YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

SUPPLEMENT

GIBSON'S
PRESERVATIVE FROM POPERY :

Smprtrrat t'rwtfe mi tin; JUnraJr totrirarafr[.

VOL. VI.
EDWAEDS ON THE DOOTEINES
CONTROVERTED BETWEEN
PAPISTS AND PEOTESTANTS.

LONDON:
TUBLISHED BT THE BEITISH SOCIETT TOE PBOMOTITO THE
EELIGI0TTS PEOTCIPLES 0E THE BEEOEMATION,
S, EXETER HALL, STRAND.
1850.

HW1 GvSa

THE
DOOTEINES CONTEOVEETED
BETWEEN
PAPISTS AND PROTESTANTS,
PARTICULARLY AND DISTINCTLY CONSIDERED,
AND THOSE WHICH ARE HELD BT THE FOEMEE CONFUTED ;
WITH AN INTRODUCTION,
GIVING AN ACCOUNT OF THE
RISE AND GRADUAL PROGRESS OF POPERY ;
AND OF THE
DECAY OF IT AT THE REFORMATION.
THE WHOLE IS CONCLUDED WITH FULL AND ENTIRE ANSWERS
TO SOME CAVILS OF THE CHURCH OF ROME
AGAINST THE PROTESTANT RELIGION AND THE PROFESSORS OF IT.
BY THE LATE
REV. JOHN EDWARDS, D.D.

CAREFULLY REVISED AND EDITED
FOR THE BEITISH SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING THE RELIGIOUS
PRINCIPLES OF THE REFORMATION,
BY
THE REV. JOHN CUMMING, D.D.

TO THE READER.

Having of late distinctly treated on the Articles of the
Creed, which contain the orthodox faith of the Church of
Christ, I will in the next place examine the Popish points
which the Church of Rome hath presumed to add unto the
Creed, and to declare them to be of equal authority with it, and
absolutely necessary to be believed in order to salvation. For
the Council of Trent, (Sess. 24,) adjoins this profession to the
twelve Articles which are added by them to the Nicene Creed,
that " This is the true Catholic faith, without which no man
can be saved." The task which I have taken upon me in the
following papers is to prove the falsity of this ; and even on the
contrary to shew that the salvation of those persons is
endangered who wilfully embrace those Articles of the Roman
Church, and conform their practices to them.
I have made use of aH those topics and arguments from
Scripture and reason, which are serviceable for refuting the
Popish doctrines ; and among others I have not balked the
testimony of the Fathers of the Christian Church, for the

IV PREFACE.
sake of those that have a great esteem for the Fathers. I know
they may be quoted, and frequently are, on both sides, because
they speak ambiguously very often : but sometimes they speak
plainly and clearly, so that we cannot mistake their meaning.
Our Protestant divines generally, when they write against the
Romanists, labour to answer and solve all or most of the
places in the writings of the ancients which seem to give
countenance to Popery : but I must needs declare, that this is
an 01 away of handling those points. Not but that I grant this
may be done sometimes, for many for the places cited by the
Roman Catholics make nothing at all for them: many of their
quotations are distorted and corrupted, and the sense of them
manifestly perverted. And it is plain that some of the ancient
Fathers delivered many things which are quite contrary to
what the others assert, and therefore Protestant writers justly
make use of those passages to confront and confute those
opinions. So that we can oppose antiquity to antiquity.
It was learnedly and wisely said by one of our Prelates,*
"Although it will be impossible for them (i. e. Papists) to
conclude from the sayings of a number of Fathers, that their
doctrine, which they would prove thence, was the Catholic
doctrine of the Church, because any number that is less than
all doth not prove a CathoUc consent, yet the clear sayings of
one or two of these Fathers, truly aUeged by us to the contrary,
wul certainly prove that which many of them (suppose it) do
* Bishop Taylor's Dissuasive from Popery, p. 6.

PREFACE. V
affirm or which but two or three as good Catholics as the
other do deny, was not then matter of faith, or a dootrine of
the Church ; for if it had, these had been heretics accounted,
and not have remained in the communion of the Church."
Wherefore when there is occasion for it, that is, when we
are weU assured that the testimony of the Fathers is true
and vaUd, and that they speak to the purpose, we may make
use of quotations out of these writers. And this I have done
under the ensuing heads which I treat of.
Yea, I have found it advantageous to the truth to make use
of the very suffrage of the Papists themselves ; for as in all Courts
of Judicature the testimony of an adversary is laid hold upon
with great eagerness, and is always reckoned to be considerable
and of importance ; so in the present case I have made
frequent use of the aUegations even of the Roman doctors
themselves, and of those writers whom they allege to confirm
their erroneous and false opinions.
Whatever else might be expected in this Preface, the reader
wiU find in the large Introduction that immediately foUows.

THE CONTENTS.

PAGE
The Introduction .... 1
CHAPTER I.
Of the Pope's Supremacy . . . 101
CHAPTER II.
Of the Infallibility held by the Church of Rome . .122
CHAPTER III.
Of Transubstantiation . . . 144
CHAPTER IV.
Of the Sacrifice of the Mass . . . . 1 72
CHAPTER V.
Of the Communion in one kind . . . . 185
CHAPTER VI.
Of Purgatory and Satisfaction . . . .197
CHAPTER VII.
Of Indulgences ..... 214
CHAPTER VIII.
Of Auricular Confession ..... 223
CHAPTER IX.
Of Praying for the Dead . . . . 226
CHAPTER X.
Of Extreme Unction ..... 234
CHAPTER XI.
Of Merits and Works of Supererogation . . . 237

viii CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XII.
Of Praying and Officiating in an Unknown Tongue . . 252
CHAPTER XIII.
Of Forbidding Scripture to be read in a known Tongue . . 260
CHAPTER XIV.
Of the Celibacy of the Clergy . . • . 269
CHAPTER XV.
Of the Idolatry of the Church of Rome, or giving Divine Worship
to Creatures ; namely to Angels, to departed Saints, especially
the Virgin Mary, to the Relics of Saints, to the Cross, to the
Elements in the Sacrament, to Images and Pictures . . 279

ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING CAVILS OF THE PAPIS TS.
CHAPTER XVI.
I. That the Protestant Religion is New and Upstart . . 314
CHAPTER XVII.
II. That Protestants disagree among themselves . . 330
CHAPTER XVIII.
III. That the Protestant Churches cannot plead Succession . 342
CHAPTER XIX.
It is proved that the Church of Rome and its Adherents are Antichrist 348
CHAPTER XX.
Mahomet conjectured to be the Eastern Antichrist . . 378

THE INTRODUCTION.

Before I come to give you a particular account of the
erroneous and pernicious doctrines of the Church of Rome, I
wiU entertain the reader with a succinct history of the first rise
and original of these errors, and of their progress afterwards :
and then I will shew how the happy Reformation began, and
took place in several countries, and what the true occasions and
causes of it were.
I begin with the rise of the Popish errors and corruptions,
and of Popery itself. To this purpose we are to remember,
that our Saviour had foretold that there should be an early
defection in the Church, and that this should be promoted
and advanced by false teachers and seducers :' " many false
prophets shall arise, and shall deceive many," Matth. xxiv. 11.
And this seduction and apostasy were predicted by St. Peter,
2 Epist. ii. 1. "There shall be false teachers among you, who
privily shall bring in damnable heresies." But St. Paul's
prediction concerning this corruption in doctrines is most re
markable of aU ; for he not only teUs us in general, that " in
the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed
to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils," 1 Tim. iv. 1.
but he instances in particular doctrines, as " forbidding to
marry," and " commanding to abstain from meats," v. 5, which
we know are the injunctions of the Church of Rome. Yea, in
the very time of this Apostle, this corruption and apostasy
commenced, as he acquaints us, 2 Thess. ii. 7. " The mystery
of iniquity doth already work." The seeds of antichristianism
are already sown. With which agrees that of another Apostle,
"As ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now there
are many antichrists," 1 John ii. 18. Though the Man of Sin
himself, the grand head of the apostasy, doth not yet appear,
yet his forerunners do, who are acted by an antichristian spirit.
And this the same writer means, when he saith, " Many false
prophets are gone out into the world," 1 John iv. 1 . Ac
cordingly we read, that some of the Galatians and other
Christians were taught by those seducers to stand up for
VOL. VI. B

2 INTRODUCTION.
Judaism, and the observance of the legal rites ; and to couple
together the Law and the Gospel, Christ and Moses, circum
cision and baptism, Jewish and Christian practices ; which was
a specimen and earnest of that Judaizing spirit, and that ritual
and ceremonial worship which prevailed afterwards, when
Popery was set up.
We are informed, that the worshipping of angels began
betimes, Col. ii. 18, which was accompanied with voluntary
humility (as we read in the same verse), that is, a superstitious
humbling and mortifying themselves, such as God required
not. And this is fitly joined with neglecting the body, in the
same place ; namely, as chastising their bodies with excessive
fastings and watchings, and the like severities, with an opinion
of meriting by it. All which is rightly styled " will-worship,"
ver. 23, that is, a serving and worshipping God, according to
their own wills, inventions and imaginations.
Thus there were even in the Apostles' days these early
introductions to Popery. And we learn from that caution
given by St. John, "Little chUdren keep yourselves from
idols," 1 Epist. v. 21, that there were some principles enter
tained in those times, that had an immediate tendency to
idolatry. This might proceed from Simon Magus, that arch-
heretic, who in the Apostles' times perverted the Christian
faith, and gained several proselytes to his party. He (as the
ancient writers of the Church relate) held that angels were to
be adored, and that idols might be worshipped ; and adoration
was paid to himself by his admirers. Justin Martyr mentions
a statue erected to him as a god, and Eusebius reports, that
the images both of Simon and Helena (his mate) were
worshipped. So that image- worship, which grew into such
credit afterwards, had its rise among the heretical Christians
in the days of the Apostles.
It is not to be doubted that by the kvvKviaCofievoi, "the filthy
dreamers" (as we render it) which St. Jude speaks of in his
time, are meant those impure seducers, who debauched others
by their false doctrines, which were no other than the dreams
and fancies of their own heads. And particularly by these
dreamers, who are said to " defile the flesh," may be meant the
.Nicolaitans mentioned afterwards, Rev. ii. 15, who taught, that
it was lawful to indulge themselves in uncleanness and filthy
lusts. It is probable, that Ebion and Cerinthus were the
.heretics meant by those that " said they were Apostles, but
were not," Rev. ii. 2. They seemed to be for Christianity,

INTRODUCTION. 3
but they mixed Judaism with it. So that these and the
former seducers made way for the Papal apostasy, wherein all
uncleanness and lewdness are tolerated, and wherein there is a
mixture of Christianity and Jewish ceremonies,
Cent. I. — Thus we see what were the first beginnings of
the antichristian state, even that of Rome. In this first century,
viz. the Apostles' days, and the rest of the time that made up
a hundred years, was laid the foundation for the future degene
racy of the Christian Churches, and more especially for that
general corruption, wbich since hath obtained the name of
Popery. But though error and delusion began thus early, yet
the Church, as to its main body, retained its purity and sim
plicity ; which occasioned that saying of Hegesippus, quoted
by Eusebius,* the Church in the first age remained a pure and
uncorrupted virgin. Yea, the Roman Church itself was chaste
and spotless, " and her faith was spoken of throughout the
whole world." Rom. i. 8.
Cent. II. — But according to the account which the afore
said historian gives, this chaste virgin began to be visibly
corrupted and adulterated by false teachers and impostors
about the beginning of Trajan's reign ; that is, at the end of
the first century, and the beginning of the second. That the
spirit of Antichrist was stirring in Ignatius's days (which was
about the same time) in several heretics and seducers, who
endeavoured to draw men off from the genuine doctrine of
Christ, we may gather from that pious Father's epistles ;
wherein he warns those he writes to against those growing
errors, and strives to establish them in the truth. In this
second age arose some heretics, that defended the practice of
aU lewdness, as the Valentinians and Gnostics; and others cried
up too great a severity, as the Encratitee (of whom Tatianus
was the founder), who declared against marriage, and forbade
eating of flesh ; and the Montanists were enemies to a conjugal
Ufe, especially that of the clergy. This was an early specimen
and essay of Popery, which is the most severe and the most
loose rehgion. It enjoins cehbacy and abstinence, and pre
scribes corporal austerities ; and yet indulges its votaries in
many doctrines and practices that lead to a dissolute life.
Telesphorus, Bishop of Rome, about the year of our Lord,
140,' instituted the fast of Lent, upon a pretended tradition
of the Apostles ; which made way for the superstitious keeping
* TLaoB&voQ xaBapa Kai a.didtp$opogtpeivev rj ^KwX^cr/a. Hist. Eccles.
Lib. 3. c. 32. [Lib. 3. cap. 32. p. 94. Oxon. 1845.]
B 2

4 INTRODUCTION.
of days and times : as did also the warm dispute about the
observation of Easter-day, the Western Church keeping it on
the Lord's-day, and the Eastern on the fourteenth day of the.
month on what day soever of the week it fell out. Which
latter observation could not be borne by those of the former
practice, and accordingly those of the Eastern Church were
excommunicated by the Bishop of Rome. Here began an ill
use of the dreadful sentence of excommunication, which after
wards was made use of on slight occasions. As to the main,
the form and outward rites of religion in this, as well as in the
foregoing age, were plain, simple, and unaffected, free from
all pomp and superstitious ceremonies, as the account which
Justin Martyr* gives of the Christian meetings and service
may convince us. Only he (as well as Clement of Alexandria)
acquaints us, that some Christians, when they prayed in
public, turned towards the East. But we shall find more of
this kind in the next age, to which I pass.
Cent. III.— If we look into the public worship at this time,
we shall find, that, besides the Lord's-day, other solemn times
were observed. I mentioned before, that there was a quarrel
about the keeping of Easter-day, which proves that that was
esteemed as a festival ; and now we are farther informed by
Tertulhan, Origen, and Cyprian, that not only Easter-day but
Whitsunday was kept as a feast of the Church. And so was
the nativity of our Saviour, by the same sad token that on
that day the Emperor Maximinus burnt the Christians of Nico-
media, when they were met together in the temple to celebrate
that feast. Niceph. Lib. 7. c. 6. The Commemoration of
Martyrs was also yearly solemnized, at which time there were
oblations for the dead, which are mentioned and defended by
Tertulhan (de Coron. Milit.) who lived at the beginning of
this century. He tells us likewise in the same book, that the
Christians prayed standing on Sundays, and all the time
between Easter and Whitsunday, but at other times they
kneeled when they prayed. It seems, that standing was
thought to be a posture of gladness : for that is the reason
which is assigned afterwards by St. Jerome and St. Augustine
of using that gesture at these seasons, namely, because they
were times of rejoicing.
The sacraments began to be corrupted in this age, and to
have some unwritten ceremonies annexed to them ; as Trine
* Apolog. 2.

INTRODUCTION. 5
Immersion, that is, plunging the baptized thrice under water ;
the signing of the forehead with the cross at, or after baptism ;
together with the use of oil, milk, and honey ; which are all
mentioned by Tertulhan in his treatise of Baptism and the
Soldier's Crown. And it is attested by him and other Fathers
of this time, that on all occasions, but especially when they
entered upon and undertook any solemn action, it was usual to
make the sign of the cross, as is- practised at this day among
the Roman Catholics. The sacramental wine was used to be
mixed with water, saith Cyprian, lib. 2. ep. 3. And in some
places water, and no wine, was given in the cup to the people,
as the same author in the same place reports. We gather
from him likewise, that there was consecrated bread kept on
purpose in a chest, that they might send the eucharist to the
sick. That there were ministers of different degrees in the Church
in Tertulhan and Cyprian's days is clear from their writings ;
for the former mentions Exorcists, and the latter not only them
but the Acoluthi, Hypodiaconi, Lectores, or Readers : but they
were not esteemed as sacred orders in those times, as they are
since in the Church of Rome. Here it might be added, that
particular habits and vestments were used by the priests when
they were employed in their sacred offices. Public repentance
(which questionless was a discipline used even in the Apostles'
times, as may be gathered from St. Paul's Epistles) now be
gan to be abused, and depraved by too great severity, or by .too
great relaxation. This was much more afterwards, and made
way for Popish penance and satisfaction, and set up indul
gences : which latter were a corrupt imitation of the letters or
biUs of iudulgences ; or (as they were also called) letters of
peace, or pacific letters, which persons who were imprisoned
for Christianity, and designed for martyrdom, used to give to
the Lapsij whereupon, shewing them to the bishops, they
were abated somewhat in their penance and satisfaction : their
public recantation was dispensed with, and they were received
into the communion of the Church sooner than ordinarily.
For the martyrs' sakes (for whom the Church had such re
spect and honour) these Lapsi were thus favoured, and had
this indulgence or relaxation granted them.
Virginity, or a single life, began now to be extravagantly
extolled by the Fathers of this age. Not only about the
middle of this century were second marriages cried out against
by the Novatians, and all marriages declared against by the

0 INTRODUCTION.
Manichees about the end of it, but even those who were not
tainted with heretical principles excessively magnified the state
of celibacy, and equalled it almost to martyrdom. A monastic
life began first to be in repute in this age, the persecutions of
the Christians giving the first occasion of it, when they were
forced into solitudes. Thus Paul, about the year of Christ
260, became the first hermit, flying from Alexandria into the
desert, because of the persecution in the emperor Valerian's
time, and continued there until Constantine the Great.
If now we look back upon what this century hath furnished
us with, we shall see what steps have been made towards that
corruption, which at this day prevails in the Roman Church.
Only this I must add (if I will be impartial) , that these ob
servances, usages, and kinds of life, were neither universal nor
required as necessary. None of them were imposed and forced
upon persons, but every one was left free to observe them or
not. And it is further to be noted, that they grounded the
practice of the foregoing rites and observations upon tradition
only.* That was all they had to say for them ;. for they did
not pretend that they had any foundation for them in Scrip
ture, as the Romanists have done since. But in the general
there was a great corruption in the Church in this age, as we
may gather from the words of a pious Father who lived in the
middle of this century : "The Church of God and Spouse of
Christ is fallen into this bad state, that to celebrate the heavenly
mysteries, light borrows discipline even from darkness itself,
and Christians do the very same things that Antichrists do."f
Cent. IV. — In the succeeding age Christianity flourished,
by reason of that encouragement it found from the Roman
emperors, now become Christian ; the first of whom was Con
stantine the Great, who came to the empire in the year of our
Lord 306. And accordingly this age was renowned for the
multitude of learned and pious Fathers that flourished in it.
This religious and godly prince had an extraordinary kindness
(as became so great and so good a man) for the Church, and
the ministers of it, and he granted to churchmen and their
* Harum et aliarnm ejusmodi disciplinaram, si leges expostules Scrip-
turaram, nullam invenies. Traditio tibi praetendetur auctrix, consuetudo
confirmatrix, et fides observatrix. Tertul. de Cor. Milit.
t Ad hoc malorum devoluta est Ecclesia Dei et Sponsa Dei, ut ad cele-
branda sacramenta coelestia, disciplinam lux de tenebris rnutuetur, et id
faciant Christiani quod Antichrist! faciunt. Cynr. Epist ad Pomp TEp.
74. p. 224. Lipsiie, 1838.]

INTRODUCTION. 7
families. an immunity from taxes and tribute ; and in his reign
it was that the Church began to be enriched by the gifts and
oblations of the great ones. Now it was daily endowed with
lands and possessions of considerable value. But as their
revenues increased, so did their pride and ambition ; and
clergymen could not be content to preside over the Church,
but they proceeded to advance their authority and dignity
over kings and emperors (as we shall see afterwards), which
was the birth of Popery, properly so called. But to confine
myself to what was transacted in this present age, we may
observe, that Constantine endeavoured to settle an uniformity
in the Church ; in pursuance of which the first Council, which
was convened by him at Nice (a.d. 327), ordered that the
Churches of the East and West should all keep Easter-day on
the same day. And whereas it had been a custom (of which
I spake before) to stand at prayers on the Lord's-day, and at
Easter and Whitsunday, now all were enjoined* to pray
standing, that thereby uniformity might be kept up in all
Churches. The Lord's-day, which had been instituted by
Christ and his Apostles, and had been observed from their
time, but not universally and entirely (for from Ignatius's
writings, and others, it is evident that they kept both the
Sabbath and the Lord's-day as festivals), was now by a new
edict of Constantine, commanded to be kept solemnly in all
places. Friday, also, in commemoration of the Passion, was made
a solemn day of fasting by his command, and kept as strictly
as the Lord's-day, say Eusebiusf and Sozomen.J In this age
afterwards, in the Western Churches, especiaUy at Rome,
Saturdays were observed as fasting-days, for which they gave
this as a reason, because this is the time that the Bridegroom
was taken away, this day being between his death and resur
rection. Not only Easter and Pentecost, or Whitsunday, were
observed now as festivals (which is manifest from the writings
of Athanasius, Jerome, Ambrose, and others), but the Epi
phany and the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary. The former
is mentioned by Nazianzen, yea more than mentioned, for he
hath an oration upon it ; and the latter is taken notice of by
Athanasius. Christ's passion was commemorated yearly ; and
the week in which this was celebrated is called' " the great
* 20th Canon of the Council of Nice.
t De Vit. Constant. 1. 4. J Hist. Eccl. 1. 1. c. 8.

8 INTRODUCTION.
week" by St. Chrysostom. The days of martyrs were re
membered with great solemnity, as is witnessed by Eusebius,
Nazianzen, Jerome, Ambrose ; which three last flourished at
the end of this fourth century.
They still continued to " pray toward the east ;" the reason
of which is thus given by Basil, because, saith he, in so doing
they looked toward their ancient country, Paradise, out of
which they were ejected ; for the Garden of Eden was in the
east. Athanasius assigns this reason (if it may be called so),
because the Holy Ghost by David bids us " worship towards
God's footstool." (Psalm xcix. 5.) And Zechariah foretold,
" his feet should stand in the east, on the Mount of Olives."
(chap. xiv. 4.) Therefore, when we worship God, we are to
bow ourselves toward the east. And there is such another
account given of it by this Father, " By turning to the created
light (saith he) they adore the Uncreated one." Such weak
and sorry arguments were made use of by those who re
solved to bring in, or were content to submit to, innovations
in God's worship. They "bowed at the name of Jesus," as
we learn from St. Jerome, who complains of the Jews, that
they " refused to bow their knees when Christ was men
tioned."* The Gloria Patri was occasioned by the Arian
heresy : it was a confession first of all taken from the form in
baptism, " In the name of the Father," &c, and used by con
verts at baptizing ; but afterwards it was made use of as a
short hymn and doxology, in opposition to the Antitrinita-
rians, especially those that denied the divinity of Christ. And
because the Arians held that the Son was from the Father in
time, and there was a time when he was not, therefore some
say that the Council of Nice added those words, " As it was
in the beginning," &c. But others think that Jerome was
the author of this addition. This doxology was afterwards
annexed to the Psalms and Hymns by Damasus, bishop of
Rome, and Jerome's great friend ; for towards the close of this
century he was the first that ordained psalms to be sung alter-
natim, interchangeably, and at the end of every Psalm, Gloria
Patri, &c. to be said.
Now the bones and relics of martyrs were gathered up,
translated, preserved, and honoured ; of which Sozomen gives
several instances. f Because Vigilantius had written something
¦* Ad Christi mentionem non inflectunt genua sua. 3. 1. in Esaiam.
i Hist. Eccl. 1. 2. t. 13 ; 1. 5. u. 9 ; I. 7. c. 10.

INTRODUCTION. 9
to qualify the extravagant regard to the relics of the deceased
saints, Jerome shewed himself very smart in his writings
against him, and most violently and intemperately fell upon
him. Peregrinations to the Holy Land were now first under
Constantine, his mother Helen having travelled thither, and
found Christ's cross, and two of the nails ; and she built two
temples.* And Constantine after that built another.j- So
that now pilgrimages to the sepulchre began to be in some
repute. At this time the monastic life is in great esteem :
Paul, the first founder of the hermetical way of living, was
succeeded by Anthony and Macarius in Egypt, and by Hila-
rion in Syria. Lent, or the Quadragesimal Fast, was kept by
the Christians. But as to the time and duration of their ab
stinence, divers countries had divers customs, as Sozomen and
Socrates acquaint us ; and from what sort of food they should
abstain was not universally determined. Marriages in Lent
were forbidden by the Council of Laodicea (can. 52), toward
tbe latter end of this century. Syricius, bishop of Rome
(who succeeded Damasus), about 388, first "forbade the
clergy to marry ;" but it was seldom practised and strictly
observed until Gregory VII.'s time (a.d. 1074) ; of whom
afterwards. It is said that Anastasius, bishop of Rome, at
the very close of this century, ordered that " at the reading of
the Gospel all persons should stand up."
That rites and ceremonies grew very numerous in the Church
about this time, may be gathered from St. Augustine's com
plaining of them in his 1 1 9th Epistle, where he saith that the
condition of the Jews was more tolerable than theirs was. In
short, there was a plain defection from the former purity that
was in the Christian Church at first ; and Satan, the grand
enemy, was busy sowing tares, whilst the husbandman (who
should have prevented him) slept. Hence there came farther
approaches to that notorious defection and apostasy, which
I am to set before the reader. Human traditions began to
usurp more and more over faith, and wealth and greatness
corrupted the minds and manners of churchmen : for Constan
tine removing the seat of the empire to Constantinople, the
Roman bishops took the advantage of it, and grew greater
and greater, and increased in authority and power, which was
the cause of a considerable advance towards Popery.
Cent. V. - I might begin the next age with observing,
*• Euseb. 1. 3. de Vit. Const. t Idem. 1. 4.

10 INTRODUCTION.
that Pelagius appeared at the entrance of it. And I think
I could make it evident that Pelagianism and Popery have
some affinity ; for Pelagius denied original sin, held concupis
cence to be no sin, maintained that freewill is perfect, and that
a man may arrive to such a perfection as to live without sin
(for this account St. Augustine, Prosper, and other ancient
writers give of Pelagianism, not to speak of many other tenets
belonging to that sect.) And who knows not that the chief
doctors of the Romish Church are asserters of these very opi
nions ? Though it is certain, that in the age which I am now
treating of, these assertions were condemned and exploded as
heretical. And truly the Church, even the Roman Church,
kept herself free from gross errors and heresies (i. e. such as
subvert the fundamentals of religion) from the beginning to
this very time. It is granted by Mr. Calvin himself,* that
she was pure as to doctrine the first 500 years. Their chief
failure and delinquency was as tp matter of rites and external
worship, in which there were needless addition's made to the
first institution in Christ and the Apostles' times. In this
age were continued the former practices of Trine immersion in
baptism, and signing with the cross, and anointing, and other
rites above mentioned. Now began pictures and images to be
brought into churches, and altars were erected. St. Chrysos-
tom and St. Augustine make frequent mention of these latter,
who Uved in the beginning of the fifth century, as well as in
a great part of the former one. A veil was before the altar
(as we learn from St. Chrysostom) ;f and when they be
gan to celebrate the Lord's supper, it was drawn aside.
Lights and tapers were used in some churches in the day
time. In the Eastern Churches they never fasted on Satur
days,, one only excepted in the whole year, viz. the Satur
day before Easter. But the Western Churches observed the
contrary custom, and fasted every Saturday, as St. Augustine
informs us.
The word satisfaction joined usually with the word penitence,
is used by the writers of this age, and they mean it of outward
and bodily inflictions, or punishments, which they underwent
for their faults, called since penance. The severity of excom
munication was extended to the very dead ; so Arsacius, who
was bishop of Constantinople after Chrysostom, was excom
municated after his death, as Nicophorus relates. Monks there
* Institut. lib. 4. e. 2. t Serm. 3. in 1. cap. ad Ephes.

INTRODUCTION. 1 I
were in this age, as well as in the former ; and monasteries of
virgins, who professed "perpetual chastity. St. Chrysostom
describes and extols them, as also the eremites who lived in
deserts, alone by themselves, and fasted and prayed continually.
A new kind of monks arose in this time, viz. of such as lived
in pillars. Simeon was the first of that order, as Evagrius and
Nicephorus have told us. ¦ The celibacy of the clergy was
generally approved of now, though some bishops were married.
They commemorated the deceased martyrs, and feasted over
their tombs, to excess ; they prayed for the dead in some
places, as we may see in Theodoret. They translated the relics of
martyrs and worshipped them. The Litany was composed by
Mammertus, bishop of Vienna, about a. d. 466, for averting
the great calamities which were at that time : and he brought
in the observation of Rogation-week, before Ascension-day,
wherein was enjoined fasting, and praying for three days, in
order to the obtaining of seasonable weather.
Cent. VI. — But I pass to the next century, in which the
Christian Churches went on in the practice of all those rites
and usages which were introduced into the former ages. But
stUl they were not universal, nor the persons forced and
compelled to use them, nor were they deemed necessary to
salvation. They were rather thought to be indifferent, though
afterwards they came to be of another nature. So cautious
ought we to be in admitting things of that kind at first. But
there were new inventions peculiar to this age ; as, the setting
up of regular monks, whose founder was Benedict, an Italian
abbot. Now also the Lord's supper was turned into a
sacrifice and mass for the living and dead. This was the first
rise, of this main ingredient of Popery. The clergy were ex
empted from the civil jurisdiction, by a decree now first made by
the Emperor Justinian, a.d. 536, and thereupon the offending
clergy were tried in the bishops' courts. Towards the latter
end of this century, John, patriarch of Constantinople, claimed
the title of Oecumenical or Universal Bishop ; which was looked
upon by Gregory the Great, then Bishop of Rome, as an in
tolerable usurpation ; and in his letters to Mauritius the
emperor, he warmly inveighs against the insolent title. " Where
is that Antichrist," saith he,* " who shaUchaUenge to himself,
the title of universal bishop? He is near, and at the door."
Which was accomplished within three or four years afterwards,
* Epis. 34,38.

12 introduction.
when Boniface usurped that title. Again, * " by this his pride,"
saithhe, " he shewsthatthe times of Antichrist are approaching."
And more positively yet : f " I confidently assert, whosoever
calls himself the Universal Bishop, is the forerunner of An
tichrist." Thus speaks one who was Bishop of Rome at that
time. And yet we see here, that the notion of universal
pastorship, or the CathoUc supremacy of one bishop, was at
that time stirring : here was a tendency to that which after
wards actually shewed itself ; for though the present Roman
Pontiff declared against this title, yet his successors greedily
accepted of it. About the latter end of this century, indul
gences (in the Popish acception of them) were first established
by Pope Gregory I. styled the Great. Under him it was that
Augustine the monk came into England in pomp and state, to
convert the Saxons, and brought with him ceremonies which
were not used here before. This Gregory was the first that
ordered the picture of the Virgin Mary to be carried about, and
candles to be set up in churches in the day-time ; and his
successor, Sabinianus, turned them into wax-lights.
Cent. VII. — At the very beginning of the year of our
Lord 600, Mauritius the emperor was assassinated and mur
dered by Phocas, who also killed the empress, and her five
children before her face, and then succeeded his master
• Mauritius in the empire. It was this bloody wretch that
bestowed the title of Oecumenical Bishop on Boniface III.
then bishop of Rome ; for Cyriac the patriarch of Constanti
nople, who (as his predecessor John had done) styled himself
Oecumenical Patriarch, had displeased Phocas ; but this
Boniface was in favour, it seems, with this murderer, and there
fore was dignified with this title of Supreme Head of the Church,
and Universal Bishop over all bishops and all Churches what
soever. This was in the year 606, about which time Mahomet
appeared in Arabia ; so that the Eastern and Western Antichrist
appeared together. And here now is the true epoch of the
supremacy of the Popes, and of Popery itself ; for Popery did
not exist till this very time, and the full age of the Beast was
not till 666, which is therefore called his Number. Popery,
properly and strictly so called, commenced not, I say, till the
time of this Boniface III. It is true, papa was a name pro
miscuously given to all Bishops or Fathers of the Church :
for papa is from the old Greek word IIa7r7ra£, a father in age or
* Lib. 6. Ep. 2. t Ep. 30

introduction. 13
dignity. Epiphnnius and Athanasius are styled papce in St.
Jerome's epistle to Pammachius, and he calls Augustine beatis-
simum papam in his epistle before his book de Origine Animm.
The bishops of Rheims, of Aries, of Lyons, of Marseilles, are
called Popes by Sidonius in his epistles : and in all the Western
Churches generally, for the first four hundred and twenty years
aud upwards, this title was given to all bishops. Yea, abbots
and priests had this name bestowed on them sometimes, as is
proved by Lindanus, Panop. 1. 4. c. 80. And it was the com
mon title of all clergymen, saith the learned Vossius.* Thus
it was before Boniface III. but he by Phocas's order appropri
ated the word to the Bishop of Rome, and it ever since hath
denoted the Supreme Head, and Universal Bishop of all
the Christian Churches in the world. To the consummating of
Antichristianism it was requisite that the Pope should be
Universal Bishop of the world, and that Rome should be the
head Church of the world. And this was that which Boniface
III. obtained of Phocas the emperor.
Now then Papacy is the headship of the Church, or claim
ing government over all Churches. And Popery is holding
the Pope to be supreme and universal head of all Christian
Churches : and that body of persons are rightly called Papists,
who acknowledge the Pope to be the head of all Churches.
A primacy of order was before given to the Bishop of Rome,
this being the imperial city ; great deference was paid to him,
and controversies were frequently referred to him ; but it was
Boniface that gave the complete life to the cause, by procuring
all succeeding Popes an unlimited jurisdiction and dominion,
. whereby as lords and monarchs of the world they can decree,
enjoin, command what they please, and all persons are obliged
to obey them. They, by virtue of their universal power, can
impose what doctrines and practices they think fit on mankind.
So then the full and most comprehensive idea, which we are
to have of Popery is this, that it is not only acknowledging
the Pope to be head and monarch of all Churches, but also a
believing and professing of all the corrupt doctrines, and a
submitting to all the evil laws and constitutions of the Church
of Rome, in opposition to the laws of Christ and his Apos
tles ; and more particularly (of late) of the Protestant re
ligion. And now what can be expected but that under this univer-
* Clerici omnes Papfe dicti.

14 introduction.
sal bishop a catholic and general depravation should overspread
the Church ? And so it did. There were tares scattered in
the Lord's field before ; but now the good corn is plucked up
by the roots, and the simplicity and . purity of the Christian
faith and worship are cashiered. Pope Boniface IV., who im
mediately succeeded the other of that name, opened the Pan
theon at Rome, the idolatrous temple of all gods, and instead
of the Pagan deities commanded the Virgin Mary and all
saints and martyrs to be worshipped there, consecrating the
place to that purpose. Hence the Feast of All Saints is
celebrated with us at this day : for on the kalends of Novem
ber that solemnity was appointed to be kept. Now the super
stitions of Rome were spread far and wide ; the elevation of
the sacrament was used ; tonsures and unctions of priests were
in fashion ; canonical hours of prayer were introduced; monks
and eremites increased ; the marriage of priests was accounted
unlawful. The invocation of saints was first used in public
liturgies under Boniface V., a.d. 618. Pope Vitalianus was
the first that ordered divine service to be celebrated every
where in the Latin tongue, in the year 666. In this century,
with the feast-days were brought into the Church organs, and
playing on musical instruments.
Cent. VIII. — We have seen the advances to Popery, and
also the first rise and formation of it : now view its progress j
or if you will, let us observe the several ages of Popery : its
birth, infancy, and childhood were in the last century ; and
now this eighth may be called its youth, which we will find to
be very brisk and active. For Phocas having set up the
Roman bishops higher than ever, they ride over the heads of
all bishops, yea, and of kings and emperors. Pope Zachary
deposed Childeric king of France, and set up Pepin, the son
of Charles Martel, in his place ; for which kindness Pepin be
stowed upon the Pope and his successors several territories
in Italy, and augmented their jurisdiction. Charles, after
wards surnamed the Great, the son of this Pepin, succeeded
him in the throne of France ; and because he was very obser
vant of the Church of Rome, the Pope hoi?.oured him with the
title of the Most Christian King. The great dispute in this
age was about the worshipping of images, and the adoration
of them was decreed first of all in the second Council of
Nice under the Empress .Irene, a.d. 767. But it maybe
said to the honour of the aforesaid Charles, that he, by calling
the Synod at Frankfort, rescinded the acts of the second Ni-

introduction. 15
cene Council, whereiu worshipping of images was approved of.
But at length this main and essential point of Popery, image-
worship, was publicly decreed and established ; and through
the severity of the bishops, those that refused to submit to it
were banished and excommunicated, and otherwise persecuted.
In this century were brought in private masses, a rigorous
abstaining from certain meats, new pilgrimages to churches,
canonizing of saints. All religion was turned into supersti
tion, saith a writer of the Roman communion.*
Cent. IX. — At the entrance of the next century Charles
the Great, king of France, was by the Pope's help made
Emperor of the West ; and to requite the Pope, the emperor
hugely augmented the authority of the Roman See : and, if
Luther may be credited, f he founded as many bishoprics
and cathedral churches as there are letters in the A, B, C : he
exempted the clergy from civil jurisdiction, and ordered that
ecclesiastical persons should be tried by their bishops, and
not by laymen ; and he took care, that their goods, as
well as persons, should be privileged. Now all arts were
used to exalt the Papal cause and interest, and accordingly
the Decretal Epistles of the first Popes were brought to
Ught, or rather forged : for some of them at least are not
received as authentic, but are reckoned as spurious, even
by BaroniusJ and Bellarmine.§ Now Constantine's Dona
tion was first set up to enhance the Pope's temporal power :
a fiction, that tells us, that Constantine gave not only Rome,
but several other countries of Italy, to Pope Sylvester and
his successors for ever, as sole temporal lords and sovereigns
of them. But this donation, or edict, is not so much as
mentioned by Eusebius, who wrote five books of Constan
tine's life, and said all he could in praise of this emperor;
nor by Damasus, one of the Popes of Rome, who wrote Syl
vester's life, and is in all things very particular ; nor by Jerome,
who wrote the Lives of the Bishops of Rome ; nor by any
other of the historians that relate the affairs of the Church, as
Eutropius, Ruffinus, Socrates, Theodoret, Evagrius, Paulus
Diaconus, Orosias, Zonaras, Nicephorus, Bede : and Platina
speaks not of it. Nay, it is disowned and disproved by several
other writers of great note (and some of the Church of Rome),
as iEneas Sylvius (afterwards Pope Pius II.), Laurentius
Valla, Volaterranus in the Life of Constantine, Cardinal Cusa-
* Mezer. Hist. Gallic, torn. 1. t Coll. Mens.
t Annal. jk.u. 102. § De Pontif. Rom. 1. 2. c. 4.

16 introduction.
nus, Guicciardine, Alciat : yea, the great Cardinal Baronius
proves, that this pretended donation was made and devised
above a thousand years after Christ, and first set forth by
Theodorus Balsamon, i. e. eight hundred years after the death
of Constantine the Great. Besides, the last will and testament
of this emperor shews, that this donation is counterfeit : for
as Eusebius, Zonaras, and other credible historians acquaint us,
the emperor divided the empire among his three sons ; giving .
to Constantius all the east parts of it, and to Constantine and
Constans Italy and Rome itself, with all the western territories.
Now, can it be imagined that he would leave that by will to
his sons, which he had given away before to the Popes of
Rome ? The donation then, which in this century was trumped
up, was a mere forgery, and designed (as other things were)
to advance the secular dominion and exorbitant rule of the
Roman pontiffs. Canonizing of saints was first under Leo
III. about the beginning of this century, though some have
said it was at the latter end of the foregoing one : but others
say it was brought in about a.d. 880, by Pope Adrian, and
confirmed afterwards by Alexander III.
About the middle of this century, to the perpetual shame
and reproach of the Roman Church, there was a Pope that
bore the name of Pope John VIII. (successor to Leo IV. and
predecessor of Benedict III.), and was found to be a woman,
and which is more, a strumpet, got with child by a colleague
cardinal, and delivered of her burden as she went to the La-
teran Church in a public procession ; so that the whore of
Babylon mentioned in the Revelation may be understood even in
the literal sense. None were admitted for many years after this
to the Papal chair until they were searched and had undergone
the penance, as it were, of the sella perforata, though now
that scrutiny is not practised. There are above forty writers,
and those of the Roman communion, that own this relation
concerning the she-Pope to be true ; so that there is no ques- ,
tion to be made of it. The Council of Constance, when John
Huss upbraided them with this she-Pope, silently bore it,
and made no reply to it. Their own authors most readily
grant that this was a very ignorant and impious age, and that
the Church of Rome became infamous by its most scandalous
enormities. *" There was never any age more unlearned and
* Steculo hoc nullum extitit indoctius, aut infelicius. Bellarm. ad Rom'
Pontif. 1. 4. c. 12.

introduction. 17
more unhappy than this," saith the great cardinal. And
another of that high rank, tells us, that now " were thrust into
Peter's chair, which is the throne of Christ, monsters of men,
most filthy in their lives, and every way polluted and un
clean."* And he saith, that at this time there might have
been seen in the temple, " the abomination of desolation."
We may from the whole pronounce, that Popery now was in
the height of its youth, and approaching even to its manhood
and ripe years.
Cent. X. — Towards the end of the foregoing century, and
the beginning of this, the corporal presence of Christ in the
eucharist was stiffly maintained, the religion of the monaste
ries grew greater and greater, and the number of nuns in
creased, Agnus Pet's invented, bells honoured with baptism,
and had names given them. This impious invention was first
set on foot by Pope John XIV. about the middle of this cen
tury. And we are told by a great champion of the Roman
Church, f that not only water was used and a name given, but
(as in the baptizing of children) oil and salt were made use of,
and godfathers and mothers are also required. At the latter
end of this century the Feast of AU Souls was first instituted
by the abbot of Cl'ugny, and then allowed of by Pope John XVI.
Ceremony and outward religion swallowed up all. In this
and the last century the Roman bishops became secular princes,
and minded nothing but glory and wealth. It was usual with
the Popes to excommunicate kings, to dispose of thrones, and
to translate empires. Only in the end of this century Pope
Sylvester II., who was promoted to the Papacy by the autho
rity of his friend Otho the emperor (who had been his pupil)
and without the consent of the Roman clergy, did not (as
others had done before) infringe the emperor's dignity and
rights, but caused them»to be restored to him. In the other
parts of this century it had not been so ; for Popes and em
perors fell out with one another : yea, there were great quar
rels among the Popes themselves, as happened when there
was a double election. The infallible men could not agree ;
the rocks split on one another. All the historians that speak of
these times, as Platina, Luitprand, Baronius, Onuphrius, Cia-
conius, Beilarmine, Bale, cry out against the exorbitancy
* Intrusi in Cathedram Petri, solium Christi, homines monstrosi, vita
.turpissimi, usque quaque fosdissimi. Baron. Annal. [ad ann. 908.]
'' t Bellarm. de Pontif. Rom. 1. 4. u. 12.
VOL. VI. C

18 INTRODUCTION.
and horrible wickedness of the Popes, and give them no better
titles than these, gluttons, thieves, murderers, traitors, adul-
• terers, Sodomites, atheists. Wealth had made the Church
wanton, and wickedness had no restrant, was Platina's parti
cular complaint of these times. This is called the dark and
obscure age by Bellarmine and Baronius, and by our Dr. Cave :
and others call it the midnight of the Church, there being
now such a decay everywhere of knowledge and learning.
Theophylact archbishop of the Bulgarians, was the only
learned man of note in this century. All writers agree in
this, that this age and the following one were infamous for igno
rance and vice. From the whole we may gather that the
Papacy at this time was arrived to the age of manhood, but
we must expect it still to grow stronger and stronger.
Cent. XL — The Papal power and jurisdiction being ad
vanced thus far, there are now daily accessions made by the
ambition and pride of the Roman Pontiffs. Pope Leo IX.
about the middle of this century raised the state of cardinals
to a higher pitch than they had ever before reached to. They
sprang first from the parish-priests of Rome, who being many
in one parish, the first in order, or the rector, was called the
Cardinal, that is, the principal priest. And at this very time
the cardinals are priests or deacons of some of the parishes of
Rome, and take their title from them. But they rose to their
high degree and eminency in this century, and took prece
dence not only of bishops but of secular princes. Towards
the latter end of this century, Hildebrand, who ascended the
Papal throne, and took upon him the name of Gregory VII,
advanced the Pope's power above all temporal power of kings
and emperors. He excommunicated the Emperor Henry IV,,
and made him wait barefooted at his gates, and submit his crown
and sceptre to him : and he bestowed these royal ensigns on
Rodolph Duke of Saxony. In this age simony prevailed ex
cessively among the churchmen. The doctrine of transubstan
tiation was asserted and defended with great zeal against those
that opposed it. It was maintained, that the elements were
turned into the true body and blood of Christ, and that the
elements after consecration vanish quite away. This being so
miraculous an act, and wholly in the power of the priests, it is
no wonder that a doctrine which so much advanced the credit
and repute of the priests was so zealously promoted. Pur
gatory at this time was much cried up and defended, toil
being as much for the priest's advantage, as the foregoing

INTRODUCTION. li)
doctrine was for their honour. The celibacy of the clergy was
enjoined first by Pope Siricius in the fourth century ; but not
rigorously and effectually till Pope Gregory VII., a.d. 1074.
Prayers to deliver souls out of purgatory were first appointed
by Odilo, abbot of Clugny, about this time. Now beads were
first used in prayers : one Peter, an hermit, was the inventor
of them. Relics were much prized. Miracles were boasted of.
Cent. XII. — The Papal spirit farther shews itself in its
true colours and figures, and strives to lord it over all. The
Popes endeavour by all arts to wrest out of the hands of the
laity, yea of kings themselves, all privileges that belonged to
them, with relation to the conferring of ecclesiastical benefices
and preferments. The Emperors and Popes quarrel about the
power of investiture and donation of bishoprics and archbi
shoprics. Popes and anti-Popes trouble this century, and
stickle who shall be true Pope. In England our archbishops
of York and Canterbury fall out four or five times about the
primacy. Popes are grown up to that unsufferable insolency,
that great monarchs must kiss their feet, walk their horses,
hold their stirrups, by the same token that Frederick the em
peror mightUy offended Pope Adrian, because he did not hold
his stirrup on the right side. Pope Alexander III. (the suc
cessor of Adrian) set his foot on the neck of the emperor, pro
fanely applying that of the Psalmist, Psalm xci. 13, "Thou
shalt tread upon the lion and adder ; the young lion and the
dragon shalt thou trample under feet." Afterwards when the
Emperor Henry VI. came to be crowned by Pope Celestine,
as soon as he had put on the crown, he kicked it off again, to
let him know, that he could both make and unmake emperors.
About the beginning of the next century the Emperor Fre
derick II. (son of Henry VI.) was excommunicated over and
over again, and at last deposed by the Papal power : but I am
not come to that century yet.
Now in this twelfth century, which I have been speaking of,
the Schoolmen and the Canonists set up, who both were ser
viceable to the Roman interest. Peter Lombard, bishop of
Paris, was the ringleader of the former, and first author of
that divinity composed of Aristotelian Philosophy, commonly
caUed School Divinity. For at the latter end of the foregoing
century that philosopher's writings came into request in
Europe, Averroes and Avicenna, having translated them out of
Arabic into Latin. Lombard leading the way, the schoolmen
greedily embraced this phUosophy, and incorporated it into
c 2

20 INTRODUCTION.
their theology, and thereby rendered this latter litigious, nice,
and over-subtle. Hereby this way of learning (which other
wise might have been of good use) became advantageous to
the Papal cause : for it entertained and held the studious in
play, whilst the projecting men carried on their designs for
the Roman grandeur. And, besides, it rooted out practical
divinity, and introduced needless speculations, and on that
account was not a little serviceable to so bad a cause.
And not only the Scholastical sophisters, but the Canonists
and Commentators on the Decrees of Popes appeared now.
Which was occasioned thus ; Lotharius II. who was then
emperor, revived and reinforced the imperial or civil laws,
heretofore put out by Justinian ; he ordered the reading of them
in the schools, and enacted that they should be made use of
in Courts of Judicature. This was not acceptable to the high-
church men ; and therefore that the emperor's laws might not
be observed, Gratian, a monk, was employed in collecting and
digesting the decrees and constitutions made by the Popes and
cardinals, the decrees and canons of General and Provincial
Councils and Synods, respecting either faith, or manners, or
discipline ; together with sentences and rules taken out of the
ancient Fathers ; and other rules out of the Holy Scriptures.
Of these four the whole consisted. It is true, Dionysius
Exiguus and Johannes Antiochenus Scholasticus, began this
work in the Emperor Justinian's reign ; and afterwards in the
eleventh century Burcardus added to it ; and afterwards in the
next age, Ivo, a French bishop, collected more ecclesiastical
canons. At last, they were perfected by the foresaid Gratian,
in the year of our Lord 1149, and allowed and authorized as
law by Pope Eugene III., and were commanded by him to
be read and studied- in the Universities, and practised in the
Spiritual Courts. This was the rise of that which is called
the Canon Law. Here I might add, that in this and the
foregoing century there was great struggling about choosing the
Popes. They got it to that pass, that several were chosen with
out the emperor's consent. This contributed much towards
the advancing of the Popes, and the interest of the Roman
Church. The doctrines of purgatory, praying to saints, wor
shipping the Virgin Mary, transubstantiation, &c, were sup
ported by feigned and counterfeit miracles.
Cent. XIII. — Scholastic Divinity, which was set up in the
preceding century, increased, and grew to its height in this
following one : for by Lombard's example many studied and

INTRODUCTION. 21
wrote subtilties, and mingled their niceties with divinity, and
obscured all with intricate disputations. The most celebrated
men of this way were Dominic, Alexander Hales, Albertus
Magnus, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas. To the Decrees
(put forth in the last century by Gratian) are now added five
books of the Decretals by Pope Gregory IX., of which I shall
speak somewhat afterwards. At present it may suffice to say,
that by adhering to these and the like writings, the Scriptures
were laid aside to make way for the determinations of men.
The sacrament of the eucharist was hitherto received in both
kinds, but at the beginning of this century Pope Innocent III.
denied the cup to the laity. Under him was held the fourth
CouncU of Lateran, a.d. 1215, wherein the doctrine of tran
substantiation was settled by the pubUc law of the Church,
and defined as an article of faith. And auricular confession of
all sins to a priest was here first peremptorily and absolutely
enjoined. New orders of monks and friars are established, viz. that of
the Franciscans by one Francis, and that of the Dominicans or
Preaching Friars, the founder of which was Dominic before-
mentioned, a Spanish monk, and the Atlas of the Church of
Rome. For they tell us, in the life of this Dominic, that it
was represented to Pope Honorius III. in a dream, that the
Church of Rome was faiUng, and that St. Dominic supported
it with his shoulders : therefore it is no wonder that the Pope
confirmed this order. The Augustine and the CarmeUte Friars
were now also instituted, and a mighty reverence was paid
to them all by all sorts of persons, and happy were those that
had the honour to be buried in a monk's cowl. Thus the
superstitions of Rome were daUy increased, and their jurisdic
tion and principles established. Only I will add, that the
Church of Rome had a considerable loss about the beginning
of this age, viz. by the Greek Churches falling off from her,
and renouncing aU communion with her: Pope Boniface VIII.
was the first that instituted the Jubilee about a.d. 1300, at the
beginning of the fourteenth, or end of the thirteenth century.
Cent. XIV. — In the close of the last, and the beginning of
this century, which I am now entering upon, under Pope
Boniface VIII. (who, as Platina, Nauclerus, Sabellius, and
other historians say, was one of the wickedest Popes that ever
sat in the chair, of whom it was said, he entered like a fox,
reigned Uke a Uon, and died like a dog) Popery was at its full
growth, in respect of the elevated state, authority, and tyranny

22 INTRODUCTION.
of the Pope, cardinals, and bishops. The Popes were profane
and profligate, and are so described by the Roman writers
themselves. Monks increased, and grew very dissolute and
impious in their lives ; so grossly, that they were abhorred by
the people. Now (as formerly) visions and revelations and
miracles were feigned to confirm the doctrines of purgatory,
saints-worship, relics, &c. The schoolmen went on still to
amuse men with dry and sapless notions, subtilties and intri
cacies ; the chief of whom were Scotus, Durandus, Holcot and
Occham. And they were split into two divisions according to
the style of those times, viz. the Nominals, the head of whom
was Occham; and the Reals, the chief of whom were Scotus
and Thomas. The canonists were now improved by a new
accession to the canon law : for before only they had the books
of decrees and canons before-mentioned ; with the books of
the Decretals put forth by Gregory IX., which for the greatest
part of them are the epistles of ancient Popes, written either
by some Pope alone, or by a Pope and his cardinals, at the
suit of one or more persons, for determining some controversy
relating to religion. Now a sixth book was added by Boniface
VIII. a.d. 1297. After that Clement V. made his Constitu
tions and Canons in the Council of Vienna, which are called the
Clementines. They were published after his death by Pope
John XXII. his successor, a.d. 1317. To which soon were
added the Constitutions called the' Extravagants by the said
John and other Popes. Afterwards Gregory XIII., about
1575, corrected all the former collections of canon law, and
put out the body of the Jus Canonicum, as now.
Here by the way it might be observed that this Pontifician
or Canon Law hath some analogy with the imperial one : foi
theDecrees answer to thePandects ; the Decretals to theCodex; ,
the book of the Clementines and Extravagants to the Novells;
and Pope Paul IV. about the middle of the sixteenth century
caused the Institutions of the Canon Law to be made, which
answer to Justinian's Institution. All this was to make up
Popery as complete as they could, and to establish it with all
its corruptions, as a firm law. I will end with the reflection
of a learned prelate,* " The body of the Canon Law (saith he)
was made by the worst and most ambitious Popes, Pope
Alexander III. who made Gratian's decree to become law;
Gregory IX., Boniface VIII., Clement V., John XXII. per-
* Bishop Taylor.

INTRODUCTION. 23
sons bloody, cruel, traitors to their princes, &c." Platina and
Polydore Virgil affirm, that the first who sold indulgences and
made a merchandise of them was Pope Boniface IX. a.d.
1390, but the first use of indulgences was a considerable
time before, in the time of Pope Alexander III., about a.d.
1160. Cent. XV. — The Popes generally are great villains; three
of them now are deposed by the Council of Constance, and a
new one chosen. The next but one after him is deposed by
the Council of Basle. And if Pope Sixtus IV. and Pope
Alexander VI. had met with the same discipline, it would
have prevented unspeakable mischiefs, outrages, and villanies.
Though the forenamed Council of Constance, which was as
sembled at the beginning of this fifteenth age, did well in
casting off the foresaid Popes, yet they did as ill in condemn
ing John Wickliffe's doctrine, and John Huss and Jerome of
Prague to be burnt. This was the first Council that " took
away the cup from the people," and appointed the half-com
munion, that is, the communion under one kind, in a plain
defiance of Christ's command ; thereby settling that point of
Popery, which before was not established with such authority,
although they generally denied that element to the people ;
and Pope Leo (as was said before) was a great forwarder of
that practice. The first Councfl that approved of the seven
sacraments was that of Florence, a.d. 1439, though among
the Popish writers, Hugo de St. Victore, a Parisian monk,
who flourished about a.d. 1130, and Peter Lombard bishop
of Paris, who lived about a.d. 1140, were the first that
asserted and defined the number of the sacraments to be seven,
vis. baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, penance, extreme
unction, holy orders, and matrimony. In this Council purga
tory was received and established first, though in St. Augus
tine's time it was started : but it was first made a doctrine
of faith by the Florentine CouncU. In the year 1476 Pope
Sixtus IV. sent forth his decree for the solemnizing the new
feast of the Conception of the Virgin Mary in the Church for
ever. In this age the whole set of Romish doctrines and errors
was completed ; the tyranny of the Bishops of Rome consum
mated ; the pride, luxury, lust, profaneness of the Roman
Catholics filled up, and all the vices culminant. These were
so excessive and notorious, that some considerate persons of

24 INTRODUCTION.
their own communion were not ashamed or afraid to inveigh
openly against them, and to cry aloud for a reformation. Thus
we have seen the infancy, youth, and riper years of this
Popish monster. It only wants the last stroke to complete
all its lineaments, and that you shall have in the Council of
Trent. But even before that we shall take notice of its de
clining age, to render our relation of these matters the more
plain and perspicuous, the more orderly and methodical.
Cent. XVI. — There are now nine hundred years past, since
Popery was first erected; audit hath by all arts and methods
imaginable been brought to its height. And now, when it is
so high and rampant, we are to observe how it is at the same
time verging to a declension. For there having been way made
for it before by the complaints of several eminent persons in
former ages against the corruptions of the Church, at length
the emperor and princes of Germany attempted a reformation,
which was occasioned and began by the following occurrence.
In the year 1515 Pope Leo X. (the same that told Cardinal
Bembus that Christianity was a profitable fable), a vicious
and profligate wretch, (as he is acknowledged by their own
writers), to maintain the vast expenses he was at, sent out his
indulgences through all Christendom, where Popery had foot
ing, and the rate was set upon every sin. With the collectors
of this money he sent preachers to acquaint the people with
the benefit of indulgences, to cry up the necessity and excel
lency of them.* Among other places they come to Germany,
where Tetzel, a Dominican friar, was the chief manager and
disperser of the indulgences, and endeavoured to persuade
the people, that these were no other than " reconciliations be
tween God and man ;"f and therefore as they hoped to be
taken into the divine favour, they must part with their pence,
and buy up these pardons with all speed. If they neglected
to comply with this motion, they must expect to be recom
pensed with innumerable curses and plagues in this life, and
be sent into eternal torments at their death, without the favour
of touching at purgatory. When these impious and profane
merchandizers came to Wittemberg upon the Elbe, a city of
Saxony, Martin Luther, who had been an Augustine friar, and
was now a student (and afterwards doctor and professor of
divinity), in this University, preached and wrote against them.
* Thuan. Hist.l. 1. t Coll. Mens. cap. 23.

INTRODUCTION. 2;>
Tetzel and Eckius and several other Popish divines drew their
pens against him, and maintained that the Pope* by his in
dulgences could not only pardon past sins, but even those
which any person intended and resolved to commit in the fol
lowing part of his life. And particularly Tetzel asserted, that
the cross of indulgence, which the Pope had erected and ap
pointed, was of equal power and value with the cross of Christ.
These abominable doctrines forced Luther to oppose them, and
by pen and discourse to withstand these intolerable abuses put
upon the people, and at the same time to preach and write
against other corruptions in the Romish Church, and even
against the Pope, the author of these evils, and to call for a
reformation, and to shew the absolute necessity of it. This
was in the year of our Lord, 1517, which was the eighth year
of our King Henry VIII.'s reign. So that we may date the
Reformation in Germany from this year.
Luther went on civiUy and calmly, and with great submis
sion at the first. He offered to dispute, and gave in his theses :
he humbly addressed himself to the Pope : he meekly suppU-
pUcated his hohness.f But when he saw that he was ill used,
and without any reason, he grew warm and fierce ; or rather,
he did but give proof of his usual temper. For his heat and
fierceness was not his fault, but his natural temper and dispo
sition, which Providence made use of to great purposes. This
made him a fit instrument to undertake and carry on those
great enterprises, which he was designed for ; whereas, if he
had been of a calm and soft nature, he could have done little
at that time. Thus we see, that the Divine Wisdom raises up
such instruments as are proportioned to their work. Elijah,
of a fiery spirit, was fit for the declining and desperate state of
Israel. Luther, the German EUas, was made for the business
he was employed in ; that is, he was warm and active, bold
and daring, and of an heroic spirit. Erasmus told the Duke
of Saxony that Luther had two faults, which were these ; he
would touch the monks' belhes, and he would touch the Pope's
crown. In another letter to the said duke he represents him
right, when he saith, "Luther gave the world a violent and
bitter potion ;" J which was yet necessary, if we consider the
disease it laboured under. Therefore in an epistle to Me-
lancthon he tells him, that " the manners of Christians were
* ibid. t Hist. Cone. Trid.
t Lutherus porrexit Orbi pharmacum violentum et amarum.

26 INTRODUCTION.
so corrupted everywhere, that they required some cruel and
pitiless chastiser."* And afterwards in the same epistle he
grants, that their manners deserved no other than an " unmer
ciful physician, one that would heal their maladies by cutting
and burning."f Such a one was Luther, and such he owned
himself to be : " No man (saith he) had been so bold as to
fall upon Popery; for the Pope carried this style, Noli me
tangere."X "I am (saith he) the Pope's perch, that hath
sharp fins, and so the Pope is not able to devour me."§ And
after this blunt fashion he tells us, that " the Pope had found
a hedgehog of him to chew upon."|| Again, he saith of him
self, " It pleased God to lead me on into the mouth of the
cannon, like a bar-horse that hath his eyes bUnded, and seeth
not who runneth upon him."^f This boldness, this confidence,
this fortitude it was, that rendered him so fit and able to
grapple with those difficulties which lay in his way.
And upon other accounts he was an excellent person and an
eminent man of God. The University of Wittemberg, where
Luther lived and conversed, wrote to the Pope on his be
half, and gave him a most illustrious character, and an ample
testimony of his learning and holy life. " Luther was (saith
a reverend and learned doctor of our own Church) as worthy
a divine as the world had in those times, or in many ages be
fore, and that for clearing sundry points of greatest moment
in our Christian profession, much obscured and entangled
before with the intricate disputes of schoolmen ; all succeeding
ages shall be bound to honour his happy memory."** He was
a person of great sense, parts, wit, and eloquence; of a very
piercing judgment, and of very great literature. His skill in
the Hebrew tongue was a prodigy in those days ; he translated
the Old Testament out of that language into High-Dutch,
or the German tongue. He was admired and reverenced by
the best and wisest men of that age, even such as were but
moderate or indifferent themselves. All applauded his sin
cerity and uprightness in the cause, amidst so great tempta
tions, if not to betray it, yet to let it fall and sink. It was a
commendation that one of the cardinals gave of him, that he
* Sic undique corrupti mores Christianorum flagitabant immitemaliquem
castigatorem. Erasm. Ep. lib, 19. Epist. 3.
t Fortasse nostri mores meruerunt tarn inclementem medicum, qui
sectionibus etusturis curaret morbum.
t Coll.Mensal. § Ibid. || Ibid. f Ibid.
"* Field, on the Church. 1. 3. c. 42. [p. 342. vol. 1. Camb. 1847.]

INTRODUCTION. 27
" cared not for gold." And as he lived, so he died an irrecon
cilable enemy to Rome ; for about three hours before his death
he called for a pen, and wrote this verse ;
Pestis eram vivus ; moriens, ero mors tua, Papa ;
which was part of the inscription on Luther's effigies, set up
by the Duke of Saxony over his tomb. He began to preach
and write in the thirty-fourth year of his age, a.d. 1517, and
so he continued writing and preaching about twenty-nine years,
and died in his chmacteric year, a. d. 1546.
But to return back ; God having raised up this eminent
person to amend and reform this age, and to give a check to
the corruptions of Popery, he Ukewise put it into the hearts of
some princes and great men to espouse the same cause ;
among whom the Duke of Saxony was the chief. At the Diet
at Augsburg in the year, 1530, in the time of the Emperor
Charles V., the German princes exhibited a confession of faith
drawn up by Philip Melancthon, and some other moderate
divines, with a solemn protestation, because of that perilous
time : whence, as some think, they and all others afterwards,
that embraced the Augustan confession, had the name of
Protestants. But others, and more probably, think (as Sleidan
relates) that Protestants were caUed so from the protestation
made at the Diet of Spire, a.d. 1529, by the Princes of Saxony,
Brandenburg, Lunenburg, the Landgrave of Hesse, &c. together
with some free states of Germany, against the decrees made by
other princes and states of that empire about the Popish points
and doctrines ; at which time they appealed to the Emperor.
Hence the name of Protestant came, and was afterwards
appUed to aU that renounced Popery, and were friends of the
Reformation. At the same time with Luther, or thereabouts, there were
other reformers of rehgion, as ZuingUus, O3colampadius, &c.
in Switzerland. The former of these, who was the most con
spicuous, was a canon of the church of Zurich, and appeared
against the corruptions of Rome a year before Luther did the
same in Germany. He prevailed with five of the thirteen
of the cantons to entertain his doctrine ; and the Reformation
was entirely received at Zurich, in the year 1523. It is true,
the ZuingUans and Lutherans did not agree among themselves
about the sacrament of the Lord's supper : for the former held,
that it is only a commemoration of Christ, but the latter were
of opinion that Christ's body is really in the sacrament. But

28 INTRODUCTION.
though the difference between them, especially at that time,
was very unhappy, yet we make a very good use of it, and
thence assure ourselves, that both parties set about the Refor
mation with sincere and uncorrupt designs. It is an argument,
that these Reformers did not confer notes ; that there was no
such thing as human contrivance and compact among them.
For if there had been any thing of this nature, they would
have taken care to hold the same things exactly ; they would
have provided that there should be no dissension among them.
And moreover, this is to be remembered (which shews they
were not so divided as not to attend to an accommodation),
that both parties (as well Zuinglians as Lutherans) subscribed
to the Augustan confession, and did not insist upon their
particular sentiments and persuasions. And although God
was pleased to let these rehgious men disagree (as Paul and
Barnabas, and other holy men in the primitive times) yet they
all united in the main, in the opposing of the growing tyranny
of the Papal adversaries. Whatever their disagreements were
on other accounts (which they were not so well informed in, in
those early times of reformation) they all entirely agreed to
reject and withstand the corruptions of Rome, and the super
stitions and false doctrines of that Church.
From Germany and Helvetia the Reformation passed to
other countries, as Sweden, in the year of our Lord 1525; and
to Piedmont and Geneva, about the year 1532. Particularly
the latter of these was converted to the Protestant religion by
two ministers of Piedmont, whose names were Farel and Viret.
Four years after this Calvin came hither : the famous Calvin,
who with indefatigable pains promoted the Protestant religion
and interest. A year after, viz. a.d. 1537, Denmark received
the reformed faith and rehgion. Soon after this the Refor
mation was spread into France, some parts of Poland, the
Low Countries, especially Holland, some part of Hungary and
the adjoining provinces : and even in Italy, Zanchy and Peter
Martyr endeavoured to propagate the principles of the Reformed
religion. And I should next more particularly and distinctly
shew how this great blessing was introduced into our own
nation. But before I do that, I will shew how busy the Church of
Rome was in preventing and hindering the farther increase of
the Reformation ; and, if it were possible, to retrieve what had
been lost from her, and to regain the countries which had
revolted from her. Indeed it was time for the Pope and con-

INTRODUCTION. 29
clave to look about them, and to study what methods should
be used to support the Roman cause, when there was so great
opposition made against it ; and that not only in Germany (of
which I have chiefly spoken hitherto) but in other countries.
Accordingly under Pope Paul III. the order of the Jesuits was
erected by Ignatius Loyola, a Spanish soldier, and was designed
to be a prop to Popery, and an antidote against the poison of
the Reformation. This society consists of three ranks of
persons ; first, lay-people, gentlemen and ladies, merchants,
widows, who associate with that order, and live under its
government, in the performance of blind obedience. Secondly,
priests and laymen, that take the habit of the society on them,
and are called Jesuits in vow. Thirdly, politic Jesuits, who
govern the rest of the order, and are called Father- Jesuits.
The most considerable persons of this society are the vassals
of the Roman see, ready to undertake anything enjoined by
their superiors. They are the Triarii in the Romau army,
who bear the brunt of the battle. They are the true Proteus's
that turn themselves into any shape, and can fashion them
selves to any conversation of men, to dive into their designs.
Their talent Ues much in supplanting of nations and churches,
and their contrivances are deep and secret, and they work
under ground ; (and therefore it was not an improper punish
ment to send them to the mines, as one of the Swedish kings
ordered concerning any Jesuits that should be seized in his
kingdom.) Another effectual way to stem the torrent of the Reformation
was thought to be a General Council ; and accordingly a
Council was convened at Trent, a.d. 1546, which was about
thirty years after Luther first appeared against Popery. It
was held under three Popes successively ; Paul IIL, Julius III.
and Pius IV., and it lasted eighteen years. But it did by no
means deserve the name of a General Council ; for m> bishops
from Germany, France, Sweden, Poland, Helvetia, Denmark,
England, or Scotland, were at this assembly. There were not
the three Eastern patriarchs, namely of Constantinople, Alex
andria, and Antioch. None of the representatives of the
Churches of Grecia, Armenia, Persia, Egypt, Ethiopia, the
Abyssines, or the Indians were there. It consisted of not
above threescore bishops, and forty ordinary divines ; though
at the end above two hundred bishops, most of them Italians,
were poured in, to determine the points that had been debated.
Besides, this Council was not rightly called, and therefore was

30 INTRODUCTION.
null : for it always belonged to emperors and kings, not to
Popes, to convene Councils. And farther, the Pope was not
to preside in it (as he did), for he was a party. And more
over, Trent was not a free place at that time for discussing of
truth. In short, both from Father Paul and Cardinal PaUavi-
cini it appears, that the Council of Trent was packed, and
things were carried on with design, and a prevailing faction
did all. There was no free debate, for they were awed and
frightened by the Pope, to whom they had taken an oath of
obedience in all things. In short, the portmanteau that came
weekly from Rome decided all ; and upon that account it must
be expected, that the errors and corruptions of the Church of
Rome should be favoured by it.
And so they were, yea, and more than favoured ; for they
were ratified and established. The doctrine of unwritten tra
ditions, viz. tbat " they are to be received and entertained
with the same piety and reverence that the Scriptures are,"
was first of all asserted by the Fathers of this Council, Sess. 4.
The number of the canonical books of the Old Testament is
new, and was not reckoned up by them, as it was of old by the
ancient Church of the Jews, and by Athanasius, Epiphanius,
Jerome, and by the CouncU of Laodicea, Can. 59. It was never.
so made up, until the Council of Trent determined it, Sess. 4.
The doctrines of merit, supererogation, purgatory, &c, were
not determined till now, by a Council that bore the name of
Oecumenical. Now they are defined to be the Catholic
doctrines of the Roman Church, and all are anathematized
that own them not. Here are now twelve new articles of
faith added to the Creed ; that it may not be complained,
tbat there is not a full and complete draught of Popery. Now
the Popish rehgion is not the doctrine of Bellarmine, or any
private man, nor of the Sorbonne, or Jesuits, or the Domini
cans, or any particular company and society : but the doctrine
of the Council of Trent is that which must decide and conclude
all. And as for the redress of other mischiefs, such as relate
to the life and manners of men, especially of the clergy, the
Council would not hearken to it, although the Bishop of
Bitontum and Bartholomew Caranza in their speeches in that
assembly, pathetically set forth the corrupt state of Rome, and
earnestly cried aloud for a reformation.
But I must go back again, and pursue my designed method.
Having seen how the Reformation went on abroad, and ho«
the Church of Rome endeavoured to obstruct it, yea to i

INTRODUCTION. 31
and confound it, I will now (according to what I propounded)
shew how the Reformation began, and proceeded at home.
And here I shall not only give an account of the rise and
progress and several advances of the Reformation in England ;
but likewise prove the lawfulness of it. In the year 1509,
King Henry VIII. came to the crown, who was eminent for
his great parts, and for his acquired endowments : he was a
very learned prince, after the rate of learning then. After he
had been above twenty years on the throne, God made use of
him as a fit instrument to reject the Papal authority here iu
England. The Pope's whole jurisdiction and power over the
Church and nation were in a full ParUament of all the Lords
spiritual as well as temporal declared null, and the King of
England was owned and received to be by ancient right in all
causes over aU persons, as well ecclesiastical as civil, supreme
head and governor. And likewise the King obtained of his
bishops and clergy in their Convocation to be acknowledged
supreme head on earth of the Church of England. And then
first of aU, at a Convocation, the points of religion began to be
altered, which were contained in a little book, that came forth,
called " Articles devised by the King's highness to stablish
Christian quietness and unity," &c. In the same year in
junctions came out, for the abrogating of certain holy-days :
and afterwards other injunctions against the superstitious use
of images, reUcs, pilgrimages ; and according to these in
junctions, many images were pulled down. At this time was
the utter ruin of abbeys and monasteries, by the special motion
of the Lord CromweU, who favoured the Protestant cause.
It is not to be denied, that the number of rehgious houses (as
they called them, though for the vices practised in them they
deserved a contrary name), were increased to a great excess,,
so that England seemed to be one great monastery. The re
venues of these places amounted to ^6183,707. 13s. a-year ;
all which income was generally spent by those that had a
great hand in upholding the corruptions and superstitions of
the Church, and who by their idle and dissolute living en
couraged and even authorized wickedness. Hereupon there
justly followed a great dissolution of abbeys, and a suppression
of the orders of friars, monks and nuns, a. d. 1538, and in
the thirtieth year of Henry VIII. He erected six new bi
shoprics, with canons and prebends out of this dissolution :
but if the whole revenue had been laid out in unexceptionable
works of piety and charity, it would have been a more signal

32 INTRODUCTION.
proof of that prince's good intentions, and would have re
dounded to the credit of his undertaking. But we are not
able to judge of the circumstances he was in at that juncture,'
and therefore it becomes us to be sparing in our censures.
This we know, that pursuant to certain injunctions children
were to be taught the Creed, Lord's Prayer, and Ten Com
mandments in the English tongue, and an English Bible was
to be provided for every church. And accordingly in this
king's days the Bible was turned into English by the care and
oversight of Miles Coverdale, and was allowed of, and ordered
to be set up in churches, but not commanded to be read, as
part of the service. The Liturgy still remained in the Latin
tongue, except only the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and Ten
Commandments (as was hinted before), and the Epistle and
Gospel were rehearsed in the Church in English. And after
wards the Litany was translated into the same tongue.
Notwithstanding these alterations, the great doctrines of
the Church of Rome still were upheld, and that with great
severity: for a Parliament and Con location met a. d. 1540,
wherein it was made heresy and death to deny any of those
six articles, viz. 1. After the speaking of the words of conse
cration by the priest, the real and natural body and blood of
Christ are in the sacrament, and the substance of bread and
wine vanishes, and is no more. 2. The communion in both
kinds is not necessary to salvation by the law of God to all
persons. 3. Priests, after orders received, may not marry by
the law of God. 4. Vows of chastity ought to be observed
by the laws of God. 5. Private masses are to be admitted
and continued. 6. Auricular confession must be retained and
frequented by the people, as of necessity to salvation. Thomas
Cranmer, then Archbishop of Canterbury, endeavoured to
hinder the passing and enacting these articles, yet he was not
able to prevent it; and several people were hurried to the
flames, because they would not consent to them. It was an
amazing sight, in those times, to see in the same day Papists^
and Protestants suffering at the stake. The latter for denying*
the real presence ; and the former for denying the king's su
premacy. But afterwards these articles were qualified by the
Parliament, and the bloody penalty annexed to them was taken
off, and men began to form other conceptions concerning these
points of religion. This is a brief account of the advance of
the Reformation in England in King Henry's time. In doc-
trinals there were scarcely any alteration in his reign : but in

INTRODUCTION. 33
forms of worship there was some. One of the main ingre
dients of Popery was abolished, viz. the Pope's supremacy;
yea, all the papal authority and jurisdiction ceased in England.
It must be acknowledged, that this was a very great and
wonderful blow given to the Roman religion, and which led
the way to that surprising change which followed it. The
more worthy and admirable therefore was this performance,
though the Popish writers take a great deal of pains to mis
represent it, and to render it an impious and wicked one, and
thence take occasion to vilify and condemn the whole Re
formation. They tell us, thatProtestancy had its ingress into
England by Henry VIII.'s affection to Anne of Bullen, and
his desire to be divorced from his Queen Catherine, which
the Pope would not permit, and therefore he renounced him ;
he divorced himself from that lady and the Pope at once.
This is the true account, say they, of the Reformation in
.England. But if any unprejudiced person wdl with sobriety
[and seriousness weigh the following particulars, he will find
;that there is no ground from what is suggested to think ill of
the Reformation. For,
I. King Henry's demands and complaints cannot be denied
to be just and reasonable, if we consider that he alleged that
he had lived a long time in a known sin, carnally knowing her
'hat had been his own brother's wife ; and therefore he de-
pired now to be divorced from her. And it was then the
decision of aU the Universities and divines both at home and
nbroad, that the marriage was unlawful (though dispensed
vith by Pope JuUus IL), and therefore a divorce could not
oe so.
-. II. The King truly alleged, that by this means he had no
rue heir to inherit the crown. Which was suggested by the
Emperor, who had promised to marry the Lady Mary (after-
-Vards Queen) : he questioned her legitimacy, because begotten
;>n King Henry's brother's wife. This perhaps first put
he king upon disliking the marriage, and at last disclaiming
he queen.
¦i- III. The king was very fair in his procedure. He first
Consulted the then present Pope (Clement VII.), and meekly
Submitted the matter to him about the divorce. He waited
:'mo years for his decision, and had had the divorce allowed
>5y the Pope, but that it was thought Anne of Bullen would be
lis wife, who was inclined to the Reformed religion. This
> ut a stop to all ; for, before this was suspected, things were
'. VOL. vi. D

34 INTRODUCTION.
in a hopeful way of succeeding. Now, it cannot but be
granted that the king had reason to be extraordinarily pro
voked and incensed by such behaviour as this : and therefore
the Romanists have no reason to make mention of this delay
and denial about the divorce.
IV. The king did as other princes in other Catholic
Churches have done ; yea, as our own kings had done before.
For they began to understand their interest and right, and
to see how their predecessors had been abused by the former
Popes ; and therefore they began to take courage, and to
resent their dealings with them, and openly to withstand and
oppose them, and at the same time to weaken and diminish
the power of the aspiring clergy, who always were on the
Pope's side. In King Edward I.'s time, the statute of Mort
main was made, to check the excessive wealth and avarice of
churchmen. This prince withstood the Pope's bulls, and
withheld the Peter-pence, and forbade the other exactions of
Rome. The priories and all monasteries within the diocese
of Canterbury were seized by him (as afterwards they were
suppressed by King Henry V.), and in a word, this valiant
king, though a thorough Papist, shewed himself averse to the
encroachments of the Roman see. And afterwards, in the
reigns of King Edward III., and Henry IV., and Henry VI,,
the Pope's jurisdiction and supremacy were declining apace:
and at last King Henry VIII. utterly cashiered the authority
of the Pope in England, and settled the supreme jurisdiction
in himself. It is certain, that other kings before would have
gone as far as he, and would have rescued themselves and
their people from the tyranny of Rome, if they had had the
spirit and resolution of this king. This is plain from the
several attempts which they made ; but they had not courage
to go through with them. And as to this very act of King
Henry, in disowning the Pope's authority, &c. it is most pro
bable that it would have been effected about that time,
though King Henry had not forsaken his wife. For what
generous mind would endure to be so plagued, so cowed, so
crushed, so enslaved, as princes were at that time, and long
before, by the Roman pontiffs ? It was intolerable that the
sovereign power of kings should be exposed to the will of the
Pope. It would have exasperated a milder prince than King
Henry to be used after that manner, and in a case that was rea
sonable and lawful. Here then was occasion sufficient to defy
the Pope's authority, and utterly to disown it.

INTRODUCTION. 35
V. Suppose we should grant, that the king did not begin
the Reformation on a good and laudable occasion ; or that
some in the next succeeding king's reign did not carry it on
upon good designs ; yet it doth not follow thence that the
Reformation itself was unlawful. No certainly : for,
1 . There may be a bad occasion of a good action. It was
God's ancient purpose to give the Jews a king ; it was ever
his intention to settle the kingdom in Judah, and therefore
the thing was lawful : but the occasion of performing this
decree and purpose was from the murmuring and discontent
of the people, which was unlawful. The humour of being like
other nations excited them to desire a king : their affecting
of innovation, their curious appetite, and itching after altera
tions made them long for a new government. But God took
occasion from this and the people's sinful murmuring to erect
that monarchy which he before designed, and therefore we
may be sure it was good. So here, if we should suppose that
this king's throwing off the Pope's authority took its rise
from some undue spring and cause, yet we cannot infer thence,
that the thing itself is unlawful.
2. A bad man, or one that acts upon ill designs, may
undertake a good work. Jehu was moved by God to de
stroy idolatry, and it was a good work in itself, though his
:aims were ill. Say that Henry VIII. was a very bad man,
iand a lewd prince, (though I think it may truly be said that
:he was not so lustful as the Papists represent him to be, for
he continued a widower two years together after the death of
Lady Jane Seymour : he lay six months by a young lady,
Anne of Cleve, and touched her not. And we are to remem
ber, that the public stews in Southwark and on the Bank-
side were put down by him, whilst his holiness kept them up
at Rome, as his successors ever since have done, and have a
considerable revenue out of those schools of lewdness. And
lastly, it must be said, that King Henry was a chaste and
:continent man, in comparison of several of the Popes) . But
say that this prince was a bad man, say that the Reformation
in England was begun by him out of no good principle ; not
Ifrom conscience, but from lust : say that he did it to be re
venged on the Pope, because be would not comply with his
desires : say this, and more if you will ; and yet it may as
truly be said, that sinister ends and evil intentions do not
hinder the action from being materially good. The Reforma-
d 2

36 INTRODUCTION.
tion itself is good and lawful, notwithstanding the ill principle
on which some may think it commenced.
3. The wisdom and goodness of the Almighty do eminently'
appear in the follies and miscarriages of men; that is, he
makes them tend to good ; and he produces excellent effects
by them; as we see in Jacob's supplanting his brother.
Rahab's faith was accompanied with a lie ; though she be
lieved, yet she used fraud and falsehood : and that falsehood
was made most signally instrumental to the good of God's
people. And many other instances the Scripture affords us,
wherein the wise disposal of God is seen in causing the greatest
good to arise out of something that is very evil. This is easily
applicable to the present case.
4. I am not backward to assert, that God's extraordinary
hand was in this matter, and therefore it is unreasonable and
vain to find fault with the instrument, and what was done by it,
I question not, but what he effected was in part the fulfilling of
that remarkable prophecy in Rev. xvii. 13, 16. " The horns
(i. e. the kings of the earth) vtho give their power and strength
to the Beast, shall afterwards hate the whore, and shall make
her desolate and naked." For it is added, " God hath put in
their hearts to fulfil His will, and to agree and give their
kingdom to the Beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled,"
i. e. until that time comes, which was foretold by God and his
prophet John, viz. when they shall " hate the whore," &c. This
king, it is well known, gave his power and strength to the Beast,
(as other kings did ;) he wrote against Luther, and for that had
the title of Defender of the Faith conferred upon him ; yet
now he disowns his power and that openly ; now he hates the
whore of Babylon, and with great heat and devouring zeal he
abolishes her kingdom here, which is meant by " eating her
flesh, and burning her with fire." This without doubt God
put into his heart ; and therefore this is the Lord's doing, and
should be marvellous in our eyes. None, tbat hath read the
sacred history, doubts whether Jehu was stirred up by God
himself to do what he did, viz. to cut off Ahab, and destroy]
Baal's priests, and to extirpate idolatry: so here we have
reason to believe, that it was an extraordinary work of God
upon the king's heart to undertake and accomplish this great]
affair : and he was fitted for it by that martial, fiery, and un
daunted spirit, which he was endued with. It was designed by
heaven, and it was predicted by the messengers of the Most

INTRODUCTION. 37
High, that Babylon should fall ; and accordingly this great and
magnanimous prince (as well as others) was raised up for that
purpose. Thus it appears, that the great and loud outcries
of the Roman Catholics against this great monarch, and at the
same time against the lawfulness of the Reformation, are vain
and groundless.
I proceed now to shew how the Reformation advanced in
King Edward's days. It may be, King Henry VIII. had not
thoughts of proceeding any farther ; for his main aim was
at the supremacy; but God the All-wise Disposer and Governor,
who made use of him as the fittest instrument to accompUsh
that particular work, which we see already done, was pleased to
bless this Church and nation with a religious and pious prince,
that so he might begin, where the other left off. In his father's
time though the Pope was renounced, yet the doctrines, rites,
and ceremonies of the Church of Rome were kept up, and
maintained. So true was that of Luther,* that King Henry
VIII. had killed the Pope's body (his supremacy he meant),
but preserved his soul, i. e. his false doctrines. But now both
the soul and body of Popery are destroyed by this godly prince.
In the first year of his reign, a. d. 1548, he called a Parliament
in which all acts and statutes, in anywise concerning rehgion
and opinions, and the punishments belonging to them, were
utterly repealed and made void. Accordingly the Six Articles
were rescinded ; the laws concerning the prohibition of priests'
marriages are nulled ; masses were forbid ; the communion in
both kinds was commanded to be admininistered ; altars were
thrown down, and the table, instead of them, set up. The
King's Council ordered that no candles should be borne upon
Candlemas-day, nor ashes used in Lent, nor palms on Palm
Sunday ; that all images should be taken out of churches ;
that the Bible should be read publicly as part of the Divine
service ; that sermons should be preached, and homilies should
be composed, and then read to the people in the churches,
when there was no sermon. Both the Parliament and Council
embraced and confirmed the Protestant reUgion, and took the
name of Protestants upon them. The corruptions, super
stitions, and innovations of the Church of Rome were abolished
as far as the times would permit. ReUgion flourished, good
bishops were chosen, and bad ones ejected, the banished re
turned home ; learned men were sent for from abroad, as Peter
* Coll. Mens.

38 INTRODUCTION.
Martyr, Martin Bucer, Paulus Fagius ; of whom the first
taught at Oxford ; and the other two at Cambridge.
Now the whole Liturgy appeared in English, intituled, " The
Book of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments
and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, after the use of
the Church of England." It was composed by seven bishops,
and four other clergymen, and confirmed by the convocation
which then sat, and by Act of ParUament, by which it was
commanded to be read in churches. About four or five
years after, some exceptions being made against some things in
this form of public worship by Calvin, Peter Martyr, and
Bucer, there was an alteration made, and another edition put
out. And good reason there was for it ; because praying for
the dead was enjoined in the first service-book of King Edward,
in the close of the form of bidding of prayer, where it is said,
" Ye shall pray for all them that are departed out of this world
in the faith of Christ," which since hath been turned into a
thanksgiving. In this pious king's reign a new translation of
the Bible was published, and ordered to be read over yearly as
part of the service. In the last year of his reign, articles of
religion were agreed upon, by the archbishops and bishops, and
the rest of the clergy in convocation, and authorized by the
king. They were forty-two in number, and afterwards reduced
to thirty-nine, when Queen Elizabeth came to the crown. To
conclude, it is not to be doubted, that if King Edward had lived
longer, there would have been a greater progress in matters of
religion, and a farther alteration in some things belonging to
the Church. But by his dying so soon this was prevented, and
the Reformation retarded ; which was a great unhappiness to
our Church. It is no wonder to hear Dr. Heylin* say, "He
cannot reckon the death of King Edward VI. for an infelicity
to the Church of England :" though superstition and idolatry
were brought back by his death, though persecution and
slaughter were the effect and consequence of it, yet it was no
infelicity. Before I pass to the echpse of the Reformation and the
restoring of Popery (in the next Princess's reign), I will here
attempt to satisfy the reader concerning the reasonableness,
justice, and lawfulness bf what hath been done. For the
Romanists cry out against us with open mouth for making an
alteration in religion, and for rejecting the doctrines and rites
* Pref. to the Hist, of the Reformation.

INTRODUCTION. 39
of the Church of Rome ; and for our doing so, charge us with
heresy and schism. They proclaim to the world, that we could
not act without the consent of the Universal Bishop ; and who
is that but the Bishop of Rome ? They urge this, that we
could not of ourselves set on foot any reformation, because we
had no authority to do it ; and now having usurped such an
authority, we can answer it before God and man. Yes : we
can answer it to both, which I will make appear from these two
things ; first, England might reform ; secondly, England ought
to reform; and that without the consent of the Bishop of Rome.
Fbst, I say, England might reform, and the reason is, because
it hail, power of itself to do it. This is evident, whether we con
sider .he nature and quality of the King of England, or the
Parliament assembled by him, or of the clergy and people.
The kingdom of England is an empire, and the king an em
peror, an independent king, which is proved and defended by
that great oracle of law, Judge Coke, who was no flatterer of
kings or their government. He* makes it plain from history
and statutes, that before the times of Henry VIII. and
Edwird VI. the kings of England had supreme power in all
tempwal and spiritual matters whatsoever, and actually exerted
that power against the Popes upon occasion, and defied their
bulls, excommunications, sentences, &c, though some kings
suffered the Popes to encroach upon them. And the same ex-
eeUent person hath as solidly asserted and vindicated the rights
ind power of the National Senate, or Parliament ; (and when I
mention that, I at the same time mention the body of the
people, who are represented in that assembly,) shewing,
that it belongs to them to defend the public rights of the
Church and kingdom ; and therefore it was in their power to
recall them, when they were taken from them by the former
isurpation of Rome : and accordingly they unanimously
recalled them.
And as to the Church in particular, it is well known what its
)rivilege is. This ancient British Church is one of those, which
ly its foundation, and by force of the known canon in the
Council of Ephesus, in the case of the Cypriots, is avrontyaXog,
abordinate to no foreign patriarch, and is invested with power
c its own, and can exert it as it shall see cause. This Church
\as always placed without the suburbicaries of the Italian
cocese, and consequently was neither subject to the Roman,
* Institut. 4th part.

40 INTRODUCTION.
nor any other foreign jurisdiction : which may also be gathered
from the different observation of Easter of old, wherein the
Britons conformed themselves to the Eastern, not Westen
Church ; they followed the use of Anatolius the Constanti
nople patriarch, and not the use of the Bishop of Rome. la
other things, especially the administration of baptism, whieh
was different in its rites, from those of Rome, it appears (as
Venerable Bede* our countryman hath long since shewed,'in-
sisting on this very thing), that the Britannic Church was not
dependent upon the Church of Rome. And this is farther clear
(as the same ancient writer urges) from the Britons' rejection of
Augustine the monk, whom, though he was legate of Gregory,
bishop of Rome, sent to convert the Saxons, and to preside
over the Britisji Church, all British bishops refused ^o ac
knowledge him for their archbishop. They would by no'means
be brought to this, telling him that they owed subject on to
their own patriarch, and none other ; particularly and expressly
they said, not to the Bishop of Rome. But they paid nearly
for their refusal : for by this haughty legate's instigation,
twelve hundred monks were slaughtered at Bangor; a begirning
suitable to his progress afterwards. But this is underiable
that the British bishops would by no means submit to Angus-
tine, letting him know that it was against the custori and
privileges of the British Church, which was always free fron
the Pope's jurisdiction.
Thus it is evident, that England had power to make that
reformation, which we are speaking of, England being an
island as well I may say in reUgion, as situation, cut off from
the continent of other Churches, and enjoying privileges entire
to itself : and would have done so always, if the Popes had not
encroached by degrees upon them. Now the design of the He-
formation was to abrogate this usurpation of Rome, and to
retrieve the ancient immunities and jurisdictions of the Church
and State, to let the world see that the Kings of Britain are nol
(as the Romanists brag) feudatories of the See ApostoUc, anc
consequently subject to the Pope in spiritual and temporal things
King Henry VIII. and King Edward VI. did but restore tb
Britannic Churches to the ancient liberty they enjoyed in th
primitive times of the ancient OZcumenic Councils ; and i
this they did rightly. Nay, it is certain, that the Churc
restitution was transacted in the twenty-fourth year of th
reign of Henry VIII. with the express consent of the Englis
* Hist. Eccles. Brit.

INTRODUCTION. 41
clergy, (then Popish,) a Synod of whom was the lawful ecclesi
astical tribunal of the EngUsh nation. And again, under King
Edward VI. in the first year of his reign, the reformation of
the Church was determined and settled, not only by regal
authority and the Parliament, but by the Convocation. So that
the Church of England was reformed by all that authority,
which was lawful and justifiable.
Farther, it might be proved, that England may by the as
sistance of the Supreme Power, reform itself, because it is a
distinct part of the Christian world ; and the Roman Church
is no more. There are besides the Church of Rome other
Churches, viz. the Greek Church, under its four patriarchs ; the
Russian Church ; the Ethiopian or Abyssinian, the Nestorian,
Armenian, and Georgian Churches. The whole Greek Church
is greater and wider than that of Rome. And the Protestant
Churches in Great Britain and Ireland, and the plantations
belonging to Britain ; those in Denmark, Sweden, Transyl
vania, Wallachia, Moldavia, the Dutch territories and their
plantations, Germany, Switzerland, Geneva, Piedmont, Hun
gary, Poland, are almost equal to the Roman Churches ;
which shews how unjust it is for these latter to arrogate to
themselves a power and jurisdiction over the rest ; how justi
fiable it is for the Greek or the Protestant Churches to regulate
matters ecclesiastical within themselves, and to make what
reformation they please in their own territories. Thus I have
proved, that England might reform ; and by consequence it
was not unlawful for her to do it.
Secondly, England ought to reform. For the case in short
is this ; if the conditions of communion with a Church be
unlawful, then it is unlawful to communicate with her ; but
the Church of Rome imposeth unreasonable and unlawful
conditions of communion, therefore it is unlawful to commu
nicate with her, and (which necessarily foUows from that) it is
lawful to separate from her. This was the case of our Church,
and of other Protestant Churches. Rome imposed on us,
under pain of excommunication, a necessity of professing
known errors, and of practising known corruptions ; so that
in communicating with the Church of Rome, we were forced
to communicate with her errors and vicious practices. What
casuist, but a Roman one, will deny that separation is justifia-
! ble upon these terms ? This is our case in reference to the
Church of Rome. If we communicate with her in her doc
trines and worship, we partake of her errors and superstition,

42 INTRODUCTION.
and confirm the false worshippers in their sin. And suppose
their errors and practices were not of a damnable nature, yet
if we believe the Church of Rome to be in error, and yet
profess the contrary, it is damnable hypocrisy. And to believe
it, and to profess the contrary, cannot be allowed in that
communion ; therefore we must act against our knowledge
and conscience. The short then is, that we are obUged to quit
that communion in which we cannot remain without hypo
critical possession of those things which we are convinced to
be erroneous and unlawful.
This shews that the cause was just, which made our fore
fathers forsake the communion of Rome. This is a demon
stration that the separation of Protestants from the Church of
Rome is not schismatical, but is founded on just and neces
sary grounds. And besides, as was suggested before, the
British Church was not under any obligation to adhere to the
dictates of Rome ; but she was bound to maintain her ancient
right and liberty, that is, her primitive exemption from the
patriarchate of Rome. Thus she " ought to reform," whe
ther you consider the equity and reasonableness of her assert
ing her privileges and rights, or whether you have respect to
her positive duty of forsaking a corrupted Church. The
errors and practices of the Roman Church being grown so
intolerable, and the yoke so insupportable, there was a neces
sity of an universal reformation ; and in order to that a free
and open declaration against the abuses in that Church. I
will conclude with Mr. Chillingworth's* answer to those who
objected that the Reformers had no commission from the
Church to preach against the abuses in it, and to attempt an
alteration : " No man," saith he, " wants a commission from
God to do a necessary work of charity, when there is no body
else that can, or will do it. In extraordinary cases, extraor
dinary courses are not to be disallowed."
And now we must turn aside to see how the Reformation
was eclipsed for a little time, and how (by God's just per
mission) Popery lifted up its head again. Queen Mary as
cending the throne, the act of the Pope's supremacy passed in
the Parliament. The ecclesiastical laws in Henry VIII.'s
days are reversed ; the statutes in Edward VI .'s days are
repealed ; the married clergy are displaced ; the ceremonies,
before abolished, are restored ; the old superstitious worship
* Preface to the Author of Charity maintained.

INTRODUCTION. 43
is re-established. The Queen's Council consented to the
restoring of abbey lands, the Queen having desired it. Soon
after came the Pope's Bull to that purpose, excommunicating
all that would not restore the lands to the Church. And
thus Popery was revived ; but behold ! on a sudden Queen
Mary is removed, and with her the Popish religion.
In the first year of her successor Queen Elizabeth (which
was the year of our Lord 1558), the alteration of religion was
enacted by ParUament, Protestantism was restored, and the
pubUc Liturgy was reformed. The Articles of religion which
were first drawn up, as to the main parts and contents of
them, and agreed on in a Convocation, a.d. 1552, in King
Edward's reign, were now re-established in this Queen's reign,
a.d. 1562, i.e. four years after she came to the throne. And
they were ratified again by the authority of the Queen and of
the clergy, in the year 1571. Now the Popish doctrines were
frequently writ against by learned men, and the contrary ones
asserted and defended by them. And the Roman Catholics
were checked and suppressed every where.
And yet here it must not be omitted that this Queen was
strongly affected to the crucifix and lighted tapers, and retained
them a long time in her chapels against the exhortations of
some of the bishops, and with great difficulty parted with them
at last. She was vehemently incensed against the clergy, upon
account of their being married. She would never hear any
sermons but at Lent, and was incUned to favour the Popish
devotion ; and that made the bishops comply with her wiU and
pleasure in some other things, lest she should take offence,
and be too favourable to her Popish subjects. The Queen's
best Protestant subjects were but Uttle regarded by her. She
was strangely secure of her worst enemies, the Papists, and
fastened them within her palace waUs. All this is expressly
related by Mr. Strype in the Ufe of Archbishop Parker ; where
he farther adds, that it appears from secret letters between the
archbishop and the Lord Burleigh, in what consternation those
great men were, and how dangerous the favour shewed to the
Roman CathoUcs by the Queen was.
In the beginning of King James I.'s reign the Protestant
cause was much favoured, and many worthy prelates and other
divines, both in their sermons and writings, defended the
doctrine of the Church of England against that of Rome.
' And the Thirty-nine Articles (which are the great test of the
Protestant doctrine of the Church of England, in opposition

44 INTRODUCTION.
to Popery), were confirmed and put forth again, a.d. 1604,
the second year of this king's reign. Yea, and his majesty
himself wrote against some positions and tenets of the Church
of Rome with great vigour and zeal. But afterward out of
fear (which was a passion that ruled him) he seemed to
comply with Popery, for his safety. He began to relax the
penalties against Papists, which the law required ; he freed
some of them from the prisons they were in, and some of them
were taken into favour ; and the Popish ceremonies and doc
trines began to be countenanced. This was taken notice of by
the Lower House of ParUament in their petition and remon
strance to the king, wherein they complained of the increase
of Papists, their insolencies, and the encouragement they had.
And to frustrate their hopes for the future, they petitioned,
that the prince might be married to one of their own religion,
But the king was displeased with this, • and shewed it by his
actions, for by his order and appointment to the great ministers
of justice there was favour shewed to all recusants throughout
the kingdom. This is not to be wondered at, seeing he was led
by one whose mother was led by Rome and Jesuits ; and
there are authentic letters on record that tell the world what
correspondence there was between his Court and Rome. To
promote the match between his son Charles and the Infanta,
both he and his son did very strange things. In the letter*
which Prince Charles wrote to Pope Gregory XV. we see
what esteem he had for the Roman CathoUc reUgion ; and in
several concessions, articles, and propositions, which both king
and prince subscribed to, in favour of the cause ; and in their
absolute promises of tolerating Popery in the three kingdoms,
we may see what reason there was to suspect the integrity of
their principles. And it is observable, that in the year 1622,
in order to promote the prince's match with the Infanta of
Spain, and to render themselves acceptable to the Church of
Rome, they forbade the preaching of those Calvinistical doc
trines, which are commonly called the Five Points. They
knew that the discountenancing of these had some influence
on the cause they were advancing, because the Roman Gatho-
Ucs abhor these doctrines, and preach up the contrary with
great zeal and vigour.
And afterwards, in the terms of the prince's marriage with
the French lady, this king shewed his inclination to Popery
* See Rushworth's Collections.

INTRODUCTION. 45
very visibly. The Archbishop of Embrun was sent hither by
the French king, to dive into King James's thoughts of the
Roman religion, who freely confessed to him, that he had from
his very youth a good opinion of it, and now resolved on a
toleration of it, and writ a letter to the Pope, owning him to
be Vicar of Jesus Christ, and expressing his good will to the
Roman cause.
As to that particular, namely, tbe granting of Papists a
toleration, it wiU appear evident, that the King was much
disposed to it, and fully designed it, if we peruse a passage in
a letter written by the Archhishop of Canterbury to his
majesty, which runs thus : — " Your majesty hath propounded
a toleration of reUgion. I beseech you, Sir, take into your
consideration what the act is; next, what the consequence
may be. By your act you labour to set up that most damnable
and heretical doctrine of the Church of Rome, the whore of
Babylon. How hateful will it be to God, and grievous unto
your good subjects, the true professors of the Gospel, that your
majesty, who hath often disputed and learnedly written against
those wicked heresies, should now shew yourself a patron of
those doctrines, which your pen hath told the world, anil your
conscience tells yourself, are superstitious, idolatrous, and
detestable? What dreadful consequences these things mav
draw after them, I beseech your majesty to consider. Anil
above aU, lest by this toleration, and discontinuance of the
true profession of the Gospel, whereby God hath blessed us,
and under which this kingdom hath for many years flourished,
your majesty do not draw upon the kingdom in general, and
yourself in particular, God's heavy wrath and indignation.
Thus in discharge of my duty towards God, to your majesty,
and the place of my calling, I have taken humble boldness to
deUver my conscience. And now, Sir, do with me what you
please." A most remarkable passage ! which at once shews us
the godly zeal of this excellent prelate, and the ill disposition
of the king at that time. It is to be suspected, that he hated
Popery, chiefly because it defended king-killing, and deposing
of crowned heads. He was a great coward, and afraid of the
Popish princes ; and therefore it is no wonder, that the Pro
testant interest decayed under his reign. To speak freely, we
may from King James I.'s reign date the designing of re-in
troducing Popery into England.
And I wish I could not add, that this design was not carried
on in his successor's time, who encouraged those who favoured

46 INTRODUCTION.
some of the Popish doctrines, and preferred such as seemed to
be well-wishers to that cause ; winch was one great occasion
of the Civil Wars. In the first Parliament convened in this
king's time (which was in the first year of his reign) the Lords
and Commons presented a petition to him concerning religion ;
in which they complain of the advancing of persons to places,
of trust and authority, who were ill-affected to the Protestant
faith. In the next Parliament (which was the year after) the
Commons began again with matters of religion, and expressed
their dislike of frequent reprieves and pardons granted to
Jesuits and priests. In the third Parliament, a.d. 1628, the
Commons made great complaints of the invasions upon religion
(as Baker in his Chronicles words it) by the increase of Popery
and Armiuianism.* They were much concerned at the inno
vations in doctrine, discipline, and government ; at the swarm
ing of Popish priests, and the vast encouragement given to
Papists by the suspension of the laws made against them.
And afterwards these maladies increased more and more, and
not only the penalties on Papists were relaxed, but several of
this persuasion were preferred to places of dignity ; and
generally all the Roman Catholics shewed in the air of their
countenances, in their words, and in their behaviour, that the
Court had a good inclination to them. This is owned by the
Lord Clarendon, who tells us thatf " the Papists had for
many years enjoyed a great calm, being upon the matter
absolved from the severest parts of the law, and dispensed
with for the gentlest, and were grown only a part of the
revenue, without any probable danger of being made a sacrifice
to the law. They were looked upon as good subjects at
Court, and as good neighbours in the country : all the
restraints and reproaches of former times being forgotten."
This is enough to shew what indulgence Popery had in this
king's reign. Now let us hear what effects this kindness
produced: "They, that is, the Papists (saith this author),
were transported with the protection and connivance they
received ; their pomp and boldness increased to that degree,
that, as if they affected to be thought dangerous to the state,
they appeared more publicly, entertained and urged conferences
more avowedly than had been before known. They Tesorted
* See the Proceedings and Debates in the House of Commons in the
year 1628, collected by Sir Tho. Crew.
t History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars, &c. Book 2.

INTRODUCTION. 47
at common hours to mass at Somerset House, and returned
thence in great multitudes, with the same barefacedness that
others came from the Savoy, or other neighbour churches.
The priests were departed from their former modesty and
fear, and were as willing to be known, as to be hearkened to :
and for the protection and countenance of the whole party, a
public agent (or nuncio) from Rome resided in London in
great port, publicly visited the Court, and was caressed, and
presented magnificently by the ladies of honour who inclined
to that profession. They made public collections of money
to a considerable sum, upon some recommendations from the
queen for carrying on the war against the Scots." And then
he oddly concludes : " They carried themselves so, as if they
had been suborned by the Scots to root out their own religion."
A vain put off! Whereas their true design was to set up their
reUgion under such a patroness as the queen, and under such
supporters as they knew they had at Court.
In the Parliament that met in 1640, the persons who stood
up and represented to the senate the grievances of the nation,
not only as to their liberties and properties, but as to their
consciences and rehgion, and the imminent danger they were
in, with respect to the introducing of Popery, were* men of
known and unexceptionable loyalty, and great asserters and
admirers of the Church of England and its constitution, and
particularly of the government by bishops, which they de
fended in their public speeches : but yet at the same time
being convinced of the reahty of those pernicious designs
which were then on foot, they inveighed against the encroach
ments that were made on religion, and openly declared what
grounds the nation had to believe that the Church of Rome was
in great favour with the EngUsh governors and rulers both in
Church and state. The Lord Falkland had this passage in
his speech :f " A little search will serve to find the prelates to
have been the destruction of unity under the pretence of uni
formity ; to have brought in superstition and scandal under
the titles of reverence and decency; to have defiled our Church
by adorning our churches ; to have slackened the strictness
of that union which was formerly between us and our religion
beyond the seas, an action as unpolitic as ungodly. We shall
find them to have tithed mint and anise, and have left undone
* Falkland, Digby, Rudyard, Deering, &c.
t Rushworth's Collections.

48 INTRODUCTION.
the weightier works of the law ; to have been less eager upon
those who damn our Church, than upon those who upon weak
consciences, and perhaps as weak reasons (the dislike of some
commanded garment, or some uncommanded posture), only
abstained from it. Nay, it hath been more dangerous for
men to go to some neighbour's parish, when they had no
sermon in their own, than to be obstinate and perpetual re
cusants. While masses have been said in security, a con
venticle hath been a crime." I have left out several severe
and cutting passages in this lord's speech, that the reader
might be convinced that I do not aggravate things to the
utmost height, Yet this excellent person was far from being
a hater of episcopacy, or bishops : he saith, " There are some
of them have conduced in nothing to our late innovations but
in their silence ; some who have been learned opposers of
Popery, and zealous suppressors of Arminianism." He con
cludes, that " the order may stand, but the abuses of it are
to be taken away."
Sir Benjamin Rudyard in his speech at the same time had
these words :* " I do verily beUeve there are many of the
clergy in our Church who think the simphcity of the Gospel
too mean a vocation for them to serve in : they must have a
specious, pompous, sumptuous reUgion, with additional of
temporal greatness, authority, negotiation : notwithstanding
they all know better than I, what Fathers, Councils, School
men are against this mixing themselves with secular affairs.
This Roman ambition will at length bring in the Roman
religion, and at last a haughty insolence even against supreme
power itself, if it be not timely and wisely prevented." Yet
this gentleman was a patron of episcopacy, and spoke for it in
that very speech.
The Lord Digby in his oration to the House the same year
spoke thus :f " Christ's discipline hath been adulterated, and
the whole Church inebriated by the prelates." Again, " 1 do
not think that any people hath been ever more provoked than
the generality of England of late years by the insolences and
exorbitances of the prelates." He goes on ; " I protest sin
cerely (saith he), I cannot cast my thoughts on the practices'
of the Churchmen that have governed it of late, but they
appear to me as a scourge employed by God upon us, for the
sins of the nation. The vengeance of the prelates hath been
* Rushworth's Collections. t Ibid.

INTRODUCTION. 49
so laid, as if it were meant no generation, no degree, no com
plexion of mankind should escape it." Yet in the same
speech he speaks in defence of bishops and episcopacy, and
the design of it was to oppose those in the House who were
for taking episcopal government away.
That excellent and learned knight Sir Edward Deering in
his speech afterwards in 1641, complained of * "Lordly do-
mineerers, who played the monarchs, perhaps the tyrants, in a
diocese. This kind of episcopacy (saith he) smells rank of the
Papacy, nor shall you be ever able utterly and absolutely to
extirpate Popery, unless you root out this soleship of episco-
pucy." But at the same time he proclaimed his esteem of
episcopacy, as it is ancient and uncorrupted, and afterwards
he refused to comply with the House against episcopacy.
Thus it is evident, that those who have been the greatest
friends to this government in the Church, have warmly and
vehemently inveighed against the corruptions of it ; and that
the wisest and most intelligent persons were fully persuaded
that there was a design in those times to make an alteration in
religion, and to introduce Popery, and that the prelates of that
age were forward in promoting it. They plainly discovered,
that there was no place in the whole kingdom that did not
groan under the burden and oppressions of those haughty
and self-willed innovators. They saw that Popish doctrines
were everywhere maintained ; that Popish rites and ceremonies
were commonly allowed of; and those clergymen were most
valued, who vehemently affected pomp and outward splendour
in the Church, which were visible forerunners of the Roman
superstition, state, and grandeur. Those were advanced to
dignities in the Church, who were suspected for their religion,
and openly vilified the Reformation, and published such doc
trines as were derogatory to the Reformed religion. Able and
godly ministers were abused and affronted : there was scarcely
any preacher that was diligent and constant in his office but
was discouraged, and sometimes silenced. The declaration for
sports on the Lord's day was partly designed for this end, to
ejeet the choicest and most conscientious ministers in the king
dom. It was a crime to preach in the afternoon on that day,
but not to play and sport. A declaration came out (like that
in King James's reign) to stifle all preaching about certain
points of divinity, which were well known to be acceptable to
* Rushworth's Collections.
VOL. VI. E

50 INTRODUCTION.
those of the Protestant persuasion, who had the greatest aver
sion to Popery, and therefore they were forbidden to be matter
of popular sermons. And all prayers put up to God that
were not forms were derided ; and as for these latter, they
magnified and urged them in such a manner, as it was plainly
seen they intended to lay aside preaching. There was not
only a check on the preachers, but on the people. No man
could speak with freedom, for fear of the prelates. The re
peating a sermon and praying in a man's own family made
him obnoxious to the ecclesiastical courts. Yea, one of the
bishops (as may be seen in his articles of visitation) forbade
speaking of any religious matters at table.
All these and other lines of the same nature came from and
lead to one centre, the Church of Rome, which keeps her
children blindfold, and vouches ignorance to be the mother of
devotion. Yet to blind yet more the eyes of the people, it was
told them constantly, that the maintenance of the Protestant
religion was the only thing designed ; as if there were any so
weak and senseless, as to believe that the reformed Protestant
religion can be supported and advanced by the help of those
who have a good opinion of, and affection to Popery. How
ever, this was their cry; and they endeavoured to make people
believe that all this aberration from tbe purity of the Christian
institution was the religion of the Church of England, and so
many were unwarily betrayed into a good esteem of Popery,
and thought themselves good Protestants, when they were not,
The factors for the cause did artfully disguise their aim and de
sign, and made several feints to conceal it. Whilst they were
hard at work in fetching in Popery, they would not suffer men
to give it that name. Though it was the very thing, vet it must
not be called so. It was the studied plot of the party to
sacrifice the English Church and nation to their bigotry and
fury ; and the Reformed religion to that of Rome : the bold
attack was made on the whole Protestant cause ; and yet here
was the artifice of it, that though they were bringing the nation
back to Popery, yet they would not have it to be discerned.
To blind the eyes of the people, some of the ecclesiastics pre
vailed with themselves to draw their pens against some part of
Popery, though at the same time they defended and promote
the main design of it. Archbishop Laud and his friends weie
not for that bigoted sort of Popery, which asserts the so;
premacy of the Pope, and gives him the power to dispose of
all kingdoms as he pleases ; for that would have been danger-

INTRODUCTION. 51
ous to the clergy, and bring in Italians and other foreigners to
take their benefices and preferments from them : thus the
Romans "would come, and take away their place and nation."
But so far as these men thought it safe and profitable, they
took up Popery ; that is, they espoused many of its doctrines
and opinions ; they were for tbe gaiety, grandeur, and pomp
which accompanied the Roman religion. They multiplied
hyper-canonical ceremonies, and by these uncommanded prac
tices made invasions on the Church of England, and under
pretence of raising it to its height, they prepared the wayby
those extravagant heights to the Church of Rome. In short,
the outworks were given up to Rome ; and whether the castle
itself could hold out long, let the unprejudiced judge. But
their art was seen in this, that Popery was to advance gradu
ally, and by httle and little. They knew it was safest to give
it by piece-meal. The Roman religion must not be brought
in by wholesale, but we were to have the several portions of it
by retail. The nation was presented with some parts of it in
hand, but others were kept and preserved in petto. They were
going in pdgrimage to Rome, but it was advisable not to make
too hasty journeys.
But on they went, and with great heart and confidence, and
were not ashamed : witness that bold step, which is taken •
notice of even by the Lord Clarendon. Whereas the German
and French Protestants that fled out of their countries at the be
ginning of the Reformation and settled in England, were kindly
received by King Edward VI., and Queen Elizabeth, and King
James, and had the free use of Churches in London and other
places for the exercise of their reUgion, this writer observes, that
"When the power of churchmen grew more transcendent, the
bishops grew jealous that the countenancing of these foreigners
would givejsomecountenance to thefactious and schismatical par
ties in England to hope for such a toleration, and accordingly
restrained them, though without the consent of the council-
board (as he adds) : For (as he said before) the faculties and
understandings of the lay-counsellors were dull, lazy, and inac
tive, and so suffered the bishops to do what they pleased. He
tells us further, That whereas in all former times the ambassa
dors and all foreign ministers of state employed from England,
into many parts where the Reformed religion was exercised, fre-
¦quented their Churches, gave all possible countenance to their
profession, and held correspondence with the most active and
powerful persons of that relation, and particularly the ambas-
E 2

52 INTRODUCTION.
sador Leiger at Paris had diligently and constantly frequented
the Church of Charenton, and held a fjiir intercourse with
those of that religion throughout the kingdom, the contrary to
this was now with great industry practised, and some adver
tisements, if not instructions, given to the ambassadors there,
to forbear any extraordinary commerce with the men of that
profession."* He adds, " that these were great errors com
mitted by churchmen," but labours to excuse them, after he
had exposed them, as is his general way throughout his whole
history. He freely lays open the miscarriages of the men of
the Church of England, but usually dissembles the true spring
and intent of them, and would sometimes persuade the reader,
that they proceeded from some pious intentions and aims.
But it is plain and evident to those that are not resolved to
foster prejudice, that the design of this new practice, which I
just now mentioned, was to discountenance the Protestant
reUgion and the professors of it, which was thought then
necessary in order to the setting up another persuasion and
religion. This historian observes, that this conduct of the
bishops was very impolitic ; but it doth the more conspicuously
discover to us the flagrant intentions, the vehement resolves,
and the violent and irresistible endeavours of the churchmen at
that time to defame and reproach the Protestant cause, and to
bring in that religion, which is contrary to it.
And who can doubt of the reality of this design, if he calls
to mind how fashionable it was in those days not only to look
towards Rome, but actually to go over to it and embrace that
Church ? This was done by some of the eminent divines, as
well as others of the Church of England, Dr. Goodman bishop
of Gloucester, Dr. Baily, Dr. Fane, Dr. Goff, Sir Francis
Windebank one of the secretaries of state and Archbishop
Laud's intimate friend, of whose daughter Dr. Turner, after
wards bishop and nonjuror was a sprig. All the Roman
Catholics at this time expected a change ; they all relied:
upon it, and openly told the world as much. Gordon the
Jesuit, in the epistle to Cardinal Richelieu before his Com
mentaries of the Bible, spoke thus, " The reducing of Britain
to the Roman Church is reserved to be the effect of the Car
dinal's most wise counsels ;" Nee verb exiguus ad falke*
exitum reseratus est aditus eo regnante magno Britannia
Principe, qui ad clementiam natus, non modb ab hifamilia h
* Book VI.

INTRODUCTION. 53
Christiani sanguinis effusione suos libenter continebit, sed ex-
emplo tot maximorum in Britannid regum adunum Mud facile
propendebit, quod omni juris eequitate concedi debet, liberam
intelligo Dei colendi facultatem." He doubts not afterwards
that the prudence of the Cardinal's counsels will bring this
noble work to pass. This was in 1632.
From the public ministers and officers that were employed
in that reign we may gather no less. In the beginning of it
the Duke of Buckingham, who was the great favourite of the
king, and the first and principal mover in all public transac
tions, lay under a just suspicion of favouring that cause which
I have been speaking of, his mother and father-in-law, and
others of his near relations being Roman Catholics : not to
speak now of the broad hints given by the Earl of Bristol in
his articles against this great man.
Sir Francis Windebank, principal secretary of state, by whom
the greatest affairs of the kingdom were managed, was an ex
traordinary patron of the Papists, as the Lord Clarendon
expressly owns ;* and mentions some plain proofs of his exces
sive kindness to the Jesuits and priests of the Church of Rome.
When this minister of state saw that his designs were laid open
to the public, he made his escape into France, and died there a
Roman Catholic.
Another chief minister and favourite was Archbishop Laud,
of whose being well affected to Rome there are abundant
proofs : some of which I have mentioned in another place, f
and if I repeat some of them here, I will make amends by add
ing others that were not mentioned. The character which
was given him by King James and Bishop Hall may incline us
to believe that he was fit for the cause which he prosecuted.
The former (as we are credibly informed) J pronounced him
" to be of a restless spirit ; one that could not see when matters
were well, but loved to toss and change, and bring things to a
pitch of reformation floating in his brain." The latter de
ciphered him thus, even, before he came to the archbishopric ;§
" To-day he is in the tenets of the Romanists ; to-morrow in
ours; the next day between both, against both;" and at
last we know where he settled. The judgment of another
great man of unquestionable integrity, vis. Dr. Abbot, Regius
* Book III. t The Preacher ; the Second Part.
t Bishop Hacket in the life of Archbishop Williams. ^
§ Decad. 3. Epist. 5.

54 INTRODUCTION.
Professor of Divinity in Oxford, and afterwards bishop of
Sarum, may be seen in Heylin's Life of the Archbishop, p. 66.
My Lord Clarendon represents him as, " hasty and choleric,
a man of great rage, self-willed and headstrong ;* one that did
not value what men said or thought of him."t Which charac
ter given him by this historian (who was his friend) acquaints
us how he was naturally framed and fitted to carry on that
work which he undertook, namely to make alterations in the
established religion of the Church of England.
And by such methods as these which follow he endeavoured
to effect it by degrees. First, he took care to beat down that
position which the generality of Protestants, and those parti
cularly of our own Church, had asserted, vis. that the Pope
is Antichrist. This had been strenuously defended by the
clergy of the Church of England, bishops as well as others ;
but it was voted by him and his party to be heterodox doctrine;
and those that asserted it were looked upon with an evil eye ;
but those that maintained the contrary were countenanced ; as
he, who affirmed in print, "that the Pope can no more be
called Antichrist than Luther and Calvin," J Now it was that
those writers who spoke favourably of the Roman Pontiff were
approved of. § The Church of Rome was represented by these
and others as a Church in which there is no hazard of damna
tion. ||| They held that there is no such thing as idolatry in the
Church of Rome. Crucifixes, altars, images were erected in
churches, and a certain adoration paid to them, and defended by
some of the mentioned writers ; and the invocation of saints,
especially of the Virgin Mary, was no unlawful practice. Some
denied not that there were seven sacraments : others held that
other orders in the Church besides those of deacon and priest
ought to be restored. Extreme unction was asserted to be a
laudable institution. A third place for the souls of the de
ceased, besides heaven and hell, was maintained. The corporal
presence of Christ in the sacrament was stiffly upheld. The
strict and superstitious keeping of the holy-days was urged
with great zeal ; whilst the Lord's day was spent in recreationi
and revels ; for which latter purpose a proclamation (as wai
said before) was sent abroad, and all clergymen were required
on their canonical obedience to read and publish it, and they
who refused to do it were suspended. Archbishop Laud's cod-
* Book I. f Book II. % Shelford, in a Treatise of Antichrist
§ Montague, Pocklington. || Heylin, Potter, &c.

INTRODUCTION. 55
secrating of St. Catharine Creed Church, A.D. 1630, shewed
what an extravagant ceremonialist he was. The whole form of
it is recorded in Mr. Nelson's Rights of the Clergy of Great
Britain ; which inflamed the rest of the clergy with an inordi
nate zeal for pompous rites and usages, and the holiness of
churches. By the influence and dictates of the archbishop, it
was in those days commonly asserted, that preaching or (as
they called it) sermonizing was no necessary part of a minis
ter's office, and that it might be laid aside. These and such
like strange doctrines were found in the writings which were
pubUshed in those days, all destructive of the Protestant reli
gion, and savouring strongly of Popery, yea, most of them
were direct positions of the Romish doctors. The authors of
them were in good repute at Lambeth, and the books them
selves printed by the licence of the archbishop.
To proceed, he sent new canons and constitutions ecclesi
astical into Scotland ; for though some Scotch bishops had
drawn them up by his instigation, and sent them to him to per
use, yet he altered, he added, he corrected them as he pleased:
and the Lord Clarendon himself acknowledges that this gave
occasion to persons to suspect tbe introducing of Popery.*
And he instances in several particulars in those canons, and
saith, they were " matters of innovation, and in their own
nature suspicious." He had uttered plain truth if he had
said they were " superstitious," and were composed of several
Romish rites. Likewise the Scotch liturgy was framed by
him, and smelt rank of the Roman devotion : even such pas
sages as were left out by the Reformers, when they composed
the English liturgy, were inserted here.
It is true some, who love not to hear of the Archbishop's
inchnation to Popery, allege that he wrote a book against the
• Popish points ; but so did. King James I., and yet afterwards
,he was a favourer of Papists, as I have shewed; and attempted
,to reconcile himself and his subjects to the Church of Rome.
jSo we see that Grotius, in several parts of his writings, ex
presses his dislike of many Popish doctrines and practices ;
and yet it is plain that in his "Animadversions on Rivet," and
[iiis piece of " Antichrist," he shews himself to be a well-wilier
to Popery. So Montague drew his pen against some doctrines
'.of the Church of Rome, and yet others of his writings do ap
parently favour the Roman principles. The same may be said
* Hist, book II.

56 INTRODUCTION.
of Mr. Thorndike. Wherefore it is evident that the arch
bishop's book (if it was his) is no certain proof of his aversion
to Popery. It is certain that a man may talk and write against
some things, and yet may be inclined to approve of them for
all that. Even Vanini the Atheist, and who was burnt for
maintaining Atheism, wrote against the Atheists, and defended
Providence in several of his books. So Pomponatius and
Spinoza wrote on both sides.
Again, it is alleged by some (and by the Archbishop himself
at his trial), that some of the Church of Rome were in con
federacy to take away his life, and therefore it is not probable
that he was a favourer of the Church of Rome. But we know
king Henry III. and Henry IV. of France were assassinated
because they were not " Popish enough :" and it is thought
by wise men, that the same cause hastened the death even of
our king Charles II. The Papists might conspire the Arch
bishop's death, to fright him into more zeal.
There is another thing pleaded in his behalf, and which he
boasted of himself, namely, that he had brought over above
twenty persons to the Church of England from that of Rome.
But this is not to be wondered at, nor is it inconsistent with
what hath been said concerning this prelate : yea, it is very
agreeable ; for there was at tbat time, by his setting up the
Church of England to that unusual height, but little difference
between the Church of England and the Church of Rome. He
might easily gain proselytes, when he had made the former so
like the latter. By this means he made the passage from one
to the other easy ; and so the design was carried on with
caution and exactness. They were to step over to the Church
of England, that he might the more effectually carry them
over to the Church of Rome Accordingly some came and
professed themselves to be of the Church of England, when
they saw there was, or would in a short time be, no consider
able difference between the two Churches. Indeed, it is a
wonder that the number of these proselytes was not greater,
especially if they could be persuaded that the Arehbishop'i
endeavours would prove successful. However, some being
impatient, and not willing to stay any longer in suspense, went
over directly to the Church of "Rome, appearing as the van
guard of the approaching army, or as harbingers of the happy
arrival of the court and clergy, which was drawing near. But
others acted warily, and would see what progress was made,
and in the meantime thought it prudence to deliberate, and

INTRODUCTION. 57
not to be hasty and precipitant. The bridge being laid, it was
at their own choice to go and come as they pleased, till all
things were ready and mature for a public and professed own
ing the Roman Church, or (if ye had rather so call it) a
reconcihng of Rome and the Church of England, and bringing
them both to friendly terms. That this was the Archbishop's
aim is not denied by his own friends. Dr. Heylin, who was
his chaplain, acknowledges that he " endeavoured an atone
ment ;"* for so he calls it, and said it was a "pious work."
It is confessed by one, who knew very well the Archbishop's
mind and intention, that ceremonies were multiplied every day
" out of a persuasion and desire that Papists might be won
over to us the sooner ;"f and he freely owns, that the names
of priests and altars were grown fashionable, and much affected
and used by the clergy, tbat they might not be charged with
" inconformity with the Church of Rome." So scandalous a
thing was it thought by the Archbishop and his factors, not to
be conformable to that Church.
Thus I have offered some proofs (and more might have been
produced) of the Archbishop's affection to Popery. I know
there are thousands that stand up and assert the contrary, yea,
they are enraged if they hear any one suspect that prelate.
But, for my part, I wonder that any one can be so incredu
lous as to think that this was not aimed at and endeavoured
by him. It seems to me undeniable, that he encouraged
and promoted the Roman cause, and excited others to do
so. Truly it is my judgment, that if all the pictures in the
world of a zealot for that cause were lost, they might all
again be painted to the life out of the story of this Arch
bishop. As for the sovereign who then reigned, Sir Philip Warwick
speaks thus of him : " He was willing to give it (the Church
of Rome) its due, that it might be brought to be willing to
accept, at least to grant, such an union in the Church, as
might have brought a free and friendly commnnion between
Dissenters (that is, Roman Catholics and those of the Church
of England;, without the one's totally quitting his errors, or
the other being necessitated to partake therein : and I truly
beheve this was the utmost both of his and his archbishop's
* Archbishop's Life, p. 413.
t Chillingworth's Preface to the Author of Charity maintained.

58 INTRODUCTION.
inclinations."* Observe it, it was not necessary to quit their
errors ; they might unite and hold communion without requir
ing that. He tells us, that Grotius " soon discerned this in
clination in the king ;" and accordingly in his dedication of
his book De Jure Belli et Pacts, he " recommends it to the
king of France, as the most royal and Christian design ima
ginable, for his majesty to became a means to make an union
among Christians in profession of religion ;" and therein he
tells him, " how well-knowing and well-disposed the king of
England was thereunto." I shall not enlarge here, because it
is difficult to dive into the hearts of princes, and to understand
the drift of their actions. There hath been a hot contest about
the book of meditations and prayers, which some ascribe to
him : but in my mind they disparage him who fix those devo
tions upon him ; for we shall find that one of those prayers,
said to be made by him in time of adversity, was taken out of
Sir Philip Sydney's Arcadia, and is a prayer made to a hea
then god. I lay great stress upon the formal attestation of
the Earl of Anglesea, that King Charles II. and his brother,
then Duke of York, assured him that that book of devotion
(called EiKwy Bao-iXiio)) was not wrote or composed by their
father King Charles I., but by Dr. Gauden. And this was
confirmed by the doctor's letters, and other incontestable cir
cumstances. I am not positive about this prince's inclination
and affection to the Church of Rome ; but I think there is
ground to say, if he was a good Protestant, he scarcely could,
notwithstanding this, have given plainer proofs of the contrary
than he did. To conclude ; if that be true which one relates,
that the Marquis of Antrim in Ireland, after King Charles
II. 's return, produced in the House of Commons in England*
King Charles I.'s orders and commission for what he and the
rest did in the Irish rebellion against the Protestants in the
beginning of our wars (whereupon King Charles II. ordered
him to be restored to his estate in Ireland), there is more than
ordinary ground to believe that the English court in those
days had a very great esteem for the Papal interest. f
Before I proceed, give me leave to say something concern
ing that honourable person's History of the Civil Wars, which
I have above cited, and which is mightily applauded by some
* Memoirs of the Reign of King Charles I. p. 73, 74.
t Mr. Baxter's Life, part 3. p. 83.

INTRODUCTION. 59
as an exact and perfect piece, but in my judgment it is far
from meriting that character. For though it must be acknow
ledged, that the excellent parts and endowments of that noble
author shine throughout his whole book, and his strong and
nervous style is very singular and praiseworthy, and his pohtic
remarks are very apposite and useful ; yet he seems to me to
be very defective in the main part of an historian, which is,
faithfully and impartially to lay open the true causes and
springs of the evils and mischiefs which he relates. It is true,
he is not whoUy silent as to some of these, and acknowledges
that " the high commission court (by the great power of some
bishops), overflowed the banks which should have contained
it ; not in meddling with things that were not in their connu-
sance, but extending their sentences and judgments in matters
triable before them, beyond that degree which was justifiable."
And much more he adds there (book 4.) against that court.
He takes notice in another place (book 2.) that " the Convoca
tion in the year 1 640 sat after the Parliament was disolved,
and made new canons, and did many things which in the best
of times might have been questioned." And in other things
he observes, how Ulegal and arbitrary the clergy were, ani
mated by the archbishop. He owns that it was high time for
the great senate of the nation to take notice of the violation of
their Uberties and properties, and of the innovations brought
into the Church. He observes that great peace and plenty
produced luxury, wantonness, and licentiousness, and that
these were friends to the Roman religion ; which is one source
of the disorders and commotions in the nation, and is touched
at by him. He cannot wholly suppress the root of the war,
but he labours to palliate and disguise it all along.* " No
man was a greater enemy to Popery," he saith of Archbishop
Laud ; though he is pleased to confute himself at other
times, when he owns him to have shewed favour to the
Papists. He speaks contemptibly of Archbishop Abbot, and tells us,
thatf he had sat too many years in that see, and had too great
a jurisdiction over the Church. He disparages his learning,
and the very college in Oxford whereof he was head, though
this writer was Chancellor of that University. Yea, he igno
rantly blames him for J not conforming to the articles of the
Church. Several of his characters of persons of eminent
* Book VIII. t Book I. t Ibid.

60 INTRODUCTION.
families are not faithfully delivered, but are very partial and
false. There is not that fairness, ingenuity, and integrity
which he pretends to in this matter. Many of the most re
markable passages of those times are more exactly set down
by other writers, who were wise and knowing in those trans
actions, and give accounts different from him, especiaUy in
those matters wherein he was partly concerned himself.
He was either grossly mistaken in his information in several
things, or else he wilfully perverted them ; either out of par
tiality to the cause, or.'out of imprudence : of both which there
is this instance ; because he was a student in the common
law, and a great admirer of that faculty, he disparaged the
civil lawyers, and with great sharpness inveighs against eccle
siastical courts in general. And truly I look upon him as
unfit for that task which he undertook ; for from what is cer
tainly known of him, and what he discovers himself in his
papers, it is evident that he was not a true and hearty patron
of that cause which lie seemed to espouse.* He was appointed
by the House of Commons to read the articles against the
Lord Keeper Finch ; and his intimacy with the Lord Falk
land lets us know what side he was of, and what he actually
had a hand in sometimes. He was chairman of the committee
which was against bishops, and episcopacy as it was then
settled. Sir Philip Warwick, in his Memoirs, plainly saith,
that Sir Edward Hyde, whilst he was in the House, was of the
party against the king, or was very lukewarm in his interest ;
which may convince us that his sincerity was not extraordinary.
He shewed this temper too palpably at the Restoration,
when the loyal party deservedly hated him for his having no
regard to those that had been sufferers for the cause : and King
Charles himself was weary of him, and cast him off; and he
was generally disliked by all others. Wherefore it is untruly
said in the Preface, that he held his office with the universal
approbation of the whole kingdom, and the general applause
of all 'good men. If it were so, then the greatest friends of
monarchy, and the most zealous churchmen, were not good
men. But that which I at present take notice of is, that he never
assigns the true and most substantial reasons and grounds of
things relating to our public commotions and disorders, and
to our civil wars : he doth not faithfully relate the original
* Rushworth's Collections, Part III. Vol. I. p. 139.

INTRODUCTION. 61
causes and foundations of the rebellion ; that is, in plain
terms, he doth not tell the world that it was the fear of Popery
and arbitrary government, nay, the actual encroachment of
these, that gave rise to it. Unless he had said this, he might
have spared all his volumes, and the several divisions of them,
whichjhe solemnly prefaces too with texts of Scripture, as if he
were going to preach, and intended sermons rather than his
torical relations. Only we may observe hence, that he would
seem to be very serious, aud carry it religiously ; whereas no
thing is more profane than dissembhng the truth.
I now proceed to King Charles II.'s reign, where the Popish
plots which were discovered, sufficiently inform us what the
Roman agents were driving at in those days ; and when the
parliament made inquiry into those mysteries, the king pre
sently dissolved them, and another parliament after that. It
is manifest that he took all the ways he thought were -safe for
himself, to ruin us, and bring in Popery, though he often
and with earnestness professed his concern for the Protestant
cause. But it was plainly seen by what arts and methods he
prepared the way for his brother's ascending the throne after
him, and setting up the Roman religion. He once and again
granted indulgence for liberty of conscience, in which Papists
were included, and without doubt chiefly intended. He fre
quently made war with the Dutch, and joined with the French ;
thereby making France strong, and his own kingdoms weak.
Our very chief cathedral in the nation was to have been ac
cording to the pattern at Rome, St. Peter's ; only the architect
was by carelessness so much a Protestant, as to let little of it
be seen in this fabric.
When King James II. ascended the throne, Popery grew
rampant in this nation ; and it is well known with what zeal
and application that prince strove to advance the Roman in
terest. We were now in greater danger than ever, he being in
league with France, and having one of his own kingdoms of
his religion. The forts and castles were in the hands of
Papists. The Roman worship was set up in several places of
the nation, and even in its great metropolis. Jesuits, those
frogs of the mystical Egypt, were in kings' chambers. Monks
and friars appeared in their habits in our very streets. Our
laws were trampled upon, and we were stript of our rights and
immunities. In brief, hell and Rome were day and night at
work to add the finishing stroke to what they had been so long
contriving. Now (to speak freely and impartially) are we upon safe

62 INTRODUCTION.
ground yet, as long as a party among us is zealous and active
for the bringing in a Popish prince. For let them frame what
pretences and notions they please, I shall ever be persuaded,
that those men who will be contented with no other ruler but
one of that character, have a good opinion of Popery, -and will
shew it when they have brought it in. They whose con
sciences and principles direct them to the one, I fear will not
boggle at the other. They who think fit to call in Popery,
are under a great temptation to embrace it, and to persecute
those that wiU not. Wherefore from such men let us pray to
be deUvered. And let us be fully apprehensive of the happy
state we are in at present under our gracious Sovereign, who
hath given us demonstrations of his dislike of the Roman reU
gion and cause, and hath assured us of his sincere intentions
and endeavours to establish the Protestant interest, and parti
cularly that of the Church of England, in these kingdoms : for
which may the divine blessing be ever showered upon his
royal head.
Having thus largely given an account of the rise and growth
of Popery, and of its decay and declension (not without some
attempts for restoring of it again), it will not be unacceptable
to the reader, I conceive, to set before him the particular
springs and causes, together with the occasions and means of
bringing both to effect : and hereby likewise I shall further
display the pernicious nature of the Papal religion, and explain
and illustrate some of the particulars before-mentioned. First,
let me briefly represent to the reader the true springs from
whence the corrupt religion of the Church of Rome had its
rise and increase.
First, It sprang from the Church's peace and plenty, and
the immoderate desire of worldly gain, and affectation of gran
deur, which churchmen indulged themselves in. In a short
time after the persecutions ceased, the Church began to be
corrupted. She grew rich, and that was her bane.* It is
said, that at the time Constantine the Great was so liberal to
the Church and clergy, and gave them large revenues, a voice
was heard in the air, which conveyed these words, f " This day
poison is poured into the Church." Whether this relation be
true, or no, I will not dispute : but this is certain, that the
contagious ferment spread itself, and ease and idleness inclined
men to receive vicious impressions, insomuch that they could
not endure a strict and severe religion. Much more afterwards,
* Divitias peperit mater et filia devoravit matrem.
t Platina in vit. Sylvest.

INTRODUCTION. 63
when riches and honours increased, the clergy grew lazy and
luxurious ; and now it was too hard a task to discharge the
duty of a pastor themselves, and therefore they must have
substitutes and curates. The more the power of the Pope
and of the other bishops was augmented by the bounty and
liberality of princes, the more wanton they became, and the
more desirous they were of making an alteration in religion,
and shaping it to their own corrupted fancies. Here to be
more plain and express, I will distinctly insist on the two par
ticulars I have mentioned, and first prove, that Popery was set
up by covetousness and love of gain ; secondly, by a greedy
desire of greatness and dominion.
One great advancer of the degeneracy of the Roman Church
was the worldly and avaricious temper that prevailed among
those who were employed in the Church. "Feed the flock of
God, not for filthy lucre," saith St. Peter, 1 Epist. v. 2;
but those who pretend to be his successors and vicars preach
no such doctrine. They study to advance their own temporal
concerns, but neglect the spiritual good of their flock. St.
Peter, from whom they claim, was heard to say, " silver and
gold have I none ;" but these make it their business to be
masters of the people's purses, and to gather the riches of the
world into their coffers. Among the old Romans the treasuries
were placed in their temples ; and those of new Rome would
have it so now ; they would have the wealth of all nations
under the keys of the Church. The Jewish masters have this
saying : " Ten measures of riches came down into the world ;
the Romans took nine of them to themselves, and left only one
to the rest of the nations." The Church of Rome would have
it thus, and they make it their work to effect it. To them
may be applied the prophet Isaiah's words : " They are greedy
dogs, which can never have enough ; they all look to their
own way, every one for his gain from his quarter." And that
of the prophet Jeremiah is their just character : " From the
least of them even to the greatest of them, every one is given
to covetousness," Jer. vi. 13. St. Paul foretold of these
Roman wolves, who " would not spare the flock" (Acts xx.
29), but would make all the advantage of them they could, for
their secular ends. These are the persons who " suppose that
gain is godliness," 1 Tim. vi. 5 ; and that money and religion
are convertible. Of these seducers, St. Peter hath left us this
character, " Through covetousness shall they make merchan
dise of you," 2 Epist. ii. 3. And again, ver. 14, this is a note

64 INTRODUCTION.
of heretics and false-teachers, " An heart they have exercised
with covetous practices ;" and their avarice is compared to that
of Balaam, "who loved the wages of unrighteousness," ver. 15.
And now having said this, it is no strange thing that they
shape and frame religion as they please, and make it what
they will. And that is the thing which I will next demon
strate, that the Roman religion and many of its doctrines and
practices are modelled and contrived on purpose for worldly
gain and profit. Who sees not, that these two chief doctrines
of Popery, 'viz. purgatory and praying for the dead, bring in
a constant revenue to the Church? The priest's greatest
profits arise from the dead : these bring in more gain than the
living. Hence are trentals, obits, diriges, requiems, monthly
minds, and an infinite number of masses and prayers for the
dead. Purgatory hath founded monasteries and frieries, en
dowed abbeys and convents, built churches, enriched the
priests, and of all doctrines hath been most advantageous to
the clergy. For who will not strike off a great part of his
estate to the persons who are able by their prayers to deliver
their souls out of the torments of purgatory ? What gifts are
too great and too many for those powerful intercessors, who
can release their spirits out of that prison, who can rescue them
from those flames 1 And as gain invented and upholds pray
ing for the dead, so likewise praying to them : for the priests
have many a fee for addressing to a very powerful saint in
behalf of the distressed : especially they are well paid, if their
clients carry the cause, and obtain what they wanted and were
desirous of.
Then, as to the doctrine and practice of granting indulgences
and pardons, it is evident that these were contrived to fetch
money out of the people's purses. Accordingly the tax of the
apostolic chamber sets the price of all sorts of sins . You may
know what it will cost you to commit adultery, what to murder,
what to forswear yourself, what to steal, &c. So much for a
licence to marry in a degree allowed by God, but disallowed by
the Church : so much for dispensing with a prince to keep his
oaths : so much for him to marry his aunt : so much for marry
ing two sisters, &c. A certain rate is fixed of all these ; and the
greater the crime is, the greater is the gain ; and the more sins
you commit, the more is the Pope's profit. He and his officers
thrive best, when the world is most vicious ; as physicians fare
best, when it is the worst and sickliest time with the people;
and as those that live upon shipwrecks gain most when the seas

INTRODUCTION. 65
are infested with storms and tempests. I might here add,
that the doctrine of supererogation, and the superabundance of
the merits of the saints (on which the aforesaid indulgences
are founded) brings in a great income, and therefore those
meritorious works, are rightly styled the treasure of the
Church. Next as to images, and the praying to them and
worshipping them, the Roman Church would not be so wealthy
as she is, if she did not defend this piece of idolatry ; for this
adoration is frequently accompanied with offerings and gifts.
You must not come empty-handed ; the saints you kneel to
will not heal and bless you without oblations : if you be
stingy and niggardly, they will be so too ; therefore be generous
and Uberal, and then you make them such. It may be truly
said of the Popish priests, as the author of the Book of
Wisdom saith of idol- makers, " They count their life here a
market for gain ; for, say they, we must be getting every way,
though it be by evil means." Wisd. xv. 12.
Doth any one doubt, whether the jubilee was not instituted
for the Pope's profit ? But the celebrating it once in a hun
dred years (as it was first ordered by Boniface VIII. a. d.
1300,) would not serve their turn ; and therefore Clement VI.
in the year 1346, reduced it to every fiftieth year ; and Sixtus
IV. brought it down to twenty-five years, that the pence might
come in the faster. It cannot be denied, that pilgrimages to
the tombs of saints and martyrs, and worshipping there their
relics, bring in a constant salary to those that are tlie keepers
and showers of them, and much more to those by whom they
are employed ; for the most considerable presents and oblations
fall to their part. No man can question, whether the Roman
pontiff and his creatures be not enriched by simony, that is,
by buying and selling of benefices and ecclesiastical promotions,
and by confirmation of bishops, and sending episcopal palls,
dispensing with pluralities, and non-residence, absolving from
oaths and vows, dispensations in matrimonial cases, especially
about prohibited marriages, dispensing with the eating of for
bidden meats. Money is got by tenths, by first-fruits (called
annats, because they are the revenues of one year paid to the
Pope), by appeals to the Court of Rome (for the Pope claims
a definitive sentence in all great and weighty controversies), by
the sale of Popish trinkets, as Agnus Dei's, consecrated beads,
consecrated roses, gloves, swords, and other nicknacks and
baubles. I may here also mention the canonizing of saints,
which is a very chargeable work ; for rich and costly ceremonies
VOL. VI. F

66 INTRODDCTION.
are used at the celebrating of it : it is to pass through a great
many offices, and money is to be dropped into them all.
Lastly, the Pope hath a revenue yearly from the stews ; he re
quires a tribute from the prostitutes. He hath such a Roman
nose as the Emperor Vespasian had ; he thinks that all
revenue, however it be raised, smells well.
These are the ways by which wealth and riches come flow
ing into the Pope's coffers. It was truly said by one of the
Roman communion : " Our priests seem to desire the Popedom,
not for religion and the service of God, but that they may fiU
the craving appetite and avarice of their brethren, or nephews,
or familiars."* Guicciardin and Machiavel often cry out of
the designed methods of the Popes to purchase vast estates
and raise their families. And we have read a great many in
stances of the horrid abuses of nepotism. But it hath been
observed by those that have travelled into the Popish countries,
that those of them that are the richest and fruitfulest as to
soil and climate, are most desolate and miserable ; for the
priests' plenty starves the people. The palaces, and churches,
and religious houses, shew a great deal of wealth ; but the
want and poverty of the ordinary inhabitants are deplorable.
The priests devour all ; they even grind the faces of the poor,
to bring grist to their mill. This greedy avarice of church
men was taken notice of here in England, and the ill consequences
of it were endeavoured to be prevented for the future by the
statute of Mortmain, which restrained the liberality (I might
say prodigality) of persons towards the Church and clergy ;
because they so abounded in revenues, and because what was
given to them was thought to come into a dead hand (for that is
mort-main), which holdeth fast what it gets, and lets it not go.
Wise and observing men saw, tbat they made a very gainful
trade of religion : and we must needs see from the several
particulars before suggested, that Popery is wholly for profit.
That Church cares not what it saith, or doth, so it may gain,
It offers all things for money, yea heaven itself.
"  Venalia nobis
Templa, Sacerdotes, Altaria, Sacra, Coronas,
Ignis, Thura, Preces ; Ccelum est venale, Deusque."t
Rome is the staple for all merchandise, as is admirably set
forth in the eighteenth chapter of the Revelation. We are told
even by one of the Roman Church, that " the merchants of
* Platina in Pope John 16. [p. 159. Colon. 1593.] f Mantuan. lib. 3.

INTRODUCTION. 67
the earth, spoken of there, are priests, who sell prayers and
masses for money, making the house of prayer, a house of
merchandise."* This shews, that Popery is a good religion for
the rich, but not for the poor. And whereas Christ said, " It
is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven ;"
in the Roman Church a rich man enters in soonest, nay he cannot
fail of entering ; for when he is alive he can take long pilgri
mages, and he can buy pardons and indulgences ; and he can
order, that after his death the priests shall be Uberally paid to
say masses for his soul. " To the poor the Gospel is preached,' '
said our Saviour ; and they generally were the persons that
received Christ's doctrine, and were received by him. But in
the Church of Rome these are cast off, and the gates of
heaven are shut against them. For in the Tax of the Apostolic
Chancery (a book which I mentioned before, set forth by Pope
Leo X. where the price of all pardons is set down) we are
plainly told, that these pardons and absolutions cannot be given
to the poor. And Polydore Virgil confesses as much, when he
owns that indulgences were devised for profit, and therefore
poor people cannot expect to have a share in them : but come
with money, and you shall have all graces and virtues bestowed
upon you ; and you shall have all your crimes and transgressions
fully remitted, and both living and dying you shall be happy.
I look upon that passage in Acts xix. 24, &c, to be a plain
representation of the case of the Romish priests : they like Deme
trius deal in sUver-shrines, which bring no small gain to the crafts
men ; and therefore it is no wonder that they urge this with
great earnestness, " Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have
our wealth." We shaU lose our trade and custom, we fall
short of our gain and income, if we do not keep up the
doctrines and practice of worshipping of images, of praying
for the dead, of indulgences and absolutions, &c. Wherefore
let us be very warm and concerned in this cause, and cry up
this Diana, and never suffer these profitable doctrines and
usages to be ravished from us. Thus Rome is the great ware
house, and their religion is merchandise. And this was the
sense and persuasion of that Pope, who said to one of his car
dinals, or the cardinal said it to him : " See how advantageous
this fable of Christ is to us ! see what a deal of good cash it
brings in !" I think then I have rightly assigned this to be
one great advancer of the Antichristian Church and cause,
namely, their excessive love of gain.
* Abbas Joachim in Comment, in Apocalyps.
F 2

68 INTRODUCTION.
And with this is joined their immoderate desire of grandeur,
honour, and dominion. And indeed this is their chief aim :
for though they cannot raise their power, or keep it up without
wealth (and hence it is necessary to mind this), yet that which
is ultimately designed by them is to be great and powerful, to
be reverenced and obeyed, and to be exalted above all others,
All their doctrines and rites, all their contrivances and practices
tend to this. The doctrine of transubstantiation is a very ex
alting article ; for this makes priests as high as God. After
uttering a few words they can turn bread into flesh, yea, into
Christ's real body, which is a greater miracle than any of the
old Prophets, or Apostles were able to do. Raising the dead is
not to be compared, much less equalled with this. What re
ward and honour then, what preferment and rewards are due
to such persons ? What can be denied to them, who are able
to effect such mighty things? The wonderful power and
virtue of these men, who can change a wafer into God incarnate,
can never be sufficiently admired and extolled. Thus the
mystery of transubstantiation sets up the Roman clergy. So
without doubt the debarring the people of the cup, is to make
the priests more esteemed and honoured. So questionless the
service in an unknown tongue, redounds to the credit of
this rank of persons ; for every one cannot say the service in
Latin, and therefore those that can, ought to be magnified and
advanced. The priest's power of absolving from all sins, and especially tbe
Pope's power of granting pardons and indulgences to whom he
pleases, cannot but derive a wonderful honour upon them, from
those that believe this doctrine. And again, what will not the
people do for him, that can not only pardon all their sins here
but free them from purgatory afterwards ? Auricular confession
to a priest of all the sins a man hath committed, or designs to
commit, is a pohtic contrivance for the disclosing the affairs of
families, and is a useful tool to keep people in awe.
Scire volunt secreta domus, atque inde timeri.
Besides that the priests being thus acquainted with the secrets of
mankind, and the hidden affairs of the world, can impart them
to authority : for it is not unlawful to make known what is
confessed to them, if it be for the good of the Roman Church,
as is decided by some casuists.* That of Luther, f is tine
* Panormitan.. c. omnis. de Poenit. et Rem. Alex. Hal. part. 4. qn.
28. art. 2. t Coll. Mens.

INTRODUCTION. 69
here ; " Christ (saith he), gave to the Church two keys, but
out of these the Pope hath made several picklocks." And we
see how dexterously he can make use of them to politic ends.
And to the like ends is the marriage of the clergy forbid ;
namely, to render them an order more holy than others in the
repute of the world, that so they may be more reverenced and
rewarded : likewise Uving in celibacy they can afford to leave
all they have to the Church, and thereby enrich it.
On the Pope's supremacy and infallibility ; on blind obe
dience and implicit faith what great advantages depend ? The
Church of Rome can do what she will ; govern and rule as she
pleases by such doctrines as these. How politic is that prac
tice of theirs, of exempting the clergy from the civil jurisdic
tion ? And how powerful an engine for advancing the Papal
throne is the excommunicating, anathematizing, deposing, yea,
poisoning, and other ways sending out of the world kings and
emperors ? Stapleton saith it in honour of the Church of
Rome,* that " the bishop of it, even without arms gives laws
to the kings of the earth, prefers to kingdoms and thrones,
compels to peace and unity, &c. which the emperors of Rome
could not effect, although they were assisted with forty legions
of armed men." And yet what is it but grandeur and wealth,
that the Pope drives at in all this, especially in making Chris
tian kings truckle to him ? What is it, but pomp and honour ;
what but tyranny and usurpation, what but universal empire
and dominion that he aims at 1
We might farther observe the politic contrivance and make
of the Roman reUgion : things are so craftily put together, that
we may see their design was to gratify the humours of all sorts
of persons. This is thus represented in part by Sir Edwin
Sandys :f " What pomp (saith he), what riot like to that of
their cardinals? What severity of life compared to that of
their hermits and capuchins ? Who wealthier than their pre
lates ? Who poorer by vow and profession than their mendi
cants ? On the one side of the street a cloister of virgins ; on
the other side a sty of whores with pubhc toleration. This
day all in masks with all looseness and foolery ; to-morrow all
in processions, whipping themselves till the blood follows. On
one door an excommunication, throwing to hell all transgres
sors ; on the other a jubUee, or full discharge from all trans
gressions." And in many other things it might be shewed,
* De Mag. Eccl. 1. 2. c. 1. t Europae Speculum.

70 INTRODUCTION.
that Popery is a medley, a farce, a compound of different, yea,
contrary ingredients. The Roman beast hath all his paces.
Papists have entertainments for persons of all tempers and
geniuses. Whether you delight in fasting or feasting; in mourn
ing or revelling ; in whining or ranting ; in the severities of Lent,
or the jolly carnival that accompanies it, and heretofore hath
even been mixed with it, take your choice, you may be treated
as you please. Popery is one way or other calculated for all
meridians, and fitted to all inclinations ; which is one reason
why it so much prevails, and hath gained so many professors.
Thus, from this and the former head, it is manifest, that the
religion of the Church of Rome is made to promote secular
interest, and to carry on worldly designs. Some have distin
guished between the Court and the Church of Rome ; but there
is Uttle ground for it : for (as one tells us,* who had a perfect
knowledge of them) " their religion is mere policy." Covetous
ness and ambition, pride and pleasure actuate all things ; these
run through all their tenets and all their performances. They
have an eye in everything to their temporal advantage. This
is the catholic principle that inspires them. But this is quite
against the primitive spirit of religion. Christ saith, "His
kingdom is not of this world ;" and thence we may gather,
that that of Rome is antichristian. He fled from a crown ;
but they take it from others, to set it on their own heads.
Christ's disciples were severely checked for their ambition, and
inquiring " who should be greatest," and therefore we may
infer that Rome is to be condemned for its affecting of gran
deur and sovereignty. But this was the way to set her up,
and accordingly she took this method to effect it.
Secondly, the cherishing of ignorance was another cause of
the rise and progress of the Popish corruptions. It may be
observed, and hath been by many, that after the Western
Empire decayed, there was a decay of knowledge and learning ;
arts and sciences were neglected, the tongues disregarded, and
barbarism and blindness came in their place. This began in
the eighth century, and increased more and more ; not only
abroad, but in those countries where our ancestors lived. The
clergymen were so ignorant, that few of them understood their
common prayers, insomuch that it was ordered by a Synod, f
that those of the clergy, that could not say, Domine miserere
* Sir Edw. Sand. EuropiE Speculum.
t Concil. Brit. p. 248 and 253. a.d. 747.

INTRODUCTION. 71
nostri in Latin, should instead thereof say, " Lord, have mercy
upon us," in their mother-tongue. The Scriptures were never
read, and scarce ever seen by some priests. Luther tells us,*
that even about the beginning of the Reformation, Albertus,
archbishop of Mentz, by chance meeting with the Bible, read
a considerable time in it, and being asked what he thought of
it, answered, " I know not what book this is : but sure I am,
all that is therein written is quite against us." Several doctors
of divinity had not read a word of the Bible in Luther's time.f
And particularly Luther saith J concerning Andrew Carolstad,
a noted Papist in his time, that he was promoted doctor of
divinity eight years before he read the Bible. And concerning
himself he lets us know, that he was twenty years old and saw
no Bible :§ he thought there had been no other Epistles and
Gospels but only those in the Postills.
Thus Popery is fostered by ignorance, which naturally pro
duces error and superstition. And then the grossest opinions
are entertained, and anything is embraced for religion, It was
this that promoted the belief of feigned miracles ; for we hear
but of very few since the Reformation, that is, since a greater
light and knowledge hath sprung up among men. The true
character of a Papist is, " He is in darkness and walketh in
darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that
darkness hath blinded his eyes." Ignorance is a good ingre
dient in his religion, and the knowledge of the Scriptures and
divine truths is a dangerous thing. Mystery and Babylon is
his badge ; darkness and blindness are essential to him ; for it
fares with all that are proselyted into this religion, as with aU
those who, Herodotus saith, || were taken captive by the Scy
thians, they have their eyes put out, and have no longer the
use of their sight. There was in Italy an order of friars, who
were called the Brethren of Ignorance, because they took an
oath that they would not read, know, or learn anything ; but
that they would answer all questions with Nescio, " I know
not." This was but one particular order : but it is certain that
gross ignorance reigns among others of them. You may read
even in their own writers, as in Platina and others who have
writ the Popes' Uves, of very blockish ignorant Popes ; you
shaU frequently find that the infalUble guide of the world, as
they style him, the teacher of all souls, the universal head hath
* Colloq. Mens. t Pref. to Colloq. Mens. % Ibid. § Ibid.
|| " k-Kavra. twv av \a/3wut oi 'Skv9cu, lKTVtp\oi<ri. — Lib. 4. u. 2.

72 INTRODUCTION.
been very empty of knowledge. One of their own authors*
leaves it on record, that many of their Popes were so " devoid of
scholarship that they knew not a word in the grammar." And
who then can expect any knowledge in the laity, especially as
to diviner matters ? They are denied the Scriptures, and their,
prayers are in Latin, though they understand not a word of it.
Or, if Latin should grow too common, and come to be under
stood, they will perhaps have their service in Arabic or Coptic.
In brief, Popery sprang from ignorance and barbarism ; and,
what begot it, doth nourish it.
Thirdly, The falling off from the primitive rule and institu
tion was the cause of all the Popish corruptions. The Papal
Antichrist got up by this : when men took liberty to institute
new things in divine worship, then Popery arose. Then, as
Christ's authority decreased daily, so the Pope's power grew
greater and greater. As Christ's name was obscured, so that
of his pretended vicar became iUustrious. This was the lead
ing cause of Popery, namely, the preferring human authority
to that which is divine : the laying Scripture aside, and making
additions to religion' out of their own fertile inventions. The
canon law gives it for sound doctrine, that the Decretal Epistles
of the Popes are to be ranked with the canonical Scriptures,,
Mr. William Tindal being engaged in a dispute with one who
was accounted a learned doctor of the Romish persuasion, drew
him to that issue, that he brake forth into these blasphemous
words, " We (saith he) had better be without God's laws than
the Pope's." And it is observable, that when they do make
use of the divine law, and quote the holy Scriptures, their in
terpretations of them, and glosses upon them are full of quirks
and fetches, subterfuges and evasions ; and they make what
sense they please of Scripture. There might be abundant in
stances given of this ; but I have in another placet produced .
some of them. Let it suffice at present to remark, that either
by forsaking the rule, or by distorting and perverting it, which
indeed differs little from the other, the true notions of the
Christian religion have been depraved, and the Popish doctrines
and abuses have prevailed.
Fourthly, The promotion and establishment of the religion
of Papists were effected by cheats and frauds, and all manner
* Cum constat plures Papas adeo illiteratos esse, ut Grammaticam pe»
tits ignorarent. — Alphons. a Castro, 1. 1. adv. Hseres. c. 4.
t On the Third Commandment.

INTRODUCTION. 73
of lying and deceit. It seems the Christian and Pagan Rome
agree in this ; for we are told by Livy and other historians,
that Numa Pompilius feigned a familiar conference with the
goddess jEgeria, and pretended to receive from her particular
dictates about rehgion, that thereby he might gain the greater
authority and reverence, and insinuate his laws into the peo
ple's minds and esteem. Popery was set up after this manner ;
that is, by feigned revelations, by counterfeit visions, by pre
tending to hold communion with certain deceased saints; and
chiefly by lying miracles. For miracles are made a mark of
the true Church by Popish writers, and therefore some of these
must be produced to estabhsh the Roman cause. Yea, and the
cause was set up by it at first. Thus, those that give us an
account of the seventh century, let us know that many pro
digies, wonders, and miracles were feigned for the credit of the
mass, purgatory, praying to saints, monastic Ufe, worshipping
of images, &c. And the next age was full of forged miracles
and lying wonders, to give repute to these and other super
stitious doctrines and usages. And good store of these there
were in the eleventh century, as may be seen in Vincentius,
Sigebert, &c.
And they went on in the same course afterwards, and that
by their own confession ; as in that discovery which was made
of the cheat carried on by the Dominican Friars, in their
contestation with the Franciscans about the immaculate con
ception : and the actors in that imposture were burnt at Berne.
The history of the Provost of Orleans' wife is no secret : her
husband at her death gave nothing to the Church, which was
so ill taken by the CordeUers, that it was agreed amongst them
that one of their convent should creep between the ceiling and
the roof of their church, and there shriek and howl and make
a hideous noise. Whereupon aU the city was affrighted, as if
the church were haunted by the devil : accordingly the spirit
was conjured by an exorcist to tell what he was, and what
he would have : at which the spirit confessed, that she was
the soul of the provost's wife ; for whose health nothing was
allowed to the Church : and for want of the prayers of the
priest she was in great pain and torment. But the provost
being a resolute man caused the matter to be searched into,
whereby the cheat was soon found out, and the impostors were
severely punished without respect to their cowls, and the in
demnities of their order. And other frauds of the like
nature have been acted and detected, and sometimes punished,

74 INTRODUCTION.
because it would be too apparently scandalous to let such
forgeries go unpunished, when they were plainly discovered.
But this is certain, that they dearly love to delude one another ;
but especially the simple and vulgar people.
These they also cheat with counterfeit images, of wliich
Luther is his Colloq. Mensal. gives us this instance ; in a
monastery at Isenach, in Germany, I saw (saith he) an image
of the Virgin Mary, with her child Jesus. When a wealthy
person came thither to pray, the child turned away his face
from the sinner to his mother, as if he refused to give ear to
his prayer ; and therefore the supplicant was to apply himself
to the mother Mary, and to crave her to mediate and intercede
for him. But if the person gave Uberally to that monastery,
then the child turned to him again ; and if he promised to give
more, then the child shewed himself very friendly and loving
towards him, and stretched out his arms over him in figure of
a cross. This image was hollow within ; and behind it stood
one who ordered it as occasion served : but the ordinary
people took it to move by Divine Providence.
The cheat of pretended reUcs is well known : for whereas
Baronius confesses there were not above four nails of the cross
in all, they produce several hundreds of them. And because
they know they can be bold with the silly people, the Arch
bishop of Mentz* bragged that he had the flame of the bush
which Moses beheld burning. And a leg of the ass on which
Christ rode into Jerusalem, was given by a priest of Rome to
a Dutchman. Most of the Romish saints are a cheat, and
they do but blush in the red letters in the calendar. And
some of those who have the glorious title of saints bestowed
upon them, scarcely deserve the name of men. But what said
the cardinal-legate, when he bestowed his blessing on the
people that came to see him, and when he took notice of their
bhnd devotion and bigotry ? "If the people will be deceived,
let them be deceived (said he) in God's name." They were
pleased with the cheat, and it is not to be questioned that he
was so too. And this is the guise of the Roman priests and
shavelings ; they delight to play upon the people, to shew
tricks to the rabble, and to impose (if they can) upon all man
kind. To this purpose they make use of fabulous writers, as Nice-
phorus Callistus, Simeon Metaphrastes, Cedrenus, Sophronius,
* Luth. Coll. Mens.

INTRODUCTION. 75
and several others, who furnish their readers with cunningly
contrived stories, legends, and miracles. In the twelfth century
Peter Comestor (brother to Lombard and Gratian), author of
the Scholastical History, was the grand father of the legendary
tales, so frequent since in the Romish Church. For so it is,
fables and falsehoods are made use of to defend their cause, to
shew it is aU one great fable and imposture. They also pro
duce forged writings to concdiate respect and reverence to the
clergy and cause, as the Constitutions and Canons of the
Apostles, attributed to Clement, bishop of Rome ; Dionysius
the Areopagite's* writings concerning the hierarchy, and
several more which contain in them rules and orders, which do
not answer the antiquity which they pretend to. St. Ambrose
de Sacramentis, and St. Cyprian de Cosna Domini, and de
Dispositione Camce are treatises that are confessed to be
adulterate by the learnedest Romanists, and yet are quoted by
some of them to prove transubstantiation and other corrupt
opinions. I might mention here their altering and corrupting the
original copies of the Fathers and other ancient writers; for in
their Expurgatory Indexes, they blot out and cancel all that
they dislike, and in other places change their sense by in
serting what they think fit. Many things are imposed upon
the people under the name of traditions, which is a plausible
term among them. God's word will not serve them ; they
deal in certain received doctrines and usages which they tell us
are transmitted from one to another ; and we may be sure then
that they are increased and augmented, and that the son adds
to the parent's relation, and in time it becomes another thing.
The many artifices and shifts which are used by the Roman
doctors have done them great service. I know none that are
such shufflers as they, unless they be Socinians, and Italy
fostered both. Here I might mention the Glass of the Trinity,
to solve the saints knowing our wants on earth ; the doctrine
of concomitancy, to answer the objections againt communi
cating in both kinds ; and abundance of the Uke strained in
ventions, delusions, and faUacies do they make use of to support
the cause. Satan hath his wiles and devices, and his servants
learn of him : accordingly we read of " the sleight of men, and
cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive."
* Proved to be spurious by Petavius, Morinus, and several other
learned men of the Church of Rome.

76 INTRODUCTION.
Eph. iv. 14. Popery had Its rise and progress by these arts.
It grew up and increased by forgery and falsehood, by Ues and
fictions, by impostures and religious juggle, by holy cheats,
and pious frauds, as they themselves call them.
Fifthly, They plead number and multitude, and find that
that hath advanced their cause. They have always been
gaining of proselytes to their Church ; and this increase of
their communion hath invited and encouraged others to make
it more numerous ; and thence they infer that they are of the
true Church, for they are told by their doctors, that one
infallible mark and character of the true Church is, its vast
multiplying and spreading itself. But this arguing will serve
as weU for Paganism and Turkism ; for the professors of the
former are far the greatest numbers of those, that have any
kind of religion. And next to the Pagan religion the Ma
hometan hath the most votaries. Wherefore it is a weak
argument that the Church of Rome makes use of. However,
it is certain, that this hath been one occasion of the success
that Popery hath met with.
Sixthly, Popery hath exalted itself by " depressing of the
civil powers, and tramphng upon kings and princes." The
Roman Catholics are avowed enemies to crowned heads. He
is a stranger to the writings of these men, who is not sensible
of that contempt and disesteem which they entertain for the
higher powers. It is well known, that their writers exalt the
priesthood above the kingly office, and shaven crowns above the
royal ones ; yea, the very exorcists in the Church of Rome
are of greater dignity than temporal princes, said Pope Gregory
VII. Hence it is, that the Church of Rome exempts the
clergy from the jurisdiction of civil courts of judicature.
Bellarmine* professedly maintains, that churchmen are free
from the secular power : and the writers of best note among
them assert the same. Therefore a bishop's chancellor must
by no means be a layman (which yet is not observed among
us), for it is not fit that a laic should judge ecclesiastics. To
this purposef they allege the Mosaic law, " Thou shalt not
plough with an ox and an ass ;" for laymen, if compared with
churchmen, are to be reckoned amongst the latter kind.
Spiritual persons must not be tried by temporal ones. Those
are too holy to be summoned into secular courts. They that
appear so often at the holy altar, and do such great things
* Lib. de Clericis. t Lib. 1. Decret. Tit. 15.

INTRODUCTION. 77
there, must not be dragged before a common tribunal. Those
that take the confession of men's sins ought not to stand and
confess at a bar. This was it that made Thomas Becket stand
out so stiffly against King Henry II. , he would not consent
that the priests should be tried and judged by the secular
magistrate. Yea, it is the decision of a great and celebrated
casuist, that rebellion* in a clergyman is no treason, because he
is exempted from the civil power and temporal judicatures.
But this is a privilege that was not known in the Old Testa
ment ; for the priests among the Jews, when they offended,
were tried by the civil judges, and displaced from their office
by the temporal magistrate, as we may gather from 1 Sam. xxii.
11. 1 Kings n. 26, 27. And in the New Testament we read
that St. Paul pleaded in tbe civil courts. "He thought him
self happy to answer before King Agrippa,'' Acts xxvi. 2. " I
stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged,"
Acts xxv. 10. And in the next verse he appeals unto Csesar.
And his doctrine was suitable to his practice, Rom. xiii. 1 .
" Let every soul, i. e. every person, whether spiritual or
temporal, be subject to the higher powers." But the Roman
clergy plead exemption from the Apostle's charge ; they assert
that they ought to be excused from the jurisdiction of the
secular governors ; they fly from the civil court as incompetent
judges ; they appeal from kings to the Pope. And as for lay-
Papists, though they brag of their loyalty, yet they have but
Uttle reason to do so ; for they are taught that the Pope is
universal head over all persons on earth, and by that means
hath a jurisdiction over all kings and princes ; so that none of
their subjects are bound to obey them without the Pope's leave.
Therefore no Romanist can be a good subject. Crowned
heads cannot promise themselves submission and allegiance, if
the Pope bids them resist ; and he will bid them , if the prince
doth not please him. This is one way whereby Popery hath
been considerably advanced, because he hath hereby even by
force and violence thrust his commands upon sovereign rulers.
And I will add under this head likewise the excommuni
cating and deposing of kings. Pope Gregory VII. excommu
nicated the Emperor Henry IV., and Gregory IX. did the
same to the Emperor Frederick II. Pope Innocent III.
deposed the Emperor Philip, and would have treated our
* Clerici rebellio in regem non est crimen laesse Majestatis, quia non est
subditus Regi. — Eman Sa. in Aphor. Confess.

ib INTRODUCTION.
King John in the like manner, if he had not submitted to
him in the vilest and basest way. Queen Elizabeth was ex
communicated by Pope Pius V., and King James was ex
cluded from the succession to the crown by two briefs of the
Pope. And this is not only matter of fact, but it is held to
be good doctrine by the greatest divines* of the Roman
Church, that the Pope may justly depose an heretical prince,
and set up another in his room. And this is not only held
by single and private persons, but it is the doctrine that is
maintained by the decrees and determinations of Popes and
Councils. This was the decision of Gregory VII., Urban II.,
Gregory IX., the Councils of Lateran under Alexander III,
and Innocent IIL, the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Constance,
Lateran under Leo X., and Trent. If the Popes do not claim
the doctrine of deposing of kings, why did the clergy in
France, in the year 1682, condemn it in the solemn and public
determinations they made ? But I ask, how can any of the
communion of the Church of Rome dissent from and deter
mine contrary to the decrees of seven Councils, and those
reputed General ones too? How can they be true Roman
Catholics and members of the Church, if they directly oppose,
contradict, and deny the doctrine which is confirmed by their
spiritual fathers and governors, and who are acknowledged by
them to be infallible ? There is nothing more clear than this,
that it is the avowed doctrine of the Church of Rome, that
Popes may depose kings, and absolve their subjects from
allegiance, and give away their kingdoms. So it is concluded
in those Councils before named, and more particularly in the
third canon of the fourth Council of Lateran, held in the
year 1215, which was owned to be a General Council by that
of Constance.
Seventhly and lastly, to comprise all that belongs to this
subject ; Popery was begun and carried on by all manner of
wicked practices, and therefore could not but be agreeable and
acceptable to vicious persons, who are always the greatest
numbers. The beginning of Papal Rome was not unlike that
of the Pagan one, which commenced in theft and robbery,
lewdness and rape ; for they violently stole away and ravished
the daughters of the Sabines to get themselves wives. Old
Rome was at first peopled by a crew of wild and debauched
* Mariana, Bellarmine, Baronius, Suarez, Valentia, Card. Peron,
Parsons, Creswell,

INTRODUCTION. 79
fellows, and by admitting to it all malefactors. It was at first
an asylum for the outlawed, a refuge for the profligate, and
for men of desperate fortunes. There all delinquents might
be safe ; which caUed in great numbers from all parts ; vil
lains, murderers, whoremongers, thieves, debtors, &c. and all
these are in Rome still. The old Romans bore for their
ensign an eagle, the most greedy and rapacious of all birds :
and they themselves were of the same kind. All things
furious and savage may be observed in the rise of that peo
ple. Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome, were said
to be begot of Mars ; and the former of them at the begin
ning of his government embrued his hands in his brother's
blood. And such was the beginning of new and Papal Rome,
and of its founders and authors. They laid the foundation of
it in blood and slaughter. Harvey's hypothesis is true ; the
bloody point was the first root of vitality with them. Popery
began under Phocas the emperor, who murdered Mauritius,
his master, the preceding emperor, and barbarously killed his
wife and children before his face. New Rome treads in the
steps of the old one : it is a shelter for criminals, an asylum
for assassins and murderers. It is suckled by wolves, and is
itself one. Rome is a bird of prey, and finds perpetual work
for its bloody talons. As it sprung from bloodshed and vio
lence, so it hath been ever since upheld in the same way. The
dread of fire and faggot hath made proselytes to the Roman
Church. Compulsion and cruelty have brought them in
worshippers ; as they say, the Indians worship the devil for
fear of being hurt by bim. This is the case of those who are
under the jurisdiction of the Roman Church ; they must com
ply with her superstition and idolatry, or they must be forced
to it by the inquisition, or by the stake. This latter hath
been the usual infliction on those that were voted to be here
tics. Or if those of this character escaped this punishment,
when alive, they must undergo it after death. Thus, though
WickUff was quietly laid in the grave, yet forty years after his
body was taken up and burnt by the order of the Council of
Constance. So the bones of Bucer and P. Fagius were taken
up and burnt to ashes in Queen Mary's reign. Yea, tbe
Archbishop of Spalato's body was used after the same manner.
A right Roman usage indeed to burn the bones of the dead !
But now it is become an act of inhumanity, cruelty, and bar
barity, and is designed to frighten men out of heresy, and to

80 INTRODUCTION.
compel them to embrace the errors and superstitions of the
Church of Rome.
Here might be mentioned the bloody persecuting of the
English Protestants in Queen Mary's days ; the Parisian mas
sacre in the year 1572, when, at the ringing of the great bell
of the palace, all the Papists were to fall upon the Protestants,
and murder them : and edicts were sent into all parts of the
kingdom to execute the same barbarous design. This horrid
massacre was disguised under the pretence of a marriage be
tween the Prince of Navarre and the King of France's sister.
At Paris the wedding was to be solemnized, and so it was ;
and the whole body of the Protestants was gathered together
there : at which time, upon the word being given, the Admiral
and other great persons were murdered, and the slaughter of
about thirty thousand men followed within few days. I might
mention the gunpowder conspiracy in King James I.'s days ;
the massacre executed on the Protestants in Ireland by the
rebels there in forty-one and forty-two ; the inhuman butche
ries on the poor Waldenses in Piedmont, in the year 1655 ; the
last merciless cruelties in France on the Huguenots, which
began in 1683. Yea, cruelty is so natural to Papists, that
they unmercifully fall on their own kind ; witness the poison
ing of the Emperor Henry VII. in the wine of the eucharist/
which was given to him ; witness the assassinating of Henry
III. and IV. kings of France ; witness the Sicilian Vespers in
1582, when all the French of that isle were massacred at the
tolling of a bell. Look where you will, and you will find the
Papists a bloody generation ; yea, those of their own commu
nion feel their revenge. But their utmost rage is exercised
against those they brand with the name of heretics, that is,
the professors of the Protestant faith : even out of principle
they persecute these. He that can like such a religion, de
serves to be of it, that it may be his punishment as well as his
choice. And Rome is notorious for all other villanous outrages, as
well as cruelty and slaughter. The Popes themselves have
been not only murderers, but, by the confession of the Roman
historians themselves, persons of most profligate lives on other
accounts ; they have been profane and impious, lewd and
scandalous, and to be abhorred by all good men. Pope
John XXIII. was generally called a devil incarnate, and seve
ral others in that see deserved that name, if we may credit

INTRODUCTION. 81
their own writers and historians. Thus Popery was main
tained and supported ; thus the errors and superstitions of
the Roman Church were promoted and established by persons
of this rank and character : for a wicked life naturally in
clines men to embrace evil doctrines, and to betake themselves
to an undue worship.
I will observe here, that Popery grew up to what it is, by
all that is blame-worthy and bad in all ranks of persons ;
prince, clergy, and people. These all did as it were conspire
to contribute something towards it. Some of the first rank
promoted it by a sneaking and low spirit, by a servile sub
mission and truckling to whatever the Popes thought fit to
propound to them, and impose upon them. Thus it was the
fault of some of the emperors, that the Antichristian cause
grew to so great a height. And sometimes there was policy
in the case ; some princes and emperors, that they might
themselves attain to a more arbitrary sway, suffered the
churchmen to use their liberty to an excess. They stood in
need oftentimes of the clergy, and therefore they found it
necessary to indulge them, and to permit them to tyrannize,
in spiritual causes especially, that they themselves might do
so in temporal ones ; and at last they could not restrain them
from usurping the civil power.
The second degree of persons which I mentioned were the
most forward and zealous in this work ; they were the prin
cipal agents in erecting the Papal kingdom. The overseers
and guides of the Church became supine and careless, and did
not attend to their sacred employment ; so that (as was ob
served before) whilst the husbandmen slept, the enemy sowed
tares among the wheat ; false doctrines and errors crept in,
and were not perceived and taken notice of. But though
churchmen were forgetful of their office, and neglected their
proper duty, yet they were mindful of their gain, and were
very greedy of preferment and honour. By these two engines,
avarice and ambition (of which I particularly spoke before),
Popery was screwed up to its height. Their chief design was
to purchase wealth and grandeur, dominion and authority, and
thereby they set up their temporal kingdom, and became
lords over men's bodies, as well as their souls.
The third and last rank are the people, who willingly con
tributed toward the erecting of a false religion : for they were
easily carried down with the stream of corrupt times, and they
were forward to entertain those doctrines which were accept-
VOL. VI. G

82 INTRODUCTION.
able and plausible, by reason of the indulgence which they
gave to men's lusts and vices ; and they had a great kindness
for those rites and ceremonies, which were gay and pompous,
and gratified the outward senses. " At what time the Babylo
nians heard the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut,
psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of music, they fell down and
worshipped the golden image," Dan. iii. 5, and they would
as easily have worshipped any thing else, that had been set up
before them. The ravishing music, the gaiety, the pomp, the
sensual pleasure that accompanies the ceremonious religion of
the Roman Babylon make the people enamoured with it, and
by this charm the priests can make them do what they will,
It is here as it was in Gentile Rome ; the lords and grandees
used to exhibit stage-plays and shows, to make themselves
popular thereby, and to cajole the multitude : so the people
are dealt with by their ecclesiastic managers, who labour to
please and gratify them, and to make them very easy and quiet
by that histrionical service which they entertain them with;
by that outward show and pageantry of devotion, which is
void of inward and real sanctity. Thus Popery is advanced
by the infatuation of the common people. And thus we see
by what ways and methods, and by whose procurement the
religion of the Papists was set up. Every man brought his
ear-rings to make up this golden calf. All ranks and degrees
of persons clubbed towards it ; some more and some less, but
every one contributed something. ' !
And this farther is observable from the whole, that Popery
grew up by degrees. Whether you respect the corruption of
doctrine, or the degeneracy of morals, or the tyranny and
usurpation of the Church of Rome (which three things make
up Popery), they all were gradual. In this the new Rome is
like the old one, which had a very contemptible beginning;
for under its seven kings the Roman territories reached no
farther than sixteen or seventeen Italian miles : so the power
of the Church of Rome, together with its errors and corrup
tions, came on by little and Uttle. There was an insensible
deviation even of the first Churches from the apostolical rule
and practice, until the degeneracy and apostasy ended in that
we call Popery, which was set up at the beginning of the
seventh century, i. e. six hundred years after Christ. And
this likewise gradually increased, and by certain steps got up
to what it is now. When it was first hatched and brooded, it
was weak and poor, and could not be thought to be able to

INTRODUCTION. 83
arrive to its present greatness and strength. We are told,
that the crocodile, of all the animals we know, grows to be
the* greatest from the least (for the eggs are not much bigger
than those of a goose). It is certain that the Roman Church
and pohty (which in some things too manifestly resembles
that mischievous creature) began low : but no other ever
climbed up to that height ; none ever mounted to that pitch.
At first there was not a word of a treasury of saints' merits,
and superabundant satisfactions, and these in the Pope's dis
posal ; there was no celebrating of the public service in an un
known tongue ; there were no private masses ; there was no
receiving in one kind only. And as for the public mass, it
was not formed all at once ; it was brought to what it is by
several Popes ; one inventing one part, and another another ;
so that it was several years coming to its perfection. The
introit was brought in by one Pope ; the /eyrie eleison by
another : such a collect at one time ; such at another. And
so for the vast number of ceremonies used in it, they were in
troduced by degrees, and at last arrived to this superstitious
monster of devotion. The other corruptions in doctrine,
worship, and manners, advanced also leisurely, and they
ripened by degrees, and in the two last centuries but one the
Church of Rome came to the very height and zenith of its
glory and splendour.
For now the Canonists with their Decrees, Decretals, &c,
and with their several Comments on these gave it a fine
gloss and shape. The writers of the Sentences and Sums, with
all the school-divines, fashioned it yet more exactly. The
Casuists did their part Ukewise ; for they being directors and
guides of men's consciences led them to practices inconsistent
with reUgion, they gratified their corrupt inclinations to serve
the interest of the Church of Rome, and to bring men over to
a liking of the corruptions in doctrine and worship. These
together with the Homilists agreed to corrupt the simplicity
of the Gospel, to entangle and obscure religion, to perplex
men's consciences, and to debauch morality, and by aU this
to shape and frame Popery in the most accurate manner. The
Jesuits most dexterously helped the cause forward ; and packed
Councils and Synods were yet more serviceable ; as those of
Constance, Basil, Lateran, and Trent. But this last did the
Pope the best service of all conventions and assemblies of that
* 'E£ tkaxiarov piyiirrov yiverat. Herodot. 1. 2. c. 68.
G 2

INTRODUCTION.

nature ; because it made all the errors and corruptions of the
Roman Church to be articles of faith, and by a formal law
legitimated all the wicked practices of it.
This is the state of the Roman Church at present ; that
Church, which some so brag of, and whence they glory to
take their denomination. Even this (though it was once
otherwise) is become the fountain of error and vice. It is
with them, as with the Jews, God's people, the only nation
that worshipped God aright and knew his mind ; yet they
grew at last corrupt both in their principles and actions ; they
preferred traditions before the law, and the commandments of
men before the express injunctions of God. So is it with the
Roman Church ; we deny not their primitive purity and
glory ; we wilhngly acknowledge it to have been the renowned
nursery of the Gospel, and the residence of the saints, and
the nourisher of the true faith, and the seat of the martyrs,
For it is not to be denied, that all the bishops of Rome (except
one or two) for the first three hundred years suffered martyr
dom, and laid down their lives in defence of Christianity,
From the beginning, saith Sozomen, it was the school of tbe
Apostles, and the metropolis of piety.* And the ancient Fathers
are very free in their praise of her. But the. Church of Rome
did not continue long in her virgin-state ; her beauty was soon
tarnished, her glory obscured and sullied, and she hath long
since degenerated from her former innocence and purity, and
hath abandoned the true faith, and is debauched in her man
ners, and hath corrupted the pure worship of the Most High,
So that it may be said of her, as of Jerusalem, Isa. i. 21,
" the faithful city is become an harlot ;" and that is the igno
minious name that is given her by St. John, who foretold
this degeneracy and corruption.
Having thus inquired into the causes and occasions of the
rise and progress, and the several advances of Popery, I pro
ceed in the last place to exhibit a brief view of the causes and
occasions of the decay of it at the Reformation, and of the
reviving of the Protestant religion, that is, the Christian reh
gion, as it is purged from the corruption of Popery. Here I
will shew first, that God alone, secondly, that God, in concur
rence with fit and proper means, was the cause of this wonder
ful change.
* ' AttootcXwv tppovTiarripiov Kal iblifiiiac 'jinrpowoXiQ il <t(X<l!
ytyivtpivn. Hist. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 8.

INTRODUCTION. 85
First, God himself alone, as he was just, and as he was
merciful. As he was the former, he exercised his severity and
vengeance on the Roman See for their unsufferable tyranny
and cruelty, and for their most horrid profaneness and impiety :
for " her sins had reached unto heaven, and therefore God re
membered her iniquities," Rev. xviii. 5. "True and righteous
were his judgments : for he hath judged the great whore,
which did corrupt the earth with her fornication," Rev. xix. 2.
Which words, though they are spoken concerning a final de
struction of the spiritual Babylon, yet they may be applied to
the present case, because that vengeance of God on Rome at
the Reformation is a forerunner and pledge of that other more
dreadful and complete one, before the consummation of all
things. Again, the mercifulness and goodness (as well as the
justice) of God was engaged in this cause. Out of compassion
to the distressed and deplorable condition of his Church,
which had so long groaned under the tyranny of Rome, he
was pleased to give her relief, and to restore her to her ancient
purity. This was an act of divine love and kindness to his
people, as well as severity and punishment to his adver
saries. Secondly, God brought this to pass by certain means, which
were proper and seasonable, as
I. God raised up eminent students and divines to lay open
and reprove the corruptions of Popery. In every age since the
Papacy hath had footing, some have boldly stood up for the
truth : in the most corrupted times some godly men have ap
peared against the Antichristian powers.
I shall give a complete catalogue of these afterwards, and
therefore shall now only mention those few happy instruments
that more immediately were made use of either for preparing
the way to the Reformation, or were actually concerned in it.
Of the former sort was John Wickliff in England, who ap
peared and preached against Rome, in the fourteenth century,
about a.d. 1370. He may be justly styled the first great re
former: then John Huss, and with him Jerome of Prague in
Bohemia, in the beginning of the fifteenth century. These
would not suffer the Roman Church to have quiet possession ;
but manfully disturbed her, and kept up in men's minds the
sense of those errors and wickedness which were maintained
by her, and convinced many of a necessity of an alteration and
amendment. Of the latter kind were Luther and Calvin, of
whom I have spoken before. I am only to observe now, that

86 INTRODUCTION.
God by them effected those great things which we see ; and in
them was beheld the remarkable power of God, who was
pleased to stir them up to produce so wonderful a change in
the world. Especially as to the former of them, the Al
mighty hand of God was most eminently manifested. For
what could a poor friar creeping out of a cloister do ? He
was advised by his friends to get into his cell again, and to
ply his prayers, and not to venture to undertake so arduous and
hazardous a task as to preach against the Pope, and to attempt
so impossible a work as the Reformation. But see the power
and providence of God ! this mean inconsiderable friar was a
match for the Pope ; he was enabled to withstand all the
force of Rome ; he marred their markets of indulgences and
pardons, which brought them in such stores of gold, and by
preaching and writing so influenced upon multitudes of per
sons, that they abhorred and abandoned the Roman doctrines
and superstitions.
II. Some great men and princes, as well as students and
divines, were by God's over-ruling providence made instru
mental in the Reformation. Even in the worst times of
Popery, some of these withstood the tyranny and usurpations
of the Roman Pontiff, and discountenanced some of the super
stitions, false doctrines and wicked practices of the Church of
Rome. Especially towards the actual furthering of the Re
formation, some secular personages and grandees were very
serviceable. Whether this be the right interpretation of those
words, " The earth helped the woman," Rev. xn. 16, 1 will
not here dispute; but this is certain, that the princes of the
earth were helpful to the true Church in this juncture. They
favoured the cause of Protestantism and the professors of it.
Herein was the hand of God, that secular interest should be
mixed with the Reformation, to make the latter more easy and
smooth. Reasons of state led the German princes to favour
Luther and his doctrine. It was their interest to bring down
the greatness of Charles V. who was tyrannical, and designed
to enslave the princes of the empire. So in England, Wick
liff and his doctrines were favoured by John of Gaunt, a great
man ; and afterwards God raised up that magnanimous prince
Henry VIII. to shake the walls of Rome, and to prepare the
way for the Reformation. To this end God made choice of
the two next princes that succeeded him on the throne, the
one of a far different temper, the other of a different sex; the
one a youth, the other a woman ; and both of them promoted

INTRODUCTION. 87
the Protestant religion by the civil power which God had en
trusted them with.
III. God made use of human learning, and the professors of
it, to make way for the Reformation of reUgion. I shewed
before, that the corruptions of the Romish Church were set
up and promoted by ignorance. On the contrary, when learn
ing and knowledge flourished, the superstitions and corruptions
of Rome began to be dishked. I remember that Tertulhan in
his Apology tells the Pagans that Jesus Christ came into the
world when human knowledge and literature were at their
height. And Clemens Alexandrinus in his Stromata hath the
like observation, and takes notice that philosophy in some
measure disposed men for the Gospel. Nor can it be denied,
that the best of orators,* the best historiansf and antiquaries, J
and the best poets,§ were about our Saviour's time. It is
Ukewise as certain, that human learning and skiU in arts and
sciences ushered in the Reformation, and made way for the
Protestant reUgion. A Uttle before the introduction of it, the
sophistical and barbarous way of the schools grew out of
fashion, and persons betook themselves to the study of useful
learning. To which purpose there were many things that
about that time, by the disposal and providence of God, won-
derfuUy concurred. Several learned Greeks, as Chrysolorus,
Bessarion, Gemistius, Trapezontius, Gaza, Calcondilas, &c.
fled out of their country upon the Turks invading them, and
thereby the Greek tongue, which before was a stranger,
and scarce known in the West for some hundreds of years,
came to be studied and understood : for these natives of
Greece coming into Germany and France, began to teach it
in these parts, and it was marvellously propagated and in
creased. And farther it is observable, that in the middle, and towards
the latter end of the same century, that is the fifteenth, not
only the knowledge and study of the Greek tongue, but of the
Latin also, and all kinds of useful learning, which had been
buried above six hundred years, were now happily revived and
restored. A great number of learned philologists, philoso
phers, physicians, poets, historians, appeared; whose wit and
parts, and great acquired learning, brought the darkness and
* M. T. Cicero.
t Diodor. Sicnlus, Dionys. Halicarn., Livy, Sallust, Pliny.
t Strabo, Varro, Mela. § "Virgil, Horace, Propertius, Ovid.

88 INTRODUCTION.
ignorance of Popery into disgrace : Such were Laurentius
Valla, Baptista Platina, Al. ab Alexandro, Regiomontanus,
Picus Mirandula, Hermolaus Barbaras, Pomponius Laetus,
Rudolphus Agricola, Jovianus, Pontanus, Savanarola, Nau
clerus. These and several others helped to chase away that
barbarism and sottishness which had prevailed in those
times. And then another great help towards the restoring of learn
ing, and consequently of religion, was the art of Printing,
found out in Germany by John Guttenberg, a.d. 1440. It
was used at Mentz first, then in Italy, and so propagated to
other countries, and was very serviceable towards the advancing
of the Reformation. And likewise the erecting of public
schools of learning, contributed much towards the dispelling of
ignorance, and consequently of the Popish errors and of super
stitions. In the fourteenth century there were founded uni
versities at Heidelburg, Prague, Cologne, Erford in Germany,
and at Racovia in Poland. In the ensuing century there were
founded no less than six in Germany, viz. in Rostoch, Friburg,
Tubing, Ingolstad, Mentz, Hanau ; and one at Basil in Swit
zerland ; and three in Scotland, viz. at St. Andrew's, Glasgow,
and Aberdeen. At the beginning of the sixteenth century
there was an university begun at Wittemberg, and another at
one of the Frankforts. These all proved serviceable for the
promoting of knowledge, and for the reforming of religion.
And about this time these great wits and eminently learned
men shewed themselves in the world, and thereby struck the
ignorant out of countenance, Angelus Politianus, Volaterranus,
Melancthon, Cominseus, Erasmus, Budseus, and soon after
other brave men, as Alciat, Scaliger, Turnebus, Ramus ; and
Sir Thomas More and Linacre in England. These were re
storers of learning, these were made to purge that age, to re
form the schools, and to expose the ignorance and superstition
of the monks. These being skilled in all polite learning, re
vived the Greek and Latin authors that were almost lost, and
translated old Greek writers, and mended their faults, and
wrote learned comments upon them. But, above all, Erasmus
had learning and virtue enough to make that age (though so
ignorant and vicious), understanding and good. That great
treasury of knowledge was sufficient to stock that age, and
enrich it, as poor as it was. He spoke and writ so much
sense, and was so justly admired for it, that he was invited by
kings and princes into Germany, Italy, England, and other

INTRODUCTION. 89
parts of Europe; and wherever he came left some real proofs
of his instructing the world, and polishing mankind. Hence
barbarism and school-follies were disused and laid aside, and
the clergy began to read the holy Scriptures in their original
tongues ; and people were everywhere more knowing, and the
corruptions of Rome were more and more espied and disliked.
Therefore this I assign as another cause and spring of the
decay of Popery, and the promoting of a reformation, viz. the
increase of knowledge. Good Uterature introduced Protestant
ism. Greek and Latin were forerunners of reformation. The
restoring of learning was one means of retrieving the know
ledge of the true rehgion,
Lastly, another occasion of the decay of Popery, and of the
introducing of a reformation, was the wicked lives and practices
of those that were of the communion of the Church of Rome.
It is a saying recorded in their own books,* that the worst
Christians of Italy are the Romans, of the Romans the priests,
of the priests the cardinals, and of the cardinals the Popes.
And it had been observed before by another,t That those
people that were nearest neighbours to the Church of Rome,
the head of their religion, were the most irrehgious. The
bishops Uved in luxury, and followed the pleasures of the
Court ; the monks and friars lived idly and wantonly; and the
secular clergy (as well as the regular) were lewd and disso
lute, and took no care of their charge : and the consequence
of this was, that the people's lives were loose, disorderly, pro
fane, and wicked ; that is, they Uved according to the pattern
that was set them. It is no wonder therefore that Nicolaus
de Clemangis, Petrus de AUaco, Gerson, and other sober and
wise men in the beginning of the fifteenth century cried out
aloud for a reformation. And particularly in England, the
scandalous lives of the priests and friars were the occasion of
their downfaU in King Henry VIII.'s reign : for the nobles
and gentlemen, and the common people, were spectators of
their vile and ungodly deeds, and took notice how unanswer
able their actions were to their profession ; and thereupon they
hated them, and took the first opportunity of laying them in
the dust.
More especially I will observe, that those very vices and
enormities which were serviceable toward the introducing and
" Machiav. in 1. Dec. Liv. u. 12. I. 1.
t Sandys' Europae Speculum.

90 INTRODUCTION.
establishing of Popery, were useful afterwards for the checking
and bridling of it, and extirpating some part of it : as first,
cruelty and bloodshed, which set it up, and always went along
with it, and were incorporated into it, rendered it hateful and
detestable. Stripes and imprisonment, the stocks and the
dungeon, and the stake itself, are certainly no very charming
allurements in any reUgion ; and why they should be in the
Roman, I know not, which is made up of inhumanity, cruelty,
and barbarity. It was the cruelty of the Spanish inquisitors
against the Protestants in the Low Countries and Holland ;
(for by the way we must know, that the Spanish Inquisition
was, by the advice of the Dominican friars, designed at first
against the Moors and Jews in Spain, who observed their own
ceremonies, but soon afterwards it was used against the Pro
testants, and with great fierceness ; as Acts of Parliament with
us, of the thirty-fifth of Elizabeth, and the fourth of James I.
which were made first against Popish recusants, have been since
executed against Protestants;) it was the cruelty, I say, of
the Inquisition, that was one great occasion of the revolt of the
Dutch from the Spanish dominion ; for they were not able to
endure the savage insolence and tyranny of such masters.
Thus it is plain that that bloody spirit, which first set up
Popery, was serviceable to pull it down.
The same may be said of their worldly and sensual spirit,
their covetousness, pride, and ambition. For when persons
find that reUgion is founded on gain and secular advantages,
and nothing else ; that spiritual good is pretended, but in
reahty the world is designed ; when they perceive that the
conversion of men and their salvation, and the welfare of their
souls are talked of, but nothing is so little regarded ; when
they behold men making a show of looking toward heaven, but
making the earth their business, they are naturally inclined to
dislike such men and such religion, and, as soon as they can,
to cast off both.
Again, the lewdness and uncleanness of the professors of the
Romish religion rendered them and it extremely scandalous.
At Rome the shambles were shut in Lent, but the stews were
open at the same time : yea, these were permitted at all times,
and fornication was allowed by law. The Popes foUow the ex
ample of the Emperor Cahgula, who imposed a tax upon this
sort of houses. The courtezans in Rome pay the Pope a jalio
a-piece weekly, for his licensing their trade. In Spain there
are mercenary strumpets (Cantoneras), that are countenanced

INTRODUCTION. 91
by authority. The Cortagianes, or prostitute women in Venice
are above twenty thousand : and this sort of people are more
frequently at mass than any other, and most of them wear St.
Francis's girdle (as a certain mark of extraordinary devotion)
about them. Who hath not heard of the ItaUan cardinal who
was sent over into England by Pope Honorius II. about the
year of our Lord 1 ) 25, to declare against the marriage of
priests, and to persuade those of the clergy who had wives, to
divorce them ; and accordingly he made a very warm oration in
praise of virginity, and the same night was taken in bed with
a harlot ? Yea, the worst and most execrable lewdness was
practised by those that vowed chastity and monastic severity.
Monks and Sodomites were convertible, and many Roman
Catholics were meritorii in the worst and vilest sense. And
this, without doubt, bred in sober minds an abhorrence of the
Church which occasioned or favoured such horrid practices,
and reminded them of coming out of Sodom.
So likewise did the perfidiousness, hypocrisy, and deceits of
that Church. John fluss had the faith of the emperor given
him for his safe-conduct, and yet the Council of Constance
thought not fit to observe it; and accordingly he was put to
death. Their maxim was, that " Faith is not to be kept with
heretics." And Bellarmine holds,* that this is part of the
Pope's " power of loosing," which he derives from St. Peter,
namely, a power and right of dispensing with laws, promises,
covenants, vows, and oaths. This is the cardinal's divinity,
and it is agreed to by the generahty of that Church; and con
sequently they impose upon and abuse the faith of mankind,
and break asunder the bonds of truth and honesty. But this
practice, together with all their cheats and impostures, their lying
and equivocating, did justly cause them to be abhorred and
abandoned by those who were lovers of truth and sincerity.
Moreover, the vanities, and foUies, and gross abuses, and
corruptions, which accompany their most solemn acts of reU
gion and worship, gave occasion to good and wise men to
relinquish them. Indeed, their Church, Uke some gaudy
strumpet, was made up altogether of ornaments and bravery.
She may be pourtrayed as ApeUes's scholar painted Helena;
who, though he could not make her fair, made her rich, and
loaded her with good store of gold and costly jewels. Show
and pageantry, gaiety, pomp, and splendour, and outward
* De Pontif. Rom. 1. 1. cap. 13.

92 INTRODUCTION.
formaUty, are the true character of the Roman worship. These
are the prime, and these are the compline in all the Popish
service; these are the first, and these are the last in all their
devotions. Herein they emulate the Pagan worshippers, who
are lavish of their gold and silver, and precious stones, when
they deck their idols. The Popish idolatry is such, and we
have plain proof of it in the richness of their shrines and
images, and in the splendid sumptuousness which is to be seen
in their worship. This could not but be very offensive to the
pious and sober, and truly religious, who knew that this is in
consistent with that spiritual service which God requires,
Besides, they could not but dislike the wild Rituals and Cere
monies which the Church of Rome abounds with, and the wild
rationales they give of them.
They could not but detest the several ridiculous gestures and
postures of the priests at mass, who behaved themselves at
that time like jugglers and mimics : whence hocus pocus is but
the corrupt pronunciation of Hoc est corpus. Who could
approve of their conjuring exorcisms, their holy water and holy
salt, their consecrated oils and herbs, whereby they undertook
to drive away diseases, to fright away wicked spirits, and to
eject devils out of the bodies of the possessed ? Who would
not abhor their profanation of the sacrament of baptism, in
baptizing of bells ? Who would not entertain with derision,
that practice which was used near Rome, namely, that all
horses, mules, and asses were brought by the owners, and
sprinkled with holy water on the seventeenth day of January,
because it is St. Anthony's day, who was patron of those
animals ? But the profane usages and irreligious observances,
yet under pretence of religion, that were common among the
superstitious and deluded Romanists, are so various and nu
merous, that it is impossible to give the reader the detail of
them. I might here mention their monastic vows, in which they
placed a great deal of religion. I deny not, that Paul, Anthony,
Hilarion, Macarius, primitive hermits, retired out of a rehgious
and pious design. I deny not, that some honest and well-
meaning souls repaired to monasteries afterwards. Discontent
and melancholy drove some thither. There are some that
would live at ease, and be rid of the crosses and cares of
the world, and thought this a good expedient for it. But
generally, those that came within these walls had been infa
mous sinners, and had spent their estates in riot and luxury,

INTRODUCTION. 93
and were brought to beggary by their dissolute living. So that
want forced them to take sanctuary here ; and they came into
these cloisters, because they could not be anywhere else.
They put on the guise of religious persons, because they had
no other way to live, or because they were idle, and would not
take pains to maintain themselves.
It is well known, that some of the cloistered fraternity,
whilst they pretended poverty, raked together great sums of
money ; . they preached great contempt of riches, and were
greedy in the pursuit of them. It was observed that some of
the mendicant friars, who passionately declared against wealth,
preyed upon the simple, and fetched money out of them by
craft and subtlety. They professed poverty, to make it ser
viceable to their gain. Like common beggars, they used the
name of God and Christ only to get something by it. Yea, to
say truth, some of these beggars were merchants.
And whereas of old, those of a monastic life took up in de
serts, forests, rocks, and places not cultivated ; and retired from
civil employment and offices, to addict themselves to contem
plation and heavenly-mindedness, and to shake off the world's
pleasures: the case was now altered, for these votaries har
boured in the greatest and best cities, and had stately dwellings,
gardens, furniture, &c. It was observed, that here in England
the religious houses were seated in the best counties : there
was but one of them in all Westmoreland, and not one in
Northumberland. And farther it might be added, that whilst
these persons made their boast of chastity, many of them were
discovered to be guilty of great lewdness and notorious im
purities. This made them loathed by all lovers of purity and
continence, and justly exposed them to ruin.
And so as to all the other instances of the wickedness and
licentiousness among those of the Roman Church, it might be
shewed that they contributed towards their downfall. And
lastly, their false and erroneous doctrines (of which I am par
ticularly to treat afterwards) did so in a signal manner : for
inteUigent and considerate persons examined them thoroughly,
and found that they were derogatory to the truth revealed to
us in the holy Scriptures, and therefore exploded them, as not
to be allowed of by Christian men. Thus the errors and vices,
and the innumerable enormities of the Church of Rome, did by
the overruling providence of the Almighty, occasion that great
blow, that fatal shock which she underwent at the Reformation.
I conclude with the following reflections.
First, Let us entertain our thoughts with the character I

94 INTRODUCTION.
have given of Popery. I have drawn its picture ; but I must
not be blamed because it is ugly and deformed : I have been
true to the original, and that is what was required on my part.
I have shewed, that absurd opinions and unlawful practices are
allowed and maintained by Popery; that it strikes not only at
truth but holiness ; that it is as much against a godly life as
against the right principles of religion. It is an advocate for
the worst things, treason, bloodshed, perjury, lying ; it destroys
faithfulness, loyalty, truth, sincerity, mercifulness ; it encou
rages ignorance, pride, idleness, sottishness, will-worship,
superstition, blasphemy, idolatry, tyranny. And there is no
thing so vicious, so immoral, so monstrous, but is countenanced
by it. Whence we may gather, that the Popish religion is not
of God : for that religion cannot be from Him, which teaches
men to do any thing that is immoral or vicious. But yet I
cannot say that I have given the full and complete portraiture
of Popery. For, though it is said the lion is not so fierce as
he is painted, yet Popery is far worse than it appears, and is
beyond all the representations that can be made of it. If we
should come nearer to it, and experience it once again in these
countries, we should find it even far worse than it was before,
Like the devil cast out, it will return with seven other worse
spirits than in former times. It wiU be more rampant than
ever, and our slavery will be doubled, and our last estate will
be worse than the first.
Secondly then, We are obliged to bless the Divine goodness
for the Reformation, with which all blessings came in great
abundance. I would humbly advise to have a prayer and
thanksgiving put into our Liturgy, to express our desires and
thanks with respect to this matter. " From the tyranny of the
Bishop of Rome" was once part of our Litany, but since left
out. It would be acceptable to all true Protestants to have
something of that nature inserted again ; some words to ex
press our devout and thankful resentments for our deliverance
from Popish ignorance and slavery, and all the evils that
attend these two. The word Reformation, saith Luther,* is
more hated at Rome than thunderbolts from heaven, or the last
day of judgment. The more it is detested by the Romanisti,
the more grateful let it be to us ; and let us not only rejoice at
the word but in the thing itself, and with thankful hearts
praise the Almighty for this so pregnant and comprehensive a
blessing. * Col. Mensal.

INTRODUCTION. 95
Thirdly, we ought to take care that our hves and practices
be answerable to so great a blessing. It is to be feared that
the reason why the Reformation hath not been blessed with a
farther progress is, because the lives of the Reformers, and
those that adhere to the Reformation, are very faulty. We
have the best religion, and yet many of us lead the worst lives.
Our worship is free from superstition and indolatry ; but it
wants zeal and fervour. Our people have no Latin prayers,
nor unintelligible devotion : but we contradict our prayers by
our wicked practices. We enjoy the Gospel in its purity ; but
we are unthankful and unfruitful under it. We have much
knowledge ; but we walk unworthy of it, and live not accord
ing to our light, and therefore we may justly expect that this
blessing may be removed from us and darkness succeed in its
room. It is not a Church reformation that wiU suffice, as we see
in that example of the Jews, 2 Chron. xxix. 16, &c. "They
cleansed the house of God, and brought out all the unclean-
ness that they found in the temple of the Lord;" they threw off
all idolatry and restored the outward worship of God. This
was just before the Captivity, and one would think it might
have been serviceable towards the preventing of it. But we
find in the account given of that people in the next chapter,
that though they cleared the temple, they did not purge them
selves ; they cast away their idols and images, but did not
abandon their evil manners ; they threw down the altars, but
sacrificed to their own lusts. There was a party among them,
that despised the admonitions of God and of King Hezekiah ;
when they were invited and exhorted to repentance, " they
laughed them to scorn, and mocked them," ver. 10. It is no
marvel then that the Assyrians were sent to punish this pro
fane obstinacy. Let us make this our case, as indeed it is ;
and let us know that it is not (as hath been said) a bare
Church reformation, without the reformation of our lives, that
will skreen us from the divine vengeance. We may look for
Popish thraldom again if we continue in our licentious prac
tices. Yea, they will make way for it, and we shall deserve
to be brought under that rehgion, which countenances all im
morality and lewdness. Wherefore let us think seriously of
this, and as we are desirous that we may not come under the
Papal yoke again, let us take care of our lives and manners. It
is this alone that will preserve us from it ; it is this that will
make Protestantism thrive and prosper.
Hitherto the Introduction.

96

AN
APPENDIX TO THE INTRODUCTION.

It may not be unreasonable to obviate an objection or cavil,
which is raised against the Reformation from Popery, which I
have been treating of. It is said, that this was the source of
innumerable swarms of sects in religion ; this opened a wide
door to heresies and false doctrines, to quarrels and contentions,
and even to sedition and rebellion; and therefore the Reforma
tion being the cause of these, it cannot be approved of, yea, it
must needs be condemned by all wise and sober men.
But this is a great mistake, and such as no wise and sober
person will be guilty of ; for it cannot but be observed, that
when a reformation in religion is set on foot, there is always a
fierce opposition made against it, and against the promoters of
it ; and tumults and riots are raised, and wild opinions and
doctrines are spawned, and there are great disorders and dis
turbances every where. Thus when the Christian religion was
introduced, variety of sects and heresies arose with it, and the
evil spirit and his agents were more outrageous than ever, and
persecutions and slaughter were the entertainments that the
sincere and undaunted professors of the Christian faith met
with. So when the Apostles after our Saviour's ascension
were zealous in reforming the minds and manners of men, and
pressing the holy religion of Christ Jesus upon them, a vast
multitude of heretics sprang up presently among the Chris
tians themselves, and the Pagan magistrates breathed out blood
and slaughter among them. But who is so rash and unrea
sonable as to pronounce Christianity to be the cause of this
miserable scene of things at that time ?
Certainly it is as great and inexcusable rashness to blame
the Reformation from Popery, because of the diversity of opi
nions, and the outrages which accompanied them in those
days, and to impute these disorders to the Reformation itself,
and to condemn Luther's pious enterprises, because there arose

APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 97
about that time Muncer, John of Leyden, David George, and
several other seditious fanatics ; and because Antinomians,
Anabaptists, and Antitrinitarians shewed their heads in those
days. If the reader will give me leave, I will mention here a paral
lel case which happened upon the Reformation set on foot by
the English senate in King Charles I.'s reign, when they were
apprised of the danger they were in by the encroaching of
Popery and arbitrary government. It was well designed and
carried on in the beginning by persons of loyal and religious
principles, of great sobriety and probity, and professed mem
bers of the Church of England : and yet it was attended soon
afterwards with the breaking out of sects and heresies, and
variety of wild errors, and very scandalous practices and dis
orders. But those are very foolish, rash, and injudicious
persons, who impute these evils to the reformation which was
then attempted.
The true cause of them was a formal show of worship among
the greatest part of the clergy, without true devotion and the
power of godliness. This hypocrisy and feint of reUgion
could not but end at last in diversity of opinions and sentiments
about religion, when people observed how little of true religion
and sanctity was in the lives of their teachers ; and how ex
ternal pomp and show were more regarded than inward and
solid piety. And this affecting of ceremonious rites and gaiety
took off men's thoughts from the essential and substantial
parts of reUgion, and made them fit to entertain any loose
opinions, and employ their heads about them, rather than to
attend to the practical part of Christianity Besides, the
clergy themselves were divided, and thereby encouraged the
people to imitate them. The greater and governing part con
tended for those forementioned rites and ceremonies ; some of
which were justly offensive, because they savoured of supersti
tion : but the admirers of them resolved never to part with
them, but always to uphold them, and to impose them on all
persons with the utmost rigour and severity.
Here was the true date of the Civil Wars which soon fol
lowed. Many cry out of forty-one, but it was thirty-one that
destroyed us, when Bishop Laud came to be great with the
Prince, and presently afterwards ascended the archiepiscopal
throne. Those are remarkable words which an eminent clergy
man of our Church hath left us upon record, " The miseries
of the civil war were not owing to the separatists and sectaries
VOL. VI. H

98 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION.
(for these were afterwards brooded in Cromwell's army) but to
the quarrels and distinctions made between the Church of
England-men themselves."* And as for the sects and here
sies which were so numerous, besides what hath been suggested
before concerning the rise of them, let me add this : that one
true cause of those evils was the rejecting that Church govern
ment which was then offered, and which would effectually
have stifled those errors and blasphemies which were then broke
out. But no more of this. It is enough for our present pur
pose, that attempts of reformation have always met with op
position and discouragements, and have not been without very
bad consequences ; and therefore we are not to judge of the
Reformation itself by these unhappy attendants, but rather to
esteem and value it, because wicked instruments are raised up
and made use of by Satan to resist and oppose it.
* Dr. Nicholls's Preface to his Commentary on the Common Prayer,

THE
CONTROVERTED DOCTRINES
BETWEEN
PAPISTS AND PROTESTANTS
DISTINCTLY CONSIDERED, &c.

I come now to my main business, that is, to treat particu
larly and distinctly of the several doctrines which are held
and professed by those of the Roman communion, and which
are peculiar to them, and constitute the religion of that Church.
And here these four things I wfll undertake in the handling of
every distinct doctrine.
I. I will prove the point to be the doctrine of the Church
of Rome. For I see that some Popish writers are bold to tell
the world that Protestants confute them in that which they
never held. Therefore I have resolved in all these points first
to make it appear that a Papist is of this opinion. Seeing they
say we misrepresent them, I will take care to satisfy the reader
that they really hold and maintain those propositions which I
charge them with. Some few writers, perhaps, may be cited,
who have asserted otherwise : I do not deny it ; but we speak
of the general sense of the Romish Church : and whence
should we take that, but from the public offices of their
Church ; or from their catechisms set forth by authority, and
particularly that which is called the Roman Catechism, autho
rised by the Council of Trent, and universally received by all
those of the Roman communion ; or from their own Councils
acknowledged by them ; or from the most celebrated and ad
mired doctors of their Church, whose writings are authorised,
and whose books come forth with the permission and appro
bation of their superiors ? This is the only way of knowing
what is a Popish doctrine, strictly and properly speaking ; and
h2

100 OF THE CONTROVERTED POINTS.
accordingly I will make it clear that the following ones are
such, that is, that they are vouched and confirmed by some
or all of these evidences before mentioned. By this means
I shall make it manifest that our adversaries are not charged
wrongfully. II. Having truly represented the point, and shewed it to
be the sense of the Church of Rome, I will enter upon the
confutation of it, and prove it to be a false and groundless
opinion ; and I will shew that the contrary doctrine of the
Protestants is true and solid, and built upon substantial
grounds. I shall all along make choice of the best and most
approved arguments — such as the reason of the thing itself
discoursed of ; the testimony of antiquity, that is, of the Fa
thers and ancient Councils ; and (which is the solidest proof
of all) the clear revelation of God's will, which the holy Scrip
tures furnish us with.
III. I will attend to the allegations, objections, and argu
ments made use of by our adversaries, and endeavour to return
a full and satisfactory answer to them.
IV. And lastly, in the close of the several respective points
I will adjoin some brief inferences and reflections, which the
foregoing matters have -suggested to me. This is the method
that I shall generally observe in my discourses on the several
heads, and for the most part in that very order and series
which I have here set down.
And after I have thus distinctly treated of the several
points of Popery, I will not conclude before I have returned
a satisfactory answer to some general cavils and exceptions
(for the particular ones I consider all along as I go through
the several heads) which are raised against the Protestant
religion, and what is held by some Protestants. And I shall
shut up all with a full explication of the description of Anti
christ, and his final fall and destruction, as we find them re
presented in the writings of the New Testament, especially in
the book of the Revelation.

CHAPTER I.
Of the Pope's Supremacy.
I begin with the foundation of all Popery, namely, the
" Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome " All Roman Catholics
assert his universal empire and dominion. They believe and
profess that he is appointed by Christ to be sole prince and
monarch of the Church upon earth. This is a most weighty
and important doctrine ; and if we believe Bellarmine,* who
treats of it, the main substance of Christianity is concerned in
it. This is indeed Popery itself; which in the strict sense of
the word is, to maintain the Pope to be head and governor of
aU Churches in the world.
In the first place I must clear this, that the Church of
Rome holds this point, and that it is one article of the Roman
reUgion. Some of the chiefest and most approved writers
among the Papists tell us, that his Holiness is as far above
emperors and kings and all states in the world, as the sun is
above the moon, and heaven above the earth, and the soul
above the body. This is the usual strain of rhetoric among
the Popish authors, when they are setting forth and blazoning
the Pope's supremacy. Some represent it as a power to
depose kings and princes at his pleasure, and to dispose of all
things and persons as he thinks fit ; and so they make it an
absolute and unhmited power. It is true, all the Roman
Catholics do not ^expressly and directly assert the Papal supre
macy to reach thus far, that is, to contain in it all temporal
power over kings and every one of their subjects ; but the
generality of writers of the Romish Church maintain it, and
it passes for. true doctrine. However, the Pope's spiritual
empire over all Christendom is unanimously held by all that
are of the communion of the Church of Rome, without any
exception. None deny him this power and prerogative to
call Councils ; to ratify their decrees ; to make laws for all
Churches ; to bind and loose ; to be the head and monarch
of all Christian men : yea, they hold that those who do not
own him to be such cannot possibly be saved. They are the
very words of the fifth Lateran Council, under Pope Leo X. :
* Agitur de Summa rei Christiana;. Prsef de Rom. Pontif. [p. 275.
vol. 1. Pragae, 1721.]

102 OF THE POPE'S SUPREMACY.
" It is necessary to salvation, that all Christ's faithful people
should be subject to the Bishop of Rome."* The Council
of Trent likewise is peremptory in this, that the Pope hath
" supreme powei on earth over the whole Church."f Yea,
they make it an article of their faith ; for in the twenty-third
article of their Creed they " acknowledge the Church of Rome
to be the mother and mistress of all Churches ; and they pro
mise and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, the
successor of St. Peter, the prince of the Apostles, and the
vicar of Jesus." After the determination of these Councils,
it is no wonder that the chief of the Roman doctors thus
positively speaks: "The Pope is immediately appointed by
Christ the pastor and head, not only of all particular Churches,
but also of the whole Universal Church taken jointly."! This
is agreed to by all the Pontifical doctors. They. all with one
voice proclaim the Pope to be Universal Bishop, and his dio
cese to be as wide as the world
That this is a false notion, and an unreasonable assertion,
and consequently that the contrary doctrine is supported by
truth and reason, I will make good, first, from the invalidity
and vanity of that very thing on which they ground the Pope's
universal headship ; secondly, from the determination of Scrip
ture ; thirdly, from the suffrage of the Fathers and ancient
writers. First, if we inquire into the reason or ground of their assert
ing the Bishop of Rome to be the universal ruler of all Churches
in the world, we shall find that it is invahd and vain. They
tell us that the Pope hath this prerogative by the mediation of
St. Peter, i. e. Christ gave it to Peter, and lie gave it to his
successors, who are the Bishops of Rome ; and so the supre
macy is entailed for ever on all that sit in the Papal chair,
Peter was the prince of the Apostles, and in him Christ
founded a monarchy in the Church. And as he was Bishop
of Rome, this peculiar power was derived from him to his
successors in that bishopric ; for we must not think that the
primacy of Peter, as he was an Apostle and the Bishop of
Rome, died with him, but that it descended to the successive
Bishops of that See : and consequently every Bishop of Rome
* De necessitate salutis existit omnes Christi fideles Romano Pontifid
suhesse. Sess. 11. [p. 153. Lab. vol. xiv. Paris. 1671.]
t Sess. 14. c. 7. [p. 133. Paris. 1837.]
i Bellarm. de Condi. Author. 1. 2. c. 15.

OF THB POPE'S SUPREMACY. 103
claims to be Universal Head of the Church. This is the
ground of the supremacy maintained by the Church of Rome ;
but I wdl shew how precarious and unreasonable it is. For
first, whereas they ground the Pope's universal headship on
St. Peter's being head of the Apostles, we are to know that
this was not a headship of jurisdiction and power, but only of
precedency. St. Peter is named first in the evangelical writ
ings only for order's sake, and because he was one of the first
that came to Christ, and because he was the eldest of the
Apostles ; but as to power, all the Apostles were alike. This
is freely owned by St. Cyprian and St. Jerome, as we shall
see afterwards ; but at present I shall produce one or two
passages out of the latter only. " Therefore (saith he), one
is chosen out of the twelve Apostles, that the occasion of
schism might be taken away, by his being constituted head."*
It was for order's sake. In the same place he saith, that
"Peter's precedency was owing to his age."f And in another
he tells us that Peter had such a primacy among the Apostles
as Plato had among the ptnlosophers, who was called the
Prince of them.}; And to this purpose speak many other an
cient Fathers of the Christian Church, as I shall make it
appear when I come to insist upon these topics.
Or suppose St. Peter had a personal primacy, as he was
head of the Apostles, what is that to the Bishops of Rome ?
When the Apostles aU ceased, there could be no head then
among them, and so there was an end of that primacy. And '
besides, how doth it follow, that because St. Peter was head of
the Apostles, therefore he was head and ruler of all Churches ;
and moreover that he communicated his power over all
Churches to the Popes ? There is no manner of consequence
in this.
But they tell us, that St. Peter, as he was Bishop of Rome,
derived this authority to his successors, and consequently to
the Pope. Some make short work with this, and take it off
by saying, it cannot be proved that St. Peter was ever at
Rome : for in the whole history of the Acts of the Apostles,
which relates the journeys and travels of that Apostle, there is
* Propterea inter duodecim Apostolos unus eligitur, ut capite constitute
schismatis tollatur occasio. Contr. Jovinian. cap. 14. [p. 168. vol. iv.
Paris. 1706.]
t iEtati delatum, quia Petrus senior erat.
t Ut Plato Princeps Philosophorum, ita Petrus Apostolorum fuit.
Dialog. 1. adv. Pelagianos.

104 OF THE POPE'S SUPREMACY.
no mention of his being at Rome. And there is not a syl
lable in any other place of the New Testament to prove that
that Apostle was ever at Rome ; much less that he presided
there as bishop. But in my judgment the faith of ecclesiasti
cal history would be too rudely and violently shocked, if we
should deny St. Peter's being at Rome. And therefore I
shall not make use of this denial in answer to what is above
alleged, but granting Peter to have been at Rome, I ask what
is that to the business which is before us ? If we should sup
pose (though there is no ground for it) that St. Peter had
power given him over the Church, yet it cannot be proved
that he transmitted that power to those that succeeded him in
that bishopric. It is a fixed rule, " extraordinary power doth
not pass to the successor ;" and therefore though Christ had
given St. Peter an extraordinary primacy, yet it doth not
follow thence, that those who came after him in the see of
Rome were invested with the same primacy.
Or suppose such a power and jurisdiction as we are speak
ing of were derived from St. Peter, there is no reason why it
should be conferred on Rome, and fixed there. Jerusalem
should rather lay claim to this privilege, for this was a
Christian Church, before that of Rome was in being. This
was the seat of our Lord, the head of the Church. Here tbe
Son of God himself preached ; here the Apostles first es
tablished Christianity ; hence the Gospel was first sent forth
to be preached " to all nations," Luke xxiv. 47 ; and therefore
not Rome but Jerusalem should claim the precedency, and
be the mother of all Churches : and she is expressly called*
so by the Fathers of the second General Council of Constan
tinople in their letters to Pope Damasus. But it is no where
said in the writings of the ancients, that Rome is the mother
of all Churches.
Nay, Antioch hath as much right to the supremacy as
Rome. The Romanists themselves freely acknowledge, that
Peter was bishop of the Church of Antioch seven years ; and
this was before he was Bishop of Rome : therefore the pri
vilege should be fixed in the see of Antioch. Why then do
not the Antiochian bishops reckon themselves St. Peter's
successors, and why is not Antioch rather than Rome the seat
of the supremacy ? Especially, if we consider that Antioch
was the capital city of Syria, and the place where the first
* Theodoret. 1. 5. c. 9. [vid. Tertul. de prsescrip. cap. 20,] Baron,
a. D. 383.

OF THE POPE'S SUPREMACY. 105
Council was held, and where the Christians had their name
first, and therefore the Fathers style it the most ancient
Christian Church. What reason then is there to give Rome
the preference to it ?
Besides, St. Peter was at other great and eminent places,
before he went to Rome, and preached the Gospel there. It
is certain, that St. Peter did the office of a pastor not only at
Antioch, but at Jerusalem, and Samaria, and in Pontus,
Phrygia, and Cappadocia. He founded the Church of
Csesarea, Acts x. 44, 45. And the Churches of Corinth, Ga-
latia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colosse, Alexandria, received the
Christian faith before Rome. Why then do not these challenge
. the supremacy, and why do not St. Peter's successors in the
other places just now mentioned set up for heads of all
Churches ?
Again, if you fix the primacy to Rome, the Pope's claim
should be from St. Paul as well as St. Peter. He preached,
and had his residence there, being the doctor of the Gentiles
in that place, as St. Peter was of the Jews. Therefore one of
the ancientest writers of the Church, and who lived near the
Apostles' times, saith, that " That Church was founded .and
constituted by the two glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, and
from these the succession of the Bishops of Rome is derived;"
a catalogue of whom he sets down. And that St. Paul was co-
founder of that Church, is acknowledged by all the ancients.
Now if this be true (and the Roman Catholics themselves
confess it), if the foundation of the Church of Rome is to be
attributed to Peter and Paul jointly, then Paul no less than
Peter was head of the Romish Church : and if so, what is the
reason that the Pope's supremacy is derived from St. Peter
only 1 Why do the Bishops of Rome claim to be supreme, as
they are successors of St. Peter, and never mention the other
Apostle, though there is as much reason for one as the other ?
If those words in Romans i. 5, had been said by St. Peter, as
they are by St. Paul, the Papists would have had a better
argument for the Pope's supremacy than, all they ever used,
" We have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the
faith among all nations for his name." Here they might
think to find the Universal Bishop. But St. Paul saith this,
and not St. Peter : and St. Paul speaks of the preaching of
the Gospel, not of jurisdiction ; and he speaks in the plural,
not only of himself, but of all the Apostles.
And lastly, if there must be an universal headship, St.

106 OF THE POPE'S SUPREMACY.
James bids as fair for it as any ; for he was Bishop of Jerusa
lem, the mother of all Churches, the seminary of Christianity,
the fountain from whence the Gospel flowed to all the world,
and which on several accounts (as hath been before shewed)
is preferable to Rome : he was the first bishop in the Chris
tian world ; he presided in the first Council that was in the
Christian world, and decided the controversy, notwithstand
ing Peter was there present at that time, Acts xv. 13. For
which reason* Epiphanius gives him the superiority over
all the Apostles, and denies it to St. Peter, but gives no coun
tenance at all to the Popish fancy, that there must be one to be
supreme over all Churches. We see then from what hath been
thus briefly suggested, that St James might justly have the
pre-eminence of Peter; and that if there was to be an Universal
Bishop, he might lay claim to that title. And thus we find
upon examination, that the very foundation on which this first
great point of Popery, this leading article of the Roman faith,
the supremacy of the Pope, is built, is weak and sandy, and of
no force.
Secondly, I shall prove, that it is inconsistent with the
discoveries which are made to us in the Scripture.
If there be such a thing as an ecclesiastical supremacy, it
must needs be mentioned in the New Testament ; for there is
laid down the whole scheme of Church discipline, especially
the essentials of it ; and such this of the Pope's supremacy is,
according to our adversaries. Now there is nothing in these
sacred writings that favours this : but, on the contrary, there
is very much against it. As first, that plain place, Matth. xx.
25, 26, " Jesus called them unto him and said, Ye know that
the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and
they that are great exercise authority upon them, but it shall
not he so among you." It seems the mystery of iniquity
worked sooner than St. Paul speaks of: the affecting of pri
macy and greatness even among spiritual men began in
Christ's time ; this domineering spirit was hatched even then.
Some of the Apostles themselves were ambitious of precedency
and pre-eminence above the rest : but we see how our Saviour
curbs this insolency, and tells them they act rather like Gen
tile princes than Christian Apostles ; and he plainly tells them,
that it shall not (i. e. it ought not to) be so among them. One
would think that this should have sufficiently checked this
* Haeres. 78.

OF THE POPE'S SUPREMACY. 107
aspiring humour, so that afterwards no man, who pretends to
be Christ's vicar, should usurp authority over the rest of his
brethren and the whole Church j It is evident from what our
Saviour saith, that such a power must not be desired and
affected by any of his ministers in the Church ; and particu
larly it is evident, that Christ gave no right or power to Peter
to be head and absolute prince over all Christians. We read
afterwards, that Peter was bid to " strengthen his brethren,
not his subjects." Luke xxxii. 32.
An irrefragable place against Papal supremacy is Acts viii.
14: " Now when the Apostles that were at Jerusalem heard
that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent unto
them Peter and John.'' It was determined by the Apostles at
Jerusalem, that some persons should be sent to confirm the
Samaritans in the faith which they had lately received and
professed ; and Peter is one that is appointed to go on that
errand, and to execute the decree which was agreed upon
among the Apostles. Which manifestly proves that Peter
was not the supreme head and ruler of the Apostles. For no
man can believe it to be probable that the inferior Apostles
(if they were so) should send their primate and superior to
administer their decrees, as they did here. This is, as if the
bishops of Italy and Spain should commission the Pope to go
into any country to dispatch a business which they had agreed
upon. This would be thought very unmannerly, and incon
sistent with his holiness's character. And the like we may
with as much reason say in the present case, if we acknow
ledge Peter to have been head of the Apostles and all
Churches. We may argue from Acts xv. 6, 22, 23, where we find the
Council at Jerusalem consisting of Apostles, elders, and
brethren, called the whole Church, and these altogether de
termined what to do in the matter that was brought before
them ; whereas, if Peter had been supreme, we should have
been told that he had decided the controversy ; for this
honour and privilege belonged to him alone.
The Apostle St. Paul in the close of his Epistle to the
Romans, salutes several persons by name, but Peter is not
mentioned ; which plainly proves, that Peter was not then
Bishop of Rome, no nor the planter of any Church there ; for
if he had been, St. Paul would not have omitted him in his
salutations ; nay, he must have been in the front of them that
were saluted.

108 OF THE POPE'S SUPREMACY.
In the two first chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians,
the Apostle endeavours to equal himself to those who were
reputed the most eminent among the Apostles, and St. Peter
amongst the rest : which it is certain he would not have at
tempted, if there had been one of the Apostles that was
appointed by Christ to be superior to them all. In chap. ii. 8,
St. Peter is called the " Apostle of the Circumcision ;" which
he would never have been, if be had been the universal pastor of
the Church : for that apostleship of the circumcision confines
his office, and excludes him from presiding over the Churches
of the Gentile Christians. St. Paul proceeds, ver. 9 : "When
James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived
that grace which was given unto me, they gave to me and
Barnabas the right hand of fellowship :'' where it is observable
that Peter is not mentioned as head or pillar above the other
Apostles, but these three are equally pillars. Though Peter
and James and John were Apostles to whom Christ had been
more kind and favourable than to the rest, yet here we see there
is an equality among them ; and Peter is so far from being set
above the rest, that James is placed before him. And who
can think that St. Peter had the supremacy, when it is said by
St. Paul, " I withstood him to the face, because he was to be
blamed ;" namely, for his unlawful compliance with the Jews,
and thereby giving offence to the Gentiles, and hindering them
from embracing Christianity ? Is it credible that St. Paul
would thus openly reprehend and rebuke St. Peter, if he had
borne that character which the Papists fix upon him? But it
is very observable, that the Holy Spirit in the Scripture, as
foreseeing how the Papists would over-magnify and extol St,
Peter and the Virgin Mary, hath left upon record a consider
able check. We rer.d, that these two persons, whom the
Church of Rome so highly exalts (even to an excess) are
treated very coarsely, and are reproved and reprimanded in
an extraordinary way, as it were on purpose to abate of
that immoderate esteem which some would afterwards shew
to them.
In 1 Cor. xii. 28, and Eph. iv. 11, the officers of the
Christian Church are enumerated, Apostles, prophets, teachers,
&c, but the principal officer is omitted, if the Pope be such
an one ; here is not a word of Christ's vicar, or the Universal
Head of the Church ; which shews, that he is none of those
ecclesiastical ministers, which Christ hath appointed.
If St. Peter had had the headship over all his brethren in

OF THE POPE'S SUPREMACY. 109
the ministry, and over all Churches (as our adversaries main
tain) he would not have used such language as this, " The
Elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an Elder.
Feed the flock of God, which is among you, not as being lords
over God's heritage. And when the Chief Shepherd shall
appear, ye shall receive," &c. 1 Pet. v. 1, 2, 3, 4. He would
not have styled himself Com-Presbyter (as it is according to
the original) he would not have declared himself to be a fellow
Presbyter with the rest of the Presbyters his brethren, if he
by a peculiar privilege had been invested with a sovereignty
and dominion over them and all Churches. He confesses him
self to be but one of the many Elders ; he is a colleague and
fellow with them, and how can this be reconciled with his
universal pastorship and monarchy ? Besides, it were madness
to imagine, that he, who forbids the Elders to lord it over
God's inheritance, to domineer over the clergy and the people,
had a power given him to himself to be lord and sovereign
over them aU. And farther, he that tells them, that they
must give an account to the 'Apx^oipriv, the Chief Shepherd,
meaning Christ Jesus, was not the supreme pastor him
self. And I might add, that he who bids those he writes to,
"Submit themselves to the king as supreme," 1 Epist. ii. 13,
knew nothing of that temporal supremacy which his successors
claim : for though they have not a right to this directly, yet
Bellarmine and other doctors hold that they can challenge it
indirectly, and so indeed every wise man thinks they do.
To our present purpose it may be alleged, that St. Peter's
supremacy, even his ecclesiastical supremacy, is spoiled by
what that other Apostle saith ; " In nothing (in no gift, en
dowment, privUege, or right) am I behind the very chiefest
Apostles," 2 Cor. xn. 1 1 . And in another place he tells us,
" He had the care of all the Churches," 2 Cor. xi. 28, and
therefore might claim a supremacy, if there were any such
thing. But he speaks of that inspection which he had taken
upon him as an itinerant Apostle, who was zealous to propagate
the Gospel wherever he came, and to plant Churches where
he found none, and frequently to visit them after they were
' planted ; which was an extraordinary charge and employment,
and therefore with no reason can we make it a standing office ;
and besides, those that boast of being St. Peter's successors,
do not pretend to any such troublesome work.
I might adjoin this in the last place, that the Church of
> Rome in the primitive times was reckoned only a particular

110 OF THE POPE'S SUPREMACY.
Church : and we see that St. Paul, when he writ his epistle to
it, thought it to be such, and did not treat it as the mistress of
all others. It appears then from the whole, that the supre
macy of the Bishops of Rome is nowhere founded in Scripture;
but that it is overthrown and confuted by the doctrine and
practice of the Apostles recorded in those inspired writings;
and it appears that by Divine right all Apostles and bishops
were of equal authority.
Thirdly, this feigned primacy of the Pope is contradicted
by the Fathers and ancient writers, and by whole Councils, and
the general practice of the Christian Churches. St. Cyprian
is very positive in this matter ; " Peter* (saith he) whom our
Lord chose first, did not insolently and proudly claim or assume
to himself anything, as to say that he held the primacy over
other bishops or Apostles." And at another time he acknow
ledges, that " the rest of the Apostles were the same that
Peter was ; they equally shared in honour and power."f
What ground then is there for those that pretend to be St.
Peter's successors, to call themselves universal bishops?
Prater Charissime, dearest brother, was the compellation of
Cyprian to Pope Stephen, in his epistles to him : which doth
not sound as if the Bishops of Rome in those days were
universal monarchs of the Church, but rather acquaints us
that there was a parity among bishops. And when the above-
said Stephen invaded other bishops' rights and jurisdictions,
i. e. undertook to determine in controversies which were out of
his own patriarchate, this good Fatherf checked him and
rebuked him severely, and in one of his epistles calls him "a
false Apostle, a schismatic, and a friend of heretics," §
That the African bishops, St. Augustine the chief, would
not acknowledge appeals to Rome, is so well-known, that I
need not insist upon it. And before this, when Pope Victor
grew imperious, and excommunicated the Asian Churches for
observing Easter-day not according to the custom of the
Western and Roman Churches, Irenseus sharply reproved him.
Few are ignorant what the judgment of St. Jerome was in this
* Nee Petrus, quern primum Dominus elegit, vendicavit sibi aliquid
insolenter, aut arroganter assumpsit, ut diceret se Primatum tenere. Epist.
ad Quintum fratrem.
t Hoc erant utique et cseteri Apostoli, quod fuit Petrus, pari ccrasortio
prreditiet Honoris et Potestatis. De Simpl. Prselat. [De TJnitate Eccles.
p. 172. cap. 2. Paris. 1836.]
t Vide Cypriani Epistolas. § Ad Pomp. Epist. 74.

OF THE POPE'S SUPREMACY. 1 1 1
point : " In whatsoever place any bishop is seated, whether at
Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, &c. he is of the very
same merit, of the same priesthood;"* that is, the bishops of
these sees are all alike. And as for those that attribute a
secular and temporal sovereignty to the Pope, they forget what
was anciently said, " The commonwealth is not in the Church,
but the Church in the commonwealth, "f that is, in the Roman
empire. And they are unmindful of what another learned
Father hath averred, namely, that " to tack the civil power to
the priestly, is to join things that are not to be joined." J
We have the suffrage of some of the bishops of Rome them
selves on our side. In the letter sent to King Lucius, from
Eleutherius, then Bishop of Rome, the last words are these;
"Through God's sufferance rule you the kingdom of Britain:
for in that kingdom you are God's vicar." § And yet now the
Pope as God's or Christ's vicar, challenges a power over all
kingdoms and Churches : which shews that the title is per
verted, and that the challenge contradicts the practice pf the
first Bishops of Rome. One that was himself a Pope, pro
claimed his dishke of the universal headship of the Bishops of
Rome ; I mean Pelagius IL, who when John, patriarch of
Constantinople, a.d. 580, assumed to himself the title of
Universal Bishop, writ to the bishops whom the patriarch at
that time had caUed together in a Synod, to acquaint them
that it savoured of pride and usurpation of the highest nature,
to take that name upon him. And another Pope, Gregory I.,
surnamed the Great, who succeeded Pelagius, was very much
incensed at this arrogant behaviour of the Constantinopolitan
archbishop : he declares, that none of his predecessors ever
assumed to themselves such a profane title. || And he declared,
that this pride and insolency of John was a sign that Antichrist
was at hand : he peremptorily pronounced that such a one is
" forerunner of Antichrist."^!
* TJbicunque fuerit Episcopus, sive Romae, sive Eugubii, sive Con-
stantinopoli, &c. ejusdem meriti, ejusdem est Sacerdotii. Epist. ad
Evagr. [vol. 4. Ep. 101. p. 803. Paris. 1606.]
t Non enim Respub. est in Ecclesia, sed Ecclesia in Repub. id est, in
Romano Imperio. Optat. Milevit.
$ UoXirucqv apsrijv Upoovvy avvairrHV, to tcXaOeiv earl r&
aavyRktiiOTa. Synes.
§ Epist. Eleuth. ad Lucium Regem, in Spelman.
|| Greg. Epist. 32.
If Ego fidenter dico, quisquis se Universalem Sacerdotem vocat, vel
vocari desiderat, in elatione sua. Antichristum prEecurrit, quia superbiendo

112 OF THE POPE'S SUPREMACY.
Thus we see of what account the doctrine of supremacy was
six hundred years after Christ. And we see that the bishops
of Rome in those days were of another judgment than those
afterwards, yea, than those a Uttle time after. For about
seven years after this, Pope Boniface III. prevailed with the
next emperor, and got the title that Gregory was so much
against. He obtained it, I say, of the next emperor, namely,
Phocas, who had been an officer in the Emperor Mauritius's
army, but deposed the said emperor, and barbarously murdered
him, his empress, and all their children and kindred, and then
ascended the imperial throne himself. So we see the rise of
the Papal supremacy ; we see how the Bishop of Rome came
by it, and we find that Phocas the bloody Emperor must be
thanked for it : for by his leave Pope Boniface III. took upon
him the title of Universal Bishop, and ever since the Bishops
of Rome have challenged to themselves that privilege, and ¦
every Pope claims to be the head of all Churches. But from
the beginning it was not so, yea not till about six hundred
years after Christ. The last Pope but one before this Boniface,
that is, Gregory I. manfully opposed this usurpation, and (as
you have heard) condemned it as Antichristian.
But we have not only the testimony of single bishops and
Fathers, but the joint suffrage and votes of whole Councils
against this. When Pope Victor carried it very high, and
usurped over the Eastern bishops, and excommunicated them
for not observing Easter-day, in the same manner as the
Romish Church did, not only Policrates and Irenams with
stood this rash censure and practice, but a complete Council
in Palestine vigorously opposed it, and stood up for the
contrary practice. The first Nicene Council, holden a.d. 325,
decreed the Bishop of Rome should be content with his own
diocese, and not pretend a supremacy over the other patriarchs,
They are the express words of the sixth canon of that Council:
'Apxa'ta eQn KpaTetrw, &c. i. e. " Let the antient customs
continue in force that are in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis ;
that the Bishop of Alexandria have the government of all these,
forasmuch as the Bishop of Rome also hath the like custom:
and so likewise throughout Antioch and in the other provinces,
let the Churches have their prerogatives kept up." Which
se caeteris prgeponit. Epist. 1. 8. Vide Epist. 1. 2. ad Maurit. Epist. 32,
36, 38. Epist. adEulog. [Lib. 7. Indict. 15. Ep. 23. adMauric. August.
Paris. 1705.]

OF THE POPE S SUPREMACY. 113
canon plainly determines the bounds of the Roman jurisdiction,
as well as of other Churches. Rome, and Alexandria, and
Antioch, have distinct and proper jurisdictions, and they must
not entrench upon one another. The Council makes the
Pope's government in his province, the form of that govern
ment which should be in the province of Alexandria : which
shews, that the government reached but to his own province ;
for had it stretched itself over all the world, it would have been
no form or pattern for Alexandria. We see here, that the
Church of Antioch is commanded to keep her particular
privileges and rights, and the bishop of Alexandria is confined
to his : and it is said, that the Bishop of Rome hath the like
custom : therefore the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch
were to be equal with the Roman bishops ; for there is no
likeness between an universal bishop and a provincial. From
the whole it is evident, that the Church of Rome had no
primacy over other Churches, but that it claimed only those
privileges which were common to it with other metropolitan

There are other Councils that may be mentioned, as that of
Constantinople (the first General Council there), which sat
about a d. 383, and in their first canon ratified all that was
done in the Nicene CouncU, and particularly decreed against
the Bishop of Rome's supremacy over all other bishops.
There was a third General Council, that of Ephesus, a d.
43 1 , which in its eighth canon confirmed the former Council of
Nice. A fourth General Council, that of Chalcedon, a.d. 451,
in their first canon ratified the foregoing Councils, and particu
larly decreed that the bishop of Constantinople should be equal
with the Bishop of Rome. And to these I may add the third
Council of Carthage, which was held about a.d. 390, and
positively decreed that the Bishop of Rome should not be
called Universal Bishop, but be confined to his own precincts.
And this is plain from the history of the several patriarchates
into which the Christian Churches are divided, viz. that of
Rome, under which were Italy and other Churches of the
West ; that of Alexandria, under which were Egypt and Pen-
tapolis ; that of Antioch, under which was Syria ; that of
Jerusalem, under which was Jewry ; and afterwards that of
Constantinople, which Justinian in honour to his country
added to the rest, and appointed the Bishop of Constantinople
; to have a patriarchal power and authority, equal with that of
;the other patriarchs. The patriarchs of these places ruled
vol. vi. I

114 OF the pope's supremacy.
and governed in their respective territories, but no where else :
which demonstrates the pretences of the Bishops of Rome to
an universal jurisdiction to have no footing in antiquity ; and
that those that reverence the ancient Fathers and Councils
must condemn the doctrine of the Pope's supremacy.
I might add farther, that we are certainly informed from
ecclesiastical history, that national and provincial Synods have
reformed things about faith and religion without the leave of
the Pope : which shews, that the Bishop of Rome had jurisdic
tion only in his own precincts, which were called the Suburbi-
carian Churches. It may be added likewise, that the Pope's
supremacy is not owned by the Greek Church, the Armenian,
Abyssinian, and Nestorian Churches. And to come down lower,
we know that the Pragmatical Sanction, a law of France,
curbs the Pope's jurisdiction there. And it is acknowledged,
that the French Church* at this day owns not the snpremacy
of the Pope. As for the British Churches, that they were
never under the Roman patriarchate, but were always free
from its jurisdiction, is solidly proved by Bishop Stillingfleet
in his Orig. Brit. chap. 3. We are not subject to foreign ap
peals, but have had all controversies ended within our own
limits. All these things which I have alleged evince the
truth of what I undertook to make good, namely, that the
Church of Rome hath its bounds, and that the Pope hath not
an universal jurisdiction.
This is a truth extorted from our greatest adversaries ; and
so it often happens (as I shall shew in several of the following
points which I am to treat of), that truth will sometimes
make its way forcibly through the very mouths of our pro
fessed enemies. The fiercest doctors and patrons of Popery
give their testimony here. Cardinal Cajetan confesseth,f that
all the Apostles were equal in authority and power ; and con
sequently St. Peter's principality and that of the Pope is
cashiered, and the monarchical state of the Church is baffled.
So BellarmineJ unwarily acknowledges that the apostolical
power was alike, and that the Apostles had the same autho-
- rity over Christian people. Which confession gives the cause
a mortal stab, and is a plain demonstration that the Papal
supremacy, which they say is derived from the Apostle Peter,
* Pithseus de'lib. Eccl. Gallic. ». 3. Bochellus 1. 5. de DecretEccl.
Gallic t De Author. Papas et.Concilior.
% De Rom. Pontif. 1. I.e. 9. & 12.

OF THE POPE'S SUPREMACY. 115
is a gross error imposed on a great part of Christendom ; and
that the contrary is a great and undeniable truth, and such as
ought to be embraced by all people, viz. that the Church and
Bishops of Rome do not exceed other Churches or bishops in
power and authority.
But they make use of Scripture to prove and uphold their
doctrine ; and therefore in the next place I am engaged to con
sider the texts which they produce, and to shew how vainly
and impertinently they are alleged. Not to trouble the reader
with the fond quotations of some, such as Genesis i., " The
greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the
night;" whence it was attempted (as Luther tells us)* to
prove the Pope's supremacy. I will take notice only of those
places which the most serious doctors of the Romish Church
are wont to make use of. The main text is Matth. xvi. 18.
"I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it." Whence the Bishop of Rome claims a right to
govern aU Churches and kingdoms in the world. He must be
Universal Bishop and Catholic Vicar, because it is here said
that Peter, who was the first Bishop of Rome, is a rock, and
that the Church is to be built on this rock, and consequently
the successors of St. Peter are the rock and foundation, the
head and pillar of Christ's Church, and are lords and rulers
of it. This is the strong reasoning of the Romish doctors
from this text ; which may easily be baffled by what hath been
said already, when I subverted the very ground-work and
foundation of the doctrine of the Pope's supremacy. But I
shall at present inquire into the words themselves, and shew,
that there is nothing contained in them whence one may
rationally infer this doctrine. For most of the Fathers inter
pret this rock not concerning Peter, but the confession of
faith which he made, ver. 16. So St. Chrysostom in his
first sermon on Pentecost, " He said (upon this rock) he did
not say (upon Peter), for he built his Church not on man, but
upon the faith of himself." And in his 55th Homily on St.
, Matthew he expressly saith, that "the rock is the faith of
confession." Epiphanius agrees to this, and expounds our
' Saviour's words thus : " On this rock of sure faith I will build
my Church."-)- Other Greek Fathers,' as Cyril, Gregory
* Coll. Mens.
t 'Etti ry irkrpa ravrn rye aa^aXovg Triorswg otKoSoprjfftA) pov rrjv
ixxXnaiav. Adv. Hseres. lib. 2. I 2

116 OF THE POPE'S SUPREMACY.
Nazianzen and Nyssen, Theodoret, Isidore of Pelusium, Theo
phylact, say the very same. Among the Latins, Hilary is
verv express : "On this rock of confession (saith he) is the
Church built : this faith is the foundation of the Church."*
Though St. Augustine interpreted those words " on this rock"
of Peter himself, yet sometimes he interprets them of Christ
himself. This is to be seen in his works, and particularly in
his Retractations f he leaves men to their liberty to interpret
the rock either of the confession or the person.
And truly this learned Father was in the right : for as to the
matter before us, both the interpretations amount to the same
thing, and neither of them make for the supremacy. Those
Fathers that understood by the rock Peter himself, mean no
more than this, that Christ would make use of Peter as an
eminent instrument to build his Church, to preach the Gospel,
to convert souls, to propagate Christianity. "Peter is called
the rock (saith St. Ambrose) because he was the first that laid
the foundation of faith among the nations."J Christ tells this
Apostle, who had made so worthy a confession of his faith, that
he would build his Church on him, or that Peter should first lay
the foundation of the Church among the Jews and among the
Gentiles ; the former of which was fulfilled in Acts ii. 41,
when three thousand souls were converted by his sermon on
the day of Pentecost ; and the latter was accomplished when
he preached the Gospel to Cornelius and other Gentiles, Acts
x. 31. Thus I grant that the Church's foundations were laid
by Peter : but the rest of the Apostles laid foundations as well
as he ; and therefore Christ might truly say, that on them he
would build his Church. Accordingly we read of the "founda
tion of the Apostles," Eph. ii. 20, not of one Apostle only, but
of all. " He gave some (viz. Apostles) for the edifying of the
body of Christ," Eph. iv. 11,12. St. Paul saith of himself,
that " as a wise master-builder he had laid the foundation,"
1 Cor. iii. 10. He, as well as St. Peter, had this honour,
" The twelve Apostles are the twelve foundations of the city
of the new Jerusalem," Rev. xxi. 14. Thus it is evident, that
* Super hanc igitur Confessionis petram Ecclesia; aedificatio est.—
Hsec Fides Ecclesiae Fundamentum est. De Trin. 1. 2. c. 6. [lib. 6. Paris.
1652-3 t Harum autem duarum sententiarum, quie sit probabilior eligat lector.
Lib. 1. c. 21. [vol 1. p. 32. Paris. 1685.]
t Petra dicitur, eh quod primus in nationibus fidei fundamenta posuent,
De Sanctis. Serm. 2.

OF THE POPE'S SUPREMACY: 117
what was said by Christ to Peter was in common to all the
rest ; other Apostles besides him were rocks. But Peter had
some pre-eminence above the rest ; for he first of all converted
Jews and Gentiles, as appears tfrom their fore-cited places in
the Acts. This I grant ; and yet hence nothing can be de
duced to make Peter or the Pope Universal Bishop, This is
all : Christ tells that Apostle that he shall be the first preacher
of the Gospel, by whose means men shall be converted and
brought into the Church, and be built up living stones in this
spiritual house.
Christ himself is the principal foundation of the Church ;
and therefore it is said, " Other foundation can no man lay,
than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ," 1 Cor. iii. 1 1 .
Peter himself tells us who is the Rock on which the Church is
built, 1 Peter ii. 4, " That living stone chosen of God, and
precious, and made the head of the corner," ver. 7. But
Peter and Paul, and the rest of the Apostles, were collateral
and instrumental foundations.. So then Peter, and Peter's faith
or confession, are here the same ; and- therefore we need not
wrangle about these two interpretations, for they meet in one,
that is, Peter and the other Apostles, as they were teachers of
the Church, and instructed persons in the true faith, were
rocks and foundations, and their preaching and confessing of
that faith are also truly said to be the rock or foundation on
which Christ builds his Church ; not because it was Peter's or
other Apostle's faith, but because it was true and sound, and
such as Christ enabled them to profess and maintain. We
cannot then but be convinced from what hath been suggested
that this text makes nothing at all for the purpose of those
persons who quote it, namely, for the establishing of that
headship and monarchy which the Popes, as pretending to be
Peter's successors, claim. Wherefore one of the ancientest
and learnedest Fathers of the Church interpreting these words,
" Thou art Peter, and upon this rock," &c, saith directly of
our Lord, that " he gave the like power to all the Apostles
that he gave to Peter."* And another learned Father ob
serves, that Christ asked all the Apostles who he was, " Who
say ye that I am 1" And Peter returned that answer, " Thou
* Apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuit.
And again, Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari con-
sortio prsediti et honoris et potestatis. Cyprian de Simpl. Pradat. {De
Unitate Ecclesise, p. 107. Oxon. 1682.}

118 OF THE POPES SUPREMACY.
art Christ, the Son of the living God." Because they could
not all answer at once, Peter did it in the name of the rest:*
and thence we gather that what Christ saith to Peter,
" On this rock I will buUd,'i &c, is said to all the other
Apostles. Thus we are to interpret Matth. xvi. 19 : "I will give unto
thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou
shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever
thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." This is
to be applied to all the Apostles as well as Peter ; the keys
were given to them all, and they had all of them power to
bind and loose. For tbe grant runs in general thus : "Whatso
ever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven ; and
whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,"
Matth. xviii. 18. " Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are re
mitted unto them ; and whosesoever sins ye retain," &c. John
xx. 23. Hence St. Ambrose rightly infers, that "what is said
to Peter, is said to the Apostles. "f And Theophylact is per
emptory, that, " although it be said to Peter only, I will give
thee the keys, yet the keys were granted to all the Apostles."}
And one of the Popes treating on these words, " I will give thee
the keys of the kingdom of heaven," acknowledges, that this
power was derived to other Apostles. § And we may observe,
that those Papists who hold that these words were spoken to
St. Peter, and none else ; yet, to prove their sacrament of
penance and absolution, they quote this text, and say it was
spoken to Peter, and in him, to all the Apostles and all the
clergy. Thus, what they assert at one time, they destroy at
another ; and we cannot expect, that those who maintain so ill
and inconsistent a cause, can do otherwise.
There is another text, which they mightily boast of, John
xxi. 15: "Feed my lambs;" and verses 26,17, "Feed mj
sheep." Which words being spoken to Peter, are spokentoall
the Bishops of Rome, and by them they are commissioned to
" rule the world :" for Troipalveiv signifies " to rule," and theyare
authorised to preside over all Churches and congregations of
Christians on earth ; for this is to " feed " them. But tbisvain
and idle interpretation vanishes, when we consider that these
* Petrus ex persona omnium Apostolorum profitetur, Tu es Chnstus,
&c. Hieronym.
X In Psal. xxxiii. % Incap. xvi. Matth.
§ Transivit in alios Apostolos jus istius potestatis. Leo in Serm. de
Apost. [in Nat. Petri et Pauli, Serm. 2.]

OF THE POPE'S SUPREMACY. 119
words are to be understood as those before mentioned ; i. e.
they are to be applied to all the Apostles and ministers of
Christ, as weU as St. Peter. " Not without cause," saith
St Augustine, " doth Peter represent the whole Church and all
its pastors. Thus, when the keys of heaven were given to
Peter, they were conferred on the Church ; and when Christ
said to him, ' Lovest thou me 1 Feed my sheep ;' he spoke it
to them all."* And, therefore, it is great arrogance in the
Bishops of Rome, to appropriate this to themselves. And,
besides, what is this feeding the sheep, but taking care of the
souls of men, building them up in their most holy faith, and
in everything acting the part of a spiritual pastor and guide ?
And is not this common to all the ministers and instructors of
the Church ? St. Paul thought so, when he thus exhorted the
presbyters of Ephesus : " Take heed not only to yourselves,
but to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you
overseers, to feed the Church of God, &c." And St. Peter to
whom alone the Papists fancy these words " feed my sheep,"
were directed, uses the same language: " Feed the flock of
God which is among you," 1st Epist. v. 2 ; which he speaks
to aU the elders or presbyters, he addresses himself to. And,
therefore, it is evident, that " feeding the sheep and lambs,"
which St. Peter is enjoined to take care of, is not peculiar to
that Apostle, or any other person whatsoever. This is a com
mand wherein aU bishops and preachers of the Gospel are con
cerned. Thus the Popish objections from Scripture concerning
the supremacy are answered ; and we have reason to conclude
from the premises, that the primacy of the Bishops of Rome
is unscriptural, as well as unreasonable.
But they allege antiquity, and produce the Apostolical Canons
(as they are commonly caUed), wherein they imagine there is
something that patronises their cause ; though, if it be ex
amined, it wiU be found to be quite otherwise. But we may
rest in this general answer, that these writings were never held
to be of undoubted authority in the Church ; and the style of
some places, discovers them to be composed many years since
the Apostles' times.
The sayings of the Fathers, and especially of Cyprian, are
* Non sine causa inter omnes Apostolos hujus Ecclesise Catholic.E per
sonam sustinet Petrus : Huic enim Ecclesiae claves Regni Coelorum datse
sunt, cum Petro date sunt ; et ciim ei dicitur, ad omnes dicitur, A mas
me ? Pasce oves meas. De Agone Christiano, cap. 30. [p. 439, vol. 6,
Paris. 1837.]

120 OF THE POPES SUPREMACY.
quoted to uphold the doctrine of the Pope's supremacy. But
as to that particular Father, what I have cited already out of
him may convince us that he was a professed enemy to the
notion of an Universal Bishop ; for we have seen, that both in
words and actions he opposed it.
And as to the sayings and speeches of this Father and some
others, wherein they magnify the Roman See, and St. Peter's
chair, it is plain to any unprejudiced person, that they were
not meant as the Papists understand them now. Whatever
they say of the presidency or primacy of the Bishop of Rome,
and of that Church, it is to be understood of order and not of
jurisdiction. It is manifest in history, that the bishops of old
had precedency according to the dignities of their sees, accord
ing to the worthiness of the places where they were bishops:
and so particularly it is clear from all the ancient writers, that
the precedency of the Bishop of Rome, was not founded on
his being Peter's successor, but on the dignity of the city of
Rome, which was the head of the empire. Therefore, when
Constantinople became the seat of the empire, the Bishop of
Constantinople was made equal with the Bishop of Rome, in
the Council of Chalcedon, Can. 28. Whilst Rome was an im
perial city, the Church of Rome had a principality and supe
riority above other Churches which were situate in meaner
cities. The ecclesiastical dignity was answerable to the tem
poral government. The authority and privileges of the Bishops
of Rome were derived from, and depended on the grandeur
and power of the temporal state of Rome. On this, and no
other account, the Church of Rome and its Bishops may he
said to have had a primacy, that is, of order and dignity, but
not of power and jurisdiction, as I have already proved.
And, whereas, in ecclesiastical history, there seem to have
been some appeals from other Churches to that of Rome, which
may be thought to argue the supremacy of the latter, the true
and simple account is this, that they were not properly appeals,
for there was not application made to the Bishop of Rome as a
judge, but only as a friend ; they desired his advice and counsel,
but they did not tie themselves up to his determination and
sentence. And to shut up this head, let not any man support the doc
trine of the supremacy with those passages in the writings of
the Fathers, where high encomiums and praises are heaped on
St. Peter •- for this is certain, that the Fathers are as liberal in
their commendations of the Apostles St. John and St. Paul;

OF THE POPE'S SUPREMACY. 121
but especiaUy the titles given to the latter, by Chrysostom, are
not inferior to any of those which he bestows on St. Peter.
There are now some proper reflections to be made on the
whole, and then I shall have dispatched this first point.
1 . See here the true effigies of the Man of Sin deciphered
by the Apostle, 2 Thess. ii. 4. "Who opposeth and exalteth
himself above aU that is called God, or that is worshipped : so
that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself
that he is God." With a more than Luciferian pride, he
usurps authority over all powers on earth, he blasphemously
arrogates to himself the sovereign prerogative which is due to
Christ alone, to be Supreme Head of all Churches. He takes
to himself those names and titles, and doth those actions which
make a show of being a God, and not a Man. And this he
: doth in the temple of God, in the visible Church of those that
are called Christians. This is a true and unerring mark of
Antichrist ; and so one of their own Popes (Gregory I.) de
clared to the world.
2. From what hath been premised, we may be established
in the truth, we having reason, human authority, Christian
practice, and holy Scripture, to confirm us in it. On these
solid grounds we may be assured, that the contrary doctrine is
false and erroneous, and hath no other bottom but avarice,
pride, and usurpation : we may be assured, that though the
Bishop of Rome pretends to be head of the Christian Church,
yet it will be hard for him to prove that he is a member of it.
3. Let us understand what is our duty in opposition to the
Popish doctrine of supremacy. I sum up all that I have to
say here, under these two heads : first, it becomes not the guides
and ministers of the Church, to do that themselves, which they
condemn in others. Let not Protestants practise contrary to the
doctrine they hold in defiance of Popish supremacy : let them
consider, how reproachful it will be to lord it over God's heri
tage, to affect and practise dominion over those who are equal
with them in office and function. Secondly, we are all of us
obliged to acknowledge Christ, only to be head of the Catholic
Church. It is true, we rightly own our lawful and sovereign
prince whom we live under to be the supreme head in these
realms ; but Christ Jesus alone is the invisible supreme head
bf the Catholic Church. (Eph. i. 22, 23 ; v. 23. Col. i. 18.)
f" The government is upon his shoulders," and he will let the
world see, that he is the supreme Lord and Sovereign in all
Churches throughout the world : for his " is the kingdom, the
!power, and the glory for ever. Amen."

122
CHAPTER II.
Of the Infallibility held by the Church of 'Rome.
To speak properly, there is a double supremacy held by the
Church of Rome, namely, that of a supreme head in matters
of jurisdiction, and that of a supreme judge in matters of con
troversy in religion. I have dispatched the first ; now I pro
ceed to the latter, which is generally known by the name of
Infallibility. It is the doctrine of the Papists, that there is in
the Romish Church not only a supreme ruler and governor,
but an infallible teacher, judge or guide, to whom all men are
bound to submit their faith and consciences in religion. New
Rome, like the old one, must have an absolute dictator; only
with this difference, the one was for a time only, the other lasts
always. But here very ominously in the beginning, the Papists
themselves overthrow infallibility, whilst they are designing to
establish it : for some of them say, this infallible guide or judge,
is the Pope ; others of them say, that it is a General Council:
a third part say, it is both Pope and Council. Thus, they are in
a fair way to ruin infallibility, seeing they cannot agree where to
lodge it. They all unite in this, tbat there is a visible and
supreme judge of all controversies of faith ; but who he is, is
disputed. Let us consider the three claims distinctly.
First, It is held by many great and eminent doctors of the
Church of Rome, that infallibility is placed in the Pope; he
hath a power to determine the true sense of all Scripture, and
all matters of faith whatsoever ; and it is his peculiar privilege
never to err. The Bishop of Rome for the time being is the
standing judge, the living rule, the unerring guide of faith, and
the unquestionable decider of all controversies in religion,
" Infallibility is seated in tbe Pope alone," saith Bellarmine, a
prime Jesuit ; and all of that order declare themselves to be of
that opinion. They unanimously hold, that all matters of
religion are to be referred to his arbitrement, and resolved into
his determination ; and no Council hath any authority, till
confirmed by the Pope. By the Lateran Council under Leo X.
(a.d. 1516) the Pope's authority was determined to be above
all Councils, sess. 1 1 . And in the Council of Trent (as well as
Lateran) the Pope was decreed to be above all General Councis
and Synods.

OF INFALLIBILITY. 123
But surely this opinion cannot obtain with wise men, if they
consider these following things :
1. That Popes have been heretics.
2. That they have been great villains.
3. That there have been more Popes than one, at the same
time. I. Divers Popes have been heretics ; which spoils their
infallibility ship, as well as the succession which they brag of in
their Church. Pope Liberius, who ascended the chair, a. d.
352, was an Arian. Pope Honorius I. about the year 625,
was a favourer of Eutychianism, and was censured as a Mono-
thelite by the third Council of Constantinople, which was the
sixth General Council. John XXIII. was condemned of
heresy, by the Council of Constance, a. d. 1414, for denying
the soul's immortality, and the resurrection of the body, and
heaven and hell. The Council of Basil, about the year of
our Lord 1436, condemned Eugenius IV. This is the free
acknowledgment of the Popish doctors themselves ; and they
are forward to confess, that Popes, notwithstanding* their
character of infallibility, may be professed heretics. And this
is owned by the Canon Law, Dist. 40. Can. Si Papa : for
that canon saith, " a Pope may be deposed from his chair for
heresy." These are strange notions, and such as we Protestant
heretics (as they call us,) cannot reconcile. The Pope it
seems, whilst he is immersed in heresy is infallible ; he errs no
more then than when he was orthodox ; and yet heresy is a
damnable error. The Pope is the unerring head and guide of
the Church, even when he is guilty ot that fault, which makes
him cease to be a member of that Church. As long as he sits
in Peter's chair, he retains his infallibility, and all the rules of
faith are to be resolved in his decision, even when he departs
from the faith. He is the judge and umpire of truth, though
he revolts from it. In short, he cannot possibly err, though
he be heretical. I shall not wonder, that the man who can
swallow such gross contradictions and absurdities as these, is
of opinion that the Bishops of Rome are infallible.
II. Yea, the Pope with his errors of judgment may live in
the practice of the most abominable vices, and continue in
them all his days, and yet be the infalhble judge of all Chris-
* Francisc. Victoria de Potest. Eccl. Sect. 1. paragr. 6. Bellarmin.
Controvers. 4 part. 2 qusest.

124 OF THE INFALLIBILITY HELD
tian Churches. We are told, that as there have been many
heretical, so there have been many impious and wicked Popes.
One of the Roman communion was not backward to say of
Pope Benedict VIII., Sylvester III. and Gregory VI. that they
were " three most filthy monsters."* And the same author,
in the lives of John VIII., Benedict IV., John XVI., Stephen
VI., Boniface VIII., acquaints us that they came to the Pope
dom by treachery, craft, bribing, murder, witchcraft. And
particularly concerning the last of these it is remarked by the
Popish historians themselves, that as he was a bloody wretch,
so he met with a bloody end. Pope Alexander VI. though
by his character obliged to celibacy, had two sons and a
daughter ; which latter was whore both to the father and sons :
whence this was part of her epitaph,
 Alexandri Filia, Sponsa, Nurus.

That is, she was the Pope's daughter, wife, and son's wife.
Julius II. and Leo X., who immediately succeeded the afore
said Alexander, were (as well as he) professed atheists, and are
infamous in history for the most unnatural, inhuman, and
flagitious acts. Lutherf tells us, that one of the Roman
Pontiffs gave himself to the devil, to have his help to make him
Pope, yet on condition the fiend should not fetch him until he
said mass at Jerusalem. And accordingly as he was saying
mass in a chapel at Rome, named Jerusalem, the infernal ghosts
came in likeness of ravens, and by piece-meal carried his
body away. We have it from the same author, that Pope
Leo died at the very time when he was committing sodomy.
If we read Platina and Nauclerus and other professed Roman
ists, who have writ the lives of the Popes, we shall be convinced
that the great number of them were necromancers, and
sorcerers, sodomites, whoremongers, incestuous, murderers,
blasphemers, apostates, atheists, and the most profligate and
execrable villains in nature. Another Popish writerj acknow
ledges, that about fifty Popes (viz. from Pope John VIII. or
Pope Joan to Leo IX.) degenerated from their ancestors, and
were apostatical rather than apostolical. Thus it was, he saith,
for about an hundred and fifty years. Another eminent
historian§ of the Romish persuasion would fain hide the
* Tria teterrima monstra. Platin. in vit. Pontific.
t Coll. Mens. J Genebrand. Chronolog. 1. 4. sec. 10.
§ Baron, in Annal. [912. Sect. 8.J

BY THE CHURCH OF ROME. 125
enormities of the Bishop of Rome, but he cannot force himself
to it ; for we find that he flies out against them with great
warmth and concernedness.
Thus I have dealt in the Papists' own authors, and have given
you their account of the Popes : and now I ask, whether there
is any probability that these are the infallible teachers, judges,
and deciders of all truth. Can we bring it into our minds to
beUeve, that such infidels as these are appointed by God to be
masters of our faith ? Can we be persuaded that such monsters
of men are the conservators and arbiters of the Christian
religion ? Doth the holy and pure Spirit of God dwell in those
vile and impure creatures, and confer upon them the gift of
infallibly judging ? Or shall we say, that other men's minds,
it is true, are corrupted and debauched by vice and by living in
the practice of all lewdness ; but it is not so with the Pontiff of
Rome 1 His judgment is clear, though his life be polluted ;
he knows how to give others an unerring conduct to truth,
though he is overgrown with all the errors of a profane and
wicked life.
Methinks the Romanists have not gone tbe right way to
work, to prove infallibility. They might as well have said, the
Popes are without sin, as without error. It had been their best
and readiest course to have freed their universal judge from all
faults in his life, as well as in his judgment. And this might
easily be done • for though so many of the Popes are branded
as lewd and flagitious persons, yet it might be maintained, that
what is sin and crime in others is not so in him that sits in St.
Peter's chair. He is an extraordinary person, and what holds
good of common mortals, must not be applied to him. The .
triple crown purges him from all guilt and stain, and therefore
he hath no sin to debauch his judgment, and consequently his
infallibility is not prejudiced at all. This may be part of the
creed of a Roman Catholic, but Protestants (though said to be
solifidians) cannot believe any such thing, but reckon it as a
bar to the infalhbility of many of the Popes, that have not
only been heretics, but notoriously wicked, profane and dis
solute in their lives.
III. The doctrine of the Pope's infallibility (and indeed his
supremacy too, as I said before that they are in some things
near a-kin) is ruined by this one thing, viz. that there have
appeared more Popes at a time than one. There were two
Popes at once, in the year 13/8, Clement VII. was Pope at
Avignon, and Urban VI. sat Pope at Rome. Who could judge

126 OF THE INFALLIBILITY HELD
of infallibility in those days 1 In which of the Popes was it
seated ? Or was the infallibility capable of being split and
divided 1 Were both Clement and Urban in the right, when
they opposed one another ? This is an unheard of infallibility,
an infallibility of contradictions. But what shall we say to a
triumvirate of Popes ? Two heads of the Church are mon
strous, but three much more : and yet this triple-headed
Cerberus hath been no strange thing at Rome. About the
year 974 there were three anti-Popes together; Boniface VII.,
John XV., and Benedict VII. About the year 1045, Benedict,
Sylvester, and Gregory were Popes at once. Afterwards, a.d.
1159, Pope Alexander III., baffled three Pretenders to the
triple crown (as good Popes as himself), and behold ! in a short
time three others, viz. Victor, Paschal, and Calixtus came in
his place, i. e. challenged the papal chair. In the time of the
Council of Constance, which began a. d. 1414, there laid claim
to the Popedom, Benedict XIII,, who was elected by the
Spanish cardinals ; Gregory XIL, who was advanced by the
French ; and John XXIII. who was befriended by the Italians,
These all actually set up for the Popedom, and excommunicated
one another ; and now tell me which of these Pretenders was
infallible ; or did the infallibility reside in them all to
gether 1 This makes the doctrine of infallibility yet the more
incredible, yea the more absurd and ridiculous : for if one be as
infallible as another then we must hold that contradictions are
infallible ; for it is certain that they contradicted one another j
and what one pronounced to be true, another averred to be false,
and a third opposed both of them.
I might add, that the Popes in different ages have disagreed.
One hath decreed against what another before established ; and
how shall we reconcile this with the impossibility of their erring?
Yea, Popes have determined against themselves: so Vigilius
condemned the fifth General Council (the second of Constan
tinople) and yet afterwards confirmed it : and yet must we
believe that he was infallible, and that there was no mistake in
his judgment ?
Surely after we have weighed these several particulars, it
cannot enter into our minds that the Bishop of Rome is tbe
sole judge and the supreme arbitrator on earth of all contro
versies, from whose opinion there is no appeal Surely, we
cannot be induced to believe, that all laws are shut up in the
breast of this great and mighty dictator, and that he is free
from all error by special privilege and appointment.

BY THE CHURCH OF ROME. 12"
This is so incredible a thing, that our very adversaries some
times, whether unwarily, or from the conviction of truth,
disown the belief of it. The famous Gerson, in the first part
of his discourse about trial of doctrines, declares, that " there is
more credit to be given to a plain private man instructed in
holy Scripture, than to the Pope's definitive sentence in any
point of doctrine : for it is plain that the Gospel is more to be
beheved than the Pope."* Another great man of that Church
freely professes, " that in things concerning faith the verdict
of one private person is to be preferred before the decision of
the Pope, if he be led with better warrants of the Old and
New Testament than the Pope." We have it from Bellarmine
bimself, f that tbe Church for a thousand years was a stranger
to the doctrine of the Pope's infallibility. Another late writer
of that Church is ver)' fair and ingenuous, telling us, " that
though the Church of Rome was considered as first, and its
Bishop as first amongst all the bishops- of the world, yet they
did not beUeve him tobeinfaUible; and though they frequently
consulted him, and his advice was of great consequence, yet
they did not receive it blindfold and implicitly, every bishop
imagining himself to have a right to judge in ecclesiastical
matters."J Thus he. I would have it remembered, that the
last Pope but one was examined by the Inquisition, because he
was thought to be a favourer of Molinos's heresy. From
which action we cannot but infer these two things, which are
much to our present purpose, that the Court of Inquisition is
reckoned to be above the Pope, for else he could not be called
to account by it : and likewise that the Pope is fallible ; for
that is supposed in the inquisitors suspecting him to be tainted
with heresy. But I will insist no longer on this point of the
Pope's infallibility ; for this is confuted by the next -opinion
held by other Papists : (where by the by observe, that we need
not be very solicitous to baffle their doctrines, for their own
party doth it themselves.)
Secondly, Some hold that Councils are infallible, and that
infallibility is only seated in them : and so down goes the
Pope's infallibility. This was the determination of their own
Councils, as that of Constance in the year 1414, and that of
BasU, which began a.d. 1431 ; both which decreed a Coun
cil to be above the Pope ; and this latter Council was con-
* Panormitan. cap. significasti de Electione.
t De Pont Rom. 1. 4. c. 2. X Du Pin's Biblioth. Patrum.

128 OF THE INFALLIBILITY HELD
firmed by Pope Nicholas V. Infallibility is placed in a General
Council, say Gerson, Cusanus, Abulensis, and some other great
men. The Sorbonne are point blank against the Jesuits, and
hold a Council above the Pope. And it is the professed opinion
of the Jansenists, that the Bishop of Rome is fallible ana sub
ject to a Council. That Councils thought themselves above
Popes is clear from their condemning of them, as in the in
stances before alleged. Pope Honorius was condemned as a
heretic by a Council at Constantinople, and Eugenius under
went the same censure by that at Basil. But that Councils
were above Popes is yet more evident from their deposing of
them. At the beginning of the fifteenth century Benedict
XIII. and Gregory XII. were deposed by the Council of Pisa,
and Pope Alexander V. was chosen by them in their room,
The Council of Constance, called about a.d. 1400 (the same
which, as was said before, determined a Council to be above
the Pope), deposed three contending Popes, Benedict XIII,,
Gregory XIL, and John XXIV., and elected a fourth, namely,
Martin V. And it is no wonder that this Council was con
firmed by this Pope Martin. Eugenius IV. the last Pope of
that name, was deposed by the General Council of Basil, and
Felix V. was put in his place, a.d. 1439. Thus according to
three Councils, namely, of Pisa, Constance, and Basil, the in
fallibility of Rome rested in them.
But yet if we consider things aright, we shall find that the
infallibility of Councils is as easily refuted as that of the
Pope's. For though what Luther saith,* " It is with a Coun
cil as with a market full of drunken clowns, nothing but con
fused and disordered noise is heard," may pass for too sharp
and satirical, yet it is certain that the results of these eccle
siastical meetings seldom answer expectation. Let us hear
what an ancient Father saith on this subject,f " If I may
write the truth, and what I really think (saith he), I would
avoid all episcopal Councils : for I never saw a happy and
joyful end of any Council : but it was so far from remedying
an evil, that it rather increased it." It is undeniably plain
that Councils are subject to error. The second Council of
Ephesus (held to be a General Council) sided with Eutyches
against Flavianus. And we know that one Council hath con
tradicted another. One General Council voted down, another
voted up image worship. The acts of the second Nicene
* Coll. Mens. t Greg. Naz. Epist. 42. ad Procop.

m

BY THE CHURCH OF ROME. 129
CouncU, which did this latter, being carried into the West,
Charles the Great, king of France, called a Synod of three
hundred bishops at Frankfort on the Main, a.d. 794, who de
creed contrary to that Council. The General Councils of Con
stance and Basil determined that a Council is above the Pope,
and that he may be deposed by them : but the General Coun
cil at Lateran under Julius II. and Leo X. determined the
quite contrary, i. e. the Pope is above a General Council.
Therefore Cusanus, a cardinal of the Church of Rome, but a
sober person, observing this contrariety of decrees, acknow
ledges it as a truth, founded upon experience, that an Univer
sal Council may err.*
And indeed if we consider seriously what Councils gene
raUy have been, and how they have been managed, and
how many qualifications there are to make a Council lawful
and good ; and if we consider how few of them have been free
and disengaged, and what numbers of them have been preju
diced and prepossessed, and how fraud and subtlety have crept
in among them and perverted the true design of their meeting
together, we shall not be very eager to maintain that Councils
have reached so high as infaUibility. I shall conclude this
head with the sense of our own Church about this matter, in
her nineteenth Article, " As the Church (saith she) of Jerusa
lem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred, so also the Church
of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of
ceremonies, but also in matters of faith." And again, in her
21st Article, " General Councils, when they be gathered to
gether, for as much as they be an assembly of men, whereof
all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God, may err,
and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining to God."
There is a third opinion among some of the doctors of the
Church of Rome, namely, that the Pope and the Council to
gether are infallible, and that the gift of infallibility is be
stowed on both of them jointly. But this hath few abettors,
and they dp not seem to believe what they say ; for when they
come to close the business of infallibility, they fix it radically
either in the Pope alone, or in the Council alone. And truly
any one may see that this medley is a mere shift, and hath
nothing serious and solid in it ; for if infallibility be seated
neither in Pope nor Council, and neither of them be infallible
* Notandum est experimento rerum Universale Concilium posse defi-
cere. — Concord. Catholic. 1. 2. c. 14.
VOL. VI. K

130 OF THE INFALLIBILITY HELD
singly, how can we imagine that infallibility arises from their
being joined together 1 For two fallibles will not make one
infallible. And thus we see, the Romanists must be forced to
give up the cause ; for no way, they have yet taken, will lead
to infallibility.
But because I will do them all the right imaginable, I
will listen to the objections they usually make against our
doctrine, and in those they persuade themselves there are
couched several arguments for infallibility. And truly I am
the more willing to hearken to their objections, and to return
an answer to them, because the very objections will serve to
confirm us in the truth we hold ; and the weakness of the ar
guments which they produce will be one strong argument
against them.
First, they argue from Scripture, and tell us that the Jews
had an infallible supreme judge, and that the high-priest was
such, and the priests and Levites, and the Sanhedrim or Great
Council at Jerusalem were such ; therefore there ought to be
and is an infallible judge in the Christian Church. To prove
that in the Jewish Church such a one was constituted, they
allege that text, Deut. xvii. 8, and what follows : " If there arise
a matter too hard for thee in judgment," &c. But I answer, 1st,
This is nothing to the present purpose, because the words speak
not of religious matters, but matters of controversy between
man and man, relating either to criminal cases, or to civil rights,
" between blood and blood, betwixt plea and plea, and between
stroke and stroke," &c. Therefore this place cannot be made
use of to prove the Jewish priests or any other judges in these
controversies to be infallible as to matters of faith. 2ndly,
Here is not a word that so much as hints at the infallibility of
the Jewish priests or Church ; but only we are told here that
the people were to submit to the decision and determination of
the priests and judges in those criminal and civil cases. 3rdly,
That the Jewish priests were not infallible, is evident from Mal,
ii. 8, where the priests are reproved for " departing out of
the way, and causing many to stumble at tbe law:" and in
other places in the writings of the Prophets, the errors and
failings of the priests with respect to their instructifig the
people are severely animadverted upon. Christ calls the priests
and rulers (of whom the Council consisted), " blind guides,"
Matth. xxiii. 16. And it was this Council that appeared so
warmly against Christ and the Apostles, Matth. xxvii. 20,
63; xxvi. 59, 65 ; and therefore we may conclude it to be

BY THE CHURCH OF ROME. 131
fallible, and consequently the argument of the Papists drawn
from what was done in the Jewish Church is of no value.
And lastly, this may be said, that though we should suppose
that the Jews had an infallible interpreter of the law, yet it
follows not that it is so in the Christian Church : for our dis
pensation and theirs differ exceedingly.
I think I shall be excused by all wise men from insisting on
the proof of the Pope's infaUibility from the Urim and Thum-
mim of the Jews, which a great champion of the Roman cause
urges with some confidence : for saith he,* " Urim is doctrine,
and Thummim is verity, and therefore the high-priest could not
err, but always propounded truth, when he tanght ;" as if this
learned man did not know very well that that Jewish oracle in
the high-priest's breast-plate was an extraordinary way of re
velation, and besides did not concern itself in mere matters of
reUgion and faith, and therefore on both these accounts cannot
be applied to the business in hand.
The writers of the Roman Church labour to form an argu
ment from those texts that set forth the authority of the
Church and the necessity of obeying it : " If he neglect to
hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man," &c.
Matth. xviii. 1 7- " The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses'
seat ; all therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that ob
serve and do." Matth. xxUi. 1, 2. " He that heareth you,
heareth me : and he that despiseth you despiseth me," Luke
x. 16. Hence it is plain, that the Jewish Church, and after
wards the Christian Church was to be attended to and obeyed
in all things, therefore they are infallible. But who sees not
the inconsequence of this 1 for there is no arguing from the
authority of the Church to its infallibility ; for then our
parents and our governors are infallible, and every minister and
pastor of the Church is infallible, because he is to be heard.
Aud so in the Jewish Church every priest, every scribe and
Pharisee was infallible, because the people were to be taught
by them their duty from God's law. This argument then
proves too much, and this is more than the Papists themselves
wiU grant : which shews the invalidity of their arguing.
The 22nd of Luke, ver. 32, where our Saviour tells Peter,
" that he had prayed for him tbat his faith fail not," is another
text that the doctors of the Church of Rome produce to evince
the Pope's infallibility : for they would persuade us, that the
* Bellarm. de Pont. Rom. 1. 4. c. 3.
K 2

132 OF THE INFALLIBILITY HELD
faith of all Peter's successors is preserved by that prayer, there-
fore the Bishops of Rome are infalhble. Such poor reasoning
as this should rather be slighted than taken notice of : but be
cause some may be so weak as to imagine that there is some
thing of argument in it, I will return this brief answer to it ;
namely, that it is not to be doubted that this prayer of our
Saviour refers to Satan's sifting of Peter, that is, his tempting
him to deny Christ, spoken . of in the preceding verse ; and
the Apostle is here assured, that his denying of his Master
shall not end in a final apostasy from the faith, but that he
shall rise again after his fall. And we know that this prayer
was heard and answered.
The Romanists apply that to their Church, Matth. xxviii 20,
" Lo, I am with you always to the end of the world ;" and
look upon it as a promise of Papal infallibihty. But first, this
which is said here is meant of the pastors of the true Church:
and let them prove theirs to be such, before they claim the
promise. Secondly, God and Christ shall be with the minis
ters of his Church for ever : but he doth not say that they
shall be infallible. He shall infallibly be with them, but he
promises not infallibility to them.
That text also, "On this rock will I build my Church, and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," is alleged: but I
have answered it before, under the former point, and therefore
there needs no other reply now. But if something must be
added, it shall be this : 1 . Let them, as I said before, prove the
Church of Rome to be a true one, which it will be impossible
for them to do, and then it will be time to make use of this
text. 2. If there were a possibility of proving themselves a
true Church, yet this promise, that "the gates of hell shall not
prevail against the Church," belongs to the Church of Eng
land, or any other true Church as well as that of Rome ; and
therefore they can make no peculiar claim to this promise, the
plain meaning of which is, that the true Church of Christ shall
never be rooted out by the power or policy of the devil (those
are the gates of hell), but shall last to the end of the world.
They allege, the commission given to the Apostles, " As my
Father hath sent me, even so send I you," John xx. 21. The
Father sent me who am infalhble, so I send you, and endow
you with the same prerogative. But first it must be observed,
that this is spoken of all the Apostles, and therefore it is not
to be restrained to Peter only and his pretended successors.
Secondly, If the Pope would have any share in this text, he

BY THE CHURCH OF ROMF. 133
must prove that he is sent by Christ, which he hath not done,
and we do not expect that ever he will. But thirdly, It cannot
but be taken notice of, that the writers of the Church of Rome
do here, as in their glosses and other texts, shew downright
imposture and fallacy : for after this wild way of reasoning,
they may prove the Bishop of Rome to be infinite and omni
potent, and to be God himself : for the Father sent his Son
who is infinite and omnipotent, and is God himself : and there
fore, if the Pope be included in this text, it may as well be
gathered that he is infinite, omnipotent, and God himself, as
that he is infallible. Fourthly, then, The plain and obvious
sense of Christ's words is this, that as the Father had com
missioned and authorized the Son to discharge the work of a
mediator, so the Apostles and aU the ministers of the Gospel
have full authority and commission from the Son to execute
their ministerial office : and they being sent by him shall have
encouragement from him.
Thus I have briefly answered the Popish arguments, if they
may be caUed arguments, from Scripture, and we might observe
here what the Protestant writers have often mentioned ; namely,
that the Papists believe the Church of Rome to be infallible,
because they imagine the Scripture saith so, though I have
sufficiently disproved this in my reply to their interpretation of
the foregoing texts, and believe the Scripture saith so, because
the Church of Rome is infaUible and saith so. This is dis
puting in a circle, and therefore by no means to be allowed of,
for such arguing in the nature of the thing itself loses its force
and virtue.
From Scripture they pass to other topics, which they think
furnish them with great reasons for what they hold. " They
argue from the power of God ; he can, say they, bestow infal-
Ubility, and therefore we are not to doubt that he hath done it.
But this must by no means be accepted of as a good argument:
for we know that there are many things which God is able to
do, and yet they are not done by him. But why, say they,
should we think that God will deny infallibihty to the Church,
when it is so great a benefit, and therefore in the next place
they argue from God's goodness, and his designs of doing good
to mankind. But they should rather argue, that this is not
good, i. e. for us in our present circumstances, because we find
there is no such thing.
But they insist farther, that it is a very desirable thing, and
every one wishes for it. It is true, we might wish for it, be-

134 OF THE INFALLIBILITY HELD
cause it would save us a great deal of labour. As says the
Lord Falkland, if God would leave it to me, which tenet should
be true, I would rather choose that this should be true than
the contrary. So that, as he adds, it is not the averseness of
our minds from the thing that makes us deny it : but we do it
merely because there is no foundation for the reality of the
thing itself. We might be apt to think that this is the speediest
course that can be taken to estabhsh the unity of faith in the
Church : but what is this to the purpose if there be no such
thing, if God hath not been pleased to grant any such thing?
But it is urged, that it is most convenient and fitting that
there should be an infallible judge, and therefore we may con
clude that there is one. But this arguing is as weak and pre
carious as the other. I will apply here the words of the
judicious Mr. Hooker, which he uses on another occasion:*
" As for those marvellous discourses, whereby they adventure to
argue, that God must needs have done the thing which they
imagine was to be done, I must confess I have often wondered
at their exceeding boldness herein. In matters which concern
the actions of God, the most dutiful way on our part is to
search what God hath done, and with meekness to admire that,
rather than to dispute what he in congruity of reason ought to
do." In things of that nature, which I am now speaking of,
we are not to speak of their fitness and expediency : and we
are sure that God in many things doth not that which to us
seems to be convenient. But he always doth that which he
knows to be best and fittest, though we apprehend it not to be so.
And I pray who should judge of the fitness and convenience of
things but the Allwise Being ? In short, then, that this or
that seems convenient to us, is no argument that it really is so,
or that the thing really hath any existence.
These are the Papists' arguments for the infallibility of their
Church, and I have offered such brief answers, as from which
you may certainly gather that their doctrine is false and erro
neous, and grounded on fond surmises only.
Which I wUl prove by these following reasons. First, There
is no need of an infallible judge; for natural religion is plain
and obvious, and all the necessary points of it carry a self-evi
dence with them. And as for revealed religion, we need not
mistake if we will use the right means to truth. Studyingthe
Scripture, prayer, and an honest mind will be blest with suf-
* Eccl. Polit. Book 3. sect. 11.

BY THE CHURCH OF ROME. 135
ficient knowledge of all things necessary to salvation. No
interpreter is requisite but the Bible itself ; this is both rule
and judge too ; and all will fail us but this. A great man of
the Church of Rome came at last to his tutissimum* in this
point, as well as in another. In vain then is it alleged, that it
is very requisite there should be an infalhble judge, because
else we cannot tell what is truth, there being so many errors
and mistakes : whereas, if we will be in good earnest, and
sincerely and industriously apply ourselves to the finding out of
truth, we shall not lose our labour : for the holy Scripture
itself is a safe, certain, and most secure rule of faith.
Secondly, There is no infaUible judge, because it is against
the nature of mankind. Man is created with rational faculties,
to understand and. judge for himself ; and all exultations and
admonitions in Scripture suppose and hint this. It is the
property of man to examine and inquire, and consequently it is
against the frame and make of human nature to impose things
to be believed If all things in religion must be thrust upon
us by an infaUible dictator, without any previous scrutiny and
inquisition, then what use is there of our reason and judgment ?
What occasion have we to exercise those powers ? Where
there is an infallible judge, there is no need of arguing in re
ligion. The liberty of using our understandings in discerning
between truth and falsehood is taken away. This makes it
very clear, that the Roman Church hath no ground to impose
upon us an infalhble decider of matters of faith. Yea, and in
the close of this it might be asked, why God should irresistibly
keep men from error more than from vice 1 Why is there not
an infallible way of hindering this latter, as well as the Roman
CathoUcs suppose an infallible cure of the former ? I cannot
see any reason for it, unless it be this, that they are not so
much concerned for the suppressing of sin and vice as of error.
Thirdly, The notion of an infaUible judge destroys the
standing ministry of the Church. The use of this must needs
cease, if the other be introduced: the 1 Cor. xu. 28, and Eph.
iv. 11, 12, are to no purpose; for pastors and teachers, and
those other officers which are appointed for the edifying of the
body of Christ, are useless, because one infaUible judge super
sedes all other teachers.
Fourthly, Though there were an infallible guide, we might
* Sacra Scriptura Regula credendi certissima tutissimaque sit, — Bellarm.
de Verbo Dei, 1. 1. cap. 2. [sect. 13. Pragan, 1721.]

136 OF THE INFALLIBILITY HELD
err for all that : for it may be he would not do his duty. Or
we that follow him, being fallible, might not understand his
meaning always, or we might wilfully mistake out of obstinacy
and design. Thus, though we should grant the Pope to be
infallible, yet this would not do the Church or generality of
Christians any good; for his infallibility doth not make them
all infallible. If they be fallible creatures, liable to errors and
mistakes, they may not be the better for all the infallibility in
another. They may mistake what is infallibly delivered. So
that every individual person must be infallible, and conse
quently every individual person must be a Pope, or else the
doctrine of infallibility signifies nothing.
Fifthly, There cannot be a plainer confutation of the infalli
bility which the Church of Rome boasts of, than their dis
agreeing among themselves in matters of great consequence
relating to the Christian faith. If they have an unerring
pastor and judge, why do they not give us some proofs of it?
Why do they make a great noise about it, but do not convince
us of the truth of it by their practice ? If there be infallibility
in that Church, why do not they publish an infallible expo
sition of all the books of the Bible ? What makes their com
mentaries differ ? Why do their writers vary as much as any
Protestants are thought by them to do ? Why doth not the
Church of Rome determine the exact sense and meaning of all
places of Scripture, that so there may be no more disputes for
the future, and no more expositions but one ? Seeing Sixtus
Quintus's edition was reckoned the authentic edition of the
vulgar Latin, what is the reason that two years after,
Clement VIII.'s edition was voted the only authentic one, and
yet vastly differed from the former ? We see that those who
pretend to have an infallible guide among them, do not put an
end to all their controversies ; which they would certainly do,
if they were verily persuaded that infallibihty was their privi
lege. It is a sign, therefore, that they would have others to
believe that which they are not persuaded of themselves.
Sixthly, It is an undeniable argument, that there is no such
thing as infallibility among the Roman Catholics, because they
cannot agree where to lodge their infallibility. They have not
determined concerning this great judge that is to decide all
things. And yet this must be granted, that they must first
be infallibly certain who this infallible judge is before they
can submit to his decisions. Now we have heard how they
dispute, whether Pope, or Councils, or both be the infallible

BY THE CHURCH OF ROME. 137
guide. Anciently Coundls were reputed to be above Popes ;
but in later times the Pope hath been uppermost : and it
must be so, seeing the Councils of Lateran and Trent have
decreed it. But yet since that time, and at this very day,
there is not an agreement among the Roman CathoUcs in this
point . Many of those that hold an infallibility, know not
where it resides ; which renders it most probable that there is
no such thing.
Seventhly, It is evident that there is no such thing as in-
fallibUity in the Church of Rome ; for she hath actually erred
and faded. Honest Gerson, the ChanceUor of Paris, pro
nounced it openly (in a sermon de Circumcisione) that the
Church of Rome both might and did actually err, and was
deceived ; witness its receiving and honouring a woman for a
Pope, and that for a considerable time. I have shewed before,
that both Popes and CouncUs have opposed one another : the
former have contradicted what their predecessors did ; the
latter have decreed contrary to former Councils. They have
peremptorily determined in several points, and then have re
versed them. Now, either the reversing was an error, or
the former tenet was one. This shews, that Rome hath no
reason to brag of an infallible judge ; or at least it proves, that
an infallible judge is not a remedy against error and deception.
They that pretend to an unerring guide are themselves de
ceived. So that, upon the whole, it is reasonable to aver, that
infallibility, or the benefit of it is clearly against matter of fact
and plain experience.
Next I argue from primitive practice. It is evident that
infallibility is an upstart doctrine, and hath no real ground and
foundation ; for else we should have heard of it among the
ancient and primitive Fathers of the Church ; some of them
would have made use of the infaUibility of the Bishop of Rome,
if there had been any such thing. But we find that there was
no attempt of this nature. St. Augustine against the Pelagians,
Cyril against Nestorius, Athanasius against the Arians, ap
pealed to Scripture, and made use of that to decide the points
which were in controversy between them and their adversaries,
but never consulted the Pope about them. Yea, when in some
cases he would be thrusting in his definitive sentence, it was
rejected. Thus in the contention of the bishops of the East
and West about Easter, his judgment was not received. For
(as Eusebius informs us) Polycarp would not yield to Anicetus,
who was then Bishop of Rome ; nor could Anicetus persuade

138 OF THE INFALLIBILITY HELD
him to lay aside his different observation of that time. And
when, about thirty years after, the dissension was renewed,
and Victor, bishop of Rome, excommunicated the Eastern
bishops, because they slighted his determination in that con
troversy, they slighted him and his determination, and writ to
him, and reproved him bitterly : and afterwards, a.d. 258, in
the famous dispute about the re-baptizing of those that were
baptized by heretics, the judgment of Stephen, then bishop of
Rome, was not authentic : for though he forbade rebaptization,
yet (as Eusebius relates) Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage (who
was afterwards a blessed martyr of the Church) withstood his
decree, and was not afraid to say that Stephen* asserted the
cause of heretics against the Christians, and against the
Church of God. With Cyprian took part Firimlianus, the
metropolitan of Csesarea, and Dionysius, the patriarch of Alex
andria, with most of the African bishops, yea whole Synods of
them. It is well known likewise, that the bishops of the East,
about the middle of the fourth century, withstood Julius I. the
head of the Roman Church, in the cause of Athanasius. So
plain is it from ecclesiastical history, that the primitive godly
bishops did not acquiesce in the determination of the Roman
Pontiffs, but opposed it, and yet were good Catholics ; which
is a very clear confutation of the infaUibihty of those that
pretend to be successors of St. Peter.
My next proof is from Scripture. From what we meet
with in these sacred writings it is manifest that there is no
infallible judge. If there be such a one, how comes it to pass
that the Apostles did not make use of him ? When false
teachers and heretical seducers rose up and troubled the
Church, why did they not stick by their infallibility, and, with
that, put an end to disputes, and to all false doctrines ? St.
Paul, in his epistle to the Corinthians, might have speedily
hushed all by this one expedient. When one was for Paul,
another for Apollos, another for Cephas (Peter the supreme,
according to our adversaries), what is the reason that the
Apostle did not make use of this supreme judge of all contro
versies, so allay all quarrels and divisions ? The true reason
is, because there was no such thing as a supreme and infaUible
decider of all debates. If there was, we must say one of these
two things, either the Apostles did not know it, or they would
not make use of this privilege. The first cannot be said with
* Cypr. Epist. ad Pamp.

BY THE CHURCH OF ROME. 139
any reason, because the Apostles were inspired persons, and
had the knowledge of all things useful to the Church commu
nicated to them. The second is not to be allowed ; for that
would impeach the Apostles of wUful negUgence, and at the
same time argue their want of integrity : for then it would
appear, that though they seemed to be very desirous to appease
disputes and quarrels in reUgion ; yet they refused to make
use of the means in order to it. Thus it is reasonable to argue
from the practice of the Apostles recorded in Scripture, that
there was and is no such thing as infalUbility. And it might
be here further added, that had St. Peter been the infalhble
head of the Church, St. Paul would not have treated him as he
doth, Gal. U. 7, 9, 1 1, but I have spoken before of that under
the supremacy.
Again, if there were such a privilege as infalhbiUty, it would
have been attested and confirmed by some promise in Scrip
ture ; there would have been some plain words to assure us
that the Church of Christ should be constantly suppUed with
it. For if we have promises of lesser things (as those that
concern our bodies and outward estate) it is not to be doubted
that greater things would be expressly mentioned : and it is
certain that if infaUibility be a privUege granted to the Church,
it is a very great and considerable one. But we have not any
promise in the Bible that looks that way. We are no where
told, that we shaU have the benefit of an uncontroUable judge,
who is able to determine in all points of controversy. We
do not find that such a one is any where appointed by God.
And yet it is not to be denied, that if there were such a one,
he would not have been forgot, he would not have been
omitted in the holy Scriptures. Wherefore thence I infer
that there is no such thing.
Besides, we have plain texts against it, as Matth. xxiii. 8.
" Be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your Master, even Christ ;"
he is the only Lord of our faith, and no other person who
soever (no, not the Bishop of Rome) can pretend to that pre
rogative. That this great and important truth might be more
taken notice of, our Saviour repeats it in other words of the
same import, ver. 9, " Call no man your father upon the earth :
for one is your Father, which is in heaven," i. e. resign not
yourselves absolutely to any man's judgment and determina
tion as infallible ; for God alone is he to whom we owe an
absolute faith. This gives a mortal stab to the doctrine of
infallibility, and seems, as it were proleptically, to condemn

140 OF THE INFALLIBILITY HELD
the future practice of those who would cry up the decision of
their Holy Father.
That is another plain text, " Not for that we have dominion
over your faith," 2 Cor. i. 24. As much as to say, though
we be Apostles, yet we have no authority to impose what doc
trines we please upon you ; we have no warrant to act as infal
lible judges. And if Christ's Apostles had none of this power
and authority, is any man so soft as to give credit to the Ro
manists, when they say they have one among them that is
endowed with this power ?
I appeal to any unprejudiced person, whether St. Paul's
commending the people of Bersea (Acts xvii. 11) for " their
searching the Scriptures daUy, to know whether those things
were so," doth not baffle the doctrine of an infallible judge to
be consulted by us. If he had been of the opinion of the
Roman doctors, he would not have told us that the Berseans
shewed themselves to be a people of a more noble and brave
spirit than others, because they examined and inquired into
the doctrines which the Apostle delivered, to find whether
they were true or no ; but he would first have reprimanded
them for their being rash and pragmatical in attempting to
judge of those things, and then he would have bid them re
pair to the infallible judge and teacher, and would have com
manded them to rely wholly upon him.
Lastly, if there be one universal and infallible guide to
whose determinations we ought to submit, why are we bid to
"prove or try all things?" 1 Thess. v. 21 : and why are we
enjoined " not to believe every spirit, but to try the spirits,
whether they are of God?" 1 John iv. 1. The Apostle
writes this even to private Christians, and we see that they
have a liberty to judge in religion, yea, it is their duty to do
so, or else the Apostle would not have commanded it. Now,
the Apostle would not have writ thus, if he had thought of an
infaUible judge ; he would have sent these persons to him to
have received his dictates, and not have put them upon a
laborious trying of things themselves. But you see it is other
wise ; instead of that method, he bids them apply themselves
to the trying work. And the reason is plain, because every
man is bound for himself to judge of his religion, and conse
quently to search into the reasons and grounds of it. But
those of the Church of Rome tell us that the people cannot
judge in matters of religion ; and therefore there must be an
infallible judge to decide all controveries. It is clear (if Scrip-

BY THE CHURCH OF ROMF. 141
ture can make any thing clear) that this hath a false founda
tion, and therefore there is no building upon it. Thus I hope
these arguments which I have offered have abundantly evinced
what I undertook, that there can be no such thing as the in
fallibility which the Church of Rome boasts of ; that there is
not any man, or any company of men, appointed to be judge
for all other men ; and, in a word, that all pretences to any
such thing are vain and senseless.
The corollaries from the whole are such as these. First,
by aU means beware of the Church of Rome. She gives out
that she is utterly incapable of error ; she professes that she
is not obnoxious to a possibility of mistaking. Beware, I say ;
for of all cheats I look upon the infallible one to be the worst.
And this is certain, that their pretence to infallibility is the
occasion of their gross failings.
Secondly, let us not dispute against, and yet at the same
time imitate the Papists : that is, let us not imperiously exer
cise dominion over men's faith, which is too common a thing
in Christendom. Infallibility is that which all parties gene
rally pretend to, and hence grow censorious, and damn all
dissenters, not remembering St. Paul's words, " We know in
part, and we prophesy in part."
Thirdly, let us be estabhshed in this persuasion, which I
have proved to have reason, and primitive practice, and the
holy Scriptures, and our Church on its side. And that we
may be the more concerned for this doctrine, we ought to
consider these three things. First, upon the Pope's infallibi
lity depend aU other points of Popery. If we can prove that,
then we have reason to embrace all the doctrines of the Church
of Rome. We have nothing to say against their worshipping
of images, praying to saints, half-communion, and all their
other tenets. These all rely on the infallibility of their Church,
and this is justly esteemed to be the root of the Roman reli
gion. Wherefore having extirpated this, we have undermined
the Church of Rome : having baffled infallibility, we have
taken their main fort. Thus we see of what high importance
it is to be assured of the Roman Church's fallibility. Secondly,
we are greatly concerned to be informed aright of this matter,
for implicit faith and blind obedience (which are so much
prized by the Church of Rome, but are very destructive of
true religion) follow upon this doctrine. Whoever is thoroughly
persuaded of it, will believe any thing, or undertake any thing

142 OF THE INFALLIBILITY HELD
that the person who is thought to be infallible imposes on
him ; for if he cannot err himself, nor cause others to err, we
need not question his conduct. Our business is to foUow our
guide, and embrace whatever he proposes to us. If he pleases
to condemn the Gospel, and to set up a new religion, we can
not refuse to comply with his new overtures, for he can deter
mine nothing amiss : all that he saith and enjoins us is true,
just, and right. Thirdly, let it be remembered that the doc
trine of the Pope's infallibility introduces all vice as well as all
error. There is no villany whatsoever but is to be allowed of,
if the head of the Roman Church thinks fit to licence it ; and
we know full well that he hath done so. It is worthily said
in the Canon Law, that "though the Pope should lead the
whole world into hell, yet they ought to follow him, and no
human creature must presume to question him for the same,
nor ask why he did it?"* He is infallible: that is enough
to sUence all questions ; and it is to be supposed that this
unerring master who leads people to the infernal pit, will be
so kind as to make it easy and tolerable to them. And who
need then be afraid of perpetrating the most flagitious and
enormous actions 1 It is no wonder then that the Papists adore
the great Diana of infalhbility, and contend for it mightily,
But we ought to contend as earnestly against it, seeing it is so
vile and pernicious a doctrine.
Fourthly and lastly, for the right understanding of what
hath been said, namely, that the Church of Rome falsely and
groundlessly lays claim to infaUibiUty, this must be owned as
a certain truth, that the Church of Christ is in this sense
infallible, that she cannot wholly fail in the fundamental doc
trines and articles of the Christian religion. She may err in
points of faith of an inferior nature, but she cannot totally
fail as to those that are necessary and of the foundation.
There shall ever be a select people in some parts of the world,
who shall hold the essentials of religion. There shaU, as long
as the world lasts, be a number of men professing the true
faith. We may depend on this ; for it is grounded on these
promises : " On this rock will I build my Church, and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matth. xvi. 18.)
The Spirit of Truth shall abide with you (i. e. not only with
the Apostles, but with their successors ; for it is added) for
* Decret. Can. 1. Si Papa. 40 Dist.

BY THE CHURCH OF ROME. 143
ever. (John xiv- 16, 17.) He shall teach you all things.
(ver. 26.) The Spirit of Truth shall guide you into all truth.
(John xvi. 13.) The anointing (i.e. the Spirit of illumina
tion) teacheth you all things." (1 John hi. 27). By "all
things," and " all truth," we are to understand aU the funda
mental and necessary doctrines of the Christian reUgion ; and
the Church of Christ is secured by these divine promises that
she shall not wholly err as to these. And the reason of it is
evident, for fundamentals are the essentials of a Church, and
therefore they cannot be separated from it. If we hold that
there shall be a Church to the end of the world, as we are
ascertained from Matth. xxvui. last verse, we must necessarily
hold that she shall never fail as to her fundamentals, because
these are indispensably necessary to the being of the Church.
If she errs in that which makes and constitutes a Church, she
is no longer the Church of Christ. Wherefore hence I gather
that the true Church of Christ is, and shall ever be, infallible
in those matters that are fundamental. The divine decree and
the promise estabUshes this. And the perseverance of be
lievers is grounded on the same bottom. The elect shall never
totally faU from grace, they shall be infallibly directed into the
truth, and they shall infallibly be saved.

144

CHAPTER III.
Of Transubstantiation.
It is the professed belief of the Church of Rome, that the
elements in the sacrament of the Lord's supper are really
turned into Christ's body and blood. And this thev call
transubstantiation, because that they hold that there is a
change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance
of Christ's natural body and blood. That this is the doctrine
of their Church is evident from two of their Councils, namely
the Lateran, a.d. 1215, under Pope Innocent III., which
attempted to make transubstantiation a matter of faith ; and
the Tridentine, which finished and established that which the
other attempted : for by this it was positively determined,* that
" by the consecration of the bread and wine there is made a
conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body
of Christ, and a conversion of the whole substance of the wine
into the blood of Christ." And again, " after the consecra
tion of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God
and man, is verily, really, and substantially contained under
the species of those sensible things." And "if any one holds
the contrary, let him be accursed," saith the Council. Ac
cordingly, all the writers of the Roman Church run in this
strain, that notwithstanding the accidents of bread and wine,
as the colour, shape, taste, &c. remain in the sacrament of the
Lord's supper after consecration ; yet the bread and wine
themselves are destroyed, and there is no such thing left. By
virtue of the pronunciation of these five words, Poe enim est
corpus meum, these elements are turned into the very body
and blood of Christ. This is the opinion held by the Church
of Rome, and they impose it as a necessary matter of belief on
all that are of their communion.
We assert the contrary, namely, that there is no such tran
substantiation ; and we prove it from Scripture, from reason,
and from the testimony of the ancient Fathers of the Christian
Church. These are good topics, and such as no unprejudiced
person will reject ; and I hope I shall make it clear from all
these, that the doctrine of transubstantiation is a
falsity and deceit. * Sess. 13. c. 4.

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 145
First, I argue against it from Scripture. The angels, at
our Saviour's ascension, told the spectators, that " this same
Jesus who was taken up from them into heaven, should so
come in like manner as they saw him go into heaven." Acts
i. 11. This is meant of Christ's glorious and visible coming
at the end of the world, and all interpreters and commentators
agree in this, yea even those of the Church of Rome. If
then Christ's return, and the time of it be fixed, that is, he is
to reside in heaven till the consummation of aU things, we
cannot reasonably imagine that he is bodily present in the
sacrament ; for if his body be here, then he is returned al
ready, and then it follows that his return is before the set
time, and consequently that the angehc spirits gave not a true
account of this matter, but deceived those they spoke to.
They tell us that " Jesus shall come," the Church of Rome
tells us that he "is come." The Scripture assures us that
Christ is in heaven even as to his humanity ; but the Papists
affirm that he is on earth in a thousand hosts. It is no un
easy thing to determine wbich of these we ought to give
credit to.
The Apostle Peter acquainted his auditors whom he had
converted to the Christian faith, that God " shall send Jesus
Christ at the end of all things," Acts Ui. 20 ; and adds, " the
heavens must receive him until the times of restitution of all
things," ver. 21, that is, untUthat solemn period of time, when
aU things shaU be restored to their primitive state. But the
doctrine of the real and boddy presence of Christ in the sacra
ment contradicts this, and saith that God " hath already sent
Jesus Christ," and that the heavens "must not receive and
retain him" until the times of the general and last restitution
of all things : for he is come from heaven already, and is
corporally present in the eucharist. Thus this is against the
truth of Christ's glorification : they deny, they renounce that
article, that " Christ sits at the right hand of God;" yea, they
say that his glorified body is brought down to be crucified
again, for so it is in the sacrament according to them. But
there' is no ground to give assent to this ; for we have it con
firmed by the testimony of an angel, and of an Apostle, that
Christ is still in heaven, and is to abide there till his last
coming. Wherefore when the Papists pretend to call down
Christ from heaven at their pleasure, and cry " Here is Christ,
and there is Christ," in this, or that, or a thousand masses,
believe them not.
VOL. VI. L

146 OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
I argue from 1 Cor. xi. 24 : " This do in remembrance of
me." Which words are repeated in ver. 25, where they refer
to the giving of the cup, as those before relate to the distri
buting the bread. Whence it is plain, that Christ's body and
blood are not present in that sacrament, and that the bread
and wine are not changed into these : for we remember things
of persons that are absent ; we are not said to remember those
that are present. The sacrament then being a memorial of
Christ, the eucharist being a commemoration of Christ's body
crucified for us, it follows that his body is not present. It is
supposed in the Lord's supper, which was instituted in remem
brance of our Saviour, that he is absent, and therefore is to be
called to mind in this ordinance. If Christ were present, we
should not celebrate tbe sacrament.
This truth may be solidly gathered from another end of the
sacrament, mentioned by the same Apostle in 1 Cor. xi. 26.
" As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew
the Lord's death till he come ;" that is, tiU he come at the
last day to judge the world, as is agreed to by all interpreters
on this place : and consequently Christ cannot be present in
the sacrament, because he is not yet come. You see this is
clearly deduced from the Apostle's words, "Ye shew Christ's
death," saith he, in the celebrating of the Lord's supper, you
solemnly declare your belief of Christ's passion and death, in
order to the pardon of your sins, the salvation of your souls,
and all worthy communicants do the same in all ages of the
world, even till the end of all things, when Christ will personally
and bodily descend from heaven, and visit this world : but
before that time he will not come, and therefore it is folly and
vanity to think that he as to his body is present in the sacra
ment, and that the bread and wine vanish to make way for
him. Thus these words of the Apostle confute transubstantia
tion. So do those that immediately follow, on another account :
for we may observe that St. Paul, no less than three times, in
three verses together, and after tbe consecration was over,
calls that which is eaten in the sacrament, bread, and that
which is drunk, the cup. The words are these : "As often as
ye eat this bread, and drink this cup (after the benediction) ye
do shew," &c. " Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and
drink this cup of the Lord (thus consecrated) unworthily, shall
be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man
examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 147
that cup," set apart in the sacrament, 1 Cor. xi. 2fj, 27,
28. Than which nothing can more plainly destroy the
Popish notion, viz. that after the priest hath consecrated the
bread and wine, they are immediately transformed into the
real body and blood of Christ : for here we see that the
inspired Apostle, who designedly took upon him in this chapter
to explain the doctrine of the Lord's supper, and to rectify
the mistakes about it, acquaints us, that the elements used in
that sacred institution do retain their own former nature and
quality, they are still bread and wine (for that is the import
of the cup.) With what face then can the Romanists say, that
they are become the true and real body and blood of Christ ?
With what face, I say, can they do it, when they read these
three verses of St. Paul, and own them to be canonical Scrip
ture? If the Apostle asserts these elements used in the
sacrament to be bread and wine, even after the benediction,
then they ought to be ashamed of their flatly denying them to
be such.
There are other passages of Scripture, which are made use
of by Protestant writers to weaken this doctrine : but I
question whether they have sufficient strength to do it. A
great man* thinks that the law given the Jews of not eating
the flesh with the blood, and so the Apostles' decree afterwards
forbidding the eating of blood, make against the doctrine of
transubstantiation, or the eating of the very flesh and blood of
Christ in the sacrament ; unless you will say they might eat
man's blood, though not that of beasts. I rather choose to
make use of those texts of Scripture which are apparently
pertinent and home, and such I conceive are those that I have
before produced.
To Scripture I wiU add reason, and shew that transubstantia
tion is irrational and absurd, and therefore not to be embraced
by those who acknowledge Christianity to be a reasonable
service. Here I have many things to say, and first I offer this,
that it is unreasonable to admit of transubstantiation, because
it destroys the very notion of a sacrament, which is to represent
something that is not seen or present. For all agree, that it is
of the nature of a sacrament to have an outward sign, and an
inward grace signified by that sign. Now transubstantiation
is against this, for here is no outward sign (not to speak here
of the invisible grace) : for bread and wine, which we think we
* Dr. Lightfoot on Gen. ix.
L 2

148 OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
see and feel and taste, are, according to the Papists, vanished
and are not, and therefore they cannot be signs ; and supposing
that the body and blood of Christ come in their room, it is not
possible these should be the outward sign : for nothing can
represent itself. Wherefore for Christ to be bodily in the
sacrament, is against the nature of the sacrament itself, which
is to signify and represent Christ's body. But if the bread
and wine be the very body and blood of Christ, then there is no
sign of the thing signified ; unless you can make the sign and
the thing signified to be the same. Thus it is plain that tran
substantiation takes away that which constitutes a sacrament.
The unreasonableness of this doctrine is seen in this, that it
is against the evidence of sense, which ought to be rehed upon
in matters which sense is capable of judging of. Our faculties
are not so made that they may deceive us in the proper objects
of them, for then there would be no evidence of truth in any
thing. The testimony of sense must be upheld, or else all our
religion is destroyed : for both Jews and Christians, who
received their reUgion by revelation from God, cannot be certain
of it, if their senses be false ; because that revelation, which
they received, was by the ministry of the bodily senses, con
veyed to them, whether it was by angels, or visions, or voices,
or dreams, &c. We may truly aver, that no revelation is from
God that is repugnant to sense rightly circumstantiated. If
our senses be mistaken when they act in due circumstances,
we cannot be sure that they are at any time true; which
destroys the certainty of all revelations and discoveries. More
especially this throws down the whole fabric of the Christian
religion : for what greater proof and assurance have we of
Christ's actions and miracles, and all he said and did, than the
testimony of those who saw and heard those things ? This is
made one ground of the certainty of the Christian religion,
" That which we have seen and heard and handled," 1 Johni. 1,
And we know that Christ himself appealed to Thomas's sense
to confute his infidelity ; and he proved his resurrection to
his other Apostles by it. We read that the Fathers appeal to
the testimony of the senses frequently against the Marcionites
to prove the truth of Christ's body. And all rational persons
look upon sensible apprehension as good proof, yea, and reckon
it as one firm basis of our religion. Which shews, that the
Roman Church acts very irrationally when she bids those of
her communion distrust their senses and reasons, and disbelieve
their eyes, their feeling, their taste, their smell, as in the

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 149
sacrament. Though all these senses are more or less exercised
about the bread and wine, and give their verdict, that they are
reaUy and truly bread and wine, yet a Roman Catholic must
not give credit to this, but, upon peril of damnation, believe
them to be the real and natural body and blood of Christ.
This is a great and wonderful infatuation, and is a farther
proof that Popery professedly deprives its proselytes of judg
ment and understanding. For though it is said, " Blessed are
they that have not seen, and yet have believed," yet sottish is
he who sees, and yet believes the contrary.
Again, they shew themselves very unreasonable in asserting
the same body to be in many places at once. They affirm,
that Christ's body is present in every individual host, and is in
a thousand places at once, and yet is but one body. Which
is absolutely inconsistent with the nature of a body, which
cannot be divided and separated from itself, and yet be whole
and entire. If we grant the contrary, we do as good as say a
body is not a body ; or a body which necessarUy contains
parts in it, is without parts. If a body can be in more places
than one at a time, the angel's words had been insignificant,
" He is not here, for he is risen," Matth. xxviii. 6. Christ's
body might have been risen, and be there (i. e. in the sepul
chre), too, if Christ's body might be in two places. But this
is utterly impossible, and so much is implied in those words ;
and so much is contained in the true notion of a body.
Wherefore by the doctrine which the Church of Rome main
tains, the human and bodily nature of Christ is destroyed, and
consequently our faith and religion.
There are other absurdities which attend this doctrine, and
which make it repugnant to reason : as that the bread and
wine are annihUated, and yet the accidents remain, but have
no subject to uphold them ; that the same thing at the same
time hath its just dimensions, and hath them not; that a
body comes down from heaven, and yet stays there ; that the
same body is really present in heaven, and really absent and
distant from it ; that a body is neither visible, nor tangible ;
that the same body rests and moves at the same time ; that
when Christ said, " This is my body," that which he had then
in his hand was his whole real body, and yet his hand was part
of that body ; that Christ communicating with his Apostles,
did eat his own body ; that he put his own body into his
mouth, and down his stomach, and all his body was contained
in his mouth and in his stomach ; that at the same time that

150 OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
his body was in his own mouth and stomach, it was also in the
mouths and stomachs of his disciples, and that it was whole
and untouched at the same time. These are the natural and
direct consequences of the doctrine of transubstantiation, and
they are sufficiently absurd.
I know it is argued by some against the corporal presence,
that it is absurd that Christ's real body should be capable of
being eaten by mice, or devoured by dogs, and suffer the like
indignities, as it must needs do, if it is in the form of bread,
But I do not look upon this as a good objection : for Christ's
body for our sakes was whipped, buffeted, spit upon ; his
blood was poured on the ground, and trodden under feet by
his enemies, which is worse than if a dog had licked it up.
Besides, our Saviour permitted himself to be carried corporally
by the devil up to the pinnacle of the temple. So that upon
these considerations I cannot persuade myself to reckon what
was last alleged among the absurdities that attend the doctrine
we have been treating of. But the other things mentioned
may justly be styled such, and are really gross contradictions
in themselves ; so that they are able to startle the faith even
of a Solifidian, as they call us. This is the truth of the
present case ; if we will embrace the Popish doctrine of tran
substantiation, we must suffer ourselves to be overwhelmed with
horrid inconsistencies, with a heap of intolerable incongruities:
we must tamely give our assent to strange and incredible, to
extravagant and unreasonable demands, we must contentedly
swallow down irreconcilable and inconceivable propositions,
wild and ridiculous conclusions, and, in a word, monstrous
contradictions. From the testimony of the ancient Fathers I argue in the
next place. Not but that the Papists attempt to prove their
doctrine by quotations out of the writings of the ancients,
which, when examined, are found to come short of any proof.
Nor do I deny that some of the Fathers countenance transub
stantiation : for it is plain that they were corrupted in this as
well as in some other material points. If we consult the
second CouncU of Nice, which was about the year of our Lord
780, we shall find that the corporal presence of Christ in the
sacrament was then held by those that defended the worship
of images. They came to this, that the sacrament was not the
image or representation of Christ's body, but the real natural
body of Christ, whereas the Iconomachi held that the bread
was the image of Christ's body. As some of the Fathers do

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 151
too apparently favour the former opinion, so some others
speak ambiguously ; and we may take what they say either
way, either for or against transubstantiation.
But this mu3t be said with undeniable verity, that the most
eminent of the Greek and Latin Fathers were on the negative
part ; they did not believe the bread and wine to be Christ's
real and natural body and blood. We read, that when they
undertook to confute the heresy of the Eutychians, who held
that the humanity of Christ was so entirely united to the di
vinity, that it was turned into it, and became the same with it,
they made use of an argument taken from the sacrament ; and
asserted, that as the bread and wine are not converted into the
body and blood of Christ, and thereby cease to be bread and
wine, the human nature of Christ is not changed into the
divine nature, and thereby ceases to be the human nature. See
the learned Bishop Pearson in his Exposition on the third
Article of the Creed, where he produces Gelasius, Theodoret,
and other Fathers, who argue from the eucharist to the nature
of the union of Christ's divinity and humanity ; for as it was
then believed and owned, that the bread and wine remained
still the same after consecration, so the human nature of
Christ remained stUl the same, though united to the divinity ;
the words of those writers are worth our consulting, as they
are set down at large by that excellent prelate. They are a
pregnant and illustrious confutation of the doctrine of transub
stantiation taken from the sacramental union between the
bread and wine, and the body and blood of Christ ; for the
orthodox Fathers took occasion thence to shew, that the
human nature of Christ is no more really converted into the
divinity, and so ceaseth to be the human nature, than the sub
stance of the bread and wine in the Lord's supper is really
converted into the substance of the body and blood of Christ,
and thereby ceases to be both bread and wine. This evi
dently makes it appear, what was the sense of the ancient
Fathers in this matter.
And to give farther satisfaction about it, I wUl here pro-
. duce the particular and express words of the Fathers of the
greatest note and eminency. That of Tertullian is clear,*
" Christ (saith he), taking the bread and distributing it to his
* Acceptum panem et distribution discipulis, corpus suum ilium fecit,
hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei : figura autem
non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. — Adv. Marcion. 1. 4. c. 40. [p. 457.
Paris. 1695.]

152 OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. i
disciples, made it his body, saying, ' This is my body, i. e. this
is the figure of my body :' now, it would not have been a
figure or representation of Christ's body, if Christ's body had
not been a true and real body." The heretic Marcion denied
that our Saviour had a true body : wherefore TertuUian here
argues against him from the nature of the Lord's supper, and
tells him, that it is evident from this that Christ's body was
not imaginary and fantastical, but a real and substantial one :
for else the bread in the Lord's supper could not signify, re
present, and figure (as it doth) the body of Christ ; for it is
ridiculous to hold, that there is a figure or representation of
that which has no reality. This was the strong arguing of
this learned Father, and it is an irrefragable argument against
transubstantiation : besides that it shews us (for which end
I now allege it) what was the persuasion of the ancients
about it.
This may be farther learned from Cyril of Jerusalem, who
is quoted by the Romanists for transubstantiation, and truly
he seems to assert it sometimes, but truth will force its way,
and accordingly we hear him thus speaking :* " When ye take
them (i. e. the elements) ye are not commanded to take the
bread and wine, but to take the body and blood of Christ, which
they represent." Observe it ; he owns that the bread and
wine in the sacrament represent the body and blood of Christ,
and consequently they are not turned into them. This I look
upon as a very considerable testimony, especially because it
comes from one who is suspected to have favoured the Roman
tenet. Next I will mention St. Ambrose, the godly bishop of
Milan, who hath excellently decided this controversy :f " The
bread and wine (saith he), remain stiU the same that they were
before, and yet are changed into another thing." That is,
they are changed from common elements to those that are
sacred and divine, but notwithstanding this they are bread and
wine still : here is no transubstantiating of them. And inf
another place he acknowledges, that the sacrament is the type
or figure of Christ's body and blood.
Another celebrated Father of the Christian Church, whose
judgment is highly prized, expressly saith, § that "the bread
* Catechet. [Mystag. 4. p. 320. Venet. 1763.]
t Sunt quae erant, et in aliud mutantur. — De Sacram. 1. 4. c. 4. [vol. 5.
p. 229. Venet. 1781.] i De Sacram. 1. 4. c. 5.
% Chrysost. Epist. ad Caesarium. [Horn. 24. in Epist. ad Corinth.]

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 153
of the eucharist is called bread before it be sanctified : but the
divine grace having sanctified it by the ministry of the priest, it
bears no more the name of bread, but is thought worthy to be
caUed the body of our Lord, although the nature of bread re
mains." This is a very plain attestation to the truth which we
are defending. And such is that other ofthe same writer:* "In
the sacred vessels (i. e. the elements of bread and wine) is not
the true body of Christ, but the mystery or sacrament of his
body is contained there." What can we have more express ?
The great and learned Bishop of Hippo is of our side :f
" After a certain mode of speaking (saith he) the sacrament of
Christ's body is his body, i. e. as much as to say, it is the
symbol and sign of his body, and it is no other." That this
was his sense and judgment is manifest from what he saith in
his book against Adimantus, where in answer to what that
person had alleged, he tells him that " the blood in the Old
Testament was called the Ufe or soul, not that it was truly the
soul, or life, but the sign of it :" and to illustrate this he
instances in those words of Christ, "This is my body," and
saith,J " Our Lord did not doubt to say, 'This is my body,'
when he was giving the sign of his body." What can be
plainer ? And in another place speaking of the sacrament, he
saith, § " Christ commended and gave to his disciples the
figure of his body and blood."
Theodoret, another famous Ught of the Primitive Church,
dehvers his mind thus : "Jesus Christ hath honoured the visi
ble symbols with the name of his body and blood, || not chang
ing their nature, but adding grace to nature." He allows of no
change of the nature of the bread and wine, no transubstan
tiation : but he grants a benediction or consecration is super
added to the common elements, and that makes them sacra-
mentaUy the body and blood of Christ, and no otherwise.
Another of the ancients, even a Bishop of Rome, in the
latter end of the fifth century, presents us with his opinion in
* In opere imperfecto. — Homil. 11.
t Secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi, corpus
Christi est. — Augustin. Ep. 23. ad Bonifac. [vol. 2. p. 400. Paris. 1836.]
X Non dubitavit Dominus dicere, hoc est corpus meum, cum daret sig-
num corporis sui. — Aug. con. Adim. cap. 12. [vol. 8. p. 224. ut
supra.] § Comment, in Psalm.
|| Ou rr)v (jiiaiv perajiaXi)}', dXXa rijv -j^dpiv ry ipian irpoare-
¦SfiKwc. Dialog. I.

154 OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
these ensuing words :* " Assuredly the sacrament, which we
receive of the body and blood of Christ, is a divine thing,
and therefore by it we are made partakers of the divine nature,
and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine doth not
cease to be : and indeed the image and similitude of the body
and blood of Christ are celebrated in those mysteries." Here
we see it expressly avouched, that there is no change of the
substance or nature of the bread and wine, but that these are
only an image or representation of the true body and blood of
Christ. And the reader may find more to the same purpose
in this ancient writer.
Other Fathers might be produced, f who call the bread and
wine the symbols, the types, the images of Christ's flesh and
his blood : which incontestably proves, that they did not think
the bread and wine to be Christ's body and blood : for they
cannot be the body and blood of Christ, and the symbols of
them too.
If it be said that some of the ancient writers of the Chris
tian Church use such wordsj and expressions, as do plainly
signify the change and transformation of the elements in the
eucharist, and therefore it may be well gathered thence that
they are converted into the body and blood of Christ ; I deny
the consequence : for cannot the elements be said to be changed
unless they become the natural body and blood of Christ?
And this is the present case. The Fathers rightly said that
there is a conversion, a transmutation, a trans-elementation (for
these were the words used by some of them) in the bread and
wine ; but no one can rationally collect hence, that they are
really and substantially changed. The alteration spoken of is
not as to another substance, but another relation ; that is, the
elements which were common before are now holy, they being
consecrated to another use. Thus the Fathers are to be under
stood, and we cannot well understand them otherwise, if we
* Certe sacramenta, quae sumimus corporis et sanguinis Christi, divinares
est, propter quod et per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae, et tamen
esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini : et certe imago et si-
militudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur.
— Gelasius de duabus nat. Christi. [In Bibliothec. Patrum, vol. 5. p. 671.
Colon. 1618.]
t Ephraim. Syr. lib. de Nat. Dei. Hieronym. adv. Jovin. 1. 2. Cyril.
Hierosol. Mystag. 4. Nazianz. Orat. 42.
J MeTairoitloBai et ptraaTOi-%uovv, Greg. Nyssen. [vol. 2. p. 484.
Par. 1638] MtTavoi-nnii, Damascen. MtTaoTOixtiiiHnc et fierouroi-
xnoiaSai, Theophyl. [vid. vol. l.p. 594. Venet. 1754.]

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 155
consider and weigh the matter aright, and observe how they
use the same language at other times. We cannot but take
notice that the word peraoTui-xziovirdat is apphed by them to
the baptismal water ; not that the water, after the invocation
or blessing, is transubstantiated, or is turned into another sub
stance, but that it is sacramentaUy changed, that is, it is altered
as to its quaUty, signification, and use : for before it was but
common water, but now it is set apart and sanctified to a holy
purpose. Is there not the same reason why we should understand the
same words and expressions after this manner, when they are
applied by the ancients to the other sacrament? Yes cer
tainly, and consequently we cannot gather, that they by using
those terms meant a substantial change of the elements, but
only an accidental and relative one after the benediction. Thus
we may interpret those words of Cyril (which the Roman doc
tors are wont to allege in favour of their cause) : " The bread
and wine (saith he) which we see (though to the taste they
seem to be bread and wine) are not for all that bread and wine,
but the body and blood of Christ ;"* that is, they are not com
mon bread and wine, for their quaUty and relation are changed,
and they now represent the body and blood of our Saviour,
and on that account assume that denomination. And so in
deed that Father explains himself, for he had said before, we
must not judge them to be mere bread and wine, which is the
same with common bread and wine. And almost all the places
in the writings of the Fathers, which seem to speak of a cor
poral presence and a substantial change, are to beunderstood of
a sacramental presence and an accidental and relative change.
Lastly, we dare appeal to some of the Popish writers them
selves, who, though they stickle for transubstantiation, yet
speak very meanly of it, and look upon it as a novel doctrine.
The Fathers and ancient doctors of the Church owned it not,
say Gregory de Valentia,f Cardinal Cusanus,J Suarez,§ Du-
randus,|| Scotus. ^[ And the last of these confesses that before
the Lateran CouncU (which was a.d. 1215) transubstantiation
was not made an article of faith in the Church. Those other
* Catech. Mystagog. 4.
t De Transubst. 1. 2. u. 7. [p. 514. Lutet. Paris. 1610.]
* Exercit. 1. 6.
§ Tom. 1. in Euchar. disp. 7. [p. 594. col. 2. Mogunt. 1610.]
|| In 4 Sent. dist. 10. qu. 1. n. 13.
II In 4 Sent, c 2. qu. 3. [vid. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. sect. 12. p. 337.
vol. 3. Prag. 1721.]

156 OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
great men, Cajetan, De Aliaco, Fisher, acknowledge that it isa
doctrine that cannot be proved out of the Scriptures.
And yet so it is, the great patrons of this cause among the
pontificians lay their greatest stress on these sacred writings,
and endeavour to prove from several passages in them, that the
elements in the Lord's supper are changed into the very body
and blood of our Saviour. It is necessary, therefore, toward
the completing of this discourse concerning transubstantiation,
that I particularly and distinctly consider those texts which are
brought to establish this doctrine.
The first and chief text is Matth. xxvi. 26, " This is my
body ;" and verse 28, "This is my blood." Where, as the
Papists tell us, Christ speaks plainly and intelligibly, and lets
us know that the bread is his body, and the wine is his blood,
He is not delivering a parable here, and therefore his words
are not to be looked upon as obscure and dark. This is part
of his last will and testament, and without doubt he delivers
his mind in proper and perspicuous terms. He distinctly and
plainly expresses the thing as it really is ; he holds forth the
bread to his disciples, and saith, "Take, eat; this is my
body:" and he reaches the wine to them, and saith, "Drink
ye all of this ; for this is my blood." Wherefore we ought to
believe what he saith, and accordingly we ought to be per
suaded that the bread in the sacrament is turned into the real
body, and the wine into the real blood of Christ.
To which plausible gloss I answer, we do not deny that
Christ speaks clearly and plainly, when he saith the bread is
his body, and the wine is his blood ; and yet it doth not follow
thence that the bread is turned into Christ's body, or the wine
into his blood. For when our Saviour saith, This bread is
his body, and this wine is his blood, his true meaning is, that
this bread and this wine represent or signify to us his body and
blood. This I prove from diverse plain instances both in tbe
Old and New Testament. "The three branches are three
days," Gen. xl 12, that is, they signify three days. "The
seven good kine are seven years," Gen. xii. 26, that is, they
signify so many years. " It is the Lord's passover," Gen.
xii. 1 1, that is, it represents and calls to your mind the Lord's
passover. " The field is the world," that is, it signifies in tbe
foregoing parable the world. "The good seed are the king
dom of the children," that is, they represent them. "But
the tares are the children of the wicked one," that is, they are
a representation of them, Matth. xiii. 18. "That rock was

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 157
Christ," 1 Cor. x. 4, that is, it represented Christ. " The
seven heads are seven mountains,'' Rev. xvU. 9, that is, seven
mountains are signified by them. And other places I have
quoted on the like occasion,* which now I omit. From all
which it is evident that is is as much as signifies or represents :
and so we are hereby let into the genuine meaning of Christ's
words, " This is my body, This is my blood ;" that is, they are
appointed by him to be visible symbols, signs and representa
tions of his real body and blood, and consequently of his pas
sion and death, of his suffering on the cross for us. This is
the plain and obvious exphcation of these words of the insti
tution of the sacrament ; and we may rest upon it, because it
is adjusted to the frequent style and language of Scriptures,
yea, when it speaks concerning the sacrament. Here is no
obscurity, here is nothing uniutelUgible, as the Romanists pre
tend : but we see that our Saviour speaks according to the
ordinary way and usual style of the sacred writings, and which
therefore may well become his last will and testament.
Another text is alleged, John vi. 53, " Except ye eat the
flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no Ufe
in yon." And verse 54, " Whosoever eateth my flesh, and
drinketh my blood, hath eternal Ufe." And again, verse 56,
" He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in
me, and I in him." Whence the patrons of transubstantia
tion conclude that the real flesh and blood of Christ are eaten
and drank in the sacrament. And to back this conclusion,
they tell us that the ancient Fathers interpreted these texts
concerning the sacrament of the Lord's supper, and accord
ingly they admitted infants and children to this sacrament,
because they thought these words declared the necessity of it,
in order to eternal life. Thus we read that in St. Cyprian' sf
time the font and the altar were made use of together. And
in the fourth and fifth centuries infants received the eucharist
as soon as they were baptized. To which I answer :
First, Though St. Augustine expressly and frequently de
clares for the necessity of the Lord's supper to baptized infants,
yet it is evident to those who diUgently and attentively read
this Father's writings, that he means not the sacramental com
munion, but only the effect and fruit of it, that is, the incor
poration of persons into the mystical body of Christ, and
* In the Discourse of the Lord's Supper, in Theolog. Reformata.
t Cypr. Tract, de lapsis. ad Quirin. lib. 3.

158 OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
making them his true and living members. And it is likely
some other Fathers meant no more by the communion of
children .
Secondly, As to the other Fathers, who grounded the com
munion of children as necessary to salvation, upon these texts
before mentioned, it is certain that they mistook our Saviour's
words, as appears from this, that the Fathers and bishops of
the Church that came after them laid aside the practice of com
municating of infants, and ever since it hath wholly ceased in
the Christian Church, yea even in the Church of Rome ; which
plainly shews that this usage was grounded on their misinter
preting of these texts in St. John's Gospel, and that our
Saviour's words are not to be understood, concerning the eating
Christ's body and blood in the Lord's supper ; for if they
were, that practice would have continued in the Church to this
day : for our Saviour's words are of as much force now as they
were at any time before.
Thirdly, It is not to be doubted that our Saviour speaks not
of the sacrament, but of a mystical and spiritual receiving of
him, and holding communion with him, which is here called
" eating his flesh," and "drinking his blood," to signify the
intimate converse between Christ and the faithful. If we look
back to the foregoing verses, where it is said, " No man cometh
to me, except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him :
every man that hath heard and learned of the Father, cometh
unto me : he that believeth on me hath everlasting life : I am
the bread of life, the living bread which came down from
heaven : if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever;
and the bread that I will give him is my flesh, which I will
give for the life of the world." And if we join this with what
follows, " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man," &c. we
cannot but gather this to be the true sense of the words, that
it is necessary in order to eternal life and salvation that we be
moved and drawn by an Almighty power to believe in Jesus
Christ, that we be powerfully wrought upon to accept of him
for our Christ and our Jesus ; that we spiritually feed on this
bread of life, the true nourishment of our souls, and by faith
and obedience grow up unto a perfect man, unto the measure
of the stature of the fulness of Christ. This is the eating of
Christ's flesh, and the drinking of his blood, which is here
spoken of. And we see that it is an eating and drinking, not
with the mouth, but with the heart. It is not an outward but
an inward repast. It is no other than believing in him, and

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 159
sincerely taking him for our Lord and our Saviour. Thus all
believers spirituaUy feed on Christ's body and blood : for "his
flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed," John vi.
55 ; and the eating and drinking of these is absolutely neces
sary to salvation. Which is the true meaning of our Saviour's
words before cited, " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of
Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you."
Thus this text is to be understood as that other in John iii.
5 : " Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God." Which is interpreted by
John vii. 38, 39 : " He that beheveth on me, as the Scripture
hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
This spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him
should receive." By the virtue and efficacy of the Holy Spirit,
we are cleansed and washed, as it were with water, and so are
renewed and regenerated : and, except a man be thus born of
water and of the Spirit, he can never enter into the state of
grace here, or into that of glory hereafter, which are meant by
the kingdom of God. By comparing these texts, it is evident
that this is our Saviour's meaning ; and, farther, it will appear
to be so, if we consider that the sacrament of baptism (as a
Christian ordinance) was not instituted at this time, when
Christ spoke those words, " Except a man be born," &c. The
institution of this sacrament was not until a year after, Matth.
xxviU. 19 ; and, therefore, Christ's words cannot possibly be
meant of this. All this makes it plain, that the Papists are
mistaken (who follow some of the ancients), when they apply
this text to the outward part of baptism, and the other, to
the external eating and drinking the Lord's supper ; whereas
they are both spoken concerning a spiritual washing and man-
ducation. But it is of this latter, that I am now discoursing ; and I
wiU farther shew that this interpretation must necessarily be
embraced. For it is to be remembered, that what I said be
fore, of the institution of baptism, is as true concerning the
sacrament of the Lord's supper ; that is, it was not instituted
when these words were spoken by our Saviour, and, conse
quently, they cannot be understood concerning eating and
drinking Christ's body and blood in that sacrament. Christ
presses the eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, as a pre
sent duty incumbent upon all the Jews that he spoke to, and
as necessary to their eternal happiness. This was a great
while before he ordained the commemoration of his death in

160 OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
the eucharist ; and, therefore, we must needs infer hence, that
these words of Christ, " Except ye eat," &c, have no relation
to the sacrament.
Again, Christ himself acquaints us, that these words are not
meant of a corporal and sensual eating and drinking of his
flesh and blood, John vi. 63 : " It is the Spirit that quickenetb,
the flesh profiteth nothing;" as much as to say, it is the spiri
tual eating and drinking that I speak of : for the carnal one
(if it were possible) would be of no advantage to you. And,
he adds, "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit,
and they are life," i. e. what I have said to you concerning
the eating my flesh, and drinking my blood, is to be taken in
a spiritual and mystical sense, and so it will, conduce to life
and happiness. Thus we see the gross conceit of the Caper-
naites, and since of the Papists concerning the carnal eating of
Christ's body, confuted and baffled by Christ himself.
I will annex the remarkable words of a learned Father con
cerning this place of Scripture which I have been insisting
upon. " If any place of Scripture," saith he, " seems to com
mand a crime, or horrid action, it is figurative; as when it is
said, ' Except ye eat the flesh, and drink the blood of the Son
of man, ye have no life in you.' Which seems to command
some crime or horrid action ; therefore, it is a figure, com
manding us to communicate in the passion of our Lord, and
sweetly and profitably to lay up in our memories, that his
flesh was crucified and wounded for us."* This is his exposi
tion of our Saviour's words, and in another place, f he repeats
it, and tells us that the sense of what our Lord delivers, is
this, that except a man be incorporated into Christ, and partake
of his body and blood by faith, he cannot enter into the king
dom of heaven.
Fourthly, Suppose our Saviour's words were meant of the
sacrament, yet they make nothing at all for transubstantiation,
For the sacramental eating of Christ's body is a spiritual eating,
not a carnal and bodily one. At the Lord's supper all com
municants partake of the outward elements, but believers only
do spiritually feed upon Christ, and have the benefit of the in
visible and inward part of the sacrament ; and, consequently
they, in the intended meaning of our Saviour, are the only
persons that eat Christ's body and drink his blood. Which is
* Augustin. lib. 3. de doctr. Christi. c. 16. [vol. 3. par. 1. p. 52.
Par. 1680.]
t Lib. 3. de Peccator, meritis. et 26 Tractat. in Johan.

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 161
a very strong argument against transubstantiation : for if the
elements were changed into the body and blood of Christ, then
all communicants would partake of his body and blood, the
wicked as well as the godly ; and so the Papists hold. But
we have learnt otherwise from the Scripture ; which lets us
know, that by faith alone, and those sacred quaUfications which
accompany it, we partake of Christ in the sacrament, and this
is the true and only eating and drinking of his body and blood.
And we are assured from our Saviour's own mouth, that,
" whoso eateth his flesh, and drinketh his blood, hath eternal
life ;" but no impenitent sinner hath eternal life : therefore, we
rightly infer, that no impenitent sinner eateth the flesh and
drinketh the blood of Christ. As there is a mystical presence
of Christ's body in the sacrament, so there is a mystical eating
and drinking of it, and that is by faith and sincerity of heart ;
which are proper only to the elect and regenerate.
This was the doctrine of the CathoUc Church, as we learn
from St. Augustine : " Why dost thou prepare thy teeth and
thy belly ? Do but beUeve, and thou hast eaten the body of
Christ."* And this is the sense of our Church. Believing,
and other holy dispositions of mind are reckoned by her as
eating Christ's body : for the communicant is bid to "take and
eat the bread in remembrance that Christ died for him, and to
feed on him in his heart, by faith and thanksgiving." Yea,
the minister is ordered to acquaint the sick person whom he
visits, that " if he do truly repent of his sins, and steadfastly
beUeve that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the cross for
him, and shed his blood for his redemption, earnestly remember
ing the benefits he hath thereby, and giving him hearty thanks
therefore, he doth eat and drink the body and blood of our Sa
viour Christ profitably to his soul's health, although he doth
not receive the sacrament with his mouth."f It is plain then, that
though the above-cited texts should be understood concerning
the sacrament, yet it follows not thence, that the bread and
wine are turned into the real flesh and blood of Christ, and
that these are eaten and drank by the communicants ; for the
sacramental eating and drinking are spiritual. This, I hope,
gives full satisfaction to the objection from those texts in St.
John. But yet, for the sake of some other objectors, I will further
add that this way of speaking, namely, " eating Christ's flesh,
* Tract. 25. in vi. Johan.
t The Rubric for the Communion of the Sick.
VOL. VI. M

162 OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
and drinking his blood," is adapted to the style and language
of the holy Scripture in the Old Testament. Maimonides*
observes, that eating and drinking are applied by those holy
writers, to learning and wisdom, and all intellectual and moral
improvements, as in Prov. xxiv. 13 ; xxv. 27. Isai. Iv. 2,
and other places. And he tells us, that the Hebrew Rabbins
use the same phrase and manner of speaking ; for in their
writings, eating is being made wise and religious. And the
learned Grotius hath observed, that this is an usual allegory
amongthe Jews; for which he quotes an excellent Jewish writer,
who expressly saith, + " The common and bodily eating is a
symbol or representation of the spiritual and mental eating :
the soul is nourished by the reception of good, and the prac
tice of what is right." Yea, the most improved Gentiles were
no strangers to this ; for " Truth," according to one of their most
eminent sages, is "the food of the soul." J It is no wonder then,
that our blessed Saviour, who frequently speaks conformably
to the style that hath been used by others (as many learned
writers have observed), compares his doctrines aud institutions,
and all things that belong to his heavenly religion and king
dom, to eating and drinking ; and particularly in John vi. 27,
he gives them the name of meat. For as our natural life is
upheld by common and ordinary repast, so our spiritual life
and vigour are maintained by those holy and celestial viands.
It is no wonder that he calls himself " the Bread of fife," and
declares that "his flesh is meat indeed," and "his blood is
drink indeed," and that, " except a man eat his flesh and drink
his blood, he hath no life in him." Thus we may be convinced
of the agreeableness of this language, without distorting it to
the sense of the Roman Church.
St. Paul is alleged, 1 Cor. x. 16 : "The cup of blessing,
which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
The bread, which we break, is it not the communion of the
body of Christ 1" Whence it is argued by the writers of the
Church of Rome, that unless Christ's body and blood were
truly in the sacrament, they could not be communicated, there
could not be a participation of them. But a short reply to
this will serve, namely, that we do not deny that Christ's body
and blood are truly in the Lord's supper ; for they are there
* More Nevoch.
t T6 yap fayuv aipfioXbv lari rpoiprjg ipvxt-Krjc' rpeijitTai U ij
i^X?) avaXrjipu tSiv KaXiSv nal irpaZit riSv KaTop8ap,drii)v. — Philo.
t Plato in Cratylo. et de Repub.

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 163
mystically and spiritually, and consequently are truly there,
but we deny that they are there substantially. When there
fore the Apostle saith that there is a communion of the body
and blood of Christ in the sacrament, it is not implied that the
body and blood themselves are. really and substantially com
municated ; but this only we are to understand by that ex
pression, that the sacrament is a sign and representation to us
of the body and blood of Christ, the benefits of which are
communicated and imparted to us in the right celebrating of
that ordinance : we are thereby made partakers of the fruits of
his suffering and dying for us.
The Apostle's words in 1 Cor. xi. 27, " Whosoever shall
eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily,
shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord," are made
use of by our adversaries ; for, say they, none that receive the
sacrament can be " guilty of the body and blood of the Lord,"
unless his body and blood be there. To which I briefly
answer, unworthy communicants are said to be " guilty of the
body and blood of the Lord," because they are guilty of
profaning this sacrament, which was designed to be, and
really is, a symbol and representation of Christ's body and
blood. But the 29th verse of the foresaid chapter is also cited:
"He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh
damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."
Whence they frame this argument, if Christ's body must be
discerned by those that receive the sacrament, it must be
really and substantiaUy present there. The vanity of which
pleading will soon appear, if we rightly understand what is the
discerning of the Lord's body ; which is no other than this, a
making a difference between this bread and wine, which
represent Christ's body and blood, and that bread and wine
which are at an ordinary feast. And, on the contrary, the not
discerning the Lord's body is the not duly considering this
great difference, and the not remembering that no less than
the body and blood of Christ are signified and held forth in
the sacrament of the Lord's supper by bread and wine, and
therefore ought to be worthily eaten and drank.
From Scripture again they argue after this manner, as diffi
cult and impossible things are said in other places of Scripture
concerning Christ's body, as that of his being really present
in the sacrament, and yet not discerned by the outward sense.
We read that Christ rose out of the sepulchre when it
M 2

164 OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
was shut and sealed ; he appeared after his resurrection some-
times in one shape, and sometimes in another ; he vanished out
of the sight of his disciples ; he came in unto them when the door
was shut ; though he was in heaven, yet he shewed himself to
St. Stephen here on earth : which are as strange and wonderful
things as the deception of the sight and other corporal senses
in the sacrament of the Lord's supper. But this we justly
deny : for, first, it is easy to account for the removal of our
Saviour's body out of the sepulchre, though this was shut and
sealed ; for an angel came and opened the door of the sepul
chre, and roUed away the stone ; so that here was no penetration
of dimensions, or any deception of the sight, as our adversaries
imagine, to make it parallel with what .they suppose to be in
the eucharist. As for Christ's appearing in a different shape
or likeness, as when " Mary Magdalen supposed him to be a
gardener," John xx. 15, this may very well be resolved into
her fear and surprise, and the circumstances mentioned in the
context wiU confirm us in it : besides, that it is very probable
that she was not at that time in such a direct posture of body,
that she could well see and discern who our Saviour was ; but
as soon as " she turned herself," (which is expressly mentioned,
ver. 16, on purpose as it were to solve the seeming difficulty,)
she had a distinct view of him, and knew him. And farther, it is
not to be wondered at that Mary mistook one person for an
other, at that time : for the evangelical history tells us, that she
came " early whUe it was yet dark to the sepulchre," John
xx. 1. As to Christ's " vanishing out of the sight of his dis
ciples," Luke xxiv. 31 ; it imphes in it no imposing upon their
senses, but the plain meaning is, that Christ went suddenly out
of their sight ; and disappeared, but it is not said (as the
learned Dr. Hammond* observes) in " what manner and by
what means" and therefore the objectors can draw no argu
ments thence for their purpose.
Nor can they from John xx. 19: " When the doors were
shut, where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews,
came Jesus and stood in the midst :" for it is not said that
Christ came through the doors, but that he came when the
doors were shut, to signify to us that he came in the evening,
which is also expressly mentioned in that place, " Then the
same day at evening," &c. He came to them at that time
when it was the custom to shut their doors, and make them fast,
* Paraphrase on the place,

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 165
lest thieves and robbers should break in upon them. And
besides, they were afraid that these Jews, who were their pro
fessed enemies and persecutors, should hear or see them, when
they were met together. Therefore it is said, for fear of the
Jews they met privately, and to secure themselves shut the
doors fast. At this time Christ came and visited them, and
was admitted into their assembly. Or it may be said that he
forcibly made his way, the doors being shut ; for if an angel
opened the prison doors when Peter was imprisoned, surely we
ought to grant that Christ was able to open these doors, though
they were never so fast shut : and this he might do, though
the disciples perceived it not, and that may be the reason why
it is thus worded, " He came in, the doors being shut." But
what is this to transubstantiation, for which it is alleged ?
But doth not Christ's appearing bodily to St. Stephen prove,
that his body is of such extraordinary quality that it can be in
heaven and earth at the same time, and that our senses are not
exact judges in this great matter, and therefore ought not to be
in the sacrament ? I answer, Christ's appearance to St. Stephen
was not bodUy, but was only a vision, a way of revelation
usual in the Old Testament, and many examples of it we have
in the New ; and here to confirm Stephen's faith when he was
suffering and dying, God vouchsafed this glorious vision to him.
It was impossible for him to see Christ so far off with his
bodily eyes ; or if by a miracle he could have seen him,
" standing at the right hand of God," (which is particularly
mentioned, Acts vii. 55.) could not (properly speaking) be an
object of corporal sight. To put a close to these disputes, how
far Christ's body may be said to have been a glorified body
after his resurrection, is not easy to determine : but this
we are certain of, that his body was not so altered but that it
retained still the nature of a true body ; for we read that he
eat and drank with his disciples, and the very marks of his
wounds remained on his body, and therefore we may infer that
those places of Scripture, which have been produced to favour
such an extraordinary change in Christ's body, as may coun
tenance transubstantiation, are mistaken and misapplied by the
Popish writers. Thus much of the Scriptures, which the
Romanists argue from. Now for reason, which they also pretend
to. And first, they argue from God's omnipotency. Seeing
God is almighty, and can do all things, why should we doubt
whether he cannot cause the body of Christ to be present in

166 OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
the sacrament, and in divers places at once, yea, though we
cannot discern with our bodily eyes that Christ is bodily present
there ? It is not necessary we should comprehend this mys
tery ; but this we know, that God can do more than we can
conceive and understand, and we are sure that nothing is im
possible with God. He that saith, " This is my body," is able
to make it so, and therefore we ought to believe it. This pre
tence of reasoning is soon blown away by this one consideration,
that God's omnipotency reaches not to contradictions, and to
things in their own nature impossible, as a body's being
in divers places at one time, which I have before shewed.
Therefore in this case it is very idle and vain in those of the
Church of Rome to run to God's absolute power, and to think
that that will defend them and their contradictions. This is
poor arguing, because God is omnipotent, therefore transub
stantiation is true ; because God is omnipotent, men must
believe what is contrary to Scripture and common reason.
This is abusing God's omnipotency, and making it serve their
evil purposes, that is, patronizing the greatest absurdities and
contradictions. They argue from the hypostatical union of the humanity and
divinity of Christ, that his body may be in all places, and then
consequently in divers ones, and particularly in all those places
where the sacrament is administered. Nay the Papists are not
alone here : the Lutherans hold, Christ is every where bodily,
because his human nature is joined to the divine nature by a
personal union. " The body of Christ is (say they) necer
separated from his Godhead ; therefore where the Godhead is,
there is his manhood, there is his flesh, his body." I answer ;
though the body of Christ be inseparable from his divinity,
yet it follows not thence that his body is in every place : and
the reason is plain, because this hypostatical union of the
divinity and humanity is not a bodily union. Whence it
follows, that though there is a conjunction of Christ's human
and divine nature in one person, yet the former is not every
where. The ground of which is this, that Christ's body, as it
is a body, must needs be finite, and consequently circumscribed
by some place ; and on that account it is impossible that it
should be capable of being in more places than one, much less
can it be in all places at a time. This is so clear and evident,
that no man will deny it, unless he hath the confidence to say
that the propriety of a body is lost by Christ's assuming it,

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 167
and being joined to it, and that it becomes immense and in
finite : and he that says this, must assert that finite and infinite
are the same.
And if by virtue of the hypostatical union Christ's body be
every where, then these following absurdities must be digested ;
namely, that his body was every where when it was in the
Virgin's womb, when it was in the manger, when it was in the
temple ; yea, when it was in the grave : and we must hold
likewise that the womb, the manger, the temple, the sepulchre,
were every where ; for if they were where Christ's body was,
and that body was in all places, then they too must be in all
places. And hence it will follow also that Christ was born in
several places, yea in all places, and yet at the same time was not
born : and that he was buried in several places, yea, in all
places, and yet not buried. Wherefore unless we are prepared
to swallow and digest all these contradictions, we must hold
that the inseparable conjunction of Christ's human nature with
the divine, which is present every where, doth not infer the
omnipresence of his human nature or body. Thus it is mani
fest, that both Papists and Lutherans have no ground for the
corporal presence in the sacrament, from the doctrine of the
hypostatical union. It is likely that it was on this consider
ation that Luther* acknowledged his error, touching the opinion
he held of the corporal presence of Christ in the eucharist.
Lastly, The Roman doctors are wont to argue from the
settled belief of the sacred Trinity. If this, say they, be ac
knowledged and believed by Protestants as well as Papists, why
may not the doctrine of transubstantiation be so too, seeing one
is as much above our reason, as the other ? I answer, there is
a vast difference betwixt the Popish doctrine of the eucharist,
and that of the blessed Trinity. The Platonic philosophers
. asserted this latter, and by the same, or the very Uke words ex
pressed the three Persons that Christianity doth : which argues,
that they did not reckon a Triad in the Deity as a thing
irrational and absurd. Nor indeed is it : for though three
persons joined in one essence, or common nature (which is the
notion of the Trinity), be a thing sublime, yet it hath no down
right contradictions in it to startle us. It is a mystery above our
reason, but not against it ; it hath difficulties, but not impossi
bilities. But this cannot be said of the doctrine of the Church of
* Coll. Mens. Ch. 22.

168 OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
Rome concerning the eucharist : for I have proved already
that it contains contradictions and impossibilities, as that a
body may be in ten thousand places at once ; and that though
it is in all those places, yet it is not. For if all of it (as is
asserted) be in one place, then there can be nothing of it in
another, much less can there be all of it in another : aud ac
cordingly when they say Christ's body is in many places, it is
virtually a contradiction, because they must needs acknowledge
that it is not in many places.
And this likewise is to be said, that when we discourse of
spirits, especially of an infinite spirit, it is difficult to conceive
and hard to express ourselves aright : for reason is non-plused
in matters of an infinite nature ; and therefore it is no wonder
that the doctrine of the Trinity is not levelled to the concep
tions and words of every shallow mortal. Where the dis
proportion- is infinite between us and the things, it is no
marvel that we are not able to grasp them. But bodies, which
are finite beings, are things we converse with daily, and it is
our proper province and task to judge of them. Reason is
here in its own sphere, and can act with boldness and confidence,
The matter before us is sensible and finite, and such as we are
able to deal with. But it is otherwise when the mystery of
the Trinity is the object of our thoughts and meditations:
therefore the Papists have no reason to make this and transub
stantiation parallels.
And thus I have answered all their pleas for transubstan
tiation, taken either from Scripture or reason. And indeed the
case is so clear, that several of the learnedest writers of the
Church of Rome hold that there is no certain proof of this
doctrine from any text in the Bible, and they profess they
believe it not by virtue of any necessary consequence and
reasoning, but on the account of the exposition given to them
by tradition.
By way of application we are to know what is our duty, in
opposition to this doctrine of the Papists ; and first negatively,
be not taken with the fond notion of transubstantiation ; be
not induced to own a doctrine which is so groundless and pre
carious. And, to prevail with you farther, consider how many
idle and vain idolatrous usages depend upon this erroneous
notion. Our Church speaks very modestly, when she saith,*
* Artie XXVIII.

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 169
" Transubstantiation hath given occasion to many supersti
tions." Hence proceed solemn processions, masses, elevation
of the host, and downright worshipping it. Hence they box
it up, and sometimes on very trivial occasions bring it forth,
and use it as a charm and an amulet. These and several other
practices are founded on that false apprehension, that the
bread in the sacrament is turned into the real and natural
body of Christ. Wherefore it is needful that we entertain not
this wrong conception concerning the eucharist.
Next, positively, as the Romanists are in error, so let us be
careful to attain to the truth in this matter, and let us know
what we are to assert and defend, as we are Protestants. The
sum of it is this, that the presence of Christ's body in the
sacrament is not a local and corporal, but a spiritual and mys
tical presence ; that is, the essential, natural, and substan
tial body and blood of our Saviour are represented and signified
in the sacrament by the bread and wine. These are appointed
by Christ to be symbols and pledges of his body and blood ;
and therefore in eating and drinking of these, we are said to
eat Christ's body, and to drink Christ's blood. This is the
spiritual and sacramental receiving of Christ in the Lord's
supper, and it depends wholly on the faith of the receiver. We
may call this a real presence to distinguish it from an imagi
nary one, or none at all : but if by a real presence be meant
the corporal and local presence of the substance of Christ's
body, -by the changing of the substance of Christ's body, it is
utterly to be denied. I know Mr. Thorndyke and several of
the Church of England hold, that the real and natural body
of Christ is present in the sacrament, and that this presence
depends not on the faith of the communicant ; and they would
persuade us that this is the sense of our Church, because she
saith in her Catechism, " that the body and blood of Christ
are verily and indeed taken and received." But this cannot
be understood of a corporal presence or a bodily receiving of
Christ, because our Church in another place denies that there
is " any corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood
in the sacrament."* And she adds, " that the natural body
and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven, and not here ;
it being against the truth of Christ's natural body to be at one
time in more places than one." This plainly shews what is
* Declaration at the End of the Communion.

170 OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
the sense of our Church, and clears her from giving any allow
ance to the real or carnal presence of Christ in the Lord's
supper. She holds that there is no substance in the sacra
ment besides the substance of the bread and wine ; and that
these, according to Christ's institution, do represent and sig
nify to us his real body and blood.
Lastly, let our practice be answerable to our right apprehen
sions concerning this sacrament. When we approach to it,
on the one hand let us be careful tbat we be not irreverent and
rude, unmindful of discerning the Lord's body, which is repre
sented by the elements : on the other hand, far be it from us
to shew ourselves idolatrous and superstitious, by paying too
great a reverence to the elements, yea, by worshipping them
upon a false persuasion that they are turned into Christ's
body and blood. I am afraid that kneeling, which is a pos
ture of adoration, was brought in upon this account, whereas
at first it is certain that a table gesture was used. Our Church
in her declaration at the end of the communion, which I men
tioned before, hath purged herself from all intentions of en
joining this gesture with respect to any corporal presence or
adoration paid to the sacramental bread and wine. But if she
had been pleased to have laid this gesture aside (which is law
ful and laudable in itself, and is made use of in the sacrament
by some without offence) all occasion of superstition and
jealousy would have been removed. And this seems to me to
be the more requisite, because though the Church of England
in her service and elsewhere condemns the corporal presence
and all adoration paid on that account, yet some of her officers
and ministers express a favour to them, telling us that Christ's
body and blood are really present in the eucharist, but the
manner is not to be inquired into, they say : as if there were
a carnal and substantial presence of the natural body of Christ,
though we are ignorant of the manner of it. And thus the
people, who hear them thus discourse, are inclined indeed to
believe the corporal presence, only they are not broadly told
the manner of it. But the best and safest way is to be free
and open, and let the people know that Christ's body and
blood are spiritually present, and spiritually received in the
sacrament, and by the faithful only : and that the elements
retain their nature, though not their use ; that they are bread
and wine still, but they are separated from a common use to
that which is holy ; they are by Christ's own institution ap-

OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 171
pointed to the signs and representations of his real body and
blood, and on that account are called so. But the substance
of them is not converted into another substance ; and the
change tbat is made is only figurative and sacramental. And
to comprise all in the brief but comprehensive words of our
Church, Article 28th, " The body of Christ is given, taken
and eaten in the supper only after an heavenly and spiritual
manner : aud the mean whereby the body of Christ is received
and taken in the suppen, is faith." And in the same place
she saith, " Transubstantiation overthrows the nature of a
sacrament."

172

CHAPTER IV.
Of the Sacrifice of the Mass.
There are three corrupt doctrines in the Church of Rome
concerning the sacrament of the Lord's supper : the first is,
that the bread and wine are changed into the real body and
blood of Christ ; and of this I have spoken already. The
second is, that the body and blood of Christ are really and
properly sacrificed and offered by the priest in every mass.
The third is, that though the bread only be given to the
people, yet they receive both the body and blood of Christ, and
consequently it is sufficient to communicate in one kind only.
Of the former of these I am now to treat, and to shew that
the doctrine which the Pontificians maintain concerning the
sacrifice of the mass is erroneous and false, and repugnant
both to Scripture and reason.
But, first, I will briefly premise something concerning the
original of this word Mass, or the Latin word Missa, from
whence the English came. Passing by the fancy of those
who think this word to be of Hebrew extraction, as if missa
were derived from (missah) oblatio, (which is Bellarmine's
conceit,* and he founds it on Deut. xvi. 10, but he should have
observed that it is missath, not in construction, but as a dif
ferent word from missah, in that place) ; it is probable that
missa, the mass, hath its denomination from the dismission of
the people by the deacon, who cried out, Ite, missa est, i. e.
missio vel dimissio est ; for when the purity of the Latin
tongue decreased, they instead of missio said missa. There
was something like this among the Jews ; in their synagogues
they read a portion of Scripture out of some of the Prophets,
and this they called haphtarah, dimissionem, or cessationem,
from the verb pater dimisit, cessavit : because as soon as this
text was read and expounded, the people were dismissed. And
among the GentUes there was the like custom, and these
words were used at the dismission of the people at funerals,
and other occasions, Ilicet, actum est, ilicet ; missa est: that
is, the assembly is dismissed, you may depart.
Hence the word was taken up by the Christian Church, and
* Lib. 1. de Missa. cap. 1.

OF THE MASS. 173
was of innocent use at first ; the Greek Church shut up their
meetings with a \ao7c. aQeote, " the people are dismissed," or
" the people may depart." So in the Latin Church (as we said
before), the deacon after the sermon said with a loud voice,
" Ite, missa est, the assembly is dismissed, ye may be gone."
Not as some Roman doctors have interpreted those words,
"Ite, missa est, go in peace, the host is sent to God to pacify
his anger." But those words, in the former sense, were
spoken to the Catechumeni, to admonish them to be gone
before the sacrament was administered. So that missa (as was
said before), is as much as missio, or dimissio est, i. e. the
dismission of the Catechumeni before the eucharist.
And hereupon the sacrament itself was called missa, and
sometimes the whole service and liturgy have this' denomina
tion. We take it at present in the former acception, as the
Papists always do in the controversy we are now to discuss :
and they are wont to call it the " Sacrifice of the mass," be
cause the mass is that solemn office of the Church of Rome,
wherein the priest offers up the sacrament as a sacrifice to
God. And this offering of Christ's body and blood must
be performed daily: and it is expiatory for the Uving and the
dead. That the Church of Rome holds this, every one that hath
conversed with their most authentic writers cannot but know.
And it is the seventeenth article of the Trent Creed, imposed
on aU to be believed and acknowledged, on pain of damnation,
" that in the mass there is offered a true, proper, and propi
tiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead." This doctrine is
peremptorily asserted by that Council with a curse in the close,
as is usuaUy at the end of their canons. "Whoever shall say
the sacrifice of the mass is not to be used for the dead is ac
cursed."* In confutation of this doctrine, something I will freely grant,
and something I must flatly deny. I will grant that the sa
crament of the Lord's supper, if rightly and duly celebrated,
may in some sense be called a sacrifice. It may have that
name on the same account that other acts and duties of re
ligion are so denominated : thus we read of the sacrifice of a
"broken and contrite spirit," Psalm li. 17; "of praise or
thanksgiving," Heb. xUi. 15; "of preaching," Rom. xv. 16;
* Cone. Trid. Sess. 6. Can. 30. et Sess. 22. Can. 3.

174 OF THE SACRIFICE
"of doing good and communicating," ver. 15; and this is
called " a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God," Phil. iv.
18. And prayer and all our other Christian services and
duties may be called sacrifices, i. e. spiritual sacrifices and ob
lations : and therefore believers are said to be a " holy priest
hood to offer up spiritual sacrifice acceptable to God by Jesus
Christ," 1 Pet. ii. 5. Again, the Lord's supper maybe called
a sacrifice, because here are offered those particular sacrifices
before mentioned, namely, of prayer, contrition, alms, praise
and thanksgiving, especially this last, for there is an eucharisti-
cal oblation, whereby we shew our thankfulness to God the
Father, and to his Son Christ Jesus our sacrifice. Hence it is
that this sacrament is called the eucharist by the ancient
writers of the Church. And farther it may be styled a sacri
fice, because here good men offer themselves to God in the
most solemn manner. Here it is that they more signally and
eminently than at other times " present their bodies a living
sacrifice acceptable unto God, which is their reasonable ser
vice," Rom. xii. 1. Thus the Lord's supper is a sacrifice, and
contains several others in it.
The sacrament may have this title on this account likewise,
namely, because here is celebrated the memory of Christ, our
one and only sacrifice. In the Lord's supper his once offering
himself on the cross is again and again commemorated : not in
the sense that the Romanists mean it, that is, that the priest
represents Christ's passion to God the Father, and doth as it
were put him in mind thereof, by setting these mysteries be
fore him : but we testify our own mindfulness of Christ's offer
ing himself for us, and we desire that God would for his sake
be favourable and propitious to us. Thus the sacrament is a
commemoration of Christ's real sacrifice, and for that reason
was itself called a sacrifice and an oblation by the Greek
Fathers,* and by the Latin ones.f They thought fit to give
it this name, because it is that sacred ordinance wherein the
memory of Christ's sacrificing himself for our redemption is
perpetuated. We may call it a commemorative sacrifice, that
is, a solemn memorial of the great sacrifice of Christ on the
cross. And truly it was instituted for this very purpose ; the
* Qvaia, Trpoatpoaa. Irenseus, Chrysostom. avdip,aroc Siva'm, &v-
aia TrvEvpariKr). — Greg. Naz.
t Sacrificium, oblatio, hostia ; Cyprian , Augustine, Ambrose. •

OF THE MASS. I/O
design of it was to call to remembrance this sacrifice. And
we call the symbol or sign by the thing signified : as we call
the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ.
But if we speak of the sacrament of the Lord's supper as it
is described by the Church of Rome, we can by no means call
it a sacrifice in that sense, and in those expressions in which
they represent it : for neither the sacrament itself, nor that
which is pretended to be offered in it, is a true and proper
sacrifice, nor is it a propitiatory sacrifice, nor a sacrifice for
the living and the dead.
First, here is not properly any sacrifice ; for all this implies
in it these two things, mactation and oblation, but neither of
these are to be found in the mass. Not the former, for there
is no slaying or killing of Christ here ; that was done long
ago : and the Papists themselves grant that the mass is an
unbloody sacrifice, which is as much as to say that there is no
killing or shedding of blood in this sacrament. Not the latter;
for there can be no offering up of Christ in the mass, if he be
not corporally there, and if the bread and wine be not trans
muted into his very body and blood. This is owned by our
adversaries themselves : for they ground the doctrine of the
sacrifice of the mass upon that of transubstantiation, which
asserts Christ's real body to be in the mass, because the ele
ments of bread and wine are turned into his body and blood.
If this be so, then there is a true proper offering : but we
having confuted transubstantiation, this notion must needs fall
to the ground ; and there is reason to assert that there is no
real and personal oblation of Christ in the mass, and conse
quently that there is no proper sacrifice.
Secondly, there is no propitiatory sacrifice here. This the
Roman Catholics do as good as acknowledge, when they say
that the mass is an unbloody sacrifice; for if it be so it cannot
be a propitiatory one, for " without shedding of blood there
is no remission." Heb. ix. 22. It was so under the taber
nacle, and the legal dispensation, and it is so under the evan
gelical economy. It was so in the type, and it is the same in
the anti-type ; for the effusion of blood under the law, and the
purgations that were made by it were but figures and repre
sentations of that great propitiation which was to be made by
Christ's shedding of his blood. Therefore it is against the
plain decision and determination of the Holy Spirit in the fore-
cited text, to maintain that there is in the mass an expiatory

176 OF THE SACRIFICE
sacrifice, and yet to say it is without blood. These assertions
confute one another.
Besides, if the mass be (as the Church of Rome confesses)
an unbloody sacrifice, then it is different from the sacrifice on
the cross, for that was bloody : and then how doth this agree
with what they say, that the sacrifice of the cross is reiterated
in the mass ? If it be reiterated, it is of the same nature ;
and if it be so, how can it be unbloody ? for unbloody and
bloody are of different natures. Thus our adversaries run
themselves into apparent contradictions.
And again, if the sacrament of the Lord's supper be now
a propitiatory sacrifice, then it was so at first ; for I suppose
they wiU not grant that it varies from the first institution.
Now, if it was a propitiatory sacrifice at the first institution,
that is, when Christ himself celebrated it with his Apostles,
then it follows that Christ offered up his body and blood at
his last supper as a propitiatory sacrifice to God ; and from
thence it will necessarily follow that he laid down his life,
and expiated for the sins of the world before he suffered on
the cross. And if this be true, then it follows that Christ
died twice, and expiated a second time for the sins of man
kind : and then it will follow that his first expiation was
to no purpose ; for else why did he undertake the task a
second time? These and other absurdities are the natural
consequences of the Popish doctrine of the sacrifice of the
mass. Thirdly, I need not insist long upon the last thing I men
tioned, namely, that the mass is untruly said to be a sacrifice
for the living and the dead. It cannot expiate for the former
of these, because nothing but Christ's real blood can do this :
but I have proved already, that this is not present in the
sacrament of the Lord's supper, and therefore cannot be
offered in expiation of the sins of the living, much less for
those of the dead ; for the sins of all persons must be expiated
for in this hfe who shall be admitted into heaven at their
death. I shall have occasion to say more of this, when I
proceed to treat of purgatory, and therefore I shall add no
more at present. From what hath been said, I conceive it
is clearly evidenced that the doctrine of the Church of Rome
concerning the sacrifice of the mass is very false and ground
less. Now let us come next to positive places of Scripture, which

OF THE MASS. 177
will more fully prove this. How often is it said that Christ
once suffered, and died, and made himself a sacrifice for sin ?
Rom. vi. 10. "In that he died, he died unto sin once,"
that is, he died once and no more, to satisfy for sin. Heb.
vU. 27. " He needed not daily to offer up sacrifice : for this
he did once, when he offered up himself." Once for all, and
consequently no offering up of himself is required afterwards.
Heb. ix. 26. "Now once in the end of the world hath he
appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." It is
sufficient that he was once a sacrifice, therefore there is no
need of repeating it. And verse 28. " Christ was once offered
to bear the sins of many." And why then is he offered, that
is, pretended to be offered in the mass by the priest 1 Was it
not enough that he once offered himself? Yes, certainly,
and these texts do prohibit any other offering. And that we
may be farther assured of this grand truth, that Christ's
oblation and sacrifice are not to be repeated, the same inspired
writer tells us that " we are sanctified through the offering of
the body of Jesus Christ once for aU." Heb. x. 10. And
again, " after #he had offered one sacrifice for sins, he for ever
sat down at the right hand of God," having no occasion to
offer a sacrifice any more. There cannot be plainer words
than these that I have produced to exclude any other sacrifice,
nay the repeating of that sacrifice which was offered by Christ.
This sacrifice is but one, and it is to be offered but once : and
we see that this is several times inculcated and pressed upon
us, as if it were directly spoken by a prophetic spirit, against
the Popish practice of the mass, wherein Christ is daUy offered
by the priests.
We may yet further reason from Scripture against this
doctrine and practice of the Roman Church : for we are taught
that " by one offering Christ hath perfected for ever them
that are sanctified," Heb. x. 14. That is to say, Christ's
sacrifice being complete and perfect, there is no need of its
being repeated. He offered himself once, and thereby he
perfected them that are sanctified, i. e. all true believers. He
did all that was requisite for their entire acceptation with God
the Father : he purchased the fuU pardon of aU their sins ; and,
therefore, his being once offered serves for ever : which is the
very arguing of the Apostle in the eighteenth verse : " Now
where remission of these (sins and iniquities, mentioned in the
foregoing verse) is, there is no more offering for sin." Christ
having once obtained pardon and reconciliation for us, by
VOL. VI. N

178 OF THE SACRIFICE
giving himself a sacrifice for us, there must be, there can be
no sacrificing of him again ; which is absolutely contrary to
what the Church of Rome asserts, namely, that Christ must
be constantly sacrificed in the mass, and that there he is
sacrificed, and that this sacrificing is of as great virtue and
efficacy as his first offering himself, that is, it is no less
expiatory than his suffering on the cross.
It may be further suggested against the sacrament of the
altar which the Papists so earnestly cry up, that the nature of
the eucharist is perverted by it ; for this ought to be a com
munion (as it is generally styled), but in the common mass the
priest alone is the guest at the altar, and so it ceases to be a
communion. The bread and wine, which he saith are
transformed into Christ's body and blood, are offered by him
as a sacrifice for the people ; but these partake not at all of
them : the priest eats all and drinks all. This is the manner
of the lurching sacrifice of the mass, as Mr. Mede* calls it ;
but any one may see that this destroys the very nature and
notion of the sacrament of the Lord's supper.
There is yet a higher and more heinous impeachment of the
Popish doctrine of the mass. It is a complication of several
gross errors ; for in the doctrine of the mass are included,
1st, The sacrament in one kind; 2ndly, Transubstantiation;
3rdly, Praying for the dead ; 5thly, Idolatry, or giving divine
worship to a creature. In this last lies the great and chief
abomination of the mass, viz. that it is offering of bread and
wine to God as if they were a god. They are looked upon as
redeemers, mediators, and saviours; for they expiate and
atone for the sins of the people, and they are worshipped and
adored as such. But of this afterwards : I will conclude with
the words of Martin Luther : " No tongue,"f saith he, "is
able to express the abominations of the mass, neither can
the heart of man comprehend the same. It were no wonder
if God, for the sake thereof, long since had destroyed the
world with fire and brimstone." And again : " For the sake
of the idol of the mass, God in justice might have drowned
and destroyed the whole world."
But let us hear what the writers of the Church of Rome say
for themselves. There is never wanting with them some text
or other to defend the worst of their opinions. And here, m
the present case, they lay great stress on two places of
* Discourse, 43. t Coll. Mens.

OF THE MASS. 179
Scripture, one in the Old, another in the New Testament. The
great text in the Old Testament for the mass is Mal. i. 1 1 , " From
the rising of the sun, even to the going down of the same, my
name shall be great among the Gentiles ; and in every place
incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering ;"
a prophecy concerning the rejection of the Jews, and the
calling of the Gentiles. It is here foretold that God's name
shall be great among these latter ; that is, he shall be known
and worshipped by them ; that not only in Judea (as at that
time), but "in every place," in all parts and regions of the
world (as we know this prediction was fulfilled afterwards),
the true God shall be owned and adored, and his service and
worship shall be set up, which are here expressed by the
names of incense and a pure offering. For it is usual to set
forth the evangelical worship by legal terms, as iu the book of
Malachi, Ui. 45, and in Isaiah, xlvi. 23 ; yea, and in the
New Testament, Heb. xiii. 10, and in those places where the
worship under the Gospel hath the denomination of sacrifice.
Thus incense and offering here signify the spiritual oblations
and sacrifices which Christianity requires of us. And they
are rightly styled a " pure offering," in contradiction to the
poUuted services of the Jews, against whom the prophet
Malachi complains in that first chapter, and afterwards ; and
Ukewise to express that more than ordinary purity, sincerity,
and integrity which are required in all our religious services
under the Gospel, when (as our Saviour saith) " the true
worshippers shaU worship the Father in Spirit and in truth ;
for the Father seeketh such to worship him." John iv. 23.
This is a plain and true account of this passage in Malachi ;
and now could a man imagine that this should be cried up for
such an impregnable proof of the sacrifice of the mass ? Doth
any wise and sober man see any consequence in this : " Incense
shall be offered to God's name, and a pure offering, therefore
there ought to be daily in the Christian Church an offering of
Christ's body and blood, as a propitiatory sacrifice both for
the dead and for the Uving?" This pretence of arguing
shews that the patrons of the Roman cause will take up any
thing for a bottom of their opinions. They search and hunt
about for arguments, and make them when they cannot find
them ; they snatch at any thing to uphold and defend their
points : the sUghtest things are proofs with them. He that
sees their sandy foundations, will not think they build upon a
rock, as they pretend. N 2

180 OF THE SACRIFICE
The usual text -they allege out of the New Testament is
Luke xxii, 19 : " This do in remembrance of me." And the
same words of the institution of the sacrament are mentioned
by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 24. They tell us with great confi
dence, that these words, "do this," make both priest and
sacrifice. According to them, two sacraments are here made
at once — orders and the eucharist. This is the profound
insight into Scripture which the Roman doctors have above
the rest of the Christian world. " To do, in this place, is to
sacrifice," say they; "therefore there is such a thing as the
propitiatory sacrifice of the mass." To prove the antecedent,
Bellarmine* produces Exod. xxix. 38, and Levit. xv. 15, and
some other places where the word Gnashah facere is apphed
to sacrificing ; and he fetches in a known place in Virgil,
and thence concludes that doing and sacrificing , are the same,
and, consequently, that when our Saviour, in the institution of
tbe sacrament, bids us "do this," in remembrance of him, he
bids us sacrifice him, and offer him up daily on the altar. To
this I answer,
1st, It is not denied that the verb to do hath relation in
two or three places to the act of sacrificing, and so, indeed, it
may be said to signify to sacrifice, as it is applied to the
subject matter ; but at all other times it is a general word,
and hath no reference at all to sacrificing, nor hath it any
in the words of institution. Therefore Estius and Maldonat,
though friends to the Roman cause, look on this as a trifling
argument ; and so it is, certainly, because doing denotes
sacrificing, only when sacrificing was spoken of before, which
cannot be said here.
2ndly, If doing here be the same with sacrificing, then the
words should run thus, "do me," not "do this" for
according to the Popish interpreters, this passage refers to
Christ himself, who, they say, is sacrificed in the mass. But
there is no ground for this sacrificing in the text ; because, if
it should be granted that doing signifies sacrificing, yet the
sacrificing is applied to this, not to him— to the bread, or the
eating of it, not to Christ. This shews that the arguing from
the word ¦koiCith, do, is vain and impertinent, and doth not
reach the thing which they designed.
3rdly, We are to consider, that the doing here enjoined by
Christ relates to all the communicants, as well as to the
* De Missa, 1. 1. c. 12.

OF THE MASS. 181
minister. He speaks these words, not only to the Apostles,
as such, but as they were at this time, partakers of this sacra
ment ; and so he speaks to all Christians that shall participate
of it to the world's end : " Do this," saith he, " in remembrance
of me," in commemoration of my suffering and death, which
cannot be applied to the sacrifice of the mass, because then all
the communicants, as weU as the priest, in every sacrament, are
bid to be sacrificers ; they are bid to " do this," that is,
according to the Popish interpretation, to offer up Christ upon
the altar. But the priests will not endure this ; for it is their
sole and incommunicable prerogative to offer up Christ, after
they have first made him out of the bread and wine. Thus
we may be convinced, that the interpretation which the
writers of the Church of Rome give of this text is a confuta
tion of their own doctrines.
4thly, It is evident from the account which St. Paul gives
of the institution of the Lord's supper, in which he is more
particular than the Evangelists, that this injunction, " do this,"
refers to the eating and drinking, mentioned just before. See
the 24th and 25th verses of 1 Cor. xi., whence it is clear,
that the true meaning of " doing this" is, that all the faithful
to the world's end should celebrate the Lord's supper ; they
should make use of the elements of bread and wine, to put
them in mind of the body and blood of Christ, and they
should spirituaUy feed upon these. Where, then, is there
any ground for the Popish mass in these words of our blessed
Lord ? Who would think that the asserters of the' sacrifice of
the mass should reckon this as a text that makes considerably
for them ?
There is another, and some of the high sticklers for the
mass urge it with great vehemency. It is said, that "Christ
is a priest after the order of Melchisedec." Psalm ex. 4.
Heb. v. 6. "Now it is well known," say they, "that Mel
chisedec offered up a sacrifice of bread and wine to God ;
therefore" — therefore what ? — " therefore the priests in the
sacrifice of the altar are bound to offer up Christ." This is
strong reasoning, indeed, and it is such as some of the most
celebrated writers of the Church of Rome are not ashamed of.
But any one may see that there is not the least show of argu
ment in it ; for though it is true that some of the ancient
Fathers of the Church make Melchisedec's presenting of
bread and wine to Abraham a figure or representation of the
bread and wine in the sacrament, yet none of them make use

182 OF THE SACRIFICE
of it to prove a true sacrifice there: and therefore it is
observable, that though it is said, "Melchisedec brought
forth bread and wine," Gen. xiv. 18, yet it is not said that he
offered bread and wine, much less that he offered them to
God (as the Papists fancy) : it was to Abraham and his com
pany that this present was made, to refresh them and regale
them after the fatigues of war. So that it is plainly hence
seen, that Melchisedec offered no sacrifice ; and if he had, it
affects not the present cause, for from his oblation of bread
and wine it is impossible to prove that Christ must be, and is
really and personally offered every day in the mass for the
expiation of the sins of the world.
There is another text, that Popish writers quote, Heb. xiii,
10, "We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat who
serve the tabernacle." Whence they would infer that under
the Christian dispensation there is a proper altar and a sacri
fice, namely, that of the mass. But it would be loss of time to
confute this inference, seeing the bare view of the context will
persuade us to understand these words, concerning Christ, who
was sacrificed on the altar of the cross, of the benefits of whose
meritorious oblation none can be partakers who adhere to the
Mosaic rites and the ceremonial worship enjoined by the law.
The ancient writers and Fathers of the Church are quoted
to prove the sacrifice of the mass, because we frequently read
in their writings of a sacrifice and oblations, with reference to
the sacrament of the Lord's supper, and sometimes they
make use of the texts before mentioned to this purpose. But
the answer to this is, 1st, that the sacrifice, oblation, and
altar, so often mentioned in the ancient writings, refer either
to the offerings of bread and wine, in the primitive ages
brought by the communicants, and laid on the table, part of
which bread and wine was for the eucharist ; or they refer to
the other things which were wont to be brought for the main
tenance of the ministers of the Church. These are usually
called sacrifices and offerings, for the proof of which it were
easy to produce several passages out of the Fathers ; but the
common reader will not be much edified by this, and the
learned one knows where to supply himself.
2ndly, If in some places, those forementioned texts are
made use of with respect to the sacrament of the eucharist,
as is to be acknowledged, the answer is to be fetched from
what was said in the beginning of this discourse, where .
I shewed how the sacrament may innocently and harm-

OF THE MASS. 183
lessly be called a sacrament or offering. I wiU not repeat the
particulars, but if the reader will be pleased to look back, I
doubt not but he will be well satisfied with what I have said.
I do not deny that that forecited place in Malachi, concerning
the pure offering, was by some of the ancient Fathers* applied
to the Lord's supper, and very safely it might be done, because
this, sacrament is an eminent part of the spiritual worship, and
is a solemn offering of praise and thanksgiving to God, and a
commemoration of Christ's sacrificing himself on the cross.
I know that there are some of the Church of Rome that
seem to mitigate and soften the doctrine concerning the sacri
fice of the mass ; they teU us that there is indeed but one sa
crifice of expiation for sin, viz. the sacrifice on the cross : but
there are other sacrifices of application, and the mass is the
chief of these, for hereby that expiation is applied to us : but
this is a very idle evasion, because the Council of Trent, and
the chief doctors of the Roman communion, expressly affirm
and maintain that this is expiatory for the sins of the Uving
and the dead.
Others (and among them a late writer of great note) who
would wheedle us into a good opinion of the mass, and recon-
cUe us to other doctrines of the Church of Rome, speak after
this rate, namely, that the sacrifice of the mass is but a re
membrance of that one sacrifice of Christ on the cross : but
this is a mere bhnd, and any considering person cannot but
discern it to be so : for who can think that a Roman Catholic
wiU renounce the doctrine of transubstantiation ? And yet
he must do so, if he holds the saerifice of the mass to be
merely commemorative, for then he owns that Christ is not
bodUy present in the eucharist, but only represented and caUed
to mind by the help of the elements : and he that holds this
cannot assert that the elements are turned into the real body
and blood of Christ, and that these are substantially in the
sacrament, which is the true notion of transubstantiation.
I have now finished, after I have added these three short
admonitory inferences from the foregoing discourse.
1st, Establish yourselves in the truth, in opposition to the
erroneous sentiments of Papists, concerning the oblation of
Christ. Be fully persuaded of what our Church asserts, j
" that the offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemp
tion, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole
* Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian. t Article XXXI.

184 OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.
world, both original and actual, and there is none other satis
faction for sin but that alone."
2ndly, Abhor the impious and pernicious doctrine, of the
repeated sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ in the mass. And
here likewise we are directed by our Church, which hath told
us, that* "the sacrifice of masses, in that which it is com
monly said that the priests do offer Christ for the quick and
the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, are blasphemous
fables and dangerous deceits." They are not only derogatory
to the perfect satisfaction of Christ, once made upon the
cross, but they are abhorrent to human nature, for nature
itself recoils at the thoughts of that barbarous and inhuman
practice of eating man's flesh, and drinking man's blood, which
yet aU the Papists say they do ; for they hold that the sacrifice
of the mass is but a repeating of that on the cross : whence
we see how inconsistently some Roman Catholics speak, when
they deny it to be a bloody sacrifice ; yea, and they are more
barbarous and cruel than the Jews, who crucified Christ once,
but these profess and own, that they really and truly crucify,
sacrifice, and offer him up every day in a thousand masses.
3rdly, Be cautious of speaking or doing any thing which
may seem to countenance and encourage this blasphemous and
horrid practice. To which purpose I could wish that the
setting up of altars, and using the title of priest, were avoided
by those of the Protestant communion : for there is so near
an affinity between these and sacrifices, that I fear there are
many among uS who are induced to think that Christ is offered
in the sacrament, because we make use of the terms of priests
and altars, which are inseparable from sacrificing. Is it not
better then to prevent such mistakes and misapprehensions,
by laying aside those offensive terms, and thereby letting the
world see that we are not (as the Papists) for a sacrificing
priest, or an altar of sacrifice, and that we verily believe, that
Christ's body and blood are not here offered by a priest to
God for the living and the dead ?
* Article XXXI.

185

CHAPTER V.

Of the Communion in one kind.
In the two last discourses *we heard how the Papists de
prave the notion and nature of the sacrament, by holding that
the bread and wine are turned into Christ's body and blood,
and that Christ himself is daily offered in the mass ; but now
I am to shew how they maim this sacrament, and make it a
half-communion. See here how strangely these men act, they
first too highly and extravagantly extol the Lord's supper,
and then as much depress it. They excessively magnify it by
the doctrine of transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the
mass, and then they vilify one part of it by a little sorry
wafer (as if they meant to ridicule its being a sealing ordi
nance), and the other part they wholly reject, that is, the
people are debarred from laying claim to it ; which de
monstrates that the Church of Rome can let nothing alone
entire, and in its first institution ; they are for meddling and
altering, they are for corrupting and perverting of every thing
in religion. They reckon more sacraments than there are,
but when they come to those that are the true sacraments,
they add and subtract as they please ; the water in baptism
must be attended with oil and spittle, &c, and the wine in the
eucharist must be quite taken away. They say (as we have
heard before) that the last will and testament of Christ must
be carefully observed, and his words must be exactly taken
notice of : and yet now they contradict this, and they un
worthily derogate and detract from the last will and testament
of Christ, whilst they deny the cup to the people. They
assert that Christ's body and blood are present in the sacra
ment, and yet the blood must not be tendered to the laity,
though the body be.
The first thing I am to do, is to shew that they beUeve and
practise thus. And this is undeniably evident not only from
the determination of the CouncU of Constance, which was.
called in the year 1414, wherein the sacrament in one kind
was first defined and settled as a public law, but from the
more positive declaration and decision of the Council of Trent,'
which saith, that " though at the beginning of Christianity

186 OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIND.
both kinds were received, yet that custom being altered for
good reasons, the Church now approves of communion in one
kind, which custom no man can lawfully change without the
Church's authority."* In the same session it is declared that
the laity (yea and the clergy too who are present, and do not
officiate) are not bound by any divine command to receive the
eucharist under both kinds. The words are these : " Although
our Lord Christ, in his last supper, instituted this venerable
sacrament in both kinds, that is, of bread and wine, and so
delivered it to the Apostles, yet the instituting and delivering
of it in that manner do not tend to this, that all the faithful
people of Christ are bound by the precept of our Lord to
receive both kinds."t And a curse is denounced against those
that affirm the contrary. And it is the 1 8th Article of the
Creed, established by that Council, that " whole and entire
Christ and a true sacrament are received under one species."
This is the doctrine of the Church. The contrary whereof
we assert, namely, that it is not the true sacrament unless
it be in both kinds, and consequently that administering
the sacrament in one kind only is unlawful, and (as the
consequent of that) that we are obliged to receive it in both
kinds. We shall find it most reasonable to assert and maintain this,
if we consider these three things, to wit, that the sacrament in
both kinds is authorised, first, by Christ's institution and the
Apostles' example. Secondly, by the testimony, example, and
practice of the first and purer Churches of Christ. Thirdly,
by the nature of the thing itself.
First, I say, it is authorised by our Saviour's institution and
positive command, Matth. xxvii. 27, " Drink ye all of this."
At the giving of the sacramental bread the word all is omitted,
It is not said, " Eat ye all of this," though that be included
in the commandment : but with respect to the other element
our Saviour saith expressly, " Drink ye all of it," that is, let
' every person that is duly qualified, of what rank soever, drink
the wine, as well as eat the bread in this sacrament which I
have instituted; Whence we might justly infer, that Christ
* Sess. 21.
t Et si Christus Dominus in ultima coena venerabile hoc sacramentum
in Panis et Vini speciebus instituit et Apostolis tradidit, non tamen ilia
institutio et traditio eb tendunt, ut omnes Christi fideles Statute Domini
ad utramque speciem accipiendam adstringuntur. Cone. Trid. Sess. 21-
cap. 1.

OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. 187
foreseeing the corruption of the Church of Rome, and know
ing particularly that they would deprave this sacrament, and
rob the people of the cup, he speaks expressly and fully, and
commands all to drink of it.
And the example of the Apostles answers to Christ's insti
tution, as we learn from 1 Cor. xi. 23, &c, where St. Paul
reduces the Corinthians to the first institution, and all along
supposes their communicating in both kinds. "As often
(saith he) as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew
the Lord's death till he come," verse 26. He speaks pro
miscuously to them all, not making a distinction between laity
and clergy, as if the former might not drink of the sacramental
wine, though the latter may. Nay indeed, this epistle is
directed to the people, not the ministers of the Corinthian
Church, and therefore it is a plain evidence against the Papists,
who defraud the people of the wine in the eucharist. And
verse 27, the Apostle adds, " Whosoever shaU eat this bread,
and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of
the body and blood of the Lord." That term who or whoso
ever is applied to the persons that are to drink the wine, as
well as to those that are to eat the bread ; and it is plainly
imphed in these words, that those that eat the bread may, yea
must drink the wine, and consequently, that there is no half-
communion. It is further added, verse 28, " Let a man" —
(that is, every man) whosoever (as was said before) intends to
eat and drink of the sacramental bread and wine — " examine
himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that
wine." And in the next verse this eating and drinking are
both expressly mentioned again, to let us know what was the
practice of the Apostles, in conformity to their Lord's institu
tion and peremptory command.
And are not these to be a rule to us to act by ? Have we
any reason to vary from them ? Was not the command given
us, that we should obey it ? Doth not the injunction imply
that the thing enjoined is not indifferent and arbitrary 1 Doth
it not become our duty, when it is commanded, so that we are
not left to our liberty whether we will do it or no ? This
cannot be denied by any man that understands the nature of
the divine command. And yet it was positively decreed at
the Council of Constance, with a Non obstante (as they ex
pressly say) to the institution of Christ, that the sacrament
ought to be administered in one kind only, whence Luther

188 OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIND.
called it the Non ohstantian CouncU.* And in the Creed of
the other Council before mentioned, it is absolutely imposed
as an article of Christian faith, to believe that there is no
precept or injunction obliging us to communicate in both
kinds. It seems, according to the Roman divinity, Christ's
institution is not obligatory to Christians. Our Saviour orders
one thing, and the Church of Rome another. Christ com
mands that all shall drink of the eucharistical wine ; the
Papists act contrary to this command, as if they had power to
alter Christ's institution, and to abrogate his laws. But we
have not so learned Christ ; we think ourselves bound to prac
tise according to what is enjoined us by our Lawgiver and
Master, and (as the result of that) we are convinced that it is
necessary that the sacrament be administered to the people in
both kinds.
Secondly, By the testimony and practice of the first and
purer Churches of Christ, this is abetted and confirmed.
Ignatius is very plain in one of his Epistles :f " One bread
(saith he) is broken for all, and one cup distributed to all."
" The people (saith St. Chrysostom) have as good a right as
the minister to the cup : there is no difference between the
people and the priest as to this ;J one body is offered to all,
and one cup." And it were endless to rehearse the multi
tude of passages in the writings of the ancient Fathers and
primitive doctors to this purpose. Gelasius, who was him
self a bishop of Rome, about a.d. 490, declares plainly for
both kinds, and saith the contrary savours of superstition
and will-worship, yea, he tells us that " the division of one
and the same mystery § (i. e. the abstracting of the wine from
the bread in the sacrament) cannot be without grievous sacri
lege." We may find this inserted into the body of the
Canon Law, and it is a very remarkable testimony against
the practice of the Church of Rome, which allows of the
Canon Law.
* Colloq. Mensal.
•f- Elc Kai aproQ rote irao-iv I9pi$8n, nal iv izoriipwv role bAotf
Sievepn9ri. Epist. ad Philadelph. [inter. Epist. interp. p. 224. Lips.
1699.]_ X Udffiv tv fftSpa 7rpoK£irai, Kai Trorrjptov. Homil. 18. in 2 Ep. ad
Corinth. § Divisio unius ejusdemque Mysterii sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest
provenire. Gelas. Decret. 3. par de Consecrat.' Distinct. 2. Comperimus,

OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. 189
It is true, some few instances in history may be produced
of communicating in one kind ; but this was not in the purest
and first times of Christianity, nor was it the general and
universally allowed practice, which is the thing I speak of.
There are always some deviations from the rule ; and the laws
of Christ are not obeyed by every one. This is true more
particularly in the matter now before us, there are some rare
examples of receiving in one kind. But this affects not the
present case, because it is most evident that the celebration
of the eucharist in both kinds was the received usage in the
Church, yea, it was the universal practice in the Church of
Rome, for a thousand years after Christ. This is expressly
acknowledged by Thomas Aquinas about the middle of the
thirteenth century : and till his time the sacrament used not
to be delivered by halves in the Latin Church, saith a learned
writer of that communion,* and he adds that this cannot
possibly be denied. About 400 years, and no more, Cas-
sanderf owned that the practice of half-communion had been
in the Church. And several other Popish writersj confess
that the depriving of the people of the cup is a novelty,
and was never heard of or practised in the first ages of the
Church. This is confirmed from what had been suggested
before, that the communion in one kind was not received as a
public command of the Church till the Council of Constance,
which was at the beginning of the 15th century. And even
then this determination of that Council was so disUked that the
Bohemians would not submit to it, but retained their old
practice : and the Council of Basil, which was held about six
teen years after, granted the cup to them, notwithstanding the
former CouncU of Constance had declared for a contrary usage.
And it hath been already suggested, that the CouncU of Trent
(which was after these two) acknowledges that the Primitive
Church received in both kinds. This is the thing that I now
urge, we have the general practice of the primitive times on
our side. In the first ages of the Church the wine, as well as
the bread, was delivered to the people.
I will only (before I pass to the next head) take notice here
of the perverseness of our adversaries: at other times they
stand much upon this, that such a practice was universally
* Vasquez. Disp. 3. cap. 216. n. 38.
t De Communione sub utraque Specie, [in Joh. 6. vol. 3. p. 523. col.
1. Venet. 1775.]
X Alphons. a Castro, tit. Eucharistia. hser. 13. Lindanus, Panopl.
1. 4. cap. 56.

190 OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIND.
received ; it can be proved (say they), that in the primitive
ages of the Christian Church it was in use ; therefore we must
have a good opinion of it, and by no means refuse conformity
to it. But now this arguing is laid aside, and though we con
tend for a practice in the Church which is vouched and autho
rized by antiquity, and an universal reception among Christians,
yet we cannot be heard, our plea is null and of no effect with
the Romanists. This shews how crossly and perversely they
act, and how they baffle themselves with their own practices.
But this is not to be wondered at : for it is not to be expected,
that those who neglect Christ's positive precept and command
(as we have heard under the foregoing particular), will value
the Church's practice, though never so ancient.
Thirdly, What we maintain, may be proved from the nature
of the thing itself. For let it be asked seriously, what are the
parts of the sacrament of the Lord's supper? Doth it not
evidently appear that there are these two parts, the distributing
and eating of the bread, and the distributing and drinking of
the wine ? Have we it not from the mouth of him, who con
stituted and ordained the sacrament, that there are these two
distinct parts or members of it ? And how then is there only
one thing, viz. the bread, to constitute the substance of this
sacrament ? ' This certainly is unanswerable. And we cannot
but conclude it to be so, if we consider that we know nothing
of this sacrament but from the institution of it : we have no
ground of discoursing concerning it, but the bare account which
is given us of it in the New Testament ; and there we are told,
that bread and wine are to be received in commemoration of
Christ's body and blood; not bread alone, or wine alone, but
both bread and wine, because the one is designed to represent
the body of Christ, and the other his blood. This is the na
ture of the sacrament, and therefore if we expect a blessing in
the use of this holy ordinance, we must celebrate it in that
manner which is prescribed us, and no other. If we be obliged
to receive the bread, we must also be partakers of the wine ;
for this latter belongs to the sacrament as much as the former,
and unless both be received, there is no sacrament. Thus the
nature of the thing itself convinces us of the truth of what I
have asserted. And thus we see what are the reasons that in
duce us to oppose the doctrine of the Church of Rome concern
ing the lawfulness of the half-communion.
Next I will let you see how they argue for themselves, how
they evade onr proofs, and what objections they bring against
them. The main argument they use is this, that whole Christ,

OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. 191
by way of concomitance, is exhibited under one kind. For
where Christ is, he is wholly and entirely : his humanity and
divinity, his body and soul, and all parts of the body are to
gether ; therefore when the people take the bread, they take
also the wine by concomitancy : for the blood is contained in
the body or bread. Thus the doctrine of concomitancy solves
the business of half-communion. But I answer,
I. If it be so, then Christ needed not at all to have insti
tuted and mentioned the wine. This is an unnecessary and
superfluous addition, if the people receive the blood together
with the body. Christ's appointment was improper and im
pertinent, if the wine be contained in the bread. It was to no
purpose to name the wine, and make it one part of the sacra
ment, if the bread alone will serve, as virtually containing the
wine in it.
II. WhUst the Papists defend the doctrine of concomitancy,
they forget what was the design of instituting this sacrament,
viz. to remember Christ's shedding of his blood for us. As the
Apostle expresses it, " we shew forth the Lord's death," which
was by effusion of his precious blood. Now, Christ's death
cannot be represented by one kind alone, because the bread re
presents only the flesh or the body void of blood ; wherefore
the wine is necessary to represent the blood out of the body,
or the blood shed forth of the body. Thus the design and in
tention of the eucharist make it requisite that both bread and
wine should be received.
III. It is plain that this doctrine of concomitancy is a vain
and false thing, because it is attended with very gross absurdi
ties. If the blood be contained in the body or bread, and he
that eats the one drinks the other, then why doth the Popish
priest receive the wine as weU as the bread ? If there be a con
comitance when the people communicate, why is there not the
same when the priest communicates ? Doth the wine cease to
be contained in the bread when the latter partakes of the sacra
ment, and is it again restored to the bread when the former
partake of it ? This must be asserted if concomitance be held;
and yet at the same time the concomitance is refuted : for
who will believe that the concomitance is just at that time
when the people receive, and not when the priests also receive ?
And this likewise must be held, that the priests have a double
dnnking in the sacrament : for they drink Christ's blood twice;
once when they eat the wafer, because they maintain that the
blood goes along with the body, and again when they take the

192 OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIND.
cup. And this also must be admitted, that the priest drinks
that which just before he had eaten ; and hence it will follow,
that the different notions of eating and drinking are con
founded. And many other such absurd consequences are the
result of this doctrine. I wonder that the priests do not per
suade the people that they drink when they only eat. By the
doctrine of concomitancy it is easy to do it. Yea, they may be
persuaded, that when the priest drinks, then the people drink,
though they do not know it. They that are for an implicit
faith, may be for an implicit eating or drinking.
IV. This doctrine of the Church of Rome is a downright
opposition to Christ's injunction, " Drink ye all of this." From
this it is manifest, that drinking is one manner of receiving,
and it is appointed by Christ, and therefore ought not to be
omitted. But the Papists oppose this, and reject that part of
the administration of the sacrament which was expressly en
joined : and to render this plausible, concomitancy was invented
by their good friend Thomas Aquinas, to solve this mutilating
of the sacrament. But I hope I have sufficiently convinced
the reader of the vanity of this invention.
Again, they say, that it is inconvenient and unsafe now
when the Church is increased, to deliver the sacrament in both
kinds. The wine, or as they call it, the blood of Christ, is
liable to be spilt in the delivering it, and therefore the cup is
denied to the people. This is a way of arguing that is so tri
fling and foolish, that it is not worth taking notice of: for who
was to judge of the conveniency or safety of administering this
part of the sacrament, but Christ the author of it ? And we
see that he expressly enjoined the giving the wine as well as the
bread, and consequently it is convenient and safe to do it.
As for their evasions, they are such as these ; when it is
said, " Drink ye all of this," it is spoken to the pastors, not to
the people : for the sacrament was administered to the Apostles
only at first ; and therefore only the priests (who are repre
sented by the Apostles) are to drink. But the folly of this
pleading is very conspicuous : for if in these words, " Drink ,
ye all of this," Christ spake to none but the pastors, then in
the other words, " Take, eat," he also speaks only to them: if
so, where is the command for the people to eat the bread?
And besides, if the sacrament wa3 given to the ApostbMi
merely as they were such, it was to cease after their time, be
cause they were the persons that were only concerned in it :
but this is not granted by our adversaries, and therefore they

OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. 193
must acknowledge that the administration both of the bread
and wine was not instituted merely for the Apostles but others ;
that is, all Christian believers. Under this notion they took
and eat the bread, or else by what right can any believers since
take and eat 1 And if the Apostles took the bread as they
were believers, then it is certain they drank the wine, as they
were such : and consequently all believers are to be admitted to
the cup in the eucharist. This must be granted, or they must
be deprived of taking and eating. This is so obvious and
plain, that I need not insist any farther on it. Wherefore I
conclude that the sacrament was instituted for the whole
Church : for the Apostles were representatives of the whole
Church of Christ. They received not as clergymen or pastors
(for perhaps they were not of that order when they received),
but as believers ; and in that capacity all Christians have a
right to drink of the wine, as weU as to eat of the bread.
As for that text, "This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in re
membrance of me," 1 Cor. xi. 25, they shift it off thus, that
those words make it a conditional precept, not an absolute one,
to drink tbe wine in the sacrament. We are not bid to drink,
but only it is said, " as oft as ye drink." This is such a gross
evasion as one would think could never be made use of by any
men of sense and modesty: for in the word oo-aVic, " as oft,"
it is clearly imphed that the persons spoken unto are under an
obligation to participate sometime or other of the wine in the
eucharist. And farther, if this be a conditional precept, then
it will hold as weU concerning the bread ; for the Apostle adds
immediately, " as often as ye eat this bread.' ' So that accord
ing to this interpretation there is no absolute command to eat
the sacramental bread. Thus we see what becomes of their
sorry evasions; they confute and shame themselves by them.
But they persist in their sophistry ; and when we quote these
words, " Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup,"
&c. ( which are a plain confutation of the half-communion)
they tell us, that we do not rightly translate the words ; for in
the Greek it is f;, not em, "or," not "and;" and therefore
the words are to be rendered thus, "whosoever shall eat this
bread, or drink this cup," which intimates, say they, that the
sacrament may be received in one or both kinds. To this I an
swer, the Syriac and Arabic versions read it and, to let us know
that and and or here are the same, and so they are in several
other places both of the Old and New Testaments. There are in
stances given in the former by several writers, but I will appeal
vol. vi. o

194 OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIND.
to the latter — the New Testament; because the text now objected
against is taken thence. Who sees not that or is the same with
and in Matth. v. 1 7, " Think not that I come to destroy the
Law, or the Prophets V It is equivalent with the Law and the
Prophets, as is evident from the conjunction of these in Matth.
vii. 12, "This is the Law and the Prophets." And, in several
other texts there is the same conjunction of the "Law and the
Prophets ;" and the word and is made use of to express it. It
cannot be denied that andis to be understood by or in Luke xx.
2, " Or who is he that gave thee this authority ?" and there
fore in the paraUel places in Matth. xxi. 23, Mark xi. 28, it is,
" And who gave thee this authority ?" This is sufficient to shew,
that even in the New Testament or is put for and, and there
fore in the fore-cited place we should so understand it. "Who
soever shall eat this bread, or drink this cup of the Lord un
worthily," is the same with " Whosoever shall eat this bread,
and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily." And, indeed,
there is a necessity of interpreting it so, because the eating
the bread, and drinking the wine are joined together by the
Apostle in several places in that very chapter : which shews
that the particle or, which he uses in the fore-named text, doth
not disjoin the cup from the bread, or intimate in the least
that the bread is to be received without the wine ; for this
would be wholly inconsistent with his joining them together,
and calling upon the Corinthians to partake both of the bread
and of the wine.
We have seen how they evade ; let us next hear how they
object. An usual objection against our doctrine, and to con
firm their own, is made from Acts ii. 42, 46 ; xx. 17, where
the Lord's supper is expressed by breaking of bread only :
which (say they) signifies that the Primitive Christians re
ceived the sacrament in one kind only. I know some Pro
testant writers think they return a good answer to the objec
tion, when they deny that these places are spoken concerning
the Lord's supper, and affirm that they are meant of the
breaking of bread at ordinary meals. But I must crave leave
to dissent from them in this ; for if we take notice of the cir
cumstances of those texts, we shall not easily be persuaded,
that no other breaking of bread is meant there than that at
their usual repast. Wherefore the plain and true answer to
the objection is this, that the Lord's supper hath its denomi
nation here from one part of it, which is an usual way of
speaking, not only in the Bible, but in all other authors, and

OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. 195
therefore it cannot seem strange to us. In a hundred places in
the Old Testament, and in some in the New, bread necessarily
includes in it drink, unless you would advance this paradox,
that they did eat heretofore at their feasts and meals, but
never drank a drop. And why then should it startle us that
the like manner of speaking is used concerning the sacred
feast of the Lord's supper? For though a part of this sacra
ment is not to be received by us instead of the whole (because
it is against Christ's positive institution), yet when this sacra
ment is spoken of, it may be expressed by a synechdoche, i. e.
putting the part for a whole. As the whole ordinary meal or
repast is frequently called " eating of bread' ' in Scripture, so we
are not to wonder that the whole Lord's supper is styled
" breaking of bread." And this doth not in the least imply
a half-communion, because though one element be expressed,
yet it excludes not the other.
Thus I have briefly considered what is alleged by the Popish
writers in defence of their doctrine, and what their cavils are
against ours. Upon the whole, I appeal to sober minds,
whether it is fitting that the vain wit and fond arguings of
men should disannul the last will and testament of our blessed
Saviour. For whereas there is an express command for com
municating in both species, they most unreasonably and
saucUy violate that command and institution, and so make
the law of Christ of none effect. And because they have no
thing that is solid to oppose against an express command,
they fly to sophistry and shifts and evasions, and say nothing
to the purpose, rather than not say something. But I demand
of all understanding and thinking persons, whether these
, shallow arguings and cavillings be not a great demonstration of
; the weakness of their cause, and whether we have not reason
from thence to adhere to the doctrine we have so fully
evinced ?
I will shut up all with these short inferences :
, First, See the bold and blasphemous humour of the Ro-
".manists. Though Christ expressly commands the receiving
of the sacrament in both kinds, yet the half-communion is
decreed with a non-obstante to it. The Divine command is
slighted and trampled upon, and Christ's institution is con-
'tradicted. Secondly, Be persuaded of the reasonableness and truth of
the contrary doctrine ; and to that purpose recollect the heads
of the foregoing discourse ; and then fix yourselves with the
0 2

196 OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIND.
thirtieth Article of our Church, "The cup (saith she) of the
Lord is not to be denied to the lay-people : for both the parts
of the Lord's sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and command
ment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike."
Thirdly, Be thankful that you have the privilege to partake
of the sacrament in both kinds, in that way of Christ's own
ordaining. And,
Lastly, Whilst you decry the doctrine and practice of the
Papists, be not guilty of what is as bad ; whilst they deny the
cup to the laity, do not you debar yourselves of both bread
and wine. WhUst the Roman priests rob the people of part of
the Lord's supper, do not you deprive yourselves of the whole.
Frequent the holy table, as you have opportunity, but be sure
to do it with a becoming reverence, and take care to fit and
prepare yourselves for that evangelical feast : otherwise it will
prove very dangerous to you.

197

CHAPTER VI.
Of Purgatory and Satisfaction.
Another great point of Popery is the doctrine of Purgatory,
which is said to be that place where the souls of those who
depart hence with the guilt of venial sins upon them, are
punished and tormented untU they have satisfied for their sins.
Even the faithful, whose sins are all pardoned, must undergo
this punishment : for not being fully purged from sin in this
life, it is necessary that after death they should be cleansed
and purged from the relics of all sin. None need question
whether this be held by the Church of Rome : for they all
openly own it, and by their prayers for the dead, and indul
gences, and other practices, they prove that they verily believe
this doctrine. This was set up as an article of faith by the
Florentine Council about 1439. And the nineteenth Article of
the Creed estabhshed by the Tridentine Council is this, " I do
steadfastly believe that there is a purgatory, and that the souls
therein detained are helped by the prayers of the faithful."
And again, in the twenty-fifth session, it is asserted that those
that are in purgatory may be delivered thence by the suffrages
of the faithful that are alive, i. e. by prayers, alms, oblations,
masses, &c. From the great oracle of the Roman Church we
are told, that* "purgatory is a place, wherein, as in a prison,
those souls are purged after this Ufe, which were not fully
purged here, to the intent that they may enter pure into
heaven." And aU the Roman doctors agree, that those that
have not in this Ufe by works of penance, or by indulgences,
satisfied for their sins, must do it in purgatory. But withal
they tell us, that purgatory is for expiating of venial sins, such
as should have been expiated in this Ufe by confessions and
penance, and beating their breasts, &c. These are punished
with the fire of purgatory, but mortal sins send men to hell.
And they teU us farther, that though a man after the com
mission of mortal sins repent heartily of them, and God for-
giveth him, yet there is a temporal punishment which he must
undergo for his sin, and for this he must make satisfaction in
* Eellarm. 1. 2. de Purgator. cap. 6. [Pragse, 1721.J

198 OF PURGATORY
purgatory, by suffering the pains of that place. This is the
received doctrine of the Romanists, but we deny the whole
frame of this hypothesis, and we look on it as a fanciful in
vention, a fraudulent contrivance to affright poor souls, and
to bring in advantage to the priests. That this is a false
and groundless doctrine, I shall prove from these following
particulars. First, If there were any such thing as purgatory, we should
find it plainly set forth and revealed in Scripture. We should
see it in those writings, and be acquainted with it, it being of so
great weight and importance to be rightly instructed in this
matter. But no middle place is mentioned in any part of the
Old or New Testament. We read but of two states of men
after this life, and no more. Saving and damning comprehend
all, Matth. xvi. 16. "He that beUeveth and is baptized, shall
be saved: but he that believeth not, shall be damned." There
is no mean between these two. There are but two ranks of
persons, those that shall " go into everlasting punishment,"
and those that shall " go into life eternal," Matth. xxv. 46.
And the Old Testament, as well as the New, represents the
state of the dead as irreversible and unchangeable : " In the
place where the tree falleth, there it shall be," Eccles. xi. 3.
What persons are at their death, that they shall be at the last
day, and ever after. "There is no work, nor device, nor know
ledge, nor wisdom in the grave, whither thou goest," Eccles.
ix. 10. The whole business, that respects man's salvation, is
ended and finished in this Ufe. This is the state of trial, that
other of recompences. Wherefore we must needs look upon
it as a mere fiction of the Papists, that the infernal region is di
vided into " four cells ;" the lowest whereof is heU ; the next is
purgatory ; above that is Limbus Infantium, where those chil
dren are that died without baptism ; and above all these is
Limbus Patrum, where the souls of the pious before Christ's
ascension were, for until then they went not to heaven : this
place therefore hath stood empty ever since.
But we are taught by the holy Scriptures, that there are
but two places only that are receptacles of departed souls,
namely, heaven and hell. All persons that leave this world go
to one of these places. Wherefore it is fond and idle to assert
that there is such a state as purgatory, in which the souls of
the just, which in this life were not fully purged, there under-
* Bellarm. de Purg. lib. 2. cap. 6. [ut supra.]

AND SATISFACTION. 199
go a perfect and complete purgation. Most certainly some of
the Prophets and Apostles would have spoken of this third
state of souls in another world, if there had been any such
thing, especially if it were, as the Roman guides determine, an
article of faith, necessary to be believed by all men.
Secondly, The Scripture doth not only nowhere assert this
doctrine, but in many places it opposes and contradicts it, as
in Luke xxiu. 43, " To-day shalt thou be with me in para
dise ;" as much as to say, immediately after thy death thy
soul shall be translated to a state of blessedness, that state
which the separate souls of the faithful enjoy in heaven. If
there had been a purgatory, our Saviour should have spoken
thus to the converted thief, Some years hence thou shalt be
advanced to paradise, and there enjoy me in my kingdom, as
thou desirest : but at present that privilege, that blessing, that
great honour cannot be granted thee, because thou must first
descend into the subterraneous fires that are prepared for all
men, and where they must be thoroughly purged before they
can reach the celestial mansions. But we see that our Saviour's
plain way of speaking, and his assuring this convert of imme
diate blessedness after the separation of his soul from his body,
is a direct confutation of such idle dreams and chimeras. " To
day," saith he, thou shalt be with me in the state of happiness;
for pious souls, as soon as they quit their bodies, are taken up
to heaven. This is clear from those other texts, John xii. 26,
" Where I am, there also shall my servant be." Chap. xiv. 3,
" I wiU receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye
may be also," to partake with me of my glory and happiness.
Chap. xvii. 24, " Father, I wiU that they also, whom thou
hast given me, be with me where I am, that they may behold
my glory which thou hast given me." These promises are
not fulfilled if the souls of the faithful go not forthwith to
heaven, but take purgatory in their way to it : for who can
imagine that when Christ plainly tells his Apostles and fol
lowers, " that he would receive them to himself, and that
where he is, they shall be ;" and repeats this once and again,
and explains "their being there where he is," by "their be
holding his glory which his Father had given him," namely in
heaven; who, I say, can imagine that Christ's meaning is,
that the Apostles must first lie many years, some hundreds of
years, in the flames of purgatory (for there were none in those
days that had the skill to redeem them thence by masses and
suffrages) before his words should be accomplished ? If any

200 OF PURGATORY
man can suppose and imagine this, he ought to be scored up
for one of a prodigious strong fancy.
And what think we of St. Paul's words in 2 Cor. v. 6, 7, 8?
" We are always confident" (that is, we can with confidence and
courage encounter all dangers, and undergo any sufferings, and
look death itself in the face), " knowing that whilst we are
at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord. For we
walk by faith and not by sight. We are confident, I say, and
willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present
with the Lord." Here the Apostle calls the life of a godly
man " a being absent from the Lord, and walking by faith
only," a believing a future state : but death is styled by him
" a being present with the Lord, and walking by sight," that
is, in the present and full enjoyment of that happy state : and
the consideration of this " being present with God," as soon
as he leaves the body, inspires him with Christian confidence,
such as enables him to undertake or suffer any thing in the
defence of the Christian cause. What then becomes of the
notion of purgatory ? If the saints immediately after they
depart this life are with Christ, and present with him, and live
no longer by faith, but by sight, that is, enjoy the beatifical
vision of God, how can it enter into any man's thoughts that
they are tormented in flames as soon as they leave this world,
and are for many years, it may be many generations, " absent
from the Lord," and from all bliss and happiness ? If any
man can digest this, there is nothing too hard for him to be
lieve ; and you may offer the greatest contradictions to him,
and expect his free assent to them.
When the Apostle saith, " he hath a desire to depart, and
to be with Christ," Phil. i. 23, it is plainly implied that he
was to be happy presently : for no man can be with Christ
after death, but he must enter into that happiness. This the
Apostle firmly hoped for as soon as he was departed : for there
is here an immediate connection betwixt departing and being
with Christ. But if you believe a purgatory, how wiU you
reconcile the Apostle's being there and being with Christ, es
pecially when he adds that this being with Christ is far better
than being in the body. You cannot but grant that it is far
better being in the body than in the fire of purgatory ; for the
Popish doctors tell us, that the pains of purgatory are equal
to those of hell, only they are not so lasting : therefore they
say, that purgatory is a temporary hell. If this be true, you
must yield that St. Paul's desire or wish to depart was very

AND SATISFACTION. 201
extravagant : for he did as good as wish, "that he might be
under the most exquisite torments, and at the same time he
owned, that this was far better than to be free from them, and
which is the most absurd of all, he lets us know, that to be
under these torments is to be with Christ. Let the Papists
impose such ridiculous notions as these on themselves and their
friends ; we Protestants desire to be excused and exempted
from such unreasonable impositions.
Those words of the Apostle in 1 Thess. iv. 17; "Then («'. e.
at the general resurrection) we which are alive, and remain, shall
be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord
in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord," are a great
baffle to the doctrine of purgatory : for here we see, that the
righteous, who remain alive at the coming of Christ, shall be
taken up into the air, and then into heaven (which is signified
by being ever with the Lord), and that without any tor
ments intervening. And I ask why should they that die
before the last day be sent to the torments of purgatory more
than those that Uve until then ?
The last text I shaU produce is Rev. xiv. 13 : "Blessed are
the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth : yea, saith the
Spirit, that they may rest from their labours." Where the word
dirapn, "from henceforth," signifies that the righteous, as soon
as they leave this world, are taken to a better hfe, and not sent
to purgatory. I know some refer "from henceforth" to the
calamities and sufferings which the righteous at that time were
obnoxious to; as much as to say, blessed are the dead that die
now in God's favour: for thereby they are lodged safe in the
grave, and not subject to the persecutions under Antichrist.
They are happiest that die soonest : so some interpret " from
henceforth." And if we take the words in this sense, they are
a clear proof against the purgatory-flames : for these certainly
(as the Popish writers describe them) are much more grievous
than any persecutions and sufferings here upon earth. And
therefore they cannot be pronounced blessed, who avoid these
by death, and then pass immediately into the unspeakable
torments of purgatory. But it seems most natural and proper
to refer " from henceforth" to the word " blessed," and so it
denotes to us, that those who die in the Lord are immediately
received into heaven, and are there blessed.
Or, if you will refer " from henceforth" to the next clause,
as if the words ran thus, " from henceforth they rest from
their labours," it still confirms the same truth, that the righ-

202 OF PURGATORY
teous presently after death enter into happiness. Nay, if that
expression " from henceforth" were left out and wholly
omitted, yet those very words, " Blessed are the dead that die
in the Lord, that they may rest from their labours," suf
ficiently prove that those that die in the Lord are not tor
mented in purgatory ; for this is utterly inconsistent with
" being blessed," and with " resting from their labours." I
take this text then to be a solid argument and a valid testi
mony against purgatory, especially if we take in the adverb
dx-apri, "from henceforth," or from this instant: for then it
is more abundantly declared by the Spirit here, that the souls
of the faithful are in joy and felicity, as soon as they are
delivered out of this world; therefore it is impossible they
should be in purgatory.
Thirdly, I will confute the doctrine of purgatory by confu
tation of another, on which it is grounded, and that is the
doctrine of satisfaction. We must know then, that the foun
dation of purgatory is laid in this, that offenders after baptism
must make satisfaction to God for their sins since that time
committed, by undergoing temporal punishment either in this
world or the next. It is acknowledged by the Council of
Trent, that Christ himself hath satisfied by his sufferings for
all sin and guilt committed and contracted before baptism, and
hath taken away all obligation to punishment, whether eternal
or temporal : but the Fathers of that Council insist on this,*
that though the eternal punishment of those that sin after
baptism, be satisfied for by Christ's sufferings, yet he hath
not freed them from temporal punishment ; but this they must
bear themselves either here or hereafter. This is the doctrine
of the Roman Church, which is repeated in another of their
Canons :f "When a man's sins (say they) are forgiven him,
and he is justified, there yet remains an obligation to the pay
ment of temporal punishment, either in this world, or in the
world to come, in purgatory." Accordingly, the priest enjoins
the penitents such and such punishments, viz.% prayers, pil
grimages, fasts, and other religious exercises ; and by these
satisfaction is made to the justice of God.
Or else bodily and temporal calamities, as poverty, sickness,
pain, &c. are inflicted on persons, that by suffering of these
they may satisfy God for their sins. For. this is a received
* Cone. Trid. Sess. 6, cap. 14. de Justificat.
t Sess. 6. can. 30. X Sess. 6. cap. 14.

AND SATISFACTION. 203
maxim in the Church of Rome, that when the sins of true
penitents are forgiven, there yet remains temporal punish
ments and crosses to be undergone. To which purpose such
instances as these are produced by the Popish writers, Numb.
xiv. 20, 33, the Israelites that murmured were forgiven by
God, yet they suffered punishment in the wilderness, viz.
death. 2 Sam. xii. 13, 14, David's sin of adultery was par
doned, but the temporal punishment was not remitted ; he
was afflicted with the death of his child: 2 Sam. xxiv. 10, &c.
David's sin of numbering the people was forgiven by God, but
he was punished with the pestilence. 1 Cor. xi. 30, " For
this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many
sleep." From which places they conclude, that though the
sins are remitted by God, yet the sinners must satisfy for them
by enduring calamities in this Ufe.
But then, as for those who have not sufficiently been
punished by voluntarily undertaking some exercises of se
verity, or have not been visited with pain, losses, diseases, and
the calamities of this Ufe, these persons must undergo a tem
poral punishment in the world to come ; and this is that
which they caU the " pains of purgatory :" and a man cannot be
released from these miseries until the punishment be fully
accomplished. It is not enough that Christ hath satisfied ;
nor is it enough that the sinners themselves have satisfied in
this world : but they must also suffer punishment in way
of satisfaction in another place, after this Ufe is ended. Pur
gatory then is for the souls of those whose eternal punishment
is quite satisfied for by Christ, whose sins are forgiven, who
are in the favour of God, and who have in part suffered for
their sins in this Ufe : but a complete temporal punishment is
yet behind. This is the professed doctrine of the Church of
Rome, and I have set it down at large, because the reader
might have a fuU account of the ground and basis on whieh
the Church of Rome builds the doctrine of purgatory. And
now I wUl briefly demonstrate that this basis is unsound, and
consequently that what is built upon it must needs fall.
1 st, It is a wUd notion, and a strange way of speaking, to
caU prayer and alms, and the like acts of devotion, punish
ments. We are taught that the service of God is our perfect
freedom, that acts of religion are to be accounted our pleasure
and delight, that exercises of Christianity are our reward, as
well as our duty. But the Roman doctors, without any show

204 OF PURGATORY
of reason, talk otherwise, and tell us that the most devout and
religious performances are penalties and torments.
2ndly, Though we should suppose these religious exer
cises to be punishments, yet it is falsely said, that they can
satisfy for our sins. Of which there is a plain demonstra
tion : for if there had been a possibility of satisfying the
Divine justice by our own doings, there had been no need of
another's satisfying for us. But we are assured that another
hath undertaken and accomplished this work, and therefore we
may certainly infer that it is not in our power to do it : we
cannot by any thing that we can do, or suffer, atone for the
least offence, either here or hereafter. And we know what is
the consequence of this, if there be no satisfaction to be made
by any man, then there is no purgatory, for this is built
upon that.
3rdly, As to those instances of temporal or bodily inflic
tions on the murmuring Israelites, on David, and on the
Corinthian Christians, it is certain that they were not punish
ments properly so called ; that is, they were not inflicted in
way of revenge, and for the parties' hurt. These were all
chastisements for their good ; and therefore they did not
satisfy God's justice by undergoing these temporal afflictions
and calamities : for they cannot be undergone in way of satis
faction unless they were inflicted by God as a revenger. We
are informed by the Christian institution that Christ hath fully
satisfied for the sins of the elect, and consequently the afflic
tions of this life are no longer punishments in the strictest and
proper sense, but corrections and fatherly admonitions. Those
fore-mentioned instances then which the Popish writers pro
duce, are nothing to the purpose of purgatory : for we cannot
argue from the afflictions in this Ufe to those in another.
There is no consequence in this at all : for the afflictions of
this life are of a different nature from those that are in the
life to come. The former are for the trial and increase of our
graces, and for warning and example to others in the land of
the living : but this cannot be said of the latter, that is, the
pains of purgatory when the scene of this life is ended, and
the probatory state is over, and another state is introduced.
4thly, It is absolutely inconsistent with the notion of
pardon of sins, that they should be remitted in this life, and
yet a punishment should be undergone for them in another,
It is abundantly declared in the sacred and infallible writings,

AND SATISFACTION. 205
that the remission of sins contains in it the taking away the
obligation to punishment. He, whose sins are forgiven, is no
longer guilty, and therefore is no longer obnoxious to punish
ment. It is contradictory then to say that God pardons those
of whom he exacts the punishment of sin, purely to satisfy
justice. For it is even supposed and impUed in the nature of
the pardon of sin that God's justice is satisfied : for otherwise
there could be no pardon.
5thly, Then Christ hath already fully satisfied for the sins
of all that shall be saved : therefore there is no future satis
faction to be made by them, and consequently there is no
purgatory. There will be no need of satisfying the debt of
temporal punishment, when the debt is entirely forgiven by
the meritorious satisfaction of Christ Jesus the Redeemer.
It cannot be supposed that the payment of any part of it wiU
be required, when the whole is discharged. If we hold
Christ's satisfaction we must renounce purgatory, which is
the place to which, the Papists say, the souls of those men
go, who did not fuUy satisfy for their sins in this life. But
seeing there is no such satisfaction, there is no such place as
purgatory. Fourthly and lastly, I argue against purgatory from the
unreasonableness of what the Church of Rome requires us to
believe concerning the satisfaction held by them. They tell
us, that great and mortal sins (as they caU them) are remitted
and satisfied for by Christ, but lesser and venial ones must be
satisfied for by us in another world. Such wUd conceits, such
fantastic dreams do these men put upon us and demand our
comphance with them. But can we imagine that God who
pardons the greater crimes cannot or will not pardon the
lesser? can we think that he wUl keep good men in the prison
of purgatory, and there torment them for the guilt of these
latter, when the former ones, which are of a more heinous
nature, are wholly expiated for ? None will ever assent to this
kind of half-satisfaction, but those that are for a half-commu
nion. These men are impoUtic in their errors ; they do not
shape their opinions with sufficient probabUity. But I need
not insist any longer on this, the case is so plain.
These are the reasons and arguments against the doctrine
of purgatory ; and if any man seriously weighs them, I doubt
not but he will own the strength and validity of them. Now
in the next place let us attend to the pleas that are made for
that doctrine, and let us attend to the objections against the

206 OF PURGATORY
truth that I have maintained. They argue first from Scrip
ture, and then from authority and antiquity. Let us hearken
to their allegations of the former sort ; and the first is
grounded on Matth. v. 26 : " Thou shalt by no means come out
thence till thou hast paid 'the uttermost farthing." The
prison, which is mentioned in the foregoing verse, is purga
tory, say the Pontificians, and there is no " coming out
thence" without satisfaction, or " paying the uttermost far
thing ;" which necessarily implies that those in the prison of
purgatory may make satisfaction, and pay the uttermost
farthing, and so come out thence. To which I answer,
I. It hath been proved before that there can be no satisfac
tion made by us for our sins, either in this life or in that
which is to come, and therefore this text cannot be inter
preted concerning the discharging of the debt of sin in the
fire of purgatory which the Papists dream of.
II. If these words of our Saviour be meant concerning a
future prison into which sinners shall be cast at their death, it
is to be applied to the prison of hell, for there is no other : and
when it is said that there is " no coming out thence till the
prisoners have paid tbe uttermost farthing," the meaning is,
that they shall never be able to pay the uttermost farthing, and
therefore they shall never come out thence. For till here sig
nifies never, as it doth in many other places of Scripture, as I
have shewed in my Discourse of the Eternity of Hell-torments,
in my Theologia Reformata. Our Saviour seems to speak here
in a sarcastical and upbraiding way, when he tells the person
that he shall not come out " till he hath paid," &c. letting
him know by this manner of speech, that the paying of the
utmost farthing is impossible, and thence he may, if he hath
any sense, gather that it is impossible to come out. It is im
possible by our sufferings, though of never so long duration, to
satisfy the infinite justice of God. Thus this text makes no
thing for purgatory.
And it is certain it doth not, if III. we understand (as some
do) the words to be no other than our Saviour's wise and
prudent counsel to those who have run themselves in debt, or
by some other way are become obnoxious to their neighbours,
and therefore may justly fear and expect the penalty which
the law inflicts in such cases, as particularly imprisonment.
Such are advised here to be reconciled to the injured party as
soon as they can, to make that satisfaction which the law re
quires : for otherwise they may expect that their adversary will

AND SATISFACTION. 207
be severe upon them, and exact the very last farthing of them.
This may be the primary and plainest meaning of those
words of our Saviour. " Agree with thine adversary quickly,
whilst thou art in the way with him, lest at any time the
adversary deliver thee to the jud|e, and the judge deliver thee
to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto
thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence till thou hast
paid the uttermost farthing." The words are a friendly ex
hortation to a timely reconciliation, together with a plain dis
covery of the danger of the contrary practice. And now if
any man can prove the doctrine of purgatory from hence, he
hath a knack of proving which no other man in the world
hath. Another text much made use of by the patrons of purga
tory is Matth. xii. 32 ; where our Saviour speaking of the sin
against the Holy Ghost saith, " it shall not be forgiven neither
in this world, neither in the world to come." Whence tbey
draw this inference, that some sins (though that against the
Holy Ghost be not of that number) shall be forgiven in the
world to come, that is, say they, in purgatory. To which
several things may be replied ; as,
First, it hath been thought by some learned men, that our
blessed Lord here confutes a common and received error and
false notion among the Jews, viz. that some of their sins were
pardoned after this life, as we may see in Mace. ii. 12, 13, &c.
Our Saviour quashes this fond opinion by what he saith here.
Or, secondly, we may grant that in a qualified sense there
will be a forgiveness of sins after this life, namely, at the day
of judgment ; for so we are expressly told, Acts iii. 1 9 ;
"That your sins may be blotted out, when the times of
refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." But
this blotting out, or forgiving of sins, is only a public declara
tion and manifestation of what had been done before in this life.
All righteous persons have pardon of sin passed here, but
hereafter they shaU be solemnly, openly, and publicly pro
nounced by Christ to be pardoned. But what is this to pur
gatory ?
Thirdly, that this text hath no relation to any such thing,
is evident from Mark hi. 29 : " He, that shall blaspheme
against the Holy Ghost, hath never forgiveness, but is in
danger of eternal damnation ;" which expounds the other way
of speaking, " He shall not be forgiven in this world, nor in

208 OF PURGATORY
the world to come," that is, he shall never be forgiven : one
Evangelist explains the other.
Nay, fourthly, there is more intended in these Evangelists
than is expressed ; for so it is very often in the negative way
of expressing things in Scripture : — " The Lord will not hold
him guiltless," Exod. xx. 7 ; that is, he will severely punish
him : " The father of a fool hath no joy," Prov. xvii. 21 ;
that is, he grieves and laments much. Such a manner of
speaking is this, " He shall never be forgiven," i. e. he shall
be punished for ever : "he shall not be forgiven in this
world, nor in that to come ;" i. e. he shall be punished in
both worlds, in this life and in the future one ; he shall be
cursed by God now, and shall be under an everlasting cnrse
hereafter (for that is signified in his being never forgiven),
which cannot possibly be applied to the pains of purgatory,
for the Papists hold them to be only temporary. This, I
think, is sufficient to shew that the Church of Rome gains
nothing by this text.
Nor doth that other, which they so often make use of,
favour their cause, 1 Cor. iii. 15: "He himself shall be
saved, yet so as by fire." That the fire of purgatory is not
here meant, but another fire mentioned before in this chapter,
I have shewed at large in a particular Exercitation, which I
refer the reader to, to avoid repetition here.
And because they catch at all places, and make not only
fire, but water serviceable to the doctrine of purgatory, they
allege 1 Cor. xv. 29: "Else what shall they do, that are
baptized for the dead?" &c. But for full satisfaction about
that text, I remit the reader to another discourse (in my
Enquiry into several remarkable Texts of Scripture), which
amply treats of these words. And so, likewise, I desire him
to consult what I have published on I Pet. iii. 19: "He
went and preached unto the spirits in prison ;" for I have
endeavoured to set that text in a true light, and to assign the
true and obvious meaning of it, which will convince any un
prejudiced person that no such thing as purgatory was thought
of in that place.
But not only the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles,
but of the ancient Fathers in the primitive times are alleged
for this doctrine. It is true, we deny not, that some of the
corruptions of the Church of Rome began betimes ; yea, this
is the thing that we have proved in the Introduction to these

AND SATISFACTION.

209

discourses : but it wUl be impossible to prove that this was
one of them that had a very early date. It is true, likewise,
that among the Fathers of the Church, Origen was the first
that held a purging of separate souls by fire : but his holding
it is no small disparagement of it ; for it is well known that
that writer (though a very learned and acute man, yet) fills his
books with groundless and fanciful opinions, and such as wise
and sober men have unanimously condemned. And as to this
particular opinion of his, which I have mentioned, it doth the
Papists no service at all, because the Origen purgatory widely
differs from the Pontifician one, namely, first as to the persons ;
for, according to Romanists, those only are purged with fire
whose souls go hence with the guilt of some venial sins, but
otherwise depart hence in God's favour ; but according to Origen
and the purgatorians before St. Augustine, all mortals (Christ
only excepted) undergo this fiery ordeal. Secondly, as to the
time ; for the doctors of the Church of Rome hold, that the
souls of men, immediately on their going hence, enter into the
purging fire : but the Origenists, and others of the ancients,
say, that this purging doth not commence until the last con
flagration, at the end of the world. Thirdly, the Pontificians
hold that the pains of purgatory may be mitigated, or taken
away by the prayers and oblations of the living. But Origen
said no such thing : the purgatory, therefore, that the Church
of Rome asserts, is not the same with that of Origen, and,
.consequently, they have no reason to quote him on their side.
Or if the Origenian and Roman purgatory were the same,
yet this brings but little repute to their cause, if we consider
the rise of Origen's purgatory. It must be granted that the
GentUes introduced it : the Pagan philosophers and poets did
first present it to the world. It is plain that it was taken from
Plato,* and others of the Platonic sect that succeeded, and
particularly from VirgUf and Macrobius.J They held that
departed souls must undergo diverse purgations and trials
after this life, before they reach to happiness.
And it is not much for the credit of those who assert pur
gatory, that the Simonians, Menandrians, and other heretics,
foUowed this notion of Plato, and that Montanus, about the
middle of the second century, held that the souls of the just
are detained in prison, and there punished till the resurrec-
* In Gorgia, in Phsedone, in Phsedro, in Timaeo.
t -ffin. lib. 6. { Somn. Scip. 1. 2. c. 17.
VOL. VI. p

210 OF PURGATORY
tion. This he taught, saith Tertullian,* who was his disciple.
If, then, the Papists are pleased with such antiquity as this,
let them enjoy it.
When some other Fathers (as Lactantius, Ambrose, Augus
tine, Hilary, Jerome, Ruffin) speak of a purging fire for souls,
they speak of this Origenian purgatory, not that which the
Church of Rome holds. And when others of them speak of a
purgatory fire, they sometimes mean no more than repentance,
austerity, and mortification : so that, though there is the
mention of purgatory, or a purging fire to be met with in
some Fathers, yet the thing which the Papists call purgatory
is not found there.
But because St. Augustine, of all the Fathers, is generally most
quoted by the asserters of purgatory, I will speak particularly
of him. It must be owned, that this writer differs much from
himself: he sometimes holds the Origenian purgatory; at
other times he favours the Popish one, and is the first Father
that saith anything for that sort of purgatory. But in other
places he doubts, f and is fearful, and cautious, and defines
nothing certainly ; but at last he speaks out, and to the pur
pose, and the Papists will return him no thanks for it. HeJ
declares that the " doctrine of purgatory was borrowed from
the Platonists, who held that all punishments were inflicted to
amend men, whether they were inflicted by divine or human
laws, whether in this life, or in the other ; and therefore there
is no obligation upon us to receive it into Christianity." And,
in another place he is downright and positive, and tells us in
plain terms, that "there is no middle or third place; but he
must needs be with the devil that is not with Christ."§
Other Fathers might be produced to this purpose, as St.
Cyprian (who is alleged by our adversaries on the other side),
who is positive, that " the end of this Ufe being completed,
we are divided into the habitations either of everlasting death,
or immortality." || And St. Jerome, who avers, that "what
shall be the lot of all men in the day of judgment, is accom-
* Lib. de Anima, cap. 35.
t Tale aliquid post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est, et utrum ita
sit qua;ri potest. Enchirid. cap. 69. [vol. 6. p. 222. Ben. Edit. 1685.]
Forsitan verum est. De Civ. D. 1. 21. c. 25.
X De Civ. D. 1. 21. c. 13.
§ Non est ullus ulli locus medius, ut possit esse cum Diabolo, qui no11
cum Christo. Aug. 1. 1. de pecc. remiss, c. 28.
|| Epist. ad Demetr.

AND SATISFACTION. 211
plished to every one at the day of death."* And St. Chrysos
tom gives this as his sentiment, that " he who in this present
Ufe doth not wash away his sins, shall not find any comfort and
refreshment afterwards."j- From which, and many other
passages in the Fathers, we may see how falsely it is asserted
by Bellarmine,| that ail the Fathers, both Greek and Latin,
have, from the very Apostles' time, taught that there is a pur
gatory ; by which he means that state and place where souls
suffer a temporary punishment for sin, the guilt of which is
pardoned ; and from this punishment they might be delivered
by the prayers of the living, and translated to heaven before
the resurrection. This is the Popish purgatory, but unknown
to the ancient writers of the Church.
Some have thought that the fabulous Dialogues that go
under the name of Gregory I. gave occasion first of all for this
doctrine : but this we are sure of, that it was first made an
article of faith by the Florentine Council, held a.d. 1439. For
the covetousness and worldly interests of the priests required
that it should be passed for a point of Christian faith, that
thereby it might be fixed and established in the Church.
Here, now, we have assigned the true rise and spring of pur
gatory (at least of the confirmation of it) among the Papists ;
for purgatory is the foundation of masses, indulgences, and
prayers for the dead. The souls of the faithful are detained
in those flames tiU they can be reheved and set free by the help
of these ; and therefore the priests are hired to set about this
work, to pray and to offer sacrifice day and night, thereby to
fetch the souls out of this infernal fire, and to translate them
to heaven.
But I must not omit to take notice of the oblations for the
dead, which are mentioned in the writings of some of the
ancient Fathers, and are alleged by the Roman doctors as a
proof of purgatory. It cannot be denied that such oblations
are spoken of by Tertulhan in his book of the Soldier's
Crown, chap. 3, and by Cyprian in his 66th Epistle, and in
other places ; but they refer not to purgatory, but to the
saints in heaven. They were praises and thanksgivings for
the martyrs and holy men which laid down their lives in
defence of Christianity. These solemn commemorations of
* In Joel, cap. 2. t Horn. 2. in Lazar.
t DePurg. 1. I.e. 15. p 2

212 OF PURGATORY
the departed saints were called oblations, i. e. of thanksgiving
to God for them ; and in some places these commemorations
were annually observed.
Again, in the ancient writers, we read, it was customary to
pray for the dead, therefore the doctrine of purgatory pre
vailed in those times, say our adversaries ; for prayers were
made on purpose to beg their release from purgatory. But
this is a very gross mistake ; for it is evident to any one that
is acquainted with the ecclesiastical writers, that the prayers
for the dead had reference to those that were blessed, and
rested from their labours — those that the ancient Church
supposed to be in bliss and happiness, though not perfect,
They were wont to pray for the Apostles and martyrs, namely,
that the day of judgment might be hastened, and that then
they and all saints might be admitted to the beatific vision,
which they thought none were received to, till then. For this is
certain, that in the first ages of the Church it was generally
believed that the separate souls of good men did not (though
they were happy) enjoy the beatific vision. Therefore it was
the old usage to pray for the dead, that they might be fully
and finally justified at the last day, and that they might par
take of complete happiness. Hence it is clear that the
praying for the deceased (which is mentioned by some of the
Fathers) doth not infer a purgatory, doth not prove that the
ancient Church believed any such thing. Yea, at this very
time praying for the dead is used in the Greek Church, though
they do not hold purgatory, but only believe that the souls of
the faithful are not perfectly happy before the day of judg
ment, and for that reason they pray for their perfect and entire
happiness. From what hath been said under this last head, in answer
to the Papists' plea of antiquity, it is apparent that they have
gained nothing by this, but it would have been better for them
to have dropped this plea. And truly this is so evident, that
some of the Popish writers, who were men of ingenuity, freely
acknowledge that the doctrine of purgatory is not backed by
antiquity. Let the famous Bishop Fisher speak for the rest,
" There is," saith he, " no mention at all, or very rarely, of
purgatory in the ancient Fathers. The Latins did not at once,
but by degrees, receive this doctrine ; and the Greeks beheve
it not at this day. And purgatory being so long unknown, it
is no wonder that in the first times of the Church there was no

AND SATISFACTION. 213
use of indulgences : for they had their beginning after men
had been awhile scared with the torments of purgatory."* Thus
he, with whom I conclude.
There only remain some few reflections, by way of applica
tion, on the whole. And,
I. We cannot but think it reasonable to renounce this fond
and absurd doctrine of purgatory, which hath neither reason,
nor Scripture, nor antiquity to abet it ; but especiaUy to take
care that we encourage not ourselves in expectation of being
released out of the infernal prison. Let us not flatter ourselves,
that when we are dead, we shall have time and leave to do
something, in order to the mending our condition ; that we
shall be able by our suffering hereafter to expiate for the sins
we committed here on earth. Many a Papist hath deluded
himself, by fancying that some good priest or other will do him
a kindness, and pray his soul out of torments, especiaUy if he
take care to leave a constant salary for him ; for he wiU not
do it for nothing. And sometimes the cheat runs higher, and
people are persuaded to believe that there is some possibihty
of rescuing them out of heU. For we are told,f that the
Emperor Trajan was freed from that place by Pope Gre
gory I.'s prayers. Which is defended by several of the
Church of Rome, and lately by Salmeron the Jesuit. Tom.
xiv. Disp. 27. Be not fooled then with the idle story of pur
gatory, lest by that you be induced to listen to a release even
from heU-flames.
II. On the contrary, have true and right apprehensions con
cerning the future state of souls. Persuade yourselves of this,
that the souls who have left this world, are either happy or
miserable. The former need not our help ; the latter are not
capable of it. Know this, that all souls, as soon as they depart
hence, receive their particular judgment at the tribunal of
Christ : and accordingly that the souls of the godly are im
mediately consigned to glory ; and those of the wicked to
everlasting torments, from which there is no deliverance.
III. Do what you are to do now, in this present life.
" Work while it is day : for the night cometh, when no man
can work." Dream not of a purgatory hereafter ; but purge
yourselves in this life by repentance and sanctification ; for
after death nothing of this nature is to be done. Therefore (as
* Roffens. Lutheri Confut. Art. 18. [p. 200. Colon. 1559.]
t Damascen. de Purg. 1. 2. u. 8.

214 OF INDULGENCES.
the wise man adviseth on the same consideration), " Whatso
ever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might." Eccles. ix.
10. Now is the acceptable time, now is the day of salvation.
If you let slip this season, you are everlastingly ruined.

CHAPTER VII.
Of Indulgences.

I proceed next to consider the doctrine of Indulgences,
another gross tenet of the Church of Rome, and which depends
upon purgatory, and therefore may fitly be treated of in this
place. On a more particular account we may think it worth
our time to discuss this point, because from the abuse of in
dulgences Luther took the first occasion to preach against the
Pope, and to write against Popery. So that we may reckon
' the Reformation to have had its beginning from this. Here
then I will proceed to the usual method, that is,
I. I will let the reader see that the doctrine of indulgences
is the avowed sentiment and persuasion of the Church of Rome.
II. I will shew how invalid and groundless it is ; and,
III. I will answer the pleas and objections which they make
use of for upholding it.
I. It is evident, that this is the doctrine and persuasion of
the Roman Church. By the twenty-second Article of the
Tridentine Creed every one is obliged to " affirm that the
power of indulgences was left in the Church of Christ, and that
the use of them is very helpful to Christian people." And this
is made an article of faith by the same Council, and those are
pronounced accursed who deny it. In the twenty-fifth session
they explain themselves in this manner, some temporal punish
ment must be undergone by good men for their sins : for after
their sins are pardoned by God, there is a punishment yet re
maining due : and this punishment must be borne either in
this life, or in the other. The punishment in this Ufe is works
of penance and satisfaction, as prayers, fasting, giving of alms,
whipping themselves ; together with the afflictions and crosses
which men are incident to in this world, as poverty, sickness,
pain, losses, disgrace, &c. These are the temporal punishments

OF INDULGENCES. 215
of this life : and those that are to be undergone in the life to
come are the pains and torments of purgatory. Now the
Church of Rome assures us that these are taken away by in
dulgences : sinners are hereby excused from all tedious fast
ings, and troublesome repetitions of prayers, and costly giving
of alms, and the painful bestowing of lashes on their bodies,
and enduring all manner of austerities, which the priest is wont
to impose on offenders. They are excused, I say, from all
these by the indulgences which are to be had in the Church of
Rome : for, according to them, these are a pardon or release
from punishment in this life, which we otherwise should un
dergo in way of penance, though the sin be pardoned. And
then as for the other punishment, viz. the afflictions and
calamities of this life, which are the consequences of sin, these
are said to be taken away, because they are but light in respect
of what the sinner should have borne in purgatory. And as
for the pains of that place, the sinner is wholly exempted from
them by the happy gift of indulgences. And indeed here the
blessed benefit of these spiritual wares is most discovered : for
by the help of these the offenders are secured from ever coming
into those future torments. This is the extent of the Roman
indulgences : by them men may be freed both from temporal
punishments here, and those that they should suffer in purga
tory hereafter.
II. I am to shew how invalid and groundless this doctrine
and practice of the Romanists is. And this I shall do, first
by destroying those pretended grounds, on which they build
the doctrine of indulgences. Indulgences are built on these
four foundations, first, That punishments remain after sin for
given. Secondly, That there is a purgatory. Thirdly, That
there are merits and works of supererogation. Fourthly,
That these merits may be and are applied by the Church.
Now, it is easy to shew that these foundations, ou which the
doctrine of indulgences is grounded, are weak and unsound,
and consequently they cannot bear up the superstructure.
The first foundation is, that temporal punishments remain
due to penitent sinners, even after their sin and guilt are par
doned by God, and that these punishments are acts of penance,
and the afflictions of this Ufe. This is a false proposition, be
cause (as hath been said before) prayers, and fastings, and
alms, and acts of religion and devotion are not punishments ;
and as for those afflictions which they call punishments, they
deserve not that name, but a better and milder one, that is,

216 OF INDULGENCES.
corrections and fatherly chastisements. Indeed they might
properly be called punishments, if by them we could satisfy
God's justice for our offences : but this is a work that can be
done only by our Redeemer : " By one offering he hath per
fected for ever them that are sanctified," Heb. x. 14. It was
done once, and it was done for ever, and therefore it is in vain
for us to undertake it : it is in vain to pretend to undergo any
punishment, in order to make satisfaction to the offended
Majesty. Whence it follows that it is a false doctrine that a
man's sins are graciously forgiven him by God, and yet that God
exacts temporal punishment of him for them : and that Christ
hath not so expiated, but that some satisfaction is to be made
by us. And this consequently must be true, that when the
offence is forgiven to penitent sinners, there remains no tem
poral punishment to be suffered in this life, nor in the other by
way of satisfaction. Which brings me to speak of
The second foundation on which indulgences are built,
namely, purgatory : for the Church of Rome reckons indul
gences to be a release not only from penalty here, but from
those pains which remain due to penitent sinners in that state
which is to come. But I having already proved that there is
no such state, the doctrine which is founded upon it must needs
fall. The third basis of the doctrine of indulgences is the merits
of the saints, and the works of supererogation : for the Church
of Rome holds, that not only for the sake of Christ's merits, but
for those of the saints, sinners are released from the punish
ments which they should endure here and in purgatory. They
affirm that some of the saints are so good and holy as to merit
not only for themselves, but for others ; they have a sufficiency
of merits to serve themselves, and to befriend their neigh
bours besides. And truly it is pity this overplus of merits
should be lost : therefore they are gathered by the Church of
Rome into one common stock or treasury. This, according to
the Popish doctrine, is the great fund of indulgences. The
superabundant merits of the saints are the spring of this great
blessing to the Church. Wherefore if there be no merits,
then there are no indulgences. He that proves one, proves the
other. The former of these is the subject of one of my fol
lowing discourses, it being one entire point of Popery, and
therefore I will not anticipate what is there to be said to dis
prove the doctrine of merits.
The fourth and last ground of the doctrine of indulgences is

OF INDULGENCES. 217
the application of these merits. For according to the Church
of Rome it is not sufficient that, by the merits of Christ and
the saints, penitent sinners are absolved from their obligation
to punishment, but there must be a particular applying of these
merits to those that want, and so the punishment due to them
for their sins is remitted ; for the merits of saints far surpass
aU the punishments that are due to sinners. Out of this store
house indulgences are to be had ; out of this they must be
fetched. But who keeps the keys of this treasury ? Wlio. but
the Pope, to whom the keys belong? He can bestow pardons
upon whom he will, by applying to them the superfluous
merits of the saints, and thereby discharging them from all
temporal punishment both here and hereafter. And from him
all priests have power to apply these merits as they please.
This is the great mystery of indulgences, according to the
determination of the Roman Church. The Council of Trent*
declares, that the overplus of the satisfactions of Christ and
the saints is a treasury committed to the Church. And the
famous Bull of Clement VI. mentions not only the surplusage
of the merits of Christ, but of the saints, as an inexhaustible
storehouse of pardons : and it saith, that this precious trea
sure is deposited into the hands of St. Peter and his suc
cessors, to be dispensed to whom they think fit. And one of
the most celebrated and approved doctors of the Church of
Rome-f; maintains all this by arguments.
But who sees not that there is no real foundation for this
opinion, and that all that can be suggested in its behalf may
easUy be overthrown ? For first, this application of one mere
man's merits to another is a blasphemous practice, because it
is founded on that blasphemous doctrine, which is so deroga
tory to the merits of Christ, that one man may satisfy for the
sins of another. Again, do we not see how profanely these
merits and works of supererogation are applied ? When the
priests are dispensing these indulgences, how comes it to pass
that they only can have them, that disburse ready money ?
Why may not poor folks have the benefit of them ? yea, when
these indulgences respect those of the other world, whose lot
it is to be in purgatory, why must those pains be bought off?
Will the merits of the saints do a man no good without giving
money for them ?
Moreover, it might be asked, how the priests know such and
* Sess. 21. can. 9. t Bcllarm. de Indulg.

218 OF INDULGENCES.
such souls are gone to purgatory, and not to heU ? And if
they be gone to this latter place, then the indulgences, as well
as prayers, are in vain. But now I remember they are not in
vain; because they prove so profitable to the priests. I might
farther observe, that the doctrine of indulgences seems to be
an overthrowing of masses for souls, and vigils, &c. for by
indulgences all the parties' sins were pardoned in their lifetime
therefore those soul-masses and vigils are useless. But the
Papists take no notice of this, and several other things which
are contradictory in their religion. Thus all tbe foundations
of this doctrine are not only shaken, but overthrown.
The third thing I undertook was to answer the pleas and
objections which are made use of by our adversaries. First,
antiquity is pleaded, the Literee Pacts or Libelli Indulgentits
given by the candidates of martyrdom to the Lapsi, i. e. such
as had fallen into scandalous sins, are alleged by them ; and of
these St. Cyprian speaks, who lived in the third century. For
we must know that in the ancient times of the Church, those
that were found guilty of great offences were enjoined mortifi
cation and great severities, which since have been called penance:
but the bishops of the Church had power to mitigate and
relax their punishment, as they saw fit and expedient : and this
mitigation was styled pardon or indulgence. If we consult the
writings of the aforesaid Father, we shall there observe that
he frequently makes mention of this usage towards the lapsed.
And this was afterwards allowed of by the Council of Nice,
canon 10, the bishops might give indulgence to penitents
accordingly as they found their behaviour ; and this the
Council calls <j>i\.avdpu>iriav, and •xpnortvoaoOixi eIq ahrovg, shew
ing humanity and benevolence to them. But what is this to
the present purpose 1 Doth not any unprejudiced eye see
that there is a vast difference between this and the indulgences
which are given in the Church of Rome ? The holy martyrs
interceded for the mitigating of the severities towards the
lapsed, and the bishops themselves were willing to shew favour
to penitents, according to the proofs which they gave of their
repentance, and to receive them into communion again. But
there is no resemblance, no cognation betwixt this practice and
that of the Roman bishops at this day, who give indulgences
not only for temporal punishment in this Ufe, but for the
pains of purgatory after this life.
Yea, there are those- among the Roman Catholics that
stretch the doctrine of indulgences yet farther : and the people

OF INDULGENCES. 219
are made to beUeve, that by them they have a pardon granted
them of aU their sins, past, present, and to come. And truly
this appears from the forms of indulgences that have been
given out in several Popes' days. In the Bulls of Indulgences
of these Popes, Clement VI. and VIII. Boniface VIII. and
IX. Urban VIII., you wiU find that they grant not only relaxa
tion of punishment, but remission of sins, yea,* " a plenary
remission of sins, a most fuU pardon of sins, a remission and
pardon of all sins," and the like. And it is well known, that
the price of all sins is set down ; and upon paying of such and
such sums of money, you are absolved from the guilt of them.
AU the people understand it so, and take indulgences to be
the pardon of all their faults, as well as a remission of all
punishment. So that the Roman writers egregiously prevari
cate when they contend in their disputes with the Protestants,
that nothing more is meant by indulgences than the dispensing
with the temporal punishment, whereas they know that the
general pardons expressed in the Bulls of Indulgence give oc
casion to beUeve, that the remission even of eternal punish
ment is meant. But the priests, especially the indulgence-
mongers, do not undeceive the people, but rather foster this
beUef and persuasion in them.
But I do not bring this as the professed opinion and doctrine
of the Church of Rome. BeUarmine and the rest of their
doctors hold, that no fault is remitted by indulgences, only
temporal punishment. I wiU do them right in this, as in all
other cases between them and us ; and therefore in this fore
going discourse I have whoUy confined myself to what the
CouncU of Trent and the chief doctors assert in this matter.
But you see, that even this, which they maintain, hath no
foundation, and that their plea of antiquity is groundless.
Only from an innocent practice of the Primitive Church this
corrupt one of theirs took its original : as we shewed before,
that other gross opinions and practices amongst the Papists
took their rise from some laudable doctrines and usages of the
first Christian Churches. The greatest antiquity they possibly
can plead, is six hundred years after Christ : for about that
time indulgences were first offered by Pope Gregory I. but
those differed much from what were established afterwards by
the Roman Church, insomuch that they cannot be said to be
of the same nature and kind with them.
* Cherub. Bullar. Tom. i. p. 145 ; Tom. iii. p. 23, 75.

220 OF INDULGENCES.
Again, the Popish writers allege Scripture (as well as an
cient practice) for their present indulgences. But they are very
sparing in their quotations, and I do not know of any text
that they insist upon, but that in Col. i. 24, " I now rejoice in
my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind, or
lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for his body's
sake, which is the Church." Where they fancy they find
works of supererogation, which are the foundation of indul
gences. St. Paul, say they, had an overplus of merits, and
therefore could satisfy for the Colossians. Yea, he could add
to the merits and sufferings of Christ himself ; for it is said,
" he filled up that which was behind of Christ's afflictions
and sufferings :" and thence it is very plain, that he was in a
capacity to lend the virtue of his sufferings to other men, that
wanted them : and thereby these persons might have this ap
plied to them as if it were their own. But such inferences as
these from the Apostle's words are both fallacious and profane,
They are the former, because they proceed from a wilful and
deceitful mistaking, or rather perverting the Apostle's words :
for it is most evident, that he speaks not here of the afflictions
which Christ suffered, but of those which he suffered for
Christ's sake, and which attended Christians, and therefore
they are called " the afflictions of Christ," as we may unde
niably gather from the use of the like expression in 2 Cor. i. 5,
" The sufferings of Christ abound in us," that is, we abun
dantly endure sufferings for our preaching the Gospel ; and they
may well be called " Christ's sufferings," because he reckons
them as his own, Acts ix 4. And the Apostle was to fill up
these sufferings or afflictions, that is, he was to undergo the
remainder of those sufferings, which were laid out for him by
God ; therefore they are said to be behind, he having not yet
suffered all that was allotted to him. And again, the foregoing
inferences are profane, horribly profane and impious ; for none
that have the least reverence for our Saviour's meritorious
sufferings would so much as imagine that they can be filled up,
by what any mortal man can do or suffer. No : his sufferings
were complete, and therefore nothing was lacking or defective
in them, and therefore that sense which the Roman Catholics
put upon these words of St. Paul is justly to be. exploded and
abhorred. Some Romish doctors have attempted to prove, that in
dulgences may be granted by the Pope and archbishops, and
bishops, because St. Paul saith, " Let a man so account of us

OF INDULGENCES. 221
as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards or dispensers of the
mysteries of God." 1 Cor. iv. 1 ; and again, 1 Cor. ix. 17.
" A dispensation or stewardship is committed to me." But
any one may see how childish and trifling this is (the economy
or stewardship which is here mentioned having not the least
relation to the thing designed by our adversaries), and there
fore the mentioning of it is sufficient to refute it. I might
produce here in the last place the testimony of three eminent
writers of the Roman Church, who were sensible how little
foundation there is for the doctrine of indulgences, Durandus,*
Cajetan,f Fisher, J and therefore they mgenuously declare that
it is no where to be found in the Scriptures, or in ancient
writers. I have now finished the particulars I undertook : permit me
to apply what hath been said.
First, give credit to the doctrine which I have asserted, and
do not fondly imagine that there is any reaUty, yea any
probability in those things which the Church of Rome and
her priests have suggested ; never be prevaUed with to enter
tain such a blasphemous absurdity as this, that the doing and
suffering of the saints can satisfy the justice of God for the
sins of others.
Secondly, see the miserable cheats in this Church. They
do not professedly maintain remission of sins past and to come
to be the benefit of indulgences ; that is too gross : but the
people are countenanced in the persuasion, and that must needs
prove very dangerous to them.
Thirdly, therefore observe how these indulgences promote a
wicked and ungodly life. This was taken notice of by one of
their own communion: "When the indulgences (saith he)
were grown common, the generality of persons did less abstain
from committing wicked acts."§ This was well enough for him,
but we may speak more plainly and broadly ; it is certain that
these indulgences are an encouragement to all manner of
villany, murder, adultery, theft, perjury, blasphemy, and what
ever other exorbitances you can name : for what is it that
people will not do when they are persuaded that they can
receive a pardon for it, yea even before they have committed
* 4 Sent. Dist. 20. qu. 3. [foi. cccc. p. 2. col. 1. Paris. 1508.]
t Opusc. 15. cap. 1. [Opusc. tract 15. de indulg. cap. 1. vol. 1. p. 129.
Aug. Taurin. 1582.]
X In Artie. 18. Lurheri. [foi. 132. Col. 1624.]
§ Polyd. Virg. de Invent, rer. 1. 8. e, 1.

222 OF INDULGENCES.
it ? One that had travelled into the Roman territories,* and
had acquainted himself with the sentiments and practices of
the Roman Catholics, tells us that the common sort of Papists,
for want of better teaching, used to say, " When we have
sinned, we must confess ; and when we have confessed, we
must sin again, that we may confess again, to make work for
new indulgences and jubilees." It is no wonder then that all
wickedness is so rife amongst the Papists, as that gentleman
hath observed.
Fourthly and lastly, apply yourselves to the true fountain of
pardon and remission of sins, the Lord Christ Jesus ; and rely
wholly on his meritorious undertakings.
* Sir Edwyn Sandys' Europse Speculum.

223
CHAPTER VIII.
Of Auricular Confession.
This being a practice in great use among the Papists, I will
distinctly, but very briefly, speak of it. It is called auricular
confession, because it is teUing in the priest's ear all the sins
and ciroumstances of a man's own life : and this is to be done
once a year at least. The Church of Rome holds it " to be by
divine right, and according to the institution of Christ." They
are the very words of the CouncU of Trent;* which also
enjoins it as necessary to salvation. And to let us see that
they are in good earnest, there is a curse pronounced by this
CouncU on those that " hold this practice not to be according
to the command of Christ, but a human invention." They
tell us in one of their canons, that this private confession
to a priest is one of the essential parts of the sacrament of
penance : and therefore it goes under the name of sacramental
confession. Yea, one that professed to be of our own
Church hath told us,t that auricular confession was and is an
abatement of the public penance and discipUne of the Church ;
so that if this were severely kept up, the other might be
spared. Wherefore he advises that in the Church of England,
where the pubhc penance is wanting, there be a law made of
private confession to a priest once a year.
But notwithstanding this advice, and the former solemn in
junction and anathema, there is not the least ground for such
a practice as this in the Church. We read of no such thing
in Scripture, neither in the Old nor New Testament, though
we find confession of sin often enjoined, and as often practised
in these sacred writings. But confession to a priest in private
of aU the sins a man commits is no where commanded, or so
much as favoured. The places which they aUege, where
persons who have offended are bid to confess their sins, or are
encouraged to do so, are Num. v. 6, 7 ; 1 Kings viU. 33, 35 ;
Neh. i. 6 ; Prov. xxviU. 13. But they are nothing to the
purpose of them that produce them ; for they either speak of
confession of sin to God, or of public confession before men,
* Sess. 14. Can. 6. t Mr. Thorndyke.

224 OF AURICULAR CONFESSION.
but there is not the least hint that the confession is to be made
in private, or to a priest.
And as for other places, as Matth. iii. 6, where it is said
that those who were baptized by John " confessed their sins ;"
and Acts xix. 18, where it is recorded that some converts
" came and confessed, and shewed their deeds," it is plain that
the former of these texts speaks only of a confession before
baptism, and the other of a confession at their first conversion
only ; and both of them of an open and public acknowledgment
of their former evil lives. Now, what affinity hath this with
the command of the Council of Trent, that every m'an and
woman once a year at least shall confess their sins in secret to
their own parish priest ?
And it is strange and surprising, that the Roman doctors
should quote James v. 1 6, as a text for this purpose. " Confess
your faults one to another," saith the Apostle ; therefore, say
they, all men are obUged to confess their sins privately to the
priest. This may convince us that these men will make what
inferences they please from any part of Scripture : for it is
undeniably manifest that this text is meant of the mutual
acknowledgment of our offences and transgressions towards one
another. It bids us unburthen our consciences to our faithful
brethren, in order to receiving relief and comfort from them.
But no unprejudiced person can make use of the Apostle's
words to prove confession to a priest alone, yea rather we may
prove hence that the priest is to confess his sins to the people,
Thus upon examining the passages in Scripture on which
the Romanists found their auricular confession, it appears that
God hath nowhere required this ; that neither Christ nor his
Apostles favour this practice. Yet they have the confidence
to say, that it is enjoined them even upon pain of damnation.
But the Scripture saith no such thing, and there is not one
instance there that can be alleged to countenance it.
Nor are they able to allege anything for this from the
practice of the Christian Church. The penitents confessed
their sins when the people were present, as we learn from
Tertulhan* and Eusebius,f and other ancient writers. So
when they were absolved and reconcUed, it was in the presence
of the whole Church, as is clear from St. Jerome, J and several
* De Pudicitia. t Hist. Eccl. 1. 5. c. ult.
t Epist. ad Oceanum.

OF AURICULAR CONFESSION. 22a
other writers. But we have no examples of private confession ;
the first rise of which was under Pope Innocent III. in the
Lateran Council : which shews it to be a novel invention, and
that there is no antiquity to commend it.
And as this Popish practice hath neither Scripture nor
antiquity, so neither hath it any reason to support it. No man
is obliged by the law of nature to reveal all his secret sins and
offences, with all the particular circumstances and aggravations
of them, to any one person whomsoever. And particularly
there is no rational principle that dictates to us that we must
confess our sins privately to a priest. This is neither necessary
to repentance, nor to forgiveness. Not to the former, for we
may be thoroughly sorrowful and penitent, without rehearsing
all our delinquencies to a priest. Not to the latter ; for upon
our hearty confessions of our sins to Almighty God, and
sincerely repenting of them, we shall find mercy and pardon
through the merits of Jesus without a complete enumeration
of all our sins to any man once a year.
I have but these two things briefly to suggest by way of
corollary. First, instead of approving and practising this clan-
cular confession of sins to the priest, let us inform ourselves of
the bad design of it. Without doubt it is a politic contrivance
of the Church of Rome to search into the secrets of men, and
to acquaint themselves with all the hidden affairs and transac
tions of the world. This divination, which consists in prying
into the entrails of men, is of more use to the churchmen than
the looking into those of beasts was to the old Romans. This
invention of shriving is of wonderful advantage to them, by
letting them into the hearts and most inward recesses of empe
rors, kings and princes, as well as of those of an inferior rank.
Secondly, let me add this by way of caution, that when we
speak against the Popish confession to a priest, we do not dis
approve of confessing of sin to a spiritual guide, if it be free,
and when a wounded conscience requires it. Yea, it is verv
useful, and sometimes necessary to lay open our miscarriages
and offences to a faithful minister and pastor, that thereby we
may receive from him seasonable advice and counsel, and be
forwarded in the great work of repentance, and have the remis
sion of sins applied to us by his sacred ministry.

VOL. VI.

226

CHAPTER IX.
Of Praying for the Dead.
It is the judgment of the Roman Church that it is an useful
and profitable piece of devotion to pray for the dead. It is
needless to be solicitous in proving this to be her sentiment ;
for it is one of the articles of the Tridentine faith, that "the
souls detained in purgatory are helped by the prayers of the
faithful." And not only from the canons of this Council, but
from the Romish catechisms and offices, and daily practice, we
may satisfy ourselves that this is and ever was a grand tenet of
the Romanists.
We cannot expect to have it formally confuted in Scripture:
for though (as I shall observe afterwards) some of the Jews
had used themselves to pray for the deceased, yet it was
nothing akin to this praying of the Papists, and so there was
not an occasion for the reproof of this in the Old, or indeed in
the New Testament. Nor need I here produce reasons and
arguments against this undue practice (as I have done in the
former points) because I have effected my business already:
for having confuted the doctrine of purgatory, the doctrine of
praying for the dead must needs fall, because the Papists pray
for them to be delivered out of purgatory. Their praying sup
poses the souls of the departed to be there in torment, and the
prayers are to relieve them, and free them thence. But if
there be no purgatory, then prayers for the dead are to no pur
pose. So that all that was said under that former head of
purgatory, from Scripture and other topics, is valid here.
But I will farther suggest these two things : first, it is suffi
cient to condemn praying for the dead, that it is a gross piece
of will-worship ; which is spoken against by Christ in these
words, " teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,^
Matth., xv. 9, and again, " Ye know not what ye worship,
John iv. 22; and by the Apostle, "what is not of faith is
sin," Rom. xiv. 23. On this account we have reason to reject
this doctrine and practice : for that can be no Christian doc
trine that can be no lawful practice, which is no where pre
scribed or allowed by Christ or his Apostles.
And then in the next place we might argue from the strange

OF PRAYING FOR THE DEAD. 227
absurdity which is contained in the Papists' praying for the
dead. They tell us that some of the deceased intercede and
pray for us, and thereby procure benefits for us, and on that
account we are to pray to them : and yet (for all this) we must
not only pray to them, but we must pray for some of them.
Here is a strange mess of medley, and none but the stomach
of a Roman CathoUc could digest it. But such wUd and pre
posterous notions as these are baffled by seriously considering,
that as the souls of the saints in heaven are below our praying
to them, because they are our fellow-creatures ; so they are
above our praying for them, because they are glorified. But
as for the souls of -the damned, they are not capable of our
prayers of any sort. And as for souls in any other state than
these two, we know that it is a mere dream and invention of
our adversaries.
But however let us hear what they say for themselves. Here,
as in the other points, they allege the Bible ; and they appeal
to the practice of the ancients. I wUl consider both these
pleas distinctly : and first I wUl take notice of those texts
which they commonly aUege ; one out of the Apocryphal writ
ings, and another out of the New Testament. The former is
in 2 Mace. xn. 42, 43, &c. where we find Judas Maccabeus
and his company " praying for the dead, and offering a sin-
offering, and making reconciliation for the dead :" and this
action of theirs is commended by the author of that book.
And the Popish writers allege this place likewise to prove pur
gatory ; as indeed one of them tells us,* that " the Apocry
phal books are of great use against the heretics, and particu
larly purgatory is no where so plainly asserted as in the Mac
cabees." But to this I answer :
First, Those books are of human authority only, and there
fore we can settle no point of divinity by any testimony that is
fetched hence. Bring us Canonical Scripture, and then we
know what to say to it.
Secondly, If Jason the Jew, who writ the Book of the Mac
cabees, had a mind to misinterpret the law of Moses concerning
a sin-offering for the living, and to apply it also to the dead,
what is that to us 1 His false notion must not bias us. If he
misinterpreted the fact of Judas, and judged amiss of it, we
are not obliged to govern our thoughts and judgments by his
mistakes. * Catharinus. Q 2

228 OF PRAYING
Thirdly, This passage hath no affinity with the Papists pray
ing for the deceased, whom they suppose to be in torments of
purgatory for their sins : but it is plain that this place speaks
not of purgatory, because we read that the sin which these
men died in was a mortal sin, no less than idolatry, verse 40
and therefore it could not be expiated by temporal punishment ;
but according to the confession of the Romanists they must
be punished in hell for ever, and consequently no praying, no
sin-offering, no reconciliation could be made for those offenders.
This shews how impertinently this text is alleged for the proof
of that praying for the dead, which is in use amongst the
Papists. Fourthly, The text clears itself : for it is said that Judas
Maccabeus and the rest prayed and sacrificed for the dead, in
reference to the resurrection, which is expressly set down in
verses 43 and 44. So that thence it is evident that this pray
ing here mentioned had nothing of the nature of the praying
for the dead, which the Church of Rome maintains. These
persons (and all the Jews generally, as Buxtorf aud Lightfoot
will satisfy us) prayed that the departed might rise again to
salvation and happiness, and have their consummation of bliss
at the last day : but the Roman devotionists pray- that the
souls of the departed may be rescued from the prison of pur
gatory in which they are detained for the sins commited in this
life. Let any impartial man judge whether these two prayings
be alike.
The place in the N ew Testament which is made use of to prove
it lawful to pray for the dead, is 2 Tim. i. 18, " The Lord grant
unto him that he mayfind mercy of the Lord in that day." Where
St. Paul prays for Onesiphorus, who, it is probable, was dead at
that time, because St. Paul salutes " the house of Onesipho
rus," verse 1 6, not himself, who, if he had been alive, and part
of his family, would have been named particularly. But first,
it may suffice to answer, that it is not possible to prove that
Onesiphorus was dead at that time. Yea, there is no ground
at all for that surmise of our adversaries, that Onesiphorus
was dead when the Apostle wrote this epistle. It is likely he
was absent from his family, and in his way for Rome, where
Paul was a prisoner when he wrote this epistle, and therefore
he salutes the family, and not the master of it. Secondly,
though we should suppose that Onesiphorus was then dead,
yet this which is here said by the Apostle makes nothing at all
for that praying for the dead, which the Roman Church holds :

FOR THE DEAD. 229
for they pray that the deceased may be delivered from purga
tory, which deliverance is supposed to be before the day of
judgment : but the Apostle prays that Onesiphorus may find
mercy in that day, that is the last day, as it is usually called.
And so the Christians afterwards prayed for mercy for the dead
at that great day, that is, they prayed that God would mani
festly crown them with perfect glory at the end of the world.
Some make use of that text, " How long, O Lord, holy and
true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that
dwell on the earth ?" Rev. vi. 10, for here the martyrs' souls
pray for vengeance on the Church's persecutors, consequently
that their own happiness might be accomplished ; and we may
do the same in their behalf. Who denies this? But what is
this to the purpose ? Is the praying for the glorious resurrec
tion of the saints, and their complete happiness of body and
soul at the end of the world, the same with praying for the
release of souls out of purgatory ? For this is that which the
Papists pray for when they pray for the dead. There is
nothing then, you see, in this text, that the Romish sophisters
can rationally improve to the establishment of their doctrine.
I come now to consider their other objections, taken from
the declared opinion and practice (as they pretend) of the
ancient Church. From the records of the Fathers and primi
tive writers it is manifest that praying for the deceased was in
use in the Christian Churches. And truly here our adversa
ries are in the right, and if any man undertakes to disprove it,
he therein shews himself to be a mere novice and a perfect
stranger to antiquity. We must acknowledge that the Papists
are able to produce testimonies of this practice in the primi
tive times. And this I will say, and wUl maintain it, that this
is the only thing of all that I have mentioned, or shall after
wards mention as belonging to Popery, for which they can
plead antiquity. It cannot be denied that it was the custom of
the Primitive Church to pray for the souls of the faithful de
parted. Which might cause Grotius to say, " prayers for the
dead have the authority of the Universal Church."* At the
beginning of the third, or the end of the second century, invo
cation for the dead was used, as Tertulhan testifies. And it is
held lawful by Cyprian, in his 66th epistle to Pamelius. Epi-
phanius,t in the fourth century, reckons Aerius an heretic,
because he held that prayers are not to be made for the dead.
* De Antichristo. t H aires. 75.

230 OF PRAYING
It is true, the Memorial Martyrum and the Oblations for he
Deceased (which I had occasion to mention in a former dis
course) were at first only commemorative and eucharistical ;
they were instituted to preserve the memory of the dead, and
to celebrate their praises, and to give thanks to God, and glorify
him in his saints and servants ; and they were appointed partly
to excite others to imitate the dead, partly to testify their hope
of heaven and future happiness. But at length these obla
tions and these memorials began to be (not only eucharistical,
as I said before, but) petitory : in these they commended the
deceased saints unto God, and wished well to them, and desired
their future happiness and glory at the resurrection.
But though I have thus acknowledged that it was the custom
of old in the Church to pray for the deceased, yet this doth
not countenance the Popish practice of praying for them.
Though there is great antiquity to be pleaded for putting up
petitions for departed souls, yet this cannot be pleaded for that
usage, as it is at this day, and hath been many years practised
in the Church of Rome. And this now I will make good by
letting the reader see ; first, how and in what respect the
ancients prayed for the dead ; and secondly, how the Papists
now do it.
In order to explaining the first, I must premise this, that
it was the general opinion of the ancients, that the souls of the
godly were sequestered in some invisible place, and there kept
from the beatific presence until the last day. The souls of
the faithful after death remain in the earthly paradise, say
Irenseus* and Origen.f The souls lie hid in daTk receptacles
until the day of judgment, and see not God, saith Tertullian.J
His Career Inf emus is no other than Hades, the common recep
tacle of souls untU the resurrection ; and then he holds they
shall be reunited to their bodies ; and the souls of the godly
shall be taken up to heaven, and not before. In expectation
of this the ancients were wont to wish them joy, and comfort,
and mercy, and light, and peace (for these are the terms they
used), and especially refreshment. And accordingly they
thought the last day is called "the times of refreshing," Acts
iii. 19, because the souls of the righteous are refreshed and
relieved after their ardent and passionate breathings and ex
pectations, after their inflamed desires and longings for perfect
bliss. * Lib. 5. t De Princip. 1. 2. t De Anima, cap. 25,

FOR THE DEAD. 231
Now this was the true reason of their praying for the dead,
vis. then: belief that the souls of the faithful after death do not
immediately go to heaven, but are detained in some dark cells
and hidden receptacles. It being their persuasion, that whilst
they were separated from the bodies they were not partakers
of the beatific vision, or that their condition was not so good
and desirable as it should be after the resurrection and last
judgment, they betook themselves to their prayers for these
separate souls, and verily thought they might be helped and
befriended by them, i. e. by praying for the hastening of the
resurrection, and the last judgment when the saints should be
fully and completely happy.
This, it is likely, is all that was intended at first by praying
for the dead, though I cannot deny that something more was
added afterwards. I suspect, that the peace and pardon,
which Arnobius* relates were prayed for, with respect not
only to the Uving, but the dead, were part of this addition.
I beheve it wiU be found that Epiphanius, Augustine, and
some others (whose sense in such matters is to be looked on as
a private opinion, not the sense of the Church) extended
the benefit of their prayers for the dead both to the good and
bad, and they thought that the damnation of the bad (though
it could not be changed, yet) might be mitigated thereby.
Some thought, that the sins of the dead might be forgiven,
and that there might be something done as to their punish
ment : but they agreed not about the nature of the sins which
might be pardoned, nor whether the punishments were only to
be lessened, or at last extinguished. As Monica, when she
was aUve, often prayed for her son Augustine ; so he prayed
for her, when she was dead, that God would forgive her her
sins, and not enter into judgment with her. And perhaps
some of those prayers before mentioned, namely, for joy,
comfort, refreshment, &c. had respect to this. However, it
is not to be doubted, that it was the opinion of some of the
ancients, that the dead received real benefit by the prayers of
the Uving. For we have acknowledged, and do still, that some
of the Fathers were in part stained with the corruptions which
Rome now is justly condemned for.
But, if we look back to the more primitive times, there was

* Pax cunctis et Venia postulatur magistratibus, exercitibus, regibu.s
familiaribus, inimicis adhuc vitam degentibus, et resolutis corporum
vinctione. lib. 4.

232 OF PRAYING
not this degeneracy : their prayers respected the last day \
they asked of God, that those that were departed in Christ
might, according to the divirie promise, rise again, and be
publicly and solemnly acquitted from their sins before men
and angels, and attain to the full accomplishment and perfection
of their happiness, the utmost consummation of bliss and glory:
which is the same that we daily pray for in that petition,
" Thy kingdom come."
But it is otherwise with the Papists (which is the second
thing I was to shew) they do not think any of those deceased
persons they pray for to be in the least happy, but to be of
the number of those that are tormented night and day ; and
the end and design of their prayers for them is, that they may
be released and set free from those torments. There is then
a vast difference between the first Christians praying for the
dead, and that of the Roman Catholics. The former did it
without regard to purgatory (for there was no such thing
thought of in those days) : but the latter do it with respect to
this chiefly. The one put up their supplications for the saints,
that they might be finally glorified ; but the other pray for
the dead, that there may be a cessation of their punishment.
Yea, and the vulgar pray for all persons promiscuously, and
without any distinction, that they may fare well in the other
world, and be brought into God's favour. We are told by one
of their communion, what was the rise of this : " Prayers,"
saith he, " were appointed to be said in ancient liturgies for
dying men, men passing out of the world :" whence the Popish
monks took occasion also to pray for the dead : for dying and
dead are the same, it seems, with them. It is their own Cas-
sander, that affirms this ; and therefore they have no reason
to be angry with me, for charging it on them. But whatever
was the occasion, we are sure that it is an unwarrantable
specimen of devotion, it hath nothing in the Scriptures to
countenance it ; it is condemned by primitive antiquity ; it is
very dangerous and pernicious in its consequence ; and, in a
word, it is an unlawful practice.
The use of what hath been said is comprehended in few
words :
I. Be truly apprehensive of the error and falseness of this
doctrine, that I have set before you : and form right appre
hensions concerning the state and condition of the dead. Look
upon the saints as above your prayers ; look upon the wicked,
as past them. The former stand not in need of our petitions,

FOR THE DEAD. 233
because they are for ever happy : the latter can receive no
benefit from them, because they are irrecoverably miserable.
II. Be convinced of the sinfulness and mischief of this prac
tice that hath been discoursed of. Questionless, it is a great
encouragement to those that lead wicked lives, that prayers
shall be made for them after they are dead, and that there is
some hope of faring well afterwards. At least they have a
chance for it in another world, after they have been offenders
in this. Though they should be cast into the flames of pur
gatory, yet some good-natured and affectionate friend may pray
them out, and dispatch them forthwith to heaven.
III. and lastly, Pray not for the dead, but pray for your
selves ; pray that you may have your sins pardoned, and your
persons accepted in this life, through the merits of Christ
Jesus, and then (and not otherwise) you shall be received into
the eternal mansions of glory in the life to come.

234

CHAPTER X.
Of Extreme Unction.
It is well known that this ceremony is of great repute in the
Church of Rome, as many other ceremonies are, but it hath
also the honour to be received by the Church as a sacrament.
It is peremptorily said in the Council of Trent, sess. 14: "If
any one shall say that Extreme Unction is not truly and pro
perly a sacrament instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, and
published by the blessed Apostle St. James, but is only a rite
received from the Fathers, or an human invention, let him be
anathema." And again, " If any one shall say that the sacred
anointing of the sick doth not confer grace, nor remit sins,
nor comfort the sick, but is now ceased, as if it were heretofore
the gift of healing only, let him be anathema." And not only
by this Council, but by the unanimous consent of the divines
of the Roman Church, this sacrament is voted to be of divine
institution, as being grounded on what is said by the Evangelist
St. Mark, vi. 13, and by the Apostle St. James, v. 14,
15. All therefore that I shall undertake, and that very briefly,
is to prove that there is no real ground in the foresaid texts to
build the doctrine of extreme unction upon.
In the first text, which they allege it is said concerning the
Apostles, who were sent out by our Saviour to confirm his
doctrine by miracles, that " they anointed with oil many that
were sick, and healed them." Where it is plain that this
anointing used by the Apostles was a miraculous action ; but
how doth this appertain to the anointing which the Church of
Rome pleads for, seeing the gift of miracles is not pretended
to now in the Church 1 Besides, with what show of reason
can they found their anointing the sick on this example of the
Apostles, who healed those that they anointed (for the anoint
ing was in order to healing), whereas there is no such effect
that accompanies the anointing that is in use in the Church of
Rome, for there is not one in a thousand that recovers after
this anointing ? Nay, indeed, this ceremony is not made use
of by the Roman priests, unless in a desperate case, that is,

OF EXTREME UNCTION. 235
when the sick person is given over as incurable. Though
they confess that it was the end and design of this anointing
to procure health, and that it was instituted and appointed for
that very purpose, yet they use it when they believe the person
is past all hopes of recovery, and when they think that it is
certain that he wUl die. What relation then hath the practice
of these men to what the Apostles did in their days, and how
is it possible from the forecited text to prove the reasonableness
of the anointing, which is so cried up by the Romanists ? I
take this to be a satisfactory answer to what is alleged by
them from that text.
The other text is in James v. 14, 15 : "Is any man sick
among you, let him caU for the elders of the Church, and let
them pray over him, anointing him with oU in the name of the
Lord, and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the
Lord shaU raise him up, and if he hath committed sins, they
shaU be forgiven him." The plain account of which text is,
that it speaks (as the other before cited) concerning the gift of
heahng, which was one of the miraculous endowments in those
days. This anointing here spoken of is a rite that was used
at that time in the Christian Church for the cure of the sick,
when it was joined with the prayer of faith, that is, an earnest
begging of this bodUy blessing, and a believing that the prayer
should be heard. We are here expressly told that the great
end and design of the anointing was to " save the sick,"
that is, to cure him of his disease, as the word aii^civ and
(Tw£eo-8at signifies in Matth. ix. 21, 22 ; Mark vi. 56, and in
other places. And the next words prove this, " The Lord shaU
raise him up," that is, shall heal him of the bodily malady
that he labours under, and restore him to his former health.
But no such thing is intended by the unction used in the
Roman Church (as was said before) for theyuse it only when the
sick person is dying, and when there are no hopes of recovery.
It is well known that they use it as a viaticum to those that
are departing out of the world. Which evidently shews, that
it is utterly impossible to ground the extreme unction of the
Papists on this text of St. James, which we see speaks of an
unction that was attended with the certain recovery of the
diseased person : to which was subjoined remission of sins,
that is, of those sins more especially which were the chief cause
why sickness was inflicted on him.
The short is, there was such a practice in the Primitive
Church, before miracles were ceased, as anointing the sick,

236 OF EXTREME UNCTION.
and it was made use of with good success. Thus one of the
ancients informs us,* that one Proculus, a Christian, cured
Severus the emperor, by anointing him with oU. But now
when the miraculous gift of healing is no longer in use in the
Christian Church, there is no warrant to use this ceremony,
much less is there any reason to make it a sacrament, as the
Papists presume to do. Yea, their presumption is plainly
seen in this, that they have no example in antiquity (which at
other times they pretend to) to vouch them. There is not
one of the writers of the Church in the first ten centuries that
speaks one syllable of this extreme unction, though they had
occasion to do it, if there had been any such thing, for they
frequently treat of the sacraments, and of the rites and usages
of the Church, which shews that it is an innovation.
I refer the reader to that excellent writer, Mr. Daille\ de
Extremd Unctione, where all that can possibly be said on this
subject is with exquisite learning and judgment delivered.
* Tertulhan. ad Scapulam.

237

CHAPTER XI.
Of Merits and Works of Supererogation.
The point we are next to handle is the Popish doctrine of
merits, which in short is this, that by the good works which
men perform, they do merit more grace here, and everlasting
happiness hereafter. It cannot be denied, or so much as
doubted, whether this be the sense of the Roman Church ;
for it is positively asserted by the Council of Trent, that "the
good works of justified persons do truly deserve eternal life."*
And he that dares hold the contrary is anathematized ; for
these are the words of the Council : " If any man shall say,
that the good works of a justified person are so the gifts of
God, that they are not the justified person's merits, or that
the justified person doth not truly deserve increase of grace,
eternal Ufe, and increase of glory, by those good works, which
he doth by the grace of God and merits of Christ, let him be
accursed."-)- It is true, they distinguish between merits, and assert a
twofold kind of merit, that of congruity, and that of condig
nity. The former is, when the rewaiid is only due for what is
meet or congruous, not from what injustice may be challenged
and demanded. It is that which depends on the divine good
ness and on God's promise, namely, that he will compensate
our good works, and so he hath made himself our debtor.
This merit, though it answers not fully to the recompence, yet
it carries some consideration with it ; and the works, that
belong to it, deserve somewhat, as the prodigal's humble
demeanor to his father might be said to merit of him to treat
him so kindly. This is the merit of congruity, which the
Roman doctors talk of, and which is built chiefly on the bounty
and good will of God. The other sort of merit, namely, that
of condignity, is, when the reward is due to our works out of
right and strict justice. For the Romanists hold, that good
works have the nature and worth of merit, not only from the
ordination and acceptance of God, but from the intrinsic value
of them. Bellarmine is peremptory, that " Our good works
* Sess. 6. c. 16. t Sess. 6. can. 32.

238 OF MERITS AND
merit eternal life, not merely by virtue of God's covenant ot
acceptation, but also by reason of the work itself."* And
with him Cajetan and other writers of the Roman Church
agree. They hold, that our merit proceeds from tbe nature
of our works, as they are adequate to the eternal reward, as
they are proportionate to the recompence. This is truly and
properly to merit, when there is a proportion and equality of
the work and the wages. Now the wages are due, not from
promise and bounty, but from a debt of justice.
The Papists farther hold, that an unregenerate man by what
he doth may merit ex congruo ; but a regenerate man merits
eternal life by his works ex condigno. Merit of congruity is
before grace ; merit of condignity is after grace. The one is
upon good works done by a man's free will without the assist
ance of grace ; the other is upon good works done from the
free will helped by grace. The former is attributed to the
works of the person who is to be justified, the works which
dispose a man for justification : the latter is ascribed to the
works of him who is already justified.
This is the sentiment of the Church we contend with. And
under this distinction of merit de congruo and de condigno,
you may observe, that good works are proclaimed to be meri
torious these three ways ; first, because of God's covenant and
promise ; secondly, because of the intrinsic excellency of the
works themselves ; and thirdly, because of the just proportion
between the work and the reward. Some of the Popish
writers add a fourth, because of grace, a supernatural prin
ciple in men's hearts ; others subjoin a fifth, because of
Christ's merits : for they say that Christ had merited for the
saints a power of meriting. On some or all of these accounts
it is affirmed that heaven is due to their works.
We assert the contrary, and hold that even the best of men
merit not at all. None can properly merit, where all is by grace
and bounty ; none can be said to merit by works that have
some defect in them that slurs their otherwise inward worth.
None can merit by those deeds which bear no proportion to an
eternal recompence, as the best deeds do not. None can merit
by a supernatural principle, or righteousness ; that being not
their own. Lastly, it is improper and absurd to say, we
merit by Christ's merits : for I shall shew that that is against
the very nature of merit. Justly, therefore I deny, that there
* De Justine. 1.5. 1. 17.

WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. 239
is any merit in us ; we can no ways deserve pardon of sin or
eternal life, either for ourselves or others : the latter of which
the Papists insist upon, and tell us that there are such merito
rious works supererogate, and serve not only for themselves,
but for others too. But we renounce merits of all sorts : and
we have such convincing reasons and arguments for it as
these, viz. there can be no merit, because I. what we do is a
debt. II. It is short even of what we owe. III. What we
do is not our own, but from God. IV. There is no proportion
between our work and what God bestows on us.
I. There is no such thing as merit, for what we do is a debt.
The service we perform to God is but what is due to him.
But merit cannot be ascribed to a person tbat pays a due debt.
This is plainly expressed by our Saviour, in Luke xvii. 10 :
" When ye shall have done all these things that are commanded
you, say, We are unprofitable servants,*, we have done that
which was our duty to do." Though we may be truly said to
be profitable in respect of ourselves and others (for by what we
do we may further our own salvation, and that of others), yet
no man is profitable to God. By reason of his infinite per
fection, it is impossible, that he should stand in need of us or our
services. " Can a man be profitable unto God, as he that is
wise may be profitable unto himself ? Is it any pleasure (that
is, any profitable pleasure) to the Almighty, that thou art
righteous ? or is it gain to him, that thou makest thy ways
perfect?" Job xxU. 2, 3. And again, " If thou be right
eous, what givest thou him ? Or what receiveth he of thy
hand ?" chap. xxxvU. 7. In which sense the Psalmist may be
understood, ¦' My goodness (saith he) extendeth not to thee,"
Psalm xvi. 2, there is no profit redounds to thee by any action
(though never so good and laudable) that I am able to perform.
All which interprets our Saviour's words that I cited before,
and confirms us in this truth, that in regard to God, no
good work of ours can be said to be profitable.
For I suppose no sober man wiU give heed to BeUarmine's
comment on the words, which is this : " Christ indeed bids
us say, that we are unprofitable servants, that is, he teaches us
to be humble, but he does not affirm that we are unprofitable
servants." This is the usual guise of the Popish commen
tators and expositors of Scripture ; they make it their practice
to pervert the plain text, that they may establish their own
opinions. But it is most evident, that this clause of the words
is to be understood as affirmative and assertory ; for we find it

240 OF MERITS AND
thus explained by what immediately follows, " We have done
that which was our duty to do." As much as to say, it is
clear that we are all of us unprofitable servants, in respect of
the great God whom we serve, because all that we can do is
but our bounden duty, and no more. Our best actions are a
debt due to him, and therefore they cannot be meritorious.
Which shews the vanity of the doctrine of supererogation :
for, according to the Church of Rome, works of supererogation
are such works as we are not bound to do, and consequently
such as we have no command for. For they distinguish be
tween counsels and commands, and hold that the former are
of things that we may do or not do, but the latter are of those
which we are bound to do. It is not to be absolutely denied, that
some of the Fathers acknowledged, that there are some counsels
in Scripture, as to abstain from some things lawful, on certain
occasions ; for a minister to take no stipend, but to preach the
Gospel freely ; to abstain from marriage in time of persecution.
But none of these, nor any other instances, which are wont to
be mentioned, are evangelical counsels, in the sense of the
Papists : for if they be good actions, they are commanded either
in general, or particularly, either expressly, or implicitly. We
may do something which God hath not enjoined expressly, as
to the manner of it : but there is no work or duty a Christian
is to do, but it is commanded iu general, and as to the substance
of the action, though not to the individual circumstances of it.
I am commanded to give to the poor and needy, but it is not
enjoined what particular quantity of my money or goods I am
to give. But what is this to the Papists' doctrine, namely,
that something may be superadded to all that is required of us
by God in the Gospel ; and this superadded work may be
available to those who do not such things as are commanded,
yea, who act contrary to the command.
We are sure of the truth of this proposition, that there is
no good work but what God hath commanded ; there is often
times a particular injunction, but always a general one, upon
which every good action is founded ; and therefore we may
conclude, that works not commanded by God are not to be
done by us. If we hold the contrary, we must assert that
men may be more perfect than God hath willed and com
manded ; yea, that we may be more perfect than we are able to
be : for God commands us to love him with " all our heart,
with all our soul, and with all our strength ;" and it is impos
sible we should do more than this. The righteousness of

WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. 241
angels consists only in doing what God enjoins them to do,
Psalm ciii. 20. "They do his commandments, hearkening unto
the voice of his words." But, it seems, the perfection of a
monk, or friar, is above that of angels ; he pretends to do more
than is any where commanded by God : yea, he hath such a
superfcetation of good works, that he can merit for others as
well as for himself. If a Papist* marries a pubUc and common
strumpet, and doth it knowingly and designedly, with a charit
able purpose to convert her, he thereby purchases remission of
his sins, and it is probable of her's too : for herein he doth an
act of charity, which is a good work, and this good work is no
where commanded, therefore it being a work of supererogation,
it is highly meritorious. This is the doctrine of the Church
of Rome.
Some think that the Romanists do Judaize here (as they do
in many other things) : for the Jews distinguished men into three
ranks, namely, the Reshagnim, that is, the impious, who trans
gressed the law ; the Tsadikim, the just and righteous, who
punctuaUy kept the law ; and the Chasidim, the holy, or good
men, who did more than the law required of them, and super-
erogated : and of this sort were the Pharisees. Whatever this
conceited sect did, we are certain that it is unbecoming Christi
anity, yea, it is inconsistent with it to nourish this Pharisaic
temper. It is blasphemous to talk of the overplus of good
works and merits, and consequently of works of supererogation.
These are to be found in Christ Jesus only : for he fulfilled the
law, and by his divine nature merited more than man's perfect
obedience could have done. He and he alone it was, that did
those things which he was not bound to do. But this can
not be said of any mere man : what we do is but what we
are obUged in duty to do. All our good works become due on
account of the nature of the things themselves, and the reason
of the command. Where then is merit, where is supererogation ?
This case is plainly determined in that parable in Matth. ix. of
the master and servant, "Doth he thank his servant, because
he did the things that were commanded him ? I trow not ;"
Luke xvU. 9. If God challenges obedience as a debt, can we
deserve any thing of him by the payment of it ? No certainly.
I wUl shut up this first head with the words of our Church.
" Voluntary works besides, over and above God's command
ments, which they (i. e. Papists) call works of supererogation,
* Decret.1. 2. Tit. 12.
VOL. VI. R

242

OF MERITS AND

cannot be taught without arrogance and impiety. For by
them men declare that they do not only render unto God,
much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his
sake than of bounden duty is required : whereas Christ saith
plainly, When ye have done all that is commanded to you,
say, we are unprofitable servants."*
II. Our service is short of what is due, and therefore it
cannot carry merit with it. If we could arrive to the height
of performance, it is no more than what is required of us, as I
have shewed in the foregoing particular : but alas ! we come
not up to that ; we do not what is our very duty t ) do. We
are indebted to God, but we never make full payment ; we are
always in arrears. Yea, our pay is not only short, but it is
too often in bad coin. Our best works are not only imperfect,
but mixed and allayed with sin. So that if they may be said
to deserve any thing, it is punishment. This that good and
pious Father had a true sense of, when he said.f "If God
should deal with us according to what we have deserved, he
would find nothing but what he might condemn ;" and when
he spake thus in another place,J " Woe be to the most com
mendable life that any person can live, if it comes to be
examined and sifted without some merciful allowance." Alas!
we have no cause to plead merit, when we are such weak and
sinful creatures, that our best and holiest actions are stained
with some defect or defilement : insomuch that we stand in
need of mercy and pardon. Therefore observe what hath
been the language of all holy men, " We do not present our
supplications before thee for our righteousness, but for thy
great mercies," Dan. ix. 18. "Have mercy upon me, 0
Lord, 0 save me for thy mercy's sake," Ps. vi. 2. "If thou,
Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?
but there is forgiveness with thee," Ps. cxxx. 3, 4. "Enter not
into judgment with thy servant : for in thy sight shall no
man be justified," Ps. cxliii. 2. "Who can say, I have made
my heart clean, I am pure from my sins?" Prov. xx. 9. "I
know nothing by myself, yet am I not hereby justified,'
1 Cor. iv. 4. " Not by works of righteousness, but of his
mercy he saved us," Tit. iii. 5. " In many things we offend
* Article xiv. Of Works of Supererogation.
t Si Deus vellet pro meritis agere, non inveniret nisi quod damnet.—
August, in Psal. xciv. ^ .
X Vie etiam laudabili bominum vitue, si remota misericordia, discutias
earn. — Idem Confess. 1. 9. c. 13.

WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. 213
all," James in. 2. I appeal now to any sensible man, whether
this be the language of those that believe any merit Or can
they be thought to believe such a thing, who acknowledge
that none are free from stains and blemishes in their lives,
who humbly confess that if God should lay judgment to the
Une, and righteousness to the plummet ; if he should be exact
to observe what they have done amiss ; if he should scan
their holiest actions, if he should criticise on their best per
formances, they were not able to stand in his presence, and
abide his judgment ?
III. Whatever good actions we do, they are not strictly our
own, and therefore there is no merit in them. If a man
could fulfil the whole law perfectly, yet he could not merit,
because it is all by strength derived from another, namely,
from God himself.- Supposing we could live without the least
Bin, and so had no need of pardon, yet we cannot deserve
heaven, because aU the power and ability we have to live
without sin is from God only. " Not that we are sufficient of
ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves ; but our sufficiency
is of God," 2 Cor. Ui. 5. " It is God that worketh in us both
to will and to do, of his good pleasure," PhU. ii. 13. "I can
do all things through Christ who strengthens me," Phil. iv.
13. "Not I, but Christ, who liveth in me," Gal. ii. 20.
" Faith is the gift of God," Ephes. U. 8 ; and if faith, then all
other graces likewise are given by him. And who sees not,
that a free gift and merit are inconsistent ? Very rationally
therefore the Apostle expostulates in Rom. xi. 35, "Who
hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed to him
again ?" If we give something first to God, then we might
merit : but we have nothing of our own to give him, therefore
we cannot engage him to recompense us. We cannot chal
lenge any reward of him for our good works, who gave us
power to do them. I wUl add but one text more, and that
one is a sufficient confutation of merit, 1 Cor. iv. 7, " What
hast thou, that thou didst not receive ; now, if thou didst
receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received
it ?" We cannot glory and boast of meriting any thing from
God, seeing we receive aU that we have from him.
And this was the sense of the primitive writers,* " We must
glory in nothing (saith the exceUent Cyprian), because nothing
is ours." Which is a sentence often commended by St. Au-
* Lib. 3. ad Quirin.
r2

244 OF MERITS AND
gustine. It is no uncommon saying among the Fathers,
" When God rewards us, he crowns his own gift ;" and reason
and divinity teach us this. He is a fooUsh servant that is
proud of his master's goods. We might justly be charged
with the same folly, if we should insolently pretend to merit
by what is not our own, but what we have received from our
great Master. To beat down this arrogant conceit in the
Judaizing Christians, the Apostle St. Paul in several of his
epistles let them know that the foundation of righteousness
and happiness is in the good pleasure, grace, and mercy of God,
Nothing can be done without the Divine assistance ; man is
unable to keep the law ; all is performed by another's strength
and aid. This he frequently urges, and thereby destroys
the notion of merit, and shews the vanity of those, who pre
sume to glory in their works and performances. For this is
undoubtedly required to merit, that the action no ways pro
ceeds from the person from whom we expect a remuneration.
Here then we see an irrefragable argument against the doctrine
of merit. There can be no such thing, because God gives us
strength to do those actions which are acceptable to him : and
if we do them by his strength, then the praise of the action
must be given to him, and not to us.
IV. Unto merit is required that there be a proportion
between the actions and the reward. And this is that which
Bellarmine himself acknowledges, " There must be (saith he),
an absolute equality between the recompense and the merito
rious deed, by way of commutative justice."* But if we
consider the matter aright, we shall be compeUed to confess,
that there is no such equality between the best actions we can
do and that eternal life which is promised to us ; unless we
can make it good there is an equality between God and man ;
between what is absolutely perfect, and what is on many ac
counts imperfect ; and that there is a proportion between
finite and infinite. If we can bring ourselves to beheve this,
then we may hope to persuade ourselves that merit attends
our actions. But no man can on rational grounds believe any
such thing as this : for there is an infinite disproportion be
tween the creature and the Creator, and between the poor and
mean service that we can do, and the immense rewards which
we are ascertained of. What are all our works to that great
glory which we expect through the free grace and bounty
* De Justine. 1. 5. «:. 14.

WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. 245
of heaven? What are our peppercorns to those vast sums
which we should pay ? Wherefore until we can prove that
our works are commensurate and adequate to the eternal re
compenses of another life, which are the result of the mere
bounty of our indulgent and compassionate Father, let us not
act so absurdly as to pretend merit. And as to our sufferings
(which come under the general notion of doings), there is not
the least proportion between them and the infinite reward
which foUows them, and consequently there is no merit in
them. The Apostle presents it not as an uncertain opinion,
but lays it down as an undeniable conclusion, that there, is no
equality betwixt our affliction and our glory. Rom. vui. 18,
" I reckon (saith he, Xayifapai, i. e. after a close reasoning and
conferring with myself I find it rational to infer ; or [as the
word at other times signifies] I think and meditate on this ; I
fix this on my thoughts, and would have you do so too)
that the sufferings of this present life are not worthy to be
compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us."
Whatever difficulties we can undergo in this transitory life,
are no ways adequate to the rewards of an endless life ; they
bear no proportion to the everlasting blessedness of the other
world. Thus I have argued from the true nature and notion of
merit, and have shewed, that if we understand this, it is im
possible we should hold that our good works, be they never so
great and heroic, are meritorious.
But our adversaries, to uphold the contrary doctrine, produce
the several texts of Scripture, and first, those where eternal life
is caUed wages, as in Matth. v. 1 2 ; x. 42 ; Luke vi. 35 ; 1 Cor.
Ui. 8, for the Greek word is pio-Qbc, that is, wages, though we
translate it reward. Now the argument runs thus, if eternal
life be wages, then good works may properly be said to merit :
but eternal Ufe is wages : therefore good works are meritorious.
Bellarmine* triumphs in this syllogism, and thinks it carries
the cause without control. But if we weigh it well, we shall
think otherwise ; for though we grant the minor, it being
grounded on those places of Scripture before-mentioned, yet
the consequence of the major is faulty ; for it doth not foUow
that, because God promises wages to good works, therefore
they merit. This I wUl make evident from these following
particulars : * De Merit. Operum. cap. 3.

246 OF MERITS AND
1st. Wages and merit are not necessarily relatives. As is
clear from Matth. xx. 8, where we read "That the lord of the
vineyard said to his steward, call the labourers, and give them
their hire, or wages;" for it is the same Greek word that was
used in the fore-named texts, and was rendered reward. But
we see that this word hath ]no relation at all to merit ; for
this hire or wages were given to them that laboured but one
hour, and so were not worthy of it, as was rightly suggested
by the other murmuring labourers who had borne the burthen
and heat of the day, and yet received but a penny. This
parable then plainly shews that wages have not a necessary
connection with merit.
2ndly. It shews that this word doth not always signify an
equality between the thing done and the pay, and consequently
cannot be applied to merit, which necessarily implies that the
work and the reward are adequate, as hath been said before.
Here the labourers are said to receive their wages, and yet we
find that there was an inequality in their work ; whence we un
deniably gather, that the work and the- wages of aU the
labourers were not equal, notwithstanding the wages is said
to be given to them all. Thus heaven is our wages, though
there be no proportion and equality between our works and
so great a reward.
3rdly. In other places of Holy Writ, (which must agree
with those before-mentioned) our best works are represented
as services that are due to God. All that we can act in the
discharge of our consciences and leading a holy life is but what
we owe to him, as I have amply shewed before. And, there
fore, the term wages or hire, must not be understood in the
strict sense, and consequently it favours not the doctrine of
merit : for where is a debt, there all merit is quite taken away.
We first received all from the divine bounty, and thereupon
we owe all to it : wherefore the reward is of grace, not of debt :
we do that which we are bound to do, but God in rewarding
us doth that which he is not bound to do. What we perform
we owe to God, but what he confers he did not owe to us.
Those mansions which good and holy persons shall be received
into after this life, are bestowed upon them out of mere favour
and bounty. But God having promised unto us heaven, if we
beUeve in Jesus Christ, and live holy lives, he is pleased, in
deed, to make himself a debtor to us by his word and promise,
and not otherwise.
4thly. The short of all is this, that eternal life is called

WORKS' OF SUPEREROGATION. 247
wages, not in the rigid and most proper meaning, but only by
way of similitude and analogy, because as the servant, or
labourer, when his work is done, receives his wages ; so we
persevering in our duty shall at last be made blessed and
happy, by the reward which we shall receive from our gracious
Master. Wages is taken for what is consequent on the work;
it only expresses to us the o-xto-ic, the relation, and connection,
that is between the work and the reward. This is the true
meaning of the word in the style of holy Scripture : and,
therefore, it is impossible to prove merit from it.
But what shaU we say to those texts which speak of the
worthiness of the saints ? as 2 Thess. i. 5 ; " That ye may
be counted worthy of the kingdom of God :" and Rev. iii. 4,
" for they are worthy." Which is as much as to say, they
merit. The answer to this is manifold ; first, there is a com
parative worthiness in the saints ; in respect of other men,
who are wicked and ungodly, they may be said to be meri
torious, though, absolutely speaking, they are not so. Secondly,
godly men have a real dignity and excellency. Thirdly, good
and holy works are in their nature worthy and excellent.
Fourthly, the saints are worthy, and are accounted worthy of
the kingdom of heaven, because of God's gracious acceptance
of them and their performances through Jesus Christ. They
are not worthy of themselves, but by grace. This gives them
all their worth and fitness for glory and happiness: therefore,
they cannot merit from God by it.
Again, the Romanists make use of those places of Scripture,
where God is said to " reward men according to their works,"
Matth. xvi. 27 : and, "to render to every man according to
his deeds," Rom. ii. 6 : " to give to every man according as
his work shaU be," Rev. xxu. 12 : and many other places both
in the Old and New Testament may be produced to this pur
pose. Whence it is argued that God rewards men according
to the proportion of their works, and that implies merit. I
say, no such thing : for it is nowhere said that we are rewarded
for our works, but according to our works, which signifies these
two things, 1. That men shall receive of God, according to the
quality of their works ; that is if they be good, a reward shall
be given to them out of God's free grace : but if they be evil,
a punishment shall be inflicted, as of debt. 2. With respect
to good works, it is signified, that these are the conditions of
eternal life; that is, they, are those things, without which no
man shall see the Lord. But it is not in the least implied in

248 OF MERITS AND
this or the other meaning of the words, that good works are a
meritorious cause of eternal life.
Some allege Psalm vii. 8. " Judge me, O Lord, according to
my righteousness, and according to mine integrity that is in
me," and imagine this to be a proof of the Psalmist's merit.
But this imagination will soon vanish, if they consider that the
righteousness of his cause, not of his person, is here meant.
As to his acting against Saul and other enemies, he was inno
cent : but otherwise he was a great sinner, and therefore pleads
not his righteousness, but wholly disclaims it, and flies to the
mercy and grace of God, Psalm cxxx. 3. Psalm cxliii, 2,
And thus we must interpret Psalm xviii. 24.
It is further said by the writers of the Romish Church, that
there cannot be a fairer text for the meritoriousness of good
works, than 2 Thess. i. 6, 7. " It is a righteous thing with
God, to recompense not only tribulation to them that trouble
you, but to you, who are troubled, rest with us, when the
Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven." Whence, say
they, it appears that the future reward of eternal life is given
by God's righteousness and justice : and he would be un
righteous and unjust, if he should withhold the reward : there
fore, it is a sign that we merit it. The satisfactory reply to
which, is this, that if we rightly understand in what sense
God is here said to be just and righteous in bestowing an eternal
reward on his servants, we shall then see that there is no
ground for merit in these words. We must know then, that it
may be truly said that the eternal reward proceeds from God,
as he is just ; because, though he might have required good
works without promising eternal life, yet having covenanted
and promised, the reward may be said to be an act of justice ;
namely, the justice of truth on God's part, not from any merit
on ours. This is explained by what St. John saith, 1 Ep.
i. 9. " He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins;" not
but that forgiveness of sins is from free grace and bounty :
but a promise of forgiveness being made, the performance of it
becomes a due debt, and, on that account, God is rightly said
to be just and faithful in forgiving our sins. But, though
God's promise obliges him to do this, yet we cannot infer from
thence that he, whose sins are forgiven, deserves this favour.
So it is here ; God hath promised eternal Ufe, therefore, he is
said to be just or righteous in actually conferring it on the
faithful : but there is no reason to infer thence that they merit
this reward. For, it being by promise, we may conclude that

WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. 249
it was not founded on merit, because the promise was free and
by grace, and depended wholly on God's good pleasure : and,
therefore, if he had promised no reward to our works, he had
not been unjust. But now having promised, he cannot go from
it, he is obliged to keep his word : and, therefore, he would be
unjust, if he did not reward the faithful. Thus we see that
the Almighty hath laid an obligation on himself to Teward the
obedience of the godly ; but it doth not follow thence, that
they deserve that reward : for the promise of the reward pro
ceeds not from the worth of the obedience, but merely from
the grace and good wiU of God.
Besides these objections from Scripture, it is argued thus by
some Papists, Christ hath merited that we may merit, and
therefore we merit by his merits. To which I answer, the con
trary is true ; namely, that Christ merited, that we might not
merit, and, because we cannot merit. And it is certain that
to join the merits of Christ and our's is blasphemous. Yea,
and it destroys the merits of Christ ; for if we can merit,
there is no need of the merits of Christ. But some come
upon us again thus ; our good works are done by Christ's power
and assistance, therefore, they merit. But this is easily re
torted : though they are done by divine power, yet they are
our act too, and therefore they cannot merit, because, as they
come from us, there is some imperfection attends them.
Some Popish writers put the argument into another shape,
thus, Christ's merits are imputed to Christians, and so they
may be said to merit by this imputed merit ; for if Christ's
own righteousness and merits be imputed to them, they are as
righteous and meritorious as Christ. I deny this consequence,
and for this good reason, because there is a great difference be
tween Christ's righteousness as it is in him, and as it is in us :
in him it was originaUy, in us derivatively: and, therefore,
Christ's righteouness imputed to us, doth not render us as
righteous as Christ, and, consequently, we cannot merit by his
merits, made ours by imputation. And further, Christ was
God as well as man, but the righteousness of his divinity is
not imputed to us, though that of his humanity be ; which
makes a great difference between Christ's righteousness and
ours. In short, though Christ's merits are made over to us
when we are justified, yet this cannot make us meritorious,
and we cannot properly and strictly be said to deserve, because
this making over of his merits is Christ's own act, and it is a
free and gracious act, and therefore, by the transferrrng of his

250

OF MERITS AND

merit to us, which we could not challenge, it is impossible we
should properly merit.
But, lastly, it is objected that the ancient Latin Fathers do
frequently use the words merit, and to merit, and therefore
the Popish doctrine of merit hath antiquity to vouch it. I
answer, First, It is never the better for that ; for some of the Fathers
in those times inclined to some part of that, which at this day
we call Popery. This is that which I have more than once
acknowledged, but it doth not authorise or legitimate any of the
Popish doctrines or practices. I answer,
_ Secondly, Though at first the verb mereri among the Latins
signified to do something for which a retribution or recom
pense might be demanded (thus, soldiers were said Stipendk
mereri), yet, afterwards when the Latin tongue and purity
decayed, mereri came to denote no more than consequi, adipuci
aliquid ; and in this sense it is generally taken among the
Fathers, and signifies no more than to obtain or compass a thing.
And in this qualified meaning, we may be now said to merit,
But what need is there of using the word, seeing it is liable to
mistake, seeing it is forced and improper, and seeing it hath no
affinity with the Scripture style ?
I add thirdly, tbat the word merit might be aUowed of,
as it barely refers to any work or action that hath a reward to
foUow it. Thus the word is often used in the ancient writers,
and that innocently. Antiquity is used to say that there is a
certain worth and merit of the good works of the just; but the
meaning is only, that they are acceptable and well-pleasing to
God, and through his goodness and bounty shall meet with a
reward. This is the true account of the word, as it is often
used in the writings of the ancients ; and thence no man can
possibly infer their allowance of the doctrine of merits, as it is
held in the Church of Rome. For, properly speaking, and in
the sense of the Papists, that is, by doing such and such
works, we truly deserve of God to be recompensed with infinite
glory and happiness, and that likewise our superabundant
worth is treasured up for the use of others ; in this sense,
I say, we cannot be said to merit, and it is dangerous and
blasphemous to apply the word in this manner.
Let us now make some inferences and conclusions from the
premises. And first, let us estabUsh our minds in the behef
of this truth, that none can merit anything of God, that we
cannot demand a right to happiness by our best works. We

WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. 251
ought to prize these words of a good pious Archbishop of
Canterbury, " If a man," saith he, " should serve God a thou
sand years, and that with the greatest zeal, non meretur ex
condigno (those are his very words), yet he doth not worthily
deserve to be in the kingdom of heaven so much as half a
day."* It is plain, he was fixed in this great Gospel verity,
that the reward of pious souls is not of debt, but of grace.
Secondly, let not this be our persuasion only, but let us act
according to it, and renounce all merit, and acknowledge that
aU is from grace. And the rather, because we are so apt to
be proud and self-conceited : we are naturally incUned to arro
gate to ourselves, and to boast of what we have done and what
we have suffered, though it be never so smaU. It was the
language of the assuming disciples, " We have forsaken all and
followed thee, what shaU we have therefore ?" Matth. xix. 27.
And what did they forsake ? a few boats and nets, and such
poor things which were not worth the mentioning. But this
is our natural disposition, to speak arrogantly of our own
actions, and to expostulate with God about our reward, and
to think we merit at his hands. The more watchful there
fore ought we to be over ourselves, the more earnestly should
we Strive against this corrupt inclination. If the blessed
saints in heaven " faU down before him that sits on the throne,
and worship him that Uveth for ever and ever, and cast their
crowns before the throne, saying, Thou aTt worthy, O Lord,
to receive glory, and honour, and power," Rev. iv. 10, 11:
if thus the Church triumphant attribute nothing to them
selves, but all to God, then surely it becomes us much more,
who are in a state not free from imperfection and sin, to dis
claim all deserts in ourselves, and upon a review of the best
actions which we could ever do, to rely wholly on Jesus and
his righteousness, as if we had not done one good work all
our days. * Anselm de Mensuratione Crucis.

252
CHAPTER XII.
Of Praying and Officiating in an Unknown Tongue.
The public acts and offices of religious worship are such as
these, viz. Prayer, with giving of thanks, administration of the
Sacraments, reading the Scriptures, singing of Psalms, preach
ing the Word. And there seems to be no reason to deny that
all these solemn exercises of religion ought to be performed
with knowledge and understanding, and consequently in a
known tongue : that is, the prayers of the Church ought to
be in a language that the people undersand ; the sacraments
must be so likewise ; the holy Scriptures are to be translated
into the mother -tongue, and read therein ; and preaching and
singing must be in such a language as is known to the hearers
and singers. But there is a party of men who dislike this,
or the greatest part of it : for though they stand not much on
singing or preaching in ordinary assemblies, yet as for the
Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and praying in the
Church, and administering the sacrament of the Lord's supper,
they are unwilling that these should be exposed to the people
in the vulgar-tongue. But, on the contrary, they will have
these great acts of religion performed wholly in an unknown
language, that is, in a tongue which is not understood either
by the people, nay sometimes not by the priest, for it
is certain that some of the priests themselves in the
Church of Rome know not what they pronounce, whilst
they officiate in the service of the Church : and this they
account no disgrace. Especially they think it requisite that
the people be used to prayers which they understand not, i. e.
that they pray in Latin.
It is needless to stand long in proving that this is the
opinion and declared sense of the Church of Rome. ,This
may be seen in the decrees of the Council of Trent, sess. 22.
can. 8, 9 ; where also is annexed a curse (as is the usual way)
on those who say that the mass is to be celebrated only in the
vulgar tongue. And it is well known what the constant prac
tice of the Church of Rome is ; the Psalms and Hymns, the
liturgy and forms of prayer are all in Latin, which is a tongue
that the vulgar are ignorant of. I might annex the opinion
of the doctors of the Church ; take a whole assembly of them

OF PRAYING IN AN UNKNOWN TONGUE. 253
together, viz. the Rhemish divines, " it is not necessary to un-
stand the words of prayer," so say these reverend translators
on 1 Cor. xiv. They say also that " it is enough that people
can tell that this holy orison is appointed them by the Church."
" More is not necessary," they there assure us.
Now the Protestant Churches abhor this doctrine, and they
teach that no offices of religion are to be celebrated in an un
known tongue, but on the contrary that all reUgious exercises,
and acts of worship, and particularly prayers (which is the
subject I confine myself to at present) ought to be performed
in that language and idiom which is vulgarly known and un
derstood. The reasons and arguments for this are such as these :
First, the particular arguing of St. Paul in 1 Cor. xiv.
where he spends a good part of this chapter in declaiming
against this practice of the Papists : as if by a prophetic
spirit he foresaw what those of the Roman persuasion would
do, and how unreasonably they would impose upon the world.
The arguments he used against prophesying in an unknown
tongue may be apphed, and with the very same reason, to
praying in an unknown tongue : but the Apostle doth also
particularly and expressly argue against this latter, ver. 14, 15 :
" If I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prays," that is
the extraordinary gift which I am endowed with is exercised
in prayer, " but my understanding is unfruitful ;" that is, the
notions which I have, whilst I am praying in an unknown
tongue, are of no use and benefit to the Church. " What is
it then ? I wdl pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the
understanding also :" though I exercise my extraordinary gift,
yet I wUl pray so that I may be understood by others, that
their understandings may go along with what I say, namely,
by interpreting it into the vulgar tongue. It is evident then
that the Apostle would have all Christians pray (as weU as
serve God in the performance of aU other acts of religion)
with, the mind and understanding. And he lets us know that if
we pray not with the understanding, we pray without any fruit
and profit, and (as he saith afterwards) without edification.
He adds therefore ver. 1 7, " Else when thou (being a public
minister) shalt bless with the spirit," that is, in a language
which is not known to the people, "how shall he that occupieth
the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks,
seeing he understands not what thou sayest ? For thou verily
givest thanks well, but the other is not edified." In which

254 OF PRAYING AND OFFICIATING
words the Apostle acquaints us, that such is the nature of
the solemn and public exercises of religion, and particularly of
solemn prayers and praises (of which he here speaks), that
the whole people should give assent to the minister in his
performing them : for " he that occupies the room of the un
learned" is the common Christian, who generally is illiterate
and unskilful in the languages, and understands only his
mother tongue. Now such persons cannot answer Amen, i, e.
shew their consent with the minister's praying, unless they
know what he saith, and consequently the language he speaks
in. Consent implies understanding. It is clear then that the
people cannot consent when the minister speaks in such a lan
guage which none of them understand ; these cannot answer
Amen, i. e. they cannot yield assent to what the minister utters
in praying to God and praising him, if the language he speaks
be unknown to them ; and consequently there is no edifica
tion in such worship as this.
The sum of the Apostle's argument then is this, the public
worship must be so carried on that the Church may be edified:
but it cannot be edified by unintelligible prayers : for thev
are of no real advantage, because the people can neither assent
to them nor be affected by them. Therefore, seeing there is
no edification in prayers that are uttered in a tongue that is
not understood, we must conclude them to be unlawful. Yea,
the Apostle is very smart and poignant in his chastising this
unreasonable and absurd demeanour, ver. 23, " If the whole
Church be come together in one place, and all speak with
tongues," that is strange tongues, " and there come in those
that are unlearned or unbelievers, will they not say that you
are mad ?" In St. Paul's judgment they deserve to be num
bered among madmen and persons out of their wits, who pray
to God in an unknown tongue.
In the next place I argue from our Saviour's words which
he borrows from the evangelical prophet, Matth. xv. 8, 9:
" This people draweth nigh to me with their month and ho-
noureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me:
and," it follows, " in vain do they worship me." Here we see
that the bare external performance of religious exercises devoid
of mental devotion and piety is complained of by God, and is
unacceptable to him, and is in vain, and to no purpose. Such
are the prayers of those who understand not what they say
when they pray : and such are the prayers of the common
people among the Romanists. " Ye worship ye know not

IN AN UNKNOWN TONGUE. 255
what," said our Saviour to the Samaritans : the Uke may be
said of the ordinary Popish worshippers, they know not what
they pray for; they are ignorant of the very words which they
make use of in their addresses to the Most High. This mars
aU their worship, this spoils all their devotion. For it is
against the nature of religion to be performed ignorantly : and
particularly the Christian reUgion is a reasonable service, pro
ceeding from the understanding and the mind : but the wor
ship cannot be such which is performed in a strange and un-
inteUigible language. Such service cannot be called religion ;
for this is to be understood. It was PhUip's question to the
eunuch, " Understandest thou what thou readest 1" A re
sembling question is fit for every Christian worshipper to put
to himself, Understandest thou what thou prayest ? If he doth
not do this, this office of religion is vain and useless, and hath
no virtue and power in it.
These are the soUd reasons which the doctrine of Protes
tants is founded on. I might add to these the antiquity of it,
with the very confessions of our adversaries ; who own that
at the beginning of the sixth century Justinian the emperor
in his novels commands all bishops and presbyters to celebrate
all the sacred mysteries and offices of the Church in their
mother tongue. And I could produce the suffrages of several
Fathers and ancient writers of the Church, were I not super
seded by the voluntary confessions of the chief doctors them
selves of the Roman communion, who are so ingenuous as to
own that praying without understanding what is prayed was
no primitive usage. It is acknowledged by Lyra and Aquinas
on 1 Cor. xiv. 16, that the pubUc service of the Church in
the first times was in the common vulgar tongue. Cardinal
Cajetan saith as much in his comments on that text, and adds
farther that it would be more for the Church's edification if
the public devotions were not, as they are now, in Latin, but
were in a tongue as well known to the people as to the
priests. And truly the Rhemists in their annotations on the
same place confess the like. Praying in an unknown tongue
was not the practice of the primitive ages, saith another*
modern writer, a great stickler for the Church of Rome. In
other points of Popery (as you have heard) the Romanists
plead the ancient usage of the Church, and they allege the
primitive Fathers in their defence : but here they are silent :
* Harding's Answer to Bishop Jewel. Art. 2. Sect. 28 & 33.

256 OF PRAYING AND OFFICIATING
and we find them generally submitting to this, that the primi
tive Christians prayed in their own proper tongue : and indeed
they are forced to this by reason of that plain testimony in
1 Cor. xiv. It is granted (and what is true we shall always
grant) that whilst the Roman empire flourished the prayers
of the Church were in Latin, because at that time Latin was
not an unknown tongue to the people. The Roman language
was then truly catholic, and well known to all or most of the
Christians under the Roman power. But now to urge the
use of that tongue when so many nations are ignorant of it,
is ridiculous and absurd, and void of reason.
But let us hear how they defend their cause, as unreasonable
and extravagant as it is. First, They tell us that God looks
more at the intention in the prayers that are put up to him,
than at the words ; and therefore it is not necessary the words
should be understood by those that utter them. I answer, it
is impossible the intention should be right, where the prayers
are unintelligible ; for the intention must be conformable to
the words or else it is to no purpose.
Again, they tell us the prayers are not addressed to the
people but to God, and no speech is unknown to him, there
fore it is not requisite we should speak to him in a tongue we
understand. I answer, though the prayers are put up by the
priest unto God only, yet the Apostle acquaints us that Amen,
that is, a consent is required of the people : and I suppose it
will be too difficult to prove that there can be a rational and
Christian consent without understanding.
But still they insist, that God knows what the priest saith,
and that is enough. I answer, it is not enough for the service
of God, who in the public is to be worshipped by the people
as well as the priest ; and they cannot worship him without
their understanding. It is not enough that what the priest
saith is known by God, it is farther necessary that the congre
gation know what he saith, because they are supposed to join
in the public prayers with the priest. We see then that this
doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome defeat the very
design of all public and solemn meetings of the Church. For
wherefore do "the people come together ? What is the reason of
their assembling? Is it not that they should join with the
minister in the service of God? Yes, surely. But according
to the judgment of the Church of Rome, the people may stay
at home and let the priest pray for them in their absence, see
ing, it seems, it is not necessary they should know what he

IN AN UNKNOWN TONGUE. 257
saith ; and then it is as unnecessary that they should hear it,
and consequently they may as well be absent. The interces
sions and supplications of the priest are sufficient ; and if the
people should be present at them, they only come to look on,
not to be interested in the service; for they are ignorant of
what is said.
Next, the practice of the Jews, who returned from the cap
tivity, is aUeged : for they had forgot their own language, and
did not understand the Book of the Law which was read to
them in their public assemblies, and therefore the priests gave
the sense, and caused them to understand the reading, Neh.
vni. 8. I answer, this doth not absolutely prove that the Jews
understood not the language that the Law was written in, but
that they understood not the sense sometimes ; and therefore
it was requisite to expound it to them. The priests para
phrased and commented upon the text, as Christ afterwards
did, Luke xxiv. 27, 32, in which latter verse it is called "open
ing the Scriptures." Or, suppose those Jews had forgot their
native tongue, and so were forced to have the words of the
law interpreted to them, yet this is nothing to the present pur
pose, that is, the prayers of the Church : it doth not prove
that the Jews prayed in an unknown tongue. If they had any
set Uturgy or temple-service (which is much to be questioned),
the priests translated it into the tongue they spoke. But
afterwards, when they were dispersed into several countries
and kingdoms, and the Hebrew language became strange to
them, it cannot be proved that they prayed in Hebrew, which
was unknown to the vulgar. Or, if any of them did they were
faulty ; and their example is not to be made use of.
But it wiU be said, that the Greek Churches at this day
celebrate their Uturgies in the old Greek, which they scarcely
understand, for it differs as much from the modern Greek, as
Latin from Italian or Spanish.
I answer, 1 . They are an ignorant and superstitious sort of
Christians generaUy, and so their example is of no authority.
2. In some of the churches of the Grecian communion the
ancient Greek is not made use of in any of their prayers.
But the practice of the Mahomedans is also alleged : for it
is said they put up their prayers in the Arabic tongue, though
it is not the vulgar language. To which I reply, First, The
Arabic tongue is known to many of them, and so their example
is aUeged to no purpose. Secondly, If those that are strangers
vol. vi. s

258 OF PRAYING AND OFFICIATING
to it make their prayers in it, they are blameable as well as the
Papists. There are other pleas of the Church of Rome in behalf of
their prayers in a strange tongue, and a principal one is this;
as the Pope's tenure is from St. Peter as he was bishop of
Rome, and as supremacy and infallibility and sanctity are en
tailed on the Church of Rome, as it is the Church of Rome,
and consequently all privileges and blessings are derived to
other Churches as they adhere to Rome, so the very language
of Rome is more excellent than any other ; and as every thine
in the Church of Rome is holy, so the very language is super
latively holy, and therefore that must be used and no other.
All other tongues to God are barbarous, i. e. if made use of in
public devotion. This is thought to be a great and topping
argument, and made use of by the chief doctors of the Roman
Church. But who sees not how weak and frivolous it is ? As
God is no respecter of persons, so he is not of tongues. There
is no real excellency in one above another, especially with re
spect to devotion. Or, if we could imagine any such thing, the
holy tongue wherein the divine oracles were first indited
should have the pre-eminence. Wherefore what is cited under
this head, is very foolish and superstitious.
Another chief ground of the Roman practice is this ; this
way of worship conduces much to that blind devotion which is
very serviceable to their Church. When the people pray and
perform other exercises of religion in a dark and obscure man
ner, there is no fear of any danger from them, they are kept
from running into heresy and schism, for they do not know
what these are. This is one plea that the Roman doctors
make use of, but it is so scandalous a one, that I beheve tbe
mentioning of it is sufficient ; I do not think the reader will
expect that I should enlarge upon it. I will only say this,
that that devotion hath nothing to commend it, which leads to
infidelity, as it is certain blindness and ignorance do. And it
is not unlikely that this practice of the Papists was derived
from the infidels ; some of whom reckoned those prayers which
were spoken in a barbarous language, to be most acceptable to
their gods, as Clement of Alexandria and others relate.
Let us look back now upon what hath been, and first give a
right judgment of the case. It appears, that praying in an
unknown tongue is plainly disallowed of and condemned by ex
press texts of Scripture, and bv the verv notion which we have

IN AN UNKNOWN TONGUE. 259
of praying unto God, and by primitive practice ; and we see
that the pleas which are made for it, are groundless and
precarious : wherefore let us entertain due apprehensions con
cerning this matter, and not be deluded with the false sugges
tions of the Roman Church. To which purpose let us fix on
our memories the brief but comprehensive words of our Church
in her twenty-fourth Article : " It is a thing plainly repugnant
to the Word of God and the custom of the Primitive Church,
to have pubhc prayer in the Church, or to minister the sacra
ments in a tongue not understood of the people."
Secondly, Abominate the practice of the Church of Rome as
to this particular. For certainly it is a most detestable thing
to act in this manner in the worship of God ; to pretend to
pray, and yet not to know what is prayed. It cannot be said,
that God is worshipped by these men, unless you can prove
that they can worship him without the mind and heart ; which
it is not possible for any man to do. We are therefore to
abhor the rehgion of those men who declare that they need
not understand one word that they utter when they pray to
God. Thirdly and lastly, Let not us, that are Protestants, so
much as approach towards this practice. As we do not directly
imitate them in praying in an unknown tongue, so let us not
resemble them, and seem to come near them in any acts of a
formal and Ufeless devotion, where the heart is wanting. Let
us always take care that our addresses to God spring from a
due knowledge of our duty, from a sincere principle, from right
intentions, and from affections suitable to that solemn employ
ment we are exercised in: for these constitute our devotion
true and real, and such as is worthy of a Christian worshipper.

s 2

260

CHAPTER XIII.
Of Forbidding the Scriptures to be read in a Known Tongue.
In the last discourse I shewed how unreasonable the Church
of Rome is in suffering, yea in commanding prayers in an un
known tongue. Now I shall prove that it is equally unreason
able and unjust to forbid the Scriptures in a known tongue to
be read by the people ; which is the practice of the Church of
Rome. The people must not pray with their understanding,
neither are they permitted to read with understanding. Ac
cordingly their reading will do them as much good as their
praying. A Latin service and a Latin Bible are ahke to the
common people. But so it must be, the Scriptures are not to
be translated into the vulgar tongues : or if they be, they are
not to be read of the laity ; at least, not to be granted promis
cuously to every one, but only to such as the pastors of the
Church shall j udge fit to grant this privilege to . Pope Pius IV,
gave leave to bishops to grant a faculty of reading the Scrip
tures translated into the known tongue ; so that here was a
kind of liberty given to read the Bible : but then you must
know it was exceeding difficult to procure a licence. And soon
afterwards this licence was taken away by the authority of
Pope Sixtus V. and Clement VIII., as we may see in the In
dex of prohibited Books put out by those Popes ; and it was
not permitted to laymen to read the Bible in their own tongue,
And before this, the Council of Trent forbade them not only
tbe reading, but having the Bible in their custody. It is ma
nifest then, that it is the doctrine and practice of the Church of
Rome to , deny the Scriptures to the people in the vulgar
tongue. And that this is defended and maintained by the
learnedest writers of that communion is too evident to stand in
need of any proof.
But we, on the contrary, maintain, that the Bible ought to
be had and perused by all Christians, and that it is horrid,
sacrilege to deprive them of it. This is that, which we
constantly assert, and such reasons as these induce us to it.
1st. The people of God under the Mosaic dispensation were

FORBIDDING SCRIPTURES TO BE READ. 261
not only permitted, but commanded to peruse and study the
words of the Law, and to wear them on their hands and on their
foreheads, and to write them on their posts and on their gates,
which was in order to the reading of them, and often con
versing with them, Deut. vi. 6, &c. This is an injunction not
given to the priests and Levites, but to the whole body of the
people promiscuously. Which we also learn from those words of
our Saviour in John v. 39, whether we read them as a relation
of what the Jews used to do (" ye search the Scriptures,") or
as a precept shewing what they ought to do (" search the Scrip
tures.'") Which words are spoken to the Jews in general,
without any particular restraining and confining them to the
priests, or scribes, or Pharisees, the great clerks, and learned
doctors among them. All are bid to consult these holy oracles,
and accordingly the Jews call the Scriptures Mikra, that is
reading, because it ought to be read by all persons.
And do we not think that the Christian Church is as much
concerned as the Jewish, to look into that holy volume,
especially since there is the addition of the evangelical and
apostolical writings 1 Is not every man now obliged to be
acquainted with the sacred truths of the Gospel ? Is not Christ
as well as Moses, to be understood by us ? Is it not as neces
sary for Christians to read the Gospel as for Jews to read the
Law ? In a word, is it not as reasonable that the whole canon
of sacred Scripture, the entire word of God, should be exposed
to the view of all Christians indifferently as a part of it ? I
think there is no rational and considerate person, that will
deny this.
2ndly. It is evident that the Scriptures were common to all
Christians in the beginning of the Christian Church, and
therefore they ought to be so now. The men of Berea were
commended as more noble than those of Thessalonica, " because
they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched
the Scriptures daily whether those things were so,". Acts xvii.
11. They not only received the word preached by St. Paul,
but they read and searched the written Word, to satisfy them
selves that what the Apostle delivered was agreeable to what
they met with there. So the same Apostle tells the Corinthian
Christians that he " writes no other things unto them than
what they read," 2 Cor. i. 13, than what they in perusing the
Old Testament, as well as his epistles, find to have been said
before. " We have (saith another Apostle), a more sure word
sf prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as to a

262 OF FORBIDDING THE SCRIPTURES
light shining in a dark place," 2 Pet. i. 19. Where St. Peter
commends those he writes to that they attended to the writings
of the Old Testament, and that they left them not to be studied
only by the clergy. Why then do they now so much differ
from St. Peter, that boast of succeeding him ? Why do they
deny the Scriptures not only of the Old but New Testament
to the common people ?
Again, What was the practice of the Primitive Christians
we may gather from that apostolical exhortation, " Let the
word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom," Col. iii. 15,
As much as if the Apostle had said, Let all holy Scriptures,
but more especially the evangeUcal writings, be continually
read and studied by you, that thereby you may gain divine
and heavenly wisdom. And this without doubt is implied in
that injunction in 1 Thess. v. 2, " Prove all things ;" that is,
try and examine them by the Scriptures. Which is fitly joined
with the foregoing verse, " despise not prophesyings ;" that is,
embrace all opportunities of having the Scriptures expounded
and applied by the ministers of the Gospel : for this is the
right method of arriving to true wisdom. And now, seeing it
was thus, seeing the reading of the Scriptures was commendable
and constantly practised at the first planting of the Christian
Church, surely it cannot but be commendable and fit to be
still observed in the propagating and preserving of it.
3rdly, The use and benefit of the Scriptures is an undeniable
proof of the necessity of their being often read and diligently
perused, and that by all persons whomsoever. " Whatsoever
things were written aforetime (by the inspired penmen), were
written for our learning," Rom. xv. 4. Whatever prophecies,
whatever doctrines, whatever precepts, whatever promises,
whatever threatenings, are contained in the sacred writings
they are all serviceable one way or other to our instruction
and edification : and are not these writings then to be put
into our hands ? are they not to be read with great diligence?
Yes, certainly. Wherefore the Apostle had reason to speak
thus to Timothy, 2 Ep. iii. 14. "Continue thou in the
things which thou hast learned" from the holy Scriptures,
" and hast been assured of by the same Spirit that wrote^those
Scriptures, "knowing of whom," namely, of the Spirit speaking
in the Scriptures, " thou hast learned them, and that from a
child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to
make thee wise unto salvation." And, to explain this, he
adds, " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is

TO BE READ IN A KNOWN TONGUE. 263
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
in righteousness ;" that is, it is profitable for everything, for
those terms comprehend in them all that is serviceable to
our salvation and happiness. So that the Apostle in these
words lets us know these two things ; I. The pious practice
of the holy men and women of old in the Church of God,
namely, their instructing their very chUdren in the Scriptures ;
much more grown people are to be exercised herein. II. The
usefulness of the Scriptures, they are able to make us savingly
wise, and they are profitable to all spiritual ends and purposes.
Will not any understanding person, upon considering aU these
things, conclude that the Scriptures are to be read, and that
it is a heinous crime to debar the people of them, and to lock
them up from pubhc view ?
Havinggiven the reasons of our persuasion, we might add
the suffrage and authority which the ancients furnished us
with. Socrates, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and our own country
man Bede teU us that the Scriptures were heretofore translated
into the language of the several inhabitants of the countries
where they were ; that they might be read and heard of the
people. Chrysostom* often calls upon his hearers, even
laymen, to furnish themselves with Bibles, and to consult them
continually. And not only he, but other ancient Fathersf
interpret John v. 39., as a command, and take it in the im
perative mood, " Search the Scriptures." The rest of the
Fathers are frequently on the same subject. And indeed I
do not find that the greatest doctors of Rome are averse to
acknowledge that the Bible was read of old, and ought to be
so, by the Christians promiscuously. It is confessed by a
great CasuistJ of the Roman Church that the Scriptures were
not denied to any. And another eminent man§ among them
grants that the reading of the Scriptures is profitable to the
people. That the Christians before the Reformation had the
liberty of reading the Bible in their mother tongues, is easily
proved, saith F. Simon, || and he gives a short essay of it. If
then there be any weight in antiquity and authority, the Scrip
tures ought to be delivered into the hands of the people,
and they ought to be acquainted with them.

* Horn. 2. in Tim. 2. Tit. 2. Horn. 9. in Coloss. 3.
t Origen, Athanasius, Basil, Augustine, Theophylact.
X Azorius, in Institut. Moral. 8. 26.
§ Espencseus in cap. 2. ad Tit. || Crit. Hist, of the Bible.

264 OF FORBIDDING THE SCRIPTURES
But the Church of Rome hath some seeming reasons to
aUege why it teaches and practises the contrary ; I will im
partially examine them, and return an answer to them. First,
They say the Scripture is holy, and therefore the lay people
have no right to it ; and one of their notablest writers sticks
not to aUege to this purpose the words of our Saviour, " Give
not that which is holy unto dogs, neither cast ye your pearls
before swine." And so you see in what esteem with them all
but their clergy are, they are ranked among the vilest
animals. And, by the bye, you may see how holy a Church
they have, when the greatest part of them are dogs and
swine. But let this suffice as a small specimen of the Catholic
logic, " Give not holy things unto dogs," ergo, the people
must not be permitted to have the Scriptures. Let our
reasoning and inferences be of another sort : if the people be
generally unholy, then they have the more need of that book,
which wUl discover this their state to them, and at the same
time lead them into the ways of holiness and righteousness.
Secondly, It is objected that the Scriptures are obscure, and
hard to be understood, and on tbat account they are not fit
for the common people. Many things might be replied to
this, but I wUl only offer this, which respects the New Testa
ment. The things which Christ spoke and did whilst he was
on earth are the subject of the Gospels : and if they were
understood then by the persons to whom they were delivered,
there is no reason to think that they may not be understood
now, especially after the actual accomplishment of many of
the things there spoken of. And so as to the Epistles, that
is, what the Apostles wrote to the Churches, it was understood
by those to whom it was wrote ; and why then may not
Christians now understand it, especially after the fulfilling of
several passages there mentioned, and after the multitude of
expositions and commentaries which understanding and holy
men of the Church have put forth upon them ? Wherefore,
it is unreasonable to allege that the reading of the Scriptures
must be put by because of the obscurity of them.
Thirdly, Another objection against the people's reading the
Scripture is this, that it is the cause of errors and heresies ;
for silly and ignorant people are inclined to mistake the sense
of what they read, and to have their judgments corrupted and
perverted, whence heretical, yea, and schismatical notions will
inevitably be propagated by them. To prevent this danger, it
is best to keep the Bible out of the sight of those men who will

TO BE READ IN A KNOWN TONGUE. 265
corrupt it. I answer, 1st, the same objection may be made
against preaching, and against all learning. Because some
may make ill use of the word preached, and because learning
may be abused and perverted to evil purposes, therefore there
must be no preaching, and all arts and sciences are to be laid
aside. If you do not approve of this reasoning, there is no
ground for this other, namely, that some, by reading the
Scriptures and perverting them, may fall into errors and
heresies, therefore let not the Scriptures be read. 2ndly, The
same objection may be made against permitting the clergy to
look into the Bible ; for they are not exempt from an inclina
tion to err and to be mistaken when they have the Scriptures
before them : yea, they are the men that most of all corrupt
that holy book, and build errors upon it. These are the men
that have framed and set up heresy and schisms from the
Bible. The worst heretics were priests, as Marcion, Arius,
Macedonius, Nestorius, Pelagius, and many more I could
name. What is become, then, of the objection, that the
Scripture ought to be forbid to laics, because they would breed
heresies in them ? For the same, yea far greater, reason they
may be denied to the clergy : for they are more apt, and
more able to raise false and erroneous conclusions out of the
Scripture than the ordinary people are. 3rdly. The true
cause of errors and heresies is not the reading of the Scrip
tures, but the not reading and understanding them. We
may say of heretics, as Christ saith of the Sadducees, " they
err not knowing the Scriptures ;" the cause of their mistake
is, because tbey attend not to the book of God. The igno
rance of this is the great origin of heresy and false notions in
religion. Therefore we may rightly turn the argument against
the Papists in this manner : seeing the people (as well as the
clergy) are apt to be seduced, and to be led into error, the
best course they can take is, to set themselves seriously to the
reading of the Scriptures.
Fourthly, Though it hath been confessed (as I have shewn
already) by some of the Romanists, that authority and anti
quity are against them, yet they will not forbear pleading
these. Accordingly, they tell us that the Jews, after the
captivity, though they understood not Hebrew, but Chaldee
only, yet had not the Bible translated out of the Hebrew, but
had it read in this language, though the people understood it
not, because it was the original text. To which I returned an
answer before, namely, that it is probable the Jews had not

266 OF FORBIDDING THE SCRIPTURES
wholly forgot the Hebrew tongue, and that the interpretation
of the Law spoken of, Neh. vUi. 3, was not translating the
Hebrew into Chaldee, but explaining obscure places in the
Law. Besides, if there were anything of consequence and
strength in this that the Romanists allege concerning the
Jewish practice, it would prove that we should read the Old
Testament in Hebrew, because it was writtten in that tongue;
for if it could be proved that the Jews kept up the
reading of the original text in their public service, one reason
of it, without doubt, was this, viz. because the Old Testament
was written in Hebrew. And for the like reason we should
at this day read the New Testament in Greek, because that is
the tongue it was first written in ; but I believe there are few
of the Papists themselves that think this is good arguing.
It is farther alleged by some of the Church of Rome, when
they are contending against the necessity of translating the
Bible into the vulgar tongues, that the Turks, in their mosques,
read the Alcoran, which is in Arabic, of which the people
know nothing. But this is very sorry arguing ; for the prac
tice of the Turks is no precedent for us, especially when it is
unreasonable. I wonder that, to the example of Jews and
Turks, they did not add that of the old heathens, who (as I
have hinted before) had many unintelligible things in their
religion, and pronounced many words which they had no
knowledge of.
Now, after having set aside the false and pretended reasons
which the Church of Rome alleges for her practice of depriv
ing the people of the Scriptures, I will assign the true and
only reasons of it, which are these two : first, the more general
one is this, they design to nourish ignorance, which (as I said
before) is very serviceable to them. Nothing doth more
effectually advance their religion than this, and nothing doth
more advance this than the not suffering the Scriptures to
be read by the people ; for hereby are begot implicit faith
and blind obedience, which are the great and powerful machines
whereby Rome works all her designs.
But, secondly, more particularly, the other reason why the
Bible is forbid to be read is this : they are afraid that theircorrup-
tionsand superstitionswould be discovered, and their wicked lives
laid open, if the Scriptures should be in the mother tongue,
and exposed to every one's view. Wherefore, they dare not
tolerate the Scriptures to be translated into the vulgar tongue,
and to be read by the people, lest they should be informed

TO BE READ IN A KNOWN TONGUE. 267
from these writings how unlawful some of the practices of their
Church are. This is so great a truth, that one of their own
communion plainly and freely owns it ; I mean Peter Sutor, a
Carthusian divine, who honestly gives this reason why the
Scriptures are not to be translated into, or read in the vulgar
tongues : " Because, when the people see that things are
required by the Church of Rome to be done by them, as if
they were of apostolical command, and yet cannot find a word
of them in Scripture, they wUl be inclined to murmur."* The
Bible, then, must be kept from the people, that they may not
discern the impositions, falsehoods, and UI behaviour of the
Roman Church. Yea, though the Ten Commandments are
pretended to be set before them, that they may read them,
yet the second of them is left out, that they may not be
informed that worshipping of images is condemned by the
Scripture, and therefore is utterly unlawful. The Papists are
afraid of the Ught of Scripture, and " fly from it,"f as one of
the ancients said of the heretics of his time : and as our
Saviour before him had said of aU evil men, " they hate the
Ught, neither come they to the Ught, lest their deeds should
be reproved," Johnni. 20, and lest they should be obliged
to reform and amend their ways. The Church of Rome acts
very cunningly in this ; she is conscious to herself of the bad
ness of her cause ; she cannot but be sensible what great
cheats and frauds in reUgion are maintained by her, and
therefore she keeps the Scriptures in the tongues unknown to
the people, lest those cheats should be discovered, and lest
the people should be tempted to oppose the unjust usurpations
of Rome, and to cast off the yoke which hath lain so long on
them, and to repossess themselves of that Uberty wherewith
Christ hath made them free. She knows full well, that if the
Bible should be read by the people, the doctrines and lives of
her priests would be examined by that Word of God, and
would be found to be odious and abominable : wherefore, it is
her interest and concern to forbid the Scripture to the people.
Whatever other reasons are pretended by her, this, this is the
main why she retains the Bible in a language that the people
understand not. And from the whole I question not, but it is
made apparent, that their doctrine and practice are utterly
unwarrantable and unlawful ; and that whUst the Church of
* De translations Biblior.
t Lueifugse Scripturarum. Tertullian.

268 OF FORBIDDING THE SCRIPTURES.
Rome wraps her devotion up in a strange tongue, and hides the
light of the Scripture from the people, she cannot, with any
colour of reason, defend herself.
Thus I have finished what I intended : only there is a
reflection or two which I will leave with the reader.
First, Let us deliberately take notice of the unjust and
impious dealing of the Church of Rome in prohibiting the
reading of the inspired writings of the Prophets and Apostles,
This is taking away the charters from the societies of Chris
tians ; this is a tyrannical divesting them of the greatest and
choicest privilege they claim as members of the Church ; this
is an inhuman and barbarous depriving them ,of the food of
life ; this is a hellish attempt to introduce infidelity and
atheism. Wherefore, let us observe the character of these
men, and of those, likewise, who are approaching to them
among ourselves, among whom I may reckon that great
prelate, who tells us that "the promiscuous licence which is
given to all sorts of people, not only to read, but to interpret
the Scriptures, is more prejudicial, I might better say perni
cious, both to particular Christians, and to whole societies,
than the over-rigorous restraint of the Romanists."* And
there are more of this man's mind, who, though they do not
profess to be of the Roman communion, yet favour this doc
trine and practice of theirs, and, if it were in their power,
would not suffer a laic to look upon a Bible.
Secondly, Bless God for the English Bible. Be thankful to
the Almighty that you live not in those times when the books
of Latin service only, Portuesses, and Manuals, Missals, and
Processionals were all in fashion, when it was not known to the
vulgar that there was such a book as the Bible ; when after
wards the translation into the mother tongue was very rare and
secret ; when, as in King Henry VIH.'s time, a load of hay
was given for a chapter or two of St. Paul or St. James in
English. Adored and blessed be the Divine goodness, that we
have in our time Bibles plentifully, and are not debarred the
consulting of these holy oracles. Our Church doth not only
give us leave to read these sacred writings, but earnestly invites
and solicits us to be frequent and diligent in this godly exercise.
Thirdly and lastly, make a right use of this great and sin
gular benefit. Let your knowledge and skill in divine matters
be proportionable to your vouchsafements ; let your lives and
* Bp. Bramhal's Vindication of Grotius, &c.

OF THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 269
practices be answerable to this distinguishing favour indulged
to you above others. Be persuaded how inexcusable you will
be, if you do not surpass the Papists in spiritual understanding
and holiness of Ufe, and in the observation of all those strict
rules which the Bible inculcates upon us.

CHAPTER XIV.
Of the Celibacy of the Clergy.
It is not unknown to those that have conversed with the
writers of the Church of Rome, that they hold the marriage
of priests to be unlawful. And this is a doctrine of great mo
ment it seems ; for the Archbishop of Mentz* professed he
would rather permit the Lord's supper to be administered in
both kinds, nay he would rather abolish the mass, than suffer
the unmarried Ufe of the clergy to go down. A writerf of
very great esteem and authority among the Romanists contends
that celibacy is annexed to sacred orders as a necessary, sub
stantial, and essential thing, and enjoined by divine command,
and that it can be no more lawful for priests to marry than it
can be for them to steal, or be guilty of the like fault. Yea,
we are told, that fornicationj in a priest is not so great a sin as
marrying. And Costerus,§ one of their casuists, saith the same,
and all their great and approved doctors maintain it with
vigour. But not to rest wholly on the determinations of the
Roman doctors, though of great name, we have it from the
true staple of Popish doctrine, the Tridentine Council, that
" If any say that the clergy or regulars may contract marriage,
and that such contract is vaUd, let him be accursed." || Here
is the old style of Rome, anathematizing, to let us know that
they are in good earnest, when they declare their minds thus.
But we, on the contrary, assert in the words of our Church,^"
that " bishops, priests, and deacons are not commanded by
God's law either to vow the state of single life, or to abstain
from marriage : wherefore it is lawful also for them, as for all
other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they
* Coll. Mensal. t Franc. Turrianus. 1. 2. de dogm. charact.
X Gloss, ad Gratian. dist. 34. et dist. 82. c. 5.
S Enchirid. de Celibatu. c. 17. || Sess. 8. % Art. 32.

270 OF THE CELIBACY
shall judge the same to serve better to godliness." This is
our doctrine ; and now let us see on what grounds and reasons
we make it good. We prove the marriage of clergymen lawful
from these following arguments.
I. Because Scripture declares marriage in general to be law
ful, and the forbidding of it unlawful. We are assured by the
great and infallible Apostle, that " marriage is honourable in
all," Heb. xUi. 4, it is of high esteem and repute' among all
nations and people, and among all ranks and conditions of per
sons ; there is no order or degree that is excluded from it.
Again, the Apostle is very plain in 1 Cor. vU. 2, " To avoid for
nication, let every man have his own wife," that is, every man
that hath not the gift of continency : for so the Apostle ex
plains himself, ver. 9, " if they cannot contain," whether they
be single or widowers, " let them marry : for it is better to
marry than to burn," that is, to be inflamed with impure and
lustful desires. We see then that there is a general allowance
for a married life ; and till this be taken away, every particular
and individual person is included in it, clergymen as weU as
those of the laity. And it is observable that the Apostle fore
tells that the contrary doctrine, viz. " forbidding to marry" shall
be taught by those that " in the latter times shall depart from
the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of
devils," 1 Tim. iv. 1, 3. Nay,
II. There is express and particular allowance to ministers
and clergymen to marry. 1 Cor. ix. 5, " Have we not power
to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other Apostles, and as
the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas 1" That is, power or
licence is given to me, as well as to other ministers of the
Gospel, to marry a sister (for that was the word amongst the
primitive Christians to signify a believing woman), and take her
along with me in my travels. I know the Popish authors and
some others understand this text not of the Apostle's marry
ing a wife, but of carrying with him in his travels some pious
woman of good estate, that might be serviceable and beneficial
to him and the rest of the brethren : but the reason which the
Apostle gives why he and Barnabas declined the " leading
about a sister, a wife," sufficiently confutes this interpretation:
for he tells the Corinthians that he did this, " that he might
make the Gospel of Christ without charge, that he abuse not
his power (the power of leading about a sister)," ver. 18 ;
" and that he might keep himself from being burthensome,'
2 Cor. xi. 9; xii. 14, that he might not at that time be charge-

OF THE CLERGY. 271
able to the churches by having a wife and family. This plainly
shews that marrying a wife is here understood, which state of
life the Apostle thinks not fit to enter into again at present,
because he would not bring an unnecessary burthen and expfense
upon them. But he lets them know (that they may be sensi
ble of his kindness to them) that he hath power or liberty to
change his state of Ufe, and that none can take away this
Uberty from him, or from any other ministers of the Gospel.
That these were aUowed to Uve a conjugal life is undeniably
manifest from 1 Tim. Ui. 2. Tit. i. 6, where in the character of
a bishop it is said, " He must be the husband of one wife."
For understand it how you will, whether as a precept, that he
shaU have but one wife at a time (as it is expounded by St.
Jerome*), or as a prohibition against having two wives succes
sively one after the death of another (which is forbidden in the
Canons of the Apostles, as they are commonly called), or
against putting away his wife and marrying another after
divorce, stUl it is evident that clergymen are permitted by the
Apostle to marry ; for that is necessarily included in their being
the "husbands of one wife."
III. From the examples in the Old and New Testament it
is clear that ecclesiastical persons may have wives. This we
see in the priests and Levites under the law : and we find there
express precepts and directions about their marrying, and the
particular quahfication of their wives. Then for the New Tes
tament, St. Peter's wife is mentioned in Matth. viii. 14, though
he of all the Apostles should not have married, according to
the opinion of those who pretend to be his successors. We
are told by ecclesiastical historians, that others of them had
wives. PhUip was married, and had children, saith Clement
of Alexandria.-)- All the Apostles but John and Paul were mar
ried, saith St. Ambrose. J Nay, this latter is not excepted by
the foresaid Clement in the third book of his Stromata (where
upon Du Pin§ saith that this author was herein mistaken, but
rather it may be said, that himself was so), nor by Origen upon
the Epistle to the Romans ; nor by Eusebius, who, out of that
book of Clement's, disputing against Tatianus the founder of
the Encratitae, who were against marriage, tells us, that St.
Paul was wedded. And Ignatius before him, in his epistle to
* Praecipit, ut sacerdotes singulas uno tempore habeant uxores. Ep. 83.
t Strom. 1. 3. J In 2 Cor. xi.
$ Eccles. Hist. vol. 1. p. 78.

272 OF THE CELIBACY
the Philadelphians, informs us of tbe very same. And though
the contrary is generally asserted, yet I do not see any solid
ground for it, but rather it appears from 1 Cor. vii. 8, that he
had been married, but when his wife died, he continued a wi
dower. " I say to the unmarried (i. e. widowers) and widows,
it is good for them if they abide even as I," that is, a widower.
Some would prove from Phil. iv. 3, " I entreat thee, true yoke
fellow," that St. Paul speaks of his wife. So thought Clement
of Alexandria, and some other Fathers of old, and amongst the
learned moderns, Erasmus : but I cannot urge this.
IV. That the marriage of the clergy is lawful is proved from
the example of the ancient and primitive Fathers, bishops and
presbyters, many of whom were married men. That holy
martyr Ignatius is acknowledged by all to be of that number;
and this good man had so ill an opinion of the asserters of the
celibacy of the clergy, that he said, the " apostate spirit the
old serpent dwells in them."* Which when we read, we cannot
wonder that the Apostle reckoned the prohibition of marriage
among the " doctrines of devUs." It is universally confessed
that those eminent men of the Church, Hermas, Tertulhan,
Spiridion, Hilary, Basil, Gregory Nyssen, Gregory Nazianzen,
Epiphanius, Synesius, Prosper, and several others who were in
sacred orders, abandoned the single life. That the marriage
of priests was in Athanasius' s time lawful, may be seen in his
epistle to Dracontius. And it is affirmed by Jerome, that
many priests in his time had their proper wives.
I might go back as far as the Apostolical Canons if they
were of undoubted antiquity. However, those that think
them so (as the writers of the Roman Church generally do,
with whom we deal at present), may from them satisfy them
selves that it is lawful for clergymen to marry, for the fifth
canon expressly saith, " Let not a bishop, presbyter, or deacon
put away his wife under colour of religion, or if he do so, let
him be put from the com-munion of the faithful, and if he
continue, let him be deposed from his office."f Upon which
words those great oracles of canon law Balsamon and Zonaras
tell us, that bishops and other churchmen had wives, even after
they were bishops. I know that, against this, the twenty-fifth
canon is alleged, where those that come single to the priesthood
* Ep. ad Philadelph.
t 'E7ri<TK07roc, n TrptafSvTEpoc, ri Si&Kovoe rf)V tavrov yvvaXna p,r\
EKfiaXXkrw irpotpaati evXafieiac., &c.

OF THE CLERGY. 273
are forbid afterwards to marry : and this seems to be confirmed
by the twenty-ninth canon ; wherefore I see there is no good
arguing from these canons : and indeed they are voted to be
spurious by the most judicious writers of the Protestant
communion, and by some of the Church of Rome. Let us
hear then what undoubted Councils say.
• V. It is proved from the decrees of the most ancient and
approved CouncUs, that the marriage of ecclesiastical persons is
lawful, and that the imposing of a single Ufe upon them is not
so. The first and famous CouncU of Nice left it to every
clergyman's Uberty to marry, or not : for though, at first, the
Fathers of that CouncU were otherwise inchned, yet when
Paphnutius, an old confessor and bishop, but himself a single
man, stood up in the CouncU, and set before them the whole
matter, and urged Scripture, and especially St. Paul's autho
rity, and with these confronted their seeming reasons and
arguments, he gained to him the votes of the whole Synod,
and they with one consent aUowed of the matrimony of the
clergy.* Another General CouncU, the sixth in order, the third of
Constantinople, in the seventh century decreed the marriage
of priests, against the Church of Rome endeavouring to re
strain it. The same is approved of by the fourth Canon of
the Council of Gongra ; and it is determined in the sixty-fifth
Canon of the Eliberitane Council, that " If a clergyman
knows that his wife commits adultery, and sends her not away,
he is unworthy of the communion of the Church." It is clear
then, that in the Churches of Spain the clergy were not tied
up to cehbacy. The decrees of other Councils might be men
tioned, but these may suffice, especially when I add, that in
the Churches of Ethiopia, India, Greece, and in all parts
where Christians are, marriage is not forbid to priests, but
aUowed of, yea they are permitted to marry a second time. I
have spoken of the Jews before, and it is evident that the
heathens generaUy denied not wedlock to their priests. So
that whereas the Romanists usuaUy have something from Ju
daism or Paganism to aUege for themselves, here they are at a
loss, and have nothing to aUege.
Yet they wUl not forbear such pleas and seeming proofs as
these ; first, they quote Scripture, as Satan before them did,
to serve their cause. They foohshly make use of 1 Sam. xxi. 4,
* Socrat. Hist. Eecl. 1. 1. c. 8. Sozom. 1. 1. c. 22.
VOL. VI, T

274 OF THE CELIBACY
" If the young men have kept themselves at least from women,"
most irrationally inferring from the priests abstaining from
their wives, when their turns of officiating came, that clergy
men must have no wives. Besides, the truth of the matter is
this, the priests' habitations were out of Jerusalem, in the city
of the Levites, but when their courses returned of ministering
in the temple, they came to Jerusalem, and continned eight
days in the temple, and so were necessarily kept from their
wives. He must be a man of very subtle head that can prove
hence that the priests ought not to marry. As weakly and
impertinently is that of the Apostle quoted in 1 Cor. vii. 5,
" Defraud not one the other, except it be with consent for a
time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer." Where
the Apostle advises the husband and wife on some solemn oc
casion to deny themselves the carnal converse which at other
times is freely permitted to them, that they may the more
earnestly attend to the religious exercises which they are called
to be employed in : but no logic can help a man to conclude
hence, that churchmen are hereby forbid to have wives, and to
make use of the married state.
Others as fondly cite the Apostle's words in Rom. viii. 8,
" They that are in the flesh cannot please God :" but priests
are in the flesh, in an impure and corrupt state, if they marry:
therefore it is impossible they should please God. But, 1st, if
this arguing be good, then all others, as well as priests, that
are married, are in that, state wherein they cannot please God:
and so this condemns marriage in general, that is marriage in
all persons ; which is more than these poor reasoners intended,
and therefore this argument must be rejected, because it proves
too much, if it proves anything at all. 2ndly, If the conjugal
state be so impure and corrupt that none who are in it can
please God, and consequently priests must abstain from mar
riage, I ask how comes it to pass that matrimony is a sacra
ment in the Church of Rome ? And being a sacrament, they
hold it confers, even ex opere operato, grace and sanctification.
Wherefore marriage should rather add to the priests' purity
and sanctity than take these away from them, and make them
incapable . of pleasing God. And moreover, the Church of
Rome holds, that the priest entirely makes all the sacraments,
and consequently that of matrimony ; but wUl the pious priest
have the whole making of that which he knows wiU put men
into a state of impurity and unholiness, such as will render
them unfit to do what is pleasing to God, surely he is too

OF THE CLERGY. 275
good a man to do any thing of this nature. And yet, which
shews the gross absurdity of the thing, he holds that marriage
is a sacrament, and conveys holiness with it. And yet it is too
impure for him, and therefore he abstains from it. If any one
hath the abiUty, let him reconcUe these contradictions and
solecisms. But they argue from authority and antiquity, and tell us
that virginity was highly extolled by the primitive Fathers ;
that marriage was very much depressed, and that St. Jerome
particularly was a stiff man for the celibacy of deacons and
priests, as may be seen in his book against Vigilantius. I an
swer : I. From their extoUing the celibacy of the priests, none
can argue that they thought the marriage of the priests was
unlawful : for we see that in 1 Cor. vii. the Apostle shewed
himself a great patron of ceUbacy, and hath expressly dis
played the conveniences of a single life, he hath freed it from
the cares and incumbrances of a marriage state, and hath re
presented virginity as a condition almost angelical : but if we
read the chapter diUgently, it wUl appear that he speaks not
against marriage absolutely, but with reference only to that
time, when persecution was so hot ; in that juncture a single
life was best and most eligible. And accordingly we are not
to marvel that some of the Fathers that Uved under the Roman
emperors, who made havoc of the Christian Church, talk
very warmly for an unwedded Ufe. And those writers that
came after them did on other considerations depreciate the
married state, because it was some hinderance to devotion, and
to some other acts of reUgion, the Church being not then fully
settled. II. I answer, if some of the ancient writers would be
lavish and extravagant in what they said of marriage, what is
that to our purpose ? It is not to be denied that St. Jerome
and some others have words unbecoming the state of matri
mony, which we know is of divine institution ; and St. Am
brose talks of the virgin state in a style not befitting so wise
and good a man. To say the truth, this was a smack of the
old heretical doctrines of Marcion and Montanus, and the
Encratitse, who furiously inveighed against marriage, as im
pure, unclean, and vicious, and more especially condemned the
marriage of clergymen. And hence it was that this latter
became at last a doctrine of Popery.
Another objection from antiquity is this : It is true that the
ancient CouncUs and Canons permitted priests to continue still
i married, provided they were the husbands of one wife, but there
T 2

276 OF THE CELIBACY
is not one example of a person that married after he was in
holy orders for fifteen hundred years. If they were single at
the time they were made bishops or priests, they always con
tinued so. I answer, first, it is sufficient to our purpose
against the Romanists, that it hath been proved that bishops
and presbyters married, and were not deprived of their office
for being so : there is no need of assigning the time, that is,
whether they were married before or after they were bishops.
But secondly, to satisfy the curious and inquisitive, they may
be pleased to consult Cassiodorus, who writ the abridgment
of the Tripartite History, and he will ascertain them that
Eupsichius, a bishop in Csesarea, married after he was bishop,
and died a martyr presently after. And what was the prac
tice as to this very particular we may learn from the Council
held at Ancyra, in the middle of the fourth century, where
there was this canon : " If priests at the time of ordination
made protestation that they would marry, if they marry after
wards, let them continue in their ministry, forasmuch as the
bishop hath given them Ucence." Whence it is clear and
undeniable that it was lawful for them to marry after ordi
nation. Thus it is plain that their pleas from antiquity are not valid,
and that for three hundred years after Christ the marriage of the
clergy was not prohibited, but freely allowed. It is generally
agreed by authors of good note, that Syricius, bishop of Rome,
at the latter end of the fourth century was the first that de
creed the clergy should be compelled to a single life. And in
the East the sixth Synod in Trullum, that is, in the cloister of
the Imperial Palace of the Greek emperor, was the first that
forbade clergymen to marry, and to retain their wives, saith
Balsamon on the fifth Canon of the Apostles. But it was a
great whUe after this, before these decrees and prohibitions
universally prevailed : it is thought, not till Pope Gregory
VII. alias Hildebrand, a.d. 1074.
I have said what was sufficient to be suggested under this
Popish head of the celibacy of the clergy.
I shall now finish all in a corollary or two.
First, Let us now not only be convinced of the truth of that
persuasion, which I have been advancing, but let us look upon
the contrary doctrine and practice as very wicked. For it is
certain that it is accompanied with gross hypocrisy in the
priests themselves. For many of them, whilst they pretend
to greater purity and continence than others, have been dis-

OF THE CLERGY. 2/7
covered to have been guUty of extraordinary lewdness. Though
they preach up celibacy, yet they run into actual impurity,
and they allow themselves in fornication and uncleanness. The
story of John de Crema an Italian Cardinal is well known : he
was the Pope's legate sent over to England by him, in our
King Henry I.'s reign, to defend the cause of the priests' celi
bacy, and to curb those that were married, and to compel
them to abandon their wives, and to that purpose made a very
pathetic speech concerning the unlawfulness of priests' mar
riage, and in commendation of a single life ; but the good ora
tor, the very same night after this oration, was taken in bed
with a strumpet. I had mentioned this before, but I could
not forbear giving the reader a relation of it a second time, it
being so seasonable in this place, and it being testified by
Hovedon, Huntingdon, and other credible authors of the
Roman communion. And it is not to be doubted that there
are abundant instances of the Uke nature, that is of Roman
priests, who inveigh against a wedded Ufe, and magnify vir
ginity, but at the same time indulge themselves in the secret
practice of lewdness.
Secondly, Nor is it hypocrisy only that I charge them with,
but it is too evident, that other great evils and enormities, and
even bloodshed and murder accompany this practice. One
that was a Roman Catholic himself, the Bishop of Augsburg,*
in an epistle of his relates a dreadful spectacle at Rome,
namely, that soon after Pope Gregory estabhshed the celibacy
of the clergy, he intending to fish in a deep pond near a
monastery, and letting out some of the water to that end,
some thousand heads of children were found, who had been
thrown in there and drowned. Upon which the Pope reversed
his decree of unmarried Ufe, but other Popes renewed it and
required the strict observance of it. The bastards are so
numerous at Rome by reason of the swarming of priests, that
monasteries are built on purpose, wherein they are brought
up. Out of monasteries and friaries they came, and thither
they go. At any solemn procession at Rome these bas'-
tards go before the Pope, as the same author relates, to
teU the world, that he is not ashamed of this accursed fruit of
the unmarried Uves of the priests and nuns.
Thirdly, Let those of the clergy of the Reformed Churches,
that are in a state of wedlock, remember to demean themselves
* Colloq. Mensal. c. 50.

278 OF THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY.
so as not to be a scandal to their profession. We of the Pro
testant communion make use of that Christian liberty which
the Popish clergy are debarred of, but let us do it with wisdom
and prudence, and Christian moderation, and self-denial. We
must take care that the relation and duties which are proper
to the wedded condition, hinder not those which peculiarly
appertain to our ecclesiastical function. The delights of a
married state ought not to be avocations from the right dis
charging our spiritual offices in the Church, but helps and
encouragements to us in the performing them. In brief, we
should follow the Apostle's advice, that " those that have
wives, be as though they have none ;" that is, that they
overvalue not such earthly comforts and possessions, that
they place not their happiness in these inferior enjoyments,
and that they use them to the great ends of religion and
hoUness.

279

CHAPTER XV.

Of the Idolatry of the Church of Rome, or their giving
Divine Worship to Creatures.
This is the highest charge against the Romanists, and I
have kept it for the last. But I shall demonstrate it to be as
true and real, as clear and evident, as any of the preceding
ones. I know there are some that pretend, it is a very difficult
thing to define idolatry, and their design in this is to keep it
from being discovered, that it may not be applied by any
means to the Church of Rome. But this is a mere cheat and
delusion ; for the notion and nature of idolatry are plain and
obvious, and easy to be understood, for nothing is more com
monly spoken against by the penmen of the holy Scripture ;
and surely they understood what they said, and were persuaded
and satisfied, that those they spoke to had also a knowledge
of it. Idolatry (or rather idololatry, for so it should be
expressed, but I know not how the word hath been corrupted
by us, and we have left out a part of it. But I shall not vary
from the usual and vulgar writing of the word, for in this and
the Uke cases we are not to observe propriety, but custom.)
Idolatry, I say, in the most proper and strict sense, is wor
shipping an idol, a paying divine adoration and service to an
image, or whatsoever is erected as a material and visible re
presentation of a deity. But in the more large and compre
hensive acceptation of the word, idolatry is worshipping any
other thing or person that is not God. As we learn from the
Apostle's words in Gal. vUi. 8, where he reminds the Gala
tians, that when they were heathens, " they did service unto
them which by nature are no gods." Therefore it is manifest,
that idolatry is giving divine or rehgious worship to that
which by nature is a creature, not a god. There cannot be a
more intelUgible and perspicuous truth than this, though some
for evU ends have endeavoured to obscure it. That ancient
and learned Father of the Christian Church gave us a right
idea and character of idolatry, when he in brief tells us that
then it is committed, " when any thing is exalted beyond the
measures of human honour, as if it were of divine sublimity."*
* Quicquid ultra humani honoris modum ad instar Divinse sublimitatis
attollitur.— Tertull. de Idololat. [c. 5. p. 89. Lutet. Paris. 1664.]

280 OF THE IDOLATRY
This was the idolatry of the Pagans, and I will shew how
it is a parallel of the Popish idolatry.
First, We find that 'the Pagans generally owned and wor
shipped one Supreme God, but they set up with him other
inferior ones, created deities, whom they styled Daemons or
Heroes. These were subordinate divinities, these were media
tors and intercessors with the Supreme one. So it is among
the Roman CathoUcs, though they acknowledge the true God,
yet they have their angels and saints, to whom they pray, and
before whom they prostrate themselves, and perform religious
adoration, for these answer to the Pagan heroes and daemons,
and are their intercessors and mediators with the Supreme
God. Secondly, The Pagans worshipped their gods (great and
less) in images and statues. They looked on these as repre
sentations and symbols of the great and the inferior ones ;
but few of them thought these images and statues to be gods,
yet the worshipping of them is truly reckoned as idolatry.
So the Papists, though they do not take the images and pic
tures of God and the saints to be gods, but only representa
tions of them, and erected to their honour, yet they are justly
charged . with idolatry, because they fall down before them,
and give religious worship to them.
Thirdly, The heathens, who had their inferior and supreme
deities, pretended to give one sort of adoration to one, and
another sort to the other ; one was lower, the other higher:
but both were idolatrous. So the Church of Rome distin
guishes between that worship which they allow to the great
God, and that which they give to the angels, and saints, and
to images, &c. One is said to be direct, and the other indirect
'and collateral only ; one is absolute, and the other relative ;
but both being paid to creatures, are on that very account
idolatrous. Thus we see from a brief scheme of the Gentile
worship, that that of the Romanists cannot be cleared from
idolatry. If the heathens were idolatrous, so are the Papists ;
for we see that there is the same draft of worship. I con
clude then that the idolatry of the men of the Church of
Rome is as to the main the same with that of Pagans.
So if we look into the idolatry of the Jews, which was bor
rowed from these, we shall be convinced, that those of the
Roman communion are equally guilty of idolatry with any of
the Jews, that are charged with that sin. If we should grant
that the Israelites were not so sottish, as to think that the

OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 281
Golden Calf, or the calves of Dan and Bethel were gods, yet
we find that this did not excuse them from idolatry ; for they
were palpably guilty of this, because they worshipped the true
God by, or in these images ; and at the same time they wor
shipped these images, as representatives of God. This we
must know, that it is not necessary to idolatry, that the wor
shipper should conceive that the thing he worships is God ;
for if this were requisite, then there would have been little
idolatry in the world, because the light of nature would have
told the Pagans as weU as Jews that the sun, moon, and stars,
are not gods, that a molten calf cannot be a deity, that that
which hath neither Ufe nor understanding nor power, cannot
chaUenge to be the Supreme Author and Disposer of all things.
But herein consisted the idolatry of a great part of the deluded
world (I say a great part, because I do not exclude the abso
lute belief of polytheism among the rest), that they conferred
the worship which was due to God alone on that which is not
God, yea even when they knew it was but a creature. On
this account, the idolatry of the Pagans, Jews, and Papists,
is the same. EspeciaUy these two latter acknowledge one God,
and yet they yield adoration to those things and persons who
are owned by them to be no gods. Thus though they do not
take a creature for God, yet whilst they give divine worship to
it, they are downright idolators ; for the adoring of a creature
is the proper notion of idolatry. Thus it was necessary to
premise what hath been said of the nature of idolatry; and
from thence it is too evident, what the worship of the Roman
Church is.
I go on now to make good the charge in particular, that
the Papists worship creatures, both persons and things : first
persons, as angels and saints ; secondly, things, as relics,
the cross, the elements in the sacrament, images and pictures.
AU these are the objects of religious adoration with them. I
begin with the former, namely, persons, and here it is plain
that the devotionists of the Church of Rome worship both
angels and saints, and assert and maintain this practice, and
therefore they are to be pronounced idolatrous.
The first cannot be doubted, much less denied, by any that
have taken notice of the determination of the Council of Trent
in this matter ; for according to the Catechism* which was
approved of by that Council, and pubUshed by order and
* Pars 1. c. 2.

282 OF the idolatry:
command of Pope Pius V. the veneration and invocation of the
holy angels is enjoined. Accordingly there are prayers made
and composed on purpose, to invoke angels, and particularly
their peculiar tutelar or guardian angels. This is an old piece
of idolatry, and was held and practised by some in the Chris
tian Church in the Apostle's time, as is evident from Col. ii.
18. And we learn from the writings of the ancient Fathers
that the Gnostics' divinity treated much about angels, and
they were inclined to worship them, and pray to them. St.
Jerome* observes, that some of the believing Jews were still
taken with the Mosaic ceremonies, and used them with a great
devotion, and offered sacrifices, not to God, but to I know not
what " fugitive angels ;" which he endeavours to prove their
forefathers did formerly in the wilderness, from Acts vii. 42,
where they are said " to worship the host of heaven." Which
by St. Paul in that place, in the Epistle to the Colossians, is
called the " worshipping of angels." Mr. Seldenf thinks it
probable, that by this is meant the custom of the Essenes
mentioned by Josephus, that they used to swear by the names
of the angels, and were obliged to do this at their initiation
into that sect. But this is certain, that the Jews had an undue
veneration for angels, and were for recommending and address
ing themselves to them in their prayers. Accordingly Philo
very frequently in his writings asserts their mediatorship ; and
Maimonides cites tbat text, Job xxxiii. 23 : " If there be a
messenger with him," to prove that angels are mediators and
intercessors. It is likely then that this was the corrupt notion
which some Christian Jews had taken up even in the Apostle's
times, and St. Paul refers to it in that fore-mentioned place.
And we read of the Angelici, heretics that worshipped angels,
as St. AugustineJ relates. The Marcionites and the Manichees
were of this sort, and this was grounded on the opinion, that
the world was created by angels, and not by God, which was
held by Simon Magus the first heretic. Nor is it improbable
that both Jews and Christians received those UI sentiments
from the Pagans, for it is agreed on by all, that angels or
daemons (as they called them) were an inferior sort of deities
that they worshipped ; and that they ought to have prayers
offered to them, was held by Celsus, as Origen informs us.§
Now the Papists took this opinion and practice from the
* Epist. 151. ad Algasiam. t De Dis Syriis. Syntag. 1.
t De Hseres. cap. 39. [August, p. 11. vol. 8. Paris. 1688.J
§ Cont. Cels. 1. 8.

OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 283
Judaizing Christians and Pagans, and adopted them into their
worship (as it is well known that a great part of their religion
is derived from Judaism and Paganism) ; they make the angels
their agents and intercessors with God, they direct their peti
tions to them, and fall down before them, and give them that
reverence and veneration which is not due to any creature.
But I will now briefly shew that this is directly opposite to
what the holy Scriptures (which are our rule in this case) dic
tate to us. This adoring of angels is expressly forbidden in
Col. n. 18. "Let no man beguile you of your reward in a
voluntary humUity and worshipping of angels :" as if the
Apostle had said, do not embrace such a doctrine and practice
as will endanger your happiness ; and do not deceive your
selves by thinking that there is some special humility in ad
dressing yourselves to angels, as if you dare not apply your
selves to God immediately, but think it more reverential to
make use of these mediators. For that is the true meaning of
" voluntary humUity" joined here with the worshipping of
angels. " There were those (saith St. Chrysostom on the
place) in the Apostles' times, who thought it not safe to go to
the Father through Christ, but by the angels, and therefore
prayed to them." And so Theodoret and other ancient
Fathers on the text tell us, that the Apostle here opposes
those who held that God was to be approached to, not by the
mediation of Christ but of angels, and thence persuaded the
simple to pray to the angels. The Apostle here condemns
this practice, and to shew how unreasonable and unlawful it
is, adds concerning these worshippers of angels, that they " do
not hold the Head," ver. 1 9 ; they renounce Christ, who is the
only intercessor to the Father, from whose influence the Church
(as the body from the head) is maintained, and increases with
a divine increase.
And as there is here this particular prohibition of the
Apostle, so angels themselves have forbid persons to worship
them : thus we read that when St. John " fell at an angel's
feet to worship him," he met with this reprimand, " See thou
do it not," and the reason which is added is this, " I am thy
fellow-servant, therefore worship God and him only." And
at another time we have the very same word on the like occa
sion, Rev. xxU. 9 ; which shews that these heavenly messengers
do not aUow us to pray unto them, or to perform any
other act of worship to them, but declare it to be sinful
and unlawful. They are but our fellow-servants and fellow-

284 OF THE IDOLATRY
creatures, and therefore it is downright idolatry to give that
honour to them which is due only fo our Great Master and
Creator. The farther reasons of it I refer tiU I come to speak
of the praying to saints, because what shall be said under that
head is applicable to this concerning the worshipping and in
voking of angelic spirits.
I will in the next place take notice of the pleas and excuses
which those of the Church of Rome are wont to make use of
in defence of their offering up prayers to the angels'. - First,
they endeavour to prove the lawfulness of it from Gen. xlviii.
16, where Jacob, blessing Joseph's children, saith, "the Angel,
which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads :" whence the
writers of the Roman Church infer, that the patriarch invoked
an angel, and begged of him to bless Joseph's children. But
the brief answer to this is, that the Angel is the second Person
in tbe Trinity, who appeared to Jacob, as well as to Abraham
and other patriarchs before. This is the " Angel of the Cove*
nant," as he is styled by Malachi : and the ancientest Christian
Fathers, as well as the Jewish consent to this. But that which
ought to be most prevalent with us is this, that the words pre
ceding these which have been quoted out of Genesis, and
joined with them, do clearly prove what hath been suggested :
" The God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the
Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads." This
conjunction shews that the angel is God himself, even the
second Person in the Trinity, who not only now, but at other
times, appeared to the patriarchs in the shape of an angel, and
therefore is so called.
In the New Testament, such places as these are alleged;
but to Uttle purpose, Matth. xviii. 10 : "Despise not one of
these little ones ; for I say unto you, that in heaven their
angels do alway behold the face of my Father which is in
heaven." Therefore, say some Popish authors, we ought to
pray to angels. A wild inference, and such as they will never
be able to make good, till they can prove, that because angels
" behold God's face in heaven," and wait on his servants here
on earth, when they are commissioned by him to perform that
service, therefore it necessarily follows that praying to them is
our duty. Such another consequence is that which they make
from Luke xv. 7 : " There is joy in the presence of the angels
of God over one sinner that repenteth :" therefore we may
lawfully make our application to angels in our solemn petitions.
But any unprejudiced man must be forced to acknowledge,

OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 285
that there is no connexion between these two, namely, the
angels carrying up the joyful tidings of a sinner's conversion,
and our praying to them. As weakly and foolishly do some
writers of the Church of Rome found this latter upon 1 Cor.
xi. 10, "The woman ought to have power over her head, be
cause of the angels," they being present in the assemblies of
the saints. But no man of reason and judgment will conclude,
that, because these blessed spirits are present in the pubhc
congregations of the faithful, therefore we are obUged to perform
to them that act of worship, which God challenges to himself.
Some cite 1 Tim. v. 21 : "I charge thee before God and
the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe
these things :" and argue thus, angels know what we do, and
hear what we say, or else they would not be here mentioned
as witnesses to the Apostle's charge : therefore this is a ground
of our praying to them. I answer, it doth not follow from
their knowing and hearing what we say sometimes, that we may
invocate them ; for we know not when they are present, and
at what time they hear what we say or do. Or if we knew
this, stiU there is no reason to pray to them, because we are
to pray to God alone, as I shall demonstrate to you in my next
particular. They aUege Rev. i. 4, where they -say St. John prays to
angels ; for grace and peace are wished and prayed for by him
" from the Seven Spirits." I answer, the Holy Ghost is here
meant by the Seven Spirits, because of his manifold and various
gifts. And it is evident from the text which, we may observe,
mentions the three Persons in the sacred Trinity, " Him that
was," &c. " and the Seven Spirits, and Jesus Christ." Nor
is that objection of any value, that the third Person is set be
fore the second : for we shall find that the Persons of the
Trinity are not always mentioned in their exact order, as in
2 Cor.xUi. 14 ; Gal. i. 1, and other places.
There is one text more which is commonly perverted, to
favour the praying to angels, Rev. vUi. 3 : " Another angel
came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer, and there
was given unto him much incense ; that he should offer it with
the prayers of aU saints upon the golden altar." Whence it is
inferred that the angels are mediators and intercessors between
God and man, and offer up to God the prayers that are made
to them. But this extravagant inference is soon removed, by
observing that this angel here spoken of is not one of the
common angels, but he is called " another angel" to distin-

286 OF THE IDOLATRY
guish his quality and nature from the rest. This is no other
than the "Angel of the Covenant" mentioned before, even
Christ Jesus, our high-priest and intercessor ; and therefore it
is observable that he is described as such ; to let us know who
he is, "he hath a golden censer," as the high-priest had, and
the incense was offered on the golden altar as was wont to be
by the high-priest. We are not to doubt, therefore, that
Christ our high-priest is here meant, who intercedes in heaven
for the saints on earth, and through his abundant merits
(which are expressed here by much incense) makes their
prayers acceptable to God. This is the genuine sense of this
text, and it carries its own evidence with it. Wherefore, not
withstanding what hath been objected by our adversaries of
the Church of Rome, we have assurance of this great truth,
that the Scripture doth not approve of, but, on the contrary,
dishkes and condemns the Popish doctrine and practice of
adoring the angels, and praying to them.
With which agrees the positive determination of the an
cients, as that of Origen,* "All prayer, and supplication, and
intercession, and thanksgiving, is to be sent up to him who is
God over all, by that High-priest, who is above all angels,
the Living Word and very God ;" and of Theodoret, f "we
neither give them (i. e. angels) divine worship, nor do we
divide divine adoration between God and them : but though
they are more honourable than men, yet we say they are our
fellow-servants." To which may be added the thirty-fifth
Canon of that ancient Council of Laodicea, convened in the
middle of the fourth century, which forbids calling upon
angels, and determines it to be an idolatrous practice, and an
apostasy from the Church of God.
Secondly, as the Roman Church worships angels, so I shall
now speak of her giving the same honour to saints, that is, to
the souls of holy men and women departed. And first it is
notorious that they give divine adoration to the Virgin Mary,
and their great doctors and professors write in defence of it.
Perhaps this idolatry was borrowed from the Collyridians,
heretics mentioned by Epiphanius, who tells us that their
women offered as a sacrifice to the Virgin Mary, an oblation
of bread : which when they had offered, they did eat it among
* Contr. Cels. 1. 5. [Basil. 1575.]
t OiiSi 0eioj< avroiQ airovkp,outv ai/iSac, ovdk p.tpiloptv tig rbv avra
Qtbv Kai tovtovq rrjv Gtiav irpoaKvvnaiv aXXa tovtovq Tifiwnpws
p&v avOpihiriiiv, ofiodoiXovg 8h Hvai Qa/icv.

OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 287
themselves, as the orthodox Christians at that time did the
Lord's supper. So that this was a sacrament in honour of
the Blessed Virgin, and consequently it was giving divine
veneration to her. The like, or more transcendent Mary-
worship, is to be seen among the Papists. They present her
with gifts and oblations, they dedicate temples and oratories,
they erect altars, they appoint offices, they celebrate masses,
they vow pilgrimages in her honour.
And if we observe the language and style of their doctors
and chief churchmen, we shall never more doubt of the Roman
idolatry in this point.* Gabriel Biel calls the Virgin the
"Queen of Heaven, to whom the King of kings, the heavenly
Father, hath given the half of his kingdom." A known Jesuit
concurs with him, and hath the confidence to say,f " This is
the Virgin Mary, with whom God hath divided his kingdom."
And if any thing can be yet more blasphemous, certainly that
of Bernardine of Seres is, " AU things and persons serve to the
empire of the Virgin, and God himself." I will add but one
passage more, and that is most horrid and impious, J one saith,
" He cannot tell which to prefer, the Mother's milk, or the
Son's blood."
Bnt the " praying to her" (if that may be called praying
which comes from such heUish mouths) is the standing mark
and proof of their adoring her, of their ascribing as great, if
not greater honour to her, than to God himself. In David's
Psalms, wheresoever there is the name of Jehovah, Lord, or
God, the name of Mary is inserted in its room by Bonaven-
ture, one of their great and topping saints. A plain sign that
the worship which is given to God in the Book of Psalms is
also due to her. Or rather, the adoration of the Great God is
excluded to make way for hers. In the Psalter of the Blessed
Virgin Mary (as it is called), there are these express words, at
the reading of which every pious reader will find himself in
clined to tremble, but I beg leave to rehearse them as a proof
and demonstration of what I am speaking of. " The Virgin
herself is the door of life, the gate of salvation, and the way
and means of our reconciliation; let the families of the nations
worship thee, and all the orders of angels glorify thee ; O most
merciful Virgin, wash away all our sins ; come unto her all ye
that labour and are heavy laden, and she shall give rest and
* De Can. Miss. Sect. 30. t Viegas. Serm. 17.
t Carolus Scribonius in Amphitheatre honoris.

288 OF THE IDOLATRY.
refreshment to your souls ; let thy servants receive the illumi
nation of the Holy Spirit by thee ; Thou with thy Son sittest
at the right hand of the Father; incline thy Son to look
favourably upon us ; force him by thy prayers to be merciful
to us sinners." And the highest blasphemy of all, is that,
" From thy fulness the whole sacred Trinity receives its glory."
And as these Romanists live, so they die ; for in the same
Psalter of the Virgin there is this conclusive resignation, " Into
thy hands (namely the hands of the Virgin Mary) I commend
my spirit." There are many other passages of the Uke nature
in that book : and in others she is generally prayed unto as the
" Mother of Mercy, the Hope and Help of the Afflicted, the
Comforter of the Miserable," &c. And in one of their Missals
they pray to her to " command her Son by the authority and
power of a mother." I think I have sufficiently proved the
first thing I undertook under this second general head, to wit,
that the Virgin Mary is worshipped by the Romanists, and
particularly that she hath prayers offered unto her.
I proceed to prove that the Papists give the same adoration
to other saints and departed souls. None of their authors
pretend to deny, that oblations and sacrifices are offered to
them, that festival days are devoted to their honour, that it is
lawful to make vows to them, and to swear by them. The
erecting and consecrating of altars to them is another great
honour done to them in all Popish countries, and a little before
the Reformation here in England there were found a dozen*
altars dedicated to particular saints, in the cathedral church
of St. Paul in London, besides the high altar, and one to
Michael the archangel.
But the most usual instance of their worshipping the saints,
is their praying to them. They privately and publicly implore
their help and aid. " It is good and profitable,+ (saith the
Council of Trent) to call upon the saints with humility, and
to have recourse to their prayers, aid, and assistance." This
is part of the twentieth Article of the Roman Creed, enjoined
by the Council of Trent : and their CatechismJ instructs them
in this. Besides, the constant practice of the Church of Rome
in its pubhc Liturgy is known. There are extant several forms
of prayer to saints, wherein it is evident that they apply them
selves to them, as they do to God, for mercy, and grace, and
* See Fuller's Church History. t Sess. 9.
X De Cultu et Veneratione Sanctorum.

OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 289
pardon, and for temporal blessings, and good things ; for pro
tection and deUverance, and the like. To which purpose they
have their set patrons, and particular helpers, according to the
different conditions they are in, and the professions they are of,
according to the diversity of the evils they labour under, ac
cording to the variety of the things, which they stand in need
of. For one saint is beneficial in one respect, and another in
another ; one presides over this rank of men, and others over
those of a different kind : some bestow this peculiar gift and
favour ; others have it in their power to help and accommo
date us in another way proper to themselves.
Thus St. Apollonia hath a particular talent of curing the
tooth-ache; St; OtUia and St. Clare sore eyes ; St. Genow the
gout ; St. Petrarch the fever ; St. Liberius the stone ; St.
Macarius the frenzy ; St. Apollinaris the French disease.
St. Gal is for their geese ; St. Pelagius for their oxen ; St. Anne
helps people to their lost goods ; St. Leonard is so kind and
merciful as to reUeve prisoners, and sometimes to set open the
gaol-doors. Cosmas and Damias (for sometimes they are
pleased to join in the same good offices) patronize physicians ;
St. Margaret midwives ; St. Luke protects the painters ; St.
Ive the lawyers ; St. Nicholas the mariners ; St. Hubert the
hunters ; St. Honor the bakers ; St. Eloy the smiths ; St.
Crispin the shoemakers ; and good St. Roch even the cobblers ;
St. WendeUne the shepherds ; St. Anthony the swineherds ;
and St. Gertrude is pleased to condescend so far as to be the
friend of ratcatchers. The designation of saints to particular
offices and employments is firmly beUeved by the Papists, and
accordingly they make their appUcation to them, as their state
and condition requires.
And it hath been observed by unprejudiced persons, that
they are more zealous in their prayers to saints than to God,
and that some of them are more frequent in the former, than in
the latter. There are ten Ave Maria for one Pater-noster.
The Mother generaUy is preferred to her Son, and to all the
saints. I say generally, but sometimes upon the coming up of
a new saint at first he gets the better of both, as in Bishop
Morton's appeal there is this passage, " In the old books re
maining in the church of Canterbury it appears, that, whereas,
there used to be three offerings made by the people in that
church, one to Christ, another to the Virgin Mary, a third to
Thomas Becket, the oblation made to Thomas Becket did com-
munibus annis amount to eight hundred or a thousand pounds ;
vol. vi. u

290 OF THE IDOLATRY
that to our Lady to two hundred pounds ; that to Christ some
times to five marks, sometimes twelve, and sometimes hoc anno
nihil." Thus he. And we may be sure that their prayers
bore proportion to their offering. Thus the saints exclude
Christ, the Son ; and the Virgin, God the Father. For this
is a settled notion with the generality of the blinded Papists,
that the addresses that are directed to the saints, will be most
successful and prosperous ; and they shall hear an answer
sooner from them, than from God himself. Yea, in the chapel
built to St. Anthony in Padua there is this said of him ;
Exaudit, quos non audit et ipse Dens.
" This saint hears those, whom God himself does not hear."
I am weary of such blasphemy as this, and therefore will add
no more of this kind, though it were easy to present the
reader with plenty of it from the writings of the men of the
Church of Rome. It is too manifest from what we have said
that they assert the lawfulness, and uphold the practice of
praying to departed saints (yea, even in a most scandalous
manner), which was the thing I offered to prove, to make good
the charge of idolatry against them.
But because (as I have said) they defend (as well as practise)
this idolatrous way of worship, I am obliged to consider and
examine the arguments which they make use of in this con
troversy. And first, they argue from Jacob's words to Joseph's
children, by way of benediction, " Let my name be named tin
them, and the name of my fathers, Abraham, and Isaac,''
Gen. xlviii. 16, where Jacob exhorts his grandchildren (say
they) to pray to him when he is dead, and to pray to their
forefathers who were then dead. But this cannot but be ob
served to be a gross perverting of the text : for who sees not the
vast difference between named on them, and prayed to by them?
which shews that this text is most impertinently alleged1 by
the Papists. But the plain meaning of the words is this; Let
them bear the honourable name of the children of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob or Israel ; let them be thus called in all
future generations : and so they are at this day. That this is
the true and unforced meaning of the place is clear from several
others, where (according to the Hebrew way of speaking), a
person or person's name or names are said to be "called upon
those who are called by that name. Thus in Deut. xxviii. 10.
"Thou art called by the name of the Lord ;" Heb. "The
name of the Lord is called upon thee." 2 Chron vii. H.

OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 291
"My people which are called by my name," Heb. "Upon
which my name is called." Jer. xiv. 9. "We are called by
thy name," Heb. " Thy name is called upon us :" and several
other texts might be produced, where this manner of speech is
used. So that we may conclude there is not the least foun
dation in these words for the invocation of saints.
Some quote what Moses saith in his prayer, " Remember
Abraham, Isaac, and Israel thy servants," Exod. xxxu. 13, and
the Uke again in Deut. ix. 27, and thence they would gather
that these Patriarchs in heaven prayed for the IsraeUtes at
that time, and hence it seems rational that the Israelites should
pray to them. But these are mere surmises, and have no
footing at aU in these words : for first it is not here meant, that
Moses prayed to God to remember and attend to the prayers
of those blessed Patriarchs, but to the promises which God
had made to them : for so we find it explained in another place,
where it is called " Remembering the covenant with Jacob, the
covenant with Isaac, and the covenant with Abraham," Lev.
xxvi. 42. And secondly, if it could be proved that there is
a reference to the prayers which those holy Patriarchs put up
in heaven, yet it would not foUow thence that we are to pray to
them or any other saints.
Some make use of Job v. 1 : " Call now, if there be any
that wUl answer thee : and to which of the saints wilt thou
turn 1" As if EUphaz had said, " Now in your great afflictions
and troubles beg the assistance of the saints above, and to that
end consider which of them thou wUt choose out to make thy
supplication to." After this wild rate the writers of the Roman
Church may make what they please out of the Scriptures,
they may extort what sense they wiU from them. But it is
certain that these words afford no such meaning as those ex
positors present us with : for first, how do they know that the
deceased saints, and not the living ones are meant here 1 If we
seriously weigh the text, and compare it with what had been
said before, we have reason to think that the latter are here
spoken of: for Eliphaz had argued from Job's extraordinary
afflictions that he had been a bad man and a hypocrite, and he
urged that there never was any godly man that suffered in the
like kind, " Remember, I pray thee, who ever perished being
innocent ? or where were the righteous cut off?" And the same
he inculcates here again, " Call now, ask if there be any that
will answer :" examine whether thou hast thy fellow anywhere ;
to which of the saints, of whose lives and actions we have
u 2

292 OF THE IDOLATRY
heard wilt thou turn, and shew me such an example of suffer
ing, where there was no hypocrisy or wickedness 1 This is
the obvious account of these words, and agrees exactly with the
context, that is, not only what Eliphaz had said before, but
what he delivers in this chapter. Secondly, suppose Job's
friend should here put him upon such a practice as the
objectors fancy ; suppose he calls upon him to present his sup
plications to the saints departed, this doth not make it lawful.
Eliphaz might err in this matter.
But, thirdly, supposing that the praying to the deceased
saints is here spoken of, yet even then it is most reasonable to
believe that Eliphaz condemns that practice in these words.
For we may well take them in an ironical way, as Elijah's
" cry aloud" to the worshippers of Baal. So here, call now, cry
to the saints above, and see whether they will pity your case,
and relieve you, since your supplications to the Most High
have proved ineffectual. But the serious meaning is, the saints
cannot help you, and it is in vain to pray to them, besides
that it is unwarrantable and unlawful.
There is another text much cried up by the asserters of
the invocation of saints, as very serviceable to their purpose,
and that is in Ezek. xiv. 14. "Though these three men,
Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, they should deliver but
their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord ;" which
is repeated again and again in the following verses : and
hence they would conclude that the deceased saints offer up
their prayers for the Uving, and consequently we may offer up
our prayers to them. But there is no consequence at all in
either of these inferences ; for as to the first, it is not implied
here, that the deceased pray for the Uving, for when it is said
" though these three men," &c, the plain meaning is only
this, that if Noah and Job were now surviving, as Daniel is,
and should intercede for this people, they should not prevail.
Then as to the second, though the saints praying for us could
be founded on this text, yet we cannot infer from thence, that
it is lawful for us to pray to them. This being a very con
siderable point in this place, I will say something of it ; for
the Popish writers lay a great stress on this, that the saints
supplicate God in our behalf, and thereupon they build the
lawfulness of our supplicating them.
First, then, I say this, it may be questioned whether the
saints in heaven may be said to intercede for those that are
on earth, as some Protestants have granted, and especially as

OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 293
they have expressed the matter. For if we yield to this, it
may be feared that thence there will be some occasion given
to infer that they are in some sort mediators. But, secondly,
I wUl wave this, and grant that it is probable that those glo
rious spirits in heaven pray for us, because their charity is
great. Thence it is that they wish us well, and desire our
happiness, and consequently pray for the welfare of the
Church of God, and the destruction of its enemies. Thus
the " souls of them that were slain for the word of God cried
with a loud voice, How long, O Lord," &c. Rev. vi. 9, 10. But
then, thirdly, I add that the saints departed pray only in
general; they know there is a Church on earth, because they
were of it, but they have no knowledge of the particular con
dition of the individual members belonging to it, and therefore
it is not possible they should pray particularly for us ; and thence
it follows that it is vain to commend our particular cases to
them. The reason is plain, because those blessed spirits have,
I say, but a general knowledge of the Church's condition here
below ; they are not acquainted (so far as we can tell) with
the present and particular state of mankind, and therefore
it is rash foUy to present our petitions to them, and conse
quently the above- cited allegations out of Scripture in fa
vour of the invocation of saints ought to be of no moment
with us.
And here I would have it observed how impertinently the
Church of Rome endeavours to prove the doctrine of praying
to the saints out of the Old Testament ; for she holds that
the souls of the Patriarchs and Prophets under the old dispen
sation, before Christ came, were not taken up into heaven to
the beatific vision, by means of which the Romanists say it is
that they see and know all that is done upon earth : therefore
these persons having not attained to this vision, it foUows
upon the doctrines of the Romanists themselves, that they
cannot hear the prayers that are put up to them, because they
know not what is done or said upon earth.
Then for the New Testament, they allege Rev. v. 8 : " The
four beasts and the twenty-four elders, who fell down before
the Lamb, having every one of them golden vials full of odours,
which are the prayers of the saints." Therefore, say the
Roman doctors, the saints intercede and pray for us, and
therefore we may pray to them. But I have shewed already
how precarious and weak this way of arguing is, and therefore

294 OF THE IDOLATRY
I will not repeat what I have said. But I will only take
notice how ill this text is applied ; for first, these beasts (or
Uving creatures, as the word should be rendered) and elders
are not the saints above, but below, the people and ministers
of God here upon earth. Secondly, these " prayers of the
saints" are the prayers of those that held those vials, and
not the prayers of others. Thirdly, they are not petitory, but
eucharistic prayers, as is clear from the 9th verse, " they sung
a new song, saying," &c; and from the 13th verse, "bless
ing and honour and glory," &c. They are thanksgivings
rather than petitions, and they are offered to God, not to
the saints : therefore this citation is nothing to the matter
before us. Nor is there any other text either in the Old or
New Testament that affords any solid ground for this Popish
doctrine. But let us see what arguments they have from antiquity
and the primitive ages ; for these they very much boast of,
I must be large in answering this plea, and I shall consider
the first rise and occasion of praying to saints, and give an
account of the just antiquity of this doctrine and practice,
and shew what the sentiments of the Fathers were about it,
and in the whole I will act most impartially and freely.
First, it is urged that the ancient Fathers of the Church
held that the saints intercede for us, and therefore thence it
may be inferred that their persuasion was that they prayed to
them. The answer to this is, that Origen, about the middle
of the third century, was the first that said any thing for the
saints interceding and praying for us. He shews that it was
his opinion, that the saints above join their prayers with
ours ;* and St. Cyprian (who Uved in the same age) in some
places of his writings speaks to that purpose. It was this,
as I apprehend, which made way first of all for the invocation
of saints : for they thought there was a connection and de
pendance of these two, the saints praying for us, and our
praying to them. But there is no dependency, no connection
between these, as I have proved already, and therefore need
not attempt it again. Wherefore it is to be observed, that
though the ancient Fathers of the Church, not only those
whom I have named, bnt Athanasius, Eusebius, Hilary, and
others, believed the general intercession of the saints for us,
* Vvvtixovrai. Cont. Cels. lib. 8.

OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 295
yet they did never pray to them, not do they any where inti
mate that others ought to do it. This I conceive is a full
answer to the first plea from antiquity.
Secondly, they tell us that in the writings of the Fathers,
Tertulhan, Cyprian, Augustine, we read of sacrifices and obla
tions to the deceased martyrs, and therefore it is to be gathered
thence that they prayed to these martyrs : for these sacrifices
and oblations are the offering up of prayers and supplications
to them. That I may fully reply to this, I must take the
Uberty of mentioning here what I had partly said before in my
discourse of Praying for the Dead. The Christians in the fourth
century frequented the tombs of saints and martyrs, and there
honoured their memory, and therefore these places were called
Memorue Martyrum. The design of their yearly meeting here
was to put the Christians in mind of the lives and actions, and
of the glorious deaths of those undaunted champions of the
evangelical faith, and to excite their zeal for Christianity. St.
Jerome and St. Augustine inform us, that in their days it was
usual to assemble together in the cemeteries or vaults, where
the martyrs were interred, and there to commemorate their
virtues and miracles, to inflame others to foUow their examples,
and to encourage those, who had not yet entered upon the
baptismal vow, speedUy to do it, and to become professed Chris
tians. Yea, Vossius (in his Historical Theses concerning the
Invocation of Saints) proves out of the Epistles of the Fratres
Smyrnenses set down in Eusebius, that this practice prevailed in
John the Evangelist's days. We are told, that this commemora
tion of the martyrs occasioned aU sorts of devotion, not only the
celebrating the sacrament of baptism (as it hath been shewed
before), but that of the eucharist. But the chief offices were
the anniversary prayers and petitions, and the praises and
thanksgivings. These are called by Tertulhan Oblationes pro
defunetis, and Orationum sacrificia by him, and Cyprian ; and
by St. Augustine, Sacrifices very frequently. And (as far as
we can learn) the whole devotion of prayers and thanksgivings
was directed to God only. But these solemnities by degrees
came to be perverted and corrupted, and the commemoration
of the saints was at length turned into invocation. This was
the second rise of this doctrine and practice among the an
cients. However, from what hath been said, we may gather,
that at first there was no such doctrine or practice.
Thirdly, the writers of the Church of Rome, insist that
the ancient Fathers of the Greek Church, Basil, Gregory Na-

296 OF THE IDOLATRY
zianzen, Gregory Nyssen, &c. use affectionate ejaculations and
prayers to the departed saints, of whom they speak, and whose
worthy acts they praise. I deny not, that these Fathers, in
their writings and orations which they made in praise of the
martyrs and departed saints, use passionate exclamations to
them, but this might be done by them as they were orators,
Chrysostom (as well as these Fathers) is full of his rhetorical
strains, and Jerome* confesses that he himself made use of
them sometimes. Apostrophes and Prosopoposias are a popu
lar sort of oratory, and therefore it is no wonder that we find
them in the panegyrical orations over the tombs of the de
ceased martyrs and holy men and women, and in other orations
wherein they took the liberty of rhetoricating. Though they
turn their speech to the dead, yet it is likely, they intended
not any such thing as invoking them. " Hear thou excellent
soul of Constantine, if thou hast any perception yet remain
ing," saith Gregory Nazianzen in his oration against Julian
the Apostate. And thus he addresses himself to the soul of
his sister Gorgonia, in his funeral oration on her, " Receive
this speech of mine, if there be in thee any respect of the
honour we do thee, and if it be the recompence of holy souls
to have a resentment of these things." Where we see plainly,
that he only uses this figurative language as a rhetorician, but
doth not pray to the deceased : for he questions whether they
can hear him, and whether they have any sense of the things
done here below.
But this must be granted, that these rhetorical allocutions
to the dead were one original of praying to them. And this I
reckon as the third thing that gave rise to this unlawful prac
tice. These figurative modes of speech drew on a conceit of
the deceased saints hearing their prayers. Those unwary
expressions introduced a belief even in that same age, that it
was profitable to put up their petitions to the dead saints.
Yea, the very orators themselves corrupted their own minds
with these their apostrophes and lavish strains of rhetoric, and
insensibly passed from these to real addresses to the deceased,
And truly I cannot wholly excuse Gregory Nazianzen from
this ; for though in some places (as I have shewed already) he
seems only to rhetoricate, yet in some others we cannot but
perceive a formal invocation of the departed souls. In bis
* Rhetoricati sumus, et in morem Declamatorum paululum lusimus.—
Adv. Helvid.

OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 297
oration on Cyprian the Martyr he directly and plainly prays to
him. So in the funeral oration on Basil the Great he wishes
he may fare the better for his intercession, and in the close of
that oration he directs his prayer to him in a very formal
manner. And in the end of his oration on Athanasius, he
prays to him. Any one may satisfy himself, that Theodoret
in his Rehgious History, which is the lives and deaths of emi
nent saints that Uved about that time, concludes always with a
prayer or wish for their benediction, and their intercession
with God for him. It appears then that the invocation of
saints was first practised about the latter end of the fourth
century. But we hear nothing of it in the times of Justin
Martyr, Ireneeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian,
Arnobius, Lactantius. There is not one example of it for the
first three hundred and fifty years after Christ. But about
the very entrance of the sixth century it grew fashionable in
some men's devotions, and at the beginning of the next age it
was settled by Gregory the Great, and prayers to saints were
inserted into the public Liturgies of the Western Churches.
This is the true date of the invocation of saints.
But then we must know, that this doctrine and practice
were against the sense of the chief Fathers and pious writers
of the Christian Church : and even when some invoked the
saints, many and most of the learnedest and godliest Fathers
opposed it, and laboured to beat down the growing error.
This they did jointly in the Councils of Laodicea and Carthage:
and this they did singly in their writings and homilies. Vigi-
lantius appeared against the invocation of saints, and with
great vigour withstood that evU practice : and Jerome was
never so overseen as in his weak but passionate attempts to
confute him. Epiphanius* positively asserts, that "God the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are the only persons to be
called upon. No man or woman are to be invoked, no not
the Virgin Mary." St. Ambrose expresslyf condemns the
behaviour of those men, who apply themselves to the saints to
obtain God's favour, as supplicants do to kings' favourites, to
help them with their good word. " We do notj (saith Au
gustine), apppoint to the martyrs temples, priests, rehgious
service, and sacrifices, because they are not our gods, but their
* Lib. 3. contr. Collyrid. t Comment, in Epist. ad Roman.
§ Nee tamen nos Martyribus Templa, Sacerdotia, Sacra, et Sacrificia
constituimus, quia non ipsi, sed Deus eorum est nobis Deus. — De Civ.
Dei, 1. 8. c. 27.

298 OF THE IDOLATRY
God is our God." Which is directly against worshipping and
invoking the martyrs and departed saints.
That the ancient Fathers and writers of the Church were of
this persuasion, is further clear, from the following considera
tions ; first, it may be observed that whenever they treat of
prayer (which is a common subject with them), they never
speak of prayer to the dead : yea, though they treat of that
duty at large, and expatiate on ali the kinds and parts of it,
yet they have not one syllable of this. Which is an undeniable
argument, that these writers did not look upon it as any branch
pf a Christian's duty. Again, we are to consider that the ancients
were uncertain about the place and condition of the deceased
saints. It is universally agreed upon, that the Christians in
the second and third century were of opinion that departed
souls went not presently to heaven, but were detained in dark
receptacles, and debarred of God's sight ; yea, that they were
not to be admitted into heaven till the last judgment : con
sequently, there is not any the least probabUity that the Chris
tians in those times offered their prayers to the deceased saints,
they being in an imperfect condition, and not received into
the state of glory and blessedness. And lastly, I might
suggest this, that several of the Fathers, as Athanasius, Hilary,
Gregory Nyssen, and others, proved Christ's divinity, from the
invocation of him, and, therefore we cannot imagine, that they
prayed to saints, or held it lawful to do so, because in doing
this, they would have made gods of the saints. Those learned
and orthodox Fathers (especially the first of them*) argued
thus against the Arians, who denied Christ to be God, and yet
(as the Socinians do now), invoked him ; Christ, said they, is
prayed to, therefore we must acknowledge his Godhead.
Which arguing proves these two things ; first, that praying to
saints was not hi use in those primitive times ; secondly, that
this is a sufficient argument against the invocation of saints,
that they are not gods.
Thus I have been large in returning an answer to the Popish
argument from antiquity. I think they have not gained any
thing by it, and I hope I have satisfied the reader, that in the
first and best times there was no religious invoking of any hut
God. BeUarminef himself confesses, that " when the holy
Scriptures were first written, it was not the usage to make vows
or prayers to the saints." According to this great defender of
* Athanas. Serm. 3. contr. Arian. X De Cult. Sanct. cap. 9.

OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 299
the Roman doctrines, they cannot plead the primitive and best
antiquity. Or, if they could prove that some heretics in the
first times started another opinion, and defended another prac
tice, this would be no disparagement to our cause, for we have
observed before, that the worshipping and invoking of angels
was even in St. Paul's time : the same Apostle acquaints us,
that the " mystery of iniquity" began to work in his days.
There are some other pleas in the writings of the Ponti
ficians for their praying to the saints, which I will briefly con
sider. They tell us, that this is a very innocent thing; for it
is no more than desiring our brethren to pray to God for us.
The sick request the prayers of the congregation, and we may
as well request the saints to pray for us. If we beg the prayers
of the Uving on earth, why not those of the living in heaven 1
I answer, there is a vast difference between these two ; for,
first, the former know our wants, but the latter do not : the
one hear us, but the other cannot. Therefore, it doth not
foUow that we may call on the saints in heaven, because it is
lawful to ask our brethren on earth to pray for us. Secondly,
The Papists do not pray to the deceased saints in the same
manner as they request the prayers of the saints on earth : for
these are only companions with us in our prayers, and join with
us in our petitions, but those are made use of as intercessors
and mediators between God and us. Thirdly, We have a pre
cept to authorise our asking our brethren to pray for us : Eph.
vi. 18, 19 ; Col. iv. 3 ; 2 Thess. Ui. 1 ; James v. 14; but we
have none to justify the other.
But some of the Romanists tell us that they only pray to
the saints that they would pray to Christ. This is but a pre
tence; and aU their books of prayer shew the contrary : and
besides they profess the saints help them by their merits as well
as prayers.
There are those that endeavour to excuse their invocating
the saints by pleading their humihty. They are not worthy,
they say, to make their immediate addresses to God, and there
fore it becomes them to offer their petitions first to the saints,
that they may present them to the Divine Majesty, as peti
tioners make use of some courtier to present their requests to
the king. I answer, 1 . The worshipping of angels came in at
first, under the show of humUity, Col. U. 1 8 : and as this did
not justify that practice then, so neither will it the other now.
2. As to the similitude, it is not applicable in the present
case : for it is not out of humility, that the petitions of subjects

300 OF THE IDOLATRY
are not presented to the king immediately, but from a desire to
have them prevail, namely, by means of a friend at court that
presents them. But if we could suppose, that a king com
manded all his subjects to come to him immediately with their
petitions, and promised to receive them from their own hands
it would be no humihty but disobedience, to make use of
another person to present them to him. And this is our case •
the King of heaven commands us to call upon him, and none
else ; and is always ready to receive our petitions, and graciously
to answer them. " If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of
God, who giveth to all men Uberally, and upbraideth not : and
it shall be given him." James i. 5.
Lastly, Our adversaries come upon us with a distinction
which they think renders the worshipping of saints, and par
ticularly the praying to them very excusable, yea very lawful,
They distinguish between these two sorts of religious worship,
\arpela and dov\da, and tell us that one is proper to God, and
the other to the saints and angels ; and accordingly they give
divine worship to the former, and religious service to the latter.
But this is a vain and groundless distinction: because the
words are indifferently taken both in the Old and New
Testament. In the Seventy's version of the former there is no
difference between them ; and in the original of the latter,
they are promiscuously used ; of which learned writers have
produced abundant instances, which I shall not repeat here : and
the incomparable Vossius* among the rest is peremptory, that
there' is no difference between them in classical authors. It is
true, the distinction hath been used in the schools, but it is none
of the Fathers, except Augustine, who (as he acknowledges
himself) had little skill in Greek : and where he uses the dis
tinction of SovKeia and Xarpela, he doth it not to the Papists'
purpose. In short, this distinction of religious worship is
disagreeable to the style of the holy Scriptures, and is not
made use of by the first Fathers and writers of the Church
(which Bellarmine himself also confesses), but is used only by
those of the Church of Rome, to patronise, and yet at the
same time to mitigate and qualify their practice of angels and
saints-worship. It is further said by some writers of the Roman Church, in
defence not only of the worship of saints, but of that of angels,
that there is a three-fold worship, namely, civil, rehgious, and
* Thess. de Invocat. Sanct.

OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 301
divine. Men alive are worshipped with the first, angels and
saints departed with the second, and God with the third. Even
the Council of Trent propounds this distinction as verv sound
and substantial, and tells us that angels and deceased saints and
martyrs are to be adored with religious worship, which is more
than civil, and less than divine. But this distinction, Uke several
others of their own coining, is superfluous, because religious
and divine worship are the same. If we wiU speak rationally
and solidly, worship is but twofold: 1. Civil, which is that
outward reverence that is given to our fellow creatures. Thus
Abraham bowed to the angels, whom he took to be three men,
Gen. xviii. 2 ; or, if he knew them to be angels, bowing and
aU such honour was due to them as most excellent creatures of
God. And men who are of eminency and worth, have the
like respect paid to them. "Then shalt thou have worship in
the presence of them that sit at meat with thee." Luke xiv.
10. And we might give this worship to angels and departed
saints, if they appeared to us, by uncovering the head, by
bowing, or other gestures of reverence. 2. Divine; that
adoration which is due to God only, and specially differs from
the former, because that is given to finite beings, but this is
appropriated to an Infinite Being only. It is true, some of the
same external ways and expressious of reverence may be made
use of and fitted to both worships, civU and divine, as we read
that by David's command "all the congregation bowed down
their heads, and worshipped the Lord and the King," 1 Chron.
xxix. 20. God and his vicegerent are worshipped here in the
same manner, but yet the worships are vastly different, because
the one is given to the Infinite and Almighty Creator, and the
other to a finite creature. Whence it follows that God is
worshipped with a worship that is distinguished from that
which is paid to his creatures, and that the one is properly
divine and religious, but the other is only civil.
Now, here men are wont to offend these two ways ; first, by
giving those common tokens of respect (common both to God
and the creatures) to the creatures as if they were more than
such, and were endued with infinite perfections, and such as
belong to God only. There are two instances in Scripture of
undue worship in this kind : the first in Acts x. 25, 26. Peter
rebuked Cornelius for " falling down and worshipping him :"
not but that he might have worshipped him in a civil way ;
prostration would not have been blameable if it had been of
that nature : but Cornelius made it a divine worship, that is,

302 OF THE IDOLATRY
he apprehended more highly of Peter than he should have
done : he looked upon him as a kind of God, and being but a
novice, and partly a Gentile, he might easily do so. This may
give an account of St. Peter's deaUng in that manner with
Cornelius. Or, we may say that Peter would not permit Cor-
neUus to fall down or kneel to him, though he knew it was not
in the way of adoration to him as a God, because it might at
that time have a show and resemblance of such honour : there
fore the least appearance and show of divine worship is forbid.
The other instance is in Rev. xix. 10, which I quoted before:
the angel there reproves St. John for "falling at his feet, and
worshipping him," and so he doth in Rev. xxii. 8, teUing him
that he was " his fellow-servant, and one of his brethren."
Which is the same reason that was given by St. Peter to Cor
nelius, " I myself also am a man," that is, I am but a finite
creature as you are ; I am no God, as you seem to take me to
be, and thereupon honour me with divine worship : but you
must not do so. On this account the Papists offend, namely,
by having such apprehensions of the saints deceased as are
not becoming them : as from the several particulars before
mentioned it is evident that they make them no less than gods,
and give divine worship to them. Or, secondly, they offend in
this, that though they look not upon the saints as gods, but
believe them to be creatures, yet they yield those tokens of
reverence and honour to them, which are proper to God alone,
and more particularly they offer prayers and supphcations to
them. This they call religious worship, as distinct from divine ;
but there is no ground of distinguishing thus ; for they shew
all the signs of veneration in their addresses to the Virgin
Mary and other saints which they express to God himself, and
they pray to them oftener than to him. This shews the vanity
of the distinction which they make use of.
I have now done with the pleas and (as our adversaries think
good to call them) arguments that are generally used to main
tain and uphold the invocation of saints, which is so frequently
practised in the Roman devotion.
I proceed in the next place to establish the contrary doc
trine and practice, and to shew that it is founded upon Scrip
ture and reason. Here then I wiU prove that we ought to pray
to God alone, and not to saints, because : First, We have an
express word in Scripture for it. Secondly, Because the saints
in heaven are ignorant of what is done here. Thirdly, Because
invocation in the nature of the thing itself is due to God alone.

OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 303
Fourthly, Because Christ is our only Mediator. Any one of
these reasons is sufficient to confirm the present doctrine :
much more when they are all considered together.
I begin with the first. This doctrine is built upon an ex
press command in Scripture, " Thou shalt worship the Lord
thy God, and him only shalt thou serve," Matth. iv. 10. " It
is written," saith Christ, and therefore it must refer to Deut.
vi. 13, "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him ;"
and ch. x. 20, " Him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou
cleave ;" that is, him only shalt thou serve, and to him only
shalt thou cleave in the way of divine worship : for so we see
our infallible instructor interprets it, " Thou shalt worship the
Lord thy God, and him only." Whence we know how to
interpret those and the Uke texts, " CaU upon me," Psal. 1. 1 5 ;
" Seek ye the Lord," Zeph. ii. 3, that is, caU upon me only,
seek me only, for these are part of worship. But on the con
trary, there is not any command, either general or special, to
authorise the invocation of saints. This is so plain a truth,
that a great and learned man* of the Roman communion doth
not deny it : yea, he grants that as there is no precept, so there
is no example in all Scripture for it. And another eminent
writerf of that Church acknowledges there is no express in
junction of Christ or his Apostles for praying to the saints.
And we are sure that there is no promise to encourage those
that do it : for this must be founded on the command and wUl
of God. Those that put up their addresses to the deceased
saints cannot (as we are bid by St. James) " ask in faith,"
James i. 6, because this is asking according to the wiU and
word of God : but these are so far from allowing, that they
positively condemn the praying to saints. From what hath
been thus briefly suggested, it is evident that there is no foun
dation for the Roman practice in the Word of God ; and con
sequently it is unlawful, for " what is not of faith (which is
built on the Word of God) is sin," Rom. xiv. 23. But the
other practice is established by the Word of God, which is the
rule of our actions, and the basis of our faith, and therefore
when we pray to God only, we ask in faith, and with an assur
ance that our prayers will be heard, and we have abundant
promises to support this assurance.
Secondly, We ought to offer up our prayers to God only, not
* Card. Peron. cont. Jacob. Reg.
t Salmero. in Tim. i. 2. Disp. 7.

304 OF THE IDOLATRY
to the saints in heaven, because these are ignorant of what is
done here upon earth, and therefore it is in vain to offer our
supplications to them. The Scriptures sufficiently testify that
the dead, and particularly the departed saints, have no know
ledge of things here on earth. "I will gather thee to thy
fathers (saith the Lord to King Josiah) and thou shalt be
gathered to thy grave in peace, neither shall thine eyes see all
the evil that I wUl bring upon this place, and upon the inha
bitants of the same," 2 Chron. xxxiv. 28. And of the dead
in general, Job thus speaks, " Thou sendest him away," that
is, out of the world : " his sons come to honour, and he know-
eth it not : and they are brought low, and he perceiveth it not
of them:'' he is perfectly a stranger to what is done here
below ; he is ignorant of the state of his sons, those that were
most nearly related to him here ; whether they be rich or
poor, or whatever becomes of them, he is not in a capacity to
know. And this without doubt is the meaning of Eccles. ix. 5,
"The dead know not any thing," that is (as the context clears
it) not any thing of the affairs of this world : " neither have
they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done
under the sun ;" they are so far unconcerned in the matters of
this life, which were as it were their portion, when they were
here, that they have not any perception and knowledge of them
now. I will add only one place more, which speaks particularly
of the saints in heaven, and lets us know that they are wholly
ignorant of our condition here below : " Doubtless thou art our
Father," and takest care of us, " though Abraham be ignorant
of us, and Israel acknowledge us not," Isa. lxiii. 16. These
godly patriarchs knew not what was the condition of their pos
terity in succeeding ages ; they were unacquainted with all
human affairs ; and therefore it was in vain for the Israelites
in Isaiah's time, or in any other time, to apply themselves to
them, and beg their assistance. For the argument holds good
with relation to all the generations of men ; it is to no purpose
for them to call upon the saints in heaven, and to implore their
help : for they know nothing of the particular condition of
men upon earth.
But the Popish doctors and schoolmen tell us that the saints
have a way of knowing any thing that is done here below, be
cause they see it in the " glass of the Trinity ;" and Bellar-
mine holds they espy it by revelation. They had as good have
said nothing : for this is barely said without the least proof:
and we see that the Scriptures assert the contrary, and expressly

OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 305
inform us that the saints above have no knowledge of the par
ticular state and circumstances of persons in this world.
Therefore on that account we have no obUgation to pray to
them, yea for that reason it is unlawful to pray to them.
Thirdly, I prove it to be so, because in the very nature of
the thing itself, invocation is due to God only.
1. It is due to him as he is the Creator of all things. Thus
the Psalmist founds divine worship on God's giving being to
this lower world and all the parts of it. " The sea is his, and
he made it, and his hands formed the dry land :" (the sea and
the land comprehend all this inferior world) and then it natu
rally follows, " O come, let us worship and bow down : let us
kneel before the Lord our Maker," Psal. xcv. 5, 6. As God
is our Maker, he is to be invoked, and he only. And again,
Psal. c. 3, 4, " Know ye, that the Lord he is God ; it is he
that hath made us, and not we ourselves, therefore enter into
his gates with thanksgiving," &c. make your addresses unto
him, and call upon his name, whether it be by prayers or
praises. Invocation is a worship that is not to be given to any
created beings. The Scripture, as well as right reason, appro
priates it to the Creator only.
2. It is due to God alone, because he is omniscient. " Hear
thou in heaven, thy dwelUng-place — for thou, even thou only
knowest the hearts of all the children of men," 1 Kings viii.
39. Praying is founded on God's "knowing the hearts;"
and this we are assured is the sole prerogative of God, 1 Chron.
xxviu. 9 ; Jer. xvii. 9, 10. It must needs therefore be unlaw
ful, yea idolatrous to pray to the saints ; for those that do so
attribute omniscience to them, they beUeve that they know their
hearts. Especially the ordinary people do verily think when
they pray to them, that they are conscious to all they think,
say, or do.
3. To God only belongs the homage of prayer, because he
is omnipresent, and therefore can hear the petitions of all per
sons, wheresoever they are in any part of the world. This is
the incommunicable property of the true God. And yet the
Roman devotionists bestow it upon the saints, and assert their
ubiquity ; for it is supposed by them that they are present
every where and in all places : for they address themselves to
them in all parts of the world whither they go ; and conse
quently they ascribe that attribute to them which is proper
only to God.
4. As God is omnipotent, and can do what he pleases both
VOL. VI. x

306 OF THE IDOLATRY
in heaven and earth, and (to speak all briefly) as he is the
Supreme Being, and of infinite perfections, he is on these
accounts the sole object of our prayers : and therefore those
who invoke the departed souls of the godly, bestow that honour
upon them which is peculiar to the Deity. " Am I in God's
stead ?" said Jacob to Rachel, when she said to him, " Give
me children, or else I die." Gen. xxx. 1, 2. "Am I a God
to kill and make alive ?" was the reply of the king of Israel
to the king of Syria, when this latter desired him to " recover
Naaman of his leprosy," 2 Kings v. 6, 7. And so in the like
sort, to pray to the Virgin Mary, or any other saint, whether
he or she (as is usual among the Papists), for children or for
health, or anything of the like nature, is making them gods
and goddesses : for it is attributing that ability and perfection
to them which belong only to the Almighty. Invocation
implies an acknowledgment of infinite power in him, whom we
call upon : for it is this, that makes him the true object of
invocation. Therefore we must not ask of any creatures those
things which God only is able to. give. And I might add also,
that he only is to be prayed to, in whom we ought to fix our
faith, according to that of the Apostle : " How shall they call
on him, in whom they have not believed?" Rom. xiv. 10;
and for this reason, among the rest, the saints, who are but
our fellow servants and brethren, ought not to be prayed to.
In short, prayer is a signal part of religious worship, and
hearing prayer is a peculiar title of the Most High : wherefore
it is an act unspeakably injurious to him, to call upon the
saints and to be persuaded, that they hear us. " O thou, that
hearest prayer," saith the Psalmist, Psalm lxv. 2, thereby
informing us, that it is peculiar to God to hear prayer, and
therefore he adds, " unto Thee, and Thee only, shall all flesh
come," and make their wants known unto thee. It can then
be accounted no other than placing the saints in the room of
God, to make their supplications to them. Who doth so,
deifies them, and plainly transgresses against the first com
mandment, " Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." For
he that prays to any other but God, makes another God to
himself. This surely is a good and substantial argument
against the invocation of saints, and proves that we ought to
pray to God only.
Fourthly, This appears further from this, that Christ is our
only Mediator. "There is one Mediator between God and
man, the Man Christ Jesus," 1 Tim. U. 6. There is but one

OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 307
Mediator, and that is our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore
there is no ground for our praying to the saints as mediators
and intercessors. " We have an Advocate with the Father,
Jesus Christ the righteous," 1 John ii. 1. We have this
Advocate pleading for us with the Father, and we have no
other. " We are to come unto God the Father by him, and
by him alone, seeing he (and no other) ever liveth to make
intercession for us," Heb. vii. 25. " He alone appears in the
presence of God for us," Heb. ix. 24. And even in this sense
it is true, that " no man cometh unto the Father but by the
Son." Whence we may gather how false and how contra
dictory to the divine discoveries is the practice of Papists, who
join the saints with Christ in the office of mediator and inter
cessor. They tell us there is not one Mediator between God
and man, but many mediators. They hold, that there are
more advocates with the Father, than Jesus Christ the
righteous. They say we are to go unto God by the saints as
weU as by Christ. They insist, that these make " intercession
for us, and appear in the presence of God for us." All which
is whoUy derogatory to the mediatorship of Christ, whose
office it is alone to sit at the right hand of his Father, there to
intercede for us. For this we are to know, that none can be
our mediator and intercessor but our Redeemer, as is clear
from the connection of these words in the fore-named text,
" There is one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ
Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all." We must not
imagine that any person is capable of acting as a mediator in
heaven for us, but he that gave a ransom for us upon earth,
and in so doing rendered his intercession and mediation valid
and effectual. Away then with the blasphemous doctrine of
the Roman Church, that the saints are our mediators and
intercessors, and that for their merits they prevail with God
for us. This contradicts the doctrine of the all sufficiency of
the merits and intercession of Christ : for if these be sufficient,
what need is there of any other? Wherefore I conclude from
what hath been said under this head, that it is utterly unlawful,
sinful, and idolatrous to pray unto saints, and that it is our
indispensable duty to call upon God through Jesus Christ.
I have hitherto shewed, that idolatry is to be imputed to the
Papists, because they give divine worship to persons, to whom
it is not due. Now I am to prove that they give it also to
things, to which it is not due : which is a farther evidence of
their idolatrous practice. First, they worship the relics of
x 2

308 OF THE IDOLATRY
saints, as well as the saints themselves. " The sacred bodies
of martyrs and others living with Christ are to be worshipped by
believers," saith the Council of Trent.* The twentieth Article
of the Tridentine Creed requires all men to believe, that "the
relics of the saints are to be had in veneration." And the
Roman Catechism teaches the same.f Accordingly they
translate the bodies of the dead or any part of them from one
place to another, that they may be the more conveniently
shewed and exposed ; and when spectators resort to them,
they bow down, and kneel to them, and say their prayers
before them ; they kiss them, they offer gifts and presents to
them ; they watch at the places where they are kept and
reserved, they go on pilgrimage to the shrines where they are
laid upon ; or if they can get any the least part of them into
their possession, they make all signs of religious reverence to
them ; they think them to be charms and amulets, and make
use of them to that purpose, yea, they sometimes ascribe
miracles to them. If all this doth not amount to adoration,
it is hard to tell what doth. And yet this is the usual and
avowed practice of the Roman Catholics, and therefore we may
pronounce them to be idolatrous. Yea, they are as silly as
they are idolatrous : for, asj one of their own communion
acknowledges, the shewing of relics is a great cheat in the
Church of Rome, and on that account condemns it as unlawful.
Nay, from what hath been lately advanced by a famous§
Father of the Roman Church about the Catacombs, it appears
that he would have the deluded Christians of his communion
worship the bones of heathens instead of saints.
Secondly, Worshipping the cross is no infrequent thing
among the Romanists. Not only the relics of the true cross,
on which Christ suffered, which they pretend they have ; but
also any crosses set up, as memorials of that cross, are adored
by them. We see that the ordinary Papists kiss a cross, and
prostrate themselves to it, and pray before it, and some that
have been able, have built churches to it. And as for the
individual cross, to which our Saviour was fixed, the wily
priests do marvellously impose on the credulity of the people,
and are wont to thrust any thing upon them as a remnant of
that cross. Insomuch that a learned || prelate of our Church
* Sess. 25.
t Par. 3. u. 2. X Cassand. Consul. Artie. 21.
§ Mabillon deCultu Sanctorum Ignotorum.
|| Bp. Hall.

OF THE CHURCH OF RQME. 309
hath these words : " Had the wood of the cross grown from
the first day it was set in the earth till now and born crosses,
it would not have filled so many carts, as that which now is in
several parts of Christendom given out and adored for the true
cross of Christ."
Thirdly, The sacramental bread, the host, as they call it, is
worshipped by the Church of Rome, which is another proof of
their idolatry. They hold that the eucharist is to be adored
with the highest degree of worship, even that which is proper
to God ; that I may not say that which seems to exceed belief,
I wiU produce the very words of the Council of Trent.*
" It is not to be doubted in the least," say they, " that all
the faithful people of Christ, according to custom, always
received in the Catholic Church, do give to this holy sacrament,
in their veneration of it, the worship of Latria, which is due
to the true God. And whoso holds it unlawful to do so, is
cursedf by the same Council." Thus we see that the adora
tion of the host is settled by this decree of the Church of
Rome, and the practice of the Church answers to it ; for when
the priest hfts up the host, he worships it himself, the people
faU down and do so too ; and it is well known that the adora
tion of the eucharist is asserted and defended by all the Roman
writers. But they endeavour to take off the imputation of idolatry by
teUing us that the bread and wine in the holy sacrament are
turned into the real body and blood of Christ, and consequently
they adore Christ, not the bread and wine ; and so are not
idolatrous. But the answer to this is easy, transubstantiation
is found to be a false doctrine, and therefore, though the wor
shipping of the host depends upon that, yet this worship is
idolatrous. It is idolatry in the Papists to adore the eucharist,
though they beUeve Christ's body is there, for they might
shake off that erroneous opinion. It is their own fault, that
they believe such a he. Therefore that is no excuse to them,
and cannot render them no idolaters. Besides, idolatry is to
worship any creature, whether the persons think and know it to
* Nullis 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.
Sess. 13. Can. 5. de Eucharistia. [cap. 5. p. 104. Paris. 1837.]
t Si quis dixerit in Sancto Eucharistia Sacramento Christum unigenitum
Dei filium non esse cultu Latrise, etiam externo, adorandum, &c. Ana
thema sit. Cone. Trid Sess. 13. Can. 6.de Euchar. [p. 110.]

310 OF THE IDOLATRY
be God, or whether they do not think or know it to be so.
Now, the Papists worship that which is a creature, they give
the highest worship, even that which is due to the Supreme
God and Creator of all things, to a creature, i. e. to the host
or consecrated bread ; and this cannot be any other than
idolatry. I have now but one particular more to dispatch,
and that is this :
Fourthly, The worshippers of the Church of Rome adore
images and pictures, and therefore they are idolatrous. The
lawfulness of this is taught in their Catechism.* And the
words of the 21st article of the Trent Creed are these : " I do
most stedfastly affirm, that the images of Christ and the
mother of God, who was always a virgin, and of other saints
also, are to be had and retained, and that due honour and
veneration are to be paid to them." And that you may know
what honour and veneration is to be paid to these images, this
is added, as the reason of what had been said :f " The honour1
which is given to images is referred to the prototypes or things
represented by them ; so that by the images which we kiss,
and before which we kneel or put off our hats, we adore
Christ, and reverence his saints, whom the said images repre
sent." The schoolmen and the greatest doctors of the Roman
Church, J speak out plainly, and tell us that with one and the
same veneration the image and the persons represented by it
are to be worshipped. And their Angelic Doctor is positive,
that the " same honour is due to the image and to the
original, and therefore a crucifix is to be adored with the same
adoration that Christ himself is." §
And besides, tell me whether divine worship be not paid to
the images of Christ and of the saints too, when you read it
in unquestionable authors, that the Papists ascribe the increase
of faith and good works to the crucifix, || and directly pray to
it, to increase grace, and blot out sins (as you may be satisfied
in their Pontificals and Missals, particularly in the festival of
* Par. 3. v. 2. et Par. 4. u. 6.
t Honos, qui eis exhibetur, refertur ad prototypa, qua? illae representant;
ita ut per Imagines, quse osculamur, et coram quibus caput aperimus et
procumbimus, Christum adoremus, et Sanctos, quorum ills Similitudiriem
gerunt, veneremur. Cone. Trid. Sess. 25. [p. 305. Paris. 1837.]
X Suarez. Vasquez. Hales. Bonaventure.
§ Idem honor debetur imagini et exemplar!, ideoque Christi Imago est
adoranda cultu Latriae. Tho. Aquin. Sum. Par. 3. qu. 25. art. 4.
|| See Gretser. de Cruce, 1. 1 .

OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 311
the Invention of the Cross), when vou read that not only to
the image of Christ, but to those of the saints, they light up
candles and tapers, they burn incense, they uncover their
heads, they bow the knee, they fall down, they creep on the
ground, they make vows, they bring oblations, and offer gifts ;
when you read likewise, that they kiss these images, they
anoint them with oil, they carry them about with them in
processions, they take pilgrimages to them, they swear by
them, they run to them in all danger, and supplicate their
help, and put their trust in them, and believe them to have
some divine power and virtue in them to do them good ; when
you read, I say, that the Papists do all this, let them distin
guish about worship as long as they please, you have good
reason to believe and assert, that they give that worship, re
verence, and honour to images, which are not due to any
created beings. And need I now prove that this is unlawful ?
When I have made it evident, that the saints themselves are
not to be worshipped, surely it will follow that we must not
worship their images, which are less worthy than they. And
nothing is more plain, than that this practice is particularly
and expressly forbidden in the second commandment, which
condemns the making of any images or similitudes of creatures
to worship them. I refer the reader to my Discourse on that
Commandment,* where the reasons of this prohibition are
assigned, and where the testimony of antiquity against this
practice is produced ; and the pleas and excuses of the Papists
for it are particularly answered.
Thus I have gone through the several heads I propounded,
to evidence the idolatry of the Church of Rome. I have only
some few inferences (according to our wonted method) to add
from the premises : First, it is fit we should own and acknow
ledge this truth, which hath been so clearly proved. Some of
the Roman Catholics are wont to purge themselves by saying,
that we lay to their charge those things which they never
assert about worshipping of saints, and images, &c. But I
have not relied on the opinions and doctrines of a few, I have
taken a course to find out the true meaning of the Church of
Rome, by consulting her canons in CouncUs, her catechisms
and the common consent of the Doctors, and the universal
practice of aU the members of the Church. All these loudly
proclaim the idolatrous worship of the Church of Rome.
* In Theologia Reformata. Vol. II.

312 OF THE IDOLATRY
And we . may be confirmed and established as to the truth
and reality of this from the confessions of the Reformed
Churches abroad, and from our own at home. The Rubric of
the Church of England after the communion, saith positively
that " the adoration of the consecrated elements is idolatry
to be abhorred by all faithful Christians." The Homilies of
the Peril of Idolatry attest this ; so do the injunctions of King
Edward VI. in the year 1547, and the injunctions of Queen
Elizabeth in the year 1559, and the general suffrage of all the
Protestant clergy amongst us, till Archbishop Laud's time, who
was a great stickler against this assertion that I have been
maintaining, and he proselyted many of our divines to his
opinion. In those days and since, it hath been denied by
some of our Churchmen that the Papists are guilty of idolatry.
But we see what is the sense and belief of our Church, and
accordingly, if we adhere to her, we must own Rome to be
idolatrous. Secondly, Abhor the idolatrous devotion of the Papists.
To call them Christians is almost too soft a name, seeing they
merit to be styled Pagans in respect of their worship. That
which the Apostle condemns in the heathens we see daily prac
tised by the Romanists, " they worship the creature more than
the Creator," Rom. i. 15. The old and new Rome agree in
this, the Paganism of the former is revived in this latter. It
hath been observed that the Pantheon, the temple heretofore
in Rome consecrated to all the heathen gods, is now a church
dedicated to the Virgin Mary and All Saints. We may truly
assert, that if ever there was idolatry among the heathens,
there is so among the Papists. Yes, our Church tells us,
that " the Church of Rome is guilty of the same idolatry and
worse than was among Ethnics and Gentiles."* This should
raise in us a great indignation against the Roman religion. If
we say it is idolatrous, we can say nothing higher; for of all
the enormities that are mentioned in the Bible, none hath so
black a character as idolatry.
Thirdly, Let your practice be directly contrary to that of
Rome ; that is, worship the true God, and Him only. Pay
no religious and divine honour to any but him, as the holy
Scriptures, as' the example of the primitive believers, and as
reason itself, dictate. Appropriate worship to God alone, and
deny it to all other objects.
* Homily of the Peril of Idolatry.

OF THE CHURCH OF HOME. 313
Fourthly and lastly, be very wary and cautious, and take
heed of giving way to the first appearance of superstition and
idolatry in the service of God. Men easily and insensibly step
into false worship; from unwarrantable rites and ceremonies,
from setting up altars, and bowing and cringing towards them,
they may be tempted to proceed to a grosser sort of worship.
From indulging of pomp and gaiety in the public assemblies,
they may gradually step into a more sensual religion. I cannot
but take notice here of a noble undertaking of one of our
Churchmen in his "Codex Juris Ecclesiastici Anglicani,"
which is performed with great industry and indefatigable pains :
but above half of the two volumes consist of obsolete and
antiquated laws, of no use now ; for the rights and privileges
of the EngUsh Church and clergy are not the same that they
were of old, and a hundred things appertaining to the officers,
service and ceremonies of the Church heretofore, are extinct
and abolished since the Reformation, they being Popish and
superstitious. Wherefore this learned author, in my opinion,
ought not to have revived the laws and constitutions about
missals, masses, abbeys and abbots, priests, concubines,
exorcists, lights in churches, monks, nuns, rehgious houses,
holy oU,\holy water, the pix, sanctuaries, relics, pUgrimages, &c.
These superstitious and Popish customs, rites and ceremonies,
and practices, should not have been brought upon the stage
again, but have lain dead and forgotten, lest some should be
tempted to have a kindness for them when they see them,
when they find them inserted into the body of the ecclesiastical
laws of England.
To conclude, let us not symbolize with the Church of
Rome ; let us not approach to the borders of it ; let us not
comply with anything that hath but a show of idolatry, but
let us keep at the greatest distance from Popery, and all that
looks Uke it.

314

CHAPTER XVI.

Objection I. of the Papists, That the Protestant Religion is
new and upstart, answered.
I come now in the next place to remove some objections
and cavils of the Church of Rome against the Protestant re
ligion : which they are pleased to urge and insist upon with
great earnestness, and they think that thereby they much dis
parage, if not baffle our cause.
It is objected, I. That the Protestant reUgion is new and
upstart. II. That the Protestants disagree among them
selves. III. That the Protestant Churches cannot plead
succession as the Church of Rome can do. IV. That learned
Protestants grant the Church of Rome to be a true Church,
and that Papists may be saved, and consequently Protestants
have little reasou to exclaim against the Church and religion
of Rome.
First, the novelty of the Protestant religion is objected.
Ours, say they, is a religion that hath antiquity to vouch it :
every thing that obtains in our Church is of an ancient date,
Moribus antiquis res stat Romana virisque.
Popery is an inveterate and established religion, and hath
taken deep root. But that of Protestants is a mushroom of a
very late rise and newly come up. Where was their Church
before Luther ? No man ever heard of any such thing be
fore his time. Wherefore none can approve of the Protestant
religion but those that dote on innovations. Thus Rome pre
tends to antiquity, and charges us with novelty : but we shall
find upon examining the matter impartially that she hath no
reason for this pretence and charge. For, first, it is most
evident that the Romanists have no real antiquity to depend
on, because otherwise they would not rest on counterfeit au
thors or such writers as are not of that antiquity which they
pretend they are of. This is acknowledged by some of the
learnedest of the Roman Church of late, and they confess
them to be spurious, and to have nothing of that antiquity
which they make a show of.

THE PROTESTANT RELIGION IS NOT NEW. 315
Again, why doth the .Church of Rome order and command
several things to be erased and blotted out of the ancient
writers of the Church ? Is it not clear hence that- antiquity
was against them, and therefore they are forced to suppress
those passages in those writers which opposed their new doc
trines ? This is very plain, and no rational man can give any
other account of their correcting and castrating the ancient
writers ; no other account can be assigned of their Expurga-
tory Index.
But I wiU go to work another way to demonstrate further
to the reader what I have propounded, and particularly to
shew that the principles of the Protestant religion cannot be
novel, because they have been asserted, maintained and de
fended in every age, and that those which we now call Popish
doctrines were in all those times opposed and withstood by
some eminent Christians and lovers of truth. And when
Popery was risen in good earnest, which was about the middle
of the seventh century, God raised up sundry pious and
learned men who appeared against the false doctrines and
superstitious usages, which were then introduced, and in
structed the people in the opposite truths and practices.
Several opposed the Roman Antichrist, who was then brought
into the Church, and the corruptions that accompanied him.
Archbishop TJsher* tells us that against the worship of images
several bishops at Constantinople remonstrated ; and he saith
the Churches of Germany, France, and Britain did the same.
And the whole Greek Church complained of Phocas' s con
ferring the supremacy on Boniface. Towards the latter end
of this century there were in Scotland several learned and
godly asserters of the truth against the Romanists : Clement
and Samson, two Culdees, withstood the corruptions of
Rome, particularly the Pope's supremacy, images in churches,
celibacy of priests, and prayers for the dead : for which they
were excommunicated.
At the beginning of the next age stood up our learned
countryman Venerable Bede, a priest belonging to a monastery
near Durham, a monk of the Benedictine order. He hath
many things in his learned writings which touch the Pope and
that religion : and he is very free in laying open and reproving
the Roman corruptions. Flac. Illyricust mentions some that
about the middle of this age preached against traditions, pur-
* De Success. Eccl. p. 33, 31. t Catal. Test. Verit.

316 THE PROTESTANT RELIGION
gatory, &c. and were therefore persecuted by Pope Zachary.
BasUius, Zosimus, Metrophanes, are mentioned by Usher*
and others by the Magdeburgenses. At the latter end of this
century flourished Alcuinus, or (as some write his name)
Albinus, an Englishman (though others say a Scot), brought
up under Venerable Bede, and tutor to Charles the Great,
who by his persuasion erected the University of Paris. He
was famous for his universal learning, and gained great repu
tation by opposing the canons of the second Nicene Council,
when the adoration of images was enjoined. He wrote a hoot
on the eucharist where he confutes transubstantiation, and
therefore several years after his death he was proclaimed an
heretic by the Church of Rome.
In the ninth century there were divers witnesses against the
errors of the Church of Rome. The first and chief was
Johannes Scotus, sumamed iErigena, because he was born in
the town of Ayr in Scotland. He was tutor to the emperor
Charles the Bald and favourite of King Alfred, who made him
the first Professor at Oxford. He writ against the doctrine
of the eucharist as it was held by the Church of Rome, for
which he was forced to leave France and Germany and to re
turn to England, where by reason of his known opposition to
some opinions and practices in that ignorant age, he was
stabbed by his own scholars when he was reading to them.
At the same time in Scotland several opposed the doctrine of
the real presence and transubstantiation. In France there
was Bertram, a presbyter of that Church, who, when it was
demanded of him whether the body of Christ that suffered on
the cross was really in the sacrament, he determined that it
was not there. And by the command of Charles the Bald,
then emperor, he wrote about the matter, and argued against
the bodily presence. This appears from the records that are
remaining concerning this affair, notwithstanding what hath
been lately suggested by a French author.f So we read, that
about the middle of this century was Rabanus Maurus, a
German, professor in the University of Paris, abbot of Fulda,
and afterwards archbishop of Mentz. His writings shew that
he opposed some doctrines of Popery, and especially that of
the corporal presence.
At the same time was Haymo, an Anglo-Saxon, Bede's
* De Success. &c. p. 39, 40.
f Mr. Boileau's Remarks on Bertram.

IS NOT NEW AND UPSTART. 317
scholar and kinsman, monk of Fulda, abbot of Hersfeld,
afterwards bishop of Halberstad ; he trod in the steps of his
master and expressed his dislike of several disorders in the
Roman Church : and in his writings he defended the true
doctrines concerning the fall of man, grace, justification, &c.
Now appeared Amalarius Fortunatus, first a monk, then arch
bishop of Treves, who writ against transubstantiation. Hinc-
marus, first a monk at Paris, then archbishop of Rheims,
openly defied in writing the Pope's supremacy, and slighted
his decisions and determinations : and he opposed several
Popish doctrines. Huldericus, archbishop of Augsburg, writ
against the celibacy of priests. Remigius, a monk, and after
wards bishop of Antisidore, asserted several important truths
concerning the Church, the eucharist, and justification, which
were run down by the churchmen in those days. Claudius,
bishop of Tours in France, (though some make him bishop of
Turin in Piedmont) decried images, the worshipping of saints,
pilgrimages, &c. Agobard, archbishop of Lyons, wrote against
the adoring of images. Lupus, abbot of Ferrara, defended the
truth in opposition to purgatory, free-will, celibacy of the
clergy. I pass to the following age ; which, though it is observed
by historians to have been almost void of men of learning and
eminency, yielded these two excellent persons, Smaragdus, an
abbot in Saxony, who commented on the Gospels and Epistles,
and hath several things against the doctrine professed by tbe
Church of Rome ; and iElfric, the abbot of Malmsbury, who
preached aud published homilies against the real presence of
Christ's body in the sacrament. Likewise one Bernet, a
Scotch bishop, defended the marriage of priests. And in
King Edgar's reign some scholars and clergymen in the Uni
versity of Oxford, asserted that the Church of Rome was the
whore of Babylon, and monks and their vows were declared
against by them : for which they were stigmatised in the face
and then banished.
The witnesses to the Protestant truths in the eleventh cen
tury were these ; first, Berengarius, archdeacon of Angiers,
rector of St. Martin of Tours, whereof he was a native, a
learned and rehgious man, even according to the confession of
his adversaries ; he opposed the gross doctrine of the sacra
ment, and openly preached against transubstantiation and the
real presence : yea, he held, that the elements in the sacra
ment are only the signs and figures of Christ's body and blood,

318 THE PROTESTANT RELIGION
and therefore he is an heretic with the Centuriators of Magde
burg. What a vast number of proselytes he had, may be
gathered from what a noted historian saith of him :* " He
having (saith he) fallen into heretical pravity, had almost cor
rupted all the French, Itahans, and English with his pravities."
This may satisfy us what ample testimony was given in those
times to the Protestant doctrines, and how that which they
called heresy, but indeed was evangelical truth, prevailed in the
minds of men. It is not denied that he recanted his doctrine
to save his life, but the truth is the same that it was. And it
is to be remembered, that when he got free from his implacable
adversaries, who thirsted after his blood, he publicly owned his
cowardice, and begged pardon for it, and to the day of his
death continued stedfast in the profession of the truth. Other
witnesses against the corruption of Rome, were Bruno, bishop
of Angiers, who cried down transubstantiation ; Petrus Dami-
anus, bishop of Osti, who writ against the Papal height and
pride ; Fulbert, bishop of Chartres ; and Ivo, bishop after
wards of the same place, who writ very orthodoxly as to several
points in the very height of Popery ; Anselm, archbishop of
Canterbury, who maintained in his writings the true doctrines
of faith, of justification, of grace, of the eucharist, &c.
The twelfth century presents us with a great number of per
sons that abhorred the corrupt opinions and disorderly prac
tices of the Church of Rome. Such were Rupertus Tuitsien-
sis, an abbot in Saxony ; Honorius Augustodunensis, Petrus
Clunianensis, abbot of Clugny, Petrus Blesensis, i. e. of Blois,
and archdeacon of Bath. Among these, we must reckon the
devout Bernhard, the famous abbot of Claraval, who tells us
that there was no part sound in the Roman clergy ; that those
who had the first place in the Church were the chief in perse
cuting Christ. He had very right opinions in divinity, con
sidering the times he lived in. He was against the Feast of
Conception, or the Virgin Mary's freedom from sin; he dis
dains the doctrine of merits, he dislikes the five supernume
rary sacraments, he approves of justification by faith only, and
the imputation of Christ's righteousness ; and in short he very
freely complains of the vices as well as the errors of the church
men in those days. And this, indeed, was the usual theme of
those whom God had then enlightened. Arnold, a scholar
* In haereticam prolapsus pravitatem omnes Gallos, Italos, et Anglos,
sais jam pene corruperat pravitatibus. — Matth. Westmon.

IS NOT NEW AND UPSTART. 319
and preacher at Oxford, in King Henry I.'s reign, publicly
rebuked the Popish clergy for the disorders of their lives, and
was most cruelly and barbarously handled for it. Another
Arnold, who was of Brescia, protested openly against several
corruptions and abuses in the Church ; for which bold attempt
Pope Clement III. forced him to fly to the Emperor Frederick,
and he afterwards delivered him up to the Pope, who soon
condemned him to the stake.
Johannes Sarisburiensis, a French bishop, was a great repre-
hender of the vicious practices of the ecclesiastics: " In the
Roman Church (saith he) sit the Scribes and Pharisees."
Again, " the legates of the apostolical see tyrannize, as if the
devU was gone forth from the presence of God to scourge the
Church. Moreover, the Church of Rome is not a mother,
but a stepmother, and the Pope himself is burdensome to all,
and almost insufferable." These passages the reader will find
in Polycratie. 1. 5 and 6.
Peter Waldo, or Valdo, a citizen of Lyons in France, re
ceived the Gospel from those of Piedmont about the middle of
this century, and presently he fell from Popery, and declared
against the Pope and Church of Rome as Antichristian. He
and his followers, who were many, inveighed against the Pope's
supremacy, indulgences, purgatory, images, praying to saints,
and most of the Roman errors and superstitions, insomuch
that divers were prevailed with to hate and renounce them.
These Poor Men of Lyons, as they were commonly called,
retired to Languedoc, and spreading on the banks of the river
Alby were called Albigenses ; or were so called from Albi, a
city in the Upper Languedoc, the chief city of Albigois. Here
these persons increased, and afterwards propagated their opi
nions in other places ; they spread themselves all over Lyonnois,
and all Languedoc, Toulouse, Aquitain, and Argennois in a
short time. Thus it appears that these Albigenses were the
same with the Waldenses, only the former have their name (as
we have said) from Albi, a river or city ; the latter from
Waldo, their teacher. These were afterwards called Lollards
in England, from one Lollard a disciple of Waldo, who preached
against the Popish doctrines.
Peter de Bruis in France, threw off the errors of purgatory,
praying for the dead, transubstantiation, and most of the con
siderable tenets of the Church of Rome, and proclaimed her to
be the Babylon spoken of in the Apocalypse. And it ought
to be no prejudice against him, that some of his followers, and

320 THE PROTESTANT RELIGION
who were called Petrobrusiani, ran into some ill opinions and
doctrines, which are justly exploded by sober men ; for he is not
to answer for the extravagances of others. In King Henry II.'s
time, Sylvester Girald, a man of learning, wrote against the
wicked lives of the monks. Joachim Abbas, towards the end
of this century, in the reign of King Richard I. of England,
expounded the Revelation to him when he was at Calabria
near Sicily (on his expedition to the Holy Land), and told him
that Antichrist was the Pope, and that very Pope then at
Rome. Hildegardis, a nun, had a prophetic spirit, and fore
told many things concerning the reformation of religion.
Beghot was the name of a wealthy man that was famous for
this spirit of prophecy ; he inveighed against the corrupt man
ners of the nobility, and severely reproved the wicked fives of
the clergy. Some say he was the founder of the Beguines.
In the beginning of the thirteenth century one Almaric, a
learned man, a doctor of Paris, denied transubstantiation and
the bodily presence in the sacrament, and invocation of saints
and worshipping of images, for wbich he suffered death:
others say, his bones were burnt after his death, because he
had, when alive, declared against Popery. In King John's
reign, Alexander, an Oxford divine, wrote against the Pope's
authority, and was banished for it. In the same king's reign,
Walter Maxes, or Mapes, archdeacon of Oxford, preached and
wrote against the Pope, the name of the book was the Apoca
lypse of Goliah the Pontiff; wherein he freely lays open the
enormities of the clergy.
William, bishop of Paris, better known by the Latin title,
Gulielmus Parisiensis, sharply inveighed and writ against the
abuses and corrupt practices of the Roman prelates, and
calls the Church of Rome Sodom, Babylon, and Egypt.
Gulielmus de St. Amore, a Parisian, and doctor of the Sor-
bonne, and canon of Belovacum, lashed the Pope and mendicant
friars, and is very impartial in taking notice of the vices of the
Roman clergy, and the abuses in that Church. Joannes de
Poliaco, his scholar, did so too; their books were condemned
and burnt. Everard, a German, bishop, called the Pope
Antichrist, and the Roman priests, priests of Baal.
Robert Grosthead, the learned and pious bishop of Lincoln,
was (as the historian rightly styles him), a " terrible repre-
hender of the Pope,"* and (as he also calls him), "The maul
* Terrificus Papso Redargutor.— Matth. Paris.

IS NOT NEW AND UPSTART. 321
of the Romans."* Witness his excellent Letter to Pope
Innocent IV., who then filled the papal chair; in which he
boldly remonstrates against tbe vices of the bishops of Rome,
more especially their greediness and avarice, and their admit
ting of unworthy pastors into the Church, and accordingly he
urges a speedy reformation. After he had thus discharged his
conscience, he undauntedly bore the checks of the angry
pontiff, and when he was excommunicated by him, he defied
both him and his excommunication. In King Henry Ill's
reign, Dr. Strenham wrote and proved that the holy Scriptures
contained in them all things necessary to salvation, and that
other things founded on mere tradition were not necessary. In
the same reign, Robert Bacon, an Oxford divine, a monk,
preached against the corruptions of the Church of Rome ; for
which he was imprisoned. Now Uved and flourished Matthew
Paris, a Benedictine monk, who writ against the frauds, lies,
pomps, lusts, and tyranny of Rome. About the same time
others spake aloud against the Roman Church, and condemned
its superstitions and gross follies.
At the latter end of this thirteenth century, or at the begin
ning of the fourteenth, we may place John Duns Scotus, of
the Franciscan order, doctor in the University of Paris, sur-
narned the Subtle. He was called Scotus from his nation, and
Duns from the place of his birth ; for he was born in the town
of Duns in theMerse, though others say he was born in a little
hamlet called Dunston in Northumberland. This is certain
and unquestionable, that he writ and preached against the
abuses of Rome, and against some doctrines of Popery, espe
cially against transubstantiation, as a doctrine contrary to rea
son and Scripture.
I proceed to the fourteenth age of the Christian Church,
wherein we shaU behold an innumerable company of men de
crying the Popish opinions and usages, and shewing them
selves weary of them. Arnold de Villa Nova, a Catalonian,
a physician of great and extraordinary fame in his time,
writ a smart book De Spurcitiis Pseudo-Religiosorum, wherein
he declares against the defections of the Roman Church, and
in many particulars disaUows their opinions and usages ; for
which this learned Spaniard was severely animadverted upon
by Pope Clement V. William Occham, a friar minor, and a
famous schoolman, in King Edward III.'s time, writ a trea-
* Malleus Romanorum.
VOL. VI. Y

322 THE PROTESTANT RELIGION
tise against Pope John XXII., maintaining the temporal power
to be above the spiritual : for which bold assertion he was
forced to fly to the emperor for protection. Contemporary
with Occham was Marsilius of Padua, who held that the Pope
is not Christ's successor or vicar ; that the emperor is above
him : and other things against the See of Rome he manfully
asserted. John Baconthorp, a schoolman in King Edward
III.'s time, opposed the Pope's power in dispensing with mar
riages, contrary to the divine laws and prescriptions. Nicolas
Lyra, of a Jew became a pious Christian, and studied divinity
at Oxford, and made the Postills on the Bible, wherein he
plainly discovers his dislike of some Popish doctrines, and on
2 Thess. ii. declares, " that God's grace departed from the
Church of Rome long ago." And he writ a piece of the Vision
of God, which strikes at the Pope. Richard Fitz-Ralph, com
monly known by the name of Armachanus, because he was
archbishop and primate of Armagh, one of the most eminent
scholars of his time, presented to the Pope nine articles
against the Order of Mendicant Friars : for which, and for
what he preached at St. Paul's Cross he was censured by the
Pope as a person that was no good friend of the Church of
Rome Therefore Bellarmine tells us,* that this author is
to be read with great caution, and he adds, that Wickliffe took
some of his errors from him.
This is the person I am next to speak of. John Wickliffe
appeared at the latter end of King Edward III.'s reign, and
the beginning of Richard II.'s, and so on. He was fellow
of Merton College, and afterwards Master of Baliol College
in Oxford ; he was doctor and reader of divinity in that
University. He was a man of learning both human and
divine, and so was able to grapple with the learnedest
doctors of that time. With indefatigable industry he turned
the Bible into English, to inform the people concerning the
sacred truths contained in that inspired book. He preached
and wrote against the mass, indulgences, the worshipping the
host, auricular confession, pilgrimages, the Pope's supreme
power and infallibility, the cehbacy of priests, the worshipping
of saints and their images, and the rest of the superstitious
practices of the Church of Rome: and he openly avowed
that the Roman Church was the synagogue of Satan. In
brief, by his preaching and writing the idolatrous worship of
Rome, and the pride and usurpation of the clergy began to be
* De Scriptor. Eccles.

IS NOT NEW AND UPSTART. 323
detected, and at the same time to be loathed. He was not
only liked by the people, but he was favoured by many of the
nobiUty, by John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, especially ;
yea, King Edward III. had a kindness for him. And every
Parliament took notice of the corruptions and abuses of the
bishops, and of the Church ; their wicked practices were cen
sured and their persons were contemned. Some say, he tra
velled into Bohemia, and laid the foundation of that doctrine
which John Huss afterwards propagated there ; but I find
there is more ground to assert that his doctrines travelled into
Bohemia than himself. His followers in England were called
LoUards, from one Lollard, whom I mentioned before ; for
this was the name that was generally given to all that dissented
from the established religion.
Ralph Acton, a doctor of divinity of Oxford, lived in this
age, and was eminent for appearing against the errors and
corruptions of the Roman Church. Dr. Orum preached
against the Pope, and was the author of the epistle of Lu
cifer to the Clergy. Dr. KiUington wrote against the monks.
Joannes de Rupe Scissa, a reUgious friar, preached and writ
against the disorders of the Church in his time, especially
those that were conspicuous in the lives and manners of the
Popes and their clergy : for which he was burnt at Avignon.
Taulerus, a German, preacher at Strasburg, with great bold
ness reflected on the apostasy of Rome ; and his sermons and
postills frequently called for a reformation. I might mention
Dante the Florentine poet, who in his verses struck at the
Pope's supremacy, for which after his death he was condemned
for a heretic ; and with him I may join Francis Petrarch,
another Italian poet, archdeacon of Parma, who in his epistles
sharply corrects the Papal head, giving him the title of Anti
christ, and Rome the title of Babylon, and the Whore of Ba
bylon. The Begardi and Beguinse were in this age, who are
known to have highly deviated from the Church of Rome ;
but they are misrepresented by the Roman writers, on purpose
to render them odious. I will conclude this century with
John de Trevisa, a Cornish gentleman, a secular priest and
vicar of Berkley. He attempted an English translation of the
Bible, which was a high offence in those days ; he had a great
aversion to the doctrine then taught concerning a monastic
life : he disapproved of the vow of poverty ; and was wont to
say, he had read that Christ had sent Apostles and priests
into the world, but never any monks or begging friars.
Y 2

324 THE PROTESTANT RELIGION
In the fifteenth age, which I am now coming to, there is a
great catalogue of eminently learned men who opposed the
Popish doctrines. In England, in King Henry IV.'s reign,
William Sautre, a parish priest, of Lynn first, then of London,
opposed the worship of the cross, and of angels, and held that
'the bread in the sacrament after consecration continues to be
of the same nature that it was before. He was for those
errors pronounced an heretic by the archbishop of Canterbury,
and burned to death ; he was the first that suffered that punish
ment for heresy in England. About the same time suffered
John Badby for adhering to Wickliffe's doctrine. In Bohe
mia appeared John Huss and Jerome of Prague, who for op
posing the Popish errors were condemned to the stake by the
Council of Constance. But these holy men had first converted
many thousands to the truth ; so that, next to the Waldenses,
these Bohemian Brethren were the greatest numbers, in any
country, that were brought over to the orthodox faith. Albi-
cus archbishop of Prague, was a great favourer and friend of
John Huss and the disciples of Wickliffe. In the Council of
Pisa there were many that declared for a reformation of the
Catholic Church in doctrine and practices, and they moved it
with great vigour. So that at last it was decreed by the
Council that there should be a reformation of faith and man
ners, and this should be both in the head and members. In
France John Gerson, chancellor of Paris, the greatest doctor,
and learnedest man in the Council of Constance, in a speech
that he made in that assembly, told them that "the falling
away" of which St. Paul spoke in 2 Thess. ii. might be seen
fulfilled in the Church of Rome. He was deprived of his offices
and dignities, and fled to Lyons, and was by the Pope ex
communicated and damned, because he wrote against the
abuses of the Pope and clergy, against the infallibihty of a
Pope or Council, against indulgences, again?t human tradi
tions, and other groundless notions maintained by the Papists.
Another Parisian, Dr. Nicholas de Clemangis, archdeacon of
Bayeux wrote concerning "the corrupt state of the Church,
and the simony of the bishops, and the vows of nuns," freely
chastising the exorbitancies of the Roman Church.
At the same time was Petrus de Aliaco, a cardinal, bishop of
Cambray, and chancellor of the University of Paris ; he offered
his treatises of the Reformation of the Church to the Council
of Constance, wherein he complains of the sundry miscarriages
which the Church was then noted for ; Cardinal Cusanus

IS NOT NEW AND UPSTART. 325
spared it not ; and Laurentius Valla, a canon of the church of
St. John Lateran, boldly deUvered his thoughts about the cor
ruptions of those times. Platina, who wrote the lives of the
Popes, takes leave to correct their exorbitant behaviour, and to
reflect on several misdemeanors under their government.
Rudulphus Agricola, of Groning, declared against human
traditions, against the mass, and the forced celibacy of priests.
Wesselus or De Wessalia, of Groning, declared against indul
gences, Popish festivals and fasts, pilgrimages, legends of saints.
Baptista Mantnan, prior of the Carmelite Friars, inveighed
against the Popish abuses, especially in the clergy. And his
brother poet Geffery Chaucer, our countryman, makes Jack
Upland, a country fellow, jeer the monks and friars, and rally
on other abuses in the Church at that time. Francis Zabarella
a Florentine, a cardinal, a lawyer, hath in his^ writings lowered
the Pope's authority and greatness, and spoken contemptibly
of several usages and practices in Popery. Tostatus, a Spaniard,
one of great learning and piety, was no friend to Papal
authority and supremacy, but opposed them, as the Romanists
themselves confess. About the middle of this century was
iEneas Sylvius, who in his writings before he was Pope shewed
that he was against the imposing a single life on the clergy,
and that he disUked other corrupt usages in that Church whose
communion he embraced. Abbas Panormitanus, otherwise
caUed Nicolaus Siculus, a famous canonist, with some warmth
takes notice of the loose hves of the Roman clergy, and the
unlawful abstaining from marriage among them. Towards the
close of this century appeared Jerome Savanarola, a Florentine,
a Dominican friar, who heartUy and zealously wrote and
preached against the chief errors and miscarriages of the
Church of Rome, and boldly urged a Reformation : for which
he was burnt at Florence. I might mention how in England
many men and women in King Henry VII.'s reign, and
the beginning of Henry VIII.'s were witnesses to the truth,
as our chronicles testify, and record their being branded and
imprisoned, and persecuted, and some of them put to death.
I now pass to the sixteenth, and last century that I am con
cerned in. In the beginning of this (as well as in the latter
end of the former), stood up Johannes Picus, Count of
Mirandola, who disputed against some of the opinions and
doctrines held by the Church of Rome, and shewed himself
a professed enemy to many practices allowed by them, and was
a great exhorter to and promoter of a reformation. Trithemius

320' THE PROTESTANT RELIGION
abbot of Spanheim, did even in those days maintain the
doctrines of election, and faith, and justification, &c. Martin
Luther arose in the year 1517, and was by the Divine assistance
enabled to carry on that Reformation which all the other fore-
named worthies aimed at. Whole nations and countries
embraced the Protestant faith : and even many of those who
still continued in the communion of the Church of Rome,
entertained an ill opinion and dislike of several of her doctrines
and practices. This was seen in Melancthon ; but more
especially in Erasmus, who was also Luther's contemporary: in
some places he perstringeth the idolatry of Rome ; and in most
he inveighs against the splendour, pomp, and grandeur of the
Roman clergy. Guilielmus Budseus, master of requests to the
French king, a learned man, and a professed Papist, shewed
how mean an opinion he had of the Roman ecclesiastics, whilst
he complains of their pride, avarice, luxury, cruelty, &c. and
cries out for reformation in his book, de Asse. Ludovicus
Vives, a Spanish priest, writ against the worshipping of images ;
and Polydore Virgil, an Italian, but archbishop of Wells in
England, a professed Catholic, and collector of the Pope's
Peter-pence here in King Henry VIII.'s days, writ against
the order of monks, as filthy and abominable, and condemned
the Popish praying by beads, saying that " these are the
chief instruments of the hypocrites' feigned devotion."* I
will conclude with a celebrated doctor of the Council of Trent,
the Bishop of Bitonto, who was very earnest for a speedy
regulation of the disorders that were in the Roman Church at
that time, and openly in that CouncU spoke thus concerning
the Pope and clergy, "I wish they had not unanimously
declined and fallen from reUgion to superstition, from the faith
to infidelity, from Christ to Antichrist."
Thus I have shewn that there have been testimonies against
Popery in all ages. Its false doctrines, its superstitious usages,
its impostures and cheats, have been struck at ever since they
sprang up. These points of Popery, which we Protestants
have renounced, were disliked and found fault with in every
century even by those who had been of the Roman communion,
and by some that still continued in it The Roman religion
never went on without interruption and control : it was never
truly Catholic. In all times there have been those that have
declared against it. I know this hath been made good by other
* De Invent, rer. 1. 5. c. 9.

IS NOT NEW AND UPSTART. 327
writers, but either they have not placed the persons in the
centuries they appeared in, or they mentioned some that are
dubious and uncertain. I have taken care as to both these,
and the reader may depend upon the chronology, as weU as
the things that are asserted concerning the persons.
From the whole then it will appear first, that persons of all
ranks and quaUties have opposed the Church of Rome. Not
only one faculty or function, but men of all studies and pro
fessions, statesmen and divines, priests and laymen, the learned
and the vulgar, have openly shewed their aversion to the
superstitions and corruptions of the Roman Church. Nay, I
might have added in the foregoing catalogue, that crowned
heads have always (when there was no constraint upon them),
withstood the main point of Popery, that is, the supremacy of
the Bishops of Rome, and disliked other Popish innovations
and practices of the Church. How frequent in history is the
relation of emperors and kings opposing the Pope in several of
his demands and commands, and refusing to yield to his
decrees? Michael Palseologus, the Eastern emperor, about
a. D. 860, in a letter he writ to Pope Nicholas I. reproved
him for his arrogance and affectation of supremacy, and ex
pressed his detestation of the worship of images. There are
instances of this nature in the Western emperors : but I will
produce the examples of some of our own EngUsh kings.
King WiUiam the Conqueror would not own the Papal
supremacy : for so he tells Pope HUdebrand (who sent to him
to own subjection to him), " that he neither had nor would
acknowledge it ; and he found not, that any of his predecessors
ever did so." The reader may find this recorded even by one
of the chief Roman writers.* King William IL, Henry I.,
and other of our kings denied and forbade appeals to Rome.
The aforesaid WUliam surnamed Rufus, suffered not the Pope
to claim any authority over bishops in this realm, he sUghted
his absolutions and excommunications : he esteemed the praying
to saints as an useless thing. Henry II. declared "that it
should be high treason in any man to assert that the Pope's
authority was above his."t Peter-pence were forbidden by
command of King Edward III. to be paid any more to the
Pope. It was enacted in a Parliament in the 25th year of this
king, " that it should for the future be treason to bring the
Pope's bulls into England without the consent of the king."
* Baron. Annal. a. d. 1076. t Spelman Condi. T. 2.

328 THE PROTESTANT RELIGION
In the statute of the 16th of King Richard II. you may see
how they declared and protested against the Pope's jurisdiction
and usurpation. In sundry other instances it might be shewed
how that in the times of Popery, our kings and parliaments
opposed the Pope's supremacy, and exorbitant power. And in
lower examples it is evident that Popery was condemned even
by those of the Roman communion : and their best writers
declared against the erroneous and vicious practices of that
Church Secondly, from what hath been said, it appears that not a
few, but very many, yea, vast multitudes of persons have, in
all ages, withstood the corruptions of Rome. These, and
many other particulars, we certainly know : and seeing these
are recorded by writers, we may reasonably guess that the
numbers are much greater, for we are to allow both for the
wilful and careless omission of many individual passages. I
might have added to the number, by producing whole
Councils against some of the Popish errors, as worship
ping of images, &c. ; yea, I might have alleged whole
Churches that were not tainted with the corruptions of the
Roman Church in the times of Popery : such were the Greek
Churches of Constantinople, Antioch, and in Russia. And we
know that the great and solemn separation of the Greek
Church from the Roman, in Gregory IX.'s days, about
the year of our Lord, 1 230, was occasioned not only by the
dispute about the procession of the Holy Ghost, but about the
primacy of the Bishop of Rome ; and we are told that the
Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated the Bishop of
Rome. Besides, whole Churches in Africa, as those of Ethio
pia and Egypt, and the Christian Churches in India and
Persia, admitted not the corruptions of the Roman Church :
all which is a proof of what I assert, that the number of those
that opposed Popery was always very great.
Thirdly, and lastly, from what hath been suggested, we see
that the objection of the novelty of the Protestant religionis
vain and trifling, and hath no ground at all ; and we see how
easy it is to give a satisfactory answer to that trite question so
often put by the Papists, " Where was your religion before
Luther V Our answer is, that the main doctrines of our
religion were in being, and entirely preserved by the ancient
Eastern Churches, and other whole assemblies of Christians
beforementioned. Our religion, as to the principal branches
of it, was upheld by many of the learnedest doctors and pro-

IS NOT NEW AND UPSTART. 329
fessors, and the most eminent Christians in every country ;
yea, some parts of it were kept up by some of the Popes and
cardinals themselves. Our religion was among those old pro
fessors of Christianity, the Waldenses ; it was among the Bo
hemian Christians, among the followers of Wickliffe and Huss,
among the great assemblies and congregations of pious men
in distant parts of the world. For though they were separated
from one another in respect of place, yet they were united as
to the chief articles of the Christian faith. All these were
before Luther, and many of them several hundreds of years
before him. These complained of the tyranny of the Popes,
of the wicked lives of the priests, of the forgeries and cheats,
of the errors and falsehoods, of the superstition and idolatry
of the Roman Church. These were witnesses raised up by
God in every century to bear testimony to the truths which
are at this day professed and owned by the Protestants : and
therefore I justly conclude, that they are not novel and upstart
doctrines, as our adversaries object, but have good antiquity to
commend them.
Nay, here we could retort upon the Papists, and object to
them the novelty of their reUgion. If we examine things
weU, it will appear that they are the innovators. It was
almost 600 years after Christ before the Pope's supremacy
and universal monarchy were so much as attempted. It com
menced first in Boniface III.'s time, who procured of the
Emperor Phocas that Rome should be head and mistress of
all Churches in the world. That the Pope hath power over
kings and princes, and can anathematize them, and deprive
them of their dominions and crowns, is wholly new. This
primacy was exercised not before Gregory VII. and Pas-
chaUs, which was at the latter end of the eleventh century;
and then Alexander III. and Innocent III. confirmed
and increased this tyrannical and usurped government, and
that by most wicked and villanous arts. The infalhbility of
the Pope was an unknown doctrine to the Church for the first
thousand years, as BeUarmine* bimself confesses. And as
for the other doctrines and usages of the Roman Church, I
have assigned the times when they began in the " Introduction
or History of the Rise of Popery," and therefore it is needless
to repeat it here. This only I am to observe, that the date of
their doctrines is very late. Their gross errors were not known
* De Rom. Pontif. 1. 4. c. 2.

330 ANSWER TO THE OBJECTION,
to the ancient Christians, nor do we find them in the Scrip
tures. Though the Romanists brag that antiquity is one
mark of their Church, yet we see, from the instances which I
have produced, how unjustly she lays claim to it ; and we see
how reasonable it is to charge her with novelty.

CHAPTER XVII.

Objection II. of the Papists, That Protestants disagree
among themselves, answered.
But they hope to succeed better with their next objection
or cavil, and that is this : " The Protestants have left our reli
gion, but they are not satisfied with that which they have
taken up. There is nothing but dissension and disagreement
among them ; they are divided into many sects and parties:
but we are all unanimous, we have this unerring mark of a
true Church, namely, unity and concord." This is thought to
be a very shrewd objection, and it makes a great noise among
the Roman Catholics, therefore I will give a full and ample
answer to it in these several particulars.
First, This very thing which the Papists object to us was
laid to the charge of Christ and his Apostles, and the primi
tive Christians, and therefore we are not to be concerned that
it is laid to us. "The heathens (saith one of the ancient
Fathers*) upbraided the Christians after this manner: Ye
dissent among yourselves, and maintain so many sects, which,
though they all claim the title of Christianism, yet one of
them curseth and condemns another ; therefore your religion is
not true, and hath not its origin from God." And this they give
as one reason why they could not believe,"f that is, be of the
Christian reUgion. Thus Celsus, a great man among the
Pagans, was wont to reproach Christianity with the differences
that were among those of that persuasion. " They are torn
and rent," saith he, " into variety of parties, and every one
* Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. 1.
t M17 Siiv ttwtivuv ha rfjv iiaipiaviav tuiv aipktmuv.

THAT PROTESTANTS DISAGREE. 331
affects to have his own positions and determinations."* This
is taken notice of by St. Augustine§ as a thing usually objected
to the Christians by the Gentile idolators. Now, it should
not trouble us that we fare as the ancients have done. Nay ,
it is to our honour and credit that we are traduced as the
ancient Christians and followers of Christ were : that the same
things that were objected to them by the heathens are now
imputed to us by the Papists. And this is certain, that no
Christian man ever made it an argument against the truth of
Christianity, that there were some dissensions among the pro
fessors of it.
Secondly, I answer, it cannot rationally be expected that
those of the Protestant religion v should be without some
differences and quarrels, seeing, if we consult the records of
the New Testament, and of the several ages of the Christian
Church, it wUl appear that there were always some dissensions
and bickerings among those that professed Christianity. The
best and hohest persons disagreed in some things, and there
never was an universal unity among Christians. Paul and
Barnabas, ambassadors of peace, champions of the holy cause,
drew upon one another ; they who had been fellow-labourers,
and jointly took the charge of the converted GentUes at Antioch
upon them, Acts xi. 19, they that had been sent with a
coUection of alms by the Christians of that place to relieve the
poor brethren at Jerusalem, Acts xv. they who had been great
and intimate companions behaved themselves Uke enemies :
insomuch that St. Luke the physician, the penman of the
Acts of the Apostles, could not better express their passionate
falling out than by a term of his own art, a paroxysm, Acts
xv. 39, which our translators render a " sharp contention," to
signify to us the fierceness and violence of it. And this strife
commenced but on a petty matter, only whether Mark was fit
to be their fellow-labourer, and to accompany them in their
travels : it was no matter of faith or doctrine, it did not concern
the substance of reUgion : and yet the contention was sharp
and vehement, and ended in their departing from one another.
There was also a great quarrel between St. Paul and St.
Peter (even that Peter from whom the Papists hold their
Church) ; and the former severely reprehended the latter, and
withstood him to the face ; the occasion of which was that
t Tkp,vovTai, Kai <s\iZ.ovTai,Kai ardaHQ iSiag ixuv 'dtcaaroi 9iXov<n.
Orig. cont. Cels.
X Lib. de Ovibius, cap. 15.

332 ANSWER TO THE OBJECTION,
main controversy that made such a stir in those early times of
the Church, viz. concerning the legal ceremonies : for some
thought, they were to be observed ; others that they were to
be abolished. The contest was, whether Judaism might in
part be kept on foot, for the Jews' sakes, who were converts or
to be made converts. In the famous Church of Corinth there
were emulations, contentions, strifes, and debates. They were
divided into several parties ; and rather than they would not
fall out, they disagreed about the dignity of the persons that
preached to them, Paul, Apollos, and Cephas. St. Paul speaks
of "false Apostles," 2 Cor. and such as would "pervert' the
Gospel of Christ," Gal. i. 7. And St. John and St. Jude
complain of such as were actually making divisions in the
Church. There were downright heretics in that first age, as
Simon Magus, who denied that Christ was come in the flesh ;
and Ebion and Cerinthus, who denied Christ's divinity;
besides their heresy was a mixture of Judaism and Christianity.
If it were thus in the first times of the Church, whilst some
of the Apostles lived, it is no wonder that afterwards we hear
of greater dissensions and divisions, according to that predic
tion of St. Paul, "I know that after my departing shall
grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your ownselves shall men arise, speaking.perverse things
to draw many disciples after them," Acts xx. 29, 30. When
the Christian religion prevailed more in the world, heresies,
and schisms prevailed also. To the former belong the
opinions of the Arians, Eutychians, Nestorians, Macedonians,
Pelagians : to the latter the contentions between the Eastern
and Western Churches about keeping Easter, which lasted till
the Nicene Council : the Novatian separation, which com
menced on the account of the Lapsi, and the dispute about the
rebaptizing of them : the distraction in the African Churches
caused by the Donatists, the Circumcelliones or Parmeniani.
To which may be annexed the violent struggles and contentions
which were between particular persons in the Church, of very
great note and eminency. Irenseus and Victor, bishop of
Rome, disagreed about the celebrating of Easter. Cyprian and
Cornehus were at odds about receiving the Lapsi into the
Church. The former of these fell out with Stephen, another
bishop of Rome ; for the one was for the rebaptizing of those
that were baptized by heretics, but the other was against it ;
whereupon there was a hot contest between them : yet these
good men who quarrelled about a small matter, died both of

THAT PROTESTANTS DISAGREE. 333
them martyrs for the Christian faith. Epiphanius and Chry
sostom fall out about Origen' s writings, insomuch that the
former wished that the latter might not die a bishop ; and the
latter wished the other might never return to his country.
And the event was accordingly ; for Chrysostom was deprived
of his bishopric, and Epiphanius died at sea before he reached
Cyprus his episcopal seat. There was a violent contention
between Chrysostom and Theophilus of Alexandria. Cyril,
the bishop of Alexandria, and Chrysostom were averse to one
another ; Nicephorus saith plainly that the former hated the
latter. This Cyril writ bitterly against Theodoret, another
good bishop, the one having fallen out with the other about
the acts of the first CouncU of Ephesus whereat he was present.
Jerome and Rufinus were mightily incensed against one another
on the account of Origen' s books, which the latter defended,
and would have brought the former to his side : but they most
scandalously disagreed, and wrote invectives most virulently
against one another.
These instances are a proof that good men, even the
worthiest doctors of the Church and the great champions of
Christianity, have had differences amongst themselves and have
fought with one another. And we have seen before, that there
were dissensions and divisions in the Apostles' times, and in
the first ages of the Gospel. Yea, schism and heresy were
frequent in the Christian Churches. Now, let us apply all
this, and we shall see, that the forementioned cavil of the
Papists hath no foundation. Though there were differences in
the Christian Church heretofore, yet our adversaries do not
argue thence against Christianity : so likewise neither ought
they to accuse the Protestant religion, because upon the
Reformation foUowed errors and schisms, and because the
Reformed Churches themselves disagree in some points. We
do not deny that just after the Reformation arose the Ana
baptists in Germany, who were against the authority of the
ciril magistrate. About ten years after that, Islebius ap
peared, who laid the foundations of Antinomianism ; soon after
him arose Casper Schwenckfelt, a strange fanatic, who intro
duced the principles of Enthusiasm. After these came up
David George and others, who endeavoured to root out the
sober maxims of Christianity. It was sad and deplorable,
that before this the Reformers differed among themselves,
that the dissensions were hot between the Lutherans and

334 ANSWER TO THE OBJECTION,
Zuinglians about the Lord's supper, that sacrament which was
intended by Christ as a pledge of fraternal love and unity
and Christian communion among his disciples ; but it un
happily proved the occasion of quarrels and divisions, and
unchristian animosities. And since that time, the contro
versies have been great about predestination and grace, and
the points appertaining to them : and Socinus's followers have
undermined the sacred Trinity, the divinity of our Saviour,
and his satisfaction. Among ourselves we differ about modes
of worship and terms of communion, and the extent of con
formity. And other quarrels there are about reUgion, or what
men take to be religion.
But any considerate man may observe that the errors and
heresies of the late ages are but a revival of those that were
before in the Christian Church : and the controversies of the
latter times are not unlike those of the preceding ones. It
were easy to draw a parallel between the former quarrels about
Easter, about rebaptizing, &c. and those that have obtained
among the modern Christians. What advantage then have
our adversaries got by their objection ? Can they prove the
Protestants to have no true Churches because of their differ
ences and divisions ? They may as truly affirm that there
never was any true Church ; for (as I have shewed before)
there were always dissensions and disagreements in the Chris
tian Churches. When Christ came into the world, there
were Antichrists ; when the Apostles preached the Gospel,
there were heretics and false teachers : and so it was at the
Reformation. And the Jews and heathens in those former
times might as justly have objected against Christ's and the
Apostles' doctrines, because of those false prophets, as the
Roman Church can object against us, that there have been
tbe like since.
Thirdly, It cannot seem strange to intelligent minds that
there are contention's and jars among Protestants about some
religious matters, and that there are errors and mistakes in the
Reformed Churches ; for the consideration of the " nature of
mankind," and of the " good ends to which God disposes
these differences," will sufficiently clear this. First, the na
ture and disposition of mankind should be considered. We
are to remember that our judgments are naturally imperfect ;
we are apt to be perverted by prejudice, by ignorance, by pride,
by self-love and self-interest, by affectation of novelty, and by

THAT PROTESTANTS DISAGREE. 33j
other corrupt principles, which engender error, and cause dis
traction and confusion of opinions, wherefore the Papists who
aggravate the variance of opinions, and upbraid the Protestant
and Reformed Churches with their differences among them
selves, shew plainly that they understand not the frame of the
world, nor the infirmities of mankind, and the abundant occa
sions of error that mortal men are beset with. If they had an
insight into these, they would never expect that there should
be a perfect concord and agreement, in any sort of men upon
earth, they would never wonder that they are not of the same
mind in every religious matter.
Nor would they do this, if they considered to what ends
and designs Providence disposes the errors of mankind.
" There must be heresies (saith the Apostle), that they who
are approved, may be made manifest," 1 Cor. xi. 19; that
it may be known, upon trial, who are sincere and sound in the
faith. And as they are intended to try the faithful, so like
wise to punish those " who receive not the love of the truth,"
2 Thess. U. 11 ; who refuse to embrace it in their hearts and
hves, and to yield obedience to it. Moreover, variety of opi
nions is permitted by God, that we may be the more diligent
and industrious in our search after truth. It is worth our
observing what Themistius the philosopher told the emperor
Valens, when he complained to him of the difference of opi
nions among the Christians ;* God is pleased, saith he, to set
forth his glory by this diversity of opinions, that hence men
may reverence his majesty, when they see that God's nature
is abstruse, and it is not easy for every one to attain to an
accurate knowledge of him. And this naturally excites us to
a more exact search and inquiry, which will the more firmly
establish us in our religion, and cause us to remain unshaken
for the future. If Augustine had not been tainted with the
errors of the Manicheans, he could not so evidently have laid
opeD, and so effectually confuted their madness. And it is
Luther's opinion, -j- that the same Father was roused up, and
made a man by the Pelagians, when he strove against them.
By the wise disposal of heaven, errors and divisions are the
occasion of great good to the Church. Cerinthus's denying
* T&ovXtcQai ri ovrio rbv Oebv SiaQopuig So^dZstrQai/iva SKaaroQ nXeov
avrov rrjv fiiyaXiioTyra 0oj3o7ro, Ik rov /tj) irpox^pov ixslv Tni'
yviSaiv aiiTov. Socrat. Hist. Eccles. lib. 4. cap. 37.
t Colloq. Mens.

336 ANSWER TO THE OBJECTION,
Christ's divinity occasioned the writing of St. John's Gospel,
There beiug many adversaries and opposers of the truth which
St. Paul preached, he. tells us that " there was a great door
and effectual opened unto him," 1 Cor. xvi. 9 ; that is, there
was the greater opportunity of doing good and being suc
cessful in the discharge of his ministry. Upon these several
considerations it is rational to conclude that the errors which
arise in the Church are made use of by Divine Providence to
good events and issues, and therefore the Papists who censure
and condemn the professors of the Reformed religion, because
they espy some false and mistaken notions embraced by some
of them, discover their ignorance of the method and conduct
of the Almighty, and disparage his wisdom in the government
of his Church.
Fourthly, This is to be considered, that all peace and agree
ment and unity are not the badge of a true Church ; neither
is all peace the true Christian peace. There is an unity among
some men, which is the mere result of ignorance and folly,
and they are of a herd, because they know no better. Here
indeed is quiet ; but it is like the quiet of the night, which is
dark withal. This is the peace of Rome : their ignorance makes
them lie still. The people know not how to oppose and dis
pute ; for they are blind and unlettered. And besides, there is
an unity in vice and wickedness, which certainly is no ways com
mendable. The devils maintain a league one with another. Those
black fiends are kind and friendly among themselves, and are
great patrons and upholders of peace and concord, such as it is.
They are all of a knot, and conspire together to tempt us, and
to ruin us. It was their own confession, " our name is legion :"
which speaks not only their great number, but also their union
and compact : they are iii a body, and keep an order, but it is for
most horrid purposes. Besides, not only the devils but their
agents and accomplices observe a firm peace and alliance.
There is a club and combination of them. Gebal and Ammon
and Amalek, &c. were of the consult against Israel : they all
agreed to plot against the Church of God. There is the union
of Samson's foxes, which carries fire and devastation along
with it. The unruly Leviathan is called so from the fast
joining together of his scales and members. " Of a truth
against the holy child Jesus both Herod and Pontius Pilate
with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were gathered
together," Acts iv. 27. Herod and Pontius Pilate, Jews and

THAT PROTESTANTS DISAGREE. 337
Gentiles, professed adversaries to one another, become friends
and brethren in their conspiracy against Christ Jesus. The
Pharisees and Sadducees (deadly enemies to one another) both
unite and conspire against Christ, and combine like friends to
oppose him. We read that certain of the Epicureans and
Stoics, men of a contrary humour, encountered St. Paul.
Though they were opposite to one another, yet they agreed
to confront the truth. Such is the unity and agreement of
the Church of Rome : they are brethren iii iniquity, and their
union is the union of the kingdom of darkness. This we are
certain of (whatever brags they are wont to make of their
unity) that that cannot be a mark of a true Church which is
disjoined from truth and holiness. But when peace is in con
junction with true doctrine and sanctity, then and not other
wise it is an assured token of the true Church.
Fifthly, I add this farther, that the unity boasted of in the
Church of Rome is by constraint, and therefore ¦ is not com
mendable. They look upon the vulgar as madmen, and the
method they take to reduce them to themselves, is by correc
tion and darkness. They by violence and persecution, and by
keeping them in ignorance think to tame them. I have spoken
of this latter before, and therefore I now confine myself wholly
to the former. It was rightly said concerning the Papists by
a learned and noble personage not long since jof this nation,
that " when there is fire for them that disagree, they need not
brag of their uniformity who consent." It is no wonder, that
unity is to be seen amongst Papists, when it is forced upon
them, whether they will or no, and when there are so many
exquisite punishments and tortures threatened to the dissenters.
Say that they have no great animosities about religion (which
1 shall prove afterwards not to be generally true) one reason
of which is because they are under the lash. This makes
them entertain any doctrine or ceremonies without disputing.
I will also add that of our Saviour, sLuke xi. 21, " when a
strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace ;"
when Satan hath men in his possession, he raiseth no quarrels :
all is quiet and peaceable. " But when a stronger than he
cometh, he taketh from him all his armour, and divideth the
spoU ;" when Christ comes and reveals the truth, and under
takes to destroy the power and kingdom of Satan, then there
is noise and division, and all is in an uproar. When God's
Word is purely dispensed, and holiness and godliness are urged
with great vehemency, the devil bestirs himself in a more
VOL. vi. z

338 ANSWER TO THE OBJECTION,
than ordinary manner. It is observed by Baronius and other
ecclesiastical historians, that in the ninth and tenth centuries
there were no heresies or divisions in the Church : one reason
of which is, that fear and force stifled them ; and another is,
that wickedness and debauchery reigned in the Church in
these times, and the thoughts and contrivances of these so
employed them, that they had no inclination to inquire what
was truth, or what was error.
But I proceed to the sixth and last answer to the Papists'
objection about the contentions of Protestants, and that is this,
they make peace and unity a badge of the true Church, and
then apply it to themselves and wholly exclude us, but do not
in the meantime look at home, and consider what breach of
peace is among themselves. I have all along granted that in
some respects they are all of a piece, they have evil methods
and arts of keeping up peace and harmony, they have unity
forced and extorted. But notwithstanding this, if we come to
look into particulars, we shall find that the Church of Rome
hath as many differences, nay as great, if not greater, than
any that are observed to be among their adversaries. Four-
and-twenty several schisms in the Church of Rome are parti
cularly enumerated by a late writer.* As it was with the
mutinous assembly at Ephesus, which St. Luke in the Acts of
the Apostles speaks of, so is it amongst them, " Some cry one
thing, and some another." You may see them (like the car
dinal winds) blow in one another's faces, and blast one another's
credits. I will here crave leave of the reader to trouble him
with the names of the contrary parties and sticklers amongst
them, who are more irreconcileable than any of ours. The
two orders of the Dominicans and Jesuits are odious and abo
minable to one another : and their implacable division arises
from their different opinions about free-will, the divine and
human concourse, grace and predestination. They squabble
and contest at a high rate ; and it is a frequent thing with
them to impute blasphemy to each other.
Again, the Dominicans and Franciscans fall out about the
conception of the Virgin Mary, the former maintaining that
she was conceived as all other children of Adam, and therefore
was not free from original sin : the latter holding, that her
conception was not like that of others, and that she was not
tainted with original pollution.
* Dr. Geddes's Miscellan. Tracts.

THAT PROTESTANTS DISAGREE. 339
This is the same quarrel with that of the Thomists and
Scotists : the one with their master, Thomas Aquinas, preached
that it was heresy to say, the Virgin Mary was conceived
without sin : the other with their master, Scotus, denied this,
and therefore they caused the feast of the conception of the
Virgin Mary to be instituted and solemnized in the Roman
Church. It is well known, how the Jesuits and Sorbonists differ
about the Pope's supremacy and infallibility : the one holding
the Pope's personal infallibility and supremacy; the other
holding the superiority of a General Council above the Pope.
And even lately (1682) the French clergy have in their deter
minations set bounds to the Pope's supremacy, renounced his
power in temporals, and condemned his deposing of kings,
which the doctors of the College of Jesus do stiffly oppose and
gainsay. Thus it is evident, that there are dissensions among
the Romanists, that this Babylon hath its confusion of
languages. Who is a stranger to the virulent quarrels and disputes
between the Molinists, the followers of MoUna, a Spanish
Jesuit, and the Jansenists, who take their name from Janse-
nius, bishop of Ypres in Flanders ? The controversy between
them is the same as to the main with that between the Jesuits
and Dominicans, namely, concerning the doctrines of predesti
nation, free-wiU, &c. There is a vast opposition made on
both sides, but the fury exercised against the Jansenists is
almost incredible. Those that are conversant in late transac
tions can tell how they have been persecuted in France ; and
it hath been no less than confiscation and banishment not to
subscribe against their opinions.
There are lately libels and satires between the Jesuits and
Carmelites, not to mention personal quarrels of some eminent
Fathers and priests of that communion. The Jesuits are a sect
and faction that are so odious to the Venetian Papists, that
they are for ever banished out of that republic.
That the Church of Rome hath dissenters, is manifest from
the late Molinos, the father of the Quietists in Italy and
Spain, who are against images, praying to saints, &c.
The Blacklowists and Anti-blacklowists differ about oral
tradition. And if I should descend to other particulars, it
would farther appear that these Babel-builders have their
speech confounded; thev misunderstand one another, and
z 2

340 ANSWER TO THE OBJECTION,
whilst they are crying up unity, they confute it by their own
practice. It is notorious what a numerous rabble of schoolmen the
Church of Rome hath bred, of different denominations and
sects, who confounded one another as weU as their readers,
with their opposite notions in divinity.
And as for the divers orders of monks and friars in the
Church of Rome, who sees not how they differ and dissent
from, and even fight with one another ? The Hospitallers,
and the Templars, and the Teutonics were religious orders of
different constitutions and laws. The Carthusian monks were
founded by Bruno, a German, but the order was erected first
at Carthuse, a mountainous place about ten miles from Gre
noble in France. They are corruptly called Charter-house
Monks. Different from these are the Benedictines or Black-
monks, so named from St. Benedict or Benet, an Italian, their
first founder. Augustine the monk first brought them over
into England, and afterwards by new accessions and additions
to the laws of this order they were known by the names of the
Cluniacs, or Cluniacenses, from Odo abbot of Clugni in Bur
gundy : and Cistercians, so called from one Robert of Cister-
cium or Cistery in Burgoyne : and the monks of Grand Mont.
But next come four sorts of religionists that call themselves
friars (for monks live on their own, some tell us, but friars
beg for maintenance) ; and these differ as much from one
another as from the foregoing orders. There are the Carmel
ites, who have their name from Mount Carmel in Syria,
whence they first came : they are called White Friars. The
second order of friars are the Augustines, in honour of St.
Augustine. The third are the Dominicans, called so from their
founder Dominic, a Spaniard : they are also called Jacobins,
and Black Friars, and Preaching Friars. The fourth are the
Franciscans, from Francis, an Italian, that first erected that
order : they are usually called Grey Friars, and also Minorites.
They have several sorts of them, as Capuchins, Cordeliers,
Observantines, Recollects, &c. But the first have the greatest
esteem and fame now : they are called so from the caputium
or sharp-pointed hood or cowl, which they wear. All these
have different notions, maxims, and observances relating to
religion and worship ; they quarrel and contend ; they jar and
jangle ; they write and they preach against one another.
These are the principal classes of the Friars ; but there are
other inferior ones, as Trinitarians, Bons Hommes or Good

THAT PROTESTANTS DISAGREE. 341
Men, Crouched Friars or Friars of the Cross, Friars of the
Sack, Bethlemites, Robertines, Minims, &c. who have all one
peculiar principle or other, that makes them disagree with the
rest. There are at this very day new dissensions growing up amongst
the Romanists, and the Conclave and Consistory are very much
embarrassed with them. The missionaries and visionaries are
unacceptable to other parties : and it is feared by some that a
new model of Popery, as well as of Christianity, is coining in
the Jesuits' brains. It is well known what noise and disturb
ance, what confusion and opposition Father Quesnel's late
writings have raised in France. The Pope's Bull which con
demned them hath been disapproved of, censured, and rejected
by the Archbishop of Paris, and by the best of the other pre
lates, and flower of the clergy. The short is, there are great
feuds, sects, and divisions, among the Pontificians, and the
scene looks as if they would rend St. Peter's chair in pieces.
This may suffice as an answer to that so often repeated
cavU of our adversaries, viz. that we Protestants cannot be of
the true Church, because we are not at unity amongst our
selves. If they unchurch us, they make it their own case,
because it is apparent that they cannot agree among them
selves. When the Jews and philosophers of old objected to
the Christians their dissensions in some matters of religion,
that excellent Father Clement of Alexandria,* returned their
cavU upon them, that they themselves had their several sects
and factions. Yea, Themistius the philosopher (whom I
before mentioned) on the like occasion told the Emperor
Valens,f that he should not wonder at the Christians' dis
sensions about religion ; for they were very few in comparison
of the multitude of opinions among the Gentile philosophers.
Thus that philosopher won upon the Arian emperor, and
caused him to abate his fury towards the Christians. In Uke
manner the Romanists ought to drop their fierce objections
against the Protestants for their divisions, when they reflect on
those that are within their own bowels. Let them not com
plain of any want of harmony amongst us, whilst they have so
little of it themselves.
But, however, let us make this good use of their complaints,
* Strom, lib. 7.
t Mi) Seiv ^iviZ,£0-6ai Itti Ty Sia<p<nvia ru/v %pi<7rtavi«:uij' foynarinv
fiiKpav yap elvat Ttjv, avruiv Siaipiaviav, dig wpbg to irXi)9og Kai rr/v
uvyxyoiv tojv nap1 "EXXtjoi doyudriov. — Socrat. Hist. Eccl. lib. 4. u. 37.

342 ANSWER TO THE OBJECTION,
namely, to unite and agree together more firmly for the future.
Let their hatred against us make us more friendly and peace
able towards one another. When they all unanimously agree
against us, let us not fall out among ourselves ; let there be
an entire agreement in the fundamental, essential, and neces
sary points of religion : and as to lesser and indifferent mat
ters, let us be united in our affections, though we are not so
in our judgments : and perhaps it was never designed by God
that we should be. So much in answer to the Papists' objec
tion about our sects and divisions : which, if they had con
sulted their own credit and reputation, they should have con
cealed.

CHAPTER XVIII.

Objection III. of the Papists, That the Protestant Churches
cannot plead Succession, answered.
Another charge against us is, that our Protestant Churches
cannot plead succession, but the Church of Rome can ; and
therefore she is a true Church, but the Protestant Churches
can lay no claim to that high privilege, and consequently are
no true Churches. To which I return these several particu
lars. First, the Arians of old boasted themselves to be a true
Church from their succession of bishops : these, said they,
succeeded in the place of the Apostles, and apostolical men,
who planted the Christian faith in those eastern parts ; and
yet the Church of Rome itself condemns them (and that justly)
as heretics. And if they were such, they could not be of the
true Church : therefore, according to the Romanists them
selves, succession is no valid argument in the present case ?
Secondly, The Patriarch of Constantinople is able to plead
succession : for he is in the seat of those who first brought the
Gospel into that country, yet it is well known that the Greek
Church, and particularly the Constantinopolitan Primate, are
pronounced schismatics by the Romanists, and are accordingly
anathematized by the Pope every year. Whence it is evident
that succession is of no value with the Church of Rome, when
she pleases.
Thirdly, Who sees not that this succession is not to be found
at this day, nor hath for many ages been known in Africa, and

PROTESTANTS CANNOT PLEAD SUCCESSION. 343
many parts of Asia, where true Christian Churches are ac
knowledged to be ? Therefore it is idle to insist on personal
succession. Fourthly, As to the succession in our own Church, we have
as much to plead in that case as is necessary ; and even as to
the interruption of the succession of the ministry, which is
supposed by the Papists to have been at the Reformation, we
are able to satisfy any unprejudiced person as to that matter.
They insist, that a Uttle before or immediately after Queen
Mary's death, some of the bishops fled, some were deprived,
and others died ; so that there were none (or but one at least
who conformed to Protestantism) to ordain other bishops.
They tell us, that Archbishop Parker was consecrated by those
that were not bishops ; ergo, the consecration was void : and
consequently there is no lawful succession of the English
clergy. But this is a gross and wUful mistake : for Parker was
consecrated by four bishops, Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, Hodg-
kins ; the two first had been bishops in King Edward's reign,
and were now bishops elect of Chichester and Hereford. The
third had been bishop of Exeter, and was now (by the depriva
tion of Tubervile) bishop both as to right and title. The last
was but a suffragan bishop, but being consecrated as other
bishops were, he had full episcopal power according to the law
to consecrate others. Thus the succession of our Church is
not disturbed and broken off.
And so as to the National Synod or Convocation at that
time, though the Roman Catholics have objected against it as
iUegal, yet the contrary appears to any considerate man : for
the Upper House, which consisted of bishops, was made up
either of those that succeeded in the places of deceased
bishops, who at that time were about ten or eleven (and surely
these could not be intruders, but lawful successors in the re
spective sees) or it consisted of those that came into the
places of deprived bishops, who refused the Oath of Supremacy :
these were about thirteen or fourteen. So many sees being
void, these were legally chosen into them, and consecrated.
These were the due representatives of the EngUsh Church in
a National Synod, who with those of the Lower House of
Convocation, make an entire National Council. Thus there
is no ground at all for the cavils of the Popish* writers against
the call of our English clergy after the Reformation, and the
* Harding, Sanders, Parsons, &c.

344 ANSWER TO THE OBJECTION,
defect in their succession. The ministry in the English
Church was not interrupted, but bishops were ordained by
bishops. See this defended by Jewel, Fulk, Field, Godwyn,
Sutlif, Mason. And as for the fable of the Nag's-Head
Ordination, it is confuted by the Records of the Crown, and the
Registers of the See of Canterbury. In Corpus Christi College
in Cambridge is the original instrument, describing all the
particulars relating to Parker's consecration. This I thought
good to add in answer to the Romanists' cavil about the law
fulness of our ministry, and the succession of our clergy:
though there was no absolute necessity of proving this, for the
want of succession doth not null our ministry ; nor is that
ecclesiastic ordination indispensably requisite to the constitut
ing of a minister. Where it may be had, it is necessary ; but
not otherwise. In case of necessity, the people, or inferior
pastors may ordain such as they deem fit for that work.
Fifthly, After all I have this to adjoin, that supposing we
could not prove our succession to be uninterrupted, I say
supposing this (which there is not the least reason to grant)
yet this can be no valid objection against our clergy ; because
the Papists themselves are not able to make out an uninter
rupted succession in their own Church, and among their own
bishops. They stumble at the very threshold ; they are not
certain, that Peter was Bishop of Rome, or that he was ever
there. Or, if this be yielded, they are not sure who was
Peter's immediate successor, and who followed next. It
generally goes thus, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Anacletus, &c.
But Epiphanius* and others are against this order. Jeromef
tells us, that many of the Latins held Clemens to be the next
successor of Peter. It is thought probable by some, that
Linus was before St. Peter. Some will have him to be suc
ceeded by Cletus. OptatusJ and Augustine§ leave out Cletus,
and bring in Anacletus after Clemens. Baronius|| holds there
were two Anacletus' s ; one was Clemens' predecessor, the
other his successor ; the first had two names, and was called
Cletus and Analectus ; the former name is given him by
Ignatius, Irenaeus, Eusebius ; and the latter by Tertulhan,
Jerome, Damasus, &c. Thus the Romanists talk of succes
sion, and yet cannot agree in the first succession of all, vii.

* Hseres. 27. t In cap. Iii. Esai.
t Lib. 2. § Epist. 161.
II De Rom. Pontif. 1. 2. c. 5.

PROTESTANTS CANNOT PLEAD SUCCESSION. 345
who succeeded Peter. With what face, then, can succession
be pleaded by the Papists ?
Especially how can it, if we consider that the true and legal
succession of their bishops is spoiled several ways ; as first, by
the plurahty of Popes at the same time. There is sufficient
history to prove that there have been two at once : yea, we
are as sure that there were three at a time that pleaded equal
right to the Papacy ; and, accordingly, they executed the
office of universal bishop, and actually performed those parts
of their function which belong to it. A great part of bishops
and priests that are and have been a considerable time in the
Church of Rome, derived their ordination from some of those
Antipopes. Now, all such orders are vacant and null, because
aU these three Popes were laid aside by the Council of Con
stance, and condemned and deposed. Where, then, is the
ordination and succession of the Roman Church ?
Secondly, The succession is spoUed by the undue and illegal
elevation of persons to the Papal chair. " If any be installed
Pope through bribery, or favour, or populacy, or military tu
mult, without the canonical election of the cardinals, let him
not be accounted Pope." This is the law of their Church :
and consequently all those that have obtained the Papacy by
the methods here forbid, have broken the succession of the
Roman bishops. It is notorious, and not denied by the
Roman writers themselves, that several Popes have been ad
vanced to the pontificate by simony, by faction, by force of
arms, by violence and intrusion, and in brief, by undue elec
tion. Pope Constantine* was a layman, and yet climbed to
the pontifical honour, and held it two years, and ordained se
veral presbyters. One of the Bishops of Rome was a female,
and mounted the chair, and kept it about two years. This was
recorded first by Rodolphus Flaviacensis, a Benedictine monk,
a credible author, who flourished about a. d. 930, a little
after the she-Pope's sitting in the Papal chair. Marianus
Scotus, another considerable author, testifies this, and saith,
she held the Papacy two years, and five months, and four days.
Sigebert, a monk, who wrote about a. d. 1100, tells us of
this female Pontiff. Martinus Polonus relates this story, a
writer of good account, and a stiff Papist. Martin the Mi
norite is another author, in his Flores Temporum. Francis
Petrarch, a learned writer, confirms the same ; as doth also
* Fascic. Temp, in Constantino.

346 ANSWER TO THE OBJECTION,
Anthony archbishop of Florence, a grave and serious histo
rian. Other writers of note relate the same, as Raphael Vola-
terranus, Platina, Sabellicus, Trithemius, Nauclerus, Baptista
Mantuanus, and several others. Thus the line of succession
of Roman bishops is broken by illegal choice of persons that
were not qualified for that office. And before I leave this
head, I will only observe this, that the intention of the priest
is necessary to the validity of a sacrament, according to the
decrees of the Councils of Florence and Trent. Wherefore
upon this depends the making or ordaining of priests ; and
where there is not a right intention, there is no right ordina
tion ; consequently no priest, no Pope ; and so the succession
after this manner may have been broken over and over again.
Thirdly, It is violated by the Popes being heretics; for
such, some of them have been, and have therefore been con
demned and deposed by CouncUs. Thus John XXIII., for
denying the soul's immortality, and other gross opinions, and
for wicked practices, was deposed by the Council of Constance;
and some others had the same fate. It is confessed by the
Popish authors themselves, that some of the Pontiffs were
Atheists, some Sodomites, some Magicians, &c. Very credible
writers say, that Sylvester II. , not only obtained the Papal
dignity by diabolical arts, but exercised them afterwards.
Baronius in his Annals on a. d. 912, confesses, that "The
face of the Roman Church was become most filthy, and lewd;
and imperious strumpets swayed all there : at whose pleasure
sees were changed, bishops -placed (which religious ears must
needs abhor), their paramours were thrust into St. Peter's
chair, false Popes, who serve only to fill up so large a space in
the catalogue of the Bishops of Rome." What could have been
said more to our purpose ? False Popes ! then we are like to
have a true succession. Benedict IX., Sylvester IIL, and
Gregory VI,. did mutually expel one another from tbe Papal
throne by force of arms : and they were so flagitious, tbat
Platina gives them the title of " three most filthy monsters," as
I have observed before. Who can reckon such as these as law
ful successors, and how can they be reckoned as such, when
they are deposed 1 For surely this would not have been their
lot, if it had been thought that they had rightly succeeded.
So then, the deposing of some Popes for heresy, and other
gross miscarriages, shews plainly that the Church of Rome
cannot plead uninterrupted succession, as she pretends.
Fourthly, The succession is overthrown by the uncertain ac-

PROTESTANTS CANNOT PLEAD SUCCESSION. 347
count which the French and Italian writers give of the Popes.
The lists which they produce, differ very much : the former
reckon several in the catalogue of Popes, which the latter
leave out. Onuphrius and Platina confess that the names and
acts of the Popes were very carelessly registered. Bellarmine
corrects Platina and others that give an account of the Popes'
names and lives ; and he omits several that they reckon. So
that here is a great confusion ; consequently the succession
cannot be clear. The Papists, therefore, vainly boast of a true
and legitimate succession ; and they as vainly object to us, our
want of it : for if they are destitute of it themselves, they
have no reason to complain that we are so. To shut up this
head, continual succession is no valid proof of the truth of any
Church, and therefore ought not to be insisted on. And though
Irenseus.and Tertulhan, and Cyprian speak much of succession,
yet they mean it of the succession of doctrine, rather than of
persons ; or of persons no further than as they are the con
veyers of that doctrine, as a learned man expresses it.* And
hear what is said by another, f " Succession of faith and doc
trine," saith he, " is of more consequence than succession of
persons, and, therefore, there is no law of God, whereby the
right which men hold by the personal succession can, or ought,
to hinder the reformation of faith and doctrine." And lastly,
I wiU add what Mr. Dodwell hath suggested on this point, J
" In a revolution of ages," saith he, " there is no succession in
the world, but hath some unjustifiable turn." This testimony
is the more considerable, because it comes from one who talks
much of succession in the Church, and is a favourer of the
Roman succession : but we see here he blasts the authority
of it.
The fourth objection of the Papists against us is, that the
learnedest Protestants grant that the Church of Rome is a true
Church. But this I have answered in a particular and distinct
discourse, which I have lately published.
* Stillingfl. Iren. Part 2. ch. 6.
t Thorndike's Epilog. Book 1. chap. 8.
} In his Doctrine of the Church of England, &c.

348

CHAPTER XIX.

The Church of Rome and its adherents proved to be
Antichrist.
Now after all their objections and cavils against the Protes
tant Churches, there is one great and heavy charge, which I
will make good against the Church of Rome, and that is this,
she is the Church of Antichrist. That I may have sure footing
for all that I shall assert, I will ground my discourse on those
texts of Scripture which particularly speak of Antichrist, and
I will shew that they ought to be applied to the Pope and his
adherents, and the main body of the Church of Rome.
I begin with 1 John ii. 18* : " It is the last time (oraccord-
ing to the Greek, the last hour which is meant of all the time
from the Apostles, to the final consummation of the world),
and, as ye have heard (from St. Paul's writings, 2 Thess. ii. 3,
&c.) that Antichrist (or according to the Greek, the Anti
christ, he that is called so by way of eminency) shall come,
even now there are many Antichrists," there are already many
lesser seducers, who may be called Antichrists, and are the
forerunners of the chief one. On this text then, I found
these two propositions : 1 . There are many Antichrists. 2.
There is one signal and notorious Antichrist, more remarkable
and infamous than the rest. All impostors and false teachers,
and corrupters of the evangelical truths, are deservedly styled
Antichrists ; that is, according to the double import of the
word, they pretend to come in the room of Christ, and yet, at
the same time, are against Christ, and are adversaries to him
and the Gospel. The Apostle St. John tells us, that there were
such Antichrists as these in his time, namely, the heretics and
false prophets that disturbed the Church. ' Simon Magus was
the father of them all, who was baptized, but afterwards apos
tatised from the Christian faith, and held that Christ was not
really and truly born, and that he did not really suffer and die,
but in appearance only. So the Ebionites and Cerinthians
denied that Christ was come in the flesh, and they renounced
his divinity as well as humanity. And many other palpable
errors they propagated in those times, to which the Epistles of

ROME PROVED TO BE ANTICHRIST. 349
St. Paul, St Peter, and St Jude refer, as we may gather from
the description of those heretics in Irenseus, Epiphanius, and
other ancient writers, There were afterwards other heretics
known by the name of Gnostics, and this was indeed the
general title of the followers of Simon Magus and Carpocrates.
We are certain that whosoever these lesser Antichrists were,
they were apostatised Christians ; for St. John expressly saith
of them, "they went out from us," ver. 19.
But besides these meaner Antichrists, who arose in St. John's
days, he lets us know that the grand Antichrist was to appear
afterwards. He makes a plain distinction between these ; the
former, saith he, are even now, but the latter shall come. And
as Christ had his forerunner, to make way for him, to prepare
the way of the Lord, so this great Antichrist hath his har
bingers and messengers, who are also styled Antichrists. It is
of this great and capital Antichrist that I am now to speak
more particularly, for in a more restrained sense, there is but
one Antichrist. This name signifies in a peculiar manner the
head of all Antichristian powers. There are many Antichrists,
saith our Apostle, but there is one that surmounts them all.
Of him, there have been different conceptions and opinions,
both of old and of late. Some of the ancient Christians held
that he shall be a Jew of the tribe of Dan, and shall come a
little before the end of the world, and rebuild the temple at
Jerusalem, and reign there, and restore the Jewish kingdom
and nation, and be received by the Jews as the Messiah. They
held that he shaU make war with the nations, and subdue the
whole earth, and reign three years and a half, and then Enoch
and Elias (who remain alive in the terrestrial paradise) shall
come and fight against him. These are the two witnesses that
shall be slain by him, and rise again at the end of three years
and a half, namely, at the coming of Christ. This was the
opinion of the Greek and Latin Fathers, and it is the general
belief of the doctors of the Roman Church at this day, who
will by no means hear of any other Antichrist.
Others have made the great Antichrist to be who they please.
Constantine IV. surnamed Copronymus, was called Anti
christ by those who were for image-worship, because he was a
professed enemy to it, as his father Leo Isaurus was. Some
distressed Germans took the famous Gustavus Adolphus for
no other than Antichrist, when he invaded their country, and
committed those ravages which forced them to abandon it.
Some have fancied that he shall be the devil in human shape.

350 THE CHURCH OF ROME
Others have conceited that he shall be Nero alive again. By
St. John's Antichrist, Grotius understands Barchocebas, and
sometimes Caius Caligula. If any one person above others be
meant by Antichrist, it is Simon Magus, saith Dr. Hammond.
There is no Antichrist but sin, saith Henry Nicolas, the
father of the Familists. Thus variously have persons given
their judgment on this subject, and have run wide of the
truth, and erred, not knowing the Scriptures ; or rather, some
of them have been mistaken, because they have not diligently
attended to what those sacred writings have delivered about
this matter.
That therefore, which I shall undertake, is this, to see what
directions and helps the Scripture affords us, towards discerning
the great Antichrist, and to shew how plainly it points at the
Roman Pontiff and his accomplices. For I do not confine
Antichrist to one single person : he is not one individual man,
but a race of men. This is according to the usage in Scripture,
where a body of men is represented as one person. Thus
Daniel expresses a long series of kings and their kingdoms by
four kings, Dan. vii. 17. The high-priest in Heb. ix. 7, is
the whole succession of the men of that order. " The man
of God" is all faithful ministers of the Gospel, 2 Tim. iii. 17.
The whole Church is meant by " the woman in travail,"
Rev. xii. 1 : and by "the woman in the wilderness," Rev. xii.
6. So by Antichrist is not meant one person alone, but a
combination of men : and this is that body of men which con
stitutes the Church of Rome. But the Pope himself is chiefly
intended, because he is the head of the Antichristian govern
ment, dominion and authority, and the cause and author
of the whole execution and administration of it. Taking it
altogether, I shall prove it to be the Antichrist spoken of by
St. John. 1 . According to his name. 2. According to the
description that St. John gives of him. 3. According to the
character of the forerunners of Antichrist.
First, Let us consider the name Antichrist, and observe what
opposes and what apes Christianity. Is not the Church and
polity of Rome, the great opposer and adversary of the
Christian religion ? Is not a great part of Popery contrary to
the express laws of Christ ? Who are they that so professedly
speak and write against the simplicity of Christianity as the
Popish doctors ? What hath done more mischief to the Gospel
and the sincere professors of it, than the Roman confederacy?
Again, as to the other denotation of the title of Antichrist, as

PROVED TO BE ANTICHRIST. 351
it signifies one that substitutes himself into Christ's room, how
fitly is this applied to him who styles himself the "Vicar of
Christ?" He is our Lord's rival, he pretends to personate him,
he usurps his office, he is a false Christ. And so the whole
religion of Rome is only something in the place of true religion;
it is a false and counterfeit Christianity, and their Church is a
mock-church. Secondly, The Pope and the Church of Rome are Anti
christ even according to the description which St. John gives
of him. 1 John ii. 22, "Who is a liar but he that denieth
that Jesus is the Christ ? He is the Antichrist that denieth
the Father and the Son :" for by denying the Son directly, he
doth by consequence deny the Father. Again, chap. iv. ver. 3,
" Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in
the flesh, is not of God : and this is that spirit of the Anti
christ, whereof you have heard that it shall come." In both
which places St. John gives us it as a distinguishing mark of
the great Antichrist, that he denies Christ to be come in the
flesh ; which is the very thing which the Church of Rome
denies ; for though they do it not in express words, they do
not formally renounce the article of our Saviour's incarnation,
yet in effect they do it by denying his offices. They deny bis
kingly office by setting the Pope up as universal head and
monarch of all Churches and people throughout the world.
They deny his priestly office by maintaining the sacrifice of
the mass, and satisfaction and indulgences, and by prayers to
saints and angels : for they set up these in Christ's room, and
thereby deny him to be the true and only Mediator between
God and man. They deny Christ's prophetic office by dis
owning the Scripture's sufficiency, and by asserting the Pope's
infallibility. Thus by these several doctrines and practices
they implicitly deny Christ to be come in the flesh : they do not
acknowledge him to be that Christ who is set forth in the Scrip
ture : they do not own him to be the true Messiah according to
aU his offices : they do not ascribe to him the prophecies of a
perfect Saviour and Redeemer : this therefore is called justly
the spirit of Antichrist. And it is observable how fitly this is
expressed in that fore-cited text, " Who is a liar but he that de
nieth that Jesus is the Christ ?" As much as to say, those se
ducers and false teachers who shall arise in the Church of Rome
shaU prove themselves to be the greatest of bars, for when
they openly profess that Christ is come in the flesh, in truth
they do it not. They seem indeed to acknowledge Jesus to be

352 THE CHURCH OE ROME
Christ, but in reality they renounce this doctrine ; for they do
not own him to be such a Christ as he is represented in the
Gospel. They assert things that are derogatory, yea repug
nant to his person, his natures, his attributes, his offices, the
virtue and efficacy of his merits. And in derogating from
Christ, they do so likewise from God the Father, and there
fore it is deservedly said that this Antichrist " denieth the
Father and the Son."
This shews how appositely the epithet 6 ^euo^c, the liar, is
given here to the Roman Antichrist. Though he makes an
outward profession of God and his Son Christ Jesus, yet he
denies them. Though he hath some specious form and show
of Christianity, yet he denies the power of it. He talks of
Christ, and his birth, and passion and resurrection and inter
cession, but renounces the virtue and energy of them. He
owns the Christian religion, but abuses, perverts and corrupts
the chiefest articles of it. Wherefore that of Hilary is appli
cable here,* " He that denies Christ to be such as he was
preached and declared to be by the Apostles, is Antichrist."
The opposing of the doctrines of the Apostles is a certain
mark of Antichrist : and it is evident that the Pope and his
disciples have abandoned the apostolical doctrine. Christ is
not preached by them as he was by the Evangelists and Apos
tles. Or, when they seem to assert the same doctrines, they
in reality disown them, as I have shewed above concerning the
offices of Christ. To which purpose St. Augustine saith
shghtly,f " Antichrist is a liar, because he professes with his
mouth that Jesus is the Christ, but denies him in his deeds.
Therefore he is a liar, because he speaks one thing, and doth
another." This is the lying and deceiving Antichrist of Rome,
Thirdly, This description which is given us of the fore
runners of the great Antichrist proves that the Pope and his
adherents are that Antichrist. For we must grant that those
made way for these, and therefore from the doctrines which
they dispersed and propagated, and from the practices which
they indulged themselves in, we may gather that Rome is the
great Antichrist. I have partly mentioned their character
before according to the account which is given us in ancient
* Quisquis Christum, qualis ah Apostolis est prsedicatus, negavit, An-
tichristus est.— Cont. Auxent.
t Mendax est Antichristus, qui ore profitetur Jesum esse Christum,
et factis negat. Ideo Mendax qui aliud loquitur, aliud agit.— Tract. 3.
in Epist. 1. Johan.

PROVED TO BE ANTICHRIST. 353
writers of the followers of Simon Magus, of the Nicolaites, of
Ebion and Cerinthus, of Menander and Carpocrates, and the
sect of the Gnostics. These last especially may be said to
be the forerunners of the Papal Antichrist, as they subverted
the great and substantial doctrines of the Gospel, as they pre
tended to an excess of severity in some things, and to absti
nence from certain meats ; as they were loose and extravagant
in other things, and taught immorality and lewdness ; as they
were great persecutors of those that dissented from them : all
which things shew them to be the true harbingers of the
Antichristian Papacy.
But there is one thing more (and I shall a Uttle insist upon
it) wherein those seducers and heretics agree with the Ro
manists, and that is their keeping up their Jewish ceremonies.
It is well known that the Gnostics were Judaizers, and such
are the Papists. They borrow many of their rites from the
Mosaic observances, as holy water, purifications, and washings,
consecrated oils, and anointing with it, setting up of lights in
their churches, erecting altars, burning incense, the priests'
habits and vestments, elevating the host, the utensils and
ornaments of their temples, the shaving of priests, vows, ju-
bUees, abstaining from some kinds of food, placing holiness
in the observance of days, and in the difference of meats,
making their churches sanctuaries or places of refuge, and
many other things which they derive from the Levitical law ;
and they defend and maintain them from those texts which
speak of those things, as we may see in the writings of Du-
randus, Tostatus, Cajetan, Lorinus, Bellarmine. They found
most of their rites and usages on what they meet with in the
old ceremonial law. Yea, they Judaize in more things than I
have named : they, like the Jews, nourish blindness and igno
rance, aud impUcit faith : they reckon traditions to be of the
same value and authority with the Scriptures, yea they prefer
them to the written law : they esteem themselves to be the only
people and Church of God : they bear the same hatred to all
that are not of their persuasion. In some things the Papists
outdo the Jews, as in officiating in an unknown tongue, and
keeping the Scriptures from the people ; for the latter, and
some of them only, have part of their prayers in Hebrew
which they understand not, but the whole service of the
former is in Latin, which the common people have no know
ledge of. The latter forbid only some places of Scripture to be
read by the people till they arrive to a certain age : but the
VOL. VI. 2 A

354 THE CHURCH OF ROME
former deny the whole Bible to the people. Thus a great
part of Popery is Judaical, and thence we may observe how
fitly the Judaizing heretics of old made way for the erecting
of the Popish errors. And from the character which is given
of those lesser Antichrists we may prove the Pope and the
Church of Rome to be the great and chief one.
Hitherto we have seen that the Papacy is expressly called
Antichrist, and is the great and signal Antichrist according to
St. John. Now, I proceed to inquire into other places of
Scripture, which will farther inform us about the same truth.
Any man of unprejudiced thought must acknowledge that the
Popish Antichrist is plainly deciphered by the Apostle St,
Paul in the second chapter of his second Epistle to the Thessa-
lonians. He there corrects their mistake of his former Epistle
about " Christ's coming," which they apprehended, from their
misunderstanding what the Apostle had written, would be very
speedy : but he lets them know that " that day shall not come
except there come a falling away first, and that Man of Sin be
revealed, the Son of Perdition," &c. I will briefly present the
reader with a comment on the whole, which I question not
will convince him that this part of the chapter must necessarily
be understood concerning the Antichrist of Rome. The cor
ruption which was to be and hath since been brought into the
Christian Church by him is here signally styled " a falling
away," a great, general and visible apostasy of the Church
from the doctrines which were taught by Christ and the
Apostles, and from the worship which was prescribed and
practised by them. The head of this apostasy is described by
these following marks and characters ; first, he is called "the
Man of Sin," to shew that he is a notorious offender and
criminal himself, and that he is the grand author of vice and
villany in others. The personal enormities of the generality
of the Roman Pontiffs are known to all that have read their
lives. The historians of their own communion spare them
not, because they knew it was in vain to conceal those flagitious
acts which were committed in the view of the world. And
then, I need not shew what an influence these had on the
corrupted people, who were encouraged to increase their vices,
and to augment their guilt by the example of their spiritual
Father and ruler. Deservedly then is the head of the Anti-
christian Church styled by the Apostle "the Man of Sin,"
though "his Holiness" be the title which is given him by himself
and his followers.

PROVED TO BE ANTICHRIST. 355
The next character is " the Son of Perdition," that is, he is
the great author of the destruction of the souls and bodies of
men. He is the Abaddon, the Apollyon spoken of in Rev. ix.
11. Though he pretends to be the universal guide of the
Church, and to conduct it into the way of salvation, yet he by
vile and wicked artifices seduces it into error and falsehood,
fosters it in superstition, and breeds it up in rank idolatry.
And as he thus destroys others, so he shaU be destroyed him
self, and on that account also is called "the Son of Perdition,"
the very title which our Saviour gave the traitor Judas, John
xvn. 12. Whence we gather that the Pope is not the successor
of Peter, but of Judas, and shall, like him, go to his own
place, or, as we find it foretold in Rev. xvn. 8, " shall go into
perdition." It follows in the description which the Apostle gives of
Antichrist that " he opposeth and exalteth himself above all
that is called God, or that is worshipped :" that is, the Pope as
he pretends to be Christ's vicar, and universal head of the
Church, claims superiority over aU emperors, kings, princes,
and civil magistrates, who are called Gods in Scripture, and to
whom civU honour and worship are due. AU the earth is the
Pope's diocese, he is the chief governor of the whole world :
he hath command over aU the rulers of the earth. This high-
priest is above all kings, and accordingly he treats them as he
pleases. They are known relations, that the emperor Henry
IV. with his queen waited bare foot three days together at
Pope HUdebrand's gates in frosty weather: that Frederick I.
held Pope Adrian's stirrup : that Pope Alexander (Adrian's
successor) set his foot on the neck of the foresaid emperor.*
" It is wonderful," saith an historian of the Roman commu
nion, "what king Henry II. of England suffered, how he
submitted himself, and engaged to do those things which a
private man would scorn to undergo in these days." Pope
Celestine III., when the emperor Henry VI. came to Rome to
be crowned, set the crown upon him with his feet, and then
kicked it off, saying, " By me kings reign." Our King John
took off his crown from his own head, and laid it at Pandulphus,
the Pope's legate's feet, to be disposed of as the Pope thought
lit. Lutherf tells us that the Emperor Sigismund, the Pope's
prisoner at Constance, had a deacon's apparel put on him, and
he read the Gospel to the Pope, as his mass-servant. I have
* Machiavel Hist. Florent. lib. 1 . t Colloq. Mensal.
2 A 2

356 THE CHURCH OF ROME
shewed before that deposing of kings was voted laudable and
Christian by the fourth Council of Lateran, and practised by
several Popes. Here I will add that the Church of Rome
allows not only of the deposing but killing of crowned heads.
The Jesuits are sworn defenders of this doctrine : among
whom Bellarmine and Mariana are the chiefest, but others
have in plain terms asserted it. Andreas Eudamen, in his
apology for Garnet, tells us that this is the doctrine not only
of the Jesuits, but all the divines and doctors of the Church,
yea, it is the suffrage of the whole Church. And we find that
their practice is answerable to their principles : the Emperor
Henry VII. was poisoned in the eucharist by a monk. One
of the same character in Swinsted abbey poisoned King John.
The villain who laid poison on the pommel of Queen Elizabeth's
saddle, designed by it her death. The Roman Catholics
intended by the Gunpowder Plot to take away the life of King
James and the royal family. Two kings of France together
were stabbed for favouring the Protestant religion: the one
fell by Clement, a Dominican friar, because he was not Papist
enough ; the other by Ravillac, formerly a monk, but when
he did that execrable fact, a solicitor, because though this
prince had been a Protestant, and turned Papist, yet he was
not sufficiently vigorous : the bare changing his religion would
not serve. Both these murderers were encouraged and ap
plauded by the Pontiffs of Rome, it being their great delight
to dispose of the lives of princes according to their will, and
to have the command of sceptres and crowns, and furiously to
drive over the necks of kings and emperors. Thus " they
exalt themselves above all that is called God, or that is wor
shipped." It is further added in the character of this great Antichrist,
that he " as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself
that he is God." By the temple of God is meant the Church
of those that call themselves Christians, where God is visibly
and outwardly worshipped. And the Church of Rome par
ticularly may be called the temple of God, by reason of what
it once signally was. It was the famous place where the
Christian religion and worship were. It was, as Sozomen calls
it, the " school of the Apostles, the metropolis of piety," and
no place was so eminent for Christianity as that. And it is
called the temple of God because it is so reputed by those
that belong to it. This is the Church that boasts itself to be
the only true temple consecrated to Christ. Here Antichrist

PROVED TO BE ANT1CURIST. 357
sits, here his papal chair is placed, here is his seat of residence :
yea, he sits over or upon this temple (for so it is in the original),
which denotes to us his domineering over the Christian
Churches, his usurping supreme power and sovereign authority
over all Christendom. And here he shews himself "that he is
God," that is, he claims prerogatives proper to God only. It
is not enough that he is above the Church and commonwealth,
above all bishops, princes, and rulers, but he boasts he hath
divine power, equal to God. Yea, he can control heaven, and
he undertakes to dispense with the divine laws and commands.
He chaUenges an omnipotency, and hath by several decrees
and acts endeavoured to persuade men, that he can do what he
wUl, in heaven, and earth, and hell.
That we may be further informed who is the Antichrist
described here by the Apostle, it is added : " Ye know what
withholdeth, that he might be revealed in his time. For the
mystery of iniquity doth already work, only he who now
letteth, wUl let, untU he be taken out of the way : and then
shall the Wicked be revealed." The ancient Fathers were of
opinion that what withholdeth and he that letteth, was the
Roman empire and emperor : and accordingly they held that
Antichrist was not to come tUl the civil state of the empire was
destroyed. So thought TertuUian, and accordingly saith, that
"For this cause the Christians were obliged to pray for the
Roman emperors : for by their continuing, the horrid and
grievous calamity of Antichrist was happily hindered."* And
the Apostle's words are interpreted concerning the Roman
empire by Jerome.f Optatus,J Chrysostom,§ Cyril|| of Jeru
salem, Augustine, ^[ and others. As long as this continued,
the Man of Sin should be withheld, should be kept back : but
he was to appear upon the disappearing of the Roman emperors.
St. Paul doth not here expressly name these, saith St. Jerome,
because this would have been injurious to the Christians at
that time, and the emperors would certainly have fallen upon
them with great fury. Therefore the Apostle uses this darker
way of speaking, rb Kariypv and 6 itariyuv, that " which with
holdeth and he that letteth :" but we see what is the concur
rent judgment of the Fathers of the Church about these
words : they were persuaded that the Roman empire was
* Apol. c. 32. t In 2. cap. Daniel.
t Lib. 3. contr. Parmenian. % Homil. 4. in 2. Ep. ad Thess.
II Catech. 15. H De Civit. Dei, lib. 20. c. 19.

358 THE CHURCH OF ROME
meant by them, and that the government of the emperors was
to cease, that Antichrist might succeed in his place. The
Man of Sin was to arise when the Roman empire expired, and
this appeared in Augustulus.
Its beginning was in Julius Caesar, or rather in Augustus,
when he had got the victory at Actium, and when Egypt
became a Roman province. The empire at last came to Con
stantine the Great, who divided it among his three sons ; and
so the Western monarchy was separated from the Eastern. Now
they become two formal empires, the Roman and Greek.
There were twelve in all besides Constantine (Constantine the
Great's son) that succeeded in the Western or Roman empire,
the last of whom was Augustulus. In him therefore ended
the Roman empire about a. d. 470, and consequently " that
which withheld, and he that let, were taken out of the way."
Therefore St. Jerome about this time hearing of the taking of
Rome by the King of the Goths, called to mind this text of
the Apostle, and apphed it, " He that withheld (saith he) is
taken away, and we may understand thence, that Antichrist is
approaching."* At this time the Roman or Western empire
was destroyed by the Goths ; and Augustulus was ejected and
deposed by Odoacer, king of the Heruli : and the Imperial
Seat of Rome was void, and not one Emperor appeared in all
the West, for the space of 325 years, that is, till Charles the
Great. There was no pretence to a Roman empire, for several
kingdoms were erected in Italy, and the adjacent parts, by the
barbarians that invaded those regions, as the Goths, Huns,
Vandals. Wherefore it was no longer the Roman empire, no
more than the Assyrian was when the King of Persia seized it,
or the Grecian when it was swallowed up by the Roman.
It is true, that Charles the Great before-mentioned pre
tended to restore the Roman empire about the year 800, and
he resumed the title of Caesar ; but it was a bare title. And
the German emperors, who hold from him ever since are not
successors of the Roman emperors, but only the shadow of
them. Germany is parcelled out among so many princes and
prelates and free cities, that the emperor deserves not that
name : and that his heir is styled the King of the Romans, is
a compliment rather than a reality. And besides, it is a poor
claim to the Roman empire, when they have nothing in all
the Roman territories in their possession, all the dominions
* Qui tenebit, de medio sit, et non intelligemus Antichristum appro-
pinquare ? Epist. ad Agerach. de Monogamia.

PROVED TO BE ANTICHRIST. 359
heretofore belonging to the Roman monarchy being otherwise
disposed of.
Well then, we may conclude, that the Roman empire was
extinct in Augustulus, and then the impediment, which the
Apostle here speaks of being removed, " that wicked one was
revealed," the Papal Antichrist came upon the stage. For
before he was hindered by the Roman emperors : the seat was
not void, he could not ascend the throne till Caesar left it. The
sovereign civil power of the Roman emperors would not suffer
him to exert his power and jurisdiction fully. They could
not both stand together, they were so great ; therefore when
one gave way, the other was ready to come into his place.
When Rome ceased to be the seat of the emperor, it soon
after became the habitation of Antichrist, and the Roman em
pire was turned into an ecclesiastical empire or hierarchy.
This gives us a very plain and obvious account of this part of
the Apostle's character of Antichrist, and we cannot reasonably
refuse to apply it to Rome.
There is only one passage more remaining to confirm us in
this appUcation. " The coming of Antichrist is after the work
ing of Satan, with aU power, and signs and lying wonders, and
with aU deceivableness of unrighteousness." The Papists pre
tend to miracles, which indeed are but counterfeit, and wrought
by the diaboUcal aid : they deal in falsehood, lies, legends, fables,
impostures, forgeries, pious frauds, as they caU them, sophis
tical arguments, faUacies, false reasonings. They cunningly
nretend Christ's cause whUst they design the promoting of
their own. AU this is as it were proper and peculiar to
Popery : and therefore it is caUed the "mystery of iniquity,"
because it hath a show and pretence of holiness, but reaUy con
tains in it the vUest iniquity, the worst of vices and wicked
nesses And it is fitly added, " God sends them such strong
delusions, that they shall believe a Ue," to VzvSoq, the he,
the grand imposture of Popery : for this is by way of emi
nency called the lie : because their whole reUgion is one great
he, one grand cheat.
And now I appeal to the judicious and unbiassed reader,
whether this chapter be not a clear description of the Roman
Papal Antichrist, whether it doth not without any straimng
and forcing, present us with his true and lively portraiture.
And I also appeal to the reader, whether it be not very rea
sonable to reject and despise those interpretations which some

360 THE CUURCH OP ROME
have fastened on this chapter : as that of Dr. Hammond, who
understands it of Simon Magus and the Gnostics his followers-
though he of all men can least maintain this, because he holds
that the Gnostics were in the Apostles' times, and that the
New Testament refers to them often : whereas that Apostle
here speaks of impostors that were yet to come, and to be
revealed afterwards : therefore his opinion confutes itself.
By "the Man of Sin," Grotius understands the Emperor
Caligula: but this Epistle to the Thessalonians was writ in Clau
dius's time, whose predecessor Caligula was. This hath been
sufficiently proved. Besides it cannot be meant of Caligula,
because it is said " the Man of Sin was to be revealed :" but ac
cording to Grotius, Caligula was then emperor when this Epistle
was writ. Further, Antichrist sits in the temple of God,
therefore it is not meant of Rome ethnic. And lastly, Grotius
makes the second Epistle to the Thessalonians to be writ before
the first, to serve his own purpose, which very few, I believe,
wUl agree to.
I need not insist on Mr. Obadiah Walker's applying the
chapter to Mahomet, which was done merely to serve that
cause, which he had unhappily espoused. Dr. Lightfoot
will have it belong primarily to the Jewish nation, but to
maintain this, he falls into very strange and absurd inter
pretations of the words, and which no impartial reader can
brook : and besides, he confesses, that though the Jew is
meant here primarily, yet the Roman is also to be taken in,
as Antichrist here meant. Mr. Le Clerc, in his Supplement to
Dr. Hammond, seems to incline to the last author's opinionf
and will have " the Man of Sin," to be the rebellious Jews,
and especially their ringleader Simon the son of Giova, spoken
of by Josephus. And lately another learned writer in his An
notations runs it upon the Jews likewise, namely the Jewish
converts to Christianity who apostatised before the destruc
tion of Jerusalem.
These expositors act the part well which they had taken
upon them, that is, to shew that they are able to say some
thing in defence of a new opinion, and none perhaps could
have said more. But I question whether they speak their own
minds ; and when their arguments on this subject are com
pared, they will be found to clash with one another, and there
fore I leave them at present to their mutual confutation.
But the interpretation which I have offered is, I conceive, all

TKOVED TO BE ANTICHRIST. 3()1
of a piece, and the several parts of it are exactly consistent ;
and from the very harmony of them we may infer the truth
of the whole.
Having dispatched this remarkable place in the second Epis
tle to the Thessalonians, I proceed to handle some other
notable texts, and particularly those in the book of the Reve
lation, which wUl also establish us in the belief of what I am
suggesting, that the head of the Church of Rome, and the
upholders of that reUgion are the great Antichrist. In the
19th verse of the 1st chapter of this book there are set down
the three periods of time, to which this book relates, " Write
the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are,
and the things which shall be hereafter."
The first division, namely, of the things which St. John
had seen, refers to the foregoing vision in that first chapter.
The second distribution, to wit, of " the things which are,"
comprehends the vision of the then present state of the seven
Churches, with epistles to them, to instruct, admonish, ex
hort, and reprove them. I know there are some who think
that these seven Churches of Asia are the Universal Church of
Christ in aU ages, to the end of the world, divided into seven
periods ; Forbes, Cocceius, Dr. More, have done this part
weU ; but they aU disagree about the distinct periods, and
therefore there is no heed to be given to them. Mr. Bright-
man is positive in setting down the more particular Churches
which are represented by those Asian ones, as the Primitive
Churches tiU Constantine the Great by Ephesus: the Churches
on forward from Constantine to Gratian, by Smyrna : those
from the year 380 to 1300, by Pergamos : those from 1300
to 1520, by Thyatira : the Church of Germany, by Sardis :
the French, Genevian, Dutch, and Scotch Churches, by Phila
delphia : England by Laodicea. But there seems to me to be
more invention and subtlety in these applications than truth
and solidity ; and therefore, I apprehend, that the vision con
cerning these Asian Churches is to be confined and completed
in these individual Churches. This is the second division of
time, viz. the present, that is observed in this book; and
accordingly in the 2nd and 3rd chapters the present condition
of the Asian Churches is represented.
The third division is of " the things that shall be hereafter,"
that is, after the time when St. John had his Revelation,
wbich was towards the end of Domitian's reign, about a.d.

362 THE CHURCH OF ROME
97, according to Eusebius in his Chronicon, and according to
Irenseus in his book against Heresies, and St. Jerome in his
Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers. The things that were to
come to pass after this time, are set down in the 4th chapter
of this book, and in all the rest that follow. They are contained
in several visions, as 1st. The vision of the seven seals. 2nd,
Of the trumpets. 3rd. Of the vials. 4th. Of the day of
judgment. 5th. Of the New Jerusalem, and several other
preparatory visions.
From the 4 th to the 12th chapter is foretold the destruc
tion of the Jewish State by the Romans, saith Dr. Hammond,
And both he and Grotius apply the seals and trumpets to the
destruction of Jerusalem ; and the various judgments that
befeU that miserable people. But this cannot be, because
John lived after the destruction of Jerusalem ; and the Reve
lation was communicated to him in Domitian's time, who suc
ceeded Titus : and therefore seeing this part of the book is
"of those things that shall- be hereafter," it is impossible
that it should speak concerning the destruction of Jerusalem
by Titus. Others think these things are not spoken of the
Jews, but of the Christians under persecution ; and what
happened to them, some say, from Popish persecutors, others
say, from Pagan persecutors. There are probabilities on
each side : it is not my business now to decide the con
troversy. That part of the book which reaches from the 12th to
the 20th chapter refers to the punishments and plagues that
were inflicted on heathen Rome, say Grotius and Hammond.
Such were war, sedition, pestilence, drought, and famine, and
fire (as ecclesiastical and profane history report), and the
incursion of the barbarians, Persians, Goths, Almans, &c.
They further say, that here are contained the infancy and
growth of the Christian Church in order to the heathen
world, till it came to get possession of the empire, partly by
God's destroying them, party by converting the idol-worship
pers. But others are of opinion, that here is predicted the
state of the Church in reference to Rome as it was turned
Christian, and then become Popish, i. e. not as it was under
the heathen emperors ; but as it was afterwards, when Chris
tianity became the religion of the Roman empire. Mr. Mede
speaks broadly, saying that this part of the Revelation refers
to Rome Christian and Paganized again under Christianity.

PROVED TO BY. ANTICHRIST. 3G3
Of this I shall speak fully, after I have mentioned the other
division of this book, which I must do, to give you a brief
model and survey of it.
The third and last part of the book, from the 20th chapter
to the 6th verse of the 22nd relates to the peaceable and
flourishing state of the Church for a thousand years : and
after that the breaking out of Gog and Magog, and harassing
the Eastern Churches are briefly touched, together with their
destruction. The new state of the Church is styled the
New Jerusalem, wbich is particularly described by St. John.
Others take it to be a description of heaven, but I shall not
debate this matter, it being not my present concern. If the
reader wiU accept of my conjecture, it is this, that it is pro
bable that the book of the Revelation is not one entire and
continued prophecy, not a representation of things done one
after another, as if the chapters give new and fresh discoveries
of things done in order of time ; but here is a repetition of
several prophecies, and those prophecies are many of them the
same. Look not here for transactions in a continued course
and series of years : but rather think that the state of Christ's
Church as to persecutions and deUverances is presented again
and again.
Having thus briefly given you the scheme of this writer,
I wUl now undertake that task which the second division or
part of the book occasions me. In two chapters especiaUy the
whole mystery of iniquity is disclosed, the 13th and 17th.
I begin with the former of these, in which are represented
two beasts, the one to signify the Roman secular government,
or Rome Pagan, ver. 1st to the 11th, the other to express the
spiritual or ecclesiastical power of Rome, or Rome after it was
Christianized, from the 1 1th verse to the end of the chapter.
The former beast hath seven heads, much wit and brains to
plot, and ten horns, of great power and strength to do mis
chief. This might be a general notion of it, but it is more
signally and expressly appUed and understood by what follows,
and by comparing it with Daniel's visions and others in this
book afterwards. For this beast is the same with Daniel's
"fourth beast," which had, as this, "ten horns," Dan. vii. 7 ;
and as those ten horns were "ten kings" (ver. 24), so this
hath ten crowns on his horns. This is the fourth monarchy,
the Roman empire, described by Daniel : so that we see St.
John confirms what that prophet saith, and this prophet gives

364 THE CHURCH OF ROME
light to St. John. I might observe that horns were a hiero
glyphic of power (Deut. xxxiii. 17), and of kingly power
as in Daniel and the Revelation we find kings are represented
by the "horns" of beasts. The coins of Alexander the
Great and his successors are to be seen at this day, which
represent the heads of those kings with a kind of horns.
And they anciently pictured gods, heroes, and kings, with
horns, as Olaus Wormius* and Ezekiel Spanheimusf have
shewed. As for the " ten crowned horns" in this present vision, they
are so many kingdoms and provinces subject to the Roman
empire. There were more than ten ; but these especially,
Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Hungary, Asia Minor, Greece,
Syria, and Assyria, Egypt. And as for the " seven heads,"
nothing is plainer than that these are the seven hills on which
Rome was situated, and thence the epithet given to Borne
by one of the Sybils is lirraXofoe, and in several ancient au
thors it is called Septicollis. And indeed no city was seated
on seven hills but Rome at that time when St. John had
the vision. Constantinople was built by Constantine after
wards, and situated on seven hills in imitation of Rome;
but the old Byzantium was not seated so. It is evident
then that old Rome is here meant, and that the " seven heads"
are so many hills on which she was built. St. John himself
puts it beyond all controversy, when he saith, " The seven
heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits," Rev.
xvii. 9.
Thus far of Pagan Rome : next here is a vision of Rome
Christian, but corrupted, and in a manner Pagan. And so
we see how fitly and properly the vision of the former beast
precedes this : for hereby we may observe how this latter
beast arises out of the other, and hath its dependence upon it.
" I beheld another beast," saith St. John (ver. 11), different
from the first beast ; because he is not the same individual
beast, and yet he is very like him : that is, Antichristian
Rome resembles Pagan Rome. It is said that " he hath
two horns," which fitly denotes the double power and juris
diction which the Roman Pontiff pretends to, viz. that which
is spiritual and that which is temporal. "He is like a lamb,
and yet speaks as a dragon," which is part of the character
* Monument. Danica. t De Numism. Usu.

PROVED TO BE ANTICHRIST. 365
of the Romish Antichrist, who boasts of kindness to men's
souls, and yet shews his cruelty both towards them and their
bodies. " He exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him,"
(ver. 12) ; that is, he assumes to himself the same authority
and dominion tbat the Pagan Roman emperors, who went
before him, had. The old dignity and lordliness is renewed
and revived in Antichrist : it is all transferred from the em
pire to the hierarchy. " And he causeth the earth, and them
that dwell therein, to worship the first beast, whose deadly
wound was healed," that is, the Pope and his clergy bring
up that idolatrous worship which was practised by Pagan
Rome : and so though Paganism seemed to have received
a deadly wound by the introducing of Christianity, yet in a
short time this wound was healed ; for Christian Rome imi
tated the idolatrous worship of Pagan Rome. " And he doth
great wonders, so that he maketh fire to come down from
heaven on the earth, in the sight of men, and deceiveth them
that dwell on the earth, by the means of those miracles,"
ver. 13, 14 : which is an undeniable character of the Roman
Papacy ; for none boast of wonders and miracles as they do,
and would be thought to fetch down fire and thunder from
heaven in their excommunications and anathemas, and thereby
both frighten and delude the silly people ; " Saying to them
that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to
the beast, which had the wound by a sword and did live,"
ver. 14 : that is, their design is that there should be set up
such a religion that resembles that of Gentile Rome ; and
thereby the old Gentile worship, which was thought to be
wounded and destroyed, would be revived.
And so it was, for he (that is, the two-horned beast), "had
power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image
of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as
would not worship the image of the beast should be killed,"
ver. 15. Which doth most graphically set forth the nature of
the Papal Antichrist, who by his pretence of being the Uni
versal Head of the Church, and having both temporal and
spiritual dominion over all men, effectually sets up the worship
that prevailed in heathen Rome, and punishes with death the
faithful servants of God that refuse to submit to that worship.
"And he causeth all, both small and gTeat, rich and poor, free
and bond, to receive a mark in their right hands, or in their
foreheads, that none might buy or sell, save he that had the

366 THE CHURCH OF ROME
mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name,'
ver. 16, 17. Which is so naturally applicable to the head and
rulers of the Roman Church, that a man cannot easily think
that it is otherwise meant ; for they are the men that force
persons of all qualities and degrees, emperors and princes as
well as those of an inferior rank, to truckle to their ecclesiastical
laws and government, and to comply with the idolatrous wor
ship of their Church ; and all are compelled to make open and
public profession of the Roman religion, and visibly to own it,
as if they wore an open mark or badge in their hands or fore
heads. Perhaps this alludes to the custom in Syria and the
neighbouring countries, where slaves and servants had marks
set on their hands and foreheads, to shew who were their
masters and owners : so it well sets forth how the people of
the Roman Church are become slaves to the Pope and his
great ones. Or it may refer to the phylacteries which the
Jews wore on their hands and foreheads ; and then the mean
ing is, that the deluded people of the Roman communion are
constrained to have the injunctions and laws of their Church
always before them, and to obey and follow them. And
without this subjection and obedience there is neither prefer
ment in the Church, nor commerce and traffic in the common
wealth ; they must neither buy nor sell, they must not have
any advantage of life. Who sees not, that this is an exact de
lineation of the Popish Antichrist and those that are employed
by him.
Perhaps it may be expected I should say something of the
name of the beast, and the number of his name, which was
mentioned before. There is great variance of opinions about
these, which I will briefly rehearse, and then offer that which
I conceive to be most probable. According to Grotius the
numerical name here is Oi\7noe, the Emperor Trajan's name ;
but this contains in it 860, and on that account is to be re
jected. The Bishop of Meaux, now of Condom, says, the
number 666 is found in Diodes. Augustus, and so is meant of
Dioclesian the persecuting emperor, who was called Diodes, as
well as Dioclesian ; but unless he could prove that Dioclesian
is the person spoken of in the thirteenth chapter of the Apoca
lypse, there is no heed to be given to what he saith. Mon
sieur Simon pretends, he hath lately found this number in
Roterodami, but nobody minds what he saith. Genebrard*
* Chronolog. a.d. 1522.

PROVED TO BE ANTICHRIST. 367
makes Luther Antichrist, and applies the number of the beast
to him. So do Feuardentius, Lindanus, Ofhusius, but then
they miserably miscall him Lulter instead of Luther ; and to
make out their conceit, they represent the name in Hebrew,
and reckon the number according to the import of the nume
rical letters in that language ; and yet, after all, the name doth
not make up that number. Bellarmine finds out the number
of the beast in the word SaSoVtioe, applying it to Luther, and
in the Hebrew letters of the name David Chytrseus. And at
last it became usual to find the number of the Apocalyptic
beast in any person that was hated by any party. Thus, some
attempted it in the name of Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden.
William Lilly would needs find it in Wuham Laud. Some, that
imagined the Scotch Presbyterians to be Antichrist, bragged
that they found the words in the Scotch Covenant to be just
66, the number of the beast.
To leave these whimsies, which have no bottom at all, I will
proceed to give you the judgments of those who have applied
the Apocalyptic number to the Roman or Papal beast ; for he is
here the person spoken of in this chapter, and consequently the
number here specified belongs to him only. Venerable Bede
on tbe Revelation expounds the number of the beast by refer
ence to 1 Kings x. 14 ; 2 Chron. ix. 13, where we read that
Solomon's yearly revenue of gold was 666 talents. Whence he
infers, that covetousness and great revenues are the number of
the beast ; and this may not unfitly be applied to the Roman
Antichrist, but it doth not touch any name at all.
Some have espied this number in more names and words
than one, as in 'EkkXjjo-"' 'IraXi/ca ; and in PaVLo QVInto
VICe-Deo, which was an inscription under the picture of Pope
Paul V. made and contrived by a Jesuit, Thomas Maria Caraffa.
The numeral letters put together make exactly 666 ; Mr.
Bedel observed this when he saw it at Venice. Some make
Vicarius Generalis Dei in Terris to answer precisely to the
numbers. Others say it is found in Dux Cleri, and they un
derstand it of the Pope. Others confine it to one single name :
so Piscator upon the place in the Revelation thinks the Hebrew
word Romijith may be meant.
Dr Potter takes no notice of the name, but only of the num
ber of the beast, and teUs us that the number 25 is the square
root of 666, which number of 25 is applicable on several ac
counts to Rome. In the Romish state and hierarchy it is a
celebrated number ; there are just so many gates, parishes,

368 THE CHURCH OF ROME
cardinals, monks in most monasteries, &c. that we may plainly
see this number is affected by them. This is a new way of
construing the Apocalyptic mysteries, by fraction and multipli
cation; as if St. John was skilled in algebra and the extraction
of the quadrate roots of numbers. If any man can satisfy him
self with such an odd invention as this, I "leave him to do it.
For my own part, I cannot persuade myself that it is an algebraic
beast that St. John here means ; for he tells us that the num
ber of his name is the number of a man, that is, it is the way
of numbering in common use among men, which the foresaid
quadrate root is not.
The interpretation which I pitch upon is that of Irenseus,
which commends itself to us by its antiquity, and by its plain
ness, and by its completeness; for both the name of Antichrist
and the number of the name are contained in Aareivog, the
Latin or Roman, for Latin is the same with Roman ; whence
the Greeks always call the Church of Rome the Latin Church.
As for the manner of writing and spelling the word, we are
certain that it is ancient ; for instead of the letter iota it was
common to use the dipthong Et, as in the words 'Avtovuvoq,
Safieivos, NttAoc, and many others, which is observed by Joseph
Scaliger in his notes on Eusebius's Ckronicon. And there
seems to be something more in this word, because all things in
the Church of Rome are said and written in Latin ; their de
crees, their bulls, yea, their very prayers are in Latin, yea, the
Scriptures are read only in Latin. Therefore the head of the
Papal government hath justly the denomination of Autc'ivoq.
And if we examine the numeral letters in this word, we shall
find that they exactly make up the number " six hundred
threescore and six ;" as thus AATEIN0 2. Where-
30 1 113001 51 10)50 |70|200.
fore the foresaid writer gathers from many arguments, that
Rome shall be the seat of the beast and the whore, be
cause the name of Antichrist in the Revelation is expressed in
Aarelvoe. So old this opinion is : and we are to remember,
that this holy martyr was the disciple of Polycarp, and auditor
of St. John, and thence it is probable, that he received it from
him. Therefore this pious Father himself doth not conceal that
this was held by those that saw and conversed with St. John.
And if we consider by whom and at what time the Latin ser
vice was first set up in all Churches (whether they understood
the tongue or no) we shall have the greater esteem of this
opinion, for Vitalian who erected this service was a Roman by

PROVED TO BE ANTICHRIST. 3C9
nation, whereas several other bishops of Rome were Grecians,
Spaniards, Africans, Syrians, Sicilians, Dalmatians, Athenians,
Thracians, French, Germans ; so that the word AarawQ
agrees to him in a peculiar manner. And it was the year 666,
when he sent into England to settle the Latin service, which
may yet farther give occasion for the denomination of Aarelvoc.
I apprehend this to be the best conjecture that is on foot. No
man can be positive about the certainty of it. We must not
expect things of this nature to be very clear and obvious, when
a curtain is purposely drawn over them. But though we can
not be decretory in our sentence concerning the name and
number of the beast, yet we are sure of his character, and that
we may depend upon. I have given a succinct account of it,
as it is set down in the thirteenth chapter of the Revelation :
wherein I took notice of the ten-horned beast, and the two-
horned beast, the one Ethnic, the other Christian. It is this
latter that is the Antichrist we are treating of, namely, the
Roman Pontiff, or Rome governed by the Pope.
I pass now to the seventeenth chapter of this book, where
the character is continued, but in different strokes ; for it
pleased the Holy Ghost to represent mystically and pro
phetically the same thing under various forms. Here Anti-
christian Rome or the Papal dominion is described to be a
great whore (for idolatry and such heinous vices are called
whoredom and fornication in Scripture) "that sitteth upon
many waters," ver. 1, that is, hath many people belonging to
her: for this is interpreted in the fifteenth verse, "The
waters where the whore sitteth are peoples, aud multitudes,
and nations, and tongues." And when Rome is called a
woman and a whore more than once in this chapter, it may
weU be thought to refer to what the Popish historians relate,
that one of their popes, Pope John VIII. proved a woman,
and a whore. Thus the Roman whore is such, not only in a
metaphorical, but a literal sense. Among the Hebrews a
whore hath her name from sanctity :* which may give us some
account of the title of his Holiness. Their own histories con
ceal not the lewdness of the Popes, and the filthy actions of their
chief clergy, which truly answers to the foundations of Rome :
for she was built by two twins incestuously begot upon a ves
tal nun, and they were both of them suckled by a strumpet.f
But if the title 'of whore given to Papal Rome in this book
» Kedeshah, Meretrix. t For so some render Lupa.
VOL. VI. ^ B

370 THE CHURCH OF ROME
of the Revelation be meant chiefly with respect to her idolatry,
yet even then we know that this is wont to go along with cor
poral whoredom. The Sidonian women enticed Solomon to
worship the Sidonian gods. The Moabitish women drew the
Israelites to adore the Moabites.
" With her the kings of the earth have committed fornica
tion, and the inhabiters of the earth have been made drunk
with the wine of her fornication," ver. 2 ; that is emperors
and kings, and others of an inferior rank have by her allure
ments been prevailed with to join with her in idolatrous wor
ship. In the third verse, this woman, this whore is represented
as " sitting upon a scarlet-coloured beast full of names of blas
phemy, having seven heads and ten horns ;" that is, her seat
is at Rome, which is now become as impious and blasphemous
as it was in her Pagan state. It follows, ver. 4 : "The woman
was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with
gold and precious stones and pearls ;" that is, she is proud
and pompous, " having a golden cup in her hand full of abomi
nations and filthiness of her fornication ;" that is, she inveigles
men to embrace her detestable doctrines, and to approve of her
idolatrous practices. " And upon her forehead was a name
written (which was this, and gives us her true character),
Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots, and
Abominations of the Earth,'' ver. 5. It is most fitly said,
that mystery is engraved in the forehead of this whore : for
" the mystery of iniquity" was the expression that was made
use of before to set forth the religion of the Roman Church,
which is all cheat and disguise, and made up of intrigue and
design. And to let us see, that this is to be understood, not
of Rome Pagan, but pretending Christianity, Joseph Scaliger
and others of good credit vouch it for truth, that the Popes
anciently bore the word " Mystery" in the forepart of their
mitres. I observe next, that Rome is here called Babylon : and mys«
tery being prefixed to this name shews that it is not the literal
or proper Babylon. And this was the opinion of the ancients,
as we may see in their interpretation of St. Peter's words,
" The Church that is at Babylon saluteth you," 1 Ep. v. 13,
that is, say they, the Church at Rome. So Tertullian* and
Eusebiusf seem to understand the Apostle's words, and so do
the Popish writers generally, and their design is to prove
* Adv. Judseos. cap. 3. t Hist. Eccles. 1. 2. c. 14.

PROVED TO BE ANTICHRIST. 37!
hence that St. Peter was at Rome, and that he was bishop
there. But for my part, though I have shewed that it is the
judgment of some of the Fathers that Rome is meant here by
Babylon, yet I do not see there is any necessity of subscribing
to that interpretation : yea, it seems more probable that
Babylon properly so called, where the captivity was, is meant
in this place : for there remained there since the captivity the
race of those Jews that returned not back ; and St. Peter be
ing a minister of the circumcision, it is likely he visited that
country. Not that I hold with the common opinion that St.
Peter wrote this epistle from Babylon in Chaldeea : for I think
it might be proved that he was not there when he wrote this
epistle, but I rather thiuk that he only acquaints those he
writes to with the salutations of those of Babylon, as St. Paul
saith in 1 Cor. xvi. " AU the Churches salute you." Now,
as it doth not follow that he was in them all when he wrote,
so neither can it be proved that St. Peter was in the Eastern
Babylon when he sent this epistle, wherein he saith, " The
Church that is at Babylon saluteth you."
It is enough for our present purpose, that in that part of
the book of the Revelation, which speaks designedly of Rome,
Babylon is applied to that place. And from hence it was,
that it was the general belief that Rome was meant by the
Apocalyptic Babylon : which we find stiffly maintained by
Baronius and Bellarmine, and most of the Roman communion.
From this common and received notion it was, that Lcuis XII.
king of France, excommunicated by Pope Julius II. , about
a.d. 1506, to shew his detestation and defiance of the Pope,
coined his money with this motto, Perdam Babylonem. By
Babylon he meant Rome and the Pope, against whom he then
made war. But we find the Holy Spirit himself interpreting
Babylon to be Rome, in the 1 7th verse of this chapter of the
Revelation, "The woman which thou sawest (the same with.
the great whore and Babylon the Great) is that great city
which reigneth over the kings of the earth," which domineers
over emperors and princes, and makes them do homage to her,
which can be no other than Rome.
The other part of her character, the " mother of harlots
and abominations of the earth," needs no explaining ; for any
one may see, that it refers to the idolatry of the Church of
Rome, which in the sacred style is called " whoredom" and
"abomination." It is said in the next verse that this " woman
was drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood
2b2

3/2 -THE CHURCH OF ROME
of the martyrs of Jesns ;" which is another known branch
of the character of the Church of Rome. She delights in
cruelty, blood, and slaughter : and those that have coura
geously asserted and maintained the holy doctrines and the
pure worship of Jesus have experienced this in all ages. But
let us farther attend to the Holy Ghost's own interpretation
and discovery of this mystery, Babylon, &c. "Here is the
mind that hath wisdom," verse 9 ; that is, here follows the
spiritual and right understanding of the vision of the whore,
and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns. "The
seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth,"
which (as hath been observed before) is a plain description of
Rome that was built on seven hills. " And there are seven
kings : five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet
come : and when he cometh, he must continue a short space,
And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth,
and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition," ver. 10, 11 ;
i. e. the seven heads of the Roman beast signify not only the
seven hills on which it is placed, but seven sorts of govern
ment or supreme powers succeeding one another in Rome;
namely kings, consuls, tribunes, decemviri, dictators, Pagan
emperors, Christian emperors : " five whereof were fallen ;"
that is, the five first were past and gone in St. John's
time : and " one" is, that is, the government of the heathen
emperors was in being at that time when he received this
revelation. "And the other," the seventh, viz. the govern
ment of Christian emperors (which began in Constantine the
Great) "was not yet come, but when he cometh, he must
continue a short time," i. e. comparatively in respect of the
sixth head that went before, to wit, the Pagan emperors ;
and in comparison of the next head, who is to come, viz.
the Antichristian or Papal power. " This is the beast
.that was, and is not, and yet is" (as it is said, ver. 8.);
that is, its rise was Pagan, but afterwards it became Chris
tian, and so was the beast still an idolatrous and persecuting
power, but not the very same as it was in all respects:
This is no other than the Pope, or Popery, made up of
Paganism and Christianity. In respect of its idolatry it
remains Pagan still ; and is therefore rightly called (as we
have heard) " the image of the beast," the very picture and
representation of old heathen Rome. The beast seemed to
be slain, when Constantine introduced Christianity into the
empire, but he was restored and revived, when the Pontifical

PROVED TO BE ANTICHRIST. 373
power was erected, when the Papal empire was set up. This
is here said to be the eighth, i. e. it is the eighth sort of govern
ment that Rome hath had. " And he is of the seven," vis. he
may be reckoned as one of the seven foregoing kinds of govern
ment, and is the last of them. Next the ten horns of the
beast are explained, ver. 12:" The ten horns which thou
sawest are ten kings which have received no kingdom as yet :
but receive power as kings one hour with the beast," i. e. in
St. John's time they were not independent and sovereign
powers, but were members of the Roman empire : but shall
have a greater power at the same time (that is meant by hour)
that the Roman empire becomes idolatrous, and Antichrist is
set up. But they shaU be subject to the beast as to eccle
siastical and spiritual things, as it follows : " These shall give
their power and strength to the beast," contribute to the up
holding of the papal hierarchy. But afterwards they shall
"hate the whore," &c, they shall forsake her, and leave the
Popish cause and religion, ver. 16, 17. And this makes way
for the faU of Babylon, the final destruction of Antichrist,
described in the next chapter.
Concerning the time when this shaU be accomphshed, I wUl
here say something, there being a good foundation laid for it
by what is discovered to us in the Revelation. For there we
are precisely told how long a time Antichrist shall continue,
namely, "one thousand two hundred and threescore days,"
that is, so many years ; for amongst the prophetic writers a day
is put for a year, Ezek. iv. 6 ; Dan. ix. 24. There is no con
troversy about this, for all agree to it. That which I am to
shew is this, that the precise duration of Antichrist is 1260
vears, which is evident from Rev. xiii. 5, where we are ascer
tained that to the beast with seven heads and ten horns, which
is the Papal Antichristian beast, " there was given power to
continue forty-two months," i. e. just 1260 years. For they
reckoned 30 days to a month, and 42 times 30 makes 1260.
So that it is plain that these forty-two months are the very same
with 1260 years, which is the duration of the kingdom of
Antichrist. This is farther proved from Rev. xi. 3, where it is said, " the
.witnesses shall prophesy 1260 days," that is (as was said be
fore) so many years. Now it is not denied that the witnesses
bear witness all the time of the beast's reign, which is 42
months, the same with 1260 years. These witnesses shall lie
buried three days and a half, i. e. three years and a half,

374 THE CHURCH OF ROME
viz. the last three years and a half of the 1 260 years ; whence
it seems to be probable that some great tribulation and Popery
itself shaU seize on some of the Reformed Churches before the
Millennium. Again, the exact time of the continuance of the Roman
Antichrist is known from the time of the " woman's being in
the wilderness," which was to be 1260 days, as it is expressly
said in Rev. xii. 6. For the reigning of the beast, and the
witnesses prophesying, and the woman's being in the wilder
ness are at the same time, and of equal duration. And in ver.
14, the woman is said to be in the wilderness "for a time, and
times, and half a time," which is another way of expressing
the whole time of Antichrist's reign, viz. 1260 years, for a
time is a prophetic year ; and as a year consists of 360 days
(in a round number), so a time consists of 360 years ; and
times is twice as much, vis. 720 years j and a half time is a
moiety of 360, which is 180 ; all which amounts to 1260.
Thus we see, that 42 months, and a time and times and half
a time, and 1260 days, are the same duration of time, namely,
the whole time of the reign of Antichrist.
It is certain then, that if we can inform ourselves when this
time began, we may easily tell when it ends ; if we can fix the
date of Antichrist, we may soon determine the exact time of
his destruction. We may conceive that the first and earliest
date of his appearance was when the Pagan Roman empire
ceased ; for that was it which (as we learn from the Apostle)
"withheld or hindered his being revealed," 2 Thess. U. 6, 7.
Wherefore when this had its period in Augustulus, a.d. 470,
Antichrist immediately started up and succeeded. Another,
but later, epoch of Antichrist is the time when the arrogant
title of Universal Bishop was assumed by the Bishop of Rome,
namely, by Boniface III. who obtained of Phocas the emperor
that this title should be conferred upon him. This was in the
year 606, and may justly be accounted the date of Popery (for
Popery is setting up the Pope as supreme head and universal
monarch of all Churches), and of the Man of Sin, or Anti
christ. Here is a double epoch of Antichrist : and accordingly we
may judge of this period. If we follow the former epoch,
then the end of Antichrist must be about a.d. 1730, for be
tween a. d. 470 and a. d. 1 730 are 1260 years. If we adhere
to the latter, then his end will be about a. d. 1866, for between
606 and 1866 is that aforesaid number, which contains the

PROVED TO BE ANTICHRIST. 375
time of the duration of Antichrist. I am inclined to believe
that both these are distinctly to be accompUshed, that is, that
fifteen or sixteen years hence there will be a signal fall of the
mystical Babylon, and that 136 years after that there wUl be
the complete destruction of her ; namely, "when the iniquity
of those Amorites is filled up." But here I affirm nothing
peremptorily, because there is great difference in the computa
tion of years, and we cannot expect it should be otherwise :
for our chronology is imperfect ; and though there is a certain
determinate time for the final and total ruin of the Roman
beast, yet there may be some foregoing preparation to it, which
may in some sense be styled his ruin and fall. The whole
scheme of that catastrophe being by degrees, it is difficult to
fix the period of it.
And as for the manner, that admits also of some variety :
for the Apostle teUs us that the " Man of Sin shall be con
sumed with the Spirit of God's mouth, and by the brightness
of his coming," 2 Thess. U. 8, by the Word of truth, and
preaching of the Gospel, which shall be bright and shining,
clear and convictive : and what is likely to be done in that way
may be gathered from what hath been done already since the
Reformation. But that the Papal tyranny shall also be de
stroyed by force and violence, may be collected from Rev.
xvii. 16, where I apprehend this method is meant by "hating
the whore and making her desolate, and eating her flesh, and
burning her with fire."
Having spoken thus largely concerning Antichrist, it may
not be improper after aU to add the testimony of both Papists
and Protestants who agree in this, that the Pope and the
Church of Rome are that Antichrist spoken of by St. Paul
and St. John. Platina and several other Popish writers repre
sent the eleventh and twelfth centuries as Antichristian ; and
that historian in the Ufe of Pope Paschalis II. relates, that the
Bishop of Florence used to affirm that Antichrist was then in
being : the characters which the Popes in those times bore
giving just occasion for this belief. Honest Bernard, speaking
of the Popish bishops and clergy, pronounces them to be
" servants of Antichrist, though they pretend to be ministers
of Christ."* And in another place, he freely declares, that
the beast in the Apocalypse, " to whom is given a mouth
speaking blasphemies, and to wage war with the saints, possesses
* Serm. 3. in Cantic. Epist. ad Eugen. Papam.

376 THE CHURCH OF ROME
Peter's chair, like a lion prepared for his prey."* Joachim
Abbas, at the latter end of the twelfth century, expounded the
Revelation to King Richard I. of England, when he was on
his expedition to the Holy Land ; and assured him that Rome
was meant by Babylon, and the Pope was Antichrist ; which
he likewise avers in his Comment on that book. Johannes de
Rupe Scissa (in the fourteenth century), a Franciscan monk,
in a tractate he published, positively asserted the Papacy to
be Antichrist. Nicolaus Orum, doctor of divinity, in a ser
mon before Pope Urban V., on Isai. Ivi. 1, proved that Anti
christ was come, because of the corruptions of the Church ;
because of the pride and domineering spirit of the clergy.
WickUffe held the Pope was the Antichrist spoken of in the
Scripture. Nicolaus Clemangis maintained the same ; and
thatRome was Babylon and the Great Whore. And Savana-
rola was condemned to the flames for the like positions.
And if this was the voice of several of the Roman commu
nion, we are not to wonder that we have it from the pens of
professed Protestants, as Luther, Calvin, Beza, Rivet, and all
the Reformed divines generally. The learned Chamier speaks
their sense in those resolute words of his : "I will say it (saith
he) with confidence, either there is no Antichrist, or the Bishop
of Rome is he."f All the ancient doctors and djvines of our
own Church were steadfast in this persuasion ; Tyndal, Fox,
Latimer, Archbishop Cranmer, Bishop Jewel, Archbishop
Parker, Archbishop Whitgift, which last maintained this
for his thesis at the public commencement, when he com
menced D. D., i 569. Papa est ille Antichristus. And
he applies that title to the Pope and Roman Church in the
writings he put out afterwards against T. C. Of this judg
ment were Dr. Whitaker, Dr. Rainolds, Archbishop Grindal,
Archbishop Abbot, Bishop Andrews, Bishop Morton, Willet,
Fulk, Sutcliff, Hooker, Bishop Davenant, Bishop Hall, Bishop
Prideaux, Mr. Mede, Dr. (afterwards bishop) Saunderson, in
his fifth sermon ad populum. And the learned Dr. Jackson's
words are very remarkable : " The Papists (saith he) see as
little concerning Antichrist, as the Jews do of Christ ; for as
these latter still look for the Messias, who is already come, so
the former expect an Antichrist who hath been a long time
-* Serm. 33. in Cantic. et Epist. 125.
t Dicam audacter,"aut nullum esse Antichristum, aut Episcopum Ro-
manum cum esse. lib. 16. cap. 8.

PROVED TO BE ANTICHRIST. 377
revealed, and is reverenced by them as a god on earth."*
Again : "He, who will not acknowledge the Papacy to be the
kingdom of Antichrist, hath great reason to suspect his heart,
that if he had lived with our Saviour, he would scarce have
taken him for the Messias."f
King James in his writings, and he with the Lords Spiritual
and Temporal and the Convocation, in an Act for a subsidy for
the clergy, in the third year of that king's reign, acknowledge
the Pope to be Antichrist. The public service for the fifth of
November owns the same. And that it is the doctrine of the
Church of England, we may satisfy ourselves from the third
part of the HomUy against Idolatry, and from that against Re
beUion, part 6, and from the Homily for Whitsunday. The
last learned translators of the Bible call the Pope " the Man of
Sin" in their dedication of their work to King James. And
this was generally held and professed till about the beginning
of King Charles I. when at the same time several churchmen
began to faU off from this as weU as some other Protestant
doctrines. But that which I have produced is sufficient I hope
to convince any sober man what is the decision of our Church
in this point, and what was the universal judgment of our
archbishops and bishops, and the learned and godly divines of
the Church of England.
And I might shew that that of Ireland did perfectly agree
with us : witness " the Articles of Religion agreed upon by
the archbishops and bishops and the rest of the clergy of Ire
land, in the Convocation holdenat Dublin in the year of our Lord
God, 1615." "The Bishop of Rome (saith the 80th Article)
is so far from being the supreme head of the Universal Church
of Christ, that his works and doctrine do plainly discover him
to be the Man of Sin foretold in the Holy Scriptures, whom
the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of his mouth, and
abolish with the brightness of his coming." And to let the
reader see how hearty the whole body of the clergy was in
this persuasion, I will add the decree of the Synod annexed to
the Articles, " If any minister, of what degree or quality
soever he be, shaU publicly teach any doctrine contrary to the se
articles agreed upon, if after due admonition he do not conform
himself, and cease to disturb the peace of the Church, let him
be silenced and deprived of all spiritual promotions he doth
enjoy." * On the Creed, Book III ch. 8. t Book III. ch. 22.

378

CHAPTER XX.
Mahomet conjectured to be the Eastern Antichrist.
There is only one thing yet to be added, for the completing
what I have to say concerning Antichrist : and that is, that
Mahomet should not be wholly excluded from this character,
but come in for a share with the Papal head. For as this
latter is the Western, so the former is the Eastern Antichrist :
and both of them together make up one Antichrist. Luther
was of this persuasion. " The head (saith he) of Antichrist
is together the Pope and the Turk ; for a living beast must
have a body and a soul. The spirit or soul of Antichrist is the
Pope, but his flesh or body is the Turk. This destroyeth God's
Church bodily : the Pope both spiritually and corporally."*
Some learned writers have thought that Mahomet is the false
prophet iu the Book of the Revelation, chap. xvi. 13 ; xix. 20 ;
xx. 10. We know that that impostor gloried in the title of
the Prophet, and is so signally called by his followers. But
especially we shall be inclined to look upon the Turk as joint-
Antichrist with the Pope, if we take notice of the parallel be
tween the one and the other ; if we observe how Popery and
Turcism agree : which I will represent in these following par
ticulars. First, they agree as to their seat and place : for Rome and
Constantinople are convertible : as we see in one of the canons
of the CouncU of Chalcedon, where Constantinople is styled
New Rome.f And again, in another canon of the Constanti-
nopolitan CouncU it is ordered that the bishop of Constanti
nople shaU have the next precedence to the bishop of Rome,J
because it is New Rome. On which Balsamon hath these
words, " Constantine the Great§ having translated the imperial
sceptre of Rome to Byzantium, this city was called Constan-
* Coll. Mens. ch. 23.
t "Ev Ty BaaiXidi KwvaravTivoviroXfi via 'Pia/iy. Can. 28.
X Aid to eivai aiitijv vkav 'Pw^jjv, Can. 3.
§ WtruivofidixOe Kojvo-TavTivovTroXis Kai Nea Faun, Kai iraaiSv rtiv
7r6Xtuiv SaaiXig.

MAHOMET THE EASTERN ANTICHRIST. 379
tinople, and New Rome, and the Queen of all Cities." And
to clear this yet farther, that it may be seen I do not proceed
upon an unheard-of principle, (though seldom taken
notice of) I will adjoin that of Philostorgius ; Constantine
the Great, saith he, built Constantinople, and gave it the name
of Rome Alma,* which in the Roman tongue signifies famous
or illustrious. And Nicephorus saith the like thing.f It is
likely Philostorgius was mistaken as to the word Alma, but
I will not dispute about that, but leave it to the critics : this
is enough that the emperor gave Constantinople the
title of Rome ; and so other writers witness. See Suidas in
Kiovm-avrivoviroXis. It might be added, that Constantinople,
the seat of the Turks, stands on seven hills as well as Rome
once did. And farther it may be observed that Babylon,
which is held by the Turks, is according to the Apocalyptic
writings the city of Rome. And if I should proceed and say
that as by Babylon is meant Rome ; so by Euphrates, Rev.
ix. 14; xvi. 12. is meant Tiber, it would be no improbable
conjecture. Thus it appears that there is a great agreement
as to names and places belonging to the Mahometans and the
Papists : which is an intimation to us, that they agree in
some things else, and that one entire Antichrist is made of
both. Secondly, they appeared in the world at the same time.
Mahomet began to pubhsh his doctrine about the year of our
Lord 600 : and the Arabian epoch or Hegira begins at A. d.
622 : for then the empire of the Saracens or Arabians com
menced under Mahomet. And about a. d. 666 his sect took
place in the world, and was strangely propagated. This year
agrees with the number of the Apocalyptic beast, and there
are those who J have observed that this number is found in
Mahomet's name, they mean the Greek name Mao/itVis.
And about the same time with Mahomet in Arabia rose up
Pope Boniface III. at Rome, who usurped the title of Uni-
versal Bishop and Head of all Churches, by the favour and
assistance of the emperor Phocas. Then the kingdom of the
Papal beast began ; then Popery, properly so called, was
erected; but the full age of the beast was 666 Thus Ma-
* "AXp.a 'Fwp.r)v bvojiaat, o dnXoT Ty 'PwfiatSi yX&TTy Trjv tvSoiov.
Hist. Eccl. 1. 2. c. 9.
t Hist. Eccl. 1. 8.c. 4.
X Genebrand. in Cbronographia. Feuardentius in Irensei, 1. o. v. 30,

380 MAHOMET CONJECTURED TO BE
hometism and Popery are alike as to their date ; their horos
copes agree.
Thirdly, the Roman reUgion, Uke that of the Arabian im
postor is made up of Judaism and Paganism. Mahomet's
father was a Pagan and his mother a Jew : and accordingly
we find that Mahometism is a mongrel religion, a medley of
Pagan and Jewish ceremonies : and so Popery is a compound
of Judaical and Heathen rites. There are too plain proofs of
the former in the Roman worship and their religious obser
vances, which I need not insist on, because they are so ob
vious : but I will mention some of the latter sort, viz. such
usages and practices as they seem to have borrowed from the
Pagans, as the canonizing of saints, from the apotheosis ; pray
ing to saints and angels, from the Gentiles using the media
tion of inferior gods; wakes and vigils and Church feasts,
from customs used by heathens in the consecrating their idols ;
image-worship ; purgatory ; the shaving of the priests' heads ;
burning of incense ; sacrificing for the dead ; celibacy of
priests : the several orders in the Roman hierarchy, which,
saith Gratian (De Decret. Distinct. 21.1 were borrowed from
the GentUes, who had their arch-flamens, flamens, &c. And
Polydore Virgil confesses these very things to be true, and
defends the good design of them, which was to bring over the
Pagans to the Christian religion.
But I proceed to take notice of some other superstitious
rites and usages which are partly Jewish and partly Gentile,
wherein both Turks and Papists do friendly conjoin, as first in
ceremonious abstinence. The one eat no swine's flesh, nor
blood, nor things strangled : and wine is forbidden them by
their law, though of late they transgress it with some freedom.
The others are great pretenders to fasting and abstinence, and
taste n<jt of flesh at some certain times. As the others keep
their Ramadan or Lent a month together : so these yearly
observe a fast of forty days with great severity and exactness.
As some of the former afflict and macerate their bodies after
a strange manner, and some of them will put out their eyes
before Mahomet's tomb to prevent the sight of any thing
after : so among these latter there are those that whip and
scourge their bodies, and use them very unmercifully. The
Turks have ceremonious washings, of which they have three
sorts : so the Papists have their superstitious sprinklings with
holy water, and other purifications which they place great
virtue in. They both agree in the great show of external de-

THE EASTERN ANTICHRIST. 381
votion which they make ; the former, when they are entering
their mosques or temples put off their shoes and leave them
behind them : the latter have an excessive veneration for their
churches and temples, and place a wonderful holiness in them.
The same they are wont to do in their saints' days and fes
tivals ; wherein they symbolize with the Mahometans in their
observing their religious feasts, but especially their new moons.
Whence a crescent or new moon is the Turkish cognizance,
because of their observing the lunar calculations, and the as
pect of that planet at their feasts, as the Jews did in their
religion. Both these parties have their canonical hours of prayer.
Mahomet enjoined his disciples to pray five times in the space
of twenty-four hours : and the Church of Rome hath added
two more to it. They both turn their faces to a certain
quarter when they pray, the one looking towards the south
(because Mecca is placed there) ; the other towards the east.
They imitate one another in their bowing and prostrations,
and their vain gestures and actions in their worship. Espe
cially the Turkish priests are observed to lift up their heads,
to stretch out their hands, and then join them together ; to
wipe their eyes, to put their fingers into their ears, to fall flat
and kiss the ground. And it is well known that the Popish
priests are famed for their ridiculous postures and mimical ac
tions. The Moors, who are Mahometans, have their beads,
wherewith they number their prayers, as well as Papists.
The Turks, as well as the Papists, have their monasteries and
convents, and several religious orders who are noted for their
absurd severities, their uncouth habits, their strange abstinence,
their slashing and whipping themselves, their gross ignorance,
their idle and slothful and beggarly way of living, their un-
cleanness and sodomy, &c. They have different santones or
holy men, of different guises, humours, and ceremonies, but all
observe poverty and obedience, and pretend to chastity. Those
who profess to Uve a mortified life, and abandon the world s
enjoyments, are called dervises (which signifies poor and re
nounces of the world). These go a begging, as the mendicant
friars among the Papists. The Turks have a religious order
called the Order of Calender, that profess virginity, and have
strange and wild ways to promote chastity, wherein they outdo
their pattern. Among the former, fools and frantic persons
are had in great honour and reverence, as if they had some
extraordinary excellency in them, and in a manner sainted by

382 MAHOMET CONJECTURED TO BE
them. The latter have such saints, who have behaved them
selves like persons out of their wits, and by their enthusiastic
fervours and revelations have been transported out of the ordi
nary temper of human nature.
The Turks make their pilgrimages constantly to Mecca and
Medina, two cities in Arabia ; one where Mahomet was born,
the other where he was buried. They are particularly com
manded to visit the former place, if they have means and
ability to perform it; and accordingly every year one or other
travels thither, which is a long and tedious journey, and would
be very dangerous if they did not go in great companies (which
they call caravans), and take a good guard with them. It is
held damnable not to visit this place once at least in a man's
life. And after they have visited Mecca, they repair to
Medina, where with great devotion they wait upon Mahomet's
sepulchre. And they also visit the sepulchres of Eubocar,
Osman, and Homar, and worship them, holding them to be
Mahomet's true successors. And such is the devotion of the
Papists, they place a great deal of religion in pilgrimages ;
they reckon it a great act of worship to travel to the Holy
Land, and to prostrate themselves at the place of Christ's
sepulchre ; yea, with singular veneration they visit the shrines
of the saints, and offer gifts there, which they- are encouraged
to do, because pardon and forgiveness of sin is the reward
which is promised to those who undertake these pilgrimages.
And in this likewise they agree with the Mahometans ; for
after these have been at Mecca three or four days, they all go
to the Hill of Pardons, about fourteen or fifteen miles distant
from Mecca ; when they come thither, they pray and hear a
homily, and they are absolved of all their sins. And so when
they go to Medina to visit the Prophet's tomb, they return
with joy and pomp, having left some money and all their sins
behind them. Thus you see the parallel between the Turks
and Papists as to their rites and observances.
Fourthly, You may plainly see it in the way and manner of
their setting up and upholding their respective rehgions : which
I will set before you in these ensuing particulars.
I. Both Mahometism and Popery were at first erected and
have been since upheld by the nourishing of ignorance in the
people. Mahomet had the opportunity of founding his sect,
because he dealt with Arabians and Scythians who were very
'gnorant, and might easily be imposed upon. And he took
¦are for the future, that they should be kept in darkness, and

THE EASTERN ANTICHRIST. 383
not have any means of correcting their false notices. It was
ordered that printing should not be permitted in Turkey, that
there should be no schools of learning for the vulgar to advance
and improve their knowledge. Their law forbids them the
reading of books, and bars all liberty of inquiring into religion
and examining of principles and doctrines, and affords them no
rational helps to cultivate their minds and understandings ;
but takes care to breed them up in bUnd submission and obe
dience. " If any ask why they must compass the temple of
Mecca seven times round, and throw stones into the valley of
Mecca, &c. the answer is, that there is no reason for such a
command, but they ought to perform obedience, although their
understanding be not satisfied about it."* Thus it is in Popery,
this kingdom of darkness was set up and is maintained by
blindness and ignorance, and this is called by them the Mother
of Devotion. They allow not the people to inquire into the
truth ; they are unwiUing they should be acquainted with
books ; they forbid them the reading of them, but more espe-
dally of the Bible. As Mahomet prohibits the reading of the
Alcoran to any but his priests, and orders it to be interpreted
by none but the Mufti ; so the Scriptures are forbid by the
Church of Rome to be perused by the people, and none must
interpret them but the Pope. None is suffered to examine his
religion, but every one must believe as the Church believes.
If any one ventures to lay open their errors and corruptions,
the inquisition presently rewards him for that attempt. And
this effectually frights the rest, insomuch that there is no dis
puting about reUgion ; and thus the Roman religion, like that
of Mahomet, is supported.
II. And so they are likewise by their gratifying the sensual
appetites and desires of men. Mahomet himself was insatiable in
his lust ; he had several wives and concubines, and had licence
from Gabriel to marry as many as he pleased, and to divorce
them when he pleased. And he indulged the like liberty to
others : for his Alcoran allows every one four wives, and as
many concubines as they think fit. Yea, their heaven is of
the hke nature : for Mahomet propounds a sensual paradise,
where there are carnal pleasures and beastly rewards. Thus
the Turkish religion is kept up by these fleshly baits and allure
ments. And so is Popery, which is a pleasing and tempting
religion, and therefore gains many proselytes to it. In the
* Pocock. Specim. Hist. Arab.

384 MAHOMET CONJECTURED TO BE
Pope's territories there is a seraglio, at Rome there are cabinet
councils held in the secret apartments of women, and of hand
some young men. There is a Donna Olympia, there are cour
tesans, there are nephews, there are fleshly favourites in the
reign of every Pontiff. Worldly deUghts and emoluments are
the only views they aim at, and even among their priests a
plurality of strumpets is reckoned no sin, if compared with
marriage. I might add here, that the Papists as well as
the Turks make success and prosperity an argument of the
goodness of their cause. It is a maxim with the latter, what
ever prospers hath God for its author : and so from the
success of their wars they have been wont to conclude, God
owns their religion. This is the very sentiment of the former :
they hold that prosperity is one mark of their being a true
Church : and because their religion hath flourished so long a
time, they gather that God approves of it and them.
III. Both Turk and Papist maintain their religion by force.
The principles and foundation of the Mahometan government
are military ; the sword rules all. It is observed by a late
author, that that which keeps up this body politic, is their
severity, which makes almost all crimes, relating to the
government, equal, and punishes them with death So that
severity, violence, and cruelty, are natural to the Turkish
government : and the people are used to oppression and sub
jection, and tyranny, and know no better, and are content with
them. And as to their religion, it is death to question any
part of it, and they are taught by their Prophet to have such a
reverence and regard for it, that they think it meritorious to
kill Christians in battle ; and those that die in the wars against
them are directly transported to paradise, yea though they
never lived according to their law . The Turks are kind to
beasts, and they forbid the killing an ant or a bee ; but they
shew themselves very cruel and barbarous to Christians. In
this the Romanists do perfectly resemble them : for they make
great pretences to love and charity, and some of their saints
were taken notice of for their mercifulness to beasts and birds,
as St. Francis especially who called them his brethren and
sisters : but they are cruel and savage to their fellow-Christians,
and first style them heretics, and think they merit when they
kill them. For it is their way to keep up their religion by
violence and compulsion. Indeed it might justly create
wonder, that a feigned and adulterate religion should last so
long : and that men, otherwise understanding and sagacious;

THE EASTERN ANTICHRIST. 385
should not be sensible of those delusions ; yea that they should
be so infatuated, as to be pleased with them : but the wonder
soon ceases, when we consider, that they are under a law of
arms, of force, and tyranny. These are the fundamentals of
the Popish reUgion, and by these it is upheld. But the
Turkish cruelty is nothing in comparison of that of the Church
of Rome : for though the Turks are fierce and violent against
Christians in battle, yet they are affable and kind at other
times, and persecute none for religion. But the Papists shed
the blood of Christians in the time of peace, and delight in
persecution and slaughter merely on the account of religion.
IV. Turcism and Popery agree in this, that they both owe
their rise and advancement to cheats and impostures. Mahomet
endeavoured to persuade his disciples, that he was taken up
upon his beast Alborac into heaven, a little before he published
his religion to the world, and that there he was instructed
what to do. He pretended gTeat famiUarity with the Deity,
and that he frequently conversed with angels, but more espe
cially with the Archangel Gabriel, from whom he received his
Alcoran, which is stuffed with lies and forgeries : but that age
was unlearned, rude and barbarous, and therefore apt to be
seduced, and free to receive any fables, and fictions. This
lying prophet pretended to extraordinary visions, inspirations,
and raptures : and his falling sickness was useful to him for
that purpose. Because a dove came and rested on Christ,
this sordid imitator trained up a pigeon to come to his ear ;
and he persuaded his followers, that he had divine tidings
brought to him by it. In like manner the Papal kingdom was
set up ; and is to this time supported by fraud and deceit ; by
cunning Ues and inventions, by feigned visions and revelations ;
and some of their erroneous doctrines and superstitious prac
tices are said to be attested and confirmed by them. The
Turkish priests make all unusual accidents and events to be
miracles, and these they often represent to the people, to
authorize some parts of their religion. So do the Popish
priests magnify their lying wonders, and promote their errors
and idolatrous usages by them. And one may observe, that
the Legends and Traditions of the Papists answer to the Fables
of the Alcoran. Thus Popery and Mahometism had the same
rise and origin, and are upheld by_ the same arts and methods.
There are other things wherein they agree. Some of the
Turkish votaries have, as the Papists, their relics which they
vol. vi. 2 c

386 MAHOMET THE EASTERN ANTICHRIST.
shew and brag of. The Turks hold good works to be merito
rious of heaven, and so do the others. Among the former
prayers are said for the souls of those who died with a per
suasion, that they have need of them when they are dead ;
and some of them hold Purgatory, as the latter do.
Thus I have gone through the parallel of Turcism with
Popery, and I have shewed that in the very founder of the one
the genius of the other is to be seen. Which gave me occa
sion to join both these together, the Pope and the Mufti,
Rome and Constantinople, the Conclave and the Divan, the
Papal and the Mahometan Antichrist.

INDEX.

A.
Pil^G
Aosrs Dei's, invention of . . . .17
Altars, un-Protestant . . . » 184
Antichrist, The, Rome is . . . . 375
Antichrist, The, Rome is, testimonies of this . . . 375
Antichrist, Eastern . . 378
Antioch, claims of, to supremacy . . . 101
Atoning, no act of ours is . . 204
Auricular confession . . . . 223
Auricular confession denned . . 223
Auricular confession, texts quoted for . . . 224
Avarice, corrupting influence of, on the clergy . 62
B.
Babylon, Rome is ... . . 370
Beast, number of .... 300
Bible, depression of, one of the causes of Popery . 7 1
Bible for all . . . . . .201
Bible, use and benefit of . 262
Bible, Romish reasons against reading of .264
Bible, translation of, ground of thankfulness . . . 268
Bread, Romish worship of 300

Celibacy of the clergy . . . 260
Celibacy of the clergy, reasons against . . 270
Celibacy of the clergy, texts against . . ¦ 270
Celibacy of the clergy, Old Testament examples against . 271
Celibacy of the clergy, Fathers against . ¦ 272
CeHbacy of the clergy connected with, and originating priestly pro
fligacy . . . . • ^76
Ceremonies, multiplied . 9
Christ the only Mediator . 306
Civil Wars, and Laud . • • . . 97
Communion in one kind • • • .185
Communion in one kind, texts against . • • 186
Communion in one kind, against example of the Apostles . . 187
Communion in one kind condemned by example of early Church . 188
Communion in one kind, against the nature of a sacrament . 190
Communion in one kind, Romish reasons for . • .191
Communion in one kind, against Christ's command . 192
Concomitancy, doctrine of ¦ . . 1U1

388 INDEX.
Confession, auricular . . . . 223
Confession, auricular, denned . . . 223
Confession, auricular, texts alleged for . 224
Council of Nice and the Pope's supremacy . . .112
Council of Constantinople and supremacy . . .113
Councils, difficulties about .... 129
Cross, the worship of . . . . 308
D.
Differences in the Apostolic Churches . . . 332
Differences among the Protestant Churches, vindicated and excused 335
Differences preferable to any sort of peace . . . 336
Digby, sentiments of . . . , . 47
E.
East, praying toward the . .8
Easter, disputes about . . . . . 4
Ehzabeth, her Popish leanings on some points . . 43
Emperors and Popes quarrel . . . .19
Extreme Unction . . . . . 234
Extreme Unction, texts alleged for . , . 234
Extreme Unction, and Anointing the Sick . . . 236

Falkland, opinions of Lord . . . 47
Fathers corrupted by Rome . . . .75
Fiery trial, what . ... 208
Frauds of Popery ..... 75
Foundation of Popery . . . . . 382
G.
Good done by us not our own, or of ourselves . . 243
Good works, deficiency of . . ... 242
Good works, primitive writers on . ... 243
Good works, what is required to . . . 244
Good works and wages . . . . 246
H.
Henry VIII. vindicated . . . .33
Henry VIII. though bad himself yet might be the instrument of good 35
Hildebrand, his despotism . . . .18
I.
Idolatry of Romish Church . . . .279
Idolatry of Romish Church like Pagan . . . . 280
Idolatry, nature of .... . 281
Idolatry condemned in Scripture . . . . 283
Idolatry, excuses and pleas for .... 284
Idolatry of things . . . . 307
Images, adoration of . . . . 310
Indulgences . . . . . . 214
Indulgences, Council of Trent on . . . 214

INDEX. 389
Indulgences, groundless . . . 215
Indulgences, cases of . . . .215
Indulgences, pleas for . , . . .218
Indulgences, Scripture alleged for . .220
Infallibility ...... 122
Infallibility held by the Sorbonne to be in a Council . .128
Infallibility, held by Jesuits in Popes . . .128
Infalnbility in a General Council, as laid down by the Councils of
Pisa, Constance, Basil . .... 128
Infaffibility not in Councils .... 128
Infallibihty a joint concern . . . .129
Infallibility wrongly attributed to tbe Jewish Church . .130
Infallibility, texts quoted for . . . .131
InfaUihility, argued from God's power . . . 133
Infallibility, alleged convenience of . . .134
Infallibility, no real need of . . . 134
Infalnbility, inconsistent with the actual constitution of man . 135
Infallibility, contrary to the nature and necessity of a standing
ministry ..... 135
Infallibility incompatible with the existence of Romish differences
and difficulties .... 136
InfaUihility, no seat of . . . . 136
Infallibility and error impossible . . . .137
InfaUihility, an upstart dogma . . . 137
InfaUihility, incompatible with the Apostohc practice . . 138
InfaUibiHty, no promise of . . . 139
Infallibflity, texts disproving . . . .139

James as likely a claim to supremacy as Peter . . . 106
Jews commanded to read the Scriptures . . .260
John VIII. Pope, a woman . 345, 369

Laud, character of • • • .54
Laud, his efforts to bear down the doctrine of the Church of England
that the Pope is Antichrist . • ¦ .54
Laud, his doings in Scotland . . • .55
Liturgy, introduction of .38
Luther • • • • ' ?5
Luther, his description of himself
Luther applauded by the best men of his age

2626

M.

Mass, origin of word . • • '"
Mass in a sense of sacrifice . • .173
Mass, not a propitiatory sacrifice . . .175
Mass, arguments against, from Scripture . • o
Mass, eucharist perverted by . . . 178
Mass, Romish writers on • ¦ ¦ 1"»

390 INDEX.
Mass, texts aUeged for . . 180
Mass, Fathers against . . .182
Mass, advice on . . 183
Mediator, Christ alone . . . 306
Merit, impossible . . . 239
Merit, primitive writers on . . 243
Merit, what is required to . 244
Merit, texts on . 245
Merit and wages . . 246

Patron Saints . . .289
Paul as entitled to supremacy as Peter . .105
Popery, rise of .1
Popery, re-introduction of, protested against . . 45
Popery, opposed by all ranks in all ages . . 327
Popery, Falkland, Rudyard, and Digby on . . 47
Popery, patronage of, by men in power and office . . 53
Popery, cause of the great rebeUion . . .61
Popery, character of .94
Popery, origin and sources of 62
Popery, from clerical avarice . . 62
Popery, from ignorance . . 70
Popery, from withdrawal of Bible . • 72
Popery, frauds of .75
Popery depresses civil power . . .76
Popery has had all sorts of wicked practices . 78
Pope John VIII. a woman . . .16
Pope, is Antichrist according to John and Paul . . 348
Pope, described in the Apocalypse . . .361
Popes, heretical ... 123
Popes, deposition of .23
Popes, supremacy of 101
Popes, wicked . . . . .124
Prayer in an unknown tongue . . 252
Prayer, reasons urged for . 253
Prayer, argument from Greek Church
Prayer to God only
Prayers for the dead
Prayers for the dead, texts aUeged for
Prayers for the dead, views of ancient Chu
Presence in eucharist, what
Prison, spirits in, meaning of
Protestants, responsibflity of
Protestantism, antiquity of
Protestantism in seventh century
Protestantism in ninth century
Protestantism in eleventh century
Protestantism in twelfth century
Protestantism in thirteenth century
Protestantism in fourteenth century . 321
Protestantism in fifteenth century 324

257
304
226227
inch on . 230 169
206 95
315315
316317318
320

INDEX.
Protestantism in sixteenth century
Protestantism and Wickliffe
Purgatory and satisfaction
Purgatory not in Soripture
Purgatory opposed by Scripture
Purgatory, Origen's, what
Purgatory, Fathers on
Purgatory and oblations for dead
Purgatory originated in doctrine of satisfaction
R.
Reformation, right of England to introduce
Reformation, necessity of
Reformation, echpse of
Reformation, sources of
Reformation, promoted by students, divuies, &c.
Reformation, promoted by princes
Reformation, promoted by learning
Reformation, promoted by printing .
Reformation, gratitude for
Romanist quarrels
Rome, hinders the Reformation S.
Saint-worship Saint-worship, Fathers on
Saint-worship, is it innocent ?
Saint- worship, is it humility ? .
Saint-worship, its distinctions
Saint-worship, condemned in Scripture
Satisfaction, origin of the doctrine of Purgatory
Satisfaction, unscriptural and unreasonable
Schoolmen, The
Scripture, reading of, in an unknown tongue
Scripture, Jews to read
Scripture, all to read
Scripture, use and benefit of reading
Scripture, Romish reasons against reading
Scripture, gratitude for translation of
Secessions to Rome
Sorbonne, The, on infallibility .
Succession .
Succession, no evidence of having the truth
Succession in Protestant Church
Succession wanting in Romish Church
Succession interrupted by pluraUty of Popes
Succession interrupted by heretical Popes
Supererogation
Supererogation and Merit
Supremacy of Pope
Supremacy, texts disproving
Supremacy, contradicted by Fathers

391
. 325
322
. 197
198
. 199
209
. 210211 202

39
4142
8585 8687
88 94
339 29

293 294299
299 300302
202 205 21
200260261 262
264 268 52
128
324 342
343344344
3462372.38 106
107 110

392 INDEX.
Supremacy disowned by Bishops of Rome . .111
Supremacy disowned hy CouncUs . . • .112
Supremacy disowned by Council of Nice . . . 112
Supremacy disowned by Council of Constantinople . .113
Supremacy disowned by Greek Church . . .114
Supremacy, texts aUeged for . . .115
Supremacy, spurious writings quoted for . . . .119
Supremacy, evidence of Man of Sin . 121
T.
Tetzel . . • • • . . 24
Tractarianism . . • • • .50
Transubstantiation . -144
Transubstantiation, Romish defence of . . 144
Transubstantiation, against Scriptures . . . 145
Transubstantiation, against reason . . . 147
Transubstantiation, not held by Fathers . . . 150
Transubstantiation, denied even by Romish writers . . 155
Transubstantiation, texts quoted and examined . .156
Transubstantiation defended, from the hypostatical union . .167
Transubstantiation defended, from belief of the Trinity . . 167
Trent, Council of, summoned to arrest the Reformation . . 29
U.
Universal Bishop, title of, claimed by John, Patriarch of Constanti
nople . . . . . .11
Universal Bishop, title of, given to Boniface III. by Phocas, a mur
derer . . . . . . 12
Unity, Romish, result of constraint . . . 337
Unity of Romanism not real .... 338
V.
Virginity extolled by Fathers . . . . . 5
W.
Works, deficiency of . . . 242
Wages and Merit . . . . . , 246

Zuinglius

END OF VOL. VI.

G. NORMAN, PKl.XTEH, MA1UE.N LANE, COVE.NT GAEM-X.

3 9002 08561 2365