A Defence of the DOCTRIN, AND HOLY RITES OF THE Roman Catholic Church, FROM THE Calumnies, and Cavils OF Dr. BURNET'S Mystery of Iniquity Unveiled.

Wherein is shewed The Conformity of the present Catholic Church with that of the purest Times; Pa­gan Idolatry truly stated; The Imputation of it clearly confuted; And Reasons are gi­ven why Catholics avoid the Reformation.

With a Postscript to Dr. R. Cudworth.

By J. Warner of the Soc. of Jesus.

The Second Edition.

LONDON, Printed by Henry Hills, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty, for His Houshold and Chappel; And are sold at his Printing-house on the Ditch-side in Black fryers. 1688.

The Preface.

IT is now more than Ten Years since this Book was first published: and althô very few Co­pies of it could be then conveyed into England, by reason of the trouble, (which gives occasion for this second Edition) yet one came to Dr. Bur­net's Hands; who having read it, said, He was resolved to have nothing to do with its Au­thor. These words may proceed as well from a low esteem, as otherwise; so they did not alter my opi­nion of the Book it self, which I leave to the Read­ers Judgment. I called it Anti-Haman, from some resemblance betwixt Haman the Macedonian in an Eastern Court, and Dr. Burnet in this Western; yet I could not foresee, that the Paralel would go so far, as since it has done, even to set G. B. fair for compleating the last Scene of that Factious Stranger.

I follow in my Answer Dr. B. Step by Step: and to shew that I neither alter his Sense, nor dissemble the Strength of his Reasons, I give them in his own words. I studied to be as short as I could; (yet I hope I say enough to satisfie an indifferent Judg­ment) only in some few places I have enlarged, the thing there treated being in a new Dress, and re­quiring it.

Such is the Accusation of Idolatry, brought in [Page]against the Catholic Church, by the old and new Iconoclasts, but by Dr. Edw. Stillingfleet so much changed, that it is quite another thing. The first of our late Reformers accused us of using Ima­ges, and giving to them a Religious Worship, not un­like that which the Idolaters gave to their Idols: yet they owned this difference, that Images were re­verenced only for Honor due to God, or his Friends, the Saints: whereas the Pagans in them adored Dead Men, or Living Devils, that is, False Gods. (See Calvin, l. 1. Inst. c. 11. n. 9.) Now Dr. E. S. will have the Pagan Jupiter, to have been the True God, the other Pagan Deities to have been either Names of his Attributes, or Spirits Mediating berwixt the Supreme God, and Men. An Error so new, that I scarce believe any one Christian, or Pagan, before him, ever held it, and therefore it may be called, the Stillingfleetian Error. To con­fute it, it is enough to read any of those Fathers, who wrote against Pagans, Tertullian, or Justin, Athenagoras, or Minutius, Lactantius, S. Cy­prian, Arnobius, or Julius Firmicus: there being not one of all these, but convinces this gross Error. But he little expected to be confuted out of any of these, by any Priest, having assured, that none of us read more, than Bellarmin, and Coccius. Which is not the only rash Assertion found in his Works.

Were this Doctrin true, the whole Debate be­twixt the Primitive Christians, and Pagans, were at an end, and the Cause yielded to the later. For the Pagans said Jupiter was the True God: The Christians said he was not the True God, but was [Page]a Man, Born, Dead, and Buried, as other Men What says Dr. E S. Jupiter was the True God Here we see, the whole Body of Christians of the four first Ages, all the Martyrs, the Doctors, the Confessors, and so many Apostolical Men con­demned, as denying the True God, and that by one, who professes himself a Christian, and a Doctor of Divinity, and Champion of the Reformed Church.

Those Primitive Christians went farther yet, they not only denied him to be God, but accused him of grievous Crimes, of Adultery, of Incest, of Re­bellion against his own Father, and of other most unnatural Sins; which are so many horrid Blas­phemies, if Jupiter be the True God. And which is yet worse, all those Blessed Martyrs continued to their last Breath in them, and sealed them with their Blood. What will, what can Dr. St. say to this? And what can a Christian Reader judge of him?

In fine, this bold Assertion of E. S. and some Di­vines of the new Stamp, is contrary to the Apostles, who Planted Christian Religion opposit to Jupiter, and all Pagan Deities; contrary to the Glorious Martyrs, who watered it with their Blood; con­trary to the Holy Fathers, who defended it with their Writings; contrary to the Primitive Church, which professed it amidst the severest Persecutions, and Torments; contrary to God, who confirmed it with Miracles; and contrary to that same very Jupiter himself, who owned himself to be a filthy seducing Devil. What can the Learned World [Page]judge of so rash an Assertion? What will he stop at, who, to oppose Popery, will contradict all the first Ages of Christianity, and God himself? What credit can he deserve in obscurer Points of Divinity, who, in so clear a Matter of Fact, dares contradict all Antiquity?

I hope he will open his Eyes, acknowledge his Er­ror, and give Glory to God, by renouncing that Arch-Devil: otherwise it may be written on his Tomb, Here lieth E. S. who owned no other God, but the Pagan Jupiter. This Epitaph will be very Honorable to the Church of England, in which he makes so great a Figure.

There was published lately a Treatise, in which the Idolatry, as found in Scripture, is very Learn­edly, and Solidly Explicated. Some fancied a dis­agreement in our Sentiments, because that Honorable Person says, the Pagan Deities were Stars, and I say, they were Men. Yet in this there is no contra­diction at all: for he explicates that Idolatry which is mentioned in Scripture, and reigned in the East: and he adds, that the Greeks, to get the reputation of Antiquity to their Nation, cut off the Heads of those Idols, and set on them others of their Kings; that is, they retained the Gods, but called them by the Names of such as have been famous amongst them either for Regal Power, or for War, or for invent­ing some useful Arts. And it is known to all the World, that the chiefest Gods of the Romans were taken from the Greeks. Now that I confined my self to the Idolatry of the Greeks, and Romans, is evident: for Chap. 7. Sect. 3. pag. 52. I say, [Page] Our only Dispute is about the Greeks, and Ro­mans, whose Idolatry was banished the World by Christian Religion. And Sect. 5. pag. 83. Our Dispute is not of the first Beginners, and Plan­ters of Idolatry; but of those who lived at, and since the time of Christ, till Christianity prevail­ed. But in my Revision of D. M. his Second Let­ter, pag. 122. I distinguish these two sorts of Ido­latry, and give the precedency in Time to Star-Worship. Primum omnium Stellas & admira­tioni fuisse propter pulchritudinem, & venerati­oni propter utilitatem. Hinc Sap. XIII. pri­mo refertur, & refutatur Astrorum Adoratio; deinde Idolorum.

Althô it be hard to foresee when these contentious Disputes will end, ( Passion, and Interest fighting against Truth) yet I do not despair; that some alive may be so happy as to see it: For many Objections against us are grounded on Mistakes; others are not against Faith, (which alone we are bound to de­fend) but Discipline. Such is the Free use of Scri­pture in the Vulgar Language, prohibited by the Council of Trent, says Dr. E. S. in his Coun­cil of Trent Examin'd, and Disprov'd by Catho­lic Tradition. And then in a long elaborate Di­scourse, with many Examples of ancient Translati­ons of the Scripture, he endeavors to prove, there is no Catholic Tradition for that Prohibition. Against whom is this? I acknowledge I am to seek. For, 1. We pretend Catholic Tradition for Points of Faith, not for each Point of Disci­pline, of which this is one. 2. This Point is not [Page]universally received in the Church, as may be seen pag. 26. of this Edition. 3. I find no such Pro­hibition in the Council of Trent. This Council did order, Sess. 18. an Index to be made of Suspect­ed or Pernicious Books, by a Committee of some of the Fathers, who, Sess. 25. reported what Pro­gress was made in it. But the Council left the Con­sideration of what was by them done, to the Pope, without any other Decree: and immediately de­termined. Whence I gather, 1. The Scripture in no Vulgar Language was consider'd in that Con­gregation, or Committee, it never having been looked on either as Pernicious, or Suspected by the Catholic Church, or any General Council. 2. Scripture in a Vulgar Language was not pro­hibited by the Council, for the Council left all that Matter to the Pope's Determination. 3. The In­dex finished in Rome, was never proposed to the Council, an end being put to it immediately after that Reference of the Index to the Pope: so the Index is no Act of the Council. By which it appears, that the Learned Doctor in all that Di­scourse, disputes against no Catholic Doctrin, nor against the Council of Trent. Now this fra­ming Phantôms, and then combating them, may amuse the People for a time; but it will soon be in­significant, and therefore laid aside.

It is time we hearken to Dr. Burnet's Lamenta­tion; which if it be real, it is a work of Charity to comfort him.

CHAP. I. G. B. His Design and Disposition, when he writ this Book: Of the Wickedness of the World.

MR. G. B. Pag. 1. ‘ He that in­creaseth Knowlege, increaseth Sorrow, is an observation which holdeth true of no part of Knowledge, so much as of the Knowlege of Man­kind: it is some relief to him, who knows nothing of foreign Wickedness, to hope there are other Nations wherein Vertue is honored, and Religion is in esteem, which al­lays his regrets when he sees Vice, and Im­piety abound in his Country; but if by tra­velling or reading, he enlarge his Horizon, and know Mankind better, his regrets will grow, when he finds the whole World lies in Wickedness.’

Answer. We need not travel, or read much, to know, that the whole World lies in Wickedness: Seeing those are the Words of the beloved Disciple. 1 Jo. 5.19. This is in­deed an occasion of Sorrow. But in the same place the B. Apostle comforts us, by saying, [Page 2] We know that we are of God. So that the World there, is understood of Ʋnbelievers; who are in Wickedness, by original and actual Sin, for which they have no lawful, and efficacious Expiation, no Sacrament instituted by Al­mighty God lawfully administred. But we, who are in the true Church, are of God, unto whom we are regenerated by Baptism; and if by humane frailty, we die to God, falling into any grievous Sin, we have the holy Sacra­ment of Penance to raise us again to the Life of Grace.

Yet it is not the Apostles meaning, that in the true Members of the Catholic Church there is nothing reprehensible; or that in those who are not in it, there is nothing Good. In Heaven there is nothing but Vertue, those Blessed Souls having their will so united to that of God, that they cannot offend him. In Hell there is nothing but Sin; the Wills of those wretched Spirits being so obstinate in the Love of themselves, that they cannot do any thing which should please God. This pre­sent Life is a mean betwixt those Extreams: and in it there is a mixture of Perfections atd Imperfections, of Vice and Vertue. Those, who are most wicked have something good: and in those, who are most vertuous, there are some remainders of Human Frailty, for their Humiliation which we ought neither to e­steem, nor imitate. 1 Kings 21.25. There was none like unto Achab, which did sell [Page 3]himself to work Wickedness in the sight of the Lord. Yet he humbled himself and put on sackcloth, and fasted. S. Paul Act. 9.15. The chosen ves­sel unto God, to bear his Name before the Gentiles, and Kings, and the children of Israel, yet 2 Cor. 12.7. there was given to him a thorn in the flesh, the mes­senger of Satan to buffet him. And who can without Compassion read his Seventh Chapter to the Romans, in which he describes the conflict he felt interiourly, betwixt the Spi­rit and the Flesh? Which he concludes with these pathetick Words: O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? Which renew the memory of that tor­ment, to which Mezentius the Tyrant Virgilius Aeneid. 8. condemn'd his inno­nocent Subjects: And the He­truscans Aug. l. 4. contra Jul. c. ult. exercised upon their Captives; binding living Bo­dies to rotten putrified Carka­ses, and leaving them so. But the Apostle, who describes his Pain, relates his Ease, and having explicated his Sickness, acquaints us with its Remedy, The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So that if the Combat affrights us, by this Assistance we may be en­courag'd and comforted.

Yet tho I grant, that there is occasion en­ough to lament on what side soever we cast our eyes on Mankind, in this State of corrupt nature, if we consider how little Men use the [Page 4]means designed for their Improvement in Ver­tue, and resisting their bad Inclinations. Yet there is little appearance of Grief in your Book; which hath more of a Satyr than of a Lamentation, your Stile being rather bitingly invective, than mourningly compassionate: you discover more of Diogenes, or of Democri­tus, than of Heraclitus.

Were there no Objects of regret nearer home? Doth your own Church afford you no occasion to shew your Zeal, in blaming the Faults of her Children, in order to get them corrected? Sure it doth, or the World is very much misinformed. How comes it then, that you neglect her Cure, of whom your Cha­racter obliges you to have a Care, and search the Sores of the Roman Church, with which you have nothing to do? Do you not see that you give us Reason to say, your Charity is disorderly, not beginning at home, and that Luke 6.42. as the Hypo­crit, you labor to shew in, or take out of an­others eye, a mote, while you neglect a beam in your own?

G. B. Pag. 1. ‘It argues a cruel and inhu­mane Temper, to delight in beholding Scenes of Horror and Misery.’

Answer. What temper then doth it argue to delight in representing them, and that in the most horrible, tragical, and dismal colours, which Art and Study can invent? For what can even the most inventive Imagination fancy more [Page 5]dismal, that what you write Pag. 2. ‘Indig­nities done to God, and his Son Christ: the Enemy of Mankind triumphing over the World with absolute Authority, and enraged Cruelty: Satan having a Seat, where Christs Throne should be: Christendom fallen from its first Love, and the greatest part of it made shipwreck of its Faith: That Church, whose Faith was once spoken of throughout the World, become Mother of the Fornications of the Earth. In fine, Falling away, Myste­ry of Iniquity, Antichrist, Babilonish Rome, Bewitching Sorceries: And what not.’ Add but Obstinacy in these horrid Crimes (which is a Circumstance aggravating them, with­out altering their Species) and the Pains due to Sin (which are not horrible, if compared with Sin) and we here have a Picture of Hell.

Your temper is very merciful and humane, which prompts you to make such a Map of the far greatest part of Christianity! This will appear more clearly, when we come to consider your Charge in retail, and examin your Proofs, when we see you are forced to seek them in the obscure withdrawing-roomes of Mans heart, which are inaccessible to all, but God; of which nevertheless you speak as con­fidently, as if God had led you by the Hand into them, and made you Partaker of his Know­ledge. ‘Purgatory was invented on design to enrich the Clergy: Transubstantiation on design to make it more esteemed: The Pri­macy [Page 6]of the Pope on design of Grandeur, &c.’ And altho we vouch Scripture for all these Points, yet you are pleased to say, we do not ground them on Scripture, but on Ambition and Avarice. Nay you not only fain Proofs for our Doctrins, but fix on us Doctrins them­selves, which we disown, as that we teach to break the Commandments. So that we may profess, that all that is ugly and dismal, in the Scene of Horror, and Misery, which you re­present, comes from your own Pencil, and is an effect of your own Brain. See what is your Temper, and how much your Reader is oblig­ed to you.

CHAP. II. Of Antichrist.

G. B. Pag. 3. ‘BEing warned of so much dan­ger to the Christian Religi­on, it is a necessary Enquiry to see if this Antichrist be yet come, or if we must look for another.’

Answer. Do you then think it as necessary to know Antichrist, as to know Christ, That you express your earnestness in enquiring after Antichrist in those Words Luke 7.19. of S. John the Baptist's Inquest af­ter the Messias? Nay yours are more pressing and urgent, than those of that great Saint: [Page 7]For he said only, Art thou he that should come, or look we for another? But you say, or must we look for another? As if it were a more pressing Duty to enquire after the Antichrist, than the Messias.

We are warn'd indeed of Antichrist, and we are also warn'd of the Danger hanging over the Church, from Mar. 13.21.22. false Pro­phets, and false Christs. Who should say, Lo here is Christ, Lo he is there. All Sectaries pretend to him. You will doubtless say, he is in your Prela­tical Church: The Presbyterian says, he is in his Assemblies: The Independent is for his Conventicles: The Quaker claims him also. What shall a Roman Catholic do? what choice shall he make? Our blessed Savior having forewarned us of the Danger, arms us against it: Ne credideritis, Believe none of them; but stick to the old Doctrin, and the Catholic Church. Which I cite, as more against you, than any thing, you can bring against us, out of your Contemplations on Antichrist, or the Apocalypse: to which you would never recur, had you any clear grounds against us in Scri­pture. I suspect the cause of any man, which to decide a Suit in Law, produces obscure, du­bious, and (for that reason) insignificant deeds. I should on that score, had others been want­ing, suspect the Cause of the Sectaries, Mille­naries, Fifth-monarchy-men, and the like. And that reason is sufficient to make me suspect [Page 8]you, who recur to those obscure Prophecies of the Antichrist: which at best are extreme­ly obscure: as appears by the Errors ground­ed on it, as you acknowledg: For you say,

G. B. Pag. 3. ‘Some have stretched the Notion of Antichristianism so far, that things harmless and innocent, come within its com­pass: and others have too much contracted it, that they might scape free.’

Answer. It seems the limits of the notion of Antichristianism are very arbitrary, seeing they are extended, or contracted according (not to Scripture, or Tradition, but) to the Fancy and Caprichio of every pragmatical Head. When you consider more impartially the things harmless and innocent, which you blame in us as Antichristian, very probably, you will find your self to be of the number of those, who stretch its Notion beyond its nature, and those limits, which God hath de­signed for it.

G. B. Pag. 3. ‘Antichristianism is not on­ly a bare Contradiction to some branches, or parts of the Gospel; but a design and en­tire complex, of such Opinions and Practi­ces, as are contradictory to, and subversive of, the Power and Life of Christianity.’

Answer. Never did Junior Sophister amongst illiterate Pesants, deliver his Sentiments, or Apollo amongst his deluded Adorers, speak his Oracles, more magisterially, than you deliver your Opinions in controverted Matters of [Page 9]Faith: For such is this Point, seeing it is de­liver'd in Scripture. and there are such vari­ety of Perswasions concerning its true mean­ing, as you your self said even now. You give us a new Notion of it, and what Scripture, what Tradition, what Decree of a Council, what Father, do you allege for it? None, not so much as any reason offer'd. Is not this to Lord it over the Faith of your Reader? To beg the thing in Question, and to expect the World should be so stupid, as to be taken with such a Slight, that you should meet with Belief, because you boldly assert?

To your bare Assertion, I will oppose my Negation: and why should not my Negation be of as much weight, as your Affirmation? Especially seing I speak with all those, whom you blame for enlarging, or contracting too much the Notion of Antichristianism, and you stand alone. I confirm my Negation with Scri­pture 1 Jo. 4.3. where those are said to be Antichrists who denie Christs coming in the flesh. Which is only one article of Christi­anity, howsoever it be of the most funda­mental.

Yet let us grant, what you so confidently beg, that Antichristianism is a complex of O­pinions opposite to the Power and Life of Chri­stianity. I know none, who hath a better Ti­tle to it, than your Reformation: For the Life of Christianity, is Faith and Charity and you have destroy'd the first by Heresie, and [Page 10]the second by Schism, as shall be proved here­after.

Children delight in edged Tools, which serve only to cut their fingers; and you, and your Brethren, use weapons against us, which wound your selves. Fatal Experience might have taught you more Discretion, than to be still moving that stone, which hath once crush'd both your Church and State to pieces.

And truly the Reproach of Antichristian will fall on your Church, if prov'd against ours. For say what you please of the ancient Britans, the first Apostles of the English, who brought us the light of Faith, and planted the Gospel amongst us, came from Rome. The Hierarchy you pretend to, came from thence: By Au­thority from the Pope, my Lord of Canterbu­ry is Primate, and my Lord of London is his Suffragan. By the same Authority the Coun­try is divided into Dioceses, your Deans and Chapters setl'd, your Universities founded, and several Degrees instituted in them. If the Pope be the Antichrist, both Universities, and Hierarchy amongst you is Antichri­stian.

Moreover the Livings you enjoy, were for the most part, if not altogether, given by the pious Liberality of Persons, who profest that Faith we profess, and lived and died in the Communion of our Church. Gratitude to such Benefactors may teach you to judge less se­verely, to suspend your Judgment, till you [Page 11]have more convincing Arguments to ground it on, than your own bare and bold Assertion.

CHAP. III. The true Designs of Christian Religion.

THe Design of God in establishing Religi­on, was that Men should serve him in this World, and enjoy him in the next: that they Psal. 126.5. here sow, with tears; there reap with joy: now run 2 Tim. 4.7. & 8. their race, and fight their bat­tel, then receive their crown. Ri­vers Eccles. 1.7. receive their waters from the Sea, and return to it again: And Religion receives its beginning from God, runs through all Ages, to return to God again. Each Man before his Creation, is Creatrix es­sentia, says S. Anselm: From which by Crea­tion he is separated; and by Regeneration, and the good Works which follow it, he re­turns to him again, never more to be separa­ted from him. The first Action is of God alone, the rest are of God and Man: For God Aug. Qui te creavit sine te, non te salvabit sine te. will not compleat the Work of our Salvation with out the Cooperation of Man. God Subest tibi, cum volueris, posse. can do all without Man, but will not: Man Sine me ni­hil potestis fa­cere. Jo. 15.5. can do no­thing without God, from whom [Page 12]he must expect prevenient, concomitant, and subsequent Graces, for all and every meritorious Action.

That Bliss, which God prepares for us in the next Life, contains God himself, and when enjoy'd, renders the thrice happy Soul like Similes ei erimus. 1 Jo. 3.2. unto God, and we must attain to it by means proportionable, which partake of the resem­blance. Wherefore our Under­standing must be like that of God, believing him, and our Will loving him; The first is Faith, the second Charity; to which add Hope, to keep our Soul steady amidst the Difficul­ties of this Life, as an Anchor Heb. 6.19. fixes a Ship: And you have the three Vertues, call'd Theological; because they rely immediately on Almighty God: Faith on his Veracity, or Truth in affirming: Hope on his Fidelity, in promising, and Goodness as he is our Chief Good: And Charity on his Goodness in its self. Which Three Vertues contain what is required of us in this Life. Whatsoever is required to a good life, is known, as, we know what to be­lieve, to hope, and to love, Says Aug. Ench. c. 4. Omnia quae requiris, proculdubio scies, diligenter sciendo, quid credi, quid sperari debeat, quid ama­ri. Haec enim maximè, imò verò sola in Religione sequenda sunt. S. Austin. Which are the only things, Religion re­gards, as being design­ed only for these three Vertues.

But are we not oblig'd to keep the Commandments? Or do not they advance towards Heaven, who run Psal. 119.32. in the paths, which God hath traced out? And how come these to be omitted? Answer. They are not ommitted; but are con­tained in Charity. Rom. 13.8, 9. He that loveth another, hath fulfilled the Law: our whole Duty to our Neighbour, and the Commandments relating to him, being briefly comprehended in this Saying, Love thy Neighbor as thy self. As our whole Duty to God, is contained in that other Saying, Love God above all things. Matt. 22.40. On these two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. These are the two Rootes Matt. 7.17. of the good tree, which brings forth good fruit. As love of our selves is the root of the bad tree, which brings forth bad fruit. The Aug. Serm. 44. de Temp. Radix omnium bonorum est Charitas, sicut radix omnium malorum est Cupiditas. root of all good is Charity, as the root of all evil is Concupiscence. A­gain: Aug. l. de moribus Eccl. c. 25. Nihil aliud est bene vi­vere, quam toto corde, totâ a­nimâ, totâ mente, Deum deli­gere. To live well is to love God with all our Heart, with all our Soul, with all our Mind.

I should as easily write out the whole new Testament, as endeavour to cite all the pas­sages which directly, or indirectly commend Charity: Seeing all tend to extinguish in us [Page 14]self-Love, and to kindle Divine Love. In it Di­vine Love sometimes is preferr'd before 1 Cor. 13. the Tongues of Men and Angels, before Faith working Miracles, before knowledge of the greatest Mysteries, Almsgiving, &c. It is call'd Col. 3.14. The bond of perfection, the end 1 Tim. 5. (or intent) of the Command­ments, &c. I end with the Words of the beloved and loving Disci­ple: Jo. 4.16. God is love, and he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him. Wherefore with Reason S. Austin Aug l. de laudibus Cha­ritatis. said, Ille tenet quicquid latet, & quicquid patet in divinis ser­monibus, qui servat Charitatem in moribus.

I should not have been so long upon a Point of which I thought none could be ignorant, who reads the Scriptures, or knows the Ru­diments of Christianity, did not I perceive, that you either never knew it, or have for­gotten it. And, When Heb. 5.12. for the time, and your Vocation, you should be a teacher, you have need that one should teach you, which be the first Principles of the Ora­cles of God. For how happens it, that in re­lating the Designs of Christian Religion, there is not one clear word of the love of God, which is the main design of it? you speak of Puri­ty, Ingenuity, Patience, Generosity, and something of the love of our Neighbour, but why are [Page 15]you silent of the Love of God which gives Ver­tue to all the rest, which without it avail us nothing, 1 Cor. 13. how perfect soever they be in their kind? Do you intend to make that fall under the Notion of Antichristianism, as being with you no part of the Designs of Christianity? I shall ex­pect a satisfactory Answer to these Doubts, and proceed to

CHAP. IV. G. B. His Explication of the Designs of Christianity.

G. B. Pag. 4. ‘THe first Design of Christian Re­ligion, is to give us right ap­prehensions of the Nature and Attributes of God.’

Pag. ‘The second branch is to hold forth the method of Mans Reconciliation with his Maker.’ You mean, that the intent of Chri­stian Religion is to teach us, that there is One God, and One Mediator, which are Objects of our Faith.

Pag. 7. ‘The third is to teach the perfect­est, clearest and most Divine Rules, for ad­vancing of the Souls of Men to the highest perfections of their Natures, it giving clear­er Rules, and fuller Directions, than either moral Philosophers, or the Old Testament. [Page 16]The Lessons of Purity, Chastity, Ingenui­ty, Humility, Meekness, Patience, and Ge­nerosity.’ Not one word of Charity: but Ge­nerosity, I know not whence, comes in to take its place.

Pag. 8. ‘The fourth to unite Mankind in the closest Bonds of Peace, Friendship and Charity, which it doth tempering our Pas­sions, forgiving Injuries, loving our Ene­mies, teaching Obedience to those in Autho­rity over us, and by associating us into one Body, call'd the Church.’

Answer. This is indeed a Design worthy of Christian Religion; but imperfectly explicated by you, seeing you omit the love of God, the God 2 Cor. 1.24. of Peace, who alone can give us perfect Peace. Humane Wills are naturally opposite to one another, they cannot meet but in their natu­ral center, God. And the Love of our Neighbor is never sincere and lasting, but when it is grounded on the Love of God. The first ef­fect of Self-love, is to separate us from God. The second, to divide us among our selves. Both are the effects of Sin: and nothing can prevent them, and link us together in the Bonds of Charity but he who can remit Sins.

That Peace then, which Christian Religion teaches, which the Church recommends to her Children, which in her Prayers she demands of God, is not an effect of humane industry; but of Grace. It proceeds from the Mercy of God, [Page 17]it is a sequel of Purity of Conscience, and the Crown of real, and true Justice. In fine it is the work of the unspotted Lamb, 1 Pet. 1.19. at whose Birth Luk. 2.14. Peace was announced in his Name to the World by the Angels: who left Peace Jo. 14.27. as a Legacy to his Di­sciples before his Death, and who was sacrificed on the Altar of the Cross to reconcile us to his Heavenly Father, and restore Peace betwixt Heaven and Earth, which the Sin and Rebel­lion of Men, had banisht.

You see, Sir, how insufficient your Explica­tion of Peace is for the end you propose. You leave out the chief and most necessary Ingre­dient, for purging our Dissentions, and to use a Prophets Comparison, Ezech. c. 13.10. you build with untempered Mortar. You Jerem. 6.14 heal the hurt of the people slight­ly, saying, Peace, Peace, when there is no Peace.

You hint indeed at a good humane means to Peace; Obedience to those in Authority. It was to prevent Schism, Inter Apostolos unus eligitur, ut capite consti­tuto schismatis tolleretur occasio. Hieron. l. 1. adver­sus Vigilantium. c. 14. that God establish'd one Apostle over the rest. But your endless Divi­sions, and Subdivisions a­mongst your selves, shew how inefficacious this means is in your Reformation. And how can it be otherwise, when all your People have be­fore their Eyes the Example of your first Pa­triarkes, who began your Reformation, by re­jecting [Page 18]all Authority over them, and breaking the Rules of Divine Worship setled all over the World, and till that time acknowledged by themselves? Cur non licebit Valentiniano, quod licuit Valentino, de arbitrio suo fidem innovare? Tert. l. de praescript. c. 40. p. 338. Why may not not a Lutheran do, what was lawful to Luther? Your first Reformers rejected some Articles of Faith, then universally believed, because they seemed not to be contain'd in Scri­pture, why may not the same motive authorise their Followers, to reject some others which you would retain, altho they are as little to be found in Scriptures? Why may not a modern Pro­testant retrench some unnecessary Ceremony used by you at present, seeing you have cut off so many others? Let others live by that law which you publish; think not so highly of your own Authority, as to make your Dictamens not only the Rule of Actions, but of the Laws themselves. It shall be lawful to dissent from this Article of Faith, but not from that other, to quit this Ceremony and not that, when the same rule is applicable to both. Is not this properly: 2 Cor. 1.24. To lord it over the Faith of the People? What wonder you find your Laity refractory to your Ordinances? They are in this directed by your Rule, and encouraged by your Example.

Wherefore look no where abroad for the root of these tares: Your Reformers planted them; they laid the Egg out of which this [Page 19]Cockatrice is hatched. They eat the sower Grapes, which set all your Teeth an Edge. Nei­ther appears there any possibility of a Reme­dy, while your Reformation subsists: this Prin­ciple of Discord and Schism being laid in its very Foundation; and consequently it cannot be removed, without the ruine of the whole Structure, nor retained without perpetual Dan­ger of renting it in pieces.

I wish these troublesome Schisms, and end­less Discords amongst your selves, may make you seek a proper Remedy, by a Reunion to the Center of Union, God, and his Church.

CHAP. V. Of the Characters of Christian Doctrin.

G. B. P. 8. ‘I Shall add to this the main distin­guishing Characters of our Reli­gion, which are Four. Pag. 8. First its Ve­rity. Pag. 10. The Second its genuine Sim­plicity, and Perspicuity. The Third, its Rea­sonableness, and the Fourth, its easiness.’ Thus you.

Answer. Are these the only, or even the chief Characters of Divine Truths, whether you take them, as they are delivered in holy Writ, or as taught in the Church? Can you find no other quality peculiar to them, not common to others? Then human Learning may equal, if not surpass Divine. Take for Ex­ample [Page 20]some Principles naturally known, as Two and two make four: or, The whole Body is greater than any part of it. These are true, it is impos­sible they should be false: they are perspicuous and easie, no Man can doubt of them, who under­stands the terms. They are reasonable: For what more reasonable than to assent to evident Truth? Nay if we compare them with supernatural Truths, as to their Perspicuity and Verity, in order to us, the Advantage seems greater on the side of natural Truths. 1. For no Man ever doubted of the Truth of these, having once understood their terms; and many have and do doubt of Faith, altho sufficiently propos'd. And 2ly no Man ever dissented from those Principles, when he had once admitted them, and many have A­postatized from their Faith.

So that all the Praises you give to Faith, be­long more to natural Sciences, then to it; such a stranger are you to its true Prerogatives.

The reason of this stupendious Blindness in searching the Scriptures, is that you read them as a Master, not as a Disciple; you intend not to learn from them what to believe, but to shape them to what you think: you have the Word, but reject the Sence; which is to the Word, what the Soul is to the Body, it gives it Life and Motion. The 1 Cor. 2.14. natu­ral man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritual­ly discerned. You see, Sir, that some may read [Page 21]or have the Word of God, and yet not com­prehend its meaning, nay that it may seem fol­ly unto them. The words may be words of John 6.61. life everlasting, and yet they cry, Durus est hic sermo: this word is hard, and who can hear him.

The Divine Scriptures are high and ma­jestical in the Sense; simple and without Affe­ctation in Word: they are plain, yet in them are high Hills, which no natural Wit can sur­mount. They are perspicuous, yet full of my­sterious clouds, which baffle the most piercing eye. They are all true: Yet St. Augustin l. 2. cont. Faust. c. 2. Piè cogitantes tantae au­ctoritatis eminentiam, la­têre ibi aliquid credide­runt, quod petentibus da­retur, oblatrantibus nega­retur. takes notice of some seeming contradictions, which cannot be reconci­led without recourse to God the Author of Scri­ptures. Less is learnt by Study, than by Prayer, if Prayer be accompa­nied with Humility. The Psal. 18. ( or 19.) 7. te­stimony of God is faithfull giving wisdom to little ones, or making wise the simple, as the English hath it. And the Author of our Faith glorifies his Father, Matt. 11.25. for concealing his mysteries from the learned and wise, and reveal­ing them to little ones. St. Gregory furnishes us with a fit comparison, Greg. ep. ad Leand­rum c. 4. Instar fluminis alti, & plani in quo Ag­nus ambulet, & Elephas natet. of a shallow and deep river, in which a Lamb may wade, and an Elephant [Page 22]swim. That is, in it the simple, and hum­ble find ground to stand upon; which the Proud loose, and by it are lost. The words are plain and easie; but the sence sublime and hard, not to be reach'd by humane Industry; but by Di­vine Inspiration, which is denied to those, who rely on their own abilities, and given to such as recur to God.

No Books of the Sybills, nor Oracles of the Devils, or other humane Writing can equal Divine Scripture in this point.

Another Character of Divine Scriptures is, the force which accompanies them, and works upon the heart of those who are well disposed, which insinuates it self into the Will, and en­flames it with the Love of God, breaking in pieces the stony heart of Sinners. Are Jerem. 23.29. not my words like fire, and like a hammer that breaks a rock.

No Precepts of Pagan Philosophers had this Energy. I will not assure, you ever perceiv'd either of these two qualities in reading of Scripture, in your Works there appears little signs of either, or of the Disposition which they suppose.

CHAP. VI. Scriptures Supprest.

G. B. P. 13. ‘SCriptures being the Revelation of the whole Councel of God, and [Page 23]written by plain and simple men, and as first directed to the use of the rude illiterate Vul­gar, for teaching them the Mystery of God­liness, and the Path of Life; It is a shrewd Indication, that if any study to hide this light under a candlestick and to keep it in an un­known Tongue, or forbid the Body of Chri­stians the use of it, that those must be con­scious to themselves of great deformity to that Rule.’

Answer. Here you begin your Charge of Antichristianism against your Mother-Church, and as the Charge is false, so in your managing it, you mingle many Errors, with some few Truths. A bad Cause is not capable of a bet­ter Defence. I will take notice of some of your most considerable slips, and leave the Reader to judg of the rest.

That the Scriptures were written by plain and simple men, is not true; was Moses such, who was learned in all the Learning of the Egypti­ans? Was David the sweet singer of Israel, a plain and simple man? What shall we say of Solomon, to whose wonderful knowledge the Scripture it self bears witness? Amos, it is true was; but Esaias was not, nor Daniel, nor Sa­muel. And whoever was Author of the Book of Job, he was certainly far from being plain and simple: For in him are found in perfection, Philosophy, Astrology, and Divinity as a Queen governing them; and if Caussinus the Jesuit may be believ'd, as compleat Rhetorick, as in any [Page 24]whosoever. And as to the Authors of the new Testament, as long as St. Paul, St. Luke and St. John are amongst them, you will never perswade the learned part of the World, that your Speech is not rash and inconsiderate.

But suppose it true, that they were all plain and simple men, what then? Doth it follow that what they writ, is easie to the meanest capa­city? (for that you intend, if you intend any thing.) Do you not know, that these Men were only the Scribes of the Holy Ghost? and that in a Scribe, Capacity of Understanding is not necessary, but only Fidelity in writing. No great Science is necessary in a Printer who on­ly Prints what is given him by an Author: the same of a Scribe, who writes what is di­ctated unto him. Now all Authors of Cano­nical books are the Scribes of the Holy Ghost, [...], so their Doctrin is to be calcula­ted according to the meridian of that Divine Spirit; not of their Qualities: Take the most plain and simple of them all, Amos. 1.1. the herdman of Thecue, read him o­ver, and if you say you understand him quite through, I will say, you have cofidence to say any thing.

G. B. Pag. 14. ‘The hardest parts of Scri­pture, are the Writings of the Old Testa­ment, and yet those were communicated to all.’

Answer. Some parts of the New are as hard, as any of the Old, viz. The Apocalypse, and [Page 25]some parts of St. Pauls Epistles, are hard to be understood. 2 Pet. 3.16.

Likewise is it not true, that all the Writings of the Old Testament were made common to all the Israelites. The King Deut. 17.18. was indeed commanded to write to himself a copy of the Law out of that which was before the Priests the Levits. By which it ap­pears that even Copies of the Law were not so ordinary. Which may be gathered also out of 4 Kings c. 22. there was such Astonish­ment at the finding, and reading of the Book of the Law newly found in the Temple. The Ten Commandments were common, the Pha­risees Phylacteries prove it. As for the rest it was divided into Parashots, Sections, and read unto the People, when they met on the Sab­bath, as you may see, Acts 15.21. And in the Second of Esdras cap. 8. And the same Cu­stome is still in the Catholic Church, which in her Service doth dayly read some of the New and Old Testament.

G. B. Pag. 14. ‘What pains are taken by Papists to detract from the Authority of Scri­ptures; how they quarrel, its Darkness, its Ambiguousness, the Genuineness of its Ori­ginals?’

Answer. This is a Calumny. We all una­nimously own Scripture to be the Word of God: that no Untruth can be found in it. Out of its Darkness and Ambiguity we shew the necessity of receiving its Sense from Tradition; and not [Page 26]sticking to the bare Letter of the Scripture without the Sense; which is to the Letter, what a Soul is to the Body.

G. B. Pag. 15. ‘We complain of Scri­pture being two much perused.’

Answer. Another Calumny: In all our Uni­versities we have Masters of Scriptures, who in those, I know, take place of those even of Divinity. Which shews the esteem we make of that study.

G. B. Pag. 15. ‘Let as little of it be in Vulgar Tongues, as can be.’

Answer. A Third Calumny. It is all in Eng­lish, translated by the Rhemish and Doway Col­leges; and in French, by the Doctors of Lo­vain. And as for the New Testament, it is pub­lish'd in French by Rene Benoit, Brulot, Ville­loin, and Amelot. Besides other Editions less noted. And if there hath been no new Tran­slation in English, it is not for any Decrees forbidding it, but because that first Translati­on is liked in gross, and if any thing be defe­ctive (as is unavoidable in all Works of Men) it is not considerable, and the like, or worse may be fear'd in another.

G. B. Pag. 19. ‘We read it publickly in an unknown Tongue, in Latin.’

Answer. If this proves our Dislike of the Scriptures, it will likewise prove our Dislike of Councils and Popes Bulls, (which you say we prefer before Scriptures) seeing these were ne­ver extant in any Vulgar Language. Latin [Page 27]cannot truly absolutely be call'd An unknown Tongue, in the Latin Church, seeing it is the Language of her Schools, of her Public Service, of her Laws, of her Tribunals, of her Coun­cils, and in many places (as in Polony, and high­er and lower Germany) of almost every parti­cular person, where very ordinarily even Car­ters and Watermen speak it. And as for Spa­niards and Italians with little application, they understand it, by reason of the Affinity be­twixt their own, and the Latin Tongue. So Eng­lish cannot absolutely be said to be an unknown Tongue, in Wales, and Ireland, tho' in both there are several who understand it not.

If this be not a sufficient Vindication of our Church, how will you excuse your own from the same Fault, which never translated the Scripture into Irish, but uses English in Ireland, even where there are many thousands who un­derstand it as little, as Latin is understood by any Catholic.

G. B. Pag. 15. ‘We permit no private person the use of it, without Allowance from his Confessor.’

Answer. A Fourth Calumny. In Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, it is universally permitted to all. In France no Body scruples at the reading of it in French, provided the Editions be appro­ved. Your Brethren there could have infor­med you better: seeing they have had the Confusion to see their Ministers mouths stopt, by Cutlers and Shoemakers out of their own [Page 28]Bible: which could not be, had they not read it.

If the Opinion of a Confessor be demanded, it is to know the Disposition of the person who desires it, whether it be such as good may be hoped from that reading. All Food is design­ed by Almighty God for the use of Man; yet without any Injury to the Patient, a Physitian may forbid him the use of some, which would nourish peccant Humors. So Scriptures are de­signed for our Instruction unto Piety to God, and Peace to our Neighbors: If any mans mind be possest with Opinions contrary to both, and these Opinions controul all Instruction given him, so as all serve only to confirm him in his impiety, and turbulent Humor, would you not advise him a Diet, from such strong Food, as Scripture? For Example, lately a great part of the Commonalty of our Nation was so po­sest with a Spirit of Rebellion against Ecclesia­stical and Civil Government, that altho there be scarce any thing more recommended in ho­ly Writ, than Obedience to Prelate, and Prince, yet they thought the whole Drift of Scripture abetted their Treason: not that any such thing was to be found in Scripture; but that they fancied it there, as Men fancy, that the Bells speak articulate Words. In that conjuncture what Advice would you give to an Ignorant Man? to be satisfied with Books of Devotion, and In­structions drawn from Scripture which might keep him humble and peaceable: or to conti­nue [Page 29]reading the Scriptures which he thought preached Sedition, and from which (through his bad Disposition) he was confirmed in his Rebellions, and Antichristan Courses?

Another motive, why the Confessors Advice is demanded, is that he might instruct Men how to Read, and reap Benefit from the Reading. To Read with the Humility of a Scholer, not the Presumption of a Master; to make rather a Prayer, than a Study of it: To resolve to practise what they understand, and adore God for what they understand not. So that whether they do, or do not, comprehend what they read, they glorifie God in all, and grow in Ver­tue. After such Instructions, apply'd to the Condition of every one, the Benefit will be much greater, and the danger of ill using it much di­minished.

CHAP. VII. A Digression touching the Idolatry of the Pagans, ill represented by E. S. D. D.

THis matter is as clear in it self, as any an­tiquated Rights can be: all Men are pos­sest with an Opinion, that (as the word im­ports) the deluded Nations did Adore Idols, as their Gods. S. Austin l. 20. contra Faust. c. 20. having said, that Latria was the Wor­ship given to God alone as he is distinguished [Page 30]from all his Creatures, how holy soever, he says, Ad hunc cultum pertinet oblatio Sacrificii, unde I­dololatria dicitur eorum, qui hoc (Sacrificium) eti­am Idolis offerunt. That to offer Sacrifice is an Act of Latria; whence those are called Idolaters, who offer it to Idols. This seems clear; yet our modern Protestants to make good the Charge of Idolatry against the present Cath. Church, raise a great Mist before their Readers Eyes, and misrepresent Idolatry in such colours, as may afterwards be apply'd to make good their Charge against it. I will endeavour to clear the Mist, and represent things in their own shape, to the end, the difference betwixt Ca­tholicks and Idolaters may the better appear. Something hath been already said to the same intent, in the Preface, which I desire may be here remembred.

SECTION I. That Pagans thought their Idols to be Gods.

MY first Reason is taken from several pla­ces of Scripture, Fathers and Pagans, where they are expresly called Gods. Exod. 32.4. These are thy Gods, O Israel. Speaking of the Calf. And Micah having newly made an Idol, prepared a place to put it in, Judg. 17.5. He set apart a little house to the God. Or as the English Translation hath it, Micah had a house of Gods. And the Danits [Page 31]having robbed him of his Idol, he bemoans his loss with these Words, Judg. 18.24. My Gods, which I made me, you have taken away. Dan. 14.15. Doth not Bell seem to thee a living God? And the Psalmist, Psal. 96. (95.) 5. All the gods of the Nations are Idols, the Latin hath it otherwise, Omnes dii Gentium daemonia: but the English Protestants cannot except against their own Edition. Lastly, the same is expres­ly, tho' more obscurely, delivered in the Book of Wisdom, Sap. 14.21. Where he says, The Pagans had given the Incom­municable name to Stocks and Stones. And what was that Incommunicable name, but that of the True God? All other Names are communica­ble, as signifying things common to many: even that of Gods by Participation, Gods by resem­blance. Psal. 81. (82.) 6. I have said you are Gods, and children of the most high. And, 1 Car. 8.5. There are many Gods and many Lords. Wherefore the true meaning of that place is that the Pagans affixt the Pro­per Name of God, to their Idols.

This may be gather'd from the Profession of Pagans themselves. Jupiter Tra­goedus. Lucian relating an Assembly of their Gods, called by the great Jupiter, (on occasion of Atheism, which then bare faced walked amongst the Philosophers) to deliberate how to oppose it; he makes Jupiter give a Commission to Mercury to entertain them, [Page 32]and place them orderly according to their seve­ral Dignities by reason of their Matter or Art. On the first Rank he should place those of Gold; on the second those of Silver; on the third those of Ivory; on the fourth those of Brass, or Stone. And amongst these he should give the Preceden­cy to those which were the Master-pieces of fa­mous Workmen, such as Phidias, Alcumenes, Myron, Euphranor, &c. There Neptune sees with disdain and Indignation, Anubis with his dogs face take place of him, because he was compos'd of more rich matter. Then there is a Dispute, what place to assign to the Colossus of Rhodes; which although it was only of Brass, yet for the bulk of it, surpast the price of most of the golden Gods. In fine, the whole Discourse evidently demonstrates, that the material Sta­tus or Idols were believed to be Gods, by the Pagans, whom Lucian there derides.

As for Fathers, and Primitive Christians, out of their Works whole Volumes might be com­posed in Confirmation of this Truth. See Justi­nus M. Epist. ad Diognetum. pag. 492. Consider the matter and form of those things, which you call Gods, and judge them to be such. Are not some of them Stones, like to those we tread on? Are not others of Brass, like to that which is apply'd to ordinary uses? Others of Wood, and that worm eaten? Others of Silver, which must be watched, least they be stolen? Other of Clay? [...], these you call Gods, you serve, you adore these, and at last become entirely like them.

Tertul. Apolog. cap. 40. Si quid adversi accidit urbibus, eaedem clades templorum, quae & moenium fuerunt: ut jam hoc revincam, non a Deis evenire; quia & ipsis evenit. If any Cala­mity befalls your Towns, their Temples, and their Walls perish alike: whence I prove that your Gods do not inflict it, seeing they suffer, as much as the Walls.

S. Cyprian l. ad Fortunatum de Exhortat. Martyrii cap. 1. Proves against the Pagans, Quod Idola Dii non sunt: That Idols are not Gods. A very superfluous Task, if what E. S. says be true, that no Body thought them so. More Fa­thers shall be cited in my following Reasons. So that E. S. will have no occasion to make him­self merry, with a Covy of three Fathers, as he did with that of one Partridge. See also S. Ambrose l. 2. de Virgin. ante finem.

Another Reason is taken from the Reproach ordinarily made in Scripture to Idolaters, Da­vid Psal. 105.(106).20. says, they changed their glory into the likeness of a calf (or ox) eating grass: because they abandoned God, to adore a Statue shaped like an Ox; that is, they left God not for an Ox, nor for the likeness of God; but for the like­ness or resemblance of a Calf. What the Roy­al Prophet reproaches to his Ancestors in the Wilderness, the blessed S. Paul Rom. 1.13. charges upon all Idolaters. They changed, says he, the glory of the incorru­ptible God, into an Image made like to corruptible [Page 34]man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. S. Hierom objects the same, l. 2. Comment. in c. 15. Matt. Ignorantes Creae­torem, & adorantes lapidem: Being ignorant of the Creator, and adoring a stone.

A third Reason is taken from those places of Scripture, or Fathers where Gods are said to be made by Men. We are first forbid to make them: Exod. 20.2. Ye shall not make Gods of silver, neither shall you make unto you Gods of gold. And the Israelites were threatned Deut. 4.28. in case of Disobedi­ence to Gods Commandments, that for a Punishment, they should serve Gods, the work of mens hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell. And in the Book of Wisdom, Sap. 13.10. Their hope is amongst the dead, who call Gods the work of mens hands. In fine, S. Paul Actor. 19.26. was accused by Demetrius the Silver-smith, for teaching, that they be no Gods which are made with hands: Wherefore it was his, and the common opinion, that they were Gods, which were made with hands. Justinus Mar. Apol. 2. O stu­pidity! you adore those as Gods, which are made by wicked men. And in St. Austin l. 8. de Civ. Dei c. 23. & 24. Mercurius Trismegistus avows some Gods to be made by men, to wit, those in Temples: altho he owned that this proceeded from the Ignorance of the true Worship of God.

This receives a great light from Isaias, Isay 44. d v. 9. ad 20. A carpenter, says he, in your English Translation, plants an Ash, and the rain doth nourish it. He burneth part thereof in the fire, with part thereof be makes a God. Again, Isa. 46.6. & 7. They lavish gold out of a bag, and weigh silver in the balance, and hire a Goldsmith, and he maketh it a God. And Jere­my, Jerem. 16.20. Shall a man make Gods, unto himself, and they are no Gods? The same in substance is said, Jer. 20.3.4.14. altho more obscurely.

If Mr. Still. be not satisfied with these Testi­monies of holy Writ, than which nothing can be more clear, let him shew his Art in explica­ting these verses of a Pagan, owning the same.

Olim truncus eram ficulnus inutile lignum:
Cum faber incertus scamnum facerernè, Pria­pum,
Maluit esse Deum. Deus inde ego.
Hor. l. 1. Sat. 8.

St. Aug. l. de consensu Evang. c. 27. Quaerunt Pagani, ubi Deos suos intrudant, ne a Christianis inveniantur & confringantur. The Pagans seek out secret places where to hide their Gods; lest the Christians should find and break them. And more fully Theodoret. Ser. 10. de cur. Graecor. affect. p. 634. Si fateri ipsi non vultis— If you (O Pagans) will not own it, yet it is known to ma­ny, who have seen brought to light your Gods, which [Page 36]you had hidden under ground, which some out of Devotion to them, for their security, had buried: others discovered where they were hidden, that being expos'd to publick view, Women and Children might scorn your Gods. They were the likenesses of Ser­pents, and Four-footed Beasts, Bats and Mice which you adored: and altho you killed the Beasts themselves, Serpents, Scorpions, Mice and Batts, yet you adored their Statues as Gods.

A fourth Reason is taken from the Prayers which were made to the Statues, or Idols. In the Book Sap. 13.17. of Wisdom. He, the Idolater, maketh Prayer for his Good, for his Wife and Children, and is not asha­med to speak to that which hath no life. For Health he calleth upon that which is weak; for Life he prayeth to that which is Dead; for Aid he hum­bly beseecheth that which hath least means to help; and for a good Journey, he asketh that, of that which cannot set a foot forward. And for gaining and getting, and good Success of his hands, asketh abi­lity to do, of him that hath least ability to do any thing. Again one preparing to sail, and about to pass through the raging waves, calls upon a piece of wood more rotten than the wood which carrieth him. And in the Epistle of Hieremy. Bar. 6.41. If they see one dumb, they bring him, and intreat Bell that he may speak, as tho he were able to understand.

These two Books are held to be Apocryphal, by Protestants, of which I will not treat at pre­sent, yet why they should denie them credit in [Page 37]a matter of fact, I know no Reason. But be­cause they regard not what is reasonable in their Controversies, but what serves their turn, I will shew the substance of all this, in Books of unquestionable Autho­rity: Isaias 44.17. The residue of the Ash he maketh a God, he falleth down unto it, and a­dores it, and prays unto it, and saith, deliver me, for thou art my God. The sayings of the other Books are only Ampliations of this. So they cannot be denied, without rejecting this, nor this admitted without retaining of those.

A fifth Reason is that the Idolaters were really perswaded, that their Idols did help them. Hieremy, Hier. 2.27. Saying to a stock, thou art my Father, and to a stone, thou hast begotten me. Certainly those who could believe that they ought their Being, the greatest of all Gifts, to their Statues or Idols, of Stone or Wood, would much easier believe they owed to them other goods of an inferior nature. Certainly the Jews Hier. 44.8. ascribed their past Felicity in Hi­erusalem, to their Sacrifices offer'd to the Queen of Heaven, and their then present miseries to their ceasing from those Sacrifices. But the most publick owning of singular Benefits from Idols, is that of the Israelites. Exod. 32.4. These are thy Gods, O Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt. Which words S. Cyril of Alexand. l. 9. contra Julia­num p. 308. B. [...], [Page 38]understands to be said to that very Calf, which Aaron had cast.

If Mr. Still. think not this Reason cleared enough out of Scripture, I shall desire him to read what is written by the Greeks of the Palladium of Troy, and what the Romans thought of it, and of their Ancilia, what Macrobius writes of some Nations, who chained the Gods, Protectors of their Cities, fearing they should forsake them. Let him at least read S. Austin l. 1. de Civit. c. 3. And if he cannot be convinced, that the Pagans had Confidence in their Statues, or Idols, I say he shuts the Eyes of his understanding so close, as to ex­clude all light, but what pleases him, and serves his turn. Add to this, S. Cyprian l. ad Deme­trianum, Pudeat te eos colere quos ipse defendis, pudeat tutelam de iis sperare, quos tu ipse tueris. Be ashamed to worship those, whom you defend: and to expect Protection from those, who themselves need yours.

I have two Authorities more, to confirm this Reason: Jeremy Hier. 10.5. affords the first. They must be carried, be­cause they cannot go: Wherefore fear them not, for they can neither do hurt, nor good. To what intent could this Reason be alleag'd, unless it were to confound that Opinion that the Sta­tues themselves could help, or hinder? The Pagans then were possess'd with that Opinion. My other is out of David Psal. 113.8. or Ps. 115.8. who having said that the Idols [Page 39]of the Gentiles were Silver and Gold, the work of Mens hands; that they had Eyes and could not see, Ears and could not hear, &c. He concludes his elegant Induction, with these Words, May every one who makes them, be like unto them, and also all who trust in them. There was then a Trust, a Considence, a Reliance upon those Idols, which could not be grounded, but on an Opinion that they did good. Add to this, what R. Majmonides says, as he is rendred by Dionysius Vossius p. 8. Ab his simulacris bona & mala omnia provenire indicabant universis, & pro­inde summo jure coli & metui. And Athenago­ras, in his Embassy for Christians. p. 25. owns the same, but atributes the effects to Spirits dwelling in them.

My last Reason is taken from the several Ar­guments produced in Scripture against Idola­try, that Idols were made by Men, that care must be taken they did not fall. supra. That they have no motion. Sap. 13.15. Bar. 6.26. Cannot defend themselves from worms or birds, fire or thieves, or even from the sacrileges of their own Adorers, as S. Ambrose Bar. 6. Psal. 115.5. Jer. 16.5. observes out of the Example of Di­onysius l. 2. de Virg. ante finem. the Tyrant.

You will say Pagans were wise men: how could they then be capable of so gross an Er­ror? Answer. This is that weakness of the Understanding incident to some, who in mat­ters of fact require Demonstrations: So a Phi­losopher [Page 40]denied local Motion, because he could not answer the Reasons against it, and deser­ved no other Confutation, But by this questi­on, Fool, what do I now, proposed by a Man who walked. It is clear out of what I have said, that the Pagans de facto did believe their Idols to be Gods, why should we give ear to a speculative Reason, against an evident histori­cal Truth? As if Man left to himself, did nothing but rationally, or did not many times so far darken his Understanding, as to shew little use of it in his greatest Concerns! It was the greatest folly imaginable, I grant it, yet that is incident to Man, when he is abandoned of God. And this the Ingratitude of Philosophers deserved. For when Rom. 1.21. they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their I­maginations, and their foolish heart was darkened, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of an incorruptible God, in­to an Image. Thus S. Paul. If you reply, you see who you will dispute against, viz. the Fa­thers, S. Paul, Hieremy, Isaias, and the Holy Ghost.

If you still think the Paralel just betwixt the Idolatry of Pagans, and the worship given in the Catholic Church to Images, skew your Art in Sophistry, and prove that we hold our Ima­ges to be Gods, that we put our Confidence in them, expect Good or fear Evil from a Stock. How pitiful would your Discourse be, should [Page 41]you dispute against us in this manner: A Cross is made by a Man, ergo, it is not a Represen­tation of our Saviors Death. The Statue of our B. Lady cannot move without the help of Man, Ergo we are not to hope for any thing from God through her Intercession.

In fine, either what Fathers, and what Scri­pture contains against the Idols of the Gen­tiles, is to no purpose, and all their Reasons are frivolous; or our Doctrin of Images differs from theirs of Idols: the First is Blasphemy, therefore you must subscribe to the Second.

SECTION. II. The Beginning, and Occasions of Idolatry.

CAlvin lib. Instit. c. 11. l. 8. says Idola­try began almost with the World, om­nibus ferè à mundo condito saeculis. But he neither gives any Reason for this Assertion, nor de­termins its Author, nor time. R. Maimonides says it began by Enos, the Son of Seth, and Grandson to Adam; and he grounds this Assertion on [...] Gen. 4.26. Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord. The Latin hath it, Iste coepit invocare nomen Domini. He began to call upon God. And the other Translations found rather a good, than a bad Sense, only the Targum On­kèlos, expresses an abandoning of Gods Service, yet so as he charges that Fault rather on Men living in Enos his time, than on Enos himself. [Page 42]Wherefore, I cannot subscribe to that Rabby, especially seeing Enos was of the vertuous Branch, and surely such a heinous Sin as Ido­latry could not come but from cursed Cain, or his Posterity; if there was any before they were destroyed.

I rather incline to what S. Cyril of Alex. says lib. 1. contra Julianum: That there was no Idolatry before the Deluge; because no Author mentions any, nor after the Deluge, till after building the Tower of Babel, and Con­fusion of Tongues, for the same Reason. But shortly after those Seeds were sown, which in process of time brought forth that bad Fruit. Suidas says that Seruch began Politheism and Idolatry: Constantinus Manasses lays the Fault on his Descendants, tho he gave the occasion.

Our Bodies do not in a moment shoot up to their full Growth, but leasurely, and in a man­ner imperceptibly, and our Souls do neither on a sudden raise themselves to the height of Per­fection, nor fall into the Depth of hainous Sin, according to the ordinary course of Grace and Nature. Nemo repente fit summus. S. Bernard. (See S. Chrysost. bom. 87. in Matthaeum) For that one of a Persecutor should in a moment become an Apostle and a chosen Vessel; another of an Apostle become a Divel, is very extra­ordinary; The First may be esteemed a Miracle in the Order of Grace, which is all miraculous: the Second a Monster in the Order of Sins, which is all monstrous. Now Idolatry, being [Page 43]the very height of Wickedness, Men by cer­tain degrees descended into it: First they made Statues, Secondly gave them Civil Worship, then Religious Worship, and lastly that Cult, or Worship, which is due to none but God.

The first Occasion of making them, was for the Solace of Parents afflicted with the imma­ture Death of their dearly be­loved child. Sap. 14.15. A Father affli­cted with untimely mourning when he had made an Image of his child taken away, now honored him as a God, which was then a dead Man, and deliver'd to those that were under him, ceremonies and sa­crifices. S. Cyril of Alexand. l. 1. contra Julia­num, delivers the same, [...]. Some falling into the greatest ignorance imaginable, were so shamefully deceived, as to make Tem­ples, and altars to Men, and to adore as Gods, those whom they had mourned for, as dead Men. Sacra facta sunt, quae fuerant assumpta sola­tia. Minutius Felix, & Hieron l. 1. Commen. in c. 2. Osee, Omnia idola ex mortuorum errore cre­verunt.

The Second was the Homage due to Kings by their Subjects. Those who were within a certain distance from the Court, did it to the King in Person: But those who dwelt in remote Provin­ces, performed that Duty to the Kings in their Statues, (as now they do it to them in their Commissioners, or Deputies) which Homage was at first only a Civil Worship, but soon [Page 44]degenerated into Divine Adoration Sap. 14.17. When men could not honor their Kings in presence because they dwelt far off, they took the counterfeit of his Visage from far, and made an express image of a King, whom they ho­nored, to the end that by this forwardness they might flatter him that was absent, as if he were present. Sometimes princes were not content to be a­dored absent, or expect it till after their Death, their own Ambition, seconded by the flattery of their Courtiers would assist in person at their own Rites and Cult. Non solùm mortuis Regibus aut absentibus; sed & praesentibus sacra facta. Vide apud Vossium pag. 800.

—Nihil est quod credere de se
Non possit cùm laudatur Diis aequa potestas.

Thus Nabuchodonosor, thus the Roman Caesars, thus several others came to be adored. Alex­ander could not obtain it of his Macedonians, yet of his new Persian Subjects he obtained it. Like­wise Saturn, Janus, and Quirinus, (or Romulus) in Italy, Belus in Babilon; Osiris and Isis, Sera­pis and Apis in Aegypt; Jupiter, Neptune, Pluto, Apollo in Greece; and in particular places se­veral others: As in Troy Hector, in Chio Ari­staeus, in Samos Lysander, in Cicilia Niobe, and in Italy in Narnia Viridianus, in Asculum An­caria, in Volsinia Nertia, in Sutrino Nortia, and others in other places, came to be Gods. See Tertul. Apolog. c. 24. and Athenagoras p. 14.

A third occasion was Gratitude to men from whose Industry they had received great ease [Page 45]in their wants by Invention or Im provement of Arts. Thus Ceres for Corn, Bacchus for Wine, Vulcan for the Forge amongst the Grecians, and Flora amongst the Romans for the Wealth left to the Commonwealth, were adored as Gods. Minutius Felix in Octavio Ʋnaquaeque Natio Conditorem suum, aut Ducem inclitum, aut Regi­nam pudicam sexu suo fortiorem, aut alicujus mu­neris vel artis repertorem venerabatur, ut civem bo­nae memoriae, sic & defunctis praemium, & futu­ris dabatur Exemplum. I think their Conjecture very probable, who guess the Aegyptian Idol, the Calf or Ox to be a Symbole of Agricul­ture, and that Apis, Serapis, and Osiris (three Names of one Person) Were Adored under that Resemblance, for having invented it, whe­ther that person was Joseph, as E. S. pretends pag. 363. or the Son of Jupiter, and Niobe Daughter to Phoroneus, is not worth the dispu­ting. Probably Anubis got his Apotheosis by his faithful Service done to the Public in quality of Captain of their Guards to Osiris, and Isis, and his dogs-face, was a Symbole of his Vigi­lancy.

If you doubt of either, of these occasions or both, Read Lactantius l. 1. c. 15. Philastri­us l. de haeres. c. 27. Isidorus Hispal. lib. 8. Orig. c. 11. Arnobius, Min. Felix above cited, and Cicero de Natura Deor. and that Benefactors were Deified, began from and by command of Seruch, one of the Descendants of Japhat, as you may see in Suidas, Epiphanius Epistolâ ad [Page 46]Acatium & Paulum, & Constantinus Manasses in his short Chronicle.

Two things concurred to dispose men to this most abominable Sin, their Ingratitude to God, within, and the compleat Workmanship of the Statue without them. Their Ingratitude to God deserved that he should withdraw his Grace, and leave them to themselves: whence their foolish heart was darkned. Rom. 1.21. The Diligence Sap. 14.28. of the Artificer did help to set forward the Ignorant to more Superstition (which was the exterior Cause) for he willing to please one in Authority, forced all his skill to make the resemblance the better: And so the multitude allured by the grace of the Work took him now for a God, which a little before was honor­red but as a man. Aug. in Psal. 112. Illa causa est maxima impietatis insanae, quod plus valet in af­fectibus miserorum similis vi­venti forma, quae sibi efficit sup­plicari, quam quod eam mani­festum est non esse viventem, ut debeat à vivente contemni. Plus enim valent ad curvan­dam infoelicem animam, quod os habent, oculos habent, aures habent, quàm ad corrigendam, quod non loquentur, non vide­bunt, non audient. Il­la causa. The greatest cause of this mad (sense­less) Impiety, is that the likeness of a living man, works more strong­ly upon the Affections of those Wretches, than an evident Conviction, that being dead they should be despised by the living. For the Shape of Eyes, Ears, Mouth, Nose, Hands and Feet, are more praevalent to bend down before them a mise­rable Soul, than their not speaking, hearing, seeing, smelling, touching or walking, is to correct the Error. Says S. Austin.

Probably this may be the Reason, wherefore altho by Gods command Statues Exod. 25.18. of Cherubins were made to be placed with the Ark in the Sanctuary, where none but Priests came, yet in the Courts of the Temple, either those of the Jews, or Gen­tiles, there were none. To leave nothing in the sight of that stiff-neckt, rebellious, adul­terous People, which might be A stumbling block to their Souls, and a snare to their Feet. And such would those Statues have been to the Jews, as they had been to the Gentiles.

The Protestants cannot blame the Catho­lic Church, for having Statues, and exposing them to the People openly, without blaming their own Church, in which Statues are in like manner made, and exposed, as I have heard of several of their Cathedrals, namely that of Canterbury, where upon the Font are those of Christ, and his twelve Apostles. We think our People secured from the danger of Idolatry, First by being taught that the Statues are on­ly Representations of Saints, and not Saints them­selves, much less Gods. Secondly because that religious Respect which we give to Images, doth by them end ultimatè in God: For why do we respect the Image or Statue? For the Saint it represents. And why do we reverence the Saint? Merely because he was the Temple of God, and Instrument of the Holy Ghost. So that all our Worship of Images ends in God, and his Christ, with the Holy Ghost, one God [Page 48]blessed for evermore. Thus we instructing the People, stop their Inclinations to the evil, Ido­latry, and by owning all we have, and all the Saint had, that is good from God, we hope we need not fear, that dreadful Blindness and Folly, into which the Men wise according to this World were permitted (to humble and con­found them) to fall through a penal, but a ve­ry just Judgment of God.

The last occasion of this Idolatry, was the Devil insinuating himself into the Statues, and in a manner dwelling in them, answering to Que­stions proposed to them, causing Sicknesses, and healing them, telling things which happen'd at a Distance, and pretending to foretell things to come; altho in this unless they were very cauti­ous in delivering their Oracles in obscure terms, their Ignorance in future things was easily dis­covered. Of this see S. Austin. Aug. l. 8. de Civit. c. 23. Justinus, Justin. Mar. dialog. cum Triphone. Origines, Origenes l. 1. contra Celsum. Minutius Felix, Minutius Felix in Octa­vio. Prudent. Prudent. in Apotheosi. and Cyprian, Cypr. l. ad Demetrianum. Arnobius, La­ctantius, &c. I end with the con­vincing Testimony of Athenago­ras p. 29. The things, said he, which gave names to Idols, were men, those which take names of them are Divels. For this Reason Ter­tul. l. de Testim. animae propè fi­nem, said, Thou O Soul, didst abhor Divels and yet thou didst Adore them.

I must not omit another kind of Idolatry, of [Page 49]those who adored as God, several Creatures, either, for their Beauty or the Benefit, they re­ceived by them, such as are the Fire, and some E­lements, of the Earth, or the Sun, Moon, or Stars Ʋain Sap. 13.1. are all men by nature, who are ignorant of God, and could not out of the good things seen, know him that is; neither by considering his works, did acknowledge the workmaster: but deemed either fire, or the circle of the stars, or the lights of Heaven, to be Gods, which govern the World, with whose beauty, if they being delighted, took them to be Gods, let them know how much better the Lord of them is. But if they were astonish'd at their power and vertue, let them understand by them how much mightier he is, who made them.

There is yet another Species of Idolatry of such, who Deified and Adored all Creatures, which was grounded on that Opinion of the Stoicks, that God was the Soul of the World, which is exprest by Virgil:

Spiritus intus alit, totamque infusa per artus
Mens agitat molem, & magno se corpore miscet.

But nothing about this occurring in Scri­pture, and not much in Fathers, I let it pass.

These are the several Species of Idolatry, which occur and are most conspicuous amongst Pagans. All were absolutely inexcusable, for leaving the Creator for the Creature. Yet a­mongst all, methinks the cause of those who adored the Sun, was somewhat more excu­sable than the rest; for altho Reason teach­es [Page 50]it evidently not to be a God, yet Experience shews it to have one Property of God; for the Sun gives Light and Life to all that have Eyes and Heart, it gives without Interest, it never appears, but as a common good, and besides its visible effects, produces many other by hid­den Influences. These Considerations do not excuse, but they somewhat diminish the guilt of those who adored that wonderful Instrument, the work of the most High. Ecclesiastici 43.2.

To sum up what we have said, we find that even the wisest Men have been guilty of the greatest Folly, that can enter into man's head, how weak soever, to take for a God, a thing so much inferiour to them in nature, that they expected help of a thing helpless, and dire­ction from what is senseless. To this they were disposed by the humane Shape, striking their fancy; they were moved to it by love of a dead Master, Fear of a living Tyrant, Flat­tery to one, on whom their fortune depend­ed, and these altogether heightened by the Illusion of the Divel. Sometimes Gratitude to beneficial Creatures, enclined Men to renounce the great Benefactor. Yet these motives how powerful soever, could never have made Men so prodigiously to renounce the use of Reason, had they not by former sins, so far left God, as to deserve to be left by him; not that they received no Grace at all from him, but that they had not such Graces as would keep them in what was good, and prevent their fall into those sensless Errors.

SECTION III. What were the Gods of the Pagans? Or, What things were represented by their Idols? where it is proved, that Pagan Gods had been Men.

THE Occasion I have to treat of this Quae­stion, is given by G. B. and E. Still. who pretend that Chiefly one and he the true God was adored by the Idolaters, who used se­veral Statues and Names, only to represent his several Atributes. And that by Jupiter they understood the true God.

What I have cited out of Scripture, and Fa­thers is sufficient to convince the contrary: seeing that it appears that dead Men, Stars, &c. were adored. Vossius l. 1. de Idol. cap. 5. p. 30. says, Idolatry began with the Adorati­on of Angels, thence past to the Souls of Men. Lactantius l. 2. c. 14. says, the Aegyptians first adored the Stars, afterward their Kings. S. Cyril. of Alex. l. 1. contra Jul. p. 17. saith the same of the Chaldaeans. But the Aegypti­ans, whilst the Israelites lived amongst them a­dored either Apis or Joseph under the shape of an Ox, or Calf. And in imitation of them, the Israelites in the Desert, Exod. 32. and the ten Tribes at their Schism from the Temple of Hierusalem, the third of Kings 12.28. which continued amongst them, till they were remo­ved quite out of the Country Altho that [Page 52]was not the only Idolatry they were guilty of: for they had Baal, 3. Reg. 18. and the host of Heaven toward the end of their Kingdom, as appears 4 Reg. 17.16. which they learnt pro­bably of the Assyrians. After the Transmigra­tion of the Tribe of Juda, we find those who remained in their Country, much addicted to the Star-worship. Hieremy 44. as to a Supersti­tion ancient amongst them, which I guess they learnt of their King Achaz, and that he receiv'd it from Damascus. 4 Reg. 16. where a Copy of an Altar was sent to the High-Priest to have another made like it, and placed in the Temple. But this being a matter of no mo­ment, I do not trouble my self with further examining it. Our only Dispute is about the Romans and Greeks, whose Idolatry was banish'd the World by Christian Religion, which our modern Adversaries pretend that we have re­newed again.

You say then, that they by Jupiter, adored the true God, Creator of Heaven and Earth: we say that all the Gods of the Pagans were Men, and that Jupiter himself was such; and that they were Divels who took upon them­selves those persons Names, to delude the World, I will prove this, 1st. out of Scripture, 2ly. out of such Fathers as lived with Pagans, and consequently had more occasion to know their Theology, than we, who must gather it only out of their Writings, 3ly. out of the Confession of Pagans, 4ly. out of the Acknow­ledgment [Page 53]of the Gods themselves, who were adored, and lastly by the Confession of Pro­testants.

My First Proof is taken out of Scripture, Psal. 95. (96.) 5. All the Gods of the nations are divels. Omnes Dii Gentium Daemonia. So it is in the vulgat Edition, and was so from the beginning, while Paganism slourish'd; and yet Pagans never accused the Christians for impo­sing upon them Opinions, which they did not hold. See S. Augustin upon that place. The English Translation is somewhat different. viz. All the Gods of the Nations are Idols. Which notwithstanding confutes sufficiently the con­trary Error: for if this be true, All Gods of Nations are Idols, as it must, being in Scripture: E. S. his Proposition being contradictory to it, must be false, Jupiter the chief God of Nations, is no Idol, nor Devil.

Moreover if the Sacrifice the Idolaters of­fered, (which was always held to be the Prime Act of Religion) was offered by them to the Devils, and not to God, then it follows they did not worship the true God, but only Divels. But they sacrificed to Divels, and not to God, Ergo they did not adore the true God, but Divels. I prove the Minor. Denter. 32.17. They sacrificed to Divels, not to God: to gods whom they knew not, to new gods, who came new­ly up, whom your fathers feared not. Psal. 105. (106) 37. They sacrificed their sons, and their Daughters unto Devils. And 1 Cor. 10.20. The [Page 54]things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to Devils, and not to God. Hence Aug. l. 20. contra Faust. c. 18. ait. Nihil in sacrificiis Pa­ganorum Deo displicuisse, nisi quod fierent daemoni­is. Nothing in Sacrifices of the Pagans was dis­pleasing to God, but those to whom they were of­fered. viz. the Devils.

My Second Proof is taken out of those Fa­thers, who living with the Pagans, and conver­sing familiarly with their persons, (some of them having been Pagans themselves) and wri­ting against them had most reason to know their Sentiments concerning their Gods, and durst not misrepresent them, for Fear of God, who forbids lying, and shame of men, who would have discovered their Falshood. What say these Fathers of the Pagan Gods? Athenago­ras legat. pro Christ. pag. 14. [...]. Are not the Ceremonies of the Aegyptians ridiculous who mourn for those persons, as for dead men, and adore and offer sacrifice unto them, as to Gods. And pag. 16. He tells the Emperours, they knew very well, that the antient Poets Orpheus, Homer, and Hesiod, were either Contemporary with the Gods, or lived very little after them. And pag. 17. in fine, [...]. The Gods [Page 55]were not from the beginning, but were begotten as we are, and in this all agree. And pag. 29. [...]. Out of History it is evident, that those Gods from whence Idols have their Names, were Men: and that those Spirits, who take those Names, are Di­vels is evident from their Works.

Tertullian Apolog. c. 10. pag. 39. Deos vestros colere definimus, ex quo illos non esse cog­novimus, sed nobis inquitis Dii sunt. Appellamus & provocamus à vobis ad conscientiam vestram, illa nos judicet, illa nos damnet, si poterit negare omnes istos Deos vestros homines fuisse, sed & ip­sa, si inficias ierit, de suis antiquitatum instrumen­tis revincetur, de quibus eos didicit testimonium perhibentibus ad hodiernum, & civitatibus in qui­bus nati sunt, & regionibus in quibus aliqui operati vestigia reliquerunt, in quibus etiam sepulti demon­strantur. Nec ego per singulos decurram, proprios, communes, masculos, feminas, rusticos, urbanos, nau­ticos & militares (otiosum est etiam titulos per sequi) ut colligam in compendium: & hoc non quo cognos­catis; sed recognoscatis. Certe enim oblitos agitis. Ante Saturnum Deus penes vos nemo est: ab illo census totius, vel potioris, vel notioris Divinita­tis. Itaque quod de origine constiterit, id de poste­ritate conveniet. Saturnum itaque, quantum lite­rae [Page 56]docent, neque Diodorus Graecus, aut Tallus, ne­que Castrius Severus, aut Cornelius Nepos, neque ullus commentator ejuscemodi antiquitatum, aliud quàm hominem promulgaverunt. Si quaeras rerum argumenta, nusquam invenio fideliora quàm ipsam Italiam, in qua Saturnus post multas expeditiones, postque Attica hospitia consedit exceptus à Jano. Mons, quem incoluerat, Saturnius dictus, civitas, quam depopulaverat, Saturnia usque nunc est, &c. We do not adore your Gods, because we know they are not Gods; but say you to us they are Gods? We appeal from you, to your own Conscience, being content to stand or fall by its Ʋerdict, if that can deny, that all your Gods have been Men, If it de­nies it, we will convince its Error out of your own Records of Antiquity, from which it must learn, what she knows of them, out of the cities, in which they were born, out of the countries where they flourish'd, and out of the places where they were bu­ried. I intend not to run over each one in parti­cular, or speak of those who are common to all, or peculiar to some; of males, females, pesants, ci­tizens, watermen, and soldiers: it being super­fluous, to mention even their several Professions: not to acquaint you with any new thing, but to call to your mind, what you knew before, altho you act as if you knew it not. You have no God anti­enter than Saturn. Of him were born your chiefest or most noted Gods; if he is proved to have been a Man, all the rest must have been such. Now if you consult Authority, all Antiquity speaks him to be a meer man; if you seek Proofs from things, [Page 57]Italy will afford convincing Arguments, in which after many Wars, and having past Greece, Saturn settled, being entertain'd by Janus: he gave his name to the city he built, to the mountain where he dwelt. The country where he was concealed was called from that Latium, &c. And c. 19. pag. 49. Ipsos Deos vestros, & templa, & oracula, & sacra, unius prophetae scrinium vincit. The Pentateuch is more antient by some ages, than your Religion, and your Gods themselves, and a little after, Sicut illos homines fuisse, non audetis ne­gare, it a post mortem Deos factos asseveratis. Now you cannot deny them to have been men, you say they were made Gods after their death.

Minutius Felix in Octa. pag. 16. Majores nostri dum Reges suos colunt religiosè, dum defun­ctos illos desiderant in imaginibus videre, dum ge­stiunt eorum memorias in statuis detinere, sacra fa­cta sunt, quae fuerunt assumpta solatia. Lege Stoico­rum scripta, vel scripta Sapientum, eadem mecum recognosces, ob merita virtutis, aut muneris Deos habitos. And pag. 19. Manifestum est homines illos fuisse, quos & natos legimus, & mortuos sci­mus. Our Ancestors whilst they honored their Prin­ces, during their life, whilst they saw them in their Pictures or Statues, those things were turned to re­ligious uses, which were intended only for their com­fort. Read the Writings of your Stoicks, or other learned Men, you will be forced to acknowledge what we say, that Men for their Vertue or Offices were held to be Gods. Out of all that we have said, it is evident that your Gods were Men, of [Page 58]whose Birth and Death we are certain.

S. Cyp. l. de Idolorum vanitate, begins the Book with these words, Deos non esse, quos co­lit vulgus, hinc notum est: Reges enim fuerunt, qui ob regalem memoriam coli apud suos, etiam in morte coeperunt. We may be sure those cannot be Gods, who are commonly ador'd as such, for they were Kings, who for their Royal Authority obtain­ed to be adored at their Death.

Arnobius l. 2. contra Gent. pag. 10. Vos hominem nullum colitis natum? non unum, aut ali­um? non innumeros alios? quinimo non omnes, quos jam in templis habetis vestris mortalium sustulistis ex numero & coelo, sideribusque donastis? Si enim for­tè vos fugit sortis eos fuisse humanae, & communis conditionis; replicate antiquissimas litteras, & eorum scripta percurrite, qui vetustati vicini, sine ullis at­testationibus cuncta veritate in liquida prodiderunt. Jam profectò discetis quibus singuli patribus, quibus matribus fuerint procreati, quâ in nati regione, quâ gente, quae fecerint, egerint, pertulerint. You re­proach to us, that we adore a man; And do you adore no one man? do not you adore many men? were not all your Gods men, who by your favour were raised up to Heaven, and placed among the stars? If you have forgotten this, turn to your ancient Writers, who will without flattery tell you that they were men, and ordinary men; thence you may learn their fathers, mothers, country, quality, gests, &c.

S. Chrysost. hom. 1. ad populum Antioch. The whole multitude, of the Pagan Gods, is made up of such men.

S. Hierom. l. 1. Comment. in O see cap. 2. Omnia idola ex mortuorum errore creverunt. All Idols were made out of dead men.

S. Austin spends a great part of his first Books De Civ. Dei. to confound the Pagan error, who adored either dead Men or living Devils. l. 8. c. 26. The Title of the Chapter is, Om­nis Religio Paganorum circa homines mortuos fuit impleta. The whole Religion of the Pagans was ta­ken up with the cult of dead men.

S. Cyril. lib. 6. contra Julianum. pag. 205. [...]. Which are the words of Sanconiathon; they may be thus Englished, The ancientest of the Grecians, and particularly the Phaenicians, and the Aegyptians (from whom the rest received it) thought those to be (not Heroes, not Secundary, and Underlings, but) THE GREATEST GODS, who had been beneficial to Mankind, and invented some useful things. Which words are the more to be no­ted, because they are of one of the most ancient of Pagan Writers, and consequently nearer to the time of the pretended Gods. But chiefly because they are cited, and approved by S. Cyril. l. 6. contra Jul. and by E. S. Orig. Sa­crae p. 32. So that in one Authority I give three Witnesses.

Julius Firmicus pag. 20. Ecce daemon est quem colis. It is the Devil whom you adore.

I conclude this proof with the words of Justin M. Apolog. 2. p. 56. where having said, that Socrates was persecuted by the Devils, whom the Athenians adored, for denying them to be Gods, as an Atheist; and that on that same score the Devils practised the like on the Christians in his time, giving them the same odious name. He adds, If Atheist signifies a man who denies the Gods of the Pagans, I own we are Atheists. But we do believe, says he, in the true God, Father of Justice, &c. Would he have said this, if he had been of E. S. his Opi­nion, that the Gods of the Pagans were the true God?

My Third Proof is taken from the Confes­sion of Pagans; for Sanconiathon the ancient­est of their writers, whose words you may find in S. Cyril. l. 1. contra Julianum pag. 205. And Mr. Stillingst. in his Origines Sacrae p. 32. He, I say, taught that even the greatest Gods had been Men. Add to this the Verse of Ovid Fastorum 4. speaking of Venus: ‘Illa Deos omnes (longum est enumerare) creavit.’

As saying all were born, as commonly men are.

Alexander in a particular book sent to his Mother, acquaints her, that he by threats had forced out of an Aegyptian Priest, this secret, that all the Gods (which he with the rest of the Pagans adored) had been men. This is cited [Page 61]by Athenagoras pag. 31. S. Cyp. l. de Idol. va­nit. and S. Augustin. l. 8. de Civ. Dei c. 27. who names the Priest, revealer of this Secret, Leo.

This is confirmed by all those, who name the several Countrys of their Gods, Jupiter of Crete, Mars of Thracia, Juno of Argos or Sa­mia, Diana of Taurica Chersonesus, Dercetus or Atergate a cruel and lascivious woman (Mo­ther to Semiramis) of Syria, Apollo, Venus, &c. of other Countries. What doth all this im­port, but that they were (in the Opinion of the Pagans) Men, born and buried as the rest? which Argument the Fathers commonly use. More shall be cited, when we come to speak of Jupiter in particular.

My Fourth Proof is taken from the Con­fessions of the Gods themselves, whom the Pagans adored. Tertul. Apolog. cap. 23. p. 26. Aedatur hic aliquis sub Tribunalibus vestris, quem a daemone agi constet, jussus a quolibet Chri­stiano loqui spiritus ille, tam se daemonem confite­bitur de vero, quàm alibi deum de falso. Aequê producatur aliquis ex iis, qui de Deo pati existi­mabantur, nisi se daemones confessi fuerint Christi­ano mentiri non audentes, ibidem illius Christiani procacissimi sanguinem fundite. Bring out before your Tribunals any Person evidently and certain­ly possessed by some Spirit, either habitually and permanently (such are called Energumens) or transiently (as those, who as they offer'd Sacri­fice, and did their Devotions to the Gods, were [Page 62]by them for a time possest) let a Christian com­mand that Spirit to speak the Truth, what he is, and if he doth not truly own himself to be a Divel (not being able to tell an untruth to such an Exorcist) al­tho in our absence he boasts of his being God, knock out that impudent Christian's brains.

Cyp. l. ad Demetrianum pag. 201. O si au­dire eos velles, & videre, quando a nobis adjuran­tur & torquentur spiritualibus flagris, & verborum tormentis de obsessis corporibus ejiciuntur, quando ejulantes & gementes voce humanâ & potestate di­vinâ flagella & verbera sentientes, venturum judi­cium confitentur, Veni, & cognosce vera esse quae di­cimus. Et quia sic Deos colere te dicis, vel ipsis, quos colis crede, aut si volueris, & tibi credere, de te ipso loquetur, audiente te, qui nunc pectus tuum obsedit, qui nunc mentem tuam ignorantiae nocte coecavit. Videbis nos rogari ab iis, quos tu rogas, timeri ab iis, quos tu adoras. Videbis sub manu nostrastare vin­ctos & tremere captivos, quos tu suspicis ac venera­ris ut Dominos. Certè vol sic confundi, in istis er­roribus tuis poteris quando conspexeris & audieris Deos tuos, quid sint, interrogatione nostrâ statim prodere, & praesentibus licet vobis, praestigias illas, & fallacias suaes, non posse celare. O that thou would­est but hear and see thy Gods, when by the spiritu­al torments of our Exorcisms, they are cast out of the Bodies they possest; when they are forced to ac­knowledge the judgment to come at the last day. Come to us and experience the Truth of what we say. And seeing thou adorest thy Gods, at least believe those, thou adorest, or if thou wilt believe thy self, [Page 63]we will force that same Spirit which obsesses thy bo­dy, and blinds thy Soul with Ignorance of Gods Truth, to speak the Truth to thee: thou shalt see those pray to us, to whom thou offerest thy Devo­tions, those to fear us, whom thou adorest. Thou shalt see those tremble as captives, chained by us, whom thou honorest as Lords. Certainly thou wilt be ashamed of thy Error, when thou hearest thy Gods themselves (when questioned by us) own what they are, even in your presence, as not able to conceal their cunning wiles and illusions.

And Minutius Felix in Octavio pag. 23. Haec omnia sciunt plerique, pars vestrum, ipsos daemones de semetipsis confiteri, quoties à nobis tor­mentis verborum, & orationis incendiis de corpori­bus exiguntur. Ipse Saturnus, & Serapis, & Jupi­ter, & quicquid daemonum colitis, victi dolore, quod sunt eloquuntur. Nec utique in turpitudinem sui, nonnullis praesertim vestrum assistentibus, mentiun­tur. Ipsis testibus esse eos daemones de se verum con­fitentibus credite; adjurati enim per Deum verum & solum, inviti, miseri, &c. Most Men, and even many of your own, know they are no better, then Di­vels, whom you adore. Your Gods Saturn, and Se­rapis, and Jupiter, have been adjur'd by the name of the true, and only God, and have been forced out of the bodies they possest and confessed themselves to be foul, and seducing Devils. And their Con­fession was to be supposed true, in point of Reason. For they that were adored as Gods, would never be­lie themselves into Devils to their own reproach, es­pecially in presence of them that worshipped them, [Page 64]were they not forced. Thus is that place Eng­lished by W. L.

Julius Firmicus pag. 20. Ecce daemon est quem colis, cùm Dei & Christi ejus nomen audierit, con­tremiscit. It is the Devil whom you adore, he trem­bles when he hears the Name of God, and of his Christ.

In my next Section I will cite Prudentius, who says the same in his Apotheosi. You may find in S. Austin, and other Fathers, several Reasons proving those Gods to be Divels, chiefly for their promoting Vice, by encou­raging Poets Fables, concerning those filthy Acts related to have been committed by them.

My Fifth Pooof is taken from the Testimony of Protestants themselves. The Author of the Whole Duty of Man, pag. 138. I need speak little of the Second Commandment, as it is a forbid­ding of that grosser sort of Heathenish Idolatry, the worshipping of Idols; which though it were once common in the World, yet it is now so rare, that it is not likely any that shall read this, shall be con­cerned in it. Could he have said this, had he not known the Practice of Papists to be far dif­ferent from those of Heathen Idolaters?

Vossius l. 1. de Idol. cap. 18. pag. 139. Omnes Gentium Dii fuerunt homines. All the Gods of the Pagans were Men. Godwin l. 4. Antiquit. c. 1. well deserving Men were reputed Gods.

Mr. Thomas Prat in his Epistile Dedicatory of the History of the Royal Society, having said, that Generals of Armies, and great Con­querors [Page 65]were by the Pagans esteemed Heroes, he adds, The Gods Antiquity worship'd with Tem­ples and Altars, were those who instructed the World to plow, to sow, to plant, to spin, to build houses, and to find out new Countrys.

M. G. B. in this very Book, p. 17. The herd (the comonalty of the Idolaters) did formally worship the Image: And p. 23. The Souls of de­ceased men were honored with divine honor.

I hope E. S. will not refuse the Testimony of his great Patriarch W. L. who in his Rela­tion p. 77. cites with great esteem of them, the words of Minutius Felix, and very judiciously observes, that it is not credible the true God should be forced out of his Possession; much less that he be constrained to utter a lie, and own himself to be a foul and seducing Devil. Can any man think, that God can denie him­self, to such a degree? Credat Judaeus Appella, non ego. I scarce wonder at the extravagant Opinions of the Pagans, seeing E. S. and G. B. can believe that. Were there not some other more powerful tye then only imaginary, or pretended Incredibility, I should hope to see both believe Transubstantiation, seeing they can believe, that God can deny himself, tell a lie, and profess himself a Divel. O Blasphemy!

But altho in a bad humor E. S. should re­fuse to subscribe to his quondam Primate, yet I can have recourse to a person very near un­to him, even his own dear self: for he, Ori­gines Sacrae l. 1. c. 2. p. 32. speaking of San­coniathon, [Page 66]says, That which of all seems clearest in this Theology, is the open owning the Original of Idolatry to have been from the Consecration of some eminent Persons after their Death who had found out some useful things for the world, whilst they were living, which the subtiller Greeks would not admit of; viz. That the Persons they worshipped were once men, which made them turn all into Allegories, and mystical Senses to blind that Idolatry they were guilty of the better amongst the Ignorant. And l. 3. c. 5. he says, that Sa­turn, Jupiter, Mercury, Neptune, Vulcan, Juno, Minerva, Ceres, Bacchus, and others had been Men and Women.

He could not have given a clearer and ful­ler testimony of the Truth of what we say, and the Falshood of what he delivers, than is contained in those two places. To what can we attribute this Change in E. S. that what was before the certain Position of Idolatry, should now be false, but to a desire to charge that hainous sin upon the Roman Catholic Church, which of it self falls to the ground, if Pagan Idolatry be rightly represented? Tantae molis erat, to make Rome seem Idolater in the eyes of his ignorant Admirers!

Philo Biblius had reason to blame those Al­legories, to which the subtiller Greeks had re­course, which made a clear new Religion, by changing the Object adored as God, from some man eminent for Power or Vertue, to Elements, much inferior to the least of men, or any li­ving [Page 67]Creatures; for this yielded the cause and condemned the whole Idolatrous World. So Minutius Felix in Octavio, pag. 16. Zenon in­terpretando Junonem Aëra, Jovem Coelum, Ne­ptunum mare, ignem esse Vulcanum, & caeteros si­militer vulgi Deos Elementa esse monstrando, pub­licum arguit graviter, & revincit errorem.

SECTION IV. That the Jupiter O. M. of the Greeks and Romans was not the True God.

MY first, and chief Proof, is taken from what is already said out of Holy Scri­pture, Fathers, Protestants and Pagans. For those universal Propositions contain all, and e­very God of Paganism. V. C. What are the Propositions of Scripture? All the Gods of the Gentiles are Divels. And, The Pagans sacrificed to Divels, not to God. What are the Proposi­tions of E. S. One God of the Pagans was the true God, and no Devil. Item, The sacrifices of the Pagans were offered to the true God, and not to the Divel. If the Logic of E. S. can reconcile with Truth two Contradictions, it is a rare one. Till he teach us how they can stand toge­ther, we will stick to the common received Axiom of Sophists, that both cannot be true: So one of those Propositions must be false, ei­ther that of Scripture, or that of E. S. now I desire him to declare whether he takes to be [Page 68]true, and whether the lyar: God or himself.

Again, Gal. 4.8. the Galatians knowing not God, served those who by nature were not Gods. Which are the words of the Apostle, and E. S. says, The Galatians knew Jupiter, and served him, who was the true God: Wherein he directly con­tradicts the Scripture.

The like Arguments might be brought from the Authority cited out of Fathers, Protestants and Pagans, who assuring universally, that all the Pagan Deities were raised from men, ex­clude all possibility of Jupiters being otherwise, he being one of them. Indeed no body ever re­proached the Catholic Roman Church, that it did not adore the true God, altho many preten­ded the Adoration of the Saints, to be like to that of the Pagan Idolaters adoring of their se­cundary Gods: why then should the Pagans be absolutely said not to adore the true God, if they did adore him, altho they joyned others in alike degree of worship with him? But seeing E. S. and G. B. pretend Jupiter to be the name of the true God blessed for evermore, amongst the Pagans, I will shew, that Jupiter, according to Fathers, Poets and Protestants, was a man, as well as the rest, and I will confirm all with E. S. his own Testimony.

My next Proof is taken from those, who con­found Jupiter with the rest of the Gods, Saturn, Neptune, Pluto, &c. as well as of the other Gods. We have heard Tertullian assure, that Saturn was the ancientest of their Gods, and that the [Page 69]rest ought their being to him, and thence infer­red, that he being a man, all the rest must have been so too. See also Lactan. Firm. who says, l. 1. c. 15. It is evident all the Gods were men. See Tertul. c. 10. p. 39. His words are cited above Sect. 3. note that Vossius l. 1 Idol. c. 18. p. 139. thinks this an invincible Argument, to prove that by Saturn the Pagans understood Adam. Now if Saturn was the ancientest of all the Pagan Gods, Jupiter who is one of them, is not ab aeterno, eternal, and consequently not the true God. See Minutius Felix p. 23. where Ju­piter is said to be cast out of a possest body, as well as Saturn and Serapis: as having nothing peculiar above the rest. W. L. indeed put an Emphasis upon his name, Jupiter himself, when he translates those words, which is not in the Author, at least as we have him, which shews only, that the Pagans had a greater veneration for Jupiter then for the rest; yet without taking him out of the number of those Heathen Gods, who were subject to Christian Exorcisms.

My Third Proof is from such Fathers who relate his Country, Birth and Death. Minutius Felix pag. 17. The Birth, Countreys and Sepul­chres of the Gods are shewn. Dictaei Jovis. Of Ju­piter on the mountain Dicte. S. Cyp. l. de Idol. vanit. p. 204. Antrum Jovis in Creta visitur & sepulchrum ejus ostenditur, & ab eo Saturnum fu­gatum esse manifestum est. You may see Jupiters cave in Candy, his Sepulcher is there shewn, and it is undeniable that he chased thence Saturn, his [Page 70]Father. Lactantius Firmianus l. 1. div. instit. cap. 11. p. 39. says this Epitaph was written on his Tombe, [...] Jupiter Satur­ni. S. Cyril of Alex. l. 10. contra Julianum p. 342. speaks of Jupiter's Tomb, and says that Pythagoras visited it, and writ upon it, this Epi­taph, [...]. Here lies Jupiter. And Porphyrius boggling about the Truth of this sto­ry which ruins the Divinity of his great God. S. Cyril adds, That Pythagoras had written the plain truth, that the greatest of the Pagan Gods was dead, and that his Countrymen the Cretans had built him a Tomb: [...]. Julius Firmicus p. 4. says that Jupiter was King of Candy or Crete, that Bacchus or Dyonisus was his unlaw­ful Son, whom in her husband's absence Juno caused to be killed by the Guards, who devour­ed his Body; but Minerva preserved his heart and presented it to his Father, at his return, &c.

Commodianus cap. 4. Saturnus rex erat in ter­ris, in monte natus Olympo. Non Divinus erat, sed Deum sese dicebat. Venit inops animi, lapidem pro filio sorpsit; sic Deus evasit, dicitur modo Ju­piter ille. Saturn was a king, who out of fear of his own children, devoured them; but one of them was saved, a stone in lieu of him being given to the Fa­ther, which he swallowed, so this infant grew up to be a God, and is called Jupiter.

My fourth Proof is from those Fathers, who absolutely refuse to acknowledge the Divinity of Jupiter. Origen. l. 1. contra Celsum p. 19. Assoon as we hear the name of Jupiter, we under­stand the son of Saturn and Ops, Juno's husband, Neptunes brother. And l. 5. p. 262. We will ra­ther endure any torments, than acknowledge Jupi­ter to be God. Lactantius Firmianus, called com­monly by the Fathers, The Christian Cicero, whom Photius judges to be the most learned and eloquent of his Age, and who for his capacity was chosen by the Emperour Constantine the great, to be Tutor to his Son Crispus. He I say, l. 1. Instit. Divin. cap. 11. p. 38. says, Jovem illum esse, qui ex Ope Saturnoque natus sit, negari non potest; vana igitur est persuasio eorum, qui nomen Jovis summo Deo tribuunt: solent enim quidam errores suos hac excusatione defendere, qui convicti de uno Deo, cùm id negare non possunt, ip­sum se colere affirmant; verum hoc sibi placere ut Jupiter nominetur. Quo quid absurdius? Jupiter enim sine contubernio conjugis filiaeque coli non solet, unde quid sit apparet, nec fas est id nomen transferri, ubi nec Minerva est ulla, nec Juno. It cannot be denied that Jupiter was born of Ops and Saturn; wherefore it is a vain or foolish persuasion, of those who would give the name of Jupiter to the supreme God. (Observe this Mr. E. S.) For some are wont in that manner to excuse their errors, when they had been convinced of one God, so as they could not con­tradict it, by saying that themselves adored him, and called him Jupiter. Than which what can be [Page 72]more absurd? Seing Jupiter is not worship'd with­out the partnership of his wife and daughter, whence it plainly appears, what this Jupiter is, and that the name ought not to be transferred thither, where there is no Minerva, nor Juno. Thus this learned Man, whose words are so clear, that if he were now alive, and intended to reject E. S. his new error, he could not do it more convincingly.

My Fifth Proof is taken from the Confessi­ons of the Jupiter himself, as you may see in Tertul. S. Cyprian, Julius Firmicus, and Minutius Fclix above cited, add to these Prudentius in Apotheosi.

—Torquetur Apollo
Nomine percussus Christi, nec fulmina verbi
Ferre potest, agitant miserum tot verbera linguae
Quod laudata Dei resonant miracula Christi,
Intonat Antistes Domini: fuge callide serpens,
Exue te membris, & spiras solve latentes.
Mancipium Christi, fur corruptissime, vexas?
Desine, Christus adest, humani corporis ultor:
Non licet ut spolium rapias, cui Christus inhaesit.
Pulsus abi, ventose liquor, Christus jubet, exi.
Has inter voces medias Cyllenius ardens
Ejulat, & notos suspirat Jupiter ignes.

Out of which Verses E. S. may learn, first the Form of our Exorcisms, which to this day are made after that manner, trampling the proud Spirit under our feet, with disdainful language.

E. S. may learn secondly the force of them, which by invisible stripes did scourge those pre­tended Gods, till they forced them out of their [Page 73]possession. Nec fulmina verbi ferre potest, agitant miserum tot verbera linguae, quod laudata Dei mi­racula resonant.

He may learn thirdly, that not only the les­ser Gods; but even Jupiter himself was subject to the whips and torments inflicted by our Exorcists.

My Sixth Proof is draw from the Opinion of the Pagans. See Natalis Comes l. 2. mythol. c. 1. and sequent. Where you find many cited. Lucian in Jove Tragaedo, says that Damis an A­theist, having objected to one who defended the Divinity of the Gods, that Jupiter the chief of them was dead, as also his sepulcher, which was extant, and a Pillar near it, testifying the truth of that death: Jupiter he says, grew pale, and dismayed hearing it, being conscious of the Truth, and that Truth tended to root up the Opinion of his Divinity.

My Seventh Proof is grounded on what the Fathers write of him, viz. 1st. That he was not a God. 2ly. But that he was a Man. 3ly. That he was a wicked man, subject to such vices, as would make any civil man blush. Justinus M. Paraen, pag. 2. shews him to have be­wayled like a woman the death of Sarpedon. His insatiable lust both after women and boys, is known to all; so is his Ambition, which shew­ed it self by his Rebellion against his own Fa­ther. Now how can the Fathers be excused from horrible Blasphemy, in accusing the Pa­gan Jupiter of these crimes, if he be the true God?

I conclude this Proof with an invincible Reason taken out of S. Austin l. 1. de consensu Evangelistarum. c. 26. None of all the Gods a­dored by Pagans, opposed the Adoration of any other. Diana and Minerva never express'd any dislike of men adoring of Venus and Pri­apus; Saturn was willing his rebellious Son Jupiter should be adored; Vulcan very quietly endured the company of Venus, his wanton Wife, and of Mars, whom he had found in fla­granti with her. And Jupiter never checked his daughter Venus, for those filthy faults, which would have made her unfit company for civil Men, or Women. Whence the Saint concludes them all, and Jupiter too, to have been Devils, who aimed only at the corruption of manners. This he confirms, from the Law of the true and living God, who forbad them all to be adored, commanded all their Statues to be pulled down, all their Rites, and Ceremonies, and Sacrifices to be abolished. By which, Satis ostendit illos fal­sos atque fallaces, & se esse verum ac veracem Deum, he convinces sufficiently that false Opi­nion newly broach'd by E. S.

My last Proof is taken from the Testimony of learned Protestants, who all acknowledged this Truth, till the desire of accusing Popery en­gaged E. S. in the contrary Opinion. We have seen W. L. naming Jupiter himself. Godwin. l. 4. Antiquitat. c. 2. says that Jupiter and Baal semen, which signifies the Lord of Heaven, is one and the same thing, viz. The Sun, as the Queen [Page 75]or Lady of Heaven, is the Moon. Vossius is of the same Opinion with us, that Jupiter was a Man. We have seen above that E. S. in his O­rigines Sacrae, says in general, that all Heathen Gods had been Men, and approved of Philo Bib­lius his Judgment, who blamed the subtiller Greeks turning all to Mythologies. Let us now see, what he says of the several Gods, and of Ju­piter himself in particular.

E. S. l. 3. Origin. Sacrar. c. 5. pag. 587. Jupiter who was the same with Cham, was call'd [...]: as Cham from Chamum, servere, incalescere, [...], says Herodotus, him whom the Greeks call [...], the Aegyptians called Cham, or Ammun rather. So Japhet, whose memory was preserved under Neptune, to whose portion the Islands in the Sea fell. And pag. 589. Vossius hath ta­ken a great deal of pains to digest in an hystorical manner the Stories of the several Jupiters, where­of he reckons two Argives, a third the Father of Hercules, a fourth a King of Phrygia, and two more of Creete, to one of which without any di­stinction the Actions of all the rest were ascribed and WHO WAS WORSHIPPED UNDER THE NAME OF JUPITER. And p. 594 As the Story of Saturn and Noah do much agree, so the three Sons of Noah, and those of Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto have their peculiar resemblances to each other. Of which Vossius and Bochartus have largely spoken, and we have touch­ed on already. Besides which this latter Author [Page 76]hath carry'd the parallel, lower, and finds Canaan the Son of Cham, the same with Mercury the Son of Jupiter. As tt was the curse of Canaan to be a Servant of Servants; so Mercury is al­ways described under servile Employments: his wings seem to be ships of the Phenicians, who were derived from Canaan; his being the God of Trade, notes the great Merchandise of the Phenicians and Mercuries thievery notes their piracies, or at least their subtilty and craft. He was the Father of Eloquence and Astronomy, as Letters and A­stronomy came from the Phenicians into Greece. This, and much more to the same purpose, may be found in that Chapter, in E. S.

By what strange Apotheosis did this change happen, that that same Person, who till the year of our Lord 1663 (when the Origines Sa­crae, were printed) was a gross body should by the Year 1676 become a pure Spirit? that the Son of Noah should be the Creator of Heaven, and Earth, and cursed Cham, be changed into God blessed for evermore? This Metamorphosis deserves a place in Ovids Poem, as well as any in the Pack. By what Art Magic was it made? By what Revelation was it made known to E. S. Here we have Dr. Stilling fleet against Dr. Stilling fleet: He now destroying what he then built, building what he then destroyed, making him­self evidently a Transgressor. Gal. 2.18. He took it unkindly of I. W. that accused him of contradicting himself, it may be, he will be offended with W. E. for the like fault, if it be [Page 77]one. But who can hinder Truth from offending, when it sets before a Man's eyes his own faults. Veritas odium parit, says the Comical Poet, viz. when it reprehends us, otherwise it is beloved, Veritatem lucentem diligunt, arguentem oderunt, says S. Aug. But let us consider some of his grounds, and those the chief ones for Deifying the cursed Cham, or the more accursed Divel, who took on him that name Jupiter.

E. S. pag. 34.35. and 36. Numa believed one supreme God, and he thought and ado­red Jupiter as such, seeing he appointed a Flamen Dialis, as the chief of all the rest, and erected a Capitol to Jove. He tells us, it was vowed by Tar­quinius Priscus, in the Sabin War, carried on by Servius Tullius: that Tarquinius Superbus was at vast charge about it. That it stood upon 800 foot of ground, was not finish'd, till after the Ex­pulsion of Tarquin, and was then dedicated with great Solemnity by Horatius Pulvillus, being both Consul and Pontifex. And from that time this was accounnted the great Seat of God and Re­ligion amongst them, it was Sedes Jovis, in Livy, Jovis summi Arx, in Ovid, Terrestre domicilium Jovis, in Cicero, Sedes Jovis, O. M. in Tacitus; and if any thing more (says he) can be added, it is only what Pliny saith in his Pa­negyrick, that God was as present there, as he was in Heaven. Thus he. Where had he told us the names of the Architect, and subordinate Officers and Workmen, the wages each of them received, in what money it was paid, [Page 78]and when, and where, and by whose hands. How many dogs accompanied their Masters to the Dedication, and what order was taken to prevent their playing or quarelling one with another, lest they should disturb the Devotion, and spoil the Feast; he had shew'd more read­ing, and added very much to the force of this Ar­gument, which for want of such fine erudite Ob­servations, will be found weak and insignificant.

For as to the Flamen Dialis, I grant that Fla­mines were their Chief or High-Priests designed for the Service of particular Gods (yet so as the Pontifex Maximus was above them which E. S. ought not to be ignorant of) as also that Jupiter was the chief God the Pagans adored, but the Authorities of Fathers force us to think them all no better than Men. S. Austin expres­ly says. l. 2. de Civit. Dei. c. 15. there were three Flamens, Dialis, Martialis and Quirinalis. Vives upon that place will teach us, that there were others afterwards instituted, as Pomonalis to Pomona, and another to Caesar, and to other lesser Deities; which later were of an inferior Order to the Three first. Now whence will E. S. draw his Assertion of Jupiter's being the true God? from the Officer Flamen? he must then say in a like manner, that Romulus, Pomo­na and Caesar were the true God, and not Men, seeing they had their Flamines too. Or was it, because he was Dialis? this is a begging the thing in question, and which is worst of all for E. S. S. Austin teacheth us, l. 2. de Civit. Dei [Page 79]c. 15. that that very Jupiter, to whose Ser­vice the Flamen D [...]lis was ordained, was the Son of Saturn, and brother to Pluto and Neptune.

From the Officer of the Capitol, we will ac­company E. S. to the Capitol it self, and learn what Stories that so costly Building will tell of the God adored in it: We will take S. Au­stin in our Company for a Guide. We shall find in it Jupiters Breast-Plate (Jovis Aegyda) says the Saint, l. 1 de Cons. Evang. c. 23. we shall find the Goat Amalthea who had suckled and nurst him in his Infancy, says S. Austin l. 6. de Civ. Dei. c. 7. Whence as well as St. Au­stin I propose a Question: Quid de Jove sense­runt, qui ejus nutricem in Capitolio posuerunt? What Opinion had they of Jupiter, who placed his Nurse in the Capitol? We shall find Juno and Miner­va Wife and Daughter to Jupiter. Lastly, (but that we come too late) we should have seen in their sacred Rites, a Representation of the Life and Death of the God Jupiter. S. Au­stin, l. 1. de Cons. Evang. c. 23. Varo dicit Deorum sacra ex cujusque eo rum vitâ vel morte, quâ inter homines vixerunt vel obierunt, esse compo­sita. Had E. S. been wise, he should rather have diverted us from the Capitol, for it was to that great Building, that S. Austin appealed, being to confute some Philosophers, who, (just as E. S.) said Jupiter was the true God. Numquid & Capitolia Romanorum, opera sunt Poëtarum: says he loc. cit. Quid sibi vult ista non Poëtica; sed planè Mimica varietas, Deos secundùm Phi­losophos [Page 80]in libris quaerere, secundùm Poëtas in templis adorare. Was the Capitol built by Poets, in which there are so many signs of Jupiter's having been a Man? What Changlings are you Pagans, who seek your Gods with the Philosophers, and adore them with the Poets

Now to the Titles and Attributes of this God: Optimus, Maximus, Coeli Rex, Deûm Pater atque hominum Rex, Jovis omnia plena. Which E. S. alledgeth pag. 36. and p. 44. he addeth the Authority of S. Austin l. 4. de Civ. Dei cap. 9. that to represent his Authority, they placed a Scepter in his hand, and built his Temple on a high hill. Answer. If E. S. had read on the follow­ing Chapter in S. Austin (l. 4. de Civ. Dei c. 10.) he would have seen Proofs, that Jovis om­nia plena, was spoken by Virgil of the Son of Saturn, and that according to their own Dogms, that Saying was false. He will find the like l. de Consensu Evangel. c. 23. Arnobius l. 1. p. 9. Answers the Pagans, who alledged the Argument in this Nature: Dissimilia copulare, atque in unam speciem cogere, inducta confusione conamini. You endeavour to joyn things as distant as Heaven and Earth, Eternity and Time; for God had no beginning, nor cause: Your Jupiter had a Father and Mother, Grand-fathers and Grand-mothers, and Brothers: Nunc nuper in ute­ro matris formatus, he was but lately conceived in his mothers womb. And Lactantius Firmianus l. c. 11. p. 33, Regnare in Coelo Jovem Vulgus existimat; id & doctis pariter & indoctis per­suasum [Page 81]est, quod & Religio ipsa, & Precationes, & Hymni, & Delubra, & Simulachra demonstrant; cundem tamen Satarno & Rheâ genitum confiten­tur. Quomodo potest Deus videri, aut (ut ait Po­ëta) hominum rerumque repertor, ante cujus ortum infinita hominum millia fuerunt? All Pagans both learned and unlearned, are persuaded, that Jupi­ter reigns in Heaven. Their Religion, and Service, and Temples testifie this; yet the same persons pro­fess, that be was the Son of Saturn and Rhea. Which two Points of their Faith are inconsistent; for how could Jupiter be the Founder of all men, seeing ma­ny thousands of men had been before he was born or conceived? When E. S. shall have considered this, he will think his calling T. G. S. Opinion wild, and absurd, very rash, ungrounded and im­pertinent.

Objection: How could such contradictions be admitted by wise men; for such were the Romans and Greeks? especially considering, as E. S. says p. 39. The Romans had an ancient law which forbad the Poetical Fables? Answer. This is to rely on Reason in matter of fact, against clear Testimonies of Antiquity. If there was such a Law, it was very ill kept, as many others are. No Authors more exactly observant of Deco­rum, than Cicero and Virgil: to which we may add, it may be Terence, as exceeding all Latins in Dramatical Poems. Cicero cited by S. Au­stin l. 1. de cons. Evang. c. 23. in Tuscul. qq. l. 1. says, Si scrutari vetera & ex iis, quae Scriptores Graeciae prodiderunt, eruere coner, ipsi [Page 82]illi Majorum Gentium Dii qui habentur, hinc à nobis profecti in coelum reperiuntur. Quaere quorum demonstrantur sepulchra in Graecia: reminiscere, quoniam es initiatus, quae traduntur Mysteriis, tum denique, quàm hoc latè pateat intelliges. If we look over our ancient Records, if we consult what Greek Authors deliver, we shall find, that even the Prime Gods, from Earth past to Heaven. Examin whose Sepulchres are shewn in Greece: Call to mind, seeing you are initiated, what our Rites express, and you will find how far this Principle goes. Again, Qui hanc Ʋrbem condidit, Romulum ad Deos immor­tales benevolentiâ famâque sustulimus. The Foun­der of this city Romulus, owes his being a God to our good wills. As if it were in weak Men's pow­er to raise Men to Heaven, change them into stars, and place them amongst the Gods!

And Virgil l. 4. Georgicor. speaks as follow­eth:

—Naturas apibus quas Jupiter ipse
Addidit, expediam: pro quâ mercede canoros
Curetum sonitus, crepitantiaque aera seeatae
Dictaeo coeli Regem pavere sub antro.

Which are thus Englished by Ogilby.

Now Ile declare those gifts which were conferr'd
On Bees by Jove himself for what Reward,
They followed tinkling Brass and Curets sound
And fed the King of Heaven under ground.

As if that Jupiter had bestowed their Nature on the Bees, to whom he was beholding for his Food during his Infancy, and who was many A­ges younger than they.

And Terence in Eunucho, charges the Rape of Danae on the true God of Heaven. At quem Deum? qui templa caeli summa sonitu concutit. That God which shakes the starry vault of the Heavens, with Thunder. Those who desire more Examples of those Extravagances, may read Athenagoras pag. 20. Justinus M. or any of the other Fa­thers, who have written against the Pagans. They will find many causes to dread the Judg­ment of God executed on those Men so wise in all other things; but struck with blindness in this main Point, very deservedly, for their in­gratitude to God, whom they knew; but did not glorifie him as God, neither were thankful, but be­came vain in their Imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkned.

SECTION V. Whether all, or the greatest part of the Pagans be­lieved the one true God?

OUR Dispute is not of the first beginners and planters of Idolatry; but of those who lived at, and since the time of Christ, till Christianity prevailed.

I do not doubt at all, but God, when he crea­ted Man, endowed him with all Knowledge ne­cessary for the end, for which he created him: and certainly that of his Creator was as neces­sary as any, seeing upon it was grounded his Obligation to serve God, by fulfilling his Will [Page 84]and obeying his Commands.

It is, I think no less certain, that all and every Soul, at its Creation, receives an Idea of God and that so deeply imprinted in it, that no ig­norance, no want of Education, no bad Instru­ction, can wear it out, or entirely deface it. Hence it is, that altho several barbarous Na­tions adore, as Gods, things which are not God, (as hath been seen of the Pagans,) yet there ne­ver were any without some Object of Adora­tion, which they thought to be God. Yet Rea­son left to it self, and taking the freedom of Discourse about it, will cover it with Errors, which may darken its lineaments without de­stroying it; as Rubbish thrown upon an excel­lent Statue, will hide its Beauty from the Spe­ctators eye, altho it never alters the situation of its parts, nor destroys their proportion. One great Advantage we have by Faith, is that it fixeth in our Souls a right Idea of God, and ex­cludes those Imaginations which are inconsi­stent with it. The whole created World is left to the Disputations of Men's hearts ( Ec­cles. 3.11.) for the Exercise of their Intelle­ctuals, in which they are often mistaken (for they shall not find out the work, that God maketh from the beginning to the end.) yet their Errors are without prejudice to the main chance, their Salvation; as long as they contain themselves within their Bounds, nor endeavour to know more of God, then they should, or have learnt of him, nor labour to measure Immensity with a [Page 85] Span. Otherwise by lamentable Experience they will find the Truth of those words, Scrutator Majestatis opprimetur à gloria. Of which we have as many Examples, as Philosophers, who attem­pted it. The wisest of them all in this was, Si­monides, who said ingenuously to Hero, that the more he studied it, the less he understood of it. Hence S. Austin l. 8. de Trinit. c. 2. having said that God is Truth, gives us warning to stick in the thought of that Term: Noli quae­rere quid sit veritas, statim enim se opponent caligi­nes imaginum corporalium, & nubila phantasma­tum, & perturbabunt serenitatem, quae primo ictu illuxit tibi, cùm dicerem Veritas. Ecce in primo ictu quo velut coruscatione perstringeris, cum dicitur ve­ritas, mane si potes, sed non potes. Relaberis in ista solita atque terrena. When I say, Truth, examin not what it is I mean, otherwise mists of Phancies and clouds of corporeal Images will interpose and be­reave you of the light that appeared at first: stop, if possible in the first glimpse of the light: but you can­not do it, for you always slide into other thoughts. And the following Chapter he discourses in a like manner of the Thought of Good. Bonum hoc, & bonum illud. Tolle hoc & illud, & vide ipsum bonum, si potes, ita Deum videbis, non alio bono bonum; sed bonum omnis boni. Speak not of this good, or that good: take away this, and that and see, if possible, goodness it self and you will see God, not good by any other goodness distinct from him; but the goodness of all good things. Thus whither we conceive God, as the prime Truth, [Page 86]or as the sovereign good, our first Thoughts are Orthodox; as coming from God the Author of Nature, and our misery proceeds from our not stopping in them.

This was the reason why Tertullian l. de Testim. animae c. 1. being desirous to shew, for the Satisfaction of the Pagans, that natural I­mage of one God, which all Souls ever had, exa­mins only such a Soul, as retains its native sim­plicity, without any adscitious knowledge. Non eam te advoco, saith he, quae scholis formata, bib­liothecis exercitata, Academicis & Porticibus par­tam sapientiam ructas. Te simplicem & rudem, & impolitam, & idioticam compello, qualem habent, qui te solam habent illam ipsam de compito, & tri­vio, de textrino totam. Imperitiâ tuâ mihi opus est, quoniam aliquantulae peritiae tuae nemo credit. Ea ex­postulo, quae tecum in hominem infers, quae aut ex temetipsa, aut ex quocumque Authore tuo didicisti. I would not have thee O Soul, framed in Schools, con­versant in Libraries, filled with the Learning of the Platonicks or Stoicks, I desire thee rude, simple, impolish'd, and an idiot, such as thou art in the poorest and meanest Artisan. I have need of thy Ignorance, for thy learning is suspected. I would know what sentiments thou broughtest with thee into thy body, whether thou hadst them of thy self, or receiv­edst them of thy Creator. He says the same in sub­stance in his Apologetick cap. 17. p. 43. and 48. only he extends this Testimony of the unlearned, to the learned Soul, in sudden occurrences, when acquired Learning is useless, and nature alone [Page 87]worketh. And he gives another reason, why our Understanding retains not as it should do, the first Idea of God: the greatness of the ob­ject, surpassing its capacity. Deum vis magnitu­dinis & notum hominibus objecit, & ignotum. Which you may likewise find in S. Cyp. de Idol. van. p. 206.

Out of what I have said, you may see, that our question is not, whether we have all a na­tural Opinion of one God? But whither the Re­ligion of the Pagans did teach, that there was but one God? or whether the Unity of God was a principle of their Religion, and an Article of their Faith?

Our Answer to this Question; is negative: So that we say Polytheism was an essential Point of Paganism, and one main Question debated betwixt Christians and Pagans, was whither there was only one God? This I gather first out of Scripture. Psal. 75. (or 76.) Notus in Ju­dea Deus, & in Israel magnum nomen ejus. In Ju­dah God is known, and his name is great in Israel. As if out of the people of Israel he had not been known. S. Hierom says that is to be understood before the Cross of Christ had lightned the world. Antequam illuminaret Crux mundum, & antequam videretur Dominus in terra: quando autem venit Salvator, in omnem terram exivit sonus eorum. But when our B. Savior came, the name of God was spread to the extremities of the Earth, amongst the Believers or Christians.

And S. Austin. Solent inimici Domini Jesu Christi omnibus noti Judaei gloriari in isto Psalmo, quem cantavimus, dicentes: Notus in Judea Deus, & insultare gentibus quibus non est notus Deus, & dicere quia sibi solis notus est Deus, alibi ergo igno­tus. Notus est autem revera in Judaea Deus, si in­telligant quid sit Judea. Nam verè non est notus Deus, nisi in Judaea. Ecce & hoc nos dicimus, The known Enemies of our Lord Jesus Christ, glory in this Psalm and insult over the Gentiles, saying, that God is known to them, the Jews, wherefore he must be unknown to the Nations. Now we grant that God is known only to Jews or in Jewry. And then he shews that the Christians Circumcision of the Heart and Spirit (of which Rom. 2.29.) doth entitle them to the Knowledge of God, restrained in that Psalm to Juda.

Secondly, out of Testimony of the Pagan Gods, taken out S. Cyril of Alexan. lib. 5. contra Julianum, pag. 108. where he says: [...].

[...]

[...].

The Doctrin of the Hebrews is confirmed by the Testimony of Julian's Gods: Apollo being consulted, what Nations were the wisest? The Oracle answe­red: [Page 89]The Chaldaeans, for Philosophy, or natural Learning, but the Jews (who adore only one God and King) for Divinity. As the Poliglot paraphra­ses the Oracles sense, Prolog. 12. pag. 82. This Oracle is also cited by Justinus M. Pa­raen p. 23. and Theodoret l. 1. de curan. Graec. Affect. pag. 472. where he brings Porphyrius owning the Oracle.

Thirdly out of Fathers. We cannot desire a better witness of the Sentiments of the Pagans, and the Point disputed betwixt them and Chri­stians, than Tertullian, who very probably had been one himself, at least had convers'd with their Persons, and Writings: what I cite here out of him, is the more to be valued, because S. Cyprian uses the same Argument, lib. de Idol. vanit. pag. 207. Now Tertullian, lib. de testi­monio animae c. 2. Non placemus, Dominum prae­dicantes hoc nomine unico unicum, à quo omnia, & sub quo universa. Dic testimonium si ita scis. Nam te quoque palam, & totâ libertate, quâ non licet nobis, domi ac foris audimus ita pronunciare, quod Deus dederit, & si Deue voluerit: eâ voce, & aliquem esse significas, & omnem illi confiteris potestatem, ad cujus spectas voluntatem, simul & caeteros negas Deos esse, dum suis vocabulis nuncu­pas Saturnum Jovem. Nam solum Deum confir­mas, quem tantùm Deum nominas, ut & cùm illos interdum Deos appellas, & alieno & quasi pro mu­tuo usa videaris. The Pagans are displeased with us, when we preach one Lord, from whom are all things, to whom are all subject. Speak O Soul, what [Page 90]thou knowest of this, speak boldy with that freedom which is granted to thee, tho denied to us. Thou sayest, God grant it, if it please God: by which words thou expressest some one, and acknowledgest, that he hath all power, and denies those to be Gods, whom thou designest by their Names, Saturn, Ju­piter, Mars, &c. For thou professest to believe one whom thou callest God of thy self; and when thou givest that name to others, thou usest borrowed no­tions.

Again Apolog. 17. pag. 47. Quod colimus, Deus unus est. This is the Christian Position a­gainst Pagans, We adore only one God. And p. 48. Vultis ex operibus ipsius, vultis ex animae ipsius te­stimonio, comprobemus: quae licet carcere corporis pressa, licet institutionibus pravis circumscripta, licet libidinibus & concupiscentiis evigorata, licet Diis falsis exancillata, cum tamen resipiscit, ut ex crapula, ut ex somno, ut ex aliqua valetudine, & sanitatem suam patitur, Deum nominat hoc solo, quia propriè verus hic unus, Deus bonus & magnus. Et quod Deus dederit, Judicem quoque illum con­testatur, Deus videt, Deo commendo, & Deus mihi reddet. Shall I prove this one God out of his works, or out of the testimony of man's Soul? which altho it be shut up in the prison of the Body, spoiled by bad Instructions, weakned by concupiscence, and ensla­ved to false Gods, yet if she come to her self, she professes one God, great and good, she calls him to witness, saying, God knows, I leave it to God. Then Tertullian concludes with this Exclama­tion, O testimonium animae naturaliter Christianae. [Page 91]O testimony of a Soul, which is Christian by na­ture! Now I desire to know of E. S. how he could inferr the Soul naturally to be Christian, because naturally it owned one only God, if this were not the main point controverted? will he say, I am a Protestant because I profess to believe one God, as Protestants do? or shall I ever think E. S. a Papist, for saying he believes in Christ. No certainly, those being Points in which both parties agree. Tertullian's great wit would never be so easily surpriz'd with hopes of a Proselyte, if what E. S. says be true, that both contending Parties agreed in profes­sing one God.

The same Reason might be brought out of Minutius Felix, who says pag. 14. Audio vul­gus cùm ad coelum manus tendunt, nihil aliud quam Deum dicunt; & Deus magnus est. Vulgi iste na­turalis sermo est, an Christiani confitentis oratio? I hear the People call upon God. (naming only one) Are these words the speech of Pagan, or the Confession of Faith of a Christian.

Here methinks, I see E. S. triumphing, as finding what destroys my Conclusion, in the foregoing words: which shew that all the peo­ple believed one God. But I answer, that all exprest that belief in their indeliberat Actions, and deliberately acted contrary: and for that reason were [...] condemned by their own judgment. Let us hear Tertullian l. de testim. animae c. 6. p. 126. Meritò igitur omnis anima rea & testis est, in tantùm rea erroris, in quantùm [Page 92]testis veritatis, & stabit ante aulas Dei in die judi­cii, nihil habens dicere. Deum praedicabas, & non requirebas, damonia abominabaris, & illa adora­bas. Judicium Dei appellabas, nec esse credebas: Inferna supplicia praesumebas, & non praecavebas: Christianum nomen sapiebas, & Christianum perse­quebaris. Wherefore every Soul is deservedly guil­ty, and witness against herself the more guilty of her error, because she is witness of the Truth: she will in the day of Judgment, stand before the Tri­bunal of God, and have not one word to say for her self, when it shall be reproach'd to her: Thou didst speak of God, and didst not seek him: Thou hatedst the Devil, and didst adore him: Thou didst ap­peal to Gods judgment, without believing it: Thou didst speak of the pains of Hell, without endeavour­ing to avoid it: Thou hadst in thy hear that great Christian Truth, That there is but one God; yet thou didst persecute Christians, for professing it.

Commonly the Fathers labor to prove the Unity of a God, against the Pagans, so doth Ju­stinus M. Athenagoras, Minutius Felix, S, Cyril, and others. To what purpose that, if all be­lieved it? Origen. l. 1. contra Cels. p. 5. re­duces the Disputes against Pagans, to two heads, Idols and Politheism.

I end with Lactantius Firmianus l. 1. divin. instit. c. 1. pag. 8. says to Constantin the Great, Tu primus Romanorum Principum, repudiatis er­roribus majestatem Dei singularis ac veri, & cog­novisti, & honorasti. Thou art the first of all the Roman Emperors who adored the only true God. [Page 93]How could Constantin have been the first, if all other Emperors, had adored the only true God, before him?

Yet I desire E. S. to answer one or two Questions: If all the Understanding Men a­mongst the Pagans believed One God, how came Socrates to be condemned for that Opinion by the Areopagites? Why did Plato fear the same Fate, and for that Reason deliver his Senti­ments so obscurely, about that One God?

There occurrs to me one only tolerable Ob­jection, against what I here assert: viz. That Faustus the Manichaean reproaches to Christians, That they received the Opinion of Monarchy (that is the Belief of one God) from the Pa­gans: whence it follows, that the Pagans believ­ed but one God. To which I answer 1. It is certain we received that Dogme, not from Pa­gans; but from God: So Faustus is most certain­ly mistaken in that. And why may not we sus­pect his Testimony, as to the other part of the Opinion of Pagans, concerning one God? I an­swer 2. with S. Austin. l. 20. contra Faust. c. 19. That the Pagans were not to such a de­gree blinded with their false Gods, and true Devils Arts, as to have entirely lost the Image of one true God, received at their Creation: tho for their Ingratitude to their Creator, they were permitted to fall to the Adoration of the Creatures, Idols and Devils. Thus S. Austin. Cer­tainly their Wise Men through the mist of pom­pous Ceremonies could see the Fondness of Men, [Page 94]that invented them, and the wickedness of Devils, who promoted them.

Nay I willingly grant, that all learned Pa­gans blamed the Poetical Fables of their Gods. I acknowledge with Tertullian Apolog. c. 46. pag. 75. That the Philosophers impugned them, and were for this applauded, and honored by the rest. Yet after all this, what those same Philosophers taught concerning the God, is pi­tiful and worse; as you may see in Tertul. Ju­stinus M. and Athenagoras. The Epicureans fan­cied him fondly, as if they designed to make him ridiculous. Deos jocandi causâ induxit Epi­curus pellucidos atque perflatiles. Cicero Tuscul. qq. 5. (See Seneca l. 4. de Beneficiis. c. 19) The Stoicks promise, to make their wise Man as hap­py as the Gods, ( Philosophia mihi promittit, ut me parem Deo faciat, Seneca Epist. 49.) does not so much raise him, as abase them. Yet in reali­ty that Similitude, which they promis'd, was no great perfection or advantage, seeing they thought the whole World to be God. Quid est Deus? said Seneca l. 1. natur. qq. quod vides totum, & quod non vides. All things visible and invisible are God. And Origines l. 5. contra Cel­sum p. 235. says the Stoicks thought the World to be the first God: The Platonists allowed it to be the second God: and some others pulled it it down to the third rank. The Platonicians are thought to have written the most divinely of the Divinity: yet if we credit Tertul­lian Apolog. c. 47. they gave it a Body. Ari­stotle [Page 95]the most exact in other things of all Phi­losophers, nails God to the highest Heaven, l. 8. Physic. c. 10. t. 84. And altho he had the disposal of Superlunary Bodies, yet all Sublu­nary things were out of his reach and jurisdi­ction, being subject to Fate, as Theodoret. l. 5. de cur. Graec. Affection. p. 551. and elsewhere assures. Nay Aristotle seems to own no know­ledge in God: For l. 2. Magnor. moral. 15. p. 193. he says, God knows nothing distinct from himself, otherwise that thing would be better than God: Neither doth he know him­self; for we think those rave, or are mad, who en­tertain their thoughts about themselves. What shall I say of his Intelligences? which whilest he makes necessary Beings, self-existent, endow­ed with infinite power, &c. he seems to Deifie.

Which I do not relate, with any intention to insult over those great Men, for their Er­rors Hieron l. de erroribus Orig. Absit eorum insulta­re erroribus, quorum miror ingenia. whose Wits I ad­mire, and whose Labors have been very beneficial even to me; but only to shew E. S. and the learned person, (whose works pag. 6. he promises or threatens us with) what little solid Truth concerning the Divinity is to be found in Pagans Writings: to the end we may glorifie the one great God, who with his one Divine Word made Flesh, confuted all the others long discourses and voluminous errors: To the end we may be thankful to the Father of Lights, for having given us his saving Truth, [Page 96]and freed us from those dark Wandrings and intricate Labyrinths, of humane Wits.

SECTION. VI. Of the unknown God at Athens.

THe greatest difficulty (against what I have said, Sect. 4. about the Pagan Jupiter, not being the true God, but first a Man, and then a Divel (is taken from Act. 17.23. I found an Altar, says the B. Apostle, with this Inscription, TO THE ƲNKNOWN GOD, whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him I declare unto you. This E. S. pretends to be meant of Jupi­ter, and confirms it very artificially out of A­ratus, out of whom S. Paul cites some pieces of Verses. And S. Paul saying he preach'd him, it will follow that he preach'd Jupiter, and so Jupiter must be a name of the true God: for certainly S. Paul never preach'd any other. Thus E. S. p. 7.

How his learned Adversary T. G. hath ma­naged this debated Point, I cannot tell; but doubtless his works, if I had them, would give me great light. And what I say, I shall willing­ly reform according to his, in case it may be materially different.

I think it certain, that the unknown God, was not Jupiter. To prove this, I may bring all those Authors, Pagans and Christians, who speak of the occasion of dedicating this Altar. Again [Page 97] Jupiter could not be said, to be an unknown God in Athens; for they knew his Country, his Birth, his Life and Death, his Sepulcher, his Gests, his Parents, &c. Their Theaters, their Tribu­nals, their Temples, did ring with his Name. Thirdly they had Altars erected to his honor, in their Forum, their Corners-of-Streets, and even in their private houses; whereas there was only one Altar erected to this unknown God. Fourthly had S. Paul declared Jupiter to them, he would at least en passant, have reje­cted those absurd Fables, which were told of him: Of his Birth and Death, of his Rebel­lion and filthy Lust, &c. (which are much more unbeseeming a God, as being more dan­gerous to mortality than the things the Apostle speaks of.) At which the Apostle doth not hint in the least manner.

Hence it followeth, that S. Paul did not preach Jupiter; this is evident of what I have said, and the Apostles words, Quem ignorantes colitis hunc ego annuncio. Whom you ignorantly worship, him I declare. So that he speaks clear­ly of the unknown God, who was not Jupiter.

What shall we then say to Aratus, who clearly speaks of Jupiter? Answer. What he said of God was true, and conformable to that natural Idea, which as is abovesaid, we all have of God; but he erroniously applied to Jupiter, the Arch divel. Now S. Paul takes his thoughts which were true, and applies them to that self existent Being, to whom alone they belong: [Page 98]as if a Crown by Rebells set upon a Subjects Head, should be taken off it, and set on the Kings, to whom of right it belongs.

Where, by the by, we may take notice of a gross Error of Seneca, who says, it is as good to have no thought at all, as an erroneous one of God: Quid interest Deum neges, an infames? God out of his goodness to Man hath given him that Idea of himself, which being preser­ved altho defaced with Errors, yet will help to correct them when we make a right use of our Reason. As the statue (of which I spoke in the Fifth Sect.) laid in the dirt, may be taken up, brush'd and wash'd, so as to be restored to its first Beauty. Thus S. Austin convinced him­self, that the Manichaean Heresie could not be true. Thus the Philosophers saw the Falshood of their Pagan Religion.

I pray God many others, who at this pre­sent hold Errors in Religion, may so use their Reason as to overcome them.

A Conclusion of this Treatise.

To conclude this whole Treatise, we will use two or three Passages of Tertullian, to confirm, what we have hitherto said. Imprimis c. 11. p. 40. Sicut Deus vestros homines fuisse non au­detis negare, ita post mortem, Deos factos, insti­tuistis asseverare. Seeing you dare not deny your Gods to have been men, you resolve to stand to their having been made Gods after their Death. [Page 99] And to Jupiter in particular he applies that gene­ral Assertion, pag. 41. Vani erant homines, nisi certi sint ipsum Jovem quae in manu ejus imponitis fulmina timuisse. Men are very foolish, if they doubt of Jupiters having feared the thunderbolts which you put into his hands. What thinks E. S. was not Jupiter a Man in Tertullian's Opi­nion?

Again Tertul. l. de Idololatria c. 21. Scio quen­dam, cui Dominus ignoscat, cùm illi in publico per litem dictum esset, Jupiter tibi sit iratus; respon­disse, imo tibi. Quid aliter fecisset Ethnicus, qui Jovem Deum credidit? Confirmavit Jovem Deum, per quem se maledictum indigne tulisse demonstrae­vit remaledicens. At quid enim indigneris, per eum, quem scis NIHIL esse? I know one, (whom God forgive) who when one wrangling with him had said: The wrath or curse of Jupiter fall upon thee, answered, upon thee rather. Would a Pagan have answered otherwise, who believed Jupiter to be God? He seemed to acknowledge his Divinity, when he shewed himself so concern'd for the impre­cation of his wrath. For why should he trouble him­self for his anger; whom he knows to be NO­THING? Moreover lib. de resurrectione car­nis cap. 6. pag. 568. Phidiae manus Jovem Olym­pium ex ebore molitur, & adoratur: nec jam be­stiae, & quidem insulsissimae dens est; sed summum saeculi numen: non quia elephas, sed quia Phidias tantus. Ʋt honestius homo Deum, quàm Deus ho­minem finxerit. Phidias the Sculptor out of pieces of Ivory makes a Statue of Jupiter Olympius; [Page 100]And it is presently adored: and it is no more re­garded as the tooth of a most silly beast; but as the supream GOD. As if Man produced a more noble work than God: for God only made a mi­serable Creature, and Man makes a god.

In his Apology cap. 12. p. 42. Quantùm igi­tur de diis vestris, nomina solummodo video quorun­dam veterum mortuorum, & fabulas audio, & sa­cra de fabulis recognosco. Quantum autem de simu­lachris ipsis, nihil aliud deprehendo, quàm materias sorores esse vasculorum communium, vel ex iisdem vasculis: Quasi fatum consecratione mutantes, licentiâ artis transfigurante, in ipso opere sacrilegè, ut revera nobis maximè, qui propter deos ipsos ple­ctimur, solatium poenarum esse possit, quod eadem & ipsi patiantur, ut fiant. Crucibus & stipitibus impo­nitis Christianos: quod simulachrum non prius ar­gilla deformat cruci & stipiti superstructa? In pati­bulo primum corpus dei vestri dedicatur. Ʋngulis de­raditis latera Christianorum: at in deos vestros per omnia membra validius incumbunt asciae & runcinae & scobinae. Cervices ponimus ante plumbum & gluti­num, & gomphos: sine capite sunt dii vestri. Ad bestias impellimur, certè quas Libero, & Cybele, & Cereri applicatis. Ignibus urimur: hoc & illi a pri­ma quidem massa. In metalla damnamur: inde cen­sentur dii vestri. In insulis relegamur: solet & in insulis aliquis deus vester aut nasci, aut mori. Si per haec constet Divinitas aliqua, ergo qui puniun­tur, consecrantur, & numina erunt dicenda suppli­cia. Sed planè non sentiunt has injurias, & contu­melias suae fabricationis dii vestri, sicut nec obsequia, [Page 101]&c. As for your Gods, I see nothing, but the names of some Men dead long since: I hear many Fables, and can discern them in your sacred Rites. As for your Idols, they are composed of the same matter, of which are our most ordinary vessels, nay sometimes our vessels are turned into them being changed by the sacrilegious working of a Statuary. And it might be a comfort in our torments to us, that we undergo only the same operations, which they are subjected too, to become Gods. Are we raised on a Cross? your Gods are set on them, to be shaped. Do you rake our sides with iron hookes? your Gods are more roughly carved by an ax, a chizel, a plain­er. Do you cast us into the fire? In that your Gods are melted to be cast into their mould. Are we sentenced to the mines? Thence your Gods are drawn. Are we banish'd to the Islands? In those many of your Gods are born, or dead. They are as insensible of the rough Workman, as of your ceremonious rites. Do we not therefore rather deserve Commendation, than punishment, for discovering and rejecting so gross an error, as it is, to take for God, what is no­thing but a liveless creature, as every spider, and other insect doth perceive?

When E. S. hath considered this, I shall de­sire of him to know whether it be not evident hence. 1. That the Idols of the Pagans were by them held to be gods? 2. Whether those gods had not been men?

I must beg thy Pardon, courteous Reader, for abusing thy patience with this long digres­sion: I will, God willing, make amends, by be­ing [Page 102]short in my following Reflections, on my good friend, Mr. Burnet. So I take my leave of E. S. till our next meeting.

CHAP. VIII. What G. B. says, to prove Catholics Ido­laters.

G. B. p. 15. ‘ONE Idolatry of the Gentiles was when the true God was wor­shipped in a false manner.’

Answer. This is not true; for the Turks and Jews worship God in a false manner, yet are not Idolaters.

G. B. p. 16. ‘It is Idolatry, to erect an I­mage to represent the Deity to our Senses, and adore God thro' it.’

Answer. Were all Idolaters, who have some­thing to mind their Senses of the Divinity, Protestants were such, who have words to signifie him to the ear, and a triangular figure, with the tetragrammaton for our eyes. And as for the worship of him thro' those, no rela­tive worship can be Idolatry. Thus we shew respect to the Bible, as being Gods word: to the Sacraments as instituted by him to sancti­fie us: to holy Men, as being the living tem­ples of the Holy Ghost, &c. without Idolatry, because the motive is God, and the worship ends in him.

G. B. p. 17. ‘Our kindness to the second Commandment appears by our having stri­ken it out of our Catechisms.’

Answer. You might for this Reason accuse our B. Saviour of the like kindness, who Matt. 19.18, 19. left it out of that Compendium of the Commandments. And Luke 10.27. he ap­proves an Abridgment made by another, with­out that part.

G. B. p. 18. ‘The Heathens believed that by magical ways Divine Power was affixed to some Bodies, as the Sun, and Stars; and to Ancilia and Palladia which they believed came down from Heaven. Act. 19.35.’

Answer. I acknowledge my Ignorance in this. Shew me, that ever any such Vertue was affix'd to Sun, or Stars, or Ancilia, or Palladia. And Act 19.35. which you cite, there is no more mention of them, than of the day of your birth, or of Tom. Thumb.

G. B. p. 18. ‘The Israelites adored the Calf in the wilderness. Psal. 106.30. they changed their glory into the Similitude of an Ox, which shews, they worship'd the true God in a false manner.’

Answer. It shews they adored that Idol: or if you please, An Ox eating hay, as the place says, which you cite. And do you think such a beast to be the true God? I am ashamed to answer such ridiculous Discourse.

G. B. p. 21. ‘The Trinity is painted as an old Man,’ with a child in his arms, and a Dove over the Childs head.

Answer. I never in all my travels saw such a Picture. If you find such a one, tho you break it, I will not call you Iconoclast, for that Action.

G. B. p. 22. ‘The Worship of the Mass is Idolatry, as evidently as any piece of Gentilism ever was.’

Answer. When you shall have shewed, that Christ is not really present, or that altho pre­sent, he deserves not to be adored, we will sus­pend our Adoration of him there. But you will prove neither, as long as his words remains. So our Adoration of him present there, is like to continue.

G. B. p. 23. ‘The Worship we give to the Cross, is an adoring of God under a Symbol, and Representation.’

Answer. It is a worshipping of God, and so no Idolatry. It is a Representation of our Re­demption, and worship'd only as such.

G. B. p. 23. ‘The parallel of Rome-Heathen, and Rome-Christian, runs but too too just.’

Answer. It runs not at all; but halts of all four: and you have neither Art enough, to cure it by natural means, nor Faith to effect it by Mi­racle, you will assoon square circles, as cure this lameness.

CHAP. IX. Of Mediating Spirits.

G. B. p. 24. ‘COncerning these (the Souls of de­ceased men) the Heathens believed that they were certain intermedial Powers, that went betwixt God and Men, by whom also all our Services were offered to the gods.’

Answer. We have here many errors in few words. The first is, That the Souls of deceas­ed Men were universally by all Pagans thought to act any thing in this World. In Virgil, Lu­cian, and others, you may see, that many (those of wicked Men) only suffered, being conceiv­ed to be punished for their Faults. Nay out of the same Authors it is probable, that even the better, more innocent, and therefore esteemed happy Souls, took their Pleasure in the Elisi­an fields, without troubling themselves with things of this world. This is much confirmed from the Pythagorean Doctrin of the Transmi­gration of Souls from one Body to another, which was very common amongst the Pagan learned Philosophers. None of these could be­lieve that the Souls of deceased Men could be me­diating Spirits, which you ascribe to all Pagans.

The second is, that deceased Men, even when deified, were by all held to be mediating Powers. I have shewed at large above, that the prime gods had been men: and that the Jupiter had [Page 106]been one, I desire you to consider the grounds I have laid for this Assertion: for which see also Julius Firmicus pag. 4. Romulus was a Man, the Founder and first King of Rome, (I hope you do not expect I should prove this) yet he had a Flamen consecrated to his Service; which was an officer peculiar to the supreme God, says E. S. p. 34. and consequently was thought to be him, or was ranked with him. Indeed Divinity in the Opinion of the credulous deluded Antiquity was very easily purchased: to disappear unex­pectedly was enough. Thus Romulus whose Hi­story is known to all. Thus Amilcar, a Gene­ral of the Carthaginians in Sicily, seeing his Ar­my defeated, whilst he was sacrificing threw himself into the fire, where he was consumed: thus he appeared not, and for that reason was held to be a god by his Country-men. Cleome­des of Astipala a Wrastler, having knocked down his Antagonist with his fist, tore open his side, and pulled out his heart; but in lieu of the Reward he expected, finding his Cruelty had displeased the Judges, with indignation he departed, and finding a School-master with his Disciples under a vault, he pulled away the pil­lar which upheld it, and buried them all with its ruins. Thence he fled into a cave, or den, to avoid those who pursued him, to bring him to condign Punishment. But that being digged open, and he not found in it, by command of the Oracle, he was adored as a god. As you may see in Theodoret lib. 8. de Cur. Graec. affect. [Page 107]p. 597. and lib. 10. p. 631. and in Plut. and Suidas. Out of this Perswasion it was that Em­pedocles threw himself into mount Aetna, that nothing of him being found, they might think him translated to Heaven: and he probably might have obtained it, had not his brass slip­pers, or soles, cast out by the force of the fire discovered that he had mistaken his way thi­ther.

By slight a man otherwise obscure got to be adored in Libia, as God: for having taught ma­ny Birds to say, [...], Great God Psaphon. (which was his name) and letting them go, they in the Woods repeated this Lesson, and the People hearing them, adored him with Altars, Sacrifices and Temples. He owed his Apotheosis to the Birds. Anno a Car­thaginian attempted the same; but lost his la­bor, the Birds forgetting their Lesson and re­suming their wild notes, assoon as they recover­ed their Liberty.

A third Error is, That all the Pagans believ­ed any Mediators betwixt their gods and them. In those remnants of their Rituals, which are extant, there is not one word of Mediation or Intercession, demanded of the inferior Deities, called Dii minorum Gentium. S. Austin speaking of that doctrin, l. 8. and 9. de Civ. Dei, seems to attribute it to Plato's School, as not being an Article of Faith of the heathens Creed; but a private Opinion of one School of Philoso­phers. He seems, I say, to insinuate this: I de­sire [Page 108]you, Sir, to shew out of Plato, or Apuleius, or any of those writers, these words, or any others equivalent; Hercules pray to thy father Jupiter for me, or us. Romulus intercede for us. So that the greatest part of the Heathens did not dream of this Mediation, and those who did assert it, treated nevertheless with those Medi­ators, as with true gods. Wherefore, should I grant that all Pagans held the Souls of Men to mediate, yet there would be a vast difference betwixt their Sentiments, and those of the Ro­man Catholic Church, concerning our Saints. More Errors will appear out of the following Discourse.

I think it impossible to give one Idea of what the Pagans taught of Spirits or incorporeal Substances, as this Name doth comprehend the Supreme of all, and the subordinate, or coor­dinate immaterial Beings, and Souls separated from their Bodies. Thales In Athena­gor. leg. pro Chr. p. 25. said there were of three sorts, Gods, Demons, and Heroes: and that God was the Soul of the World: Demons Spiritual Beings: and Heroes the Souls of Men, who were good or bad, according to the Life they led in this World. Hesiodus In Thedor. l. 8. de Cur. Graec. affect. p. 602. thought that the Souls of golden Men, who lived well, were turn­ed into Demons after this Life, and received a charge of humane affairs. Julian the Apostat In. Cyril. Alex. l. 4. p. 115. taught, that they were true gods, to whom [Page 109]the Supreme God committed the care of the several parts of this World: that the God Ibidem, p. 141. of the Jews and Christians, (whom Moses preached) was one of the inferior gods. Nay he says, Ibidem l. 5. p. 155. that Moses his God, was the worst of all the rest, as being jea­lous, envious, vindicative, &c. For which Blas­phemy alone he might have deserved his re­proachful Sirname. Plato In S. Aug. l. 8. de Civit. Dei. c. 14. seems to agree in Substance with Tha­les; for he distinguishes three sorts of Spiritual Substances, Gods, Men, and De­mons. The Gods he places in the Heavens: De­mons in the Air: Men on Earth. Apuleius S. Aug. l. 9. cap. 11. holds all Souls of Men to be Demons, but assigns three sorts of them: Lares are those which are certainly good: Lemures or Larvae, which are certainly known to be bad: and when tis doubt­ed whether they be good or bad, they are called Dii Manes.

When you have considered these things, you will see. 1. How imperfectly, nay how falsly, you have represented the Sentiments of the Pa­gans. 2. How hard a thing you undertake, when you design a Parallel betwixt Pagan Idolatry, and our Worshipping of Saints: for seeing all de­pends on their holding Mens Souls to be me­diating Spirits (which can never be proved) or that those who were good, were used only to present Mens Requests to the Supreme God, [Page 110](which is the Tenet of the Catholic Church concerning Saints) which is also evidently un­true, we may rank this Paralel with Squaring Circles, and the Philosophers stone, and expect to see the World made happy with these three Rarities together.

As to the Mediation of Angels: Athenagoras Legat. pro Christ. pag. 11. says indeed that the Christian Opinion was that God created se­veral Orders of Angels: and had committed to their care the Government of the Elements, Heavens, and the whole World; not that any one Angel is governour of the World, (which the Scripture seems to deny, Job. 34, 14. and Heb. 1.14.) but that seve­ral Angels have the Administration of the se­veral parts of it. I know no Decree of the Ca­tholic Church obliging us to believe this; and therefore I should not dare to censure any Man who should say the contrary. Yet that Opini­on hath so much ground in Scripture, that I do not apprehend all Mr. G. B. can say, to dis­prove it. Josue 5.15. an Angel is said to be the Captain of the Lords host. He seems the same, who Dan. 12.1. is called Michael. And Dan. 10.20. there are others mentioned, viz. the Princes of Persia and Greece. And why may not these be the Angels, who presided over those Countries? we are sure that all Angels are mi­nistring spirits, sent forth to minister for them, who shall be heirs of Salvation. Heb. 1.14. and The little ones have Angels, who in Heaven always see [Page 111]the face of God. Matt. 18.10. And that several Angels ascended and descended on Jacobs lad­der. Gen. 28.12. was to shew they mediated betwixt God, who was at the top, and man, who lay at the bottom of the Ladder. Now, if particular Angels, have a care or charge of particular persons: why may not some others have a larger district, and a more extended Charge?

This you will say, is taken from Paganism. And I will answer, the Pagans took it from the Israelites; not these from them. And it seems very probable, that when the Arch-divel, who took the Name of Jupiter, had so far prevailed with Men as to be by them advanced to the Throne of God: his next Attempt was, to get his wicked Spirits acknowledged for Govern­ours of the World under him, in lieu of those Blessed Spirits, who were the lawful Govern­ours appointed by God himself. That Order of God was not to be abrogated with the Old Law, of which it was no part; it being an E­stablishment for the more connatural Govern­ment of the World, from the beginning to the end of it.

I know God can govern all things by himself, immediately, without the Assistance of Men or Angels: that neither the greatness of Business can mate him, nor its number confound him, nor its variety distract him, nor its intricacy deceive him, nor its obscurity hide it from his all seeing Eye. That having created the whole [Page 112]World with a word, he can govern it so too: yet he uses Men, Rom. 13.1.: and he can call all to believe in him as he did Saul Act. 9. yet he employed an Angel to convert the Centurion Act. 10. and vouchsafes to be Fellow Labourer, Mar. 16.20. [...] with Men, whom he honors with that Employment: and he can ju­stifie those whom he calls, without the con­course of any creature; yet he will have us use water. And as to the work of the first day, the Creation of all things visible and invisible. God required the Asistance of no Creature, so the whole work of the last day might be perfor­med by him alone; yet he will use the voice of an Archangel, to proclaim it 1 Thessal. 4.16. the Angels shall gather together those who are raised again to life, Mat. 24.31. they shall sever the wicked from the just, and cast them into the fur­nace of fire Matt. 13.49.50.. Thus the Law and Prophets, Christ and his Apostles, the Old and New Testament, attest this Truth, that Angels concur to carrying on the work of our Salvation, and have a Commission from God to direct us. Now for believing this Truth, Papists are accused of Superstition and agreeing with Idolaters, and why we, more than Jacob, or Daniel, Josue, or Jesus, who taught the same? Blame them, if you dare; or absolve us, for their sakes, whom we follow.

G. B. pag. 24. ‘This kind of Idolatry was [Page 113]first begun at Babilon, where Ninus made a statue of Belus, from him all these lesser gods were called Belim, or Baalim.’

Answer. It is not true, that Baal was held to be a lesser God: he was adored as the su­preme God, as you may see, 3 Reg. 18.21.

G. B. Ibid. ‘From this hint, we may guess why the Apostacy of Rome is shadowed forth under the name of Babilon.’

Answer. This is to enlighten one night with another, and wash a spot of dirt out of linnen with Ink. You dwell and converse much in obscure places, which is proper to those who hate the light Joan. 3.20. because it disco vers their deform features, or more deformed actions. We have already shewed you, that Baal or Bel was held to be the living God, which you may see also Dan. 14.5. now we never held any man Saint to be God, except the fountain of Sanctity Christ Jesus.

CHAP. X. Of the Intercession of Saints.

G. B. p. 25. ‘IF we compare with this Idolatry the worship of Angels and Saints in the Roman Church, we shall find the parity just and exact.’

Answer. It is neither just nor exact, it dif­fers in many things. For 1. the Pagans held [Page 114]those men, they honored to be true gods; we believe the greatest Saints to be our fellow-ser­vants. 2. Even those, who owned a Deity a­bove them, believed it to do nothing in human Affairs; Job. 22.14. we believe his Providence reaching all things. 3. They stopt in those Spirits; we with them make our Addresses to God. And 4. They offered Sacrifices to them; we offer none, but to God.

This Objection is not new, it was made a­gainst the Catholic Church above 1300 years ago: to which S. Austin answered l. 20. cont. Faust. cap. 21. and l. 8. de Civit. Dei. c. 27. in the latter place he hath these words. Quis au­divit Sacerdotem stantem ad altare, etiam super sanctum corpus Martyris, dicere in precibus: Of­fero tibi Sacrificium O Petre, vel Paule, vel Cypri­ane, cùm apud eorum memorias offeratur Deo? Ista non esse Sacrificia Martyrum, novit, qui novit u­num, quod Deo offertur, Sacrificum Christianorum. Nos itaque Martyres nostros divinis honoribus non colimus, nec Sacrificia illis offerimus. Who ever heard a Priest at the Altar say, I offer Sa­crifice to thee, O Peter, Paul, or Cyprian, when upon their Sepulchers it is offered to God? Those are not Sacrifices of Martyrs, as all know who know that one Sacrifice of Christians which is there offered to God. Wherefore we do not worship Mar­tyrs with divine Adorations, nor offer Sacrifice unto them.

Out of which words you may learn 1. that Martyrs were worship'd in the primitive [Page 115]Church. 2. Their Tombs were turned into Altars. 3. That the Sacrifice of Christians was offered upon those tombs. And 4. That that Sacrifice was offered only to the living God; and not to the Martyrs. All which things to this day the Roman Catholic Church doth very religiously observe. By which appears the con­formity of the ancient and modern Church in doctrin and practice. As also the deformity betwixt the ancient Church, and the Protestant Reformation, in which there are neither Mar­tyrs worship'd, nor their tombs regarded, nor Altars, nor Sacrifice. You still roul stones, which fall on your own head.

G. B. pag. 25. ‘There was a Saint appoint­ed for every Nation. S. Andrew for Scotland, S. George for England, S. Denis for France, and many more for other Nations.’

Answer. I desire to learn of you, where, when, and by what Authority this Appointment was made? Appointing is an Act of Jurisdiction; and so universal a decree, so religiously obeyed, must be a very solemn Act, and proceed from the supream Authority acknowledged on Earth. Which could not be so hush'd up, as that no memory of it should appear. Again: the whole Church on Earth never pretended any Jurisdiction over Saints in Heaven, nor even o­ver those in Purgatory, whom she endeavours to ease, or release, not by judgment, but by Prayer, non absolutione, sed solutione, say Divines. So none but God hath Jurisdiction over those [Page 116]blessed Souls, and by him alone that appoint­ment could be made. Now by what Revelation have you learnt that Act of God? what Catho­lic Author authentically recorded it?

G. B. pag. 27. ‘In the eleventh Century, numbring Prayers by Beads began.’

Answer. They began only in the thirteenth Century.

G. B. pag. 28. "Ten Prayers on the Beads to the Virgin, one to God.

Answer. Beads are used several ways: some say Creeds on the great ones, and either Pater nosters, or Gloria Patris, on the little ones. A­gainst these your Objection hath no place. And it hath no force against others, who by their Prayers to the Virgin only pray her to pray to God for them.

G. B. pag. 28. ‘How many more worship her, then do her Son?’

Answer. Not one; for no body worships her, but for her Sons sake, and for the Ver­tue she received from God by the merits of her Son. So that her Worship ends in her Son, or in God. This you have been often told of by o­thers; but are resolv'd never to take notice of it, fearing to want this precious Argument, which is as frivolous as it is common among your Brethren.

To shew you the Opinion and Practice of the ancient Christians, three Authorities will suffice; one of the Latin, the rest of the Greek Church. The first is out of S. Austin. l. 7. de [Page 117]Baptismo. c. 1. Adjuvet nos B. Cyprianus orati­onibus suis in istius carnis mortalitate, tanquam in caliginosa nube laborantes. May blessed S. Cyprian with his Prayers assist us, who labour in this corru­ptible body, as in a dark cloud.

And S. Gregory Nissen. Orat. de laudibus Theo­dori Martyris. He says: If thy own Prayers be not efficacious enough, If greater and more pow­erful Intercessions be necessary, call together the Quire of thy brethren the Martyrs, and with them all pray for us. Admonish Peter, stir up Paul, as also John the beloved Disciple, that they may be careful of the Churches they founded.

S. Chrisost. hom. 1. in Thess. ante fin. teaches us to pray, and how we should do it to Saints, [...]. Let us neither despise the Prayers of Saints, nor quite rely upon them: least we either become slothful and careless, or lose their helps. But let us pray them to pray for us, and let us live vertu­ously, that we may attain to that bliss which is pro­mised to those, who love God, through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. No Roman Catholic can explicate our doctrin more significantly: seeing he explicates the object (Saints) the manner, not to rely upon them solely; The design, to obtain their Prayers for us. The final end of all: [Page 118] Life everlasting through the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

There is also another intent in honoring Saints, to stir up men to imitate their Ver­tues. Aug. Serm. 47. de Sanctis: Solemnitates Martyrum exhortationes sunt martyriorum: ut imi­tari non pigeat, quod celebrare delectat. The feasts celebrated in the honor of Martyrs, are exhorta­tions to Martyrdom: for we ought willingly to imi­tate, what we celebrate with joy.

G. B. pag. 29. ‘A black Roll of the plagues which God pours out on those ungodly wor­shippers is. Rom. 1.’

Answer. There is not a word against the wor­shippers of Saints; but of Idols, and Divels: whose wicked example was a great incentive to vice, (Terentius in Eunucho) as the good ex­ample of Saints is to Vertue (Aug. supra) I have not Faith enough to believe all are Saints, where the worship of Saints is rejected: If none but the guiltless, may throw a stone, the Adul­teress may escape in London, as well as in Rome.

G. B. pag. 30. ‘All Prostration for Wor­ship is declared unlawful by the Angel, who warned S. John not to do it. Apoc. 19.10.’

Answer. Would you have all the world turn Quakers, and never worship any body? Will you condemn the Custom of England in kneel­ling to our Parents? or to the Parent of our Country, the King's Majesty? And can you seriously think that Apostle an Idolater, even when the Holy Ghost so evidently wrought in [Page 119]his mind, and so fully possest it? or that being once warned of so foul a Crime. Apoc. 19.10. He should so soon fall again into the same? A­poc. 22.8. That the Angel should shew no great displeasure, seeing himself adored as God, as Paul and Barnabas did on a like Occasion at Lystra? Act 14.13. But should as it were com­pliment with an Idolater? That the Apostle should never repent himself of so hainous a fault, and do Penance for it? or if he did, he should not record it, that he might as much e­difie by Repentance, as he had scandalized by his fall? all those things surpass my Faith, al­tho (God be thanked) it contains Transubstan­tiation.

Wherefore for the singular respect I bear the Apostle, I cannot surmise him guitly of Ido­latry (being confirmed in Grace) especially at the time of that Vision. Nay I see no ground to say, he absolutely sinned in it: but that he acted out of a Principle of Humility, thinking that Respect due from him to the Angel, as being better in Nature, and greater in Grace and Glory, than himself. And the Angel cor­rected that innocent Judgment, by minding him that they were fellow servants, which was a tel­ling him his own Dignity of an Apostle: which in some considerations is even superiour to that of Angels,

G. B. pag. 31. ‘Speculative people may have distinct Notions of Latria and Dulia; yet the vulgar in their practice make no differ­ence at all.’

Answer. All who have common Sense have distinct Notions of those Worships, altho they understand not those terms. All know they are to obey the King, and their Governors, yet that their Obedience to both is not alike, seeing it is due to the King 1 Pet. 2.13. as supreme; to Governours, as being sent from him, or receiving Authority from him. An Heir knows he must obey his Father and his Tu­tor: yet differently, his Tutor only to comply with his Father Gal. 4.4.. And why should men be so stupid, only in matter of Religion, as not to be able to discern betwixt the honor due to God, as the fountain of all good, and that due to Saints, as partaking of his Per­fections. The very Prayers, which we make in our Lyturgies import that distinction: for they are addressed to God, beseeching him to hear the Prayers, which doubtless the Saints make for us: or else when we pray to Saints, we desire them to joyn with ours their Prayers to God: and when we have obtained our Request we de­sire them to joyn with us, in Thanksgiving to the Divine Goodness. 2. Cor. 1.10.11. Our trust is in God, that he will deliver us, from temporal and eternal Misery. The Saints also helping by Prayer for us, and for the gift bestowed on us by means of many interceding persons, thanks may be given by many on our behalf.

But were Truth sought for, an end would easily be made of this contentious Dis­pute betwixt Faith and Calumny, by only sta­ting [Page 121]aright the Controversie: we do all una­nimously profess, that God alone doth deserve all the Adoration, and worship any Creature is capable of, for his own intrinsick and essen­tial perfection. Yet we think it is his Pleasure, that we should honor not only those Perfecti­ons in himself; but that we should (for his sake) reverence those Creatures whom he makes partakers of his infinit fulness of Perfe­ction, according to the manner of their eleva­tions, to partake of those Perfections. So that God is honored in them all, and all they in him. We honor Kings and Prelates lawfully establish­ed, as being partakers of his Authority to go­vern us; the word of God, as being an ex­plication of his Will: The Sacraments as Channels to convey his Grace into our Souls: Churches, as places designed for Prayer to him: Saints on Earth, as living Temples of the Holy Ghost: Saints in Heaven, as Partakers of his glory. So that we may be said to ho­nor God in all; and by consequence the wor­ship given to them cannot be said to draw from God.

We likewise profess, that as God is the sole Crearor of all things, so is he the Foun­tain of all Good, and that every good perfect Gift comes from him, the Father of Lights. Jac. 1.13. That nothing in order to eternal Life can be obtained, but of him, through our Lord Jesus Christ. That his Providence reaches to every thing, that not a hair can either fall of its self, [Page 122]or be pulled out of our head by Men, or by bad or good Angels, without the permission of God: that all we suffer, and all we enjoy, all good, and all bad, flow from his omnipotent hand, as effects either of his mercy, or of his justice, or of both. So that we fear nothing, but from him, nor hope for any thing, but from him. To him all our Prayers are directed, even those made to Saints, which stop not in them, but in their, and our God and Father. This we believe, this we practise, this we teach, this we defend; speak what you can against this, and you will speak to the purpose, but if you pass this unregarded, you beat the air.

Another thing I desire of you, is, not to build upon every little fancy, altho contrary to rea­son: which is childish always, but deserves a more severe censure in matters of consequence. Now what can be more phantastical, than what Mr. Brevint writes, in his Saul and Samuel, that it is Idolatry to pray to Saints, unless they be within compass to hear us? And who can de­termin how far they can hear? Or what Mr. Whitby says in his Discourse concerning Idolatry. pag. 154. Prayer offered to an invisible being, and not corporeally present is due only to God. So that a blind Man may not desire his Neighbor to pray for him because all are invisible to him. And Prayers offered to the Dragon, Dan. 14.23. or any Idols, would be no Idolatry, seeing they could see, or be seen, and were corpore­ally present. And certainly S. Paul was an Ido­later [Page 123]when at a distance he desired the Roman to pray for his good Journey, who were neither visible to him, nor corporeally present. He follows the custom of our Reformers, he throws stones without ever regarding where they fall. But what Proof doth he bring for his Novelty? The Authority of Dio and Martial, both Pagans, and one of them the most filthy, or beastly Au­thor of all Poets. And can Mr. Whitby judge their Authority competent, to decide a Controversy betwixt Christians, and condemn the public pra­ctise of the Catholic Church? Have we not rea­son to except against their being Ʋmpiers, in this dispute? Yet to do Mr. Whitby a pleasure, we will admit them as Judges Arbitrators. What say they? Dio says, Caligula was a God, when prayed to. And Martial says, those who pray to Idols, make them Gods. Suppose all this true: what is it to Visibility, or Corporeal presence, of which they make no mention, and yet were brought to prove them? How wretchedly doth he pleade against us, who first appeals to in­competent Judges; and secondly to such, as pronounce nothing in his favour! In malacau­sa non possunt aliter. Aug.

CHAP. XI. Pretended Charms, where of Holy-Water, Wax-candles, Agnus Dei's, &c.

G B. p. 32. ‘ALl the Enchantments used in Hea­thenism are nothing if compa­red to those of the Roman Church.’

Answer. Were your Proofs as strong as your Assertions are bold, you would be the most formidable enemy, that ever we had. But that strength of Proofs is wanting. Those Crea­tures which bark loud, seldom bite hard. In bold affirmations none more positive than wo­men and children, and the Ignorantest of Schol­ers: Wise and Learned Men are more wary and reserved, who never are very positive altho they seem sometimes to have reason on their side, because they are conscious of the uncertain­ty of their Discourses, whose fallacies they discover in others, and in themselves too. In this place you would easily have discovered your error, had you looked over your Proofs. For what more weak than those?

G. B. p. 32. ‘Can any thing look liker a charm than the worshipping of God in an unknown Tongue.’

Answer. What say you to reading your Eng­lish service to such Irish, as understand it not? Is that a Charm? For whatever you say in vin­dication of your Common-Prayer, will serve to answer you in this Reproach.

To whom can I compare the men of this genera­tion Luke 7.31.? to whom are they like? They are like unto children, pettish children, whom neither laughing nor weeping will please. So you are resolved never to be content with what Papists do. Is their Ser­vice kept in Latin? It resembles a Charm. Doth it appear in English, as it lately did at London? And Hanibal ad portas, of such a fearful nature are your Brethren, that whatever dress our Service appears in, it frightens them: as the sign of the Cross, and the name of Jesus, did the Devils in Julian's time.

But are you so much a stranger to the World, as not to know, that no living language conti­nues long the same? That Mens phancies of words change, as well, as those of fashions? That sometimes they lay aside some words, and take in others, and sometimes retain the word, but alter its sence by use? If all this be true; suppose a change be made in a vulgar Language, do you think the Church obliged presently to change her Service? If you do, shew me the ground of that Obligation. If you can shew no Command for such a perpetual Change in the Liturgy; Condemn our Church no more, for not doing what you cannot shew she is bound to do.

G. B. pag. 30. ‘Shall I here tell, of the char­ming of Water, of Salt, of Waxcandles, of Roses, Agnus Dei's, Medals, and the like.’

Answer. It is not easie to conjecture what you blame in these things, nor for what rea­son; unless it be, that Papists use them, and that is enough to draw your Censure. Do the things themselves displease you? They are the Creatures of God: and all creatures of God are good. (1 Tim. 4.4.) and nothing ought to be re­jected, which is received with thanksgiving, as I assure you Papists use those things. Or are you offended, that they are bless'd? That is unrea­sonable: seeing that gives a kind of Sanctity to them. They are sanctified by the word of God, and by Prayer, says S. Paul in the place above cited. So that I think the practice of blessing several things comes from Apostolical Tradition, and that it is grounded on that Text of S. Paul. And I desire you to fix the time, when you think they began, and I am perswaded I can shew them to be ancienter then any time since the Two first Ages determinable, if not all, yet some of them, so as by those which can be shew­ed from the beginning, the rest by lawful con­sequence may be deduc'd, as not unlawful, or Enchantments. See Baronius ad an. D. 57, 58. and 132. in which places he shews the use of them to be so ancient, that if you pretend those Blessings to be Popery, you must own the pu­rest Antiquity to be Papist.

And as for Water blest by holy men, it is so far from being a diabolical Charm that it is an efficacious Remedy against Charms of the De­vil. You will find the vertue of it confirmed [Page 127]by miracles in Epiph. haer. 30. When it was used by Josephus a Count under Constantine the great. In S. Hierome in vita Hilarionis, that this Saint by the use of it destroyed the Charms of Marnas (or Jupiter) adored at Gaza. In Theodoret. l. 5. Hist. c. 21. that S. Marcellus Bishop of Apamea with it chaced away Jupiter Apamenus who hindred the burning of his Tem­ple. And in Bede l. 1. Hist. Angl. c. 17. that S. Jerman Bishop of Auxerre with it allayed a Tempest. Which you may see in Baron. ad an. D. 132. what will you say to those things? As the Pharisees: that all this was done in the Divels name? That you cannot, for then you must own that one Divel cast out another; and his kingdom is divided, which is by our Sa­viour press'd against the Pharisees, as absurd and incredible, and consequently cannot be said by a Christian. Nay altho you deny all credit to these holy and learned Men, (which in a mat­ter of fact is in a manner impudent) yet will you not be quit of this Argument, for at least these Fathers thought Water so blest, a fit instru­ment to work those stupendious works, other­wise they would never have believed those stories, neither would they have related them, without believing them. Hence you may see how different your Faith is from theirs, who think that a Charm, which they judged a Di­vine Blessing.

CHAP. XII. Of Ceremonies.

G. B. p. 34. ‘THE Sacramental Actions are pol­luted by the superfetation of so many new Rites whereby they are whol­ly changed from their original Simplicity.’

Answer. You can alledge nothing against our Rites or Ceremonies, but will serve as well against your own, and what you can say in defence of yours against Presbyterians, will ful­ly satisfie your Argument against ours.

It is a great folly, to look on Ceremonies as an essential part of our Worship: and it is as great to deny, that (when they are decent and significant) they are great helps to it. Men are composed of Body and Soul: with both we must serve God, and each is an help to the other, when they concur to worship him. The Body can do nothing without the Soul, and all its Worship is meer hypocrisie, and not worthy of acceptation and dead, unless it be quickened by interiour Faith and Charity, which flow from the Soul. And this Devotion soon grows cold, if it be not entertain'd with exterior Objects, and revived by sensible Actions; which fix the Imaginative faculty on the Acts of Religion in hand, and move the Will both of him, who Of­ficiates, and of the Assistants, to dispositions pro­portionable to the Rite, by a certain Sympathy [Page 129]betwixt our Soul and Body: the Soul, feeling an inward veneration for God, to express it, inclines the Body to Kneeling, Prostrations, or the like, and these increase the interiour Vene­ration, when duly and devoutly made. This is the sence of mankind; for there never was any People, who met to honour either God, or Prince, but had some settled Ceremonies with which they express'd exteriourly their Submis­sion to them.

The French Hugonots pared off those they found in the Roman Church as superstitious: and the most Learned and Religious of that Communion, wish their worship were adorned with some Rites, whose want they lament, as being an undecent nakedness, and an occasion of much Irreligion, and disrespectfulness in giving and receiving the Sacraments themselves. I be­lieve did you pursue the Prophaneness so com­mon in England, to its head, you will find your want and neglect of Religious Ceremonies to be the fountain of it.

In your Vindication of the Laws, pag. 170. you say the Church hath power to determin of things, that may be done in a variety of ways into one particular Form, such as prescribing a set Form of Worship, the ordering the posture in Sacraments, the Habits in Worship, &c. Which will hedg in, what you reject, as well as what you re­tain.

G. B. pag. 34. ‘In Baptism instead of wash­ing with Water in the Name of the Father, [Page 130]Son and Holy Ghost, they have added many adulterated Rites.’

Answer. These words signifie an Abrogation of Washing with Water, and a substitution of other Rites in lien of it, which is so far from Truth, and so black a Calumny, that I wonder you could advance it, or your Church permit it: es­pecially seeing the guilt falls on her, for not baptizing those who fall from us to you, as she ought to do, if we omit washing in the Name, which is the essential part of the Sacrament. But you speak against Popery, and that is e­nough to justifie all untruths, and get a licence for any Calumny, as appears by this very Passage.

G. B. pag. 34. ‘The Child must be blown upon, then a Charm used, for turning the Devil out of him.’

Answer. Blowing upon the Child and exorci­sing it, were practised in the purest times. You will find them in Cyril of Hierus. Catech. 1., Ambrose l. 1. de Sac. c. 5., Leo Epist. 4. c. 6. , Caelestin I. Epist. 1. ad Episc. Gallia cap. 12., and Augustin Lib. 2. de pec. orig. cap. 40. & l. 6. cont. Julian c. 5. ubi ait.: Ecclesia filios fidelium nec exorcisaret, nec exufflaret, si non eos de potestate tenebra­rum, & à principo mortis erue­ret. Id tu commemorare timu­isti, tanquam ipse ab orbe toto exufflandiu esses, si huic exuffla­tioni quâ Frinceps mundi & a parvulis ejieitur for as, contra­dicere voluisses., The Church, says S. Au­gustin to Julian, would neither exorcise (you call this a Charm) the children of the Faithful, nor blow upon them, did she not free them from the power of the Devil. [Page 131]This thou Julian, durst not gainsay, fearing thy self to be blown out of the Christian World, if thou hadst done so. So esteemed was this Ceremony then, that even Hereticks durst not speak a­gainst it: which now is reproach'd to us as à Charm, a Superstition, by our Reformers. Not a petty Minister, but thinks it a fit Object to be laught at, and to shew his wit, by playing the Buffoon upon it. By natural Generation all are born in sin, children of wrath, slaves of the De­vil, and in the power of Darkness: By superna­tural Regeneration, which is Baptism, we are purged from Sin, freed from the bondage of the Devil, adopted the Children of God, deli­vered from the power of darkness, and translated into the kingdom of the beloved Son of God. Co­los. 1.13. This Faith delivered by the Apo­stles, was believed by the primitive Christians, and we believe the same: They used this Ce­remony to signifie this change in the Person baptized; we use it for the same intent: It was then so venerable, that even Heretics durst not express any disesteem of it; now you deride it, and look upon it as prophane and a Charm. Whence comes this change? from the Cere­mony? no, it is the same, it was then: from the Intention of those who use it? no, it is em­ployed to signifie the change from Sin to Grace now, as it was then. The Change is only in your self, and your Brethren Reformers: your Faith is as different from that of the Primitive, as of the present Church: and that new Faith [Page 132]enclines you to deride those things, which the Church animated by Apostolical Faith, did, and doth esteem.

By this you see how Impious this Lucian like spirit is. How imprudent it is, will appear, if you consider how full your Assemblies are of Libertines, who deride all things of Devotion, even practised by your selves, as several tragi­cally complain of in their Sermons. You foster in them this Spirit, by your Practise: you plant that Tree in their Hearts, which produces such sour Fruit, that sets all your teeth an edge: this Serpent is bread in the bowels of your Re­formation, and serpent like it will eat the bow­els of her Parent, and kill her, if it be not stifled.

G. B. pag. 35. ‘The Priest at Mass, often hows, sometimes he turns to the People, and gives them a short barbarian Benediction, then goes on.’

Answer. In all this I see nothing ridiculous, but your relating those sacred Rites. How can he express his inward Worship of God more clearly, than by kneeling or bowing? His Office is to be a Mediator betwixt God and Man ( Heb. 5.1.) and how can that be better represented, than by his humble applications to God, bow­ing to him, and listing up his hands to the throne of Grace ( Heb. 4.16.) to receive thence Mer­cy; and then turn to the People, to pour it upon them. Thus on Jacobs Ladder the Angels ap­peared going up and down, up, to God; down, [Page 133]to Jacob, a Type of what Priests do, when they officiate.

But he gives them a short Barbarian Benedi­ction. That Benediction which you, a very civili­zed person, disdain, as Barbarous, is taken out of Scripture, the words of an Angel to Gideon, ( Judges 6.12.) Our Lord be with you, Dominus vobiscum. Scripture it self cannot escape your censure, if a Papist use it. Your contempt of the language of Angels in this World, will scarce make you worthy of their Company in the next.

G. B. pag. 35. ‘After Adoration, the God is to be devoured by the Priest: which made the Arahian say, Christians were fools, who devoured what they adored.’

Answer. A worthy Authority for a King's Chaplain in ordinary, to build upon. Sir, Christ said, Take and eat, this is my Body; because he says it is his body, we adore it, and because he commands us, to take and eat it, we obey, and do so. But a Turk says, it is foolish. Let it be so, no Turk's Opinion is the Rule of my Faith. Is it of yours? Is not this prodigious, that against the express words of Christ, and the Practice of the whole Church, the Authority of a Turk should be brought? nay and preferred before it? and this by a Mini­ster?

G B. pag. 38. ‘ Rome enjoyns severer cen­sures on the violation of those Ceremonies than on the greatest transgressions against the moral or positive Laws of God.’

Answer. I know no motive you can have, for advancing such notorious untruths, but that of Cicero: Cum semel limites verecundiae transieris, oportet graviter esse impudentem. You have past those bounds, and there I leave you.

CHAP. XIII. Scripture and the Church: where, of the Re­solution of Faith.

G. B. p. 41. &c. "Papists call the Scriptures a nose of Wax, the source of all Heresies,

Answer. If any Roman Catholic compared Scripture to a Nose of Wax, it is only because the Letter may be wrested to different senses and made to look not that way which the Holy Ghost designed; but that which Mens Passions lead them to. The World affords not a more convincing Instance of this flexibility of Scri­ptures, then that of your own Brethren in the late troubles; who brought it to countenance Sedition, Rebellion, Heresie, Murther, and the hor­riblest of all Murthers, Parricide, the killing of the Father of the Country. Did Scripture of it self look towards (or abet) all those crying Sins? no sure, it condemns them formally. It can then be wrested from its own natural sence, to ano­ther meaning contrary to it, which is all that is meant by that Phrase.

As for its being a source of Heresies, it is not true, that Scriptures, do found Heresies, or that Heresies spring out of them, but that Men draw Heresies out of the words of Scriptures, taken in a Sense quite contrary to that of the Holy Ghost.

G. B. pag. 41. ‘Papists will have all the Authority of Scriptures to depend on the Church. A great difference is to be made be­twixt the Testimony of a Witness, and the Authority of a Judge. The former is not de­nied to the Church.’

Answer. Here you grant to the Church as much as we desire, provided you own in this Witness such a Veracity, as the nature of its Te­stimony requires, to bring us to a certain and un­doubted belief of the Scriptures.

The Curch never took upon her the Title Of Judge of Scripture. In her Councils, she pla­ces in the middle of the Assembly a high Throne as for Christ, and in it sets the holy Ghospels as his word, according to which she judges of the Doctrin tontroverted. Conc. Calced. Act. 1. So she judges by Scriptures of the Doctrin of men; but doth not judg of the Scriptures themselves.

At the first Admission of a Writing into the Canon of Scriptures, the Church proceding is of another nature. A Writing is brought to her, as written by a Man Divinely assisted; of S. Paul, for example, to the Romans by Phebe, or to Philemon, by a fugitive Servant Onesimus: neither, as a Witness, give any great credit to [Page 136]the Writing they brought. The Pastors of the flock of Christ consider the Writings, examin the Messengers, recurr to God by Prayer to de­mand the Assistance of his Holy Spirit, to know whether he were truly the Author of the Wri­ting exhibited. If after all these means used to discover the Truth, they remain convinced, the thing was written by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they obey it themselves, command Obedience to it, as to the Word of God, and use it as a Rule of Faith and Manners. So when an unknown Person brings into a Corporation a new Patent, as of the King's Majesty, and presents it to the Mayor: He (before he allows the Patentee to act in vertue of it,) with his Brethren considers the Writing, the Signet, the Seal, the Stile, &c. to know whether it be counterfeit or sincere, with a Resolution to obey it himself, and make others do the same, in case it appear to be truly the King's. The Mayor cannot be said to judge of the Kings Pa­tents (to which as a Subject he owes Obedience) but only to discern whether an unknown Wri­ting be the King's Patent, or no.

You say, this makes the Authority of the Scri­ptures depend on the Church. Which is as ratio­nal, as if you should say, the Authority of the King's Patent depends on the Mayor of a pet­ty Corporation, because the Patent is exhibi­ted to him, before it be executed. If any Man hath so little common Sense, as not to discern the difference betwixt these two Propositions: [Page 137] To judge of the Kings Patent: and to judge whe­ther an unknown Writing be the Kings Patent: I am to seek how to help him.

This Authority of the Church, to recom­mend the Scriptures as an undeniable Witness, occasioned that Saying of S. Augustin l. contra Epist. Fundam. c. 5. Ego Evangelio non crede­rem, nisi me Ecclesiae Catholicae commoveret autho­ritas. I would not believe the Gospel, did not the Authority of the Catholie Church move me to it. Which words are cited by all Catholic Contro­vertists, as containing an implicit Decision of all our Controversies; they shewing evidently S. Augustins Discourse against the Manichees, to be just the same, which we use against the mo­dern Protestants, that as we are heirs of that Faith, which S. Augustin, and the Church of his time defended against its Opposers the an­cient Heretics, so are we of the Titles, by which they enjoyed it, and the Arms with which they defended it. I will put down the whole Dis­course of S. Augustin at large, that so we may the better understand his meaning, and more convincingly shew how much the most under­standing of our Adversaries are out of the way, in explicating it.

The thing sought for in that Discourse was, whether Manichaeus was an Apostle of Jesus Christ or no? The Manichaeans said he was: the Catholics denied it, for whose cause S. Au­stin disputes thus in that place, Quaero quis sit iste Manichaeus? says he, Respondebitis, Apostolus [Page 138]Christi. Non Credo. Evangelium sortè mihi le­cturus es, & indè Manichai personam tentabis asse­rere. Si ergò invenires aliquem qui Evangelio non­dum credit, quid faceres dicenti tibi, non credo? Ego verò Evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret authoritas. Quibus ergo obtem­peravi dicentibus, credite Evangelio; cur eis non obtemperem dicentibus mihi: Noli credere Mani­chaeo? Elige quid velis. Si dixeris, crede Catholi­cis, ipsi me monent, ut nullam fidem accommodem vobis, quapropter non possim illis credens, nisi tibi non credere. Si dixeris, noli Catholicis credere, non rectè facis, per Evangelium me cogere ad Manichaei fidem, quia ipsi Evangelio Catholicis praedicanti­bus credidi. Si autem dixeris, benè credidisti Ca­tholicis laudantibus Evangelium, sed non rectè cre­didisti illis vituper antibus Manichaeum: usque adeò me stultum putas, ut nullâ redditâ ratione, quod vis credam, quod non vis non credam? quippè multò justius & cautius facio, si Catholicis, quoniam se­mel credidi, ad te non transeo, nisi me non credere jusseris, sed manifestissime & apertissimè scire ali­quid feceris. Quocirca si mihi rationem redditurus es, dimitte Evangelium. Si ad Evangelium te te­nes, ego ad eos me teneam, quibus praecipientibus, Evangelio credidi: & his jubentibus tibi omninò non credam. Quod si fortè in Evangelio aliquid manifestissimum de Manichaei Apostolatu invenire potueris, infirmabis mihi Catholicorum auctorita­tem, qui jubent ut tibi non credam. Quâ infirmat â nec Evangelio credere potero, quia per eos illi credi­deram, ita nihil apud me valebit quicquid inde protu­leris. [Page 139]Quapropter si nihil manifestum de Manichaei Apostolatu in Evangelio reperitur, Catholicis potiùs credam, quàm tibi. Si autem inde aliquid manifestum pro Manichaeo legeris, nec illis, nec tibi: illis, quia de te mihi mentiti sunt; tibi, quia eam scripturam mihi profers, cui per illos credideram, qui mihi mentiti sunt. Sed absit ut ego Evangelio non credam. Illi autem credens non invenio, quomodò possim etiam tihi credere. Haec Aug. ibid. I demand, says this Saint, Who is this Manichaeus? You answer, He is the Apostle of Christ. I will not take your word for it. What will you say, what means will you use to persuade me? Perchance you will take the Gospel, and thence endeavor to prove unto me the Mission of Manichaus. But what if you meet with one who doth not believe the Gospel, how would you deal with him? For my part, I would not believe the Gospel, did not the Authority of the Catholic Church move me. Whom therefore I obey, in saying, Be­lieve the Gospel, should I not obey, in saying, Be­lieve not Manichaeus? Take your choice, whether you will have me rely on the Catholics, or no: If you say, Believe the Catholics; they marn me, not to believe you; wherefore believing them, I must reject you. If you say, Do not believe Catholics, you do not well, endeavoring to bring me to the Be­lief in Manichaeus, by the Gospel, which I received only upon the word of Catholics. If you say, you do well to believe the Catholics when they commend the Gospel, but you do not well in believing them when they blame Manioheus: do you think me such a Fool, as without any reason I should believe what [Page 140]pleases you, and not believe what you dislike? Cer­tainly it is much more reasonable, seeing I must be­lieve the Catholics, that I abandon your Communion, unless you can give me an evident Demonstration for the contrary. Wherefore, if you will alledge Reason, lay by the Gospel. If you retain the Gospel, I will stick to those upon whose word I have admit­ted the Gospel: and their Authority forces me to renounce you. Now if perchance you can shew out of the Gospel any evident proof of Manichaeus his Apostleship, you will indeed weaken in me the Au­thority of Catholics, who forbid me to believe you. But that Authority being weakned, I shall no more be able to believe the Gospel, which I received by it, and so whatsoever you prove thence, will fall to the ground. Therefore if no clear proof of Mani­chaeus his Mission is extant in the Gospel, I will ra­ther believe the Catholics than you. If a clear proof be found there, I will neither believe the Catholics nor you: Not them, because they were false in the Opinion they delivered of you; Not you, because you rely on that Scripture which I received on the testimony of those who have deceived me. Yet God forbid I should reject the Gospel; and believing it, I see no possibility of believing you. Thus the great Saint; which I have cited at large, be­cause the whole Discourse holds against all Heresies, changing only the Name of Mani­chaeus or Manichean, into that which signifies the Heresie: as, for Example, into that of Pro­testant or Luther. Morcover, it contains a clear Confutation of what hath hitherto by the [Page 141]Learnedst of our Adversaries been said in An­swer to it.

The first Interpretation of this Place is de­livered by W. L. in his Relation of a Confe­rence, pag. 81. Some of your own, says he, will not endure it should be understood, save of the Church in the time of the Apostles only; and then cites Ockam Dial. p. 1. l. 1. c. 4. Where he hath not one word of that. But, says Mr. Still. in his Rational Account, p. 198. the words are in Durandus, l. 3. Insent. d. 24. q. 1. n. 9. where he says, Intelligitur solùm de Ecclesiâ, quae fuit tempore Apostolorum; It is understood only of the Church which was in the time of the Apostles.

The same Author borrows another Explica­tion of Biel, Lect. 2. in Can. Missae, That the words are to be understood of the Church in general, as it contains the first and later Ages, A tempore Christi & Apostolorum, &c. And to this he sticks, for he adds, And so doth S. Au­gustin take Eccles. contra Fund. And Dr. Still. p. 198, 199, approves the same, and confirms it out of Gerson and Driedo.

Neither of these two Explications can stand with the Text, as appears out of those words: Quibus obtemperavi dicentibus, Credite Evangelio: cur eis non obtemperem dicentibus mihi, noli credere Manichaeo; Whom I obeyed in saying, Believe the Gospel. should I not obey in saying, Do not believe Manichaeus? Hence I frame this Argument: St. Augustin professeth he received the Gospel upon the credit of that Church, which con­demned [Page 142] Manichaeus. But that Church which condemned Manichaeus, was that of his time, and not that of the Apostles, who never mentioned Manichaeus; Ergo the Church, on whose word he received the Gospel, was that of his time, and not that of the Apostles. When therefore E. S. p. 220. says, It is plain St. Austin means not the Judgment of the present Church, but of the Catholic Church, as taking in all Ages and Places, he evidently contradicts the very Text of St. Austin: whence I conclude, that either he speaks against his Conscience, which I am un­willing to believe; or else (which is more ex­cusable) that he had not read the Text which he undertakes to Explicate.

A Third, and yet more improbable Explica­tion, is delivered by W. L. p. 82. He speaks it either of Novices or Doubters in the Faith, or else of such as were in part Infidels. Mr. Fisher the Jesuit, at the Conference would needs have it, that St. Austin spake it even of the Faithful; which I cannot yet think: for he speaks to the Manichees, and they had a great part of the Infidel in them. And the words immediately before these are, If thou shouldst find one, qui Evangelio non credit, which did not believe the Gospel, what wouldst thou do to make him believe? Thus W. L.

This is likewise plainly false; for S. Austin was neither a Novice, nor a Doubter in the Faith, nor in part an Infidel, when he writ that Book; for he writ it after he was made Bi­shop, as you may see Lib. 2. Retract. c. 2. But [Page 143]he speaks of himself, and describes the ground of his own Faith; Ergo he doth not speak of Novices, Doubters, or half Infidels, nor de­scribes the ground of their Faith, but of those who are firm Believers. I prove that S. Austin speaks of his own Faith, and shews the ground on which it relied.: For first he says, I would not believe the Gospels, without the Authority of Catholics commending them. Secondly he says, If you weaken the Authority of Catholics, I will reject the Gospel. This I believe Mr. Stillingst saw, and therefore said, pag. 20. If you extend this beyond Novices and Weaklings, I shall not oppose you in it. And I cannot think that W. L. had read that place, at least with attention, when he writ, He could not think S. Austin spoke of the Faithful.

Stilling. pag. 220. Neither you, nor any Ca­tholic Author, is able to prove that S. Austin by these words ever dreamt of any infallible Authority in the present Church.

Ans. Seeing S. Austin expresly says, He would renounce the Gospel, if the Authority of Catholics were weakned in him, by discovering they had deli­vered any one Lye, he must either think them exempt from all possibility of Lying, or else he adhered very loosly to the Gospel. I hope E. S. will not assert the later part; wherefore he must grant, that S. Austin thought the Church free from all possibility of Error. Let us return to Mr. G. B.

G. B. pag. 43. Christ's Prophetic Office is in­vaded [Page 144]by the pretence of the Churches Infallibility in Expounding Scriptures.

And why, good Sir, should the Infallibility in Expounding Scriptures be an Invasion of the Pro­phetic Office of Christ, seeing Infallibility in writing them was no such thing? Certainly it is more to compose a Writing, than to understand it: as many can understand Cicero's Speech pro Milone, who cannot compose such an one. And your old Women pretend to understand several parts of Scripture, which yet, I think, will scarce undertake to Pen the like.

By this, say you, the whole Authority is devol­ved on the Church. No more than it was on S. John when he writ his Gospel, or S. Paul composing his Epistles; nor so much neither, seeing these were so assisted, as to Compose Holy Scripture, when the Church only pretends to Expound the Word of God. How doth such an Assistance of the Divine Spirit derogate from the Infallibility of God, from which it is de­rived?

But Her Exposition must be admitted, say you, though contrary to the Sense. As if Infallibility did not exclude all possibility of such a wrested Exposition! The Infallibility of the Church may slight your Attempts, whilst you are armed only with such Straws. We have seen your Arguments, let us see your Answers to ours.

G. B. pag. 44. The Gates of Hell not prevail­ing against the Church, Mat. 16.18. proves not the pretence of Infallibility.

Why not, Learned Sir? Not a word of that; but as if you had forgotten what you were a­bout, you fall upon the English Translation of that Text, which you say, deserves amendment; and I will leave you to be taught better Man­ners by your Fellow Ministers, or your Mother the Kirk of Scotland.

G. B. pag. 45. The Spirit leading into all truth, Joan. 16.13. advances not the Cause a whit, since that Promise relates to all Believers.

Here is another Assertion without Proof, as if we were bound to take your word. Those words are part of the Sermon after the last Supper, at which only the Apostles were pre­sent, and which was directed immediately to them. You should then give some Reason why they relate to all Believers, althô spoken only to the Apostles.

G. B. The Church's being built on the Rock, Pe­ter, proves nothing for a Series of Bishops of Rome, seeing the other Apostles were also Foundations.

Answ. If it prove all Bishops together Infal­lible, firm in Faith as a Rock, it confounds your Reformation, which is condemned by them all.

G. B. The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat. 16.19. import no more, than that Peter was to open the Gospel.

When you shall give in a Proof, we will consi­der it; till then I will believe not you, but Christ, who, [...], adds the Office of the Keys, to open and shut, not the Gospel, but Hea­ven, by loosing and binding Sins.

G. B. pag. 46. It is certain, that Vice as well as Error, is destructive of Religion. If then there be no Authority for suppressing of Vice, but that same of the Discipline of the Church, it is not incongru­ous there be no other Authority for suppressing of Er­ror, but that same of the Discipline of the Church.

Answ. It is certain, that both in the old and new Law, several Persons have been secured a­gainst Error, who were subject to Sin. S. Peter was truly reprehensible, Gal. 2.11. for a thing he did, not for any thing he writ or preached. The same of David, of Sa­lomon, &c. For this reason our Blessed Saviour commanded Mat. 23.23. all to follow the Doctrin of the Scribes and Phari­sees, because they sat on the Chair of Moyses, but not their Example. So your Question, why God should provide more against Error in Faith, than against Vice in Manners, can find no place amongst Catholics, who are taught to adore God's holy Will, even when they understand it not, and to 2 Cor. 10.5. Bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. To you, who think it absurd to deny a Man the use of his Reason in Judging and Di­seerning all things, and submit even Divinely re­vealed Truths to its Tribunal, to you, I say, we leave the search of those Depths, and discovery of those Mysteries.

G. B. pag. 48. I could prove from History that General Councils have erred, that Popes have been Heretics.

Answ. By what you have done, we may guess what you can do. Your Learning appears by your Writings, as also your Judgment in using it. We have seen many Proofs of it, and shall see more in this small Tract. I will add to them one Instance out of another Work of yours, Observations on the First Canon of the Apostles, pag. 66. You prove, that anciently Priests could Administer the Sacrament of Confirmation, out of the First Canon of the First Council of Orange. When it is evident, that That Canon doth not give Priests power to Administer the Sacrament of Confirmation, but commands them to use Chrism in Baptism: since when every Divine of the First Year knows, that Vertical Chrismation hath been a Ceremony of that First and myste­rious Sacrament. Such Mistakes as these, are incident to such as are bred in a Congregation where Ceremonies are abrogated.

G. B. pag. 49. We are not the Servants of Men, nor bound to their Authority; for none can be a Judge, but where he hath Power to Try and to Coerce. Now none but God can search our Hearts, so none but he can be Judge.

Answ. The Independent and Quaker, and all who endure with regret Prince and Prelate, Canon and Civil Law, under pretence of Evan­gelical Liberty, will thank you for this.

CHAP. XIV. Of Merits.

G. B. p. 50. IF any have derogated from the value of the Satisfaction of that Lamb of God, they have offered the utmost Indignity to the highest Love, and committed the Crime of the greatest In­gratitude imaginable.

Answ. Transeat totum, what then?

G. B. Who would requite the most unconceivable Love with such a sacrilegious Attempt?

Answ. None that I know of. But, say you, how guilty are they of this, who would set the Me­rits and Works of Men, in an equality with the Blood of God?

Answ. I know none such; if you do, point them out for Punishment; no Catholic is con­cerned in them.

G. B. pag. 51. It is true, this Doctrin of Merit is so explained by some of that Church, that there remains no ground of quarrelling it; except for the Terms sake, which is indeed odious and improper, thô early used by the Ancients in an innocent Sense. But many of that Church acknowledge there can be no Obligation on God by our Works, but that which his own Promise binds upon him.

Answ. Here is one of the malicious Sleights of you and your Brethren, when you cannot with any colour accuse the Doctrin of our Church, to pretend it is only the Doctrin of [Page 149]some few Persons, that you may persuade your Disciples the generality of Catholics hold the contrary. The Council of Trent contains what all Catholics Subscribe to? and this is the Do­ctrin of that Council in this Point. Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. cap. 16. Benè operantibus usque in finem, & in Deo sperantibus proponenda est vita aeterna, & tanquam gratia filiis Dei per Christum Jesum misericorditer promissa; & tanquem merces ex ipsius Dei promissione bonis ipsorum operibus, & meritis fideliter reddenda. To those who perse­vere in good Works even to the end of this Life, and who hope in God, Life everlasting is proposed, both as Grace mercifully promised to the adopted Children of God through Jesus Christ our Lord; as also as a Reward due, in vertue of the Promise of God, to their good Works and Merits. What can you say against this Doctrin? Is it not that very Do­ctrin which you say is Innocent, and that there is no ground of quarrelling it? We do not believe the greatest Good we can produce, can bind God, without, 1. His own Promise; 2. The Merits of Christ. Why may not this suffice you?

But the Term is odious, say you. Why so? See­ing by ancient Fathers, and modern Divines, by the Primitive and present Church, it is used in an innocent Sense, why may not the Catholic Church using that word in a good Sense, qua­lifie the Odium, and correct it? What if not only in Fathers or Councils, but in Scripture it self, that Term be found (at least equiva­lently?) [Page 150]will not that reconcile you to this Term? Now so it is: for Merit and Reward are Correlatives Rom. 11.6. which cannot be separated, according to Philoso­phy. Now a Reward is promised in Scripture Mat. 5.12. to those who are reviled, and persecuted, and calumniated, (as we are by you and your Brethren, in such sly ma­lignant Hints) wherefore we do merit in suf­fering such Calumnies. And S. Paul assures a Reward 1 Cor. 9.17. was due to himself for Preaching willingly. His willingly Preaching was then meritorious.

When the Reader saw those Tragical De­clamations, no doubt but he expected no less than some Doctrin destructive of Christianity, and that Religion lay gasping. Parturiunt mon­tes, natus est ridiculus mus. All the fright you were in, was raised from one word, which you your self say hath an innocent Sense. And we say, that That very Sense is what the R. Catholic Church intends by it. So you have a Remedy for your groundless Apprehension.

CHAP. XV. Of temporal Punishment due to Sin forgiven.

G. B. p. 54. ADD the Distinction of the temporal and eternal Punishment Sin deserves: the later is removed by the Blood of Christ, the for­mer [Page 151]must be expiated by our selves, either by Suffer­ings in this Life, or in Purgatory.

Answ. We hold indeed a temporal Pain due to Sin after it is remitted, sometimes, not al­ways. For when Sin is remitted by Baptism, or by a perfect Act of Contrition, we believe all Pain to be remitted with the Sin; but not ordinarily. And for this reason the Church at all times made a difference betwixt those whose Sins were expiated by the Sacrament of Baptism and of Penance; for she never impo­sed any Penal Works on Baptized Persons: and never omitted imposing them on Penitents. Which short hint points out such a cloud of Wit­nesses testifying this Truth, that it covers the whole Face of the Primitive Church, and so co­vers it, as to discover its Doctrin to be the same with ours.

Nothing can be more clear to confirm this Catholic Doctrin, then that a temporal Pe­nalty was inflicted on David 2. Reg. 12.14. for that Sin, which upon his crying Peccavi, had been removed, put a­way, or forgiven. A Penalty therefore or Pe­nance may be inflicted for a Sin forgiven, and consequently a Pain is due sometimes to it.

Indeed were it not so, why did our Forefa­thers impose large Penances, after by vertue of the Keys the Sins were remitted? why do you blame us for imposing small Penances, when there is, as you say here, none at all due?

G. B. pag. 54. This is contrary to the value we [Page 152]set on the Blood of Christ. Ephes. 2.15, 16. By Christ Peace is made, we are reconciled to God, he presents us to the Father without spot, wrinkle, &c. which declare how plenary his Satisfaction was, nothing being left undone by him for removing the guilt of sin. Thus you. As if nothing could be required on Man's side, in order to apply the Satisfaction of Christ, without derogating from its plenitude! Christ's Satisfaction was plenary: so was his Prayer, his Grief, his Suffering. Yet we must pray for our selves Matt. 6.12., and for one another, Jac. 5.16 althô he prayed for us all. And we must be sorry for our Sins, the whole course of the Go­spel requires it of us; and we must suffer for and with him. For as in order of Nature that Action of the prime Cause, by which it concurs with Creatures, is sufficient of it self to pro­duce the whole Effect, yet nothing is done without the concourse of secondary Causes, which apply the Action of the first: so the Sa­tisfaction of Christ is sufficient for all, yet doth not remit our sins actually, without it be ap­plied to us, either by Baptism, or Penitential Works. And the necessity of this Application by Faith, is owned by all your Reformers: And if this is consistent with that Fulness, why not Application by Faith and Charity?

You say, This is a comfortless Doctrin.

Answ. It is our Duty to take the Doctrin of Christ as we find it in holy Writ, and to teach others what we take thence, being assured, that [Page 153]whether it he, or be not comfortable, it is wholsom unto everlasting Life. And such is that Doctrin, which makes us punish in our selves our offen­ces, and by that means prevent those punish­ments which God would otherwise inflict up­on us: it makes us work our salvation with Phil. 2.12. fear and trembling; it causes sorrow according to God, which brings forth Penance unto 2 Cor. 7.10. sal­vation which is stable. It is a Doctrin propor­tioned to the present state of Man, this be­ing a state of Banishment and Penance, where fear, and trembling, and sighs, and tears, and fasting, and prayer, and watches, are his lot, and must ground his security as to the main chance, which is the only thing can give him real and substantial comfort, in this vale of miseries. He must conform to his pat­tern Jesus suffering, and 1 S. Pet. 2.21. follow his footsteps. He carried his cross, and invites us to take up ours, and follow him Mat. 16.24.; but doth not advise us to leave it, as if carrying his own were sufficient for both him and us. In fine; not­withstanding all the suffering of Christ for us, we must here sow with tears, Psal. 125.6. if we will there reap with joy. Christ himself was to suffer Luc. 24.26., and so to enter into his Glory. And we must suffer with him 2 Tim. 2.12., if we expect to reign with him. This, this is the Doctrin of Christ, and the Spirit of the Go­spel; [Page 154]which teaches us to hope in the Merits of Christ, but not to neglect good works: It shews us, not to presume on his Satisfaction, nor de­spair of his Mercy; to walk in hope of his goodness, and fear of our own faults and frail­ties; to be thankful for the Merits of Christ, which give all their value to ours, which of themselves are nothing. In fine, so to honor the fulness of our Redemption, as (not to foster negligence in our selves, but) to stir up our selves to imitate our Redeemer in doing and suffering; that so we might be sted­fast and immoveable in good, 1 Cor. 15.58. a­bounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that our labor is not in vain

CHAP. XVI. Of Purgatory.

G.B. pag. 55. begins to treat of Purgatory, and doth it so lightly, as if he feared to burn his Fingers. Yet if he shews less Reading, he shews more Cunning than his Brethren, E. S. or W. L. who give great advantages to an Ad­versary, by fixing a time for the kindling of that purging Fire, which was lighted long be­fore any determinate time they can fix upon. Mr. Stillingfl. pag. 654. Not one of the Fathers affirmed your Doctrin of Purgatory before Gregory the First. Yet W. L. allows it a much greater [Page 155]Antiquity, pag. 353. We can find, says he, a beginning of this Doctrin, and a Beginner too, namely Origen. Thus they differ among them­selves, and as little agree each with himself: for pag. 348. W. L. had said, Scarce any Father within the first Three hundred years, ever thought of it. Which Assertion is contradictory to what he says of Origen's being the Beginner of it: and it is moreover very rash; for doth he think that all the Fathers of the first three Ages writ down all their thoughts? or that all they writ is preserved till our days? or that he hath seen all that is so preserved? or remembers all that he hath ever seen? But let us leave these Men to reconcile together their own thoughts, which will be no small nor short labor, and examin the thing it self: And to come to it, I pass over several slips of our Adversaries, v.g. W. Laud, pag. 348. says, that The first Definition of Purga­tory to be believed as a Divine Truth, was made by the Council of Florence. In which he is mis­taken: for Benedict XII. long before that, had Defined the same.

I prove, that the Primitive Church believed a Purgatory in the most pure Times, out of the Testimony of three Fathers, S. Hilary, S. Gre­gory Nyssen, and S. Austin.

S. Hilary, Hil. in Ps. 118.20. Ille indefessus ignis obeundus est, subeunda sunt illa expi­andâ à peccatis animae supplicia. That restress Fire is to be endured; and those Punishments to be born, which may purge our Souls from Sins.

S. Gregory Nyssen, Greg. orat. de mortuis. as cited by W. L. pag. 351. Men must be purged either by Prayers, or by the Furnace of Pur­gatory Fire after this Life. Again. A Man can­not be partaker of the Divine Nature, unless the Purging Fire doth take away the Stains that are in his Soul. Again. After this Life, a Purgatory Fire takes away the Blots, and Propensity to Evil. W. L. considering these words, ingenuously con­fesseth, they seem plain. Yet he holds out one Buckler against these two Arrows drawn out of the Quivers of those Fathers, That they speak of a Purgation of sins; and in the Roman Church we are taught to believe only a Purgation of the pain due to sins already forgiven. Now this avails little. 1. Because the Debt of pain may be, and often is taken for sin, (on which it is grounded) metonimicè. 2. He seems not to un­derstand our Doctrin; for there is no Defini­tion of our Church obliging us to believe, that there remain no venial sins in Purgatory. Hence Dr. Kellison, Kellis. in 3, p. tom. 2. p. 611. late President of the English Colledge of Doway, proves Purgatory to be prepared First, for those who die with only venial sins. Secondly, for those who die without any sin, but only without having fully satisfied for the pains due to sins forgiven. The same reasons are al­ledged by Dr. Sylvius, Sylvius in 3. p. Suppl. q. 100. p. 356. where he treats the same Question. And before these, Benedictus XII. in his Decree Benedictus Deus, hath these words: Decer­nimus [Page 157]animas decedentes cum veniali aliquo peccato, purgari post mortem, & post purgationem, ante re­sumptionem suorum corporum, & judicium generale, post Ascensionem Christi Domini, fuisse, esse, & futur as esse in coelo. We do declare, that Souls dying in venial Sin, being purged after their Death, be­fore the general Resurrection are translated to Hea­ven. Which Decree you may find in Magno Bul­lario, and in Alphons. de Castro verbo Beatitudo. You see, Sir, that there is nothing in the Pur­gatory described by those Saints incosistent with what we are taught to believe of ours. So W. L. or his Squire E. S. must study for an­other Evasion.

W. L. cites indeed the Council of Florence to confirm his Answer. But that place helps only to convince the World how perfunctori­ously he read, and inconsiderately framed his Judgment upon reading: for in the place cited by him, the Council speaks of Souls dying in the state of Grace, or Charity, Si in Charitate de­cesserint: But of their not having any venial sins, not one word, unless he thinks that all Souls in Grace are free from venial sins, which will be another proof of his Abilities in Di­vinity.

My next Proof is taken from St. Angustin, in Enchir. cap. 110. Neque negandum est, de­functorum [...]imas pietate suorum viventium rele­vari, cùm pro illis sacrificium mediatoris offertur, vel Eleemosynae in Ecclesiâ fiunt, sed iis haec pro­sunt, qui cùm viverent, ut haec sibi postea prodesse [Page 158]possent, meruerunt. Est enim quidam vivendi mo­dus nec tam bonus, ut non requirat ista post mortem, nec tam malus, ut ei non prosint ista post mortem. Est verò talis in bono, ut ista non requirat, & est rursus talis in malo, ut nec his valeat, cùm ex hac vitâ transierit, adjuvari. Similia habentur l. 21. de Civ. Dei c. 24. It ought not to be denied, that Souls departed are cased by the Piety of their survi­ving Friends, when the Sacrifice of our Mediator is offered for them, or Alms given in the Church. But those are relieved by these helps, who lived so as to deserve the benefit of them after their death: for there is a kind of Life neither so good, as not to need them, nor so bad, as not to receive ease by them. There is another so good, as not to want them, and a third so bad, as to be incapable of help, even from them. Thus S. Austin.

Where you see, he distinguishes three Places for the Souls departed, as clearly as Bellarmin or the Council of Trent. One of those so good, as not to need help by the Suffrages of the Church, such are the Blessed Souls in Heaven. Another so bad, as to be incapable or unworthy of relief by the Suffrages, such are the wretch­ed Souls in Hell. A third needing them, and capable of ease from them, such are Souls in Purgatory.

You see Secondly, clear mention of the Sacri­fice of our Mediator, offered by the Church in his days. What is this, but our Mass? which you may find again Lib. 10. de Civitat. Dei. cap. 20.

You see Thirdly, this Sacrifice offered for the Dead. And Lastly, you see Alms given in the Church, for the relief and ease of deceased Friends: How many Points of our Reformers Catechism doth this one place confute! Truly one may think, either that they invented these Doctrins to spite S. Austin, or that this great Saint writ that Chapter with a Prophetic Spi­rit, to convince the World that your Senti­ments are no less opposit to the ancient than to the modern Church, which both agree in hold­ing out the same Tenets in Faith.

E. Still. pag. 642. S. Austin delivers his Judg­ment with such fear and hesitancy, that any one may easily see, that he was far from making it an Arti­cle of Faith. He may as well say, that the Coun­cil of Trent spoke with hesitancy. He adds: That in S, Austin 's time, many favored Origen 's Opinion, of the final Salvation of all, at least who died in the Communion of the Church. But what is this to S. Austin, who condemns that Hereti­cal Opinion, as he says, and may be seen lib. 21. de Civ. Dei cap. 24. and in the whole Book De fide & operibus.

But says E.S. St. Austin speaks doubtfully, lib. de fide & operibus cap. 16. & Enchir. cap. 69. But he should have taken notice, that he speaks in those places not of Purgatory in it self, but of a particular pain, which we, no less than he, doubt of. The matter he treats, Enchir. c. 68. is the Grief which Men feel for the loss of such things which they loved inordinately, and by [Page 160]that means offended God, althô their love to Creatures were not so great as to withdraw them from the Foundation, Christ. Ʋrit eum rerum dolor, quas dilexerat amissarum; sed non subvertit fundamenti stabilitate munitum. Such a Man is burnt, and tormented with the loss of those things which he loved; yet he is not quite consumed, because the Foundation stands fast, viz. his Love to Christ, whom he would stick to, althó with loss of other things. Then follows cap. 69. where he doubts whether such a pur­ging Fire, or Pain as this is, shall accompany them in the next World; that is, whether Souls de­parted retain any disorderly affection to their Possessions in this World, by reason of which the want of them may be a torment to them, and as it were, burn them. In a like manner lib. de fide operibus cap. 16. Sivè ergò in hac vita tantum, homines ista patiuntur, says he, sivè post hanc vi­tam talia quaedam judicia subsequuntur. Whether Men suffer such things only in this Life, or the same Torments accompany them into the next World. Which is a thing modern Catholics as much doubt of as S. Austin; yet he, as well as we, might believe most certainly, what he so posi­tively affirmed in his Manual, Chap. CX.

In vain therefore doth E. S. alledge, p. 653. the blotting out of those words, Constat animas post hanc vitam purgari; It is evident that Souls are purged after this Life. There is enough left in S. Austin's undoubted works to confute his Error. So the success of that Reformer was [Page 161]like that of Marcion with his Sponge, who blot­ted out some parts of Scripture, yet what re­mained confuted his Heresie.

As for Holy Scripture, I think the Argument which S. Austin uses, lib. 21. de Civ. Dei cap. 23. very convincing for Purgatory. It is taken out of the words of our Saviour, Matt. 12.32. It shall be forgiven neither in this world nor in the next. Whence it follows, that some sins are forgiven in the next world. Neque enim de qui­busdam veraciter diceretur, quod non eis remittatur, neque in hoc saeculo, neque in futuro saeculo, nisi es­sent, quibus etsi non in isto, tamen remittetur in fu­turo. Aug. l. 21. de Civit. Dei, cap. 24. Now to Mr. G. B.

G. B. pag. 55. For Purgatory, the Proof from Scripture was only drawn from one wrested place of the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 3.12, 13, 14, 15.

Answ. How can you say this, when amongst the Ancients S. Austin uses another Text, as we have just now seen. And Bellarmin hath Nine­teen Texts of Scripture, as your Patriarch W. L. will tell you, pag. 353.

G. B. The Apostles words contain only a Prover­bial form of Speech, to express the risque they run.

Ans. The Apostle speaks not only of a risque, or hazard, but of an effectual loss; He shall suffer loss, says he, Vers. 15.

G. B. pap. 55. Many Visions and Apparitions were vouched for the proof of Purgatory.

Answ. I never saw any vouched for that in­tent: I am sure neither the Council of Trent, [Page 162]nor that of Florence, nor Benedict. XII. vouched any such thing for that intent.

I think not our Divine Faith much concerned in asserting the truth of any purely Human Hi­story; and I think most Apparitions to be such. Yet because several Protestants, as well as all Atheists, utterly reject all such Relations, I de­sire them to read S. Austin, lib. de Curâ pro mor­tuis, cap. 10. where he says it would be an Im­pudence to deny them all. Impudenter venire vi­debimur, si haec falsa esse rensponderimus. And in his 16. Chap. he says, he had learnt Non incertis rumoribus, sed testibus certis; Not from uncertain Rumors, but from undoubted Witnesses, that S. Fe­lix had appeared both to Citizens and Stran­gers, during the Siege of Nola.

Had you the same Faith which was then in the Church, you would believe these things; your denying them, which the Primitive Church and S. Austin believed, shews you to be anima­ted with a different Faith.

CHAP. XVII. Priestly Absolution.

G. B. p. 60. ANother Art for detracting from the value of Christ's Death, is the Priestly Absolution.

Answ. This Objection is no Product of your own Wit, you may find it and the Authors of [Page 163]it together, with an Answer to it, in S. Am­brose, lib. 1. de Poen. cap. 2. Aiunt Novatiani se Domino deferre reverentiam, cui soli remitten­dorum criminum potestatem reservant. Imò nulli majorem injuriam faciunt quàm qui volunt ejus mandata rescindere. Nam cùm ipse in Evangelio dixerit, quaecunque ligaveritis: quis est qui eum magis honorat, utrum qui mandatis ejus obtemperat, an qui resistit? Ecclesia in utroque servat obedien­tiam, ut peccatum & alliget, & relaxet. The No­vatians (says this Saint) pretend to honor God, by reserving to him alone the power of forgiving sins. But really none are more injurious to him, (or wrong him more) than those who break his Orders. For whereas he in the Gospel said, Whose sins soever you bind; who honors God more, he who obeys his Com­mands, by using that Power, or he who resists them? Now the Church obeys both the Commands, to bind and loose sins, effectually binding and loosing them. Thus S. Ambrose.

You see, Sir, that our Doctrin now was that of the Church in S. Ambrose's time; That the Novatians held your Doctrin, and made use of the same pretext as you do, to defend their Do­ctrin. The Church, for which S. Ambrose pleads, was Catholic: so must we be in this, seeing our Doctrin is the same with theirs. The Novatians in this were Heretics; what are you?

Indeed the words with which our Blessed Sa­viour. Mat. 16.18. first promis'd, secondly, Joan. 20.22, 23. actually communicated that power to forgive, or retain sins, are [Page 164]so express, that it is the greatest disrespect imaginable so to wrest them, as they must, to draw them from their natural sense, I desire you to shew your Art, and invent some Speech, which in so few words shall more clear­ly express this sense the Catholic Church un­derstands them in.

And as for Fathers, see S. Cyprian in many places, S. Basil. qq. brev. q. 288. S. Leo Epist. 91. ad Theodorum, Greg. Hom 26. in Evang. Cyril. Alex. lib. 12. in Joan. But above all, S. Chrysost. lib. 3. de Sacerd. c. 5. Tom. 3. Edit. Savell. p. 16. [...]. Those who [Page 165]dwell on Earth, says he, are enabled to dispense the things in Heaven. To them a Power is given, which neither Angels, nor Archangels enjoy: for to these it was never said, What you shall bind. Earthly Princes have power to cast into Prison, but their Power is restrained to Bodies only. Whereas the Bond we speak of, reaches the Soul, and Heaven it self, insomuch as what Priests do below, God ra­tifies above: and the Lord confirms the Sentence of the Servant. And what is this, but to have put in­to their hands all Power to dispose of Heaven? whose sins you forgive, are forgiven: and whose sins you retain, are retained, What Power can be greater than this? God the Father hath given all Power to Judge to the Son, and the Son hath communicated all that same Power to Priests. Thus the glorious Saint.

You see, Sir, the Grounds of our Belief in this Point, the clear words of our Lord, Joan. 20.23. Whose soever sins you remit, they are remitted unto them; You see the Fathers and the Primitive Church Explicating those words as we do; You see Novatians were held for Heretics for understanding those words otherwise; What ground have you to deny a Truth delivered by Christ to the Apostles, and from them handed down to us?

G. B. pag. 62. It was counted a Blasphemy in Christ, when he said, Thy sins are forgiven thee, which shews it to be Blasphemy in all others, it be­ing an invasion of his Prerogative.

Answ. Here we have a blasphemous Accu­sation [Page 166]of the Scribes against Jesus Christ, oppo­sed against the clear words of Christ, and the meaning of the whole Church; Nay, their words, althô full of malice, and convinced of Falshood by a Miracle, are preferred before those of Christ, as being made a Rule by which his must be interpreted. Thus under pretence of asserting the Authority of Christ, you over­throw it, as your Brethren ruined their Sove­reign, under pretence of making him a glori­ous King.

But, say you, Christ cleared himself from the Power was committed to the Son of Man to forgive sins.

Answ. That same Power given by the Son of Man to the Apostles and their Successors, doth clear us.

G. B. pag. 61. After a Sinner hath gone over his Sins without any sign of remorse, and told them to a Priest, he enjoyns a Penance, and without wait­ing that they obey it, he says, I absolve thee; and after this they judge them selves fully cleansed from Sins.

Answ. Were there Benefices or Preferments established for such as invent Stories without any ground, I know none in a fairer way to them than your self. You cannot but know, that we hold Contrition to be an essential part of the Sacrament, and that he who Confesses without Sorrow, is so far from obtaining Pardon for the sins past, that we judge him guilty of a new Sacrilege. Consider a little what you say, if [Page 167]not for Conscience, and the Fear of God, (which you seem not to regard) at least for your Credit.

G. B. pag. 61, 62. What can take off more from the value of the Death of Christ, than to be­lieve it in the power of a Priest to absolve from sin?

Answ. That cannot take from the value of that Sacred Passion, upon which it is built. By Baptism sins are remitted, without derogating from the value of the Death of Christ. The same of Absolution. Because in both these Sa­craments the Merits of the Passion are applied, to cleanse our Souls in such a manner as Christ hath ordained, and by Authority derived from him. In Civil Matters, as no Man can lawfully take upon himself the Authority, and exercise the Function of a Judge, without a Commission from the King; So it is no less unlawful to re­fuse due Obedience to Judges lawfully Com­missionated. We have a lawful Commission in the Gospel, and we stick to that, till we see better Grounds to vacate it, than such frivo­lous Reasons as you bring.

CHAP. XVIII. Of Penances, Fasting, Prayer, and Pilgri­mages.

G. B. p. 62. ADD the Scorn put on Religion, by the Penances enjoyned for sin: abstain­ing [Page 168]from Flesh, pattering over Prayers, repeat­ing the Penitential Psalms, going to such Churches and Altars, with other ridiculous Observances like these, which cannot but kill the Vitals of true Religion. And who can have any sad apprehen­sions of sin, who is taught such an easie way of punishment?

Answ. Experience shews us whether Practice preserves more the Vitals of Religion, yours, or ours: And I am persaaded, I shall have oc­casion before we part, to give you a Prospect not very pleasing, of the Piety of your Prose­lytes; who, as S. Paul said, 2 Tim. 3.13. Pro­ficiunt in pejus, have waxed worse and worse, ever since your Brethren have had the Direction of them. But what are these Observances which move you to Laughter? Fastings, Prayers, and Pilgrimages; so much recommended, and even commanded in both old and new Law, some­times in Scripture, often in Councils and Fa­thers, and confirmed by the Practice of the Church thrô all Ages. These things seem ridi­culous to this Democritus, a new Man, as much a Stranger to true Piety, as his Education hath been to Prayers, Fasting, and Pilgrimages, as far as appears by his Works. That he should thus deride all Penitential Works, designed either to punish our past offences, or prevent those to come: to reconcile us to our Creator, or to rivet us to him: when St. Paul, the chosen Vessel, the Temple of the Holy Ghost, the Doctor of the Gentiles separated from his mothers womb, and [Page 169]called unto Grace, Gal. 1.15. when he, I say, chastized his Body, and brought it under subjection, 1 Cor. 9.27. lest Preaching to others, he became himself a Repro­bate. What means did he use for his security to mortifie his Body, but those this good Man counts Ridiculous Observances, viz. Fasting and Prayer, and the like; We are sure he was ani­mated with the Spirit of God; what Spirit a­nimates you?

SECTION I. Fasting.

AS for Fasting, our Blessed Saviour Fasted Mat. 4.2. forty days and forty nights. He foretells his Disciples Mar. 2, 20. fast­ing when the Bridegroom should be ta­ken from them.; that is, after his Ascension. He directs us how to Fast, and promises a Reward Mat. 6.17 to our Fastings, when duly performed. He teaches that Fast­ing Mat. 17.20 & Mar. 9.29. gives us a power over the Devils.

When any Work of great moment was to be done, Fasting was used Acts 13.2.. As the Disciples, or Apostles mini­stred to the Lord, and Fasted, the Holy Ghost said. With Fasting Acts 14.23. and Prayer S. Paul and S. Barnabas were Consecrated A postles: These, with Fasting and Prayers [Page 170] 2 Cor. 6.5. ordained Bishops in every Church. And S. Paul several times speaks of his Fastings; 2 Cor. 11.27. In watchings, in fastings. Again, In hunger and thirst, in fastings often.

What was the Practice of the Christians of the Second Age, Tertllian will teach us, Apolog. pag. 40. cap. 71, where having reproached the Pagans with their Feastings in Times of Public Calamities, he represents the contrary Life of Christians. Nos verò jejuniis aridi, & omni con­tinentiâ expressi, ab omni vitae fruge delati, in sacco & cinere volutantes, invidiâ coelum tundimus, De­um tangimus, & cùm misericordiam extorserimus, Jupiter honoratur. ‘You Feast, says he, but we dried up with Fasting, living in perfect Con­tinency, abstaining from all Contents of this Life, prostrate in Sackcloth and Ashes, charge Heaven with the Odium of afflicting Persons so much afflicted; and when we have by these Penitential Works forced God to take pity of the World, Jupiter is honored by you.’

For the third Age, see what Moses Maxi­mus and other Confessors required of Penitents; Jejunio extenuari, that they should grow lean with Fasting.

All the subsequent Ages give as many Testi­monies to the Duty and Advantages of Fasting, as there are are of any Work of Piety. This the Fathers teach in their Sermons, the Bishops commanded in their Canons, the faithful Pra­ctise in their Lives, and all recommend by their [Page 171]Example. Nay, Protestants themselves own this Truth. The Author of the Duty of Man, Sunday 5. n. 34. To this Duty of Repentance, says he, Fasting is very proper to be annexed; the Scripture usually joyns them together. If you de­sire to know the Fruits of Fasting, S. Thom. 2.2. q. 147. a. 1. names three. 1. To mortifie and curb our Bodies. 2. To raise our Mind to Heavenly things. 3. To punish in our selves the ill use of some Creatures, by depriving our selves of the use of others. A fourth Reason is, to increase Merit, Grace and Glory. Virtutem largiris, & praemia, says the Church, in Praef. Quad.

SECTION II. Prayer.

PRayer being a raising of our Souls to God, it exposes our Understanding to the Di­vine Light, and places our Will in the warmth of Divine Love: Wherefore nothing can be more efficacious to clear our Mind from its Ig­norance and Darkness, nor to purge our Will from its depraved Affections and Passions. It is a Key which opens the Treasure of God's Mercy, and opens our Heart to receive its Ef­fects. It is a River of Benediction, whose Wa­ters cleanse our Soul from its Imperfections, moisten our Heart, make our good Purposes bud forth and flourish, and fill our Will with the Fruits of Vertue.

It is often recommended in Scripture, See, Mar. 13.33. watch, and pray. Pray Mat. 26.41. that you enter not into tentation. Luc. 16.8. You must always pray, and never faint.

All Places and all Times are fit for Prayer: God limits neither, but promises to hear us al­ways. Ask, and you shall receive. Whatsoever you shall ask my Father in my name, he will grant it you.

Particularly Remission of Sins is annexed to it. Hear S. Austin, Enchir. c. 71. De quotidia­nis, brevibus, levibusque peccatis sine quibus haec vi­ta non ducitur, quotidiana oratio fidelium satisfa­cit: Eorum est enim dicere, Pater noster qui es in coelis, qui jam Patri tali regenerati sunt ex aquâ & Spiritu sancto. Delet omninò haec Oratio minima, & quotidiana peccata. Delet & illa, à quibus vita fidelium sceleratè etiam gesta, sed poenitentiâ in me­lius mutatâ discedit; si quemadmodum veraciter dicitur: Dimitte nobis debita nostra, Ita veraciter dicatur, sicut & nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris: Id est si fiat quod dicitur. ‘The daily Prayers of the Faithful satisfie for those daily, light, and small sins, which are incident to all in this Life, (these we call Venial Sins); for it belongs properly to those to say, Our Father, which art in Heaven, who are regenerated by Water and the Holy Ghost to such a Fa­ther. This Prayer blots out little sins. It hath a vertue also to carry away the guilt of greater sins, (in those who are repentant of them) provided they as truly forgive, as [Page 173]they ask to be forgiven; that is, they do what they say.’

Sir, how different was S. Austin's Judgment from yours? He thought those Prayers effica­cious to blot out venial, and even mortal sins; and you think the prescribing them Ridiculous.

Saying the Penitential Psalms is an Object of Laughter to you. Were there any Church Di­scipline among you, or had your Prelates any true Zeal for any part of Devotion, you would be forced to change your note, the saying the Psalms being the only part of Devotion which you retain. But it seems, Writing against Po­pery hath a Vertue to sanctifie all Impiety, as acting against it did excuse all Sacrilege. I ne­ver heard any Man moved to Laughter with reading the Psalms, and I have known many moved by them to Compunction, to a new Life, and to the Love of God. Let S. Austin (who experienced it himself) speak, lib. 9. Confess. cap. 4. Dulce mihi sit, ô Domine, confiteri tibi, qui­bus internis me stimulis perdomueris, & quemadmo­dum me complanaveris humiliatis montibus, & col­libus cogitationum mearum, & tortuosa mea direxe­ris, & aspera lenieris, quas tibi, Deus meus, voces dedi, cùm legerem Psalmos David, cantica fidelia & sonos pietatis, excludentes turgidum spiritum. Quas tibi voces dabam in Psalmis illis, & quomodo in te inflammabar ex eis, & accendebar eos recitare, si possem toto orbe terrarum adversus typhum gene­ris humani. ‘I take a delight, O my Lord, to confess to thee, with what inward Goads thou [Page 174]didst subdue me, and by what Means thou didst bring me down, levelling the greater and lesser Mountains of my Thoughts! How thou didst streighten my crookedness, and smooth my roughness! Into what Exclama­tions did I break out, O my God, when I read the Psalms of David, those faithful Canticles, those pious Sounds, which banish all proud Spirits! How I cried out in reading them! How I was inflamed in the love of thee, & how I was stirred up to read them, if possible, to the whole World, as a sovereign Antidote a­gainst the Pride of Mankind!’ Thus S. Austin.

See what a difference there is betwixt the Sentiments of this great Saint, and yours. Read­ing the Psalms moved the Saint to Compunction; it moves you to Laughter. It stirred up in the Saint the Love of God; you are not moved to any good by it. The Saint would read them to all the World; you are displeased they are recommended to any. He thought reading them a great Antidote against the Pride of Mankind, which is the root of all Evil; and you say it is Ridiculous. You have reason to su­spect your spirit, which is found so often con­trary to the Spirit of God.

SECTION III. Pilgrimages.

THIS is a third Instance of our ridiculous Penances, going to such Churches, say you. [Page 175]Which discovers your Ignorance or Impiety: For if you know not on what ground Pilgrimages are founded, you are very Ignorant; If you know it, and yet blame them, you are very Im­pious.

The two first great sins committed after the Creation of the World by Adam, in eating the forbidden Fruit, and Cain, in killing his Brother, were Judged by their Creator, and a great part of their Penance prescribed by that Great Peni­tentier, was a Pilgrimage, or Banishment, from the Place where the sin was committed. Of Adam it is said, Gen. 3.23. He sent Adam out of the Garden of Eden. And to Cain, Gen. 4.12. A fugitive and vaga­bond shalt thou be on the Earth. Now Rhabanus Maurus Poenitentia­lis cap. 11. assures, that this is the ground why such a Penance was enjoyned. And methinks the Ex­ample of God himself may be a sufficient War­rant for his Delegates, Priests, in following such a Precedent, and secure them against your Censure; especially seeing in the most ancient Collections of Penitential Canons made by Bede, Theodorus, Burchardus, Ivo, and Gratian, we find Pilgrimages prescribed amongst other Penances. Which shews the unanimous Consent of Anti­quity. And you may much easilier discover your own Weakness, or lack of Vertue, than con­vince the Makers or Collectors of those Canons of Folly.

The Reasons for this Penance are chiefly [Page 176]three. First, It is a kind of Banishment, which separates a Man (for a time) from Friends, Ac­quaintance, Home and Country: which can­not but be painful, laying aside the Incommo­dities of Travelling. And it seems just, that he who abused those things, should be deprived of the comfort of them; and having scandalized his Neighbors by bad Example, might edifie them by undergoing this public Penance.

The Second, It is a connatural Remedy for such sins, (to which two or more concur, and which proceed many times from the Person we converse with, or present Occasion) to remove the Sinner from such Occasions and Conversa­tions; as all know, who deal with Consciences. Now this is done by Pilgrimages.

The third Reason is, That althô God be in all Places, and sees and hears us wheresoever we are; yet he doth not alike in all Places disclose his Power by Miracles, nor his Justice by discove­ring secret Sins, nor his Goodness by Conversion of Sinners, as S. Austin observed long since, and daily experience confirms. S. Austin notes such to have been in his time the Tomb of S. Felix at Nola in Campania, and that of the glorious Martyrs at Milan. He refers this to the secret Judgment of God, humbly acknowledging his own Ignorance. Aug. Epist. 137. Ʋbique qui­dem Deus est, & nullo continetur vel includitur loco, qui omnia condidit. Verum tamen ad ista quae hominibus nota sunt, quis potest ejus consilium per­scrutari, quare in aliis locis haec miracula fiant, in [Page 177]aliis non fiant? And I am content to acknow­ledge my ignorance in imitation of him, when nothing appears in the place it self, as some­times there doth. For if any Man, who hath any lively Faith within him, should enter Hierusalem, and see the Place where the Lamb of God was Sacrificed, and the Price of our Redemption paid; Innocency condemned, the Divine Wis­dom derided for Folly, the King of Glory crowned with Thorns, the Creator scoffed, scorned by his Creatures, God dying, and dy­ing that painful and ignominious Death of the Cross. When he should think, Here his Flesh was torn with Stripes; Here his Head was crowned with Thorns; Here those Hands, which wrought so many Miracles, were pier­ced with Nails; here those Feet, so often wea­ried in seeking the lost Sheep, were fixed to the Cross; Here that Tongue, which had com­mand over the Elements, and Death and Hell, was imbued with Vineger and Gall; Here his Side was opened, the last drop of Blood spilt, the Life of the World died, to raise to Life the World. When he considers this, and withal, that his own sins had so great a share in requiring this most abundant Redemption, will not the very Place suggesting these and more thoughts, fix his Imagination, quicken his Fan­cy, detain his Understanding, and stir up his Will, to a hatred of Sin, the cause of all this se­vere Judgment upon the unspotted Lamb; to confusion, for having contributed so much to it [Page 178]by his own Offences; and to love God above all things, who hath loved us so much.

Hereafter, before yot throw such hard Stones at our Heads, consider whether there be not with us mingled, by a communion of Sentiments, some Persons to whom you must own great Re­spect to be due.

I have brought you here into an Assembly of the chiefest Preachers and Prelates of all Ages, all teaching, commanding, or practising these Works which you deride. The Apostles take up the first rank, and over all Jesus Christ, God blessed for evermore, Presiding, and giving Ex­ample. Suppose in the name of all these S. Basil, S. Austin, or S. Paul the Apostle should thus speak unto you:

How comes it to pass, that you presume to censure in those of your Days, that which they practise only in Imitation of us? How dare you say, that our Exercises should kill the Vitals of Religion, and dull the Apprehensions of Sin? That what Christ did himself, and what is done by others following his footsteps, should lead from Christ, and hin­der the earnest Application to him?

What Answer can you make to these true Reproaches? Think a little sadly on this, and it will bring you to a Temper more beseeming your Coat, than when you writ what I have here Answered.

SECTION IV. Two Objections Answered.

G. B. p. 63. THIS is an easie way of escaping Pu­nishment.

Answer. Can you never settle your Judg­ment? will you let it ever be moved round with every blast of Wind? Here our way to expiate Sins is too easie. Pag. 144. it is a heavy yoke to Souls. When you have experienced them, fasting with Bread and Water for many Days a Week, said devoutly every Day some Pray­ers, gone long Pilgrimages on foot, taken Di­sciplines, worn Hair-Shirts and Chains, served the Sick in Hospitals, and the Prisoners in Goals, given Alms to the Poor, watched, &c. When, I say, you have tried these for some Months, if you continue in your Opinion, that our way of expiating Sins, is Easier then yours, I shall think your common Sense equal to your Piety, and admire both alike.

G. B. ibid. The Papists endeavor to give a plea­sant taste to their Penances: wherefore to the Grave and Melancholy we give of one sort; to the Fiery and Sullen, of another; to the Jovial, a third, &c.

Answ. Here you deliver a Dream as a certain Truth: Cite the Council, name the Author, of such a Practice? If you can name none, as I am sure you cannot, own your self the Inventer of this, which is to say, a Calumniator.

CHAP. XIX. Sacrifice of the Mass.

G. B. p. 64. ANother opposition made to the Priestly Office of Christ, is their conceit of the Sacrifice of the Mass, which they believe is a Formal Expiation of Sins both for the Living and Dead, who are in Purgatory.

Answ. You fall so often, that it would tire any Man to take you up always. It is not true, that Catholics hold Mass to be a Formal Expi­ation of Sins. Ʋnica causa formalis; The only Formal Cause of our Justification, says the Coun­cil of Trent, Sess. 6. cap. 7. is the Justice of God, by which he makes us just. That is, it is habitual Grace or Charity. But let that pass.

We say with the Fathers, that Mass is an Expiatory Sacrifice. S. Austin, Enchir. cap. 110. following his Distinction of Souls deceased, in­to three Classes, those in Heaven, those in Pur­gatory, and those in Hell, he says, that Masses for the first are Thanksgivings; for the second, Expiations, Propitiationes sunt; for the third, not ease to the Dead, but some comfort to their living Friends. Pro valdè bonis, gratiarum actio­nes sunt; pro non valdè malis, propitiatione sunt: pro valdè malis, etsi nulla adjumenta mortuorum, qualescunque vivorum consolationes sunt. Enchir. cap. 110.

To clear yet more this Point of the Sacrifice [Page 181]of the Mass, and of Christ offered, and offering himself in it, hear S. Austin, lib. 10. de Civit. Dei, cap. 20. Verus ille Mediator in quantum for­mam servi accipiens, mediator effectus est Dei & hominum, homo Christus Jesus, cùm in formâ Dei sacrificium cum Patre sumat, cum quo & unus Deus est, tamen in formâ servi sacrificium maluit esse, quàm sumere, ne vel hac occasione quisquam existi­maret cuilibet sacrificandum esse creaturae. Per hoc & Sacerdos est, ipse offerens, ipse & oblatio. Cu­jus rei Sacramentum quotidianum esse voluit Eccle­siae sacrificium. ‘The true Mediator, by taking upon himself the shape of a Servant, being made Mediator betwixt God and Man, the Man Christ Jesus, who together with his Fa­ther (with whom he is one God) as God re­ceives Sacrifice, but as a Man will have no Sacrifice offered to himself, to cut off all pre­tence of Sacrificing to any but God. In this Sacrifice he is the Priest, he is the Sacrificer, and he is himself the Sacrifice. (Or he is the Person who offers, and he is the Oblation.) And he hath ordered the Sacrifice of the Church, as a daily Commemoration or Sacra­ment of that Sacrifice of the Cross.’ Thus he.

Where you see a Sacrifice of the Church, as a daily Commemoration of that of the Cross; That Christ offers it; That he himself is offerd in it, and all this to God, no Sacrifice being offered to any else.

If you are so hard to please, as to be satisfied with none but those of your Communion, see [Page 182] W. L. pag. 305. where he owns a Commemora­tive Sacrifice to be instituted by Christ. And Montague, in his Appeal 2. p. c. 29. acknowledges a Representative, Commemorative, and Spiritual Sa­crifice. And your Bishop of Ely, Resp. ad Apo­log. Bellar. p. 184. admits likewise a Commemo­rative Sacrifice.

G. B. pag. d. 6. & 65. To imagine that the Priests going through the Office of the Mass, and his receiving the Consecrated Elements, can have a ver­tue to expiate the Sins of others, especially of the Dead, is a thing so contrary to most common Im­pressions, that it will puzzle a Mans Belief to think any can credit it.

Answ. Your common Impressions differ very much from those of other Men; so you have much reason to suspect, that they are only com­mon in name, but in reality they are only private Conceits of your own Head. The Catholic Church believes what you think none believes; S. Austin believed it, all Catholics profess it, our Coun­cils define it, our Catechisms teach it, our Pul­pits preach it, and our Pastors proclaim it. Yet you would fain persuade the World no body be­lieves it, that the thing is incredible. As if you knew better what passes in our Hearts than we our selves. But if this be not an honest way, it is at least, cunning, to take for granted what you cannot prove; and it is easier to find a Sleight to steal into your weak Readers Opinions, than to gain it by any substantial Reason.

G. B. ibid. The Priests receiving the Consecra­ted Elements cannot avail another.

Answ. We do not believe the Passion of Christ to be applied by the Priests taking the Host, but by the essential part of the Sacrifice, which consists in another Action.

G. B. pag. 65. It is absurd to think one Man's Action can be derived to another.

Answ. An Article of our Faith must then be absurd, viz. The Communion of Saints; which imports a mutual communication of good works amongst the Members of the Church, the my­stical Body of Christ. See Pearson in Exposit. Symboli p. 714. where he proves it out of 1 Jo. l. 7. If we walk in the light, we have fellowship with one another. The Greek say, [...], Communication with one another. And out of Col. 2.19. Holding the head, from which all the body by joynts and bands having nourishmeut ministred and knit together, encreaseth with the en­crease of God. So that, as in a natural Body all parts do communicate to one another their nourishment, in the Philosophy of the Apostle; so in his Divinity all parts of the mystical Bo­dy, the Church, communicate their good works. What say you, Sir? how like you your Cen­sure, which involves an Article of the Apostles Creed, and two Apostles? Have I not reason to admonish you, to regard where you shoot your Bolts, and throw your Stones, for that they can scarce light on any place of our Doctrin, or on us, without hitting the Apostles and the Holy [Page 184]Ghost, and many times those Points of Faith which you your self admit.

G. B. pag. 65. It clearly appears from the In­stitution of the Lord's Supper, that its End was the joynt Communicating of Believers.

Answ. It clearly appears, that you little re­gard what you say. The Primary End of its In­stitution, and indeed that which only is speci­fied by our Saviour, is to be a Commemoration of his Passion, and the Sacrifice of the Cross, Do this in memory of me. As for the joint Com­munion, it can only be a secondary Intention of the Institution, the first and chief being our union with Christ, out of which flows the second, our union amongst our selves. As Lines in a Circle meet in the Center, and so knit together.

CHAP. XX. Regal Office of Christ; where, of Transub­stantiation, Dispensing in Vows, &e.

G. B. p. 66. I Advance to the opposition made to the Re­gal Office of Christ. And first, How far is it from his Glory in Heaven to believe, that five words muttered by a Priest, should put him under the Elements? This is a new kind of Humiliation.

Answ. You are very much mistaken, if you think Humiliations inconsistent with the Regal Office of Christ. Heb. 1.7. When God brought his first-begotten into the [Page 185]world, he said, And let all the Angels of God wor­ship him. Yet he was then humbled to the condi­tion of a Man, a private obscure Man, and even below it, ( Psal. 21.7.) Opprobrium hominum & ab­jectio plebis. Certainly there is more shew of Ma­jesty, as he is placed on our Altars, enrironed with Lights, adored by the People, Prelates and Princes, the greatest Monarchs laying their Crowns, and the greatest Bishops their Crosiers and Miters at his Feet, than as he was in the lit­tle Cottage of his reputed Father a Carpenter, picking Chips at his Mothers command, or fol­lowing his Father's Trade to get a Subsistence, known to none, regarded by none, slighted by all, as is ordinary to Men of that humble Call­ing. And what shall I say of the Death of the Cross, when his very Disciples disowned him?

G. B. pag. 67. What low thoughts of his Per­son must it breed in such Minds as are capable of believing this Contrivance?

Answ. You speak like a Pagan, to whom the Cross of Christ is folly, (1 Cor. 1.23.) ra­ther than like a Christian, to whom Christ cru­cified (that is, under the greatest Humiliation) is the vertue and wisdom of God. We who have learnt to look on him as God blessed for ever­more, even when on the Cross and dying, we can take out of all his Humiliations occasion to ad­mire his Love, and adore his Goodness to us; but not to disesteem his Person, or diminish our thoughts of his Majesty. And let me tell you, you are the first Christian, I know of, who ever [Page 186]made such Unchristian Reflections on the Hu­miliations of the Son of God.

G. B. pag. 67, 68, 69, & 70. In these you charge us with three Crimes. 1. With ad­ding to the Laws of Christ. 2. Dispensing with the Laws of God. And 3. Commanding things indifferent, contrary to Christian Liberty. I answer to the First and Third, the Apostles did the same, ( Acts 15.29.) forbidding stran­gled Meat and Blood, which were things indif­ferent, and not forbidden by the Law of Christ. And as to your Objection, that this intrenches upon Christian Liberty, I Answer out of a Per­son very dear to you, even your self, in your Vindication, Confer. 2. p. 172. Christian Liberty is stated in an Exemption from the Laws of Moses. Shew that we impose the Law of Moses, and you will say something to the purpose, to our en­trenching upon Christian Liberty.

As for Dispensing in Divine Laws, when you prove what you object, I will consider what to answer. Your Instances are not sufficient. For first, as for Dispensing of Vows, there is an [...] in them, as in Laws, which is an Inter­pretation of some Circumstances, in which they do not oblige. For Example, a Man vows to fast next Lent with Bread and Water, and be­fore that time falls sick, and continues so, why may not the Church declare his Vow not to oblige, or change it into something else? Item he vows a Pilgrimage, and his Wife, Family and Affairs require his presence at home. If this [Page 187]doth not satisfie you, call to mind the Proceed­ings of your first Reformers, who opened all Cloisters, and dispensed with so many Vows at one time. Is it not strange, that you should charge us with Dispensing with some Vows, when you annul all.

Secondly, Dissolving Wedlock Bond. I know none who practise dissolving consummated Mar­riages. If you do, accuse them; if you do not, ask pardon for this false Accusation.

Thirdly, Allowing Marriages in forbidden Degrees. The Degrees hindring Marriage were contained in the Ceremonial Law, which expi­red with Christ, the end of that Law. Those which now bind, are established by Canon Law, which was made, and doth depend on the Church.

Fourthly, The Communion under one Kind, or, The Chalice taken from the People contrary to the Command of Christ. You can never prove that Command to all, to drink of the Cup.

G. B. pag. 71. Another Invasion of the Regal Power, is the Pope's pretence to be universal Bishop, which is termed by S. Gregory the Great to be An­tichristian.

Answ. I know no Pope who pretends to it, I know none who give it them: If there be any such, let them answer for themselves. The Popes are so far from pretending to that Title, that to this day in our Canon Law it is expresly condemned. C. Nullus, & C. Ecce, D. 99. And I challenge you, or any Man else, to shew me any [Page 188]one Pope, who ever required it of others, or took it to himself. Du-Val, a Learned Doctor of Sorbon, censures that Title as severely as any Protestant can do, who yet is esteemed as great a Favorer of the Papal Grandeur, as any of the Faculty of Paris.

Now I desire you to make good Sense of some­thing you say. First, pag. 67. Christ hath deli­vered us from the bondage of corruption. How is this done already, when the Apostle, (whose words those are, Rom. 8.21.) promises it only after the Resurrection.

Secondly, pag. 68. Anathema is the mildest of the Spiritual Censures we thunder against such as comply not with our tyranny. What Spiritual Cen­sure is more severe? I think that the severest of all, as we believe after Tertul. Apolog. cap. 39. pag. 68.

Thirdly, p. 69. No Authority besides Christ can reach the Conscience. S. Paul was of a diffe­rent opinion, when he enjoins Obedience to the Commands of Princes, not only for wrath, but for Conscience.

CHAP. XXI. Of Love, and its two Species. Repentance. Mortal and Venial Sins, Attrition and Contrition.

G. B. p. 75. I Proceed to the Third Part of my Enquiry which is the opposition made to the great [Page 189]Design of Christian Religion, for elevating the Souls of Men into a participation of the Divine Nature.

Answ. I never knew a Man promise more, and perform less than you. Your Words and Phrases are great and high, your Reason and Sense low and little; yet that delivered with so much Confidence as may persuade your ig­norant and credulous Reader you have Reason on your side, when you are to seek in the first Principles of the Matter you Discourse on. You may with a homely, yet a very proper Me­taphor, be compared to a Flying Ox, whose Wings stretcht out, promise a Flight, but his heavy Body keeps him on the Ground, and his dull Spirits serve only for a slow Motion there. For let a Man read your Book, observe your disesteem of others, and your insulting over them, and he shall think you, Eagle-like, to be towring above the Clouds, whence you with disdain look down on us poor Ignoramus's. Yet your heighth is discernible without the help of a Telescope: For after all your striving, and straining Endeavors, we still find you on the Ground, equal, nay inferior to many whom you insult over, without any thing extraordinary, but your boldness to Print in so Learned an Age as this is, of things you understand not. If what I have written already, and what I shall write, doth not make this clear, I will give you leave to apply that Comparison to me.

I have already spoken (Chap. 3. & 4.) of the [Page 190] Designs of God in delivering Christian Religion, that it was to teach Men to serve God in this Life, and enjoy him in the next. That this Ser­vice consisted chiefly in Faith, Hope, and Charity, yet so as Charity gives a value to the other. In fine, that the End of the Gospel was to unite us to God by Charity in this World, and by Glory (which is the last perfection of Charity) in the other,

Love is the root of all our Actions: As Weight Aug. l. 13. Confes. c. 9. Amor meus, pondus meum, eò feror, quocumque feror. Aug. l. 11. de Civit. Dei, c. 28. Si­cut corpus pondere, ita ani­mus amore fertur quocumque fertur. in Bodies gives them their Mo­tion towards their Cen­ter, so Love in Men; but with this difference, that Weight is restrain­ed to local Motion, an Action of one species; but Love (as partaking of the nature of the Soul, whose it is,) reaches to several, and those of an opposit nature: for all we do, proceeds from some Love.

All our Passions are only Love in a several disguise Aug. l. 14. de Civ. Dei, cap. 7.. Is the thing we love, absent, the love of it is called De­sire; is it in danger to be lost, it is Fear; are we in a probability of attaining it, it is Hope; is it looked on as irrevocable, it is Despair; are we stirred up to overcome the Difficulties opposing us, it is Anger; do we possess it, it is Joy; do we lose it, Love is chan­ged into Grief or Sadness, &c. The same Love putting on several Dresses, and transforming it [Page 191]self, Proteus like, conformable to the nature and condition of its Object. So that it would be im­possible to reckon all its Species, which are re­duced to some Heads both by Philosophers and Divines: Philosophers draw it to three Spe­cies, according to three sorts of Good, Honor, Profit, and Pleasure.

But much more to our purpose, is the Di­stinction of Love used by Divines, which (in order to a Mortal Life in this World, and Eter­nal Life in the next) divides all Mankind, viz. The love of God, and the love of our selves, com­monly called Self-love. We received the love of our selves from Adam, the love of God from Christ; that is an effect of corrupt Nature, this of repairing Grace; from that spring out the works of the Flesh, from this grow those of the Spirit; that ends in Death, this is the Seed of Life. By these two Loves two Cities are built, Aug. l. 14. de Civit. Dei c. 28. Fecerunt Civitates duas, amores duo, terrenam scilicet amor sui, usque ad contemptum Dei: coelestem verò amor Dei usque adcon­temptum sui. Jerusalem and Babylon, Heaven and Hell. In the next World these Loves are pure: for in Heaven reigns the Love of God without any Self-love; in Hell Self-love rages without any curb from the Love of God. In this Life they are commonly mingled, neither so ab­solutely possessing the Heart of Man, as to sup­press all motion of its Corrival: For even the greatest Sinners feel some motions to Good, and the greatest Saints must say, Dimitte nobis, For­give us our Sins, as we forgive.

And as betwixt the two Brothers in Rebecca's Womb, so betwixt these two Loves there is a combat within our Breast: For the spirit covets Gal. 1.17. against the flesh, and the flesh against the spirit: and these are contrary to one ano­ther. And this is that per­petual combat which we undergo, by reason of which this Life is termed Job 7.1. Militia est vita hominis super terram. a warfare. And Aug. l. 11. de Civit. Dei c. 28. Bonum est homini, ut illo proficiente quo benè vi­vimus, ille deficiat, quo malè vivimus, donec ad perfectum sanetur, & in bonum commutetur omne quod vivimus. we are conquered when Self-love prevails over the Love of God; but we con­quer, wuen the Love of God gets the better.

Wherein then doth consist the perfection of a Christian? In a Heart pure from bad Love, not yielding consent to the Motions of Self-love, but resisting them; and a Heart filled with the Love of God, following in all things the mo­tions of Divine Grace, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And Aug. in Psal. 64. Interroget si quisque, quid amet, & inveniet undè sit civis. could we certainly discover which of the two Loves rules in our Heart, we should certainly know the state of our Soul. Supposing these Principles, let us attend to Mr. G. B.

G. B. pag. 76. Religion elevates the Souls of Men to a participation of Divine Nature, whereby they being inwardly purified, and the outward Con­versations regulated, the World may be restored to its primitive Innocence, and Men admitted to an in­ward, intimate fellowship with their Maker.

Answ. What you say of participation of Di­vine Nature (2 Pet. 1.4.) is out of Scripture: likewise our souls being inwardly purified, and our inward fellowship with God. All which is true, althô you neither tell what they mean, nor un­derstand it your self. But that by Christianity the outward Conversation should be regulated, or primitive Innocence restored, is alien, or untrue. That by Christianity outward Conversation is re­gulated, is alien; orderly Conversation being a meer external Quality, many times as excel­lent in Infidels as Christians. Certainly the per­fection of Christianity may be found in Anchorets, and preserved in a Desert. Whence a good Con­versation appears not to be a very material In­gredient of Perfection. And that Christianity should aim at restoring the World to its primitive Innocence, is absolutely false: for that Innocence cannot be attained unto, neither in this Life, nor the next; not in this, in which the greatest Saints have their Rom. 7. Combats, from which Man in the State of pri­mitive Innocence was free; not in the next, the State of Glory being above that of Innocency. So neither of these is the End of Christianity.

G. B. pag. 76. What Devices are found out to enervate Repentance? Sins must be divided into mortal and venial.

Answ. From the beginning there hath al­ways been observed an inequality of Sins. I will omit modern Divines which you do not under­stand, and Councils, which you regard not. [Page 194] Bede in cap. 5. Jac. distinguishes them, and the manner to expiate them; which in the Greek Church is still in use. That same is observed by S. Austin, Enchir. cap. 71. cited above Chap. 18. Sect. 2. The beloved Disciple (1 Joh. 5.16, 17. speaks of sin unto death, and others not such. S. Paul (1 Cor. 6.9, 10.) gives a Catalogue of several Sins, which exclude from Heaven. Did all these concur to devise a way to enervate Re­pentance, and that none till Lib. 2. Inst. c. 8. n. 59. John Calvin should discover the Plot? What, was Christ concerned in this Device, who distinguishes Sins against the Holy Ghost from others? Whither will these Men lead us, or go themselves? or what can be secure from those Tongues, which spare no more the Doctrin delivered by Christ, by the Apostles, or the Primitive Fathers, than that of Modern Divines? I know all Sins are Offences against God; yet I do not, with the Stoicks, think all Sins equal, or him as great a Sinner who speaks an idle Word, as him who kills his own Father. The contrary Paradoxes may find place, and be admired in Calvin by his deluded Followers; but certainly no sober Man can ap­prove them.

G. B. pag. 77. Their asserting, that simple At­trition qualifies Men for the Sacrament.

Answ. You do more, for you think Attriti­on sufficient to Justifie without the Sacrament. Pag. 76. having said, that Repentance and Remis­sion were always united, you explicate Repentance [Page 195]to be a horror of sin upon the sense of its native de­formity, and contrariety to the Law of God, which makes the Soul apprehend the hazard it hath incur­red by it; so as to study by all means possible to avoid it in all time coming. This is all you say, which any Divine knows to be only Attrition, as not expressing clearly the only Motive of true Contrition, Love of God above all things for his only Goodness. Give glory to God; Is it not true, that you had heard of a Dispute beyond Seas between the Jansenists and their Enemies, a­bout the sufficiency of Attrition to Justifie with out the Sacrament; And you never would take the pains to examine the Sentiments of either part, or their Motives, but relied upon the first apprehension which occurred to you? Your Writings give a probable ground for this Con­jecture.

G. B. pag. 76. All the Severities enjoyned by Papists for Penances, do but tend to nourish the Life of Sin.

Answ. You may as well say the severity of the Laws against Robbers and Murtherers, the Ax and Halter, tend only to nourish Inclinati­nations to rob and kill. Sure your common Sense is far different from that of others, else you would never advance these Paradoxes. Neither will it serve your turn, if you recur to the pe­cuniary Mulcts enjoyned to some: For first, you cannot blame those without blaming Scripture, which recommends Alms-giving (Dan. 4.24.) as a means to redeem Sins; Secondly, Because [Page 196]worldly Men are not so willing to part with their Mony; and how generous soever you are, were you to give a Crown for every Ʋntruth you Print, you would by that pecuniary Mulct not be encouraged to write as you do.

CHAP. XXII. Theological Vertues.

G. B. p. 78. THAT which is next pressed in the Gospel for uniting the Souls of Man­kind to God, is that noble Ternary of Graces, Faith, Hope, and Love.

Answ. You can never speak so much in commendation of the Theological Vertues as they deserve; for their Merits surpass all we can say. And if you compare the least of them with those called Moral Vertues, it will out­shine, Velut inter stellas Luna minores: Yet Faith and Hope must do Homage to Charity, (or Love) as to their Sovereign, as to the End to which they are designed, to the Fountain of their Life, and Cause of their Value. This I have said a­bove, yet I again repeat it for their sakes, who so set up the Merits of Faith, as to neglect Good-works, without which Faith is dead, (Jac. 2.17.) and place it before Charity, without which Faith avails nothing, (1 Cor. 13.) I could wish our Adversaries would vouchsafe to read with attention that Chapter last cited; in it they [Page 197]would see the Seat due to Charity, the Queen of Vertues, which seems at present hidden from the Eyes of those wise and prudent Men, yet is revealed to little ones.

It is with great difficulty that I undertake a Comparison betwixt the Practice of these Ver­tues amongst Catholics and amongst Prote­stants, because all Comparisons seem to be grounded at least on an appearance of equality in the Objects, which in this Matter cannot be; yet something must be said, to make these pre­sumptuous Men know their wants and weak­ness, that they may seek to have them supplied; and that I may proceed more clearly, I will be­gin with the Definition of Faith and Heresie.

SECTION I. Of Faith.

DIvine Faith is a firm assent to an obscure Truth revealed by Almighty God, because it is revealed by him. I say, an obscure Truth, be­cause S. Paul ( Heb. 11.1.) says the same, Ar­gumentum non apparentium; A declaration of things not seen, or known by natural Reason. This is the Material Object, as Divines speak; the only Formal Object is the Veracity of God, quia Deus est verax: that is, can neither be de­ceived or mistaken, as being Omniscient; nor de­ceive us, as being all Good. To this the Testi­mony of the Church concurs as a Witness, as­suring [Page 198]that God delivered such a System of Truths. So that is a Condition necessary to apply the Revelation to us, who have not heard God speak or reveal.

S. Athanasius in his Symbol delivers as a Condition of Faith, that it be retained Entire, and Ʋndefiled, Integra, Inviolataque: For seeing all is delivered by the same Authority, those who believe not all S. Thom. 2.2. q. 5. art. 3., oppose that Authority delivering it, and by consequence even what they be­lieve, they receive not purely upon their sub­mission to that Authority speaking, but for their own Caprichio, or Reason, or Pleasure.

That is properly called Heresie; which word is deduced from the word [...], to choose. And it signifies a choice of any thing whatsoe­ver; but by common use it is ap­propriated to that Choice Tertul. l. de Praescript. c. 6. Haereses dictae Graec [...] voce ex Electionis inter­pretatione, quâ quis sivè ad instituendas, sivè ad suscipiendas eas utitur. Hier. in Tit. 3. Haeresis Graecè ab Electione dicitur, quod scilicet u­nusquisque id sibi eligat, quod ei melius esse videatur. Vide c. Haeresis, 24. q. 4. Vide etiam August. Epist. 162. which is made of Points delivered as of Faith.

We Catholics have Faith, because we believe firmly those Truths that God hath revealed, because he revealed them to the Church, which as a faithful Witness, gives hitherto, and will give to the end of the World, Testimony to that Revelation. And we cannot be Hereticks, because [Page 199] Tertul. supra. Nobis nihil ex arbitrio nostro inducere licet, sed nec eligere, quod aliquis ex arbitrio suo induxerit. we never take the liberty to choose our selves, or to admit, what others choose; but we take bona fide what is delivered as revealed by the greatest Authority imaginable on Earth, which is that of the Ca­tholic Church. Let an Angel teach us any thing contrary to what is delivered, and we will pro­nounce Anathema to him, in imitation of the Apostle, Gal. 1.18.

Here is then the Tenure of our Faith. The Father sent his only begotten Son, consubstantial to himself, into the World: And what he heard of his Father, that he made known to us, ( Joan. 15.15.) The Father and Son sent the Holy Ghost; And he did not speak of himself, but what he heard, that he spoke, ( Joan. 16.13.) The Holy Ghost sent the Apostles; And they de­clared unto us what they had seen and heard, (1 Joan. 1.3.) The Apostles sent the Highest and lower Prelates in the Church, and the Rule by which they framed their Decrees, was, Let nothing be altered in the Depositum; let no Innovation be admitted in what is delivered: Quod traditum est non innovetur. Steph. PP. apud Cypr. Epist. 74. ad Pompeium.

By this we are assured, that our Faith is that which the Councils received from the Apostles, the Apostles from the Holy Ghost, and so by the Son to God the Father, where it rests.

Now to Protestants. Their Proceeding is far different; they hear the whole System of [Page 200] Faith commended by the Church as revealed by God, and take it into Examination: And some things displeasing them in it, they fall to reform­ing it, and cut off at one Blow all things not ex­pressy contained in Scripture: Here is one Choice. Then Scripture is called to the Bar, and near a third part of it condemned, and lopt off; which is a second Choice. Thirdly, there being still several things in the remnant, which displease them, (as understood by the Church) they reject that Interpretation, and fix on it such a one as pleases them most. So that even what Sense they retain, they do it upon this their Haeresis, or Choice. What Evidence can convince a Man to be a Chooser in Faith, that is, a Heretic, if these Men be not by this Proceeding sufficiently pro­ved such?

For a farther confirmation of this, consider the several ways of Catholics and Protestants in entertaining Propositions of Faith. A Ca­tholic hearing from the Church our Saviour's Words with the Sense; that is, the compleat Scripture, (for the bare Word without the Sense, is no more Scripture, than a Body without a Soul, or Life, is a Man) presently believes them, and what Reason soever may appear to the con­trary, he silences it, and submits his Ʋnderstand­ing to Faith; and let the Words seem harsh, and the Sense unconceivable, yet the Truth of God triumphs over all those petty Oppositions. A Protestant hears the same, and presently con­sults his Reason, and till he hath its Verdict, [Page 201]suspends his Judgment. If that say with the Pharisce, (Joh. 3.9.) How can these things be? or with the Capharnaits, (Joh. 4.) This is a hard saying, who can hear it? the Protestant immedi­ately renounces it. So we submit our Reason to Faith, you set yours above it; We frame our Reason according to the Dictamens of Re­velation, you shape Revelation by your Reason. In fine, you set your Reason on a Throne, to Judge of that Word by which one day you are to be Judged. You may as easily prove the Pha­risees and Capharnaits to be better Christians than the Apostles, as that your Procedure in receiving Faith, is better than that of the Ca­tholic Church.

SECTION II. Of Hope.

HOPE is an expectation of future Bliss, pro­mised by our Blessed Saviour to those who love him, and keep his Commandments. It is built on a Promise of God, which cannot fail. And had that Promise been absolute, we might have been more assuredly certain of our future Hap­piness, than we can be of the truth of any Ma­thematical Demonstration; but it is only Con­ditional, requiring on our parts a concurrence with his Divine Grace: and this is always un­certain, by reason of the mutability of our Will to Evil, notwithstanding our strongest [Page 202]Resolutions to Good. Hence our Hope is mixt with Fear, Sperando timemus. Tertul. l. de cultu faeminarum c. 2. p. 265.

We have a full assurance [...], on God's side: Who, to shew unto the Heirs of promise the immatability of his Counsel, confirmed it by an Oath, that by two things immutable, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the Hope set before us; which Hope we have as an Anchor of the Souls, both sure and sted­fast. Heb. 6.17, 18, 19.

On our side we have always reason to ap­prehend the mutability of our own Will, not­withstanding all present Grace from God, and the strength of his Counsel. Hence the Apostle admonishes us, (2 Cor. 6.1.) not to receive in vain the Grace of God. He sets before our Eyes his own Example, (1 Cor. 9.27.) keeping under his Body, chastising it, and bringing it into subje­ction; lest having preached to others, he might be­come himself a reprobate, a cast-away. And conse­quently warns us, (Phil. 2.12.) to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. When this A­postle fears, who can presume? We may resolve well, pray hard, and act well to day, but what assurance have we that to morrow will find us so well disposed, or even not doing the quite contrary? and that being so ill prepared, Death will not surprize us? S. Paul, the Vessel of Election, who had been taken up to the Third Heaven, feared lest he should become a [Page 203] reprobate; and S. Peter, bred up in our Blessed Saviour's School, resolved to die with him, yet shortly after denied him. If these great Pillars of the Church shake, and bend, and fear break­ing, or actually break, what may not such Reeds as G. B. and I. W. fear? You see what Grounds we have to fear, from Reason, from the Example of the Apostles, and from their Doctrin.

This is comfortless Doctrin to G. B. ( p. 54.) and therefore he had rather throw all on Christ, and persuade himself that Christ's Prayer was sufficient, his Satisfaction sufficient, his Merits sufficient. We need neither Pray, nor Suffer, nor Merit; Believe in him, and he will do all. Crede firmiter, & pecca fortiter.

Compare now this Disposition of modern Catholics (which is the same with that of the Apostles) with that of a Protestant; their Fear with his Confidence, their Trembling with his Assurance, their Apprehensions with his Bold­ness, and you shall find in Catholics true Hope mingled with Fear, as you may see in Divines, and I have shewed out of the Apostles: and in the Protestant no Fear, and consequently no Hope, which is accompanied always by Fear; but in lieu of Hope, that Vice which is called Presumption, which is a sin against the H. Ghost. Timor fundamentum salutis est, (says Tertul. lib. de cultu foeminarum c. 2. p. 265.) Sperando enim timebimus, timendo cavebimus, cavendo salvi eri­mus: contra, si praesumamus, neque timendo, neque [Page 204]cavendo, difficile salvi erimus. ‘Fear is the ground-work and foundation of our Salva­tion. Our Hope is mingled with Fear; this makes us take heed: whence proceeds our security of Salvation. On the contrary, when we presume, we grow careless, and run great hazard of being lost for ever.’

SECTION III. Of Charity, or Love.

CHarity, or the Love of God above all things, is much more esteemed, and ho­nored amongst us, than amongst you. You rank it (contrary to the Apostle) even with Faith, or seat it on a lower Bench; whereas we with the Apostle (1 Cor. 13.13.) believe it to be the Commandment of Christ, (Joh. 15.12.) The fulness of the Law, (Rom. 13.10.) The bond of perfection, (Col. 3.14.) which divides betwixt the Children of the Kingdom, and those of Perdi­tion, (S. Aug.) The nuptial Garment, with which we must enter into the Wedding, (Mat. 22.11, 12.) That is, the form of Vertues (Concil. Trid.) That without it all other Vertues, gift of tongues, power of working miracles, knowledge of mysteries, nay even Faith and Hope, are nothing, avail no­thing, are no more to be regarded than sounding brass, and a tinkling cymbal, &c. (1 Cor. 13.)

In fine, althô, with Divines, we are persua­ded, that these two great Vertues may be sepa­rated, [Page 205]yet we hold their separation to be their ruin; that as Charity is but superficial, and not real, without the light of Faith; so Faith is cold without the warmth of Charity. He who knows God without loving him, is impious; and he who loves him without knowing him aright, is blind. A Believer without Love, is ungrateful; a Lover without Knowledge, is fensless; so these two Vertues must assist one another. We must aim to have a living Faith, which works by Love, Gal. 5.6. and Love is the proper work of Faith. Opus fidei dilectio, Aug. tr. 10. in Epist. Jo. Love both gives to, and receives strength from Faith. Charitas robur Fidei; Fides fortitudo Cha­ritatis. S. I eo Serm. 7. in Quadrag. In Hea­ven there is Love without Faith, (1 Cor. 13.8.10.) In Hell, Faith without Love, (Jac. 2.19.) Christians in this Life must have both; for Love without Faith is the Love of Pagans, and Faith without Love is the Faith of Devils, but Faith with Charity is the Faith of the Children of God in this Life. Fides quae per dilectionem ope­ratur, ipsa est Fides quae fideles Dei separat ab im­mundis daemonibus, Aug. de gratiâ, & lib. Artib. cap. 7.

Thus we joyn together those two great Ver­tues; this we believe, this we teach of Charity: whilst you, out of an ill-grounded opinion of your Fac-totum-Faith (relying on it for Remission of Sins, Justification, Perseverance, and Salvation) exhaust your Rhetorick so much in commen­dation of that your Darling, that you have no [Page 206]room to commend Charity, or Good-works.

Our Practice as much surpasses yours, as to nourishing Charity, as our Doctrin doth: For, seeing the Love of God, and Love of our selves, are opposit, and the one withers as the other thrives, their practice must be most proper to nourish Charity, which aims most at mortifying Self-love; and on the contrary, those who foster Self-love, must annihilate Charity.

Now what Practice can you shew for the mortification of the Body, the quelling our Passions, the renouncing of our Will? What Documents do you give for these? What Ex­amples can you shew since your reformation of them? You have never been able to find in the three Kingdoms a dozen Persons of either Sex, who for so many years would sequester them­selves from the Enjoyments of the World, to serve God in voluntary Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience. Whence comes this, but from Self-love, which abounds in them; and the lack of the Love of God, which might cement their Hearts together?

Whence comes that insupportable Pride, which makes your Proselytes so refractory to God, and his Vicars, their Spiritual and Tem­poral Superiors; That they are so tenacious of their extravagant Fancies, so stubborn in their uncouth Resolutions, so intractable in their Manners, so humorsom in all their Actions and Conversations, but a latent Pride, the proper Offspring of Self-love, and the Bane of Charity? [Page 207]Look into 1 Cor. 13. you shall there find a de­scription of Charity and its Qualities. Charity suffereth long, and is kind; Charity envieth not; Charity vaunteth not it self, is not puffed up, doth not behave it self unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, rejoyceth not in iniquity, but rejoyceth in the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endu­reth all things. Should I now examin the Life of generally all who deliver themselves to your Direction, upon these Heads, and shew how lit­tle of this appears in your Manners, and how much there is quite contrary to it: the Picture, if sincere, would fright you, or confound you, how great soever your Confidence be.

In fine, the words of our Saviour to the An­gel of Laodicea, (Apoc. 3.17.) may be very well applied to you. Thou sayest, I am rich, and encrea­sed with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. God open the eyes of your Heart, to see this; that so you may be moved to seek for Gold tried, (Spiritual Riches) where it is to be found, in the true Church.

SECTION IV. An Answer to what G. B. objects.

G. B. p. 78. ARE Papists not taught to confide more in the Virgin, or their Tutelar Saints, than in the Holiest of all.

Answ. No, we are taught no such thing.

G. B. ibid. Doth not the fear of Purgatory damp the hopes of future Blessedness?

Answ. It doth not.

G. B. pag. 79. What impious Doctrin hath been Printed in that Church, of the Degree of Love we owe to God?

Answ. I know of no such Doctrin of the De­grees of Love due to God. I know that all Ca­tholics applaud the Saying of S. Bernard, Mo­dus amandi Deum, est amare sine modo. I know that Divines require as well as S. Thomas, a me­diocrity in all Vertues except Charity; That all Vertues are betwixt two Vices, whereof one offends by exceeding, the other by not reach­ing its due measure. And this they assure even of Hope, which is betwixt Presumption and De­spair; and of Faith, which is betwixt a light­ness of Heart, believing all things; and a hard­ness to believe any thing. Love cannot be too great, and so hath only one Vice contrary to it, by defect, loving too little. Is this Doctrin Impious?

Hence what you say, Some mincing it so, as if they were afraid of his being too much beloved. This I say is an Untruth; and I challenge you to produce your Authors, or to be held a Calum­niator.

G. B. ibid. Some blasphemously teach, that we are not at all bound to love him.

Answ. This is also untrue. All acknowledge a Precept to Love God; but this being a positive [Page 209]Precept, which obliges only for some determi­nate time, some Authors have enquired when that time is? And in resolving this obscure un­decided Question there have been some variety of Sentiments, without any difference as to the substance of the Precept. If God hath revealed to you a Decision of this intricate Question, bless the World with that Information, and prove well what you say, and I assure you we will not blame you for it.

G. B. ibid. There is an Impiety in the Morals of some of that Church, particularly amongst the Disciples of Loyola, beyond whatever was taught amongst the worst of Heathen Philosophers.

Answ. 1. You are no competent Judge in matter of Piety, as being acquainted neither with the Practice, nor Theory of it.

Answ. 2. You are not sufficiently informed of the Cause in which you presume to Judge, having no knowledge at all of one side, and but a very superficial knowledge of the other. By shooting your Bolt so lightly, you will easier convince the World that you are Inconsiderate and Rash, than that those you call the Disciples of Loyola are Impious.

CHAP. XXIII. Efficacy of Sacraments.

G. B. p. 80. THE Doctrin of the Efficacy of the Sa­craments, for conveying of Grace by the work wrought, looks like a Design against all serious preparation for the worthy receiving of them.

Answ. Many alive still remember, when the Godly could find out Plots, dangerous Plots, Popish Plots, in every innocent Recreation of the Persons whom they misliked. You imitate exactly those Factious Sectaries, in fancying the like dangerous Contrivances. Is Attrition with the Sacrament said to suffice for Justifica­tion? It is on a Design to destroy Piety. Are Prayers said in Latin? It is on a Design against Piety. Are probable Opinions allowed of? There lies a Design against Piety. Are we taught to do our Works with a good Intention? A Popish Design against Piety. Are Sacra­ments connected with Grace, and said to be efficacious signs of it? It looks like a Design a­gainst Piety. And whatsoever we do, these People suspect a Design against Piety. As of the Jews Isaias said, ( Isa. 8.12.) What the People speaks of, is confederacy; Omnia quae loqnitur po­pulus iste, conjuratio est. So much were they frighted then, with the apprehension of the Union betwixt the two Kings of Israel and Syria, [Page 211]and so struck are you likewise with the appre­hensions of Popery.

The Jews surmized a Confederacy out of a real Fear; the Factious old Parliamentarians out of a pretended Fear. What moves you, a real, or only pretended Fear? Or do you speak out of ignorance of our Tenets? Or ill will to our Per­sons? Either may easilier be suspected, than any real fear or concern for Piety.

We have been taught to acknowledge some vertue in the Sacrament of the new Law, (in vertue of Christ's Institution, and because they are the Instruments to apply the Merits of his Passion to our Soul) which was not in the Sa­craments of the old Law, nor in any Ceremony of Human Institution; for S. Paul (Gal. 4.9.) calls the the Sacraments of the old Law, Weak and beggerly Elements, in comparison doubtless of those of the new. These then are more effica­cious, stronger and richer. Yet the others could stir up the Receiver to an inward disposition for Grace, nay a Ceremony of meer Human In­stitution may have that force. Wherefore the Sacraments of the new Law must, by the work wrought, do more than to stir up the Receiver to good Works.

G. B. pag. 81. By this Doctrin, be a Man ne­ver so ill prepared, yet he is sure of the Efficacy of the Sacrament.

Answ. Here you discover your wilful Igno­rance of our Doctrin, that you might with some colour calumniato it. We unanimously teach. [Page 212]that a bad Disposition of the Receiver puts a stop, (ponit obicem) to the Effect of the Sacra­ment, and is it self a Sacrilege; and that the Sacrament so received unworthily, serves for the damnation of the Receiver, as those who receive the Body and Blood of Christ unwor­thily, receive Judgment against themselves. 1 Cor. 11.29.

CHAP. XIV. Probable Opinions, and Good Intentions

G. B. p. 81. CHRIST came to fulfil the Moral Law. Matt. 5.7.

Answ. Whence do you learn, that these words of Christ are restrained to the Moral Law? Did not Christ fulfil the Ceremonial Law also? sure he did, both as Antitype, and as ne­ver trespassing against it.

G. B. pag. 82. Two general Doctrins they have, which at two strokes dissolve all the Bonds of Ver­tue. The one is the Doctrin of Probability, the other of Good Intention. By the first they teach, that with a safe Conscience a Man may follow what any Doctor teaches: And some representing the worst Actions as good, there is scarce any Sin, but may be ventured on. By the second he may act any Sin, provided he intend some good Design. And then you send us to the Provincial Letters.

Answ. What if the Author of those Let­ters, [Page 213]being no Divine, was mistaken in relating those Opinions? What if he renounced the whole Party which had engaged him to write in that scurrilous manner? What if he was sorry before his Death, to have dealt so much with them? What if this can be proved under his Curat's Hand? Now this is the plain truth, as appears by this following Declaration given by the Curat of S. Stephen-upon-the-Hill, to the then Archbishop of Paris. Here is the sub­stance.

Aujourd'huy 7. Janvier 1665. Nous Hardoüin de Perefixe Archevesque de Paris, sur ce que nous aurions apris, que Mr. Pascal, lequel avoit la re­putation d'avoir esté fort attaché au party des Jan­senistes, estoit decedé dans la Paroisse de S. E­stienne, & qu'il y estoit mort sans recevoir les Sa­cremens, avons desiré scavoir de Mr. Paul Beurrier Religieux de S. Genivieve, & Curé de S. Estienne, si ce qu'on nous avoit raporté étoit vray, qu'il fut mort attaché au party des Jansenistes. Sur quoy ayant interrogé ledit Sieur Curé de S. Estienne, & sommé de dire la verité, aprés l'avoir promis, a ré­pondu, qu'il avoit connu ledit Sieur Pascal six se­maines avant son decés, qu'il l'avoir confessé plu­sieurs fois, & administré le S. Viatique, & le Sa­crement d'Extreme Onction, & que dans toutes les conversations qu'il a eu avec luy pendant sa maladie, il a remarqué que ses sentimens étoyent toûjours fort Orthodoxes, & soumis parfaitement à l'Eglise, & à N. S. P. le Pape. De plus il luy a témoigné dans [Page 214]une conversation familiere, qu'on l'avoit autrefois embarassé dans la party de ces Messieurs, mais que depuis deux ans il s'en etoit retiré, parce qu'il avoit remarqué, qu'ils alloyent trop avant dans les matieres de la Grace, & qu'ils paroissoyent avoir moins de soumission, qu'ils ne devoyent, par N. S. P. le Pape. —Et que depuis deux ans, il s'étoit tout à fait attaché aux affaires de son salut, & a un dessein qu'il avoit contre les Athées, & les Politiques de ce temps en matiere de Religion.—

F. P. BEƲRRIER.

You see here in his Declaration Signed by the Curate, who assisted the Author of the Provin­cial Letters at his Death, that he had been en­gaged, or entangled in the Party of the Janse­nists, that he found their Sentiments were not tolerable or Orthodox in those two capital Points, of Grace, and Submission to the See Apo­stolick; That upon that score he had with­drawn from them, and abandoned them; yet you will have us go to him. Well, I will comply with you, and from him I learn two things: One, that he blames some Cases of private Men; Another, that those cannot be charged on the Roman Catholick Church. Thus if I stand to his Verdict, your Accusation will be cast out of the Court, as lying against the whole, not a­gainst a part only. If you say, Believe him when he accuses some, but not when he absolves o­thers; do you think us so weak, as to give credit to him when you please, and when you please, [Page 215]to recall it? What is this but to give, and a [...] the same time take away his Judicial Authori­ty; to name him Judge Arbiter, and tie him to speak only what you please? But I will leave him, and speak to the thing.

That you may conceive what are probable Opinions, you are to take notice, that Moral A­ctions may be reduced to four Classes: To such as are evidently good, evidently bad, uncertain, and indifferent, according as they are related to the Law, (whether Divine, Ecclefiastical, or Civil) which is their proper Rule. Those are evident­ly good, which are conformable to the Law: As to Love God, or Deal with others as we would be dealt by. Those are evidently bad, which are contrary to the Law: As to Blaspheme God, or to Wrong our Neighbor. Those are indifferent, which are neither commanded nor forbidden: As to wash our Hands before Eating, used by the Pharisees, ( Matt. 15.) Those are uncertain, when a Law is known, but it is unknown whe­ther it obliges in some Circumstances. For Example: The resisting an Enemy that attacks you on the Sabbath-day, and repairing the Breaches which he makes. 1 Macch. 2.38.

As to the first Class, Actions evidently good, Probability doth not look on them as its Object.

The same for those which are evidently bad: They can never be committed without offend­ing God. If any hold the contrary, stone him; the Stones will not hit me, nor any Jesuit, unless by such an Accident as befel Jupiter in Lucian, [Page 216]when directing his Thunderbolt at a Blasphe­mer, he mist him, and hit, and fired Pallas her Temple. And what you say of committing any Sin with directing Intention, is so great a Ca­lumny, that no good Intention of opposing Popery will excuse it.

The third Class, of Actions uncertain in them­selves, are properly the Object of probable Opi­nions; whilst it is not certain whether the Law oblige, hic & nunc, or no, in these Circumstan­ces, which are not specified in the Law, yet al­ter very much the nature of the Action: There being no evident Principle to shew it to be law­ful or unlawful, the Judgment we frame of it, must be an Opinion only; and if the Reason be strong, it is called a probable Opinion. For Ex­ample; the Jews, (1 Macch. 2.40, 41.) hear­ing that their Brethren had been assaulted on a Sabbath, and not resisting, for fear of breaking the Sabbath by working on it, were all killed, resolved notwithstanding that Command, to make what resistance they could on that Day. Which Resolution was grounded on a probable Opinion: for on the one side was the Letter of the Law prohibiting all Labor on that Day: then, they might think God would protect them, whilst they kept his Law, as he conser­ved their Goods, whilst they went thrice a year to the Temple, ( Exod. 34.24.) and if he did not please to defend them miraculously, they might think it was his will, that they should glorifie him by giving their Lives, rather than [Page 217]break his Commandment; which Persuasion pos­sessed the greatest part of Christians near the Apostles Times, as may be seen in Tertull. Apo­logetick. On the other side, they considered the Law of Nature obliging to seek Self-preserva­tion; and that to expect a Miracle, was to tempt God, &c. Hence they concluded, that it was lawful to labor for Self-defence even on the Sabboth.

To make an Opinion probable, Suarez ( Dis. 12. de bonit. & malit.) requires that it be neither contrary to the Sense of the Church, nor to any Opinions commonly received, and that it be grounded on Authority and Reason great above exception. All Divines, even the largest, re­quire a weighty Motive, a strong Reason, and that even comparing it with the contrary Motives; otherwise they agree, that the Opinion will not be probable, but dangerous, rash, and improbable. See two large Treatises composed by R. F. An­tony Teril, (a great Ornament of the Society, and an Honor to our Nation) in defence of this Rule of Conscience. You will find in him a solid Discourse, well grounded, and gravely handled, as Truth should be delivered, without any of that Buffoonry which accompanies some Au­thors of these Times, which may be tolera­ble in a Comedy, but not in a Treatise of Di­vinity.

This, I think, cannot be doubted of in Thesi, or in general. I will not deny, but in Hypo­thesi, in particular Doubts or Questions, some [Page 218]Men have not stuck so close to the Letter of the Law as they should, as Fr. Teril doth de­plore. But those Mens Assertions do not take away what we have said: for their private Sen­timents, not well grounded, deserve not the name of probable Opinions.

The last Class of Actions, are those called indifferent, as not being mentioned in any Law. These must draw all the Morality they have Ex intentione, sive voluntate operantis. In those a good intention of the Man who produces them, or his will to do them for the love of God, gives them a good Morality, which of themselves they have not; as on the contrary, a bad Intention gives them the nature of Sin.

Hence what you say, that our Doctrin is, Any Sin may be committed innocently, by directing our Intention, is a great Ʋntruth, and as great a Calumny. No Intention can justifie a bad Acti­on, but a bad Intention may vitiate the best Action: As to give an Alms for vanity, Mat. 6.2. Bonum ex integrâ causâ, malum ex quocunque de­fectu, is a Maxim never more true, than in Mo­ral Actions. We are taught in the Catholic Church, not only to do good things, but to do them well; not only to do just things, but to do them justly; nor pious things, but piously, non tantum bona, justa, pia; verum etiam benè, justè, piè. Nay, a pious modern Author says, that God regards more the Adverbs, than the Nouns, or Verbs. For Example; A Judge hears atten­tively a Cause pleaded before him in order to [Page 219]give Sentence, secundùm allegata & probata: the Action it self is good, yet his Intention may mend or mar it. Doth he that, for his lawful allowance, it is of small merit. Regards he his Duty to his Prince and Country, it is better; If for God, it is best of all. But doth he intend by it to pleasure a Friend, or practise Revenge on an Enemy, althô his Sentence be just, yet he is unjust in pronouncing it, to satisfie his own Passions of Love or Hatred. This is our Do­ctrin, this we teach, this we practise, which you understand not; and your perpetual fault is, to speak evil of things which you know not, (Jude Ver. 10.) If you desire farther information of our Doctrin in this Point, see S. Fran. de Sales lib. 11. de Amore Dei cap. 13.

CHAP. XXV. Whether Papists allow to break the Commandments?

FRom 'pag. 83. Tit. 91. you charge Catho­lics with teaching to break the Command­ments, and produce several Cases, for proof of it. To which, what I have already said may be a sufficient Return, and satisfactory Answer.

For if the Resolutions of those Persons be not well grounded on solid Reason, I renounce them; so doth the Church. If they be justifi­able, why should you, or we, condemn them? [Page 220] Wo be unto them who call evil good, and good evil; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. Isai 5.20. So that those are to blame, who call good evil, as well as those who call evil good. The Law-giver may make what Laws he please, our Duty is to Judge according to the Law he gives us, when the Case is clear; when it is ob­scure, to guess at it as near as we can. And a­mongst the clear Laws I reckon that, not to Judge other Men, who are God's Servants, and who by his Judgment alone must stand or fall. Rom. 14.4.

This general Answer might suffice, consider­ing I write not here a Treatise of Moral Divi­nity; yet I will run over some of the particu­lar Cases specified by you, and consequently, which may seem to be with you of greater force.

G. B. pag. 84. Against the First Command­ment, they worship Angels and Saints, with Acts due only to God. The Second is violated by Image-Worship.

Answ. Here are your boiled Cabbage over and over again. Both parts are false, as is a­bovesaid.

G. B. ibid. The Third is made void by tht Popes dispensing with Oaths.

Answ. I have spoken to this already, Ch. 20. I suppose you will not deny, that when the Oath is unlawful, (v. c. the Covenant) it may be di­spensed with. Item, if it become impossible, as of a Pilgrimage to Jerusalem on foot, and the [Page 221]Man becomes Lame. Item, if the thing become dangerous or inconvenient, as to lend a Sword, when you hear for certain the Man designs to kill his Enemy with it. Or if you promised to keep another company, and after discover he would carry you to fight a Duel, take a Purse, or to a naughty House. What think you? are you, or any other bound to keep dangerous, incon­venient, impossible, unlawful Oaths? If not, why may there not be a Power in the Church to de­clare for the ease of timorous Consciences, when those Oaths cease to oblige? And why may not this Power be acknowledged in the Pope as well as in others?

But is the dispensing with Oaths a Preroga­tive of God? Sure it is not, seeing God, who declared their force, Exod. 20. leaves to Num. 30. some a Power to dispense with them, as to Fathers and Husbands, over those of their Children and Wives.

G. B. ibid. The Breach of the Fourth (keep­ing the Sabbath) is not denied, it being usually a­mongst them a Day of Mercating, Dancing, and foolish Jollity.

Answ. What you charge on us here (not keeping the Sabbath) was charged on our Savi­our and his Apostles by the Scribes and Phari­sees, and is reproached to Protestants by the Pu­ritans. I do not deny, but many are defective in this Observance, and that as other Com­mands, so this hath suffered; yet I think I could as easily find Instances for the very things you [Page 222]reproach to us, amongst you, as you amongst us. I will not excuse all that is done amongst Catholics, and believe you would find it hard enough to justifie all that is done by your: Yet I will tell you, that unless you will condemn Christ and his Disciples, and justifie the Slan­ders of the Scribes and Pharisees, against them, you must acknowledge that there is a Pre­ciseness of Duty not intended by Almighty God. And it is very remarkable, that several Accusations of the Breach of the Sabbath having been brought to our Saviour by the Scribes and Pharisees, Christ always bla­med their blind indiscreet Zeal, and retorted the Accusations, alledging several of their Cu­stoms undefensible, but never seconded the Ac­cusation; quite contrary, either confounded the Accusers, by minding them of their own Faults, or excused the Fact from Guilt. Which is a sufficient Proof, that the Law of God doth not require that superstitious Observance which the Scribes, the Puritans, and you require; for want of which you blame us, and are your self blamed by others.

Yet I will not excuse all that is done by Ca­tholics in this matter, which cannot be charged on the Church, because she condemns and cen­sures it.

I must take notice here of a Craft you use in this place, to mingle true and false things toge­ther. For Example, pag. 85. That Children may lawfully intend killing their Parents, is false; That [Page 223]they may Marry without their Consent, is doubted by none, I think, as to the validity of the Mar­riage, unless there be some Municipal Laws pro­viding against it. Item pag. 86. They bar the Clergy the use of Marriage, is true; That they allow Concubinage, is false. By which petty Art you surprise your Reader, and puzzle one who undertakes an Answer.

Were I minded to imitate you, in giving a prospect of your Garden, and that without of­fending Truth, as you have done, I could shew Matter enough for your Confusion, or for your Zeal, if it be real. I never was within it, I thank God; and the greatest part of my Life I have past at a distance almost out of sight of it; yet Fame hath brought enough to make a woful description of it. It is not needful to pierce your walls to discover wicked abominations, ( Ezech. 8.8, 9.) only looking over them with a Perspective Glass, a Man may discover Weeds, and Thorns, and Cockle, and what not? They are unclean Creatures, who delight to wallow in Dirt, or stir about Filth, which of it self yields an ungrateful smell, much more when moved. An ancient Heretick Tertul. lib. contra Hermo­genem, cap. 1, pag. 411. thought it a sign of a good Conscience to speak ill of every body. You may with the ignorant Multitude much easier obtain the esteem of Piety and Zeal by speaking ill of others, than doing well your self, and by blaming others Lives, than correcting your own. A secret malignity in Nature prompts some to [Page 224]detract from the Good-name of their Neigh­bors, and disposes the Hearers to receive with pleasure the Detractions. Both Calumniator and his Hearers follow in this the vicious Incli­nations of corrupt Nature. But these must be overcome, when true Vertue is aimed at; and that is hard. You follow the easier course, and the most taking with Men, whom you affect to please. But how your Conscience at pre­sent, and God hereafter, will approve of this, I leave to your more serious consideration. Maledicimur & benedicimus, says the Apostle, (1 Cor. 4.12.) We are spoken ill of, and we speak well, or being reviled, we bless. Truly I had rather find matter for a Panegyrick, than for a Satyr, and should be more willing to write some good of you than otherwise, if there were any such belonging to you as Protestants. But knowing no such thing, I will supply that part by Pray­ers, that God will put you into a way of being so, by bringing you to his Faith, which now you impugn. I wish it were Ignorans in incre­dulitate, (1 Tim. 1.13.) through Ignorance, or meer want of Instruction, your sin would be less, and your Conversion not so desperate.

CHAP. XXVI. Riches, and Pride of Churchmen.

FROM pag. 91. till 100. we have a long enumeration of the Riches and Pride, and Ambition of Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Abbots, and all Churchmen, You blame the sumptuous­ness of our Church Ornaments, the Solemnity of our Processions, the Majesty of our Ceremo­monies, &c. which things being not of Faith, I think my self not obliged to Answer farther, than by shewing a good use may be made of them.

I grant that Christ founded his Church in real Poverty; he sent his Apostles ( Luc. 10.8.) to Preach, with order to live upon what they found in the Places whither they went, and be content with what was given them. He gave them a Right to a Subsistence, declaring, ( Mat. 10.10.) that a Workman deserves his Diet. And that he who serves the Altar, ought to live of it. (1 Cor. 9.13.) And althô S. Paul was plea­sed not to make use of this Right commonly, for a very good Reason; yet the rest did, and he might lawfully have done every where, and actually did it at Philippi, (Phil. 4.15.) Yet I do not find that ever our B. Saviour stinted the Apostles, so as if any thing were freely given, beyond what was meerly necessary, they should be obliged to refuse it, or restore the overplus [Page 226]to the Donors. Neither do I find your Brethren in the Ministry, commend very much your first Reformers for retrenching some of your Bi­shops Lands, althô they left enough for not only a competent, but a noble Subsistence: nay, your modern Writers, W. L. and Heylin, accuse them of Sacrilege. And I do not hear that your other Bishops do break their Shins with haste, to re­store the surplus of their Revenues to the Heirs of the Donors, which they were bound to re­store, if it were not lawful for Churchmen to enjoy more than what is necessary. Since the fall of Religion, indeed the Protestant Church hath not much encreased her Revenues; which rather proceeds from lack of Charity in your Laity, who give you nothing, (or because the Wife and Children sweep away what remains by each Incumbent at his Death) than to your love of Poverty, for which Vertue you have re­fused it, when offered. I have heard at least of none who would refuse a Mannor, (or other considerable Boon) when freely given; and the hard usage, which some of your Tenants com­plain of, from their Ecclesiastical Landlords, proves sufficiently, that you are not insensible to the Allurements of the attractive Metal.

Were Churchmen such as they ought to be, the Laity would have little reason to repine at their Riches, althô much greater than they are. If they were Treasurers of the Poor, Fathers to the Orphans, Helps to Widows, Hosts to Stran­gers, Protectors to the Oppressed, and common [Page 227]Sanctuaries to all necessitous Persons, such as some are in the Catholic Church, whom I know, and many of whom we read. To such as these Riches are no hindrance to their Function; they give them only occasion of doing much good, and practising their Charity. If you think this to be blame-worthy, althô Riches be so em­ployed, prove what you say out of Scripture, and excuse your own Bishops from that Crime, & eris mihi magnus Apollo.

Voluntary real Poverty is much commended in the Gospel, ( Mat. 19.21.) and we have thou­sands in our Church who profess it, and live in it; and you could never get ten of your Com­munion to embrace it. There is another Poverty called of Spirit, commended ( Mat. 5.3.) nay and commanded in Scripture, ( Mat. 19.24.) and how great soever a stranger you are to Spiritual things, yet you will not say that this Poverty of Heart is inconsistent with effectual Riches; otherwise it would be impossible for a rich Man to be saved. A Man may be a Beg­ger, and yet be far from that Poverty of Spirit which gives a right to the Kingdom of Heaven, because his Heart is fixed upon things he hath not. And on the contrary, another Man may be Master of a great part of the World, and yet have his Heart as free from it, as if he was not in the World; and to use the Apostles Phrase, (1 Cor. 7.31.) use the World as thô he used it not. Of this sort of poor of spirit there are many in the Church, and always have been. [Page 228]Hear S. Austin lib. de moribus Ecclesiae cap. 35. Sunt in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ innumerabiles fideles, qui hoc mundo non utuntur; sunt qui utuntur, tan­quam non utentes. There are innumerable Faith­ful in the Church, who make no use of the World; there are others, who use it as if they used it not. What hath the Protestant Church to say here?

Pride and Ambition are personal Vices, so belong not to this Treatise: Yet I will say, that there have been both ancient and modern Popes, who have given greater Examples of Humility, than any your Church can shew, and who have made appear, that their Title, Ser­vant of the Servants of God, is no Complement. Sixtus V. would not own his Mother, when she was brought to him in rich Clothes, saying, His Mother was a poor Woman, who never wore Silks in her life, she was a Shepherds Wife. The next day she being brought to him in Rags, he presently acknowledged her. Some of them have as­serted the Privileges of their Chair, against such as intrenched on their Rights; which may be done without any Pride at all, seeing they require it as due, not to their own Persons, but to their Chair, to its Founders, S. Peter, and to his Superior, Christ Jesus. I never heard S. Am­brose suspected of Pride, for refusing to admit Theodosius the Great into the Church, before his Penance for the Slaughter at Thessalonica, or for excluding him the Cancels after it: It was a Zeal of the Glory of God, and the good of the Church, which moved him; the Emperor him­self understood it so.

As for precious Ornaments of the Church, I will own ours to be too costly, when you shall have proved, that any thing is too good for God's Service; not till then. The infinit Ma­jesty of God is ground sufficient to oblige us to bear him the greatest Respect interiorly, and express our Duty to our Creator, and our Gra­titude to so great a Benefactor, by returning to him in the best manner we can, an Acknow­ledgment of his most bountiful Gifts. This serves also to stir up in the Auditory Submis­sion, Respect and Adoration, which otherwise would fail.

CHAP. XXVII. Ʋnity of the Church in Faith and Sacra­ments. G. B. owns that Protestants are Schismatics. Of Severity against Dis­senters; And of Hugo Grotius.

G. B. p. 100. A Fourth Design of Christian Religion, was to unite Mankind under one Head into one Body, not by Love, and pardoning Injuries only; but also by associating the Faithful into one Body, the Church, which was to be united by Bonds of Love, governed by Pastors and Teachers, and cemented with the Ligaments of the Sacraments.

Answ. You say something (thô disorderly) but not all. For, 1. You omit Faith, by which [Page 230]we are inserted into the Body of Christ. 2. You put Charity, which doth not make us parts, but living parts of that Body, whose parts we are by Faith. 3. You add Sacraments, which are only exterior Signs of interior Communication. 4. You confound Charity and Sacraments, as e­qually concurring to the Ʋnity of the Church: yet there is a vast difference betwixt them; the one formally quickning the Members of the Church interiorly, the other only effecting it interiorly, and testifying it exteriorly. 5. Be­twixt the Sacraments there is a vast difference, as to this, (and you confound them); for Ba­ptism being our Regeneration in Christ, is an es­ficient Cause of our Union with him, and makes us his Members; the others are designed only to nourish those who are already united to, and in him. When you speak of being Governed by Pastors, I hope the Pope may find place amongst them, he being the prime Pastor.

G. B. pag. 101. The Gospel pronounceth us free, and no more Servants of Men, but of God.

Answ. Free from the Ceremonial Law of Moses, not from that of the Gospel, and Obedi­ence to the Governors of the Church. How changeable are your Sentiments? In the fore­going Page 100, the Church was to be Governed by Pastors and Teachers; now she is to obey none but God: and if any Man pretend to Command, he changeth the Authority of the Church into a ty­ranical Yoke. So we must have Governors, with­out Authority to Command; and Subjects, with­out [Page 231]any Duty to Obey. A new Model of Go­vernment!

G. B. ibid. Those things for which we with­drew from the Church, are Additions to our Faith. She added to Scriptures, Tradition; to God, Ima­ges, to Christ, Saints; to Heaven and Hell, Pur­gatory; to two Sacraments, five more; to the Spi­ritual Presence of Christ, his Corporal Presence.

Ans. Never Man spake more, and proved less than you, who offer not one word in proof of these disputed Points, which we declare to be evident untruths. Is not this a poor begging of the thing in question? But they are, say you, Additions to your Faith. Did we add to your Faith, or you cut off from ours, and that of the whole Christian World, before your Deforma­tion? How could we add those things to your Faith, when they were in peaceable possession all over the Christian World, as you own your selves, many Ages before Protestancy was thought on?

You have here only one Truth, viz. That you withdrew from the Church. Which convin­cingly proves the Guilt of Schism to lie at your Door.

G. B. pag. 105. If a Society of Christians visi­bly swerve from Christ, so that Communion cannot be retained with it, without departing from Christ, then the departing from the Corruptions brought in, can be no departing from the Church. If then it appear that the Roman Church hath departed from the Truth of the Gospel, those who separated [Page 232]from her, cannot be said to separate from the true Church.

Answ. Here we have a Paralogism, which might better become a Junior Sophister, than a Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty. You will see it in these Instances: The Communion of that Church ought to be renounced, which obligeth her Children to Mahometism. If then the English Protestant Church oblige hers to that, her Com­munion ought to be renounced. Another: That Man deserves the greatest Contempt, who writes Controversie, and hath nothing to write but Calum­nies and Sophisms. If then Mr. G. B. hath nothing else but such stuff to fill his Books with, he knows his Deserts. What think you, Sir, of such Argu­ments; which serve only to delude an unwary Reader into an assent of what you would, but cannot prove?

There is no Logician but knows, that Condi­tional Propositions signifie only the Connexion betwixt two things under such a Condition; but they assert nothing absolutely, unless the Con­dition be proved. For Example: If a Man flies, he hath Wings; If the Heavens fall, we shall catch Larks. These, I say, are granted to be true. al­thô the Condition be impossible. Yet those who grant them, do not expect those Wings to go a Journey, nor rely on those Larks for a Supper. In like manner, suppose we should grant your Conditional Illation, yet the Guilt of Schism would lie on your Consciences, because you nei­ther do, nor can prove the Condition upon which your Excuse relies.

G. B. pag. 106. The Cruelty of Papists ex­tendeth to as much bloudy and barbarous Rage, as ever sprung from Hell.

Answ. You mean the Laws made against He­retics; which being made by the Secular Power, and not by Churchmen, I think my self not ob­liged to vindicate them. Yet seeing the most severe of them all, the Faggot, was till of late (as I am informed) in force in England, and hath been actually executed upon some since the Re­formation, I leave you to answer to our Hono­rable Judges, for your pragmatical Boldness, in censuring them so severely. Another would take notice of the Laws in force against Papists, but I let that pass; it is enough to vindicate our Churchmen, that they never made those Laws, they never condemned any Man by them: all they do, is to judge of the matter of Fact, whe­ther a Person be guilty of Heresie; and if they find him so, to leave him to the Secular Power. This is the most that ever the Inquisition did, as far as ever I heard.

G. B. pag. 108. Grotius says, that in Charles the Fifth's time, more than One hundred thousand, were butchered on the accout of Religion. And in his Son Philip 's time the Duke d'Alva did in a short time cut down Thirty six thousand.

Answ. Grotius was an eminent Man for se­veral things, but not renowned for his Skill in Arithmetick: I have heard from one well ac­quainted with him, that he could not count Ten; that he knew not the ordinary currant Mony of [Page 234]his Country; that when he escaped out of Pri­son, he had like to have been discovered by a Ferry-man by that ignorance; he was so noted for it. So I should not wonder that he were mistaken in his Calculation of so many thou­sands. Secondly, It is probable he reckons in­to the number of those butchered, such as pe­rished in the Boors War in Germany, and Wars of the Low-Countries, whose Death must be put to the Account of their Rebellion, not to that of Religion. Thirdly, he writ in favor, and defence of the States Cause; to whose vindication it was necessary, that the Motives of their taking Arms against their Sovereign should be aggra­vated to the utmost. We all remember the in­famous Inscription put over the Niche where the Statue of the late King of Happy Memory stood. All the World knows, that without any disparagement to the rest, There never be­fore had been a King, who less deserved such a Title; yet no doubt, had that usurped Govern­ment continued, Stories would have been in­vented to prove it, and those concerned in the Rebellion would have believed them, as you do Grotius. Lastly, Suppose all Grotius says true, it follows only, that it was the Misfortune of those great Princes to have many Offenders in that kind in their time, provoke the Sword of Justice. As if in England a Spirit of Thieving should spread it self amongst the People, for which in the time of the best of Kings many suffer, yet without reflecting on the Honor of [Page 235]the King, or Equity of the Laws. These are not Crimes of the Government, but Misfortunes, for which Princes are to be pitied, not repro­ched with them.

CHAP. XXVIII. Zeal of Souls in our Bishops. And concern­ing Reformers. Where of S. Cyran, Arnaud, and Jansenius.

G. B. p. 111. WHAT do Popes about Feeding of Souls? When do they Preach the Gospel, or Dispence the Sacraments?

Answ. They do it daily, by all those Per­sons, who by Authority derived from them do it: As our Kings Administer Justice by their Judges. And did you enquire of those who have been at Rome, you would hear, that Popes do Administer Sacraments in Person.

Ibidem. Cardinals, Bishops, and Abbots, imi­tate their Holy Father, abandoning wholly the Work of the Gospel.

Answ. You cannot discover better who is your Master, and what a Proficient you are in his School, than by venting such palpable Un­truths. Cardinal Barbarin, Dean of the Sacred Colledge, hath been known to accompany ma­ny times Malefactors to the Gallows, heard their Confessions, moved them to a detestation of the Sins which brought them to that Punish­ment, [Page 236]raised them up to hopes of pardon thrô the Merits of our Blessed Saviour, and comfort them with hopes of a happy Life, after that tragical end of this. I name him in particular, because he is known to many of our Nation, who have and do acknowledge his Civility to them, althô of a different Persuasion. In time of the great Plague, under Alexander VII. he visited in Person Places Infected, enquired after the Wants, informed of the Diligence of the Officers appointed for the Relief of the Sick, and provided according as Occasions required both for Soul and Body. S. Charles Borromeus, a Cardinal and Archbishop, gave so great Ex­amples of Pastoral Vigilancy, and Apostolical Zeal, that none of our Reformed Prelates ever will imitate them. Your Confidence is admira­ble in relating such evident Untruths, which all who have seen France or Flanders can contra­dict. Enquire of the Life of the present Lord Bishop of Gant, of several in France, and if you have one ounce of good Blood in your Body, some of it will appear on your Face.

G. B. pag. 112. I deny not, but even these last Ages have produced great Men amongst the Pa­pists, who seem to have designed the reviving of the ancient Discipline, both among the Clergy and the People. But as these Instances are rare, so they were hated and persecuted, witness Arnaud 's Book of the frequent Communion, Jansenius and S. Cyran.

Answ. There is no Pretence more dangerous, or even fatal, both to Church and State, than [Page 237]that of Reforming Abuses, and Reviving antiqua­ted Laws, which serves every Pragmatical Head, assoon as he hath read the ancient Statutes or Canons (thô he understands the Sense of nei­ther) to detract from the present Government, and (if by meeting others as rash as himself, he is enabled for such a Work) to endeavor the change of it, under the specious Pretext of Re­formation. You must own the truth of this, un­less you will justifie the late Rebellion in England, which was begun, carried on, and finished, under that Colour.

The Opinions Men are as different as their Faces, scarce ever two alike: Education, Diet, Company, Friends, Business, and other extrin­sick Occasions, alter our Judgment of things: many more have influence on our Judgment of Governments; but most of all, Love and Ha­tred have an imperceptible, yet unresistible force over our Understanding: so that one and the same Action will to one seem to deserve a Panegyrick, which to another shall be the Sub­ject of a Satyr, meerly because they are vari­ously affected to the Person who acts. Some, in fine, are so wayward, humorsom and peevish, as to be displeased with whatever is done by o­thers; who can agree with no body, not be­cause every body gives, but because they take from every body, occasions of offences.

It is a great error, to think that every one who blames another, hath reason for it. No Man ever was so holy, so persect, so wise, as to [Page 238]satisfie every body, and find no Momus who bla­med him. S. Paul was held a Blasphemer and an Enemy, not only to the Ephesian Diana, Act. 9. but also to the Temple of Jerusalem, Act. 24. What less guilty than the Apostles? yet some thought to do God good service in killing them. Joh. 16.2. What more innocent, than Jesus newly born? yet he was forced to a Flight to save his Life, Mat. 2.13. What less repre­hensible than his Doctrin, his Manners, his Mi­racles, his Person? yet his Doctrin hath been ac­cused of Blasphemy, Mat. 26.65. his Manners of Gluttony, Mat. 11.19. his Miracles of Ma­gick, Luc. 11.15. and his Person of being beside himself, Mar. 3.31. None ever had a Mission from Heaven with more convincing Proofs of Miracles, than Moses and Christ; yet both had their Schismaticks: Moses not only Core and his Fellows, but also Aaron and Mary; and Christ had the Capharnaits, Scribes and Pha­risees, and one of his Apostles. And if we do not shut our Ears, we shall hear God himself by hor­rid Blasphemies, censured for bad Governing the World, and even for not Creating it well; Man, by a presumptuous Folly, preferring his own dim Lights before the inaccessible Light of God, 1 Tim. 6.16. before whom even Man's greatest wisdom is folly. 1 Cor. 3.19.

It is therefore a great folly for any one to hope to give satisfaction to all, or even to avoid Censure of some; that is a good Fortune not granted to Saints, Martyrs, Apostles, or even [Page 239] Christ himself, God blessed for ever more, Rom. 9.5 and with what probability can any Man hope for it? Our Endeavors must be, to give no ground for Detraction, and so to behave our selves, as nothing may be reproacht us with truth.

Governments are more obnoxious to Cen­sures, as including greater variety of Actions and Designs, in which more Persons are con­cerned as acting in, or suffering by them. This makes a vast diversity of Judgments in several Persons, according as they fancy themselves re­garded or neglected, advanced or kept back, benefited or prejudiced by them; and accord­ing as they hope or fear from them. A private Man possessed with an opinion of his own Ability, (which no body sees but himself, nor he neither, but thrô self-love) shall think himself as fit to sit at the Helm, as those who do; and finding his Preferment not to answer the opini­on he hath of his own Capacity, thinks himself wronged by those who are advanced before him. To revenge this imaginary Wrong, he commits a real one, by blaspheming higher and lower Powers, calumniating their Actions, cen­suring their Commands, and judging their Judg­ments: Erecting within himself (thrô a crimi­nal Rashness, and ridiculous Ambition) a Tri­bunal over those, to whom by Publick Autho­rity he is subject. This Man by some weaker than himself, shall be looked on as a wise Man, a Zealot of the Publick Good, and a good Patriot; [Page 240]when in reality, not Prudence but Passion go­verns his Tongue, which only vents some indi­gested Choler.

I grant, that in all Governments there are some Inconveniences, which we may wish were corrected. The Passions of some, the Weakness of others, cause Disorders, which may be pu­nished, but not prevented. Those who Govern, are not always at their own disposal; some­times to pleasure their Friends, sometimes to avoid displeasing others, they are in a manner forced to some things, which were they left to themselves they would not do. They must sometimes give way to a lesser Evil, to avoid a greater; in which they deserve compassion, ra­ther than blame. Moreover, they are indeed greater than others, yet not Gods, but Men; not omniscient, but ignorant of many things which pass in their Government, and it may be are acted in their Name, and by their Autho­rity, yet contrary to their Intentions, which are (supposed to be) always for the Publick Good. It may be they know the thing, and dislike it; but know not how to remedy it, without some other Inconvenience; (the a­voiding of all Faults, is reserved for Heaven.) Amongst Men, he is best, who hath fewest Faults, not he who hath none, (such an one is a Chymera) and small ones may be connived at, in consideration of great Vertues. Thus every private Man ought to suppose, that the su­preme Magistrate either doth not know the [Page 241]Faults of those he Employs, or thinks them not considerable, or knows not how to remedy them, without incurring others as great or greater.

What is the Duty then of a private Man, who sees these Miscarriages? 1. To pray God to mend all, or at least to prevent bad Consequen­ces. 2. If he have occasion and abilities, to ac­quaint those who may redress things, with what he thinks amiss, and suggest, if he can, a proper Remedy; yet to leave the applying that Re­medy to those who are charged with the Pub­lick Concern. 3. In case he be involved in com­mon, or private Sufferings, he ought to bear it patiently, and expect the turn of the Tide. 4. He may reform his own Life and Actions ac­cording to the severest Laws of State, and Ca­nons of the Church, provided he become not by that troublesom to his Neighbors, (over whom he hath no Authority) or dangerous to Superi­ors (whose Authority over him is established by God) or disturb the publick Peace, which is to be preferred before all Advantages which can be hoped from those petty Reformers, or their Re­formations. 5. Having done that, he ought to content himself, and press his lawful Superiors no farther, assuring himself he hath fully com­plied with the utmost of his Duty, by acquaint­ing his Rulers with what he thinks is for the publick Good, and by correcting himself. And he may suppose, that if these do not follow his Advice, either they see the thing not feasible, or [Page 242]foresee other Inconveniences, or expect some fitter Conjuncture; whereas by farther urging he cannot but offend: For, to communicate his Dislikes to others, to draw them first to joyn in Petitioning, with a seeming Submission, then by a real Violence to force Superiors to what they pretend, to unsettle the present Govern­ment, and to aim at setting up a new one, under pretence of Reforming the old, is in the State Sedition, and in the Church Schism; as great Crimes against both as any, except Rebellion and Heresie, to which they dispose.

So that this Reforming Humor in Particulars, is the Daughter of Pride, and Mother of Heresie and Rebellion; which makes it be suspected by all lawful Superiors, in all Established Govern­ments, till they know all the Particulars of which it consists. Absalon alledged plausible Reasons for altering the Government of Israel, 2 Reg. 15. and Oza for upholding the Ark with his Hand, 2 Reg. 6. The first, that the State was abandoned, no body looking to the Administration of Justice. The second, that the Ark was in danger of being overturned Both grievously offended, exceeding the Bounds assigned them by God, notwithstanding their specious Pretences.

Now to the Subject of your Complaint. The Roman Catholic Church holding her Faith by Tradition of all Ages from the Apostles, and never admitting the least alteration in it; from which she is preserved by the help of the Holy [Page 243]Ghost, promised to her by the Author and Finisher of it, Heb. 12.2. In this she knows there can be no occasion for it by any Error. As to her Discipline, she acknowledges some Alterations, and hath no difficulty to admit of a Reforma­tion, provided things be done according to or­der. This appears first by her Councils, even that of Trent, and several celebrated in France and Germany in this last Age. Secondly, by the Practice of several Prelates, S. Charles Borro­meus in Italy, S. Francis de Sales in France, and others elsewhere. Thirdly, by those of a lower Rank, as of S. Philip Nerius, who established the Congregation of the Oratory in Italy. Pere Berule, (afterwards Cardinal) who established that in France. Pere Vincent de Paul, who found­ed the Priests of the Mission: All Congregati­ons of Clergy living in common, under the Obe­dience of their several Superiors. Lastly, did you regard what they are, not what they are said to be, and as much consult the Rules and Lives of the Jesuits in themselves, as you do in the Writings of their professed Enemies, (whose Testimony for that reason you ought to suspect) you would be forced to own, that S. Ignatius de Loyola hath reformed the Clergy, establishing a Congregation of Clergy-men, who live more conformably to the most ancient Canons, and the Ecclesiastics of the Primitive Church, than any your whole Reformation hath, or shall be ever able to shew. Which you would per­ceive, did you reflect, that the numerous and [Page 244]bitter Enemies which they have had, never do alledge any thing against their Lives or Rules: which is a convincing Proof they are irreproch­able.

Now a word to those whom you commend, for endeavoring a Reformation of the R. C.

Jean du Verger, Abbot of S. Cyran, was only a private Priest, not a Doctor of Divinity, nor recommended by any other Degree, which might distinguish him from the meanest; having no Jurisdiction even over the Abby of which he bore the Title. But his Personal Endowments, either to good or evil, were exceeding great: A Large and comprehensive Fancy, a tenacious Memory, and a Judgment to use all his Learn­ing seasonably: Deep Melancholy, abounding with adust Choler, was his Temper. The first fitted him for the Labor of hard Studies, the se­cond emboldned him to write whatsoever he fancied, without any regard to Persons, how great soever. Those who particularly knew him, say, that no History shews a Man of a more intriguing Wit, and fitter to Head a Faction: For, using too much this Faculty, he was by the King's Authority cast into Prison, being accused by a Bishop (whom he had before inveigled) who discovered his Designs thrô horror of them. Cardinal de Richelieu being solicited to release him, by R. S. late Bishop of Chalcedon, answered, Your Lordship doth not know the Man you speak for. Had our Fathers dealt so with Cal­vin, France had enjoyed Peace. Now I would [Page 245]know of Mr. B. whether it be tolerable for a private Man to Cabal in his own Church, to frame a Party in it besides, and contrary to the Orders of its lawful Superiors, oppose all esta­blished Order, to unsettle old Customs and in­troduce new ones, to make way for a new Go­vernment? If you approve this in S. Cyran, how can you blame it in your Phanatics?

Antony Arnaud was once a Doctor of the Fa­culty of Paris, but was cast out of it, and De­graded by the other Doctors, for his odd Sen­timents in matters of Grace, which he obsti­nately defended, even after they were Censured by Rome, France, and his own Faculty. And why might not that Faculty retrench from its Body, Members who refuse to submit to the major part, as by the Law of Nature all are bound to do, where there appears no Sin? I know of no other Persecution he ever endured. As to his Book of the Frequent Communion, it tended not to the reforming, but to the destroying the Sacra­ment of Penance, as is seen by its effects, where it prevails. I will not say he designed so much, I leave Intentions to God, the Searcher of Hearts, Jerem. 17.10. Many times a Buck is shot at, and a Man is killed. However it was inexcusable in him to endeavor to change the Customs and Laws established by the Church, and in force. His Title of Doctor could entitle him only to explicate the Laws received, and conform to them, not to abrogate and reform them: for a Doctor, as such, hath no Jurisdiction, without [Page 246]which no Laws can be made, or unmade. The least Bishop, nay the meanest Curate of a Pa­rish hath greater Power as to Laws, than the greatest Doctor, as such; seeing those have some Jurisdiction, and this hath none at all.

Cornelius Jansenius was a Bishop, so his Case is different from the rest; for he had Jurisdi­ction. Yet why he should be cited amongst the Reformers, I know not: He hath written se­veral Works, Mars Gallicus, Annotations on the Pentateuch and the Gospels, Alexipharma­cum, and his Augustinus. His Mars Gallicus is an Invective against the French Designs. His An­notations, and Augustinus, do not touch the Di­scipline of the Church. He contradicts in them some Points of the Doctrin of the Church De­fined in the Council of Trent, which drew the Censure of Rome on the later Work of his, yet without touching his Person, who by his Will submitted his Augustinus to the Censure of Rome, in whose Communion he always lived, and did then die, as an obedient Son of it. To know the opinion he had of your Faction, read his Alexipharmacum, (which he writ against your Brethren at Boysleduc) and you will see it. What reason have you to complain of Severity used towards him? I know of none; his Person was never touched by any Censure.

As for the Disciples of S. Cyran and Jansenius, I grant there is amongst them a Spirit of Inde­pendantism; (and what Assembly of Men is entirely free from such?) Yet you cannot glory [Page 247]in them, if what Mr. Brevint says in his Preface to Saul and Samuel at Endor, be true, that they are more dangerous to a Protestant, than even Missionaries and Jesuits; and therefore warns all to avoid their Company. So that even those who dislike something in us, condemn you.

CHAP. XXIX. Other small Objections.

G. B. p. 112. PApists make Children Bishops, allow of Pluralities, Non-residences, Commen­dams, &c which are every day granted at Rome.

Answ. Here are a company of hard words to fright your Reader from Rome, as Birds are frighted from Corn with a Rattle; and there is likewise more noise than substance in both.

I have lived in the greatest Catholic Princes Dominions, and never saw, nor heard of what you say is daily done. Our Canons require Thir­ty years for a Bishop; few are made so young, most are promoted to that Dignity very ancient. Yet this Age being determined only by Ecclesia­stical Law, I will not deny, but that on some extraordinary Motive some have been dispen­sed with. If you blame this, see how you will excuse S. Paul, who made S. Timothy Bishop of Ephesus in his Youth, 1. Tim. 4.12.

If you condemn Pluralities in our Church, how will you excuse your own, in which they [Page 248]are practised? Must the Canon Law be a Cable­rope to us, and a Cobweb to you? If you dislike Pluralities, begin with reforming your own Brethren, his Majesties Chaplains in Ordinary, who can find a Conscience to keep two Benefi­ces, if they meet with a Prince who will bestow them.

As for Non-residences, Vide Aug. Epist. 138. I de­demand, Whether it be not law­ful for a Bishop to be absent from his Diocese in the Circumstances following? 1. For the good of the Church, as in General or Particular Councils. 2. For the good of the Nation, as in our Parliaments. 3. For the good of their Dioceses, as when Flavianus, Pa­triarch of Antioch, went to Constantinople, to preserve his Episcopal Seat from being ruined, by appeasing Theodosius the Great, offended for the throwing down of his Statues. 4. For any other Reason so weighty, that evidently it may be equivalent to the good which his Residence might bring. No Papist thinks them lawful, but only on such Occasions: for as for such who do absent themselves either for Ambition, or Envy, or Pleasure, or Friendship, or any other unlawful Design; or for some good, but so lit­tle, as not to countervail that of their Duty to their Flock, we no less blame them than you: our Canons for Residence are as severs as can be, and those often executed with the utmost ri­gor. What do you more?

Commendams? offend you; that is, the recom­mending [Page 249]the Means of Abbeys to those who are not Monks. Yet we give them only to Clergy, you to meer Laymen. Secondly, we give them only for their Lives, you give them to their Heirs, Executors, Administrators, and Assigns. Thirdly, we leave the Abby, and its legal Su­periors, a competent Subsistence for the Monks; you turn them a begging, out of God's Blessing into the warm Sun. When you have proved, that it is more lawful for your Church to steal a Goose, than for ours to pluck a Quill, I shall believe your Procedure legal, and ours illegal.

G. B. ibid. They strugled hard against the ho­nest Attempt of those who labored to have had Re­sidence declared to be of Divine Right, in the Coun­cil of Trent.

Answ. What might the Catholic Church do to please you? Had she pass'd that Declaration, you would have clamored at your ordinary rate, against new Definitions of Faith; now she re­jected that Definition, she opposed the honest Attempt to promote it; and she must be in the wrong, and those who oppose her, in the right, whatever she, or they do, because she is the Church, and they a discontented Party in her. In fine, as the Jews proceeded with our Saviour the Bridegroom, so do you with the Bride, the Catholic Church; her Actions, whatever they are, are blamed. To what are the men of this ge­nertion like? They are like unto children sitting in the market-place, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned [Page 250]unto you, and you have not wept. Luc. 7.32. For, doth the Church make a Decree, you blame her for it; doth she not make it, you blame her for that too. But Wisdom is justified by all her children.

A Conclusion of the First, and Beginning of the Second Part.

G. B. p. 116. I Have run around the great Circle I pro­posed to my self, and have examined the Designs of Christian Religion, and have found great contradiction given to them by the Doctrins of that Church.

Answ. You have indeed run a Round, and that so long, that you are giddy with it, as ap­pears by your frequent and great Falls, so evi­dently against common Sense, as I have all a­long observed, and yet I have not observed all; for that would have been too tedious to the Reader, and have taken up more time, than I can bestow upon Trifles. You have shewn no Contradiction betwixt the Doctrin of the Catholic Church, and the Designs of Christianity: I have shewn their Conformity. But your Book disco­vers a Design against Charity, which is the Heart of Religion, it being a heap of rash Judgments, evident Calumnies, or uncharitable Surmises. I say nothing of your Faults against Reason, your incoherent Notions, groundless Judgments, and perpetual Sophisms; because althô these are great Faults in themselves, yet not consi­derable, [Page 251]in presence of those others against Charity.

And these Faults are the greater, for being brought to uphold a Schism, a Design contrary to Christianity; it being a most certain Truth, that No Man can have the Love of God, who with­stands the Ʋnion of all Men in one Church. Non habet Dei Charitatem, qui Ecclesiae non diligit uni­tatem. Aug. l. 3. de Baptis. cont. Donat. c. 16. And all your Pretences of Causes given of your Separation, are but frivolous; this tearing in pieces the my stical Body of Christ, is so great a Sacrilege, that no Pretext can excuse it. Appa­ret (saith S. Austin, l. 2. contra Epist. Parmen. c. 11.) non esse quicquam gravius sacrilegio schis­matis, quia praecidendae unitatis nulla est justa ne­cessitas.

When I saw you reflect on your running so long round in a Circle, I hoped you would come out of it; and was in hopes, that either I might have been a Spectator of your following Course, or else that you would have led me a more plea­sing Walk. The Design of S. Austin ( Lib. 1. Retract. cap. 7.) came to my Mind, who repre­sented the Piety of Catholics, and the vicious Lives of the Manichees, in his two Books De moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, and De moribus Mani­chaeorum; and I imagined you might design the like in the two Parts of this Book. I expected you would have given us a Panegyric of your own Church, after you had spent your Satyrical Vein in your Invective against ours. I thought [Page 252]we should have seen described the Beauty of the Protestant Church, the Advantages of Commu­nion with it, the Perfection of its Faith, the De­cency of its Ceremonies, the Majesty of its Hie­rarchy, the Reasonableness of its Canons, the Fulness of its Conducency to Piety in this Life, and Bliss in the next; and all these confirmed with Examples of the vertuous Lives of its De­votes.

But how much have I been mistaken! for casting an Eye a little farther, after some few words in commendation of your Faith, I find you throwing Dirt again as fast as before, or rather faster; as if in the First Part you had only essayed, what in the Second you act in earnest.

Doth your Garden (the Church, Cant. 4.12. is compared to one) afford only that one Flower? Is the Soil so barren, or so ill cultivated, as none else should be found in it? Or if there be any other, do they thrive so ill, as not to be worth being pointed to? Or doth it come from a mo­rosity of Nature, which inclines you to blame, and reprehend? Or from a propensity to enter­tain thoughts only of Faults and Imperfections, as Flies pitch upon Ulcers, and some other Crea­tures wallow in Mire? Or from another Qua­lity worse than that, which turns all to bad, as a foul Stomach turns all Food into peccant Humors, and a Spider draws Poyson from that Flower, whence a Bee draws Hony? Something of this must be: for I will neither say there is [Page 253]nothing reprehensible in the Lives of Catholics, (it is a Propriety of the Triumphant Church to be free from any Spot or Wrinkle) nor that all is bad in Protestants besides their Faith, that be­ing the Condition of the Damned Spirits in Hell. But I supersede these Personal Reflecti­ons, and follow (thô with little comfort) you in the new Maze you lead me into.

CHAP. XXX. Catholic Faith delivered by Men Divinely Inspired. Rules to know true Tradition. Faith never changed.

G. B. p. 116. THE first Character of our Faith is, that it was delivered to the World by Men sent of God, and Divinely Inspired, who pro­ved their Mission by Miracles.

Answ. All Divine Faith is built on the Vera­city of God; the Men who delivered it at first, were but the Organs by which God spake, and their Words were his Words. When you received the word of God (says S. Paul 1 Thes. 2.15.) which when you received of us, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is in truth) the word of God. Hence those Men frequently use that Phrase, Haec dicit Dominus, Thus says the Lord. And Faith is no farther a Theological Vertue, than it relies solely, and only, on the Truth (Veracity) of God, as on its Formal Object; as [Page 254]with our Divines, and out of them, Dr. Pearson, in his Learned Explication on the Creed teaches. And in this even those Men [...], Divine­ly Inspired, proceeded as we do, resolving their Faith into the Veracity of God as well as we: for their Faith was univoca, of the same nature with ours, with this only difference, that the Formal Object was applied to them clearly, and to us only obscurely. The assent to such a My­stery in Christ, was Science, or Vision; not so in any others. He might say, Quod scimus lo­quimur, & quod vidimus testamur, Jo. 3.11. We know what we speak, and we testifie what we have seen. The rest must say, Credimus, propter quod & loquimur, 2 Cor. 4.13. We believe, and there­fore we speak.

In this manner Faith was first spread in the World. I say the Catholic Faith, not your Pro­testant Faith; which as it contains your positive and negative Articles, (otherwise it is not Pro­testant) was never delivered by any Man Di­vinely Inspired, but invented by your first Re­formers, who (as I have said Chap. 22. Sect. 1.) taking the whole Sum of Faith revealed, topt, and lopt off it as much as they pleased; and from them you have not the Christian, but the Protestant Faith; Fides temporum, non Evange­liorum; A Faith of the Times, not of the Gospels, says Tertul. Were these the Men of God Di­vinely Inspired and assisted by Miracles?

G. B. ibid. The Doctrins about which we differ, can pretend to no such Divine Original.

Answ. You know we hold this not to be true, we received all by the same Authority, from the same Hand.

G. B. pag. 117. What Man sent of God was the first Author of the Belief of the Corporeal Pre­sence, of the Sacrifice of the Mass, of the Pope's Supremacy, of Purgatory, of Indulgences, and of all those innumerable Superstitions, of which Scri­pture is absolutely silent.

Answ. Christ was a Man sent of God, and he was the first Author of them.

G. B. ibid. If these Doctrins were not the Off­spring of Revelations, we cannot be obliged to be­lieve them as such.

Answ. Your former Legerdemain comes a­gain, another conviction of your disingenuous Proceeding. This appears by these Propositi­ons: If the Bible were not the Offspring of Reve­lation, we should not be bound to believe it. If Christ were not true God, we should not be bound to adore him as such. Could you with patience hear a Pagan with such a Sleight undermine the Au­thority of the Bible, or the Honor due to Christ? Prove what you odiously suggest, that the things, you wrongfully call Superstitions, are not revealed, and you will do something to the pur­pose. But you are too cunning to attempt any such Proof, which you know surpasses your Strength. And therefore you had rather sup­pose than prove it, that being more proporti­oned to your Capacity and Religion.

G. B. ibid. They vouch Scriptures for Proof to [Page 256]some of these, but these are so far stretched, that their sure Retreat is in the Sanctuary of Tradi­tions.

Answ. You speak as Dogmatically, as if it were ex Tripode. Here is an Assertion without any Proof, and so is a convincing Proof, that you have none. Tradition is indeed our Sanctu­ary, to which you have no Claim. By it we re­ceived 1. Scriptures, 2. The Sense of Scri­ptures, which is their Soul.

Now when Scriptures are doubtful in any Point, or as you phrase it, seem not to reach home without Stretching, can we have better as­surance of their true meaning, than by the Au­thority of the Church, which is clearly com­mended to us in Scriptures themselves. And in following her Sense, we are certain we follow Scriptures: which is the Discourse of S. Aug. lib. 1. contra Crescon. cap. penult. Quamvis hujus rei de Scripturis Canonicis non proferatur exemplum, Scripturarum etiam in hac re à nobis tenetur veritas, cum hoc facimus, quod universa jam placuit Ecclesiae, quam ipsarum Scripturarum com­mendat auctoritas, ut quoniam Sacra Scriptura fal­lere non potest, quisquis falli metuit hujus obscuri­tate quaestionis, Ecclesiam de illâ consulat, quam sine ullâ ambiguitate Sancta Scriptura demonstrat.

G. B. ibid. Till it be proved, that an Error could not creep into the World that way, we must be excused from Believing.

Answ. Unless you prove, that Errors have crept in that way, you are inexcusable. You [Page 257]actually rejected those things as Errors, which were in possession all over the World: unless you prove them to be such, your Fact is cri­minal.

G. B. ibid. It is not possible to know what Tra­ditions came from the Apostles.

Answ. Habemus hic confitentem reum. For if it be impossible to know what Traditions were Apostolical, your Reformers Act, in rejecting so many, was rash and inconsiderate: They had been better advised to retain all, as they found them in the Church, than to cut them off. But your Procedure is as different in this, as in the rest, from S. Austin. For was any thing doubt­ed of, this Saint's Method was to consult the Church, and adhere to what she believed, or practised; (as you see in his Discourse above) you consult the Church too, but it is only to re­ject her Practice, and condemn her Sentiments.

The weight of the Authority of the Church may be sufficient to convince, which are Aposto­lical Traditions, as it convinces which are Apo­stolical Writings. Yet we have other Signs: I will instance in two, one taken from S. Aug. l. 4. de Bapt. cont. Donat. c. 24. Quod universa tenet Ec­clesia, neec à Conciliis institutum, sed semper reten­tum est, non nisi Apostolicâ traditum auctoritate re­ctissimè creditur. We ought to believe those things to have come from the Apostles, which the whole Church holds, and were not introduced by Councils, but were always in use. To prove this, it is e­nough, that the first Persons who mention them, [Page 258]speak of them, not as of things newly begun, but which were of ancient Practice.

The second Rule is taken out of Tertullian, l. de Praescript. c. 28. Age nunc, omnes errave­rint, deceptus sit & Apostolus de testimonio redden­do quibusdam, nullam respexerit Spiritus Sanctus, uti eam in veritatem induceret, ad hoc missus est à Christo, ad hoc postulatus de Patre, ut esset Doctor veritatis, neglexerit officium Dei villicus, Christi vicarius, sinens Ecclesias aliter in terris intelligere, aliter credere, quàm ipse per Apostolos praedicabat. Ecquid verisimile est, ut tot, ac tantae Ecclesiae in unam fidem erraverint? Nullus inter multos eventus est unus exitus, variasse debuerat error doctrinae Ec­clesiarum. Caeterùm quod apud multos unum inve­nitur non est erratum, sed traditum. ‘Suppose, says he, that all Churches have erred, that the Apostle was deceived in the Testimony he gave to some, the Holy Ghost looked to none, to lead it into Truth, to which intent he was sent by the Son, and demanded of the Fa­ther, to be the Doctor of Truth; Let the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglect his Duty, and permit the Churches to under­stand, and believe otherwise, than he had taught by his Apostles; Is it probable, that all Churches should by Error fall into one and the same Opinion? When there are so many By-ways, those who lose the High-way would scarce wander into the same Error. So that certainly what is found one, and the same, in many Churches, is no Error newly [Page 259]invented, but it is Faith of old delivered.’ Thus Tertullian. Answer you to his Discourse, if you can.

G. B. pag. 108. A late ingenious Writer, whose sincere Zeal had drawn Censures on himself and his Book, took a way to repair his Reputation by a new Method of proving Popish Doctrins, that they had them from their Ancestors, they from theirs. But this pretence hath been baffled by Mr. Claud, as all know, who have been so happy as to read his Works.

Answ. I am persuaded, that your Prelates will scarce think it sincere zeal in Mr. Arnaud, (of him you speak) that he stood out so long against his Spiritual and Temporal Superiors. But let that pass. You discover your Ignorance in saying that Method was new, or that Arnaud invented it. Mr. Tho. White had it before Ar­naud, Mr. Fisher a Jesuit before T. W. Bellar­min before him, and S. Austin, S. Stephen Pope, and Tertullian, before them all. I have read Mr. Claud's Works, and was far from finding so much Satisfaction, as you promise your Reader, I believe rather upon Hear-say, than on your own Experience: Nay, I have from one of the eminentest Wits of the French Hu­genots, that Claud was not much esteemed a­mongst his own for those Works, which would have been neglected, had not Arnaud's Enemies commended them. You say Claud Baffled him; others are of a different opinion. I confess Mr. Arnaud, thô very Learned, yet seemed not [Page 260]qualified to manage a Controversie in defence of Church-Authority and Tradition, having (as much as lay in him) weakned both, by his Wri­tings, and Practice, during the time he stood out against the Censure and the Formula: which gave such advantage to Mr. Claud, who indu­striously gathered together, and cunningly re­turned upon him his own Arguments, that some thought he had foiled his Adversary; yet with­out any prejudice to the Catholic Cause, which is not concerned in Mr. Arnaud's Personal Fail­ings.

Let us now hear what you can alledge against the Authority of Tradition, to prove a Change unobserved in our Faith.

G. B. pag. 121. We know the Chalice was ta­ken from the People 250 Years ago.

Answ. 1. You are mistaken in your Epocha: S. Thom. 3. p. q, 80. a. 12. assures, it was in his time taken away in many Places; and he lived 400 Years ago: and from the beginning some Persons, and on some Occasions, received but one Species. 2. This is an Argument that Changes cannot happen, without some notice ta­ken of them; as in this, We know when it be­gun, (with the Schools) who opposed it, (the Hussits) what Council commended it, and con­demned its Opposers, that of Constance. Which confirms our Rule, That when none of this ap­pears, there hath been no Change.

G. B. ibid. All once Worshipped in their Mo­ther Tongue, but after (by the overthrow of the Em­pire) [Page 261]the Latin Tongue decayed, the barbarous Wor­ship was obtruded on the World.

Answ. This proves a Change in the People, whose Language was spoiled with the mixture of barbarous Terms, not in the Service, which continued the same; it continuing in Latin, as it was before that Inundation of Barbarians.

G. B. pag. 122. We know that for the first seven Centuries the Christian World abhorred Images.

Answ. In what Age did S. Gregory the Great live? Sure within the first seven Centuries. And he ( Lib. 7. Epist. 109. & Lib. 9. Epist. 8.) rebuked Serenus Bishop of Marseilles for casting them out of the Church. Was not S. Austin within the first seven Centuries? He ( Lib. 1. Consens. Evang. cap. 10.) speaks of the Pictures of Christ, and the holy Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul. Thus I have pass'd your three Instances to prove a Change in the Faith of the Church: which you usher in with that emphatical Term, We KNOW. If you have many other such Points of KNOWLEDGE, for the Diver­tisement of the Learned World, I wish you to publish them. I am persuaded few besides your self know such things; most know them to be false.

CHAP. XXXI. Revelations and Miracles.

G. B. p. 123. THE Papist Church pretends to Re­velations for some of her most doubtful Opinions; which are the Visions and extraordinary Inspirations of some of their Saints, from which they vouch a Divine Confirmation to their Doctrin.

Answ. If you know of any Decree made in matter of Faith, upon a private Revelation, shew it. Till you do so, I will not believe it. S. Tho. 1. p. q. 1. a. 8. ad. 2. absolutely excludes all private Revelations from grounding Faith. Innititur Fides nostra revelationi factae Apostolis & Prophetis; non autem revelationi, si qua fuit aliis Doctoribus facta. ‘Our Faith relies on Revela­tions made to the Apostles, and Prophets; and not on such as are made to other Doctors.’

G. B. pag. 124. S. Paul being put to glory of Visions and Revelationt, was to run back fourteen Years for one.

Ans. S. Paul says, that he had fourteen Years before that great Revelation; but he never said he had no others, either before, or after. And that Revelations were not so extraordinary in his Days, as you think, not only amongst the Apostles, but even amongst ordinary Christians, you may learn out of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 14.30, 32. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace, for you may all Prophesie [Page 263]one by one, that you may all learn, and all be com­forted. And the Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets. And can you think the Apostle should have no Revelation for so many years, when the meanest Christians had them, even in the middle of their publick Assemblies, where they met with so many Distractions? What will you say to excuse your Ignorance, if other Revelations made to S. Paul, be recorded in Scri­pture? Now so it is: For, 1. A Macedonian ( Act. 16.9.) appeared to him. 2. Our Lord spoke to Paul in a Vision, ( Act. 18.9.) Nay, the very place you cite to prove your Error, confutes it: for he says, Lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of Revelati­ons, there was given. 1 Cor. 12.7. He had then REVELATIONS, nay, abundance of Re­velations. See how carelesly you read, how ill you understand, and how negligently you write out of Scriptures! for you are certainly convin­ced, that when S. Paul spoke of that one, he did it, not because he had been favored with no o­ther, but because that was a singular favor, and as such esteemed. But I dispute seriously against a Man, who regards not what he writes.

G. B. pag. 124. Are they not credible Stories, of Christ's appearing to some of their She Saints, and kissing them, being married to them, &c.

Answ. I doubt not but you, and your Bre­thren, think this Folly. S. Paul says as much of such as you, 1 Cor. 2.14. Animalis homo non per­cipit ea, quae sunt spiritus Dei; stultitia est enim illi, [Page 264]& non potest intelligere, quia spiritualiter examina­tur. The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Of such, as the English Ministers, S. Paul speaks, who are by him declared incapable to judge, yet will be still judging of the secret work­ings of the Holy Ghost in those Souls, which he makes his Temples, in whom he lives, and they in him: which things seem folly to you, because you have no experience of them, and probably never made an hour of Mental Prayer in all your Life, nor know how to make it. Hence you speak evil of things you know not, Jude v. 10. It would be more to your Credit to omit those things, than by speaking of them, discover so shameful an Ignorance. The best Advice I can give you, is that of Job to his Friends, To be silent, that you may seem wise, Job 13.5.

But Christ kissed them, and married them. This scandalizes your chast Brethren, who cannot hear of Marriage! and Mr. Brevint surmised God knows what unclean Spirits. I cannot ap­peal to the Conscience and Experience of any of the whole Ministry, for the reality of what you deride; for I think there never was granted to any of you such Favors. Yet to free you from fear of Illusions (in those Visits) from bad Spi­rits, know, (and I wonder any one, who reads the Scripture, can be ignorant of it) that there is a Spiritual Contract betwixt Christ and the Church; Item, betwixt him and every pious [Page 265]Soul; That this Contract is called a Marriage; That on this score the Sins of such Souls against their Spouse are called Adulteries, and them­selves Adulteresses. If you have any Remem­brance, these Hints will bring to mind a number of Texts of Scripture, which deliver what you scoff at. The whole Book of Canticles (or Solo­mons Song) celebrates that adorable Nuptial So­lemnity. The very first words of it are, Oscule­tur me osculo oris sui, Cant. 1.1. Let him (or may he) kiss me with a kiss of his mouth. The Church, and every pious Soul, demanding as a singular Favor of her Spouse that Blessing; which when granted to some, scandalizes you, modest Man, so different are your Sentiments in Spiritual things, from those of the Holy Ghost, who says, ( Cant. 1.3.) that the Soul should re­ceive that favor, she at first demanded, and yet not be despised. You despise them all as Forgeries, Dreams, Effects of Melancholy, or Hysterical Di­stempers. What is Blasphemy, if this be not? Our Lord for give you, for you know not what you say.

G. B pag. 124. The Inspirations of Holy Wri­ters, on whom we found our Faith, was proved by Miracles.

Ans. We build not our Faith on any of these Revelations you speak of; so this Hint is nothing to the purpose. If we did, Miracles are not here wanting, viz. The change of Mens Lives either from good to better, or at least from bad to good: which sufficiently proves the good­ness of the Spirit appearing, above all your fri­volous [Page 266]Exceptions. And if other Miracles are necessary, those are many times granted too.

G. B. pag. 126. Was it not a worthy piece of the Angelical Ministration, for Angels to go trot­ting over Sea and Land, with a Load of Timber and Stone of the Virginal House to Loretto.

Answ. Whether they trotted, or ambled, I doubt not, but that piece of Ministration was more pleasing to those Blessed Spirits, than to attend the protection of Men, who spend their Strength of Body and Mind in offending God, by impugning known Truth. Sin I know they ab­hor; other things are indifferent to them; and all are welcom, when commanded.

G. B. pag. 128. The Miracles of Rome are not heard of till some Ages, at least Years, be past.

Answ. This is not true. They are all very strictly immediately examined by Authority from the Ordinary, and then published. See that done at Gant upon D. Mary Minshall, approved by the Bishop shortly after it past.

G. B. ibid. It is the Interest of Rome to have them all believed, without once questioning them.

Answ. Rome has no Interest, but that Truth find place, and God be glorified. If you consider how strictly those of the Portuguese Nun were examined, and how sincerely the Cheat was published, you will acknowledge, that our Church doth not countenance any Deceit in this, nor think it her Interest, that all should be believed.

G. B. ibid. How comes it, that in Heretical [Page 267]Countries, where there is more need of those Mira­cles, and where they might be more irrefragably proved, if true, none of those mighty Works do shew themselves forth?

Answ. How comes it, that when the Scribes and Pharisees demanded a Sign from Heaven, our Saviour refused it? An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given to it. Mat. 12.39. It is presumptu­ous for you, or any other, to prescribe Rules to God Almighty's Providence, which is never wanting in what is necessary, and we ought not to expect things unnecessary, to pleasure our Curiosity either in Nature, or Grace; which he grants when he pleases, but not always. Now Miracles are very efficacious Means, but not the only Motives to bring us to Faith, and by con­sequence not absolutely necessary. The Apostle had a Power to work Miracles, and had a great proportion of Learning, yet he used neither for Conversion of the World, when worldly Men demanded it. Judaei signa petunt, Graeci sa­pientiam quaerunt. Nos autem praedicamus Christum Crucifixum, Judaeis quidem scandalum, Gentibus au­tem stultitiam. 1 Cor. 1.22. The Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom. And did he work Miracles to satisfie the one, or use Human Wisdom to work on the other? No, But we preach Christ crucified, a scandal to the Jews, and folly to the Greeks. Both tempted God, as the Scribes did, and you do: and neither obtained what they demanded. Indeed, those that will [Page 268]shut their Eyes to all other Motives, would easi­ly baffle the conviction of Miracles, either say­ing they are natural Works, or attributing them to Magick. You see how the Cure of the blind Man, born so, was tossed, ( Joh. 9.) and how casting out Devils ( Luc. 11.15.) was at­tributed to their Prince, Beelzebub.

G. B. pag. 133. My greatest Quarrel at these Forgeries of Miracles, is, that the People are taught to believe them and the Miracles of the Gospel, with equal certainty.

Answ. If this be the only ground of your Quarrel, we shall quickly agree; for I do not believe them with equal certainty. We are bound to believe with Divine Faith each Mira­cle related in the Gospel, but not so those con­tained in Ecclesiastical History, how authen­tical soever.

CHAP. XXXII. Whether all Mysteries of Faith ought to be common?

G. B. p. 121. THERE are no secret Doctrins in our Faith, which must be kept from the Vulgar, whereby the Pastors of Christendom may have possession of their Souls.

Answ. Here you smell another Popish Design, of which none, but your Party, ever dreamed, of which we cannot be accused (suppose it were [Page 269]true) without reproach to the Apostles, whose Example we follow in this, if we practise it: which in some sort seems unavoidable, consider­ing the weakness of Men, with which we must comply as much as we can, without withdraw­ing any Saving Truth.

Our Body by certain degrees grows up from the Dimensions it is born with, to its full Sta­ture: and our Mind, from its native Ignorance successively passes to Knowledge. Give Archi­medes his Works to a Novice in Mathematicks, he will not be the better for them. He must be first prepared to receive benefit by them, by passing Euclid's Elements. The same of other Sciences: and one may learn to read Hebrew without Points, without learning his Aleph, Beth, as well as he may learn the abstruser Conclusions of any Science, without learning its Rudiments.

Faith differs from all other Sciences in its Object, that is, God's Veracity, but agrees with them, that it requires some time to be brought to its full perfection. It contains many Assents to several Mysteries, or Articles, to whose understanding we cannot attain at one hearing.

Nay, each Article requires some time; so that as the material Sun chases away the ob­scurity of the Night by degrees, rising on our Horizon: so doth the Sun of Justice successively enlighten our Soul. This encrease of Faith the Apostle demanded of our Saviour, Luc. 17.5. To this the Prince of the Apostles exhorts, De­sire [Page 270]the sincere Milk, that in it you may grow. 1 Pet. 2. [...]. not as your En­glish Translation hath it, that you may grow thereby; as if our Growth were only by Faith in other things, when it is in Faith it self.

Milk is frequently taken in Scripture by a natural, and very proper Metaphor, for the first Rudiments, or necessary Principles of Faith, communicated to Catechumens, or Begin­ners, who being young, and as it were Infants in Christ, were not capable of more abstruse My­steries, which are called solid Meat. So to Babes Milk is given, till by use of it they get strength to digest solid Meat. This Method the Apostles used, 1 Cor. 3.1, 2. I, brethren, could not speak unto you, as unto Spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as babes in Christ; I have fed you with Milk, and not with Meat, for you were not able to bear it, nei­ther yet now are ye able: for you are yet carnal. Here you see, Sir, a whole Church, a noble Church, kept for a long time to her Milk, be­cause her progress in Spirituality, did not an­swer to the time of her Conversion.

A like Conclusion may be drawn from a re­proach made to the ancient converted Jews, Heb. 5.12. When for the time ye ought to be teach­ers, you have need that one teach you again, which be the first principles of the oracles of God, and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk, is unskilful in the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. But strong meat belongs to those that are of full age, [Page 271]those, who by reason of use, have their Senses exer­cised to discern good, and evil. Thus the Apostle dealt with Babes in Christ, but to Proficients he discovered greater Mysteries; We speak wisdom amongst the perfect, 1 Cor. 2.6. And because he thought the Thessalonians were such, he prayed hard daily, that he might see them again, that he might compleat what was lacking in their Faith, 1 Thes. 3.10. Now whether this compleating was intensivè or extensivè, by adding new My­steries of Faith, or a more ample Explication of what they knew before, is not material.

This will help us to understand the meaning of another place of the Apostle, ( Rom. 12.) I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is amongst you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the MEASƲRE of Faith. For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office; so we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members of another. Having then gifts according to the grace which is given us, whether prophecy, ministry, &c. Faith is distribu­ted, you see, to all the Church, yet not to each Member alike; but to each one HIS ME A­SƲRE, proportionable to his Capacity, and the Place, or Function he is called to. Which Similitude he uses in a like Sense, 1 Cor. 12. and Ephes. 4.7. And had you taught your Disci­ples as the Apostles did theirs, to be content with their measure of Faith, there had not been [Page 272]so many Sects in the World; who pretending to the fulness of Faith, of which they are not capa­ble, have lost both Faith and Charity.

You see, Sir, whose Example we follow in this, viz. that of the Apostles. So if there be any design of Ambition to ground it, the Apo­stles are guilty of it, not we. Orig. contr. Cels. l. 1. p. 7. says, all Christians were not acquaint­ed with all revealed Truths, only the most ne­cessary Points were communicated to all. And l. 3. p. 122. he confirms that Practice with the Example of Christ, who spoke in Parables to the Multitude, and explicated them to his Disciples, Mat. 13.11. S. Basil, lib. de Spir. Sanct. cap. 27. Discoursing of the Institutions of Christianity, divides them into two Parts, [...], and [...]. The first might be familiarly Preached to all [...]: the others were [...], not commonly to be divulged. Tertul­lian, lib. de Praescript, cap. 25. pag. 335. blames some Hereticks, who pretended to ground their Errors on Traditions obscurely delivered by the Apostles; and on that occasion seems to disown any Doctrin taught in private. But in the fol­lowing c. 26. p. 336. he explicates his meaning, which was to reject only such clancular Traditi­ons, as should be contrary to the Word, or Do­ctrin publickly Preached. And we say the same.

G. B. pag. 132. These are Practices far dif­ferent from the Method of the Apostles in Preach­ing the Gospel, who withheld nothing of the Counsel of God from the People.

Answ. Those words are taken out of that Speech of S. Paul to the Elders of the Church of lesser Asia, Act. 20.27. which you by a gross Mistake say were the People; as if the Holy Ghost had made the People Bishops to Govern the Church of God. Now if the People Govern, who are Governed? You are hard put to it, to find Reasons against us, when you are forced to such wretched Shifts. Know then, (which I won­der any one who reads with attention that place can be ignorant of) that those to whom S. Paul spake there, were Bishops, to whom by reason of their Office, a larger measure of Faith was due: to them the whole counsel of God was made known, to be communicated to others, not pro­miscuously to all; but to faithful men, who might be able to teach others. 2 Tim. 2.2.

Now thô according to the Practice of the Apostles, the People amongst us are not made Teachers, Pastors, Prophets, and Apostles, yet all, even to the meanest Artisan, have Instructi­ons necessary to Salvation: What they are bound to believe, what they are to hope for, and what to doe; And what need of more?

If any amongst us will undergo the labor of Studies, the greatest Mysteries of our Faith are obvious to him: Our Scriptures, our Councils, our Decretals, our Fathers, our Ecclesiastical, and Prophane Histories, our Divines, and our Philosophers, are extant in our Stationers Shops; as well for the use of the meanest Chri­stian, as of the Pope, Cardinals, or Bishops. [Page 274]What is then concealed from them, which may ground your Accusation?

Our Procedure in this is so connatural, that I am persuaded it cannot but be your own Pra­ctice. The English Church hath drawn to some few Heads those Points of Faith which she thinks necessary to Salvation, and delivers them to all in her Catechism. As for the others con­tained either in the Bible, or in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, or in the four first General Councils, she leaves it to her Children to seek them out themselves, if they have will and convenience, or to receive them from their Ministers: and I do not see how any Governors of a Church can proceed otherwise. Dare you blame this in your Mother Church? Why then should you condemn us for it?

G. B. pag. 133. Matters of Interest are the constant Subject of their Studies and Sermons; whereas others, of the greatest Laws of God are seldom minded.

Answ. If you could write this Untruth with­out blushing, you have no Blood in your Body. To confute you, it will be enough to open any one Book of Devotion, and hear, or read a Ser­mon. In malâ causâ non possunt aliter. August. Your Cause must be very bad, which requires such Untruths to uphold it; and ours very good, seeing you have no Truth to alledge against it.

CHAP. XXXIII. Faith not dependant on Senses.

G. B. p. 133. GOD hath fitted Faith, and framed our Souls so harmoniously, that they are congenial one to another.

Answ. I find you in this Point very much to seek, how to own a great Truth, and yet to establish a contrary Falshood, which is very dear to your whole Party. That Faith is above Natural Reason, and much more above Sense, is unquestionable. This you own, and so place Faith on a Throne. Yet something must be had against Transubstantiation, and nothing occurs but from Sense. Then you pull down Faith, and set up Sense in her place. Tantae molis erat san­ctum subvertere dogma. The Mysteries about God and Christ, say you, are exalted above the reach of our Faculties: But Reason it self teacheth that it must be so. Here Faith is above Reason. But afterwards, pag. 134. Our Faith rests on the Evidences our Senses give. Here Faith does Homage to Sense.

Faith is an argument of things which appear not, Heb. 11.1. So that it relies not on Senses, for its Object doth not appear; nor on Reason, o­therwise it would be Science, if the Reason be evident, or Opinion, if it be uncertain. So it relies only on God's Veracity, which consists of two Qualities. One, that He cannot be de­ceived, [Page 276]being Omniscient; The other, that he cannot deceive, being Good. Neither is possi­ble to God: for to be deceived, is an Error in the Understanding; and to deceive, argues Malice in the Will. So the Assurance we have by Faith, is greater than that of our Senses, which may be baffled; greater than that of Rea­son, which sometimes is mistaken in its Princi­ples, oftner deceived in its Deductions from them. Thus God is true, (Rom. 3.4.) and every man a lyar: which later part imports a possibi­lity of Error in our clearest Operations, whe­ther of Sense or of Reason.

To say, that Faith rests on the Evidence of Senses, (as you do p. 134.) is so contrary to the nature of Faith, that both Divines and Philo­sophers doubt whether the same Object can S. Thom. 2.2. q. 1. art. 4. & 5. be seen and believed; and gene­rally speaking, deny the possibility of it. And to what our Blessed Sa­viour said, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed, Joh. 20.29. They answer with S. Gre­gory, Aliud vidit, aliud credidit; He saw a Man, and believed him to be God.

To what purpose then are Miracles, if Faith doth not rely on them? Ans. To dispose our Understanding to receive with attention and submission the Word of God, by shewing it was God who spoke. And when Christ appeals to his Works: ( If I do not the Works of my Fa­ther, do not believe me; but if I do them, if you will not believe me, believe the Works, Joh. 10.38.) [Page 277]he assigns only the outward Motive of Belief; by which his Hearers were either drawn to Believe, or made inexcusable, if they persisted in their Incredulity. Now it is the grossest Error imaginable, to think that Faith rests on all those things which dispose to it; otherwise it would rest on the skill in Tongues, which is necessary to understand the original Scriptures; Item, on the Masters, who Teach them; on the Stationer, who Prints them, &c.

But what if the Man, who confirms his Mis­sion by evident Miracles, teach things contrary to Sense or Reason? Ans. Our Duty is to si­lence both these, and hearken to him. The Arms of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God, to the pulling down of strong holds, casting down imaginations, and every high thing, that exalts it self against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought. 2 Cor. 10. Who says, every thought, comprehended both those ground­ed on Sense, and others more Speculative. But to say as you do, that Reason must be subject to Faith, but not Senses, is very preposterously to put Reason the Mistress, under Faith; and Sense the Servant, above it. You declaim against Catholics, for acknowledging in the whole Church an Authority in order to the Word of God, much less than that which you give to the Senses of every particular Man. What an occa­sion do you give us, to return upon you all your Declamations?

G. B. pag. 134. We cannot really doubt, but [Page 278]things are as they appear to us: for we cannot be­lieve it Midnight when we see clearly the Sun in our Meridian.

Answ. We should not doubt of what God says, who (we are sure) cannot tell a Lye. We perceive daily the Hallucinations of our Un­derstanding. I am sure sometimes my Senses are mistaken, and my Reason corrects them. All Man is a Lyar, every knowing Faculty in him is subject to Deceit. God cannot tell me it is Midnight when it is Noon-day, because he can­not tell a Lye: But if God should tell me it is Midnight, and my Eyes should represent to me a luminous Body in the Meridian perfectly like the Sun; I should suspect my Eyes, or guess I saw a Meteor, or that I Dreamed, or Raved, or were yet in a worse Condition. The least, and last of my thoughts would be, that God told a Lye; which is the first thought you suggest.

G. B. pag. 135. Senses unvitiated, fixing on a proper Object, through a due Mean, are infallible.

Answ. Are they more infallible than God? Are we infallibly certain all those Conditions concur? May there not be more ways to delude our Senses, than are discovered? May there not be some latent defect in the Organ unper­ceived by us? Or some want in the Mean? An­swer to these Questions; and withall tell me, whether you have as great certainty of your Answer to these Queries, as you have of the Ve­racity of God.

With more colour another may say, that [Page 279] Faith cannot be against Reason; and with Soci­nus, refuse to believe any thing contrary to Dis­course; and so turn Antitrinitarian. I think my self as assuredly certain of that Metaphysical Principle, Eadem uni tertio sunt idem inter se, as of any thing I know by Senses; yet knowing what Christ hath taught concerning the Blessed Trinity, I believe that, and explicate that Prin­ciple as I can. Why should we not proceed in like manner with our Senses, when they seem to contradict what Christ hath taught? We are commanded to put out an Eye, cut off a Hand, or foot, (Mat. 18.8, 9.) if it draws us to sin. What shall we do, if they draw us to Infidelity? Or do you think it unlawful to keep them, yet lawful to follow their suggestions, and deny our Faith in obedience to their Depositions?

Heap up then your Absurdities, your Impos­sibilities, your Incredibilities, your Sophisms against Transubstantiation to as great a bulk, as your little Studies, and less Discretion will per­mit, you will only multiply Proofs of the Inso­lency and Folly of the Reason of Man, which dares enter the Lists against the Truth of God.

G. B. pag. 136. It is little less unconceivable, to imagin, that a Man of no eximious Sanctity, nor extraordinary skill in Divinity, should have the Holy Ghost at his command, that his Decrees must be the Dictates of the Spirit.

Answ. I pass that disrespectful Expression, Having the Holy Ghost at his command; no Ca­tholic ever spoke so. Do you think the Assi­stance [Page 280]of the Holy Ghost (whence flows all Ju­risdiction both Spiritual and Temporal) is re­strained to only Saints, and Learned Clerks? Doth Prelate and Prince lose their Jurisdiction by every mortal Sin? Was Amos the Shepherd a great Divine? Were Salomon and Caiaphas great Saints? Were the Scribes and Pharisees such, whose words all ( Mat. 23.2.) were com­manded to obey at the same time that they were warned to avoid their Actions? And that I may give you an Instance proportionable to your Objection, of an irrational Creature to an unreasonable Doubt, what say you to Balaam's Ass? Was he either Saint or Divine? He re­buked his Master for his iniquity, speaking with man's voice, and forbad the madness of the Prophet. 2 Pet. 2.16. God grant he cure all amiss in you.

Know, Sir, that Jurisdiction, Gift of Mira­cles, Tongues, Prophecy, and all those Graces, which are called Gratis datae, and regard the san­ctification of others, not of the Person to whom they are given, have no connection with any Personal Sanctity in their Subject. S. Thom. 1.2. q. 111. a. 1.

CHAP. XXXIV. Mr. G. B. his Intention in his Books, and his Meekness to Catholics.

G. B. p. 140. THƲS far I have pursued my De­sign, in the Tract whereof I have not been void of a great deal of Pain and Sorrow: for what Pleasure can any find by discovering so much Wickedness. God is my witness, how these thoughts have entertained me with horror and regret, all the while I have considered them: And it is not with­out the greatest antipathy to my Nature imaginable, that I have paid this Duty to Truth.

Answ. Here you give a very artificial Con­firmation of all you had said before: That you undertook this Task with great Reluctance, and carried it on with Grief and Sorrow; Vouch God as Witness of the truth of this, suspecting, I suppose, as you had reason, your bare Word would scarce be received, whilst so many preg­nant Proofs stand for the contrary.

For First, Your Religion doth not inspire such a Spirit of Mortification, as to engage her Children in painful and sorrowful Actions, for any time at all, much less for so long a time as is necessary for composing a Book of so various Matter. And for your Person, I do not hear that you seek so much occasions of Grief.

Secondly, Those who with sorrow and un­willingness think of others Faults, avoid those [Page 282]usually, and entertain others of their Vertues. Content is the thing all Men commonly seek, even in their Grief. They decline contristating Ob­jects, and sometime seek a freedom from them by a cessation from all rational Operations, pre­ferring the sottish, stupid, sensless Condition of a Beast, before the rational, but irksom thoughts of displeasing Objects; as is too common in England, if I am not mistaken: But that a Man, who may divertise himself, or find Employ­ments pleasing, should trouble himself with what passes in Jamaica, or China, or Rome, which concerns him not, is very unusual, and almost incredible.

Thirdly, Those who are truly sorry for their Neighbors Faults, do not easily entertain false Reports of them; Are unwilling without pregnant Proofs, to harbor any bad Opinion of them, or give credit to bad Reports con­cerning them; In fine, shew in their Actions the truth of that saying, Charitas non cogitat malum, 1 Cor. 13.5. Charty thinks no evil. You on the contrary take all malicious Reports against us, as true, althô you either knew already, or with a little labor might have known the wrong done us, in them; for as for the greatest part of your Difficulties, they are such as have been Answered over and over.

Fourthly, You feign things your self, which no body ever dreamt of, and are in themselves most untrue. As what you say pag. 133. The Subject of our Sermons and Studies are Matters of [Page 283]Interest, and not the Laws of God. Nay, when the things themselves are not blame-worthy, you calumniate our Intentions, seeking into our Hearts for matter to fix a Calumny on. And can any body persuade himself, our Errors and Faults afflict you, when you labor so hard to find them? And feign them your self rather than miss of them? I cannot tell to what better to com­pare this Proceeding (if your Grief were real) than to Children, who having drest up a Puppet, fancy it sick, then dead, and then fall a crying, as if it really were so.

Fifthly, Your manner of Writing is too ar­tificial for Grief: it is not so serious and grave as those are which that Passion dictates. It is sarcastical, insulting, sharp, biting, in a word, satyrical, no sign of mercy, compassion, bemoan­ings, bewailings, &c. but only when you call to mind your Text, or strive to get your Readers Favor, by pretending to grieve for our Faults: So that, did you not tell us of it, we should ra­ther guess any other Passion predominant in you, than that of Grief. We find many clear Signs of Pride, Emulation, Hatred, Contempt, An­ger, Disdain, Jealousie, Fear, &c. and but few of Sorrow.

Lastly, This very Protestation gives an oc­casion to suspect your Innocency, according to the Rule of the Law, Excusatio non petita, accu­satio manifesta; An Excuse not demanded, is an evident Accusation. An Apology is always an Answer to some Reproach of a Crime; and [Page 284]when no Witness appears abroad, who made that Reproach, it is certainly suspected to be objected by the best Witness, the Man's own Conscience.

Hence, I fear, most indifferent Readers will think, that you never gave greater ground to suspect your Ingenuity, than now. It is a weak­ness to attend to good Words, when we see bad Actions; to regard Jacob's Voice, when we feel Esau's Hands. You very religiously call God to witness, but I believe he will scarce confirm your Deposition with a Miracle.

But Intentions are secret, known only to the Searcher of Hearts, it is a rashness for any to pre­tend to know them even by Conjectures. And althô you presume to discover the Designs of Men dead many Ages ago, yet I will not imitate you in that Rashness, by pretending an Insight into your Heart, how great soever may the ground be for a guess. I will not return evil for evil; I will be as civil, and favorable to you, as I can: I admit you thought you said True when you writ this, and that if you deceive us, it is after being deceived your self: for althô you spoke an Ʋntruth, (as these alledged Reasons do prove) yet you did not tell a Lye, which consists in a will to deceive others. As for Ʋntruths, the honestest Man in the World may tell them, no Honesty exempting him from mistaking things of himself, or being misinformed from others; and so he may tell an Ʋntruth, without prejudice to his Reputation.

Now this possibility of Mistakes, and Error, reaches to our Hearts, which are hidden not only from our Neighbors, but even from our selves, whilst we take Thoughts for Resoluti­ons, and transitory Purposes for setled Designs. S. Greg. l. 1. Pastor. c. 9. Saepe sibi de se mens ipsa mentitur, fitque ut aliud in imis intentio suppri­mat, aliud tractantis animo superficies cogitationis ostendat: & fingit de bono opere amare quod non amat, de mundi autem gloriâ non amare quod amat. Our Soul is often deceived by her self, says S. Gre­gory. What swims on the surface of the Mind, is far different from what lies at the bottom of the Heart, (which hath the main part in our Acti­ons) some are entirely possest with the love of the Vanity of this World, who think they love God. So that God alone knows amongst all those Affe­ctions we have in our Wills, which is predomi­nant; and as for our selves, we are often mis­taken, and, as Thomas à Kempis says, think we are moved with Zeal, and it is only Passion which transports us. Saepe passione movemur, & zelum putamus.

You had then two Passions in your Soul, when you writ this Book, the one swimming on the surface of your Mind, (as S. Gregory speaks) of Grief for the supposed Errors of the Catholic Church. The other hidden at the bottom of your Heart, of Hatred of Papists. The first en­abled you to make your Protestation; The se­cond (except in some very few places) governed your Intention. Now to your Meekness.

G. B. pag. 141. I am none of those who justifie rage or bitterness against those in Errors. And pag. 155. We abhor the Doctrin of cruel persecu­ting of any for their Consciences: The utmost that we allow of, or desire of that nature, being the dri­ving from us those who do so disturb us.

Answ. Wonderful meek, sweet, and chari­table! As if Banishment from our native Coun­try England, of such a number, as embrace the Communion of the Catholic Religion of all Conditions, were an inconsiderable Punish­ment! If you deal so with those, whom you pity, what will you do with those, for whom you have some Bitterness?

But why must all, who profess the Catholic Religion, be banished? Because say you, they disturb you. It seems a dangerous business, to di­sturb a Scottish Minister, which deserves Banish­ment of all Yeomen, Gentlemen, Squires, Knights, Baronets, Barons, Vicounts, Earls, and others, who are Catholics. What will be your Verdict against me, in case you think this Book disturb you? What torments will be sharp enough, and what Gibbet high enough, to sa­tisfie for this Crime, on an obscure Man, when for the like so many illustrious Persons are Sen­tenced to Banishment?

G. B. pag. 142. My design is to provoke Pity, rather than Wrath, and Tears more than Flames, towards those deceived Multitudes, that we may Pray for them, rather than Rail at them.

Answ. If so, never was Design worse handled.

G. B. pag. 143. I shall not search into the depths of the Mercies of God, how far they may reach any of that Communion. None alive is more willing to stretch his Invention for finding out Grounds to fix his Charity on, than my self: But all I can devise falls short.

Answ. Your Meekness discovers it self more and more. Before you proposed our Banishment from the Country, which God appointed us for this Life, by ordering in it our Birth; now you banish us from Heaven, our true Country: So that in the midst of your Kindness, you design us the Punishment of Cain in this World, and that of the Devils in the next. Is this all the effect of your stretched Invention to find Grounds for your Charity? What Destiny would you have read us, if you had not stretched it out?

Seeing you give this occasion (if your Prote­station be sincere) you cannot be offended, that I help your Invention, by shewing a Ground for your Charity to fix on, by alledging those very probable Reasons, why Catholics do not em­brace your Communion.

CHAP. XXXV. Reasons, why Catholics do not embrace the Communion of the Protestant Church.

OUR Blessed Saviour ( Mat. 7.15.) watns us to beware of those who come to us in [Page 288]sheeps-clothing, but are interiorly ravenous wolves; and gives us a sign to know them by, their works. Catholics considered the Works of the first Reformers, and by them judged of their Per­sons, whether they were Sheep, or Wolves.

Imprimis, They had a great Motive to suspect the whole Reformation, because the occasion of it was evidently reproachful. In Germany, Luther's Motive was Emulation betwixt his Order, and the Dominicans, and Envy, that these later should have the Preaching of the Jubilee. In England, Lust began it under Henry VIII. and Avarice, and Pride compleated it under Edward VI.

By whom was it most hotly embraced, and promoted? By Apostates, in whom the Flesh prevailed over the Spirit: and the first Step they made, was shaking off the Yoke of Obedi­ence to their lawful Superiors, to become Inde­pendant. This is one Sacrilege, which was ac­companied with two others, breaking their Vows of Chastity and Poverty.

What Motives did they use, to draw People to joyn with them? Propose Liberty from all Ecclesiastical Laws, that were any way burden­som, or contrary to Sensuality, as Fasting, Pray­ing on certain Days, Penances, &c. freeing Men from the Obligation of Divine Laws, by teaching they were impossible, and rejecting some of them in particular, as that for Confession. Indulging Sensualities, trampling on all that seemed burthensome, under pretence of Chri­stian Liberty.

What Effects followed the Reformation? A neglect of God's Counsels, an insensibility of his Inspirations, a contempt of Religion, an unwil­lingness to be Ruled, Rebellion in Church and State, a losing of the Spirit of Prayer, a slight­ing of all good Works, and an entire abandoning themselves to bad ones; The Light of the Go­spel promised, and that darkned with irreligi­ous Interpretations; The Word of God held forth, and a great part of it cut off; A Refor­mation pretended in the Church, and the Church robbed of its Revenues; The Church-Worship purged, and the chief Action of it, Sacrifice, a­bolished; The Glory of God promised, and his Sacred Name by Blasphemy prophaned; Faith so commended, as by it Hope was destroyed by Presumption, and Charity by Schism. In fine, if any thing like Zeal appeared in the first Times of Reformation, it shewed it self by Avarice, Rapine, Sacrilege, Pride, Dissensions, Schisms, Rebellions, Incontinences, Drunkenness; in a word, Libertinism. Which the sincerer part of your Communion deplore with true Tears; not with such as you shed for our Errors. If these are works of sheep, what are the works of wolves? And if by works we must judge of men, what could they say of these Reformers?

Let us lay aside what is past, and look on what is present. Is it not true, that thô you talk much of Christianity, yet all Marks of it seem blotted out of the Lives of your Flock? That there never was more Impurity in Marriages, [Page 290]more Corruption in Families, more Debauch­ery in Youth, more Ambition amongst the Rich, more Pride amongst the Gentry, more Dishonesty in Commerce, more Sophisticati­on in Merchandises, more Deceit amongst Tradesmen, more Intemperance amongst all? That Fornication is thought a Peccadillo; A­dultery, good Fortune; Chastity, a Reproach to the Sex; Cheating and Treachery, Court Vertue; Impiety and Libertinism, Strength of Wit; Oaths and Blasphemies, Ornaments of our Language; Perpetual Gaming, a law­ful Divertisement for Men; Contempt of their Husbands, Neglect of the Education of their Children, and of the Care of their Families, a Privilege of Women who have some advantage of Birth, and Fortune; And Drunkenness, for all who have Time and Mony to cast away? The prodigious numbers of Houses designed for Tip­ling, is a sufficient convicton of the greatness of this Vice: there be more in London alone, than in any ten Catholic Towns in Europe, and probably more than served the whole Kingdom in Catholic Times; which are so many Nurse­ries of Idleness, whence all Vices flow; and the thriving Condition they all live in, shews which way the Riches of the Nation go, and on what their Hearts are setled.

You will say these are Faults of the Refor­mers, but not of the Reformation. But in this you are mistaken; for it comes from the very substantial Parts of your Reformation: so that [Page 291]if any do well, it is to be attributed to the good­ness of their Nature; if ill, it is to be charged upon your Religion, which hath retrenched, on several Pretences, almost all Helps of De­votion.

Christ, to apply to us the Merits of his Pas­sion, instituted seven Sacraments, which are Administred in the Catholic Church. To re­generate us, Baptism; To strengthen us in Faith, Confirmation; To nourish our Souls, Eu­charist; To restore us to God's Grace, if by frailty we have lost it, Penance; To prepare us for a Passage to the other World, Extreme Ʋnction; To confer Grace necessary for a Churchman or a Married Man, Order, and Ma­trimony. Of those you have cut off five; and of the two remaining, that of the Eucharist, which Christ said was his Body and Blood, you make only a bit of Bread, and a Spoon-ful of Wine.

The Catholics have every day the unbloody Sacrifice of the Altar offered, at which they can assist; they are taught that Mass is composed out of the Law, and Prophets, the Gospel, and Canonical Epistles; That it is a Summary of the Life of Christ, and Commemoration of his Death; That when they see the Sacred Host elevated, they must call to mind his Elevation on the Cross for their sakes; and that they must offer him, and themselves with him, to God the Father, as S. Austin teaches us, lib. 10. de Civit. Dei, cap. 20. This daily Sacrifice you have cut off, having something in Cathedrals on [Page 292] Sundays, in other Churches seldom. So the whole Week in all Places, and a great part of the Year in most Places, passes with out that great Exer­cise for your Devotion.

Ceremonies in Divine Service are necessary to fix our Fancy on the things in hand, and to help to raise our Soul to God. This they do first by their Signification, as knocking our Breast is a sign of Grief, and Contrition; Kneel­ing and Bowing, of our Adoration of God; Lifting up our Hands and Eyes to Heaven, of rai­sing our Wills to God, &c. They likewise in­crease within us those Dispositions they signifie, by a sympathy betwixt the Soul, and Body. These you have retrenched, as Superstitious, which hath opened a Door to the Contempt of your Holy Service, and Places, where it is cele­brated, to which many of you shew little more Respect, than at other Civil Actions; nay, many would not enter into a Friend's House with so little Respect as they shew, entring into the House of God.

G. B. pag. 135. Religion consists in few things.

Ans. Tis true, nay it consists in one thing, (as to its perfection) The Love of God above all things. But what then? Are helps to stir up that Love of God to be neglected? It is Pharisaical to place our Confidence in the Ceremonies, or consider them as the Substance of Religion; but to look on them as its Ornaments and Means to stir up, and strike good Purposes deeper into our Hearts, why should it be misliked? The [Page 293]wiser of your Brethren in France acknowledge, and bewail the want of them; so will you, if you consider it well.

Catholics have an unquestionable Ordination: for if we have none, yours must fall to the ground, you having received yours from us. Yours is not only questionable, but questioned actually, and with seeming probability denied by Catholics. 1. For want of a due Minister, a Bishop. 2. For want of due Matter and Form. 3. For want of due Intention; for your Bi­shops owning no Sacrifice of the new Law, could not intend to confer a Power to offer Sacrifice, which is essential to Priesthood. They were con­firmed in their opinions of your want of Ordina­tion, by your owning Communion with those Reformed Churches in France and Holland, which have no lawful Ordination according to your Principles; your directing yours to their Churches, advising them to receive the Sacra­ments from them; and admitting those Mini­sters to the Ministry among you, without any new Ordination. This is confirmed by the con­stant Practice of the Church of Rome, to Or­dain all such Ministers of the Church of England, as being admitted to the Communion of the Catholic Church, desire to enter into Holy Or­ders. She (the Church of Rome) condemns Re­ordination, as a Sacrilege, and never practised it. Hence the Priests of the Greek, Armenian, and Cophtic Communion, renouncing their seve­ral Errors, are admitted to Officiate, without [Page 294]any new Imposition of Hands in the Church of Rome, because Orders are validly conferred in those several Churches. The Protestants would be in a like manner admitted, had there not been a certainty from the beginning of the in­validity, or nullity of their Orders.

To conclude, they had those same Motives to continue in the Communion of the Catholic Church, which S. Austin had; which he relates lib. contra Epist. Fundam. cap. 4. Tenet consensio populorum & gentium, tenet auctoritas miraculis in­choata, spe nutrita, charitate aucta, vetustate fir­mata: tenet ab ipsa Sede Petri cui pascendas oves post Resurrectionem Dominus commendavit, usque ad praesentem Episcopatum successio Sacerdotum. Tenet postremò ipsum Catholicae nomen, quod non sine causâ inter tam multas haereses sic ista Ecclesia sola obtinuit, ut—Apud vos autem, ubi nihil horum est, sola personat veritatis pollicitatio. ‘I am retained in the Catholic Church, by the Consent of Nations, by an Authority begun with Miracles, nourished with Hope, encrea­sed by Charity, established by Antiquity. I am retained by a Succession of Priests, begin­ning from S. Peter (to whom our Lord, after his Resurrection, commended the Feeding of his Sheep) until this present Pope Innocent XI. Lastly, I am retained by the very Name of Catholic, which with great reason, amongst so many Sects, this Church alone obtains.’

What have you to oppose against such strong Motives, Scripture, and the Gospel? which if [Page 295]clear for you, ought without doubt, to be pre­ferred before all those other Motives. But they found this very Gospel, this Scripture, pronounce in their favor, and against you. This is my Body, says the Scripture; It is not Christ's Body, say you. The Commandments of God are not heavy, says the Scripture; The Commandments of God are impossible, say you. A reward is due to our good works, says the Scripture; No works of ours are meritorious; nay the best are sins, say you. Faith without works is dead, says the Scripture, and you commend Faith, so as to make all good works be neglected. I grant some amongst you of late, do not so crudely teach some of these Doctrins, being ashamed of their deformity. But you can­not deny, but that they were taught by the first Reformers. Which was sufficient to convince the World, that Scripture gave no evident Verdict for them; and make all afraid of their Reformation, who had a care of their Souls.

CHAP. XXXVI. Greater Exercise of Piety amongst Catho­lics, than Protestants.

BAptism is given validly in both Churches, but with this difference, that we retain the ancient significant Ceremonies instituted by the Apostles, or at least in Apostolical Times, which may be proved out of Tertullian, S. Cypri­an, [Page 296]S. Ambrose, S. Jerom, S. Austin, and S. Denys: you have retrenched all, save only the Sign of the Cross. And ( O judicium! This is the Finger of God, Exod. 8.19.) the peevish, refractory, stubborn Children of your Church, have wrang­led with her about that, and with the same Reasons, as she had done with her Mother the Roman Catholic Church: so visibly hath God meted unto you your measure, Mat. 7.2. and pu­nished you by your sin. Sap. 11.17.

As ours come to the use of Reason, a new Sacrament expects them, Confirmation, which is the same mentioned so frequently in the Acts, of giving the Holy Ghost by Imposition of the Apo­stles Hands, (Acts 8.17.) which arms them a­gainst visible, and invisible Enemies, with the Spirit of Fortitude to profess their Faith. Of this Protestants.—

We find in every Church Malachy's Prophe­cy fulfilled, ( Mal. 1.11.) a pure Offering made to God, Mass said. And in Catholic Countries, Rich and Poor, even the meanest Artisans, and Laborers, as Porters, Water-carriers, &c. will steal so much time from their (almost) neces­sary Rest, as to give half an hour to adore God, and his Son Jesus in the Morning, hoping they will bless their Labors all the Day the bet­ter for it. O that you did but see with what Attention and Respect they assist at those Di­vine Mysteries; how with their Knees on the Ground, their Eyes on the Altar, their Heart in Heaven, they accompany the Priest, and with [Page 297]him jointly make that Oblation to God, with what. Sentiments they adore Christ present, and desire him to appease his Father's Wrath, for their Sins, by the Merits of his Passion; and preserve them from offending anew that Day, and to bless that Days Actions! What do Pro­testants? As soon as they are up, they have their Hand in the Cupbord, & in the Cup their Nose.

Have any by mortal Sins shut against them­selves the Gates of Heaven, which the Passion of Christ opened; they stir up a real Sorrow for that Offence of God, purpose Amendment, and with these Dispositions address themselves to a Priest, with a Resolution to follow his Ad­vice, and perform what he shall enjoyn. They discover to him all the wounds of their Soul, their most secret and most reproachful Sins, as to God himself, whose Vicegerent he is, being assured of an inviolable Secret, (and it is doubt­less a perpetual Miracle, that amongst so many thousands of Priests, not one should be found faulty in this Point): They hearken to his Ad­vice, accept his Penance, to Fast, Pray, give Alms, visit Prisoners, serve Poor in Hospitals, or the like, according as the Condition of the Penitent permits: Then receive Absolution in vertue of the Power given by our Saviour to Priests, Joh. 20.23. The Effects of this Sacra­ment are Remission of Sins past, avoiding o­thers, making Restitution, if any thing hath been taken (as some English in France have ex­perienced.) In fine, a newness of Life. Of all [Page 298]this, what is in use among Protestants? No­thing.

Are they judged fit to approach the Divine Table, they do it with a lively Faith, believing it is the true, real, and substantial Body of Christ, with his Blood, and Divinity, per conco­mitantiam (Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. cap. 13.) by reason of the inseparable Ʋnion betwixt them. With a profound Humility; professing with the Centurion, ( Luc. 7.6.) their unworthiness to receive their Lord, and desiring him to make them worthy. And with a Love proportionable to that Christ shewed by instituting this Sacra­ment. What do Protestants? Sometimes, some­thing: for their Ministers distribute a Morsel of Bread, and a Sup of Wine, and they may expect to meet only with Dispositions proportionable to those Beggerly Elements.

Amongst us, Is any sick? He calls for the the Priests of the Church, they pray over him, an­ointing him with oyl in the Name of the Lord, that the Prayer of Faith may save the Sick, and God may raise him up, (in case it be for the Glory of God, and the good of the Patient) and if he have com­mitted Sins, they may be forgiven him. Jac. 5.14, 15. Thus in an Apostles words I have de­livered our Practice in Administring the Sacra­ment of Extreme Ʋnction. Of which Prote­stants nothing.

Besides Mass, which all hear every Day commonly, three times a day a Bell rings, to mind us of the Incarnation of the Son of God, [Page 299]and move all with an Act of Faith, to acknow­ledge it, and return God thanks for it. Of which amongst Protestants nothing.

I may conclude this Comparison betwixt you and us, as to the Practice of Piety, with S. Austin's words, ( Lib. de moribus Eccles c. 34.) very pat to our purpose: Istis, Manichaei, (Pro­testantes) si potestis, obsistite, istos intuemini, isto's sine mendacio, si audetis, & cum contumeliâ nomi­nate. Istorum jejuniis vestra jejunia, castitati ca­stitatem, vestitum vestitui, epulas epulis, mode­stiam modestiae, charitatem charitati, & quod res maximè postulat, praeceptis praecepta conferte. Jam videbitis, quid inter ostentationem & sinceritatem, inter viam rectam & errorem intersit. Nunc vos illud admoneo, ut aliquando Ecclesiae Catholicae ma­ledicere desinatis, vituperando mores hominum, quos & ipsa condemnat, & quos quotidie tanquam ma­los filios corrigere studet. Sed quisquis illorum bonâ voluntate, Deique auxilio corriguntur, quod ami­serunt peccando, poenitendo recuperant. Qui autem voluntate mala in pristinis vitiis perseverant, aut addunt graviora prioribus, in agro quidem Domini sinuntur esse, & cum bonis seminibus crescere, sed veniet tempus, quo zizania separentur. ‘Consi­dering them well, see whether, without of­fending against Truth, you can reproach any thing. Compare your Fasts, with ours: your Chastity, your Modesty, and chiefly your Doctrin, with ours; you will presently per­ceive what difference there is, betwixt vain boasting, and sincerity; going the straight [Page 300]way, and wandring. At present I advise you, to cease from detracting from the Catholic Church, blaming the Lives of Men whom she condemns, and whom she daily endeavors to correct, as naughty Children. If any of them with the help of God's Grace are converted, they recover in the Catholic Church by Re­pentance, what they lost by Sin. If any not­withstanding all these helps to Piety, conti­nue obstinate in their Wickedness, or add more grievous Sins to those they have com­mitted, they are indeed tolerated in the Field of God, the Church, until the time come de­signed for the separation of the Cockle from the good Corn.’ Thus S. Austin.

Glory then as much as you please with the lukewarm Laodicean Angel, That you are rich, and encreased in Goods, and want nothing; yet as­sure your self, that as he, so you are poor, and wretched, and miserable, and blind, and naked. Your boasting of the Advantages of your In­structions, and Discipline amongst your deluded Admirers, is like those Nurses, who wanting Milk, entertain their Children with Rattles and Bibs, and some insignificant Nourriture. In reality there seems to be as much difference be­twixt the Spiritual Food Souls receive in the Catholic Church and that of Protestants, as there is betwixt the Nourriture a Child receives sucking a Breast stretched with Milk. and that he gets by sucking a moistned Finger. Which shall be further shewn in the

CHAP. XXXVII. No Houses of Devotion, nor Spiritual Books amongst Protestants.

G. B. p. 145. A Temptation to become Papists, is the solitary and retired Houses among them for leading a devout, and strict Life, and the many excellent Books of Devotion have been pub­lished by many of that Communion. And pag. 147. I deny not that is the greatest defect of the Reforma­tion, that there are not in it such Encouragements to a devout Life. And pag. 148. It is not to be denied to be a great Defect, that we want Recluse Houses: But it fixeth no Imputation on our Church, her Doctrin, or Worship, that she is so poor, as not to be able to maintain such Seminaries.

Answ. This is as pretty a Sophism of non causa pro causâ, as I have seen. As if the small number of English Catholics, were richer than the whole Body of Protestants; for we have founded many great Families of Religious, and you with all your Industry could never settle one. There are Reasons for your Church's be­ing so unsuccessful in these Attempts, without doubt, as real, and true, as that which you give is false: and it shall be my work to lay them out before you.

The First, and chiefest Reason, is a Judg­ment of God Almighty upon you, for breaking up, and dispersing so many Houses of Piety. [Page 302]God was served in those Houses, he was offend­ed with that Sacrilege, and therefore denies you that Blessing of which you are unworthy.

A Second, Each one had rather keep his Means to himself, than see them pass against his will to another Lay-Family, for whom he hath no kindness. If any give it to God, and Religion, they design it should continue there, which cannot be expected in England, as long as the Memory is fresh of Henry VIII. and Eli­zabeth.

A Third, The Foundation of your Reforma­tion is inconsistent with a Superstructure of Re­ligion, or living in Community together. Men cannot live together without a setled Rule, or Order, established, peculiar to that manner of Life, and proper for it. Your Reformation is in­consistent with this, it teaching to reject all Hu­man Injunctions, as contrary to Christian Li­berty. When out of that Principle you have taught Men to despise all Decrees, even of Ge­neral Councils, received by the whole Church, and confirmed by the Practice of many Ages, how can you hope they should esteem Rules gi­ven by modern new Men?

A Fourth, Your Doctrin denying all Merits, or Reward, due to our Actions. Hopes of Ad­vantage encourages us to Labor: our Industry is dull'd as soon as those vanish. S. Ambr. thinks the Novatians unreasonable, who preached Penance, and denied the Fruit of it, lib. 1. de Poenit. c. 16. Frustra dicitis vos praedicare Poenitentiam, qui tol­litis, [Page 303]&c. And lib. 2. cap. 3. Merendi gratia Sacra­menti, ad precandum impellimur: & hoc auferre vultis, propter quod agitur Poenitentia? Tolle gu­bernatori perveniendi spem, & in mediis fluctibus incertus errabit. Tolle luctatori coronam, & len­tus jacebit in stadio: Tolle piscatori capiendi effica­ciam, desinet jactare retia. In hopes of arriving at his Haven, the Pilot steers his Ship; The Wrestler strives, in hope to throw his Adver­sary; The Fisher casts his Nets, in hope of catching some Fish. All these would relent, were they persuaded the thing they aimed at were impossible. How then do you expect, that Men should practise good Works, when you teach them to hope for no good from them? It were indeed to be wished, that Men would serve God, for God, without regarding any Reward: But that is a Perfection all do not ar­rive to; and even the best are fain to use some other Motives.

A Fifth, Your Clergy is utterly unfit to Di­rect, and Instruct such Houses: our Works have a greater influence on our Neighbors, than our Words. S. Jerom thought it incongruous, that a Man, with a full Belly should Preach Fast­ing. And how can a Man Preach Chastity to others, who comes himself from the Embraces of his Wife, if he hath one, or hath his Head full of Amourettes, and Designs to get one, if he be a Batchelor?

It is in vain therefore that you seek the ad­vantage of those withdrawing Places, from the [Page 304]noise, and trouble of the World, to those de­vout Solitudes: your Lives are not fit for them, your Doctrin is inconsistent with them, and your past Actions have shut that Door of Mercy unto you.

As for Books of Devotion, the Author of the Fiat Lux says, you have Printed several such, composed by ours, under your own Names: So you hang us, and cherish our Writings, as the Jews stoned the Prophets, and canonized their Books. You own we have many excellent Books; all the World sees you have scarce any, nor can rationally hope for any. For, he who writes a Spiritual Book, ought to aim at two things. The First, to instruct the Understanding with Divine and Eternal Truths. The Second, to move the Will to a Hatred of Sin, a Contempt of the World, and to the Love of God above all things. The first may be an Effect of Study; but the second cannot be attained unto, unless the Author be such himself. He must, as S. John, be A burning and shining Light, Joh. 5.35. Burn to God, by a true and unfeigned Love of him; Shine to Men, by the clear Truths, which he de­livers. He must feel within himself those Mo­tions, which he endeavors to communicate to his Reader. Si vīs me flere, dolendum est primum ipsi tibi. A Soul possessed with Hope, with Fear, with Joy, with Grief, with Love, with Hatred, in fine, with any Passion, doth express not only the Thoughts, but the Passion it self with Tropes proper: by which means it not only informs [Page 305]the Understanding, but also stirs the Will of the Hearer, or Reader, to like Inclinations.

Read Seneca's Epistles, or other Moral Works, or Cicero's, you shall find a great many excellent Truths; yet I never knew any Man the better in his Morality for them: As they themselves, notwithstanding those Lights, were far from being Good Men, as you may see in Lactantius, lib. 3. Divin. Instit. from Chap. 13. On the contrary, the reading of Saints Works hath a great force to move us to Good. S. Austin, l. 8. Confess. c. 6. says some were Converted by reading the Life of S. Antony. Several have ta­ken serious Resolutions of leading a Christian Life by reading those Confessions. And I have known several moved to love Mental Prayer, by reading S. Teresa's Works: and to the Love of God, by using those of S. Francis de Sales.

This is a great defect in all our Protestant Writers. I will instance in two, who seem each in his kind to overtop his Confreres, quantum lenta solent inter viburna Cupressi. The one Bi­shop Andrews, who by Divisions and Subdivi­sions instructs well, only sometimes verborum minutiis rerum pondera frangit. The other is the Author of The whole Duty of Man; who hath many excellent Truths, and very practical, as well as the first: yet seem not to move the Will, because of their cold way of treating their Do­ctrins. They shine, but they do not Burn.

This Heat is not to be attained unto but by Prayer. Which enflames our Heart with the [Page 306]Love of God, ( In meditatione meâ exardescet ig­nis, Psal. 38.4.) It is this Love, which unites us to God: and this Union makes us capable of doing great things. For an Instrument must be in the Hand of the Workman, to do compleatly what is intended: if it be distant from him, and not held, but by a small Thred, the Work will be difficult and imperfect, if there can be any. We are all the Instruments of God in or­der to all good Works, especially in writing Spiritual Books, in which, if there be any thing good, it must come from God, the Fountain of all Good.

The Apostles after the Ascension expecting the coming of the Holy Ghost, ( Act. 1.14.) con­tinued with one accord in Prayer. S. John Baptist, althô sanctified in his Mothers Womb, and de­signed for the Office of Praecursor, and by conse­quence fitted from above for that Office, yet he was in the Desert till the days of his shewing unto Israel, (Luc. 1.80.) sequestring himself from the company of Men, and conversing only with God and his Angels, the far greatest part of his Life. And the Word Incarnate, not for any need of his own, but to give us Example, passed Forty days in Fasting and Prayer in a Desert before he began to Preach, Mat. 4.2. And when he had begun, he passed the Days with Men, and the Nights in Prayer with his Heavenly Father, ( Luc. 6.12. Erat pernoctans in oratione Dei.) Species tibi datur, forma tibi praescribitur, quam debeas amulari, says S. Ambr. l. 6. in Luc. [Page 307]This was the Practice of S. Greg. Naz. S. Basil, S. Chrysostom. And in later Times, Ignatius de Loyola, before he began the Society, past a Re­treat in a Cave at Manresa. God alone is in peculiar manner the Father of Lights, all is dark­ness, but what is received from him. The great­est Spiritualists that ever held a Pen, even the Writers of Scripture, at the same time they taught us, received their Lesson from the Ho­ly Ghost. And first the Ears of their Heart were open to hear what God spoke to them, Psal. 84.9. Then they opened their Mouth, to speak out of the abundance of their Heart, to us. Mat. 12.34.

Now what Years, what Months, what Weeks, or at least Days, do you of the Ministry pass in Solitude in Prayer? I find little footsteps of it in any of your Works: and when you fall upon those things, you discover you are stran­gers to them, for you advance like one, who gropes to find his way in the dark. You have some Terms of Scripture, of Communicati­on with the Lord, Walking with God, and the like, which you use on all occasions: which are in themselves very significant, but very insigni­ficant to you, because not understood by you. I never found any, who could practically expli­cate them, so as to be tolerably understood. Indeed there are in Scripture many things not to be understood, but by Prayer. Such is that Saying of our Saviour, ( Joh. 12.25.) He that hateth his Soul: which S. Francis Xaverius used [Page 308]to say, was dark in Study, but clear as noon-day in Prayer.

Humility is necessary in a Spiritual Man, God being pleased to reveal his Mysteries to the little ones, when he conceals them from the proud and wise, Mat. 11.15. They are those Instruments, which God chiefly uses: For God chooses the weak things, to confound the strong; and the foolish things, to confound the wise; the base, and con­temptible things, to confound the proud, and pre­sumptuous, that no flesh should glory in his presence. 1 Cor. 1. Now this Vertue is a Flower scarce to be found in your Garden.

CHAP. XXXVIII. Protestant Doctrins contrary to Piety.

FROM your pag. 149. to the end, making a Panegyrick of the pretended Reformed Church, you describe rather an Ʋtopian Con­gregation, than it, or if it, rather what it should be, than what it is. You own some ill Men a­mongst you; yet say, pag. 153. Their bad Pra­ctices are no ground to quarrel the Doctrins. Which is very true, (provided your Doctrins do not foster those bad Practices); for I readily own, it is no reproach to any Congregation, to have some ill Men discovered in it, (there ha­ving never been any without some) provided neither its Established Laws do abet the Evil, [Page 309]nor its Doctrins dispose to it. I know ( August. Epist. 137.) that in the Ark of Noe one, Cham, was accurst; That out of Abraham's Family Ismael was cast; That in Isaac's Family Esau was hated; In Jacob's Reuben defiled his Fa­ther's Bed; In David's one Son committed In­cest, another turned Rebel; That amongst the Apostles there was Judas a Traytor; That in Paradise Adam fell, and in Heaven that some Angels sinned. Our Blessed Saviour teaches us, that in the Church there are foolish, as well as wise Virgins; In the Field, Cockle with good Corn; In the Barn-floor, Chaff with Wheat; In the Net, bad with good Fishes. This being agreed to on both sides, our only Question must be, The Doctrins of which Church do foster Impiety, or ill Lives? You say ours; and I have proved the contrary. We say yours; and thus I prove it.

First, Our Will cannot seriously love, or endeavor to attain to, a thing represented as impossible. Hence no Man in his Wits will un­dertake to make a Ladder, to reach the Moon, nor Boots to wade with, hence to Jamaica; be­cause by reason of the distance of the Moon, and the depth and breadth of those Seas, both are looked on as impossible. Now in the Protestant Doctrins, the keeping of God's Commandments is esteemed impossible. Wherefore these Do­ctrins damp all Endeavors to keep the Com­mandments of God, or to live piously.

Two things may be answered to this. 1. That [Page 310]some of ours have taught that Doctrin. 2. That some of yours do not teach it.

To the First, I answer, That Jansenius in­deed seems to hold it; but it was condemned in his Writings, by two Popes; and this Condem­nation received by the whole Church. To the Second, There never was any Decree of those of your Communion against that Doctrin; nay, you to this day own Communion with those, who teach it: So the discouragement to Vertue and Piety seems invincible amongst you.

How contrary is this to the Discourse of Moses to the Israelites, (Deut. 30.11.) when he told them, the Commands he had imposed on them, were not of things in Heaven, or in re­mote Countries; that is to say, were neither so high, nor so remote, as to be out of their reach; but that they were in their Heart and Mouth; or, as easie, as to Speak, or Love. To the same intent (1 Joh. 5.3.) the Commandments of God are said to be light. Conformably to which, the Catholic Church teaches, that it is easie to keep God's Commandments, and by this encou­rage all to endeavor it.

The two Principles on which we labor, the two Springs of all our rational Actions, are Hope and Fear. Hope of a Reward stirs us up to good Actions; Fear of Punishment diverts us from forbidden or bad Actions. These Re­wards and Punishments are commonly propo­sed to us for that intent, in the Law and Pro­phets, in the Old and New Testament. Now [Page 311]in the Catholic Church all are taught, that Heaven, or an Estate of Eternal Bliss, is due to good Actions, by the Merits of Christ, and in virtue of the Promise of God; and that good and virtuous Actions are meritorious of it through Christ our Saviour. And that Hell is the Lot of such, as offend God mortally, and die in such a State.

In Protestants these two Considerations are ineffectual: for they teach, no Reward is to be hoped for, for any good Works, the very name of Merit being scandalous to their tender Con­sciences: And no Punishment due to bad Works, (except Infidelity) Faith assuring to them an Act of Oblivion, their General Pardon, what­ever their Life may have been.

Who will seriously combat his Passions, break his own sinful Will, deny himself all satisfacti­on, even in forbidden things, who is persua­ded, that he shall never be the better for living fully up to the strictest Doctrin of the Gospel, nor the worse for living contrary to it?

Thirdly, Humility is an essential Ingredient of Piety, or a vertuous Life. By Pride we fell, (and so did the Angels) by Humility we must be restored. Hence our Blessed Saviour commend­ing himself, as a Master to teach us, and a Pat­tern set to us, of a vertuous Life, particularly mentions this Vertue: Learn of me, says he, for I am meek and humble of heart. Now what sign of this Vertue amongst the Reformed? I hear say, never any of their Ministers composed any [Page 312]Treatise of this so great, so necessary, so excel­lent a Vertue. That one was published indeed, but it was only a Translation out of Rodriguez a Jesuit; a thing not unusual, to Print the Works of ours in their own Names, as Fiat Lux observes. What esteem have you for this Vertue, of which you never treat?

Indeed the Foundation, or Basis of your Re­formation, is Presumption, or Pride, it being grounded on a preference of their Judgment, in understanding, and explicating Scriptures, (a thing of as great difficulty, as concern) before that of lower and higher Pastors of the Church, whether taken severally, or assembled in Par­ticular, or even General Councils: Before those Bishops, whom the Holy Ghost hath pla­ced to Govern the Church which he purchased with his own Blood, Acts 20.28. Before those Pastors and Doctors whom Christ gave to consummate the Saints, that we might not be like children carried hither and thither, with every blast of Doctrin. Ephes. 4.11, & 14. Before those to whom Christ said, He that hears you, hears me; and he that despises you, despises me. Luk. 10.16. Before those, in fine, whom Christ sent to instruct all People, promising he would be with them to the end of the world. Mat. 28.19. What Pride, what Presumption, bating that of Lucifer, greater than this? What room for Humility, in a Soul so full of it self, so puffed up with vain Conceits of its own Capacity? And what hopes of any real Vertue without it; seeing it is the [Page 313]surest, and only foundation of a pious Life?

This last Reason shews, that in your Souls there is no Foundation for a Structure of Piety: and the others shew, you can hope for no Stru­cture upon any Foundation.

Another Doctrin of yours, as pernicious as any of the rest, is, That the best of our Actions are Sins, even our Endeavors to serve God, keep his Commandments, and give to every one his due, viz. paying a Debt, or relieving the Poor. Nay, it seems a greater Sin to do it, than not to do it; Sins of Commission being more grievous, and offensive, than those of Omission.

G. B. pag. 154. We cannot be charged, for ha­ving taught our People to break any one Command­ment.

Answ. You seem charged for teaching them indirectly, to break them all: saying, the keep­ing them is impossible in it self, fruitless if they should be kept, aad their breach not pre­judicial.

G. B. pag. 260. Bad Practices may furnish matter for Regret, but not for Separation.

Answ. It is true, when and where Principles of Religion are contrary to such Practices: But when these bad Customs are natural Sequels of the Doctin, and necessarily flow from it, not only the Practices are to be detested, but like­wise the Doctrin, whence they flow, is to be abhorred as pernicious to Souls, and the Church which teaches them as Doctrins either necessary to be believed, or even probable in practice, what­soever [Page 314]Church it be, is to be forsaken as the Chair of Pestilence.

Si quid de Tuo, Deus meus, dictum est, agnoscant Tui: Si quid de Meo, & tu ignosce, & tui. Aug.

POSTSCRIPT TO Mr. CUDWORTH D. D.

I Had ended the whole Answer to Dr. Bur­net before I had the sight of your Learned great Book against Atheism; which gives me occasion to clear and confirm some Points, which I thought then, and think still clear and strong enough, notwithstanding all the Mist you, and others have raised, to hide them, and their Endeavors to shake them. But as the A­postle was, so I am a debtor not only to the wise, but to the unwise too. Which Debt I hope to dis­charge in few Lines.

You own, that some few Philosophers, as Epicurus, Strato, &c. thought God to be Cor­poreal; but that the major part believed him to be a pure Spirit, and adored the Only true God under the Names of Jupiter, Minerva, Osy­rie, Neith, or Venus. I said, with the ancient Fa­thers, and Primitive Christians, that althô Pa­gans, and indeed all Men, had a natural know­ledge of One God; yet those, the Pagans ado­red, had been Men. The Proofs then produced, [Page 316]I reduce to four Heads. The First taken from the Diversity of their Sexes. The Second, from their Generation. The Third, from their Death. The Fourth, from their Sacred Rites.

1. The different Sexes of the Pagan Gods, is a convincing Proof, that they were not Spirits, but Men, and Women, at least Males, and Fe­males, and by consequence Corporeal. This Rea­son takes up a great part of Arnobius's Third Book, from pag. 46. which he begins with these words: Adduci primùm hoc ut credamus, non possumus, immortalem illam, praestantissimam­que Naturam, divisam esse per sexus. He ac­quaints us there, that Cicero having ingenu­ously professed his dislike of this, the Pagans endeavored to get his Works abolished by the Senate, because they implied a dislike of Ancient Paganism, and an approbation of Christian Do­ctrin. Oportere statui per Senatum aboleantur ut haec scripta, quibus Christiana Religlo comprobetur; & vetustatis opprimatur Auctoritas. So essential were these Sexes to the Pagan Deities. Which being designed only for carnal Propagation, brings on my

2. Reason. Those Gods received their Be­ings from Parents, as Men do. This is suffici­ently evidenced out of Ovid. l. 4. Fast. Illa (Ve­nus) Deos omnes, longum est numerare, creavit. You pag. 488. distinguish Venus Aphrodite, from the Vulgar: and pag. 489. you say, that That Ve­nus to whom all the Gods owed their Being, was the One Supreme Deity. Our Question is, [Page 317]which Venus Ovid speaks of in that Verse? You say, it is the Divine, or the true God: I say it is the Vulgar, and thus I prove it: That Venus, who makes Males Fight with one another, and sport with the Females of their Kind; for whom young Men break their Sleeps, to give Serenades to their Misses: who by Adultery with Anchises brought forth Aeneas; who con­tended with Pallas and Juno for a Golden Apple, and submitted to the Judgment of Paris; who Fought in defence of Troy, and was wounded; She, I say, was the Vulgar Venus, and not the True God; which, I suppose, needs no Proof. But of this Venus Ovid speaks: for he says,

Quid genus omne creat volucrum, nisi blanda voluptas:
Conveniunt pecudes, si levis adsit amor.
Cùm Mare trux Aries cornu decertat, & idem
Frontem dilectae laedere parcit ovis,
Primus amans carmen vigilatum nocte negatâ,
Dicitur ad clausas concinuisse fores.
Pro Trojâ, Romane, tuâ Venus arma ferebat,
Cùm gemuit teneram cuspide laesa manum.
Coelestesque duas Trojano Judice vicit;
(Ah nolim victas hoc meminisse Deas.)
Assaracique Nurus dicta est, ut scilicet olin
Magnus Julaeos Caesar haberet Avos.

Thus Ovid. Against all this, for your Inter­pretation you bring Euripides in Stobaeus, and Boetius, who speak of the Celestial Love. What [Page 318]then? The Divines, the Fathers, the Scripture, speak of it too; for they speak of the Holy Ghost. But what is that to Ovid's Verse, which they do not mention, and of which alone is our Dispute? Whence 'tis evident, that all Pagan Deities were born as others. As also that

3. They died as other Men. This is also urged by Fathers against Pagans, To those ci­ted elsewhere, add S. August. l. 1. de Cons. Evang. cap. 23. who having proved out of Cicero, that all Pagan Gods had been Men, and alledged that later Fiction of Caesar's being changed into a Star; of which Virgil: Ecce Dionaei procedit Cesaris Astrum. He says, Videatur ne fortè hy­storica Veritas sepulchra falsorum Deorum ostendat in terra; vanit as autem Poetica stellas eorum non figat, sed fingat in coelo. Neque enim revera stella illa Jovis est, aut illa Saturni; sed post eorum MORTEM syderibus ab initio mundi conditis haec nomina imposuerunt bomines, qui illos quasi DEOS habere voluerunt. You see, Sir, S. Au­stin's Opinion of the Pagan Gods, that even Ju­piter himself had been a Man, was dead and bu­ried; and that althô Poets feigned them Stars in Heaven, yet real True History, shewed their Sepulchres on Earth.

4. Their Rites confirm the same. Baruch 6. they are thus described: Sacerdotes sedent ha­bentes tunicas scissas, & capita, & barbam rasam, quorum capita nuda sunt. Rugiunt clamantes contra Deos suos, tanquam in coenâ mortui. Which pro­bably may be the reason wherefore some of [Page 319]these things were forbidden to Priests of the old Law, Levit. 10.6. and to all Israelites, Deut. 4.1. Hence the Poet very judiciously inferred, that Osyris had been a Man: Quem tu plangens hominem testaris Osyrim. And your self applaud the common Check of Pagans, used by Christi­ans, but taken out of Yenophanes the Colophonian: If they are Gods, why do you lament them? If they are Men, why do you adore them?

Osyris is by you taken for the True God; yet Histories say he was a Man, Brother to Isis, killed by her Husband Typho, for Incest with her, his Body cut in pieces, and scattered about. That she, with the help of Anubis, either the Captain of her Guards, or chief Huntsman, found them all again, excepting one part, which Modesty should have hindred her from seeking, as it does me from naming. Yet she grieved so much for that loss, that to comfort her in her Sacred Rites, her Priests shewed her a Resem­blance of it, as if they had found it. Osyris then was a Man; so was Jupiter, and Venus, as well as Quirinus, and Flora.

You make Neith another Name of the True God: Arnobius, lib. 4. pag. 60. will teach you another Lesson, that she was a Woman, born at Sais, Ex coeno, & gurgitibus coagulata, prodi­taque limosis, composed of the filthy Mud of Nylus, on whose Banks Sais, her native Town, stood. You may see there, with what Disdain, and Indignation, the other Minerva's (for several bore that Name) explode the Pretentions of this [Page 320]Dirty Saitick Slut, to be the Daughter of Ju­piter.

But if you will have Jupiter to be the True God, tell us, which of them? Arnobius tells us, there have been several. Vossius, and Stil­ling fleet reckon six: Varro counts up 300, as Tertullian assures us, Apolog. cap. 14. pag. 44. It would be a pleasant Subject for Dr. Stilling fl. to handle a Dispute betwixt all these, which is the true Jupiter, as it is to read that betwixt the Minerva's, about which is his true Daugh­ter, in Arnobius, lib. 4. pag. 59, & 60. who reckons also three Diana's, and Aesculapiu's, four Vulcan's, and Venus's, five Bacchus's, six Hercules's, &c.

You say, pag. 256. that some Christians called God, Jupiter: and that Origen expresseth great Zeal against them for it, lib. 5. contra Celsum. Which is an unexcusable Ʋntruth: for Origen expresly says, Christians would rather endure any Torments, than call God by that Name: [...].

The Name Jupiter you will not have to come from Juvans Pater, but Jovis Pater, pag. 451. Which Jovis is the very Hebrew Tetragram­maton, only altered ( viz. from Jova) by a Latin Termination. And for not knowing this, you send to School to learn it, the two best Lati­nists the Pagans, and Christians, ever had, Cicero, and Lactantius. I cannot subscribe to you. 1. Because it is warranted by no Latin Author. [Page 321]2. The Tetragrammaton is not known, as the Polyglot says, Prolog. 8. n. 19. Josephus lib. 6. de Bello Jud. c. 15. pag. 919. says it contained [...], Four Vowels, (so says Eusebius, lib. 11. de Praep. Evang. cap. 4. & 8.) but what they were, or how pronounced, neither he, nor any other say. By what Revelation came you to so certain a knowledge of this Name? But 3. Had it been Jova, it had been more Latin, than Jovis. Not one Latin Name occurs to me, ending in Is, (for Thais is of Greek descent) but in A there are very many, viz. Numa, Scae­vola, Nassica, Seneca, Galba, Caligula, &c. judge a little more favorably of Cicero, as to the Latin Tongue. Yet as you think him and La­ctantius, Ignoramus's in Latin, so you do Plato in Greek, for not knowing the Etymology of A­thena, (Minerva) from Neith. Much in the same manner Mr Hooper brought his own Name from King Pippin, and Manetho brought Moyses from Asarsyph, Joseph. lib. 1. contra Appionem pag. 1056. Besides these, I find none can equal your Talent of finding Etymologies, I wish you to practise it more.

To prove Jupiter to be the True God, you have two Reasons, which I have not Answered. First, pag. 452. that Jupiter is called Omnipo­tent. Answ. It is true, the Pagans took him for the Aether, which by the Poet is called Omnipotent.

Tum Pater Omnipotens foecundis imbribus Aether
Conjugis in gremium loetae descendit—

The Second, pag. 453. When Christians had obtained, by their Prayers, Rain, Populus accla­mans Jovi, in Jovis nomine Deo nostro testimonium reddidit. Tertul. lib. ad Scapulam c. 4. p. 131. Answ. You might as well fay, that Man was Virgil, who owned his Verses, and was rewarded for them. But let Tertullian explicate himself, Apol. cap. 40. pag. 71. Cum misericordiam ex­torserimus, Jupiter honoratur. We Christians ob­tain by our Prayers, and Penitential Works, of the true God Mercy, and you Pagans ascribe it to Ju­piter's Goodness, and your Sacrifices to Idols. In which you are mistaken; for you draw nothing but Miseries on your Countries, by despising God, and adoring Statues. Vos malorum ilices semper, apud quos Deus spernitur, & statuae adorantur.

In your whole Book you seem to suppose, that the Ʋnity of God was a prime Article of the Pa­gans Creed: which cap. 7 Sect. 5. I have shewed to be false. To what I said there, I add out of Origen these following Proofs. Lib. 1. cont. Cels. pag. 5. he speaks of Laws for Idols, and Polythe­ism; [...]. And p. 28. he says, Prophets were given to the Jews, to hinder their falling into Pagans Polytheism. And l. 3. p. 155. he says, that the Wise Men, or Philosophers, fell from the Cult of One God, into Impious, or Athe­istical Polytheism. He told us in his First Book, pag. 51. that Aristotle fled from Athens to Chalcis, to avoid the Fate of Socrates, who had been condemned, for teaching there was but One God. And it is as evident out of Athenago­ras, [Page 323]and others, that Christans were deemed Impious, and Atheists, for denying Polytheism.

When you intend to pleasure the Learned part of the World, with any more Learned Works, I advise you in the first place, to con­sider, whether a thing be true; and then how that Truth may be useful to some farther dis­covery of a new, or confirmation of an old Truth. Veritas fulciri non quaerit auxilio Falsita­tis. Greg. lib. 11. Moral. cap. 15. which is no where more certain, than in Revealed Truths: Non indiget Deus nostro mendacio, ut pro illo lo­quamur dolos, Job 13.7. You thought, doubtless, that to represent, that all Religions, and all pub­lick Laws, had owned One God, would be a Choak-Pear to Atheism, and confound the A­theists: whereas this being not true, it hath a contrary effect. The other part is much more cogent, drawn from Fathers, that all Men have a natural Knowledge of One God, and that so deeply imprinted in their Soul, that maugre all the pleasant Fables of the Poets, the Pomp of Ceremonies and Religious Rites, the Force of bad Education, the Sophisms of Philosophers, the Blasphemies of wicked Men, the Strength of Laws, the Rigor of Torments, the Terror of Death, and the Wiles of the Devil, it per­severed, and so possessed the Heart, as in some Occasions to force its Profession out of the Mouth. Certainly this Voice of Nature, tri­umphing over all the Force and Art of Men and Devils, is a clearer Testimony of One God, pre­serving [Page 324]his Possession in, and over his Rational Creatures, and controlling all adjectitious No­tions, than any Demonstration Man's Wit can invent: Especially some Atheists laboring to weaken this Argument, from the Notion of a Deity, by saying that Idea is not of Nature, but raised by Education, and Human Laws. Which Plea is evidently defeated by that Truth, that Laws, Religion, and Custom were once against it, and all concurring to promote the Opinion of Many Gods, thô all in vain.

Secondly, I advise you, not so easily to draw from a resemblance in Name, or Number, Pa­gan Errors to the Mysteries of Christian Faith. With what little ground you drew from Jupiter the Name of God, hath been seen pag. 451. You say the Roman Capitol was Dedicated to the Blessed Trinity, because a Poet said, Trina in Torpaeo fulgent consortia Templo, viz. Jupiter, Minerva, and Juno. And pag. 454. (so it should be, thô it be marked 414.) you find the Trinity in Agypt, viz. Eicton, Memphta, and Osyris. You might as well find the same My­stery in the Three Graces, Three Parks, Three Gorgons, Three Furies, Three Judges, Three Ri­vers, Three-headed Cerberus, Three-bodied Geryon, if that number be sufficient for it. I doubt not, but the Mystery was revealed in the Old Testa­ment, nor that some Platonicks knew it; S. Austin assures they did, thô he doth not acquaint us in what Age these lived; so they may have learnt it from the Christians. Yet I think it most cer­tain, [Page 325]that there never was any Temple Dedica­ted, or Sacrifice Offered by Pagans to the Three Divine Persons; for out of the Scripture I have learned, that What they sacrificed, they sacrificed to Devils, and not to God.

I am Yours, as much as I can be, Salvâ Veritate, J. W.

An INDEX of the Chapters.

  • CHAP. 1. Mr. G. B. his Design and Disposition, when he writ this Book. Of the Wickedness of the World. Page 1.
  • Chap. 2. Of Antichrist. Page 6.
  • Chap. 3. The true Designs of Christian Religion. Page 10.
  • Chap. 4. G. B. his Explication of the Designs of Christianity. Page 15.
  • Chap. 5. Of the Characters of Christian Do­ctrin. Page 19.
  • Chap. 6. Scriptures supprest. Page 22.
  • Chap. 7. A Digression touching the Idolatry of the Pagans, ill represented by E. S. D. D. Page 29.
    • Section 1. That Pagans thought their Idols to be Gods. Page 30.
    • Section 2. The Beginning, and Occasions of Ido­latry. Page 41.
    • Section 3. What were the Gods of the Pagans? Or, What things were represented by their Idols? Where it is proved, that Pagan Gods had been Men. Page 51.
    • Section 4. That the Jupiter O. M. of the Greeks and Romans, was not the True God. Page 67.
    • Section 5. Whether all, or the greatest part of the Pagans believed the one True God? Page 83.
    • Section 6. Of the unknown God at Athens. Page 96.
    • A Conclusion of this Treatise. Page 98.
  • Chap. 8. What G. B. says, to prove Catholics Idolaters. Page 102.
  • Chap. 9. Of Mediating Spirits. Page 105.
  • [Page] Chap. 10. Of the Intercession of Saints. Page 113.
  • Chap. 11. Pretended Charms: Where, of Holy-Water, Wax-Candles, Agnus Dei's, &c. Page 124.
  • Chap. 12. Of Ceremonies. Page 128.
  • Chap. 13. Scripture and the Church: Where, of the Resolution of Faith. Page 134.
  • Chap. 14. Of Merits. Page 148.
  • Chap. 15. Of Temporal Punishment due to Sin forgiven. Page 150.
  • Chap. 16. Of Purgatory. Page 154.
  • Chap. 17. Priestly Absolution. Page 162.
  • Chap. 18. Of Penances, Fasting, Prayer, and Pil­grimages. Page 167
    • Section 1. Fasting. Page 169.
    • Section 2. Prayer. Page 171.
    • Section 3. Pilgrimages. Page 174.
    • Section 4. Two Objections Answered. Page 179.
  • Chap. 19. Sacrifice of the Mass. Page 180.
  • Chap. 20. Regal Office of Christ: Where, of Tran­substantiation, Dispensing in Vows, &c. Page 184.
  • Chap. 21. Of Love, and its two Species. Repen­tance, Mortal and Venial Sins, Attrition and Contrition. Page 188.
  • Chap. 22. Theological Vertues. Page 196.
    • Section 1. Of Faith. Page 197.
    • Section 2. Of Hope. Page 201.
    • Section 3. Of Charity, or Love. Page 204.
    • Section 4. An Answer to what G. B. objects. Page 207.
  • Chap. 23. Efficacy of Sacraments. Page 210.
  • Chap. 24. Probable Opinions, and Good Inten­tions. Page 212.
  • [Page] Chap. 25. Whether Papists allow to break the Com­mandments? Page 219.
  • Chap. 26. Riches, and Pride of Churchmen. Page 225.
  • Chap. 27. Ʋnity of the Church in Faith and Sa­craments. G. B. owns that Protestants are Schismatics. Of Severity against Dissenters; And of Hugo Grotius. Page 229.
  • Chap. 28. Zeal of Souls in our Bishops. And con­cerning Reformers: Where, of S. Cyran, Ar­naud, and Jansenius. Page 235.
  • Chap. 29. Other small Objections. Page 247.
  • A Conclusion of the First, and Beginning of the Second Part. Page 250.
  • Chap. 30. Catholic Faith delivered by Men Di­vinely Inspired. Rules to know true Tradition. Faith never changed. Page 353.
  • Chap. 31. Revelations and Miracles. Page 262.
  • Chap. 32. Whether all Mysteries of Faith ought to be common? Page 268.
  • Chap. 33. Faith not dependant on Senses. Page 275.
  • Chap. 34. Mr. G. B. his Intention in his Books, and his Meekness to Catholics. Page 281.
  • Chap. 35. Reasons why Catholics do not embrace the Communion of the Protestant Church. Page 287.
  • Chap. 36. Greater Exercise of Piety amongst Catholics, than Protestants. Page 295.
  • Chap. 37. No Houses of Devotion, nor Spiritual Books amongst Protestants. Page 301.
  • Chap. 38. Protestant Doctrins contrary to Piety. Page 308.
  • Postscript to Mr. Cudworth, D. D. Page 315.
FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.