AN APOLOGY FOR THE REFORMED CHURCHES; Wherein is showed The necessity of their separation from the Church of Rome: Against those who accuse them of making a Schism in Christendom. BY JOHN DAILLE Pastor of the Reformed Church at PARIS. Translated out of French. And a Preface added; containing THE JUDGEMENT OF AN UNIVERSITY-MAN, concerning Mr. Knot's last book against Mr. Chillingworth.  
Printed by Th. Buck, Printer to the University of Cambridge. MDCLIII.   

To the Right Worshipful the Master, Wardens, and Assistants of the Honourable Company of Mercers, LONDON.  
Right Worshipful;  
THough I am very much obliged to the Author of this Book, and other friends, for whose sake I translated it; yet I am to none more than unto You, whose bounty enabled me: of which I have been a partaker, until the year last passed, ever since the fifth of my age, through my education at S. Paul's School. And that it is not still continued to me, is not any cause in You, but my superannuation.  
Thus (though my catalogue be short) I have reckoned up almost all the friends I have living; which (as my books) I ever desired might be few and good; if they be not, it shall never be my fault.  
And with You, (whom I number among the chief of them) I here deal as Sinaeta in the Persian story did with Artaxerxes; who knowing it was the custom of the Country to offer the King somewhat, each time he rid abroad, meeting him accidentally, and having nothing in readiness, ran to the riverside, where snatching up his hands full of water, he presented it to his Sovereign, crying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who considering the grateful mind wherewith it came, graciously accepted it.  
If You shall, in like manner, vouchsafe to look upon this small book; which is presented (with the same affection, and with my hearty prayers to God for the continuance of His Blessings on You, and your Munificence to poor Students) as a tender of my many humble thanks, which I shall ever acknowledge due to You, I shall think it (next to the glory of God, and conversion of souls) the greatest reward to this devoir, that can be hoped for, by  
Your obliged servant, THO. SMITH. Christs-Coll. Cambr. Aug. 2. 1653.   

A Table of the Chapters.  

I. THE occasion and importance of this Treatise Page 1  
II. The necessity of an union among believers pag. 2  
III. That it is sometimes lawful to separate from a company of men, professing Christianity p. 3  
IU. That our separation from the Church of Rome, was not made rashly, wilfully, or unnecessarily. p. 6  
V. Reasons of our separation from Rome, founded upon the diversity of our beliefs p. 8  
VI That our separation ariseth not from particular matters of fact, or private opinion; but from such things as are believed generally, by all the Roman Church. And so, that it is not like to the schism of the Donatists. p. 13  
VII. That there are two sorts of Errors; the one overthrows the foundation of faith, and obliging man to separate; and the other not. That the opinions of the Church of Rome, which we reject, are of the first sort; and those of the Lutherans are of the second p. 18  
VIII. That the adoration of the Eucharist, as it is practised by the Church of Rome, doth overthrow the foundation of piety and religion p. 26  
IX. That the opinion of the Lutherans, which we bear withal, doth not bring with it the adoration of the Eucharist, either de jure, or de facto p. 32  
X. That the dignity and excellency of the Eucharist, doth not hinder it from being a mortal sin to adore it, if it be bread in substance, as we believe it to be p. 37  
XI. That the opinion which those of the Roman Church have of the Eucharist, excuseth not such as adore it p. 45  
XII. The error of those, who think they may give to the Host of the Church of Rome, that reverence which she commandeth, without adoring it p. 55  
XIII. That he who believeth the Eucharist to be bread in substance, cannot give it the reverence which is practised in the Church of Rome, without evident falsehood, hypocrisy, and perfidiousness. p. 61  
XIV. That every man who exerciseth the ceremonies and services which the Church of Rome renders to the Host, declareth thereby that he adoreth it, and taketh it for his true and eternal God. p. 65  
XV. An answer to the example of Naaman the Syrian, objected by some p. 72  
XVI. That to think it is lawful for a man to exercise the ceremonies of a Religion which he believeth not, doth by consequence diminish the glory of, and cast a slur upon the Martyrs p. 78  
XVII. That this dissembling is condemned by our Lord in the Scriptures p. 81  
XVIII. That this dissembling, grievously offendeth God, and scandalizeth men. p. 85  
XIX. That there are many other beliefs in the Church of Rome, which overthrow the foundations of our faith and salvation, as the Veneration of images, the Supremacy of the Pope, etc. p. 91  
XX. A conclusion of this Treatise. That They, who are of our persuasion, are obliged to forsake the communion of Rome; and, They who are not, are to prove and try their own faith, before they condemn our separation from them.    

The Preface.  
THe particulars which I intent to premise, are chiefly these two. 1. What was the occasion of writing this Apology. 2. What is the occasion of printing it. The first will lead me to say somewhat of schism, which is the subject of the book: And the second to take notice of a large book, lately published by the English Jesuits, entitled, Infidelity unmasked, etc. I shall speak of both with as much brevity as may be; remembering, I am to write a Preface, not a Treatise.  
I. Of the first. Some seditious people in France did in the year MDCXXXIII, endeavour to raise a bloody persecution against the Protestants in that nation; inciting the Magistrates to constrain them to adorn their houses on that Festival, which is ordinarily called in that nation la Feste de Dieu, and do other acts of reverence to the Host; or to put them to death, or banish the refusers. Whereupon Monsieur Daillé, conceiving in what eminent danger he and all of his Religion were, wrote this Apology; which being publicly approved, was presented by Monsieur Drelincourt, Mestrezat, himself, and many others, deputed by the Protestants of France for that purpose, unto the King of France and Lords of His Counsel: as containing the Doctrine, and resolution of all the Protestants in that Kingdom. And, through God's blessing, it prevailed with Them, so far, that the said destructive counsels were rejected.  
And let not any man imagine, That because Adoration of the Host is the chief sin mentioned in this Tract (as being indeed one of the chief causes of our Separation) therefore Protestants have nothing else to allege for themselves (though one unanswerable reason is enough) and I am persuaded, that any unprejudiced Reader will think this such.) For he that will but recollect, in what condition the Church of Rome was, when Princes and People, Clergy and Laity, did first desire of the Pope a Reformation, in faith and manners, shall find ¹. That they gave (and still do) to the B. Virgin, and other Saints departed the titles of Mediator, Redeemer and Saviour, in their public Liturgies and hymns. ². That they began their sermons and other solemn duties with Ave-maries', and rendered not to the B. Virgin only; but to relics, pictures, Agnus Dei's (and several other creatures, animate and inanimate) the worship, which is due only to the Creator. Briefly, to omit many Doctrines destructive to piety, and even civil society, which are warranted by other Counsels (as in the Council of Constance Sess. 19 ³. That it is lawful to break promise with heretics) and to instance only in some few positions, of the last Council, held at Trent, Sess, 25. ⁴. The decree for veneration of images is against Exod. xx. 5. Leu. xxvi. 1. Esa. two. 8, 9 xliv. 13, etc. 1 Cor. x. 7. vi. 9, 10. Rev. xxi. 8. ● ⁵. How contrary is their invocation of Saints and Angels, ibid. Sess. 27. unto Rom. x. 14. Luc. xi. 1, 2. Matth. iv. 10. Col. two. 18. Act. x. 25, 26. xiv. 14, 15. Rev. nineteen. 10. xxii. 89. ⁶. Their Communion in one kind decreed, in the very words of the Canon Sess. 13. and 21. Can. 1. & 2. with a non obstante Christi instituto, notwithstanding Christ's express decree, how opposite to Matth. xxvi. 27. Mark xiv. 23. 1 Cor. x. 3, 4, 16, 17? ⁷. Their Transubstantiation, Sess. 13. chap. 9 Can. 2. how contradictory not only to the Apostles Creed, but also to 1 Cor. x. 16, 17, 20. xi. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28? Matth. xx. vi. 29. ⁸. In a word (for such citations may be numerous) who ever can reconcile their decree for Service in an unknown tongue ibid. Sess. 22. chap. 8. & Can. 9 with any part of all the 1 Cor. xiv; I will not wonder if he think that fornication is not contrary to any law of God, and that forbidding marriage to all the Clergy doth no way oppose Heb. xiii. 4. and 1 Tim. iv. 3. Some of which positions are touched in the 19th chap. of this book: and the rest excellently confuted in Monsr Daillé's books de poenis; de imaginibus; but; contra Meliterium; and other Protestant Authors. Who ever, I say, recollecteth how these and the like Doctrines (which overthrow the fundamentals of Christian Religion) were then, and still are, not only the private opinions of her Doctors, but the public decrees of her Counsels;  
And then lastly, who ever considereth with what rigour and tyranny she threw them who disbelieved them, First out of the Church; and then (if she could) out of the world, merely for being of the young man's mind whom Sr Tho. More commendeth, and tells a pretty story of [pag. 1438. of his works in English] whose name was Company, because they would not sin with their neighbours and be damned for good Fellowship. So destroying whole Cities and Provinces, and with them in Tacitus, Solitudinem facientes pacem appellavere, Insomuch as none could communicate with her without approving both her tyranny and doctrines (which was the indespensable condition of her Communion) Who ever, I say, considereth these things will I conceive, never wonder why the Protestants departed from Rome, any more than why the Philosophers did of old, when they were banished; or why he is out of the house, who is thrust out of doors.  
But if none of all this could have been truly pleaded, yet the Church of England might have been excused from schism, by him that duly considereth, That the Anglican Church had of old, and still may justly challenge many privileges, as well as the Gallican, set down by Marc. de Vulson, Counsellor to the King of France, in his book de la puissance du Pape; and by Pythoeus and many others, but most largely described in two vast tomes, written by the appointment of Cardinal Richilieu, when he advised the King of France to set up a Patriarch in opposition to the See of Rome, entitled Prewes des libertez de l' Eglise Gallicane. Seconde Edition. A Paris. MDCLI. (If our secession was schism, what would that have been?) Both these Churches being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by force of the Ephesme Canon (among others) in the case of the Archbishop of Cyprus; whereby it was Ordered, that the Churches should continue as they were, and not be subordinated to any foreign Patriarch. And again, he who considereth, That perpetually under the Old Testament, and for many ages under the New, Kings and Emperors were acknowledged to have a power of reforming the Church, under their Dominions; That even our Q. Elisabeth (who is most railed at by Romanists) claimed no other title, but what Q. Mary & other Roman Catholic Kings and Princes claimed before Her; as may be seen in authentic Records; and That, by our Ancient Laws, the Kings of England, (as the Christian Emperors of old) had Supreme jurisdiction, in matters Ecclesiastical as well as Civil; and That, by these laws, it was death for any man, to publish the Pope's Bull, without the King's licence; and if any Ecclesiastical Court did exceed its just limits & jurisdictions, the King's prohibition was to be obeyed. All which appeareth in Caudries case, reported by Sr Edward Coke, in his fifth book, fol. 8. etc. Concerning our ancient Ecclesiastical laws, see Sr. H. Spelmans Counsels. Bp Carltons consensus Ecclesiae Cathol. adversus Tridentinos p. 271. 272. Dr. Hammonds answer to the six queries p. 414. and D. Blondel's Primauté en l' Eglise. p. 796. And that the Reformation in England was in this particular as regular as possibl●; the Clergy desiring it (in Q. Elisabeths' days there were not a hundred Incumbents turned out of their livings, throughout all England) the King, Lords and Commons unanimously concurring to it. See a book entitled, An answer to that groundless calumny, A Parliamentary Religion, by E. Y. printed at Oxford MDCXLV.  
And lastly; I request those, who are so prone to term us Schismatics, to examine, what obligation there lieth upon us to conform any more to Rome then Geneva; and why not to the poor Greek Church, as well as to either, if it have as much truth; or indeed, why not to the Primitive rather than any. Certain I am, that they will never be able to prove out of Antiquity, that if the Bishop of Rome (or any other Bishop) require subscription to any error (especially to any that is damnable or dangerous) as the condition of their Communion, any man was any longer bound to communicate with them (because then he were bound to communicate in sin) or by consequence to be obedient to them. Whence it will follow, That if the Pope make a new Creed: and put in some things that contradict the Apostolical (as he did at Trent: If he will force us to profess and practise the contrary to Christ's precepts (as in mutilating the Communion; and several kinds of superstition, idolatry, and tyranny,) We are not in a Schism for not subscribing and obeying, but He for imposing. And also it will follow, that Monsr. Daillé hath taken a very right method; And that the question of schism ought to follow, and not go before that of heresy or error. For if the Bishop of Rome be in schism, we are not then in fault for not remaining under his government, although we had been under it ever since the first plantation of Christianity in England (hoc dato, non concesso) since he now exacteth our assent & subscription to a damnable error, as a part of our Communion. And therefore I cannot but wonder, That the contrary method being so preposterous, and against both reason and the practice and opinions of the 
* 
Ecclesia non in parietibus consistit, sed in dogmatum veritate: Ecclesia ibi est, ubi sides vera est. Caeterùm ante annos 15 aut 20, parietes omnes hîc Ecclesiatum haeretici possidebant. Ecclesia autem illîc erat, ubi fides vera erat. Hieron in Psal. 133. Nemo mihi dicat, O quid dixit Donatus, aut quid dixit Parm. aut Pontius, aut quilibet eorum? quia nec Catholicis Episcopis consentiendum est, sicubi fortè fallantur ut contra Canonicas Scripturas aliquid sentiant. August. de unit. Eccles. c. 10. in Edit. Lugdun. Honorati. Anno 1562.  
Ecclesiam suam demonstrent si possunt, non in sermonibus & rumoribus Afrorum, non in Conciliis Episcoporum suorum, non in literis quorumlibet disputatorum, non in signis & prodigiis, fallacibus (quia etiam contra ista Verbo Domini cauti redditi sumus) sed i● praescripto Legis, in Prophetarum praedictis, in cantibus Psalmorum, in ipsius Pastoris vocibus, in Evangelistarum praedicationibus, & laboribus; hoc est, in omnibus Canonicis Sanctorum librorum autoritatibus. Eodem lib. c. 16. ejusdem edit.  
Vtrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant, non nisi divinarum Scripturarum Canonicis libris ostendant; quia nec nos propterea dicimus credi oportere, quod in Ecclesia Christi sumus; aut quia ipsam commendavit Optatus, Ambrose, vel alii innumerabiles nostrae communionis Episcopi; aut quia nostrorum Collegarum Conciliis praedicata est, aut quia per totu orbent tanta mirabilia sanitatum fiunt, etc. Quaecunque talia in Catholica fiunt, ideò approbantur quia in Catholica fiunt, non ideò manifestatur Catholica quia haec in ea fiunt. Ipse Dominus Iesus cum resurrexisset à mortuis, & discipulorum oculis corpus suum offerret, nè quid tamen fallaciae se pati arbitrarentur, magis eos testimoniis Legis & Prophetarum, & Psalmorum confirmandos esse ●udicavit. ibid. Non audiamus, Haec dico, sed haec dicit Dominus. Sunt certè libri Dominici quorum Autoritati utrique consentimus. Ibi quaeramus Ecclesiam, ibi discutiamus causam nostram. Eod. l. c. 2. & 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. in Act. hom. 33.   Fathers, should be so much used among the Romanists: For thereby they do not examine but praesuppose the conclusion. First, they would have us grant, That the Church of Rome is the only true Church on earth, and then examine whether she speak truth, and whether we did well in separating from her.  
But I wonder at Cardinal Perron more than at any man, That he (considering his vast understanding,— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and large preamble of two leaves, concerning the benefit and necessity of a good definition) should (Repl. lib. 1. c. 8.) define the Church to be a society of those whom God hath called to salvation, by the profession of the TRUE FAITH, sincere administration of the Sacraments, and adherence to lawful Pastors: and yet that he should both use the Romanists method, and find fault with them that do not, ibid. c. 4. For if the Church be such a Society; Either every member of that Church is obliged to know, (and therefore to examine) the true Faith, and sincere administration of the Sacraments; or he is obliged to make profession of that which he doth not know, and hath not examined. Which is far beneath a rational man, much more a Christian.  
And in truth, this I take to be the first particular that should be considered. For unless men before they dispute, will be persuaded to agree upon the state of the questions, and in what order they should be handled; they must needs end their discourse where they should have begun it: as to instance in the point in hand; Dr Potter p. 81. proveth that it is lawful to abstain from communicating with a Church that imposeth the profession of her corruptions, as a condition of her communion, Because 'tis lawful to separate from any other corrupted Society in the like case: as if a Monastery should reform itself, and reduce into practice ancient good discipline, when others would not, etc. or if a society of men be universally infected with some disease, etc. M. Knot in answer altars the case, very ingenuously, to the quite contrary, c. 5. § 31. M. Chillingworth moderates it, to do him a courtesy, c. 5. §. 85. In requital whereof, Mr. K. first blames him for it, and then begs the question; saying, That in the question between the Church of Rome and us there is a divine command, not to depart whatever she impose. So that till the questions be stated right, & in due method, that is, till it be examined whether the Church of Rome have corruptions and impose them, 'twill never appear, whether she or we be in the schism.  
And certes, methinks it is not fair, to beg the question so oft as he doth, & tell us that we are no Christians, unless we are infallibly certain that the Church is infallible; and yet never pretend to prove it so, by any other motives than those of credibility, which at best are but probable: and to me they seem not such. I protest, I have oft wished heartily they did, having found so many discouragements for a scholar in late years, that I long since concluded him a wiseman, who said, He that increaseth notions, increaseth sorrow, & Much study is a weariness to the flesh, Eccles. i. 18. xii. 12. concluding that the love of learning and truth (which is the most that I pretend to) would not only be tedious, but sinful, if felicity could be attained full as well without it: which it might, if it were infallibly certain, that the Roman Church is infallible. And so while Mr. Knot goes about to prove that reason overthroweth Christian Religion; and tells us that it must be built only upon the Authority of the Church, and then builds that Authority only upon reasons, and those very weak ones, and no way able to support his superstructure, he will let all fall, unless the same faculty be a pillar under his arm, and a bulrush under ours. And though he make great use of interjections in exclaiming against Chillingworth and other Protestants in England, for pulling down, he will never deserve any thanks (in my opinion) of the Christian world, for this building. Which mindeth me of the second particular I intent to speak of, viz.  
II. The occasion of printing this book. I confess, though it were translated several years since, at the urgency of some learned friends, whose judgement concerning the acuteness of it, I had more reason to trust then mine own: yet I was very unwilling to publish it, till now that I am convinced of the seasonableness of it, being certified from English Seminaries beyond the seas, indè Quòd nuper-veteres commigravere coloni; and convinced by relations from Newcastle, Brecknock, and other places on this side the water, That they are very busy at such harvest-work here, as Parsons the English Jesuit (in his 
* 
It is entitled, A memorial for Reformation; or A Remembrance for them that shall live, when Catholic Religion shall be restored into England. Wherein are directions, in so many several chapters, what he thought best to be done, as well in the Court as Country, with the King and Counsel, as with the rest of the Nobility, and Commonalty; Clergy as Laity, when this Nation shall be (as he said he was confident it would be) reduced.  
In sum, he would have its Grand-Charter burnt, the manner of holding lands in fee-simple, fee-tail, frank almain, King's service, etc. wholly abolished, the Municipal laws abrogated, and the Inns of Court converted to some other use: That for Lawyers. Then for Divines: The Colleges in both Universities should be wholly in the power of six men, who should have all the Lands, Manors, Lordships, Parsonages, etc. and what ever else belonged to Church or Cloister, resigned into their hands; allowing to the Bishops, Parsons, and Vicars, competent stipends and pensions to live upon, according as Bishops-Suffragans, and Mont seniors have allowance in other Catholic Countries. These are Parsons own words: That at the beginning no man's conscience be pressed for matters in Religion: then, That public disputations between Papists and Protestants, be held in both the Universities. That for some years it will be more commodious for the public, and more liberty for the Preachers, to have no appropriation nor obligation to any particular benefice, but Itinera.— Mitto caetera. He that would know more of it, may read the book itself, (for which I heard some Romanists last year commend M. Parsons) or (because that is rare) he may peruse a book of the same Parsons, entitled, A Manifestation of the folly and bad spirit of certain in England, calling themselves Secular Priests: wherein this Memorial is owned by him, and analysed, and excused, from fol. 55. to 63. Or, W. Clark (a Roman Priest) his answer to the Manifestation, entitled, A Reply unto a certain Libel, lately set forth by Fa. Parsons: pag. 74. etc. Or watson's quodlibets, p. 92, 93, 94. together with the Reply to a brief Apology, and several other books, which (fifty years ago) the Priests wrote against the Jesuits, and the Jesuits against the Priests. Whereby he may (in transitu) perceive, that there be as many and as great differences between them, as among Protestants.   Memorial written at Sevil 1596) and Contzen the Moguntine Jes. (in the second book of his Politics, and 18. chap. and Campanella in his Monarchia Hispan.) appointed them; being told by the London Booksellers. who are the most competent judges quisque in arte sua, (Beacon fired p. 6.) that at least thirty thousand Popish books have been printed there, within these three last years; and in a book entitled, The Petition of the six Counties of South-Wales, and the County of Monmouth to the late Parliament, of whole Parishes fallen off to Popery, since the Ministers have been cast out; and yet many men ask, WHAT NEED OF A CLERGY? Alas! I cannot but tremble to see how passionately they are in love with ruin, and pursue nakedness, vengeance, and desolation? [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prov. xxix. 18.] In a word, knowing turpius ejicitur, etc. that men are with more ease kept within the Church of England, then reduced to it; and seeing many daily, who formerly have been the most forward to cry, Venient Romani— posting out of it, and furious for Roman superstition, falling (as 'tis the custom of the giddy vulgar) from one extreme to another: Especially considering that the zeal of the greatest member of our Pastors (most whereof might far better be spent in pressing and persuading men to pious conversations] is altogether laid out in controversies of a less nature and importance (which, by the way, may be one cause of the spreading of Popery) I thought this book would now at length prove very seasonable. And if it may please the Almighty of his goodness, to let it be as successful in stopping the increase of the Roman Religion in England, at it was in hindering the persecution of the Protestants in France; I shall not think one minute of the spare-houres, that I employed in translating it, lost. But if withal, it prove instrumental to the abating of any man's heat for ceremonies and externals, or cause him to spend it (where it ought) in constant devotion to God alone, and unfeigned Christian charity toward all his brethren, and reuniting the shattered pieces of groaning Christendom; and so induce any one man to live a Holy life (which questionless is or should be the main end of all our preaching, religion, and controversies) I shall really deem it the happiest time that ever I bestowed.  
The chief book that is now extolled by our Romanists is one lately set forth by Mr Edward Knot, alias Nich. Smith, whose true name is Matthew Wilson, born at Pegsworth near Morpeth in Northumberland; who was for several years' Professor of Divinity at the English College in Rome; then Vice-Provinciall; and that he might finish this his last book the better, was made Provincial of all English Jesuits; all which I am informed by some of his own Countrymen and Society. The book is entitled▪ Infidelity unmasked, or the Confutation of Mr Chillingworth, etc. Wherewith if any wavering Protestant chance to be shaken in his belief (whereof though the Romanists generally boast much, I see no danger because I have, aster much enquiry, not heard of two in England that have had the patience to read it over, 'Tis so full of monstrous 
* p. 52. § 18. p. 337. § 75. p. 354. l. 20. p. 495. l. 31. p. 648. l. ult. p. 728. l. ult. etc. p. 808. l. 20. pag. 812. lin. 16. But I delight not camerinam movere, since (to say nothing of Mr. P. du Moulin and other Protestant collections, which I think not so considerable in this kind) the Romanists have written so much against one another, in several languages, to this purpose, that my soul oft bleedeth in secret to foresee, That if they proceed thus, The reducing (if not this, yet) the next age to the good old Christianity (wherein as Epiphan. witnesseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divided the world into heretical and Orthodox Professors) or even to moral honesty (while gain shall be counted godliness, and è contra) will be found a matter of far more difficulty and miracle, than at the first plantation, as Aphorisms ou Sommaire de la doctrine des Jesuites par lesquels le uray Christianisme est corrompu 1610. Mercure Jesuit 1631. Mysteria Jesuitarum. 1633. Theologie morale des Jesuits extraict fidellement de leurs livres Country la Morale Christienne. which last the Sorbon Doctors published. They and the Louvain have published several other Common-places or catalogues of Jesuitical opinions, showing that they teach a large number of opinions, which open a wide door to treachery, revenge, covetousness, debauchedness, etc. And 'tis likely the Jesuits who are seldom behindhand when they are able, have done as much for them. Mean while, I pray, God preserve Christianity!  tenants and impertinencies) I shall entreat (for his satisfaction) to read likewise over Mr Chillingworth's book, against which it was writ; and he shall find Mr Chillingworth's a sufficient answer to it, if he please to compare Section with Section, from the beginning to the end of each. For he will perceive, That the most weighty arguments of Mr. Chillingworth (as all the Answer to the Directions of N. N. that is, Mr Knot, wherein Master Chill. drew up, and proved, an high charge of Atheism and Socinianism, against Mr Knot and his party, and cleared himself; and so many places as it would be tedious to specify) are passed by as the sick man, in the high way, was by the Jew without notice taken: And the rest so jejunely handled, and so far from a complete answer (though 'tis sufficiently known, That Mr K. being in such high place, and dividing part of the task among many of his Inferiors, and making use of those three folios writ by Mr G. H. against Mr Chill. [which Dr Hammond mentioneth in his unanswerable Defence of the Ld Falkland] and other the like helps had all the humane advantages that could be had) so little touched, that methinks he may well unchristen his book a little more, and recall that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The confutation of Mr Chillingworths book, reserving only the rest, Infidelity unmasked. And that in relation to himself.  
I shall give Mr K. a large catalogue of his omissions, when he shall think fit to answer Mr Chillingworths Preface, to the Author of charity maintained; or (because that would perhaps be too long a trouble) when he shall answer only the last page of Mr Chillingworths book (which in justice should have been done 19 years since) containing 〈◊〉 eleven discourses of Dr Potter, which were never yet ●●●ched; although Mr Chill. concludeth his first part in these words; Now at last, when you are admonished of it, that my Reply may be perfect, I would entreat you to take them into your consideration: promising the second part of his Reply, when Mr K. should desire it, but it seems he had enough of the first, which made him desire to smother the second.  
In the interim, I cannot but mind Mr Knot of one § containing two pages ('tis the 96th of the 5th c. of M. Chill.) which he passeth over as ordinary Commentatours do over hard places, saying not a word to it. Which I am minded of by Monsr Milletiere's Rhetoric, concerning the inconsistency of Protestant Religion with civil government. And I do the more earnestly beseech him to answer it, because I see he sals sometimes into the same strain, and because I bear a great love to the persons of some in the Roman Communion, and have been many years troubled with an 
* That which one or two, or some few Roman Catholic Doctors say is lawful, may (in the judgement of Papists) be done, without mortal sin. [the major is M. Knots, Charity maintained c. 4. sect. 25. as also Valentia's, Vasquez, Lessius, Enriquez, Sa. Cellot de Hist. l. 8. c. 16. p. 714.] But not only one, but many Rom. Cath. Doctors say, 'Tis lawful to murder or depose a Supreme Magistrate, that is guilty of heresy, or suspected of it. Cavete Principes conclasioneni.  argument, which the learned Dr Jer. Taylor brings p. 50, & 51. of his sermon on the Gunpowder-Treason (having in my small perusal of Popish writers, met with many confirmations, both of major and minor proposition; which I shall produce, when need requires: but I think it doth not now, because I must be short; and the Dr hath said enough in that excellent sermon. Which seemeth to me to contain a very sufficient answer to a book lately written by a Romanist, entitled, The Christian Moderator.  
Besides, that I am most credibly informed, by a Person of great quality and integrity (who saw both the subscriptions and excommunication) That those many English Recusants, whom he mentioneth p. 17, and 37. were all excommunicated for subscribing those three moderate negative propositions, which are there set down as the Doctrine of the English Rom. Catholics, concerning the Pope's power over the Supreme Magistrate.  
I was ever a great enemy to rancour in dispute, and am of that Viscounts mind, who thought, That there ought to be no more bitterness in a treatise of Controversy then in a Love-letter. And therefore though I never saw Mr Chillingworth (whom I find commended by Mr 
* Is it not a shame that learned men should blame this [opinion concerning reason] in Master Chillingworth, Doctor Hammond, etc. and thereby advance Socinianism, and ruin Christianity. Saint's rest. Praef. to the 2. part. p. 18. & saepe alibi. 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉   Baxter and other eminent Divines; and commended by his Adversaries for a devout and rational man) yet I cannot but be moved with pity and grief to see, how Mr Knot (who bespattereth Casaubon, and several other very learned men) insulteth over Mr Chillingworth now being dead: who would not come near him to dispute while he was alive, though Mr Chillingworth at sundry times and by several ways entreated and solicited, nay pressed and importuned him to it, before the printing of this solio. (See The Answer to the direction to N. N. § 4. and afterwards, as I am told by them that knew him) which he survived seven years. How after seventeen years studying to lay this Hector in the dust, Mr Knot sets forth a book, wherein (to speak first of the manner of his discourse) the chief thing be doth, is to scare his Reader with morm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 s (fortiter calumniando Antagonistam, ut aliquid haereat, as his policy was in Tacitus) chiefly bespattering him (and that almost in every page) with odious imputations of such opinions, whereof he cannot point us out one in all his volume, concerning which he (who best knew his own belief, and is long since gone to answer for it, good or bad) said, more than once, as in his Answer to the directions to N. N. § 28. Whosoever teacheth or holdeth them LET HIM BE ANATHEMA! In which volume, though Mr Knot declaim oft against reason, and say, That to it the mysteries of Christian Religion seem impossible. c. xiii. § 27. p. 808. pro 812. yet he thinks it fitting to charge his Adversary with the sayings not only of St Augustine, B ●. Andrews, Hooker, Grotius, Calvin, Beza, and the like learned men, who yet confessed themselves men; but also of Luther, Socinus, Crellius, Volkelius, Bonaventure, Halensis, Dionys. Areopagita, and I know not what other rabble; as if poor Chillingworth were bound to defend all whosoever, that wrote before him: Whereas all the world knows, That he who would not believe the Roman Church (whereof he had been a member) upon her own bare word, would as little believe any particular member of that, or any other Society upon theirs; and that he disclaimed not her pretended Infallibility (which was her worst fault, as making all the rest, how damnable soever, incurable) that he might affix it upon another, or the next man he met; though never so learned, or pious. And if Mr. K. will think it unjust, That he should be put to maintain the writings of all Papists, or even of those few, of his own late Order; his citing so much the opinions of Protestants out of our Adversary Brerely, is no argument, but of his own unreasonableness.  
I shall not take notice of half his impertinencies: not how he grants, what Mr Chill. affirmed, concerning some men's believing contradictions p. 803. lin. 5. There is no doubt, saith he, but that men may believe things, which in themselves are contradictions. & p. 810. l. 18. 'Tis needless to be proved, it being a thing which no man denyeth. And yet, how in attempting to show, that Master Chillingworth's reasons do not prove it, he spends from p. 802. to 815. To take notice of all such peccadilloes would be very tedious to Thee and me. Only because I have mentioned his citing Brerely so oft (and not only Mr K. but most of the other English Advocates for the Church of Rome are very faulty therein) give me leave to add a little, in that particular.  
Mr I'll. c. 5. § 91. answering Mr Knots alleging the confession of Protestants concerning the Antiquity of some Doctrines in the Church of Rome, sets down twenty Doctrines of that Church, and entreateh Mr K. to inform him what confession of Protestants he hath for them, viz. Communion in one kind, Lative Service, Indulgences, the Pope's power in temporalities over Princes, picturing the Trinity, worshipping of pictures, and of the B. Virgin, her immaculate conception, infallibility of the Pope or Church, auricular Confession, etc. And that as some Protestants confess the Antiquity, but always postnate to Apostolic, of some Roman points; so there want not Papists, who acknowledge as freely the novelty of many of them, and the Antiquity of ours. To which, all that Mr K. answereth is p. 867. as followeth. 1. Some of these things are not matters of faith: and some other points are even ridiculous. 2. We deny that any Cath. approved. Author, acknowledgeth the novelty of any of our Doctrines, or the antiquity of yours; except such were ancient heresies. How truly spoken the first is, the Reader may judge; if he have read the Canons of the Council of Trent, Luc. Wadding's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or History of the Immaculate conception printed at Louvain 1624. or any few Roman authors: How true the second, if he'll vouchsafe to examine the places I have cited p. 6. or these which follow.  
Though there are some Protestants who confess the Antiquity (though not Primitive, which is the only Antiquity they hold obliging) of some few Roman Doctrines; so there are not a few Doctors & Writers of their own Communion, who acknowledge, as liberally, the novelty of very many others: as, 1 that Transubstantiation was not named, much less made an Article of faith, before the Lateran Council (Bellarm. de Sacram. l. 2. c. 25.) 2 That for the first MCC years, the Holy Cup was administered to the Laity: (Lindan. Panopl. l. 4. part. 2. c. 56. § Hunc igitur. Cassander saepe. Albaspinaeus Observe. Sacr. l. 1. c. 4. And your friend Petavius in his Treatise against Arnault, (de la frequent. Communion.) saith, None but an extreme ignorant, or impudent fellow can deny it. 3. That they believed the sacrifice of the Eucharist to be but the IMAGE or COMMEMORATION of our Saviour's sacrifice on the Cross: (Lombard. Sent. l. 4. c. 12. & Aqu. 3. p. qu. 83. art. 1. incorp.) 4. That the Primitive Christians celebrated not the Eucharist as the Roman Church doth now: (Durand. ration. div. offic. lib. 4. c. 1. Rupertus Abbas Tuit. Divin. Offic. l. 2. c. 21.) [he that readeth Justin Martyr in his Apology, largely describing the custom of the Primitives in his days, may think he speaks of the Protestants now.] 5. That Divine Service was celebrated for many ages in a tongue understood by the people: (Nic. de Lyr. in 1. ad Cor. 14. Cassander in Liturg. c. 28. Alphons. à Castro de justa pun. haeret. l. 3. c. 6.) where, descending this differing from the Primitive Church, he saith, That he who should now conform to THEM, would be accounted not only an impious man, but an Infidel. 6. That the Fathers exhorted the people to read the Scriptures: (Azor. mor. l. 8. c. 26. part. 1. § respondeo.) 7. That they generally condemned the worship of Images for fear of Idolatry: (Polyd. Virg. de invent. rerum, l. 6. c. 13.) In which treatise, that learned Italian oft ingemiously acknowledgeth the novelty of most of their customs in the Church of Rome, except such as came from Jews or Pagans. As (lib. 5. c. 4.) where he saith, 8 God and the Primitive Church permitted marriage to Priests, and Pope Siricius (who lived at the end of the fourth century) was the first that forbade it; whose laws to that purpose, though they came out very thick, were little heeded till the eleventh Age. See Gloss. decret. dist. 84. c. 3. and P. Pius II. in his 130. Epist. against the Bohemians and Taborites; where he opposeth the Modern Church to the Primitive. 9 That MCCCC. years after Christ, many learned Romanists denied the Pope's judgement to be infallible. (Gerson. Almain. Alphonsus. Adrian. PP. apud Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 2. § Secunda opinio.) 10. Or his authority to be above that of a general Council: (Camaracensis. Gerson. Almain. Cusan. Panormitan. Abulensis apud Bell. de Conc. l. 2. c. 14. initio.) 11. That the Mass was not instituted by Christ and the Apostles (who at the consecration used only the Lords Prayer) but DC years after them by Gregory I Platin. in vit. Sixti I. & Gregor. I. Gregor. Epist. l. 7. c. 63. p. 664. edit. Paris. 1571. And all the world knows how lately, and through how pleasant a trick, the Gregorian Missal came in use, in stead of the Ambrosian; because being laid upon S. Peter's Altar, it was torn in pieces in the night. The story may be read at large in Durand's Rational. divin. offic. l. 5. c. 2. § 5. p. 212. And with what a deal of violence and difficulty, this Gregorian Missal was brought into Spain, may be seen in Rod. Ximenes his History of Spain, l. 6. c. 26. Cassand. Praef. de Ord. Rom. 12. That Purgatory was very little, or not at all, mentioned among the Ancients; a thing unknown to Antiquity; and received into the Church but lately. Episc. Fisher. Assert. Lutherane consutat. Artic. XVIII. 13. That, after PURGATORY, came in INDULGENCES. Idem ibid. Durand. Antoninus apud Bellarm. and, That the Jubilee was instituted MCCC years after Christ, by that good man P. Boniface, who (their Historians say) came in like a fox, reigned like a lion, and died like a dog. See a treatise of Indulgences; writ by Wesselus, al. Basil Groningensis. and another of the Jubilee by Santarel the Jesuit. 14. Lastly, (for such citations would be endless, as I might mind you, who it was that Nicephorus Calisthus saith, brought Prayer to Saints into the public Liturgy, etc. According as M. Knot answers or approves of these, I will give him more, which I have in readiness.) Alphonsus à Castro in his Treatise, de justa punit. Heretic. l. 2. c. 22. speaking of divers ceremonies, which the Church of Rome useth in the consecration of Temples, Altars, Chalices, habits, ornaments, saith, NONE of these things were instituted by Jesus Christ, but in aftertimes, by little and little, instituted by the Church.  
Yet give me leave to add one thing more; That 'tis clear to me, None of the Ancient Christians believed the Church of Rome to be a Guide, or Judge of all Controversies in Christianity: wherein Mr. K. may do very well to satisfy me, or [as his friends do] blame them, for this reason among many, Because in Epiphanius, S. Augustine, and others their Catalogues of Heretics, none are branded for denying this which they all did. And if it had been believed at all (especially as it is generally now, viz. to be the original of all other heresies, it had been far more rational to have put in this; and left out all the rest; then to have dealt with posterity as we see they have. That Tertullian, Vincentius Lirinensis, and several others should give us rules to know Heretics by, and forget this, the main and clearest. And, which is stranger yet, that not only Optatus (l. 5. contra Parmen. mihi p. 130.) after a long discourse against the Donatist, about the unlawfulness of rebaptisation [Inter licet vestrûm & non licet nostrûm, nutant & remigant animae populorum: Well, what must be done in this case? Quaerendi sunt judices. Who shall they be? Si Christiani— Si Paganus— Si Judaeus— inconveniences on every side] should conclude, Ergò in terris hac de re nullum poterit reperiri judicium, de coelo quaerendus est Judex.— Habemꝰ in Evangelio Testamentum. And S. August. to the same purpose (in Psal. xxi. èxposition. 2. Tabulae aperiantur, legantur verba mortui. That, I say, not only Optatus that learned Bishop, and other Ancients should be so much in those early days mistaken (for certainly your Church was not then in heaven) but S. Paul also writing a very long epistle to the Romans, and setting down therein arguments against several heresies should conclude with quisque suo sensu abundet [if I may believe your Bible] Rom. xiv. 5. & oportet esse haereses; and not mention a word of any infallible remedy, or Judge at Rome: which news would have been worth all the rest of the Epistle.  
And again, That not only all the Fathers of the first CCC years, should pass over this opinion of the Roman Churches great Authority in silence (the believing or disbelieving which alone, with the Romanists now, denominates every man a Catholic or an Heretic) but that the Historians also of those days should say nothing of it, if she had any such thing, seemeth no more probable to me, then that any learned man hereafter will write the Chronicle of England, for these twelve years last, and never mention the Lords Fairfax or Cromwell.  
Having said thus much in general concerning the manner of M. Knots disputes, and his unfitting Topics, wherein he mistaketh Antiquity for Truth, & citations out of Protestants (oft falsified) for infallible conclusions: and beseeching M. Knot, if he shall vouchsafe an answer to this paper, not to skip over these two last leaves, but to give me some reason, Why any Christian is BOUND to believe such positions as are confessedly novel? And if he will say, that all (which he cannot with modesty; or that any, which he cannot with truth) of the forenamed Roman Doctors, speak that which is not true; that he would consider how he puts into my mouth, what to answer to much that he allegeth out of Protestant Doctors against Mr. Chillingworth: I come now to take a short view of his particular discourses, and begin at his Preface.  
Pref. p. 4. and 5. After he hath given his Readers some admonitions how to read his book [I wish that he pretending to answer the whole, had printed M. Chill's with it, that we might the more readily have compared them] and told them, that one half of CHARITY MAINTAINED is yet unanswered [he who readeth Mr. Chill's book, or but the last lines of it, sees the reason of that] he professeth, That he will not meddle with Mr. Chill's answer to the direct. to N. N. (very ingenuously spoken!) but why? because it is confuted by a book entitled, THE JUDGEMENT OF AN VNIVERSITY-MAN CONCERNING Mr. CHILLINGWORTHS' PAMPHLET: 'twas a pretty little Pamphlet! but whether that Judgement of an University-man, which I never met with any man whosoever that saw (unless such to whom I have showed it) be a real answer to any page of Mr. Chill's book, any more than Chaucer's tales are, I desire any unprejudiced man to determine. Only I must take notice (as I pass) that Mr Knot doth very well, to observe so soon that precept, which Tully gives his Orator (and Ulysses in Ovid, against Ajax, practiseth) to skip over the hardest arguments. What 'tis in an Orator I'll not say; but I am sure, it is no great sign of a good Disputant.  
The next thing he telleth us is [§. 10. and 11. and so to the end of the Preface] how the very title of Mr. Chill's book may be confuted out of Mr. Chill's own words: for which he citeth p. 21. mihi lin. 3. from whence M. Knot concludeth, That millions of Protestants err damnably; and that Mr. Chill. affirmeth, That the Protestant Religion is no safe way to salvation. I answer: I confide, (to use Mr. Knots words) that every indifferent Reader will find this to be clearly false: For first, he speaketh no more of Protestants than Papists, but equally of both. Secondly, he saith not categorically they do err, but it is to be feared they (both Protestants and Papists) do. Thirdly, he saith not absolutely neither, but on supposition, IF any Protestant or Papist be held in any error by any sin of their will, than such error is as the cause of it, sinful and damnable. And this none that I know, unless himself, will or can deny. It being a truth sufficiently manifest; and asserted by his great Masters, P. Lombard, and T. Aquinas, and the greatest stream of Schoolmen and Casuists. And to tell Mr. Knot my mind freely, I am clearly of Mr. Chill's opinion, viz. That Protestant Religion is a safe way to salvation, and yet that many Protestants go to hell: That there are millions of Protestants, who think, not to be a Papist, is enough not to be damned: and millions of Papists who think not to be a Protestant, is enough to oblige Almighty God, and merit heaven. And I take both parties to be extreme blame-worthy for deeming so; and Mr. Knot must give me leave to wonder, if any rational man shall blame me for saying so, without giving his reasons.  
Now we come to Mr Knots very large Introduction, where § 2. p. 38. he layeth down this proposition to be proved, Christian Religion is absolutely and infallibly true. And so he spends you above fifteen sheets in pretending to prove it, and the Necessity of Grace; and the first of these by the last. And if Mr Chill. neither denied the necessity of Grace, nor the infallibility of Christian Religion, I desire the Reader to consider whether he have not fifteen sheets together of impertinencies. And that Mr Chill. denied neither of these, will clearly enough appear to any that are not willing to be deceived, if they can spare leisure to read over Mr Chillingworth's pamphlet (as Mr Knots friend calls it) or but consult those very passages from which Mr K. taketh the occasion of these long discourses, and which he citeth out of Master Chillingworths sixth Chapter; where his 3d d § begins thus, I do HEARTILY acknowledge, and believe the Articles of our Faith to be in themselves Truths, as certain and INFALLIBLE as the very common principles of GEOMETRY and MATHEMATICS. But as if Mr K. (notwithstanding the Metaphysics he boasteth so much of) knew not the difference between certitudo objecti & subjecti, he seeketh advantage from what followeth immediately, viz. But That there is required of us a knowledge of them, and an adherence to them, of SENSE or SCIENCE; That such a certainty is required of us UNDER PAIN OF DAMNATION: So that NO man CAN HOPE to be in a state of salvation but he that finds in himself such a degree of faith, such a strength of adherence; This I have already demonstrated to be a great error, and of dangerous and pernicious consequence. And because I am more and more confirmed in my persuasion, I will here confirm it with reasons, etc. p. 311. From which passage whether any just advantage can be taken, (especially for a digression of so many sheets) let every unpassionate Reader judge.  
Chap. 1. § 2. p. 38. He lays down this proposition to be proved, Christian faith is absolutely and infallibly true: by Christian faith he explains (two lines after his proposition.) himself to mean, the true Religion. Now 1. This is the same vein of Sophistry which I noted even now, and runs through the whole book, when he speaks of infallibility. The question being not at all de certitudine objecti but subjecti; not whether divine truths be absolutely infallible, (this none doubteth, who admits a God, in the true notion) but whether we are infallibly certain, That these or those positions are Divine truths. 2. Master Chill. tells us in the ninth § of his Conclusion, that the end of his book was to confirm the truth of the divine & infallible Religion of Jesus Christ. 3. Mr K. takes notice of it, and citeth that very passage, and such others. [c. 1. § 39 p. 66.] So that to make a great noise against Mr Chill. and to endeavour to prove against him, what he believeth and granteth (nay what he knoweth, and confesseth he grants; as Mr K. doth here, and oft elsewhere) is such a piece of Jesuitical industry and civility, as Protestants never learned. 4. He tells us, that in the proof of this proposition, he maintaineth the cause of All Christians, and of all men and mankind. 'Tis a comfort to meet with such a charitable person. But if he have all Christians, nay all men, all mankind, of his persuasion (and saith so himself) who are his adversaries? If all men, all mankind be for the infallibility of all faith, then sure Mr Chill. is so too (for though I never saw or knew him, otherwise then by his printed book, I ever took him for a man; and I believe Mr K. who hath reason to know him better than I, hath found him so:) And if all be not of Master Knots mind, than nothing can be concluded hence, but that he was in a passion, when he wrote this book: & so may be the better excused for declaiming against reason. But 5. Had Mr K. read Sextus Empericus, and been acquainted with the Pyrrhonians, he might have found many (and they no fools, but famous Philosophers) who were not for his absolute infallibility.  
And I wish Mr. Knot may never be one of them. I hope be is, and will continue, a Christian. Only give me leave to tell him, That if nothing else could be said for the truth of our Christian Religion, but what is in his Infidelity unmasked, and Vanninus his Amphitheatrum, heu! actum esset de Palladio. Since (not to trouble you with transcribing his positions, which I cited pag. 14.) having told us, That it is necessary that supernatural knowledge should be most certain and infallible; and, That a man is as happy without any belief of Christian Religion, as without one that is infallible, he saith, p. 52. That 'tis impossible Christian Religion can retain the highest degree of probability, if it have no greater perfection than it receiveth from the sole probable arguments of credibility. And then (throughout the whole book) he hath not one argument which pretends to reach higher than to a probability (I wish any of them would reach so high) for the infallibility of the Church or living Judge (upon which he endeavours to build all the rest) unless you will grant (which indeed he contendeth hard for) Conclusionem non semper sequi deteriorem partem, That the conclusion may sometimes be stronger than the premises. And indeed it concerns him, to desire it should be granted: for the premises which he bringeth, cannot possibly be any just foundation of his confident conclusions.  
But let us come to his proofs: p. 2. §. 2. he goes about to prove, Christian faith is infallible, and exempt from all possibility of error, or falsehood. His end is, as I said before, that he may prove the Roman Faith and Church infallible: His medium is this, FAITH is the gift of God, and the prime verity cannot inspire a falsehood. This I confess is an argument to prove the infallibility of the Church, which I never met or heard of before. And I doubt it will prove more than he would have it, viz. That Protestants (since they have faith, as Mr. Knot in Cham Ma. par. 1. c. 1. §. 3, 4. granteth they have [unless he'll say, a man may be saved without it, contrary to Hebr. xi. 6.] and Dr. Smith, Bishop of Chalcedon, saith expressly in print, Protestantibus credentibus, etc. they neither want FAITH, nor a CHURCH, nor SALVATION) are infallible, as well as Romane-Catholicks. And then Roman Catholics cannot be infallible, unless infallible men may contradictions another.  
By the word saith in this argument, Mr. Knot meaneth either the object of faith, or the act of saith. If he mean the object of faith (the word of God revealed in the Gospel) he abuseth himself, and us; for no Christian ever denied it. If he mean the act of faith (as he must, if he say any thing against his Adversary, or to the purpose) then by this discourse not only the Pope, but every Bishop, every Priest, nay, Thou and I, and every Christian man and woman in the world, who hath infused saith, and that gift of God, are as infallible as the Church of Rome. And yet on this sandy argument Mr. Knot at the first entrance, lays the foundation of all his Book; and chooseth rather to build the infallibility of Christian Religion hereon, than (with his companions) upon the infallibility of the Church.  
In reading Mr. Knot's book I stood amazed, to hear him say so oft, that he had already proved the infallibility of his Church; and searching from Chapter to Chapter, I found no other argument, beside what I mentioned p. 10. concerning the infallibility of faith (to which I conceive I have said enough) but the notes of credibility, p. 428. viz. Miracles, sanctity, sufferings, victory over enemies, conversion of Nations, [wealth, he might have said.]  
Concerning which I come now to speak somewhat briefly. 1. For Miracles; Christ and the Apostles bid us to take heed of them; and so we have the evidence of their true miracles then, to keep us from all false ones now; and we are bid to examine the miracles by the doctrine, not the doctrine by the miracles. And the 
a Chrysost. in 1. ad Cor. c. 2. hom. 6. & ad Coloss. c. 2. in Matt. hom. 49. Gregor. in Evang. hom. 29. Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 22. c. 8. & de vera religione c. 25. Justin. qu. & resp. Orthod. qu. 5. Tertull. advers. Marc. l. 3. c. 3. Opus imperf. in Matth. hom. 49. Theodor. in Deut. qu. 12. August. de unitat. Eccl. c. 16. de civet. Dei. l. 22. c. 8.  Fathers confess as much, That miracles are not now necessary, nor profitable▪ nor marks of the true Religion. 
b August. in Joan. tract. 13. Hieron. in Epist. ad Gal. c. 3. Tertull. de praescr. c. 44.  That the Ancient heretics pretended to miracles, as much or more than the Orthodox. And we know that the 
c Baron. Annal. tom. 2. an. 139. sect. 4. Sueton. in vita Vesp. c. 7. Tacit. hist. l. 4. annal. l. 2. Plutarch. in vit. Fu. Camilli. Val. Max. l. 1. c. 8.  Heathens talked much of theirs; and that many 
d Bellarm. de Eccl. milit. l. 4. c, 15. Card. Cajetan. apud Catharinum Annot. l. 4. p. 273. & 274. Stella in Luc. xi. Ferus in Matth. praef. l. 2. Gregor. I. in Evang. hom. 29. Lyra in Dan. 14. Biel in Can. Missae lect. 49. Baron. Annal, anno 1027. Acosta de temp. noviss. l. 2. c. 19 & l. 3. c. 3. Salmeron de falsis signis, disp. 3.  Roman Doctors acknowledge all this.  
But it is strange, (is the Church of Rome have any miracles,) and be (as she pretends) desirous of our salvation, and not afraid to convert us; that she should never show them among Protestants, where they may abide the touch; unless our presence be a charm, and disable her Priests from doing wonders: Very strange, that most of her miracles should be done in secret; (when otherwise, they are oft so notorious cheats, that the Magistrate takes notice of them, and punisheth them) whereas Christ and the Apostles did theirs in the face of the Sun, and before all Israel; before enemies as well as friends; before heretics and infidels as well as Orthodox, that they might do good. And that where she doth show them (as in France, Italy, and Spain) they should not, if they be true, convince the Atheists▪ who more abound in those, than in any other Country's. Marsennus told us long since comm. in Gen. that there were in his days fifty thousand Atheists in that one city of Paris. Colerus [l. de immort. anim.] tells what store there be in Italy. And for the Spaniards; I need but mind the Reader of their converting the Indies, by depopulating them, and barbarously slaying millions: auferre, trucidare, Imperium, [Religionem] vocant, as Galgac. in Tacit. vitâ Agric. c. 20. insomuch that the poor Natives thought Christians the most cruel and wicked people in the world, and called them Guacci, that is, beasts that live upon prey; and Viracochie, that is, the scum of the sea; and pointing at a piece of gold, were wont to say, Behold the Christians God. Such were the sanctified lives of those that boasted of converting Nations! Concerning which, see a book entitled, Spanish cruelties, written by Barthol. de las Cafas, a Bishop, and Dominican Friar, and translated into French, Italian, etc. printed in Latin at Frankfurt, with pictures, Also Benzo's historia novi orbis, and other Relations of the Indies. Which mindeth me of the 2d Note,  
2. Sanctity of life. This argument varieth with the climate; and in most places proveth rather against Romanists, than for them. 'Tis not long, since Clemangis, Espencaeus, Alvarez, Petrarch, Pelagius, Dantes, Baronius, and the Cardinal's delegated by P. Paul III. and many of the Roman Doctors complained, That all the miseries and civil wars in Christendom, came from the ill lives of their Monastical and Clergymen; since Bellarmine sent great numbers of Popes to hell together; and are they now come to be the only Saints on earth? 'Tis confessed, That discipline (wherein even those Heretics, whom Mr. Knot calls Infidels, by the confession of their most dreadful Adversaries, go beyond Romanists) dangers, and such externals, make great alterations on some men's lives. And in England there cannot be many monstrous wicked men of that Religion (yet some there are) because not many men, in comparison with Protestants. But what kind of people the plurality of them be in other Nations, all the world knows. And Salmeron [in epist. Pauli. de falsis signis Eccl. disp. 3.] Costerus [Enchirid. controvers. c. 2. p. 101.] à Costa [de tempor. noviss. l. 2. c. 20.] are so ingenuous, as to confess expressly, That a life apparently good and honest, is not proper to any one Sect, but common to JEWS, TURKS, and HERETICS. And Card. Perron confesseth it tacitly; while in his letter to his Uncle, he mentioneth not the good lives of any Catholics. And S. Chrysost. [in Matth. iii hom. 4.] is as plain and large to my purpose, as any of them. It is too plain, that arguing from the pretended holiness of men's lives, to the goodness of their cause, or opinion, is a Paralogism, which hath advanced Arianism, Pelagianisme, and other heresies of old, Mahumetanisme, Familisme, and Anabaptism of late: And unless God of His infinite Mercy prevent, may ruin Christendom now. His other Notes are so far from arguments, that I am a little ashamed to say any thing to them.  
The 3d d is SUFFERINGS. And do not Protestants suffer more in most other parts of Christendom, by the State, or the Inquisition, (where some, as our worthy Confessor Mr Moll, have been and are kept in a close prison or dungeon for above twenty years merely for Religion) or by both? So that those arguments which their Christian Moderator brings, supposing them rational in themselves, cannot be such coming from a Romanist, unless, Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri nèfeceris, be an unreasonable Law; & not Nature's. Nay, do not the Socinians, Anabaptists, Arians, Atheists, suffer too; and burn rather than turn? witness Servetus, John of Leiden, Hacket, Vanninus, Fontanier, Ket, Leggat, Theophile, Gentilis, and many others.  
4. Victory over all sorts of enemies. This makes more for Turcism then Popery, for the Koran, than the Conc. of Trent.  
5. CONVERSION OF INFIDELS. I would fain know what he means by Infidels (for he cannot but know, that thousands have been converted by Protestants) whether all of every nation? or how many converts are required to make up this note? and whether so many, in every age? 'Tis certain, that multitudes of Infidels have been converted to Mahumetanisme; and more Christians of late years to Judaisme and Turkism, than Turks or Jews to Christianity or Popery. And to see what manner, of Christians the Romanists make in both the Indies, you need read no other books than their own letters, their own Bishop, de las Casas book, or Benzo's, cited p. 30. To turn a rich fruitful land into a desolate wilderness, is in the new Roman language conversion. In a word, who ever shall please to examine these notes (which are Mr Knot's last argument, and other men's first, chief, and ordinary, for the infallibility of the Church) or any other that he or his Society can bring shall find that they offend against those properties, which Bellarmine, Salmeron, and other Roman Controvertists require in all Notes; as That they should be verae, manifestae, propriae, non communes, inseparabiles, etc. It being the most undoubted note of a distinguishing Note, Alteri non quadrare.  
Indeed his marks seem to me so weak arguments, that I cannot find how any man can be convinced by them, unless through the Authority of the propounder: so that if a man yields upon them, it must be out of civility, or fear of gainsaying. But when men are resolved upon a Conclusion, impertinencies are easily fancied to be as strong demonstrations, as any in Euclid. The Pythagorians being bred up in positions concerning numbers, fancied them the principles even of Natural bodies. Every rack in the clouds is a Regiment in a young soldier's eye, and the least scratch in the wall a baby in the child's: all chymnes sound their Whittington. I wish the best of Mr Knots arguments were as concluding as the worst of Monsr Drelincourts 100 against Transubstantiation.  
I heartily wish (as I said before) for an infallible Judge, and shall come with as much prejudice against my own persuasion (for as yet I see no hope of any in this world) to hear Mr Knots argument, as he can desire, in any Reader. But I would be loath to run in a circle, and mistake a wish that some person were infallible for a proof that he is. And therefore, if Mr K. shall think this paper deserves any answer, besides an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which I ever expected in this Controversy) I shall beseech him, that before he tell us again that he hath proved the Church of Rome infallible, He would be pleased to resolve these following questions: which I think must necessarily precede the examination of that, which he in most leaves taketh for granted.  
I. Whether there be any infallible Judge on earth? II. Whether any Church be that Judge? and not rather some one of those ten things which Mr. Chill. nameth, and bringeth Scripture for, chap. 3. §. 8? III. Whether the Roman Church be that Church? IV. If it be, in what capacity? whether the Infallibility be 1. in the head (the Pope) as the Jesuits generally, and many Canonists affirm; or 2. in the body of the Church as Panormitanus, Occam, Waldensis, Antoninus, Clemangis, Cusanus and others hold, and give their reasons. And then whether in the whole body diffusive, or in the collective in a Council? And if a Council be infallible, then whether it be so only with the Pope's confirmation, or without it? And which way soever they say, I inquire further V. How we shall certainly know who must be members of it, 1. Clergy and Laics, or 2. only Clergy? And if so, whether 1. only Bishops (as commonly they say) or 2. Presbyters too and Deacons, or Chorepiscopi at least? for we find all these usually subscribing. VI Or (let the Council be as they would have it) how shall I be sure they are infallible? For 1. Are they so absolutely infallible, as that they cannot determine falsely in rebus fidei, do what they will? Or 2. Are they infallible only if they use all those good means, which God hath given them, to find truth; that is, if they read, study, dispute, search records, pray, and lay aside all passions, private ends, and interests? VII. How shall I know when they determine aright? what is required to a Synodical Constitution? Must all concur in the Vote, or will the major part serve the turn? VIII. What makes a Council General? Must all the Bishops in the Christian world be called? IX. And when they are called must they all come, else is it no General Council? X. Who must call the General Council, the Pope, or Christian Kings and Emperors? and how shall I be assured which of them must? XI. How far are their determinations infallible? whether in matters of fact as well as faith? And XII. If in matters of faith only: then whether in fundamentals only (as many Catholics said of old, and Dr Holden the Sorbonist at present) or in superstructures too, as others believe? And then XIII. How shall I infallibly know which points are fundamental, which not? XIV. But admit all this were determined, and our infallible Judge were a General Council with the Pope, yet in a time of schism when there be two or three Popes at once [as there were Clement III, & Greg. VII. Gelasius TWO, and Greg. VIII. Celestin TWO, and Honorius II. Anacletus TWO, and Innocent II. Victor IV, and Alex. III. Clement VII, and Urbane VI Eugenius IV, and Felix V. Gautier the Jesuit will help you to a larger catalogue] and these warring one against another; as when there were two triple-crowns, one at Rome, the other at Avignon; the Italians for the first, the French for the latter: the Court and the Cardinals, bulls and indulgences at both places. And thus were there saith John le Maire, 
* de la difference entre les Schisms, & les Conciles. 3. part.  many Popes at once, one against another, for 40 years together: so that the learnedst Clergymen alive knew not which was St Peter's true successor: and thus saith reason may there be again. Then I ask, how I shall know which is the infallible judge? And if Mr. K. give us in answer that general rule which he sets down p. 369. When de facto any Pope defines some truth to be a matter of faith, we are sure even by his doing so that he is true Pope. Then I'll reply, (to omit the circle he runs in) that there may be not only two but twenty true Popes together, for twenty men may define twenty several positions at the same time, and all true: and yet all these men may be foully mistaken another time; and if so, I desire to know whether all these will be true Popes? Or by what rule a Romanist may tell when a truth is defined and when not? since Sixtus V. defined one Bible to be true Anno 1590. and Clemens VIII another, two years after; and each of them prohibited and condemned all but his own: and these two Bibles contain many contradictions each to other [See Dr James of the contrariety of the vulgar Latin Bibles] and certainly contradictory propositions cannot both be Gospel. And if not, than either one of these two was not such really (whence inconveniences enough will follow) or they were both true Popes; and so both their definitions true: and so no true Papist hath any true Bible. XV. But suppose there be no schism, and all agreed on the Pope, and a General Council met; How shall I be sure that he who is reputed Pope, is so indeed? seeing (by their own principles) Simony makes him none; [See the Bull of P. Julius II. supper Simoniaca Papae electione. Si contigerit, etc. and Specul. in tit. de dispens. § juxta. vers. 2. and Majolus de irregularitate l. 5. c. 47. p. 433.] and that he was not Simoniacal, it is impossible for me to know. The election of Sixrus V. was notoriously Simoniacal; For Cardinal d' Esté whom he bribed and promised to obey, and defend against an opposite faction, etc. Sent all these obligations subscribed by Sixt. V. his own hand to Philip then King of Spain. Who in the year MDLXXXIX sent to Rome to bid the Cardinals, who had been elected before Sixt. V. came to the See, to come to a Council at Sevil in Spain, where the original writing was produced, and the crime was evidently proved. And if so, all the Cardinals which were made by this Sixtus were in reality no Cardinals, and then all the Popes which have been made by those Cardinals since, [as Montaltus (Sixtus his Nephew) Urban VII. Gregory XIV. Innocent. IX. Clement. VIII. and Innocent. X. that now is,] have been really no Popes. See a book entitled Supplicatio ad Imperatorem, Reges, etc. written at Rome by one that calls himself NOVUS HOMO, and dedicated to K. James Anno MDCXII. But testimony enough of such doings may be seen in the letters of Card. d' Ossat, and the transactions of Card. de Joyeuse set down by Card. Pervon. Heul sedes Apostolica (orbis olim gloria) nunc, proh dolour! efficeris officina Simonis. Damian. epist. ad Firminum. Baronius T. 11. 1033. XVI. But admit the Pope were certainly known to be such, and that neither he nor any of his predecessors came in by Simony; yet how shall I know whether those Bishops, who (with him) make up a Council, are Bishops indeed? For if they be no Bishops, than it is no Council. And that they are true Bishops, it is for ever impossible for any Papist certainly to know. For if he that did ordain them did not intend it, when he gave Orders, (and whether he did or no, God only knows) then, by their own principles, they are no Bishops; and by consequence no Council. XVII. But further how shall I know that the Pope and Bishops so met (at Trent for example) are Christians? For if not, then sure they are no legitimate Council, or Church representative: And that they are Christians, 'tis impossible for any Catholic to know, with any infallible certainty. For if they be not baptised, than I am sure with them they are no Christians; and if the Priest that baptised them, did not intend to do it, than (by the Canon of the Trent Council) they are not baptised. Now what the Priest intended, when he administered that Sacrament, 'tis impossible that any (save God who knows the heart) should certainly know (without immediate revelation, which they pretend not to) and consequently, 'tis impossible that any of them should certainly know, That ever there was a Pope, or a Bishop, or a Priest since our Saviour's days: nay impossible that They should know whether there he now one Christian in their Church, and therefore much less that there is or hath been a lawful Council. XVIII. But admit all these doubts were clearly solved, and a Council (in their own sense lawful) sitting and determining matters in Controversy; yet how shall we know certainly (with that absolute certainty Mr Knot speaks of) that these are their determinations? (specially since the Greek Church above two hundred years since accused the Roman for foisting a Canon into the Nicene Counsels in behalf of the Pope's being Head of the Universal Church, which could never be found in the authentic copies, though the African Bishops sent to Constantinople, Alexandria, & Antioch to search for them. Codex. Can. Eccles. Afr. Justel. p. 39, 40.) We were not in the Council, nor ever saw any of the men that made the Canons, we must rely on the honesty of the Amanuensis, or of those other persons that convey them to us, and those are (certainly) not infallible: and we know there are such things as Indices expurgatorii, foisting in, and blotting out of Manuscripts. XIX. But admit all this cleared, yet (when I have indeed the genuine Canons, and am sure of it) how shall I be assured of the true meaning of them? for Mr K. tells us, that we cannot, without His Church's determination, know what faith or repentance (or any word else in the Scripture) meaneth; though I suppose the Apostles intended as well as he or I to be understood; and though he tell us That the Scriptures are as perfect a rule as a writing can be. I am fallible, and may mistake; and in his opinion so may any man but the Pope, or a Council. This is no vain supposition, for we know that Vega and Soto (two famous and learned men in the Council of Trent) write and defend contradictory opinions, yet each thinketh the Canon of the Council to determine on his side. Now of necessity one of them must mistake the doctrine of the Council (unless you'll say the Council determined contradictions, and then the Council is not infallible itself) and if either of them mistook the Council, than it was not an infallible guide to him. Now if learned men, who were members of the Council, (such as disputed much in it) could not infallibly know the meaning of it, how can I who am neither? XX. Lastly, (not to trouble M. Knot with any more queries than are necessary) what necessity of an infallible Judge at all? The Christian world had no such Judge sor CCCXXIV years (for the Nicene Council was the first General) and if They understood Scripture, and were saved then, when they had no such thing, why may not We now? And if they were not saved, the Church of Rome must blot out many hundreds and thousands of Saints & Martyrs out of her Martyrology.  
Till these twenty questions be insallibly resolved, it seems to me impossible that any man should have any infallible knowledge of the Church of Rome's Infallibility. And I am the more confirmed in the necessity of a plain resolution to this last query, because (though M. Knot be sometimes hot and positive, in grounding all Christian Religion upon the infallibility of the Church) I find (beside what I said p. 22.) Christ and the Apostles intimating the contrary, Joh. v. 39 Act. iv. 19 xviii. 11. 2. Thess. v. 21. 1. Joh. iv. 1. Rev. two. 2. But to pass by such places of Scripture (because I know that they who make 
* Belgic. Expurgat. pag. 12.  profession of devising shifts, will find evasions for them) and to omit the positions of many Roman Doctors of less note, who are as high for the nonnecessity of an infallible guide, as any Protestant can wish; I shall only hint at Lactantius his large Chapter to this purpose, lib. 2. de orig. error. c. 7. beginning thus, Quare oportet in ea re in qua vitae ratio versatur, sibi quemque confidere, suóque judicio, ac propriis sensibus niti ad investigandam & perpendendam veritatem; quam credentem alienis erroribus decipi, tanquam ipsum rationis expertem. Dedit omnibus Deus pro virili portione sapientiam, etc. and rather insist upon a couple of most eminent Cardinals, Baronius and Lugo. Both these give their opinions very plainly on our side, and (which I value more) their reasons and examples. The former hath spent to our purpose a whole Appendix, which he prefixed before the second tome of his Annals, printed at Rome, MDLXXXVIII. where (appealing to every particular Protestant's judgement, concerning the truth of his cause, and not once mentioning the infallibility of the Church) he goes on thus, Ingens sanè vis humanae insidet rationi, etc. Great is the power of humane reason if it be left unsettered and free in all things. And therefore our Ancestors placing great confidence in the force of truth, where they contended with obstinate heretics, when they declined and despised all judgement of the Church, were so indulgent as not to refuse to try the judgement even of Infidels, and expect their determination. Such men being Judges, the Jews▪ [Joseph. Antiq. l. 13. c. 6.] had the victory over the Samaritans. And an heathen Philosopher being by consent chosen for an Arbitrator, to whose judgement they were to stand, Origen [dialog.] overcame five most wicked heretics. And Archelaus [Epiphan. haeres. 66.] a Bishop in Mesopotamia, did consute Manes, a most desperate Arch-heretick, before certain Heathens who were by consent chosen Judges, etc. The latter (though a Jesuit & a Spaniard) plainly asserteth this nonnecessity: tom. de virtut. fidei dis. 1. §. 12. n. 247. etc. And making it good by four instances: 1. THE BELIEF OF THE INFALLIBILITY ITSELF: which must be received from some other motive than itself, or its own testimony; and consequently (saith he) all other doctrines of Christianity may be believed upon the same inducements; & not merely upon the infallibility of the Church. 2. childs, or OLD PEOPLE; who are newly converted to the faith, do not believe the Infallibility, before they embrace other Articles: for they believe Articles in order as they are propounded, & this is commonly one of the last. 3. RUSTICS AND COMMON PEOPLE, at this day in Spain, Italy, and other Catholic Countries: who commonly resolve their faith no further than their Parish-Priest, or some other learned, or holy man at the most. 4. He asserteth num. 252. That IN THE LAW OF NATURE, most believed only upon the Authority of their Parents, without any Church-propounding. And also after the law was written most believed Moses & the Prophets, before their prophecies were received and propounded by the Church for the sanctity of their lives, etc. And this discourse wa● written by special order from the late Pope Urban, and dedicated to the present Pope Innocent X.  
And now, my patient Reader, to draw to a conclusion as my spare-leaves do (for I have unawares detained thee, very much longer than I intended, when I first set pen to paper for this Preface; which was after the following English Apology was fully printed; and that is one reason of its immethodicalness.) If I have writ any thing impertinent!, I hope that my brother THE UNIVERSITY-MAN (Mr. Knots friend) will help to excuse me: if any thing that savoureth of passion (which I shall be very sorry for, as soon as it shall be discovered to me) that Mr. Knot will be my Advocate (each of them being commonly conceived sufficiently guilty of one or both of these faults) and hereafter I may do as much for them.  
And further to encourage Mr K. to do somewhat for me; I do here assure him, That if he shall vouchsafe punctually to answer these xx questions (which seem to me very necessary to be plainly determined, before he can assure any man of the Infallibility of the Roman Church, on which foundation he layeth so huge a structure) and withal to refute that one argument which I mentioned pag. 18. out of Dr. Jer. Tailors nervous discourse: & then▪ prove that the Church of Rome is infallible by any one infallible argument (for he hath told us that nothing less can do it) I will be his Proselyte.  
Until which time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless (which I think far the more probable, and therefore shall daily pray for it) Mr. Knot will be so ingenuous as S. Augustine was, to retract his errors in his later days, and come over to the good Old, Catholic, & Apostolic Faith, leaving Roman superstructures. For I begin to despair (with that Milevitan Bishop) of ever seeing, while I am upon earth, any infallible, living Judge in matters of saith; and to believe, I must, (as the Jews speak) expect the coming of Elias for that purpose: having long observed, by Mr. Knot's seven books in this Controversy, that  
Cause patrocinio non bona pejor erit.  
To the Preface p. 8. l. 29. add, That there were Christians in Britain, before Augustine the Monk came over is plain out of Eusebius, Theodoret, Arnobius, Tertullian, Gildas, Bromton: and I suppose no man that is not a mere stranger to Antiquity will deny. That those Christians had no dependence upon Rome will appear to any who readeth the ancient Histories of Rome or England. Platina saith that Antherus the 20th Pope sat eleven years, and made only one Bishop. In a word, from the death of St Peter till the entrance of Marcellus (which was CCC and old years) there were not two hundred Bishops made in all by all the Popes of Rome. One in a year was a rare matter. He saith not a syllable of the erecting any Archbishopric, or Patriarchate all that time: Not a word of foreign Bishops travelling or sending to Rome to beg Privileges and Confirmations, or to take an oath of fidelity and obedience. But to come closer home and to the purpose; The story of the seven British Bishops, and many other very learned men (but especially the Monks of Bangor) is very remarkable; and may be read at large in the history of Bede, set forth by our learned Mr Whelock from p. 110. to 119. wh●re it is said, that these Monks of Bangor were divided into seven parts (see also Bromton's Chronicle p. 780.) the least whereof consisted of three hundred; and That they told Augustine plainly that they would not relinquish their ancient customs, without the consent and leave of their Countrymen. And when Augustine had made a long speech to persuade them to be subject to the Pope of Rome, Dinooth their Abbot answered him briefly in these words. Bid ispis, etc. [S r H. Spelmans Counsels p. 108.] Be it known unto you and without doubt that we are all and every one of us obedient and subjects to the Church of God and Pope of Rome, and to every godly Christian: to love every one in his degree with perfect charity, and to help every one of them by word and deed to be the children of God. And other obedience than this I do not know due to him whom you call the Pope, or that he hath right to challenge or to require to be the Father of Fathers. This obedience we are ready to give and to pay to him and to every Christian continually. Besides we are under the government of the Bishop of Kaerleon upon uske, who is to oversee us under God, to make us keep the spiritual way. Would you know what became of these Monks hereupon? Episcopi Abbates & Doctores contra morem Ecclesiae [Romanae] viventes à Rege Ethelfrido vastante gentem Britonum ad nihilum redacti sunt, cum tribus millibus Monachorum monasterii de Bangor; qui in campum bellatorum adducti sunt ut Regi adversa imprecarent. Hi omnes, ut fertur, de labour manuum suarum vivebant, etc.; Thus far Gervasius printed by Mr Bee, p. 1632. [See the sixteen immunities p. 1386.] And Sr H. Spelman citeth out of the ancient Annals of Gisburn these words p. 26. Till the time of K. Hen. 1. the Bishops of S. David's were there consecrated by their own Welsh Suffragans, WITHOUT MAKING ANY PROFESSION OF SUBJECTION TO ANY OTHER CHURCH. Not to insist upon the translating the Pall into little Britain; he that would read more to this purpose may peruse RR. Armach his discourses of the Religion anciently professed by the Irish and British, chap. 8, 9, 10. & de primordiis Eccles. Britan. the eight first chapters.   

ERRATA.  
In the Preface p. 6. l. 3. which by consequence over p. 7. l. 17. indispensable. p. 9 l. 14. be in schism or heresy. p. 10. l. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 14. l. 34. entreat him (for p. 16. l. 35. Cellot de Hierarchia. p. 17. l. 9 the Christian Moderator mentioneth. p. 18. l. 15. Beza, Luther. ibid. l. 17. deal Luther. p. 31. l. 30. deal John of Leiden. p. 32. l. 30. chymes.  
In the Apology p. 22. l. 27. not to S. Paul. p. 26. l. 11. unbeseeming at the least. p. 62. l. 23. deal not. p. 40. l. 13. nature, among unintellectual beings. p. 73. l. 13. Rimmon. In. p. 83. l. 5, & 7, eaten p 87. l. 3. in a slight. ibid. l. 24. alone? p. 88 l. 28. his conscience.   

To the most virtuous Lady, MARY de LANOU, wife to the Marshal of THEMINIS.  
MADAM;  
HAving a design to justify in this Book, That it is not permitted to a conscience which is satisfied in the knowledge of our Religion, to continue in the profession of the Roman; and desiring to confirm that by example, which I think I have proved by reason; I have not found any more illustrious than that which you have been pleased to give in the sight of heaven and earth, in quitting the Roman Communion (which is so sweet, so pompous and advantageous in worldly respects) to cast yourself into the lap of the true Church; as low and desolate as it appeareth in carnal eyes. This brave and gallant action highly befitting your Name and Blood, hath demonstrated, more evidently than any words of mine are able, That the souls of those who believe as we do, cannot enjoy the peace of God, nor assurance of his grace, nor hope of his glory, in the communion which You have quitted. For these things are all that you find among us worth speaking of; all other advantages do far more abound among them; nothing but these can you look or hope for 'midst us, who are destitute of all the rest. But You have judged, that this rich pearl of the Gospel is alone worth far more than all other commodities beside; & so have rather chosen to hazard the rest, to assure yourself of this, than to endure for assuring the rest to run any the least danger in the world of missing this jewel. MADAM, It is the Almighty who hath inspired into You, so holy and so wise a resolution, and hath given You strength to put it in execution at so unfavourable a time: Whereat the Angels in heaven rejoice, whereat the Church on earth praiseth Him. Amidst so many evils which she suffereth, and more which she forseeth, 'tis matter to Her of great comfort, that in an age so full of ill examples, she can find some souls of your quality and merit, that have courage to disdain reproach, and can rank themselves under the Cross of their Saviour. Even they who approve not your change, admire your virtue, and cannot deny, but that 'tis a rare and singular generosity, which causeth you to prefer the contentment of your conscience, before all other considerations. But besides the joy that your conversion hath brought to those of the Church, and the admiration that it affects them with who are out of it, I hope that your example will be to the great edification of all; strengthening the one in the Communion wherein they live, and drawing in the other. Which (MADAM) is the cause of my mentioning this to you in my entrance: most humbly beseeching you to take it in good part, and to suffer your name to shine in the front of this small book; to give weight and light to its discourse, and to invite all such as shall read it to imitate You, in preferring the grace of Heaven, before the interests of earth; and the solid hopes of Eternity, before the petty joys of these few moments which we pass here below. Which favour if I may (as I hope I shall) obtain from your goodness; I shall earnestly pray our Lord, that he would communicate to You more and more of his dear Son JESUS (the only happiness of our souls) and crown that obedience, which you have rendered to Him by confessing His Gospel here, with the blessings of this and a better world; remaining inviolably,  
MADAM, Your most humble and obedient servant, DAILLE▪   

The Editions of such Authors as are cited in this Apology of Monsr. DAILLE, and in another English Tract of his, entitled, The use of the Fathers in controversies between Papists and Protestants.  

AMbrose, printed at Basil, Anno 1555. in five tomes.  
Athanasius, at Paris, 1627. by M. Sonnius, etc.  
Augustine, at Paris 1531. by cheval.  
Baronius, at Antwerp, 1612. Plantin.  
Basil at Paris with Sonnius, etc. 1618.  
Bertram the Priest in Orthodoxographis, at Basil 1555.  
Bibliotheca Patrum, at Paris, 1624.  
Breviarium Romanum, at Paris, 1612.  
Canus de locis Theolog. at Louvain, 1569. by Servat. Sass.  
Cassander, at Paris, by Hier. Drovart.  
casaubon's exercitations against Baronius, at London.  
Catarrh. annot. on Cajet. at Lions, 1542. by Matth. Bont.  
Clemens Alexandrinus, at Florence, 1550.  
Counsels general, Greek and Lat. at Rome, 1608.  
Cyprian, at Paris, by Claud. chapel.  
Directory for the Inquisitors at Rome, 1587. by Georg. Ferr.  
Epiphanius, at Paris, 1622.  
Fulbert. Carnot. at Paris, 1608. by Tho. Blaise.  
Gregory Nyssens Orations, at Paris, 1638. by Morel.  
Hierom, at Paris, 1579. by Nivelle.  
Hilary, at Paris, 1510. by Ascensius.  
Ireneus, 1570. by John Preux, and John Petit.  
Justin, at Paris, 1615. by Morel.  
Origen, at Paris, 1536. by Nic. Pen.  
Origen against Celsus, at Augsbourg, 1605.  
F. Paolo his Apolog. at Venise, 1606.  
Pererius upon the epist. to the Rom. at Ingolst. 1603. by Sartor.  
Pontificale Romanum, at Rome, 1611.  
Salmeron, at Coloiu, 1614 by Antony Hier. etc.  
Scaliger upon Euseb. Chronic. at Leiden, 1606. by Basson.  
Tertullian at Paris, 1616.  
Theophilus Antioch. at the end of Justin. 1615. by Morel.    
AN APOLOGY for the Reformed Churches, Against those who accuse them of having made a schism in Christendom.  

CHAP. I. The Occasion and importance of this Treatise.  
AMong all those actions and persuasions of us (Protestants) that are ill taken by our Adversaries, there is scarce any that is worse resented, or for which we are more bitterly and generally reproached, than our Separation from the See of Rome, and the Churches of her Communion. For they charge us of having by this means rend asunder the bowels of Jesus Christ, and miserably torn in pieces that holy Body, which He form of His own blood. An horrible crime (questionless) and such an one as comes but little (if at all) behind the impiety of those outrageous murderers, who nailed our Saviour to the cross, pierced his side, and hands, and feet, with their abominable spear and nails. And whereas other parts of our doctrine offend only our enemios, this hath the ill luck to displease some of our friends: For such I take them to be who approve our belief, and yet blame us for being out of the Church of Rome. It therefore doth behoove us infinitely (for the common rectifying and enlightening of both parties) to examine this accusation, and to show, if it be possible, the injustice and nullity of it: to the end, that they who approve our belief may join themselves to our Communion, seeing the weakness of those reasons, which have hitherto kept them on a side in which they acknowledge some errors; and that they who entirely reject our persuasion may hereafter consider the grounds whereon we go, without any more troubling themselves to throw upon us this invidious but vain reproach. This is the subject, which I purpose to treat on in this paper; most humbly beseeching those who shall vouchsafe to read it, to bring with them a mind free from passion, which turning its eyes from the Persons, may regard nothing at present but the worth and weight of the subject in hand.   

CHAP. II. The necessity of an union of Believers.  
IN the first place, we confess that Christians are obliged both by the will of their Master, and by their own welfare and salvation, to continue united one to another, and all together to make up but one body. And as this union is their sovereign happiness, and the necessary effect of charity, without which they cannot be Christians; so the breach of it, and division is the greatest of their infelicities, and the most grievous of their crimes. And they who either procure it or foment it, shall never be able to avoid that curse, which our Saviour doth often denounce, of not inheriting the kingdom of heaven; into which place none is received without this charity, which such men want. For as the being and perfection of a natural body consists in the union of its parts; which dissolving and falling asunder, the whole doth presently lose not its form and beauty only, but likewise its force and life: so is it in all humane Societies, which are called Bodies only by similitude. Their being and their excellence depends upon the union of the members whereof they are composed. We see Kingdoms and States flourish while the Subjects are united and knit together with the lovely bond of concord, but strait crumble to nothing when dissension separates them each from other. And among all the evils that afflict them there is none so pernicious as division, which strikes at the very foundation of their being, and poisons the original of their life and strength. So that to kindle sedition and sow faction by breaking the peace of Subjects, is questionless the highest crime that any man can commit against a State.  
So then, the Church being the heavenly Kingdom and everlasting State of Christ Jesus, the most admirable of all the Societies that ever have been either seen or sancied in the Universe; We must needs conclude, That by proportion their crime who trouble and disturb it (so far especially as to rend away from the Body any of its parts) is the blackest of all crimes whatsoever.  
Thus far we all agree. Nor are any ready to speak aught further in behalf of union or against division, which we are not ready to sign and consent unto; desiring still, if possible, to outbid any for unity.   

CHAP. III. That it is sometimes lawful to separate from a Company of men professing Christianity.  
BUt though union be a very great good, and division an extreme mischief, it followeth not thence▪ That it is not sometimes permitted us to separate in some sort, from some Societies, who make profession of serving God. Indeed how can it but be so, in a school that is full of precepts and examples to that purpose? in a school wherein we are commanded to reject a man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition? Tit. iii 10. to exclude them out of our houses, and to esteem them not fit to be greeted, who bring us any other doctrine then that of Jesus Christ? 2 John x. to abhor the Apostles, nay even Angels, and to avoid them as cursed and excommunicated persons, if they should take the boldness to preach aught else but that Gospel which is already delivered? Gal. i 8, 9 To depart strait out of Babylon, and not to be kept in there, lest we partake at once of her sins and plagues? Revel. xviii. 4. In a school, where those of Ephesus are commended for having hated the Nicolaitans, and those of Pergamus blamed for having tolerated their doctrine? Rev. two. 6, 15. In a school where, even at the beginning, the children of the Church had continually so much care to separate from the communion of heretics, as Samosatenians, Arians, and others?  
Who seeth not, that according to this discipline, it is sometimes not lawful only, but even necessary to separate from some Societies that make profession of Christianity? and that in this case we must blame not generally and simply all that make a separation, but those only who make it either lightly and without reason, or unjustly and without necessity. The matter seems sufficiently clear. For since the conservation of such things as are united is the end of union, 'Tis evident that we are not to entertain any union but only with them, who may help forward that design, and so far only as they may help it forward.  
If therefore there be any, who under colour of the blessed name of Christ subvert His doctrine, annihilate His authority and our salvation▪ 'tis so far from being our duty to unite ourselves to them, that on the contrary we are obliged to part from them; because to unite with them were in effect to disunite from Christ and from His body, and in stead of coming to salvation to fall into eternal ruin. If in a State, a City or Province should oblige those that live within it, to perform actions that are contrary to the Majesty and service of the Sovereign, the loyal inhabitants may thereupon separate themselves, and even oppose and resist the rebels with all their power, if occasion be offered. For 'tis a law generally engraven by nature in all parts of the Universe (even in insensible creatures) That every thing seeks after the company of that which is like it, and with equal violence avoids to be near (or have any thing to do with) that which is contrary to it.  
So then, both the discipline of Jesus Christ, and the laws of Civil societies, and even those of nature herself, permit us to avoid the communion of such as under any pretence, name, or colour whatsoever, go about to destroy and ruin Christianity. What, did I say that they permit us? nay they command it so expressly, that we cannot refrain from such separations without offending God, scandalising our neighbours, and destroying ourselves. And though this be a truth received among all Christians, yet there is no Society or company of them, wherein it is more strictly and more severely practised, then among those against whom we now dispute. For who knows not with what rigour Rome hath continually rejected the Communion of those who descent from her? In the infancy of Christianity she anathematised the Churches of Asia for a matter of nothing, viz. because they celebrated Easter otherwise then she: and in these later days how hath she persecuted with fire and sword all those that would venture never so little to oppose her power and greatness? How many ages have passed over her head since she broke with the Eastern, Northern, and Southern Churches, with which notwithstanding she boasteth much of her having so great conformity of belief and service? So nice is she and delicate in this point, that we have seen not long ago the chiefest of her Monks, the most exquisite of her Religious Orders, fly off and separate from the State of Venice, and renounce there her Churches and Altars (where all the Articles of her faith were daily published, where all her devotions and services were continually celebrated) only upon pretence, That this wise Commonwealth would not endure, that Pope Paul the fifth should bereave her of the power she had, to make and execute laws for the government of her subjects. So that if separation simply be a crime, who seeth not that our Adversaries are faulty too, and consequently are not to be admitted to bring in the accusation against us?   

CHAP. IU. That our Separation from Rome was not made rashly, willingly, or unnecessarily.  
Object. BUt they'll say, that They had reason to do so, and that We have none.  
Ans. So then, now we come to the business, viz. To examine the causes of our separation, before sentence be given against it. Let us, I beseech you, leave the odious words of division and schism, and apply them to none but such to whom we shall find they appertain. For if we have not had any important cause of our separation from the Church of Rome; if she have not required any thing of us which destroys our faith, offends our consciences, and overthrows the service which we believe due to God; If the differences between us have been small, and such as we might safely have yielded unto; Then I'll grant, That men may call our Ancestors Schismatics, may condemn their separation to be rash and unjust, and may impute to them all the sad disasters and scandals, that have attended that action. B●t if they were urged to believe, and pressed to do▪ a thousand things contrary to their faith and to their conscience; if only for not doing them they were declared Heretics, enemies to J. Christ and his Church; if they were deemed unworthy even of the honours, or possessions, yea even of that life itself which is enjoyed in this world; who doth not see, That they deserve, the pity of men in stead of their hate, and That their withdrawing themselves from people, who have Treated them in this manner, was just, lawful, and necessary, according to all the laws of heaven and earth? Now it is very apparent, that they were forced to make this separation for reasons which they in their consciences judged to be very great and important. For excepting the motives of conscience, all other considerations evidently obliged them to the contrary. In separating from the Church of Rome they plucked upon themselves all the disfavours of the world; they incurred the indignation of their Magistrates, the hatred of their Countrymen; they exposed themselves to the loss of their goods, their honours, their friends, their very country, nay all that is sweet, near, or dear unto them in this life; and to the suffering of poverty, ignominy, banishment, tortures and all imaginable punishments. Who can believe, that men who had the use of sense and reason (as well as their neighbours) should ever choose (with cheerfulness, where there is no necessity) to embrace such a side? And though, they had been so blind, as not to have foreseen that such would be the event of their design (which yet is not a jot probable) how should We come to have so little experience as not to discern the danger? We, who follow their steps, and have seen the whole world in a conspiracy for to reduce them with all possible force and artifice from this separation, and to reunite us to Rome. One must needs think then, that both our Ancestors and We were carried on to this motion, so apparently contrary to our own good and welfare, by some very strong reason, that forced us as it were against our wills to sleight what ever is naturally desirable, and in stead of enjoying that to suffer what we are wont to dread; which certainly can be no less than a strange fantasticalness and a silly opinionative humour, which should make us take a delight in running counter to others, as some (without any appearance of reason) are pleased to imagine. I heartily wish it were in our power, to accommodate ourselves in this particular with a good conscience to the customs and Services of our Countrymen; whose friendship We know very well how much we ought to value, and how highly to prise the good favour of those Princes whom God hath set over us: especially rather then to displease them needlessly, in a matter of such high importance, and which they affect with so much passion, according to the great and singular devotion which they bear towards those things that they esteem divine. We behold likewise (and grieve to behold) the disorders that this diversity in Christianity breeds; and the extreme scandal that it gives to Infidels, and such as are weak in faith. And what ever others say, We are not (thanks be to God) such enemies to His glory and the salvation of mankind, as not be as sensible of these doleful emergencies, as of aught that most concerns our temporal good, and private interests.   

CHAP. V. Reasons of our Separation from Rome founded upon the diversity of our Beliefs.  
Object. BUt you'll say, If it be thus, how can you possibly pass over these considerations yourselves, which you pretend to think so important? why do you not follow them whither they would lead you? Seeing you desire the favour of Princes, the love of your Countrymen, a peaceable and settled condition; seeing you would gladly promote the glory of God and the edification of men, and do really abhor the scandal of this disunion, why are ye not again reconciled to the Roman Church? she opens her arms wide unto you, and is not so stiff and rigorous as you seem to apprehend her, but for to gain you is willing to yield to some Accommodation, and in favour of you to mitigate some of those things that offend you most. What, I pray, is there so strange in her doctrine, or in her service, that should cause you to forsake her communion, to avoid the ancient Churches, and Religion of our Fathers, to renounce the ordinary public assemblies of Christian people, to sever from all the rest of the world, and to suffer all sorts of extremities? Our Church adores the same JESUS CHRIST, whom you profess to be the Prince and Author of your Religion. She confesseth the unity of His person, and the verity of His two natures. She believes Him to be God eternal, of the same substance with the Father and with the Holy Ghost, and likewise man made in time, of the flesh of the blessed Virgin, like to us in all things, sin only excepted, truly Immanuel, as the ancient Prophecies foretold. She acknowledges the truth, benefit, and necessity of his sufferings, and preacheth (even as you) That His blood expiated the crimes of mankind; That the freedom and salvation of the world is the fruit of His death. She exalteth His glory, and believes That He sits at the right hand of God in heaven; and, That He shall come in the last day to judge the world; and she hopes after the renovation of this world, for a blessed immortality (through his grace) in one to come. She gives to her children baptism, which Christ did institute, and refreshes them with His Eucharist, and recommends to them piety toward Him, and charity toward men. She reverenceth the Gospels, and the Epistles of the Apostles as books divinely inspired. And if there be any other Article in the discipline of our Lord, she receiveth and embraceth it as well as you, and curseth the names and memory of those, who have gone about to overthrow or shake them, whether in former or latter ages.  
Ans. The truth is, We neither can nor will deny, that the Church of Rome doth at this day believe all these holy truths; We thank our gracious Lord, that she hath preserved them through so many ages, midst so many disorders. But we would to God, That she had been as careful of not adding as of not diminishing; That she had foisted in nothing of her own, but permitted us to content ourselves with that, which sufficed the Primitive Christians to bring them to salvation. For had she kept within those bounds, neither our Fathers nor We had ever had any cause of withdrawing from her Communion. We had then sworn to her opinions, and performed her service without any scruple, finding abundantly in this brief but full and admirably complete rule of wisdom, enough to replenish our faith, and season our manners, understandings, and wills with all perfections necessary for attaining to that Sovereign Happiness, which both you and We naturally desire. But who knows not, That to the aforesaid divine Articles (clearly expressed in the Holy Scriptures, authentically preached and founded by the Apostles, uniformly believed and confessed by Christians of all places and ages) Rome hath added divers others, which she presseth equally with them, forcing all those of her communion to receive them with the same faith as they do those aforesaid; thundering out horrible anathemas against all them that doubt of them, and using for the ruin of such all the power and credit that she hath, whether in the Church, or in the world? For besides J. Christ (whom she acknowledgeth with us to be the Mediator of mankind, the Highpriest and chief Sovereign of the Church) she would have us hold the Saints departed to be our Mediators, and her Priests our Sacrificers, and her Pope to be the Head and Husband of the Church. Besides the sacrifice of the Cross, she forceth upon us that of the Altar. Besides the blood of Christ, she commands us to expect our cleansing from the sufferings of Martyrs, and from the virtue of a certain fire which she hath kindled under ground. Besides the water of Baptism, and the refection of the Eucharist, she presseth us to receive unction with oils, and the mysteries of her private Confessions. Besides the Great God, whom she adores and prays to as we do, she commandeth us to adore the holy Sacrament, to invocate Angels and beatified Spirits. Besides that service of the Gospel wherein she agreeth with us, she imposeth upon us divers ceremonies, abstaining from meats, distinction of times, veneration of images. Besides the H. Scriptures which are divinely inspired, which she confesseth with us, she would have us receive with the same faith and respect all the traditions which she approves of. Besides the repose and rest in the Kingdom of heaven, which she with us promiseth to the faithful, she will have us to believe another in Limbo, a prison for children that die without baptism. And besides the torments of hell, which she with us threatens to the wicked, she denounceth to the faithful another like it in purgatoric.  
These (and several others like to these) are the positions which she addeth to the true and fundamental Articles of the good Old Christianity; and which are the points that divorce us from her Communion. For every one knows, how carefully she hath established them in her Counsels, how daily she recommendeth them in her Schools and pulpits, how rigorously she exacteth them in confession; having long since pronounced, and oft since (daily still) proclaiming and repeating, That she esteems them Heretics, Enemies of Christ, and worse than Infidels, that reject these opinions or any of these. And (which is more offensive yet) not content to teach them by the voice of her Doctors, she imprints them in the hearts of her people through continual observation and use; so that among them of her communion, the practice of these additional Articles makes more than a full half of what they esteem Christianity. For the greatest part of their service consists in invocation of Angels and Saints, in adoring the Sacrament, in worshipping images, in offering up the Sacrifice of the Altar, or in partaking of it, in making Confessions, and exercising other ceremonies. But as for us, all the world knows that we have quite another opinion of these matters. We content ourselves with the intercession, sacrifice, and monarchy of J. Christ, and can join to Him neither Saints, nor Priests, nor the Pope in any of those three qualities, which the Scripture of the New Testament attributes to none but Him alone. We deem His blood sufficient for the purgation of our souls, having never learned that either S. Paul, or any other Saint was crucified for us; nor, That after this life the Saints shall enter into any other place, but only one of repose and rest. After Baptism and the Lords Supper we desire no other Sacraments; not having heard in His Word, that he hath obliged us necessarily to go to the ear of any Priest to receive his absolution, or to the hand of any Bishop to have his chrism. We dare not adore the bread which we break, nor the cup which we bless; because all confess, That it is not permitted us to adore any but God only. We can neither invocate creatures, since we have in the Scripture neither commandment nor example for it; nor prostrate ourselves before images, since we have express commands therein against it. We scruple at making any thing an Article of our Faith, which we have not heard in the Word of God; be he an Apostle or an Angel that evangelizeth. So that since we find nothing in the Scripture of abstinence from meats, distinction of times, and other Roman ceremonies, nor of the Limbus of infants, or purgatory; we cannot yet be persuaded that it is necessary for us to believe them.   

CHAP. VI That our Separation ariseth not from particular matters of fact or private opinion, but from such things as are believed generally by all the Roman Church, and so that it is not like to the schism of the Donatists.  
I Might yet allege many other differences: but this little may suffice, to let you see, what are the main reasons which oblige us to separate from Rome. Whence it appears, how unjust a comparison it is (that I say not impertinent and silly) which some make of our Separation to that of the Donatists. For they pretended not to find any thing in the doctrine of the Catholic Church from whence they separated, which was contrary to their belief. Both the one and the other taught the same faith, read the same books, exercised the same services. The Donatist entering with the Catholics found nothing either in their belief or discipline, which he had not seen and learned in his own. But as for us, 'tis impossible that we should enter into the Communion of the Church of Rome, without swearing to many doctrines which we formerly never learned in the school of the Scriptures; without receiving Sacraments which are utterly unknown to us; without bowing our knees before images which is absolutely forbidden; without adoring a thing for God whose Deity we know not; without acknowledging him to be the Head and Husband of the Church whom we know to be but a mortal man; without subjecting those consciences to an humane, which are taught and wont to submit unto none but a divine Authority. And as for that which the Donatists allege, That Felix the Ordainer of Cecilian Bishop of Carthage did in former times deliver up the Holy Scriptures to the Pagans, during the persecution, though it had been true (as indeed it was not; the Catholics having clearly justified their innocence in this point by many irrefragable testimonies) supposing, I say, it had been true, that he had committed this fault, who seeth not, that this is not a cause in nature like to those for which we make our separation? For this was a matter of fact and not a doctrine, a fact of one man, that is of Felix alone, and not of the whole body of the African Church; So that it should have given the Donatists no occasion or cause of separating from Cecilian, much less any just cause of breaking communion with all Africa. For suppose that Felix the Ordainer of Cecilian had committed this fault, yet 'tis clear, That he did not teach or think that it was lawful for him to deliver the H. Scriptures up to Infidels; but on the contrary, by denying that he committed it, and standing upon his defence as he did, he confessed plainly by consequence, that it was a fault. The Donatists than might have continued in that communion without any way staining either their Creed or their manners, without being forced either to do or believe any thing against their consciences. But for all that, supposing (which yet is manifestly false) that Cecilian had defended, and preached publicly in his pulpit, That it was permitted Christians in times of persecution, to deliver up the books of HOLY WRIT to the enemies of the Church; and supposing again (which 'tis not fit now to examine) that this error were pernicious, and inconsistent with a true faith, I cannot discern how the Donatists had any just cause of avoiding the communion of the successors of Cecilian or other Bishops of afric, who unanimously held, taught, and preached that to commit such a fault was a weakness unbefitting the soul of a Christian, and made all such submit to the rigours of Ecclesiastical discipline whom they found guilty of it. This crime (or what ever you will imagine it) was only Felix's, or perhaps Cecilians; but not any man's else: The whole Church had no share in it: so that it was an intolerable piece of injustice, a strange pride, and mad fantasticalnes, to abhor a whole Church for the errors of offences of one particular man. I would to God the case between the Roman Church and us had been the like! That we had seen nothing deplorable but only the faults of her Pastors, and the disorders of her manners! or That such of her doctrines which we cannot receive, had been the thoughts of some particular men only! Had there been nothing else we should have lived still together. Our Fathers would never have separated from Her Communion; or if some strange passion, which we dream not of, had precipitated them into a rupture and schism like that of the Donatists; We do in our Consciences protest, that we would have been afraid to follow their error, and that we would have lost no time of uniting ourselves with them, from whom we had been so imprudently separated. For we cannot but confess, That 'tis a piece of very high injustice to impute the faults of men to their profession, and to accuse their Religion of those extravagancies which they commit, especially if against it. In such a case we should questionless practise the doctrine of our Saviour, speaking of them who sit in Moses chair; Matt. xxiii. 3. All those things which they bid you observe, those observe and do; but do not after their works. The Church wherein they live is not guilty of their error, especially when it highly (and oft out of the mouths of those very men) condemneth the faults and disorders of their lives. The Church may say to such fugitives, The faults of my children are no fit reason to induce you to abhor Me. Live in my communion you may, and not be obliged to communicate with their wicked deeds. Those very men who are thus wicked should drive you from the vice, in stead of bringing you to it: for, if you mark it, They carry preservatives in their mouths against the poisons of their manners. But, alas! 'Twas not this that drove us from the Church of Rome. 'Twas not the fall of one Felix, nor the weakness of some Cecilians, 'twas not the covetousness of her Prelates, the licentiousness of her Monks, the filthiness of her Court, the excess and abuse of her Sovereign Pontifes. For though she suffered these disorders with too much indulgence, yet she neither doth command them, nor openly approve of them. Though she very gently tolerate such as were debauched or vicious, yet she did not force any to be so. No man was for entering into her communion constrained to be a slave to any of those vices which bore sway in the midst of her. No, a man might have lived within it, and yet addicted himself to honesty and goodness: And as yet corruption had not gained so far, as that ill manners were authorized by public laws. But on the contrary during the worst of times, though her voice was weak and languishing, yet she made some noise against the impiety of the age. And oftentimes those very men that gave ill example in their lives preached against it and decried it horribly in the pulpit. That which hath pulled us from her communion is her doctrine, and not her actions; that which she commands, and not that which she suffers; that which she requires of us all, and not that which she tolerates in some others; the articles of her faith, and not the faults of her life. For the adoration of the Eucharist, invocation of Saints, veneration of images, and those other articles which we rehearsed before, are not such things as she only tolerates as bad, or excuseth as doubtful; but beliefs which she commendeth as true, and observations which she commandeth as useful and necessary to salvation. Nor doth she only practise them in the house and privately, but likewise preach them in the Temple, as perpetual parts of her Faith. So that if we continue in her communion, we must needs make profession of believing them, that is, make ourselves guilty of an horrible hypocrisy, confessing with our mouth what we do not believe with our heart. Now if these were only the opinions of some one of her Doctors, if it were only some one Divine that were to be blamed, and the rest of their. Church disavowed these things; we should not for such a matter make any scruple of communicating with Her; acknowledging ingenuously, That 'tis an unreasonable thing to impute the opinions (and so the faults) of a few particular men to a whole entire body. Since we see it often happens, that they who live in the Communion of a Church, are neither in whole nor in part of the same belief with that Church. Thus formerly among the Jews, The sect of the Sadducees had their doctrines apart, and the Pharisees had likewise theirs. And for a man's being a Jew, he was not at all obliged to embrace or hold precisely the opinions either of the one, or of the other sect. And at this very day in the Church of Rome (whence we departed) the order of the Dominicans hath some opinions proper to themselves, and the Franciscans have others, and so likewise the Jesuits others, peculiar to their respective Orders. If therefore there were in the midst of Her, only some one society of men that held affirmatively those things which we cannot believe, and others lived at liberty either to receive or reject them, In this case I confess, that it were very difficult to excuse our Separation, since the Communion with that body whence we have departed doth not oblige us precisely to any points contrary to our consciences, But who knows not that those Articles which we cannot receive, are public not private Doctrines, common to the whole Church of Rome, and not peculiar to the Pope and his party? established authentically in her General Counsels, by the suffrages of the Deputies of all the Churches in the world that live in her Communion? Articles, to the belief and observation, whereof, she obligeth all sorts of persons whatsoever, Clergy and Laity, Monks and Seculars, Men and Women, little and great? anathematising all as Heretics, who teach or believe otherwise; and besides the thunderbolts of the Church (excommunications) making use of fire and sword and what else they can against them, where ever she hath power.  
Thus it appears, that our cause is no whit like that of the Donatists, our Separation arising from public and universal Doctrines of the Church of Rome, whereas Theirs had no foundation or reason, but only a pretended act of one particular man, neither confessed nor proved.  
The African Church (whose communion they fled from) presented them nothing in her Creeds and Service, which was contrary to their faith; whereas Rome (whence we are departed) will constrain us to think and do several things, that directly overthrow the doctrines, which we in our souls and consciences believe.   

CHAP. VII. That there are two sorts of Errors; the one overthrowing the foundation of faith, and obliging men to separate, and the other not. That the opinions of the Church of Rome which we reject are of the first sort, and those of the Lutherans of the second.  
Object. BUt you'll say, Is it lawful then to separate from a Church, because it preacheth publicly and generally some Doctrine, which is contrary to our belief? Is it possible that our Sovereign Lord, who would have us to bear with the ill manners and actions of men, for the good that peace & unity brings to a Community, should permit us to separate from them for false opinions? Suppose that Rome have added somewhat to those things which Christ and his Apostles laid down; Yet what need had your Fathers to depart from her so far? This Spirit of concord you speak of, which obliged them (as you grant) to suffer the faults in their neighbour's lives; how chance it did not make them bear with some in their faith?  
Ans. Because there is in this respect an extreme difference between faults in doctrine and in life; the first drawing after them a consequence far differing from that of the latter, because that the Church propounds unto us not Her life but Her doctrine, to be the rule of our faith and manners. Yet (which we Protestants confess) all errors in doctrine do not give a man a just and sufficient cause to make a division from those that hold them. For the Apostle commands us, to receive him that is weak in the faith, Rom. xiv. 1. and not to trouble him with disputes, and to afford him ourselves for an example, in bearing gently with those who are not of our mind in every thing. Let us all who are perfect, saith he, be of the same mind; and if any of you think otherwise, God shall reveal even this unto him. Phil. iii 15. 'Tis evident, that this weakness in faith and this diversity in opinion, whereof S. Paul speaketh, are errors; but such as he would have us bear with. Yet since he elsewhere pronounceth anathema against those, that preach any other Gospel then that which he preached, we must of necessity conclude, that there are two sorts of errors in religion: the one such, as a man may bear with without dividing from them who hold them; and the other such, for which he is bound to avoid their communion: and this difference dependeth upon the nature of errors themselves. For as the truths which we are to believe are not all of equal importance, some being esteemed fundamental and so absolutely requisite, that a man cannot come to the kingdom of heaven if he be ignorant of them; others being profitable, yet not so necessary but that a man may without the knowledge of them serve God and enjoy salvation: so it is with errors, Some are pernicious and no way consistent with a true piety; others are less hurtful and do not necessarily draw in men to perdition. S. Paul doth clearly enough discover to us this distinction, 1 Cor. three 13, 15. where, after he had said, That none could lay any other foundation but that which he had laid, to wit, Jesus Christ, he addeth, That they who builded upon this foundation wood, hay, stubble, should have loss in their work, when it comes to be tried; nevertheless they should be saved, yet so as by fire; that is to say, with difficulty, their person only, or that wherein their chief good consisted, escaping a burning. An evident sign that there be errors, which do not deprive the Authors thereof of salvation, much less exclude such from happiness as believe them after Them, and take them up (when they are dead or gone) merely upon their trust and credit. And to conclude, who doth not see plainly, That there be errors which utterly overthrow the foundations of Christianity, engaging us unavoidably in such things as are inconsistent with salvation? and that there be others which do not so?  
As for example, if one should think that he were bound to worship the Sun. (For seeing the Sun is a creature, and those who worship creatures have no portion in the kingdom of heaven) 'Tis evident that he who hath such an opinion cannot attain eternal happiness. And 'tis so with all other errors which overthrew any of the first, necessary, and fundamental articles of Christian religion. But the error of those, who believed of old, That the Church shall continue a thousand years (or some long time) with J. Christ upon earth after the resurrection, is no way repugnant to piety towards God, or charity towards our Neighbour, nor doth it directly overthrow any of the foundations of the Gospel; Though it be in my opinion contrary to divers passages of S. Paul and scarce consonant to the nature of Christ's Kingdom.  
A man would scarce believe how necessary it is, to mark this difference among the errors of men in matters of religion, for preventing that vain scrupulosity and importunate pensiveness, which many melancholy spirits are troubled with, who condemn all errors alike, and thunder out one and the same anathema against what ever differs (though never so little) from their apprehensions: yet for keeping them from falling on the other side, into the indifferency of profane persons, who conform to any thing, and swallow a camel as well as a gnat. Indeed the true pious person will endeavour to keep himself from all error; and will purge his neighbour too, as well as himself, so far as he is able. For any deviation from truth though it may be a light and small error, yet 'tis an error (that is to say an ignorance, and contradiction to the truth) and by consequence an evil. But a man must be very diligent and circumspect in observing this distinction among errors, and acknowledge that one is much more dangerous than another, and he should more or less abhor them all, according as he shall judge them to be more or less dangerous. If they be of the first rank, viz. those which overthrow the foundations of Christianity, he will bestir himself with all possible prudence and dexterity, according to his vocation and gifts, to free his neighbour from them; and if he cannot gain upon him, he will yet be sure to save and deliver his own soul from the communion of such as hold them. This was the practice of the Faithful in reference to Paulus Samosatensis Bishop of Antioch, and Arius a Priest of Alexandria, who held that Jesus Christ was a mere creature, throwing down Christianity from top to bottom by this abominable doctrine. But if the error be of a second sort, not pernicious nor inconsistent with the principles of our faith, we should do well (if we could handsomely) to free our brethren from it: (for it were to be wished that we might be entirely exempt from error) but if we cannot get out, we must not therefore strait sever from them, but gently and quietly bear with what we cannot alter; yet so, that we prejudice not any man's salvation, much less our own. For, as in civil society, we keep not company with such persons as we discover to be guilty of infidelity or enormous vices, because friendship or familiarity with such people slurrieth the honour and reputation of those, that make any show or profession of virtue; but we do with a deal of sweetness and ingenuity, bear with the faults and frailties of such as are not miscreants at the bottom, though notwithstanding their conversation be not altogether free from humane frailties: So are we to do in Religion, to avoid communicating with those, whose error overthrows the foundations of piety; but charitably to teach those, who retaining the principles cannot free themselves entirely from all persuasions contrary to truth.  
The Ancients must pardon me, if I venture to take notice that they were sometimes too scrupulous, and (if I may so speak) too curious and straitlaced in this particular; rejecting oftentimes innocent opinions with very tragical terms, and handling such persons as gainsayed them, with as much rigour as if they had overthrown the whole Gospel of Christ. 'Tis a wonder to see, how some of them did in a manner sport, with changing errors into heresies, and all faults into crimes. Philastrius, Bishop of Brixium (who lived in the time of S. Ambrose) was among others very hot; for he lib. de Haeres. cap. 4. Bibl. P P. part 1. p. 22. cap. 39 reckoned among heresies the opinion of those, who attributed the Epistle to the Hebrews to Clement, or to Barnabas, and to S. Paul; and of those who thought the CL. Psalms in the Psalter were not all composed by David; and of those who thought the stars were fastened to the orbs of heaven. But none were ever so ready to excommunicate, as those very men; who keep such a complaining of our quitting their communion upon too slight causes. To say nothing here of the lightnings and excommunications of Victor against Asia, of Stephen against afric, and divers other Popes, as well one against another, as against strangers, for reasons most an end of very small concernment: Let any man read only the last Council held at Trent; he shall soon see how liberal they were of anathemas. They were not there content, as thunder doth from Heaven, to strike the cedars and the tops of the mountains: scarce was there any herb in their adversaries fields (though never so low and small) that scaped their thunderbolts. They who doubted, whether marriage was a Sacrament, or whether the Church can dispense with the degrees established in Leviticus, or whether a Bishop be above a Presbyter, or whether the reasons that moved Rome to deprive the Laity of the cup were of sufficient validity to that purpose, (things as every one may see of none, or at least very little importance to piety) were excommunicated, anathematised, as well as they that denied the divinity of our Saviour, or the truth of the last resurrection. And for my part I understand not how it agrees▪ with the mildness and gentle behaviour, which the Doctrine of Christ doth strictly recommend unto us, to have such an inhuman severity as to be able to bear with nothing, to spare no opinion; but to make so high a market of the pretended thunderbolts, as to let them fly indifferently, against the less errors as well as against the greatest crimes. Well, this I am sure of, If we would imitate Their examples, and justify our proceedings by the maxims of theirs, we might end this question in three words. For if he that thinks marriage is not a Sacrament is an anathema to him that holds it is, I pray, What should they who believe that the Eucharist is not bread but the Creator of heaven and earth, be deemed by those that hold the contrary? And if to think that a Presbyter was originally the same with a Bishop, give the Church of Rome sufficient cause to curse my communion, how much more doth her elevating (as she doth) the Pope above the Church, and above all the Kings in Christendom, give me just cause to run away from her?  
But 'tis now time we should (by God's assistance) clear our own innocence, of those crimes which our side is accused of. We confess, That Christian charity is not so active and hot as their zeal: Charity often bears with what it doth not approve of, and rejects nothing, but what it cannot suffer, without hazarding the salvation of our neighbours and our own souls. 'Tis so far from excommunicating (as the Council of Trent doth) Christians for small errors, that I think it would easily bear with in faithful persons that opinion of the Greeks (for which they are so roughly anathematised) touching the procession of the Holy Ghost. For though I grant it is an error to believe, that the H. Ghost proceeded not from the Father and Son, but from the Father only by the Son, yet if you observe 'tis hard (if not impossible) to understand what prejudice this error brings to piety and holy life.  
The difference that is between us and such of our brethren as are called Lutherans is of the same nature. I confess, 'tis as impossible for us to believe, as to conceive their Position, concerning the body of our Saviour being really present in the bread of the Eucharist. But yet 'tis possible (and I think according to the laws of charity, necessary) to bear with that in their doctrine which we cannot believe. For this opinion, in the terms and sense wherein They hold it, hath no venom in it that I see. It abolisheth not the Sacrament, it destroys not the sign whereof it consisteth, it adoreth it not, it neither divides nor mutilates it, it makes it not an expiatory sacrifice for our sins, it leaves it both the nature and the virtue of a Sacrament, and doth not take any thing, (formally, directly, and immediately) from Christ, either of his substance or his properties: only it would have even the humanity of Christ present in the Eucharist (that we may receive the virtue of his death, and communicate of his body and blood, (as S. Paul speaks) 1 Cor. x. in such a manner as they confess incomprehensible. Which hypothesis (whiles it goes no further) engageth us not in any thing that is contrary either to piety or charity, either to the honour of God or the good of men: And so it may and aught to be tolerated. And this hath been continually our judgement, and so declared by the French churches in the national Synod held at Charenton in the year MDCXXXI. by an express act, wherein they receive such as are called Lutherans into their Communion, unto their Holy Table, notwithstanding this opinion, and some few others of less importance, wherein They and We differ.  
Oh what a gentleness was this, excellently becoming Christians! worthy to be imitated by all believers in the world, and consecrated with commendation to the memory of all succeeding ages! a plain, illustrious, irrefragable testimony, of the innocence, of our Churches in this particular! For had we been animated with a spirit of presumption, untractableness and despite (as some fond imagine) how could we thus gently bear with those which are at difference with us? and in whose communion there are some who either blinded with passion, or deceived with calumny, have a very ill opinion of us, and do outrageously defame us.  
This example, one would think, might show any man clearly, That it is not want of charity, but some other very urgent cause, which moved us to separate from the Church of Rome. For had the differences between us and them been like those between us and the Lutherans, what likelihood is there, but that we should have been as ready to join hands with them as with these? why should we be willing to offend our Countrymen, and bear with strangers? separate from those that have in their hands, our honours, our goods, our lives; and inviolably keep in with such as we have nothing to do with, but only as they are Christians? what likelihood is there that we should not in this point have that complacence for our Princes and natural Magistrates, which we have for such as in reference to civil Society concern us not? Certainly men must needs say, we are either very furious and senseless creatures (which censure I think many wise people will not cast upon us) or that 'tis some great and weighty reason that made us separate from the Church of Rome. And this is indeed the chief point of the question. For if the doctrines whereupon we separated were of the same nature with those, that we differ with the Lutherans about; if they were tolerable, and such as we could bear with, without violating our consciences; I confess that our separation was, if not rash, (as being not grounded upon a sufficient cause) yet unjust at the least: no separation in any matter being just if it be not necessary. But we may truly affirm, (and confidently call heaven and earth to witness) that 'tis not possible to accommodate ourselves to those things which the Romanists require of us, without forcing our thoughts, violating the peace of our consciences, and overthrowing the foundations of Christianity, which we firmly believe. For we are at contestation, not concerning matters that are small and of little importance, but concerning the head of the Church, concerning the foundation of faith, concerning the causes of salvation, the service of God, the object to which that service should be given, the state both of our consciences in this world, and of our souls in the world to come.   

CHAP. VIII. That the adoration of the Eucharist, as it is practised by the Church of Rome, doth (as we believe) overthrew the foundation of piety and salvation.  
MY intention is not to examine all the particulars of the differences between us, one by one; to know the weight and importance of each in particular. That would cause me to be more large than I intent to be on this subject, and would be more tedious to the Reader then necessary for the end I proposed. We may with less ado justify ourselves. For if among all those points wherein we differ there be but one, which overthrows the foundations of Christianity; That is enough to prove the necessity of our separation, whether the rest be light or weighty: No man being bound to gratify those who are in any communion so far, as to join with them to the prejudice of his own salvation. Leaving therefore at present all other Articles, to the belief whereof Rome would oblige us, I shall only consider this one, viz. the adoration of the Host (as they call it) which is in my opinion a very important one; and I hope, I shall show briefly and clearly, that it is not possible to receive it, without overthrowing the foundation of our piety here, and eternal happiness hereafter. 'Tis a Doctrine held by all Believers from the beginning of the world to this present, that the Sovereign and highest kind of honour and service, which is ordinarily called adoration, is due to none but God alone, who created the heaven and the earth, and redeemed us through J. Christ. This is the foundation of all the doctrine and discipline of God's people of old; the first and principal Article of the divine Law, which God pronounced from heaven with the voice of thunder, and which he wrote for them with his own finger, upon the tables of stone given to Moses. Thou shalt not have, saith he, any other God before my face. I can not well here (if I would) set down all the places wherein His holy Prophets repeat this commandment and comment on it. 'Tis likewise the great and chief foundation of the Gospel. This is life eternal, saith our Lord, to know thee the only true God, and him whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ. Joh. xvii. 3. For this knowledge of God and of Christ comprehends likewise the service which is due to them. The same God who taught us this truth, declareth in an infinite company of places, That He can hold them for no other than Enemies and Rebels, that break this His commandment, then for such who have broke His covenant, and renounced His communion; protesting, That He will punish them very severely both in this world, and in the next; that He is jealous of His glory, and will not by any means suffer it to be given to anothor. And to make us the better to conceive the horribleness of this crime, He represents it to us under the image of the most base and abominable transgressions that are committed in the life of man: comparing it to whoredom, adultery, and all the most foul and infamous symptoms and denominations of weakness: so that He useth sometimes, upon this subject, terms and expressions that a man can scarce read or pronounce without blushing, desiring certainly thereby to show how hateful this fault is, and unbefitting any Believer. The truth is, Since our Great God hath done us the favour, to call us by His infinite goodness to His Communion, and to enter with us into so close a Covenant, that to express it to us, he tells us that He is our Husband, and that we are His Spouse; it is sufficiently evident, that they who render to any other the honour and service which is due to God, commit the same fault, which a woman that is married doth, when she abandons that to another, which is due to none but her own husband. So that as adultery is the greatest fault that can be committed against the bond of wedlock; so may we be assured, that no man can more grievously infringe his covenant with God, then by devolving that service which belongs to him, upon any creature whatsoever. And as adultery doth dissolve marriage; so the crime of those who serve creatures dissolves the Covenant with God. Which may the better be understood by another comparison. God is our King and Sovereign, and we are His subjects. Just therefore as a subject cannot more heinously offend his King, nor more openly renounce his subjection, and that allegiance which he oweth him, then by giving to some other besides him the name, glory, honour, and service of his Sovereign; so 'tis not possible that we should offend God more mortally, then in attributing to any other but His Majesty the name of our God and Lord, which appertains to Him alone, and so the honour and service agreeable to these names. This was the main crime of the Gentiles, who thus broke God's Covenant, and pulled upon themselves most dreadful wrath and curses in this world, and eternal death in the next. S. Paul teacheth us Rom. i 25. That this rendering to the creature a service due to the Creator, was the source and fountain whence all the mischiefs issued forth upon them. And 1 Cor. vi. 10. he saith plainly, That idolaters (that is to say, Such as render to any creature the service due to God) shall never inherit the Kingdom of heaven. And conformably to this, S. John Rev. xxi. 8. protesteth, That their portion shall be in the lake burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. For of all the truths that are taught in the Old and New Testaments, there is not any one, which is so clearly and so often expressed as this very thing; not any one, which hath been less contested by heretics, or more universally and affirmatively forbidden by the Church; which hath ever constantly broke off from those that under any pretence whatsoever will render to the creature the service due to God. Even Rome herself (of whom we complain) disagrees with us but very little, if at all, in this point. For though she render great honours to divers creatures, yet she ever acknowledged, That there is a kind of religious service which cannot without sacrilege be given to any thing but God alone: this she commonly termeth the adoration of latria, to distinguish it from other honours and services, which she believes may without sin be given to that which is not God. If therefore there be any Article in all the Christian faith, which should be called fundamental, it is this. If there be any, which we should preserve inviolably with the price of all that is dear unto us, it is this. Nevertheless, this very Article doth the Church of Rome oblige us to violate, if we will communicate in her services. For she doth most expressly command all such as be of her communion, to render that sovereign and highest kind of service, which she calleth latria, (and confesseth to be due to none but God) unto a thing which we believe to be a creature, and not God himself. She would have us to take for our great God, for the Creator of Heaven and earth, for the Redeemer of mankind, this sacrament, which is indeed holy and precious; but which yet our sense, our reason, and our faith grounded on the H. Scriptures, findeth to be but bread. She would have us give to this subject all the praise of the creation and redemption of the universe; to invest it with all the glory that is due to our Sovereign and highest Lord; and hereupon prostrate ourselves most humbly (our bodies and souls) before those altars, whereon this is laid; and in those streets where we meet it; that we should celebrate the day which she hath consecrated to the honour of the Eucharist, under the name of the feast of our great God; and should pronounce anathema maran-atha against all them who approve not this doctrine, and this practice. Here I shall venture to address myself to any the most passionate among our Adversaries, and take them for my Judges in this cause, for my Counselors in this difficulty.  
You, Sirs, command me to adore the Sacrament of the Eucharist, with the adoration of latria. Now I cannot, I must not conceal from you, That I believe this Sacrament in its substance to be an inanimate creature; having not yet been able to resist the Authority of my sense, of my reason, and of the H. Scriptures, which tell me that it is nothing but bread. My belief being thus, what should I do? Shall I adore that which I know to be but a creature? Why, you cannot but see how God forbids the adoration of a creature, under peril of eternal damation. Your Authority pulls me on one side, and Gods on the other. In my judgement, He forbids the very same thing that you desire. Whither shall I turn me in this condition.  
I doubt not but hereupon they'll soon drive me from their Altars, and forbid me to make use of that, the Divinity whereof I neither can nor will acknowledge. For they oblige not men to adore their Host, but because of a belief they have, that it is truly Jesus Christ, God blessed for ever. Did they not believe it so to be, they would not adore it, they would not bring it to others to be adored. So that since I have not that belief, methinks they should not judge it fitting for me to adore it: and if I should adore it, they would impute this action to nothing but an extreme pusillanimity, and baseness of spirit, which for fear of men can cause me to do a thing, that I myself esteem unlawful and unpleasing to God.  
And let them not here allege, That I am deceived in the opinion that I have of the substance of the Eucharist. For the question is not, whether the Eucharist be bread or not, (this should be disputed apart) but whether he who believes that it is bread in substance, can adore it, without making himself guilty of Sacrilege, and giving a creature that honour which is due to the Creator. For if one should grant, That he cannot (which we now are coming to demonstrate from the premises very evidently) I have gained the point that I intended to prove: it being clear, that this supposeth We have had reason to separate from Rome, seeing we believe that the Eucharist is bread in substance; it being impossible for us to yield to that worship, which she desires we should give it, unless we give to a creature that, which we are bound to give only to the Creator. Whence all the odious question concerning schism is ended.  
For we call that schism, which is a separation made without necessity. So that when my conscience forbids me under pain of God's wrath, and my own damnation, to obey that which you command me in this particular, 'tis evident, that it is not fancy, pleasure, or faction, but a pure necessity that constraineth me to separate from you. If you cannot tax this my opinion, much less can you condemn my separation. Accuse me if you please of stupidity, For not being able to conceive, how a body that is in heaven can be at the same time in a thousand places on earth; how all the quantity of a complete man can be brought within one single point; how a thing, that my sense and reason knoweth to be bread, and the H. Scripture calleth oftentimes bread, can not be bread at all for all this; but the very Creator of the world. Blame as much as you please the dulness of my spirit, that cannot comprehend a whit of these pretended mysteries. But once presuppose my belief to be true, and then you cannot show me wherein I do amiss in separating from you. At this time 'tis sufficient, that I have shown, that our separation is not contrary to charity, which obligeth no man to embrace that, in favour or love of his neighbour, which he believes disagreeable to Gods will, and pernicious to his own soul.   

CHAP. IX. That the opinion of the Lutherans which we bear withal, doth not bring with it the adoration of the Eucharist, either de jure, or de facto.  
BUt because this business seems to me of very great importance, I am well content for the clearing of it to examine, yet more particularly, all that can be said in favour of this adoration of the Eucharist, to render it unto us more tolerable then as yet it doth appear.  
Object. First then, some men may object, That we should not so grievously abhor it, seeing that the very Lutherans, with whom we promised that we would live in communion, hold opinions about the Sacrament of the Eucharist, that seem to come very near this. For they believe (as every one knows) that the body of Jesus Christ, is really present in the consecrated bread; which being once presupposed, it seems to follow, That we must adore the Sacrament. Seeing then we believe this opinion (which seems the principle and foundation of adoration of the Sacrament) tolerable; a man may think that we should not so fiercely reject the conclusion thence ensueing.  
Ans. This consideration is but a vain and false colour, which doth no way conclude that which it pretendeth. For there are very great and evident differences between the doctrine of such of our brethren as are termed Lutherans, and that of Romanists about this point. At this time I shall only take notice of so much as concerns our present purpose. Truly what ever their opinion be in other things, 'tis clear that they do not practise among themselves, nor enjoin any others who join with them (nor otherwise approve) this adoration, and this sovereign latria of the Eucharist, whereof we now speak. So that my conscience (which cannot yield for the reasons above rehearsed to this latria and adoration) findeth nothing in their Communion, which wracketh it or offendeth it in this regard. But for the Church of Rome, 'tis clean otherwise there. Because she practiseth this service very scrupulously, and causeth it to be observed by all such as are in her communion, with all circumspection imaginable; as being in her opinion one of the most principal devotions in Christian Religion; and is so rigorous in it that where she doth absolutely bear rule, she constraineth all those whose hearts she cannot bend, to bow at least their bodies before the Host, as oft as they meet it; whence it appeareth, that it is a very great Paralogism and abuse, to argue from the opinion of Luther to that of the Pope in this point, there being a manifest difference between the one and the other. The first leaving my conscience at liberty, without requiring of it any service towards the Sacrament contrary to my belief: and contrariwise, the second forcing me extreme violently, to adore that which I firmly believe to be but a mere creature.  
And to that which they say concerning the opinion of the Lutherans about the H. Sacrament of the Eucharist, That it follows thence necessarily, That we must adore it; I answer.  
1. That it is false. For because they think, that our Lord Jesus is really present in the Sacrament, it doth not thence follow that they believe, That the Sacrament is really Jesus Christ. On the contrary, they hold with us, That the Sacrament is true bread in the substance, the consecration changing nothing in its nature, but only causing that flesh of Christ, signified by the bread, to be there present, and to be exhibited to them who communicate. Or suppose that it were as they hold, it follows not thence, that we must adore the Sacrament. For because God is essentially present in all creatures, will you conclude, That we must therefore adore all creatures? Who sees not, that if a man should under pretence of this adore any one, he would be strait by all Christians held an idolater? The Holy Spirit dwells in the bodies of the faithful, which have the honour to be His temple, 1 Cor. vi. 19 as S. Paul witnesseth. Is this to say that a man must or may adore the bodies of Believers? The Host of the Church of Rome is in the Pix, and in the mouth, and then in the stomach of them who receive it in communicating. Will they allow that because of this a man should adore the Pix, and the mouth, and the stomach where it entereth? They would certainly hiss at a man that should conclude, that we must adore these things because the host is there present.  
Since it appears by these inductions, that those things, wherein is any subject worthy of adoration, ought not thereupon to be adored; 'tis clear, not only that a man may hold the real presence of our Lord's body in the Sacrament, without being obliged to adore the Sacrament, but also ex abundanti, That if a man be precisely of another opinion, he is obliged not to adore it; whence it follows, that the belief of the Lutherans, which doth only affirm the real presence of our Lord's body in the Eucharist, is so far from inferring the adoration, that on the quite contrary it inferreth, That we must not adore it.  
2. But then in the second place, I say, That though, according to the laws of discourse, it should follow lawfully and necessarily from the opinion of the Lutherans, that we must adore the Sacrament; yet 'tis enough to keep me from abhorring their communion, To see that they hold not this adoration to be the consequence of that opinion, but on the contrary reject it, as well as I. For a man may hold the principle, who doth not at all believe the conclusion. Possibly he never thinks of it, or if he doth think on it, he doth not perceive it to be a consequence from those premises. 'Tis at this day generally received in our schools for a good consequence, That if the soul of man come from the substance of the Father into the body of the Son, it may die and is mortal: for (say we) if it depend upon the matter in its original, it depends likewise on it in its being. So that when the matter (that is the body) comes to die, the soul must likewise necessarily be extinguished, seeing the subsistence of the one depends upon the subsistence of the other. Will you hereupon say, that none ever held the principle of this discourse, viz. that the soul is traduced, and passeth from the substance of the Father to the Son, who did not likewise hold the conclusion, viz. that the soul is mortal. With what face dare you venture to assert it; since Tertullian and many other Authors of very great esteem were of that opinion, and S. Augustine did rather approve it then condemn it? since I say, they did openly believe the first of these positions, and expressly deny the second. So S. Hilary, according to the true consequences of that opinion which he held concerning the impassable nature of Christ's body, seems to me to have been obliged to deny the truth and reality of our redemption. And yet who dare impute so grievous an impiety to such a Saint? I should never have done, should I resolve to set down here all the examples that may be alleged to this purpose. These two suffice to show that whoever maintains an ill opinion, is not therefore to be held guilty of the consequences of it.  
Suppose than it were true, (as it is not) That from the belief of the Lutherans concerning the Eucharist, it would follow, That we must adore the Sacrament; Since they own not this consequence, nay on the contrary strongly reject it, It would be an extreme injustice to ascribe it to them. And as it would have been a want of charity in the primitive Christians, to have avoided the Communion of Tertullian or S. Hilary, upon protence, that from their opinions, touching the original of the soul of man and the nature of the body of Christ, there followed many propositions which are impious and contrary to our faith, since they rejected and abhorred them: so would it be in my mind a great oversight now, to separate from the Lutherans upon this pretended consequence from their opinion concerning the holy Sacrament, if it could be deduced thence (as it cannot.) Since they themselves protest, that they will not acknowledge it.  
But as for them of Rome, 'tis quite otherwise. For the adoration of the Eucharist is a consequence of their doctrine concerning this point both de jure and de facto, that is, it plainly follows from it, and they expressly profess and practise it.  
1. De jure; it follows from it: For if the subject which we call the Sacrament of the Eucharist, be in its substance not bread (as we believe) but the body of Christ (as they hold) 'tis evident that men both may and aught to adore it, seeing that the body of Christ is a subject adorable. And then it follows from it  
2. De facto; they practise it. For who knows not, that there is not any one Article in all the Roman religion, which is professed more publicly, pressed more severely, exercised more devoutly, than this of adoring the Host?  
Since than they hold this article both de jure, according to the plain consequences of their belief in the point of the Eucharist: and de facto, in their confessions, and practices; and That the Lutherans on the contrary hold them not, neither in one manner nor the other, neither in thesi, nor hypothesi; 'Tis clear, That our bearing with the latter, without separating from them for the diversity that is between them and us about the point of the Eucharist; doth no way infer that we should do as much with the former.   

CHAP. X. That the dignity and excellency of the Eucharist, doth not hinder it from being a grievous and deadly offence to adore it, if it be bread in substance as we believe.  
Object. BUt you'll say, That you esteem it a rude comparison to liken the adoration, which the Church of Rome gives the Eucharist, to the services that the profane Pagans or debauched Israelites gave to mere creatures. For they adored idols, whereas the Eucharist is a divine Sacrament. So that it seems an abuse of the Scripture to scare us with those threats and curses that it denounceth against such kind of people; seeing the object which they served was so different from that which Rome will have us to adore. We confess we perform this action, but 'tis to one of the Institutions of our Master, and for you to equal that and compare it with an idol, 'Tis very unbeseeming.  
Answ. Thanks, be to God, we have a clean other opinion of the Eucharist. We hold it (as it is indeed) a very holy Sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord, to be one of the most precious instruments of his grace, which being lawfully and rightly celebrated, communicateth to us all the treasures of heaven, the flesh and blood of Christ, the pardon of our sins, the peace of our consciences, the sanctification of our souls, and the right to a blessed immortality. far be it from us to give it the profane and infamous name of an idol. We will not say, that it is simply and only bread: and if any of us do chance to speak so, in saying that 'tis bread, he means in regard of the substance of the thing, not in regard of its virtue or dignity; in regard of which we believe that it is quite another thing from bread. We should take the word in the same sense that Gregory Nyssen doth on the like subject, who speaking of the water in Baptism [Orat. in Bapt. Christ. p. 803. tom. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] saith, That it is nothing else but water, he means in its nature. For in the grace, 'tis another thing beside water, and both the Scriptures teach it to be so, and all Christians believe it, and this holy Doctor particularly witnesseth it in divers places. [Id. ibid. p. 801. c. 4. & orat. Catech. c. 33.] We therefore do willingly give to the Sacrament all those advantages and respects that justly belong to it, and not to any idol.  
But if this be a creature, as we believe it to be, the excellence and dignity thereof (as great as you set it forth) will not at all excuse their crime who adore it. For the Lord forbids us to adore, not base or vain things only, as onions, and the Cats of the Egyptians, and the idols of the Pagans, which have not any subsistence in nature, or any where else except in their false imaginations; but he forbids us generally and absolutely, to adore any creature what ever it be; whether it creep upon the ground, or shine in heaven; whether it swim in the water, or fly in the air; animate or inanimate; visible or invisible; corporeal or spiritual; profane or sacred; comprehending under the same condemnation all those, who worship any creature what ever it be, as guilty of the same crime, and subject to the same punishment.  
And de facto, the thing is very evident; for this adoration which we give to God, being an acknowledgement of his Sovereignty, & a duty like to the love which a woman oweth to her lawful husband, Who doth not perceive, that it is a manifest crime to give it to any other but to him, & that the differences of the subjects to which men give it are no way considerable in this particular; seeing (though they may differ in other things) they are all one in this, That they are not God Almighty, to whom alone we are to give that kind of homage? The dignity of Charles Cardinal of Bourbon, and the affinity he had with the late King of France of Glorious memory (being his Nephew) did not excuse them who gave him the name and honour of King, and did not keep their fault from being a true Rebellion, and a crime of Treason, against the Supreme Governor. And the honour which Joseph had in the house of Potiphar, being his dear and best beloved servant, did not at all justify the love his Mistress bore him. Who ever she be that yields to another man the affection she owes to none but to her husband, renders herself manifestly guilty of adultery. 'Tis not needful to know who it is that she loveth: 'Tis enough for her condemnation that it is not her husband. If then the thing to which you render the adoration of latria, be any thing but the Great God, Creator of the universe, you are extremely unblamable for it. It matters not a whit what else the nature or the dignity thereof be. What ever it is, it's not being God (to whom alone you owe such a service) is enough for your condemnation and conviction of having committed Treason against the Majesty of your Sovereign, of having violated the promise of sacred wedlock, which he hath vouchsafed to contract with you. You are evidently a rebel, and a faithless spouse, and will never be able to avoid the infamy and the punishments due to this crime, unless you wash your fault with tears of a real and sad repentance.  
If it were otherwise, a man might quit (or at least excuse) them that adored the Sun, the eye of the world, the most beautiful and express image of the Creator that can be beheld in all nature, His punctual and admirable servant, which bears so clearly upon itself the marks of his power and wisdom. A man might then defend the service that the Israelites gave to the brazen serpent, offering thereto incense; since it was not an Idol which they served, but a precious memorial of the bounty of God, an instrument of his goodness, and in some sense a Sacrament of his grace. A man might then maintain the action of the Collyridians', who adored the Blessed Virgin; since the object of their service was not a Pagan Idol, but the most Holy and most excellent of all women, the Mother of our Common Lord, the pavilion wherein he vouchsafed to lodge his glory, the sacred vessel where he did so spread abroad his graces. A man might justify the Sovereign service that the Arians gave to their Christ: for though they made him a creature, yet they supposed him the most noble and most excellent of all the creation, and the instrument that the Eternal Father made use of, for the creation first, and then the redemption of the world.  
But the honour of these things, and the dignity they have in coming so near our Lord and great Master, hinders not those who adore them from being condemned as worshippers of the creature. For who knows not, that God in the Scriptures, Job xxxi. 26, 27, 28. Deut. iiii. 19 & xvii. 2, 3. puts those who worship the Sun and Moon and Stars in the rank of the most noted Idolaters? and strictly forbids His people to imitate them? And who knows not, that the good King Ezechiah did so extremely abhor the service of the brazen serpent, that to abolish the use of it, he was not afraid to break the sacred monument of the great miracles of God, calling it by way of loathing, 2 Kings xxiii. 5, 11. Nehustan, that is, a vain and unprofitable piece of brass. And then for the Collyridians', the respect which we give to the Blessed Virgin, whom those superstitious women took for the object of their folly, hindered not the Church then from calling it [Epiph. Haer. 79. p. 1058. & 1061. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] an heresy, or a sect of such as made idols, and to allege against them all the precepts and examples which the Scripture giveth us for the adoration of the one sole God. The dignity that the Arians attributed to their imaginary Christ, hindered not the most holy Doctors of the Primitive Church [Athanas. Orat. 1. contra Ari. tom. 1. p. 297. B. & 314. A. & orat. 3. p. 385. C. & orat. 4. p. 468. Cyril. in Joh. l. 9 c. 41. p. 471. A. & Thesaur. l. 2. c. 1. p. 30. C. & l. 12. c. 4. etc.] from accusing them of Idolatry, and calling them Idolaters; because as excellent as they imagined that Christ whom they believed on, they thought him but a creature, and by consequence could not render to him the service due to the Deity, without manifestly adoring a creature.  
The vanity of this pretence doth yet more plainly appear, in that the most excellent servants of God have refused that adoration which sometimes hath been yielded to them. For even as Joseph was seized with a just horror, seeing the ungodly lust of his Mistress; and opposed her design, who would have given him that which she owed only to her husband; and not being able by his grave and wise Remonstrances to quench her base heat, he fled away from her, esteeming it a blemish to him to be in such unchaste hands; showing sufficiently, that he held this attempt of hers to be a great abomination. Semblably, the faithful servants of God have often very rudely thrust away them, who would have given Them that service, which is due only to their Master; and have taken such honour in very great indignation. S. John in a transportation of Spirit, being twice cast at the feet of an Angel (who discovered to him the secrets of heaven) intending to adore him, was twice taken up. That Sacred Minister of God would by no means consent, that S. John should render unto him that honour; Take heed, saith he, Revel. nineteen. 10. & xxii. 8, 9 that thou do it not, I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren which bear witness to Jesus, Adore God. In the same sort did S. Peter the Apostle of our Lord take up Cornelius the Centurion, when he was at his feet, adoring him. Stand up, said he, Act. x. 26. I also am a man. In like manner S. Paul and S. Barnabas, seeing that the Lycaonians would offer them those sacrifices, which they were wont to offer to their Gods, took such a displeasure, that they rend their garments; crying out, Act. xiiii. 13, 14, 15. Sirs, Why do ye thus? We also are men, subject to the same passions with you. And we need not doubt, but that the sun, moon, and stars, and other inanimate creatures would reject those services, which are given them by the Pagans, with the like indignation, were their nature capable of it. [Et si indignari potest, acerbius indignatur contra falsò honorantem quam contra contumeliosum saith S. Augustine T. 8. fol. 216. in Psal. 93. praef.] Could the Sun be angry, he would chafe less to see himself ill used, then falsely honoured by mankind. And let them not here object, That God's people have sometime worshipped Angels; It being clear out of the Scripture, and acknowledged by all Christians, That at such times either the Angel adored was the Son of God, who under the Old Testament appeared sometimes to the Fathers in shape of an Angel; or if it was a creature, That the adoration given to him by the people of God, was an honour far below that which we give to God, and that which the Romanists commonly call the adoration of latria. Otherwise they should openly have broken the first and principal article of the Law, which so severely forbids giving the other service (adoration) to any but to God alone.  
As for those passages of the Bible, which tell us, in the Old vulgar Latin translation Psal. xcix. (Lat. xcviii.) 5. That the Ark of the Ancient Covenant might be adored, or in effect that it was so. Either we must say (as our Authors do) that the People of God were wont to prostrate themselves before the Ark (the service of God being in those days to be made particularly towards that place where the Ark was) or That this adoration of the Ark was a kind of honour less than that of latria, which is due to none but God; or we may have recourse to the subtlety of S. Augustine, who in several places understands by the footstool of God, the humanity of J. Christ, personally united to the Godhead, and by consequent truly and properly adorable; and in conclusion, we may rather admit any interpretation, then overthrow the foundation of piety and religion, by granting that the highest worship is to be given to any but the Highest God. For, as for that relative and mediate adoration, which some of the Divines of the Church of Rome talk of upon this occasion, 'twill do us no good, and that for three reasons.  
1. Because this distinction of absolute and relative service, mediate and immediate (as they speak) is an invention of their own brain and not able to satisfy conscience. For though the honour which we give to Ambassadors, or to other representations, are referred indeed to the persons whom they represent; whence it comes to pass that a Prince is honoured in his Vicegerents, and God in his Ministers, and in his Sacraments; yet nevertheless the honour which we give to one, differs far from that which we give to the rest. This is evident in civil conversation. For what King would suffer subjects to give the name of King or Sovereign to his Ministers and Officers, under colour that they represent his Majesty, and exercise his Authority every one in their charge. The respect which we give them redounds indeed to their Master, I confess it, but 'tis clean another kind of honour then that which we render Him. 'Tis just so in the Sacraments of Religion. For example, the reverence wherewith we receive Holy Baptism, redoundeth doubtless to the glory of J. Christ, who instituted it, and of the H. Ghost whose efficacy it represents. Now if a Christian should hereupon, pretending this, affirm, That a man might lawfully adore baptism with the same adoration that is due to J. Christ or to the H. Ghost, Would not he be ridiculous even to our Adversaries?  
But we need not further examine this distinction in this place. For Secondly, if you look to the bottom of it, Rome doth not make use of it in this dispute, she would have us render to the Eucharist an adoration not mediate, but immediate; not relative but absolute; and which terminateth in the same subject, which is there present under the species of bread and wine; thinking that it is really and personally the Son of God. So that though the use of this distinction might excuse the service given to a creature, yet it will never serve to justify that which They would have us give to the Roman Sacrament, which they pretend is personally the Creator.  
Finally, though others might with some reason use the distinction, yet 'tis clear, That 'tis of no use to us, who esteem it vain and without any foundation, who hold all them really guilty of Creature-worship, and heirs to all the curses which God threatens against it, who (under any pretence whatsoever) render to any creature that Sovereign kind of homage and service, which is due to none but the Creator; whether they terminate their adoration in the object itself which they adore, or whether they let it pass to some other whereto it hath reference. As men hold that Woman in all reason guilty of adultery, who shall cause any but her lawful husband to share of her love and marriage bed; though she may plead for herself, That the design in committing such an act, or the cause whereby she was moved, or the manner of her proceeding was this or that, The business is no way capable of being justified.  
Thus I hope, it appeareth clear enough, that if the Eucharist be truly bread (as we believe it) neither the dignity of its use in religion, nor the reference that it hath to the body and blood of Christ Jesus, will save us, either from the crime of having adored a creature, or from the punishments and curses that such a deed deserveth; if believing as we do, we should dare to give that service and reverence to it, which the Roman Church commandeth us.   

CHAP. XI. That the opinion which those of the Roman Church have touching the Eucharist, excuseth not such as adore it.  
Object. BUt you'll say, That she believes the Sacrament which she adoreth is not a creature but Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory; a subject really to be adored, because he is God Eternal, of the same essence with the Father. So that if it be supposed an error, 'twill not amount to be criminal, or a mortal sin, because the subject which the Church of Rome adoreth deserves, as all Christians confess, to be adored, if it be really (what she thinks it to be) Jesus Christ.  
Answ. But who is there that doth not see, if he observe, First, That this consideration is false and vain in itself; and Secondly, that though it were true, yet it were nothing to the purpose?  
First, it is false. And 'tis plain that the Romanists themselves think this excuse a trifle, since determining (though very rashly) that the Eucharist was in all ages adored by Christians, they say, That no man can doubt, but that, if the Eucharist were bread, all the Church for M D. years were idolatrous. And so that as many of our Ancestors as adored the Sacrament were all damned, adoring bread in stead of the Creator. Joh. Fisher Roff. lib. 1. contra Oecolamp. cap. 2. fol. 3. b. And their argument were good, but that 'tis built on a false supposal, viz. That the Church for the first fifteen hundred years adored the Eucharist. For if the estimate of a religious worship be to be taken from the opinion that those which use it have of it, ye shall scarce find any, which either can be called justly an adoration of the creature, or condemned in conclusion, as forbidden by our Lord. The Pagans will by this means preserve themselves from that crime, which S. Paul chargeth them with, of having adored the Creature, Rom. i. 25. and served them which by nature are no Gods, Gal. iv. 8. For they will plead, That they believed that Jupiter (to whom they gave sovereign adoration) was the great God, creator and preserver of the world, the Father of Gods and men, as their Poets ordinarily term him. And no man can deny, but that a person of such a quality deserveth adoration: and so, according to these principles, no man should accuse them of idolatry, for giving adoration to a subject which they thought deserved it. And if the Israelites believed, that the golden calf was really the God which brought them out of Egypt, Exod. xxxii. (as the most part of the Roman Divines seem to hold) they might with the same colour and shift excuse themselves, for that worship which they did to it in the wilderness, & say that they took it for their Lord. They might have affirmed, That it was their ignorance to take their molten image for a God, but not idolatry to adore it, having once imposed upon it that name. The Collyridians' that adored the B. Virgin, as we said even now, would have been able by this means to defend themselves against S. Epiphanius (who taxeth them expressly of idolatry) if they did but think, as Card. Baronius supposeth, that the B. Virgin was really a Deity, and that she had nothing humane in her. For they would have said, suppose it were an error to think the Blessed Virgin a Goddess; yet the service which We render her, who are of this opinion, cannot be so ill interpreted, as to be Idolatry; seeing that such a service is due to that nature which they attribute to Her. S. Augustine in his preface to his Sermons on the xciii. Psalm, p. 216. I. Tom. 8. speaks of certain heretics that honoured the Sun, and said, That it was J. Christ. Such may in the same manner excuse the service that they rendered to this great luminary; and say, that they rendered it not to a creature, but that they believed the subject to which they rendered it was J. Christ. Yet nevertheless we see, that the Spirit of God calleth continually the services rendered by Pagans to Jupiter, and by the Israelites to the golden calf, Idolatries, and those who rendered them adorers of creatures and idolaters. And Epiphanius following that style, calleth the Collyridians' (as we observed even now) a sect of such as made idols, and their opinion an heresy. And S. Augustine blameth the honour, that some whom he speaketh of gave to the Sun; he esteeming it a contempt cast upon the Creator. And in truth who sees not, that this error we now speak of, is but a vain pretence, and such as can no ways excuse them that render divine services to creatures? For if it were not, there would be no sin, no crime so abominable, but it might be committed and excused without error. Rebels having shaken off the yoke of their lawful King, and submitted to a Tyrant, and adhered to his Conspiracy, might say, They thought this was the true Governor of the Nation, and consequently pretend, That they who called them Rebels and Traitors, did them a deal of wrong. And so we may say the same. I confess, That ignorance excuseth, where it is against a man's will; when the subject which we misconceive is so concealed, that whatsoever desire we have, or pains we take to find out the truth, 'tis not possible for us to discover it: As if one should suppose a Subject so like his Prince, that 'tis impossible to distinguish one from the other; in this case such would be excusable as should give him the honour and service due to their true Sovereign. But where the ignorance of the object proceedeth not from the obscurity and difficulty of the thing, but from the malice or negligence of the man, 'tis so far from excusing the fault, that it aggravateth it extremely. Such was the error of those who during the holy League, took the Cardinal of Bourbon for the true King of France: merely their passion and not any obscurity that was in the thing, made them ignorant of that which was as clear as any thing in the world, viz. That Henry the Great was the lawful King of the Realm. So that this error, according to all laws divine and humane, hindered not their crime from being great, deserving the name and punishment of a true rebellion. Such, very such, and indeed less tolerable is the error of those who take a creature for the Creator, and consequently adore it, as if it were really Herald  
For what, I beseech you, did the Pagans see in their Jupiter, or the Israelites in their golden calf that obliged them to believe one or tother to be the Sovereign God, who made the heavens, and preserves mankind by his providence. Nay on the contrary, what did they meet with in those objects, that did not in a high and evident manner declare, That they were nothing less than that great Divinity, whereof these mad men gave them only the name and the service? And what cause can the superstitious Collyridians' allege, why they should be ignorant of that, which reason and the H. Scriptures witness so clearly, viz. That the holy Virgin is a woman and not a Goddess? or Those that honoured the Sun, why they esteemed, J. Christ to be truly the Sun? Take them out of their passion, and they had nothing either in the nature of the thing, or in H. Scripture, that could bring them into so ridiculous an error. The ignorance of all these things than was visibly affected and voluntary, bred from their vice only, and not from any obscurity of the things which they were ignorant of: whence it followeth, that 'tis so far from being able to excuse or diminish the impiety of such services; that chose 'tis one of their crimes, for which God will enter into judgement with them, and will ask them hereafter, why they were ignorant of that, which was so clearly and graciously made manifest.  
Now to apply what hath been said to our present purpose. If the Sacrament of the Eucharist be truly bread in substance (as we firmly believe it to be, upon the credit of our sense, of our reason, and of the word of God) I say, That the contrary opinion, which those of the Church of Rome hold, thinking it to be not bread, but the Lord of the world; doth not at all hinder that service, which they render to it in the consequence of their belief, from being truly the adoration of a creature, and deserving that name and rank which the H. Scriptures give ordinarily to such services. I confess, that while our Lord was upon earth, presupposing that at His being in Judea, some person had resembled Him much in visage, and coming to one of the Apostles had been mistaken for Him, and so one had adored this man in stead of our Saviour; In such a case, this mistake might have excused the action; and there would have been a deal of rigour in making that pass for a criminal service, as adoration of the creature. And if the Host (as they call it) were really to be adored, as they believe it is, I confess, that he, who should adore one not consecrated, (or consecrated without intention) set before him upon the Altar, could not justly be condemned for having adored it: because it was not his passion or not heeding, that caused this mistake; but the likeness and extreme uniformity that was between the one and the other, they being not distinguishable one from another by any apparent mark. But suppose that the Eucharist be not J. Christ really; the error then of them, who take it to be Christ, comes all from passion, and not from any thing that is without them. For in your conscience, what similitude can you discern between these two things, that should make us take them one for the other? or what is there that doth not oblige us most firmly to believe, that the one is not the other? The one is a round thing, without sense and motion, and altogether uniform; the other hath a humane body, organised, and furnished with sense and other ornaments, even as ours. The one is bread, which we have seen kneaded, and made: the other a divine substance form of the flesh of a Virgin, above MDC years ago. One is broken in our hands, and bruised between our teeth, and consumed in our stomaches, the other is of an immortal nature, glorious, and impassable. I omit other differences.  
But if I had nothing else but the doctrine of the Apostles, and the belief of all Christians, That our Lord is in heaven, whence he shall come at the last day; and the forewarning that he gave us Himself, to beware of being surprised, by them that say, Lo here is Christ, or there, He is in the desert, or secret closet, Matth. xxiv. 26. Is not this enough to render all error inexcusable in this particular? For what will they be able to answer our Lord against such clear marks, and such express forewarnings; when He shall demand of them a reason of this great mistake? To men I wonder not that they allege, This is my body; but to the Great God, who seeth the secrets of the hearts (and in so glorious and clear a light) I am confident they will never dare to bring for themselves so weak a defence. For since they have heard S. Paul say oft, that the Church is the body of Christ, without believing thereupon that the Church is transubstantiated; or not a creature but God, because 'tis called the body of Christ, 1 Cor. xii. 27. Eph. i 23. And if the honour that the Church hath to be called the body of Christ, doth not keep man from believing that it were impiety (and not Religion) to give to the Church the adoration of latria; how will that hold good which they say, That they think themselves necessarily obliged to adore the Eucharist, because it is called the body of Christ? If such phrases of speech be enough to ground that service upon, which they give to the Eucharist, they must then also adore the rock, whence Moses brought water in the wilderness; since S. Paul saith, That that was Christ: And the body of the faithful; 1 Cor. x. 4. 1 Cor. vi. 15. since he saith, That they are the members of Christ: and those heretics taxed by S. Augustine would be excusable for having adored the sun; since the Scripture sometimes gives that name to the Blessed Jesus. If they'll confess that these phrases of speech did not excuse that abuse, they must likewise confess that the words of our Saviour, This is my body, do not suffice to authorise that service which they give to the Eucharist.  
All this they grant sufficiently, when their great Doctors confess, That they do not build their opinion upon those words: and grant, they see no reason why they should not take the words in that sense, which we Protestants take them in. [Cajet. in 3. Thom. q. 75. art. 1.] From the sole Authority of the Church (that is to say, in their language, of the Pope and his Council) they deduce their transubstantiation. This Authority is the only foundation of the adoration of the Host, which they can no way collect but from the will of the Roman Church. So it appeareth, That laying aside the passion of Rome, there is nothing in heaven, or in earth, or in the sense of men, or in the Scriptures of God, which should (I will not say oblige) but any way allure them to be ignorant, that the Eucharist is bread. So that all ignorance that they can pretend, is purely affected and voluntary; and so not able to excuse the service, which they render to the Host.  
To which add, that it excuseth them so much the less, Because the question here is concerning the highest adoration, the most holy and singular act in all religion, which by consequence a man should give to none but to Him, whom he knows most assuredly to be God, and the Saviour of our souls. Nor is it enough, to have an opinion or suspicion of this. It must be certain. For 'tis just as the conjugal bed, to which a woman must receive none, but whom she knows very certainly to be her husband. If she have any apparent doubt, that it is not he in reality, and if notwithstanding this she receive him, she thereby forfeits her troth. And here I cannot but commend a saying I read (in Apothegm. Anachor. Egypt. lib. 15. cap. 70. Bibl. Patrum tom. 9 p. 286.) of an old Egyptian Monk; who, when one appeared to him in the resemblance of Christ, was so far from adoring what he saw, that he would neither view it, nor hearken to it: but shutting his eyes, said, I shall see Christ in heaven; 'Tis enough for me to hope and believe, while I am upon earth. But how? Was he not afraid, that this refusal would offend his Lord, in case this had been He indeed, as the light, speech, shape, and other circumstances obliged him to believe? Not a a jot. For he was assured, that his Lord saw that this refusal proceeded, not from any want of respect toward Him, but from a just and rational fear of giving (through mistake) that to another, which belonged to Him only, and which he earnestly desired to preserve inviolably for Him. A quality, which is so far from offending our Lord, that it must needs be very pleasing to Him. And in the same place (c. 71.) an Anchoret is mentioned, who, when the Devils asked him, whether he would see Christ; answered, Be you, and he whom you would show me, anathema. For my part I give heed to ●●y Jesus, who said, If any say unto you, here is Christ or there, believe him not. And to this purpose is that, which the Egyptian Anchorets (c. 69.) are reported oft to have said; If a true Angel appear to thee, be not very ready to entertain him; but humble thyself, saying, I am not worthy to see an Angel while I live in sin. So that though we had some reason to think Christ were present; yet 'twere good to refrain, and not adore him, when we are not in all points assured that it is He: because this were evidently to profane the act of adoration; which must by no means be given to any rashly, and at adventure. Now our adversaries find nothing in all this matter, which doth not show clearly, that the Eucharist is really not the Lord of the world, but bread. And therefore there is far less reason, that the adoration which they give to the Host, should be excused by that opinion, which they pretend to have of it.  
II. But than secondly, Though the opinion of the Roman Church concerning the Eucharist should (as we have proved it doth not) justify, or at least excuse that adoration which they give it; yet 'tis clear, That to allege that opinion of theirs here as an excuse, were nothing to the purpose. For the question is not concerning the Romanists, who profess that they believe that the Eucharist is really and personally the Son of God; but concerning us, who are so far from believing it, that we have not the least suspicion of it; being (God be thanked) fully persuaded, that the Sacrament is truly bread. And why should we not believe it so? since our senses witness, our reason showeth, the Scriptures teach, that it is bread; which are the three fountains of all our knowledge; and we cannot be sure of any thing, but from one of them. Having therefore this belief of the Eucharist, how can we adore it, without rendering ourselves guilty of violating all those precepts, wherein God hath forbidden us to adore the creatures, and incurring all those deaths and curses, which he hath denounced against the breach of such precepts?  
I meddle not with other men's consciences, nor will I take upon me to judge their actions. Almighty God will do that one day. And I think I have said enough to show them, that 'Tis their duty in the mean while, to consider it seriously. I speak of myself. Since my soul is persuaded, that the Eucharist is a creature, I cannot adore it without offending the laws of God, and overthrowing the foundations of my own salvation. And though my persuasion were false, yet since I believe it (and that upon so many, and so certain, divine and humane assurances) Though the Sacrament were (as it is not) really the Lord of glory; yet 'tis clear, That if I shall adore it believing as aforesaid; such my service will be false and unlawful, addressed not to God, (who is the sole true and lawful object) but to a creature, which my imagination shall through mistake have substituted in His place. Hereupon the Ancient Church hath constantly accused the Arians of adoring the creature, and continually called the service, which they gave to Christ, idolatry and adoration of the creature: and with very good reason. For though the Lord Jesus is the true God, eternal, the Creator of the world, and Redeemer of the Church, and of the same substance with the Father; and though the adoration which is given to Him by them, who believe Him to be such, be a lawful worship, not condemned, but approved and expressly commanded in the Scripture: yet they, who by a detestable error hold Him to be but a mere creature, and think that the Father made Him of nothing (either before or after the Creation of the world) as well as the heaven and the earth; if they give Him the same adoration, which is due to the Father, they do evidently bestow on a creature, that which belongs to the Creator only. For they address this service not to the true Jesus, coeternal and coessential with the Father, but to a phantasm of a creature forged in their own brain: hereby rendering themselves guilty of a crime, so often condemned and detested by the Lord in the Scriptures.  
Seeing then that the truth of the word of God, and the Authority of the Ancient Church forbids us to adore that which we believe to be but a creature, under peril of incurring the curses denounced by the laws of God against those, who rob Him of His glory and give it to another; We must conclude that neither the opinion of the Church of Rome, nor any other consideration, can exempt us from the anathemas of Heaven, if we adore (as our Adversaries do) the Sacrament of the Eucharist, firmly believing it to be bread in substance, and not (as they pretend) our B. Saviour really and personally.   

CHAP. XII. The error of those, who think they may give to the Host of the Church of Rome that reverence which she commands, without adoring.  
Object. BUt perhaps some will grant, That we cannot lawfully adore the Eucharist, while we are of this mind; but will say, That we may give that worship to the Sacrament which the Church of Rome commands without adoring it. For they'll say, Since you acknowledge that the Eucharist is a Sacrament instituted by our Lord, can you not kneel at receiving it, and address your adoration and service, not to the Sacrament, which you esteem to be a creature, but to J. Christ the author of it, whom you believe to be the Creator of the Universe, as he is indeed? If one of you should be be baptised at years of discretion, think you that he might not receive that Sacrament on his knees, without being blamed for adoring the water? Nay would it not be his duty to put himself into this respectful posture rather than any other, to show the reverence which he bears to our Lord, and to the seal of the new Covenant and adoption.  
And when your Pastors are consecrated by imposition of hands, do they not receive it on their knees? Yet none thinks that they do therefore adore those who lay hands on them, or the sign which is used to that end. And then why do you make such scruple of bowing your knees, and bending your bodies in receiving the Eucharist, a Sacrament no less precious than Baptism, instituted by the same Lord, and for the same end: one to regenerate us, the other to nourish us▪ one to help us into the Church, the other to help us to persevere? Why are you afraid in this particular, rather than in any other, of the crime and the punishment that attends adoration of the Eucharist?  
Answ. But though this objection have some lustre in it, and dazleth many persons, persuading them to accommodate themselves outwardly to the Church of Rome, retaining in their heart the same opinion which we hold concerning the Eucharist; yet nothing can be more weak or vain. Thanks be to God, we are not so ill taught as to scruple receiving the Sacrament on our knees. Our Brethren of England never receive it otherwise: and when we communicate with them, we do very easily and readily conform ourselves to their order. And 'tis held among us a matter of such indifferency, that though we receive the Holy Supper standing, yet we do not exclude them from the number of Brethren, who receive it sitting or kneeling. And if the Church of Rome had required no other thing of us, then only to receive the H. Communion on our knees, I confess we should have had no just cause in this particular of separating from it, since we might with a good conscience perform what they demand. But, alas! how stupid must we be, if we believe that she requireth no more of us in this Article? how hypocritical, if we pretend to believe it when we do not? For all the world knows that the Romanists require us to believe that thing, which we see on their Altars, and between the hands of their Priests, to be really and in truth the eternal Son of God; and That it hath, under the species which our senses see and touch, no other substance but His; and consequently commands us to adore it, to bow ourselves before it, to give thereto all the humiliation of our bodies, and of our souls, terminating on it the act of our veneration, as on its true object. She deeply and plainly excommunicates all such, as doubt either of the truth of the first of these two Articles, or of the holiness of the second. Observe the Decrees and Canons of Her Counsels, Concil. Trident. Sess. 13. the confessions of Her Faith, the sermons of Her Ministers, the devotions of Her People, and the universal practice of all them, who adhere to Her communion; and you shall find these two points written, graven, and imprinted all manner of ways, in such legible characters, that you shall scarce find any point of the Apostles Creed, which she confesseth more clearly, or which she presseth more severely.  
You'll say, I am willing to honour the Sacrament but not adore it: No, saith She, you must adore it. And lest you should pretend to hide, under that equivocal word, any veneration less than the highest (like that which we may render to the creature, without offending the Creator) You must render it, she saith, the worship or service of latria, which is due to the true God; Well, you'll say, but I will address this service of latria which she requireth of me to Jesus Christ, who is in heaven; and not to the Sacrament of his body, which is upon the earth: No, saith she, I do not intend it so. I would have you in the veneration which you make in communicating, to render the service of latria to the most holy Sacrament. Nullus itaque dubitandi locus relinquitur, quin omnes Christi fideles pro more in Catholica Ecclesia semper recepto, latriae cultum, qui vero Deo debetur, huic Sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione exhibeant. ibid. c. 5. See, with what a deal of care she hath expressed her sense, and excluded all others, without leaving them the least place? For if she had said that the faithful should adore J. Christ in the Sacrament, supposing the rest of her doctrine had left us in doubt of her meaning, we might yet have interpreted this expression, as 'tis used in the books of some of her Doctors, viz. That in receiving the Eucharist, we should adore the Lord, with whom we communicate by the Eucharist, and so we might have pretended that she doth not oblige us to adore any creature. But she expressly to exclude all such exposition, useth quite another expression, saying, That the service of latria should be given to the Sacrament. So that now there is no reason to doubt of her meaning. For what I pray you is it that she calleth the Holy Sacrament? Is it Jesus Christ residing in heaven? Who is so ignorant, as not to know whether it be He or no? Is it not precisely that which the Priest blesseth upon the Altar? that which he puts into the mouth of the Communicants? that which they must swallow down into the stomach? Yes; that is the very thing, to which she would have you address your adoration, the bending of your knees, and the humiliation of your body, and in a word all the parts of that inward veneration, wherewith you communicate. If this be not it, which you regard; when you bend your knee to any thing else, She anathematizeth you; she holdeth you for an heretic and a rebel, one that deserves the anger of God and eternal fire. And that you may know, that she hath regard, not to the holiness of the action which you celebrate, but to the honour of the subject which is proposed to you; she would have you prostrate yourself before it: not only at the time of Communion, but likewise out of it; in the very streets, and public passages, and in all places where you meet it. An evident sign that Her intention is precisely such, as Herself explaineth it to be, viz. That you hold this for your true God, and finally render it all the honours due to the Sovereign Deity. If then you esteem this subject to be truly a Creature, is not this an open mocking of God and men, and a miserable deceiving of yourself; To tell us, That you can do that which the Roman Church requireth, without adoring that at all, which you believe to be but a bare creature? For as for that which you said concerning baptism, I confess that being at years of discretion, you may receive it upon your knees: But, if the Church to whom you come for it, should command you to believe, that which you see in form of water to be really and in substance (not water, but) the true God, Creator of heaven and earth; and consequently command you to render adoration to it, and the service of latria, and to that purpose to fall upon your knees; I say, That in such a case, you cannot obey such a commandment, without violating your conscience, and treading under foot the Law of God, and rendering yourself really guilty of adoration of a creature. The same I say concerning the Ministers, which receive imposition of hands, and the Believers, who receive the Eucharist upon their knees. For if one should teach or command either the one or the other to believe, That the Pastor, who imposeth hands on them, or the portion of the Eucharist which they receive, is truly and in substance the great God who created the world, and by consequence expressly enjoin men to adore, either the one or the other of these two subjects; who doubteth but that this were openly to deny our faith, and to renounce our profession, when we fall upon our knees before these things, after such a commandment? But men neither teach nor command any such thing among us. God forbid they should! We believe and preach, That our Ministers are men and mere creatures; so that no man can take the kneeling, which is before them, who give imposition of hands, for an adoration addressed to them; all the profession of our Churches, and nature of the things themselves directly contradicting it. In like manner the Church of England believeth and teacheth publicly, That the Eucharist is bread in substance, and that to adore it were grievously to offend God: So that the kneeling, which is in their communion, cannot be taken for an adoration of aught else but Jesus Christ who is in heaven, and not of bread which is upon the earth. Did the Church of Rome believe and likewise teach, that the Eucharist were bread in substance, and not a subject fit to be adored, we think, that then we might bow the knee in her Communion without wounding our consciences. But while she teacheth that which she now believeth, while she exacteth of us this kneeling as a true adoration of the Sacrament; who is so blind as not to see that we cannot obey her, without making ourselves (according to the judgement of our own consciences) guilty of adoring a mere creature, since we believe the Sacrament so to be?   

CHAP. XIII. That he, who believeth the Eucharist to be bread in substance, cannot give it the reverence which is practised in the Church of Rome, withoul evident falsehood, hypocrisy, and perfidiousness.  
Object. FOr to say (Though the intention of the Church of Rome be, that we should address this kneeling and adoration, whereof that is the mark, to the Sacrament there present) That we may nevertheless use it otherwise, and address it to J. Christ sitting in heaven at the right hand of His Father, lifting up our hearts, raising our affections and thoughts to Him; and by this means kneel with our Adversaries, without adoring (as they do) that which we believe to be but a creature.  
Answ. This is a false and dangerous excuse of the flesh, which (might it take place) would open a large and dangerous gate to impiety and hypocrisy, and ruin the foundations of all religion. And for the better understanding of it, I must begin with it a little higher.  
God being the Creator and Redeemer of whole man, that is to say, both of his soul and of his body, would have him (which is but reasonable) serve Him entirely, using both the one and the other of these two parts to that end. Glorify God in your body and in your spirit, both which are Gods, saith the Apostle, 1 Cor. vi. 20. And as in offices which concern our neighbours, he commandeth us sincerity, willing us to love them inwardly, and to edify and help them outwardly; so doth He command that in piety, which regardeth Himself, we should jointly make use of our hearts and bodies. And as He abominates that man, who loving his neighbour in his heart, should abuse him with his tongue, or hurt him with his hand; or chose should give him an alms with his hand, and hate him in his heart: So will He not approve of that man, who pretends to reverence Him in the secret of his soul; and yet with his tongue blasphemeth His name: nor him who blessing Him with his mouth, shall curse Him with his heart. 'Twill stand one man in no stead to plead for himself, That his soul did his duty, but the body failed of his; nor another to excuse the defaults of the soul by the service of the body. So that in effect, these excuses will be but a mere mockery. The union of the mind and the body being so near, that when the mind is disposed as it should, the body cannot but perform its devoir: and he that abusing God or his neighbour with his tongue, would have us believe that notwithstanding all that, he loveth them sincerely in his heart; is a bold liar deserving to be punished, not only for his blasphemy or wrong, but likewise for his impudence.  
According to these undoubted Maxims we are bound, not only to receive in our hearts the truths, which God hath revealed in Religion; but likewise outwardly to profess them: And we are all bound not only not to disbelieve with our hearts the errors and impieties, which are contrary to the truth of God; but likewise not to confess them outwardly in any kind. For if it be enough to retain in the heart the knowledge and love of truth, and it be permitted to deny it outwardly sometimes; S. Peter had not fell in denying his Master: for no man can doubt but that his heart within, knew well enough what his tongue disavowed without. And so, to deny our Lord before men, would be no sin; and confession with the mouth would be of no use: which all are things evidently false. For that action of S. Peter is grievously blamed in the Gospel, and his tears (if we had no other proof) show us sufficiently, that he thought he did extremely offend God. And our Lord, Matth. x. 33. protesteth expressly, that He will deny him before His Father in heaven (that is to say, that at the great day of judgement, He will not own him for His; nor put him in the number of His blessed children) who will deny him before men. And lastly, S. Paul, Rom. x. 9, 10. teacheth us, That with the heart men believe unto righteousness, and with the tongue they make confession unto salvation, and to be saved he doth not only require, That you should believe the Lord in your heart, but likewise that you should confess him with your mouth. The same reasons do necessarily induce us to believe, That it is not enough to banish from our hearts the belief of impiety, and such errors as are contrary to the foundations of true Religion; unless we also banish the confession of them from our mouths. For to confess an error which overthroweth the fundamentals of Religion, is clearly to deny our Religion. Since than we are forbidden under pain of an eternal curse, to confess with our mouth the errors which we detest with our hearts; 'tis clear, that if we believe the adoration of the Host of the Church of Rome, to be an error contrary to the foundations of piety, as we do indeed: That we cannot confess it, without violating the commandment of J. Christ, and pulling upon our souls eternal ruin and damnation. For, where is the Christian who firmly believing that the Sacrament is a creature, and being asked if he should give it the adoration of latria, will not dread to answer, Yes? and whose conscience will not feel a thousand remorses, if any passion cause his tongue to say so? And how can we say that the Sacrament is to be adored, or confess it more clearly, then by prostrating ourselves before the Host of the Church of Rome, and giving it in the presence of men the same outward veneration, which is the mark and substance of that which we give to Him.  
Object. But you'll perhaps deny, That with your mouth you ever said, that a man ought to adore it.  
Answ. I answer, First, in this age wherein we live, 'tis very hard (if not impossible) to adhere to the communion of Rome, without making this confession with the mouth and hand, and by the speech and subscription; such is the extreme rigour wherewith she requireth it of every one of her Communicants.  
But to pass by confession of the tongue. 'Tis enough for my present purpose, that you are upon your knees before the Host. For in so doing, you have confessed not with your tongue indeed, but (which is all one) with all your body. Your action hath confessed in public, what your heart hath rejected and abhorred in private. For to confess in these matters, is to declare by some outward sign what you believe, or on the contrary what you do not believe; witnessing it either by words of the mouth, or by writing of the hand, or by any other intelligible sign. Now secondly, this in civil conversation would be esteemed a mere illusion and mockery, to pretend that a man doth not own or confess a thing, though he declare as much by some evident sign, under pretence that he doth it without speaking: as if a man that did homage to another, should pretend, that he did not acknowledge him for his Sovereign, under colour of his not expressing in words that he did.  
The actions by which men do ordinarily declare such things, are signs not only equivalent to words, but much more precise and significative; so that to use them, is to declare a thing more expressly and openly, then if a man should speak it in words. Now to kneel before the Host of the Church of Rome, to uncover the head, and prostrate the body to the earth, at the sound of a little bell, or to go in procession after it on the day of its Feast; or to deck a man's lodging with hangings against it pass by, and other actions like to these, are the plain and ordinary signs, whereby men acknowledge the Host to have a Sovereign Divinity, and pay (as it were) so many homages to it; as appear by the will of them, who command it in the Church of Rome, and by the common intention of those, who practise it continually.  
So that every one who falleth on his knees before the Host of the Church of Rome, or who goeth in procession when 'tis made in honour thereof, on the day of that Feast; or who goeth out of his lodging to honour its pomp; Declareth and witnesseth, that he holdeth it for his Sovereign God (and not for a creature) as clearly and expressly, as if he pronounced and affirmed it in so many words.   

CHAP. XIV. That every man who exerciseth the ceremonies and services, which the Church of Rome renders to the Host, declareth thereby that he adoreth it, and taketh it for his true and eternal God.  
Object. ANd let not any such man reply, That though in the use of the Church of Rome these actions have such a signification; nevertheless he useth them (as to his own particular) in a quite other sense; nor let him pretend, that in practising them, he intendeth them not to express that which they commonly serve to signify.  
Answ. This answer is not only vain and ridiculous, but very dangerous; and the consequence of it is destructive not only to Religion, but also to civil Society. For signs instituted by men to signify things, whether in nature or in Religion, should be interpreted by the public and common custom of those who use them; and not by secret and particular intentions, this or that way. I confess that in themselves and in their own nature, they signify, for the most part, no more one thing then another: and that such among them, as have any natural reference to the things which they signify, are not so necessary; but that a man may at the beginning make them signify otherwise. But when once the will of men (which is the Mistress of such institutions) hath limited and appointed them to some certain signification, and public use hath confirmed it; 'tis afterwards (I conceive) an intolerable boldness to go about to use them in another sense; and he that shall do so, will be esteemed either a sot or a liar by every reasonable person. For example, Such words as we ordinarily use to express the thoughts of our understandings, have not, in their own nature, any virtue or strength to signify this thing rather than that. The word Father, of itself may as well signify a stone, or water, or fire, as that which it doth signify; and each of these words might as well signify that which Father doth, as that which now they signify. 'Tis clear, That it is the will of man, and not their own nature, that gave them the sense and signification, which now they have in our language. But since the public use of our Nation hath limited and appropriated them to those things which they signify, who doth not see, That 'tis not possible for any particular man to use them hereafter in any other sense; to use the word Father to signify a stone; or fire to signify a Father? 'Tis just so with actions, which either by the will, institution, or custom of men are used either in Religion, or civil Society to signify any thing; as for example, Homage to signify the superiority of him to whom it is rendered: The giving a ring and a kiss in some nations, to signify the taking of a woman to wife: in the days of old among the Israelites, to let one pierce the ear with an awl, to signify that one was willing to be servant to him, from whom he endured it: and among the Romanists, to be adored by Cardinals in the conclave, doth signify that the man so adored is acknowledged to be Pope: and the kneeling before the Host, that one adoreth it, and acknowledgeth it for his God. I confess that these signs and others like them, originally and of their own nature, signify no more these things than others; and that of themselves they may be applied to other significations. But since they are applied and consecrated to these by public use, 'tis an unparallelled folly for any man, to pretend to use them in another sense. As if one should say in English, That he believeth the Pope of Rome to be the Head and Monarch of the Church of Christ; He must needs signify the same thing, that these words do usually sound in the common notion and custom of them in our Language: So that if he do not believe so, he cannot in so speaking exempt himself from being held either a fool or a knave. So he who falleth on his knees before the Host, or who solemnizeth the feast of it, or assisteth at it, or trimmeth his lodging in honour of it; He, I say, doth likewise signify, in another kind of true language, yet nevertheless as express as the former, that he holdeth the Host for a God, for the true Creator and Redeemer of the world; and if he be of a contrary persuasion, he must necessarily grant, That he is either out of his senses, or a notorious liar; abusing the actions of his body, to signify the contrary thoughts of his heart. And as the former would be laughed at by any judicious man, if, to excuse his expression, he should allege, that by Pope of Rome, he meant not what those words signify in the common use of men, but some other things; as for example, J. Christ our Lord: so the latter would be as ridiculous, who should tell us, That he useth kneeling before the Host, and other ceremonies, not to let men know that he adoreth it (which is the thing that these actions signify in the common use of men) but to signify that he adoreth our Lord, who sitteth on high in heaven. If such excuses might take place, if any one might be suffered to use the signs of things to a clean other sense, then that wherein they are taken in the common and ordinary use of men; all societies public and private, religious and civil, would strait be plunged into an horrible confusion. We should not hereafter have any credit, or assurance among men. For as for words, every man might abuse them to signify what pleaseth him; the religion and great care that should be taken of oaths, contracts, promises (a thing so absolutely necessary for the subsistence of mankind) would quite fall to the ground. A woman may think that a man hath promised to be her husband, because he hath sworn that he will take her for his spouse; but the perfidious dissembling fellow will excuse himself, saying, That by the word spouse, he meant a concubine, and not a lawful wife, which is that which the word commonly signifieth. A Judge in France may believe that a guilty person is innocent, because a witness assureth him (upon his oath) that he did not tuer, that is, kill such a man; for whom he is accused. And according to this rule, the witness shall quit himself from perjury, by alleging, That he meant by tuer not to kill (as it signifies in French,) but to keep alive, to defend and preserve (as it signifieth in Latin) by an impudence like that of the French prisoner, who being asked, whether he ever passed the strait of the sea, swore that he never did; meaning by the word strait, not that between Dover and Calis, whereof the question was asked him, but that of Gibraltar, of which none of the standers-by thought a whit. Briefly, all the language of men (that admirable organ of their discourse by which they discover the thoughts of their hearts to each other so usefully) would by this means become a mere gin, a trick to cousin and delude. No man would be able by this means, to understand his neighbour's meaning, any more than if the ancient confusion of Babel were again in the world; every one would become a stranger and barbarian to his companion. And then for actions which signify any thing, If particular men might be suffered to wrest them to another sense and meaning then that, whereto the public hath appointed them, the same disorder would take place. A subject after he hath done homage to the enemy of his natural Lord, to exempt himself from the punishment due to this undutifulness, might allege, That he meant by this act, not to acknowledge the Tyrant for his Sovereign, (which is the common signification of that action) but only to salute him, as we do another man. And the servant of old time in Israel might have denied the service, which he promised to his Master by the sign of his ear pierced, (an ordinary thing in that nation) excusing himself, that he meant the clean contrary by that act, viz. to renounce his Master's service, & not to oblige himself to it for the future. The Soldier in war might wear the enemy's colours, and pretend that he had not for all this renounced his captain. But this abuse will be more dangerous in religion, by how much that should be kept more holy and inviolable among men. For if a man may be permitted to practise actions, whicd are instituted to another sense, and that he may never intend them to that end for which they are commonly used; there will be nothing certain in Religion. For as you will presume to prostrate yourself before the Host of the Church of Rome, and think you may not thereupon be accused of adoring it; so another will as well prostrate himself before images, and offer to them wax-candles, without being taxed of having worshipped them. Another may wear a Turban, and enter into the Mosques of the Turks, and there perform their devotions, without being guilty of Mahumetanisme. For (he will say) 'Tis to Jesus Christ that I perform these services, and not to the God of Mahomet. And another among the inhabitants of China may prostrate himself without scruple before their idols, pleading that he addresseth this adoration not to the Pagode there present (as the idolaters do) but to God the Father, or to Jesus Christ. And if they be permitted to wrest actions thus from their true sense and meaning, why not words likewise? For these are signs of the same nature, both the one and the other are instituted by men, and to the same end; saving that the nature of the words hath oftentimes less reference to their signification, than the nature of an action, or a ceremony: so that a man should make less scruple of abusing it. According to this account, a Protestant might swear boldly, that he believeth, A man should adore the Host: for he will say, that by the word Host, he meaneth J. Christ fastened to the Cross, and not the Sacrament, which they call so at Rome. A Christian might answer without infidelity, That he is a Muselman, or a Jew, or a Pagan, according as it standeth most for his advantage, and may take his oath on it, if need be. For (he ' l say) I take these words in a sense different from that wherein they are ordinarily used; I mean that I am a Muselman that is, a Believer (as the word in Arabic signifies) of J. Christ, and not of Mahomet; a Jew spiritual, not a carnal one; a Pagan by extraction or birth, and not by religion. For why may it not be as lawful to wrest words? if it be lawful to use kneeling before the Host of the Roman Church, to signify any thing else besides adoration of the Sacrament. Do you not perceive that there is the same reason? Since in the use of the Church of Rome it signifies, as clearly, properly, and universally, this adoration, as the words of Muselman, of Jew, of Pagan, signify the men of these three sects in our common language? It will soon appear how dangerous a thing this liberty is, if permitted among men. But is it permitted? God forbid. The laws both of God and men censure them as cheaters, treacherous, faithless persons, who offer to practise it; and punish them as the worst Malefactors. As for men, who knoweth not that their tribunals are for the most part set up to maintain faithfulness and honesty in words, and other declarative signs of our intentions? If one after he have given his promise to a Maid, That he will take her for his spouse, should refusing to marry her be brought before a Justice, and there be so impudent as to plead, that he meant only to take her for his concubine; who questioneth but that such a man would be taken, not only for a treacherous person and a perjured, but likewise for a mocker; and that he should be punished, notwithstanding his excuse? And the subject, who shall leave his Sovereign's colours, and shall do homage to his enemy, and wear his marks and badges; shall he be quitted for saying, That his heart was loyal all this while, and that he did these things with another intention? Shall he not nevertheless be held for a Rebel and (which is more) for a mocker, and a man that hath a heart and a heart, as the Scriptures speak; and one, whom error and passion hath transported into the contrary party, against his Liege-Lord? And if he fall into the hands of the Prince's Officers, will these ridiculous excuses possibly preserve him from infamy, and that punishment which shameless and rebellious subjects deserve, or will he not rather fare the worse for them? Now if the justice of man, in stead of accepting this kind of excuses, is offended and incensed by those, who have the boldness to allege them, how can we hope that the justice of God (which is infinitely more pure and more holy) shall take such for payment, when question is made concerning Truth, and His Service? I cannot believe that there is any man so brutish as to imagine, that after he hath expressly pronounced, That we must adore a creature, he shall be absolved for saying, that by the word Creature he meaneth the Creator. There is no man that hath common sense but seeth, that this would be a pure illusion; and that so dull and gross, as I cannot think any man should ever dream of making use of it. Those very men who are partly of our persuasion, and yet think That a man may with a good conscience prostrate himself before the Host of the Roman Church, will yet make scruple of pronouncing with their mouths, that they must adore it. Now the nature and reason of words, and of actions, and ceremonies, is the same (as we have proved.) Both the one and the other are signs and symbols, instituted to signify our thoughts.  
Since then all Christians agree that in Confessions and declarations of Faith, which we make either by the mouth or writing, 'tis not permitted them to use words in any sense, but that wherein they are taken in common use; we must conclude, That it is not lawful for us to abuse the ceremonies and actions of one Religion, to a sense contrary to what they signify in the ordinary practice of men. Whence it followeth, That, even as by the confession of those, who are our Adversaries in this point, he will sin grievously, that believing the Host of the Roman Church to be a creature, shall say with his mouth, That he must render to it the adoration of latria (in what sense soever he pretend to take these words;) so is it a very sottish fault, for any to prostrate themselves before the Host, having the same belief as we have, the same intention in so doing: Since by so doing, they pronounce as much or more expressly, then if they had said it with their mouth, That they must adore the Host. The action which they perform, signifying the same thing, clearly and expressly, in the common use of men.   

CHAP. XV. An answer to the example of Naaman the Syrian, objected by some.  
Object. ANd whereas they object the famous example of Naaman the Syrian, who, after he was converted to the knowledge of the LORD, was wont to bow himself in the temple of the Idol, and when the King his Master went to perform his devotions, he accompanied him; and bowed himself, that the King might lean upon him at his devotions.  
Answ. In answer, I shall not mention the many interpretations of this passage, that seem to draw the words 2 Kings v. 18. to another sense, than what is now presented. Suppose (which is yet contended for) that Naaman desired leave of the Lord to enter into Rimmons temple, and bow himself there; That the King might use him to lean on. Suppose that Elisha did on God's part grant him thus much; so That this his bowing was no way contrary to his piety to God, or charity to his neighbour: all this granted will conclude nothing against what hath hitherto been spoken. For Naaman doth not simply entreat the Lord to let him prostrate himself in the Temple of Rimmon: in no kind. That had been to entreat a thing clearly and expressly forbidden, which the Prophet would never have granted. But he requests leave, to yield the King that service, which he had done formerly, viz. to wait upon Him, and let Him lean upon him (as 'tis the custom of Princes and great Personages, in state, to lean upon their servants or Favourites) and, That if his Master should require that service of him in the Idol-temple, he might give it him without offending God. This action (if well considered) differs excessively from that we now speak of. For we treat of such actions, as have reference absolutely and simply to the service of that object, which men pretend to adore: whereas this is terminated directly and immediately in the service of an earthly King, and Master. Those actions of the Romanists signify nothing in common use, but the adoration and divinity of the objects, to which they are publicly consecrated: this on the contrary, signifies principally and directly, Only that Naaman acknowledged the King to whom he gave his service to be his Leige-Lord and Master. And therefore, as much difference as there is between the adoration of a creature, and the service of a Master; so much there is there between this action of Naaman, and those which the Romanists pretend to be permitted them. God no where forbids a servant to obey his Master, to lend him a hand to move, or a shoulder to lean on; or to kneel, that a man may be the more commodious and serviceable to him, therein. Nay on the contrary, He commands us in his H. Word to keep all the degrees and offices of civil society inviolably, and bids servants particularly beware of abating aught of what obedience is due to their earthly Masters, under pretence of giving some to their heavenly. But as for adoration of the creature, He very rigorously forbids it. Whence it appears, that though one may lawfully use words and actions that testify the first kind of submission; yet it follows not, that he may exercise such as signify the second.  
I confess, that Naaman's doing this in the Temple of Rimmon, might (by the circumstance of place) give some occasion to another interpretation. For this action which he did for the service of his Prince, being the same, re and materially (as we speak) with the bowing which Idolaters make in honour to their God, and both happening to be in the same place and time, where and when infidels were adoring their Idol; some of the standers-by might think he addressed it, not to the King leaning on him, but to the image of Rimmon there present. And this was it that raised the scruple in this great Personage. For though in his intention this act was only a civil honour to the King, and though in the custom of the world 'twas so esteemed; yet, because time and place concurred so unhappily for it, that it might have been otherwise taken; he doubted, it was not so free from fault as he imagined, and consequently desired God's pardon, and leave to perform his service to his King. So it was this, which the Prophet seemeth to grant him in those words, Go in peace: and their opinion, who imagine that Naaman here served an idol, is not built upon any rational or strong foundation. For since the Prince leaned on him, why have they not as much reason to think, That he was there in relation to His service, as to the service of the Idol. Nay, it was probable that this act terminated in his Master and not in the idol, since neither reason nor the custom of men would permit him to part Religious acts between God and men. And this one consideration (if nothing else could be said) were enough to show that he then minded not the devotion of his soul, but the service of his Master: It being clear, that though he were a Pagan in religion, this Rimmon whom the Syrians served (suppose him endued with understanding or sense, as he were an odd Deity else) would not have allowed a service done to a Prince, to bear a share in the adoration to him. As suppose a Noble man rendering homage to his Sovereign lean on one of his servants who is kneeling, can you with any reason interpret this act of the servant an homage done to the Master's Prince? 'Twere unreasonable, and impertinent, to say or think so. And for the better understanding of my meaning, Suppose this servant were a vassal, and held a farm of that Prince for which he were yearly to do him some homage; would you believe he had performed that homage, by this very assisting and serving his Master upon such an occasion? No, surely. 'Tis evident, that these are acts (though alike, yet) plainly distinguished; one, whereby he cometh to render an honour that is due; the other, whereby he only bendeth his knees to assist his friend. Naaman's case was just the same. The King of Syria gave religious worship to the idol; but Naaman in holding him up served only his Master; not the idol, his Master's false and unbeseeming deity.  
But beside this Circumstance, divers others free this act of his from all sinister interpretation. For ¹ Naaman entered into the idol-Temple only when he was obliged to perform some duty to his Master; he offered no sacrifices; he performed neither this nor any other homage, or piece of devotion there alone. Whence it is evident, that what he did otherwhiles in the Temple, was to his Master and not to the idol. But ² There is more in it yet: for he did not only abstain from all false and unlawful acts of worship; but he made moreover an open public profession, by word and deed, of reverencing and adoring the true God, who was known in Israel. He protesteth as much, expressly to the Prophet, saying, 2 Kings v. 15, 17. I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel. Thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering, nor sacrifice, unto other Gods but unto the LORD. Who seeth not that all the circumstances of this action were so plain, so far from equivocation, that no man of any ingenuity could take them in an ill sense, viz. for adoration to the false God Rimmon?  
Therefore as in common discourse, an honest man may use words which signify divers things (as in all languages there are very many such) provided, he use them only so, as it may plainly appear by the circumstances of his discourse in what sense he takes them, without any design to deceive his auditors with the ambiguity: so it was lawful for Naaman to signify by this act the respect he bore to his Master, notwithstanding the ambiguity which the place and time seemed to cast upon it; since all the circumstances of this act, and his life, and words, showed plainly what he intended by it, viz. a plain serving his Master, no adoring the Idol.  
And now who seeth not, what a vast difference there is between this act of Naaman, and those which we dispute against in this place? For ¹ the Romanists, who bow their knees before the Host, declare not what opinion they have of the object, to which they address that worship, by any other outward profession unless they say, 'Tis God. ² Naaman served the God of Israel openly, and offered him sacrifices; and highly and plainly protested, that he took not Rimmon for his God; at the adoration of whom, the service that he owed his Master, caused him to be sometimes present. But all who communicate with, or continue in the Church of Rome, make public profession of her doctrine; they renounce not (in word, or deed) the adoration of that, to which they prostrate themselves. Who then, unless he can divine, will interpret their bowing and adoration otherwise, then as a testimony they give of the DEITY of that object, wherein they terminate it?  
Furthermore, when they bend their knees before the Host, or deck up their houses against it come, or pass by them in the street; these actions cannot be taken but for a profession of their adoring this, and taking it for a real deity. For such in the common and ordinary use of men have no other interpretation than this: whereas Naaman's act (as we have proved) was properly a duty, which he owed to his Master, and a token of that service, which he was to render to him. But as for the men we speak of, we see no Master they have to lean upon them, nor to enter into their houses when they thus deck them; We see nothing in their Temples, or at their Processions, whereto we can imagine they terminate these actions, but only the Host. And therefore in all reason, they cannot be taken for aught but testimonies of that honour, which they bear to it, and of the Deity which they acknowledge to be in it.  
Thus it appears, that Naaman's act doth not a jot excuse theirs, but rather evidently condemn it. For since he was so scrupulous of the deed (though so many ways qualified, and free from the suspicion of idolatry) that he dared not venture on it, without God's express leave, what think you would he have done, if he had been in the Romanists case? with what horror would he have refused and detested it, since here is nothing but naked and plain demonstrations of honour and service to a creature. All that may hence be concluded, is in appearance to favour those, who serve Kings, to assist them at the ceremonies of the Religion of their Master; if so be their service obligeth them to render any service to their persons; so that the action which they exercise be one of the functions of their charge, and that elsewhere they make a clear and open profession of fearing the Lord only, & that they acknowledge not that for God, which is adored in such devotions. Yet I know not whether the difference that is between the Old and New Testament will permit us to extend the consequence of this example thus far; God having formerly in the time of the Church's infancy permitted in his children divers things, which he forbids them now under the light of the Gospel; where our charity should be so exquisite, that we should rather endure all sorts of mischiefs than give the least cause of scandal to our Neighbours: and I believe, it were more safe to renounce those Dignities, which oblige us to any appearances contrary to our Religion, then to cause any to stumble by our enjoying and exercising them.   

CHAP. XVI. That to think it is lawful for a man to exercise the ceremonies of a Religion, which he believeth not, doth by consequence diminish the glory of, and cast a blur on, the Martyrs.  
BUt to this one example, which they without any reason bring out of the Old Testament, we may justly oppose the belief and perpetual practice of the Saints under the first and second Covenant; who have not more abhorred confessing with the mouth errors contrary to piety, than they have detested practising (amongst those who teach them) any of those actions that have reference to such errors. Holding as well those to be Apostates and deserters of the Faith, who defiled themselves with some false and unlawful service, as those who expressly and publicly professed error. For example, Had not the three Hebrew children in Babylon, Dan. iii been of this persuasion, why should they have been willing to have incurred the indignation of the King their Protector, and to have been deprived not only of all their goods and honours, but likewise cast into a hot fiery furnace, there to endure a very grievous and horrible death; rather then to prostrate themselves at his commandment before the golden image, which he caused his people to adore? Had it not been easy for them, to have kept themselves from all this mischief, by doing that which the King commanded, but in another sense; and with an intention different from that, wherein he required it? viz. by referring and addressing their adoration (whereof bowing or prostration was the mark) not to the golden image before them, but to God the Creator? But this illusion and catch was so far from prevailing with them, that they never once thought of it; but with a brave generosity, befitting that piety whereof they made profession, they answered boldly, at the first word, that they would not prostrate themselves before the statue; thinking (which was very true) That since that action which was required of them, signified (in the custom of that people) an acknowledgement of a Godhead in the inanimate creature, they could not practise it without idolatry, or damnable hypocrisy; and consequently without rendering themselves guilty of a very enormous sin against God, and an irreparable scandal against their neighbours. The same may I say, of all the excellent and famous Personages, that have from the first dawning of Christianity to this hour, with so much courage and glory sealed the truth with their blood. For if a man might be permitted to counterfeit in this manner, and without deserving punishment to exercise impious services and superstitious adorations, (provided that in the secret of his heart, he refer and give those very services to God the Creator, which other men give to the creature) why should those holy and blessed Witnesses of God have exposed themselves to such troubles and sufferings? Why should they continually have made such scruple of casting two or three grains of incense into the Censer, in presence of their Sovereign Prince who commanded them? Why might they not have done this, with an intention of rendering this service either to God, or to the Prince there present (that he might smell the sweet odour) and not to the idol, as others intent and perform it? If this petty quirk of Logic might have made the action commendable (or at least tolerable, and excusable) what an incredible stupidity was it in those great men, not to have used it? Who perceives not that after the rate of our new Sophisters, all the Christian courage of those holy Personages, was but a piece of silliness; all their constancy a sottish and childish opinionativenesse and wilfulness? For who would not judge them either infinitely simple, as not knowing or not thinking on so easy a subtlety; or extremely imprudent, if knowing it they would not have used it at such a time; since for want of using it, they miserably lost both their goods, and lives, and all that was dear and precious to them upon earth? But if the Romanists be in the right, the Martyrs, beside suffering, should have had a deal of crime and sinfulness in their fault: For to lose a man's life needlessly, and to spill ones own blood in a bravery, is an enormous offence against God; who forbids us to violate or take away our neighbour's life, much more our own; and detesting those who procure another man's death, cannot but extremely abominate them, who are the cause of their own destruction. But God forbid, that in stead of setting forth the praises and the glory, which all Christians have ever given to these holy Martyrs, we should be so ungrateful and malicious, as to reproach their memory (by accusing them either of imprudence or injustice) merely to gratify such, as having not courage enough to confess openly what they believe privately in their hearts, would (in stead of condemning their own weakness) tax all those of rashness, who are not so fearful as they. Let us rather acknowledge, that these Saints (whose names have ever been precious and blessed in the Church) have well and rightly judged, thinking that none can with less than such a resolution, perform the duty of a good and faithful Christian, nor otherwise avoid the infamy and punishments which they deserve, who desert so holy a discipline.   

CHAP. XVII. That this dissembling is condemned by our Lord in the Scriptures.  
FOr in truth, God will not be put off with such acquaint devices, which are but mere pretences, and colours, wherewith flesh and blood endeavour to smooth over their fearfulness. He deals with us bonâ fide, plainly and in earnest, and will not own them, who go not the same pace, that is to say, who deal not roundly and plainly with him. As for such sly people as would halt with Him, and walk awry between Him and the world, and varnish over their looseness with false and artificial excuses, He surpriseth them in their pretended subtleties: leaving them with those, whose marks and badges they have accepted of, contrary to the judgement of their own consciences.  
There was doubtless among the Israelites of old, during the corruptions that Ahaz and Jezabel brought into Religion, great store of persons, who overcome with their tyrannical threats, did bow their knees to Baal sore against their wills; and in their hearts detested those idols, which through fear they were driven to adore: some who comforted themselves with a vain imagination, that they might bow indeed to the Idol with their bodies, but keep their souls for God, and so inwardly addressing to Him all their veneration, they should not deserve either the name or punishment of idolaters. Notwithstanding, the Lord not regarding this excuse, excludeth them from the number of His servants; counting none for His, but only such as had not bowed their knees to Baal. I have left me, saith he, Rom. xi. 4. 1. Kings nineteen. 18. seven thousand in Israel, to wit, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him. And then who would not take the rest, who did fall before the images of Baal, or did kiss them, or salute them, if not for idolaters or hypocrites, yet for such, in a word, as God rejected from his communion?  
Long time before this, while the Israelites were yet in the wilderness, where they cast a golden calf, we cannot imagine they were so brutish, as to believe, That that image which they then cast, was truly and really the God which brought them out of the land of Egypt, before it was in the world. All the circumstances of the fact induce us to say, That they took it only for a visible symbol of the Divinity, which should be to them in stead of Moses, who they thought was lost: so that they should have addressed to God the honours, which they gave to that image. But because such services were now become the ordinary mark of idolatry, over all the land of Egypt, where they lived; God without having regard to that, which they might have said was in their intentions, handleth them and punisheth them, (Exod. xxxii.) as being truly and indeed idolaters: for so they are called by S. Paul, where he recordeth their fault, 1 Cor. x. 7. And that divine Apostle in the same place, is so far from permitting us, under any pretence whatsoever, to do any of those actions, whereby superstitious men use to testify their devotion to that which they serve (as prostration before the subject which they adore) that he forbids the Corinthians (1 Cor. x. 19, 20, 21.) to eat the flesh of those living creatures, which they knew to have been sacrificed to idols; and this under peril of rendering themselves in so doing, partakers of devils, and of their Altars, and of depriving themselves of the Table of the Lord, and of his Communion. Was it, because the Christians who eat of such meats, had in so doing an intention to honour Demons or Idols? In no wise. They eat simply of it, for the refection of their bodies, as they would have eaten of other meats, if they had been at hand. Yet because the idolaters esteemed them sacred, and sanctified by the altars of their false Divinities; and because eating at their feasts was an action, which in the common use signified, that one had them in esteem and veneration; or at least, that one did not think, That the service which they used was impure and unlawful, the H. Apostle would not suffer Believers to eat as idolaters did. But you will say, I do it not to be sanctified thereby; I will in this repast, address my thoughts, praises, and blessings, not (as the infidels do) to Idols upon altars, whereon they lay their viands; but to God, our only true Creator and Preserver. No, saith the Apostle; I would not have you be partakers of Devils. I know well enough, that an Idol is nothing; I know well too, that you take it to be what it is. But what ever your opinion be concerning it, you cannot exercise those actions, which are the ordinary symbols of honour that idolaters render thereto, without defiling and rendering you unworthy of the Cup and Table of the Lord. And 'tis observable, That entering upon this business, he useth this preface, Finally, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry● 1 Cor. x. 14. clearly intimating thereby, that he held all them guilty of idolatry, who with any heart or mind whatsoever, exercised any of those actions, which in the common use of idolaters, signified the honour which they bore to that which they served. And therefore, what can become of such people, unless they prevent the day of the Lord by a serious repentance; since there is no sin against which the Scripture threateneth a more horrible damnation, then against this of idolatry? But lest they should soothe up themselves with an opinion that they are not idolaters; it denounceth against them elsewhere the same judgement: but gives them a name which agreeth to them so properly, as they will not know how to disavow it, Rev. xxi. 8. As for the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their part shall be in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. I would fain have these people seriously consider, what these fearful be, that are here thrown into hel-dungeon, with the worst and most abominable malefactors. For if the word signify not precisely those, who (lest they should displease the world) do outwardly conform themselves to services and ceremonies, which in their heart they acknowledge to be a pernicious error; I know not what other sense this passage can bear. The H. Ghost meaneth not those, who in this world are called fearful. For He is not used to put valour and warlike force, among the qualities that be necessary for inheriting the Kingdom of heaven: nor doth He mean those who follow error, and serve creatures with a full heart, believing and approving inwardly, what they do outwardly. For He is not wont to call them fearful; They are rather such as He calleth a little after, idolaters. Nor doth he mean hypocrites, who under an open profession of virtue, hide a filthy and infamous life: though to call them so, were as bad as to call them fearful. The name of liars, which followeth soon after, agreeth to them a great deal better. Nor is there any likelihood, that by fearful he meaneth profane, or Atheists, or open sinners, and malefactors. For who ever heard them set out by this name? And than who can be meant by these cursed fearful persons, which are here ranked in the forefront of all, that shall be inheritors of hell fire; but those, who overcome with some carnal fear, do not confess outwardly that holy truth which they believe inwardly; or those who confess outwardly some error, which inwardly they misbelieve and detest? Thus was it in the Martyrs of Christ not imprudence, but a very excellent piece of wisdom, That they chose rather to suffer the most cruel deaths and punishments, than through fear to conceal that opinion, which they had concerning piety and error. It was in them not a cruelty, but an act of sweetness in their loving devout souls, rather to undergo death, then to perform any of the actions of Pagan superstition; since they had no other way to avoid those punishments, which are threatened to fearful men. And on the contrary, it will be sound, That there are none more sottish, nor more cruel to themselves, than those pretended Politicians, who to preserve (as they say) the peace of the world, and to exempt themselves from temporal punishments, that sometimes betid open Believers, accommodate themselves to the services of one, and avoid the freedom and communion of the other. For as it is prudence for a man, to lose a small benefit, to preserve a far greater; and that is truly and indeed to love a man's self, when he suffers a little sorrow (as a cut of a razor, or a Surgeon's lancet) to keep himself from death: so it is the highest degree of imprudence, for a man to lose his Sovereign good, to preserve one that is incomparably less; the worst of cruelties, to suffer a man's self to perish eternally, rather than suffer a short and slight inconvenience.   

CHAP. XVIII. That this dissembling, grievously offendeth God, and scandalizeth men.  
BUt to the end that no man may accuse the judgement of God of too much rigour against fearful people, Let us briefly consider the greatness and the weight of their fault. First, they are evidently guilty of a grievous and inexcusable lie. For by their action they make profession of believing that, which they do not believe in reality. As for example, he, that through fear prostrateth himself before the Host of the Church of Rome, declareth highly and expressly, that he taketh it for a Deity, deserving adoration: since in common custom that is the sense of this action. And yet he telleth us privately, that his heart believeth, it is not a Deity, but an insensible and inanimate creature. Who discerneth not here a manifest contrariety, between the mind and the body? between the heart and the tongue? And though all lying be unpleasing to God, and unbecoming a man of worth and reputation; yet this is the most villainous and enormous of any other sort. For if lying be far more blamable in a serious then in a slight subject, who can describe or imagine how highly detestable it is in Religion, the most important thing in the world? how abominable in the most solemn and sacred act of Religion, where the question is concerning rendering to a Deity that Sovereign service, which we owe him? Is it not apparently a reproach to the Divine Majesty, who hath so expressly protested that He hateth nothing upon earth, near so much as a lying soul? and to the holy Angels, who are spectators of our actions? and to Men our neighbours, that are assembled with us? for Us, in the presence of them all, to say and impudently declare a thing, directly contrary to what we think; to swear and protest, as it were with the hand lifted up, that we take a thing to be our Creator and Redeemer, which in reality we esteem to be as far below the nature of Him, as earth is below heaven. The most desperate knaves will seldom endure to hear of their having sworn falsely, that the Oxen of another man belong to them; or they come to do it with a soul full of remorse, and a face covered with confusion. The reason is, because the Authority of the Judges, the dignity of the Assembly, the holiness of the Place, the hand which they lift up, and the tongue which they move, cometh into their mind; and privately chastizeth them for violating the truth. So deeply hath Nature imprinted in all men's hearts the hatred and horror of a lie.  
Ye then, who before the face of heaven and earth, before the eyes of God, Angels, and Men, have sworn against your conscience not a slight business, but the most important; that concerneth not this present and sading life, but that other which is eternal; who have sworn, not with two or three words let slip between the teeth, but highly and expressly, with the gesture and motion of all your person; who have affirmed, and as it were sealed, this lie by the most authentic act that is in the Religion of your Countrymen; how can you have the face after such a dreadful perjury to look again up to Heaven? How can your conscience choose but trouble you and avenge itself, for the horrible outrage, that you have committed on it, for your having so violently and wretchedly stifled its thoughts? If after this, it do not prick and torment you night and day, I know not how you can make appear, that it is alive. For besides the enormity of the lie, such faults are infinitely contrary to the respect which we owe to God, and extremely injurious to His Sovereignty. For is it not one of the greatest crimes that a subject can possibly be guilty of towards his Sovereign, openly to bestow upon another, beside Him, the Name and Honour, which is due to Him alone. I know the Romanist will say, That his intention is far from doing it, but 'Tis enough to make him faulty, either to have said, or to have done the least thing like it: so holy and sacred is the Majesty of Sovereigns, that no man may without impiety violate or profane the respect, that is due to Them, with any intention, under any pretence whatsoever. Now, to give unto any thing, which you do not believe to have a Divine nature, the services which are given to such and under this notion, by those among whom we live; is clearly to testify, that you give to another besides God, the honour which belongeth to him alone. As, to bring in our example, for You to prostrate yourselves before the Host of the Church of Rome, or to go on Procession after it, on the day of its Feast; is to declare that you give it the name and adoration of a Deity. I do not affirm that you really adore it. I presuppose that you know in your heart, that it is but a creature, and that your heart addresseth all its service to God only. But because you make this declaration with your body, you witness and make it appear that you hold this for your God. Do you not in your conscience take it to be an horrible crime to commit so grievous an offence against our Sovereign Lord? And here tell not me, I beseech you, that you do not make such a declaration, in prostrating yourself before the Host. For I have sufficiently shown before, that this is the true clear and precise signification of that action, and others like it: and he that will interpret them otherwise, must overthrow the laws and communion of all civil and Religious Societies among men. And to partake of such actions against our consciences, is not only an offence against God, but likewise a most cruel outrage and scandal against our Neighbours.  
For first, one cannot abuse a man, or mock him in a serious business, without deeply violating the holy and respective charity, which we owe to a creature, that beareth the image of our Lord, and hath the same nature that we are of. And I do not see, how one can more apparently mock his neighbours, then by making show of adoring that which they serve, and approving their devotion as good and useful to salvation; and yet to believe nothing less, and in our consciences to hold that to be a mere creature which they adore; and the honour, which they give it, to be an unlawful service and unpleasing to the true God. What greater affront can men possibly put upon them, than thus to abuse and sport with them? questionless did they discern through the mask, under which we hide ourselves, the thoughts of our hearts, and the gullery that we put upon them, when we present ourselves to them in this false visage; they would extremely abhor us for brazen faced Couseners. Did we disguise ourselves thus for their good, or did not our dissembling do them a mischief, they would have less reason to complain. But 'tis quite otherwise. This our vain dissimulation, and fond conceit is a very great scandal to them; This masking and disguising ourselves is to assassinate and destroy them. For do you not by exercising the acts and services of Superstition, in their presence, plainly embolden (or as S. Paul phraseth it, 1 Cor. viij. 10. edify) them in it? Is not this to recommend the same things to them by your example, and effectually to preach to them the belief and practice of them? For example, when you are prostrate before the Host of the church of Rome, doth not your action authorise their belief? do not you thereby warrant them to be more confident in it? You tell them in a language that is dumb indeed, but yet more intelligible, clear, and significative, than all the words which you can use in this subject, That this Host is not at all a creature; That it is the Creator, and Redeemer of the world; That we should adore it, and give it the same honour, which is due to the Sovereign Deity. This, and such language as this, doth your action speak to your Neighbours: nor can they otherwise read or understand, what is the sense and meaning of your heart. Seeing then, that in your conscience you firmly believe that this Host is but a plain creature; do you not see, how you persuade them to adore a creature, which is a pernicious and dangerous error, as I have showed above? You lay before them that which you esteem mortal poison, and seem to take of it yourself, that you may make them confidently swallow it down; which is the most hurtful and detestable treachery in the world.  
Now if those, who poison the bodies of men, are deservedly reckoned amongst the most abominable malefactors; consider how great the horror of your crime is, who plunge not their bodies only, but as much as in you lieth, their souls also, into that, which is in your judgement, a dangerous and deadly poison. And if he, who offendeth the least of Believers, never so little, deserveth a rigorous punishment, and one more grievous then to be thrown alive into the bottom of the sea (as our Lord saith expressly, Matt. xviii. 6.) what thunderbolts and hells shall he be thought worthy of, who casts so enormous a scandal before all the congregation? And if those, who through error mistake a creature for a Deity, are nevertheless inexcusable (as we have proved before) what pardon can you expect, who, knowing well that this is a creature, cease not to prostrate yourselves before it? For the Lord protesteth that the servant who knoweth his Master's will and doth it not, shall be beaten with more stripes, than he who doth it not because he knew it not; Luke 11. 47. And common reason teacheth us, that it is a very equitable sentence and determination.  
Seeing then, that the fault of those, who outwardly practise the services which they hold in their consciences to be false and unlawful, is so many ways contrary both to our piety toward God, and our charity toward men; let none think it strange, That our Lord condemneth them with an eternal curse, who are so mischievous as to commit it. For should He do otherwise, He would forget his own nature, and rob Himself of all those properties, wherewith the H. Scriptures invest Him. He would be no longer the Father of truth, if He left a lie unpunished. He would not be zealous of His glory, if He did not avenge so evident an affront. Finally, He would not be the Prince & Protector of mankind, if He did not condemn those to the greatest punishments, who do so insolently and cruelly abuse poor men.  
And now let every equitable person judge, whether it be possible for Us, in any manner to prostrate ourselves before the Host of the Church of Rome, to deck our houses against it pass by, and to do other the like actions instituted to the honour of it, believing (as, thanks be to God, we do) that it is a plain inanimate creature, and not (as some pretend) our Sovereign Lord and God. and whether we are not obliged by all the rules of Christ's Doctrine, rather to suffer most grievous extremities, then to comply with what the Church of Rome requireth of us in this particular. Indeed, if it were lawful to lie sometimes, and outwardly to witness any thing contrary to what we believe in our hearts; or to make profession of taking from our Lord the glory due to Him alone, to give it to a creature; or finally to abuse men, and induce them to be confirmed in a belief of that, which we esteem pernicious and destructive to their souls; If, I say, it were at any time lawful for us to do any of these things, for fear of separating from our countrymen, I confess, that we should do amiss in refusing to perform the honour, which Rome commandeth us, to her Sacrament. But if all Laws divine and humane for the most part command us under pain of damnation, rather not to fear undergoing all sorts of mischiefs, then to fall into any one of these faults; 'tis evident that having the belief which we have of the Eucharist in the Church of Rome, we cannot perform those services thereto which they require of us, without incurring the anger of God, and destruction of our own souls.  
So that if there were no other difference between them and us, but this alone, it were enough to show, that we were not transported out of an humour, or frowardness, or other small cause; but forced by an extreme and irresistible necessity to separate ourselves from them. Whence it followeth, that in this case our separation was just; That which is necessary, being not to be blamed as unjust.   

CHAP. XIX. That there are many other beliefs in the Church of Rome, which overthrow the foundations of our faith and salvation, as the Veneration of images, the Supremacy of the Pope, etc.  
BUt besides this Article, there are great store of others, to the profession and practice whereof they will oblige us against our wills; which are of so great importance in religion, that we cannot confess them, nor observe them any more, then that of Transubstantiation, without violating our consciences, and exposing our souls to an evident danger of offending God, and losing that portion in his grace and glory, which we desire and hope for.  
For example, Believing (as we do) That there is nothing divine in images; and, That we are very severely forbidden by our Lord to prostrate ourselves before them, under pain of moving Him to jealousy, and stirring up His indignation against us and our posterity: How, and with what conscience can we bow our bodies before those in the Church of Rome, offer to them wax-candles, dress them, and carry them in procession, and go in pilgrimage to places, where they are consecrated, and perform such other acts, as she demandeth of us in her Communion, to testify that adoration which she thinketh due to them in Religion? In times past, when a report was spread among the Donatists, That one Paul, and one Macarius, both Catholics, would come into those parts, and set an image upon the altar, where the Eucharist was to be celebrated; the Christians were much astonished, saying one to another, That to eat there, was to eat of a thing sacrificed to an idol. And Optatus, who recordeth it, saith, (lib. 3, pag. 356. E.) that if this rumour was true, they had good reason to say so. If the holy Fathers permitted the Donatists to abhor the Churches of the Catholics, to avoid communicating with them in the Eucharist, as an unclean and profane meat; in case they could find any image upon the altar, where they consecrated it: How can they be excused, who communicate at the Altars of Rome, partake of her Devotions, frequent her Churches, where we know (not by an uncertain rumour, but by the report of our eyes and other senses) that every one is full of images, where we see them daily consecrated anew, and the people crowding to prostrate themselves before them? Believing (as we do) that Christ is the sole Head of the Catholic Church, with what conscience can we give that title, and this dignity to the Pope of Rome; and kiss his feet, and render him all other honours, which Rome is wont to give him in relation thereto? Believing (as we do) that the truth of the heavenly doctrine is the only foundation of our faith, with what conscience can we depend upon the Authority of Pope or Counsels, submitting to them even the books of H. Scripture, which are divinely inspired? Believing (as we do) that the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the Cross, hath perfectly expiated our sins; with what conscience can we swear, That there is a necessity and efficacy in the sacrifice of the Roman Altar? Believing (as we do) that invocation by prayers makes part of the service of God; and not having learned in the school of the Scriptures, to pray to any but Him; how and with what conscience can we address to so many several creatures, those prayers and invocations, which Rome commandeth us to address to them? And particularly how can we invocate Dominicus a Monk, Ignatius Loyola, Charles Borromeus late Bishop of Milan, and others like them, who we know hated and persecuted that holy Faith, whereof we (by the grace of God) make open profession? By the considerations already represented about the point of the Eucharist, it is easy to see that these articles and divers others (which for brevity sake I omit) overthrew the foundations of Faith and Piety: so that it is not lawful for us to comply with those which hold them.   

CHAP. XX. A conclusion of this Treatise. That They, who are of our persuasion, are obliged to forsake the communion of Rome; and, They who are not, are to prove and try their own faith, before they condemn our separation from them.  
THus, I think, I have sufficiently justified our Separation from the Church of Rome. Whence it appears, how lamentable the condition of them is, who having the same opinion, which we have concerning her doctrine and services, do not depart from her Communion, but accuse us for so doing. For who doth not see, that it is a necessary prudence, and not a vain superstition, to avoid that which men judge to be pestilential and mortal? and that on the other side, it is an unexecusable carelessness, to do and exercise continually, what men acknowledge to be contrary to the glory of God, the edification of their neighbours, and the salvation of their selves? If I may be permitted to address myself in this particular to those, who are in so dangerous an error, I shall conjure them by their piety to God, by their charity to men, by the care which they should have continually of their own and others souls, to think seriously of joining themselves hereafter, to those whose belief they hold, and quitting the communion of those whose Faith they disapprove. And let them not slatter themselves to think, that the Church of Rome retaineth the Apostles Creed, and the sum of Christian doctrine, since it is evident, That one at least of those errors which they add thereto are mortal. For as those good and wholesome meats which a man eateth at his refreshment, hinder him not from dying, if by and by he swallow some poison; semblably, true and wholesome doctrine doth not preserve those which believe it, if together with it they entertain some pernicious and damnable error in other particulars. Evil hath this advantage above good, that it spreads much farther, and is far more active. For neither truth nor virtue can save a man, unless they be pure and sincere, without the intermixture of any ill and dangerous habit; whereas error and vice damn a man, be they mingled with never so many truths and virtues. For as a man though he be chaste and modest, shall not inherit the Kingdom of heaven, if he be covetous, or a slanderer of his neighbour: so shall he not be exempted from hell torments, for believing some principal truths of the Gospel; if it be found, that after all he hath adored creatures, or made profession of adoring them.  
But as for you, Sirs, who continue sincerely in the Church of Rome, verily believing all that she teacheth you, I shall beseech you, That if you do reject our belief, you would be pleased at least not to condemn our separation, imputing that to us for a crime, which inevitable necessity hath forced us to do. God knows with what a deal of constraint we are come thus far; how troublesome a thing it hath seemed to us, to renounce the duties and services which we owe to them, to whom we bear so much respect and love, our Princes, our Fathers, our Friends, our Countrymen. But what shall we do, when we find ourselves surprised with necessity? Ye see that our consciences torment us; that they represent to us heaven and the eternity thereof, hell and its punishments, and (which is more yet) the will of God, our Sovereign Father. This is not a toy, nor can we please ourselves in it. You have seen that our belief doth necessarily bring along with it all these considerations. Shall we prefer yours before them? Shall we violate the motions of our conscience? Shall we disturb the peace thereof; and overthrow that which we beleieve to be the law of our Sovereign God, to please you? Shall we venture willingly and knowingly, to provoke His anger, to avoid yours? Shall we fear less to offend Him, then to displease you? You yourselves (I know very well) will condemn such a looseness, and in stead of approving it, will extremely abhor it. For ye know, and teach as well as we, both by word and example, that we owe all to God, who looks upon the religion of our consciences. Be pleased then to bear with us, if we prefer what we believe to be the interest of His glory, before your desires and our own; And in other things (where your contentment will not overthrow His service) we shall freely acknowledge, that we owe you our whole utmost, & are ready to testify it by actions, & therein to do your absolute pleasures, though it be with the loss of what we count most precious on earth; our blood, our life itself. Only suffer us to reserve our consciences to ourselves, or rather to Him, whole and entire; over which no man can reign without affronting our God. And if you think that the judgement, we make concerning these matters, is an error; be pleased to take the pains candidly to show us it. We shall willingly examine your proofs, we shall bring pliant minds, and as full of prejudice in your behalf as you can wish: as persons that have all the interests in the world to persuade us, to desire to live in your communion, if it may be with the peace of our consciences. We honour as well as you the H. Scriptures, given and preserved to the Church by the Providence of God, to be the laws and fountains of his Faith. Let us (we pray) see you prove from thence the Articles, which you press so strongly, or at least the principles, whence they may be clearly and lawfully deduced. If you show them us, and after such a manifestation we continue scrupulous; we then neither can nor will deny, but that you will have just and good cause to esteem us Schismatics: But if you cannot, or do not, me thinks you should have no reason to refuse what we request, viz. To bear with our separation, and not hereafter to give it the odious name of schism, which agreeth only to such separations, as are made by a pure and voluntary opinionativenesse, grounded only upon the peevishness, ambition, envy, hatred, animosity, or the like passion of such, as depart from the Communion of a Church, without a true and necessary reason.   
THE END.