THere can be no greater Argument of a baf­fled and erroneous Cause, than when the Assertors of it are forced to maintain it with manifest Impostures. The Religion of the Church of Rome is in great mea­sure owing to Legends and Forged Writings: With the first they deluded the vulgar; and with the second, cir­cumvented the wiser part of mankind. The Usurpa­tion of the See of Rome was never submitted to, nor its Primacy believed in the West, till the spurious Decre­tals of Isidore Mercator were universally received by a blind and ignorant Age, and believed to be the genuine Decrees of Ancient Popes. No sooner did Learning begin to flourish in the last Age, but these Phantasms disappeared, were decried, and disowned by all learned and ingenuous men. To produce them anew upon the stage, and urge the Authority of them in this learned [Page 48] age, can be no other than the last efforts of a despairing and dying Cause, which wanteth both Reason and Truth to uphold it. To recur to these Forgeries, after the falseness and folly of them hath been detected and de­monstrated by learned men of both Communions; is an invincible Argument, that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome was at first founded on them, and can­not now be maintain'd without them.

It may justly be wondred, that men whose office and design it is to uphold the Cause of the Church of Rome, and perswade others of the truth of it, should make use of such artifices, as will infallibly, when discovered, make all sober men suspect her Cause of falseness, and accuse her Agents of dishonesty. Yet this hath been lately done by some Gentlemen of the Church of Rome, in a little Pamphlet, called Speculum Ecclesiasticum, or an Ecclesiastical Prospective-Glass; wherein all the Ancient Forgeries of the Church of Rome are reproduced, and alledged as undoubted Testimonies of Antiquity. An Imposture so gross and palpable, that if unadvisedly committed, the Ignorance of this Author must be de­plorable; if voluntarily, his Fraud must be detestable. Such miserable delusions are unfitly calculated for our Age, and can serve for no other end, than for what they were at first invented, to amuse Children, and se­duce weak people.

The Author divideth his Prospective-Glass into eight Parts or Columes; and in them undertaketh to prove the Doctrines of the Church of Rome from Scripture, and the Testimonies of the Fathers of the Church for the first 500 years. The proofs of Scripture I shall not consider, because they are either wholly impertinent, or have been often answered by the Writers of our Church; and upon the Testimonies of Antiquity, I will only make [Page 49] some few Observations: For so idle a Paper deserves not a strict and severe Answer.

The first Column of our Adversary treateth of the Churches continued Succession, and the tradition of all Christian Doctrines through all Ages of the Church. This might well have been spared, and concerns no more the Church of R [...]me, than it doth any other particular Church. In the Church of England we have a Successi­on of Bishops continued down from the Apostolick times to this day. The nomination or particular enumera­tion of them, is neither necessary nor useful. None will deny the Churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, and Philadelphia to have enjoyed a continued Series of Bishops from the Apostles times; yet are the names of the far greater part of them unknown. Neither is the Succession of the Bishops of Rome certain and undoubted. The im­mediate Successors of St. Peter are at this day unknown. Linus most probably died before him. Cletus and Ana­cletus were most certainly the same person. In succeed­ing Ages many great and long Schisms happened, where­in two, and sometimes three Popes together pretended to the Papal Chair, whose right was so dubious and un­certain, that Wernerus Rolluinck Fascic. Temp. professeth, most learn­ed and conscientious men could not discern to which party they ought to adhere. And at this day, the French and Italian Writers agree not in composing a Catalogue of Popes; the first placing divers among the Popes, which the second reject as Antipopes. No other eminent See of the Catholick Church hath suffered these divisions: So that the Succession of the Bishops of Rome is more doubtful and uncertain than any other Succession of Bishops in the World. St. Irenaeus indeed, St. Au­gustin, and Optatus, alledged by this Writer, disputing against the Hereticks, object to th [...]m that they are up­starts, [Page 50] men of yesterday, who could not deduce their Succession from the Apostles; whereas their Catholicks had a visible Succession of Bishops presiding in their Churches from the Apostles times: and to prove this, produce the Succession of Roman Bishops, not as of so many Heads of the Universal Church, but as of the Bi­shops of the most eminent See of the Western Church. For the force of their Argument lay not in the particular Succession of the Roman Bishops, but in the several Suc­cessions of all the Catholick Bishops of the Universal Church; of which they produced that of Rome as an example. This appears plainly from the words of Ire­naeus, who prefixeth this Preface to his Catalogue of Roman Bishops: Seeing it is too much to reckon up the Succession of all Churches, I will instante only in that of Rome: As for Succession of Doctrine, we may with far greater justice claim that, than do our Adversaries. For the Church of England admitteth, receiveth, and believeth all Doctrines which have been universally taught and delivered down by all Churches in all Ages; and proposeth none to her Children as necessary to be be­lieved, which have not that universal testimony: Where­as the Church of Rome commandeth several Doctrines to be believed upon pain of Anathema, which were unknown to Antiquity, and are at this day denied by the greater part of Christians.

The Fourth Column of the Unity of the Church, is of the same stamp. We, no less firmly, than our Ad­versaries, believe the Catholick Church to be one: We willingly allow that there is no hope of Salvation out of the Pale of that Church, and have always asserted Schism to be a damnable sin. But that the particular Church of Rome, or in Communion with the See of Rome, is that Universal Church; that a small and corrupt mem­ber [Page 51] of it is the whole; and that all Churches not Com­municating with the Bishop of Rome, are Schismatical; this we neither believe, nor can our Adversaries prove: Certainly all the testimonies here alledged insinuate no such thing. But if Schism be so great a sin, if wilful and unnecessary Separation from any part of the Catho­lick Church be damnable; What shall we say of those persons, whose office and employment it is to promote and foment this Schism, and draw the Members of the Church of England into an unlawful separation from her? To accuse the Church of England of Schism or Separa­tion from the Papists, is to go contrary to sense and reason: For 'tis notorious to the whole World, that all the Subjects of England communicated with our Church till the 10th year of Queen Elizabeth; when upon the Pope's prohibition, a small party flew off into separate Assemblies, who have since continued their separate Meetings under the name of Roman Catholicks. And shall the Church of England be said to have separated from those men? This cannot be said with any colour of Truth. That Papal prohibition began the Schism, which till then had no existence. For the Church of England never did by any judicial act forbid her Chil­dren to Communicate with the Catholick Churches be­yond Sea; nor require of her Communicants the belief of any point denied by them, or disbelief of any point maintained by them.

The third Column, of the Churches Infallibility, is of the same nature, and equal impertinence. We believe there ever was since the time of Christ, and shall be to the end of the World, a Church, or collection of men, believing all things necessary to Salvation. But that this Church is no other than the particular Church of Rome; and that to the belief of all necessary Articles, some [Page 52] false and erroneous Opinions never was, nor shall be in­termixed; we do not believe, and it never can be pro­ved. Now all the Testimonies alledged by our Author amounts to no more than this, That the Church of Christ is indefectible, ever did and always shall exist. That the whole Faith of Christ is always taught and preserved in it; and that in her Bosom Salvation may ever be found and obtained: But all this doth no more concern The Church of Rome, than it doth the Church of Eng­land. Our Author indeed alledgeth Three passages, wherein the Church of Rome is particularly mentioned: The first is a Complement of St. Cyprian's to Pope Corne­lius, That to St. Peter's Chair Infidelity cannot have ac­cess. Perfidia. This hath been oftentimes answered by our Di­vines, and is indeed a meer Compliment, or at most, a declaration of his expectations grounded upon the pro­spect of a Learned and Orthodox Clergy, which then presided in the See of Rome. Besides infinite places of the Ancients might be produced, wherein they bestow no less Encomiums upon particular Churches, which by the confession of our Adversaries not only may, but have actually fallen from the Faith. Thus St. Ignatius saith, Epist. ad E­phes. the Church of Ephesus was predestinated before all Ages, to continue for ever in a permanent and unchangeable glory. An expression which infinitely surpasseth St. Cy­prians Compliment. The Second passage is taken from Victor Vitensis, whom our Author ignorantly calls Ʋti­censis, where Eugenius Bishop of Carthage being urged by the Arian Tyrant Hunnericus to give an account of his Faith, desired leave to send to all his Fellow Bishops in the whole Catholick Church that they might meet in a General Council, particularly to the Bishop of Rome, who was the most eminent Bishop of the Western Church and first Patriarch of the World. For no General Coun­cil [Page 53] could be held without the presence of all the Patri­archs either by themselves, or by their Legates. That Eugenius desired not the presence or advice of the Pope for any belief of his Infallibility, is manifest from what Victor De Persecut. Vandal. l. 2. immediately subjoins, that Eugenius said this, not because there were wanting men in Africa, who were able to refute the objections of the Arians, and vin­dicate the Catholick Cause: But that such Bishops might be drawn into Africa, as feared not the threats and vio­lence of Hunnericus, being none of his natural Subjects. The third is a passage of St. Cyril of Hierusalem in his Apology against Rusinus, that the Roman Faith, com­mended by the Apostles, cannot be changed. Of this Apology I shall speak somewhat hereafter: To the words alledged, I need only say, our Adversaries can never prove that unchangeable Faith, which the Apostle commended, to be the Faith of the present Church of Rome.

Thus have we proved three of our Authors eight Columns to be wholly trifling and impertinent; I will next observe his ignorance and mistakes of Chronology. St. Cyprian is by him placed before Origen; when as the latter was a famous Writer of the Church long before the first was converted to the Faith. Gregory Nyssen and St. Hierom are ranked before Athanasius; who was a Bi­shop before either of the other were born. Tertullian before Theophilus Antiochenus, who was a Bishop near Twenty five years before the other was made Priest. Victor Vitensis placed in the beginning of the 4th Age, who lived in the end of the 5th. But our honest Au­thor, because he writ of a Persecution, thought he must necessarily mean an Heathen Persecution, and therefore set him before Lactantius. In the same manner he pla­ceth St. Cyril of Alexandria before St. Chrysostom; and St. [Page 54] Ambrose before St. Athanasius. But Chronology is not the business of our Author. Let us next view his Cri­ticism: where we shall find all the Fables and Forgeries of Ancient and latter times adapted and produced by him.

I begin with the Decretals of the Ancient Popes; out of which he cites the Epistles of St. Clemens, Anacletus, and Pius. It were superfluous to resume an Argument so often cleared, and to prove these Epistles to be spu­rious, if we had not to deal with a generation of men, whose either ignorance or effrontery requireth it. This hath been often confessed, and at large demonstrated by Learned Writers of the Church of Rome, but more fully by the Reformed Divines: Insomuch that it is long since become a received and undoubted opinion among all the learned men of both Communions. And indeed the thing is manifest beyond all contradiction; For no Pope, Father, or Writer, before the 9th Age ever made mention of them. The Vulgar Version of the Bible is constantly used in them, which was not composed till the beginning of the fifth Age. They are almost wholly made up of an infinite number of passages stoln from the Writings, Canons and Constitutions of Authors, Councils, Popes and Emperors, who lived between the Third and the Ninth Age. They are neither adapted to the genius, nor necessities of those times: Frequently they oppose Heresies, which began not till the 4th Age. Are full of ridiculous Anachronisms, barbarous Phrases, and foolish Solecisms, which those first and purer Ages could not be guilty of. Lastly, they mention many points of Discipline and Ecclesiastical Terms, which were un­known to the three first Ages, and not introduced till some Ages after. Not only the falsity of these Decre­tals is apparent and confessed; but their Author and [Page 55] age can be assigned. They were first published to the World by Riculphus Bishop of Mentz, who received them from Isidore Mercator in the beginning of the Ninth Age. Bellarmin, Baronius, Perron, and Petavius acknowledg them to be dubious, and dare not defend them. But latter Criticks of the Church of Rome openly confess them to be spurious. Thus Labbe and Cossart in their Collection of Councils, affix a note of falsity to every one of them: And particularly give this Censure of most of them: That they are esteemed supposititious by learned Catholicks. Baluzius A prefat. ad Reginon. gives an account of their Original, progress and reception in the Gallican Church: And Du Pin affirmeth, They are rejected with a common con­sent.

The spurious Writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, come next to be considered: Which forgery our Au­thor so fully believeth, that he ever placeth them im­mediately after the Holy Scriptures. That they belong not to the Areopagite is manifest from the universal si­lence of the ancients, till the Sixth Age: The subtile argumentation and elaborate stile of them far different from the simplicity of the Apostolick times. They were writ in the flourishing estate of the Church; and therefore make no mention of Martyrs or Persecutions; but rather frequently oppose the Heresie of Arius. The Author of them cites the Apocalypse of St. John, and Ignatius his Epistles, particularly that to the Romans, written just before his Martyrdom in the year 107. long after the Areopagites death. I might add, that he mentions many Ceremonies not introduced into the Church till the Fourth Age; speaks of the Order of Monks, and cites St. Clemens of Alexandria. But I need not insist any longer upon a thing so evident. The falsity of these Writings is confessed, and demonstrated [Page 56] by Petavius, Morinus, Launoy, Oudin, Du Pin, and many other learned Authors of the Church of Rome.

The Commentaries of Theophilus Bishop of Antioch up­on the Gospels, are most certainly the product of a Latin Writer, and therefore spurious. Such Commen­taries were indeed anciently extant under Theophilus his name; but were rejected by St. Hierom De Script. Eccl. cap. 25. as supposititi­ous. As for those we now have, they were forged af­ter St. Cyprian's time. For the Author transcribes a passage out of Cyprian's sixth, Epistle to Magnus. Upon which account, Labbe and Du Pin do esteem this Work to be spurious. The Oration of St. Hippolitus the Consummation of the World, is of the same stamp, as appears from the barbarous stile, childish expressions, and foolish Fables, which may be found in it. For which reasons Du Pin saith, It is very uncertain, and may be justly call'd in question.

But to what miserable shifts is our Author reduced, when he citeth the Epistle of St. Athanasius to Pope Fe­lix; an Epistle forged by Isidore Mercator, together with the Decretals, and almost wholly patch't up out of the Acts of the Lateran Council under Pope Martin, in the year 649: And wherein Athanasius tells Faelix; that he had been ordained Bishop at Rome by his sacred hands; whereas the true Athanasius was ordained at Alexan­dria more than Forty years before Faelix was made Pope. Binius acknowledgeth it to be spurious, and Labbe Concil. Tom. II. p. 844. gives this scornful censure of it ‘Ad malas Mercatoris merces has ineptae farraginis quisquilias. Baronius, aliique eruditi viri ablegant;’ which I will not translate, lest I should be thought to rail, instead of confuting.

However, to alledge a spurious Writing, may be only a matter of artifice to impose upon an unwary Reader: But to cite the undoubted Work of one Author, under [Page 57] the name of another, to whom it was never before at­tributed, can be no other than gross ignorance. Our Author citeth St. Hierom's Third Apology against Ruf­finus under the name of St. Cyril of Hierusalem, who was dead many years before the name of Ruffinus was known, or this Apology written. Whether this was a matter of design, that the Reader might never be able to consult the place, our Author can best tell. Cer­tainly the passage is infinitely trifling and impertinent. For St. Hierom accusing Ruffinus of a forgery in publish­ing at Rome an Apology for Origen, under the name of Pamphilus the Martyr, tells him he had mist of his design; For the Romans did not believe it to be the Work of that Martyr: And then adds, that the Roman Faith, commended by the Apostle, could not be imposed upon by such tricks. This is a piece of flattery, which even no sober Papist will allow to be strictly true. For all grant that the whole Church may be deceived in judging a matter of fact; such is, whether this or that Author writ such a Trea­tise. And the Church of Rome hath been actually de­luded by many Impostures of this nature, as the Spuri­ous Decretals of Isidore Mercator, which she received and used as genuine for many Ages. But not to depart from this very instance, St. Hierom hath sufficiently re­futed his own words by imposing upon the Romans, in perswading them that this Apology, translated and published by Ruffinus, was not the work of Pamphilus, but of Eusebius. For it truly belonged to the former. Eusebius indeed added Five Books to it. But those were not translated by Ruffinus.

That the Book de Caena Domini should in this Age be cited under the name of Cyprian, may be justly ad­mired; when it is not only confessed by all to be spu­rious, but the true Author of it is known, Arnoldus Ab­bot [Page 58] of Bonvalle in France, in the Twelth Age. To him do Raynaudus, Labbe, Oudin, Du Pin, and almost all Manuscript Copies ascribe it.

St. Ambrose's Work of the Sacraments hath been call'd in question by many great and learned men of the Re­formed Churches. If it should be allowed in the main to belong to St. Ambrose; they must, however, grant that it hath been miserably interpolated and corrupted by latter hands. For Bertram citeth several places out of it, which cannot now be found in it. But if this be du­bious, it is most certain that the Sermons of St. Ambrose are spurious: Being no other than a Collection of the Sermons of several Authors, some more, others less ancient. This Bellarmin and Labbe acknowledg. Ma­ny of them may be found among the Sermons of Maxi­mus Taurinensis, and particularly that of St. Peter and Paul, cited by our Author. The books de Paenitentia, Petrus Soto Institut. Sacerd. tit. de necess. Confes. Lect. 2. maintains to be spurious; and some learned men have subscribed to his Opinion. In like manner Erasmus contends that the Homilies of Origen upon the Psalms are spurious, and Bellarmin placeth them among the dubious Writings. But in these Two last Cases, nothing certain can be deter­mined.

The books de Visitatione Infirmorum, cited by our Author, under the name of St. Augustin, Bellarmin and Labbe confess to be spurious. That they are so, need no other argument than the foolish arguments and bar­barous stile of them, unworthy of the judgment and learning of St. Augustin. Erasmus giveth this Censure of them, The work of a prating Fellow, who had neither Wit nor Learning. What shame or reason have those per­sons left, who obtrude such Writings to us under the name of Augustin? Our Author refers us to the Second book [Page 59] of this Treatise for a proof of Sacerdotal confession. There indeed we may find this Confession commended, advised and enjoyned (which is also done by the Church of England) but in the mean while the necessity of it disowned, and the sufficiency of a private confession to God acknowledged. For the Author blaming some persons who dehorted men from Sacerdotal confession, saith, Let not the superstition of these Dreamers seduce you, which confirmeth sinners in their resolutions of not confessing to a Priest, Quia salvat Sacerdote inconsulto ad Deum peccatorum confessio: Because confession of sins to God without consulting any Priest, is sufficient to Salvation: Where he plainly allows the truth of this proposition, but blames the ill application of it. But because our Author refers us to this spurious Treatise; O extermi­nanda cordis caecatio. O perditionis animarum oc­casio. l. 2. c. 8. I would desire him to turn one Page farther, where he will find the Doctrine of doing any Penance after Death, and conse­quently of Purgatory, called a detestable blindness of heart, and occasion of the destruction of Souls.

The Quaestiones ad Graecos, cited by our Author un­der the name of St. Justin Martyr, are on all sides con­fessed to be supposititious, particularly by Bellarmin, Labbe, and Du Pin. The justice of this Censure is evidently evinced from the frequent mention therein, made of the Manichees, who were not heard of till more than a Hundred years after Justin's death. The Lamentation of Origen is the trifling product of some foolish Latin Writer; and therefore justly rejected as spurious by Bellarmin, Baronius, Ad an. 252. Labbe, Huetius, and Du Pin. I might add, that it was formerly con­demned by Pope Gelasius, if his Decretal were not equally spurious. However, that excuseth not our Author; since that Decretal is universally received by all the Writers of the Church of Rome.

[Page 60] Our Author citeth, Two Fragments of Eusebius Alex­andrinus out of Jodocus Coccius. But we have great reason to believe, that they are not genuine. For Euse­bius Caesariensis Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 2. in mentioning Eusebius Alexandri­nus, speaks not one word of his Writings; which that ac­curate. Historian would by no means have omitted, if there had heen any known in his time. No one of the Ancients make the least mention of such a Writer: Nor was he ever heard of till Coccius and Tur­rain produced some fragments out of his Homilies. As for Coccius, he had not skill enough in this kind to pass a critical judgment upon the Writings of the ancients: and Turrain cannot be securely trusted. For all the World knows with how great violence he maintained the Apostolick Canons and Constitutions to be genuine: A position which none but fools and mad men can be­lieve.

The Arabick Canons of the first Council of Nice, are a no less foolish than evident forgery of latter times. All the Greek and Latin Copies give us no more than XX. Canons of that Council. Gelasius Cyzicenus saith Hist. Con. Nic. l. 2. c. 30. no more were made. The African Bishops sending into the East for true and correct Copies of them, receive from Atticus of Constantinople, and Cyril of Alexandria no more than XX. and these LXXX. Arabick Canons were never heard of till brought out of the East in the last Age by the Legates sent by Pius IV. to the Patriarch of Alexandria to invite him to the Council of Trent. But I need not use many arguments. They sufficiently betray themselves by the frequent mention of Names, Rites, and Customs which obtained not in the Church till after the Council of Nice. I will instance only in their several Constitutions, about Monasteries, Monks and Nuns, as that they be shaved, and use a distinct ha­bit [Page 61] from the rest of mankind; customs which were not known till some Ages after. And that we may not seem singular in making this Censure, the Learned Abraham Ec­chellensis Prefat. ad Version. confesseth, That many of them were forged, others changed, and all accommodated by the several Sects of the East to their several Ages and Perswasions.

The sincerity of our Author deserveth next to be con­sidered, which I fear would be found very small if I had time and leisure to compare all his Citations with the Originals. Those few which I have compared, give me a just suspicion of his fraudulent dealing in the rest, and may reasonably create the same prejudice in all his Rea­ders. I will produce a few Instances. In the Fifth Co­lumn he citeth these words of Irenaeus (a), How can they be assured the Bread is made the Body of our Lord? In the Original it is esse Corpus suum, where he hath Translated esse to be made. A few lines after he produ­ceth a passage of Tertullian, which no man in his right wits could ever have alledged for Transubstantiation: For the intire sentence is one of the most pregnant Te­stimonies of all Antiquity, against that monstrous opini­on; the words are these L. 4. c. 57. , The Bread taken and di­stributed to his Disciples, ( e) Adv. Mar­cion. l. 4. c. 40. he made his Body, by saying, This is my Body, that is, the Figure of my Body. Our Author hath cut off the latter part, and given us only the first words of this Passage. What name ought justly to be gi­ven to this Artifice, let others judg; but certainly none can call it sincerity. The corruption of Justin Martyr in the 7th Column is no less gross and evident; where our Author citeth these words out of his Second Apology: We worship them (the good Angels) both by words and deeds, even as we our selves have been taught and instruct­ed. The Greek words are these, [...]; honour­ing them both in word and deed; and freely teaching every [Page 62] one who desireth to learn those things wherein we been instructed. A little before, he had cited Dionysius the Areopagite, for Prayers to the departed Saints, where he wilfully mistakes that Writers meaning; and what the Counterfeit Dionysius speaks of the Prayers of our pious Fellow-Christians here on Earth, applieth to Prayers made to departed Saints; and not only so, but falsifieth his words in more than one place; the passage is this De Ecclesiast. Hierarch. c. 7.; [...],— [...]. This I affirm consonantly to the Scripture; That the prayers of holy men are very useful in this life, this way. If any one desiring the Divine Graces, and be well disposed for the reception of them, shall (as being conscious of his own unworthiness) come to some holy man, and desire him to assist him, and pray together with him, he shall re­ceive hence the greatest benefit. The words thus justly Translated, do neither favour nor relate to Prayers to the Dead. In the same Column he hath produced some words of St. Chrysostom Orat. de SS. Bernic. & Prosdoce., with no more ingenuity; for he translates [...], Let us pray to them; indeed the word [...] follows, Let us desire them, (which yet our Author after his wonted manner exaggerates, Let us heartily beseech them): But that this was a meer rheto­rical Flight, may be demonstrated beyond all doubt; for in the immediately foregoing sentence he speaks much greater things of their dead Reliques, and Repositories; to which yet even our Author will grant that Prayers are not in a strict and proper sense to be addressed: In this Fire of Devotion, saith he, let us fall down to their Reliques; let us embrace their Repositories; for even the Repositories of Martyrs have great Virtue, as the Bones of Martyrs have great Force. These Rhetorical Apo­strophes are frequent to all Orators, and ought [Page 63] not to be drawn into Dogmatical Propositions.

I return now to consider our Authors Columns sepa­rately. The Second is about the Primacy of the Pope, and consists of some Testimonies of the Fathers, which abating the spurious ones, insinuate no more than that St. Peter was Prince or First of the Apostles, the Founda­tion upon which the Church was built, and the Keeper of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; all this we rea­dily acknowledg: None ever denied a Primacy of Or­der to St. Peter; the Scripture assures us that the Apo­stles were all Foundations of the Church; and our Savi­our committed the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to them all: If any of these Testimonies seem to attribute somewhat greater and more eminent to St. Peter, we are to consider that Orators seldom contain themselves within the severe bounds of truth, when they set them­selves to make an Encomium of any. The Ancients speak no less things of St. Paul, and attribute to him no less swelling Titles, as might easily be proved, if our in­tended brevity would permit it. I will produce only some passages of St. Chrysostom Hom. in Rom. xvi. 3. in ter­ra mot. & Laz. in Paulum, &c., who calls him The Tongue of the World, the Light of the Churches, the Foun­dation of Faith, the Pillar and Ground of Truth, the Ves­sel of Election, the Temple of God, the Mouth of Christ, the Harp of the Holy Ghost, the Doctor of the World, the Teacher of Divine Opinions, the Schoolmaster of the World, upon whom the eyes of the whole World were cast, and upon whom the care of all the Churches in the World depended; to whose Government God had committed the whole World, Hom. ad eos qui scandali­zati sunt Hom. de esemos. & collat. to whom the whole World was committed, and all the Churches under the Sun, who governed all the Churches, People, Nations and Cities of the Earth, to whom none can be equalled, [...]. who had the Primacy, greater than all others; to Michael was committed the Government of the Jews, but to Paul, the Earth, the Sea, both the habitable, and [Page 64] inhabitable World, the Illuminator of the World, the great­est of all Men, who alone possessed all the perfections of the other Patriarchs, Apostles, Saints and Martyrs, who is ad­mired and honoured beyond all the other Apostles. None of them was greater than him, [...]. yea none was equal to him. I am confident no passages can be found in all Antiquity in favour of St. Peter, which can equal these produced out of one Author in favour of St. Paul. The most express passage which our Author alledgeth, is that of Tertullian Lib. de Pudic., where he is supposed to call the Pope Chief Pastor, Bi­shop of Bishops, and Blessed Pope. But alas! all these are Ironical Expressions, directed to, not the Pope, but the Bishop of Carthage, as hath been invincibly proved by a Learned Man Alix. Dissert. de Script. Tertul. p. 70., now of our Church. The more express Testimonies which remain, are only the first and the last of this Column: The first our Author thought so con­siderable, that he chose against his usual custom to give it us in Latin: It is part of the Inscription of St. Igna­tius's Epistle to the Romans, wherein he calls them the sanctified and illuminated Church, which presides in the Country of the Romans. These inscriptions of Epistles were according to the Custom of the Eastern Nations, filled with great and swelling Titles, of which unhappi­ly this to the Romans was one of the most modest; for he bestows far greater Titles upon other Churches in some of his Epistles, and particularly calls the Church of the Philadelphians [...] raised to the utmost pitch of perfection; as for the word illuminated, it is a Title which the Ancient Christians bestowed upon all Bapti­zed Persons, whom they called [...] and [...], as Baptism was commonly called [...]. And then for presiding in the Countrey of the Romans, every parti­cular Episcopal See presideth in her own Diocess; and therefore Ignatius doth not say, which presideth in the whole World, but which presideth in the Province of [Page 65] Rome. The last Testimony is taken from Socrates and Sizomen attesting that the Eastern Synods were not valid, unless confirmed by the Pope; that he had a peculiar Priviledge of restoring Bishops unjustly de­posed, and that to him belonged the care of all the Churches. But first, neither of the Historians affirm, That the Pope had any such priviledge which was not common to the other Patriarch. For it was the con­stant custom of the Ancient Church, that in all emer­gent occasions of the Church, the Patriarchs should in­terpose their judgments, as being more peculiarly obliged to it, by that eminent station which they held among other Bishops: Not that the judgment of every one was authoritative, or immediately put in ex­ecution (for their judgments were oft-times contrary) but they thereby only declared what they thought just and Canonical, which if it was not performed, they with the Bishops subject to them, used to deny communion to the other party. Besides, there was a particular rea­son in the case mentioned by these Historians. For Athanasius being deposed by the Arians, both Catholicks and Arians had submitted the Arbitration of the whole cause to Pope Julius. As for the confirmation of Councils; no Council could be General, till approved by all the Patri­archs; & therefore if a Synod were held in the East, where­in the Roman Patriarchs was present, neither by himself, nor by his Legates; no wonder if the Decrees of it obliged not the Western Patriarchate, till confirmed by the Pope. For no more did the Western Synods oblige the Eastern Churches, till confirmed by the Eastern Patriarchs.

The Fifth Column treateth of Transubstantiation, where­in most of the Testimonies produced by our Author, say no more than that the Eucharistical elements after Consecra­tion are the Body and Blood of our Lord. This we also as­sert and believe; but then the question remaineth still, in [Page 66] what sense they are the body and blood of Christ; of the remaining citations the most express are those of Just in Martyr, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustin. The first even in the words cited by our Author affirms, That our Flesh and Blood are nourished by the Eucharistical ele­ments; and therefore could not believe Transubstantia­tion. The Second indeed saith De initan­dis, cap. 9. that a preternatural change is made in the elements after Consecration, and the Bread then becomes the Body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified and buried. But that he means his typical not natural body, is manifest from the beginning of this Chapter, where he compares this heavenly food to Manna, or the Bread of Angels; and prefers it because that is subject to corruption, if it be kept from day to day; but this is free from cor­ruption, which whosoever religiously tasts, cannot suffer corruption. From which words, Three several Arguments of a typical sense may be formed. For first, as Manna was not truly, but typically the Bread of Angels: So neither is the consecrated Bread truly, but typically the Body of Christ. Secondly, The consecrated elements are as to the matter of them subject to corruption: And therefore St. Ambrose believed not the matter of them, but only what they represented, to be the body of Christ. Thirdly, He af­firms this incorruptible Body of Christ to be received on­ly by the Religious communicant: Whereas if Transubstan­tiation, be true, it is equally received by the most Irreligious person. St. Augustin in the place Comm. in Psal. 33. cited by our Author ex­presly denieth all natural presence. His words are these, When our Lord Jesus Christ spoke of his Body, He said, Whoso­ever eateth not my flesh, and drinketh not my blood, shall not have eternal Life: For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. His Disciples, who followed him, were afraid, and scandalized at that speech, and not truly understanding it, thought that our Lord spoke somewhat [Page 67] harsh, as if they were to eat that flesh, and drink that blood, which they saw. They could not bear this; as if they had said, How can this be? Error, ignorance and folly had possessed them: Where he goes on to shew that this aversion of the Apostles proceeded from a misapprehen­sion of our Lord's meaning; as if he intended to give them his natural flesh and blood to eat: Sacramenta praedicabat. Whereas our Lord knew what he meant; he spoke of Sacraments, or a sacramental pre­sence. This passage sufficiently explains the following Clause cited by our Author, unless we can suppose St. Au­gustin in this obscure sentence to have contradicted the Doctrine by him plainly delivered in the precedent Words.

The Sixth Column corncerns Sacramental Confession, Priestly Absolution and Penance; and in all respects is wholly impertinent; as may appear by these few consi­derations. First, Then the Church of England retain­eth and adviseth to her Children Confession, Absolution and Penance; But then she maketh not the first abso­lutely necessary to Salvation; nor the Second a judicial, but only declaratory act; nor the Third properly satis­factory for sins: Nor do any of the Testimonies produ­ced by our Author, prove these positions. Secondly, The Confession used in the ancient Church was not Au­ricular, but publick; not lodged in the breast of the Priest, but made before the whole Congregation. And when afterwards about the time of the Decian Persecution these confessions became so numerous, that the Church could not hear them all, a Paenitentiarius was chosen out of the Presbyters to receive them, he did not keep them secret to himself, but only pass judgment which were fit to be made known to the whole Church, and to be performed in the publick Congregation, and which not. 3. Absolution of the Priest was not be­lieved to be judicial or authoritative, and immediately to absolve before God, but only declaratory of the [Page 68] promises of pardon made by God to all penitent sinners, and to have no other necessary effect, than the restoring of the penitents to the peace of the Church. This may be proved by that very passage of St. Hierom, which our Author citeth, where he compareth the Priestly absolution, to the cleansing of Lepers by the Priests under the old Law; a comparison very frequent with the Fathers. For as the Jewish Priests made not the Lepers clean, but only de­clared them so to be, and supposed them to be clean before their declaration; otherwise the declaration would not in the least have contributed to their cleansing: So a sacerdotal Absolution remits not the guilt of sins, but supposeth them to have been before remitted by God, and declareth so to be; otherwise the absolution of a Priest will avail the sinner nothing, nor set him right in the Court of Heaven. 4. Pe­nance in the ancient Church was chiefly intended, not as a satisfaction to God for the violation of his Laws, but as a satisfaction to the Church, for the scandal given to others, and reproach drawn upon the whole Church by the former crimes or irregular practice of the peni­tents: And therefore was ever augmented or relaxed according to the various exigencies or necessities of times. 5. In the ancient Church, Penance ever preceded Absolution, and was the means of obtaining it: Whereas in the Church of Rome, the Penitent is first absolv'd, and then some subsequent Penance is imposed on him: Which takes away the very nature of Penance, Confes­sion and Absolution, as they were used and designed the ancient Christians; and tends only to the interests of the Priest, and delusion of private souls.

The Seventh Column undertaketh to prove the law­fulness of Invocation or Prayer to Saints, and that they pray for us: the latter we need not deny; but main­tain, that that will not warrant the former. So that when all the spurious Testimonies, those which we have [Page 69] already answered, and those which prove only that the departed Saints pray for us, be expunged; there remain no more than one of St. Ambrose (for that of St. Hierom is a plain historical Apostrophe) and one of Theodoret. As for the first, I might justly oppose the authority of some learned men, who maintain this Book de Viduis, whence the passage is taken, to be supposititious. But I will content my self to say, That our Author hath falsely translated the place, by rendring Obsecrandi sunt Angeli pro nobis, ut, &c. Obsecrandi sunt Martyres, We are to desire the assistance of the Angels; we are to pray to the Mar­tyrs: Whereas the words do not in the least insinuate an Exhortation of Prayer to be made to them by us; but only a wish, that they would pray for us, and that we should gratefully accept their charitable kindness in so do­ing. The Passage De curand. affect. Graec. Orat. 8. of Theodoret, as cited by our Author, is a plain forgery. For Theodoret speaks not one Syllable of praying to the Martys; and what our Author tran­slates, beseech them as Holy men to intercede to God for them, is no more in the Greek than this, [...]. We honour, or reverence them as holy men.

The last Column treateth of Purgatory, and Prayer for the dead. The first we believe to be a Fable, and to have no ground, either in Scripture or Antiquity. The second our Church doth not condemn, only hath prudently omitted it in the publick Service, because it is a thing dubious in it self, and not approved by Scripture. The use of it in the Ancient Church, doth not in the least prove the belief of Purgatory. For they anciently prayed for all Saints de­parted whatsoever, even for the blessed Virgin, Apostles, Martyrs and Confessors; and their Prayers respected not alleviation of freedom from any internal Punishment, but only the day of Judgment, that God would hasten it; and when that comes, receive all departed Souls into the beatifical Vision, which they generally believed was [Page 70] not bestowed to the departed Saints till the day of Judgment. That Purgatory was anciently believed, our Author's Testimonies do in no wise prove. Some of them indeed mention a purging Fire; But that Fire was not to exist till the Day of Judgment, when all Souls were to pass through it, and to continue a shorter or longer time in it, according to their greater or lesser Purity. No intermediate punishment between Death and Judgment was believed, besides the delay of Re­surrection; if that can properly be called a punishment.

There remains only to consider our Author's Cata­logue of general Councils: Wherein he hath committed many gross, and, as I fear, wilful mistakes. He makes Pope Sylvester preside over the Council of Nice; but Euse­bius and Socrates, whom he citeth, say no such thing. Baro­nius indeed saith it: but all the World knows the contrary. For Hosius Bishop of Corduba presided, and subscribed in his own name before the Legates of Pope Sylvester. That Damasus presided over the first Council of Constantinople, is so egregiously false; that that Council was both be­gun and ended without so much as the knowledg of the Pope, or any other Western Bishops. That Cyril Pa­triarch of Alexandria, not Pope Celestin, presided over the Council of Ephesus, is manifest from the Acts of that Council, from the Commission given to him by the Emperor for that purpose, and from all the Histo­rians of those times. Cyril indeed acted for Pope Ce­lestin, but not as president, but as one Fellow-Bishop manageth the Proxy of another here in Eng­land, in the House of Lords. In the Council of Chal­cedon Pope Leo's Legates were so far from presiding, that all the Canons of the Council were made in their absence, and not only without, but against their consent. For when the Legates in the next Session protested against the Canons, they were over-ruled by the Council and [Page 71] forced to submit. That Pope Vigilius presided over the Fifth General Gouucil, or Second of Constantinople, is so impudent a Falshood, that it might with equal reason be pretended that Luther or Calvin presided over the Coun­cil of Trent: For Vigilius who was then at Constantino­ple, gathered an opposite Convention of Western Bi­shops, wherein publishing a long Constitution or Decree in favour of the Tria Capitula, he concludes with a se­vere Censure and Condemnation of all who should here­after Write, Teach, or Propose any thing contrary to his Decree, which he knew was then in doing in the General Council. The Popes Constitution was read in the Council, and notwithstanding it was Decreed, Can. 12, 13, 14. That whosoever defended the Tria Capitula, or even did not Anathematize them, should be himself Anathematiz'd. After the Conclusion of the Council, and not till then, Vigilius submitted, and writing an Epistle to Eutychius Patriarch of Constantinople, who had presided over the Council, professeth he was now very sorry that by the instigation of the Devil he had dissented from the Council, and in contempt of brotherly Charity had openly disagreed from them, and contended with them; that now he was convinced of his Errors, and therefore re­tracting his former actions, ratified and submitted to the Decrees of the Council. In the Seventh General Coun­cil our Author reckoning up the Hereticks condemned by it, as Paulus, Sergius, Cyrus, Theodosius, comes off with an &c. the meaning of which may easily be discovered; for this &c. was invented to save the reputation of Pope Honorius, who together with the rest was Anathemati­zed by the Council as a notorious and pestilent Heretick. The Second Council of Nice was formerly denied to be General by Theodorus Studites, altho a great Patron of Image-Worship; and was condemned in the same age by the great Council of Francfort. The Fourth Council of [Page 72] Constantinople in the Year 869 was ever accounted a Schismatical Conventicle by the Greek Church. All the following Councils were confined to the West, and want­ed both the Presence and Suffrage of the Eastern Pa­triarchs, and consequently were not Oecumenical: Ma­ny of them are not at this day universally received in the Church of Rome; and others are rejected and condemned by the Gallican Church, as the First Second, Third, and Fourth of Lateran, First, and Second of Lyons, as to the Constitutions and Canons injurious to the Civil Right of Princes: The Councils of Florence, and Fifth of Lateran, are wholly rejected by her, and the Council of Trent but in part received: Our Author pretendeth, that in the Council of Florence the Greeks were united to the Church of Rome, and subscribed the Union. If a forced compliance of a few Bishops compelled by the threats and force of their Emperor can be call'd an union, this was indeed one: But many of them subscribed for fear of Death, and most for fear of starving, as Sylvester Sgu­ropulus an Eye-witness assureth us; and all of them when returning home, were so detested and hated by their Country-men, that they were esteemed worse than Infi­dels, and not permitted to be buried in holy Ground.

I might make some farther Observations upou our Au­thors Paper, as why he left that of Constance out of the number of General Councils, and yet afterwards pro­duced its Authority; how disagreeing the forms of Re­cantation, prescribed to Berengarius, are to the present Belief of the Church of Rome, and how little the Testi­monies produced by him in favour of Apostolical Tradi­tions, concern the Romish Doctrine of Traditions. But what I have already said, is enough to shew that there is a Generation of men in the World, who adding a pro­found Ignorance to a false Zeal, fear not to sacrifice all considerations of Shame and Honesty, of Truth and Reason, to a present Interest, and the poor advantage of a short-liv'd Imposture.