THE Church of Rome may be now compared to the Image of Nebu­chadnezzar; for as his Head was of fine Gold, his Breast and Arms of Silver, his Belly and his Thighs of Brass, his Legs of Iron, and his Feet part of Iron and part of Clay: So, when we look upon the Ancient Church of Rome, She was then as pure as Gold. But when we come to the following Ages, we do find in her so notable a change; that we do now see in her an Iron-Age, and quite diffe­rent from the former. I do not [Page 2] here intend to imitate several Au­thors; who even, when they com­pose but a small Book, are wont to make a long Preface. They build, as the Proverb saith, the Door bigger than the House. They do promise much, and perform but little. That I may not be guilty of the fault, which I do here im­pute to others, I immediatly enter into my Subject, and prove per Argumentum ad Hominem, that is, by the very Principles of the Church of Rome, that She is Ty­rannous, Idolater, and Heretick.

1. I shew that She is Cruel and Tyrannous; for all those, that contrary to the Doctrine of Jesus Christ and Law of Nature, do per­secute Men, and cause them to die, meerly because they are not of their Opinion and Religion, are Cruel and Tyrannous.

The Church of Rome, contrary to the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, and Law of Nature, does persecute [Page 3] Men, and cause them to die, meer­ly because they are not of her Opi­nion and Religion:

Therefore She is Cruel and Ty­rannous.

The Major Proposition of this Argument is true; as for the Mi­nor, which is in question, I prove it thus.

It is evident, that the Roman Church does persecute Men, and cause them to die, meerly, because they are not of her Opinion and Religion. The rigorous Laws of her Inquisition, whereby She did persecute an innumerable number of Men, and cause them to die, meerly, because they were not of Her Opinion and Religion, is a convincing proof of what I say. And that it is contrary to the Do­ctrine of Jesus Christ and Law of Nature to persecute Men, and cause them to die, because they are not of our Opinion and Reli­gion, I shall endeavour to prove it evidently.

[Page 4] 1. I say that this Doctrine of the Ro­man Church, by Persecuting Men, and causing them to Die, meerly because they are not of her Opi­nion and Religion, is contrary to Christ's Doctrine. For Jesus Christ going to Worship at Hierusalem, the Samaritans, who were of ano­ther Religion, refusing to receive him in his Journey, two of his Disciples, James and John present­ly took Fire, and out of a well-meaning Zeal for their Master, and of the true God, and of Hierusalem the true place of Worship, asked leave to dispatch out of the way these Enemies of God and Christ, and the true Religion. And to this end they desired our Saviour to give them Power to call for Fire from Heaven to consume them. Jesus Christ seeing them in this heat, which seem'd to be well-meaning, did very calmly, but se­verely reprove this Temper of theirs; saying, The Son of Man is [Page 5] not come to destroy Mens lives, but to save them. Luke 9. 56. You own your selves to be my Disci­ples, but do you consider what Spirit now Acts and Governs you? Not that surely which I do teach you, which is not furious Persecu­ting and destructive Spirit, but mild, gentle, and aiming at no­thing but to save Men's Lives, even of our greatest Enemies. This Spirit of Persecuting and Destroy­ing one another about Religion, is contrary to the Intention, for which I came into the World. For I am not come to destroy Men's Lives, but to save them. Ye ought to love one another, even your greatest Ene­mies; and far from giving you leave to Persecute them, I forbid you to hate those who Persecute you. If I would destroy my Ene­mies, and the Hereticks that are not of my Religion, could I not do it by the Power which I have recei­ved from my Father; and could I [Page 6] not obtain of him a Legion of An­gels to destroy them? But my In­tention is not that Religion should be propagated in this cruel Me­thod, but by Meekness and Per­swasion. I will have Men to be drawn to the Profession of it by the Bonds of Love and Conviction. If any Man, saith he, will be my Dis­ciple, if any Man will come after me. And when his Disciples were lea­ving him, he does not, as they do in Rome and Spain, set up an Inqui­sition to Torture and Punish them for their Defection from the Faith; only says, will ye also go away? And in imitation of this blessed Pattern the Christian Church continued to speak and act for several Ages. This was also the Language of the Holy Fathers and the Style of Councils; they said that the Christian Law doth not avenge it self by the Sword. Lex nova non se vindicat ultore gladio; and that we must not offer Violence to no Man, to compel him to [Page 7] Faith. Nemini ad credendum vim inferre. And Gregorius ad Episc. Constant, Writes thus. Nova & inaudita praedicatio quae verberibus exigit Fidem. This sort of Preaching is new and strange, which extorts Faith by Whips and Scourges. If Hereticks were to be Persecuted and Destroyed, the Samaritans, who were true Hereticks, and had affronted our Saviour himself, the Honour of God and of Religion, ought certainly to be punished. And to shew the contrary, Jesus Christ does severely rebuke his Disciples that had a great mind to destroy them, saying unto them, Ye know not what manner of Spirit ye are of; and he gives them such a Reason, as ought in all Differen­ces of Religion, how wide soever they be, to deter Men from this Temper; for, saith he, The Son of Man is not come to destroy Men's Lives, but to save them.

[Page 8] What can then the Church of Rome plead for her Persecution to Men for the cause of Religion, which James and John might not much better have pleaded for themselves against the Samaritans? Does she practice these Severities out of a Zeal for the Honour of God, of Christ, and the true Religion? Upon these very Accounts it was that James and John would have called for Fire from Heaven to have destroyed the Samaritans. Is she perswaded, that those whom she Persecutes are Hereticks, and that no Punishment can be too great for such Offenders? So James and John were perswaded of the Sama­ritans; and upon much better Grounds than those of the Church of Rome; for Jesus Christ does ex­cuse them, saying, Ye know not what manner of Spirit ye are of. But in the Church of Rome, and especi­ally in the Governing part of it; this Excuse cannot be brought for [Page 9] a good Plea; for the Christian Re­ligion, which they do Profess, for­bids them Persecution. And it is no more evident in the New Te­stament that Jesus Christ was born, died, and rose up for Sin­ners, than it is manifest that Chri­stians ought not to Persecute one another for the Mis-belief of any Article of Revealed Religion; much less when these Articles are invented by Men, or are imposed as only Ceremonies.

I know that those that live in the Roman Church, are not all of this Opinion, that all Hereticks, or those that are not of their Opinion ought to be Persecuted and put to Death. I knew some of them in France, which were of a better and more Christian Principles; yet it is too true that this hellish Doctrine is taught and practised among them. Their several and frequent Conspiracies in England, their cru­el and horrible Massacres in Ire­land, [Page 8] [...] [Page 9] [...] [Page 10] France, and other Countries; as we may read in the History, their severe and damnable Inquisition in Italy and Spain; their rigorous Per­secutions towards our poor Bre­thren of the Reformed Church in France, which was these several years, and is at present [...] extreme, that I should be to [...] long, if I would write it down in this Trea­tise; and the very words of the Council of La [...]n, are a certain Proof of what I say. If a Temporal Lord, saith this Council, be requi­red and warned by the Church to Purge his Country from this foul He­resie, does neglect it, let him be Ex­communicated by the Metropolitan Bishop; and from that time let him Denounce his Subjects, discharged of their Allegiance, and let him give his Country to be Possessed by the Catho­licks. And in the next words, se­veral Priviledges and great Indul­gences are granted to all Men that [Page 11] shall endeavour to destroy the He­reticks.

2. I make it appear, that this Doctrine of Persecuting and De­stroying those which are not of our Opinion and Religion, is con­trary to the Law of Nature. For this is the Law of Nature, As ye would that Men should do unto you, so do you unto them. We would not be Persecuted and Destroyed for our Opinion and Religion; there­fore we ought not to Persecute and Destroy others.

But some will object, we have a Law, and by this Law they ought to be Persecuted and De­stroyed.

I Answer, if that were a suffici­ent Reason to warrant Persecution, we could not blame the Jews, when they Crucified Jesus Christ; for they said, They had a Law, and that by this Law he ought to die. And we could not blame Queen Mary, who by a Law in her days, caused so [Page 12] many to suffer Martyrdom; nor could we now blame the Papists, who by their Laws in France, Ita­ly and Spain, establish Cruelty and Oppression, and as so many Nebu­chadnezzars give Order, that all Persons that will not Worship their God of Bread, or refuse to bow be­fore their Images, or will not be­lieve what they believe, be Perse­cuted, Tortured, and put to Death by the most cruel Torments.

If any Man be found a Plotter, or breed Sedition and Disturbance in a Kingdom; if he contrive any Evil against the King or Govern­ment, he ought to be Punish'd ac­cording to the Law of this King­dom. But if he only be found Er­ring concerning some Articles of Religion, he ought to be Taught and Admonish'd by the Bishop, and afterwards rejected from the Congregation, if he will not be perswaded. But he ought not to be cast into Prison, nor deprived of [Page 13] his Estate, nor sent to the Gallies, nor Condemned to Die. For this Cruelty, as I have already shewed, is not only contrary to the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, but to the Law of Nature also. And therefore it is e­vident, that the Church of Rome is Cruel and Tyrannous; since con­trary to Christ's Doctrine and the Law of Nature, she Persecutes and puts Men to Death, meerly because they are not of her Opini­on and Religion.

The Origine, or the Author of this hellish Doctrine was a Domini­can Fryar, or rather the King Ne­buchadnezzar; for as he that would not Worship his Image, was cast into a fiery Furnace, so those that will not Worship the God of Bread of the Papists, and bow to their I­mages, are Condemn'd to be burnt alive.

Secondly, I shew that the Roman Church is Idolater.

[Page 14] All those, that do Worship the Creature for the Creator, are Ido­laters.

The Church of Rome does Wor­ship the Creature for the Creator;

Therefore she is an Idolater.

The Major Proposition of this Argument is true, and is granted by all Divines. As for the Minor, which is in question, I prove it thus.

The Church of Rome does Wor­ship a bit of Bread baked upon the Fire, and takes it for her God; there­fore she does Worship the Creature for the Creator, therefore she is an Idolater.

That the Roman Church Wor­ships a bit of Bread baked upon the Fire, and takes it for her God; this does clearly appear, since she believes that the Bread being Con­secrated by her Priests, is really Transubstantiated, or changed in­to the true Body of Jesus Christ, and renders unto it the very same [Page 15] Adoration that we render to the Godhead. And that it is false that this Bread Consecrated by her Priests, be really changed into the true Body of Jesus Christ. I will make it evidently appear, because this Doctrine of theirs is contrary to the Holy Scripture, to Senses, to Reason, and to the Holy Fathers.

1. I say that it is contrary to the Holy Scripture, that the Bread Consecrated by her Priests, be real­ly changed into the true Body of Jesus Christ, and consequently be here still upon Earth; for Jesus Christ being about to leave the World, and his Disciples afflicting themselves upon this account, he doth not comfort them by saying, I leave you my Body under the Species of Bread and Wine, but he tells them, The Poor ye have with you, but me ye have not always; I came forth from the Father, and am come into the World, again I leave the World and go to the Father. He [Page 16] tells them that his Father will Pro­tect them, will send them his holy Spirit, and that he is going to pre­pare them a place in Heaven. He tells them of his intercession, and of his second coming to Judge both the quick and the dead, and that the Heavens must receive him until the time of the restitution of all things. John 12. 8, 16, 28. Acts 3. 21. and in the 24th Chapter of St. Mat. 26 Verse, it is written, that a time will come, when they shall say, Lo, here is Christ, or there, behold he is in the secret Chambers, and that we must not believe it.

By these words, it appears clear­ly, that it is contrary to the holy Scripture, that the Body of Jesus Christ be yet here upon Earth, and consequently, that the Bread Con­secrated by the Priests, be really changed into his Body.

Object. Jesus Christ, saith the Roman Church, took Bread, and gave Thanks, and said, Take ye and [Page 17] eat, this is my body which is broken for you. Matth. 26. 1 Cor. 11. 24. Jesus Christ, saith the Roman Church, is true, he has said in gi­ving the Bread, This is my Body; therefore this Bread ought to be changed into the true Body of Je­sus Christ; therefore he is here still upon Earth. And to shew, she saith, that it is not the Figure of Jesus Christ, and these words, This is my Body, are not Metaphorical, because he said, which is broken for you. Now it is not the Figure of Jesus Christ, which was broken for us, but his true Body.

Answer, It is certain that Jesus Christ is true; and though he said, This is my Body which is broken for you, and that it was the true Bo­dy of Jesus Christ which was bro­ken for us, and not the Figure; yet that doth not hinder these words from being Metaphorical; and to let you see it clearly, observe my Reason. This is my Body which [Page 18] was broken for you, (is) that is to say, signifieth or representeth. As you may see in several other Texts of the holy Scripture; as for Ex­ample in this. The Rock was Christ, where this word, (was) means, did signifie or represent. Which is bro­ken for you; the Relative, (which) does not serve to shew the Transub­stantiation; or that the Bread is changed into the true Body of Je­sus Christ, because it is related to this Word (Body) and not to the Proposition▪ This is my Body. It has a relation to the Attribute, and not to the Subject. That which hinders not this Proposition from being Metaphorical, no more than this, the Rock was Christ. For if the Evangelist had added, which was Crucified, or which was rai­sed again; as the Relative (which) would not hinder this Proposition from being Metaphorical; likewise these words, which was broken for you, hinder not the other Propositi­on from being Improper and Me­taphorical.

[Page 19] Mark, that his Body was not broken before he Suffered upon Golgotha: How did he say then, which is broken, before it was bro­ken? There is no sense of it but this. The Bread was broken, and signified that his Body should be broken. Now, as the breaking of the Bread did signifie the brea­king of his Body, so the Bread must signifie his Body: And as his Body was not broken indeed, when the Bread was broken; so the Bread could not be his Body indeed, for then his Body should have been broken, when the Bread was broken.

If because Christ saith, This is my Body, this is my Blood, they will have these words to be expounded litterally; why then do they not expound the other words of Christ litterally also concerning the Cup? For the Text saith, that he took the Cup, and said, This is my Blood. I am sure that those of the Church of Rome will not say that the Cup was [Page 20] the Blood of Christ, as the words declare it to be, but that there is a Figure in these words, namely, Continens pro Contento; that by the Cup is meant the Wine in it. If then they will admit a Figure in this Proposition, why there may not be a Figure in the other; name­ly, Signatum pro Signo; that these words, This is my Body, should be understood thus, the Bread is a sign of my Body.

I may prove as well, that Christ is a Door, because he saith, I am the Door; and that he is a Vine, be­cause he saith, I am a Vine; for his sayings are alike. But Figura­tive Speeches must not be constru­ed litterally. Now, that they may see, that not we only say, 'tis Bread and Wine after Consecration, Je­sus Christ himself doth call them so. I will drink no more, saith he, of the fruit of the Vine. Jesus Christ assures, that it was the fruit of the Vine which he drank; therefore [Page 21] Wine and not Blood was his drink; therefore after Consecration, Wine was still Wine. And St. Paul, 1 Cor. c. 11. does confirm it, when he plain­ly saith, that the Communicant doth eat Bread. Therefore the Bread remains Bread after the words of Consecration: For, if it were tran­substantiated into the Body of Christ, then were there no Bread to eat; the Body of Christ should be the thing that should be eaten, and consequently should not be cal­led Bread.

What I say may be seen by these words of Jesus Christ, wherein he assures us, That he was the bread of life which came down from Heauen, which if any man eat, he shall live for ever, John 6. 50. His Disci­ples hearing these words, murmu­red until he had expounded them. And how did he expound them? thus, He that comes unto me, has eaten; and he that believes in me has drunk. Afterwards, when He In­stituted [Page 22] this Sacrament in like words, they murmured not, which they would as before, if he had not resolved them before, that, to eat his Body, and to drink his Blood, was nothing but to come to him, and believe in him. For, as it is plainly said, This is my Body, so it is plainly said, These words are Spi­rit, that is, they must be under­stood spiritually, and not litteral­ly; so saith St. Austin, Believe, and thou hast eaten.

It was Christ's manner to speak by Similitudes, Figures, and Para­bles, shewing one thing by ano­ther. For example, Christ calls the Lamb the Passover, in place whereof this Sacrament succeeded. And yet the Passover was this, An Angel passed over the house of the Is­raelites, and struck the Aegyptians, Exodus 12. 27. This was not a Lamb, and yet because a Lamb was a sign of this Passover, as the Bread and Wine are of Christ's [Page 23] Body and Blood; because of that Christ called the Lamb the Passo­ver, as he called the Bread and Wine his Body and Blood. This may be seen again in Circumcision, Baptism, and the Cup.

Circumcision is called the Cove­nant; and yet Circumcision was nothing but the cutting away of a Skin, and the Covenant is this; In Abraham's seed all nations shall be blessed; I will be their God, and they shall be my People; I will defend and save them, and they shall serve and worship me. This is not Cir­cumcision, and yet as though the Circumcision were the Covenant it self, it is called the Covenant.

Likewise, Baptism is called Re­generation; and yet Baptism is a dipping our Bodies in Water, and Re­generation is the renewing of our mind to the Image of God, where­in it was Created. This is not Baptism, and yet, as though Bap­tism were Regeneration it self, it [Page 24] is so called, because it signifies Re­generation.

And the Cup is called the New Testament; and yet the Cup is but a piece of Metal, filled with Wine: And the New Testament is, He that believes in the Son of God shall be saved. This is not a Cup, and yet, as though the Cup were the New Testament it self, it is called the New Testament. So the Bread and Wine are called Christ's Body and Blood, because they sig­nifie Christ's Body and Blood.

This Doctrine of ours may be confirmed, because every Sacra­ment was called by the thing which it signified; and yet never any Sa­crament was taken for the thing it self. What reason have they then to take this Sacrament for the thing it self more than all the rest? It is the consent of all Divines, that a Sacrament is a Sign; therefore it is no more the thing signified, than [Page 25] the Bush at the Door is the Wine in the Cellar.

But what then, will the Papists say, is there nothing in this Sacra­ment but Bread and Wine? We do not say that this Sacrament is nothing but a bare Sign, or that we receive no more than what we see: For Christ saith, that it is his Body; and St. Paul assures, that it is the Communion of Christ Body and Blood. Therefore there is more in this Sacramental Bread than in the common Bread we Eat in our Houses; for though the na­ture of Bread be not changed, yet the use is changed. It doth not only serve the Body, as it did be­fore, but also it serves for the nou­rishing of our Souls; for as sure as we receive Bread, so sure we re­ceive Christ. And you may see this by this Similitude: You have an Obligation in your hand, and I ask you, what have you there? and you answer, I have here an [Page 26] hundred thousand Crowns. How! say I, I see nothing but Paper, Ink, and Wax! Oh, but by this, say you, I shall recover a hundred thousand Crowns, and that is as good.

So when ye receive these Signs in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, ye receive the Vertue of Christ's Body and Blood by Faith; and it is all one as if ye should eat his Body, and drink his Blood in­deed.

Secondly, I say that it is contrary to Senses, that the Bread Con­secrated by Popish Priests, be really changed into Christ's Body. For when the Church of Rome would oblige me to believe, that what my Senses behold, is not Bread and Wine, but the true Bo­dy and Blood of Christ, it is clear that it is contrary to them; for my Eyes see them to be Bread and Wine, I smell nothing but Bread and Wine; I taste nothing but [Page 27] Bread and Wine, and my Hands feel nothing but Bread and Wine.

Object. We confess, say they, that it is contrary to Senses, but Senses ought not to be Judges in the Mysteries of Faith.

I Answer. That Jesus Christ made use of the Senses, to prove to his Apostles, that he was not a Spirit, but a Body, when he said unto them, Handle me and see, for a spirit has not flesh and bones as ye see me have, Luke 24. 32. And if the Fathers disputing against the Marcionites and Euthicheens, the former of which believed that Je­sus Christ had not a true Body, but only the appearance; and the lat­ter, that the Substance of his Bo­dy was changed into the Godhead after his Resurrection, they made use of the very words of Jesus Christ. Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have. I may after their Ex­ample, make use of my Senses in [Page 28] the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and say, to let the Church of Rome know, that what they believe to be the true Body and Blood of Je­sus Christ, is true Bread and Wine, Handle and see.

Object. The reason, say they, why Christ's Body is not seen in the Sacrament, is because he is there miraculously.

I Answer, That if the Bread be turned into the very Body of Christ by a Miracle, then should it appear visibly so. For the Nature of every Miracle is to be visibly to the outward Eyes and Senses. As when Jesus Christ turned Wa­ter into Wine, it was visibly Wine, when Moses Rod was tur­ned into a Serpent, it was visibly a Serpent. And so if the Bread were turned into the very Body of Christ, it should be visibly a Body, if they will hold a Miracle in this Sacrament. But St. Austin answe­reth, that there is no Miracle in [Page 29] the Sacraments. Honorem, saith he, tanquam Religiosa possunt habe­re, stuporem tanquam mira non pos­sunt, Tom. 1. 8. c. 12.

Thirdly, I say that this Doctrine is contrary to Reason. 1. Because it supposes the same Body in seve­ral places at one time. A Body may be considered objectively at one time in several places, but that it should be really or substantially in many places at one time alto­gether, as the Church of Rome would have, which teaches and o­bliges to believe that the Body of Jesus Christ is Substantially in Hea­ven and Earth, and in every place, where the Priest pleases to Conse­crate, or pronounce these words, This is my Body, this is my Blood, and in every part of the Consecra­ted Bread; so that if you divide it into a thousand Parts no bigger than the Point of a Needle, he is there in every part wholly, that is contrary to Reason. For accor­ding [Page 30] to Reason, a Body of six Foot in Dimension, cannot occupy no more place than the Circumference of six Foot; and though it may be successively in several places, yet it cannot at the same time.

And these words of St. Peter, Acts 3. 22. Whom the Heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, Prove my saying evidently; for though he has a glorified Bo­dy, yet he retains the Nature and Property of a true Body still, which cannot be but in one place at once. And so saith St. Austin, in Joan. Tract. 3. Corpus Domini in quo re­surrexit uno tantùm loco esse potest.

2. This Doctrine is contrary to Reason, because it makes Acci­dents exist without any Subject. It is the Nature of Accidents to be joyned to their Subject. As for Example, It is the nature of the whiteness of a Stone to be joyned to the Stone; so that if you destroy the Nature or Substance of this [Page 31] Stone, you must of necessity de­stroy its Whiteness, and other its Accidents. And according to the Opinion of Modern Philosophers, who say that Accidents are no­thing else than Matter modified, that is to say, as it is disposed to this or that Fashion; it follows that Matter cannot be destroyed with­out its Accidents being destroyed likewise with it. It is the Opini­on of Iraeneus, who saith, That we cannot consider Water without its Hu­midity, nor Fire without Heat, nor a Stone without Hardness; these things being so United, that the one cannot be without the other, but that they must exist together Nevertheless, those of the Church of Rome teach the contrary; for in their Mystery of Transubstantiation, they put Ac­cidents without any Subject; they put Colour and Quantity without Matter, Smell and Taste without Substance, Hardness and Humidi­ty without there being any thing [Page 32] that is hard and moist. I may then very well say and affirm, that this Doctrin is contrary to Reason.

Fourthly, I say that it is contrary to the Holy Fathers, for St. Chryso­stome, Epist. ad Caesar, saith, That the mystical Symbols do not lose their proper Nature, but remain in their first Substance, as the Body of Christ has preserved the true Substance of a Body when it was Glorified. And Writing to the People of Antioch, Hom. 6. he saith, That God gives us things Spiritual under things Visi­ble and Natural; and that Bread be­ing Sanctified, is delivered from the Name of Bread, and [...] exalted to the Name of the Lord's Body, although the nature of the Bread still remains.

Origines in Matth. 15. speaks thus, The Bread that is Sanctified with the Word of God, as touching the material Substance thereof, goes into the Belly, and forth again like other Meats.

[Page 33] Justin Martyr, and Iraeneus Bi­shop of Lyon, say, That our Flesh is nourished with the Cup, which is the Blood of Christ, and is increased with the Bread, which is the Body of Christ. These words do destroy those of the Roman Church, who, because they believe that the Bread and Wine are changed into the Bo­dy and Blood of Christ, are forced to say, that our Body is not nouri­shed with the Bread and Wine, but with their Accidents, or by some Substance that God Createth.

Tertullian, L. 4. Advers. Marci. c, 40. saith, that Jesus Christ took the Bread, and giving it to his Disci­ples, made it his Body, saying, this is my Body. That is to say, as Tertul­lian himself explains it, the Figure of my Body.

St. Austin, Cont. Adam. c. 12. is of that Opinion, The Lord, saith he, doubted not to say, this is my Body, when he gave but the Signs of his Bo­dy. And in Psal. 8. He saith, That [Page 34] the admirable Patience of Christ ad­mitted Judas to the Banquet, wherein he delivered to his Disciples the Fi­gure of his Body and Blood. And in the third Book of the Christian Doctrine, he speaks thus. When the Lord saith, if ye do not eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you shall have no life in you. He seems to command a Wic­kedness and a great Crime; therefore it is a Figure, whereby it is injoyned unto us to think upon our Lord's Pas­sion, and remember that his Flesh was Crucified and Wounded for us. He saith also in an Epist [...] to Boniface, That the Sacraments are called by the name of the things they repre­sent.

The Sacrament then of the Lord's Supper, may be taken either con­junctively with what it represents, and in this Sense it is said to be the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; or separately from the things which it signifies, and in this Sense [Page 35] it is the Type, the Symbole, or Figure of the Body and Blood of Je­sus Christ; and that is to be seen in the Affairs of the World; as when we say, that the Letters which are brought, wherein is con­tained the Pardon which the King gives to a Criminal, are the King's Pardon.

Theodoret, Dial. 2. saith, That the mystical Signs after Consecration do not depart from their Nature, but they abide still in their former Sub­stance, Figure, and Form, and may be both seen and felt as before. And, Dial. 1. he saith, That Jesus Christ has honoured the visible Symbols with the Name of his Body and Blood, not in changing their Nature, but in ad­ding Grace to it.

The Pope Gelasius, in lib. de duab. nat. advers. nest. & Eutich. saith, That the substance or nature of Bread doth not cease, and verily there is the Image and Similitude of the Body and Blood of Christ celebrated in the [Page 36] action of the Mysteries of the Body of Christ.

Baronius, An. 648. N. 15. and 869. N. 3. saith, That Theodorus, Bishop of Rome, for the Condem­nation of Pyrrhus; and that the Council held at Constantinople for the Condemnation of Photius, took the Consecrated Cup, and poured Ink into it, and having dipp'd their Pens into these two mixt Liquors, they subscribed the depositions of these Men. If they had believ'd that the Consecrated Wine was the Blood of Jesus Christ, as now the Church of Rome believes, is it cre­dible that they would have mixt Ink with it, and dipp'd their Pens with it? No, it is not to be belie­ved; for the Church of Rome would not do so now, but would believe they should commit an hor­rible Sacrilege.

Moreover, if the holy Fathers had believed Transubstantiation, that is, the conversion of Bread [Page 37] and Wine into the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, they would not have failed to instruct us, that a Body is under a point; that it has Accidents without any Subject, and that it is after the manner of a Spirit. They would have taught us what nourishes our Bo­dies in receiving of this Sacrament, and from whence come the worms which are ingendred in the Bread. They would have told us what kind of action it is, which makes Christ Exist under the Species of Bread and Wine; whether it was a Reproduction, or Adduction, or U­bification. I say, they would have taught us all these things, since the Church of Rome gives now a par­ticular instruction in it. Now, since they were as Learned as the present Doctors of the Church of Rome are at this time; and since they said nothing of it, it is a certain sign that this Doctrin was contrary to their Opinion.

[Page 38] And for the confirmation of what I say is, that when the Fa­thers disputed against Idolaters, they confuted them with these words, Why do you adore what your Hands have made, and which has neither Speech nor Motion, but is subject to Fire, and to Corruption, and to be stolen away by Thieves? This was the Argument they made use of to prove that they were Ido­laters. If at that time they had believed Transubstantiation, the Ido­laters would not have failed to re­tort their Argument; and since we find they have not retorted it, it is a certain sign that this Do­ctrin was contrary to the holy Fa­thers.

The Origine of Transubstantia­tion was a Dream of Paschasius, a Monk of Corbis; and Innocent the Third, in the Year of our Lord 1215. set it up amongst the Arti­cles of Faith, in the Council of Latran. So many years were past [Page 39] before Transubstantiation was na­med. Then the Pope set it on foot, and so it came out from Rome; and for want of the holy Scripture, of Reason, and holy Fathers to main­tain it, they have since defended, and do still defend it at this day with Sword and Fire.

It is then manifest, that the Bread Consecrated by the Popish Priests is not really changed into the Body of Jesus Christ; and therefore that the Church of Rome is Idolater; since in Worshiping a bit of Bread baked upon the Fire, in Praying to it, in carrying it in Procession, in shewing it to the People in their Mass, in offering Frankincense unto it, in bowing before it at the Ringing of a small Bell or Cymbal, as the People did before the Image of Nebuchadnez­zar, and taking it for their God; She Worships the Creature for the Creator.

[Page 40] Object. We believe that what we do Worship is God, and that therefore hinders us from being I­dolaters.

I Answer, If this Reason were good and sufficient, the Heathens, which did Worship Jupiter, had not been Idolaters; because they believed him to be the true God. And yet the Church of Rome main­tains, that all those who did Wor­ship Jupiter, were Idolaters. It is then true, that to Worship as a God, that which is not God, tho' it be taken for a God, is a gross and flat Idolatry; and therefore that the Church of Rome is Idolater, be­cause she Worships for her God a bit of Bread, which is not God, al­though she believe, and take it for her God.

2dly, I say that she is Idolater, because she makes graven Images of the Godhead, and bows before them; and because she kneels down before those of Saints, prays to [Page 41] them, kisses and serves them, offers Frankincense unto them, Crowns them with Flowers, Cloaths them with Fine Garments, and Or­ders, as it may be seen in the II. Council of Nice; that they shall not only be placed in Churches, Chappels, and Oratories, where the Divine Majesty is Worshiped, but shall be also Honoured and Worshiped.

Which is directly contrary to these words of Samuel, Prepare your hearts to the Lord, and serve him only; and to those of Christ in St. Matthew, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve; as also to those of God, in the XX Chapter of Exodus, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven Image, nor any likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above, or that is in Earth beneath, or that is in the Wa­ters under the Earth. Thou shalt not bow down thy self to them, nor serve them.

[Page 42] Objection, This forbidding, say they, is against Idols, and not a­gainst Images; and when we bow to them and serve them, we do not render them a Worship of [...], but of [...] only.

First, I Answer, That these words, Nor any likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above, &c. signi­fie the one and the other, I mean both Idols and Images. Secondly, I say, that besides this distinction of a Worship of [...] and [...] is new, and not found in the holy Scripture, the Roman Church, ac­cording to her own Confession, and the Doctrin of her Angelick Doctor Thomas Aquinas, Worships the Cross with a Worship of [...]. This Truth is especially seen upon Good Friday, at which time ye may see, that not only the Monks, Priests, Bishops, Cardi­nals, and the Pope himself bow and kneel down before it, and kiss it, all Singing, Ecce lignum Crucis venite [Page 43] adoremus; but that all the com­mon People imitate them also, and even that Princes and Kings lay down before it their Crowns and Scepters. They confess also that they do Worship the Images of God the Father with a Worship of La­tria, and likewise those of the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Objection, This Worship, say they, that they do render to the Cross and Images of the Godhead and Saints, is Relative; it is not related to the Cross and Images, but to God and Saints; and that is the reason, say they, why they are not Idolaters.

I Answer, That these words of Samuel, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord, and serve him only; and that those of Jesus Christ in St. Matthew, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, do quite destroy all these distinctions of the Church of Rome concerning the Relative Worship of Latria and [Page 44] Dulia. For, that it is a flat Idola­try to Worship God in any Image, I evidently shew it by the Children of Israel, when they made the golden Calf to be a Representation of God, Exod. 32. For the Text shews that it was a flat Idolatry, for which many of them were Plagu'd and Punish'd. And yet their Worship was Relative; for their meaning was to Worship the true God in the Calf; for they were not so simple as to think or believe that that dead Idol or I­mage was God. The Idolatry then of the Church of Rome, by Wor­shiping the Cross, and the Images of the Godhead, and by bowing down before the Images of Saints, Martyrs, Apostles, and kissing them, and imploring their assistance, and offering Frankincense unto them, is as gross and wicked as theirs was.

The Origine of the Worshiping mages, proceeds from Irenea, Em­press [Page 45] of Constantinople, about the year 790. She called a Council at Nice, wherein by Intreagues and Threatnings, she did so prevail, that it was concluded we ought to Worship Images, notwithstanding the Oppositions that were then made in all Parts. For the Empe­ror Carolus Magnus, did at the same time call a Council at Francfort, wherein that of Nice was Con­demn'd, and the Decree of Wor­shiping Images made void. But because they remained still in Churches, this Superstition of Worshiping them, to which the Ignorant People was always in­clin'd, got at last the uppermost.

It is then true, as I have clearly made it appear, that the Church of Rome is Idolater.

Thirdly, I shew that she is Here­tick; for all those that are obsti­nate in their Errors, are Hereticks.

The Church of Rome is obstinate in her Errors; therefore she is He­retick.

[Page 46] The Major Proposition is true, and all Divines are of that Opinion. As for the Minor, which is in que­stion, I prove it thus.

All those, that refuse to obey the Holy Scripture in several Points of Faith and Practice, are obstinate in their Errors.

The Roman Church refuses to o­bey the Holy Scripture in several Articles of Faith and Practice.

Therefore she is obstinate in her Errors.

The Major Proposition is true al­so, and it is the consent of all Di­vines. As for the Minor, behold as I prove it.

All those, that do add to the Ho­ly Scripture, and diminish from it several Articles, both of Faith and Practice, refuse to obey the Holy Scripture; for Deut. 4. 2. It is commanded us neither to add to the Word of God, nor to diminish from it. And St. Paul, 1 Cor. 4. 6. Forbids to think above that which is Written.

[Page 47] But the Church of Rome adds to the Word of God, and diminishes from it several Articles both of Faith and Practice.

Therefore she refuses to obey the Word of God; therefore she is ob­stinate in her Errors; therefore she is Heretick.

That the Church of Rome does add to the Word of God, and di­minish from it several Articles, both of Faith and Practice, is that I shall endeavour to shew evidently.

1. I say that she adds to the Word of God several Articles of Faith, which she obliges to believe under the Pain of Damnation. For though it be manifested in several places of the Holy Scripture, that Jesus Christ is our Saviour, Redee­mer and Mediator; that there is no Salvation in any other, and that there is no other name under Heaven, whereby we must be saved, Acts 4. 12. That we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the Righte­ous, and that he is the Propitiation [Page 48] for our Sins, 1 John 2. 1. And that there is one God, and one Mediator between God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus, Tim. 2. 5. Neverthe­less those of the Church of Rome call the blessed Virgin the She-Re­deemer of the World, as it may be seen in Bellarmin. c. 4. of Indulgen­ces. And in the Litanies and Hymns Composed in her Honour, they call her the Queen of Heaven, Mother of God, and their Hope, and give her such Titles as belong to God only. They implore the help of Saints, they put their Trust and Confidence in them, and take them for their Advocates and Mediators; as we may see in several Prayers, wherein they speak thus. O great Saint, in whom I put my Trust and Confidence, Pray for me miserable Sinner, &c. And though Jesus Christ, Teaching his Disciples how they ought to Pray, bid them to call upon his Father, and say, Our Father which art in Heaven. And although the Almighty spake thus [Page 49] by his Prophet, Isaiah 45. 21. There is no God else beside me, a Just God and a Saviour, there is none beside me. Yet those of the Church of Rome will have us to implore the help of Saints, to trust in them, and take them for our Advocates and Mediators; as it is declared in the Council of Trent. Sess. 25. It is then evident, that this Doctrine being not found in the Holy Scrip­ture, they add to the Word of God, and think above that which is Written.

Object. We Pray, say they, and beg the Favour of the Saints, as we pray a Friend at Court to Re­quest a Kindness from His Majesty; I Answer, they ought not to do so, for it is Written, We have an Ad­vocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous. And we do not read that any other is our Advocate. If the King's Son should say, when ye will ask my Father any Favour, [Page 50] come ye unto me, and not unto a­nother; if after this Declaration, some body should go unto another, he should be very Imprudent. Je­sus Christ, Matth. 11. 28. Speaks thus, Come unto me all ye that la­bour, and are heavy laden; and I will give you rest. We must not have then another Advocate beside him. By him, saith St. Paul, we have an access to the Father, and we do not read that we have it also by the blessed Virgin, or by St. Peter, St. Anthony, or any other Saint.

St. Chrysostome, Hom. 2. de Ca­nanea, speaking of this Woman, who, though she were a Sinner, was bold to come unto Christ, saith thus, Behold the Wisdom of this Woman, she doth not Pray to James, she doth not beseech John, she goes not to Peter, she looks not to the com­pany of the Apostles, neither request any of them; but for all this she takes Repentance for her Companion, and goes to the very Fountain it self.

[Page 51] St. Ambrose, in Rom. c. 1. speaks thus, They are wont to use a pitiful Excuse, saying, that by the Saints they may have access unto God, as by the Earls there is Access to Kings; by Officers and Earls, Access is made to the King, because the King himself is a Man; but to come to God, from whom nothing is hid, there is no need of a Spokesman, but a devout Mind; for wheresoever such a one speaks to him, he will answer him.

The Souls of Men, say Tertullian and St. Austin, do not take care of the Affairs of the Living: The Saints are not our Mediators, we do praise the Martyrs, because they fought for the Truth, but we do not Worship them. For what end then are these Solemnities? That by them we may thank God for their Victories, and en­courage others to imitate them, and be partakers of their Palms and Crowns. But, that we may obtain them, shall we implore the Assistance [Page 52] of the Saints? No, but we shall im­plore the help of that true God, who made them Martyrs. de cura pro mortuis, c. 13. & cont. Parm. l. 2. c. 8. de Civit. l. 8. c. 27.

Hereunto I may add that which is written in Ecclesiastes 9. 5. That the dead knew not any thing, neither have any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the Sun.

Wherefore I may say that the Church of Rome intreats in vain the help of the Saints; for God a­lone does know our Thoughts. And the most Learned Doctors of that Communion cannot say how they may hear the Prayers of Men; for they confess it is not a Property of their Happiness; and some say they see only the things which be­long to them; some say that God discovers to them the Prayers of Men; some say they see in the Face of God, as in a Looking-glass, all things here below. Some assure that the Faithful which are upon [Page 53] Earth, give notice of their Desires and Minds to to the Saints, as the Angels do Communicate their Thoughts one with another. To make it short, the Roman Church is so uncertain concerning the Saints, that oftentimes she Wor­ships and Prays to them, that are now burning in an everlasting Fire.

The Origine of the Intercession of the Saints, proceeds from those publick Penitents; which for their Crimes, were Condemned to be separated from the Church for some years. For Martyrdom being in a great Honour amongst Christi­ans, and the Church having a par­ticular esteem for those that were Prisoners for the Gospel, the pub­lick Penitents did Write to these Martyrs, that they would be so kind as to Intercede for them to­wards the Church, that they might be admitted in her Com­munion, before the time of their [Page 54] Penance were expired. Such was the Intercession of Saints at that time, they knew then no other in the second Age, as it may be seen in St. Cyprian.

Secondly, I say that the Church of Rome adds to the Word of God, when she teaches, and will have us to believe that there is a Purga­tory, wherein the Souls of the Faithful departing this Life are Afflicted and Tormented; some for a short time, some for a hun­dred years, some for a thousand and upwards, and others to the end of the World. For this Doctrine is not found in the Holy Scripture, but it is quite contrary to it; as it appears by these Words of the 14th Chapter of the Revelations, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, from henceforth, yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours, and their works do fol­low them. As also by those of the Book of Wisdom, Canonized by the [Page 55] general Council of Trent, wherein it is written, that the Souls of the Righteous are in the hands of God, and there shall no torment touch them. This appears also by St. Paul, when he saith in his Epistle to the Ro­mans, that there is now no Condem­nation to them that are in Christ Je­sus.

Nevertheless Pope Pius the Fourth finding Purgatory very ad­vantageous to his Kitchin, speaks thus, I certainly believe that there is a Purgatory, and that the Souls de­tained therein are relieved by the Prayers of the Faithful. And the Council of Trent, Sess. 25. gives Order to all Bishops, to take care that the sound Doctrine of Purgatory, which was delivered to us by the holy Fathers and sacred Councils be Believed, and Taught, and Preached every where. And though Mr. Amelot, who was a Papist, and translated into French the History of the Council of Trent, does confess that Purgatory can­not [Page 56] be prov'd; and though the Church of Rome cannot declare, whether this Purgatory be in the Air, or in the Earth, or in the place wherein Sins are committed; yet she saith, that the Pope with an Indulgence laid unto a Bead, or Cross, or Medal; or with a Mass Celebrated upon certain days of the Week, gives Power to deliver from this Purgatory whom he pleases, and when he thinks it fit.

I say then in the first place, since this Doctrine is not found in the holy Scripture, the Roman Church addeth to the Word of God, and thinks above that which is written. 2ly, I shew she does destroy her self, when she will have us to believe under the Pain of Damnation, that there is a Purgatory. For, if there be a Purgatory, either it is to purge Sins, or to purge the Pain due un­to them. It is not for the former, because the Roman Church believes, that Jesus Christ did by himself [Page 57] purge all our sins, according to these words of St. John, His Blood cleanses us from all sins; and because they are to be purged before we be separa­ted from this World, it is then for the purgation of the Pain; but the Pain is punished and not purged; for a Gallows is not for the purga­tion of a Murder, but for the pu­nishment of it. Therefore, since Purgatory, according to the Pa­pists, is only for the Pain due to sins, they destroy themselves when they call it Purgatory. It has no warrant in the holy Scripture, for Jesus Christ shews but two places, Heaven and Hell, when he saith, that the Rich Man's Soul, which was unmerciful to Lazarus, went after his Death into Hell, and there was tormented; and that Laza­rus's Soul, he being Dead, was carried into Abraham's Bosome, a place of Joy and Comfort. To the Thief which was Executed with Christ at his Passion, and [Page 58] believed in him, Jesus Christ answered, This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise: Which shews that the Souls of the Faithful never come into Purgatory-fire, to be burnt and tormented; for all their Sins are forgiven, and consequent­ly the Punish ment incident to the same is forgiven also; and their Souls pass from Death to Life, that is, they go to Heaven. Blessed are the dead that dye in the Lord, from henceforth they rest from their labors, and their works follow them. If from the time of their Death they have Blessedness, and Rest, then they are not in any Purgatory-fire to be burnt and tormented. The first place, saith St. Austin, Hyp. L. 5. the Faith of the Catholicks, doth by divine Authority believe, is the Kingdom of Heaven; the second is Hell; a third place we are utterly ignorant of, neither can we find such a one in the holy Scriptures. And in his En­chiridion ad Laur. c. 67. He saith, [Page 59] That those that believe a Purgatory­fire, are much deceived, and that through a humane Conceit. Know ye, saith he, de van. secul. 1. c. That when the Soul is separated from its Body, she is immediately placed in Paradise for her good Works, or cast into Hell because of her Sins.

Object. The Primitive Church, say they, did pray for the Dead, as Tertullian de Corona Mi­litis doth confess: Therefore it is a good proof that she believed a Purgatory.

I Answer, That when the Pri­mitive Church did pray for the Dead, she did not believe they were in any place of Torments, nor that there was a Purgatory: She only believed, that the Souls of the Faithful should only enjoy the sight of God after the day of Resurrecti­on. She prayed then for the filling up of their Glory; she prayed to be joyned with them, and be parta­kers of the Resurrection of the [Page 60] Faithful. She prayed that Jesus Christ would hasten their Resurre­ction; and she prayed also for the Patriarchs, the Prophets, the A­postles and Martyrs, that God would be pleased to increase their Glory; but she did not implore their assistance, nor believe a Pur­gatory, as it is related by Justin Martyr, 9. 60. and 76. Iren. L. 5. Tertul. Cont. Marc. L. 4. c▪ 13.

The Origine of Purgatory is Virgil in the sixth Book of his E­neids, wherein he saith, that the Souls, before they enjoy Blessed­ness, are differently purged in dif­ferent places, as you may see in these following Verses.

[Page 61] Thirdly, I shew that the Church of Rome adds to the Word of God, when she teaches, that the gene­ral Councils and Popes are Infalli­ble; that the latter have Authori­ty or Pre-eminence over all other Bishops; that they have power to Depose Kings and Princes from their Thrones, and are above them; for this Doctrine is not found in the holy Scriptures.

1. I say that their general Coun­cils and Popes are not Infallible; for St. Austin, Tom. 6. l. 2. cont. Donat. plainly teaches that God a­lone and the holy Scriptures are In­fallible or cannot Err. The gene­ral Councils, saith he, which are ga­thered of all the Christian World, are often corrected, the former by the lat­ter, when by any tryal of things, that is opened which was shut, and that is known which was hidden. If a general Council may be corrected, as saith St. Austin, therefore it may err: Wherefore he speaks thus to Maxi­mian [Page 62] Bishop of the Arians; Neither ought I to alledge the Council of Nice, nor thou the Council of Arimini to take advantage thereby; for neither am I bound nor held by the Authority of this, nor thou of that. Set Mat­ter with Matter, Cause with Cause, or Reason with Reason; try the Mat­ter by the Authority of the Scriptures, l. 3. c. 4.

The Council of Constantinople condemned the setting up Images in the Churches; and the Coun­cil of Nice, Act. 4. ordered after­wards they should be set up. One of these Councils, being contrary to the other, must needs be Erro­neous. And that is granted by it self, when in a set Form of Prayer, which is appointed to be said after the conclusion of every Council, they pray, that God would spare their Ignorance and pardon their Errors. de ord. celeb. conc.

The Pope himself may Err; for Pope Innocentius doth teach, lib. ad [Page 63] Bonif. cont. Epist. Pelag. c. 4. That young Children cannot be saved, ex­cept they receive the Baptism of Christ, and also the Communion of his Body and Blood. And Pope Ge­lasius, Comperimus Consecra. de distinct. 2. did decree, That all they should be Excommunicated, which would receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper but in one kind. But this Doctrine is now taxed for an Error by all Papists; and the Coun­cil of Trent, Sess. 21. Can 1. made a Decree contrary to the Doctrine of the Pope Gelasius. If any body, saith this Council, assures that all and every Faithful are obliged by God's Commandment to receive one and the other species in the holy Sa­crament of the Lord's Supper, let him be Anathema. Therefore it is evident that the Popes may Err: And this may be seen in their own Decrees, wherein it is written, That they are to be judged of none, ex­cept they be found erring from the [Page 64] Faith, part. 1. cap. dist. 40. cap. si Papa. Whereby it appears that they thought their Popes might Err in matter of Faith, or else that ex­ception was put in vain. For all Men are subject to Error; all Men are worse in their Words, and Sin­ners in their Works. There is none True and Infallible but God, and his holy Scriptures, because they are inspired of him. He is the God of Truth, he cannot Lie, Tit. 1▪ 2.

2. I say that the Popes have no Authority or Pre-eminence over the other Bishops, though those of the Church of Rome stifly holding the contrary, give them the Title of Universal Bishops, and call them Gods on Earth, Kings of Kings, and Lords of Lords, as saith Albanus, de potest. pap. part. 1. n. 22. And Antonius, part. 3. n. 22. And upon the Triumphant Arch, Erected in the honour of Sixte the Fourth it was written,

But this Doctrine being not found in the holy Scriptures, it is conse­quently manifest they do add to the Word of God.

Objection, The Popes, say they, have Authority or Pre-eminence over all other Bishops, because they are Successors to St. Peter; and St. Peter had such a Pre-eminence and Authority over the rest of the Apo­stles; because Jesus Christ told him, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church.

I grant that Christ said to Peter, after he had confessed him to be that Christ, and the Son of the Li­ving God, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. But these words give no Superiority to St. Peter above the other Apostles; only they shew, that the Church is builded, not upon the Person of [Page 66] Peter, but upon the Rock, name­ly upon Christ, whom St. Peter confesses to be the Son of the Living God. For, as saith St. Paul, 1. Cor. 3. 11. That Rock was Christ, and o­ther foundation can no man lay but that which is laid already, namely, Jesus Christ. And in the second Chapter to the Ephesians, he saith, That the Church is built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apo­stles, Jesus Christ himself being the head stone in the corner. Where then can they find that St. Peter was made Prince of the Apostles, and had Pre-eminence or Autho­rity over them? They say it is, when Jesus Christ gave unto Peter the Keys of Binding and Loosing.

I answer, that Christ therein gave no more Authority to St. Pe­ter than to the rest of the Apostles; for he doth not say, I give unto Thee, but I will give unto Thee; which Promise was afterwards per­form'd; and when it was per­form'd, [Page 67] the Keys, or the Power of Binding and Loosing was given not only to St. Peter, but also unto all the rest together, Go ye, saith Jesus Christ, Matth. 28. 19. unto all na­tions, Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to ob­serve all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And in the twen­tieth Chapter of St. John, he speaks thus, Receive ye the holy Ghost, what­soever sins ye remit, they are remit­ted unto them; and whatsoever sins ye retain, they are retained. By these words ye may clearly see, that Jesus Christ speaks unto all the A­postles, and not to Peter only. And so it is evident that St. Peter re­ceives no more Power than the rest of the Apostles.

I grant that St. Peter may be called the first of the Apostles in the way of reckoning; or as it is commonly seen amongst Men, who though they be equal, do notwith­standing [Page 68] determine one amongst themselves, to whom, without being greater than the others, leave is given to speak first. St. Matthew 10. 2. did mean nothing else, when he said, Now the names of the twelve Apostles are these, the first Simon, who is called Peter. He doth not distinguish him from the others but by the order of coun­ting. If he be then the first of the Apostles, it is only by the way of reckoning: For the Scripture tells us, Ephes. 2. 20. That the Church is no less builded upon the others than upon him; when she saith that the Faithful are builded upon the Foundation of the Pro­phets and Apostles, and that there is no other Foundation, nor other Head-stone to prop the Church but Jesus Christ, on whom the whole Edification is laid. He is the chief and principal Foundation, all the others are only subalterne and dependent. It is then impos­sible [Page 69] that St. Peter be the Founda­tion of the Church more than are the other Apostles, and consequent­ly have more Authority. For, as I have already made it appear, Je­sus Christ spake to all his Disciples gathered together, when he said, Matth. 18. 18. Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth, shall be bound in Hea­ven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. He sends them all as his Father had sent him: He equally makes them his Ambassadors, and gives no more Power or Authority to one than to the other.

Where was Peter's Supremacy or Authority, when St. Paul, Gal. 2. 11. withstood him to the Face, be­cause he was to be blamed? And where was Peter's Pre-eminence, when in the Council held at Hie­rusalem, where the Apostles were present, St. James, and not St. Pe­ter did Rule in the Action? And when there was a dispute among [Page 70] the Apostles, which of them should be accounted the greatest, Luke 22. 25. Jesus Christ said unto them, The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them, and they that exercise authority upon them are cal­led Benefactors; but ye shall not be so; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. If the greatest ought to be as the younger, and he that is chief as he that doth serve, what Authority has he over the rest? Since then the Pope's Authority over the o­ther Bishops is grounded by the Church of Rome upon St. Peter's Authority over the other Apostles; and since St. Peter has no such Au­thority over them, it follows that the Popes have none over the other Bishops.

This is confirmed by the Popes themselves: For John Bishop of Constantinople aiming to be the first and have the Title of Univer­sal [Page 71] Bishop, Gregorius Bishop of Rome withstood him; and in his 54th. Epistle to the Empress speaks thus of him. By this Pride and Vanity, what is foretold but that the time of Antichrist is at hand, and art like Lucifer, who making no account of that Happiness he had in common with the whole Army of Angels, a­spired to a singularity over all the o­thers, saying, as it is written in Isaiah, I will raise my Throne above the stars of Heaven. And in 28 Epistle he affirms, That whosoever takes the Title of Universal Bishop to himself, he cannot be less than Antichrist. And St. Hierome ad Evag. saith, That the Bishop of Eugubium, or any other the least See, is equal to the Bi­shop of Rome. For they are all joyned in the same Commission; they must serve in the Church, and be diligent to discharge that great Charge, which their Master Jesus Christ has eaqually laid upon them.

[Page 72] 3. I say that the Popes have no Power to Depose Kings and Prin­ces from their Thrones, and are not above them. For the pulling down of Princes God has reserved to himself alone that Power; for it is he that putteth down the Mighty from their Seats, and Exalteth them of low Degree. By me, saith he, the Kings Reign, and Princes bear Do­minion. He removes Kings, and setteth up Kings, wherefore, since it is God that has this Authority proper to himself, which way can the Popes claim it, without Inju­ry to the Power of God, and to that of Kings, whereunto they ought to be submitted.

They say, it is by reason of their Keys, as it appears in the Bull of Excommunication, which the Pope Sixte the fifth thundered in the year 1585, against Henry King of Navarre, and the Prince of Con­de, wherein he saith. That the Au­thority given to St. Peter and his Suc­cessors, [Page 73] by the infinite Power of God, is above all Powers upon Earth, that it belongs to that Authority to cause the Laws to be observ'd, and punish the Offenders, by pulling them down from their Seats, how Powerful soever they be.

This is the Origine and the Ground of the Popes Authority o­ver all Men, and of Deposing Kings and Princes from their Thrones. But they are deceived; for they ought to remember, that the Keys given, were the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and conse­quently by this Authority of the Keys, he cannot meddle with Ter­restrial Kingdoms, to shut out those that are in them. And they ought also to remember, that he has no more Authority by the Power of his Keys, or of Binding and Loo­sing, than any other Bishop; for the Keys were given to all the rest of the Apostles, as well as to St. Peter. For Christ speaks thus Re­ceive [Page 74] ye the Holy Ghost, whosoever Sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosoever Sins ye retain, they are retained. It is then mani­fest, that it is contrary to the Will of Jesus Christ, that any Minister of the Gospel should claim Autho­rity above another; for they are all indifferently joyned in one Com­mission, and consequently have all equal Authority. And therefore the Pope has no more Authority by the Vertue of his Keys than any other Bishop, that is to say, none at all to Depose Kings and Princes from their Thrones. His Duty is rather to obey them, and teach the same Obedience to others, as the Apostles of Christ did. For in the first Epistle of St. Peter, 2. 13. It is Written thus, Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Men for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the King, as Supreme. And St. Paul to the Romans, 3. 1. saith; Let every Soul be Subject to the higher Powers. And [Page 75] Jesus Christ himself said, that his Kingdom was not of this World. He refused to be made a King, he pay­ed Tribute to Caesar, and com­manded others to do the same. If then Christ were Subject to Caesar, is it not a great shame to the Pope to exalt himself above Caesar, I mean above Kings.

Some Papists do Answer, that he got this Sovereign Authority by Donation from the Emperor Con­stantine; but let it be granted, that some Christian Emperor was so foolish, as to give his Empire, (which is neither likely nor credi­ble) yet I say it was not Lawful for him to take it, if he will be a true Minister of the Gospel, or lawful Successor of the Apostles. For Christ has expresly forbidden his Apostles, and in them all the Mi­nisters of the Gospel, all such Do­minions, when he told them, Matth. 20. 26. Ye know that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise Do­minion [Page 76] over them, but it shall not be so among you. Which words being prohibitory shew that they must not Reign like Kings of Nations, but must serve in the Church, and be diligent in the great Charge that Jesus Christ has laid upon them.

It is then evident by what I have said here before, that the Pope has no Authority over Kings and Prin­ces, and is not above them. This may be seen by these Words of Ter­tullian, in Apolog. We Honour, saith he, the Emperor as the next Man to God, and Inferior to god only. And in another place, he saith, that the King i [...] the second to God, the first next after God, and before and over all Men.

Optatus Cont. Parmen. l. 13. saith, that there is none above the Emperor but God only, which made the Emperor. And St. Chrysostome, ad Pop. Anthio. hom. 2. saith, He has no equal on Earth. And Gregory [Page 77] Bishop of Rome, himself affirms, that Power is given to Princes from Heaven, not only over Souldiers, but Priests also. Which is confirmed by St. Peter, when he saith in his first Epistle 2. 13. Submit your selves to every Ordinance, for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the King, as Supream.

It is then evident, that the Popes are not Infallible, that they have no Authority to Depose Kings and Princes from their Thrones, and that they are not above them. And therefore that the Church of Rome does add to the Word of God, when she holds and teaches such a Doctrine.

Secondly, I say, and shall endea­vour to make it appear, that the Roman Church diminishes from the Word of God, several Points of Faith and Practice. 1. Because she Prays, Sings, and gives Thanks to God in the Church in an unknown Tongue. 2. Because she forbids [Page 78] the Reading of the Holy Scriptures to the common People. 3. Because in the Lord's Supper, she takes a­way the Cup from them and from the Clerks that are not Priests. 4. Because she forbids every one to eat Flesh in certain Time and Days, and all Priests, Monks and Nuns to Marry.

1. I say that the Roman Church diminishes from the Word of God, when she Prays, Sings, and gives thanks to God in the Church in a Tongue unknown to the common People. For St. Paul will not on­ly have us to speak in the Church with a known Tongue, but also he shews the Confusion of them that speak in an unknown Tongues. Ex­cept Pipe or Harp, saith he, 1 Cor. 14. give distinction in the sound, how shall it be known what is Piped or Harped? If the Trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the Battle? So likewise you, except ye utter by the Tongue, Words easie to [Page 79] be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? For ye shall speak into the Air. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the Voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a Barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a Barbarian unto me.

Object. St. Paul saith, the Church of Rome thereby speaketh concer­ning Sermons, and consequently doth not speak against her, because she Preaches in a known Tongue. I answer, that St. Paul speaks con­cerning Prayers, Psalms and Thanksgivings. If I Pray, saith he, in an unknown Tongue, my Spirit Prayeth, but my Understanding is Unfruitful. What is it then? I will Pray with the Spirit, and I will Pray with the Understanding also; I will Sing with the Spirit, and I will Sing with the Understanding also; else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit, [...] shall [...]e, that occupyeth the Room of the Unlearned, say Amen at thy gi­ving [Page 80] of Thanks, seeing he under­stands not what thou sayest.

And notwithstanding this Or­dinance of St. Paul, and the Con­fusion of them which go against it; as it is declared by the Compari­sons of the Pipe, Harp, and Trum­pet, the Roman Church Prays, Sings, and gives Thanks in the Church in a Tongue unknown to the common People. And though in the Primitive Church, all Pray­ers were made in the vulgar Tongue. Linguâ auditoribus non ignotâ omnia peragebantur, & con­suetudo ita ferebat, ut tota Ecclesia si­mul pssalleret. And though St. Au­stin says, Deus vult ut quod Cani­mus intelligamus & humana ratione non quasi Avium voce canamus. God will have us to understand what we Sing, and not be like Parrots, which do not understand what they say. Yet the Church of Rome doth not obey this Command­ment, [Page 81] but continue still in that Er­ror.

The Origine of this Error pro­ceeds from the Popes of Rome, who being exalted in an eminent degree of Grandeur, could not be contented until they had set up Laws, though very irregular and unreasonable; and as it is usual amongst Conque­rors, had introduced and impos'd their own Language upon those they had subdued and made their Slaves. So they have to the utter­most of their Power established their Liturgies, Ceremonies and Language in all Churches, that they might serve afterwards as a Monument of their Jurisdiction and Authority upon others.

2. I say that the Roman Church doth diminish from the Word of God, when she forbids the Read­ing of the Holy Scriptures to the common People. For this forbid­ing of hers is wholly contrary to the Commandment of Jesus Christ, [Page 82] who in the 5th chapter of St. John 39 Verse, speaks thus, Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testifie of me. And quite con­trary to this Ordinance of St. Paul, who writing both to the Bishops and all his Brethren, either Men or Women, either young or old, speaks thus in his first Epistle to the Thessalonians, 5. 27. I charge you by the Lord, that this Epistle be read unto all holy Brethren. And wri­ting to the Colossians, 4. 16. he saith, When this Epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the Church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the Epistle from Lao­dicea.

However, as if the Church of Rome were wiser than Jesus Christ, St. John, St. Paul, and all other A­postles and holy Fathers, who did so much, and so often recommend it, she forbids it to the common People, stifly affirming that it is [Page 83] dangerous, that it causes Schisms, several Sects and Heresies. For in the Council of Trent it is written, that if the Reading of the Holy Scrip­ture be permitted in a known Tongue amongst all People, it will be more hurtful than profitable.

The abuse some make of the Ho­ly Scripture, ought not generally to condemn the use of it; other­wise the best things would be ta­ken away from us, because they are sometimes misused. The use of Wine would be forbidden; be­cause many are Drunk with it, and is the cause of several Disorders. It is enough to forbid what is essen­tially bad, without forbidding that which is essentially good. Jesus Christ doth not only permit the Reading of the Holy Scripture to some particular Jews, but he en­joyns it unto all. [...]earch, saith he, the Scriptu [...]. And that he may the better [...] them, he makes them remember, That in them they [Page 84] think they have eternal Life. He seems in another place to attri­bute all their Errors to the Igno­rance of that Sacred Book, when he said to the Saducees, Matth. 22. 29. Ye do err, not knowing the Scrip­tures. Had not the Eunuch read the Prophet Isaiah, he should never have understood him. And it was by this Reading he began to be a Christian; as it may be seen in the Acts, 8. 30.

The People of Berea, as it appears in the 17th Chapter of the Acts, were highly commended that they searched the Scriptures, to see whe­ther those things were true or no, which Paul did Teach. For who­soever he be, though he were an Angel from Heaven, if he Teach Matters contrary to the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, we are to hold him accursed; as saith St. Paul, Gal. 1. 8. All Scripture, saith the same Apostle, 2 Tim. 3. 16. is gi­ven by inspiration of God, and is pro­fitable [Page 85] for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righ­teousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Nevertheless the Church of Rome doth forbid to the common People so good a Book, so useful to Piety, and so necessary to Salva­tion. Is it not then a great Cru­elty to forbid Children to see and read the Testament of their Fa­thers! Is it not an excess of rigour to deprive them of that which nourishes their Souls for an Eternal Life? And is it not an extreme Ty­ranny to hinder them from seeing that, which they are to be judged upon?

3. I say that the Church of Rome diminishes from the Word of God, when in the Lord's Supper she takes away the Cup from the com­mon People, and from the Clerks that are not Priests. For we read in St. Matthew 26. 27. that in the [Page 86] Institution of this Sacrament, Jesus Christ took the Cup, and gave it all his Disciples, saying, drink ye all of it.

Objection, When Jesus Christ said to his Disciples, Drink ye all of it, He spake to the Priests only, saith the Roman Church, and there­fore the Priests only ought to drink of the Cup.

I Answer, that St. Paul writing to the Corinthians, amongst whom were more Laics than Priests, doth evidently shew the contrary; for, speaking to every one, he saith, 1. Cor. 11. 28. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. St. Ig­natius, Bishop of Antioch, and Dis­ciple of the Apostles, in the 69th. Year of our Lord Jesus Christ, Epist. 9. ad Philadelph. saith, That one and the same Bread was broken to all, and one and the same Cup distributed to all. Justin Marty tells us, That the consecrated Bread and Wine were▪ [Page 87] in his time, distributed to every Com­municant. And St. Chrysostome, Hom. 18. upon the second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians speaks thus, There is a time, where there is no difference between Priests and th [...]se that preside over, as when we receive the holy Mysteries; for we are all equally admitted to them. It is not now as it was under the Old Te­stament, where the Priest did eat par­ticular things, and the People others; where it was not lawful to the People to eat that which the High Priest was then eating. It is not so now, for one and the same Body, and one and the same Cup is given to all.

The Pope Gelasius, in the Year 490. 2. Distinct. 2. Can. Comperi­mus, did Decree, that all they should be Excommunicated, which would receive the Lord's Supper but in one kind; and his Prede­cessor Leo did call those Sacrilegi­ous, that did refuse to take the Cup.

[Page 88] And tho' in the general Council of Constance, Sess. 13. the Roman Church do confess this holy Sacra­ment was receiv'd in the Primitive Church with the Bread and the Cup; yet in the general Council of Trent she speaks thus▪ If any man say that the Catholick Church had not just Reasons to give the Communion to the Laics, and Clerks who did not say Mass, under the accidents of Bread only, and that she Erred in this, let him be Anathema.

The Reasons, saith the Roman Church, why they took the Cup from them, are many Inconveni­encies and several Absurdities.

I Answer, that besides there is no Inconveniency, though there should be any, it ought not to be above the Commandment of Jesus Christ and St. Paul. Christ, the Primitive Church, and the Apo­stles were very Wise; and Wiser than shall ever be the Church of Rome; and since they have com­manded [Page 89] and given the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper with the Cup, the Roman Church ought to follow their example and obey them. The Inconveniencies, which they sup­pose at this day, as that the Flies may fall into the Cup, or that the Communicant's Beard may touch the Blood, were in the time of Je­sus Christ and his Apostles: Had there been any Inconveniency, Je­sus Christ and his Apostles should have certainly remedy'd it. There­fore since they have not forbidden the Cup to the common People, who did then receive the Commu­nion, the Church of Rome ought not now to forbid it.

The Origine of taking the Cup from the common People proceeds from Transubstantiation; which be­ing believed produces Concomitancy▪ and from this Concomitancy follow­ed this conclusion, that the Laics ought to be contented with the consecrated Bread, because the [Page 90] Blood of Christ was therein contai­ned as well as in the Cup.

But I have already prov'd, that there is no Transubstantiation in the Sacrament of the Lord's Sup­per: And though there were any, the Roman Church ought not to take away the Cup from the Peo­ple; because Jesus Christ, his A­postles, and the Primitive Church did not take it from them; and because St. Paul orders every one to take it, when he saith, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup.

4. I say that the Roman Church diminishes from the Word of God, when she forbids every one to Eat Flesh in certain times and days; and all Priests, Monks and Nuns to Marry: For St. Paul, writing to the Colossians 2. 16. speaks thus, Let no man judge you in meat and drink. And in his first Epistle to the Corinthians 10. 24. &c. what­soever, [Page 91] saith he, is sold in the Sham­bles, that eat, asking no question for Conscience sake. If any of them, that believe not, bid you to a Feast, and ye be disposed to go, whatsoever is set before you, eat. And writing to Timothy, he saith, That every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving.

And concerning Marriage, 1 Cor. 9. 6. he speaks thus, 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? And in the 1 to Timothy 3. 2. he saith, That a Bishop can be the hus­band of one wife. And in the 13 to the Hebrews, that Marriage is honourable to all, and the bed unde­filed, but wh [...]m [...]gers and adulte­rers God [...] judge. And in the [...] to Timothy 4. 3. he tells us, that forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats is a doctrine of Devils. And Jesus Christ himself [Page 92] honoured so much the Marriage of the Priests, that he did chuse the Son of the High Priest Zacharias to be his Fore-runner. To avoid For­nication, saith St. Paul, 1 Cor. 7. 2. Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

And notwithstanding all these Texts of the holy Scripture, the Roman Church commands, under the pain of Sin unto Death, and consequently of Damnation, to ab­stain from Flesh in certain times and days; and forbids all Bishops, Priests and Clerks to marry. And though in the Council of Nice, of which the Ecclesiastical Historian speaks thus, It pleased some Bishops to introduce a new Law in the Church; that those, who were dedicated to ho­ly Ministry, namely the Bishops, Priests, Elders and Deacons, should lie no more with their Wives. But Pa [...]hautius an Egyptian Bishop, and who had one of his Eyes pluckt out for [Page 93] the Confession of Jesus Christ, rose up, and opposed them, saying, That they ought not to impose so heavy a Yoke; because Marriage was honourable in all, and the Bed undefiled; and that this Prohibition would be hurtful to the Church, because all men had not the Gift of Continence; which did so much prevail, that the Council con­sented to his opinion, Hist. tripart. l. 2. c. 14. Yet Gregory the VII th▪ with cruel Decrees of Excommu­nication, deprived Ministers of their Wives, and forced the Clergy to the Vow of Continence. And the Council of Trent, Sess. 23. Can. 11. forbids Marriage to all Clerks that are in Orders, and to all Regulers or Monks that have made a solemn Vow of Chastity; and thundereth Anathe­ma against those that say they may marry, notwithstanding they feel they have not the Gift of Chastity. And so this Council doth not only oppose the Primitive Church, and the Apostles, but even the Law, [Page 94] which God himself has pronoun­ced. For when he said, Thou shalt not commit Adultery, thou shalt not be a Whoremonger; it is as if he should say, Thou shalt make use of Marriage, which is a proper means to avoid these two great Sins. It is an implicit Commandment of God made to all Men and Women that have not the Gift of Conti­nence, in what state and condition soever they be.

Objection, The Monks and Nuns have made a solemn Vow of perpe­tual Chasttiy; therefore they can­not marry.

I Answer that they cannot, and ought not to make such a Vow. For every Vow, to be good, ac­cording to the very Principles of the Church of Rome, ought to have two Conditions: It ought to be of a good thing, and ought to be in our Power. When the Jews made a Vow, that they would neither Eat nor Drink, till they had kill'd [Page 95] Paul; that Vow was void, and they were not obliged by it: For, had it been in their Power, yet it was of a bad thing. And when Jacob did Vow unto God, if he could return in peace into his Fa­ther's House, the Lord should be his God, and would offer unto him the Tenth part of his Goods, Gen. 28. 20. That Vow was good, be­cause it contained the two requi­red Conditions for a good Vow. It was of a good thing, and in his Power. When Monks and Nuns, at sixteen years old, Vow unto God Almighty to keep a perpetual Chasttiy, that Vow doth not bind them, because it is made of a thing which is not in their Power: For Continence is a Gift of God. He d [...]h not grant it to every body, but to whom he pleases, Matth. 19. 11. Therefore those only, that are indeed with it, are bound to keep it. Therefore when he, that has Vowed a perpetual Chastity, finds [Page 96] by experience, he is often troubl'd with the Lusts of the Flesh; and, though he has several times called upon God, they still continue to tor­ment him, it is a certain sign that God has not granted him the Gift of Continence; and therefore will have him to make use of Marriage, which is honourable amongst all, and which he has appointed as a means to keep Mankind, and as a remedy to pacifie our inordinate Passions. For, when he made Man, he speaks thus, It is not good for a man to be alone, I will give him a companion, Gen. 2. 18. He made them male and female; and for this cause, he said, that man shall forsake Father and Mother, and cleave to his wife, Matth. 19. And St. Paul saith, That, to avoid fornication e­very man ought to have his own wife, and every woman her own husband, for it is [...] to marry than burn, 1▪ Cor. 7. Formerly young Wo­men were not admitted to take [Page 97] the Nun's Vail, till they were for­ty years old, as it may be seen, Can. Sanctimoniales causa 20. 9. 1. And though St. Paul speaks thus, I will that younger women marry, bear children, guide the house: Let not a widow be taken in the number under threescore years old; but the youn­ger widows refuse, for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry, 1 Tim 5. Yet those of the Church of Rome laugh now at this Ordinance and Custome: For they shut up young Maids in Monastries, before they have any true knowledge of God, of the World, and of Themselves. So Rhea Sylvia Numitor's Daugh­ter was shut up in the Monastry of Vesta by her Uncle Amulius, who had expelled Numitor for fear she should marry, and get Chil­dren able to revenge and re-obtain her Father's Estate. They are shut up in Iron Cages, as wild Beasts, and mad Folks, for fear they should [Page 98] commit any disorder. By this Prison, wherein they are shut up; and by this Prohibition of Gregory, That all Priests and Clerks ought not to converse, nor dwell with Women, nor so much as with their Mothers, Sisters, and Kindred, lest it should happen to them, as it happened to the Son of David. It is clear that nei­ther the one nor the other have the Gift of Continence; for if they were endued with it, for what end all these Iron Cages to the Nuns, and all those strict Prohibi­tions to the Priests? And if they have not the Gift of Continence; St. Paul commands them to marry, and consequently they are not bound to keep their Vows. There­fore all Priests, Monks and Nnus, are obliged to them but upon this condition, that God has endued them with the Gift of Continence. As he, that made a Vow to be a great Philosopher, or famous Ora­tor, is not bound to the perfor­mance [Page 99] of that Vow but upon con­dition, that God gives him a suf­ficient Wit and Strength for the obtaining of these two eminent Qualities. I have the Gift of Con­tinence, therefore I make a Vow to keep a perpetual Chastity, that Consequence is good. But I pro­mise unto God a perpetual Chasti­ty, therefore he shall give me the Gift of Continence, this Conse­quence is not good. For in the Contracts we make with Men, our Promise doth not oblige us, but as it is accepted by him, to whom we make it. And when a young Man and Maid at sixteen years old, so­lemnly promise unto God a per­petual Chastity, who told them that God did accept their Promise?

Therefore, since many Monks, Nuns, and Priests, have neither the Gift of Continence, nor any assu­rance that they shall have it all the Days of their Lives; it is a Rash­ness to them to promise what is [Page 100] not in their Power. Therefore their Vow wanting the last Condition to make it good, becomes void; therefore they may, and ought to Marry. For it is better to Marry than to Burn; and Marriage is Ho­nourable in all, but the Whoremon­gers and Adulterers God will Judge.

The Origine of Monastical Life, came from several Christians, who in the time of Persecution retired into desert Places. And when Per­secution ceased, many of them re­sted there, either because they were used to that Calm, Innocent, and retired way of Life; or because they were afraid to fall again into Persecution. But this Monastical Life was quite different from that which is now seen at this day. For then they made no Vow of perpe­tual Chastity; they lived with the Labour of their Hands, and many of them were Married.

And St. Cyprian, l. 1. Epist. 9. c. 11. tells us, that the Virgins, [Page 101] who did Consecrate themselves unto God, that they might relieve the Poor, had the liberty of break­ing their Vow of perpetual Cha­stity, when they thought, they might better serve God in the State of Marriage, than in that of Vir­ginity.

Let us then conclude, since those, who contrary to Christ's Doctrine, and the Law of Nature persecute, and cause Men to die, merely because they are not of their Opinion and Religion, are Cruel and Tyrannous; since those that do Worship the Creature for the Creator, are Idolaters; and since those, that do add to the Word of God, and diminish from it seve­ral Articles both of Faith and Pra­ctice, are Hereticks.

The Roman Church, contrary to Christ's Doctrine and the Law of Nature, Persecuting and causing Men to Die, merely because they are not of her Opinion and Religi­on; [Page 96] Worshiping the Creature for the Creator; and adding to the Word of God, and diminishing from it several Articles of Faith and Practice, it doth evidently follow, that she is Tyrannous, Idolatrous and Heretick.