I Cannot forbid my self to wonder that a Book so universally esteem'd, so often reprinted, and not only reprinted in our own, but transla­ted into foreign Lan­guages, should yet lye open to so many and so plain Excepti­ons: Not one period can I find that seems to me Extraordinary; Not one Instance but has long since been often objected both with closer Reason and neater Rheto­rick: So that now by experience, as well as faith, I see 'tis true that the Scripture sayes, Eccles. 9. The Race is not to the Wise, nor the Battle to the Strong, nor favour to men [Page 2] of Skill, but Time and Chance happens to them all.

2. And are we not come to a fine passe, when not onely a dozen perhaps of the great­est and subtilest Controversies in Religion shall be crowded into a short Sermon; but exprest with such vanity and affectation of ex­otic and abstruse Phrases, as if the end of Preaching were nothing but to talk an hour of hard things in harder words? Ask the great Auditory of Lords and Ladies, that heard this Doctor (Persons of clear and inge­nuous apprehensions, who like good sense, though not delivered in Greek, who pene­trate into the connection of Things, though they have not mis-spent their lives in studying Words) Ask that Illustrious and Noble As­sembly, what they think of the [...] of the Emperor Zeno; or of the itching to be as old as the Iulian period begun before the Proto­plast. Some of them perhaps may have heard of the Palladium of the Conclave; but for the Embroidery of the Theopneust Aholiab, or the Antiquaryes Keimeliah, I believe the Ladies at least, were a little puzled on the sud­den how to understand them; yet if those pompous Sounds were translated into plain English, not one of them but would easily see the sense, without other Dictionary than their own Cabinet.

3. As for the Doctor's profession in his E­pistle Dedicatory, That his Resolution was, [Page 3] the Sermon should never have been expos'd to the World, had not his Majesty commanded it. I readily beleeve him; for a Victory is easily and very cheaply got, if a Controversie be to be decided by a flourishing Speech, confident­ly pronounc'd by a Person in esteem for Lear­ning and Sincerity, in a Place where none must contradict, especially when he protests he has Proofs unquestionable for all his As­sertions. But till those Proofs be examin'd, the Conquest is only over the Hearer's passi­ons not their reason: It may be, (and I pray God this Sermon was not meant so) a good preparation to usher in the Calvinistical zeal for executing severities on innocent Persons, who sincerely abhor the crimes deserving such Rigors, and the unchristian Principles, the Fountains of those Crimes: that is, on Per­sons against whom the Law-givers themselves have publickly professed they never intended those punishments. This kind of Iustice he may hope for from his Sermon, but a ratio­nal conviction will never be the effect of it.

4. Truly Doctor Pierce must not blame us, if we fear he had some such thoughts in his mind, when he preached this Sermon, so dif­fering from the style of Court-Sermons in the times of his Majesty of glorious memory, and of the late (as he styles him) immortal Arch­bishop. But have we since those dayes deser­ved such a change in the Tongues and Pens of any Protestants, especially the Clergy? [Page 4] By what crimes? Is it because we have ever since been ready, and are so still, unanimously to sacrifice our Blood and Fortunes for his Majesty, by which also their Church hath been maintained and setled against all the ir­reconcileable enemies both of monarchy and It? Methinks they might forgive us this fault, both for past and future: For we shall fall in­to it again, if they do not take care, by de­stroying us, to prevent it.

5. This suspition of ours is much encrea­sed, when we reflect on that bitter passage in his Epistle Dedicatory, where he sayes, I sup­pose my discourse, however innocent in it self, will yet be likely to meet with many, not only learned and subtile, but restless Enemies; men of pleasant insinuations, and very plausible snares; nay such as ar [...] apt, where they have power, to confute their Opponents with fire and faggots.

Indeed it is possible his Sermon may some­where fall into some such hands: But, unlesse he will renounce all Charity, justice and hu­manity, he must not impute particular mens actions to Catholic Religion, and, for their faults, expose us to the common hatred and violence. Let all the received Canons of the Church be searched, and if one be found that justifies the shedding of blood simply on the account of Religion, he may have some pretence for such an indefinite odious reflexi­on upon innocent suffering Christians.

[Page 5] Let all the practises of the World be ex­amined, and it will clearly appear, 'tis not Catholick Religion that's chargable with these Excesses, since in so many places both they are not, where it is; and are, where it is not.

And, though for some few of these later Ages, the Civil Magistrates of some Coun­tries have exercis'd a greater severity, then an [...]iently was us'd; Yet now even they have entertain'd a more calm and tractable Spirit, and seem to hope by other Arguments suffici­ently to secure their Religion. However, why must our England imitate the rigidest of other Nations, against whom, for that very reason, we so loudly exclaim; rather than the moderate proceedings of those, who are nearer us both in scituation, temper, and in­terest? Why thus continually be harping up­on one string that jarres, and never touch the rest that move in harmony?

6. Our late unhappy wars have made the Preacher and many others besides him Travel­lers; We appeal to their consciences and ex­perience, if they would be pleased to speak, as Persons of honour and integrity; Did they in any Catholick Countries, even ROME it self (though here much spoken a­gainst for cruelty) ever apprehend any dan­ger for their opinions, or refusal to joyn in the exercise of Catholick Religion? so they would abstain from publick scandalous af­fronts to the Church, they had freedom not [Page 6] only with all quietnesse to enjoy their con­sciences, but civilly to justifie their Doctrines. All expressions of kindnesse, tendernesse and compassion they received from their Catholick Opponents, but surely not the least hard u­sage that might imprint terrour in their minds.

7. Thus much may be permitted us to al­ledge in our own Defence upon this occasi­on gives us by the Preacher; especially, con­sidering we are the onely persons expos'd to the publick hatred and rigour, though we onely, of all the Dissenters from the Religi­on of the Kingdom, least deserve it: For; we are no Innovators, but Professors of the same Religion that made this Nation Christian. A Religion, though now too ge­nerally decryed, yet in those times confirmed by great Miracles, as even Protestants ac­knowledge: A Religion, which for almost a thousand years was onely known and pro­fessed here. When the Reformation entred, though almost all Subjects were Catholicks, yet seeing the change was introduc'd by a Supream Authority, no opposition was made to it by any other A [...]mes, but Prayers and Tears: Whatsoever Treasons have been acted by a few wretched persons, even our Princes themselves have acquitted the gene­rality of Catholicks thereof, and our Religion from allowing them. There cannot be fra­med any Formes of professing or acknowledg­ing [Page 7] due Supremacy and Allegiance to our Kings, but we are ready to subscribe them in the same sense that the most learned Protestants themselves ordinarily say they intend them. Publick atttestations of our fidelity and zeal, in serving and defending our Princes, and even the Religion of the Kingdom (al­most destroy'd by a Conspiracy of all other Dissenters) have been made in our behalf, e­ven by some, who now are most sharp against us: Yet after all this, of them who are not able to alledge any one of these excuses for themselves some are rendered in a capacity to Triumph over our Suffrings; unrepentant Traytors are among our Accusers; though it is known, the thing which most en­rages them, is our fidelity; their Inve­ctives, how false soever, are believ'd, and they hope to become popular for their at­tempts to destroy us.

1. THe Doctours Sermon, for as much as concerns us Roman Catholicks, pre­tends a double Design. First, Confidently enough to assert that the Doctrines in which we differ are on our parts meer Novelties, and that Primitive Antiquity both of Scripture and the four first General Councils stands clearly for Protestants. Secondly, In consequence to this, that not they, but the Roman Church a­lone is guilty of Schism.

2. As to the first Part he exemplyfies in these following Points of Catholick Doctrine, which he saies are Novelties, and undertakes to calculate the precise time of their Nativi­ty 1. The Supremacy of the Pope. 2. The [Page 9] infallibility of the Church. 3. Purgatory. 4. Transubstantiation. 5. The Sacrifice of the Masse. 6. Communion under one Species. 7. Worship of Images. 8. The Scriptures and publick Divine Service in an unknown Tongue. 9. Invocation of Saints. 10. The forbidding Mariage to Persons in holy Orders. 11. The allowing Divorce for other causes besides Forni­cation.

3. Then concerning the other part of his general Design about Schism, he acknow­ledges that a real Schism there is, but that the cause of it came from the Roman Church, which made erroneous Novelties, new Articles of their Creed, which errours the Reformers were oblig'd in conscience to reject, and re­ject them they did by warrantable and legal Authority: So that though they separated from the then present visible Church▪ yet they ought not to be called Schismatics, but that Church is to be esteemed Schismatical, which caused them to separate.

4. This is in grosse the substance of what in his Sermon he alledges against Her, that heretofore was this Churches Mother, and a great proportion of whose kindnesse she still enjoyes, the Roman Catholick Church. Now considering with what triumphing applauses this Sermon was heard, and with what a ge­neral greedinesse thousands of the printed Copies have been bought up, even by those that formerly have not been curiously inqui­sitive [Page 10] after Court Sermons for any good they meant the Preachers. Would not Protestants themselves in their hearts condemn Roman Catholicks, if, being confidently perswaded, (as truly for my part I am) that there is not so much as one single allegation among all his replenish'd Margins that reaches home to a concluding proof of what he pretends to, they should out of a treacherous fearfulnesse be utterly silent, as acknowledging that now they have a prostrated cause. And there­fore if it be but onely out of fear of losing their good opinion, somthing must be said by us to acquaint him with his mistakes.

5. Now in my Remarks upon this Sermon, I will follow his own order before summari­ly set down: And both in the Points of Do­ctrine and Schism I will select his Arguments, adjoining to each Point respectively▪ the Quotations or Authorities of Fathers related to in the Margins: And having done this, I will sincerely discover the grounds upon which I think I can Demonstrate, That he has neither rationally concluded any of our Catholick Doctrines to have been Novelties, nor freed his own Church from the just imputati­on of Schism.

6. And, knowing very well what candor, sincerity and charity Almighty God requires from those who undertake his cause, and the cause of his Church; I do here call Him as a witnesse upon my Soul, that my purpose is [Page 11] studiously to avoid all cavilling distorsions either of Texts of Scriptures, or the holy Fathers, and much more those falsly called pia [...] fraudes, corruptions of either: And both in my Answers and Objections, I will alledge no­thing but what I am perswaded is both per­tinent and efficacious to conclude that for which it is produced, that is, I will bring no­thing as a proof, which I for the present think can be answered.

7. I am inform'd that he in his Sermon made the like Protestation. If he did, I am very glad for his own sake, that he forbore to print, what he then spoke: because though I must not charge him with wilful sincerity, yet I believe he will find by this short Paper, that he did neglect to make use of his best judge­ment and caution, which certainly, if ever, was most requisite, in a cause so important, especially it being to be debated by one that professed to supply the place of God himself in his own House, and who spoke to no mean­er Person than the KING, God's own Vice­ [...]erent.

8. But whether the Preacher in his Ser­mon, the subject whereof was nothing but Controversies, and such as his Text neither invited, much lesse compelled [...]im to under­take, or however to debate them with such Invectives and exulcerating digressions whe­ther I say, herein he expressed that respect and duty he owed his Majesty, that is, whether [Page 12] such a distemper'd Sermon was conformable to the Injunctions touching Preaching, which his Majesty had lately commanded my Lord Archbishop to communicate to the Clergy, I leave to the Preachers own Conscience. If he resolved to transgresse those Orders so be­comming a Prince who lov'd the peace of his Kingdoms, and still feels so much by their dis­unions in Opinions: yet in reason he might have abstained from letting the Court and Kingdom see, that he had the courage to dis­obey the King to his own face: The Univer­sity- [...]ulpit, or some City Congregations, where such behaviour is in fashion, might well enough have contented him.

1. VVHat ground or motive the Preacher had to renew the vain brag of Bishop Iewel, derided by his Adver­saries, and condemned by his Brethren, it will be lesse difficult for us to imagin, than for him­self sincerely to acknowledge. However, that, both that Bishop and He are singular in this matter of challenging the concurrence of Antiquity for themselves, and imputing Novelty to the Catholic Church, we have a cloud of Witnesses among the first Reformers, both in grosse and by retayl, through all the [Page 14] particular Points by him mentioned.

2. In general let him consider what Me­lancthon writes: Melanct. in 1 Cor. 3. Presently from the beginning of the Church, the antient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning the justice of Faith, en­creased Ceremonies and devised peculiar Wor­ships. Pet. Mart. 1. devotis. p. 477. In like manner Peter Martyr affirms, That in the Church errours did beg in immedi­ately after the Apostles times: Id. ib. p. 490. And that pre­sently after their Age men began to decline from the Word of God: Id. ib. p. 476. And therefore so long as we insist upon Councils and Fathers, we shall al­wayes be conversant in the same errours. In so much as Beza had the arrogance to write thus in an Epistle: Beza Epist. T [...]eol. 1. I have said more than once, and I suppose not without reason that compa­ring the antient times of the Church, even those immediately succeeding the Apostles with ours, they had better Consciences, but lesse Knowledge: On the contrary, We have more Knowledge, but lesse Conscience. This is my Iudgement, &c. These are esteem'd as learned Writers as the Reformation had; They spent their lives in reading and examining Antiquity, and were as willing to make it speak on their sides, as the Preacher was: But as ill Consciences as they had, they were convinced and forced pub­lickly to confess that the Fathers were against them, and focus.

And in particular Opposition to his Claim of Antiquity, (like Bishop Iewels for the first six Centuries) Doctor Fulk is so far [Page 15] from concurring with him or Bishop Iewel, that he is so choleric at the suspition of such a charge, that he addresses himself to his Adversary in this civil language; Fulk in Rejoynd. to Bristow. page. 4. I An­swer, saies he, if he charge me with confessing the continuing of the Church in incorruption for six hundred years next after Christ, he lyeth in his heart.

3. One passage there is of that famous Andreas Duditius, which truly I cannot read without extream compassion and astonish­ment at the dreadful judgment of God, and it may do Doctor Pierce much good, if he sadly reflect on it. Many years he had lived in great esteem for learning and prudence, a Catholick Bishop of Petscben in Hungary, called Quinque Ecclesiae; present he was at the frame­ing the Decrees of the Council of Trent: But at last falling in love with a Maid of honour in the Queen of Hungaries Court, to marry her, he quitted both his Bishoprick and Religion. This poor man in his declining Age could not ab­stain from confessing in a Letter to Beza his unsatisfaction in his new Religion, vainly hoping some either Cordial or Opiate for his distressed Conscience, from one as deeply plunged, and by the very same motives enga­ged in the same change. I pray observe his words: Andre, Duditius in Epist. Theol. Beza. 1. [ Si veritas est, saies he, quam veteres Patres, &c.] If that be truth which the antient Fathers, by mutual consent have professed, it will entirely stand on the Papists side: For if heretofore [Page 16] any Controversies out of a beat of Disputation aros [...] between the learned among them, an end was pre­sently imposed thereto by Decrees of Councils or e­ven of the Pope alone. But what strange people have we among us? They are alwaies wandring, toss'd with every wind of Doctrine, and being hur­ried into the main Deep, they are carried some­times this way, sometimes another. If you would inform your self what their Iudgment to day is touching Religion, you may perhaps come to know it: But what it will be to morrow on the same Ar­gument, neither themselves nor you can certainly affirm: Thus Duditius. And what Cordial against this scrupulous Melancholly does Beza his good friend afford him? Take it from himself: Ibid. [ Scio speciosum esse venerandae velustatis nomen, &c.] I know the name of ve­nerable Antiquity is very specious: But whence shall we fetch the beginning of that Title, but from the Prophets and Apostles? For, as for Wri­ters that come after them, if we will take their own advice, we will believe them on no other terms but as far as they shall evidently make good what they deliver, out of the Holy Scriptures: That is in effect, have but the Christian mode­sty and humility to prefer your own sense of Scriptures before all the Fathers and Councils of Gods Church, and then nothing, they say, need to trouble you: Antiquity, venerable Antiquity will be on your side: You may con­fidently say of all your Adversaries Doctrins, From the Beginning it was not so.

[Page 17] 4. Many other Confessions of the like nature might be added: but for brevity-sake I will content my self with onely one more, and that is (as it seems to me) a secret acknow­ledgement of the Church of England in her publick Liturgy, directly contrary to the Preachers pretension and applications of his Text, by which she, after a sort, imputes Novelty to her self, and confesses the Roman to be that Church which was from the begin­ning. In the Order for Morning-prayer there are these Versicles and Responds.

V. O. Lord save the King. Common-Prayer-book.

R. And mercifully hear us when we call up­on thee.

V. Endue thy Ministers with righteousness.

R. And make thy chosen people joyfull.

V. O Lord save thy People.

R. And bless thine Inheritance.

Then follows a Versicle for Peace. Now these, as almost all the other Prayers, are ma­festly translated out of the Roman Office. But that which ought to be observed, is, That in the Roman Office there is a Versicle and Re­spond immediately following these, and going before the Versicle for Peace, which the Eng­lish Church has studiously left out; and that is this, Memento congregationis tuae Domi [...]e quam p [...]ssedis [...]i AB INITIO.

V. Be mindfull of thy Congregation (O Lord.)

R. Which thou didst possess from the begin­ning.

[Page 18] Now the ground why this special Versicle or Prayer for the Church was left out, is not so mysterious, but it may be very probably guess'd at.

The first Reformers did not love to put God in mind of that Church which was from the beginning: Or rather they were desirous the People should forget the Church which was from the beginning: They had rather no Prayers at all should be made for the Church, than for one that was from the beginning, because apparently that could not be the Re­formed Church of England, whose beginning themselves saw.

5. Notwithstanding such plain Confessi­ons of these Pillars of Reformation, yet the Do­ctor confidently stands (with a little con­traction and abatement) to Bishop Iewel's Challenge: He indeed mentions 27. Points, of which 22. are about circumstantial matters touching the Eucharist, and two more of them [ viz. 1. That Ignorance is the Mother and Cause of true Devotion and Obedi­ence. 2. And that the Lay-people (if he speaks of them in general) are forbidden to read the Word of God in their own tongue,] are Calumnies. The other are three indeed of the Preacher's points, viz. 1. Supremacy of the Pope. 2. Worship of Images. 3. Com­mon-prayers in a strange tongue, though the only fault he can find in this last, is, That the later Church hath adhered too close to An­tiquity; [Page 19] that the hath not varied in the lan­guage of her Devotions from her Predeces­sors; and, after A. D. 600. continued to say her Prayers in the same Language she did before. But then this Bishop, (as being somewhat better experienc'd in Antiquity than Doctor Pierce) had not the confidence in this his Catalogue to reckon as Novelties either the Infallability of the Church, Invo­cation of Saints, Purgatory, or Prayer for the Dead, Celibacy of the Clergy, or Sacrifice of the Mass. So much more courage had the Preacher than even Bishop Iewel himself. Well, between both, all antiquity is for them, and nothing but novelty on our side. No doubt but his admiring and believing Hea­rers assured themselves that some never-be­fore-examined Witnesses, some hitherto un­known or un-observed Records had been found out by their learned and confident Preacher, to justifie their deserted claim of Antiquity, I mean by way of aggression, and not simple defence. But when the Sermon is publish'd, nothing appears in the Text or Margins, but Assertions and Quotations an hundred times before produced, and as often silenced, ma­ny of which too (as he explains them) have no regard to the publick received Doctrin of the Catholic Church, but particular Opinions of some Catholic Divines, as much disputed against by other Catholics as by Protestants.

6. However to qualifie a little the admira­tion [Page 20] that many Protestants have of their new Champion, or Hyperaspista, as he calls it, som­thing must be said thi [...] hundred and one time to old allegations and new mistakes. And first, whereas in all points now in debate be­tween us, he so often repeats, From the Begin­ning it was not so; He did very well to fix a no­tion and conception of this word Beginning, or a distinct measure of time after which only whatever Doctrins are broached, ought in his opinion, to be esteemed Novelties; Novelties of so great importance, as to justifie a separa­tion from the external communion of all Chur­ches both Eastern and Western. And that is the time of the Apostles, and so downward, till the fourth General Council inclusively: This he has don not out of a voluntary liberality, but because an Act of Parliament obliges him, wherein it is said: That such persons, (Laicks or Ecclesiasticks) to whom Queen Elizabeth shall, Stat 1 Eliz. by Letters patents under the great Seal of England, give authority to execute any Iuris­diction spiritual, or to correct any Errors, Here­sies, Schisms, &c, shall not in any wise have au­thority to adjudge any matter or caus to be Here­sy, but only such as heretofore have been determi­ned to be Heresy by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures, or by the first four General Coun­cils, or any of them, or by any other General Council, wherein the same was declared Heres [...] by the express and plain words of the said Can [...] ­nical Scriptures, or such as hereafter shall be [Page 21] judged to be Heresy by the High Court of Par­liament with the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation.

7. By this Proviso it appears, that, though in words the Doctor is more liberal to us than the Presbyterians and other Sects, who will call all things Novelties, which they think are not in express Scripture, yet the Law would have allow'd him a greater extent, for the might have enlarg'd the time beyond the four first General Councils to any succeding Coun­cil, that (in the Opinion of Commissioners) judged Heresy by express Scripture, or to fu­ture Acts of Parliament, judging after the same manner: but we are content with, and thank him for his allowance.

8. Only he must give us leave to propound a few Questions upon this occasion; Quest. 1. As first, Does he submit only to the four first General Councils, because they had an Authority in­herent in them obliging him thereto? Or because he judged their Decisions conform­able to God's express word? If the former, then he must inform us, why only four Coun­cils have such authority, which it seems the Church lost as soon as the Fathers at Chalce­don rose? If the later, then he deludes us, and with Presbyterians, Independents, Quakers, &c. makes Scripture alone in effect th Rule of Reformation, and Protestants only the In­terpreters of that Rule: Because the Statute tyes no further to any General Council, than as [Page 22] that Council is believ'd to proceed according to express Scripture: which, whether it does or no, who must be Judge, Doctor Pierce? To answer this Question well will be a great Ma­ster-piece: I am sure his late immortal Arch­bishop found it a Task too hard for himself, as shall be seen before we part: too hard I say to resolve so, that any rational man can be satis­fied with.

9. A second Question is, Quest. 2. Whether to judge of Heresy, that is to determin authoritatively what is Heresy, and what is conformable to Scripture, be not an Act of Iurisdiction parely Spiritual and Pastoral? (though it seems to reside notwithstanding sometimes in Lay-Commissioners, but ordinarily in the Parliament) And this not being possible to be denyed, then he must be further ask'd, since by one of the 39. Articles it is affirmed, That General Councils may and have err'd, whe­ther the English judge of Heresy (be it the King, as in the days of Henry the 8th and Edw. the 6th. or the Parliament also, as in Queen Elizabeths) be infallible or no? If he acknowledge it infallible, he must resolve us, whether the Supreme Temporal Authority, with the assent of the Clergy be infalli [...]le only in England, or in other Countrys also as Hol­land, Swedland? &c. If the former, he must shew what Promises our Lord has made to England alone. If the later, then it will fol­low that that may, and certainly will be He­resy [Page 23] and contrary to Scripture in England, which England it self confesses is not Heresy beyond Sea. But if no such Authority be in­deed infallible, then it will follow, that De­cisions, made by it, do not oblige in Consci­ence: and by consequence in his Opinion there is no Spiritual Authority on earth that does so, I mean oblige, not only to non-contradiction, but to internal assent. The conse­quences of which Position he may imagin, and shal see anon.

10. A third Question is, Quest. 3. Whether since Presbyterians and Independents, and all such Reformed Churches, following the Heresy of Aerius, do directly oppose the Order of Bishops and their Iurisdiction, (that is, the whole frame of God's Church) manifestly asserted in the four first General Councils, and as is here affirmed, of Divine Right by expresse Scripture; whether, I say, they be not, accor­ding to this Rule formal Heretics, or however Schismatics; since to alter this Frame, they relinquish'd both this Church and ours? And especally for their denying the Supream Ec­clesiastical, or Spiritual Authority, to be in Temporal Governors, which yet the Statute tells us, in effect, is the fundamental Corner-stone of the English Church? If all this do not render them Heretics, or at least in the high­est degree Schismatics, what will become of this Act of Parliament, and his Primitive Rule of Reformation? If they be such, what will [Page 24] become of the English Church, which gives to Heretics and Schismatics the right-hand of Fellowship, and acknowledges them holy­Christian [...] Reformed Congregations? And on the other side, since, notwithstanding the ex­tremity of passion against Catholics, if was ne­ver yet pronounced that Roman Catholics are Heretics, nor possibly could by their own Rule and measute; how comes it to passe that we alone are punish'd with death as Heretics, and this meerly for Religion since we both of­ten have justified and still are ready to justifie our Principles of Fidelity and Peaceableness beyond all exception; which yet no other Diffenters from this Church, though real He­retics and Schismatics, either have, or I fear will do?

10. A fourth Question shall be, Quest. 4. how can the Preacher answer to God for abusing Scri­pture, and mis-applying, through the whole Sermon, his Text, to the prejudice of his Church? He pretends that our Saviour's words are to be esteem'd the Pattern, or Primitive Rule of Reformation, and con­sequently, as our Lord demonstrated Pha­rasaical Divorces to be illegal, because Ab initio non fuit sic: So the D [...]ctor pre­tends to prove the Justice and Legality of the English Reformation, because, by the like examinat [...]on, he finds that Roman Doctrins are [...] and that [...] initio non fuit sic; Therefore they, as Jewish Divorces, are [...] [Page 25] abolished, and that only to be confirmed, which God instituted from the Beginning. But he little considers that our Saviours say­ing, It was not so, signifies, It was directly con­tray to SO, as if he said, You allow Divorces, ob quamcunque causam, in manifest opposition to God's Ordinance from the Beginning, who said, Whomsoever God hath joyn'd, let no man put asunder: This is therefore a Novelty necessary to be reform'd. Now, if the Preacher would have made use of this, indeed, perfect Primive Rule of Refermation, he by his Text was obliged to have produced from the Be­ginning, that is either in Scriptures, or in the Fathers within the four first General Councils, some expresse Authorities and Decisions di­rectly contrary to Roman Doctrines, which he calls Novelties: He ought to have quoted out of Holy Scriptures, or some Councils or consent of Fathers, such sayings as these: 1. St. Peter and his Successors never bad nor ought to have any Supremacy of Iurisdiction. 2. The whole Church is a fallible Guide, not to be relyed upon against our private sence of God's Word. 3. There is no state after death in which Souls may find refreshment by the prayers of the living. 4. The body of Christ is not substanti­ally present on the Altar. 5. There is no true Christian Sacrifice 6. Both Elements are es­sential to the Sacrament. 7. All respect to Ima­ges is forbidden. 8. Invocation of Sains is un­lawful. 9. The Scriptures must be given into all [Page 26] mens hands, without any certain guide to interpret them. 10. Prayers not in a vulgar tongue, though interpreted, are abominable. 11. To forbid the use of Mariage to Priests is a Doctrine of Devils. 12. To separate Bed and Board among maried per­sons, though when, without danger of their lives, they cannot live together, is a practice condemn'd by our Lord. And after all, 13. To break the visible unity of God's Church, for Doctrines and Practises not in themselves causing Damnation, but onely said to be false, is the Duty of every good Christian. Such sayings as these had been to some purpose, they would have been perti­nent to his Text; But no such appear. On the contrary, it serves his turn to say again and again, From the Beginning it was not so: This is the burthen of his Song: If he can shew that, because this is the first time, we hear or read such a Doctrine (mentioned in any Ec­clesiastical writer) as Origen, Tertullian, &c. therefore it is a Novelty, it was never in the Church before, the saies somthing to the pur­pose.

But, let me ask him, was there no Do­ctrine at all in the Church before it was writ­ten? Or was there no Doctrine in the Church but what was written? And again, is all that's written in any Age still Extant, and come to our hands? Or do those Fa­thers, who first writ it, say, That they, or their times first introduc'd it? No: On the contrary, they expressly declaim against Inno­vations, [Page 27] Noveltie is their Prescription against all Heresies; So that for them to bring into the Church any Doctrines not heard of, or not received before, had been to profess them­selves Hereticks, and there would not have wanted other Fathers that would have con­demned such Innovations: Which yet was never done to Origen or Tertullian, &c, for a­ny Doctrines mentioned by the Preacher: Whereas for other Errors they were suffici­ently proscribed. From whence 'tis evident, that, through the whole Sermon there is a palpable misapplication of the Text, and that the Preacher has been injurious to our Savi­our, in making his just condemnation of the Pharisees, a warrant for him unjustly to con­demn his Church. Indeed, in all matters left indifferent, and no way commanded from the beginning, nor contrary to any Divine Revelation, the Church of later times may vary, as she thinks sit, either from the practice, or injunctions of the former: For example, supposing Celibacy of the Clergy, (the 7th, Point the Doctor instances in) had not been practised or mentioned from the beginning; yet, if God had not commanded the contrary, and the thing in it self be feasible (of which more anon) the Church of a later Age may lawfully enjoyn it: The Rule therefore holds only for mat­ters of Faith and Divine Revelation. In which 'tis true, That the Later times may [Page 28] not vary from the former; But yet, neither doth the Rule hold in these, as to the express terms of every Proposition that is matter of Faith, but only as to the sense and substance. It is not necessary that ab initio, God the Son should be declared in expresse terms Consub­stantial with the Father, which was first put into the Christians [...]reed by the Council of Nice: But only that that Doctrine can be shewed ab initio, which is identified in sense with this: Nor can I think the Doctor, upon second considerations, will offer to gainsay so plain a truth.

But it is now time to Examin the parti­cular P [...]ints which he charges on the Church as Novelties, and of each of which be saies as unwarrantably, as our Lord, against the Iewish Innovations said justly, From the be­ginning it was not so.

1. IN the Doctor's Catalogue of Roman No­velties, the first is, The Supremacy of the Pope: Epist. Dedica [...] ▪ Concerning which, he tells his Maje­stie, he has spoken most at large, because it is a Point wherein the honour and safety of his Domi­nions are most concern'd; And because, by Bellar­min 's Assertion, it is the chief, if not onely hirge on which does hang the whole stresse of the Papal Fabrick.

This universal Superintendency or Supremacy of Serm. pag. 10. Page 16. the Pope (saies he) hath been a visible usurpation ever since Boniface the 3d. to whom it was sold by the most execrable Phocas, the greatest Villain in the world, except Cromwel and Pontius Pilate, not out of reverence to the Pope, but in displeasure [Page 30] to Cyriacus, Patriark of Constantinople, &c.

2, In contradiction to this Usurpation, he adds, Page 17. But from the beginning it was not so. For we find in Scripture the Apostles were equally foun­dations of the wall of God's City, &c. They were all as St. Cyprian saies, Page 18. Pari consortio praediti & honoris, & potestatis: And S. Hierom is as expresse: And sure Paul, who withstood Peter to his face, was equal to him at the least. And for any one Bishop to affect over his Brethren a Supre­macy of Power and Iurisdiction is a most impudent opposition both to the Letter and Sense of our Sa­viour's precept, Mark 10. 42, 43, 44. They that rule over the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them, &c. But so shall it not be among you, but whosoever, &c. Nay, by the Canons of the two first General Councils, Ibid. every Patriark and Bishop is appointed to be chief in his proper Diocesse, as the Bishop of Rome is the chief in his. And a strict Injunction is laid on all, the Bishop of Rome not excepted, that they presume not to meddle in any Diocesse but their own. Page 19. And the chief Pri­macies of Order were granted to Rome and Con­stantinople, not for having been the Sees of such and such an Apostle, but for being the two Sea [...]s of the two great Empires: Witnesse the famous Ca­non of the General Council of Chalcedon, &c. Nay, the immediate Predecess [...]r of Boniface the third, Ibid. Pope Gregory the Great, calls the Ti­ [...]le of Universal Bishop, a wicked, prophane, and blasphemous Title, importing that the times of [Page 31] Antichrist were at hand, &c. Further adding, That if any one Bishop were universal, there would by consequence be a failing of the universal, Church, Page 20. upon the failing of such a Bishop: Which is an Argument ad homines, not easily to be an­swer'd, whatsoever infirmity it may labour with in its self, &c. And upon that occasion he makes an excursion about the Pope's infallibi­lity, and his falling into Heresie, &c. nothing to the Point. Lastly, He concludes, that Whosoever shall read at large the many Liberties of the Gallican Church, Page 21. and the published confessions of Popish Writers for more then a thousand years together, touching the Papal Vsurpations, and Right of Kings, he will not deny that the Supre­macy of the Pope is but a prosperous Vsurpa­tion.

3. This is the substance of his Discourse upon this Point of Novelty, the Supremacy of the Pope. In answering which he must per­mit me, yet without any prejudice to the Cause, yea rather for a better clearing of it, not to bind my self to his Order: Assuring him, in the mean time, that I will not pur­posely omit any thing material, either in his Reasoning or Quotations.

1. And first in general, he must give me leave to tell him, that by the Conclusion of the foregoing Discourse, he has entirely en­ervated all that went before. For by argu­ing and asserting, That the Gallican Liberties and Popish writings against Papal Vsurpations [Page 32] do demonstrate that the Supremacy of the Pope [...] but a prosperous Vsurpation: He clearly shows that his fore-mentioned Reasons do not touch the Catholic Cause at all: He acknow­ledges those Writers to have been Roman Ca­tholics: None can deny the French Church to be a Member of the Roman Catholic Church, acknowledged for such by the Pope himself, and professing a subjection to him, as to the Supream Spiritual Pastor of God's Church: Therefore it is evident that what they deny to the Pope, is not simply his Supremacy in Spiritual matters, (which is all that will be required of Protestants) but an extending of that Supremacy beyond what they conceive the received Ecclesiastical Canons do warrant: (and this the English may as well be permit­ted to do as the French.)

4. To the end therefore he may no longer mistake this so important an Argument, I will clearly set down the Churches Doctrine concerning this matter. This Doctrine is contained in that profession of Faith com­piled by Pius 4. and extracted out of the Council of Trent. Sess. 25. I believe that the Pope is the Successor of St. Peter, and Vicar of Iesus Christ on Earth: I acknowledg the Holy Catholic, Apo­stolic and Roman Church, as the Mother and Mi­stress of all other Churches. And more largely in the Decree, with great circumspection fra­med in the Council of Florence, and subscribed by the Greeks. Concil. Floren. We do define that the Holy A­postolic [Page 33] See and Bishop of Rome does enjoy a Su­premacy through the whole world; And that the Same Bishop of Rome is the Successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, the true Vicar of Iesus Christ, the Head of the Vniversal Church; the Father and Teacher of all Christians; and that in the Person of St. Peter he hath received from our Lord Iesus Christ full power to feed, rule and go­vern the whole Church in such manner as is ex­press'd in the Acts of Oecuminical Councils and the holy Canons.

This is the Decision of the Council of Florence: The substance of the Doctrine of which Decree, (by which the Pope, as Suc­cessor of St. Peter, is acknowledg'd to have a Jurisdiction over all Christians, to be regula­ted by the Ecclesiastical Canons) is so received even in France, notwithstanding all the Gal­lican Liberties, that whoever denies it, will not be esteem'd a Catholic. See what Cardinal Palavicino writes touching the Cardinal of Lorrain and his French Bishops proceedings a­bout this Point in the Council of Trent.

5. This Jurisdiction the Preacher positive­ly denies both to the Pope and St. Peter, affir­ming It to be an impudent opposition both to the Letter and sense of our Saviours forecited precept, Page 17. Mark 10. But I heartily with Dr. Pierce would look well on this passage of the Go­spel once more, and ask his own reason, though he should not be able to exclude all the fumes of passion from it; Is Ecclesiastical [Page 34] Authority in Superiors, and Subordination of Inferiors forbidden in this Text? Will one that calls himself a Regular Son of the Church of England, by vertue of this Text pronounce the Sentence of Decapitation (ac­cording to his own pleasant expression) upon his own Church, whosoever passes for the Head of it, whether his Majesty, or my Lord of Canterbury? On the contrary, I dare pro­nounce that (not the affecting, but) lawful exercising a Supremacy of Power and Iuris­diction is so far from being an impudent oppositi­on to this Precept, that it is establish'd by it. For in this very Text expresse mention is made of some that are great, yea some that are the chiefest. And if he would have adjoyn'd the next Verse to his Quotation, he would have published to the most ignorant of his Hearers of Readers his manifest abusing this passage of Scripture: Our Saviour immedi­ately adding, Mark. 10. 45. For even the Son of man came not to be ministred unto, but to minister. Surely he will not deny, but that our Saviour had Au­thority, yea a Supremacy of Iurisdiction over the Church, and only here proposes himself as a Pattern of humility to be imitated by his Apostles and their Successors. And what were the Apostles? Church Governors without que­stion. How then are they to imitate their Supream Governor? In renouncing Superiori­ty? Did he himself do so? By no means. Hebr. 5. 5. 6. But as he did not glorifie himself to be an High [Page 35] Priest: But he that said unto him thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedech: And be­ing high Priest he did not forget his meek­nesse and humility, consistent very well with the vigour of Spiritual Jurisdiction: In like manner his Apostles, (and all that succeed him) are commanded not to affect Superiori­ty, and when they are lawfully invested with it, not to exercise it with such an arro­gant pride as Heathen Princes usually do, [...]. Conc. Eph. 1. Can. 8. they must neither [...], nor [...]; neither ambitiously seek Superiority; nor after a secular manner, 1 Pet. 5. Lord it over the Flock of Christ.

6. And now let the Doctor say where is the impudent opposition of Supremacy and Iuris­diction both to the letter and sense of our Saviours Precept? Such an Argument as this, being Magisterially and confidently pronounc'd, might for half an hour serve his present turn in the Pulpit: But I wonder he could have the confidence to expose it to examination in Print. 'Tis time we come a little closer to examine this his first great Novelty.

1. HIs main Position in his forecited Dis­course on this Argument is: ‘ That a Supremacy of Iurisdiction challenged and exercised by the Pope, as Successor of St. Pe­ter, is a visible usurpation ever since Boni­face the Third, to whom it was sold by the Ty­rant Phocas:’ that is, it began about the year 606. A. D. 606. never before that time having been ac­knowledged in God's Church. To prove this, all the foregoing Reasons and Allegati­ons are produced by him: From this usurpe [...] Authority, his English Church (forsooth) hath made a Secession, as he demurely Phrases it, and not from any Authority (if any were) exercised by former Popes, especially during [Page 37] the times of the four first General Councils. A Primacy of Order he is content to allow him, but by no means a Supremacy of Iurisdi­ction.

2. Whatsoever Authority then the Prede­cessors of Pope Boniface the Third by consent of other Churches enjoy'd, especially till the end of the fourth General Council, he must grant is no usurpation, and therefore a Le­gal rightful Authority, from which, with­out a formal Schism, they could not with­draw themselves. He will not surely say with one of their learned Bishops, That they take from the Pope his lawful Christian Authority, and give that (only) to the King, not his un­lawful and Antichristian. So that the Con­troversy between us is reduced to this precise point, ‘ Whether before Boniface the Third's time the Pope enjoyed a Supreme Iurisdiction over the Catholic Church.’ This he denies. On the contrary I here engage my self not on­ly to prove he had it, but moreover, that not the least degree or Iota of Iurisdiction will be impos'd on them to acknowledge, for enjoy­ing the Communion of the Catholic Church more than the very same that Pope Boniface 's Predecessors within the times of the four first General Councils confessedly exercised. I may adde, that the new usurped Title, (as he says) sold to him by Phocas, did not give him, nei­ther did he pretend to by it, any more au­thority than himself and his Predecessors for­merly [Page 38] enjoy'd. And this is I be able to make good, then not all the water in the Sea will be able to wash off his Churches Schism by his own confession.

3. Before I shew what Supremacy the Pre­decessor's of Boniface the Third exercised in the Church, it will be convenient to enquire into the Bargain that, He says, Boniface made with Phoca [...]; what he gain'd by it; and why his Predecessors St. Gregory the Great, and P [...]lagius refused it.

The Patriark of Constantinople, Iohn, out of an humor of lightness and vanity, proper to the Grecians, assumed the Title of [ Episcopus universalis, or O [...]cumenicus] Vniversal Bi­shop, or Bishop of the whole World: A Title that the Council of Chalcedon had in an E­pistle given to Pope Leo, but which his Suc­cessors like't not. Certain it is that Iohn in­tended little more by it, but to be a distinction of honor and preference above the other Ea­stern Patriarks: For whilst he took that title, he still acknowledg'd the Pope's Superiority, not only of place, but authority over him. But be­ing Bishop in a City, wherein the Emperor of the world resided, he thought it not unbecomming him to be called the Bishop of the world, as the Emperor was the Governor. Perhaps indeed his Successors, (if this ambition had been ei­ther approv'd, or but conn [...]v'd at by the West) would have endeavour'd to make it not a meer empty Title, but would have invaded an [Page 39] Authority, which the Title might seem to warrant. Hereupon Pope Pelagius and after him Pope Gregory the Great did vehemently resist this foolish ambition of Iohn, though the Emperor himself, to gain a dignity to his own City, favor'd it in him.

4. Now the Arguments that these two good Popes made use of against him, did not so much combate Iohns present intention (though his meer vain-glory and affectation of Novelty deserved to be repressed) as the probable consequences of such a Title, which might argue, that besides himself there were no Bishops in the Church: For if he were the Vniversal Bishop, and the whole world his Diocess, since by the Canons there can be but one Bishop in a place, it would follow that all others were only Bishops in name, and by their Character had no other office but as his Substitutes depending on his will, whereas the Apostles received their Office and Autho­rity immediately from our Lord himself: And so their Successors, the Bishops, would never acknowledge a receiving their Episcopal cha­racter and right of Iurisdiction from any but Christ himself. For, as in other Sacraments, whoever administers Baptism, whether an A­postle or an Heretic, Baptismus solius Christiest, says Saint Augustin: And again, Peter and Iohn (sayth he) pray'd that the Holy Ghost might come on those upon whom they im­posed their hands, they did not give the Holy [Page 40] Ghost (Acts 8.) They, as his Substitutes apply the outward Element, but the inward vertue of the Sacrament is administred only by our Lord himself. And as a Subject that receives [...]n Office of Iurisdiction from the King, will not esteem he derives that Authority from the Person, who presents him the Letters patents, or invests him ceremoniously in the Office, but only the King. So though a particular Bishop be ordained by a Metropolitan, a Primat, a Patriarc, or by the Pope himself, and Iuris­diction given him, they indeed are the Mini­sters of Christ to convey his Characters and Authority, they assign him the place in which he is to exercise that Authority, but the inhe­rent Authority it self Christ only gives him.

5. Upon these grounds Pope Pelagius thus argues. Pelag. 2 Epist. [ Vniversalitatis quoque nomen, &c.] Do not give heed to the name of Vni­versality that John of Constantinople hath un­lawfully usurped, &c. For none of the Patri­triarks did ever make use of so profane a Title: Because if [the Bishop of Rome] the Supreme Patriark be call'd an universal Patriark, the Title would be taken away from the rest. But God forbid this should happen, &c. It therefore John be permitted to take this Title, the honor of all Patriarks is deny'd, and probably he, who is called Vniv [...]rsal, will perish in his error, and there will not be found one Bishop in the state of Truth. The very same arguments he knows St. Gregory makes use of in several Epistles [Page 41] both to the Emperor, to Iohn himself, and o­thers, which being already produc'd by him need not be repeated. Yet for all this nei­ther Pelagius nor St. Gregory, notwithstand­ing their detesting this Title, did therefore quit their right to the Vniversal Pastorship of the Church, and their Iurisdiction over all both Bishops and Patriarks too: nay they assert it in these very Epistles, wherein they are most sharp against that Title, as shall be shew'd.

6. The reason of this, 'tis manifest, the Prea­cher does not understand: therefore let him not disdain to be inform'd. The like Or­der that is observ'd in the Church of England, he may conceive, is observed in the Catholic Church: that is, that the same person may be both a Bishop, an Archbishop, and a Primat; I will add also the Supreme head of the Church, as the Archbishop of Canterbury is among Ec­c [...]esiasticks: [For as for his Majestys Suprema­cy in Ecclesiastical affairs, it is not in this place to be treated of.] Now my Lord of Canter­bury is just like other Bishops, merely a Bishop in his Diocese of Canterbury: He is likewise a Metropolitan in his Province to visit all Bi­shops in it, but he is not a Bishop in the other Dioceses subject to him; for in them none have Episcopal right but only the respective Bishops themselves, which are not removeable by him, unlesse they incur crimes that by the Ca­nons deserve it. Lastly, he is a Primat over both Provinces, that is, the whole Nation, yet [Page 42] without prejudice to the other Metropolitan, in whose office of Visitation and Ordinations he cannot interpose; though he have a power to summon him to a National Council, &c. And in this regard he may be stiled the Vni­versal Pastor of England, and, by being so, makes the Church of England to be one Na­tional Church, which otherwise would have two Episcopal heads. Yet if any one should stile▪ him the Vniversal Bishop of England, it would not be endured, because he can exer­cise Functions properly Episcopal in no other Province or Diocese but his own. By conside­ring this well, the Doctor may more clearly apprehend how matters stand in the Catholic Church.

7. For, though this Title of Vniversal Bi­shop taken in some sense, might draw after it such ill consequences, yet being apply'd to the Supreme Pastor of God's Church, it might innocently signifie no more but such a general Superintendency, as the Scriptures allow to St. Peter, and the Canons of the Church also have acknowledged due to his Successors, and with such an innocent meaning (as this Title was used long before in the 3d. Act of the Council of Chalcedon, without any contradi­ction of the same Council to Pope Leo) Boni­face the Third did accept it from Phocas: yet having done so, it seems to me apparent that he neither exercised nor challenged the least access of Iurisdiction by it more than [Page 43] himself and his Predecessors had enjoy'd. And of this the Doctor himself shall be Judge. If he can find any proof to the con­trary, let him produce it, and I will immedi­ately recall what I have said.

'Tis true, as appears in the History of the Council of Trent, written by the Illustrious and learned Cardinal Palavicino; Card. Palav. Hist. del. Conc. de Trento. lib. 19. c. 15, 16, &c. lib. 20. c. 3. 9, &c. lib. 21. c. 4, &c. that there was in that Council an earnest and constant opposition made by the French Prelates a­gainst naming the Pope, Bishop of the Vniversal Church, who, in conclusion, absolutely gain­ed the silencing of that Title: But this hap­pened not because these denied to the Pope an Universal Superintendency over the whole Church, or over all Churches taken disjun­ctively, for this they willingly acknowledged; but they opposed this Title only as the Univer­sal Church might be taken in a collective sense, that is to say, as united in a General Council, whereby a right of Superiority over a Gene­ral Council may seem to be determin'd to the prejudice of the Decisions of the Councils of Constance and Basil, which in this matter they allowed.

1. BEing now to demonstrate (more than a Primacy of Order) a pri­macy of Iurisdiction in the Predecessors of Boniface the Third, extending it self to all Christians, all particular Prelates and Churches: yet a Supremacy not unlimited, [Page 45] (for then General Councils, would be useless) but sufficient to preserve unity in the Church: I will first, to make it appear reasonable, de­clare the ground of the necessity of it, which in brief is, as the Preacher will find by the succeeding Testimonies of the Fathers; be­cause, since General Councils (the only abso­lute Supreme Authority Ecclesiastical) either for want of agreement among Princes, or by the inconvenience of the long absence of Pre­lates, or great expences, &c. can very seldom be summon'd, it would be impossible, with­out an Ordinary, constant, standing Supreme Authority in the Church, to prevent Schisms, that is, it is impossible the Church should sub­sist.

2. For what effect against Schism can be expected from a meer Primacy of Order, a [...], a sitting at the upper end of the Table, a priviledge to speak first, or to collect Votes? Therefore for a Protestant to deny a Primacy of Iurisdiction to be necessary to con­serve unity, as in a National Church, so in the Vniversal, is to give up his own cause to the Presbyterians. For all the subtilty of human wit, without such a Concession, can never answer the arguing thus, Ius Divinum Ministr. Evang. in App [...]d. prep. 5. If ( according to the Doctrin of the Fathers) there be a nec [...]ssity of setting up one Bishop [...]ver many Fresbyters for preventing Schism: there is (say they) as great a necessity of setting up one Archbishop [...]ver many Bishops, and one Patriark over many [Page 46] Arch-Bishops, and one Pope over all; unlesse men will imagin that there is a danger of Schism only among Presbyters, and not among Bishops, Arch-bishops, &c. which is contrary to reason, truth, hi­story, and experience. But what expedient now, without such a primacy of Iurisdiction, can the Presbyterians find out against the mis­chief of Schism? Truly no other, but by re­jecting that Article of the Creed in which we professe the (certainly visible) unity of the Ca­tholic Church, that is, by believing that Schism i [...] no such ill thing, as that much care needs be used to prevent it. But surely English Protestants, not having blotted out of their Creed that Article, since they acknowledge the constituting one Bishop necessary to the unity of a Diocesse &c. will find great difficulty to shew a reason why one Governor is not as ne­cessary to the [...]nity of the whole Church, to which only both unity and Indefectibility is promised, and without which, the unity of Provinces or Dioceses are but factions.

3. Certain it is, that the antient Fathers thought so, as shall be shewed. And because new opinions arising do naturally cause de­bates and contentions, from what causes so­ever they flow, and contentions are apt to generate Schisms, since likewise Ecclesiastical Lawes are made to be observed every where, if any particular Church were Independent of the whole, there could be no remedy against Di­visions; hence it is, that the Holy Fathers do [Page 47] assert the necessity of a Supream Authority, and assign thereto these Acts. 1. Either to de­termine, or at least silence Disputes about o­pinions. 2. In those which are called majores causae, (as wrongful Depositions of Bishops, &c.) either by appeals or consultations to restore the Persons wrong'd, and punish the wrong-doers. 3. To take care that Discipline, establish'd by received canons, be e­very where observ'd. 4. To judge when there is a necessity of convening in General Councils, and thereupon to summon all Bi­shops, and, as far as the Authority of a common Spiritual Father may extend, to oblige Princes to permit their respective Bishops to meet.

4. These things thus premised, now fol­low the Proofs demonstrating, that, before Boniface the thirds time, suck like Acts of a Supream Authority were practised by his Prede­cessors, and submitted to generally in the Church. I must not write a Volume, there­fore I will select a few examples in all Ages, which will at least recompence the Doctors Anti-quotations, and when he shall require it, many, many more shall be added.

5. To proceed therefore ascendendo; A. D. 590. St. Gregory the Great, Predecessor of Boniface the third, though he would not admit an Vniver­sal Episcopacy, yet at the same time he chal­lenged and exercised an Vniversal Superinten­dency: Hence, Greg. M. lib. 2. all Indict. 11. Ep. 3. saies he, tis notorious that the See A­postolic by Divine institution is preferr'd before all [Page 48] Churches. And again more fully; The care Idem. lib. 7. jud. 2. Epist. 64. of the Church was committed to the holy Apostle, and Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter: The care and principality of the Vniversal Church was com­mitted to him, and yet he is not called the Vniver­sal Apostle. Again, writing to the Bishop of Syracusa, If any fault be found in any Bishops, Id. lib. 7. jud. 2: Epist. 64. I know no Bishop that is not subject to the See Apo­stolic: But when no fault exacts it, we are all, in regard of humility, equal. And this subjection, saies he elsewhere, Id. l. 2. Indict. 2. Ep. 63. both our most Religious Lord the Emperor, and our Brother (John) Bishop of the same City do frequently protest. And in an Epistle to Natalis, Id. l. 2. Ind. 10. Ep. 37. Bishop of Salona, If, saith he, any of the four Patriarks had committed such an act, so great a disobedience would not have passed without great scandal. Moreover in another Epistle he declares how he had reversed the judgment of the Church of Constaninople a­gainst a Priest of Chalcedon, where he saies, Id. l. 5. Indict. 14. Ep. 24. Dost not thou know that in the cause of John the Priest against our Brother and Collegue, John of Constantinople, he, according to the Canons, had recourse to the See Apostolic, and that the cause was determined by our Sentence? A world of like examples more may be added: And in these a primacy of Iurisdiction is manifest, which therefore by his own confession is no Vsurpa­tion.

6. In the next place the immediate Prede­cessor of St. Gregory, A. D. 577. Pope Pelagius the Second, in the very same Epistle, in which he con­demns [Page 49] the presumptuous Title of Vniversal Bishop, assumed by Iohn of Constantinople, hath this passage, writing to the Eastern Bishops, Pelag. 2. Ep. [...]. The Apostolic See is inform'd that John Bishop of Constantinople out of this his presumption hath convoked you to a Synod, whereas the authority of assembling general Synods is by a special priviledge deliver'd to the Apostolic See of St. Peter; neither can we read of any Synod esteem'd to be ratified, which was not establisht on the Apostolic Authority. Therefore whatever you have decreed in your fore­said Conventicle, by the Authority of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and the Speech of our Sa­viour, who gave to Blessed Peter the power of bind­ing and loosing, I do command all things determi­ned by you to be void and repealed, &c.

Again his, A. D. 494. not immediate, Predecessor, Pope Gelasius is a yet more full and convincing witnesse to the Popes Vniversal Iurisdiction, upon this occasion. Pope Felix the second, A. D. 484. who possessed St. Peters Chair next before him, had been appealed and complain'd to by Iohn Patriark of Alexandria, unjustly dis­possess'd by Peter an Eutichian, whom the Pope in a Synod of 42. Bishops excommunicated. Moreover, upon the complaints of the same Iohn, he cited Acacius Bishop of Constantinople to appear: And upon his contumacy excom­municated him likewise in this Form: Take notice, saies he, that thou art deprived of Sacerdo­tal honor, and Catholic Communion, and moreover, that thou art segregated from the number of the [Page 50] Faithful, having lost both the Name and Office of Priestly Ministery, being condemned by us by the judgment of the Holy Ghost and Apostolic Authori­ [...]y. Yet this Sentence, not having been, as the former was, denounced in a Synod, some Ea­stern Bishops found fault with it. Whereupon his next Successor Pope Gelasius justifies his proceedings in an Epistle to the Bishop of Dar­dania, Felix 2. in Ep. ad Episc. Dard. he shews that when any Heretic has bin once condemned by a Synod, (as Sabellius, &c.) there was need of convoking new Synods for the condemning his Followers: And that this was the case of Acacius, who communi­cated with Peter and Timotheus, Bishops of A­lexandria, Eutychians, which Heresie had been condemned in the Council of Chalcedon. In consequence whereto he adds these Words: Neither do we omit to signifie, which the whole Church all the world over knows very well, that the See of the blessed Apostle St. Peter, has a power to loose whatsoever things shall be bound by the Sen­tences of any Bishops whatsoever, as being the Church which has a right to judge every other Church, neither is it permitted to any one to censure its judgment: Seeing the Canons have ordain'd that appeals should be made to it from every part of the World. Are these now marks onely of a Primacy of Order, and not Supremacy of Iu­risdiction?

7. We will next enlarge a step to Pope Leo the Great, A. D. 440. who began his Seat in the year 440. A. D. 451. and in whose time the General Council of Chal­cedon [Page 51] was assembled. How couragious and constant an Assertor he was of his Supream Iurisdiction, most of his Epistles witnesse, and almost all Protestant Controver [...]ists complain. He in his 53d. Leo M. in Ep. 53. Epistle to Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople; in the 54th. to the Emperor Marcianus; Idem. Ep. 54. and the 55th. to the Empresse Pul­cheria, Idem Ep. 55. vindicates the Derivation of his Au­thority, not from the Imperial City, but St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles.

8. Therefore, whereas the Preacher calls to witnesse the famous Canon of Chalcedon, Serm. pag. 19. decree­ing to the Bishop of Constantinople an equality of priviledges with the Bishop of Rome; not for any other reason then its having the good hap to be one of the two Imperial Cities. If he had had a mind to dealingenuously, he would have cal'd it an infamous Canon surreptitiously made, saith Liberatus, after the departure of the Iudges, Liberat in Brev. cap. 13. the Senate, and of the Legats of the See Apostolic; and entirely nullyfied by the protestation of the said Legats, Socrat. Hist. l. 2. c. 5. and the Sentence of Pope Leo, without whose consent, according to the antient traditionary Law, nothing made in any Council could oblige the Church. A Canon this was, so despised during that whole Age and more, that the memory of it only remained in the Acts of that Council, but it was not inserted among the other Canons, for as it appears by the most antient Greek and Latin Copies of that Council, by the collection of Dionisius Exiguus, Theodor. Anag. in Syng. Can. and by the Testimony of Theodoret [Page 52] Anagnostes a Grecian, the Council of Chalcedo [...] publisht only twenty seven Canons, whereas now this is reckoned the 28th.

Lastly, A Canon this was, that Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople (by whose brig [...]ing with some Bishops, and violence to others it was compiled) was himself both ashamed and sorrow for it, Leo. Ep. 55. ad Anat. as appears by St. Leo's an­swer to him: And of which Pope Gelasius forty years after affirms, Gelas P. Tom. de Anathem. Vinc. That the See Aposto­lic never consented to it, the Emperor never imposed it; Anatolius never made use of it, and the whole matter was put in the power of the See Apostolic: And therefore what the same See confirm'd, re­mained in force, and that which it receiv'd not, could not have any firmnesse.

9. Now because this enormous Canon was pretended to be only a renewing of a former Canon made in the second General Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381. observe the false dealing of that Bishop and his Clergy, in citing that Canon. For whereas it was thus conceived, Let the Bishop of Constantinople enjoy ( [...]) pre­rogatives of honor after the Bishop of Rome: Conc. Constanti­nop. 1. Can. 3. These renewers of this Canon at Chalcedon, fraudulently thrust in the words [ [...]] equal priviledges: As if, excepting only the sitting in the second Chair, he was to enjoy in the Church all the prerogatives of the See A­postolick: A fancy which never entred into the minds of those former Bishops. And in­deed de facto after the fourth Council of Chal­cedon, [Page 53] the new Patriark, by vertue of the ex­otic power given him, presumed to summon all the other Patriarks and Bishops in the East to a Council; An attempt repressed by Pope Leo.

And no doubt when afterward the usur­ped the Title of Oecumenical Bishop, they would not fear to give the same Title of Oe­cumenical to their Councils too.

10. And as for the second Canon of that Council of Constantinople quoted in the Mar­gin of the Sermon, Serm. pag. 18▪ Concil. Const. 1. Can. 2. whereby the Eastern Pa­triarks are forbidden to meddle in Ecclesiastical af­fairs beyond the limits of their Provinces, what is this to the Bishop of Rome? He is not so much as named nor thought of in that Canon: Neither was there ever any received Council in Gods Church that excluded him from an uni­versal Iurisdiction which the Doctor sees was [...]rcised by so many Popes at and after the Council of Chalcedon, and he will see more be­fore it.

1. THere was an Imperial Law made by Valentinian the third, Novel. Theodos. Tit. 24. (who began his Reign A. D. 424. A. D. 424.) directed to the Bishops of France, importing that Whatever had been, and should be establish'd by the See Apostolick, should [Page 55] have the force of a Law to them and all others. And this the Emperor saies is Secundum veterem con­suetudinem. Ibid. Moreover to shew the grounds of that Law, Ibid. he further saie [...], That the Supre­macy of the See Apostolic has been established both by the merit of St. Peter, who is the Prince of E­piscopal Society, and by the dignity of the City, and by the sacred Authority of a Synod.

2. Now if we shall consider the weight of such a publick Testimony, and how Christian Catholick Emperors never made Lawes touch­ing Ecclesiastical matters, but by the advice of Bishops, and for the corroborating of former Church Canons both touching Faith and Disci­pline, and by no means for introducing of new ones, we shall find a greater proof can scarce be produced against the Preachers pre­tention, That between the times of the four first General Councils the Popes enjoyed only a primacy of Order, and not Iurisdiction.

3. Though this Law seems too exces­sively large, commanding That whatever had been or should be, &c. Pope Leo, who lived in the same Age, limits the true sense of it, when he commands That all the Decretals and Constitutions both of Pope Innocent, Leo in Decret. T. 5. and all o­ther his Predecessors, should be observed; namely, such as are publish't touching Ecclesiastical Orders and Canons: Or, Hilar. P. in Ep. [...]d Ep. Provinc. Vien. as Pope Hilarius expresses it, What ever Constitutions have been made by Popes for the quiet of all Gods Priests, the observance of Discipline and taking away confusions.

[Page 56] 4. Examples of such publick Decrees of unquestion'd Authority, even in the judge­ment of the most learned Protestants, A. D. 385. to 418. we finde made by Pope Zosimus, Zosim in Decret. c. 1. 2 Innocent. in Decret. c. 21. & tit. 45, 46, 47. Pope Innocent the First, and Pope Siricius, who governed the Church between the yeares 385. and 418. For as for the Decretals pretended to be made by ante­cedent Popes, they do except against them, and perhaps not without ground, He will not expect I should transcribe those authen­tick Decrees to weary both him and my self unnecessarily. He knows very well where to find them. I will only adde, that such De­crees were actually received as Laws by the Churches of Spain, France, &c. Hence it is, Conc. Tolet. 4. that in the fourth Council of Toledo, the Bishops say, For what is to be observed by us in such Cases, Let us be informed by the Precepts of the Apostolick See, and not follow our own, but our common Fathers Instruction. And the Council of Tours says, Conc. Turon. 11. Can. 20. What Bishop shall presume to act contrary to such Decrees as have proceeded from the See Apostolick? Notwithstanding, it was not forbidden to Bishops to consider and ex­amin such Decrees; for if they were made upon misinformation, even Popes themselves have declared that the force of them should be suspended. And much more, if against the ancient Canons; for saith Pope Zosimus ( ap. Gratian. 25. q. 1.) Even this Seat hath not Authority to constitute or change any thing contra­ry to the Statute of the Fathers.

[Page 57] 5. As for the more Primitive times prece­ding these, I will content my self with a few examples, but such, and of so great weight, that if the Preacher will be ingenuous, they will even content him. In the recounting of them it will not be necessary, I should ob­serve exactly the Order of times in each of them. And the first shall be a passage of the great Saint Basil, who writing to St. Athana­sius about suppressing Arianism in the East, hath these words, It seems convenient to us to write to the Bishop of Rome, Basil. Ep. 52. to desire him that he would have regard to our affaires, and interpose the judgment of his Decree, &c. Moreover, that he would give Authority to s [...]m choice persons, who may bring the Acts of the Council of Ariminum for the annulling of those things that were violently done there, &c.

6. Again, A. D. 343. when the Synod of Antioch about the year 343. assembled by Arians to the prejudice of the Council of Nice, had framed a new confession of Faith, it was argued of nullity, saith S [...]crates, Socrat. Hist. Eccles. lib. [...]. cap. 5. especially because Iu­lius Bishop of Rome was neither himself pre­sent, nor sent any to supply his place: Whereas (saith he) the Ecclesiastical Canon commands that no Decrees be established in the Church without the assent of the Bishop of Rome▪ And this authority the same Pope Iulius asserts; For writing to the Eastern Bishops, who had condemned St. Athanasius, Apud Atha­nas. Apol. 2. he sayes thus, [ [...]] Are you ignorant, this is the [Page 58] custom that you should first write to us, and after that determin just matters there? Therefore if there were any ill suspition against that Bishop [of Alexandria] you ought to have signified it in the first place to the Church here.

7. Consonantly hereto Sozomen, Sozom. Hist. Eccl. lib. 3. c 9. another Greek Historian saith expresly, That there was received in the Church a Sacerdotal law, de­claring all things to be void that are done with­out the sentence of the Bishop of Rome. Nay, which is yet more, this (which for ought ap­pears was only an unwritten Canon or Cu­stom, for no Council mentions it, but deli­ver'd by Tradition even in the Eastern Chur­ches) was of such authority, Novel. Theod. tit. 24. that the fore­said Emperor Valentinian makes it a Law-Imperial: We decree, says he, that according to the antient custom nothing be innovated in the Church without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome. Surely Dr. Pierce will acknowledge these Testimonies argue more than a Primacy of Order; here is a Iurisdiction, asserted, ex­tending it self beyond the Dioces [...]n, Metropo­litan or Patriarcal limits of Rome.

8. I will add a few examples more: when some Eastern Councils had deposed Athana­sius, Patriark of Alexandria, Paul Bishop of Constantinople, Marcellus Pri [...]at of Ancy [...]a, and Asclepas, Bishop of Gaza, ‘The Bishop of Rome, Sozom. Hist. Eccl. [...]. 3. c. 2. saith Sozomen, (to whom for the dig­nity of his Throne the care of all things does pertain) restored to every one of them their [Page 59] own Church. And he adds further, That he commanded those who had deposed them to appear on a day appointed at Rome, to give account of their judgement: threat­ning that he would not leave them unpu­nish'd, if they did not cease from innovating.’ All this he did, saith Theodoret, Theod. Hist. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 4. [not by usur­pation, but [ [...]] fol­lowing the Churches law.

9. Again, when the General council of Ephesus Cor [...]. Eph. p. 2. [...]. 5 in relat­ [...]d Calest. was entring into debate about the cause of Iohn Patriark of Antioch, the Bp. of Ierusalem interposed, affirming, that according to the an­tient custom, the Church of Antioch [...] as al­wayes governed by the Roman; Whereupon the whole Council remitted the judgement of that Cause to the Pope.

10. Moreover, when Dioscorus, Patriark of Alexandria, in the Scismatical Council of E­phesus had deposed Flavian Bishop of Con­stantinople, Flavian appealed to the Pope. And this he did [ [...]] according to the custom of Synods, Epist. ad The­odos. in p [...]eamb. Conc. Chalced. sayth the Emperor Va­lentinian.

11. Two examples more I will the rather add, because we of this Nation are particular­ly concern'd in them. The first is taken out of the famous Council of Sardica assembled about twenty years after that of Nice. A. D. 345. This Council was by Iustinian called Oecumenical, because, though the Eastern Bishops departed before the conclusion; yet the Canons of it [Page 60] were never rejected by them. Concil. Sar­dic. can. 3, 4. In the third and fourth Canons of this Council it was or­dain'd, upon a proposal made by the famous Osius of Corduba, to this effect, That in any Controversies between Bishops which could not be determined in their own respective Provinces, the person aggrieved might appeal to the Bishop of Rome, who might renew the Process and ap­point Iudges: And (by a second proposal of Gaudentius a Bishop) in case any Bishop depo­sed should make such an appeal, till the Pope had determin'd the cause, it was not permitted that another Bishop should be ordained in his place. These Decrees the Council made to honor the memory of St. Peter the Apostle.

12. Now at this Con [...]cil among other Bi­shops from all the Western Countreys, some came out of our Britany, as St. Athanasius an eye-witness assured us. Athan. Apol. [...]. And therefore the Ge­neral Superintendency of the Pope over all churches could not have been unknown in this Nation long before St. Augustin the Monk, or the Saxons had possession here. By which may appear the slightness of the late found Welsh paper, though much bragged of, in which the Abbot of Bangor is said to have refused the subjection to the Pope, which St. Augustin requir'd of the British Bishops. For what grosse ignorance was it in this Abbot (if the Paper relate truth of him) That after all that power exercised by that man called the Pope over the whole Church of God, especially o­ver [Page 61] the Western Provinces, and so much re­spect return'd him from them after the pre­sence of the British Bishops at so many famous Councils, and after so many holy Bishops sent for the conversion of these Islands by the Bi­shops of Romes delegation, he should be such a stranger to his person, or authority, or his titles, after the year of our Lord 600? At which time also the Irish Bishops are found to have yielded all obedience to this Roman Bishop, when the Britains thus denied it, as appears Both in that they are said by vene­rable Beda (the South-Irish at least) to have returned very early to a right observation of Easter Ad admonitionem Apostolicae sedis Anti­stitis, Hist. l. 3. [...]. 3. and also in that about this time they sent Letters to St. Gregory then Pope, to know after what manner they ought to receive in­to the Church such as were converted from Nestorianism, to whom he sends his Orders concerning it directed Quirino Episcopo & ceteris Episcopis in Hybernia Catholicis, Greg. 9 ep. 61. as may be found in the Register of his E­pistles.

13. A second Monument wherein we Bri­tains have a peculiar interest, is that most an­tient first Council of Arles, celebrated accor­ding to Baronius and Sirmondus (assented to by Sir Henry Spelman) in the year 314. about eleven years before the first Council of Nice. A. D. 314. The Canons of this Council are directed to the Bishop of Rome, as appears by the first Canon in [Page 62] these words, First concerning the Paschal observation of our Lord, Conc. Arlat. can. 1. that it be observed by us upon one day and at one time through the whole world; and that according to custom thou wouldst direct Letters to all. And moreover in the head of the Canons is inserted this Bre­viary of their Epistle, To our most holy Lord and Brother Silvester, Marinus and the Synod of Bishops assembled together in the Town of Arles: We have signified to your charity the things de­creed by common Council, to the end that all may know what they ought for the future to observe. Here may be seen a Patriarchical council send­ing their Decrees to the Bishop of Rome, as being the chief person from whom all Christians are to receive information of what they ought to believe and practise, and by whom no doubt they were to be obliged thereto. In which regard St. Martin, Pope and Martyr, makes this the Popes most proper Title, that he is Custos Canonum Divinorum.

14. At this Council were present three Bi­shops Representatives of the British Clergy, E­borius Bishop of York, Restitutus Bishop of Lonidon, Adelphius Bishop of ( Maldon, called then) Colonia Londinensium, with Sacerdos, a Priest, and Arminius, a Deacon. And the Canons of this Council, were by Restitutus brought into Britany, saith Bishop Godwin out of Bale. By which also it appears that neither the Pope himself, nor his place and authority in the Church were unknown, nor un-acknowledged [Page 63] by the Britains long before St. Augustines days.

15. And now it will be seasonable to answer the Doctors great Objection grounded on that famous 6 th. Canon of the first Nicene Council, by which he says, Every Patriarch and Bi­shop is appointed to be chief in his proper Dio­cese, Serm. pag. 18. as the Bishop of Rome is chief in his. This is now to be examin'd. The words of the Canon are, [ [...], &c.] Let the antient Customs be still in force in Egypt, Conc. Nicen. 1. can. 6. Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alex­andria enjoy a Iurisdiction over them all: In as much as such likewise is the custom of the Bishop of Rome. In like manner both in An­tioch and other Provinces, let the [ [...]] priviledges be preserv'd entire to every Church.

16. The true sense of this Canon will best appear from the end for which it was enacted, and that apparently was for the regulating and composing disorders begun in Egypt by Meletius Bishop of Lycopolis, who rebellious­ly refused obedience to the Patriark of Alex­andria, presuming to ordain Bishops inde­pendently on him. This Scismatical attempt the Council here represses, commanding that according to the antient custom the Bishop of Alexandria should have entire Iurisdiction through all Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis; And the Roman Bishop in his Patriarchat, and may say in his Metropolitanship too is made the Patern according to which this Regula­tion [Page 64] is framed not in regard of his plenary right, and universal Jurisdiction in the Church of God, which (I have shewed already, and shall demonstrate the same yet further, even in the times preceding this Council) is extended to the whole world, and was exercised over the▪ Patriarcs themselves, But only of the cu­stom and practice of his calling Synods, correcting manners, and making ordinations according to his Patriarkal and Metropoliti­cal Jurisdiction: for those words in the sixth Nicene Canon, Similiter autem & apud caete­ [...]as provincias, In like manner in the rest of the Provinces, that is, those Provinces also that were not such where a Patriarc resided, Ho­nor suus unicuique servetur, Let every one's Honor be preserved to him, compared with the second Canon of the first Council of Con­stantinople, and the eighth canon of the Ephesian Council, shew clearly enough, that not only Patriarkical authority, but Metropo­litical also is spoken of in this canon, and the Roman Bishops authority also herein made a Pattern. And upon this ground that the Canon intends not to equalize the Bishop of Alexandria with the Bishop of Rome in his full Jurisdiction, De concord. Sacerd. & Im­perii, [...]. 7. n. 6. the most learned Marca late Archbishop of Tholouse observes, that those who object it against the Popes Primacy, though they fortifie themselves even with Ru [...]inus his interposition of suburbicarian Churches will gain but little by it, for it signi­signifies [Page 65] no more but that the Bishop of Rome did ordain either immediately or by Commis­sion all the Bishops in the Suburbicarian Churches, so ought the Bishop of Alexandria to do in Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis.

17. But, though I mention this Version of Ruffinus, because it is much applauded by our primitive Reformers, and I expect Doctor Pier [...]e, in his Reply, will have recourse to it, yet it is a most groundlesse and sencelesse Translation, or rather corruption of the Ca­non; His words are, Vt apud Alexandriam, & in urbe Roma vetusta consuetudo servetur, ut ille Egypti, vel hic Suburbicariarum Eccle­siarum sollicitudi [...]em gerat. Against which so much hath been written that it would be to lose time to repeat it, especially to the Do­ctor, who cannot be unacquainted with what Erasm Pr [...]f. in Hilar. Erasmus and Scal [...]g. in Chron. Euseb. Baron Spond. Annal. 325. Peron. rep. to K. Iam. c. 33. Scalager have observed of the Interpreter, that it is his custom to omit, pervert and change the Text as he pleases; and what Others with much Learning and Judgement have said to this interpretation. Not to speak of the Bishop of Rome's ju­risdiction as first Patriarc, whereby the o­ther Patriarcs were subordinate to him, be­ing obliged even in this matter of their own Ordinations to give him notice, sending with­al a Confession of their Faith, upon the ap­probation whereof, and of the legality of their Election and Ordination, He confirm­ed them or otherwise deposed them, of which [Page 66] many examples may be produced: Whosoe­ver hath but looked into Ecclesiastical History must confesse that His particular Patriarchat was far from being confined to the ten Sub­urbicarian Provinces subject to the Vicariat of Rome: Nay, it is manifest that it extended to the whole Western Empire, which, besides Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Britany, the six Maritime Provinces of Africa, &c. con­tained Illyricum, Macedon, Epyrus, Greece, and the Islands near it; And all this by the confessions of Adversaries, Zonaras, Balsa­mon, Basil. Epist. 10. &c. writing on this very Canon. Hence St. Basil calls the Bishop of Rome [ [...]] the head or chief of the Western Regi­ous. August. l. 1. cont. Julian. c. 2. And St. Augustin says, that Pope Innocent did preside over the VVestern Church. And St. Hierom, Hieron. Epist. 77. Let them (says he) condemn me as an Heretic with the VVest, as an Heretic with Egypt, Justin. Novel. 123. that is with Damasus and Peter. And Iustinian the Emperor affirms, that all the Re­gions of the VVorld are subject to the five Pa­triarcs, that is [ [...]] to VVe­stern Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, The­polis (or Antioch) and Ierusalem. Now unless Hesperia signifies the whole VVest, to what Pa­triarc was France, Spain, Africa, &c sub­ject. Theod. l. 5. c. 23. If not to Rome, how can all Bishops be said to be subject to five Patriarcs? Hence the VVestern Bishops are by Theodores call'd [...]; and by Sacrates [...]. Socrat. l. 2. c. 29.

1. BUt as yet our Proofs of Primacy of Iurisdiction in the Successor of St. Peter, though they reach to the Beginning in the latitude fixed by the Doctor, and truly I am perswaded to an indifferent Reader will appear more credible than any his Margins furnish to the contrary: Yet they may be continued, till we come even to the Presbyte­rians, Independants and Quakers Beginning [Page 68] too, that is, the Gospels themselves. To de­monstrate this, we will make a short enquiry into the times of the Church before Constan­tin, whilst it was a mere suffering Church, inca­pable of conspiring either in or out of General Councils: But withal a Church lesse disper­sed and torn by Heresies or contentions a­mong Bishops, and therefore lesse needing this Preservative against Schisms, Supreme Au­thority.

2. In these holy peaceable times ther [...]ore be­fore Silvester, I will content my self with two or three examples to prove the acknowledge­ment of such a Primacy. And the first shall be of St. Melchiades the immediat Predecessor of Pope Silvester: A. D. 311. St. Augustin will afford us a Testimony of his care and authority extended into Africk, Aug Epist. 162. whose words are, [ Qualis ip­sius Melchiadis ultima est prolata Sententia, &c.] ‘Such an one was the last sentence Melchiades himself pronounced (in judge­ing the cause of Donatus:) by which he would not have the boldnesse to remove from his Communion his Collegues, (the Catholic Bishops in Africa) in whom no crime could be proved: And having censu­red most deeply Donatus alone, whom he found to have been the Original of all the mischief, he gave a free choyce of healing the breaches of Scism to all the rest of his Followers: being also in a readiness to send communicatory Letters to those (subdi­vided [Page 69] Scismatics) that were ordained by Majorinus (a Donatist Bishop:) in so much as his Sentence was, that in whatsoever Ci­ties of Africk there were two Bishops dis­senters (a Catholic and a Donatist▪ he should be confirm'd in the Bishoprick, who was first ordained, &c. and that another Dio­cese should be provided which the other should govern. O Son of Christian peace! and truly Father of the Christian flock, says St. Augustin.’

3. I will add to this three other examples, in which, though as to the use and admini­stration of the Superintendency som Objecti­ons have been made, yet they suffice to con­firm the acknowledgement of such a Super­intendency in the Pope▪ as the Preacher denies. The first is of Pope Stephanus contemporary with St. Cyprian and his fellow in Martyr­dom, A. D. 258. concerning whom we read in Eusebius, Euseb. Hist. that he either inflicted, Eccles. lib. 7. c. 4. 6. or at least threatned excommunication to som of the Churches of Asia that held a necessity of Rebaptization af­ter Baptism received by Heretics. And in the same quarrel, between the same Pope Ste­pha [...]s and St. Cyprian himself, Cypr. Epist. 75 matters were almost brought to the like extremity: yet nei­ther did St. Cyprian, though wonderfully sharp, nor even that violent Cappadocian Bi­shop, Firmilianus ever question the Popes Authority, though, as they thought, unjustly employed▪

[Page 70] 4. The other is extant in the same St. Cy­prian, who endeavour'd to peswade the Pope to depose Marcianus a Metropolitan Bishop of Arles, siding with Novatian; His words to Pope Stephanus about it are these, Id. Epist. 67. Let Letters be directed from thee into the Province, and to the people of Arl [...]s, commanding that Marcianus be excommunicated, and another put in his place. And to the like purpose is another Epistle of his in a cause touching two Spanish Bishops, Id. Epist. 68. upon mis-information restor'd by the Pope.

5. The third is that so well known exam­ple of Pope Victor, A. D. 19 [...]. concerning whom Euse­bius thus writes, Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Victor endeavours to cut off from the fellowship of Communion the Churches of Asia, as declining into Heresie, and sends Let­ters by which he would divide them all indifferently from the Ecclesiastical Society, &c. But there are extant Letters of Bishops by whom Victor is sharp­ly reproved, as one that was carelesse of the com­modity of the whole Church. Particularly I­reneus reprehends him, telling him, that he did ve­ry ill to divide from the unity of the whole Body so many and so great Churches. Now in such re­proofs from Ireneus, and even Polycrates an Asian Bishop, himself the ring-leader of the party of the Quart [...] decimani against St. Victor, it was not impu [...]ed to Victor that he exercised an usurped Authority over Bishops not sub­ject to him, but that the cause of exercising his just Authority was [...]ot sufficiently weighty.

[Page 71] 6. Having proceeded thus far, our last step shall be to the utmost degree, the very begin­ning it self, our Lord and St. Peter in the Gos­pels. And here we will acknowledge what the D [...]ctor saies, that all the Twelve Apostles were equally foundations of the Churches building: Serm. page. 18. That the same Authority which was first given to St. Peter alone, sustaining the person of the whole Church, was afterward given to the rest of the A­postles; that as St. Cyprian saies, the same that St. Peter was, the rest of the Apostles likewise were [pari consortio praediti, &c.] endowed with an equal participation of honor and power. And as St. Hierom affirms, that all Bishops in all places whether at Rome or Eugubium, [Canterbury or Rochester] are of the very same merit, &c. But he will give leave to the Scripture to in­terpret it self, and to the Fathers to interpret both it and themselves. We grant therefore that all the Apostles, and all Bishops their Suc­cessors, enjoy the whole latitude of Apostolic and Episcopal Iurisdiction, for as much as con­cerns the internal, essential qualifications of ei­ther: But for the external administration there may be, and alwaies was acknowledg­ed, a subordination and different latitude in the exercise of the same authority both a­mong the Apostles and Bishops. Let him not find fault with this distinction; for they themselves have occasion somtimes to make use of it to the like purpose. Arch-bishop Whitgift, in his Defence of the Answer to the [Page 72] Admonition, affirms, that Archbishops, quoad Ministerium, do not differ from other Pastors, but touching Government, page 303. And after­ward page 386. Answering the same Argu­ment out of St. Hierom, who equals the mean­est Bishop with the Pope, he saies, that they are equal quoad Ministerium, but not quoad polittam.

7. Let him take therefore an example il­lustrating this at home. What Function, what Act of Iurisdiction can my Lord of Can­terbury exercise (I mean according to their Tenets) which the meanest of his subordi­nate Bishops cannot perform? He can ordain Bishops and Priests; So can they; the former with him, the other without him. He can visit his Pr [...]vince; they their Di [...]cesse. He can give the Holy Ghost by Confirmation; So can they▪ He can assemble a Provincial Coun­cil; They a Diocesan. He has a Canonical Authority over Bishops, &c. They over Priests. He can absolve from Censures inflected by himself; they can do as much. Yet nothing of all this excludes him from enjoying a spe­cial priviledge in the exercise of every one of these Acts and Functions, or exempts them from Subordination to him as their Superior, yea, Supream Pastor, Supream not in Order on­ly, but Iurisdiction. Certainly the Doctor can easily apply this to St. Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, or to St. Peter's Successors, and all other Bishops.

8. Now if the Fathers may be believed, is [Page 73] was a priviledge, and a great one, that St Peter, for the merit of his Confession, had Christs own Title, as Christ was Governor of the Church, given him, of being called a Rock. For in the Syrian language, in which our Lord spake, the words have no different termination, as in the Greek or Latin, Petrus, Petra; but the words were, Thou art Gepha (a Rock) and upon this Gepha (Rock) I will build my Church. It was a priviledge that Peter, neither the eldest, nor first chosen Apostle, is alwaies in the Gospel first reckoned, and expresly called, [...], the First. It was a priviledge import­ing a greater latitude of Iurisdiction, when after our Lord's Resurrection, St. Peter alone had in the midst of the rest a Commission given him of indefinitly [...]eeding Christ's Flock; And after the Descent of the Holy Ghost, was peculiarly appointed the Apostle of the Circumcision, as St. Paul was of the Gentiles: Yea that the Dedication of St. Paul's Office was performed by St. Peter, who by immediate revelation was appointed to ga­ther the first fruits of the Gentiles, in the con­version of Cornelius, and his house-hold, &c.

9. But, why among such Governors as the Apostles, was any Supereminency of Iurisdicti­on given to one man? Certain it is, there ne­ver was lesse necessity to provide against dis­obedience and dis-unions, then among the Apostles; every one of whom was guided by [Page 74] a Divine unerring light, by which they knew all Truth, and replenish'd with the Spirit of Charity and Vn [...]ty, which exempted them from all ambitious, envious or malicious de­sign [...]: Yet a Subordination, not absolutely ne­cessary to them, was established among them, for the succeeding Churches sake, which without such order would in a very short time become a meer Babel. Hence St. Hierom saies, Hierom. cont. Jovin. lib. 2. The Church was built upon Peter: though true it is the same thing is done upon others, and that the strength of the Church equally rests upon all. But among the twelve one is chosen, that a Head being constituted, the occasion of Schism may be taken away.

10. To the same purpose St. Cyprian, Cypr. de unit. Ecclesiae. not­withstanding the Sentence produced by the Preacher out of him, That all the Apostles were pari consortio praediti honoris & potestatis; Yet in the very same Book saies, Ibid. [Super unum aedificat Ecclesiam, &c.] Our Lord builds his Church upon one Person. And, though after his Resurrection, he gave an equal power to all the A­postles, saying, As my Father sent me, so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose sins you re­mit, &c. Yet that he might manifest unity, he by his Authority disposed the Original of the same V­nity beginning from one. Ibid. (And presently after) Whosoever holds not the unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the Faith? He that opposes are resists the Church; he that forsakes the Chair of S. Peter, upon which the Church is founded, does [Page 75] he trust that he is in the Church? In like manner St. Optatus at Rome, Optat. cont. Parm. lib. 2. (saies he) a Chair was placed for St. Peter, to the end that unity might be preserved of all; and for fear the other Apostles should challenge to themselves each one a particular Chair. So St. Chrysostome, Observe now, how the same John, Chrysost. in Act. Ap. cap. 1. hom. 3. that a little before ambitiously beg'd a preferment, after yields entirely the Supre­macy to St. Peter. And again, Christ did con­stitute Peter the Master, Id. in. cap. 21. Jo [...]n. hom. 87▪ not of that See of Rome alone, but of the whole world.

11. Now, Serm. page 17. whereas the Doctor objects that St. Paul's contesting with St. Peter, and resisting him to his face, argues that he did not acknowledge any Superiority in him: August. lib. 2. de Bapt. cont. Donat. Let St. Augustin, from St. Cyprian, resolve us, You see (saies he to the Donatists) what St. Cyprian hath said, that the holy Apostle St. Peter, in whom did shine forth so great a grace of Primacy, being reprehended by St. Paul, did not answer that the Supremacy belong'd to him, and therefore he would not be reprehended by one that was posterior to him. And he adds, The Apostle St. Peter hath left to posterity a more rare example of humility, Ibid. by teaching men not to disdain a reproof from inferiors; then St. Paul by teaching inferiors not to fear, resisting even the highest, yet without prejudice to Charity, when Truth is to be defended.

12. From all that has been said on this Sub­ject, it will necessarily follow, that whatever Superiority St. Peter enjoyed, and the Holy Fa­thers acknowledged, was the gift of our Sa­viour [Page 76] only, a gift far more beneficial to us then to St. Peter. He was, as St. Chrysostome saies, Master of the World, not because his Throne was establish'd at Rome, but receiving from our Lord so supereminent an Authority, he therefore made choice of Rome for his See; because that being the Imperial City of the World, he might from thence have a more commodious influence on the whole Church.

13. Upon which grounds, whensoever the Fathers make use of the Authority of his Successors, Bishops of Rome against Hereticks or Schismaticks, they consider that authority as a priviledge annexed to the Chair of St. Peter, and only for St. Peters regard to the Sea of Rome. This is so common in the Fathers writings, that I will not trouble him with one Quotation. Indeed Iohn of Constantino­ple, when he would invade an equality [ [...]] in some sort with the Pope, did wisely to mention only the priviledge of the Imperial City, because he could allege no o­ther pretention for his Plea. But St. Leo, St. Gregory, St. Gelasius, &c. produce their e­vidences for their Supremacy from Tues Pe­trus, & super hanc Petram, &c. from Pasce oves meas, &c. Nay, St. Augustin and other Bi­shops of the Milevitan Council, writing to Pope Innocent to joyn with them in condemning the Pelagians, tell him their hope was those Hereticks would more easily be induced to submit to his Authority: Why, because of [Page 77] the splendor of the Imperial City? No, but because the Popes Authority August. Ep. 92. was [ de Sancta­rum Scripturarum authoritate deprompta] de­duced from the Authority of the Holy Scri­ptures.

14. I might with reason enough, yet I will not omit to take notice of Doctor Pierce's trivial reasonings against the Popes, (as he calls it) pretended Headship; because such being sitted to vulgar capacities, and confi­dently pronounc'd, do more mischief, then those that have more shew of profundity and weight. Thus then he argues: If the Pope be head of the Church, then the Church must be the Body of the Pope: Serm. Pag. 20. And if so, then when there is no Pope, the Church has no Head: When there are many Popes, the Church has many Heads: When the Pope is Heritical, the Church has such a Head as makes her deserve to be behe [...]ded.

Whatever advantage the Doctor expects from such a Discourse as this, it must flow from a childish Cavil upon the word Head, and whatever consequences he here draws from thence against the Pope, may as well be applyed to all kind of Governors, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil: For they are all Heads within their Precincts: A King is the Head of his Kingdom; and a Bishop of his Diocesse. When we call therefore the Pope, Head of the Church, we mean that among all Governors thereof, he is the Supream in the sense before declared: He is a Head, but not so as Christ is in respect [Page 78] of his Mystical body, who by his Spirit inter­nally quickens and directs it. The Pope is only an external, ministerial, visible Head, and, as it were, Root of Vnity and Govern­ment.

All this, no question, the Doctor knew be­fore to be our meaning: and by consequence he knew that his inferences from thence were pitifully pedantic, & insignificant, though ma­ny of his Court-hearers and Country-readers perhaps wonder there can remain a Papist in England unconverted after such a Sermon has been publish'd.

15. When there is no Pope, says the Preach­er, the Church wants a Head. It is granted: For sure he does not think it is a part of our Faith to believe Popes are immortal. But yet for all that the Papacy is immortal: The Go­vernment is not dissolv'd: Succession is not interrupted. It is a Maxim in our Law that Kings dye not, that is, the Regal Authority lives, though Kings in their particular persons dye: Nor is there any substantial difference, as to this point, between hereditary and ele­ctive Monarchy▪ And in this sense we may say, that Popes dy not, nor Bishops: Partly because when a Bishop or the Pope dys, at least his Jurisdiction remains in the Chapter or Body of Electors. Hence it is that in St. Cyprian we read Epistles of the Roman Clergy exercising authority beyond the Diocese of Rom [...]: But principally because, when an Ec­clesiastical▪ [Page 79] Superior dyes there remains by Christs Ordination a [ vis generativa] or vir­tue in the Church to constitute another in his place, and so to continue the Government. There has been oft times a long vacancy in the Apostolic See, as well as in Dioceses and Kingdoms. After the death of Pope Fabian (before there were any Christian Emperors) the See was vacant for above a years space: yet neither did St. Iren [...]us, Optatus, Epipha­nius, or St. Augustin, when they objected the chain of Succession in St. Peters Chair, esteem that thereby the Chain had been bro­ken: neither did any old Hereticks make use of such an argument to invalidate the Popes authority.

16. But what shall we say to the Doctors next inference, in a case of Schism? when there are many Popes, then▪ says he, the Church is become a Monster with many Heads. But he is deceived. As when, after the death of a King, several pretenders to the Crown ap­pear, there is still by right but one legitimate Successor: all the rest are Rebels and Tyrants. It is so in the Papacy. Cypr. Epist. 76. In that case St. Cypri­ans Rule holds, If the Church be with Nova­tian, it was not with Cornelius, who by a law­ful Ordination succeeded Fabian. Novatian therefore is not in the Church, nor can be e­steemed a Bishop (of Rome.) Or if it be un­certain to which of them the right pertains, so that some Nations adhere to one Head, o­thers [Page 80] to another: it is a great calamity: but yet the Church remains, though wounded, yet not wounded to death: A General Coun­cil cures all.

17. If the Pope, (according to Doctor Pierce his supposition) should prove an Heretic, he infers very improperly, that the Church ha [...] such a Head as makes her deserve to be beheaded: For in that case, the Pope is so far from re­maining a Head, that he is not so much as a Member of the Church, but is deprived not only of the Administration, but also the Com­munion of the Church, as other Heretical Bi­shops are: So that then there is a pure vacan­cy. I shall not be so severe as to take notice of the unhansom (not to say unmannerly) terms the Doctor uses in expressing the last branch of this Objection.

18. Thus much concerning the Doctors first pretended Novelty of the Roman Church, the Popes primacy. Now whether my asserting that Primacy or his denying it to be a Novelty, and whether his proofs or mine are more conclu­ding, I leave to the Readers consciences. He will excuse my dilating on this Point, because therein I follow his own example, Epist. Ded. for he tels his Majesty, He has spoken most at large of the Popes supremacy and his reasons given for such Largenesse shall be mine too, though I believe we shall have different meanings, yet without equivocation, even when we deliver our rea­sons▪ in the same words. For i. I also acknow­ledg [Page 81] the Popes supremacy to be the chief, if not on­ly hinge on which does hang the stress of (more than Papal) the Ecclesiastical Fabrick, as being the Cement of the Churches unity. Ibid. 2. Because it is a point wherin (say I likewise) the Honor and safety of his Majesties Dominions are most con­cerned. His meaning is, that no danger is to be apprehended for England, but only from that Point. I am sure, on the contrary, that whilst such a Primacy purely spiritual was acknow­ledged in England, the Church here was ne­ver torn in pieces with Schisms, nor poyson'd with Heresies: The Throne was never in the least danger upon that account; never was a Sword drawn for or against it. Some few little more than Paper-quarrels hapned be­tween the English and Roman Court, about matters, not of Religion, but outward Inte­rests: in which generally the Pope had the worst at last: But the Honor and Safety of these Dominions were far from being prejudiced. The Kings of France always have been, and stil continu as jealous and tender of their temporal Regalities, as ever any Princes were: yet they account it one of the most sparkling Jewels of their Crown, that they call themselves the eld­est [and most devoted] Sons of the Catholic Church. The acknowledging the Spiritual Primacy of the chief Pastor they find a greater honor and defence to them than many Armies would be: because it preserves peace and u­nity in that Kingdom, not by the terror of [Page 82] Swords drawn and Muskets charged in their Subjects faces, but by subduing their minds and captivating their consciences to Faith and Obedience. And let Doctor Pierce be as­sured, without a Spiritual Authority, which may have influence on the hearts of Christian Subjects, all their preaching, and Laws too will prove but shaking Bulwarks for suppor­ting Monarchy.

19. But we must not yet leave this passage without considering it a little better. He saith, That in the point of the Popes Supremacy of Iu­risdiction the honor and safety of his Majesties Dominions are most concern'd: his meaning is, that it is both dishonorable and dangerous to his Majesties Dominions, that any of His Subjects should be permitted to acknow­ledge such a Supremacy. I would I could oblige the Doctor by any exorcisms to discover sincerely the inward thoughts of his heart up­on this Subject. But, having no such pow­er, at so great a distance, I must be content to argue the Case with him once more, because it is a passage, that reflects not only upon the honor of Catholick Religion, but the safety of all Professors of it.

20. He cannot be ignorant, how often and how earnestly Roman Catholicks here have protested their renouncing any acknow­ledgement of the least degree of Temporal power or Jurisdiction as of Right to belong to the Pope, over any Subject of his Majesties; [Page 83] It is therefore meerly a pure Spiritual autho­rity that they acknowledge in their Supreme Pastor. Is this now dishonorable? Is it un­safe? To whom? To all Supreme Princes, whether Catholics, or not? For Catholic Princes, they protest against this Opin [...]on ei­ther of dishonor or danger; If only then to other Princes or States which are dissenters from, and enemies to Catholick Religion, then Nero and Diocletian had reason and ju­stice on their sides, when they persecuted a Religion dishonorable and dangerous to the Ro­man Empire: For evidently, neither St. Peter, nor any other Apostle, or Bishops, but were, as to their Spiritual Authority, independent on the Emperors.

21. Nay more, let the Doctor himself con­sider, lest He and his, both Brethren and Fa­thers, the Bishops, be not more deeply invol­ved in the guilt, for which he desires the Ca­tholics only should suffer. They themselves acknowledge, in despite of so many Statutes to the contrary, a pure Spiritual Authority in their Bishops, not derived from the King, they promise a Canonical obedience to them▪ they do not so to the King, therefore they ad­mit a Jurisdiction in Bishops, of which the King is not the Root. Contrary to th [...] Statute 37 Hen. 8. c. 17.— [...], Ed. 6. c. [...].—& Reform. Leg. Ecclesiast. c. De Offici▪ & Iu­risdictione, p. 190. For tho' for example, a publick denunciation of Excommunication [Page 84] in their Spiritual Courts: or the conferring of Orders, or determining points of Faith, &c. without the Kings consent may expose them, in case they exercise such Functions, to some danger from the Law of the King­dom, yet they will justifie such acts to be in themselves valid, that is, perform'd with sufficient authority; See Bishop Andrews Tort. Tort p. 366.— Bishop Carleton of Ju­risdict. Reg. & Episcop. c. 1. p. 9.—&c. 4. p. 39, 42.— Bishop Bramh. Schism guarded, p, 61, 63, 92.—Answer to Bishop of Chalced. p. 161.— Doctor Ferns Discovery of Episco­pacy and Presbytery, p. 19.— Doctor Tailor Episcopacy asserted, p. 236, 237, 239, 243, — Mr. Thornd. Right of Ch. c. 4. p. 234. —Epilog. l. 1. c. 8. p. 54.—l. 1. c. 19, & 20. —l. 3. c. 32. Which Quotations if any in­telligent Reader will take the pains to peruse and consider, he may clearly see what limi­tations they make in the sense of that Oath of Regal Supremacy, which Oath yet they free­ly take in the full latitude of its words, though these expresse not any of the said limitations. Amatter, which hath not passed unobserved by Mr. Thorndyke in his Iust Weights, c. 20. who there conceives great reason why the Kingdom for this should enact a new Oath.

22. But if I should address my Speech now to Presbyterians and their Consistories, the Case is far more evident. They are so far from permitting to the King a Supremacy of [Page 85] Authority in their Ecclesiastical Courts (if such conspiracies may be called Ecclesiastical) that they will not so much as allow him any authority at all in such transactions: Nay they will exempt him no more than his mean­est Subject from subjection to them. The like may be said of other Sects, which though they are not guilty of the Presbyterian tyranny, yet are as averse from granting his Majesty any Supremacy in matters of Religion, as ei­ther Presbyterians, Protestants, or Roman Ca­tholics. But I am now to deal with the Prea­cher and his Protestants: I therefore desire them to compare themselves and Roman Ca­tholics together as to this point of honor and safety to his Majesty and his Dominions.

23. Is it dishonorable either to the King or Kingdom, that a purely Spiritual authori­ty should be acknowledged in him, to whom this whole Kingdom from its first conversion to Christianity together with the whole Chri­stian world submitted it self as to their Su­preme Pastor? And is it Honorable, that the same authority should be granted to more than twenty of his Majesties own Subjects? Again, is it unsafe that Canonical obedience for Christian Vnity's sake should be professed to one Venerable Prelat a 1000. miles off, and is there no danger in making the same Professi­on to so many at home, who, besides their spi­tual authority, have a right to concur in the enacting and executing Civil laws too; and [Page 86] who, we see, can either exalt or depresse, ac­cording to their Interests, and advantages the Royal Prerogative?

2. To resolve such Questions, as these, but also so to resolve them as becomes a Prea­cher of the Gospel of peace and truth would be a subject worthy the stating in a Court-Sermon. But it must be don without transgressing the precise limits of the question, that is, by com­paring the state of Catholic Religion as pro­fessed and practised, for example, in France, Venice, Germany, &c. with the reformed Religion in England; the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of the former with that of the lat­ter; and then judging whether of the two bring more security and honor to their Prin­ces, and are more effectual upon the consci­ences of Subjects to breed them up in peace and obedience. For my own part, simply as a Catholic, my desire and prayers are, that Gods divine truth may prevail in all our hearts, but so prevail by those wayes of Charity, Pa­tience, Justice and Piety with which it first conquered the World. And as a Subject of the Crown of England my Prayers are, that we may be all united in the profession of that on­ly Religion, which more perfect [...]y and most indispensibly gives to Caesar the things which are Caesar 's, and to God the things which are God's.

25. I will row for a farewel, to these Te­stimonies of our Catholic Fathers, add the [Page 87] Votes of the Fathers also of the Reformation, that he may see how far more ingenuously they write then himself has don [...] touching the Popes Primacy. And first I will produce two or three, who, though they oppose it, as he does, as a Novelty▪ yet allow a far greater age to it. Fulk against Bristows mo­tives, p. [...]48. Doctor Fulk (most unchronologically) says, that five or six hundred years before Pope Leo and Pope Gregory (that is almost an hun­dred years before Christ was born) the myste­ry of Iniquity wrought in the See of Rome, and then daily encreased; they were so deceived with long continuance of error, that they thought the dignity of Peter was much more over the rest of his fellow Apostles, then the Holy Scriptures do allow. Archbishop Whitgift assures us, Wh [...]tg. De­fence, cap. 59. that the Papal Supremacy began with St. Peter, his words are, Among the Apostles themselves there was one chief, that had chief authority o­ver the rest, to the end Schisms might be com­pounded. And this he quotes from Calvin, who said, Ibid. p. 173. The twelve Apostles had one among them to govern the rest.

26. I will now produce two, who will give this whole Cause to the Pope. The first is the so fam'd Melanctho [...], who writes thus: As certain Bishops preside [...]ver particular Chur­ches, Centur. E [...]ist. Th [...]ol. Epist. 74. so the Bishop of Rome is President over all Bishops. And this Canonical policy no wise man, as I think, does or ought to disallow, &c. For the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is in my judgement profitable to this end, that consent [Page 88] of Doctrine may be retain'd. Wherfore an agree­ment may easily be established in this Article of the Popes Supremacy, if other Articles could be agreed upon.

The other witnesse is learned Doctor Covel, Covel. Exam. page 106, 107. the Defender of Mr. Hooker, he having shew'd the Necessity of setting up one above the rest in God's Church to suppresse the Seeds of Dissention, &c. thus applies it against the Puritans, If this were the principal means to prevent Schisms and Dissentions in the P [...]imitive Church, when the graces of God were more abundant and eminent then now they are: N [...]y, if twelve [Apostles] were not like to agree, except there had been one chief among them: For saith Hierom, Among the twelve one was therefore chosen, that a chief be­ing appointed, occasion of Schism might be preven­ [...]ed; how can they think that equality would keep all the Pastors in the World in peace and unity? For in all Societies, Authority, which cannot be where all are equal, must procure unity and obedi­ence. Ibid. He adds further: The Church without such an Authority, should be in a far worse case then the meanest Common-wealth; nay almost then a Den of Theives; if it were left d [...]stitute of means, either to convince Heresies, or to suppresse them; yea, though there were neither help nor as­sistance of the Christian▪ Magistrate. Thus Dr. Pierce may see how these, his own Primitive Reformers, either joyn with us in this Point of Primacy, or however they oppose him, in calling it a Novelty begun by Pope Boniface the third.

1. THe Second pretended Novelty of Ca­tholick Doctrine, is the Infallibility of the Church, called by the Preacher, Serm. pag. 8. The Pa [...]a­dium of the Conclave, and derived from the Schol­lars of Marcus in Irenaeus, or from the Gno­sticks in Epiphanius. Against which Infallibi­lity his unanswerable Arguments are, Ib. page 22. 1. Infal­libility is one of Gods incommunicable Attributes. 2. The Church not being omniscient, must there­fore be ignorant in part, and consequently may fall into Error. 3. It is confess'd by the great Cham­pions of the Papacy, that the Heresie of the No­vatians was hatch'd in Rome, and continued there almost two hundred years. 4. Besides Ari­anism that over-spread the Church, she was infe­cted [Page 90] with the Heresie of the Chyliasts, being de­ceived by Papias, which Heresie found no contra­di [...] for some Ages. 5. Yea, the whole Church in the opinion of St. Augustin and Pope Inno­cent, ( during the space of six hundred years ac­cording to Maldona [...]) thought the Sacrament of the Eucharist necessary to Infants: yet the Council of Trent is of a contrary mind.

2. In order to the answering of this Di­sco [...]rse, he will sure acknowledge that all Sect▪ of Christianity agree in this, that each of them has both a Rule of their Faith, and a [...] also: But in both these there is diffe­rence among them. To the Presbyterians, In­dependents, Anabaptists, Quakers, Socinians, &c. the only Rule is the Holy Scripture. But both Catholicks and English Protestants, though they acknowledge Divine Revelations to be their only Rule, yet they admit certain universal­ly received Traditions, besides expresse Scri­pture.

3. But as for the Guide from which we are to learn the true sense of this Rule, the dif­ference among the said Sects is far greater, and more irreconcilable. The Socinians will have Scripture interpreted onely by private reason, a Guide evidently fallible, and therefore not to be imposed on others. The Indepen­dents, Anabaptists, Quakers, and Presbyterians too, pretend to an Infallible Guide, Gods Holy Spirit; but with this difference, that the In­dependents, Anabaptists, and Quakers, rationally [Page 91] acknowledge that this Guide is only to direct those that have it, and perceive they have it, but cannot oblige other men that have it not, nor can be sure they have it. Whereas the Presbyterians by an unexampled Tyranny (at least in France) do oblige themselves and their Posterity to a Profession, that by a Di­vine Illumination they are taught to distin­guish Canonic [...]l Books of Scripture from Apo­criphal, and by the same Guide to justifie all the Doctrines by which they dissent from all others: And moreover, by a most senslesse inhumanity, will impose a necessity on all o­thers, to belie their own Consciences, and acknowledge the same Guide; though they have never wrought any Miracles, which certainly are necessary to oblige others to believe and follow the internal Guidance of that Spirit to which they pretend.

4. As for Dr. Pierce, and the generality of English Protestants, (I speak of them now, as hitherto they have bin, for what they must be hereafter, neither they nor I know a special Guide of theirs, beyond Reason and Spirit, for the finding out the sense of Scripture, and judging of Traditions received by them, is the Primitive Church, or foure first General Councils: But since those ancient Fathers are now past speaking, and their Writings are as obnoxious to disputes as the Scriptures themselves, a speaking Judge of the sense of all these, I suppose, is their Ecclesiastical Sy­nods, [Page 92] or Bishops, when Synods are dissolved: but principally those that are to make, and determine the sense of Acts of Parliament. And upon these grounds they finde them­selves obliged to behave themselves different­ly to several adversaries. For against Sects that went out from them, they use the help of Catholick weapons, the Authority of the Chu [...]ch, Councils, &c. But against Catholics, they (renouncing the Authority of the present Church in her Supremest Councils, of conve­ning which the times are capable, and (in the interval of Councils) in the major part of the Governours thereof united with him, whom themselves acknowledge the prime Patriark) will make use of a kind of private spirit or reason; or the judgment of a most inconsiderable number of Church-Govern [...]rs, going against the whole Body of the Catholick Church, and their chief Pastor, but this, as to assent only, where it likes them, and so will be their own selves Judges of what is the sense of Councils, Fathers, Scriptures and all: And great difficultie they often find how to a­void being accounted Papists, when they speak to Sectaries, and being even Fanaticks when they Dispute with Roman Catholicks. And truly the Doctors whole Sermon, is in ef­fect meerly Fanatick: For though he florish with Greek and Latin [...]quotations of Fathers joynd to Scripture, which they do not; yet since there is no visible Judge talk'd of in it, [Page 93] but himself, that is able to speak; What is this but private spirit, having little measure of the gift of Tongues more than Quakers have? So that let them preach as much as they will, the result of all Dispute between them and us must come to this, Whether their last speaking Iudge in England, or ours in the whole Catholic Church, deserves better to be be­liev'd and rely'd on.

5. It cannot be deny'd but that there is som­thing of Truth in all these Sects. The Guide which each of them respectively layes claim to, is a justifiable Guide, though being alone not sufficient. For 1. To exclude Reason from guiding us, would be to become Beasts. 2. To exclude Gods Spirit from directing us, would be to cease being Christians. 3. To renounce the Testimony of Antiquity, and Au­thority of General Primitive Councils, would be an arrogant temerity unpardonable. 4. And last of all to deny a judging deter­mining power to the present visible Go­vernors, I mean those Governors and Synods which are Superior, in respect of all other Governors or Synods Inferior, would be to make all Heresies and Schisms justifiable. Therefore not any of these partial Guides must be neglected: Yet unlesse they all concur, that which we take to be Reason, and Inspira­tion, and the sense of the Primitive Church may deceive and mis-guide us.

6. Now, it is only the Roman Catholic [Page 94] Church, whose en [...]re Guidance proceed [...] from all these, and the effect of which Guidance in full satisfaction to each mans Soul, and u­niversal peace in Gods Church: which ef­fects cannot possibly flow but from a compli­cation of all these Guides. Roman Catho­lics admit Reason to judge of the sense of Scripture, (as the Socinians do:) but they give due bounds to Reason, nay they silence it quite, when it would presume to judge of incomprehensible Mysteries, and reject them because Philosophy cannot comprehend them. When Reason has found out the sense of Scripture, they with the Presbyterians, and even Fanatics, acknowledge it is Divine Inspi­ration that moves the Soul to assent thereto, and embrace the verities contained in Scri­pture, directing their actions accordingly. But because the Devil can transform himself into an Angel of Light, neither can there be any Guide more dangerous then false Inspi­rations, they conclude that all such preten­ded Inspirations are indeed Diabolical Sug­gestions, which are prejudicial to Honesty, Virtue, Piety, and the common Rules of O­bedience, both Spiritual and Civil; All In­spirations which which incite private, uncommissi­on'd persons to reform either Churches or State; all that nourish Factions or Com­motions in the Common-wealth: All that beget Pride, and an opinion of self-sufficiency, or an humor of censuring others, especially [Page 95] Superiors. In a word, whensoever the spirit of single Prophets refuse to be subject to the com­munity of the Prophets, that is, Church Govern­ors; such Inspirations in Catholic Religion are rejected, detested, and sent back to the Infernal Father of them.

7. Moreover, Roman Catholics do wil­lingly and confidently appeal to the Primi­tive Church, the four first General Councils, and the holy Fathers. But universal experi­ence demonstrating it impossible, that any writing can end a Debate between multitudes of persons interessed, and therefore not im­partial or indifferent, their last recourse is to the present visible Church; which cannot de­clare her sense to us in any other way then as she is represented by her Pastors out of all Nations, that is, by a General Council. All Catholics, submiting to this Council, not their tongues only, but also their judgments, by following the Church thus with humili­ty, shew, that they are guided both by Reason, Inspiration, and Examples of Primitive Fathers. Hence St. Austin sayes, We receive the Holy Spirit if we love the Church, if we rejoice in the name of Catholics, and in the Catholic Faith. And elsewhere, [Contra rationem nemo sobrius, &c.] No sober man will admit an opinion against Reason, no Christian against Scriptures, no lover of peace and unity, against the Church. And this only is the Guide that we say, and presently will demonstrate to be infallible.

[Page 96] 8. Now, that the final Decision of all Con­troversies in Faith, can only be expected from such a Guide, and consequently that all Chri­stians under pain of damnation, are obliged never to contradict this Guide, and alwaies to assent when it requires, we are taught, not by Reason only, but God himself also, and this in the Law of Moses. The whole Nation of the Iews, (saith St. Augustin) was as it were one great Prophet; the policie of their Church was the Scheme of the Christian, to the twelve Princes of their Families answer'd the twelve Apostles, to the Seventy Elders the Seventy Disciples, to the several Courts of Judgement, our Ecclesiastical Synods, to the great Sanhedrim, a general Council, and to the High Priest, our Supreme Pastor. Now for our present purpose, the Ordinance that God made in the Jewish Church for deciding Controversies about the Law, ran thus, If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judge­ment, Deut. 7, 8, 9. &c. (that is, as we find in 2 Chron. 19. 8. between blood and blood, between Law and Commandment, Statutes and Iudge­ments, then shalt thou arise and get thee into the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse: And thou shalt come to the Priests and Levites, and to the Iudge that shall be in those dayes, and en­quire, and they shall shew thee the sentence of Iudgement, and thou shalt do according to the sentence which they shall shew thee, &c. Thou shalt not decline from the sentence to the right [Page 97] hand or to the left. The man that will do pre­sumptuously, and will not hearken to the Priest, or unto the Iudge, even that man shall die, and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. Up­on those words in this passage [ unto the Iudge that shall be in those daies] Ainsworth, Ainsworth in Deut. 17. 9. out of the Rabbins, observes, that if the high Synedrion had determin'd of a matter, & after another Synedrion rose up, which (upon Rea­sons seeming good unto them) disannulled the former Sentence, then it was disannull'd, and Sentence passed according as seemed good to those later; So that the present Authority was alwaies to take place, and no Appeals to be made from it. For if any Disputes against the Sentence of living speaking Iudges, upon any pretence whatsoever, either of a private exposition of the Law, or the Authority of preceding Rabbies were allow'd, there would never want Contentions and Schisms in the Synagogue. And observe that in this obedi­ence was implyed an assent or submission of Judgment: For otherwise it would be against Conscience, in case the party continued in a contrary opinion of the sense of the Law. It is just so, and alwaies has been so in the Ca­tholic Church: The present Superiors living and speaking must conclude all Controver­sies, their Interpretation of Scripture and Fathers, their Testimony of Tradition must more then put to silence all contradiction of particular Persons or Churches, it must also [Page 98] subdue their minds to an assent, and this un­der the Penalty of an Anathema, or cutting off from the Body of Christ, which answers to a Civil death in the Law.

9. If then an Obedience so indispensable was required to Legal Iudges, who might possibly give a wrong sentence: How secur [...] ­ly may we submit our judgements to the Su­pream Tribunal of the Church: And how just­ly will an Anathema be inflicted on all gain­sayers of an Authority that we are assured shall never mislead us? And the grounds of this assurance, which the Preacher is not yet perswaded of, are now to be discoverd.

10. The true grounds of the Churche [...] Infallibility are the words of Truth, the In­fallibility of the promises of Christ, the Eternal wisdom of the Father. These Promises are the true Palladium, not of the Conclave, but of the Vniversal Church: Nor do we think Doctor Pierce such an Vlisses, as to apprehend he can steal it away.

11. We do not deny however, Serm. page 22. that Infal­libility and Omniscience are (as he saies) incommu­nicable Attributes of God: It is God alone to whose Nature either lying or being deceived are essentially contrary, because he is essenti­ally immutable as in his Being, so in his Vn­derstanding and Will. Yet the immutable God can preserve mutable Creatures from a­ctual mutation: God, who is absolutely Omniscient, can teach a rational Creature [...] [Page 99] Truths necessary or expedient to be known: So that, though a man have much ignorance▪ yet he may be in a sort omniscient within a determinate Sphere, he may be exempted from ignorance or error in teaching such special verities as God will have him know, and has promised he shall faithfully teach others. Our Saviour, as man, was certainly infalli­ble, and as far as was requisite, omniscient too: So were the Apostles likewise, whose wri­tings Protestants acknowledge both to be in­fallible, and to contain all Truth necessary to Salvation. Good Doctor, do you think it a contradiction that God should bestow an in­fallibility, as to some things, on a Creature? What did our Saviour give St. Peter when he said, I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not? Thus the Doctor, may see what a trifling Dis­course he has made against Gods Church.

12. Now, the infallible promises of our Lord to his Church, by vertue of which she has alwaies been believed to be in our sense infallible, follow: At least as many of them as may suffice for the present purpose. 1. Our Saviour has promised his Apostles, Math. 28. 20. That he would be present with them alwaies to the end of the World: Therefore since not any of them out­liv'd that age, this infallible promise must be made good to their Successors. 2. He has promised that When two or three of them meet together in his Name, Math. 18. 20. he will be in the midst of them; Surely to direct them. Therefore much [Page 100] more when the whole Church is repre­sentatively assembled about his businesse onely. 3. He has promised that he will lead his Church into all Truth; at least all that is necessary or but expedient for them to know. Math. 16. 18 4. He has promised, that Against his Church, built upon St. Peter, the Gates of Hell (that is Heresie, say the Fathers) shall not prevail: Therefore it shall be in­fallibly free from Heresie. 5. He has com­manded that, Math. 18. 17. Whoever shall not obey his Church, shall be (cut off from his Body) as a Heathen and a Publican: Therefore Anathema's pronounced by his Church are valid. Our Lord indeed speaks of De­cisions made by a particular Church in quarrels among Brethren: Therefore if Disobedience to such Decisions be so grie­vously punished, what punishment may we suppose attends such as are disobedi­ent to Decisions of the Universal Church, (call'd by the Apostle, The Pillar and ground of Truth) made for the com­posing of publick Debates about the com­mon Faith. 6. To conclude, the be­lief of the Churches Vnity is an unchang­able Article of our [...]reed: Therefore cer­tainly the onely effectual mean to pre­serve Unity, (which is an un-appeal­able, and infallible Authority) shall ne­ver be wanting in the Church.

[Page 101] 13. All these Texts and Prmises we by the example of the Holy Fathers and Autho­rity of Tradition, produce as firm Grounds of an Infallibility in the Universal Church re­presentative, which has an influence over the Souls of men [...] requiring much more than an external submission, which yet is all that Pro­testants will allow to the most authentic gene­ral Councils. We hope now Doctor Pierce will not fly to Mr. Chillingworths miserable shift, and say that all these Promises are on­ly conditional and depending on the piety of Church-governors: For this is contrary to the assertion of all Antiquity, which from these Promises argues invincibly against all He­retics and Schismatics, who might otherwise, on Mr. Chillingworths ground, alledge (as the Donatists did) that the Church by the sins of some had lost all her Authority, and that Gods spirit was transplanted from her in­to themselves. Nor yet that he will use the plea of several other Protestant Writers som­what more discreet, who are willing to allovv those Promises absolute, and to belong also to the Guides of the Church som or other, that they shall in all ages continue orthodox, but not alvvayes to the more superior, or to the greater bodies of these assembled in Coun­cils (because, thus, they see their cause will suffer by it.) But this plea also is utterly un­satisfying; For whenever the superior and subordinate Church-Officers, or Ecclesiasti­cal [Page 102] Courts shall contradict or oppose one an­other, here the superior questionlesse is to be our Guide (otherwise we have no certain rule to know who is so) and therefore to these, not the other, in such cases, must bel [...]ng these promises, where they cannot possibly agree to both.

14. These promises now being Yea and A­men, the Doctor must not seem to make our Lord passe for a Deceiver, but apply them to his English Protestant Church, since he will not allow them to the Catholic, for to some Church they must be applyed. But let him consider withal, he must condemn St. Gregory, Geg. M. l. 1. Epist. 24. who professed that he venerated the four first General Councils of the Catholic Church, as the four Gospels. He must condemn Con­stantine, who, in the first Council of Nice pro­fessed, Act. Conc. Nicen. that [ [...], &c] whatever is decreed in the holy Councils of Bishops, that ought to be attributed to th [...] Divine will In a word he must by condemning all the Gene­ral Councils of Gods Church, condemn like­wise (which is more dangerous) the Act of Parliament, 1 Eliz. For manifest it is that all the Fathers in those Councils did pronounce many Anathema's against all those that would not submit to a belief of such and such Decisi­ons of theirs, in some of which were new ex­pressions not extant in Scripture, but devised by the Fathers then present, as the words [...], &c. Now I ask Doctor [Page 103] Pierce, were those Anathema's lawfull? were they valid? Or will he say, those first Coun­cils (to which he professes assent) usurped an Authority in this, not of right belonging to them? If those Anathema's were valid, then the Councils had a just authority to oblige Christians to an internal belief of verities de­clared by them, as the sence of Divine Re­velation, and this, under the penalties of being separated from Christ: And can any Autho­rity but such as is infallible lay such an obliga­tion upon Consciences under such a penalty? But, if those Anathema's were illegal and inva­lid, then were the Fathers both of those Coun­cils and of All others, who still followed the same method, not only impostors, but most execrable Tyrants over the Souls of men.

15. These Deductions surely are more effe­ctual to demonstrate the Churches infallibility, than any of his Quotations can be against it: Here we have expresse Scripture, and uni­versal consent of Antiquity: Nay here we have the concession of the more judicious Writers of the Church of England (at least before their late restitution:) Dr. Hamond of [...]. sect. [...]. n 1. sect. n. 15. sect. 13. n. 2. sect. 14. n. 6. Bishop Bram­ [...]a [...]l Reply to Bish [...]p Chal­ced Prefa [...]e and Vindic. ca. 2. p. 9. who seem to agree that in the Controversies between our Church and theirs, they would certainly submit to a future lawful General Council: Now, could they lawfully make such a Promise and think such a Council could misguide them? Therefore tru­ly I cannot have the uncivility to judge, that, when one of your 39. Articles declares, that [Page 104] some General Councils have err'd, Artic. 19. the meaning should be [...] that any legal, legitimate General Council has err'd, but only som Councils that som Roman Catholics esteem to be General, concerning which the Church of England is of another opinion: And if this be the mean­ing, the breach made by it may be cu­rable.

16. Now whereas the Doctor alleages, as against this Point, Serm. p. 22. the concession of Baronius, &c. that Novatianism was hatch'd and conti­nued two hundred years at Rome. I cannot de­vise how to frame an Objection out of it: Can no Church be Orthodox, if Heretics rise and continue in the same City? Is the English Church a Quaking Church, because Qua­kers first began, and still encrease at London? As for Novatians at Rome he cannot deny but they were so far from being Members of the Roman Church, that they were continually esteem'd Heretics and condemned by it.

17. The like we say touching the Donatists. Ibid. Indeed his objecting the Arians has more ap­pearance of reason and sense [ Ingemuit orbis, &c.] The world (says. St. Hierom) Hieron. sadly groa­ned and was astonished to see it self on a sudden becom Arian,, that is, after the Council of [...]ri­minum. But how was it Arian, if it groaned? &c. for it could not be really Arian against its will. But St. Hierom uses this expression, because the great Council of Ariminum had seem'd to favour the Arian party against the [Page 105] Catholics. And true it was, that Catholic Bishops were indeed persecuted, and many banish'd: But not one of them chang'd their Profession of the Nicene Faith, unlesse you will accuse Pope Liberius, who for a while dissem­bled it, and presently repented. Besides, the Canons at first made in that Council were per­fectly Orthodox, but afterwards by the Empe­rors Tyranny, and subtilty of two or three Arian Bishops a Creed was composed, wherein though the Nicene Faith was not sufficiently expressed,. Yet there was not one Article per­fectly Arian, but capable of a good sense: to which may Catholic Bishops out of fear sub­scribed, yet to nothing but what in their sense was true▪ though defective in delivering all the truth; but presently after, being at li­berty, both themselves and all the rest re­nounced. And after all, there remained but three years of persecution, for after that time the Arian Emperour Constantius dyed.

18. Next concerning the objected Heresy of the Millenaries: It is very unjust and a great irreverence in him to charge upon the Primitive Church the sayings of two Fathers: and though one of them says, All that were purely Orthodox, (that is, such as he esteemed so, because they were of his Opinion) held that Doctrin [...] yet he thereby shews, that his own Opinion was not universally embraced by the Church: But the truth is, there was a double [Page 106] Millenary opinion, the one that interpreted the reign of Martyrs with Christ for a thou­sand years, in base, sensual pleasures, ban­quets, and women: This was the Doctrine of the unclean Heretick Cerinthus, as Eusebius and St. Augustin relate: Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. Against this St. Dio­nysius Bishop of Alexandria wrote an elegant Book, as St. Hierom affirms: Hierom. Aug. l. 2. de Civ. D. c. 7. And it is most deservedly detested by the Church. But there was another Opinion, that the Martyrs should reign a thousand years with Christ in all Spiritual delights, and ravishing consolation, in a blessed conversing with him: And this Opinion might not unbecom Papias, St. Ire­neus, Aug Ibid. Hieron. l. 4. and St. Iustin Martyr: For St. Augustin and St. Hierom both professe themselves un­willing to censure it, neither can the Doctor, I believe, shew that it was ever condemned by the Church.

18. To his last Objection touching the communicating of Infants, it is granted that in St. Augustin and Pope Innocent's time, and ma­ny years after, such was the common pra­ctice of the Church to communicate them Sacramentally (but withal take notice, it was onely in one species.) Again, it is confessed that from that Text [ Nisi mand [...]caveritis car­nem▪ Aug. l. 1. de pec. merit. cap. 20. Innocent in Epist. &c.] St. Augustin, &c. argue a necessity that Infants should participate of the flesh and blood of our Lord, but this not Sacra­mentally, but Spiritually, by such a participa­tion as may be had in Baptism.

[Page 107] This appears first, From the constant Doctrine of St. Augustin, Aug. [...]b. c. 19. 21, 22. & lib. 2. cap. 28. &c. &c. the whole Church affirming that, Baptism alone may suffice to the salvation of Infants. 2. From his interpreting his own meaning, in a Sermon quoted by St. Beda and Grati­na. His words are these, Bed. ad 1 Cor. c. 10. Gratian Consecr. dist. 2. cap. Qui passus est. None ought by any waies to doubt but that every Christian by be­ing made a Member of Christ in Baptism, thereby becomes partaker of the Bo [...]y and Blood of our Lord, and that he is not estranged from a Com­munion of that Bread and Chalice, though being setled in the Vnity of Christs Body, he should de­part out of this World, before he really eat of that Bread, and drink of that Chalice. For he is not deprived of the participation and benefit of the Sa­crament, whensoever that is found in him which is signified by the Sacrament.

19. That therefore which the Church since, and particularly the Council of Trent alter'd in this matter, was nothing at all touching Belief: For all Catholicks this day believe St. Augustin's Doctrine in that Point, but onely an external practise of the Church: And this was done out of a wonderful reve­rence to those Holy Mysteries, which by fr [...] ­quent Communions of Infants could not escape many irreverences and inconveniencies. And many such Alterations even the English Church observes and justifies, both in the administring of the Eucharist and Baptism too.

To conclude this matter: For a further [Page 108] proof that these two instances about the Millena [...]y Belief, and Infant Communion are not at all conducing to the Doctors Design, I will refer him to the Judgment of Doctor Ferne, of some weight no doubt with him, who expresly saies, and proves by Reasons not unlike these, Dr. Fern in certain Consid. in Preface. That nothing can be concluded by those two Instances to the prejudice of the whole Church, as if thereby might be proved that the whole Church, Vniversally, and in all the Mem­bers of it, may be infected with Error in Points of concernment or prejudicial to the Faith.

1. HAving treated so largely of the Preachers two pretended Noveltys; 1. the Primacy of Iurisdiction of the See Apo­stolic; and 2. the Infallability of the Church in her General Councils, I might rationally e­nough neglect examining the following parti­cular Dogma's which he likewise charges with Novelty, and betake by self to the point of Schism: because if the Church have a spiritu­al obliging Iurisdiction, taking its Original from the Chair of St. Peter; and again if what the proposes to us to be believed, she pro­poses validly under the penalty of being sepa­rated from Christ, since it is manifest that she so proposes the said particular Doctrins, not in her Councils onely, but universal practise, wherein her Infallability is with an equal [Page 110] Aut [...]ority demonstrated; they ought with­out contradiction be submitted to: Never­thelesse having some reason to doubt that in case any of his Novelties be omited, he, or at least some of his over-credulous Readers will impute such an omission to a difficulty in disproving him, I must be content to take a trouble on me, which is therefore only neces­sary, because many Protestants are unreaso­nable.

2. His third pretended Novelty, is the Doctrin of Purgatory, Serm. p. 8. which he says, We have from Origen, or at the farthest from Tertullian, and he from no better Author than the Arch-Heretic Montanus. Nor does Bellar­min mend the matter by deriving it from Virgil, Tully, or Plato 's Gorgias.

3. It would have been a great courtesie both to his Hearers and Readers, if he had inform'd them why he singled out a specula­tive Point touching Purgatory, and omit­ted one of far greated importance, because obliging to Practise also, which is Pray­er for the Dead. His way of proceeding, doubtlesse does not want a Mystery: And he must give me leave to answer his Novelty of Purgatory by speaking scarce any thing at all of it, but only telling him nakedly the Chur­ches Doctrin about it; and by insisting on the confessed Antiquity, Apostolic Antiquity of Prayer for the Dead; which being cleared, I defie all his learning and skill, unlesse he can [Page 111] disprove this, to deny or so much as questi­on on the other.

4. Now the Doctrin of the Church concer­ning Purgatory and Prayer for the Dead is con­tained in this Decree of the Council of Trent, There is a Purgatory: Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. and Souls detained there are helped by the suffra [...]es of the Faithfull, (that is, by Prayers and Alms) and most especially by the most acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar. By which Definition the Church obliges all Ca­tholicks no farther than simply to believe that there is a place or state of Souls in which they are capable of receiving help or ease by Pray­ers, &c. The Council tells us nothing of the position of this place, nor what incommodi­ties Souls find in it, nor whether there be fire, &c. which are Points that St. Augustin says he could not resolve: On the contrary, it forbids, (at least out of the Schools) all curious subtile Questions concerning it, Ibid. all dis­courses which are not for edification.

5. Having represented the Churches Do­ctrine, I will next transcribe the Form of her Prayers for the Dead, extant in the Canon of the Masse. Can. Missae. Memento. Remember likewise, O Lord, thy Servants who have gone before us with the Sign of Faith (i. e. Baptism,) and repose in the sleep of peace. We beseech thee, O Lord, mercifully grant to them, and to all that rest in Christ, a place of refreshment, light and peace, through Christ our Lord. And after the Canon, We beseech thee, O Lord, absolve the Soul of thy Ser­vant [Page 112] from all chains of his sins, [...] Commun. to the end, that in the glory of the Resurrection, he may respire by a new life among the Saints and Elect, through Christ our Lord. Now if it can be demon­strated that by the universal practise of the Primitive Church, such Prayers as these were made for the Dead; it unavoidably follows, That the Souls for whom they are made, are neither in Heaven nor H [...]ll: And if so, where are they, Doctor Pierce? speak like an honest man.

6. To demonstrate this, let him view nar­rowly these passages of the Holy Fathers, be­fore, and during the space of the first four General Councils. St. Denis the Areopagite, (or whoever was Author of the Book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and who by confessi­on of Protestants, liv'd within the second Century after the Apostles) declares that the Priest does demand from the Divine goodnesse for the person departed, Dion. Ar. de Eccles. Hierar­chia. c. ult. a pardon of all sins through human frailty committed by him, and that he may be conducted into the light and region of the living, into the bosoms of Abraham▪ Isaac, and Jacob, into a place from which grief, sadnesse, and mourning it banished. And presently af­ter he testifies▪ Ibid. that What he commits to wri­ting concerning this Prayer pronounced by the Priest for the Dead, he received by Tradition from his Divine Teachers (the Apostles.)

7. Next Tertullian, Let the faithful Wid­dow, Tert. de Mon. cap. 10. saies he, pray for the soul of her Husband, [Page 113] and make an oblation in the Anniversary day of his death, begging for him refreshment and part in the first Resurrection. And, to prevent the Preach­ers Objection, that the Father learned this from the Arch-Heretick Montanus, let him an­swer for himself; Id. de Coron. Mil. cap. 3. We make, saies he, Anniver­sary Oblations for the Dead, and for the [ Nata­litia] of the Martyrs. And presently he ad­joynes, Ibid. cap. 4. Concerning these and the like Observan­ces, if you require the Authority of Scriptures, you will not find any: Tradition shall be alleged to you for the Author, custom for the confirmer, and Faith the Observer.

8. After him follows his Schollar blessed St. Cyprian, Cypr. Ep. 66. The Bishops (saies he) that went before us, have ordain'd that not any one of our Brethren at his death shall name in his Will for an Executor, or Guardian, any Ecclesiastical Person; and if any one shall do otherwise, that no Oblati­on should be made for him, and that the Sacrifice should not be celebrated for him at his death: For such a one deserves not so much as to be named at the Altar in the Priests Prayer.

9. Eusebius relates that, at the Obsequies of the Emperor Constantine, Euse. de vit. Const. l. 4. c. 71. the People and Clergy unanimously sent up prayers to God, not without tears and great groanings for the Soul of the Emperor. Likewise Epiphanius disputing against the Heretick Aerius, reckons this a­mong his heresies (as St. Augustin likewise does) That he denyed Prayers and Oblation for the Dead. Epiph. 3. hae [...]. In opposition whereto he saies, [Page 114] Prayers made for the dead profit them, though they do not blot out [ [...]] entirely all (mortal) sins. Ibid. And again, Who shall now have the [...]oldnesse to dissolve the Statute of his Mo­ther (the Church) or the Law of his Father? (which Father he there interprets to be the Holy Trinity.) Moreover St. Chrysostome, Chrysost. in Ep. ad Philip. c. 1. hom. 3. It is not in vain that the Apostles have instituted this Law, That during the celebration of the dread­ful mysteries, commemoration should be made of the dead: for they knew that great benefit and pro­fit would thereby accrew unto them. And yet more expresly in another place, Id. hom. in 1 Cor. c. 15. v. 46. We must (saith he) give our help and assistance to sinners departed, by our Prayers, Supplications, Alms, and Oblations: For these things were not rashly and groundlesly devised: Neither is it in vain, that in the Divine Mysteries we make mention of these who are dead; and approaching to the Altar, ad­dresse our prayers for them to the Lamb placed there who took away the sins of the World: But we do this to the end that some comfort and refreshment may come to them thereby. Neither is it in vain that he who assists at the Altar at the time when the dreadful Mysteries are communicated, cries out, Pray for all that are dead in Christ, and for those who celebrate their memorials. For were it not that such commemorations were profitable to them, such things would not be spoken. For the matters of our Religion are no sport: No, God forbid. These things are perform'd by the Order and Dire­ction of Gods Spirit.

[Page 115] 10. True it is, that antiently in the pub­lick Liturgies a commemoration was made even of the greatest Saints, yes, and pray­ers were made for them: But yet not such prayers as were made for the imperfect. But, since all future things may be the subject of our prayers, it may become our charity to pray for accession of glory to Saints already glorified, but which at the Resurrection shall be in a yet better State. And therefore when St. Austin saies, It is an injury to pray for a Martyr, since we ought rather to commend our selves to his prayers: he means such prayers, as we make for imperfect Christians, that is, for remission of their sins, refreshment, &c.

11. Now, tho' some such prayers extant in the Holy Fathers did regard the day of Judgment, and the glory ensuing; yet with­al, that they thought, to some Souls a present refreshment did accrew in the inter­mediat condition, is evident both by the foresaid Testimonies, and many more that may be added: As where St. A [...]brose saies, he would never cease his Intercessions for the Soul of the dead Emperor? till he found a de­liverance by them. This is so apparent both out of the Fathers and ancient Liturgies, that Bishop Forbes, Forb. de Pur [...]. c. 3. §. 27. Spalato, and other Prote­stant Writers, do acknowledge it, and refuse not to assent to the ground of such a pra­ctise. The words of Spalato are these: There would be no absurdity if we should confesse, Spal. l. 5. cap. 8. that [Page 116] some lighter sins which have not in this life been remitted (quoad culpam) as to the guilt or fault, may be forgiven after death, and this somtimes a little after the departure of the Soul, &c. by vertue of the Churches interces­sion.

12▪ It cannot be denied, but that there are among the Holy Fathers great varieties of Opinions touching some particular circum­stances regarding the state of Souls after death, and at the present some differences there are between the Roman and Greek Church. In which notwithstanding it will appear to any who will compare them, that the Roman Doctrin is far more moderate, re­ceiveable, and approaching to the grounds of Protestants, than that of the Eastern Church. But however, it is without all con­troversy, that all Churches who professed Christianity before the Reformation, do a­gree unanimously in the practice of praying for the Dead, so as to beg forgiveness of sins, a bettering of their state, an asswage­ment of their sufferings, &c. Which practise they esteem not a voluntary offering, but a duty, to a necessary performance of which, charity obligeth all Christians. And there­fore English Protestants cannot be excused for their neglect of this duty, especially consi­sidering that the Doctrin upon which this Practice is grounded, is not mentioned at all among those Points which they account No­velties [Page 117] in the Roman Church. On the con­trary, the more learned among them have and do, though not in expression, yet in sense agree with Bishop Andrews, conceding in his Reply to Cardinal Perron, P. 9. —That for offe­ring doth he not mean here, for offering the Christian sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist for them, for what is more manifest in Antiqui­ty, than this?] and prayer for the Dead, little is to be said against it. No man can deny, but it is very antient. Since then the Church cannot be thought, from the most antient times thereof, to have offered up to God all her prayers in all ages pro defunctis in vain, methinks I cannot here, but in this respect al­so commiserate the condition of those poor Souls, who depart hence un-owned by that Church, and without any share in her pray­ers (which only like a true Mother, is so sol­licitous and carefull a Supplicant not only for her living, but also deceased children) and who, after a life here not so well spent, seeing themselves going hence only with an inchoa­ted repentance, & an unperfect reformation, and very unprepared to be immediatly enter­tained in that place of bliss, and glorious so­ciety into which no impure thing shall enter, yet are content rather to lose the benefit of the daily prayers and oblations for them of this careful Mother, than to render themselves capable thereof by returning into her Com­munion. And surely much more uncomfort­able [Page 118] must such a death be, that is void of the hopes of any such assistance, than theirs is, who, departing hence in the bosom of the Church, and in this blessed communion of Saints with the request of St. Austins dying Mother in their mouth, Aug. Conf. l. 9. c. 11. Illud vos rogo, ut ad Domine altare memineritis mei: This I beg of you, that at the Altar of our Lord ye make re­membrance of me: are sure to enjoy the last aid of this pious charity, and also the yet more efficacious sacrifice of the Altar to be fre­quently offered to God in their behalf.

10. Lastly, to omit particular Quotations out of the antient public Liturgies of the Church, that of St. Iames acknowledged by the second General Council, that of St. Basil, St. Chryso­stom, &c. in every one of which are expresse prayers and oblations for the Dead, demand­ing pardon of their sins, refreshment of their sufferings, &c. I will conclude with a full convincing Testimony of St. Augustin, Aug. Ser. 32. de verb. Apost. whose words are these, That by the Prayers of the Holy Church, and saving Sacrifice, as like­wise by Alms expended for their Souls, our de­parted Brethren are helped, that God may deal with them more mercifully than their sins de­serve, not to be doubted. For this the univer­sal Church observes as a Tradition of our Fa­thers, that for those who are dead in the Com­munion of the Body and Blood of our Lord, Pray­ers should be made, when at the holy Sacrifice their Names are in their due place rehearsed, [Page 119] and that it should be signified that the Offering is made for them. And when out of an intention of commending them to Gods mercy, works of Charity and Alms are made, who will doubt that these things help towards their good, for whom Prayers are not in vain offered to God? It is not therefore to be doubted but that these things are profitable for the Dead▪ yet only such as before their death have lived so, as that these things may profit them after Death. And a­gain, Id. Enchirid. c. 110. For Martyrs the Sacrifice is offered as a thanksgiving, and for others as a propiti­ation.

14. The Doctor cannot but know in his Conscience, (for he is no Stranger to the Fa­thers) what a great Volume may be written to confirm this: And that not one expressi­on can be quoted against it. Therefore whereas he said without any ground, that Tertullian borrowed from Montanus; I would ask him, From whom did he borrow the o­mission of this charitable duty to the Dead, but from the Heretie Aerius? Nor is this to be considered as a voluntary courtesie don them, which without any fault may be omit­ed. On the contrary St. Epiphanius will tell him, Epiph. l. 3. haer. 75. the Church does these things necessarily, having received such a Tradition from the Fa­thers. And St. Augustin, Aug. de cur. pro mort. c. 5. we must by no means omit necessary Supplications for the Souls of the Dead: For whether the Flesh of the dead Per­son lye here, or in another place, repose ought to be obtained to his Spirit.

[Page 120] 15. If these Souls were believ'd to be in Heaven would it not be ridiculous? If in Hell would it not be impious to offer the dreadful Sacrifice, to make Supplications▪ to be at charge in Alms for the obtaining them re­pose, pardon of their sins, refreshment of their sufferings, a translation into the region of Light and peace, and a place in the bosom of Abraham? But if they be neither in Heaven nor Hell, where are they then? He cannot deny a third place, unless he thinks them anihilated: He will not say that third place is Purgatory, because the Church calls it so. But suppose the Church dispence with him for the Name; I would to God he would accept of such a dis­pensation; one pretence of Schism would quickly be removed.

16. To conclude; If all the Liturgies of the Church, all the Fathers have not credit e­nough with him to perswade that this is no Novelty▪ yet greater Antiquity for it he may find in the Iewish Church: an expresse Testi­mony for which we read in the Book of Mac­chabees: He will say it is not Canonical: at least let him acknowledge it not to be a Ro­mance: and however, the universal Tradition and practise of the Synagogue will justifie it. From the Jews no doubt Plato borrowed this Doctrin, and from Plato Cicero, and from both Virgil. Nay even natural reason will tell him, that Heaven, into which no unclean thing can enter, is not so quickly and easily o­pen [Page 121] to imperfect Souls, as to perfect: nor have we any sign, that meerly by dying, sinful li­vers becom immediatly perfect.

17. To fill his learned Margins, he quotes certain Contradictors of Bellarmin, as the Bi­shop of Rochester, Polydor Virgil, Suarez, and Thomas ex Albiis; but since both Bellarmin himself and all his Contradictors agree with the Church, in contradiction to the Preacher, that there is a Purgatory; what other induce­ment could he have to mention them▪ unlesse it were that his Readers might see what his Hearers could not, that he was resolved to pretend, but was not able indeed to produce any thing to purpose against the Catholic Church?

1. THe three next supposed Novelties of the Catholic Church all regard the most holy Sacrament. That blessed Myste­ry, which was instituted to be both a Sym­bal and instrument, to signifie and to ope­rate Vnity, is, by the cunning of the Devil, and malicious folly of men, becom both the work and cause of Dis-union.

2. Touching this Subject the first of the three Novelties the Doctor says is Transub­stantiation Serm. p. 9. ‘So far from being from the be­ginning that it is not much above four hun­dred years old, Ibid. p. 23, 24. that it was first beard of in the Council of Lateran. For in Pope Ni­cholas the Second's time the submission of [Page 122] Berengarius imports rather a Con—then Transubstantiation. But evident it is, That it was never taught by our Saviour, since he in the same breath wherewith he pro­nounced, This is my Blood, explain'd himself by calling it expresly the fruit of the Vins. and there needs no more to make the Roma­nists ashamed of that Doctrin, than the con­cession of Aquinas, who says, That it is im­possible for one body to be locally in more places than one: From whence Bellarmin angrily infers, that it equally implies a Con­tradiction for one body to be so much as Sa­cramentally in more places than one.’

3. In order to the giving some satisfaction touching this matter, I will, as before, set down the Churches Doctrin concerning this most holy Sacrament, which will extend it self to all his three pretended Novelties. In the Profession of Faith compiled by Pope Pius iv. Profess. Fid. Pii 4. out of the Council of Trent it is said, I profess that in the Masse there is offered to God a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and Dead: And that in the most holy Sacra­ment of the Eucharist there is truly and Sub­stantially the Body and Blood▪ together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Iesus Christ: and that there is a Conversion (or Change) of the whole Substance of Bread into his Body, and of Wine into his Blood: which change the Ca­tholic Church calls Transubstantiation. More­over I confess that under one of the Species alone [Page 124] whole and entire Christ, and a true Sacrament is received.

4. And if he will needs have it so, let it be granted, that the Latin word Transubstanti­ation begun commonly to be received among Catholics at the Council of Lateran: Though there was a Greek expression exactly import­ing as much [ [...]] as old as his Begin­ning, that is, in the time of the first General Council. But for God's sake let not a new word drive him out of God's Church, as the word [...] did the Arians. He may ob­serve with Cardinal Perron that the Church only says, the change made in the holy Sacra­ment is usually called Transubstantiation: So that on condition he allow a real Substantial change, the word it self shall not hinder us from being good Friends.

5. The Doctor sees now what our Church holds concerning this Point. She delivers her mind sincerely, candidly, ingenuously. But if I should ask him what his Church holds, it would cost him more labour to give a satis­factory Answer than to make ten such Ser­mons.

6. There are among Christians only four ways of expressing a presence of Christ in the Sacrament. 1▪ That of the Zuinglians, Socini­ans, &c. who admit nothing at all real here; The Presence, say they, is only figurative or imaginary: As we see Bread broken and eaten, &c. so we ought to call to mind that [Page 125] that Christs Body was crucified, and torn for us, and by Faith (or a strong fancy) we are made partakers of his Body, that is, not his Body, but the blessings that the offring his Body may procure. 2. That of Calvin and English Divines, Calvin in [...] Cor. cap. 11. 24. who usually say, as Calvin did, That in the holy Sacrament our Lord offers unto us not onely the benefit of his Death and Re­surrection, but the very Body it self in which he dyed and rose again: Or, as King Iames, We ac­knowledge a presence no lesse true and real then Catholics do; Casaub. [...]p. ad. Card. Per. only we are ignorant of the manner: [Of which it seems he thought that Catho­lics were not.] So that this presence is sup­posed a Substantial presence, but after a spiritu­al manner: A presence not to all, but to the worthy receivers: Offred perhaps to the un­worthy, but only partaken by the worthy: A presence not to the Symbols, but the Recei­vers Soul only: Or if (according to Mr. Hooker) in some sence the Symbols do exhibit the very Body of Christ, yet they do not con­tain in them what they exhibit, at least not before the actual receiving. 3. Of the Lu­therans, who hold a presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament as real, proper and substantial as Catholics do, but deny an exclusion of Bread. For Bread, say they, remains as be­fore, but to and with it the Body of our Lord (every where present) is in a sort hypostati­cally united: Yet some among them d [...]ny a­ny reverence is to be exhibited to Christ, [Page 126] though indeed substantially present. 4. That of Roman Catholics, whose sense was let down before; whereto this only is to be added, That believing a real conversion of Bread in­to our Lords Body, &c. they think them­selves obliged, in conformity to the Ancient Church, as to embrace the Doctrine, so to imitate their practise in exhibiting due reve­rence and worship (not to the Symbols, not to any thing which is the object of sense, as Cal­vinists slander them; but) to our Lord himself only, present in and under the Symbols.

7. Now three of these four Opinions, that is, every one but that of English Prote­stants speak intelligible sense: Every one knows what Zuinglians, Lutherans, and Ro­man Catholics mean: But theirs (which they call a Mystery) is Indeed a Iargon, a Linsey-Wolsey Stuff, made probably to sui [...] with any Sect according to interests: They that taught it first in England, were willing to speak at least, and, if they had been permitted, to mean likewise as the Catholic Church instru­cted them, but the Sacrilegious Protectour in King Edwards daies, and afterward the Privy Council in Queen Elizabeths, found it for their wordly advantage, that their Divines should, at least in words, accuse the Roman Church for that Doctrine which themselves believed to be true. But now, since the last Restitution, if that renew'd Rubrick at the end of the Communion, be to be esteem'd Do­ctrinall, [Page 127] then the last Edition of their Religion in this Point is meer Zuinglianism, to which the Presbyterians themselves, if they are true Calvinists, will refuse to subscribe. Thus the new Religion of England is almost become the Religion of New England.

8. [...] remains now that I should by a few authorities justifie our Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or real substantial Presence, to be far from deserving to be called a Novelty of [...]our hundred years standing. By Catho­lic Doctrine, I mean the Doctrine of the Church, not of the Schools, the Doctrine delivered by Tradition, not Ratiocination: Not a Doctrine that can be demonstrated by human empty Philosophy. On the contrary, it may be con­fidently assorted, that all such pretended de­monstrations are not only not concluding, but illusory, because that is said to be demon­strated by reason, which Tradition tells us is above reason, and ought not to be squared by the Rule of Philosophy: The presence of Christ in the Sacrament is truly real and Sub­stantial, but withall Sacramental, that is My­stical, inexplicable, incomprehensible. It is a great mistake among Protestants, when they argue that we, by acknowledging a Conversion by Transubstantiation, pretend to declare the modum conversionis. No; that is far from the Churches, or the Antient Fathers thoughts. For by that expression the onely signifies, the change is not a matter of fancy, [Page 128] but real, yet withal Mystical. The Fathers, to expresse their belief of a real conversion, make use of many real changes mentioned in the Scripture, as of Aarons Rod into a Ser­pent, of water into wine, &c. But withal they adde, That not any of these Examples do fit, or properly represent the Mystical change in the Sacrament: Sence or Reason might comprehend and judge of those changes, but Faith alone must submit to the incomprehen­siblenesse of this. When Water was turn'd into Wine, the eyes saw, and the Palat tasted Wine, it had the colour, extension, and lo­cality of Wine; But so is it not when Bread by consecration becomes the Body of Christ; For ought that Sence can judge, there is no change at all: Christs Body is present, but without locality: It is present, but not cor­porally, as natural bodies are present, one part here, and another there. The Quomodo of this presence is not to be inquired into, nor can it without presumption be deter­min'd. This is that which the Church calls a Sacramental, Mystical presence. But, that this presence is real and substantial, a presence in the Symbols or Elements, and not only in the mind of the worthy receiver, the Fathers unanimously teach: And indeed if it were not so, none could receive the Body of Christ unworthily, because according to Protestants, it is not the Body of Christ, but meer Bread that an impenitent Sinner receives: And St. [Page 129] Pauls charge would be irrational, when he saies, 1 Cor. 11. 29. such An one receives judgment to himself in that he does not discern the Body of our Lord. Besides, if the change be not in the Elements, but in the Receivers Soul, what need is there of Consecration? What effect can Consecration have? Why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest, administer this Sacrament? What hinders that such a Presence may not be effected in the mind every Dinner or Supper, and as well when we eat flesh, and drink any other Liquor besides Wine at our own Table, as at that of our Lord.

9. Now, whether their Doctrine or ours be a Novelty, let Antiquity judge. If I should produce, as he knows I may, hundreds of Testimonies that by conversion a change is made of the Bread into the Body, and Wine into the Blood of Christ, he would think to escape by allowing a change to be made, but only in the Act of worthy receiving. There­fore I will onely make use of such Authorities as demonstrate this change to be made before communicating; that it remains, when the Sacrament is reserved, and that immediately after consecration, before any participation of the Symbols, both the Priest and People did perform an act of Adoration to Christ, belei­ved to be really and substantially, though mysti­cally, present.

10. In all ancient Liturgies (as Blondel Blondel. him­self, though a Huguenot, confesses) the pray­er [Page 130] in the consecration of the Elements was, That God would by his holy Spirit sanctifie the Ele­ments, L [...]turg. S. Basil. Cyril. Hier. Catech. Myst. 5. whereby the Bread may be made the Body, and the Wine the Blood of our Lord. And, that before communicating, whilst it was on the Altar, it was esteem'd and worshiped as the true Body of our Lord, St. Chrysostome will witnesse, Chrys. in. 1 Cor. 10. hom. 24. Let us, saith he, who are Citizens of Heaven, imitate but even the barbarous Magi, (who worshipped our Lord an Infant, &c.) Thou seest him not in the Manger, but on the Altar. Thou dost not see a woman holding him, but the Priest standing by him, and the Spirit with great vertue hovering over these (Mysteries) pro­posed. Thou not only seest the Body it self, as the Magi did, but thou knowest also the vertue of it, &c. The same Body which is the most precious and most honour'd thing in Heaven, I will shew thee placed upon Earth, &c. Neither dost thou only see it, but touchest and eatest it, and having received it, thou returnest home with it, Opta [...]. lib. 6. &c. Hence Optatus saith, What other thing is the Altar, but the Seat of the Body and Blood of Christ. A yet more irrefragable witnesse hereof is the General Council of Nice, wherein (Act. l. 3. c. de Di­vinâ mensâ) are these words, In this Divine Table let us not abase our intentions so as to consi­der the Bread and Wine set before us, but raising up our mind by Faith, let us understand that upon that holy Table is placed the Lamb of God, which takes away the sins of the World, which is unbloo­dily immolated by the Priest, and receiving his pre­cious [Page 131] Body and Blood, let us truly believe that these are the Symbols of our Redemption.

And, that the Elements, once consecrated and after reserved, yet remain the Body of Christ though not participated, St. Cyril of Alexandria expresly [...]ectifies, I hear (saith he) there are others who affirm that the Mystical Eulo­gy, Cy [...]il. Al. Ep. ad Calosyr. if any thing of it remain till another day, doth profit nothing to sanctification. Bur they are mad who say these things: For Christ is not alter'd, neither is his holy Body changed; but the vertue of Benediction and quickning grace perpe­tually remains in it. And as touching Ad [...]rati­on of our Lord, as acknowledged substantial­ly present on the Altar, St. Ambrose expresly asserts it, Adore the foot-stool of his feet. There­fore by the footstool is understood the Earth; Amb [...]. de Spis. lib. 3. cap. 12. and the Earth the flesh of Christ, which at this day also we adore in the Mysteries, and which the Apostles adored in our Lord Iesus. And from St. Ambrose the same is taught as expresly by St. Augustin, discoursing on the same Text, Aug. in Psal. 98. 5. Adorate Scabel­lum pedum ejus: Who moreover adds, Christ hath given his flesh to be eaten by us for our▪ Sal­vation: Now no man eats this, except he first a­dore it. Yea, moreover he saies, We do not only not sin by adoring it, but we should sin if we did not adore it, And in an Epistle to Honoratus, he affirms, Id. Epist. 120. That the rich of the Earth and proud are somtimes brought to the Table of our Lord, and there receive of his Body and Blood, but they onely adore it, they are not satiated with it, because they [Page 132] do not imitate him (by humility.) For of the humble it is said, Edent pauperes & satura­buntur.

11. The same may be inferr'd by the won­derfull niceness and scrupolosity observed in the Primitive Church in the handling, com­municating and reserving these Mysteries; what a crime was it esteem'd in the Primitive times, if but a crum or drop of the consecra­ted Elements should fall to the ground? For fear of that, till about the year six hundred they were received by the Communicants not in their Fingers, as among the Reformed, but in the inside plain of their hands, and in a silver Pipe, &c. But I will conclude this point with a brief Answer to the Doctors Alle­gations.

12. Whereas therefore he says, It is evident that Transubstantiation wa [...] never taught by our Saviour, since in the same breath wherewith he pronounced these words, This is my Blood, he explain'd himself by calling it expresly the Fruit of the Vine. On the contrary I do confident­ly pronounce it to be evident, that those words were neither spoken by our Lord in the same breath after the Consecration of the Chalice, nor had they any regard to the Sa­crament. 'Tis true they are mentioned by St. Matthew after the Consecration, but he knows that in St. Luke, who promised to write [...], those words are mentioned before any Conse­cration began, and the occasion of them is [Page 133] evidently the eating of the Paschal Supper &c. For this is his Narration: When the hour was come he sate down, Luke 22. 14, 18. and the twelve A­postles with him. And he said unto them with desire I have desired to eat this Passeover with you before I suffer. For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof until it be fulfill'd in the kingdom of God. And he took the Cup and gave thanks, and said, Take this and divide it among your selves, For I say unto you I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. Now after all this follows his own last Supper, the Mystical consecration and communion of his blessed Body and Blood. For the Text thus continues, And he took Bread saying, lbid. 10. 19, 20. This is my Body, &c. likewise also the Cup after Supper, saying, This Cup, &c. This being the order of the words, no Text can possibly with more evidence con­ [...]ute the Doctor than this which himself cites: for what can be clearer, if before Consecrati­on our Saviour said, He would drink no [...]ore of the fruit of the Vine? then that what he drank after was not of the fruit of the Vine? But be­sides this, though our Lord should have cal­led it, after Consecration, the fruit of the Vine, as Saint Paul calls the other Symbol Bread: this does not argue against a Change in their nature; For Moses his Rod, after it was changed into a Serpent is call'd a Rod still, because it had been one [Exod. 7. 12.] and [Io. 2. 9.] it is said, That the Ma­ster [Page 134] of the Feast tasted the Water that was made Wine.

13. Is not now the Doctor's Insincerity e­vident his insincerity even in the Pulpit? has he not palpably mis-inform'd his Majesty and so illustrious an Auditory? And though he should still continue to prefer St. Matthews order of Narration before St. Lukes, yet what St. Luke writes cannot possibly be applyed to the Sacrament: For, though those special words, Matth. 26. 29. [...] I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine untill, &c. if they stood alone, might seem applicable to the consecrated Cha­lice: yet those other of Saint Luke, I will not any more eat of this Pass [...]over, untill, &c. cannot possibly be applyed to the con­secrated Element of Bread: and therefore since both these Sayings were manifestly in­tended of the same Subject; It is more than evident they were meant only of the Paschal Supper, and not at all of the Sacra­ment.

14. Serm. pag. 14. As for Bellarmins quarrel with St. Tho­mas his affirming that one Body cannot be locally in two places: and his revengeful inference, that neither then ca [...] they be Sacramentally: All I will say hereto shall be, that if there be any quarrel on Bellarmins part, which truly I do not find to be such but may very friendly be composed. Yet however since it is on­ly about a Scholastical Notion of Locality, Circumscription, &c. and it is apparent, [Page 135] that both these Doctors held a true Sub­stantial presence of our Lords Body in the Sa­crament, as the Church teaches, I will not, by troubling my self about composing the matter between them, invite the Doctor here­after to unnecessary excursions: It is only the Churches Doctrin that I engage my self to ju­stifie.

15. Serm. pag. 25. In the last place, touching Berin a­rius his submission, if the Form were the same mentioned in the Doctors Margin from Floriacensis, there is nothing appears in it favouring Consubstantiation. Certainly, it was sufficient, if he spoke sincerely, to acquit him from any suspition of holding onely a Figurative Presence of Christ's Bo­dy: and that onely was his businesse. As for his Expressions that Our Lords Bo­dy, not onely in Mystery, but Truth is handled, broken and chawed with the teeth of Faithful Communicants, unlesse they be understood Sacramentally, they are far from being justifiable. And so are all the Capharnaitical Objections that Prote­stants make against Catholic Doctrine in this matter. VVe acknowledge more than a Spiritual, an Oral Manducatian, but without any Suffering or Change in the Divine Body it self: VVe acknowledge it is Nourishment to us, but not after a Carnal manner; Christ is not changed [Page 136] by Digestion into our Bodyes; yet san­ctifies even our Bodies also, as well as our Souls: Greg. Nyss. orat. Catech. c. 37. Because in Saint Gregory Nyssen his Expression, Insinuating it self into our Bo­dies, by an union with our Lord's Immortal Body, We are made Partakers of Immorta­lity.

1. HIS fifth pretended Novelty, imputed to the Catholic Church is, Serm. pag. 9. Communion un­der one Species, no older, saies he, then since the time of Aquinas, unlesse they will own it from the Manichees. Ibid. pag. 25. But we find our Saviour intended the Chalice to every guest: Drink all of this, saies he. And St. Paul speaks as well of drinking the Mystical Blood, as eating the Body of Christ.

2. To the substance of what is here alle­ged, we readily subscribe. We acknowledg our Saviour instituted this Mystery in both kinds: That the Apostles received it in both kinds: That St. Paul speaks as well of drink­ing, &c. That most commonly in the Church till a little before the times of Aquinas, in the [Page 138] public Celebration of these Mysteries, the people communicated in both kinds: All this we agree to.

3. But the general Tradition of the Church, at least from his beginning, will not permit us to yield, that the receiving in both kinds was esteem'd by the Church necessary to the essence of the Communion, or integrity of the parti­cipation of Christs Body and Blood, or that it is fitly called by him a half Communion, when deliver'd and receiv'd only in one kind. On the contrary, we appeal to Dr. Pierces own Conscience, whether, if we should yield this, we should not be overwhelm'd with the Depositions of the most ancient Fathers against us: As evidently appears in Communions an­ciently practised under one kind only, and this upon many occasions: As during the times of persecution in Domestic Communions men­tion'd by Tertullian, Tertull. lib. 2. ad Uxo. St. Cyprian, and others, in which the holy Eucharist was deliver'd to the Faithful under the species of Bread alone, Cypr. l. de lapsis. and by them carried home, to be reverently participated by them, Ambr. orat. 1. in obitu frat. according to their par­ticular Devotions: Aug. lib. 2. lit. Petil. c. 23. The same was practised in communicating Infants, or innocent Chil­dren of more years, Euseb. lib. 5. & lib. 7. (witnesse besides the said Fathers, the practise of the Church of Con­stantinople mentioned by Nicephorus: Beda in Mart. ad 15. August.) In communicating the Sick, and Penitents at the point of death: Niseph. hist. lib. 18. cap. 6. In communions at Sea: In com­munions sent to other Provinces, &c.

[Page 139] 4. In all these Cases the Communicants were esteem'd to be partakers of [...]ntire Christ, nor did they think they received more of him at publick Communions in the Church, when the Sacrament was delivered in both species, then when at home in one only. They believed it was Christ entire which they received in e­very divided particle of the species of Bread, and every divided drop of the species of Wine: and that the flesh of Christ could not be parti­cipated without a concomitance of his Blood, nor the Blood without the Flesh, nor either of them without a concomitance of his Soul and Divinity. Ambr. de ils qui Myster. c. 9. Hence St. Ambrose, Christ is in that Sacrament, because it is the Body of Christ. Con [...]yl. Eph. in Ep [...]st. ad Nestor. And the Council if Ephesus, That those who approach to the Mystical Benedictions do par­ticipate the Flesh of Christ, not as common meer Flesh, August. in Psal. 33. but truly quickning Flesh. And St. Au­gustin, That Christ, [ferebatur in manibus suis] did carry himself in his own hands: and this in a litteral sense. And St. Cyril of Alexandria says, Cyril. Alex. lib. 12. in Ioan. cap. 32. By the unparted Garment of Christ was mystically signified, that the four parts of the world, being brought to salvation by the Gospel, did divide among themselves his Flesh without dividing it. For (says he) the only begotten Son of God passing into, and, by his Flesh, sanctifying the Soul [...]nd Body of each of them severally and in particular, is in each of them entirely and undividedly, being every where one, and in no sort divided.

[Page 140] 5▪ These things thus premised (which are cer­tain Truths, and cannot by the Preacher be deny'd) since he will needs make a quarrel with the Catholic Church upon this Subject, he must necessarily take upon him to demon­strate, 1. Either, that these Communions under one species, allowed and practised on so many occasions in the Primitive times, were half Com­munions, sacrilegious Transgressions of the Institution of our Lord, contrary to the teach­ing of St. Paul, conspiring with the Heresie of the Manichees, &c. And doing so, he will contradict himself, whilst he pretends half Communions to be a Novelty since their times. 2. Or, if these Practises were justifiable, and that the Church had warrant and authority to do as she did, he must prove that such an Authority could be extended only to private Persons or Fanilies, and by no means to pub­lick Congregations: That the same was a whole Communion in a Chamber, and but a half Com­munion in a Church: That a sick man, or one at Sea, &c. broke not the institution of Christ whilst he communicated under one kind, but did break it when he was in health or upon firm ground.

6. Till these things be proved by him (which will be ad Graecas Calindas he must of necessity grant, that here is no Nove [...]ty at all, no change in the present Catholic [...]hurch as to Doctrin: And that the change which is made in exter­nal Disciplin, is of so great importance, that [Page 141] Protestants (who would not have separated from her Communion; if she had given them leave to break our Saviours Institution only privatly) will renounce her, because she thinks and knows that a privat House and a Church cannot make the same action both lawful and unlawful, and therfore since she had authority within doors, she cannot be deprived of it a­broad.

7. Nay further, Doctor Pierce's task does not end here: for though he should be able to prove all this, yet if this be one of the pro­vocations, and causes of their separation, he cannot justifie that separation till they have made a tryal, whether the Church will not dispence with them as to this point of Dis­cipline, and after tryal, been refused. For surely he will not esteem Schism a matter so inconsiderable, as to expose themselves to the guilt of it, because others besides them are ob­liged and content to receive under one species, whilst themselves are left at liberty: They will not unnecessarily make tumults and divisi­ons in the Church by disputing against others, when they themselves are not concern'd. Now, that such a dispensation may possibly be had, does appear, in that the Church by a General Council hath either given to, or acknowledg­ed in her Supreme Pastor a sufficient authority to proceed in this matter according to his own pru­dence, Conc. T [...]id. Ses [...]. 22. in fin. and as he shall see it to be pr [...]fitable to the Church, and for the spiritual good of those that shall demand the use of the Chalice.

[Page 142] 8. As for us Catholics, we are bread up to the Orders established by Gods Church: And being assured that our Lord will not forget his Promises, and consequently his Church shall never mislead us to our danger, we do not think it our duty to question the Churches prudence, or set up a private Tribunal to cen­sure her Lawes: We are not sure we know all the Reasons that induced the Council of Constance to confirm a practise almost gene­rally introduced by custome before. Yet some Reasons we see, which truly are of ve­ry great moment for that purpose, to wit, the wonderful encrease of the numbers of Communicants, and wonderful decay of their Devotion: From whence could not be pre­vented very great dangers of irreverences and effusion oft-times of the precious blood of our Lord, considering the defect of providence, and caution to be expected in multitudes, lit­tle sensible of Religion.

It is probable likewise that the Heresie of Berengarius, who acknowledged no more in the Sacrament, than the meer signs of the body and blood of our Lord, might induce the Ca­tholics publickly to practise what the Primi­tive Church did privatly, to the end they might thereby demonstrate, that though they received not both the Signs, yet they were not defrauded of being partakers of all that was entirely contained under both the Species, which was whole Christ, not his body only, but also his blood, &c.

1. Serm. Pag. 13. HIS sixth supposed Novelty (which is the third that regards the blessed Sacra­ment) is the Sacrafice of the Masse. But how is this prov'd to be a Novelty? Ipse dixit. Not one Text, not one Quotation appears in the Margin; and why? Alas! where should he find any? Since there's not a Father in Gods Church from the very Apostles, but ac­knowledged a Christian Sacrifice; nor any old Heretick ever denyed it. Nay, who be­sides himself calls it a Noveltie? I am sure Dr. Fulk Fulk. con [...]ut. of Purg. page 362, &c. expresly confesseth that Te [...]tullian, Cyprian, Austin, Hierom, and a great many more do witnesse that Sacrifice, yea, Sacrifice for the Dead is the Tradition of the Apostles. And Mr. Ascham acknowledges that the Sacrifice of the [Page 144] Masse is so antient, Ascham. Apol. pro c [...]na Dom. that no first beginning of it can be shewed. Yet Dr. Pierce would fain have proved it to be a Novelty Gladly would he have applyed to this, his From the beginning it was not so: But could not find one Word in Antiquitie for his purpose. However, for all that it must not be omitted. His Auditors would have wonderd to hear the Church ac­cused, and the clause touching the Sacrifice left out of the Indictment.

2. To please therefore popular ears, he named it, as an ill thing: But coming to print his Sermon, he leaves that Margin empty: For what could be in the Fathers to fill it? It was not for his purpose to quote St. Igna­tius's saying, Ignat. Ep. ad. Smirn. cent. 2. cap. 4. It is not lawful either to offer, or to immolate the Sacrifice or [...] with­out the Bishop: (Which, (say the Centurists) are dangerous words, and seeds of Errors) Or St. Ireneus, Iren. l. 4. c. 32. who tells us that our Lord, consecra­ting the Mystical Elements, Taught us a New Oblation of the New Testament, which the Church having received from the Apostles, offers to God through the whole World. Cypr. Epist. ad Cyril. Or St. Cyprian, whose words are, Who was more a Priest of the most High God, then our Lord Iesus Christ? Who offred a Sacrifice to God the Father? and offred the very same that Melchisedech had offred, that is, Bread and Wine, to wit, his own Body and Blood, &c. and commanded the same to be after­ward done in memory of him. That Priest there­fore doth truly supply the place and function of [Page 145] Christ, and imitates that which Christ did, who undertakes to offer according as he sees Christ him­self offerd. In which one Epistle he calls the Eucharist a Sacrifice, seven times, and above twenty times he affirms that the Symbols are of­fred in it.

3. The truth is, in the writings of Anti­quity, the celebration of these Mysteries, is scarce ever call'd by other name, but Oblation, Sacri­fice, Immolation, &c. And because the Fathers may be said to speak figuratively and rheto­rically, the Canons also of the Church, which ought to speak properly, scarce ever use any other expression. See the third among the Apostolic Canons; The 58 th. Canon of the Council of Laodicea: The 20 th. Canon of the first Council of A [...]les: The 40 th. Canon of the Council of Cart [...]age: And the 18 th. Canon of the first General Co [...]ucil of Nice, in which are these words, The Holy Synod is inform'd, that in some places Deacons administer the Eu [...]harist to Priests: A thing which neither any Canon nor Custom hath deliver'd, that those who have no power of offering should give the Body of Christ to those who offer. Whole volums may be tran­scribed to this effect: I will only therefore re­fer him to St. Hierom on Titus, Hier. on. Ti [...]. cap. 1. Chrys. 21. hom. and St. Chry­sostom on the Acts, where he will find the Eu­charist not only a Sacrifice, but a Sacrifice for remission of sins,; a Sacrifice for the Priest that offers; a Sacrifice for the multitude; a Sacrifice for the procuring of plenty, &c. sutably [Page 146] to the modern and ancient Liturgies.

4. If after all this he will not allow any of these expressions in Doctors, Canons, Litur­gies, &c. to be proper and litteral, St. Augu­stin will contradict him: Who saies, Presby­ters and Bishops are now in the Church properly called [Sacerdotes] sacrificing Priests. Aug. lib. 20. de Civ. D. cap. 10. And be­cause the fancy which Protestants have enter­tained against the term Sacrifice, Oblation, &c. proceeds from a mistake of the true sense in which the Church intends it; for ordinarily the conception of a Sacrifice, is supposed to import an immolation, shedding of blood, killing, &c. and no such matter appearing here, but only a commemoration of a former real immolation and shedding of Christs blood, therefore generally among all Sects, divided from the Church, the title of Sacrifice will not be endured.

5. To prevent therefore for the future such a mis-understanding, let them be pleased to take notice that all the Sacrifices of the Law were shadows and types of the Sacrifices of our Lord, and the Legal Priest-hood a type of his Priest-hood: But above all other Sacri­fices and functions of Priest-hood, those were most lively figures of our Lord, which were perform'd on a certain day, only once every year, for the sins of the whole Congregati­on: In the solemn celebration of which Sa­crifice, besides the immolation of it on the Altar, the High Priest alone was appointed to [Page 147] carry of the blood of that Victime into the most holy place within the Veile, and there to sprinkle it before the Propitiatory or Mercy-Seat. This is that Sacrifice which St. Paul especially applies to our Lord, and shews that Christ, as a Victime, was once, and but once immolated on the Altar of the Cross for the sins of all mankind: And that for the merit of his obedience to the death even of the Cross, he was raised from death, and made a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, a Kingly Priest, a Priest who had power given him in Heaven and Earth, to apply the merits of his own Sacrifice: And that the proper function of his Regal Priesthood, was the entring with his immolated Body into the Sancta Sanctorum, the highest Heavens, there appearing before his heavenly Fathers Throne, and presen­ting that most precious Victime to him. This function of Priest-hood, far more august than the immolation, he does, and will con­tinually exercise to the end of the World. By vertue of this he is made Head of the Church, he has the power of sending the Ho­ly Ghost, &c. and hereby he perfects Re­demption.

6. And withal, knowing of what infinite value and vertue this function of his Priest-hood is, he has been pleased to execute, as it were by proxy, the same function on Earth, that himself immediately performs in Hea­ven. For which purpose he has instituted [Page 148] Bishops and Priests to be not only his Mini­sters, but Substitutes and Vice-gerents on Earth, giving them power to consecrate, and by cosecrating to place upon the Altar that ve­ry Body and Blood which was immolated on the Cross, and is now present before his Fa­ther in Heaven. This body and blood they Sa­crifice, this they offer, this they with the Peo­ple participate. It is not a Sacrifice of im­molation, in that mistaken sense, for nothing is slain, the Victime suffers nothing: It is but a Commemorative Sacrifice of Immolation: But it is, in the most proper rigorous sence, an Oblation, the very same, of the very same body and blood that our Lord now offers in Heaven: And the same vertue it has, the same effects it produces, propitiation, remission of sins, participation of the graces of Gods holy Spirit, and all blessings both spiritual and temporal. So that in a word, as under the Law the Legal propitiation was said to perfected by the High Priests offring the blood in the most holy place: So by this Oblation of Christs bood in the Heavenly Sanctuary, perfect Redemption i [...] obtained, and by the Commemorative Oblation of the same body and blood by his Priests in our earthly Sanctuaries, an application of the benefit and vertue of that only meritorious Sa­crifice once offered on the Cross, is then pro­cured unto us for remission of our sins, and the donation of all other benefits, spiritual and temporal.

[Page 149] 7. In regard of this sublime function of the Priest it is, that the holy Fathers exalt his of­fice before that of Princes, yea even of Angels: in this regard they call the oblation it self the most dreadful Mystery▪ at which the Angels themselves assist with reverence and astonish­ment. To which purpose I will content my self with only one or two passages of St. Chry­sost [...]m: When the Sacrifice, saith he, is brought out of the Quire, Chrysost. in Eph. cap. 1. hom. 3. Christ himself the Lamb of our Lord immolated; When thou shalt hear the Deacons voyce crying, Let us pray all in common, when thou seest the Curtains and Veyls of the Gates drawn, then think the Heavens are open­ed and the Angels descend. And in an other place: Id. l. 6. de Sa­cerdot. When the Priest has inv [...]cated the Holy Spirit and perfected the Sacrifice full of terrour and reverence, touching and handling with his Fingers him who is Lord of all things, to how sublime a rank is he elevated, &c. In that time the Angels assist the Priest, and all the Celestical powers send forth cryes of Ioy, all the places a­bout the Altar are filled with Quires of Angels in honour of him who is offered. This we may have ground to believe, if we only consider the su­per-eminent greatness of the Sacrifice then per­formed. But moreover I have heard from the re­port of one who learnt the story from the mouth of an admirable old man, to whom many rev [...]lati­ons of divine Mysteries have been revealed from Heaven: How God was graciously plea­sed to honor him with a Vision of these things, [Page 150] and how in the time of the Sacrifice he sau sud­denly appear, with as much splendor as human sight could support, a multitude of Angels cloa­thed with white Robes encompassing the Altar, and having their heads enclined in the same po­sture, as we oft see the Souldiers in the pre­sence of the Emperour. Thus Saint Chryso­stom.

1. THe seventh Novelty produced by the Preacher is the worshipping of Images: but it being only named, without any proofs or quotations, I will spare them too: And to shew that the term of worshipping is none of ours, but invented by Protestants to render a most innocent Doctrin odious, and moreover to demonstrate the no grounds such Preachers as he have to accuse the Catholic Church of▪ I know not what, Idolatry in this matter of Images, I will presume to borrow from an Author (who will not be angry with me for it) a passage touching this Point, by which he will see, that Catholics do no more than every mans own reason wil justify, in the respect they give to sacred Images. It is the namelesse Au­thor of an Answer to Mr. Bagshaw's Treatise of Infallibility: where he will find this following passage, Answer to Mr. Bagsh. p. 70, &c. in which there are some glances, that [Page 152] regard only such furious impertinents as Mr. Bagshaw, which therefore I am far from thin­king applyable to Doctor Pierce.

2. [...]hus then writes that Author, intending to demonstrate that in the veneration of Ima­ges taught by the Catholic Church there is no­thing at all swerving from common rea [...]on: ‘Give me leave, saith he, to propose to such a sober man as you are, altogether compoun­ded of Reason, some few Questions. First then suppose there were represented to you while you were thinking of other matters, or talking, a Picture of our Lord ha [...]g [...]ng on the Cross: cou [...]d you p [...]ssibly avoid the cal­ling to mind who our Lord was, and what he had done or suffered for you? And if not being able to forbid the entrance of such thoughts into your mind on such an occasi­on would your reason dictate to you that you had done ill in changing your thoughts from the World to God, would you repent of it, asking pardon of God, and praying that such a tentation might never befall you a [...]terwards? Does your enlightned rea­son suggest [...]his to you? Truly it i [...] do, I believe you are of a temper of mind, almost specifically different from all mank [...]d be­sides, and they must change their nature be­fore you make them of your perswasion, or Church. And yours is no a common sense, if it either tell you, that by your beating down of Crosses and breaking Church win­dows, [Page 153] our good Countrymen think more of God than they did while those Remembran­ces were standing: or if they think less, that it is better for them to forget him.’

3. ‘To make a step further, Let it he sup­posed that at the same time you saw before you several Pictures of several Persons in a contrar [...] manner regarded by you, as of St. Peter and Iudas, of our late Severaign and Bradshaw: Or put case you had in one hand a Bible, and in the other the infamous story of Pantagruel: does not your com­mon sense and reason tell you, that such Pi­ctures or Books force upon you quite con­trary thoughts and affections, which re­gard those Pictures or Books not simply considered, but as representing such Per­sons, and containing such matters? Which thoughts being just, and not at all harm­full to you, and withall almost impossible to be avoided, I cannot find any reason why Reason should forbid them: I am sure com­mon sense will not.’

4. ‘If then it be according to reason, and common sense, and likewise unavoidably to admit such different thoughts: will not rea­son also warrant you to express outwardly by words or actions, whatever you may without any fault think inwardly? For my part I cannot imagin any scruple in this. If then I may and must think reverently or contemptuously of the Objects, I may as well [Page 154] speak, or behave my self externally after the same manner to them respectively; For whatsoever is ill or good in words or acti­ons, is so likewise in thoughts.’

5. ‘Now to shew that such thoughts or affections regard not the Persons only but the Pictures also as representations of such Persons, ask your own heart and you will find that you would not place St. Peter's picture, or the King's in an unclean, disho­nest place. If any one should spit upon ei­ther of them, your heart would rise against him, and tempt you to strike him [...] which it would not do, if the same contemptuous usage were shewed to the picture of Iudas or Bradshaw. Now this is so naturally im­bibed in the hearts of all Mankind, that in all Kings Courts a respect and outward mark of reverence is requird to the Chamber of Pre­sence, or Chair of State: and a refusal of it, much more a contemptuous behaviour, would be criminal. To apply this to the forementioned Books: You could not bring your reason to permit you to tear out a leaf of the Bible for an unclean use, as you could without the least remorse do to the story of Pantagruel or Aesop's fables..’

6. ‘Let us now consider what kind of re­spect this is that we expresse to such Images. Comparing the Images of St. Peter and our Sovereign's together, we find that a respectful regard is had to both, and a contemptuous [Page 155] usage of either would displease us: Yet it is not the same kind of respect: For St. Peter's Image we consider as of a man that puts us in mind of Heaven ann Heavenly things, one highly favour'd by Almighty God, a princi­pal Courtier in his Kingdom, and one that by his writings and example has been a great instrument of promoting our eternal happi­nesse. We do not so esteem of every good King. Therefore to shew the difference of our respect to each, we would choose to give St. Peter's picture a place in our Oratory, and the Kings in our Gallery. But what Names to give these different respects is not easie to determin. It is plain, that which is given to the King's picture is purely a civil respect. But what shall we call that which is given to St. Peters? If we say it is Religious, you will quarrel, as derogating from God. Let us therefore call it a sacred Veneration, or honor: For since all things, that are ap­pointed on purpose to mind us of God, of Heaven, and the salvation of our Souls, we call Sacred, this Name may well be apply­ed to such a Picture. But moreover, because there are not invented such variety of Names as there are things, and there are far fewer sorts of outward postures of our Bo­dys denoting respect, than there are Names or Words: Hence it comes to passe that when we would expresse a Civil and a Sa­cred, yea a Religious respect, we are forced to [Page 156] to use the same outward behaviour of bow­ing, kneeling, &c. to Fathers and Magi­strates, which we do to God himself: 1 Chron. 29. 20. Yea we find in the Scripture Kings adored, and a prostration of Bodies paid to them. Yet for all this no man will suspect that thereby any dishonor was intended to God, or the Honor due onely to him was paid to Crea­tures.’

7. ‘In the next place let reason and com­mon sense give judgement of the distinction between the respect that may be paid to the Picture of St. Peter, and that which ought to be paid to Himself, in case he appear'd to us glorified as he is. A Divine respect we pay to neither, though sometimes we use such postures as we do when we pray or worship God. It is then a Sacred Venerati­on only: But yet there are some expressions of respect which we would use to the Person, that would be ridiculous to the Picture, as reverently to speak to him, to beg his Pray­ers to God for us, to ask a Question, &c.’

8. ‘Our last Enquiry shall be into the dif­ference of regard (if any there be) to our Saviour's Picture and St. Peter's, the for­mer representing to us him that is both God and Man, the later meerly Man. Howe­ver we shall find that the regard to both the Pictures is of the same species and na­ture, that is, only Sacred: because a Picture we never look upon, but as an instrument [Page 157] to put us in mind, or to call to our memo­ries an object: And therefore it being of our own framing, is not capable of any respect beyond that which is due to so material, in­ferior a thing, what ever the object repre­sented by it be. True it is, that the internal af­fections and thoughts occasionally raised in our minds will be infinitely different, for we shall think upon Christ with Adoration, Love, Resignation and Obedience due to God only: Not so of St. Peter: But the Pictures them­selves will be treated by us as Sacred Pictures only, that deserve a respect proportionable: And since it is eviden [...] they are capable of a sinful dis-respect, consequently a due respect may be paid to them. I say ( may) not alwaies ought to be: For then it would never be fit to put on ones Hat, &c. in a Room where there hangs a Crucifix.’

9. ‘To sum up briefly our meaning in this whole matter: We find minds too apt to be distracted from meditating on Divine things: Therefore we help our selvs by such as will call to our memories, and fix our thoughts upon objects good for our Souls: Such are holy Pictures both in times of pray­er and out, we find this benefit by them. Being such sacred things, we must renounce our reason, if we deny a respect may be due to them: But by honoring with an outward regard a Picture, we intend only to give a te­stimony what respect we beat to the person [Page 158] or holy thing represented: And though for want of variety of postures, we shew some part of the same outward Reverence to the Pictures of St. Peter and our Lord, yet that signifies, we only venerate St. Peter, as a glo­rious Saint, yet a Creature, but that we a­dore Christ, as God: And no man that sees or knows us, can think otherwise. So that un­lesse it be a fin to show outwardly what we are oblig'd to think inwardly, there is not the least fault committed.’

10. ‘And now (Mr. Bagshow) give me leave to acquaint you with your mistakes. First, this respect called by the Church, Honor and Veneration, which we affirm may be payd to Sacred Images, you call Worshipping of Images, meerly to make in odious to your ignorant Proselites; For worship is commonly taken to be that honor which is due only to God, and which we abhor to give to Images. But Se­condly, You give it an other name more a­bominable, calling it Idolatry, such as God pu­nished in the worst of Pagans. Once at least in your life speak your Conscience: Do you think, or only suspect, that we Roman Catho­lics worship false Gods, and true Devils? Do we consider our Images, as they did their I­dols, to which by Magical conjurations they an­nexed an evil Spirit to do wonders, and to extort Devine worship from the seduced peo­ple? Taketheed Sir, how you persist in so unjust a Blasphemy against Gods Church A [Page 159] time will come that you will be called to a strict account for it: It concerns you there­fore to make some reparation.’

11. ‘But after all this take notice that the Catholic Church, though it declare that such a veneration may fitly be given to holy Ima­ges, as common reason, and human nature cannot chuse but allow: Yet it commands none to afford them even so much. You may be a Roman Catholic all you life, and never be obliged to perform any external respect to an Image. There is not in Catholic Coun­tries a Groom or Kitchin-Maid so ignorant, but would rather burn an Image, then afford it any honor due to God only. And shall those that think thus, and do only what hu­man reason generally approves, and cannot hinder, be esteem'd and publisht by you the only Christians in the World, fit to be thrust out of all Christian Kingdoms, and executed as Tray­tors, though otherwise they be acknowledg [...]most faithful, peaceable men, and obedient Subjects? Are you not afraid of, In quo judi­cio judicaveritis, judicabimini?’

12. ‘You see Sir, how sinee you will not admit of Authorities to justifie the Belief and Practise of Roman Catholics, but only com­mon sense and reason, I have complyed with you: And now in one world tell you, that you must never hope to make any sober man believe that Roman Catholics are Idolaters, or even faulty in the matter of Images, till you [Page 160] can demonstrate, 1. That it is unlawful to make use of our seeing faculty to put us in mind of God. 2. That he dishonors the King that shall with reverence, bare headed, and in a kneeling posture receive a Letter or Mandate that com [...] from him. 3. That it is a contempt of God to go through a Church with ones head uncovered. 4. And that it is unlawful and irreligious to make a scruple of using a Leaf of the Bible in the house of Office.’

13. ‘For a Farewel, I will conclude this Point with a Story, the truth whereof seve­ral Gentlemen, Protestants too, in this Town are able to justifie. In the Year 1651. a devout I­talian Friar, being appointed to preach in the Great Dome at Padua, the Arch-bishop present, and having been informed that among his Auditors there were some English Protestants, who in discourse had earnestly objected (as you do) Idolatry to Catholics: He therefore that he might encounter such a scandal, made choice of the Doctrine concerning Images for the subject of a great part of his Sermon. And when he came to that Point, holding in his hand a Crucifix, he could his hearers, That that Image did in one glance lively represent, even to the most ignorant beholder, our Lord Iesus, God and Man, and almost all the Cir­cumstances of his most bitter and accursed death, so patiently and willingly suffered for us. Thereupon with great Passion and [Page 161] Rhetoric he magnified the love of our Lord hanging on the C [...]oss, earnestly pressing his Hearers to return a proportionable Love and Duty to him. And during this Discourse, he often, with great reverence and tender­ness of affection embraced and devoutly kis­sed the Crucifix. Having said much to this purpose, after a little pause he pursued his Discourse, telling them he could not believe or suspect that any one who had heard and seen what he had said and done, could rea­sonably imagin that he had any intention to dishonor our Lord, by that which he had done to the Crucifix which represented him, much lesse that he adored it, as if he thought it a kind of God, that he put his trust in it, as expecting any good from it, as if (he knew not what) Divinitie, Vertue or Sanctitie was in that carved piece of wood. Notwith­standing, because he had heard that such a scandalous imputation was by some mis­perswaded persons laid on the Church, he would then and there undeceive them. Thereupon he spit upon the Crucifix, threw it scornfully to the ground, and trampled it under his feet.’

14. ‘You see, Mr. Bagshaw, what kind of Idolaters the Papists are. Against this Ido­latry, let us see what expresse Scripture you can produce. This is the great crime for which there can be no expiation but oppres­sions, Imprisonments, and Gallowses. Now if [Page 162] what hath been here said give you no satis­faction, in case you have a mind to reply, do not practise your old way of snatching a phrase or expression out of a single Author, a School-man or Controvertist, making the whole Church answerable for one mans in­discretion. But search what the Church her self has declared in the Council of Trent:’ I­magines Christi, Conc. Trid. Sess. 25. &c. in Templis praesertim retinen­dae, &c. Images of Christ, &c. ought to be retein­ed in Churches especially, and due honor and vene­ration exhibited to them, not that there is believed any Divinity or Vertue in them, for which they ought to be worshipped, or that they are to be petiti­oned for any thing, or any confidence to be repos'd in them, but because the honor exhibited to them is referred to the Prototypes they represent. ‘Dispute against this as well as you can; and be assu­red you shall either be answered, or told you are unconquerable.’

I. DOctor Pierce his next (which is a double) Novelty, regards not any Doctrines, but only a Point of Discipline in the Church, Serm. pag. 26. which is, The with-holding Scri­pture from the Vulgar, and practising public De­votions in an unknown Tongue. Concerning the former, he saies, The Scriptures were writ­ten in Hebrew, the mother-tongue of the Iew: and in Greek, a Tongue most known to Eastern [Page 164] Nations: And afterwards were translated into the Dalmatick by St. Hierom, into the Gothick by Vulphilas, into the Arminian by Chryso­stom, &c. and the Vulgar Latin was anciently the Vulgar Language of the Italians, &c.

2. Truly the Doctor has, if it be well con­sider'd, made choice of a very proper season to renew a quarrel against the Roman Church, upon this Point, and to endeavour the en­gaging his Majesty in it, as if the calamities already hapned, both to the Royal Family, and the whole Nation, were either too little, or not to be imputed chiefly to that Error. He, and all Christendom, has seen the blessed effects that this prostituting Scripture to the passions and lusts of the rude and common people of all Conditions, Ages and Sexes, has wrought the last twenty years in this Kingdom. What was it but Scripture (as it was used, and of which ill use themselves were the first causes, and hereafter will never be able to prevent) that justified Discontents against the Government, both Civil and Ec­clesiastical; that put Swords and Guns into the hands of Subjects against their Kings, and all that were faithful to them; that dis­solved the entire frame of the Kingdom; that encourag'd men to Plunder, and all manner of Rapines; that Arraign'd and Murther'd our last most Excellent KING, that endan­ger'd his now living Son, our most gracious Kings life, and forced him into a long neces­sitous [Page 165] banishment; that has revived and gi­ven strength to old and new Monsters of He­resies, to the astonishment of Man-kind, some of which are no where else to be seen, and the rest in no where place so venomous, as in England: Let but the Doctor remember how much mischief the perverse interpretation of this one Text, which none but the ignorant could mistake, produc't in this Nation: Having a form of godlinesse, but denying the power thereof How did this ring in their ears, and stir them up to reject and hate all set-forms of Prayer! How, with this Text a­lone, often repeated, and industriously en­larged, and zealously apply'd by the holy Lecturers, were their very hearts set on fire to burn the grand Idol of the Common Prayer Book! And yet, after all this, the Doctor makes or renews quarrels with the Roman Catholic Church, because she is unwil­ling, by imitating them, to give a birth from her bowels to such mischiefs as these.

3. Yet cannot be deny'd, that Doctor Pierce was subtile, for having a design (in recompence of the service Roman Catholicks have done them) to expose them to the com­mon rage of all these Monsters, he could not make choice of a subject more proper for his purpose than this, in which alone they were all interessed, not for the good they reap by Scripture, but because without it, they would not have the advantage to do half so much mischief.

[Page 166] 4. Yet must he not think he can so blind mens eyes, but they know well enough that English Protestants are in their very Souls grie­ved, That 'tis now too late for them to e [...] ­deavor how they may imitate both the Pru­dence and Charity of Catholic Churches in the dispensing of Scripture. Our Pastors do not, as he wrongfully seems to charge them, forbid the Translation of Scripture into Vulgar Tongues, since there is scarce any Nation but hath it. There are Catholic Translations of the Scripture into English, French, Dutch, I­talian, Spanish, &c. for the use of those of the Laity, who are by their Spiritual Guides judged such, as that they may reap benefit and no harm by the reading thereof. And what more doth the Preacher shew in the pra­ctise of the ancient times, in saying that the Holy Scriptures were then translated into the Dalmatick Tongue by St. Hierom, then I shew in justification also of the later times (which he would here condemn) in saying as truly, that the Holy Scriptures are also found tran­slated long ago in Wicliffs the Refor­mers time, by the allowance and Authority of the Catholic Church (of which thus Dr. F [...]lk) That the Scriptures were extant in Eng­lish both before and after Wicliffs time, and not of his Translation, beside your conjecture out of Li [...]d­ [...]ood, it is manifestly proved by so many ancient [...]riters Copies of the English Bible differing in [...]anslation, yet to be shewed, of which Wicleffs [Page 167] Translation could be but one. Or in saying, That the same Holy Scriptures have been Translated also of late, since Luthers, a se­cond Reformer's time, with the allowance of the same Church Catholic, by the indu­stry of the Rhemish Divines.

But Catholic Governors, knowing how im­possible it is for ignorant Persons to under­stand it, and for passionate minds to make good use of it, esteem it more conduce­ing to their edification and the common peace, that such easily misled Soul [...] should be instructed in their Du [...]ies, both as Christi­ans and Subjects, by plain Catechisms and In­structions prudently and sufficiently, with all plainnesse gather'd out of Scripture, then that the Bible should be put into their hands, a Book, the tenth part whereof scarce con­cerns them to know, and in which the seve­ral Points wherein they are concern'd are so dispersed in several places, so variously, and somtimes so obscurely, and so dubiously ex­pressed, that all the learning and subtilty of Doctors, since it was written till these daies, have been exercised in enquiring, comparing, discussing several Texts, and clearing the true Doctrine of them fit for the conception of vulgar capacities. The whole Direction, necessary to govern Pastors in their permit­ing others to read the Holy Scripture [...], is fully and excellently containd in that on: Text of the Second Epistle of St. Peter, 3. 16. [Page 168] Wherein (the Epistles of St. Paul) there are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable pervert (as also the other Scriptures) to their own perdition. Two sorts of Rea [...]ers are here plainly forbidden by the Apostle; for certainly none o [...] them who we know are apt to pervert the Scriptures, should be permitted to read them. Consi­der then how far these two words reach, un­learned and unstable: I doubt, to ninety nine of every hundred in England: Which if ad­mitted, not above one in a hundred, were good discipline observ'd, would be allowed to read the Bible.

Nor can it be Objected (as usually Prote­stants do) that the Scriptures are safely clear to every one in Fundamentals, and mistakable onely in Points of lesser consequence, since the very Text saies, they are both hard to be understood, and pervertible to the perdition of their Readers; and if such Points as import Salvation or Damnation be not Fundamen­tal, I'm utterly ignorant of the meaning of that word. Let then the Learned, and the ste [...]dy Christian read, and study, and meditate th [...] Bible as often and as long as he will, eve­ry Catholic will commend him, but by no means should that liberty be given to the un­learned and unstable, lest the Scripture it self condemn it, as a boldnesse that may endanger their eternal Salvation.

And 'tis observeable in King Henry the 8 th. [Page 169] who, after he had caused the English Bible to be publish't, so as to be read by all with­out any restraint, was forc't again, after three years experience (wherein he saw the many strange and horrid opinions rising a­mong the ignorant people by occasion there­of) by a new Act of Parliament to abridge the liberty formerly granted, See Inj [...]ncti­ons A. D. 1536 1538. ( Fox. p. 1000.) set forth by Crom­wel. Stat. 34, 35. Hen. 8. c. 1. and to prohi [...]it upon the penalty of a months Imprisonment to­ties quoties, that any Woman, Husbandman, Arti­ficer, Yeoman, Servingman, Apprentice or Iourny­man Labourer, &c. should read them to themselves or to others, privatly or openly. See Stat. 34, 35. Hen. 8. 1. Because (saith the Preface of that Statue) his Highness perceived that a great mul­titude of his Subjects, most especially of the lower sort, had so abused the Scriptures, that they had thereby grown and increased in diverse naughtie and erroneous Opinions, and by occasion thereof fallen into great Divisions and Dissentions among themselves. And if you say, the Opinions the King calls here erroneous, were the Prote­stant Doctrines, discovered by the Vulgar from the new light of the Scriptures, you may see the very Opinions, as the Bishops collected them in Fox, pag. 1136. un-own­able by any sober Protestant or Christian. A thing perhaps not unworthy the se­rious consideration of the present Gover­nors, who have seen the like effects in these daies.

5. But as for other Lay-persons of better [Page 170] judgement and capacities, and of whose sub­mission to the Churches Authority, and aver­sion from Novelties sufficient proofs can be gi­ven, our Ecclesiastical Governors are easily e­nough entreated, yea, they are well enough en­clin'd to exhort them to read the Scriptures themselves in their vulgar Tongues, and are forward to assist them in explaining diffi­culties, and resolving doubts that may oc­curr.

6. And now let Doctor Pierce speak his Con­science, if he dare do it; Is not this way of managing the Consciences of Christs Flock and this prudent dispensing of Scripture very desireable, yea actually in their hearts here in England, that it may be in practise among them? But it is now too late: Their first Re­formers found no expedient so effectual to call followers to them out of God's Church, as by wastfully powring this Treasure into their hands, and accusing the Church for not doing so, not fore-seeing, or not ca­ring, if, in future times, that which was an instrument of their Schism, from the true Church, would be far more effectual to mul­tiply Schisms from their false one. For the making an ill use of Scripture by ignorant or passionate Laicks is not altogether so certain or probable to follow in the Catholic Church, where men are bred up in a belief and most necessary Duty of Submission even of their minds to her Authority for the delivering of [Page 171] the only true sence of Scripture: Whereas in such Churches as this, in which not any one Person ever was or can be perswaded that the sence of Scripture given by them can challenge an internal assent from any, or that it may not without sin be contradicted; to give the Scripture indefinitly to all who can read or are willing to hear it read, without a Guide to tell them the true sense which they are bound to believe, is to invite them to ascend into Moses Chair, which such Reformer's themselves have made empty and vacant for them.

7. The second Part of this pretended No­velty concerns Public Praying in an unknown tongue: Serm. p. 9. which, says he, may be fetcht indeed as far as from Gregory the Great (that is, ever since this Nation was Christian:) But is as scandalous­ly opposite to the plain sence of Scriptures, Ibid. p. 27. as if it were done in a meer despight to 1. Cor. 14. 13. &c. And, besides Origen, it is confess'd by Aqui­nas and Lyra, that in the Primitive times the public Service of the Church was in the common Language too. And as the Christians of Dal­matia, Habassia, &c. and all Reformed parts of Christendom have God's service in their vulgar tongues, so hath it been in divers places by appro­bation first had from the Pope himself.

8. I will acknowledge to D [...]ctor Pierce, that this is the only Point of Novelty (as he calls it) of which he discourses sensibly, and as it were to the purpose: But withall I must tell him, it [Page 172] is, because he mistakes our Churches meaning. For he charges the Catholic Religion, as if one of its positions were, That Gods publick Ser­vice ought to be in an unknown Tongue, or as if it forbad people to understand it. And truly if it were so, we could never hope to be reconciled with that passage of Scripture out of St. Paul, 1 Cor. 14. 13, &c. But all this is a pure mis-understanding. Therefore I desire him to permit himself for once to be informed how the matter stands in this Point with the Roman Catholic Church.

9. We Roman Catholics (I.) do willingly ac­knowledge, that in the Primitive times the Public Service of God was (generally speak­ing) perform'd in a Tongue better understood than now it is, yet not then for many pla­ces and Countries in their vulgar, or native, or best understood tongue; For it is evident by St. Augustin that in Afric it was in the Latin tongue, De Doctr. not in the Punic, Christ. l 2. c. 12, 13. Expo­sit. Psal. 123. Exposit. incho­ [...]ta Epist. ad Romanos. which yet was the only Tongue the Vulgar understood. So the Liturgy of St. Basil was used in the Greek Tongue in most parts of the Eastern Church­es. And yet it appears as well out of later Hi­story, as out of the Acts 2. 8, 9, 10. &c. 14. v. 11. That Greek was not in those antient times the vulgar tongue of many of those Ea­stern Countrys, no more than Latin was of the Western. 2. We professe it was not, nor yet is the intention of the Church that the Public Devotions should therefore be in Latin, be­cause [Page 173] it is not vulgarly understood: but this has hapned as it were by accident, besides her intention, and onely because the Latin Tongue, in which it was first written, by revo­lution of times and mixture of Barbarous Na­tions in Europe, has been corrupted, and cea­sed to be a so commonly understood Language by unlearned people; for indeed probably it was never so well understood, as that other native Language which they used before it, or with it.

10. Matters standing thus, yet the Church does not think fit to change with the times, but continues Gods publick Service as it was at first: And this we may conceive she does. 1. Because no example can be found in an­tiently-established Churches, that any of them changed the Language of Gods public Service entirely. The Greeks now use the Antient Masse of St. Chrysostom written in pure Greek, as much differing from the Vulgar, as Latin from the Italian, Spanish, &c. The like may be said of the Syrian, Cophtites, &c. among whom the Mass is celebrated in the o [...]d Lan­guage, far from being vulgarly understood. Yea, the Iews continue their Devotions, to this day, in the Hebrew, understood by few among them. 2. Because, though the Latin be not now in any place a vulgar Language yet there is no Language so universally un­derstood in Europe as that: And a great fitnesse there is that the most Public Ser­vice should be in the most public Language, in [Page 175] which all Nations may joyn every where. And by those who most frequently recite the Divine Service in the Catholic Church, viz. the Clergy, and other Religious (for whose proper use a great part of this Service was composed) the Latin Tongue is well under­stood. 3. Because the Latin [...]ongue now that it is not vulgar, being thereby becom unchange­able, the Churches Doctrins contain'd in her Lit [...]rgies are so much the more freed from the danger of being innovated. Whereas vulgar Languages almost in every age become un-in­telligible, or at least sound very unpleasing in mens ears, as we now see in King Edward the sixth's Common-prayer-book: would it not seem an odd translation now to read, that Saint Philip baptiz'd the Gelding? and Paul the Knave of Iesus Christ, yet this was once the English Scripture; Nay more, within this twenty years we find many words and phrases have quite changed their former sense: So that all Nations must be ever and anon altering their Liturgies, to the great danger of chan­ging the Churches belief; And (which is not altogether inconsiderable) for the present good husbandry of the world, to the infinite expen [...]es of moneys in printing &c.

11. I doubt not but he will reply that not any one, or all these commodities can answer and satisfie for an express, and, as he calls it, a scandalous opposition to the plain sense of Scrip­ture, 1 Cor. 14. I grant it: All these commo­dities [Page 174] are to be despised, rather than so to op­pose the Apostles Doctrin. But what is his Doctrin? For I evidently perceive the Doctor has not well search'd into it, much lesse, right­ly apply'd it. The Apostle says. If I pray in an unknown tongue, my Spirit prays, but my un­derstanding receives no benefit, &c. And how can an unlearned Person say Amen to such Prayers? In which passage seems involved a tacite pro­hibition at least of publick Prayers in an un­known tongue. All this is granted: but yet with this exception mention'd by the Apostle himself, unless either he that prays, or some other interpret. Therefore before he took on him to charge the Catholic Church with a scanda­lous opposition to this passage of Scripture, he ought to have examin'd better her doctrin and practise: otherwise he himself will be found guilty of a Scandalous opposition to God's Church.

Now for a tryal of the Churches sence, let him observe the Ordinance of the Council of Trent touching this very Point: the words are these, Though the Mass contain instruction for Gods faithful people, Conc. Trid. Ses [...]. 2 [...]. cap. 8. yet it seem'd not expe­dient unto the Fathers that it should be celebra­ted every where in the vulgar tongue; where­fore retaining in all places the Churches antient Rite, approved by the holy Roman Church▪ the Mother and Mistresse of all Churches; lest Christ's Sheep should hunger, and Children ask­ing bread, none should be found to break it to [Page 176] them, the Holy Synod commands all Pastours and all that have care of Souls, that during the celebration of Mass, they should frequently either by themselves or others, expound some part of those things which are read in it; and among other things let them explain the mystery of this most Holy Sacrifice, especially on Sundays and Feasts. The Preacher here may see that the Church does not make such a secret even of the most sublime Mysteries of her Office, as the Court believ'd upon his report.

12. Likewise between this speaking in an unknown tongue, mention'd by St. Paul, and the Churches publick Latin Service, there is this great disparity, that this later is always a known Language to several of those present, if not to all, and there are alwayes those who understandingly say, Amen. And again being a known set-form in one set-language, recur­ring continually the same according to the Feast, those who are ignorant of it at first, need not continue so, but by due attention, and other diligence may arive to a sufficient knowledge at least of the chief parts thereof, they having also in their Manuals, Primers, Psalters, &c. ready translated both the Psalms, Hymns and Prayers, &c. and there being se­veral Books both in English and all vulgar languages, that expound the Church-service even to the meanest capacity. Neither is the Latin tongue, by reason of its affinity with many vulgar tongues, and of the constant use [Page 177] hereof, a language unknown to such a degree in Catholick Conntries, as our English Nati­on imagin it, and therefore is so much scan­dalized: Neither is there the same motive for some dispensation of a change in those places, as perhaps would be in a Country less acquainted with the Latin, and of a Language more remote from it. Yet our venerable Beda in his History saith, Bed hist. l. 1. c 1. That in his time to these Northern Languages of ours, Eng­lish, Scotch, Britans, Picts, the Latin Tongue, by perusing the Scriptures, was made common to them all. The usual Language therefore wherein the Scriptures were delive­red in his times was Latin, and by this that Tongue rendred common, and not un­known even to these Northern people.

13. Besides all this, several Popes, Patri­arks, &c. have approved the Translation of the Missal, &c. into the vulgar Languages, as Pope Iohn the Eighth, Hist. Boem. cap. 13. who was induced thereto by a Miracle related by Aeneas Sil­vius (afterward Pope Pius the Second) like­wise Pope Innocent the Third, Pope Leo the Tenth, Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch, &c.

To conclude, since the Doctor confesseth that Popes have given leave to some Chur­ches that the Divine Office should be in a vulgar Tongue, he ought not to have made a Quarrel of this to a Separation, till it could be shewed, that their first Reform­ers had demanded a dispensation, and been refused.

1. THe next supposed Novelty is the Invocation of Saints departed: which says Doctor Pierce, Serm. p. 9. is no doubt an aged error, though not so aged as they would have it, (for the gaining of honor to the invention) because St. Augustin does deny it to have been in his dayes.

2. Though perhaps the Preacher may for some ends be unwilling, yet that other Pro­testants may see the Innocence of the Church in this Point, and how free she is from any in­tention of deterring any one from having ac­cess in Prayer to our Lord immediately; or of diminishing the all-sufficient vertue of our Lords Merits and Intercession; or of i [...]ducing men to security by relying on the holynesse [Page 179] and intercession of others, and neglecting the means of Salvation themselves, &c. (which are generally the grounds upon which Prote­stants condemn this practise:) I will first set down the Churches Decision: And next, in or­der to demonstrate the reasonablenesse of it, I will shew, for preventing such prejudices, what concessions are generally made by Ca­tholics. Thirdly, I will confirm the Chur­ches practise by the Testi [...]onies of the Primi­tive times. And lastly, answer the Doctors on­ly argument.

3. First, then touching the Churches Do­ctrin, contained in the Council of Trent, Conc. Trid. Se [...]s. 25. The Holy Synod commands all Bishops and others who sustain the Office and care of teaching, that, ac­cording to the use of the Catholic and Apostolic Religion received from the primitive times, the consent of the Holy Fathers, and the [...]ecrees of the Sacred Councils▪ especially touching the intercession and invocation of Saints, &c. that they diligently instruct the Faithful, teaching them, that the Saints reigning together with Christ, do offer their Prayers to God for men, and that it is good and profitable hum [...]ly to invocate them, and to have recourse to their Prayers, help and assistance for the obtaining of benefits from God by his Son Iesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour. Let them like­wise teach, that those who deny that the Saints, enjoying eternal felicity in Heaven, are to be in­vocated; or who affirm either that they do not [Page 180] pray for men, or that the invocating them to pray for us in particular also, is Idolatry, or that it is repugnant to Gods word and contrary to the honor of the one Mediator between God and Men Iesus Christ; or that it is a foolish thing to sup­plicate with words or mind to them reigning in heaven [impie sentiunt] are impiously persuaded.

4. In the second place, in conformity to the doctrin of this Decree, Catholics believe and acknowledge. 1. That we have only one Me­diator Iesus Christ, to whom only belongs the Merit that by it's just worth redeems us from eternal Death, and purchases for us eternal life: As likewise that as his Merits by satis­faction, so also his Intercession is all-sufficient by way of impetration, to obtain all blessings for us. 2. Yet cannot it be deny'd but our Lords intercessi [...]n is not actually and absolutely beneficial to all, but that some Duties and qualifications on our part are necessary both that his Merits, and the benefits of his Inter­cession should be effectually applyed unto us. 3. Among these Qualifications we are to rec­kon not only our own Prayers for our selves, but mutual Prayers for one another: which therefore we may beg from one another, as St. [...]nkes. 6. 19. Paul himself did from the Ephesians, Colos. 4. 3. 2 [...] 3. 1. Colos­sians, &c. 4. Because the more holy any person is, the more effectual will his Interces­sion be with God, therefore we may beg of known Saints their Prayers to God for us with greater hope of successe. 5. Such [Page 181] begging of Prayers is farr from Idola­try, Superstition or diminution to Christ's honor, since holy Persons (living or dead) are not invocated as Donors but Fellow-beg­gers with God for us. 6. Though a Chri­stian may be saved who prays to God alone, and requests not the prayers of others, yet to refuse the assistance of those, whose Prayers God more willingly hears, is a neg­lect at least of using all means helpful to us. 7. Chrysost. hom. 23. in Genes. Neverthelesse we say with Saint Chryso­stom, God will bestow salvation much rather on us praying for our selves, than for others▪ pray­ing for us: And we are much more safe by our own Devotions (without others) then by others (alone:) And therefore we ought not to be slothful and secure, depending on other [...]s merits. For the prayers and supplications of Saints have indeed very great force with God in our behalf, but it is then truly when we with penance and humiliation beg the same thing also of God. And therefore saith the same Saint, Knowing these things, Id. [...]om. 1. in 1 Thes. let us neither neglectingly contemn the prayers of Saints, nor cast our selves wholly upon them.

5. Whatsoever hath been hitherto said, may indifferently be applied as well to Saints depart­ed, as to Saints alive: If the Prayers to Saints de­parted be prejudicial to the merits & interces­sion of our Lord, so is the beging of the prayers of those alive: If one be unlawful, so is the o­ther: nay, most certain it is, that if both be [Page 182] lawful, the prayers of Saints departed will be incomparably more effectual, and therfore will better deserv to be made use of, than the other. Therefore, notwithstanding most of the Argu­ments of Protestants against the Doctrin of the Church touching Invocation of Saints depart­ed, do prove full as much against Prayer to the Living, and therefore are evidently un­concluding: Yet those, who are most learned and sober, and will not wilfully mistake Ca­tholic Doctrin, do free us from all imputation of Idolatry, superstition, or doing injury to Christ, and reduce the Controversie to a short point: For they question not whether the Saints pray in general for us, but rather wil­lingly acknowledge it; yea they will not po­sitively deny but they may and do pray perso­nally for their former known acquaintance, as St. Augustin believ'd his Mother did for him: Likewise they will grant that though they be in Heaven, they may either by Gods reve­lation, or by relation from Angels be in­formed of the Prayers made to them by any o­thers on earth: and that supposing such a knowledge, they will become Intercessors for them in particular.

6. But, you'l say, since there is no general certainty, that they understand our Prayers or wants, or interesse themselves in the parti­cular necessities of the living, Therefore though it be not unlawful, as prejudicial to the honor and duty we owe to God, to invo­cate [Page 183] them in particular, yet it may be call'd unlawful, in regard it is uncertain.

To this Scruple, Catholicks acknow­ledg the Church by no Decision hath declar'd that the Saints generally hear all the particu­lar prayers of us on Earth: And consequently that it is not any Article of our Faith to believ they do so: Yea, several moderate Catholics re­fuse to say peremptorily that it is so; yet in all Catholics Opinion this does not, nor ought to hinder them from acknowledging that the practise of Invocating Saints by name, is very beneficial to us, though they should have no particular knowledge of your Prayers.

7. And the grounds to prove this to be rational are these, First, Because though it were so that the Souls of glorifi'd Saints did not hear our prayers, or know our particular necessities, yet at least, it is certain the Holy Angels are continually present with us on Earth, and that it is by them we are defended from the Divels malice, who otherwise, ha­ving such a wonderful strength exceeding ours, would destroy us all in our sins. Now, since God does not ordinarily inter­pose his power immediatly in natural acti­ons, nor substract his universal influence on his Creatures, it cannot be imagin'd (since the Devils will not be hindred by any Law or prohibition) by what other power, but that of Angels, they should be restrained from executing their malice against us. Adde [Page 184] to this, that History tells us Magicians have the Divels alwaies ready to come at their call▪ Why then should not Angels be witnesses of our actions, and especially our prayers, which, as the Scripture saies, They offer as In­cense to God, being alwaies assistant in the houses of Prayer. This being supposed, we are not to imagin that those holy Spirits stand upon niceties, and will not do any good unlesse particularly call'd upon: But on the contrary, will be charitably officious in help­ing and delivering us, whensoever we implore the assistance of any of their fellow Citizens. And it is upon this matter that St. Aug. l. de [...]ur. pro mort. cap. 26. Augustin, not doubting at all that great good arrives unto us by invocating the Martyrs, &c. (for the beginning of his Discourse is, Although that Question doth exceed the power of my under­standing, How Martyrs succor those which cer­tainly are in effect aided by them, &c.) very subtilly Disputes whether the Saints them­selves hear us, or the Angels for them: And whether, when they seem to appear unto us, it be not the Angels which take their shape.

8. Again, How great the Spheare of the activity of the Saints glorified may be in re­spect of this whole visible World, we know little. That it is finite we know: But how far it may be extended, viz. their faculties of seeing, hearing, and operating, especial­ly since the Ascension and Glorification of our Lord, we know not. Thus the Arch­bishop [Page 185] of Spalato, no great Patron of Invo­cation of Saints: Spalat. de Rep. Eccl. l. 3. c. 6. I do not think it unprobable, saith he, that there should be assigned to every Angel and beatified Soul very vast spaces both of the Superior and Inferior World, wherein they may operate: And perhaps the whole sensible world may be no more to one of them, than its pro­per body is to a humane Soul informing it. And thus Vossius interprets St. Hieroms Speech of them; Voss. Disp. Hist. 2. Thes. [...]. That he held beatified Souls present at their Tombs, and like Angels passing most swiftly through spaces wonderfully distant; moreover, that they there know the necessities, and hear the request of those who have recourse to them. But suppose their agency and intelligence, as Spirits, con­fined only to the Circuit of Heaven, yet how great the knowledge of these Saints, standing continually in Gods presence, may be by way of Revelation of things absent or future, of mans thoughts, &c. in the same manner, (tho' in a higher degree,) as also some special Saints have on earth, who can determine? If God said of Abraham, a Pilgrim on earth, Shall I hide from Abraham the thing that I do? Gen. 18. 17. How much more may we imagin that he hi­deth not the mighty works of his Provi­dence, Mercy and Justice here on earth from those his Domestick Servants? So we read, not onely an Angel, but every one of the Twenty four Elders to have in their hands golden Censers, Rev. 8. 3.—Ibid. 5. 8. aud Vials full of odors, which are the Prayers of Saints; that is, of their Brethren on earth.

[Page 186] 9. Again, though there were no certain­ly in this, that even the Angels are present to us, and execute the things we pray for, yet the practise of Invocating Saints ought not to be neglected; because, considering the un­questionable proofs of a world of miraculous effects of such Prayers, both in modern and ancient times, recorded by the most Learn­ed, Prudent, and Holy among the Primitive Fathers, of many of which themselves were eye witnesses, and the rest confirm'd by Testi­monies irrefragable; Miraculous effects I say, not only of Prayers here directed to God, with relation to the acceptablenesse and In­tercession of such Saints; but also of Prayers directed to the Saints themselves, as appears by the Quotations below: We may be assured that this practise pleases Almighty God, and is very benefical to us. Among other witnes­ses of this, I will only name St. Gregory Nyssen, Greg. Nyss. or de S. Theod, Theodo. l. 8. de Mart. and Theodoret for the Greek Church, and St. Augustin for the Roman. The first of these in his Oration on the Martyr St. Aug. l. 22. de Civ. Dei. cap. 8. &c. Theo­dorus: The second through his whole 8 th. Book intituled of Martyrs; and St. Augustin in his 22th. Book de Civitate Dei, through several Chapters, shew both that frequent Addresses were made to, and many wonder­ful Miracles perform'd by the Intercession of Saints, especially Martyrs, which Miracles were shew'd rather in the places, where those Martyrs were particularly honour'd, and [Page 187] where their Reliques reposed, then in others; and upon those, who Invocated their Inter­cession and assistance, then on others, &c. which are demonstrative proofs that the Ve­neration and Invocation of them are accepta­ble to God. De Civ. Dei. l. 22. c. 8. St. Augustin relates that the mul­titude of Miracles which were done at Hippo, the Seat of his Bishoprick, at the Memory of St. Stephen, and that within the two first years, after some part of his Reliques were brought thither from Ierusalem by Orosius, was so great (who also caused them to be en­rolled, and for God's and the Saints glory, to be recited to the People the next Festival af­ter they were done, of some of which also he was himself an eye-witnesse) so great I say, as that those that were registred amounted to near 70. (whereof he sets down a considera­ble number in that 8 th. Chapter) and those done at Calama to a far greater number. It is not yet two years since the memorial at Hippo Regius was erected, whereas the Books delivered in to us concerning these miraculous effects (yet many other, as we are most certain, not being given in) even to the time when I am writing this, a­mount to some seventy. But at Calama, where the Memorial was set up sooner, and the Books brought faster, they are incredibly more in number. At Uzala too, a Colony adjoyning to Utica, we have been witnesses of sundry things of note done by the same Martyr; whose Memorial was erected there by Bishop Evodius, long before ours. And [Page 188] St. Theodoret also, (who was a member of the 3 d. and 4 th. General Council) speaks of the peoples frequent repairing and presenting their requests to the Martyrs for so many Miracles received by them on this manner — Neither do we resort hither once or twice, or five times in a year, but frequently in them we keep our Festivals, yea, oftentimes for many daies together, we sing Lauds and Hymns to the Lord of these Martyrs. Where such as are in health petition the Martyrs for the continuance thereof; such as are sick petition them for health, &c. Not conceiting that they approach to Gods, but praying to these Martyrs of God as Divine men, invocating and petitioning them for their In­tercessions with God. And that such, who have devoutly and faithfully invocated them, do obtain their requests, those several guifts do witnesse, which such, obliged by their Vows, do bring thi­ther, being clear evidences of their unfeigned cures. For some hang up their Tablets of eyes, some of feet, others of hands, made of gold or silver. These things therefore exposed to the view of all, do evi­dence the driving away of their diseases: These I say do demonstrate, what the power of those Mar­tyrs is, which are buried there, &c. Thus Theo­doret, whom, tho' some of the Reformed (upon a negative Argument, because Nice­phorus mentions not this Book amongst o­thers, but so he omits some which Gen­nadius (mentions) deny to be the Author of this Book, yet Rivet is more candid, [Page 189] saying, Rivet. Crit. Sacr. l. 4. c. 21. Libris de Graec. affect. curand. non­nulla addita esse malim dicere, quam de Au­thore dubitare. And lastly, St. Gregory Nyssen speaks thus on the same Subject — After one hath thus delighted his eyes with the building, he desires further to approach the Monument it self, believing the very touching thereof to bring a benediction and hallowing along with it. But if any be suffered to take away any of the dust gathered from off the Martyrs Se­pulchre, such dust is taken for a great guift, and this very Earth laid up as a precious Treasure. But if at any time such a happinesse befalls any, as to have the priviledge to touch the Reliques, how earnestly such a thing is to be wished and desired, being the reward of much importunitie, they know well, who have sought and obtained it. For then they view and embrace this body, as if it were alive and fresh; apply it to their mouth, their ears, and the other Organs of all their Senses: Moreover, powring out tears of du [...]y and affection upon the Martyr, as if he appear'd to them sound and entire, they offer up their humble prayers, that he would in­tercede as an Advocate for them, begging of him as a Courtier of Heaven, and invocating him, as one that can obtain any thing he pleaseth. To what Prince is there such honour given?

10. In the third place I will adjoyn fur­ther expresse Testimonies out of the ancient Fathers, all living within the Doctors deter­minate times, and shewing the lawfulnesse and usefulnesse of this practise of Invocating the glorified Saints. [Page 190] Thus then saies St. Basil. Orat. 40. Mart. Basil: Whosoever is in any pressure, let hin fly to the assistance of these Martyrs: And again, whoever is in a state of joy, let him pray to them: The former, that he may be delivered from misery: The latter, that he may be preserved in prosperitie. Chrys. Homil. 66. ad pop. Antioch. & Hom. 26. in 2 Corinth. Thus St. Chrysostom, The Emperor, who is cloathed with purple, takes a journey to visit these Sepulchres [of St. Peter and St. Paul] and laying aside his pomp, presents himself to make supplication to them, to the end they may intercede to God for him, be whose Temples are encompassed with a Diadem, praies to a maker of Tents, and a Fisherman, as his Protectors. And to the same purpose, Ruffin. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 23. Ambr. de vid. of the same Emperor, speaks Ruffinus. Thus St. Ambrose, We ought to pray to the Angles which are given us for guards: We ought to pray to the Martys, whose Bodies seem to be as it were gages and hostages, that we may challenge their Patronage and protection, &c. Let us not therefore be asham'd to employ them as Inter­cessors for our Infirmitie; for they themselves by experience knew the infirmitie of our bodies, even then when they surmounted it. This St. Ambrose writ not, as Bishop Andrews imagins, when he was a Neophite, but a Bishop. See Voss. de In­vocat. Disp. 2, Thes. 1. and Forbs de Invocat. cap. 3. their more candid concessions con­cerning this Father. Hilar. in Psal. 129. Thus St. Hilary, It is not the nature of God, but our infirmitie that stands in need of the Intercession of Angels: For they are sent for the benefit of those which shall inherit Sal­vation, God himself not being ignorant of the things [Page 191] which we do, but our infirmitie needing this myste­ry of a spiritual intercession for the imploring and obtaining for us (what is good for us). In which Testimony so much is clear, that the Angels know our necessities, &c. And this is sufficient to infer the lawfulnesse of reque­sting them also to intercede for us. To these, many more Testimonies may be added out of other holy Fathers, as likewise the actual Prayers to Martyrs made and recorded by St. Basil, St. Gregory Nyssen, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Ephrem, Theodoret, St. Hierom, St. Pauli­nus, Prudentius, &c. To which, I hope, Dr. Pierce will forbear to return the usual evasi­on, that all these are but Rhetorical Apostro­phe's: Since other expressions of the same Fathers, viz, That they are well perswaded that those Saints to whom they addresse these Requests, Nazianz. Orat. de 8. Athan. Basil. O [...]t. de 40. Mart. Nysien. Orat. de S. Theodo­ro Mart. have an inspection from Heaven on their affairs. That they do relieve the necessities of those who supplicate to them. That the people make addresses to these heavenly Courtiers, as to those who obtain guifts from God when they please. And that if the Lamb be every where, these Saints which are with the Lamb, ought to be believed to be any where, (or every where) as they please: Since, I say, these expressions do not consist with such a pretence of their invocating them only in an empty flourish; And since this is a put-off too vain, to get any credit with sober men, to say that such grave and holy Bishops, when preaching to the people, [Page 192] would make petitions to these Saints to ex­ercise their Rhetorick, and yet without any cautioning their hearers, that they did it in such a manner; which, if done seriously, would have been an injury to God, to Christ our Redeemer, ye [...], Idolatry, &c. And lastly, since the Doctor may find Vossius and Forbes, for some of them at least, condem­ning this evasion.

11. To these Testimonies, I may adjoyn the expresse confessions of Protestants, That Invocation of Saints was commonly in use in the Greek Church long before the 3 d. and 4 th. General Councils. For which, besides the confession of Chemnitius, Chem. exam. Conc. Trid. p. 3. de Invo­cat. S. S. Vossius Disp. 2 Thes. 1. Vossius also is clear, whose words are; About the year of Christ, 370. those to whom the care of instructing the peo­ple was committed, did by their practise lead them to invocate the Saints departed. And indeed, in the Greek Church the first, or at least very near the first of those which gave such Examples were Basil, Nyssen, Nazianzen: And in the West, at the same time, Ambrose of Millain, a diligent Reader and Imitater of the Greeks, followed the same custom. Now, since Dr. Pierce professes so ready a submission to the Judgment of the four first General Councils, and must grant, that several of these Fathers, whom Vossius acknowledges to have been Patrons of Invo­cation, and to have used it even in the pub­lick Assemblies, (for which they were never censured) did precede many years two of [Page 193] these General Councils; I would gladly know if such a Question had been made before the third or fourth Council, concerning Invoca­tion of Saints, as was, before that of Trent, Whether he can perswade himself, that those Fathers would not have justified such Invo­cation for lawful in those Councils, which they practised as lawful out of, and before them, and would not have produced at least as high a stating of that Point, as the Coun­cil of Trent did? And indeed a particular knowledg and agency of Saints deceased in in human affairs seems to be acknowledged in the fourth General Council, and Invocation in the third Person: Act II. Conc. Chalced. Whose words are, Let Flavian be had in everlasting memory: Behold Vengeance, [i. e. on his murderers.] Behold the Truth! Flavian lives after death! Let Flavian the Martyr pray for us.

12. It remains in the last place, that an Answer be given to the only A [...]gument out of Antiquitie, produced by the Doctor against this Doctrine, and to prove it's Noveltie. For, saies he, Serm. pag. [...]. Aug de Civ. D. lib. 22. c. 10. St. Augustin denies invocation of Saints to have been in his daies: And his only proof that he does so, is from those words of his, The men of God (that is Sain [...]s departed) are named indeed in their due place and order, but they are not invoked by the Priest who Sacrifices.

12. To this passage, our Answer it, 1. That sure the Preacher had forgot he was to reckon, presently after, the Sacrifice of the [Page 194] Masse among Novelties, introduced after the fourth General Council, when he produced this Testimony that expresly proves the con­trary: Here is a Sacerdos brought in, and here he is brought in both praying and Sacrificing and yet, saies the Doctor, no such thing as a­ny Christian Sacrifice. Or, if a Sacrifice, on­ly a Sacrifice perhaps of praise and thanks­giving. But St. Augustin will contradict him, who as hath been said, calls this indeed a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving in regard of glorified Saints commemorated in it: but a Sacrifice propi­tiatory in regard of the faithful departed with some stains of sins remaining,

2. The same thing St. Augustin means here (i. e. That Saints are not soveraignly invocated by way of Sacrifice, as the Supream Donors and Fountain of all good that descends to mankind,) is taught by the Catholic Church even where she professes Invocation of Saints in the same sense as St. Augustin allows it, that is, as of our fellow-members and citizens, making ef­ficacious intercessions for us to this Supream Deity to whom we Sacrifice. For thus saies the Council of Trent, Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. cap. 3. Although the Church be ac­customed to celebrate Masses somtimes in the honour and memory of Saints; yet she does not teach that the Sacrifice should be offered to them, but to God a­lone who has crown'd them: And hence it is that the Priest is never wont to say, O Peter, O Paul, I offer this Sacrifice to thee, but to God, to whom he gives thanks for their Victories, and implores their [Page 195] patronage, that they may vouchsafe to intercede for us in Heaven, whole memory we celebrate on earth. A part of which Decree is taken out of S. Aug. de Cir. D. l. 8. c. 37. & lib. 20. cont. Faust. M. c. 21. Au­gustin himself in the same Treatise quoted by the Preacher.

3. Dr. Pierce could not possibly have made a worse choice of a place from whence to se­lect a Testimony (as he would have us believe) denying all Invocation of Saints, whenas in the two Chapters of the same Book immediate­ly preceding this, many stories are largely re­counted to certifie the great good that Chri­stians had found by the intercession of Saints, and all this, whilst in their Oratories they begg'd their intercession.

4 Perhaps he will not yet be content: but with Bishop Andrews Resp. ad A­polog. c. 1. page 46. will urge, it is not here said by St. Austin, That the Saints are not Sacrificed to, but that they are not so much as invocated at the Altar. And if it be unlawful to invocate them there, it will be as well unlawful any where else. Hereto it is answered, That all this, taken in a right sense, is granted. For first, To this day in the Masse there is no kind of Invocation of Saints; yea more, according to the Council of Carthage, 3 Conc. Carth. cap. 23. till the Consecration be perfe­cted, there are no Prayers directed to the Son of God, nor to the Holy Ghost, but only to God the Father. 2. But this argues not that (if the Church had so order'd it) it might not have been lawful even at the Altar [Page 196] to have Invocated the Saints by such an infe­riour Invocation or Compellation as the Church has determined, which is only accor­ding to Card. Perron [prier pour prier] to de­sire them to pray for us: As even in the Masse it self, the Priest requests the Assistants, saying, Orate fraires, ut meum ac vestrum Sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum, Ord. Missae. &c. To whom the people Answers, Suscipiat Dominus Sacrifici­um de manibus tuis, &c. 3. But as for the Su­pream sort of Invocation, which St. Austi [...] only intended in this passage, and which he calls Culium latriae, this is only due to God, and without impiety cannot be made to Saints: And thus St. Austin writing against Faustus, Aust. cont. Faust. l. 20. c 21. the Manichean, fully justifies what he saith in this passage.

5. But after all this, that St. Austin allows Invocation of Saints in an inferior way, do but examin only these places in him—c. 4. De curâ pro mortuis (a Book which he wrote in Answer to a Quere of Paulinus, Whether it doth benefit any one after his death to have his body buried in the Memorial of some Saint)— When as (saith he) such conso­lations of the living are looked after [that is, of burying their Friends in such sacred places] whereby their pious affection may appear to their Friends. I see not what advantages may accre [...] [hereby] to the dead, except this; that whilst they call to mind where the Bodies of those who are dear unto them are laid, they with their Prayers com­mend [Page 197] them to the same Saints, as it were to Pa­trons, that by them they may be helped with our Lord, which also they might do, although they could not inter them in such places.—Whensoever therefore the minde recounts, where the body of some dear friend lies buried, and streight the place occurs renown'd for the name of some Martyr, the devotion of him, who thus remembers and prayes, forthwith commends this beloved soul to the same Martyr.

— ‘There was here in Hippo (saith the same Father) a certain old man called Florentius, De Civ. Dei. lib. 22. cap. 8. poor but pious, and a Tailor by Trade. He had lost his Cloak, and had nothing wherewith to buy him another. He prayed with a loud voice, to the twenty Martyrs, whose Monument here among us is very famous, to re­apparel him. Some scoffing young men by chance being near hand, over-heard him, and at his going away followed him jeering him, as if he had begged of the Martyrs fif­ty half pence to buy him clothes.—And af­terward, —The Cook ( saith he) cutting up the Fish, found in the belly of it a gold ring, which, moved with pity and piety to­gether, he straightway delivered to the poor man, saying, See how the twenty Martyrs have furnished you with clothes.’

De diversis Serm. 32. & 33. (unquestioned that I know of, and which appear sufficiently [Page 198] to be S. Austins, by comparing these with the conclusion of cap. 8. l. 22. de Civit. Dei.— ‘A certain woman (saith he there) lost her son, a sucking Infant, being as yet a Cate­chumen only.—Full of faith she took the dead childe, and ran to the memorial of the blessed Martyr Stephen, and began of him to demand her son, and to say, Holy Martyr, you see I have no comfort at all left me; For I cannot so much as say that my son is gon before me ( to Bliss) whom you know is ut­terly perished ( because dying unbaptized). You see the cause of this my dessolate grief; re­store me my Son, &c.’

— De Baptism. l. 7. c. 1.—and l. 5. c. 17. being compared, This Father supposeth the Martyr Cyprian to know his affairs; and, in his handling that Controversie of Rebapti­zation, contrary to St. Cyprians former judg­ment, (in which Point he presumes that Saint now fully illuminated) yet hopes for his favour, and requests the assistance to him herein of his Prayers— ‘Let him help us therefore (saith he) with his Prayers, laboring here in in the mor­tality of this flesh as in a dark myst, that by Gods help we may, as much as we can, imitate the good things that were in him.’

6. Upon these grounds Bishop Forbes grants, De Invocati­one Sancto­tum. c. 4. n. 2. that St. Austin doth allow Invocati­on [Page 199] of Martyrs; commends Bishop Montagues candor in acknowledging it; and there also censures Bishop Andrews for denying it, in these words: ‘The Bishop of Ely wrongful­ly affirms that St. Austin disallowed the In­vocation of Saints, the contrary whereof is apparent in his Bood De curâ pro mortuis,’ &c. And afterwards he adds, ‘Truly I am sorry, that so just a cause is given to Iohn Barclay of expos [...]ulating with the most learned Bishop of Ely, who speaks thus concerning him—Here I have a desire to tell the King of Great Britain's Almoner: The King believes him, and so do many o­thers; and yet he is as oft in fault, as he makes others to be so. Let him therefore consider, how erroniously he denies that St. Austin approves the Invocation of Martyrs.’ Adde to Bishop Forbers, and Bishop Montague, the Testimony of Dr. Fulk long ago in his Rejoinder to Bristow— ‘I acknowledge’ (saith he) ‘St. Ambrose, Page 5. St. Austin, and St. Ierom held Invocation of Saints to be law­ful, which is an Error’—And the Testi­mony of the Bishop of Spalato, Republ. Eccl. l. 7. c. 12, n. 25. who numbers this Father among many others that allowed Invocation of Saints: ‘The Fathers (saies he) without any hesitancy either Invocate Saints, or grant they may be invocated: the Latin; Hilary, Ambrose, Ierom, Pau­linus, Maximus, Prudentius, Augustinus,’ —And the Testimony of Chemnitius also, [Page 200] who, Exam. Concil. Trid. 3. p. 197. upon the former Quotation taken out of St. Austin de Baptismo, l. 7. c. 1. sayes, ‘Thus St. Austin speaks without ground of Scripture, yielding to the times and com­mon custom.’ Yet for all this, a confident pronouncing that St. Austin knew nothing of this Doctrine or Practice serv'd the Preach­ers turn▪ Many of his Auditors knew no­thing to the contrary, and therefore believ'd him, and, according to his desire, detested Roman Catholics the more for this Novelty. And that was enough then; but what will it be when the Righteous Judge shall call that Sermon to a second account?

1. THe Doctors tenth pretended Noveltie, is the Roman Churches prohibition of Marriage to Priests and others in holy Orders: Serm. pag. 27. Which, saies he, is by some derived from the third Century, by others from the eighth; and in the ri­gour that now it is, Ib. page 9. from Pope Gregory 7. and by Roman Catholics themselves, 'tis dated but from Pope Calixtus. But (saies he) both in the old and new Testament, Priests were permitted to have Wives: The Apostles were married: Besides marriage of Priests was asserted by Paphnutius in the Council of Nice: And by one of the Apo­stolic Canons: And the forbidding of Marriage, with Saturninus and the Gnosticks, is worthily called by the Apostle the Doctrine of De­vils.

[Page 202] 2. Indeed if the prohibition of Mariage to some certain states of men or women be the Doctrin of Devils, the Preacher has reason rather to seperate himself from a Church that enjoyns such a Diabolical vertue as Continence, than from a wife that will not permit it, and who perhaps and therefore a great influence upon his zeal, more warm in this Novelty than any of the rest. Though it is not only per­mitted him, but esteem'd meritorious to blas­pheme the Church of God, yet let him take heed how he blasphemes the Apostle, who, in the same Epistle out of which the Doctor quotes his Doctrin of Devils, forbids marriage to Widows, who had consecrated themselves to our Lord's service: Younger Widows refuse (says he) for when they have begun to wax wanton a­gainst Christ, 1 Tim. 5. 11, 12. they will mary: Having damna­tion, because they have cast off their first Faith. Aug. in Ps. 95. Id. de bon. Vid c. 8. What means this phrase [They have cast off their first Faith] (saith St. Augustin?) [Vo­verunt & non red did e [...]unt. Id. de Sanct. Virg. c. 33, 34.] They vowed (per­petual continence) but they kept not their vow: Id. de [...]ult. Conjug. l. 1. c. 24, 2 [...]. and therefore they have damnation. Id. Epist. 70. This is St. Augustin's constant Doctrin and interpre­tation of that place of the Apostle, Epiph. hier. 43, & 61. as may be seen by examining the quotations in the Mar­gin. Hieron. l. 1. Cont. Iovin. Id. in Ep. ad Fu [...]ia [...]. Fulg. Ep. 1. c. 6. Conc. Carth [...]g. 4. c. 104. The same is taught by St. Epiphanius, St. Hierons, Fulgentius, the fourth Council of Carthage, (at which St. Augustin was present) &c. And it is not contradicted by any one Antient Doctor, nor any, except antient He­reties, [Page 203] Iovian, Vigilantius, &c. And this surely will suffice to demonstrate it, no Novelty in God's Church, much lesse that it was e­steem'd a Doctrin of Devils, to forbid Mar­riage to Persons consecrated to God's service. Forbid it; I say, not the Gnosticks, Mani­chees, &c. forbad it, as an unlawful thing in it's self, but only as an impediment and distracti­on in a spiritual Vocation. Now whether Wi­dows are esteem'd by the Preacher to be more nearly and perfectly consecrated to the Divine service, by the Office of Deaconesses, then men by Priesthood, 'tis expected he should de­clare.

3. But for better clearing of this Point, touching the prohibition of Mariage to persons in holy Orders, &c. in charity I must suppose the Doctor will not professe the Heresie of Iovinian, who taught that Virginity does not excel Matrimony. An Heresie so contrary to reason, that (as St. Augustin tell us) it was presently extinguished and never could attain to the deceiving so much as one Priest. Aug. in. Haeres. 82. This He­resie formally contradicts St. Paul teaching thus, 1 Cor. 7. 34. There is difference between a wife and a Virgin, The (Virgin) unmarried woman ca­reth for the things of our Lord, that shew ay be holy both in body and spirit: But she that is ma­ried careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. Which saying of the Apostle certainly at least declares a state of Vir­ginity and continency much more advantagi­ous [Page 204] to promote the service of God and keep the mind fixed on spiritual and heavenly im­ployments, than a Married state, encombred with worldly cares, and carnal appetites. Thus much I doubt not will by the Preacher be granted.

4. But now the Question must be, whether Eunuchism for the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, a perpetual abstinence from Marriage and all carnal lusts may lawfully be by Priests, &c. made the matter of a Vow? That it is a Council of Perfection is evident from our Savi­ours speech, Qui potest capere, capiat. But upon supposition that Continency is a special gift of God, not bestow'd on all, and that it is infinitely difficult for any one certainly to know he has this Gift: for these and such like reasons the Roformed Churches, in opposition to the Roman Catholic, have generally con­demned the practice of such Vows, at least con­sider'd as extending it self generally to any whole Order or state of men, and especially an Obligation imposed on them to this pra­ctice.

5. On the other side the Roman Catholic Church, though she acknowledges Continence to be a special Gift of God, and that there may be some difficulty to attain and preserve it, yet esteems not these to be grounds sufficient to relinquish the obligation of C [...]libacy in Priests, &c. which she submitted to from the Preach­chers Beginning, that is in the primitive times [Page 205] of the Church, at least within the four first General Councils.

6. It is granted then, that Continency, (that is an ability to abstain (not from all motions of Concupiscence but) from putting in execution all motions, either by a voluntary morose delectation in them, or much more by outward unclean practises of them) is a Gift of God, a fruit of his Holy Spirit, and cannot by natural means be obtained so as to be practised in obedience to him. But so are all Christian vertues: So is Faith, so is Repen­tance, so is Charity, all which notwithstand­ing, we vow in our Baptism. And why do we vow a practise of those vertues which are pure Gifts of God? Because we are assured the same God, who commands that Vow, will not be wanting to supply strength to perform it, in all those that sincerely beg those Gifts of him by earnest Prayers made in Faith, and by avoiding all known, and possible-to-be­avoided impediments to the practise of those vertues.

7. But it will be said, that great difference is to be made between that Continence which is a Christian vertue necessary to all; Obj. viz. a Continence from all unlawful Lusts; and such a Continence as is now treated of, which is an Abstinence from Marriage, that is from the lawful Remedies of unlawful Lusts, which Abstinence is so far from being necessary to all, that it is no more than a Council to those that [Page 207] aspire to perfection, which are but few, even in the opinion of the Roman-Church. This Abstinence certainly is a far more special Gift of God, say they, and not too easily and common­ly to be presumed on.

8. All▪ Sol. this likewise understood cum grano Salis, is acknowledged by us. Yet withall Protestants know that even this Abstinence from Marriage, or from exercising the law­ful Acts in Marriage is a Gift bestowed on ve­ry many, and in some cases necessary to almost every one. For otherwise it would be utter­ly unlawful for Parents to keep their children unmarried after the time they are capable, and thereby to expose them to unlawful lusts, since it seems they are not sure they have such a Gift: it would be unlawful for Merchants and Travellers to make long voyages abroad, and leave their Wives at home deprived of the necessary lawful Remedies against Lust and Temptations to which they are exposed. All Statutes of Colledges ought to be repealed, which forbid Marriage still to all Fellows, and heretofore to all Presidents, upon penalty of forfeiting their whole subsistence. A long Sickness inflicted by God on either of the mar­ried Couples, would be far more dangerous to their Souls than their Bodies, so as if such an Abstinence, as is now spoken of, were such an extraordinary Gift of Perfection, England would have more Saints, or more Adulterers, &c. than she is aware of. And here good Doctor [Page 206] I desire you tell me a thing that perhaps you have not thought on, yet will easily perceive its meaning assoon as you think on't. What is the reason that the Ministers of England gene­rally marry not till they are above thirty years of age? Can they abstain all that while, when their passions are stronger, and their reason weaker, and then, after so long a Continency begin to plead 'tis impossible for them to hold any longer, unlesse they had the gift of Cha­stity, which God bestows not on every one? shall I give you my Conjecture? I doubt they force themselves to live single till they have a Benefice, and then, assoon as they can maintain a wife, they get one: is not this meer hypocrisie to talk of Marrying out of tenderness of Con­science, to allay their Concupiscence, when the danger is almost all past; and make no provision to prevent the sins of the unrulyest part of their age? Methinks they should ei­ther marry earlyer, when they may justly su­spect their Chastity, before they have tryed themselves; or live longer Batchellors, when they may prudently hope by the grace of God to persevere after so much experience of their continency.

9. Catholicks therfore, though they confesse this continence to be a special Gift of God not be­stow'd on all, because all do not use the means, yet resolve it is such a special gift as is denyed to none, who rightly seek it, and conceive, it also may be made the matter of a vow by [Page 208] those, who have a steddy purpose to use the necessary means to attain and conserve it, and by those who by humble and due ex­amining themselves, are perswaded that God calls them to a state of greater Perfection, and being in that state depend on his grace for performing their Vow, seeking his assistance by constant Prayers, watchfulnesse, and ne­cessary penitential austerities. Now those may be confident they are called to such a state, either in a Monastical or Ecclesiastical Profession, who betake themselves thereto, not out of any worldly respects, for gaining a sub­sistence or preferment, or other temporal in­vitations, but purely to avoid the tentations, solicitudes and distractions of the world and flesh, and to devote themselves more to the service of God, and advancing their Souls in vertue and piety. In this state of Perfection, and in complying with this Council of Perfecti­on, those, who duly undertake that state, may as undoubtedly promise to themseves Gods assistance whilst they use the means to obtain it, as generally all Christians may after the vow of Baptism. St. Augustin writes thus, Aug. in Psal. 131. David vow'd, as having the matter in his own power: And yet he beggs withall [...]f God that he may perform what [...]e vow'd. Here is the devotion of one that vows: here is the humi­ty of one that prays. Let no man presume on his own strength, as if he were able of himself to perform what he shall vow. He that exhorts [Page 209] thee to vow [saying Vovete & reddite] the same God helps thee to perform what thou hast vow'd.

10. If then it be lawfull for private persons to vow Celibacy, surely it is lawful for the Church to enjoyn it: her Doctrin being, That Goddenies not the gift of Chastity to them who ask it aright, Conc. Trid, Sess. 24. Can. nor suffers us to be tempted above what we are able. Which Doctrin is the ground why the Church enjoyns Celibacy to Priests: So that Chastity is called a special Gift, not in this sence, as it all men, though using what means [...]oever, are not capable of it: But it is such a Gift as many men never actually receive from God, because they do not use the means: and such a Gift as few also will endeavour to use the means to attain, because these means are harder than those by which other Gifts may be attained. That the undertaking by Vow such a life of Chastity, and abstinence from Marriage, yea in Marriage it self, has been ap­prov'd, commended, and practised in Gods Church from the very beginning, if the Preach­er will not believe us, let him not suspect at least partiality in his own best Friends. Chemnit. ex­am. part. 3. p. 41. ‘We are not ignorant, says Chemnitius, that the Fathers did approve the vows of perpetual Celi­bacy, P. Mart. de vot. pag▪ 490. and acknowledge them to be obligatory. Profession and Vows of Chastity (says Peter Martyr) were extant among Christians in the time of Clement of Alexandria [that is about the year 170. Id. ib. p. 524.] Again, I know, says he, that Epiphanius with many of the Fathers erred in [Page 210] this, that they said it was a sin to violate such a Vow when it was requisite, and that he did ill in referring it to Apostolic Tradition. Danaeus con [...]r. Bellarm. part▪ 1. part. a [...]cra. Da­naeus says confidently, That St. Augustin and all the Bishops in the Council of Carthage a­bused manifestly the word of God, saying, upon the Apostles words, If any widows how young soever have vowed themselves to God, &c. and afterwards shall go to secular Marri­age, they shall according to the Apostle have damnation: because they dared to make void the vow of Chastity made to God. The Centurists affirm it to be manifest by the E­pistles of Ignatius, that in those times men be­gan to have too much liking of the Profession of Virginity: for he says, Let Virgins consi­der to whom they have consecrated them­selves.’

11. And as for the Doctrin of Devils mentio­ned by the Preacher, he may do well to sit him down and consider the words of the Apostle, and the comments of the Fathers on them a lit­tle better. First he will find the Apostle, in his opposing those, who in the latter times should forbid to marry, and command to ab­stain from meats, to argue against them thus: That every Creature and Ordinance of God is good (according to Gen. 1. 31. & 2. 23, 24.) and therefore, being sanctified first by the word of God and Prayer, may lawfully be used. (See 1 Tim. 4. 3, 4, 5.) which plainly shews, that St. Paul means such Apostates as abstain from, or prohibit Marriage and Meats as in them­selves [Page 211] unlawful and unclean and contamina­ting. Which thing can neither be objected to the antient nor modern Church-practise, using abstinence from some meats for the chastise­ment of the body, not for any uncleanesse in the food, and not forbidding Marriage to any single person absolutely, but only upon his vo­luntary undertaking such an employment, with which they imagin a married condition not so well to sute. In which case, if necessary absti­nence from Marriage be a fault, the Apostle himself may seem to comply with it in those ex­pressions of his forementioned concerning the Widows, 1 Ti [...]. 5. 11, 12. 2ly. He will find it manifest by experience, that this prophecy of the Apostle was most eminently fulfilled in o­ther persons of these latter times (whom these Fathers even in these points most vehemently resisted) they affirming downright all Marri­age, especially with reference to procreation of children (therefore the married were advised by them in such manner to use their Wives, as to avoid this: See S. Aug. De Morib. Manich. c. 18.) to be unlawful, and the work or de­design of the Devil, as likewise flesh-diet to be unclean and defiling. They forbid living Crea­tures as detesting them, Haeres. 47. saith Epiphanius, not in respect of preserving continency, or a vertuous life, but out of fear and fancy, that they might be defi­led by eating such living Creatures. Wine they use not at all, saying, 'tis Diabolical. And S. Aug. con. [...]. l. 30. c. 5. Austin, Contra Faust. l. 30. c. 5. Ye call the Creature unclean, because the Devil (ye say) [Page 212] frames flesh out of the more feculent part of na­tural matter. Such were some of the G [...]osticks, Eucratites, M [...]ntanists, Marcionites, and in the last place the Manichees, who, not holding all things to have been created by the same good God, but this lower world by an evil Principle, or by the Prince of Darkness, as they call him, affirmed in the begetting of a man, that the Soul, which they account to be a part of the substance of God himself, becomes fertered and imprisoned in the walls or handy-work of the Devil, i. e. the body, and therefore was marri­age, as occasioning such imprisonment, for­born by all their Elect; and though this was permitted to their Auditors, yet (saith S. Au­stin) it was not by telling them it was no sin, but by shewing favour to the persons thus sinning, because they allowed them maintenance.

3. Conc. Faust. Man▪ lib. 30. Again he will find, that when they were accused by the Fathers for such errors, it was ordinary with them to recriminate the Ortho­dox with the same things, both for their fre­quent abstinences from flesh, and some other Fruits, and for their (to some Persons at least) recommending Virginity, who in this matter were answered by them after the same manner, as the Protestants, objecting the same things, are now by the Church Catholic. See Chry­sostom, Ambrose, and lastly Doctor Hamond on this place of Timothy, understanding it of the same Heretics. Lastly he will find that Fa [...] ­stus the Maniches made the very same Objecti­on to prove profess'd Chastity to be the Do­ctrin [Page 213] of Devils. To whom St. Augustin thus answers, Aug. Cont. Faust. Man. l. 30. c 4. I am now afraid in the behalf even of the Apostle himself, lest he should seem to have in­troduced the doctrin of Devils into Iconium, when by his Speeches be enflamed a young Maid already betrothed, to a love of perpetual Virginity, and when he pronounced damnation to Widows transgressing their Vow.

12. To come home to the Celibacy of Priests in particular, whereas the Doctor build much on the Authority of Paphnutius, and the mind of the famous first General Council of Nice thereupon, let him consider what an Author (not partial he may be sure for the Roman Church) has said of that Point, Cartw in [...]d. Reply, part. 1. p. 4 [...]. that is, The Patria [...]e of Presbyterians, Mr. Cartwright, The Council of Nice (says he) did affirm and teach that to those who are chosen to the Ministry un­married, it was not lawful to take any wife after­ward; only, being married before intrance into the Ministry, it was lawful for them to use the bene­fit of that precedent Marriage. And Paphnu­tius shews that not only this was before that Coun­cil, but was an antient Tradition of the Church, in which both himself and the rest of the Council rested, for a motion being made by some in the Council, that the married Presbyters (such as were married before made Presbyters) should after their Ordination be separated from their Wives, this Paphnutius, a Reverend Bishop and a Confessor, though himself never marri­ed, opposed, saying, Grave jug [...]m,—This was a heavy yoke, &c. and that perhaps such a strict [Page 214] rule of Continency could not be observed by all Clergy-mens wives. [But now mark what fol­lows]. That it was sufficient that those who had entred into the Clergy before they had married Wives secundum veterem Ecclesiae traditio­nem, according to the Churches antient traditi­on, 'should afterward forbear from marrying: But yet that none ought to be separated from his wife that he had married before, when yet a Laick. The story is in Socrates, l. 1. c. 8. & in Z [...]zomen, l. 1. c. 22. Thus the Preacher gets not much ad­vantage from Paphnutius.

13. Now for as much as concerns the Con­troversie touching Marriage of Priests, Bellar­min will grant, Bellarm. l. 1. ‘That the vow of Continence was annexed to Holy Orders onely by the Churches Decree: [...] Cleric. c [...]p. 18. and consequently that it may be dispensed with. Ibid. Moreover that the Roman Church in several Cases hath permit­ed the Grecian Priests the use of their wives to whom they were married before their Or­dination.’ And indeed, considering the tem­per of the Eastern Countries, far more enclin'd to such passions, than that of the Europeans, we find the Eastern Churches gave themselves far greater liberty than the Western. Yet no antient Canon [...]f either of the Churches can be [...]ound that permitted Priests to contract Mar­riage after Ordination: And even among the Grecians, a cohabitation with their Wives was forbidden to Priests, who attended the Altar.

14. But what the universal belief and pra­ctise of the Western Churches was, our Preach­er [Page 215] may collect from the following Testimonies. Therefore not to insist upon the generally e­steem'd and resolved unlawfulnesse for Bishops and Priests after their Ordination to contract Matrimony, (of a dispensation from which not one example can be given); It appears, that a Matrimonial use of wives to the formerly mar­ried, was forbidden, 1. By the Second Council of Carthage, express in this Point: It was a­greed unto by all the Bishops, Conc. Car­thag. Can. 2. that Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and such who dispense Sacraments, should be Observers of Chastity, and abstain even from their own wives, that so what the Apostles taught, and Antiquity observed, we likewise may keep. Conc. African. cap. 37. 2. The Second African Council thus de­creed, Whereas Relation was made of the Incon­tinence of certain Ecclesiastics, though with their own Wives, this Council thought good that, ac­cording to former Decrees, Bishops, Priests and Deacons should contain even from their Wives; which if they do not, let them be removed from their Ecclesiastical Office. As for other inferior Clarks, they are not compell'd hereto. But let every Church observe their own custom. 3. Saint Ambrose witnesseth the same, You, (says he) who with pure bodies, Ambr. l. 1. de Offic. c. 1. ult. uncorrupted modesty, and being estranged even from Conjugal conversation, have received the grace of the holy Ministry, know well that we must exhibit the same Ministry without offence, without stain, neither must we suffer it to be violated with any Matrimonial Act. This I have not omitted to speak because in certain remote plates, some have pr [...]created [Page 216] children, when they exercised Priesthood. And again, the Apostle speaking of a Bishop, sayes, having children, not getting them. 4. Saint Hierom writing against Vigilantius, sayes, ‘What shall the Churches of the East do? Hieron. lib. cont. Vigilant. What shall the Churches of Egypt do? and of the See Apostolick? all which receive Clerks, either such as are Virgins or Conti­nent, or if they have wives, such as cease to be husbands to them.’ The like is said in the Conclusion of his book against Iovinian. Id. Epist. ad P [...]m [...]chius. And he writes to Pamachius thus, If married men like not this, let them not be angry with me, but with the holy Scriptures, with all Bishops, Priests and Deacons, who know they cannot offer Sacrifice, Aug. l. a. de A­dult. conjug. cap. 20. if they use the Act of marriage. 5. We are wont (says Saint Augustin) to propose to them the continence of Ecclesiasticks, who for the most part are compelled against their wills to undergo this burden, and yet having received it, they, by Gods assistance, bear it to their end. I will con­clude with the Spanish Council of Eliberis, more ancient then St. Augustins time, nay, ancienter then the First General Council of Nice, The Council hath thought good, Concil. Elber. Can [...] 33. that it should be abso­lutely commanded to Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Sub-Deacons, to abstain from their Wives, and not to beget children.

15. That the Eastern Churches took to them­selves anciently a greater liberty, is to be un­derstood not generally; for in many of them a [...] great a strictness was observed: as, besides the forecited t [...]stimony of S. Hier [...]m, concern­ing [Page 217] the Churches of the East and of Egypt, Orig. hom. 23 [...] in num. E [...]seb. de dem. Evang. lib. 1. cap. 8. ap­pears from Origen, Eusebius, and Epiphanius, who all require continence in Priests, even from their wives, if they have any; And particu­larly, S. Eph. Haer. 59. & in fine operi [...]. Epiphanius says, That to do otherwise is not to observe the Canons, but to follow our natural inclinations, soon weary of such a burden. And [...]ow the Doctor may do well to consider what a Novelty he has found out to entertain his Auditors with; especially, since all the fore­cited Canons and Practices (Which are within the time of the four first Councils) were in force in England at the Reformation, as England was a Member of the Western Patriarchat, and therefore could not, without a transgression of all Ecclesiastical Order, be repealed by this single National Church: much less could this Church without a criminal, formal Schism, make such a generally received practice a pre­tence for separation.

16. His Allegation out of Clemens of Alexan­dria, that some of the Apostles had wives, is granted: But did they, after their executing their Office of Priesthood, lie with them? Did they leave any young Apostles behind them? As for the Apostolick Canon which forbids Priests, &c. to cast off their Wives: what would he infer from hence? Does he think married persons are husbands and wives only in the night? That which the Canon intended was, that Ecclesiastical persons should not make their office a pretence to cast off the care of provi­ding for their wives, or to be divorced from them: that is, such as [...]ere married, and had [Page 218] wives before they entred into Orders, who af­terwards must not refuse cohabitation with them, except when they officiate, unless with their wives consent, in the Eastern C [...]urches, That the Priests under the Law were married, cannot be denied: since Priesthood necessarily descending by generation, marriage was there­ore necessary. But sure he does not think such a carnal, umbratick Priesthood, is fit to be a Pattern for our Christian Priesthood, wholly spi­ritual, and withal Elective. Yet he may take notice, that even in that Legal Priesthood, at the times when they solemnly attended on the Altar, they had no Matrimonial Commerce with their wives: They came not reeking out of their beds into Gods Sanctuary, as may be ga­thered from 1 Sam. 2. 4. and the prohibition in Exod. 19. 15, 22. Be ready the third day, and can­not at your wives; On which place St. Ambrose discourses thus, S. Ambr. Offic. l. 1. cap. 50. Zach. 7. 3. 1 Cor. 7. 5. Filios susceperunt & id tanquam usu veteri defendunt; There are Priests and Deacons in some secret places that defend their use of marriage by the Practice of old, when the duty of sacrificing had its in­terval of dayes. And yet then even the peo­ple were sanctified by abstaining from their wives two or three dayes before, and wash [...]d their garments, that they might approach pu [...] unto the Sacrifice, Si tanta in figura observanti [...] quanta in veritate, If the observation [of ch [...] ­stity] were so strict in the figure what ought i [...] to be in the truth, Disce sacerdos atque Levi [...] quid sit lavare vestimenta tua [...]t mund [...]m corpus [...] lebr and is exhibeas Sacramentis.

[Page 219] 17. To conclude, Celibacy to the Clergy be­ing only injoyn'd by an Ecclesiastical Law, as being a thing at the least no way repugnant to the Divine Law, nay, much recommended therein; it is certainly lawful enough, though from the beginning it had been otherwise: For the Church hath liberty of making Laws con­cerning such things from time to time, as she sees fit, and her subjects are obliged to obey them.

1. THe Doctors last Novelty is, the Church of Romes allowing Liberty of Divorce betwixt man and wife, Serm. pag. 19. for many more causes then the cause of fornication, contrary, sayes he, to the Will of our blessed Saviour, revealed to us without a Parabl [...], as if they meant nothing more then the opening a way to rebel against him. A heavy charge: But for the Legality of it, he alledges in the Margin an express Canon of the Council of Trent, which, whether he reads à toto, or à toro, says nothing at all to his pur­pose, proper Divorce being therein not so [Page 220] much as thought of. And he himself saw and proved, it made nothing to his purpose, yet serv'd his turn, because Chemnitius, a malici­ous Lutheran, said falsely and ridiculously▪ That the Papal separation from Bed and Board [...] in many ways a dissolution of the Conjugal Tie. He would [...]ain have Maldonate thought to speak on his side too, but it is apparently o­therwise.

2. Truly this is a Quarrel so properly al' Alamand, that one would think the Doctor took only an occasion thereby to let the Court see his critical diligence in observing the false and true Impressions of the Canons of the Coun­cil of Trent, in some of which he has read [ [...] toto] which makes no sence: and in others [ a to [...]o] which only could be the Councils [...]x­pression. But we hope an undiligent Prin [...]ter (who for all that may be good Roman Catho­lic) shall not make the Roman Church it self causally Schismatical, and thereby excuse the Preachers separation.

3. It is pitty to lose time about such a trifle, which, I think, never before this Sermon, was by any English Protestant reckon'd a­mong the pretended Criminal Novelties of the Roman Church. (Yet I may be mistaken, for there are a world of Sermons and Treatis [...], like his, in intrinsic value, which never had the fortune to be made so current.) Howe're, left he should be angry if so materlal a part of his Sermon be neglected, a little pains shall not break squares between us.

4. He may therefore take notice, that in [Page 221] the businesse of Marriage there are, among Ca­tholic Writers, distinguish'd four sorts of Se­parations: 1. A Iewish Divorce, which in La­tin we seldom call Divortium, but Repudium. 2. A Christian Divorce, properly so called. 3. A Separation a toro. 4. A Separation both a toro & cohabitatiore.

5. Touching the first, if we have regard to the direct intention of God and his Servant Moses, it was no other, nor ought to have been put in practice upon other grounds then the Christian Divorce, allow'd by our Saviour, that is, for Fornication only. But by the permission in the Old Law, Deut. 24 [...] there might follow that Divorce, a second Mariage by either of the parties, whether innocent or guilty: Yet not upon every cause a [...] the Iews practis [...]d it, but besides Adultery only propter turpitudinem, for some notorious uncleannesse extreamly distastful. Now, not­withstanding such permission, which was meer­ly for the hardness of Iewish hearts, their Divorce [...]or any other cause, and especially their second Marriage after it, was not excused from sin, but only from a legal punishment: And the prin­cipal motive was, left worse effects, as poyson­ing, or any other way of murdering, &c. should be practised by the discontented party, in case a total separation might not be permitted. This Supremest Degree of Jewish Separation (or Repudium) does not intirely dissolve the Matrimonial Contract, which being consummate of its own nature i [...] indissoluble; for the parties, being by Matrimony become One flesh; and one Principle of a new stock, cannot by [Page 222] any following act or accident, but only Death, become two again, so as to be in the same ca­pacity as they were before they were married▪ And for this reason the Iews, though permit­ted to marry afterward, yet sinned in so doing against the primary Precept of God. Those whom God hath joyned, let no man separate.

6. Much lesse does the second species of Sepa­ration, or the proper Christian Divorce dissolve this tye. The only lawful cause of which Se­paration is by our Savior allow'd, and by the Catholic Church acknowledged to be Fornicati­on, (that is indeed, Adultery:) under which are likewise comprehended, as our most learned Doctors say, other more grievous sins of unn [...] ­tural Lusts. And the reason why only such sins may (not must) cause such a perpetual se­paration is, because they alone are directly contrary to Conjugal Faith▪ By this separati­on, whensoever it is caused by the crime of the one party,) neither of them, (not the inno­cent party) are permitted to betake themselves to a second Marriage: for then they could no be reconciled but by a new Marriage: And here the Preacher may do well to consider what [...] Patron he has betaken himself to, which [...] Chemnitius, who, against our Saviours Law (as all Antiquity, and the practice of the Eng­lis [...] Reform'd Church interpret it) contends for the lawful Marriage of the innocent party, so teaching formal Adultery. This separation for such a legal cause is perpetual, that is, the innocent persons may deprive the others of the right they have over their bodies, and are [Page 223] in a free condition even after the faulty persons repentance, whether or no to receive them a­gain into their former condition: Neither can it be imputed to the innocent person, if the criminal should by such a separation fall into the sin of adultery.

7. The other two Separations (not Divorces) one whereof is only [ a toro] from the Bed, the other from Cohabitation also, may be made for other causes, besides fornication. As for s [...]m ve­ry infectious diseases; for almost irreconcileable quarrels, for attempts of killing or wounding one another, &c. Such Separations are not so perpetual as Divorces, each of the parties being bound; assoon as these impediments of conju­gal conversation are removed, to return, as be­fore, to a Matrimonial Amity and Correspon­dence; And till then, I would ask the Doctor, whether he have the courage to admit into his Bed, or even his house, a Serpent not only full of venom, but ready and attempting to kill him with it? Or if he have not this courage, whe­ther he will acknowledg such a separation so necessary, even to the preservation of life, to be a Divorce damnable, because not for fornication? What he will answer, I know not; But what he must, if he go about to maintain his Assertion, I am certain will be very irrational.

8. Let him reflect on the practise of his own Church, where he cannot but have heard of the common distinction of Divorces A Vinculo Matrimonii, & à mensa & toro: these two are both allow'd in England: now I ask the Do­ctor, of which does our Saviour speak? If he [Page 224] say of the first, then clearly the Husband of an Adultresse may marry again; which is contrary to the Law: if he say of the second, still [...]e contradicts his own Law, which every day al­lows a separation for other Causes, besides that of Fornication. Can we believe the Doctor ne­ver read the ordinary Cases wherein Di [...]orses are granted, as Pre-contract, Fear, Frigidity, Con­sanguinity? &c. all which dissolve the very Marriage it self, and yet in all these the Mar­riage was valid, till actual divorce, and the children shall bear the Fathers name, and inhe­rit his lands, if there never happen an actual divorce; this the wise men of our Nation do, and never think they open a way to rebel against Christ. Pag. 29. Something like this, for the second branch of the distinction, 1 Cor. 7. St. Paul himself does, and sure he cannot be opposite to the will of our Saviour; If, says he, the Vnbeliever depart, let him depart, a Brother or Sister is not subject in such cases, that is, the Innocent may remain separate: and why may not the laws of a Nation regulate that liberty, which the Apostle allows to every private Person? or why may not a Ge­neral Council determin such points as well as the laws of a particular Nation? Thus I con­ceive it clear'd, that You and We are in this particular either Both innocent, or Both guilty.

1. HAving followed the Doctor through all his vainly preten­ded Novelties of Doctrine: We are at last arrived to the most concerning Point of all, Schism: Most concerning certainly; for there is not any one of the fore-mentio­ned Doctrines, which in themselves consi­dered, would absolutely destroy Souls, though they erred about them; But Schism alone, whatsoever Error of Do­ctrine, yea though no Error of Doctrine, were either indeed, or pretended to be a cause of it, will be inevitably damning to every Soul guilty of it; which damnation neither rectitude of Faith, nor any good Works, nor even Martyrdom it self will be [Page 226] able to prevent. Aug. de Symb. ad Carech. l. 4. c. 10. For this cause, (sayes St. Augustine) our Christian Creed concludes with the Articles touching the Church, be­cause if any one be found separated from her, he shall be excluded out of the number of God's Children: neither shall he have God for his Father, who will not have the Church for his Mother. It will nothing profit such an one that he hath been Orthodox in belief, done so many good works, &c.

2. This is a Truth generally testified by the ancient Doctors of God's Church, and not at all questioned by the more sober Writers of the English Church who have written of Schism, &c. They all are rea­dy, in words at least, to say with St. Denys of Alexandria, Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. 6. That we ought rather to en­dure any torments, then consent to the division of God's Church, since the Martyrdom to which we expose our selves by hindring a di­vision of the Church, is no less glorious, then that which is suffer'd for refusing to sacrific [...] to Idols. Pacian ad Sympr. Epist. 2. And with St. Pacian, Though (the Schismatick) Novatian hath been put to death (for the Faith) yet he hath not been crown'd: Why not crown'd? Because he dy'd out of the peace, concord and Communio [...] of the Church, separated from that comm [...] Mother, of whom, who ever will be a Marly [...] must be a Member. Iren. l. 4. c. 62. And with St. Iren [...]us, There cann [...]t possibly be made any Reforma­tion of such importance, as the mischief [...] Schism is pernicious, &c.

[Page 227] 3. But I do not find that Protestant Do­ctors have endeavour'd to penetrate into the true grounds, why, above almost all o­ther sins a Christian is capable of com­mitting, Schism, that is the setting up an Altar against an Altar, or the relinquishing the external Communion of the Church, the making Collects or Assemblies without, yea against the consent of Bishops or Church Governours, &c. should be a sin so unpardonable, that no ignorance (un­less supposed such as is invincible; which I fear much fewer then is ordinarily ima­gined, of those, who have any liberal Education can pretend to, in that great evidence and light which they have of the continued succession, unity of Do­ctrine, perfect obedience to their spiritual Superiours, penances, and retirements from the world, and several other signal marks of the One, Holy, Catholick, Apo­stolick Church) no ignorance, I say, no sur­reption, provocation, &c. can excuse it. Some may be more deeply guilty, and ob­noxious to a heavier damnation then o­thers, as Ring-leaders more then followers; but damnation is by the Fathers generally denounced as the portion of all.

4. The true Reason whereof may be de­duced from the example of all other Go­vernments whatsoever. The greatest of­fence a Subject can commit against Mo­narchy, [Page 228] is an actual attempt, or rather the attempt executed, by which Monarchy is disolved: Inwardly to condemn the Laws of such a Government, to entertain Princi­ples, which if put in practise, would with­draw Subjects from their due Obedience, is an offence of an high nature, but the actual cantonising of a Kingdom, and the raising in it Courts, or Iudicatories inde­pendent on, and opposite to the Common Tribunal of the Country, is the utmost of all crimes: both the Seducers and Seduced are not only deprived of the priviledges belonging to good Subjects, but pursued by Arms as the worst of all enemies.

5. It is so in God's Church; The main thing our Creed teaches us to believe of it, is its unity, without which it is not a Church: Now if Vnity, then Order, then Subordination of Governours, &c. what therefore is the great sin against this fun­damental constitution of the Church, but Schism? a dissolving the Communion and connexion that the members of this great Body have among themselves, and with re­lation to the whole? We all willingly ac­knowledge, that the great sin of the Sy­nagogue, the sin that fill'd up the measur [...] of the crimes of the Iews, was their mur­dering our Lord. Chrysost. ad Eph. hom. 11. Now sayes St. Chrysostom, We shall not merit and incur [...]d less cruel pu­nishment, if we divide the unity and plenitu [...] [Page 229] of the Church (the mystical Body of our Lord) then those have done which pierced, mangled and tore his own Body. Cypr. de unit. Eccles. And the ve­ry like expression hath St. Cyprian.

6. There are very few Heresies (that is, only such Errors as are formally de­structive to those very few verities or Ar­ticles of Faith, without an explicite be­lief whereof no man can be saved) which do in themselves, simply, as false opini­ons, universally destroy Salvation: In­deed, if they have the formality of Heresie joyned to them, and be maintained with a knowledge that they are contrary to the sence and authority of the Church, then they have involved in them something of Schism, or at least they are in an immedi­ate disposition to Schism, and in that re­gard all Heresies, though in Points of them­selves less important, are damnative. But Schism alone, though there be no Heresie joyned with it, immediately divides from the Body of Christ, and consequently from Christ himself.

7. But may not ignorance excuse the guilt of Schism? No: on the contrary in some re­gard it aggravates it. For though Pride and Malice be far greater in the Leading Schismaticks, persons of wit and learning: yet ignorant souls and ideots seem more to contradict human reason; because the [Page 230] more ignorant they ought to know they are, and being confessedly no Pastors, the more ought they to submit their judg­ments to Authority, and consequently the preferring their own conduct; or the conduct and direction of particular men or Churches, before the universal Authori­ty of the Church, the excommunicating (as it were) the whole Church of God, the esteeming all Christians, both Pastors and Flocks, as Heathens and Publicans, is a presumption so contrary to human nature and reason, that their want of learning is that which will most condemn them. I speak not now of persons absolutely ideots, who scarce know there are any other Pa­stors, or any other Church then their own, who pretend not at all to pass their judgements on other Religions; but know only what their Pastors teach them, having no ability, by reason of their condition, to examine Scriptures and Churches: For such no doubt, may by their simplicity and absolute invincible ignorance, escape the malignity of Schism. But I speak of inferiour Tradesmen, of Gentlemen and Gentlewomen, who have a capacity of be­ing rightly instructed, and better inform­ed of that spiritual authority to which they owe their subjection, and yet who, by their own perversness, become trouble [...] of the Church, and who, because they ca [...] [Page 231] read the Scriptures, take upon them to judge of the sence of them, both for themselves and their Pastors, &c. Such as these no doubt have drunk in the very gall of Schism, by usurping an authority, which express Scripture sayes belongs on­ly to Pastors.

8. Some learned persons (particularly Doctor Steward) attribute much to the temper of the English Church, which he sayes is like St. Cyprians, Neminem con­demantes, aut a communione separantes: and this alone they suppose will exempt Protestants (as it did St. Cyprian) from the imputation and penalty of Schism, to which other violent Calvinistical Congre­gations are more obnoxious. But the case is not the same: This indeed did exempt St. Cyprian, because as St. Augustin sayes, the Church had not then decided the dis­pute, to whose decision St. Cyprian would certainly have submitted. The case of Protestants is evidently different. If a Province in England had withdrawn it self from the publick civil authority, would this excuse serve them to say, ‘ We do not intend to quarrel with those that conti­nue in obedience to the King, we mean nei­ther him nor them any harm, they shall be welcom to come among us, if they will, we will be good friends, we will not meddle with their doings: But we will be govern'd only [Page 232] by our own Laws and Magistrates’ &c? I believe not: Their civility in their rebel­lion, will not change the Title of their crime, nor free them from the punishment due to it: it may perhaps qualifie the Prin­ces resentment; but the civillest Treason is Treason.

9. Being to examine the Doctor's Plea, touching the Point of Schism, I thought requisite to premise this consideration of its heynousness, that both he and my self also, should consider it as the most impor­tant of all other, in which the least mistake will prove mortal. I will add a bold word, and undertake to justifie it: Though it were far more probable that the Catholick Church had been guilty of Innovation in all the Points mentioned by the Doctor: yet since by the Protestants confession those Points are not fundamental, their voluntary separating themselves from her Commu­nion, will be in God's esteem very Schism.

1. IN this point of Schism, to the end the Doctor may clear Protestants, and lay the weight of so great a crime on the Catholick Church, he argues thus, Since besides corruptions in practice (which yet alone cannot justify separation) there were in the Roman Church so many corruptions in Do­ctrine [Page 234] likewise intrenching on Fundamentals, the Schism could not be on the Chruch of En­glands side, which was obliged to separate, so just a cause being given, but on theirs, who gave the cause of the separation? Now, that particular Nations have a power to purge themselves from corruptions without leave from the See of Rome, appears 1. By the concession of the most learned Popish Wri­ters. 2. From the ancient practise of the Kings of England, who were [...]. 3. Likewise from the Codes and Novels of Justinian, the capitulare of Charlemagne, and the endeavours of two late Emperours. 4. From the examples of the Kings of Juda. He concludes, that had the Pope been con­tent with his Primacy of Order, they would never have cast off the yoke, which never had been put upon their necks; whence appears, sayes he, that the Vsurper made the Schism. This is the substance of his Discourse.

2. In answering this, I will proceed ac­cording to this method. 1. I will shew out of Antiquity, from the example of all orderly Governments, from evident rea­son, &c. what obedience every Christian is obliged to perform to Church Governors, in the obstinate refusal of which, consists Schism. 2. I will apply this to the pre­sent controversie, between the English and Roman Church. I will consider the va­lidity of his allegations, and leave it to [Page 235] any indifferent mans conscience to judge whether they are sufficient to justifie the separation.

3. Touching the first Point, I take it for granted, that we both agree that our Lord has placed in his Church, Ecclesia­stical Governours, to continue by a legiti­mate succession, to the end of the world: And that the exercise of their Authority, consists partly in proposing Doctrines to be believed, partly in making Laws for Dis­cipline and Order. And that the Doctrines are to be no other, then such as either are expresly, or at least, in their immediate ne­cessary Principles, contained in Divine Re­velation: no innovation, no change must be in them; whereas orders for Discipline may, according to the prudence of the Church, sometimes admit alteration. Likewise I believe, we agree that this lawful Authority of Church Governours, or Bishops, may be differently exercised, that is, either by their single persons, or in conjunction with others, meeting in Synods Diocesan, Provincial, National, Patriarki­cal, and Oecumenical: The Authority of which Synods, is by degrees respectively encreased, according to the quality of them; the lowest degree among these, being Diocesan, and the Supream unappeal­able authority being in Oecumenical Synods. To deny this in gross, is to make them [Page 236] ridiculous Conventicles; and the more plenary they are, the more dangerous and destructive of unity will they be, if they may be repealed by others less plenary.

4. Thus far we agree; but when we come to a precise declaration of the qua­lity of that Authority, by both sides a­greed on in the general, here we begin to differ; wherefore to the end, indiffer­ent Readers may be enabled distinctly, to view and judge on which side Justice and Truth lies; I will, besides what has al­ready been said of infallibility, plainly set down the Catholick Doctrine concerning this matter, with the exceptions, which the most learned Controvertists of the English Church have interposed against it.

5. Clem. Constit. l. 6. cap. 14. There is in St. Clements Constitutions, a saying, that to every Bishop is entrusted [ [...]] the Episcopal Office Vni­versally. In like manner St. Cyprian says, [Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur] The Episcopal Office is but one, Cypr. l. de. unit. Eccles. of which every Bishop holds his por­tion in common. The meaning of which speeches is not, that every particular Bi­shop is, in regard of his Jurisdiction, an Oecumenical Bishop: But since the Church in general is truly and perfectly one Body, each Bishop in it is so to administer his Charge, as that he must have an eye to the whole. [Page 237] Dioceses and Provinces, &c. are not to be esteem'd as so many Secular Principalities independent and absolute, which can publish Declarations and Laws without any regard to their Neighbours profit, or li­king: It is not so in the Church; But every Bishop, in executing his Episcopal Office, ought much more to be sollicitous of the general Vnity, Peace, and Edifica­tion of the whole Church, than of his own Diocese: So that if any Law, Custom, or Doctrine in it be discordant from, but especially if it condemn what is by Law in force in the Province, Patriarchat, or much more the Vniversal Church, such a Law ought not to be made, or being made, ought to be Repealed.

6. As for the Authority of Bishops in Sy­nods, particularly in declaring Doctrines, (for in that we are at present principally concern'd) Such Authority may be con­ceived to extend it self either to the not­out-ward-contra-Profession only, or to the inward assent, &c. Between which two there is a great difference.

7. The common received Catholick Doctrine teacheth, that whereas in General Councils (the only Tribunal which is by all acknowledg'd to be infallible) there may be either, 1. A Declaration of Tra­ditionary Doctrines, which formerly before such Declaration did not evidently and [Page 238] [...]niversally appear to be Traditionary: 2. Or a Decision of Debates about clear and immediate Consequences of such Doctrines. In both these the Church is infallible, Infallible I say (not to enlarge Disputes beyond the present exigence) at least in all points any way necessary to our Salvation; and this grounded upon those sure Promises of our Lord made to these Guides of his Church mentioned before, Cap. 9. 11, 12. And hence such both Declarations and Decisions are to be not only not contradicted, but submitted to by an internal assent; the undiscover'd refusal of which assent, though it doth not render the refusers Hereticks in the judgement of the Church, as upon con­tradiction or refusal of assent would (for Ecclesia non judicat de internis:) Yet since such Declarations and Decisions are alwayes attended either with express, or at least imply'd Anathemas to contrary Doctrines, the contrary internal Judgments are He­retical.

8. Of the acknowledged Infallibility of the Representative Church in Decla­rations of Traditionary Doctrines, we have sufficient Testimonies from Antiquity. St. Athan. Ep. ad Epict. Epiph. Haer. 77. Athanasius, quoted also by St. Epipha­nius, professes, That he wonders how any one dares move a question touching matters defined in the Nicen Council, since, the De­crees [Page 239] of such Councils cannot be changed without errour; Therefore they are un­alterable, and in our sense infallible. Nor can there be any doubt, but those matters defin'd, were Ancient and Traditionary Doctrines. Aug. Epist. 162. id. lib. 4. de Trin. And St. Augustin sayes, The last Iudgment of the Church is a General Council. The same holy Father, treating of Rebaptization formerly held by St. Id, lib. 1. de Bapt. cont. Donat, l. 1. c. 7. Cy­prian, and after by the Donatists, says, That for that Doctrine (which was truly Traditionary) the Donatists were Hereticks, but St. Cyprian not: Why? Because it was permitted to the former Fathers and Bishops to debate, and, without breaking Communi­on, to determine oppositly to one another in Provincial Councils: Till in a General Coun­cil, the true Orthodox Doctr [...]ne were with­out all further doubts confirmed. Ibid. l. 2. c. 4. Which Authority (says he) St. Cyprian, if it had been declared in his time, would without any doubt at all have believed.

9. In the next place, as touching Deci­sions of Controversies about (not expressly Traditionary Doctrines, but) clear and im­mediate consequences of such Doctrines, it is absolutely necessary oft-times, for the Church to make such Decisions; for otherwise the Devil would have power to undermine a great part of our Faith, if permission were given to maintain freely, any thing that does not appear to any [Page 240] one expresly, either in Scripture or in Tradition. Thus, many of the Articles of the Nicen, Constantinopolitan, and Atha­nasian Creeds, are only the clear and im­mediate Consequences of express Tradi­tions, which Articles, in the Terms where­in they were there conceived, were not absolutely necessary to be believed, be­fore the arising of Heresies, forced the Church further to explain the Faith. And hence it is, that the Enlargements and clearer Explanations of our Faith, in many Doctrines, otherwise not necessa­ry to be so generally known, must and will encrease to the worlds end, in case New Heresies arise.

10. Now such Decisions are truly de fide, or objects of our Faith: For though it be most certain, that the Church neither hath, nor pretends to have any New Re­velations; of Christian verities, but the same Faith which was delivered by the Apostles, is still the Faith of the Church, and no more: There are no Additions made, no new Articles invented: Not­withstanding the same Articles, by occa­sion of Heresies arising, may in succeed­ing times be further explained, and the Truths implicitely involved in them may be discovered.

In like manner, some Traditionary points convey'd by the general practice of the [Page 241] Church, when they come to be question'd or denyed by Hereticks, are often expli­citely declared in Councils to be Traditi­ons, by which Declaration, there is no new thing taught, but that which was formerly involved, is more clearly mani­fested, and that which was taught by pra­ctice is declared by words, and that which was known to the learneder part of Christians, becomes extended to all: Thus the Doctrine of Purgatory, Prayer for the Dead, Invocation of Saints, &c. have been in later Councils made Articles, not de novo, (as the Doctor misapprehends) but they are lately testified to have been so an­ciently believed; and so are all other new decisions of later Councils, Points of an­cient Faith, either in themselves explicite­ly, or in their necessary principles im­plicitely. And if, after such decisions of Councils, there ariseth a new obligation; that none can dissent from them without incurring the guilt of Disobedience, so was there before an obligation of non-dis­senting from the same Points without fal­ling into Error; and that in a matter of Divine Revelation. Such Points were al­wayes matter of faith, if we would believe, in those particulars, what was Divine Truth; though now indeed more necessary matter of our faith, out of the obedience also and submission that we owe to the [Page 242] Church's judgement; to which judge­ment we could have no obligation, before she declared it. Neither can this be avoi­ded when ever the Church is by new risen Errors necessitated to state or declare such a Divine Truth, but that such a new obli­gation will arise to Christians, in relation to Her, of believing it; else to what end does the state it? Which obligation is al­so a restraint of our former liberty indeed, whereby we might then believe an error in divine matters, without the guilt of disobeying the Church; but this restraint is much for our benefit in our knowing and holding some truth now, which per­haps we did not formerly, and that in a time, when we are in more danger, from Seducers, of falling into the contrary Er­ror. And now behold, these necessary decisions are called the Church's new Ar­ticles of Faith; this is her chief accusati­on; and the same clamour now raised by the Preacher against the Council of Trent for this matter, as was anciently by the Ar­rians against the first General Council, who cryed out against the new Article and word Consubstantiality, which was not found in their former Creed; as was an­ciently by the Nestorians against the third General Council, and by the Eutychians against the fourth. And therefore, why may not the Council of Trent, for its de­fence, [Page 243] return the same answer to the Prea­cher, as the fourth General Council, which he professeth to allow, did to the Euty­chians? Conclus. of the Synod ad Marcianum Imperat. — A not-much-discussed expli­cation of the faith is sufficient (say they) for the benefit of sincere Believers. But for those who endeavour to pervert the true Doctrine, 'tis necessary to make opposition to all those things which they erroneously broach, and to provide fit remedies to their objections. For if all would willingly acquiesce to the esta­blishment of the [Nicene] Faith, and would disturb this clear way of Piety with no inno­vation, it were meet, for the posterity of the Church, to excogitate [in their Councils] no new additions. But because there are ma­ny that decline from this right line, through the crooked paths of error, we are confirained with new discovery of truth to reduce them, and to refute their straying opinions with wholsom additions [i. e. to the former Do­ctrines of the Church.] Not, as if we were ever seeking out some new thing tending to Godliness, as though the former faith were defective, but that we may seek out those things which are judged salutary and beneficial in opposition to those things which are innovated by them. Thus that Council, whose words clearly demonstrate, that Councils may define, not only traditionals in mat­ters of Faith, but any new conclusions which are necessarily and evidently deri­vative [Page 244] from them. And here let the equal Reader judge, whether the Doctor hath more reason to complain of the Councils new Articles, or the Council of his, and his Predecessors new Errors. Out of which evil yet, the wisdom of God, in the several ages, brings this good (as E­vagrius [...] accutely observes to the Pagans, Hist. 1. lib. 11. c. scandalized at the divisions and novelties of opinions that arose amongst Christians) that by occasions of Heresies the Orthodox dogmes are more accurately polished, and more entirely compiled, and that by this means the Church every day increaseth in knowledge: i. e. by having the explicite Articles of her Faith more and more enlarged. As we see how much even in early times the Athanasian Creed (by the springing up of several Heresies in those days) had enlar­ged the Apostolick.

11. All these Declarations and Decisi­ons framed by General Councils, we Ro­man Catholicks do esteem our selves ob­liged to the assent unto, which is far more then not to contradict. And this obliga­tion is founded on the Infallible Authority which we acknowledge in the Catholick Church, derived from the promises of Christ, whose Spirit shall lead her into all Truth: The denial of which assent we af­firm to be formal Heresie: and an open contradiction to which Authority; is for­mal Schism.

[Page 245] 12. This we are taught concerning our Duty and Submission to General Councils. And hereto we must add, that considering the present distracted state of the Christian world, and especially the Schism pertina­ciously persisted in by the Eastern Patri­arks, who live under the Tyranny of the Turk, and therefore will never probably be permitted to convene for the general Union of Christendom, it is almost be­come impossible that such General Coun­cils should now be assembled with all for­malities, as the four first were, wherein all the five Patriarks were present, at least by their Deputies. Yet, notwithstanding all this, we cannot without infidelity doubt that God will be wanting to his Church to preserve it in Truth and Vnity. Since there­fore such an Oecumenical Council cannot be expected, as was during the times of the Roman Empire, the Supremest that can now be had, ought to have the force and vertue of obliging, which the former ones had; the Anathemas of it must be as va­lid; the Decisions of it as much to be submitted to, and a renunciation of its Doctrine and Laws as heynously Schismati­cal, as of any Council that ever went be­fore: Therefore Doctor Bramhal, Lord Primate of Armagh, in the Preface of his Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon, decla­ring that he submits himself to the Repre­sentative [Page 246] Church, that is, to a free General Council, most rationally adds this clause, or to so General, as can be procured.

13. Thus of General Councils. As for inferior subordinate Councils, though their Decrees touching Doctrines and Laws for Discipline are not unappealable, yet an ob­ligation, in both these respects, they im­pose on Christians living respectively with­in their Precincts. The Decisions of a Pro­vincial Synod are to be internally assented to, except they be evidently erroneous, or contradictory to those of a Superior Synod, so that without Schism they cannot be o­penly contradicted. Yet the same Decisions may be annulled by a Patriarchical Synod: And all by an Oecumenical, of which alone all the Decisions and Laws are irreversible, because there is no Authority upon earth superior to it, and in all Governments an inferior Authority can never reverse what hath once been established by a Superior, especially if that establishment hath been actually submitted to: For, if a Provin­cial Synod could annul the formerly recei­ved Acts of a National, or a National of a Patriarchical, there must of necessity follow a Dissolution of all Government and V­nity, as to the whole Catholick Church, yet we profess in our Creed, Vnam Ca­tholicam—Add to this, that in all Synods the Major part alwayes must decide: so [Page 247] that the fewer, however they may be e­steem'd the better or more learned, must submit to them: These likewise all use of meetings and consultations will be eva­cuated.

14. This fundamental Rule of all Go­vernment and Vnity is the only true, uner­ing Touch-stone, by which a judgement is to be made concerning Schism; If Doctor Pierce can furnish us with a better, let it be produced: but that being impossible, he must give us leave to make use of this to examin the cause between the Roman Catholick Church, and all other Congre­gations that call themselves Reformed. But indeed it is lost labour to apply such a Rule as this to any Calvinistical, Independent, or Fanatick Congregations, because they re­nounce both all such Laws, and the whole Authority and Offices of those that made them: Therefore (leaving them to the severe judgement of him who said, Where are those my enemies that will not have me to rule over them? Luke 19. ) I will consi­der the Controversie, as the Preacher sta­ted it, between the Roman Catholick and English Protestant Churches, I say [ as he hath stated it] because being to treat of Schism, he hath given the right notion of it, and not mispent time and paper, as some others have done, with vain discour­ses of an Internal and External separation, [Page 248] &c. as if there were no danger in exter­nal Schism or dividing of Communion, unless men also have, with the Presbyteri­ans, &c. lost all even appearance of cha­rity to all Christian Churches before them, damning all who believe that Arti­ticle of our Creed concerning the Unity and Authority of the Church.

The foresaid fundamental Rule of all Go­vernment, That no Laws can validly be repealed by an Authority Inferior to that, by [Page 250] which they were Enacted, is a Rule not now invented to serve our present purpose, but written in the hearts of all mankind, that consider what Government is; and it is, as to Church-matters, particularly taken notice of by St. Augustine, when he de­clares the Order that is in the Church, and which alone can keep it in unity; Particular Writings of Bishops, Aug. de Bapt. cont. Donat. l. 2. c. 3. saies he, if any Error be in them, may be corrected by o­thers more learned, or by Synods; and Synods themselves assembled either in Provinces, or Regions ought without any tergiversation to yield and submit to the Authority of Plenary Councils; and oftimes former Plenary Coun­cils, may be corrected by other following Ple­nary Councils.

2. This most Irrefragable Rule, is that by which Schism may most certainly, and undeniably be discovered. And therefore though in gross it be admitted by Prote­stants, (I mean the wisest and most learn­ed among them) yet out of a necessity of maintaining the grounds of the English Re­formation, they put such restrictions & ex­ceptions to it, as utterly take away all use of it. For whereas S. Augustine makes the Su­pream Authority of the Church, to reside in plenary or general Councils, because he with­al implies, that such Councils may be correct­ed, they therefore take the liberty to reject them, at least in decisions in their esteem of [Page 251] less importance, and by that means altoge­ther inervate their Authority: Not consi­dering that in case the Decisions, which he saies, may be mended, should regard mat­ters of belief, which perhaps, upon bet­ter consideration, may be expressed more commodiously, and so, as that they may be less liable to misconstruction; yet it be­longs not to any particular men or Churches to correct them, but onely to succeeding Councils of equal Authority. To demonstrate this, I will here set down what Authority learned Protestants, such as Doctor Field, the late Arch-Bishop Lawd, &c. acknowledg in general Councils, and withal, how they circumscribe the same Authority.

3. These agree, that the Universal Church is infallible in fundamentals: Hence says the Archbishop, Archb. Lawd, Conser. Sect. 37. Numb. 3. The visible Church hath in all ages taught that unchan­ged faith of Christ in all Points fundamen­tal: Doctor White had reason to say this, &c. Id. ib. sect. 21. n. 5. Again, The whole Church cannot uni­versally erre in absolutely fundamental Do­ctrines, therefore it is true also that there can be no just cause of making a Schism from the whole Church. Ibid. Again, quoting Kickerman, he saith, That she cannot erre, neither in the Faith, nor in any weighty point of Faith. And from Doctor Field he asserts, Ibid. That she cannot fall into Heresie, &c. That she may [Page 252] erre indeed in superstructions and deductions, and other unnecessary Truths, from her cu­riosity or other weakness. But if she can erre either by falling away from the Foundation totally, or by heretical error in it, she can no longer be holy: (for no Assemblies of Hereticks can be holy:) And so that Arti­cle of the Creed, [I believe the holy Ca­tholick Church] is gone. Now this holiness, saith he, Errors of a meaner allay take not a­way from the Church. Id. sect. 33. a. 14. The same Archbi­shop likewise acknowledges, that a General Council de post facto is unerrable: that is, when the Decisions of it are received and admitted generally by Catholicks.

4. Thus far goes the Arch-Bishop, atten­ded by Doctor Field, Doctor White, &c. But being necessarily obliged to maintain the separation of his own Church from the Roman, &c. he (treating of that point) ex­tends most enormously the Errors of the Church in non-Fundamentals; for then, forgeting his former phrases of unprofit­able curiosities, unnecessary subtilties, unne­cessary Doctrines, Id. Sect. 21. n. 5. to which her curiosity or weakness, may carry her beyond her Rule, he saith, Id. Sect. 37. [...]. 5. 6. The Roman Church held the Funda­mentals literally, yet she erred grosly; dang­erously, nay damnably in the exposition of some of them: That she had Errors, though not Fundamental, yet grating upon the Founda­tion, &c. Now what he speaks of the Ro­man, [Page 253] is manifest, must as well be applied to the Eastern Church too; and so to the whole Church Catholick at Luthers discession, for most of the Doctrines found fault with by Protestants in the Roman Church, them­selves see to have been, and still to be taught by the Eastern, &c. with an accessi­on on of other Errors, from which the Roman is free.

5. Hitherto these Writers speak of the Authority of the Church onely in gene­rals: The Church, say they, cannot Erre in Fundamentals; She may Erre in non-Fun­damentals: But who is to discern between Fundamentals and non-Fundamentals? And who is to judg of the Churches Error in non-Fundamentals? Doctor Field will tell us to this purpose, Dr. Field of the Church cap. 5. p. 666. That no particular man or Church, may so much as profess pub­lickly, that they think otherwise then has been determined in a general Council, except with these three limitations. 1. Vnless he know most certainly the contrary to what the Church has determined. 2. If there be no gainsaying of men of worth, place and esteem? 3. If there appear nothing that may argue an unlawful proceeding. And the Arch-Bishop briefly to this effect, Lawd Sect. 33. con. 5. n. 1. states the Point: That General Councils, lawfully called and ordered, and lawfully proceeding, are a great and awful representation, and cannot erre in matters of Faith, upon condition. 1. That [Page 254] they keep themselves to God's Rule, and not attempt to make a new one of their own. 2. And they are with all submission to be ob­served by every Christian, where Scripture, or evident demonstration come not against them.

6. These are their limitations, and sure it was a very great necessity, that forced such wise and learned men, to grant so licentious a liberty, for annulling what ever hath been, or shall be determined by the Supream Tribunal in Gods Church. A liberty never heard, or thought of from Doctor Pierces beginning, I am certain. A liberty manifestly destructive to all their own Articles, Canons, and Acts of Parlia­ment: For sure they will not say, that these are of more sacred and inviolable Autho­rity, then those of the whole Church: Do none pretend to know most certainly the contrary to those determinations? or do none of worth, place, and esteem, gainsay them, when all the Christian world Refor­m'd, and non-Reform'd, except a little portion of England, absolutely reject them? Lastly, does nothing appear, that may argue an unlawful proceeding in Hen. the Eighths first Reformation, or K. Edwards, or Q. Eli­zabeths? But there was no possible avoiding the concession of this liberty, apparently ruinous to themselves; because they have usurped it against the whole Church, could not refuse it to any that would make use of it to destroy their own.

[Page 255]7. Let us here briefly examine these Grounds, laid by the Arch-Bishop, &c. viz. 1. The Church is unerrable in Fundamen­tals, but subject to error in non-Fundamen­tals. 2. The Decisions of General Councils, are to be observed, where Scripture, or evi­dent Demonstration come not against them.

8. In these Assertions is included a Sup­position not denied by Catholicks, That even among Doctrines determin'd by the Church, there are some which are in themselves fundamental, others not so: but yet withal those Doctrines which in themselves are not fundamental, being once determin'd by the Church, are ne­cessary to be assented to by all Catholicks, to whom they are so represented, for in those circumstances, Obedience is a fun­demental duty. But though Catholicks allow this distinction in general, they withal profess, it is impossible for any particular persons of themselves to de­termin among all the Churches Decisions, and say, this or this Point is necessary and fundamental, the others not. And the reason is, because the terms Necessary, Fundamental, &c. are relative terms when applied: for that is necessary to be be­lieved and known by one, which is not so by another: Many Doctrines are necessary to Churches for their well ordering, which are not so to any single persons, Parishes, &c. [Page 256] &c. For this reason all Decisions of the Church are sacred to them; no permissi­on to question any of them is allow'd: and by this means the Church is continu­ed in unity, and by assenting to all De­cisions, they are sure never to dissent from those that are necessary. Whereas Prote­stants taking a liberty of discerning be­tween fundamentals and non-fundamentals, and of dissenting in non-fundamentals at least, wherein they think the Church Ca­tholick may be fallible (though they have no Rule by which to judg so) are, be­sides a certainty of dis-union, exposed to errours even in fundamentals.

9. The ground upon which those learn­ed Protestants conclude a fallibility even in the universal Church as to Doctrines not fundamental [besides the manifest in­terest of their own Church] is because the end why Christ made such promises of leading his Church into all Truth, was, lest the Gates of Hell should prevail against her, which can be done only by Heresies against fundamental Doctrines: and therefore God's assistance for other Points not fundamental, is not to be pre­sumed on.

10. But, though this Position in general were allow'd them, That the Church is fallible in unnecessaries, this will not ex­cuse them for dissenting from the Church [Page 257] in any particular Doctrines actually de­cided by a General Council. Themselves acknowledge that all dissenting even in­ternal is unlawful without a certain de­monstration, that the Church hath actu­ally erred in such and such Doctrines. But which way possibly can any particular, person, or Church, arrive to such a de­monstration? It must be by producing express Scripture, or universal Tradition, formally opposite and contradictory to what the universal Church hath declared. Who can think, who dares believe, that those supreme Guides of all Christians, who were by our Lord placed in the Church, and graced with such promises, who are the only Guardians of the Scrip­ture it self, and only unappealable Iudges of the sense of it, should conspire to propose Doctrines formally and mani­festly contrary to express Scripture or e­vident demonstration? And as for uni­versal Tradition, there can be no Iudge of it, but the whole Church: particular persons, or Churches, are utterly un­capable of making such a judgment, e­specially in opposition to the whole Church.

11. It were happie therefore, if Prote­stants, considering the Promises of Christ, and the necessity of unity in the Church, would allow but as much submission to [Page 258] the Supreme Tribunal of his Church, as God obliged the Iews to perform to their Sanedrim, to which no such Promises were made. For then, though in Thesi they did affirm the Church to be fallible, yet they would acknowledge, that not only all declaration of non-assenting is forbid­den, but an internal assent is of necessary obligation to every one of her Decisi­ons.

12. Let them seriously consider the passage of Deuteronomy heretofore pro­duced, Deut. 17. in which God commands the Jews under the penalty of death, to obey whatsoever sentence should be pronounced by the present Iudges of those dayes in any Controversies touching the Law. This Precept argues that the Supreme Council of the Iews was infallible in Fundamentals. And in­deed God had promised that the Scepter should not depart from Judah, Gen. 49. 10. nor a Law-giver from between his knees till Shiloh (that is the Messias) came. By vertue of which Promise the Iewish Religion could not fail in Fundamentals: and the effect of this Promise was manifestly performed: For as to the outward pro [...]ession and pra­ctises of the Mosaical Law, it was alwayes continued, in so much as our Saviour himself enjoyned Obedience to all the Commands of those who sate in Moses his Chair. Matth. 23. I say as to the outward practises [Page 259] of it: For in the Spiritual sense of it, the Iewish Ecclesiastical Magistrates were horribly perverted, so far as to oppose and Murder the Messiah himself, typified therein; But now Shiloh was already come, and God's promise of Indefectibi­lity rested in this New High Priest, and his Successors.

13. Notwithstanding all this, yet Er­rors might creep in about non-fundamen­tals, as the Rabbins confess, when they suppose a future Sanedrim might annul the Decisions of a former Council; in which case the Ordinances of the later must take place, and without all tergiver­sation be obeyed. So as though they, being indeed in such things fallible, should com­mand any thing contrary to the true sense of the Law, the Iews were under the ut­most penalty obliged to obey them, which obedience required a submission of Judg­ment and internal assent to such Com­mands, that they were agreeable to God's Law, because it would be utterly unlaw­ful to obey any commands of men, which the Subject believed to be contrary to God's Law. Now the reasonableness of this Command of God appears in this, That it was a less evil and inconvenience that some Legal Precepts of no great im­portance should be transgressed, than that Contentions and Disputes should be end­less [Page 260] 14. From this pattern Protestants may be instructed, that though they should allow a General Council no more obliging Authority, than the Iews did to their Sanedrim, which was infallible in funda­mentals, but subject to Error in non-funda­mentals, they can never have a warrant to Dissent from any Decisions of such a Council, but ought to submit their inter­nal Judgment to them. For, since it is impossible they should have any demon­strative proofs that such Councils have de facto erred, I mean in matter of Do­ctrine; all other inferiour Judgments, all only probable Arguments against them, ought to cease; the Judgment of the whole Church rendring all contrary opi­nions altogether improbable. So that though (upon their Supposition that the Church in non-fundamentals is fallible) she should have erred in such not-much-concerning Decisions, and by consequence their assent would be erroneous, yet that small incommodity would be abundantly recompenc'd with the most acceptable vertue of Obedience, humble submission of Judgment, love of Peace and Unity which accompanies it. Besides, that both Truth and Errour in such things lyes only on the Churches, and not at all on their ac­count.

[Page 261] 15. But since Protestants find an extra­ordinary difficulty more than Catholicks, to submit their Judgments to Authority, and are apt to think all their opinions and perswasions to be certain knowledges; Let it be supposed that their first Reform­ers not being able to perswade themselves to renounce their Opinions, should there­upon have been excommunicated by the Church: In this case they ought to have suffered such Censures with patience, and not voluntarily forsake her Communion; and much less ought they to have set up, or repair to an Anti-communion: For that was in the highest degree a Formal Schism.

16. In all this discourse touching the Infallibility of the Church, and the un­lawfulness of separation from it; I do not mean a Church of one denomination, no, not the Roman, as such, for so we ascribe not Infallibility to her: But I intend the Vniversal Church, which we call Ro­man Catholick, because all true Orthodox Churches (an union of which, constitutes the Universal Church, acknowledge the Roman Church, to be the Root of their Unity. Therefore Protestants, in vain, seek to excuse their separation, upon pretence it was onely from the Roman, not from the Vniversal Church: because, 1. A sepa­ration from the external Communion of [Page 262] any one true Member of the Catholick Church, for Doctrines which are common­ly held by other Churches in communion with that Member, is indeed a separation from all Churches; which is manifestly the case of the English separation. 2. Be­cause it is evident, that the pretended Re­formed Churches, really separated them­selves a toto mundo. A thing which Calvin confesseth in an Epistle of his to Melan­cthon, in these words, Nec non parvi re­fert, &c. For it doth not a little concern us, that not the least suspition of any discord risen among us, descend to posterity: For it were a thing more then absurd, after we have been constrained to make a discession from the whole world, if we, in our very beginnings, should also divide from one another. And which Chil­lingworth also confesseth in several places, cap. 5. sect. 55. As for the external Communion of the visible Church, (saith he) we have, without scruple formerly granted, that Prote­stants did forsake it: that is, renounce the practise of same observances, in which, the whole visible Church before them, did com­municate. And sect. 56. What do you con­clude (saith he) from [...]ence, but that see­ing there was no visible Church, but corrup­ted, [where note, that he must affirm not only corruptions in manners, but also in Doctrines and Lawes, for from several of these, he will not deny Luther to have [Page 263] made a discession] Luther forsaking the ex­ternal Communion of the corrupted Church, could not but forsake the external communion of the Catholick Church. Well, let this be granted; what will come of it? That Luther must be a Scismatick? By no means. I say, it is evident (as these confess) that the pretended Reformed Churches really sepa­rated themselves from the whole world, that is, from that holy Catholick Church which we believe is to continue so in every Age: Since not one Church upon earth antece­dent to their separation, can be found out with which they are joyned in external Communion, not one which has Laws, or Governors in common with them, not one that will joyn with them, or with which they will joyn in publick Offices, Lyturgies, Sacrifices and Synods. The En­glish Church doth not pretend a Com­munion with Churches manifestly Here­tical, as the Armenian, Coptite, Abissine, Nestorian, Iacobite, Georgian Churches, &c. And for the Grecian, the Reformers, at their first separation, were actually divided from her; and sure they will not say, that by separation from the Roman, they be­came ipso facto in communion with the Grecian; or if they would say so, the Gre­cian would protest against them, as we see their Patriark Hieremias did, &c.

[Page 264] 17. And that is but a very ineffectual Salve, Dr. Bramhall. which a late learned Protestant Wri­ter in his discourse of Schism, insists upon, when, seeing clearly the English Church could not pretend a Communion with any other Ancient Churches in the world, he therefore claims priviledges of the English Church, equal to those ancient ones of Cyprus; which was a Church independent of all other, and exempted from the Ju­risdiction of the Eastern Patriark of Antioch: For though this pretention could be made good, which is impossible, yet this would not serve their turn, considering the En­glish Church, ever since her Conversion, acknowledged her self a Member of the Western Patriarchate: But though she had in­deed such a priviledge, and never re­nounced it, who will say the Cyprian Church, (because exempted from certain Acts of Patriarckical Iurisdiction, as Ordi­nations, Visitations, &c.) could therefore independently of all the world, frame or change Articles of Faith, or be excused from subscribing to the Decisions of Coun­cils, though onely Patriarckical?

1. HAving shew'd the indispensible obligation of even an internal as­sent that Roman Catholicks acknowledge due to the Decisions of General Councils, as being infallible, and which Protestants ought also to perform, though they ac­knowledge such an infallibility to extend only to Doctrines Fundamental; since the Church her self hath not declar'd which of her Decisions are Fundamental, [Page 266] and which not, for she hath affixed Ana­themas to many, which in themselves are not Fundamental, and hath said only, si quis dixerit (not) si quis non crediderit, concerning Doctrines which are unque­stionably Fundamental and necessary: We will now examine the foremention'd Li­mitations or cases in which it is said par­ticular persons or Churches may and ought to be dispensed with for yielding an assent to Decisions of General Councils touching matters not Fundamental, or e­ven for not contradicting them; which limitations have been fixed by Archbishop Lawd, Doctor Field, &c.

2. In the first place, An assent even in­ternal, say they, is to be given indispensably to all Decisions of General Councils touching such Doctrines (only) as are Fundamental, or Points of necessary Faith, because so far and no farther their Infallibility extends. But who shall, or can judge what Points are or are not of necessary Faith with re­spect to all particular states of men or Churches, when the Church her self hath not made any distinction between them, and perhaps cannot? Surely Prudence, and a most necessary care of our own Salvati­on, by continuing in the Unity of the Church, would dictate to us, that since the Church is as to Fundamentals infallible, and therefore cannot mislead us to our [Page 267] danger, there can be no safety but in as­senting to all her Decisions, as if they were of necessary Faith, for only by do­ing so, we can be sure not to err in neces­sary Points, and we shall be certainly free from all danger of Schism.

3. Secondly, As to Decisions made by General Councils of Doctrines not necessary (if we could find them out) the same in­ternal assent, say they, is due, except in two cases. i. Vnless Scripture or evident demon­stration come against them, whereby we know most certainly the contrary to what they have determined, in which case it is unlawful to assent, yea it is permitted rather to contra­dict and separate. But let any Christian mans conscience judge, whether this be to be admitted as a fitting, respectful, or even possible supposition, that the whole Church should conspire to frame Decisions in matters of Christian Doctrine, against which express Scripture or evident de­monstration can be produced. This li­cence being admitted, who shall be judge, whether that which is pretended to be a Demonstration, be really one, or no? Or whether a person do know most certainly the contrary to what the whole Church hath decided? None can judge of the thoughts of another: So that upon these grounds, whoever shall say he is certain the Church hath erred, must be believed, [Page 268] or however cannot be found fault with­all for his renouncing obedience to the Universal Church. What Presbyterian, writing or disputing against Episcopacy or other Doctrines of this Church, will doubt to say, that he does most certainly believe and know such Doctrines to be Errors? And if he say so, who can de­mostrate, that he does not think so? And if he think so, he may question, contra­dict, and make parties to reverse all the Laws, Decisions, &c. both of the English and God's Church too, by the Archbishop's warrant; for he taking notice ( page 245.) that such an Objection will be made, re­solves it thus, That a General Council (he means another (General Council) must de­cide, whether it be a demonstration or not; Hence it will follow, 1. That when any one cries a Demonstration, he cannot be reduced to obedience till another General Council be called. 2. But if another Gene­ral Council must decide it, why hath not the last General Council, which he disobeys, decided it? Or if this may not oblige him, why should the next? But this is not yet judged to be dispensation enough; For according to the foresaid limitations, One may be excused from assenting to Decisi­ons of General Councils, about Points not of necessary Faith, in case they be gainsaid by men of worth, place and esteem: So that if [Page 269] any such persons do contradict General Councils (whether in or out of the Council, He mentions not) ignorant men may lawfully join with them, and in compa­rison esteem all other Pastors of God's Church to be of less worth, place or esteem. What a broad Gate, yea how vast a breach have these Doctors, with all their learning and prudence, made in the walls of God's Church, to let in all manner of confusion? Can any Protestant now deny Sme [...]ymnuus, Mr. Prinn, the Rump Parliament to have been persons of worth, place and esteem? At least the generality of England once thought them so, and themselves chal­lenged those Titles, and whilst they were the strongest, enjoy'd them. To what miserable straits a necessity of justi­fying the English Separation reduced such wise and learned men?

4. In the third place, according to the same Writers Position, all manner of De­cisions made by Councils, both in necessary and unnecessary Doctrines, cease to be ob­ligatory, in case something appears that may argue an unlawful proceeding in the Council, out of passion, interest, want of liberty, &c. But still who shall be judges of Councils proceedings? Among Catholicks, when there are perhaps suspicions of some irre­gular proceedings, yet if the Points deci­ded be embraced by the particular Ca­tholick [Page 270] Churches, generally speaking, they then have the force of unquestion'd Ca­tholick Doctrines. But as for those, who are enemies to Councils, in which their Doctrines have been condemn'd, such will be sure to charge them with unlawful proceedings. For did not the Arians urge that Plea against the Council of Nice? The Nestorians against that of Ephesus? The Eutychians against that of Chalcedon?

5. This clause in all probability was put in to exclude the Authority of the Council of Trent; against the proceedings of which therefore, very loud and very unjust clamors were made by Protestants, imputing especially to the Court of Rome many policies and attempts either to in­timidate the Fathers of the Council, or to induce them to favour, and enlarge the Grandeurs of the Pope. But who ever shall unpassionately read the History of that Council, compiled by the most learned and eminent Cardinal Palavicino from authen­tick Records yet extant, will be satisfied. 1. That the liberty of the Bishops was on­ly straitned by their own respective tem­poral Princes, and not by the Roman Court. 2. That the Pope was so far from gaining an access to his Authority, that when a far greater number of the Bishops would have concurr'd thereto, the Pope himself forbad it, meerly because the [Page 271] French Bishops, inconsiderable for their numbers, did joyn to oppose it.

6. But there is no necessity that Catho­licks should trouble themselves with ma­king Apologies for that Council. 1. Because all the Doctrines of it, opposed by Prote­stants, as Novelties, were manifest in the general Writings and Practise of the Western Church long before that Council; and most of them in the Eastern. 2. Be­cause they are now actually embraced by all Catholick Congregations, as Declared Doctrines of the Church: in which case by the Archbishop's own Concessions, they are to be esteem'd infallibly true. 3. Because the principal Doctrines, censur'd in the Preacher's Sermon, had been expresly de­termin'd by former either General, or at least Patriarkical Councils, admitted in this Kingdom: as Transubstantiation, Ve­neration of Images, Prayers not in a vulgar tongue, Communion under one Species, Celi­bacy of Priests, the universal Iurisdiction of the Pope, &c. 4. And lastly, because, in condemning the Protestant Doctrines op­posite to them, the Bishops of the Council of Trent are found, even by See the Eng­lish Edition of that Histo­ry, concern­ing Transub­stantiation and Adoration of the Eucharist, pag. 324, & 326.—Concern­ing the Masse, that it is a Propitiatory sa­crifice, p. 544, 545, & 738.—Concern­ing the Law­fulness & Suf­ficiency of Com­municating in one kind, pag. 324, 325, 519.—Concern­ing Purgatory; the Lawfulness of Invocation of Saints, and of Veneration of Images, p. 799, 803.—Concerning the Lawfulness of not using some part of the Divine Service in a vulgar Language, p. 573, 574.—Concerning Priests not Marrying; and the universal Capacity of the Gift of Chastity; and the Lawfulness of Vowing it, p. 783, 747, and likevvise, p. 678, 679.] Padre Paulo's [Page 272] Relation (no favourer of that Council) unanimous in their Judgment; which the Reader may there see, if he please to examine their Votes concerning those Points. Neither did, nor needed the Pope, or his adherents, to use any artifice herein to gain the Suffrages of a Major part: And this is, in that History of his, only pretended to be done in other mat­ters of Contest among Catholicks them­selves.

7. Therefore it would certainly be much more for the good of Conscienci­ous Protestants to reflect seriously on the method of their Reformations: and then let them be Judges of the legality of their proceedings, and the disinteressed­ness of their first Reformers. I speak not now of Presbyterian Reformations, which in all Countreys have been usher'd in with Tumults, Rebellions, Murders, Rapines, Dissolution of Monarchies, &c. but of the English Reformation only, which though free from such horrible Crimes, yet how legal it was, how free from worldly and carnal Interests, let their own Historians be Judges.

8. And first, This Relation is made of it in general by Dr. Heylin; Reform. Justi­fied, pag. 37. In Queen Elizabeths time (saith he) before the new Bishops were well setled [I need not mind the Reader here, that all her former [Page 273] Bishops, save on, had deserted her] and the Queen, assured of the affections of her Clergy, went that way to work in Her Reformation, which not only her two Prede­cessors, but all the godly Kings and Princes in the Iewish State and many of the Christian Emperours in the primitive times had done before her, in the well ordering of the Church and People committed to their care and government by Almighty God. And to that end she published her Injunctions, Ann. Dom. 1559. A Book of Orders, 1561. Another of Advertisements, 1562. All leading unto the Reformation, with the Advice and Consent of the Metropolitan, and some other Godly Pre­lats who were then about Her [these were those newly Ordained, the former Bishops being ejected] by whom they were agreed on, and subscribed unto, before they were pre­sented to Her. But when the times were bet­ter setled, and the first difficulty of her Reign passed over, she left Church-work to the dispo­sing of Church-men, who, by their place and calling, were most proper for it; and they, be­ing met in Convocation, and thereto autho­rized as the Laws required, did make and publish several Books of Canons, &c. Thus that Doctor; the sum of which is, That the Queen, finding no foundation to build upon, because all the Innovations begun by her Father and young Brother, had been utterly demolished by her Sister [Page 274] Queen Mary, and withal perceiving the main Body of her Clergy, as well as her Bishops, except such as the caused to be made de novo, to be generally averse from her proceedings, was fain to do all the Ecclesiastical work her self, assisted with some of her New Bishops, without the Concurrence of any Synodal Authority; till, having first by her Orders sufficiently purged the Clergy, she saw, she could se­curely now do Church-work by Church­men.

9. But Mr. Fuller Fuller Hist. l. 9. p. 54. is more punctual in delivering the retail of these her first proceedings, which he extracted out of the authentick Synodals, 1559. He tells us then, That in the beginning of her Reign, the Queen called both a Parliament and a Convocation of the Clergy: Which Convocation unanimously persisted in a re­solution not to forsake the old Religion restored by Queen Mary, and publickly declared against such an intended Refor­mation. Particularly the body of the in­feriour Clergy composed certain Articles of Religion, which they tendred to the Bishops, and the Bishops in the Name of the whole Clergy, presented them to the Lord Keeper. The said Articles were these five, 1. Of the real substantial presence of our Lord's body after Consecration. 2. Of the non-remaining of the substance of Bread [Page 275] and Wine. 3. Of the Propitiatory Sacrifice in the Masse. 4. Of the Supreme Spiritual Iurisdiction of the Pope. 5. That the power not only of defining, but even treating and ordering of Ecclesiastical matters touching Do­ctrine and Discipline pertains only to Spiritu­al Pastors, and not at all to Lay persons. A little after this, during the same Convo­cation, there came from both the Vniver­sities a Writing signed by a Publick Notary, by which they both signified their Con­currence to the aforesaid Articles, only with a little alteration of the last.

10. I have thought fit to annex here the very words of that Convocation, as Dr. Fuller transcribed them out of the Synodal Book, 1559.

But what effect had these Declarations and Protestations of the whole representa­tive Clergy and Universities? All that could be got was a Disputation, the order­ly proceeding whereof, and conclusion, may be seen in Fox and Camden, A. D. 1559.

Neither can the salvo used by M. Thorn­dick, who proceeds somewhat otherwise in this point, then the Arch-Bishop, or Dr. Field, be rationally admitted here. Right of Church in a Christian s [...]ate p. 247. 248. &c. Who first yields, that if the Clergy of [Page 278] that time when the Reformation began, (he means the Clergy in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Raign) had been sup­ported in that Power, which by the pre­mises [in his Book] is challenged on be­half of the Clergy, the Reformation could not have been brought to pass, and grants, Ibid. p. 251. that secular power gave force to that which was done contrary to the Rule, wherein the Unity of the Church consist­ed: But yet justifies the Reformation thus, Pag. 273, &c. He saith, that as the power of the Church (obliging Christians to their Di­cisions) is a Law ordained by the Apo­stles, for the Unity and edification of the Church, &c. So, also there are abundance of other Laws given to the Church, by our Lord and his Apostles: And that there­fore, if by injurie of the times, the pra­ctice (of the Church) become contrary to these Lawes, [given by Christ and his A­postles]; or if those, whom the power of the Church is trusted with, shall hinder the restoring of such Lawes; (of Christ and his Apostles) the Soveraign Power be­ing Christian, may and ought to suppress their power, (though he grants this their power to be an Ordinance of the Apostles, necessary to the Unity of the Church); that so their power may be committed to such as are willing to submit to the Su­perior Ordinance of our Lord and his A­postles. [Page 279] A thing (saith he) Pag. 275. throughly proved, both by the right of Secular pow­ers in advancing Christianity with penal­ties, and in establishing the exercise of it, and in particular, by all the examples of the pious Kings of Gods people, reducing the Law into practice, and suppressing the contrary thereof. Thus Mr. Thorndicke takes this way of freeing the English Re­formation from Schism, upon the just Re­forming power of the secular Prince a­gainst all, or most of his Clergy, when he judgeth them to teach or practise against the Doctrine of our Lord and his Apostles. But all this while, he never so much as asks the question, what if the Prince be mi­staken in these Doctrines which he calls of our Lord and his Apostles; Or be mista­ken in what the Ancient Church, and primitive times have delivered for such? And what if all the Clergy which he oppo­seth be in the right? Nor this, What if our Lord hath committed this to the Cler­gy, and Successors of the Apostles, to judg and decide for ever (when any doubt or dispute ariseth) what are the true Lawes of our Lord and his Apostles? Or, what ancient Tradition hath delivered to po­sterity for such? But he discourseth so, as if the Christian Prince were herein in­fallible, when yet he supposeth, that all his Clergy may be herein deceived: As [Page 280] if Queen Elizabeth understood the Scrip­tures, and ancient Tradition, aright in these Lawes, whilst her Bishops and Con­vocation erred in both, till she had new­moulded them. Is not this a strange way to justifie a Church-Reformation?

For the Kings of Iudah, it shall be spo­ken to by and by, Chap. 23. n. 7. and as to what he ur­geth concerning the power of Kings, it is by no means denied, that these have Supre­macy proper to them, to command o­bedience from all their Subjects, and that as well from a Clergy-man, as any other, to the Lawes of Christ and his Apostles with the civil Sword, and with temporal penalties (a Supremacy to which the Church layes no claim). But when any doubt or controversie ariseth, what, or which these Lawes be, (as there was in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Raign in many points) Secular Princes as well as others, are Sons of the Church, and are to learn this from the Expositions of their Spiritual Fathers, the Church-Men. I mean that body of them, which hath the just and Superior Authority of deciding such controversies. And let this suffice to shew the legality of the first proceedings of the Reformation, in opposition to the unanimous Votes of the whole Clergy, or of those therein, who clearly had the de­cisive power of Ecclesiastical Controver­sies [Page 281] either concerning the sense of Scrip­tures or Truth of ancient Tradition.

12. Then comparing this Reformation with the Council of Trent, in regard of worldly or carnal interests, let any indif­ferent man judge between them. Was not the liberty obtained by King Henry the Eighth, to bring into his Bed, a new handsom Wife, instead of his former ver­tuous Queen, a very carnal Interest? Was not his invading all the possessions and trea­sure of Monasteries a great secular Interest? was not the dividing the said Lands, among the Nobility and Gentry at very easie rates, a very great interest? In King Edwards daies, was not the Protectors seizing on the remainder of Church-spoils a great Interest? Was not the freeing of Clergy-men, from a necessity of saying daily, and almost howerly, long Ecclesia [...]ical Offices, from lying a lone without bedfellows, &c. Matters of great, both carnal and secular Interests? Was not the exempting of all, both laity and Ecclesiasticks from the Duty of confessing their sins, and submitting themselves to penitential satisfactions; from rigorous Fasts out of Conscience and Religion, and other austerities, a matter of considerable interest, to flesh and cor­rupt nature? Can any such interests as these be proved to have been operative in the Council of Trent? How far all these [Page 282] interests of the world and flesh, had influ­ence on the first godly Reformers, we may rationally suspect, but God only knows, and themselves long before this time feel; God is not mocked.

13. By what hath been hitherto said ap­pears but even too clearly, how that Fun­damental Rule of all Government and subor­dination was utterly neglected in England, at the time that the pretended Reforma­tion was contrived and executed. Here is a new and thorow moulding of a Church, both a Doctrines and Discipline, called a Reformation, wherein all the Synodical Acts of this Church, since Christianity entred among us, are as to any obliging power by their Authority reversed: wherein all the Decisions of Patriarchical Councils, yea of Oecumenical Synods are call'd into ex­amination; all their Laws, so far as seemed meet reform'd, the whole regard that England had to all other Catholick Churches, as a Member of the whole, is utterly broken by one National Church: Nay not so much, but by one luxurious King, by one Child, and by one Woman, even when the whole Body of the Clergy protested against it. And yet after all this, Pag. 35. if Doctor Pierce may be believed, thus to reform was to write after the Coppy which had been set to the Reformers in his Text, by the blessed Reformer of all the World; which was so to reform as not to innovate, [Page 283] and to accommodate their Religion to what they found in the Beginning: In the mean time accusing the Church of Rome (as he expresseth it, but indeed the whole Catholick Church, as he must, and as others grant) of not only horrible corruptions in point of Practise, but hideous errors in matters of Faith too, & such as trench upon Foundations.

14. But the Preacher must not expect his confident asseveration without proof can seduce the judgement of any considering man to believe him against evidence and experience. Pag. 12. Nothing is more plain then that the Catholick Church, by observing the foresaid Fundamental Rule, is and will be eternally free from danger, either of causal or formal Schism. And as plain it is, that no Churches can be separate from the Catholick Communion but by transgressing that Rule: For if Diocesan Churches and Synods would submit to Provincial; and Provincial to National, and these to Patriarchical, and all to Oecu­menical, how could Unity be dissolved? But on the contrary, if subordinate Coun­cils shall take on them to reverse the Acts and Decisions of Superior ones, especially of Oecumenical; how can Schisms possibly be avoided? And with what shew of rea­son can any particular Churches thus breaking Ecclesiastical Orders, charge o­ther Churches with Schisms, because they will not break them too?

1. IT remains now that I answer the ex­amples produced by the Preacher to justifie their Separation to be no Schism; [Page 285] he sayes, Pag. 33. That by the concessions of the most learned Popish Writers, particular Nations had still a power to purge themselves from their corruptions, as well in the Church as in the State, without leave had from the See of Rome: This is willingly granted. But do those Writers concede such a purgation as their first Reformers administred to this Kingdom? not only without, but against the consent of the See of Rome, nor only of Rome, but of the whole Catholick Church? A Purgation from the whole Faith and Discipline, in any thing they judged fit to be rectified, that by the Au­thority of Councils and Laws of Princes had been received and in force ever since the Nation was Christian: and by which they declared themselves Members of the whole Catholick Church? On the con­trary, from the beginning of Christiani­ty he will not be able to produce one ex­ample, either of States or Princes, except profess'd Hereticks, (such as the Emperors Constantius, Valens, Zeno, &c.) that ever made any Laws to repeal any Doctrines declared or Disciplines established in the Church. The Purgations conceded and executed by Princes truly Catholick was to extirpate all Innovations in Doctrine, all transgressions of Discipline that swerved from the Decrees and Ordinations of the Church, and no other.

[Page 286] 2. Surely the Doctor doth not think Christian Princes, as such, cease to be sons of the Church, they must be saved as well as their Subjects, and therefore are not dispensed from that speech of our Lord, Qui vos audit, me audit. They are not Pa­stors, but Sheep. Yet Catholick Religion obliges us to acknowledge, that their Ci­vil power extends it self to all manner of causes, though purely Ecclesiastical; so as to make use of the Civil Sword in con­straining even their Ecclesiastical Subjects to perform that duty which either the Mo­ral and Divine Law (according to the Churches exposition thereof) or the Laws of the Church require. Such a power, yea a Supremacy in such a Power we acknow­ledge to be in Princes. But withal we can­not find either in reason or Antiquity any ground to apply to Princes that Commissi­on which our Saviour only gave to the A­postles and their Successors [ Sicut misit me Pater, &c.] As my Father sent me, so send I you: Receive the holy Ghost, &c. Teach all Nations, &c. No promise hath been made to Princes, that God's Spirit shall lead them into all Truth, any other way, then whilst they follow the direction of their Eccle­stical Pastors, to whom only that Promise was made.

3. Nay, that very Argument by which he would assert his cause, is a Demonstra­tion [Page 287] against him. He sayes, and that very truly, Our Kings are as much as any in the world, Serm. pag. 33. [...], they hold their Regal Au­thority immediately from God, without any dependence on any other authority on earth. The like must be said of other absolute Princes too. Now this independency of Princes demonstrates, that the regulation of their power in Ecclesiastical matters, must of necessity be made according to an Authority and Iurisdiction purely spi­ritual common to them all, which is in the Church. For otherwise, being indepen­dent and absolute, they may perhaps be able to preserve a kind of Unity in their respective Kingdoms, by forcing from their Subjects an Obedience to a Religion and Church-policy framed by themselves, contrary to the Law of the Catholick Church: But how shall the whole Church be preserved in Unity by this means? Other Princes are independent as well as they; and therefore may frame a Religion which they may call Reformation, as well as they: So that if there be not a spiritual Director and Ecclesiastical Laws common to them all, and submitted to by all, what will become of Vnity? Which of these Independents will make himself a Depen­dent on another? Shall there be Patri­archicall, or General Councils of Kings meet together? Who shall summon them? In [Page 290] such Royal Synods there must be order: which of them shall challenge a Primacy, even of Order? Doctor Pierce may see what consequences naturally and unavoidably flow from his Positions.

4. Touching the Code and Novels of Iustinian, Pag. 34. and the practice of Charlemain (for the Emperor Zenos [...] we leave to himself) he may please to cast a seri­ous eye on their Laws, and will find they were all regulated by the Law of the pre­sent Church in their Times: The Chur­ches Faith and her Canons for Discipline they reduced into Imperial Laws, to the end their Subjects might be more obedi­ent to the Church, more averse from in­novations in Doctrine, and irregularity in manners. And doth all this suit with the case of English Protestants? Can he justifie King Henry the Eighths Oath of Supremacy and Head-ship of the Church: or King Edward the Sixths Reformatio [...] le­gum Ecclesiasticarum, or Q. Eliz. new Ar­ticles and Canons, by these Laws of the Code or Capitulare? Let the Emperor Iu­stinian pronounce his Sentence in this matter [ Sancimus vicem Legum obtinere, Justin. in Au­thent. de Ec­cles. Tit. & Privileg. &c] We ordain and command that the holy Ecclesiastical Rules declared and established by holy Councils shall obtain the force of Laws: For their Doctrines we receive as the Holy Scriptures themselves, and their Rules [Page 281] we observe as Lawes. Add again, to shew that the Laws, enacted by him, touching Ecclesiastical matters, were intended not as Acts of an absolute Ecclesiastical Supre­macy, but as consequences of the Churches Authority, Id. in Authent. ut Cler. ap. prop. Ep. 10. Conven. he saies, Our Lawes disdain not to follow the holy and Divine Rules (of the Church). These were indeed Lawes of Reformation, fit for glorious Princes, de­vout Sons of the Church, to make but surely very incommodious patterns for the Preachers purpose.

5. What the late Emperours, Fardinand the first, and Maximilian the second did, neither his Sermon, Serm. pag. 34. nor Margin tell us, but onely that something was done, which he, it seems, thought for his advantage; I'le tell him what it was: Their Reform­ers in Germany were grown very power­ful; yet not so, but that they made a shew of hearkening to some composition. Those worthy Emperors, for peace sake, made se­veral consultations with learned and mo­derate Catholicks, (some indeed too mo­derate, as Cassander, &c.) how the Church- Doctrines and Ordinances might be quali­fied. Hereupon divers expedients were proposed, Treatises written, &c. by which the Emperors were in hope debates might be ended, But how? By betraying the present Churches Faith? By renouncing the Popes Iurisdiction, or consent to a com­position? [Page 282] Far otherwise; For when they saw no agreement would please the Luther­an Electors and their Divines, but such as was derogating from the Authority of the Supream Pastor, and prejudicial to the Lawes of the Church, they surceased all motions of reconciliation; rather chusing to expose themselves to all the dangers that might come from their arms and Rebellion.

6. Touching the many Kings of England, as he sayes, Ibid. in Popish times, whose actions in his opinion, shewed, that the work of Re­formation, belonged especially to them in their Kingdom: His Margin, indeed, quotes the Names of fourteen of our Kings since the conquest, as if he would have the world be­lieve, the pure Reformed Religion were al­most six hundred years old: But what Reformations were made by any of them, either in Religion or Church-Discipline, neither I, nor himself can shew, except by the last King Henry the Eighth, who was indeed a Reformer of the new fashion. 'Tis true, the former Kings had frequent quarrels with the Court of Rome, touching Investitures, procuring of Bulls for deter­mining causes belonging to the Kings Courts, usurping a disposal of Bishopricks, and other Benefices, &c. But what is all this to Re­ligion? Such debates as these, he may see at this day, between the Roman Court, and [Page 283] the Kings of France, Spain, &c. in all which, commonly the Pope is but little a gainer; yet, notwithstanding all these, he will not sure deny, but that the Kings of France and Spain; and 'tis as certain, that all those former Kings of England, except one, were perfect Roman Catholicks; not any of them ever did believe, that their Supremacy could allow them to alter the Religion of their Fore-Fathers: even King Henry the Eighth, for all his Head­ship, never pretended so far. Cokes 5. Re­port. Of this I dare accept, as Judge, even Sir Edward Coke himself, Balsamon. and Balsamon likewise, though a malicious Schismatick, therefore the fitter to be quoted by him; yet all he sayes is, That the Emperor has an inspection over the Churches, that he can limit or extend the Iurisdiction of Metropolitans, erect new ones, &c. which, whether by the ancient Lawes of the Church, he can do or no, is little for the Preachers purpose: I am sure he is not able to prove it, or if he could, it is a Reformation which will not serve his turn.

7. His last Examples of Reformations made by Princes, is that of the Kings of Iuda, in which indeed Religion it self was Reformed. But withal, the Doctor may do well to take notice. 1. That those Kings are no where said to have reformed all the Priests, or the High Priest, or not [Page 284] to have found him as Orthodox as them­selves. See 2 Chron. cap. 29. 4. 12. 16. Ibid. cap. 34. 2. They are not said to have re­formed the people against the Priests. 3. Or without the Priests. 4. Yea in several pla­ces we read, they were by the Priests as­sisted in their Reformation. And there­fore Bishop Andrews, who was willing to make as much advantage of this example against the Roman Church, To [...]t. To [...]ti. p. 365. as might be, says only, that those Kings did reform citra or ante, declarationem Ecclesiae, but he saies not, contra. And, to make good his citra or ante, hath only the strength of the weakest of all Arguments, a Negative, thus, There is recorded no such Declaration of the Church in Scripture, ergo there was none. The in­firmity of which argument is much more visible, if applied to such a short History as that of the Kings and Chronicles, contain­ing a relation of so many hundred years, and chiefly of the actions of Kings, not of the Clergy.

8. It cannot indeed be denied, but that in such publick changes, the Power of Kings is more Operative and Illustrious then of the Priests, because their Civil Sword awes more than the others Spiritual▪ and therefore no wonder, if their part in such Reformations is more spoken of, e­specially in so very short a story. But certainly, Mal. 2. 7. according to Gods Institution, the Priests lips are to preserve knowledge, and [Page 285] it is from their mouths that (Kings) are to learn Gods Law, and what they are to Re­form, because they are the Angels of our Lord. Now, for Reformations, or other Ecclesia­stical Ordinances made by such Kings as Da­vid, Solomon, &c. who, besides a Regal Authority, were Prophets likewise, immedi­ately inspired and so employed by God, I suppose the Doctor will not draw such into consequence, to justify the actions of a King Henry the Eighth, the young child his Son, or youngest Daughter; no Prophets surely.

9. To these examples alleged by Doctor Pierce, but very insufficient to justify the English Reformation, I will in the last place take notice briefly of one great motive, which, as he sayes, set on work the English Reformers (of happy Memory); which was their observing that in the Council of Trent, Serm. pag. 13. the Roman Partizans, were not afraid to make new Articles of Faith, commanded to be embraced under pain of Damnation, as it were in contempt of the Apostles Denun­ciation, Gal. 1. 8.

10. But to omit his contradictions, charging us with hideous errors in Faith, Pag. 12. which yet he dare not say are Funda­mental, Pag. 8. lest he ruine his own Church: To omit his uncivil language to the Bi­shops of that Council, persons of too ho­nourable a quality, to be called, by a little [Page 286] Doctor, contemners of the Apostles denunci­ation, conspirators liable to a curse: Pag. 13. To o­mit his commending the first English Re­formers, our Kings, &c. that they consul­ted not with fleth and blood, then which, what could be said more unluckily to him­self? Did not our first Reformer consult sometimes with flesh and blood? Was Henry the Eighth so wholly spiritual? Do not your self confess, that Sacriledge and Rebellion help'd Reformation? Pag. 35. To omit his petty Quibble, that the Church of Rome is but the younger Sister to that of Brittain: Directly contrary, not only to many of his brother Divines, but to the Head of his Church, King Iames, who, in a publick Speech to his Parliament, says, I acknowledge the Church of Rome to be our Mother Church. Stow. p. 840. Anno. 1603.—To omit all these, and more, I shall desire the Doctor to take no­tice, that neither what the Church hath done in the Council is any Novelty, nor is it a Novelty that the Churches Adver­saries should make such an objection: concerning which, the Reader may please to review what has been said before, chap. 20. Sect. 9. 10. & 11.

11. Protestants must impute this to their first Reformers, that the Church hath been forced to make such (as they call them) new Articles of Faith. For what would they have advised the Council of Trent to [Page 287] do, when the Churches ancient Doctrines and Traditionary practises were question'd and condemned by Innovators? As yet such Doctrines, &c. having never former­ly been opposed, except by inconsiderable Hereticks; Such as Iovinian, Vigilantius, &c. whose Errors (before any Council could take notice of them, soon after they appeared, withered away again) were visible only in the consent and pra­ctise of Catholicks. But now it was ne­cessary to declare Conciliariter, that they were unjustly question'd, either of Error or Novelty. Must there be no decisions in God's Church after the four first General Councils? For fear of new Articles, must liberty be given to new Heresies? Old Articles, such, as the Church had for­merly occasion from time to time to mention in her Creeds and Canons, will not serve the turn explicitly to condemn them, therefore new ones must be excogita­ted says the Council. Conc. Chal­cedon. ad Im­perat. Marci­an. New ones, that is, Old ones further explained: Or, Old Practises newly declared to be Traditi­ons.

12. But surely these which are mentio­ned by the Doctor, and related to in his margin, are no new Articles; Most of them had been expressly declared in former Councils; and all were as old at least as Christianity in England. For even St. Gre­gory, [Page 288] who sent St. Austin hither to Preach the Gospel, is accused by learned Prote­stants of all, or most of these very Novel­ties which the Preacher objects. Doctor Humphrey In Jesuitism. Part. 2. accuseth him and St. Austin the Monk— Quod invexerunt in Angliam Purgatorium, &c. that they brought into Eng­land Purgatory; Oblation of the salutary Host, and Prayers, for the Dead; Relicks; Transubstantiation. To which Epist. Hist. Eccles. Cent 6. Osiander adds,—That the same Gregory vehement­ly urged Celibacy of the Clergy; Invocation and Worship of Saints; nay, that the Idola­trous Veneration of Images also was by him approved, excused, defended. To which Carrion, in his Relation of the state of the CHURCH in those dayes, adds, That, when he tragically exclaim'd, that he abhorred the Appellation of Vniversal Bishop; yet at the same time he sufficiently declared his vehement desire of the thing which this Title signifies, in his assuming to himself such Authority over other Churches. Here then are Seven of the Doctor's No­velties, confessed by Protestants them­selves, to have been the Doctrines of St. Gregory, which the English here received with their Christianity (which also suffi­ciently appears, to those who are yet un­satisfied, out of Bede's Ecclesiastical Hi­story of England, written about an hun­dred years after St. Gregory: of whom [Page 289] the same O [...]iander also relates, That he was involved in all the Romish Errors concerning those Articles wherein (saith he) we dis­sent at this day from the Pope: And for the Two others of the Doctor's Points, 1. Publick Prayers in an unknown Tongue, And, 2. Infallibility; himself confesseth the first of these to have been in Gregories time; For thus he, Serm. pag. 27. The Publick Prayers of the Romanists have been a very long time in an unknown Tongue, even as long as from the time of Pope Gregory the Great. And the second he must grant to have been pretended to before Gregory, in that the Preacher allows the proceedings of the Four first General Councils; for these required several Points not before deter­mined to be believed by all Christians un­der pain of Anathema, and also inserted them into the body of the Christian Creeds. Which thing the Doctor some­times thinks unreasonable, that any fal­lible Authority should assume to it self. For surely upon this ground it is, that he condemns the Council of Trent for pre­suming to make new Articles of Faith, though they have put none such in our Creeds.

13. By which it appears, that this Ser­mon, and all the severity practis'd against us in consequence of it, might as justly have been preach'd and executed against [Page 290] our first Apostles, St. Gregory and St. Au­gustin the Monk, as against us. And if against them, then against the Vniversal Church both Eastern and Western; since it is evident that in St. Gregory's time they were in perfect Unity both for Doctrine and Discipline; And consequently, if such pretended new Articles can justifie the English Separation from the present Church, the same Separation ought to have been made from the universal Church above a Thousand years since. I might go higher, but this is even too too much. That man surely must have a prodigious courage, who dares venture his Soul and Eternity rather upon Scripture interpreted by an Act of Parliament, or the 39. Articles, than by the Authority and consent of the Vniversal Church for so many Ages.

I will conclude this so important Ar­gument of Schism by a closer Application, which may afford more light to discover on which side the Guilt lyes. And this shall be done by making some Concessions, and proposing some other Considerations, &c.

1. FIrst, As to the Preacher's so com­mended Distinction of Causal and Formal Schism, it is borrowed from the late Archbishop: The former member whereof only he applies to the Roman Catholick Church, the later to no body: He must give me leave to propose to his Consideration a Saying or two of St. Aug. Epist. 43. Augustin, thus writing to the Donatists, Si possit, quod fieri non potest, &c. If any could have, which really he cannot possibly, a just [Page 292] cause for which he should separate his Com­munion from the Communion of the whole World, How do you know, &c. A [...]d again in the same Epistle, There is the Church where first that (Separation) was made which you after perfected, if there could be any just cause for you to separate from the communion of all Nations. For we are cer­tainly assured that no man can justly separate himself from the communion of all Nati­ons, because not any of us seeks the Church in his own Iustice or Holiness (as you Do­natists do) but in the Divine Scriptures, where he sees the Church really become, as she was promised to be, spread through all Nations, a City on a Hill, &c. Hence it is, that the same Saint, though he wrote several Books against the special Doctrines of the Donatists, yet whensoever he treats of their Schism, he never meddles with any of their Opinions, but absolutely proves their Separation unlawful from the Texts of Scripture, and Promises of Christ, which are absolute and uncondi­tional: So that the alledging Causes to justifie Separation, for which there can be no just one, is vain and fruitless; And this way of Arguing is far more forcible against English Protestants, than it was a­gainst the Donatists, because all their so­ber Writers acknowledge the Church of Christ was, and alwayes will be unerrable [Page 293] in Fundamentals; and this as she is a Guide: And further, that the Roman is either this Church, or at least a true Member of it.

2. But Secondly, whatever becomes of this Distinction, Pag. 32. his concession is, That really a Formal Schism there is between us: nay more, that the Protestants made the actual departure, and indeed they must put out their eyes, who see it not. The visible Communion between the now English Church, and all other in being before it beyond the Seas, is evidently changed and broken. The same Publick Service of God, which their first Reformers found in God's Church all the World over, they refuse to joyn in, for fear of incurring sin: Most of the Ecclesiastical Laws, e­very where formerly in force, they have abrogated, and without the consent of any other Churches have made new: they were formerly Members of a Patriarchical Church▪ (which they esteem'd the only Orthodox Vniversal Church) to the Go­vernment of this Common Body they ac­knowledged themselves subject: And a denial of subjection to the Common Go­vernors of this Body, and especially the Supreme Pastor, they judged to be a formal Act of Schism: Lastly, the common Do­ctrines of the Church they formerly em­braced as of Divine Authority, Traditio­nary, [Page 294] only ancient and Primitive: Now they called Apostatical Novelties. Any of those changes conclude a Schism on one side or other, but all of them more then demonstrate it. A Schism then there is, therefore one of the parties is guilty (not of causing, but) of being Schisma­ticks, properly, formally, Schisma­ticks. Now would it not be hard for the Doctor to speak his conscience, and declare once more at Court, which of us two are pro­perly Schismaticks? It could not indeed be expected he should answer as a young maid did to my old Lady Falkland, when she asked, if she were a Catholick? No Madam, (said she with a low curtesy) if it please your Ladyship, I thank God I am a Scismatick; but withal, his tongue would not readily pronounce Roman Catholicks to be Schismaticks from the English, Reformed Church.

3. That which is opposed to Schism, is Catholick Communion. August. Collat Carth. c. 3. We shew, saith Saint. Augustine, by our Communion, that we have the Catholick Church. Therefore in dis­course of Schism, Serm. pag. 32. one while to talk of In­novations of Doctrine, or of making a se­cession from a Church, twelve hundred years since, &c. and perhaps, charging us with causal Schism: And on the other side, to acknowledg that the actual departure was indeed theirs, yet they are not Scismaticks, [Page 295] they left the errors of Catholicks, rather then them: Is indeed to act the very part of the Donatists, who, as Saint Augustine sayes, affirmed that the word Ca­tholick was not derived from the universality of Nations, Aug. Brevic. Collat. lib. 3. but from the plenitude of Sacra­ments, that is, from the integrity of Do­ctrine. And in another place, writing to a Donatist, Thou thinkest (says he) that thou hast spoken acutely, Epist. 48. when thou interpretest the Name Catholick, not of Vniversal Commu­nion, but of observation of all Precepts, and Divine Mysteries. And hence it was that the Donatists call'd their Bishops, Bishops of Catholick Verity, not of Catholick Vnity, as St. Augustine says in the same Epistle.

4. I desire to know, whether before their Reformation, our Church was Schis­matical, or it began afterwards so to be? If it was so before, where was that Church from which we separated? no where on earth sure: And by consequence either a separation may be from no body, or the whole Church failed, the gates of Hell (contrary to our Saviours promise) pre­vailed against it. Again, if our Church became Schismatical, after their deserting us, because she would not immitate them, or because she would communicate with those who held such Doctrines; then it will follow (since the Church that was then, did in this, nothing vary from it's prede­cessors [Page 296] in a former age) that a Church remaining the same without any alteration at all, may be the only true Church of Christ to day, and the Synagogue of Satan to morrow. These are Riddles unconceivable.

But, to demonstrate that, even in Pro­testants opinion, we are not Schismaticks, there needs only this Proof, that gene­rally Protestants, yea even Hugenots, ac­knowledge, that Salvation may be had in Our Church; which no man, charging us with Schism, can say, if he knows the na­ture of Schism; how grievous and unpar­donable a crime it is, that cuts off from the Mystical Body of Christ.

5. On the other side, That the crime of Schism is truly and only to be charged on them (besides the visible marks of leav­ing Communion, changing Government, Laws, &c.) may be demonstrated thus. There is no particular true Church, which is a Member of the Catholick, but thereby hath a power validly to excommunicate all those that desert her Communion, trans­gress her Laws, &c. And whoever are so excommunicated by her, are esteem'd ex­communicated by all other Catholick Churches. So that, if another Bishop or Church, after information of this, shall receive them into their Communion, that Bishop, &c. ipso facto incurs excommunica­ion [Page 297] himself. Which excommunication, being according to the Laws of the Church, is valid and ratified in Heaven. Now suppose an English Bishop should ex­communicate one of his Subjects for a to­tal renouncing Episcopal Government and Ordination, and the person so excommuni­cated should adjoyn himself to a Congre­gation of Presbyters in Scotland, France, Holland, &c. They would no doubt re­ceive him: and being so received, he is, even in the Bishop's own judgement, in as undoubted (though not so straight) a way to Heaven, as he was before: because the Bishop himself acknowledges Presbyterian Congregations to be true Reformed Chur­ches of God: so that by their Excommu­nication he is not cut off from Christ, but from preferments only. The late Act of Vniformity doth far more validly excom­municate Non-Conformists, then all their Bishops Courts.

1. AFter all the Doctors triumphant Invectives▪ against the Catholick Church, he yet concludes his Sermon in a less tempe [...]tuous stile▪ Pag: 36. He sayes, he hath the Charity to wish for Reconcilement: That they departed with higher Degrees of Indig­nation from the insolent Court, then Church of Rome. That Court which proudly trod upon Crowns, and made Decrees with a non-obstante to Apostolical constitutions, &c. That they were called Protestants, because they protested not so much against the Church, as against the cruel Edict made at Worms, &c. But yet when they wish a Reconcilement, they do not mean by compliance with any [Page 299] the least of our defilements, but by our Har­mony with them in being clean.

2. If Doctor Pierce hath indeed the cha­rity, and if he doth any more then with his tongue say, they wish for Reconcilement; they, that do so, will not want a reward from God for so much charity: And I doubt not there are a world of English Protestants (with him) who heartily wish the same. And they that have charity, will easily believe we wish so too. So that both parties being so far on the way to agreement, as to wish it: the next step must be to endeavour to procure it. Our frequent endeavours, they know, have been to little purpose; We have oft in vain protested, that our Doctrines, practises, &c. have been misunderstood: we still persist in the same protestation: and per­ceive by this very Sermon that they are still misunderstood: And whilst they are so, that condition of Reconcilement which he makes is not unreasonable, that they will have no Reconcilement by a compliance with our defilements. Therefore to take a­way this misunderstanding, let them obtain that for us, which we yet could never be able to do, a permission to be heard speak for our selves.

3. We pass for Traitors, but cannot ob­tain to be informed wherein our Treason [...]ies, nor what we must do to prove our [Page 300] selves no Traitors. If the ackowledgement of his Majesties Supremacy in as high a de­gree as they themselves will allow, with exclusion of all manner of Temporal Au­thority in any other, be no Treason: If the exposing our lives as willingly for Monarchy as they can do, be no Treason: If there be not any proof of faithfnl Al­legiance which is refused to be submitted to by us, what suspicion can they have that we are Traitors? But our present a la mode Treason is, that our Priests re­ceive their Ordination from Rome: and do not they so to? I am sure we cannot anger them worse, then to question or doubt whether the Church of England hath received her Mission, Orders and Iurisdi­ction from the Roman Church.

4. For our Doctrines: I am perswaded, if only this poor Answer fall into the hands of any ingenuous Protestants, who will seriously consider the several Points so Tragically declam'd against by the Prea­cher, they will think even the Church of England little beholding to him for his Sermon, and Truth much less. But since small effect can be expected from such [...] Treatise as this, bound up to his blunder­ing method; therefore, unless it be their interest, or as they may think, their safe­ty, that our innocence should be stifled and oppress'd, if they have the charity i [...] ­deed [Page 301] to wish for a Reconcilement, let them procure for us a peaceable authorized Conference, in which the only Design may be by consent to enquire and set down clearly upon what terms a Reconcilement may follow, and without which it must not, nor ought to be expected. Let us un­derstand one anothers Churches; let us know one anothers essential Doctrines: If there be any mistakes, any misinterpreta­tions on either side, let them be cleared: But till this be done, and it can only be ef­fected by them, they must pardon us, if according to the temper of calamitous, unjustly oppressed persons, we suspect that this last seemingly moderate passage of his Sermon, is in effect the most severe and bitter against us, as declared to be persons with whom all Reconcilement is unlaw­ful.

5. Certain I am this zealous Preacher is far from the prudent temper of King Iames, whose authority (being his Su­preme Governor in all spiritual things as well as temporal) should surely have more then an ordinary influence over him; That learned King in his before mentioned Speech, Stow. Chron. pag. 84. hath these remarkable words, I could wish from my heart it would please God to make me one of the Members of such a general Christian union in Religion, Anno 1603. as, laying wilfulness aside on both hands, we might meet [Page 302] in the midst, which is the Center and perfe­ction of all things; For if they (of the Ro­man Church) would leave and be ashamed of such new and gross corruptions of theirs, as themselves cannot maintain, nor deny to be worthy of Reformation; I would f [...]r my own part be content to meet them in the mid­way, so that all novelties might be renounced on either side. See the condescence of this great King, and compare it with the stiff humor of this little Doctor— He'l not comply with the least of our defilements; not he, Pag. 36. Softly, good Sir, do you not as ill, when you comply with the Lutherans, who surely are not without some little stains? Do you not. as ill, when you comply with the Hugenots, who are not at so perfect a harmony with you in your being clean? Look soberly into your own rashness: you be­gan the Separation (that hath bred so ma­ny wars, and so much licenciousness both in faith and manners) upon points which your selves confess are not fundamental; and now you solemnly protest to continue it without complying in the least diffe­rence between us. Go now, and close your Sermon with a few soft words— Your arms are open to embrace, &c. your hearts are wide open to pray to God to bind up the breaches, Pag. 36. &c. of his divided, defiled, disgraced Spouse—And when all's done, you'l not stir an inch towards the peace [Page 303] you so gloriously talk of. If this be Hy­pocrisie, remember, Doctor, the woes that attend it, if not, express your self so sin­cerely hereafter that we may not suspect it. For my part of all the faults in a Sermon, to that of dissembling I here de­clare a Vitinian hatred, as you learnedly call it.

Much more moderate were Vives and Cassander, whom you commend for com­plaining of some abuses in the Church (among other Authors which you there cite, jumbling Protestants and Catholicks confusedly together) for after all their zeal they dyed quietly in her bosom, and did not, like you, tear in pieces the seam­less Coat of our SAVIOUR, and re­ject all terms of peace, unless every pre­tence of yours be satisfied to a tittle.

I remember too a dogged word you gave us, Pag. 7, 8. not far from the beginning of your Sermon; where after you had rec­koned up Socinians, Antinomians, Ranters, Solifidians, Millenaries, Reprobratarians, &c. (a fine Peal to make a Pulpit ring) to all which you yield more antiquity then any will allow your Reformation, you pass them over with the gentler names of He­resie and Usurpation, but when you come to the Pontificians, you immediately grow high and rage, and resemble them to the Mahometans, &c.—blind and imperti­nent [Page 304] Passion! Do you not see abroad a ci­vil and learned portion of Christians in Communion with the Bishop of Rome, and are they no better than Mahometans? Do you not see, in your own Country, and at Court too, Persons so qualified, that you should blush at your own unman­nerliness to compare them to Mahome­tans?

6. If their chief quarrel be against the Court of Rome for proudly treading upon Crowns, and making Decrees with a non-ob­stante to, &c. This might perhaps have been more seasonable five or six hundred years since. But surely they know Catho­lick Princes are wiser now, and the Court of Rome too. This needs not be the least hindrance to a Reconcilement: On the con­trary by a Reconcilement this Church and Kingdom would receive from the Court of Rome, only what France, Spain, &c. find extremely advantageous, both to the honour and safety of their Churches and States. And as for Decrees with a non-ob­stante, he mistakes the terms of Apostolick Constitutions, by which is intended Con­stitutions not made by the Apostles, but former Popes. Pag. 35. And touching the Decree of the Council of Constance in his Margin, let me ask him a Question or two: Do not Protestants in Baptism use sprinkling in­stead of dipping, non obstante that our [Page 305] Saviour and his Apostles instituted it other­wise? Do they not think themselves ob­liged to communicate fasting, non-obstante, that our Saviour instituted the Sacrament after Supper? Do they not without scru­ple eat Black-puddings, non-obstante the A­postles gave a command to the contrary? All this they do, because they think these things not essential or unalterable, but left to the prudence of their particular Church: Let them permit therefore the same liberty to a General Council.

And here give me leave to insert some few Citations concerning the Protestant-acknowledgments of the Authority of Councils. Act. Mon. pag. 1288. Mr. Ridley sayes, Councils in­deed represent the Vniversal Church, and being so gathered together in the Name of Christ, they have the promise of the Gift and guiding of the Spirit into all Truth. Doctor Bilson plainly confesses, Perpet. Gov. p. 372, 373. the Presence and Assistance of the Holy Ghost for Direction of General Councils into all Truth; And after fairly sayes, Pag. 374. The Fathers in all Ages, as well before as since the Great Council of Nice, have approved and prastis'd this of Councils as the surest means to decide Doubts.—Hooker professes, Pref. to Eccl. Pol. pag. 28. The Will of God is to have us do whatever the Sentence of judicial and final Decision shall determin, yea, though it seem utterly to swerve from what is right in our opinion.—Their Authority (General [Page 306] Councils) is immediately deriv'd and dele­gated from Christ, Dr. Potter. pag. 30. sayes Potter.—And if Doctor Peirce agree with these his Bre­thren, I might say Fathers, in this Point, I shall not easily fall out with him about it, but rather endeavour a further ap­proach by offering this fair Proposal; I will not require of him to hold that the Fathers meet in Council to make questi­on of the matters of Faith, for those they were taught from their Childhood; but to consult about their adversaries proofs, and what arguments should be alleadged against them; to consult how to express the Catholick Doctrine in such words as might best instruct the people, and prevent Hereticks from abusing them; Hence it was St. Athan. in Ep. de Syn. Athanasius said, We meet here, not because we wanted a Faith, i. e. were incer­tain what to hold, but to confound those who go about to contradict the Truth. Which Rule, if Councils observe, I think the Do­ctor would scarce refuse to obey them; and our only difference in this point, I hope, is, he thinks they do not observe this Rule, and I think they do.

1. THus I have gone through, and exa­min'd (except to those who love to be contentious) sufficiently, all the pretended Novelties imputed by Dr. Pierce to the Roman Catholick Church; I have likewise brought to the Test all the Alle­gations made by him, either to excuse the English Churches Separation from the Ro­man Catholick, or at least to perswade us not to call it Schism: And it seems to me, I have demonstrated him unsuccess­ful [Page 308]in both. Nay more, (which is a great misery, if he would consider it with that seriousness, which Eternity de­serves) I think I have prov'd that the fearful crime of Schism will lye heavie upon his Church, though he had shew'd all the Points by him mention'd, to be No­velties. And having done this, I must say with St. Augustin, Vtinam verba ista in­fuderim, & non effuderim. But consider­ing the present temper of this Age, I doubt, I shall have reason to fear, accor­ding to the same holy Father's expression, lest, when I beg them to afford their ears, they should make ready their teeth.

2. However I hope the Doctor will no more be believed with any reason to com­plain (as he doth in his Sermon) of one remarkable infirmity in the Popish Writers,—They ever complain we have left their Church, Pag. 14. but never shew that Iota as to which we have left the Word of God, or the A­postles, or the yet uncorrupted and Primitive Church, or the Four first General Councils. Truly, this Speech of his seems to me so vain, and rash, and shameless a boast, that I cannot but blush for him, when I read it, and tremble for him when I see Truth so little consider'd by a Preacher, sustain­ing God's Person, as he pretended.

3. But perhaps I understand not his phrase of [ sh [...]wing that Iota as to which [Page 309] they have left, &c.] If he mean we have not demonstrated their deserting Antiqui­ty, or, that we believe not, even since we have seen their Answers, that our demon­strations are unanswerable; there are extant whole Libraries of our Controver­tists, sufficient to overwhelm him. Par­ticularly, before he say so again, let him enquire out and consider a Book, written by Simon Vogorius, Counseller to the French King, entituled, An Assertion of the Catholick Faith out of the Four first Oecu­menical Councils, and other received Synods within that time. Or even, let him review what is quoted against him here Cha. 17. Sect. 10. con­cerning one of his own Points, Celibacy of the Clergy, out of the Four first Gene­ral, and several other, as ancient, Provin­cial Councils. Before all which Coun­cils there is found an Injunction of it as high as Calixtus his dayes about A. D. 220. which also Doctor Peirce mentions. Pag. 9. Doth not this prohibition of the Priests from Marriage amount to the magnitude of an Iota with him? How comes it then to be one of his Grievances in this Sermon, and that under no milder a phrase than the Doctrine of Devils? Or will not such Antiquity pass for Primitive, and Anti­quity Antique enough (to use his words)? Unless he will shrink up Primitive Anti­quity from the 6th Age to the 4th, from [Page 310] the 4th to the 3d. (where few Writings being extant, less of the Churches Do­ctrines and Customs can be shewn in them) Or from the 3d to the 1st Age and the Apostles times (as the Presbyte­rians, in the Plea of Antiquity, treat the Prelatists.) For on this manner even the most learned of the Protestant Writers, when they are straitned with proofs, are wont to retire. So Bishop Iewel long a­go made a bold challenge to be tryed by Antiquity for the first 600 years.

But after many hot Encounters be­tween the Controvertists, and after An­tiquity better discover'd to the later Pens on the Protestant Party than to the first, A. Bp. Lawd, more cautious, contracts the Protestants Challenge somewhat narrow­er to the Fathers of the first 400 years, or thereabouts, The Protestants (saith he Sect. 28. p. 217) offer to be tryed by all the ancient Councils and Fathers of the Church within the first 400 years, and somewhat further. And, since the A. Bp. Doctor Hammond makes his Plea of Antiquity yet shorter, viz. for the Fathers of the first 300 years; For the particular Doctrines (saith he Of Schism, c. 8. sect. 7.) wherein we are affirmed by the Romanists to depart from the Vnity of the Faith, we make no doubt to approve our selves to any that will judge of the Apostolical Doctrines and Tradi­tions by the Scriptures, and consent of the [Page 311] first 300 years, or the Four General Coun­cils.—And again, We profess (saith he Ibid. c. 9. sect. 7.) to believe so much, and not to be con­vinced by all the Reasons, and Authorities, and Proofs from Scriptures, or the first Chri­stian Writers, those of the first 300 years, or the Four General Councils. Where by sub­mission to the Four first General Councils, he means only to the bare decisions of these Councils in matters of Faith concerning our Saviour and the Holy Ghost, not ob­liging himself also to the Authority of those Fathers, who flourished in the time of these Four Councils, and sate in them. For, though the last of these Councils was held in the middle of the 5th Age, yet he claims a tryal by the Fathers only to the end of the 3d Age. Again, by this sub­mission to the Writers of the Three first Ages only, he bars most of the chief Fa­thers, and all those that are more large and Voluminous, from bearing any wit­ness against Protestants, and leaves scarse half a score Authors of Note now extant, and several, writing only some short Trea­tises or Epistles, whereby they are con­tent to try all the Doctrine and Discipline of Antiquity.

4. But these were timorous Souls that would fain be thought to deal civilly with antiquity; let us hear two or three bolder spirits, that speak plain and freely: What [Page 312] sayes Doctor Willet? Willets Survey of Common-Prayer. p. 18. Let not your Majesty be deceived by the Popish Arguments of suppo­sed antiquity, as Joshua was with the old and mouldy bread of the Gibeonites; and the reason is given, for Anti-christ began to raign in the Apostles dayes, in St. Pauls dayes. What says Acontius? Strang. li. 6. pag. 296. Some of us are come to that, that they will fill up their Writings with the Authority of the Fathers, which I would to God they had performed with pros­perous success, as they hopefully attempted it, &c. I onely think this custome is most dan­gerous, and altogether to be eschewed. What sayes the witty Whitacre? Contr. Dur. lib. 6. p. 423. The Popish Re­ligion is a patcht coverlet of the Fathers Er­rors sewn together. And again, to believe by the Testimony of the Church (not ex­cepting any Age) is the plain Heresie of the Papists. Idem. lib. 1. de script p. 39. To conclude (for I might quote all day long upon this Subject) what sayes the Patriark of Protestancy, Luther, Luth. in Act. Apost. ca. 15. There never was any one pure Coun­cil, but either added something to the faith or substracted. And now, what shall we say our selves in this confused variety? Against some of our Adversaries, we must cite an­tiquity, or else we do nothing; against o­thers, if we cite all the antiquity that e­ver was baptized, we do nothing. God deliver them from their cross and incer­tain wandrings, and me from the weari­ness of following them in their wild chase.

[Page 313] 5. But, if the Doctor means by [ shewing that Iota, as to which, &c.] that we have not so shewed it, as to stop their mouths, or to force them to confess and repent of their fault, then there can be no shewing any thing by any one party to another, as long as the dissention lasts between them. In this sence they have never shewed one Iota to the Presbyterians, Anabap­tists, Quakers, &c who (after all their Books, Canons, Acts of Vniformity, &c. which those Sects call Antichristian, tyrannical Popery, as the Protestants did ours) still persist in separation from them. Then neither the Apostles, an­tient Fathers, or Councils ever shewed one Io­ta to antient Pagans or Heretics: because, for all their shewing, others remained Pagans and Heretics afterward. And yet, even in this par­ticular, though a very unreasonable one▪ we Cath [...]lics can confidently affirm, that we have defeated this bravado of the Preacher. For e­vident Truth on our side has extorted from the mouths and pens of a world of the most learned among the Reformed Writers, a Confes­sion both in general and in every particular Controversie, that Antiquity declares it self for the Roman Church against them. Thou­sands of such proofs may be read in the Prote­stants Apology, the Triple Cord, &c. Books writen on purpose to reckon up such Confessions. This is truly, if well considered, an advantage strange and extraordinary▪ for I believe never did any of the Antie [...]t H [...]reti [...]s so far justifie the Catholic Church. No such confessions of theirs are recorded by the Antie [...]t Fa­thers: [Page 314] which shews that, above all former ex­amples, the Heretics and Schismatics of this last Age are most properly [ [...]] con­demned by their own Consciences.

6. But withall the Doctor must take notice of this one thing, That it does not belong to us Catholics to be obliged to shew that Iota, in which they (who have set up a new and separa­ted Church from us but the other day) have left the word of God or Primitive antiquity, or the four first General Councils; a [...] it belongs to them, who have thus divided themselves, not only to shew, but to demonstrate first most clearly, that there is such a discession from those Scriptures, Fathers, and Councils, by that former Church (which they deserted) not in an Iota but in some grand principle of our Faith, which admitted no longer safety to them in her Communion; because the Roman Catholic Church is in possession: and, by our Adversaries own Confession, has been unque­stionably so for above a Thousand years, of all or most of her present Doctrins for which they have relinquished her. See cap. 23. Sect. 13. Particularly the Pope has enjoy'd an Authority and Suprema­cy of Jurisdiction a longer time, than any suc­cession of Princes in the world can pretend to; A Jurisdiction acknowledged as of Divine Right, and as such submitted to by all our An­cestors, not only as Englishmen, but as Members of the whole Western Patriarcha [...], yea of the Vniversal Church, and this as far as any Re­cords can be produced. He is now, after so many Ages, question'd and violently deposed [Page 315] from this Authority by one National Church, nay by one single Woman and her Counsel (the universality of her Clergy, protesting against her proceedings) and much more against her destroying a Religion from the Beginning esta­blish'd among us, and which had never been question'd here in former times but by a Wic­lef, or a Sir Iohn Oldcastle, &c. manifest He­retics and Traytors. Now it is against all Rules of Law, Iustice and Reason, that such as are Possessores bonae fidei, should be obliged to produce their evidences: This belongs only to the Plaintiffs▪ and no Evidences produced by them against such a Possession can be of any force, except such as are manifest demon­strations of an Vsurpation, yea such an Vsur­pation as cannot either be exercised, or submit­ted to without sin.

7. The Doctor is likewise to consider, tha [...] if, ex super abundanti, we should yield so far as out of Antient Records of Councils or Fa­thers to alledge any Proofs to enervate their claim to them, and justifie our Possession: Such Proofs of ours, though considered in them­selves, were only probable, yet in effect would have the force of demonstrations against Eng­lish Protestants: But on th'other side, unlesse they can produce from Scripture or Antiquity evident demonstrations against us, they are not so much as probabilities: all this by their own confession. For, as has been shew'd, they lay it for a ground, and acknowledge the Catholic Church (of which according to their own Do­ctrin the Roman is at least a Member) to be in all [Page 316] fundamental Points infallible: and that in all other Points, now in debate, which are not fundamental, it would be unlawful for par­ticular Churches to professe any dissent from her, without an evident demonstration, that she has actually and certainly erred in them; yea moreover, that she will admit none of the Dissenters into her Communion, except such as (though against their Consciences and Know­ledge) will subscribe to her Errors; Errors so heynous, as to deserve and justifie a separation.

8. These things premis'd, my last care must be to provide, that, in case a Reply be intended to this Treatise, it may not be such an one as may abuse the world. The Preacher must consider it is not such another blundering Sermon that will now serve his turn to give sa­tisfaction, so much as to any Protestant, who has a Conscience guided by the light of Rea­son, or thinks Schism not to be a sleight P [...]eca­dillo. Therefore that he may know, what Conditions are necessary to render an Answer not altogether impertinent and insupportable▪ I here declare, that, in case he shall un­dertake a confutation of what is here alled­ged by me to disprove the charge of Novelti [...] by him laid on the Roman Catholic Church, and the excusing of Schism in his own, he will be a betrayer of his own Soul, and the Souls of [...] those that rely on him, unless he observe the Conditions following.

9. The first is, since if Protestants have in truth an evident demonstration that the Roman Doctrins, for which they separate, are indeed [Page 317] such pernicious errors and Novelties, we readi­ly grant they are not obliged to subscribe them; And it being supposed by the Arch­bishop, &c. that, without such a certainty. it would have been unlawfull for Protestants to question or censure such former Doctrins of the Church; The Doctor is bound, and [...]here ad­jure him to declare expresly. as in the presence of Him, who is. Supreme Head of the Church, and will revenge severely all calumnious per­secutions of it, that he is demonstratively certain, that in all these Points, charged by him on the Church of later times as Novelties and Errors introduced since the four first Coun­cils, she is manifestly guilty: and that nothing appears in this, or any other Catholic book of his Acquaintance, which deserves to be e­steem'd so much as a probable proof to the con­trary. For my part I here protest on the o­ther side, that I find not any one concluding allegation in his Sermon, nor believe there can any be produced; which can warrant him to make such a Declaration.

10. The second Condition is, That in like man­ner he professe he can or hath demonstratively proved by Scripture or Primitive Antiquity, the main grounds, upon which they pretend to justifie their separation to be no Schism, to wit, these. 1. That the universal Church, [...]epre­sented in a Lawful General Council may in points of doctrin not fundamental so mislead the Church by errors, that a particular Church, &c. discovering such errors, may be obliged to separate externally. 2. That a particular Chr [...] ­stian [Page 318] or a Congregation Diocesan may lawfully reverse Decisions formerly made by a Nationa [...] Synod, and assented to by it; and that a Nationa [...] Council may do the like in regard of a Patriar­chical, or any of them, in regard of an Oecumeni­cal formerly accepted and admitted. If these As­s [...]ri [...]ous he Innovations, as in our perswasion they are, it is clear they destroy all possible unity: If they be not, let some demonstrative Proofs and Examples be produced out of An­triquity, that a reversing of such order and sub­ordination has been practised and approved in the Catholic Church. 3. That a particular Church, &c. in opposition to the Vniversal, can judg what Doctrines are fundamental or necessary to all Persons, [...] Communities, &c. and what not: And that a Catalogue of such Doctrines be given by the Respondent, or demonstrative reasons alledged why such an one is not necessary.

11. Thirdly, if he will deny the Church of Eng­land has separated externally from the present Vniversal Church, but only from the Roman; then, to make this good, he is obliged to name what other visible Member of the Vniversal Church they continue in Communion with, in whose public Service they will joyn or can be admitted, and to whose Synods they ever have, or can repair. And, since at the time of their first Separation, they were only in Communion with the Roman-Catholic Church, and the Mem­bers of it, be must shew how, when, and where they entered into any other new Com­munion. Lastly, Since the English Church, by renouncing not only several Doctrines, but se­veral [Page 319] Councils acknowledged for General, and actually submitted to both by the Eastern and Western Churches, hath thereby separated from both these, he must find out some other pre­tended Members of the Catholic Church divided from both these, (that is, some that are not manifestly heretical,) with whom the English Church communicates.

12. A fourth Condition is, that he must either declare other Calvinistical Reformed Churches, which manifestly have no succession of lawfl­ly Ordained Ministers, enabled validly to ce­lebrate and administer Sacraments, to consecrate, confirm, preach God's Word, &c. to be no here­tical or Schismatical Congregations: Or if they be, he must demonstrate how the English Church can acquit her self from Schism, since her Bishops and Divines have authoritatively repai­red to their A. D. 1618. at Dort. Synods, and a general permission is given to any Protestant Writers to acknow­ledg them true, reformed, and sufficiently Or­thodox Congregations.

13. The last shall be, that he abstain from imputing to the Catholic Church the opinions or sayings of particular Writers. The Church her self having sufficiently declared her Do­ctrines in her Councils, especially that of Trent. If he will combate against her, there he has a fair and open field, and charity requires that he affix to her Decisions the most moderate and best qualified sense: Otherwise he will de­clare himself as one, who is sorry his Mother should not be ill reputed. Now in exchange, I for my part am extreamly willing to proceed [Page 220] in the same manner with the English Church. I would sain charge her with nothing but her own declared Doctrines and Decisions. But truly I know not where to find them, except only in the little Primmer and Catechism for Children. For the 39. Articles, being almost all Negatives, may as well be reputed the Do­ctrines of Iewish, or Turkish Congregations, since these also deny the Sacrifice of the Masse, Purgatory, Infallibility of Councils, &c. other Reformed Churches have published reasonably large Professions of their Faith, they have de­clared their own positive sense in almost all Points of Christian Belief, as the Huguenots in France, &c. the Lutherans in Germany, &c: on­ly the English Church seems to have made a secret of her Faith; upon what motive I am unwilling to guess.

14. These Conditions in themselves so rea­sonable, and even according to Protestants grounds also, so necessary, if the Replyer shall re­fuse to perform, he will, in the judgment of all discerning Readers, be himself the Answerer and Con [...]uter of his own Reply; and withall, will shew it is not Truth or Peace he aims at, but the satisfying his own, or others interests, passions and revenge against those who least deserve it. All subterfuges, all involved intri­cacies in answering, all discourses which are not open, candid, and sincere, will be confes­sions of guilt: He may perhaps hide the weak­nesse of his cause from credulous Women, Trades-men, or possibly the more unlearned part of our Gentry; but to all considering [Page 321] Readers, his Art of hiding will be his most ma­nifest discovery. Aristotle saies, the Sepi [...] is the wisest of all Fishes, because she conceals her self by casting forth round about her a black humour, which hinders the sight of her. But on the contrary, Iulius Caesar Scaliger affirms she is of all Fishes the most imprudent, Quia cum se putat latere, prodit seipso latib [...]lo; for the Fishermen are sure to find her under her inky humour.

15. And now having finished our Answer to the substance wherein we differ, let us con­clude with the Name that distinguishes us: He puts us in mind of the reason why the Luthe­rans, and from them other Reformerd took the name, Page 36. Protestants, for protesting against the bloo­dy Edict of Worms, Spires, &c. we find little ground why the Reformers in England should borrow that title. Against what Armes or Armies did they ever protest? What Edicts were made against them? We Catholics might rather assume such a title, if it were of any special ho­nor, having seen (and felt too) Edicts of ano­ther and far more bloody nature made against us: Nay (thanks to such Sermons) we see at this day Edicts, severe enough, published, and worse preparing, not against Subjects in Arms and a­ctual Rebellion, as the Lutherans were against the Empire, but against such, as the Law-givers, and Law-perswaders know mean no harm; a­gainst such as would be both most watchful & assisting to establish the peace of the King­dom: Edicts, to draw all the remainder of blood out of our vein [...], which have been al­most [Page 322] emptied in our Kings and Countries Cause; though our hope is still in the mercy of our gracious Sovereign, and the prudent moderation of those about him.

16. Yet sanguinary Sermons are greater Per­secutions than sanguinary Laws; for Laws may and somtimes are qualifi'd by the equity of Judges, and in particular those against Roman Catholics have often been allay'd by the graci­ous clemency of our Kings. But the uncharita­ble Sermons, that call for blood, inspire fury into mens hearts, make compassion esteem'd un­lawful, and the most savage cruelty the best Sa­crifices of Religion. The truth is, Pulpits have been the Sources whence so much blood has flow'd in this Kingdom, which Sources, if they had been open'd by such as Smectymn [...]us, whose vocation is Rebellion against the Princes, and barbarous inhumanity to all that are not of their fiction, Sustinuissemus uti (que)—and so we shall do still with the help of Grace, by whose hands soever Almighty God presents us this Cup. Quod voluit factum est, & quod fecit bonum est. Sit nomen Domini benedictum. AMEN.