SOME MORE CONSIDERATIONS Proving the UNREASONABLENESS OF THE ROMANISTS IN Requiring us to Return TO THE COMMUNION of the Present Romish-Church. By William Squire.

LONDON, Printed for Simon Neale at the Sign of the three Pigeons in Bedford-street in Co­vent-Garden. MDCLXXIV.

To the Honourable Sir Robert Shirley Baronet.

Sir,

MAny Reasons induce me to Dedicate these Pa­pers to you, your own personal worth, your obliging carriage, and great civilities to all who are honoured with your ac­quaintance: But chiefly your zeal for Religion and Hereditary affection to the Church of Eng­land.

Sir, the restless indeavours of [Page] the Romanists to reduce us to their Communion, call'd me into the Field; what ever my abilities are, I thought it my duty to con­tend for the Truth, at least to Alarm others, that they may oppose the incroaching Enemy. If the Romanists were busie in gaining Proselytes, I saw no rea­son why we should sit still; when they were using their Swords, it would be no prudence to keep ours in the Scabbard; if we judge our Cause good, it would be our shame to betray it by our silence, and we could never answer it be­fore God or our own Consci­ences, if we were not as zealous to oppose error, as they are to maintain it, and shew'd not as much care to weed up the Tares, [Page] as they do to sow them. On this ground I have publish'd some more Considerations to stay the wavering and prevent the ba [...] sliding of the Weak, by shewing the unreasonableness of the Ro­manists in requiring our Com­munion with the present Romish Church. And now my judge­ment as well as affection prompts me to beg your Patronage of this Work, as being one whom I knew to be a true friend of the Protestant Clergy and a Patron of the Church, one that loved his Religion as well as profest it, and, which will be your com­fort as well as credit, that ho­noured his Profession by con­stant exercise of Devotion, and a good Conversation.

Sir, The continuance of your Health and Life, with the abun­dance of all Spiritual and Tem­poral blessings, is the hearty Prayer of

Your most unfeign­ed and faithful Servant, W. Squire.
March 13. 1672.

THE PREFACE.

SInce the Reformation from Popery, the Romish Party hath left no Stone unturned to reduce us to their Er­rors. There hath been wanting neither industry nor cunning to promote their Cause; they compass Sea and Land [Page] to make Proselytes; we meet with them in City and Country, in publick and pri­vate; whereever discontents or weakness, ignorance or unconstancy gives them an opportunity, they are seldome absent: we hear of them with the Siek in his Bed­chamber, with the Prisoner in the Jayl, with the Condemned at the Gallows, eve­ry where they are busie to reconcile men to the Romish Church. What number of Converts they have gained, I matter not to inquire; for neither is their Cause much credited, nor ours much impaired by many of them; it matters not what mens profession is, if their practice be not answerable, and when men have been loose Protestants, the Romanists gain lit­tle, if they become loose Papists: if the principal reason of their conversion was Conscience, and not design, I should expect to find them as well reformed in their lives, as in their Judgments. He that seri­ously designs the saving of his Soul, would as equally leave his debauch'd courses as some erroneous opinions, for those do as much, or more than these, occasion his damnation. [Page] But when men are as bad as they were, I rather think that they take Popery for the easier way to enjoy their sins here, and be saved hereafter. If these be the good Ca­tholicks, who are hardly true Christians, I envy them not such Converts: he that lives an Atheist, we lose not much if he turn Papist: he that understands little of any Religion, cannot much brag that he is of the Romish, nor can he be said to change his Religion, that really never had any: we cannot say they went out from us, for they were not of us; if they neither cared to understand the ground of our Religion, nor to practise the duties: if they minded their pleasure more than their devotion, and were indifferent in the exercise of that which they profest to be the truth, I cannot believe they were ever ours; and if they be no better, 'tis no great ground for a Triumph to call them theirs: 'tis a poor conquest to lead captive a silly woman laden with divers Lusts, to perswade some discontented per­son to throw off his Religion in an anger at his Fortunes, to gain some humourist who [Page] loves a Fashion by himself, and turns a Papist to be thought some body: or some ignorant person, who troubles himself with no more Religion than the Collier, to be­lieve what the Church believes, and yet what the Church believes he knows not: should they have more such Converts, they may serve to increase their number, but they will hardly credit their Cause. If there be any serious understanding person, that (as he saith) out of a principle of Con­science, and love of Truth, and desire of Salvation entertains any favourable thoughts of the Romish Party, I would have him weigh impartially the true reasons of our differences, and the substantial grounds of our refusal to joyn with the pre­sent Romish Church. We put it to this issue, whether every Doctrine which their late Council of Trent declares to be de fi­de, and which must be acknowledged for the Catholick Faith without which there is no Salvation, be a Divine Truth delivered by Christ or his Apostles? For if there be any thing required to be believed, it must be evident that it was first reveal­ed, [Page] and if it cannot be made evident to us that it was revealed, then we have no reason to believe it is Gods Word; and if we have no reason to believe it is so, then if we profess that it is so, we bely God, we add to his Word, and we publish for Doctrine, what (for ought we know) are the Commandements of Men. If you will have communion with the Romish Church, then (say they) you must believe these things, and he that errs in any one Do­ctrine cannot believe truly the rest, he doth lose all Catholik Faith Charity m [...]i [...]tain­ed by Ca­tho [...]. ch 6. s [...]ct. 29.. 'Tis not e­nough to judge them probable, or that they may be piously believed; but you must be­lieve them as necessary Articles of Faith, and profess them to be such. But now we desire this may be weighed impartially, whether those Doctrines which are their Additions to the Creed, and must be be­lieved on pain of Damnation, have this evidence or no? If they have not this evidence, then we have no reason to believe them, and by consequence are safe with­out the belief of them; if they have this evidence, then let us see it; if they have not [Page] this evidence, then at best they are un­certain and doubtful, founded on meer conjecture which cannot oblige us to a ra­tional assent: If they have this evidence, and will produce it, then we shall see either that we are obliged to assent, if the evidence, be sufficient or else that we are not in fault, if the evidence upon se­rious examination appear insufficient. He that imposes any thing on another Mans belief, must first prove what he re­quires to be believed, and till that be done, no man can be blamed for his dissent, where he sees no reason to assent. We bid none shut their eyes against the light, or oppose that which appears to be truth, but let them prove as clearly as they af­firm strongly, and no man that loves truth will think it any disparagement to re­tract an error. We confess 'tis more in­genuous to confess and amend a fault than persist in it; but then he that would per­swade another to amend a fault, must first prove it to be a fault, and till that be done, God will impute our mistakes (if we do erre) to the weakness of our un­derstandings, not any pravity of our Wills. [Page] Many of the Doctrines which the Roma­nists impose on us, they tell us are not clear in Scripture without their Churches interpretation, unless the Church by the Spirit of Truth explains those things which were before obscure in Scripture; so saith Canus, (i. e.) in effect to say, we [...]. Cem. l. 3. e. 3. su [...]d [...]m. 2. cannot convince you out of Scripture, the Text is obscure, unless you will be­lieve our interpretation, and then 'tis clear; we can give you no sufficient ground to believe, that this is the meaning of the place, but you must believe that is the meaning which we say is the meaning, though we do like the Gloss interpret sta­tuimus by abrogamus, though the words will not bear that sense which we put up­on them. Thus we must renounce our own judgements, and believe they have an immediate revelation of the meaning of many places in Scripture, or else fare­well many of those Articles of Faith with­out which there is no Salvation. Again, many of these Doctrines (they say) are Traditions delivered down from the A­postles, and have been constantly held in [Page] their Church, but this is still to resolve all into their own affirmation, they for­sooth, must be the Keepers of this Tradi­tion: if we would know what was deli­vered by the Apostles, we must not con­sult the writings of the Primitive Times, but the Testimony of the present Church; which is in effect to say, all is Traditi­on what they call Tradition, and we must believe it, because they say it. And is not this strange that when we question these Doctrines which they impose on us as Articles of Faith, and the law­fulness of many Rites and Ceremonies which they pretend are derived from A­postolical Tradition, that yet we must be content with this proof? There is lit­tle for it in Scripture, the Places are obscure, but believe their Interpretati­on, and then it is proved enough. There is little appearance of these Apostolical Traditions, but believe their words and then you are sure: Grant them this manner of proof, and all is done. Put out our own Eyes, renounce our Judg­ments, take all they say upon Trust, [Page] believe all they require of us, and then we may soon turn Papists: But if no Party of Men can require any thing to be believed as necessary to Salvation without the evidence of a Revelation from God, and whoever requires any thing to be believed under pretence of a Revelation; must give some convin­cing Proof, that this thing was reveal­ed; if the Council declare an Article to be de fide, there must then be some proof that it was revealed: but till these Doctrines which they require us to be­lieve; are proved to be from God, and that by a better argument than the bare testimony of the Imposer; we have no reason to receive their Additions: Till we see on what ground the Coun­cil decreed these Doctrines to be belie­ved, and whether those Arguments by which they were convinced, were a sufficient ground for their Decree, we have no reason to believe these Additi­ons to the Creed. Others tell us we need look no further, than the Practice of the present Church, for either it [Page] hath been so constantly practised from the Apostles times, or else there must be some Age, which either might not know what was delivered in the Age immediately foregoing, or else did wil­fully resolve to deceive their Posterity, in telling them that some thing they had received of their Forefathers which yet they had not received: and either of these things they think absurd to imagine. We are told that by their way of conveying down their Doctrines by living Voice and Practice of the Church, (i. e.) by Catechising, publick Preaching, private discoursing, and con­sonant living, 'tis made so manifest to the generality what was held in each year immediately before, that no pre­judice can make them all so mad as ei­ther to mistake or misinterpret it: So saith I. S. Raillery against Reason Disc. 16. pag. 152. And then still we must take their words for true, and believe be­cause they say it. I question whether they do not impose an Error, they tell me they do not, because they have alwayes taught so: but why must I be­lieve [Page] they have alwayes taught so? they tell me, because else there must be some Age in which they could not tell what had been taught them, or else that they would wilfully deceive those that followed them: But so long as I see that Errors may creep in by degrees, and de facto usually do so, why should I trouble my self whether they were de­ceived themselves first, or did wilfully deceive others? Plausible discourses sig­nifie nothing against evidence of Fact. The Council of Trent acknowledges that in the Celebration of the Mass many things had cropt in sive temporum vitio, sive hominum incuria & improbitate, Sess. 22. Decr. de observ. & evitand. quae a tanti sacrificii dignitate aliena sunt, whether by the fault of the times, or the negligence and perversness of men, which were far from the dignity of that sacrifice, and therefore bids the Bishops to take away those things which either Covetousness or Irreverence, or Superstition (falsa imitatrix verae pie­tatis) had brought in: and now shall I say that no abuses could come into the [Page] celebration of the Mass, because men could not be ignorant what was the custome of their immediate Predecessors, nor can be thought wilfully to impose on their Successors? when the Council confesses there are abuses, yea, and crept into that daily Sacrifice, which they esteem with the highest veneration and respect; and these also brought in under a pre­tence of Piety, and therefore less obser­ved: But now if there were abuses crept into the Mass, abuses in Indulgences through Superstition, Ignorance or Irre­verence Sess. 25. Decr de Indulgent., if there might this sensible alteration happen in the Practice of the Church, I see no reason why there might not as well creep in an altera­tion in the Doctrine, and by degrees erro­neous Opinions steal in to justifie those erroneous Practices. 'Tis then not enough to pretend the present Practice of the Church, unless we were first assured that it neither hath nor could practise otherwise, than it first received from Christ and his Apostles. If they prove the Doctrines they require us to believe [Page] have been delivered by Christ and his Apostle, then we are bound to receive them; otherwise their present practice is no warrant for us to believe these Additions: If they bring convincing ar­guments to satisfie our Judgements of the truth of these things, then to disbe­lieve these Doctrines would be our Sin, and not to return to their Communion would be our Crime. We put it to this issue; Since they would have us believe many things which we cannot find in the Scripture, nor in the Times immedi­ately succeeding the Apostles; let them prove them: The Decrees of their Councils move us not any more than the Te­stimonies of men in their own Cause. Their expositions of doubtful places, we look upon as their own conjectures; their pretended Traditions are nothing to us, they may be Records of their own ma­king, at best they are in their keeping, and whether they be true or false, cor­rupted or no they bring us no other proof than the Testimony of them who are Parties themselves: we have [Page] learnt to call no man on earth, Master, or take that for Gospel, which any Sect, or Party of Men under what name so­ever impose on us. Let them prove what they require us to believe, and though we have erred we will not be Hereticks. Instead of these Arguments we meet with other dealing from the Romish Party, we meet with many plausible insinuations, arguments rather fitted to inveigle ignorant persons, or those who have neither leisure nor abi­lity to dive into the differences betwixt us, than to convince understanding mens arguments, which are more suited to the fancy than the reason, and sometimes such which may be suited to any Religi­on, to the Mahometan as well as Christian, yea which assoon may make us of no Religion, as of any. I will give you a tast of those tricks and crafty insinuati­ons whereby they beguile some unstable men. They tell them that we are Pro­testants in policy more than conscience, that were it not for our preferments, for our Livings and our Wives, we [Page] would soon turn Papists. That we choose one Religion to live in, another to dye in, and therefore though we live Prote­stants, yet we commonly dye Papists: there is one I. S. that in a Treatise call'd An Invitation to seek the Lord, &c. c. 21. saith so. They tell them, that we never read their Authors, or know what their Doctrine is from their Writers, but, take all on trust, and se­cond hand from our own, and that none who read their Books can continue Pro­testants. If we write against their Er­rors, they tell them, that we do it not for love of Truth, but for Applause and Credit, for Profit and Preferment. There is one I. S. that saith so. As if none were zealous Protestants, but meer Politicians. Sometimes they pretend, that we fasten many Doctrines on them which they do not own, and forge Stories to make them odious, and never answer their Arguments but with Scoffs and Jeers. By these Insi­nuations they make way for themselves among weaker People. And when they [Page] have gained so far credit to their Sto­ries, that the English Clergy are Men of no Conscience nor learning; but meerly keep up the difference for Tem­poral Advantage; then they represent themselves as the only Lovers of Truth, the only Mortified Persons; the only Friends to Religion, who are zealous to Propagate it with their utmost Pains, and seal it with their Blood. They have so many Confessors, so many Martyrs, they can reckon up so many Saints: Whereas among Protestants saith Rush­worth, he knew many honest Men, but never any whom themselves call [...]d holy Men. That in the Romish Church there is nothing but Fasting and Watch­ing, severe Penances and Mortificati­ons; Whippings and Scourgings, &c. Whereas the Protestants Preach up the Flesh, Idleness and Pleasures: Preach down good Works and cry up only Faith; Preach only an hatred of Sin out of Fear of Hell, not out of Love to God, &c. As for their Priests they brag of De­monstrations, Absolute Certainty and [Page] Infallibility, Sure and Certain Princi­ples, whereas Protestancy is without Principles, they have no Infallible Teachers, and therefore do not believe infallibly, and therefore are uncertain of the Truth of what they believe; at best their Religion is founded on proba­bilities, and they have no assurance, but a moral certainty.

The Romish Party cry up the Church, The Church, as the Jews did the Tem­ple, The Temple. Their Church is Noah's Ark, and who ever will scape the Flood must come into it: Theirs is the Ca­tholick Church which is profest in the Creed, we are but Hereticks, Schisma­ticks, without Faith, without Charity. And therefore either we must turn or be damned. With such Arguments they assault many, and no wonder if Paper Pellets knock down some weak Persons; those that have not Time nor Brains to weigh solid Arguments, may be easily cozened with superficial, and a petty fallacy may seem a Demonstration: Hard words and great confidence may [Page] puzle many, and some easie natures may perhaps suspect them to be in the right, because they pretend they can­not be in the wrong. Many think it the easier task to choose their Guide than their Religion, and they'l rather fol­low where others lead them, than seek the way themselves. Some leave our Communion because we damn not all in the Romish, thus making our Cha­rity a pretence for their Errors; if we in pity of their ignorance, or con­sideration of their general Repentance, hope that God may have mercy on any in that Communion, this presently must be construed for a Confession that the Romish Religion is the safe way to Sal­vation, and our kindness to some well­meaning Persons must be used as an Argument to perswade unstable People, that we acknowledge theirs to be the Truth. When I considered these and such like poor Arguments by which many are deluded, I could not think that I could do more service to the Church, than by pressing the unreasonableness [Page] of the Romanists requiring us to return to the Communion of the Romish Church. He that thinks that he is bound to leave the Communion of the English, for the Communion of the Romish Church, must consider, whether is the likelier way to Salvation: If a man may be saved that doth continue in the English Church, and there is no danger by his con­tinuance in it; then 'tis no necessity for him to desert the Communion of it: and if he cannot be saved in that Communion, but must return to the Romish Church, then he must consider what is the necessary condition of Communion with it, and that is the Profession of those Doctrines which it requires to be believed as necessary to Salvation, and the publick allowance of the general practices in it: and if there be not sufficient reason to oblige us to profess that Doctrine it requires to be believed, and to allow its practices, then there is sufficient reason to excuse our dissent from the Romish Communion. These grounds I have in the former part [Page] considered, and shew'd that there are some Articles which by the Creed of Pius the fourth we are bound to pro­fess, which are so far from being de side, that they are uncertain and doubt­ful, and the grounds on which they build these Doctrines wholly perplexed and obscure, and that many of them since the Council of Trent have been forced to acknowledg it. I have in­stanced in four Articles (i. e.) in that Article, that the Holy Catholick Aposto­lick Roman Church, is the Mother and Mistris of all Churches: In the Article of Transubstantiation, of Invocation of Saints, and of Indulgences: I have also instanced in the Profession which they make, that they do most firmly admit and embrace the Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions, and other ob­servations of that Church: And it's declared by the Council, that the Church hath used in the Sacrifice of the Mass Ceremonies, as Mystical Blessings, Lights, Incense, Garments, &c. from Apostoli­cal Discipline and Tradition: And [Page] have shewed that for many of these things, at best, there is no certain ground that they were delivered to the Church by the Apostles; and for others of those pretended Traditions they are vain, foolish, and cannot be excused from all Superstition. I have instanced also in many falsities and untruths in their Prayers, in many impieties in their publick Offices, ascribing too much to the Creature, and derogating from the honour of Christ. Lastly, I have shew'd that many Prayers which have been an­ciently used in their Church are irre­concileable with the grounds of some present Doctrines, and therefore these Doctrines appear plain Innovations. I shall now pursue some other Arguments from the uncertainty of some Doctrines, which they require under pain of dam­nation to be believed and professed: from the opposition betwixt their Pray­ers yet retained, and their publick Do­ctrines and Practices: the inconsisten­cy of their Doctrine with the welfare [Page] and security of civil Societies: And I shall also add these considerations, That the Protestants in many Doctrines now controverted betwixt them and the Ro­mish Church, take that way which ac­cording to the Romish grounds is the safest. But that those Doctrines and Practices in which the Romanists dif­fer from us, plainly tend to the ad­vancement of their Clergy and the sub­jection of the Laity to the power of their Priests: and if Men will impar­tially weigh them, appear not to be the fruits of true Piety, but of Covetous­ness and Ambition. And now though some notwithstanding the cogency of our Arguments change their Religion, yet still our cause is the same. Though some Straglers be cut off, yet the day is not lost. If any do desert the Communion of the Church of England, I pity their weakness, and pray that they may be convinced of their Error, and brought back to the acknowledgement of the Truth; and shall indeavor to satisfie [Page] others, as I am satisfied my self, That it is unreasonable for the Romanists to require us to joyn in the Communion of the present Romish Church.

CHAP. I.

I Draw my first conside­ration from the incon­sistency of many of their doctrines with the secu­rity of civil societies. When I consider some doctrines defined, and others publickly maintained by the greatest part in that Church, I cannot see that any civil so­cieties can be secure; at least the peace of any Nation and security of the Ci­vil Government, (where such doctrines are avowed,) must needs stand on a sandy foundation. And this even those Princes who adhere to the Romish Church, are in their differences with the Popes sensible of; and therefore they give the Clergy in those cases leave to [Page 2] talk, but they do what they see is ne­cessary for the support of their Civil State: and decry these opinions as ab­solutely inconsistent with the security and safety of their Kingdoms.

1. I instance in the Doctrine of the Popes power. If we suppose in a Nati­on any absolute uncontroulable power di­stinct from the civil, 'tis impossible to preserve that Nation without constant jars, and quarrels: there must needs be perpetual clashings of jurisdictions, and incroachments one upon another: either power will determine what belongs to its cognizance, and perhaps the one may challenge what really belongs to the other; and while either jurisdiction vin­dicates its own rights, the people are di­stracted in their obedience and the peace of the Nation shaken. 'Tis easily ob­servable that the Papal power hath pre­tended many things to belong to Eccle­siastical jurisdiction which really belong to the Civil. I see no reason why Usu­ry should be more a spiritual crime than Robbery, or why Fornication and Adul­tery are more of Ecclesiastical cogni­zance, [Page 3] than Assaults and Batteries: and therefore though these causes as many other may be determined by the Clergy, as well as Laity, where the Prince plea­ses, as he may appoint several Courts for the audience of several Causes: but now the Papal power hath pretended many things to be of Ecclesiastical cog­nizance, which properly in themselves are not, and hath published several Laws about them, and excommunicates those who shall intermeddle with any of these causes, praeter juris Canonici dispo­sitionem, besides the appointment of the Cannon Law; so that either the Civil Power must exclude it self from what­ever the Popes challenge to belong to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, or if the Ci­vil Magistrate stand upon his right, there must needs follow constant jars and con­fusions. If the Pope may require the people for the redemption of their souls to visit the Holy Land, or personally to fight against the enemies of the Christi­an Faith, and if the King by the te­nure of their Lands may at the same time oblige them personally to assist in [Page 4] his wars, here must needs follow distra­ctions, and disturbances: if they go to the Holy Land they are liable to the forfeiture of their estates at home; if they tarry to assist their Prince, liable to excommunication for not obeying the Pope: either they must please two Ma­sters, which if their commands be con­trary, will prove impossible; or if they do not obey, then they are exposed to indure the punishment, which the of­fended power can inflict. If the Pope require a tax for his Wars, as Gregory the ninth for his against Frederick, and he had so great an one from the Clergy, that they were forced to sell or pawn the very Vessels of the Altar to pay it, as we are informed by Matthew Paris: Hist. ma­jor anno 1229. And if the King command one at the same time, under what poverty and mi­sery must a Nation groan? Or suppose the Pope require from the Clergy resi­dent a third part of their goods, and from the Nonresidents a moity, and the King forbid the payment, which case did happen as Matthew Paris Hist. ma­jo [...] anno 1 [...]46. relates, how miserably may the people be di­stracted [Page 5] by these contrary commands? And yet this is but the natural sequel of two equal distinct powers. Our Histo­rians tell us enough of the Popes acti­ons under weak Princes, when their troubles at home made them unable to resist the Popes incroachments: I'le in­stance in two passages one out of Mat­thew Hist. ma­jor an [...]o 1241. Paris, when Otho the Legate de­parted home, there was not left so much mony in England, excepting the Vessels of the Altars and the Ornaments of Churches, as he had extorted from this Kingdom: another out of Thomas Wal [...]ingham Hist. Ric. 2. anno 1381. that when Cardinal Pilous left England, he carried so great a sum of mony with him, as was never at any time paid for Tax or Tallage. If then the Ecclesiastical and Civil Powers may according to their pleasures impose Taxes, and that perhaps to maintain their power one against another; I do not see that any Subject can expect to enjoy his estate, or any Nation to live in quiet. Did we suppose the Ecclesi­astical and Civil Power thus equal and independent of each other in a Nation, [Page 6] I cannot see but this imperium in impe­rio must need expose the quiet and safe­ty of a Nation to great hazards. But should we look nearer into the power, which the Pope cha [...]lenges, and to that which the most Romanists do give him; we should then see the insecurity of any Civil government, no King could sit fast on his Throne, nor any people secure in their Possessions.

1. Many Popes have challenged a supream direct power in temporal af­fairs, that they have jus utriusque Gla­dii: so Boniface the eighth published in the extravagant, that they were placed by Christ Lords over all Nations to pluck up and destroy, to plant and to build: so said Pius the fifth in his Bull against Queen Elizabeth, that the Pope hath power of giving and taking away Kingdoms through the whole Christian World: that whatever any Power or Majesty any Kings or Emperors have, de­pend on the Roman Church: So Cle­ment the fifth decreed in the Council of Clem. pasto­ralis de Re judic. Vienna; and when Clement the sixth had in a publick Con [...]istory made Lewis [Page 7] of Spain Prince of the Fortunate Islands, he took this for his Text, faciam prin­cipem Hist Edw. 3. anno 1344. super gentem magnam, as Thomas Walsingham reports. This the Popes have challenged, and by vertue of this power they have disposed Kingdoms and altered Governments. Alexander the sixth gave the Indies to the Spaniard, the Bull is extant, Lopes de Gomara Hist. Indi [...]. l. 1. c. 19. wherein (he says) that by the authority of God which was given to the Popes in the person of Pe­ter, and which they hold as Vicars of Christ, we give to you all the Isles and firm Land found and to be found, with their Dominions, Cities, Castles, Vil­lages, Rights and Jurisdictions: and 'tis inserted into the Canon Law that the Apostolick See translated the Roman Em­pire from the Greeks to the Germans; Cap. V [...] ­ [...]ab. de elect. and Bellarmine pretends that when Leo the third did thus, he did it as Pope, and as he had Apostolical power, by which in case it be profitable or necessary for Christianity, he may dispose of the Kingdoms and Empires of Christians. Bellar. risposta al 3. prop. di Gio Mar­sil. Now if the Pope doth claim this pow­er as the capo di christianit [...], as the head [Page 8] of the Christians, and may thus as he pleases translate Governments, dispose Kingdoms, and change the Laws, I would fain see what Kings and Princes can be secure? Kings must no longer plead that they hold their Crowns by God and their right, but meerly as the Popes deputies; and he may call in the patent of their Office when he pleases: no Prince can be secure if an angry Pope take a pique at him; nor keep his Crown on his head if the Pope have a mind to throw it off. Princes must no longer talk of Election or succession, for they have no title but the Popes grant or his permission, and he may by this authori­ty unking them if he think them unfit to govern, as Pope Zachary did Chilpe­rick, and to prevent disturbance among Christians ne perturbaretur Christiani­tatis ordo, by his Apostolick authority Chron. Re­gin. lib. 2. anno 749. commanded that Pipin should be made King. Should a Boniface the eighth, a Julius the second, or Paul the third sit in the Chair, let Princes look to them­selves, if the Pope challenge this power, they will never want pretences to put it [Page 9] in use: and what security can then their neighbours have when by the fulness of Apostolick power they can so soon put down one family and raise another? what assurance of obedience can they have from their popish subjects when the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, to whom all power is given in Heaven and Earth, challenges this power to place and displace? either they must disown obedience to the Pope in what he chal­lenges as the Vicar of Christ, and Suc­cessor of St. Peter, or they must be good subjects no longer than he pleases: ei­ther they must say the Popes have er­red in this power they have challenged, and that they are not bound to obey them in that thing which they pretend to command as Vicars of Christ, or that no King can be secured of his sub­jects obedience longer than this Lord paramount permits. Thus according to that power which the Popes have chal­lenged, there can be no security for the Civil Government.

2. Let us see what power the most Ro­manists do give to the Pope. I will not [Page 10] speak of the Canonists who usually flat­ter the Popes, and call him the Lord of the whole world; and give him as much power as the most ambitious Popes can challenge: I shall only mention what the Divines of the Romish party gene­rally give him, and they do tell us that all kind of power which may be neces­sary for his universal pastorship is in­cluded in these words, Feed my sheep: that Kings are spiritually subject to Pe­ter and his successors; that this spiritual power is to direct all the acts of sub­jects by which they may either lose or gain eternal life: that one of these acts in a Christian Prince is the use of his governing power. And therefore say they, it pertains to the spiritual power to direct him in the use of that govern­ing power, and if he fails in the ma­nagement of that power, and does not manage it according as it shall seem good to the spiritual power, then to restrain him in the exercise of it and prevent any damage which may arise thereby: thus he hath a power indirectè & in or­dine ad spiritualia over the temporal. So [Page 11] that by this power which they general­ly give the Pope, it follows that if the Magistrate make any Laws which (as he thinks) do favour sin, or are any way prejudicial to the interest of the Church; if they hinder good or occa­sion evi [...], these he may correct, either by publishing contrary Laws, or commanding the secular Princes to revoke them: and this (says Suarez) Adv. sect. Augl. l. 3. c. 22. is the common opi­nion of Divines, approved by the custom of the Church, and it is not lawful for any Catholick to doubt of the Popes power. So again, if the Civil Magi­strate make any war which the Pope thinks unlawful, he may forbid it, be­cause by such a war he abuses his pow­er: so if the Pope sees a war necessary for the good of Religion, he may com­mand the Magistrate to make war: And because a directive power is nothing (as they think) without a coactive, there­fore if any Prince refuse to obey this command, the Pope may punish him. Suarez 161. c. 23. n. 2. Now though they do not call this a di­rect power, yet it is in effect, for he may meddle with temporal affairs with [Page 12] most full authority says Bellarmin, Risposta al 3. propos. out of the opusculum de regimne principum, l. 3. c. 11. &c. 13. he may depose Kings and make new ones, and this says Victoria Relect. de I [...]dis. prop. 3. none that is truly a Christi­an will deny: and elsewhere he calls * Relect. 1. de pot. E [...]l. [...] 12. it a most ample power, by which he can make and unmake Kings, divide King­doms, &c. This is then the power which the most Romanists ascribe to the Pope, but even according to this there can be no security for any Civil Go­vernment longer than he pleases, nor can any Princes be assured of their estates, longer than they submit to the Popes will: whatever Laws they make for the welfare of their estates must pass the Popes approbation: if they raise any Tax, they must ask the Popes leave; if they condemn any subject for Treason, the sentence must be reviewed by the Pope: they must list no Souldiers, raise no Forces, make no War without the Popes license: For if the Pope have this most ample power to direct the actions of Kings, and restrain them from any act which he judges to be the occasion [Page 13] of sin, or the hindrance of spiritual good: then no King shall be Judge when or what tax he shall lay, for the Pope may call that an oppression of the peo­ple: then no King shall be judge when or what forces he shall raise or where he shall make war, for the Pope may say, that the war is unnecessary, and a causeless spilling of Christian blood: then no King can punish a Traytor with­out the Popes liking, for 'tis the Popes office to hinder any publick sins, and the moral occasions of them, saith Sua­rex. Adv sect. A [...]gl. l. 3. c. 22. n. 14. If therefore the Pope saith, that there hath been partiality and injustice; that the cause hath not been fully heard, or the proofs not evident enough, or the sentence too much hastned, he may stop the proceedings. Grant once this power in the Pope, which yet as Bellarmine saith Risposta al 3. p. [...]p. all but Hereticks will grant, and which it is not lawful for any Catholick to doubt of, saith Suarez 161. n. 10.; and then let me see where any temporal govern­ment is any thing else, but a meer sha­dow of power? or any Prince longer se­cure in his government than he is wholly [Page 14] at the Popes beck? So that in effect this makes the Pope the only Monarch, and all Princes no better than his Legates. I will instance in some things, wherein may appear the inconsistency of this pre­tended power, with the security and wel­fare of Civil Societies. 1. I instance in the invalidating and declaring null and void, Laws which have been made for the welfare of the Civil State. If the Pope have really a power to make null and void those Laws which the State shall judge necessary for its own securi­ty and safety; then the power which is given him is inconsistent with the wel­fare of a Civil Society. Suppose a Sta­tute of Mortmain, that no gifts of Lands in perpetuum to any Ecclesiastical use, shall be valid without the Magistrates consent. This Law hath been made ge­nerally in all Christian states. And 'tis plain that in many Kingdoms there hath been a necessity of restraining the immo­derate gifts to Ecclesiastical persons and uses: for Ecclesiastcal persons having many priviledges and exemptions by the bounty of Princes, and the Lands com­ing [Page 15] into the Clergies hands, the burden would wholly lie upon the Laity, and they being oppressed with constant char­ges and impoverished, the necessities of the Nation could not be supplied, nor the dignity of it upheld. And yet by virtue of this power the Popes have de­clared this Law null and void, as contra­ry to Ecclesiastical liberty. 'Tis plain that if the Clergy might purchase what they please, and enjoy whatever comes to them either by gifts or legacies, and have no power to alienate what once they have got; that by degrees they may get all into their hands. And as the Author of the review of the Council of Trent L. 7. c. 9. saith, they will have all the Laity only for Renters and Farmers of their goods. And therefore it hath been necessary to forbid the passing of any estates to the Clergy without the Ma­gistrates consent; and yet the Popes by virtue of this power, which is common­ly given them, declare these Laws which are meerly for self-preservation, void and null. Suppose a Law, as that which the Venetians made, that none [Page 16] should build a Church or Monastery within the City of Venice, or the Ju­risdiction of it without the consent of the Senate, for the soyl on which they were built was formerly under the jurisdicti­on of the State, and it was not reasona­ble that the State should lose its power and right over the soyl without its own consent, and should this be allowed, then every private person might place them where he pleased, and in process of time the multitude of Churches and Monasteries might take up the most part of the City, there might be little space left for the Citizens to inhabit, and the Fortifications of the City might be weakned by the incommodious site of those religious places. Many sub­stantial reasons the State of Venice gave, which may be found in the Aviso di Antonio Quirino, and the Considerationi del Padre Paolo. And yet Paul the fifth condemns this Law for unjust, and contra­ry to Ecclesiastical liberty: and this was one reason of the Interdict of Venice. Suppose a Law that the money of the Nation should not be carried beyond [Page 17] Sea, lest the Nation be exhausted, and foreign enemies enriched with the wealth of the Land; for so it might easily be, when the rents of the Clerks Aliens in England in the time of Innocent the fourth, was 70000. marks, and the Or­dinary revenue of the King was not computed to the third part: as it was found to be by the reckoning of Robert Bishop of Lincoln, saith Matthew Pa­ris Hist. ma­j [...]r anno 1252.: and at one time there were no less than 300. Italians beneficed here. And the wealth that was exported to the Court of Rome, was frequently [...]ent by the Pope to the Enemies of the State, as it oft happened in our wars with France: yet still the Popes have pre­tended a power to condemn this Law as null and void, and contrary to the pow­er of the Pope, and the dignity of the Roman See. So if the King should forbid any Souldiers going out of the Land, lest it be left naked and exposed to a foreign enemy; and on the other hand, if the Pope may require them to assist in his Wars for the maintenance of St. Peters Patrimony, and the defence [Page 18] of the Church; if now the Pope have this power to null these Laws which he judges prejudicial to his interest, and by virtue of any Superior power (whether we call it a direct, or indirect power) can call these Souldiers away, it will follow that no Civil Society or Govern­ment hath any means to preserve it self: there is no proper means left to prevent disorders and confusion, ruine and de­struction in a Kingdom: nor can any King secure himself or his people longer than the Pope pleases. Thus even that power which the Romanists generally ascribe to the Pope, is no way consi­stent with the security of the Civil State. For whatever Laws are made by any Ci­vil State, for the necessary defence and support of it self, may by this power be declared null; whatever course in pru­dence they take for the preserving the wealth and strength of the Nation, may be condemned as prejudicial to the Ec­clesiastical liberty. Whatever forces they raise for their necessary defence, may be call'd away, and the Nation ex­posed to foreign enemies. Grant this [Page 19] power in the Pope, and I would fain see which way Princes can secure their Crowns from the Popes usurpations. There is no way but this, that Princes are grown wiser than to be talk'd out of their power, and if the Pope have the verbalis, yet Princes have the realis po­testas, as the French Ambassador an­swered Boniface the eighth: Hypodig­ma Neustriae anno 1301. but were there a Julius the second in the Chair that knew how to manage St. Pauls Sword as well as St. Peters Keys, and would his temporal with spiritual arms as he used to do; Kings and Princes would soon see the fruits of this do­ctrine. That power which the Popes challenge, and most Romanists give him, is inconsistent with the security of the Civil State; and where Popes can do as much as they pretend they may do, Kings must be meer Vassals to the Pope, and at most but half Kings.

2. I instance in the doctrine of the Popes power in absolving men from their pro­missory Oaths. And if the Pope is al­lowed by their doctrine to dispense with promises, and absolve men from the [Page 20] Oaths they have taken, I know not how any can be secured of the faith and honesty of those who own this power. For if they have promised and sworn ne­ver so fully, yet there are many cases in which the Pope can absolve them; and where are we then? And if they are not absolved, it is because they do not make use of that liberty which many times is, and always may be granted to them. If they may be absolved by any, or released from the obligation of that Oath by any, except for whose be­nefit they have sworn; then it is to no purpose to oblige them by an Oath. It is in vain for Kings to swear to preserve the liberty or rights of the people, or for the people to swear Allegiance to the Prince, or for Princes mutually to swear to observe any leagues and agreements they make one with another; for they can never be tyed so fast, but the Pope can loose them. If they should swear that they would seek no dispensation nor absolution, yet you may be di­spensed with for that perjury, and ab­solved from that Oath, as well as from [Page 21] the other. They tell us, 1. That the Pope may dispense with Oaths if there be just cause: so says Sum. An­gel. Juran. 6. Angelus à Cla­nasio. And that the Pope may upon a cause ex toto liberare free a man wholly from his Oath, even as God himself; for it is very likely that God (where there is cause) hath given his power among men to his Vicar, otherwise he had not been a good Master of a Family, if he had left his Flock without a Shepheard, who where there was cause might be­friend them. This is the Doctrine of summa Rosellae Sum. Ro­sellae. Ju­ram. 1. n. 4. 5.: and that he may relax an Oath, both by taking away the bond of the Oath, remitting that obligation vice Dei; and by forbidding him to per­form the Oath, so says Filliucius Cas. Conse­li. 25. c. 9. n. 281.. 2. If the case seem doubtful whether there be a just cause for dispensing with the Oath or no; that it must be left to the deter­mination of the Pope, and that if the Pope doth judge there is a sufficient cause, and doth dispense with the Oath, that the person is safe in Conscience; and after the Pope hath dispensed with him, he is not bound to perform his Oath: [Page 22] and further, if the Pope did absolve any man from an Oath without cause, the absolution holds; for says Summa Ro­sellae Verb. Ju­ram. 1. n. 4. he is above the positive Law, and may dispense with the Divine Law; so that he do not dispense with the Gospel, or the Articles of Faith. 3. They tell us that if a man hath taken any Oath, which is the hindrance of a grea­ter good, the Pope may dispense with it: And though the thing be lawful and honest in it self, and in his power to do it; yet if it hinder him from doing a greater good, the Pope may take off the obligation, by declaring that in this case the Oath doth not bind him, be­cause of the good which would be hin­dred, or the evil which would follow if such an Oath were kept. 4. They tell us, that the Pope may in some ca [...]es ab­solve the Subjects of Princes from their Allegiance: if a Prince be excommuni­cate, that the bond of the Oath is so long suspended till he be reconciled to the Church; but if a Prince be depri­ved of his Dominion for heresie, or any other crime, then that the Oath is made [Page 23] void and null, so saith Suarez Adv. sect. A [...] l. l. 6. n. 2. [...]: and that there is such a power of absolving Subjects from their Allegiance, he pleads from the ancient custom of the Church, and practice of Popes: and indeed the practice hath been too evident, especial­ly if Princes any way displeased the Pope. I'le instance in the case of In­vestitures, which was the quarrel with the German Emperor Henry the fourth, upon which account the Pope deposed him, and absolved his Subjects from all Oaths of Allegiance to him: though the Emperour might plead a prescription of 200 years and more, under 60 Popes, for giving Bishopricks and Abbies by the Ring and Staff Mat. Pa­ris hist. ma­jor anno 1112. Sig [...]hert an­no 1111.. And though he might plead the very grant of the Popes them­selves, as of Adrian the first in the Ro­man Synod, to Charles the great; that Archbishops and Bishops should receive their investitures from him, and unless they were named and invested by him they should not be consecrated. Mat. Wes [...] ­mon. hist. anno 773. And though really there was no sin in the Emperors nomination to Bishopricks and Abbies, (for what sin is it for the Em­peror [Page 24] to give the Ecclesiastical persons possession of their temporalties, and to require an Oath of fealty or homage to them; for those temporalties which had been the gift of former Emperors, and to nominate persons to those dignities, any more than for a Lay Patron, upon the account of indowing the Church, to present to an Ecclesiastical Benefice?) and yet because the Emperor did not appear at the Popes summons to satisfie his demands, he was excommunicate, and his Subjects absolved from their al­legiance to him. This is their Do­ctrine, this their Practice. But now I see not how this power to absolve men from their Oaths which are awful and honest in themselves, meerly on p [...]etence of scandal, or the hindrance of a pub­lick good, can be consistent with the se­curity of a Civil Society? Grant the Pope this power which he hath frequen­ly practised, and the Romish party ge­nerally acknowledge to be in him, and no Romanist can be a good Subject lon­ger than he pleases, nor be bound by the foremnest Oaths which Princes have [Page 25] framed for their own security, longer than he allows it: If the Pope invade any neighbour Princes dominions, and that Prince to divert the war fall on the Popes territories, then presently excom­municate him, and absolve his Souldi­ers from all Oaths to him. Thus did Ur­ban the second to the Souldiers of Count Hugo, for he tells them that stood upon their Oaths to him, that they must obey God and not man, and that they were not bound to pay obedience which they had sworn to any Christian Prince, if he opposed God and his Saints. Urban. 2. epi [...] ad [...]p Vapi­cens. 1. caus. 15. q 6. can. Jura­tor. If any Prince oppose the exactions of the Ro­man Court, the next is, excommunicate him and free his Subjects from all bonds of Oaths. If any Prince refuse to suffer his Subjects to go out of his Land, lest they discover the secrets of his King­dom, then excommunicate him, and re­lease them from the Oaths they have ta­ken of Loyalty and Allegiance. Yea if these men swear that they will not go out without the Princes leave, yet the Pope absolves them; so that Oaths can bind no longer than the Pope ju [...]ges [Page 26] them fit to be observed, and where the Oath they have taken crosses his design, no question but the Pope will judge it unfit to be observed. If they swear to bear true faith to the King and his Successors, all this is to be understood, unless the Pope absolves them, for then the obligation ceases; and the Pope may absolve them, if he thinks this Oath to be an hindrance of a greater good: and now if the Prince to whom they swear allegiance be an Heretick, and draw men from their Catholick Faith, then the obedience to him may be in the Popes judgement an hindrance of a greater good. Weigh these things se­riously, and then tell me what security any Prince can really have of the fide­lity and loyalty of these kind of Sub­jects? For either they must say, that they are still bound, and judge them­selves bound by their Oaths, notwith­standing the Popes absolving them, or dispensing with them; which is (as the Romanists generally tell us) to disown the Popes Supream power, and to deny the authority of binding and loosing, [Page 27] which was given to St. Peter, and his Suc­cessors: or else they must confess that they are bound to obey, till he absolve them, and after he hath absolved them, then they are free: and then what security hath any King of their Allegiance? I do not say but some Roman Catholicks are and have been Loyal to Heretical Princes, as they call them; my design is not to render their Loyalty suspicious, or exasperate our Superiors against all that profess themselves of the Romish Com­munion; no question but some do not know these doctrines of their party, and some that know them, yet out of a natural honesty abhor such dangerous opinions; but if they do own this doctrine, which to deny saith Suarez Def. fid. Cath. adv. sect. Angl. l. 6. c. 2. n. 7 is against the custom of the Church, the practice of General Councils, and the appobation of the Canon Law in Cap. 2. de Re Judicatâ in 6. and against the consent of the Catholick Doctors: how then can any Prince be secured of their Al­legiance longer than the Pope allows it? They may be good Subjects for the pre­sent, but what security that they will [Page 28] continue so? They may think themselves bound by their Oaths at present, but should the Pope on any pique or pretence, quarrel with the King, and ab­solve them from these Oaths, what se­curity that then they will keep these Oaths, and continue good Subjects? I design not by this Discourse to urge the execution of any penal Laws, I wish the Doctrine and practices of the Romanists had never given occasion for the making of them: but if the wisdom of the State shall think fit to suspend the execution of any Law, or moderate the penalty, I wish those who receive any benefit by that Indulgence, may endeavour to deserve the Favour: yet if the Doctrines generally held by any party, are incon­sistent with the security of the Kingdom, none can reasonably say, that we de­sign any uncharitableness to their per­sons, in discovering their errors. I can­not be said to perswade the execution of a Rebel, because I endeavour to con­vince him of his sin. If the generality of their Writers maintain such Do­ctrines, I cannot be blamed for discover­ing [Page 29] the inconsistency of them with the security of the Civil State, though the State indeavours to preserve it self from those who are tainted with such princi­ples and opinions. 'Tis well known that the Romish party generally refuse the Oath of Allegiance, and though some of them at the first framing of the Oath seemed willing to give the State some assurance of their Loyalty by taking of it; but when the Pope heard of it, he sends his Breve dated Septemb. 22. 1606. and tells them, they cannot take that Oath without the great injury of the Divine Honour, nor perform it with a safe Conscience, and that they should suffer all kind of torments, even death it self, rather than offend Gods majesty by such an Oath: and when this Breve was suspected to be forged, or that the Pope did grant it upon misinformati­on, and at the solicitation of others: He sends therefore another Breve dated Aug. 23. 1607. in which he expostulates with them for questioning that Breve; and declares that those Letters were written not only motu proprio & ex cer­tâ [Page 30] scientiâ of his own motion and cer­tain knowledge, but after long delibe­ration, and therefore requires them to obey that Breve. And afterwards in a third Breve commands the Archpriest to punish by the deprivation of facul­ties, all such English Priests of the Se­minaries, as being subject to his juris­diction had already taken the Oath, or had taught it to be lawful to take it. And after this several of the Romish party, as Bellarmine, Becanus, Lessius, Sua­rez, &c. besides many of our own Country did write particular Tracts against taking this Oath; and when some few did ap­pear in defence of the lawfulness of it, as Widdrington particularly in his dispu­tatio Theologica de Juramento Fidelita­tis, dedicated to Paul the fifth, had de­fended the Lawfulness of it, the Con­gregation of Cardinals deputed for the examination of Books doth utterly con­demn and prohibit this Book, and ano­ther writ by him called the Apology of Cardinal Bellarmine for the right of Princes, &c. and declares, that except the Author who professes himself a Ca­tholick, [Page 31] do clear himself forthwith; that he shall be throughly punished with censures, and other Ecclesiastical penal­ties: Thus zealous have the chiefest in the Romish Church been against the ta­king of this Oath. They pretended that it was more than an Oath of meer Al­legiance; that it was covertly a renoun­cing of the Popes power, for they swear in this Oath that the Pope hath no power to depose Princes, and to ab­solve Subjects from their Oaths to them, or they tell us that if it were meerly an Oath of Civil Obedience, it was law­ful, that the King might require such an Oath of his Subjects; that they may safely, yea and ought to take it, when it is required in a convenient way, and also to keep it; and if King James had required no more, that the Pope would not have forbid the Catholicks to take it, so saith Suarez Def. fid. Cath. [...]l. 6. de Jur. del. in prooemio &c. 1.

But I ask, is there any Oath of Civil obedience which can bind them if the Pope absolve them? Or is there any Oath which he cannot make null and void if he account it a hindrance of [Page 32] publick good? If they do say this, (as certainly they do say it) then still the King can no way be assured of their Al­legiance: and there is no Oath which Princes can frame whereby they may be assured of their Subjects honesty and faith. If they scruple this Oath, be­cause they must swear that the Pope hath no power by himself, nor any other authority of the Church, or Romish See, to depose the King or dispose of his Dominion, or to free his Subjects from their Allegiance to him, and that not­withstanding all such sentence of excom­munication or deprivation made or to be made against the said King and his Heirs, they will bear true Faith and Allegiance to them: If they scruple the Oath upon this reason, then what secu­rity can they give the King that they will bear true Faith and Allegiance? If they will not renounce such pretended powers as the Pope challenges, and de­clare that they cannot be freed from the obligation of the Oath which they have taken, then they do implicitly acknow­ledge, that they own such a power in the [Page 33] Pope to depose the King, and absolve his Subjects, and if the Pope shall do this, they will no longer observe the Oaths to him, and where is then the security of their obedience? The Origi­nal ground of the Romish parties oppo­sing King James was Clement the eighth his Bull, whereby any person was de­clared incapable of the succession to this Crown, that was not a Roman Catho­lick, and they were forbid to admit any one to be King, that was not of that Religion; on this ground did the Con­spirators in the Powder-plot lay their design, that is, to destroy the Here [...]icks, and to plant the Romish Catholick Re­ligion; and if the King now to secure himself and his Government against the Romish party (who on these pretences contrived his ruine,) did require them to take this Oath, either they must te­stifie that they believed that they were not absolved from their obedience, nor could on any pretence of excommunica­tion or deprivation, take arms against him, or else the King could not be se­cured that they would any longer be [Page 34] good Subjects and do their duty, than till they had the Popes warrant to the con­trary: And is the case yet alter'd? Or has His Majesty any more security of their obedience than his Predecessors bad? King James had as unquestionable Right to the Crown as King Charles the Second, and if it was any real ground to debar King James from the Crown, be­cause he was no Roman Catholick, 'tis as real a ground to di [...]possess King Charles of his Crown because he is none: if they hold the same Doctrine, then still there is no security of their obedience. Either they disown this power, to absolve them from their Allegiance, or no; if they disown it, then why do they not take this Oath? if they do not disown it, then the King has no security of their o­bedience longer than the Pope pleases, and should another Oath be imposed, where these expressions were left out, and the Pope should absolve them from it, either they judge that they are bound still, which they will not say, or else the King has still no further security of their obe­dience, than while the Pope pleases: and [Page 35] so long as they hold these principles, frame what Oath ye will, the King can have none. The question is not, whether any of the Roman Catholicks are good subjects, for without question some of them are; and it would be strange if they should not be good sub­jects, when they have so little pretence to be bad: many of them were exce [...]ding faithful to his late Majesty in the English Wars, and as I perswade my [...]elf, not only out of respect to their interest, but compliance with their duty; but sup­pose the Pope should pretend just cau [...]e to Abs [...]lve them from the Allegiance to the King; the question then is, what secu­rity can the King have from the Oaths of his Catholick subjects, that they will continue good subjects? What security, when they are Loyal only by the leave of his Enemies? In the War betwixt the King, and some disloyal subjects, they might side with the King, because there was no pretence of absolving them from their duty, but in the quarrel betwixt the King and Pope, where the Pope does by this power pretend to absolve them, [Page 36] where's then the security? Thus then, if there be once granted a power in the Pope to absolve subjects from their Oaths to their Princes, when he judges that they hinder a greater good, there really can be no securi­ty for Princes. The same I say also con­cerning the Oaths of Princes to subjects, there can beno security in the Oaths of Prin­ces, nor can the people ever have assurance that they shall enjoy the priviledges granted by their Kings, if the Popes can absolve them. If Kings pretend that their grants were extorted by force, or their concessions are judged an hindrance to a publick good, 'tis but gaining the Popes Dispensation, and they may soon elude their promises and Oaths. This advantage some princes have taken, who upon any necessity of Affairs would easi­ly make large Acts of Grace to their peo­ple, and bind themselves by Oath to ob­serve their own grants, but would as ea­sily break them again; as Walsingham Hist. Ed. 1. an. 1307. observes of Edward the First, quoties sibi tempus commodius arrideret, praeten­dens semper papalem absolutionem, à prae­stito juramento; that he used to break his Oaths when he saw a convenient time, & [Page 37] pretended always the Popes absolution: But by this means the people can never be secured by the Word or Oath of Prin­ces, the confidence betwixt them would be destroyed, perpetual jealousies fomen­ted, and the people can never be safe in any concessions of their Kings, unless they have power in their hands to force the observation of them: Grant once this power to the Popes, and Oaths can no longer be accounted an end of strife, they would be but single threads, and if they hold any, 'tis only such tame fellows, who fear an Oath, and think it honesty to perform what they swear, though it be to their hurt: but if men have a mind to be free, 'tis but get a Dispensation, and the Court of Rome is seldom back­ward in granting a Dispensation, Dum­modo affulget aliquid albi vel rubei, as Matthew Paris complained. This is then my second consideration, from the Doctrine of the Popes power of absol­ving men from their Oaths.

3. I instance in the Doctrine of depo­sing and killing Princes heretical, and ex­communicate for Heresie. For if the Pope [Page 38] can depose Kings and authorise men to kill them, I see not that any Kings, if the Pope have any quarrel with them, can be secure either in their Estates or Lives: Suppose them accountable for their actions, and liable to be depo [...]ed if they do amiss, their Government then is meerly p [...]ecarious, they hold their E­state by the will of another, and can no longer be secure in the enjoyment of their Crown, than suits with the humor and Caprichio of their Lord Paramount. Grant the Pope this Power, and no King shall be safe that hinders the exactions of the Roman Court, that restrains the ex­ercise of any faculties or grants from the Roman See, howsoever inconvenient in themselves or derogatory to the Laity: that shall stop any frivolous Appeals whereby the Subjects a [...]e molested, and the money ex [...]orted. If the Pope shall judge these rest [...]aints a Violation of the Ecclesiastical Liberty, or a diminution of the Popes Priviledges, then Excommuni­cate and Depose him: so that Kings must either betray their own Rights and the Priviledges of their Crowns, or else [Page 39] they are liable to be deposed; and what Kings can think themselves secure when there may arise so many differences be­twixt the Ecclesiastical and Civil Juris­diction? If there may be many occasions of differences betwixt them, & the Eccle­siastical Power may excommunicate and depose any Lay-Prince that intermedles with that, which it pretends to be of Ec­clesiastical cognizance, either Kings must yield to what the Popes demand, and then they make themselves Slaves, or if they may be deposed for defending (what they judge to be) their Rights, contrary to the Popes excommunication, then they can never be secure, nor the people free from troubles: this is the case of Princes, that if they be declared Hereticks, they may be deposed, and who shall be judge that they are Hereticks but the Pope? If then the Pope call it Heresie, (as the Pope did call the defending the right of Investitures, Heresie) then farewell Kings: grant this power of deposing Kings on these accounts, and they hold their Crowns meerly at the Pope's plea­sure, and can never be secure in their [Page 40] Thrones longer than he permits. And now that this is the commonly received Doctrine of the Romish Party, I shall clearly prove it. I would indeed have none to think that I charge every one of the Romish Communion with this Do­ctrine; for many who are seduced with some errors of Popery may yet remain faithful Subjects: there are (I doubt not) several that profess themselves of that Communion, that detest those traitorous positions, as the scandal of Religion and the bane of Society, that are faithful to their Prince, as well as constant in their profession. Notwithstanding the sentence of Pius the 5th. yet many Roman Catho­licks were loyal to Queen Elizabeth, some offered themselves with their ut­most power to oppose the Spanish Inva­sion, though Sixtus the 5th. had by his Bull deposed the Queen, and given the Kingdom to the Spaniards; and when Parsons talkt openly among the Papists about deposing the Queen, some even of themselves had a purpose to complain of him to the Magistrates, as our Historians report. I believe many of them notwith­standing [Page 41] all the Popes threatnings and curses to have continued faithful to their natural Princes in the worst times; but yet I would not have my charity to some misconstrued for the excuse of all. Many can profess Loyalty, that yet can save their opinion by a subtle distinction; they'l say they are bound to obey the King, and that the Pope never forbids them this, but then when the Pope de po­ses him, he ceases to be King: that's Bellar­min's invention. They'l tell us, that they do utterly renounce all Treasons against their Soveraign, but then this must be un­derstood, that he is no longer their Sove­raign if the Pope depose him, and if they should then kill him, it was no longer Treason. And some of those that profest to hate all disloyal opinions, were yet catched in disloyal practices, as if their large professions were only a Cloak for base Plots and Designs. None seem'd more zealous against the Jesuits Doctrine of disloyalty than Watson, who made this solemn protestation in his Books, That not all the art that either the Devil, or Puritans, or Jesuits have, Quodlib. p. 350. [Page 42] should bring him within the compass of a Treasonable thought against God, his Soveraign, or the Common-wealth of this Land: and to manifest his hatred of Treason, and his Loyalty to his Prince, conceived the form of an Oath, in effect the same with the Oath of Allegiance, that he did from the bottom of his heart plainly and sincerely without all Equi­vocation or doubling profess and swear, That he will never give ear to that bloody Doctrine of deposing Kings, or dispo­sing Kingdoms for Heresies sake; that he will never be perswaded either by threat­nings or promises of any (be it the Pope himself) to bear Arms against her High­ness Queen Elizabeth to the destruction of her Royal Person and State, and that he will be ready to adventure his Goods and Life against him or any that shall as­sail or invade her Kingdom under pre­tence of restoring the Catholick Faith: and he protests to detest that Doctrine, that Princes heretical may be deposed, & that he absolutely intends (God assisting him with his grace) to remain constant, loyal, serviceable and faithful unto the [Page 43] death; Quod lib. p. 304, 305. 346. 351. and yet after all this when Pope Clement the Eighth his Breves came out forbidding the Roman Catholicks to re­ceive any for King after the death of Queen Elizabeth unless he was a Catho­lick, and would take Oath to maintan the Catholick Religion in his Domini­ons, see what a good subject this man proves: for in the beginning of King James he was executed for Treason at Winchester. Some are not yet taught Bakers Chron. Re [...]gn of K. James. these necessary points for the advance­ment of the Catholick Cause; perhaps they fear the times will not bear them, or they are fit only to be preached when they may have a design that [...]s ripe for Execution: but should the Pope send a Breve to forbid obedience to the King, and the Jesuits preach this Doctrine a­gain to their Novices, I pray God there do not a [...]pear too many to p [...]t it in exe­cution. Those that are taught a blind obedience to renounce their own wills, yea and their judgments too, to think whatever their Superior commands, is the will of God, and though they should judge it a sin, yet if their Superior should tell [Page 44] them it is no sin, and that they are decei­ved in judging so, that they are bound to believe him. These I cannot think are like to be good subjects longer than their Superiors please. And yet these are the Rules of the Jesuits, this the instruction of Ignatius their Founder; Epist. Ig­natii de virt. Obe­dient. Sect. 19. but those who follow such instructions are easily cut out to be Boutefeus of their Coun­try and Assassines of Princes. There are some who admire that we say, the Ro­mish principles are inconsistent with Ci­vil Governments, Apology for the Pa­pists. and tell us that this is nothing but the lies and fictions of Prote­stants, for they preach up Obedience and Loyalty more than the Protestants; and says one, To speak confidently, all Princes are more secure, and have a better tie and obligation from Catholicks, than from any Lutherans or Calvinists whatever; & Image of both Churches p. 349. therefore he charges the Lutherans in Germany, the Calvinists in France, Holland, and Scotland, with nothing but disloyal Practices and Doctrines: And (he says) that it is the consent of the more precise Protestants, that subjects by Arms may maintain their Religion, [Page 45] offend as well as defend Image [...] both Chur­ches, pag. 352.. Nor doth this Author spare the Clergy of England, for though (saith he) no trial could be made of their spirits; having had no crosses, nor other combat than with sin, and Martin Prelate; and he were not compos mentis, that in so great-Peace and Prosperity would not Preach against disloyalty and tumults: yet that they were not always so peaceable and regu­lar since they first appeared as Antago­nists to the Church of Rome, that the Pro­testants were neither quiet, nor suffered Queen Mary to be quiet, and that in the five years of her reign she had more open and violent opposition and Rebel­lion by her Subjects than Queen Eliza­beth had in 45 years. These things are again revived by Philanax, who hath transcribed the most of that Book, and lookt no further for his quotations against Protestants of integrity (as he calls them) than that Author: both his quotations in Latine and translations in­to English, are for the most part there verbatim; and so punctual is he in this theft, that a piece of false Latin can [Page 46] hardly scape his fingers; for that passage which he pretends to be [...]ut of Calvin, quibuscunque hujus Evangelii lux afful­get, &c. ab omnibus laqueis & juramen­tis absolvitur, was not his own mistake, but he took it on trust from that Book pag. 354. Compare Philanax his defence of Mariana pag. 94. with what the Au­thor of the Image of Both Churches saith in that behalf, pag. 36 [...]. of the Tornay edition; and you will see that Philanax is little else than a new Title to an old Bo [...]k to make it vendible. What both of them have said is suffici­ently an [...]wered by that worthy person Dr. Du Moulin, and the Protestants vindicated from those aspersions; yet should any persons that call themselves Protestants, have been guilty of such disloyal and rebellious discourses, I tell them, we justifie not the expressions of any private persons, whatever hand they had in the Reformation: we bless God for the good t [...]ey did, but their words are neither the rule for our faith, nor the warrant for our practice. I do not take any private mans words for the [Page 47] Doctrine of their Church, but the pub­lick Confession, in which the Magistrates authority is fully maintained, the bounds of obedience stated, and Rebellion plainly condemned. I will not charge any par­ticular Church with the particular fan­cies, or odd opinions of here and there a passionate spirit, but with that which is generally preached, publickly main­tained without censure, and commonly practised. As for our own Church in which we are most properly concerned, the Doctrine is most clearly delivered, that the King is the only Supream Go­vernour, that he is not nor ought to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction. The Doctrine of our Homilies forbids all Re­bellion, and teaches the necessity of obe­dience: That it is not lawful for Infe­riours and Subjects in any case to resist and stand against the Superiour Powers. And where we may not obey Kings, when they command us to do any thing contrary to Gods commands; neverthe­less in that case we may not in any wise withstand violently, or rebel against Ru­lers, or make insurrection, sedition, or [Page 48] tumults against the Anointed of the Lord, or any of his Officers. But we must in such case patiently suffer all wrongs and injuries, referring the Judge­ment only to Almighty God. 1 Book of Homil. 2 part of Serm. of obedience. The Do­ctrine of our Church is, that the speedy overthrow of all Rebels of what num­ber, state or condition soever they were, or what colour or cause soever they pretended, is and ever hath been such, that God thereby sheweth, that neither the dignity of any person, nor the mul­titude of any people, nor the weight of any cause is sufficient, for the which Sub­jects may move Rebellion against their Princes. 2 Book of Homil. 4 part of the Serm. against wi [...]f [...]l Re­bellion. The constant Sermons and Writings of the chiefest persons in our Church declare the power of the Ma­gistrate, and conformably to the Homi­lies condemn all insurrections against the King under any pretence whatsoever: so that if any who professes himself a mem­ber of the Church of England should be guilty of disloyalty against his lawful Prince, none can ascribe it to the bad­ness of his principles, but of his nature; 'tis not his judgement but his ambition, [Page 49] and he never pleads that it is his duty, but sin, nor ever that it is an act meri­torious of Heaven, but that it deserves Hell. But now if we consult the De­crees of their Councils, the Publick Laws of their Church, what the Popes have challenged and practised, what the chiefest of their Writers have maintained, and what the generality of their Priests teach, we shall see that their Doctrine is inconsistent with the security of tem­poral States. I confess some few Priests at home have scrupled this Doctrine of the Popes power of deposing Princes, and have indeavoured to expound the Decrees of Councils in a more favoura­ble sense, but still they were but few, of little authority in their Church; their writings commonly prohibited, as Roger Widdrington's were, and their persons in danger of censures: but the publick Do­ctrine taught by the head of their Church and generally held by his followers, is inconsistent with the security of the Ci­vil Magistrate: and either they must disclaim this Doctrine which is so ge­nerally taught in the Romish Church, or [Page 50] else no Prince can be secure from danger.

I find this Doctrine in the Decrees of Councils, in the Lateran Council under Co [...]c. La­ter. can. 3. Innocent the third; If any temporal Lord being admonisht by the Church, shall neglect to purge his Land from the filth of Heresie, let him be excommunicated by the Metropolitan; and if he shall re­fuse to give satisfaction within a year, let it be signified to the Pope, that he may then presently denounce his Vassals to be absolved from their Allegiance, and give their Land to Catholicks, &c. This is published for a Decree of that Council, in which were present 1200 Prelates, and is now inserted into the body of the Canon Law by Gregory the ninth, C. excom­mun. mo­neantur de Hereti­cis. and the Gloss there in verbo Ab­solutus saith, that for Heresie the Pope hath power over the Laity as well as Clergy, and may depose them; and the Law there requires the Civil Magistrate to take an Oath to root out Hereticks, (which as Cardinal Zabarell on this place saith, is not now practised, yet it is the fault of the Bishops or the Inqui­sitors, that they do not force the Secu­lar [Page 51] power by Ecclesiastical Censures to do it): and if they neglect they must be deposed: and Gregory the ninth in C. ab­solutos ibi declares the Subjects of all persons who are lapsed to be absolved: this is the substance of the Decree of the Lateran Council, wherein the Popes power to depose Princes is acknow­ledged, or at least the practice in that case of Heresie of deposing them is or­dained and determined: I know Wid­drington would fain interpret this De­cree of those Temporal Lords who have Superiours, and not of absolute Princes, and thinks that Kings are not included in a penal Law where they are not ex­presly mentioned; but if we look into the Decree, I must needs say, that they are sufficiently comprehended in general words, for Dominus Temporalis is a ge­neral term including Absolute Princes as well as other Lords, and the Canon speaks of two sorts of Temporal Lords, such as have Principal Lords above them, and such as have none, and of this sort are Absolute Princes who hold of none; and since these who hold of none as well [Page 52] as those who hold of others, were de­clared by the Canon to be subject to the same penalty, it was needless to name Princes in another manner, as I must needs acknowldge with his Answerer The Re­ply of T. F. c. 10.. If this then be the meaning of the La­teran Decree, as the words cannot bear any other sense, and generally is so ex­pounded, then Princes had need look to their Crowns, either they must expel Hereticks, or be expelled themselves: if they be merciful and pitiful, if either in policy of state, or commiseration of their Subjects, or their Consciences per­haps being convinced of the truth, they will not be as bloody and cruel as St. Do­minick, that by the Preaching up the War against the Albigenses was the cause of the death of many thousands; if they will not destroy those whom the Pope pronounces to be Hereticks, then to depose them and take away their Estate is made lawful: and Hostiensis on this Title allows the Catholicks on their own authority to spoyl Hereticks, and saith, that the Church hath given them that wear the Cross, power and autho­rity [Page 53] against them, though he thinks it a safer way to stay for a particular com­mission: but if the Canons of Councils do give this power of destroying here­tical Princes, or such who did not at the Popes command root out those, whom he calls Hereticks, here is little security for Princes. Again, this very power of deposing Kings, the Popes for several ages have claimed, and practised; Indeed Otho Frisingensis I. ib 6. cap. 35. saith, that he had read over the Actions of the Ro­man Emperors, and that he could not find any excommunicated and deposed from his Government before Henry the fourth; which perhaps may be true, that of the Western Emperors none were deposed by the Pope before Hen­ry the fourth; but that many Empe­rors and Kings growing wicked and loose, or by their Idleness becoming un­profitable have been cast off, this is most true, and this sometimes hath been done by the authority of the Popes of Rome, as Urspergensis saith, and he in­stances in Leo the Greek Emperor, that Gregory the third made all Italy to re­volt [Page 54] from him, and that he deprived him of his Kingdom. And the Historian adds, talia quoque alibi plerunque leguntur & nostris temporibus fact a fuisse cernun­tur; that such things were frequently reported in other places, and had faln out in his time.

The Story of Childerick's being deposed Chron. Abb. U [...]sperg. p. 208. by Pope Zachary, and that Pipin who before had been the major domo by the Popes appointment was made King, is well known; for the Historians gene­rally say that this was done Authoritate Romani Pontificis, Ursperg p. 123. Rhegino. Chro [...]. lib. 2. Lamb [...]rt S [...]af [...]a­burg. Annal. an 750. and this instance is recorded by Gratian, cap. Alius, 15. qu. 6. And Hostiensis in his summe upon the Title de Hereticis, bids us note that Temporal Princes for their neglect of Go­vernment may be thus used, and that he gathers from the Decrees. Cap. Si quis d [...]in­ceps, 17. qu. 14. The instance of Gregory the Seventh, deposing Henry the Fourth, is commonly observed; and though he was chosen meerly by the Romans without the Emperors consent, which he himself in his Epistle to the Emperour acknowledges to have been unlawful, and therefore begs both his [Page 55] pardon and confirmation; yet no soo­ner was he well settled, but he Excom­municates the Emperour, and when the Emperour procured the Countesse Ma­thilda the Popes great Friend with seve­ral of the chiefest of Italy to intercede for him, and they only beg'd that he might be absolved from the Excommu­nication, and then that he would when and where the Pope pleased, answer to what was laid to his charge; and if he cleared himself according to the Popes determination to hold his Kingdom; or if he could not clear himself, to lose it. The Pope was unwilling to yield to this mo­tion, but being overcome by their impor­tunity, grants that if we was truly peni­tent, he should deliver up the Crown and the Ensigns of his Kingdom to the Pope, & profess, that for the contumacy he had been guilty of he was unworthy to Rule: This seemed too hard, but all that could be obtained of him was this, that he might come into the Popes presence and shew his Repentance by submitting to his Decrees. The Emperour came to the Castle of Canusium, and leaving all his [Page 56] Company behind, and laying aside all tokens of Royalty, he stood barefoot for three days together before the Gates of the Castle, fasting from Morning till Evening, and on the fourth day being [...]et in, he could not get off his Excommuni­cation, save upon these conditions, that he would appear at a General Council where the Pope should appoint, and an­swer to the Accusations against him, and submit to the Popes Sentence, and in the mean time till the Cause were heard, he should not use any Royal Ornaments, or Tokens of Royal Dignity, nor meddle with the Administration of Publick Af­fairs, nor with the Revenue further than for the necessary maintenance of himself and his Family, and that all who had sworn fealty to him should be free before God and Man from the bond of their Oath; but if he failed in any of these things, that the absolution from the Ex­communication should be void, that he should be taken for convict, and con­fessing that the Princes of the Empire without more ado might choose another Emperour. These were the hard con­ditions [Page 57] which the Pope forced the Em­perour to accept, as Lambertus Schafna­burgensis relates, Annales. p. 536. Edit. Ar­gentor. and when the Empe­rour upon after-thoughts being sensible of the disgrace put upon him, and fear­ing he should be deserted by the Italians, who were exceedingly vexed at this A­greement, refused to perform what the Pope required; after this the Pope Ex­communicates him again, deposes him from the Empire, and in the form of Ex­communication he desires all the World to take notice that it is in the power of the Pope to take away Empires, King­doms, Principalities, and the Possessions of all men, and give them to whomsoever he thinks fit. Baron ad annum 1080. n. 8. Platina in Greg. 7. Innocent the Fourth in the Council of Lions deposes Frederick the Second the German Emperour, and not only absolved his subjects from the Oath of Allegiance to him, but by his Apostolical Authority forbad that none should hereafter obey him as King or Emperour. Lewis of Bavaria was Ex­communicated by John the 22th. and deprived of the Empire as far as words would do it, because he had taken on him [Page 58] the Imperial Power in Italy before his Coronation, and though he oft desired absolution, yet he could not obtain it: Paralcipo­mena rerum mem. in Lud▪ Bava­ro. the writings which past betwixt the Pope and Emperour were to be seen long after as the Author of those Paraleipomena reports, and in them the Pope brag'd exceedingly that he had this power both to appoint and depose Emperours and Kings; and this was no more than Cele­stin the Third shew'd by that significant Ceremony of putting on the Crown on Henry the Sixths Head with his feet, and kicking it off again, which as Baronius Tom. 12. an. 1191. n. 10. says, was to mind the Emperour by his example that it was in the Popes power to give, preserve, or take away the Em­pire if there be cause for it. I need in­stance in no more than the famous Bull of Pius the Fifth against Queen Elizabeth, where he says that God hath made the Bishop of Rome Prince over all people, and all Kingdoms, to pluck up, destroy, scatter, consume, plant, and build; & in that Bull, he by the fulness of Apostolick power declares her to be an Heretick, deprived of her Title to the Kingdom, [Page 59] and all dominions and dignity whatever, and by that Bull did deprive her, and forbad her Subjects to obey Her, her Mandates and Laws, and those who shall do contrary are involved in the same curse. Here is enough to shew that this is the constant claim of the Popes: and though the Image of both Churches would fain moderate this harsh passage, that this was done out of a particular provocation from the English Clergy, who frequently called the Pope Anti­christ, or else a misinformation of the Queens case and the Catholicks, and that the Popes by such censures did not disturb the peace of Edward the sixth, of the Kings of Scotland, Sueden, Den­mark, &c. and that action doth not touch the Catholicks and the pre­sent state Image of both Chur­ches, pag. 372.: yet all he saith is nothing, for whether the Pope did this upon ground, or no ground, whether he spa­red other Princes, and deposed only Queen Elizabeth, it will really nothing lessen this charge, for still he claims this power; and if out of the fulness of Apo­stolick power he might despose her, why [Page 60] then may he not if he thinks fit depose others? What he hath done to one he may do to another, and how then can any Princes be secure longer than he pleases? Perhaps he is wiser than to shew his Teeth where he knows that he can­not bite; or to provoke Princes, who are ready to bury his Bulls in the fire, and care no more for him than he doth for them: but so long as the Pope claims this power, and pretends that he can de­pose Princes, and excommunicate those that obey them, no Princes can be se­cure: the Lyon lies still at present, but he is a Lyon still, and may soon rouse himself when he sees the prey in his power; if the Pope sees an opportunity, he will still pursue the claim; as quiet as the Popes are, yet if the waters once be troubled, they will be fishing. As soon as the Irish Rebellion broke out, a Nuncio was presently sent thither: and what was indeavoured by a great party of the Irish for the Popes interest to the ex­clusion of the Kings right, is well known. Further the Popes have not only claim­ed this exorbitant power, but the Romish [Page 61] Priests have generally maintained it; if they have done otherwise, they are but few, inconsiderable, condemned by the Court of Rome for Machiavellianists, Po­liticians, Court-Flatterers, and Neutrals, suspected of Heresie, and commonly ex­communicated for their moderation, and should they fall into the Popes hand, in danger of the Inquisition: but the most and most noted in their Church main­tain this power of deposing Princes, in­somuch that Suarez Def. fid. Cath. adv. sect. A [...]glic. l. 7. c. 23. n. 16. saith, It is as cer­tain that the Pope may depose Princes, as that the Church cannot err in Faith and Manners. I wonder indeed at the bold assertion of some late Writers, who deny that this is the Doctrine of any of their party, yea, and tell us, that the whole order of Jesuits have disavowed Mariana's position, and determined Ca­tegorically the contrary, so saith Phila­nax, pag. 94. and gives us some passa­ges out of several Jesuits, who disown this position, that it is lawful to attempt against the life of a Prince; but this he on­ly transcribed out of the Image of both Churches, though I question whether [Page 62] either the one or the other ever search­ed into those places; for if they did, they would have seen the quite contra­ry. It is not lawful say some to at­tempt against the life of a Prince; that is, for private persons; but what say they if the Pope should declare that he is no King? and command any person to destroy him? Do not they allow it may be done by publick authority, and that authority to be in the Pope? The An­swerer of Philanax hath plainly disco­vered this fraud: Cap. 5. they tell us it is a slander of the Protestants against them, that they allow Subjects to murder their Princes. I grant it is a slander, but how? For Subjects to kill their Princes without authority say they; but for Sub­jects to do it with the Popes authority is no murder, no more than the execu­tion of a man when he is condemned by the Judge. I confess they forbid any person to attempt against the life of a Prince, but 'tis then before the Pope pass sentence against him, and declares him deprived of his Principality; but if the Pope hath once past sentence against [Page 63] him, and declared him no Prince, and re­quired his Subjects to destroy him, what then? Some indeed were so bold as to maintain that it was a matter of Faith, that whatsoever Prince shall depart from the Catholick Religion, and would draw others from it, he doth immediate­ly fall from all Power and Dignity, even before the Popes sentence, and that his Subjects are free from the obligati­on of any Oath of obedience to him as their Lawful Prince, and that they may and ought if they be strong enough, to eject such an one from the Government of Christians: so said Parsons Philopat. p. 149., and others who are accounted more mode­rate will not scruple to tell us, that la­tâ sententiâ quisque possit institui execu­tionis minister, that after sentence is past any one may be appointed to execute it, so saith Suarez out of Soto concerning a Lawful Prince, that governs tyrannical­ly; and if a King be deposed by the Pope, he may be expelled or slain, by those who are commissioned for that purpose, and if he command none to execute this sentence, then the next Successor [Page 64] may execute it, (and what security then hath any Protestant Prince, if his next Heir turn Catholick?) if there be no Heir found, then his Kingdom must do it: Defens. fi­dei Cath. l. 6. c. 4. n. 18. though Suarez is not so hot head­ed as Parsons, to bid all rise, and take arms against their Heretical Princes, for he doth not allow a private person to kill a Prince deposed: but this is only unless the Pope command that private person, or that there be a general com­mission in the sentence; but if the Pope commands any private person to kill the Prince, or if there be such general words in the sentence, impowering the Subjects to rise, then let me see how Princes can be secure? Suarez in that discourse which he writ against the Oath of Al­legiance hath taught the English Catho­licks, that Kings may be deposed by the Pope, that if we speak of the sentence of excommunication in common form, a Prince excommunicate, during the excommunication, is deprived of the right of commanding his Subjects, and if he force them, they may resist and that by a just war Suarez def. fid. Cath. l. 6. c. 6. n. 24.. That after a King [Page 65] is lawfully deposed, he is no more a King, nor a Lawful Prince; but if he do retain the Kingdom by force, he is a Tyrant in titulo n. 14.; that after sentence he cannot hold it by a just title: there­fore from thence-forward he may be used as altogether being a Tyrant, and con­sequently be slain by any private person: that if Subjects do swear to discover any treasons or conspiracies against their King, this only binds while he is not deposed; for if he be deposed then it is unjust to require such a promise, and sacrilegious to swear it; and in this case they must rather keep faith with the Common-wealth, or community of Sub­jects oppressed with force, than with a Tyrant that unjustly oppresses them, Suarez. ibi c. 3. n. 8. and though it be not told to him in con­fession, yet he would not have a Priest, or any other person to discover it, be­cause of the natural obligation to secre­cy when a thing is just, and necessary to the common good of society, &c. And now for any to tell us that it is disown­ed by the whole order, seems strange, when Suarez C. 6. n. 28. saith, it is the common [Page 66] consent of the Catholicks, and all Ca­tholicks admit this power in the Pope. To tell us, that all whom he had seen, agree in one sentence, and that he had curiously searched for it, Image of both Chur­ches, pag. 368. seem incredi­ble; when Suarez saith there is no dis­sension about this point among Catho­lick Divines, and that none can shew any that do contradict this truth; for even those Schoolmen, who seem to re­strain this power of the Pope, as Ockam, Gerson, &c. never denied this power of deposing Kings that were Hereticks or destructive to the safety of their Sub­jects: Def. fid. Cath. l. 6. s. 6. n. 8. and when King James had said, that this power over Kings was not de­termined in any General-Council, and that the Schoolmen to this day do quar­rel about it; he answers that both this is plainly false, nor could the King af­firm it, unless when he could not him­self read the Councils or Schoolmen, some Protestant had deceived him C. 6 n. 27.. I instance in these passages of Suarez, whom the Bishop of Conimbra in his License to the Book calls the Mr. of this age, and another Augustin; and the [Page 67] University of Complutum in their cen­sure saith, that there was nothing in this work different from their judge­ment, and that they had all the same words, the same thoughts, and the same opinions about these things; and there­fore I must needs believe that these Writers who thus mince the Romish opinions, concerning the power of depo­sing Kings, either never read their own Authors, or else concealed these Do­ctrines upon some design: For if these things were really known to be so, Princes could never be secure nor safe against the designs of the Romish party. Some perhaps who indeavoured to court Princes into a toleration or some favou­rable opinion of the Romanists, were loth to shew the worst side; some things they must deny, other things they must extenuate; they must pretend that the Protestants belyed them, and raised these stories to make them odious; for if their opinions were inconsistent with the se­curity of Kings and Princes, then they saw Princes would unwillingly habour Snakes in their Bosoms, or tolerate them [Page 68] who were good Subjects only while the Pope pleased, or that thought themselves only bound to obey a Prince excommuni­cated and deposed by the Pope till they had strength to resist him, or that judged themselves no way bound to discover Treasons or Conspiracies, notwithstand­ing all Oaths which they had taken, if the Pope declare him either for heresie or male-administration to be deprived of his Kingdom. Suppose the King be not excommunicate by name, yet if he be an Heretick as the Romanists call us, then he is included in the general excom­munication in the Bulla coenae, he is de­clared by the Council of Constance, ex­communicate ipso facto, and deprived of all dignity and honour; and where is his security then? Suppose it is necessary that he must be declared an Heretick, and to have incurred the penalty of the Canon, what then must he do? for then his next Heir may deprive him of his Crown: The Son may supplant the Fa­ther, as the German Emperor Henry, the fifth did: the Younger may justle out the Elder Brother; those who are [Page 69] far off from the Crown, may yet now step betwixt it and those who are nearly related to it. The Pope may legitimate a Bastard, and put by the Lawful Son, so saith the reply of T. H. to Widdrington Cap. 12. out of Covarruvius and Molina. If the Lawful Successor neglect to out the he­retical Prince, then the Kingdom it self may do it, or desire the assistance of neighbouring Princes. Suarez def. fid. Cath. l. 6. c. 4. n. 19. This is their Doctrine which exposes the Crowns of Princes to insecurity and hazard. I must needs say it concerns these men to make the best of a bad matter, and to mince those expressions which sound so harsh­ly; but we have proof enough that this is the avowed Doctrine of the Roma­mists. This is that Doctrine which the Jesuits who came into England in Queen Elizabeths time were bound to main­tain; for among the Cases of Consci­ence wherewith they were furnisht, this was one, that if they were askt, credis Romanum Pontificem Elizabetham potuis­se exauthorare? Whether they believed the Pope could depose Queen Elizabeth? They were to answer non obstante mor­tis [Page 70] metu, credo: without fear of death that they do believe it, for this questi­on pertaineth to the faith. Bishop Bil­son Of Chri­stian sub­jection, pag. 583. affirms that this was the fifty fifth article among their Cases of Consci­ence. This was the Doctrine of Cardi­nal Allen (one of the chief instruments in founding the Seminary of Doway) in his defence of the English Catholicks; that it was the right and power of St. Gregory to deprive Princes, and that it had been the faith of Christian men ever since our Country was converted: and though he doth seem to disallow pri­vate mens taking up of arms for Reli­gion, yet after the Popes sentence, cer­tare pro Catholicâ Religione praeclarum est, then it was commendable to fight for Religion: and he propounds the twenty fifth of Numbers for an example, that the people should not run to arms upon their own heads, but by the di­rection and advice of the Priests: so that still Princes are little safer; for if the Priests blow the Trumpet, then the peo­ple may take arms with a safe Consci­ence, and their Insurrection passes for [Page 71] holy zeal. And 'tis observable that Par­ry confest that he was confirmed in his resolution to kill Queen Elizabeth by Cardinal Allens Book, which taught him that Princes excommunicate for heresie were to be deprived of Kingdom and Life. This was the Doctrine of San­ders, who going into Ireland to encou­rage the Rebellion there, was forced to wander up and down the Mountains and Bogs, and finding nothing to sustain him, at length perished with famine, and in his Scrip were found certain Orations and Letters written to hearten the Re­bels, and promising large rewards from the Pope and King of Spain. This was Baker Chron. in the Reign of Qeen Elizabeth. the common Doctrine all her time maintained generally by the Priests and Jesuits, as our English Chronicles affirm. Campian after his conviction being de­manded whether he would stand for the Queen or the Pope, if he should send an army against her, plainly professed that he would be of the Popes side, and wit­nessed it under his hand *. And about Baker ibi. this time in the Seminaries beyond Sea amongst other disputations, it was con­cluded [Page 72] that the Pope hath such fulness of power by Divine Right over the whole Christian world, both in Ecclesiastical and Secular matters, that by virtue thereof it is lawful for him to excom­municate Kings, absolve their Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance, and de­prive them. There was indeed a Book writ by some Romanist, exhorting that party to attempt nothing against their Prince, and to use only the Christian Weapons, of Prayers and Tears, Fast­ing and Watching, but this was nothing (say our Historians) save to make the Queen and her Council secure. For about that time the Treason of Savage was plotted, who being perswaded by one Gifford a Doctor in Divinity, that it was meritorious to take away the lives of Princes excommunicate, vowed to [...] ibi. kill the Queen. And though this Trea­son is coloured over by the Image of both Churches as a mixt action, that this was not so much for Religion, as the advancement of the Queen of Scots, whose Title they did more favour than Queen Elizabeths. But I wonder then [Page 73] that after her death none of them should ever appear for the Title of King James; when she was dead all her right devolved to him: but I may ask, as the Answer to the late Apology of the Pa­pists doth to his Adversary, pray Sir name us those Papists, or but one sin­gle person of them, that after the Title came to King James, acted or suffered for him, or ever set his Title on foot against her; but had the plots been meerly on the account of the Title, then there had been as much reason to stand for the Son, as they had done for the Mother. Our Historians agree, that when King James proved to be a Pro­testant, they were as busie to put him by the succession as to destroy Queen Elizabeth; for in the Breves of Cle­ment the eighth which he sent when Queen Elizabeth grew old, he com­manded the Catholicks here to admit none (though never so near in blood) to the Crown, unless he were a Catho­lick, and would swear to maintain the Catholick Religion; which was in ef­fect not to admit King James, who was [Page 74] not a Roman Catholick. And that these Plots and Conspiracies were meerly on the account of Religion, and in pursu­ance of the papal interest, appears from the Famous Gun-powder Treason; for after King James came to the Crown, he makes peace with the Spaniard, he remits the execution of Penal Laws against the Papists, and carries himself so favourably to all, that he tells the Parliament in his Speech to them anno 1605. that these men could not alledge so much as a pretended cause of grief, but did this meerly on the account of Religion, and that one of them now in their hands did confess that there was no cause moving him and them, but meerly and only for Religion. And when Fauks was taken, he would give no other reason for this Plot, but that he was moved for Religion and Conscience sake: that the King was not his lawful Soveraign, because he was an Heretick: and that it was meerly for the advance­ment Discourse of the late intended Treason. of the Catholick Cause. Winter also confest, as the Lords of the Coun­cil attested in that discourse, which was [Page 75] published by Authority. Now though I do not condemn all the Romanists for this Treason, which I believe many of them did abhor; yet as King James saith, His Ma­jesties speech to the last [...]es­sion, &c. it cannot be denied that it was the blind superstition of their errors in Religion, that led them to this despe­rate Device. This was proved, that these Conspirators were animated to this design by the Popes Breves which Garnet shewed Catesby; that none but Roman Catholicks were in this Plot; that far more appeared in the Rebellion when it broke out at Dunchurch, than were discovered to be privy to the Plot. How far it was the design of that par­ty cannot now be known; for Plots when they miscarry are commonly disowned, none will confess themselves to be in a conspiracy, when they can do no more but hang themselves for talking: the for­wardest persons lay the design, but the wi [...]er commonly stand behind the Cur­tain, till they see how it succeeds.

Indeed I cannot but admire that men should at sixty years and upwards que­stion the truth of this Plot, as if they [Page 76] knew better the transactions of those times than they that lived in them. The confessions of several of the Plotters were published, attested by several Com­missioners of the chiefest Nobility; the actions succeeding the discovery of the Plot were notorious, being pursued up­on their rising by the Sheriffs of War­wickshire and Worcestershire to one Mr. Littleton's house: several of them were slain; Winter was taken; the ex­ecution of several of the Plotters was be­fore multitudes. The Writers of those times, whether English or Forrainers, ac­knowledge the Plot to have been laid by some Roman Catholicks for the destru­ction of the King and Parliament. Garnet the Provincial of the Jesuits executed for concealing the Plot; and all his excuse for the concealment was, because this Treason was only revealed to him in con­fession, and this he acknowledged at his death, as Bellarmine saith from the at­testation of several witnesses: and yet some now question the truth of this Treason, notwithstanding this plain evi­dence some whi [...]per it in private, others [Page 77] openly publish it, that there was no such Plot, but only a device to keep down the Papists. The truth is, those that think 'tis a stain in their blood, would fain have the attainder off the file; those who think 'tis a disgrace to their party would fain wipe it off, by pretending it was a Court Fiction; they are loth to have any of them thought guilty, le [...]t Princes for the future should be jea­lous of any of that party, by some of which they had been endangered alrea­dy. 'Tis the misery of Princes that no Plots are believed to be true, if they miscarry, and when they are acknow­ledged to be true, 'tis too late to pre­vent them. If there were no such Plot, how came the Powder under the Billets? How came they into a Room which Pier­cy hired? How came Faux to stand at midnight without the doors of the House? And what did he with three matches, and other instruments about him for blowing up the Powder, which Sr. Thomas Knevet found when he searched him? What reason to disbe­lieve the confession which he and Winter [Page 78] made? For if the thing they confest was only to blind the world, then it would be strange that they should frame a lye to hang themselves; and that they did confess it, was attested by several of the Privy Council, who took their ex­amination, subscribed it, and afterwards their confessions were published in Print. If there were no plot discovered, why did they take arms afterwards? Why did they all meet at Dunchurch, at Sr. Everard Digby's lodging, and publickly invite persons to joyn with them for the advancement of the Catholick Cause? And when they were chased thence, why did they resist the Sheriff of Worcester­shire when he pursued them? If the de­sign of blowing up the Parliament House was laid in the dark, yet the rising up­on the discovery of it was publick and manifest; that some of those who did rise were pursued, some slain, some ta­ken, this is notorious. Lastly, If Gar­net was executed for concealing this Treason, and confest it both under his hand and at the Gallows, and only ex­cused himself that the particulars were [Page 79] revealed to him in confession, and there­fore he ought not to discover it; and upon this very account he is highly esteemed as a Martyr for the seal of confession. It is evident then that there was such a Treason. Know it which way soever he did, whether in confessi­on or out of confession, then there must needs have been such a thing, for he could not know it, if there had been no such thing. All these circumstances I have mentioned, that I might silence those suggestions which some Romanists have made against the truth of this sto­ry. It is not only a secret whisper among themselves, but some venture to talk it openly. First, They designed (say our Historians) to lay it on the Puri­tans, afterwards they laid it only on some few Desperado's, but now they are come to it, to tell us that there was no such thing at all; all was but Court-Policy to keep down the Papists, which is in effect to say, that King James was a most cruel Tyrant, to put his Subjects to death for a treason of his own con­trivance, and the whole state such [Page 80] wretched Politicians to cozen God and the world by a perpetual thanksgiving, for a deliverance from a Plot of their own making. That there was such a Treason then is evident, and that oc­casioned by this Doctrine of the Popes power in depriving Princes, whom he calls Heretical, of their Crowns and Dignities; and therefore still this Do­ctrine of the Popes power must needs be inconsistent with the security of Civil Societies. Further, this was the Do­ctrine of Bellarmine, Becanus, Suarez, &c. in those discourses which they writ for the instruction of the English Catho­licks about the Oath of Allegiance. For King James observing the conspiracies against Queen Elizabeth and Himself, and that the Treasons by that Party were occasioned by pretence of the Popes power in deposing heretical Princes, and absolving Subjects from their Allegiance, and that he could never be secured of his Subjects obedience even in tempo­ral things, if they did judge that the Pope, his declared enemie, could free them from that duty which he lookt on as [Page 81] natural from Subjects to their Princes, therefore he frames that Oath, in which they swear that the Pope neither by himself, nor by any other authority of the Church or See of Rome hath any pow­er or authority to depose the King, or dispose of any of his Majestys Realms and Dominions, and that the Pope cannot free his Subjects from their obedience to him, or give them any liberty to take up arms against him, &c. and that they do ab­hor this as an Heretical position, That Princes deprived or excommunicated by the Pope, may be deposed and slain by their Subjects, &c. Now though King James, the best Interpreter of that Oath, which he prescribes for his own security, professes, that he doth only require by this Oath from them Civil Obedience; and because that his Subjects cannot per­form Civil Obedience to him, so long as they own that the Pope may depose Kings, absolve their Subjects from their obedience, and give them power to rise against their Soveraign; therefore King James requires the rejection of these po­sitions, and that they should secure him [Page 82] by their Oath against the fear of any fu­ture disturbances. Now these Writers condemn this Oath, and disallow the ta­king of it; for still they plead, this is to deny the power of the Pope; this is to deny what is universally granted among Catholicks, that the Pope hath power to punish Heretical Princes by temporal punishments: and so Bellar­mine saith, in his answer to the Kings Apology, Inter omnes Theologos & Ju­risconsultes convenit posse Pontificem maximum Haereticos Principes jure depo­nere & subditos eorum ab obedientiâ li­berare, &c. That all Divines and Law­yers are agreed, that the Pope hath this power to depose Princes, &c. So Suarez D [...]. sid. Cath. l. 3. c. 23. n. 16. & l. 6. c. 2. n. 5. also, that to deny the Pope this power is contrary to the Doctrine received by the whole Church; and that to say that the Pope hath not pow­er of releasing subjects from their Oaths upon reasonable cause, (and that must be judged a reasonable cause which the Pope judges to be so) is contra Eccle­siasticum morem, Conciliorum generalium usum, & approbationem, contra Docto­rum [Page 83] Catholicorum consensum, Sua [...]z ibi, n. 7. against the custom of the Church, the use of General Councils, and the consent of Catholick Doctors: and further, to af­firm that the Pope hath not power to ab­solve them from that particular Oath, is an heretical proposition, contrary to that power of binding and loosing, gi­ven to St. Peter as the Catholick Church hath always understood, and practised Suarez l. 6. c. 5. n. 2.; and that this proposition of the power of the Pope is founded in Scripture, de­clared by the Authoritie of Popes and Councils, and received by common con­sent. n. 3. On these and the like grounds Suarez pleads that the Oath ought not to be taken, and if it be taken, that re­ally there needs no absolution from it, for it binds no man; or however (if any did think it bound them) the Pope hath absolved them, when he declared the Oath to be unlawful, and contrary to their Salvation C. 5. r. 5.. I have been the more prolix in giving the opinions of the chiefest Writers of the Romish Church, who have studiously handled this point, which was so much agitated betwixt us [Page 84] and the Romish Catholicks, because ma­ny now either conceal this Doctrine or at least mince it: I abhor to affix Do­ctrines to any Party which they do not own, or to charge them with any opini­ons which they decry: if any say it is not their Doctrine, then let them answer their own Writers, who so stifly assert that it is; and if it is their Doctrine, then let them shew how it can be consistent with the security of civil Societies.

Fourthly, I instance in the Doctrine of Exemption of the Clergy from the jurisdiction of secular Princes both in their Estates and Persons: We do not deny but Princes have out of a peculiar respect to the Clergy, allowed them ma­ny Priviledges, as the Heathens have indulged much to those who were im­mediately employed about the service of their Gods, and as the Roman Empe­rours since they became Christian, be­stowed many Favors and Immunities on the Clergy, as may be seen in the Impe­rial Laws: but yet these priviledges were not granted all together, but some Em­perours priviledged them in one thing, [Page 85] some in another, some freed them from any personal Tribute, but left them to pay any Taxes charged on their Lands. So Bellarmine Disp. de exempt. Cleric. c. 1. observes it to have been the Law before Justinians time. Some freed them in Civil and Criminal Causes from appearing before any ex­cept the Archbishop of Constantinople and the Praefectus Praetorii. So Martian priviledged the Clergy of Constantino­ple. L. cum Cler. Cod. de Episc. & Cler. But in the Provinces Leo and An­themius ordain that the Priests and Clerks of what degree soever, shall be Convented before the Ordinary Judges (that is) the Governours of the Provinces, and if they come to Constantinople, then before the Praefectus Praetorii L. Om­nes S. in hic C. de Epise. & Cler.. There is also a Law of Justinian, that in Pe­cuniary Causes the Business should be tryed before the Bishop, but if he could not decide it, then it should be ended by the Civil Judge; and if it be a civil Crime (the Gloss there explains it of Mur­der, Forgery and Adultery) then the Cause should be heard by the Civil Judg, and the Clergy-man should not be pu­nished, before he was degraded by the [Page 86] Bishop. Authen­tic. Cler. quo{que} C. de Episc. & Cler. Sometimes the priviledges were extended, sometimes restrained, as the Emperors were able to support their Power and Dignity against the Papal Usurpations; for the Popes labouring all they could to advance their own Power, endeavoured to exempt the Clergy from any dependence on the secular Magistrate and make them solely depend on them­selves: and therefore at length they brought Frederick the second to publish that Law for the abrogation of all Sta­tutes and Laws against the Liberty of the Church, and to forbid the laying of any Taxes on any Churches or Ecclesiastical Persons, and that no such Person should be drawn either in a civil or criminal Cause before any secular Judge Constit. Fred. 2. de Stat. & consuet. contra Li­be [...]t. Eccl., which was in effect to free half his Subjects from their Obedience, to weaken the Imperial power, and to deprive himself of the assistance necessary for the sup­port of his Government: and yet the Popes plead for these exemptions of the Clergy, not as a bounty but as a duty, not as the favour of Princes, but as what they are obliged to do by the Law of [Page 87] God: but what they do thus challenge as a duty, and what priviledges they have allowed the Clergy by the Ca­nons, should they be strictly practised, are inconsistent with the security and safety of civil Governments. Ecclesia­stical Liberty is in the Romish sense a strangely comprehensive word, and which usually the Popes make use of to increase their Power and advance those who im­mediately depend on them. Whatever Laws Temporal Princes make for the se­curity of themselves, may perhaps indi­rectly hinder the Ecclesiastical Liberty, and yet if they do indirectly hinder that Liberty, they fall under the censure of the Bulla Coenae, and are lyable to the penalty of the Canon Law. If we now would know the meaning of this word, or what is properly an hinderance of Ecclesiasti­cal Liberty, they tell us, that if Princes make any Laws by which the Clergy are made more fearful, this is interpreted a violation of Ecclesiastical Liberty B [...]rt [...]us in Au [...]h [...]nt. Cassa. C. de sa [...]rosanct. Eccl.: but who shall be Judge in this Case? who shall Judge whether any Law makes them more fearful and discourages them? if themselves, then whatever Princes shall [Page 88] determine to be conducing to the publick safety, though they design no prejudice to any sort of men, but what really con­duces to the good of their whole King­dom, yet this Law may be made void and null: if so, then Princes shall not be permitted to provide for the safety of themselves and their Kingdoms, and the wisest contrivances for their own security and self preservation against the incroach­ments of others, shall be wholly frustrate and null. If Princes forbid any persons to travel out of their Country without special Licence, if they forbid any Ships to pass out of their Ports for six moneths, if they forbid them to carry any money to Foreign parts at en­mity with them, this may indirectly be a prejudice to the Clergy, for some or o­ther may be hindred in prosecuting an Appeal to Rome, in visiting the thresholds of Saint Peter, or paying some duties to the Roman Court, and therefore on these pretences those Prohibitions must be null. If Princes forbid the payment of any Taxes imposed on the Clergy by the Pope or his Legates (which in case the Pope do side with the Enemies of the [Page 89] Crown is necessary to be done) this pre­sently must be void, because it is contrary to that temporal Power which the Popes have over the Clergy in all Countries. So that now if the Pope and Princes should quarrel, which often falls out, when their Territories joyn together, which way shall Princes uphold their Rights and defend themselves? If the Pope may impose Tributes and Taxes on the Cler­gy (which Suarez D [...] fid. Cathol. [...]. 4. c. 2. n. 7. says, he may) with­out the consent of any Prince, then it's easily in his power to weaken any Prince with whom he contends, and impoverish those that oppose him. If Princes forbid this payment of Taxes upon the Popes de­mands, then presently say these men, this is to oppose the Ecclesiastical Liberty, this is to take Cognizance of Ecclesiasti­cal Persons, and to meddle with those who are not under their power. So that Princes by this means are put to a strange Dilemma, either to yield to the Popes de­mands, or else if they use any means to hin­der his incroachments, they are present­ly excommunicated for Infringe [...]s of the Ecclesiastical Liberty. I will instance in [Page 90] two things which according to their Do­ctrine are much inconsistent with the pub­lick Peace and Security, the Exemption in Criminal Causes, and the Exemption from any publick Taxes and Charges.

First, I instance in the Exemption in Criminal Causes from Secular judgment. The Romanists pretend this Exemption to be by Divine Right; Suarez Suar. ib c. 15. n. 1. saith, this is a most certain assertion received by all Catholick Writers, and cannot be denied without denying some Principle of Faith: Bellarmine Disp [...] de Cler. cap. 1. pleads for this Exemption both by humane and divine Law: the same is affi [...]med in general of the immu­nity of the Clergy, that it was instituted by Divine Ordination and Canonical SanctionsConc. Trid. Sess. [...]5 c. zo. de Refor­mat. and had also been owned by the Council of Lateran under Leo the tenthConc. Later. Sess. 25.: This business was one of the great grounds of the Quarrel betwixt Paul the fifth and the Venetians: for the Venetians had imprisoned Brandolinus Valdemarinus Abbot of Naruesa, and Sci­pio Saracinus Canon of Vicenza; the for­mer of which was accused for poysoning several persons, particularly a Priest his [Page 91] domestick, and for living in continual uncleanness with his natural Sister, and for many other Crimes; the later was accu­sed for having disgracefully torn the Man­dates of the Magistrates of Vicenza, which had been set upon the Chancery of the Bishoprick, for the security of the Writings and Accounts of the Bishop­rick, which were kept there: Now though the Venctians did plead a long Custome from the Foundation of their City, the Priviledges granted to them by several Popes for the punishment of such gross Offenders, which Priviledges were yet extant among their publick Re­cords; and though they did plead the ne­cessity for peace sake of punishing such Offenders: yet Paul the fifth did declare it was a breach of the Ecclesiastical Li­berty, and that unless they did within twenty four dayes after notice pblickly revoke all their Decrees, and blot them out of their Registers, and promise for the future to abstain from all such De­crees against Ecclesiastical Liberty, Im­munity and Jurisdiction, and deliver up those Ecclesiastical Persons to the Nuncio, [Page 92] then he doth excommunicate the Duke and Senate of Venice; and if they con­tinued three days excommunicate, then he puts under interdict the whole domini­on of that State. This also was the great quarrel betwixt Henry the Second and Thomas Becket, for there being many complaints made of crimes committed by the Clergy, no less than an hundred being indited for murders and robberies; the King required they should be tried be­for his Judges as Lay-men were; the Archbishop opposed it as against the li­berty of the Church; the King pleaded that it was the custom of the Land, and to prevent further differences re­quired the Clergy to own these customs under their hands and seals. which they did at Clarendon; and Becket among the rest, omitting those words, salvo ordine suo, which he had for a while insisted upon; but afterwards re­tracting what he had done, he procured the Popes absolution from this obligati­on.Diecto anno 1164. Matth Pa­ris Hist major in Henr. 2. This exemption the Romanists challenge jure divino, but should it be granted, I cannot see how it can consist [Page 93] with the safety of Princes, and quiet o [...] Kingdoms. For, 1. It must needs oc­casion endless jars betwixt the Clergy and Laity; when for the same crimes the one shall be punisht and the other not; when if a Lay-man shall kill a Clergy­man, he shall both incur Excommunica­tion from the Ecclesiastical Magistrate, and death from the Temporal; but now if a Clergy-man shall kill a Lay person he cannot by the Canons be punished with death. The usual punishments in­flicted by the Canons, are suspension, deprivation, irregularity, &c. And if the crime be so heinous that it is pu­nishable with death among the Laity, yet the Clergy-man can only be adjudged to perpetual imprisonment, or put to per­petual penance, which yet is seldom ex­ecuted: and he cannot be degraded, and delivered up to the Secular power, ex­cept in case of Heresie, counteseiting of the Popes Letters, and conspiracy against his own BishopGloss. in c. ad abol [...]d. Extra. d [...] Harcticis. Hostiensis in su [...]ma. ibi. If then the punishments are thus unequal, then the Laity are less secured from wrongs by the Clergy, than the Clergy are from [Page 94] the wrongs by the Laity. And further then the Magistrate cannot protect his Subjects from the injury of the Clergy, nor prevent the damage and inconveni­ence which may befall the Laity, which is in effect to set the Clergy and Laity by the cars, and make them perpetually enemies. 2. It will occasion the fre­quent commission of notorious crimes, for impunity will invite offences, and men will less matter to wrong others, when they know the priviledge of their order will exempt them from punish­ment. Usually where the love of duty doth not disswade, the fear of punish­ment doth deter men from many offen­ces; but the less they shall be punisht, they are less afraid to commit the fault: and if they know before-hand the worst that can happen is only some small censure which reaches not to life or limb, some Ecclesiastical punishment which upon profession of repentance may be easily taken off, it will imbolden men to sin. And this is the case here; for if a Cler­gy-man be guilty of never so many faults, he knows the worst, no lay Magistrates [Page 95] can convent him before them, no Offi­cer of any Lay Court can arrest him, no temporal Judge can detain him in custody, and whoever lays violent hands on a Clergy-man, though under any pretence whatever, is liable to an excom­munication; and if he be brought be­fore an Ecclesiastical judge, the punish­ment is small, the most he can do is to condemn him to a perpetual penance, which yet may in time be got off; and if the Ecclesiastical Magistrates neglect to redress these faults in the Clergy, the Laity have no power to help themselves; by this means there is a great occasion gi­ven of frequent crimes; many are hard­ned in their wickedness, and their pri­viledges conduce much to encourage mis­chief. 3. It indangers the safety of Princes, for the rebellion of a Clergy­man is no Treason, (as they say) be­cause he is not properly the Kings Sub­ject,E [...]a [...]. Sa. Aphorism verbs Cle­ricus. and that he is not bound by the directive power of Secular Laws, nor is there any obligation on the Conscience by virtue of those Laws to obey themSuarez def. sid. Cathol. 1. 4. c. 17. n. 18.. And therefore Suarez makes them only [Page 96] bound to observe the Laws of any Na­tion, either by the force of reason, that is, so far as they judge them useful for the publick good; or by the force of the Canons, that is, so far as the Popes do allow the Clergy to observe these Laws. But then how can Princes be safe if the Popes do no allow them to ob­serve the Laws of Princes? Where's the Princes security if they may plot, raise tumults, break the peace, and still can be in no fault, because they are not his Subjects, nor are bound to observe any of his Laws further than the Pope pleases? Suppose a quarrel rise betwixt the Pope and any temporal Prince, sup­pose the Pope claim his estate, or pre­tend any forseiture of the Crown to him, how shall Princes be secure? For neither are the Clergy of those Coun­tries bound by any Laws for the sup­port and maintenance of their natural Prince longer than the Pope pleases; neither have these Princes power to pu­nish them if they do not. If they hold correspondence with the Kings enemies, if they send intelligence to them, if they [Page 97] furnish them with men and mony, still it is no Treason. The Pope (say they) hath a direct dominion over the Clergy, and therefore they are bound to assist him against all persons whatever, and cannot be punisht for doing this by any Secular Magistrate, because he hath no Jurisdiction over them. Suppose a war with the Pope, a Prince can neither command them to assist him, nor restrain them from assisting his enemies: If he banish them as suspected persons; if he disarm them as dangerous persons; if he sorbid them any intercourse with foreign parts, all this is construed as a breach of Ecclesiastical liberty; and Princes for doing thus are ipso facto excommunicate. Thus according to this Doctrine the safety of Princes is indangered, and ei­ther they must tamely submit to the Popes pleasure, or they have no way to se­cure themselves against the Clergy that take his part. According to this Do­ctrine they are bound to harbour Snakes in their bosoms, and yet are liabel to be punished if they indeavour to pull out their sting.

2. The exemption from any taxes or publick charges; 'tis plain that the Ca­non Law forbids payment of any taxes or tributes to temporal Princes, and un­der pain of Excommunication and Inter­dict forbids those who have temporal jurisdiction to impose any tributes, taxes or any kind of exactions under any colour or pretence whatsoever, on any Chur­ches or Ecclesiastical persons, for their Houses, Lands, or Possessions,Lancelot­tus Inst. Jur▪ Can. l. 2 tit. 20. de immun. Eccles. and this, saith he, is expounded, not only con­cerning the Goods or Lands which they have in right of their Churches, but of their own patrimonial estate; and so saith Suarez, that the Canonists usually teach.Def. fid. Cath. l. 4. c. 24. This exemption from all taxes is pretended by the Canons to be deri­vedC. quan­quam. de [...]easibus in 6. from the Law of God: and so Boni­face the eighth affirmed, Ecclesiastice per­sonae & res ipsarum jure divino a secu­larium personarum exactionibus sunt im­munes; and on this reason he most strict­ly forbids the imposing of any taxes. In the Clementine constitutionsClem. uni­ca. de censi­bus., all former Laws against those impositions are renewed, and though the Popes [Page 99] might impose what Taxes they plea­sed on the Clergy, yet they would not the Laity should do so, and therefore though the Kingdom was in great danger, and the Clergy saw a ne­cessity of contributing to the publick charge, yet they were not allowed to contribute without the Popes consent first had;Cap. ad­versus. Ex­tra. de Im­mun. Eccles. and upon this ground the Clergy when these Laws were first made, did refuse to pay any Taxes, and stood stifly on these Immunities. The quar­rels in the time of Edward the first about this thing are memorable in our Chro­nicles, and the original of them was from the decrees against laying Taxes on the Clergy; winchelsee Archbishop of Canterbury told them, that it was for­bid by the Council of Lions for the Clergy to pay any thing without the Popes leave. The next time therefore that the King demanded aid for his Wars against Scotland, the Clergy by virtue of this exemption would not contribute to his Wars as the Laity did; which so much incensed the King, that he locked up the Barns of Clergy-men, and exclu­ded them from his protection, so that [Page 100] any might sue them, but they could sue no man. And it is observable in our English Histories, that when the rest of the Clergy submitted to pay a proportion of their revenew to the King, all the answer which Winchelsee made was this, that we have under God the universal Lord, two Lords, a spiritual Lord the Pope, and a temporal Lord the King, and though we ought to obey both, yet rather the Spiritual Lord, than the tem­poral; and therefore using no other words than these, Salvet unusquisque ani­mam suam, he rose up suddenly and de­partedGodwin. Catal. of Bishops of Cant [...]r [...]. in Robert Winchelsy., but for this contumacy the King seized on his goods.

Thus stood the case of the Clergies exemption from all Taxes and Payments to the secular Magistrate, the Papal Clergy on pretence of Divine right la­bouring to free themselves from these payments and leaving the laity to indure the burden. And it is observable, that in the Council of Trent, when the Princes did eagerly insist on a reformation of the Clergy, the Clergy propounded a re­formation of the Princes, in which they renewed all the constitutions of Popes, [Page 101] and holy Canons in favor of Ecclesiasti­cal Immunity, commanding under pain of Anathema that neither directly nor indirectly, under any pretence what­ever any thing be constituted or executed against the persons and goods of the Clergy, or against their liberty; and this is decreed notwithstanding any pri­viledges or exemptions, though they have been time out of mind.Hist. of the Coun­cil 1. 8. p. 771. So that by the Articles of this reformation Eccle­sisticks should not be forced to pay any Taxes, Gabels, Subsidies, though in the name of a gift or loan, either in respect of their Church-goods or patrimonial estate. Now this priviledge which those Canons give to the Clergy are incon­sistent with the safety and security of Kingdoms: if we consider, 1. The Lands and Estate which the Clergy may possess; for if the greatest part of the Land become Church-land, or if their pro­portion far exceed the laity, and yet must necessarily be free from all Taxes and Contributions, then this must needs be inconsistent with the security of the Kingdom. It is plain, that if several [Page 102] Princes had not by the statutes of Mort­main, restrained the Clergy from ac­quiring any more Lands without their consent, the whole Land of those King­doms might by degrees have come into the hands of the Clergy. And they pleading their exemptions the whole burden must have been cast on the laity; and they not being able to raise Monyes proportionably to the publick necessity, the Kingdom must have been exposed to destruction. In France the Clergy (as it is computed) have the fourth part of the Kingdom; and yet amongst theCap. 1. de Immunit Eccl. in 6. Decretals there is one of Alexander the fourth, which expresly forbids the French to im­pose any Taxes, Collections or Exactions upon Churches or Ecclesiastical persons, or to require them of them for theirReview of the Council l. 7. c. 2. n. 14. houses, lands, or other possessions whatsoever heretofore had or purchased, or hearafter to be got and pruchased, &c. If then they have the fourth part now, and must not pay for that which they have, or for that which they shall have, then the people must needs be impoverish­ed, and the Kingdom left without suffi­cient support.

2. If we consider the persons that are capable of this priviledge, that is, all Clergy-men whether in the higher or lower Orders, even those that have only the first tonsure, are comprehended under this priviledge. All that are Clerici, and where the words are without re­striction, in favourable causes they are to be extended, and that all Clerici are to have this priviledge, is, says Suarez, Dif. sid. cath. l. 4. c. 26 4. 3. without Controversie among Catho­licks: now there being so many that are reckoned for Clerici in a large sense in the Canon law,Cap. cum Coating. Extra. de atate & qualib. or­din. prov. Conust. cap­quia q [...]o­dan. dc temp. mdi­nand. virgo Caricum. and these all exempted for their goods and lands from any Taxes whatever, and also it being not allowed that they should renounce their privi­ledges; it follows that this exemption must be inconsistent with the safety of King­doms; for if there be no means, or not sufficient left to desray the publick char­ges, if the moneys of the Nation be drained and there cannot be enough raised for the publick defence, either the Clergy must be bound to contribute and pay Taxes, or else the Nation, must needs be exposed to ruin: If these im­munities [Page 104] stand good according to the rigor of the Canons, then the safety of the Nation must needs be indanger'd; for if the laity cannot, and the Clergy are not bound, then there is no means left to provide for the publick necessities. In­deed they will tell us, that the Canons do require the Clergy to contribute, where they see that the laity are not able,Cap. miaus. Extra. de Immuni. Ecc [...]. and that though they forbid tributes and taxes as tokens of the subjection of the Clergy to secular Princes, yet not as necessary expenses for the publick safety. For in such cases they ought to Contribute. But now when I consider the limitations and restrictions wherewith they clog this concession, I see not how all which they grant can consist with the safety of the Kingdom: for 1. They never make the Clergy properly bound as a duty but as a courtefie, and though they do Contribute for the publick safety in which the Clergy as well as the laity are concerned, yet still say the Canons, the laity must receive this as a kindness, Laici humiliter & devotè recipiant cumgratiarum actione. Cap. ad­versu [...]. Extra. de [...]nuni. E [...]cl. As if it were [Page 105] their courtesie only, that they suffer not the Nation to be destroyed, or a kind­ness to the laity that they contribute any thing to keep their own throats from be­ing cut. 2. They do not allow the Clergy to contribute save only, ubi non suppetunt laicorum facultates, where the estate of the laity is not sufficient. But now it is hard to prove that the estate of the laity is not sufficient, and if the Clergy are not bound unless it appear that the laity are not able, the Clergy will hardly ever be induced to pay and the Kingdom must be indanger'd. 3. They do not allow the Clergy to con­tribute, unless where the Bishop & Clergy consent.Cap ad­v [...]r [...] Extra. de Im [...]un. Eccl. If then the secular Magistrate shall declare that there is an imminent necessity, yet still the Clergy are forbid to pay without the Bishop and Clergy in their Diocesan Synod, or at least as others expound it without the c [...]nsent of the Bishop and Chapter of his Cathedral: but now in many cases it may be impossi­ble to procure a meeting of the Bishop and Clergy, or perhaps they may not judge (as the State does) that there is any [Page 106] necessity of raising Moneys; yet in no case are they bound to contribute without the Bishop and Clergies approbation. 4. Suppose the Bishiop and Clergy do acknowledge that there is a necessity of a general contribution, and that the Tax be allowed by them, yet if any Cler­gy-man shall refuse to pay, the laity can only intreat and desire, but they can­not compel him, and if the Bishop will not force him to pay, there is no re­medy but by a recourse to the Bishop's Superior, which may be difficult and tedious, and perhaps little to the pur­pose: so that still these restrictions shew that the contributions of the Cler­gy according to these principles are little available to the publick safety. Lastly, Though it be reasonable that the Cler­gy should consent to the publick Taxes, as well as the Laity, and that there can be no reason why the Laity should assess the Clergy without their consent, more than the Clergy should assess the Laity; yet here's one thing more in the Canons that though the Bish [...]p and Clergy do consent to the Tax, yet still without [Page 107] the Popes consent the Clergy are not bound to contribute, Cap. ad­versus ioi. Propter ignoran­tiam quorundam Rom. pontifex priùs consulatur, &c. Thus Innocent the third determined; and Gregory the fourth in his Bulls de Coena Domini, thunders out an excommunication against tho [...]e who impose any Taxes, Collections, Pay­ments or other charges upon Clerks, Prelates, or other Ecclesiastical persons, or upon the goods of Churches, Monaste­ries, or other Ecclesiastical Benefices, or upon the fruits, rents, and revenues thereof, without special and express Li­cence from the Pope of Rome. Thus nei­therReview of the Council l. 7. c. 2. can the State lay a Tax on the Cler­gy; nor the Clergy consent to pay a Tax without the Popes consent: and now if no Tax can be lay'd without the Popes consent, nor the Clergy allowed to pay it without the Popes consent, and that though themselves do acknow­ledge a necessity; then this restriction spoyls the former concession, and this priviledge they pretend to by the Canons, must be inconsistent with the publick safety. For suppose the necessity be oc­casioned [Page 108] by the Pope himself, suppose the Nation be invaded by the Pope's forces, 'us unlikely, that b [...] will allow them to contribute against himself, and unless he do allow it, the Clergy are not bound: by this means then the safety of the Nation must be indanger'd. Or sup-pose the necessity arise any other way, yet it will be long before they can con­sult the Pope, and receive his consent, so much time may be spent that the re­medy comes too late to help the disease. Now though some pretend that this Ca­non does not hold in case of urgent ne­cessity, that is, as if it be for one tax or payment, or for a short time, in that case necessity hath no Law; yet if the Tax be for any continuance the Popes ap­probation must be had, so sayes Suarez: Def. fid. Cato. l. 4. c. [...]. n. 18. And yet this is more than the Canon allows; for the Canon in the Council of Lateran allowed the Clergy to contri­bute only in a case of necessity, and of [...]s necessity t [...]emselves were judges, but there is a [...]e [...]wards a restriction in the Cap. [...]versus; that because some out of imp [...]dence did contribute, that is [Page 109] without just cause or any real necessity, and because they might pretend a necessi­ty when there was none, therefore the Canon provides that the Pope should al­wayes be advised with, and though the Bishop doth judge there is a necessity, yet sayes the Gloss,Gl. in c. non [...]ia [...]s. Ex [...]a de im [...]nu. Ec [...]l. verb. tan­tam he ought not to contribute unless first the Pope be con­sulted; and in the Cap. Adversus, ibi, all constitutions, and determinations con­cerning these Taxes, which are supposed to be without the Popes privity, are de­clared void and null. This is the hard case now of Kingdoms, if the Clergy are hindred from the immoderate in­crease of their revenues to the prejudice of the Laity, then the Laity incurrs the sentence of excommunication. If they have got never so much, no revenue of the Clergy can upon any account be aliened without the Popes consent, no Tax imposed without his privity; what necessity soever there is, as they or the Laity judge, yet the Clergy can give nothing without the Pope. Thus no civil Government hath any power to preserve it self or raise means for its own main­tenance [Page 110] or support longer than the Pope pleases. If any shall except against this, and say that this doctrine of exemptions is not inconsistent with the security of civil Governments, for in those Coun­tryes which are intirely Popish the Na­tion flourishes and the State is preserved? How is this inconsistent with the civil Government of Spain, where the Cler­gy enjoy both large revenues and great priviledges? And why should we think the liberties and immunities are dange­rous to the State, when there is no such thing, where these liberties are so fully enjoyed? I answer; That were this do­ctrine as strictly practised, as it is stifly maintained, the peace and safety of the Nation must be indanger'd. In some places they give the Clergy leave to talk, but they will not destroy them­selves to satisfie the Popes demands. At present the rigor of these immunities is much restrained by concordats, customs, and priviledges, which Princes plead, and either the Popes are willing to gratifie Princes w [...]th these things, or Princes are resolved to take them if the Pope will [Page 111] not give them. Some Princes are too po­tent to be restrained by Papal threats, and no wonder if the Pope allows them those priviledges which he is sure they will have without him. The French King perhaps will not tarry for the Popes con­sent: and when the Popes forbid any persons to lay impositions on the Clergy, the Lawyers conceit that the King of France is always excepted, Review of the Counc. 1. 7. c. 2 n. 14. and that this is his special priviledge; but the Popes indulge the French no more than others in this point. Alexander the fourth, Cap. 1. de Immunit. Eccl. in 6. expresly forbids the French to impose any Taxes on the Clergy, and since the Council of Trent maintains these immunities to be by divine ordi­nation, to what purpose should they talk of this priviledge? If these immu­nities are by divine ordination, then to infringe them will be a sin, and there can be no pretence of a priviledge to justifie a sin. This is the doctrine which the Romanists maintain, and whoever infringes these liberties, breaks, as they say, Gods Law, and are liable to the severest censures of the Church. And [Page 112] therefore 'tis unreasonble to reply, that in some Popish Countrys these liberties are not found so inconsistent with the publick security, for even in some Po­p [...]sh Countrys they will not permit them, and more value their own security, than the Pope's thunders; and therefore though they own the Popes spiritual power, yet they will not submit to his de­crees which are usurpations on the secular power, and inconsistent with the civil State. Perhaps this doctrine might not prejudice the State, when the Pope out of fear, or love is willing to gratifie Princes; but if an angry Pope that hath power to back his humour should get the seat, they would soon see that the liberties of the Church which the Popes challenge are incompatible with their security. In quarrels with the Pope if the Clergy should disown to be subject to that temporal Prince who contests with him, if they refuse to contribute for the defence of the Nation, if they foment any secret designs at the Popes command, then the strictest Romanist would presently see the insecurity of that [Page 113] Kingdom. Were the Pope of the French side, the Spaniard would not scruple the assessing of the Clergy for the publick necessities without the Popes leave; should the Popes pursue the design against Naples, which is (as they call it) a see of the Church, should they design to out the Spaniard as 'tis sayd the Barbe­rini in Urban the eighth's time once in­tended, they would not think these im­munities allowable, where the State may be indanger'd. When Paul the fourth had revoked the grant of the half and quarter fruits which his Predecessors had granted to the Emperour for the main­teinance of the War of Germany, still as the Author of the History of the Council tells us, they forced the Cler­gy by imprisonments and sequestrations to pay, and at this day should the Pope be their enemy they would not question to take without his liking, which they now have with it, or else in the end they would have no means left to pre­serve themselves. 'Tis indeed the pru­dence of the Popes to forbid Princes medling with the goods and persons of [Page 114] Clergy-men, as being contrary to Ec­clesiastical liberty, and yet the Popes for the maintenance of their own tem­poral Dominions never scruple at the violation of it, and what is this but to gain the opportunity of increasing their own power, and getting the sword into their own hands, when others have layd it down? If the Pope may command the Clergy of any quality whatever to carry doslers with earth on their backs for the repair of the walls, as Paul the fourth did, when he was threatned by the Duke of Alva, I see not, but (as Padre Hist. of the Council, p. 404. Pavlo observes) Governours of strong places may do the like, for the Pope as a temporal Prince can have no more power to oblige the Clergy, than other Princes have, nor are the Clergy more concerned in the preservation of the Popes Territories, than they are for those places where they receive protection and maintenance. If the Pope may alienate Church-lands for the defence of his own Territories, which he holds as a tem­poral Prince, I see no reason why an equal necessity may not justifie Princes in [Page 115] the like alienation, for the temporal estate of the Pope is no more Jure Divino, than the estate of other Princes, there­fore there is no reason for the one to imploy them for a publick defence more than the other: but here's the mystery of it, the Popes may use any means to perserve their own Dominions, but Kings may not; which must needs make way for the security of the Popes, and the destruction of the temporal States.

CHAP. II. Some more Considerations from the doubt­fulness, and uncertainty of some Do­ctrines required of us by the Romish Church to be profest and believed.

IInstance in the Doctrine of the Sacri­fice of the Mass. The Council of Trent Sess. 22. Can. 1. de sacrif. missae, pronounces an Anathema against them that deny, that there is Offered in the Mass a true and proper Sacrifice: and Can. 3. against them that say, it is not a propitiatory Sacrifice, and that it ought not to be Offered for the Living and the Dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions and other necessities; and in the professi­on of saith by Pius 4. they are bound to swear that they do profess, that there is Offered to God in the Mass, a true, pro­ [...] and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Liv­ [...] [...]nd the Dead. But this Article [...] [...]ey thus require to be profest and [...], is uncertain and doubtful; the [Page 117] difference betwixt us and them, lyes not about the acknowledgement of a Sacrifice in the Eucharist, but whether there be a true, proper and propitiatory Sacrifice; we do not contend about the calling that Sacrament a Sacrifice, though the Scri­pture does not give it that name, for since Sacraments are sometimes named from the things they represent, and since in the Eu­charist there is a representation and com­memoration of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross; we do not differ about a word, nor will trouble the peace of the Church about words and names, which antiquity hath and might use in a lawful sense: In that Christ is evidently set forth Crucifi­ed, and in the celebration of that Sacra­ment, there is a shewing forth the Lords death till he come; and therefore the members of the English Church have not scrupled to call it a Sacrifice, a spiritual Sacrifice; a pure offering: The question is, whether it be a true, proper and pro­pitiatory Sacrifice as the Council speaks? and in that sense in which they explain this Doctrine, it is uncertain and doubtful, and therefore we cannot [Page 118] be obliged to profess it.

1. They enjoyn us to profess that here is a true and proper Sacrifice: now what they mean by a proper Sacrifice must first be explained. They tell us it is an external Offering to God alone, by which some sen­sible and permanent thing is by a lawful Minister, with a mystical rite, Consecra­ted and changed: so says Bellarmin L. 1. de Miss [...] c. 2..

And though a Sacrifice may sometimes in a large sense be defined to be any good work whereby we please God; but pro­perly, to a proper Sacrifice, five things are required: 1. That he who Offers the Sacrifice be a Priest: 2. That the thing Offered be some sensible outward thing: 3. That that sensible thing be changed and destroyed: 4. That either explicitely or implicitely it be referred to the honour of God: Lastly, that the place on which it is Offered be consecrated to this pur­pose; so says Becanus Sum. Schol. Theol. c. 25. qu. 2.: if then the thing Offered be not a sensible thing, or not done by a Lawful Priest; or if that sen­sible thing be not changed and destroyed, 'tis not a true proper Sacrifice; we must therefore consider how far these qualifi­cations [Page 119] and conditions are found in the Mass: and if it be doubtful and uncertain whether all these conditions of a true proper Sacrifice be found in it, then it is still uncertain whether there be a true proper Sacrifice, and by consequence we cannot be bound to profess this for an Ar­ticle of faith.

1. They require in a true proper Sa­crifice a sensible permanent thing: if there be an outward Offering, then there must be some sensible thing Offered; but now what or which is this sensible permanent thing which is here Offered, it is wholly uncertain: some say it is only the Bread and Wine, and not the Body and Blood of Christ; for that properly is Sacrificed, which is changed and destroyed, but the Bread and Wine only are changed, and destroyed: others say it is only Christ which is Offered; and so says the Coun­cil, that in this Sacrifice of the Mass, the same Christ is here sacrificed unbloodily, which Offered himself on the Cross bloodilySess. 22. cap. 2.: But then Christ here is not a sensible thing; either this Body of Christ which they here Offer must be some thing [Page 120] perceivable by the senses, and that they dare not say; or else the Body of Christ is not the thing here Offered: If the mat­ter of this Sacrifice must be some sensible thing, then how can that be the Body of Christ, which is not perceived by any out­ward sense to be under the species of Bread and Wine; but rather against sense is be­lieved to be under them? To free them­selves from this perplexity, they tell us, that Christ as existing under the Sacra­mental species, is the thing offered; But how is this? not properly, (says Beca­nus) as the matter which must be sup­posed to the action of Sacrificing: but what else do we mean by the thing Of­fered, but the matter to which the action of Sacrificing is referred? for if I Sacri­fice, I must Sacrifice something; and that which I do Sacrifice is the matter, which must be supposed alwayes before the acti­on of Sacrificing. Thus then according to their Doctrine, Christ under the spe­cies is the thing Offered; but still not pro­perly as the matter of the Sacrifice; (i. e.) he is the thing Offered, but not as the thing Offered; he is properly the matter [Page 121] of the Offering, or else here's an action without an object, an Offering of no­thing: and he is not properly the matter of the Offering, which is a plain con­tradiction. To clear themselves from this perplexity, Becanus tells us further, That Christ under the Sacrameneal spe­cies is the thing Offered as the term of the action of Sacrificing; but still this will not clear the perplexity; for, sup­pose that Consecration (as he fancies) be the action of Sacrificing, (which yet will appear afterwards to be a most intri­cate and perplexed conceit) and that the terminus ad quem be the Body of Christ brought by the saying of those words, hoc est corpus meum, to exist under those species: but still where is this res sensi­bilis? this thing which may be perceived by sense? Still here must be a visible Sa­crificing an invisible thing, an external Offering of a thing which I must believe to be there, but cannot by any sense per­ceive to be there; an Offering of a thing sensible, which yet is insensible. Sup­pose that Christ is the term of the action of Sacrificing, as he exists under the Sa­cramental [Page 122] species, yet even there he is in­visible, and even there we cannot say that he is res sensibilis. Well, but there is another fetch-behind to defend this pro­per Sacrifice, and that is this, that it is enough that the species of Bread and Wine which contain the Body and Blood of Christ are things subjected to the senses: so says Azorius [...]. Mo­ral. lib. 10. c 18., and therefore if we are askt whether the species of Bread and Wine, or rather the Body of Christ be the matter of this Sacrifice? We answer (says he) that the Body of the Lord contained under the species is the matter of the Sacrifice: or we may take Becanus his answer Sum. Schol. Theol. [...]. 2. q. 5., that the Sacramen­tal species of Bread and Wine do intrin­secally pertain to the thing Offered, so that Christ with these species make one sa­cramental suppositum; and as he is visible by these species, is the thing Offered: but still, say I, he is not visible by these species: when we do see the colour or fi­gure of the bread, we do neither see really the colour or figure of the Body of Christ. They all tell us that the accidents of Bread and Wine are not subjected in the Body [Page 123] of Christ, nor can be called the accidents of his body: we may say this is the co­lour or taste of the Bread, but we cannot say this is the colour or taste of Christs body; so that still I cannot see, how Christ is visible by these species; and therefore how can he be the thing offer­ed? They may say according to their te­nents, that they believe he is contained under the species; but still as he is under the species, he is not res sensibilis; for since they are not accidents of his body, they cannot represent his body to the outward senses. Thus then the body of Christ is not here a sensible thing, and therefore what is properly the sensible thing here offered is uncertain: and by consequence the doctrine of this proper Sacrifice is uncertain and doubtful.

2. In a true and proper Sacrifice there must be some proper action of Sacri­ficing; but wherein lyes this proper acti­on of Sacrificing, they are wholly per­plexed and uncertain. It is a condition in a true proper Sacrifice, that that sensible thing which is offered be changed and destroyed, but it is uncertain and doubtful [Page 124] whether there be any action here by which this sensible thing should be chang­ed, and destroyed. Some think the true nature of this Sacrifice consists of three actions of the Priest, Consecration, Ob­lation and Sumption; some make it to lye in four actions, in the Consecration, Oblation, Fraction and Sumption. Some add to these the commixtion of the species. Some say it is found in two actions, Con­secration and Oblation; some, in one, that is, Oblation; others say, it is only in Consecration: so perplexed are they about this action of Sacrificing, as we see by the several opinions recited in Azori­us [...]st. Mo­ral. l 10. [...]. 19., yet they will bind us to believe that here is a true proper sacrifice, when them­selves are so uncertain wherein the reason of this sacrifice consists. There are nine opinions concerning it, as Malderas Tract. 10. de Just. & Jure c. 3. reckons them up; and yet though them­selves cannot tell us, how the Body of Christ is properly Offered, or which is this proper action of Sacrificing, which is so necessary to a true proper sacrifice, yet still we must believe what they require. The usual opinion is, that the Consecration [Page 125] belongs to the essence of the sacrifice; but even in this they differ, for some think it pertains to the essence of the sacrifice, be­cause by the Consecration there is made a true and real change of the Bread into Christs Body, and a true Sacrifice requires such a change whereby the thing ceases to be; others, because by this Consecrati­on Christ is truly though mystically and unbloodily sacrificed, for since the sepa­ration of the Body and Blood is a true and proper sacrificing; and that by the words hoc est corpus meum, the Body without the Blood is placed upon the Al­tar, and by the words hic est sanguis me­us, the Blood is placed there without the Body; therefore they explain the proper action of sacrificing by the consecration in this sense. Bellarmine De Miss [...] l. 1. c. 27. dislikes these ways and propounds another. There are three things (says he) found in the con­secration of the Eucharist, in which lyes the true real ground of a Sacrifice, 1. A prophane and earthly thing is made holy. 2. That thing thus made holy is offered to God. 3. That thing thus offered is ordained to a true real and external mu­tation [Page 126] and destruction. But take now all these ways and it is still wholly perplex­ed and uncertain how really in this Con­secration of the Eucharist there is any external change and destruction of the thing offered: For 1. In the making a prophane thing to be holy, that may be without any external sensible change; for this sanctification is only an external denomination which makes no change re­ally in the object. Thus many things are call'd holy by the dedication of them to the service of God, without any outward change in the things themselves, for they remain what they were before: so that now in the making it holy, here's none of this real outward change: besides, if there were more than an outward denominati­on in this making holy, yet the same nu­merical thing which was prophane, does not remain when it is made holy, and therefore to be sacrificed as an holy thing; for the Bread and Wine are not made ho­ly but annihilated according to him, and therefore either here is no external change, or else the same thing is not now sacrificed which was prophane: and [Page 127] so Bellarmin acknowledges there, that it is not the Bread which was profane, that is properly sacrificed, but that which was made of the Bread; and yet further, 'tis as perplexed and uncertain how that which was made of the Bread, that is the Body of Christ, can be in this sense pro­perly sacrificed; for as the Bread which was profane, cannot be said to be made holy, because 'tis annihilated by repeating the words of Consecration, no more can the body which always is holy, ever be said to have been profane: and therefore that which was made of the Bread can­not be said to be sacrificed. 2. Neither in the placing the Sacrifice on the Altar by the words of Consecration is this out­ward change and destruction wrought, for the effect of the consecration is to bring the Body of Christ to exist under those species, but the existing of it under the species is rather a thing previous to the action of Sacrificing, as the laying the Sacrifice on the Altar was not the sacri­ficing it; or however still here is no sen­sible change which yet is necessary to this outward Sacrifice. Lastly, According [Page 128] to Bellarmin's way, the true ground of the Sacrifice must lye in this, that the thing which is offered is ordained to a true real destruction; (i. e.) it is by this means made to be food, made capable of being eaten, and therefore may be destroyed. But I ask, in eating the Consecrated Wa­fer, is Christs Body destroyed or no? They tell us that the Body of Christ here is the same Body with that which is Glorified, and therefore it is now capable of no passion or suffering, of no harm or destruction. If there be a proper Sacri­fice, there must be a destruction of the thing sacrificed: for all the Sacrifices mentioned in Scripture, whether of things animate or inanimate, were necessarily some way or other to be destroyed: and so much Bellarmin acknowledgesL. 1. [...]. 2. de Miss [...].. But here is no destruction, no real hurt of the thing offered, and therefore still it is uncertain whether it be a true proper Sacrifice, since the Body of Christ is not capable of being destroyed as those true proper Sacrifices were. There is one little shift still which some use, that the Body of Christ loses in being eaten, not its natural [Page 129] being, but its sacramental being, that it ceases to be sensible food, (i. e.) it ceases to be under those species of Bread and Wine: but what real destruction of the Body of Christ is this, to cease only to be where it was? for a thing is not destroy­ed by leaving its place, nor loses any thing but the respect to that ubi where it was: Whether the Clothes be off or on, yet the Body is the same, and no man will say it's any destruction of the Body, though it be devested of the garments which in­closed it. The sacramental essence is no more according to their explication, than the body existing under those species, as the body under the clothes, which is meerly an accidental being. And is all this noise of a real change and destructi­on of the thing offered come to no more than this? Here's the destruction of an Ima­ginary being, or at most a destruction of a respect betwixt the Body of Christ, and the outward forms. Here's strange unin­telligible things; sometimes the Destru­ction is made by Consecration, which is as much as that a thing is destroyed by being made to be, and the conversion of [Page 130] the Bread into the Body, whereby the Body is made to exist under these species, should be the external destruction of the Body; sometimes the destruction is in the eating, but others will tell us that a Sacrifice is compleated before the eating of it, and that the thing sacrificed was sensibly changed, before they partook of the Sacrifice; so that now where's this outward change which is the pro­per nature of sacrificing? Or if eating be this Sacrificing, yet where's the real destruction of the Body? here's no al­teration in the Body, no harm to the Body; and whether it be supposed un­der the species, or no, yet still here's no destruction of the Body; whether the outward species be eaten or no, yet still here is no sensible change of the Body; that is neither broken with the teeth, nor chewed, nor swallowed, nor can nourish our bodies; so that when we have tryed all wayes, still this is un­intelligible, still this doctrine of a true, proper sacrifice, is uncertain and doubt­ful.

3. There must be a true Priest; for a [Page 131] proper Sacrifice and a proper Priesthood are relatives. Now (saith the Coun­cil) Christ in the last Supper declaring himself to be appointed a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech, offered his body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and under these sym­bols delivered it to the Apostles, whom he then made Priests of the New Testa­ment; and commanded them and their suc­cessors in the Priesthood by these words, do this in remembrance of me, that they should offer, &c. Sess. 22. c. 1. And the Council Ana­thematizes those who shall deny, that by these words, do this in remembrance of me, the Apostles were appointed to be Priests.Can. 2. ibi. Thus they make Christs Melchisedechian Priesthood to consist in the offering of his body under the forms of bread and wine. Again, they tell us, Christ could not be a Priest for ever af­ter this Order, unless he left successors to offer the like Sacrifice. Again, they say, that by those words, do this in re­membrance of me, he made the Apostles Priests, and commanded them and their successors to offer his body and blood; [Page 132] so that Christ the true Priest by the mi­nistry of the Priest his substitute, doth offer this Sacrifice. But now when we weigh all this heap of intricacies and perplexed Doctrines, we shall see that this Doctrine is wholly uncertain and doubtful. 1. That Melchisedechs Priest­hood consisted in the offering of bread and wine, is wholly uncertain: For, 1. It is not certain that Melchisedechs Sacrifice was only bread and wine, though the Scripture saith, he brought forth bread and wine; yet this was to Abraham, and not to God: or suppose what was brought forth to Abraham for the refreshment of him and his followers, was first offered to God; yet it is not cer­tain that he offered nothing else; he might offer ordinary Sacrifices of Beasts as other Priests did: And from one place where Moses occasionally speaks of Mel­chisedechs bounty to Abraham, that he brought forth bread and wine; we can­not have any certain ground that Mel­chisedechs sacrifice was nothing but bread and wine. Either they must bring some place that affirms Melchisedech only of­fered [Page 133] bread and wine; or if he was a Priest of the most high God, 'tis more likely that he offered such sacrifices as other Priests did. Thus here is no cer­tainty of the first ground of this Romish Doctrine; Melchisedechs sacrifice is not certainly known, therefore none can say certainly Melchisedech offered only bread and wine. 2. It is uncertain, that Christs Melchisedechian Priesthood con­sisted in the offering under these forms; for where Christ is said to be a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, there is nothing mentioned of the Sacrifice that he offered; here is nothing in the Epi­stle to the Hebrews (where is the only di­scourse of Christs Melchisedechian Priest­hood) concerning any sacrifice under the form of bread and wine: And that he at his last Supper should declare himself a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, and should offer at that time a sacrifice proper to that Priesthood (i. e.) him­self under the form of bread and wine, is no way evident from any passage at the Supper, recorded by the Evange­lists, or any discourse of this order of [Page 134] Melchisedech by the Apostle Paul; and if it be not evident by the History of the Supper, or any discourse concerning the Melchisedechian Priesthood in the Scriptures, then it is uncertain that Christs Melchisedechian Priesthood con­sisted in offering his body under these forms. 2. It is not certain that Christ could not be a Priest for ever after this Order, unless he left successors to offer the like sacrifice. For, 1. He may be stiled a Priest for ever, in regard of the efficacy of his Priesthood, though this Priest offer'd Sacrifice (i. e.) himself once upon the Cross, yet the virtue of this lasts for ever: for he needed not daily or on a certain day, the day of Ex­piation every year, as the Aaronical High Priests, to offer sacrifice, for this he did once, when he offered up himself; Heb. 7. 27. nor did he need to offer himself often, for then he must have suffered often, but now once hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himselfHeb. 9. 25, 26.. Thus then he might be called a Priest for ever though he left no successors, for so great was the worth of the Sacrifice [Page 135] which this Priest once offered, that it lasts for ever. 2. He might be stiled a Priest for ever in respect of the executi­on of his Priestly Office, for his Office was not only to satisfie for sin by his death, but to make intercession for sinners, and it was as necessary that he should ap­pear in Heaven in the presence of God for us, as to have suffered on the Cross. If Christ should have continued on earth, he had not been a Priest Heb. 8. 4. (i. e.) had not performed the office of the Priest, both to die for us here, and present his sufferings before his Father in Heaven. Since then he ever lives to make inter­cession for us, and must still perform that office of the Priest, in interceeding with God for us, he may be called a Priest for ever in respect of the execution of his Priestly Office. 3. He may be said to be a Priest for ever, because this Priest lives for ever: and this is suffi­ciently intimated from the Apostles di­scourse, Heb. 7. 16, 17, 23, 24. where he opposes the Aaroni­cal and Melchisedechian Priests, the one was made after the Law of a carnal commandment (i. e.) the Law allowed [Page 136] a carnal succession, because those Priests were mortal, but the other was made after the power of an endless life, for he neither succeeded any that went be­fore him nor left any successor after him. Again, in the Aaronical Priesthood there were many Priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death; but this man (i. e.) Christ because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable Priesthood. So that though he hath no successor in his Office, yet he is a Priest for ever; and this will further appear from that description of Melchisedech, That he had neither be­ginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a Priest continuallyHeb. 7. 3.. The Apostle speaks of Melchisedech as if his Priesthood were an eternal Priesthood, and himself an eternal Priest. But how is that? Be­cause the Scripture never mentioning any successors of Melchisedech doth seem to represent him as one that never died, and therefore he must be an eter­nal Priest, such a Priest as Christ was, that lives for ever. And therefore the [Page 137] Order of Melchisedech is not to be inter­preted from the manner of the Sacrifice, what kind of thing Melchisedech offered; but from the continuance of the Priest: as the Type was without end of days; for there is no successor of his recorded; so Christ the Antitype was really an eternal Priest, for he liveth for ever himself, and needeth no successors. Thus Christ may be stiled a Priest for ever, (Estius I [...] ep. ad Heb. c. 7. v. 17. ac­knowledges so much,) ratione personae, because no man succeeds him in his Priesthood, ratione officii, because he always pleads for us in Heaven, and ratione effectus, because by that sacrifice which he offered he is made the Author of eternal Salvation to us. If now Christ is justly stiled a Priest for ever upon these grounds, then it's not certain that the eternity of Christs Priesthood requires a successor. Indeed some of them tell us, they do not mean that Christ hath properly successors, for they are substituted into the room of him that is dead or absent; but Christ hath not left his Priesthood, therefore there is no need of successors; and Estius saith, [Page 138] that no Catholick, (that speaks advised­ly) will say so: yet they tell us that Christ must have some Vicars or Substi­tutes to sacrifice in his stead, and that he could not be a Priest for ever unless he sacrificed by his Ministers, since he could not properly sacrifice by himself. B [...]ll. de [...]iss [...] l. 1. c. 25. [...]. quodtim. But neither is this true, that Christ could not be a Priest for ever, unless he sacrificed by his Ministers. For, 1. This is founded on a false ground, that a Priest continues a Priest no longer than he sacrifices, and therefore Christ could not be a Priest for ever, unless he had something to sacrifice; which is as much, as that a man ceases to have an office, when he ceases to execute that office; the absurdity of which opinion is suffici­ently confuted in several instances, by a late learnedDr. Br [...] ­vin [...] of the depth of the Mass. c. 11. Author, whose particular industry about the Mass might much have super [...]eded my pains on this Sub­ject, if this Discourse had not been prepared for the Press before I saw his Book, and if I had not designed the handling of the [...]e things in another man­ner and method. 2. If they had con­sidered [Page 139] that there was a double duty re­quired of this High Priest, not only the sacrificing of himself here on earth, but the presenting of this sacrifice before his Father in Heaven, they would soon have observed the mistake. For though he had finisht that part which was to be done upon the Cross, yet he had not finisht that which remained to be done in Heaven, (i. e.) to plead the merit of his death and sufferings before his Fa­ther, and to intercede for us within the vail; as it was with his Type the High Priest on the day of expiation; he was not only to sacrifice without the vail, but to enter within the vail into the Holy of Holies, and there to sprinkle the blood before the Mercy-Seat. Now though the sacrifice was kill'd without, yet he is said to offer this within the vail; just so it was with Christ, he was slain in the outer Court here on earth; but answerable to this Type he entred into the holy place, into Heaven, and there appears in the presence of God for us, neither by the blood of Calves and Goats, but by his own blood he entred [Page 140] in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us:Heb. 9. 12. and he doth now instead of that blood of Goats and Calves present his own blood before his Father. Thus Christ doth not cease from a Sacerdotal act, and therefore though he doth not now sacrifice, yet he doth not cease to be a Priest, no more than the High Priest when he was within the Vail, and was offering that blood before the Mercy-Seat. Thus 'tis not certain what the Romanists lay for a foundation, that Christ could not be a Priest for ever, unless he sacrificed by his Ministers. For he doth still perform a Sacerdotal act appearing before God for us, and so Estius confesses upon Heb. 9. 25.

3. 'Tis not certain, that by those words, do this in remembrance of me, he made the Apostles Priests, and gave them and their successors power to of­fer his body and blood. For, 1. Here is no ground from the words that do this should signifie offer this or that, do this in remembrance of me should signi­fie, offer this sacrifice; and whether is [Page 141] it more reasonable to expound the words of a sacrifice, of which there is in the foregoing words not the least mention, or that they must be referred to the pas­sage which went immediately before? That as Christ blessed, and brake, and gave, saying take eat, &c. so hereafter they should do this in remembrance of him, do this, which he then did, and com­manded them to do, in remembrance of his death and passion. 2. If these words made them Priests to offer up Christs body, then all the faithful are made Priests, for he saith to all, take, eat, this do in remembrance of me: And it's plain as Estius acknowledgeth on 1 Cor. 11. 24. that St. Paul refers those words to the whole Church of Corinth, to whom he writes; for after he had re­lated the institution, that Christ said, take, eat, this is my body which is bro­ken for you, do this in remembrance of me, and again, this cup is the New Te­stament in my blood, this do as oft as ye shall drink it in remembrance of me, he explains these words in the follow­ing verse, for as oft as ye eat this bread [Page 142] and drink this cup, ye do shew forth the Lords death, which would not be a con­venient explaining of those words, if they did not refer to all the Disciples, but only to the Priests. 'Tis true, the Romanists would fain expound the words that the Priests must do something which Christ did (i. e.) sacrifice his body, as well as the people perform these acti­ons of taking, and eating; but still here is no certainty that do this, must re­fer to something which it is not said there that Christ did, or required others to do; still I say here's no certainty that Christ did bid them sacrifice as Priests, as he had sacrificed in his last Supper, for here is nothing of any sacri­fice in his last Supper, here are no words in the History of his last Supper which signifie any such thing, here is nothing to be found when he instituted this both for a Sacrifice and for a Sacrament, by what words he particularly appointed the Apo­stles Priests to offer a sacrifice, different from the institution of the Sacrament, wherein they are commanded to take and eat in remembrance of him. Thus here are [Page 143] many things uncertain and doubtful; we can neither find any institution in these words of a proper Priest to sacrifice, nor any substitution in Christs room to offer sacrifice. And if there be no certain­ty of this, then there is no certainty of any true proper sacrifice in the Eucha­rist. When they have considered all this, they will see that this Doctrine is so full of perplexities and uncertainties, that it is unreasonable to make it an ar­ticle of faith, without which there is no Salvation.

2. They enjoyn us to profess, that there is a propitiatory sacrifice in the Mass for the living and the dead. And truly they are much concerned in the maintenance of this Doctrine; for the people being perswaded that there is a propitiatory sacrifice in the Mass for the living and they dead, that the Priest may apply this sacrifice to whom he pleases, and the more Masses are said for them, the greater benefit they obtain; the people therefore were willingly per­swaded to hire the Priests to say Masses for them, some founded Chauntry Priests [Page 144] to say a Mass perpetually for their souls, others left great Legacies for hundreds or thousands of Masses: one Cardinal appointed fifty thousand Masses to be said for his soul; and there are few so forgetful of the Priests profit or them­selves, who do not leave the Priest some­thing for a Mass for them. And the Mass being now considered as a propitiatory sacrifice offered by the Priest, it matte­red not whether any were present or no, (and so private Masses stole into the Church,) for the Priest offered the Sacrifice, as Christs substitute, and whe­ther any were present or no, yet the Sa­crifice would have its proper effect. Thus this Doctrine is of high advantage in the Romish Church, but yet really it is wholly uncertain and doubtful: for this sacrifice of the Mass was instituted by Christ (say they) at his last Supper, and either Christ offered a propitiatory Sacrifice at his last Supper or no; if he did not, then there is no propitiatory Sacrifice now offered; if he did, then Christ in his last Supper redeemed the world, and therefore there was need no of the Sa­crifice [Page 145] on the Cross. If it be a properly pro­pitiatory sacrifice, then it properly ap­peases Gods wrath, satisfies Gods justice, and by consequence takes away the ne­cessity of Christs death; for if the end is fulfilled for which he died, then there is no necessity of his death. If it be pro­pitiatory in the same manner that the sa­crifice of the Cross is, why then doth it not work the same effect? And if it were not propitiatory in the same man­ner, but only as representing the fu­ture sufferings of Christ, then how is it properly propitiatory? He that thinks to satisfie himself by calling it a representa­tive commemorative sacrifice, must consi­der both how he makes it a true sacrifice, and how he makes it a proper propitia­tory sacrifice; for to make it a represen­tative sacrifice there was no need that Christ himself should be sacrificed, no more than it was necessary that Christ himself should be sacrificed really in the old sacrifices, which were the represen­tations of that sacrifice which should be offered on the Cross. There may be a re­presentation of Christs sufferings, with­out [Page 146] Christ himself being sacrificed. And also this sacrifice of Christ in the Sup­per, which is wholly invisible, cannot be a representation of that which is visible; for usually we take things that are seen to represent those things that are not seen; but I know no reason why men should take that which is not seen to re­present those things which shall be seen. So that now to call it a representative sa­crifice, and yet a true sacrifice, is wholly unintelligible. Again, to make this sa­crifice in the Supper representative and yet properly propitiatory, is as hard to be imagined: For we cannot understand how the representation of a propitiatory sacrifice (i. e.) of that on the Cross, can work the same effect with the thing it self, unless the representation in a glass of a man paying a sum of money can work the same effect and discharge a debt, as well as the actual laying down the sum. They require us to pro­fess that there is a propitiatory sacrifice in the Mass, yet when it comes to be inquired into, here's only a commemora­tion and representation of that sacrifice [Page 147] which is propitiatory. But now the re­presentation of the sacrifice is not the same thing with the sacrifice, no more than the Image or Picture of the man is the same thing with the man himself. They require us to profess that Christs blood here is really shed for remission of sins, and on this ground they prove it to be a propitiatory sacrifice; yet they will not say here's any satisfying Gods wrath, or paying a price for the sins of men. They tell us we must profess it is propi­tiatory, but after that they have tired themselves long about the meaning of this propitiatory, they conclude 'tis ap­plicatory, (i. e.) a sacrifice applying the propitiation of Christ: but then 'tis un­certain that there needs a sacrifice pro­pitiatory to apply a sacrifice propitiato­ry. If by the sacrifice on the Cross he hath satisfied Gods justice, and merited remission of sin, then 'tis uncertain that there needs any more sacrifice for sin; or what reason can there be that there must be a propitiatory sacrifice to apply the benefits purchased by the propitiato­ry sacrifice on the Cross? If there was [Page 148] an universal satisfaction made by Christs Sacrifice on the Cross, then what need a satisfaction to apply that satisfaction? or of a new propitiatory Sacrifice to ap­ply the death of Christ to any particular person? Or when the full summ that we owed to God is already payed upon the Cross, that yet we our selves or the Priest for us should tender any summ to God to apply that general payment to us, or to interest us in it? Certainly it cannot be reasonable that the Surety should pay the debt twice, or that he must pay again the same summ to the Creditor, that the person for whom he payed it may receive benefit by the first payment. Further, I would fain understand how the sacrifice of the Mass is truly propitiatory, or how God ap­peased by this offering giving repentance forgives sins, as the Council sayes, Sess. 22. c. 2.for here is more than applying the sacrifice of the Cross, here is procuring the same things, and making the sacrifice of the Mass of equal value with the sacrifice of the Cross. Well; but suppose they mean only that it applies the sacrifice of [Page 149] the Cross, but then still 'tis unintelli­gible how that which applyes the sacri­fice of the Cross is the same thing with that which is applyed. They will have the same sacrifice, for there is the same Host, and the same principal Offerer: now how the sacrifice of the Mass can apply the sacrifice of the Cross, and yet be the same, this is uncertain. Well, but suppose it were applicatory, yet what reall value it is of, or how much it can procure, still they are uncertain; If it does not procure some thing infallibly, then all their money is lost, and the fre­quent use of private Masses spoyled. By no means must they say that this sacrifice is not of a great value; for that were to decry their own ware, and lessen the Priests profit: If there be the same Host and the same principal Priest, then the offering must be of great value; but whether infinite or finite, that troubles them. If the value be infinite, then one Mass will do the work, as well as one oblation upon the Cross: apply the Mass by your intention, and what need have any to procure more Masses? If a peny will [Page 150] do, what need men lay out a pound? But now here lies the mystery, they dare not say it is infinite, for then it renders after-Masses superfluous, and lessens the Priests trade:Bell. de Missâ l. 2. c. 4. sect. quarta. well, but then it must be finite, but yet by their principles that is uncertain, for the value of the sacrifice must be from the dignity of the prin­cipal Priest offering; if then Christ here Offers his own body, then how can the value be finite? If the sacrifice on the Cross, and in the Mass differ only ra­tione, then really they are the same, and why then should the value of the one be infinite, and the value of the other finite? The usual pretence which the Romanists have, why they say the value of the one is infinite, and of the other finite, is this, because in the sacrifice on the Cross, the Son of God offers by himself, and in the sacrifice of the Mass he Offers by his Minister; and there is a great deal of difference betwixt the action of the Son of God done by himself, and that which is done by his Mini­sters:Bell de Missâ l. 2. c. 4. sect. Secunda ratio. but now this seems strange to me, who alwayes think, the alms is the same [Page 151] whether one give it by himself, or by his servant, whether he give it with his own hand, or give it to his servant to carry to the poor. Besides, according to this Do­ctrine, then the sacrifice in the Supper must be of infinite value, for there Christ offer'd by himself. And then that sacrifice must infinitely apply, as well as the sacrifice on the Cross infinitely redeem: and as there is no reason for any other sacrifice on the Cross, because by that one oblation he hath finisht our redemption, because that sacrifice was of infinite worth to satisfie Gods justice; so there would be no reason for any Masses to apply Christs sacrifice, because that sacrifice in the Supper which Christ offered by himself was of infinite worth to apply that sa­crifice, which should be offered on the Cross: Thus here's nothing but per­plexity and uncertainty in all this Do­ctrine: And indeed it can be no other­wise, when men will be wise above what is written, and assert such things for the high mysteries of Religion, which are not clearly revealed by God. They tell us this sacrifice is propitiatory, but [Page 152] will they stick there? No, for sometimes they say it is propitiatory, and sometimes again impetratory: the proper efficiency is by way of impetration sayes Bellar­min De Missi l. 2. c. 4. (i. e.) by way of supplication and prayers; but if so, then the Sacrifice of the Mass can only procure and impetrate good according to the devotion of the Priest, for prayers of themselves cannot procure any thing from God, but only according to the piety and servency of him that prayes: otherwise they must acknowledge that God is pleased with bare repeating of words without affecti­on, which is plainly to turn Prayers into Charms. But now if the sacrifice of the Mass do no more, then the people give much to little purpose, and throw away their money for that which may be very little worth, for they know not whether the Priest be good or bad, whether he Offers this sacrifice with devotion or without devotion; and if he be bad, his sacrifice is not accepted, and he pro­cures nothing for them: well, therefore they have another way, and this Bellar­min [...] [...]. 2. c. 4. sayes, is the common opinion of [Page 153] Divines, (i. e.) that the sacrifice pro­cures something ex opere operato: for since there is the same host and the same offerer here, which was in the sacrifice of the Cross, let the immediate Minister be what he will, still it will work its effect; and the principal effect of this sacrifice does not depend on the goodness of the immediate Minister: and the effect, sayes Becanus, is ex opere operato infallibly, for it is sounded in an abso­lute promise in respect of him who doth not ponere obicem, (i. e.) so that he doth not hinder the effect of the sacrifice. And sayes he, where the sacrifice is ap­plyedSum. Schol. Theol. cap. 25. q [...]. 12. to any or offered for any, without the special determination of the offerer, then it work ex opere operato. But now here I am puzled again, if they have such a propitiatory or impetratory sa­crifice that can work ex opere operato where the person for whom it's offered doth not ponere obicem, why then are not the souls in Purgatory delivered thence? What needs so many Masses to be said for them? me thinks this should save the Priest much of his labour, and [Page 154] the people much of their money; if this sacrifice be Propitiatory for the dead and that ex Opere Operato, then surely one Mass should help them out of Pur­gatory. And there can be no reason why a man should be put to procure so many when far less will do? If the souls in Purgatory can put no bar to the effi­cacy of this Sacrifice, 'tis strange that Purgatory is not long since emptied. If the Priest hath offered this Sacrifice for the dead, and the effect doth follow infallibly, where the person for whom it is offered doth put no impediment, and we cannot see how the souls in Purgatory can put any impediment; then what should keep any there? It would be un­reasonable to keep the Prisoner, when the debt is payd, or require the tender of satisfaction for them every day, when the whole hath been payed before; thus here's nothing but uncertainties. As for the living, they tell us, if it be offered for sinners, though it doth not imme­diately forgive sins, yet by this Sacrifice is procured the gift of repentance; but then are there not sinners that have [Page 155] many Masses said for them; who yet have not this gift of repentance given them? It would be an happy turn if all should have this grace given them, who have Masses said for them, nay it would be strange if any should miss of this grace, if they might have it so easily: they have therefore another fetch, the Sacrifice of the Mass (says Bellarmin I. 2. c. 5. de Missâ.) when it is offered for sinners, procures a new & certain help whereby sinners may be brought to repentance: but this help hath a divers operation according to the divers disposition of men; for if he be disposed to contrition, then it works contrition, if he be not disposed, it works a new disposition: but if every Mass work a new disposition, how can it be imagined that contrition should not be wrought in the end? and the person at length be Converted? I cannot see how any person can remain unconverted, if the Romish Priests really desire their Conversion; for if every Mass add some new disposition, and the more Masses the more dispositions wrought; I would fain see why they may not at length come [Page 156] to that next disposition to Conversion, and then one Mass more and they will be effectually converted. If there be a certain increase of dispositions by the Masses for them, then unless either they are too sparing in procuring, or the Priests too backward in saying Mass, how could any remain unconverted? They tell us without doubt these Masses do help these persons, but wherein this help lyes, and what it does effect is un­certain, and doubtful. They tell us that the Mass is a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and dead, and this we must profess, or else we are Hereticks: But me thinks 'tis but reasonable we should first understand, how they can benefit the living and the dead, before we be bound to profess it. If they could really convince us that there is any such benefit procured by those Masses, we should not so much question how the benefit is procured, or which way they help us; if we could be really sensible of any help by a certain Medicine, we should not trouble our selves which way the Physick wrought: but we are loth to pay for [Page 157] that Physick which we do not under­stand can do any good, or be tyed to use that Physick, which though some may fancy help by it, yet we can really find none. Or lastly, to profess that this is a most excellent useful receipt and does good both to the living and dead, when yet we cannot by any observation find it is so. They tell us, that Masses are rightly offered for sins and for punish­ments; but of what great use they are about sins, or for what kind of sins they are helpful, that's very uncertain. The Council sayes it serves to procure the pardon of mortal sins. So say many others, that it is Propitiatory not only for small but for great faults, even for mortal sins. Sess. 6. cap. 2. Bicl in Can. Miss. lect. 85. ff. Bell. de miss, l. 2. c. 1. But yet still 'tis uncer­tain, for they will not say that the Sa­crifice of the Mass merits the pardon of those sins; they will not say it does in­fallibly procure the pardon of those sins for whom it is offered; they will not say it infallibly procures the grace of repen­tance; they are not certain what that new and certain help is, which they say it procures: And some seeing these diffi­culties [Page 158] affirm it only serves to take away venial sins, and that there is no certain ef­fect which is procured by that sacrifice ex opere operato, but meerly the pardon of some slight venial sins, which are as well done by sprinkling a little holy water, or by the use of their Sacramentals as they call them.

They tell us this Sacrifice is rightly offered for whatsoever necessities, and there are some peculiar Masses which we are told are so useful that they work strange effects; I meet with one, and that is a Soveraign remedy against the Plague, it is stiled de mortalitate evitandâ Missal. Sarum. fol. 110., and those that heard it, were to hold a burn­ing candle in their hand during the whole Mass, and to kneel, and then they should not dye suddenly; and if one fear this is too good news to be true, the Rubrick gives you a probatum est, that these cures were wrought at Avignon and the parts thereabouts: there being a great morta­lity in those parts and many dying sud­denly. John 22. composed this Mass, for an infallible remedy. But I would still understand how I may be assured this is [Page 159] an infallible remedy, for why that Mass more than another Mass, or why the Mass of St. Sebastian or St. Roche more than another Mass; or indeed why any Mass should have this infallible effect? Though they tell us of these great matters it pro­cures, as he that would have others buy his commodities usually commends them, but how or which way the Sacrifice of the Mass can procure these things, more than the Prayers said by the Priest, they are much perplexed. How far this sacri­fice of the Mass works ex opere operato, how far ex opere operantis, how far ex opere operantis Christi, how far ex opere operantis ministri secundarii, and yet still how far ex opere operato meerly by the virtue of the institution it self, without respect to the merit of the offerer, how far it works per modum impetrationis, in­fallibly, and how far not, they are much perplexed: and these unintelligible distin­ctions they use to explain their minds, speak the greater uncertainty and per­plexity. Fil [...]ac. Cas. Consc. tr. 5. c. Bill. de Missâ. l. 2. c. 4. The Council promises great matters, that God appeased by this sa­crifice does give repentance, forgive sins; [Page 160] and that it ought to be offered for sins, punishments and necessities, for the living or dead; but how or which way we shall receive any advantage by this sacrifice, or what real effect certainly it will pro­duce, or whether it does work such effects as the Council says, themselves are much puzled to explain; and when they have done all they can, the doctrine still re­mains doubtful and uncertain, and there­fore we cannot be bound to profess it. There is no certainty of any institution of a proper sacrifice: Nothing concern­ing it certain from Scipture; and so George Ataida a Portugal Divine in the Council of Trent stifly maintained, that the Mass could not be said to be a sacrifice, but by the ground of tradition, and he examined one after another the places of the New Testament alledged by the Divines, shew­ing, that no express signification of the sacrifice could be drawn from them:Hist. of the Counc. of Trent. lib. 6. No certainty that our Saviour did offer in his last Supper; for those words on which they insist, This is my Body which is broken for you, cannot refer to any Sacri­fice of Christs Body there; for the break­ing [Page 161] here was before the Consecration, and that meerly of Bread, and at that time when he spoke those words, there was no actual breaking of the Body at all. Here's no certainty that the true proper conditions of a true proper sacrifice are here found, for here is no certainty of a sensible thing offered in this sacrifice, no certainty in what the action of sacri­ficing properly consists, nor any certainty of the institution of any Priests to offer this Sacrifice: here are nothing but un­intelligible difficulties, ridles upon ridles; a visible sacrifice of an invisible thing, a sacrificing of bread and no bread, of Christs Body and not of Christs Body, a destruction of a thing which is the pro­duction of it, a breaking of Christs Body and yet the Body whole, a shedding of Christs blood and yet none issues out of the veins, an outward sacrifice really sa­crificed, and yet all to be believed, and nothing to be perceived by the senses; these uncertainties and doubts we must swallow, ere we can believe this article. And yet further 'tis uncertain that there is any tradition of a true proper sacrifice in the Mass, for many contented them­selves [Page 162] with calling it a sacrifice, without further enquiry whether it was a proper or figurative sacrifice: Many call'd it a sacrifice as it was the representation of the true Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross; as we call the Images by the names of the things which they represent; and this they cannot deny was one reason why it is so called; celebratio hujus sacrificii Imago quaedam est passionis Christi repraesenta­tiva; quae est vera ejus immolatio, ideo & ipsa immolatio nominatur, says Biel Lect. in Can. Miss. lect. 85. ff.. In the time of the ancient Schoolmen they gave this as the reason why they called it so; Lombard asks the question whe­ther what was done by the Priest be pro­perly called a sacrifice, and whether Christ be daily offered, or once only? and the answer in short he gave was thisLib. 4. dist. 12., that which is Offered, and Consecrated by the Priest, is the remembrance and re­presentation of the true sacrifice, and of that holy Oblation on the Altar of the Cross: and he is daily sacrificed in the Sacrament, because in the Sacrament there is a commemoration of what was once done. If then that was the reason [Page 163] why they call'd it a sacrifice, then there is no certainty of any tradition of a true proper sacrifice in the Mass. Indeed Bel­larmin to solve this doubt interprets this question of Peter Lombard's concerning killing, as if he had askt whether that which the Priest doth, can be call'd a kil­ling of Christ, and then that he answered most rightly, that Christ was only once truly immolated or sacrificed (i. e.) slain, but now that he is not properly sacrificed, (that is) slain, but only in a Sacrament or representation; and he adds that it could not be the question whether it be a proper sacrifice though unbloody, for he supposed that, as well known to all men, from the daily celebration of that sacri­fice. But this is a plain evasion, to say that this was well known, which the question here implies was not well known, for the words are, whether that which the Priest does, can be properly call'd a sa­crifice; that is, whether Christ is really in the Supper offered to God for a Sacri­fice? and he answers Christ is offered there, not truly and properly but commemora­tively and representatively. If then it was [Page 164] so well known, that there was a true, pro­per sacrifice, it seems strange that he should say it was not a proper sacrifice, but only the remembrance of a true Sa­crifice; and therefore we have reason to judge from this plain answer that there was no such proper sacrifice then maintained in the Church. If then that was the rea­son which Lombard gives why they call'd it a Sacrifice, then there is no certainty of a true proper sacrifice in the Mass. Again, here is no certainty, that this sa­crifice is a propitiatory sacrifice in the sence of the Council: or if it may be call'd in a large sence a propitiatory sa­crifice, that yet it is a true proper propiti­atory sacrifice, themselves cannot agree in what sence 'tis properly propitiatory; and many of their explications will not agree with the determination of the Council, or the common practice of their Church. There is no certainty that it was instituted to be a propitiatory sacri­fice, for they are not agreed whether the words of Institution, this is the blood of the New Testament which is shed for you, and for many for remission of sins, be un­derstood [Page 165] of the mystical effusion in the Supper or the bloody effusion on the Cross? Filliucius Ca. Cons. tract. 5. c. 3. n. 59. understands them of the bloody effusion; and so both the vul­gar translation and the Roman Missal read those words in the future, as referring this effusion to that which shall be on the Cross. But then where's the institution of a pro­pitiatory sacrifice? And they all grant that there must be an institution, or else 'tis unreasonable to pretend such an effect. On the other hand many understand them of the mystical effusion, so L. 2. de missa c. 2. s [...]secundum. Bellarmin, the [...]hem. Te­stam. on Luk. 22 20. & Mat. 26. 28. Rhemish Translators and Su [...]. Schol. Th [...]ol. c. 25. q 11. Becanus, &c. Here is no certainty that Christ did offer a propitiatory sacrifice in the last Supper, and this the Bishop of Velia in the Coun­cil of Trent maintained with very for­cible reasons; and the Author of the Hi­story says, that the Bishop perswaded so many, that it was almost the common opinion not to make men [...]ion of the pro­pitiatory sacrifice offered by Christ in the Supper; and if no certainty that there was any propitiatory sacrifice there, then no certainty that there is any propitiatory sacrifice here. There is no certainty of [Page 166] the value of this sacrifice, no certainty of the true proper efficiency of it, no cer­tainty that the Priest has this power to apply the fruit of this sacrifice to whom he will, no certainty that he can deter­mine the virtue of this sacrifice to whom he pleases; for apply it (to whom he will) in his own intention, yet there is no certainty that really the person shall receive any benefit by that application, unless his intention here be conformable to the Divine will; and here is no cer­tainty that it is according to Gods will, except it be miraculously revealed what is Gods will. No man can assign particularly to one, that which is properly anothers to give; and if he do assign it, unless the person confirm the assignment, he may yet go without it. Till then we can be assured, that the Priest applys the virtue or fruit of the sacrifice to them, for whom God intends it, we may be never a peny better by all the Masses that the Priest says for us. Thus here's nothing but uncertain­ties, and it cannot be otherwise, when doctrines are not founded on Divine Re­velation, but humane fancies. Should a [Page 167] man enquire into their several discourses about applying the fruit of this sacrifice, he would find nothing but confusion and uncertaintie. They all grant that some part of the fruit of this sacrifice must be in his power, or else all this dis­course of applying the fruit of this sacrifice is needless. But the question is What part of the fruit is in his power? whether there be a part due to him as a publick Minister, or whether a part be due to him as a private person? whether he applyes the fruit as due to him as a publick person, or as a private? for some think he applyes only that which is due to him as a publick person, others think that which is due to him as a pri­vate person: and some sayNavar. Eachi. id. c 25. n. 3. a Priest may have three parts, as an Offerer, as an Or­thodox person, and as a Procurer of the Mass, that is, when he says Mass for no­thing; but if one should ask, how they will distinguish these parts? how much is due upon one account, how much upon another, or what assurance they have, that there is really such a division of the fruits of this sacrifice as they tells us? the wisest [Page 168] of them all could not tell what to an­swer. Suppose the Priest says a Mass for wages, what fruit can he apply to the per­son for whom he says the Mass? if he saves any part for himself, then it is doubt­ful whether he do not wrong the person for whom he offered; and therefore some of them think it best particularly to assign that portion to those for whom they offer, though they cannot tell what it is; but others question whether a man is not bound first to apply it to himself (for cha­rity begins at home) before he apply it to others: but then when he has apply­ed any part of the fruit of the Mass to himself, what certainty that there is any part remaining which he can dispose to others? Some distinguish of an applica­tion specialissimè to the Priest, genera­lissime to the whole Church, and speciali­tèr to the person for whom the Mass is saidRi [...]l. lect. i [...] can Miss. [...]ect. 26. L.; but when he applys it most speci­ally to himself, and most generally to the whole Church; whether is there any thing left to be applyed specially to the person for whom he offers? Again, that fruit which does apply, doth arise either [Page 169] ex opere operato, or ex opere operantis; but how can he bestow that which is ex opere operato, for that is due to the Church in general? and if he applyes only that which is due ex opere operantis; that is, what is due to him as a private person ac­cording to his own faith and devotion in the performance of his office, then an evil Priest could not benefit others by his Masses, and he that can apply nothing of this to himself can much less apply it to others: and he that will receive any be­nefit by a Mass, must be sure he get a good Priest to say it. Thus here is great uncertainty even in that which is the daily employment of the Romish Priests; so much uncertainty that they can never satisfie themselves about this applying the fruit of this sacrifice. They tell us there is a portion of this fruit due to the Church in general, to all that are expresly named by the Priest in the Mass, to all that procure the Priest to say Mass, to all for whom he says Mass and to himself. But then what this proportion is they consess God only knows;Na [...]arr, E [...]ch [...]. c. 25. v. 3. whether the fruit [Page 170] be equally divided amongst them, or to some more, some less? that's a great question: Navarr thinks that God be­stows a certain part to every Ortho­dox person, which neither is increased because they are fewer, nor decreased because they are many, and a certain proportion to those that are present at Mass, a certain portion to those who are specially named in the Mass, but then the portion for the Priest, and them that are named by him of his own accord, is greater or less according to the number of those that he intends it for: but what certainty that one part is certain or the other uncertain? that the one part is always the same, and that the other rises and falls? that the Church could settle this division of the fruits of the Mass, and that she could assign such a part to such and such uses; and leave another part to the Priest to be disposed as he pleases? and that this part which is in the Priests disposal is that which a man desires, when he would have Mass said for him? as Azorius informs usI [...]st. Mor. l. 10. c 20.: what assurance that if he [Page 171] does apply it generally to the whole Church, there be any thing left to ap­ply specially? or whether it be not as much profit as if he applyed it specially? for the general portion which belongs to the Church is almost infinite, say Ga­vantius Th [...]s sa [...]it. part. [...] ­tit. 3 p., whether if he offers specially for several persons, there be several degrees in this application of the Sacrifice? and to some he may apply it specially in the first degree, to some in the second, to some in the third? as Biel says*Sect 26 in can. Miss. Q.; or which way can a Priest satisfie the several ob­ligations which are upon him to say a Mass for several persons? for perhaps he may apply such a part of the fruit to one, which is due to another, as he may apply to Peter, that which is due to Paul; and yet as Filliucius Cas Co [...]s [...]. tract. 5. [...]. 3. n. 76. resolves this case; Peter shall have the Benefit, although the Priest did wrongfully apply it: per­haps he may apply a greater part to one, than he ought: perhaps he may pre­fer those in applying the Sacrifice to them, to whom he is not so much bound as he is to others: lastly, perhaps he may have so many obligations, that he [Page 172] may not know how to pay all which he ought to pay: and that part which is in the Priests power to dispose, may not serve to discharge all these debts: here are great scruples, and 'tis hard to advise what course to take, whether to make a general ap [...]lication, and beseech God to accept his oblation for those for whom God knows he is bound to offer, and in that degree God knows he is bound; or to make this special application by name to every person for whom he is bound to say Mass: which for several good causes and considerations [...]ct. 26. in Can. Miss. S. Biel thinks ought not to be omitted. But yet to avoid those scruples which trouble many about this special application of the sacrifice, there is a wholesome advice which Biel gives us out of John Gerson, and that is to put all thy spiritual goods into Gods hands, and do as men that know not how to pay their debts, they give all their estate up for their creditors, and leave only a maintenance for themselves as the Judge shall think fit. When thou hast confes­sed what thou owest to this or that person and so on, then desire God to distribute [Page 173] thy estate among thy Creditors. Nolo cal­culum ponere cum amicis & benefactoribus meis, tu pro parte tuâ recipias Missam, tu orationem, tu bonum opus, tu sapientis­sime meritorum & sussragiorum pondera­tor deus distribue singulis, &c. I will not reckon with my friends and benefactors, but do thou for thy part take a Mass, thou a Prayer, and thou a Good work, and thou O wise God that can value the merits and prayers of men, distribute to every one as they have need for their profit and my discharge. Thus they are loth to leave a debt unpaid, but are exceeding careful to assign to their Creditors, these Debenturs which are due from God Almighty, and apply their Masses and Prayers to their friends. But yet when all is seriously weigh'd, here's nothing but endless scru­ples, and infinite perplexities and uncer­tainties about this doctrine; nor can it be otherwise, where the doctrine is not found in the Scripture, nor owned in the primi­tive times, nor ever heard of till igno­rance and covetousness prevailed in the Church. Thus I have handled my se­cond Consideration.

CHAP. III.

I Draw a third consideration from the irreconcileableness of their Doctrine and practices, with the Prayers yet re­tained in their Offices; I instanced in the Doctrine about private Masses, Purga­tory and Prayer for the dead, to which I now add the Article about communi­cating under one kind. The Council of Constance Sess. 13. acknowledged that Christ did institute and give the Sacrament af­ter Supper in both kinds, and the same is confessed by the Council of Trent, Sess. 21. c. 1. that Christ did institute this Sacra­ment in the last Supper under both kinds, and also delivered it to his Apo­stles, and that in the Primitive times it was not unusual to communicate under both kinds; Sess. 21. c. 2. but yet the Romish party have taken up this custom of giving on­ly the Bread: and because it might seem strange that the practice of the present Church should so much deviate from the [...] of Christ, and the [Page 175] frequent practice of the Ancients, they have therefore now decreed that it is in the power of the Church (saving the substance of the Sacrament) to alter what she sees most expedient for the pro­fit of the receivers, or the veneration of the Sacrament. And they tell us, that though Christ hath instituted and delivered the Sacrament in both kinds, yet that all the faithful are not bound toSess. 21. c. 1. receive both kinds: and though from the begin­ning of Christianity the use of both kinds hath not been unusual, yet the custom by little and little being changed, the Church being moved by just reason hath approved this custom of communi­cating in one kind: Sess. 21. c. 2. and they do Ana­thematize any person, that affirms that the Church hath not had just reasons to communicate with the Bread only the Laity, and Clergy who do not say Mass. Sess. 21. can. 2. This is their Doctrine, but it is both uncertain, and inconsistent with their own prayers. 1. It is uncertain, For, 1. It is not certain that the faithful are not bound to receive according to Christs institution; for the Sacraments [Page 176] being not natural, but arbitrary signs, they owe their birth and original whol­ly to the institution: according therefore as Christ hath instituted them, they ought to be received; if therefore Christ hath instituted in both kinds, then the Sacrament ought to be received in both kinds. 2. It is not certain that there is not as much a command to drink the Wine as to eat the Bread, for the words are preceptive, drink ye as well as eat ye, yea drink ye all of this, he that or­dained the one, ordained the other in like words, and in like circumstances, and there is nothing from the words of our Saviour which imply a command for eating, more than drinking. 3. Is there any command at all for the Laity to re­ceive the Sacrament? if there be not, then it is free to receive it or not re­ceive it, and if a man should never re­ceive it all his life, yet he should not sin against any Divine Law; if there be a command, then how doth it appear, that the Laity and Clergy who do not cele­brate are left free to receive in one kind, or both? For either the command was [Page 177] given to the Apostles barely, and then none should be bound to receive the Sa­crament except the Apostles themselves; or to the Apostles as Priests, and if so, then the Cup is due to all Priests whe­ther they celebrate or no, and the Church could have no just cause to re­strain the Clergy, when they do not ce­lebrate, from the use of the Cup; for when the Sacrament was instituted in both kinds, the Apostles were not then Celebrators but Receivers, and therefore if they received as Priests, then Priests not celebrating have a right to the Cup. If the Apostles did represent all the faithful, then they all have a right to receive what their representers did re­ceive. Here is but one institution, and how doth it appear that by the same in­stitution the Priests who do say Mass are bound to receive in both kinds, and those who do not say Mass at that time in one kind? Either the in­stitution must oblige all alike or none, and either they must say that the faith­ful are bound to receive as the Apostles here did, or they may say that there is no obligation on them to receive in one [Page 178] kind or both. 4. It is not certain that the Church hath any power to alter the manner of receiving, for the Priests are servants and not Lords, and are bound as Stewards to dispense their Lords Goods according to his will and not their own pleasure; where the Lord hath left things at liberty to their disposal, there they may alter and vary, but where there is any Divine Institution and ap­pointment they are bound up by it. So that I can see no reason why under pre­tence of being the Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God, that they can oblige the people to receive in one kind, when Christ hath institu­ted, and the Apostles first received in both kinds. 5. It is not certain that the Church hath been moved by just causes and reasons to forbid communica­ting in both kinds; For, 1. The Coun­cil gives no reason why it forbids the Cup; and to bind men to believe it was moved with good reason, when it gives no reason, seems strange. 2. Though it were lawful in it self to forbid the use of the Cup, which yet had been used in the first institution of the Sacrament, and [Page 179] practised afterwards; yet still it is no reason to bind men to believe that the Church had just causes and reasons for the forbidding it. Whether it had just causes for the communicating without the Cup is meerly a matter of fact, and there can be no reason to ground an Ar­ticle of faith upon the fact of man, or oblige men jure divino, to believe that thing was justly commanded or forbid, when yet they were bound to observe the decree only jure humano. For though the Church may have power to com­mand where God hath not forbid, yet what she doth command in things which are alterable in their nature, she may up­on accasion forbid, yet there is no rea­son to make it an Article of Faith, that the Church doth always change her de­terminations upon just reasons, or that the Church in these determinations ne­ver abuses her power. 3. The reason as­signed from the danger of irreverence was as strong against the first institution, and the primitive practice, as now. If there­fore notwithstanding this danger Christ thought fit to institute it in both kinds, [Page 180] and the Church then to practise it, there can be no reason from that pre­tence to prohibit the receiving in both kinds. And thus the Author of the Hi­story of the Council saith [...]. 6 p. 521., that the reasons produced out of Gerson con­cerning irreve [...]ence were thought ridicu­lous, because those dangers might more easily be withstood in these times, than they could in those twelve first ages, when the Church was in greater pover­ty. So that now to deny the Cup when it was formerly granted, is to deny it where there is the least fear of this incon­venience, and to allow it where there is the most danger. Thus this Doctrine is full of uncertaintie, no certainty that the Church hath power to restrain the Laity from either species. Some will have the Bread necessary and not the Cup, and some of them allow the Church a power to forbid the Bread if it give the Cup, so Bellarmine [...]. 4. de E [...]r. c. 27. s. octa­va ratio.. But here's no certainty of such a power, and no certainty that the Church hath upon just causes forbid the Cup, and therefore we cannot be bound to believe and profess this. Further, as [Page 181] the grounds of this Doctrine and practice are wholly uncertain, so they are incon­sistent with the prayers yet retained in their own Offices, and a [...]pears from some passages yet found in them to be meerly a novelty. The Council of Trent ac­knowledges the frequent use of both kinds in the Primitive Church, yet would perswade us also that the practice in one kind was usual, and especially in the Roman Church, which thing is so far from any colour of truth, that both in the Antient and Modern Offices there appears evidence enough that in the pub­lick ordinary Masses there was alwaies a distribution of the Cup, as well as of the Bread. I speak not of extraordina­ry cases where necessity gives a dispen­sation from positive Laws, but publick­ly in the Church the Sacrament was gi­ven in both kinds for many ages. Cas­sander assu [...]es us for above a thousand years. And that there was no other pub­lick usual distribution of the Sacrament than in both kinds, we need no other proof than the prayers and Rubricks in their own Offices; and why should the [Page 182] prayers constantly imply the giving of both kinds, if usually in the publique administration of the Sacrament it was only given in one kind? Why also should the Rubricks and rules in their Offices either expresly require the distri­bution of the Cup, or at least imply a necessity of the Wine as well as the Bread, if the Bread only was given? Sometimes we find that they gave the Bread dipt in the Wine to the people, so it was pra­ctised in the Latin ChurchesCassand. de Sa [...]. Co [...]s [...]o [...]ra{que} p [...]c., but even these, (as Cassander observes,) judged that both kinds were necessary to a full and perfect communion: for to what end should they dip the Bread into the mystical wine of the blood of the Lord, if the Bread alone and by it self sufficed to a full and lawful Com­munion? The Original of that cu­stom was the fear of shedding the blood, and therefore they gave the people not the Bread and Wine severally but the Bread dipt in the Wine; but yet they did not think the Bread alone sufficient, unless they did some way or other partake of the Wine▪ [Page 183] I confess this custom was condemned by Pope Julius, (and the same prohibition is found also in the—Con [...]. Brat. 3. can. 1.) who in a letter to the Bishops of Egypt forbids this kind of dipping, and tells them that according to the Lords institution the Bread and the Wine must be received severally. Microlog. c. 19. Well, but still, whether they used this custom or used it not, yet they did judge that the wine ought to be received as well as the bread, for those who did not like that way of dipping the bread into the Wine, would have the Wine given as well as the Bread, and plead Christs in­stitution for their warrant. And further, if it were not lawful to receive the Bread dipt in the Wine, and that this was un­lawful according to the institution in the Gospel, it must needs be as unlawful in their judgement to give the Bread without Wine, for the Church might as well alter the manner of receiving, as take away the use of the Cup, and might as well appoint the receiving of the Wine in the Bread, as forbid the receiving of the Wine at all. Again, we find it was a custom in the Church [Page 184] of Rome, that upon Thursday before Easter, they consecrated the Wine by the Lords Prayer and the immission of the Lords body that the people might fully communicate: Microlog. c. 19. at that time then they did not think it a complete commu­nion, unless the people did receive the Wine as well as the Bread: and in the Ordo Romanus Qualiter celebr. sit offi [...]. Miss. 'tis sayd, that the Arch-deacon confirms all with the Lords blood whom the Pope had Communi­cated with the Lords body: and as the Arch-deacon confirms with the Cup those to whom the Pope had given the Bread, so the Deacons confirm with the Cup those to whom the Bishops and Priests had Communicated the Bread. Bellarmin L. 4. de Euch. c. 24. ss. ordo. pretends from hence an evidence of communicating in the publique solemn administration of the Sacrament in one kind; for the wine with which the Arch-deacon confirms was not consecrated, but was called the Cup of the Blood, because it was con­secrated by the touching of the Lords blood: the blood was (sayes he) usually consecrated in a small chalice, and then [Page 185] for the peoples communicating that was poured into a great Chalice full of wine and water, and out of this great chalice the people after they had received the body was wont to drink; now this was not consecrated but only by touching that part of the blood which was poured into it. But still it matters not whether this become Christs blood by consecration or contact; for it's enough for my pur­pose that they judged it was made Christs blood by the contact: and so it is sayd there, that vinum non cons [...]cratum sed sanguine Domini commixtum sanctifi­catur per omnem modum, they thought it sanctified to become sacramentally the blood of Christ, and therefore they gave it to the people. This was the custom plainly in the Roman Church, when the Pope sayd Mass: and though some other places might out of a fancy of greater reverence leave the practice and introduce a receiving in one kind, yet it was but in some places even in Thomas Aquinas his Sum. 5. part q [...]. 80. ar [...]. 12. time. But yet the prayers in the publique Offices refer on­ly [Page 186] to this custom of receiving in both kinds; and it would be very strange that the prayers should alway refer to both kinds, when yet it was as usual to re­ceive in one kind; or that those who composed the prayers should constantly mention the receiving of both kinds, when yet they received usually in one kind: he that consults the Missals will see that they did communicate as well as consecrate in both kinds, and that there is not the least syllable whereby we may gather the exclusion of the people from the Cup. In the Prayers at the Mass we find them confessing that they were repleti alimoniâ coelesti & spiritali poculo recreati, filled with Heavenly food and refresht will spiritual drink; that they were refecti cibo potuque coelesti, refresht both with meat and drink Miss. Ron. Fest. Inv. S. Cruc F [...]st. S. Paul. Erem. Post Communic., that they were corporis sacri & pretios [...] sanguinis repleti libamine, replenisht both with his body and blood. If the ge­neral custom (when these prayers were composed) was to communicate in one kind, why should they still mention the [Page 187] refreshing by the Cup, by the drink, by the pretious blood, of partaking of his body and blood? why should they say that they have received the Sacra­ments of his body and blood? Miss. pro­pe F [...]st. cod­mi [...]. F [...]st. p [...]oeclar. post com. The Ro­manists cannot expound these places of receiving the blood in the body, by the fiction of concomitancy, for then they received only the Sacrament of his body, as the Bread is the Sacrament of his body, but here the Prayer speaks of both, that they had received the Sacra­ments of both body and blood; and therefore this cannot be salved by the eating barely of the Bread: But this is more plain still from an hymn which was to be sung at the Dedication of a Church, and begins, Christe cunctorum; this hymn is extant among the hymns publisht by George Cassander, and runs thus.

Haec Domus ritè tibi dedicata
Noscitur, in quâ populus sacratum
Corpus assumit, bibit & beatum
Sanguinis haustum.

That is; that this Church was Dedi­cated to God, in which the people re­ceived the consecrated body, and drunk the blessed draught of the blood. If at that time the people only received the Bread, how could they then sing that in that Church the people receives the body and drinks the blood? Or if it were only the blood in the body, how could they be sayd to drink the blood, when they eat the body? For no man can be sayd to drink when he eats, no more than a man can be sayd to eat when he drinks: here are the publique Prayers, which shew that then there was no pub­lick communicating in one kind, for why should they say, that then the people drank the blood, when it was plain they were forbid to drink? Why should they say that in the Church the people drank the blood, as well as [Page 189] eat the body, when yet the Romanists pretend that for many ages it was other­wise. They could not certainly use these forms, if they had not received in both kinds, nor in their Offices speak so frequently of receiving in both kinds, if the custom was frequently to receive in one kind: And if there be these forms, then it follows that the Prayers yet re­tained in the Romish Church do prove this practice a meer innovation.

CHAP. IV.

I Propound this consideration that the Protestants in most points now con­troverted betwixt them and the Romanists take that way, which according to the Romish Concessions is the safest. It is a common rule on which the Romanists do much insist, that where two parties do differ, 'tis the safest way to take that which they agree in: but the most of the Doctrines held by the Protestants are owned by the Papists; it follows therefore that the Protestants take the safest course. As for the proposition on which I found this consideration, I press it no further than according to the opi­nion of the Romanists, for thus they deal with ignorant Protestants; 'Tis the safest course, say they, in which both parties agree; but both parties agree there is possibility of salvation among Papists, whereas the Papists deny any possi­bility of salvation among Protestants; therefore it's the safest course to leave [Page 191] the Protestants and turn Papists. Now on this very principle, I argue that the Pro­testants take the safest way. 1. In the adoration of images, the Protestanrs say they ought to abstain from the wor­ship of images, and they found their judgement on a plain Command, Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven image, nor the likeness of any thing in Heaven or Earth, &c. thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them; now both agree, it is not necessary to adore them, and that no man sins in not adoring them, that there is no Command of God requiring this adoration, and that to give a Religious respect to an Image which God forbids is Idolatry, though they do not give the inward re­spect. Or else the three Children might have been excused from Idolatry if they had fallen down and worship'd the Image which Nebuchadnezzar set up, because they might still plead that they gave only an outward respect without an in­ward. Both agree that men may perform a true sincere respect to the thing repre­sented (as they think) by the Image, [Page 192] though they do not direct their respect by the Image to the thing represented. As a man may truly love Christ, and inwardly reverence him as the Author of eternal salvation, though he do not express this inward reverence by the outward respect to that which some frame for an Image of him. Both agree that every action which we perform to the Image cannot be warranted by the pretence of the in­ward intention, that we do intend to ho­nour the thing represented by it: for then a man might pray to the Image of Christ, on pretence of honouring Christ. Take then what both agree in, and it must needs be the safer way according to the Protestants to abstain from the worship of Images, than to practise it according to the Romanists, for the one sayes it is sin to worship them, the other cannot say 'tis sin abstaining from wor­shipping them; the one sayes, 'tis a dishonouring God to worship the Crea­ture, whether they worship it for it self or for another, the other cannot say that 'tis a dishonouring God to ab­stain from worshipping the Creature [Page 193] and directing our worship immediately to God himself.

2. I instance in the practice of Invo­cation of Saints. The Protestants say, that God alone is to be invoked through Christ, that Christ is appointed the Mediator betwixt God and man, both to make reconciliation by his death, and to intercede for us in Heaven, that he is able to save to the uttermost them that come unto God by him, for he ever liveth to perform this Office of Inter­cession for us, that he is heartily affected with the miseries of his people, and therefore we may come boldly to the throne of grace and find help in time of need. So that now they think 'tis suffi­cient to fly to the merits and intercession of Christ, and therefore to make use of the intercession of any other either to God or Christ without a command is either a distrust of his willingness to intercede for them, or of his power to help them. Now both agree, 'tis not necessary to pray to Saints, that there is no command obliging them to pray to them, that no man sins [Page 194] in not making use of the intercession of Saints, yea lastly, the Romanists cannot say, that our prayers are not heard as soon and answered as effectually when we make our requests in the name of Christ to his Father, as when we desire the intercession of Saints. So then if it be the safest way to take that course which both judge farthest from sin, then 'tis safer to abstain from the invocation of Saints (for both agree there is no sin in abstain­ing) than to practise the invocation of Saints according to the Romanists, for then (say the Protestants) they must sin.

3. I instance in the practice of deny­ing the Cup to the Laity. The Protestants say that the rule for the Celebration of these Ordinances, is the institution of the Law-giver, and therefore Saint Paul to rectifie the abuses crept into the Cele­bration of the Lords Supper in the Church of Corinth, brings them back to the primitive institution, as the unalterable rule which they ought to follow. They say that Christ administred the Sacra­ment to his Disciples in both kinds, [Page 195] that they all drank of the Cup as well as ate of the Bread, that there appears as full an obligation that the Priests should deliver the Cup to the Laity as well as the Bread, for he says Drink ye all of this as well as Eat; that they should do the one as well as the other in remembrance of him; and therefore to take away the Cup is a violation of Christs institution, an usupation of authority which Christ never gave. Now the Romanists on the other hand acknowledge, that Christ did institute in both kinds, that the primitive Church for some ages did practise accordinglyConc. Const. sess. 13. Conc. Trid. sess. 21., that since the Sacrament was instituted in both kinds, it must necessarily be received by some persons in both kinds, so far Bellarmin confessesL. 4. de [...]uch. c. 23., though he will not have it necessarily received by all; that the prohibition of the Cup is only by the Churches authority, and setting that aside, it is no sin to distri­bute in both kinds, and therefore they allow the Grecians and Maronites (who submit to the Pope) the use of the Cup. [Page 196] Thus then I argue, the practice of the Protestants is the safer way, for there can be no sin in giving the Cup accord­ing to Christs institution, and so far they both agree. Now it is the safer to take that course which both judge farther from sin: there can be no sin in adhering to that which Christ instituted, and the primitive Church practised: but both Protestants and Papists acknowledge that Christ instituted in both kinds, and the primitive Church practised in both kinds; therefore the Protestants take the safer way.

4. I instance in the Adoration of the Sacrament: The Protestants say, that 'tis not lawful to adore the blessed Sa­crament, for then they must adore meer Bread and Wine, and give the glory to the creature, which is due to the Crea­tor, God blessed for ever. They say, that they see it is Bread, they taste it is Bread, they smell it is Bread, and unless their reason and sense be deceived it is Bread, and therefore they hold it is Idolatry to worship it. Farther, supposing the doctrine [Page 197] of Transubstantiation to be true, that the Bread was turned into Christs Body, yet still many say, it is still not lawful to adore the Sacrament, for though the body be present under the species of Bread, yet his presence doth not make the things where­in he is present capable of the same Di­vine honour with himself, or else his very clothes which he wore must needs be wor­ship'd with Divine worship, because he was present under those clothes. 'Tis plain the Sacrament is distinct from the body that is present in the Sacrament, or else when we say, Christs body is in the Sacra­ment, it would signifie no more than if we said, Christs body is present in it self; but now if the body be distinct from the Sa­crament, and that the body is in the Sa­crament, yet Christs presence in the Sa­crament will not make the Sacrament it self to be adored. Many Protestants do say, that though his body be present under the species, yet 'tis Idolatry to worship it, for the primary reason which the Romanists give for the adoration in the Sacrament, is, because Christ hath said, [Page 198] this is my Body, and therefore the proper ground of Adoration must be the bodily presence of Christ; but if the body can­not be the proper object of Worship, be­cause it is a creature, then upon the ac­count of his bodily presence there can be no proper ground of Adoration, and there­fore at the best it must be uncertain whe­ther I may worship Christ as present in his humane nature there. On this ground they abstain from the Adoration of the Host. On the other hand the Papists can­not say it is necessary to worship the Host; for they cannot say that God commanded the Adoration of the Host, or that the Apostles did Worship it; they cannot say that we sin in not worshipping the Host▪ for though we ought to worship Christ, though in the general it be true that eve­ry one ought to worship Christ, yet if I do not bow the knee to him in the Host, I do not sin, for there is no particular com­mand hîc & nunc to perform this external Adoration to him: though I am bound to worship God, yet I am not bound to an external Adoration of him in every [Page 199] place, or in every immediate object in which God is. It does not follow, God is to be worship'd, therefore I must worship him in the Sun or Moon: So it does not [...]ollow Christ is to be Worship'd, there­fore I must worship him in the Host. It does not follow, God is to be worship'd, therefore to be worship'd in this stone, for that would excuse the Idolatry of the wisest Heathens who worship'd (as they say) not the stone, but God in the stone: no more will it follow, Christ is to be worshipped, therefore I am bound to wor­ship him in the Host. Again, the Ro­manists do not deny but that we may per­form a true spiritual worship to Christ, without diminution of our real respect to him, though we direct our worship imme­diately to Christ in the Heavens, or though we primarily direct our worship to Christ in the Heavens, whose passion is represented to us in the holy Sacra­ment, and the benefits of whose death are there offered to us. They will not say that no man can give a true inward spiri­tual worship to Christ, unless he does give [Page 200] this outward worship to Christs body in the Host. They cannot say, that 'tis want of love to Christ, not to worship him there, where they know not whether he be or no; or that 'tis want of true respect to Christ to omit those outward acts of worship, when they know not whether he will accept them or no. Again, they do acknowledge, that if Christ be not there under the species, if the bread be not transubstantiated into the body, that then they must needs be Idolaters, yea guilty of such an Idolatry as had not been seen or heard of in the world; and therefore the errour of the Heathens who worship­ped Statues of Gold or Silver, or the Lappians that worshipped a red Cloth, or the Aegyptians that worshipped any living Creature, would be more tolera­ble, than of the Christians who worship a bit of bread. Coster. E [...]chir Con­trov. c. 8. de Euch. sacr. arg. 10. Again, that it is very possible thàt they may be guilty of Ido­latry in worshipping the Host; for if the bread be not transubstantiated, then they do worship only bread, and though they believe the doctrine of transubstan­tiation [Page 201] to be true, and that by the words of Consecration spoken by a lawful Priest with a right intention this change is wrought; yet in particular they cannot be assured, that this change is wrought, and that this individual bread is turned actu­ally into the body of Christ; for they neither know whether the Priest who Consecrates be a lawful Priest, nor whe­ther he really intended to Consecrate that very Wafer, which they are about to adore. There is none of the Romish Communion but will say, that if it be not transubstantiate, 'tis but bread, and he that worships bread, whatever his inten­tion is, is materially an Idolater: and further, that he can have no other ground to believe that this Wafer is Conse­crate, than his hopes of the Priests ho­nesty; but if the Priest should prove a knave and maliciously suspend his in­tention, then he runs the hazard of com­mitting Idolatry, at best of worshipping he knows not what. And now then the practice of the Protestants must be the [...]afer way; for if they say true, then [Page 202] 'tis Idolatry to worship the Host, and the Romanists cannot say that we sin against a Divine Command in not worshipping it. The Protestants say, at best they run the danger of Idolatry, and 'tis the safest course to avoid the danger of sin as much as they c [...]n▪ the Romanists can­not say that there is any danger of Ido­latry in abstaining from giving Adora­tion. The Protestants say 'tis unlaw­ful to worship the Host, and the Ro­manists cannot say 'tis necessary to wor­ship it: or that there can be no spiritual worship acceptable to Christ without this external worship of him in the Host.

5. I instance in the celebration of Di­vine Service in an unknown tongue. The Protestants say that 'tis fit that all people should offer God a rational ser­vice: that if men pray in a language which they do not understand, that they only offer the sacrifice of fools: that it is repugnant to the use of Vocal pray­ers, which are the expression of our in­ward desires to God for those things we [Page 203] want; but we cannot be said to express our desires in words, if we do not un­derstand what we say: That Prayer if it be not understood is only the act of the Lips and not of the Heart, and must needs want that inward zeal and earnest­ness, those acts of faith, and hope, rely­ance and trusting on God, which make our Prayers properly acceptable to him: that they cannot answer Amen to those Prayers, as the Apostle requires, (i. e.) that they consent to those prayers, and joyn with the Priest in those petitions, unless they understand those prayers. Thus the Protestants condemn those Prayers in an unknown tongue, as unsutable to the nature and use of Vocal Prayer, and dero­gating from the true affection and devoti­on required in Prayer. On the other hand the Papists cannot say it is unlawful to pray in a language, which they do un­derstand, for themselves in their private prayers frequently use that language they do understand. They cannot say that Christ hath commanded the use of the Greek or Latin tongue more than any [Page 204] other in their publick Service: or that words spoken in those tongues are of more efficay with God than words spo­ken in their mother-tongue: or that words which we do not understand con­duce more to stir up devotion, than those words which we do understand. I con­fess some Papists have ventured very far (I'le instance for one in Costerus E [...]cbir. c [...]r. cap. 17. p. 497.) and tell us that there is a fruit of prayer, though they understand not what they say, that is, a conjunction of the mind with God, and that in the meditation of him they find an admirable comfort though they know not what they are saying, and that the words which they do speak, though they be not understood, do much increase that comfort, even as the holiness of the place, though they think not of it, does excite and stir up devotion: and he tells us, that if the words of the Charmers have some effi­cacy on Serpents, though they want un­derstanding, much more do the sacred words of God, though they be not un­derstood, affect and move men. But this [Page 205] is to turn prayers into charms, and ascribe efficacy to the bare sound of words. But many others will not deny, that the people are as much or more edified by the prayers in a known tongue, than an un­known. Estius In 1 Cor. 14. 17. says, that take it by it self, it is good that divine Offices be ce­lebrated in a tongue which the people understands, for that conduces to edifica­tion, and that the text of the Apostle proves it. Cajetane goes higher, and says it is better for their edification: and if it were not, why have some Councils com­manded that such as cannot learn distinct­ly the Lords Prayer and Creed in Latine, should be taught them in the vulgar tongue? And yet the Rhemists say thisRhemist. test. in 1 Cor. 14. has been done. And now then the pra­ctice of the Protestants must be the safer way, for both agree that prayer in a tongue which they do understand, serves much for edification, and conduces to quicken devotion, and inflame their zeal in Prayer: Both agree that 'tis fit, that people should endeavour to understand the contents of their Prayers; both agree [Page 206] that there is no sin in praying in a language which they do understand. If it be the safest to take that course in which they agree, and leave that in which they dif­fer, then 'tis safer to follow the Prote­stants in this point than the Papists.

I might instance in the sacrifice of the Mass. Both parties agree that in the Lords Supper there is a Sacrifice; we only differ what kind of Sacrifice: the Prote­stants own a Sacrifice of praise, a Sacrifice of Alms, and a Sacrifice of our selves. And the English Church in her publick Li­turgie after the distribution of the Cup, uses these words, We offer unto thee our selves, our souls and bodies to be a rea­sonable, holy and lively Sacrifice unto thee. Besides these Sacrifices the Prote­stants acknowledge a commemorative Sa­crifice, that there is a representation of the Sacrifice on the Cross, that there is a memorial of his passion, and thus far the Romanists agree. But then they go further, and they oblige us to believe that there is a true real external Sacrifice, a Sacrifice propitiatory for the living and [Page 207] the dead, &c. Now if this principle be true, then 'tis safer to acknowledge a fi­gurative Sacrifice which both own, than a real proper Sacrifice which the Pro­testants disown.

I might add, both parties agree that the Scriptures are a rule, and as perfect a rule (saith Knot) as a writing can be: (but if whatever the Apostles Preached▪ they might write, and whatever tradi­tions the Church hath received it might set down in writing, then a writing may be a perfect rule.) The Protestants deny Doctrinal traditions to be a rule, there­fore 'tis safest to follow them. Again, both parties agree that the books of Scri­pture which the Protestants own to be Canonical are Canonical, but the Pro­testants reject the Apocryphal; therefore still it must be safer to follow the Pro­testants. There is one thing I will par­ticularly insist on; Both parties agree that in the English Liturgy there is no positive error; there are (say some of them) some things wanting which they would have, but there is nothing which [Page 208] they can say is sinful; most of the prayers are taken out of the antient Liturgies, many of them to be found in their own Missal, as S. C. confesses; and 'tis known the English Reformers did only design to reform, not totally to abolish, to purge out the corruptions, and reform that which they saw unfit in the Offices, and not to abolish what was good and useful. What therefore remains and is used in our Liturgy, cannot be censured for erroneous and sinful. And thus far both agree that the matter of the prayers is good, that the form of the prayers to God through the mediation of Jesus Christ is very good, that there is no rite required in our Offices which is su­perstitious or unlawful: so that the Ro­manists cannot say that there is any rea­son from the prayers and Offices used in our Church why they might not joyn in them. If the prayers were good in La­tin and might be lawfully used when they were not understood, there can be no reason why they should be bad when they were translated into English. The [Page 209] omission of some rites used in the Offi­ces is no substantial alteration, the omis­sion of some Responds, Anthems, Invi­tatories, &c. which our Reformers judg­ed superfluous or inconvenient, doth not make the rest of the prayers and Offices unlawful; the difference in the method and order of prayers doth not make the service to be sin, for there were diversi­ties in saying and singing within this Realm; some followed the use of Sarum, some of Hereford, some of Bangor, &c. yet all approved; though in the Litany the ora pro nobis to the several ranks and orders of Saints be omitted, yet the supplication to the three persons several­ly or jointly is good still: though some petitions be left out, the rest which re­main, if they might be used before, they may be used still. So that this is grant­ed by the Romanists who have weighed the prayers and service of our Church, that there is no positive error in our Prayers, that there is nothing in the Li­turgy of our Church which can be con­demned for error or impiety, or give [Page 210] just ground to the Romanists for a refu­sal to joyn in the use of it. And there­fore during the time of Edward the sixth we hear of no Recusants that refused to be present at the Service; and when Queen Elizabeth came to the Crown (if our English Historians, who generally relate this story, do not bely him) Pius the fourth offered to confirm the Liturgy, provided that She would own his Su­premacy. I confess the Romanists ex­claim heavily against the Sacrament in our Churches, Suarez Def. fid. Cath. l. 6. c. 9. n. 29. for instance calls it a sacrilegious Supper, and a feigned Eu­charist, and saith that those who parti­cipate of it do evidently cooperate with an Infidel Superstition, and take that for the Sacrament of Christ whichis nothing. But upon a serious consideration of these things I cannot see what benefit can be had by the Sacrament in the Romish Church, which is not to be had from the Sacrament in ours. Suppose we do not own the corporal presence of Christ under the Species, yet I cannot see any real benefit which the receiver can have [Page 211] from the Sacrament administred among them, and cannot be had from the Sa­crament administred among us: for whe­ther it be bread in its own nature, or the body under the bread, yet the bare external eating doth no way confer or increase grace in the receiver. If a wicked as well as godly man may eat Christs body, yea if a Mouse as well as a Man may eat it, then there is no spi­ritual blessing to the bare eating of the body. Let a man be wicked who eats of the Sacrament, and tell me then whe­ther the eating of Christs flesh would profit any thing; or whether he that eats the flesh and drinks the blood of Christ, whether in its own shape, or under the species of bread and wine, shall live for ever? So that now as to an unworthy Receiver here is nothing to be had, whether the bread be transubstantiate or no. Suppose again, a man be truely godly, what doth the eating of Christs body in their opinion more benefit him, than the Sa­crament can do according to ours? Wherein is a man more benefited by [Page 212] eating Christs body under the species, than if he eat that which is bread in its nature, but according to Christs institu­tion represents his body? To talk of Christs body in their sence quickning and inlivening us, is strange, for men may eat the body, and yet continue dead in their sins. To say that by eating of the body in the Sacrament that we abide in Christ, and Christ in us, is very strange too; for neither doth Christs body be­come part of our bodies, nor can we by receiving his body with our mouths be said to abide in him, unless by eating of Christs body we conceive a conversion of our bodies into his body. To call the body of Christ as it is under the species, a spiritual nourishment of the soul, is as strange a fancy, for I never could see how the food of the body properly nou­risheth the soul: if it does nourish the soul it must be done in a moral, not na­tural way; now I see not why the Sa­crament in our way cannot as truly nou­rish the soul, as they conceive the eating of the body doth in their way. The nourishing of the soul is to be considered [Page 213] not so much from the things we outward­ly receive into our mouths, for proper­ly these things can never nourish the soul, as from the sacramental institution. And so the Manna by Gods institution be­came spiritual food, and the water out of the Rock spiritual drink 1 Cor. 10. 3, 4.; and though the things in themselves were but bread and water, yet in a spiritual sence they ate and drank Christ: and so here, the bread which we break is the Communi­on of the body of Christ. And we do as really partake of the benefits of his passion, as we do feed on these outward elements, and we spiritually are nourish­ed, our graces increased, and our hearts refreshed. Thus whatever the Romanists pretend, there's no more benefit to be had by the Sacrament administred in the Ro­mish Church than in ours; our Ministry conveys as great things as they speak of, only according to our Doctrine men must do something more of the work themselves: as one very well adds, We pretend not to send wicked men to Hea­ven with a word, but we can help the [Page 214] thoughts and affections of pious souls as much as they with all their skill and power. The Rhemists much cen­sure the celebration of the Eucharist among us, and call it Calvins Supper, Rhem. Annot. on Jo. 4. 4. sect. 4 a Table and Cup of Devils, wherein the Devil is properly served, and Christs honour defiled; Annot. on 1 Cor. 10. 21. yet really upon a seri­ous perusal of the whole Communion Service, they cannot say that there is any positive error: though the Church of England hath omitted sundry Ceremo­nies which are now used in the Mass, yet the omission of a Ceremony doth not make the service sinful: though it appoint the bread to be such as is usual to be eaten at the Table, when the Ro­mish Church uses Wafers, yet they can­not say it is unlawful, for our Saviour at the first institution used such bread, and it is no more unlawful here, than among the reconciled Grecians, where the holy bread is made after the man­nerGoar. in [...]. in miss. Chrys. n. 29, 30. of a Cake, and is cut in pieces by the Priest with a sacred Knife: though it appoint the bread to be broken before [Page 215] the words of consecration are finished, that is, at the mentioning in the rehear­sal of the institution those words, he brake, when the Romish Church ap­points it afterwards, that the Priest shall break the Host into three parts, and put one of them into the Chalice; yet still it is not unlawful, and more agreeable to our Saviours practice in the first insti­tution, who first blessed and brake be­fore he used those words, this is my bo­dy. Though it appoint the bread to be gi­ven into the hands of them that do Communicate, whenas the Romish Church requires it to be put into the mouth, yet still the order of the Eng­lish Church is not unlawful. Though the words of consecration be spoken that all may hear and be instructed, when the Romish Church requires them to be spoken secretly; yet still the order is not unlawful, and certainly more agreeable to the Primitive practice and the Litur­gies of the Eastern ChurchesLitur. Ba­si [...]ii & Chrysost;. Though our Liturgie requires the consecrated bread to be eaten in the Church, where­as [Page 216] the Romish Church reserves it to be adored, or carried to the sick, &c. yet still the order is not unlawful, for none can say that reservation is always neces­sary, or that it is an unlawful cele­bration of the Eucharist because it is omitted. So for mingling water with wine, the Church of Rome practises it, the English omit it; for there being no command for it, nor sufficient evidence that it was universally practised in the Apostles times, the Communion Service is not by the omission of it made unlaw­ful. The Romanists themselves confess, that though water be not mingled with the wine, yet it doth not cease to be a SacramentCatech. Roman. cap. 4. sect. 16.. Thus though many Cere­monies used by the Romanists be omit­ted or altered in our Liturgie, yet still there is no su [...]erstition, nor positive er­ror. Again, though there be some al­teration in the Prayers, yet there is no­thing in the prayers we use, which they do or can except against as erroneous and heretical. They cannot blame the Ge­neral Consession, in which we acknow­ledge [Page 217] our former transgressions; profess our hearty sorrow for them, desire him to forgive the sins that are past, and beg grace for the future that they may serve and please him in newness of life to the honour and glory of his name. They cannot blame the Absolution which is much the same with that in the Ordo Missae, misereatur vestri Omnipotens De­us, &c. that Almighty God would have mercy on them, deliver them from their sins, and bring them to his everlasting Kingdom. They cannot censure the short sentences which follow the Abso­lution, which are designed for the incou­ragement, and comfort of poor sinners, who are heartily grieved for their sins. That antient exhortation, Lift up your hearts, with the versicles following are used by the Romanists; the proper pre­faces are on some daies the same which were used in the Romish Church, and those which are used on other daies are more full and express in declaring the blessing which God at that time bestow­ed on his Church, but no way to be [Page 218] taxed with any error. They cannot blame that prayer in which we disclaim all confidence on our own righteousness, and cast our selves on Gods mercy, be­seeching him that we may so eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, that our bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, &c. for the Roma­nists do pray that God would give them who trust in the multitude of his mercies a part and fellowship with the Saints, and admit them into their society not weigh­ing their merits but bestowing pardon on them. Can. Misse, Ora­tio, nobis quoque.

They cannot blame the prayer of Con­secration: For the Preface in which we acknowledge the sufficiency of that one oblation on the Cross for the satis­faction of the sins of the world, and that Christ did command us to keep a con­tinual remembrance of his passion till his coming again, which is one principal end of the institution of the Sacrament: These things they do not blame. For the petition, that receiving these Creatures of [Page 219] Bread and Wine according to Christs holy Institution, we may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood; nei­ther can they fault this, for it is sutable to that very prayer in their Mass, when the Priest prays that the offering may be to them the body and blood of thy most beloved Son Jesus Christs;Can. Missae, O­ratio quam oblationem. and to that in the Mass of St. Basil, where the Priest after he had repeated the words of consecration, sayes, We thy unworthy servants who are admitted to serve at thy Altar, not for our righteous­nesses, (for we have done no good upon the earth) but for thy mercies, and com­passions which thou hast shed abundantly on us, do approch unto it; and placing be­fore us the representations of the holy [...] body and blood of thy Christ, we pray thee, we beseech thee, O holy of ho­lies, for the good pleasure of thy good­ness, that thy holy Spirit may come down on us and on these gifts set before us, and bless them, and sanctifie them. And afterwards he prayes again, Make this Bread the precious body of the Lord and [Page 220] God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, and make this Cup the precious blood, &c. The narration of the Institution (which is the Priests warrant for the use of this rite) they cannot censure, for it is ex­presly taken out of St. Luke, and if there be any words added to the words of consecration in the Romish Church, which are omitted by us, they them­selves cannot affirm that they are essen­tially necessary in the consecration of the Sacrament. The words which the Priest uses in the delivery of the elements are faultless: the first part, that is the prayer, is much the same with the form in the Romish Church; the latter part is an exhortation to receive these things in remembrance of Christs death and passi­on. The prayer after the receiving of the holy Sacrament is without the least sign of error: the hymn which follows is the gloria in excelsis mentioned in the Ordo Missae. Thus take the whole service, there is no prayer used which is taxed by the Romanists of error or superstition, nothing prescribed which is simply un­lawful. [Page 221] On the other hand we say there is error and superstition in the Mass, in the adoration of the Host, in the invoking Gods protection by the Merits and Prayers of Saints, in the offering up the Host in the honour of the Saints,Can. Miss. Orat. Com­municantes. Ordo Miss. Orat. susci­p [...]. &c. Now then according to the principle layd down by the Romanists 'tis safest to hold that in which both dissenting parties agree in; but both parties agree there is nor error or superstition in the English Communion service, whereas the Protestants say there is error in the Romish Mass; therefore it is safer to fol­low the English Protestants.

CHAP. V.

I Will add one consideration more, That the greatest part of the Doctrine and practices in which we differ, do plainly tend to the advancement of the Clergy. And he that will seriously con­sider the design and tendency of those Doctrines may easily guess, that they spring not from piety but covetousness, ambition, and love of wordly greatness, and are crafty contrivances by degrees to subject the Laity to the power of the Romish Priests. 'Tis true the followers of a party may esteem those Doctrines for Divine inspirations, which have been the plausible insinuations of their Ring­leaders for their own advantage. Many do like the Israelites, follow Absolom in simplicity of their heart, and being well meaning men are soon apt to believe [Page 223] those opinions which pretend to be an­cient truths; but the frame and make of their Doctrines in which we differ, strong­ly insinuates that they are only contri­vances to increase the power, wealth and authority of their Clergy. Though ma­ny are taken with the specious pretences of Unity and Antiquity, and when they are once cozened into the belief of any religion they are loth to leave it, and as it falls out often with new proselytes they are the strongest Zealots: but let them seriously consider and they will find that 'tis the interest of the Romish Clergy to maintain those Doctrines in which they differ from us, that all this is worldly policy to advance themselves, and unless they are resolved to be cheated, they will much suspect that Religion which chiefly seems to design the great­ness and wealth and absolute authority in the Priests, and principally prescribes such Doctrines for truths which tend to that end. Now 1. The Doctrine of Infallibility is plainly suted to the ad­vancement of the Clergy, nothing tends [Page 224] more to gain authority and power to their Clergy, than the infallibility of their Church, (though themselves are not yet fully agreed about the proper subject of infallibllity.) This makes the people intirely depend on their words, and subject their faith to their determinations; this wholly si­lences all doubts of any mistakes in their Teachers; and what ever we see or hear, what ever our senses do judge, or our reasons do conclude of any thing, yet still we must be­lieve that we, but not they are mistaken, for they do not, nor cannot erre: and be they never so ignorant and weak, so malicious and sinful, yet still what their Church shall determine to be truth, must be believed as the Oracles of God. Now nothing can more secure them in their power and Authority, in their repute and credit, than this pretence that they cannot err; for by this means they 1. Make all designs and in­deavors for Reformation (further than [Page 225] they themselves please) wholly need­less. If they reform, then they con­fess they have erred, but because they pretend that they cannot err, therefore they deny that there is any necessity of Reformation, and so stop all demands and desires for it. Thus then if ignorance or superstition should never so much increase, if any abuses should have crept into the Church, if any Tares should secretly have grown up among the Wheat, yet it would be in vain to desire any reformation, for they have secured themselves by this Doctrine that the Church cannot err, and therefore what [...]ve [...] any persons can plead, still there is no need of Refor­mation. 2. They destroy all liberty of inquiring after truth, all use of means to find out what is truth; for there can be no means to find out what is truth, unless there be a liberty of examining the argu­ments on either side, & a readiness to yield to those arguments which are most sa­tisfactory and convincing. But now by supposing that their Church cannot err, they make it unreasonable to inquire [Page 226] further, than what she hath said, and ab­surd to doubt of any thing she hath once delivered: and if they are once out of the way, 'tis impossible while they stick to this Tenent ever to bring them into the way. 3. Granting that in some Case the Church may err, for them­selves confess they are only infallible in matters of faith, and that she hath gone beyond its due bounds, and determined in such things in which themselves acknow­ledge she hath no security from error, yet still on this pretence that she cannot err in matters of faith, they destroy much of the liberty of examining the Churches determinations, and make the people in those cases wholly depen­dant on the Clergies pleasure: for the question being put whether their Church hath determined in a matter of faith or fact rightfully or wrongfully, whether it hath erred in this particular case or no, and the Church determining it hath not erred, they are wholly bound up by the Churches determination: And though they see that their Church hath [Page 227] erred in determining things beyond its power, yet they are bound to believe she hath not erred, because she hath so de­termined, that she hath not erred: If therefore she sayes it's a matter of faith which really is a matter of fact, they are bound to deny their own judgements, and acquiesce in the Churches infallibi­lity. Thus this Doctrine is plainly suted to the advancement of the Pope and his Clergy.

2. The Doctrine of Traditions is plainly tending to that end; They tell us that we must receive the Scriptures and Traditions with an equal respect. Sup­posing this true that it was the same word whether written or not written, and that the circumstance of its being written or not written does not make any essential alteration, and that if we did know any Doctrine delivered by God, that we ought to receive it as infallibly true, though it had never been written; yet this being uncertain to us, whether God hath delivered any such thing, which never hath been written, we content our [Page 228] selves with the holy Scriptures, and will not be wise above what is written. But now they tell us, that Traditions must be received with equal respect, and that the way to know which are these Traditions, is not to consult the writings of the pri­mitive times, but the practice of the Church, and because there are many things now practised, which do not appear to have been practised in every Age from the Apostles downward, therefore they tell us that the way to try which are true traditions is by the judgement of the present Church. Thus the doctrine plainly makes for the honour and advancement of the Clergy, for none can tell how ma­ny are Apostolical Traditions but by their determination, and what they do say are Apostolical, must be believed to be so, because they call them so.

3. The forbidding the reading of the Scriptures by the Laity speaks the same end. They pretend that the Scri­ptures are so obscure, that few can understand the true meaning of the Holy Ghost in the Doctrines and [Page 229] Rules there delivered; that unlearn­ed men wrest them to their own de­struction, and that the common read­ing of them by the Laity is fit for nothing but to beget heresies and di­visions in the Church; and therefore the Council of Trent forbids any to read them, unless they be licensed by the Bishop. Now why do they thus for­bid the Reading of the Scriptures, un­less to persons Licensed? Because they think that the best way to preserve the authority of the Priest is by igno­rance of the people; that the people are best led when they are kept blind­fold; that they ought to content them­selves with the instruction of their Pa­stors, and that to give the people leave to read and search the meaning of the Scriptures, is to make the Preachers Office needless; that it is enough for them to believe as the Church be­lieves: but if men should Read the Scriptures, they might controul their Teachers; but now by debarring the Laity from inquiring and searching [Page 230] the Scriptures, they make them whol­ly dependant on the Priests, and force them to pin their faith on their sleeves.

4. The same is plain from their keeping the whole Service in an unknown tongue; for by this means they necessitate the common people to live in ignorance, and not to understand what they pray; they necessitate them to patter over certain hard words, and content themselves with seeing the antick gestures or postures of the Priest, or hearing a sound of words, which they can only hope mean well, but they know not whether they be blessings or cursings. But now to satisfie the minds of men, they perswade them that it mat­ters not whether they understand what they say or no; that they are not bound to attend to the words they speak, Suarez. de oratione. l. 3. c. 4. or know the meaning of them; that it is enough that they can tell this holy Orai­son to be appointed for us to call upon God in all our desires: more than this is not necessary, say the Rhemists;Annot. in 1 Cor. 14. and that the principal efficacy of Common [Page 231] Prayer consisteth specially of the very virtue of the work (and what is that but the bare repeating of the words them­selves?) and of the publick office of the Priest, as the Rhemists further instruct us in their notes on that Chapter. He that considers the great precept of their Church, that is, hearing of Mass, and how much Religion they place in that duty, would think, surely they are bound to mind what is said, and understand what he is speaking; but even this is not neces­sary in their judgements and practice; for a man may read on his book, and yet sa­tisfie this precept of hearing Mass; a man may be saying his Beads in a corner, and know not one word that the Priest said, and yet still satisfie this precept; a man that stands so far off from the Priest, that he cannot hear and understand the words, yet if by rising up, kneeling or otherwise, he does either actually or vir­tually wish that the Priest who speaks for all may be heard of God, this suffices; [...] man. Confiss. c. 21. n. 8. and says he, no man is bound by the precept of hearing Mass to hear the [Page 232] words, much less to understand them. Further, a man may talk and chat and yet attend enough, for this is sufficient says Filliucius, Cas. Consc. ton. 1. tr. 5. 6. 7. n. 216. si confabulatio fit discontinua, he may jest and droll, talk de re levi and yet hear mass; this is their common do­ctrine. But now by taking away the ne­cessity of attention, and understanding what they say, by restraining the Ser­vice to a tongue they understand not, and pretending that the efficacy of Common Prayer depends on the publick Office of the Priest, they still strive to magnifie the Clergie and make the people depend wholly on them.

5. The same is evident also from the doctrine of Confession: They tell us, that it is not enough that men confess their sins to God, or that they be really and heartily sorry for them, or that they ef­fectually forsake them, but they must confess their sins to the Priest, either actually if they can have a Priest, or at least in desire; that they must confess every mortal sin with the circumstances of it, specially those which change the [Page 233] kind of the sin, and without the Priests absolution no pardon from God; if the Priest does not absolve them, then they are not absolved in Heaven, and what's all this but to oblige the people to a greater reverence of the Priest, and de­pendance on his authority?

In the practice of forbidding the Lai­ty the Cup, one reason still is for fear of equalling the people to the Priest; the doctrine of Transubstantiation still has an aspect this way, to procure reverence to the Priest. This is a priviledge be­yondDialogue 1. s. 5. mans invention, says Rushworth; and such as if all the great wits who ever lived since the beginning of the world, should have studied to raise, and magnifie some one state of men, to the highest pitch of reverence and eminency that could be imagined, they could never have (wit [...]out special light from Hea­ven) thought of any thing comparable to this. And he tells us in the same Chapter, that Christ not unmindful of his Ministers, lest to them not only the Churches pomps and solemnities, but spe­cially [Page 234] the Sacraments to advance their credit and authority. The doctrine of the propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and dead still looks at the Priests power and profit. If the Sacrifice be availeable for the dead, then it extends the Priests power to the other world; if it be a Sa­crifice which may be applyed according to the Priests intention, and every one receives benefit from the Mass said for them, according as the Priest strongly ap­plyes it to them, then still it makes more for the Priest and the better he is paid, [...] will help those for whom he is paid with a stronger thought and more intense application. Their doctrine of intention in the Sacraments still increases the Priests power, and the peoples dependance on them; by this means they make the effi­cacy of the Sacrament wholly depend on the Priests pleasure. If the Priest pleases he may turn all the Bread in a Bakers Shop into Christs body (that is) if he will say over it hoc est corpus meum, and intend to Consecrate it; or if he pleases he may make the Host, though he does [Page 235] say over it hoc est corpus meum, still to be no more than bread, because he does not intend to Consecrate, and he may make the people worship they know not what. The doctrine of private Masses plainly has the same design, for they tell us 'tis a Sa­crifice as well as a Sacrament; and though as to the Sacrament they require that some should communicate, yet as to the Sacri­fice there is no necessity, for the Priest may say a Mass for such a person or for such a purpose, though none Communi­cate; but still then this is for the Priests profit, for they perswade the people that the eternal punishment due for sin is changed into a temporal by the power of the Keys in the Sacrament of penance; that this temporal punishment must be endured either here or in Purgatory; that they can take off this temporal punish­ment by applying to them the merit of Christ in the Sacrifice of the Mass; and therefore the more Masses are said for them, the likelyer way either never to come into Purgatory, or get quick rid­dance thence: but still the Priest gains [Page 236] by this. And if I should run through other doctrines of that Church in which we differ, I could still shew the same ten­dency. And now it is much to be feared, where power and greatness, riches and se­cular advantages are so plainly designed by the frame and nature of those Do­ctrines they profess, lest they only be the fruit of ambition and covetousness.

If any will obtrude on us a Religion, 'tis reasonable that we should first consider what advantages they propound to them­selves, and if the doctrines they require us to believe tend mainly to advance their own profit or greatness, we have reason to suspect, they come not from God. No won­der if men cry up a Religion which makes for their own end; and are zealous for those doctrines which serve to raise themselves. And this is the case here; many doctrines of the Romish Church, are plainly squint-ey'd: and though they pretend to be the truths of Christ, yet have a strange aspect on the Priests advantage. It has been the great policy of the Romanists to inter­weave [Page 237] their own profit and secular ad­vantages with their Religion; so that by obliging the Consciences of their follow­ers to own those doctrines as articles of faith, they oblige them to promote the secular greatness and power of the Cler­gy. Now this I look on, if not as a ne­cessary Argument, yet as a probable motive to disswade men from returning to the Communion of the Romish Church. For ingenuous persons will hardly like those who speak for their own ends, or turn to that side where a main business of their Religion is to ad­vance the Priests power and the Popes greatness.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal licence. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.