The First Article.

How can I, or any Catholick abjure the Pope's Supremacy over the Church in general, or my self in particular? Seing 'tis an Article of our Creed, Symboli Triden­tini Articulus primus. and my Conscience tells me that, which it did Sir Thomas More Surius. Commentar. at his Tryal; that having studied the point, at least se­ven years, I finde that the Truth there­of is sounded upon Fathers, Councils, Scriptures, and Traditions, with Pre­scription since the Apostles; which de­monstrates it to be of Divine Institution.

You will fall short in all these, and upon impartial Survey finde the Rise, and Spring of it to be from novel Usurpation. The Pythagoreans were so accustomed to Numbers, that they fan­cyed the Ingredience of them in every Composure. Your seven years study, with Doway, and Lovain's Education, hath so moulded your imaginations, that it hears no Melody, but, like that of Sappho's Herodotus. in the Woods, Clemens in Prooemio in Glossa. Domi­nus Deus Papa, your Pope's Supremacy. Whence you make Scriptures, and Fa­thers, [Page 15] like Procrustes Plutarch. in vita Thesei. his Bed; what comes short, you rack, and stretch it to your meaning; what is too large, you curtail it by amputation.

I read Scriptures, and Fathers with that Traveller's indifferency, that Epictetus Aulus Gellius. Noct. Atti [...]. requires in all, that would finde the Truth: and therein I discover, First, The Necessity of one Head to be constituted over the Catholick Church. Secondly, That St. Peter was that Visible Head, and had Supremacy over the whole Flock of Christ, and the rest of the Apostles. Thirdly, That he fixed his Seat at Rome, and delegated his pleni­tudinem potestatis, fullness of power, to the Bishops, his Successours there. Fourthly, That all Bishops of Rome have enjoyed it since.

Not one of these Positions is true, but comes from that spirit of lyes, as shall appear in order. First, there is no necessitie of one Head to be constituted over the Catholick Church; if you mean militant, Christ the triumphant Head is sufficient, for all your Canonists blasphea­my, who say, Non videretur Domi­nus discretus fuisse (ut cū reverentia ejus loquar) nisi unicum post se talem Vicarium reliquisset, & qui haec omnia posset. De majoritate & obedien­tia, unam sanctam, in Glossa. Christ, our Lord should not have seemed to have dealt discreetly (to speak it with reverence) unless he had left one such Vicar behind him, that could do all these things; that is, regulate the whole Church. For neither is it possible for one man to take cognizance of the whole Church, unless he were omniscient, as of all Europe, Asia, Africk, China, and Prester [Page 16] John's Dominions, Peru, Mexico, with Magellanica, and the rest of the Ameri­cans, no Civil Prince had ever the fourth part of it under his Scepter, much less an Ecclesiastick; neither could the Church possibly (if this were granted) be pre­served from ruin. A Pope himself hath de­livered it e Cathedra, and that is Gregory the Great, who said of John Bishop of Con­stantinople, who first claymed to himself this universal power; Si hanc causam ae­quanimiter portamus, to­tius Ecclesiae fidem cor­rumpimus: corruit univer­sa Ecclesia de statu suo, si is, qui Ʋniversalis dicitur, cadit. Gregor. lib. 4. E­pist. 34. 38. & Epist. 78. If we patiently suffer this matter thus to proceed, that one man shall be universal Bishop, we seek not waies to pre­serve unitie, but we overthrow the faith of the whole Church: if he, that is said to be Universal Bishop, happen to fall, the whole Church falleth from her state. And, re­lating to this Question, Saint Augustine saith, Augustinus, De ve­ [...]ae religione, cap 45. Habet & superbia appetitum quen­dam unitatis, & omnipotentiae. Pride it self hath a certain desire of Ʋnitie, and universal power: though the tendence thereof be to ruine. In conformitie to this Saint Paul expresseth the lasting Politie Christ setled in his Church, who, Ephes. iv 12, 13. when he ascended far above any hea­vens, gave (not one Ʋniversal Pope to rule the whole, but) some Apostles, some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastours, and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints, for the working of the mini­stery, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Whereupon Saint Cyprian descanting saith Ʋnus est Episcopatus, cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur. Cyprianus De simplicitate Praela [...]o [...]ū. Ʋnus est Episcopatus, &c. There is but one Bishoprick; part whereof is holden [Page 17] of several Bishops in whole. And again; Ideo plures sunt in Ecclesia Sacerdotes; ut, uno Haeresin faciente, cae­teri subveniant. Cypr. lib. 3. Epist. 13. Therefore there are many Priests, or Bi­shops in the Church, (not one over all the Church) that, if one fall into Heresie, the rest may help. As Paul reproved Peter, and Irenaeus Pope Victor. Upon that place of Hosea, The children of Israel, and the children of Judea shall be gathered to­gether, and appoint them one Head, Saint Hierom Paraphrases thus; Haec omnia fient; quia magnus est dies s [...]mi­nis Dei, qui interpretatur Christus. Hierom. in Ho­seae cap 1. vers. 12. All these things shall come to pass; because it is the great day of the seed of God, which seed is interpreted (not an Ʋniversal Bishop, but) Christ. Lyra harps upon the same string. Congregabuntur fi­liae Judae; id est, Apostoli: & filii Israel; id est, Gen­tiles conversi: pariter; id est una Ecclesia: & po­nent sibi caput unum; id est, Christum. Nicol. Lyra in Hoseae cap. 1. There shall assemble together (saith he) the children of Judah; that is, the Apostles: and Children of Israel; that is, the Gentiles converted: together; that is, in one Church: and shall appoint unto themselves one Head; that is (not one Ʋniversal Bishop, but) one Christ. Saint Augustine is of the same con­sort saying, Recolatur lapis ille angularis, & duo illi pari­etes; unus ex Judaeis, & alter ex Gentibus. Augu­stin. De Civitate Dei. lib. 18. cap. 28. Let us remember that Cor­ner-stone Christ (not any Prelate) and the Walls, the one of the Jews, the other of the Gentiles. Dionysius; In Opere Tripartito, lib. 2. cap. 5. deciphering purposely the Politie of the Church, and comparing the same with the glorious Hierarchie of the Angels, and Powers in Heaven, yet never dropped one word of the universal government by one Prelate. So that we may safely conclude with that Appendage of the Council of Lateran; In caelesti Hierarchia tota congregatio Ange­lorum non habet caput unum, praeter solum Deum: ergo, a simili, in Ecclesiastica [Page 18] Hierarchia hominum non debet esse unum caput, praeter solum Deum: That is; In the Celestial Hierarchie, the whole Chore of Angels hath no other head, but onely God; therefore, by like proportion, in the Ecclesi­astical Hierarchie of men, there ought not to be any one Head, but God; That is, Christ, God-man.

I should easily grant, by virtue of those Premises, that there is no appa­rent necessitie of a visible Head over the whole Church. Christ, and his Spirit can easilie supply that defect. And it is con­gruous enough to reason; that no one Prelate (Atlas-like) can bear the axle-tree of the whole Church upon his Shoulders: yet, methinks, there are clear Evidences in Scriptures, and Fathers, that Saint Peter had supremacie over the rest of the Apostles, and the whole flock of Christ.

This is your Second Position, which, for all your confidence, will vanish into Ashes, like Sodom's Apples. But, I beseech you, tell me these Evidences out of Scriptures, and Fathers.

Of Scriptures, these two places are pregnant: the one, Matth. xvi. 18, 19. [...]. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. Hart against Rai­nolds. Though in [...], and [...], may seem in the Greek to be a difference in termi­nation, and an Enallage of Genders, the Hebrew, or Syriak Word, Cephas, which our Saviour used, signifies both Peter, and a Rock: whence I gather, that [Page 19] Peter was that rock, upon which Christ builded his universal Church; as appears by his further promise, that he would give unto him the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, &c. The other place is, John xxi. 16. [...]. Feed my Sheep. [...] signifies as well to rule, and govern, as to feed. Out of thee shall come, saith Micah Micah v. 2. Matth. ii. 6. of Beth-lehem, [...], a Governour; [...], that shall rule my people Israel. Homer stiles Agamemnon, the Grecian General, [...], the Ruler of the people. Hence I gather, that Christ appointed Peter the Ruler, or Governour of the whole Church.

You gather Conclusions with­out Premises, as erroneously, though not as imperiously, as did your Pope Boniface, Declaramus, dicimus, definimus, pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis omni humanae Crea­turae, subesse Romano Pontifici. De Majoritate, & obedientia. who declared, said, defined, determined, and pronounced, that it was of undoubted necessitie of Salvation, for every humane Creature, to be subject to the Bishop of Rome: but it was from his not right understanding of those Texts; whence, as Saint Hierom Hierom. in Matthaeum. cap. 16. lib. 3. said of others, Ali­quid sibi de Pharisaeorum assumpsit super­cilio; He assumed something of the Luci­ferian Pride of the Pharisees. For the Primitive Fathers, who lived nearest the Fountain, judged it no less, then Blasphe­mie, to interpret any mortal man, as Peter was, but onely Christ, the onely Son of God, to be this Rock. So Gregory Nyssen. Gregorius Nyss [...] Testimoniis [...] ex Veteri Te [...] saith, Tu es Petrus, &c. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build [Page 20] my Church: he meaneth the confession of Christ, for he had said before, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. Saint Hilarie saith, Haec est una felix fidei petra, quam Petrus ore suo confessus est. Hilar. De Trinitate, lib. 2. cap. 6. This is the onely-blessed Rock of Faith, which Peter confessed with his mouth, and upon this Rock of Peter 's Confession is the building of the Church. Where, you see, Peter, and the Rock, are two distinct things. Cyril saith, Petra nihil aliud est, quàm firma, & inconcussa Discipuli fides. Cyrillus, De Trinitate. The Rock is nothing else, but the strong, and impregnable faith of the Disciple. Saint Chrysostome Supra hanc petram, id est in hac fide, & con­fessione, aedificabo. Chry­sost. in Matthaeum, Ho­mil. 55. goes on in the same Equipage, Ʋpon this Rock, that is to say, upon this Faith, and this Confession, I will build my Church. Saint Augustine speaks home, Augustinus De ver­bis Domini, secundum Matthaeum, Serm. 13. Petra erat Christus, supra quod fundamentum etiam aedificatus fuit Petrus: Christ was the Rock, upon which foundation even Peter himself was builded. And, lest he should leave any in the Clouds, he adds further in the person of Christ, Non me aedificabo super te, sed te aedificabo super me: I will not build my self upon thee; but I will build thee upon me. And, that no man might con­ceive, that Peter was in any sence sin­gularly this Rock, or that he had the mo­nopoly of the Keys, which were first pro­mised to him, but performed in a Juncto, with the rest of the Apostles; Origen, who lived nearer the Original, tells us, Petra est, quicunque est Discipulus Christi, & supra talem petram consti­tuitur omnis Ecclesiastica Doctrina. August. ibidem. He is the Rock, whosoever is the Disciple of Christ, and upon such a Rock all Eccle­siastical Learning is built. Quòd si supra unum illum Perrum existimas aedificari totam Ecclesiam, quid dicturus es de Jo­hanne filio Tonitrui, & Apostolorum unoquoque? nū audebimus dicere, quòd adversus Petrum unum non praevaliturae sunt por­tae Inferorum? an soli Pe­tro dantur claves regni coelorum? Orig. in Mat­thaeum, Tract. 1. If thou think, that the whole Church is built onely upon [Page 21] Peter, what wilt thou say of John, the Son of Thunder, and of every of the Apo­stles? Shall we dare to say, that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail onely against Peter? or, are the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven given onely unto Peter? Seeing Saint Cy­prian Cyprian. De simpli­citate Praelatorum. avers, Hoc erant alii, quod Petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris, & potesta­tis: The rest of the Apostles were the same, that Peter was, all endowed with the like fellowship both of honour, and power. That Saint Ambrose, balancing them in Scri­pture-scales, is at a stand, Inter Petrum, & Paulum▪ quis cui praeponatur; of Peter, and Paul, whether of the two should be preferred before the other. And, if Gre­gory, Gregorius, lib. 4. Epistol. 32. who was a Bishop of Rome him­self, may be believed, Petrus universalis Apostolus nonvocatur: Peter is not called an Universal Apostle. And for your Criticism, that [...], and [...] are Synonomous, Budaeus [...]. Budaeus in Lexico. denies it, unless in a Dialect the Gospel owns not. Whether our Saviour used the Hebrew, or Syriak word, Cephas, is uncertain, [...]. Aristoteles, lib. 1. De Coelo, cap. 11. text. 110. and more certain, if he did, it is [...], and concludes no­thing, amounting but to a fallacia aequi­vocationis in the one Language, to a Paro­nomasia, or collusion of words, in the other. And Christ's promise of the Keys to Pe­teter inferrs no more, then Saint Augustine gathers from it, Petrus pro omnibus dixit, & cum omnibus accepit: Peter was the mouth, and spake for the rest of the Apostles, and received the promise with all the rest. [Page 22] Now, to concenter all these lines in one point; If by the Rock be meant princi­pally either Faith confessing, and relying upon Christ the Rock himself; or instru­mentally the Apostles, who were all Equal, and by a joynt Commission received the Keys; it comes far short of proving the Supremacie of Peter over the rest of the Apostles, and the whole Church.

I have not what further to re­ply in that, being mistaken in the Fathers, which I see are unanimous against us: yet, before I surrender this Hold, Ajacis Clypeus, & [...]. in which our Side most confides, let me hear what you can say to the other Scripture, where­by Christ commissioned Peter to Feed, that is rule, his Sheep, and feed his Lambs, and that thrice repeated in presence of the rest of the Apostles: whence our Pope Bo­niface concludes, Dominus dixit gene­raliter, Pasce oves meas, non singulariter has, aut illas: ergo commisisse in­telligitur universas. De Majoritate, & obedi­enti [...]. The Lord said generally unto Peter, Feed my flock, he said not specially, Feed these, or these: therefore, we must understand, he committed all his flock to him.

Your Premises are weak, and Boniface his Conclusion consequentleess. What can be more ridiculous, then this Inference? Christ said to Peter, Feed my Sheep; he said it thrice, he said it in the Presence of the Apostles; [...] si­gnifies also to rule; Therefore he gave him Supremacy over the Apostles: It's my Sheep indefinitely; Therefore he gave him Power over the whole Flock, or Ʋ ­niversal Church, Prince, and People. To [Page 23] answer; St. Augustine, Augustin. supra lo­cum. and the Pri­mitive Fathers gave other reasons. Christ said to Peter thrice, Feed my Flock, in relation to his threefold Denyal; that he, that abjured him thrice, might be ad­jured to Fidelity in his Pastoral Charge, by this Advice repeated thrice. He said it in the Presence of the Apostles, that they, that were scandalized with his fall, might be confirmed by his Establishment, and make use of the Instruction, which al­so concerned themselves. Haec, velut ad Petrū dicta, sunt omnium com­munia. Orig. in Mat­thaeum, Tract. 1. These words, being spoken, as it were, unto Peter, are common to all the Apostles, saith O­rigen. [...] not onely in St. Matthew, and Homer; but in Plato [...]. Plato, lib. 1. De Legibus. (who also u­seth the same words) signifieth to rule; but is (as Budeus saith) Pastorum more gu­bernare, & curare gregem; To rule, and take care of the Flock, Pastour-like. As the Father of Hippo emblazons it, Non te pascere cogita; sed oves meas, sicut meas pasce, non sicut tuas: glo­riam meam in illis quaere, non tuam; Dominium meum, non tuum; lucra mea, non tua. August. in Johannem, Tract. 123. Think not to feed thy self, feed my Sheep; feed them as my Sheep, not as thine own; seek mine Honour in them, seek not thine; seek my Dominion, and not thine; seek my Gains, and not thine own. No man ever denyed this Feeding, this ruling of the Flock to St. Peter; nor did Peter himself ever deny it to any other Pastour; but said, [...]. Feed, or, if you will, for it is the same word, rule the Flock of God, which is among you, [...], 1. Pet. v. 2, 3. taking the Over­sight thereof; not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy Lucre, but of a [Page 24] ready mind; neither as [...], over-ruling (or being Popes) over God's Heritage; but being Ensamples to the Flock. Where you see St. Peter yields that to every Pastor, which Christ yields to him. But, says Boniface, Christ said to St. Peter, Feed my Sheep: There­fore he committed all his Flock to him. What sequel more then in this? Peter said to all Pastours, Feed the Flock: Therefore he committed the whole Flock to all Pastours. Bishop Jewel Defence of the Apo­logic of the Church of En­gland, page 92. Bishop Jewel. challenges the Romanists to produce the Authority of one antient learned Father, that ever made this Collection; but ne [...] qui­dem: yet we deny not, but St. Peter had Commission to feed, and rule the whole Church; but it was a joint Com­mission with the rest of the Apostles, upon whom Christ breathed alike, say­ing, John xx. 22. 23. Receive the Holy Ghost, whose Sins ye remit, they are remitted, and whose Sins ye retain, they are retained: gave them mission, and commission alike in the same extent, and latitude, Matthew xxviii. 19. Go teach all Nations, &c. Whereupon St. Hierom Hierom. Contra Jo­vinianum, lib. 1. saith, All the Apostles received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Stability of the Church was built equally upon them all.

But, though I should be forced to relinquish my hold from these Texts, and the antient Commentaries, and Glosses thereupon; yet it is undeniable, that the Fathers give St. Peter Primacy over the rest of the Apostles; for St. Chrysostom [Page 25] Chrysost. in Mat­thaeum Homil. 83. Ho­mil. 87. Homil. 55. calls him Verticem Apostolorum the Head of the Apostles; the Head, and Pastour of the Church; the Master of the World, Ruler over all the World.

So doth the same St. Chry­sostom Chrysost. ad Rom. Homil. 18. call Elias Caput Prophetarum, the Head of the Prophets: yet had not E­lias Primacy over Moses, and all his Col­legues. He gives Paul Nullus Paulum an­tecedit, de ea re nemo omnium dubitat. Chrysost. de laudibus Pauli. Chrysost. in Gene­sin Homil. 7. in Genesin Homil. 11. Prehemi­nence over all the rest, over the World: Paulus Magister Orbis, Paul the Master of the World. And from Generalities con­descends to induction of particulars. Paulo tribuitur cura omnium Ecclesiarum, non unius, vel duarum, vel trium, sed omnium, quae sunt in toto orbe. Chry­sost. in Johan. Homil. 11. in Act. 53. Paulo tribuitur cura omnium Ecclesiarum, non unius, vel duarum, vel trium: Ʋnto Paul the charge of all Churches is given, not of one, or two, or three Churches, but of all the Churches, that be in the world. Gregory, Gregor. 1 Reg. lib. 1. cap. 4. a Roman Prelate himself, stiles Paul, caput Nationum, the Head of Nations. Eleutherius, Epistola Eleutherii ad Episcopos Galliae. Stow, Chronic. another Bishop of Rome, writing to the Bishops of France, says, Ʋniversalis a Christo vobis com­missa est Ecclesia: The Ʋniversal Church is committed to you by Christ. Chrysostom Chrysost. in Epist. ad Phil. Homil. 13. calls the Women of Philippi, caput Ecclesiae, the Head of the Church: and sa­lutes Theodosius the Emperour Chrysost. ad populum Antiochen. Homil. 2. with this Encomium, Summitas, & caput omni­um supra terram hominum; the Height, and Head of all men upon Earth. Yet nei­ther had St. Paul, nor the Gaulish Bishops, nor the Women of Philippi, nor Theodosius the Emperour Primacy over the Apostles, or Superintendency over the whole Church.

[Page 26]

But St. Ambrose saith, Ambros. in locum, cap. 24. Christus Petrum amoris sui veluti Vicari­um reliquit: Christ left St. Peter, as the Vi­car of his love: which Attribute, and Elo­gy is not given to any of the Apostles.

He saith not expressly his Vicar, but as his Vicar: which, Ter­tullian being Judge, is the Holy Ghost's pe­culiar: who, speaking of Christ, saith, Misit vicariam vim Spiritus Sancti, qui cre­dentes agat. Tertull. De praescriptione adversùs Haereticos. He, sitting at the Right Hand of God the Father, instead of himself, sent the power of the Holy Ghost, as his Vicar, to direct them, that believe. But, if St. Peter in a borrowed Sence may be termed Christ's Vicar, the Stile is but the same Eleuthe­rius of Rome gave Lucius, first King of Britain; And that Eusebius gives not onely the Apostles, but all Ministers, say­ing, Eusebius Episcopus Romanus, Epist. 3. 2. Cor. 5. Caput Ecclesiae Christus est. Christi au­tem Vicarii Sacerdotes sunt, qui vice Christi le­gatione funguntur in Ec­clesia. Christ is the Head of the Church, and his Vicars are the Priests, that do their Embassage in the Church in place of Christ. Now the Collection would be wilde, E­leutherius stiles King Lucius, and Eusebi­us calls all Priests Christ's Vicars: There­fore Lucius had, and all Priests have Su­premacy over the whole Church. But I beseech you, if it should be granted, that Peter was Christ's Vicar in some peculiar Sense, (supposito, sed non dato) what makes it for the Pope's Supremacy, and Autho­rity over the Catholick Church in gene­ral; which is the Question?

It makes in this, That Peter fixed his See at Rome, and delegated his Plenipotentiary Power to the Bishops, his [Page 27] Successours there; that what Power he had, he left it in Fee, and hereditary to them.

You speak much in little; for this is 2 Thess. ii. 7, 8. [...], the my­stery of that wicked one: wherein is touched, Doctour Sclater upon Thessal. pag. 94. First, Temerarium, a rash avouchment, that Peter fixed his Episco­pal See at Rome. Secondly, Erroneum, a palpable mistake, that he could delegate his Apostolick Power to Successours. Thirdly, Haereticum, a notorious falsity, little less then Fundamental, that he actually invested the Bishop of Rome with his Apostolick Power, derivative to all Posterity.

Will you deny, that Peter fixed his Episcopal See at Rome? when the Fathers so frequently call Rome the Seat of St. Peter.

Gildas, pag. 2. E­pist. De excidio Bri­tanniae. So Gildas the Wise calls Britain St. Peter's Seat, telling the Bri­tish Priests, Quod sedem Petri Apostoli in­verecundis pedibus usurpassent; that They had usurped the Apostle St. Peter 's Seat, with unreverent Feet: I hope you will not conclude hence, that St. Peter fixed his Episcopal See in Britain; which is as genuine Logick, as the former. That Peter was ever so much as at Rome, you have neither Scripture Proof, nor Pre­sumption. Vellenus printed by Illyricus. Vellenus, with many others, proves the contrary. Consider but these Reasons impartially: Whereas Peter is said to come to Rome the Secundo anno Claudii, Petrus Apostolus Romā venit; qui annos aliquot anteà Antiochiae praedica­verat, & hic initium su­mit Romana Ecclesia. Carion. Chronic. lib. 3. pag. 122. second year [Page 28] of Claudius, and to reside there twenty five years, which is till the last of Nero; why doth St. Paul, writing his Epistle to the Romans, the last year of Claudius, or first of Nero, make no mention of Peter, saying, Rom. 1. 5, 6. that They were called of Jesus by his Apostleship a­mongst all Nations. Secondly, In the last Chapter, he greets, and salutes near thir­ty eminent Saints at Rome, with their Families; and names not Peter, which had been an irreverent oversight, if he had been resident, as Primate there. Thirdly, Claudius banished all Jews from Rome; Peter was a Galat. ii. 7, 8. Jew. Fourthly, August. in Epist. ad Galat. cap. ii. The Gospel of Circumcision, that is to preach to the Jews wheresoever scattered, was committed unto Peter; but the Romans were Gentiles Ʋncircum­cised. Lastly, The Antients, that averr Peter's residence so many years at Rome, contradict the Stories of the Acts of the Apostles, and amongst themselves vary, speaking the confused Language of Ba­bel. But, admit Peter was at Rome, will it follow, he was fixed as Bishop there?

Doth not St. Augustine give a lineal Succession from Damasus, who was Bishop at Rome in his time, till St. Peter? And Doctour Pocklington, Pocklington; Sun­day no Sabbath. one of your own, glories, that he can derive his Pedigree from Augustine the Monk, Bishop of Canterbury, and from thence ascend the Scale of Primitive Succession till St. Peter.

[Page 29]

Not from Saint Peter, as Bishop of Rome; but as an Apostle, who, with his Collegues, or Fellow-Apostles, ordained Elders, and Bishops of their times; they, succeeding Pastours, and Teachers, to the world's end. Thus the Apostles divided the earth amongst them; Saint Paul ordained Timothy at Ephesus, Titus at Crete, Saint John Polycarp at Smyrna, and other Bishops of Asia; Saint Bartholomew had his Successours in India, Saint James in Spain: yet Paul was no Bishop of Ephesus, or Crete, John of Asia, Bartholomew of India, or James of Spain. The Apostleship was an Extra­ordinary Office, which expired in the Twelve, and was incommunicable to Po­sterity, and would have been disparaged by Confinement to a particular Charge. Thus Irenaeus; Irenaeus, lib. 3. cap. Contra Haereses. It is easie (saith He) for all men to see, that will see the Truth, the antient Traditions of the Apostles in the Church, through the whole World; and we can reckon those, that were ordained Bi­shops of the Apostles themselves, and their Successours also, even until our selves.

Confutation of the A­pology of the Church of England. Harding a­gainst Jewel. page 95. Apostolick Power was two­fold: either extraordinary, common to Saint Peter, with the rest of the Apostles; this expired in them, and was incommu­nicable to Successours: or ordinary, which was Saint Peter's peculiar Privi­lege; and this he bequeathed to his Suc­cessours, Bishops of Rome.

This is that Erroneum, pal­pable [Page 30] Mistake maintained by Petrus de Palude, who said, Nullus Apostolorum praeter Petrum factus est à Christo Episcopus; alii Apostoli nullam po­testatem jurisdictionis à Christo receperunt; specialiter post Christi Ascensum fuit collata eis à Petro. Petrus de Pa­lude, De potestato Apo­stolorum, Art. 2. That None of all the Apostles, save onely Peter, was Bishop by Christ: and that The rest of the Apostles received no Power of Jurisdiction at Christ 's hand; but that specially, after Christ 's Ascension, it was given unto them by Peter. Blasphemy worthy of tearing of Garments, as highly prejudicial to Christ's Prerogative, and contradictory to Scripture; as Paul declares, Gal. 1. 1. Paul an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father. Whereupon Saint Chrysostom Paulus nihil opus habe­bat Petro, nec illius ege­bat voce; sed honore par erat illi: nihil hic enim dicam ampliùs. Chrysoft. in Epist. ad Galat. cap. 1. Comments thus; Paul had no want of Pe­ter, nor had any need of his Suffrage, or Allowance, but in honour was his equal: here I will say no more; meaning, he was, in some Sense, his Superiour. And Saint Augustine August. in Epist ad Gal. cap. 2. makes Peter, without a­ny distinction, Fellow, and equal with the other Apostles; avouching, that Christus, sine Personarum acceptione, hoc dedit Pau­lo, ut ministraret Gentibus, quod etiam Petro dederat, ut ministraret Judaeis: Christ, without any respect of Persons, gave the same Authority to Paul, to mini­ster among the Gentiles, that he gave to Peter, to minister among the Jews. Whence is gatherable, that rather Saint Paul, who writ to the Romans, preached at Rome, lived, and dyed there, should have had this ordinary Delegation (if any) then Saint Peter, who was designed the Minister of Circumcision: which he him­self [Page 31] knew well, when he said Galat. ii. 9. James, Cephas, (that is Peter) and John, who seemed to be Pillars, gave to me, and Bar­nabas, the right Hand [...], of Fellow­ship; that is aequalitatis, of equality, saith the Gloss: and further, Non didici ab aliis, tanquam à majoribus; sed contuli cum illis, tan­quam cum amicis, & paribus. Glossa Ordi­naria, ad Galat. 2. I learned not of Peter, and others, as of my betters; but I had Conference with them, as with my equals, and Friends. So that this Di­stinction of extraordinary, and ordinary Jurisdiction, which gives Saint Peter a special Legislative Power, is Scripture­less, and a mere Popish Chimera.

Though there be no ground for it in Scripture, yet it may be demon­strated from Tradition of the Church, as the Cause from the Effect; that St. Peter had this Power, and delegated it to his Successours, who, without inter­ruption, have enjoyed it since. Nil dat, quod non habet: as our Gerson, once Chan­cellour of Paris avers; saying, Sicut Christo colla­ta est omnis potestas in coe­lo, & in terra, sic eam Christus omnem Petro, suisque Sucessoribus dere­liquit. Gerson. De pote­state Ecclesiae, Consid. 12. part. 3. As all Power in Heaven, and in Earth, is col­lated upon Christ, so Christ hath delega­ted it to Peter, and his Successours.

This is that third thing, [...] Haereticum, a notorious falsitie, which Franciscus a Victoria, a Friar of your own, and once Professour of Divinity in the Ʋniversitie of Salmantica, confesses; saying, Victor. De potestate Ecclesiae, Relect. 1. Sect. 1. 1. pag. 39. Glossatores Juris hoc Dominium dederunt Papae, cum ipsi essent pauperes re­bus, & doctrina: The Glossers of the Ca­non-Law, (not Saint Peter) gave the Pope this Dominion; when they themselves were [Page 32] poor in estate, and Petits in Learning. Which Pope Zosimus Zosimus in Concili. Africano. himself was con­scious of, when, in that long contention with the Bishops of Africa, touching his Supremacie, he alleged not one word out of the Scriptures; but only the Council of Nice, which he himself had falsified. And Meltiades, Meltiades in Epistola Ad Episcopos Hispaniae. writing hereof to the Bishops of Spain, claims it only by Cu­stom, not by Donation of Peter, or Di­vine Right. The Spring, and Rise where­of Philip Mornay Historia Papatus, quibus gradibus ad id Fa­stigii enisus sit. Philippus Mornaius Plessiacus. in his Mystery of Iniquity, or History of the Popedom, dis­covers: and is a Truth so clear, that it extorts this Confession from Bellarmine; Bellarmin. lib. 5. De Romano Pontifice, cap. 9. Etiamsi nihil horum extaret, abunde sufficeret praescriptio 800. Annorum; nam etiam regna, & imperia per latrocini­um acquisita, tandem longo tempore fiunt legitima: Though the Prescription of eight hundred years be sufficient; for even Kingdoms, and Empires gotten by robbery, through continuance of time, become law­full.

This is a shrewd confession of so Learned a Cardinal, and gives our cause a deadly blow. There are four things, wherein Supremacie consists. First, Reformation of the Church. Second­ly, Calling of Councils, and Synods. Thirdly, Promulgation of Church-Laws, and Edicts. Fourthly, Receiving of Ap­peals, and giving Decisions. Have not Bishops of Rome exercised all these, since the Apostles times? According to Gerson, [Page 33] Sicut non est potestas, nisi à Deo; sic nec ali­qua temporalis, vel Eccle­siastica, Imperialis, vel Re­galis, nisi à Papa; in cujus femore scripsit Christus. REX REGUM▪ DOMINUS DO­MINANTIUM. Gerson. De potestate Ecclesiae, Consider. 12. part. 3. As there is no Power, but of God; so neither any Temporal, or Ecclesiastical, Imperial, or Regal Jurisdiction, but of the Pope, in whose Thigh Christ hath writ, KING OF KINGS, LORD OF LORDS.

You shall finde upon Exami­nation, for all Gerson's Blasphemy; that not one of these was exercised by the Bishops of Rome, in the Primitive Times. First, Reformation of the Church, by a­bolishing Idolatry, Superstition, and He­resie, and placing of true Religion, was practised by Constantine, and all the god­ly Emperours, his Successours. The Em­perour [saith Eusebius Tanquam communù Episcopus à Deo constitu­tus. Eusebius, De vita Constantini, lil. 1. cap 37.] put down I­dolatry, established Christian Religion, composed differences of Bishops, suppressed Heresies, and Schisms, heard Causes of Religion, and judged them in his own Per­son; made Laws, Decrees, Edicts, and Orders for Religion; and all this, as a common Bishop, or Over-seer, ordained of God. This in special Constantine en­gaged to perform against the Fomenters of Arrianism, and Fautours of Arrian Bishops; saying, Pestium illarum au­dacia ministri Dei, hoc est, meá, executione coer­cebitur. Theodoret. lib. 1. cap. 19. The Boldness of such (Bishops, and others) shall be brought in order by the execution of God's Minister, that is, my self. And the sixth Toletan Council, speaking of Chintillanus the King, saith, Concil. Toletan. vi. cap. 14. Nefas est in dubium de­ducere ejus potestatem, cui omnium guber­natio superno constat delegata judicio. It is an heinous Offence to call his Power (not the Pope's) into Question, to whom, it is [Page 34] apparent, that the Government of all is de­legated by the Divine Decree.

Secondly, Calling of Councils, and Sy­nods, was by the Authority of Empe­rours; not Bishops of Rome. As the four first General Councils were called by four Emperours: The Nicene Council, against Arrius, by Constantine. The Council of Constantinople, against Ma­cedonius, by Theodosius the Elder. The Council of Ephesus, against Nestorius, by Theodosius the Younger. The Council of Chalcedon, against Eutyches, by Martian. The Council of Sardis, by Constans, and Constantine. And many more for many Centuries after Christ: and that not (as Bellarmine Bellarm. De Cen­ciliis, lib. 1. cap. 13. saith) Authoritate Rapae, By the Pope 's Authority; which appears, in that Leo, Bishop of Rome, made Sup­plication Supplicationi nostrae dignetur Imperator annu­ [...]c. Leo. Epist. 9. to Theodosius, that he would call a Council in Italy; but the Emperour called it at Ephesus: and the Bishops of Italy could not come in time; so that Eutyches his Heresie was there counte­nanced by means of Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria. Then Leo made a second Supplication Leo, Epist. 24. and alledged the Tears of all the Clergy for to obtain a Council it Italy. Then he solicited the Empe­ress Pulcheria Leo, Epist. 26. to further his Supplica­on to the Emperour; he wrote Leo, Epist. 23. to the Nobles, Clergy, and People of Con­stantinople, to join with him in Supplica­tion to the Emperour, yet could not ob­tain it in the time of Theodosius. When [Page 35] Martian succeeded, by the favour of Pulcheria, a Council was called, not in Italy, but at Chalcedon. Then Leo made a fresh Suit, Leo, Epist. 43. that the Emperour would command the Bishops of the Coun­cil, that the Faith of the Nicene Council might stand in full force, unaltered: which the Emperour did at his Request, and the Emperour's Oration Oratio Martiani in Concilio Chalcedoneusi to that purpose is extant. Now, if Supplication, Intercession of Friends, Sighs, and Tears of Priests be the Authority of the Pope; let him, in God's name, use it still. And, as in the Calling, so in the Subscription of the Council you may further see his Au­thority; Because (saith Leo Leo, Epist. 56. to the Emperour) I must by all means obey your Sacred, and Religious Will, I have set down my Consent, in writing, to those Constitu­tions. Here you see, it is plain, Coun­cils were called by Princes at the Pope's Petition, and subscribed at their Com­mand. Therefore, when Ruffinus Doce, quis eum jusse­rit Imperator convocari [...]è Hieron. in Apologia contra Ruffinum. alledged the Canon of a Council, against Saint Hierom; his Answer was, Shew, what Emperour commanded this Council to be called. I will shut up this Point with Socrates his words, who, giving a rea­son, why in his Church-Story, he made so often mention of Emperours, saith, Propterea, quòd ex illo tempore, quo Constantini esse ceperunt, negotia Ec­clesiae ex eorum nutu pon­dere visa sunt, atque adeò maxima Concilia de e­orum sententia convocata faerunt, & adhuc convo­cantu [...]. Socrat. lib. 5. in Prooemio. Since Emperours became (like Constan­tine) Fathers of the Church, the Causes of the Church have depended upon their ill; and therefore the greatest Councils have been, and yet are called by their Authority.

[Page 36]

The third work of Supremacy is Pro­mulgatio Legum, Promulgation of Church-Laws, and Edicts, expedient for Ec­clesiastical Government. And this was performed by Kings, and Emperours, not Pope's, as Church-Stories are pregnant Proofs. Constantine made many Laws concerning Confessours, and Martyrs, Christians, and Heathens. Eusebius Euseb. De vita Constantini, lib. 2. cap. 20, 21, 24, 44. mentioneth two Laws; one, that a­bolished Idolatry, Images, Sacrifices, and Divinations: another, concerning build­ing, and enlarging of Churches, at the Emperour's Charge. Theodosius made a Law against the Arrians, occasioned thus; Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, having been a long Suitour in vain, used this Stratagem, saluting the Emperour, slighted his Son Arcadius, newly Crea­ted Caesar, which the Father interpret­ing as a Contempt of his Son, grew an­gry, till Amphilochius, discovering him­self, said, Theodoret. lib. 5. cap. 5. Art thou offended, Empe­rour, that I reverence not thy Son? And thinkest thou, that God is not offended with the Arrians, that blaspheme his Son? The Emperour, overcome with these words, Legem scribit, made a Law against the Assemblies of the Arrians. I will not enter particulars, but refer you to the Titles De summa Trinita­te, & side Catholica. De sacro sanctis Ecclesiis. De Episcopis, & Clericis. De Haereticis, &c. of the Civil Law, which were promulgated by Justinian, Theodosius, Valentinian, Honorius, Arcadius, and other Godly, and Religious Empe­rours.

[Page 37]

There is a Collection of Ecclesiastical Laws made by Charls the Emperour, Lodovick, and Lotharius, gathered by Ansegmus, Anno 827. Ansegmus. Of Charls his Laws there be an hundred sixtie eight; of the Laws of Lewis, and Lotharius an hundred fiftie seven. In the Preface, the Emperour Charls professeth, Quapropter & nostros missos ad vos direximus; qui, ex nostri nominis au­thoritate, una vobiscum corrigerent quae corrigenda essent. that he hath di­rected his Commissioners (here you see Princes Commissioners, and Visitours are antient) that shall joyn, with others, to re­dress those things, which need Reformation, according to his Canonical Constitutions in his name, and by virtue of hi [...] authoritie. Gregory the First Gregor. Epist., Bishop of Rome wrote a submissive Letter to Mauritius the Em­perour, and another to Theodorus, his Phy­sician, to intreat the revocation of a Law invented by Julian, and that in a very humble Stile, Ʋtrolique ergo quod debui, exolvi; qui & Im­peratori obedientiā praebui [...] & pro Deo, quod sensi non tacui. Gregor. Epist. 61. lib. 2. Ego quidem jussioni ve­strae subjectus: I, your Servant, and sub­ject to your command, have sent this Law to many parts of the World, and now I write my opinion to your Majestie: in both I have done my duty; I have performed mine obedience to the Emperour, and I have not concealed what I thought fit for God's cause. And Saint Augustine saith Hoc jubent Imperato­res, quod & Christus ju­bet; quia, cùm bonum jubent, nemo jubet, nisi per eos Christus. August. Epist. 166. of this power of Laws, When Emperours command that, which is good; it is Christ, and no man else, that commandeth by them.

The fourth work of Supremacie is re­ceiving of Appeals, giving Decisions, Re­stitutions, and Deprivations, and other [Page 38] punishments of Bishops for Causes Eccle­siastical; which in Primitive Times fell to the judicature of Princes, not Popes: for when Donatus Vide Optatum libr. 1. & August. Epist. 162, 166. had procured Cecilianus to be condemned by seventy African Bi­shops, and had set up another Bishop in his See of Carthage; he appealed to Constan­tine, the Emperour, and desired him to assigne him Judges: Constantine, by Commission extant in Eusebius, Eusebius, lib. 1. cap. 5. dele­gated, and authorised Meltiades, Bishop of Rome, to hear the cause; who gave Sen­tence for Cecilianus: upon a second Ap­peal Euseb. lib. 10. cap. 5. Constantine made a second Dele­gacy to Chrestus, Bishop of Syracuse; who likewise gave Sentence with Cecili­anus: upon the third Appeal, Constantine appointed Elianus, a Civil Magistrate, to examine Felix; who acquitted Felix also. Then the Emperour called both Parties before him, and gave final Sen­tence for Cecilianus, and made a severe Law against the Donatists. In which Passage, I pray you, observe; First, that Meltiades, not as supreme Judg of all Controversies, but as delegated by Con­stantine, did judg of Cecilianus his Cause: and Saint Augustine August. Epist. 162. defended him from usurpation upon the seventie Afri­can Bishops; because the Emperour, not Saint Peter appointed it. Next the Bi­shop of Syracuse did judg the same Cause after Meltiades, without any wrong to the See of Rome; no man in that Age found fault with it. And Thirdly, It is [Page 39] apparent, that Constantine was superiour to Meltiades, and both made him his De­legate, and Judge of his Sentence, and Judgement; which Saint Augustine Ʋltimum Judicium, ultra quod Causa pertran­sire non potest. Augustin. contra Parmenian. lib. 1. cap. 6. calleth the last Judgement, beyond which the Cause could not pass. Socrates, lib. 5. cap. 10. Theodosi­us calling a Council of all Opinions, where Nactarius, and Agilius made the Confession [...] of Consubstantiality; De­mophilus delivered up the Arrian Faith; Eunomius the Eunomian Faith; Eleusi­us the Macedonian Faith: Then the Emperour, alone, separated from all Company [saith Tum solus, & separa­tus, precatur Deum. So­crates, suprá. Socrates] made his Prayers to God to direct him in the Truth; and then he read the several Faiths, and condemned, and rent all the rest, that rent, and divided the Trinity; and commended, and approved that Faith of the Consub­stantiality of the Father, and the Son.

You have satisfied me suffici­ently in these; onely one Scruple re­mains behinde, how the Bishop of Rome came to this height, that he is the Head of Councils, Papa sit, qui posset transferre Reges, & re­gna. Gerson. De potestate Ecclesiastica; Consider. 12. dethrones Princes, and disposes Kingdoms.

Not at once; but by several Steps: for Popish Primacy is a Mystery of Iniquity, and insinuated by Degrees.

The first Step was the Departure of the Emperour Constantinus from Rome to Constantinople: at which time, Gratian saith, he gave his whole Power, Domini­on, and Territories both in Rome, and Italy, and the West, to the Bishop of [Page 40] Rome; Constantinus Imperator Co­ronam, & omnem Regiam dignitatem in urbe Romana, & in Italia, & in par­tibus Occidentalibus Apostolico concessit: The Emperour gave the Pope his Crown, and all his Royal Dignity in Rome, Italy, and the West. And, in the next Canon, Decrevimus itaque & hoc, ut ipse, & Successores ejus, Diademate, viz. co­ronâ, quam ex capite no­stro illi concessimus, ex au­ro purissimo, & gemmis pretiosis uti debeat pro ho­nore Beati Petri. Grati­an. Distinct. 96. Can. Const. We have made this Decree, that the Pope, and his Successours, shall, for the honour of Saint Peter, wear the Crown of pure Gold, and precious Stones, which We have given him from our own Head. Thus the Decree; though Laurentius Valla, Raphael Ʋolaterranus, Paulus Catthala­nus, Nicolaus Cusanus, and other Po­pish Writers, repute it but fabulous; and even Bellarmine Regna, & Imperia per latrocinium acquisita, tandem longo tempore fiunt legitima. Bellarm. lib. 5. De Romano Pontifice, cap. 9. himself seems to make a Doubt, implyedly ascribing the Original of Popish Claim to Ʋsurpa­tion, and Prescription.

The Second Step was the Fall of the Empire in the West: for, after the Divisi­on of the Empire, it began dayly to de­cline, and was utterly dissolved in Au­gustulus Anno Domini 471., of whom was made this Epigram; Ad Pontac. Bur­deg. pag. 93. Augustus Romanum Imperi­um condidit, Augustulus labefactavit; Augustus set up the Empire, but Augustu­lus pulled it down. And the lower Ebb the Imperial Throne had, the Episcopal See had the higher Tide.

The third Step was the Donation of Phocas; who (having murdered all the Mauricium ipse per­sequi, assequi, in oculis i­psius liberos omnes intersi­cere, pendentem inter a­lios ab uberibus infantem, ac postremò ipsum, tot do­loribus transverberatum, jugulare. Philippus Mor­naius, Mysterii Iniqui­tatis, pag. 112. Emperour Mauricius his Chil­dren in his Sight, amongst the rest, a [Page 41] tender Infant, hanging upon the Nurse's Breast, and lastly him) granted to Boni­face the Third, (that he, this Parricide, might be confirmed in the Empire) Ʋt sanciretur Romanus Pontifex Oecumeni­cus & Summus Episcopus totius Ecclesiae Christianae: That the Bishop of Rome should be established the Oecumenical Pa­triarch, and Bishop of the whole Church of Christ. From that time (saith Cari­on) the Romane Prelates never ceased to labour for the encrease of their Dignity, and Power.

The fourth Step was the Voluntary Charter, which Constantine, the Empe­rour of Constantinople, made Anno Domini 684. Platina in vita Benedicti Secundi. to Pope Benedict the Second; that whomsoever the Clergy, People, and the Romane Souldiers, should chuse to be Bishop, all men should believe him to be the true Vicar of Christ, without tarrying for the Authority of the Emperour of Con­stantinople, or the Deputy of Italy, as the Custom, and manner was ever before that Day.

The fifth Step was the Amity Anno Domini 751. be­tween Zachary Bishop of Rome, and Pi­pin Governour of France, under Chil­derick the King; which Bishop assoiled Pipin, and the other Frenchmen of their Oath of Allegiance, and Fealty made to Childerick, and confirmed Pipin the Traitor in his Master's Kingdom. Which Bellarmine Childericum deposuit Zacharias, & in ejus lo­cum Pipinum, Caroli Magni Patrem, creari jussit. Bellarmin. lib. 5. De Romano Pontif. cap. 8. confesses; saying, Pope Zachary deposed Childerick, and com­manded [Page 42] to place, and invest Pipin, Fa­ther to Charles the Great, in his Throne. For this Kindness the Popes were gratifi­ed by both the Father, and the Son, and all the Caroline Line: for Pipin, having besieged Aistulphus, King of the Lum­bards, at Pavie, forced Anno Domini 756. him to yield up the Exarchate of Ravenna, and Pentapolis into his Hands; who conferred it upon the Bishop of Rome. Ità Roma Roma­nús que Ducatus à Grae­cis ad Romanū Pontifi­cem, propter nefandam corum Haeresin, impieta­témque pervenit. Sigon. lib. 3. De Regno Italiae. So now the Liev-tenants of Constantinople ended their whole Power in Italy; who for­merly had their Seats at Ravenna: and now was he taken out of the way, who, (as the Apostle tells us) did hinder the coming of Anti-Christ, 2 Thes. ii. 7.

The sixth Step was the Vide Philip. Bergo­matem, pag. 277 Constitution of the Electours of the future Empe­rours; for Gregory the Fifth, being a German born, and Kinsman to Otho the Emperour, did appoint Antoninus, part. 3. tit. 22. cap. 5. Sect. 13. Seven Electours of the Empire for ever; viz. the Arch-Bishop of Mentz, the Arch-Bishop of Trevirs, the Arch-Bishop of Colen (all his own Creatures) the Marquess of Brandenburgh, the Count Palatine, the Duke of Saxonie, and the King of Bo­hemia; that the Empire might be esta­blished in their Posterity, and their Blood thereby advanced for ever. Thus I have emblazoned you in brief, how that Beast, that obscurely sprung out of the Earth, was nascent, crescent, regnant, and tri­umphant.

But how came he to have Pow­er [Page 43] here in Britain; for I do not see, that any of these Donations expresly reaches that.

Centur. 6. lib. 5. cap. 17. Anno Dom. 600. By Augustine the Monk, whom Gregory the First sent to convert the Saxons; which being effected, he oc­casioned them to be forced by the Sword to submit to the Romane Slavery; which they knew not before, murdering twelve hundred Students at Bangor, laying the Foundation of Popery here in Blood; as I shall have Opportunity further to dis­cover.

Well; you have almost stag­gered me in this: but, I beseech you, proceed to the Second Article.

The Second Article.

This Proposition is contradictory to that, which was riveted into me, when a Childe. The Holy Catholick Church is the true Church; The Church of Rome is the Holy Catholick Church: Therefore the Church of Rome is the true [Page 43] Church. [...]. Philo. This was the first Syllo­gism I learned, and probably will be the last, (unless I see sufficient Reason to the contrary) that I shall forget.

Sir, your Assumption is palpa­bly false; The Church of Rome neither is, nor ever was the Catholick Church; once it was a sound Member thereof, now, not so much as a sound Member. Dr. Rainolds Rainolds, in his Six Positions. and others, have unan­swerably proved it.

What? not the Romane the Catholick Church, whose Faith Rom. i. [...]. [...], is spoken of throughout the whole World, and hath ta­ken Possession thereof, according to the Divine Poet,

The Romane Church, at the best, was but a particular Church, not the Catholick, or whole: which Saint Paul clears; saying, (Rom. i. 5, 6.) They had received Grace for Obedience to the Faith [...], among all the Gentiles (or all Nations) [...], a­mong whom are ye also. But a Church, which is but one amongst the rest, cannot be the whole, or Ʋniversal Church. It is as absurd to say, that the Romane is the Ʋniversal, or Catholick Church, as to affirm, that England is the Ʋniversal [Page 45] World. Therefore Saint Chrysostome, descanting upon those Words, saith, Romanis scribens, qui, velnt in totius orbis vertice constituti erant▪ nihil, prae reliquis Genti­bus, illis praecipuè adscri­bit. Neque enim ideo, quòd tum potentes erant, & regnabant, plus rerum spiritualium eos habere di­eit; sed Quemadmodū, inquit, omnibus Genti­bus praedicamus, ità & vobis; connumerans eos & Scythis, & Thra­cibus. Nisi enim hoc si­gnificare voluisset, super­fluum erat dicere, In qui­bus estis & vos. Chrysost. ad Rom. Homil. 1. Paul, writing to the Romanes, who were placed, as it were in a sublime Turret of the whole world, ascribes no special prerogative to them above other Nations: for neither then, because they were potent, and bore rule, did he say, they had more of spiritual things: but he saith, As we Preach to all Nations, so to you, reckoning them with the Scythi­ans, and Thracians. And, unless this had been his meaning, it had been superfluous to say, Among whom are ye also. Theodo­ret saith, Theodoret. super Rom. cap. i. He distinguished not them (the Romanes) as having Dominion over the world, from other Nations; but joyned them with them. Eos non, ut qui totius orbis terrarum Dominium obtinerent, aliis Gentibus secrevit, sed aliis commiscuit.

Though the Romane Church be not the Catholick, or whole Church, as the Head is not the whole Body: yet, as all the Members depend upon the Head, and receive Animal Spirits thence; so all the Members of the Ca­tholick depend upon the Romane, and communicate with it. Hence Saint Cy­prian Cyptian. lib. 4. E­pist. 8. calleth the agreement with the Bishop of Rome, and communicating with him, Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem; the firm holding the unity of the Catholick Church. And writing to Antonianus, in the same Book, he accounteth it for one thing to communicate with Cornelius the Bishop of Rome, and to communicate with the Catholick Church.

[Page 46]

The Antients were of ano­ther Judgement; amongst whom Oecu­menius Oecumenius in Rom. cap. 1. pulls down the Romane Crest, in his Commentary upon Rom. 1. 6. say­ing, [...]. Ad modestiam revocat, (so Budaeus renders it) He humbles, (or brings down) their Wisdom, [the Romanes] as if he had said, Do not think, that the Imperial City [Rome] hath more Prerogative, then others; but ye are called together with other Gentiles. With whom accords Theophylact, say­ing, Hic tollit eorum co­gitationem de Primatu; non enim inquit, Alias an­tecellitis gentes, tametsi imperium vobis usurpetis; verum enim, Perinde ac caeteris, sic vobis praedica­mus, nè igitur turgeatis fastu. Theophyl. in Rom. cap. i. He takes away their Imagination of Primacy: for Paul saith not, Ye excell o­ther Nations, or the rest of the Gentiles, although ye should usurp Rule to your selves; but, We preach even unto you, as we do unto others, lest therefore ye should swell with Pride. There is not that de­pendance of other Churches with Rome; as is of the Members with the Head. The Members cannot live without the Head. The Church was Catholick, before Rome was a Member thereof; and might con­tinue so still, though the Romane Church, and the Hierarchie thereof were wholy extinct. Your Paralogism, taken from Saint Cyprian's Advice, is Complicatio fal­laciarum, a Fardle of Fallacies. First, Non Causae, ut Causae; for the Essence of Catholick Ʋnion did not consist in Communion with the Roman Church [Page 47] Saint Steven, with many thousand, lived, and dyed in the Unity of the Catholick Faith, and never knew Romish Commu­nion. Secondly, Fallacia accidentis; for it is a thing Contingent, and not necessary, that to communicate with the Romish Church is to communicate with the Ca­tholick Church. Christ enjoins the Jews to hear the Scribes, and Pharisees were but Novel Intruders: for An­tigonus Sochaeus was the first, who succeeded Sime­on the Just, being Coëta­nean with Alexander the Great. Godwin, Hebrew Antiquities, lib. 1. page 37. Pharisees; which is more, then to communicate with them: and yet they were not Heads, but unsound Members of the Jewish Church; as appears by our Saviour's Caution, Beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees. The same Saint Cyprian, that calls Agreement with the Bishop of Rome, Catholicae Ecclesia unitatem. [...]prian. lib. 4. Epist. Ʋnity of the Catholick Church, reproves Cornelius, and Stephanus, both Bishops of Rome, and told them, that they were both deceived: and would not therefore agree with them.

But we have been taught, that There is no Salvation out of the Romane Church, that [...], Pil­lar, and ground of Truth; 1 Tim. iii. 15. Whose Doctrine is spread over the Earth.

There is Salvation to them, that are baptized, believe, and repent; Mark xvi. 16. Act. ii. 38. and which have all the ordinary means of Salvation, 1 Tim. ii. 4. but, without Dependance upon the Church of Rome, people may be Baptised, Beleeve, Repent, and have all the ordinarie means of Salvation; as ap­pears [Page 48] by the Jews; Acts ii. 41. the Evnuch, Acts viii. 37. Lydia, Acts xvi. 14. many Gentiles, Acts xiii. 48. the Elect Lady, and her children, 2 John i. 2, 4. the seven Churches of Asia, Apocal. ii. 3. all these Independents of that Church. This is confirmed by Occham Extrae ecclesiam autē Romanam potest esse sa­lus, quemadmodum post Ascensionem Christi fuit salus, antequam Roma­na Ecclesia inchoaretur. Occham, Dialog. part. i. lib. 5. cap. 23. one of your own Schole-men, who proclaims, that Out of the Romane Church may be Salvation, as after our Saviour's Ascension there was Salvation, before the Romane Church had any being. And Aeneas Syl­vius, Ante Concilium Ni­cenum quisque sibi vive­bat, & parvus respectus habebatur ad Ecclesiam Romanam. Aeneas Syl­vius, Epist. 288. who was afterwards Pope Pius the Second, affirmeth, that, the first three hundred Years, Before the Nicene Coun­cil, small regard was had of the Romane Church. Johanes Major Indi, & Christiani, in aliis locis separati, si re­liqua ad fidem necessaria crederent, nescii quod Ro­manus Pontifex caput sit Ecclesiae, durum est dicere quòd sint in statu Da­mnationis. Major. d. 24. q. 3. saith; It were over hard to affirm, that the Indians, and other Christians, which live in remote Countries, should be in the State of Da­mnation for not knowing that the Bishop of Rome is the Head of the Church, if they believe other necessarie Articles to Salva­tion. And Alchasar Alchasar, Comment. in Apocalyp. cap. xx. v. 1. 2. 3. saith, Antequam nuptiae cum Romana Ecclesia per receptam publicae Christianae Fidei consuetudinem celebrarentur; minus frequens cum Ro­mana communio satis fuit: Before such times, as the publick Nuptials between the Romane Church, and other Churches were celebrated by a common-received Custom, a less frequent communion with that Church was sufficient. Neither the Romane, nor any other particular Church, was ever simply the Ground, and Pillar of [Page 49] Truth; but onely the Primitive, Generale Concilium Papae, Cardinalium, Epi­scoporum, Doctorum, in Scripturis Propheticis intel­ligendis non est nunc tantae authoritatis; quamae fu­erit olim Apostolorum col­legium. Dried. De dog­mat. Eccles. lib. 2. part. 58. com­prising the Apostles, the succeeding Ʋni­versal Church, and the Members thereof, onely by Office, and secundum quid: it was not spoken to the Church of Rome, but of Ephesus, which was never the Head of the Church, and is now no Member thereof. Caveat Roma. And, if the Ro­mane Church be spread over sundrie Parts of the World, because some people, pro­fessing the Romane Faith, travail, or re­side in many Countries, and exercise their Religion where they travail, or live; yet this will not demonstrate, that it is the Church universal: for both Jews, and also sundrie other Christians, which are no Romists (as the Syrians, or Melchites, Georgians, Russians, Nestorians of Saint Thomas in India, Jacobites, Copthi, Ha­bassines, Armenians, Maronites) are largely diffused over the world, and exer­cise their Religion in places, where they make their aboad. And there is nothing more presumptuous, Gregor. Nazianzen. Oratione De seipso contra Arrian. Ʋbi illi sunt, quae Ecclesiam multitudine de­finiunt? Chryost. Ad popul. Antiochenum. Ho­mil. 40. August. su­pra Psal. 39. then to make external Fame, and Amplitude (which are things common, and separable) proper Notes of the true Church, and upon this ground to reject smaller Churches, which have less Fame in the world, but more veritie.

Well; admit Salvation be not confined to the Church of Rome, and that it be not the peculiar Ground, and Pillar of Truth; yet it is the Mother-Church: all, or most have received their Christianity from her.

[Page 50]

Rome, when she was the most su­perlative, standing upon her highest tiptoes, was not a Mother, but a Sister, or a Daughter Church, juniour to many. If we look into the original; Jerusalem is the Mother of us all. De Sione exibit Lex, & verbum Domini de Jerusalem; Isai. ii. 3. there Christ was Crucified, there the Apostles were commissioned, there they re­ceived the Holy Ghost, there Stephen first sealed the Truth with his Blood: one of the eldest Sisters was Antioch, where men were first called Christians, not at Rome; whereupon Saint Chrysostom Antiochia caput to­tius orbis. Chrysost. Ad populum Antiochenum. Homil. 3. calleth that Citie, The Head of the whole world. The Apostles divided this Earthly known Globe amongst them; which, in few years after the Passion, they compassed. Where­as it is but pretended by Irenaeus, lib. 3. cap. 3, & 1. Irenaeus, that Saint Peter came to Rome, when Saint Matthew wrote his Gospel, which was in third year of Caius Caligula, and one and fourty after our Saviour's Nativitie, eight after his Passion, during which time the Foundation of Christianitie was laid by the Apostles through the world, who received not their Faith from Rome, but were rather more antient. Titus was sent to Dalmatia, Crescens to Galathia (2 Timoth. iiii. 10.) or Gallia, (so Eusebius Eusebius, lib. 3. calls it) Aventinus in Anna­libus Boiorum. Sabell. Enncad. 7. lib. 4. Trophimus to Orleance, Pho­tinus to Lyons, Lucius of Cyrene to Ger­manie, Barnabas to Millain, Apollinaris to Ravenna; all the Countries, and many more, were converted by these, and others, without Commission from Rome.

[Page 51]

But if not others; yet we of this Nation must acknowledg Rome for our Mother-Church, as receiving our Faith, and Conversion thence.

No: for Britain received the Christian Faith, in a manner as soon as Rome; in the second year of Claudius, and fourtie fourth year after the Nativitie, Simon Zelotes, an Apostle, came hither to Preach the Gospel, as Dorotheus witnesseth. Simon Zelotes, per­agratâ Mauritaniâ, & Afrorum regione, Chri­stum praedicavit tandem in Britannia; ubi cruci­fixus, occisus, & sepultus est. Dorotheus in Sy­nopsi. Simon Zelotes, having passed through Mauritania, and the Regions of Africk, at the last Preached Christ in Britain, where he was Crucified, Slain, and Buried. Ni­cephorus Evangelii Doctrinā ad Occidentalem Oce­anum, Insulás (que) Britan­nicas profert. Nicephor. lib. 2. cap. 40. also avouches, that Simon, ha­ving Preached to many Countries, con­veighed at last the Doctrine of the Gospel to the Western Ocean, and British Islands. With these Baronius, Baron. ad diem 28. Octobr. and the Magde­burgenses Magdeburg. Centur. 1. lib 2. cap. 2. agree, which Gildas the Wise summs up, saying, Interea, glaciali frigore rigente, Insula, &c. In the mean time, while Claudius was raging with bloody War, there imparted it self to this cold Iland (removed off from the visible Sun further, then other Countries) that true, and invisi­ble Sun Christ, which, in the time of Tibe­rius Caesar, had shewed himself to the whole World. Theodoret, Sophronius, and Ar­noldus Mirmannus Arnoldus Mirman­nus in Theatro, quarto Neronis, Anno Dom. 59. affirm Saint Paul to have passed to Britain, the fourth year of Nero, and there to have s [...]wn the Seed of Life. To these I might add Aristobulus (whom Saint Paul nameth in his Epistle to the Romanes) recorded Mirmannus in The­atro De conversione Gentium, pag. 43. Do­roth in Synops. Baron. out of the Greek Marty­rol, ad diem 25. Matrii. by Mir­mannus, [Page 52] Dorotheus, and Baronius, to have propagated the Gospel in Britain. As also Joseph of Arimathea with his ten Compa­nions, who pitched in the Iland Avallonia, where Glastenbury after was builded, thence called in our ancient Records Capgravius, Poly­dore Virgil, Cambden, Harpesfiend, Bal [...]us, Flemingus, Scropus. the Burial-place of the Saints: none of these were sent from Rome, nor had any dependence on it.

But the first Christian King of Britain, Lucius, required Eleutherius, Bishop of Rome, to send him Preachers to instruct him in the Christian Faith: and he (as the Chronicles record) sent him two Priests, Damianus, and Fugatianus. So it should seem, that Britain received the Faith from Rome.

How can that be? Seeing Britain received the Faith the fourty fourth year of our Saviour; and Luci­us was not inaugurated King, till the hundred seventy nineth year. By this Computation it appears, the Britains had been Christians above an hundred thirty five years before Lucius, which Baroni­us, a Romane Cardinal, confesses; say­ing, Cum diu alioqui E­vangelium Christi illuc perlatum fuisset, ut testa­tur Gildas Sapiens. Ba­ron. Annal. Long before Damianus, and Fu­gatianus, came here, the Gospel was preached; as witnesseth Gildas the Wise. It is true, Beda, Asser, Flores Historiarum, Record of Saint Asaph 's Church, John Capgrave, Maria­nus Scotus. Lucius, being already a Christian himself, sent Elvanus, and Meduvinus, two learned men in Scri­ptures, with his loving Letters The Epistle of Eleu­therius to Lucius, King of Britain, is extant, lib. Constitut. Londinens. to the Bishop of Rome, importuning him to send the Romane Imperial Laws for reigle­ment [Page 53] of his Kingdom: but he refers him to the Laws of Christ expressed in the Old, and New Testament; whence, he tells him, by the Grace of God, and the advice of his Senatours, he may gather Instructions for ordering of his Subjects. Where observe, First, that the Britains were Christians long before. Secondly, That Lucius himselfe was also a professed Christian. Thirdly, That the Messengers he sent, were mighty in the Scriptures. Fourthly, That they were sent for a di­rectory in the Imperial, or Civil Laws. Fifthly, That the Bishop of Rome challenges no Power of Judicature; but refers him to Scripture, and his Council.

Well; though you have driven me out of these four Holds; That the Church of Rome is not the Catholick Church; That it is not the Head, upon which other Churches, as Members, depends; That Communion with Rome is not necessarie to Salvation; That Rome is not the Mother of all Churches, nor of our British: yet, I hope, I may communicate with Rome, as with a Member of the Catholick Church, and a Sister, having prescription of a thousand years, since Ethelbert, W. Malmesburi­ensis, Marianus, Flori­an. Beda. in whose time Augustine, Melitus, and Justus, Commissioned by Gregory the First, converted the Saxons, and made them, with the Britains, conformable to the Romane Church.

Augustine, and his Companions, were not the first Converters of the Sax­ons, [Page 54] whose Queen Berta Stow, Chronicl. page 90. was Christia­ned long before, having a Bishop with her of incomparable Holiness, whose Name was Letardus. Neither were the Bri­tains conformable, till, almost two hun­dred years after, King Osuvius his incli­nation, and Ecbertus his blandishments betrayed them thereto: how ever it is not lawfull Ʋbi incurritur crimen Haeresis, ibi sides naufra­gium patitur, & perinde ratio verae Ecclesiae am [...]ti­tur. Perez. P [...]a [...]cuch. sid. vol. 1. cap. 14. for you to communicate with the Church of Rome being shame­fully Apostated, and not so much as a sound Member of the Catholick Church.

Your own Doctours approve the Church of Rome to be a true Church; as expressly Bishop Hall in a Sermon, for which when he was checked, he Apologi­zed, that he had delivered the same twen­tie years before, at Paul's Cross, without controul, and appears to Doctour Dave­nant, Bishop of Salisbury, Doctour Pride­a [...]x, and Doctour Ward, Professours in the two Ʋniversities, Doctour Primrose, Preacher of the French Church in London; who all accord with him, as appeareth by their Determinations.

They all accord (it is true) that the Church of Rome, in a Metaphy­sical sence, is a true Church: for so to be Veritas transcendentalis nihil positivum, & reale addit Enti. Eustachius, Metaphys. pag. 42. a Church, and a true Church is all one. Ens, & Verum convertuntur: nihil hoc modo falsum dici potest, nisi quod fictitium, & impossibile est. Every thing thus is True, and nothing (saith Eustachius, Meta­phys. pag. 43. Eustachius) can be called false, but that, which is fained, or impossible. So a Leprous, and Hecti­cally [Page 55] diseased Body, is a true body: a Mon­strous conception, a true conception. Thus the Church of Rome, though she hath lost Tot in Ecclesia ab­usus, & gravissimos mor­bos irrupisse, quibus ad sa­nitatis desperationem ferè laboret. Espenc. Com­ment. Tit. cap. 1. pag. 71. as much of her Primitive composure, as Jason's Ship did, and con­sisteth, in a great part, in a Patcherie of Traditions, hath not lost her truth. But they never acknowledged, the Church of Rome was a true Church, more then a Thief is a true man in a Moral sence, as being notoriously depraved. And, to prove, that the Church of Rome in this sence (which is the Question) is not a true Church, I will demonstrate four things. First, That it is corrupted in Doctrine, Secondly, In Manners. Thirdly, That Rome is Apocalyptical Babylon. Fourthly, That the Romish Hierarchie is Anti-Chri­stian.

Prove these four, and concla­matum est, the Controversie is at an end.

First, The Church of Rome is manifestly corrupted in Doctrine, and therein fallen from the Apostolick, and Primitive puritie. To give some Instan­ces; Christ Nec caro sine sangui­ne, nec sanguis sine carns, jure communicatur. Pa­schas. De corpore, & san­guine Domini, cap. 9. instituted, and gave the Sacrament in both kinds: They rob the Laitie of the one moitie, with a non ob­stante, in the Council of Constance; not­withstanding Christ appointed both Ele­ments: Sit Anathema, Let him be ac­cursed, that saith, one is not sufficient. Christ Non recedet liter Le­gis hujus ex ore tuo: sed meditaberis die, & nocte: ut observes facere omnia, quae scripta sunt in eo. Cyprian. Epist. 74. ad Pom peium. enjoyned the reading of the Scri­ptures, [...], Search the Scriptures: They forbid, and bring un­der [Page 56] the Inquisition all Lay-men, even Regulars unlicenced, that in known Lan­guage read the Scriptures. God saith, Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image: They wholly defalk the se­cond Commandment, and, to make up the Decade, Dichotomize the last. The Scripture saith, [...]psum conteret, The Seed of the woman (Christ) shall bruise the Ser­pent's Head; so See the several pla­ces, as they are quoted by Doctour Raynolds, Ad Anglic. Seminar. Hierom, Irenaeus, Cy­prian, Leo, Serapion, Moses Bar-cepha, Rupertus, Pererius, Isiodorus Clarius, Lipomanus, and St [...]uchus interpret it: Costerus the Jesuit, Picus de Mirandula, Canisius, Gregorie de Valentia, Guido Fa­bricius, maugre the Original, correct it, and make the Vulgar speak, Ipsa conteret, She (the Virgin Mary) shall bruise, &c. Anacletus, and Calixtus, both Bishops of Rome, decreed, Distinctio. 1. Episcop. & 2. pacta. that, after Consecration, all Dominica coena debet omnibus esse communis. Hieron. 1. Cor. xi. present should communicate, or else be thrust out of the Church: They enjoyn, and practise the celebration of Private Masses, onely by the Priests, while the people are Spectatours. In pri­vate Masses (saith In Missis privatis sufficit, si unus sit praesens, scilicet Minister: qui po­puli totius vicem gerit. A­quinas, part 3. Quaest. 83. Art. 5. Aqninas) it is suf­ficient, if there be one present, that is the Minister, that representeth the whole people. Saint Augustine, August. De side, & operibus. with all the Primitive Fathers interpret those words, 1. Cor. iii. 13. The fire shall trie every man's work of what sort it is, of the Fire of Tribulation. Bellarmine Bellarmin. De Purgat. lib. 1. cap. 5. rejects that, and, with his Romane Complices, interprets it of Purga­tory. Saint Augustine saith, Christ [Page 57] spake these words This is my Body, when he gave a sign of his body: Ro­mists say, It is Christ's very body; Ana­thematizing all, that deny Transubstantia­tion. Saint Augustine saith, with Scri­pture; Sine fide etiam, quae videntur, bona opera in peccatum vertuntur: The works, which are done without Faith, though they seem good, are turned into sin. Maldonate, Non sequendum illam opinionem, quam Triden­tinum Concilium nuper merito damnavit, Omnia infidelium opera esse peccata. Maldonat. Com­ment. in Matth. vii. 18. with the Council of Trent, saith, They are not sins. Saint Augustine Augustin. De meri­tis Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 34. saith, I know certain worshippers of Tombs, and Pictures, whom the Church condemn­eth: this the present Church of Rome approveth; whose Mouth Bellarmine is, saying, Bellarmin. De Imag. cap. 6. This Book was witten in the be­gining of Augustin 's first conversion to the Catholick faith. And, as Rome is aposta­ted from the Apostolick, and Primitive Veritie, so even from of the ancient Do­ctrine of their former Bishops. Gregory the First, who lived six hundred years after the Nativitie, saith, Greg. Moral. lib. 19. cap. 13. Art. 6. We do not amiss, if we produce a testimony out of the Books of Maccabees, which, though they are not Ca­nonical, yet are they set forth for the edifi­cation, and instruction of the Church: The Council of Trent saith, Concil. Trident. Sess. 6. If any shall refuse the Books of Maccabees for Canonical Scri­pture, let him be accursed. Gregory saith, Gregor. in Ezek. lib. 1. Hom. 9. In hoc volumine omnia, quae erudiunt, cuncta, quae aedificant scripta, continentur; whatsoever serveth for edification, and instruction, is contained in the Volumes of the Scriptures: Romists say, Scripturae sine Tradi­tionibus nec fuerunt simpli­citer necessariae, nec suffici­entes. Bellarmin. De verbo Domini script. Et, Concil. Trident. Sess. 4. Decret. 1. Scri­pture, [Page 58] without Traditions, are neither simply necessarie, nor sufficient. Gregory saith, Gregor. in sex Psal. poe­n [...]ent. Christ giveth unto his Members the most holy Mysteries of his quickening Body, and Bloody, making a plain difference between the body of Christ offered on the Cross, and the Mysterie of that body offered in the Sacra­ment. The Church of Rome saith, Concil. Trident. Sess. 13. cap. 1. In the Sacrament of the Eucharist, after Con­secration, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God, and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the form of sensible things; that the Jesuit Holcot Holcot in 4. Sentent. Quaest. 3. professeth, If there had been a thousand Hosts in a thousand places, at that very time, when Christ hung upon the Cross, then had Christ been crucified in a thousand places. Gregory saith, Gregor. in lib. Ca­pitulari, capit. 7. apud Cassand. Liturg. 33. pag. 83. Sacerdos Missam solus ne celebret; Let not the Priest alone cele­brate Mass: The Trident Conventicle saith, Concil. Trident. Can. 8. Sess. 22. If any affirm, that Private Masses, in which the Priest alone doth sacramentally communicate, are unlawfull, and therefore ought to be abrogated; let him be accursed. Gregory faith, Gregor. in xxviii. 1. Job. lib. 18. cap. 32. There are some, that glory, that they are saved by their own strength, and brag, that they are redeemed by their own precedent merits; but herein they contradict themselves, for whilest they affirm, that they are innocent, and yet re­deemed, they frustrate the name of redem­ption in themselves. The Roman Prose­lytes say, Rhem. Annot. [...] Hebr. vi. 10. Good works are meritorious, and the very cause of Salvation, so far, that God should be unjust, if he rendered not [Page 59] heaven for the same. Gregory saith Gregor. lib. 7. Epist. 109. to Serenus, Bishop of Massilia; Your Bro­therhood, seeing certain Worshippers of I­mages, broke the Images, and cast them out of the Church; the Zeal, which you had, that nothing, made with hands, should be wor­shipped, we praise. The Church of Rome saith, Concil. Trident. Sess. 15. We teach, That the Images of Christ, the Virgin Mother of God, and other Saints, are chiefly in Churches to be had, and retained, and that due Honour, and Wor­ship is to be given to them Gregory saith, Gregor. lib. 6. Epist. 30. Mauritio. August. lib. 6. Epist. 24. Ego confidenter dico, &c. I confidently say, whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called the Universal Bishop, in the Pride of his heart, is the fore-runner of Anti-Christ. Romane Extravagants say, Subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae definimus omnino esse de necessitate salutis. Bonifac. viii. in Extrag. We define, that every humane Creature, upon necessity of Salvation, must be subject to the Romane Bishop. I could bring you more of the same Bran, as of their depra­ving of Scriptures, Fathers, Councils, their Indices Expurgatorii, and forged Authours, if you will have the Patience to hear.

No; This is sufficient, and more, then I could have believed; but that the Authours, you produce, are so pregnant. I beseech you, proceed to the Second Position, that The Church of Rome is manifestly corrupted in Manners.

Your own Friends, and Fol­lowers testifie, that your Church hath been, for many Ages, notoriously de­filed with the Enormity of Vices. Gerson [Page 60] saith Gerson. Tomo 4. Epistol. Brugis script. pag. 71. in general Terms, that, from the crown of the head, to the sole of the foot, the ulcerous matter of enormous sin hath defiled, and deformed the whole body, and state of Christianitie living under your profession. In the Council of Basil, Concil. Basil. respons. Synodal. pag. 139. Suri­us. it was affirmed, that all Ecclesiastical, and Christian Discipline was, in a manner, ex­tinguished in every place. In the Late­ran Council, that Oppression, Rapine, Adulterie, Incest, and all pestilent Vice, did confound all Sacred, and Profane things; and that Ita in fanctā Navicu­lam impetum facere, ut penè scelerum fluctibus illa latus dederit, & propè mersa, & pessundata sit. Oratio Aegidii, Concil. Lateran. sub Julio ii. the same beat Saint Peter's Ship so impetuously, that it began to hull, or wallow upon the one side. Pla­tina saith, Platina in Marcello 1. Vices were so exalted, and multiplyed, that they hardly left any space for God's Mercy. Macchiavel saith, Macchiavel. Disp. De Republ. lib. 1. cap. 12. pag. 73. There is no place, wherein there is found so litle Pietie, and Religion, as in those people, who dwell nearest Rome. Espenceus saith, Espenc. Comment. Tit. cap. 1. pag. 71. that you have not onely imitated, and matched, but surpassed all the Avarice, Ambition, Lubricitie, and Tyrannie, that was ever heard of amongst the Heathens. Sundry of your own part have written Volumes, [as Alvares Pelag. De planctus Eccles. Alvares Pelagius, Nicho­laus Clemangis, Onus Ecclesiae] contain­ing the Narrations of the outragious wickedness, which reigned among you. Platina Platina, in Johanne xiii. stiles your Grand-fathers Monsters of mankind. In the Council of Constance Concil. Const. Sess. 11. Art. 5. they are called the Dregs of Vice, incarnate Devils. Aventine saith, Aventin. Annal. Boiorum, lib. 3. pag. 211. Nothing was more luxurious, covetous, [Page 61] and proud, then Priests; they spent the Church's Patrimony in gluttonie, riot, upon Dogs, and Queans; and all their Preaching was to maintain their own licentiousness. Matthew Paris saith, Matthaeus Paris, Chron. in Henrico iii. pag. 535. The Prelats of Rome seek not to make people devout, but to fill their Coffers with treasure: They stu­dy not to win Souls; but to encroach upon other mens revenues: They oppress the Godly, and impudently usurp other mens right: They have no care of honestie, or right▪ King John of England, from whom Pope Innocent extorted fourtie thousand Marks at once, and twelve thousand annually, to absolve his Kingdom being Interdicted, said, that Matthaeus Paris, ibid. Anno 1213. pag. 327. He had learned by wofull expe­rience, that the Pope was ambitious beyond all men living, an insatiable Gulf, and thirster after money, and ready, for hope of Gain, like wax, to be moulded to any thing, kind, or degree of wickedness. Alvarez hath these words, Alvarez De planct [...] Ecclesiae, lib 2. Artic. 5. literâ Aleph. Vide Suriū Tomo 4. Concil. pag. 820, 824, 569, 579. Abbatem Usperg. anno 99. Luit­prand. Vit. Pap. lib. 6. cap. 6. Dionys. Carthus. Epist. in sine Comment. Apocal. Petrum Blesens. pag. 39, & 40. The Mystical Sion, the Church, which, in her Primitive state, was adorned of her Spouse with such, and so many Royal Graces, is now clouded, and eclipsed with the black mist of ignorance, iniquitie, and errour, and we behold her cast down from heaven, as a Desert unin­habited of virtue: and, if any godly people remain, they are esteemed as Arabians, and Sarracens. The Prelates of the Church are an army of Devils, potius depraedandis, & spoliandis, & scandalizandis hominibus; quam lucris animarum operam dantes: they rather labour to rob, spoil, and scan­dalize [Page 62] men, then to win souls. The con­sideration of which moved Cornelius, Bi­shop of Bitanto, in an Oration at the Council of Trent, to express himself thus; Ʋtinam à religione ad superstitionem, à fide ad infidelitatem, à Christo ad Anti-Christum, à Deo ad Epicurum, velut pror­sus unanimes, non declinâ­ssent: Dicentes in corde impio, & ore imputencio, non est Deus. Epist. Bi­tant. in Concile Trident. O would to God they (meaning the Romish Prelates, and Dependants) had not fallen with common consent, and that altogether, from true Religion to Superstition, from Faith to Infidelitie, from Christ to Anti­christ, from God to Epicurus; saying, with a wicked heart, and shameless mouth, There is no God.

This is a loud Out-cry, and I am convinced, that our Church was in a great part guilty; but part of this might be kindled from Factions, and Interests; as, at this present, with you, each Sect studies to disparage the other, and render them ignominious.

You might have said so, if I had cited against you, the Evidences of the Albigenses, Waldenses, Wicklifists, Lollards, Taborites, Poor men of Lyons, who were Dissenters from you in Judge­ment; but the Authours I produced, are unbiassed with Partiality, and wholly your own bosom-Friends; who, out of a Sym­pathy, bewailed the Rottenness in their own Bones. No wonder, if, amongst us, Civil Wars have untwisted the Cords of Discipline, and that hath begot Liberty; Liberty, Diversity of Opinions; Diversi­ty of Opinions, Difference in Affections; hence every latter endeavours to rout the former: as the Anabaptists whosoe­ver [Page 63] went before them; the Quakers would dismantle them. It is as antient, as Hostility, for the prevailers to asperse, and burthen the conquered, as they please. But, even in calm Times, the offences of your Church in this Nation were so outragious, that Gulielmus Nu­brigensis, Gulielmus Nubri­gensis, lib. 2. cap. xvi. Roger Hoveden, Anndl. part. post. an Historian of your own, confesses, that the Judges complained to the King, that there were many Robbe­ries, and Rapes, and Murders, to the number of an hundred, committed within the Realm, by Ecclesiastical Persons, in the Compass of one year. And the very Tendency of your Romish Doctrine is to Licentiousness: For, saith Aventine, Quemcunque sceleris obnoxium, Parricidio, In­cestu, Sacrilegio pollutum, continuò, ubi cruciculam vesti assuisset, solutum esse & crimine, & poenâ, d [...] ­clamitabant; quippe, ans [...] hinc acceptâ, inimicos suos prius tollebant, hinc in militiam sacram nomine dabant. Aventin. Annal. Boior. lib. 7. pag. 530. they declare any man guilty of wickedness, contaminated with Parricide, Incest, Sa­crilege, as soon as he hath sewed a Crucifix to his Garment, to be quit from the Crime, and Punishment; which lays open a great Gap to Wickedness; for many first mur­der their Enemies, and then retreat into a Monastery for Sanctuary, and, under the covert of a Cowl, secure themselves. And your Sanctuaries are Harbours, and Dens of Assassines, and other enormous Delinquents tolerated, and supported by your Church; you openly maintain Stews, and receive Nam & Mariscallus Papae de facto eximit [...] ­butum à Meretricibus. Constit. Otho. De con­cubitu Cler. yearly Tribute, and part stake with Harlots.

I always disliked those Sanctu­aries, that were receptacles of Murde­rers, and Assassines, as also toleration of Stews. But, admit the Church of Rome [Page 64] be somewhat corrupted both in Doctrine, and Manners, yet I cannot conceive it is become so vile, as to be that Apocaly­ptical Babylon, which is your third Position; because, in Scripture, Rome is never call­ed Babylon.

Whether Rome, in Scripture, be ever called Babylon, is not much mate­rial; though Jesuits, for want of beter Arguments, prove, that Peter was at Rome, from 1 Pet. v. 15. The Church, which is at Babylon (that is Rome, say they) saluteth you: but Babylon is not taken here literally, either for Babel in Aegypt, called now Cairus; or for that Babylon in Chaldee Justin. Histor. lib. .1 begun by Nimrod, and finished by Ninus, and Semiramis: but figuratively, as your own Jesuit Ribe­ra confesses; saying, Hoc primum constet, nomen Babylonis hic non propriè; sed figuratè ac­cipi: cum dicit mysterium mysticum esse dicit, quod indicat id est arcanum, quippiam latere in nomine Babylonis, nec ità debere accipi, ut sonat. Ribera in Apocal. xiv. Let this be first a­greed upon, the name of Babylon here not to be taken properly, but figuratively: when he saith a Mystery, he shews that to be mystical, he speaks of, that is some hidden thing to be couched in the name of Babylon, and not so to be taken as it soundeth.

But, if Babylon be taken mysti­cally, must it necessarily be interpreted of Rome?

Yes; Jesuits of Rhemes upon Revel. xvii. 5. your Divines of Rhemes are forced to confess, that the first persecuting Emperours were but Fi­gures, and it may well be, that the great Anti-Christ shall sit in Rome also, as his Figures sat in Rome: Bellarmine (p) not only confesses Babylon is Rome, but [Page 65] proves it by the Testimonies of antient Fathers. Ribera saith, Romae conveniunt aptissimè omnia, qua de Babylone dicuntur, at­que illud inprimis, quod alii convenire non potest, Septem capita septem sunt montes. Ribera in Apocalyp. cap. 14. Whatsoever in the Apocalypse is spoken of Babylon agrees most properly to Rome, especially that, which can agree to no other, The seven Heads are seven Hills.

But none of them, that I re­member; interprets it of Rome in the pre­sent state, as now.

No; for that were to yield up their Arms; but they are forced to mi­serable shifts, and to speak the Language of Babel, confounding one another. Bel­larmine saith; By Babel is meant Ethnica Roma sub Imperatoribus, Heathen Rome under Emperors. Viega saith, Sermo non est deantiqua illa Roma, sed de illa, quae flore­bit in extremo mundi tempore: The Speech is not of old Rome, but of Rome, as it shall be in the last time of the World. Ribera joyns both together, saying, Quicquid mali de Roma scribitur in hac A­pocalypsi, vel ad tempus illud spectat, quo Gentili­bus Imperatoribus servi­ebat, vel Pontificatum suum à se ejecerat. Ribera in Apocalys. cap. 14. Whatso­ever evil is spoken of Rome, in this Apoca­lypse, pertains either to that Rome, which was subject to Heathen Emperours, or to that Rome, that will eject the Bishop of Rome. For they grant the Pope will be cast out of Rome, and that the Citie will be ruinated. Thus you see, how they reel, Some say Rome was Babylon; others say, it will be; none deny, that Babylon, spoken of by Saint John for the chief Seat, and Citie of Anti-Christ, is Rome.

I confess, they are brought into great straits, when forced to confess, that Rome is Babylon; but they have one [Page 66] main Fort yet untaken, which is this, This present Rome under Popes is not Ba­bylon.

Either this present Rome is Babylon, or Heathenish Rome under Em­perours, or that at the end of World: but neither of the later; therefore present Rome is Babylon. The Proposition is their own confession, the branches of the As­sumption I will prove in order.

First, Not Heathen Rome, under perse­cuting Emperours, was Babylon; for the Times of this Mystical Babylon, and Anti-Christ do [...], and are contempora­nean: but Anti-Christ succeeded the persecuting Heathen Emperours; which Viega confesses, for, having spoken of them, he saith, Haec est quarta Visio hujus operis, eaque illu­strissima, & ad Anti-Christi tempora pertinens. Viega. This is the fourth Vision of this work, and that most remarkable, and pertaining to the times of Anti-Christ. With him accords the Jesuit Ribera; who, having finished his Discourse of the Empe­rours, comes to the second part of the Book, which, he saith, Est hujus libri pars secunda, & tota ad Anti-Christum, ejúsque tem­pora pertinet. Ribera, à cap. 12. ad 21. wholly pertains to Anti-Christ, and his Times.

Secondly, Heathenish Rome had never been marryed to Christ; but Carthusian, their own man, interprets Babylon Meretricem adulte­ram. Carthus. in locum. an adulterous Whore, who had fallen from Christ, and committed spiritual fornicati­on. There must be [...], a standing in Faith, before there can be [...], a fall­ing from Faith.

Thirdly, This Whore of Babylon hath a Golden Cup in her hand full of abomina­tions; [Page 67] Revel. xvii. 4. This Golden cup, saith Berengandus, Documenta erroribus plena. Berengandus in locum. is Documents full of errours: but Pagan Rome subdued the World by Sword, not false Doctrine, and Miracles.

Fourthly, This Babylon is called [...]. the Mother of Fornications, Revel. xvii. 5. which not onely, her self, played the Whore, corrupting the true Worship of God, but enforcing her Corruptions, and superstitions, upon others: But Heathen Rome infected not other Nations with su­perstitions, but was rather infected with the superstitions of others, erecting her Pantheon in honour of all Gods.

Fifthly, Saith Carthusian, one of your own, This Babylon est Mysterium, in quo aliud cernitur, aliud intelligitur; A My­sterie, wherein one thing is seen, another thing understood. Quia enim tot simu­latis vi [...]utibus decoratur, non omnibus mulieris hu­jus pravitas innotescit, sed viris justis, & prudentibus. Hieron. in Daniel. 1. Because, she is embelished with so many fained Virtues, the pravitie of this Strumpet appears not to all, but to the just, and prudent: Simulabit se Ducem Foe­deris; (saith Saint Hierom) she shall fain her self to be chief of the New Cove­nant. But we never find, that Heathen­ish Rome put on this Veil of Sanctitie, or ostentaciously set her self forth with the Dress of Hypocrisie, or spake lyes in hypocri­sie, 1 Timoth. 14. 2. which is her Character.

It is clear enough from these Characters, that Pagan Rome was not this Babylon; prove, That Rome is Babylon already, and we need no further discovery at the end of the world.

[Page 68]

First, Observe, that the Wo­man John saw sitting upon the Beast, is that great Citie, which had rule over the Kings of the Earth; Rev. xvii. 18. and that is confessed to be Rome.

Secondly, The Beast, that was, and is not, and [...]. sic legit Editio Complu­ [...]ensis, Primasius, & Syrus Interpres. yet shall be, Apoc. xvii. 8. who carried the Whore, is the Romane Government.

Thirdly, This Beast, which carried the Whore, had seven Heads, which were se­ven manner of Governments, Quorum quidem quinque, Regum, Consu­lum, Tribunorum, Decem­virorum, Dictatorum, Jo­hannis aevo jam praeteri­erunt. Mede, Comment. Apoc. pag. 260. whereof five were expired in Saint John's time, to wit, Kings, Consuls, Tribunes, Decem­virs, Dictatours; the sixth was then in being, which was shortly to fail, that was the Romane Empire, which hath been taken from Rome above twelve hundred years. The seventh Head is Novissimâ illius (putà Pontisi [...]i [...]) capitis vice, qua demum [...]ajularet Meretricem. Mede, su­pra. that of the Popes, which ever since succeeded the decaied Emperours, and this is that, which carries this Mystical Whore.

Fourthly, These ten Horns of the Beast, that the last Head was adorned withall, are ten Kingdoms not known in Saint John's time, but arising out of the disso­lution of the Romane Empire. 1st, Vorti­mer of the Britains. 2ly, Hengist of the Saxons. 3ly, Childeric of the Franks. 4ly, Gunderick of the Burgundians. 5ly, Riciarius of the Alamans. 6ly, Genseri­cus of the Vandals. 7ly, Theodoricus of the Wisi-Goths. 8ly, Sumanus of the Alamans. 9ly, Theodemir of the Ostro-Goths. 10ly, Marcian of the Grecians. [Page 69] These are characterized to be Contempo­ranean with this Apocalyptical Babylon.

Fifthly, These ten Horns, under the Ban­ner of the false Prophet, that fight against the Lamb, are those ten Kingdoms, that have fought under the conduct of the Pope against Christ; but he rides on upon his White horse, conquering, and will conquer. Which is so evident, that Viega, Nobis etiam iliud d [...] ­cendum videtur cum Are­tha, Primasio, Ambro­sio, Ansberto. Haimone. Idololatriam ejus verbis si­gnificari, defecturamque esse Romam fide, atque adeò futuram esse habitatio­nem Daemoniorum, ob exe­cranda fiagitia, & Idolo­latriae superstitionē. Viega, in locum. after a long Dispute, is forced to conclude, that he is of the same judgment with Arethas, Primasius, Ambrose, Ansbert, Haimon, that Idolatrie is signified, and that Rome shall Apostate from the Faith, and become an habitation of Devils, for her execrable crimes, and superstitious Idolarrie. Thus you see this painted Strumpet described, as if she had been Emblemed by Messalli­na Augusta, in the Satyrist, Juvenal. Satyr. 6.

Well you have made this more probable, then I imagined; prove also your last Position, that The Romish Hie­rarchie is Antichristian, and I will yield you the Church of Rome is not the true Church.

I shall supererogate in this, and prove, that the Hierarchist, or Bi­shop of Rome himselfe is Anti-Christ.

That will be strange News in the Vaticane, where they are possest, that An­ti-Christ is a Jew of the Tribe of Dan, that should sit in Jerusalem.

[Page 70]

That is a Fable, which even your own Jesuits reject: amongst whom Viega In hâc multa sunt, ad quae Visio invita, & repugnans trahitur. Viega, in Apocalyps. xvii. proclaims, it can never be re­conciled to the Apocalyptical Vision. For Anti-Christ must not sit at Jerusalem; but be eminently visible in the Church: where­fore the Apostle saith, 2 Thess. ii. 3. Let no man deceive you by any means; for this day shall not come, except there come [...], a falling away first, and that man of sin be re­vealed, that Son of perdition. The Anti­ents, among whom Saint Augustine, in­terpret this of Anti-Christ's falling from the Faith. Nulli dubium est, e­um de Anti-Christo ista dixisse. August. De Civi­tate Dei, lib. 20. cap. 19. No man doubts, saith he, but the Apostle spake that of Anti-Christ. Aquinas is of the same Judgment.

We deny not, but it is meant of a defection from Faith, and of Anti-Christ, but how reacheth it the Pope? may not Luther, and Calvine be as well struck at here, who Apostated from the Church of Rome.

No; for this Anti-Christ is further characterized, 1 Timoth. iiii. 1. that he shall depart from the Truth, at­tending to spirits of errour, and Doctrine of Devils. What is that? they shall for­bid marriage, and abstinence from meats, which God hath created to be received with Thanks-giving. When did ever Luther, Calvin, or any of their Followers so? it is apparent, the Pope forbids marriage to all in Holy Orders, interdicts meats, and that under penaltie of Death. Saint Paul saith further, 2 Thess. ii. 7. The Mysterie of [Page 71] iniquitie worketh, onely he, which now withholdeth, will lett it, till he be taken out of the way. All interpret this of the exstir­pation of the Romane Empire. So ex­presly Tertullian. Donec de medio fiat: quis nisi Romanus status? cujus abscissio in decem Reges Anti-Christum su­perinduest, & tunc reve­labitur iniquus. Tertull. De resurrect. carnis. Till he be taken out of the way, saith he, till the Romane State be defalked, whose division into ten King­doms will bring in Anti-Christ, and then that Wicked one shall be revealed. Cy­ril saith, Non priùs vemet Do­minus, quàm regni Ro­mani defectus fiat, & ap­pareat Anti-Christus, qui interficiet Sanctos. Cyril. Carthus. The Lord will not come before there be a defection of the Romane Empire, and Anti-Christ appear, who will slay the Saints. Hilarie saith, Hisar. contra Au­xentium. Anti-Christ shall come, when the times of the Romane Empire shall be com­pleated, and that he shall sit in the same Temple, we now honour, and shall be contrary unto Christ sub specie Euange­licae praedicationis, under the pretext of preaching the Gospel: and we know none, except the Pope, who hath risen by the fall of the Empire, in so much, that now the Imperial Seat, Robes, Crown, Rents, and all except the mere Title, and spread-Eagle are his. A Third Chara­cter of Anti-Christ is, 2 Thess. ii. 4. that He shall sit in the Temple of God, shewing himself, as if he were God. As the Hea­then Emperours sate in the Capitol, pre­scribing Rules to all captivated Nations: so the Pope in the Vatican, dictating Ca­nons to all Churches. So Saint Hierom; Anti-Christus simu­labit se Ducent Foederis; hoc est, Legis, & Testa­menti Dei. Hieron. in Da [...]. x. Anti-Christ shall fain himself to be Head of the Covenant; that is of the Law, and Testament of God. And the Jesuits of [Page 72] Rhemes Divines of Rhemes supra locum. confess; That Anti-Christ, if ever he were in the Church, shall be an Apostate, or Renegado out of the Church, and shall usurp upon it by Ty­rannie, and by challenging Religion, and Government thereof, so that he him­self shall be adored in all the Churches of the world; this is to sit in the Tem­ple of God.

It is apparent, that the Pope sit­teth in the Temple of God, and by his Superlative Grandeur overtops the Church. But how doth that other part of the Character also belong unto him, that he shews himself, as if he were God?

By assuming to himself, with Herod, the Name, Attributes, and Honour of God. Christopher Marcellus used this Elogie to him in the second Lateran Council, Tues alter Deus in terris; Thou art a second God upon the Earth. The Canonists stile him Dominum Deum Pa­pam, The Lord God the Pope. It is their own expression, Dicere Dominum Deum nostrum Papam non potuisse statuere, prout statuit, Haereticum est. Extravag. Joan. xxii. To say, that our Lord God the Pope might have decreed otherwise, then he hath decreed, is Heretical. And, that they Deifie him, these blasphemous Panegyricks may let you see, Si Papa, suae, & fraternae salut [...]s negligens, innumerabiles secum ducat catervas in Geheunam, hu­jusmodi culpam nullus mortalium praesumat red­arguere. Distinct. 4. cap. Si Papa. If the Pope, secure of his own, and others Salva­tion, should carrie with him innumerable Souls by heaps into Hell, no mortal man may presume to reprove his faults: And That Quòd facta Papae excusantur, ut Homicidiū Sampsonis, Furta He­braeorum, & Adulterum Jacobi. Distinct. 40. The evil deeds of the Pope are to be excused, as the Self-murther of Sampson, the Theft of the Hebrews, and Adulterie of Jacob.

[Page 73]

All the Characters are manifest­ly convertible with the Pope, yet I won­der, that there was no more notice taken of it in former Ages, if he be the [...], that signal Anti-Christ.

What greater notice could be, then that both Heathens, and Christians have marked it nigro carbone, with black Obelisks. Sibylla said Sibylla, Oraculorum cap. 8. He should be [...], white-headed: so the Bishop of Rome weareth solemnly, on his Head, a white Miter of Silver adorned with three Crowns, and Pretious Sones; or [...], having many heads, as by Saint John the Beast of seven Heads: That he should be called by a Name much like Pontus, which suits with his Title in La­tine PONTIFEX; and That the Seat of his Empire should be upon the Banks of Tyber. Irenaeus, speaking of the number of the Beast's Name, six hundred sixtie six, saith, Irenaeus, lib. 5. that [...] valde verisimile est; An­ti-Christ very likely will be a Latine, or I­talian. Tertullian saith, Babylon apud Jo­annem Romanae urbis Figura est, perinde magnae, & de Rege suo superbae, & Sanctorum Dei bellatricis. Tertull. Contra Marcion. that Babylon in Saint John is a Figure of the Romane Citie, very great, and proud of her King, (Anti-Christ) a Persecutour of the Saints of God. Gregory (who was immediate Pre­decessour to Boniface the Third, from whom, till Pompey's subduing of Syria to the Romane Empire, were six hundred sixtie six Years) saith, Rèx superbiae prope est, &, quod dici nefas est, Sacerdotum et exercitus praeparatur. Gregor. lib. 4. Epist. 38. The King of Pride is at hand, and, which is irreverent to say, an Armie of Priests is made readie for him. In the Abbey of Saint Edmonds-Bury, in [Page 74] Suffolk, the Storie of Anti-Christ was Painted, and he Pictured in a Glass-Win­dow, in the Habit of the Pope wearing his Triple Crown, attended with Monks, Friers, Priests, and Cardinals, stopping their Ears against Enoch, and Elias, and persecuting them, that hearkened to their Preaching: a Transumpt of which was to be seen in Sir John Croft's House of Sax­ham, near Bury. Thetgand, Bishop of Trevir, above seven hundred Years ago, calls the Bishop of Rome Anti-Christ, a Wolf, an Ʋsurper of Dominion, a Deceiver of Christendom, and Rome he calls Babylon. Joachim an Abbot, who lived almost four hundred Years since, said, Joachim. Abbas in 2 Thess. ii. Anti-Chri­stus jamdudum natus est in Roma, & altius extolletur in Sede Apostolica; Anti-Christ long since is born in Rome, and shall be ad­vanced yet higher in the Apostolick Seat. Francis Petrarch, Arch-Deacon of Par­ma, who lived in the thousand, three hundred, and fiftieth Year, compares Petrarch. Epist. 5. 14, 17, 18, 19. the Pope to Judas, who betrayed Christ with a Kiss; his Clergie to the Jews, who said, Ave Rex Judaeorum; his Pre­lates to the Pharisees, who, in mockery, clothed him in Purple, and after Cruci­fied him: and again, Deny, if thou canst, that thou art She, whom Saint John saw sitting upon many Waters, thou art She, and none other, that Babylon, the Mother of Whoredoms of the Earth, drunken with the Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus; thou art She, who hast made all Kings of the Earth [Page 75] drunken with the cups of thy poyson. The like Oration Sub Pontificis Ma­ximi titulo, Pastoris pelle lupum saevissimum (nisi caecisimus) sentimus, Ro­mani Flamines arma ha­bent in omnes Christianos, audendo, fallendo, & bel­la ex bellis ferendo, magni facti, oves trucidant. In Synodo Reginoburgensi, lib. 2. cap. 5. Doctour James, in his Epistle Dedicatorie before his Book, Of the Corru­ption of the Fathers, &c. was delivered by a Bishop against the Pope in the Synod of Regino­burg, part thereof, being Anti-Christ's Description, was, In cujus fronte Contume­liae nomen scriptum est; In whose forehead (the Pope's) the word MYSTERIE, the mark of the Beast, was in those days writ­ten. By this, I hope, you see, That the Church of Rome is neither the Catholick Church, nor the Head thereof; That Communion with Rome is not necessarie; That the Romane Church is not the Mo­ther Church, That neither our British no, nor our Saxon Church ows her conver­sion to her; That Communion with Rome is not lawfull, in so much as she is not a sound Member of the Catholick Church, as be­ing notoriously corrupted in Doctrine, and Manners; That Rome is that Apoca­lyptical Babylon; and the Romish Hierar­chie, Anti-Christ.

You have so evidently declared this out of authentick Authours, void of exception, that I have no more to say; but desire you to proceed to the third Article.

The Third Article.

THis is identically the same with the twentie eight Article of the Church of England, wherein is expressed; That The Transubstantiation of Bread, and Wine, in the Eucharist cannot be Non potest per ullam Scripturam probari. Jo­ann. Fisher. Contra Ca­ptivit. Babylon. proved by Sacred Writ: but is contrarie to John vi. 51, 53, 54. evident Testimonies of Scripture, and over­throws the nature of a Sacrament, and gives occasion of many Superstitions.

Is Transubstantiation contrary to Scripture? when Christ, in the insti­tution thereof, saith expressly, Matth. xxvi. 26. Take, eat, this is my Body: whereupon your own Casaubon confesses, Casaubon. Respon. ad Caedinalem Peton. pag. 399, 400. Praesentiam credimus, non minus, quam vos veram; We (Protestants) believe a presence, no less true, then you.

Real, or true presence is twofold.

[Page 77]

Either by Faith, whereby the true Bo­dy of Christ in the Sacrament is eaten spi­ritually, not corporally. By reason of the relative union between the Elements, and things signified, this is a real presence (as Cajetan Manducatur verum corpus Christi in Sacra­mento; sed non corporaliter, sed spiritualiter: spiritualis manducatio, quae per ani­mam fit, ad Christi car­nem in Sacramento existen­tem pertingit. Cajetan. Tom. 2. Tract. 2. De Eucharist. cap. 5. confesses) but it will not infer Transubstantiation, or a corporal presence, when the the thing signified is, in the na­tural substance thereof, contained under the outward, and visible signs: this is the Transubstantiation, which we denie.

And the Presence acknowledged by us, though expressed by figurative Speeches, is as real Figuratio locutionis veritatem rei non perimit. Rupert. in Joann. lib. 6. pag. 131. as theirs:

For first, a Mystical Head is really present to the Mystical Body, which is taught in Scripture by Tropical Expressi­ons; Psalm xlv. Canticles, Ephes. v. John xv.

Secondly, our Saviour's words about the other part of the Sacrament, (to wit, This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood, Luke xxii. 20.) is confessed by the Romists Non negamus in verbo Calix Tropum esse. Bel. larm. De Eucharist. lib. 1. cap. 11. themselves to be figurative: why may not this as well?

But our Catholick Writers have taught, that Transubstantiation may be gathered from those words of Consecrati­on; and that they are not figurative.

Here you affirm two things First, That your Catholick Writers taught, that Transubstantiation may be gathered from the words of Consecration: Second­ly, That they are not figurative.

For the former, your Doctour Fisher, [Page 78] once Bishop of Rochester, ingenuously confesses, that Hactenus Matthae­us, qui & solus Testamen­ti Novi meminit, neque ullum hic verbum positum est, quo probetur in nostra Missa veram fieri carnis, & sangiuins, Christi prae­sentiam. Fisher. Contra Captivit. Babylon. There is not somuch as one word there, whereby the real bodily presence of the flesh, and blood of Christ can be proved in the Mass; no nor in any Scripture else: these are his words, Non potest per ullam Scripturam probari. So you see, it is acknowledged, that your Popish Transubstantiation is Scripture­less.

For the latter, That the words of Christ, This is my Body, are not taken fi­guratively, but Substantia panis nun­quam est corpus Christi, quamvis convertatur in i­psum. Richard. 4. Dist. 11. in sine Art. qu. 9. 6. properly, consider these Arguments.

First, If the Elements of Bread, and Wine, remain in their specifical Nature without alteration, even after Consecrati­on, as before, then the Words must needs be figurative; for one individual substance cannot be predicated of another property: but I shall prove anon by Scriptures, and Fathers, That the Elements of Bread, and Wine, remain in their specifi­cal Nature without alteration, even after Consecration, as before.

Secondly, The Body, and Blood of Christ would be delivered, and received without the Soul, and Deitie of Christ. For, in propriety of Speech, the Body is distinguished from the Blood, and Soul. If the Body be onely received, as the letter purports, then Christ is dead, his Soul, and Blood, separated from his Body. If by Body, Blood and Soul be also meant, it is a Synecdochical, and so a figura­tive [Page 79] Expression; the part put for the whole. This Dilemma is not easilie an­swered.

Thirdly, That, which Christ delivered to be participated by his Disciples, he did Sacramentally eat, and drink himself; Luke, xxii. 15. as Hieron. Ad Hedib. Qu. 2. Saint Hierom, Chrysost. in Matth. Hom. 83. Saint Chrysostom, Euthym. in Matth. xxvi. cap. 64. Euthymius, with Aquin. 3. Quaest. 81. Art. 1. Vasques. in 3. Disp. 2. Conclusio est af­firmans, in qua omnes Ca­tholici, quos ego legerim, plane conveniunt. Sic. Vas­quez. many Schole-men, affirm: but, if the words be literally interpreted, then he did eat his own Flesh, and drink his own Blood, which the Cannibals abhor.

Fourthly, If the Words be understood literally, then Christ gave his passible, and mortal Body to his Disciples: but a passi­ble, and mortal Body could not be recei­ved of several Communicants, and so be in several places at once, could not wholly be contained in a piece of Bread, be di­vided into parts, without sensible effusion of Blood: But Bellarmine avers, Corpus exhibitum Apostolis, & sumptum ab ipso Christo Domino, vereerat passibile. Bellarm. De Eucharist. lib. 2. cap. 14. That The Body Christ gave his Disciples, and they received, was a passible Body.

Fifthly, If our Saviour's Words be li­terally expounded, then Verum corpus Christi manet adhuc sub speciebus à Brutorum ore acceptis. Turre-Cremata. Dogs, and Swine may eat the Flesh, and drink the Blood of the Son of man: but all, that eat the Flesh, and drink the Blood of the Son of man, have everlasting life; John vi. 49, 50.

Sixthly, If our Saviour's Words were literal, and plain, they themselves could not be so distracted, and divided about the sence thereof: but they are notori­ously divided, as Vasques confesses, (p) In­gens (q) Vasques in 3. Thom. Tom. 3. [Page 80] inter Catholicos de horum verborum sensu est controversia; There is a great Controversie amongst the Catholicks, of the sence of these words. And Suarez saith, Catholici in tanta opinionum varietate sunt constituti, ut singulatim eas recensere, nimis molesiū esset. Suarez, in 3. part. Thomae. Catholicks are in such variety of opini­ons, that, to reckon them severally, were too troublesom.

What varietie of Opinions? I had thought, that there had been summa pax, a compleat Harmonie.

No; for in every word their different Conceipts outstrip the number of Letters.

First, For the subject of the Proposition, Turre-Cremata saith, Turre-Cremata, De Consecrat. Dist. 2. That The Pro­noun This signifieth nothing; so the sense would be, Nothing is my Body. Alexan­der of Hales saith, Alexander Hales, 4. q. 10. m. 4. Artic. 2. Sect. 3. Hoc, id est, Panis transubstantiandus in corpus meum, est corpus meum: This, that is the Bread to be transubstantiated into my Body, is my Body. Bonaventure saith, Pronomen demonstrat Panis substantiam sub Accidentibus, quae oculis conspici potest. Bonavent. 4. Dist. 8. Art. 1. It signifies the Accidents, and Forms of Bread. O­thers say, Suarez, in 3. partem Thomae, Disp. 58. It signifies the Body of Christ: Others say, It signifieth confusedly that, which is couched under the Forms. And all of these have their Daedalian Windings, Labyrinths, and Limitations.

Secondly, For the Copula, or Verb Sub­stantive Est, Is, Aquinas Aquinas, 3. q. 75. Art. 8. Art. qu. 78. expounds it by Continetur: Under these forms my Body is contained. Bellarmine Bellarm. De Eu­char. lib, 1. cap. 11. interprets it by Erit; This shall be my Body. Marsilius Marsil. 4. qu. 6. Art. 1. by Transmutatur; It is changed, and converted into my Body.

[Page 91]

Thirdly, For the Predicate, corpus me­um, My Body; some make it materia prima, the first matter of Christ's Body; and that is common with the Bread, and needs no Transubstantiation: Others Corpus materiatum, the materiate Body, with the reasonable Soul; Others an organized Body without reference to a living Body; Others a living Body. Du­rand Durand. 4. Dist. 10. q. 4. makes it a Body (indeed bodyless) without quantitie, dimensions, or parts: Occham Occham, 4. Dist. 10. q. 4. a body having quantitie, without extention, figure, and order of parts: Bel­larmine Bellarm. De Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 4. lib. 1. cap. 2. & 14. a Body, having dimensions, without external relation to place, or ubi, a Body without matter: like Angels, and Spirits, which he resembles by the image of man's face reflecting in a Glass. A Body (saith Suarez, in 3. partem Thomae, Disp. 52. Suarez) having the stature of a man (palpable contradiction) and yet contained in every crumb of Bread.

Thus the Romists incurr that of the Poet.

Horat. Satyra 1. Dum vitant vitia, in contraria currunt:

For to avoid one Figure, or Metonymie in our Saviour's Words, they are forced to forge innumerable Figures (sixteen at the least, as Bishop Jewel hath observed) to make it a phantastical Body, or rather Chimera, or Ens fictum impossibile, a Body bodyless.

But the antient Fathers, and our Scholemen agree, That this Conversion, though mysterious, and inscrutable, is by Transubstantiation.

[Page 92]

Nothing less: for Tonstal, one of your own, confesses, Deo modo, quo id sic­ret satius erat curiosum quenquam relinquere suae conjecturae, sicut liberum fuit ante Concilium La­teranum. Tonstal. De Euchar. lib. 1. pag. 46. That for the manner, how this is Christ 's Body, it were beter to leave everie curious Fellow to his own conjecture, as it was free before the Lateran Council. Lombard, Master of the Sentences, saith, Si autem quaeritur, Qualis sit illa conversio, an Formalis, an Substantialis, vel alterius generis? definire non sufficio. Lombard. Sent. 4. Dist. 11. That he is not able to define the manner of conversion in the Sa­crament. Bandinus, Sent. D. Sacr. pag. 367. Some affirm one way, some another. We say, with Saint Augustine, The Mysterie is safely believed, but not with safety searched into. Cyril of Alexan­dria saith, Cyril. in Joan. lib. 4. cap. 13. We ought firmly to believe the Holy Mysterie; but let us never in Matters thus sublime, so much as imagine to utter the manner how, the manner how this is done can neither be conceived by the mind, nor expres­sed by the tongue. Theophylact saith Theophyl. in Joan. vi. when we hear these words of Christ, un­less ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man, &c. We ought firmly to believe the same, and not to enquire after what manner. According to that of Saint Chrysostome, Chrysost. in 1 Cor. Homil. 17. [...]. It is better to be soberly ignorant, then naughtilie intelligent. For this mysterie is of that nature, that Athanasius testifies, Athanas. Ad Serap. [...]. The verie Cherubims veil their faces, when it comes to this: and yet the Romists, with the Beth-shemites; dare look into the Ark, though Salvianus accounts it Sacrilegae temeritatis auoddam genus est, si plus scire cupias, quam sinaris. Salvian. lib. De Provid. a sacrilegious temeritie, to covet to know that, which we are not permitted.

But the Fathers, although they [Page 93] mention not Transubstantiation, or the manner of presence, or conversion in the Sacrament, yet they call it the very body, and blood of Christ, as Saint Cyril of Jeru­salem, in his book highly commended by Whitakerus, De Sacris Scripturis. Doctour Whitaker, saith, Cyril. Hierosol. Ca­tech. Mystag. 4. Let us therefore, with all certitude, receive the Body, and Blood of Christ.

They call it the Body and Blood of Christ, in conformity to out Saviour's Metonymical, and mystical Expression, but withall, that no man mistake, they un­fold what they mean by Body and Blood: for, treating of the Sacramental signs, the Antients Chrysost. in Matth. Hom. 83. & Epist. Hebr. Hom. 17. Gelas. Cont. Eutych Theod. Dial. 2. Dionys. Hierarch. cap. 3. Gregor. Nazianz. Apol. Macar. Homil. 17. call them Figures, Represen­tations, Memorials, Anti-Types; but that, which is a Figure, Similitude, Type, and Representation of a thing, is not properly the same. Saint Augustine saith, August. De Doctr. Christian. lib. 3. cap. 16. It is a figurative speech, commanding us to be partakers of the Lord's Passion, and sweetly, and profitably to keep in mind, that his flesh was Crucified, and wound­ed for us. Dominus non dubita­vit dicere. Hoc est corpus meum. quando dedit si­gnum sui corporis. August. in Psalm. 98. The Lord did not stick to say, This is my Body, when he gave a sign of his Body. Origen, speaking of the conse­crated Element of Bread, saith, Origen. in cap. xv. Matth. This I speak of the Typical, and Figurative Bo­dy. Saint Ambrose Ambros. De Sacr. lib. 4. cap. 5. calls it, figuram corporis, & sanguinis, the figure of the Body, and Blood of the Lord Jesus. Saint Chrysostome saith, Chrysost. Opus im­perfect; in Matth. Homil. 11. In the sanctified Vessel there is not the true Body of Christ, but a Mystery of his body is there con­tained. Gratian's Gloss confirms this, [Page 94] The Divine Bread [saith Gratian. De Conse­crat. Dist. 2. he] which representeth the flesh of Christ, is called the Body of Christ but improperly. Beda saith, Beda in Lucam, 22. Christ substituted his Flesh, and Blood in the figure of Bread, and Wine. Druthmarus, Druthmar. supra Matth. cap. 26. The Blood of Christ is aptly figured thereby. Bertram, Bertram. lib. De corp. & sang. Domini. Bread and Wine is Figuratively the Body, and Blood of Christ. And Tertullian, who lived nearer the Apostolick Times, saith, Tertull. contra Mar­cion. lib. 1. cap. 14. that Bread representeth the Body of Christ, calling it in two places The figure of Christ 's Body. By all these it is most evident, that the Ancients taught, That the body of Christ was not essentially, and substantially in the Sacrament, but onely figuratively, and Typically.

But the Orthodox Fathers teach, that The Bread our Saviour gave his Di­sciples was changed not in shape, but in nature, and by the omnipotence of the word was made Flesh. Amongst whom Cyprian saith, Cyprian. Serm. De Chrismate. Epist. 102. ad Eudoxium. Christ carried himself in his own hands: and Saint Augustine affirms, Augustin. De Civi­tate Dei, lib. 13. cap. 20. Serm. De Coena Domini. that The Body of our Lord enters in­to our mouth, and that Our tongues are cru­entated with the Blood of Christ: is not this an essential, and substantial Conversion?

The Orthodox Fathers never taught, that Bread, and Wine were chang­ed in Essence, and Substance; though hyperbolically sometimes they affirmed them to be changed in nature; meaning in their signification, representation, and exhibition. So Cyprian in your own in­stance [Page 95] interpreteth himself; for, when he had said, The nature of Bread, and Wine were changed in the Sacrament of the Body, and Blood of Christ, he adds, Sacramenta habere nomina earum rerum, quas significant. Cypr. Serm. De Chrismate. Sacra­ments have the names of those things they signifie: which agrees with Chrysostom's Saying, Quod est Symbolum tribuit rei significatae, ma­ximè quoad fidem, & mentis cogitationem. Chry­sost. The Signe hath the Attribute of the thing signed, or signified, especially by Faith, and cogitation of the minde. And, whereas Saint Augustine averrs the Body of our Lord enters our Mouth, he means by Faith; for so he vindicates himself, We cannot [saith Nos Christum in coelis sedentem manu con­trectare non possumus, sed Christum fide contingere possumus. In Epist. in Jo­anem. Aug. Tract. 1. he] touch with hand Christ sitting in heaven, but we can lay hold on Christ by Faith: and a­gain, Ascendit in coelum corpus Christi, quaerat aliquis? quomodo in coe­lum manus mittam? fi­dem mitte, & tenuisti, Aug. Tract. in Joh. The Body of Christ is ascended in­to heaven, some may enquire, How shall I lay hold on him being absent? how shall I send up my hand into heaven, that there I may apprehend him sitting? fidem mitte, & tenuisti, Stretch but out the hand of Faith, and thou hast layd hold on Christ. And, descanting upon the Seventy third Psalm, he saith, Christ did carrie himself in his own hands quodammodo, in a manner, how? quia gestabat in manibus suis cor­poris sui Sacramentum, because he car­ried the Sacrament of his body in his hands: Sacraments have the names of those things they signifie, and are sub­limed to an higher condition, then be­fore, hence Scripture calls the Sup­per, the Supper of the Lord, and the Cup, the Cup of the Lord, and 1 Cor. x. 4. the Rock, of which the Israelites did [Page 96] drink, a Spiritual Rock. I will conclude this with that of Theodoret, which, me­thinks, is more, then satisfactorie, Dominus, quae viden­tur, symbolae, corporis, & sanguinis sui appellatione honoravit, non equidem naturam ipsam transmu­tans, sid gratiam naturae adjicions. Theodoret. Dialog. 1. cap. 8. The Lord hath honoured the (Sacramental) Symbols with the appellation of his Body, and Blood, [...], not changing Nature it self, but adding Grace to Nature.

But our Church hath defined, That, After Consecration, the sub­stance of Bread, and Wine is abolished, and the Shapes, Accidents, and Quan­titie thereof onely remain.

Your Church (it is true) hath defined it, but without testimonie both of Scripture, and Antiquitie; as your own Authours confess. Cajetan evi­dences, that, secluding the authoritie of the Romane Church, there is Non apparet ex Euan­gelio coactitium aliquod ad intelligendum haec ver­ba proprié. Cajetan. 3. quaest. 75. art. 1. impress. anno 1528. nothing in the Scripture, which may compell one to understand the words properly, or the Ele­ments to be transubstantiated. Scotus saith, Scotus. 4. D. 11. quasi. 3. lit. 13. There is no Scripture, that proveth the substance of Bread doth not re­main. Alphonsus a Castro saith, De Transubstantia­tiono panis in corpus Domi­ni rara est in antiquis Scriptoribus mentio. Al­phonsus à Castro, Contra Haeres. lib. 8. There is seldome any mention in ancient Writers of Transubstantiation of the Bread into the Body of our Lord: he might have said, Ne­ver; seeing purer ages know no Doctrine, but that of Macarius, [...]. Bread, and Wine pre­sents in the Church an Antitype of his [Page 97] (Christ 's) flesh, and blood, and those, that partake of the apparent bread, do eat the flesh of the Lord spiritually; And of Theo­doret, Signa mystica post Consecrationem no [...] rece­dunt à sua natura. The odor. Dialog. inconfusus. The mystical signes after Conse­cration depart not from their nature; And of Gelasius, Non desinit substantia, vel natura panis, & vini Gelasius, De duabus naturis, Adv. Eutych. It ceases not to be the sub­stance, or nature of Bread, and Wine▪

But if the Ancients be against Transubstantiation, and Scriptures coun­tenance it not, is there any Scriptures a­gainst it?

Quod non dicit Scriptura, id contradicit: in matters of Faith, that, which the Scriptures countenance not, they discountenance; because, as Au­gustine proclaims, Aperte in Scriptura inveniuntur omnia illa, quae continent fidem; mo­resque vivendi; spem sci­licet, atque charitatem. August De Doctr Christi­an. lib. 2. cap. 6. Therein are found all things plainly, which contain Faith, and Moralitie of life, Hope, and Charitie: with this Weapon onely Tertullian fights a­gainst Hermogenes, saying, Scriptum est, doceat Hermogenis officium: si non est scriptum, [...]meat Vae illud adjicientibus, aut de­trahemibus destinatum. Tertull. Contra Hermog. pag. 373. Let the shop, or Schole of Hermogenes make it appear, that that, which he pretends as a Plea against me, is written; If it be not written, let him fear that Wo, that is denounced against them, that add, or diminish. This Wo the Romists incurr; seeing, by their own con­fession, there is no Scripture extant for Transubstantiation: nay there are ap­parent Scriptures against it.

First, Matth. xxvi. Mark. xiv. Luk. xxii. 1 Cor. xi. it is said, Christ took Bread, blessed Bread, brake Bread, gave Bread to his Disciples. Paul saith, let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup; whosoever shall eat of this [Page 98] Bread, and drink of this Cup unworthily, &c. But Christ brake not his own Body (it was the Souldiers, that Crucified him) This Tertullian clears, saying, Acceptum panem, et distributum Discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura cor­poris mei. Tertull. contra Adamant. cap. 12. contra Marc. lib. 4. He made the Bread taken, and distributed to his Disciples that his body, by saying This is my Body, that is, a Figure of my Body.

Secondly, The Body of Christ was de­livered up for us, Rom. viii. 32. but the Bread, that Sacramentally is called his Bo­dy, was not delivered up for us; Therefore the Bread is not properly Christ's Body.

Thirdly, Christ saith not (as the Tran­substantiatours wrest it) My body is con­tained under these forms of Bread, and wine: but this, The very bread is my Body Antitypum sancti cor­poris, & sanguinis tui. Basil. in Liturg., Antitypa pretiosi san­guinis, & corporis Christi. Greg. Nazianz. Oratione De Pasch. symbolically; that is, as Saint Ambrose tells us Ambros. in 1 Cor. xi. De Sacrament. lib. 4. cap. 5. In edendo, & potando, sanguinē, & carnem Domini, quae pro nobis oblata sunt, significamus; In eating, and drinking, we signifie the flesh, and blood of the Lord, which were offered forus.

Fourthly, Christ saith not, This shall be made my Body: therefore the words of Christ do not convert Bread into the substance of the Body of Christ: but onely declare the Bread in this use to be the Bo­dy of Christ, that is Sacramentally; as Saint Chrysostom evidences, Antequam sanctifice­tur panis, panem nomina­mus, divinâ autem illum sanctificante gratiâ, medi­ante Sacerdote, liberatus est ab appellatione panis, dignus autem habitus est Dominici corporis appella­tione, etsi natura panis in ipso permansit. Chrysost. ad Caes. Monach. Before the Bread be sanctified, we call it Bread; but, Divine Grace sanctifying it, by the mini­sterie of the Priest, it is freed from the ap­pellation of Bread, and is accounted worthy of the style of the Lord's Body, Et si natura panis in ipso mansit, although [Page 99] the nature of Bread remains in it.

Fifthly, If the Bread should be tran­substantiated, it would destroy the na­ture of a Sacrament, which is defined by Saint Paul [...], Rom. iv. 11. a seal of the righte­ousness of Faith; and by Saint Augustine, Ista ideo dicuntur Sa­cramenta, quod in eis ali­ud videtur, aliud intelligi­tur, quop videtur, speciem habet corporalem, uod intel­ligitur, fructum habet spi­ritualem. August. Serm. Ad Infant. a visible signe of invisible grace; now nothing can be imagined, but the Bread, to be this visible signe, this seal, that Signum res prater speciem, quam ingerit sen­sibus, aliud aliquid faeciens in cogitationem venire. August. lib. 2. De Doctr. Christ. cap. 1. presents it self to the senses, and something besides it self to the understanding. In every Sacrament (saith Irenaeus) there is a thing terrestrial, which is visible, a thing celestial, which is invisible: the Terrestrial visible thing in the Eucharist is the Bread, and Wine; the Celestial, and invisible, is the body of Christ, that was broke, and his Blood, that was shed upon the Cross: but Transubstantiation takes away one part; therefore the whole Sacrament, which is Duorum unio, a relative Ʋnion of two.

Sixthly, If the Bread, and Wine were Transubstantiated into the Body, and Blood of Christ, then there were nothing left, that could nourish the body: but there ought to be something in the Sa­crament to feed our body, seeing our Faith is confirmed by the proportion be­tween the Bodilie, and Spiritual Alimo­nie; as the material Bread feeds the bo­dy, so Christ by Faith feeds the Soul: as Euthymius saith, Naturalis cibus, & potus est panis, & vini. quae proponuntur; superna­turalis verò efficax eorum operatio. Euthym. in Matth. xxiii. cap. 64. It is the Natural meat, and drink of Bread, and Wine, which are proposed; but the efficacious opera­tion [Page 100] of them is supernatural. The Accidents of Bread, and Wine, void of matter, and form, cannot nourish, as being not ca­pable to be Nutritio est adjecti alimenti in corporis sub­stantiam conversio, & perfecta assimilatio. Fuch­sius, Institut. Medicinae, lib. 1. Sect. 7. chilified, sanguified, ag­glutinated, or assimulated to our bodies; for Whatsoever nourisheth (saith the Philo­sopher) must be simile genere, like in kind with that, which is nourished, but dissimile specie, specifically different; but Accidents differ from Bodies, which are substances, toto genere, and have nothing common with Flesh, and Blood, that from power can be reduced into act.

Seventhly, If every crumb of Bread, and drop of Wine were transubstantiated into the entire humane Nature of Christ (as the Romists maintain) then in receiv­ing one Element, we should receive the whole mystery, and commit no Sacrilege in detaining the Cup from the Laitie: but the Antients judged otherwise; as Gelasius, Divisio unius ejusdem mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio pervenire non potest; The division of one, and the same my­sterie cannot be without great Sacri­lege: And Ignatius, Ʋnus panis omnibus confractus, [...], unum poculum omnibus distri­butum. Ignatius in Epi­stol. Ad Philadelph. One Bread was broke for all, and one Cup was distributed to all: And Saint Chrysostom, It is not with us, as in the old law, where some parts of the sa­crifice was given to the Priests, others fell to (e) Non est apud nos, ut in Lege veteri, ubi aliae partes ex Victimis daban­tur Sacerdotibus, ali [...]e ve­ró cedebant offerentibus: sed nobis omnibus idem Christi corpus proponitur, atque idem poculum. Chrysost. Homil. in 1. Cor. xxv. them, that offered; but to us all the same bo­dy of Christ is given, and the same cup: here you see he distinguishes the Body from the Cup; where, according to thir Tenet, the Cup is as well the Body, as the Bread.

[Page 101]

How then, if not by Transub­stantiation, is the Bread Christ 's Body? or what manner of praedication, or enunci­ation is this, This is my Body?

Not identical, where the same thing is praedicated of the same, as This my Body is my Body: not proper, and regular, for so one disparate, as the Body of Christ, cannot be praedicated of the Bread: but it is an analogical Enun­ciation, where Tropically, or Figuratively, the thing signified is affirmed of the sign; Ex similitudine Sa­cramenti signa ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. August. Epist. 23. ad Boni­facium. From the similitude (saith Saint Au­gustine) the signes of the Sacraments take the very names of the things themselves; for Dominus non dubita­vit dicere, Hoc est cor­pus meum, cùm signum daret corporis sui. August. contra Adamant. cap. 12. The Lord doubted not to say, This is my Body, when he gave a signe of his Body. Which manner of expression is familiar in Scripture: Circumcision is the Covenant, Gen. xvii. the Lamb is the Passover of Jehovah, Exod. xii. the Sab­bath is the Covenant of God, Exod. xxxi. the seven Kine are seven Years, Genes. xli. 26. I am the Vine, John xv. 1. the Field is the World, Matth. xiii. 38. Herod is a Fox, Luk. xiii. 32. John is Elias, Matth. xi. 4. Christ was the Rock, 1 Cor. x. 4. the Way, the Door, the Bread. John vi. 35. yet Christ was not transubstantiated into a Rock, or Way, or Door, or Bread, And Duae potissimùm cau­sae sunt, cur Spiritus san­ctus, & ipse Christus tae­libus praedicationibus, & Phrasibus sit usus: quarū prima est Analogia, & arctissima unio Sacra­mentalis inter signa, et ros signatas; altera est summa certitudo obsignationis spi­ritualium bonorum, & eorundem in usu legitimo exhibitionis. Kec kerman. Logic. lib. 2. pag. 395. there are two reasons, why the Holy-Ghost, and Christ himself, hath used such enunci­ations, and manners of expression; whereof the first is the Analogie, and most strict Sacramental Union betwixt [Page 102] the signes, and things signed; The other is the infallible certaintie of the obsigna­tion, and exhibition of spiritual good things in the right use of the Seals.

All this, I acknowledg, seems very probable. But we have been taught, that in this stupendous Mysterie we must deny both sense, and reason.

Where any Mysterie is evi­dently expressed in Sacred Writ, sense, and reason must submit to Divine Revelation, as in the Incarnation of the Word, The Word was made flesh, John i. 14. the Tri­nitie of Persons in the Ʋnitie of Essence. These Mysteries are clearly revealed in Scripture, and though Oportet igitur nos, cùm audiverimus, Nisi e­deretis carnem filii, non habebitis vitam, in sum­ptionibus divinorum My­steriorum indubitatam re­tmere fidem, & non quae­rere quo pacto. Theophy­lact. in Joann. vi. above reason, yet not contrary to reason. But Transub­stantiation (as you have heard it proved, and by the Romists confessed) is Non apparet ex Eu­angelio coactitium aliquod ad intelligendum haec verba proprié. Cajeran. 3. Quaest. 75. dis­countenanced, nay diametrically opposite to Scripture, besides there are sequeles, and concomitances, that attend it, that in­volve Mirum videtur, qua­re in uno Articulo, qui non est principalis Articu­lus fidei, debeat talis intel­lectus asseri, propter quam fides pateat contemptui om­uium sequentium rationem. Scot. 4. Dist. 11. q. 3. lit. 13. contradiction, and inextricable absurdities; as in particular these,

First, That the Bread should be chang­ed into the Body, or humane Nature of Christ, which was Virtute Transub­stantiationis non accipit corpus Domini Esse post Non esse, quoniam priùs erat. Aureol. 4. Dist. 11. q. 1. Art. 1. before.

Secondly, That the accidents, or forms of Bread should be without a subject.

Thirdly, How whole Christ should be in every crumb of Bread, and drop of Wine. Fourthly, That at once Christ should be in Heaven, and in a thousand Hosts up­on Earth.

The Meditation of these hath [Page 103] oftentimes staggered me; therefore I request you to lay them open more di­stinctly, and that in order, as you named them; First, That the Bread cannot be changed into the humane Nature of Christ, which was praeexistent, or before.

The impossibilitie of this change is apparent; Because in all sub­stantial conversions, natural, or miracu­lous, there is a new thing, which was not before, produced out of that, which is con­verted; as appeareth in the conversion of Water into Wine, Wine, that was not before, is made of Water; and Lot's Wife into a Pillar of Salt, Salt, that was not be­fore, is made of Her Body converted into it. But, in Popish imaginary Transub­stantiation, the Body of Christ is not pro­duced anew; for it is praeexistent, and receiveth no substantial change by the confession of Romists themselves; for Faventinus, one of your own proposes the Question, Quaero quis sit termi­nus formalis hujus actionis [Transubstantiationis] & conversionis? Non est corpus Christi. Faventin. in 4. Disp. 35. cap. 6. What is the terminus formalis, the formal Bound of this Action (Transubstantiation) or conversion? and answers, Non est corpus Christi, It is not the body of Christ: for that, saith he, is the terminus materialis, the material bound, intimating it was before; and concludes Hoc totum est accidentale, there is no sub­stantial change, but onely an accidental alteration. Neither is the Body of Christ substantially united unto the accidents of Bread, and Wine; for it giveth no sub­sistence to them, and it sustaineth them [Page 104] not, but is united accidentally onely, by being made Terminus novae actio­nis accipit Esse per ipsam actionem, sed per Tran­substantiationem, quae est actio nova, non accipit corpus Christi Esse sub­stantiale, sed praesentialita­rem ad specics; ergo cor­pus Christi non est termi­nus Transubstantiationis se­cundium Esse substantiale, sed solùm secundùm prae­sentialitatem. Petigian. Summa Theol. in 4. Dist. 11. q. 3. Art. 3. present, where the sub­stance of the Elements formerly were: now if Water should be poured upon the Ground, or otherwise consumed, and Wine brought from Heaven, as Hail, and Snow are, and be placed where the Water formerly was, here is no substantial con­version: so likewise, when the substance of Bread, and Wine cease according to their Doctrine, and Christ's Body, and Blood are brought into the place where these were, no substantial thing is pro­duced; but one substance succeedeth in the room of another, by that, which they stile, Ubiatio est quando aliquid de Ʋbt non transit ad aliud Ʋbt. Aureol. 4. Dist. 11. q. 1. Art. 3. Ʋbiation: Therefore, I conceive we may safely conclude, thus; That Bo­dy, which was compleatly praeexistent be­fore, was glorified, and impassible, took (q) Praecise unum succe­dit alteri, non est verum dicere, quod illud, cui suc­ceditur, accedat, & con­vertatur ad illud, quod succedit. Aureol. supra. its substance of the seed of the Virgin, cannot be made anew of the Consecra­ted Bread; But Christ's body is com­pleatly praeexistent before, is glorified; and impassible, took its substance of the seed of the Virgin; Therefore Christ's Body is not made anew of the Consecra­ted Bread. Again, Nothing, that is Illud non transit in aliud, quod desinit antè, quàm veniat ad illud. Auteol. 4. Dist. 11. q. 1. Art. 1. annihilated, and ceaseth to be any thing, is changed into that, which was before: Bread, according to the Romish Tenet, is annihilated, and ceases to be any thing, Therefore it cannot be changed into the Body of Christ, which was before.

I apprehend this as very reason­able, and consequent from our own [Page 105] Grounds, proceed to the second, that The Accidents, and Forms of Bread can­not subsist without a Subject.

That Accidents may subsist, and have their natural operation, without a Subject of support, or inhaerencie, im­plies a contradiction; that the Bread shall cease to be, and yet tast, colour, weight, and form to remain, as before; to be sweetness, and nothing sweet, whitness, and nothing white: for it is of the Definiti­on, and Being of Accidents to be, in an­other, or to be in their subject, so Por­phyrie saith, Accidentis Esse est Inesse. Porphyr. Isagog. cap. 5. [...]. Thus you see it is Dissonant to Reason: and Doctour Biel a Romish Champion, confesses, Quomodo ibi fit cor­pus Christi; an per con­versionem, an sine conver­sione incipiat esse corpus Christi, cum pane manen­tibus accidentibus, non in­venitur expresse in Canone Biblii. Gabr. Biel, De Canon. Lect. 4. How the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, whether by con­version, or without conversion, the accidents still remaining, is not contained in the Ca­non of the Bible. And if both reason, and Scripture disclaim it as an erroneous Pro­digie, let us see what countenance it hath from Antiquitie. This Doctour Ton­stall upon search hath found, Cuthbert. Tonstall. De Eucharistia, lib. 1. pag. 45. That it was determined in the Council of La­teran, which was holden in Rome, in the Year of our Lord a thousand, two hun­dred, and fifteen, and that, before that time, it was ever more free for any man without impeachment of his Faith to hold the contrarie. And indeed they learned it from the Manichees, who hold, that Christ was but a spe­ctrum, or phantasm, and what outwardly [Page 106] appeared in him was nothing else, but Accidents. The result is, Post consecrationem accidens est sine subjecto, quia existit tum per se; transit enim substantia, sed remanent accidentia. In­nocent. 3. Myst. Miss. lib. 4. cap. 9. That, which is impossible in Nature, and is supported neither by Scripture, nor Antiquity, is not to be believed; But the Accidents (as sweetness, colour, &c.) to remain without a subject is impossible in Nature, and is supported neither by Scripture, nor Antiquity; Therefore Accidents to remain without a subject, is not to be be­lieved.

This is agreeable to Philosophi­cal grounds; and it seems destitute of Scripture-evidence; proceed therefore to the third, That the whole body of Christ cannot be in every crumb of Bread.

Aquinas 3. p. q. 76. Art. 1. Aquinas, Bellarm. De Eu­charist. lib. 1. cap. 2. col. 468. Bellarmine, Melchior Canus, Joseph. Angles in 4. 1. pag. 9. 4. De Eucha­rist. Josephus Angles, the Concil. Trident. Sess. 3. Can. 1. Councel of Trent, with all the Romish Proselytes teach, that the whole Organi­cal body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin, crucified, sits now at his Fa­ther's right hand, is wholly, and entire under the Accidents in every crumb of Bread, and drop of Wine; which, by their own Principles, is not to be believed as possible, if Bellarminus De Eu­charist. lib. 3. cap. 19. col. 748. Bellarmine may be cre­dited, who saith, Fides nostra ad id nos non obligat, ut ea defendamus, quae eviden­ter implicant contradictionem; Our faith doth not oblige us to that, that we should de­fend those things, that do evidently imply a contradiction: then, that the body of Christ should be visible, and in perfect stature, and, at the same time, to be not visible, [Page 97] and not in a perfect stature; as it must needs be, if it be confined to a point almost indivisible, as is the form of the least crumb of bread. This Chimaera was not hatched in St. Augustine's time, who affirmed, that Ità futurum sit spiri­tuale corpus, ut propter in­effabilem quandam facili­tatem spirituale dicatur, servet tamen substantiam corporalem. August. En­chir. cap. 91. ep. 76. The body of Christ was to be so spiritual, that by reason of a certain unexpressible facility, it might be stiled spi­ritual, servet tamen substantiam corpora­lem, yet would still keep its corporal sub­stance; nay space, positure, distance of part from part, spacia locorum tolle cor­poribus, & nusquam erunt, & quia nus­quam erunt, non erunt: Take away, saith he, space from bodies, and they will be no where, and because no where, they will not be at all. Hence I conclude, That, which implies a Contradiction, by the Romists confession is not to be believed: but that the same numerical body of Christ should at the same time be in perfect stature, and contained in every crumb of Bread, im­plies a contradiction by the Romists con­fession; Therefore that the body of Christ should be in every crumb of bread is not to be believed.

There is but one difficultie yet remaining, that it is Cùm quaeritur, Ʋtrū aliquid sit Deo possibile, quod naturae sit impossibile, distinguendum est de im­possibili; quia si hujusmodi impossibile dicitur, quia re­pugnat ipsi Esse, prout est verificatio contradictori­orum, sic quod naturae im­possibile est, est Deo impossi­bile. Ae [...]idius Rom. 1. Sent. D. 42. q. 4. impossible, that at the same time Christ's body should be wholly in heaven, and in a thousand con­secrated Hoasts upon the earth.

That an individual body may be in many places at once, and in divers forms, and according to divers actions, and have no reference to place, nor any [Page 98] properties inward, nor outward of a true body, is not divine veritie, but an audaci­ous fiction, and incongruous dream, dis­owned by all the Antients. Vigilius, an holy Martyr, taught, that Caro Christi cùm esset in terra, non erat in coelo, & nunc, quta est in coelo, non est utique in terra. Vigil. cont. Euticher. lib. 1. The flesh of Christ, when it was on earth, was not in hea­ven; and now, when it is in heaven, cannot be also upon earth. Saint Cyril demonstrates, Christus non poterat versari in carne cum A­postolis, postquam ascendit ad patrem. Cyril. in Jo­an. lib. 1. cap. 3. Christ could not be conversant with the Apostles in the flesh, after that he had a­scended to the Father, the Heavens must contain him till the end of all. Saint Au­gustine testifies, that Donec saecula finian­tur, sursum est Dominus, sed tamen hic nobiscum est veritas Domini: corpus enim, in quo resurrexit, in uno loco esse oportet, veri­tas autem ejus ulique dif­fusa est. August. De conse­cr. Dist. 2. Our Lord is above untill the world's end, but yet his truth is with us here; for the body of our Lord, wherein he rose again, must be in [...] place, but his truth is diffused everie where And that, Secundum praesentiam corporalem simul & in Sole, & in Luna, & in Cruce esse non posset. Au­gust. contra Faustum, lib. 20. cap. 11. Tom. 6. according to his corporal pre­sence, it was not possible for him to be both in the Sun, and in the Moon, and on the Cross at one, and the same time. This Truth is so clear, tha [...] [...] [...]torts this confession from Aquinas, Corpus Christi non esse in pluribus locis secundum proprias dimensiones; The body of Christ cannot be in many places according to the proper dimensions thereof; for An­gels cannot, which are pure spirits, much less a body. They are, saith Marsilius, Marsilius, 2. q. 2. Art. 1. in loco definitive, quia sunt sic in uno situ, quod non sunt in alio quolibet; Defini­tively in a place, because they are so in one positure, that, at the same instant, they can­not be in any other. Thus you see the impossibility of Christ's body to be wholy [Page 99] in heaven, and in innumerable consecrated Hoasts upon earth at the same time, de­monstrated by Scriptures, and Fathers: Hence my final Conclusion about this Article is, That Doctrine, which is not expressly taught, or formally deduced from holy Scripture, which no antient Council, or Church, for the first six hundred years plainly taught, and unto which many adverse passages are extant in the Monuments of Antiquitie, also which is repugnant to sense, and common reason, and hath no apparent utilitie, ought not to be believed to be effected by any man whatsoever, but rather to be abjured, and renounced: But Audito nomine Tran­substantiationis, tanta inter recentiores aliquos Scho­lasticos de natura illius ex­orta fuit controversia, utquó magis se extricare conati sunt, eo seipsos majoribus difficultatibus implicârunt. Vasques in 3. Thom. Tom. 3. Disp. 183. cap. 1. such is the Doctrine of Romish Transubstantiation; Therefore it ought not to be believed to be effected by any man whatsoever, but rather abjured, and renounced.

Well; by that, which you have delivered, I am convinced to be of Do­ctour Andrews judgment, De Hoc est, firmâ fide tenemus quòd sit, de hoc modo est (nempe Transubstantiato in corpus pane) de modo, quo fiat ut sit, sive per in, sive con, sive sub, sive trans, nullū inibi verbum est, & quia verbum nullum, merito à fide ablegamus procul; inter scita Scholae fortasse. inter fidei Articulos non pronimus. Doctour An­drews. Bishop of Win­chester, Contra Apol Bellarm. cap. 1. pag. 11 believ­ing firmly, that the words of Christ are true, and, in the sence he meant it, to be his body; but for the manner, how it is his body, seeing there is not one express word, I dare not make it a matter of faith; rank it we may a­mongst the Nicities of Scholes, but not amongst the Articles of our Creed. Therefore you may proceed to the fourth Article.

The Fourth Article.

THIS is symbolical, and concentrick with the two and twentieth Article of our English Confession, wherein it is said, that The Romish Doctrine of Purga­torie is a vain Fiction, Quòd fuerit divina institutio non possit mani­festè probari; quia non constat ex Sacris Literis, neque ex Conciliis. Nu­gnus. Addit. in 3. part. Thom. q. 20. Art. 3. Dif. 1. grounded upon no Testimonies of Scripture, but contrarie to the word of God; and the Apologie of the Church of England, which saith, That It is no better, then a blockish, and old wife's device.

Here, me thinks, that I may cope with you with better success, then formerly; for Purgatorie is so far from being a vain fiction, and old wife's device, that it mounteth high upon the Wings of Antiquitie. Saint Augustine, who lived in the fourth Centurie, and may be stiled The Standard-bearer of the Fathers, makes August. Enchirid. ad Laurent. cap. 6 [...]. cap. 68. ad Dulcitium, Quaest. 1. De fide, & openbus, cap. 16. De Civitate Dei. lib. 12. cap. 26. often mention of it.

Your Argument in form is this▪ That, which Augustine makes often mention of, is no vain fiction; but a credi­table [Page 101] veritie: Augustine makes often mention of Purgatorie.

I first deny your Proposition: for all, that Augustine makes frequent mention off, is not creditable veritie, and void of fiction; he insists often upon Infants dam­nation, that dy without Baptism, of the Eucharist to be given to Babes, that Sine fide etiam quae videntur bona opera in peccatum vertuntur. Au­gust. De fide, & operibus. all Works of Infidels are sins, which the Concilium Tridenti­num meritò damnavit Omnia Infidelium opera esse peccata; etiamsi gra­vem habeat authorem Au­gustinum. Maldonat. Comment. in Matth. vii. 18. Romists deny. In the Bull of Pius Quar­tus, by the Oath their fore-man hath ta­ken, all Priests, and Jesuites are sworn, not to receive, or interpret the Scriptures, but according to the uniform consent of Fathers; Saint Augustine is but one, Aristoteles, Ethic. lib. 1. [...].

Secondly, to your Assumption; Saint Augustine, in the pretended places, men­tions Purgatory, not as a creditable veri­tie; but as a doubtfull opinion, for thus he writes to Laurentius, August. ad Laurent. cap. 67. Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri, incredibile non est, & utrum ita sit, quaeri potest: Some such thing as Purgatorie to be after this life, is not incredible, and whether it be so, or no, it may be a Question. And to Dulcitius, Quòd spiritus defun­ctorum ignem transitoriae tribulationis inveniant, non redarguo, quia forsitan verum est. August. in 8. Quaest ad Dulcitium. That the spirits of the dead finde a fire of transitorie tribulation, I reprove it not; for perhaps it is true. ‘And in his Civitate Dei, Quis sit ille modus, aut quae sint illa peccata, quae ità impediunt perventio­nem ad regnum Dei, ut tamen sanctorum amico­rum meritis impetrent in­dulgentiam, difficilimum est invenire, pericalesissimū definire, ego certè usque ad hoc tempus, cùm indè satagerem, ad eorum inda­ginem perventre non potut. Aug. De civitate Dei, lib. 21. cap. 27. The manner how, and what sins they be, which so let a man from coming to the Kingdom of God, that they not withstanding obtain pardon by the merits of holy friends, it is very hard to finde, and very dangerous to determine, [Page 102] certainly I my self, not withstanding my Study, and Travail taken in this behalf, could never attain to the knowledg of it. Thus you see, how Saint Augustine is pendulous; These crochets, and quavers, Whether there be any such thing, as Pur­gatorie after this life, or no, it may be a Question, Perhaps it is true, As much as I think, I cannot tell, I could never attain to the knowledge of it; make no full consent, or perfect Musick in matters of Faith: But, what if these Sentences be forged, and interfoisted into Augustine's Works? Lu­dovicus Vives, a Romish Rabbie, and there­fore not partial on our behalf, confesses, that in antient Manuscripts of several Ʋniversities, and Monasteries, he could not finde them; and it is no wonder, see­ing Erasmus, Melancthon, Oecolampadius, Possevinus, in Select. Bibl. lib. 1. cap. 19. Possevinus, Crastov. in Bello Je­suit. Crastovius, Rainolds, in lib. De Idolol. Roman. Do­ctour Rainolds, Doctour James, and Felkmanus have discovered so many Forgeries in this one Father, who, unless Saint Augustine contradicteth himself, there is no probability, those Sentences ever dropped from his pen; for in his Hypognosticks he maintaineth, there are but two places after bodily Dissolution: The first place, saith he, the Catholick faith by Divine authority believeth to be the Kingdom of Heaven; The second place the same Catholick Faith believeth to be Hell, where all Apostates, and whosoever is without faith of Christ, shall tast ever­lasting [Page 103] punishment; as Tertium locum peni­tùs ignoramus; imò nec in Seripturis sacris inve­nimus. August Hypo­gnost. lib. 5. for any third place, we are utterly ignorant, neither shall we finde in holy Scriptures, that there is a­ny such.’ And again Non est ullus locus me­dius, ut possit esse, nisi cum Diabolo qui non est cum Christo. August. De peo­ca merit. & remiss. cap. 28. There is no middle place for any to be else-where, then with the Devil, who is not with Christ. Thus you have Augustine's mature, and setled re­solution, with the Juncto of the Ca­tholick Church, in traverse, and counter­check to his private scruple, if his.

The Doctrine of Purgatory was not in traverse, and opposition to the Quidam nullas poenas, nisi purgatorias, volunt esse post mortem. August. De Civitat. Dei, lib. 21. cap. 13. whole Catholick Church; seeing Origen, whom Perkins places in the year 230. a­vouches it.

All, that Origen avouches, is not Catholick Doctrine for, amongst many er­rours, he proclaims [...] general Gaol-deli­very of all Devils, and damned Spirits, and converts Hell [...] self into a Purgato­ry. Besides Origen's Purgatory hath no affinity, or alliance with your Romish.

First, Your Purgatory is pretended to be immediately after death: Origen's after the Resurrection.

Secondly, Yours onely of the Soul: Origen's of the Body also, as well as the Soul.

Thirdly, Yours onely of some few, that die in venial sins unsatisfied: Ori­gen's of all; though eminent Saints, and Martyrs.

Fourthly, Yours onely of a purging fire in an higher vault of Hell: Origen's of that universal fire, that shall dissolve [Page 104] the Heavens at the last Trumpet, joyned with the Sacrament of Baptism: for these are his words, Ʋt ego arbitror, omnes nos necesse est venire in il­lum ignem, etiamsi Pau­lus aliquis sit, vel Petrus. Origen. in Psalm. 36. Ho­mil. 3. I suppose, that all we must come into that fire, yea, although it be Paul, or Peter: and, Ego puto, quòd post Resurrectionem ex mortu­us, indigebimus Sacra­mento elu [...]e nos, atque purga [...]te: nemo enim abs­que sordibus resurgere po­terit, neque ullam puto posse animam reperiri, quae universis statim vitiis ca­reat. Origen. in Lucam, Homil. 14. I think, that, after the Resurrection from the dead, we shall need the Sacrament of Baptism to wash, and purge us; for no man can rise again without filth, neither do I think there can be any soul found void from all manner of sin.

But, though Origen was mista­ken, Purgatory, as stated by the Roman Church, hath been received as an antient Tradition.

Your own Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, writing against Luther, was more modest, and ingenuous; for he confesses, that De Purgatorio apud priscos nulla, vel quàm rarissima sicbat mentio, sed & Graecis, ad hunc usque diem, non est creditum Purgatorium esse: legat, qui velit, Graece­rum [...]crum Commenta­rios, & nullum, q [...] [...]m opinor, vel rarissma [...] Purgatorio sermonem in­veniet. Sed neque Latini somulomnes, a [...] sensi [...] hu­jus rei veritatem concepe runt. Cum itaque Purgatorium tam serò cogni­tum, atque receptum uni versae Ecclesiae suerit, quis jam de Indulgentiis mi­rari potest, quia in pr [...]i­piis nascentis Ecclesiae nul­lus fuerit earum usus. Roffens. Contra Luther. Art. 18. p. 496. Amongst the Antients, there was either none, or very seldom, men­tion of Purgatory; and that the Greeks, to this very day, do not believe it, and who­soever shall read their ancient Monuments, or Commentaries, so far as he sees, shall finde very seldom mention of Purgatory, or none at all; and the Latines, in the Western Church, did not receive the truth of this matter altogether, but by little, and little; neither indeed was the faith, either of Purgatory, or Indulgences, so needful in the Primitive Church, as now it is. Here you see, he affirms five things, whereof every one overthrows your Romish subterranean Gulf. First, That There is no mention of it amongst the Anti­ents. [Page 105] Secondly, That the Greeks deny it, till this day. Thirdly, That it was late be­fore the Latines received it. Fourthly, That they received it by little, and little. Fifthly, That the faith of Purgatory was not needful in the Primitive Church. Du­rand Durand. 4. d. 20. q. 3. is of the same judgement, profes­sing, that Sancti Ambrosius, Hilarius, Augustinus, Hieronymus, minime de eis loquuntur, St. Ambrose, Hilarie, Augu­stine, Hierom, spake nothing of them; [Pur­gatory and Indulgences.] And Alphon­sus a Castro, Alphons. Castro Contr. Haeres. lib. 8. Inter omnes res, de quibus in hoc opere disputamus, nullae sunt, de qui­bus vetusti Scriptores minus dixerint, apud priscos nulla mentio Indulgentiarum; Of all things discoursed in this work, antient Writers speak nothing less, then of In­dulgences, or Popes Pardons, for pur­gatorial punishment; for the Antients make no mention of them. With them concurs De Indulgentiis nihil expressè habemus ex di­ctis antiquorum Docto­rum, vel modernorum. Antonin. Summa Moral. pag. 1. tit. 10. cap. 3. Antonine.

But the Antients make frequent mention of Prayer for the dead, which necessarily infers our Catholick Doctrine of Purgatory, and Indulgences, received from the Apostles.

That Purgatroy, and Indul­gences were received from the Apostles, is as true, as that St. Peter said Mass in Rome with a golden Cope, & triple Crown; and is a conclusion, that hath no depen­dance on your premises; which are Quoties affertur pro vera causa, quod vel nul­la est, vel tantùm causa per accidens, aut dissimi­lis effectûs. Fasciculus Praecept. Logic. pag. 224. fallacia non causae, ut causae, assigning that for a reason, which is no reason, For St. [Page 106] Ambrose, Dionysius, and Epiphanius gave four other reasons, besides Purgatory (of which they never dreamed) for praying for the dead.

• First, A continuation of the same af­fection towards them dead, they had living.
• Secondly, Their imperfect bliss in soul, without the body, and Fellow-Saints.
• Thirdly, Imperfection, in comparison of Christ.
• Fourthly, A meer thanksgiving for their departure in the true faith.

Thus St. Ambrose, in his Oratio Panegyrica pro Theodosio, & Valenti­niano. Ambros. Funeral Orations, made at the Funerals of Theo­dosius, and Valentinianus, two Empe­rours, rejoyced for their sakes, that they had already attained eternal felicity, yet prays, that God would grant them their desired rest, in regard of their bodies, and communion with all Fellow-Saints. St. Basil, and St. Chrysostome, in their Li­turgies, make solemn Orisons thus; Offerimus tibi rationa­lem hunc cultum pro in fide requiescentibus Ma­joribus. Patribus, Patri­archis, Prophetis & A­postolis, Praeconibus, & Evangelistis, Martyribus, Confessoribus, &c. praeci­puè vero pro suavissima, immaculatà, supra omnes bonedicta Domina Dei para, & semper-Virgine Maria. Basil. & Chry­sost. We offer, O Lord, unto thee, this reaso­nable service for them, that rest in faith, our Elders, our Fathers, the Patriarchs, the Prophets, the Apostles, the Preachers, the Evangelists, the Martyrs, the Con­fessours, &c. specially for the most holy, without spot, blessed above all, our Lady, Gods Mother, and ever-Virgin Mary. St. Cyprian [...]. Cyprian. lib. 3. Epist. 6. also saith, Sacrificamus pro Martyribus; We make Sacrifices of prayers, and praises for the Martyrs. Yet the Romists themselves will not conclude [Page 107] hence, that the Patriarchs, Prophets, A­postles, Preachers, Evangelists, Martyrs, Confessours, and the blessed Virgin Mary, were all in Purgatory.

But there are authentick Scri­ptures for Purgatory; how dare we then abjure, or disbelieve it?

Now you speak something to the purpose, if your Assumption were true; for Chrysostom. Contra Gentes. [...]. The holy Scriptures given by inspiration (saith Athanasius) are of them­selves sufficient for the discovery of truth. Bring but one clear place for Purgatory, and you win the Goal. But your own Champions disclaim such Weapons. Du­rand saith, Nec Scriptura ex­pressè de iis loquitur. Durand. 4. Dist. 20. q. 3. Scripture speaks nothing of Purgatory, and Indulgences. Antonine saith, Nihil expressè habe­mus in sacra Scriptura. Antonin. Summa Moral. p. 1. Tit. 10. cap. 3. We have nothing expresly of them in holy Scripture. Alphonsus a Castro saith, Nulla res, quam mi­nùs apertè sacrae Scriptura prodiderunt. Alphons. à Castro, Contr. Hares. lib. 8. There is nothing, of whom Scripture speaks less plainly. Else why should Rof­fensis acknowledge the Latine Church discovered it lately, and that by little, and little. The Greeks have no glimpse of it yet. Whitak. Contra. 1. cap. 5. Quaest. 6. If it were revealed in Scripture, Scripture was the same, and as clear in Primitive, and succeeding times, as now. Besides, Bellarmine, Lindan, and other Bigots of your Faction, marshal Purga­tory amongst Traditions, which are, as your Doctor Kellison Doctor Kellison. Survey, lib. 8. cap. 3. describes them, an opinion, or Custom of the Church, not written in holy Scriptures, but delivered by [Page 108] the hands of the Church, from time to time. With whom consents Bellarmine, saying, Bellarmin. De verbo Dei, lib. 4. cap. 2. Traditions signifie that Doctrine, that is not written by the first Authours in any Apostolick Book.

There is express Scripture, 2 Macchab. xii. 44. for praying for the dead; a reconciliation for the dead, vers. 45. that they might be delivered from sin: which inforces Purgatory.

First, The Jews, from whom Christians received the Canon, with Ori­gen, Cyprian, Hierom, Augustine, Melito Bishop of Sardis, Eusebius, Epiphanius, deny that Book to be Veteris Testamenti li­bros meditare duos & vi­ginti, tu itaque, cùm sis filius Ecclesiae, non trans­gredieris illius terminos. Cyril. Catech. 4. Canonical Scri­pture, and therefore from it can nothing be concluded. The Church (saith St. Hierome Maccabaeorum li­bros legit Ecclesia, sed eas inter Canonicas Scripturas non recipit: legit ad aedifi­cationem plebis, non ad au­thoritatem Dogmatum con­firmandam. Hieron. in Prafat. lib. Solom. reads the Books of Maccha­bees, but receives them not amongst Canonical Scriptures; reads them for edification of the people, but not for confirmation of the Authority of doubt­ful Opinions. Else one might from thence, with the Circumcelliones, digest that mistake, that Self-murder is lawful, from that unnatural act of Razias com­mended, 2 Macchab. xiv. 41. as He­roical.

Secondly, Admit the Authority were authentick, Purgatory will not follow from prayer for the Dead; there are ma­ny other reasons assigned, as it formerly hinted. And whereas it is said, He made a Reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin; the mean­ing [Page 109] is, that the living might be delivered from the plague, or punishment deserved by that prophanation, or Sin, that was committed by them, which are dead: and this will neither infer Purgatory, nor any Popish Errour.

Scriptures also, that are un­doubtedly Canonical, make for Purgato­ry. Matth. xxv. 26. Agree with thine ad­versary quickly, whilest thou art in the way with him, lest at any time the Adversary deliver thee to the Judg, and the Judg de­liver thee to the Officers, and thou be cast in­to prison; verily, I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast payed the uttermost farthing.

He must be a good Chymist, that can extract the fire of Purgatory hence.

First, The words are symbolical, which by Bellarmine's Convenit inter nos, & adversarios, ex solo li­terali sensu peti debere ar­gumenta efficacia. Bel­larm. lib. 3. De verbo Dei, cap. 3. Confession are not argumentative. For Arguments (saith he) can onely be drawn from the literal sense.

Secondly, Saint Augustine Donec solvas no­vissimum quadrantem. miror, si non eam signifi­cat poenam, quae vocatur aeterna. August. De serm. Dom. in monte, lib. 6. here by prison understands Hell, not Purgatory, and parallels with that place of the Psal­mist, Psalm cx. 1. Sit thou on my right­hand, until I make thine enemies thy foot­stool; and that of the Evangelist Matth. i. (o) In illis sunt, quae cū libris Canonicis pugnani, vel [...], vel [...], vel apertê falsa, 1 Macchab. vi. 2. Macchab. 14. 2. M. 12. Bucan. Institut. Theol. p. 37. 25. He knew her not, untill She had brought forth Her first begotten Son; where the first implies not that, after Christ's Ene­mies were subdued, He should sit on God's right hand no longer; nor the lat­ter [Page 110] helpeth the Inference of Helvidius, that, after our Saviour's Birth, Joseph knew his Wife. Saint Augustine therefore concludeth, Donec significat non finem poenae, sed continua­tionem miseriae. August. supra locum. that (till) in this place signifies not an end of pain; but a conti­nuance of Misery. Thou shalt (saith Hu­go Semper solves, nun­quam persolves. Hugo ex Remigio. out of Remigius) be ever paying, yet never satisfy. Which exposition Calvine, and Bucer, and Musculus, do not onely (q) Ostendit debitum sol­vendum, sed non debitorem solvendo. Piscator. in Matthaeum, v. 26. embrace; but Anselm, and Beda, Aqui­nas, and Gorram, Ammonius, and Avenda­do, Maldonat, and Jansenius, with I know not how many of their own Consorts: now the sequel would be prodigious, The damned souls in Hell shall never fully sa­tisfy, therefore there is Purgatory, cujus contrarium est verum.

Christ saith Matt. xii. 32. Who­soever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this World, neither in the World to come; im­plying, that there is a remission, or par­don, in the World to come.

None ever held a remission, and pardon of Sins in the World to come, but Origen, Origenes ipsum Di­abolum, atque Angelos e­jus post graviora pro me­ritis, & diuturniora sup­plicia, ex illis cruciatibus cruendos, atque sociandos sanctis Angelis credidit. August. De Civitate Dei, lib. 21. cap. 17. who with his misericor­des Doctores believed, that the Devil him­self, and his Angels after great, and long punishment suffered for their wickedness, shall be delivered from their torments, and shall be placed in Heaven with the Holy Angels of God; and that Origen in Episto­la cap. 6. lib. 5. Christ should descend into Hell, and be crucifi­ed again for them, for whom the preach­ing of his former Death, and Passion was [Page 111] not prevalent. Romish pretended Pur­gatory, and Indulgences pleads not for a remission, or pardon of Sins, but onely of temporal punishment due to Sins unsatis­fied. So, conformable to Aquin. Quodlib. 2. artic. 66. & 1, 2. Q. 47. art. 3. 4. Cajet. Opusc. Tom. 2. q. 4. Aquinas, and Cajetan saith Zerula, Per Indulgentiam non remittitur culpa peccati, nec poena aeterna mututur in temporalem; sed solae temporalis remittitur tota, vel pars. Zerula, De In­dulgentiis,, lib. 1. cap. 11. By Indulgence is not remitted the Fault of Sin, neither is an eternal punishment changed into a temporal; but onely the temporal is re­mitted whole, or part. But admit, par­don of Sin were in Purgatorie's jurisdicti­on, how is it gathered from these words, It shall be forgiven him neither in this World, nor in the World to come. A­mongst the Logicians, Ex meris Negativis Syllogismus est vitiosus, ut Aristoteles prolixè repe­tit cap. 4, 5, 6. primi Pri­orum. two Negative Propositions are not wont to conclude an Affirmative; it is an Hebraism by way of exaggeration, intimating it shall never be forgiven; for so Saint Mark iii. 29. in aequivalent Terms expresseth the same thing, [...]. It is said Rom. viii. 38. Neither things present (that is of this Life,) nor things to come (that is of the Life to come) shall separate us; none gathers hence, that they, that are in Christ, shall be separated from his Love in the World to come; but it is an emphatical expression signifiying, They shall never be separated.

But the Apostle Saint Paul speaketh expressly of Purgatory-fire, 1 Cor. iii. 15. If any Man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he him­self shall be saved, yet so as by Fire.

[Page 112]

You are like them, that think the Bells ring whatsoever they fancy; or the Pythagoreans, that had so moulded their imagination to Numbers, that they found them in every thing. You are so possessed with this Lunacy of Purgatory, that Kitchin-fire, Elementary-fire, Hell­fire, yea Metaphorical fire must serve to kindle your Ʋtopian-Forge. Erasmus, in his Annotations upon this place, saith, Erasmus, Annot. supra locum. It is a vain thing, to interpret it of Purgatory, seeing it is here meant far o­therwise. Saint Chrysostom, Chrysost. supra lo­cum. with the Greek Scholies, understands it of Hell. St. Augustine, August. De Fide, et operibus, cap. 15, 16. En­chirid. ad Laurent. cap. 69. De Civitate Dei, lib. 21. Octo quaestiones ad Dulcit. q. 1. Supra Psalm. xxix. and Saint Ambrose di­scover it to be onely a Symbolical, or Typical fire, and that by it is onely meant the Word, Spirit, and Afflictions, which, Mal. iii. 2. like a Refiner's fire, or Ful­ler's sope, shall try every Man's Doctrine, whether it be Sound, or Heterodox; and is such a fire (as they finde it rivetted in the Text) which is common both to the Good, and Bad Builder, whether funda­mental, or praeterfundamental, which is not pretended for Purgatory. Peter Martyr, Josias Sinlerus, in Oratione, De vita, & mor­te Petri Martyris Ver­milii. Governour of the Neapoli­tan College of Saint Peter, at Spoletum, reading his usual Lecture (as it fell out) upon this Chapter, coming to those words, He shall be saved, yet as by Fire, in conformity to Saint Augustine, and the Antients, interprets it of a Metaphorical, not Purgatorial fire; because it was common both to Saints, and Reprobates: [Page 113] whereupon he was interdicted to proceed any further, which occasioned his more diligent search into Antiquity, (which he found against Purgatory, and other Po­pish points) and consequently his Re­formation.

But nothing, that is defiled, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Men, when they dy, are not perfectly pure, and sanctified; therefore it is requisite, before they enjoy the presence of the Lamb, and eternal bliss, that they have their purgation.

We have our Purgation, not by the natural energy of any Creaturè, as Fire, Water, but by the moral, and spiritual influence of the Blood of the Lamb applyed by faith; 1 John 1. 7. The Blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all Sin. The Holy Scripture teacheth us ex­presly, that all spiritual redemption is Vult docer [...] Aposto­lus legem veterem per Christum abolitam esse, totámque ejus obligationem cessare, introductâ lege Christi. Estius. immediately wrought by the blood of Christ. Hebr. i. 3. When he had by him­self, [...] purged our Sins; Coloss. 2. 15. Triumphed over them in himself, [...]. whereupon Saint Cyprian saith, Sanguis tuus, O Do­mine, non quaerit ultionem, sanguis tuus lavat crimi­na, peccata condonat. Cy­prian De passione Christi. Thy blood, O Lord, seeketh no revenge, thy blood washeth our Sins, and pardoneth our Trespasses. And Saint Augustine, Valeat mihi ad per­fectionem liberationis tan­tum pretium sanguinis Do­mini mei. Augustin. in Psalm. xxv. Let onely the price of the Blood of my Lord avail me to the perfection of my Delivery. And whereas Purgatery-mongers restrain these, and the like places, to the stain, and eternal guilt of Sin; the Apostle, Colloss. 11. 14. Lex enim judicabat nos reos, dum non praesta­bamus quod praecip [...]ebatur, unde etiam dicit Chiro­graphum ipsum fuisse contrarium nobis: hoc Chirographum delevit Christus, quia ejas bene­ficio non amplius tenemur lege. Adam Sa [...]bo [...]. affirmeth, that Christ bletted [Page 114] out, [...], the handwriting of Decrees contained in the Law, that was against us, and took it out of the way: But the tem­poral punishment of Sin is contained within the latitude of the Law, Levit. xxvi. 14. Deut. xxviii. 15. therefore Christ Jesus our Saviour immediately, and by him­self, and not mediately, and the passions of Saints, or Purgatory-fire, wiped out, and removed out of the way the male­diction of temporary punishment, as well as the guilt of eternal.

But Sins cannot be washed a­way, but by long tract of time, and pain in Purgatory.

There needs no tract of time to them, that truly by faith lay hold on the infinite merits of Christ. Isaiah, liii. 5. By his Stripes we are made whole. Revel. xiv. 13. Blessed are the Dead, that dy in the Lord, even so saith the Spirit; for they rest from their Labours, and their works follow them: he saith not, They shall be in Purgatory, but they rest from their Labours. Revel. vii. 16, 17. They shall hunger no more, they shall thirst no more; for the Lamb, which is in the midst of the Throne, shall lead them (not in­to Purgatory, but) into the lively Foun­tains of waters, and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes. Whereupon St. Au­gustine saith, Quando aliquis se con­verterit ad Deum. prorsus illi omnia dimittuntur. Au­gust. De Verbo Dom: [...]erm. 59. Whensoever any man turn­eth himself unto God, all things are utterly forgiven him; let no man be doubtful, lest any thing haply be not forgiven. And St. [Page 115] Chrysostome engages thus in the Person of God, Ego fide jubeo, si quis nostrum recedat à peccatis ex animo, & verè promit­tat Deo, se ad illa non re­diturum, nihil Deum re­quisiturum ad satisfactio­nem. Chrysost. De B. Philogonio. I will stand bound in God's behalf, if any of us forsake his sins with all his heart, and make true promise unto God, he will no more return unto them, that then God shall require no­thing else to satisfaction. St. Cyprian saith, In eodem articulo temporis, cum jam anima festinat ad exitum, & e­grediens ad labia expirantis emerscrit, poenitentiam cle­mentissimi Dei benignitas non aspernatur, nec sera est, quae vera est. Cypr. De Caena Dom. In that very moment of time, even when the Soul is ready to pass, and is even at the lips of the Party, ready to yield up the spirit, the goodness of our merciful God refuseth not repentance, and whatsoever is truly done, is never too late. St. Chrysostome saith, Chrysost. in Genes. Homil. 27. Ne­que uno die, neque brevi hora. The Thief on the Cross had not a day, no not an hour, before he was with Christ in Pa­radise.

But, though the guilt of sin be remitted to the penitent, yet is a stain in­herent to the soul, which must be purged by satisfactory punishment, or Indulgence before the last Judgment.

After bodily dissolution there is neither purgation, nor satisfaction; for as the Tree falls, so it lies; as death leaves us, so judgment findes us. Joh. v. 24. He, that heareth my Word, and believeth on him, that sent me, hath everlasting life, [...], and cometh not unto judgment, but is passed from death unto life: whereof St. Augustine renders rea­sons consonant to analogie of faith, August. in Apocal. Homil. 11. Qualem invenit Dominus, cum hinc vocat, talem & judicat; As our Lord findeth [Page 116] a man, when he calleth him hence, even so he judgeth him. Qui in hac vita non plac [...]erit, habebit quidem poenitentiam in futuro sae­culo de malis suis, sed in­dulgentiam in conspectu Dei non inveniet; quia etsi erit ibi stimulus poenitudi­nis, nulla tamen erit cor­rectio voluntatis. August. ad Petr. Diac. cap. 3. Who in this life shall not please God, shall in the World to come, have repentance for his sins, but pardon in the sight of God he shall not finde; for although there shall be there the pricks of repentance, yet there shall be no amendment of the will. Olympiodorus seconds him, saying, In quocunque loco de prehenditur homo, cum mo­ritur, in eo gradu, atque ordine permanet in aeternū. Olympiodor. in Eccles. cap. 9. In what place, or state soever a man shall be found, when he dyeth, in the same state, and degree shall he remain for ever.

How then came Purgatory, and Indulgences to be so generally received; if they have no ground from Scriptures, nor uniform consent of Fathers?

That they have neither ground in Scriptures, nor uniform consent of Fa­thers, is already demonstrated, and by your own confessed; and therefore wants that infallible mark of Catholick Doctrine, given by Vincentius Lyrinensis, Vir centius Lyrinen­sis Adversus profanas no­vationes haeresium; pag. 646. he requires the Marks of Catholick Do­ctrine, Ʋniversality, An­tiquity, and Consent, or Succession. In ipsa ecclesia Cathelica magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est; In the Catholick Church, we must have an especial care, that we hold that, which was believed every where, always, and of all. But Purgatory was not believed every where; for saith Nilus, Nilus de Purgatotio, Catholica Traditio. quaest. 16. We know, that the Eastern Church doth not believe it: and Roffensis, Roffensis contra Lu­therum, Art. 18. Graecis usque ad hunc di­em non est creditum; The Greeks be­lieve no I urg [...]t [...]ry till this day. Not al­ways; [Page 117] for (saith the same Roffensis) de Purgatorio apud priscos nulla est mentio; The Antients make no mention of Pur­gatory. And Marcus, Bishop of Ephesus, in the Apologie of the Greeks to the Council of Florence, begins, Marcus Ephes. in Graecorum Apol. de igne Purgatorio ad Concilium Florentinum. Where­as our Fathers had delivered unto them many Visions, and Dreams, and other wonders concerning the everlasting punishment in Hell; yet none of them had declared any thing concerning the temporary fire of Purgatory. Not of all, for the Muscovites, Cophites, the Abis­sines, the Georgians, and Armenians, the Syrians, and Chaldeans, that are subject to the Patriarchs of Antioch, and Babylon, from Cyprus, and Palestina until the East-Indians, never made discovery of this new-found Land of Purgatory: Car­dinal Cusanus, and the Deputies of the Council of Basil, in the year 1438. do sufficiently manifest the Opinions of the Greek Church, wherein the Grecians be­gan their Disputations in this manner. [...], &c. [...]. Marcus Crus. in Turco-Graec. pag. 186. A Pur­gatory fire, and a punishment by fire, which is temporal, and shall at last have an end, neither have we received from our Doctours, neither do we know, that the Church of the East doth manifest it. And from these, and the like Progosi­tions, they make this peremptory conclu­sion, [...]. Ibid. For these Reasons therefore, nei­ther have we hitherto affirmed any such thing, neither will we at all affirm i [...].

[Page 118]

Whence then had Purgatory its Original, if it have neither Ʋniversality, Ecclesiastick Antiquity, nor Succession? such a great fire (as it is pretended) could not be kindled from a small spark.

It had its first spring, and rise from the Heathens; Plato Plato in Timaeo. made dis­covery of it amongst the Grecians; St. Augustine August. De Civitate Dei, lib 7. cap. 7. amongst the Pagan Romans, who had a Sacrifice, called Sacrum Pur­gatorium, a Purgatory Sacrifice; they probably borrowed it from Homer; he communicated his fictions to succeeding Poets: hence Quid negotii est, haec Tocta [...]um, & Pictorum portenta convincere. Cicero, Tusculan. those Fables arise of Her­cules delivering Theseus; Orpheus his Wife Eurydice; Aeneas his visit of his Father Anchises. The manner whereof Virgil, who was Homer's Imitator, ex­presses.

How came this Heathenish, and Poetical Figment traduciary to Christi­ans? It is not probable, they should in­termingle their Fables with Divine ve­rity.

Corruption was introduced, and Divine Oracles contaminated with humane Traditions three ways.

First, By retaining some reliques of former Superstitions; for when Pagans were converted Christians, Quo semel est imbuta recens, servabit odorem Te­sta diu. Horat. the Casket still relished of the precedent Liquor. Constantine Eusebius in Vita Constantini. the Emperour, when a professed Christian, continued the Plutarch. in Numa Pompil. Heathen Office of Pontifex Summus, with other remainders of Idolatry.

Secondly, The People's Credulity, and the Clergie's policy; for whereas Cardinal Cajetan tells us, Indulgentias dari tan­tum de impositis poeniten­tiis. Cajetan. Opusc. Tom. 1. tr. 8. q. 1. Indulgences at the first, were onely given after penance impo­sed; the manner how, is described in the Nicene, and Ancyran Concil. Ancyr. Con­cil. 1. Nic. Burchard. lib. 19. & Gratian. Dist. 12. cap. Presb. Councils, thus, Concil. Anc. Can. 5. Nic. 1. Can. 11. After grievous crimes, men were put to grievous penances; it fell out sometimes, that it was thought convenient, that pe­nance should be mitigated; which favour the Bishops, and Priests, invested with ju­risdiction, had authority to grant; at [Page 120] length, they began to redeem them with mo ney: by little, and little, Superstition took so deep root, that the common people began to think, that if they did not perform, or re­deem them, while they lived, they could not die in peace. The Romish Higlers took ad­vantage of this, and affrighted them on their Death-beds with exquisite tortures to be endured hereafter, if not ransomed by themselves, or friends: hence it was a common opinion in the days of Albert. 4. Dist. 12. Art. 17. Alber­tus, and Gand. Quodlibet. 15. Henricus de Gandavo, that Popes Pardons, and Purgatory were onely pious frauds. So Altisiodorus expresly; Dicunt quidam, quod relaxatio non valet, quan­tum Ecclesia promittit; sed facit, ut ex [...]it [...]ntur fidcles ad dandum, & decipit eos Ecclesia. Altisiodor. Sum. lib. 4. De relap. The end of Indulgences is, that the Faithful may be excited to give, and the Church deceives them.

Thirdly, Satan, having got Videtur dicendum, quod valet ad tot annos. ad quot secundum divinam or­dinationem pro peccatis praeteritis haberet sustinere in Purgatorio, si ante in­dulgentiae consecutionem in gratia decessisset. Viguer. Institut. cap. 16. sect. 6. vers. 22. this hint, drove on the design by Frater Justus. qui de­functus fuerat, nocte qua­dam fratri suo Germano Copioso per visionem ap­paruit, quem cùm vidisset, inquisivit dicens, Quid est frater? quomodo es? cui respondet, Nuncusque malé: sed jam modo bene habet quia hodie commu­nionem recepi. Gregor. Dialog. lib. 4. cap. 55. Apparitions to the living, in the shape, and persons of the Dead; telling them, they were scorch­ed in Purgatorial Flames, and not to be delivered from thence; but by Popes Pardons, Pilgrimages, Masses, Oblati­ons, Prayers for the Dead, and other Su­perstitious superstructures, which this sub­tile Serpent builded upon this foundation. Hence, as some Geographers for proving of a Vide Tabulam M [...]r­eat. universam. black Magnetick Rock, many hundred miles about, directly under the Northern Pole, sends us to Gyraldus Cambrensis, he to a Priest of Norway; the Priest to an Oxford Magician, who was carried thither to see it by the Devil: So the best Romish proofs for their sub­terranean [Page 121] Purgatory come by many de­ductions from the same Authour, as ap­peareth by the divers Apparitions they so confidently alledge for it. The result of the whole epitomized is this; That, which is not grounded upon Scripture, and can justly plead neither Ʋniversality, Anti­quity, nor Succession; but had its spring, and rise, from Poetical Fictions, People's credulity, Priest's avarice, Satan's subtle­ty, ought not to be believed, but rather abjured, and renounced; But such is Pur­gatory: Therefore it ought not to be believed, but rather abjured, and re­nounced.

Well; I clearly perceive, there is no Purgatory, but in a man's Imaginati­on, with which Lunacie I have been vex­ed these many years; but I thank you for delivering me out of it, and desire you to proceed to the next Article.

The Fifth Article.

THis Article innovates nothing, but is synonomous, and, without any consi­derable alteration in effect, the same with the twenty second of our English Confes­sion, wherein it is said, That the Romish Doctrine of Veneration, and Adoration, both of Images, and Reliques, are grounded upon no warrant of Scripture; but rather con­tradictory to the Word of God.

There is some difference; for in the present Article there is no mention of Reliques; in that of the English Con­fession, none of the Consecrated Hoast; which seems to me distinct things, and re­quires a distinct manner of handling: Therefore, I beseech you, begin with the former, that the consecrated Hoast ought not to be worshipped.

They are coincident, and the handling of them will fall in toge­ther; for the consecrated Hoast, and Images, are in this distinguished; that the former represent the Prototype by a Di­vine, the latter onely by a humane institu­tion: but both concenter in this, (which is essential to the Question) that they are but signs, or Creatures at the best, and so not adorable: we have been long since [Page 123] taught of St. Augustine, Ea demum est misera­bilis anima servitus signa pro robus accipere. August. De Doct. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 5. That it is a miserable servitude of the Soul, to take the signs instead of the thing signified.

But Christ calls the consecrated Hoast his Body; and Theodoret tells us, Intelliguntur ea esse, quae facta sunt, & credun­tur, & adorantur. Theo­doret. Dialog. 2. The Mystical signs are understood to be those things, which they are made, and so they are believed, and are adored.

In what sense the Consecrated Hoast is the Body of Christ, you have heard in the Article of Transubstantia­tion; your own quoted Theodoret, (if you desire it) will give you further satisfacti­on; for an Heretick having avouched (as you do now) That Symbola Dominici cor­poris, & sanguinis, aliae quidem sunt ante invoca­tionem Sacerdotis, sed post invocationem mutantur, & aliud fiunt. Respondetur. Signa mystica post sanctifi­cationem non recedunt à natura sua, manent anim in priori substantia, & fi­gura, & forma. Theodo­ret. Dialog. 2. The Sacraments, or signs of Christ 's Body, and blood, are one thing before the blessing of the Priest, but after the blessing they are changed, and made other things: Theodoret answers no; For the mystical signs after the blessing (of the Priest) depart not from their own na­ture, for they remain in their former sub­stance, figure, and form; the same Bread, and Wine, remains as before, are under­stood, and believed as before; but he ad­deth, They are also adored; his meaning is, They are reverenced, or honoured: for Theodoret was a Father of the Greek Church, who adore not the Sacrament till this day, yet would speak reverently of it, as St. Augustine doth of Baptism, saying, Baptisma ubique est veneramur. August. E­pist. 164. We honour, or adore Baptism, wheresoever it be. I hope the Romists will not gather hence, that Baptism must be worshipped: It was the Counsel of Ana­stasius, [Page 124] that Dominica verba at tentè audiant, & fideliter adorent. Athanas. De Cons. Dist. 1. Apostolica. Men should deligently hear, and faithfully adore the Words of God; yet Papists themselves give no divine Wor­ship to sacred Oracles: we may reverence, and admire the Eucharist, with Venisti ad Altare vi­disti Sacramenta posita su­pra Altare, & ipsum qui­dem miratus es creaturam; tamen creatura solennis, & nota. Ambros. De Sacr. lib. 4. cap. 3. St. Ambrose, yet give no divine Worship to it; as the Wise men did the Stars, Cognove­runt hanc stellam esse, quae hominem, De­umque signabat, sed adoraverunt parvu­lum. They knew (saith St. Ambrose) (g) Ambros. in Lucam. lib. 2. cap. 2. this was the Star, that signified him un­to them, that was both God and Man, but they adored the little one, and not the Star.

But why may we not worship the Consecrated Hoast, seeing it signifies, represents, and exhibits Christ, who is to be worshipped?

Because there is no worship due to it, either by Divine Institution, or otherwise, that is free from Idolatry. For as Theophilus, being sometimes demanded, Wherefore he would not adore the Empe­rour, as the manner was then, with divine honour? made answer thus, Quia non est ad hoc institutus Imperator, ut a­doretur; sed ut legitimo honore honoretur. Theo­philus contr. Autolycum. lib. 1. Because the Emperour is not appointed to that end he should be worshipped; but that we should give him that honour, that to him appertain­eth: so the Sacrament was not appointed to be worshipped, but reverently to be re­ceived by Faith. And, as St. Augustine saith of the anointed Pillar, so we may say of the consecrated Bread, Non sic posuit Jacob lapidem acutum, ut veniret, & adoraret; alioqui Ido­lolatria est, non significatio Christi. August. in Johan. Tract. 7. Jacob did not erect the anointed stone to the intent to come, and to adore it; otherwise it were I­dolatry, [Page 125] and not a signification of Christ. Sulpitius Sulpitius in Vita Martini. relates of St. Martin, that when the Devil appeared unto him, and demanded Worship, telling him, he was Christ, the holy man refused, saying, I cannot tell, whether thou be Christ, or no; unless I see Christ in the same shape, and form he was crucified in upon the Cross, I will not adore him in any wise. So we, know­ing not any warrant, that Christ is essenti­ally, and substantially in the Sacrament, dare not worship it; for in all the Scri­ptures, and holy Fathers, we have neither commandment to force us, nor Quis tam stultus, ut id, quod vescitur, credat esse Deum? Cicero. De natura Deorum. example to lead us thereto.

If adoration of the Hoast be dis­owned both by Scriptures, and antient Fathers; how was it introduced into the Church, or when began it?

Extravag. De caie­brat. Missar. It is a thing lately devised by Pope Honorius, about the year of our Lord, 1226. afterwards increased by the new solemn Feast of Corpus Christi day, about the year of our Lord 1264, and that by Pope Ʋrbanus: and last of all, con­firmed for ever by multitudes of Par­dons in the Council of Vienna, by Pope Clement the Fifth, Cleme [...]. lib. 3. Tit. 16. [...]pite Si Dominum. Anno 1310. The Church of Asia, and Graecia, never re­ceived it until this day. The matter is weighty, and cannot be attempted with­out imminent danger to the soul; for saith St. Hierome, Dum Sacramenta vie­lantur, ipse, cusus Sacra­mem a s [...]nt. vi [...]l [...]ur. Hie­ron, in Malac [...]. cap. 1. While Sacraments are abused, God himself, whose Sacraments they are, is dishonoured. To give the ho­nour [Page 126] of God to a creature, that is no God, is manifest Idolatry; and all Idolaters, (saith St. John, Apocalyp. xxi. 8.) shall have their portion in the Lake, that burneth with fire; and brimstone.

But, admit adoration of the Hoast in particular was introduced within these few Centuries; yet worship of Crucifixes, and Images in general, is acknowledged by Protestants (as Andrews in Re­spons. ad caput 18. Per­ronii. Doctour Andrews, Casaubon. in Exer­citat. Baronii; ad Annum 24. Casaubon, and Montacutius in Re­spons. ad Higham, & Appello Caesarem. Montague) to be ve­ry antient.

Imagerie is twofold; either Veneration largely taken; which signifies an external regard, and reverence of Pictures, such as is given to Churches, sa­cred Vessels, and Ornaments of sacred pla­ces; and this Hoc nemo nostrum di­cit, Non esse colendas, nec ullo modo; suo modo coli probamus, velut Imagines, sed non religioso cultu. Ju­nius advers. Bellarm. De Imag. cap. 11. Junius, with the for­mer quoted Authours, confesses to be both antient, and (in their judgment) in­nocent: Or Adoration properly taken, which signifieth an internal submissi­on of soul to the acknowledging of some excellency; an outward expressi­on of the body by kneeling, kissing, censing, holding up the hands. Worship­ping of Images in this manner, by re­ligious adoration; either primary, or se­condary, absolute, or respective, is not acknowledged to be antient, or Ca­lick Doctrine, practised by Primi­tive Fathers: But, on the contrary, it is a superstitious Dotage, and re­mainder of Paganism, as Cornelius A­grippa, a Papist, confesses, saying, [Page 127] Qui quidem corruptus mos Gentilium, & falsa religio, cùm ipsi ad Chri­sti fidem converti caeperunt, nostram quoque Religionem infecit, & in nostram Ec­clesiam simulachrae, & I­magines, multaque pompa­rum steriles ceremoniat in­troduxit; quorum, &c. Cornelius Agrippa, De vanitate Scientiarum. The corrupt custom of the Gentiles, and false Religion, when they began to be converted to the faith of Christ, infect­ed also our Religion, and introduced into our Church, Pictures and Images, and ma­ny barren pompous Ceremonies, quorum nihil omnino fuit apud primos illos Chri­stianos, whereof there was not any thing a­mong those primitive Christians.

Cornelius Agrippa in this, as in other Points, acts the part rather of a Sa­tyrist, then of a true Casuist; what reason had he thus tartly to inveigh against in­troduction of Images?

He might, and we have suffici­ent reason.

First, The Canon of the Old Testament is diametrically opposite to Image-Wor­ship; Exod. xx. 5. Levit. xxvi. 1. Deut. v. 9. Psal. cvi. 9. Isai. xxviii. Micha. v. 13. that the best-learned among your Romish Rab­bies are forced to confess, it was prohibi­ted to the Jews. The Angelical Doctour saith▪ Prohibitum est in ve­teri Lege, nè Imagines fl­erent ad adorandum. A­quin. 3. Sent. Dist 9. q. 2. The making of Images to be wor­shipped was interdicted in the Old Law. The same is affirmed by Alexand. Hales pa. 3. q. 30. m. 3. Art. 3. Alexander Hales, Albert. 3. Dist. 9. Art. 4. Albertus, Bonavent. 3. Dist. 9. Bonaventure, Marsilius, Gerson, Abulensis, and vouch­ed by the modern Schole-men; to wit, Soto, Corduba, Cabrera, Palacius, Tapia, Oleaster, amongst whom the Jesuit Vas­ques shall bring up the Rear; who de­clares, That Lege veteri non fuisse vetitam omnem similitudi­nem, aut effigiem quomodo­cunque; sed omnem cul­tum, & adorationem ipsius, atque adeo quoque omnem Imagmem, seu effigiem mo­do accommodato adorationi erectam, aut constitutam. Vasques, De Ador. lib. 2. Dis 4. cap. 6. In the Old Law, every I­mage, and Portraicture was not forbidden; but every Worship, and Adoration of Ima­ges: [Page 128] and therefore every similitude, or re­presentation erected, or constituted by way of application to Adoration, was prohibited.

Secondly, The Brazen Serpent was a figure of Christ, John iii. 14. was formed by God's Commandment, Numb. xxi. 9. yet the worship thereof, being (as Vasques Vasques, De Ador. lib. 2. Dis. 4. cap. 5. saith) cultus, qualem etiam imaginibus deferre nos consuevimus, no other, then such as Romists use towards their Images, was unlawful; 2 Kings xviii. 4.

Thirdly, The Scriptures of the New Testament, neither expresly, nor by con­sequence, maintain the worship of Images; neither is there in all the Apostles Do­ctrine, any abrogation of the negative Precept, delivered to the Jews, concern­ing the worship of Images; and there­fore the same Law is Morale simpliciter, quod omni tempore, & ab omnibus servandum est. Alexand. Hales, 4. q. Art. 1. moral, and obli­geth Christians, as it did the Jews.

Fourthly, The worshipping of Images was not practised, or held lawful by the Primitive Fathers, as Cassander Quantum veteres, in­itio Ecclesiae, ab omni ve­neratione Imaginum ab­horruerunt, declarat unus Origenes adversus Cel­sum. Cassand. Consult. De Imag. & Simulachr. ga­thers out of Origen against Celsus; and Gregory the Great, six hundred years af­ter Christ, condemned the same; for, wri­ting to a Bishop, he useth this Suasive, Gregor. lib. 7. Epist. 109. lib. 9. Epist. 9. Tua fraternitas ab earum adoratu populum prohibere debuit; Your Brother-hood ought to hinder the people from wor­shipping of them; and adorare imagines omnibus modis devita, avoid the wor­shipping of Images by all means. The Council of Frankford seven hun­dred, ninety; and fourscore years [Page 129] after Christ, opposed the Definition of the second Nicene Synod, concerning wor­shipping of Images, as Ado saith, Ado, Chron. atatis 6. fol. 181. Pseudo-Synodus, quam septimam Graeci ap­pellant, pro Imaginibus adorandis abdicata penitus; The false Synod, which the Greeks call the seventh, for worshipping of Images was wholly disclaimed. And our Historian, Carolus, Rex Fran­corum, misit librum Syno­dalem ad Britanniam, in quo libro multa inconveni­entia, & verae fidei con­traria, maximè imagines debere adorari, quod om­nino Ecclesia Dei execra­tur. Roger Hoveden. Annal. part. 1. pag. 232. col. 2. Roger Hoveden, though a Papist, informs us, that Charles, the French King, sent a Book of the Synod to Britain, in which Book, many Inconveniences, and contrary to the true faith, were asserted, especially, that Images ought to be adored, which (saith he) the Church of God altogether ex­ecrates. And this was done, even with the authority of the Pope; for, saith Cassan­der, Cassander, Consult. De Imagin. Cum Legati Romani Pontificis in­terfuerunt, &c. When the Legates of the Bi­shop of Rome were present, by uniform con­sent of Fathers, that Synod (the second Ni­cene) so far as it judged Images to be ado­red, was condemned, as contrariant, not onely to Scriptures, and the antient tradition of Fathers, but also to the custom of the Ro­man Church.

Agobardus, the Bishop of Lyons, who lived (as Ado saith) about the year 815, in his Book De Picturis, & Imaginibus, a­vers, that Nullus antiquorum Catholicorum unquam eas colendas, vel adorandas ex­istimavit, nemo se fallat, quicunque aliquam pi­cturam, vel fusilem adorat statuam non exhibet cultum Deo, &c. Agobard. Bib­liothec. Patr. edit. Colon; Tom. 19. p. 598. None of the antient Catho­licks thought that Images were to be wor­shipped, or adored; and delivering his own judgement, he saith, Nemo se fallat, &c. Let no man beguil himself, whosoever wor­shippeth any Picture, or carved Statue, nei­ther [Page 130] honoureth God himself, nor Angels, or Saints, but Idols.

Fifthly, Many modern Pontificians have condemned the worship of Images; according as the same was practised by the vulgar, and maintained by Aquinas, and other prime Scholemen. Holcoth saith, Holcoth. in dibr. Sap. cap. 13. pag. 524. Nulla adoratio debetur Imagini, nec licet aliquam Imaginem adorare; No adoration is due to an Image, neither is it lawful to worship any Image. Cassan­der writeth in this manner, Sanioribus Scholasticis displicet sententia Thomae; qui censeat imaginem ea­dem adoratione colendam, qua res ipsa colitur. &c. Cassand. Consult. De Pictur. The Opini­on of Thomas Aquinas, who holdeth, that Images are to be worshipped, as their sam­plers, is disliked by sounder Scholemen: and they affirm, that it is not very safe, unless it be qualified with favourable interpre­tation; among these is Durand, and Hol­coth. Gabriel Biel reports the Opinion of them to be more sound, which say, that an Image neither as considered in it self ma­terially, nor yet according to the nature of a sign, or Image, is to be worshipped. Peresius Ajala saith, (m) All Scholemen, (n) Omnes ferè Schola­stici in hoc sunt, quôd ima­go Christi, & Sanctorum adorari debent, &c. neque Scripturam, neque tradi­tionem Ecclesia, neque communem sensum San­ctorum, neque Concilii ge­neralis determinationem a­liquam adducunt. Peres. De Trad. part. 3. De Imag. in a manner, hold, that the Images of Christ, and the Images of Saints, are to be worship­ped with the same adoration, that their sam­plers; but they produce, so far as I have seen, no sound proof of this Doctrine, to wit, nei­ther Scripture, nor Tradition of the Church, nor consent of Fathers, nor the determinati­on of a general Council, nor any other effe­ctual reason, sufficient to perswade be­lievers.

But we finde, that the Crucifix, [Page 131] or the sign of the Cross was in great e­steem amongst the Antients; as was pre­sented in a Vision to Ezekiel, where God commanded one clad in white, to imprint the Letter Tau, which (St. Hierome Hieron. Comment. in Ezek. saith) amongst the antient Hebrews re­presents the Cross, in the forehead of e­very mourner, Ezek. ix. In conformity to this, when Constantine, Eusebius, Ecclesiast. Histor. libr. 1. cap. 9. the Emperour, had marshalled his Army to encounter Maxentius, he beheld in the Sky the sign of the Cross of a glorious splendor, and heard a voice, [...], In this overcome. When Sozomen Tripartit. Histor. lib. 9. cap. 29. Julian the Apostate, had deserted Christianity, and sacrificed to Idols, drops of rain, as they marched, formed in his, and his Souldiers Garments, the effigies of the Cross. Ruffinus, Ecclesia­stic. Histor. lib. 10. in fine. When the Jews attempted to build the Temple at Jerusalem, by Julian's encouragement; they being driven from that design by Tempests, and Earth-quakes, indelible Characters of the Cross were imprinted on their Cloaks. Socrates, Histor. Tri­part. lib. 9. cap. 29. In the Temple of Se­rapis, [...], Hiero­glyphical Letters were found engraven in stone, representing the figure of the Cross.

What will you gather hence? If you affirm, that either de facto they did worship the Cross; or de jure they might, or ought to have done it; you will finde no History for the one, nor any reason for the other. We acknowledge there are Stories extant, when Jews, and [Page 132] Pagans blasphemed him, that died upon the Cross, the figure thereof was either wonderfully imprinted, or wonders done thereby: but any Argument drawn from thence to prove the adoration of it will as well conclude the worship of Moses his Rod, Elizeus his Bones, Paul's Napkin, and Peter's shadow. The Brazen Serpent serves for an instance unanswerable; which, though set up by God, miracu­lously curing the sting of the fiery Ser­pent, enjoyned to be kept for a Monu­ment; yet, when adored, was Quando Ezekias ipsum confregit, quòd videret ei incensum adoleri; cùm ta­men in memortam praeteriti beneficii à Deo accepti in populo illo servaretur, non ideo fecit, quia existimaret à populo pro Deo coli, & adorari; sed quod ali­quem cultum, qualem eti­am Imaginibus deferre nos consuevimus. Vasques, De Adorat. lib. 2. Dis. 4. cap. 5. justly by Ezekias demolished, and broken in pieces. Grant all these Stories should be true; That the Letter Tau, in Ezekiel's Vision, should represent the Cross; That Constantine saw the Crucifix in the Air; That the Souldiers Coats were stained with the Cross under Julian; That Crosses were burned, or stained in the Jews Gar­ments at Jerusalem; That the Hierogly­phical Letters, bearing the form of the Cross, were found in the Temple of Sera­pis in Aegypt: It will demonstrate no more, (as St. Chrysostome Mors Christi apud Judaeos maledicta, apud Gentiles abominanda, &c. Chrysostom. De laudibus Pauli. Homil. 4. expresses) then that the death of Christ, which a­mong the Jews was held accursed, among the Heathens was accounted abominable; might be rendered honourable every where by these miraculous Prodigies.

Tertullian. Apolo­getico, cap. 16. Ecclesia­stic. Histor, lib. 11. cap. 19. authore Ruffino. Histo­ria Tripart. lib. 1. cap 9. The Christians of Alexan­dria, when they had pulled down the Arms, and Monuments of Serapis, caused the sign of the Cross to be painted in the [Page 133] same place. Constantine enjoyned the same to be painted in all his Flags, and Banners of War, to be stamped in his Coins, and Moneys; to be pourtrayed in his Arms, Escutcheons, and Targets: of which the Divine Poet, Libr. 1. contra Sym­machum. Aurelius Pru­dentius, maketh mention.

But neither the Christians of Alexandria, nor Constantine, worship­ped the Cross; nor doth your Divine Poet so much as fain any such thing, which you were to prove: we yield, Princes did then (as now) paint the Cross on their Imperial Banners: Labarum, Cassidor. lib. 1. cap. 9. Tertull. in Apologetico. amongst the antient Romans, was the Im­perial Standard, richly wrought with Gold, beset with pretious Stones, carried before the General of the Field, as wit­nesseth Sozomen, Sozomen. lib. 9. cap. 4. Aelianns Spartianus. [...]. The one of the Standards, which the Romans call Labarum; in this the Cross was wrought, or pourtrayed. To which Gregory alludes, encouraging Christ's Souldiers, saying, Christum belli socium babuisti, cujus Labarum insigne gestasti, ipsam dico vivificatricem crucem. Gregor. ad German. Patriarch. Thou hast had Christ thy fellow-Soul­dier, whose Ensign, or Banner thou hast car­ried, I mean that enlivening Cross. This [Page 134] Standard Constantine so blazed with the Cross, as the Romans. Heathen Emperours had done before with the Minotaur, and Eagle. And, though Eusebius saith, that Eusebius in Vita Constantini, Orat. 1. Constantine [...], used this Cross, as a preser­vative of his safety; yet Nicephorus Nicephor. lib. 8. cap. 32. makes it appear, his confidence was onely in Christ, not in the material Cross; for he caused these words to be engraven in the Cross, [...], Jesus Christ conquereth, and not the Cross: as St. Ambrose stories his Mother Helena, to have done before him; Invenit titulum, Re­gem adoravit, non lignum utique; qui his Gentilis est Error, et vanitas impiorum. Ambros. in Orat. f [...]ebri Theodosii. She found the Title, but she worshipped Christ the King, and not the wood; for (saith he) that is an Heathenish errour, and the vanity of the wicked.

Eusebius Eusebius Caesatiens. cap. 14. reports, he saw in Caesarea Philippi an Image of Christ in Brass, as also of the Woman, which he cured of the bloody Issue; which when the Apostate Julian had taken down, and erected his own Statue in the place there­of, it was cleft in pieces with Thunder, and Lightning from Heaven. Therefore apparently great reverence is to be exhi­bited to Crucifixes, or the Image of Christ.

I will answer Eusebius with Eusebius, who avoucheth not one word of worshipping, but the contrary; for having declared, that the Phoenicians, being Heathens, and hearing the strange Mira­cles, that had been wrought by Christ, [Page 135] and his Apostles, made these Images in honour of him, onely out of Heathenish, and vain Superstition: his words are these, Nec mirum est ve­teres Ethnicos, beneficio affectos à Servatore nostro, ista fecisse; nam & ipsius Christi imagines coloribus ductas, & servatas vidi­mus: [...]. Euseb. Caesar. lib. 7. cap. 17. It is no marvel, that the Hea­thens, receiving such benefits of our Savi­our, did these things; for we have seen the Image of Christ drawn in colours, and pre­served; and it may well be thought, that men in old times, being not yet removed from the Superstition of their Fathers, used after this sort to reverence them by an Heathe­nish Custom, as their Saviours. Where­by it is plain, that the use of Images came not from Christ, and his Apostles; but from the Superstitious Custom of the Heathens; neither were these in that age set up in any Church, but in the open street; for an Herb grew at the feet thereof. Ju­lian, out of inveterate malice to Christ, took down his Image, and set up his own in the place thereof, to affront the Lord of Life; therefore it was darted with a Thunder-bolt from Heaven, as an ominous presage of his ensuing ruine, who prodi­giously wounded, and throwing out handfulls of blood, cryed out, [...]. Thou hast conquered, O Ga­lilean. This will infer, that Julian was punished for dishonouring Christ; but will not prove, that Images were then set up in Churches, much less, that they were adored: for about that time the godly Emperours, Valens, and Theodosius, gave out this Pro­clamation throughout all Christendom; [Page 136] For as much as we have a diligent care in (i) Cùm sit nobis curae di­ligens in rebus omnibus su­pernt numinis religionem tueri, signum Salvatoris nostri Christi nemini con­cedimus, coloribus, lapide, [...]liavè materia fingere, sculpere, aut pingere; sed quocunque reperitur loco, tolli jubemus, gravissima poena eos mulctando, qui contrarium Decretis nostris, & imperio quicquam ten­taverit. Constantinopol. Concil. Petrus Crinitus, lib. 9. cap. 9. all things to maintain the Religion of the most high God, therefore we suffer no man to fashion, to grave, or to paint the Image of our Saviour Christ either in colours, or in stone, or in any other kind of Metal, or mat­ter; but wheresoever any such Image shall be found, we command it to be taken down, assuring our Subjects, that we will most straitly punish all such, as shall presume to attempt any thing contrary to our De­crees. And before this time, it was Ar­nobius his Plea against the Gentiles, Accusatis nos, quod non habemus Imagines, & al­taria; non est dubium, quin religio nulla sit, ubi est si­mulaehrum. Arnobius Contra Gentes, lib. 2. pag. 214. Lactant. lib. 2. cap. 2. Ye accuse us, that we have neither Images, nor Altars; out of doubt, where there is any Image, there is no Religion.

But suppose Images, and their worship be interdicted by Scriptures, Fathers, and antient Councils; yet they are consequent out of the Principles of Nature, and Christianity; for an Image is a distinct, and lively Pourtraicture of some visible, and corporal thing, by its very aspect exciting the beholders to compassion. Thus Virgil Virgil. Aeneid. 2. brings in Aeneas weep­ing at the sight of a painted Table, disco­vering at Carthage the Trojan Wars: Ovid Ovid. Epist. 13. personates Laodamia comfort­ing her self with the waxen Image of her Husband Protesilaus in his absence. Ap­pian Appian. De bellis Civilibus, lib. 2. emblazons the manner how the Friends of Julius Caesar brought his Statue in the same bloody Garb, as he was wounded in the Senate, thereby ma­king a deeper impression upon the Roman [Page 137] Citizens, to revenge his death, then the most eloquent Oration could have done.

Your Argument (if any thing seemingly to the purpose) in form sounds thus:

That, which hath a natural inclina­tion to move compassion, ought to be ado­red;

But such are Images.

Your Proposition is manifestly false; and your Assumption may be questioned. And whereas you describe an Image a lively Pourtraicture of some corporal, and visible thing; I demand how this can be affirmed of the Images you make of God the Father, and the Trinity, which are incorporeal, and invisible? Clemens of A­lexandria is so far from avouching an I­mage to be a lively Portraicture; that the saith, [...]. Clemens A­lexand. [...]. It is a dead matter, formed by a Work-man's hand; but we use (saith he) no Image made of sensible matter, but such onely, as is perceived by understanding. But, methinks, you are brought to a great dearth, when, for lack of other matter, you are forced to produce Heathen Histo­riographers, and Poets, who (as Athenaeus [...]. Athe­naeus. saith) have liberty to say, and do what they please. That Story of Terence, Suspectans tabulam quandam pictam, ubi ine­rat pictura haec, Jovem quo pacto Danae misisse aiunt quondam in gremium Imbrem aureum, egomet quoque id spectare cepi. &c. Terent. in Eunucho. in Eunuchus had been as concentrick to your purpose, where in the Picture Chaerea, seeing Jupiter in a Golden shower de­scending into Danae's Lap, was encoura­ged to deflowre the Virgin committed un­to [Page 138] his charge. I grant, Images do often­times vehemently move the minde di­versly to sundry affections. So Salust te­stifies, that Quintus Maximus, and Publius Scipio, were inflamed with Nobi­lity of courage to advance themselves to like adventures, when they beheld their Ancestours Images. But every thing, that may delight, or move the minde, is not therefore Quantum autem visi­bilia noceant ad invisibilia capienda, et quantum amor corporearum rerum, etiam bonarum, ad spiritualia contemplanda, ipse Domi­nus demonstrat, dicens, Ego veritatem dico vo­bis, expedit vobis, ut ego vadam; si enim non a­biero, non mittam eam ad vos. Agobard. lib De pict. & imag. Tom. 4. Bibliothec. meet for the Church of God, much less adoration. God's House is the House of Prayer, not of gazing. There­fore the antient Lacedemonians would not suffer any Image, or Picture, to stand in their Council-House, lest the Senatours minds thereby should be drawn from instant imployments to extravagant ima­ginations. That Counsel of the Wise man is conceived Canonical, though the Book be Apocryphal, Wisd. xv. 5. Aspectus ima­ginis dat insipienti concupiscentiam; The sight of an Image in the unwise stirreth up concupiscence.

Christ, to whom all adoration, and worship is due, became truly, and ve­rily man; as visible, and a spectable, as any other man, and consequently, as ima­ginable, that he may be figured by an Image, no less truly, and distinctly, then another man. That Story in Eusebius of Publius Lentulus is well known, who sent a perfect Description of our Saviour to the Roman Senate.

Conclusions borrow their strength from the Premises; but these [Page 139] your Premises have no power to enforce the controverted Conclusion: for, al­though Christ be true Man, and suppose Divine Providence had permitted a true Transumpt to have been taken in his life­time upon earth, truly resembling the Prototype, and transmitted till our times without alteration; yet his painted, or carved Image wanteth evident, and unde­niable right to represent him: because such right presupposeth Divine Institution. The same represents him, and stands for him onely by humane imagination; but religious Worship must have a more sound, and certain foundation: otherwise we must say to Papals, when they are thus prodigal in giving Christ's honour to I­dols, [...], John iv. 22. Ye worship ye know no [...] what: as appears by Cùm Idolum non su­erit, id est cujusque Dei falsi, & alieni simulachrū; sed Ephod, id est, unum de Sacramentis Taberna­culi, quod ad vestem Sa­cerdotalem pertinet, quo­modo fornicationem Scriptura dicat populi istae sequentis, atque veneran­tis? Ideò scilicet, quòd praeter Tabernaculum Dei, ubi erant ista, qua sibi fie­ri jusserat Deus Israel, ex­trà simile aliquid fieri fas non erat. Aug. q. 41. su­pra librum Judicum, pag. 415. Gideon's Ephod, Judges viii. 27. And, if it should be granted, that artificial Images did represent, figure, or teach Christ Jesus by divine Institution, as fully as the Books of Holy Scripture, or as the Internae imagines multò perfectiùs represen­tant ipsum exemplar, quàm imagines externae. Cabre [...]. 3. Quaest. 25. Art. 3. v. 28. inward Conceits, or Images of the minde; yet it were inconsequent to infer, that the same were therefore to be worshipped in such manner, as Papals re­quire. They were indeed to be used with reverence; but reverent using, and adora­tion are divers actions.

We ascribe no divine honour to the Image, but to the samplar; as when we reve­rence, or do honour to the Image, of Christ, it is onely Christ himself, that we adore with latria, or divine worship.

[Page 140]

Your own eminent Doctours, and Schole-men are Biassed another way. Aquinas saith, Cùm Christus adore­tur adoratione Latriae, con­sequens est, quòd ejus Ima­go sit adoratione Latriae a­doranda. Aquin. 3. q. 25. Art. 3. When Christ him­self is adored with divine honour, it is consequent, that his Image is to be ado­red with the worship of Latria. Picus of Mirandula saith, Picus Mirand. Apol. q. 3. Crux Christi, & imagines sunt adorandae Latria eodem modo, quo ponit Thomas; The Cross of Christ, and Images are to be worshipped in that manner Aquinas sets down, that is latria. Henriquez, a Jesuite saith, Henriquez, Sum. Theol. Mor. lib. 8. cap 32. Some do evil, in denying, that it is meet to preach to the common people, that the Image of Christ is to be adored with di­vine Worship. Suarez hath these words, Dicendum ergò primò est, fieri rectè posse, ut Prototypon in Imagine, & Imago cum Prototypo, uno actu adoretur, atque hoc modo posse Imaginē Christi adorari Latria. Suarez in 3. Tom. 1. Dist. 54. It may rightly be, that the Image, and the Prototype may be adored with one act, and in this manner the Image of Christ may be adored with Latria. Vasques saith, Vasques, De Ador. lib. 2. Dis. 8. cap. 14. n. 385. If an Image be taken formally, as it exerciseth the act of an Image, that is for the very Samplar in the Image, and for the Image, as it containeth the Sam­plar, and is as it were animated by it, then, without doubt, we must say, that true Latria in spirit is exhibited unto it. Jacob de Graphiis hath these words, Jacob. de Gra­phiis, Decis. Aur. p. 1. lib. 2. cap. 2. n. 15. We are to worship every Image with the same worship, wherewith the Samplar is worshipped, to wit the Image of God, or Christ, or sign of the Cross, (as it bringeth the Lord's Passion into our minde) with the worship of Latria. This same is affirmed by Paramo, De orig. In­quis. lib. 2. Tit. 3. cap. 8. n. 9. Ludovicus Paramo, Puiol. De Ador. Dis. 8. Sec. 6. Bernard­us [Page 114] Puiol, Petig. Sum. 3. Sent Dist. 9. q. 1. Art. 3. Franciscus Petigianis, Petrus de Cabrera, Azorius,, Lucius Lamas, Thomas Elysius, Arch. Rubeo, Thomas Bustus; and though some of these Au­thours use wire-drawn Distinctions to qua­lifie the harshness of their Assertions, they are (as Bellarmine Per se, per accidens; Absoluta, & respectiva; Propria, impropria; Pro­priè, Analogice. Bellarm. professeth) so subtile, and intricate, ut ipsimet viz in­telligunt, nedum populus imperitus; That they themselves scarce understand them, much less the Ignorant Vulgar.

I never relished their Judge­ment, who give divine honour to Images. Our Saviour's Check to Satan con­troles that, Thou shalt worship thy Lord God, [...], Matth. iv. 10. him onely shalt thou serve with (La­tria, or) divine honour. Nay, the Second Council of Nice forbids it, which, you say, first introduced Image-worship; Though our Zonaras in Leone Isaurico. Doctours affirm, that Leo Isauri­cus, before that Council, opposed it, and so Iconolatria was more antient.

Qui creaturam adorat, etiamsi in nomine Christi id facit, simulachrorum cultor est. Clemens Ro­manus, Recog. lib. 5. pag. 71, 73. You do well to disrelish not onely Divine honour, but all honour, that is given to Images, not grounded on Divine Revelation, whereby God is rob­bed of his honour. Adorare imagines omnibus modis devita, saith Gregory; Take heed how thou worship Images any way. We do not say, that the Second Nicene Synod brought in Iconolatry, or worship of Ima­ges simply; but, by defining the same to be necessary, and by appointing the pra­ctise thereof to be received universally; [Page 142] for we acknowledge, that the Israelites worshipped molten Images in Dan, and Bethel; and the Scholars of Simon Ma­gus worshipped Images, as Eusebius Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. lib. 2. cap. 13. stories it. The Irenaeus, lib. 2. cap. 24. Gnosticks worshipped Christ his Image; and Marcellinus August. De Haeres. 7. Haeres. worshipped the Images of Jesus, and Paul: The Marsilians Gregor. lib. 7. Epist. 109. also, or people there­about, worshipped Images in the days of Serenus; but all these were condemned of Superstition, and Idolatry, by the Ca­tholick Church; and the Second Nicene Synod was censured, and the Definition thereof resisted by that of Francoford, and contrary to that of Helleboris, Contra quod scripsit Albinus Epistolam ex authoritate divinarum Scripturarum mirabiliter affirmatam, illámque ex eodem libro, ex persona E­piscoporum, & Principis, Regi Francorum attulit. Roger [...]s Hoveden. Against which also Albinus wrote an Epistle, marvellously confirmed by the authority of divine Scripture, and car­ried the same to the French King toge­ther with the Nicene-Synodal Book, in the name of Bishops, and Princes.

How then were Images, and their Adoration introduced at the first, if they were Plants the Heavenly Father planted not.

St. Hierome Argento, & auro de­coravit illud, ut fulgore utriusque materiae decipiat simplices; qui quidem error ad nos transivit. Hierony­mus in Hieremiam, lib. 2. cap. 10. tells us, it was from the Heathens, which adorn their I­mages with Silver, and Gold, that by the shine, and splendour of both these Metals, they may deceive the simple, which errour, saith he, is now crept in amongst us, that be Christians. Athanasius saith, Athanasius Adver­sus Gentes. [...]. [Page 143] The invention of Images is of evil, and not of good, and the thing, that hath an evil beginning, can never be judged good in any thing, as being in all respects, and alto­gether evil. St. Cyprian saith, Ad defunctorum vultus per imagines det [...] ­nendos expressa sunt simu­lachra, indè posteris facta sunt sacra, quae primitùs fuerunt assumpta solatia. Cyprian. De Idolorum va­nitate. Images were first drawn, thereby to keep the coun­tenance of the dead in remembrance, upon occasion thereof things grew at length unto holiness, which at the first were taken onely for solace. Concil Nic. 2. Ar­tic. 6. Gregory, the Bishop of Neocaesarea saith, Gentilitas inventrix, & caput est imaginum; Heathenism was the first deviser, and head of Images. Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 17. Eusebius, speaking of the Images of Christ, Peter, and Paul, saith, that it is [...] by observation of an Heath­enish Custom; for with such Images they honoured them, whom they thought worthy of honour. Saint Augustin saith, Augustin. Contra A­damant. Simulant se favere simulachris, quod propterea faciunt, ut miserrimae, & vesanae suae sectae etiam Paganorum concilient bene­volentiam; They would seem to favour Images, which thing they do, to the in­tent, to make the Heathens to think the better of their most miserable, and lewd sect. For, according to Verentur nè Religio vana sit, si nihil videant, quod adorent. Lactan. lib. 2. cap. 2. La­ctantius, They are afraid their Religion should be in vain, if they see nothing, that they may worship. Hence (if you have nothing further to object) I conclude,

That, which is contrary to Scriptu­res, Nè facias adversus le­gem similitudinem aliquam. nisi & ibi Deus jusserit, & tu imitare Mosen. Ter­tul De Idololatria. Fathers, and all venerable Antiquity, had its ground from Paga­nism; and condemned Hereticks, and [Page 121] is plain Idolatry, ought to be renounced, Idem Deus & lege vetuit similitudinem fieri, & ex­traordinario praecepto Ser­pentis similitudinem edixit. Tertul. suprá. and abjured.

But such is worshipping of the con­secrated Hoast, Crucifixes, Images;

Therefore it ought to be renounced, and abjured.

I have spent my whole stock of Objections concerning this, and I am ready to entertain your Discourse touching the next Article.