Answer to Several Late Treatises, Imprimatur – General preface

Answer to Several Late Treatises · Imprimatur – General preface

Imprimatur,

Sam. Parker R. in Christo Patri ac D^no. D^no. Gilberto, Arch. Episc. Cantuar. à sac. Dom. April 15. 1673.

AN ANSWER To several late TREATISES, Occasioned by a Book entituled a DISCOURSE Concerning the IDOLATRY Practised in the CHURCH of ROME, AND The Hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it. By Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty. The First Part.

LONDON, Printed by R. W. for Henry Mortlock, and are to be sold at his Shop, at the Sign of the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard. 1673.

THE General Preface.

IT is not for any pleasure I take in Controversie, nor out of a Resolution to maintain what I have once written, that I expose my self again to the Censures of Some, and the Rage of others, in Defence of our Church against the Church of Rome: But out of a just sense of the Weight and goodness of the Cause I have undertaken; which (if my affection to it hath not strangely blinded my judgement) doth highly concern us as Men, as English Men, and as Christians. For it is the Cause of Sense and Reason, against the absurd Doctrines they impose on both; it is the Cause of our Nation against the Usurpation and Tyranny of a Forrain Power; it is the Cause of the true Faith and Christianity, against the Errors and Corruptions of the Roman Church. To abandon such a Cause as this, were to betray the things which ought to be most dear to us: for we cannot be reconciled to that Church on any easier terms, than renouncing our Sense and Reason, enslaving our Country, and hazarding our Salvation. And what can they give us in exchange for these?

It was the last of those three Heads, which gave occasion to the late so much railed at, and so little confuted Book: which no sooner appeared, but as if some dreadful Monster had risen out of the earth, some crossed themselves and kept as far out of the sight of it, as they could; others made hideous out-crys and grievous complaints; and the more fearful sort were forbidden either looking on it, or entertaining any discourse about it. Upon which I pleased my self that I had not added another Chapter to the Book; for if that number had agreed with the ten particulars, it had passed among them for the Beast with seven Heads and ten Horns; and they would have been glad their City upon seven Hills could have been so excused. But this unusual noise and clamour awakened the curiosity of many who love to see strange sights; and that which otherwise might have been wholly neglected as a Book, was enquired after and looked into, being represented as a Monster.

But when they found that this evil Spirit (as they accounted it) which themselves had raised, was not to be laid again by hard words and ill language; they began to consider what other course was to be taken to suppress it. And forthwith there starts up a Young Sophister among them, and bids them be of good heart; for by letting flie at him some Squibs and Crackers he did not question, but he should put this Monster into such a Rage, as to make him fall upon himself; which design being highly approved; in a short time came forth that dapper piece, called Doct. Stillingfleet against Doct. Stillingfleet. It was a notable plot, and cunningly managed, as the Reader may see by the following Answer to it. After him a Graver Person undertakes the service;Ha…mull. hist Iesuit. ordin. c. 8. but as Hasenmullerus tells us, when Ignatius Loyola sent one of his Brethren at Rome to dispossess a Person, he gave him this instruction, that he should be sure to come behind the Devil, if he would drive him out; accordingly this N. O. steals quite behind my Book, and began to confute it at the wrong end, hoping by that means to drive out the evil Spirit which he supposed to lodge in the Body of it. Which he hath performed with great dexterity and success, as the Reader may be fully satisfied in the Reply here following. These two I undertook, before any other appeared, and intended to have published these two Answers by themselves; but finding others that had written against me on the same argument I was willing to bring as much as I could together to prevent confusion or repetition. All which relating to the Principles of Faith, and the Rosolution, and Rule of it, I made account to have dispatched at once; but finding the Book begin to swell into too great a bulk, I have respited some parts of it to another opportunity.

When those two men had done their Feats, an ancient and experienced Exorcist; (and yet for all that no Conjurer) saw plainly this Spirit must be conjured down; and thefore knowing the great efficacy of Charms, he gives his Book the Title of foreign Stillingfleeton. Which words put me almost in as great a fright as the Holy Chair would have done; I began to consider, whether Mengus or any other of their skilful men had ever used those Emphatical words before; but I am willing to believe it was the sole invention of J. V. C. And I doubt not but they will do well hereafter in Exorcisms, especially after the holy Potion, when the person to be dispossessed is made sufficiently sick with Rue and Sallet-oyl and other excellent Physick for Devils. I find by some of their Authors, it is a great matter to get the right name of the Spirit; this J. V. C. hath hit unluckily, in calling this Monster the Leviathan sporting in the waters, since they have thrown out so many empty vessels for him to play with. And his three books of Charms, have been no unpleasant entertainment; But he is gone; and I love not to tread hard on the graves of my enemies. What there appears material in him (if anything do so) I shall consider it in its proper place; chiefly for the sake of my Iudicious Adversary Dr. T. G. who was the first and I think the only person that hath discovered his Book to be a Learned Treatise.

But my generous Adversaries, finding so little success in single attempts, they next fall upon me with Chain-shot; viz. A Collection of several Treatises against Doct. Stillingfleet. To make up the number, they bring in one before published, to try an experiment what force that can have in conjunction which had none of it self.

The first undertaker therein, is, the very calm and (according to his new Christian Name) Serene Mr. Cressy, the man that hath learnt to mortifie passions by Mystical Divinity; but is so far from being sublimed and rectified, by that Chymical way of devotion, that he seems yet to remain in the very dregs of them: the man, that hath so accustomed him-self to Legends, that he cannot write against an Adversary, without making one of him. And although there be many very pleasant ones in his Church-History, yet I hardly think there are many more wonderful, than (if his insinuations had any colour of truth in them) the first part of my life had been. For by making me so active in those times, when I was uncapable of understanding what they were, he seems to represent me as one that had so passionate a zeal for Presbytery in my cradle, that I would suck of none but a Scottish Nurse; that the first word I pronounced was Covenant; that I would go to School to none but Lay-Elders; and was cursing Meroz before the Parliament at eight years old. Is not this a hopeful beginning for a good Legend?S. C. p. 79. Will he, saith he, or they damn the execrable Covenant? as though, I had ever any thing to do with it but when I renounced it! If I should tell him, that as great a Friend as he takes me to have been to Presbytery and the late times, even then I was entred into Episcopal Orders by a most worthy and learned Prelate of our Church; that, I never subscribed any Address to the Usurpers, as some in the World have done, and those who would now be thought the Kings most loyal Subjects; that I never drew off any one person from their Allegiance to the King to submit to to the Popes Nuncio, (let those who did it clear themselves) even such an Apology would give too much countenance to so pitiful a Calumniator. I thank him that he hath not charged me with laying the first platform of Presbytery at Geneva, or having a hand in the first and second Admonitions in the days of Queen Elizabeth; and I might as will charge him with the Gunpowder Treason, as he doth me with any thing about the Covenant. By this we may guess what Ecclesiastical History we are to expect from him, who writes so at random about the matters of our own times. But the man is to be pitied; he was under one of Mother Juliana's fits, he writ with a good mind, but he knew not what. Some vent must be given to a violent fermentation, else the vessel might burst asunder; and I hope the good man is somewhat more at ease, since he purged away so much Choler. I assure him I can with pleasure read what he wrote with rage; and laugh at the violence of such passions, which like a Gun ill charged may give fire and make a great noise, but doth the greatest mischief to him that holds it. If I would pursue him through all his heats, I must undergo the Ordeal-tryal, touch firebrands without hurting my self: which although I might do, yet I know my Adversaries are so implacable, that even that would not convince them of my innocence. I leave him therefore to grow cooler and wiser; but I beseech him for his own sake, that he would attempt no more the justifying the union of nothing with nothing, S. C. p. 46.and for the sake of Religion, that he would not call God any more an incomprehensible Nothing; a Description fit only for the Atheists Catechism. If there were any thing in his railing Book which looked like reason or argument I might perhaps at my leisure be perswaded to answer it; though I do not love to have to do with mad men, no not in their lucid intervals.

The next that follows is one that goes about to vindicate the Roman Churches devotions and Doctrine of Repentance and Indulgencies, he is a meer pattern of meekness, compared with S. C., he writes pertinently and without the others bitterness and passion. His great endeavour is to clear the honour of his Church, from the absurd Doctrines and practices charged upon it. And the force of all,Roman Doctrine of Repentance, &c. vindicated p. 19. he saith lies in this, that where the Church hath defined nothing in her Councils, it is to no purpose to object that such Doctrines are taught by some in it; for those who defend their separation from the Communion of a Church by reason of its erroneous or corrupt Doctrines must make it appear that those are taught by it, and the belief of them also exacted from its subjects. To this purpose S. C. likewise speaks (in some of his lucid intervalls) and I perceive this is become a common Topick among them, to take off the odium of such opinions and practices as they are willing enough, but ashamed to defend, which I shall in this place briefly remove. The thing I was to prove was, that persons in the Communion of the Roman Church do run great hazard of their Salvation: for which I instanced particularly in several opinions and practices which are very apt to hinder a good life which is necessary to Salvation. Now a twofold Question here arises. 1. Whether the Church may justly be charged with those Doctrines and practices? 2. Whether, although the Church may not directly be charged to have decreed them in her Councils, yet so much countenance and encouragement be not commonly given to them in that Church, that particular persons do run great hazard of their salvation by reason of them? For which we are to consider, that it hath been the method of the Roman Church to allow many more things in common belief and practice than it hath dared for very shame to decree in Councils, especially when such things have been objected by her enemies. In this case it hath been thought the most prudent course for the Councils to speak deceitfully and in general terms, so as to give as little advantage as may be to their enemies, and yet to retain ground enough to uphold their former opinions and practices: Which still continuing in Vogue and reputation, become so much the more dangerous to mens Souls, because their Councils having had opportunity to have declared effectually against them were so far from it, that by their doubtful expressions they have left ground enough for the continuance of them. Now from hence the Directors of Conscience among them frame their opinions, and the people think it their duty blindly to follow them; and supposing any one among them should scruple any such Doctrine or practice, to whom must he resort but to his Confessors, and will any such dare to condemn what is generally received although not decreed by Councils? or if he should, dare any person rely on his private judgement when it is contrary to the most received Doctrine or practice? Besides, the promises of Infallibility are supposed by them to be primarily made to the Church, and only by way of representation to the Council; and therefore Doctrines or practices generally received and allowed by the Teachers of the Church and the Guides of conscience, must be received by them as true and good; for otherwise those promises would fail to the Church in its diffusive capacity, and consequently, supposing no General Council, it were possible for the most erroneous and pernicious Doctrines and practices to prevail in the Church, which must utterly overthrow all pretence to Infallibility. But in our present case we need not run so far, for I shall here prove that in the most material points insisted on by N. O. viz. the Doctrine of the efficacy of the Sacraments ex opere Operato, and of Indulgences, we do justly charge the Church of Rome even in the decrees of her Councils with laying such a foundation, as doth overthrow the necessity of a good life. The way he takes to vindicate those points from this consequence is this, That the Sacramenta mortuorum, P. 44.viz. Baptism and Penance which confer justifying Grace do require a subject rightly disposed; And the Sacramenta vivorum, viz. Confirmation, Eucharist and Extreme unction, do require the receiver to be actually in a State of Grace; the same,P. 47. he saith of Indulgences, that the benefit of them doth suppose a man put into a State of Grace by the Sacrament of Penance; P. …9.so that the whole matter is put upon this issue, whether their Doctrine concerning the conditions by which a man may be put into a State of Grace, be not such as doth overthrow the necessity of a good life? And it being acknowledged that the Sacrament of Penance doth confer the Grace of justification on all persons rightly disposed for it, our only business is to enquire what necessary conditions their Church requires in order to it. For which we appeal to the words of the Council of Trent, for Session 14. c. 4. That plainly determins,Et quamvis sine Sacramento Poenitentiae per se ad justificationem perducere peccatorem nequeat (attritio); tamen cum ad Dei gratiam in Sacramento Poe…ite…tiae impetrandam disponit. Concil. Trident. sess. 14. c. 4. that imperfect contrition or attrition although it cannot bring men to justification without the Sacrament of Penance, yet it doth dispose men for obtaining the Grace of God by the Sacrament of Penance. If we joyn this now with another decree of the same Council, viz.**Si quis dixerit Sacramenta novae Legis non continere Gratiam quam significant, aut gratiam ipsam non ponentibus obicem non conf…rre—Anathema sit. Sess. 7. Can. 6. that the Sacraments do conferr Grace on all those who are disposed to receive it; Si quis dix…rit non dari gratiam per hujus modi Sacramenta semper & omnibus, qua…tum est ex parte Dei, etiamsi ritè ea suscipiant, sed aliquando & aliquibus, A…athemae sit. Can. 7.I leave it now to any one to judge, whether from hence it doth not necessarily follow, that all those that have but imperfect contrition, or bare attrition for their sins, are by the Sacrament of Penance put into a State of Grace, according to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent? And how far this overthrows the necessity of a good life, will appear from the explication of contrition and attrition given by the same Council.Sess. 14. c. 4. Contrition is defined, to be, a grief of mind and detestation of sin committed, with a purpose of sinning no more; therefore imperfect contrition or attrition must be such a grief and detestation of sin past, as implies but an imperfect purpose of sinning no more. From which it evidently follows, that by the Doctrine of this Council a man may be put into a State of Grace without so much as a firm or perfect purpose of sinning no more. And can there be a Doctrine invented by men that doth more effectually destroy the necessity of a good life than this doth? For the State of Grace puts a man actually into the favour of God; and supposing him to fall into mortal sin afterwards, all he needs to do, is only to repeat the same kind of attrition and receive the Sacrament of Penance and he is perfectly sound again and recovers the Favour of God. I know the Council there saith, That this attrition must exclude voluntatem peccandi, as O. N. observes; but that implies no more than a mans not having at that time a purpose to sin again; and the Council distinguishes it from the propositum non peccandi de caetero, or the purpose not to sin again, which the Council applies to contrition as the other to attrition. And Cajetan himself quoted by O. N. calls it an imperfect purpose of not sinning. P. 45.So that after all the evasions which have been yet, or can be produced, the Roman Churches Doctrine of Repentance and Indulgences doth most dangerously obstruct devotion and a good life. I desire therefore O. N. and his Brethren to be a little more sparing in their censures of us as unfaithfully representing the Doctrine of their Church, for we understand it much better, and represent it more truly, than they desire.

But supposing the words of the Council were ambiguous in this matter, what better help can we have to understand it, than the sense of their most eminent and learned Instructours of Conscience? and those not of the single Order of Jesuits, as some would have it believed, but of all sorts among them.Melch. Cano Relect. de Poenit. part. 6. p. 932. Melchior Canus who was far enough from being a Friend of the Jesuits, saith expresly, although a man knows he hath not contrition but bare attrition, he may come to the Sacrament and receive grace by it; for which he gives this reason, because Baptism and Penance, are Sacramenta mortuorum; and therefore those who are under mortal sin if they have attrition whereby the impediment is removed may not only come to them, but go away with the Grace conferred, because the Sacraments always conferr Grace, where the impediment is removed. And he is followed herein, Morinus de Poenit. Sacramento l. 8. c. 4. n. 27.saith Morinus, not only by Lopez, Pesantius, Nicol. Isambertus Professor of Divinity at Paris, but by the fargreatest number of their modern Divines. I shall not so much as mention the Jesuitical Casuists whose Testimonies are produced in the Jesuits Morals, La Morale de Iesuits …v. 2. ch. 2. …. 253.or Provincial letters, such as Filliutius, Amicus, Sa, Escobar, Bauny, &c. But I shall name some of far greater Authority among them. O. N. frequently cites Paul Layman with expressions of esteem,Layman. Theol. Moral. l. 5. tract. 6. c. 2. sect. 2. and he determins that true contrition is not necessary to the Sacrament of Penance after the commission of mortal sin, but attrition is sufficient although a man know it to be only attrition. If they had made attrition only necessary to the Sacrament of Baptism, they might have pleaded, that they had not destroyed the necessity of a good life afterwards to preserve the Grace conveyed in Baptism; but we see in the case of mortal sin afterwards toties quoties no more is necessary but a new Act of Attrition, and that not only when a man mistakes it to be contrition; but though a man knows it to be bare attrition. I confess Cardinal Tolet, Tolet. Summ Cas. l. 3. c▪ 4.although he asserts the substance of the Doctrine, yet he saith attrition only serves when it is mistaken for contrition; Morinus de Poenit. l. 8. c. 4. n. 1.but this Morinus tells us the later Divines laugh at and explode.Lugo de Poenit. disp. 5. sect. 9. n. 130 135. Cardinal Lugo not only contends for the Doctrine, but asserts it to be the Doctrine of the Council of Trent, viz. that attrition with the Sacrament of Penance is sufficient for the Grace of Justification; and quotes Suarez, Vasquez and Maeratius, as sufficiently proving from the words of the Council, that attrition is the next disposition to the Grace of justification conveyed by the Sacrament; and this attrition he there shews against Sylvius, doth not imply an imperfect love of God above all; which is directly contrary to O. N. And in another place he proves,O. N. p. 45. that a man is not bound always to contrition for his sins although they be mortal; Lugo disp. 7. sect. 11. n. 201.for saith he, if he were, then a man having attrition cannot be excused but only by invincible Ignorance from a new mortal sin in coming to the Sacrament of Penance without contrition, because some time is commonly supposed to intervene between a mans attrition and his justification by the Sacrament, in which time he would sin mortally by omitting contrition, if he were obliged to it; but this, saith he, is against the common opinion of Divines, that a man contracts any new guilt by omitting contrition. Nay he afterwards determins,Sect. 13. n. 263. that a man that hath received the Sacrament of Penance with bare attrition is not bound, under the guilt of mortal sin, for omitting it, to an act of contrition at the point of death; which is, he saith, the commonly received opinion among them, and he quotes Diana, Coninch, Becanus, Layman, Fagundez, Faber, Turrianus, Salas and others for it. The great argument he brings, is, because Confessors do not think themselves obliged to put men in mind of an act of contrition at that time as necessary, as common experience shews. And are not such Confessors excellent Guides to Heaven the mean while? If they be, they have found out a much broader way and wider gate than ever Christ intended. What not one single act of contrition necessary! No, not at the point of death! What pity it is for sinners, you have not the keeping of Heaven-gates? How do they want the Sacrament of Penance in Hell, for no doubt there is attrition good store there! But above all of them commend me to honest Gregor. de Valentiâ, Greg. de Valent. Tom. 4. disp. 7. q. 8. pua…. 4. sect. Secundo potest.who not only makes contrition unnecessary, but saith it is rather a hindrance to the effect of the Sacraments. From whence Morinus justly infers,Morin. de poenit. l. 8. c. 4. n. 15. that a Confessor ought not to perswade the Penitent to Contrition; nor the penitent to endeavour after it. Nay Morinus shews, that grave men and famous in their Church do assert that a Penitent having received the Sacrament of Penance, Id. ib. n. 26.is not bound to so much as one act of contrition or the Love of God in order to his reconciliation with God. Yea, although a man hath hated God to the last act of his life if he receives the Sacrament of Penance, they deny that it is necessary for him to be contrite for his sins or to love God. Nothing could go beyond this but what follows in him,Sacramentorum Evangelicorum supra legaliaa praestantiam & praerogativam in hoc potissimum fulgere, quod Evangelica gravissimo Contritionis, & Dilectionis Dei jugo nos liberaverint. Morin. de Poenit. l. 8. c. 4. n. 26. that the excellency of the Evangelical Sacraments above the legal consists in this, that the Evangelical Sacraments have freed us from the most heavy yoke … of contrition and the Love of God. O admirable Guides of Conscience! I do not at all question but Jews, Turks and Heathens have a much better and truer notion of Repentance, than these men; the Pagan Philosophers were Christians to them. And what injury have I done them now, in charging such things upon them which obstruct devotion and overthrow the necessity of a good life? For I hardly think it possible to contrive a Doctrine more effectual for that end, than to tell men that the Sacraments of the Gospel do free men from that heavy yoke Contrition and the Love of God.

But supposing there were no such Foundation for this Doctrine in the Council of Trent, as we see there is would there be no danger to mens Salvation, if their Confessors generally told then these things, and they knew it to be th… current opinion among them? Is there … danger of falling into the ditch whe… the Blind lead the Blind, unless General Council expresly allow of it? … there no danger by Empericks a… Mountebanks, unless the whole Co… ledge of Physicians approve them? An… of all sorts of Empericks, the worst a… such Casuists and Confessors. Is ther… no way to magnify the Sacerdotal office unless they have a Power to Trepan Soul into eternal flames for want of true repentance; by making them believe th… Priests absolution with bare attritio… will make all even with God? Or … this Doctrine only a Decoy to draw great sinners into your nets? And all this while is your Church innocent, which at least sees and will not reform these things? In A. D. 1665. 24. of September and 18. May, 1666. the Congregation of the Inquisition at Rome under Alexander. 7. took upon them to censure 45. several Propositions of the late Casuists, Index Exp…rg: Alex. 7. n. 87. 88.as scandalous and pernicious to the Souls of men, but not one of them relates to this Doctrine of repentance, although the Jansenists in France had complained of it. Whence could this arise but from looking on it as the Doctrine of their Church? Indeed I find that on May 5. 1667. The Pope caused a Decree to be published straitly forbidding all persons in their debates about Attrition, to condemn each other; but it is worth our while to understand, what this controversie was, viz. Whether bare attrition doth require an act of the love of God; and although the Negative be there said to be the more common opinion, yet the Pope would not have the others that affirmed it to be censured. But not the least word against the sufficiency of bare attrition. Are any of the Books censured which assert this Doctrine? Nay, they are published with great approbations. Are any of the Defenders of it discountenanced? Nay, they are Persons in the highest esteem, dignity, and Authority among them. Are any cautions given to Confessors to beware of these Doctrines? Nay, these very Books are purposely written and approved for their instruction and use. And if their Church be innocent after all this, so was the Iewish Church in our Saviours time; for the corruptions that were then among them had no decree of the Sanhedrin, that I find, for them; it was only their Schoolmen and Casuists, the Scribes and Pharisees which introduced them. And yet our Saviour thought mens Souls in danger, when he bid them beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. I confess when we debate the causes of Separation from their Communion, we think it then reasonable to alledge no more, than what they impose on all to believe and practice (and we have enough of all Conscience in that kind without going farther) but when we represent the hazard of Salvation to particular persons, we may then justly charge them with the pernicious Doctrines and practices which are received and allowed among them, although not decreed by the Church in Councils. For otherwise it would be just, as if one should say to a man, that asked him, whether he might safely travel through such a Country? yes, without doubt you may, for although there be abundance of Thieves and High-waymen, yet the Prince or the State never approved them, or gave them licence to rob Travellers. Do you think any man would venture his person or his purse, on no better security? Yet such security as this, if it were true is all that such moderate men as O. N. or his Brethren can give as to the Roman Church; for they dare not deny the bad consequence of the Doctrines and practices charged upon them, but only say, the Church hath not decreed them. So much I thought necessary to say to this newest and most plausible pretence, which is made use of by the best Advocates for the Roman Church.

And now farewel to Moderation; for the two next which appeared on the Stage against me, were two Jesuits; the one sent over a Book, which if we look only at the bulk and thickness was a very substantial one, called by an odd Antiphrasis, Reason and Religion: I have endeavoured to draw off all the Spirit I could find in it, in the following discourses, but I am forced to leave a vast quantity of Phlegm and Caput Mortuum behind. I shall say no more of him here, having occasion to speak so much of him in the Discourses about the Principles of faith, which will in a little time be ready to appear.

The other is the stout Defender of lgnatius Loyola and the whole Order of Jesuits; What, one man undertake to defend the Jesuits as to their Principles and Practices! and that in this Age, which so well understands their Maxims and Conduct! and in England too, where those of other Orders and the Secular Priests love them so dearly! But nothing is too brave or difficult, for a Jesuit to attempt, however he comes off in it. As to Ignatius Loyola, I will come to terms with him; if what he confesses as to his ignorant zeal, pious simplicity, frequent visions and extasies, extravagant preaching, unmannerly contempt of Superiours do not prove him a Fanatick, I am content to let him go. But what if Ignatius himself being grown old, did suspect such frequent extasies and visions for illusions? I desire him to look Ribadineira, Ribadin. … l. 5. c. ….in his larger life to that purpose. But this matter of Fanaticism must be referred to another place. I shall now only give a tast of the Jesuits excellent way of defending the principles destructive to Government which I charged his Order with.

The first was, that Government was so originally in the People, that they by their Representatives may call their Soveraign to an account and alter the form of Government. Now mark this Answer. P. 38.This principle (whatsoever truth it may have in speculation) is by no means to be preached to the People, who are apt enough of themselves to stretch cases and pick quarrels with their best Governours, yet was it taught many Ages before the Jesuits were so much as thought of. Welfare the man for his plain-dealing; the Doctrine it seems is true enough, but the people are not fit to be trusted with the management of it, no, not in their places and callings; no, no, let the Jesuits alone with these things, they know just the very nick of time, when to be Iudges and Executioners too.

The next principle is, the Popes power of deposing Princes, to which he again answers roundly.P. 39. You are then to know, Sir, that the Doctrine was long ago taught by almost all Orders and Professions, Seculars, Regulars, Divines, Lawyers, before the Jesuits were in Being. A very Catholick Doctrine it seems it is! What a stirr do other people make with mincing this matter, I know not how; give me a man that speaks out, and lets Princes understand what their general Doctrine is in this matter, lest they may possibly be deceived, as though it were only the bold assertion of some few Persons among them. What wonder then saith he, if Bellarmin and 3. or 4. more Jesuits were carried away with such a Torrent of Doctors who went before them? Nay, in my opinion the only wonder is, how any Persons among them dare think otherwise, this Doctrin having as he tells us, so Catholick a consent to the truth of it. But in earnest Sir, is the Doctrine true, or false Nay, Sir, I beseech you to excuse me in that: for as he saith, afterwards about the Popes power … absolving Subjects, I beg leave to wave such curious controversie…: What,P. 50. a Jesuit beg leave to wave curious controversies! What is become … all their vast Tomes of Scholastical an… Casuistical Divinity? Are no curious controversies handled in them? An… were you bred up among them and yet ha… controversies meerly because curious▪ No, no, We understand you better than so That is only a curious controversies with you which endangers your safety, if you speak out, for it is a needless kind of curiosity for a man to betray himself. Here in these practical Countries it is sometimes dangerous speaking Truth in their sense; but at such a speculative place as Rome is, there those may be wholesome and Catholick Truths, which …ere are but niceties and curiosities. But doth he not say, P. 40.the Jesuits have solemnly renounced the Doctrine? Yes, but have a care how far you believe him: we poor simple Islanders might understand by this, that they had declared it to be false and pernicious. There is no such matter I will assure you, but upon the stirrs in France they renounced the publishing it, they renounced it as they were in France, but thought it good Doctrine at Rome: they are forbidden to treat any more of it, because of the odiousness of it to Princes, and that is all the renouncing they ever meant.

The third Principle is, the lawfulness of killing Kings, as to which, he saith, he cannot name the person that ever taught it in those Terms: a good reason for that, because when they would have them killed they call them Tyrants. And so grants Dominicus Soto and Marian have asserted it, he might have namse more if he had pleased. I could not des… a more pleasant task than to pursue … through the remainder of his discourse wherein he undertakes to vindicate the Jesuits practices, but these have been much exposed by men of their own Region, that I may spare my pains in th… Preface; and we may easily guess h… hard he was put to it, when he mak… the letter of the Bishop of Angelopol to be forged at Port-Royal by the Ja… senists. And thus he hath shifted … fault from the Indies to Europe, … to vindicate some Papists there fre… Idolatry,P. 21. he charges others here with forge… ▪ And …et to this as a full Answer, the … Ans…erer of the Seasonable Discour… doth referr us. And out of his admiral learning and skill in History desires … Adversary, for his satisfaction that the can be no danger of Resuming Abby Lan… of Popery should return, to go into Germany where there are so many Papist and Protestant Princes, P. 13.Noble men and Gentlemen, that have (especially since the Treaty at Munster) either Bishopricks, Abbeys or the like confirmed to them by the Pope. How! confirmed to them by the Pope! what will not these men dare to say? I perceive Ignorance serves them for other purposes than meerly to be the Mother of Devotion. If at least this worthy Author could be Ignorant of so notorious a thing as Pope Innocents Bull published on purpose to Null the Treaty at Munster,Sanctissi… Domini N. D. Innocenti… Divina Providentia Pap…. 10. Declaratio nullitatis Articulorum Nuperae Pacis Germaniae Religioni Catholicae, Sedi Apostolicae, Ecclesiis, aliisque l…is piis ac Personis, & Iuribus Ecclesiasticis quomodo libet praejudicialium. Romae ex Typographiâ Reverend. Can… Apostolicae. A. D. 1651. as prejudicial to the Catholick Religion, to the Apostolical See, to Churches and other Holy Places and Persons and Ecclesiastical Rights. In the body of the Bull he saith, that his Nuncio there (who was afterwards Pope Alexander the seveth) did protest against these Articles, as void, null, unjust, and agreed upon by persons that had no power, and that they were to be so looked on by all. But the Pope did not think this sufficient, but declares all those Articles that related to liberty of Religion, Church-lands, or any Ecclesiastical Rights, or brought any the least prejudice to them or might be thought or pretended so to do, to be null, void, invalid, unjust, damned, reprobate, vain, and without any force or power, and that they shall remain so for ever; and that no person, though never so much sworn to observe those articles shall be bound by such oath; no right, title, plea, prescription, shall accrue to any by vertue of them: and therefore out of the Plenitude of Apostolical power he doth absolutely damn, reprobate, null and cassate all those articles and protests before God of the nullity of them; and restores all persons and places to their ancient possessions notwithstanding them, with very much more to the same purpose. This was dated at Rome apud Sanctam Mariam Majorem sub Annulo Piscatoris die 26 Novemb. and solemnly published there the third of Jan. 1651. in the eighth year of his Pontificat. Call you this, Sir, the Popes confirming them! Is it credible that he who in the beginning of his Answer had charged the late Protestant Books, (which he most ingeniously calls Libels) to be crammed with nothing else but what we know to be false, should within a few Pages have the confidence to affirm in the face of the world so notorious an untruth? But I leave this ingenious Author, to be Chastised for this and other his extravagancies, by his worthy Adversary, and return to my own.

After all these unsuccessful attempts at last the Knight himself resolves to encounter the Dragon; and accordingly he buckles on his armour, mounts his stead, and, according to all ancient and modern Pictures of the combat, directs his lance into the very mouth of it; wisely considering, if the head were mortally wounded, the whole Body would fall to the ground. After him at a convenient distance follows his Squire I. S. who had a particular spight at the Dragons Tayl, and without fear or wit falls unmercifully upon it, and in his own opinion, hath chopt it into a thousand pieces. But such mischievous creatures whose strength lies scattered in all their parts, do often rise up when they are triumphed over as dead, and give their most deadly wounds, when they are thought to lye gasping for breath.

It happened that when T. G's. Answer to the first part of my Book came out, I was before engaged in the Defence of the Protestant principles of faith against the Guide in Controversies and E. W. (the Author of those two learned Treatises as T. G. calls them,P. 312. Protestancy without Principles, and Religion and Reason) part of which being then in the Press, I was forced to go through with that, before I could take his Book into consideration. And thereupon I resolved to dispatch all those which relate to the Principles of Faith together; and then to proceed to the Principles of Worship in answer to him, which (God willing) I intend as soon as the former part is finished.

All that I shall take notice of him here, is to represent the ingenuity of his dealing with me in his Preface, wherein he charges me with dissenting from the Doctrine of the Church of England in accusing the Church of Rome of Idolatry. And by this one Instance I desire the Reader to judge what Candour and sincerity he is to expect in his Book.

For the sense of the Church of England I appealed to the Book of Homilies: not to any doubtful, or general or single passage therein, but to the design of one of the largest and most elaborat… Homilies in the whole Book; consisting of three several parts, the last of which i… said not to be meerly for the People but for the instruction of those who were t… teach them. The design of that last part is thus set down.Book of Hom. second Tome. p. 46. 1. That Popish Images and the Idols of the Gentils are all one concerning themselves. 2. That they have been and be worshipped in our time in like form and manner as were the Idols of the Gentils. And for that Idolatry standeth chiefly in the mind, it shall in this part first be proved that our Image-maintainers, have had and have the same opinions and judgement of Saints whose Images they have made and worshipped as the Gentils Idolaters had of their Gods; and afterwards shall be declared that our Imagemaintainers and worshippers have used and use the same outward rites, and manner of honouring, and worshipping their Images, as the Gentils did use before their Idols, and that therefore they commit Idolatry, as well inwardly as outwardly, as did the wicked Gentils Idolaters; and this that Homily is intended for the proof of: which it doth very fully. But, saith T. G., why did I not appeal for the sense of our Church to the 39. Articles? As though the approbation of the Book of Homilies were not one of them, viz the 35. The second Book of Homilies the several Titles whereof we have joyned under this Article (among which Titles the second is this of the Peril of Idolatry) doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine and necessary for these times. Which Articles were not only allowed and approved by the Queen, but confirmed by the subscription of the hand of the Arch-bishop and Bishops of the upper House, and by the subscription of the whole Clergy in the nether House of Convocation A. D. 1571. Now I desire T. G. to resolve me whether men of any common understanding would have subscribed to this Book of Homilies in this manner, if they had believed the main Doctrine and design of one of them had been false and pernicious? as they must have done if they had thought the practice of the Roman Church to be free from Idolatry. I will put th… case that any of the Bishops then had thought the charge of Idolatry had been unjust, and that it had subverted the foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority, that there could have been no Church, or right ordination if the Roman Church had been guilty of Idolatry; would they have inserted this into the Articles, when it was in their power to have left it out? and that the Homilies contained a wholesome and Godly Doctrine, which in their consciences they believed to be false and pernicious? I might as well think that the Council of Trent would have allowed Calvins Institutions, as containing a wholesome and Godly Doctrine; as that men so perswaded would have allowed it the Homily against the Peril of Idolatry. And how is it possible to understand the sense of our Church better, than by such publick and authentick acts of it, which all Persons who are in any place of trust in the Church must subscribe, and d…clare their approbation of them? This Homily hath still continued the same, the Article the very same, and if so they must acknowledge this hath been, and is to this day the sense of our Church. But saith T. C. the subscribing the Book of Homilies, as containing a godly and wholesome Doctrine, doth not evince that every particular Doctrine contained in it is such. Be it so: but I hope it doth evince that the Subscribers did not think the main Doctrine of any one Homily to be false? Surely there is a great deal of difference between some particular passages and expressions in these Homilies, and that which is the main design and Foundation of any one of them. But in this case we are to observe, that they who deny the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry, do not only look on the Charge as false, but as of dangerous Consequence; and therefore although men may subscribe to a Book in general as containing wholesome and godly Doctrine, though they be not so certain of the Truth of every passage in it, yet they can never do it with a good conscience if they believe any great and considerable part of the Doctrine therein contained to be false and dangerous. Such a subscription would be as apparently shuffling and dishonest as is the evasion of this Testimony which T. G. makes use of for want of a better.

I shall in the next place shew the current Doctrine of the Church ever since the Reformation to have been agreeable to this Homily of the Peril of Idolatry. In the Injunctions published by K. Edward VI. A. D. 1547. the extirpation of Popery is called the suppression of Idolatry and Superstition. In the second year of Edward VI. Arch-bishop Cranmer published his Articles of Visitation, whereof the 6. and the last are about the taking away Images, Pictures, and all other Monuments of feigned miracles, Pilgrimages, Idolatry and Superstition. In the second Liturgy by Edward VI. after the Communion, was a Rubrick annexed, in which the Adoration of the Host is expresly called Idolatry. This is that very Rubrick, of which T. G., according to his excellent skill in the offices of our Church,P. 214. saith it is not yet more then a dozen years since it was inserted into the Communion Book; which he might have found above a 100. years before in the Book of Edward VI.

In the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, A. D. 1559. Art. 2. and 23. all Shrines, Tables, Pictures, &c. are commanded to be taken away and destroyed and all other Monuments of feigned miracles, Idolatry and Superstition. And that … may not think it was only a sudden hea… at the first Reformation which made the… charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry, long after in A form of Thanksgiving in the 37. of Queen Elizabeth A. D. 1594. Popery is called that Idolatrous Religion: as it was in the Beginning of her Reign in the excellen… Apology for the Church of England And I desire him, or any one else, … produce any one Bishop or Divine of not… in the Church of England, who during all h…r Reign did deny the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry. But why then was it not inserted in the 39. Articles? in which T. G. observes,P. 19…. the Adoration of Images is not rejected as Idolatry, but only as a fond thing, vainly invented, nor as repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, but as being rather repugnant to the word of God, which plainly gives us to understand, that they had done their endeavours to find a command but could not. A most ingenious Criticism! when himself and all others of their Divines yield that adoration of images, which our Church charges them with, Art. 22. (viz. not barely worshipping but adoration of images) to be Idolatry and plainly repugnant to Scripture. Were the composers of our Articles so sensless as not to think Idolatry repugnant to Scripture; or not to think adoration of images to be Idolatry; or not to think the Church of Rome guilty of it, when the Article saith The Romish Doctrine concerning worshipping and adoration as well of Images as of Reliques, &c? It is not meerly the practice used in the Church of Rome, but their very Doctrine concerning adoration of images which is here charged; and can any Church teach adoration of images and not be guilty of Idolatry? And for his Criticism about being rather repugnant, it had been utterly lost if he had looked into the Latin Articles where the words are, immo verbo Dei contradicit; whereby it appears that rather is not used as a term of diminution, but of a more vehement affirmation.

I now come to the exceptions he takes to the particular Testimonies I produced of the most eminent Bishops and Divines of our Church, ever since the Reformation, who have all concurred in this charge of Idolatry. Two parts in three he excepts against as incompetent witnesses in the case: how few of the Iury would any Malefactor allow if such frivolous exceptions might serve his turn?

The two first he excepts against are the two Arch-Bishops Whitgift and Abbot as Puritanically inclined. But as it unhappily falls out, one of them was never mentioned by me, and the other never till now suspected for a Puritan. The Abbot I mentioned was not George Abbot Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, but Robert Abbot Bishop of Salisbury; and it is the first time we ever heard that a Bishop of Salisbury was suspended from his Metropolitical jurisdiction. But they of the Church of Rome have a faculty of doing greater wonders with five words, than Changing a Bishop into an Arch-Bishop. I hope he understands the Church he is of, better than that he hath left, or else we are like to have a sad account of History from him. But why I beseech you, after all his zeal and indefatigable pains for the Church of England, must Arch-Bishop Whitgift be thrown away to the Puritans? If he had proved T. C. at the same time Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, there might have been some reason to suspect Whitgift to have been of the Puritan side; for all the world know they were grea… adversaries on that very account of th… Puritan cause. But was not Whitgi… for the Lambeth Articles? And wh… then? Are the Dominicans Puritans and no Papists? If your Church may hav… liberty not to determin those nice points why may not ours? and so both parties remain of our Church, as long as they contradict no received Articles among us. But the Lambeth-Articles were neve… intended for any more than as Respons… Prudentum to silence disputes in the university. And I believe none of the Puritan party after that, took Arch-Bishop Whitgift to be a Patron of thei… cause.

But if these will not serve his turn, … have others ready, whom for meer sham… he will not say were Puritans, or Puritanically inclined. And the first of these is an Arch-Bishop too, and that is Arch-Bishop Bancroft; and if he be cast out for a Puritan, surely there never was any Bishop of the Church of England. In his Sermon preached at Pauls Cross on 1 John 4. 1. he hath these words speaking of the Papists.P. 30. The Popish false Prophets will suffer the people to try nothing, but do teach them wholly to depend on them; and to that purpose they have indeed three notable sleights. First they forbid them the reading of the Scriptures. And the better to be obeyed therein they will not permit the Scriptures to be Translated into the Vulgar Tongue. Whereof it came to pass that the people were so easily seduced, and drawn from Christ to the Pope; from his merits to the Saints, and their own merits; from his bloody sacrifice, whereby only sins are remitted, to their most dry and fruitless sacrifice; from the spiritual food of his Body and Blood, unto a carnal and Capernaitical Transubstantiation; from the calling upon his name to an Invocation of Saints: and from their sure trust and confidence in his death to a vain imagination of the vertue of their Masses, Pilgrimages, Pardons, and I know not what intolerable Superstition and Idolatry. I hope Arch-Bishop Bancroft may for once pass for no Puritan with T. G. But what will he say, if the only persons he produces as most partial of his side, do give in evidence against him? Bishop Mountague is the first, whose words are these in the Book cited by him. Appeal p. 263.Our predecessors and Fathers coming late out of Popery, living near unto Papists and Popish times, conversing with them, having been nuzzled and brought up amongst them and knowing that Images used to be crept unto, incensed, worshipped, and adored among them, &c. What thinks he, is not this all one as to charge them with Idolatry? And more plainly in his former Book,Answer to the Gagg. p. 319. But whatsoever you say, however you qualify the thing with gentle words, we say in your practice you far exceed; and give them that honour which is Latria a part of Divine respect and worship. And afterwards saith, the people go to it with downright adoration, and your new Schools defend that the same respect is due to the representer, as must be given to the representee. So that the Crucifix is to be reverenced with the the self-same honour that Christ Jesus is. Ablasphemy not heard of till Thomas Aquinas set it on foot. Clear these enormities, and others like these, then come and we may talk and soon agree concerning honour and respect unto Reliques or Images of Saints, or Christ; till then we cannot answer it unto our Maker, to give his honour unto a Creature. His next is Pet. Heylin; And now I hope we have at last hit upon a man far enough from being a Puritan; yet this very Person gives plain evidence against him. For i… his 4th. Sermon on the Tares preached a… White-Hall Ianuary 27. 1638.P. 110. H… hath these words. So it is also in the point of Images, first introduced into the Church for ornament, History, and imitation. Had they staid there it had been well, and no faul… found with them.—But when the Schools began to State it, that the same Veneration was to be afforded to the Type and Prototype, then came the Doctrine to the growth. When and by whom, and where it was first so stated is not easie to determine, and indeed not necessary. It is enough that we behold it in the fruits. And what fruits think you could it bear, but most gross Idolatry, greater than which was never known among the Gentils? Witness their praying not before, but to the Crucifix, and calling on the very Cross, the wooden and material Cross, both to increase their righteousness and remit their sins. And for the Images of the Saints, they that observe with what laborious Pilgrimages, magnificent processions, solemn offerings, and in a word, with what affections, prayers, and humble bendings of the body, they have been and are worshipped in the Church of Rome, might very easily conceive that She was once again relapsed into her ancient Paganism. With much more to the same purpose. His only person remaining, is Mr. Thorndike, a man of excellent Learning and great piety, but if we should grant, that he held some thing singular in this matter; what is that to the constant opinion of our Church? and yet even Mr. Thorndike himself in a paper sent by him … some whom T. G. know's, not long before his death, saith, That, to pray to Saints for those things which only God can give (as all Papist do is by the proper sense of the word… down-right Idolatry. If they say▪ their meaning is by a figure only to desire them to procure their requests of God: How dare any Christian trust his soul with that Church which teaches that which must needs be Idolatry in all that understand not the figure? So that upon the whole matter T. G. cannot produce any on… Person of our Church that hath clearly an… wholly acquitted the Church of Rome from the charge of Idolatry. It seems then … Church hath been made up of Puritans i… T. G's. sense of them. But if these do no… satisfy him what doth he think of the Arch-Bishop and Bishops and Clergy of the Convocation. A. D. 1640. Were … these Puritans too? And yet in the sevent… Canon they have these words. And albeit at the time or Reforming this Church from that gross Superstition of Popery, it was carefully provided that all means should be used to root out of the minds of the people, both the inclination thereto and memory thereof; especially of the Idolatry committed in the Mass, for which cause all Popish Altars were demolished, &c. What can more express the sense of our Church, than the concurrent opinion of Arch-Bishops, Bishops and Clergy of both Provinces met in Convocation? When we see they so lately, charged the Church of Rome with Idolatry.

Let us now consider what exceptions he takes against the other witnesses produced by me. Jewel, Bilson, Davenant, all eminent Bishops of our Church and of great learning, are cast away at once, as incompetent Persons. But why so? Why, saith T. G. they were all excepted against by our late Soveraign K. Charcles I. in his third paper to Henderson. That is a shrewd prejudice indeed to their Authority to be rejected by a Prince of so excellent a judgement and so Cordial a friend to the Church of England. But it is good to be sure whether it be so or no. All that he saith of Bishop Iewel is this, and though I much reverence Bishop Iewel's memory, I never thought him infallible. So then, he must he Puritanically inclined; but whence does that follow? not surely from the Kings reverencing his memory, for that were to reflect upon the King himself; not from his not thinking him Infallible. For I dare say, the King never thought the Pope infallible; must be needs therefore think him a Puritan? Surely never man was such a Friend to the Puritans as this T. G. who without any ground gives them away some of the greatest honours of our Church, and (if the Testimony last cited be of any force to prove one a Puritan,) all mankind, and himself too: for I plainly perceive by this Preface that he is not infallible. Yet for all this we will not let go Jewel, no nor Bilson, Davenant, White, Usher, Downam, what ever T. G. saith against them. Indeed K. Charles excepts against Bilson for his Principles of civil Government, but not a word of his disaffection to the Church of England: For Bishop Davenant, the King saith he is none of those to whom he appealed, or would submit unto, and with very good reason, for the King had appealed to the practice of the primitive Church, and the Universal consent of Fathers; therefore Bishop Davenant was a Puritan. It seems they have been all Puritans since the Primitive times; and I hope the Church of Rome then hath good store of them, for that is far enough from the Fathers or the Primitive Church. But how comes Bishop White in for a Puritan, being so great a Friend of Arch-Bishop Laud; why, forsooth, Heylin reports that for licensing Bishop Mountagu's Appello Caesarem, it was said, that White was turned Black. And canst thou for thy heart, good Reader, expect a more pregnant proof? It was a notable saying, and it is great pity, the Historian did not preserve the memory of the Author of it; but by whom was it said? that must be supposed by the Puritans; and could none but they be the Authors of so witty a saying? But suppose they were the Puritans that said it? it is plain then, they thought him no sound Puritan, for they hold no falling from Grace. All then that can be inferred from this witty saying is, that White sunk in his esteem among them by this Act. And is it not possible for them to have an esteem for those who are not of their own Party? Concerning Arch-Bishop Usher, Dr. Heylin was known to be too much his enemy, to be allowed to give a Character of him: and his name will not want a due veneration as long as Learning and piety have any esteem among us.

But he is most troubled what to do with six that remain, viz. King James, Bishop Andrews, Arch-Bishop Laud, Isaac Casaubon, Doct. Field, and Doct. Jackson; these he could not for shame fasten the name of Puritans upon (as he doth with scorn on Bishop Downam, Reynolds, Whitaker, and Fulk; whose testimonies I said to prevent cavils, I need not to produce although they are all capable of sufficient vindication.) For King James, he saith, that in the place cited by me he saith expresly, that what he condemns is adoring of Images, praying to them, and imagining a kind of Sanctity in them, all which are detested by Catholicks. Was ever man put to such miserable shifts? Are not these King James his words. But for worshipping either them, (Reliques) or Images, I must account it damnable Idolatry. And doth not King James a little after take off their distinctions and evasions in these words, and they worship (forsooth) the Images of things in Being, and the Image of the true God. But Scripture forbiddeth to worship the Image of any thing that God created. Yea the Image of God himself is not only expresly forbidden to be worshipped but even to be made. Let them therefore that maintain this doctrine, answer it to Christ at the latter day, when he shall accuse them of Idolatry; And then I doubt if he will be paid with such nice Sophistical distinctions. Is all this nothing but to charge them with such practices which they detest? Doth he not mention their Doctrine, and their distinctions? Did not King James understand what he said, and what they did? It is plain he charges them with Idolatry in what they did, which was that I brought his Testimony for. The like answer he gives to the rest of them, viz. that they charged them, with what they thought they did, but the Papists deny that they do any such thing: i. e. in plain Terms, they charge them with Idolatry, but the Papists deny they commit it. And so they do when I charge them with it; so that T. G. by the very same reason might have acquitted me from charging them with it, and have spared his Book. Is not this now an Admirable way of proving, that they do not charge them with Idolatry, because the Papists deny they commit it? Who meddles with what they profess they do, or do not? I was to shew what these Persons charged them with. And do any of these excuse them by saying any doctrine of theirs was contrary to these particulars? do they not expresly set themselves to disprove their distinctions upon which their doctrine is founded? and shew the vanity of them because their open and allowed practices do plainly contradict them; and shew that they do give divine honour to Images however in words they deny it. But this way of defending them is, as if those whom St. Paul charges that they professed that they knew God but in works they denied him, should reply to him, how can we deny him in our Works, since we profess him in our Words? Iust so saith T. G. how can they be charged with Idolatry, since they profess to do no such thing? A… though such persons, as those I mentioned, did not understand both what the Papists said for themselves and what they did notwithstanding. And now I joy… with T. G. in desiring the Reader may be judge between us, whether I have betrayed my trust in pretending to defend the Church of England; and whether in charging the Church of Rome with Idolatry I have contradicted the sense of it? since I have made it appear that her most true and Genuin sons, the most remote from all suspicion of disaffection to her, or inclination to Puritanism, have concurred in the same charge which I undertook to make good.

But there is one blow yet remaining in his Preface, which I must endeavour to ward off, otherwise it will be a terrible one to the Church of England; for by this charge of Idolatry, he makes me to subvert the very foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority in it. This it is to charge home. For, saith he, it being a received Maxime and not being denyable by any man of common sense, that no man can give to another that which he hath not himself, it lies open to the Conscience of every man, that if the Church of Rome be guilty of Heresie, much more if guilty of Idolatry, it falls under the Apostles excommunication. (Gal. 1. 8.) and so remains deprived of the Lawful Authority to use and exercise the power of Orders; and consequently the Authority of Governing, preaching and Administring the Sacraments, which those of the Church of England challenge to themselves, as deriv'd from the Church of Rome, can be no true and lawful Jurisdiction, but usurped and Anti-Christian. And so farewel to the Church of England, if the Church of Rome were not more kind in this case than T. G. is. Hitherto we have seen his skill in the affairs of our Church, and now we shall see just as much in the Doctrine of his own. For doth not the Council of Trent make Orders a Sacrament? and one of those which doth imprint an indelible character? Concil. Trident. sess. 7. can. 9. sess. 23. can. 4.and doth not that Council pronounce an Anathema against those, that denyed the validity of the Sacrament administred by one in mortal sin, in case he observes the essentials of it▪ How then can T. G▪ …scape excommunication from his own Church, that denies the validity of the Sacrament of Orders in case of the sin of the Givers of it? If the validity of the Sacrament doth not d…pend on the worth or quality of the Ministers of it but upon the essentials and the institution of Christ, how can the fault of the persons hinder the conveyance of that Authority, which they are only the bare instruments to convey? Doth T. G. think so in all other Sacraments? as in case of Baptism; that supposing the Ministers of it have been guilty of Heresie or Idolatry, the Sacrament loses its effect? Well fare then the Donatists, whose opinion this was, and in whom it hath been condemned by the Church. If it be not so in other Sacraments how comes it to be thus in Orders? which he must acknowledge, to be as much a Sacrament as Baptism; or else he must renounce the Council of Trent. And it is observable, that the very argument used by the Donatists and others, was the same which T. G. here produces, viz. his common maxim of Reason, and not denyable by any man of common sense that no man can give to another, that which he hath not himself; to which this answer was given, that the Instrument was not the giver, V. Vasquez. in 3. p. Thom. disp. 137. c. 3. n. 20.but the first Institutor, and in case the Minister keep to the Institution, the Grace of the Sacrament may be conveyed by him though he hath it not himself.

But, methinks, if T. G. had forgotten the Doctrine of the Council of Trent, he might have looked into some one or other of their own Authors to have informed himself better of their Doctrine in this matter. Vasquez hath a Chapter on purpose to prove that an Heretical, excommunicated, suspended Bishop is a sufficient Minister of Ordination;Vasquez. in 3. p Th. disp. 243. c. 1. and saith that all the Schoolmen and Summists are agreed in it, and that there can be no doubt at all made of it. And did none of these men understand the principle that is undenyable by any man of common sense? what a back-blow is this to those of his own Church? for Vasquez saith this is determined as a matter of faith among them, that the validity of a Sacrament doth not depend on the probity or faith of the Minister. And he denies it to be in the power of the Church to hinder the effect of ordination in an excommunicated Bishop, because it cannot blot out his Character, or take away his power. Estius saith, Est. in Sente…t. l. 4. disti. 25. sect. 3.that no Crime how great soever, whether haeresie, Schism, or Apostasie, no censure how heavy soever, as excommunication, can hinder the validity of ordination by a Bishop, although it be of those who are not subject to his jurisdiction, in case he observes the lawful rites of ordination as to the essence of the Sacrament; for this reason, because ordination belongs to the power of Order, which being once received can never be lost; but those things which belong to Jurisdiction, as absolution and excommunication, have no effect, where that Jurisdiction is taken away. And this Doctrine they all ground upon St Augustins discourse against the Donatists;Aug. …l. 2. c. Epist. Pa…ca. c. 13. 17. c. Donat. l 1. c. 1. l. 3 c. 1…. and upon the practice of the Church at that time which did receive those who were ordained among the Donatists, without scrupling their Orders; as not only appears by the testimony of St. Augustin but by the decree of an African Council to that purpose; Aug. E…ist. 50. Epist. 162. c. c…ss. l. 2. c. 11. 12.and that not only at first, but when the Schism was Grown inveterate. Co…ex Ca…. Eccles. A…ic. c. 63.And yet Francis Hallier a late Doctor of the Sorbon, tells us, Apud. Ba… samon. Et Zonar. …. 71.that the Donatists were not barely Schismaticks,Hallier de ordi…. sacris. p. 2. Sect. 4. c. 5. ss. 1. n. 4. but they were adjudged hereticks, for asserting that the efficacy of Sacraments did depend upon the quality of the persons, and not upon the merits of Christ. The same Author vehemently disputes against those, who assert that the power of Order can be lost by the sin of the person, and shews that Doctrine hath been condemned by several Councils before that of Trent; as of Arles,P. 2. sect. 3. c. 2. sect. 5. 6 7. of Orleans and Constance: and undertakes to answer all the instances brought from Antiquity to the contrary; as either understood of such hereticks, Sect. 4. c. 5. s…ct. 1.which did not retain the essentials of the Sacrament or only implying the fault committed in giving or receiving them at the hands of such persons, but not any invalidity in the Sacrament it self. And afterwards he proves that Hereticks are capable of ordination. But if these, and many others of their later Writers will not satisfy him, I desire him to consult their more ancient Authors, To. Aquin. suppl. q. 38. art. 2.Thom. Aquinas determins that Hereticks and those who are cut off from the Church, may give orders as well as administer other Sacraments, the reason he gives is, that a power in Consecration is given to a Bishop, which can never be taken from him, although he will not allow it to be called a Character. For several, especially of the ancient Schoolmen would not have consecration to imprint a new Character; but they were never able to give an intelligible account of what they meant by the Character as distinct from that Sacramental power which was conveyed by consecration and they granted to be indelible as the other was, some making it an extension of the Character of Priesthood, others a bare extrinsecal denomination added to it; but however they held it such as could no more be taken away than the Character of Priesthood.…. l. 4. …ist. 25. q. 2. Cardinal Bonaventure saith, that the validity of Sacraments among Hereticks, was a Question much in dispute among the ancient Doctors, but that it hath been determined by St. Augustin, that they are valid if they preserve the essentials of them: and in the matter of ordination he saith, that the power of Orders, although it be not a distinct Character, yet because it is built upon, it can no more be taken away than the Character it self: but whatever is founded upon Jurisdiction as the power of excommunication and absolution may be taken away. But I need not mention any more particular Writers, since Morinus acknowledges, that for 400. years the opinion of the validity of Orders conferred by Hereticks,Mori…. d… Sacris Ordi…at. pa…. 3. Exercit. 5. c. 1. n. 12 hath only obtained in the Roman Church. Before that time, he proves at large that it was more disputable, as appears by the Master of the Sentences, who accounts it a perplexed and almost insoluble difficulty because of the different opinions of Doctors about it; but afterwards St. Augustins opinion was generally received both among the Schoolmen and Canonists; and is now become a matter of faith in the Roman Church at least by consequence, since the Decrees of Councils. And although Morinus will not allow that any decree of their Church hath passed in this matter, yet he saith, there hath been so long and so universal a consent of Doctors in this point,Exer…it. 5. c. 8. n. 7. that it ought to be instead of a Law, which they ought not to violate. By this we may judge of the learning and skill of T. G. in the Doctrine of his own Church.

But if he would not look into the Controversal Writers of their Church, yet if he had but searched into the practice of the Church either in ancient or modern times he would have been ashamed to have made use of such an Argument to overthrow all Ecclesiastical Authority among us. I grant that in some tumultuous Ages of the Church, Ordinations have been adjudged null through the defaults of the Persons, but then it was meerly for breaking the Canons of the Church; so it was in the case of Formosus, for breaking the Canons against the Translations of Bishops; in the case of Ebbo Arch-Bishop of Rhemes, whose ordinations were nulled by Hincmarus and the Council of Soissons, for not being Canonically restored after deposition but upon appeal to the Pope they were pronounced valid: in the Case of Pope Constantine for precepitating Orders to secure the Popedom; in the famous case of Photius, whose ordination was declared Null by the opposite faction on the same grounds; but all these things were done in troublesome times, when one party sought a pretence against the other. But if we regard the more general practice of the Church, we shall find when far greater objections than these were made, yet Ordinations have been allowed; although made by Hereticks. I shall offer him the fairest terms he can desire, and for the practice of the Church referr him to his own dear second Council of Nice, and the modern practice of the Roman Church. The Question of the validity of Ordination by Hereticks was at large debated in the first action of the second Council of Nice, upon the submission of Basilius, Theodorus, and Theodosius, Hypatius and others who had been Bishops of the opposite party, which John the Vicar of the Orient there declared to be worse than any former heresie: upon which the Question was proposed, whether upon renouncing their heresie they might be received as Bishops, and the orders be allowed of those who were ordained by them during their Heresie? Hypatius appealed to the custom of the Church; then the Canons of Councils and writings of the Fathers were brought into Council: Tarasius produced the Canon of the Council of Nice, allowing the Ordinations of the Cathari, and the imposition of hands there mentioned he understands only for benediction, and not for ordination: and the Council of Ephesus making no distinction between those ordained by Nestorians and others; (for therein the force of that third Canon must lye which Tarasius thought so plain) from St. Basil, allowing those Bishops which communicated with Isoes or Zoius and Saturninus; from the Council of Ephesus allowing the Orders of the Messaliani or Euchitae; from the Council of Chalcedon allowing the Bishops upon their repentance, which had joyned with Dioscorus: and more particularly, for those which had been ordained by Heretical Bishops, it was there shewed, that Anatolius the President of the fourth Council was ordained by Dioscorus in the presence of Eutyches; that John Bishop of Hierusalem after he had renounced the Acephalists by whom he was ordained, was received and submitted to as Bishop by the Orthodox; that many of those who sat in the sixth Council were ordained by Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, and Petrus, who were in that Council declared to be Hereticks; and for 50. years together Tarasius saith, they had no other ordinations: upon these evidences of the practice of the Church, this Council of Nice declared likewise, that the ordination of Heretical Bishops was valid.

For the modern practice of the Church of Rome, I appeal to the allowance therein given to the Ordinations of the Greek Church, although the Greek Church be charged with Heresie; and that ever since the notorious Schism in the time of Michael Cerularius A. D. 1053. In the time of Innocent the third some Greek Clergy-men living in the Dioceses of Latin Bishops, yet received ordination from Greek Bishops, which made the Latin Bishops suspend them from the execution of their Office, the Pope, hearing of it, sends to his Legat, wherein he consents to the suspension in case it were done without leave from the Latin Bishop; but if leave were obtained he takes off the suspension;Extra…. de temp. …. C. quod Trasl. because this custom is allowed in the Church▪ I need not produce more particular instances in this kind,Morin. de sacris ordinat. part. 1. c. 3. 4. 5. which may be seen at large in Morinus; because in all the attempts of reconciliation in the several Councils held to that purpose, as at Lyons, and Florence, where all the matters in difference were most fully handed, there was never any objection made to the Greek Ordinations. But most remarkable to this purpose is the Bull of Clement the seventh containing in it a former Bull of Leo the tenth,Leo Allatius de aetat: Et inte…st. in collat: Ordin. p. 5. 14. Isaaac. Habert. Po… tifical. published by Leo Allatius, by Isaacius Habertus, and by Morinus, wherein their Ordinations and other rites and customs are expresly allowed. And to this day saith Morinus they are allowed in Rome not only to perform other parts of divine service according to their customs in the Church of St. Athanasius,Graec. in praef. but to ordain Priests after their own manner; Morin. de Sacris Ordin. p. 1. c. 4.for which they had a Bull of Urban the eighth.

And now I desire T. G. to consider a little his undeniable maxim, that no man can give to another that which he hath not himself, whether he doth in earnest think that his own Church is so bereft of all common sense, as not to understand the force of this Maxim? and if it thought it of any weight in this matter, how it could ever approve the Ordinations of Hereticks, or decree that the Sacraments retain their efficacy, where the essentials of them are observed, whatever the faith or manners of the Instruments be?

And this was all I intended in this Preface; of the rest of his Book, the Reader may expect an account as God gives health and opportunity.