges had pronounced that the Bishop of Constantinople was to have equal privileges with him, the whole Council presently cries out, This is a just sentence, this we all say, let this be consigned or confirmed.  
5. The Fathers proceed to the making of this Decree and the confirming of it, notwithstanding the dissent of the Roman Legates, and that by the command of their Pope; whence it is manifest that they did not esteem the approbation of the Pope necessary to the establishing of their Decrees, or his contradiction sufficient to make them null (as Mr. C. pretends from an old Canon, the sense of which we have manifested above to be very alien from this business) for otherwise these six hundred and thirty Fathers would never have proceeded to establish this Decree for an Ecclesiastical Law, which was made invito & reclamante Pontifice.  
6. Aetius  of Constantinople makes a relation how after matters of Faith agreed upon, they proceeded according to the manner to some constitutions; in these they desired the Legates to join with them, but they refused, saying they had received commands from Rome to do so, which being remonstrated to the Judges, and their leave asked that the present Council might determine the business, they ordered that the Council should proceed; and hereupon the Decree was unanimously made, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. P. 51. s. 8,  and it was appealed to them all whether it were not true, nothing being done clancularly, or by stealth, but of course regularly and Canonically; whence we may collect,  
1. What truth there is in that Parenthesis of our Author, that the Canon was compiled by the Bishop of Constantinoples' bargaining with some Bishops, and violence to others; Whereas not only the Council openly contradicts him, but further when by the appointment of the judges, and in the presence of the Legates, they that were most concerned (the Bishops of Asia, Pontus, and Thracia, who were now brought under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, being supposed formerly to be free) were called out severally, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and asked whether they had acted under any force; they severally answered, I subscribed willingly as in the presence of God.  
2. How ingenuously doth our Author deal in telling us that it was an infamous Canon surreptiously made, after the departure of the Judges, the Senate, and of the Legate of the See Apostolic? When from the Acts of the Council it is evident,  
1. That the Legates were desired to be present and resused, and that upon their appearance the day following all their objections against the Canon were taken of, and their pretences clearly answered in the Council.  
2. 
Concil. To. 3 p. 460.  It is likewise evident that albeit the Judges were then absent, yet did they give order that the Council should proceed, and that when on the morrow they were present and canvased the whole matter, they conclude thus, that they had weighed all, and found that none had injury; the privileges of the Bishop of Rome were preserved entire according to the Canons; and that the Bishop of Constantinople was to have equal privileges with him, and this being their sentence, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  they desire the whole Council to deliver theirs, and they all cried out, This is a just sentence, this we are all well pleased with; and so the Judges pronounce, the Synod hath confirmed all.  
Well, 
Mr. C p. 51  but he answers further, that this was a despised Canon, not inserted among the other Canons; and his reason is, because according to the most ancient Greek and Latin Copies of that Council (as appears from Dionysius Exiguus and the testimony of Theodoret Anagnostes a Grecian) the Council of Chalcedon published only twenty seven Canons, whereas this is reckoned the twenty eighth.  
Answ. This is put in to admonish us, what respect we own to the Romanists collections; for it is certain this Canon is in all the Greek Copies, both Printed and Manuscript, and from thence the Copy of that Council must originally be fetched, yea many of the Romanists confess there was such a Canon made, and the story of the fact is by all the Ancients agreed on; and Leos Epistles and many other evidences put it beyond all dispute and indeed Lees Legates resisting, and not consenting to it, and complaing to the Judges that it was done without them (when yet they voluntarily did absent themselves) is an evidence still that there was such a Canon made, and made by the Council, and yet it is left out in the Codex vetus Ecclesiae Romanae, and Dionysius Exiguus his Codex; but we sufficiently know in whose interest they did it; and what is it to the purpose whether the Canons of that Council be twenty seven or twenty eight, when it is sure that this was one? yea this despised Canon is not only mentioned by Socrates and Sozomen, 
L. 5. C. 8. L. 7. C. 9  but it was also renewed by the Council in Trullo, in these words, renewing the Decree of the hundred and fifty Fathers who met in this City of Constantinople (in which was Trullo (secretarium palatii) from whence the Council was so named) and by the six hundred and thirty Bishops assembled at Chalcedon, We define that the See of Constantinople shall have equal prerogatives of honour with that of Rome, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Mr. C. p. 52.  and shall be equally advanced in Ecclesiastical matters; next we are told that Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople was both ashamed, and sorry for this Canon; and this he proves from the fifty fifth Epistle of Leo, which is saith he in Answer to Anatelius; but alas that Epistle is not written to Anatolius, but Pulcheria Augusta, nor hath it any thing of his shame, and sorrow, but much of his pride and ambition; and as for the matter of fact, he was so much ashamed of it that he exercised it in an eminent manner on the Patriarch of Alexandria, Leo the Emperor having put wholly into his hands the judging of a great affair, and quieting a disturbance in that Church; and if it be considered that this was adjudged to him formerly by the Council of Constantinople, determined here by the six hundred and thirty Bishops; that the Bishop of Constantinople held this dignity by a custom that had been long in force, and many other things collected by the Reverenp Dr. Hammond, 
Reply p. 82, 83, 84.  there will be no possibility of assenting to this crude and audacious affirmation that the Patriarch was ashamed of this Canon. Nay, it is much more reasonable to affirm that the Popes themselves were at last ashamed of their opposing it; for within thirty years after we find saith the same Doctor, Faelix the third of his own accord consenting to his Primacy, 
Ep. 1.  and acknowledging Acasius Bishop of Constantinople to have power over the Bishops that were under him, and Innocent the third confirms it with a solemn constitution; yea in the Gregorian Edition of the Decree, we are told that at last this was granted to the Bishops of Constantinople for peace and quietness sake, 
Cap. 5. Con. Lat. Dist. 22. ad cap. Const.  that I add not the establishment of it again by the Council of Florence, Sess. ult. in tit. Vnionis. What he adds from Gelasius, as it hath nothing of truth in it, so hath it much of fraudulent dealing. Gelasius there tells us, that this Synod of Chalcedon as to its determinations touching matters of Faith, was universally received; but other things the Apostolic See received not; and afterwards that the See Apostolic consented not to this Canon that the Emperor (albeit he desired the Apostolic See to consent) did not impose it, nor Anatolius use it, and the whole as it is said in sedis Apostolicae positum est potestate (not was put, 
Petente Marciano Principe.  but) is put (as the series of the discourse shows) in the power of the See Apostolic, arrogating this unto that See, ita quod firmavit in Synodo sedes Apostolica, hoc robur obtinuit, quod refutavit, habere non potuit firmitatem; and therefore what it confirmed in that Synod, (which words our Author was pleased to conceal) that was valid. As the words are related by our Author, any one would imagine, that the deciding of this business, viz. whether the See of Constantinople should have equal privileges with that of Rome, had been referred to the See Apostolic, whereas in truth here is nothing but the arrogant assertion of a Pope (from an obscure fragment) that the consent of the See of Rome is necessary to the validity of this Canon.  
Lastly, Whereas we say, with the General Council of six hundred and thirty Bishops, and that other commonly called Trullensis, that these privileges were Decreed to the See of Constantinople by a former Canon made in the second General Council of Constantinople, 
Mr. C. p. 52. s. 9  he calls upon us to observe the false dealing of the Bishop of Constantinople, and his Clergy, in that they fraudulently thrust in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when the Canon had only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Answ. 'tis well he had the modesty to accuse the Bishop of Constantinople and his Clergy only; for had he spoken out, and told us that the whole Synod, and that in Trulso also, had thus affirmed (which is the very truth as you may see in the twenty eighth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, and the words cited from that in Trullo) he would have been called upon to have rubbed his forehead for his rashness as he may justly be called upon to do for accusing the Bishop of Constantinople and his Clergy of this false dealing; for had he cast an eye upon the Acts of this Council, he might have found Aetius the  reading thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, these things were decreed by the hundred and fifty Bishops met at Constantinople, and after other things concluding with this Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So that I cannot imagine how Mr. C. will be able to free himself from the imputation of a manifest untruth; and indeed it is a likely matter that such a fraud should be committed, and the Roman Legates never object it, nor the Popes amidst all they did to invalidate this act, not mention one syllable of this deceit; so than it was not the Bishop and Clergy of Constantinople that made this addition, but the General Council of Chalcedon, and after them of Constantinople that so interpreted it.  
And thus from the Council of Chalcedon, Sect. 2 we go on to that of Nice, which tells us that the Ancient customs should obtain in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis; that the Bishop of Alexandria enjoy a jurisdiction over them all, for as much as the Bishop of Rome hath the like custom, (viz. to have power over the Suburbicarian Regions) now to this he Answers, 
Mr. C. p. 64.  That the Roman Bishop in his Patriarchate is made the pattern of the Bishop of Alexandria, not in regard of his universal jurisdiction in the Church of God, (which in that time was not in being) but only as to his custom and practice of calling Synods, correcting manners, making ordinations according tr his Patriarchical and Metropolitical jurisdiction; for not only Patriarchical (which Salmasius tells us was not then hatched) but Metropolitical authority is spoken of in this Canon; so that it signifies no more than this, that the Bishops of Rome did ordain either immediately or by commission all the Bishops in the Suburbicarian Churches (and therefore) so ought the Bishop of Alexandria to do in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis.  
Now 1. We Answer, Were this Canon to be limited to ordination, the custom of calling Synods &c., seeing it is granted that as the Bishop of Rome did ordain either immediately, or by commission from him, so must the Bishop of Antioch, Alexandria, and other Provinces; hence it follows, that the Pope hath nothing to do in their ordinations, no more than they have to do with his; for such ordinations as were performed by the delegates of the Pope, unless they were supposed to consent to it, would neither be done by them immediately nor by their Commission; and seeing as the learned Bishop Bramhal saith, 
Rep. p. 193.  all other rights of jurisdiction follow the right of ordination, neither can the Pope plead any jurisdiction over them.  
2. In the Canon 'tis said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, as in Alexandria and Rome, so also in Antioch, and other Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is the government, 
Hes. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  principalities, or dignities, shall be preserved to the Churches, and consequently it speaks not of ordination, and power of calling of Synods only, but of the whole jurisdiction of each Province, and comparing these with Rome, and telling us that these prerogatives, shall be allowed to the Provinces of Alexandria, etc. because the custom was such, that the Bishop of Rome had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over the Provinces where he resided, it seems to argue, that the power of the Roman Bishop was not universal, but confined to those Provinces the Canon speaks of; for when we say that Italy reacheth to the Ionian, Adriatic, and Tyrrhenian Seas, and towards France and Germany to the Alps, we mean that it is terminated there, and extends itself no further; and in like manner when we describe the Dominions of a Prince or Emperor, so here when the Canon saith the Pope hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Provinces, it may consequently be argued that his power is limited to them, and doth not reach to the other Provinces attributed to the Bishop of Antioch. Alexandria, etc. And as when the Patriarch of Antioch or Jerusalem mentions his Bishops, he is supposed to understand such as are not subject to the Bishop of Alexandria; even so here, when it is said the Bishop of Allexandria shall have power over his Bishops, seeing the Bishop of Rome hath power over his, we are to understand by the Bishops of Alexandria such as are not subject to the Roman Bishop, and consequently his Ecumenical power must be here denied; and indeed unless the Roman Diocese were limited, it could not possibly be a copy or reason of limiting the Alexandrian (it being unreasonable to say Alexandria must have limits because Rome hath none) which yet that it was (besides the evidence of the words themselves) is the express affirmation of one of their own Popes, who tells us That the Nicene Synod conferred no increase on Rome, 
Nicholas 1. Ep. 8.  but rather took from Rome an example particularly what to give the Church of Alexandria. Well then, if at the making of the Nicene Canon, Rome had bounds, it must needs follow by the Ephesine Canon (viz. that all Provinces everywhere shall ordain their Bishops, within and by themselves, and that no Bishop shall meddle with another Province which hath not from the beginning been under him, (i. e. his predecessors power) that these bounds must be at all tiems observed, which is sufficiently destructive to the universal Pastorship of the Roman See; for hence 'tis evident that an universal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or power of ordaining belongs not to the Bishop of Rome, 
See Dr. Ham. Sch. disar. p. 105, 106, 107.  and therefore ordination and jurisdiction going together, he cannot have the universal jurisdiction over Bishops, or which is all one, universal Pastorship.  
3. That the Ancients understood it of government and (not only as to the matter of ordination) in the sense we plead for, is apparent from their words; thus Ruffin tells us that the mind of it is, that the Bishop of Alexandria should have the care of Egypt, as the other had of the Suburbicarian Churches; and Aristinus, a Greek Author, in his collection of Canons gives us the sixth of Nice thus, Let the Bishop of Alexandria have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the government of Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis; the Bishop of Rome of those Churches that are about his City, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) where the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do exactly express Ruffinus' Suburbicarias Ecclesias or regiones; yea the Arabic compilation of these Canons set out by Turrianus the Jesuit speaks thus, 'tis decreed that the Bishop of Egypt (the Alex. Patriarch) should preside and have power over all Egypt and all the places and Castles that are about it (quia sic convenit) for so 'tis meet, seeing the Bishop of Rome likewise hath power over all the places which are about it, and likewise the Bishop of Antioch, let him have power over that whole Province; and the Paraphrase upon the Canon tells us, that this was done because the Bishop of Rome had power over the Cities or places that were near him; again Zonaras (with whom consent Balsamon and Nilus) saith that the Alexandrian Bishops shall preside over his Provinces, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lastly, the Canon as cited by Paschasinus the Pope's Legate shows as much; 
Con. Chal.  for thus it runs, The Church of Rome always had its Primacy, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) let Egypt have so also, that the Bishop of Alexandria may have power of all (under him) because the Roman Bishop hath this custom, likewise he that is constituted Bishop of Antioch: and in other Provinces, let the Church of larger Cities have the Primacy. Doth he speak of Primacy of order, which the Popes had over all the world? then is it a ridiculous argument, and a contradiction; if of jurisdiction, than was not the Pope to have any jurisdiction over them, seeing they were all to have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primacy of jurisdiction in their own Provinces. Add to this the Councils following who generally thus interpret it.  
Nor is this Supremacy condemned only by the Nicene, Sect. 3 Ephesine, Milevitan Council, and most evidently by the Council of Chalcedon, 
An. Dom. 258.  but also by the Council of Carthage under Cyprian, which thus Decrees, That no man should make himself Bishop of Bishops, or go about tyrannically to enforce others to a necessity of obeying, seeing each Bishop hath his liberty, and no one may judge another, nor be judged of another, but they must all be judged of God, in which Decree they directly strike at the priod of Pope Stephen, who had styled himself Bishop of Bishops, and threatened excommunication to those that thought otherwise, as even Baronius doth acknowledge; 
A●. 258. Na. 42. An. ●41 in C●●●●. Afric. c. 15. & 12. An. 407. The Acts of the Council are extant amongst the African Councils, Acts apud Bi●. p. 781. To. 1. Joct ●am cleri●atus accipiant. c. 72. An. 416 in their letters to Pope Celastine.  yea the Council of Antioch decrees, That a person condemned by all the Bishops of his Province, shall by no means be juaged by others, but the sentence of the Bishops of his Province shall remain firm, unless the guilty person shall appeal to a more pl●nary or General Council: The like we have in another Council of Carthage in which it is decreed, That whoever are cast out of communion in Africa, if they go to communicate bey●nd the Seas (they chief aim at the Roman Church) shall l●se their Priesthood; now to take away appeals to the Pope to reject his sentence of the persons appearing, is evidently to destroy his Supremacy. Again in the sixth Council of Carthage at which St. Austin was present, it was determined, That the Bishop of Rome should not receive the Priests or excommunicate persons that appealed to him, and that for this reason, because this was never derogated from the Africa Church by any definition of their forefathers; and the Nicene Decree doth commit both the inferior Clergy and the Bishops themselves to their Metropolitans; for they most prudently and justly provided, that all businesses should be finished in the places where they were begun, and the Grace of the Holy Ghost (●●y they) will not be wanting to each Province. Let this equity (therefore) be constantly and prudently observed by Christ's Priests, especially seeing every man hath leave, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  if he be offended with the judgement of the known, to appeal to a Council of his Province, or to a General Council, unless there be any man that can think that God can inspire a justice of Trial into any one person (or Pope) and deny it to innumerable that are convened in Council. And whereas the Bishop of Rome would have sent his Legates into those parts to take cognifance of their affairs, they Answered, That any should be sent as Legates from your Sanctity to us, is a thing which we find not constituted by any Synod of the Fathers; 
Can 26. al. 27. An. Do. 397. see Bin. To. 1. p. 759.  moreover in the third Courcil of Carthage they determined, That the Bishop of the first See shall not be called the chief of the Priests, or the chief Priest, or any such thing, but only the Bishop of the first See. Sect. 4  
Again the second General Council determines, That the Bishops that are without any Diocese, 
Extra dioecesia.  shall not intermeddle with the Churches beyond their bounds, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but according to the Rules constituted (viz. by the Nicene Synod) the Bishop of Alexandria shall govern those only that are in Egypt; the Bishops of the East shall take care only of the Eastern Church's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And again, The Bishop's uncalled shall not go beyond their Diocese to ordain Bishops, or dispose of any Ecclesiastical causes, but shall observe the Rule above written, de unaquaque dioecesi (saith the Latin) for it is manifest by what is defined in the Nicene Council that in every Province 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Provincial Synod ought to administer and govern all things; 
Mr. C. p 53. What is this to the Bishop of Rome?  is this nothing to the Church of Rome? hath the Bishop of Rome no Province? did the Nicene Canon speak nothing of him? and if all things in every Province must be determined by the Provincial Synod, what will become of Appeals to the Church of Rome?  
I will conclude with something which concerns our own Nation, Sect. 5 and it is this, That when Austin proposed three things to the British Clergy; 1. That they should submit to the Romish Bishop (whose very Name they were ignorant of at that time, 
Bish. Bra. Just. vind. p. 103, 104.  as appears from their language, The man whom thou callest the Pope.) 2. That they should conform to the customs of the Roman Province about the observation of Easter, and the administration of Baptism. And lastly, That they should join with him in preaching to the Saxons, all the British Clergy assembled themselves together in two several Synods one after another to deliberate hereupon, 
Spel. con. an. 601. Galt. Mon. l. 2. c. 12. vid. Bed. his. l. 2. c. 2.  and after mature consideration they rejected all his propositions Synodically, and refused flatly and unanimously to have any thing to do with him upon these terms; these things being considered, must not our Author well deserve the whetstone, 
Pag. 53.  when he so confidently affirms, That there was never any received Council in God's Church that excluded the Pope from an Universal jurisdiction? when as besides the Council by me cited you have twenty more in the learned Crakanthorp unanimously condemning this usurpation. 
Def. Eccles.    

CHAP. VIII.  
St. Gregory against the Pope's Supremacy, Sect. 1. An objection answered, Sect. 2. 'tis not safe to admit this Supremacy, Sect. 3. The instance of the Kings of France considered, Sect 4. An Answer to his Questions, Sect 5. The Power we assign to Bishops is not contrary to any Acts of Parliament or the Oath of Supremacy, Sect. 6.  
THirdly the Doctor argued from the known testimonies of St. Gregory, who flies out excessively against the very name of Universal Bishop, calling it a wicked, profane, and blasphemous title, importing that the times of Antichrist were at hand, yea an imitation of the very Devil, who despising the Legions of Angels socially created with him, endeavoured to mount the top of singularity, 
Ep ex. Reg. l. 4. cp. 38. It wasdone by Theodorus and Ischiron two distressed Deacons. Dr. Field p 523. To John of Jerusalem by the Synod of Constant. sub. Menna. Act. 5. p. 451. to Minnas by the same General. Council, Act. 4. p. 437, 438, 440. and by Justinian. Novel. 42. to Sergius Bishop of Constant. in the sixth General Council, Act. 13. to Tharasius in the Nicene Council, Act. 3. and that even by Hadrian the Pope, as well as other Bishops of the East.  that he might seem to be under none, sed solus praeesse videretur: to this we are, 1. Told by him p. 38. That this very title was given to Pope Leo by the Council of Chalcedon (attributing that to a General Council which was done by an inconsiderable part of the Pope's flatterers) but were this true as our Adversary pretends, this title was attributed to others also, and therefore is no fit medium to conclude the Universal Supremacy of any Patriarch, rather than of all to whom it was given, especially seeing it is supposed to have been given to the Pope by that very Council, which determined that the Bishop of Constantinople should have equal prerogatives with him, to whom this title was allowed. 2 He tells us, That John of Constantinople 
* Ibid.  whilst he took this title, still acknowledged the Pope's Superiority not only of place but Authority over him. Ans. This affirmation is an immodest fiction (to say no worse) built upon a forgery which he hath used in foisting John into the place of Eusebius, as before is showed. At last he comes to the business and tells us, 
Sect. P. 39 s. 4.  That Gregory did not so much combat John's present intention as the probable consequences of such a title, which might argue that besides himself there were no Bishops in the Church; for if he were the Universal Bishop and the whole world his Diocese, since by the Canons there can be but one Bishop in a place, it would fellow that all others were only Bishops in Name, and by their Character had no other office, but as his substitutes, depending on his will, whereas the Apostles received their Office and Authority immediately from our Lord himself. Ans. This is a profound Argument which Gregory (I am confident) would have been ashamed of; for if the Pope be Universal Bishop (whether we style him so or not) is not the whole World his Diocese? hath he not Authority to exercise the functions of a General Bishop in the whole World? and than doth it not follow with the same evidence of reason, that all the Bishops of the World are only titular? 2. He manifestly opposeth receiving a right of Jurisdiction from any but Christ, and a receiving it from an Universal Bishop, when he saith, The Bishops (the Successors of the Apostle) would never acknowledge the receiving of their Episcopal right of Jurisdiction from any but Christ himself, not from an Universal Bishop as the words preceding manifestly show; and yet he presently gives a reason which shows these two to be most consistent; for saith he, Though a particular Bishop be ordained by a Metropolitan, etc. or Pope himself (might he not have said, or Universal Bishop?) and his Jurisdiction be given him by them, they indeed are the Ministers of Christ to convey his Authority, but the inherent Authority itself Christ only gives him; by whose means I pray you? supposing him ordained by the Pope, is it not by the means of the Universal Bishop? 3. 'Tis plain and evident, that Gregory speaks against this title as that which argued the subjection of all other Bishops and Patriarches to him, as appears from these passages. 
L 4 Ep. 30. Quae superviendo se caeteris praepomit. Ep. 34.  He that claimeth this title, i● a forerunner of Antichrist, because in making himself proud he setteth himself before others, from the comparison of him with the Devil, who in the singularity of his pride despised the equality of joy among the Angels, saying, I will advance my Throne above the Stars of Heaven: And again, What Answer wilt thou make to Christ the Head of the whole Church, 
Ep. 38. Cuncta ejus membra tibi supponere. Ep. 34. Ut omnibus dignior esse videatur. Ep. 36. Christi membra sibi subjugare. Ep. 18 Ut nulli subesse, & solus omnibus par esse videretur. lb. Semet ipsum praeponere, cosque sub se premere. Ep. 32. Sine aliorum imminutione. ep. 38. Restat ut ob vos Episcopi non sitis.  who goest about under the name of Universal Bishop to subdue all his members unto thee? The like complaint he hath to the Empress Constantia, That John desired he might seem worthier than all others. To Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria, that he studied by the haughtiness of a pompous title to subject under him Christ's members: and to John himself, That he did affect that title, that he might be subject to none, and seem only to be over all; that he desired thereby to set himself before all other Bishops, and to press them under him; and wisheth, that this title might be attributed to one without the lessening of all others, implying that in his judgement it could not be so.  
But you will say, Sect. 2 he evidently infers, that if this title be allowed, it remaineth that than others are no Bishops, and tell sus, that he only endeavoureth to be called Bishop, Solus conetur Episcopus appellari. Ibid.  
Answ. 
Cupis Episcoporum nomen tui comparatione calcare. Ibid. Sacerdotum omnis honor adimitur dum als uno universalis super omnes authoritas arrogatur. ep. 32. And again, Prisantur honore debito universi, dum quod aliis commune est, ut privatum uni tribuitur; and a third time, Coercendus ille qui corde tumet & honori imperii caeterorum se per privatum vocabulum superponit, Ibid. Ep 32. add Mauritium.  He sufficiently explains himself that he means this comparatively, not absolutely, as if he should have said, You are indeed Bishops, but in comparison of him you are none; for when the title of Universal is admitted whereby one may be above another, and depress the rest, they fall from the ancient right of Bishops, by which right they are of one merit and Priesthood; neither doth the potency of Rome make an higher Bishop, nor the poverty of Eugubium a lower; all are deprived of this due honour, if any thing private be given to one, and they in comparison of him are not to be dignified with the name of Bishops.  
2. He saith it, because as he argued, if there should be any such Universal Head, upon the failing of him, the whole Church, and consequently all the Bishops of it must necessarily fail; and the same Argument we have in that Epistle of Pelagius cited by our Author, where having told us, That if the Supreme Patriarch should be called Universal, the title would be taken from the rest (they being no longer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but under the dominion of another) He adds, If John therefore be permitted to take this title, the honour of all Patriarches is denied, and probably he who is called Universal will perish in his error, and there will not be found one Bishop in the State of Truth; so little was Papal Infallibility dreamt of in in those days: Thus Dr. Hammond, As for Patriarches, 'tis manifest that the Universal Pastorship of one is a prejudice to that, because a Primate or Patriarch (by the notation of each word) being one that hath none over him in respect of Authority or Power, and so is absolutely first in his own Diocese; this supposing a supreme power in one must needs prejudge that, as much as a Monarchick power in one is incompatible with an Aristocracy; and this was the very reason why Pelagius and Gregory refused it, because they should have wronged the rest of the Patriarches in assuming it. Third Def. p. 406.  
Now whether his asserting this Primacy, Sect. 3 or our accusing and condemning it as a Novelty, whether his proofs or ours be more concluding, let the Reader judge; I am content to refer it to his conscience as our Author doth. We come now to discuss the safety of admitting this Supremacy. And, 1. 
Mr. C. p. 81.  Mr. C. assures us, That whilst such a Primacy purely Spiritual was acknowledged (which for the first six hundred years was never so much as heard of) the Church here was never torn in pieces with Schisms nor poisoned with Heresies. 
Just. Vindic p. 58, 59  Answ. Bishop Brumhal can tell you, No Saxon, English or British King ever made any obliging solemn formal acknowledgement of their submission to the Bishop of Rome; that the Pope's power in England was of courtesy, not duty; that former Kings were as tart and vehement against him as King Henry the eighth, with this only difference, that they endeavoured to draw the people out of the Pope's claws at home, and he thought it more expedient to cast the Pope over the British Seas once for all; And if so, your very supposition will give you the lie, unless you will sink down to Queen Mary's days. Secondly, If they were not torn in pieces with Schisms, yet through your bloodthirsty tyranny they were torn in pieces for Schisms, burned for Heresies, that is for the plain evident Truths of the Gospel, by your ignorance branded with the odious names of Schismatical and Heretical Tenants. Thirdly, I pray you tell me, were there no Protestants in Queen Mary's days? did none suffer before her days when you suppose the Supremacy of Antichrist agnized? how many righteous souls were butchered by you in prosecution of your Sanguinary Articles against poor Protestants? how many piles were builded in Queen Mary's days to sacrifice their lives upon to your rage and malice? and durst you be so bloody against those who were neither Schismatics nor Heretics? and what wonder is it that you had no Schismatics, etc. when to be such was the sure way to have no being, and they could find no other Answer to their Arguments but fire and faggot; yea when the light was withheld from them that so they might not see the truth! You go on and tell us, 
Ibid.  The Throne was never in the least danger upon that account, never was a sword drawn for or against it. Answ. Very good, if Princes will crouch to his Holiness, 
Nun Rex Anglorum n●●er vass●llus est ●t (ut 〈…〉 di● 〈…〉  be his Vassals, suffer him to drain their Kingdoms, rob and beggar their Subjects, exhaust their Dominions, he will not arm their Subjects against them, dethrone them, or seek their ruin; but if they once offer to withstand his tyranny, question his intolerable encroachments, cannot be content tha● their Subject's wealth should be converted into St. P●●●● Patrimony, then must they be Sacrifices to Papal 〈◊〉 Witness that terrible and unparallelled excommunication and interdiction of England, the deprivation of Henry the eighth published at Dunkirk; witness the bull of Anathematization and deprivation by Pius the fifth against Queen Elizabeth and all her adherents, absolving all her Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance, without so much as an admonition preceding; witness the Pope's Negotiations with the English, Spanish, French, etc. to have Queen Elizabeth taken away by murder, published at Rome by Hieronymo Culena Secretary to the Cardinal Alexandrino, in the time and with the privilege of Sixtus the fifth; witness the Legantine Authority given to , and the hollowed Banner sent with him and Allen two Romish Priests to countenance the Earl of Desmond in his rebellion; the Phoenix Plume sent to Terowen to encourage him likewise in his rebellion, and a plenary indulgence for him and all his assistants from Clement the eighth. Lastly, witness the two Briefs sent by the same Pope to exclude King James from the inheritance of the Crown of England, unless he would take an Oath to promote the Roman Catholic interest. Witness the rebellious Tenants of your English Seminaries, the many treasons and rebellions in the time of Qu. Elizabeth, and King James, all which you may see in the Reverend Bishop Bramhal, pag. 136, 137, 138. of his Repli. so that you do in effect say 'tis safe for his Majesty to admit the Pope's Supremacy; for otherwise he may expect the absolution of his Subjects from their obedience, a Spanish Invasion, a Gunpowder Treason, or some other mischievous enterprises of the Romish Emissaries to take away his life.  
You tell us further, Sect. 4 That the Kings of France account it one of the most sparkling Jewels in their Crown, 
Ibid.  that they call themselves the eldest (and most devoted) sons of the Catholic Church; the acknowledging the spiritual Primacy of the chief Pastor, they find a greater honour and defence in them then many Armies would, because it preserves peace and unity in the Kingdom, by subduing their minds and captivating their consciences to faith and obedience. Answ. The acknowledgement of the same Supremacy in the Turk (that civil Pope who gapes for the Universal Monarchy) would be as great an expedient for peace and unity; let our Author make the inference. Secondly, Why may we not deny, that this peace and unity is not to be derived from the acknowledgement of the Pope's Supremacy, seeing (as our Author hath it in another case) in so many places both they are not where it is, and are where it is not (as under the Turks Dominions, etc.) Thirdly, We tell you that his Majesty of France doth not acknowledge the Pope's Supremacy, 
From. pag. 190, to 200.  as it is undeniably evinced by Bishop Bramhal in his just Vindication.  
Lastly, You fall to Divining That without such an Authority all our preaching and laws will prove but shaking Bulwarks for supporting Monarchy.  
Answ. Very likely! for to be sure if your Priests and Jesuits (men born for the subversion of Governments) be permitted, 
Hoc genns hominum natum est ad interitum Christianae reipub. was the prediction of the University of Paris, and it was confessed this was their business to set all on fire by John Brown a Roman Priest. Prin introd. p. 202. N. 82. s. 20.  you will never leave your rebellious Attempts and treacherous conspiracies, till you have brought us into new confusions, and built your nests upon our ruins.  
Again we are told how earnestly Roman Catholics here have protested their renouncing any acknowledgement of the least degree of temporal power or jurisdiction as of right belonging to the Pope, over any subject of his Majesties. Sect. 5 
See B. Bram p. 137, 138.   
Answ. We cannot be ignorant that Campian being asked if the Pope should send forces against the Queen, whether he would take part with the Queen or the Pope, openly professed, and testified under his hand that he would stand for the Pope; yea that his fellows being examined in like manner, either refused to Answer, or gave such ambiguous and prevaricatory Answers, that some ingenuous Catholics began to suspect that they fostered some tteachery, that the Colleges or Seminaries of English Priests at Rome, at Rheims, at Douai, held that the Bishop of Rome hath supreme authority and most full power over the whole world, yea even in temporal matters: now whether you have changed these opinions or no, we know not.  
2. How long you will hold to this, whether after the declaration of the Pope to the contrary, whether you will esteem his Majesty to have any subjects when absolved by the Pope from his obedience; whether your acknowledgements be not with mental reservations, and whether your intent be not (as in Queen Elizabeth's time it was acknowledged by some of your own party) by reconciling in confession to absolve every one in particular from all oaths of allegiance and obedience to the Supreme power; 
See B. Bram. ib.  and whether you do not yet think, that faith with Heretics may be broken, when the good of the Catholic cause requireth it, may be doubted; and therefore you are too hasty in concluding that you acknowledge merely a pure spiritual authority in the Pope; have you the confidence to affirm it of your Italian Papists or Jesuits? but to yield what you so confidently assert, and so weakly prove, you Catechise us thus, Is this now dishonourable? is it unsafe? Answ. Both. To whom? Answ. All Kings and people, the whole Church of God: You reply, Catholic Princes protest against this opinion either of dishonour or danger. Answ. No such thing, it being manifest that all Kingdoms and Republics of the Roman communion do exempt themselves from this obedience to, and jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome, or at least plead for it, when they have occasion, 
Just. Vind. c. 7.  as is irrefragably evinced by Bishop Bramhal, yea particularly when Pope Adrian would have had Hinemare (a man condemned by three French Synods for a turbulent person, and deposed) sent to him, to receive justice, the King of France asked him What hell vomited out this law, what bottomless pit had belched it forth? Yea further, when the Bishops of France were summoned by the Pope to the Trent Council, he finding that all things were done at Rome, rather than at Trent, doth not only contemn all these Papal Decrees, but commands his Bishops to departed and leave the Council, whether they were summoned by the Pope.  
2. Are they not ever and anon crying out of grievances? complaining of the Pope's usurpations, and tyranny, exhausting the wealth of their Kingdoms, prodigality of indulgences, etc. and is it safe to admit that power which hath such pernicious attendants; that power which albeit it should be purely spiritual, is used almost everywhere in ordine ad temporalia, to enlarge the Pope's Coffers, and the like?  
2. 
See B. ●am. Just. Vind. p. 161, 162.  They have more reason to acknowledge him then we; they profess him to have been their Patriarch; but 'tis beyond all question he hath no title to be ours.  
3. They may Protest against a truth, esteem that not to be dishonourable which indeed is so, as being a disclaiming of that power and care over God's Church which he hath committed to them, suffering a proud ambitious Prelate to rob them of the service they own to Christ, and tyrannize it over the Bishops they should protect, and the faith they are styled defenders of; but he proceeds, If only (saith he) to the dissenters from Catholic religion this be dishonourable, Nero and Diocletian had reason on their sides when they persecuted a religion dishonourable and dangerous to the Roman Empire.  
Answ. But how will it appear to have been so (was it begun and upheld by Treason, Rebellions, continual Bloodshed, all manner of vice and wickedness, as the Romans evidently was and is) why forsooth neither St. Peter nor any other Apostle or Bishops but were as to their spiritual Authority independent on the Emperors?  
Answ. But what of all this? did such intolerable extortions, excessive rapines accompany the spiritual power of the Apostles or succeeding Bishops, as do accompany this power of the Pope? was there the same reason to resist a power proved to be derived from God, by signs and wonders, yea and manifestly tending to the confirming obedience to higher powers, and to resist an evident usurpation, and a tyrannical yoke, unjustly put upon the neck of those that are by the law of God and nature, and the constitutions of the Kingdom free from it, which is found to tend to the subversion of the true faith, and the enslaving of the Kingdom; and was not the spiritual power of Bishops regulated by Christian Emperors albeit it was wholly independent upon Pagans?  
And what if we acknowledge a pure spiritual authority in our Bishops, over their Presbyters and Diocese, to ordain, Sect. 6 excommunicate, make orders for decency, etc. (we acknowledge such a power in the Pope over the Suburbicarian Provinces) may not the Bishop of Canterbury as well require upon this account to exercise a jurisdiction over the Bishops in Spain, France, etc. and say it would not be dishonourable to them to suffer such an usurpation as the Pope exerciseth over us, because 'tis purely spiritual? else would it be so, to suffer their own Bishops to exercise the like authority. Is there any statute that hinders the exercise of this authority by our Bishops? is it contrary to the Oath of Supremacy rightly understood? doth not Bishop Bramhal tell you,  
1. That this Oath was composed only by Papists, 
Rep. p. 289, 290, 291, 292, 293.  no Protestants having any hand in it.  
2. That they were zealous in defending the Doctrine contained in it.  
3. That there is no supremacy ascribed to his Majesty in that Oath, but merely Political, and such as is essentially annexed to the Imperial Crown of every Sovereign Prince.  
4. The addition of spiritual causes is thus to be understood;  
1. Either by himself, or by fit substitutes, who are Ecclesiastical persons.  
2. Of these causes which are handled in the exterior Court, not in the inner Court of Conscience.  
3. That as for other Ecclesiastical causes, his power consists in seeing that Ecclesiastical Persons do their duties.  
4. That this is plainly evinced to be the sense of the Oath from the 37. art. of the Church of England.  
5. That the same power is exercised by the King of Spain in Sicily, a lay Chancellor in the Court Christian, and an Abbess over her Nuns. But you argue thus, Our Clergy promise Canonical obedience to their Bishops; 
Pag. 83.  they do not so to the King; ergo they admit a jurisdiction in Bishops of which the King is not the root.  
Answ. We grant the whole; who ever thought that his Majesty was the root of Episcopal jurisdiction, or that it was only jure Regio?  
2. The Bishop that ordains us is authorised by his Majesty to require this obedience, and therefore he is in a sense the root of it. Sect. 7  
But you proceed to some questions worthy to be stated in a Court Sermon; only the difficulty would be how to keep the Courtiers serious whilst they were examined; 
Mr. C. p. 85.  thus than you argue; Is it dishonourable either to the King or Kingdom that a purely spiritual authority should be acknowledged in him to whom,  
1. This whole Kingdom from its first conversion to Christianity;  
2. The whole Christian world submitted itself as to its supreme Pastor?  
Answ. Yes, Because the person you speak of, is some Utopian Pastor, and both these surmises are evident untruths. And is it honourable that the same authority should be granted to more than twenty of his subjects?  
Answ. Yes, because they have a right to it, 
As if the Bishops were indep. on his Majesty.  he no title but usurpation, which it would be dishonourable to permit.  
Again say you, Is it unsafe that Canonical obedience for Christian unity sake should be professed to one Prelate (to whom we own no obedience) a thousand miles off?  
Answ. Yes, because he is a thousand miles off.  
And is there no danger in making the same profession to so many at home? (who are by his Majesty over us, to whom Canonical obedience to all their lawful commands is due, who are present with us.)  
Answ. No. What follows, is a surmise that it is to be feared the Bishops may depress, when their interest leads them to it, the royal prerogatives, and I leave it to their Answer.   

CHAP. IX. Of the Infallibility of the Church.  
Mr. C's State of the question, Sect. 1. We acknowledge no 〈◊〉 written traditions as the rule of faith, Sect. 2. Why we p●efer the four first General Councils before others, Sect. 3. Reason alone our guide, Sect. 4. Scripture and the guidance of the Spirit are not excluded by this guide, ib. The fallibility of it no prejudice against its guidance, Sect. 5. We own no judge of our faith but Scripture, Sect. 6. Mr. C's. Calumny, Sect. 7. The Romanist not guided by Reason, Scripture or Antiquity, Sect. 8. No necessity of an infallible judge besides Scripture, Sect. 9 Mr. C's. Arguments for the Church's Infallibility; first, From Deut. 17.8, 9, 10. Sect. 10. His second from Christ's promise of his presence with his Disciples, considered, Sect. 11. From Christ's promise of his presence with two or three, Sect. 12. Of leading his Church into all truth, Sect. 13. That the gates of hell shall not prevail against her, Sect. 14. From his command of obeying the Church, Sect. 15 From the unity of the Church, Sect. 16. Mr. C's abuse of Mr. Chillingworth, Sect. 17. These promises not to be applied to particular Churches, Sect. 18. His Argument from St. Gregory, Constant. and the Anathemas of Councils, Sect. 9 Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Hammond plead not for such infallibility, Sect. 20. The Doctor's Argument from the prevailing of Arrianism defended, Sect. 21. From the opinion of the Millenaries, Sect. 22. From giving the Eucharist to infants, Sect. 23.  
IN his ninth Chapter concerning the Church's Infallibility, Sect. 1 he distinguisheth between the rule of faith, and the guide of it, and then tells us, that to the Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, Quakers, Socinians, etc. the only rule is the holy Scripture: But both Catholics, and English Protestants, though they acknowledge Divine Revelations to be their only rule, yet they admit certain universally received traditions, besides express Scripture. But as for the guide, from which we are to learn the true sense of this rule, he tells us That Dr. Pierce, 
Pag. 91.  and the generality of English Protestants own the primitive Church, or four first General Councils; but since their writings, are as obnoxious to disputes, as the Scriptures themselves, a speaking judge of the sense of all these, is our Ecclesiastical Synods, or Bishops when Synods are dissolved; but principally those that are to make or determine the sense of Acts of Parliament, and upon those accounts against Sectaries they use the help of Catholic weapons, the authority of the Church, etc. but against Catholics they turn fanatics, and fly to a kind of private spirit or reason, so that let them Preach as much as they will, the result of all the dispute between them and us, must come to this, whether their last speaking judge in England, or ours in the whole Catholic Church, deserves better to be believed and relied on. But it's the Roman Catholic Church alone, that is guided both by reason, God spirit, the primitive Church, and the visible Governors of the present Church: this is the sum of his seven first Paragraphs, Through which runs such a palpable vein of dissimulation and falsehood, that the most courteous charity cannot excuse it from being as wilful, as gross. For, Sect. 2  
1. You tell us, 
P. 90. s. 2.  That though we acknowledge Divine Revelations to be our only rule, yet we admit beside express Scripture, certain universal Traditions for the rule of faith; But what are these universally received traditions that we admit to be rules of faith? why did you forbear to name some of them? and yet confidently assert that we hold, what we know we do not hold? do not all English Protestants prove against you, that Scripture is the sole and adequate rule of faith? how then can they admit of any traditions as part of this rule? And though we make use of universal tradition, yet not as a rule, but as a motive or argument for our faith, as one argument that evidenceth the Scripture to be God's word, is the attestation of the Church in all ages (which upon rational grounds we embrace as creditable) to confirm and convey this to us: and this use we may make of the very testimonies of the bitterest enemies to Christianity, such as Celsus, Julian, Porphyry, etc.  
But we (say you) Receive the determinations of the Primitive Church or four first general Councils, Sect. 3 whom (if we can believe you) we constitue judges of the traditions received by us.  
Answ. We do I confess, appeal to the four first general Councils, not because we believe them infallible, but because we conceive them to agree with Scripture, which is infallible; so that we make them secondary, not primary guides; we resolve not our belief of their decrees into their authority, but into their agreement with Scripture; we do not say, we must believe this or that, because any one of the four first general Councils hath defined it, but because what the Council hath defined, is evident in Scripture, therefore do we believe it; And if we should find, that in any Article they dissented from Scripture, we should in that as much oppose them as we do you: our Appeal then to them is not as Rules, but as conformable to the Rule; and so we should to the Council of Trent itself, had it been as Orthodox as they; but I hope we should not thence make them guides, or their Decrees rules of our faith. Though (that I may not be mistaken) I allow the four first a pre-eminence above the ensuing Ecumenical Councils, (were there any such) because from their nearness to the Apostolical times, they had greater advantage of being acquainted with the Apostles minds and practices; but then the pre-eminence we grant them above others, is derived from the probability of their consonancy with that which we avow to be infallible. We appeal therefore to the four first general Councils, not because we think it absolutely necessary to conform our belief to theirs, but ex abundanti to show you, that should we appeal to the Church, as you would have us, that in the most pure and uncorrupted Ages, its belief carried an exact harmony with Ours; so that were the Church judge (as it is not) the primitive Church would stand for us; And this is all we mean in our appeal to the four first general Councils. How impertinent then is Mr. Cressys Dilemma, 
P. 1. s. 8.  that if Dr. Pierce submit to the four first general Councils, not because of their inherent authority, but because he judged their decisions conformable to Gods express word, than he deludes us, and with Presbyterians, Independents, etc. makes Scripture alone the rule of Reformation! How doth he delude you? did he ever deny this? what delusion is it to tell you that I hold what I hold? But then (you say) Dr. Pierce must make Scripture his only rule; What then? nothing but this, that Dr. Pierce affirms what he affirms, and what absurdity is that? a shrewd Dilemma that forceth Dr. Pierce to believe what he doth believe! In the next place, when you tell us, that beside reason, our Ecclesiastical Synods, Bishops or Parliamnts are admitted as guides of our faith, you do but evidence by your imputing to us what we hold not, you cannot confute what we hold. For Sect. 4  
We assert therefore that Reason alone is, and can be our guide which we demonstrate, because Reason alone is our judge in all cases; for I either have reason for my belief, (whatever it be) or I have not; if the latter, than my belief is.  
1. Irrational; for my belief must be Irrational, when I have no reason to believe; and as Irrational, so  
2. Altogether uncertain, and its object may as well be a falsehood as a truth, because if I have no reason why I believe it true, then have I no certainty, but it may be false; for the only certainty I can have that my belief is not false, is because I have rational grounds to evidence it true, which when removed, what certainty can I have that I do not err? But if the former, that is, If whatsoever I believe or assent to, I do it because my reason judgeth it a truth, than reason is my judge and guide in whatsoever I believe, which is the proposition to be proved. And this is easily confirmed and illustrated by a few particular considerations; as when the question is, Whether I am bound to embrace any religion at all? I bring my reason to judge, which after it hath examined the weight and evidence of the arguments suggested to it, and found them valid, determines and judges, that I ought to own some religion; after this, my next enquiry is, Amongst the various kinds of Religion professed in the world, which is the true one? here again having examined all their pretences, my reason judgeth which is most consonant to truth, and hereupon I close with the Christian profession, because I find their arguments most valid, and highly satisfactory to an ingenuous and unprejudiced understanding, and such as carry with them so full an evidence, as that it will make all unbelief infinitely irrational. And hitherto as reason is my only guide, so my only rule too; for I can have no other Canon whereby to guide it, but it's own acknowledged Laws and Maxims, by which I examine the verity of all other rules, and therefore can have no other rules whereby to judge, seeing they themselves are the matters judged of; and therefore when we dispute with the Romanists, whether Scripture be our sole rule whereby to determine controversies, 'tis not to be taken absolutely, as if there were no other rule, (for I can never confute a Jew from a text of the new Testament, nor an Atheist or an Infidel out of either Testaments) but limitedly, that its the sole rule whereby to determine controversies of faith, among those that profess the Christian Religion; in which sense alone it concerns their dispute, which is not with Infidels, but Christians, who have already acknowledged Scripture to be a rule of faith. But to proceed, having by embracing the Christian Religion received a new rule, the old guide may still suffice; that which could guide me into the right way, will much more guide me in it, especially when its plain and easy. But now Christianity is professed, and a new rule owned, my nex quere is, what party among the several pretenders adhere to this rule, and so with what Church I must join; here again reason must sit on the bench, and pass judgement of all the Churches in the world, which of them keep to the rule of faith, and which swerve from it. Let us then first call the Socinian Churches to the bar; here the enquiry would be, whether I may embrace any thing for Truth, though sufficiently manifested to be of Divine Revelation, if it seem to contradict or thwart my reason? hereto reason itself must be judge, and so the enquiry is, whether it be more rational to believe a Truth Divinely revealed that I cannot comprehend, or upon that account to reject it; My reason judgeth it most rational to captivate and submit itself to infinite Wisdom, and believe what it cannot comprehend; because I, and all the World beside, do acknowledge such things as transcend our comprehensions; v. g. an infinite extension of space, an eternal duration, etc. and therefore I think not their principle sufficient to explode a truth for a falsehood; beside, I know the Divine knowledge and wisdom is infinite, and so incomprehensible to any sinite and shallow intellect, and therefore that he may know and consequently reveal such matters which are too deep and too wide to be contained within the bounds of our narrow understandings; and therefore what more absurd then to measure the immensity of the Divine wisdom by the standard of our imperfect and short apprehensions? Wherefore we do not proscribe the Doctrine imputed to the Socinians, because it makes reason the Judge (as the Romanists would fain persuade us) but because it makes it the rule of Faith, and believes nothing for a truth, but what we can comprehend as to the manner of its existence, that it is; whereas nothing is more evident, then that we may be certain of the being of a thing when we understand not the manner of its being. Though I have been already too tedious in this instance, yet because I had rather offend by tediousness, or any thing, rather than disingenuity, I must venture a very short digression, to avoid dealing disingenuously with the Socinians. When then I charge this principle upon them, I have it rather from their Adversaries then from themselves; for I must profess, I could never meet with it expressly asserted in their own writings; they will not avow, that they reject manifestly revealed Truths, because they seem contradict on's; but on the contrary, that they believe not contradictions, because not manifestly revealed, and so they pretend to explode the Doctrine of the Trinity, not in the first place, because it seems a contradiction, but because they conceive it not to be clearly discovered in Scripture; and then after this, they urge against it its repugnancy to the principles and common notions of reason; and so their principle runs thus, That which is not clearly revealed in Scripture, and is contradictory to reason, is not to be believed; and if there were as much truth in the first part of their Maxim, as there is in the last, there would be one more Socinian in the world then now there is; I have stayed the longer upon this particular, because as its an irrefragable evidence of reason's sovereignty, so is it a full Answer to the Objections against it; for whereas they object, that we must captivate and submit our reasons to Faith, how then can we make them Judges of our Faith? from the the preceding instance we Reply, That we even then place reason on the Bench, when we seem to dethrone it, and at the same time make it an Umpire, when we make it a Captive: But in the last place, to come nearer our present purpose, and to show that the Romanists as well as we do at last appeal to their private reasons: If my enquiry were, Whether the Roman Church, or the reformed Churches were the true Church? here neither the Romish Church, nor ours must be judge, seeing they both pretend to it, and both are the purest to themselves: How then shall I know which is really so? only by examining both their pleas, and then that which I judge to be purest, do I adhere to. When Mr. Cressy renounced the Protestant Communion to join with the Roman Church, he either did it upon motives of reason, or not; if not, it was a brutish, unreasonable act; but if he did, then did he enter into the Roman Communion, because his own reason judged it to be the purest Church; and when he believes his Church infallible, he either hath reason for his belief, or he hath not; if he hath not, then again is his belief irrational, uncertain, and absurd; if he hath, than he believes his Church infallible, because his reason judgeth it to be so, and so the Church is beholden to the judgement of his private reason for his belief of her infallibility. And hath not Mr. C. given us his reasons (such as they are) why he judgeth and believeth the Church infallible? to what purpose if reason be so unfit a Judge? and let him do what violence he can to his rational faculties, unless he become a mere brute, his own private reason will rule him, and in spite of Pope or Council keep the Chair. And I dare challenge all the Romanists in the World to demonstrate, that unless every man's reason be his guide, he must follow chance and uncertainty. Before I pass hence (to avoid captious mistakes) be pleased to note, that when I make every man's reason his guide, I do not exclude the guidance of the Divine Spirit, but rather imply it; because that doth not move us by irrational and violent impulses, but by discovering to our reasons a fuller evidence or farther connexion of truths, then without its illumination we could have discerned, and so forceth our assents by a stronger conviction of our reasons, which is the Criterion whereby we difference the impressions of the Divine Spirit from delusory and false inspirations; in that these black vapours darken and blast our reasons, and act us by illiterate and brutish phantasms, whilst the Spirit of God clarifies our understandings and leads us by the rules of reason and sobriety. And therefore our Enthusiastical Sectaries, are in part Romish Proselytes; for their folly is the same, though not in the same instance, viz. of quitting the surer conduct of their reasons, to entrust themselves to more uncertain guides, and such as they cannot know (unless from their reasons, which they dare not trust) but may be mere delusions and impostures.  
Now the only exception, Sect. 5 which Mr. C. following his predecessors, urgeth against this Supreme Authority of reason, is, that its fallible, and so may deceive and misguide us. But,  
1. If this impeachment be valid, then let's renounce our reasons, and with one consent turn Sceptics; how shall I be assured that twice two make four; that the whole is more than a part; that the same thing cannot at the same time exist and not exist? I must not trust the judgement of my reason, for that may deceive, saith Mr. Cressey; what then must I confide in? must I appeal to a General Council, whether two and two make four?  
2. Can you bring me to a surer guide than reason? Yes, you will answer, to the Church; but if my reason being fallible may misguide me, why may it not; when it conducts me to the Church; especially when yourselves profess to believe the Church's infallibility upon prudential motives, if I may not trust my reason, why should I trust it here? Again, if my confidence in the Church's infallibility be built upon my reason, and I have no certainty of it but from my reason, then cannot I have more assurance in the Church's guidance, then in the conduct of my reason; for the superstructure cannot be stronger than the foundation; if then my reason be too weak to trust to, much more that which is built upon it.  
3. What's your meaning, when you object, that reason is fallible? is it this, that its possible we may be deceived by it? but then, 1. Is it not possible the Church may deceive us too? 2. As long as we follow reasons true rules, its impossible to err, because they are certain and infallibly true. But if men will abuse their reasons and bend them to their interests, they may so, and so they may the Church's Authority; and may not the Church abuse her Authority? will Christ violently force her into truth? Give us a guide that cannot be abused by wicked and unreasonable men, or else upon that account reject not this. Divine Revelations are abused by some to undermine our Faith; shall they therefore not be allowed to be foundations of it? The question is, What is the surest guide of our Faith? we say pure and unprejudiced reason, and that if we will follow its dictates, we are in the safest way to happiness; and though then we may err about some lesser truths, because not perspicuous, yet not about any thing that's a necessary Article of Faith. But if men will not follow their own guides, but force them into by-paths, and follow the blind guides of interest, prejudice, or passion, than they may perish, not because they follow their free reasons, but because they either stifle, or violently divert them.  
4. I would beseech Mr. C. and his brethren, to beware of strengthening the hands of Atheists and Sceptics, whilst they endeavour to weaken ours; for beside the damages they bring to all. Religion, it's no small one they bring to their own; for hereby they show, that upon the same grounds that a man is a Papist, he may be an Atheist too, and that they cannot build their own Religion but upon the ruins of all Religion. For let me ask, will not his exception become an Atheists mouth, and be more serviceable to his cause then to Mr. Cressey's? What if he should ask, Why do you embrace any Religion? give what account you can, he will inquire what Warrant you have, that you are not deceived? what assurance can we give him, if we dare not credit our own saculties? and how Mr. C. who will not allow us to trust our own reason, will answer him, I understand not. But I am certain, let him reply what he will, the doubt will still return upon him; for if he take refuge at the Church, the quere will be, how he is certain that the Church doth not deceive him? And imagine he could return an Answer, yet unless he at last appeal to his reason, it will serve only to give occasion to a new question. But though Mr. C. by his principles cannot answer a Sceptic, yet by ours we may satisfactorily answer him; for I know, that if my faculties are right, and the common notions of humane reason are true, that I err not, and I will never desire greater assurance, that I am in the right, then that my faculties are so; and if the Sceptic will rather reject all certainty, then acknowledge his faculties to be true, his fancy is so odd, that upon the same score he may cast himself from a precipice, because its possible he might only dream that he was there.  
But let us talk what we will of reason, Sect. 6 yet we have (as Mr. C. 
Mr. C. s. 4.  would persuade us) our last speaking Judge as well as they, viz. Our Ecclesiastical Synods, or Bishops, or Parliaments; so that the result of all dispute must come to this, whether the last speaking Judge in England, or that in the whole Catholic Church, deserves better to be believed and relied on? To this,  
1. Have not you yourself expressly set down the difference of Protestant obedience from that of Papists unto the judgement of the Church? whose words are these, which we find in the thirteenth phragraph of this Chapter: The Universal Church representative has an influence over the souls of men, requiring much more than an external submission, which yet is all that Protestants will allow to the most authentic General Councils. Now what a vast difference is there between giving external submission as we do, and internal assent to the truth of their decrees as you do?  
2. What Protestant ever asserted (what your Church challengeth) that our Convocations, Bishops, or Parliaments are Judges of our Faith? or when did they themselves require that upon pain of damnation we should take up our faith upon their Authority? nay when did they challenge any power over our minds and consciences? do not our Divines affirm, that our internal actions fall not under the verge or cognisance of any external power whatsoever, whether Ecclesiastical or Temporal? do we not teach, that the end of the Government in the Church is to preserve its peace and unity? and that whatsoever disturbs not them, falls not under the Church's cognizance? and that therefore our Church doth not condemn or punish so all difference from her in opinion, but for divulging these differing opinions, which creates Schisms and Factions in the Church? whom did our Convocations ever damn for not internally receiving their Decrees? do they not leave every man to the liberty of his judgement? and only challenge the Authority of it (which all men resign up to the Governors of those Socieries, of which they are members) they do not require that we should in all things believe as they believe, but that we should submit to their determinations, and not contradict them; their decisions are not obtruded as infallible Oracles, but only submitted to in order to peace and unity (which we esteem to be of an infinitely greater value than the propagation of any little truth) So that their work is rather to silence then determine disputes, or if they do positively determine, they either do not then require that all should positively believe their determinations, but expect that all should so far acquiese therein, as not to proceed in opposing them, and so make Schisms and divisions incurable; or if they do require a positive assent, it's not upon pretence of any infallibility, as your Church doth, but because the thing determined is so evident in Scripture, as that all denying of it, must be wilful. v. g. They do not require us to believe there is but one God upon their Authority, but because it's expressly asserted in Scripture; but in matters which Scripture hath left doubtful, our Church permits her members every one to abound in his own sense, because she knows no way to determine them but by Scripture, and therefore Scripture not having clearly revealed them, she dares not be so arrogant, as positively to determine them. What impudence then is it to charge us as if we had changed the Pope for my Lord of Canterbury? and a General Council for a National Convocation? and the Conclave of Rome for a Parliament at London? giving that very Authority to the Church of England, that we take from the Church of Rome, when the difference is so infinitely great, between the Authority which you give to your Church, and we give to ours?  
Whereas Mr. C. Sect. 7 tells us that we fight against Sectaries with the weapons of the Romanists, and against Romanists turn Sectaries, etc. it's a most pitiful and false exception; for we accuse not Sectaries for not believing our Church, as the Romanists accuse us for not believing theirs, but for not obeying her in things lawful, and separating from her unnecessarily. Who ever urged them to believe as the Church believes? or who damns them for not doing it? there are many Topics used to convince their private reasons (the use of which we allow them) but the Churches infallible Authority is none of them. Now is it all one to say you must believe this, because the Church which is infallible asserts it, as you to us? and, you must do this because the Church hath enjoined it, and therefore not being unlawful, ought for peace sake to be submitted to, as we to them? keep your weapons to yourselves, we can fight and conquer without them.  
In the next place, Sect. 8 when he declares that the Papists are ruled and guided by Scripture and Reason, 
Mr. C. s. 6.  and the primitive Church, this is but a specious pretence to varnish over their Church's usurpations; when they have placed all these with their own Church upon the bench, they signify no more there then do the Russian Emperors poor Senators at the solemn audience of foreign Ambassadors, that sit only to make a show. The same mockery do the Pontificians put upon Scripture and Reason, etc. when they give them the name and title of judges, and yet deny them the office of judges, and this they do when they make their own Decrees our ultimate and supreme rule and guide; for if Scripturr must bend to their Decrees, and not their decrees to Scripture, and if we must have no sense of Scripture but what they think fit, than their Decrees and not Scripture must be our last rule; for that is the rule to which other things are reduced; if therefore from their Decrees we must receive the sense of Scripture, which is Scripture itself, then are they the supreme standard and rule of faith, and the sole judges of it; As a judge if he have an unlimited power of interpreting the laws, would be both judge and law too. Thus when the Norman Conqueror promised the English, that he would govern them by their own Laws, yet if he did (as some say he did) take an absolute power of interpreting them, and allow them to say only what he pleased, could he be thought to satisfy his promise? might not all exclaim that his own will and tyranny, and not the laws ruled them, because he ruled them after the same manner as he would, if there had been no such laws, and so the laws were made useless, as if they had never been laws? Thus the Romanists may tell us, that they acknowledge Scripture to be in part our rule▪ yet if their Church must have an unlimited power to interpret it, and put what sense upon it they please, and that we must upon peril of Damnation receive their sense, howsoever it seem to us absurd and contradictory to the Scripture itself, they need no more to shut out Scripture, and to make themselves both sole Lords and rules of our faith; it's nothing for them to comply with Scripture, when they have forced that to comply with them. After the same manner Councils and Fathers, and all their venerable Antiquity (which they pretend so much to reverence) must truckle to their present Church; for they will allow us to receive them no further than they agree with their own Decrees, seeing we must fetch the sense of their writings from their Decrees; so that Scriptures, Fathers, Councils, and all must bend to their wills, and can give no other judgement than the Church of Rome will permit, if we must (as they contend that we ought) receive their judgement from the judgement of the Church of Rome. 'tis a pretty device first to rule the rule, and then to be ruled by it. When therefore they talk of other guides and rules beside their own pride and tyranny, their hypocrisy is so transparent through all its disguises, that we cannot but discern it, unless we were as blind as they would have us; and lastly as for our private reasons, Mr. C. will call them guides too; strange he dare trust himself with a guide so fallacious! but to avoid the danger of that, it must with humility follow the Church; a strange guide that must be tamely guided and led in a string by another! if the Church can command our reasons, then must they necessarily cease to be guides, and blindly follow her whithersoever she leads. I wish they would make their Church but such a guide, and then we should soon agree in this point. If then to exclude reason from guiding us be to become beasts (as Mr. C. teacheth us in the fifth Paragraph of this Chapter:) then what must all Romanists be? for nothing is more plain, then that what is wholly guided by another, is not itself a guide; otherwise every thing that is guided might be called a guide; therefore if your reasons must follow the guidance of your Church, they cannot be your guides, and then in your own opinions what difference between a Catholic and his Ass?  
Now at length having made my way through this black Regiment of falsehoods, Sect. 9 I may combat his great arguments (so carefully guarded with so long a train of fictions) for his Church's infallibility and our meek submission to it; but before I cope with them singly, it's not impertinent to undermine an Hypothesis, on which they seem partly to stand, which stratagem might do me some service, did I want it, that is, if his arguments were as strong as they are weak, and that is this; He through the whole Chapter slily supposes, and sometimes asserts, a necessity of an infallible judge, as if without such a one the way to salvation were uncertain, and controversies endless.  
1. But he should first prove, that God hath appointed an infallible judge, and therefore its necessary there should be one, and not conclude that he hath appointed one, because he conceives a necessity of it. I could name an hundred privileges, that Mr. C. could conceive to be highly beneficial to the Church, which yet God never granted to it; and if we may deduce infallibility from the necessity or conveniency of it to secure us in our way to Heaven, and decide our controversies, then why may we not conclude, that some body else beside your Pope and Council is infallible? Is it not more conducive to these ends, that every Bishop should be infallible? more still, that every Preacher? and more yet, that every individual Christian? would not these infallibly secure them from all danger of erring? Might not God send some infallible interpreter from heaven, to expound all obscure and doubtful places of Scripture? might not the Apostles have left us such a Commentary? might not God (if he had pleased) have spoken so perspicuously in Scripture, that there should be no need of an infallible interpreter to make it plainer? but if from the advantage and use of these dispensations we should infer their actual existence, the conclusion would confute the Premises.  
2. The plea for an infallible guide, to secure us from wand'ring out of the way to heaven, is invalidated by the plainness and easiness of the way, which we cannot miss unless we will; so that he who will keep his eyes open, is in no more danger of losing his way, then in the walks of his own garden; for we know the conditions which God hath made necessary to salvation are clear and easy, unless God should bind us upon pain of damnation fully to know and believe Articles obscure and ambiguous, and so damn men for not believing that the truth whereof they could not discover, which is highly repugnant both to his revealed goodness and justice. We therefore distinguish between points fundamental and not sundamental, those being clearly revealed, and so of a necessary belief; to determine their sense, there is no more need of a judge, then for any other perspicious truth. What need of a judge to decide whether Scripture affirms that there is but one God? that this God cannot lie? that Jesus Christ was sent by his commission into the world? that he was crucified and risen again? that without faith and obedience we cannot come to heaven? these, and such like, are the truths we entitle Fundamental; and if the sense of these need an infallible judge, then let's bring Euclids Elements to the bar, and call for a judge to decide whether twice two make four. Then for points not fundamental, their belief being not absolutely necessary to salvation, we may err about them, and not err damnably, and so this plea for an infallible judge is wholly evacuated. And with no more difficulty may we baffle the other, taken from its necessity to determine controversies; for if any man oppose fundamental doctrines, or any other evident truths, our Church can censure him, without pretending to be infallible; what need of an infallible judge to convict him of heresy, that shall deny the resurrection of the dead? (which yet some of your own Popes have not believed, if some of your own Historians may be believed) Then for Doctrines not fundamental, being not clearly revealed, our Church doth not take upon her to determine these, but if any disputes arise about such points, it's her work to silence and suppress them, and when she gives her judgement of that side she thinks most probable, though she doth not expect that all her children should be so wise as to be of her opinion, yet she expects they should be so modest, as not to contradict her, which is as effectually available to end controversies as is your pretended infallibility.  
Now my next work must be to consider his arguments for their Church's infallibility, and our submission to it, Sect. 10 where I cannot but request the Reader seriously to consider, upon what little arguings, what pitiful sophisms, what strawy pillars stands not only the great and magnificent fabric of the Papal Infallibility and Authority, but also their whole faith, religion, and eternal salvation; seeing they make them all to stand upon the same foundations, on which stands their Church's Infallibility, so that when their weakness is discovered, all must unavoidably fall. To proceed then;  
His argument why we must stand to the Church's decisions, under pain of damnation, is, because in Deut. 17.8, 9, 10. God commanded the Israelites in all quarrels to Appeal to the Priests and Levites and stand to their sentence, and enacted that the man who would do presumptuously, and would not hearken to the Priest, should be put to death.  
To pass by many other exceptions that might be made against this Argument, only take notice,  
1. That this Appeal was from the lesser Consistories to the great Sanhedrin, only in civil and private quarrels, as is evident by the eighth verse, If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement between blood and blood, between plea and plea, between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy, within thy gates, etc. Now because these words so plainly import private injuries and Law suits, Mr. C. jumps from them and citys 2 Chron. 19.8. where this is not so plain, though plain enough too. Now what to his purpose can follow hence, unless he will make out this consequence, We must submit to the decisions of the Magistrate in all our contests and brawls, and therefore we must assent to all the determinations of the Church as true and infallible! But these proportions are at such a wide distance from each other, that I doubt he will never be able to fit himself with a medius terminus large enough to couple them together.  
2. What more can be deduced hence, then that we are bound to submit to the sentence of superiors? and this what Protestant denies? do not we plead for it as well as you? but what like an Inference can be drawn from this, for an internal submission of judgement? Nothing at all, till he can make good, that we cannot submit to the sentence of our judges, unless we believe them just and true. An assertion ridiculously false. But  
3. You tell us, that in this obedience was employed an assent or submission of judgement; but how Sir will you prove this? I dare not take your bare word for it, notwithstanding your solemn protestation at the beginning of your book. Sect. 8 And then a little after you affirm that its possible those very judges might give a wrong sentence. If so, then was it possible for God upon pain of death to require us to believe a falsehood; for it was possible (you say) they should give wrong sentence, and yet you will have them upon pain of death to believe it right. But  
4. You tell us, that this assent and submission of judgement must be given; otherwise the obedience would be against conscience, in case the party continued in a contrary opinion of the sense of the Law. But we can not submit to the judges sentence without hypocrisy, unless we assent to its equity? suppose they should mistake (as you say they might) the innocent for the injurious, must the party think himself a knave because they think so, like the poor fellow that though he saw the Priest lie with his wife, yet did penance for saying so, and was forced to say, Tongue thou liest. This is such an assertion, that I believe never yet any Casuist dreamt of. When we appeal to judges, our meaning is not we will think as they think, but we will submissively acquiesce as they shall determine. Again, 'tis still more strange, that when false judgement is given, the contending party must either believe a lie, or must confront his conscience in not believing it; for if he assents not to the equity of the decisions, he goes (say you) against his Conscience; and if he doth, he must believe against the truth, when he believes that to be the sense of the law which is not.  
Arg. 1. Sect. 11 Next follow his arguments for his Church's infallibility; The first runs thus: Our Saviour hath promised his Apostles, that he would be present with them always to the end of the world: therefore since not any of them outlived that age, this infallible promise must be made good to their successors.  
Answ. 1. I might perhaps tell you, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we translate the end of the world, refers to the end of the Jewish state, and so signifies only the end of that age; as frequently in scripture this very phrase signifies only some great period of time; Now if this sense be taken, as no reason but it may, than did this promise die with the Apostles, and so could not be entailed on their successors. But because I will not be too rigid with him, it shall be The end of the world.  
2. Mr. C. from this and the other ensuing arguments, endeavours to evince the Infallibility of the Roman Church, which by reason of their impertinence the Reader may have need to be minded of it, and then its pleasant to behold the wide Chasm between his premises and conclusions, and the large leaps he is forced to make from them to these. Christ hath promised to be with his Apostles to the end of the world, ergo the Roman Church is infallible. Well leapt! Is it possble you should erect your infallibility upon such a foundation, were you not first resolved to be infallible, and then catch at any thing to prove it? For here is not one syllable of infallibility, and then why may not any other privilege be promised here as well as that? I will be with you to the end of the world, that is, say you, I will secure you from all error; and why not as well, I will exempt you from all sin, or from all persecutions? are not these as express in the promise as infallibility? and yet no body was ever yet so foolish as to argue hence that the Church is free from all sin, and not liable to any persecutions. Again could not Christ be with them, unless he endowed them with infallibility? Is there no other way for him to be with his servants, unless by inspiring them with that? Is not his spirit with every particular believer as well as with the Church! and must all Christians be therefore infallible? If, in a word, wherever Christ is present by his spirit, there is no error, then is every individual Christian infallible, and then what need of any other infallible guide? but if where Christ is present by his spirit, there may be error, then how gross is the inference, that because Christ hath promised to be with his Church by his spirit, that therefore he exempts it from all error?  
3. This argument fights alike for every cause, and may be listed for the service of all pretenders. What if the Church of England should arrogate infallibility? would it not serve our turns as much as yours? What if the Greek Church should urge it for themselves, how would you answer them? Is not this consequence, Christ hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world, ergo The Greek Church is infallible, as good as yours? that because our Saviour hath made such a promise, ergo the Roman Church is infallible? What disparity can you give, unless you first suppose what's to be proved! And then what answer you would give to them, the same give to yourselves.  
Arg. Sect. 12 2. His second Argument runs thus. Christ hath promised, that when two or three of them meet together in his name, he will be in the midst of them; surely to direct them; therefore much more when the whole Church is representatively assembled about his business only.  
Ans. This Argument is far more frivolous (if that can be) than the former. Is Infallibility promised here, or is it not? if not, than this Text is nothing to the purpose; if it be, than 1. Wherever two or three Christians meet together in Christ's Name they are infallible, and then what need of General Councils, seeing two or three honest men can as infallibly decide all controversies? Mr. C. must own this inference, if his own is good; seeing therefore this is false, his can not be true. 2. Doth not this Argument furnish every Conventicle with a pretence to infallibility as much as your Church? Doth it not as much justify all the Doctrines vented at the Bull and Mouth, as the Canons of the Trent Council? Suppose a Quaker there should urge this Argument for the truth of all their Doctrines, how would you Answer him? fancy what Reply you please, and that's the very same we give you. How strange is it that ever men should damn one another for not believing the validity of such ridiculously absurd deductions!  
Ar. 3. Sect. 13 He hath promised that he will lead his Church into all truth, at least all that is necessary or but expedient for them to know.  
Answ. Now he seems to misgive, and a little to mince the matter: that the Church shall be led into all necessary truths we assert; what need of his running to that? either he would here prove the Church infallible in all things, or not; if the latter, than he either gives up the cause, or beats beside the Question; but if the former, then let him speak out, and let us see how sound his proof is. Where then hath Christ promised to lead his Church into all truth? he knows there is no such promise in all the Bible, and therefore sets down no particular Text, as he is wont to do in his other proofs. Such a promise indeed Christ made to his Apostles, That he would send them his Spirit, that should guide them into all truth, 
Joh. 16.13.  and show them things to come, which we find fulfilled, Act. 2. But how can we prove that this promise appertains to any besides the Apostles? or if to any, why to the Roman Church more than to the Greeks, the Abassines, the Georgians, & c? Sure that Argument can not be faithful to you, that is as strong for your adversaries as for yourselves. Ob. But you are the Successors of the Apostles and not they; A. But the mischief of it is, that this is the very thing to be proved. Beside Christ here promiseth the power of Prophesying; but I hope the Church of Rome doth not undertake to foretell-things future (and though she did, the event would soon confute her infallibility) and therefore this promise belongs not to her. It's a pretty inference, that because the Apostles were infallible, that therefore the Churches in all ages must be so; But prettier still, that therefore the Roman Church particularly must be so.  
Ar. Sect. 14 4. He hath promised, that against his Church built upon St. Peter, the gates of hell (that is Heresy, say the Fathers) shall not prevail; therefore it shall be infallibly free from Heresy.  
Answ. As if he were not absurd enough in his former arguings, he must now be impertinent too; what is it to the purpose to prove that God will preserve his Church from being overcome with Heresies? which we grant; his task (if to the purpose) is to prove, That God will preserve his Church from all manner of erring. But what if Heresy shall not prevail against the true Church? doth it follow that it shall not prevail against any particular Church? the Greek Church was once a true Church in your esteem, but now you say 'tis poisoned and destroyed by Heresy. If then this promise was made to no particular Church, why must it be so applied to your own particular Church? Before you use this Argument to any purpose, first prove yours to be the Universal Church; but of this you presume; it's a sad symptom of the weakness of your cause, when you build it upon begged and ungranted presumptions, and still suppose your most difficult and material dispute to be granted.  
Ar. 5. He hath commanded, that whoever shall not obey his Church, Sect. 15 shall be (cut off from his body) as an Heathen and a Publican; therefore Anathemas pronounced by his Church are valid. Our Lord indeed speaks of decisions made by a particular Church in quarrels among Brethren; therefore if disobedience to such decisions be so grievously punished, what punishment may we suppose attends such as are disobedient to the decisions of the Universal Church, (called by the Apostles the pillar and ground of truth) made for the composing of public debates about the common faith?  
Answ. 1. Because his very objection hath furnished us with a superfluity of Answers, it will be superfluous to Criticise in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by not applying it to any established Christian Government, when it may be, and by many Interpreters is referred to the College or Assembly of the Elders among the Jews; by others, to any multitude by agreement convened, as Justin Martyr Paraphraseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so may be equivalent with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Tim. 5.20. and then what's all this to the Church's Authority? but let this go.  
2. What's this to Infallibility? will he infer that particular Churches are infallible, because their Decisions must be submitted to? if he will, than he proves what himself will deny, and constitutes us infallible Judges at home, without recourse to Ecumenical Councils; but if he doth not, then how enormous is his deduction? because the Decisions of particular Churches, which are granted to be fallible, must be obeyed, therefore the Church of Rome is infallible.  
3. Our Saviour enjoined them obedience to the commands of the Scribes and Pharisees, are they infallible too? children are commanded, Prov. 6. to be subject to their Parents in all things, are all Fathers too therefore infallible? we must obey the commands of Kings and Princes, cannot they err neither? and is not the inference as concluding, We are bound to obey Parents and Governors, ergo they are infallible; as because we are bound to obey the Church, therefore that is infallible?  
4. The judgement of the Church that must here be submitted to, is about quarrels and injuries among Brethren; but doth it follow, that because the Church may be Judge of our quarrels, that it may be Judge of our faith too? if it do, we will have all decided by our Judges of Assize, without going to Rome: its time now you should have learned the difference of submitting to the determinations of Judges in matters of right between man and man, from assenting to their decrees in matters of faith between God and man.  
5. The Greek Church saith, she is the true Church and you are Heretics; but to yourselves you are the true Church, and she is Heretical. How shall I know to which of your Churches this Text directs me? why is it not as cogent to drive me to them as to you? if they tell me (as you do) that unless I obey the Church that is their Church, I cease to be a Christian; how shall I answer them? if you can teach me, you will but teach me how to answer you.  
Ar. Sect. 16 6. The belief of the Church's unity is an unchangeable Article of our Creed, therefore certainly the only effectual mean to preserve unity (which is an unappealable and infallible Authority) shall never be wanting in the Church.  
A. Not to repeat that we have as sovereign a remedy to preserve unity, without an infallible Authority, as you have with it: We believe the Church's unity, yet believe too that this is only an unity of faith, and an agreement in the essentials of Religion; we are all but one in Christianity, and so one Church. But should we believe such an unity in the Church as that it should have no diversity of opinions, (as you would persuade us) we must believe against experience; for unless we will unchurch all parties but our own, (which would be a most uncharitable presumption) we must acknowledge a diversity of opinions in the true Church, and so not make unity of judgement in the Church an Article of faith. And if there were no Church without it, than yourselves must be unchurched, seeing you cannot deny, but that there be variety of differing opinions among yourselves, even about the very means to preserve unity. Urge us not then with this Argument any more, till you can prove, that we believe any other unity in the Church, beside an unity and agreement in the Christian faith, and that you are any more than so one among yourselves. Now let all that's rational judge, whether we have reason to believe your Commission Divine, when you can exhibit no better Credentials for it, than these which we have so clearly evinced to be mere blanks, and so yourselves, who pretend from their validity to be esteemed as infallible Commissaries authorised from Heaven, to be most notorious cheats and impostors.  
By these Answers, Sect. 17 to which it were easy to add hundreds more, I hope 'tis clear, that we are able to evacuate all pretences for their Church's infallibility, 
Mr. C. p. 101.  without flying to that miserable shift, which you most disingenuously fasten on Mr. Chillingworth; viz. That all these promises are only conditional, and depending on the piety of Church Governors: I say disingenuously. For,  
1. Why did you not refer us to the page in Mr. 
Part 1. c 2. p. 86.  Chillingworth? only that your abuse of that worthy person might escape unknown. For,  
2. Mr. Chillingworths' Answer is, that suppose, God had promised to assist the Roman Church for the delivery of true Scripture, would it follow thence, that he had obliged himself to teach them this true sense of Scripture, not only sufficiently but irresistibly? he gave the children of Israel a fire to lead them by night, and a pillar of cloud by day, but he constrained no man to follow them; what than if your Church will not follow God's guidance, is he not free from his promise, and yet you in an error too? do not call this a shift, but show that it is so.  
3. That you may see Mr. Chillingworth could answer you without this shift, read, and confute if you can the next immediately ensuing words. What an impudence is it to pretend that your Church is infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of the Scripture, whereas there are a thousand places of Scripture, which you do not pretend certainly to understand, and about the interpretation whereof your own Doctors differ among themselves? If your Church be infallibly directed concerning the 〈◊〉 meaning of Scripture, why do not your Doctors follow her infallible direction? and if they do, how comes such difference among them in their interpretations? Again, why does your Church thus put her candle unde a Bushel, and keep her talon of interpreting Scripture infallibly thus long wrapped up in Napkins? why sets she not forth infallible Commentaries upon all the Bible? is it because this would not be profitable to Christians, that Scripture should be interpreted? 'tis blasphemy to say so; the Scripture itself tells us, all Scripture is profitable, and the Scripture is not so much the words, as the sense thereof; and if it be not profitable, why doth she employ her Doctors to interpret Scripture fallibly? unless we must think that fallible interpretations of Scripture are profitable, but infallible interpretations would not be so: How durst you upbraid this worthy and victorious Champion, as if he had no other shield wherewith to defend himself, when this Argument is so full and cogent?  
Well then, the sense of these promises (The gates of hell shall not prevail against you, I will be with you to the World's end) is only this, That God will so order it in his Providence, as that his Church shall still continue upon the face of the earth, maugre all the malicious designs of men and devils to overthrow, and quite extinguish her; And so your other quarrel with our Protestant Writers is a mere impertinence, albeit we meet with it once and again in your Treatise of Schism, where we will throw away some time in confuting of it, seeing you are not pleased to afford us any better employment.  
In your next Paragraph, Sect. 18 you thus dispute: Seeing these promises, 
P. 102.  (viz. which concern the Church essential, or diffused) are Yea and Amen, the Doctor must apply them to his English Protestant Church, since he will not allow them to the Catholic (i. e. Roman) for to some Church they must be applied.  
Answ. 1. As if there were no Church besides the Roman and the English Church in Christendom: had the Church of Sardis thus argued for these Promises, against the Church of Thyatira, or others now overrun with Mahumetism, would not the event have showed the fallacy?  
2. The Doctor allows them to the Catholic in the sense we speak of, viz. That however she may be distressed, and brought low, and seem to be disserted, yet shall she continue and persevere to the world's end; but doth it follow, that because he allows it to the Catholic, he must do it to the Roman (or any other particular Church) which is but at best an infected member of the whole?  
3. We will be so liberal, as to grant you a right in them, but your absurd interpretations of them, and absurd deductions from them we deny; you must first prove that any of them promise infallibility, before you conclude a necessity from them, that some Church must be infallible.  
And to what purpose do you annex a sentence of St. Sect. 19 Gregory's, and another of Constantine's in defence of the four first General Councils? If (say you) the Doctor applies these promises to his own, and not to the Catholic Church, then doth he condemn St. Gregory that professed he venerated the four first General Councils (ergo the Roman Church against which the Doctor disputes) as the four Gospels; but the Doctor doth allow them to the Catholic, and so no fear of quarrelling with St. Gregory in their own account; yea he will not fear to grant with the Reverend Archbishop, that they are de post facto (that is being received by the Universal Church diffused) infallible, as to the matters of faith determined by them; and yet this sequel seems somewhat harsh, I venerate the four first General Councils as the four Gospels; ergo the promises cited by Mr. C. belong to the (Roman) Catholic Church in all ages; an inference so entirely absurd, and weak, that 'tis a shame to insult over it; nor will the profession of Constantine any thing avail to prove the infallibility of the Roman Church, but at the most of a General Council only; albeit I cannot see but that it may fairly admit of another sense; for speaking of the Paschal Feast, which the Council had decreed should be kept unanimously, he calls it a Divine command, and gives this reason, because whatever is decreed in the Councils of Bishops, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hath respect to the Divine Will, they meddling not with humane affairs, but Divine only; and yet we add, that if it were true, which Constantine is deemed by him to say, it would little avail him, since none of our controversies have been determined by a General Council against us; albeit for a close, we dare not Idolise the holy Emperor so much as to think his verdict infallible.  
But when you talk of condemning all the Councils Ecumenical of God's Church, and our Acts of Parliament, viz. by denying your Church to be infallible (for that is the dispute) you talk at random, and your reason, (because the Fathers in these Councils pronounced anathemas against those who would not believe their decisions) is as weak, as it is old; for we have often returned unto you, that these anathemas are no good Arguments, that the propounders of them conceive themselves infallible, but only that they conceive the Doctrines they condemn evidently damnable, or at least contrary to Scripture and right reason, and so proscribe them with a rational and humane certainty, (the same we have in our Courts of Judicature, on which men's lives and estates wholly depend, and yet are neither the Juries verdict, nor the Judge's sentence infallible) as is evident from this, that particular Councils, nay particular Fathers have been very prodigal of their anathemas, which yet were never conceived infallible, 
Not words but things are the objects of our faith; therefore the introducing new words is no making of new Articles; but if you will assert that under those new expressions were couched new Articles too, upon this supposition it would be no ill manners to reprove their presumption.  either by others or themselves; and thence it is apparent, that we are not presently to yield up our assent to proposals, because attended with these anathemas, seeing by so doing we may assent to an untruth, and be obliged to believe the contrary to what Scripture hath revealed: nor can I imagine, to what end you should inform us of new expressions in these General Councils, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (wherein you are mistaken) and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, will this prove the Roman Church, yea will it prove a Council to be infallible? this sure is an easy way to become infallible: would you thence conclude their Authority to broach new Doctrines? then must not Christ be thought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor his Sacred Mother 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, before the Nicene Council thus decreed, and what else you could design, I am not able to imagine.  
And have you not a good stock of confidence, Sect. 20 who after one impertinent citation of a Pope, one baffled Sophism, and one doubtful sentence of an Emperor, can challenge the consent of all antiquity? whereas the suffrage of antiquity is evidently on our side, who hold the Oracles of God to be the only infallible rule, and guide, whereby we are to judge of Doctrines, as you may see evinced, as elsewhere, so copiously in Mr. baxter's Safe Religion, from p. 299, to 372. but especially from p. 357, to the end.  
Lastly, How vainly do you call in the suffrage of the Reverend Bishop Bramhall, and Dr. Ham. to conclude this infallibility, because forsooth they promise to submit to a lawful General Council; seeing they also promise, and so doth every regular son of the Church of England, to submit to the determinatious of the Church of England, and acquiesce in them, without the least manner of opposition, and yet never dreamt of any infallibility residing in them! Yea,  
2. The places cited, speak only of a General Council, which finds an approbation and reception among all the Bishops and Doctors of the Church diffused. 
See Dr. H. Her. s. 13. nu. 2. s. 9 nu. 1.   
3. Can they be esteemed to have said so much of the Roman Church, (whose infallibility the Doctor questioned) and yet write so resolutely and convincingly as they have done, against her tyranny and superstitions?  
To the objection taken from that almost General Apostasy in the times of the Emperor Constantius, Sect. 21 when Arrianism commenced Orthodox, and Apostolical truth became the only Heresy: He tells us, 1. 
Mr. C. p. 105.  That the Catholic Bishops were indeed persecuted and many banished, but not one of them changed the profession of the Nicene Faith, unless you will accuse Pope Liberius, who for a while dissembled, and then repent.  
Answ. Can this be affirmed with any truth, when as that saying was almost Proverbial, Athanasius opposed the world, and the world Athanasius: 
Theod. His. l 2.  when Liberius having the contemptible paucity of his adherents objected to him, Answered, There was a time when but three opposed the decree of the King, and yet those three were in the right, and the rest in the wrong. 
Ep. 48 ad Vincentium.  When the Professors of error (as St. Austin confesseth) surpassed the number of the Professors of truth in proportion, as the sands of the Sea do the Stars of Heaven. When the Author of Nazianzens' life testifies, That the Heresy of Arius had possessed in a manner the whole extent of the world: 
I● vita Naz. I● Orat. con. Artan. & p●o●se ipso.  Yea and Nazianzene himself cries out, Where are they that reproach us with our poverty, who define the Church by her multitude, and despise the little flock! they have the people, but we the faith. Yea last, When Athanasius was so overborne with floods of Arians, as that he was forced to write a Treatise on purpose against those who judge of the truth only by plurality of adherents. 
Her c. 6.  Did you never read Vincentius Lirin. complaining that Arianorum venenum non jam portiunculam quandam, sed paene totum orbem contaminaverat, adeò ut prope cunctis Latini nominis Episcopis, partim vi, partim fraude dece tis, calgio quaedam mentibus effunderetur? 
Or●t in Athanas.  Nor that of Nazian. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except a very few, which either because of their virtue resisted, or by reason of their obscurity were contemned, all obeyed the times, (i. e. became Arrians) differing only in this, that some did it earlier, some later, some were ringleaders in that impiety (of Arianism) some were in the second place, either by fear or gain, flattery or ignorance, circumvented and drawn in; which ignorance will not (saith he) excuse them, it being shameful for a Bishop to be ignorant of the principles of Faith. Nor that of Basil, We may now say, that we have neither Princeps, 
Basil. ep 71.  Propheta, nor Praeses left us; in so much that he cries out, Hath the Lord quite deserted his Churches? is it the last hour? doth the defection now take place, by which the son of perdition is to be revealed? but if all these must be overlooked, must you needs contradict St. Jerome whilst you had him before your eyes, telling you that, tunc ousiae nomen abolitum est, tunc Nicenae fidei damnatio conclamata est, ingemuit tot us orbis, etc. doth St. Jerome here tell you, that no Bishops changed the profession of the Nicene Faith, or did you say it in despite to Dr. Field, who informs us, that in the Council of Seleucia and Ariminum the Nicene Faith was condemned; and all the Bishops of the whole world carried away with the sway of time, fell from the soundness of the Faith, only Athanasius excepted, and some few Confessors, that sub Athanasii nomine exulabant, as Hierome noteth, writing against the Luciferians? His second Answer is, 
Ibid.  That at first all the Articles made in the Council of Ariminum were perfectly Orthodox, and that the Catholic Bishops subscribed to nothing, but what in their sense was true, though defective in delivering all the truth; that presently after being at liberty; themselves and all the rest renounced what they had subscribed to.  
Answ. We grant, that when the Council was first called, the major part were Orthodox, 
Socrat. His. Ec. l. 42. c. 29.  as their Epistle to the Emperor Constantius shows; but that afterwards they relented and consented to the Arians, appears from the Epistle of Pope Liberius to the Bishops of the East, who tells them, That albeit all the Bishops of the West who met at Ariminum, 
Apud So●. l. 4. c. 11. and Sulpitius. l. 2. c. 58. Plerique nostrorum partim imbecillitate ingenii, partim taedio peregrinationis evicti dedere se adversariis— sactaque semel inclinatione animorum catervatim in partem alteram concessum donec ad viginti usque nostrorum numerus est imminutus, that is till 400, came to 20. see c. 5, 6. Soz. His. Ecc. l. 7. c. 2.  and which either compelled by force, or enticed by deceits, à fide tum quidem desciverant, yet now they were returned to a sound mind, subscribed to the Nicene Faith, and renounced the form of Faith made by the Council of Ariminum with an Anathema. So then all these Bishops of the West (as well as the whole East, Jerusalem excepted) did à fide deficere, and albeit they afterwards renounced Arianisme, yet confessedly, for sometimes they yielded to it. And as to their subscriptions to the Arian Creed, where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if that were not contrary to the Doctrine of the Nicene Council, why did the Orthodox Fathers so stiffly plead against it in the Council of Ariminum as such? why did they not assent to the Arian Bishops, or the Emperor, who required no more? 
See Soz. ubi su●ra. Sulp●c. S●●. l. 2. c. 55. ubi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 crat Seriptum quod unius est substantiae, illi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod est similis substantiae scriptum esse diccebant, concedeates sim litudinem dum adimerent unitatem.  yea, why did the Orthodox Fathers condemn and censure them as Arrians, who subscribed to the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia? but the contrary is evident; for seeing nullum simile est idem, he that saith that our Saviour is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot say that he is also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Next for the Doctrine of the Millenaries he saith, Sect. 22 'Tis great irreverence in the Doctor, to charge upon the Primitive Church the say of two Fathers.  
Answ. Were there but two that asserted it? might you not have found in the renounced Dally, Papias, Justine, Irenaeus; 
Mr. C s 18. In his Letters to Mr. E●●wich, to Dr. Tw●ss.  Tertullian, Ambrose, Lactantius, Victorinus, Amphilochius? to whom Mr. Mede will add St. Cyprian, yea, and to boot will show, that it was favoured even by the General Council of Nice; and at last St. Jerome, albeit a professed enemy of the opinion, will add that multi Ecclefiasticorum virorum & martyrum ista dixerunt? and then might you not have multiplied your two into two hundred?  
2. He Answers, That albeit Justin Martyr saith, That all that are purely Orthodox, held this Millenium; yet he thereby shows, that his own opinion was not Universally embraced by the Church. I pray you Sir, what Topics do you use to draw this sequel out of Justins' words? especially when they run thus, Indeed I acknowledge, there are some who are (not) pure and pious Christians, who thus think; but they are only in name Christians, but indeed Atheists, and arch-heretics; and anon bids Trypho not look upon such as Christians, and then adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. but I and all thoroughly Orthodox Christians, (not only in name) we believe the resurrection and the Millenium, so that he excludes out of the roll of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that believed not the Millenium: 
L. 3 Cont. Marc. c. 24.  Tertullian likewise brings it in with a Confitemur, we Christians confess, etc. As for the double Millenary that our Author speaks of, 'tis very unserviceable to him, seeing not one of these Fathers (except Lactantius, whom yet Mr. Mede excuseth) are suspected of it. His last refuge therefore is, that it was never condemned by the Church.  
Answ. This is not to the purpose; for seeing it is manifest, that it was received by the Church of God for above two hundred years without any manner of contradiction, either you must grant the Church fallible, as the Doctor thence argues, or else speak out and say, That 'tis still to be embraced and believed as the Primitive Church esteemed, and then your Church must have erred in not believing but contradicting it as we see now they do.  
Lastly, Touching the communicating of Infants, Sect. 23 a custom, saith Maldonate, received as necessary by the Church till six hundred years; he tells us, that St. Augustine, etc. held a necessity that Infants should communicate of the flesh and blood of our Lord, but this not Sacramentally, but spiritually, by such a participation as may be had in Baptism: which Answer may be confuted out of twenty passages of Saint Augustine. For,  
1. He speaks expressly of the Sacrament, in his Tract against Pelagius and Bonifacius, where comparing the Pelagians to the Manichees; Both of them, saith he, are unwilling to have Infants freed by the flesh and blood of Christ; the first by denying that Christ took flesh; the second, by saying there is no evil in them, from which by the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood, they should be freed.  
And again having urged the necessity of Baptism to Salvation, he adds, When Christ saith, If you eat not my flesh, you shall not have life in you; should I say that an Infant should have life, 
L. 3. Cont. Julian. c. 1. Dicturus fueram parvulum habiturum vitam, qui sine islo sacramento finisset hans vitam! C. 12. L. 5.  who ends his life without that Sacrament? Yea,  
2. He speaks of their receiving the Sacrament after Baptism, and therefore cannot be thought to speak of such a Spiritual participation of it, as might there be had. Thus in his Book against Julian; Where will you put Infants? for they shall want eternal life (although baptised) because they have not partaken of the bread, etc. and so in his Hypognosticks (where in the Margin you find Eucharistia infantibus, sub utraque specie, fit to admonish our Author, of what we meet with in his Parenthesis) but most irrefragably in his book de Peccati meritis, 
L. 1. c. 20.  and that in a place, which our Author refers me to for the contrary. Let us hear our Lord, saith he, speaking of the Sacrament of the holy Table, whether none rightly comes, but he that is baptised; 
Quo nemo ●●te nisi Baptizatus a●cedit.  and then citing the place, Unless you eat my flesh, &c he adds, Dare any say, that the sentence belongs not to children, but that they may without the participation of the body and blood of Christ, have life in themselves? and tells us, we may as well conclude, that it belongs not to the adult: which testimony doth conclude most evidently the business; for these words, quò nemo accedit nisi Baptizatus, cannot possibly be understood of any Spiritual participation of the Sacrament at all, 
L. 10.  much less of such an one as may be had in the use of Baptism. Yea,  
3. He speaks of Baptism and the Eucharist, as equally necessary, presseth them both with like Scriptures; and than what ground can there be to understand the one Spiritually, the other Sacramentally? Thus when he writes in his Book against two Epistles of Pelagius, You give to them that are not baptised a place in Heaven, nor do you attend what is written; He that is not baptised shall be damned; nor do you understand, that those cannot have life, who are expertes corporis & sanguinis Christi, ipso dicente, Nisi manducaveritis, etc. and in his 107. Epistle, he saith, That Infants shall receive according to what they have done in their body, when by the hearts and mouths of them that hear them they believed, or not, at which time they were baptised or not, did eat the flesh of Christ or not, and drink his blood or not; I say when these things are so conjoined in the Series of his discourse, without the least intimation of a divers sense, what reason can we have so to interpret them? nor do the places he refers to, conclude that St. Augustine meant the contrary, to what these testimonies seem to speak; nor doth he there say, as our Author citys him, Baptism alone may suffice to the salvation of Infants: indeed one of the places tells us, that there is full remission of sins in Baptism, and consequently, if the person Baptised should instantly departed this life (si continuo consequatur ab hac vita migratio) he will not be obnoxious to any thing; agreeable to which, is the place cited from venerable Bede; but hence we can only infer, that St. Austin thought in such a case of absolute necessity they might be dispensed with, through the mercy of God; but yet 'tis evident, he held they had a right to the Sacrament, and that ordinarily it was necessary to their obtaining life eternal. Which also most evidently appears from the Book cited by our Author cap. 24. (he citys cap. 22.) From an Ancient, and (as I suppose) Apostolical Tradition, the Churches of Christ have this deeply settled in them, that without Baptism, and the participation of the Lords Supper, no man can attain to the Kingdom of God, nor yet to life eternal, (which after he had endeavoured to prove from 1 Peter 3. and John 6. he proceeds thus) If therefore so many testimonies Divine convince us, that everlasting life is not to be expected without Baptism, and the body and blood of Christ, 'tis in vain to promise it to children without them: Now if this opinion, which St. Austin saith, was so deeply settled in the, 
See Austin. ep. 95. De usu Patrum. p. 263, 264.  Church of God, and which was held by Innocent the first, by St. Cyprian, and others, (as Dally may inform you) be not a flat contradiction to the Trent Councils, Anathema upon those, who hold Parvulis necessariam esse Eucharistiae communionem, let any reasonable man judge.   

CHAP. X.  
The Question stated by Mr. C. Sect. 1. Prayer for the dead infers not Purgatory, Sect. 3. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome not faithfully related, Sect. 4. Prayer for the dead not of Apostolical Antiquity, Sect. 5. The Testimony of St. Denis considered, Sect. 6. Of Tertullian, Sect. 7. Of St. Cyprian, Sect. 8. St. chrysostom, Sect. 9 Eusebius, Sect. 10. Epiphanius, Sect. 11. An evasion confuted, Sect. 12. St. Ambrose, Sect. 13. St. Austin not for Purgatory, Sect. 14. Mr. C s. Dilemma considered, Sect. 15. Arguments against Purgatory, Sect. 16, 17. Mr. C s. Argument Answered, S. 18, 19  
IN this Chapter our Author tells us, Sect. 1 That the Church obligeth all Catholics no further, 
Sect. 4. & 5. 111, 112.  then simply to believe there is a State or place of Souls, in which they are capable of receiving help or ease by Prayers: whereupon he gives us a Prayer of the Mass, which mercifully desires to all that rest in Christ a place of refreshment, light and peace, through Christ our Lord: and also another, which beseecheth the Lord to absolve the soul of his servant from all the Chains of his sin. Now (saith he) if it can be demonstrated, That by the Universal practice of the Church such Prayers as these were made for the dead; it avoidable follows, that the souls for whom they are made are neither in Heaven, nor Hell; and if so, where are they, Dr. Pierce? speak like an honest man. Sect. 1  
Answer, This is a shrewd Argument, which forceth the Doctor either to lose his Honesty, or his Cause. But sure the Case is not so desperate: For were this the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, (which yet is an evident untruth; and were these Prayers used from the beginning, and that through the Universal Church of God) which cannot be proved) yet would I defy his Conclusion, and his Argument to infer it.  
For 1. Sect. 2 If Prayer for a place of refreshment exclude the person prayed for at present out of Heaven, then is there not one Saint, one Martyr, nay, not the Virgin Mary herself now in Heaven: seeing the Prayer begs this to all that rest in Christ, 
Sess. 9 De invocatione Sanctorum.  and then farewell the Council of Trent, which talks of Saints reigning with Christ; & aeterna felicitate in Coelo fruentium. Nay the Liturgy of Saint James prays for the Spirits of all flesh which they had prayed for and which they had not, from righteous Abel to that very day, that they might rest in the Region of the living, in the Kingdom of God, in the delights of Paradise, in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: And yet will our Author say, That there is not one of these souls in Heaven? And so for the absolving of their sins (which is his second instance:) The Liturgy of Saint Crhysostom: Prays for all the Fathers and Brethren, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that had gone before them, for all that had laboured and administered in the Holy Function before them; for the forgiveness of the sins of the bvilders of their Mansions, worthy to be had in perpetual remembrance, and prays God to pardon (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) all the Orthodox Fathers and Brethren which slept in the Communion of God, in the hope of the Resurrection, and Eternal Life. dal. de Satisfact. page 510. And likewise Saint Augustin prays for his Mother that the Lord would pardon her sins. 
Confess. l. 9 c. 13  I know, O Lord, (saith he) That she was merciful, and from her heart forgave her Debtors. Do thou therefore forgive her debts, if she hath contracted any after her Baptism, for so many years: Forgive her Lord, forgive her. I beseech thee do not thou enter into judgement with her; And so on: and yet the same Austin tells us, what ever it be that is signified by Abraham's bosom, there his Mother is, ibi vivit; nam quis alius tali animae locus, for what other place was fitting for her? Of such prayers our Author may find good store in dal. ubi supra, & pag. 520. Now then, is Abraham's bosom Purgatory? Are all the Orthodox Fathers in Purgatory? or if not, is it not evident that the Church hath made such prayers for those that are not in Purgatory? Sect. 4  
2. We shall tell him, in the sequel of the Chapter, That these prayers of the Fathers depended partly upon suppositions exploded by the Romanist himself, partly upon other things, which cannot suppose a Purgatory in the mildest sense.  
Sect. 5 But is it true that the Romanist's Purgatory is only a place wherein souls are capable of receiving help or ease by prayers, why then may it not be Heaven? for the souls there may be helped to a fuller state of Glory by our prayers, as the Fathers generally affirm.  
2. The Trent Council tells us that the Catholic Church out of Scripture, and the ancient Tradition of the Fathers, and the holy Councils, hath taught us that there is a Purgatory, and thereupon commands the Bishops to be diligent that the sound Doctrine of Purgatory taught by the Fathers and Councils should be believed, held, and every where preached.  
Now I ask, whether the Scriptures, 
Thus Bellarmine. lib. 2. c. 10. That there is some fire in Purgatory, appears from these words of Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 3. He shall, etc. So also from the Testimony of the Fathers eited in the first Book, who generally call the punishment of Purgatory fire, and this he puts among the thing in which all agree.  upon which especially they build their Purgatory, be not such as these: They shall be saved, yet so as by fire; some sins are forgiven in this world, some in the world to come? And as for the Tradition of the Fathers, is not the purging fire they speak of most insisted on? And do not many of the places cited by our Author speak of the pardon of their sins? Well then, if this was the Doctrine confirmed by Scripture, and delivered by Tradition of the Fathers, then must Purgatory needs be a place of fire wherein the souls are tormented, or something analogous thereunto.  
2. It must needs follow, that Purgatory is a place where souls be imprisoned till they have satisfied for their sins.  
3. Is it not the common Doctrine that sounds almost in every Pulpit, that Purgatory is a place under the Earth, in the lower regions of it, wherein some souls departed are grievously tormented, and where they are to continue till they have satisfied God's Justice for some venial sins, unless they can be helped out sooner by the prayers of the living, sacrifice of the Mass indulgences of the Pope, etc. Let Master Cressy speak his Conscience, whether this be not the Doctrine most frequently taught in their writings, and in their Sermons ad populum: And being so, I ask him whether it be the sana doctrina the Trent Council speaks of: If it be not, then are all their Bishops disobedient to this Council which charges them to look to it generally that the sound Doctrine be taught: And if so, either this disobedience is wilful and contrary to their knowledge, and so they live continually in a wilful sin; or from ignorance of the true Doctrine of the Church; and then must our Author say, that he knows the Doctrine of the Church better than all these Bishops. If it be, then is the Doctrine which we commonly oppose the Doctrine of the Church of Rome.  
Again, are these things tending to Edification, or not? if not, then are all the Bishops in fault for suffering them to be taught, contrary to the Council: If they be, than I hope they are the sound Doctrine of Purgatory The Trent Council speaks of.  
Again, 
De Puigatorio.  Their Bellarmine will tell us, l. 2. c. 6. That Purgatory is in a place nigh unto the damned, and prove it from the second of the Acts, solutis doloribus inferni, the pains of Hell being loosed, which Saint Augustine (saith he) understands of Purgatory: and that hence it is, that the Church in the Mass for the Dead saith, 
Deliver the Souls departed from the punishments of Hell, and the deep Lake:  Libera animas defunctorum de paenis inferni, & de profundo lacu. Yea, secondly, He will tell you from the venerable Beda, That this was confirmed by a Vision wherein Purgatory was seen next to Hell: And thirdly, that omnes fere Theologi, almost all their Divines assert, that the souls in Purgatory are in the same place, and tormented with the same fire as the damned are. Well then, first if the Mass prays that the souls in Purgatory may be delivered from the punishment infernal, & de profundo lacu, then must they be supposed to be in some infernal place; if almost all the Divines teach this place to be the same with that in which the damned are tormented, then must almost all the Divines be guilty of contradicting the Decree of the Synod of Trent, all the Bishops be negligent of the charge there given, or else this which they teach must be the sana Doctrina which it required to be held. 
Sess. ult. doc. de Purg.  Again, I suppose, your Trent Council when it speaks of holy Councils defining Purgatory, excludes not the Florentine which thus defines it; That if true penitents depart in the love of God, before they have satisfied for their sins of Omission or Commission, by fruits of repentance, their souls go to Purgatory to be purged: and the Indulgencies which the Pope gives sometimes to these poor souls are nothing else but the Application of the satisfaction of Christ, or his Saints to the dead. So then out of these things so deduced, we have all that usually we charge you with.  
First, That there are some sins venial, such as if God should deal with men in rigour deserve only a temporal punishment.  
Secondly, That you hold, that albeit the sin may be pardoned and remitted, yet there may be a guilt of punishment to be endured for it. This is clear from the Council of Florence, and these two Bellarmine joins together; 
De Purg. l. 2. c. 2.  The true and Catholic opinion is, that Purgatory is a place appointed for those that die with some venial sins, which are the hay and stubble mentioned, 1 Cor. 3. and again, for those that depart with the guilt of punishment, the fault being formerly remitted.  
Thirdly, That you say the souls of many that die in the Lord go into Purgatory, to satisfy for these venial sins, or to undergo the Temporal punishments due to these sins whose fault is pardoned.  
Fourthly, That this Purgatory whither they go is a place of punishment next to Hell, and that there they are tormented with the same torments which the damned suffer, however they may differ for Degree and Space. Now these are things which all your skill shall never be able to deduce from prayers as they were used by the ancients for the dead. Sect. 5  
And first, whereas you say, 
De Satisfac. page 452.  these prayers for the dead have confessed Apostolical antiquity to plead for them; here Dally telling you, That of the custom of praying for the Dead, Justine and Irenaeus who flourished in the second Age, do make no mention; so that it is credible it came in after that Age, for Causes we shall hereafter mention. Sect. 6  
But to pass on to your proofs, 
p. 112. Sect. 6.  you tell us That the Author of the Book fathered on Saint Denis the Areopagite, by Confession of Protestants, lived within the second Century after the Apostles, when as even Bishop Forbs, upon the Question, tells you that he lived in the third or rather the fourth Century; and it is clear that he speaks of Monks, which had no being till the third Century of Temples, and Altars, which Origen and Arnobius, who flourished in the third Century, have told us the Christians never had. And therefore whereas he says, that what he teacheth he had from the Apostles, his Divine Teachers, this lie can sure avail you nothing, but to evidence how willing cheats are to put off their ware at the best hand. But as he is, let us hear him telling us what the Priests demand from God, for the person departed, 
Eccles. Hist. c. 7.  a pardon of all fins committed by him through humane frailty, and that he may be conducted into Abraham's bosom, into a place from which grief, sadness and mourning, was banished: But that this place of Dionysius makes nothing for Purgatory, appears, first, in that the party is described by him to have departed out of this life replenished with Divine joy, as now not fearing any change to worse, being come to the end of all his labour, and to have been both privately acknowledged by his friends, and publicly pronounced by the Ministers of the Church to be a happy man, 
See Dr. Fern against Spencer, C. de Purgatorio.  and to be verily admitted into the society of the Saints that have been from the beginning of the world.  
Secondly, in that the Bishop or Priest, so praying, is said by him to be the Interpreter or publisher of the Divine Judgements; viz. in giving rewards according as men deserve: And how that the Divine loving kindness, in great goodness, overlooks their infirmities, or spots and stains of sin contracted by humane weakness. Thus that prayer which begs the full forgiveness of his sins is doctrine to the living, showing and assuring them of God's mercy to them that strive to live well; notwithstanding through humane weakness they offend often, and cannot be free from all spots and stains of sin. Then in relation, as it seems, to the other part of the prayer which begged, that he might be placed in light, etc. This Author adds: The Bishop or Priest knows such good things are promised, and therefore prays that they may come to pass and be given to them that have lived well. Also he knows that the good things promised will come to pass; and therefore as the Interpreter of God's Will, he shows that they will surely be made good to them that so live and die; and if these be the intents of this prayer, surely they will not conclude a Purgatory. Well then; when he prays for the pardon of his fin, he refers to that second sentence of the day of Judgement, that God would then proclaim him pardoned, and then would receive him into heaven, 
Ibid. c. 7.  both as to body and soul: And hence our Dionysius tells us, that in these Solemnities the Church was wont to read the undoubted promises which were recorded touching the resurrection; and then devoutly sang Psalms of the same Argument: As you may see in Bishop Usher, page 205.  
Secondly, as for that of Tertullian, Sect. 7 where he bids the faithful wife pray for the soul of her husband— begging for him refreshment, and a part in the first resurrection: 
Ter. de Mon, c. 19  Dally will tell you, First that he was infected with the error of the Millenaries, and thence it was that he required her to pray for a part in the first resurrection, supposing some to be raised sooner, and some later, within that 1000 years. Or secondly, that this refreshment is begged at the day of Judgement, or the Resurrection, 
See dal. p. 513. 517. Digna co loco solatia & refrigeria.  and that the Ancients supposing those that were departed to be touched with a longing desire of being in Heaven, they begged a refrigerium to them, that is, the enjoyment of such comforts as they were thought to have had while they lay in the bosom of Abraham, expecting the Resurrection.  
As touching the place of Saint Cyprian, Sect. 8 
Epist. 66.  the Answer lies hid in a word which he hath cheatingly concealed in his Translation; for whereas 
* Ib. p. 116. p. 516.  he hath Translated it, that no Oblation shall be made for him; viz. That names in his Will for an Executor an Ecclesiastical person, The Latin hath it pray Dormitione ejus: (and as Dally answers his Bellarm.) refers to the Eucharistical thanksgivings, which they offered ob Dormitionem ejus, that the faithful soul was delivered from the evils of the world; which he confirms from the testimony of the Author of the Commentary on Job, commonly ascribed to Origen; And from Saint Ambrose, who tells us, Diem quo obierint (sancti sc.) 
De Cor. Mil. c. 3. See Dally, p. 516.  colebri solennitate renovamus, which is as far from Purgatory, as Earth from Heaven. And this is that which Tertullian saith, Tradition was the Author, and Custom the confirmer of.  
The first Testimony which he borrows from chrysostom, tell us only this, That according to the Apostles Institution, Sect. 9 during the celebration of the Mysteries, 
In Ep. ad Philip. c. 1. Hom. 3.  Commemoration was made of the dead.  
Secondly, That this was done that some comfort and refreshment might accrue to them thereby. Now that the first comes not up to a show of any proof for Purgatory, is evident to any eye but blurred with prejudice, as appears from those many other ends, for which the Fathers esteemed it useful; as to bring and keep their souls in Abraham's bosom, 
See Dally, de Satisfac. l 5. c. 12.  to procure them a portion in the millenary reignhere on earth, an augmentation of their Glory, to procure the Resurrection of their bodles, an abatement or exemption from the flames of the last day, and the rigour of the last judgement.  
And as for the second, 
Hom. Cor. in c. 15. v. 46.  S. Chrysost. might well say, that 'twas not in vain to pray for sinners, when he held that thereby the torments of the greatest sinners were or might be alleviated, as appears from his, 21. Hom. on the Acts of the Apostles, where speaking of a man who had not lived one day to himself, but to Voluptuousness, Intemperance, Covetousness, to sin, and the Devil; if he chance to die (saith he) shall we not mourn for him? shall we not endeavour to pull him out of these dangers? For there be ways, if we will, whereby his punishment may be made light for him: If then we do continually make prayers for him, if we bestow Alms, though he be unworthy, God will respect us: And whereas he adds, that it was the practice of the Church, we grant it; but the Church then practised it for the ends now specified, not because she believed the Roman Purgatory. For that Saint chrysostom thought that the parties deceased if they had lived well were in a state of Joy, and not of Grief, appears by the funeral Ordinances of the Church related by him, which were appointed to admonish the living of it. 
Hom. 4. in Ep. ad Hebr.  For tell me (saith he) What do the bright Lamps mean? Do we not accompany them therewith as Champions? what mean the Hymns? Consider what thou dost sing at that time. Return my Soul unto thy rest, for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee. And again, I will fear no evil, because thou art with me. And again, Thou art my refuge from the affliction that compasseth me: Consider what these Psalms mean. The same General Practice, and the like Intention of the Church therein, is expressed and earnestly urged by him in the same Homily on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Do we not praise God, and give thanks unto him for that he hath now crowned him that is departed, for that he hath freed him from his labours, for that quitting him from fear be keepeth him with himself? Are not the Hymns for this End? Is not the singing of Psalms for this purpose? All these be tokens of rejoicing. Whereupon he thus presseth them that used immoderate mourning for the dead. Thou sayest return O my soul unto thy rest, for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee, and dost thou weep? Is not this Stageplays? Is it not mere simulation? For if thou dost indeed believe the things that thou sayest thou lamentest idly; But if thou playest and dissemblest and thinkest those things to be Fables, why dost thou then sing? why dost thou suffer those things that are done? wherefore dost thou not drive away them that sing? And in the end he concludeth somewhat prophetically: That he very much feared, lest by this means some grievous disease should creep in upon the Church. Whether the Doctrine now maintained in the Church of Rome, that the Children of God, presently after their departure out of this life, are cast into a Lake that burneth with Fire and Brimstone, be not a spice of this disease; and whether their practice in chanting of Psalms (appointed for the expression of joy and thankfulness) over them whom they esteem to be tormented in so lamentable a fashion, be not a part of that Scene and Pageantry, at which Saint chrysostom doth so take on, I leave it unto others to judge; That his fear was not altogether vain, the event itself doth show.  
The Citation out of Eusebius touching the prayers of the people and clergy, not without tears and groan, Sect. 10 
De vita Constan. l. 4 c. 9  for the soul of Constantine, what doth it infer more than this, that they were earnest with God, that his soul might be partaker of some of those various benefits which we mentioned before, and none of which at all refer to Purgatory? But yet notwithstanding, that they thought the Emperor in a State of Bliss must needs be granted, if we suppose them to have believed what he told them, being at the point of death, that he had now attained the true life, 
Euseb. de vita Constant. l. 4 c. 63.  and that none but himself did understand of what happiness he was made partaker; and that therefore he hastened his going immediately to God.  
As to that of Epiphanius, Sect. 11 telling us, That prayers made f●● the dead profit us, albeit they do not blot out entirely all (mortal) sins: First, if this word stand which he puts in, then must it be granted that they alleviate even Mortal sins, and are well made for those that die under the guilt of them, and then he is necessarily to be understood in Saint Chrysostom's sense, or else he contradicts the known Doctrine of the Church of Rome; which is, that those prayers are not made for any that die under the guilt of Mortal sin. And indeed if this be the sense, viz. That prayers for the dead are profitable; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, albeit they do not wholly blot out the sins of those that are prayed for: then must it be said, that some are prayed for, whose sins are not yet wholly forgiven. Secondly, the Case stands thus; Aerius had objected, if the Prayers of those here do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 altogether profit the dead, then let him procure some to pray for him after he is dead, that those heinous sins he hath committed may not be required at his hands, and then there will be no need of his being good. Now Epiphanius thus Answers; 
He that would see more of the sense of Epiph. in this place may Consult Bishop Usher, from p. 236. to 246. where he shows evidently that the Romanists are A●rians. not we.  Although the prayer for the dead do not cut off all their sins (which is the only thing thou goest about to prove (yet doth it profit notwithstanding for another purpose. Now from this Sentence can it not be inferred that Epiphanius thought these prayers profitable to the cutting off of any sins which the person had committed in his life time: But this is only added, because Aerius went about to prove this only, that prayers made for the dead did not cut off all their sins.  
Now whereas, Sect. 10. our Author would avoid the Answer usually returned upon their Arguments, Sect. 12 (By telling them, that Prayers are made for Martyrs, Apostles, yea, all Saints, 
p. 115, Sect. 11.  by the Fathers, which yet they dare not say are still in Purgatory;) with this old Salvo, that such prayers as are made for remission of sins refreshment, etc. are not made for them but imperfect sinners: ' This reply hath been obviated already by me, by showing that such prayers as these he mentions were made for the Martyrs and Apostles, as 'tis more largely done by Dally, Page 501. and 507. as to refreshment, with such abundant Evidence, as I am confident Master Cressie will not be able to reply unto it; and as to remission of sins, with convictive Evidence. Yea further, they prayed for them that they might be delivered from the punishments of Hell, and obtain everlasting bliss, as appears from the Liturgy of Saint James: That they might pass by the Gates of Hell, and the ways of Darkness. From the prayers used of old in the Roman Church; For all departed in the Confession of the Holy Trinity, that they might be separated from the punishments of the wicked, and obtain everlasting bliss. And from what the Romanists say daily in their Mass, Desiring the Lord Jesus, that he would deliver the souls of all the Faithful that are departed from the pains of Hell, and from the deep Lake, and from the mouth of the Lion, that Hell do not swallow them up, that they fall not into darkness. Sect. 13  
Well, but our Author proceeds, and tells us, that indeed many of these prayers did regard the day of Judgement, 
p. 115. Sect. 11.  and the glory ensuing; yet withal, that they thought to some souls a present refreshment did accrue in the intermedial condition is evident from what Saint Ambrose saith, He would never cease his Intercessions for the Soul of the dead Emperor, till he found a deliverance by them. And we answer him, Where is it that Saint Ambrose saith so? And of what Emperor? Doth he think we have nothing to do but to read over Authors to find out his Quotations? Quotations did I say, or falfifying? For let us hear Saint Ambrose thus speaking; Let us believe that Valentinian is ascended from the desert, that is to say, 
De Obitu Valent. Imp.  from this dry and unmanured place, unto those flowery delights, where being conjoined to his Brother; He enjoyeth the pleasure of everlasting Life; blessed are you both: If my Orisons can prevail any thing, no day shall overslip you in silence, no Oration shall pass you over unhonoured, no night shall steal by, wherein I will not bestow upon you some portion of my Prayers, with all Oblations will I frequent you: Only the mischief is, he doth not add, till I find a Deliverance of you from Purgatory, or any such words: Indeed in his Oration on the death of the Emperor Theodosius; he tells us that he will follow him to the Region of the living, nor will he leave him till by his Prayers and tears he hath brought him into that place his deserts did challenge; quò sua merita vocant, viz. Into the Holy Mount of God, where there was everlasting life, where there was no Contagion of Corruption, no sigh, no grief, no company of the dead; (doth he understand it of Souls? then must none of the Souls of the dead be in heaven; of bodies? I hope our bodies must not go to purgatory with our souls,) But the Region of the Living, where this mortal shall put on Immortality, this Corruptible Incorruption. But yet he presently tells us, that Theodosius remains in light, and glories in the companies of the Saints, (purgatory to be sure was a place that he had cause to glory of;) and enjoys rest for his soul (they rest very quietly, sleep in utramque aurem in purgatory.) Yea a little before he told us, that he now enjoyed Eternal Light, (I suppose as being enlightened by the fire of purgatory) and continual tranquillity, and for the things which he did in this body, he rejoiceth in the fruits of God's reward, (and was that think you purgatory?) and because he loved the Lord his God he hath obtained the society of the Saints. But you will say, If Saint Ambrose thought him in bliss, or an happy State, what is the meaning of his former words?  
Ans. You may see, by what is said already, that he cannot Intent to bring him out of purgatory by his prayers: which is sufficient for me; nor (2.) Can he be supposed to weep for him till his mortal did put on immortality, unless he thought he should live till the Resurrection, or Theodosius rise before it. Well then (3.) Dally will tell you, that 'tis usual in Scripture, and Sacred Writers, to speak of things as done, which they were certain would come to pass. So Isaac saith, Gen. 27.37. I have made Jacob Esau's Lord, and all his brethren his servants, because he had foretold it would be so; Even thus S. Ambrose saith, he will never leave praying till the Emperor's resurrection, because he was sufficiently assured that God would raise him unto life Eternal, and transser him to heaven. Now then, seeing 'tis as clear as the Sun, that Ambrose thought them both in Heaven, or in Abraham's bosom, (viz. The Emperors, Valentinian and Theodosius,) is it possible he should pray for their deliverance out of purgatory? what good could they need besides that which he prays for, a speedy resurrection, who already enjoyed the pleasures of Eternal life? If Eternal life be purgatory, I will not give two pence for the Pope's indulgences, to be delivered from it. This being so, is not our Author a brave juggler, who durst add [for deliverance] to Saint Ambrose; and that he might not be found out, Cite neither place, nor tell us of what Emperor, whether Theodosius, or Valentinian, he meant it, albeit he produceth the place only to prove, that the Ancients thought the Souls departed to have some present refreshment, which indeed they did allow to Saints, supposed to be in Abraham's bosom; And that from the company of Angels, and Archangels, and the vision of Christ which they were supposed to enjoy in those receptacles, & the increments of Divine light and joy, which Ambrose speaks of,  
He hath four places more out of Saint Austin in behalf of purgatory. Sect. 14 
Confess. l. 9 c. 21  But the (1.) where his mother begs that she may be remembered at the Altar, falls strangely short of purgatory; since I have made it appear, that those who were supposed to be in Heaven were there remembered, and this remembrance was made for divers other reasons. Nor (2.) Is there any thing in that which Saint Austin saith, 
De cnra per mortem, c. 5.  we must by no means omit necessary supplications for the Souls of the Dead, that repose might be obtained to them, since 'tis as clear as the Sun, that they prayed for repose to all the Servants of God departed; and Saint Ambrose begs rest for the Emperor Theodosius, of whom he tells us that he was in rest already. Nor will the (3.) place Cited out of his Enchiridion do him service, viz. 
C. 110.  That the Sacrifice is offered as a thanksgiving for Martyrs, but as a propitiation for others. For (1.) It is evident, that Saint Austin, when he wrote this book, was of Saint Chrysostoms' opinion; for as much as he tells us, 
E●ch. c. 110.  that these whom our suffrages do profit, they do it, either that they may have a full remission, or a more tolerable damnation: And then no wonder if he allowed the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, or prayers to profit for the remission of sins. (2.) It might be offered for a propitation, in respect of others, and they not in purgatory, but in Abraham's bosom, as well as Saint Augustine might pray so earnestly for his mother, that God would be propitious to her, and yet she be in Abraham's bosom, as above is manifested. As to that (4.) Instance, which he calls convincing, 
Ser. 32. de verbis Apost. Note that this 32. Sect. is not to be found in the Index of Possidius.  the outmost that can be gathered from it is, that in Saint Austin's and the Church's judgement, it was not to be doubted that our Brethren were helped by these prayers, so that God might deal with them more mercifully than their sins deserved, and that prayers and offerings were made for them, out of an intention of commending them to God's mercy; and what of all this? For (1.) Doth not the same Austin pray, that God would deal more mercifully with his mother then her sins deserved? did he not commend her to God's mercy, albeit he verily thought she was in Abraham's bosom? (2.) What is this more than what Saint Paul prays for Onesiphorus, that he might find mercy in that day, the day of Judgement, and Saint Peter's speaking of sins to be blotted out at the day of our refreshment? Well then, they commended their brethren to God's mercy, as knowing that they deserved these punishments, from which they could not be otherwise delivered then by the clemency and mercy of God; which is very true, and yet makes not at all for purgatory; and indeed their prayers for pardon of sins was only thus, that God would at the last day proclaim them pardoned, and would not cast them into Hell with the damned, but receive them into glory; which prayers the Church of Rome at this day makes for all the faithful.  
Now after these testimonies produced, Sect. 15 our 
* Pag. 120.  Author returns to his Dilemma, before sufficiently confuted; If these Souls were believed to be in Heaven, would it not be ridiculous (and must then Liturgies and Fathers cited by us be ridiculous which pray for pardon of sins, refreshment, light and peace, and a place in the bosom of Abraham, for those whom you acknowledge to have been already at rest, in the enjoyment of God in Abraham's bosom?) If in Hell, would it not be impious, (Oh impious St. chrysostom, St. Augustine, 
* Origen. Greg. Nyssen, Jerome.  and perhaps, Epiphanius) to offer the dreadful sacrifice, to make supplications, to be at charge in alms for the obtaining them repose? etc. but if they be neither in Heaven nor Hell, where are they then? Answ. In sinu Abrahae, or at rest in some state of pleasure, and free from all punishment; (as you are told by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Pseudo-Justin, Lactantius, Victor, 
Dilly the Satisfact. l. 5. c. 3, 4, 5, 6.  Hilary, Ambrose, Prudentius, chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine,) expecting the enjoyment of the Kingdom of Heaven at the Resurrection.  
And thus having gone over our Adversaries testimonies in Defence of Pugatory, we shall now add, ex abundanti, a few Arguments against it. And first, if there be no such punishments as the Papists do imagine suffered by the faithful after this Life, then are not their Souls in Purgatory; but there is no such punishment of the faithful after this Life: And first, were there any such punishments of the faithful after this Life, how wonderful is it that no Consolations should be given in against them! There is not any evil that can befall us here, but the Scripture hath afforded us some Consolation against it; But though the punishments in Purgatory be more grievous, by their own confession; then any we can suffer here, yet have we not one word of Consolation against them. Secondly, Abraham tells Dives that he had received his good things in this Life, and Lazarus his evil; and now he is comforted and thou tormented; what is this comfort, but his being carried into Abraham's bosom? When was he carried thither? when he died, verse 22. The beggar died and was carried (not into Purgatory, but) into Abraham's bosom: The rich man died also and was buried. I suppose, none will deny that the rich man was buried presently after his death, and then why should they deny that Lazarus was carried into Abraham's bosom soon after his death; And if Abraham's bosom were Purgatory, (I cannot say he had cold, but) I'm sure he had but small comfort of being there; But be it so, that he was not in Abraham's bosom, yet he had received his evil things in this Life, saith Father Abraham; which with what truth could he have so said, had he been to receive so great and so long punishments when his life was ended?  
Now seeing this beggar had no preeminence over other beggars, that are supposed to live piously as this Lazarus did, or above other of the Saints of God, if he escaped Purgatory, and was immediately received into Abraham's bosom, why may not they? Thirdly, The evils which the faithful suffer, they suffer in the time of their peregrination, and absence from their Father's house; but that is terminated and defined by our being in the body; thus Peter Ep. 1. c. 1. vers. 17. calls it the time of our sojourning, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the time of our being from home, the time of our being in this world, saith Estius; And again; 2 Cor. 5.6. Dum sumus in corpore peregrinamur à Deo? And when we are absent from the body we are present with the Lord; therefore we are not absent from the Lord: when we are in Purgatory we are absent from the Lord; Ergo, when we are absent from the body we are not in Purgatory.  
A second Argument shall be this; They that go to Abraham's bosom, Paradise, or an house not made with hands, eternal in the Heavens, do not go to Purgatory at the same time; but the faithful presently after death go to the  places, or some of them; Because they go to them when their earthly Tabernacle is dissolved, 2 Cor. 5.1. We know that if our earthly tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building not made with hands, eternal in the Heavens. Now this implies that as soon as we are dispossessed of one of these houses we go to the other; or else the comfort would be but cold, and the oration not worthy of God, but delusory. For put the Case, I should tell my friend, I see thy house is going to ruin; But care not for it, I have a better for you to betake yourself to, when that fails: If he should come to me a while after for this house, and I tell him, true, I have an house for him, but he must be content to lie first ten or twenty years in the street, and after that he shall go into it; would not my friend think, I had dealt very deceitfully with him, having given him ground to hope that presently after the fall of his house he should have another? So God here tells us, well Christians, if your house once fall, your body be dissolved, be not troubled, you shall have an house in heaven; when their body is dissolved, they come expecting an house in heaven, pleading his promise; should God say, true, you shall have an house in Heaven, but you must burn In purgatory first for a 100 years or two: would he not seem to mock us? (2.) The house is said to be had, when our earthly body is dissolved: now this is either because we are then presently to enjoy it, & then down falls purgatory; or else, because after a hundred years in purgatory we shall enjoy it: If so, why may we not be said to have it before this house is dissolved, seeing by our good works, Martyrdom, indulgence, procured, we may make our purgatory the shorter while we live here? Bellarmine Answers; true, we shall go to heaven presently, but only we that are clothed, that is, endued with excellent virtues, and merits, and have perfected our repentance. But the rest that are naked shall be saved so as by fire. But (1.) The Apostle saith, they alone shall have the heavenly house who are clothed, that being the condition; yea this is the condition of their groaning to be dissolved, which (saith he) we would not do were we to be found naked; and yet they that were in this tabernacle did groan, therefore none of them would be found naked. (2.) Those that go to Heaven are clothed upon; But those that go naked to purgatory cannot be so; For seeing to be clothed is to be adorned with more eminent degrees of virtue, and they themselves acknowledge that in purgatory there is no place for the increase of virtue, there is no probability of being clothed upon, and therefore they cannot be supposed to go to purgatory naked, since they that go thither are sure afterward to go to heaven. Again, vers. 6, 7. the Apostle tells us, that whilst we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord, and that, Here the faithful desire to be absent from the body, because it hinders them from the presence of the Lord, and walking by sight; now had they been acquainted with purgatory, surely they would have expressed their desires of being absent from that also, seeing that was like not only to be more irksome to them, but also more durable, and therefore a greater impediment; since therefore they groaned so much to be delivered from a short life here, which hinders their enjoyment of God's presence, and not at all for deliverance from a hundred or two hundred years' continuance in purgatory, (for so long, saith Bellarmine, the Church hath prayed for Souls in purgatory) we infer, they were not acquainted with it. Again, they that are to be received into Eternal habitations when their life fails them, are to be received at death, for than they fail: But so are charitable men, (and by parity of Reason other pious souls.) The minor is proved from Luke 16. v. 8. Make unto yourselves friends of the Mammon of unrighteousness, that is use it so, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that when you fail, i. e. die, they may receive you, that is, may procure you a reception, or rather (as Doctor Hammond) you may be received into everlasting habitations.  
But our Author hath his arguments also, Sect. 18 which come now to be considered: And first, he tells us of an express testimony for Purgatory in the Book of Macchabees: Now not to call upon him for an Answer to Dr. Cousins of the Canon of Scripture, as knowing how impossible it is to be done; albeit it be necessary to make this Testimony a Cogent proof, seeing he only tells us that there is such a place in the Book of Macchabees: I will add where the words may be found, even in Dally, page 439. where they are fully considered, and it made evidently to appear that they come not up to a proof of Purgatory; neither are they consistent with the received Maxims of the abettors thereof: and whereas our adversary calls in the Universal Tradition, and practice of the Synagogue of the Jews to justify this place, the same worthy person hath made it evident, that neither this nor any other Testimony produced by them is any tolerable proof of such practice: 
p. 449. 450.  Nay he evinceth most clearly from this passage that this practice was not received in our Saviour's, or the Apostles time; Ne apud infimos & corruptos Judaeos: yea, he spends the 14. Chapter of his second Book, to evidence that the Jews were ignorant of Prayers for the dead; and should we after all this give any credit to your confident assertions of such evident untruths? It concerns you, if you respect your credit to answer what is extant in the forecited places of the Learned Dally, and to evince this universal Tradition and practice you here speak of without the least offer of any proof, unless what follows must be so esteemed, viz. that from the Jew's no doubt Plato borrowed this Doctrine, and from Plato Cicero: But I pray you, Sir, permit us (who have the Arguments  to evidence that in our Saviour's time, the Jews had no such Custom) to doubt of what you boldly here assert, 
l. 4. c. 5. p. 360.  especially when the same Dally runs antipodes unto you, and tells us, though with greater modesty, ab iis (Platonicis) ut videtur illam Purgatorii rationem baustam atque acceptam tum Judaei, tum adversarii retinent; Sect. 19 that both you and they (as it seems received your Purgatory from the Platonists: 
Mr. Cr. P. 120.   
You have one assault more from natural Reason, which you say, will tell us, that heaven, into which no unclean thing can enter, is not so quickly and easily open to imperfect souls, as unto perfect; nor have we any sign that merely by dying sinful livers become immediately perfect. 
1 Thess. 4.17.  Now to this I Answer, that what ever natural Reason may seem to dictate. I am sure the Oracles of God will tell us that they who are alive at the Resurrection, if pious souls, (though surely some of them shall be imperfect) shall not go to Purgatory for 100 years, but be caught up into the Clouds to meet the Lord in the Air, and so shall be for ever with the Lord.  
Secondly, albeit there be nothing of Reason, or Scripture, to intimate that only by dying we become perfect, yet doth both Reason and Scripture more than intimate, that presently after death we are amongst the Spirits of just men made perfect; that when this Tabernacle is dissolved we go to an house Eternal in the Heavens; when we are absent from the body we are present with the Lord; and consequently are purified by the holy Spirit from the imperfections that adhered to us.   

CHAP. XI.  
Master Cressie misadventures, Sect. 1. His first Argument from, 1 Cor. 11. Answered Sect. 2. His second from Reason, Sect. 3. His Authorities spurious, Sect. 4. As (1.) Saint Basils' Liturgy, Sect. 5. Cyrils' Mystag. Catechism, Sect. 6. The Acts of the Nicene Council, Sect. 7. Greg. Nyssens Catechism, Sect. 8. Saint Cyrils' testimony considered, Sect. 9 His Authorities say no more than our Church's Liturgy, Sect. 10. Saint chrysostom not for them, but against them, Sect. 11. His Citation abused by Master Cressie, Ib. as likewise Saint Ambrose, Sect. 12. The Doctors argument from the fruit of the Vine vindicated, Sect. 13, 14. Mr. Cressie's evasion confuted, Sect. 15. The weakness of his argument against the Doctors Exposition evidenced, and confessed by Jansenius, Sect. 16, 17. an argument against Transubstantiation, Sect. 18. Why the Fathers not insisted on, Sect. 19 The Fathers are not for the adoration of the Sacrament, Sect. 20. Saint chrysostom, Saint Ambrose, and Saint Augustine's testimonies considered, Sect. 21, 22, 23. The contrary evidenced from Doctor Taylor, Sect. 24.  
IN this Chapter we meet with many misadventures, Sect. 1 
Mr. Cressie, p. 124.  and mistakes, as (1.) that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as old as the first general Council, whereas it was never used by any Father, or at least never applied unto this matter, for the space of a thousand years and upwards; nor can I find any of their own writers, besides himself, that ever pleaded the use of such a word. (2.) Another mistake is, that the Church only saith, the change made in the holy Sacrament is usually called Transubstantiation, when the Trent Council expressly tells us, 
Mr. Cressie, p. 124.  that it is called so propriè, convenienter, & aptissime, most fitly, properly, and conveniently. (3.) Whereas you tell us, Sect. 5 that it is a difficult matter to define what is our Churches Tenent in this controversy; I refer you to Bishop Taylor's Discourse upon this Subject: if you are able to except any thing against his Stating of the Question do it; if not, cease to calumniate, and know that the renewed Rubric is an Explication of what the Church of England believeth in this matter; and if you have any thing to produce against it, besides the empty name of Zuinglianisme, we are ready to consider it.  
But to pass these things, Sect. 2 let us come unto his evidence of such a change of the Sacramental elements into the body, and blood of Christ, which makes Christ Corporally present under the species of Bread and Wine, but destroys their substance; and here not daring once to fasten upon hoc est corpus meum, or the sixth of John, he lays hold on a passage of Saint Paul's in the 1 Cor. 11.29. and tells us, that if this Transubstantiation should not be received, 
Mr. Cressie, p. 128.  none could receive the body of Christ unworthily, because according to Protestants it is not the body of Christ, but mere bread, that an impenitent sinner receives. And Saint Paul's charge would be irrational when he says, such an one receives judgement to himself, in that he doth not discern the Lords body.  
Ans. (1.) This Argument is a manifest contradiction to the Apostle, who saith, let a man examine himself, 
1 Cor. 11.  and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup, for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily (viz. that bread and cup) eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lords body; so that the unworthy eater of the bread is the person that discerns not the Lords Body. (2.) Such persons are said not to discern the body of Christ, because they deal with the Elements that are Instituted to represent his Body and Blood as with common meat, not treating them with addresses proper to the mystery. So Saint Austin, non dijudicat, 
〈…〉 c. 8.  i. e. non discernit à caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter (illi) debita, so also the Greek Scholar upon the place.  
Sect. 3. But our Author proceeds thus; If the change be not in the Elements, but in the receivers Soul; (that is, if the Elements be not transubstantiated) what need is there of Consecration? what effect can it have? why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest, administer the Sacrament? what hinders that such a presence may not be effected every dinner and supper?  
Answer. Such Arguments as these, may very well persuade us that our Author received this Doctrine from Tradition, 
M●. Cressie, p. 12●. s. 8  not Ratiocination, as before he tells us; For if he had received it by such a Ratiocination, his Baptismal water must necessarily have been changed into I know not what. For if it remain water still, may not I ask him what need of any Consecration to become Sacramental? what effect can Consecration have upon it? why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest, administer this Sacrament? what hinders but we may have such a presence of Christ or the Holy Spirit every time we go to wash ourselves? This haply our Author saw, and therefore he durst not say, if the elements be not transubstantiated; but if the change be not in the Elements, which we grant it is, (the Bread is no longer common Bread, but holy, separated from a profane use to a sacred; it is now become an instrument to convey the benefits of Christ's death, which before it was not; represents Christ's broken body, which before it did not:) But Thirdly, to make a little sport with his demonstrations, Tell me, is there no use of Consecration but to transubstantiate? What is their Holy-water? Are all their Bells, their holy relics and images, transubstantiate? Secondly, Hath Christ required the Consecration of the Eucharist should be done by a Priest, or not? If not, then let him tell me, why a Master of a family may not consecrate these Elements as well as the Paschal Lamb? If he hath required it, then surely, whether Transubstantiation be true or false, it cannot be effected by a Laic. But, Thirdly, tell me, what is the Bread we eat at dinner, the Bread broken for us? Is the Wine the Papists drink on their fasting-dais, the Blood shed for the remission of their sins? Do men by eating and drinking remember Christ's death till he come? Have they any promise of such blessings from the partaking of their common Bread as Sacramental? If not, why doth our Author trouble us with such a frivolous comparison?  
He next proceeds to demonstrate this change out of the Fathers, Sect. 4 and thus he gins, Sect. 10. In all ancient Liturgies, (that is, all spurious ones) as Blondel himself (and for your better directions, you may see the name of Blondel in the Margin, without any Addition of Book or Chapter.) Though an Huguenot confesseth, the prayer for the Consecration of the Elements was, that God would by his holy Spirit sanctify the Elements, whereby the Bread may be made the Body, and Wine the Blood of our Lord. And for this he citys St. Basils' Liturgy, Cyrill. Hieros'. Mystag. Catech. after that the Acts of the Council of Nice, Cyrill. Alexand. Ep. ad Calosyr. and Greg. Nyssen. Orat. Catech. And here we have all that pretend to demonstrate this change, except Optatus, who tells us that the Altar is the seat of the Body and Blood of Christ. Now the mischief is, first, that all these Authors, (unless we may except cyril of Alexandria) are spurious, and have been proved so by Dr. Hoyle, in his Answer to a popish Friar, and some others.  
And first, as for Saint Basils' Liturgy, Sect. 5 he tells us that even Bellarmine himself dares not reckon it among St. Basils' works. Secondly, in this Liturgy is appointed to be sung the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Hymn, 
See the Epist●h of the same, Felix to Peter Bishop of Antioch, and Zeno the Empetor in the second T●mb of the Councils.  which began to be sung in the Church about the time of Felix the third, who lived Anno Domini, 480. Whereas Basil flourished Anno Domini, 370. or thereabouts. It mentions Confessors after Martyrs, whereas the Romanists themselves confess, they were not mentioned in their offices till after the days of this St. Basil. These and many other things you may find against it in Mornaeus, and Cocus, and other Protestant Writers.  
Secondly, As for the Catechism of cyril of Jerusalem, Sect. 6 he tells us, p. 467, 468. that even Papists themselves ascribe it to one John of Jerusalem, that lived about 400 hundred years after: Yea, even Gretser tells us, that he hath seen a manuscript which ascribes these Catechis●res to John of Jerusalem: Yea, in the Greek Library, which the City of Augusta bought of Antonius Governor of Corcyra, this book goes under the same title; The Mistogogi call Catechisms of John of Jerusalem, as the Index of these books doth evidence. Nor doth the butter forth of this Index in Possevine, among other European Libraries, deny it; and for a taste of the Author, Hearken to his notable Hyperbole, that the wood of the Cross is so multiplied that all the world is full of it.  
Thirdly, Sect. 7 Next, for the Council of Nice, he tells us, p. 466. out of Cardinal Baronius, that they are held a mere forgery. The true Nicene Acts (saith he) (except some fragments raked at second hand out of several Authors) are sufficiently known to be all lost, as being made away, and having suffered shipwreck in the Arrian tempests; And again, whereas all ages have been most eager in the pursuit of so noble a Monument, never a man could hitherto find it; and concludes that now no hope remains of so fertile a vintage: Nay, when hard search was made for a new Nicene Canon pretended by the Bishop of Rome, in defence of his supremacy, and by St. Augustine himself, and many Learned Bishops more, messengers were dispatched into Greece and Egypt, where the first and best Copies were; News was returned both from Atticus of Constantinople, and cyril of Alexandria, that no more of that Council could be found save only twenty Canons.  
Fourthly, Sect. 8 As for Nyssen his Catech. Orat. he tell us, first, that some in their Editions leave it cut, as knowing it (saith the Bishop of Spalat) to be corrupted. So Siphanius his Basil. Ed. Anno Domini 1571. others, that let it pass, tell us, that this 37. Chap. here cited is not frequently to be found in Ancient manuscripts, and that the Book is tainted with the opinions of Origen foisted into it. So the Author of the Paris Edition, 1573. Thirdly, that it mentions Severus, an Eutychian, a full 100 years later than cyril. Fourthly, that it speaks contrary to Nyssen himself; and Fifthly, that it holds no correspondence with all that Theodoret citys thence. And lastly, refers us to twelve Arguments of Spalatensis, against this and the following Chapter.  
Fifthly, Sect. 9 Cyrils Epistle ad Calosyr. is not extant among his works; and whether cyril of Alexandria wrote it is very uncertain. And (albeit I can not where come to a perusal of it, yet) it is capable of this sense, Christ is not altered; (viz. the Sacrament representing Christ is not altered) neither is his Body (that is, the Symbols of his body changed) by being kept till another day but the virtue of Benediction and quickening grace perpetually remains in it; for what is it that is blessed? sure not the Body of Christ, that being not present till after the benediction even when hoc est corpus meum is pronounced; and therefore 'tis the Eucharistical bread which he calls Christ.  
And yet were all these Authors true they might be answered by telling our adversaries they might as well have cited our Common Prayer Book, which calls the Bread, Sect. 10 the Body of our Lord Christ; and the Wine, his Blood shed for us. For we acknowledge it is so, viz. Sacramentally, and Representatively, but not by any substantial Mutation.  
The rest of the Fathers are quoted for adoration of the Eucharist; Sect. 11 and there are but two Sentences that can seem to incline to Transubstantiation. The first is that of Saint chrysostom, to wit, The most precious thing in Heaven I will show thee placed upon Earth: 
1 Cor. 10. Hom. 24.  But this may be fairly interpreted thus, That it is placed upon Earth in its representation in those Elements which convey the Virtue of his Body to us, and therefore deservedly are called his Body. Let chrysostom interpret himself; who in his Epistle ad Caesar. contra Haeres. Apollinar (cited by Damascen, and the Collector of the Sentences of the Fathers against the Severians, set forth by Turrian) hath these words. Before the Bread is sanctified we name it Bread; but the Divine Grace sanctifying it by the means of the Priest, it is freed from that Name, and is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords Body, although the nature of Bread remains in it.  
And yet I must not forget to tell you, 
p. 130.  that whereas our Adversary renders a Clause of Saint Chrysostom's sentence, Thou not only seest the body itself; Saint chrysostom hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thou dost not indced see the very same body, not properly the same that the Magis saw; But thou knowest both the Virtue and the whole Dispensation and art ignorant of nothing that was done, being accurately 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, taught all these things (in the Mysteries,) and so the place makes more against then for him.  
The same Answer may be returned to that of Ambrose; Sect. 12 That the same flesh is in the Mysteries which the Apostles worshipped in our Lord Christ, 
De Spir.  viz. 'tis in the Mystery representatively; 
See Bishop Taylor of real Pres. p, 384.  'tis here in Imagine, as St. Ambrose elsewhere; But in heaven in Veritate, the Truth, the substance is there. Thus l. 4. De sacram. C. 5. He calls it the figure of the Body and Blood of Christ; and c. 4. tells us, It is a wonderful power of God, which makes that the Bread should remain what it is, and yet be changed into another thing: and then again, How much more operative is the word of Christ, that the things be what they were, and yet are changed into another, and so, that which was bread before Consecration, now is the Body of Christ; which words, because they could not answer, they corrupted: And thus having returned an Answer to his Arguments, we come now to vindicate our own.  
The Learned Doctor had framed an Argument thus; Sect. 13 That which remained the fruit of the Vine was not Transubstantiated: But the Wine in which Christ Celebrated the Sacrament remained after Consecration the fruit of the Vine. To this our Adversary answers:  
1. 
Mr. C. 132. S. 12.  I confidently pronounce it evident that these 
* Matt. 26.29.  words were neither spoken by our Lord in the same breath after the Consecration of the Chalice, nor had they any regard to the Sacrament. And why so I pray you? Because Saint Luke mentions them after the eating of the Paschal Supper, and antecedently to the Mystical Consecration of his blessed Body and Blood: who saith he will write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Ans. A great reason of Confidence indeed! put it into Syllogium, and it runs thus. That which hath reference to the Passeover, and the drinking of the Cup which was annexed to it, hath not Reference to the Sacrament of the Supper of our Lord: But these words have reference to the former: Now all their who tell us that Christ spoke the sentence twice will deny his Major, seeing the words might have reference to both according to their various times of utterance. Now that this Interpretation must take place against our adversary I will prove; because he grants it doth refer to the Pass-over in Saint Luke: And evidently it refers to the Consecrated Cup in Saint Matthew. 
G. 26.  For he saith, Christ took the Cup, and gave it to them, saying, Drink you all of this: this, what? This in the Cup: why so? for this is my Blood, and then immediately follows: But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the Vine, until the day when I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom. Now then, this fruit of the Vine Saint Matthew speaks of is this that the Disciples are bid to drink of, as even the series of the words show; Drink ye all of this, for this is my Blood; but I will not drink of this.  
2. The fruit of the Vine must necessarily demonstrate some Wine; so St. Marks fruit of the Vine, must also have reference to some Cup demonstrated by him: But they mention no other Cup besides this Sacramental: therefore they must necessarily speak of this: and so much for his Major. Now I deny his Minor, which must be proved thus. That which S. Luke mentioned before any Consecration began. Immediately after, the Cup confessedly belonging to the Passover must belong to it. But these words St. Luke thus mentions. Now I retort upon his Major thus; That which Saint Matthew and Saint Mark mentioned not till after Consecration, and immediately after the Sacramental Cup, must belong to it; But this sentence is thus mentioned by them. I know he will tell us the disparity is in this, that St. Luke promised to write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the other Evangelist did not.  
Answer; Grotius will tell him, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies only sigillatim, as you may see, Acts 4.18.23. which Interpretation must take place here, it appearing sufficiently, that he frequently for the Coherence of things, joins those passages which were separated in order of time 
* As the same Grotius in his Comment doth evince, Vide Grot. in locum.  and therefore this reason of disparity is taken away.  
Thus I have confuted his Confidence; Sect. 14 Now though I dare not be Confident, I think it very probable, 
Vide Jansonium in locum.  that St Luke also speaks of the Consecrated Cup (as Saint Augustine would have it) by preoccupation, that so this saying, parallel to that of eating no more of the Passover, might be joined together. For Matthew and Mark speak of four things belonging to this Sacramental Cup: 

1. Giving of Thanks.  
2. Distribution of it.  
3. The asserting of it to be his Blood.    
(4.) His protestation of not drinking of it any more. Now Saint Luke speaks only of the third of these, If you will not allow the other verse to refer to the Sacred Cup. But if this be granted, then are all these actions mentioned in S. Luke directly as in the other Evangelists; Now than the interpretation makes all Harmonious between the Evangelists, whereas he bids defiance to S. Mark, and especially to S. Matthew, who (as I have proved) must necessarily be understood of the Eucharistical Cup.  
But our Author hath another answer, Sect. 15 if this fail, viz. that were it so that the wine after Consecration were called the fruit of the Vine, 
Mr. C. p. 133.  yet this doth not argue against a change of its nature, for Moses his Rod after it was changed into a Serpent was called a Rod still because it had been one. Exod. 7.12 And John 2.9. 'tis said of the Master of the feast, shalt he tasted the water that was made wine.  
Now to this I return, (1.) That the cases are no way parallel; for, first, in these instances, the matter remained, the form only being changed, it being proper conversion; but in the Eucharist; the Trent Council hath defined, that the substance of Bread remains not, and so there is not so much Reason why it should have the same name.  
(2.) These might well be called so, because the Serpent was made out of a Rod, tanquam ex causâ materiali, and the wine out of water; but you dare not say, that the Blood of Christ is so made out of wine.  
(3.) There were Circumstances annexed in these Cases, which did obviate all possibility of Fallacy. The Serpent is called a Rod, but such a one as devoured the other Rods; the wine mentioned by S. John is called Water; but 'tis Water made Wine; as if I should say, panis transubstantiatus, which phrase you would not much dislike; you will say, this Wine is called the Blood of Christ.  
Ans. Well, but whether Spiritually, or Corporally, is not said.  
(2.) We answer, that if this be a sufficient reason why the Blood of Christ should be called the fruit of the vine, though it be not really so; then may this be a sufficient reason why the bread may be called the body of Christ, though it be not so; 
See Paraeus de Reg. phrasium Sacrament. In Cor. 11. v. 23.  because Sacramental signs have often the names of the things signified by them. The sequel is evident from the parity of Reason, the same foundation of Each being the Analogous' phrase of Scripture: and in the great hold of Transubstantiation must be quitted.  
But (3.) He saith he will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine; which Argues, that before, viz. In other pasovers, Or at least in this, He had drank of it before; now that which he had drank of before (this being the first institution of the Sacramental Cup) must be really the fruit of the Vine; Well then, that which he saith he will drink of no more must be the same also.  
From what hath been said we may see sufficiently the weakness of his argument hence for transubstantiation, Sect. 16 which runs thus. Our Saviour drank of the Consecrated Cup, but he did not drink of the fruit of the vine, (because he says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) Ergo, the Consecrated Cup was not the fruit of the Vine. For not to tell him, 
See Beza in locum. Heins. In Mat. c. 21, v. 41, etc.  the Syriack Copies leave out the two verses in which the stress of all this Argument lies, nor yet to mind him of Beza's transposition of the verses, a * thing sufficiently probable.)  
(1.) How will he prove that our Saviour drank of the Consecrated Cup? will he run to Matt. 26? Alas, He hath told us, that it Concerns not this Cup; will he cite universal tradition? Let him show it, and at the same time he will show, that he interprets Saint Matth. contrary to them, seeing they that affirm it gather it from his words.  
(2.) Why may not his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be thus interpreted; I will not drink any more, viz. after the solemnity ended? Have we not S. Matthew's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to bear us out in't; and Saint Mark's, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which also may very well be borrowed from the 16 vers. in Saint Luke; It being very ordinary for Sacred Writers to leave a particle to be understood from the words foregoing or consequent. And if this interpretation stand, it can only be inferred, that after the solemnity ended He drank no more of the fruit of the Vine, which advantageth him nothing.  
And yet (3.) If neither of these two answers could stand, yet seeing we have made it probable, if not necessary, that these words should be understood of the Eucharistical Cup, His argument falls to the ground irrevocably. Sect. 17 For a close, I will mind him of what Jansenius has long ago told him, that this Argument is frivolous and unconcluding. Hence it appears, 
In locum.  (saith he) How infirm that Argument is, which some of our men suppose efficacious to prove Transubstantiation, from this that Christ said, non bibam de genimine vitis, inferring, that what he drank of was not so, etc. For (saith he) should we grant, (which yet is less probable,) that this was said by S. Luke before the Consecration, yet by Saint Matth. and Mark, it seems clearly to be spoken after; so that our arguing from uncertainties, which with greater probabilities may be rejected then alleged, will never be sufficient to establish any Dogma, or opinion, but rather give occasion to Heretic's to be more pertinacious in their Errors, when they see such weak arguments brought against them.  
Thus I have vindicated the Doctors Arguments; Sect. 18 I will but add one more, 
Mich. le Faucheur de la eene de Signeur.  though I can tell him where to meet with an hundred; and that is this: That which the Apostle six or seven times in one or two Chapters calls Bread is bread; but the Eucharist after consecration is so called by the Apostle. 2 Cor. 10.16, 17. chap. 11. vers. 26.27, 28. The minor is evident to any that hath eyes, and will believe them.  
The major I prove thus, (1) If that which is once called the body of Christ be sufficiently argued to be so, albeit it hath all the accidents of another thing, and seems to all our senses to be so, then that which is called Bread seven times, and seems to all our senses so to be, is sufficiently proved to be so, but the first is true. For the Council of Trent thence proves the Body of Christ to be Corporally in the Sacrament. If it doth it efficaciously, than it must be so; If not, then 'tis not an infallible interpreter of Scripture nor is their argument thence concluding. Now, that this was said but once by Christ, albeit repeated by three Evangelists and one apostle, is clear. This sequel is also evident; For there is greater reason for the one than the other, viz. That what is seven times called bread by the Spirit of God should be so, when all our senses testify it, then that which was but once called the body of Christ should be so, in Contradiction to all the senses of the Universe.  
To cite all the Fathers that here speak for us would be an endless work; Sect. 19 he that would see some hundreds of evident citations to this purpose, let him consult Bishop Ushers Answer to the Jesuits challenge, Bishop Morton, Bishop Tailor, and Doctor Featly, on this very Subject; (Books very obvious) but especially the two voluminous confuters of Cardinal Perron. Mich. Le Faveheur, and Bernardus Albertinus, to whom I refer the Reader for abundant satisfaction; and shall content myself with one only passage of Theodoret, who in his second Dial. brings in a man contending that Christ's humane nature was swallowed up of the Divine; which he illustrates thus: As the Elements or Symbols of the Lords body before the invocation of the Priest are one thing, but after Invocation are changed, and made another; so the Lords body after his Ascension is changed into a Divine substance; to which he answereth; You are caught in your own net, for the Symbols do not go out of their proper nature, but remain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the former substance wherein they were.  
And thus I have finished the first part of the Chapter concerning Transubstantiation; Sect. 20 I come now to return an answer to what he hath pleaded for the Adoration of the Sacrament.  
And first, the place which he citys out of St. chrysostom, will not conclude his purpose. For albeit he saith, 
1 Cor. 10. Ho. 24.  let us imitate the barbarous Magis, yet does he not say (as our Author's parenthesis would have him) that we should imitate them in worshipping our Lord, but only tells us that they addressed themselves unto him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with a great deal of fear or horror: Let us therefore stir up ourselves, (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and show 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, far greater fear than they. For this Exposition of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the comparison requires. And that this word ordinarily bears the sense, if any would farther be informed, let him have recourse to Beza, or any other Commentator upon the 5. Heb. 7 and he may receive satisfaction from them.  
Secondly, Did chrysostom indeed speak of Adoration, yet might he bid us imitate these Magis, not by adoring the Elements, but him that is represented by them. 
Hom. 8 q. in Matth.  Thus when elsewhere he says, that it is Christ who begs and receives in the poor man's sheaf, and bids us reverence him: I suppose he would not have the reverence done to the poor man, but directed to our Lord and Saviour.  
The other three Citations tell us only this, Sect. 21 that they did adore Christ's flesh in the Sacrament; 
Mr. Cr. p. 131.  and what is that to the purpose; for it is very well known that the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Latin Adoro, are used by the Fathers for any kind of reverence; as when it is said by Tertullian, Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem; and by the Council of Carthage, apud Cyprianum; Adorabilia Scripturae verba, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Isid. Pelusiot. Lib. 1. Ep. 136.  
But to come to particulars; Sect. 22 that place of Saint Ambrose doth not necessarily refer to the Sacrament. 
De Sp. l. 3. c. 1.   
Answ. But were it to be understood of the Eucharist, he saith no more than this; That in these mysteries we worship Christ, and consequently the flesh of Christ, as being not divided from him; but he doth not say, that in adoring the mysteries we adore Christ.  
And as for Saint Augustine, Sect. 23 he propounds the very same Objection: I fear (saith he) to worship the Earth, lest he that made Heaven and Earth should damn me for it; thus fluctuating I turn to Christ, and here I find how the Earth may be worshipped, because flesh is of the Earth; now he took flesh upon him, and gave us his flesh to eat, which no man eats, nisi prius adoraverit, but he that hath first adored, viz. Christ; As it follows, cum adoras illum, that is, when you worship him, (to wit, Christ,) Let not the thoughts be of the flesh: No, you must not worship that alone, but as conjoined with the Deity) Do we eat that flesh that is the body which we worship? Saint Austin will tell us presently, no; for he brings in Christ speaking to his Disciples thus; You eat not the body which you see; I have commended to you a Sacrament, which being spiritually understood shall quicken you. That which is brought out of the 120 Epistle needs no further answer, but only to note, that our Adversary hath added (it) to worship, determining the object, which Saint Austin did not; and by the same reason (saith the Lord Du Plessis) may be added to body transubstantiated or what you please.  
Sect. 24 Now that the primitive Church did not terminate such Adoration upon the Elements, is made out evidently by the Learned D. Taylor in these words: 
Lib. de trans. towards the end.  If the Primitive Church had ever taught that Divine worship was to be given to the Sacrament, it had been certain that the Heathen would have retorted most of the Arguments upon their heads, by which the Christians reproved their worshipping of Images. The Christians upbraided them with worshipping the works of their hands, to which themselves gave what figure they pleased, and then by certain forms consecrated them; and made by invocation (as they supposed) a Divinity to dwell there. They objected to them, that they worshipped that which could neither see, nor hear, nor smell, nor taste, nor move, nor understand; That which could grow old and perish, that could be broken and burned, that was subject to the injury of rats and mice, of worms and creeping things, that can be taken by Enemies, and carried away; That is kept under lock and key for fear of Thiefs, and sacrilegious persons: Now if the Church of those ages had practised and thought, as they have at Rome in these last ages, might not they have said, why might not we as well as you? Do not you worship that with divine honours, and call it your God, which can be burnt and broken, which yourselves form into a round or square figure, which the oven first hardens: And then your Priests consecrate, and by invocation make to be your God, which can see no more, nor hear, nor smell, than the silver and gold upon our images. Do not you adore that which rats and mice eat? which can grow mouldy and sour, which you keep under locks and bars for fear your God be stolen? Did not Lewis the ninth pawn your Deity to the Sultan of Egypt, insomuch that to this day the Egyptian Escutcheons, by way of Triumph, bear upon them a pix with a wafer in it? True it is, that if we are beaten from our Cities we carry our gods with us; But did not the Jesuits carry your Host, (which you call God) about their necks from Venice in the time of their interdict? And now, why do you reprove that in us which you do yourselves? What could have been answered to them if the Doctrine and accidents of the times had furnished them with the like instances? In vain it would have been to have replied; Yea, but ours is the true God, and yours the false gods. For they would easily have made a rejoinder, that this is to be proved by some other Argument: In the mean time, all your Objections against our worshipping of Images return violently upon you, upon this account; since none of the witty and subtle Adversaries of Christianity ever did or could make this defence by way of recrimination, it is certain there was no occasion given; And therefore those trifling pretences made out of some say of the Fathers, pretending the practice of worshipping the Sacrament, must needs be Sophistry and Illusion, and need no particular consideration.  
Will they say that the Fathers kept these mysteries secret, Sect. 29 and so the Heathens could not be acquainted with what they did? I answer. But were not there wise and subtle Apostates, such as Julian, such as the pesecutors of the Church forced to relinquish their profession of Christianity? Such as turned Christians chief upon these Arguments, enforced upon them by the Champions of the Christian cause? Doth not Saint Paul tell us, that even in his time all that were in Asia fell away from the truth, 2 Tim. 1.15. And could it be that none of these should be able to retort this Objection? Was it not strange that none of the Converts of the Church should be scandalised at this, when as Avicenna presently cries out, Quandoquidem Christiani adorant, quod comedunt, sit anima mea cum Philosophis.   

CHAP. XII.  
The State of the Question, Sect. 1. The lawfulness of communicating in one kind not proved from the Christians practice in the times of persecution, Sect. 2. Nor from their communicating of Infants, Sect. 3. Nor from their communicating of the sick and penitents at the point of death, Sect. 4. Nor from communions at Sea, Sect. 5. Nor last, from communions sent to other provinces, Sect. 6. Christ's institution respected Laics as well as Priests, Sect. 7, 8. An evasion obviated, Sect. 9 Further evidence of the Laics interest in the Cup, and a farther evasion obviated, Sect. 10. Christ's Institution a Command, Sect. 11. The verdict of Antiquity for us, Sect. 12. No evidence of concomitance, Sect. 13, 14. Three Arguments against it, Sect. 16, 17, 18. The vain pretences alleged for this half communion, Sect. 19 Upon what conditions a dispensation may be granted, Sect. 20.  
THe State of this Question is not, Sect. 1 as our Author would persuade us, 
Mr. C. p. 138. Ibid.  whether The receiving in both kinds be necessary to the essence of the Communion; (Albeit that be very true) but whether the administering the Sacrament in both kinds to the people, or Priests non-Conficients (capable of it in both kinds) be not necessary necessitate praecepti, or from the injunction of our blessed Saviour; or, in a word, whether the withholding of the Cup from such be not a violation of the will of Christ; If so, then farewell Trent Council. Now this we assert to be so; our Author on the contrary will make it good, that the Fathers thought the contrary, and appeals to Doctor Pierces Conscience, 
Ibid.  whether if he should side with us in it, he should not be overwhelmed with the Depositions of the most ancient Fathers against him; And then he produceth his old Arguments in defence of this apparent Novelty.  
And, first, he tells us out of Tertullian and Cyprian, Sect. 2 that during the times of persecution the Eucharist was delivered to the faithful under the species of Bread alone, 
Ibid.  and carried home to be reverently participated by them according to their particular Devotions.  
To which we Answer; 
P. 184.  First, in the words of Doctor Featly, That the Sacrament was anciently carried home in both kinds, and not in one, as the Romanist here pleadeth. And this is proved from Justin Martyr, who in his second Apology declaring the order of the Church, saith thus, Of the things that be consecrated, viz. the Bread, Water and Wine, they give a part to every one, and carry them to those that be absent. And Gregory Nazianzen writes to his sister Gorgonia, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that if her hand had laid up any portion of the tokens of the precious Body and Blood of Christ, in her Devotions she mingled it with her tears, and so received it.  
2. 
See Dr. Taylor duc. dub. B. 2. c. 3. p. 425.  We acknowledge, that it was attempted to be changed upon occasion of the Eremites, who coming but seldom to Church could but seldom receive the Chalice; but desiring more frequently to communicate, they carried the consecrated Bread with them into their Cells; and when they had a mind to it, in that imperfect manner, 
Can. 3.  did celebrate the Lord's Supper; But this custom was condemned with a curse in the Council held at Caesar-Augusta in Spain; 
Non Consumpsisse in Ecclesiâ.  which saith, If any man receive the Sacrament, and can be proved not to have finished it in the Church, let him be accursed for ever.  
3. We say that the Doctors of the Church in Tertullian and Saint Cyprians time did think it necessary to receive the Cup, and therefore could not be thought to have approved this half communion except in cases of necessity.  
Justin Martyr (who was before Tertullian) tells us, 
P. 97. 98.  that the Deacons distributed to all present the body and blood, and that the Apostles in their Gospels had delivered to them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that Christ had so commanded them. S. 
Lib. 2. Ep. 63.  Cyprian tells us, that if it be not lawful to break one of Christ's least Commandments, much less is it lawful to break any of those great commandments belonging to the passion of our Lord or the Sacrament of our Redemption, 
Hom. 16. on Numb.  or by humane Tradition to alter them. And Origen saith (speaking of the Sacrament) the Christian people embrace him, who saith, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Now he that saith so, surely, must be supposed to think it necessary that the people should have this blood to drink which is so necessary to their spiritual life.  
Fourthly and lastly, Sect. 9 we say that the Fathers cited by you in the Margin do not affirm that they received the bread only. 
To. 3 l. 9 c. 3.  And this you have been told by Chamier and other Learned Protestants upon this Controversy; produce your Fathers in the next, and confirm it from their words.  
The next supposed Evidence he brings, is, Sect. 3 the communicating of Infants in one kind. Now here, again, We answer as before.  
1. That Saint Cyprian and others cited in his Margin do not say, that the Infants which communicated received in one kind only, and that they mention but one kind, doth prove no more the thing in contest, than Saint Paul's charge of the unworthy persons not discerning the Lords Body proves that he participated not of the Cup; or if he did participate, discerned it.  
2. We say that Infants did communicate in both kinds; 
As you may see in D. Featly's Grand Sacrilege. p. 186. Chamier To. 4. l. 9  and this is proved from the testimony of the same Cyprian, from Saint Anstin, Ep. 107. (To which you may add a passage in his Hypognostic's cited by the Learned Chamier) and by Gennadius.  
3. Sect. 14 We acknowledge the Church in Communicating of Infants did sometimes dip the Holy bread into the Chalice, and so ministered the Sacrament: but this is an Evidence, that they thought not the bread alone sufficient.  
4. We acknowledge also, that upon occasion of this use, 
Bishop Taylor, duc. dub. l. 2. c. 3, p. 426. Can. de Consecrat. didst 2d.  some fell in love with the trick, and would have had it so in ordinary Administrations; but against those Pope Julius opposeth himself, declaring it to be against the Divine Order, and Apostolical Constitutions, and contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles, and Custom of the Church; and his words are remarkable to show from whence this Article is to be determined. Non difficulter hoc ab ipso fonte veritatis probatur, in quâ ordinata ipsa Sacramentorum Mysteria processerunt: showing that the very institution of the Sacrament is the Fountain from whence we are to derive the truth in this inquiry: But when this superstition was again revived about the year 580. the now mentioned Decree of Pope Julius was repeated in the third Council of Braccara, and all set right again according to the perpetual custom of the Church, and the institution of our blessed Lord: and their pretence (which was, lest they should spill any thing of the holy Chalice) laid aside as trifling and superstitious.  
His third instance is the Communicating of the sick and penitents at the point of death, Sect. 4 
Ibid.  which according to him was in one kind: Now to this we say, that the two last answers given to the former instance suit to this. For the Church did sometimes administer the bread dipped in the Chalice to dying persons; And upon that occasion also it was abused, and the opposition now mentioned was made to that abuse. Next, we say, his proofs are not concluding, indeed Euseb. l. 6. tells us, That the old man's mouth was dry, and therefore the Boy was desired to moisten the Bread by sopping it: but thence to argue, that the old man received no Wine, is a strange and contradictory inference.  
3. We say, and that out of the same Authors by him cited, that such did communicate in both kinds. This appears by the charge that Dionysius Alexand. 
Euscb. Eccl. Hist. lib. 6. c. 6.  gave to his Priests, that if any that were ready to die desired to partake of the Holy Mysteries, they should obtain their desires, If in health they had been humble suitors for it: Yea this may be gathered from Justin Martyr, who, in the place forecited, saith, That the body and Blood of our Lord before hand consecrated was sent to those that were absent, amongst whom were necessarily the sick.  
Lastly, 
Bishop Taylor, duc. dub. l. 2. c. 3 N. 429. S. 28.  the Council of Turon considering the necessities of sick and dying persons appointed the consecrated Bread to be sopped in the Consecrated Chalice; adding this reason, that the Priest might truly say, The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be profitable to you for the Remission of your sins unto Eternal Life: ' wherein they intimate, that it was necessary to the truth of these words, and cousequently to the receiving an entire Sacrament, that the sick person should participate of both the Elements, and consequently never dreamt of your concomitance, the only salvo imaginable, for this your sacrilege.  
Fourthly, Sect. 5 He tells us this was practised in Communions at Sea. 
Ibid.   
Now, First, He should have made this good by testimony, and not have produced it backed with no authority; especially when,  
Secondly, 'Tis manifest from their asserting the necessity of both species, that they would not omit it if it could be otherwise; and therefore Greg. Nazianz. in praise of Gorgonia, saith, Omnes in Navi residentes Corpus & Sanguinem Christi accepisse.  
Thirdly, If this were practised, 
This Answer agrees to all the  instances.  it was only in case of necessity; and that which is only made lawful by an unavoidable necessity, when that necessity is taken away is unlawful; And indeed, by the same reason a Jew might have proved the neglect of Circumcision lawful at any time, because when the Children of Israel travelled in the wilderness, by reason of their uncertain removes, it was necessary to omit it.  
Fourthly, I cannot tell what necessity of communicating in one kind should happen to them, since they might take Wine with them, or go to Land to procure it.  
Fifthly, As to the Communions sent to other Provinces, Sect. 6 I know they were wont to send a loaf to one another, in token of mutual Friendship, Love, and Unity; Yea, they had their Eulogia, in token of their Communion in the same Church. Stillingfleet, Iren. p. 399, 370. But that they participated of it as Sacramental Bread, or that they did it without Wine; or doing it so, supposed themselves to celebrate an entire Sacrament, are things remaining to be proved. And thus we have endeavoured to return somewhat satisfactory unto our Adversaries pretences for Justification of their half-Communion; It remains, that I briefly confute the same, which I shall endeavour by these degrees.  
(1.) Christ Instituted the Sacrament in both kinds; Sect. 7 this is granted by our Author, nor could he possibly deny it.  
(2.) I say Christ Instituted in both kinds not only for Priests but Laics; which appears (1.) from the Reasons annexed to the receiving of both kinds; and (1.) The Reason of their receiving the bread is this; because 'tis the body broken for them; take it (saith our Saviour) this is my body which was broken for you; 
Ratio legis est lex.  This therefore being the Reason why they were to take and eat, and this Reason concerning all believers as well as the Apostles and other priests, the institution or precept to take and eat most consequently concern them; and if it do not, by what Argument will they conclude, that this Institution, as to any part of it, concerns Women, yea, or the successors of the Apostles? Now transfer the Argument to the cup, and it runs thus; The Reason of participating of the Cup, 
Mat. 26.28.  viz. (Because it is the Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for the remission of sins) doth concern Laics as well as priests: Therefore the command [drink ye all of this] to which the Reason is annexed, 
1 Cor. 11.  concerns them also. Again, another Reason why we must do this, why we must eat the Bread, and drink the Cup, is, that we may remember Christ's death, and show it forth till His second coming, as the Scripture speaks, and all the world acknowledgeth; and doth not this concern all believers as well as priests? Yea, seeing the words recorded, vers. 26. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this blood, 
1 Cor. 11.24, 25, 26.  you show the Lords death till he come, were not (as we can find in any of the Evangelists) spoken by our Saviour, they must be spoken by S. Paul, who applies himself to the whole Church of Corinth, and consequently the words preceding, this do, as often as you drink, in remembrance of me, must belong to them by reason of the connective particle, which connects the 25 and 26 verses; and makes it necessary, that the same persons should be related to in the words; this do, etc. for as often as ye eat, etc.  
Again, Sect. 8 I Argue thus, that which is the Communion of the body of Christ to Laics as well as Priests when worthily received, concerns Laics as well as priests; But the bread is the Communion of the body of Christ to Laics as well as Priests, 
1 Cor. 10.16.  as saith the Apostle to the Corinthians, (who I suppose were not all priests) upon this account exhorting them not to partake of Idol Sacrifices (in which I suppose he did not grant a liberty to the people, but intended by this argument to restrain them from partaking of the table of Devils, as well as priests.) The Major is evident, for sure it concerns Laics to partake of that which is to them the Communion or Communication of the body of Christ: this argument may also be transferred unto the Cup: for that being the Communion of the blood of Christ, when worthily received, as well as the bread, it equally concerns them to participate of that as of the bread.  
Now that which I foresee may be returned to these arguments is this; Sect. 9 That the people by participating of the bread do participate of the Cup, which is the blood shed for the remission of their sins; that is, they participate of that which is the blood, it being concomitant with the bread, and so the bread is the Communion of the body of Christ; but not so only, but also of his blood.  
Now (1) (To omit the refutation of this figment of concomitance till anon) this Answer destroys the Energy of Christ's words, who, after they had participated of the body, bids them also drink of this cup, because it was his blood shed for sinners, when as yet he knew that they had already done so, and could have told him that he might have spared his cup and his Reason both.  
(2.) Were this so, then would the participation of the cup be evidently superfivous, it being Instituted after the participation of the body, to exhibit that blood to us which by the participation of the Body was already exhibited.  
Arg. (3.) Sect. 10 If in this Institution the Apostles were considered not as priests, 
Bishop Taylor duc. Du●. p. 422, 423. S. par. 2.  but as representatives of the whole Church, Then was the Sacrament Instituted in both kinds not only for priests but Laics; for that which was given to them, and they required to receive as representatives of the whole Church, must concern the whole Church, not only priests but Laics: Now if they were not to be considered in this capacity, where shall we find a warrant that the people may receive at all? for if they received only in the capacity of Clergy men, than the Institution extends no farther; and 'tis as much Sacrilege for the people to eat and drink the Symbols, as 'tis to offer at the consecration (for 'tis a meddling with Sacra, which equally belongs not to them.) But if they received in the capacity of Christians only, than they received the Commandment for drinking in the Chalice for themselves, and for all Christians. Their usual evasion is, that the Apostles as Laics received the Bread; But then when Christ said, hoc facite, he made them Priests, and then gave them the Chalice as representatives of the Clergy, not of the people.  
This one would think were a strange shift, and yet 'tis such a one as they are forced to fly unto.  
But, First, Let it be considered how unlikely 'tis that Christ should at one time institute two Sacraments (for they pretend Ordination also to be a Sacrament) of so different natures, and yet speak nothing of the use, or the reason, the benefit or the necessity of one of them; nor tell them that he did so, nor explicate the mystery, nor distinguish the rite or the words, but leave all this to be supposed by the most improbable construction in the world.  
Secondly, If the Apostles were made Priests by hoc facite, spoken before the institution of the Chalice, then doth not hoc facite, signify offerte sacrificium, as the Trent Council (that infallible interpreter of Scripture) would have it, and consequently cannot make them Priests, that is, in their language, Sacrificers. For by their own Doctrine to offer both kinds is necessary to a sacrifice.  
Thirdly, If the Apostles were thus made Priests, and drank of the Chalice under that capacity, then seeing this is a Command (as we presently shall evince) it ought to be followed, at least so far, and all the Priests that are present aught to receive the Chalice; which because they do not in the Church of Rome, it is apparent that they prevaricate the institution; and that they may exclude the Laity from the Cup, they use their Clergy as bad when non-Conficients.  
Thirdly, Sect. 11 I say, that the institution of Christ touching the receiving of both Elements ought not to be violated. This will sufficiently be made out, if it can appear that the institution includes in it a Command to receive those Elements, and that not temporary, but reaching even to us: Now the Trent Council tells us, that ho facite, etc. is a command or an injunction to the Disciples and their successors to offer the same body and blood which was offered by him. Yea, the Apostle Intimates to us, that this is a standing Institution, in telling us of showing forth the Lords death till ●e come. Now it is evident, that hoc facite is a command to eat the Bread or Body of Christ; in that it is said, Take, eat, this is my Body; this do, this which I bid you do; what was that? eat his Body. But it is more clear concerning the Cup, of which it is said, this do as oft as you drink it, in remembrance of me: Clearly showing that to do this was to drink the Cup; and with greater evidence if possible from the 26. verse, where the Apostle infers, that we do this in remembrance of Christ, because as oft as we eat this Bread and drink this Cup, we show forth the Lords de●th till he come; Clearly intimating, that to do this is to eat this Bread and to drink this Cup: Wherefore this being a Command, it is apparent we have a Command to eat this Bread and drink this Cup, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sect. 12  
Now that Antiquity sides with us is beyond-dispute; 
In 1 Cor. 11. Quest. 59 in Levit.  for beside the evidence already given, St. Augustine saith, Not only no man is forbidden to take the blood of the sacrifice for nourishment; but, on the contrary, all men who desire life are exhorted to drink it: By whom? sure, by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles.  
Pope Leo calls the refusal of the Cup, 
Hom 4. de quadr.  practised by the Manichees, sacrilegious simulation, and would have such men driven from the society of the Saints: Yea, when at the general Council of Chalcedon, Act 10. there was an accusation brought in against Iba, Bishop of Edessa, that in some Churches of his Diocese there was but little Wine, and that corrupt and sour, provided for the Altar to be sacrificed and distributed to the people, that Bishop was severely taxed; Whereby it appears, that at the time of this Council, the Administering of the Sacrament of the Lords supper to the people without Wine was held a profanation of it. 
De Consecrat. didst 2. comperimus etc.  The words of Pope Gelasius are remarkable, (as you find them in Gratian) We find that some receiving a portion of Christ's holy Body, abstain from the Cup of his most sacred Blood; which because they do out of I know not what superstition, we command that either they receive the entire Sacraments, or that they be entirely withheld from them; 
In Psa. 6. poens.  because this division of one and the selfsame mystery cannot be without Grand Sacrilege. Thus a Pope, è Cathedra; And Saint Gregory cries out, Who can sufficiently express what a mercy it is to have these mysteries of Christ's Body and Blood distributed, 
De C rp. & Sang. Domini, c. 15. & 19  by the perception of which the Church, his Body, pascitur & potatur: I will conclude with Paschasius, who tells us, That neither the Flesh without the Blood, nor the Blood without the Flesh, is rightly communicated: And expounding the words of Christ, saith, He alone it is that breaks this Bread, and by the hands of his Ministers distributeth it to all believers, saying, Take, drink ye all of this, as well Ministers as the rest of the faithful. He that would see more of Antiquity let him go to Cassander, and 
* De Eccles. l. 4. c. 19  Modrevius, Papists; and to Doctor Featly, who vindicates these places from Bellarmine's exceptions.  
We pass on now to the Fourth Section; Sect. 13 wherein we are told, 
M●. C. p. 139.  That the Receivers in one kind, in the  cases, did not think they received more of Christ at public Communions in the Church, when the Sacrament was delivered in both species, then when at home in one only.  
But, First, How came he acquainted with their Mind? Hath hi● Guardian Angel told him so?  
Secondly, In the  cases, which include in them a necessity of participating in one kind, (if there be any such) we can readily allow them to expect as much benefit from one as both, yea from spiritual Communion as corporeal, or by the Elements, when this latter way cannot be had; but thence to argue against the necessity of participating by outward Symbols would be strangely ridiculous and impertinent.  
But he tells us farther, Sect. 14 that they believed that entire Christ was received by them in each divided particle of the species of Bread, 
Ibid.  and every divided drop of the species of Wine; and that the Flesh of Christ eould not be received without concomitance of the Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ; Nor his Blood without the concomitance of his flesh, etc. Now, not to require a proof of him, that ever the Fathers made any mention of the species of Bread or Wine, (a strong suspicion of their ignorance of the Romanists Transubstantiation) nor to inquire too rigidly what pretty creatures particles of species no no where subjected, and divided drops of species, should be, let us come to his proofs. Sect. 15  
And, First, He summons in Saint Ambrose, to tell us, that Christ is in the Sacrament, because it is the Body (that is the representation of the Body) ●f Christ: Next, the Council of Ephesus, to inform us, that we participate the flesh of Christ, not as common, but as truly quickening flesh; That is, which by our spiritual reception of it is made quickening to us.  
And, Thirdly, Saint Austin, 
This he did, saith he, quodammodo con. 2. in Ps. 33. And this quodammodo is non rei virtute sed significante mysterio, cp. 23. ad Bonif. l. 12. in Joan. c. 32.  to teach us that Christ was carried in his own hands, that is, (Christ real and corporeal di● carry these Elements which represented him in his hand) Ergo, in every divided particle of the species of Bread is the Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ; A Consequence very irrational and absurd: Nor will the testimony of Saint Cyrill be able to conclude the business; for if he argue from these words; The four parts of the world have divided amongst themselves his flesh, without dividing of it. I Answer, he adds, The Paschal Lamb was found amongst all the Israelites, divided and yet undivided; And will our Author thence argue, that he esteemed each part of the Paschal Lamb to be the whole, or that he that received the least particle thereof received the whole? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  If he argue from the following words, for the only begotten (not passing into, as he rendereth it, but) being distributed to them all, and sanctifying each of their Souls and Bodies by his own flesh, is in all of them whole and entire, being every where one; for, as Saint Paul teacheth, he is not divided: I say, if hence he argue, I answer, that he is in all of them whole and entire, as being truly God, and truly (though mystically) united to them; For having sanctified them by his flesh spiritually received, he is spiritually made one with them, as the Apostle tells us, 1 Cor. 10.17. And thus have we dispatched his pretences for concomitance; his fifth and sixth Sections are built upon the third and fourth, and therefore must fall with them; 
C. 13. S. 4.  I pass on therefore to urge an Argument against concomitance.  
And (1.) Sect. 16 I will take for granted what our Author affords me, viz. that this Sacrament is a commemoration of Christ's Sacrifice, 
Mr. C. p. 146.  of his former immolation, and the real● shedding of his Blood; do this in remembrance of me being sufficient warrant for his assertion.  
(2.) I suppose that in this Sacrament the shedding of Christ's blood is by the Symbols represented.  
For (1.) Why else have we the Wine separated from the bread?  
(2.) How is it a representation of Christ's Sacrifice upon the cross? that being a Sacrifice in which his Sacred blood was shed?  
(3.) How do we by partaking of his blood show forth his death, but by showing that his blood was separated from his body?  
(4.) I suppose that Christ's blood is represented by the wine consecrated, not antecedently to the consecration; else may it represent it in the Cellar, as well as in the Church.  
(5.) I suppose that shedding of Christ's Blood is the separating it from the body, or at least from the veins; and consequently the representation of it as shed is the representation of it as severed from the veins; but now it is impossible that such a representation should be made to an assertor of concomitance, seeing he is bound to believe that where one single drop of blood is resident, there also must the Sacred body of Christ reside entirely; and consequently it is impossible that concomitance should be a truth.  
(2.) Sect. 17 If there be such a necessary concomitance, then must each part exhibit whole and entire Christ, and consequently the depriving the Laity of one part must be the depriving them of whole Christ as offered to them, for the remission their sins, and Sanctification. Now then in doing so, either you deprive them of some benefit, or not; if the first, then are you Sacrilegious in depriving the people of some benefit from those Sacred mysteries they formerly received, and that agreeably to the Institution of S. Paul received from Christ, and the common practice of the Church for a thousand years.  
Secondly, Then must you grant that by communicating in both kinds, more of Christ is received, contrary to your fourth Section; if the latter, than (not to speak of the superfluity of Christ's instituion.) First, you must assert, that albeit a man receive entire Christ, and that worthily, and have the pardon of his sins, and the benefits of the new Covenant sealed to him, yet may he be never the better.  
And secondly, You will be troubled to give a reason why the Conficient should be obliged by you to drink the Chalice, and not excused by concomitance.  
Thirdly, Sect. 18 If they who receive the body by concomitance receive the blood, than they who consecrate the body by reason of concomitance do also consecrate the blood (the parity of Reason being most notorious) and consequently no Reason can be assigned, why Christ in his Institution should be thought to oblige us to the Consecration in both kinds, rather, than the Reception in both kinds; and therefore seeing the Trent Council saith peremptorily, 
De Missa, Sess. sexta. c. 10.  that Christ commanded the Apostles and their Successors to offer in both kinds, why should she not also say, that he commanded them and their Successors to distribute in both kinds?  
But were this salve good, Sect. 19 yet would it not free them from the imputation of an half Sacrament, though it would from the delivering of half Christ; for seeing a Sacrament is an outward visible sign, it follows evidently that he who hath but half of the outward visible signs hath but half of the Sacrament, and consequently hath an half Sacrament; these and many other things may be alleged against this half Communion, which I suppose will a little exercise their Reason in the Answer of them; and therefore our Author did well to take Sanctuary in the infallibility of the Church, and then proceed to give some account of the Reasons that induced her to this grand Sacrilege.  
And (1.) He tells us, Sect. 20 that it was done by reason of the wonderful increase of the Communicants, and decay of their devotion, whence very great danger of irreverence and effusion of the precious blood of our Lord was like to follow, if not thus prevented.  
Now (1.) (Not to tell him that this excuse hath been by the Primitive Church rejected as Superstitious) lay aside that monstrous opinion of Transubstantiation, and what great harm will it be, if casually and by no fault of ours, or wilful contempt, some of the Wine should be spilt?  
(2.) With what conscience can they pretend their Reverence to the Sacrament, for this, when our Author supposes there be multitudes little sensible of Religion, and so multitudes of wicked men to whom they without scruple give the holy bread which is Christ's body, albeit some of them may haply vomit him, some spit him out again, some throw him to the Dogs, etc. I can very easily persuade myself that Christ had rather be spilt upon the ground, then devoured by wicked men.  
Secondly, Sect. 21 He conjectures that the heresy of Berengarius might occasion this order of the Church. 
Mr. C. p. 142.   
Ans. But who gave the Roman Church warrant to violate Christ's Institution to those ends, to commit Sacrilege to uphold a gross untruth, and to conspire with the heresy of the Manichees against an Orthodox and apparent truth? and here our Author leaves Divining, though some of his brethren add, that should the Laity have the Cup, than some drops of Christ's blood might stick unto their beards, some might be ejected with their spittle; and if I may be permitted to add my Symbol, some of them may be poisoned by the cup; the Romanist knows how to play such pranks.  
Oh, Sect. 22 
Mr. C. p. 141.  but a dispensation may haply be had, seeing the Trent conventicle, or the General Council of fifty Bishops, hath referred this matter to the Pope.  
Ans. Very good, but with these provisoes.  
(1.) That those who are willing thus to communicate do in every other thing agree with the received faith, doctrine and manners of the Roman Church, and religiously observe all the decrees of this Synod.  
Secondly, That they believe and confess that the custom of communicating in one kind is laudable and to be observed as a Law, unless the Church decree the contrary; and that those who continue to think otherwise are Heretics (that is, she will permit the Pope to grant us a dispensation if we will acknowledge it to be needless.)  
Thirdly, That they will give all Reverence to the Pope as Bishop and Pastor of the Universal Church, (the Pope you see hath not this power of dispensation given him for nothing) with other the like stuff; and after all these things 'tis but videtur posse concedi, it seems the Pope may grant a dispensation.  
But were it, as he would have it, seeing we openly declare this, as one ground of our separation, that the Church of Rome necessitates us not only to receive an half Communion, but also to profess, that we believe this manner of Administration agreeable to the word of God, is it possible that the Schism should be on our part, who proclaim ourselves willing to close with her, if she will cease to require these unlawful terms of Communion; and not rather on the part of the Church of Rome, which still obstinately persists in exacting such conditions from us?   

CHAP. XIII.  
The state of the Question, Sect. 1. No Argument from the name of Sacrifice, Sect. 2. Preaching called a Sacrifice, and the Testimony of Saint Austin considered, Ibid. Alms called a Sacrifice, and testimony of Irenaeus largely considered, Sect. 3. The Eucharist a symbolical Sacrifice, and the testimonies of Ignatius and Saint Cyprian considered. Sect. 4. In some sense propitiatory Sacrifice, and the testimony of Saint chrysostom considered; Mr. C. saith no more than our Church doth, Sect. 6. The Eucharist no true proper Sacrifice, Sect. 7.  
THe Council of Trent hath pronounced her Anathema upon all who shall affirm that in the Mass there is not offered a true and proper Sacrifice, Sect. 1 and that propitiatory: This therefore is the Doctrine of the Romanist; and we are now to consider whether Scripture, Reason, or the Fathers of the Primitive times do countenance it.  
1. Sect. 2 Therefore the name of Sacrifice is attributerd to those things, both by Scripture and the Primitive Fathers, which even the most rigid Papist must acknowledge not to be truly and properly so called; and consequently the Argument taken from this Topick must be invalid.  
And first, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in locum: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haer. 79. Coul. color. in Lovit. l. 5. Mr. C. P. 146. l. 2●. De Civ. Dei, c. 10. C. 20. v. 6. Qui proprie jam vocantur in Ecclesiâ Sacerdotes.  the preaching of the Gospel is called a Sacrifice, Rom. 15.16. where the Apostle tells the Romans that he did (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Sacrifice the Gospel of God. Whence Origen styles the preaching of the Word a work of Sacrificing, Epiph. saith that the Apostles were elected to Sacrifice the Gospel, and Cyril of Alexandria, that the Priest did slay the Host of the Word of God, and offer the victim of Holy Doctrine. To omit the like say of chrysostom, and others: and hither we refer that of Saint Austin (cited by Mr. C. to evince this proper Sacrifice) where descanting upon that passage of the Apocalypse, They shall be Priests with God and Christ, and shall reign with him 1000 years; he informs us that this Text speaks not in a peculiar manner of Bishops and Presbyters. to whom the name of Priests was appropriated in the Church, but is to be extended to all Christians, so styled, as being members of their high Priest. So that he saith they are Priests properly so called, not in reference to any proper sacrifice to be offered by them (of which no mention at all was made:) but in Opposition to other Christians not entered into holy Orders; 
Seipsum obtulit & ejus sacrificii similitudinem in suae passionis memoriam celebrandum obtulit, lib. qu. 83. qu. 6. Epist. 23. ad Bonif.  and therefore catachrestically called so. And that Saint Austin was far enough from asserting the Eucharist to be a proper sacrifice, is extremely evident, in that he calls it the similitude of Christ's sacrifice, and tells us He that saith Christ is immolated in this Sacrament would not lie, because if Sacraments had not a similitude of things of which they are Sacraments, they could not be so: Now from this similitude they take the names of the things themselves, even (as saith he) after a manner the Sacrament of Christ's Body is his Body, 
Secundùm quendam modum.  and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ his blood: which therefore, according to Saint Austin, are such only by way of similitude, or by a Metonymy of the sign for the thing signified, and accordingly the Sacrifice must be so styled on the same account: And hence it is that elsewhere he saith, 
L. 10. Cont. Faust. c. 2. L. 20. c. 21. and c. 28. Christiani peracti ejuedem sacrificii memoriam, celebrant sacrosancta oblatione & perticipatione corporis & sanguit is Christi.  That which by all is called a true sacrifice, is the sign of a true sacrifice; and then presently after will have it to be a sacrifice of remembrance, or the remembrance of a sacrifice.  
§. 3. Secondly, Alms and Offerings made for the poor are called Sacrifices: S. Paul styles them Offerings well pleasing and acceptable to God, Philip. 4.14. and Victims, Heb. 13.16. 
* l. 4. c. 32. De Elemosyna. L. 4. c. 32. Mr C. p. 114. 1.  Irenaeus saith, That these first fruits are the Offerings of the Universe, S. 
* l. 4. c. 32. Dee Elemosyna. L. 4. c. 32. M. C. p. 114.1.  Cyprian checks the rich widow for approaching the Lords Table without her Corban, without a Sacrifice, yea eating of the sacrifice the poor man bronght. And in St. Augustine's phrase, the Alms of pious Matrons are Oblations. And of this sacrifice doth: Irenaeus speak (in the Sentence urged by Mr. C. to evince this proper sacrifice) when he tells us That our Saviour giving counfel to his Disciples to offer the first fruits to God of his creatures; (not as if he wanted any thing; but that they might not be unfruitful, or ungrateful) took the creature of bread, and gave thanks, saying, this is my Body, 
Qui est ex ea creatura quae est secun●um nos.  and the C●p likewise (which consists of a creature which is usual amongst us, he confessed to be his blood, and brought a new Oblation of the New Testament, which the Church receiving from the Apostles offers through all the world unto that God who gives us nourishment (to wit) the first fruits of his gifts in the New Testament, of which the Prophet Malachy speaks, cap. 1. vers. 11. where it is manifestly declared that the former people (of the Jews) have ceased to offer unto God, and in all places a pure sacrifice is now offered to him: Where first, not to deal rigidly with him, in telling him that Irenaeus doth not determine whether this Oblation be Eucharistical, or Ilastical; or if Ilastical, whether properly or rather metonimycally: so I confidently affirm that the Sacrifice here mentioned can not be the sacrifice of the Mass, or of Christ's Body and Blood; the reasons are:  
1. From these words, Chap. 34. The Oblation of the Church which the Lord taught us to be offered in the whole world is reputed a pure sacrifice before God, and acceptable to him; not because God wants our gift or sacrifice; but because he that offereth is glorified thereby if his gift be accepted: When therefore thou offerest this gift at the Altar: 
Matt. 5.24, 25.  Go first and be reconciled to thy brother, then come and offer it. You must therefore offer to God the first fruits of his creatures; 
Deut. 16.26.  as Moses said, Thou shalt not appear empty before God. Now had he spoken of the sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood, would he have told us that it is reputed apure sacrifice, not is so; when to be, and to be reputed are disparates.  
But secondly, the Oblation which he speaks of is that which all Christians offer not the Priest only as is evident from the two places cited, when thou offerest thy gift. And thou shalt not appear empty before God. Seeing therefore that the first fruits of the creature to be offered to God here, are not the Body and Blood of Christ; (and Irenaeus tells us that he speaks of this Oblation which the Church offers throughout all the world) neither can that be such.  
3. You have a further Evidence in that it is said, We offer this sacrifice to God; not that he wants it, but that we should not be unfruitful, For that this passage must refer to Alms, not to Christ's Body; Let Irenaeus himself assure us, who in this 34. Chapter tells us, that God wants not any thing of ours; but yet 'tis needful we offer somewhat to him: for, as Solomon saith, 
Pro. 19.17.  He that hath mercy on the poor dareth to the Lord; and that God which wants nothing yet takes our good works as done to him, that he may give us a reward of his good things for them, as our Lord saith, Come you blessed of my Father etc. for I was an hungry and you gave me to eat; I, 
Mat. 24.25.  and a little after he tells us, that God will have these things done by us, that we may not be unfruitful; so that evidently this refers to Alms and the Oblations at the Eucharist, not of the Eucharist; and therefore the same words in this Sentence touching the same matter, must in all reason be esteemed to refer unto them also.  
Again, in the same Chapter he adds, The Sacrifice doth not sanctify the man, but the conscience of him that offers, being pure, doth sanctify the Sacrifice. Seeing therefore with simplicity (or sincerity.) The Church doth offer the Sacrifice is justly reputed pure by God. And hence it is that Saint Paul calls them an Odour of sweetness, an Offering acceptable and well pleasing unto God: For we must offer unto God; Thus the Church offers to him the first Fruits, and that of his Creatures; and a little after, we offer, sanctifying the Creature.  
Now first, can it be tolerably said, we sanctify the sacrifice of Christ's body, and that it sanctifieth not us? That this sacrifice is reputed pure before God from our sincerity in offering? That the Apostle in the place now cited, speaks of the Body of Christ, not Alms? And consequently can the Offering of the first Fruits of his Creatures be any other? Seeing therefore this Offering of the New Testament which the Church offers is expressly said to be primitias suorum munerum, the first fruits of her gifts offered to him that affords us sustenance: is it not rationally inferred, that it refers also to these Alms and Oblations made at the Sacrament, not to any Oblation of the Sacrament? well then;  
2. 
Mr. Mede's Christian Sicrifice.  In short in the Primitive times the Church of God was wont to offer very freely of what God afforded them; and amongst the rest, they offered Bread and Wine to him that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, chief Minister of the Brethren, who took it and gave thanks and glory to the Lord of the whole world: then made a large and prolix thanksgiving to him that had made them worthy of such gifts, and the rest of the Offerings were distributed either to serve the necessities of the poor, or for other uses of the Church, as you may find in Justin Martyr, 
Apol. 2.  and Irenaeus, every where. And to this it is that he here refers, when he tells us that our Lord instituting this Sacrament taught us a new Oblation of the New Testament.  
I confess Bellarmine here objecteth that Irenaeus speaks of such a sacrifice as was to succeed the sacrifices made in the Jewish Pedagogy; Now such were not the sacrifices of Alms, Prayers, Thanksgivings; and therefore Irenaeus cannot be supposed to speak of them.  
But first, Irenaeus doth no no where say, that the sacrifice he speaks of succeeds those of the Jewish Laws, but only that they have ceased to Offer, and in their places we now do.  
2. 
See this Argument shamtfully balfled, in Mat. Boehart. traitte du sacrifice de la M●sse, seconde partiè, Chapitre 5.  Will it hence follow, that we must offer a proper sacrifice as they did? Doth not our service succeed theirs, and must it be therefore carnal, as well as this service of the Jews? If this Argument be good, our sacrifice succeeds a proper sacrifice, and therefore it is so: must not this also be esteemed so? Our sacrifice succeeded a bloodysacrifice and therefore it is such; our sacrifice succeeded a sacrifice of bruit beasts, and therefore it is such,  
Our second Consideration is, that the Eucharist may be called a sacrifice symbolically, as representing, applying, and some way impetrating for us all the benefits of Christ's real sacrifice on the Cross: For seeing the signs are often put for the things signified, 
Chrysost. H. 27. in Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Euseb. dem. Evan l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vide For. Cons. mod. p. 451.  and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acquire the names of what they represent, and bring to our remembrance; Yea seeing the Apostle tells the Galathians, that Christ was crucified amongst them; because his sufferings on the Crofs were most lively represented to them by his preaching; why may not we on the same account call the Eucharist in this sense a sacrisice, as being that in which Christ's sufferings, are far more lively and accurately set forth? Yea, a perfect remembrance of a sacrifice as the Fathers call it? yea secondly, we allow it to be a sacrifice in this sense, as exhibi thing to us all the benefits of Christ's sacrifice upon the Cross. for we all allow, that what ever Christ dying and shedding his blood for us procured, is not only represented there, but applied to the faithful, and exhibited to his faith.  
And here come in the residue of his citations and (1.) That of Ignatius is Spurious, 
Epist. ad Smyrn. S. 2 p. 144.  you may find the words upon which the force of the argument depends, written in Red Letters, in the Edition of Bishop Usher.  
Secondly, As to that of S. Cyprian, 
In his Epis. to Caecil. (not. Cyril. as Mr. C.)  who was more a Priest of the most high God then our Lord who offered a sacrifice to God the Father, and offered the very same that Melchisedec offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, his own body and blood, (which it could not be otherwise then figuratively, or significatively) and commanded the same (viz. bread and wine) to be afterward done in memory of him; that Priest therefore doth truly supply the place and function of Christ, and imitates that which Christ did, who undertakes to offer, as he sees Christ himself offered, viz. bread and wine, as the Ancient Church was wont to do (and this they believed our blessed Saviour himself did, when at the Institution of this holy Rite, 
Mr. Mede, ib.  he took the Bread and Cup into his hands, and looking up to heaven gave thanks and blessed) who after his example first offered the bread and wine unto God, to agnize him Lord Paramount of the Creature, and then received them from him again in a banquet, as the Symbols of the body and blood of his Son: now the words thus expounded have nothing in them Son: now the pertinent to your purpose, nothing to prove any sacrifice of Christ's body; much less to prove a true and proper sacrifice, which that S. Cyprian never dreamed of we may be sufficiently assured from this Epistle to Caecilius, whose words are these, because (saith he) we make mention of Christ's passion in all our sacrifices, (for the passion of the Lord is the sacrifice we offer) we ought to do no other thing then what Christ did; If the passion of Christ be the Sacrifice we offer, how is the Eucharist properly so? seeing the Scripture tells us that Christ ought to suffer only once, and his glorious body is now impatible, how doth he really suffer? and if not, then is there only a remembrance of his passion made, and therefore his passion (that is, the Commemoration of it) must sure be called the sacrifice offered by the Church. 
Ubi supra, and especially in his first Chap. of the same, 2. part. where Bellar. Arg. hence is abundantly refuted. Mr. C. p. 145.  And as Bochartus hath it, how impertient is it to allege a passage where it is said that Christ offered the same which Melchisedech offered, which was undoubtedly true bread and wine, without any transubstantiation, to prove that Christ was sacrificed under the Species of bread and wine.  
Lastly, The eighteenth Canon of the Nicene Council tells us, that it is a thing which neither Canon nor custom hath delivered, that those who have no power of offering, (viz. the Symbols in commemoration of Christ's sacrifice made upon the Cross) should give the Body of Christ (that is, these Symbols of his body) to those who offer.  
Ans. What of all this? Is there any thing in this passage to evince a true and proper sacrifice of Christ's body and blood?  
Secondly, Eusebius, who was present at this Council, can tell us what kind of sacrifice the Church then offered. 
Dem. Evang. l. 1. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  For thus he speaks, Christ offered an excellent sacrifice for the salvation of us all, delivering to us the memory thereof to be presented to God in lieu of a sacrifice; And towards the end of that chapter, we sacrifice the memory of that great sacrifice according to the mysteries delivered to us by Christ.  
Secondly, Gelasius from whose Authority you have this Canon, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Premire party Chapitre 10.  tells us moreover, that the Nicene Fathers said, the Lamb of God was here sacrificed by the Priest, without a sacrifice, that is, Representatively so, for so the Grecians called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, holy things not offered, as you may see evinced by Bochartus de la Messe, where the interpretation of Cardinal Perron is abundantly refuted, and it is made good that the words were not intended to signify 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Cardinal contends, but only sans estre Sacrify which is the proper and natural signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Fourthly, and lastly, we allow it to be a propitiatory sacrifice, for as much as by the right participation of it we enjoy remission of sins; not as if we thought there was any force in those mysteries to satisfy God's justice; but because hereby we have sealed to us that remission which was purchased by the sacrifice of the Cross. And this affords us an Answer to that of S. chrysostom, 
Hom. 21. Mr. C. p. 145.  that the Eucharist is a sacrifice for remission of sins, for the Priest that offers, for the multitude, for the procuring plenty, which indeed it was esteemed partly upon this account that so many petitions were put up to God at the solemnity; (for this oblation of prayer was made through Jesus Christ commemorated in the creatures of bread and wine; and it was the custom of the Ancients, upon the consecration of the dona, 
Mede ib.  to be the Body and Blood of Christ, to offer to the Divine Majesty as it were over the Lamb of God, then lying upon the table, their supplications and prayers for the whole State of Christ's Church, and all sorts and degrees therein; thus the Author of the Mystagogical Catechis. 
Lib. 5.  upon these propitiatory hosts we beseech God for the common peace of the Church, the tranquillity of the world, for Kings, Soldiers, Companions, the afflicted; in fine for all that stand in need of help. 
Christ. Sac. S. 3.  See more of this in the Ingenious Master Mede) and partly because it was such a commemoration of Christ's sufferings as conveyed unto us an interest in what he hath suffered for us, which therefore we are enabled to plead for ourselves and others; but that Saint Chrysost. never esteemed it a proper Sacrament is apparent from these words of his 17. Hom. on the Heb. What do we not continually offer? Yes (saith he) we offer, but only by a commemoration of his (Christ's) death, there is but one host, not many; how so? because it was offered once, and that host (viz. once offered) was carried up into the holy of holies, this that we celebrate is the figure of that former, and that the truth of this. And a little after, he is our high Priest who offers that sacrifice which cleanseth us which we now offer, (and) which then was offered, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  nor possibly can be consumed; this is done in a remembrance of that which was then done, according to that of Our Saviour, do this in remembrance of me, we do not offer another sacrifice, as the Jewish Priests, but continually the same, or rather a remembrance of a sacrifice; what can be more express than this?  
And indeed our Author saith the same thing; 
S. 4. p. 146.  his words are these, Ordinarily the conception of a sacrifice is supposed to import an immolation, shedding of blood, and killing; and no such matter appearing here, but only a commemoration of a former real immolation, and shedding of Christ's Blood, therefore we (Sectaries) will not allow it the name of sacrifice; Now (not to note, that if this be the ordinary conception of a sacrifice, that then the Fathers must be granted in this matter to have spoken contrary to the ordinary sense which the word beareth, and to that which it is supposed commonly to import, (1) hence it is clear that he holds the celebration of the Eucharist to be only a commemoration of a sacrifice; which we will endeavour to evince from his own words (only premizing that Christ's sacrifice was a real immolation, and shedding of his blood) thus; where there is only a commemoration of the real immolation, and shedding of Christ's blood, there is only the commemoration of Christ's sacrifice offered on the Cross, but here (that is, in the celebration of the Mass,) there is only a commemoration of a former real immolation, and shedding of Christ's blood, and therefore a commemoration only of his sacrifice; 
S. 6. p. 148.  nor is it any thing to the purpose which he adds, that it is in the most proper rigorous sense an oblation of the very same body and blood that our Lord now offers in heaven. For (to let pass the question, sufficiently handled already, whether the very same body and blood which Christ offered on the Cross be present in the Sacrament, or only the Symbols of it) either he terms this a proper oblation, because in the Sacrament somewhat is properly tendered, or presented unto God, and thus we all acknowledge a proper oblation in the Sacrament, for there we show forth the Lords death by presenting before him the sacrifice of atonement that Christ hath made, commemorating the pains that he endured, entreating God that we may all enjoy the purchase of his blood, and reap the benefit of his passion reached forth unto us in the Symbol; and that for the sake of the Bloody sacrifice of his Son, in which by the faithful receiving of the elements we are interested, he will turn away all his anger from us. Or Secondly, as this word is taken in a stricter sense, to signify a sacrifice of inanimate things, as fruits, incense, etc. (and thus it is distinguished from a sacrifice of an animate being, which was accompanied with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or an effusion of blood) to which it is requisite, 
Clopen. Scb. Suc. ab initio.  if properly and strictly such, ut vel incendio, vel alio convenienti ri●u sacro, per sacerdotis ministerium destruatur, that it be destroyed by fire, or any other convenient Rite, by the ministry of a Priest; and if this be his sense of an oblation, we deny that there is any such destruction or consumption of the real body and blood of the Lord in the holy Sacrament, and shall now consider it.  
Fourthly, Sect. 7 Therefore that this is no true and proper sacrifice appears, (1.) because to a proper sacrifice is requisite that the thing sacrificed suffer some Physical mutation; but here is no Physical mutation of the thing sacrificed: the Major is proved by Bell: from the perpetual use of Scripture, when speaking of a proper sacrifice; for what ever in Scripture is properly so called was necessarily to suffer such a mutation, if it had life, by the deprivation of it; if it were an inanimate and solid, being as Frankincense, Salt, etc. by combustion; if liquid, as wine, blood, and water, by effusion. Levit. 1.2.  
Secondly, He proves it, because all the Sacraments did prefigure the death of Christ, their death or mutation being Typical of his; with Bellarmine consents Cardinal Alanus, 
De Eucha. sacrif. l. 2. c. 3.  who tells us, that unless the intervention of some mutation be allowed to the nature of a sacrifice, we must acknowledge that first-fruits, Tithes, the firstborn, religious persons, and innumerable other things (which in the Law were consecrated to God) must be called sacrifices; there being no difference in them from true and proper sacrifices imaginable but this, that these gifts thus consecrated remain entire, but the things which are sacrificed do not, but suffer as it were a change into another species; being either killed, roasted, bruised, or boiled, or by some other action of the Priest consumed; But now there is no real mutation here of the thing sacrificed; for the thing sacrificed is the very same body and blood which our Lord offered upon the Cross, as our Author tells us, 
P. 148. and p. 135. We acknowledge an oral manducation, but without any suffering or change in the divine body itself.  and the victim (saith he) suffers nothing; But should he eat his words as he doth his God? I will thus force him to confess the truth; If the body of Christ suffer any mutation when sacrificed, then either as to its real being in Heaven, or its Sacramental, but neither can with reason be affirmed. Not the first, for Christ's natural body is now impassable; not the second, for than would the body of Christ lose its being in the Sacrament; which, first, is contrary to what 
* P. 131.  he himself produceth from Cyrils' Epistle ad Calosyrium; And, secondly, were it so, either it loseth this Sacramental being when it is eaten, or before or after, viz. when the species of bread cease to remain. If this last, then is it sacrificed in the belly, not on the Altar; if when it is eaten, 'tis sacrificed in the mouth; if before, then do not the Communicants eat the body and blood of Christ.  
Secondly, if this be sufficient to make it a proper mutation, because the body of Christ loseth his esse Sacramentale, and ceaseth to be present under these species; then by parity of reason, God himself (and his Angels) may be said to suffer a real Physical mutation, when he ceaseth to be where he was, by the destruction of that wherein he was, or the annihilation of the same.  
Secondly, If Christ did not offer a true and proper sacrifice, then neither do his Ministers; but the first is so; the sequel is evident; because that which is delivered to us to be done, was received from Christ; for seeing it is delivered by the Evangelists and Saint Paul, and we are peremptorily told by him delivering what the Evangelists had rehearsed, that he received it of Christ, and delivered no other thing; If Christ did not offer a true and proper sacrifice, neither did he deliver it to us from Christ; but Christ did not offer such a sacrifice; 
Hist. Conc. Trent.  for then the oblation of the Cross would have been superfluous, because Mankind would have been redeemed by that of the Supper, which went before. Besides, the Sacrament of the Altar was instituted by Christ for a memorial of that which he offered on the Cross; now there cannot be a memorial but of a thing past, and therefore the Eucharist could not be a sacrifice before the oblation of Christ on the Cross, but shown what we were afterwards to do.  
And thus I have considered what is material in this Chapter, and only desire Mr. C. in case he reply, to state evidently this Doctrine of their Church; and wherein they differ from us, and what are the requisites of a sacrifice; that so we may know what we are to dispute against.   

CHAP. XIIII.  
Why Master C. omits the dispute touching the Books styled Apocryphal, Sect. 1. His way of reasoning weak, Sect. 2. 3, 4, 5, 6. The Primitive Fathers against the veneration of Images, Sect. 7. All their pretences evacuated by the Fathers, Sect. 8. The Honour given to Images is called worship by the Romanists themselves, Sect. 9 To worship false Gods not necessary to Idolatry, Sect. 10. Vulgar Papists give divine honour to Images, Sect. 11. Papists pray to them, Sect. 12. Master Cs. Argument for veneration of Images, Answ. Sect. 13. An Argument, against it, Sect. 14. His Story further requited, Sect. 15.  
WE come now to consider his Pleas for the Roman Churches practice in veneration of Images, Sect. 1 of which the Doctor saith only this; That the Council of Trent was not afraid to make new Articles, the Invocation of Saints, the worship of Images; yea, saith he, many humane writings, the Apocryphal Books, and many unwritten Traditions also were by her decreed to be of equal Authority with the Scripture, and an Anathema added to all that should not so receive them. Now because he formerly had managed a dispute with Mr. Bagshaw about Images, he takes advantage of these few words, to transcribe the whole dispute, overlooking that which more copiously is insisted on; to wit, the ascribing Divine Authority to the Books which we commonly style Apocryphal, 
Doctor. John Reynolds, and Bishop Cousens.  which sure was only upon this account; because it hath been made appear by two Champions of our Church, that this decree of the Trent Council is contrary to Reason, and the suffrage of the Fathers and learned men, even from Christ time to the Session of this worthy Conventicle, we call upon him for answer to them in his next: Well, but we will be content to undergo this trouble also, and that the rather because this piece is esteemed by some to have a vein of Reason in it, although it be fraught (if I mistake not) with inconsiderable Sophisms. Sect. 2  
First if then he catechizes us thus, Should you see the Picture of our Lord hanging on the Cross, 
Mr. C. p.  could you possibly avoid the calling to mind who our Lord was, and what he had done and suffered for you?  
Answer. Your own Gerson will tell us another story, compertum est, etc. It is very well known that some devout persons by aspect of Images had their thoughts turned from holy cogitations and pure affections, to carnal, filthy, wicked, and impure, yea, execrably blasphemous; but to let this pass.  
Secondly, I see a Crucifix almost every day in our College windows, and yet seldom have found such an effect upon me; and I appeal to the carvers of these Pictures, whether they do not often behold their workmanship without this effect; to the members of our Colleges, whether they do not often look upon their windows, without such remembrance of the Saints or Apostles there lively pictured, as may make them spiritual, or compel them into a fit of devotion; yea, the reason why our Church thinks meet yet to preserve them in her Assemblies, notwithstanding the loud cries of the fanatics, that they are scandalous and dangerous, is evidently this; because she knows they have an historical use, and that the people upon the sight of them are not found inclined to yield any worship or corporeal reverence unto them.  
Thirdly, The picture of Cromwell or Bradshaw, the parts of the Rebels that hang up at the Gates of London, Spanish Inquisition, Irish Rebellions, Popish Cruelties to the Waldenses, and Albingenses, yea, the picture of Hell and the Devil, are apt to bring their cruelties and torments into our remembrances; and doing so, may not I address myself with Praises and Thanksgivings to this God who hath delivered us from such Tyrants, and pray hearty to be freed from the torments of Hell, and tyranny of Satan? Is not there as much reason for my devotion here, as at the sight of an Image? yea, the very names of Peter and Paul, Heaven and Hell, are as subservient to the productions of such thoughts; and therefore when I read in a play, Heavens bless, etc. must I turn to my devotions? I might be endless in such instances. Again he tells us, Sect. 3 Should we have the picture of his Majesty and Bradshaw, should we have the Bible and Pantagruel, they would force upon us quite contrary thoughts, almost impossible to be avoided.  
Answer. First, Would not the mention of their names have the same effect upon us?  
Secondly, When he walks along London streets, and there sees the sign of his Majesty at so many Taverns, doth he find it impossible for him to avoid thoughts of due subjection and reverence? And should he have Faux in his Oratory? Would he after two or three sights of him be moved against his Rebellions? Yea, when he goes to the Booksellers, and sees many gilt Bibles on the one hand, Plays and Romances on the other, is he troubled with a diversity of Passions in his breast? But we suffer him to proceed; well then.  
He infers, Sect. 4 If then unavoidably he must think reverently of the objects, or contemptuously, he may as well speak, or behave himself externally, after the same manner to them respectively.  
Answer. True, will any body say, he should not reverence his Majesty? Or may not behave himself contemptuously towards Bradshaw, or any other Rebel now alive? But,  
Secondly, If thence he would infer a reverence due to that which represents these objects (albeit we grant the thing of a civil reverence) yet his deduction he infers it from will as well prove that his Majesty's name in print should be reverenced, and men should do obeisance to his Proclamations, especially if his Picture be there also; Yea, seeing the Ladies carry him upon their breasts, we should do well to bow to them upon this account; yea, seeing Cromwell and Bradshaw, and the greatest Rebels, may represent unto us his Majesty's Clemency; Hell, and the Devil, Christ's exceeding love in enduring these torments, and delivering us from the roaring Lion; we should therefore do reverence to the pictures of these Rebels, yea, of Hell and the Devil; or at least, on the same score, we should reverence a Lamb, as putting us in mind of the Lamb of God; a Dove, as putting us in mind of the Spirit of God; an old man, as being the Emblem of the ancient of days, and such like things.  
In his fifth Section he proves that we have affections not only to the person, but picture representing him; Sect. 5 for we would not place the King's Picture in an unclean or dishonest place; if any should defile it, we should be ready to strike him: Not so, if the like usage were given to Judas and Bradshaw's picture. Moreover the Bible we would not put to an unclean use, as haply we might deal with Aesop's Fables.  
A. I should not scruple to tear his Majesty's pictures, which sometime may be found in smoky Alehouses, so strangely deformed, that it is no way apt to create a reverence, and were the greatest Rebel pictured by the hand of an Apelles, I should be loath to have it defiled. Yea had I Ogilbies', Aesop's Fables, I should be very unwilling to condemn it to such an office: But had I a a piece of the Popish Mass, in which happily an Episte or Gospel may be extant: I should without remorse permit it to this use: for let me ask him a few questions.  
1. Should he meet with a Postiller that had stuffed both pages with Citations from Scrip. or any such like Author, would he think it a sin to condemn that page with the rest to such an use.  
2. Suppose the Printer of a Bible had a sheet superfluous, must it be laid up as an holy Relic? or may it be put to a profane use? should a shop keeper send him Tobacco in a part of it: whether he would think it meet to reprove him for it? When a Church Bible is grown old and wormeaten, whether the good women would sin in putting it under their ●ies? Or should they meet with one of the Old Translation, with the Gelding baptised by Philip; (which yet in its literal sense is not more ridiculous than the Bells baptised by that Papists) and the knave of Jesus Christ whether it might not be lawful thus to use it? Whether I might not change my Bible for an Aesop's Fables of far greater worth? When his Casuistical faculty hath been exercised on these Question, he shall have some more: In the interim, we pass on to.  
Sect. 6. In which he tells us that we look on Saint Peter, Sect. 6 as one, that by his writings and examples had been a great instrument of promoting our eternal happiness; and therefore we place his Picture in our Oratory.  
Ans. 
He proves it from Lactantius, who lived An. Dom. 330.  1. Did not the Primitive Christians know this as well as we, of whom yet I may say with Cassander, that it is certain that in the beginning of the Gospel aliquanto tempore (for 300. years) there was no use of Images in the Church of God.  
2. May you not procure the picture of some good man living, that hath been instrumental these ways, and will you give it sacred veneration, will you bow and cringe before it? Well, but why is that placing it in my Oratory a sacred veneration of it?  
Ans. 
Ibid.  Because all things that are appointed on purpose to mind us of God and Heaven, and the salvation of our souls we call sacred. Now sure the Picture of Hell, the Devil, the great enemy of their souls may put them in mind of securing their salvation, and then I hope he must into their Oratory to have sacred veneration from them; yea they must give sacred veneration to the whole Universe, seeing God made it to this end, that these visible things might show unto us him that is invisible: yea seeing, praesentem refert quaelibet herba Deum, they must afford a Bow to every one of them.  
Well, Sect. 7 but our Author presently jumps into a Consideration of bowing and kneeling to Images, 
Mr. C. p. 156.  as if no reverence could be paid but this; or at least if it be lawful to reverence them, then to kneel to, and bow with an etc. at the end of it. We reverence the Bible, and so do they, but do we bow and kneel to it? We reverence the Names and Writings of good men, but do we bow and kneel to them, or do they so? Well but they give outward reverence only to to the picture. And this veneration, common Reason, and humane Naeure cannot but allow.  
A. I pray Sir, what were the Primitive Fathers? Were they not men of common Reason, and had they not humane Natures whilst they lived? 
L. 2. c. 17.  (Though now you have Deified some of them:) Let us then hear their Verdict. Lactantius having told us, that these images which vain men worship are Earth, he infers; Now who is there that understandeth not, that it is unfit for an upright Creature to be ●o●ed down, that he may worship the Earth, which for this cause is put under our feet, that it may be trodden upon, not worshipped by us? 
Orat. Adhors. ad Gentes.  So Clemens Alexandr. Are they not prodigious creatures, who worship stones? these Images (made of stone) are more vile than any (the most despicable) creatures, than Worms, Earwigs, Moles, 
Anon terra & ex terra? Ego autem terram calcare didici, in Ps. 113. part. 2d.  Mice ' etc. These are all better than Images. But haply their Images are made of Gold and Silver, if so, let the same Father tell you, that Gold & Silver, Brass and Iron, and preciousstones, are they not Earth, and taken out of the Earth? But as for me, I have learned to tread upon the Earth, not worship it. So Saint Augustin saith, they are worse than bruit beasts: 
Lib. 7. Conr. Celsum.  and if you are ashamed to worship the one, you may be ashamed to worship the other. So Origen, we do not venerate Images, with many other like places; 
In Consul. lit. de Imag.  which made Cassander cry out. How far the Ancients were ab omni veneratione, from all veneration of Images one Origen declares. Cruces (saith Mintius Felix) nec Colimus, nec optamus; and there we find it objected to them, cur nulla nota simulachra habetis: 
Hence Lactan. l. 2. c. 7. They think there is no Religion where these (Images) appear not.  not as if they had any kept secretly, but (as * Dally puts it beyond dispute) because the Heathens thought it impossble to worship God without some sensible Image. Saint Cyprian Why dost thou bow thy captive body before foolish Images, and terrene figments! God hath made thee strait, and when other animals are made prona & ad terram depressa, thou hast a countenance erect towards God and Heaven: thither look, thither direct thy eyes, not to Images, seek God above. The 36. Canon of the Iliberine Council tells us its pleasure was, there should be no Images in the Church. 
* De Imag. Ep. ad. Demetr. Lib. 2. cap. 19  Lactantius tells us, there can be no Religion, where there is an Image. Saint Ambrose will tell you the Church knoweth no vain Ideas and divers Figures of Images: Yea, 
Ambr. de sugâ secul. c. 5.  this was so notorious to the very Heathens, that when Adrian commanded that Temples should be made in all places without Images, they presently conceived they were for Christians, Lamprid. in vit. Alexandri Severi:  
What should I say? 
Orig. in Cells. l. 2. p. 373.  there is not any Father almost but is evidently against you. Nay, you can scarce find out any excuse, which they have not prevented with their contradiction.  
1. You tell us that images are instruments to call to your memories the Objects they represent: Orig. tells us, If we be not out of our wits, we must needs laugh at this folly who look on Images, and by the sight thereof offer prayer to him who is conceived thereby. 
In Ps. 113.  Saint Augustine will tell you this answer is borrowed from the Heathens, who use to say, I neither worship the very Image, nor the Devil, but by corporcal representation I look upon the sign of that which I ought to worship. 
Dissert. 38.  And indeed Max. Tyr. hath taught you, that these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They lead you by the hand to the remembrance of the things they represent. That in procuring them, you do like lovers, who willingly behold the Images of those they love, that so their memory may be stirred up in them.  
2. Sect. 8 Your ninth Section tells us, we help ourselves by them to fix our thoughts upon Objects good for our souls; and every where you insist upon the usefulness of them to Common people. 
In Ps. 113.  But Saint Augustine saith, they are very dangerous, especially to them; for who is it that adores or prays, beholding an Image, and is not so affected as to think he is heard by it? Epiphanius will warn them to avoid these helps. Have this in your memories, beloved Children, not to bring Images into the Church, nor into the Coemeteries of the Saints; no not into any ordinary House, but always carry about the remembrance of God in your hearts: 
Epiph. Ep. ad Joan. Hicros. Tom. 1. oper. Hier. Ep. 60.  for it is not lawful for a Christian man to be carried about in suspense by his Eyes, and the wandering of his mind. He will tell you, that the having them in the Church is contrary to our Religion to the authority of Scripture. Give charge against it, 
He is cited by the Fathers of the Council of Constant. An. Dom. 754. Eus. Hist. l. 7. C. 17. Ubi supra.  and tear such a one, though it were the Image of our Lord and Saviour. Amphilochius will add we have no care to figure by colours the bodily Visages of the Saints in Tables, because we have no need of such things, but by virtue to imitate their conversations. Eusebius will assert that you borrowed this Custom from the Heathens. And surely Max. Tyrius lent you this pretence, who tells you that the use of Images is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quoniam tenuitatis Nostrae ita poscat ratio and 'tis the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that was the cause of it.  
You say that Humane nature cannot hinder it, Sect. 11.  
They say that God and Religion forbidden it: (And doth God forbid what humane nature cannot hinder?) and the Jews abhorred it; had they razed out their natural principles?  
You say, that we call this Honour given to him worship, sect. 9 to make you odious.  
Ans. 
2. Council of Nice by them General. S●e the places in Dally. de Imag. Cat. Rom. par. 1. C. 2.5.14 ut Colantur. & licet illis cultum adhibere. In 3. par Th. quaest. 24. Art. 3. Orthodox. Consul. par. 2. Reg. 1. In Ep. ad Rom. C. 1. In 3. Th. quaest. 25. Art. 3. disp 2. Nu. 5. Apud Cabr. ib. p. 796.  Hath not a General Council called it so an hundred times? do not almost all your writers call it so? Doth not your Trent Catech. require the priest to declare that the images of Christ are put in Churches that they may be Worshipped? and that it is lawful to worship them; and that it hath still been done, to the great good of the faithful? Doth not Cajetan tell us, that they are painted that they may be worshipped (ut adorentur) as the frequent use of the Church doth testify? And Boverius, that this is the Doctrine of the Roman Church, imagines piâ religione colendas esse; will not Jacobus Naclantus tells you, that albeit you speak warily in this matter, yet the very truth is, that the faithful in the Church do adore, not only coram imagine, sed & imaginem? Will not Friar Pedro de Cabrera teach you your lesson a little better, that you must downright and absolutely say, that images are to be worshipped in Churches, and out of Churches, and that the contrary is heretical? And Franc. Victoria will back him in asserting it to be plainly so; Yea, and Arriaga for a close, will tell you, Haeretici, negant non Exemplarium venerationem; and what you plead for he does not think any Heretic so simple as to deny. I might here add half an hundred of your Authors, who tell us that Images are to be worshipped with that very homage we afford to the exemplar; but I let that pass, for haply I may have another opportunity to acquaint you with them. I shall conclude with the Roman pontifical, which tells us, 
Cap 2. de bened. Sanct. Crucis.  that the Pontifex, (in which name other Bishops are included) ante imaginem crucis genua flectit, eamque devotè adorat & osculatur. 
Magist. Ceremon. lib. 2. & de feria 6. Majoris Heb.  And feriâ sextâ, or on good Friday, when the Pope or Priest uncovereth Gently the Cross, and cries ccce signum crucis, and the singer's answer, venite, adoremus, that the Pope puts off his shoes, or makes as if he did so, & genu ter flexo adorat, & osculatur, and then all the rabble ad infimum caudatarium omnes crucem adorant & osculantur. So than you have no cause (I hope) to quarrel with us for saying you worship images, when so many of your great Doctors, that knew this practice of the Church as well as yourself, acknowledge that as a doctrine of faith which you so warily disclaim, when General Councils yea and common practice can assure us of the truth thereof.  
You ask us further, 
Sect. 10. p. 158.  whether indeed we think that you worship false gods, and true devils?  
Ans. You may be idolatrous in worshipping the true God, in an image, as well as the Israelites in their worshipping God in a Calf, (2.) That you worship false Saints and Elilim, 
De cultu Sanct. Ibid.  see abundantly evidenced in the Sedan Divines.  
(3.) You ask, whether we consider our Images, as they did their Idols, to which by magical conjurations they annexed an evil Spirit to do wonders, and extort Divine Worship from the seduced.  
Ans. What if some of the learned among the Heathens, as Athenaeus confesseth, 
Legat. pro Christ.  thought that the deity or some divine vitrue accompanied the statute after consecration, would it cease to be Idolatry if the Image of Jupiter were worshipped, or any other Deity, without these magical Enchantments?  
(2.) What shall we think of these images which you call miraculous, which you say sometimes sweat blood, sometimes nod their heads, or stretch forth a wooden or stony arm unto their suppliants? 
Vid. miss. Rom. sub tit. de ritu Serm. where you have as bad or worse in the Dedication of the Cross, the Image of Saint John, and the Agnus Dei.  or of the form of Consecration? Viz. Sanctify, O God, this form of the blessed Virgin, that it may bring saving health to thy faithful people, that thunderings and lightnings may be driven away the sooner; that immoderate rains or floods, and civil wars, may at the presence of this be suppressed. Pont. Rom.  
(3.) Might not the Jews have put the same question to those that accused them of idolatry in worshipping the brazen image?  
(4.) What matter is it whether the Heathens esteemed their Deity present or absent, 
Quis nisi totus fatuus haec Deos esse credit?  seeing they acknowledge most evidently that they did not worship their images, but their Gods by these images? as you may see in Origen, Contr. Cells. l. 7. p. 384. Arnob. l. 6. advers. Gentes. Lact. l. 2. de divin. 
Deos per simulachra veneramur.  Institut. c. 2. we fear not the works of men's hands, (viz. these Images,) but those we fear to whom these are consecrated. August. in ps. 96. I do not worship that stone, or that image which is without sense, but I adore what I see, and serve him whom I do not see.  
(5.) 'Tis evident, that many of the Heathens thought their Gods to dwell in heaven, 
Act. 14.  and to be absent from their Statutes. Hence the Lycaonians cry out, upon the miracles wrought by Paul and Barnabas, the Gods are come down amongst us. See Price upon the place, making out this by Heathen Authors: and what said the Chaldeans to Nabuchadnezzar, even that their Gods dwelled not with flesh, Dan. 2. vers. 11. what need I cite Max. Tyr. Plut. de Isid. & Osyr. Cicero, etc. for a thing so clear?  
Lastly, you tell that us, sect. 11 there is not in Catholic countries a Groom or Kitchenmaid so ignorant, but had rather burn an image then afford it any honour due to God only.  
Ans. True. But neither would these Heathens; who thought them arrant fools who esteemed images to be God.  
(2.) Nor can we reasonably think, that the Israelites intended any such thing in worshipping the Calf. But,  
(3.) 
Tom. 1. de prob. sp. Num. 17.  Gerson will tell you that people were so infected with Superstition as to yield divine honour to Images. And Cornelius Agrippa, that it is not to be spoken, 
De vanit. scient. de Imag. fol. 73.  how great Idolatry is fostered among rude people by Image-worship, while the Priests connive at these things, and make no small gain thereby. Cassander; 
Consul. de Imag.  it is more manifest than that it can be denied, that the worship of Images and Idols hath too much prevailed, and the Superstitious humour of people hath been so cherished, that nothing hath been omitted among (you) either of the highest adoration or vanity of paynims, in worshipping and adoring Images. 
De invent. l. 6. c. 13.  And Polydore Virgil, that there are many rude and stupid persons that repose more trust in Images then in Christ, or the Saints to whom they were dedicated.  
Lastly, Simon Majolus, a great stickler for Imagery, 
Defence. Imag. Con. 9 c. 19  confesseth, that some rural persons esteem Images as if they were God.  
You tell us Sect. Sect. 12 that it would be ridiculous to pray to an Image.  
Ans. To let pass your O crux Ave, what can you say to 
Salve Sancta facies Nostri Redemptoris!  
In quâ nitet species divini splendoris,  
Impressa panniculo nivei candoris.  
Salve vultus Domini Imago beata,  
Nos deduc ad propria O felix figura,  
Ad videndum faciem Christi, quae est pura.   
And again, 
Brevar. Rom. Reformatum in par. Hyemali ad 3. Martii in festo inventionis Sanctae crucis.  O crux, etc. quae sola fuisti digna portare mundi talentum, dulce lignum, dulces claves, dulcia ferens pondera, salva proesentem catervam, in tuis hodiè laudibus congregatam.  
Lastly, all your distinctions are used with you, as miracles, and the gift of tongues were, not for them that believe, but them that believe not. For strangers and them that make objections, not for the obedient, that worship Images and break the Commandment.  
Well, Sect. 13 but you have Arguments as well as Pretences, which must not be overlooked; 
Mr. C. p. 156.  And,  
First, You tell us, that in Scripture we find Kings adored, and a prostration of body paid to them; yet for all this, no man will suspect that any dishonour was intended to God thereby.  
Answer. True, and yet you may dishonour him by giving this worship unto Images, seeing he hath commanded, saying; Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them, which your Gerson paraphraseth thus: 
In comp. Theol. explic. praecepti. primi.  Thou shalt not bow down to them with the veneration of thy body, ut inclinando eyes, vel genu flectendo: Nor shalt thou worship them with the affection of thy mind.  
Secondly, 
Cap. de Imag.  The Divines of Saumur have already told you, this is a wide sequel from the honour done to the (living) Image of God, to infer we may bow and kneel to Images; whereas the one lives, the other wants all sense and motion; the one is civil worship, and such as hath the precept and example of Christ and his Apostles, the other neither.  
Thirdly, What did Job mean by telling us, 
C. 13. v. 26, 27.  that had he kissed his hand upon the beholding of the Gun, (that glorious pourtraicture of God's power, Wisdom, and Goodness,) he had been guilty of Idolatry; our Author could have informed him better, by telling him that Children kiss their hands when they do homage to their Superiors; yea, he had less reason to suspect himself then Papists have; for God hath set the Sun in the firmament to give light unto this truth, that there is a wise disposer and orderer of all things, but never appointed any Images to be a medium to bring us to the knowledge or service of him.  
Secondly, 
P. 157.  You argue that Images are capable of a sinful disrespect, and consequently a due respect may be paid unto them.  
Answer. We may grant all this, and yet not bow unto them, as questioning whether that respect be due unto them; I suppose you do not bow to the picture of his Majesty, and yet you will not deny that due respect may be paid unto it.  
Secondly, A Surplice or Cope, etc. yea a good advice, are capable of disrespect; and yet will you infer that this is motive sufficient for us to come down upon our knees before them?  
Thirdly, An Image is not capable of any disrespect by the neglect of religious actions or veneration, and, consequently, is not capable of any such respect by their performances.  
Thirdly, 
Ibid.  You tell us that by honouring with outward regard a picture, you intent only to give a testimony what respect you bear to the person or holy thing represented by it; so the reverence that we show to Saint Peter's picture signifies only we venerate Saint Peter.  
Answer. First, This is a contradiction to what immediately precedes, viz. that we give a respect unto them, because such sacred things as fix our thoughts upon objects, good for our Souls.  
Secondly, We say 'tis evidently absurd; and that upon the same score you may bow and kneel to, go bare before, and kiss a Lion, Eagle, or an Ox, as representing St. Mark, Saint John, Saint Luke, etc.  
Thirdly, This pretence might have been made by the Jews, in venerating the Calf; yea, the very Heathens have instructed you in this lesson, as I have showed before: Now to requite your story.  
I shall return you one Argument amongst many lying by me, Sect. 14 which haply ere long may beg your Answer; and it is this; To offer incense to an Image is to commit Idolatry; the Papists use to offer incense to their Images, Ergo, they are wont to commit Idolatry: 
l. 10. de Ecclesia, c. 13. In tertiam partem, Th. p. 25. ar. 3. dist. 2 num. 15.  The minor is evident from their own Authors, who tell us, suaves odores etiam offerimus in Ecclesia (not only coram imagine, but, Imaginibus) & reliquiis. Thus Bellarmive, and Petrus de Cubrera, amongst the things to be performed to Images, reckoneth Oblationes Suffituum; Yea, the Roman Pontifical, set forth by Pius the fifth, informs us in the Chapter of the benediction of the Cross, 
Mox cam incensari, i. e. ei incensum adoleri.  that the Pope puts incense into the Censer, then sprinkles it with holy-water, and presently offers Incense to it; The major I evince from the Idolatry of the Israelites, in offering Incense to the brazen Serpent, the reason being evidently the same; for whereas Bellarmine tells us, that the Israelites did offer Incense to it, tanquam Deo, if he means they gave it that worship which was due to God, 'tis very true, but a confirmation of what we say; that to offer Incense to a creature is to give it the honour due to God: if he mean that the Israelites esteemed it as God, 'tis shamefully ridiculous to imagine that what had been so long kept without any sign of the least virtue proceeding from it, should presently. be thought by them to be the maker of Heaven and Earth, that which they knew to have been made by Moses, yet to have been before all time.  
Secondly, He tells us, that Incense was a sacrifice under the Old Testament, because none but Priests might offer it; not so now, because in their Church 'tis offered by them that are not so.  
Ans. So then, it seems, if a whole Hecatomb should be offered not only to God, but to the people (as he tells us their Incense is) 'twould not be a sacrifice, if not offered by a Priest, and consequently not Idolatry; nor could any of the Christians that were not Priests by offering to Idols commit Idolatry.  
Secondly, How ridiculous is it from an instance in his own Church's behaviour, which we accuse of manifest Idolatry, to prove that they are not Idolaters. Well then, seeing there can be no sufficient disparity, 
John 3.  this being a representation of Christ as well as their Images, and worshipped not because a God, but as an instrument which God had used to work miracles by; or the like; if we can evince that this was Idolatry, we show also that the Papists are Idolaters; now that this is so, may be gathered.  
First, From the Context, which reekons it with the confessed Instruments of Idolatry; 
2 Kings 18.4.  He removed the high places, and broke the Images, and cut down the groves, and broke in pieces the brazen Serpent.  
Yea, Secondly, He calls it Nehustan, a piece of brass, of which appellation no other reason can be easily assigned, but that this was done in opposition to their Idolatry, in giving it that worship which could by no means agree to a piece of brass.  
Thirdly, The sin that occasioned the breaking of this Serpent, was the Children of Israel's offering Incense to it; now 'tis evident this was no sin against the second Table, no breach of the Sabbath, no taking of God's Name in vain; for if it were an acknowledgement of it for a Deity, it was the most gross Idolatry; and therefore the Romanist will not yield to that: Well then, it must be a sin against the second Commandment; it cannot be a sin against any other clause of it then this, Thou shalt not worship Images, or as the Papists will needs have it, Idols; and if so, it must consequently be Idolatry: Again, did they give dulias only to it, or latria? if the first, then can you not say they sinned, or did any thing which should justly cause it to be broken: Seeing you acknowledge dulias due unto your Images; if latria, then again, according to your own principles, they were the grossest of Idolaters.  
Secondly, The Idolatry of Achaz is thus described, that he made high places wherein to burn Incense unto other gods, and likewise the Idolatry of Israel: This burning Incense is therefore Idolatry, 
Jer. 44.21, 23.  because the Nature of Idolatry agrees to it, which is to give the honour due unto God unto another thing; and therefore seeing this was done by burning Incense to the brazen Serpent, that also must be Idolatry; for to say that 'tis not sufficient to make an act idolatrous, that it attributes the honour due to God unto another thing, unless it be an Idol, is very false; for then the offering of sacrifice to the Image of Christ would not be Idolatry; the giving it latria terminated thereon, would not be so: The Arrians could not have been accused of Idolatry in worshipping our Saviour with divine honours, and yet esteeming him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; The Collyridians', in worshipping the Virgin Mary; the Carpocratians in worshipping, the Image of Christ, and a 1000 other things.  
2. This major may be farther confirmed thus; to offer sacrifice is Idolatry by the confession of the 
* Madge sent. l. 3. didst 9 Bell. li. de Eccles. Triumph. c. 12. See Exod. 22. He that effers sacrisice to any but God alone shall be cut off. And Act. 7. The Israelites are said to offer sacrifice to the Calf, and then presently are called Idolaters. Ste 1 Cor. 10.  Papists themselves; but to offer Incense to an Image (or any other thing) is to offer sacrifice. Thus Tertull. Apol. c. 30. Offero majorem hostiam quam ipse mandavit, non grana Thuris; so that, according to him, Incense must be a sacrifice; and Gyprian de lapsis, speaking of those that presently went to offer Incense, They would not stay (saith he) to be apprehended, nor did they leave this to themselves, ut sacrificare Idolis inviti viderentur. Saint Basil tells us, in his Oration on Barlaam the Martyr, that they brought him to the Altar, and put Incense into his Hands, that so by casting it out he might seem to offer sacrifice; and this he calls, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Thus 
* Lib. de poenit. c. 14. p. 512. Tom. primi. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (male 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lat. ver. pro more daemoniaci libaminis.  Peter Bishop of Alexandria (as we have it in Balsamon) tells us that the hands of many were brought unwillingly to offer prophanum sacrificium, that is, as Balsamon hath it, coacti sunt thus immolare; yea, Saint Austin, C. 16. de unico Baptismo, having said that Petilian accused Melchiades de Thurificatione, of offering Incense, he adds, that had it been true, he might have been excused as being not bound to plead his cause coram homine sacrificijs idolorum inquinato: It may be Answered, that to offer animate or living sacrifice, is Idolatry; but as for inanimate sacrifices, they may be given to a creature.  
Rep. Now not to mention how arbitrary this distinction is, the Fathers frequently teach this offering of inanimate sacrifices to be Idolatry: Thus Epiphanius condemns the Collyridians' for offering cakes to the blessed Virgin, which yet were inanimate sacrifices; 
Ep. au 〈◊〉 num, l. 10. Ep. 97.  so Pliny tells the Emperor, that some worship his Image with Incense and Wine, which they that are true Christians cannot be compelled to do (albeit it was the Image of him who was himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) as counting that homage due to God alone. Now this refusal Tertullian calls, obstinationem non sacrificandi; The only fault, saith he, with which the Christians stood charged by Pliny in his Epistle to the Emperor; yea, the Carpocratians were condemned as Heretics for offering Incense to the Image of Christ, among other things, 
l. 1. c. 24.  as you may see in Irenaeus. Observationem circa cas similiter ut Gentes faciunt, they observed the rites of the Gentiles towards them; what were they? Saint Austin tells us, 
l. de Haer. c. 7.  they did it, adorando incensumque ponendo. Eyes thura adolebant ac libahant, saith Theodoret; 
l. de Haer. fab  And this as he condemned in the Israelites (who worshipped the brazen Serpent) of Idolatry, calling them Ophitae, worshippers of a Serpent, 
qu. 18. in 4. Reg  so here he adds, & tanquam deos adorabant, not that they did it by any other sacrifice of which we have no mention made, but that the performing of these ceremonies was an evidence thereof, this being worship proper to a Deity; 
Haer. 27.  and Epiphanius tells us, that with the Images of the Philosophers, imagines Jesus collocant, they place the Images of Christ, and worship them, and perform the Rites of the Gentiles to them, or Heathenish Rites; and then presently he adds, 
Gentium myfleria persiciunt. Tom. 2. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cap. nunc autem, distinct. 2. P. 334, 335.  what are the Rites of the Gentiles, but sacrificium, & alia? Now what he means by sacrifice, he tells us in his Epit. viz. to offer Incense; yea, Bellarmine informs us that Marcellinus sacrificed to Idols, and proves it from the Pontifical of Damasus, the Epistle of Nicholaus the first to Michael; but the Pontifical only saith, he did incendere & offer, burn Incense and offer it; and Nicholaus, that he did grana thuris super prunas imponere, put corns of Incense on the coals. So then, from Scripture, and the assertions of Fathers grounded on it, we have evinced them to be Idolaters.  
And yet I cannot choose but requite your story with an other out of Master Chillingworth; That one great impediment which among many kept the seduced followers of the faction of Donatus from the Church's Communion, was a visible Calumny raised against the Catholics, that they did set some strange thing upon their Altar, which as Optatus informs us, was a picture which the Donatists (knowing how detestable a thing it was to all Christians at that time to set up any Pictures in a Church to worship them as your new fashion is) bruited abroad to be done in the Churches of the Catholic Church; but what Answer do Saint Austin and Optatus make to this accusation? do they confess and maintain it? Do they say as you would now, it is true, we do set Pictures upon our Altars, and that not only for ornament and memory, but for worship also; but we do well to do so, and this ought not to trouble you, or fright you from our Communion what other. Answer, your Church could now make to such an Objection is very hard to imagine: And therefore were your Doctrine the same with the Doctrine of the Fathers in this point, they must have answered so likewise; but they on the contrary, not only deny the crime; but abhor & detest it. ' Yea, Optatus tells us that had the matter been so their separation would have been just, that this mixture of Images would have been a pollution of divine service that it was a thing which Christians should be afraid of, and very different from the Custom of the Church; the whole passage of Optatus runs thus: 
Opt. l. 3. Cont. Don.  Dicebatur illo tempore, venturos esse Paulum & Macarium qui interessent sacrificio & cum altaria solenniter aptarentur, proferrent illi Imaginem quam primo in altari ponerent sic sacrificium offeretur. Hoc cum acciperent aures perculsi sunt & animi; & uniuscujusque lingua in haec verba commota est, ut omnis qui haec audieret, diceret qui inde gustat de sacro gustat. Et recte dictum erat si talem famam talis veritas sequeretur. At ubi ventum est à supra dictis, nihil tale visum est, ex eo quod fuerat paulo mentita fama nihil viderunt Christiani oculi quod horrerent. Nihil probavit aspectus ex iis, quibus perturbatus crat auditus. Visa est puritas & ritú solito solennis consuetudo perspecta est.   

CHAP. XV.  
Mr. C. Clamours against the permission of Scripture to the Vulgar, Sect. 1. The reason of it, Sect. 2. His Argument from the perniciousness of it considered, Sect. 3.4, 5, 6, 7.8. from their aptness to be misled, Sect. 9 How vainly the Romanists requires an internal assent to all their interpretations of Scripture, Sect. 10. Mr. Cressies Argument from 2 Pet. 3.16. considered, S. 11. The Dr. unjustly charged with a mistake, Sect. 12. The Service of the Church anciently performed in the Vulgar Tongue and Mr. Cressies pretences confuted, Sect. 13.14. His miserable pretences for the continuance of the service in an unknown Tongue, Sect. 15.16, 17, 18, 19.20.21. Arguments against it from 1 Cor. 14. v. 12.13. Sect. 22. v. 14. Sect. 23. v. 15. Sect. 24. v. 16. Sect. 25. v. 17. Sect. 26. Mr. Cressies Answers and Evasions considered, Sect. 27.28.  
IN this Chapter our Authors pen runs out against the holy Scripture, Sect. 1 and he most profanely blasphemes the Oracles of God, Let us consider a little his great Argument, his Alpha. and Omega, which is drawn from a Consideration of the perniciousness of the use of Scripture, which he thus Rhetorically sets forth, telling us that the Calamities already happened both to the Royal Family, and the whole Nation, are chief to be imputed to it's public use; Hence he derives the rudeness of the Common people the jast twenty years in this our Kingdom; what was it (saith he) but Scripture as it was used, and of which use themselves were the first cause (by suffering it freely to be Read) and hereafter will never be able to prevent that justified discontentment against the Government Civil and Ecclesiastical, that put swords and guns into the hands of subjects against their King, and all that were faithful to him, that dissolved the entire frame of the Kingdom, that encouraged men to plunder: and all manner of Rapine, that arraigned and murdered our last and excellent King, that endangered the life of his most Gracious Majesty now living, and forced him into a long necessitous Banishment; that has revived and given strength to old and new monsters of Heresies, to the astonishment of mankind, some of which are not where else to be seen, and the rest in no place so venomous as in England.  
And why doth the Church of Rome thus spit her venom against the Word of God? Sect. 2 Is it not because she knows her deeds of darkness cannot endure the lights approachment? She knows how impossible it is to keep up her Idolatry in worshipping Images, if she permit the second Commandment entire to the people. How impossible it is to cheat them with an half Communion, if they permit them to see the institution: How impossible 'tis to keep their latin service, in defiance of the word of God, and yet permit that word to come into their hands thus abused by them. Can they set up their doctrine of Daemon's, or be approved in prohibiting of Marriage, if the people might be permitted to view their condemnation so legible, that he that runs may read it? But though the Roman Proctors cry out so vehemently of the dangerous Consequences of this our practice, yet dare we not violate the Law of God, or suffer his Book to be a sealed one unto our people: We dare not, with the Romanists bereave them of the Food of Life, and give them nothing but their poison in lieu thereof: We dare not deprive them of the Characters of a Blessed person, 
Ps. 1.2.  by rendering it impossible for them to meditate in the word continually, or to obey their Saviour, 
Joh. 5. v. 39  requiring them to search the Scriptures; we dare not bereave them of that Touchstone of Truth, the Law and the Testimonies to which they are exhorted to have recourse; we dare not imitate their sacrilege who rob them of that Law which is the rule they are to walk by, 
Ps. 197.  that Law that converts the soul, that so they may continue Aliens from God; 
Ibid.  those Testimonies that make wise the simple, that so they may continue in their simplicity, and be induced to worship stocks and stones, as the Vulgar Papists do; that Law which enlighteneth their Eyes, 
V 8.  that so they may be still blinded by the Prince of Darkness; once more, that Scripture which is able to make them wise unto salvation; 
2 Tim. 3.15.  that so they may eternally miss of it. Nor do we so much regard these false Disciples of St. Peter, as blessed Peter himself, who teacheth, that they do well who take heed unto this Word, 2 Pet. 1.19. As David, who tells us, that 'tis more precious than Gold, yea then fine Gold, sweeter than Honey, or the Honey Comb: Well then, to return an answer to his Sophism.  
1. It is not Scripture, or the frequent reading of it, Sect. 3 which hath been esteemed by the Learned Fathers a Fosterer of Errors, or the Original of corrupt Manners; but the neglect of reading and pondering the Word of God. Thus chrysostom in his Preface to the Ep. to the Romans, tells his Flock, That from the ignorance of Scripture have infinite evils sprung: Hence is that great Plague of Heresies that bud among us, hence is that negligence of our lives: Thus he; and a greater than Chrysost. could tell the Sadduces, that they Erred not knowing the Scripture, Matth. 22.29.  
2. Sect. 4 If these Enormities and Rebellions were to be imputed to the use of Scripture, since it is manifest, that in the Primitive times they read it vulgarly, and were exhorted so to do: What is the Reason, no persecutions, no pressures, no torments could prevail upon them to rebel? Why is it they entered into solemn Covenants not to defraud each other by theft and rapine, nor to engage in any of the like implicities? Was it not the awe of Scripture they continually pretended? Was it not because they had no instruments of sedition in their Pulpits, to alarm them to war; but had wholesome Texts of Scripture pressed upon them, and may not we hope that the like practice of our Ministers may produce such Loyalty?  
Again, may not we as well argue, that the restraining of Scripture is thus pernicious? What made the Irish Rebels destroy so many thousands in cold blood? Was it not the restraining of that Scripture from them, which saith, Thou shalt not kill? What made so many illiterate Papists be instrumental in the Gunpowder Treason? Was it not the restraint of that Scripture, which cries out touch not mine anointed which made the insurrection thereupon? Was it not the restraint of the Scripture, telling us, that to resist is the ready way to procure Damnation to ourselves?  
Thirdly, Sect. 5 To whom do we own all these monsters of Heresy he so complains of? Are they not all hatched by the Jesuit? Have not some of them been Butchers, some Smiths, some Captains in the Army, 
See the Jesuits Letter in Rushworth, coll. ct.  and done all that they could to invent and broach new Doctrines? Was it not a Jesuit who tells us, How some of their own Coat have reincountred themselves, how admirably in speech and gesture they could act the Puritan? These, these are they who have industriously led others to Hell, industriously instructed them in damnable Doctrines, studying how they might by damning so many Souls make way for their Idolatry and Tyranny.  
Now seeing it is evident, that it was not the common people that wrested these Scriptures of their own accord, but Jesuits (and others) that taught them so to do; what follows? Not surely that Scripture should be hid from them; but that all Jesuits, Popish Priests, men that can teach them what they know will infallibly lead them into Hell, should be removed.  
And as for the rebellions of the people, if the Scripture had any hand in them, it was only thus, as it was wrested by the Preachers: These were the Trumpets of sedition, who cried out so loudly, Curse ye Meroz; And had not these men wrested the Scripture, the people would have been at quiet. Now surely this Argument proves nothing against the permission of the public use of Scripture, but only the wrested interpretations of it made by seditious Ministers; and infers this only, that seditious Preachers ought most carefully to be prevented, and most severely punished, as Incendiaries of the State.  
Again, that you may see how instrumental the Holy Scriptures were in the promoting these Rebellions, were not the forwardest in them, viz. the Quaker, Anabaptist, etc. to quit themselves of these enforcements of Obedience from Scripture, forced either to throw off Scripture, and run to the light within them, or to present Impulses of the Spirit, or, thirdly, to say they might comply with providence against precept? Was there any thing more cogent to keep many thousands from such rebellion, than that place of Saint Paul to the Romans? etc. 
Cap. 13.  And how were the ringleaders of the people forced to wind and turn and squeeze it, that they might persuade the multitude of the legality of their actions? And yet at last could not by any means effect it, but by telling them that the Parliament was equal to the King, and so robbing him of his higher Power: Yea,  
Thirdly, Sect. 6 Haddit the Scripture been kept from the common people, and they had none of these Texts to go to, how far more easily might their seditious Preachers have led them into rebellion? What could they have had to return to their urgent solicitations? And do not these men well to pretend friendship to his Majesty, who would have Scripture hid from his Subjects eyes, that so they might have nothing to restrain them from the like enormities?  
Fourthly, Sect. 7 To argue from this accidental abuse of Scripture to the withholding it, is as ridiculous as may be: For,  
First, How hard a thing is it to make a right use of the grace of God? Do not the generality of men abuse it, and turn it into wantonness? And yet, I hope, this doth not hinder but the people may be made acquainted with it as revealed in the Gospel: Yea,  
Secondly, Did not our Saviour know how likely the Jews were to reject and crucify him, to blaspheme his miracles, and continue obstinate against all the evidences of his being the Messiah? And will our Author add, that therefore he should not have been revealed unto them?  
Thirdly, who knows not how hard a thing it is for persons to have parts and not be proud of them, to be in high places, and not be partial, tyrannical, or addicted to some vices, which commonly attend such greatness? Shall we therefore have no Magistrates? Shall we have no endeavouring to procure the greatest talents?  
Fourthly, Yea, on the same ground, seeing the Common-Prayer and the Ceremonies were accidentally the cause of the War; and we see by experience, how unlike, weak, and unstable men are to make good use of them, they must down too.  
Lastly, Seeing the power of Parliaments was so abused, it would be necessary to dissolve them: seeing preaching and instructing of the people was abused most of all, It would be requisite (a thing which the Papists hearty desire) to hinder that: Yea, seeing that, among the old Heresies, scarce one was broached but by the Learned, and our late swarms of monstrous opinions were evidently the products of Learned Men, whether Jesuits or others; If this Argument were good, it would rather prove that Scripture should be withheld from the Learned, then from the vulgar sort of people.  
Fifthly, Sect. 8 Were not the Jews as stupid and ignorant a people as any under the cope of Heaven, and yet God requires of them, that they should declare his precepts, his word, unto their Children; that they should meditate on them sitting in their house, and walking on their journey, when they lay down, and when they risen up; that they should bind them for a sign upon their hands, and as frontlets between their eyes; that they should write them upon the posts of their houses, and upon their gates, Deut. 6.7, 8, 9 So earnest was God with them to be acquainted with his Word, albeit it seemed not then so full of moral precepts, so plain and intelligible, as the greatest part of the New Testament: Yea, and the sweet singer of Israel commends it, as that which will make wise, not pervert the simple, as that which is more to be desired then glod, not rejected as poison. And our Saviour calls upon the Jews to search the Scriptures; which if it were spoken, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Saint Cyrill has it; and the word Jews not limited by the Context fairly pleads, then have we our Saviour's command to the vulgar to read the Scripture. But if it be spoken to the Pharisees, as Stapleton restrains it, yet is it a more cogent Argument, they being men so notorious for the abuse of the Scripture, as never were the like: What brought up their Phylacteries, but an abuse of the place forecited? What caused their obstinacy against the Gospel, but the misinterpretation of the Law? And a supposition; falsely deduced from Texts, that it was eternal? How much of this may any body see in Buxtorf, Selden, Lightfoot, and others, that concern themselves in these matters? Our Saviour (pardon the expression) was either not so wise as to know this was the way to make them worse, or else so malicious as to set them in that way which would be so pernicious to them. Origen, as great a Scholar as he was, 
Hom. 2. in Esai.  knew not the danger we are now acquainted with, when he so vehemently cries out, 
De Baptismo, l. 2. cap. 4. In cap. tertium ad Colos.  I would to God we could all do what is written, viz. search the Scriptures. Nor Saint Basil, when he requires the same duty from us. Nor did Saint chrysostom consider this, when he so passionately called upon the people; O all ye secular men get you Bibles, the physic of the Souls; else sure he would have bid them throw them away as the poison of the Soul; but the good Father had not learned to blaspheme the Scripture: Yea, even Saint Paul himself was ignorant of this Divinity, (so necessary to prevent the murder of Kings, the dissolution of Governments, the Schisms and Ruptures of the Church, the swarms of Heresies that fly about, if we may believe this Advocate of the Church of Rome.) For this is the Encomium that he gives to Timoth, 2.3. That from a youth he had learned the Scriptures, and makes it a part of nobility in the Be●eans, that they compared his Doctrine with the Word of God, brought it to this touch stone, to see if it could abide the proof; And lastly, writing to the Corinthians, assures them, 
2 Ep. 1.13.  that the matter of his Epistle was no other than what they read and did acknowledge.  
But let our Confuter proceed, p. 167. he tells us, Sect. 9 That Catholics knowing how impossible it is for ignorant persons to understand it, and for passionate minds to make good use of it; think it more conducing to Edification, that such easily misled Souls should be taught their duties rather by plain Catechisms and inst ructions, prudently, and with all clearness gathered out of Scripture.  
Answ. Be it so, but let them not persuade us to think that the one must exclude the other, when we protest against them still for doing so; let them not be angry, if we with our blessed Saviour and his Apostles think both expedient, and very much conducing to Edification, if we adhere in this to the Primitive Church, and among other instructions exhort them diligently to read the Scripture: Nor do we think any person so ignorant that can read, as not to know the Essentials of his Christianity, and to find things plain and easy which will suffice for his Salvation; Nor is it therefore fit to be restrained, because we have some of passionate minds, which, whilst such, are not like to make good use of the Word of God, no more than they are to be hindered from a good Sermon, Catechism, or other means of instruction; because, whilst such, they are not like to make good use of them; or to be deprived of their goods, because they are apt to abuse the creature. But rather they are to read the Scripture, that they may learn thereby to lay aside their passion.  
'Tis true, Sect. 10 what he tells us, Sect. 6. That the abuse of Scripture by ignorant and passionate Laics is not so certain and probable to follow in the Catholic Church, where men are bred up in a belief of that most necessary duty of submission, even of their minds to her authority, for the delivery of the only true sense of Scripture; whereas in our Church no person can be persuaded that the sense of Scripture given by us, can challenge an internal assent, or that it may not with sin be contradicted.  
But then we say, First, If this be so, how can you plead the danger of your people's erring, as a pretence to restrain Scripture, when as this would more confirm them, they being bred up in a belief, that what sense you put upon Scripture is the mind of God? What an evident contradiction therefore is there in these two pretences?  
Secondly, We dare not thus Lord it over the Consciences of men, as not thinking we have any such assistance of the Scripture, as will guide us infallibly into the true sense of Scripture; and therefore supposing ourselves fallible, we do not bind our people to an internal assent unto our interpretations upon our sole authority, lest we should bind them to believe an Error; Glad would we be to find the Roman Church endued with this infallibility; how fast would we nestle into her bosom were it so? But we know that challenge is vain and idle: Yet seeing they pretend thus much, is it not a wonder that this Church, which hath authority given her to deliver the true sense of the Scripture, should never do it? To what end, I pray you, hath God given it, but that your people should have the benefit thereof? Why then are parties at so great a variance among you, about the true sense of Scripture, and your Church still neglects the exercise of its authority, in putting an end to those strifes, by her declaration of it? But speak your Conscience; do you not know or fear that this would be a most convincing Argument against that infallibility you so much boast of? When we should make it appear (as no doubt we could) that some of your interpretations were false, and contrray to the infallible Rule of Scripture.  
Thirdly, Therefore albeit we do not require of our people that they should assent to such an interpretation of Scripture, because that we who interpret it are guided by an infallible Spirit; yet do we say that the people ought to receive the interpretation of doubtful places from the Pastor's God hath placed over them, not contradicting them without evident reason, but submiting to them; that when they are by some passage of Scripture induced to think otherwise, they ought not presently to condemn the Church of Errors, but reflect upon their own weakness, and seek for better information from men of Learning and Judgement, and acquiesce in it; unless they can evidently show that they err in their interpretation. And indeed, I could never persuade myself that the vulgar Jews were bound to accept all those false and corrupt interpretations which the Scribes and Pharisees put upon Scripture; And indeed, had they been so obliged, then might they have refused to give maintenance either to Father or Mother, by telling them that it was Corban by which they should be relieved; yea, than they were bound to believe that our Saviour Christ was not the Messiah, that he was not from God, but an Impostor: Well then, either these were Judges infallible or not; if so, than the absurdity  is not avoidable; if not, then let him tell us what other infallible Judge they had, or acknowledge they had none; and if so, than I ask leave to inquire what necessity have we to think the people should have such a one under the Gospel, when they were far more ignorant under the Law, nor had such guidance of the Spirit to lead them into all truth; and yet God did not then think it meet to constitute such a one.  
Well, Sect. 11 but our Adversary seems to triumph in an Argument from Scripture against the reading of this Sacred book, 
Mr. C. 168.  and it may thus be form; Certainly none of them whom we know to be apt to pervert the Scriptures should be permitted to read them. 
2 Pet. 3.16.  But the unlearned and unstable are apt to do so: therefore, etc. And for Confirmation of this we are told, that the unlearned and unstable of England are 99 of each hundred; therefore if they are not to be permitted to read the Scripture, 99 of each hundred in England should not be permitted. To this Argument we reply,  
(1.) That the major is false, as is evident. For tell me, were not the Jews apt to pervert the Scripture? who were yet commanded to be daily conversant in the same? were not the Scribes and Pharisees apt to pervert Scripture? And yet our Saviour bids the one search the Scripture: tells the other, that they err not knowing the Scripture.  
(2.) Doth not Saint Peter, 1 Epist. chap. 1. prescribe attending to the word as a remedy to keep us from the deceptions of false prophets? And if you will say, with Stapleton, we are bid indeed to attend to Scripture, but as preached by the Pastors of the Church, not read, the contrary is evident; for 'tis a word of prophecy, which holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; and sure, that is the Scripture.  
(3.) If this were true, then were the fathers much to blame, who called the Heretics to Scripture, bid them look to Scripture and see their Errors, when it is notorious that they were made Heretics by perverting Scripture. Again, to the minor I say, that the Apostle doth not say, that such are apt to pervert all Scripture, but something hard and difficult in Saint Paul's Epistle and other Scripture; and now, the benefit we receive by the other places not so hard may recompense the danger.  
(2.) I say the unlearned are so, if they proceed to judge of the scripture, and will take things in their own sense without going to God for direction, begging his Spirit, and using the help of the guides set over them; whence 'tis well inferred, they should not read scripture, without a sense of weakness and aptness to pervert it, when they permit themselves to draw conclusions and decide controversies by it: and therefore should not read it after such a manner; but pray to God more for his Assistance in reading, and have closer dependence on the guides that are given them, and not dote upon questions, which administer strife, rather than edifying.  
The second part of this Chapter is taken up in a miserable defence of their Church's prayers in an unknown tongue, which cannot more effectually be confuted, Sect. 12 then by an impartial consideration of those pitiful sophisms that uphold it.  
And (1.) he tells the Doctor, 
Mr. C. p. 172.  that he mistakes the Church's meaning, as if one of its positions were, that God's public worship ought to be in an unknown tongue; or as if it forbade the people to understand it, And truly (saith he) if it were so, we could never hope to be reconciled with that passage of Scripture, out of Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 14.13. thus he: Answ. But where I pray you hath the Doctor one jota from whence you can be able to make good this charge? why did you not direct us to his words from whence this consequence could be inferred? but confidently tell him he mistakes, when as 'tis only your prevarication makes him do so? did you peruse that paragraph, or not? if you did not, then what unparallelled boldness was it at all adventures to charge him with mistakes? if you did, what wilful insincerity was it to charge him with that which you knew to be a palpable untruth?  
Secondly, Had he affirmed what you unjustly charge him with, yet might he very easily be freed from a mistake; for seeing your Trent Conventicle hath determined that 'tis not expedient that the public service should be celebrated in the vulgar Tongue, it must have consequently determined that it ought not to be so; seeing the Apostles rule requires that in things lawful in themselves we should be guided, 
1 Cor. 6.12. See Bishop Sanderson his Sermon In locum.  as to practise, by expedience, and consequently that if the vulgar tongue be not expedient in Gods public service, it ought not to be used; and if so then sure a tongue not vulgar or unknown, must necessarily take place.  
Thirdly, I affirm that if you could not reconcile her command to celebrate Gods public service in an unknown tongue with that passage of S. Paul, neither can you reconcile her practice; it being notoriously evident that what S. Paul there speaks respects the practice, not the commands of the Church of Corinth, but only as the prohibition of the practice infers a prohibition of the commanding such a practice, so that our Author's mouth sufficiently condemns him; but to proceed.  
He tells us, Sect. 13 Sect. 9 That they generally acknowledge the service of God in the primitive times to have been performed in a tongue better understood then now it is, but yet not for many places, or countries, in their vulgar native or best known tongue; for (saith he) 'tis evident by Saint Augustine that in Africa it was in the Latin, not in the Punic, which yet was the only tongue the vulgar understood.  
Ans. If this be not related Punica fide let any indifferent man judge, for do we not know that his Sermons ad populum were in Latin? when as yet you generally acknowledge they ought to be in the vulgar tongue; doth not he tell us in his retractions, 
l. 1. c. 10. psalmum qui iis cantaretur per latinas literas feci. De verbis Apost. Ser. 16. In psal. 50. & ps. 138.  that being willing to have the cause of the Donatists known to the meanest of the vulgar, that it might stick upon their memories he made a psalm which should be sung to them in Latin Letters. Yea, doth he not give them a Punic proverb in the Latin tongue? and annex this reason, quia Punice non omnes nostis? did he not condescend to the use of barbarous words, ossum for os, sanguines and sanguina, upon this account, because it was better Gramarians should reprehend him, 
See Dr. Field, p. 246. etc. & du bless. Sac Mistress l. 2 c. 6. c. 7.  then that the people should not understand him; could you be ignorant of these (and other evidences of this truth) and cite so frequently that Dr. Field from whence I had them.  
And would it not make an Heraclitus laugh to hear you tell us of S. 
Sect. 14. Ib.  Basils' Liturgy used in the Greek tongue in most parts of the Eastern Churches, and add that this was not the vulgar (or tongue sufficiently understood) in many of these Eastern Churches, 
Act. 14.11.  and that because the people said in the language of Lycaonia the Gods are come down to us in the likeness of men; 
Act. 2.8, 9, 10.  and further, Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers of Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphilia heard the Apostles speak in their own tongues the wonderful works of God. For can this do you any service till you have proved these things?  
(1.) That Saint Basils' Liturgy was in all, or any of these places?  
(2.) That those places where this Liturgy was used did not understand Greek, as well as their vulgar tongue;  
(3.) That if they could not understand Greek in the days of the Apostles, neither could they do it 600 years after their decease and upwards (about which time this spurious Liturgy might haply have been used) and when all this is done, which will be ad Graecas Calendas, the consequence will be only this, that after six hundred years' Saint Paul's precept was disregarded by some Eastern Churches.  
Farther, we have sufficient evidences, that in many parts of Asia the Greek was a sufficiently vulgar tongue; Saint Chrysostom preached in Greek at Antioch; S. Basil at Caesarea, Athanasius at Alexandria, Cyril at Jerusalem: thus from Constantinople to Antioch throughout Asia was the Greek language sufficiently known; S. Jerom will tell us, 
Tom. in Ep. ad Gal. in proamia pro Archia Pocta.  sermme Graeco omnis oriens loquitur; all the East used the Greek tongue; and Cicero, Graeca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus, that almost all Nations used it; and why not then those places in which this Liturgy was used?  
But you go on to inform us, 
Sect. 15. Ib.  that your Church did not intent that her public devotions should therefore be in Latin, because it is not vulgarly understood, but this hath happened as it were by accident of the mixture of barbarous nations, (but why then was it thus performed in England where it was always a tongue unknown unto the vulgar:) and notwithstanding this accident you do not think meet to change it upon these accounts.  
(1.) Because no example can be given of anciently established Churches, that any of them changed the Language of God's public service entirely?  
Ans. Were it so, the reason evidently must be the no-necessity of such a change, seeing 'tis evident beyond all possibility of contradiction, that the most holy and pious of every age required the performance of God's service in a language known; 
Rupert. de Diz. officiis, l. 3. c. 8.  hence in mixed congregations the Service was read both in Greek and Latin; and at the funeral solemnities of Paula the Greeks, 
Higher ad Eustoch. Epitaph. Paulae.  Syrians, Latins, etc. had their devotions in their proper tongues. Yea Innocent the third decreed that seeing there were mixed people of divers languages in sundry parts within the same Diocese, or City, the Bishops of these places should provide fit men to Celebrate Divine Service, 
p. 248. De Sac. Mistress l. 2. c. 6.  according to the diversities of their Rites, and Languages, as you may see in Doctor Field; he that would be glutted with the suffiages of Antiquity let him have recourse to the honourable the Lord du Plessis, and he shall find abundant satisfaction.  
Secondly, As the evasion is evidently weak and impertinent, so is it notoriously false; for Methodius having translated the Scripture into the S●lavenian tongue, persuaded the Dalmatians to explode the Latin, and make use of their own in the service of God, 
p. 434.  as Aventinus informs us; yea, the same M●thodius went into the Kingdoms of Boiaria, and sought to persuade Noricum, Pannenia, & Veneda to abandon the Latin, and have the service in the vulgar: and albeit at the present he was resisted, yet afterwards the attempt took effect, 
See Doctor Field, ubi supra.  at least in part, as appears by Aventinus, telling us that in his age the priests of Liburnia did celebrate Divine Service in their own, 
De missa Latine facienda in locis communibus. p. 241.  that is, in the Sclavonian tongue; yea, Eckius, a rigid Papist, will confess, that heretofore the Divine Service was in the Dalmatian tongue, throughout all Illiricum; the same you may find evinced of many others that now use the Latin, in the most Learned Dr. Field.  
You go on, Sect. 16 and tell us, that the Greeks now use the Ancient Mass of Saint Chrysostom, 
Mr. C. p. 173.  written in pure Greek, as much dissering from the vulgar, as Latin from the Italian, Spanish, etc. and that the like may be said of the Syrian, Cophtites, etc. yea, the Jews continue their devotions in the Hebrew to this day; albeit understood by few of them.  
Ans. 1. The Lord du Plessis would have informed you, albeit the Mass which the Greek Church useth is different from their vulgar, 
p. 268.  non tamen quantum aut Italica à Latinâ, aut Gallica ipsa à Narbonensi; and farther that where the Greek tongue is not in use (as among the Muscovians and Russiane) albeit they follow the Greek customs, yet do they celebrate Divine Service in the vulgar tongue; and I have so much confidence of the truth of his assertion, as to judge your contradiction to it to exceed the bounds.  
Secondly, The Egyptians indeed have their service in a bastard Chalde, or Syriaque, their vulgar being Arabic, 
Field, p. 241.  but then they first read the Gospel in the Chaide, and afterwards in Arabic, which is not done in their public Services.  
Thirdly, When the example of the Russians, Muscovians, 
Com. in 1 Cor. 16. disp. 50. s 7. l 2: de verbo dei c. 16.  Aethiopians, etc. was objected to Salmeron in behalf of Service in the vulgar tongue; he Answers, we will not be moved with the examples of such barbarous people; and their famous Bellar, adds 'tis all one as if Lutherans and Anabaptists should be called for confirmation of an opinion, seeing these are Heretics as well as they; so that our adversary might as well have argued that Arrius and his followers denied the Godhead of Saviour, and therefore we also ought to do so; the Jews deny him to be the Saviour of the world, blaspheme him in their Services; and therefore so should we.  
Again, he argues thus, 
Sect. 17. Ib.  a great fitness there is that the most public service should be in the most public tongue; but Latin is the most public tongue in Europe. But,  
(1.) This Sophism will turn our Sermons into Latin, which yet the Romanists, notwithstanding their other impudent oppositions to the word of God) have not asserted.  
Secondly, What reason can any mortal man imagine, why the service of God should be celebrated in that Language which is most public in Europe, rather than in Asia?  
Thirdly, How blind were the primitive Churches, which could not see so great a fitness in this way of worship? 
Cont. Cells. l. 8. singuli precentur propria lingua. Just. novel. 123 Ed. Haloandri,  for amongst them, as Origen tells us, every one prayed in his own tongue, and Justinian commanded all Bishops and Presbyters to celebrate holy prayers and mysteries, clara & vernaculâ voce, so that the vulgar might understand telling them out of the Apostle, to what little putpose it was to do it otherwise; and that they should not only be accountable for it at the day of judgement, but punished by him also upon transgression of this command.  
Fourthly, We deny that the Latin tongue is the most public in Europe, or that there is any fitness that the Service of God should be celebrated in all Europe in that Language which is most public.  
And what if the Latin tongue be understood (which yet is not always true) by those that frequently recite the prayers, Sect. 18 (even as the unknown tongue which S. Paul so vehemently cried down was understood by him that spoke it) what if that were a truth which you so crudely suggest, 
p. 175.  that a great part of the service was composed for the Clergies proper use? when as the thing you are blamed for, is, that in the public service which concerns the common people, and according to the Apostles Doctrine, aught to be done so as that they may understand it, and be edified thereby, is locked up by you in a tongue unknown; Again, why do you marry in the Latin tongue? is that proper to your Clergy?  
Your last evasion is, 
Sect. 19 Ib. 6.  that by this means, (viz. the keeping of your service in the Latin tongue) your Doctrine is kept from being innovated, whereas by the change of other Languages the Doctrine would lie under a danger of being changed; Liturgyes (preserved the same in the Latin tongue) must ever and anon be altered, and infinite expenses be laid out in Printing them.  
Ans. Is not this a shrewd sign of a sinking cause to lay hold upon such bul-rushes as these? to catch at such vain and empty shadows? what, is it better that the poor people should want the bread of life, the comfort and edification of the Church's service, then buy a Common Prayer Book once in 20 or perhaps an 100 years? Is there any danger of being undone by such a contribution of the parish that in an age will rob each family of a single penny? should these infallible keepers of the truth of God fear the loss of their Religion upon the change of a word or (2.) In the Chruches Liturgy? what new Doctrine hath been broached by having our Liturgy in the vulgar tongue? what great need have we had of new translations? or what danger have we found by turning Paul the knave of Jesus Christ into the servant of Jesus Christ? how did the Syriack, Greek, etc. corrupt in the time of the Ancient Fathers, who yet did never complain of these inconveniences, or think them sufficient to make use of the Latin tongue in their public service; these objections are so absurd as that nothing can make them more ridiculous.  
For a close, he tells us that Popes have granted, 
p. 177.  that the service of God should be celebrated in that manner which we contend for, one of them having been induced to it by a miracle. Sect. 20  
A. And is it not wonderful that they should dare to contradict a miracle, and when upon their consultation touching this matter God answered from heaven, let every tongue confess unto me, should say, not so, only the Latin tongue shall do it?  
Farther he saith, Sect. 21 that haply an indulgence may be granted.  
Ans. Very good: but till then let them not blame us for not communicating with them, seeing we continually proclaim that we are ready to communicate with them when ever we can procure a dispensation, from these and the like enormities; yea let them acknowledge that the Church of Rome hath erred by introducing this service into the Church; hath contradicted the verdict of the infallible word of God; which that it is the very truth we come now to demonstrate from that place of 1 Cor. 14. mistaken (if we may believe him) by the Doctor.  
Now to pass over those arguments which with sufficient evidence may be drawn from the 11 first verses of this Chapter, in the 12 vers. Sect. 22 the Apostle thus exhorts these emulators of the gift of tongues, that seeing they so importunately desired to abound in gifts, they would do it to the edification of the Church, endeavouring to excel in that which tends unto this noble end. Now what was that? the Apostle Ans. The interpreting of tongues, that the people may know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the import of the voice, wherefore (seeing we ought with greatest vigour to pursue (those things that make most for the edification of the Church) he that speaketh with an unknown tongue let him pray that he may interpret, where two things may be inquired.  
(1.) To what part of service that verse refers.  
Ans. Prayer, As is evident from the reason given, vers. 14. Let him pray that he may interpret, for if I pray in an unknown tongue, etc.  
Secondly, Why must he pray that he may interpret?  
Ans. That the Church may receive edification, vers. 5. Yea, this is farther evident from the series of the words, vers. 12. seek that you may excel to the edification of the Church; wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret, as also from the Apostles precept; that all things should be done to edification, and consequently prayer. Now hence I argue.  
That which is requisite, that we may excel to the edification of the Church, we ought to practise in our public prayers; for as much as the Apostle bids us seek to excel (in this matter) to the edification of the Church; but praying in a tongue known to the people which join in service with us is requisite to this and (this being the end of our praying that we may interpret) therefore we ought to practise it. Our Author here tells us that the Trent Council observes the mind of the Apostle, in that she hath commanded all Pastors, during the Celebration of the Mass, to expound some part of what is read. An Answer worthy such a cause.  
For (1.) Was it ever heard before that expounding perhaps an Epistle or Gospel (or something else, which to be sure is not a prayer) should be interpreting the Church's Prayer? or dare he affirm that the Pastors interpret their Prayers as they are Read?  
(2.) Doth the Apostle require that only some part of the Prayer should be interpreted? is there not equal reason for the whole? especially when he adds, let all be done for edification?  
(3.) Were this done frequently, yet it is evident that the Apostles precept would be neglected, though more rarely:  
His 2 Ans. I shall confute in consideration of the 16. v. It follows. Sect. 23 For if I pray in an unknown tongue my spirit prays, that is, 
v. 14.  the extraordinary gift of the Spirit in me; thus chrysostom, Theodoret, Photius: I know the Rhemists by Spirit understand affections, and make the sense run thus; in this case my heart and affections pray, albeit I understand not what I say; But were this the truth, that he that speaketh in an unknown tongue understandeth not himself;  
Then (1.) We must acknowledge that when the Apostles at the day of Pentecost were endued with the gift of tongues, they understood not what they said; which will not easily be granted.  
Secondly, The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in this Chapter, ordinarily imports the gift of tongues, and therefore most probably it doth so here.  
Thirdly, The Fathers generally do thus interpret it, besides the three already cited; Saint Hierom, Basil, Oecumenius are clearly for this sense, and therefore Papists cannot without perjury run counter to it.  
But (4.) The Apostle in this very Chapter tells us, he that speaks with tongues edifies himself, vers. 4. and also that where the voice is not understood it doth not edify. vers. 15, 16.  
Fiftly, In the very next verse he requires that over and above praying by the spirit, we should add praying with the Understanding also; so that how ever you interpret your praying with the spirit, yet must you pray so also as to be understood: well than our Exposition must take place. It follows, but my mind is unfruitful, that is the reason why an unknown tongue is prohibited in prayer, viz. because although our spiritual gift perform its work, the mind becomes unfruitful: now here by mind some understand the Intellect, some (as the Reverend Bishop Morton) the matter of the prayer, which is the effect of the mind, and made out of the conceptions that we have of the necessities of God's Church, etc. But this is not material in our dispute; this mind is said to be unfruitful, not to ourselves, as the foregoing arguments evince, but to the hearer; thus Saint Jerome, mens ejus non ipsi efficitur fine fructu sed audienti, 
In loeum.  and Saint Basil, 
In locum.  when they that are present understand the prayer, than he that prayeth hath fruit, to wit, the edification of those that are helped by his prayer; now to be unfruitful in this sense, what is it but to be such whereby the Auditor reaps no benefit, the Church is not edified; others are not instructed? as the 19 verse doth clearly intimate, where we have these words, in the Church I had rather speak five words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with my mind (understood) that I may instruct others, than ten thousand in an unknown tongue; now hence I argue, That which makes the prayer unfruitful to the hearers ought not to be done, (this being the reason of the Apostles prohibition) but the expressing of public prayers in an unknown tongue makes them unfruitful to the hearer.  
Vers. 15. Sect. 24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what therefore is the result of this, even that this gist of the Spirit may be so managed in prayer that the Church may understand us, that this (or somewhat like it) must be the sense of orabo ment is evident, as from the precedent verse, which tells us that if we do not pray in a known tongue our mind will be unfruitful unto others, and thence infers that we must so pray in the Spirit as that we pray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vol sc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for to understand it of the mind of him that prays is to make a ridiculous inference, after this manner, if you use only the gift of the Spirit you will be unfruitful unto others, therefore pray so as to understand yourself, or that your mind may be employed; Nay, it is further evident from the next verse, which tells us that otherwise the Idiot cannot say Amen; Now surely my understanding my own mind, will nothing contribute unto the Idiot, or make him more able to say Amen. Well then, to pray with the mind, or understanding, is to pray so as that the Congregation, made up of learned and unlearned, may comprehend the import of our words, and so this verse affords us a third Argument. If we must pray so as to be understood by the Congregation, made up of literate and illiterate persons, & Idiots, then must we not pray in an unknown tongue, but in the public service of the Church we should thus pray, according to the mind of our Apostle.  
Verse 16. Sect. 25 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit (which is a part of prayer) how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned, say Amen at thy giving of thanks? for he understandeth not what thou sayest; still the Apostle speaks of  (which is a part of prayer) and must be concluded with Amen: Now here we shall inquire what is meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? The Clerk, say some Papists; but surely they themselves are Idiots; for 'tis very evident that the whole people in the time of the Apostle, yea, 
See Du Plessis ubi supra.  a great while after their Martyrdom (as Justine Martyr, Clom: Alexand: and others do inform us) did sound forth Amen with the greatest vigour: Well then, 'tis an Hebrew Idiotism, and signifies no more than he that is an Idiot; for as Moses Egypt. informs me, 
More Nevoc. part 1. c. 8. and Bux. lex Talm. p. 2001. voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is extended to note, estimationem hominis in certâ quapiam re; and they use to say, N: est in tali loco, in hac vel illâ re, and such a one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth patrissare; So here, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he is an Idiot: And thus the Fathers generally interpret it; chrysostom and Oecumenius, indoctum, and Plebium, Jerome, and Theodoret, laicum; Ambrose, imperitum, Sedulius, Anselme, Haymo, and Thomas Aquinas, propriam linguam tantum modò scientem, all in locum. Well then, this Idiot is he that understands not the learned Tongues; and the Congregation is divided into two parts, (see Acts 4.13.) the literate, and the unlearned; and prayers in an unknown Tongue are here prohibited, because the unlearned part of the Church are not able to say Amen unto them; and the reason given, because they understand not what is said by him that prayeth in such a Tongue: Whence we infer,  
First, That 'tis the duty of the unlearned to join with the Minister in prayer, for he must say Amen, which he cannot do if he join not with him; that is, if his understanding doth not accompany his prayer.  
Secondly, That such are unable to perform this duty, unless they understand the matter of the prayer; for that is the reason assigned by the Apostle, why they cannot say Amen.  
Thirdly, That to say Amen, is not barely to pronounce the word (for that assuredly might be done by him that understands not what we say) but to profess our Assent to what is prayed, our willingness that it should be granted, our confirmation of the benediction; which the Idiot cannot do, as not knowing whether thou dost beg a blessing, or imprecate a curse; whether thou blessest God, or rather dost blaspheme him: Now hence I argue,  
First, That which the Idiot or unlearned cannot say Amen too is not to be used in the Church; but prayer in an unknown. Tongue is such, according to the Apostles Doctrine.  
Secondly, That which the Idiot understands not is not to be used in the Church (because he cannot say Amen thereto but an unknown Tongue) is that which the Idiot understands not; and consequently ought not to be used in the Church.  
Now here our Author answereth; That the Latin Tongue is always a known Tongue to some, if not to all; and there are always of those that understandingly say Amen: But,  
First, What is this to the purpose, when the Apostle distinguisheth the Congregation into the Idiot and others, and blames the prayers which were uttered in an unknown Tongue, because they were such as the Idiot could not understand; will he have the whole Church, besides the Minister, to be Idiots?  
Secondly, Is God an accepter of persons? would he have the learned edified by the Church's service, which have least need of these helps, and the unlearned want the benefit? If not, must it not be acknowledged that the Apostles Reason dictated by the Spirit of God concerns them both?  
Thirdly, Is it not the duty of the unlearned to say Amen unto the prayers that are used in public service? And if so, then must he also understand them; for otherwise as the Apostle here assures us, he cannot do it.  
Again, Sect. 26 verse 17. For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified; It might have been replied, why may not the Idiot say Amen, seeing the matter of my prayer is good?  
Answer. True, saith the Apostle, thou for thy part givest thanks well, but albeit it be so that which makes thy thanksgiving unlawful; is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, others that are Idiots are not edified thereby; thy benediction or  contributes nothing to his spiritual joy, doth not enlarge his heart with a sense of God's goodness into  and praises, and so he is not edified; whereas 'tis better to speak five words to his instruction and edification, than five hundred in that Tongue which he understands not, and consequently is not profited by: Hence I argue, that which the Idiot is not edified by, is not to be used in the Church; this being the reason assigned by the Apostle why the unknown Tongue should not be used; but prayer in an unknown Tongue is that by which the Idiot (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, spoken of, verse 16.) is not edified.  
The other answers which our Author returns are very weak; but as they are we shall consider them. Sect. 27  
First, Then, he tells us that the service of the Church being a known set form in one set Language, 
P. 176.  recurring continually the same according to the feast; those that are ignorant of it at first, may by due attention and other diligence, arrive to a sufficient knowledge, at least, of the chief parts thereof; they having in their Manuals, Primers, and Psalters, ready translated both the Psalms, Hymns, and Prayers, etc. And there being severeal Books both in English, and all vulgar Languages, that expound the Church-service, even to the meanest.  
Answer. Quid verba audio cum facta videam, what do you tell us, that such and such things might by the due attention of the ignorant be done; When it is notoriously known, that the people still continue ignorant? and whilst it is so, you transgress the Laws of the Apostle by praying in a Tongue they understand not? was it not notorious here in England, in the days of Q. Marry, that scarce two in a Parish under stood the Service? Let us have service in a vulgar Tongue, until you find the Latin service understood, and then we will cease to charge you with contradicting the Apostle?  
Secondly, Can they at last be able to understand the Latin service as to its chief parts, yet would not this acquit you from a violation of the Apostles precept; Who would have every benediction spoken to their capacity, all things done to their edification; and consequently, so a that they may be able to understand them? Do not his reasons conclude against the performance of any part of divine service in an unknown Tongue? Seeing that Hymn, Prayer, or Psalm, that is so performed, is such by which the Idiot is not edified, with which he cannot join, as being not able to understand it: Yea farther, do you not read your lessons and other portions of holy Scripture in Latin also? And will you permit them an English Bible, by which they may learn to understand them?  
Thirdly, is it not a thing extremely difficult, if not morally impossible, for an illiterate person to retain in his memory a bulky quarto Mass; or at least by comparing Manuals, etc. with it to understand it, and be able to join with the Priest each Holiday? Can you produce any illiterate Papists amongst us that have used this diligence? And if some were able, What must those many thousands, yea, Myriads, that know not Letters, do? What will their Manuals and Primers avail them?  
Fourthly and lastly, For I might be endless, is the whole Mass extant in these Manuals or not? Is it so extant as that the meanest of the vulgar may have recourse unto it? Are you diligent to instruct them what parts of their English Manuals, etc. do Answer to the parts of their Mass read on every day throughout the year? Do you suffer them to bring these Books into the Assemblies, and is it usual so to do? Do you exhort them to the attention so requisite to their understanding of the Church's service, reprove them for not doing it? If you deal sincerely with us here, all these questions must be answered in the affirmative, which I suppose you will blush to do.  
Your last Answer is, Sect. 28 That the Latin Tongue by reason of its affinity with many vulgar Tongues, 
P. 177.  and its constant use, is not so much unknown as we imagine, and so there is not the same motive for a dispensation as in other places; 
Hil. l. 1. c. 1.  yea, and our venerable Bede informs us, that in his time to the English, Scotch, Britain's, Picts, the Latin Tongue by perusing the Scripture, (a fit citation for a Chapter penned in defiance of it) was made common to them all.  
Answer. Notwithstanding all this, i● it not evident that the people do not understand their service, will not their own witers confess as much? Hear Billet on this subject cited by Cassander; What shall we say of our times, 
l. de off. pij viri, p. 41.  wherein scarce, or not at all, either he that heareth or readeth understandeth what he heareth or readeth; and Cassander himself saith, it were to be desired that consideration should be had of the people, according to the mandate of the Apostle, and that the ordinary and vulgar sort of believers might not for ever be excluded wholly from all communion in prayers and divine service: Yea, was there ever any Papist that durst say the people understood their Latin Service? In a word, either they do understand it so far as to be able to join with the Priest, or not; if the latter, to what end is this Answer produced by you? If the former, what need of all the former evasions, what need of an interpreter of their Mass, of Manuals, and other helps, to understand the Church's prayer? Doubtless, the Peasants in France, and Carters in England, understand Latin both alike, and the recourse of the service once a year is very like to help them much.  
Secondly, If there were less reason for a change in France and Italy, etc. why had we not a change in England? why have they not in Germany, Ireland, & c? Yea, 
Retento ubique cujusque Ecclefia antiquo ritu.  why doth the Council of Trent require that the old custom of Latin service should every where remain?  
To conclude, in your citation of venerable Bede, Sect. 29 you shamefully abuse us; his words are these; Haec (Britannia) in praesenti juxta numerum librorum quibus Lex divina scripta est, quinque gentium linguis unam eandemque summae veritatis, & verae sublimitatis scientiam scrutatur & confitetur; Anglorum, Britannorum, Scotorum, Pictorum, & Latinorum, quae meditatione Scripturarum caeteris omnibus est facta communis; That is, in short, Britain at present enjoys five Tongues; English, Scots, Picts, British, and Latin; which by meditation of the Scripture is made common to them all, that is some learned men there are in all these parts, some Scots, Picts, English, etc. that have attained to a knowledge of the Latin Tongue; 
John Trevison, l. 5. c. 24.  but yet that the Vulgar did not understand it, and that Bede could not so imagine, is Evident; because this Bede Translated a part of the Bible into the Saxon Tongue for the people's use. 
L. 4. c. 24.  Yea, and in this same History, tells us of a certain Brother in the Monastery of the Abhess Hilda, 
Quicquid ex divinis literis per interpretes disceret. Cuncta quae audiendo discerc poterat. See Dr. Field ubi supra.  who would presently express in verse in his own Tongue, that is in the English; whatsoever he learned by Interpreters out of the Holy Books, and whatsoever by hearing he could possibly learn, he turned it into most sweet Poems. And no wonder if the Scriptures were read in Latin by the Saxons, when as Learned men are of Opinion, they knew not how, before Bedes time, to write in their own Language.   

CHAP. XVI.  
The Trent Councils Decree touching Invocation of Soints, Sect 1. The Romanists practice, Sect. 2. Mr. Cressies Pleas considered, Sect. 3. His Argument from begging the Prayers of the living, Sect. 4. No Evidence that Saints pray for us in general or particular, Sect. 5, 6. His Argument to prove the presence of Angels with us confuted, Sect. 7. Of the Sphere of their activity, Sect. 8. Whether God reveals our prayers to Saints, Sect. 9 Rev. 5, 8.8, 3. No proofs of the Saints offering up our prayers to God, Sect. 10. His Argument from Miracles answered, Sect. 11. Some Authorities produced by Mr. Cr. very inconsequent, as that of Saint Hilary, the Council of Chalcedon, and Saint Austin, Sect. 12. The testimony of St. Basil abused by Mr. C. Sect. 13. Saint Chrysostoms' testimony considered, Sect. 14. Saint Ambrose, Sect. 15. St. Austin, Sect. 16. The passages from Theodoret and Nysen spurious, Sect. 17. Dr. Pierces Argument from Saint Austin vindicated, Sect. 18. No footsteps of this in the Old Testament, Sect. 19 Nor in the New, Sect. 20. the Testimonies of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Saint Cyprian, Origen, and others, produced against it, ibid. The judgement of the Fathers further evidenced. 1. From their putting God into the Definition of prayer, Sect. 21. Their affirming God alone to be the Object of it. Sect. 22. Their arguing Christ to be truly God on that account, Sect. 23. The Council of Laodicea against it. Sect. 24. As also that of Constantinople, Ibid. The Opinions of many of the Father's contrary to it. Sect. 25. The Conclusion, Sect. 26.  
IN this Chapter we have the Definition of the Trent Council touching the Invocation of Saints, 
P. 179.  wherein we are told That it is good and profitable to invocate them, to have recourse to their prayers, help and assistance for the obtaining good things from God by his Son Jesus Christ: 
P. 199, 180.  And further, that they are impiously persuaded, who hold the invocating them to pray for us to be idolatry, repugnant to God's Word, or contrary to the honour of the one Mediator Jesus Christ, or that it is a foolish thing to supplicate them with words or mind: On the contrary, we say that the invocation practised by the Church of Rome is, 

1. Superstitious and Idololatrical.  
2. Derogatory to our Lord Jesus Christ.  
3. Repugnant to God's Word, and,  
4. That to pray to them, especially with the mind, is foolish:    
All this might be evinced with a little pains, but it is already done in many Treatises of the Romanists Idolatry; and therefore I shall content myself to show their practice, and leave it to impartial considering men to judge.  
And first, 
Solve polluti labii reatum nunc potens nostri meritis opi mispectorisdures lapides repelle.  they pray to them for pardon of sins; thus the Roman Breviary in the Nativity of Saint John Baptist: Thou that art powerful, break the hard stones of our hearts by thy rich merits, and absolve as from the guilt of a polluted lip: And if you would be so charitable as to think that they intent no more than that the Saints should pray for their absolution, they will not suffer you to be so, for they elsewhere have it: 
Nos à peccatis omnibus solvite jussu quaesumus, quorum pracepto subditur salus & languor omnium, Brev. Rom. in Cor. Apost.  (speaking to the Apostles.) You that shut Heaven with a word, and lose its Locks, we pray you command that we be absolved from all our sins, for the health and languishing of all men is subject to your precept. And in the Feast of Saint Peter, and Paul to Saint Peter, they pray much after the same manner; and yet the Scripture puts the question, Who can forgive sins but God? Mar. 2.7.  
Secondly, They pray to them for Grace and Glory: 
* Ps. 56.  Lady in thy name let me be safe, and free me from my unrighteousness; have mercy upon me, and cleanse me from all mine iniquities: and again, 
* Ps. 27. & 50.  Dissolve the Bonds of mine iniquities: Take away the bundles of our sins purge my soul from its filth. 
* Ps. 3. & 87.  By thy Holiness are my sins purged. 
* Ps. 44.  Thou art the beginning, and end of my whole salvation, totius salutis meae, etc. 
* Ps. 41.  
* Ps. 136.  By her are sins purged, by her is made true satisfaction for sins: etc. whereas 'tis God's propriety to be the God of all Grace.  
Thirdly, they pray for these things upon the account of the merits of the Saints. Thus the Roman Breviary By the merits of Saint Franciscus, 
April 2.  Let us enjoy our promised rewards, and grant that by the merits of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, we may attain to eternal Glory: 
July 6.  That by the merits of Saint Nicholaus, the Church may enjoy perpetual peace, by the intercession of the merits of Saint Basil, 
Sept. 10.  Let us be absolved from allour sins; and to the blessed Virgin Mary; 
Jan. 14.  By thee let the wrath of God be averted from me, appease him by thy merits: and again, By the blood which Saint Thomas shed for thee, 
Ps. 72.  make us to ascend that Heaven whither Thomas is ascended: and this is consonant to that of Bellarmine, 
Prec. ad usum Sacrum in fest. Th. Becket.  who tells us that it is lawful to pray unto the Saints even for salvatian, and other spiritual blessings, if so be we understand it thus, that they should impetrate them by their merits. Now if this be not derogatory to the Merits of Christ to have veram satisfactionem de'peccatis, to have Grace and Glory purchased by the blood and merits of others, let any unreasonable Man judge.  
Section 4th. and 5th. Sect. 3 Our Author affords us some considerations, from which (I suppose) he would infer the lawfulness of this practice, and first saith he, we may beg prayers from one another, as Saint Paul himself did from the Ephesians (and others) c. 6.19 c. 2. Thes. 3.1.4 Col. 3. where he bids the Brethren pray for him.  
Answer, Very good, but yet we dare not beg from these our Brethren Grace, Glory, pardon of sins; nor say with the Roman Breviary, to the Virgin Mary, We fly unto thee, O Virgin Mary for thy defence, and for as much as (being conscious of our great offences, we fear the wrath of a severe Judge, whom we dare not see; We fly unto thee his Mother, that thou wouldst intercede for us unto God, excuse our sins, and obtaining for its the Grace of thy Omnipotent Son procure us the pardon of what ever we have committed.  
Secondly, He tells us such begging of prayers is far from Idolatry or diminution to Christ since holy persons (living or dead) are not invocated as donors, but fellow beggars with God for us.  
Answer, Why then doth your Breviary talk so often of procuring Grace and Glory, and the pardon of sins, by the merits of the Saints? Why do you tell us, that by the Holiness of the Virgin Mary are your sins purged; That she is the beginning and end of your salvation, that she hath made true satisfaction for us; are these things no diminution to Christ's merits, and satisfaction, to procure mercy for us upon these scores is this to procure it as fellow b●eggars  
Thirdly, say you the refusing of the assistance of those whose prayers God more willingly hears is a neglect of using all means helpful to us.  
Answer, True, but if the neglect of this Invocation of Saints, be the neglect of any means thus helpful, then were the Apostles negligent in giving us no intimation of our duty in this particular: Yea, the Saints of God for some thousand of years under the Old Testament, and the Primitive Church for 300 years, must be accused of this negligence; for of their practice in this case nullibi vola nec vestigium, Scripture and Histories afford us not one Tittle, but pregnant Evidence to the contrary.  
But you proceed, 
Mr. C. S. 5.  If the prayers to Sts. departed be prejudicial to the merits & intercessions of our Lord, Sect. 4 so is the beging of the prayers of those alive, if one be unlawful, so is the other: and if both be lawful, the prayers of Saints departed will be incomparably more effectual, and therefore will better deserve to be made use of then the other.  
Answer, Is it not then a wonder that Saint Paul (if he may be permitted to have known as much as Mr. C.) should thrice call upon his Brethren alive for their supplications, and yet not put up one Petition to a Saint or Angel?  
Secondly, We know it is the duty of living Saints to pray for one another but whether the Saints departed pray at all, whether for any in particular, and how far, we know not. We know a certain way to excite the Saints on earth to the performance of that Duty in reference to us; but we are ignorant of any way of conveying our desires to the Saints in Heaven. We have Rule, President, and Command in Scripture for the first, not one jot of all these in reference to the second: the Requests we make to the living are no elicit Acts of Religion, the requests made by the Romanist to the Saints departed are. We pray to the living neither directly nor indirectly, but desire them only, by virtue of our Communion with them to assist us in their prayers, as we might ask an Alms or any other good turn at their hands the Saints departed are by you directly invocated, and in your devotions you immediately step from God and Christ unto a Saint. We do not plead the merits of our Brethren, nor bid them do so in our behalf, you do both in reference to the Saints departed; we do not kneel to our Brethren, or lie prostrate before them on these accounts; we do not invoke them in our Churches, insert them into our Liturgies, believe them to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any way, or that we are committed to their care or custody; all this you do believe in inreference to the Saints departed: Is not this therefore a very good Argument if the prayers made to Saints departed by the Romanists, wherein they beg of them Grace and Glory, and all spiritual good things, trust in their Patronage, plead for audience on the account of their merits be prejudicial to the merits of satisfaction, and intercession of our Saviour, or otherwise unlawful; then must the ask of my brother's prayers (in spite of all these differences) be so.  
Again, Mr. C. informs us, Sect. 5 that the most learned and sober of our party, question not whether the Saints pray for us in general.  
Answer, But let me tell him that it is generally questioned by our French Divines. Chamier solves all their Arguments with the greatest perspicuity, except that single one which is taken from the advancement of their Charity; whence you infer that they should be more respectful of our welfare than they were on Earth, where they did afford us the benefit of their Prayers: but this Argument albeit the most plausible, is yet unconsequent: for whilst they were here on Earth, they haply procured good men to exhort their Relations unto Piety: if Ministers spent themselves in preaching, and the like, but in Heaven they send no Angels (that I ever heard of) on such errands, nor have we any Preachers from the dead. Whilst they were here, they were solicitous touching the welfare of their absent friends; but do they now (think you) ask their Guardian Angel how 'tis with them?  
Secondly, Notwithstanding they have their Charity augmented, yet will it not follow that they must pray for their friends below (much less for others) seeing haply the very knowledge of their friends may be hid from them: and were it otherwise, it may seem to be grievous to them to consider in what state many of their Relations have been left; add to this, that they have no certainty that they do not die the next moment after them. Yea last, how can any man assure me, that the Saints in Heaven pray at all?  
Secondly, 
P. 182. S. 6.  You tell us these Learned sober men will not deny that they may and do pray personally for their former known acquaintance, as Saint Austin believed his Mother did for him.  
Answer, This I have already obviated and albeit some who are not willing to think contrary to what some Fathers do allow of may grant it to you; yet seeing you can produce neither Scripture for it, nor the universal consent of Fathers; 
To. 2. S. 8.  And seeing your Arguments are so clearly answered by Chamier, we take the liberty to deny, or at least to question it.  
Once more, 
Ibid.  You tell us they will grant, that albeit they be in Heaven, they may either by God's Relation, or the Revelation of Angels be informed of the Prayers made to them by any others on Earth.  
Answer, That this is not impossible at least for God to do, we willingly acknowledge; but I very much doubt, whether any Protestants allow that they actually do so, or that it is probable they should be thus acquainted with our desires, or if any do, they are never the more Learned for it.  
Secondly, 'Tis not perhaps impossible, there may be men in the Moon, and they good Christians; and that if a Papist should pray unto them, God or his Angels might reveal it: And yet I suppose, should they upon this account become Petitioners unto them, they would be thought little better than Lunatics; yea the same may be said of the Saints in Purgatory, which you affirm of the Saints in Heaven; and why then do you not pray unto them? Will you refuse the assistance of those who are perfected in Charity, and other Graces, and consequently whose Prayers God hears more willingly than your own? will not their prayers be more effectual? for sure in Purgatory they will be servant, or will they refuse to do us the kindness who do the like for them? sure one good turn deserves another; and if they will be so surly to us we, with the leave of his Holiness, will be so to them.  
But to proceed, Mr. C. 
P. 183.  will tell us that albeit this rests upon so many uncertainties, yet is not that sufficient to hinder them from acknowledging that the practice of invocating Saints by name, is very beneficial to them, and that on these accounts.  
1. 
P. Id. ibid.  Because the Angels are continually present with us on the Earth, and that it is by them we are defended from the Devil's malice, who having such a wonderful strength exceeding ours, would otherwise destroy us all in our sins, nor can it be said that God hinders him, seeing he doth not ordinarily interpose his power immediately in Natural Actions.  
Answer, This than is the best figment they can Imagine, and yet it is most strangely ridiculous to any considering man; for was it not the protection of God, which kept Satan from Job, so that he could do nothing without his Commission: and when he had given him Commission could not go beyond it? and may he not as easily do the same to others?  
Again, secondly the Scripture tells us, the Angels are Mistring spirits, sent forth for the good of those only that believe; and why doth not the Devil post the wicked down into Hell presently, seeing they have no such good Angel to relieve them?  
3. Will Mr. Crossie say, that all the Cattle, the sheep and Camels and Oxen; yea the Asses of Job had their Guardian Angels? if so we will allow our Author one; if not, then let him tell us, why Satan complained he could not come at them.  
Again, Have the Tombs of the Martyrs, the holy relics and Images of their Saints every one an Angel to keep them? if not, why doth not Satan break them, or convey them away? Unless perhaps he approves of your Idolatry; and how are ye sure that your Relics are not changed by him? Once more, and I have done; Have all the Houses in London, all the Papists Houses in Rome, as many Angels as will guard them, & keep the Devil from setting fire on them? If so, the blessed Angels are well employed; if not, why doth not that Gand Enemy of Mankind, set fire on them every Night?  
Again, when on the Lord's Day all the Angels of so many Millions of souls come to Saint Peter, to tell him such a one in treats his Prayers for such a thing, who guards the persons committed to their charge the while? or if these Angels be bound to stay here, who carries up the prayers to Saint Peter?  
Again, seeing so many prayers are put up to the Virgin Mary, Surely she must do nothing else but pray, there being not one moment, when some or other do not pray to her, and then what time will she have to hear these nimble Tàbellarii, telling her of New suitors, must they interrupt her in her Prayers?  
Again, These Saints must not only be told when such a one prays; but whether Hypocritically or no, and so I suppose, that question must be asked of the Nuncio's. Now here is work enough for Saint Mary to receive so many Messengers every day, and to inquire whether her suppliants pray in sincerity or not. But haply it may be said, if any one pray Hypocritically the Guardian Angel will not present that Prayer.  
Answer, Very good, but seeing the Angel Guardian knows not the heart, How will he be able to judge of this? Once more, when all the Saints in Heaven are prayed to at once, (as it is in many Collects, and peculiarly on all Saints Days) surely that day is not an holy day to the Guardian Angel, who must be fain to troth to all the Saints in Heaven, and acquaint them that Serenus Cressie being very sick and weak desires their prayers. But when they pray to all Angels, than the poor Angel must not travel over all the Heavens only, but the Earth to boot.  
But we will not deal too severely with him; let him proceed, and thus he doth it, History tells us, that Magiclans have always the Devil ready to come at their call; why then should not Angels be witnesses of our Actions, 
P. 184.  and especially our prayers, which (as the Scrripture saith) they offer as Incense to God. Now to I eve the Scripture till anon) Here we have more work for the Angel, for seeing 'tis an Angel, Apoc. 8.3. that offers up the prayers and incense of all Saints, the Guardian Angel must make a journey to him to, unless you will have him to be Christ, which will do our Author but little service.  
2. History likewise will tell us, that Magicians and Witches can swim over the Sea in a shell, can creep through a keyhole, Can dip their finger in a little juice and fly away out of the Chimney, & he may believe one as soonas the other. Lastly, the number of Magicians (I hope) is few in comparison of other men, and so there is some difference as to that, for one Devil may better afford to be nigh them, especially seeing his service is so much promoted thereby. As to that dispute of Saint Austin which concludes the Section, I say,  
1. That he was very uncertain in it, and one while denies; and again suspects that such a thing might be.  
2. He saith only possit fieri, it may be done this way. And again,  
3.  quaedam cognoscant that they may know something, and how little service this will do him, every one may see. 
P. 184. S. 8.   
2. He further tells us, We are ignorant how great the sphere of Activity of the glorified Saints may be, in respect of this whole visible world: perhaps saith he (in the words of Spalatensis) the whole sensible world may be no more to one of them, than its proper body to an humane soul informing it.  
Answ. And are not these men think you put to their shifts who are fain to coin such inventions to salve their Hypothesis. But tell me, is it probable they inform the whole world so, as to be present each of them in every part of the world?  
Or, Secondly, to operate in each part of the world, albeit not present there; If the first, then will they be little short of omnipresent, nor will it be proper to God to fill Heaven and Earth: and they being in Hell as well as Heaven, and also in Purgatory, How do they escape the fire? How ●re the Angels said to ascend to Heaven, and descend from it? Is it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only? How are the souls of the Fathers delivered from their limbus, said to departed thence, and to be with Christ? to be absent from the body, and present with the Lord; was Lazarus' soul carried to Heaven, and afterwards extended?  
Again, to what end is this extension, seeing they may be happy without it, and why should we imagine it, seeing here 'tis certain they are not extended beyond their bodies? If the second, let them tell me how, or by what Operation, a soul that is in Heaven can tell that such a one, who prays in his mind only, is praying to him? And suppose two were praying together, and the one prayed to Peter, and the other to Paul; by what operation can these spirits discern that the one prayed to him, and not the other? I suppose a Prayer to Saint Paul makes a different motion in their Orb of Aether; but then how doth St Paul know who it is that prays to him? Perhaps different men, make different motions; but Saint Paul never knew them, and how shall he be informed? Why, the Guardian Angel must go up, and tell him 'tis S. C. that makes such a motion, and haply he will remember it. But how will he know when he prays Hypocritically, why truly; when an Hypocrite prays it makes a different motion from a sincere one in the spirits Orb of Air. This Platonical stuff is all that I can imgine to salve the Hypotheses: Si quid novisti rectius istis candidus imperti.  
Lastly, be it that their presence or operations were so vast, yet could they not judge of the heart, seeing to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is proper to God, and consequently must be as zealous for an Hypocrite as a devout Christian.  
Thirdly, Sect. 9 we cannot tell (says he) what things God may reveal to them.  
Answ. Nor he, whether he reveals any thing to them at all; and therefore in these things he doth most evidently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
2. What a ridiculous thing is this to suppose such a Circle, that when a man hath made a prayer, that prayer should come to God, and be revealed by him to a Saint, and that Saint bring it to God again?  
3. Why must he be thought to reveal this to the Spirits in Heaven, and not to the Souls in Purgatory? or if equally, why are not they also prayed to?  
4. But it is evident from Scripture, that God doth not make any revelations of this kind: for 'tis said, Eccles. 9.5. The Dead know nothing that is done in this world, neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the Sun.  
And again, Abraham is ignorant of us. 
Esay 93.16.   
5. Bellar. himself confutes this Evasion by 2 Arguments:  
1. If it were so, the Church would not say so boldly to all Saints, Orate pro nobis, but sometimes would prayto God to reveal our desires to them.  
2. No good reason can be given, why Saints under the Old Testament should not be invoked; for God might have revealed their Petitions to them, though in Limbo Patrum: and sure their prayers might have been as beneficial as the prayers of such as were alive.  
6. Why upon the same presumption should we not pray to the Saints living? for albeit their prayers be not quite so effectual, as the prayers of Saints departed, yet they are effectual, and consequently to neglect this will be to neglect one means conducing to our welfare. I say upon the same presumption for this reason why God must be supposed to reveal our Prayers, can be no other than our good, and would not the reason move him to reveal them to. Saints on Earth, as well as those in Heaven: 
Mr. Cr. p. 185.  Oh but (saith our adversary) If God said to Abraham, a Pilgrim on Earth, shall I hid from Abraham the thing that I do; how much more may we imagine, than he hideth not the mighty works of his, mercy and justice here from his Domestic Servants? 'Tis pity that this Argument was not framed before the Church of Israel madeher complaint, that Abraham was ignorant of her? It would have taught her better divinity  
2. 'Tis no Demonstration; sure God would not hid from Abraham the thing he was to do, which concerned so much his Brother Lot: (albeit he never revealed afterwards to any of his dearest servants that we read of, unless his Prophets, any such thing: therefore he will reveal to any Saint in Heaven the prayers that are made to them by any person whatsoever. By what hath been said I may be bold to infer, that the invocation of Saints is very foolish; and if so, that the Church of Rome is not infallible.  
But our Author claps in two places of Scripture without any coherence at all, Sect. 10 to prove I know not what; and albeit they have been answered an 150. times, (he shall not bate me a single unite) Yet doth he bolt them forth without any notice of the answers given: We read (saith he) not only an Angel, but every one of the four and twenty Elders to have in their hands golden Censers, and Vials full of Odours, 
Rev. 8.3.5.8.  which are the prayers of the Saints; that is, of their Brethren upon Earth.  
Now to take these two places in their Order:  
1. Revel. 8.3 We read another Angel came and stood before the Altar, having a golden Censer and many Odours were given to him that he should offer them with the prayers of all Saints, upon the Golden Altar, which was before the Throne: and verse 4. The smoke of the Odours which came of the prayers of the Saints, ascended up before God out of the Angel's hand:  
Now 1. Let it be granted, that to one Angel was this given, to offer Odours to come up with the prayers of all Saints: How doth it follow that they are to be invocated? or that he knows when any particular person prays to him, or any other Saint? May not he offer up his incense continually, as knowing only this, that prayers are made continually?  
2. If one Angel do this, How will it follow that all do it, or that all Saints?  
3. If this be a created Angel, is there not a fine round of Prayers?  
1. They are carried by an Angel, or revealed by God to the Saints, than he pteseuts them to the Angel, the Angel to Christ, and Christ to the Father.  
2. This Angel is said to offer Odours, to come up with the prayers of all Saints, which surely is to do somewhat which may make them more acceptable to God, and will they say that the Virgin Mary is no Saint? or that any Created Angel offers somewhat to God which makes her prayer more acceptable? Well, but we deny it to have been a created Angel, but say it was the Angel of the Covenant, who by the incense of his merits and intercessions, offers the prayers of all Saints to God, and makes them more acceptable unto him. For 'tis manifest, that here is reference to that which was used to be done in the Levitical administration; where the Priest entering the Temple offered Incense on the Golden Altar, whilst the people in the Court put up their prayers to God, Luk. 1.10. Whence we may understand that phrase that the Angel offered his Odours with the prayers of the Saints.  
Now the Levitical Priest, who offered incense, was a type of Christ, not of the Angels: and this is that which the Apostle intimates, that Christ the Angel of the Covenant, Typified by the Levitical Priest, offers up the prayers, and sighs of his members, groaning under the Tyranny of wicked men, and by the incense of his merits makes them acceptable unto God.  
The second Scripture is Apocal. 5.8. where we are told, That twenty four Elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them Harps and Golden Vials full of Odours in their hands, which are the prayers of the Saints.  
Answ. 1. Many interpret these of the Elders of the Church as Beda in verse 10. Here it is more plainly declared, that the Beasts and the Elders are the Church, redeemed by the blood of Christ, and gathered from the Nations; also he showeth in what Heaven they are, saying, they shall reign upon the Earth. And so Irenaeus, lib. 4. cap. 33. Ambrose on the Apccalyps, and Haimo.  
2. Vossius will tell you that here is nothing intended but Eucharistical prayers, not petitory; and the four and twenty Elders only intimate that the whole Family of Christians in Earth and Heaven, did render continual Doxologies to God for the redemption of the World by his Son.  
There is one Argument of greater moment insisted on, and that is taken from the miraculous effects, not only of prayers directed to God at the monuments of the Saints, but also directed to the Saints themselves: Now to this I answer.  
First, By denial that any approved testimonies can be produced of such miraculous effects wrought by any prayers immediately directed unto Saints; the Instances which Mr. C. refers us to, shall be answered anon.  
Secondly, I say that these pretended miracles may justly be suspected for Satanical delusions, and that upon several accounts.  
First, From the silence of all undoubted Antiquity of any such Sepulchre wonders, in the three first ages; albeit the Christians long before had used to keep their assemblies at the Coemiteries and Monuments of their Martyrs. When God had ceased to exert his power as in former times; that he should thus freshly exert it upon these occasions, seems incredible; and that which cannot easily be admitted, by considering men who are acquainted with the Artifices of the Devil.  
Secondly, from the nature of them, which rendereth them very ridiculous. 
Basilius Selutensis, l. 2. c. 10.  Thus of Saint Thecla, we are told, that they who watch the night before her festivity do at at that time yearly see her, driving a fiery Chariot in the air; and removing from Seleucia unto Dalisandus, a place which she did principally affect in regard of the commodity and pleasantness of the situation; that when she had demanded of Alypius the Grammarian, 
C. 24.  forsaken by the Physicians what he ailed, and he had replied upon her in that of Homer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thou knowest, why should I tell it thee that knowest all things? the Martyr being delighted partly with the man, and partly with the verse, (for you must know that after her death she was much affected with Poetry and Oratory, 
C. 21. & 24.  and continually delighted with such as would be accurate in her praises,) conveyed a certain round stone into his mouth, with the touch whereof he was presently healed: Yea, the same Basil tells us, how having prepared an Oration for her anniversary festivity, the day before it should be pronounced he was taken with such an extreme pain in his ear, 
C. 27.  that the Auditory was like to be quite disappointed: But that the Martyr the same night appeared to him, and shaking him by the ear took all the pain away. He addeth further, 
C. 16.  that when he begun to be weary of writing this same Book she sits her down close by him, smiles whilst she reads it, shows herself wonderfully pleased with it, and that it behoved him to finish it: The like miracles we have related by Severus, of one Martinus a Monk, 
De vita B. Mart. S. 24. Ibid. S. 17.  who could see the Devil though he remained in his own substance, fright him with the sign of the Cross continually; who putting his hand into the mouth of a Demoniac, forced the Devil out at his posteriors; Yea, (which is most wonderful of all) that could by the smell of the body, 
Hieron. in Hilarione.  or the clothes, know what Daemon tyrannised in such a body. These were the miracles that helped forward the worshipping of Saints, and the monkish superstitions.  
Thirdly, Because the old Daemons worship prevailed upon the world by the same means. Thus Tertullian, 
Apol. c. 51.  Search therefore the Deity of Christ, whether it be true or not; if it be that by the knowledge whereof a man shall be reform to good, it follows then that the false be renounced, especially that whole mystery (of Daemon-worship) being discovered; which under the names and images of the dead through Signs, Miracles, and Oracles, obtaineth a Divinity. And chrysostom, they (the Gentile Daemons) oftentimes by their skill cured diseases, 
Orat. in Judaizantes.  and restored to health those that were sick; what should we partake therefore with them in their iniquity, God forbidden? 
De Praep. Evan. l. 5. c. 2.  And the like we have from Eusebius, who informs us, that the wicked Daemons counterfeited by working many miracles the Souls of them that were deceased; and thence they were thought worthy to be celebrated with greater service: But,  
Thirdly, we Answer, 
Mr. Stillingfleet p. 351.  That after the true Doctrine is confirmed by divine miracles, God may give the Devil power to work, if not real miracles, yet such as men cannot judge by the things themselves whether they be so or no; and this for trial whether we will forsake the true doctrine confirmed by greater miracles, for the sake of such doctrines as are contrary there to; and are confirmed by false Prophets, by signs, and wonders: Now in this case our rule of trial must not so much be the miracles considered in themselves, whether real or no, as the comparing them with the miracles wrought in confirmation of that doctrine which is contrary to this, which these words tend to the proving of. Therefore God's people under the Law were to examine the drift and scope of the miracles; and if they were intended to bring them to Idolatry, what ever they were they are forbid to hearken to them; as you may see most evidently, Deut. 13.1, 2, 3. So now under the Gospel, the worship of the true God through Jesus Christ, and by the doctrine revealed by him, is the standard whereby we ought to judge of all pretenders unto miracles; so that let the miracles be what they will, if they contradict that doctrine which Christ revealed to the world, we are to look upon them as only trials of our faith in Christ, to see whether we love him with our whole hearts or no, and accordingly we look upon these miracles as trials whether we will forsake the Head Christ Jesus, give this worship of the Creator to the creature, and the like; and are sufficiently warded against the force of this assault, 
2 Thes. 2.9.  by being told that Antichrist must be ushered in with signs and lying wonders.  
Fourthly, We add, that these miracles might have been done by God himself, and that at these Martyr's Tombs, but only to confirm the faith they suffered for.  
Now as for the testimony of Antiquity in this point, Sect. 12  
First, Many of the places produced by him speak nothing of the Invocation of the Saints departed; nor do they infer any thing but what we generally confess; thus that of Saint Hillary tells us, 
Ps. 129.  That our infirmity needs the intercession of Angels.  
Answer. Be it so, we add that our infirmity needs the intercession of good men on earth; yet we are not able to see this consequence, that they must or may be invocated or prayed unto; Again, doth the Council of Chalcedon say, let Flavian pray for us, 
Act. 11.  we say so too; let all the Saints and Angels in Heaven, all the men on earth pray for us, we are willing to have the benefit of their intercessions or prayers for us: Albeit (to speak the truth) this sentence looks quite anothery way; the business was this; there was a long contention betwixt Bassianuus and Stephanus, for the Bishopric of Ephesus; Bassianus, albeit not rightly ordained, kept it for the space of four years, and with him communicated Flavianus; this was urged in the Synod by the favourers of Bassianus, as an acknowledgement made by Flavian, that Bassianus was lawful Bishop: This Argument they thus enforce, if you will not hearken to our reasons, let Flavianus the Martyr entreat this of you, he, though dead, judgeth the cause to Bassianus; then after Cecropius had spoken in his behalf, the Bishops and Clergy of Constantinople stand up and cry, this is the truth; (viz. Flavianus was a favourer of Bassianus, etc.) Flavian lives after death, (that is, his judgement and his memory, as afterward Flavian is here, that is, we have here his judgement for Bassianus) let the Martyr entreat for us, (that is, in this cause of Bassianus, let him entreat the Council for us) Haec vera & genuina verborum mens est, cui nisi pertinax aut imperitus refragari nemo potest, saith our Crackanthorp; Nor do we scruple to say, with Austin, 
Def. Eec. Ang. c. 59  let Cyprian, yea, let Mr. C. help us as with his prayers; only let him remember, that this is not vox invocantis, sed optantis, an indication of our willingness, Sect. 13 not our petitions that it should be so. 
Orat. in 40. Mart. Mr. C. p. 190. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let it here be noted that Mr. C. could scarce be ignorant of his forgery, it being charged upon them by the Bishop of Ely, and Forbs, in those very Books which are cited by him in this Chapter.   
Saint Basil is suborned to say, whosoever is in any pressure let him fly to the assistance of these Martyrs; and again, whosoever is in a state of joy let him pray to them; the former, that he may be delivered from misery; the later, that he may be preserved in prosperity.  
Answer. Here we have a double corrupting of the Text, (an Artifice which our Author, notwithstanding his solemn protestation to the contrary doth every where use.) Saint Basil saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he doth fly to them, (Mr. C. let him fly) Saint Basil, he doth run to them, (that is, to their monuments) Mr. C. let him pray to them; and then Saint Basil adds, here it is that a woman praying for her sons is heard, or wishing a safe return to her travelling Husband; wherefore, together with these Martyrs, let us pour forth our prayers: Immediately before he told the people they had often sought for one that might intercede to God for them; Here (saith he) are forty sending up as it were one prayer; and if where two or three be gathered together God is there present, who doubts his presence where forty are? He therefore, etc. From whence it is plain, that here is not one jota that bids us pray unto them; but when it is said, he that is under any pressure flies unto them, it is not to pray unto them; but because they were esteemed (which the Fathers frequently intimate) to pray with them; and this interpretation is evinced, as by the argument that we shall be heard because we are in the presence of forty; so from that which follows, that upon this account it is, that the Wife comes hither and is heard. And the testimony of Ruffinus will reach no higher than this doth; 
Hist. Ecc. l. 2. c. 23.  and it only shows that the Emperor came to the monuments of the Martyrs, that so he might more assuredly procure the intercession of the Saints; according to that vulgar opinion above mentioned. But Mr. C. will never be able from this intercession to conclude their Invocation, unless he can assure us that they hear us, and show us a command to pray unto them; no, saith Bishop Andrews, they will intercede for us on their own accord, not being called upon to do so, but must not be invocated by us so to do.  
Saint Chrysostom's 66. Sect. 14 Hom. ad pop. Antioch. must be cited, albeit he knows it to be spurious, 
Possevin apparat: in Chrys. Bellar. de Scrip. Eccl. in eundem Reply to Card. Perron.  and his own party do confess it; and as for the same passage cited from the 26. Hom. in 2 Cor. Bishop Andrews hath told him that it smelled rank of forgery in Erasmus' nose; who in his Preface before his Latin Translation of Basil and Amphilooc. de Spiritu Sancio, saith that there are some things there which must own him for their Parent, qui dulcissimis Athanasii libellis de Spiritu Sancto suas loquaces, sed Elumbes, attexit noenias, quique in Epistola ad Corinthios posteriore, & in Acts Apostolerum, Chrysostomus haberi studuit:  
And, Secondly, That this passage is not extant in the Latin Edition by Stelsius at Antwerp, 1556. set forth by Johannes Affinius, so that all Copies had it not; yea further, that this place is found in Garetius, 
P. 69.  de Invocatione Sanctorum, cited under the name of Theodorus Daphnopatus; whom thence the Reverend Bishop well concludes to have been the Author of it: And yet if it had not been spurious, we could have told you that it was thus to be interpreted; The Emperor who is clothed with purple makes a journey to visit these Sepulchers (of Saint Peter and Saint Paul) and laying aside his pomp stands, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Consid. Modest. p. 113.  wanting the Saints to go before him in their prayers to God, or intercede for him; He whose Temples are encompassed with a Diadem wants for his protection even the Tent maker and Fisherman though dead. Bishop Forbs, I acknowledge, quarrels with this interpretation, but he hath nothing at all confuting it, as will appear to an unprejudiced eye.  
Yea, lastly, In Saint Chrysostome's Rhetorical stile, he might very well be said to desire the prayers of the Saints, because he went to those places where the assistance of their prayers (according to the vulgar opinion then on foot) was especially to be had. As to that of Saint Ambrose, Sect. 15 Martyrs are to be entreated, 
De Viduis. l. 1. the off.  and let us not be ashamed to employ them as Intercessors for our infirmities.  
I Answer, Bishop Andrews makes it evident that this was written by him whilst a Neophyte; for (saith he) he was fain to be christened before he could be consecrated; now the very next year after that he wrote his Commentaries upon Luke, as Baronius proves from his own words in his eleventh Book upon the twentieth Chapter; in which Commentary he citys this Book de viduis, which therefore must needs be written before these Commentaries, and so consequently in the first year of his Christianity; yea, he ingeniously confesseth, that he began to teach before he had learned; and Saint Austin confirms it, saying, 
Instruct. Hist.  Ambr. Vix Christanus de rebus Ecclesiae scribit, thus he. Now here we must be sent to Vossius and Forbs, who considereth some other passages, but gently slideth over this convincing evidence without the least notice taken of it; but because he sends us to Forbs, let him hear him giving us this rule. 
l. 7. c. 5.  When one and the same Writer seems to speak contradictions, let it be considered where he professedly states the Question, and confirms his sentence by the suffrage of Scripture and Reason, confuting disertly the opposite opinion, and where he speaks of the same thing (as it were aliud agens, by the by, without such confirmation from the testimonies of Scripture and Reason, and confutation of the opposite opinion) such things as do not well consist therewith; and in this case that which he taught in the former manner must be esteemed to be his Doctrine. 
l. 3. c. 12. C. 1.  Thus saith he, ●aint Ambrose in his Book De Spiritu Sancto, and De Fide, teacheth that God alone is to be worshipped? not the Virgin Mary, or any creature: This he confirms, ex professo, by the testimonies of Scripture and manifest Reason; and yet in his Dook De Viduis he delivers a Doctrine which is plainly otherwise; but than it is not operose confirmata, industriously confirmed; and therefore we must estimate Saint Ambrose his judgement from the former places. To which we add, that as he grew elder he grew wiser; 
Ambros. de obitu Theod.  for afterwards he had learned to say, Thou, O Lord, only art to be invocated.  
Secondly, This may be interpreted to be the obsecration of deeds rather than words; for there he teacheth the Widow (pleading she was weak and without help) to make the Apostles her friends and neighbours, to procure her help, as Peter and Andrew entreated our Saviour to cure Peter's wives Mother; Now the way, saith he, to make them so to her, was to draw near to them in the fellowship or likeness of piety and doing good; for it was not the relation of blood, but the kindred of Virtue, that makes the Martyrs our Friends and neighbours. Sect. 16  
To that place of Austin, 
Ad viginti Martyrs, etc. ut vestiretur oravit. Further, let lt be considered, that here we have no better precedent than a Tailor, and that so simple as to bargain with the Martyrs how many halfpences he would have to buy his Cloak.  cited from the 22. Book, De Civ. Dei, and the eighth Chapter; (to let pass the corruption of this Chapter, by Ludovicus Vives, ingenuously confessed.) We say that it is thus to be interpreted; He prayed, (viz. to God) at the twenty Martyrs, that is, at their Tombs or Monuments: (so in Basil, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, at their Monuments, as above we have showed) and this Exposition the very words do lead us to; for who ever heard of orare ad aliquem, to pray unto one? But you will Object, that the boys jeered him, as if he had begged of the Martyrs fifty half pence.  
Answer. It can be no more concluded hence that he prayed unto them, then that our Saviour prayed unto Elias, because the Jews were pleased to say so.  
Next for his 32. and 33. Homilies, de diversis, I could have told him that Bellarmine himself doubts of 43. of them; Rivet of them all, but especially of those which were added by the Divines of Louvain, (and indeed we have reason to suspect what beware you obtrude upon us) and therefore I take leave to pass the sentence thence cited over.  
Lastly, that which is cited from his Book, De cura pro mortuis, I interpret thus; 
Ut dum recolunt ubi sint pofita corum quos diligunt corpora, cisdem Sanctis illos tantum patronos susceptos apud Deum adjuvandos orando, commendent.  That whilst they call to mind where the bodies of those that are dear to them are laid, they commend them to the Saints as to Patrons, that by their prayers (or praying for them) they may be helped with the Lord; and then the Argument is null.  
Secondly, They may very well be said to be commended to the Saints by praying to God for them, either at the Monuments of the Saints and Martyrs, or at the remembrance of the Saints and Martyrs; for that Saint Austin speaketh of such prayers as were to be directed to God, is evident from the very next Chapter; where continuing his discourse, he tells us, that it very much concerns any, where they place the body of their deceased, who pray for his Spirit unto God; because both the preceding affection hath chosen an holy place, and the body being placed there the remembrance of that holy place renews and augments the affection: So then, they do commend them by praying, but it is to God, not to Saints and Angels; See Doctor Fernes Answer to Spencer. 
P. 276.  Nor is it any thing to the purpose that followeth, viz. That whensoever the Mind recounts where the body of some dear friend lies buried, and strait the place occurs renowned for the name of some Martyr, the affection of him who thus remembreth and prayeth forthwith commends the beloved Soul to the same Martyr: For this may be done by praying to God, (as we do for the help and assistance of the holy Angels) that he would commend the Soul unto such a Martyr.  
Secondly, This prayer, albeit poured out to God, may be styled a commendation of him to the Martyr, because done at the Monument or remembrance of the Martyr, even as Saint Austin in this very place tells us, 
Meritis Martyris.  that the believing that the Soul is helped by the merits of the Martyr, Supplicatio quaedam est, is a kind of prayer; and if any thing profiteth, it is this:  
We have two other Authors in the front; Sect. 17 but the mischief is that they are both spurious. 
Tom. 2. l. 8. de uno Med. c. 7.  And (1.) for Greg. Nyssen. you have five Arguments produced against him by Chamier, none of which are touched by Mr. C. or Bishop Forbs; yea, haply, this was the reason that he cited him in gross, and would not vouchsafe to direct us to the place.  
Secondly, As for that of Theodoret, it is proved spurious, not only because we have no mention of it in Nicephorus, to whom you may add Photius, but also because what is here cited from him directly contradicts what he hath in his undoubted Comment on the Colessians; this Argument you manfully skip over; and for your Answer to the first, that he mentions not some which are extant in Gennadius, if you had looked into the Preface of your Gennadius, you might have found that there were some things added to him; that he approves variety of Authors rejected by the Church; that he is under the censure of your Catholics at Louvain, (enough to crack his credit with you,) And last, that he names but two of his Books, one of which we have (though imperfect) the other is no where to be found: And yet if all these Fathers had given in their suffrages for you, they would not have advantaged you one whit; Seeing many of our Divines acknowledge, that about the fourth age (in which all your Fathers are comprehended) this corruption began to be introduced. Albeit, to tell you of it in transitu, Vossius, who is cited by you for this confession, doth, in his tenth Thesis, manifestly restrain his words to some; telling us that, plurimi invalescenti se errori opponcbant, p. 201. That very many opposed this error.  
The Doctor had cited a passage from Saint Austin, Sect. 18 which affirms, that the Saints were not invoked by the Priest who sacrificeth. Now to this, you tell us,  
First, That here is an evidence for a sacrifice, yea, and this Propitiatory; But how can you free yourself from disingenuous dealing, when even in the place cited by you in answer to this Argument, Saint Austin tells you, that he means only Sacramentum Memoriae, which Protestants acknowledge as well as you.  
2. Have you not need to rub your forehead when you so confidently tell us that the Doctor saith there was no such thing as a Christian Sacrifice; whereas that which hath given occasion to your whole Discourse upon this subject is only this, that he tells us there were new Articles of Faith, viz. The Sacrifice of the Mass, the Doctrine of Purgatory imposed on us; but doth he any where deny a Christian Sacrifice, such as before hath been granted by us, by the Trent Conventicle?  
Secondly, You tell us that the Saints are not sovereignly invocated by way of sacrifice, which is a mere impertinence; for S. Austin doth not say they are not sacrificed unto, but are not so much as invocated by the Priest who sacrificeth; farther you tell us that they are not invocated at the Mass, nay nor the second or third Person of the Trinity according to the Canon of the Council of Carthage.  
Ans. Still you are resolved to be impertinent; for what is this to you who in your Mass invoke the whole Trinity, have 3 Collects to the second Person of the Trinity, as you are told by the Reverend Bishop Andrews; yea what say you to that return of his to this Answer, what reason can be alleged why if the Saints may be prayed unto they may not be so as well by the Priest as by the people, as well at Mass, as at Matins, as well at the Altar as in the body of the Church. Indeed you tell us it might have been lawful if the Church had so ordered it. But do you think S. Austin would have said so too? is it not his business to distinguish betwixt the honour which was given to the Martyrs by the Christians, and by the Gentiles to the Daemons? and having said that they erect no Altars to them as the heathens did for sacrifice, but sacrificed to God alone, he adds, that at this sacrifice the Martyrs were not invocated (as the Gentile Daemons were) but only nominated? now what is it to his purpose to tell us they are not invocated at the Altar, if they were invocated elsewhere? well then your last refuge is the invocation of Latria which Saint Austin must be thought to speak of; 
C. 21.  because he tells, us in his twentieth Book against Faustus Manichaeus, that they do not worship the Saints with Latria.  
Ans. But who told you that invocation of them was not esteemed Latria by him, why else doth he say that the Saints were not worshipped sicut dii, as the Heathen Gods, and then after this non invocantur?  
Secondly, Doth he not say non invocantur, sed nominantur? now I hope your invocation is not nomination, and therefore 'tis somewhat above it, and consequently somewhat comprehended in that which he opposeth to it; so likewise, in the place you cite, he tells us they afforded that cultum dilectionis, and such as was given to holy men, that were now alive; yea, saith he, we sound forth their praises, but we do not worship them with Latria; where albeit Faustus there objected that they worshipped them votis similibus, with such prayers or vows as the heathens worshipped their Idols with, yet could he not get Saint Austin to acknowledge they prayed unto them at all; but having told us that they praised them, there he stops and riseth no higher, albeit the objection, and the business in hand (which was to show what honour the Saints did receive from them, and what they thought not fit to yield unto them) did require it. Thus have we returned an Answer to our Authors pleas from Scripture and Antiquity: our next work should be to confront to them those many arguments by which our Champions do confute this superstition, and plead the cause of Christ against them; but I shall wave it at present, and content myself with evidencing the judgement, and practice of Antiquity to run contrary to them. And  
(1.) Sect. 19 It is a strong presumption that this Invocation of Saints is not so pious, so profitable, as the Trent Council doth imagine, in that we find neither precept, nor example of all the Fathers of the Old Testament, whereby this kind of service to them may be warranted?  
To this the usual Answer of the Papist is, 
Vid. Bellar. praefat. in controvers. de Eccles. triumph ante.  that the spirits of the Patriarches and Prophets, and other Worthies who flourished under the Old Testament, were kept in limbus patrum, a place nigh to hell, appointed for these Fathers to be retained in till the descent of our Blessed Saviour thither.  
But this Answer is evidently grounded upon a false foundation, it being clear from Scripture, that they were not included in such a place, but did enjoy the Kingdom of Heaven, Luk. 13, 28. For Abraham's bosom is clearly propounded as the place into which the Blessed Angels before the death of Christ conveyed the souls of those which departed in the favour of God; 
Luke 16.  and that this bosom is virtually, and in terms equivalent, 
Cap. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Shall lie down.  promised to those which afterwards should believe, is sufficiently evinced from that place of Saint Matthew, many shall come from the East and West and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of heaven, for the joys of heaven are likened to a feast in which according to the custom then in use they lay down with the head of one towards the breast of another who is therefore said to lie in his bosom; and therefore when 'tis said of the faithful that believed after Christ's death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they shall lie down (at this feast,) with Abraham 'tis as much as if he had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Euthymius paraphraseth it, that is, they shall lie down in the bosom of Abraham; add to this, that when God translated Enoch, and Elias was carried up in a Chariot to heaven, they could not be conveyed to this limbus patrum, a place so nigh to the receptacle of the damned spirits; yea 'tis not likely they were conveyed to a place where they had no vision of God; and yet there is no reason to think Abraham, David, Daniel, and other of the Prophets, should be in a worse place or condition than Enoch or Elias, seeing they had as large a testimony of their pleasing God as they.  
We go farther yet, and urge against them, Sect. 20 that in the New Testament itself we can descry no footsteps of this Invocation, more than we did in the Scriptures of the Old: Saint Paul doth frequently solicit his brethren to pray for him, and for the furtherance of the Gospel, 
P. 1.  but not one petition can we find directed to an Angel, or Saint departed; here presently they fly to their traditions, but in vain, for if any such tradition as this were at first delivered, we demand how it should come pass that for the space of 360 years together after the birth of our Saviour we can find no mention in the Fathers of any such thing; but, on the contrary, when urged by heathens that it was their duty to pray to Saints and Angels, they stoutly denied it, and cried away with such evil counsel. Irenaeus, in his first book, speaks of Heretics that had strange fancies concerning Angels, attributing much unto them, in relation to which he denies that the Church did any thing, 
l. 2. c. 57  (viz. in reference to miraculous cures) by invocation of Angels, or by incantations, but purely and manifestly directing prayers to the Lord which made all, and invocating the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; now whereas Fevardentius tells us that he speaks of the invocation of evil spirits, we ask him why then is it that no limitation is given, but all angelical invocation absolutely denied? why is it that he binds up the prayers of the Church to God the Father through the name of his Son? 
Lib. de Orat. cap. 12.  Tertullian saith, we deservedly upbraid those prayers with vanity which are made without the Authority of any precept of our Lord or his Apostles, for such are rather to be esteemed superstitious then Religious; show us then a precept of our Lord or his Apostles, and we will cease to impeach your practice as superstitious vanity; but seeing that is impossible to be done, you must not be angry with Tertullian for saying you are superstitious; 
Apolog. c. 30.  Again, when he had told us that Christians pray for the safety of the Emperor, entreating for him, quaecumque hominis & Caesaris vota sunt, he adds, these things; I may not ask from any other then from him from whom I know I shall obtain them, because he it is who alone vouchsafeth them, and I am his Servant unto whom it appertaineth to obtain what is requested, 
Et ego sum famulus ejus qui eum solum observo. Lib. de orat. Dom.  who observe or worship him alone, (viz. in my prayers) and therefore he gave no heed to Saints and Angels in them. Thirdly, S. Cyprian informs us that to pray otherwise then Christ hath taught us is not only our ignorance but fault, he having said, you reject the command of God that you may establish your own tradition; Wherefore unless the Papists can show us this doctrine taught by Christ, we must esteem them ignorant and blame-worthy in the exercise thereof. Fourthly, When Celsus had said that Angels belong to God, and in that respect we should pray unto them to be favourable to us, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 8. Orig. Cont. Cells. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Origen answereth him, away with Celsus his counsel saying that we must pray to Angels, and let us not so much as afford any little audience unto it, for we must pray to him alone who is God over all, and we must pray to the word of God, his only begotten, and the firstborn of all Creatures: and whereas Celsus had further said that we must offer first-fruits unto Angels and prayers as long as we live that we may find them propitious unto us. Answer is returned by Origen in the name of the Christians, that they held it rather fit to offer first fruits unto him who said, let the earth bring forth grass, 
Gen. 1.  the herb yielding seed; (that is to the Creator of the world) and to whom we give the first fruits (saith he) to him also do we send our prayers, having a great high Priest that is entered into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God; 
pag. 239.  Again, in his fifth book, he lays down this conclusion, All prayers and supplications, and intercessions, and thanksgivings, are to be sent up unto God, the Lord of all, by the high Priest, who is above all Angels, being the Living word, and God; for to call upon Angels (the like may be said of Saints departed) we not comprehending the knowledge of them which is above the reach of man is not aggreeable to reason; and if by supposition it were granted that the knowledge of them might be comprehended, their very knowledge declaring their nature to us, and the charge over which every one of them is set, would not permit us to presume to pray unto any other but unto God, the Lord over all, who is abundantly sufficient for all, by our Saviour, the Son of God.  
(5.) Athanasius saith, never any man prayed to receive any thing from God and the Angels, or any created being; 
l. 4. Cont. Arian. the Papists say frequently Deus custodiat te & Virgo Maria.  neither did ever any body conceive such a form of prayer, God and the Angel give thee such a thing; but on the contrary, he begs (it) from the Father and the Son by reason of their unity and uniform reason of giving.  
(6.) That of Saint Augustine's is very worthy to be pondered; whom should I find that might reconcile me unto thee? should I have gone unto the Angels (he might as well have added Saints) with what prayer? with what Sacraments? many endeavouring to return unto thee, and not being able to do it by themselves, as I hear, (he then had no experience of it from the Church's practice) have tried these things, and have fallen into the desire of curious visions and were accounted worthy of illusions.  
(7.) 
In Cap. 1. ad Rom. See an excellent place parallel to this in Arnob. adv Gentes. l. 3. p. 101, 102.  Saint Ambrose (or whoever was the Author of the commentaries upon Saint Paul's Epistles extant among his works,) saith, those that are ashamed of their neglecting God, are wont to use this miserable excuse that by those (Saints or Angels) we may go to God as to a King by his Officers; go too (saith he) is there any man so mad, or so unmindful of his safety as to give the king's honour to an Officer, whereas if any shall be found but to treat of sucha matter, they are justly condemned as guilty of high Treason; and yet those men think themselves not guilty who give the honour of God's name to a creature, and leaving the Lord adore their fellow servants, as though there were any thing more that could be reserved to God; for therefore do men go to the King by tribunes or Officers, because the King is but a man, and knoweth not to whom he may commit the State of the Common wealth; but to procure the favour of God, from whom nothing is hid, we need no spokesman but a devout mind; for wheresoever such a one shall speak unto him he will Answer him; So then, to go to God by others, is to neglect God, and to adore our fellow creature; it is a miserable excuse, yea 'tis to give the honour of God to a creature, and so Idolatry, a superfluous thing, and consequently superstitious in those who esteem it necessary.  
Farther, Sect. 21 the Ancients put God into the very definition or description of prayer, and therefore cannot be thought to have esteemed it lawful to pray to any other, or to Saints whom they esteemed not to be Gods: 
Orat. in Julit. Mart. Orat. 1. de Or.  thus Basil. prayer is a request of some good thing which is made by pious men to God. Greg. Nysen. prayer is a conference with God, and again it is a request of good things which is offered with supplication unto God. Chrysost. 
2. de Orat. dom. In Gen. Hom. 30 de Orat. l. 2.  Prayer is a colloquy or discourse with God; and again, every one that prays discourseth with God, and Damascene Prayer is an ascension of the mind to God, as a request of things that are fit, from God.  
Again, Sect. 22 they tell us that prayer is to be made to God alone, and therefore not to Saints or Angels, 
In Ps. 5. ad Deum solum dirigitur. Tom. 10. vide Forb. confid. mod. p. 295. In 1 Cor. Hom. 1.  thus (to omit Saint Ambrose above cited) Saint Basil saith, Prayer is not directed to man but to God alone. Saint Ephraim, to the (O Lord) and to none besides thee, do I make my prayer, and further Chrysost. on those words, with all that call upon the name of the Lord, giveth this Exposition, not of this or that (Creature) but of the Name of the Lord. Again, on these words do all in the name of the Lord Jesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, giving thanks (or praying) to God the Father by him, he thus Paraphraseth, do all things to God, bring not in Angels, dost thou eat? give thanks to God, (or pray, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  See 1 Cor. 14.16, 17.) before and after meat, dost thou sleep? give thanks to God before and after, and so in other things. And that prayer is one of these things that must be done to God, and not to Angels, appears from that which follows, 
Or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lat. orantem vel quidvis facientem.  whatever you do in word or deed, that is, saith he, either praying or doing any other thing; then presently after he tells us that it was the Devil that brought in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Invocating and worshipping of Angels (for he is speaking still of Prayer.) and this he did, envying us that honour of going immediately to the Trinity or Christ; but (saith he) be he Angel or Archangel, yea or Cherubin, do not suffer it, (much less if he be a Saint only) for they will not endure it, but shake you off; when they see this contumely done unto their Lord. I have honoured thee (saith God) and said call upon me, ànd thou dishonourest him, Viz. by invocating Angels or others besides him. Sect. 23  
Thirdly, the Fathers argue that Christ is God blessed for ever, because he is invocated by us, and accepteth of our prayer; and therefore could not invocate the Saints whom they esteemed not to be gods. Thus Origen, Saint Paul when in the beginning of the Epistle to the Corinthians, 
L. 8. in Ep. ad Rom. c. 10.  he speaks thus, (with all that call upon the name of Christ Jesus) pronounceth Jesus Christ whose name is called upon to be God: 
De Trin. c. 14.  and Novatian, If Christ be only Man, why is a Man invocated in our prayers as Mediator? seeing the invocation of a Man is judged of no force to yield salvations: why is there Hope reposed in him, seeing hope in man is said to be accursed: so likewise Athanasius, 
C. 16.23.  in the place forecited, Cyril of Alexandria upon that of Saint John, If you ask any thing in my Name, I will do it, crieth out, He clearly manifests himself to be God, in that he promiseth to receive our prayers.  
Theophilus Alexand. 
Paschae Sec.  How will they call upon him in whom they have not believed? We must therefore first believe that He is the Son of God, that our invocation of Him may be right: And as he is not to be worshipped (who is not God, So on the contrary, He is to be worshipped who is manifestly so.  
Yea the Council of Laodicea decreed that we ought not to forsake the Church of God, 
Can. 35. S. 24.  and departed aside, and invocate Angels, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and make meetings, which are things forbidden: If any man therefore be found to give himself to this privy Idolatry, let him be accursed, because he hath forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, and betaken himself to Idolatry. Some very wisely would read angulos corners; and make the Council forbidden the invocating corners; 
Brev. Can. S. 90 Cod. Con. num 138. Brev. Can. S. 184. Henric. Canis. Tom. 6. p. 424.  but the Greek expressly readeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which in that Tongue hath no affinity at all with corners: Cresconius, Dionysius, Exiguus, Fulgentius, Ferrandus, and pope Adrian, in the Epitome of the Canons which he delivered to Charles the Great at Rome, readeth Angelos; and Theodoret gives us the mind of the Synod thus: The Synod, of Laodicea following this rule viz. of the Apostle, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 On the 3d. chap. of the Col. v. 17 On the 2d. chap.  Col. 3.17. (of coming to the Father by Christ, and not by Angels) and desiring to heal that old Disease, made a Law that they should not pray unto Angels, nor forsake our Lord Jesus Christ. And again, The Synod forbade them by Law to pray unto Angels: And Oecumenius saith, The Synod of Laodicea did by Law forbidden to come unto Angels, and pray unto them. Yea, in that great Council of three hundred thirty eight Bishops, at Constantinople, 
l. 1. de Con. c. 6.  which Binius and Bellarmine stile general, these two Canons were fraudulently inserted.  
1. 
Defin. 15. Conc. Const. citat. in Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 6. pag. 380. Ib. Defin. 17. Crakanth: Def. Ec. An. pag. 420. Ab omnibus rejectum est For which the citys Paul. Dial. l. 22. and again, Omnes uno ore rejicerunt sanctorum invocationem & Cannonem illum. Notis in Con. Const. sub Steph. 30.  If any with a sincere Faith implores not the Intercessions of the Virgin Mary, let him he Anathema.  
2. If any one shall not confess all the Saints to be Honourable before God, and shall not entreat their prayers, let him be Anathema; But when the definition came to be read in the Council (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) they rejected them, and caused them to be blotted out; and this, saith the Conluter Act the 6th. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all men know; yea further they bond their Members or themselves by an Oath (Juramentum Sacro Sanctum & solenne à suis exegerunt) That they would never invocate the Saints, Apostles, Martyrs, or the blessed Virgin? as Binius relates.  
Yea, Lastly, the greater part of the Fathers, viz. Irenaeus l. 5. in fine; Justine Martyr, qu. 76. Tertull. ad. Mar. l. 4. Clem. Rom. l. 2. Hypotepos. Origen. Hom. 7. in Leu. Lactantius, l. 7. Institut. c. 21. Victorinus Com. in Apoc. c. 6. Prudentius, Hym. pro exequio defunct. Ambrose, l. 2. de Cain & Abel, c. 2. chrysostom, Hom. 39 in 1. ad Cor. Austin, in Ps. 36. Euthymius in c. 23. luc. Theodoret in cap. 11. ad Heb. Arethus, in Apoc. Oecumenius, in cap. 11. ad Heb.) 
Cont. Whit. 1. c. 2. In part. 2. direc. inquis. Com. 21.  denied the souls of the Saints to have nay enjoyment of the beatifical Vision; and this is acknowledged by their Stapleton, and Franciscus Pegna: and therefore these Fathers according to their own doctrine, and practice of invocating only the Saints in Glory, and the fruition of the beatifical Vision, can not be reasonably supposed to have held the Invocation of Saints.  
To Conclude, I know what Distinctions they use, of Prayer direct and indirect, of prayer relative or terminative, etc. but  
First, They are only shifts to cover a desperate cause; the Fathers never used any one of them on this Occasion, but reject this worship & invocation without such distinctions, even in those places where it seemed necessary to have used them, had they been acquainted with this Sophistry; yea Celsus and others intended not more.  
Secondly, These distinctions are equally serviceable for the evacuating the Father's Argument hence for the Divinity Christ.  
And Lastly, are contradicted by the Fathers; Let one Athanasius speak for all; who not content to tell the Arrians, they must acknowledge that Saints (i. e. Christians) do not pray to any created being to be their helper elsewhere adds, 
Or. 2. Cont. Ar. sub finem. De incar. verbi p. 528.  that if they worship the Lord Christ, because the Word of God inhabited in him, they might as well worship the Saints, because God dwells in them.   

CHAP. XVII.  
The Question stated by Mr. C. sect. 1. A short Paraphrase upon 1 Cor. 7. ver. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 sect. 2. Arguments evincing this gift not to be attainable by all, sect. 3. Mr. C's. Evasions confuted, sect. 4. His own Argument not answered by himself, sect. 5. His Arguments against our Thesis Answered, sect. 6. His Question touching the late Marriage of some Ministers, Answered, sect. 7. His Evasions further confuted, sect. 8. The Vow of Celibacy unlawful, sect. 9 The Drs. Argument defended, sect. 10. 1 Tim. 5.11, 12. explained, sect. 11. The Council of Eliberis concludes nothing against us, sect. 12. Nor that of Carthage, sect. 13. Nor the African Council, sect. 14. The Nicene Council stands for us, sect. 15. Why after Ordination, the Ancients required abstinence from Marriage, sect. 16. The Synod of Gangra for us, sect. 17. As also that convened in Trullo, sect. 18. The Eastern Church permitted Marriage to her Priests, and that after Ordination, sect. 19 The Testimonies of St. Jerome to the contrary, considered, sect. 20. And of Epiphanius, sect. 21. Of Ambrose and St. Austin, sect. 22. The Testimony of Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, St. Clemens, Athanagoras, and Justin Martyr, Origen, and Tertullian, against the Romanists, sect. 23. Married Priests in the Primitive Church, sect. 24. Scripture interpreted by the Fathers, in favour of us, sect. 25. Particularly, 1 Tim. 3.2. sect. 26. Heb. 13.4. sect. 27. And Mat. 19.12. sect. 28.  
IN the seventeenth chapter, Sect. 1 touching the Celibacy of Priests, he states the matter thus;  
The question must be, 
Sect. 4. p. 204.  whether a perpetual abstinence from Marriage, and all Carnal lusts, may lawfully by Priests be made the matter of a vow; and tells us, that we condemn the practice, at least considered, as extending itself generally, to any whole order or state of men, and especially any obligation imposed on them to this practice: On the contrary he tells us, that the Church of Rome enjoins Celibacy to Priests, and holds that 'tis such a gift, that is denied to none, that rightly seek it, and therefore may be made the matter of a vow: Agreeably to their Trent Council, which tells us, Deus id recte petentibus non deneget.  
Now here (to omit his stating the question of Carnal lusts) are two differences betwixt us.  
1 They say, all may have this gift of Continence, who rightly seek it.  
2 That it is lawful to impose such an obligation of perpetual Celibacy upon their Priests; both which we deny.  
And first, Sect. 2 that this is not a gift to be attained by every man, appears abundantly from the 7. chap. of the 1 Ep. Cor.  
In which, the first Question moved, is, Whether a Christian should embrace a Conjugal estate?  
To this 'tis Answered, 
V 1. It is good for a man not to touch a woman.  That (as the case stood then) 'twas very commendable for a man, so to moderate his affections, and get such a noble victory over the flesh, as not to need this remedy; ('tis good for a man not to touch a Wife.)  
Nevertheless, seeing the condition, by reason of the rareness of the gift of Continency, will lay you open to the danger of Fornication; 
V 2. To avoid Fornication, let every one have his own wife. V 3. Let the Husband render to the wife due benevolence. V 4, The wife hath not power over her own body. V 5. Defraud not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, & come together again, lest Satantempt you for your incontinency. V 6. I speak this by permission, and not of command. V 7. I would that all men were even as I, but every one hath his proper gift. V 8. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. V 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry.  for the avoiding of the same, let every man (to whom this special gift is not vouchsafed) either procure himself a Wife, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) or retain her, if he hath procured her, and every woman her proper Husband; or if she be a Virgin, submit to the bond of Matrimony; and when the Conjugal knot shall once be tied, and they be under this relation of Man and Wife (since avoiding Fornication was the chief motive to this condition) let due benevolence be mutually given; for the woman not having any longer power over her own body, cannot without open fraud deny it, when moderately desired: And in prosecution of the ends of Marriage (which reason equally concerns the Husband's body) unless it be by the interceding of some such Cautions as these,  
1 That it be with the mutual consent of both.  
2 That it be in some rare and extraordinary case; viz. in time of Fasting, or being importunate with God in Prayer.  
3 Thatsuchseparation be not long. And these cautions are necessary to be observed, lest Satan, who will neglect no opportunity, do ensnare you; and by reason of your deficiency in this gift of Continence, prevail upon you, and kindle the flames of unclean desires. Yet would I not here seem to enjoin all married state, or a continual use of the marriage bed, neither do I speak this as a precept to all, but advice to the incontinent. For verily I could be glad that the Divine bounty (if it were his pleasure) would afford this gift of Continence, he hath given me, to every Christian; but seeing his infinite wisdom hath thought meet that it should be otherwise, and that this gift (as others which according to his pleasure are distributed) should be peculiar to some; my decision is, that 'twere more commodious for Widows and Virgins (if they could contain) to live in Celibacy, as I do. But if they find it otherwise, then doth a necessity lie upon them, either to enter into the state of Matrimony, or to burn; and therefore to extinguish these flames, they must use this means to prevent it, which God hath appointed for this end.  
This Paraphrase is clear and evident, yet will I further evince, what ever can be denied in it by the obstinate.  
Do they tell us, in answer to the 2 verse, that the Apostle speaks of persons already married? I assent; do they tell us it is a counsel? I say so also, only minding them that thence, according to their doctrine, unavoidably it will follow, that it is of greater virtue and merit, for every one to have his own wife, than not.  
Will Bellarm. add, that the Apostle speaks of Fornication, not ustions; I must mind him, that the Apostle determines very plainly, that 'tis better to marry then to burn.  
2 That these lustful motions and stimulations, which the Apostle intends by ustion, must needs be sins, for according to our Saviour's rule, Mat. 5.28. They are spiritual Adultery.  
Lastly, Is it farther said, that this concerns those that have not made this vow of Continence?  
Answer, Must not others then avoid Fornication? may they defraud each others? or if single, may they live in uncleanness? or refuse to marry though they be not able to contain? must a vow be the bond to manifest iniquity?  
Secondly, If any obstinately deny my interpretation of due benevolence, for the use of the body; the reason assigned will confute them; viz. that the Husband hath not power over his own body, etc. and that they must not defraud each other.  
Thirdly, That by Prayer verse 5. is understood accuratior precatio, as St. chrysostom there hath it, or some extraordinary engagement in that duty, is evident from its conjunction with fasting, it's limitation to a time, it's exemption from the marriage bed, and lastly, the charge of the Apostle, to return to Cohabitation, when 'tis ended.  
These things being thus evinced, Sect. 3 from the 2 verse, I argue thus. If it be a necessary means for the avoiding Fornication, to procure or use a Wife, than all have not, nor can have the gift of Continence, but the former is true from the Apostle; for he doth not say, let them fast and pray, and vow Continence, but let them use the remedy God appointed. Whence 'tis obvious to conclude, that this was the remedy necessary for some, to avoid Fornication, which could not be, if all may attain to the gift of Continence.  
From the 5 verse, thus. If abstinence from the marriage bed, even in those, that are engaged in fasting and prayer, must be but for a time, and that least Satan prevail upon them to incontinence, then will not the use of means be sufficient to procure the gift to all; (For what means more available than fasting and prayer?) But the first is evident from the words of the Apostle, and therefore the consequence of it must be so.  
From the 8 verse, thus. That which is a proper gift, and that upon this account, because it pleaseth the Divine bounty to afford it some, and not to others, cannot be common to all, though never so diligent in the use of means (seeing it cannot be procured by any, to whom 'tis not the good pleasure of God to give it) but such is the gift of Continence.  
From the 10th verse, thus. The Apostle saith to the unmarried and widows, if they cannot contain let them marry; therefore he supposes that all cannot have this gift of Continency.  
Again verse 25. The Apostle tells us, in these indifferent matters, I have no precept, but yet my counsel is, that Virgins and Widows would abstain from Marriage (if they have the gift of Continence) as being a condition, in which they are more free from the cumbrances of the world, and will find less impediments of an holy life: this therefore I speak, consulting their good; but by no means would I lay a necessity on them to embrace this Celibacy, for this would be a certain way to cast a snare on them. The imposition of such a Yoke, without the least respect unto their power of Continency, or the want thereof, would prove such a continual perplexity, that I think it necessary to decline, even the very suspicions of it.  
Now from hence I argue, if all may have this gift of Continency, then would it not be a snare to impose it (especially, when it was so exceedingly more Eligible) but the Apostle so esteems it: Ergo.  
From Verse. 37. Thus: if the Apostle saith, if need so requite, that a Virgin marry, let her do it, she sinneth not. and Hieron. in locum. si sentiat Carnem, etc. If she be sensible, of the too much prevailing of the flesh, that it doth Ebullire in libidinem, is not to be kept back by the Bridle of Continency, but she must either marry, or fall; Then hath not every one the gift of Continency; But this they evidently assert, ergo.  
Now here our Author hath somewhat to say in answer to us (I suppose.) For having told us, that we deny Celibacy, Sect. 4 may lawfully be made the matter of a vow, generally to any whole order, or state of men, upon supposition, that 'tis a special gift of God (as the Apostle tells us, 1 Cor. 7.7.) not bestowed on all: 
P. 205. Sect. 6.  well (saith he) 'tis granted that 'tis a gift of God, the fruit of his Holy Spirit, and cannot by natural means be obtained, so as to be practised in obedience to him, but (than he replies with his Master Stapleton, Antid. p. 280) so are all virtues, so is faith, so is repentance, so is charity; all which notwithstanding we vow in our Baptism, and why do we vow a practice of these virtues, which are pure gifts of God? Because we are assured, the same God, who commanded that vow, will not be wanting to supply strength to perform it, in all those that sincerely beg those gifts of him, by earnest prayer, and by avoiding all known, and possible to be avoided impediments to the practice of these virtues. But (1) This would never have made a show of any answer, had not the word special, wherein the whole stress of our argument consists, been Sophistically left out. (2) As it is, it hath received two answers, from Pareus, 
Notes upon Cor. p. 379.  who tells his Stapleton, that there is a manifest disparity. (1) Because the vow of Baptism is commanded by God, and cannot be neglected without sin, but as for perpetual Celibacy, it hath no command, for if it had, it would not be a Counsel, as our Antagonist contends. Well therefore, seeing God hath commanded the one vow should be made, and not commanded so much as the matter of the other, there is not the same reason surely for the exercise of both. (2) Saith he, the obedience we promise in our vow of Baptism is Universal, enjoined on all upon pain of Damnation, and albeit the performance of that vow exceed our natural strength, yet God hath promised that he will give that faculty and grace, which shall enable us to perform it; but the vow of perpetual Celibacy, is neither commanded to all, nor is it given to all [ex parte dei] nor hath it the promise of God, that it shall be so. Now than we say, to whom God commands this vow, assuredly he will give strength to perform it, but to suppose, that he hath done it to all, is the most ridiculous begging of the question imaginable, yea it makes the marriage of all men sinful, as being contrary to Gods Command of a vow of Celibacy, and it makes the Celibacy of Priests, jure divino, which our Author dares not aver.  
But our Author hath an Argument against himself, Sect. 5 sect. 7. Which I form thus: 
Ibid. Sect. 7.  Those, that aspire to perfection, are but few, even in the opinion of the Roman Church, this council concerns only them, that aspire to perfection, ergo, it concerns but few, and consequently ought not to be imposed upon all, of any order, unless we would impose it beyond the intent of Christ. And what doth our worthy Author return to this? 
Sect. 8. p. 207. al. 206.  Even that all this, Cum Grano Salis, is acknowledged by them. What is it, that they acknowledge? That this Counsel reacheth but few. What follows? That withal Protestants know, that this abstinence, is a gift bestowed upon very many, and I hope they may be allowed to know, that very many, are not few, and consequently, he that tells us, this gift is bestowed upon very many, is not of his opinion, who tells us it respects but few, that aspire to perfection. 'Tis not a grain of salt, that will make this savour, otherwise, than a Contradiction.  
But let us see how he will prove, Sect. 6 that this gift is bestowed on very many, and in some cases, is necessary to almost all. (1) Then he brings us an Argument of Maldonates', 
Ibid.  that otherwise it would be unlawful for Parents to keep their Children unmarried, after the time they are Capable, and thereby to expose them to unlawful lusts, since they are not sure they have such a gift.  
To which we answer, when the children declare, or they have reason to suspect the want of this gift, they ought not to hinder their married state, or the procuring the remedy God hath appointed, but if they declare themselves not to be stimulated with such desires, but to be able to contain, must they compel them to marry, may they not in charity suppose the contrary? (2) He saith, 
Ibid.  It would be unlawful for Merchants and Travellours to make long Voyages abroad, and leave their Wives at home, deprived of the necessary lawful means against the incursions of Lust.  
Answer. If there be no necessity of leaving their Wives at home, it seems more convenient to have them with them, according to the Apostle's Rule, 1 Cor. 7.5. But if there be a necessity, God who put them upon it, will give them relief, if they wait upon him for it, but (3) He tells us, 
Ibid.  that were it otherwise, all Statutes of Colleges ought to be repealed, which forbidden marriage still to all Fellows, and heretofore to all Precedents, upon penalty of forfeiting their whole subsistence. As if they might not leave their Fellowships, and seat themselves in Parsonages, but must necessarily want means of subsistence, when they leave the University. But (4) he tells us, with the worthy refuter of Bishop Hall, that a long sickness inflicted by God on either of the parties, 
Ibid.  would be far more dangerous to their souls, then to their bodies, so as if the abstinence now spoken of, were such an extraordinary gift of perfection, England would have more Saints, or more Adulterers, than she is ware of. Answ. Yes, and so peradventure, she hath; And not few of the latter, as having more Jesuits, and Pseudo Catholic Priests, than she is ware of. Who, if their own party may be credited, are not a little guilty of this notorious uncleanness.  
Secondly, Why have we no return to Bishop Hall's substantial answer; viz. if they call on him, who calls them to Continency by this hand of his, he will hear them and enable them to persist [and why not then in the necessity of our vows?]  
Answ. This is a necessity of our own making, 
Ibid.  that is, of His; he hath bound himself to keep his own promises, not ours.  
And here he comes in with a question which will strike all dead; Sect. 7 
P. 206. al. 207.  Why do the Ministers of England live many of them till thirty years of age, and then Marry? I doubt (quoth he) they force themselves to live single till they have a Benefice; and then assoon as they can maintain a Wife, they get one; and then concludes, is not this mere Hypocrisy, to talk of marrying out of tenderness of Conscience, to allay their Concupiscence, when the danger is almost past, and make no provision to prevent the unruliest part of their age. To this worthy question, we return these answers. (1.) I hope this is charity mistaken, to say they make no provision to prevent incontinency: He ought to suppose, that these that stay till thirty (which are not the half nor third part) and then marry, have made provision, unless he were assured of the contrary. But then he may object, Why will not that provision serve them for the future? A. Haply God may restrain their concupifcence for some time, for ends best known to himself, and afterwards cease to do it. (2.) Perhaps a stronger diet may be necessary for them in the Country, as having more work to do, than in the University, and yet that Diet may inflame them. (3.) Perhaps all that Marry do it not to the end, but for the better Convenience of living, that they may keep up their Name, or satisfy their Parents, or a hundred other Ends; which may legitimate that Marriage to them, which is honourable in all. (4.) It may be the earnest desire of the Wife, that may make it necessary. (5.) We will satisfy you with question for question: If it be so easy to abstain, 
dist. 81.  how is it that you have so many Fornicatours among you? that the gloss upon Gratian complains, pauci sine illo vitio inveniantur, and that if your Fornicatours should be deposed, 
Consult. Art. 23.  you would have but few Clerks. Why is it that your honest Cassander tells us, vix Centesimum invenias, you can scarce find one in an hundred free? Why did Cauda Salax sacrificulorum become a Proverb? 
Brom. sum. pred. voce luxuria.  And why did a Ghost complain that there came daily such store of Priests to Hell for Lechery, that he had not thought there had been any left on Earth? Why doth Erasmus tell you, 
Apol. pro Declar. Matri. Thuan. Hist. 136. De. invent. Rer. lib. 5. C. 4.  that under pretence of Chastity, you are more vile and filthy in your Lusts? Why is it, that Caesar Maximilian Complains, that in his age you were, omnes fere scortatores Publici, almost all common whoremasters? Why is it, that your Polidore Virgil, cries out, of the great Infamy, that was cast upon you, the great dishonour brought upon Religion, the great grief to all good men, by the lustful practices of the Priests? Why is it, that your Monastical Ladies, are so often pregnant, and there may be found so many bones of Infants in your Ponds? Have you never seen the Mystery of Jesuitism, what in continence he charges them with? Have you never heard of Peter Jarridge, a Jesuit for the space of twenty four years, who Chap. 2. tells us of the Jesuits murdering of Infants. Chap. 10. Of their uncleanness in their own Classes, and their foul actions in their visits. Chap. 12. their filthiness committed in their Churches. and Chap. 13. In their own Houses. Chap. 14. In their travails, and in their Country Houses. Nor yet the sad stories of Alvarus Pelagius, (de planctu Ecclesiae lib. 2. Art. 73.) who tells us, of the Incests and Fornications of the Priests and Friars, of their receiving Boys into their Houses, and Cloisters, their Conversation with Nuns and secular women? Nor that St. Bernard, (lib. de convers. ad clerum Chap. 20.) Compared the Clergy even of his age to the Nicholaitans, whom God hated for their uncleanness? Not to mention Wicelius his Via Regia. Andrea's Fricius and Modrevins de Matrim: Clericorum, and his Apology (Chap. 20. lib. 4. de Eccles.) 
a Controu. 15. sub initio  Albertus' Pighius, 
b l. 7. the just. & jur. Quest. 6. Art. 11.  Dominicus Soto, 
c Gravam. 75.91.  the Hundred grievances of Germany, and many others, whose words you may find in Calixtus de conjug. Cleric. in many places. The scandal must needs be notorious and intolerable, when so many persons of your own party durst so openly complain, and wish the disannulling of that Law of Celibacy, to the Clergy. Yea do we not know, that the Officials of your Bishops, have taken annuities from all the parish Priests, for licences to keep Concubines, and if they came to a continent person, that told them he kept none, they replied, that yet he must pay, for as much as liberty was granted so to do. 
In Ep. ad Tit. C. 1.  As is reported by the Hundred grievances, and by Espencaeus. So that we shall conclude with Cassander, that if ever there was time to change an old custom, certainly these times require it, wherein all the best and most religious Priests acknowledging their infirmity, and abhorring the turpitude of perpetual Fornication, if publicly they dare not, yet privately they marry. And I doubt whether such Advocates of Celibacy as Mr. C. If strict inquiry were made, might not be often found, even where the Cardinal of Crema was.  
§. 9 This Champion tells us, Sect. 8 that at least this is a special gift denied to none, who by humble and due examining of themselves, are persuaded, that God calls them to an estate of greater perfection, and being in that state, depend on him, seeking his assistance by constant prayers, watchfulness and necessary penitential austerities. Now these may be confident, they are called to such a state, either in a Monastical or Ecclesiastical Profession, who betake themselves thereto, not out of any worldly respects for gaining a subsistence, or preferments, or any other temporal invitations, but purely to avoid the temptations, the sollicitudes, and distractions of the world, and the flesh, and to devote themselves more to the service of God, and advancing their souls in virtue and piety, and such may as undoubtedly promise to themselves God's assistance, while they use the means to obtain it, as all Christians may after the vow of Baptism.  
Answ. Not, unless we can be convinced of the promise made to one, as well as to the other, of the necessity of making this, as well as the Baptismal Vow. Which our Author goes not about to prove, but confidently lays down his assertion as if he had the infallibility of his Pope delegated to him.  
2. And of what defect will he accuse St. 
Ipse ergo, qui ob gehe●nae metum tali me Carceri damnaveram, choris intereram puellarum, pallebant ora jejunijs sed mens desiderijs aestuabat in frigido Corpore, & ante hominem suum, jam Carne praemortuâ, sola libidinum incendia Ebulli●●ant.  Jerome that great Zealot for Virginity, who, as he tells us in his Epist. ad Eustoch. when he was alone in the Desert, found lust to be his Companion, who found that body which was covered with Sackcloth, and under the greatest Austerity, yet harbouring this fire of lust, who found cold water able to kindle this flame, and that so lasting, that no substraction of fuel was able to quench it: If such as he, after the use of such means did burn, what shall we say or think of the Continence of our shaved Crowns; I think if they were not shaved, it would not be long ere they were bald.  
Yea, let it be considered, that those persons who have undertaken it (undoubtedly upon these accounts) and had eminent Graces, and were persons of rare and exemplary Piety; yet could not preserve their Virginity, without destroying their body. Evagrius the Priest, 
Bp. Tailor's ductor dub. par. 3. c. 4. p. 335.  used to go into a Well in the winter nights; St. Bernard into a Lake, to cool his burn; St. Francis, to Roul his body in the Snow; St. Omar, in Nettles; St. Benedict upon Thorns; St. Martinian, upon burning Coals, quenching one heat with another, and overthrowing the strongest passion by the strongest pains. And when Origen was resolved to live continently, he found no way but one to effect it, by making it impossible to be otherwise. Ought not Christians therefore, rather to choose the remedy by God appointed, than thus to be instruments of their own torment? Is it not evident that these worthies took the worse part, in choosing ustulation before Marriage, directly contrary to the Apostle. 
1 Cor. 7.   
3. If the case were so, it was a wonder that the Apostle who had judged Marriage so inconvenient for their times of Persecution, should not have exhorted them to have been contented with these means, to have made use of these remedies, when in danger of Burning, but should bid them Marry.  
Yea, 4. after he had told us of the benefits of a single life, to the avoiding the temptations, solicitudes, and distractions of the flesh, and the devoting ourselves more to virtue and piety, should not tell us, that this was any call to Celibacy, but permit Marriage still; that is, permit us to resist this Call, and refuse to lay upon us any necessity of a single life, lest it should prove a snare unto us.  
Secondly, Sect. 9 That it is not lawful to impose such a vow of Celibacy on their Priests in general, is consequent from what we have discoursed; for seeing our Antagonist tells us, Sect. 10. That this is the ground on which the Church enjoins Celibacy to her Priests, 
P. 209. Conc. Trid. Sess. ●4. Can. 9  because she holds that God denies not the gift of Chastity to any, that ask it aright: We having proved that this is a peculiar gift, not attainable by all; we have proved that this Ground is false and contradictory to scripture, and consequently, that it is unlawful for the Church to enjoin this Celibacy to Priests, unless she can lawfully do that which is contrary to the scripture: Nor is it any thing which Bellarm. tells us, That he that cannot contain from Marriage, may from Priesthood; for beside that it is a manifest sin to exclude a man that is called by God, and qualified for his service, upon that account which God hath no where required to his entrance. How can they generally promise perpetual Celibacy, when no man can be assured, that he shall continually be free from Burn, but upon these two accounts: Either (1.) that God will grant the freedom to all, that use such means as they prescribe for the procuring of it; which I have already disproved. Or (2.) that God hath made some peculiar promise to such an order of men, rather than to others; which no Papist that I know of, hath ever asserted; I am sure, there is not one jota in the word of God to warrant it.  
But the Learned Doctor hath, Sect. 10 with the Apostle derived this their doctrine from the Devil, and his argument is this: To forbid Marriage is a Doctrine of Devils, saith the Apostle, 1 Tim. 4.13. But to enjoin perpetual Celibacy, is to forbid Marriage: Ergo. to this our Author answers, with the rest of his Fellows: 
P. 210.211. Sect. 11.  That St. Paul intends such Apostates as abstain from, and prohibit Marriage as unlawful and unclean; which thing the Encratites, Montanists, Marcionites, and Manichees held, as esteeming Marriage the work and design of the Devil. But that their Church prohibits it not absolutely, but upon the undertaking such an employment, which they imagine not to suit so well with Matrimony. And this is the substance of his first and second answer. To which it is replied. (1.) That the Apostle asserts, the very doctrine of forbidding Marriage, to be a doctrine of Devils. Now as poison is poison, whether it be absolutely taken, or conditionally; even so the Doctrine of Devils remains such, whether absolutely, or conditionally propounded. (2.) 
P. 723.  'Tis answered (by the Reverend Bishop Hall) that the doctrine thus stigmatised is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of those in general that forbidden Marriage, not condemn it upon such or such particular accounts: The act is one (saith he) the prohibition of Marriage, whether to some, or to more, or to all; St. Paul expresseth not. The number doth not vary the quality of the Act: This then only they have gained, that some others have been deeper in the Condemnation than themselves. (3.) He adds that the Romanists have condemned Marriage absolutely also, as evil in itself. Who was he that accused Marriage of unholiness out of Sancti estote; of uncleanness, out of Omnia munda mundis; of Contamination with carnal Concupiscence, 
Exup. Tolos. E●is. Ep. 3. c. 1 dist. 182. proposuis●.  was it not Pope Innocent? who was he that interpreted the text Rom. 8.8. Those that are in the flesh cannot please God; of Marriage, that called the married man no less than whore manger, sectatorem libidinum praeceptorem vitiorum, a follower of lust, a teacher of vice, 
Lad. didst 1. plurimos ad Himerium. Taruca. Epist. 1.  that said Marriage was a losing the Reins to luxury, an inhiation after obscene lusts; was it not Siricius, the first founder, if we may believe their now defaced gloss, of forced continency? who was it that called Marriage a defiling with unclean society and execrable Contagion? was it not his Council of Toledo? 
Con. Toledo 8. c. 5. cit. a. c. ●. P. 231. Vide regist. Ecc. Wigron. postea. l. 3. Fulk in locum.  who was it that called marriage filthy beastliness, was it not St. Dunstan and St. Oswald? Thus he. (4. Dr. Fulk tells you, that these old Heretics that ascribed the first institution of Matrimony to Satan, and the creation and procreation of Mankind to the Devil, spoke not falsehood in Hypocrisy, but in open blasphemy, and therefore might easily be avoided; but you that under pretence of religion, holiness, chastity, purity, fasting and Prayers, by laws and decrees forbidden Marriage to some sort of people; are they of whom the spirit of God speaketh evidently, that they utter their false doctrine in Hypocrisy, and therefore had need to be described by their special notes, and the Church be forewarned by this prophecy against them.  
But he adds, when these Heretics were accused by the Fathers for such errors, It was ordinary for them to recriminate the Orthodox with the same things, and they received from them such replies, 
Ambros de office, Cap. ult.  as the Romanists give us.  
Answ. They might well recriminate when some of the Fathers spoke of Matrimony as a stain, and others tell us 'tis forbid by Scriptures, and an evil thing, as St. Jerom. We acknowledge, that some of the Fathers, as Austin and Jerom, were a little addicted to the present Romish error. And therefore they might well answer as the Romanists do; But we will undertake to show, that the greatest and purest stream of antiquity runs against them: And yet he is somewhat unhappy in his instance, 
Omnino facere Vergines  for St. Austin in the place here cited hath this dilemma, either it is the doctrine of Devils absolutely to make Virgins, that is, by telling them that she that marryeth doth well, but she that marryeth not doth better, that the unmarried careth for the Lord, etc. and by suffering those that are thus inclined to keep their purpose, without persuading them to the contrary, which ways the Church of Christ useth, either (saith he) you think that procuring of any persons to keep their Virginity by these, or any other way, is a doctrine of Devils, or to do it by the prohibition of marriage, if this last, this concerns not us: yea, he adds that he would be not only a fool, but a mad man, who thinks that what is granted by a public law (of God) as marriage is, can be forbidden by a private, but than if you say, that to favour the purpose of continence in a Virgin, not to bear a reluctancy to her desire, be the doctrine of Devils, I am afraid of St. Paul. And this being so, with what face could our Author tell us that Faustus the Manichee, 
Unde viro non tam concumbere quam nubere prohibetis concumbitur enim causa libidinum numbetur autem non nisi filiorum.  made the very same objection which we do, seeing we never objected any thing against spontaneous embracing of Virginity, but against the prohibition of marriage to their Priests, and therefore the close of St. Augustine's answer to that objection exactly fits you. viz. It is not we (Protestants) that teach the doctrine of Devils, but you in detesting that enjoyment of the marriage bed, which alone is honest and conjugal, and which the matrimonial tables mention for the procreating of Children, whence not so much the enjoyment of lust, as marriage is forbidden by you (to your Priests) for then are you properly said concumbere when lust is the motive, but to marry when the procreation of children is so.  
Oh but our doughty Antagonist will raise up the ashes of an old argument, Sect. 11 
1 Tim. 5.11, 82.  to prove the Apostle cannot so be understood, forsooth because he forbids marriage to Widows, who had consecrated themselves to the Lords service. Now that he for bids them, 'tis argued.  
1. Because he bids the Church Governors refuse them, lest they should marry.  
2. He calls this marriage a casting off their first faith, as all the Fathers Interpret it, and tells them that it will procure their damnation. Now, (saith he) whether Widows are esteemed by the Preacher, to be more nearly and perfectly consecrated to the Divine Service by the Office of Deaconesses than men by Priesthood. It is expected he [the Dr.] should declare. Now albeit this stolen Objection hath received variety of answers. Yet will not our Antagonist take notice of any of them  
1. Then the learned Camero tells us, 
In locum. Vide Thes. Salmur. de voto con. pt. Post. Sect. 36.  the Papists would have the Apostle here to approve the vow of Continency, and disallow the solution of it upon any terms, but saith he, this must not be granted. For the Apostle discourseth of such Widows, who had devoted themselves to the Ministry of the Church, promising the performance of those Offices, which were proper for persons so devoted; Now seeing there was no legitimate pretence for such as were so addicted to decline the further performance of these Offices, but the necessity of marriage. When they began 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which as Hesychius tells us, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to wax insolent and weary of this ministry to the Church (partly for the labour, and partly for the seeming vileness of it,) that they might become free, they did pretend necessity of marriage as a covert of their pride and floath.  
That therefore which the Apostle reproves in them is not their marriage, but the using of it as the veil of their idleness, and thence it is, that he accuses them, first of their insolency in vilifying that Ministry, in which they were engaged. And herein is the wisdom of the Apostle Conspicuous, that lest he should seem to condemn simply the marriage of such, He first shows wherein they had offended; viz. not in that they married, but that they did so out of such an end, as knowing that such a pretence only, was a just cause of rejecting the burden they had cast upon them; (For it could not be, that she who was not sui juris, but at the power of her Husband, could be able to perform the office of a Deaconess, as then was requisite.) Now this interpretation is evidently contradictory to that of the Papists, but that it is the truth, I offer this Argument to evince. Either the Apostle inveighs against the pretence of Marriage in these younger widows, or against their Marriage; Not the latter, therefore the former. That it is not the latter I prove, because the Apostle bids them marry. Juniores volo nubere, Verse 14. You will say with the Rhemists, that he speaks of other widows, that had not yet entered into the Church's service, not of those which had made this promise.  
I Answ. It must be extended to them also; as may be proved,  
First, In that he requires that widows should be blameless, which condition could not well agree to younger widows, who were in danger of having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for doing that which is blame-worthy, in violating such a promise.  
Secondly, He would have such widows refused, which were in danger to wax wanton against Christ, to marry and so violate their promise to the Church; but such were those younger widows which had made this promise, Verse 11, 12. Nor can it here be said, that it could not be free for them to go back from their promise.  
For 1. There can be no reason assigned of such an assertion, seeing it must be made with this tacit limitation, if the Church will accept them, and therefore if the Church see cause to refuse them, they are ipso facto absolved.  
2. Be it, they had vowed (which cannot be proved) yet that vow cannot be obligatory to performance, which puts a person in a real danger of waxing wanton against Christ, of having the condemnation of violating his first faith; it being absolutely unlawful for any one to continue in such a condition, and contrary to the Apostles precept, of abstaining from all appearance of evil; and therefore such a vow made to bind one in such a state, is a bond of iniquity, and consequently Null.  
Thirdly, The Apostle would have such widows refused, who were in danger to be idle tatlers, busy bodies, wanderers, etc. but such were younger widows, already made Deaconesses, verse 13.  
Fourthly, The Apostle would have things so managed, as that no occasion might be given to the Adversary, to speak reproachfully; but this could not be, if younger widows, already Deaconesses should not be refused as well as others, Verse 14.  
Fifthly, The Apostle would have that altered, which might be an occasion of turning young women aside unto Satan, but such was the keeping of them in that condition, and had been already, as the Apostle tells us; v. 15. For some (viz. of these young Widows) are already turned aside unto Satan: But you will say, that the Apostle plainly saith, they are therefore blame worthy, because they have left their first Faith.  
I Answ. 1. They are therefore blame-worthy, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, out of Pride, Sloth, and Insolency, they have broken their Faith. (Not if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they had left this office) as being supposed to have made this promise only upon condition, of the continuance of the gift of Continency; seeing to make it absolutely, we have proved unlawful.  
2. By first Faith, we may understand the Faith they took upon them, when they first became Christians; which because it binds them not to be insolent, but humble, and ready to do the meanest office of love to their fellow-members; not to be slothful, but to be diligent in God's service; They that are guilty of these crimes, may be said to have made Null their Faith, seeing it will be of no virtue nor efficacy to their souls.  
2. Others have long ago answered, that the Apostle is to be understood not of any promise made to the Church, but to God or Christ, upon their entrance into Christianity, and tell us, that these women having (haply moved with sorrow for their Husband's death) cast themselves into the College of Widows, and afterward finding themselves not to have the gift of Continence, but to want the remedy of Marriage, lest they should be branded with the note of infamy, inconstancy, and lightness in departing from their purpose; they chose rather to fall off from Christ unto Gentilism and Marry, whence they are condemned of forsaking their first Faith; not simply, in that they would Marry, but that they would do it cum abnegatione fidei, & Christianae religionis.  
Obj. But you will say, if they had a mind to Marry, what necessity of doing it with Jews or Pagans?  
Answ. Because had they Married to Christians, they would continually have been twited by them for their levity and inconstancy; for their negligence in the office of the Church, gadding abroad, etc. yea, and being such, could scarce hope to procure a Husband among them, and therefore that they might not fail of them, and that they might live more free from these taunts and disgraces, they rejected their office and faith together: Now that they did so, as it is probable from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies, excutere habenas Christi; so is it more than so from the 15 v. which tells us, that they had turned aside to Satan; a phrase in Scripture used to denote Apostasy from Christ and God: For as turning from the power of Satan to God, is a description of turning Christian; so Apostates are said to be transferred again into Satan's Kingdom. Luke 11.13. And to turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, John. 6.66. as here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Heb. 12.13. 1 Tim. 1.6.4.4. as here also it is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Lastly, That it cannot be understood of a solemn vow of Continency, joined with an abnegation of the married state, beside, what I have said before is proved,  
1. In that the Apostle denies that he would cast a snare upon any, that is, lay a necessity on them to contain unmarried; but on the contrary gives this general axiom, that it is better to marry than to burn. And therefore it is altogether unlikely, that he would now tell them, that they must continue, though he found they had not the gift of Continence, under pain of damnation. No, rather he would have admonished them to repent of their rash vow, and told them with Epiphanius, 
Epiph. de tradit.  (who is clearly ours as to this) that it is better to have the guilt of one sin, viz. a rash vow, then of many, viz. Continual burn. Calling the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or a fault, to which he enjoins penance, the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or that which will bring damnation.  
2. If the vow of Continence be the first faith here spoken of, then may not any woman or widow make this vow by the Apostles charge, till she be sixty years old, 
Sess. 25. C. 15.  which how is it this day practised in the Romish Church, since the Trent Council admits them at sixteen? Let them then confess, that this Text speaks not of votaries, or else that they sin against the Apostles precept, by warrant of their infallible general Council. For it is evident, the Apostle bids them not admit a Widow under sixty, for fear of her incontinency, and for that reason requires them to refuse those that are younger than so: I confess besides, Bellarm: who is very frivolous, and every where confuted, Estius tells us,  
1. That there is not the same reason for Widows, as for Virgins; For these having not felt the pleasure of due benevolence, are not so much tempted, as Widows; But to this,  
1. It is evident, you admit even Widows, long before this time, yea at any time.  
2. Seeing marriage was ordained for the abating of this fire of lust, sure it will somewhat do so, not more inflame it, and it is unconceivable that women, though thirty or forty, once married, should be more prone to lust, than those of sixteen or eighteen, never Married.  
3. Be it, that there were some difference, yet surely not such as will put Virgins out of danger; especially when the Apostle tells us, 1 Cor. 7. that there may be need, and therefore he will not put a snare upon them.  
2. He tells us, that they had no Cloisters to be immured in then, as there be now, and therefore they were more obnoxious to this failing.  
Answ. By no means, when it must be granted that Church Discipline was more strict then, Christianity more lively, and better practised then now.  
2. Solitariness doth not help this disease, but increase it rather.  
3. That their Cloisters do not abridge them of occasions of lust, appears by their frequent pregnancy, and the above cited Authors; neither ought they to change the Apostles precept, upon such sleight and frivolous grounds. In a word, to conclude, why may not this sense of the words pass for currant? you admit younger Widows into this Office upon their promise of continuing in that estate, when alas they are in danger to wax wanton against Christ by this means, and when they have done so, to marry, which course of yours will bring condemnation upon them. This waxing wanton, being an evident breach of the promise of obedience to the Commands of Christ, which they made at their entrance into Christianity. And whereas he tells us, that his Exposition, (which makes it plead for their vow of Continency) is not contradicted by any of the Ancient Doctors: Bishop Hall will tell him, p. 725. I had thought I had read in Holy Athanasius, woe to you, that make void the first faith of Baptism. I thought that St. Jerom had said in the preface to the Ep. to Titus. They are not worthy of belief, qui primam fidem Baptismi irritam fecerunt, who have made void their first faith in Baptism. Now if a contrary Interpretation be not a contradiction to the sense contended for, I may say as well that the Interpretation of these two Fathers was never contradicted by any of the rest.  
But it is the consent of antiquity in which our Adversary vaunts himself. Sect. 12 And  
1. 
M. C. p. 216.  As for the council of Eliberis, (which if we may believe him, 
Can. 33.  absolutely commanded to Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons', to abstain from their Wives, and not to beget Children) let it be considered, 
Melchior Canus l 5. de locis. c. 4. Binius p. 239. Bellar. l. 2. de. Imag. c 9 Baron. ad An. 56. Hum. 119.   
1. That when the decree of this council is urged by us against Images, they presently deride us, as producing a Council of nineteen Bishops, met in a corner of the world, telling us that it was an erroneous Council, bordering upon Novatianism, and manifestly void, and null, in many things (viz. In those in which it thwarts their superstitions.) Now if these things be true, what advantage can they have from these nineteen Bishops? may not we as lawfully reject them as the Romanist?  
2. The Canon doth not command this abstinence to Bishops and to other sacred Persons absolutely, but only in the time of their ministration, or whilst it is their turn to assist at the Altar, which thing is determined in many counsels, and is not in the least manner contrary to us.  
3. The words of the Council run exactly contrary to what you have given us, even thus, this Council hath thought good (not to command, but) wholly to forbid Bishops, Priests, etc. to abstain from their Wives, and not to beget Children. And so it will be parallel to the Canon of the Nicene Council, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and made in opposition to the condemners of due benevolence in Priests.  
Another Council produced by him is the seventh of Carthage, Sect. 13 (for that which he calls the second was indeed the seventh) which thus he gives us, 
Can. 2.  it was agreed unto by all the Bishops, that Bishops, Priests, Deacons, 
As you may see in Calixtus de con. Cler. p. 286. Mr. C. p. 215.  and such who dispense Sacraments, should be observers of chastity, and abstain even from their own Wives, that so what the Apostles taught, and Antiquity observed, we likewise may keep.  
Answ. Now here again, 
Est quidem alia lectio secundum quam quod unus Fausti●us dixit universis Episcopis tribuitur, sed eam mendosam esse cum resipsa tum Graecus codex evincit. Quomodo enim ab universis dictum est quod mox Universi mutarunt & alitur extulerunt? Calix. ibid.  he is somewhat disingenuous and takes some part of the sentence of Aurelius, and joins it to the proposal of Faustinus. And  
2. Taking advantage of a spurious lection, makes that to be agreed upon by all the Bishops, which was only the proposal of one Faustinus, a legate of the Roman Church, to which the Synod doth not assent.  
I will faithfully transcribe the whole matter, that you may see the truth of what I say. Aurelius then speaks thus, It pleased the Bishops, Priests, and Deacons to be continent in all things (which sure they may be in marriage) as it behoveth Bishops, Priests, and Levites, or those who serve at the Holy Sacraments, that so they may obtain what they ask of God, and that what the Apostle taught, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And again, defraud not one another, except it be with consent for a time, 
1 Tim. 3. 1 Cor. 7.5.  that you may give yourselves to fasting, and prayer:) and Antiquity observed, (in abstaining from those lawful pleasures at such times of fasting and prayer and engagement in Divine Service. 
Vide Can. 3. & 4. ) We also may keep. Thus Aurelius. Next comes Faustinus, and proposeth, that Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and all who handle the Holy Sacraments, should abstain even from their own Wives, to which the Synod answereth only thus. It pleaseth us, that those who wait at the Altar (should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preserve chastity.) And therefore it doth not at all appear that they consented to his proposal, seeing chastity may be preserved in lawful Wedlock, as the Carthaginian Bishops in the third Synod do acknowledge.  
The like prevarication we meet with, Sect. 14 in your citation of the 28. Can. of the Afric. Coun. which in brief runs thus: Aurelius the Bishop said: 
Uxores nisi eustodita pudicitia. duxerint (lectores) legere non sinantur, Can. 19 Vide Calix. edit. Helm. p. 397. See Mr. C. p. 215.  I add, Reverend Brethren, that which hath been confirmed in divers Synods, in their relations (or consultations) about the temperance (not intemperance as Mr. C.) of Clerks with their own Wives, and chief Readers. That Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons, handling the Holy Mysteries in their proper turns of service, (words which our Author thought good to change) should be Continent even from their Wives, and be as if they had them not; which if they do not, etc. Indeed the Canon, as it is in latin, agrees with his interpretation as far as it extends, but that we should rather follow the Greek version, appears from this, that the Canon in its full extent, is not where extant in latin; and now for the sense of it, that it intends the prohibition only in propriis viois suae temporibus appears.  
1. From the very words, which determine and prescribe this Continence, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according (not to former decrees but) to the proper terms of their attendance.  
2. Balsamon upon the Canon tells us, that this was the very mind of the Council, nec prohibuit eis Synodus, cum ipsis consuetudinem nisi in propriis terminis, i. e. in prestitutis uniuscujusque vicis die●us. Yea, the general Council at Trullo, Can. 13. doth evidently declare for this interpretation; their words are these:  
We know that those who met at Carthage, being careful of the holiness of Priests, decreed that Presbyters, Deacons, and Subdeacons, handling the holy Mysteries, should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (the very words of the Greek Canon) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Which words do not only evidence this sense, and tell us that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are proper turns of administration, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but also evidently explain the meaning of that clause in the former Canon (that so what the Apostle taught, and Antiquity observed) to be the very same which I have imitated: from what hath been said, I thus argue; they which limited this abstinence to a certain time, did not intent that it should be perpetual (seeing regula firmat in non exceptis) but thus did these Synods, Ergo.  
Thus have we returned answer to his Synods, Sect. 15 it follows now that we produce our Synods against him:  
And 1. I will begin with the Nicene Council, the History of which we have related by Gelasius Cyzicenus, and in that this passage: It seemed good to some Bishops in the City, to introduce a new law or custom into the Church, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and to define that Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, Subdeacons, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  or any other sacred Persons, ought not to use those Wives, as Companions of their Bed (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which being Laics they had married; these things being thus determined, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Paphnutius rose up and cried with a loud voice, Oh do not make grievous the yoke of Priests! (for Marriage is honourable amongst all, and the bed undefiled) lest by too much exactness (or severity) you rather bring detriment to the Church (than good.) 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  Neither are all sufficient to exercise this Apathy, (thus to restrain their sensual appetite) nor will any I suppose, be kept in chastity, if women should be thus deprived of their husbands, Moreover, I affirm that the affording due benevolence by any man to his lawful wife, is honest chastity; wherefore, her whom God hath joined (or whom any, being yet a Lectorer, or Singer, or Laic hath married) do not you separate. 
Soz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  To which the whole Synod assented, and left every man to his freedom, to abstain, or not. This history we have in Suidas. Verb. Paphn. in Gratian C. Nicaena dist. 31. In M. Aurelius Cassiodorus l. 1. c. 14. Sozom. l. 1. c. 22. Socrat. l. 1. c. 8. Niceph. l. 8. c. 19 Now there is scarce any thing asserted in this chapter, which is not contradicted by the decree of this Nicene Council: doth he tell us, that a matrimonial use of Wives to the formerly married, 
Mr. C. p. 215. Cujusque arbitrio abstinentiam ab uxoris consuetudine permittentes. Soc. Mr. C. Ib. Mr. C. p. 206.  was forbidden? the Story tells us, that it was left free by the Synod, to abstain or not: Will he cite some passages to persuade us 'tis an Apostolical decree? the Story will inform us 'twas an innovation; will he say, that all may contain? Paphnutius tells him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all cannot.  
Fourthly, The reasons which Paphnutius useth, are these;  
1. That this would be a burden too heavy for the Priests to bear. sect. 9  
2. That scarce any Wives thus separated, would be kept Chaste.  
3. That all Priests are not sufficient for such Continence.  
4. That it would tend to the detriment of the Church.  
5. That Marriage was honourable, even in Priests.  
6. That this separation would be a divorcing of them whom God had joined: So that the Romanists, by the practice and allowance of such divorces, must be guilty of all this.  
Fifthly, The Synod assented to all this, saith Socrates, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the whole Synod was persuaded by his words, yea, they applauded his advice, 
Synodus laudavit sententiam ejus.  saith Gratian, and Sozom. and that upon these accounts, thus mentioned (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Gelasius) all which being put together, will yield us sufficient advantage against the Romanists innovation in this matter.  
Well, Sect. 16 but he returns upon us, that Socrates and Sozomen relate, 
Mr. C. p. 214.  that it was consonant to the ancient Tradition of the Church, that those who had entered into Holy Orders before they had Married Wives, should afterwards forbear from Marrying.  
Answ. The Romanist will get but little advantage hence, if it be considered,  
1. That Gratian and Gelasius (who tells us, that he compiled his relation from the very acts of the Nicene Synod then extant, as in his Proem you may see) have no such thing, and that Sozom. and Socrates, from whom this is cited, 
See Cham. de coel. l. 16. c. 10. Bell. l. 1. de Cler. c. 20. Baron. an, 325.  are generally excepted against by our Adversaries in this very matter.  
2. That albeit it were an Ancient custom, yet can it not be proved to have been derived from the Apostles, as is fully evinced by Calixtus de conjugio clericorum.  
3. That they admitted anciently no Presbyter under 30, 
Can. 11. Novel. 123. c. 13. P. 206.  as the Synod at Neocaesarea decreed, or 35 as Justinian; nor a Deacon under 25. now even according to Mr. C. if a man can contain so long, he may very well be supposed, able to contain the residue of his life.  
4. The Ancients thought it somewhat unfit for a Minister to be employed in wooing, and courting Mistresses; this they esteemed a thing below the gravity of a Priest, 
Synod Agath. c. 39  as likewise to interfair with the Marriage Festival, whence they were forbidden to be present there; 
Novel. 3.  this is intimated by Leo the Emperor, in his Novels when he saith, Whereas the Ecclesiastical Orders had constituted, 
Per omnem vitam caelibatum voveant.  that they who were ordained Priests, should promise perpetual Celibacy; if they trusted they should not falsify their promise, or if they thought themselves unable to contain, should first Contract lawful Matrimony, and then take upon them the Ministry: The custom which at present obtaineth is, that they may first be made Priests, and after two years Marry, which because it seems undecent (indecorum) we require that the ancient prescript be observed; for 'tis an unworthy thing, that they who have ascended unto spiritual things, should again slide down to carnal, but contrariwise, they should go from carnal to spiritual.  
5. To add no more, they had their choice when they came to be Ordained, whether they would Marry or not, they had their liberty to Marry before they came to Ordination: Now here is nothing which can well be quarreled with, seeing men may well be supposed sufficiently acquainted with their abilities at thirty, and consequently as they find themselves, may either then Marry, or promise to abstain.  
To this purpose is that of the excellent Bishop Tailor; 
Duc. dub. l. 3. c.  The Primitive Church commonly chose her Priests and Bishops of great age, of known virtue and holiness; they were designed to a public and dangerous employment, for some whole ages, they were under persecution, and the way of the cross was a great delatory to flesh and blood, and therefore they might the rather require it of them, whom in those dispositions they found fit to be taken into an employment, which would require a whole man, all his time, and all his affections; now if we consider that the married Priests were commanded to retain their wives; and the unmarried had been tried to be of a known and experienced Continence, they might with much reason and great advantage, require that they should remain so; that is, they might ask their consent, and trust their promise, for here was liberty and but little danger; the Priests were few, and the unmarried much fewer, and their age commonly such as was past danger, and the public affairs of the Church required it, and the men were willing, and then all was right; and then as for the practice of the Church, he shows that it was the custom of the whole Greek Clergy, to marry after holy Orders, yea, gives examples of it in the Latin Church.  
But now the Canons of the Church of Rome afford no such liberty, but make all vow perpetual Abstinence, or else refuse to admit them to the sacred Ministry; and so reject many thousand persons, for that which is honourable in all, and which is permitted by the Apostle, 
Can. 10.  even to a Bishop; and as for Deacons, the Counsel of Ancyra permits them Marriage after Ordination, if at the time of their Ordination they declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they must Marry being not able to contain, because the Bishop (say they) hath granted them a Licence or dispensation; what other exceptions are made against this Counsel, you may see largely refuted in Chamier, and especially Calixtus, if you do but consult their Indices.  
Our next Synod shall be that of Gangra, Sect. 17 a City of Paphlagonia, 
Ann. 339.  which though it was but a particular Council, yet hath it the authority of a general, for as much as the Canons of it were unanimously approved by the whole Eastern and Western Churches; yea, always received amongst her rules, insomuch that Baronius pronounceth from the words of Pope 
An. 361, Nu. 44.  Symmachus, Canon's Gangrenses Apostolica authoritate conditos esse. This Synod was convened against Eustathius and his disciples, who as Sozomen informs us, 
Lib. 3. c. 13.  were reputed as men accusing Marriage, refusing to pray in the houses of married persons, and despising 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Lib. 2. c. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  married Presbyters. And Socrates saith, that they did decline tanquam scelus, the benediction and Communion, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of a Presbyter having a wife, which whilst a Laic, he had Married (as the custom was, or) according to the law (viz. that those among the Clergy, who would have wives, should procure them before their Ordination) yea, the Synod tells us in the preface, that they despised the married Presbyters, and would not touch the Sacraments administered by them. Now against these Eustathians, the fourth Canon thus decrees: If any one separate himself from a conjugated Presbyter, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as though he ought not to participate of the offering administered by him, let him be Anathema. From whence we gather, that according to the sentence of these Bishops in this Synod, yea, and the whole world embracing their decrees, that a Presbyter ought not to be deposed for being married, or reserving of his wife. Here,  
First, They quarrel at the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if it were to be rendered, who hath had a wife, not who hath at present, but  
1. Balsamon tells us, that the Canon Anathematizeth those, who would not indifferently communicate in the holy things of married persons, that have wives, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and with him Gratian consents; 
Distinc. 28.  and whereas the Synod and Sozomen have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Socrates hath it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; yea, when 'tis said they refused to pray, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is it credible, that they would not pray in the houses of such as had once been married, though afterwards they rejected that estate?  
2. 'Tis evident that the word bears this sense ordinarily, 1 Cor. 7.10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To those that are married, speak not I, but the Lord, let not the woman be separated from her Husband. See Chamier l. 16. the cael. c. 8. Calixtus p. 208.  
Secondly, They tell us that Eustathius and his Disciples thought marriage absolutely evil.  
Answ. What is that to the purpose, seeing it is also evident that the Synod thought the married state consistent with the Priesthood.  
2. We grant they did so, and this is condemned Canon the first, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  If any man condemn Marriage or detest it, and criminate a faithful and religious Woman giving due benevolence to her Husband, as if she could not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, let him be accursed.  
Lastly, Perhaps they will say the Synod determines, that it is lawful for a Presbyter to have a Wife, and not to use her.  
Answ. 1. Can any imagine that the Eustathians could think a Presbyter so defiled by having once married a Wife, when a Layman, though he now rejected her from his bed.  
2. The Synod, and Socrates inform us, that many women upon their persuasions left their Husbands, and being not able to contain, they polluted themselves with Adultery, and this grievance they came to redress, which they do by requiring due benevolence, and surely this being the only case, (according to the ancient Law Paph. speaks of,) in which Priests marriage was permitted, that they professed their inability to contain, or else entered upon that state before they came to Ordination, as finding in themselves a defect of Continence, the Council could not think it unlawful for them to enjoy this remedy of their incontinence.  
A third Synod is that convened in Trullo, Sect. 18 and called Quinisexta, 
Can. 13.  seeing we have heard (say the Fathers) that in the Roman Church it is delivered as a Canon, that whosoever are to be ordained Deacons, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  or Presbyters, should profess that they would not henceforward use their Wives, we following the Ancient Canon of the exact Apostolic constitution, declare our pleasure that the cohabitation of Sacred Persons, according to the Laws be from henceforward firm, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. L. copulam. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lat. Mutua consuetudine.  and established, no way dissolving their conjunction with their Wives, or depriving them of giving due benevolence to each other, at times convenient, and therefore who ever is found worthy of the order of a Sub-Deacon, Deacon, or Priest, let him not be prohibited from this degree, because he cohabits with his lawful Wife, lest by so doing we should be compelled to bring an ignominy upon that Wedlock which God hath instituted, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Mat. 19.6.  the Gospel in the mean time crying out, What God hath joined let no man separate, and the Apostle, Marriage is honourable, and the Bed undefiled: 
Heb. 13.4.  and further, art thou bound to a Wife, seek not to be loosed, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  if any therefore rising up against the Apostles Canons, dares to deprive any Consecrated Presbyter, or Deacon of the commerce of his lawful Wife, let him be deposed; Now here let it be observed:  
I, That in this Synod or rather supplement of the two former Synods, Paul of Constant. Peter of Alexandria, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Praefat. 6. Syn. Totius Synodi Romanae Ecclesiae vicem gerentes  Anastasius. of Jerusalem, George of Antioch, all patriarchs, were present, and the rest of the Bishops out of every Province and Region, as the sub-scription hath it, and as Balsamon tells us he found in the subscriptions, Basilius a Metropolitan of Gortina in Crect, and a certain Bishop of Ravenna were there to represent the Roman Church, and besides as legates of the Pope were present, the Bishops of Thessaly, Sardis, Heraclea and Corinth.  
2. 
Act. 2. quod in s●xtae Synodi divine & legaliter predicatis Canon. etc. Act. 4. & 7.  That albeit Sergius did not acquiesce in his subscription to this Synod, yet did Hadrian the first receive the Synod, and its Canons, and that as rightly and divinely decreed, as you may see in an Epistle of his extant in this second Nicene Council; Yea farther, in this second Nicene Council, the Roman Legates not at all contradicting it, they are cited under the names of the Canons of the Holy Ecumenical sixth Synod.  
3. That this is done in perfect opposition to the Roman Church, and therefore they little dreamed of its infallibility, or any submission due unto it.  
4. That they affirm that this depriving Presbyters, etc. of the use of their Wives, or the Marriage Bed, is a flat contradiction to two aphorisms of the Apostles, a separating what God hath joined, and a casting ignominy upon the Gospel, and consequently, that in the judgement of this Synod, the Roman Church her practice then, and judgement at this present, are justly charged with all this.  
5. That all this is done in compliance with the Apostles Canon, which allows and approves, according to their judgement, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sure is a little more than providing for their Wives, or cohabitation without the use of the Marriage bed, and the words of the Apostolic Canon do infer it; For they do not only say that it is unlawful for a Bishop to put away his wife, but that he must not do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, under a pretence of piety, now how could they under a pretence of piety refuse to provide for their own flesh, 
Apud Grat. causae. 3. q. 2. c. 3.  and therefore Pope Nicholaus himself interprets it of separation from the Bed, for speaking of that matter he saith, nullius religionis pretextu debet conjux dimittere conjugem? And Zonaras upon the Canon tells us, that this casts an obloquy upon marriage, making that impure, 
Extat. C. 8 to. 1. Juris insit. de clericis uxores suas ejicientibus.  which the Scripture entitleth honourable, and the Novel of Alexander Comnenus rejecting the Apostolical Canon adds, this was established by the Gospel, that no man should put away his Wife pro libitu, for this seems to cast a snare upon marriage, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Again,  
6. They acknowledge this constitution of the Apostles, to be a sincere exquisite, and orderly constitution, and ratify this liberty for ever.  
7. They give charge that no man by the cohabitation with his lawful Wife be hindered from ascending to the highest degree of holy orders.  
8. That in the time of their Ordination, it be not so much as required of them to abstain from the lawful accompanying their Wives.  
9 That if any man shall presume so far, as to offer to debar any Priest, Deacon or Sub-Deacon, from the conjunction, or society with his lawful wife, he shall be deposed; or if any Priest, or Deacon, shall voluntarily cast off his wife, upon pretence of Religion, that he shall be suspended, and if he go on, deposed.  
I shall not add the suffrage of other councils, but content myself with the moderation which our Author useth. Sect. 19 We pass now to the consideration of his Fathers. And  
1. He saith enough to render his whole discourse impertinent and ineffectual in that he acknowledgeth the Eastern Priests to have had liberty to marry, 
M. C. p. 214.  (in which confession he yields no more than what Pope Stephen had granted long ago) in telling us the tradition of the Eastern Churches is otherwise then that of the Roman Church, whose Priests, 
Distinct. 31. c. aliter.  Deacons and Subdeacons, are joined in Matrimony.) For hence it followeth, that he can produce no evidence of the Universal practice of the Church of God, and consequently, 
Mr. C. p. 217. Just. vindic.  nothing that lays any obligation upon us, for what he adds of our subjection to the Western Patriarch is exploded and refuted by Bishop Bramhal beyond all possible reply.  
And therefore he did well to allay this liberal concession.  
1. By telling us, that no Canon of either Church, 
Ibid.  can be produced, permitting Priests to contract marriage after Ordination.  
Answ. Now to this I have returned many things already, to which I add, that albeit the Ancient Canons did generally enjoin their Clergy not to Marry after Orders (for before Orders they might) yet this thing did not prevail, but Deacons, Priests, and Bishops, good men and orderly, did after Ordination use their liberty, 
The words of Athanasius to him are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: etc. So that the Bishops did not only marry, but beget children, as is evident from the words, and the opposition included in them, Athan. ep. ad Dracontium. Tripart. hist. l. 6. c. 14.  as they found it necessary or expedient. This is evident from the Epistle of Athanasius to Dracontius, a Monk of Alexandria (who refused to be made a Bishop, because he impertinently thought, it was not so spiritual an estate, as that of Monks; since he saw the Bishop's married men, and full of secular affairs) where he is told that he might be Bishop, and yet retain his asketick course of life he had engaged in; and was informed moreover, that all Bishops did not enter into the married state, nor all Monks abstain; now if none did, such an answer to Dracontius, had been more full, and would not have been omitted. And Cassiodorus gives an instance of Eupsychius, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, that took a wife but a little before his Martyrdom; he was first indeed a Priest, and afterwards a Bishop, and having newly married a wife, was Crowned with Martyrdom: Yea, the gloss upon the 31. distinction tells us, That the Greeks in their ordinations did promise Continence, neither explicitly, nor tacitly; and if that be true, there is no peradventure, but many of them married after their Consecrations: Yea, amongst the Greeks we find, that for almost two hundred years together, after the Synod in Trullo, the Greek Priests had after their Ordination, two years' time for probation, whether they could bear the yoke of single life, and if they could not, they had leave to Marry. Now this being the custom of the whole Greek Church, in which the Bishops, because of the Ordination were engaged; it is evident that it was not illegal, nor irregular, but an approved custom of the Church, though after (upon a very trivial reason) prohibited by an Imperial law.  
2. 
Vide supra. p. 393.  He tells us, That even among the Grecians a co-habitation with their Wives, Sect. 20 was forbidden to their Priests, who attended at the Altar. 
Ibid.   
Answ. True, even as it is thought to have been to the married Priests and Levites under the Old Testament, in their weekly courses; but how impertinent is this to the continual Celibacy of the Roman Clergy?  
3. Therefore he recollects himself, and adds, that even in many of the Eastern Churches, a greater strictness was observed, 
Mr. C. p. 216. Lib. count. Vigil.  which  
1. He evidenceth from the testimony of St. Jerome to Vigilantius, which speaks thus; If none but married Deacons must be admitted Priests, no Clerks, but such whose Wives are pregnant, what shall the Churches of the East do? (who admit so many to Ordination that are unmarried) what shall the Churches of Egypt do, and of the See Apostolic? all which receive Clerks, either such as are Virgins or Continent, or if they have wives, cease to be husbands to them (not refusing them upon any of these accounts.)  
Answ. These words thus explicated by me, need no further Answer.  
2. As for the Eastern Church, that they did many of them, oppose this Celibacy, which the Papists intrude upon their Clergy, is sufficiently evident (as from the Counsels of Gangra and Nice, the testimony of Pope Stephen, and others; 
l. 5. c. 22.  so also) from Socrates, who tells us, that (albeit this custom obtained in Thessaly, Thessalonica, Macedonia, and helas in Achaia, and that introduced by Theodorus a Priest of Triva yet) all the famous Priests throughout the Eastern parts of the world, and the Bishops also, refrained the company of their wives at their own choice, without law or compulsion, for many of them notwithstanding their Bishoprics, did beget children also on their lawful Wives. So that either St. Jerom must be understood as my parenthesis doth explicate him, or at the furthest, of those few Eastern Churches mentioned by Socrates.  
2. What he saith of Egypt must not be taken generally, as is evidenced from the instance of Dracontius, the Alexandrian Monk, for why should Athanasius tell him, that some Bishops did not beget children (though others did) if throughout all Egypt it had been unlawful for a Bishop to have had a wife, or beget children, in that condition? For that he is so to be understood is evident, because he tells him how he might live in the condition of a Bishop, nor did it concern Dracontius at all, what lives the Bishops lead before their instalments, but what they used to be when they ascended the Episcopal Chair.  
3. Why doth St. Jerom, though dealing with one by Nation a Spaniard, and inhabiting in France, fly to Egypt, and the East, but that he knew there was no such matter observed in Spain, France, and other places of the Western Church? St. Jerom is so far from showing that this severity obtained in the East, that he rather evidenceth by this, that it obtained not generally in the West (but only in the Roman Dioceses, or the Suburbicarian Churches.)  
The second place produced from St. Jerom runs thus, 
Epist. ad Pammachium.  All Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and the whole Sacerdotal and Levitical Chore, know they cannot offer sacrifice, if they use the Act of Marriage.  
Answ. True, if they use it at the time of Sacrificing, or when their turn of attendance upon the Altar comes. or,  
2. This must be understood only of the Clergy of the Church of Rome, of which he was a member, as also Pammachius to whom he writeth, in this Apology, or else there can be nothing of truth in it, 
Mr. C. p. 214.  it being so evident (that our Author is even forced to grant it) that the Eastern Bishops did generally allow themselves a liberty in this.  
Next you produce the empty name of Origen (to whom you have a sufficient answer in Calixtus) and tell us, 
M. C. P. 159. 160.  that Eusebius saith somewhat which you durst not produce, 
P. 227. 228, 229. To. 3. l. 17. c. 9 sect. 11.12, 13, 14, 15. Haer. 59  because haply you knew that it was evidently impertinent as you might have seen in Calixtus and Chamier.  
Epiphanius you introduce to inform us, that a Bishop, Priest, Deacon, Sub-Deacon, that is the husband of one Wife, and begets children is not admitted in the Church, Sect. 21 especially where the Canons were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, very exact and severe, (which was not in many places) than he objects that in some places, the Presbyters, Deacons, and Subdeacons, beget children.  
To which he answers: 
Ibid.  that this is against the Canon, (viz. the exact Canon he before spoke of) and to be imputed to the minds of men so quickly languishing.  
2. Haply he speaks only of the Church of Cyprus, and Salamis, where he was Bishop, or some parts adjacent; For what shall we think of the Canons of the Nicene Council, and of Gangra, were they not sufficiently exact?  
From the Western Church he produceth only the testimony of two Fathers. Sect. 22  
The first is, 
l. 1. de officiis. c. ult.  St. Ambrose, whose testimony makes the Marriage of Priests, impure, corrupt, a stain, and violation of marriage, which Mr. C. dares not approve of.  
2. He tells us that (not in certain, as Mr. C. but) in most places, more obscure (than Mediolanum) the Priests did beget children. 
Ep. 82. Non quo excludat ex sortem conj●gii sed ut conjugali eastimonia servet ablationis suae gratiam. Lib. de adult. conjug. c. 20. Bishop Taylor. duc. dub. l. 3. c. 4. p. 348.   
3. The same Ambross elsewhere tells us, that the Apostle when he commands, (viz. the Bishop, to be the Husband of one wife, doth it not to exclude the unmarried, but that he (viz. who had not the gift of Continence, but lay under the danger of fornication) should keep the grace of his Baptism by using this remedy of Wedlock.  
The second Father is, St. Austin, who saith only this, that the continence of those Clerks who were snatched as it were into the ministry, and violently compelled against their will (as it was with Austin himself, with Pinianus, ordained against his will, and the tears of his Wife, with Panlinianus whose mouth was stopped that he might not deny it) was proposed by him, as an example to others; and they are said to be taken, ad eam sarcinam subeundam, because they were hastened to the Ministry before ordination, and after that time the Church permitted them not the use of marriage. But yet here is nothing of an Ecclesiastical Law, much less a Divine, but only an irregular action which, (as matters then stood) laid a necessity upon persons thus abused to be single. Nor can it be imagined that such men ever made a vow of single life, as the Popish Priests do, or that these were fitting circumstances for a vow.  
Thus have we gone over the Fathers produced by him, Sect. 23 as clearly as the matter will well bear; I shall be very sparing in confronting Fathers to him, referring you for the triumphant evidence of Antiquity, to Calixtus, Chamier, and Bishop Hall.  
1. Then, Dionysius Bishop of Corinth writing to Pinytus Bishop of Gnossus (who as it seems, would have brought his Clergy into this snare) exhorts him, 
Euseb. l. 4. c. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  That he would not put this heavy Yoke of Continence (this burdensome purity) upon his Brethren, but would have respect to the infirmity of many: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Const. Apost. l. 6. c. 17. Si male intelligatur non solum libidinem sacerdotum Graecorum defendat, sed Latinis quoque ad petendam quod concedi non potest aditum praeparet & muniat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Athenug. apol. ad Anton. Philos.  Had there been any Apostolical sanction, or Ecclesiastical constitution in this case, how durst Dionysius have dissuaded the exercise of it? or called it a grievous Yoke, not to be imposed on the Brethren? why doth he speak particularly to Pinytus? yea, why doth not Pinytus in his Answer mind him of it, and defend himself with it? but only tell him, that they should not perpetually be fed with milk, but at last come to more solid meat.  
2. The Author of the Apostolic constitutions (vulgarly attributed to St. Clemens) tells us, that Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, if at Ordination they be married, must not be joined to others, but content themselves with her, whom at their Ordination they enjoyed: words very pregnant and emphatical (which Turrianus himself acknowledgeth) and therefore contends for another Lection, (viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) in which he is sufficiently confuted by Chamier, to. 3. l. 16. c. 7. sect. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.  
3. When Athenagoras and Justin Martyr (to whom you may add Irenaeus, Tatianus, Theophilus, Antiochenus) come to answer what was objected against the Christians, concerning Promiscuous Mixtures, they tell them among other things, that they are so far from such uncleanness, that there might be found amongst them many, 
Ante medium  both Men and Women, that were unmarried, even to old age; (the like hath Justine, in his Apology to Antonius Pius.)  
4. 
Lib. 7.  Consonant to this, is that of Origen against Celsus, who tells him, That amongst the Christians, there were men, which needed not Hemlock, as the Athenian Pontifex, to keep them Chaste, but the Word of God was sufficient for them.  
Now had there been any sanction of the Apostles, any custom of the Church, which enjoined this Celibacy to the Clergy, could it be imagined that this (amongst other things) should not have been mentioned by any of these Champions of the Christians? But that their apologies should run so generally as they do in the places mentioned. Can it reasonably be thought that Origen would have said so crudely there wants not men amongst us, if he could have instanced in the Clergy, would he not rather have opposed our pontifices to theirs?  
5. That Tertullian was married, his books written to his Wife do sufficiently assure us, that he did not separate from his wife, is evident, from the seventh Chapter of his first Book, 
quare facultatemcontinentiae, etc.  where speaking of Continence, he saith, quod in matrimonio non valemus inviduitate sectemur, that which our matrimonial condition will not bear (viz. the former abstinence) in Widowhood let us follow after, embracing the occasion which hath took away what necessity (viz. that of the married state) required. 
C. 3. delendis conjunctionibus, etc.  Yea, in the same Book he saith, Christ came not to separate marriages or to disjoin those that were made one, and chap. the first he exhorts her that after his decease with as much Continence as she could, she would renounce marriage. But if in respect of humane infirmity she could not, that she would marry to a Christian, not an Heathen. Would he have writ thus to her, if she had already abstained from the embraces of her Husband from the time of his Ordination? and already promised perpetual Continency?  
6. How many married Bishops, Priests, Deacons, do we meet with in the Primitive Church? Sect. 24 See them in Chamier and Calixtus reckoned up according to the Centuries they lived in. 
To 3. lib. 16. c. 13.  Now as to the answer usually given, that these abstained from their wives, it is very improbable, if it be considered.  
1. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ante medium. propter quod conjugia copul●nda sunt de Hares C. 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Paeda g. l. 2. ab initio.  That they tell us procreation of children is the very end of Marriage, Justin Martyr ubi supra, we (saith he) do not marry at all but to get children, St. Austin. Without doubt they condemn marriage and as much as in them lies forbid it, when they forbidden to beget children to which end the Marriage knot is to be tied. And Clemens Alexandrinus the aim of the married parties is the procreation of Children.  
2. That the marriage of the Clergy was required to be before Ordination, only upon this ground, that the person professed he either could, or would not Contain, and it is strange that they who married upon these accounts should not use the remedy which they thought necessary.  
3. That they who were Orthodox, esteemed marriage honourable in all, and the bed undefiled by this act, as we shall see hereafter. And  
4. That it is recorded of some of them that after their Ordination they did not abstain, 
Car. de ejus vita.  as Gregorius Nazianzenus tells us, that he had not lived so many years as his Father had spent in the Priesthood.  
To these testimonies we add the suffrage of Scripture by them interpreted. Sect. 25  
1. The Scripture tells us that St. Peter and St. 
Mrt. 8.14. Marck 1.30. Luke 8.18. 1 Cor. 9.5.  Philip with others of the Apostles were married; Now here it is answered, they begot no children, no young Apostles: Rep. Clem. Alex. tells us they did. It is again answered, that however after their Apostleship they ceased to do so. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Stro. 7.   
1. Who told them so?  
2. It is evident they might have done it by their own rules, seeing the marriage bed hath nothing of defilement in it, we never read of their divorce, nor it is permitted by our Saviour, but in case of Adultery, due benevolence is commanded to be given, and the withholding of it is styled fraud, and therefore undoubtedly had it been required they would have given it.  
2. We produce the Apostles testimony, Sect. 26 let a Bishop be blameless, the husband of one Wife, so that a Bishop may have one wife and yet be blameless, 
1 Tim. 3.2.  nor is the having of one wife sufficient to hinder a man from ascending the Episcopal chair, but the having two. Now here some give this answer, The Apostle saith, a Bishop may be ordained, not who is, but qui fuerit, who hath been the Husband of one wife; To which we reply.  
1. That Dominicus a Soto, a great stickler for Celibacy, sufficiently confutes this answer, 
L. 7. the just. & jure qu. 6. Art. 2. con. 1.  thus. It doth not sufficiently elude this place to say the Apostle speaks of such as have been married, but now are separated from their Wives, for St. Paul's Text manifestly shows, that he speaks of those that remained in the state of marriage, for as much as unius uxoris vir, is the same with uxorem habens, and also because the Apostle requires amongst other virtues of the Bishop, that he look well to his house, etc.  
2. The very text is contradictory to this sense, for the words in Timothy runs thus, 
1 Ep. c. 3. v. 2.  It behoveth a Bishop to be blameless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:) and the Epistle to Titus, ordaining in every City Presbyters, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
3. He that had a Wife, but now hath her not, is not any longer, unius uxoris vir, but nullius, and therefore a Widower, for these relata mutuo se ponunt & tollunt.  
2. Others answer that he permits them to have a Wife, but yet they must cease from the use of wedlock.  
Answ. Neither can this exposition hold good; for in the Apostles times it was a thing unknown, that a man should have a wife, and yet no power to make use of her, which all husbands from the Creation to those days had; seeing therefore he reiterates the phrase, it is manifest he understands it in the common sense: yea,  
2. It is contrary to the Apostles rule, of not defrauding each other; contrary to justice, for the wife hath power over the husband's body, contrary to the Apostles decree, touching widows, that they should be permitted to marry, and get children; Now the widows of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, could not do so without adultery by the Papists own tenant, of the indissolubility of the knot of Matrimony.  
3. 
ad Oceanum in multis uxoribus liberos sparge●e.  The Fathers here are for us, St. Jerom. Ep. 83. the patriarchs and Priests, under the old Testament had liberty to have many wives. The Apostle therefore Commands that the same liberty be not taken by the Priests of the Gospel, 
Bina & trina pariter conjugia, sed ut singulas uno tempore uxores habeant. Uxores habcant.  to have two or three wives together, but will have them to be content with one. Where note two things.  
1. That Sacerdotes, Bishops, Presbyters, etc. (For he is interpretting this place of Timothy which speaks of them) may have wives, which opposeth the first interpretation.  
2 That uxores habere, and in uxoribus liberos spargere, is the same, with St. Jerom, and therefore this also is granted by him to priests, to beget Children. 
Ibid.  And in the case of Carterius, Bishop of Spain, who had married one wife before Baptism, and the other post lavacrum, the former being dead, do you think (saith he) that he contradicted the Rule of the Apostle, let a Bishop be the Husband of one Wife? No saith he, 
omnis mandus his ordinationibus plenus est.  the whole world is full of such ordinations, not only of Presbyters, but Bishops, whom if I should reckon up, they would exceed the number of Bishops convened at Ariminum, that is 400. But why did Bishop Carterius, desire a wife? St. 
Ibid.  Jerom will tell you (ille in uxore optavit liberos) he did it that he might have Children by her; Yea he adds, that it is written to him, Marriage is honourable, and the bed undefiled: And was this written unto him only? Not to other Bishops, and innumerable Presbyters? Did he only in uxore optare liberos, and none of the residue of the Prelates or Presbyters?  
Clemens Alexand. 
Stromat l. 3. p. 521.  saith the Apostle permits that either Presbyters, (under which name he includes the Bishop) or Deacons should be the husband of one wife, utens matrimonio citra reprehensionem. Chrysostom tells us, 
in Tim. Hom. 10  that he doth not necessitate a Bishop to have a wife; sed ejus rei modum constituit, he gives bounds to him, (viz. permitting but one wife at a time) for the Jews were permitted Digamy, and Hom. 2. upon Tit. he saith this to stop the mouths of Heretics, who did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, showing that it is so honourable, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with it the Episcopal chair may be ascended. Now let any man judge, whether according to common speech, 
p. 327 Ed. Helm. 1631.  he doth it cum Conjugio, who separates from his wife, Quid enim est Conjugium (ut bene Calixtus) nisi maris & faeminae societas cum reciprocâ potestate unius in corpus alterius, eâque indissolubili, vitandae fornicationis & generandae sobolis ergo? Jam si Episcopatus imponat necessitatem abdicandi a se istam potestatem, & seperandi uxorem, quommodo vere diceretur in conjugio positus cum suo Conjugio Episcopalem Thronum ascendere? quomodo, inquam, verè diceretur Episcopatus cum conjugio non pugnare? Si qui Episcopus factus sit, generare prohibeatur, propter quod conjugia (ut Augustinus loquitur) copulanda sunt; 
De Haeres. c. 6.  And Theodoret (to omit Ambrose, Austin, Theophilact, Hugo, Clemens Rom. Leo, etc. approves of the interpretation of those that say, whereas the Jews and Greeks were permitted to be joined in Matrimony with more wives than one, the Ministers of the Gospel should have only one, but yet he admits their interpretation, 
Si urgens natura, ut secundae conjungatur, coegerit.  who permit a second marriage after the death of the first, if the infirmity of humane nature doth require a second; evidently supposing that nature might compel some to make use even of a second wife.  
Again the Scripture saith that marriage is honourable in all, Sect. 27 and the bed undefiled, now this Paphnutius, the council in Trullo, 
Heb. 13.4.  and St. Jerom extend to Priests, and therefore understand it of all persons not things, and the Argument of the Apostle pleads for the same sense, as telling us that God hath provided a remedy for incontinence, honourable in all, and free from defilement, and therefore if this remedy be neglected, and men commit fornication, he will severely animadvert upon such offenders; For as Chrysost. and Oecum. have it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If marriage be granted, fornication is justly punished.  
Again from Matthew 19.12. Sect. 28 our Divines thus argue, that which they only are sufficient for, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that all men are not sufficient for, but abstinence from marriage is that which they only are sufficient for, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to whom it is given, the sequel of the major is evident from this, that they to whom it is given are opposed to all, and therefore are not all; and the sense I give of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are not sufficient for this, I have not only from the Syriach and Grotius, but indeed from our Saviour, who hereupon adds, he that can receive it, let him receive it, as if he should have said I acknowledge that all are not sufficient for this matter, and therefore I permit them to their liberty, he that finds himself sufficient, let him do it, he that is otherwise, let him forbear. You will reply, the text faith not, all men cannot receive this saying, or all men cannot be sufficient for this, but all men are not: To this I reply, the Text gives the reason, because it is not given to all of God; now no man can contain unless it be given. But you will again return, would they use the means, it might be given.  
Ans. 1. Then our Saviour's Argument would not be good, for the Apostles Aphorism is consultius esset non nubere, no saith our Saviour, because all cannot contain, as not having the gift of continence, and might not the Apostles have replied that this was nothing to the purpose, seeing they might purchase it if they pleased.  
2. The Apostle tells us, 1 Cor. 7.7. that this is a proper gift, vouchsafed therefore only to some, even as the gift of tongues, of healing diseases, etc.  
3. Our Saviour saith, he that can receive it let him receive it, and therefore he evidently shows, that there are some who cannot.  
The Fathers here consent, St. Hilary tells us, 
C. 19 in Math.  that Christ makes nature in one, necessity in another, and the will in a third, to be the cause of this abstinence; 
Cont. Montanistas, Har. 48.  now to the last (saith he) we are admonished to be like, si tamen possimus if we be able, which includes a supposition that some cannot be so. Epiphan We exhort him that can, 
Et Apostolus in suadendo non trepidaret l. 1. cont. Jovin. id. in C. 19 Mat.  but impose no necessity upon him that cannot. St. Jerom, if all could be Virgins, our Lord would not have said, he that can receive it, let him receive it, nor would the Apostle have been so nice in his persuading it. And again Christ saith this; that every one may consider his strength, whether he be able to satisfy this command of Virginity, and Chastity, for our abilities ought to be considered, that so he that can receive it, may. St. Austin, 
Lib. 1. de nupt. & concup. ad voler. C. 16. id. ad Pollent. In cap. 20 Leviticus Pt 3. cur. past. C. 30.  this virtue of such excellent Continence, he that can receive, let him receive it. And again the Apostle counsels Celibacy to him that can receive it. Hesyc. we do not require any thing beyond men's power, but only what is possible, viz. virginity of him to whom it is possble. And Gregory, He that is truth itself, saith all cannot receive this Word. And again, the Pastors that are single are to be admonished that if they cannot withstand the storms of temptation without difficulty of Shipwreck, they betake themselves to the Haven of Wedlock. To these you may add Ignat. Ep. 8. ad Smyrnenses. Cyril. L. 1. Ep. 11. Si perseverare nolunt aut non possunt nubant. Lactan. L. 6. Inst. C. 23. Chrysost. L. de Virg. & Homil. 19 in 1 Cor. Bernard in Serm. de convers. ad Cler. C. 29. & Amrbose cited in Jure Canon. C. Integritas 32. qu. 2. yea Bell armine himself C. 34. resp. ad 19   

CHAP. XVIII.  
Schism is an unnecessary separation, sect. 1. Our separation necessary, by reason. (1) Of many things unjustly required to be believed. (2) To be practised by us, sect. 2, 3. That supposing, these doctrines to be innovations we are bound to separate, sect. 4. The result of Mr. C ' s. positions, ibid. His pretensions to make his assertion reasonable, considered, sect. 5, 6, 7. The Church of Rome Schismatical, sect. 8. The Arguments to the contrary answered, sect. 9, 10, 11.  
WE are at length arrived at our last, Sect. 1 and largest task, to wipe off that odious name of Schism which he most irrationally casts upon us.  
Now in this business Mr. C. as he is more voluminous, so is he more weak, and more confused. And therefore I will not follow him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but draw up some thesis, or propositions, and confront them to his assertions, and then return an answer to his arguments.  
1. 
1. Proposition.  Therefore Schism is an unnecessary separation: that it is a separation, Sect. 2 the very import of the word assures us, that it is an unnecessary one, appears, because nothing can be sinful which is necessary, with a necessity not introduced upon myself, through my own default, and consequently where cause of Schism is necessary, there not he that separates, but he that is the cause of separation is the Schismatic, for schism there cannot be, in leaving the communion of any Church, 
Chilling p. 17.  unless we were obliged to continue in it, man cannot be obliged by man, but to what either formally, or virtually, he is obliged by God, for all just power is from God; God the eternal truth, neither can, nor will oblige us to believe any the least, or the most innocent falsehood to be a Divine Truth, that is to err; nor to profess a known error, which is to lie. So that seeing you require the belief of errors among the conditions of your Communion, our Obligation, to communicate with you ceaseth, (yea we are obliged not to communicate with you upon these terms, (which are evidently sinful) and so the imputation of schism to us vanisheth to nothing, but it falls heavy upon your own heads, for making our separation from you just and necessary, by requiring unnecessary and unlawful conditions of your communion.) Thus being not content with Christ the Mediator of mankind, you require us to hold the Saints departed to be our Mediators, besides the head Christ Jesus, you require us to believe the Pope to be the head and Husband of the universal Church, by Divine right; besides the Sacrifice of the Cross, you force upon us that of the Altar, as a true and proper Sacrifice; besides the blood of Christ, you command us to expect our cleansing from the sufferings of Martyrs; besides the torments of Hell which are threatened to the wicked, you require us to assert Purgatorian torments, to be inflicted on the faithful. Besides the Worship of the great God, you require us to adore, and that with the worship due and proper unto him, the holy Sacraments; besides the holy Scriptures, you require us to receive with equal authority certain Books Apocryphal, and Traditions like unto them, with the same faith we give to these Holy Scriptures, the veneration of Images, the transubstantiation of the elements into the body and blood of Christ, you require us to believe.  
The Church's power in mutilating the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, in enjoining the celebration of public service in a tongue unknown, in imposing perpetual Celibacy upon such as take upon them holy orders, you require us to acknowledge. These things you have established in your counsels, and thundered your Anathemaes against all those that will not yield their assent unto them, so that without the belief of these things it is impossible for us to keep in the communion of your Church: nay, the denial of any of these Articles, excludes us (at least in your esteem) not only from the Roman, but the Church of God, and makes it unlawful for you to communicate with us; the confessions of these things, you exact from us with the greatest rigour, and that as the true Catholic faith, 
Bulla pii quarti extra quam ne●o salvus esse potest.  without believing of which, there is no salvation to any man; continually proclaiming, that you esteem them Heretics, enemies of Christ, and worse than Infidels, that reject these opinions, or any of them; nay (which is worst of all) in making of these and such like decrees, you give out that you are infallible: So that to question any one of them, is ipso facto, to thrust ourselves out of your Communion; sigh therefore you require the belief of these untruths, as necessary conditions of communion, you evidently free us from the guilt of Schism, in refusing to communicate with you upon such terms.  
Again we confidently assert, Sect. 3 there can be no necessity of communicating with others in wicked actions; nay, there is a necessity of separation, when the performance of them is required; a necessity of getting out of Babylon, when we cannot stay there, 
Rev. 18.4.  but we must be partakers of her sins. And evidently to practise, what I esteem and look upon as forbidden by God, is to be guilty of damned hypocrisy, and wilful disobedience against him; seeing therefore the Church of Rome requireth of us the practice of such unlawful actions, as the Adoration of the Sacrament, which is Idolatry, the Invocation of Saints, Veneration of Images, petitions for deliverance of Souls from Purgatory, which are superstitions, yea, and enjoins her Ministers a vow of Celibacy, which is a snare, the Celebration of the Sacrament in one kind, which is open Sacrilege; the reading of Divine Service in an unknown tongue, which bids continual defiance to the Apostle; there is a necessity of our separation from her, and consequently our departure cannot be Schismatical.  
This being so, Sect. 4 how inconsiderate is that of Mr. C. though it were far more probable that the Catholic Church, 
Mr. C. p. 232.  had been guilty of Innovation, in all the points mentioned by the Dr. yet since by the Protestants confession, those points are not fundamental, their voluntary separating themselves from her communion, will be in Gods esteem very Schism. For seeing his Church requires the profession of these Innovations which the Dr. mentioned, as the truths of Christ, and the practice of such of them, as are unlawful and contradictory to the word of God, as the Dr. every where asserts; he apparently affirms, that albeit it be required of us to believe what we count an error (which is impossible) to assert, an Innovation to be the truth of Christ, which is to lie; to practise what we deem unlawful and forbidden by God, which is to live continually in Hypocrisy, and disobedience to the revealed will of God, yet cannot these conditions be refused, but we must incur the guilt of Schism. And seeing God strictly requires us to avoid this guilt, he must consequently enjoin us to lie, to live in continual Hypocrisy, and disobedience to his will, (as being necessary to this end) albeit he hath every where denounced damnation upon persons guilty of these crimes, which is horribly blasphemous. And yet this is the evident result of two other passages of his Book; As  
1. Where he saith, 
Mr. C. p. 259.  that albeit the Sanhedrim should command any thing (not fundamental) contrary to the sense of the Law, the Jews were under the utmost penalty, obliged to obey them; which obedience required a submission of judgement, and internal assent to such commands, that they are agreeable to God's law, because it would be utterly unlawful to obey any commands of men, which the subject believed to be contrary to God's law. Ans. And sure it may be reasonably thought, that amongst so many thousands of learned Rabbis, which the Jewish Nation did afford, some might believe that to be contrary to God's law, which indeed was so; and then poor creatures, they must be obliged upon the utmost penalty, to an impossibility, viz. of yielding internal assent to that, as agreeable to God's law, which they believed to be contrary thereunto; is it not wonderful, that the decision of seventy persons, contrary to God's law (to the belief of which all Jury was obliged) should not only disannul the obligation of seven hundred thousand (of giving credit to that law) but force them upon the utmost penalty, to believe the contrary? that he who pronounceth such a woe upon those, who say, 
Ezek. 13.  the Lord saith, when he hath not said it, should yet enjoin his people upon the penalty of the greatest woe, to say so too? That he who sends them to the Law, and to the testimonies, telling them, that those who speak contrary unto them, have no truth in them; should yet oblige the same persons, upon the utmost penalty, to embrace decisions contrary to these laws and testimonies, as the truths of God. Credat Judaeus Apella.  
Now the reasonableness of this command of God appears (saith he) in this, Sect. 5 
Ibid.  that it was a less evil and inconvenience, that some legal precepts of no great importance should be transgressed, than that contentions and disputes should be endless.  
Answ. God doth not esteem so lightly of his precepts as Mr. C. but hath severely animadverted upon those who violated them in smaller matters, as his breach upon Uzzah, and the sons of Aaron doth evince.  
2. How unwarrantable is it, to plead an inconvenience against a Precept? (for whereas he talks of a command, we shall consider that pretence hereafter) might not the greatest Rebels (who pretend Religion for their Rebellion) plead with parity of reason, 'tis a less evil and inconvenience, that some petty precepts of subjection to Governors, should be transgressed, than that Religion should be hazarded? But,  
3. What is this, but tacitly to suppose that to obey God in every thing, and to keep close to his precepts, were the way to make contentions endless? or that if the disobeying of any of God's precepts, might conduce to the ending of contentions, we might do so, in pursuit of such an end. And is not this apparently to do evil, that good may come on it; to say that God hath need of our lie and disobedience, to preserve the unity of his Church?  
The like we have pag. Sect. 6 206. sect. 14. where he tells us, that albeit (upon supposition of the Church's fallibility in non fundamentals) she should err in such decisions (which he is pleased to call, not much concerning) and by consequence, our assent would be erroneous, yet that small incommodity would be abundantly recompensed, with the most acceptable virtue of obedience, love of peace and unity, which accompanies it.  
Answ. Let him not talk of obedience, till he can show a precept, something from God, which obligeth us to believe an error, or to tell a lie, when their Church commands us. To disobey God, and play the Hypocrites, that we may perform obedience to her injunctions; to deny his truths out of humility, and to purchase peace and unity by these means.  
2. Seeing fundamentals (that is doctrines, 
See Mr. C. c. 19 sect. 6.  without an explicit belief, whereof none can be saved, are very few) doth not this lay us open to a necessity of dis-beleeving the greatest part of the Word of God, yea, of assenting to what is contrary to it, if the Church of Rome shall happen to make such decisions; and is this agreeable to God's frequent injunctions, to try all things, and hold fast the truth?  
And whereas he further tells us, Sect. 7 that both truth and error in such things, lies only on the Churches, 
Ibid.  and not at all on their account. This cannot be built upon any other foundation than this, that we are obliged to follow the dictates of the Church (of Rome, or else it is impertinent to our discourse of Schism) though contrary (in our judgements) to reason, and the Word of God, which is the very thing in question.  
2. If this be truth, why doth Christ call us out of Babylon? least we should be partakers of her sin, and consequently from any other assembly, with which we cannot communicate without sin; seeing their sins, whether they be erroneous practices, or opinions, lie only on their account, not ours.  
Seeing therefore it is evidenced, 
2 Proposition.  that we are free from the guilt of Schism, it follows undeniably, Sect. 8 that the Church of Rome must be the Schismatic, as sus-spending her Communion upon conditions unlawful and unjust; and this I could sufficiently evince from many other topics, but that I am unwilling to be burdensome to the Readers patience, whom therefore I refer to the reverend Bishop Bramhal, 
Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon, c. 8.  and proceed to the consideration of those Arguments, which he useth to defend their Church from so great a guilt.  
1. Therefore saith he, if our Church was Schismatical, Sect. 9 either it was so before the reformation, 
Mr. C. p. 395.  or it began afterwards so to be.  
Answ. It was so before, and afterwards it began to aggravate its Schism; it was so before causally, as doing that which gave sufficient cause for her members to separate, it was so afterwards, both causally and formally; but he proceeds, 
Ibid.  ' If it was so before, where was the Church from which we separated?  
Answ. 1. The Greek and other Churches of the East.  
2. 
Bishop Bramhal Rep. p. 342.  You have departed from the pure and uncorrupted Church of Rome by introducing errors, corruptions, and abuses into it, and this is a moral departure from a Church, and truly schism.  
3. You have departed from the Catholic Church, and this you have done by separating from you by your Censures, three of four parts of the Christian World, as Catholic, yea, more Catholic then yourselves.  
Lastly, you separated from the purer part of your own Church, which then as to the main was Orthodox. Again, might not the Arrians have argued thus, 
See Dr. Fields Appen. to his third part.  where is that Church from which we separate? Are not all the famous Churches of the world of our communion? will you say God's Church hath failed? or will you call a few inconsiderable people in Dens, Caves, Woods, and Deserts, the Church of God? might not the Idolatrous Priests of Judah, have argued after this very manner? might they not have asked Elijah with greater confidence, where was the Church from which they separated?  
Again, 
Ibid.  (saith he) If we become Schismatical after their separation, than (because the Professors in this, nothing vary from the former Age) may the Church, remaining the same without any alteration at all, be the true Church of Christ to day, and the Synagogue of Satan to morrow?  
Answ. 1. It is not every Schism that turns the Church of Christ into a Synagogue of Satan, but only a Schism in fundamentals, as we shall presently evince.  
2. Your Church was Schismatical before, though not in such an high degree as after the Trent Council she hath been, for before that time she required unlawful conditions of her Communion, denounced Anathemaes against those that refused to obey them, and the like, but after the session of the Trent Council, her unlawful conditions of communion have been more augmented.  
Again (saith he) no particular Church which is a member of the Catholic Church, but hath a power to Excommunicate those that desert her Communion, transgress her Laws.  
Answ. What, whether her Laws be just or unjust? Had the Eastern Church a power to excommunicate the Western, because transgressing her Laws and deserting her Communion, about the celebration of the Easter Festival? Had the Churches of Asia, a power to Excommunicate Pope Stephanus and others of the Western Church, who deserted their Communion by reason of a difference touching the Rebaptisation of persons Baptised by Heretics? Hath not this been continually the custom of the Church of God, yea even of Rome itself, when any persons excommunicated by other Churches were found Orthodox, to receive them into their Communion? of which examples have been given above, and hundreds more might be produced.  
Well then in a word, the Church of Rome hath a power to excommunicate those who desert her, and transgress her Laws, even as the Magistrate hath a power to inflict a mulct or penalty, upon such as transgress his laws and sanctions; but then, as the exertion of this power upon persons innocent, or in prosecution of Laws which are manifestly unjust, is a transgression of the bounds and limits of this power, and criminal in the person that thus exerts it, even so the excommunication used by the Church of Rome upon other Churches, who are necessitated by the law of God to forsake her communion, and only transgress her laws, when inconsistent with the observance of the laws of Christ, is a transgression of the bounds and limits of her power, and criminal, not in him that separates (but in them that make this separation) he being bound to obey God rather than man, so that 'tis impossible for you to justify your Excommunications, unless you can justify your laws and tyrannical exactions, upon the consciences of men.  
The second sect. of his twenty fourth chap. Sect. 10 is spent in telling us, that once we were Papists, and now are Protestants, with the addition of some untruths, to make the discourse more plausible. The visible communion (saith he) betwixt the now English Church, and all other in being before it beyond the Seas, is evidently changed and broken.  
Answ. This is as true, as that the Church of Italy hath no visible communion with Spain and France; do not we communicate with them in their services when we have occasion? and do not they mutually communicate with us? do we not proclaim ourselves their Brethren? did we ever renounce their communion? or were we ever rejected by them? do they differ in some opinions from us? so do the Italian and French Catholic Churches: But he goes on, The same public service which our first reformers found in God's Churches, all the world over, they refuse (saith he) to join in, for fear of sin.  
Answ. As if the whole world at the time of our reformation had used the same Liturgy, the public service of the Grecians, and other Eastern Churches, had fully accorded with the service of the Western, or could be different from it, and yet the same; and yet had this been so, must we be necessarily Schismatics in so doing? would King Josiah. or Hezekiah, have joined in the services of those Idol Priests, which at the time of their reformation were observed? could they have sacrificed in the high places without sin, or were they Schismatics for refusing to join with their corruptions? when Arrianisme prevailed in the Church of God, when their Creeds and Doxologies were received and practised, were the reformers that cast them out, Schismatical? and when that Prophecy, that even all Nations shall worship and do homage to the beast, shall be fulfilled, will a reformation afterwards be no better than a Schism? will it be unlawful to alter, what then shall be observed?  
Again (saith he) most of the Ecclesiastical laws, which were formerly enforce, 
Ibid.  we have abrogated, and without the consent of any other Churches, made new.  
Answ. We have abrogated none, but such as were abrogated by God's Law, such as could never oblige us, but by our consent, and consequently can oblige no longer than we do consent; such as were contrary to the doctrine of the Primitive Church, we have done it legally, and with sufficient Authority, due moderation, and other conditions requisite; yea, we had the implicit consent of the Eastern Church, which doth with us, reject these Laws of the Church of Rome; this we constantly plead in our own behalf, and yet we must be Schismatics, though neither all, nor any of these pleas can be invalidated.  
Again (saith he) They acknowledged themselves subject to the Church of Rome, and esteemed this Patriarchical Church, 
Ibid.  the only Orthodox universal Church, and a separation from its Pastor, to beformal Schism.  
Ans. And will not the worshippers of the Beast do so to him, should the Grecian Churches entertain this Faith, would you esteem it any argument to prove them guilty of the crime of Schism, because formerly they esteemed your Church Heretical, and your supreme Pastor an Usurper? if so, then must men be Schismatics, whether they separate from you, or join in communion with you; if not, I pray you why? but because it was their duty to change their opinions in these particulars, which is evidently our plea; we found that what you called Ancient Doctrines, from the beginning were not held, what you required to be embraced as a truth, was evidently condemned in the Word of God, etc. and when you have talked yourself hoarse about the nature of Schism, you will still labour in the fire, till you have proved that we are under an obligation, to believe those doctrines as the truths of God, which we reject, as contrary to his revealed will; which I expect should be performed at latter Lammas.  
You tell us from St. Austin, 
Mr. C. p. 292. sect. 11. Reply p. 89, 90.  that there is no just cause of separating from the communion of all Nations, or the whole world. To which it is answered by Bishop Bramhal, Let him always bring such proofs, which concern not us, but make directly against him; it is they who have separated themselves from the communion of the whole world, Grecian, Russian, Armenian, Abissine, Protestant, by their censures; we have made no absolute separation from the Roman Church itself, but suppose it had been so, the Schism lies at the door of the Roman Church, seeing she separated first from the pure Primitive Church, which was before her, not locally, but morally: Well but to say thus, 
Mr. C. p. 294.  and to acknowledge, the actual departure was ours, and yet we are not Schismatics, as leaving the errors of the Church of Rome, rather than the Church, is to act the Donatist.  
Answ. Yes, by all means, because the Donatist pretended not to find any thing in the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, 
See Dally Apol. c. 6.  from which they separated, contrary to their belief, both the one and the other taught the same faith, read the same books, exercised the same services: well but the Donatists derive the word Catholic, not from the Universality of Nations, but integrity of doctrine. Which is most apparently the error of the Church of Rome, which esteems none members of the Catholic Church, but those which embrace her doctrines entirely, but concerns not us, who esteem them members of the Catholic Church, that differ from us. See Bishop Bramhal Rep. p. 281.   

CHAP. XIX.  
Our third Proposition, that all Schism is not damnable, limited, sect. 1. Proved from divers instances, sect. 2. Mr. C ' s. Arguments answered. And (1) his similitude from Civil Governments considered, sect. 3. (2) His Arguments from the division of the Schismatic from Christ's body, sect. 5. From the Fathers, as St. chrysostom, St. Austin, St. Pacian, St. Denis, and Irenaeus, sect. 7. His inference from hence, that the Church of Rome is not Schismatical, considered, sect. 8.  
MY third Proposition shall be this; 
3 Proposition.  That all Schism is not damnable, Sect. 1 nor doth it always carry such obliquity with it, as to exclude the person thus offending from God's favour.  
Before I enter upon the proof of this assertion, I shall propose this one distinction; viz. that Schism may be either through weakness (viz. in persons desirous to know the truth, and earnest endeavourers after it, who notwithstanding through the weakness of their intellectuals, or prejudices from friends, or education, or such like causes miss their aim) or wilfulness, as it is in persons who are either negligent, as to their inquiry into truth, or act against the convictions of their consciences; now for these latter sort of Schismatics, I grant their separation to be damnable; but for the weaker Brother, the person or Church which out of frailty only is Schismatical, I undertake to be an advocate, and free such, though not from crime, yet upon general repentance, for unknown sins, from the sad sentence of damnation. For,  
1. In that combustion which arose in the Church of God, Sect. 2 touching the celebration of the Easter festival; the West separated and refused Communion with the East, for many years together, now here one part of the Christian world must necessarily be accounted Schismatics, for either the Western Church had sufficient grounds for separation, and then evidently the Eastern was causally the Schismatic; or it was otherwise, and then the Western Church must take the Imputation to itself, as separating without cause; and yet that both continued parts of the Church of God, and were not cut off from Christ upon this account, who dares deny? who can without the greatest breach of Charity? thus in the many Schisms which have happened in the Church of Rome, about the Pope's Supremacy, in some of which the best men knew not whom to cleave unto; will any charitable Papist say, that all who died on the erring part, were necessarily damned? Again, the Myriads of Jews that believed in Christ, and yet were zealous of the law, were guilty of this crime, as requiring such conditions of their communion, which they ought not to have required, and excluding men from it, upon terms unequal; and yet to say that all these Myriad (who through weakness and infirmity, thus erred) did perish, and that their believing in Christ, served them to no other ends, but in the infinity of their torments, to upbraid them with Hypocrisy and Heresy, is so harsh a speech, that I should not be very hasty to pronounce it: Yea further, let but a man consider the variety of men's principles, their constitutions, and educations, tempers, and distempers, weaknesses, degrees of light, and understanding, the many several determinations that are made, even by most Churches, the various judgements of the most learned, touching many of them; I say, let these things be considered, and then let any man tell me whether it be consistent with the goodness of that God, who is so acquainted with our infirmities as that he pardoneth many things in which our wills indeed have the least but yet some share, to condemn those to eternal torments, who after diligent enquiry into the truth, err in some little punctilios determined by the Church, and thinks themselves bound to deny obedience to her in them, albeit this error hath nothing of the will in it? What I have here said I refer to the judgements of sober and impartial men, with whom I am confident these instances, with an hundred of the like nature, will more prevail then any thing that on the contrary is tendered by Mr. C. and comes now to be considered.  
1. Sect. 3 Then he gives us a similitude from civil Governments wherein to entertain principles, which if put in practice would withdraw Subjects from their due obedience, is an offence of an high nature, 
Mr. C. p. 228.  but the actual cantonizing of a Kingdom, and the raising in it Courts, or Judicatures, Independent on, and opposite to the common tribunal of the Country, is the utmost of all crimes, and both the Seducers, and Seduced, here are pursued by arms as the worst of enemies, it is so (saith he) in the Church whose Unity we are taught to believe, for if Unity, than Order, than Subordination of Governors, (with an etc. at the end of them to signify the Lord knows what) What therefore is the great sin against the fundamental constitution of the Church but Schism? a dissolving the communion and connexion that the members of this great body have among themselves, with relation to the whole?  
Answ. This confused stuff, cannot very well be dealt withal, especially in the lump.  
1. Therefore as to his example in civil Governments, I  
Answ. 1. That the case cannot easily be the same, for seldom is it that there is such a conflict of reason, with reason, authority with authority, amongst men learned in those matters; but suppose it should ever happen to be so as that the most learned Lawyers, can scarce tell how to decide the case? Would a gracious King think you, presently condemn all those to the utmost severity, who in such cases after consultation and deliberation duly made should by reason of some prejudices, or weaknesses in reasoning, be induced to think it their duty to follow the mutinous party? Put the case some leading Papist should rebel, and seek to reduce our Nation to the government of the Pope by force of arms, (albeit the case be not so difficult but it may easily be resolved for his Majesty against the Pope) should those Incendiaries of Kingdoms, (I mean the Jesuits, and other of your Priests,) by all the arguments they could invent, solicit the illiterate Papists of this Nation, to side with this Rebellion, (as too frequently they have done) answer all their demurs, and propound to them Indulgences, and deliverance from Purgatory, and the meritoriousness of the fact, and such like motives, which should be effectual in them all, and these deluded souls, thus thinking it their duty to obey their spiritual guides, and having no other means to inform them better, should make a party in an Insurrection; would you not put in one plea for the excuse of these persons? Would you think it meet without respect of persons to make a general slaughter of them all in cold blood?  
I am sure the bowels of our Gracious Sovereign would yern towards them, and must the bowels of God be more contracted? Shall we charge him with such austerity, as is hardly incident to humane frailty? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; It is true, a great severity may sometimes be necessary in these cases, but still upon political reflections, which are not incident to our Maker; Now then apply this to the Unity of the Church, and you have an Answer to your Argument. But  
2. I deny the supposed parity of the similitude, for there is greater reason why such severities should be exercised by the civil government in the case proposed; because the raising of Courts and Judicatures, thus independent do ipso facto dissolve the frame of Government, but now the cases of Schism by me mentioned and many other, do not so, for albeit they do somewhat disturb that external unity of order, and sub-ordination of Governors which ought to be preserved inviolate in the Church, yet is not that the Unity which is essential to the Church, but an internal Unity of Faith and Charity, the Unity mentioned by the Apostle, 
Ephes. 4.4.5.  and albeit the dissolution of the other Union be a sin, yet that it is not damnable seems evident to me, in that God sure hath not made it as a necessary condition of eternal life to believe this subordination of Governors, in which this unity consists, and that he hath not done so I conclude, because it is not where so manifestly revealed to us that the meanest capacity may apprehend it. Whereas what ever is necessary to be believed under pain of Eternal Damnation must be plainly and evidently revealed: 
c. 6. v. 8.  for if ever that of Micah will hold, (he hath showed thee O Man what is good! and what doth the Lord require of thee?) It is in this particular.  
As an Appendix to this Objection, Sect. 4 I shall consider another of his similitudes of like nature, produced against our English Church, viz. that if a Province in England had withdrawn itself from the public civil Authority, 
p. 231.  it would not excuse them to say, we do not intent to quarrel with those that continue in obedience to the King, etc. Which if you produce to evidence this only, that in case we had really substracted our obedience from lawful Authority, excuses like to these would be unserviceable to us, it is very pertinent and close, but that it may do you any further service it must be evidenced, not begged, that you had any Authority de jure over us, and that such as we could not lawfully refuse to grant, or that to withdraw from usurpation is sinful, which will be as easily performed as the former.  
Again, Sect. 5 you argue thus, the Schismatic is divided from the body of Christ, and so from Christ himself, and therefore is inevitably damned.  
Answ. This division from the body of Christ is twofold, either in things in which it is absolutely necessary to be united, and he that is thus divided is necessarily cut off from Christ, and must bear his burden; or in these things in which it is not absolutely necessary to be united, as in the same Liturgies, or Ceremonies, the same opinions, as to matters not fundamental, in which it is as impossible to obtain a general consent, as in the lineaments of our faces; Now to assert that a Schism in such matters, by reason of the infirmities which are incident to humane frailty should presently cut off our weak Brother from the body of Christ, is to assert that God requires upon pain of damnation, that a man should truly judge of that which many thousands even of learned men very differently decide, and which is so obscurely revealed, if at all it be so, as that the most piercing intellects dare not peremptorily assert, they have found the truth; Thus whether the Church of Rome is the only Orthodox Church of Christ? whether a general council may err, and whether the Pope be the supreme Pastor of the Church of Christ, are questions which extremely trouble the Church of God. You affirm all this, the Protestants and Eastern Churches contradict you. Arguments are produced on both sides from Scripture, Reason, and Antiquity. Now that it should here be necessary, for all the Eastern Churches, all the Churches of the Protestants, upon pain of Damnation to desert their own opinions, and embrace what you obtrude upon them, when you shall be able to demonstrate and I see it done, I shall not despair of a demonstration to evince that snow is black, or to be convinced of any the most amazing Paradox.  
And whereas you say that the Schism of ignorant souls seems to be more contradictory to humane reason, Sect. 6 because the more ignorant they ought to know they are, and being professedly no Pastors, the more ought they to submit their judgements to authority, 
Mr. C. p. 229.  and consequently the preferring of their own conduct, or the conduct of particular Churches, before the Universal authority of the Church, (For what you add of their Excommunicating the whole Church, both Pastors and flocks as Heathens, and Publicans, it is so impertinent as nothing can be more) is a presumption so contrary to humane nature and reason, 
p. 230.  as that their want of learning is that which will most condemn them. And this you speak not of persons absolutely Idiots, but such as discourse of matters of Religion, and pass their judgements on them. Now here do you not suppose, that to reject your Doctrines is to reject the Universal Authority of the Church, which we are not very likely to acknowledge.  
2. Are such persons bound to conform their judgements, to the most or not? If not, why do you trouble us with this Argument; If so, then in the times of Arrianisme they were bound to deny the divinity of our Saviour, and under the Old Testament, when Idolatry prevailed, they were obliged (unless they would do things contrary to humane nature and common reason) to become Idolaters, and seeing the Rulers of Israel believed not on Christ, but rejected him as a Blasphemer, the people were bound to do so too; these and a thousand such like absurdities, are the very natural consequences of your positions.  
But you have Fathers to produce; Sect. 7 And,  
1. 
Ad Eph. Hom. 11.  That of St. chrysostom we consent unto, in this sense, viz. that (wilfully) to divide the unity of Christ's Church, doth inevitably infer damnation, as surely as the piercing of Christ's body, but doth this prove that a dissent from a particular Church in matters of inferior moment, out of humane frailty, doth inevitably do so?  
2. 
Ad Sympr. cp. 2.  As for that of St. Pacian, who tells us, that Novatian was nor Crowned, because he died out of the Communion of the Church: We,  
Answ. That in St. Pacians phrase, to die out of the Communion of the Church, was to die without charity to the members of it, as it immediately there follows, hear the Apostle, if I have all faith, and have not charity, I am nothing.  
3. 
De Symb. ad Catech. l. 4. c. 10.  In his citation from St. Austin he abuseth us, for whereas St. Austin saith, it will nothing avail him that is found without the Church, quod credidit, that he believed in Christ, or professed Christianity, or did so much good, without respect to the chiefest good; Mr. C. will have him to asser, t that it doth nothing profit such a one, 
Mr. C.p. 226.  that he is Orthodox in belief; whereas St. Austin speaks of Heretics, and presently cries out, hear this, O ye Heretics; and again, quaecunque congregatio cujustibet Haeresis in angulis sedet, concubina est, non matrona; and a third time, O Haeresis Arriana quid insultas? Now separation from the Church by Heresy, we acknowledge to incur damnation.  
The passage of St. 
Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 6.  Denis is very true, viz. That all things should be endured, rather than we should consent to the division of God's Church, but this he speaks not of the evil of sin, but of pain and misery, and what of this?  
Lastly, Irenaeus doth no no where say, there cannot possibly be made any reformation, etc. but only they (viz. 
Propter modicat & quaslibet causas l. 4. c. 62.  who for crizzling causes divide the body of Christ, who strain at Gnats and swallow Camels, such as these) can make no reformation of any such importance, as to countervail the danger of a division, which is altogether impertinent to the design, for which it is produced: but of these two last places, see the incomparable Chilling. p. 256, 257.  
From what hath been said, we may see the weakness of this Argument, which we find p. 296. viz. Salvation may be had in the Church of Rome, and therefore it cannot be schismatical. Albeit you cannot be ignorant, that we distinguish the quality of persons, considering your Church, either in regard of those, in whom, either negligence, or pride, or worldly fear, or hopes, or some other voluntary sin, is the cause of their Schism, and continuance in your church; and of such we pass the heaviest sentence; or in regard of those who own their Schism to want of capacity, or default of instruction, or such like involuntary defects, and these we say, may have salvation, albeit they continue members of your Church.   

CHAP. XX.  
General Councils are not infallible, whether considered with the Pope, sect. 1. Or without the Pope, sect. 2. Their infallibility not concluded, (1) From Scripture, sect. 3. That place of Deut. 17. considered, ibid. As also the Argument from Gen. 49. sect. 4. From 1 Tim. 3.16. sect. 5. From Mat. 23. v. 3. sect. 6. Nor (2) from reason, sect. 7. Mr. C's. Arguments answered, sect. 7, 8. The worthies of our Church do not confess it, sect. 9, 10.11. Nor last, is it evinced from the consent of universal Antiquity, sect. 12. The testimonies of St. Athanasius, Optatus, Vincentius Lirinensis, and St. Austin, produced against it, sect. 12, 13, 14, & 15.  

4 Proposition.  GEneral Councils are not infallible.  
Now touching the infallibility of General Councils; Sect. 1  
1. Do you mean such a one as is confirmed by the Pope, or one without, or before his confirmation; if the confirmation of the Pope be requisite, then without it, is the judgement of all the Bishops fallible, and if so, then either the judgement of the Pope is so too, or not; if the first, than the whole General Council is fallible in its determinations, for it can have no other members but the Pope and others, and if both these be fallible, 'tis evident that the Council is so; if infallible, then are the Bishops bound to follow the sentence of the Pope, and cannot sit as Judges of the cause; it being very right and equitable, that fallible persons, who of themselves may dangerously err, should submit to the judgement of him, who cannot do so: If you say he is infallible, not in decrecing, but in this, that he shall not confirm an error.  
I Answ. This assertion implies, either that the Pope è Cathedrâ, cannot err, and then the veriest Idiot may be styled infallible, as well as a General Council, because the Pope è Cathedrâ, cannot confirm, what he erroneously dictates. Or,  
2. That in confirming the decrees of General Councils, only he is unerrable, and then, pray you where is that promise of such peculiar assistance at that time? where is that Scripture, or single passage of any Father, that albeit the Pope may err in decreeing any matter of faith, yet in confirming the decrees of a General Council, he cannot? Ede tabulas, but if not one jota in scripture, reason, or antiquity for this, how can I be assured that it is so? and consequently have an infallible guide to lean and rest upon? As for scripture, what place can they bring, but that of Luk. 22. I have asked for thee, that thy faith fail not; but is there any thing of teaching the whole Church? doth he say, that the Pope may fail in manners, but shall not in doctrines of Faith? or in decreeing Doctrines of faith, but not in confirming them? or doth he at all speak of the Pope of Rome? Yea,  
2. Did that prayer hinder the denial of Christ by Peter? was Peter then summus pontifex, or not? If not, then doth not this concern him in that relation, and consequently, neither those that succeed him; if he was, than what hinders but that the summus pontifex may fail? Neither is there any thing to the purpose, in that of Mat. On this rock will I build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. For,  
1. Is here one syllable of the Pope, or infallibility? or if there were, is there any thing of it for the Pope, more than for the Church? why then did our Author produce it for the Church? and if touching the Pope, is it rather in confirming the decrees of Councils, then in decreeing doctrines of faith?  
And as for antiquity, had this been taught in the Primitive times, could they have avoided this argument? The Pope hath confirmed this, Ergo 'tis true; this Council was approved by the Pope, Ergo 'tis infallible; but there is not one syllable to be heard in all Antiquity of this nature.  
Again, if the Pope must be included, may not the Pope and Council run counter, and what shall we do then? what shall we do in a time of Schism? when there are several pretenders to the Popedom, as frequently there have been; to whom then must we hearken? how shall we know which of these is the true Pope? if a Council must decide it (as indeed none else can) either the Council is fallible, and may determine wrong, or infallible, and then it is so without the Pope: And so the assertion I dispute against, is deserted, and another taken up, of which anon.  
Again, suppose any Pope's misdemeanours be to be judged of, as for example; whether Sixtus Quintus got into St. Peter's chair by Simony, in this case the Pope cannot be Judge, and therefore if the Council without the Pope be not infallible, how can we know whether their determination be aright, seeing it may as well be wrong; Further tell me, how may I be assured that the Pope is a true Pope? If he came in by Simony, he is none, and how is it possible for me to know that? seeing some have been Simonaical, how can I be certain that many others have not been so too? and if so, than not only all fallibility is ceased, but your succession too. For all the Cardinals created by a Simonaical Pope, can be no Cardinals, and if so, then Sixtus Quintus being evidently convicted of Simony before the Council of Sicil, could be no Pope, his Cardinals, no Cardinals; neither could the Popes, created since by those Cardinals, be truly such; so that from his time, your Church hath been without a lawful universal head.  
Again, how shall I be certain, that the Pope's election is legal (for, unless it be so, yourselves deny him to be Pope) when sometimes the People, sometimes the Clergy chose him, sometimes both; in one age the Emperor, in another the Cardinals, in a third a General Council: Further I might ask you, how you are assured the Pope is rightly ordained and Baptised (for if he was not, by your own principles, he can be no Pope) and that he was, I cannot be certain, unless I could know the intention of the Priest that Baptised him, and the Bishop that ordained him: and though I did know (what cannot be known) their intentions, yet how shall I know the intentions of the persons, that Baptised and Ordained them; and so on to that endless chain of uncertainties, propounded by Mr. Chillingworth, in his second chap. which 'tis impossible you should ever be able to solve. But I am oppressed with copiousness of Argument, and therefore must break off from this member to the next.  
2. Again, therefore if you say, Sect. 2 that the council is infallible without the Pope. Then  
1. 
p. 51. sect 8.  You contradict yourself in requiring the consent of the Pope to the Obligation of the Councils Canons; for if they be infallible, are we not bound to assent to them notwithstanding? Or can we do well in opposing what is infallible?  
2. How shall we know, whether the Pope or Council be supreme, when the council of Basil and Constance determined it one way, the council of Lateran the other way? So, the second Council of Nice asserted the corporeity of Angels, the first of Lateran denies it. Can infallible persons contradict each other?  
Who must be the Members of this Council? whether only Bishops, or Presbyters, and Deacons too? upon what certain account, do you shut out Presbyters, if you admit only Bishops? or if you require, that Presbyters be called to the Council, what certain grounds can you produce for it? Why should you exclude Laymen from a place in these your Councils? especially, when the Scripture tells us, that in the Council which was called about circumcision, mention is made not only of Apostles, but of the Elders of the Church, and of the Brethren. Acts 15.23. Bellarm. Saith indeed, that this multitude was called not to consent, and judge, but only to consent. But upon what authority doth he build this interpretation? Or what certainty can we have in the determinations of Holy Scriptures? If we may thus apply unto them our idle fancies, add and distinguish, where no other Scripture, no circumstance or context leads us to it, but rather the contrary strongly is insinuated; for as much as the definitive sentence runs thus; It hath pleased the Apostles, and Elders, with the whole Church, etc.  
Further, why must Bishops be called to it out of one Country and not our of another? why will so many out of this Kingdom suffice? What if the members of the Council be chosen illegally, and by a certain faction, so that the major part of those that were capable of being Members of the Council, be of a contrary opinion to the persons actually elected? Why should we believe them then? For if the contrary faction should prevail, their determinations would be contradictory to the others, and so the Articles of our faith must be form by chance and faction. Again, what if all the persons called come not, will the Council be general? Why may not the greater part of the Council err, and yet the Church be infallible? as well as the greatest part of its Members diffused err, and yet the diffused Church be infallible? Especially seeing Gods promises must be acknowledged to concern them both? Shall they be infallible, whether they fast, pray, study, and use means, or not? If so, then to what purpose, have they generally done so? and why are there such debatings? If not, how shall we, so far distant from them, be able to know how they acquit themselves in these things, and consequently, whether they be infallible in their particular determinations? Yea seeing the packing and fore-resolution of votes doth null their Decrees, (or else your Answer to the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon is perfectly vain) in such a corrupt age as we live in, 
p. 51. sect. 8.  wherein, if ever, all may be said to seek their own: how shall we know whether all the Bishops of the Church of Rome, come not, as they did to the Trent Council, with resolutions to condemn the Protestants right or wrong? Furthermore, who must call this Council? Pope or Princes? when they are met, how shall we know, that they are fit Members, when we cannot know the legality of their Baptism, and Ordinations, because we cannot know the intentions of all the particular persons, who Baptised and Ordained them? What if there can be no general Council? What if Princess will not suffer Bishops within their Dominions to repair to it? Must we call general Councils to suppress every novelty? How shall we know true Councils? Have you not large Catalogues of reprobate and doubtful Councils? Upon what  grounds do you reject this, and own that? whence have you any infallible evidence, that your charactarismes of a true Council are true ones? Must this general Council be made out of the whole Christian world or not? If not, how is it a general Council? How can the promises made to the whole World be applied to it? How is it a representative of the whole Church? If it must be from all parts?  
1. 'Tis evident, we never had a general Council; For what Bishop came in the primitive times from India, Aethiopia, Persia, Parthia, Armenia, what British or Scottish Bishops were there? And  
2. A general Council is then a thing impossible, for some Bishops be in America, and others in the East-Indies, some dispersed through most of the Turks Dominions, and how long would it be before all these could have tidings of a Council? How long would they be in journeying to the place appointed for convention? How many of the most aged will die by the way? How many will be hindered by Infidel Princes? Who will provide for such a multitude, when convened? How will it be possible for them to confer, by reason of the difference of their language? Or to provide Interpreters for them all? what will become of their Flocks at home, while they spend so many years' journey to a Council? These and an hundred questions more, of the persons appointed to call them, of the place, and the like, might be insisted on, to show that general Councils were never instituted by God for the Rule of our Faith. But I am weary, and therefore send you to Mr. Baxters' key for Cath. 
pt. 2.  and others.  
Nor can this infallibility of general Councils be concluded either from Scripture reason, the suffrage of Antiquity, Sect. 3 or the concessions of the Sons of the Church of England: Though all these Topics are made use of to this purpose. And.  
1. To return answer to his evidence from Scripture, that of Deut. 17. from the 8. to the 13. is very unserviceable to his design; For not to tell him with Episcopius, 
Mr. C. p. 258. sect. 12.  how inconsequent this deduction is from the Old-Testament, (wherein, if we may believe our Author, we have an express evidence from God of such an infallible convention) to the New, which affords us no such thing. We answer further,  
1. It is not evident from the place, that any mention is made of Religious causes; for albeit there be mention of cause and cause; yet in the Hebrew it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a cause before brought to the inferior Judges V. 8. before whom the causes of Religion were not brought.  
2. That their judgement was not infallible is evident. For  
1. The Scripture affirms of these Priests, who are here appointed to Judge, that they departed out of the way, caused many to stumble at the Law, yea, corrupted the covenant of Levi. Mal. 2.8.9. They accepted persons in that Law, that is in judging, the law was wrested by them in favour of persons whom they particularly affected; yea further, these Judges condemned the Prophets of the Lord, 
Jer. 26.8. The priests, Prophets, and all the people condemn Jeremy to death.  and that for accusing the people and Priests of defection from the Lord, to Idolatry; from the Precepts of the Law, to the most enormous sins. Matth. 23.17. Yea, they approved of false Prophets, as is every where extant in the Old-Testament; for that this was done by these Judges, appears, in that a Prophet was not to be Judged but by the Senate, whence Christ saith, Luke 13.33. It cannot be that a Prophet should perish out of Jerusalem, because it was the place where this Sanhedrim was.  
2. Had it been so, why was it that so many sects were found among them, of Sadduces, Pharisees, Essens, Gaulonites and Herodians? How is it, that this infallible Judge never went about to interpose his sentence? How is it, that they never resorted to him for satisfaction, but indeed these Sects were made up of the persons that were to judge, and so no equal decision was like to be made by such interested persons.  
3. We know that this Synod was made up of Sadduces and Pharisees, the one of which denied the Resurrection; the other by their traditions annihillated the Command of God: Now these, as we may read in Josephus, mutually prevailed in the Nation; Now then, had this Synod been to judge of the Resurrection, when the Sadduces prevailed, would they have been infallible in their Judgements. Surely no more than the Arrian Councils. And when the Pharisees, would they not (yea did they not) determine such things which made void the Commandments of God? but what need we flick upon these arguments, when we have such an illustrious instance, in their rejection of our Saviour, and refusing to believe on him; would the Synagogue have judged him to be the Messiah, when none of the Rulers thereof believed on him, when Nicodemus was so twited by them, for offering to speak for him? yea, 
P. 259.  did they not with their Precedent condemn him, Mat. 26.57. Oh! but (say they) Christ was now come, and their infallibility was ceased, and God now permitted them to be deceived.  
Answ. But was it not necessary that they should be acquainted with the will of God? for how else could the Senate be accused, or the people for following their determinations? when the Senate by the virtue of this promise, as they interpret it, must needs suppose themselves to be infallible in their judgement, and the people being bound also to esteem them so, must necessarily assent to their determination, and had just cause to help forward his condemnation, insult over, crucify and blaspheme him.  
2. Christ accuseth them of committing the like error long before, in killing and condemning the Prophets sent to them, Mat. 21.35, 36. compared with verse 45. And Stephen, which of the Prophets have not your Fathers persecuted, slaying them, which shown before, the coming of the just one; yea, our Saviour tells them, they were blind guides, such as would neither go into Heaven themselves, nor permit others. Mat. 5. & 15, & 23.  
His next Argument from Scripture is very ridiculous, Sect. 4 if God hath promised, 
Gen. 49.  that the Sceptre should not departed from Judah, nor the Law giver from betwixt his feet (that is, that they should always have a civil Government (as all interpreters that ever I met withal, do agree) then must the Church or Ecclesiastical Government be infallible: But the former is so, and therefore the consequence must be good. But did this Paragraph speak of the Jewish Church, as undoubtedly it doth not, yet what hath it of infallibility? or if it would infer infailibility in some portion of the Jewish Church, must that necessarily be the Sanhedrims? When Mr. C. is able to make these things good, I shall he contented to let this pass for a demonstration.  
3. Sect. 5 Our Author in his chapter, touching the infallibility of the Roman Church, produced in a Parenthesis, that passage of the first Ep. 
c. 3. v. 16. P. 100  Tim. where the Church of Ephesus is styled the Pillar and Ground of truth, which because it was altogether impertinent in that place, I have referred hither;  
And Answ. 1. With Mr. Chillingworth, That it is neither impossible nor improbable, that these words may have reference not to the Church, but to Timothy, and the sense of the place run thus; that thou mayest know how to behave thyself (as) a Pillar and Ground of truth, in the Church of God: This exposition offereth no violence to the words at all, but only supposeth an Ellipsis of the particle (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) in the Greek very ordinary; neither wants it some likelihood, that St Paul comparing the Church to an house, should here exhort Timothy to carry himself as a Pillar in that house (according as he had given other principle men in the Church the name of Pillars) rather then having called the Church an house, to name it presently a pillar, which seemeth somewhat Heterogeneous.  
2. The Church which St. Paul here speaks of, was that in which Timothy conversed, and that was a particular Church (and that not the Roman) now such you will not have to be infallible. That this is the very truth, is manifest from an impartial consideration of the place; for the Apostle writeth to Timothy, and giveth him directions, that he may know how to behave himself in the Church of Ephesus (and not the universal, in part of which St. Paul was, when he wrote this to him) and consequently in a particular Church; Now the same Church in which he directeth him to behave himself, the Apostle calls the Pillar and Ground of truth, therefore he gives this title to a particular Church.  
3. 
Mr. Chill.  Should we grant you this on courtesy, yet must we put you in remembrance, that many attributes are not notes of performance, but of duty, and teach us not of necessity what the thing or person is, but what it should be: Ye are the fait of the earth, faith our Saviour to the Disciples; not that this quality was inseparable from their persons, but because it was their office to be so; for if it could not have been otherwise, in vain had he put them in fear of being cast upon the dunghill as unsavoury, so the Church may be by duty the Pillar and Ground of all truth, not only necessary, but profitable to salvation, and yet it may neglect and violate this duty, and be in fact, the teacher of some Error.  
4. We say, that this part of the verse may be connexed with the following, after this manner; The Pillar and Ground of truth, and without controversy, great is the mystery of Godliness; And that,  
1. Because Irenaeus seems to have read it so; for in the beginning of his third book, he tells us, that the Apostles had delivered to them the will of God, which they before had preached in the Scripture, to be the pillar and foundation of our Faith.  
2. Otherwise the Apostle would begin a new sentence with a conjunction copulative, which is somewhat harsh.  
3. The Jews were wont to introduce those doctrines of their Church, which were of greatest moment and consequence, with such a form as this is: thus Moses Aegyptius in the beginning of that great work, which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, speaks thus: the foundation of foundations, and pillar of wisdom, is the knowledge of the first and supreme being.  
5. We say, that if this also were allowed, yet must this sentence be understood of the Church diffused, which will be always the maintainer and teacher of all necessary truths (that being essential to her very being) not of a representative Church, collected in a General Council.  
What he adds farther, that our Saviour enjoined obedience to all the commands of those who sat in Moses his Chair, cannot be serviceable to him to prove an infallibility in the Sanhedrim. For,  
1. How will it appear that he speaks of them, considered as members of the Sanhedrim, and not rather as teachers in their Synagogues, in which case sure they were not infallible.  
2. If he plead for the infallibility of the Sanhedrim, seeing he, the Shilo, was already come, the Sanhedrim must be held infallible after his coming, which (as it is contrary to Mr. C's assertion in this very place, so it) lays a necessity on us to acknowledge, that either their decree against our Saviour was to be believed by the Jews, or that to believe in the Messiah was no fundamental. But  
3. This clause of yielding obedience to the Scribes, and Pharisees, is to be limited to what they taught from, and according unto Moses and the Prophets; For elsewhere he puts in a cave at against the doctrine of the Pharisees, Mat. 16.6, 12. calls them blind guides, whom to follow would endanger our falling into the ditch, Mat. 15.24. Seducers, V 15. of this chapter; which is evidence sufficient, that he never intended they should be followed absolutely, but only when they followed the Law of Moses.  
2. This infallibility cannot be proved from reason, which to evince I will carefully ponder what Mr. C. hath produced from this topic.  
1. Then to help him out a little, I will premise that nature teacheth us that what is necessary to the Christian Faith for its preservation, and to hinder the undermining of it, aught to be practised, 
Mr. C. p. 239.  but it is absolutely necessary (saith he) for the Church oft times to make her decisions of points in controversy, for otherwise the Devil would have power to undermine a great part of our Faith, if permission were given freely to maintain. (I suppose he means, to deny) any thing that doth not appear to any one expressly, either in Scripture or Tradition.  
Answ. We also grant a necessity or at least a convenience of a Tribunal to decide controversies, but how? not by causing any person to believe what he did not antecedently, to these decrees upon the sole authority of the Council, but by silencing our disputes, and making us acquiesce in what is propounded without any public opposition to it, keeping our opinions to ourselves, and not troubling the Church of God with them; and therefore we are fare enough from granting a permission to maintain openly such things as appear to any private judgement to be a truth, as knowing this may breed disturbances, but yet a liberty of using private discretion in approving or rejecting any thing as delivered or not in Scripture, we think aught to be allowed, for faith cannot be compelled, and by taking away this liberty from men, we should force them to become Hypocrites, and to profess outwardly what inwardly they .  
But you further add, 
p. 242.  that upon such a decision it cannot be avoided but that an obligation of believing it will arise to Christians, or else to what end doth the Council state it?  
Answ. We acknowledge that this is the end of her decrees and that when ever her decisions are Divine Truths, we are under an Obligation to believe them, but to suppose they are always such, is evidently to beg the question, and to assert this Obligation, when they are not such, is to lay upon us a necessity to believe as many errors as it is possible for a Council to decide, which the experience of the Lateran, 2. Nicene, and Trent Council tells us may be very many, and very dangerous.  
2. This undoubtedly was the end of the decisions of the Arrian Councils, yea of every Council in the Church of God, and yet will Mr. C. assert that they unavoidably laid an obligation upon every Member of their respective Churches to obey them:  
Well therefore, Baron, will tell you, 
Objecto fidei. c. 17. quae quamvis non sit exse infallibilis. etc. ad vitandam confusionem, & Ecclesiarum, dilacerationem. etc. qui palam contradicunt.  that we confess the highest Ecclesiastical power to be a general Council, which albeit it be not of itself infallible, and therefore cannot from its own authority oblige to give credit to its determinations, yet doth it avail to that end to which it was instituted, i. e. for the avoiding the confusion, and renting of the Church. Seeing such a Council can Excommunicate and subject to Ecclesiastical censures those who openly contradict her.  
2. The Authority of general Councils hath a great weight and moment in the begetting a persuasion of the truth of the Doctrine defined by it: For such decrees cannot rashly be rejected, as being made by those, 
Timere & non adhibitâ accuratâ & gravi observatione.  who  
1. Have greater assistance of the Spirit of God.  
2. Greater means of finding out the truth, viz. by Prayer, Fast: and Disputations.  
3. 
Authoritatem. divinitus datam definiendi controversias fidei.  Better reason of discovering what is the opinion of the whole Church; yea  
4. Saith he, an authority delegated from Christ to decide controversies of Faith.  
Your second Argument is, Sect. 8 that God will not be wanting to his Church to keep it in truth and unity; 
P. 245.  Ergo not only a general Council, but as general a one as can be had, aught to have the force and obligation of a general, or Oecume●nical, that is, it ought to be infallible: Ans. But pray you sir, do you not here apparently beg the question? For if any of us thought that God would be wanting to preserve his Church, in truth and unity, if General Councils were not infallible, how soon would we embrace their infallibility? but this is it that we constantly deny, maintaining that albeit there be no such infallible Judge, yet hath God sufficiently consulted the welfare of his Church, in that he hath given us his Word as a Rule to walk by, and his Spirit who will infallibly guide his children into all saving truth: and indeed the Church whose unity we profess, is not an Organical body, made of several particular Congregations, or provincial Churches, but only consists of the true and living members of Christ's body, scattered through the world, which are united to him by faith, and the mystical union of the Spirit, and to one another by the bond of charity, and are infallibly guided by the Spirit into a belief of all saving truth.  
2. It is evident hence that want of charity, profaneness and Hypocrisy are as great breaches of the Church's unity, as want of truth, and yet I hope you will not accuse God of being defective to his Church, because he hath provided no other means then his Word, Spirit, and Ministers, against these things; and why then should we esteem him so in not making further provision for the unity of his Church?  
3. As God hath sufficiently provided for Kingdoms and commonwealths, by his ordinance of Magistracy, albeit they be not infallible in their Laws, but may sometimes enact such things as tend to the prejudice of their Subjects, even so he hath sufficiently provided for the external unity of the Church by the Ecclesiastical Governors he hath placed in them, albeit they be not so. But  
4. This is an undeniable evidence that God doth not think these means so necessary to unity as you pretend, viz. that he hath not at all acquainted us with this means of unity. For it cannot be that the Infinitely wise God, should make that to be the only sufficient means of unity, about the nature, and requisites of which there be so many hundred doubts, that the wisest man is not able to resolve them, or return any thing satisfactory to them; Peruse but the questions I have made touching this matter, unless you are able to resolve them all with the greatest perspicuity and evidence, this means will evidently be uneffectual to the end that God intended it, for still it will remain in dubio whether this convention have the conditions of a Judge infallible, seeing therefore it is evident, that most of the questions proposed by me are variously maintained by men of learning, and abilities, and it is as evident that God hath not interposed his decision touching any of them, it seems apparent unto me, that he never intended a general Council as a Judge, to whose decisions upon pain of damnation we must assent, and to which we must necessarily submit our judgements, if we would avoid the ruin of the Church; For sure it cannot be that what is so necessary to the unity (that is the being) of the Church, should be left by an alwise God, at such infinite uncertainties? And I appeal unto yourself, whether we who say the Scripture must be Judge in fundamentals, or things necessary to Salvation, (as that God is, and that he is a rewarder of those that diligently seek him, that he is holy, just, and good, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, died for us, risen again, will raise us up at the last day, and bring us unto judgement, that faith, repentance, and obedience, or holiness of life, are necessary for our attainment unto happiness) are at such uncertainties. Hath not the Scripture laid down these things with the greatest perspicuity? Are they not writ as with a Sun beam? Is there any need of a general Council to determine these things? and must the Church undoubtedly be ruined if she doth not? Now as for other things which may be variously conceived and held, without the destruction of faith or good manners, a liberty of judgement may be allowed, only with such restrictions as shall obviate all public disturbances of the Church. Nor doth it weaken this discourse at all, that we are uncertain touching the number of fundamentals, seeing it cannot rationally be denied that whatsoever is so, is perspicuously laid down in Scripture, albeit we cannot say è contra, that whatever is perspicuously laid down in Scripture is fundamental.  
4. Sect. 9 To come to the confessions of the worthiest of the sons of the Church of England, he would have the infallibility of General Councils to be asserted by Dr. White, Dr. Field, and the most Reverend Archbishop Lawd; but it is not where so affirmed by them, 
Arch. Lawd confer. sect 37. Num. 3.  Dr. White indeed is charged by A. C. to have confessed, that the visible Church had in all ages taught the unchanged faith of Christ, in all points fundamental, and this he had reason to affirm; but that he understands not the visible Church represented in a General Council, appears,  
1. Because a General Council hath not been assembled in all ages. And,  
2. Those that have been assembled, have not taught all fundamentals, but some only, at the most. And therefore he understood it (if he ever said so, which we have Fide jesuiticâ) of the visible Church diffused through the universe.  
The other passage out of sect. Sect. 10 21. is so evidently understood of the Church essential and diffusive, 
Ibid. sect. 21. N. 5.  that should Mr. Cressie invoke God to witness, that he understood the Arch Bishop otherwise, one could not possibly believe him. For he tells him, divers Protestants believe the same with him, Cites Keckerman thus speaking; The question is whether the whole Church, universally considered for all the Elect, who are members of the Militant Church, can err in the whole faith, or any weighty points thereof, and answering, 'tis simply impossible. And the passage of Dr. Field runs thus; that 'tis impossible that the Church should ever by Apostasy and misbeleif, wholly departed from God, taking the Church for all the beleivers now living, and in things necessary, to be known expressly. And having proved that the whole Militant Church is holy, he thence infers, that she (the whole Militant Church) cannot possibly err in fundamentals, albeit she may err in superstructures; for if she could, she would not be Holy, but Heretical, it being most certain that no assembly (be it never so general) of such Heretics, is or can be Holy.  
He goes on and tells us, that the Arch Bishop asserts, Sect. 11 that a General Council de post facto is unerrable, that is, 
p. 254.  when its decisions are admitted once, and received Generally by Catholics; Now because he could not but know, that he had abused the Arch Bishop in this citation, instead of sect. 38. he gives us sect. 33. But to pass that, the Arch Bishop saith only this; That a General Council is a very probable, but yet a fallible way of introducing truth, but after its determinations are admitted by the whole Church, then being found true, it is also infallible, that is (saith he) it deceives no man; for so all truth is, and is to us, when it is once known to be truth. So that he only saith this, when the Church hath found its determinations true, they are infallible. Hear his words, 'Tis true, a General Council de post facto, after it is ended and admitted by the whole Church (which he supposes cannot err in matters of faith) is then infallible, for it cannot err in that which it hath truly determined already, without error (as that is supposed to be, which the whole Church acknowledgeth as a matter of Faith.) But that a General Council a part ante, when it first sits down and continues to deliberate, may truly be said to be infallible in all it's after determinations, what ever they be, I utterly deny. 
P. 305.  What he further citys from Mr. Ridley, Dr. Bilson, Dr. Potter, is evidently inconsequent, nor doth Mr. Hooker say absolutely, that the will of God is, to have us do what ever the sentence of Judicial and final decision shall determine, but manifestly restrains his words to litigious and controverted causes of such quality, as our Ceremonies are, as you may see in his preface, sect. 6.  
Lastly, As for the consent of universal Antiquity, Sect. 12 it cannot with any colour be alleged, nay, we have strong presumptions that they little dreamed of such infallibility as Mr. C. here contends for, and indeed had it been otherwise, how is it, that in so many Volumes writ by them, against all kind of Heretics, they never touch upon this Argument, never press the infallibility of General Councils, never produce them as the Oracles of the holy Ghost, or tell their adversaries, that they must yield the same obedience to them as Scripture; had this been then admitted as a principle in the Church of God, how can it easily be imagined that the Fathers of the Church, should have over looked so facile and compendious a proof, and yet they have not only done so, 
Frustra igitur circumcursitantes praetexunt Synodos ob fidem e●postulare cum sit divina Scriptura omnibus potentior. Athan. l. de Syn. speaking against the Arrians. Epist. ad Epict.  but asserted many things which are evidently repugnant to this pretence. Thus Athanasius, 'tis in vain that the Arrians pretend Synods for their faith, when they have the divine Scripture more powerful than them all; from whence the Argument is apparent, that which is more powerful than all Synods for the stablishing of faith, is a sufficient means of unity (because the power of General Synods is supposed to be so) but such is the holy Scripture, according to Athanasius: Ergo. Nor is there any contradiction to this, in what is cited from Athanasius, by Mr. C. viz. that he wonders how any one dares move a question touching matters defined by the Nicene Council, since the decrees of such Councils cannot be changed without error: For what consequence is this, the decrees of such Councils as the Nicene, whose decrees were Orthodox, and regulated by the Scripture, cannot be changed without error; Ergo general Councils are infallible, especially when Athanasius immediately gives this reason, viz. because the faith there delivered according to the Scriptures, seemed sufficient to him to overturn all impiety; so then, this is the reason of their immutability, because their decrees were delivered according to the Scriptures.  
2. Sect. 13 Optatus Milev. speaks thus, we must seek Judges (viz. in the controversies betwixt you Donatists, 
Cont. Parmen. l. 5.  and us Catholics) on earth there can no judgement of this matter be found, (viz. none which is infallible, as appears from the words precedent) no body may believe you, nor any body us, for we are all contentious men; and again, by fiding, the truth is hindered: we must seek a Judge from heaven, but wherefore should we knock at Heaven, when we have it here in the Gospel; in which place he evidently concludes, that no convention of men are to be believed; for their own Authority, nemo vobis (Donatistis) nemo nobis Catholicis credat.  
2. That there could be no infallible Judge of that controversy upon earth, both which are sufficiently repugnant to this pretended infallibility.  
3. Sect. 14 Vincentius Lirinensis in his discourse upon this Question, 
Adu. Her. c. 1.  how a Christian may be able surely to discern the Catholic truth, from Heretical falsity, adviseth us to this end, to fortify our Faith;  
1. By the authority of Gods Law.  
2. By the Tradition of the Catholic Church, 
Hujusmodi semper responsum ab omnibus fere retuli.  this way (saith he) I was directed to, by almost all the Learned men I enquired of: So that this opinion here delivered was not his private one, but it was the common way by which the Fathers of his age discerned truth from error, and here let it be considered,  
1. That by the Tradition of the Catholic Church, he doth not understand the definition of any General Council, but partly the universal consent of the members, of the then present Church, partly the constant and perpetual profession and doctrine of the Ancient Church, 
Cap. 3.  as his own words do evince unto us, for he tells us that is properly Catholic, 
Quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est.  which is believed every where, at all times, and by all men; this saith he, we must be careful to hold, as we shall he, if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. What ever exceptions are made by the Papists to this evidence, 
De formali objecto fidei. p. 210, etc.  are taken off by the Learned Baron.  
2. Let it here be noted, that Vincentius doth not so much as once in all his Book, direct us to the determinations, much less to the infallible determination of the Pope, Roman Church, or a General Council, as the way to discern truth from Heresy, and yet his silence in these particulars could not easily be imagined (in a treatise written purposely on that subject, and wherein he undertaketh to give us, full and certain directions to avoid Heresy) if the Church had then been of the Romanists opinion.  
St. Austin's testimony is as clear, for thus he speaks; 
Ep. 19 ad Hieron.  I have learned to give only to those writings, which are now called Canonical, this reverence and honour, as that I dare say, that none of them erred in writing, but others I so read, that how holy and learned so ever they be, I do not therefore think it true, because they so judge it, but because they persuade me, either by those Canonical books, or by probable reason, that they say true; If therefore this honour of being free from error in their writing, is only to be ascribed to the Canonical Books of Scripture, then must the decretal Epistles of Popes, the decrees of General Councils, be excluded from it, according to St. Austin, as being writers which are not Canonical. For the particle solas, excepts all that are not so; yea, he doth not only compare all other writers with Scripture in this contest, but their writings also, as in this same Epistle: Only to the holy Scriptures, 
Ep. 112.  do I own this ingenuous servitude, so to follow them alone, as not to doubt, that the writers of them erred in any thing: And again, If any thing be affirmed by the clear Authority of the holy Scriptures, it is undoubtedly to be believed, but as for other witnesses or testimonies, whereby we are persuaded to believe any thing, 
Tibi credere vel non credere liceat.  we are free to believe them or not.  
But undeniable is that of his third Book, against Maximinus, neither ought I as fore-judging to bring forth the Nicene Council, nor thou the Council of Ariminum. I am not bound by the Authority of this, nor thou of that, let matter contend with matter, cause with cause, reason with reason, by the authorities of the Scriptures, which are witnesses not proper to either of us, but common to both. Here we are told that St. Austin speaks not his own mind, but the mind of the Heretics he hath to deal with (an answer haply borrowed from Zabarel, or some other Commentator upon Aristotle, who when they are not able to avoid his sentences any other way, tell us that he speaks ex ment aliorum Philosophorum) but the truth is otherwise, as appeareth from the 18. and 19 chap. of his Book de unitate Ecclesiae, where the like passage may be found, and the Question being there stated, which is the true Church, he desires the Donatists to demonstrate their Church, not in the speeches and rumours of the Africans, not in the Councils of their Bishops, etc. but in the Canonical-Authorities of the sacred Books, and c. 19 gives this reason of his demand, because (saith he) neither do we say, that they ought to believe us to be in the Church of Christ, because that Church which we hold, is commended by Optatus, Ambrose, or innumerable other Bishops of our Communion, or because it is predicated by the Councils of our Colleges, etc. and then speaking of the holy Scriptures, he saith, These are the documents of our cause, these are its foundations, these are its upholders, as if he should have said, not these which I have mentioned before, but the holy Scriptures are the foundations of our Faith; but our Author hath somewhat to produce out of St. Austin, though little to the purpose: And,  
1. St. Austin saith, the last Judgement of the Church, is a general Council.  
Ans. So say we, and yet question their infallibility, 
Questionis hujus obscuritas propioribus ecclesiae temporibus ante Schisma Donati magnos viros & magna charitate praeditos patres Episcopos ita inter se compulit salva pace disceptare atque fluctuare ut diu conciliorum in suis quibusque regionibus diversa statuta nutaverint donec plenario totius orbis concilio quod saluberrime sentiebatur etiam remotis dubitationibus confirmaretur. De Baptismo contra Donat. c. 4.  this Argument therefore we remit to its proper topic of petitio Principii. His second instance from St. Austin, runs thus, The obscurity of this question in the former times of the Church, before the Schism of Donatus, made many great men endowed with great charity, Fathers and Bishops, so to differ and fluctuate amongst themselves, as that divers decrees of councils in their several regions, did for a long time waver, till by a General council of the whole world, what was wholsomely thought, was confirmed, and the doubts removed (or if Mr. C. will needs have it so) was without further doubts confirmed (good Reader see a little what a brave version Mr. C. hath given us) now what of all this? is here any thing of the infallibility of a General council? no sure. But in his second book he tells us that St. Cyprian, had this Authority been declared in his time, would without doubt have believed it.  
Answ. Sure the Fathers have done M. C. some strange discourtesy, else he would never abuse them so grossly as he doth, for St. Austin saith, not crederet, he would believe, but cederet, he would submit, and that not simply, but if the truth of the Question, being declared and made evident Eliquata, had been confirmed by the Council, but the words immediately foregoing, that even former full Councils are often corrected by the later; sufficiently show what was the judgement of St. Austin; and here not only the fabric of the words, but the occasion of the question, being a matter not of fact, but of faith, doth put by all the Answers given to the place, and they are largely considered by the excellent Baron. in the place forecited, to whom therefore I refer you.   

CHAP. XXI.  
The limitations of Bishop Lawd and Dr. Field touching General Councils, propounded, sect. 1. Mr. C 's, cavils against them, considered, sect. 2. And (1.) The liberty which they allow, not destructive to our Church, sect. 2, 3, 4. The supposition that a Council esteemed by them general should err, not impossible, nor improbable, sect. 5. Particular persons may judge of universal tradition, sect. 7. Our Writers do not acknowledge General Councils infallible in fundamentals, sect. 8. We may judge of the legality of their proceed, sect. 9 No General Council hath determined against Protestants, sect. 10. The Trent Council not general, sect. 11. Mr. C ' s. defence of that Council, considered, sect. 12.  
BUt albeit we do not assert an infallibility in General Councils, Sect. 1 yet do we esteem highly of them, and the Worthies of our Church affirm, 
Bishop Lawd Dr. Field.  that their decrees are to be observed by every Christian, provided.  
1. That they keep themselves to God's Rule, and do not attempt to make a new one of their own.  
2. That the clear evidence of reason come not against them.  
3. That there be no gainsaying of men of worth, place and esteem.  
4. That there appear nothing that may argue an unlawful proceeding of the Church: in such cases, we must not (saith the learned Dr. 
p. 666.  Field) so much as publicly profess the contrary: yet may we in the secret of our hearts remain in some doubt, carefully seeking to the Scriptures, and monuments of antiquity to find out the truth; neither is it necessary for us expressly to assent; Now these limitations of the reverend Arch Bishop Lawd, and Dr. Field, are esteemed by him very licentious and ridiculous, and considered with a great deal of pomp and triumph, and yet to me it seems easy to blow off what ever odium he can cast upon them. And  
1 Whereas he calls this a liberty to annul what ever hath been, 
Mr. C. p. 254.  or shall be determined by the supreme Tribunal of God's Church. He may do well to acquaint us, whether to descent from a decree be to annul it, whether the Papists or Presbyterians have annulled our Acts of Parliament by dissenting from them, and refusing obedience to them:  
2. Whereas he tells us, Sect. 3 this liberty is manifestly destructive to our own Articles, Canons, and Acts of Parliament; 
Mr. C. ibid.  there being many men of esteem, yea, the greatest part of the world, who pretend most certainly to know the contrary to them; Which objection is also largely managed, p. 267, 268, 269.  
Ans. But should a confuter of Mr. Chilling, thus trifle? 
P. 282. sect. 71. and P. 286. sect. 80.  hath he not told you long ago, true, others may make the same defence as we do, a murderer may cry not guilty, as well as an innocent person, but not so justly, nor so truly; the question is not what can be pretended, but what can be proved. The Presbyterians may pretend their demonstrations against our Church's constitutions, as we do against yours, but that they can prove their accusation so strongly, that appears not. To the Jews, and Priests imposing that sacred silence mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, St. Peter answered, we must obey God rather than men; the three Children to the King of Babylon gave in effect the same answer. Give me now any factious Hypocrite, who makes Religion the pretence and cloak of his rebellions, and who sees not that such a one may answer for himself in these very formal words which the holy Apostles, and Martyrs made use of? And yet I presume no Christian will deny this answer to have been good in the mouths of the Apostles and holy Martyrs, though it were obnoxious to be abused by traitors and rebels, certainly therefore this is no good consequence, Presbyterians and others may pretend to a demonstration against the constitutions of our Church, though unjustly and untruly, therefore we may not pretend to it (though justly and truly we can do it) against the constitutions of your Church. And what if mwn of worth and esteem, think otherwise then our Church doth? Do we say, that it will excuse our people to err with men of worth and esteem? Or doth he that saith the observance of the decrees of a General Council may not be refused unless there be a gainsaying of men of worth, place, and esteem; assert, moreover, that when ever it is so, this will legitimate to any the refusal of this observance without respect to the truth of them? Should I tell a Layick that he must not trust to his private interpretation of any Paragraph of Scripture, without the concurrence of some learned Commentator; could I be reasonably thought to tell him that he might embrace any thing as the sense of any paragraph of Scripture, which any learned Commentator lays down as such? Well then, all that we assert, is, that this conflict in the judgements of learned men is ground for him to advise, and consult and look into the truth, but will not free a man from guilt, who upon that sole account refuseth to observe the decrees .  
3. Sect. 4 Whereas he adds that upon our grounds, a Presbyterian if he think himself certain that our Doctrines are errors, 
Mr. C. p. 268.  may question, contradict, and make parties, to reverse all the Laws, Decisions, etc. both of the English, and God's Church too. This is another misadventure, for neither do we allow any private man's Authority openly to question, or contradict, much less, make parties to reverse the decrees of the particular Church, of which he is a Member, but constantly assert that such a one when ever he happeneth to think contrary to the determinations of that Church, must keep his judgement to himself, and not trouble the Church with it; only refusing obedience with all humility, till he be better informed, that he may perform it without disobedience against God. And the same is said by many of a particular Church, in reference to the decrees of the universal, represented in a General Council.  
2. Sect. 5 He proceeds thus, Let any Christian man's conscience judge, 
Mr. C. p. 267.  whether this be to be admitted as a fitting, respectful, or even possible supposition, that the whole Church, (or as we have it p. 257. that the supreme guides of all Christians, who were by our Lord placed in the Church, and graced with such promises, who are the only guardians of the Scripture itself, and the only unappealable Judges of the sense of it,) should conspire to make decisions in matters of Christian Doctrine, against which express Scripture, or evident demonstration can be produced.  
Answ. 1. (To let pass these precarious suppositions, that a General Council is of Divine right, that the promises considered above, belong to such conventions, and that they are the only guardians of Ssripture, which can never be proved by him) who sees not, that this Argument proceeds upon two gross mistakes.  
1. That a General Council is the whole Church, when as they cannot be the hundreth part even of the Ministers of God's Church.  
2. That if such persons thus convened, define any matter of Doctrine contrary to scripture, they must conspire to do so, as if they could not define it out of weakness, rashness, prejudice, etc.  
2. I Answ. With Dr. Taylor, 
In his liberty of Prophesying  that either these Councils are tied to the rule of God's Word, or not; if the first, then are they to be examined by it; and to be followed no farther, than they adhere to this unerring Rule; and consequently, we must be allowed a liberty of judgement, to discern whether they keep close to this word, or not: If they are not tied to the guidance of this Rule, then may they transgress it, cancel the laws of Christ, and enact things contrary thereunto, which even the Romanists disclaim.  
3. Unless we are bound to shut our eyes, unless the Authority of a Council be so great a prejudice, as to make us do violence to our understanding, so as not to dis-beleive its decrees, though they seem clearly to be contrary to Scripture, but to believe they agree with the Rule of Scripture, though we know not how; unless I say, we be bound in duty to be so obediently blind and sottish; we are sure some Councils, which by our Adversaries are reputed General, have notoriously receded from the words and sense of Scripture. For what wit of man can reconcile the decree of the thirteenth Session, of the Council of Constance, with Christ's institution, delivered to us by way of precept; seeing in the preface of that decree, Christ's institution, and the practice of the Primitive Church is expressed, and then with a non obstante, communion in one kind is established.  
Again, is it possible for any man to contrive a way to make the decree of the Council of Trent, friends with the fourteenth chapter of the Corinthians? how do the Hyperaspistes of that Council sweat, to reconcile it to St. Paul? and the wisest of them do it so poorly, as to proclaim to all the world it is not feasible. What vice in Scripture is prohibited with greater evidence, than this practice? and therefore on the same score, that we are reconciled to such decrees, we may be reconciled to the most gross enormities. What ever is brought to prove the infallibility of Councils, cannot make it so certain that they are infallible, as these two instances do prove infallibly, that they were deceived, and if these were, others might have been.  
4. What shall we say to all the Arrian Councils, celebrated with so great and numerous Assemblies, called by the authority of the Emperor, which at that time, did convocate all Synods, and to which, as many, or more did come, then to the Nicene Council: Is it necessary to suppose that these have erred in matter of doctrine, and must it be impossible to think the same of the less numerous assemblies, at the first and second Nicene Council, or of the fifty Bishops met at Trent?  
5. I hope men may be permitted to know a contradiction, now it is evident that your General Councils have contradicted each the other; 
Sess. 25.  the Council of Trent, allows picturing of God the Father, the second Council of Nice denies it. 
Act. 5. & 7.   
Lastly, The Sanhedrim was as much representative of the Jewish Church, as a General Council is of the Christian, and yet I hope the people might judge of their decrees, and were not bound to think that they did well in establishing those traditions, which made void the commands of God, in condemning the Prophets, and that Messiah whom they foretold.  
And whereas he adds, Sect. 6 that as for universal Tradition, there can be no judge of it, 
Mr. C. p. 257.  but the whole Church, i.e. a general Council; need we any other instances to confute that assertion? the veneration of Images, is delivered by the second Nicene and Trent Council, as an universal tradition: Now let a man consult the Fathers of the first 600 years, who every where denied them this Veneration; and must he not be convinced the vanity of this pretence; let any man read what one single Dally hath produced against the decrees of the second Nicene and Trent Councils, and he cannot choose but acknowledge that the judgement of the Church of God in this matter, was contrary unto them.  
What he discourses p. 255. sect. 8. and again, p. 266. Sect. 8 sect. 2. touching infallibility in fundamentals, is a strange miscarriage, for albeit he gives us this assertion in Italian Characters, that General Councils are infallible in fundamentals, yet doth he assuredly impose upon the Reader, for neither the Archbishop, nor Dr. Field, have any such assertions in the places cited; and therefore I am not obliged to consider what he returns- to a limitation, which is framed by himself.  
Lastly, to the fourth condition, that there appears nothing, Sect. 9 that may argue an unlawful proceeding. He asks still who shall judge? We  
Answ. Who was it that judged the proceed in the Council of Chalcedon to be unlawful, was it not Mr. C? yea, 
p. 51.   
2. Is it not evident in the story of the Acts of the Council of Ariminum, that matters were unlawfully handled there, need we any General Councils to tell us of the illegality of the Trent Council, is it not so legible, that he that runs may read it? and that from the testimonies of Roman Catholics, eye witnesses thereof. Sect. 10  
But were General Councils absolutely infallible, and were their decrees without any limitations, or demurs, to be assented to, yet what will this advantage the Church of Rome, which cannot show, that any of the doctrines which we refuse to assent unto, were ever determined by a General Council, nay, this pretence doth undeniably free us from the guilt of Schism, in rejecting the new Articles, she requires of us, as conditions of her Communion; 
Can. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  seeing she requires them, contrary to the express words of the Ephesine Council, which saith, that it should not be lawful for any man to produce, writ, or compose any belief, beside that which was established by the Fathers of Nice, and that they which should dare to compose, or tender, or offer any such other Faith, to any that were willing to convert from Judaisme, Gentilism, or any other Heresy whatsoever, if they were Bishops, should be degraded, if Layicks, anathematised, or excommunicated. And this brings me to my next Proposition, which is this.  
The Trent Conventicle was no General Council. 
Proposition. 5.   
This we have excellently evinced by Bishop Bramhall, Sect. 11 whose words I shall transcribe, and give you authority for them where it is needful. His words are these.  
How was that General where there was not any one Bishop out of all the other Patriarchates, or any Proctors or Commissioners from them, either present, or summoned to be present, except peradventure some tituler Europian mock-Prelates without cures, such as Olaus Magnus, entitled Archbishop of Vpsall, Or Sir Robert the Scotchman, entitled Archbishop of Armagh? How was that General, or so much as patriarchal, where so great a part of the West was wanting, wherein there was twice so many Episcopelles out of Italy (the Pope's professed Vassals, and many of them the Pope's parasitical hungry Pensioners) as there were out of all other Christian Kingdoms and Nations put together? See the Review of the Trent Council, written by a Roman Catholic? lib. 1. c. 9 sect. 8. chap. 10. sect. 2.  
How was that general, wherein there were not so many Bishop's present at the determination of the weightiest controversies concerning the rule of Faith, and the exposition thereof, as the King of England could have called together in his own dominions, at any one time upon a month's warning? Idem. lib. 1. c. 10. sect. 1. How was that general, which was not generally received by all Churches, even some of the Roman Communion not admitting it? For it was stoutly rejected by the Kings of France, id. chap. 1. lib. 2. And until this day, though they do not oppose it, but acquiesce, to avoid such disadvantages, as might ensure thereupon, yet did they never admit it.  
And as it was not general, so neither was it free, nor lawful; Not free, where the place could afford no security to the one party, it being in the Pope's dominions, and his Armies continually abroad, 
Sleid. l. 17.  Idem. lib. 1. c. 7. sect. 16. Where any one, that spoke a free word, had his mouth stopped, or was turned out of the Council, where the few Protestants, that adventured to come thither, were not admitted to dispute, where the Fathers were noted to be guided by the Spirit sent from Rome in a Male, where divers not only new Bishops, but new Bishoprics, were created, during the sitting of the Convent, to make the Papalins able to over-vote the Tramontains, Id. l. 1. c. 9 Nor yet lawful in regard of the place, which ought to have been, in Germany; Actor debit rei forum sequi. A guilty person is to be judged in his Province, and the cause to be pleaded, where the crime was committed; and likewise in regard of the Judge. In that  
1. The Pope was a party, whose reformation was urged, And therefore by his own Canon Law could not be Judge, or Precedent in the Council.  
2. Appeals were put from him to a lawful Council, and it was never known, that he from whom the appeal was made, should be Judge in the very case of appeal, Idem lib. 1. cap. 3. Again, in every Judgement, there ought to be four distinct persons; The Accuser, the Witness, the guilty person, and the Judge. But in the Council of Trent, the Pope by himself, or his Ministers, acted all these parts himself. He was the right guilty person, and yet withal, the accuser of the Protestants, the witness against them, and their Judge:  
Lastly, No man can lawfully be condemned, before he be heard; But in this Council the Protestants were not permitted to propose their cause, much less to defend it by lawful disputation, but were condemned, before they were called. id. sect. 1. c. 5.  
Now in defence of this Council we are told.  
1. Sect. 12 That the liberty of the Bishops was only straitened by their own respective temporal Princes, and not by the Roman Court. 
Mr. C. p. 270.   
Answ. It was so far restrained that nothing was done there but what pleased the Pope, and for this reason the decision of things proposed, was frequently prorogued, because the resolution of the Pope, and Court of Rome, 
Mr. C. Ib.  was not known unto them, id. sect. 1. chap. 9  
2. Saith he, the Pope gained no access to his Authority thereby, which it concerns not me to refute, and therefore I refer you to the same Author, l. 1. c. 1. sect. 4. sect. 6. c. 14. sect. 1, 9 l. 4. c. 1. l. 5. c. 7. l. 6. c. 1, 2, 3. in all which places the Author shows that the Council ascribed too much to the Pope.  
3. We are told that these Bishops were unanimous in condemning the Protestants Doctrines. 
Mr. C. p. 271.   
Answ. True, the History of that Council tells us, they resolved upon the condemnation of the Lutherans, before they proceeded to debate the matter, and the Bull of Paul the third, bearing date August 23.15 35. informs us, that the very end of calling this Council was, the extirpation of the plaguy Lutheran Heresy.  
Lastly, 
Mr. C. ibid.  he adds, that the Doctrines of this Council, are now actually embraced by all Catholic congregations (i.e. all Papists) wherefore by the Arch Bishop's concessions (viz. that when the decisions of a General Council, are embraced by the universal Church, spread throughout the world, they are infallible) they are to be esteemed infallibly true. Which Argument is built upon this supposition, that the Archbishop, even when defending the reformed Churches, against the imputations of the Church of Rome, should yet acknowledge her to be the universal Church of God.   

CHAP. XXII.  
Absolute submission not due to Patriarchical Councils, sect. 1. The Reason of it, sect. 2, 3. Mr. C ' s. Arguments for it, Answered, sect. 4. Nothing can thence be inferred against us, sect. 5. A Judgement of discretion must be allowed to private men, sect. 6. The reasons of it, sect. 7, 8.  
THe sixth Proposition shall be this; Sect. 1  
That we are not obliged to yield obedience to the decrees of Patriarchical Councils, 
6 Proposition.  but may reject them, when ever they contradict the word of God.  
For the eviction of this, which is the main Pillar of our Author's Fabric: I will premise,  
1. That such Councils are not infallible, this is evident from the contradictions of them to each other (thus the Council of Constance defined a General Council to be superior to the Pope, that of Lateran the contrary, the second Council of Nice decreed for Images, the Council of Constantinople contradicted that) from the evident errors determined by them (thus the corporiety of Angels, by that of Nice, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Arrian Councils at Ariminum, Seleucia, and elsewhere) from the want of any promise of infallibility, from the appeals permitted from them to a General Council, the correcting and nulling their decrees by that higher power, and many other things.  
2. That such conventions of men thus fallible, Sect. 2 may obtrude Heretical opinions, and unlawful practices, upon the Churches, which are members of that Patriarchate; seeing they may and often do obtrude upon others, their decrees, which by reason of their fallibility, may be Heretical and unjust: Yea further, the decrees of one Patriarchical Council, may be contradictory to another, and consequently, if the National Churches of these Patriarchates, be bound to assent unto them, they must be bound to be Schismatics, even in the judgement of the Church of Rome; thus V. G. the Council of Trent hath decreed for communion in one kind, celibacy of Priests, the worship of God in an unknown tongue, the Council of Lateran for the supremacy of the Pope over a General Council; now let the Patriarcks of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and other of the Eastern Church, assemble such a Council, would they not undoubtedly decree the contrary to all these? and then according to Mr. C's. own rule, must not all the National Churches under them, be bound to contradict the decrees of the Trent Council, and consequently to be Schismatics? yea, if Provincial Churches may not examine the decrees of such fallible conventions, must they not lie under a necessity of asserting any error, or practising what ever they define, though never so contradictory to the law of God?  
Once more, it cannot be denied but that the Arrian Councils at Ariminum and Seleucia, were at least Patriarchical, or equivalent to such, and will you add, that therefore every Province, from whence they were convened were bound to submit to their determinations? You will say no, because they contradicted the General Council held at Nice.  
Ans. True, but doth not your Rule assure us, that former plenary Councils may be corrected by those that follow, and were not the Bishops at Ariminum, more numerous than those at Nice?  
2. What if this of Ariminum had been assembled before the Nicene Council, must Arrianisme then have commenced Orthodox? Was there any impossibility but it might have been so? He that permitted Arrianisme then to triumph, might have done it, if he pleased, in the former Centuries.  
Lastly, Sect. 3 is there any impossibility that the lesser part of a Patriarchate should be Orthodox, and the greater Schismatical and erroneous? and sticklers for that, which God hath contradicted in his Word? In this case may not any body see whether a patriarchical Synod will incline, and must the Orthodox party then be necessitated to convene when called to such a Synod, and to assent to their determinations? and practise contrary to what God requires in his Word? Thus in the Trent Council matters stood, and they openly professed they came to extirpate and condemn the Plaguy heresy as they called it, of the Lutherans  
By these things we may see what we are to think of this axiom of our Antagonist, Sect. 4 
Mr. C. p. 237.  viz. That if any law, custom, or doctrine, in any Diocese, be discordant from, but especially if it condemn, what is by Law in force, in the Province, or any Provincial law, what is in force in the Patriarchate, such a law ought not to be made, or being made, aught to be repealed. Now apply these former instances to the Rule, and it will follow, that if any Province in the Eastern Churches should acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope, and decree Communion in one kind legitimate, etc. They were bound to alter such Doctrines and decrees, and consequently bound to refuse the conditions of Communion tendered to them by the Church of Rome. Thus again, under the Old Testament, when the ten Tribes departed from the Worship of God in the place appointed by himself, and set up the Calves at Dan and Bethel, it was unlawful for the Tribe of Judah to practise the contrary, much more to hold it unlawful so to transgress the Law of God, more yet to decree it to be so, and had the lesser convention of twenty three determined for Christ, and held him the Messiah that was to come, had they given him the veneration due unto him, yea, decreed it should be so, all this must necessarily have been nulled by the contrary decrees of the greater Sanhedrim?  
The only Argument which he useth to uphold this fundamental Rule, as he is pleased to call it, 
Mr. C. p. 246.  is that if a Provincial Synod could disannul the formerly received Acts, of a National, or a National of a Patriarchical, there must of necessity follow a dissolution of all Government and Unity as to the whole Catholic Church, yet we profess in our Creed, unam Catholicam: Which Syllogistically runs thus: if there be one Catholic Church, then must a National Synod be subject to a Patriarchal. But the first is true, the sequel depends upon this assertion, that without such subjection, there could not be one Catholic Church. Answ. This is manifestly untrue. For that cannot be necessary to the unity of the Church which may be sinful, but such may be the submission of a National Church, to the decrees of a Patriarchal, as our instances sufficiently declare.  
Again, he further tells us that no inferior power can abrogate and reverse the laws of a superior.  
Answ. True, and thence we infer that seeing the laws of Christ are evidently the laws of the most sovereign power, the decrees of patriarchical and General Councils must yield to them, and consequently, when ever they require any thing contradictory to this law, we must refuse our obedience; to which,  
2. We add that Patriarchical Councils have no authority at all in any Nation, but by permission and consent, of Princes and other Governors thereof, and therefore antecedently to their permission, cannot be called a power superior to our provincial Synods.  
What he adds from the testimony of St. Austin, is nothing to his purpose, but much to ours; It being the very design of St. Austin there, to evidence, that Fathers and Councils, and all humane Writers, must yield to Scripture, and that his evidence thence, must prevail against all the authorities of Fathers and Councils produced by his adversaries, for speaking of the Donatists, who pleaded the authority of St. Cyprian, and some councils for them, he thus goes on: Cur authoritatem Cypriani pro vestro Schismate assumitis, 
De Bapt. cont. donat. l. 2. c. 3.  & ejus exemplum pro Ecclesiae pace respuitis? quis autem nesciat sanctam Scripturam Canonicam tam vet. quam Novi Testamenti certis suis terminis contineri eamque omnibus posterioribus Episcoporum literis ita praeponi ut de illa omnino dubitari & disceptari non posset utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit quicquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit Episcoporum autem literas quae post confirmatum Canonem vel scriptae sunt vel scribuntur & per sermonem forte sapientiorem cujuslibet in ear peritioris, & per aliorum Episcoporum graviorem authoritatem, doctiorumque prudentiam & per concilta licere reprehendi. Si quid in eyes fort a veritate deviatum est, & ipsa concilia quae per singulas regiones vel provincias fiunt plenariorum consiliorum authoritati quae fiunt ex universo orbe christiano sine ullis ambagibus cedere, ipsaque plenaria saepe priora posterioribus emendari, cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat, & cognoscitur quod latebat.  
And yet were this assertion granted, Sect. 5 it would do but little service to Mr. C. seeing the Councils that have determined against us were either unlawful, 
See the Author of the review of the Trent Council. l. 4. c. 7, 8. Dr. Tailor's duc. dub. p. 285.  as that of Lateran, and Florence, or else contradicted by other Councils as great as they, as the second of Nice by that of Constantinople, and all of them by the decree of the General Council of Ephesus against the enlarging of the Apostles Creed. In which case, by our Authors Fundamental Rule, (that the decrees of a Patriarchical Council, must not contradict a General, p. 250) they must necessarily be null.  
My seventh Proposition shall be this. Sect. 6  
That private men ought to judge with a judgement of discretion, 
7. Proposition.  at least whether the determinations of Councils, whether particular or general, are to be received as doctrines of faith, and are not without all enquiry to submit to them. For  
1. If God had intended, to appoint them such an infallible Judge, (above and beyond his Word) in whose determinations they must acquiesce, than would he have infallibly told them which, and where to find him; if a General Council, he would have named him, told us the conditions requisite to the celibration of it, what persons ought to be members of it, how far they were infallible, 
3 Proposition.  and in what not, with many other things above mentioned. The reason is, because the certain knowledge of these things can be your only security, that the determination of this Judge will be infallible. For my obligation to receive this Judge as such, can be no other than God's revelation of it to me, or my certain knowledge, that his Will is such.  
Now God hath no where revealed unto us the necessity of yielding internal assent to a General Council, or afforded us any standard whereby to determine those infinite disputes that are on foot touching this matter, and the decision of which are necessary to the certain knowledge of this infallibility of our Judge; there being a total silence in Scripture touching these things, and a perpetual conflict betwixt reason and reason, authority and authority.  
2. That cannot be the rule of Faith to private persons, Sect. 7 which cannot be known to be so by them, for it is a contradiction to assert that any man is bound to follow that as the Rule of Faith, which he cannot be assured to be so. But such is the authority of the Church, for if there can be any surety of this to a private person, then either from the Word of God, the Judgement of the Church, Reason, or Revelation; he cannot pretend to it from Scripture. For of the sense of this (say you) he must not judge, nor can he know that the Scripture is the Word of God, but by the Church, and consequently, he cannot know from Scripture that there is any Church at all, much less that it is infallible, till he hath admitted that it is infallible.  
3. If the Church must judge, it can be no other than the true Church, and where, and how, shall this be found by a private man?  
2. Is not this evidently to make the Church Judge in her own cause, and will it convince any one that doubts of her infallibility.  
3. Where shall such find the Church thus speaking? in her private Doctors: many are unable to consult them, and if they should.  
1. May they judge of the sense of Fathers?  
2. Will they find them all agreed in the points disputed?  
3. How will they be assured by them, that the whole Church in their days taught agreeably to their doctrine? Yea  
4. How will they be assured what works of the Fathers are true, what spurious, what interpolated, what not, what is by the fraudulency, of men substracted, seeing both parts acknowledge and complain, that these piae frandes have been exercised upon them.  
5. How will he know that the Fathers are to be Judges, yea or no? and which? whether all, or some? And if all, what must he think of those which tell him they must not be Judges any further than they bring their evidence? Is not this enough to crack their credits with him? If some, what some? and why they more than others? and who must determine concerning them? Must he hear the Church speaking in a general Council. But  
1. This hath never been determined in a General Council.  
2. Either he believes already that a General Council cannot err, and then he hath no need of this determination, or believes it may? and than he is but where he was, after this determination must he come to reason.  
1. The definitive sentence of private reason you reject.  
2. Why may not he be allowed to judge for himself, in things perspicuously laid down in Scripture, who must be permitted to do it, touching the infallibility of a General Council, which is not where evidently revealed?  
2. Must he not judge also in what cases she is thus infallible, and so to be esteemed? whether when contradicting or seeming to contradict the voice of Scripture, or evident demonstration? whether when determining matters of discipline and circumstantials, or of faith only? whether she be contradicted by men of worth, place, and esteem, or no? whether when there appeareth any thing that may argue an unlawful proceeding, or not? if you here acknowledge that in these and such like causes, private reason must sit as Umpire, than what becomes of all your objections to the contrary, ushered in with such solemnity and triumph? if not, then is he evidently left at uncertainties, when the determinations of his guide are infallible, when not, it being clear that the knowledge of many of those cases by me propounded, must be precognita to this.  
3. Whence shall he fetch his reason to conclude this infallibility? from Scripture? this is already exploded, from others? neither can this be rationally said, seeing other assemblies consist of men, that are fallible in themselves, nor can they challenge to themselves infallible assistance from God without his promise, which is not to be found, but in holy Scripture.  
3. If the Apostles commended them who examined their Sermons, by their conformity to the law, and the Prophets; and the men of Berea were esteemed noble for searching the Scriptures, to acquaint themselves, 
Acts 17.11.  whether those things which they taught, were so or no; I suppose it cannot reasonably be denied, but that the decrees of a General Council may also be tried by private men, whether they be conform to Scripture, yea, or no; for I hope they will not say, that the decrees of such Councils, are of greater Authority than the Apostles Sermons, which yet were submitted to the trial of private men, by the rule of Scripture. Add to this, that the Apostles Doctrine was attended with a train of miracles (motives very prevalent to induce belief) and therefore if they were commended, who even in this case, and after the Sanhedrims' determination against their Doctrine, and the rejection of it by the Scribes and Pharisees, did thus make search into the word of God, and determine according to their private interpretations of it; how can it be a thing blame-worthy in us, to plead for such a liberty, in reference to the decrees of General Councils?  
4. The Scripture commands us to try all things, and hold what is good; to try the spirits whether they be of God or no; 
1 Thes. 5. 1 John 4.1.  to take heed lest we be seduced; by what touchstone I pray you must we try? by Scripture? then have we what we so much contend for: by a General Council? then were not these commands in force, till the days of Constantine, they concerned none of those to whom they were indicted, nor had they sufficient means to try the truth. The Church diffused, alas poor creatures! must they travel throughout all the world, to know the decisions of every Church? and when this is done, how shall they know, that what they hold to day, shall be held to morrow? when they are divided, how shall they know who are in the right? judge by Scripture and reason, they must not say you, and what other judge could be obtained for three hundred years after Christ, and upward, I am not able to divine. Sect. 8  
Again, why are we bid to read the Scripture? meditate in it day and night, to pray for the illumination of our minds, the spirit of wisdom and revelation, and the assistance of God's holy spirit, that we may know it? is it not sufficient to read and understand what our infallible judge saith? what need of the assistance of the spirit, and the illumination of my mind, to know the sense of Scripture, if this judge must give it me? and I cannot have it elsewhere? yea, why doth God promise, that his secret shall be with them that fear him, he will teach them his covenant: that if we search for understanding as for Silver, 
Prov. 2. 2-6.  and for hid treasures, we shall find it; what need of all this search by any (excepting only Bishops, who are to be members of a General Council) if it be so dangerous, to judge without them, and when they have once judged, we have infallibly the truth.  
Lastly, That rule of faith is deservedly suspected, which will not endure the trial, but such is this which will not suffer men to use their judgements to examine it; is not that bruta fides, which requires a man's belief, albeit he knows no reason for it, but evident reason to the contrary. You will say that he judgeth this at least, that 'tis very unlikely the Church should err, and this is sufficient to make his judgement rational.  
Answ. Then the faith of Jews, who rejected our Saviour with their Sanhedrim; of the Pagans, who with their wisest men rejected Christianity, must be good and rational.  
And if private men must be allowed this judgement, much more must it be granted to whole Nations, wherein haply there be ten times as many learned men, as ever met in any Synod.   

CHAP. XXIII.  
Our eighth Proposition, sect. 1. Separation from the external or internal communion of a Church, sect. 2. The Church Catholic, not organical, sect. 3. It's essential unity not external, sect. 4. What separation is the sin of Schism, sect. 5. To leave the Church, and to leave her external communion, not the same, ibid. The Church of Rome not the guide of Faith, ibid. We separated not externally from the Church Catholic, sect. 6. Why from the Roman, sect. 7. Mr. C ' s. assertion that the Articles we reject, are as old as St. Gregory, sect. 9 Our evidence to the contrary largely produced, sect. 10, 11.  
My eighth Proposition is,  
THat it cannot be proved that Protestants have separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, Sect. 1 
8. Proposition.  or if it should be granted, that they externally separated from all visible Churches beside themselves, yet could they not justly be charged with Schism, especially from the Roman Church.  
Where 1. I premise that separation is twofold.  
1. From the internal communion of the Church, Sect. 2 or conjunction with it by faith and charity, or obedience; or external, by refusing to communicate in the same Liturgies and public worship.  
2. I assert, Sect. 3 that the Church Catholic which we profess to believe in the Apostles creed, is not an Organical Body made up of many particular churches; for were it so, none could be members of the church Catholic, who were not members of some particular church; and consequently, should a Christian living alone among Pagans, in some country remote from Christendom, convert some of them to Christianity, they would not be members of the church, because not united to some Organical part of it. Yea,  
2. In the days of Elijah, there would have been no Church, there being no such organical body. And  
3. Under the prevailing of Arrianisme, those Righteous souls who renounced Communion with the Arrians, and fled into dens and caves, must have renounced the Church Catholic, as being Members of no such Organical Body.  
Now hence it follows, that the unity of the Church Catholic, cannot be external, (which Mr. C. every where supposeer, and takes for granted) but only internal, or that of faith and charity; and consequently to prove our separation from the holy Catholic Church, it must be proved that we have not that faith, obedience and charity, which is requisite to make us members of that Church, which is a task so hard that Mr. C. durst not set upon it.  
3. Sect. 4 That to be united in external Communion with some such part of the Church Catholic cannot be necessary to my being a member of it, 
Mr. Chilling. p. 255. sect. 9  this is evident,  
1. From the instances now produced.  
2. Because a man unjustly excommunicated, is not in the Churches external Communion, and yet he is still a member of the Church. And this also strengtheneth the former Corollary.  
4. Sect. 5 
Id. p. 264.  That not every separation, but only a causeless separation from the external Communion of any Church, is the sin of Schism; This we have sufficiently proved above. Whence it evidently follows, that those Protestants who say they forsook the external Communion of the Church visible, that is, renounced the belief and practice of some few things, which all visible Communions besides them did believe and practise, cannot precisely upon this account lie under the imputation of the sin of Schism, (any more than the seven thousand that refused to bow the knee to Baal, or those in the primitive times that refused communion with the Arrian Churches.) As doing it upon conviction from Scripture, Reason, and Antiquity, that all the visible Churches of the world had in these observances swerved from the Word of God, Reason, and Antiquity, which is every where their plea. 
Mr. Chil. p. 265. sect. 32.   
Now hence it follows, that to leave the Church, and to leave her external Communion, is not the same, that being done by ceasing to be a Member of it; that is, by ceasing to have faith and obedience, the requisites to make us such, (which can never be necessary,) this by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies, and public worship, and indeed were these the same, it must of necessity follow that no two Churches divided in external communion can be both true parts of the Catholic Church, 
Mr. Chil. p. 271 sect. 50.  and consequently, that either the Church of Rome which is thus divided from all other Christians, is no part of the Catholic Church, or which is more uncharitable, that all the Churches of Christendom besides her, must be excluded from being parts of the Church Catholic, as being divided in external communion from the Roman, yea, when the Western and Eastern Churches refused communion with each other, one of them presently must be excluded from the Catholic Church. Yea, it will follow that either there is some particular Church, that is by promise from God freed from ever admitting any superstitions or corruptions into her Liturgies and public services, or else that to separate from superstitions and corruptions crept into these particular Churches, is to become no Churches, which is as ridiculous, as to say, that to purge any person from those distempers which others labour under, were to unman him. Indeed I know that the Roman Church pretends to be the guide of the faith of others, to be secured from these corruptions, and consequently to be the Root of Union to other true Orthodox Churches, but this pretence is so assaulted by Mr. Chil. 
P. 337. sect. 20.  that I am confident they are not able to stand out against the evidence of his Reason; Thus than he. Is it possible that any Christian heart can believe, that not one amongst all the Apostles (who were men very good, and desirous to direct us in the surest way to Heaven, instructed by the Spirit of God, in all necessary points of Faith, and therefore certainly not ignorant of this most necessary point of Faith) should add rei memoriam, writ this necessary doctrine plainly so much as once? certainly in all reason they had provided much better for the good of Christians, if they had wrote this, though they had writ nothing else. Methinks the Evangelists undertaking to write the Gospel of Christ, could not possibly have omitted any one of them, especially this most necessary point of faith, had they known it necessary, (St. Luke especially who plainly professeth that his intent was to write all things necessary.) Methinks St. Paul writing to the Romans could not but have congratulated this their privilege to them. Methinks instead of saying, Your faith is spoken of all the world over, (which he saith also of the Thessalonians) he could not have failed to have told them once at least in plain terms that their faith was the Rule for all the world for ever, but then sure he would not have put them in fear of an impossibility, as he doth, chap. 11. That they also, nay the whole Church of the Gentiles if they did not look to their standing, might fall away to infidelity, as the Jews and done. Methinks in all his other Epistles or at least in one of them, he could not have failed to have given the world this direction, had he known it to have been true, that all men were to be guided by the Church of Rome, and none to separate from it under pain of damnation. Methinks, writing so often of Heretics, and Antichrist, he should have given the world this, (as you pretend) only sure preservative from them? How was it possible that St. Peter writing two Catholic Epistles mentioning his own departure, writing to preserve Christians in the faith, should in neither of them commend them to the guidance of his pretended successors the Bishops of Rome? How was it possible that St. James, and St. Judas, in their Catholic Epistles should not give this Catholic direction? Methinks St. John instead of saying, he that believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God, (the force of which direction, your glosses do quite enervate and make unavailable to discern who are the Sons of God,) should have said, he that adheres to the Doctrine of the Roman Church, and lives according to it, he is a good Christian, and by this mark you shall know him. What man not quite out of his wits, if he consider as he should, the pretended necessity of this doctrine to salvation ordinarily, can possibly force himself to conceive, that all these good and holy men, so desirous of men's salvation should be so deeply and affectedly silent in this matter, as that not one of them should say it plainly so much as once, but leave it to be collected from uncertain principles, by many more uncertain consequences.  
5. Sect. 6 We say that it cannot be proved that the English Church separated from the external Communion of the Church Catholic, let Mr. C. produce any one thing which we allege as a reason of our separation, and show, that it was held as a matter of faith, or practised in the public Worship of all other Churches, and then we shall acknowledge it.  
2. We have not separated from the external Communion of the reformed Churches, much less from the Communion of ourselves, and therefore not from the universal, of which, both they and we are parts. And thus Mr. Chil. explains himself, and tells you that his meaning was only this, 
P. 295.  that by a Synecdoche of the whole for the part, Luther and his followers might be said to forsake this external Communion of the visible Church; But that properly speaking he forsook the whole visible Church, (viz. As to external Communion) you must excuse me if I grant not, and my reason is this, because he and his followers were a part of this Church, and ceased not to be so by their reformation, now he and his followers, certainly forsook not themselves, therefore not every part of the Church, therefore not the whole Church, and what other plea could have been made by the Church of Jury in the days of Elijah, or the Church of Christ under the prevalency of Arrianisme, I understand not. And what hath Mr. C. to evidence the contrary?  
1. Saith he, 
p. 262.  a separation from any one true member of the Catholic Church, for doctrines that are commonly held by other Churches in communion with that member, is indeed a separation from all Churches.  
Ans. But the Church of Rome hath separated from the Church of England, a true Member of the catholic Church; for doctrines commonly held by other churches, in communion with her. Ergo she hath separated from all Churches.  
2. The Argument evidently supposeth, some of these untruths.  
1. That a true member of a Church, or a particular true Church, cannot require unjust conditions of communion, or at lest cannot have any other to consent with her in these conditions; or that if she do, it is unlawful for others to separate when such conditions are required: Yea, lastly, it supposeth the very thing in question, that all true Members in the Church Catholic, must necessarily communicate externally with each other.  
2. 
Ibid. Reply p. 47, 48.  He tells us, that Calvin confesseth this separation, which confession is considered by Bishop Bramhal.  
3. Saith he, no Church can be found antecedent to our separation, 
p. 263.  with which we are joined in external communion.  
Answ. What inference do you make hence, seeing we are joined in internal communion, with all the Churches of God, and are willing externally to do so, if no unjust conditions be required.  
2. What think you of the Churches which reform before us? 
Ibid.  Again he adds, no Church hath Laws or Governors in common with us.  
Answ. What of all this? is it necessary to our external communion, that all the Laws or Governors of other Churches, should be the same with ours.  
2. Have not the Eastern Churches the same Governors with us. 
Ibid.  Repl. they are manifestly Heretical.  
Answ. This we constantly deny, as you may see in Bishop Bramhal, 
Reply, p. 349.  Bishop morton's Apol. Dr. Field, Mr. Pagits Christianography, and others. He proceeds, not one Church can be found, 
Ibid.  which will join with us in public offices, or we with them.  
Answ. Who told you so? Bishop Bramhal informs you, that albeit the Eastern Churches use many rites that we forbear, yet this difference in rites is no breach of communion, nor needeth to be (for any thing he knoweth) if distance of place, and difference of language, were not a greater impediment to our actual communion, seeing we agree in the acknowledgement of the same Creeds, and no other; nor do we require agreement in lesser matters, as a condition of communion, in which the Church of Rome is extremely Schismatical: Obj. But their Patriarch Jeremiah refused communion with us. To this Bishop Bramhel Replies in two full pages, that the thing is not true, and 2. that since his time Cyril the Patriarch hath professed communion with us. Lastly, Saith he, surely they could not become ipso facto in communion with the Grecian Church, by separating from the Roman.  
Answ. Surely we may so, as having since left off, to require those unjust conditions, or practise those unlawful things, which before we did require and practise.  
6. The reason of our separation from the Church of Rome, Sect. 7 is not so much, because they maintain errors and corruptions, as because they impose them, 
Chill. p. 267. sect. 40.  and will allow their communion to none, but to those that will hold them, and have so ordered, that either we must communicate with them in these things, or nothing. Now this I hope is not a reason common to you with other Churches, for what they hold, they hold to themselves, 
Id. ibid. p. 306. sect. 106.  and refuse not to communicate with them that hold the contrary; so that we may continue in their communion, without professing to believe their opinions, but in yours we cannot.  
Lastly, Sect. 8 were we Schismatics for separating from the Church of Rome, for doctrines which were common to her, 
See Pagits Christianography.  with other Churches; yet can it not be hence inferred, that we must close with the Church of Rome in all her unjust demands; but only in those doctrines, if there were any, in which she hath the consent of the Eastern Church, and all others, which we esteem the Church of God.  
Again, p. 287. sect. 12. Sect. 9 we are told that the Articles mentioned by the Dr. most of them had been expressly declared in former Councils, and all were as old at least, as Christianity in England: whence he infers, that the English separation, made from the Roman Church, should have been made on the same grounds: from the universal Church above a thousand years since, seeing it is evident that in St. Gregory's time, both Eastern and Western Churches, were in perfect unity. Where not to take notice either,  
1. Of his false supposition, that Christianity in England was no older than St. Gregory, or Austin the Monk, when it was above two hundred years older than the very being of a Monk. Nor,  
2. Of his ridiculous assertion, that these Articles which we contend against, are not new, because most of them declared in former Councils (when as I am confident, he must sink down as low, as a thousand years to make this good) let him cite any Council expressly declaring for any of these Articles, excepting the Celibacy of Priests, and the worship of Images, which is as evident an innovation, as any possibly can be. Nor,  
3. To mind him, that not the asserting of these opinions, but the imposing of them on us, as conditions of our communion with them, the obtruding them into their Liturgies and public offices, are the causes of our refusing Communion with them, and therefore that Mr. C. would he draw the Parallel must evidence, that this was done by the universal Church, in the days of St. Gregory. Nor,  
4. That it is not evident, that there was such an Harmony betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches, but rather the contrary, as touching the Celibacy of Priests, the power of the Pope, etc. I say, to omit all these and many other things, my last Proposition shall be this,  
That neither St. Sect. 10 Gregory taught all these Doctrines, nor yet were they embraced by our Church at that time. 
9 Proposition.   
For to begin with St. Gregory.  
1. I have sufficiently evinced already, that he denied the Pope's Supremacy.  
2. As for the infallibility of the Roman Church, had he known this to have been the opinion of those days, is it not a wonder that he should never plead it against his opponents and Adversaries?  
3. Touching transubstantiation, Communion in one kind, the Sacrifice of the Mass, what can you produce out of Gregory for them. And  
1. 
Mr. C. p. 137.  As for Communion in one kind, you acknowledge that it was not practised for a thousand years and upward; and where doth St. Gregory tell us, that it may be practised otherwise? we have showed you above, that Pope Leo and Gelasius, thought it no better than Sacrilege to Rob the People of the Cup: and therefore if you affirm Gregory to have held the contrary, as it is gratis dictum, so will it be but an evidence of his departing, from what was formerly maintained by his own Church.  
2. Where doth he say, that Christ is corporeally in the Sacrament? and that the substance of bread and wine remains not? Nay, 
Sacrificium quod passionem filii semper imitatur. Dial. l. 4. c. 58. Non inordinate agimus si ex libris, licet non Canonicis, sed tamen ad edificationem Ecclesiae editis testimonia proferamus. Moral. l. 19 c. 16. Graeg. in Ezek. l. 1. Hom. 9  that it than obtained not in the Church of God, nor was esteemed as an Article of their faith, is fully evidenced by Bishop Usher, in his book de Christ. Eccles. success l. 1. c. 2. And for the sacrifice of the Mass, he tells us, that Christ is Mystically there offered, and that this is such a sacrifice, which is an imitation of Christ's passion.  
Against your new Canon of Scripture, which the Dr. quarreled with, he is most evident in his Morals; where he saith, citing the 6 of Maccabees, that it was not Canonical.  
Against your Traditions, necessary to supply the defect of Scripture, he tells us, whatsoever serveth for edification, and instruction, is contained in the Volume of the Scripture. And again, Heretics do usually for the confirmation of their perverse opinions, suggest such proofs which are not found in Scripture; and what I pray you, are your Traditions, yea, all the doctrines you contend for in this Book?  
And whereas you Sacrilegiously Rob the People of the use of Scripture, he on the contrary assures us, 
Graeg. l. Epist. 40. ad Theod. Med.  that it is an Epistle sent from God to his Creature, that is, to Priest and People. And if thou receive a Letter (saith he) from an Earthly King, thou wilt never sleep nor rest till thou understandest it: The King of Heaven, and God of men and Angels hath sent his Letters to thee, for the good of thy soul, and yet thou neglectest the reading of them; Therefore I pray thee study them, and daily meditate on the Word of thy Creator, and learn the mind of God in the words of God.  
You tell us, that the worship of images must be observed, 
Graeg. l. 9 Ep 9 Adorare imagines omnibus modis devita.  and acknowledged by all means; he contrariwise, that by all means it must be avoided; And again in the same place, 'tis unlawful to worship any thing that is made with hands, because it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve: and again, in his Epistle to Serenus Bishop of Massilia, I commend you, that you had that Zeal, that nothing made with hands should be worshipped; but yet you should not have broken them, etc. but let them be proserved, and forbidden the people the worshipping of them, that the ignorant may have whence to gather the knowledge of the history, and yet not sin in worshipping the Picture.  
You assert a Purgatory after this life, he is thought to contradict it by John Bank, who p. 20. proves the contrary,  
1. 
Moral. l. 8. c. 8.  From his Morals, where he saith, whom mercy now delivereth not, him justice after the world alone imprisoneth, To which purpose is that of Solomon, That in whatsoever place the tree falleth, whether toward the South, or towards the North, there it shall be; because at the time of a man's death, either the good spirit or the evil spirit shall receive the soul going from the body, he shall hold it with him for ever without any charge; that neither being exalted, it can come down to punishment; nor being drowned in eternal punishments, can thenceforth rise to any remedy of Salvation. If then after death there be no deliverance, there be no change, but as the Angel, either good or bad, receiveth the soul out of the body, so it continueth for ever, either exalted in joy, or drowned in punishment; then there can be no Purgatory, than there can be nothing but Heaven or Hell, where they that come shall abide for ever. And in another place, It is undecent to give ourselves to long affliction for them, whom we are to believe have come by death to true life: This therefore seeing we know, we are to have a care, not to be afflicted for the dead, but to bestow our affliction on the living, to whom our piety or devotion may be profitable, and our love yield fruit. Here is no place for Purgatory, seeing he teacheth us to believe, that the faithful in death do attain to true life, and that their passage from this world is to a better: Neither doth he acknowledge any use of Prayers, Masses, Trentals, or any other offices or obsequies for the Dead, who saith, that our devotion and love, yieldeth no fruit or profit to them.  
Lastly, as for Marriage of Priests, I do not deny, but that at first Pope Gregory did command them to live single, but when he understood that they were given secretly to fleshly pleasure, and that hereupon many Children were Murdered, many infant's heads found in a Fishpond, he disannulled that commandment, 
p. 288.  Vid. Sup. chap. 17 sect. ult. Now against this evidence, we have nothing but the confession of an Osiander, an H●mphry, and a Carrion, whose citation by the way is altogether impertinent, with an Argument from the Anathemaes annexed to the decrees of Councils, which have been sufficiently refuted already, and therefore I pass to the second part of my Proposition, to show that these Doctrines, etc. were not received by us in the time of Pope Gregory, or esteemed matters of Faith.  
For 1. Sect. 11 We have already evinced the contrary of the Pope's supremacy, and proved that in two British Councils it was Synodically rejected, and it is confirmed by Bishop Bramhal in his tract of Schism, and his Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon, and by Ephraim Pagit in his Christianography, beyond all possibility of contradiction.  
2. The denial of the infallibility of the Church of Rome, appears sufficiently from that stiff opposition, which was made by the British, Picts, and Irish, against the Church of Rome, touching the Celibration of Easter (of which the Reverend Primate enlargeth in his religion of the ancient Irish, 
Bishop Usher.  from p. 92. to p. 116.) and their averseness from communion with those of the Roman party, which he relateth p. 108, 109, 110. where among other things, you have these verses, made by one of the chief of their wise men, 
Woe be to him that doth not keep  
From Romish Wolves, his sheep,  
with staff, and weapon strong.   
3. As for Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead, let it be observed, that the Prayers and oblations mentioned, are expressly noted to have been made for such, whose souls were supposed at the same instant to rest in bliss. See Bishop Ʋsher p. 27, 28. And again in his answer to the Jesuit, 
p. 189. Bed. l. 3. Hist. Eccl. c. 2.  he gives these instances. The Brothren of the Church of Hexham, in the anniversary commemoration of the O●its of Oswald King of Northumberland, used to keep their vigils for the health of his soul; and having spent the night in praising God with Psalms, to offer for him in the morning, 
Id. l. 4. cap. 23.  the sacrifice of the sacred oblation, as Beda writeth, who tells us yet withal, that he reigned with God in Heaven, and by his prayers, he procured many miracles to be wrought on Earth. So likewise doth the same Bede report, 
Bed. l. 4. Hist. cap. 23.  that when it was discovered by two several visions, that Hilda the Abbess of Streansheal (or Whitby in Yorkshire) was carried up by the Angels into Heaven, they which heard thereof presently caused prayers to be said for her soul. And Osbenn relateth the like of Dunstan, that being at Bath, and beholding in such another vision, the soul of one that had been his Scholar at Glassenbury, to be carried up into the Palace of Heaven, he straightway commended the same into the hands of the Divine piety, 
Divinae pietatis.  and entreated the Lords of the place where he was, to do so likewise.  
4. As touching the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, the same was taught then, which we teach now, as you may see in the Homily of Elfrick, approved by divers Bishops in their Synods, and appointed to be read in the Church upon Easter-day, before the receiving of the Communion. This Book is subscribed by the two Arch-Bishops of Canterbury and York, 
Hom. in D●e Sancti paschat. p. 17.  and thirteen other Bishops; and the words of it are, There is great difference betwixt the body wherein Christ suffered, and the body which is hallowed Howsel. The body truly that Christ suffered in, was born of the flesh of Mary, with blood, with bones, with skin, and with sinews, in humane limbs, with a reasonable soul-living: And his Ghostly body (which we call the Howsel) is gathered of many corns, without blood and bone, without limb, without soul. And therefore, there is nothing to be understood bodily, but all is Ghostly to be understood.  
5. From hence it follows undeniably, that they rejected your proper sacrifice of the Mass.  
6. And for communion in one kind, it was decreed in a Synod under Cuthbert in the year 747. Can. 23. That Layicks should be admonished to communicate more often, lest they should want the food and drink of salvation. 
Pagit. Christianography, part. 3.  Our Lord saying, except you eat the flesh, and drink the blood of the son of Man, you shall have no life in you. From whence it is evident, that they thought it necessary for Layicks to participate of both the Elements.  
7. That the Layicks were permitted, yea commanded to read the Scriptures, appears from what Bede reports of Bishop Aidan, That all such as went in his company, 
Lib. 3. c. 5.  whither Clerks or Layicks, were tied to exercise themselves either in reading of the Scriptures, or learning of Psalms.  
That they had their service in their own tongue, I have but little evidence, neither have you more to the contrary. 
Bishop Jewels reply. pag. 190.  But the best I yet find given of it, is this, that Theodore the seventh Archbishop after Austin, brought the Latin service into England.  
That they rejected Image Worship, is evident from this, that our learned men opposed the second Nicene Council's determination concerning Images; and when the acts of that Council were sent into Britain, by Charles, King of France, Alcuine wrote an Epistle against it, substantially grounded upon the authority of the holy Scripture, which Epistle, with the said Book, with our Kings and Princes hands, was brought to the King of France. See Pagit part 3. p. 41. ex Hoveden & aliis.  
That they rejected invocation of Saints, 
Holinshed's Hist. ad An. 1100. p. 27.  is proved from the History of King William the second, who protested openly, that he believed that no Saint could profit any man in the Lord's sight, and therefore neither would he, nor any man, 
See other evidences in Pagit. pt. 3. p. 83.  that was wise, (as he affirmeth) make intercession either to Peter, or any other Saint for help.  
Till the year 1100. it was not prohibited to the Clergy to marry (saith Henry of Huntingdon;) At which time Anselm endeavoured to put the Pope's Letters in execution, but at last after the pressures, tyranny, and arts, of an hundred and thirty years' continuance, (for it began in 970, and was not finished till 1100. as Polydore Virgil computes it) the Clergy were driven from their chaste Wives, and betook themselves to Concubines, whom they changed, or multiplied without disturbance. And this tyranny was exercised by Pope Calixtus the second. Whereupon our Simon of Durham made these Verses, not very good, though very true.  
O bone Calixte, nuno omnis Clerus odit te,  
Nam olim presbyteri solent Uxoribus uti.  
Id praevertisti quondam cum papafuisti.  
Which Prideaux in his History hath bettered by his translation.  
The Clergy now the good Calixtus hate,  
For heretofore each one might have his mate;  
But since thou gotten hast the papal Throne,  
They must keep Punks, or learn to lig alone.  
By which you may see, that it was not Calixtus the First, who lived Anno Dom. 221, that enjoined Celibacy, (as our Author intimates, and would have the learned Dr. guilty of the same blunder, 
Mr. Cr. p. 309  albeit he hath not one syllable whence he can infer it.) But Calixtus the second, who lived, An. Dom. 1119. 
Sim. Dunelm. in Chron. lib. 20. Math. Paris in Hen. 1. pag. 67  who in a Synod held at Rome, An. Dom. 1120. Made this decree, that Presbyters, Deacons, and Subdeacons, should be altogether interdicted the cohibitation of Concubines and Wives.   

CHAP. XXIV.  
Particular Nations have a power to purge themselves from their corruptions, sect. 1. Mr. C's. limitations considered, ib. The example of the Emperor Justinian for it, sect. 2. Of Carolus Magnus, sect. 3. Mr. C ' s. evasion obviated, sect. 4. The testimonies of Balsamon, sect. 5. The example of the Kings of Judah vindicated, sect. 6. Mr. C ' s. Objections answered, sect. 7, 8. The History of the reformation, sect. 9 We might reform without Synodal concurrence, sect. 10.  
IN the consideration of this twenty fourth Chapter, Sect. 1 I will use as few words as possible. And  
First, Whereas the Dr. had said, that by the concessions, of the most learned Popish Writers, particular Nations had still a power to purge themselves from their corruptions as well in the Church, 
Mr. C. p. 285.  as in the state, without leave had from the See of Rome. This (saith he) is willingly granted. But then,  
1. He will not have them grant such a power of purgation against the consent of the See of Rome.  
Answ. As if they who have power to do this without the leave of the See of Rome, might not do it with a non obstante to the contradiction of that See.  
2. Were all the decrees and statutes of the , Spanish, Gallican Churches, against the encroachments of the Pope, his indulgences, his bulls, etc. (so largely insisted upon by Bishop Bramhal) made by the consent of the Roman See? did she not with greatest violence oppose them?  
Secondly, saith he, did they allow this liberty against the consent of the whole Church Catholic? 
Ibid.   
Answ. We have showed that we did not separate from the whole Church Catholic, but being constrained by your obstinacy in imposing on us unjust conditions of communion, refused to communicate with you (the most ulcerated part of the Church Catholic) upon these terms.  
2. When the Church in Athanasius his days, was overrun with Arrianism; the Church of Israel, in the days of the Prophet Elias, with Idolatry, was it not lawful for particular Churches, and particular Tribes, to purge themselves from those corruptions?  
3. What promise have we, what evidence to assure us, that there never was, can, nor will be, any superstitions in all the Liturgies of the Church of God? if you tell us that there be such promises, we must call upon you to produce them, if not, then might there have been cause of our altering some things, which were universally practised in the visible Church, at the time of our reformation, when we returned to that Primitive purity, that was more or less deserted by it.  
Thirdly, 
Ibid.  Not a Purgation (quoth he) from the whole faith and discipline, in any thing they thought fit to be rectified, that by the authority of Councils and laws of Princes, had been received, and enforce ever since this Nation was Christian, and by which they declared themselves members of the Catholic Church.  
Answ. Every word is a misadventure, for neither were the chief things reform by us (as the tyranny of the Pope, the Idolatry of Images, the Sacrilege in withholding the Cup, etc.) decreed by any Councils, established by any laws of Princes, or received by us, at the first conversion of the Nation, as we have sufficiently evinced; much less did the asserting of them, declare us members of that Catholic Church, which never owned them, but detested them.  
Fourthly, 
Ibid.  He tells us, that we cannot produce one example, either of States or Princes, that ever made any laws, to repeal any doctrines declared, or disciplines established in the Church.  
Answ. If he speaks of a particular Church, 'tis so palpable an untruth, that I will not disparage any Reader so much as to think he needs an instance to the contrary; if of the whole Catholic Church, it concerns not us, for never will he be able to evince, that we have done so; or if we had done so in slighter matters, where they have swerved from Scripture and Primitive antiquity, how are we blame-worthy in so doing? hath not your Trent Council decreed against the necessity of giving the Eucharist to Infants, which yet was the Doctrine of the universal Church, in the fourth century? have you not laid aside some Ceremonies which in the Primitive Church were practised universally?  
Lastly, 
Ibid.  You say that the Purgations conceded and executed by Princes truly Catholic, were to extirpate all Innovations in Doctrine, all transgressions of discipline, that swerved from the decrees and ordinations of the Church, and no other.  
Answ. The Purgations executed by our Princes were truly so, and this we constantly assert, let Queen Elizabeth speak in her own behalf.  
England (saith she) hath embraced no new religion, 
Cambdens' Annals of Eliz. p. 35, 36.  nor any other then that which Jesus Christ hath commanded, that the Primitive and Catholic church hath exercised, and the Ancient Fathers have always with one voice and one mind approved.  
And 1. Sect. 2 touching the Emperor Justinian (the first instance produced by the Dr.) let it be only considered, that it was he who banished Pope Silverius, who created Justiniana prima, and Carthage new Patriarchates by his imperial power, who made so many laws contrary to the decrees of former Synods, and for the correction, limitation, or right ordering thereof; who made so many laws concerning Ecclesiastical persons, and Benefices, and holy Orders, and appeals, and the Patronage of Churches, concerning Religion, the Creed, Sacraments, Heresy, (excommunicating all Heretics, and that of Nestorius and Eutyches in particular, ordaining that if the followers of them did not return after warning given, by virtue of his Edict, they should have no favour, 
L. cum recta C. de summa. T●●●  or pardon, but be condemned, and punished, as convicted, and denounced Heretics,) who made so many Laws touching Schism, Sanctuaries, Simony, and all other matters of Ecclesiastical cognizance, yea, who expressly saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Novel. 133.  that nothing comes amiss to the Prince, every thing is under his Royal cognizance. I say, if this be considered, Justinian alone, if all other Precedents were lost, were sufficient to evince this Political supremacy of sovereign Princes, over the Church, within their own Dominions, and consequently to justify the Oath of Supremacy (which Mr. C. tells us we cannot hence justify) there being nothing ascribed to his Majesty thereby, 
See Mr. C. p. 290.  but only Political Supremacy as is excellently evinced by Bishop Bramhal. 
Rep. p. 290.  Yea  
2. To justify our reformation, it being only to the casting out of innovations in doctrine, and irregularity in manners, which is the confessed purpose of these laws.  
Secondly, For the Emperor Charles the great, (which was the Doctor's second instance) we are told by the Emperor himself, that he convocated Bishops to counsel him how God's Law, and Christian Religion should be recovered. 
Apud Surium die 5. Jun.  Therefore (saith he) by the council of my Religious Prelates, and my Nobles, we have appointed Bishops in every City, and Boniface their Archbishop, and appoint that a Synod shall be held every year, that in our presence the Canonical decrees, and the Rites of the Church may be restored, and Christian Religion may be reform. Yea, he tells us that he resided in his councils not only as an hearer, but Judge also, and by the gift of God determined and decreed, what was to be held in these inquiries; 
Part. 1. pag. 3.  As you may find in the collection of Goldastus, yea, he made a decree against the worshipping of Images, and gave sentence against the second Nicene Council in this particular; And to add no more in the preface of his capitulary, he speaks on this wise to the Clergy of his Empire: We have sent our Deputies unto you, to the intent, that they by our Authority may together with you correct what shall stand in need of correction, we have also added certain chapters of canonical Ordinances, such as we thought to beemost necessary for you. Let no man I entreat you, think, or censure, this pious admonition, for presumptuous, whereby we force ourselves to correct what is amiss, to cut off what is superfluous, and briefly to compact what is good. But rather let every man receive it with a willing mind of charity. For we have read in the Book of Kings, how Joas endeavoured to restore the Kingdom which God had given him, to the service of the true God, by going about it, by correcting and admonishing it; So that here we have him not only acting as high as the oath of Supremacy will allow our Prince, but particularly by the council of his Prelates, and his Nobles, acting for the recovery and reformation of Religion, yea, without Synodal authority cutting off what was superfluous, correcting what was amiss, and justifying himself by the example of King Joas, who undoubtedly reformed Religion itself, 
c. 24. sect. 7.  as our Author confesseth, of the Kings of Judah.  
Now to these things what answer is returned by Mr. Sect. 4 C. but that these Laws were all regulated by the Laws of the present Church in their times, that they were only the reduction of the faith and discipline of the Church into imperial Laws, that they were never intended as acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy, but as consequences of the Church's Authority, and that this will be found a truth by any one who casts an eye upon those Laws. 
De imperio sum. potest.  Now this is evidently otherwise, for, as Grotius tells us, Justinian made new Patriarchates, ordained they should enjoy the full rights of a Patriarchate, contrary to the twelfth canon of the council of Chalcedon, altered the Canons touching the election of Bishops, which was very usual for Emperors to do, as Tollet there confesseth, to omit many other instances of like kind. And as for Charles the great, he tells us from Bochellus, that it was very well known that anciently as oft as Synods were assembled, their decrees were not ratified till approved by the King in his privy Counsel, and if any things there displeased, they were exploded, which (saith he) from the Council of Tours, 
Cabilonensi.  and Chaloun, under Charles the great, we have already demonstrated, thus Bochellus. Yea farther, the same Emperor added to the Senate held in Theodonis-Villa, and gives us notice, that he did so by annexing, or prefixing of this clause, hoc de nostro adjicimus, but I will not trouble myself any further to insist on this, seeing the same Grotius hath abundantly evinced in his seventh chapter, their power to rescind and amend these Ecclesiastical Canons, and that this power was adjudged to them as their right by the Synods, thus convened by them. But  
2. Be it so, that these Imperial Laws were the Church's faith, and Canons, for discipline, and consequences of the Church's authority, then must it be acknowledged that the decrees of Charles the great, against worshipping of Images and the sentence of the Nicene Council, was a part of the Church's faith, a consequence of her authority, 
Justin nov. 123. S. ad haec jubemus. Carol. mag. capit l. 1. c. 70.  and regulated by the Laws of the present Church. And the decree both of Justinian and Carolus Magnus, that Divine Service should be celebrated in the vulgar tongue, as being required to be celebrated so, by the Apostle, and by God himself, who would require an account of them who should do otherwise, at the day of Judgement; the prerogatives given by Justinian to the Bishop of Carthage, notwithstanding the pretensions of the Bishop of Rome to the contrary, must be all actions regulated by the Churches of their time, and according to the faith, and discipline of the same.  
And what hath he to persuade us, that what he saith was the very truth? as to the practice of Charlemagne, just nothing, and for the Emperor Justinian, as bad as nothing; for what saith he, but that the Rules of the Holy Councils, (viz. the four first General Councils) shall obtain the force of Laws, for their Doctrines we receive (saith he) as the Holy Scriptures themselves, and their Rules we observe as laws, ergo, all the decrees of the Code and novels of Justinian, (though made, touching sundry things of which the Church had prescribed nothing) were regulated by the Law of the present Church; again, our Laws disdain not to follow the holy and divine Rules, that is, such of them as required only things determined by former Councils, ergo, they were not intended any of them as Acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supremacy, but all of them, as consequences of the Church's Supremacy.  
Balsamon must be called a malicious Schismatic, Sect. 5 though Mr. 
Mr. C. p. 283.  C. would be angry if we call him so, and then we must be told, that he saith only that the Emperor hath an inspection over the Churches, 
Balls. in C. 38.6. Syn. in Trullo.  so that he can limit or extend the jurisdiction of Metropolitans, erect new ones, etc.  
Answ. But this etc. cuts off the most material part of the sentence, which tells us, that the Emperor may not only set a form for the election of Bishops, but for other administration of them, so as he shall think good; which perfectly reacheth the King Supremacy; nor is this all that is there said, but we are told, moreover, that it is fitting the Ecclesiastical Orders should follow the Civil commands, and therefore how Mr. C. will acquit himself from an untruth, I am not able to divine: If Balsamon here have not said enough, let him hear him on the twelfth Canon of the Synod of Antioch, where he saith, the Patriarch himself shall be judged of the Emperor, who hath cognisance over the power of the Church; peradventure as Sacrilegious, an Heretic, or guilty of any other crime, for we have divers times seen such Judicial proceed.  
To the last example of reformation, Sect. 6 produced by the Dr. the Kings of Judah, 
Ibid.  he answers, 'tis granted here was a reformation of Religion, but adds,  
1. That they are not where said to have reform all the Priests, or the high Priests, or not to have found him as Orthodox as themselves.  
Answ. Bishop Andrews tells you, that seeing it cannot be denied, that Kings were to be Nursing Fathers of the Church, to see to the preservation of the purity of Religion (seeing the Scripture of the Old Testament, every where complains of their neglect, in not removing the High places in which the people offered sacrifice, and when the people became Idolatrous, 'twas imputed unto the defect of a King in Israel) you ought to show us where these limitations are to be found, you shall reform, but not all the Priests, not the High Priests, though they go before the people in Idolatry, not against the Priests, if they are minded to continue their Idolatry, not without the Priests, albeit they refuse to consent to the restoring of God's worship. No, in such cases you must suffer my people to perish in their Idolatry? if they all cry out to Aaron for a Calf, and he satisfy their desires in making one, these Calves must be continued by our Moses, or chief Governors, unless God extraordinarily command the breaking of them: This I am confident, would have been new Divinity to King David. Can ever the Kings of Israel after Jeroboam, have reform, without reforming all the Priests, who were manifest Idolaters? or at least transgressors of God's law; and therefore can it be avoided by Mr. C. but that they ought to have suffered the people in the ways of Jeroboam, who made Israel to sin? might not the High Priest be guilty of Idolatry, as well as Aaron? yea, was he not think you, in the days of Elijah, and might not Jezabels whoredoms have been corrected notwithstanding? were the declarations of the Church, necessary to legitimate such a reformation? why is the church never blamed for not declaring for such a reformation? why not the Priests, and especially the High Priests? but constantly it is charged, as the Prince's fault, that the High places were not removed: 'Tis true, the Priest's lips should preserve knowledge, as Mr. C. hath it, and when they do so, even the King should seek it at their mouths, ask their advice in matters of such great concernment, but if they turn Idol shepherds, causing the people to err, if both Priest and Prophet be profane, then must he be so far from making their verdict his Standard in his reformation, as to reform them before, and above others; and indeed had it been otherwise, Idolatry must have commenced Orthodox, and passed uncontroled in the Church of Judah, when ever it had pleased the greatest part of the Priests to have it so. But  
2. Neither is this our case, our reformation in the days of King Henry, Edward, or Queen Elizabeth, was not a reformation without, or against the whole body of our Priests, but only against the Idolatrous Priests of the Romish party, the Doctrines reform by K. Edward, were reform by the consent of a lawful Synod, of Bishops and other learned men; and as King Joas had the consent and concurrence of the true Priests and Prophets of the Lord, when he deposed the Idolatrous Priests, whom the Kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense; even so Queen Elizabeth, by the advice and concurrence of her true reformed pastors, legally deposed the Idolatrous Priests, which Queen Mary or his Holiness had placed in the Land: Nor doth he invalidate this example, by saying that these Reformers, were Prophets as well as Kings, for neither were Hezekias, Josias, or Jehn Prophets, nor did they act here as Prophets, but as Kings, or otherwise why were they blamed for this neglect, who were no Prophets? were none but Prophets to be Nursing Fathers of the Church? or would this have argued them to be so, to let their Children suck in the poison of Idolatry?  
But he hath some objections, which come next to be considered; And  
1. Sect. 7 Princes are not exempt from that of our Lord, he that heareth you, 
Mr. C. p. 286.  heareth me. Ergo, the supreme power may not purge the Church from its corruptions, though by the advice and consent of the Nobles, and the sounder Orthodox part of the Clergy.  
Again, Christ never said, nor can we find in reason or Antiquity, any ground to apply to Princes that comm●ission, as my Father sent me, etc. Receive the Holy Ghost (a new commission) teach all Nations; ergo, Princes may not with the advice of Nobles and Clergy, and with the concurrence of Parliament, reform corruptions in the Church, I suppose no body will offer after such clear and evident demonstrations, ever to defend the King's supremacy.  
3. There is a promise made peculiarly to the Apostles, (or rather a prediction) that when the spirit should be sent to them, he would guide them into all truth; which, saith he, was never made to Princes any other way, then whilst they follow the direction of their Pastors (no nor then neither) Ergo they may not with the advice, etc. purge themselves from the corruptions of their Church, and the Church from them.  
2. I can tell him of a promise, that the secret of the Lord shall be with them that fear him, and he will teach them his Covenant, if they search for wisdom, etc. then they shall find it, if they do the will of Christ, they shall know the Doctrines, whether they be of God or no. Now let him either say, that Ecclesiastical Pastors can never teach their superiors any errors, or advise them to what is Superstition, or that when so, they cannot have the benefit of those promises, or else acknowledge that they may sufficiently be guided into all saving truth without them.  
4. Saith he, Princes are sheep, not pastors; yea, are sons of the Church.  
Answ. True, but notwithstanding all this, they are Nursing Fathers of the Church.  
2. All the families of any Parish, are sheep, not Pastors, Ergo, they may not reform themselves without their Pastor.  
His second unavoidable demonstration is, Sect. 8 that if Kings be independent on any Authority on Earth, 
Mr. C. p. 287.  then must there be a spiritual power over of them all, which is in the Church.  
Answ. Bishop Brambal tells you, 
Reply p. 287.  that the Kings of England, are under the foreign jurisdiction of a General Council: and is not this an unavoidable demonstration, that forceth us to acknowledge, what we do acknowledge? did ever Dr. Pierce deny this? but if we should deny it with Grotius, 
De sum. Pot. c. 7.  how miserable is our Author's proof? who tells us, that if there be not spiritual laws, and a spiritual director to them all, what will become of unity.  
Answ. Why may they not have such laws, and yet be independent? is it necessary they should disagree?  
2. They may have divers laws in circumstantials, and yet preserve their unity; seeing the unity of the Church, is that of Communion, not of apprehension, and may stand with any difference of opinions, in all matters that destroy not the foundation, and Ruin not the being of a Church.  
3. They have spiritual laws, and a spiritual director common to them all, the Word of God; Oh but they must have a General Council! Rep. Why so good Sir? Ans. Because otherwise, they will not obey the Rules of Scripture: Rep. Nor will they obey the Rules of your Ecumenical Council. Ans. They should obey them. Rep. So should they obey the prescripts of God's Word. So that unless persons voluntarily consent to the decrees of a General Council, what preservatives of unity will there be; and if all Princes or Churches would consent to the laws and doctrines of one, the remedy against Schism would be as sovereign, and indeed do you not here beg the the thing in question with your adversaries? God hath provided, say they, no other remedy against the Schisms of particular Churches, but his Word, yes say you, a general Council, or patriarchical, no necessity of them, say they, to unity, let men believe the foundations of Christianity, and be charitable to their brethren, bearing with the weak as the Scripture requireth in other matters, it is enough; Now to this you learnedly ask, how then shall the whole Church be kept in unity? even say they, by holding the foundations of Christianity, so plain, that they need no determination, and permitting a liberty of opinion touching other things without breach of charity.  
And here comes in another of his Arguments, to prove us Schismatics, and our reformation ●o be illegal, which runs thus. That Reformation which was begun without sufficient authority, by Queen Elizabeth, must be illegal and Schismatical, but such was the Reformation of the Church of England. Now to make this good, he gives us an History of it, and tells us that the convocation called by the Queen, 
Mr. Cr. p. 274.  unanimously persisted in a resolution not to forsake the old Religion (or more truly the superstitions,) restored by Queen Mary, and then he gives us what was done in this convocation, viz. that they composed certain Articles of Religion, which they tendered to the Bishops, who in the name of the whole Clergy, presented them to the Lord Keeper.  
Ans. The business is only this, the reformed Ministers being either cruelly Butchered, or else Banished and persecuted out of the land, when Queen Elizabeth came first to the Crown, she found the Roman Clergy stated in their Benefices, and albeit many of these reformed Ministers and particularly, three Bishops that escaped the fire now appeared, and the rest came flocking from beyond the Seas, yet did she not presently dispossess the one, and restore the other, (being not willing to make a reformation on a sudden, but by degrees,) now of these Priests consisted the convocation held under the bloodthirsty Bonner, (who had warmed himself at so many Bonfires of our Bishops, and learned Clergy, without any other remorse than this, that he did not cut off root and branch.) 
Dr. Heylin. Hist. of Queen Eliz. p. 113.  But such was their fear, modesty, or despair, of doing any good to themselves, and their cause, that there was nothing done by the Bishops at all, and not much more by the lower Clergy than a declaration of their judgement, in some certain points (mentioned here by Mr. C.) which at that time were thought fit to be commended to the sight of the Parliament then assembled, but that this was tendered in the name of the whole representative Clergy, is his own addition, it being only a declaration of the judgement of the lower Clergy, and whether it were so or no is not much material; hereupon a disputation betwixt these two parties was concluded on, and learned men of each party were elected, to be disputants of each side, wherein the Bishops of the Romish party so demeaned themselves, and so obstinately refused to stand to their own conditions, that it was generally thought, they were not able to defend their Doctrine, 
Dr. Heylin ib. p. 104.  in the points to be disputed. But to proceed in the History of the Reformation, after the Religion established by Queen Mary, had continued uninterrupted for a month, and somewhat more, afterward it was tolerated & withal required, to have the Epistles & Gospels, the ten Commandments, the Symbol, the Lettany, and the Lords-Prayer, in the vulgar tongue, 
Cambden. p. 10, 11.  and this upon the occasion of some certain Ministers, who impatient of delay, by the length of time, which ran and passed away in other matters, desiring rather to run before good laws, then to expect them, in their fervent zeal began to preach the Gospel of Christ's true Doctrine, 
Id. p. 33, 34.  first privately in houses, and then openly in Churches: On the 22th of March, the Parliament being assembled, the Order of Edward the sixth was reestablished, and by Act of the same, the whole use of the Lords Supper granted under both kinds. The 24th of June by the authority of that which concerned the Uniformity of public prayers, and administration of the Sacraments, the Sacrifice of the Mass was abolished, and the Liturgy in the English tongue more and more established. In July the Oath of Allegiance was proposed to the Bishops, of which anon, and in August Images were thrown out of the Temples, and Churches; 
Def. Ec. Ang. p. 637.  Now if it be considered with Dr. Crakanthorp, that what was here done by this most Religious Queen, was not introductory of what was new, that so it should be necessary to discuss it in a Synod, but only restoratory of the Laws made in the 5th and sixth years of King Edward the sixth, with the consent and concurrence of a lawful Synod of learned Bishops and Presbyters, that Queen Elizabeth, did only justly restore what her Sister Mary had unjustly abrogated.  
2. 
●ul. Ch. Hist. l. 9 p. 52.  That this alteration of Religion, was also enacted by the Parliament, which repealed the laws of Queen Mary, made against the Protestants, and revived those of King Henry the 8: and King Edward the 6. in favour of them. And  
3. How many learned Protestant Divines she had, desiring and advising her to these things, yea, and old Bishops also (for whereas our Author tells us in effect, that she had none to advise with, 
p. 274.  but such as were now ordained, the rest being generally averse from her proceed: 'Tis void of truth: For what doth he think of William Barlow, John Scory, Miles Coverdale, and John Hodgskins, who consecrated Archbishop Parker, Bishop Bale, and the old Bishop of Landaffe? must these be counted averse from this reformation? or new ordained, because some of them were transferred) I say he that shall impartially weigh these things (to omit other answers till anon) cannot but acknowledge, that the Queen had sufficient ground for what she did, and that there was no necessity of the concurrence of any Synodal Authority, to legitimate her actions.  
On the 24th. 
Dr. Heylin. ib. p. 114.  of June, the public Liturgy established by the Parliament, was required to be Officiated in all the Churches of the Kingdom, and the Bishops were called in by certain of the Lords of the Council, commissionated thereunto in due form of Law, and were required to take the Oath of supremacy, according to a law made in that behalf, by the orders of the Land, now albeit the Bishops had taken the like Oath, as Priests or Bishops in some part or other of the reign of the two last Kings, albeit it had been pleaded for by men of their own party, and Synodically defined by them, to be the right of King Henry the 8. yet did they now obstinately refuse the said Oath, and were these upon deprived of their several Bishoprics, as the law required. The Oath is tendered next to the Deans and Dignitories, 
Ib. p. 115.  and by degrees also to the Rural Clergy, refused by some and took by others, as it seemed most agreeable to their consciences, or particular ends; for the refusal whereof, or otherwise for not conforming to the public Liturgy, I find no more to have been deprived of their preferments, than fourteen Bishops, six Abbots, Priors, and Governors of religious Orders, twelve Deans, and as many Arch-Deacons, fifteen Precedents, or Masters of Colleges, fifty Prebendaries of Cathedral Churches, and about eighty Parsons or Vicars, the whole number not amounting to two hundred men, which in a Realm consisting of above nine thousand Parishes, and twenty six Cathedral Churches, could be no great matter.  
About three years after a Convocation was called, 
Heylin ib. p. 158  wherein the thirty nine Articles (very little differing from those which in the Reign of King Edward the 6. 
An. Dom. 1552.  had formerly been published) were agreed upon by the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of both Provinces, and the whole Clergy in the convocation, holden at London, in the year 1562 ten years after the composing of the former Articles; So that if the beginning of the reformation had been illegal, by reason of the defect of any Synodical concurrence of the Clergy (as indeed it was not) yet after the concurrence and consent of this convocation of Bishops, and the whole Clergy of the Nation, it could no longer be esteemed so, that being taken away, upon which this pretence of illegality was built; nor can it be excepted here, that a purgation of the Clergy was first made, and then the convocation called; for that which Mr. C. styles a purgation, was only such a deprivation as the law required, and that upon a most just account, the refusal of the Oath of supremacy, or nonconformity to the public Liturgy, against which no tolerable exception could be made, and this is so notorious, as that for the space of ten or thirteen years, the Papists freely resorted to it; add to this what the Queen returned to foreign Princes, interceding for the Papists, that these Bishop had in the sight of all the world, 
Cambden ab initio.  against the laws and peace of the Kingdom, obstinately rejected the same doctrine, which the most of them had under the Reign of Henry the 8. and Edward the 6. propounded to others voluntarily, and by public writings, which things jointly considered, do make this exception vanish into smoke and nothing. But,  
3. If all this were laid aside, yet we affirm, that the supreme power may reform against the greater part of the Clergy, or with the advice of some of them, albeit he have not their Synodal concurrence, for otherwise, the Idolatries of many of the Kings of Israel could not have been reproved by the Lord, seeing they had the consent of the Priests and Levites, in so much that Elijah cries out, that he alone was left of all the Servants of the Lord. Yea, the Preaching of Christ could not legally have been permitted, since the Sanhedrim did oppose it, nor the asserting of the Nicene faith, when by the Arrian Bishops, the contrary was spread through the Christian world, and the Orthodox Bishops but an handful in comparison of them; nor could the reformation of Hezekiah, Josiah, or other Kings of Judah be esteemed warrantable, as being unsynodical: and if the Idolatrous Priests which they deposed, did exceed the number of the Lords Priests, they must have been reputed as Schismatics, from the Priests of Baal, as now we are; yea, had Queen Mary called a Synod of the Clergy, which she found in possession of Ecclesiastical preferment, at her entrance on the Crown, would they not have determined for the Protestants? had his Majesty called a Synod before the restitution of the Bishops, would it not have determined for Presbytery, and against the introduction of the ceremonies? Yea last, albeit two British Synods rejected the propositions of Austin, St. Gregory's legate, you will not I hope, accuse the King of being Schismatical, for siding with Austin against those Synods; and verily if any of the things you mention, either the Princes being liable to mistake the truth, the possbility of this, that the Clergy opposed by him, should be in the right; if any power of determining matters of faith, do prejudice the reformation of Queen Elizabeth, they must stand good also against these instances produced by me; for might not the Idolatrous Priests, have returned upon Hezekiah or Josias, as ours do too often upon us? might they not have told them, Sirs, you are very zealous for what you are pleased to call a reformation? but what if you be mistaken in what you so esteem? what if the Priests deposed by you, be in the right? what if God hath committed this work, to judge and decide what religion shall be practised, to us Priests? are you not Sons of the Church, and therefore to be guided by us, your spiritual Fathers? Will you say their deviation from the law of God, was most notorious?  
Answ. True, but not more evident than yours, both from Antiquity and Scripture, in the matters of Prayer in an unknown tongue, Communion in one kind, worshipping of Images, and the adoration of the Sacrament as God; and what other tolerable answer you can return to this objection, I profess I know not.  
Next he reckoneth up the carnal interests of our reformation, which were they granted, would serve to show the manner of proceeding in the reformation bad, but conclude nothing against the action itself; we are told of King Henry's luxury and Sacrilege, as if these were his motives to reformation, but if Sacrilege and luxury did help to reform superstition, that was the fault of the reformers, saith the Dr. not at all of the reformation. Add to this, the King protested he reform out of conscience, his marriage was pronounced unlawful by seven Universities beside our own, by the Bishops of Canterbury, London, Winchester, Bath, Lincoln, 
Bishop Bramhals Reply p. 245.  all the Cardinals of Rome opposed the dispensation, and yet the putting away of this wife, must be called a carnal interest, yea, our freedom from their superstitious austerity and prayers, the doctrine of Devils, the allowing one Wife with the Apostle Paul unto the Clergy to prevent burning, fornication, or many Concubines, this must be called a carnal interest, and as if this had not been sufficient, we must be asked whether any such interests as these were operative in the Council of Trent: he will ask us next I suppose, whether we dare affirm that there is a God in Heaven, or a Sun in the firmament, for let any man read the History of that Council, and the Review of it, writ by a learned Roman Catholic, and he will find the many carnal interests of that Council, to be as apparent.   

CHAP. XXV.  
Protestants not obliged to be opponents, sect. 1. Mr. C's ridiculous Arguments, sect. 2. His conditions imposed upon the replyer, sect. 3. An answer to the first, ibid. To the second, sect. 4. To the third, sect. 5, 6. To the fourth, sect. 7. What conditions we require from him, sect. 8.  
IN the sixth sect. Sect. 1 of his twenty sixth chap. We are told that Catholics cannot be obliged to produce their evidences for the truth of their Doctrines, but Protestants must produce them against the doctrines of the Church of Rome.  
Answ. This is very unreasonable, for seeing it is acknowledged that the Church can propose no other doctrines to be believed, 
Mr. C. p. 235.  than such as either are expressly, or at least in their immediate necessary principles, contained in divine Revelation; it follows, that what doctrines they propose to us to be believed, they must be proposed as such, and our assent must be required to them as such, and such an assent, the Church of Rome requires of us, to all the particulars disputed in this Book. Now seeing to assent to them as such, without evidence that they are so, is evidently to lie, and say the Lord saith, when he hath not said it; is it not sufficient for us to answer the Arguments that are brought to conclude them Divine Revelations, seeing by so doing, we evince that to be rquired to assent to them, is to be required to lie; and therefore, seeing the Church of Rome requires this assent to them, as a condition of her communion, she must demonstrate that she hath reason so to do, or else acknowledge her condition is unjust, as being the profession of a lie.  
We are told indeed, that you were in possession of those doctrines, or most of them for above a thousand years; but to this Mr. Dally returns this satisfactory answer; In civilibus causis, ubi jus possessionis valet, qui possidet, pulsatur, & loco, quem tenet, cedere compellitur, in nostro hoc negotio planè contra res habet. Qui se possessores esse affirmant, two nos petunt, id agunt, id urgent, ac contendunt, ut nos suam illam, quam jactunt possessionem, secum adeamus: postulant enim a nobis, ut secum eadem de religione sentiamus; hancque suam a majoribus acceptam de religione sententiam possessionem suam appellant. Ergo si causae totius ingenium, si ipsa rei natura ac ratio penitius consideretur, liquet istos proprie esse actores unde sequitur cum actoris sit id, quod intendit, probare, omnino hoc istis incumbere, ut veris, legitimisque rationibus demonstrent nos jure teneri ad eam, ad quam ab ipsis vocamur possessionem incundam. Dal. l. 1. de demonst. fidei ex Scriptures c. 4.  
You go on and say, that the Pope hath enjoyed an Authority and supremacy of Jurisdiction, a longer time than any succession of Princes can pretend to; a jurisdiction acknowledged as of divine right, and as such submitted to by all our Ancestors, not only as Englishmen, but as neighbours of the whole Western Patriarchate, yea, of the universal Church, and this as far as any records can be produced.  
Now 1. Seeing Dr. Hammond hath so largely considered this pretence, and so abundantly proved, that in the Notion wherein Mr. C. maintains this supremacy, viz. from divine right, it hath not so much as the feeblest plea of possession in this Nation, nor ever appears to have had; is it not a wonder that notwithstanding all that he hath said to the contrary, sect. 2, 3, 4, 5. of his fourth chap. this possession should be asserted without the least ground of proof.  
2. This might have been urged at the beginning of the reformation, but now his Majesty and his Bishops are in possession, and therefore by your own grounds, are not bound to produce their evidences, but you who seek to dispossess them; if you say with S. W. that in things of divine institution, 
p. 50.  against which no prescription pleads, he only can pretend possession of any thing, who can stand upon it, that he hath had it nearer Christ's time.  
We Answ. Be it so, yet must their title stand good, till you can evidence that you have had it nearer Christ's time than they, which you will never be able to do.  
3. Seeing this title is held by divine right, and no other pleadable, is it not evidence sufficient against this plea, to show that there is no such right for it to build on, which is done by answering the Arguments that plead for it.  
4. If it had been our parts to oppose, we doubt not to prove it a possession malae fidei, 
Sch. dis. p. 29.  by the equality of power given by Christ to the Apostles, by the unreasonableness that those other Apostles, which survived St. Peter, should be subjected to his successors, Bishops of Rome, which yet they must have been, if the universal pastorship were derived to them by tenure of that succession, and by the many ages, before the power or title of universal Pastor was assumed, and wherein it was disclaimed as Anti-christian.  
Lastly, When the dispute is, whether our separation from your Church, be the sin of Schism, herein 'tis impossible that we should be any other than defendants, or you any other than opponents; for when you accuse us of Schism, surely you are bound to prove or make this accusation good, and 'tis sufficient for us to answer all that you bring against us.  
Your seventh sect. is the strangest inconsequence imaginable, put it into Syllogism and it runs thus, if Protestants acknowledge that the Church of God is in all fundamentals infallible (that is, that some members of those that profess the Christian faith, shall be kept in all truth necessary to salvation) then must the proofs that Romanists bring against the Church of England, though in themselves but probable, be demonstrations, but the first is so, ergo, which is no better than this, if the Moon be made of Green Cheese, then is the Roman Church infallible, but the Moon, etc.  
Again, Sect. 2 if we acknowledge it unlawful for particular Churches to descent from the Catholic, without an evident demonstration (that is, such conviction as a matter of this nature can well bear) then can nothing but evident demonstrations against these doctrines (held by the fourth part of God's Church, and denied by all the world besides) be so much as probabilities, but the first is so. What credit your cause can receive from such Arguments as these, I shall not envy you.  
We are at last arrived at those conditions which Mr. Sect. 3 C. requires us to observe in our Reply.  
And the first is this, to declare expressly, that in all the points handled in this Book, we are demonstratively certain, that they are errors and novelties introduced since the four first general Councils, for saith he, without this certainty, according to the Archbishop, it is unlawful for Protestants to Question or censure such former Doctrines of the Church. Which reason will then be valid, when it is proved that the doctrines of the Church of Rome were the doctrines of the whole Church of God (for of that only, as we have evidenced, the Archbishop speaks) & not till then. 2. It doth not lie upon us to show that the doctrines imposed upon us as Articles of faith, are novelties and errors, but only to evince that there is nothing in Scripture or elsewhere, whence it can be made evident, that they are Articles of faith, traditions received from the Apostles; for this renders it necessary for us to refuse those conditions of communion, which require us to believe they are such.  
3. We are sufficiently convinced, that your veneration of Images is a novelty, that your prayer in an unknown tongue, the infallibility of the Church of Rome, are so many untruths, and that nothing in this or any other Book, said to the contrary, is convictive.  
2. Sect. 4 He requires us to demonstrate these main grounds of our separation.  
1. That the universal Church, represented in a General Council, may in points of doctrine not fundamental, so misled the Church by errors, that a particular Church, etc. discovering such errors, may be obliged to separate externally.  
Answ. This is so far from being a main ground of our separation, that it is no ground at all, neither doth it concern us in the least to engage in this dispute, seeing no lawful General Council hath determined one jota contrary to us.  
That which he calls the second ground of our separation, hath been considered already.  
Our third ground of separation must be this, Sect. 5 that a particular Church, in opposition to the universal, can judge what doctrines are fundamental, what not, in reference to all Persons, States, or Communities, and then he requires, that a catalogue of such doctrines be given by the respondent, or else demonstrative reason be alleged, why such an one is not necessary.  
Answ. This I bind myself to do, when it can be proved that we ever defined any thing to be fundamental, against the universal Church, or are concerned to do so; yea, could it be that the universal Church of God should practise any thing contrary to us (which yet is a contradiction, seeing we are a part thereof) yet must she necessarily judge it a fundamental, which is thus practised? and as for his catalogue of fundamentals.  
1. Mr. Chillingworth hath demonstrated, that such a Catalogue is not necessary, c. 3. sect. 13.  
2. I promise to give it him, when he shall be able to evince it necessary, or show demonstrative reasons why we do not.  
3. We urge him with as much vehemency, to give in a list of all such traditions and definitions of the Church of Rome, without which no man can tell whether or no his error be in fundamentals, and render him uncapable of salvation.  
Well, Sect. 6 but if we deny our external separation from the present universal Church, we are (saith he) obliged to name what other visible member of the universal Church we continue in communion with, in whose public service we will join, or can be admitted, and to whose Synods we ever have, or can repair.  
Answ. This as also the question following, hath been sufficiently answered already, under the eighth Proposition.  
Lastly, (saith he) since the English Church by renouncing, not only several doctrines, but several Councils acknowledged for General, and actually submitted to, both by the Eastern and Western Churches, hath thereby departed from both these; we must find out some other pretended members of the Catholic Church, divided from both these (that is, some that are not manifestly Heretical) with whom the English Church communicates.  
Answ. Every line is a misadventure, For  
1. This passage supposeth that we cannot be in the communion with those, from whom we differ in any doctrine: so that those who hold the Pope above a General Council, the adoration of Latria due to some Images, the Celibacy of Priests to be jure divino meritum de condigno, and the like, cannot be in communion with any other part of the Christian world, which all hold the contrary.  
2. That we cannot be in communion with other Churches, unless we receive the same Councils for General, which they do.  
3. That the whole Eastern Church embraceth any doctrine or Council as General, which we do not, which is untrue.  
4. That the Reformed Churches, are manifestly Heretical. Yea,  
5. If he would not be manifestly impertinent, he must infer, that to renounce any Doctrine, received by these Churches, or not to acknowledge any Council to be General, which they do not, must necessarily be Schismatical, and unchurch us, which it is impossible to prove, unless it appear that we have not sufficient cause to do so.  
Lastly, we say, the Church of Rome can produce no Churches, but manifestly Schismatical or Heretical, with whom she communicates.  
His fourth condition, is, Sect. 7 that we must either declare other Calvinistical reformed Churches, which manifestly have no succession of lawfully ordained Ministers, enabled validly to celebrate and administer Sacraments, and to be no Heretical or Schismatical Congregations, or show how we can acquit ourselves from Schism, who have authoritatively resorted to their Synods, and to whom a General permission, is given to acknowledge them true reform, and sufficiently Orthodox Churches. Here again, are many suppositions like the former. As,  
1. That to resort to the Synods of men Schismatical, is to be Schismatics, which makes the whole world Schismatics, for were not the Eastern or Western Churches Schismatical, in the difference about Easter, and did they not both convene in a General Synod? yea, did not the Orthodox Bishops, resort to the Synod at Arriminum, where there were many Arrian Bishops? was the Church of Rome Schismatical, for resorting to the Lateran Council, where there were Eastern Bishops, manifestly Schismatical, according to your Principles.  
2. Where doth our Church permit us to acknowledge them sufficiently Orthodox? or if she did, is it not ridiculous to suppose, that at the same time she would grant them not lawfully Ordained?  
3. Were we Schismatics in this, what is it to our separation from the Church of Rome?  
4. 'Tis very impertinent, to trouble us with an Objection, which hath been so largely considered in Bishop Forbs his Irenicum, in Mr. Masons defence of the ordination of the Ministers, beyond the Seas, in many chapters of Dr. Crakanthorp's defence of the Church of England: when, what is said by them, hath been refuted, then may this question be seasonable. As impertinent is that, which you object to us, ch. 3. of giving the right hand of Fellowship to Presbyterians and Independents, which as it concerns not our separation from the Church of Rome, so is it fully considered by Bishop Bramhal, 
Rep. paulo post init.  and Dr. Crakanthorp, in several chapters of the same Defence, as the contents of them may sufficiently inform you: If you have any thing to return to their answers to this question, do it, if not, why do you trouble us with it afresh?  
Lastly, Sect. 8 You require that we impute not to the Catholic Church, the opinions of particular writers, which we have observed, albeit your reason, that your Church hath sufficiently declared her Doctrines in the Trent Council, is a very poor one, for who knows not that, as too many of the points in controversy, your Church hath not declared herself, but under an obscure or equivocal phrase hid and concealed herself; thus when she defines that due veneration is to be given to Images, what are we the nearer, seeing she hath not declared what veneration is due; when she declares for a proper Sacrifice, she hath not told us what are the requisites of a proper Sacrifice, when she defines for merits, whether she means meritum de condigno, or in that large sense, in which the Fathers used the word, she hath not told us. The like ambiguities we meet with in her definition of the Arminian controversies, etc. and is this sufficiently to declare herself?  
Again, is it the doctrine of your Church, that the Pope is above a General Council? then doth not the Church of France, hold the doctrine of the Church of Rome. Or is it contrary to the doctrine of the Church? then doth not the Church of Italy hold your doctrine: or if neither bee, how hath she sufficiently declared herself, who in that which is most material hath been silent?  
And thus we have considered your conditions, Sect. 9 we come next to propound, what we think necessary to be observed in your Reply, And  
1. You are obliged to consider all the answers that I have given, to any of your Arguments, for as long as any single Answer remains firm, your Argument must be invalid.  
2. In the doctrine of the Pope's supremacy, you must prove these three things.  
1. That St. Peter had a supremacy of jurisdiction above his fellow Apostles, and over all the world.  
2. That this supremacy was to be conferred upon his successors.  
3. That it was to be conferred by Divine Right, upon his successors at Rome, and not elsewhere; because all this is necessary to prove the Pope's supremacy by Divine Right.  
3. That you be ready to dispute whether the controversies in difference betwixt us, can be sufficiently decided by the Fathers; or if you will not dispute that, then that you proceed not to clog your Reply with sentences of Fathers, but argue from Reason and the Authority of Scripture, otherwise that kind of disputation must be impertinent.  
2. If you accept of this, than secondly I require,  
1. That you cite as many as you will own to be sufficient for the confirmation of any opinion, or the sense of any Paragraph of Scripture, for otherwise your discourse will be ridiculous as bottomed upon that, which you dare not own to be a sufficient confirmation of it.  
2. That you answer the Questions proposed, touching this matter above.  
3. That you cite your Fathers from the Original, seeing translations do very much vary from them.  
4. That you cite none, which Rivet, Cocus, and other Protestants style spurious, unless you answer their Arguments, for such Authorities cannot convince your adversary.  
5. That you be so ingenuous, as to tell us the Editions of your Fathers, partly that you may avoid the scandal that is cast upon you, for citing old Editions, which no body can meet with, partly that you may not seem to be unwilling to have your witnesses examined.  
And thus I have run over what ever I was able to reduce into any method, and indeed what ever I thought necessary to be considered; but to fill up the vacancy of the last Sheet, I shall take notice of a few things in this part of Schism not yet considered. And  
1. 
Mr. C. p. 227.  We are told that few who have any liberal education (in that great light which they have of the continued succession, unity of Doctrine, perfect obedience, to their spiritual superiors, pennances, and retirements from the world, etc.) can be excusably ignorant, of the one holy Catholic, Apostolic Church, that is, that the Roman Church is this Church. Where.  
1. As to continued succession, when they are told by men as pious, and as learned, as any of the Papists.  
1. That the Papists have no such succession, but that it hath been interrupted many times, when they see instances produced almost in every Centurie. When they are told  
2. That it is not succession of persons, but of Doctrines, which is a mark of the true Church, nor the want of it, of a false, for if he be a true Platonist, that holds the Doctrines of Plato, 
Chil. p. 356. sect. 38. See this evinced excellently in the whole section.  albeit he cannot assign any one that held it before him, for many Ages together, why should not he be a true Christian, who believes all the Doctrine of Christ, though he cannot derive his assent from a perpetual succession that believed it before him. When  
3. They are told that other Churches which you reject as Heretics, (viz. the Eastern Church) have as good evidences of a continued succession as you have; can this be such a demonstrative evidence that you are only the true Church of Christ as must leave even illiterate people unexcusable?  
Again, can unity of Doctrine be such an evidence to them? when,  
1. They find three hundred contradictory opinions of your Church, faithfully collected out of one single Bellarm. Yea so many thousand sentences of your own Authors expunged and condemned, for speaking the language of the Protestants. And  
2. They find it evident, that it is not impossible that errors may be held with as great an unity as you can show. Seeing they find the Grecians, yea, the professors of Mahometism, at greater unity than yourselves. And the same might easily be showed of your other notes, were it worth the while.  
2. You call upon us to procure you an authorized conference, wherein we may understand one another's Churches, and know one another's essential Doctrines, which haply you may procure, when you can give in good security that what S. C. (or any other persons appointed as Members of this conference) shall affirm to be the essential Doctrines of the Church of Rome, shall be accepted as the essential Doctrines of that whole Communion, and by them declared to be such, and no others, for unless this be so, we may by this means understand the opinions of S. C. but not what, and which only are the essential doctrines of the Church of Rome.   
FINIS.   

APPENDIX.  
TO page 65. line 37. add. And whereas he tells us, page 76, 77. that St. Austin and other Bishops of the Milevitan Council, 
Austin Ep. 92.  writing to Pope Innocent, acknowledge, that the Pope's Authority was, de sanctarum, Scripturarum authoritate deprompta.  
We Answ. The words in St. Austin run thus, Authoritati sanctitatis tuae de sanctarum Scripturarum authoritate depromptae: That is saith Chamier, to thy drawing forth, and confirming the truth from scripture, they (the Heretics) will more easily submit; and therefore here is no acknowledgement, that the Pope's Authority was derived from Scripture. Add to this,  
2. That it is no way evident, that the authority he speaks of, was any authority over the whole Church of God.  
To page 173. l 30. add, Nor is this sufficiently confuted, by telling us, that one or two of the Fathers call it an Apostolical custom; seeing it is most notorious, that they very frequently afford this title to such customs and traditions, as unquestionably were not derived from the Apostles: Yea, as St. Jerome most clearly hath it, praecepta majorum Apostolicas traditiones quisquis existimat; every one esteemed, and consequently called the precepts of their Ancestors, Apostolical traditions. 
Haer. 75. Decreverunt Apost. feria quarta & prosabbatho Jejunium. Ep. 86.  Thus Epiphanius tells us, that the Apostles decreed a fast upon Wednesdays and Fridays continually. Where as St. Austin professeth quibus diebus non oporteat jejunare & quibus oporteat precepto Domini vel Apostolorum non invenio definitum, Christ or his Apostles have not defined what days we should fast upon. And by Tertullian it appeareth that the Primitive Church alleged against the Montanists, 
De Jejunio.  that the Apostles imposed no yoke of standing and common fasts.  
In the first age after the Apostles, 
Dr. Tailor's liberty of Proph. sect. 5.  Papias pretended he received a tradition from the Apostles touching Christ's millenary Reign on Earth, which pretence was received by all, or most of the Christian world, in the first three hundred years, and yet there was no such tradition, but a mistake in Papias; now if a tradition, whose beginning of being called so, begun with a Scholar of the Apostles, (for so was Papias) and then continued for some ages, upon the mere authority of so famous a man, did yet deceive the Church: much more fallible is the pretence, when two or three hundred years after, it but commences, and then by some learned man, is first called a tradition Apostolical. Again, St. Austin called the communicating of Infants, a tradition Apostolical, and yet we do not practise it, because we dis-beleive the allegation: But I refer you to that excellent discourse now cited, for abundant evidence.  
And whereas they call this praying for the Dead, an Ecclesiastical custom: this name is frequently given by them, to such things, as were not universally practised by the Church of Christ, and therefore is no sufficient evidence, that this was so. Thus St. 
Apol. 2. cont. Ruff. To. 2. p. 314 apud Da. de usu Patrum. p. 207.  Jerome asserts the Church of Christ to have held the immediate creation of Souls; whereas Prudentius Tricassinus Episcopus tells us expressly, that it was absque certa definitione relicta. This, and many other instances of the like nature, you may find in Dally de usu Patrum, p. 206, 207.  
To page 176. l. 4. add, Yea, many of the Fathers, especially the most Ancient, dreamt of a purging fire at the day of Judgement, which was to try every Soul, and purge it from its dross, if it had contracted any whilst it lived on Earth; this was the opinion of Lactantius, Hilary, Ambrose, Austin, Jerome, Casarius, Arelatensis; Eusebius, Emissenus, Eligius, Noviomensis, as you may see in Dally de paenis & Satis. Hum. p. 387. Yea, Maldonate confesseth, 
in Luc. 11. 35.  that this was the opinion, not only of Origen, sed fere Antiquissimi cujusque Scriptoris, Dally p. 498. and therefore if the Fathers speak of any purging fire after death, it will make nothing for Purgatory, unless it can be proved, that they assert moreover, that the Souls of the faithful, presently after their departure, are carried to it.  
To p. 183 l. 4. ●dde. And should you not blush to tell us p. 116. that without all controversy, all Churches who professed Christianity before the reformation, do agree unanimously in the practice of praying for the dead, so as to beg forgiveness of their sins, a bettering of their state, (which Protestants allow) an assuagement of their sufferings. 
Dr. Fields Apen.  Where as the 
p. 68  Jacobites, 
p. 69  Armenians, and 
p. 70.  Cophti, pray not for the dead at all, nor can it be evinced, that the Eastern Churches pray for the assuagement of their sufferings; yea, Nilus in his discourse de Purgatoria tells us, that the Grecians reject, and anathematise this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that if any remission of sins be given to the dead, that it is given by the Divine bounty, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rather than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by inflicting punishments, see Dally p. 540.  
As vain is your commiseration of the condition of the members of our Church, 
P. 117.  because she doth not offer up those prayers for the dead, which from the most Ancient times were offered. For as Mr. Dally hath it, if the omission of those prayers be criminal, this crime is common to us with you, who have together with us rejected those prayers which they were wont to make in their behalf, for whereas the Ancients prayed for all the faithful departed, you esteem this a great absurdity, and will have us pray but for some only.  
Again, you have rejected the three great grounds of praying for the dead. On which the Father's bottomed their petitions, for that which was the common opinion of all the Ancients, 
Atqui veterum pro mortuis preces omnes fere ad illa tria (vel placita) pertinebant Dally p. 534. horum aliquid in animo babebant cum pro mortuis precabantur qui ergo ista tria unde omnis veterum profluebat pro mortuis ●ratio, etc.  viz. that the souls of the faithful departed were kept in some secret receptacles, extra Coelum; your Florentine Council hath decreed against. The millenary Reign, which most of the Ancient Fathers held, you have exploded, as ridiculous.  
Lastly, The sentence of the purging fire, which was to try and purify all men, even the most holy, you have deservedly rejected; whereas, upon these three opinions, did almost all the prayers of the Ancients depend, and how then can you be said to have retained the prayers which the Ancients used, (albeit you retain some of their words) who have wholly rejected those opinions upon which they did depend? I confess, there were some other ends, which I have mentioned above, of the Ancients prayers, as the obtaining an happy Resurrection, the augmentation of their glory, at the union of their souls and bodies, the blotting out of their sins at the day of Refreshment, that they might find mercy in that day; and would the Church of Rome pray for them to these ends, and these alone, we would very hearty join with her. But she hath added new ends of her own devising, as the satisfaction of God's justice, the procuring pardon of venial sins, not formerly remitted, and a release from a purgatorian fire, which she hath kindled, and is it meet that we, who have rejected together with them, these prayers, as grounded upon such opinions, which had confessed Antiquity, to plead for them, should embrace them again upon such grounds as are not only manifestly false, but also void of all shadow of Antiquity?  
To p. 189. l. 34. add, nor is it ever said in Scripture, that the body of Christ is received unworthily, but only that the bread and cup are so: further were it said so, yet will not your transubstantiation follow hence, without begging the main dispute betwixt us, viz. whether such a passage must be understood literally and rigidly, or according to the custom of sacramental phrases, that is figuratively and spiritually.  
Lastly, if they that despised the Apostles were said to despise Christ, because they were commissionated from him, as we have it, Mat. 18.5. and he that offends a weak brother, is said to offend against Christ, because he doth it against one of his members, why might not he that participates the Sacramental elements unworthily, be said to receive Christ's body so, as receiving that which represents and signifies his body, and offers to the Receivers faith, all the benefits thereof.  
2. The confirmation of all that I have cited from Dr. Hoyle, may be seen in the margin of the places cited.  
After p. 211. l. 17. add, we have something alleged, p. 304, 305. In defence of this half Communion, which here may properly be considered, we are told.  
1. That the Protestants use sprinkling, instead of dipping.  
Answ. This is Elenchus Parium. For  
1. Albeit the Apostles used dipping, yet did not either they, or our Saviour command it, he never said dip all that you Baptise, as he said, drink ye all of this, and therefore that he and his Disciples Baptised in Rivers; and by dipping, will no more infer that we should do so, then that they say down at this Supper, or used a clinical gesture, will infer, that we should use it.  
2. Dipping is no essential part of the Sacrament, but a mode or circumstance, and therefore variable, but the cup is an essential, or at least integral part of the Sacrament, as is fully evidenced by Crocius in his Antibec. p. 214, 215.  
3. This we do in case of danger, otherwise the Church requires dipping. Now in such case, the Scripture gives warrant for such an alteration both by example and precept, telling us God will have mercy and not sacrifice. Now hence to argue for a change in the institution of Christ, when no such necessity in the Church can be alleged, is as if the Israelites should have urged a general permission for eating the Shewbread, because David and his Servants had it to supply their necessities.  
2. Saith he, do we not think ourselves obliged to communicate fasting, albeit Christ instituted the Sacrament after Supper.  
Answ. No; We think it highly convenient, but we dare not charge him with sin that doth it otherwise.  
2. The time is evidently a circumstantial, not commanded or instituted by Christ, depending upon the Passeover, and therefore very unfit to be paralleled with this deprivation of the cup.  
3. He adds, do they not without scruple eat Black-puddings, non obstant●, the Apostles gave commandment to the contrary?  
Answ. Some who think the precept not temporary, scruple, yea, refuse the eating of them; and to such, this instance must be impertinent; others that eat them, do it upon this account, because they suppose they have good reason to conclude the precept temporary, and made only to avoid the scandal which it gave unto the Jews, and seeing this cannot with any reason be supposed of Christ's precept, the instance must be impertinent to them also. Yea, we have many Texts of Scriptures, which seems to give us this liberty of eating any such things, but there is not any thing which in the least manner intimates the lawfulness of withdrawing the cup from Layicks.  
To p. 453. l. 14. add, Only whereas he saith, that surely prudence, and a most necessary care of our own salvation by continuing in the unity of the Church, would dictate to us, that seeing the Church is infallible as to fundamentals, and therefore cannot misled us to our danger, there can be no safety but in assenting to all her decisions as if they were of necessary faith, for only by doing so, we can be sure not to err in necessary points, and we shall be certainly free from all danger of Schism. p. 266. And by this means (say you) the Church of Rome is continued in unity, and by assenting to all decisions, her members are sure never to descent from those that are necessary; whereas Protestant's by taking a liberty of discerning betwixt fundamentals and nonfundamentals at least, wherein they think the Church Catholic may be fallible, are besides a certainty of dis-union, exposed to errors, even in fundamentals.  
I Answer, This whole discourse, (to omit divers other answers very obvious) depends upon two suppositions, unanimously exploded by us.  
1. That the Church which we hold to be infallible in fundamentals, is the Roman Church, or at least a General Council; whereas when we assert the Church to be infallible in fundamentals, we do not intent to assert, that any one society of men is so, but only thus, that whilst the world lasts, there shall be some men in the world, which err not in fundamentals, 
Chill. p. 105.  or that religion shall never be so far driven out of the World, but that it shall always have somewhere or other, some that believe and profess it, in all things necessary to salvation: Thus therefore you argue, Protestants acknowledge that some Christians shall be infallible in fundamentals, albeit they be neither the Roman Church, nor a General Council, nor any other visible Society; therefore they ought in prudence to submit to the decision of the Roman Church, or a General Council, as being infallible in fundamentals.  
2. You evidently suppose that such a visible Society, infallible in fundamentals, cannot misled us to our danger, and that by assenting to all its decisions, we are necessarily free from the sin of Schism: Now seeing according to our former deductions, such a visible Society may require the profession, of what I know or judge to be an error, and so a lie; the practice of what I know to be forbidden, and so a sin; you must suppose also, that to lie against my conscience (though it be a sin of great affinity with that, which shall never be forgiven) or practise continually a sin (though it render the condition, which interests us in the covenant of Grace, viz. sincere and impartial obedience, impossible) not to be dangerous, and that to renounce communion with others, that cannot swallow such conditions, cannot be the sin of Schism.  
To p. 471. l. 19 add, And hence it appears how ridiculously you insult over the Dr. for saying, 
Mr. C. p. 302.  he will comply with none of your defilements, when to comply with them, is not to communiate with you in other things, or to acknowledge you as Brethren, albeit you differ from us in something which we esteem a defilement in you, but to practise a sin, or to assert a lie, to live in continual hypocrisy, and disobedience to God's law, 'tis a shame that you should triumph in this trifling Sophism, viz. we comply with Lutherans, and Huguenots, who surely are not without some little stains, and never take notice of that answer, which you meet with very frequently in Mr. Chillingworth, that for our continuing in communion with them, the justification of it is, that they require not the belief and profession of those errors, among the conditions of their communion, which puts a main difference betwixt them and you, because we may continue in their communion, without the profession of their errors, but in yours we cannot.  
To page 478 l. 15. add, And whereas you tell us, chap. 20. sect. 10. that the doctrines the Preacher treats off, and which the Trent Council defined, were conveyed to us, by the General practise of the Church, and were always matters of faith; It is the most notorious untruth imaginable, is it possible that the Trent Councils definitions, touching the Canon of Scripture, should be a continued uninterupted Tradition through all ages, when the contrary is made so evident by Dr. Cousins, through every age of the Church, deducing the doctrine of the Church of England in this point? is it possible that Image worship should be the universal tradition of all ages of the Church, when (besides the numerous citations produced by me to the contrary) Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, and chrysostom, held even the making of Images unprofitable, and unlawful, and asserted that Christians were forbidden that deceitful art. Dally de Imag. l. 1. c. 6. could they have talked thus, and at the same time worship Images? could the Church of God throughout all ages, esteem your service in an unknown tongue, agreeable to Scripture, when not one Commentator upon the 14. of Corinthians, but speaks apparently against it? when Justinian and Charles the Great (whose laws, say you, were but the Church's faith, and Canons reduced into Imperial laws) so peremptorily forbidden it, as contrary to the Word of God.  
Lastly, (to add no more) could that Purgatory which you derive from the Apostles, be the belief and doctrine of the Church of God, throughout all ages? When as  
First, The Fathers of the Church, constantly interpret all the Scriptures you apply to Purgatory, another way, as is evidenced by Mr. Dally, de satis. Hum. l. 6. c. 4. When  
Secondly, they assert that there is no place for remission of sins after death, id. c. 6. And  
Thirdly, That we shall remain for ever, where death finds us, c. 7.  
Fourthly, That no punishments abide the faithful after death, c. 8.  
Fifthly, That the Souls of the faithful, rest and enjoy felicity presently after death, c. 10. Yea,  
Lastly, When the whole Church of God did confidently affirm, that all the faithful were at rest after death, c. 11.  
These things being considered, the defence of the Nicene Council (that they made no new decrees) is as unseemly in your mouths, as the defence of the Apostles (we must obey God rather than man) can be in the mouths of the greatest Rebels.  
To page 198. l. 15. add, And this interpretation is backed with the Authority of the Fathers, St. Austin ex professo, handling this question, whether these words (I will no more drink of the fruit of the Vine) referred to the Sacrament; determines for us, as will be evident to any that will consult him, treating the consen. Evan. l. 3. c. 1. and again, l. 1. c. 42. which made Bellarm. considering this place, cry out, Augustinus non perpendit hunc locum diligenter; St. Austin did not diligently weigh this place. 
In Mat. c. 26. v. 29.  Yea, Maldonate assures us, that Jerome in his Comment. Bede, Euthymius, and Theophylact, did all refer this passage to the blood of Christ: to whom you may add, Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. p. 116. Orig. in Mat. trac. 25. Epiphan. count. Haer. l. 2. Haer. 47. St. Cyprian Ep. 63. Chrysost. Hom. in Mat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eucher. in Mat. c. 26. v. 29. with divers others, diligently collected by Dr. Featly, in his Book against Transubst. p. 204. etc.