The Safe Religion, Part 2

The Safe Religion · Part 2

p. 78Query. Whether Popery be a ſafe way to Salvation? Neg.

IT is not as other mens Judges that we determine this Queſtion; to their own maſter do they ſtand or fall: but it is to render an account of our own Belief and practice, and for our further confirmation in the truth for the defence of it againſt gain-ſayers, and for the eſtabliſhing of our people againſt the ſophiſtry and ſeduction of Deceivers.

For the explication of the terms, I ſhall tell you 1. What I mean by Popery. 2. What I mean by Salvation. 3. What by the way to it. 4. What by the word Safe.

1. Popery is a certain farrago, a mixture of many grievous errors in the doctrine of Faith, Government and Worſhip, expreſſed in their Authorized writings, p. 79eſpecially in their decretals and Councils, corrupting the Chriſtian Religion which they profeſs; the whole being denominated from that one falſhood, that the Pope of Rome is, the Univerſall Biſhop, and Viſible Head of the Univerſal Church and Chriſts Vicar-General on earth, and that only is the Catholike Church, and thoſe only Catholiks that ſo believe.

Where note 1. That the Papiſts profeſſing to be Chriſtians, do firſt own the ſubſtance of Chriſtian doctrine, and then corrupt it, and contradict it by this fardle of their own inventions ſuperadded. They profeſs to believe the holy Scriptures to be the word of God, and to be true: every Book that we believe (and more) They profeſs to believe all the Articles of the ancient Creeds commonly called the Apoſtles, the Nicene, or Conſtantinopolitane. It is not the Chriſtianity or true doctrine which they profeſs, which we call Popery. 2. It is therefore onelyonly their own invented corruptions, by which they contradict the Chriſtian verity which they profeſs, which we call Popery. 3. Note, That the common denominating corruption, is the forementioned doctrine of the Popes Univerſal Epiſcopacy and Headſhip, or a ſupreamacy at leaſt, if not Infallibility: and that the Catholike Church, and the Romane Church is all one: and the Pope is the viſible center of its Unity. 4. Note alſo that as to the reſt of their corruptions, they agree not among themſelves what is to be eſteemed of their faith or Religion, and what not: and therefore it cannot be expected that we ſhould give you an exact enumeration of the points of their faith, and ſo a compleat deſcription of Popery, which is ſuch a ſelf-contradicting unreconcileable p. 80hodg podge. But their errors may be diſtributed into theſe three rankes. 1 Thoſe that are eſtabliſhed by the Pope and his (ſuppoſed) general Councel: Theſe they all receive and own. 2. Thoſe that are eſtabliſhed by the Popes Decretals without a Council. Theſe ſome own as points of their faith, and ſome reject them. I will not adde as the third▪ thoſe that are eſtabliſhed by a Council without the Pope; not becauſe there never was a Council that diſſented from him in Good, but becauſe it is a difficult matter at leaſt to find any Council that did go beyond or without him in Evil, or erred without his Approbation. 3. The third ſort therefore ſhall be thoſe opinions that are commonly maintained by their moſt Approved Writers which are publiſhed in books that are licenſed and commended by the Popes Authorized agents, but are not determined by the Pope or his Council. Theſe though they contend for, and lay great weight on them in their diſputations, yet dare they not own them as any part of the matter of their faith, leſt they ſeem to be what they are; divided and mutable▪ A man would think that thoſe volumnious hot diſputes about Divine things, did intimate that the Authors did fide divin… believe thoſe points which they do ſo zealouſly diſpute of. But if it be their pleaſure, that we ſhould ſo diſtinguiſh, we will call the reſt the Popiſh faith or Religion, and theſe laſt, the Popiſh opinions, becauſe we would faſten on them nothing but their own.

If you ask me, which be thoſe doctrines which they take for points of faith, which we call Popery; I muſt refer you to their Decretals and Councils on one ſide, and Gods word on the other; and all the p. 81Doctrines in thoſe their Canons or determinations that are againſt the word of God, are the doctrines which we mean by this name. If they do lay greater ſtreſs upon any one point than others, its likely to be on thoſe that are put into their Creeds and Vows, and therefore I ſhall onelyonly recite the latter half of their Tridentine Creed, ſeeing they will own that or …othing: When they have begun with the ancient Conſtantinopolitane Creed, containing the true Principles of Chriſtian Religion, and have ended that they proceed thus as followeth.

The Apoſtolical and Eccleſiaſtical traditions, and the reſt of the Obſervations and conſtitutions of the ſame Church, I do moſt firmely admit and embrace. I admit alſo the ſacred Scripture according to that ſence which the Holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold, to whom it belongeth to judge of the true ſence and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures: and I will never take and interpret it, but according to the unanimous conſent of the Fathers. I do profeſs alſo that there are ſeven truely and properly Sacraments of the new Law inſtituted by Jeſus Chriſt our Lord, and neceſſary to the ſalvation of mankind, …hough not all to every one; to wit, Baptiſme, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Pennance, extreame Ʋncti…n, Order, and Matrimony: and that they confer …race; and that of theſe, Baptiſme, Confirmation, and Order, cannot be reiterated without Sacriledge. I do alſo receive and admit the received and approved Rites of the Catholike Church in the ſolemne Adminiſtration of all the aforeſaid Sacraments. I do embrace and receive all and ſingular things which in the Holy Council of Trent were defined and declared about Original ſin and Juſtification. In like manner I do profeſs p. 82that in the Maſs there is offered to God a true p… per, and propitiatory ſacrifice for the living, and f… the dead; and that in the moſt holy Srcrament of … Euchariſt there is Truely, Really, and Subſtanti…y the body and blood, together with the ſoul and Di… nity of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt; and that there … change made of the whole ſubſtance of Bread … the Body, and of the whole ſubſtance of Wine … blood; which change the Catholike Church c…l… Traſubſtantiation. I confeſs alſo that under one … onelyonly, whole and entire Chriſt, and the true Sa… ment is taken. I do conſtantly hold that there is a P…rgatory, and that the ſouls there detained are h…lp… by the ſuffrages of the faithful. As alſo that the Sai… raigning with Chriſt, are to be reverenced and called upon, and that they do offer prayers to God for m… and their reliques are to be reverenced (or honoured) I do moſt firmely aſſert that the Images of Chriſt, and of the Mother of God-ever a Virgin, as alſo of other Sai… are to be had and kept, and that due honor and V… ration is to be given them. I affirm alſo that the power of Indulgences is left by Chriſt in the Church, a… that the uſe of them is moſt wholeſome to Chriſtian people. I acknowledge that the holy Catholike and Ap… ſtolike Church of Rome, is the Mother and Miſtris … all Churches: And I do promiſe and ſwear true Obedience to the Pope of Rome ſucceſſor of Bleſſed Peter Prince of the Apoſtles, and the Vicar of Jeſus Chriſ… Alſo all other things delivered, defined and declare… by the ſacred Canons, and Oecumenical Councils, a… eſpecially of the holy Synod of Trent, I do with… doubting receive and profeſs: and alſo all things c… trary, and all hereſies whatſoever condemned by th… Church, and rejected; and Anathematized, do I i… p. 83like manner condemne, reject and Anathematize. This …rue Catholike faith, without which no man can be ſa…ed, which at the preſent I do voluntarily profeſſe, …nd truely hold, the ſame will I take care to hold and …onfeſs entire and inviolate, by Gods help, moſt con…antly, even to the laſt breath of my life; and as much …s in me lyeth, to be held, taught and preached, by …hoſe that are under me, or thoſe whoſe care belongs to …e in my office. This I.N. do Promiſe, Vow, and …wear, ſo help me God, and theſe holy Goſpels of God.

So far the Trent Confeſſion, which I the ra…her recite that you may ſee what their Religion is … their own words and oaths; where you ſee alſo …at this is but a ſmall part of it; for it is moreover … large, as all the Council of Trent, and all other …ecumenical Councils and holy Canons; of the Im…oſſibilities and ſelf-contradictions of which faith, we …hall ſay more anon.

So that I conclude that it is not Chriſtianity, but …is additional Leproſie which we call by the name of …opery: they believe this much more then we (or a …reat part more) and by believing more, they believe …ſs, while they deſtroy the ſound faith which they …efore ſeemed to profeſs.

2 For the next term to be explained [Salvation] …e mean by it principally, Everlaſting Glory; and …ithall thoſe beginnings of it incluſively which we …ve in this life, conſiſting in our Juſtification, A…option, Sanctification, Conſolation, and Perſe…erance.

3. By the term [Way] we mean, ſuch neceſſary …eans as are preſcribed us by God for the attainment … Salvation, either as to our Belief, or our Affection p. 84and Practice according to the directions of the doctrine which we do believe.

4. As to the ſence of the word [Safe] it ſignifieth that which is free from danger, or which tendeth to a mans welfare. Now here is a double ſafety conſiderable in Doctrines anſwerable to a double danger. Firſt, its one thing to be ſafe from any ſin in the way to Salvation; and ſo we may well ſay that Popery is no ſafe way which leadeth to ſo much ſin: But thats not all that is here intended: But its another matter to be ſo deep in ſin, as not to be ſafe from the Everlaſting Puniſhment, but that ſalvation it ſelf is endangered thereby: and this we principally intend. And whereas there are ſeveral Degrees of Danger, we mean that true Popery heartily entertained and practiced, doth leave but ſmall probability, if any poſſibility, of the Salvation of any that do perſevere impenitently therein to the end.

Though you may ſee what I deny in what is already ſaid, yet for the greater perſpicuity, I ſhall expreſs my ſence in theſe few Propoſitions following.

Prop. 1. That Chriſtian doctrine contained in the holy Scriptures which the Papiſts do profeſs to believe, is of it ſelf without their corruptions, a ſafe way to ſalvation.

Prop. 2. Whatever errors are held by Papiſts or any others, which do conſiſt with a true practic… belief of the foreſaid Chriſtian doctrine which they confeſs, and we are agreed in, thoſe errors ſh… not exclude the erroneous from Salvation.

Prop. 3. The Papiſts do not expreſly in terms and ſence deny any fundamental point of faith.

p. 85Prop. 4. Its poſſible even practically to hold an error, which by remote conſequence contradicteth a fundamental Truth, and yet to hold that truth practically, and ſo to be ſaved. For either all moral …errots in Theology (as Ameſius thought) do contradict the Foundation by conſequence, by reaſon of the neceſſary concatenation of Truthes; or moſt at leaſt.

Prop. 5. There are ſome errors ſo great that if they were cordially and practically held, would be inconſiſtent with the cordial practical holding of the Foundation; which yet may be held but ſpeculatively and notionally in conſiſtency with the cordial and practical belief of the fundamentals; and the perſon not knowing the contradiction may be ſaved.

Prop. 6. Multitudes of people while they take common termes in Divinity in a wrong ſence, do maintain Propoſitions which by plain conſequence, if not directly contradict the Fundamentals according to the proper genuine ſence of the words; when yet in the ſence as they miſtake and miſuſe them in, there is no contradiction. Even as many on the other ſide, do hold the Chriſtian verity in words, who in ſence deny it.

Prop. 7. We have great reaſon to think that many millions of the Laity among the Papiſts, if not the far greateſt part of them, do not cordially embrace the moſt of the Popiſh corruptions in doctrinals, nor the moſt dangerous of them.

1. Becauſe they do not underſtand them, and ſo cannot ſo much as ſpeculatively receive them. It is not one of a hundred, perhaps of many hundreds among them, that knows all contained in the Council of Trent alone, much leſs in all the reſt of the p. 86Council, and Canons and cuſtomes wherein they place their Religion. Nay perhaps its but few of their Clergy that know this comparatively. So that it is but an implicite general belief that they can give to ſuch Canons as are unknown, which is not a belief of the particular doctrines contained in them, as ſuch.

2. Becauſe (I hope among moſt or many of them) they are firſt taught the Creed, the Lords Prayer, and ten Commandments (or at leaſt the Creed, and Decalogue, though the Lords Prayer be uſually taught them in Latine) which contain the Fundamentals of Chriſtian faith and practice: and therefore we have reaſon to hope that theſe are deeper in their minds then any contradictory doctrines: eſpecially when they muſt have ſo much time afterward, to build upon this foundation their hay and ſtubbles, that we have great reaſon to hope that it is but few that throughly underſtand or entertaine them.

3. Becauſe we know that the generality of the people, or a very great part of them, do look upon their Clergy as having a carnal ſelf-intereſt to carry on, and ſo far have hard and different thoughts of them; though they are yet captivated by them too much.

4. Becauſe we ſee that the Pope is faine to keep them in ſubjection by the moſt cruel force of ſecular power: by the bloody inquiſition, tormenting and burning them, or raſing wars againſt them to ruine them; or elſe by worldly honors, dignities, and riches to entice and enſnare them; which were needleſs if he could carry it by the cogent evidence of his doctrines or their underſtandings.

p. 875. Becauſe we ſee by experience, that even here with us among their few moſt zealous and voluntary Proſelites, it is but very few that call themſelves Romane Catholikes, or Papiſts, that indeed know what Popery is: Nay moſt of them, if you do but name ſome points of the Popiſh faith, will tell you that you ſlander them; and they hold no ſuch thing. I have talked with many of the Laity, and find very few that will own the doctrine of mans Merits, but profeſs to reſt on the Merits of Chriſt onelyonly: The like I could ſay of other points: By which it is plain that the Prieſts do hide from the Laity ſo much of the venome of their doctrine as they think will prove diſtaſtful to them, and dare not let them know the worſt.

Prop. 8. Theſe perſons before deſcribed, together with that part of the Clergy, who caſt off much of the Romane corruptions, and yet adhere to their party, are not full and compleat Papiſts, but onelyonly Papiſts ſecundum quid, incompleat, and of a lower ſort, and ſo are not in ſo great danger of damnation as the reſt: even as the Scab is not ſo bad as the Morphew, nor the Morphew ſo mortal as the Elephantiaſis, or the full Leproſie; though all are of kindred one to another.

9. Pro. Yet theſe better ſort of Papiſts are commonly tainted with ſo much of their corruptions as makes their ſalvation much more difficult; ſo that we may well judge that it is fewer by far that are ſaved among them, then in the Reformed Churches. Even as it is poſſible for men to ſcape catching the Plague that live among the infected, and its poſſible for the infected to eſcape with their lives, but where one ſcapes many dye, and its I think more p. 88dangerous to live in an infected houſe or air then in a ſound one.

Prop. 10, A man that cordially and practically receiveth the whole body of Popery, and ſo is a co… pleat Papiſt, is in ſo great danger of eternal damnation, as that it is a very hard queſtion whether it be poſſible for him at the ſame time to hold cordially the fundamentals of Chriſtianity, and ſo to be in a ſtate of Salvation? Which becauſe it is ſo hard a queſtion that Proteſtant Divines are of different opinions about it, ſome thinking it poſſible for ſuch to be ſaved, and ſome impoſſible, I will not preſume here to determine it, ſeeing the matter in hand doth not call for the determination of it.

Prop. 11. Whoſoever is ſaved among the Papiſts; whether he be more or leſs tainted with theirs errors, it is not By Popery that he is ſaved, but from Popery, or againſt it by the Chriſtian faith. So that if a Papiſt may be ſaved, it muſt be as a Chriſtian, and not as a Papiſt: Popery and Chriſtianity having ſome contrariety; ſo that it muſt be by the prevalency and predominency of the Chriſtian faith againſt Popery if ever he be ſaved. If a lyer might be ſaved it muſt not be by lying, but by faith in Chriſt and repentance. If a Leper, or one that hath the Plague, or the like diſeaſes, may live, it muſt not be by the Leproſie or Plague that they muſt live; but by natural vigor and the help of Medicine by which they are preſerved from the killing power of theſe diſeaſes,

And here you may take notice, what a fond and vain deluſion it is, by which the Prieſts do perſwade the poor people that their Religion is a ſafer way to heaven then ours, even becauſe that we confeſs a p. 89Papiſt may be ſaved, but they affirm that a Proteſtant cannot be ſaved. For 1. Some Proteſtants think they may be ſaved, and ſome deny it. 2. Thoſe that think they may be ſaved do withall think that it is not by Popery, but againſt it and fro… it. 3. And they think that its very hard, and therefore that they are very few that are ſaved among them, in compariſon of the number ſaved among us. And is not this a fair and comfortable encouragement to their poor ſeduced followers, that ſome among us confeſs that as its poſſible for here and there one to eſcape of a raging Peſtilence, ſo may ſome Papiſts be ſaved. 4. Their condemning of all Proteſtants doth make themſelves worſe, but it makes us never the worſe, nor our caſe ever the more dangerous. Chriſt hath told us that all men ſhall know us to be his diſciples, by Loving one another, and hath bid us, judge not that we be not judged, for with what judgement we judge, we ſhall be judged: and Paul tells us, that charity thinketh not evil, but hopeth all things: Is it then a good & Chriſtian arguing to ſay that they are ſafer then we, becauſe they are more c…nſorious, and raſh condemners of others? Then he that hath leaſt Charity is of the ſafeſt Religion. Suppoſe that a company ſhut up in a Peſthouſe, being raging mad with the Plague, or otherwiſe diſtempered in their brain, ſhould cry out, that all the Town are ſick and will certainly dye, except themſelves. Were it wiſe reaſoning now to ſay [You confeſs that ſome of thoſe that are ſick in the Peſthouſe may eſcape; but they ſay that none of you that are out can eſcape, therefore it is ſafer to be with them then with you.] Even ſuch is the reaſoning of the Popiſh Prieſts in the preſent caſe. It is the diſeaſe of Popery that of p. 90its own nature cauſeth them to condemne all the world except themſelves: And it is becauſe we are free from their diſeaſe, that makes us not ſo raſh and haſty in condemning them: But yet as charitable as we are to them, we are ſo charitable withall to our ſelves, that we would not be in their caſe, for all the world.

Prop. 12. We may well conclude therefore that whether a Papiſt may be ſaved or not, that certainely Popery is no ſafe way to Salvation.

If a cup of Poiſon be tempered for the killing of men, and one drinks it all, and dyeth, another drinks almoſt all, and dyeth, another drinks leſſe, and yet uſing no remedy dyeth, another drinks but a little, or taking more, yet uſeth ſome effectual Remedy, and ſo with much ado ſcapeth death. I think, notwithſtanding the ſcaping of theſe laſt, we may well conclude that [Poiſon is no ſafe or wholeſome food.]

I come now to prove the Propoſition laſt expreſſed.

In general 1. Popery is No way to ſalvation; Therefore it is no ſafe way. God hath no where preſcribed it as a way to ſalvation; therefore it is not a way to ſalvation.

2. It is the way toward damnation, and from ſalvation; therefore it is no ſafe way to ſalvation.

The proof of all together ſhall be next fetcht from ſome general reaſons drawn from the dangerous nature of Popery; For if I ſhould deſcend to every particular error I muſt be voluminous, and do that which is ſufficiently done by multitudes already.

p. 91Arg. 1. Thoſe doctrines which are founded upon a Notorious falſhood, and reſolved into it, are not a ſafe way to Salvation. But ſuch are the doctrines which we call Popery: Therefore.

For the Minor, They are founded on and reſolved into the doctrine of the Popes Infallibility, or at leaſt his Councils: This the Papiſts do confeſs and maintain. But that this is a Notorious falſhood, is evident.

1. In that it is notorious that Popes have erred, and judicially erred, and erred in matters of faith. Bellarmine is put to anſwer to no leſs then fourty inſtances of erring Popes; and how ſhamefully or ſhameleſly he doth it, any Learned man that will ſearch the records and peruſe the caſe, may ſoon diſcover.

2 It is notorious that Councils have erred. I ſhall not now intermix my Teſtimonies to interrupt the plain courſe which I have begun, but rather give you the proof of all this diſtinctly by it ſelf in the next diſputation.

3. The Papiſts themſelves confeſs this that we affirm. I mean, One part of them do confeſs that the Pope may err (as the French) and the other (the Italians and Spaniards) confeſs that a Council may erre. One ſaith the Infallibility is not ſeated in the Pope; and the other that it is not ſealed in a Council, particular or general, of which ſee Bellarmine de Conciliis lib. 2. cap. 10. & 11. In which laſt he ſeeks to prove that a General Council may erre. 1. When they diſſent from the Popes Legates. 2. And when they conſent with the L…gates, if thoſe Legates p. 92do croſs the Popes inſtructions. 3. Yea if the Legates have no certain Inſtructions, the Council and all they, may conſent in error: And he proves the two former by the inſtance of the ſecond Council of Epheſus, and the Conſtantinopolitane Council in the time of Pope Nicholas the firſt, which erred, ſaith he, becauſe the Popes Legates followed not his inſtructions. The third he proves by the Council of Baſil Seſſ. 2. which together with the Popes Legate did by common conſent Decree, that the Council is above the Pope, which now (ſaith Bell…rmine) is judged erroneous.

4. Some Popes themſelves have confeſſed that they are not the ſeat or chief ſubject of the infallibility: As Adrian the ſixth who hath wrote his judgement of it, that the Pope may err out of Council. And in my opinion we ſhall do the Pope much wrong if we ſhall not believe him when he ſpeaks the truth, and tells us that he is fallible. Did Bellarmine better know Pope Adrians underſtanding, then the Pope knew his own? Surely I muſt do as I would be done by: and if any man ſhould perſwade me that I know that which I do not know, or that I am infallible, when I know my ſelf ſubject to error. I ſhould confidently expect that all men would rather believe me of my ſelf then believe another of me that ſpeaks the contrary: And ſo will I believe Pope Adrian that he was fallible.

But of this more in the next diſputation; where you ſhall have fuller proof.

p. 93Arg. 2. If Popery do build even the Chriſtian Religion it ſelf (as held by them) on a foundation that is utterly uncertain, or elſe certainly falſe, then is it no ſafe way to ſalvation: For it would extirpate Chriſtianity it ſelf. But the Antecedent is true, as I ſhall thus prove.

1. They are divided and diſagreed among themſelves even their greateſt Learned Doctors about the very foundation of their faith, as I ſhall further ſhew in the next argument: They believe upon the infallible judgement of the Church, and they are not agreed what that Church is.

2. They build the aſſurance of their faith upon ſuch a ground as none of the common people, no nor any Doctors in the world, can have the knowledge of: therefore their faith muſt needs be uncertain. To manifeſt this I ſhall review one leaf that I wrote heretofore on this ſubject in the Preface to the ſecond Part of the Saints Reſt.

It is the Authority of the Church they ſay, upon which we muſt believe that the Scriptures are the word of God, and were it not for the Churches authoritative affirmation, they would not believe it (ſaith one of them, no more than Aeſops Fables) Now ſuppoſe they were agreed what this Church is, and that we now take notice of their more common opinion, that it is, all the Biſhops of the Church headed by the Pope, or a General Council approved of and confirmed by the Pope, I would fain know how the faith of any of us that live at a diſtance, yea or of any man living, can be ſure and ſound, when all theſe following particulars muſt be firſt known, p. 94before we can have ſuch aſſurance. 1. It muſt be known that God hath given to the Church this power of judging what is his word, and what is a point of faith, and what not: ſo that that is ſo to us, which they judge ſo; or that we are bound by God to believe them. Now which way doth God give the Church this Power? Is it not by Scripture, or unwritten tradition in their own judgment? And by what means doth he oblige us to Believe the Church in ſuch determinations? It muſt be alſo by Scripture or unwritten Tradition by their own confeſſion: For if they fly to univerſal Tradition, and natural obligation, they give up their cauſe, and let go their Authoritative Tradition and Obligation, as from their Roman… Church. So that a man muſt (according to their doctrine) believe that the word of God (written or unwritten) hath given Power to the Church to determine what is the word of God before he can believe the word of God, or know it to be the word of God: that is, He muſt know and believe the word of God before he can know and believe it. Here is one of the impoſſib…lities that lye at the very foundation of the Romane way of faith.

2. Before men can know the Scripture to be Gods word, yea or their ſuppoſed unwritten verities, infallibly, according to the Romane way of believing, they muſt firſt know that the Church is infallible in her judgement, and this alſo muſt be known by the word of God, which is ſuppoſed not to be known yet it ſelf.

3. They muſt alſo know, that it is the Church of Rome in particular that is the true Church and hath this power given from God.

4. To this end they muſt know that all thoſe perverted p. 95Texts (or ſome of them) that ſpeak of Peters own perſon, were alſo ſpoke of certain ſucceſſors of his, as well as of himſelf (as that on them the Church ſhall be built, and their faith ſhall not …ail, &c.)

5. They muſt know that the Pope is this ſucceſſor of Peter.

6. To this end, they muſt not onelyonly know that Peter was at Rome (of which read well Ʋlricus Velenus in Goldaſtus) and was Biſhop there, but they muſt know that he was the only Biſhop there, or at leaſt the chief, and that Paul was no Biſhop there (who is more likely to have been) or elſe that he was the inferior, and that the Pope is Peters ſucceſſor and not Pauls; or elſe ſucceedeth them both, and hath his infallibility but from one, unleſs the ſucceſſors of the reſt of the Apoſtles are infallible too.

7. If Peter and Paul were Biſhops at once of one Church in Rome, then it muſt be known why they may not have two ſucceſſors at once; and if there be two, which of them is to be believed when they diſagree. But if Peter and Paul were Biſhops of two particular Churches in Rome, the one of the Circumciſion, the other of the uncircumſion, then it muſt be known by what right their ſucceſſors made them one? or whether it were not by a failing or ceſſation of the Church of the Circumciſion, when all Jews were baniſhed from Rome, and ſo the Church of the uncircumciſion only continuing, the Pope be not only Pauls ſucceſſor.

8. And it muſt be known whether Peter were not Biſhop of other Churches as well as of Rome (yea of Antioch before Rome) and ſo whether the Biſhop of Antioch be not his ſucceſſor as well as the Pope of p. 94Rome, yea and the chief ſucceſſor if it follow the right of primogeniture, either as to the Church o… the Biſhop; ſeeing Antioch was a Church before Rome, and Peter was ſuppoſed to be Biſhop there before he was of Rome. And then if the Biſhop of Rome and Antioch differ (as they do) how, ſhall we know whom to believe, and how ſhall we know that the Biſhop of Antioch is not infallible as well as the Pope of Rome?

9. It muſt be known what it is that makes a Pope, what is neceſſary to his being Peters ſucceſſor. I… it enough that he ſtep up into the chair and call himſelf Pope? Or that his party call him ſo? Then if any Heathen or Arrian conqueror, though a Lay ma… did ſo, he ſhould be Pope. And he that conquers Rome may make himſelf Saint Peters infallible ſucceſſor at any time. But if there muſt be an ordination and Election, then it muſt be known whether every Eccleſiaſtical Ordination or Conſecration, and Election will ſerve or not. If it will, then when there have been three Popes choſen and conſecrated at once, they were all Saint Peters infallible ſucceſſors, though one condemned the other: If not, then it muſt be known, who it is that hath the power of election (which being the act that determineth of th… perſon, is the maine that muſt reſolve our doubts) and alſo of conſecration or ordination. And ho… ſhall the people know this, when the Clergy have been ſo diſagreed among themſelves.

10. And here it muſt be known whether the Cardinals have the ſole power to elect? If they have, then how came they by it? And then, whether wer… all thoſe that were elected by the people in the firſt ages, and by the Emperors in after ages, true Pope…, p. 97or not: If they were not, then Saint Peter hath no ſucceſſors, becauſe of the interruption of the ſucceſſion ſo long; and the Church had then no viſible head. If they were, then the ſufficient power is not onelyonly in the Cardinals. And if it be not onelyonly in them, then whether are any of thoſe true Popes that have been choſen onelyonly by them of late ages?

11. And ſo it muſt be known how a poſſibility of uninterrupted ſucceſſion can be proved, when Popes have been choſen three ſeveral wayes, ſometime by the people (or elſe there had not been ſo many ſlain at the election of Damaſus, nor had the ancient Canons made this neceſſary to all Biſhops) and ſometime by the Presbyters of that Church, and ſometime by the Emperors; and now by titular Presbyters, who are Biſhops of other Churches, and are uncapable of being true Presbyters of the Church of Rome. If all theſe ſeveral wayes of Election may make true Popes, then it ſeems any way may ſerve, and then the three Popes at once will be all true: If not, then there hath been an interruption of the ſucceſſion, and ſo according to their own Principles, there can be now no true Pope.

12. And here it muſt needs be known too, whether there be any thing in the perſon that is a qualification ſo materially neceſſary, that he can be no true Pope without it. If not, then a Pagan or a Mahometan may be Pope. If there be, then it muſt be known what that is, which few private men at leaſt do know.

13. Particularly it muſt be known whether they that are known Hereticks, yea judged ſo by Councils, or by their own ſucceſſors, and thoſe that were p. 98notorious Whoremongers, Sodomites, Murderers, Poiſoning their Predeceſſors to get the Popedome, Simoniſts, buying the Popedom with money, &c. were capable of being true Popes?

14. If they are not capable, then we muſt all know that all the Popes were none ſuch, when the Papiſts themſelves confeſs they were ſuch, before we can know that they were the infallible ſucceſſors of Saint Peter.

15. But if ſuch may be Popes, then muſt we know why a Mahometane may not as well be a Pope? or how an enemy of Chriſt and the Church ſhould come to be a Son of Promiſe, and the Vicar of Chriſt, and the head of the Church, and whether ſuch were infallible in their judging falſhood to be truth, as they did?

16. And we muſt know, that the Pope onelyonly is lawleſs, and under no power of Canons, or Decrees of former Popes and Councils? Or elſe many ſuch Canons will proclaim their calling null: and ſo the ſucceſſion ſtill hath been interrupted. And if the Authority of the former Church oblige the Pope to believe, e. g. the truth of Scripture and Traditions, then why muſt not the Authority of the former Church in its Canons be as obligatory to him in point of duty and penalty, and ſo null his calling?

17. Bellarmine ſaith that it is agreed among all Catholiks that the Pope as a private Doctor may erre, through ignorance, even in univerſal queſtions of faith: Alſo that many Papiſts and Pope Adrian the ſixth himſelf taught that the Pope as Pope may be a Heretick, and reach Hereſie, ſo it be without a General Council: And that moſt of the p. 99reſt do only hold, that whether the Pope be a He…tick or not, yet he cannot define any thing here…al, as to be believed by the whole Church: this …th he, is the moſt common opinion: Bellarm. de …m. Pontif. li. 4 cap. 2.

Now this being ſo we muſt be reſolved, if a Pope … a Heretick in heart, and open profeſſion, and … if a General Council be called, this Pope cannot …e his ſentence in it according to his own belief, …hether indeed we can prove that God hath promiſ… to cauſe a Hereticke Pope to diſſemble, and to …eak againſt his own judgement, which is to lye, …ough the thing that he ſaith be true, or yet to tye … tongue that he ſhall not be able to ſpeak that …hich he believes, and ſpeaks at other times?

18. And whether the promiſe which they alledge this purpoſe (I have prayed for thee that thy faith … not) be indeed fulfilled to a Heretical Pope. If …t, then its evident that this promiſe belongs not … all Popes. If yea, then the faith of a Heretick …th not fail; which Bellarmine himſelf confeſſeth be falſe. And here note what a naked ſhameful …ft it is that Bellarmine makes about this text? He …th that [There are two things promiſed there to Pe…: The firſt is that Peter ſhould never loſe the true …ith, though tempted by the Devil; The other privi…ge is, that he as Pope ſhould not be able ever to teach …ly thing contrary to the faith; or that in his ſeat no …n ſhould ever be found that ſhould teach againſt the …th: of which priviledges, the firſt perhaps was not …rived to his ſucceſſors, but the ſecond undoubtedly …as derived to them] So ſaith Bellarmine de Rom▪ …nt. li. 4. cap. 3.

Now mark how contrary this is to the ſence of the p. 100text. The promiſe that Chriſt made to Peter, wa… not to his tongue but to his heart: not that he ſhould not ſpeak againſt the faith, for he did deny Chriſt, and curſe and ſwear that he knew not the man: b… it was that his inward belief ſhould not fail, and … that he ſhould not fall from Chriſt, and conſequently indeed that his heart ſhould reduce the tong… it ſelf. Now Bellarmine confeſſeth that perhaps th… part of the promiſe that concerneth faith it ſel… ▪ reacheth not to Peters ſucceſſors, but onelyonly th… which concerneth the tongue: which was directl… none at all; ſo that he gives up the true prom… made to Peter, which was that his faith ſhould n… fail, and not that his tongue ſhould not fail, and b… forgeth another in its ſtead.

19. How can we be aſſured that this or any promiſe belongeth to the Popes, when the Papiſts the… ſelves ſay that they were made to Peter before h… was Pope. For ſo Bellarmine is fain to anſwer, wh… we ſay Peter himſelf erred in denying Chriſt he ſaith [Saint Peter when he denyed Chriſt, was … yet made Pope: For its manifeſt that the Eccleſiaſ… cal ſupremacy was given him in the laſt of John, wh… Chriſt after the reſurrection bid him Feed my ſheep Bell. de Pontif. li 4. cap. 8.

20. It is of neceſſity that all Chriſtians who belie… upon the Popes authority, muſt know who it is th… is the true Pope, and to be believed: And wh… there are many Popes at once pretending to that i… fallibility and authority, how can all Chriſtians reſolved which is the true Pope when one Count… owns one, and another owns another, whom ſ… the vulgar own that are out of reach and uncapab… of underſtanding the quarrel? And then, w… p. 101knows which of them muſt be ſucceeded by the next? Nay can learned men tell? Nay can the Cardinals …ell that chooſe them? And are we ſure that any of …he pretenders are true Popes? Shall we hear B…llar…ine in one particular caſe, that is in his anſwer to …he 37. inſtance of Heretical Popes, to wit, John …3. who beſides open Adulteries, Murders and o…her horrid wickedneſs, of which no leſs then fifty …hree Articles were put in againſt him at the Council …f Conſtance, all confirmed, ſaith Bellarmine, by …ertain witneſſes, he was moreover accuſed of moſt …ernicious Hereſie, even of denying the Reſurrecti…n of the body, and everlaſting life. And to this Bellarmine anſwereth [Joannem 23. non fuiſſe Ponti…cem omnino certum & indubitatum, proinde non nec…eſſario eſſe defendendum, erant enim eo tempore tres, …ni Pontifices haberi volebant, Gregor. 12. Benedict. …3. & Johan. 23. nec poterat facile judicari quis e…rum verus ac legitimus eſſet Pontifex cum non deeſſent …ngulis doctiſſimi patroni.] that is [I anſwer that …ohn the 23. was not altogether the certain and un…oubted Pope, and therefore he is not neceſſarily to be …efended, for there were at that time three that would …e accounted Popes, Gregor. 12. Benedict. 13. and …ohn 23. and it was no eaſie matter to judge which of …hem was the true and lawful Pope, when there were …ot wanting to each one of them moſt Learned Patrons.] And yet the ſame Bellarmine ſaith, de Concil. li. 1. …ap. 8. that its almoſt the common opinion that this …ohn, Alex 5. were true Popes.

You ſee then the caſe of the poor people accord…ng to the Romiſh Religion: They cannot know the …ord of God to be his word but on the authorita…ive determination of the Pope: and who is the p. 102true Pope it is impoſſible for them to know, when even moſt Learned men cannot know, and Bellarmine himſelf ſo long after ſaith, it could not eaſily be known.

21. Moreover, how can all Chriſtians many hundred miles diſtant know whether indeed the Cardinals choſe and conſecrated him that is in the ſeat, or whether he forc't in himſelf, or bribed them to pretend what was not done, and ſo whether he have all the eſſentials of his call.

22. And if a Council muſt be the determiner either with the Popes, or alone, How ſhall the Chriſtian world know that Chriſt hath promiſed infallibility to a Council, when there is no ſuch promiſe in the word: much leſs can Infidels know this in order to their believing the word of God.

23. And how ſhall we all know what is a General Council, and when we have one? whether it muſt be all the Chriſtian Biſhops in the world that muſt meet? or the delegates at leaſt of all? or whether ſome Countries, or part of all may ſerve? and then what Countries or parts it muſt be? Bellarm. de Conc. l. 1. c. 17. Saith, that once the Patriarchs muſt be preſent, but now its not neceſſary becauſe they are all Hereticks or Schiſmaticks. And how ſhall we know that ever there was ſuch a thing as a General Council? For my part I ſee no probability that ever there were many, if any one ſuch Council, was the Council of Trent General when the greateſt part of the Chriſtian world was abſent? When all the Biſhops of Aethiopia, Egypt, Paleſtins, Greece, with all the Turkes dominions were abſent, beſides the Proteſtants, and moſt of the Popiſh Biſhops themſelves.

24. How ſhall we be ſure that all theſe, or the p. 103greater part of them are true Biſhops and lawfully called? If as Bellarmine ſaith de Concil. l. 2. c. 9. That the contrary be not manifeſt, be enough, then mans error can make Gods promiſe of Infallibility belong to thoſe that it was never made to; or elſe God hath promiſed infallibility to all that may be Popes or Biſhops for ought we know: and then it belongs not to the Pope and Biſhops, but to all that ſeem ſuch.

25. Yea that all thoſe Biſhops or moſt deſcend by uninterrupted ſucceſſion from the Apoſtles, which is made neceſſary, If they plead onelyonly the Biſhop of Romes ſucceſſion to warrant all the reſt, before the forementioned particulars be well anſwered, it will appear that Romes ſucceſſion hath been frequently interrupted.

26. How ſhall men at a diſtance be ſure that the Councils are indeed confirmed by the Pope?

27. How ſhall we be ſure when all is done that we have the right ſence of the Canons or Decrees of ſuch Councils, when they ſpeak as ambiguouſly as the Scripture, and the Papiſts think they can have no certainty of the right ſence of that without a living judge: And if there be a living judge ſtill of the ſence of Councils, either he is as infallible as they, or not: If not, then he cannot make us infallibly certain by his Authoritative determination. If he be, then what need of a Council, when he is infallible alone?

28. When ſeveral Popes and Councils contradict one another, how ſhall we know which of them to believe? And this is no rare matter among them?

29. When the Pope and Council contradict each other, how ſhall the people know which is infallible?

p. 10430. When both Pope and Council contradict the expreſs Scripture, muſt we take them for infallible, and believe that Scripture only on their words.

Theſe or moſt of theſe muſt be known by all Chriſtians, before they can believe the Articles of their Creed, or that Scripture is Gods word, according to the Romiſh grounds: When as it is impoſſible for any man to know them as true; they being either falſe or not evident and demonſtrable. So that its now apparent that according to the Popiſh grounds, the People can have no certainty of the truth of their Religion, and that they ſhake the foundation of Chriſtianity it ſelf.

2. And laſtly, not onelyonly ſo, but they build on a foundation certainly falſe, that is, the Popes infallibility or a Councils: as I ſhall prove in the next diſpute where their fallibility will be further manifeſted.

Arg. 3. If the Papiſts are not agreed among themſelves either Clergy or Laity about the very fundamentals of their faith (or matters which they make of neceſſity to ſalvation) then Popery is no ſafe way to ſalvation: But the Antecedent is true: Therefore, &c.

We need to go no further for the proof of the Antecedent then to what is ſaid already. They commonly maintain that we muſt receive our faith and the Scriptures upon the Authority of the infallible Church: and they are not yet agreed among themſelves, nor ever like to be what that infallible Church is. And the difference is not with a few inconſiderable diſſenters, but in their main body. The Papiſts of France maintain that it is a General p. 105Council that is infallible, and that the Pope is fallible: The Italians maintain that a General Council is fallible, and the Pope is infallible. Some others think that both of them are fallible ſeparated, but both infallible when they concur. And ſome think that they are both infallible though ſeparated. If the Church be the foundation, and all muſt be received upon its infallible authority, then no man can be ſaved that knows not which this infallible Church is: either therefore the French or Italians, one part or the other of them do erre in their very fundamentals, when one ſaith, This is the ſubject of infallibility, and the other ſay, This is it. And if a Pope or General Councel differ, to whom muſt the people hearken? One part of them ſaith that the Pope is above the Council; and others of them ſay the Council is above the Pope, and of this mind have been General Councils themſelves, as the Council of Baſil and Conſtance, and of this mind Bellarmine names, Cardinal Cameracenſis, Cardinal Cuſanus, Joh. Gerſon Iac. Almain, Card. Florentin. Panormitan, &c.

What a ſtrange impudency then is it of theſe men, to make the ſilly deluded people among us believe, that they are all of one mind, and its we that are divided: when as they are never likely to agree in their very principles and great fundamental, Who it is that is the infallible Judge? And till men know Who it is, what the better are they know, that ſuch a judge there is ſeeing that the ſpecies exiſteth only in the individual, and no man can believe him, or apply himſelf to him as the infallible judge, till he know that it is he indeed that is ſuch.

p. 106Seeing then according to their own principles, either the French Papiſts or the Italian and Spaniſh Papiſts muſt be in the way to damnation, how ſhall we know which it is and which to joyn our ſelves to with any ſafety? Were it not for weakening the Popes intereſt, they would burn the French Papiſts as Hereticks as well as us.

Arg. 4. If Popery be a new deviſed way to heaven ſuch as the Apoſtles never knew nor the Church after them for many a hundred year (in the main parts of Popery) then is it no ſafe way to ſalvation: But the Antecedent is true: therefore ſo is the conſequent.

The conſequence they will not deny, that which the Apoſtles & the Primitive Churches went in is only the ſafe way to heaven (for there are not many ſafe ways) But that which the Papiſts as Papiſts go in, is not that which the Apoſtles and Primitive Church went in: therefore it is not the ſafe way. And that the Apoſtles and firſt Churches knew not Popery, but it is a new Religion, or new corruption of Religion, appeareth by comparing the particular points with Scripture and Antiquity: For Scripture which is the trueſt Antiquity, it may give any indifferent man juſt cauſe of ſuſpicion that the Papiſts do ſo obſtinately refuſe to be tryed by it; which plainly ſhewes that they take it not to be on their ſide. And for the Councils and Fathers, for the firſt three hundred years or much more, they ordinarily ſcorn us for mentioning them to this end, becauſe they ſay they wrote not of the points now in controverſie, and therefore are unfit to determine them. But did not thoſe ages take up their faith on the ſame grounds as we ſhould do now? p. 107And can they be all ſilent about the onelyonly ground of faith? If the Pope of Romes infallible authority had been the ground, would they not have told us ſo? How could they convert the infidels, and confirm believers without acquainting them with the grounds of their Faith? And what they took for the grounds their writings ſhew. Nay he that ſhall faithfully and impartially peruſe the Writers of the firſt three-or four or ſeven hundred years, is blind if he ſee not the novelty of Popery, and in particular of the Popes infallibility, univerſal headſhip and Epiſcopacy, and his pretended authoriry to be the Judge of controverſies, with the reſt of his uſurpations. Our Divines, Chamier, Jewel, Ʋſher, Field, and many others have manifeſted this ſo largely, that it would be ſuperfluous for me to do it after them, and ſomewhat will neceſſary fall in with the next diſpute.

I do not deny but that many ceremonies, and many controverted doctrines were very ancient: as the uſe of Chriſme, and a white garment, and milke and honey to the newly baptized, exorciſme, confirmation by impoſition of hands, the Memories of the Martyrs, with prayers and praiſes at their graves, or places of ſuffering; the oft uſe of the ſigne of the Croſs, the obſervation of Lent (as well as Eaſter and Whitſontide) not to kneel on the Lords day, not to eat things ſtrangled or bloody, ſo the doctrines of the power of Free-will, and predeſtination upon foreſeen faith, and the miſuſe of the terms [Merit and Juſtification] the denyal of the perſeverance of all Saints, &c. were too early and commonly entertained. But theſe be not the things that we call Popery, nor wherein the great difference p. 108between us, and the Romaniſts doth conſiſt. But as for the great points in difference between the Papiſts and us, it is ſo evident in all antiquity, that Popery is a novelty, and that they have deviſed a new way to heaven which the Apoſtles and the Churches for many hundred years did never know, that onelyonly groſs ignorance of the Churches records, or a willingneſs to be deceived, can keep men from the knowledge of it.

And here I might eaſily prove what is ſaid of the novelty of Popery, even from the confeſſions of their own moſt learned writers, that ſo they may not ſay, it is concluded from our own miſunderſtanding of Antiquity; But that it would ſwell this diſputation beyond the intended bulk and bounds. I ſhall onelyonly give a brief touch in a few points of moment, which may ſhew you what to think of their charging us with novelty, and of their general pretences to Antiquity.

Of the humane Ordination of Papacy, and its late increaſe beyond its ancient bounds, and the limitation of Eccleſiaſtical Power; I ſhall deſire you to ſee what in the following Diſputation is cited out of their Cardinal Nicol. Cuſanus, a man ſo violent for the Eugenian faction, that Aenaenas Sylvius, afterward Pope Pius the ſecond lamenteth that ſo learned a man ſhould be the pillar of that Popes cauſe; and a man ſo cloſe to Papal intereſt, and ſo addicted himſelf to domineering, that he oppoſed his Prince Sigiſmund Duke of Auſtria, and cauſed the ſame Pope Pius the ſecond to take his part, and excommunicate Sigiſmund and all his Counſailors, and his ſubjects, for taking this Cardinal priſoner p. 109by force of Armes; of which ſee the ſtory in Goldaſtus, with Gregor. Hemburg's (one of the Princes excommunicated Counſailors) his Defence againſt the Pope and Cardinal: Yet this man himſelf in his books de concordia hath confeſſed enough to deſtroy the Popes cauſe, and take down the Romane tyranny, if they would ſtand to the principles of that confeſſion.

Others alſo in the next diſputation are mentioned as to that ſubject, which I ſhall therefore now pretermit.

Polidore Virgil a Learned writer of theirs in his lib. 8. de Invent. R…. cap. 5. pag. 475.476. Saith [Item ut nullum conventum indici, nullumque a quibuſvis actum haberi ratum liceret ſine Romani Pontificis authoritate, Marcellus primus omnium ſanxit, deinde Julius & Damaſus & Gregorius illud idem ſtatuere] [i. e. [Alſo that no Aſſembly (or Council) ſhould be called, nor any act of whomſoever be eſteemed ratified without the Authority of the Pope of Rome, this Marcellus was the firſt that did ordain, and afterward Julius and Damaſus and Gregory did ordain the ſame thing] And though this ſufficiently proveth the novelty, yet Polidore is miſtaken in taking this part of Papal Uſurpation to be ſo ancient. For he took it on the authority of the decretals, which are meer fictions. Of which I refer the Reader to Blondellus de Decretal. Blondell. de Decret. pag. 397.403.The ſum of whoſe cenſure on Marcellus Epiſtles is this [As the frequent Barbariſme ſhew the Author, ſo the following oft the verſion of Hiereme, the excribing of divers inſtances p. 110out of Innocent, Leo, Hilary, Gregory, Adrian 1. and Acacius, ſhew that he was many ages later then Marcellus] See alſo the full evidence that he giveth in his cenſures againſt the Epiſtle of S. Julius and Damaſus; and for Gregory, his Epiſtles to the contrary purpoſe are well known. So that by Polidorus confeſſion this Papal uſurpation is a novelty: but indeed many hundred years neerer then he imagined.

And what good this uſurpation did, himſelf confeſſeth in the following words [Though it firſt broke the conventicles of Hereticks — Ita deinceps nihil attulit commodi▪ cum per id jam pene deſitum ſit a concilis habendis, in quibus cuncta ex aequo traictarentur Pontifice, Romano ejuſmodi negotium non magnopere curante] i. e. [Afterwards it did no good, when by reaſon of this, Councils are almoſt ceaſed, in which all things ſhould be equally handled, the Pope of Rome not much rega…ding any ſuch matter] Where he addeth [That therefore Pope Martin the fifth in the Council of Conſtance decreed that a Council ſhould be called every tenth year, which hitherto hath not been kept, and therefore Religion grows daily worſe] Where by the way we may ſee what power the Laws of the Pope and General Councils have, and what a Religion Popery is, which ſweareth men to believe and obey the Decrees of ſuch Councils, which no man ever obeyed ſince they were made: For there hath been never ſince a Decennial Council: And the Pope himſelf by confirming that Council which decreed that a Council is above the Pope, did ſhew himſelf obliged to obey it, and ſo to have called a Council accordingly. But all others muſt ſwear to that as Gods Word and infallible, which themſelves contemne. But to proceed.

p. 111The ſame Polidore Virgil. lib. 8. cap. 1. g. 456. ſhews that the beginning of Indulgences was not till Gregory appointed his ſtations, and made them a reward. And ſhewing that thy were grounded on the Doctrine of Purgatory, he bringeth in Biſhop Fiſher of Rocheſter to witneſs, 1. That Indulgences are lately brought in. 2.Roffeuſ. Cont. Lutherum. And that even of Purgatory Apud priſcos nulla vel quam rariſſima fiebat mentio; ſed & Grecis ad hunc uſque diem non eſt creditum eſſe: quan diu enim nulla fuerat de purgatorio cura, nemo queſivit indulgentias, nam ex illo pe…det omnis indulgentiarum exiſtimatio. Si tollas purgatorium, quorſum indulgentiarum opus erit? Caeperunt igitur Indulgentiae, poſt quam ad purgatorii cruciatus aliquandiu trepidatum eſt] i. e. [With the ancients there was no mention of Purgatory, or exceeding rare: And the Greeks believe not that it is to this day: And as long as there was no care about Purgatory, no man ſought for indulgences; for all the eſtimation of indulgences dependeth upon that. See Mr. Sing's Rejoynder in Defenſ. of Biſhop Uſher p. 78.79, 80, 81, &c.If you take away Purgatory, what uſe is there of indulgences: indulgences therefore did then begin, when men had trembled a while at the pains of Purgatory] So far Biſhop Fiſher their Martyre.

Polidore Virgil reciting theſe words, next to them addeth [Quae tu forte cum tanti ſint Momenti, ut magis certa ex ore Dei expectabas] [Perhaps you expected to have had theſe things as more certain from the mouth of God, ſeeing they are of ſuch moment] A ſufficient hint that he had more in his mind if he durſt have ſpoken out.

p. 112Yet note that the profit of indulgences is expreſsly ſworn to in the new Trent Creed as part of their Belief.

This paſſage of Fiſhers was alledged by Biſhop Ʋſher in his Anſwer to the Jeſuites challenge, and the like from Cajetans confeſſing that the beginning of indulgences is not known: What the adverſaries can ſay againſt theſe citations, you may ſee confuted by Mr. Sing in his Rejoynder in Defence of Biſhop Ʋſher againſt the Jeſuite, pag. 81.82, 83.

That the uſe of the Sacrament in one kind is a new invention, is commonly confeſſed by them. See Albaſpinaeus a ſober Biſhop of theirs in his obſervations, after his notes on Optatus, cap. 4. de Communione Laica, pag. 10.11. ſhewing the novelty of the now Romiſh Communion. And Gregor. de Valentia the Jeſuite confeſſeth that minime conſtat, it is not known when the cuſtome of receiving the Sacrament in one kind onelyonly began, but that it was not by any Decree of a Biſhop, but crept in by ſome cuſtome of the people. Of which alſo ſee Biſhop Ʋſher ibid. and his Defender Mr. Sing p 78.82, 83.

About the beginning of Monkery, ſee Polidore Virgils confeſſ. lib. 7. cap 1. pag. 414.415.416. And that [Monachi primo omnium introduxerunt in Eccleſiant Dei vota ſacra, & veſtimenta profana ſimul religi…ſa ſecerunt] [Monkes were the firſt of all men that brought into the Church of God, ſacred vows, and made common (or profan…) garments become Religious.] pag. 424.

Of the beginning of forbidding Prieſts to marry, ſee the ſame Polid. Virgil. li. 5. cap. 4. pag. 293, &c.

p. 113Of Peters ſupremacy the ſam… Polidore ſaith l. 4. c. 6. p. 240. [Veruntamen exiſtunt etiam nunc, &c. There are ſome now that contend that Peter had power over all the Apoſtles: of which it belongeth not to us to determine, who are onelyonly enquiring of the original of Prieſthood: but ſome think the contrary, becauſe Paul ſeemeth to deny it, &c.] Where he addeth more reaſons.

Of the Original of Cardinals, and the changes of the Electors of Popes, ſee him alſo l. 4. c. 9. where alſo he ſaith pag. 252. [Verum cum poſtea Bonifacius 3. ab Imperatore Phoea impetraſſet ut in omnes Epiſcopos praerogativam haberet, omniumque caput perpetuo foret, jam tum Romanus Pontifex multo quam antea unam cum ſuo urbano ſacerdotum ſenatu cunctis ſine controverſia preſtare authoritate caepit, ac ſimul illi presbyteri quibus Tituli dati, quibus Chriſtianorum animas cutandi munus delatum fuerat, to Cardinalium nomine velut ſupremae illius dignitatis proprio cum primis honeſtari caepit.] Here you have a hint of the Original of the very new frame of the Romiſh Church.

Many more points of the Romiſh way doth he in that Book diſcover to be novel. And in oppoſition to all their way if you will ſee how he deſcribeth the Reformed Religion, peruſe his narrative of the occaſion of the Reformation, pag. 410. cap. 4. li. 8. where he ſaith [Ita licentia parta loquendi: ſecta brevi tempore mirabiliter crevit quae Evangelica dicta eſt eo quod, haud ullam aſſeveret recipiendam eſſe legem quae ad animarum ſalutem pertineat niſi quam Chriſtus aut Apoſtoli dediſſent] i. e. [Having once leave to ſpeak, that ſect did marvailouſly increaſe; which is called Evangelical, becauſe they p. 114affirm that no Law is to be received which belongeth to ſalvation but what is given by Chriſt or the Apoſtles] Thus you ſee what the Proteſtant Religion is and whence called Evangelical, and wherein it principally differeth from Popery, from the mouth of a Papiſt himſelf (an Agent of the Popes with the King of England H. 7. An Archdeacon, and at laſt the Dean of Pauls in London, from whence he removed becauſe of the entrance of the Engliſh changes under H. 8)

And though he ſay that it then begun, meaning Luthers particular Reformation, yet what is like to be the end of it in the next words he ſubjoynes his Prognoſtick [Manſurum ut videtur quoad Christus ipſe populum ſuum culpâ rectorum it a in duas ſectas ſejunctum, rurſus coegerit, a quo iſtud optimus quiſque maxime petere precarique debet, ut ne major indidem fiat Religionis labes] [Its like to remain till Chriſt himſelf ſhall again bring together his people, who by their Rectors fault are thus divided into two **Note that he calls the Papiſts a Sect as well as the Reformed.Sects; from whom every good man ought eſpecially to beg and pray for it, leſt Religion as daily decay] more and more.

The novelty of their doctrine de efficacia Sacramenti ex opere operato is not onelyonly by ſubtile Scotus but many more of their own confeſſed to be new. More of their corruptions are by their own Writers confeſſed to be novelties; and therefore it is great immodeſty in the Papiſts to pretend the Antiquity of Popery, though we eaſily grant them the Antiquity of their Chriſtianity. In ſo much as they agree with us they may p. 115prove their Religion to be ancient: but its new in …he points wherein we differ, and moſt new in the greateſt differences. Biſhop Ʋſher in his Anſwer to …he Jeſuites challenge, and in his book de Statu & …ucceſſione Eccleſiarum, hath proved the novelty of …he main body of their corruptions, eſpecially the points of whoſe antiquity themſelves moſt boaſted of, and this diſtinctly and fully to their perpetual …onfuſion, beyond all reply.

If therefore the Romaniſts would have us return …o their communion (not to their ſubjection; for that we never owed them) let them but caſt off their novelties and return to the ancient faith and practice of the Romane Church, and we ſhall do it ſpeedily …nd do it gladly: They ſhall ſee that we are ſo far from affecting an unneceſſary ſeparation, that we …ill embrace them in a lawful communion with all our hearts. I cannot better expreſs my hearty de…ires of this, then in thoſe hearty words of Hier. Zanchy Vol. 3. Theſ. de Eccleſ. Milit. Theſ. 19. Col. …40. [Non enim ab Eccleſia Romanâ ſimpliciter & … omnibus defecimus: ſed in illis duntaxat rebus in …nibus ipſa defecit ab Apoſtolica, atque adeo a ſeip…, veteri & pura Eccleſia: neque alio diſceſſimus zimo, quam ut ſi correcta, ad priorem Eccleſiae for…am redeat, nos quoque ad illam revertamur, & …mmunionem cum illa in ſuis porro caetibus habeamus: Quod ut tandem fiat, toto animo Domino Jeſum pre…mur, Quid enim pio cuique optatius, quam ut ubi …r baptiſmum renati ſumus, ibi etiam in finem uſ…u vivamus? modo in Domino? Ego Hier. Zanchius. Cum tota mea familia teſtatum hoc volo toti Eccleſiae Chriſti in omnem eternitatem.

p. 116Arg. 5. If Popery do make a new Catholike Church, which was never known for many hundred years after Chriſt, then is it no ſafe way to ſalvation. But Popery doth make a new Catholike Church that was never known of many hund…ed years after Chriſt: therefore its no ſafe way to ſalvation.

The conſequence of the Major will not be denyed; for they confeſs that Chriſts Church is but one; He had not a Church of one ſort for the firſt ages, and a Church of another ſort ſince: though its accidents may vary, yet ſo doth not its eſſence. The Minor I prove thus, That which the Papiſts make to be the Catholike Church, is only all thoſe Chriſtians that acknowledge the Pope to be the univerſal Biſhop and head of the Catholike Church, having univerſal ſupreme juriſdiction, and the Church of Rome to be the Mother and Miſtris of all other Churches, and its only a Catholike Church convertible with the Romane Church. But ſuch a Catholike Church as this was never known by the Apoſtles, or of many hundred years after Chriſt: Therefore Popery maketh a new Catholike Church, which the firſt ages never knew.

Its true that when Rome being then the ruling City of the world did come to own Chriſtianity, that the Glory of the Empire occaſioned the Biſhop to be called Primae ſedis Epiſcopus, as one that was to take place of the reſt of the Patriarchs, who had their ſeveral orders or places …ſſigned them (as Alexandria to be the ſecond, Antioch the third, &c.) which Bellarmi… confeſſeth might be after lawfully changed: but as Alexandria had not the Government of Antioch by that predecency, ſo neither had Rome any government, of the reſt: And as Constantinople was afterward ſet up p. 117above Alexandria and Antioch (and claimed to be above Rome) ſo might it as lawfully have been ſet up above Rome But what ever be ſaid about their quarrels of precedency, which pride begun and cheriſhed, yet its moſt evident in all antiquity, that of many hundred years after Chriſt, there was no ſuch Catholike Church in being, or known, as was centred in the Pope as the head or univerſal Biſhop or Governor, or in Rome as the Miſtris of the reſt. We have long ago challenged them to give us the leaſt proof of ſuch a Church in all antiquity, and they give us nothing, but ſuch forced paſſages that are nothing to their purpoſe, that its hard for the moſt charitable rational man to believe that they do indeed believe themſelves, and do not know that they hypocritically endeavor to cheat poor ſouls by their vain cavils. All the Papiſts on earth will never be able to anſwer what our Divines have ſaid already to prove the novelty of their Papal headſhip: nor can all the Popes ſervants in the world bring us one word of currant antiquity for many hundred years after Chriſt, to prove that ever ſuch a Church was once dreamed of, as they now call the Romane Catholike Church. Indeed Rome was called then, a Catholike Church, and ſo was Alexandria, Antioch, and all that held the Catholike faith, and were not heretical: but it was never known till Boniface had uſurped the Title of univerſal Biſhop above 600. years after Chriſt (which he procured by Phocas a Murderer that uſurped the Empire when he had ſlain the Emperor Mauritius) that the Romane Church and the Catholike Church was all one, or that it was neceſſary to make any particular Church or perſon Catholike, that they acknowledge the univerſal headſhip and juriſdiction of the Romane Pope, much leſs his infallibility.

p. 118To heap up Records here would but ſtop the plain Reader in his courſe; and ſomewhat ſhall be ſ…id of it in the next diſpute: OnelyOnly I now ſay, that if any one queſtion whether indeed the Romane Catholike Church as now conſtituted be a meer novelty, I here offer my ſelf to the fuller proof of it, and ſhall deſire no better recreation of ſuch a ſort then to entertain a diſpute about it with any Papiſts that will undertake their cauſe.

And here I muſt needs annex this obſervation; What a ſhameleſs cheat it is by which the Papiſts do delude the ignorant, perſwading them that theirs is the old Religion, and the ancient Church which hath continued from the Apoſtles without interruption; and that we are men of a new Religion, and of a Church that had never a viſible being till the dayes of Luther, Coſterous the Jeſuite in the Preface to his Enchiridion inſtructeth his deluded novices how to deal with the Proteſtants by urging them with three Queſtions (which we ſhall reſolve anon to his ſhame) and the laſt of them is a challenge to us [To name one man before Luther that agreed with us in all things] But we challenge, and moſt confidently challenge all the Papiſts on earth to name one man for three hundred years after Chriſt (I might ſay ſix hundred years) that agreed with them (not in all things but) in their very Articles of Faith, yea in thei… Church fundamentals, yea in the very definition of the Catholike Church: We challenge them to name us one man and (prove it) that ever knew or owned ſuch a Church as Catholike that is now ſo called and owned by them. We confidently affirm (and challenge all the Papiſts in the world to diſpute the point with us) that their Church as Popiſh, p. 119is a new thing, unknown to our forefathers of the firſt ages; that Popery is a fardel of new doctrines, unknown to the firſt Churches We admire at the immodeſty of theſe men to aske us where our Church was before Luther, and to call it a new Religion which we profeſs, and to ask us whether we think our ſelves wiſer then all the world was heretofore in the pureſt times? We do moſt confidently return on them their own demands? We would know from any of them where their Church was for three hundred (yea for ſix hundred) years after Chriſts birth? And we wonder how they can think to be ſaved in a way that was not known for ſo long time? Do they think themſelves wiſer then Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and all the Chriſtian world for ſo many hundred years. Again we challenge them to ſhew us the leaſt proof that ever there was ſuch a thing for ſo long time, as a Catholike Church convertible with the Romane, and headed by the Pope as the univerſal Biſhop having a univerſal juriſdiction over the reſt, or an infallible Judgement in determining of controverſies in matters of faith. It is none of the leaſt of our Reaſons why we dare not be of the Romiſh faction or opinions, called by them their Church and their Religion, becauſe it is ſo new, and we dare not venture our ſouls upon new wayes, nor dare we believe that Chriſt hath two ſorts of Churches eſſentially different ſince his Reſurrection; one ſort before the Popes univerſal headſhip, and the other ſince: nor dare we once imagine that Chriſt had no true Church on earth till Pope Boniface would needs be the univerſal Biſhop, or till Rome was advanced to the dignity and titles which it doth now uſurpe. I deſire no better iſſue then this p. 120of our difference: Let any Papiſts living bring out their cauſe to the tryal of antiquity, and let them that are of the moſt Ancient Church and Religion, carry the cauſe. If we prove not theirs new and ours the moſt ancient, or if they prove theirs more Ancient then ours (as ſince Chriſts Reſurrection) then we are contented to be of their Church and way.

Arg. 6. If the Papiſts be the greateſt Schiſmaticks upon earth, moſt deſperately rending the Church and ſeparating themſelves from the maine body of the viſible Church, then Popery is not a ſafe way to ſalvation. But the Papiſts are the greateſt Schiſmaticks on earth, moſt deſperately rending the Church, and ſeparating themſelves from the main body thereof: Therefore Popery is no ſafe way to ſalvation.

The conſequences of the Major will be confeſſed by themſelves. It is only the Minor, therefore that is to be proved: which is too eaſily done, being a matter of fact.

Firſt, The Papiſts do actually rend themſelves from the greateſt part of Chriſts Church on earth, condemning all others to everlaſting fire: 2. They do lay the grounds of a continual ſchiſme, in making a new center of the unity of the Church: of theſe two in order.

1. He that ſhall conſider of all the Chriſtians in the world at this day, who ſubject not themſelves to the Pope of Rome, and may truly be reputed to be of the Catholike Church, will ſee that the Papiſts are but a ſmall part of the Church: But eſpecially if we conſider them as they were not many ages ago, much more numerous then now they be. The Grecians, the Syrians called Melchites, the Moſcovites and p. 121Ruſſians, the Georgians, all of the Greek Religion beſides the multitude of the ſame Religion diſperſed throughout the Turkes dominions; alſo the Abaſſins, Egyptians, Armenians, Jacobites, who are neer of a mind, and differ from the Papiſts, and ſubmit not to their authority: Beſides all the Reformed Churches in Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Tranſylvania, Brittain, Ireland, France, Belgia, Helvetia, and other parts with thoſe in the Indies; I ſay conſider of all theſe Chriſtians together and it will appear that the Papiſts are but a few to them, or not neer ſo many as they. But if you further conſider of the ſtate of the Chriſtian world not many ages ago, when the Turkes had not yet ſubdued the Eaſtern parts, and when the Abaſſian Empire was much more large, and Nubia and other Countries had not revolted, it will appear that we may well ſay that it was but a ſmall part of Chriſtians comparatively that did acknowledge the univerſall headſhip and juriſdiction of the Pope, or ſubmit themſelves to him: beſides many other points of Religion in which they differ from him. I know that the Papiſts ſay, that theſe are all either Hereticks or Schiſmaticks, and ſo no part of the Catholike Church. But the accuſation of Schiſme is the meer voice of Schiſme, and for Hereſie, its true that all men and Churches have their errors, which yet deſerve not the name of Hereſie: The Jacobites and the reſt that are neer them, are afraid of acknowledging two Natures in Chriſt, leſt it lead them to make two perſons with the Neſtorians; but yet they are not plaine Eutichites: and both they and the Neſtorians acknowledge Chriſt to be perfect God and perfect man; only the Neſtorians do amiſs p. 122have theſe two natures, two perſons; and that the Euticheans in flying too far from them are afraid to call them two Natures, though they confeſs the Godhead and Manhood to be really diſtinct; yet they ſay that both are as it were conjoyned or coupled into one Nature: ſo that wiſe impartial men think that the Eutichites (or at leaſt theſe Chriſtians that are ſo called amiſs by the Papiſts) do but miſuſe the term Nature for the term Perſon, and ſo deny two Perſons onelyonly in ſence, and two Natures only in name, and that by the ſame miſuſe of the terms the Neſtorians do affirm two Natures onelyonly in ſence, and two Perſons in words onelyonly. Of this I deſire the Reader to conſider What Luther hath ſaid de Conciliis This I muſt needs ſay, that if I did not exerciſe the ſame charity in judging of the Romaniſts, as I do in this excuſe of the Jacobites, and other Chriſtians that are not of their Communion, I ſhould be forced to cenſure the former much deeper then the latter, and if by all their errors I muſt hold the reſt to be Hereticks or Schiſmaticks, I muſt by the ſame meaſure judge the Romaniſts to be doubly Heretical, as I certainly know them to be moſt notoriouſly Schiſmatical. For though I know that they are not ſo barbarous and unlearned as moſt of theſe forementioned Chriſtians, and alſo that they are free from many of their miſtakes, yet withall they have many more in ſtead of them which the other are free from. And for the Proteſtants they are Hereticks only on this ſuppoſition, that the Pope be Judge.

By this time then it partly appeareth how great a part of the Church of Chriſt the Papiſts do differ from.

p. 123But yet this is not all, nay the ſmaller part. For if you will but conſider the ſtate of the Church of Chriſt for the firſt three hundred, yea five or ſix hundred years, you will find that the Papiſts do differ from them all, even from the whole Church. For then the Popes univerſal Epiſcopacy and juriſdiction was not known in the world (as is ſaid before.)

All theſe doth the Romane party now ſeparate themſeves from: All theſe they do pronounce to be no true Churches or true Chriſtians, but Hereticks and Schiſmaticks: All theſe do they condemn to the pit of Hell. They have now concluded that onelyonly thoſe are of the true Church, that acknowledge the Maſterſhip or univerſal Headſhip of the Pope, and the Miſtrisſhip of the particular Romane Church which none of all thoſe forementioned did. They now conclude that none can be ſaved but who are of this (new-framed) Church of theirs.

Now I do appeal to any reaſonable impartial man alive, whether there be any more notorious Schiſmaticks on earth, then theſe men; that dare unchurch the far greateſt part of Chriſts Church on earth at preſent, & the far pureſt, and renounce communion with them all, and proclaim them Hereticks or Schiſmaticks, and ſentence them all to the flames of Hell: Yea that dare do the like by all ages of Chriſtians that have gone before them; yea that dare unchurch and damne to Hell the whole Church of Chriſt for many hundred years! For what do they leſs when they unchurch and damne all that acknowledge not their new made univerſal Biſhop which the Primitive Church never did? And when they make that to be eſſential to the Catholike Church p. 124which the firſt Catholike Church did never know? I know there be ſome Enthuſiaſts and Anabaptiſts and ſuch giddy perſons, that do as the Papiſts do, condemn all the Churches of Chriſt except themſelves. But yet the Schiſme that they have made hereby is nothing to that which was made by the Papiſts, who have ſet the Chriſtian world into a flame of diſſention, and make it their very buſineſs daily to b…ow …t up; and do nouriſh ſo many Colledges of Jeſuites and other orders to that end.

What notorious impudency is it then in theſe men to tell us that we are ſchiſmaticks, & ſeparate from them and aske us, how we dare judge all our forefathers to damnation, and why we will not be of our forefathers Religion? and do not obſerve how they condemne themſelves by all theſe queſtions. What more evident then that the Papiſts have ſeparated from all other Chriſtians in the world? How dare they condemne the far greateſt part of Chriſtians on earth to eternal torment? yea and (by plain conſequence, though they will not acknowledge it) the whole Church of Chriſt for many hundred years? were it but one ſoul that they ſhould preſume to cenſure, they might well bethink them of an anſwer to Pauls Queſtion. Who art thou that judgeſt another mans ſervant? to his own maſter doth he ſtand or fall, When Paul wrote that to the Church at Rome, he knew of none then that would juſtifie the judging of all the world, and ſay, They are my ſervants, or ſubjects, and therefore I muſt judge them. Do the blind Papiſts think that any ſober conſiderate impartial Chriſtian can be of their mind, and damne the moſt of Chriſts Church on earth, meerly becauſe they will not be ſubject to the Pope of Rome. If this Article be ſo neceſſary to ſalvation, Why do not we find it in any ancient p. 125Creed? Why muſt we not ſay [I believe in the Pope of Rome] as well as [I believe in God?] Or if indeed it be the Pope and Romaniſts that is meant by [the holy Catholike Church] why would not the compoſers of the Creed tell us ſo? And why did none of the ancient Churches underſtand and expound it ſo? And why did no age add the word [Romane] and call it [the holy Romane Catholike Church.]

2. And then withal, beſides the preſent Schiſme which they have made, they have laid the ground of a perpetual ſchiſme. For they have made a new definition of the Catholicke Church, and made it another thing then it was before, and they have made a new head and center of its unity; ſo that all the old ſort of Chriſtians to the end of the world, that cannot change their Church and unite to the new head and center, muſt needs be of a different body from the Romaniſts. And if theſe men ſay that it is the reſt of the Chriſtian world that firſt withdraws from them. 1. Let them prove that the Greek, Abaſſins & the reſt of the Chriſtian world that deny ſubjection to them, except theſe in the Weſt, were ever under them. 2. And as for the Reformed Churches if they were drawn in heretofore (I mean their forefathers) to countenance the Romiſh uſurpation & tyranny, they withdraw only from that uſurpation, & ſeparate from Rome only as it is a faction & not as from a Church. If we be drawn into a ſchiſm & ſeparation from all the Chriſtian world, by the fraud of Rome, is it unlawful for us to repent & return to the unity of the Catholike Church, and to renounce the Schiſm that we were guilty of? This is our great ſin? we are ſchiſmaticks becauſe we will not continue ſchiſmaticks? we are Schiſmaticks by caſting off the Schiſm of Rome, becauſe we will not be Schiſmaticks by continuing to ſeparate from all the Churches elſe on earth.

p. 1263. But let us come to the tryal with them who laid the firſt Schiſmatical Principle? Was it not they that firſt defined the Catholike Church as equipollent with the Romane? and firſt made the univerſal Headſhip of their Pope to be the center? Did ever Peter or Paul or any Apoſtle do ſo? Did they give us ſuch a definition of the Catholike Church? Or did the Church do ſo for many a hundred year after them? Prove this well, and take all; and we promiſe to turn Papiſts without delay. The plaine truth is this. The Catholike Church for many hundred years after Chriſt was that Body of Chriſtians who were united or centred only in Chriſt the head, and held communion in the fundamentals or great and neceſſary points of faith and worſhip: and had no mortal head or Center: But the worldly greatneſs of the City of Rome, occaſioneth the inflation and proud uſurpation of her Biſhop, and he will needs make himſelf the Center of union and univerſal head, when there was no Center or head, but Chriſt before: And is not this the vileſt Schiſme that men can tell how to be guilty of? ſuppoſe that the King of Spaine having his Dominions remote one part from another, ſome in Europe; and ſome in the Indies, that for five or ſix hundred years the Indies ſhould acknowledge no other head but the King of Spaine, and the Governors of each Province ſhould receive their ſeveral Commiſſions immediately from him, and ſtand in no regimental ſubordination to one another, but onelyonly be bound by the King to have communion and hold correſpondence for their mutual ſafety and the common good: If now after ſo long time the Vice King of Mexico, ſhall by Degrees make himſelf the ſovereign of the reſt, p. 127firſt claiming onelyonly the firſt place in their Aſſemblies, becauſe he is Governor of the greateſt City; and then requiring them to do nothing without him, or his conſent, and at laſt proclaiming himſelf the head of the Indies under the King of Spaine, and that none are ſubjects to the King but thoſe that profeſs themſelves alſo ſubjects to him, but all the reſt are rebels and traytors, and to be uſed accordingly; exhorting and commanding all to fall upon them and uſe them as ſuch: And all this upon pretence that Spain is ſo far off, that the King there is inviſible and inacceſſible to them in the Indies, and therefore the King hath given him a Commiſſion to be his ſubſtitute, as being more viſible and acceſſible. If now the reſt of the Preſidents, Governors, and Provinces, ſhall refuſe to acknowledge the Headſhip of this man, and ſhall declare that they dare center to no head, but the King of Spaine without his expreſs Commiſſion manifeſted, and the Provinces of Mexico and the adjacent parts onelyonly ſhall be otherwiſe minded and ſubject themſelves to the uſurper, who is it that cauſeth the Schiſme in the King of Spains dominions? And which partie is it that holdeth to the ancient terms of unity? and which are the dividers? I need not ſtand to make a particular application: It is even ſo, between us and the Pope with his Romaniſts. The Church of old was centred onelyonly in Chriſt and headed onelyonly by him: At laſt the Pope pretending Chriſts diſtance and inviſibility, and a Commiſſion that he hath from Chriſt to be his Vicar General (written in letters that none can read but himſelf and his party) will needs become the viſible head and center: and whereas before thoſe onelyonly were the rebels that rejected Chriſt, now all muſt be rebels p. 128that are not ſubject to the Popes.

And to aggravate the crime by the addition of hipocriſie, all this Schiſme and ſeparation muſt be carryed on by a pretence of unity: They make the poor ſimple people believe that the Pope being the Head and center, there is no unity to be held but in him, and that we muſt all be guilty of Schiſme that unite not in him, and that all our diviſions are cauſed by our departing from this center of unity: when it is himſelf that hath divided from the reſt of the Chriſtian world, and would drown the infamy of it by accuſing others of the ſame ſin that he is ſo notoriouſly guilty of. By which we may well ſee, that accuſing others is none of the ſureſt ſigns of innocency, but too common a trick to divert the ſuſpition from themſelves. When the Papiſts that are the greateſt Schiſmaticks on earth, do make ſuch an outcry againſt us as Schiſmaticks, becauſe we have repented of our joyning with them in their Schiſme, and will not confederate with them in evil, againſt the Laws of Chriſt, and the neceſſary means of the unity of his Church.

Arg. 7. If the faith of Papiſts as Papiſts, which is it that we call Popery, be a meerly uncertain, changeable thing, ſo that a man can never tell when he hath it all then is it no ſafe way to Salvation. But the faith of Papiſt… (as ſuch) is ſuch a meerly uncertain changeable thing: Therefore it is no ſafe way to Salvation.

The conſequence of the Major, I ſuppoſe they will grant. For how can that be a ſafe way, 1. which is uncertain, 2. and changeable; when the true way p. 129to ſalvation is one and the ſame, and changeth not ſince Chriſt had eſtabliſhed and ſealed his Laws.

All the queſtion therefore is of the Minor: which I prove, 1. From the Popiſh principles, 2. From their Practices, both which do plainly ſhew that their new Religion is a meer Weather-cock that muſt fit with the winde of the mutable conceits of the Pope and his Clergy. Even like the Religion of the Enthuſiaſts that wait ſtill for new Revelations to be ſuperadded to the Scripture.

And firſt for their principles, one is that [The Scripture is not the whole word of God, or ſufficient rule of faith or manners, but onelyonly a part of the Word and Rule, and that unwritten Traditions are the other part: Yea Ruſhworths Dialogues, Bellarmine, and the reſt of them ordinarily, tell us that Scripture was not chiefly given to be a Rule of faith at all: ſaith Bellarm. de verbo dei li. 4. cap. 12. [Finis Scripturae pracipuus non eſt, ut ſit Regula fidei, ſed ut variis documentis, exemplis, adhortationibus, nunc terrendo, nunc inſtruendo, nunc minando, nunc conſolando adjuvet nos in hae peregrinatione.] that is [The chief end of Scripture, is not to be a Rule of faith: but that by divers documents, examples, adhortations, ſometime by affrighting, ſometime by inſtructing, ſometime by threatning, ſometime by comforting, it may help us in this our peregrination.] It is then unwritten Traditions that are part of Gods Word, and at leaſt part of the Rule of faith: And where theſe Traditions are to be found, and what they are, and how many, and by what notes they may all be known, either they dare not tell us, for fear of bringing mens faith to a certainty, from under p. 130the lock and key of the Pope, or elſe in telling us they do but cloud the buſineſs with general terms, or elſe diſagree among themſelves. That the Scripture it ſelf is delivered to us infallibly, we doubt not: and thereby we know the Canonical books: But this may be done without another word of God: The act of Delivery from the Apoſtles is not a new Revelation or Word of God, but the natural means of conveying the word to thoſe for whom it was intended: And the object of that Act of Delivery was not another Word of God, but all and onelyonly theſe ſame Canonical Books: ſo that I know which is the Canon (among other reaſons) becauſe I can prove (not by another Word of God, but) by infallible humane Teſtimony (ſuch as I have of the Laws of this Land) that the Bible, and theſe particular books in it were actually delivered by the holy Writers to the Churches. If God write the two Tables of ſtone, and therein make known that they are his Laws, and then Deliver theſe to Moſes, this Delivering is not a new Word of God, but a neceſſary act for the promulgation of the Word: So that if you aske an Iſraelite how he knows, whether onelyonly the ten Commandments and all thoſe ten were contained in the Tables? He can prove it to you by the Tables Delivered, and by proving the Act of Delivery, though he could bring no other word of God which told you what was in thoſe Tables. And indeed, if theſe muſt needs be another Word of God, beſides the Delivering Acts to prove the former to be the Word of God, and tell us its parts, then there muſt alſo be another word to diſcover that ſecond Word to be the Word of God, and another to diſcover that, and ſo in infinitum. p. 131Our acknowledged neceſſary Tradition, therefo… is not another materia tradita, or Word of God, but onelyonly one of the actus tradendi, and act of delivering the ſame matter or word.

But for the Papiſts that will have another part of the Rule of Divine faith, they will never be able to tell us what it is, and where, and to let us underſtand when we have all. Bellarmine de verbo dei non Scripto li. 4. cap. 9. layes down five Rules by which we may know the true Traditions. The firſt is [When the whole Church embraceth any thing as a point of faith, which is not found in the Scriptures of God, we muſt needs ſay, that this was had from the tradition of the Apoſtles.] The ſecond is [When the univerſal Church keepeth ſomewhat which none could conſtitute but God, and which is not found written, we muſt needs ſay, that this was delivered from Chriſt and the Apoſtles.] The third is [That which is kept in the univerſal Church, and through all times paſt, is deſervedly judged to have been inſtituted by the Apoſtles, though it be ſuch a thing as the Church might inſtitute.] The fourth is [When all the Doctors of the Church do with one conſent teach that ſuch a thing deſcended by Apoſtolical Tradition, either Congregate in a General Councel, or writing it apart in books, this is to be believed to be an Apoſtolike Tradition.] The fifth Rule is this [That is without doubt to be believed to deſcend from Apoſtolical Tradition, which is held for ſuch in thoſe Churches where the ſucceſſion from the Apoſtles is entire and continued.] Theſe are Bellarmines five Rules.

But 1. What the particular Apoſtolical Traditions are which are Gods Word according to theſe Rules, he had more wit, or leſs honeſty then to let us underſtand. p. 130duplicate page p. 131duplicate page p. 132Is it becauſe the word of God is indeed yet unknown? or cannot be known? or becauſe it is not fit to make it known? or becauſe the Pope muſt pretend to the keeping of theſe hidden Laws, that ſo the world may receive them at his mouth?

2. And I would fain know whether theſe Rules of Bellarmines to know the unwritten word by, are themſelves the Word of God, or not? If they be, are they written or unwritten, and how known to be ſo? If not, then it ſeems we may have Rules and means which are not the word of God, by which we may infallibly know which is the true word of God? And then there needs no unwritten word to deliver or prove the written word.

3. And why may not another Doctor by theſe Rules, know the unwritten word, as well as the Pope, and another Church as well as the Romane?

4. And why may not the Chriſtian people through the world procure from ſome one charitable Pope, through ſo many hundred years, a Catalogue of thoſe unwritten verities, that the word of God may be once commonly known, and men may know when they have all, without uncertain dependencies on the Pope, or travailing in vain to Rome to know.

5. And for thoſe few that Bellarmine hath inſtanced in, viz. The perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary, The Baptiſme of Infants, the validity of Hereticks Baptiſm, the faſt of Lent, the inferior orders of the Clergy, the veneration of Images. To the firſt, I ſay, It is no Article of Divine Faith, but of humane Eccleſiaſtical: The ſecond is proved fully out of Scripture: And ſo is the third, if you take it of p. 133ſuch Hereticks (in a larger ſence) as expreſly exclude nothing eſſential to baptiſm, but expreſly include it all: But for the reſt, Bellarmine ſhould remember how elſwhere he defendeth the Council that required the rebaptizing of thoſe that were baptized by the Pauliniſts, becauſe they were Anti-trinitarians. For Lent, I ſay, no more can be proved of it, but onelyonly that it is an ancient Eccleſiaſtical conſtitution. And the inferior orders are apparently novelties, introduced after the firſt age, if not the ſecond too, and not mentioned in any of the firſt writers, but the ſum of Church Officers enumerated without them. Much more novel is the unlawful uſe of Images in Churches or as immediate inſtruments to excite devotion in prayer, and for other lawful uſe, we deny it not.

6. But principally I would intreat Bellarmine and the Pope that hereafter they would obtrude no unwritten word upon us, but what is proved to be ſuch, at leaſt by his own Rules. Let us have ſome proof that it proceedeth from the univerſal Church, and not their naked word without evidences. And then we muſt intreat them to be ſo honeſt, as not to unchurch the Greeks, Abaſſines, Armenians, Proteſtants, and all the Chriſtians in the world except Romaniſts, that ſo they may be the whole Catholike Church, and then prove any thing to be the word of God by their own Teſtimony alone. Nor yet to perſwade us that ſuch a Council as theirs at Trent conteined the whole Catholike Church real or repreſentative: nor yet to bring us two or three Fathers, and ſay that thoſe were all the Doctors of the Church.

p. 134More particularly I anſwer to his Rules in order. To the firſt I ſay. 1. That prove if you can that ever the whole Church embraced any thing as a point of Divine faith which is not contained in the Written Word. 2. If the whole Church embrace it, then it is no ſecret, and therefore we all may know it, yea and actually do know it as well as the Pope.

To the ſecond Rule I ſay, You may prove a miſtaken obſervance of rites by the greater part of the Church, but prove that the whole Church kept any thing unwritten, which none could conſtitute but God: But if they did, ſtill it muſt needs be known to all, and therefore not controvertible, or lockt up in the Popes cloſet. Prove alſo that the univerſal Church may not erre in ſome leſſer matters about Chriſts ſuppoſed conſtitutions.

To the third I ſay, If by [all times paſt] you include the Apoſtles, then we grant your Rule: but meer Eccleſiaſtical Canons may be obſerved through all times ſhortly after the Apoſtles, and yet not as Apoſtolical, but Eccleſiaſtical: Yet when you come to try your Traditions by this Rule, I am not out of doubt that you will but diſgrace them, and fail your Readers juſt expectations.

To the fourth I ſay, 1. I will believe you, if you ſpeak of all the Doctors of the Church next to the Apoſtles, or ſo neer as that the danger of miſtaking was not great. 2. But I do not believe that you will find any of your Traditions aſſerted to be Gods Word, by all the Doctors of the Church (not neer all) in any one age: unleſs you make your faction to be all.

The laſt Rule is but a meer trick of wit to get the p. 135key into the Popes hand alone: To which I ſay, 1. A Church that hath had an interrupted ſucceſſion of true Paſtors from the Apoſtles, may fall into many errors in proceſs of time, which in Tertullians and Irenaeus dayes, when the memory of all the Apoſtles practices were ſo freſh, they could not fall into ſo eaſily. 2. Thoſe Churches have received their unwritten verities, either by writings from their predeceſſors or without: If by writings, why cannot others find it there as well as they? If without, it muſt be an uncertain, and mutable means; or by a means ſo publike ſtill that all as well as they may know of it. 3. And we undertake to prove that the ſucceſſion of true Paſtors of the Romiſh See hath been long ago, and often interrupted. And therefore this Rule will not ſerve your turns.

But though I have been long upon this principle of the Papiſts to prove the uncertainty of their faith, yet the next is the chief that I intended, which alſo proveth the mutability of it.

2. The Papiſts ordinarily hold that as to us, that is Gods Word which the Pope with his Clergy ſay is Gods Word; and that his determination or Declaration that this or that is a point of faith, doth make it to us a point of faith, and neceſſary to be believed to ſalvation, which before was not ſo; So that according to the Papiſts, the Churches faith muſt alter at the Popes pleaſure (at leaſt with his Clergy) And by new declarations and determinations, he may make them a new Article of their Creed, when he will: ſo that their faith is as mutable and fallible as their Pope; and this they are themſelves aware of: and therefore feign him to be infallible that they may prove their faith infallible: which if they could do p. 136(as they never can) yet ſtill their faith is mutable by their own confeſſion, if not by revocations, yet by new additions as to us: ſo that their Religion is in continual progreſs or flux, and groweth in quantity as every Pope doth adde his Determinations. Now I would know of any Papiſt in the world, or of the Pope himſelf if he would condeſcend to ſuch conſiderations, whether they are ſure that yet they have all that is made neceſſary to be believed to ſalvation, upon ſuppoſal of their determination? How can they tell but that their ſucceſſors may make the Creed as long again as it is, and make their Religion another thing? I know they will ſay, that as to them no more is de fide then the Pope determineth to be ſo.

But then, 1. If he would not determine it, no man ſhould be bound to believe in Chriſt, and ſo none be damned for unbelief.

2 If it be a benefit to have all points of faith determined, Why are they not done, but one Pope muſt adde one, and another adde another to the end of the world (if Chriſt ſhould let them go on.)

3. Sure the preaching of any one Apoſtle or other Preacher of the Goſpel in the firſt age did leave the unbelievers without excuſe; and not onelyonly the Cathedral Determination of Saint Peter And why then doth not any Preachers Revelation of Gods will from his Word, oblige men now to believe as well as it did then?

And 3. It is evident and undenyable that their practice is according to their principles. The Popiſh Religion changeth ſo faſt by the new additions p. 137of ſeveral Popes, that it is not the ſame thing now, as it was heretofore. Look but into the Oath, or Trent Confeſſion which I recited in the beginning, and you may preſently ſee how their Religion is ſwelled bigger then it was. All the Popes Decretals, or at leaſt all the Canons of Trent, and every General Council (at leaſt, confirmed by the Pope) do enlarge their faith, as they adde any thing to what went before. What a multitude of things are de fide now, that were not ſo within a thouſand years? What man can give up himſelf to ſuch a growing Religion, where we muſt waite on the Pope, as the Enthuſiaſts do on God, for new Additional Revelations? And cannot know when we have all or halfe. How can they tell but their Creed may fill more volumes yet before that all their Popes have done with it?

Nay further note, that the Pope can make not onelyonly new wayes to Heaven, but ſeveral wayes to Heaven at once. He could once diſpence with the Bohemians for receiving in both kinds, and yet make it neceſſary to the ſalvation of others, to take it but in one, becauſe he ſo decreed it to be given. So that there ſhall be one Creed in one part of the world, and another in the reſt.

It is a damnable Hereſie in parts that are abſolutely under his power, for the vuglar to read the Scripture in their own Tongue. But in England, he can make it Lawfull, leſt it hinder his deſignes, though his Doctors have long determined that it is the Mother of all Hereſies.

p. 138So that Popery is not the ſame thing in one Country as it is in another; nor the ſame thing at Rome it ſelf in one age as it is at another.

To give you a freſh example: How long have the Dominicans and Jeſuites, the Janſeniſts, and the Moliniſts been in contention about Predeſtination, Freew…ll, Predetermination, Univerſal Redemption, &c. and one party condemned the other, profeſſing their opinions to be heretical, and deſtructive to the Catholike faith? as is to be ſeen in the writings between Petavius, Ricardus, and Vincentius, Lenis, alias Fremondus, with many more before them: But when they ſpeak to us about theſe matters they perſwade us that it is onelyonly about certain Shool points that they differ, and not about any points of faith: For they are not points of faith to us till the Pope have determined them. And while the eager contenders on either ſide endeavor to have the Pope determine the controverſie on their ſide, no Pope durſt do it for fear of loſing the reputation of his infallibility with the adverſe party; and ſo the unmerciful Popes have long ſuffered their Doctors to live in contention, and to write voluminouſly againſt one another, and their Romane Church to be broken into parties, becauſe they would not once open their mouths to decide the difference. But now at laſt it pleaſed Pope Innocent the tenth (though he durſt not touch the principal points) to favor his Jeſuites ſo far as to determine five of the controverted points for the Moliniſts againſt the Janſenians (when Pope Clement was once about determining all for the Dominicans as they thought) Mark here the agreement of the Papiſts, and the ſtability of their faith. Before the determination each party maintained p. 139their way as de fide, and accuſed the other as Heretical: ſome boldly prognoſticated (as our Thomas Anglus alias White) that the Pope would never determine the controverſie about Predetermination. And now the Pope hath tryed the ſtomacks of his Dominicans with the Determination of theſe five Articles. Firſt, to ſee how they will digeſt them before he went further: And he pronounceth them to be Heretical, and ſome of them temerarious, impious, and blaſphemous too, condemning them with Anathema: Now thoſe become points of faith on one ſide, and Hereſies on the other which were none before. Till this Determination the Church of Rome wanted five Articles of their Creed, or had five fewer then now they have: A man might have been ſaved before, that had believed, that [Liberty from neceſſity is not neceſſary to Merit] with the reſt of them, but now all of that belief muſt be damned. And was not the Pope unmerciful to the poor Dominicans, to ſend them all to Hell, that cannot change their belief, knowing how hard it is for a learned Tribe, eſpecially ſo countenanced by Auguſtine, and Thomas, to alter their mindes unfeignedly at a word. And yet in the Trent Confeſſion they muſt all ſolemnly ſwear and vow that all things delivered, defined, and declared, by the ſacred Canons and Oecumenical Councils, eſpecially that of Trent, they do without doubting receive and profeſs: though no man had ever heard the Popes Reaſons, yet if he do but ſee the Determination of their Church, he muſt preſently not onelyonly believe the contrary to what he believed before, but do it alſo without doubting; though they'l confeſs millions are ſaved that believe Chriſt to be the Son of God, though p. 140not without doubting. Well: but ſee what unity is procured by the addition of theſe new Articles to their Creed? The French Doctors aſcribe to his holineſs that the ſaid Articles may be taken in ſeveral ſences: The one ſence is Heretical, Lutheran or Calvinian, but that is a ſence, That the words lawfully uſed will not hear, but onelyonly may malignantly be faſtened to them (ſay they) The other ſence (which is genuine and proper) they Def…nd themſelves, as true, and as pertaining to the Belief of the Church, as the Doctrine of Auguſtine, and as defined by the Council of Trent, and the contrary Opinion of Molina and the adverſaries others maintain to be Pelagian or Semipelagian. See here what the Papiſts themſelves now do implicitely charge upon the Pope; That he (by his expreſs unlimited condemnation) doth malignantly faſten an Heretical ſence on the words, which properly they will not bear, or elſe that he contradicteth Auguſtine and the Council of Trent, and Anathematizeth the Chriſtian faith, and maintaineth the Semipelagian Hereſie of Molina. And yet muſt we judge either their Pope to be infallible; or their Church to be at ſuch unity in faith as they would make the ignorant vulgar believe? More of the like contention about his holineſs Determinations you may ſee in Tho. Whites Appendicula ad ſonum Buccinae, and Franſcus Macedo his Lituus Luſitanus: In all which you may ſee that all the comfort that the poor Dominicans have left them (even their hope of ſalvation if they be Papiſts indeed) conſiſteth in this, that the Pope ſpeaks one thing and means another, and that (as White ſo merrily ſaith, in ſo ſad a matter) The wiſe father of the Church was neceſſitated for the appeaſing of contentions, to p. 141grant the more turbulent party their words, and the more obedient party their ſence: ſo that when the Pope hath done all that he can to determine their controverſies, they will ſtill ſay, that he determineth but the words (nay he doth but grant one party their words) and not the meaning: and ſo not onelyonly ſence, but bare terms muſt be made Articles of faith.

And here you may ſee the great force of the Papiſts arguing for a neceſſity of a living Judge to determine of the ſence of Scripture, becauſe the Scripture is ſo ambiguous that each one will elſe wreſt it, his own way: And do we not ſee, that the Pope cannot, after ſo many years deliberation, determine five ſhort Articles ſo expreſly and plainly, even when he doth it of purpoſe to decide the controverſie, as to make his learned Doctors underſtand him? but that each party doth take his words to be either for, or not againſt their opinions, and hold their opinions as faſt ſince his determination as before: And ſo they do by Auguſtine, Thomas and the Council of Trent: each party confidently perſwading the world that they were of their ſide. And may not God have the honor of ſpeaking as plainly as the Pope or Thomas or the Council of Trent? and cannot we well be without the Deciſion of ſuch a Judge, as cannot ſpeak ſo as to be underſtood by his greateſt Doctors himſelf.

So that the Principles and Practices of the Romaniſts do aſſure us that their faith is unfixed, growing and mutable; they may be one year of one Religion, and another year of another, as pleaſ… the Pope: A Dominican might have been ſaved at any time ſince the creation till May 31. 1653. when the Popes p. 142Determination was dated: but now they muſt all be damned for hereſie. There is a new way to heaven made 1653. that never was before: and for ought they know to the contrary before their Popes have done Determining, there may be five hundred Articles more in their Creed. So that for my part I deſire not either to be ſhut out of heaven at the pleaſure of every new Pope, nor to be of ſo uncertain and changeable a Religion: And I cannot think therefore that Popery is a ſafe way to ſalvation.

Arg. 8. That Doctrine which derogateth from the written Word of God, and ſetteth the Decrees of men above it, enabling them to contradict its moſt expreſs inſtitutions, is no ſafe way to ſalvation: But ſuch is the Doctrine of Popery: therefore it is no ſafe way to ſalvation

The Major is unqueſtionably true among true Chriſtians. For the proof of the Minor I ſhall only give you three inſtances of the Popiſh Doctrine, becauſe I intend not to be too particular, left I be too large.

The firſt is, their affirming the Scripture both to be inſufficient to diſcover the whole doctrine of faith, as being but one part of Gods Word, and Tradition the other part, and alſo to be no Word of God at all to us, till the Pope and his Clergy do authoritatively determine it ſo to be; or that we cannot know the Scripture to be Gods word, but upon the Authority of the Churches determination. But of this I have ſpoken before, and ſhall do more in another diſpute.

p. 143The ſecond inſtance that I give is, Their changing Chriſts moſt expreſs inſtitution, by withholding the Cup in the Lords Supper from the people, and giving them but half the Sacrament. I am not now diſputing about the efficacy or inefficacy of one half, ſo delivered; but proving the intolerable Arrogancy of the Papiſts that dare ſet up the will of man above Gods Word, and give power to the Pope to change Chriſts Inſtitutions; and not onelyonly to adde but to diminiſh, and expreſly to contradict Chriſt, and forbid what he commandeth. I know they pretend that it was but to the twelve Apoſtles that Chriſt gave the Cup, and not to the Laity: True, nor the bread neither: but then if he intended that none but the Clergy have the Cup, why may they not as well ſay ſo of the Bread? But do not theſe deceivers know? 1. That Chriſt gives this reaſon of his adminiſtring the Cup [Drink yee All of it: For this is my blood of the New Teſtament which is ſhed for many for the Remiſſion of ſins?] So that if this reaſon hold to others, if his blood be ſhed for the ſins of others as well as for the Clergie, then the command extendeth to others [Drink ye all of it.] And do they not know that Luke further intimateth this in his narration of the words of Chriſt [This Cup is the New Teſtament in my blood which is ſhed for you?] So that thoſe whom it is ſhed for (and we may diſcern to be Believers) it may be applyed to. 2. And do they not know that Paul delivereth the doctrine both of the Bread and Cup, as from the Lord, to the whole Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 11. and not onelyonly to the Clergy? Is it not all that he expreſly commandeth to [Examine themſelves, and ſo to eat of this Bread and Drink of this Cup?] Alas, they p. 144know all this: they cannot but know it, and yet they will contradict the expreſs word of God: God ſaith [Drink ye all of it] and [Let a man examine himſelf, and ſo drink:] The Pope ſaith, Let none of the people drink of it, but the Clergy only. What is this but to abrogate Gods Laws, and ſet up the Popes above and againſt it? Yea unleſs it were to ſhew the world their Power to contradict Chriſt and deſtroy his word, who can imagine what ſhould move them to this attempt? If there were any temptation of profit or honor in the buſineſs (as there is in the maintaing of the Popes ſupremacy, Purgatory, Indulgences, Pardons, &c.) we ſhould not wonder at it: But what profit, or honor, or pleaſure is it, thus to contradict Chriſt? and for them that adde ſuch a multitude of their own Ceremonies, to affect ſo to cut off one half of the Sacramental Rite and matter which Chriſt ordained.

Nay thirdly, Do not theſe men know that the Bread and Cup were both given to the people by the Primitive Church? and that it ſo continued for many hundred years? and that their alteration is a meer novelty. Yes, they know all this: For the matter is ſo far paſt doubt that they cannot but know it. And yet theſe deceivers would make the people believe that they are of the old Religion, and our Region is new. Theſe are they that cry out againſt our caſting off Apoſtolical Traditions, and the Churches conſtitutions and cuſtoms, and going in new wayes which our forefathers knew not: Theſe are they that make it a mark of an Apoſtolical Tradition, that the whole Church hath received it, and that as from the Apoſtles. And yet theſe men dare caſt off, p. 145not onelyonly that which they know the whole primitive Church received and practiſed as from the Apoſtles (as Juſtin Martyr, Tertullian, and all antiquity profeſs) but alſo is expreſly contained in the Scripture. With what face can theſe that exclaim againſt novelty, introduce ſuch a palpable novelty into the Church? with what face can they that ſo cry up antiquity, gainſay all antiqiuty? and they that cry up the whole Churches conſent, ſo go againſt the conſent of the whole Church for ſo many Ages after the Apoſtles? They dare not deny but this part of Popery is utterly New, againſt the conſtant practice and Canons of all Churches.

The third point which I ſhall inſtance in, is, Their performing Gods publike ſervice in Latine, and forbidding the people to read the Scriptures in their known vulgar Tongue; when as the Apoſtle Paul hath written the greateſt part of a whole Chapter, 1 Cor. 14. expreſly againſt this opinion and practice, and for uſing of a known tongue that others may underſtand and be edified. The evaſions by which they would elude that part of Scripture; are ſo ſenceleſs that I think it not neceſſary to recite them: but rather ſuppoſe that they need no other confutation than the bare conſiderate reading of the Text; and therefore I ſhall venture the Reader (if he have common capacity and impartiality, and be but willing to know the truth) upon any thing that the Papiſts ſhall be able to ſay, for their Latine Service, and locking up the Scriptures, ſo be it he will but read that Chapter conſiderately. And are not theſe good Teachers in Chriſts School that will lock up the Grammar from their Schollars, when it is p. 146the very office of the Presbyters to teach it the people? And to hide from them that word of the living God, which he hath given the world to be their Directory to ſalvation? The Prophets, and Chriſt and the Apoſtles did ſpeak and write this word in a know… tongue to the people to whom they did immediately direct it: And muſt All hear and read it then, and onelyonly the Learned now? Are not theſe the men that take away the Key of knowledge, and will neither enter in themſelves, nor ſuffer others to enter? They do expreſly contradict the Commands of God, and bid the people not read the Scripture, when God hath charged them to write it on the very poſts of their houſes, and on their doors, and that it be as a frontlet between their eyes, and that they teach it their children, ſpeaking of it lying down and riſing up, at home and abroad, Deut. 6 & 11. God makes it the mark of the Bleſſed man, Pſal. 1.2, 3. To meditate day and night in his Law, as making it his delight: and the Papiſts commonly maintain in their writings that to have the Scripture in the vulgar tongue is the root of all hereſies. God maketh the ſtudy of his word the duty and mark of all his Diſciples, and the Papiſts make it the mark of a Heretick, and have burned many a one for it here in Queen Maries dayes and tormented and burnt many by their bloody inquiſition for it abroad. The very Phariſees thought that their vulgar were curſed that knew not the Law, and the Papiſts will not let it be made known to them leſt it make them accurſed. God ſaith [To the Law and to the Teſtimony: if they ſpeak not according to this word, it is becauſe there is no light in them, Iſa. 8.20.] The Papiſts cry out precul — hinc away: let it alone, meddle not with p. 147it, it will make you Hereticks: And indeed they have had large experience that the way which they call hereſie, and contradicteth their impieties, is moſt effectually promoted by the word of God: and therefore they think they have ſome reaſon to ſpeak againſt it. Saint John ſaith [Theſe things are written that ye might believe, and that believing yee might have life throagh his name] Joh. 20.31. The Papiſts ſay, Read not theſe holy writings, leſt they deſtroy your faith, and bring you to damnation. When the man Luk. 10.26, asketh Chriſt [What ſhall I do to inherit eternal life?] Chriſt anſwereth him thus [What is written in the Law? how readeſt thou?] directing to the courſe which the Papiſts do forbid. The Apoſtle ſaith, that [Whatſoever things were written aforetime, were written for our Learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scripture might have hope] Rom. 15.4. But the Papiſts will not have men learn that, which was written for their Learning, Comfort and Hope. Joh… wrote to fathers, young men, and children, 1 John 2.12, 13, 14. Gods anger againſt the Jews was that [He had written to them the great or wonderful things of his Law, and they had accounted them as ſtrange things] Hoſ. 8.12. And the Papiſts will force people to be ſtrange to theſe writings. Yet how familiar (comparatively) they were to the vulgar Jews and their very children …s known and acknowledged. Is it not a high advancement of the Goſpel Church, above the legal Jewiſh Church, which the Papiſts do vouchſafe it? That we may not have the ſame liberty or means of knowledge as the very children of the Jews had? Their children muſt be taught the Scripture, lying down and riſing up, and our eldeſt people even to p. 148the leſt breath muſt not read them, unleſs they can learn the tongues which they were firſt written in. The Jewes had the Septuagints Tranſlation (or that ſo called) when the Hebrew grew ſtrange to them, which the Apoſtles uſed in their ordinary citations; and they heard the Goſpel preached in the Syriack, which was then their vulgar tongue: But we may not read the ſame in our Vulgar tongue by the Papiſts conſent, Moſes, Joſhua, Joſiah, Nehemiah, Read the Scriptures to all the people, Exod 24.7. Joſh. 8.34, 35. 2 King. 23.1, 2, 3. Neh. 8.3.8.18. & 9, 3 & 13.1. And it was their cuſtome to read Moſes and the Prophets to the people every Sabbath day, Act. 13.27. & 15.21. 2 Cor. 3.15. Luk 4.16. And Chriſt uſeth to reprehend their ſtrangeneſs to Scripture paſſages, as if they had not read them with ſuch words as theſe [Have ye not read, &c?] and [Have ye never read, &c?] Mat 12.3.5. & 19.4. & 21.26. & 22.21. Mark 12.10.26. Luk 6.3. Luk. 10.26. And Moſes commandeth Iſrael, the Prieſts, Levites and all the Elders thus, Deut. 31.11, 12, 13. [When all Iſrael is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he ſhall chooſe, thou ſhalt read this Law before all Iſrael in their hearing; Gather the people together, men and women and children, and the ſtranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and obſerve to do all the words of this Law; and tha… their children which have not known any thing may hear and learn to fear the Lord your God, as long a… ye live in the Land &c.] It was therefore in a known tongue that it muſt be read; And when the people underſtood not the old Hebrew tongue in which the Law was written, by reaſon of the change of their ſpeech p. 149in the captivity, Nehemiah cauſed them to underſtand the Reading, Neh. 8.8. No doubt, by expreſſing it in the language which they underſtood. And yet the Papiſts forb…d the unlearned, that have moſt need of teachings, the uſe of the holy Scriptures in a known tongue, and make it the mother of all Hereſies. How impiouſly againſt God, and how cruelly againſt men, is this committed? Muſt the God of heaven ſend down his Spirit to dictate an illuminating Doctrine to his Prophets and Apoſtles for the world? muſt he give them a perfect Law, by which Truth and Hereſie muſt be diſcerned? Muſt he ſend his own Son to preach the Goſpel? and cauſe his inſtruments to write it, in a language beſt known to thoſe that they converſed with, or to the world that was to be converted by it? And muſt this Doctrine now be made the mother of Hereſies, and kept from the eyes of the people that ſhould learn it? What, muſt the onelyonly rule that condemneth Hereſies, be made the cauſe of them? Muſt the light which God hath given the world, be blamed for all the Darkneſs of mens errors? Or muſt men be kept from the light, for fear leaſt it lead them into Darkneſs? This is the Popiſh Piety and Charity: In ſtead of helping to Illuminate the dark world, as all preachers of the Goſpel ſhould do (Act. 26.17, 10.) they …uſt have all the unlearned to put out their eyes, …d be led by their guides, and truſt their ſouls with them, for fear leſt if they have any eyes in their heads, and any light to walk by, they ſhould ſtumble or erre through the imperfection of their ſight.

p. 150And yet the Papiſts, who ſo much pretend to unity, are various and changeable in this high point of their abomination, as well as in other things. For when they once ſee that they cannot keep the Scriptures from the people, becauſe the Proteſtants Tranſlations are among them, then they will permit them to read their own Tranſlations: And upon this account the Rhemiſts tranſlated the New Teſtament into Engliſh, when they ſaw they could not wholly ſuppreſs and hide that light: And on this account it is that our Papiſts in England, and ſome other parts where the Proteſtants abound among them, are permitted by their Prieſts (with ſome warnings of the needleſſneſs, and the danger of it) to read the Scripture in their Country tongue: When as to a Papiſt in Spaine or Italy it is no leſs a crime then to merit the Rack or Strappado of the Inquiſition, and its ſtrange if they be not burnt for it at a ſtake. So that I have met with ſome ſeduced Papiſts in England, ſo ignorant of their courſe abroad, and ſo gulled by the lies of their companions or Prieſts, that they would not believe that they do any where forbid the vulgar to read the Scripture in their own tongue; but were confidently perſwaded that it was our ſlander of them: ſo that theſe poor people believe that the Sun is not ſet in Spaine at midnight, becauſe it ſhines at noon in England. Let them read but Joh. Arboreus Theoſoph l. 8. c. 9. Andradius Defenſ. Concil. Trident. l. 4. Petrus Lizetus Dialog. de ſacris libris in vulg. Floq non evertendis. Hoſius Dialog. de Communion. &c. Petrus ſutor de Tranſlatione Bibliae: Bellarm. de verbo Dei l. 2. c. 15. & 16. Salmeron. in 1 Cor. Diſp. 30. Bellarmine himſelf mentioneth the Index librorum prohibit. of Pope Pius 4. Reg. 4. p. 151which forbiddeth the reading of the Scripture, in the vulgar tongue, except only to thoſe that the ordinary ſhall think will receive good and not harm by it, and ſo ſhall have a licence from him in writing, and they pronounce that the common permiſſion of the Scriptures thus doth more harm then good: The ſame Index was after encreaſed and approved by Pope Sixtus 5. and Clemens 8. And how few they are that their Ordinaries will grant Licences to, for the reading of Scripture, is too well known by common experience. The Kings of Spaine forbid all Tranſlations of the Bible into the vulgar tongues; and Alphonſus a Caſtro commendeth them for it: and many a one hath been burnt to aſhes for ſelling, keeping, or reading ſuch Bibles, in Spaine, Italy, and Savoy. And Bellarmine mentioneth the Seſſ. 22. cap. 8 and Can. 9. of the Council of Trent forbidding both the Common reading of ſuch Bibles, and alſo the publike uſe of them in the Churches, in both which we muſt have them onelyonly in Hebrew, Greek, and Latine. Bellarm. ubi ſupr. If theſe be not notorious enemies of the Light, who are? David faith, Pſal. 119. That the word was a Lanterne to his feet, and a Light to his Paths. Iſaiah ſends us to the Law and to the teſtimony, ſaying that if they ſpeak not according to theſe it is becauſe there is no light in them, Iſa. 8.20. And the Phpiſts ſay (as Arboreus ubi ſupra) that the reading the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue is the Riſe or Root of all Hereſies: And ſo the Sun muſt be taken out of the firmament as being the fountain of all darkneſs, or at leaſt the cauſe of mens wandrings. OnelyOnly where they cannot help it (or as Stapleton ſaith, where Hereſies are moſt common) there they will permit or connive at p. 152it, for their own ends. For Neceſſity hath no Law.

I conclude therefore, and confidently conclude, that Popery is not a ſafe way to heaven, becauſe it doth 1. both vilifie Gods Scriptures as an inſufficient Rule, and but part of his word: And 2. preſumeth to alter its moſt expreſs inſtitutions (as the Cup in the Lords Supper) And 3. expreſly contradict it, in forbidding the Prayers of the Church to be in a known tongue. 4. And forbid the publike reading of Scripture in a known tongue. 5 And forbid the tranſlating of Scripture, and the reading of ſuch tranſlations even by any private man, unleſs he have the Ordinaries Licence, which he may get in thoſe Countries where there is no remedy. The Kingdome of the Devil is called in Scripture the Kingdom of darkneſs; and Chriſts Kingdom is called, a Kingdom of light: and when ever God converteth a ſinner, he tranſlateth him from the Power of Darkneſs into his marvellous light, even into the Kingdom of his dear Son, Act. 26.18. Col. 1.13. 1 Pet. 2.9. And God is the father of lights, Jam. 1.17. And Satan is the Prince of the powers of darkneſs, Luk 22 53. Rev 16.10. And Chriſt hath told us, that he that walketh in darkneſs ſtumbleth and knoweth not whither he goeth, Joh. 12.35, 46. And that every one that doth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light leſt his deeds ſhould be reproved; but he that doth tru… cometh to the light that his deeds may be made manifeſt, that they are wrought in God, Joh. 3.21. The Papiſts therefore give us reaſon to think they have not the truth, were it but in this enmity which they bear unto the Light.

p. 153Arg. 9. That doctrine which teacheth men to worſhip the creature with Divine worſhip, is no ſafe way to ſalvation. But Popery teacheth men to worſhip the creature with Divine worſhip: Therefore it is no ſafe way to ſalvation.

The Major will not be denyed by Papiſts: The Minor I prove by one inſtance onelyonly (at this time:) and that is, their worſhiping of the conſecrated Hoſt or Bread in their Maſs, and at other times. He that worſhipeth the conſecrated Bread with Divine wor…hip, doth worſhip the creature with Divine worſhip: But the Papiſts worſhip the conſecrated Bread with Divine worſhip therefore. They deny the Major, and tell us, that it is no longer Bread but the Body of Chriſt: But that they worſhip that thing which we call Bread, and they call Chriſts Body, with Divine worſhip, they do not deny. OnelyOnly ſome would excuſe them from the guilt of Idolatry (which is a worſhiping the creature inſtead of the Creator) by this, becauſe they think it is Chriſt that they worſhip, and ſo interpretatively it is he in deed and the worſhip right. But if they will think that to be Chriſt which is not Chriſt, and then worſhip it, that will not excuſe them from being ſome kind of Idolaters: What if they will think a Ranter or Quaker to be Chriſt, who call themſelves Chriſt? are they therefore excuſable if they worſhip them? Then why might not the old Pagan Idolaters be juſtified, or thus excuſed, ſeeing they thought that the Sun and Moon had been Gods. And when they worſhiped an Image, they thought that ſome Deity had affixed p. 154this ſpecial preſence to that Image: What if an Egyptian thought that an Oxe was God, or that a Deity did dwell in him, were they therefore no Idolaters? And then, how hainouſly God taketh the ſin of Idolatry, the Scripture fully witneſſeth.

That which we have to do, therefore is onelyonly to enquire whether indeed it be bread or Chriſts body, a creature or the Creator which they worſhip? Concerning which there is ſo much ſaid by Doctor Featly againſt Fiſher, and by Peter Martyr againſt Smith, and elſwhere, and by Jewel, Foxe, and abundance more, that if people would read it, I ſhould think it vain to ſay any more. I ſhall onelyonly annex …heſe Reaſons (very briefly) which come firſt to my thoughts to prove that the Bread is not turned into the very body of Chriſt, but remaineth Bread ſtill.

1. If the Bread were Chriſts real Body, then Chriſt had two real bodies: for he had one ſitting at the table, which delivered the Bread, and if the Bread were another, he had two: or elſe the body that Chriſt ſate and lived with, was not a whole body, but a part: But Chriſt had but one body, and that was entire.

2. It would follow alſo that Chriſt had a living and a dead body, a ſenſible and inſenſible body both at once.

3. It would follow that the Apoſtles did tear Chriſt true fleſh, and draw out his blood as well as the Jews did.

4. Yea and that they began to the Jews, and did it before them: And therefore why ſhould the Jews act, and theirs be ſo much differenced?

5. It will follow that either Chriſt had one body p. 155torne by the Jews, and another by the Diſciples, or elſe that one part of his body onelyonly was crucified and not the whole: for the other part was eaten and drunk by the Diſciples before.

6. Alſo either Chriſt had one body that did Riſe again and another that never roſe, or elſe it was but one part of Chriſts body that roſe from the dead; for the other part was eaten and drunke before.

7. The like may be ſaid of his aſcenſion; Then it is not Chriſts whole body that aſcended up into heaven: for part of it was eaten before by the Diſciples, and digeſted by them.

8. It will follow that Chriſts glorified body is corruptible, and may be digeſted by a mans ſtomacke, and turned into dung: For ſo is that which is eaten.

9. It will follow alſo that Chriſts body may become an integral part of our very natural bodyes, and ſo his body is become ſinful, as being a natural part of a ſinner: for the Bread and Wine do nouriſh us, and turn into our ſubſtance.

10. Yea it followeth that Chriſt doth thus turn into the ſubſtance of every child of the Devil that eateth the conſecrated Bread, and drinketh the Wine. For they certainly nouriſh him and turn into his ſubſtance: A moſt horrid conſequent: For what communion hath Chriſt with Belial?

11. Nay (which is in ſome reſpect more horrid and abominable to imagine) it will follow, that the Glorified body of Chriſt may turn into the ſubſtance of a mouſe or a Dog: for if they eat it, the bread will certainly nouriſh them, and become their ſubſtance.

p. 15612. It will follow that either Chriſt hath an inſenſible body, or elſe men hurt him by eating him in the Euchariſt.

13. It followeth that Chriſt hath as many thouſand bodies, as there be conſecrated hoſts, or elſe that by continuation of parts it is every where, and filleth all the world (which the Papiſts diſavow.)

14. It followeth that Chriſts body admitteth of augmentation, and either daily or weekly receiveth new made parts, or elſe that he hath new bodies made daily.

15. Alſo it followeth that a creature (either the Baker or the Prieſt) may make God, or make his Saviour, at leaſt inſtrumentally: which is a horrid imagination.

16. It followeth that either Chriſts body hath the accidents of colour, taſte, dimenſion, &c. which are there ſenſible, or elſe that thoſe Accidents have no ſubject, which is a contradiction.

17. It followeth alſo that Chriſt hath not indeed a true humane body, if it be ſuch as is before implyed.

18. And it followeth that the body of Chriſt is (part of it) condemned, hated of God, and tormented by the Devil. Becauſe his body was turned into the bodies of many millions of wicked men, which muſt be ſo condemned, hated and tormented.

19. Alſo it followeth that the Scriptures are not true, which tell us that the heavens muſt receive him (in that humane nature which aſcended from earth) till the times of the reſtitution of all things, Act. 3.21. and that he ſhall come again to judge the world.

p. 15720. Laſtly it will follow that a man muſt not truſt his ſences: that though my eyes, my ſmell, my taſte, my feeling, tell me that this is Bread and Wine, yet they are all deceived: and not mine only but all the ſenſes in the world, to which they are objected. And if that be true, 1. What reaſon have I to truſt any Papiſt living? For all my good opinion of him muſt be ultimately reſolved into ſomething that I ſee or hear of him: And it ſeems, I am uncertain whether I ſee or hear him indeed or not. 2. And then how can I tell that I or any man is ſure of any thing? For if the ſenſes of millions in perfect health may be all deceived in this, why not in other things, for ought we know? 3. And then how can any Papiſt tell that the Bread is turned into Chriſts body? If he ſay, becauſe the Church or the Scripture ſaith ſo; How knoweth he that, but by hearing or ſeeing? and therefore for ought he knows his ſenſes may be deceived when he thinketh he heareth or readeth ſuch a thing, as well as when he thinketh that he ſeeth, feeleth, ſmelleth, and taſteth Bread and Wine.

And is there not need of very ſtrangely cogent evidence now to impell them to believe againſt the concurrent vote of Scripture, ſenſe and reaſon? And what is the ground of their contrary belief? Not the Ancient Church (unleſs they willfully or negligently deceive themſelves) for the ſtream of antiquity is full againſt them: ſo full that its hard to believe that any of them thats verſt in antiquity can truly think that antiquity is for them, if they have but the common reaſon of men to underſtand what they read. What is it then that bringeth them to this belief? Is it the Scriptures? Thats not likely, becauſe they make ſo light of it, and ſwear to take p. 158it in the ſence of the Church, or ancient Doctors (in which laſt they are here and oft moſt deſperately forſworn) It muſt be then upon the Authority of the preſent Church, that is, the Pope and his Clergy, that they entertain this hard belief. That is, The Pope and his Clergy believe it, becauſe they ſay it themſelves, and the reſt believe it becauſe the Pope ſaith it. And is it truely poſſible that any man ſhould have ſo good a conceit of himſelf, yea or any other think ſo well of him, as to believe unfeignedly ſo great a thing upon ſo weak a ground? Can the Pope therefore believe it becauſe he doth believe it? Or is it not too probable that thouſands of them are of that Belief which Melancthon ſometime told them of very ſmartly [You Italians (ſaith he) Believe Chriſt is in the Bread, before you Believe that there is any Chriſt in heaven] while they pretend to a faith above men (that is, to believe Impoſſibilities upon the Popes credit) I wiſh they prove to have the common belief of Chriſtians; and that in heart they do not (as once one of their Popes did) account the Goſpel but a commodious fable. But let us ſuppoſe that indeed it is the word of God that is the ground of their ſtrange belief, and that [Hoc eſt Corpus meum, This is my body] is the very word that doth convince them, as ſome of them do pretend. I would here be bold to aske them that ſay ſo, a Queſtion or two. 1. What, if the Ancient Church had intecpreted this Text as we do, againſt your Tranſubſtantiation? would you then have believed it upon the bare Authority of this Text? What need I ask this? Your own Oaths and Profeſſion ſaith, No: It is not then any evidence in this Text that compelleth your belief. And let me adde, that if I prove not (in a p. 159fair debate upon a juſt call) that the ancient Church for many hundred years after Chriſt, was againſt Tranſubſtantiation, I will give all the Papiſts in England leave to ſpit in my face (for all the high expreſſions of the Euchariſt that ſome fathers have.) 2. What is there in thoſe words [This is my body] that can perſwade any ſober Chriſtian to their ſtrange belief? What is it, becauſe that they are properly and not figuratively to be underſtood? And how is that proved? Is it becauſe we muſt not force the Scripture, but take it in the plaineſt, obvious ſence? I eaſily grant it. But who knows not that both in Scripture and in all our common ſpeech, the figurative ſence is oft the moſt plain and obvious, and the literal the moſt improbable? What three ſentences do we uſe to ſpeak together without ſome figurative expreſſion? I will appeal to any unprejudiced man of reaſon, whether a Chriſtian that ſhould newly read thoſe words of Chriſt, and had never heard them or read them before, would not ſooner take them in our ſence, then in the Papiſts? They may eaſily try this upon a new convert, if they pleaſe: and I dare make their own conſciences judge, if they have any left to befriend a common truth. What is there more in [This is my Body] being a Sacramental buſineſs, then for a man that is in a room among many Images, to ſay [This is Peter or Paul, or this is Auguſtine or Hierom or Chryſoſtome?] And would not any unprejudiced ſtander by ſuppoſe that the moſt obvious ſence of thoſe words is [This is the picture of Peter, Paul, &c.?] Or would a man eaſily believe that it was the meaning of the ſpeaker, that this Picture was the very real fleſh and blood of Peter and Paul, and all other Pictures that ever ſhould p. 160be made after the ſame exemplar, ſhould be ſo tranſubſtantiated? So what is the obvious ſignification of thoſe words [This is my body] but [This is the Sacrament or Repreſentation of my Body?] Eſpecially when his real body was diſtinctly there preſent, and he expreſly biddeth them [Do this in remembrance of me.] 3. I would deſire any Papiſts living to tell me, why the Text doth not as much oblige him to believe that [The Cup is the New Teſtament] ſubſtantially without a figure, as that [The Bread is his Body] For the Text as expreſly ſaith one as the other, Luk. 22.20. This Cup is the new Teſtament in my Blood.] Yet I ſuppoſe they will be content to ſay that by [The New Teſtament] is meant, the Sacrament or Seal of the New Teſtament. 4. Why will not theſe blind wretches believe the Holy Ghoſt, who calls it Bread at the eating after the conſecration? 1 Cor. 11.26, 27, 28. three times together; and tells us that the uſe of it is to remember and ſhew the Lords death till he come.

I might here adde to this in the next place their worſhiping o… Saints, eſpecially of the Virgin Mary, with prayers to her as the Queen of Heaven, to forgive their ſins, and to command her Son to forgive them, with abundance more of ſuch impious, idolatrous or ſacrilegious expreſſions, as might make the ears of a ſober Chriſtian even to tingle. But theſe things have been ſo oft told them, and are ſo viſible in their Offices and other writings that I ſhall paſs them over. As alſo their worſhiping of Images, and publike uſing them to that end in their Churches: Though moſt of their Laity that I have met with, ſay that they uſe them but for a remembrance of the Saints and do not worſhip them (and thats bad p. 161enough in ſuch caſes) yet their learned Schoolmen and Doctors tell us another tale, as is too viſible in many of their writings.

Arg. 10. That Doctrine which teacheth men to turn the moſt of Gods worſhip into meer unreaſonable ceremonies and vain formalities of mans dev;iſing, is not a ſafe way to ſalvation. But ſuch is the doctrine of Popery: Therefore, &c

The Major is certain: For 1. God hath taken down the ceremonial Law which he himſelf had made, and therefore will not give leave to man to ſet up another in its ſtead, and to burden his Church with unnceſſary things. 2. It is contrary to the freedom and ſpiritual ſtate of the Goſpel Church. The Apoſtle bids us ſtand faſt in the liberty wherewith Chriſt hath made us free: And Chriſt ſaith, that God is a Spirit, and they that worſhip him, muſt worſhip him in Spirit and Truth: for ſuch worſhipers the Father ſeeketh: And he telleth the formal ceremonious Phariſees, that they worſhipped God in vain, teaching for doctrines the Commandments of men, Mat. 15.6, 7, 8, 9. Joh. 4.23, 24. Gal. 5.1.

As for the Minor, it were tedious to recite but half the Romiſh ceremonies and formalities with which …hey both delude and burden poor ſinners. For the word of God in a tongue which they underſtand, they muſt hear a ſound of a ſtrange language which they underſtand not: Inſtead of ſinging praiſes with the heart (as David) and with the underſtanding (as Paul requireth) they ſing over prayers and Scriptures and other things in uncouth notes and in the p. 162Latine tongue, which the people underſtand not: The Euchariſt or Lords Supper is alſo celebrated in Latine and the prayers and praiſes adjoyned; and the Cup taken from the people: and all turned into a meer ſhew, by elevation of the hoſt, adoration of it, gaping while the Prieſt doth pop the Bread into their mouthes. Prayers alſo are uſed in Latine, ſo that the ſubſtance of publike worſhip is thus made a very Picture, or unreaſonable ſervice: Yea, they teach them to pray partly in Latine in private, and partly with vain repetitions, multiplying over the name Jeſu, nine times together, and rehearſing over their canting ſhreds, and numbering their prayers on their beads to keep tale, and obſerving ſuch and ſuch hours, and praying to Saints, to one Saint for this and another for that, giving the elogies and prayers and praiſes to the Virgin Mary, that are due to God alone: Sacraments they multiply: even Marriage which in the Clergy is a deadly ſin, and the avoiding it by the Laity is a work of ſupererogation, yet muſt it be a Sacrament. The Rules of their ſeveral Monaſtical orders, were tedious to recite: Touch not, taſte not, handle not: ſuch meats muſt not be eaten on ſuch a day: ſuch orders muſt uſe ſuch meats, and forbear ſuch: other Orders forbear other meats: ſome muſt be thus ſhorn, ſhaven, clothed; and ſome thus: Much of their Devotion conſiſteth in being ſprinkled with Holy Water, anointed with Chryſme: creeping to the Altar; ſtriking … the breaſt; making and wearing the Croſs; ſetting it up, and worſhiping it in high wayes and Churchyards, worſhiping Crucifixes; and bowing before the Images of God, the Holy Ghoſt in the form of a Dove, and of the Saints; travelling to certain p. 163Images and ſhrines in Pilgrimage, offering to them, eſpecially to our Lady at ſome famous places; compaſſing the Church ſo oft; formal penances: obſerving multitudes of Holy-dayes for the Saints; hearing ſo many Maſſes, ſaying ſuch or ſuch words, carrying Palms, taking aſhes, carrying banners, following the Croſs, and hoſt in proceſſions, and worſhiping it, bearing candles: In Baptiſme, ſalting, croſſing, ſpathing, exorcizing, waſhing hands: Alſo baptizing bels: Ceremonious conſecrations; ſaying Dirges, and Maſſes for departed ſouls: forſwearing marriage: renouncing propriety: pardons and indulgencies from the Pope; with abundance of the like deluſory carnal formalities in which much of the Popiſh devotion doth conſiſt. And how can any unprejudiced man, that is but poſſeſſed with the Spirit of God, and truely knoweth what it is to worſhip him, imagine that God is pleaſed with ſuch hiſtrionical gandes, and childiſh things? I confeſs the reading of their very books of devotion, their offices to our Lady, and others the like, which are ſtuffed with ſuch ſuperſtitious and unreaſonable paſſages, ſeems enough to me to turn the heart of a ſober man againſt their way. For who can think that the Holy and Bleſſed God will be delighted in their vain bablings and childiſh cantings, and affected ropetitions of words, and ſaying, and hearing we know not what? would any wiſe man regard ſuch expreſſions of love or honor? If your friend or your child ſhould expreſs his Love and reſpects to you by mimick geſtures, and gambals, and making ſtrange faces, or repeating over your name nine times in a breath, or ridiculous cantings, complements and actings like a Stage Player, would you applaud, or delight in ſuch p. 164expreſſions of love and honor as theſe? Or would you not rather ſay as the Philiſtine King of David, when he ſpit, and ſcraped on the Wall, Have I need of mad men? It is ſure a carnal unreaſonable doctrine, that leadeth men to ſuch carnal unreaſonable ſervices, of that God who will be ſerved reaſonably in ſpirit and in truth. They that have but an Image or ſhadow of Faith and Grace, and can expect no more of Glory, are like enough to be well pleaſed with theſe Images and meer ſhadows of Gods worſhip: But its like to be otherwiſe with him that hath a ſpirit of ſupplication and holineſs within him, and hath known by experience what it is to walk with God, and offer him acceptable ſacrifices, and to receive the tokens of his acceptance and approbation.

Arg. 11. If Popery be maintained commonly by moſt wicked and abominable meanes, and ſo by the Devil, then it is no ſafe way to Salvation. But the Antecedent is too true: Therefore, &c.

I ſpeak not here of the meer miſcarriages of ſome of their party; but of the Pillars by which the Popes Kingdome is ſupported; which that it is by abominable wickedneſſe, I ſhal… give you but theſe few inſtances following.

1. The very buſineſs or prize which they ſo much contend for, is Pompe, Greatneſs, Dominion, yea Tyranny in the world: ſo that it is evidently Pride, Vain-glory, and Covetouſneſs that ſets them on, and is the Spring of all p. 165their conteſts. Whats the chief part of the quarrel, but whether the Pope and Cardinals of one City, even Rome, ſhall be the Rulers and Maſters of all the Chriſtian world, and all Princes and People obey them? What unprejudiced man can be ſo blind, as not to ſee that this conteſt is Tyrannical, and that their Dominion is their Religion, and their Pride is their faith, and that the queſtion is but that which one would think Chriſt had once ſufficiently determined, Who ſhall be the greateſt? Did not Chriſt chide his Diſciples for this conteſt? and ſay, With you it ſhall not be ſo? But the Papiſts, having no better way to prove the Scripture a noſe of Waxe, and as flexible and multiform, as they accuſe it to be, then by making it ſo to themſelves by abuſive violence and perverting it, puting by the plaineſt words that Chriſt can ſpeak, and will take his Deciſion for no Deciſion, when it makes againſt the Deciſive Power of their Pope.

2. And this is yet further manifeſt, in that ſuch a multitude of their Popes have been Whoremongers, Murderers, Heretickes, Simoniacall, buying the Popedome with money, and poyſoning one another to obtain the Popedome, and living in it liker beaſts then men? Of all which I onelyonly appeal to Platina and other of their own Writers.

3. Another Pillar of Popery is moſt unconſcionable impiety: They can diſpenſe with the vileſt ſins for the promoting of their Kingdom. They can diſpenſe with Oaths and with obligations of ſubjects p. 164duplicate page p. 165duplicate page p. 166to their ſovereignes, with leagues of Peace and amity among Princes, yea they can themſelves actually promote and execute the moſt abominable impieties, that will but help them to attain their ends. I will now onelyonly inſtance in that which is freſh before our own eyes in England. The Papiſts know that Anabaptiſts and Separatiſts are erroneous; they know that Ranters and Quakers are abominable; and yet for their own ends, dare they here in England, put on the vizard of Anabaptiſts and Quakers, and with all poſſible ſubtilty and zeal, and unwearyedneſs, go up and down to ſeduce the people to be Anabaptiſts and Quakers, as they did a while ago to be Seekers, if not Infidels. This is ſufficiently known and proved not only by the Popiſh pretended Jew that turned Anabaptiſt at Hexham, and was taken at Newcaſtle, and others of them taken, but by many other Teſtimonies, ſome upon oath of thoſe that have heard ſuch confeſſions from their mouthes; and many have known them in the Quakers Aſſemblies, that have ſeen them before elſwhere: And all this is done by them that they divide us and break us in pieces, and ſteal a credit to their pretended unity and Church Government, and turn the hearts of the people from our Miniſtery, and unſettle them, and make them more capable and receptive of their own opinions, and that they may make others abroad believe that we are all running mad. And can that doctrine be of God, which teacheth men to do ſuch abominable things? Or is that like to be the cauſe of Chriſt that muſt be thus upheld? Is that perſon guided by the Spirit of Chriſt, that dares draw others to the vileſt blaſphemies and wickedneſs in a diſſembling garbe, that ſo he may promote his p. 167own cauſe? certainly Chriſt needeth not ſuch hypocriſie, and wickedneſs for the promoting of his Kingdom; but it ſeems the Pope doth need it for …is.

4. Another of the Pillars of Popery is moſt groſs and impudent lying. Did I not know it to be true, I durſt not accuſe them of it. I will give you but theſe three inſtances following.

1. They do raiſe and with greateſt confidence propagate, moſt ſhameleſs lies of thoſe whom they take for their leading adverſaries. We read them in the open writings of Cochlaeus, Bolſe, Staphilu… Thyraeus, and many more. What abominable ſtories have they of the Death of Luther, Oecolampadius, Bucer, Calvin, and others; which it is very unlikely that they can be ſo blinded with mali…e as to Believe themſelves? What conference do we ever manage with them which they do not miſreport? Witneſs the late ridiculous paſſage after the conference between Fiſher and Doctor Featly and Doctor White, when they boaſted beyond Sea of the number of Converts, and in particular of two Earles, and this to the Earl of Warwick himſelf (not knowing him) who was fained to be one of them, and who had been a witneſs of their weakneſs. And how poorly doth Weſton in his Pamphlet put this off.

2. The next inſtance I will give is their abominable lying legends, by which they have befooled the people, and made themſelves ridiculous to the world, and occaſioned others to queſtion their reports in other things. I ſhall give you a taſte of ſome of them, as Doctor Featly hath gathered them to my hand in his Epiſtle to the foreſaid conference, yet with the Authors that report them, that you may try whether p. 168they be wronged. As that Saint Brigit laid her wimble, and Saint Aldelme his cheſible upon a Beam of the Sun which ſupported them (vit. Sanct. Brigit. & vit. S. Aldelmi.) That Saint Nicolas while he lay in his cradle faſted Wedneſday and Friday; theſe dayes he would ſuck but once a day (Feſtivale de Sancto Nicol) That Saint Patricke cauſed a ſtoln Sheep to bleat in the belly of him that had eaten him (Legend. de St. Patricio) That the Corps of Saint Laurence at the coming of Saint Stephens …ody ſmiled for joy, and turned himſelf to the other ſide of the Sepulcher to make room for him (Legend. de S. Steph.) That Clemens wrote a letter to Saint James ſeven years after he was dead (Clem. Ep. ad Jac. in Ep. Pontif.) That Saint Denis carryed his head in his hand three miles, and reſted at each place of the poſts, that are ſet between Paris and Saint Denis (Breu. & pictur. Dionyſ.) That Saint Dunſtane held the Devil faſt by the noſe with a pair of Tongues (Leg. de Dunſt.) That the chamber of our Lady was carryed by Angels through the air from Paleſtine to Loretto in Italy (Hiſt. de Noſtre Dame de Lor…tto.) That our Lady helped Saint Thomas Becket to mend or ſtich his haircloth (Annot. in Clemanges ex Caeſario.) That a Parrot crying out, Saint Thomas help me, was delivered from a Hawke (Legend. de Thom Cant.) That Saint Lupus did ſhut up the Devil in a Tankard all night (Legend. de Lupo.) That Saint Dominicke made the Devil hold him the candle till he burnt his fingers (Legend. de Domin. vid. Melch. Can. loc. Theol.) That Saint Francis ſwallowing a Spider in a Chalice, it came whole out of his thigh (vid. Franſciſ.) That Fryer Andrew to correct his appetite of eating Birds at the Table by p. 169the ſign of the Croſs, commanded them to fly away after they were roaſted (Sedu… Franciſ.)

I will not trouble you with the recital of more, nor do I ſay that their Councils have made theſe Articles of faith, but their Church doth indulge and make uſe of ſuch lies for the beguiling of the vulgar.

3. The third inſtance that I give is, their abominable forgeries, and depravations of ancient writings: Feigning Decretal Epiſtles of their Popes, and many other writings under the names of ancient Fathers: and preſuming to expunge, alter, and falſifie the true writings of the Fathers, and of the better ſort of their own, as is proved already againſt them by many, and I need not here recite: (See Doctor Featlyes aforeſaid Confer. Append.) Which hath done us ſo great a miſchief, by making much if not moſt of the writings of the Ancients uncertain to us, as is ſcarce eaſily expreſſable nor are they ever able to repaire (as the late King of England told the Marqueſs of Worceſter in the beginning of their conference.) See more in Doctor Willets Tetraſtilon Papiſmi.

5. Another of the principal props of Popery, hath been moſt horrid inhumane bloodſhed and cruelty. How many thouſands of the Waldenſes and Albigenſes they cruelly murdered in Savoy and France, ſince the year One thouſand one hundred and ſixty. How many in Bohemia! How many in other Countreyes, who can poſſibly enumerate. Ceſarius ſaith, The Waldenſes had infected a thouſand Cityes. Parſons ſaith, That they were ſo numerous that they had an Army of ſeventy thouſand men to fight for them, and that they were p. 168duplicate page p. 169duplicate page p. 170ſo ſpred even in Germany that they could travail from Colen to Milan in Italy and every night lodge with Hoſts of their own profeſſion. Yet did the Papiſts by fire and ſword diſperſe deſtroy them, from the year 1206. to 1228. they had ſo filled their priſons with thoſe that they had left, that the Archbiſhops ſtay it, becauſe it was impoſſible to defray the charge of their food, or to build priſons for them (as they themſelves ſpeak) yet after this 1260. Morrel in his Memorials ſaith, p. …4. That there was above eight hundred thouſand perſons that made profeſſion of the faith of the Waldenſes: (And ſome of their own Popiſh writers ſay, that it was ſo ancient that they affirmed themſelves to have thus continued ſucceſſively from the Apoſtles: And yet the Papiſts would make men believe that Luther was the firſt founder of the Reformation) I deſire the Reader that can have it to read Mr. S. Clarks general Martyrology of the perſecution of the Waldenſes and Albigenſes, and alſo of the Spaniſh Inquiſition, the Bohemian, and French cruelties, and the Iriſh of late to ſpare me the labor of further recital. The very perfidious French Maſſacre at once was thought in a few dayes ſpace and a little room to murder about thirty thouſand perſons, and this in a pretence of peace and quietneſs. So many bloody bouts hath that Nation had, that it is not like to be ſtill unavenged. The cruelty of the Inquiſition in Spaine another parts, will hardly here be believed. The moſt horrid cruelty of the Papiſts in Ireland lately were beyond all the reſt. The number that they murdered in time of peace by a ſudden inſurrection is almoſt incredible. In the very Province of Ʋlſter alone, about a hundred and fifty thouſand were computed p. 171to be murthered. But God hath gone far in avenging their blood already. What ſhould we mention ſuch leſſer matters as the burning ſo many in Queen Maries dayes, the Powder Plot to have blown up King and Parliament; with many ſuch fruites of the Romane fury? In a word I conclude, that it is not like to be the cauſe of Chriſt that hath been ſo long upheld by ſuch Deviliſh inhumane bloody means; nor is it like to be true Doctrine which poſſeſſeth men with ſuch a bloodthirſty ſpirit; nor is it a ſafe way to ſalvation to ſwim thither through the blood of Saints: nor is it any better then a cruel ſcorning of Chriſt when they have perſecuted him, to murther Chriſtians by thouſands for ſeeking Reformation, or not yielding to the Romiſh errors, and then to challenge us to name or ſhew our Reformed Church before Luther, or to accuſe us of Schiſm for ſeparating from them: Theſe Wolves will accuſe, where they cannot devour.

Arg 12. If Popery do adde to all theſe abominations impenitency and uncurableneſs, then it is certainly no ſafe way to Salvation: But Popery doth adde to all theſe abominations, impenitency and uncurableneſs: Therefore it is no ſafe way to Salva…i…n.

I do not mean that the perſons are ſimply uncurrable; but while they are Papiſts, or go according to their fundamental principle, they are utterly uncurable and impenitent. For their Principle is that their Pope or Church cannot erre, but is infallible: And ſo they are bound to ſtand to all their Determinations right or wrong: For if they ſhould repent p. 172of any, and we return from any ſmall or great, they ſhould in ſo doing proclaim that they were fallible, and ſo let go the principle of their profeſſion. So that there is no hope of repentance and amendment of any error once determined of, but onelyonly by recanting the point of their Infallibility, to make way thereto. If therefore repentance and amendment be of neceſſity to Salvation, what Will become of theſe men that ſuppoſe themſelves ſo infallible? and how can that be a ſafe way to ſalvation that locks up the door againſt repentance and amendment? Popery therefore is no ſafe way to ſalvation.

Arg. 13. That profeſſion which plungeth men into certain perjury, and engageth them to impoſſibilities, and contradictories, is no ſafe way to ſalvation. But ſuch is the profeſſion of Popery: as I ſhall prove even out of the Trent Oath or Confeſſion, which I recit…d in the beginning.

1. They vow and ſwear that [All other things delivered, defined, and declared by the ſacred Canons, and Oecumenical Councils, and eſpecially the Holy Synod of Trent, they do without doubting receive and profeſs] When as many of theſe Canons and Councils are contrary each to other, one undoing what another did, as ſhall hereafter be ſhewn: and yet they ſwear to receive them all. 2. They ſwear to receive them even [without doubting] when as they are thus contradictory, and when they confeſs that a true faith even in the written word of God, may have doubting mixt with it. 3. They vow and ſwear that [They will never take and interpret the Holy Scriptures, but according to the unaniomous p. 173conſent of the Fathers.] When as 1. The Fathers do not unanimouſly conſent among themſelves concerning the ſence of the greateſt part of Scripture▪ and ſo they are ſworn to take it in no ſence, becauſe the fathers are not unanimous. 2. He that knows not the unanimous ſence of the Fathers, where they are unanimous, is ſworn hereby to take and interpret the Scripture in No ſence. 3. If by [The Church] whoſe ſence they alſo ſwear to admit, be meant the preſent Romane Church, then that Church and the Fathers do differ in the Interpretation of many Scriptures: ſo that in one Article they muſt needs be forſworn. 4. Nay there are divers particulars of the Popiſh faith, yea which in this oath they ſwear to, which are againſt (much more without) the unanimous conſent of the Fathers. The Fathers never conſented to this very Article, that we muſt take and interpret the Scripture onelyonly in the unanimous ſence of the Fathers: They never conſented that the Bread and Wine are truely really and ſubſtantially the whole Body and Blood of Chriſt by Tranſubſtantiation? Nay the conſent of the Fathers is againſt theſe: And yet theſe wretches ſwear not to take and interpret Scripture but in the unanimous ſence of the Fathers, and withal ſwear the contrary in particulars; even that they believe that which the Fathers never conſented to, but againſt. Never did the Fathers conſent that [There are ſeven truely and properly Sacraments Inſtituted by Chriſt.] Never did the Fathers conſent (who lived a thouſand or fourteen hundred years before) that the Council of Trent did not erre, or could not erre: Nor [That in the Maſs is offered a true proper propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and dead] Nor that the Euchariſt may p. 174be taken under one kind, and the Cup withheld: nor [That there is a Purgatory, or the ſouls there holpen by the ſuffrages of the faithful] nor [that the Saints with Chriſt are to be prayed to] Nor that Images were to be worſhiped] nor the power of Popiſh indulgencies left by Chriſt in the Church, and the uſe of them wholſome: Never did the Fathers conſent that the Romane Church is the Miſtris of all Churches: or that the Pope is the Vicar of Chriſt over them: nor that all Chriſtians or Biſhops or Paſtors ſhould ſwear true obedience to the Pope as Chriſts Vicar? Let theſe proud deceivers ſhew us if they can when the Fathers, or any one of the Ancients, did ever take any ſuch oath himſelf, or perſwade others to it? Yea or that they have conſented to any one of theſe Articles of the Romiſh faith, and Trent oath? What more evident to any man that hath any acquaintance with the Fathers, then that theſe wretches do here moſt palpably forſwear themſelves? Even as if they ſhould ſwear to believe nothing but according to the Ancient Creed, and withal ſwear to believe that Chriſt never dyed, roſe, or aſcended, or that there is no reſurrection, or everlaſting life. Certainly if the very faith of Papiſts be contradiction, and the profeſſion of it plain perjury, then Popery is not a ſafe way to Salvation.

I would here have added as the fourteenth Argument: That Popery is a mixture of old condemned errors, formerly called Hereſies; which the ancient Church hath teſtified againſt; and therefore it is no ſafe way to Salvation: And here I ſhould have tryed their particular errors not yet mentioned, or inſiſted on, as their Doctrine of Merits and Juſtification p. 175thereby, Satisfactions, and many Semipelagian errors, Image-worſhip, with many the like: But that this is beyond my preſent intended ſcope, and purpoſed brevity, and is ſo fully performed already by ſo many unanſwerable Treatiſes of our Divines.

Let us next here what is ſaid of moſt moment, to prove Popery to be a ſafe way to Salvation.

Obj. 1. That Religion which hath been delivered down from the Apoſtles to this day without interruption, is a ſafe way to Salvation (For it is the ſame that the Apoſtles and all the ancient Chriſtians were ſaved in) But the Religion of the Church of Rome is that which hath been delivered down from the Apoſtles: Therefore, &c.

Anſ. 1. There is a change of the very ſubject of the queſtion. It is [Popery] that we are diſputing of; and this argument inſtead of Popery ſpeaks of [The Religion of the Church of Rome.] The Religion of the Church of Rome hath two parts; Firſt, the Chriſtian Faith: Secondly, their own corruptions depraving and contradicting this Faith: The firſt as it ſtandeth alone uncontradicted in the Religion which …e profeſs: The ſecond is it that we call Popery, and …ay, It is no ſafe way to ſalvation. 2. And of this I deny the Minor, and ſay that Popery is not the ancient Religion, the Apoſtles and Primitive Church never knew it: There was no ſuch creature as a Papiſt known in all the world till ſix hundred years after the birth of Chriſt: It was about 606. when Pope Boniface did firſt claim his univerſal Papacy and p. 176Headſhip: and after that it was not till about one thouſand years that the uſurpation and Tyranny was conſented to any thing generally in th… Weſt: And even the multitudes, ſtill diſſented, and ſome oppoſition was ſtill made againſt it; and all the Eſterne Churches and the reſt of the Chriſtian world did diſſent. Of theſe things there is enough ſaid to ſilence all the Papiſts on earth in Biſhop Ʋſher de contin. ſucceſſione & ſlatu Eccleſ. Occident. and his Anſwer to the Jeſuites Challenge, and by Biſhop Jewell, and Doctor Field, and in many of the old Treatiſes againſt the Pope publiſhed together by Goldaſtus, which ſhew us that he ſetled not his Kingdom without continnual oppoſition and contradiction. We affirm that Popery is a meer novelty, and challenge all the Papiſts in the world to prove the Antiquity of it. When they have once arrogated to themſelves the name of the Catholike Church, and taught the people to believe as the Church believes, that is, to believe that all is true which the Pope and his Clergy will report of themſelves, it is then an eaſie matter for them to prove any thing to be true which makes for their turn: then they may ſay, The Fathers are for them, and that they have their Papal ſovereignty from S^t Peter, when there is never a true word in it. Then they may frame and forge new Decretals, and cut out of the Ancient Writers th… which is againſt them, and bring forth ſpurious writings under their names; and tell the people that our Religion begun with Luther: for its eaſie to prove any thing, where themſelves are the Judges, and no witneſſes but their own muſt be heard: But if they dare leave that hold, and come into the light, its eaſie to evince the novelty of Popery (though not of every particular error they hold.)

p. 177Obj. 2. If the Church of Rome be a true Church; then Popery is a ſafe way to ſalvation: But the Church of Rome is a true Church: Therefore, &c. The Antecedent is granted by moſt Protestants: …he conſequence is good; for it is the true Religion that maketh a true Church and Popery is their Religion. If their Religion be not true, their Church is not true: If their Religion be true, then their Church is true: and if Church and Religion be true, then they are in a ſafe way to ſalvation.

Anſw. 1. The word [Church] doth uſually ſignifie among Chriſtians, a Chriſtian ſociety, or a company of Chriſtians aſſociated for Gods worſhip and mutual edification: ſometime any company of Chriſtians whether ſo aſſociated or not: ſometime thoſe are called [Chriſtians] as diſtinct from Infidels, who profeſs moſt of the ſubſtance of Chriſtianity, but deny ſome part, or who profeſs the whole ſubſtance or the fundamentals, though they contradict it again by plain conſequence in other ſuperadded points: Though theſe as compared with the Orthodox are wont to be called Hereticks. We deny not but that the greateſt Papiſts are ſuch Chriſtians, and that as the word [Church] is applicable to combinations or companies conſiſting of ſuch materials, ſo far the Roma…ſts are a true Church; ſuppoſing that we onelyonly ſpeak of Metaphyſical Truth. But as the word [Chriſtian] is taken for one that ſo holdeth the fundamentals of Chriſtian Faith, as not to ſubvert them by plain conſequence after he hath profeſſed them, ſo it is yet under diſpute whether the Romaniſts be a true Church, and therefore not to be taken as granted. p. 178However thoſe Proteſtant Divines that grant them to be a true Church, do ſay that it is but by a Metaphyſical verity, convertible with the eſſence; but that Morally it is a falſe Church and not a true; as a thief is a True man, that is, truely a man, but he is not a true man, that is, not an honeſt faithfull man.

2. The thing called [The Church of Rome] conſiſteth not of Homogeneal parts: or at leaſt that word ſignifieth ſeveral ſorts of perſons. There are ſome that with the Pope and his Cardinals entertain the full body of Popery, and enſlave the reſt: There are multitudes of the people, that ſilently live under them, and let them alone, and are defiled by them in many things, but receive not the great and moſt dangerous part of their corruption. Theſe are not equally to be called the Church, nor are they equally in danger of damnation.

3. I deny the conſequence of the Major Propoſition; For if the Church of Rome be a true Church it is becauſe they are true Chriſtians, and not becauſe they are Papiſts: ſo that to argue [The Church of Rome is a true Church, therefore Popery is a ſafe way to Salvation] is as unſound as to argue [Gebezi the Leper is a living man: Therefore the Leproſie is a thing ſafe or profitable to mans life] Popery is the diſeaſe of their Church, and Chriſtianity is it that makes them a Church: You may well therefore co… clude that Chriſtianity is a ſafe way to heaven; but not that Popery is ſo.

To the confirmation I anſwer, That the Religion of Papiſts hath two parts: The Chriſtian Religion, as they are Chriſtians, and that maketh them a true Church if they be one. And the Popiſh corruptions, p. 179which denominate them Papiſts, and that makes them not a true Church, nor is a ſafe way to ſalvation.

Obj. 3. If Papiſts may be ſaved, then Popery is a ſafe way to ſalvation. But Papiſts may be ſaved: Therefore, &c.

Anſ. To the Antecedent or Minor I anſwer, that Papiſts be not all of a ſort: ſome may be ſaved, and ſome cannot, if they ſo live and dye. If you aske who may and who may not? I anſwer, that all thoſe of them that hold the ſubſtance of the Chriſtian faith, and that practically, notwithſtanding their errors; or that hold no errors but what conſiſt with the Practical holding of the Chriſtian faith, theſe ſhall be ſaved: But all thoſe that finally hold any error which for matter or manner is inconſiſtent with the Practical holding of the Chriſtian faith, ſhall be condemned.

2. To the conſequence of the Major I anſwer, by denying it; and that on the aforeſaid account. If a Papiſt be ſaved, it is not by Popery, but from Popery. It is therefore no better reaſoning than to ſay [If a Leper may live, then the Leproſie is wholſome, or a ſafe to preſerve life] I have already ſpoke more to this. If ſuch do live, it is with more trouble, and leſs …omfort, and its fewer that live long with it, then of other ſounder men: Men ſhould not caſt themſelves into a courſe of great doubt and difficulty as to their ſalvation, and when they have done encourage themſelves in it, becauſe other men of moderate and charitable mindes are afraid to conclude that they ſhall certainly be damned? Is it not a great probability p. 180or danger of damnation very terrible, though you were not certain to be damned.

Obj. 4. There is but one true Church, and conſequently but one ſafe way to Heaven: That one Church is the Romane Church: And therefore they and onelyonly they, are in the ſafe way to Heaven.

Anſw. If you ſpeak of the Univerſal Church, which is Chriſts body, there is but one and that is all true Chriſtians. But if you ſpeak of particular aſſociations of Chriſtians called particular Churches, there are many thouſands: And ſo we ſay that the Church of Rome is (at beſt) but one particular Church, or one combination of ſome particular Churches under the Biſhop of that City: But that Rome, or the Romane party, are the whole of the Catholike Church of Chriſt, we do with abhorrency deny.

2. If the Church of Rome be any part of that Univerſal Church, and ſo in a ſtate of Salvation, or way to it, it is not as Papiſts, but as Chriſtians, as was ſaid before. And therefore though there be but one ſafe way to Heaven, yet that one being not Popery, but Chriſtianity, why may not other Chriſtians be in a ſafe way to He… ven, as well as the Papiſts? eſpecially who are free from thoſe dangerous diſeaſes wherewith the Papiſts Chriſtianity is corrupted.

p. 181Obj. 5. That Church which hath Ʋnity, Ʋniverſality, Antiquity, and unintterupted ſucceſſion of Paſtors and Apoſtles, is the onelyonly true Church, and conſequently onelyonly in the ſafe way to Salvation. But ſuch is the Church of Rome: therefore.

Anſw. 1. This concludeth not the point in Queſtion [That Popery is a ſafe way to Salvation.]

2. We deny the Major, and blame them that they ſtill thruſt it on us without proof. To the particulars, 1. If Mahometans have unity, or if Satan be not divided againſt Satan, it doth not follow that they have the true Church; men may agree in evil. 2. where was your univerſality alſo, when there were ſcarce ſeven Biſhops left that were free from the plague of Arrianiſme? Univerſality abſolute (ſo that all errors or other parties ſhould be excluded) the Church hath never had the happineſs to enjoy ſince the begining of its flouriſhing in the Apoſtles dayes. Univerſality comparatively, that is, the greater part the Arrians had, at leaſt of the Biſhops. The doctrine of the M…llenaries, with many ſuch like may plead more antiquity than Popery can: And as for ſucceſſion, there is no doubt but a Biſhop or Church in the line of ſucceſſion may turn Heretical, and have ſucceſſors in their Hereſie. Have none of the Greek Churches, nor Alexandria, Antioch, &c. had a ſucceſſion till it fell into the hands of a Heretick? and it would have beeen no good plea for the firſt Heretical Biſhop or Church to plead ſuch ſucceſſion. If there be not a ſucceſſion in Apoſtolical doctrine, the ſucceſſion of perſons will be no proof of the truth or ſoundneſs of the Church.

p. 1823. And for the Minor of your Argument, I anſwer. 1. The Ethiopian, Alexandrian and other Churches can as truely boaſt of theſe qualifications as Rome. 2. The Papiſts lay a higher claim to them then they can make good. As 1. I have ſhewed already how far they are from unity, who are not only of ſo many Religions or wayes of Diſcipline; and of ſo great diſtance in many doctrinals, as the controverſies among themſelves do manifeſt, but alſo are ſo diſagreed about the very center of their union, their infallible ſoveraign Power, whether it be in the Pope, or a General Council, or both? Beſides their unity is but of their own party, the Romaniſts: And ſo all other parties are at ſome unity among themſelves: or many at leaſt. If John of Conſtantinople had prevented the Pope, and got the Title of univerſal Biſhop, or Pope, as he did (by compoſition) of univerſal Patriarch; and had pretended that this would have united the Churches, I think it would not have juſtified his cauſe.

2. How can the Papiſts for ſhame pretend to univerſality either as to the preſent or former ages? Is it nothing that all the Ethiopian, Greek, and Reformed Churches are not of their party, beſides many a thouſand more? Or will they arrogantly condemne all the reſt of the Chriſtian world as heretical, and then ſay that they are the whole Church? Did they not learn this of the Donatiſts? But what is become of their modeſty who pretend to an univerſality, for the time paſt, when all the Chriſtian world was againſt their preſent belief, and there was not ſuch a thing as a Papiſt known (and revealed to us) in the world of ſix hundred years after the birth of Chriſt.

p. 1833. And for their ſucceſſion, we undertake to prove it interrupted long ago, and that there were no true Biſhops at Rome of a long time: Though men have ſat there that were choſen by Cardinals, and call themſelves Biſhops or Popes, yet if according to the Scripture and ancient Councils, they were matter utterly uncapable of that form, then its plain that they were but Statues, and had but the name without the thing, i. e. the office or authority, and therefore are unworthy alſo of the name it ſelf. Let me name two or three of their own Writers that bear witneſs of this. And firſt their great paraſite Cardinal Baronius ſaith (ad an. 912. §. 8.) [What then was the face of the holy Romane Church? how exceeding filthy, when the moſt potent and yet moſt ſordid Whores did Rule at Rome? by whoſe pleaſure Sees were changed, Biſhops were given, and which is a thing horrid to be heard, and not to be ſpoken, their ſweet hearts (or mates) were thruſt into Peters chair being falſe Popes, who are not to be written in the Catalogue of the Romane Popes, but onelyonly for the marking out of ſuch times.] And after he well addes to ſhew that the interruption was not like to be onelyonly in the ſucceſſion of true Biſhops [And what kind of Cardinal Prieſts and Deacons think you we muſt imagine that theſe monſters did chooſe? when nothing is ſo rooted in nature as for every one to beget his like] See more in Baron. ibid. Platina ſpeaking of the evil of thoſe times (de Benedict. 4.) ſaith that [By ambition and bribery the holy chair of Peter was rather ſeized on, then poſſeſſed.]

Genebrard (in Chronolog. l. 4. ſecul. 10.) ſpeaking of the great unhappineſs of that age, ſaith, that [In this one thing it was unhappy that for neer one hundred p. 184and fifty years about fifty Popes did wholly fall away from the vertue of their anceſtors, being Apotactici, Apoſtaticive potius quam Apoſtolici, Diſorderly and Apoſtatical, rather then Apoſtolical.]

What ſhall we think of all thoſe that murdered their predeceſſors to obtain the place, were they capable of being true Biſhops? What ſhall we ſay of Pope Silveſter the ſecond who was a conjurer, and agreed with the Devil to help him to be Pope, and by the deceit of the Devil was again deprived of it by ſuddain death? Doth the Devil make true Biſhops of conjurers? I know the deceiving Papiſts would make the ſimple people believe that all theſe things that we ſay of their Popes are lies of our own forging: but men that have eyes in their heads may ſee who are the lyars Their own Writers do commonly affirm the ſame that we affirm. A Cardinal of their own (Benno) in vita Hildebrandi, affirmeth this of Pope Silveſter: and he lived in the times next him, and therefore might know. Platina another of their own affirms (in vita Silveſt.) that [Geſbertus impelled by ambition, and devilliſh deſire of rule, did firſt by bribery (or Simony) get the Archbiſhoprike of Rhemes, then of Ravenna, and at laſt of Rome, the Devil giving him more of his help, but on this condition, that after his death he ſhould be wholly his, by whoſe deceits he had obtained ſuch dignity.] The like hath Lyra in Gloſs ad cap. 14. Maccab. l. 2. and a multitude of their Hyſtorians unanimouſly confirm it. Yea Aeneas Sylvius who was a Pope himſelf (de geſt is Concil. Baſil. l. 1.) ſaith [We are not ignorant that (Pope) Marcellinus did at Ceſars command offer incenſe to Idols, and that another, which is a greater and more horrible thing, did come to be Pope of p. 185Rome by the fraud of the Devil.] In a word if Murderers, Adulterers, Conjurers that come in by the Devil, and Hereticks, may be true Biſhops of Rome, and yet a man that believeth not the Popes Uniververſal Vicarſhip can be no true Catholike Chriſtian; then it ſeems, it is a greater ſin not to Believe in the Pope then not to Believe in Chriſt, or then it is to bargain with the Devil, or be a Murderer or Adulterer? Certainly theſe men were as uncapable of being true Biſhops when theſe things were once publikely known of them (at leaſt) as a Mahometane would be: And therefore there hath been many an interruption in their ſucceſſion. And many a ſchiſm there hath been wherein two or three Popes have raigned at once, and he that had the greateſt ſtrength hath carryed it, when his Right was not the greateſt.