<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2007-09-05</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Emma Leeson Huber</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Added TYPEs to DIVs in order to validate. Proofed title page(s).  Checked ^s. Reviewed structure. Checked division-marking material at heads and feet of divisions (HEADS, etc.). Checked for signatures. Checked placement and completeness of PBs. Checked for damage GAPs, #s, @s, --s, and UNCLEARs. Corrected 63 $s of 86. Converted 23 $s to GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="oxf". Checked spacing of foreign GAPs. Checked for EPIGRAPHs and ARGUMENTs. Checked for startqs, endqs, oes, q;s, and Qs. Checked proofsheets and made corrections found there. Checked for CLOSERs, TRAILERs, and BYLINEs. DONE.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="OX" ID="A81350">
<STC T="W">D113</STC>
<STC T="T">E1471_4</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99867638</BIBNO>
<VID>119957</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>AN
APOLOGIE
FOR THE
REFORMED CHURCHES;
Wherein is &s;hew'd
<HI>The nece&s;sitie of their &s;eparation from
the Church of Rome:</HI>
Again&s;t tho&s;e who accu&s;e them of
making a Schi&s;me in Chri|&s;tendome. BY
JOHN DAILLE
Pa&s;tor of the Reformed Church at
<HI>PARIS.</HI> Tran&s;lated out of French.
And a Preface added; containing
THE JUDGEMENT OF
AN UNIVERSITY-MAN,
<HI>concerning M^r.</HI> Knot's <HI>la&s;t book</HI>
again&s;t M^r. <HI>Chillingworth.</HI></P>
<P>Printed by <HI>Th. Buck,</HI> Printer to the <HI>&V;niver|&s;itie</HI>
of <HI>Cambridge.</HI> MDCLIII.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="dedication">
<PB REF="2">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>To the Right Wor&s;hipfull
the Ma&s;ter, Wardens, and A&s;|&s;i&s;tants
of the Honourable
Company of Mercers,
LONDON.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>Right Wor&s;hipfull;</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>_THough I am very much obli|ged
to the Authour of this
Book, and other friends, for
who&s;e &s;ake I tran&s;lated it; yet
I am to none more than unto You,
who&s;e <HI>bounty</HI> enabled me: of which I
have been a partaker, untill the yeare la&s;t
pa&s;&s;ed, ever &s;ince the fifth of my age,
through my education at <HI>S. Pauls</HI> Schole.
And that it is not &s;till continued to me, is
not any cau&s;e in You, but my &s;uperan|nuation.</P>
<P>Thus (though my catalogue be <HI>&s;hort</HI>)
I have reckoned up almo&s;t all the friends
I have living; which (as my books) I
ever de&s;ired might be few and <HI>good;</HI> if
they be not, it &s;hall never be my fault.</P>
<P><PB REF="3">
And with You, (whom I number
among the <HI>chief</HI> of them) I here deal as
<HI>Sinaeta</HI> in the <HI>Per&s;ian</HI> &s;tory did with <HI>Ar|taxerxes;</HI>
who knowing it was the cu|&s;tome
of the Countrey to offer the King
&s;omewhat, each time he rid abroad, meet|ing
him accidentally, and having no|thing
in readine&s;&s;e, ran to the river-&s;ide,
where &s;natching up his hands full of wa|ter,
he pre&s;ented it to his Soveraigne,
crying, <GAP DESC="foreign">
Who con&s;idering the gratefull mind
wherewith it came, graciou&s;ly accepted it.</P>
<P>If You &s;hall, <HI>in like manner,</HI> vouch&s;afe
to look upon this &s;mall book; which is
pre&s;ented (with the &s;ame affection, and
with my hearty prayers to God for the
<HI>continuance</HI> of His Ble&s;&s;ings on You, and
your Munificence to poor Students) as
a tender of my many humble thanks,
which I &s;hall ever acknowledge due to
You, I &s;hall think it (next to the glory of
<HI>God,</HI> and conver&s;ion of <HI>&s;ouls</HI>) the greate&s;t
reward to this devoir, that can be hoped
for, by</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>Your obliged &s;ervant,
THO. SMITH.</SIGNED>
<DATELINE>Chri&s;ts-Coll. Cambr. <DATE>Aug. 2. 1653.</DATE></DATELINE></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="table of contents">
<PB REF="3">
<HEAD>A Table of the Chapters.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>I.</HI> THE occa&s;ion and importance of this Trea|ti&s;e
<HI>Page</HI> 1</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>II.</HI> The nece&s;&s;ity of an <HI>union</HI> among believers <HI>pag.</HI> 2</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>III.</HI> That it is &s;ometimes lawfull to <HI>&s;eparate</HI> from a com|pany
of men, profe&s;&s;ing Chri&s;tianitie <HI>p.</HI> 3</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>IV.</HI> That our &s;eparation from the Church of Rome, was
not made ra&s;hly, wilfully, or unnece&s;&s;arily. <HI>p.</HI> 6</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>V. Rea&s;ons</HI> of our &s;eparation from Rome, founded up|on
the diver&s;ity of our beliefs <HI>p.</HI> 8</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>VI.</HI> That our &s;eparation ari&s;eth not from particular mat|ters
of <HI>fact,</HI> or <HI>private</HI> opinion; but from &s;uch
things as are believed <HI>generally,</HI> by <HI>all</HI> the Ro|mane
Church. And &s;o, that it is not like to the
<HI>&s;chi&s;me</HI> of the Donati&s;ts. <HI>p.</HI> 13</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>VII.</HI> That there are <HI>two</HI> &s;orts of Errours; the one over|throws
the foundation of faith, and <HI>obliging</HI> man
to &s;eparate; and the other <HI>not.</HI> That the opinions
of the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> which we reject, are of
the fir&s;t &s;ort; and tho&s;e of the <HI>Lutherans</HI> are of
the &s;econd <HI>p.</HI> 18</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>VIII.</HI> That the adoration of the Euchari&s;t, as it is practi|&s;ed
by the Church of Rome, doth overthrow the
foundation of piety and religion <HI>p.</HI> 26</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>IX.</HI> That the opinion of the Lutherans, which we bear
withall, doth not bring with it the adoration of
the Euchari&s;t, either <HI>de jure,</HI> or <HI>de facto p.</HI> 32</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>X.</HI> That the dignity and excellencie of the Euchari&s;t,
doth not hinder it from being a mortal &s;inne to
adore it, if it be bread in &s;ub&s;tance, as we believe
it to be <HI>p.</HI> 37</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>XI.</HI> That the opinion which tho&s;e of the Romane Church
have of the Euchari&s;t, excu&s;eth not &s;uch as a|dore
it <HI>p.</HI> 45</ITEM>
<ITEM><PB REF="4">
<HI>XII.</HI> The errour of tho&s;e, who think they may give to the
Ho&s;t of the Church of Rome, that reverence which
&s;he commandeth, without <HI>adoring</HI> it <HI>p.</HI> 55</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>XIII.</HI> That he who believeth the Euchari&s;t to be bread in
&s;ub&s;tance, cannot give it the reverence which is
practi&s;ed in the Church of Rome, without evident
fal&s;hood, hypocri&s;ie, and perfidiou&s;ne&s;&s;e. <HI>p.</HI> 61</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>XIV.</HI> That every man who exerci&s;eth the ceremonies and
&s;ervices which the Church of Rome renders to the
<HI>Ho&s;t,</HI> declareth thereby that he <HI>adoreth</HI> it, and
taketh it for his true and eternall God. <HI>p.</HI> 65</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>XV.</HI> An an&s;wer to the example of <HI>Naaman the Syri|an,</HI>
objected by &s;ome <HI>p.</HI> 72</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>XVI.</HI> That to think it is lawfull for a man to exerci&s;e the
ceremonies of a Religion which he believeth not,
doth by con&s;equence dimini&s;h the glory of, and
ca&s;t a &s;lur upon the Martyrs <HI>p.</HI> 78</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>XVII.</HI> That this di&s;&s;embling is condemned by our Lord in
the Scriptures <HI>p.</HI> 81</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>XVIII.</HI> That this di&s;&s;embling, grievou&s;ly offendeth God,
and &s;candalizeth men. <HI>p.</HI> 85</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>XIX.</HI> That there are many other beliefs in the Church of
Rome, which overthrow the foundations of our
faith and &s;alvation, as the Veneration of images,
the Supremacie of the Pope, &amp;c. <HI>p.</HI> 91</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>XX.</HI> A conclu&s;ion of this Treati&s;e. That They, who are of
our per&s;wa&s;ion, are obliged to for&s;ake the commu|nion
of Rome; and, They who are not, are to prove
and trie their own faith, before they condemne
our &s;eparation from them.</ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="preface">
<PB N="5" REF="4">
<HEAD>The Preface.</HEAD>
<P>_THe particulars which I intend to premi&s;e, are
chiefly the&s;e two. 1. What was the occa&s;ion
of <HI>writing</HI> this Apology. 2. What is the oc|ca&s;ion
of <HI>printing</HI> it. The fir&s;t will lead me to
&s;ay &s;omewhat of <HI>&s;chi&s;me,</HI> which is the &s;ub|ject
of the book: And the &s;econd to take notice of a large book,
lately publi&s;hed by the <HI>Engli&s;h Je&s;uites,</HI> entituled, <HI>Infidelity
unmasked, &amp;c.</HI> I &s;hall &s;peak of both with as much brevity as
may be; remembring, I am to write a <HI>Preface,</HI> not a <HI>Treati&s;e.</HI></P>
<P><HI>I.</HI> Of the fir&s;t. Some &s;editious people in France did in the
yeare MDCXXXIII, endeavour to rai&s;e a bloudy per&s;ecuti|on
again&s;t the Prote&s;tants in that nation; inciting the Magi|&s;trates
to con&s;train them to adorn their hou&s;es on that Fe&s;tival,
which is ordinarily called in that nation <HI>la Fe&s;te de Dieu,</HI>
and do other acts of reverence to the <HI>Ho&s;t;</HI> or to put them
to death, or bani&s;h the refu&s;ers. Whereupon Mon&s;ieur <HI>Daill&eacute;,</HI>
conceiving in what eminent danger he and all of his Religion
were, wrote this Apologie; which being publickly approved,
was pre&s;ented by <HI>Mon&s;ieur Drelincourt, Me&s;trezat,</HI> him|&s;elf,
and many others, deputed by the <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> of France
for that purpo&s;e, unto the King of France and Lords of His
Coun&s;el: as containing the Doctrine, and re&s;olution of all the
<HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> in that Kingdome. And, through Gods ble&s;&s;ing,
it prevailed with Them, &s;o farre, that the &s;aid de&s;tructive
coun&s;els were rejected.</P>
<P>And let not any man imagine, That becau&s;e Adoration of
the <HI>Ho&s;t</HI> is the chief &s;inne mentioned in this Tract (as be|ing
indeed one of the chief cau&s;es of our Separation) therefore
<HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> have nothing el&s;e to alledge for them&s;elves
(though one <HI>unan&s;werable</HI> rea&s;on is enough) and I am
per&s;waded, that any unprejudiced Reader will think this
&s;uch.) For he that will but recollect, in what condition the
<PB N="6" REF="5">
<HI>Church of Rome</HI> was, when Princes and People, Clergie
and Laity, did fir&s;t de&s;ire of the Pope a Reformation, in <HI>faith</HI>
and <HI>manners,</HI> &s;hall find ^1. That they gave (and &s;till do)
to the B. Virgin, and other Saints departed the titles of <HI>Me|diatour,
Redeemer</HI> and <HI>Saviour,</HI> in their publick Liturgies
and hymnes. ^2. That they began their &s;ermons and other &s;o|lemn
duties with <HI>Ave-Maries,</HI> and rendred not to
the B. Virgin onely; but to reliques, pictures, <HI>Agnus Dei's</HI>
(and &s;everall other creatures, animate and inanimate) the
wor&s;hip, which is due onely to the Creatour. Briefly, to omit
many Doctrines de&s;tructive to piety, and even civil &s;ociety,
which are warranted by other Councels (as in the <HI>Councel
of Con&s;tance</HI> Se&s;&s;. 19. ^3. <HI>That it is lawfull to break pro|mi&s;e
with hereticks</HI>) and to in&s;tance onely in &s;ome few po&s;i|tions,
of the la&s;t Councel, held at <HI>Trent,</HI> Se&s;&s;, 25. ^4. The de|cree
for <HI>veneration of images</HI> is again&s;t <HI>Exod. xx. 5.
Lev. xxvi. 1. E&s;a. ii. 8, 9. xliv. 13, &amp;c. 1 Cor. x. 7. vi. 9, 10.
Rev. xxi. 8. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> ^5.</HI> How contrary is their <HI>invocation of Saints
and Angels,</HI> ibid. Se&s;&s;. 27. unto <HI>Rom. x. 14. Luc. xi. 1, 2.
Matth. iv. 10. Col. ii. 18. Act. x. 25, 26. xiv. 14, 15.
Rev. xix. 10. xxii. 89. ^6.</HI> Their <HI>Communion in one
kind</HI> decreed, in the very words of the Canon Se&s;&s;. 13. and
21. Can. 1. &amp; 2. with a <HI>non ob&s;tante Chri&s;ti in&s;tituto,
notwith&s;tanding Chri&s;ts expre&s;&s;e decree,</HI> how oppo&s;ite to
<HI>Matth. xxvi. 27. Mark xiv. 23. 1 Cor. x.</HI> 3, 4, 16, 17?
^7. Their <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation,</HI> Se&s;&s;. 13. chap. 9. Can. 2. how
contradictory not onely to the Apo&s;tles Creed, but al&s;o to
1 <HI>Cor. x. 16, 17, 20. xi. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28? Matth. xx.
vi.</HI> 29. ^8. In a word (for &s;uch citations may be numerous) who
ever can reconcile their decree for <HI>Service in an unknown
tongue</HI> ibid. Se&s;&s;. 22. chap. 8. &amp; Can. 9. with any part of
all the 1 <HI>Cor. xiv;</HI> I will not wonder if he think that
<HI>fornication</HI> is not contrary to any law of God, and that <HI>for|bidding
marriage to all the Clergie</HI> doth no way oppo&s;e
<HI>Heb. xiii.</HI> 4. and 1 <HI>Tim. iv.</HI> 3. Some of which po&s;itions are
touched in the <HI>19^t^h</HI> chap. of this book: and the re&s;t excellently
confuted in Mons^r <HI>Daill&eacute;'s</HI> books <HI>de poenis; de imagini|bus;
<PB N="7" REF="5">
but; contra Meliterium;</HI> and other Protestant Authours.
Who ever, I &s;ay, recollecteth how the&s;e and the like Doctrines
(which overthrow the fundamentals of Chri&s;tian Religion)
were then, and &s;till are, not onely the private opinions of her
Doctours, but the publick <HI>decrees</HI> of her <HI>Councels;</HI></P>
<P>And then la&s;tly, who ever con&s;idereth with what rigour
and tyranny &s;he threw them who disbelieved them, Fir&s;t
out of the Church; and then (if &s;he could) out of the
world, meerly for being of the young mans mind whom <HI>S^r
Tho. More</HI> commendeth, and tells a pretty &s;tory of [pag.
1438. of his works in Engli&s;h] who&s;e name was <HI>Com|pany,</HI>
becau&s;e they would not &s;inne with their neighbours
and be damned for good Fellow&s;hip. So de&s;troying whole
Cities and Provinces, and with them in Tacitus, <HI>Solitudi|nem
facientes pacem appellavere,</HI> In&s;omuch as none could
communicate with her without approving both her tyranny
and doctrines (<HI>which was the inde&s;pen&s;able condition of
her Communion</HI>) Who ever, I &s;ay, con&s;idereth the&s;e things
will I conceive, never wonder why the Prote&s;tants departed
from Rome, any more than why the Philo&s;ophers did of old,
when they were bani&s;hed; or why he is out of the hou&s;e,
who is thru&s;t out of doors.</P>
<P>But if none of all this could have been truly pleaded, yet
the Church of England might have been excu&s;ed from &s;chi&s;m,
by him that duly con&s;idereth, That the Anglican Church had
of old, and &s;till may ju&s;tly challenge many priviledges, as well
as the Gallican, &s;et down by <HI>Marc. de Vul&s;on,</HI> Coun&s;el|lour
to the King of France, in his book <HI>de la pui&s;&s;ance du
Pape;</HI> and by <HI>Pythoeus</HI> and many others, but mo&s;t largely
de&s;cribed in <HI>two</HI> vast <HI>tomes,</HI> written by the appointment of
<HI>Cardinal Richilieu,</HI> when he advi&s;ed the King of France
to &s;et up a <HI>Patriarch</HI> in oppo&s;ition to the See of Rome,
entituled <HI>Preuues des libertez de l' Egli&s;e Gallicane. Se|conde
Edition. A Paris. MDCLI.</HI> (If our &s;ece&s;&s;ion
was &s;chi&s;me, what would <HI>that</HI> have been?) Both the&s;e
Churches being <GAP DESC="foreign">, by force of the Ephe&s;me Canon
(among others) in the ca&s;e of the Arch-Bi&s;hop of Cyprus;
<PB N="8" REF="6">
whereby it was Ordered, <HI>that the Churches &s;hould con|tinue
as they were, and not be &s;ubordinated to any for|raign
Patriarch.</HI> And again, he who con&s;idereth, That per|petually
under the Old Te&s;tament, and for many ages under
the New, Kings and Emperours were acknowledged to have
a power of <HI>reforming</HI> the Church, under their Dominions;
That even our <HI>Q. Eli&s;abeth</HI> (who is mo&s;t railed at by Roma|ni&s;ts)
claimed no other title, but what <HI>Q. Mary</HI> &amp; other <HI>Ro|mane
Catholick</HI> Kings and Princes claimed before Her; as
may be &s;een in authentick Records; and That, by our Ancient
Laws, the Kings of England, (as the Chri&s;tian Emperours of
old) had Supreme juri&s;diction, in matters Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall as
well as Civil; and That, by the&s;e laws, it was <HI>death</HI> for any
man, to publi&s;h the <HI>Popes Bull,</HI> without the Kings licen&s;e; and
if any Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Court did exceed its ju&s;t limits &amp; juri&s;|dictions,
the Kings prohibition was to be obeyed. All which
appeareth in <HI>Caudries ca&s;e,</HI> reported by <HI>S^r Edward Coke,
in his fifth book, fol. 8. &amp;c.</HI> Concerning our ancient Ec|cle&s;ia&s;tical
laws, &s;ee <HI>S^r. H. Spelmans Councels. B^p Carltons
con&s;en&s;us Eccle&s;iae Cathol. adver&s;us Tridentinos</HI> p. 271.
272. <HI>D^r. Hammonds an&s;wer to the &s;ix quaeries</HI> p. 414.
and <HI>D. Blondel's Primaut&eacute; en l' Egli&s;e.</HI> p. 796. And
that the Reformation in England was in this particular as
regular as po&s;&s;ibl<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">; the <HI>Clergie</HI> de&s;iring it (in Q. <HI>Eli&s;abeths</HI>
dayes there were not a <HI>hundred</HI> Incumbents turned out of
their livings, throughout <HI>all</HI> England) the <HI>King, Lords</HI> and
<HI>Commons</HI> unanimou&s;ly concurring to it. See a book entituled,
An an&s;wer to that groundle&s;&s;e calumny, <HI>A Parliamentary
Religion,</HI> by E. Y. printed at Oxford <HI>MDCXLV.</HI></P>
<P>And la&s;tly; I reque&s;t tho&s;e, who are &s;o prone to term us
Schi&s;maticks, to examine, what obligation there lieth upon us
to conform any more to <HI>Rome</HI> then <HI>Geneva;</HI> and why not to
the poore <HI>Greek</HI> Church, as well as to either, if it have as
much truth; or indeed, why not to the <HI>Primitive</HI> rather than
any. Certain I am, that they will never be able to prove out
of <HI>Antiquity,</HI> that if the Bi&s;hop of Rome (or any other Bi&s;hop)
require &s;ub&s;cription to any errour (e&s;pecially to any that is
<PB N="9" REF="6">
damnable or dangerous) as the condition of their Communi|on,
any man was any longer bound to communicate with them
(becau&s;e then he were bound to communicate in &s;inne) or by
con&s;equence to be obedient to them. Whence it will follow,
That if the Pope make a new Creed: and put in &s;ome things
that contradict the Apo&s;tolicall (as he did at Trent: If he
will force us to profe&s;&s;e and practi&s;e the contrary to Chri&s;t's
precepts (as in mutilating the Communion; and &s;everall
kinds of &s;uper&s;tition, idolatry, and tyranny,) We are not in
a <HI>Schi&s;me</HI> for not &s;ub&s;cribing and obeying, but He for <HI>impo|&s;ing.</HI>
And al&s;o it will follow, that Mons^r. Daill&eacute; hath ta|ken
a very right method; And that the que&s;tion of &s;chi&s;me
ought to <HI>follow,</HI> and not <HI>go before</HI> that of here&s;ie or errour.
For if the Bi&s;hop of Rome be in <HI>&s;chi&s;me,</HI> we are not then in
fault for not remaining under his government, although we
had been under it ever &s;ince the fir&s;t plantation of Chri&s;tia|nitie
in England (<HI>hoc dato, non conce&s;&s;o</HI>) &s;ince he now
exacteth our a&s;&s;ent &amp; &s;ub&s;cription to a damnable errour, as a
part of our Communion. And therefore I cannot but wonder,
That the contrary methode being &s;o prepo&s;terous, and again&s;t
both rea&s;on and the practi&s;e and opinions of the<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><P>Eccle&s;ia non in <HI>parietibus</HI> con&s;i|&s;tit, &s;ed in dogma|tum <HI>veritate:</HI> Ec|cle&s;ia ibi e&s;t, ubi <HI>&s;i|des vera</HI> e&s;t. Cae|ter&ugrave;m ante annos 15 aut 20, parietes omnes h&icirc;c Eccle&s;i|atum <HI>haeretici</HI> po&s;sidebant. Eccle&s;ia autem ill&icirc;c erat, ubi <HI>fides vera</HI> erat. <HI>Hieron in P&s;al.</HI> 133. Nemo mihi dicat, O quid dixit Do|natus, aut quid dixit Parm. aut Pontius, aut quilibet eorum? quia nec <HI>Catholicis Epi&s;copis</HI> con&s;entiendum e&s;t, &s;icubi fort&egrave; fallantur ut contra Canonicas Scripturas aliquid &s;entiant. <HI>Augu&s;t. de unit. Eccle&s;. c. 10. in Edit. Lugdun. Honorati. Anno</HI> 1562.</P>
<P>Eccle&s;iam &s;uam demon&s;trent &s;i po&s;&s;unt, non in &s;ermonibus &amp; ru|moribus Afrorum, non in Conciliis Epi&s;coporum &s;uorum, non in li|teris quorumlibet disputatorum, non in &s;ignis &amp; prodigiis, fallaci|bus (quia etiam contra i&s;ta Verbo Domini cauti redditi &s;umus) &s;ed i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> prae&s;cripto <HI>Legis,</HI> in <HI>Prophetarum</HI> praedictis, in cantibus <HI>P&s;al|morum,</HI> in <HI>ip&s;ius Pa&s;toris</HI> vocibus, in <HI>Evangeli&s;tarum</HI> praedicati|onibus, &amp; laboribus; hoc e&s;t, in omnibus <HI>Canonicis</HI> Sanctorum li|brorum <HI>autoritatibus. Eodem lib. c. 16. eju&s;dem edit.</HI></P>
<P>&V;trum ip&s;i Eccle&s;iam teneant, non ni&s;i divinarum <HI>Scripturarum</HI> Canonicis libris o&s;tendant; quia <HI>nec nos</HI> propterea dicimus credi opor|tere, quod in <HI>Eccle&s;ia</HI> Chri&s;ti &s;umus; aut quia ip&s;am commendavit Optatus, Ambro&s;ius, vel alii innumerabiles no&s;trae communionis E|pi&s;copi; aut quia no&s;trorum Collegarum Conciliis praedicata e&s;t, aut quia per totu orbent tanta mirabilia &s;anitatum fiunt, &amp;c. Quaecun&abque; talia in Catholica fiunt, ide&ograve; approbantur quia in Catholica fiunt, non ide&ograve; manife&s;tatur Catholica quia haec in ea fiunt. Ip&s;e Dominus Ie&s;us c&ugrave;m re&s;urrexi&s;&s;et &agrave; mortuis, &amp; di&s;cipulorum oculis corpus &s;u|um offerret, n&egrave; quid tamen fallaciae &s;e pati arbitrarentur, magis eos te&s;timoniis Legis &amp; Prophetarum, &amp; P&s;almorum confirmandos e&s;&s;e <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">udicavit. <HI>ibid.</HI> Non audiamus, Haec dico, &s;ed haec dicit <HI>Do|minus.</HI> Sunt cert&egrave; libri Dominici quorum Autoritati utrique con|&s;entimus. <HI>Ibi</HI> quaeramus Eccle&s;iam, ibi di&s;cutiamus cau&s;am no|&s;tram. <HI>Eod. l. c. 2. &amp;</HI> 3. <GAP DESC="foreign">; <HI>&amp;c.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>Chry&s;. in Act. hom.</HI> 33.</P></NOTE> Fathers,
&s;hould be &s;o much u&s;ed among the Roma|ni&s;ts:
For thereby they do not examine but
prae&s;uppo&s;e the conclu&s;ion. Fir&s;t, they would
have us grant, That the Church of Rome
is the onely true Church on earth, and then
examine whether &s;he &s;peak truth, and whe|ther
we did well in &s;eparating from her.</P>
<P><PB N="10" REF="7">
But I wonder at Cardinal Perron more then at any man,
That he (con&s;idering his va&s;t under&s;tanding,&mdash;<GAP DESC="foreign">,
and large preamble of <HI>two</HI> leaves, concerning the benefit and
<HI>nece&s;&s;ity</HI> of a good definition) &s;hould (Repl. lib. 1. c. 8.)
define <HI>the Church</HI> to be <HI>a &s;ocietie of tho&s;e whom God
hath called to &s;alvation, by the profe&s;&s;ion of the TRUE
FAITH, &s;incere admini&s;tration of the Sacraments, and
adherence to lawfull Pa&s;tours:</HI> and yet that he &s;hould both
u&s;e the Romani&s;ts method, and find fault with them that do
not, ibid. c. 4. For if the Church be &s;uch a Society; Either
every member of that Church is obliged to know, (and there|fore
to examine) <HI>the true Faith, and &s;incere admini&s;tra|tion
of the Sacraments;</HI> or he is obliged to make profe&s;&s;ion
of that which he doth not know, and hath not examined.
Which is far beneath a rationall man, much more a Chri&s;tian.</P>
<P>And in truth, this I take to be the fir&s;t particular that &s;hould
be con&s;idered. For unle&s;&s;e men before they di&s;pute, will be
per&s;waded to agree upon the &s;tate of the que&s;tions, and in
<PB N="11" REF="7">
what order they &s;hould be handled; they mu&s;t needs end
their di&s;cour&s;e where they &s;hould have begun it: as to in|&s;tance
in the point in hand; <HI>D^r</HI> Potter p. 81. proveth that
it is lawfull to ab&s;tain from communicating with a Church
that impo&s;eth the profe&s;&s;ion of her corruptions, as a condition
of her communion, <HI>Becau&s;e 'tis lawfull to &s;eparate from
any other corrupted Societie in the like ca&s;e: as if a Mo|na&s;tery
&s;hould reform it &s;elf, and reduce into practi&s;e an|cient
good di&s;cipline, when others would not, &amp;c. or if
a &s;ocietie of men be univer&s;ally infected with &s;ome di&s;|ea&s;e,
&amp;c.</HI> M. Knot in an&s;wer alters the ca&s;e, very ingenu|ou&s;ly,
to the quite contrary, c. 5. &sect; 31. M. Chillingworth mo|derates
it, to do him a courte&s;ie, c. 5. &sect;. 85. In requitall
whereof, M^r. K. fir&s;t blames him for it, and then begs the
que&s;tion; &s;aying, That in the que&s;tion between the Church of
Rome and us there is a divine command, not to depart <HI>what|ever</HI>
&s;he impo&s;e. So that till the que&s;tions be &s;tated right, &amp;
in due method, that is, till it be examined whether the
Church of Rome have corruptions and impo&s;e them, 'twill
never appeare, whether <HI>&s;he</HI> or <HI>we</HI> be in the &s;chi&s;me.</P>
<P>And certes, methinks it is not fair, to beg the que&s;tion &s;o oft
as he doth, &amp; tell us that we are no Chri&s;tians, unle&s;&s;e we
are infallibly certain that the Church is infallible; and yet ne|ver
pretend to prove it &s;o, by any other motives than tho&s;e of
credibility, which at be&s;t are but <HI>probable:</HI> and to me they
&s;eem not &s;uch. I prote&s;t, I have oft wi&s;ht heartily they did,
having found &s;o many di&s;couragements for a &s;cholar in late
years, that I long &s;ince concluded him a wi&s;eman, who &s;aid, <HI>He
that encrea&s;eth notions, encrea&s;eth &s;orrow,</HI> &amp; <HI>Much &s;tudy
is a wearine&s;&s;e to the fle&s;h,</HI> Eccle&s;. i. 18. xii. 12. concluding
that the <HI>love</HI> of learning and truth (which is the mo&s;t that
I pretend to) would not onely be tedious, but &s;infull, if felici|tie
could be attained full as well without it: which it might,
if it were infallibly certain, that the Romane Church is infal|lible.
And &s;o while M^r. Knot goes about to prove that rea|&s;on
overthroweth Chri&s;tian Religion; and tells us that it mu&s;t
be built onely upon the <HI>Authority</HI> of the Church, and then
<PB N="12" REF="8">
builds that Authoritie onely upon <HI>rea&s;ons,</HI> and tho&s;e very
weak ones, and no way able to &s;upport his &s;uper&s;tructure, he
will let all fall, unle&s;&s;e the &s;ame faculty be a <HI>pillar</HI> under his
arm, and a <HI>bulru&s;h</HI> under ours. And though he make great
u&s;e of interjections in exclaiming again&s;t Chillingworth and
other Prote&s;tants in England, for pulling down, he will ne|ver
de&s;erve any thanks (in my opinion) <HI>of the Chri&s;tian
world,</HI> for this building. Which mindeth me of the &s;econd
particular I intend to &s;peak of, <HI>viz.</HI></P>
<P><HI>II.</HI> The occa&s;ion of printing this book. I confe&s;&s;e, though
it were tran&s;lated &s;everal years &s;ince, at the urgency of &s;ome
learned friends, who&s;e judgement concerning the acutenes of it,
I had more rea&s;on to tru&s;t then mine own: yet I was very un|willing
to publi&s;h it, till now that I am convinced of the &s;ea|&s;onablene&s;&s;e
of it, being certified from Engli&s;h <HI>Seminaries</HI> be|yond
the &s;eas, <HI>ind&egrave; Qu&ograve;d nuper</HI>-veteres <HI>co~migravere</HI> coloni;
and convinced by relations from <HI>Newca&s;tle, Brecknock,</HI>
and other places on this &s;ide the water, That they are
very bu&s;ie at &s;uch harve&s;t-work here, as <HI>Par&s;ons</HI> the Engli&s;h
Je&s;uite (in his<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><P>It is entituled, <HI>A memoriall for Reformation;</HI> or <HI>A Remembrance for them that &s;hall live, when Catho|lick Religion &s;hall be re&s;tored into England.</HI> Where|in are directions, in &s;o many &s;e|verall chapters, what he thought be&s;t to be done, as well in the Court as Coun|trey, with the King and Coun&s;ell, as with the re&s;t of the No|bility, and Commonalty; Clergy as Laity, when this Nation &s;hall be (as he &s;aid he was confident it would be) reduced.</P>
<P><HI>In &s;umme, he would have its</HI> Grand-Charter burnt, the manner of holding lands in fee-&s;imple, fee-tail, frank almain, Kings &s;ervice, &amp;c. wholly aboli&s;hed, the Municipall laws abrogated, and the Inns of Court converted to &s;ome other u&s;e: <HI>That for Lawyers. Then for Divines:</HI> The Colledges in both &V;niver&s;ities &s;hould be wholly in the power of &s;ix men, who &s;hould have all the Lands, Mannors, Lord&s;hips, Par&s;onages, &amp;c. and what ever el&s;e be|longed to Church or Cloy&s;ter, re&s;igned into their hands; allowing to the Bi&s;hops, Par&s;ons, and Vicars, competent &s;tipends and pen&s;ions to live upon, according as Bi&s;hops-Suffragans, and Mont &s;eniors have allowance in other Catholick Countreys. <HI>The&s;e are Par&s;ons own words:</HI> That at the beginning no mans con&s;cience be pre&s;&s;ed for matters in Religion: <HI>then,</HI> That publick disputations between Pa|pi&s;ts and Prote&s;tants, be held in both the &V;niver&s;ities. That for &s;ome years it will be more commodious for the publick, and more liberty for the Preachers, to have no appropriation nor obligation to any par|ticular benefice, but Itinera.&mdash;Mitto caetera. <HI>He that would know more of it, may read the book it &s;elf, (for which I heard &s;ome Romani&s;ts la&s;t yeare commend M. Par&s;ons) or (becau&s;e that is rare) he may peru&s;e a book of the &s;ame</HI> Par&s;ons, <HI>entituled,</HI> A Manife&s;tation of the folly and bad &s;pirit of certain in England, calling them&s;elves Secular Prie&s;ts: <HI>wherein this</HI> Memorial <HI>is owned by him, and analy&s;ed, and excu&s;ed, from</HI> fol. 55. to 63. <HI>Or,</HI> W. Clark (<HI>a Romane Prie&s;t) his an&s;wer to the</HI> Manife&s;tati|on, <HI>entituled,</HI> A Reply unto a certain Libell, lately &s;et forth by Fa. Par&s;ons: pag. 74. &amp;c. <HI>Or</HI> Wat&s;ons quodlibets, p. 92, 93, 94. <HI>together with the</HI> Reply to a brief Apologie, <HI>and &s;everall other books, which (fifty years agoe) the Prie&s;ts wrote again&s;t the Je&s;uites, and the Je&s;uites again&s;t the Prie&s;ts. Whereby he may</HI> (in tran&s;itu) <HI>perceive, that there be as many and as great differences between them, as among Prote&s;tants.</HI></P></NOTE> <HI>Memorial</HI> written at
Sevil 1596) and <HI>Contzen</HI> the Mo|guntine
Je&s;. (in the &s;econd book of his <HI>Po|liticks,</HI>
and 18. chap. and <HI>Campanella</HI>
in his Monarchia Hi&s;pan.) appointed them;
being told by the <HI>London Book-&s;ellers.</HI>
who are the mo&s;t competent judges
<HI>qui&s;que in arte &s;ua,</HI> (Beacon fired p. 6.)
that at lea&s;t <HI>thirty thou&s;and</HI> Popi&s;h books
<PB N="13" REF="8" MS="y">
have been printed there, within the&s;e three la&s;t years; and in
a book entituled, <HI>The Petition of the &s;ix Counties of
South-Wales, and the County of Monmouth to the</HI>
late <HI>Parliament,</HI> of <HI>whole Pari&s;hes</HI> faln off to Popery, &s;ince
the Mini&s;ters have been ca&s;t out; and yet many men ask,
WHAT NEED OF A CLERGY? Alas! I
cannot but tremble to &s;ee how pa&s;&s;ionately they are in love
with ruine, and pur&s;ue nakedne&s;&s;e, vengeance, and de&s;olation?
[<GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>Prov. xxix. 18.]</HI> In a word, knowing <HI>turpius
ejicitur, &amp;c.</HI> that men are with more ea&s;e kept within the
Church of England, then reduced to it; and &s;eeing many dai|ly,
who formerly have been the mo&s;t forward to cry, <HI>Venient
Romani</HI>&mdash;po&s;ting out of it, and furious for Romane &s;u|per&s;tition,
falling (as 'tis the cu&s;tome of the giddy vulgar)
from one extreme to another: E&s;pecially con&s;idering that the
zeal of the greate&s;t member of our Pa&s;tours (mo&s;t whereof
might far better be &s;pent in pre&s;&s;ing and per&s;wading men to
<PB N="14" REF="9">
<HI>pious conver&s;ations]</HI> is altogether laid out in controver&s;ies
of a le&s;&s;e nature and importance (which, by the way, may be
one cau&s;e of the &s;preading of Popery) I thought this book
would now at length prove very <HI>&s;ea&s;onable.</HI> And if it may
plea&s;e the Almighty of his goodne&s;&s;e, to let it be as &s;ucce&s;&s;efull
in &s;topping the increa&s;e of the <HI>Romane</HI> Religion in <HI>England,</HI>
at it was in hindring the per&s;ecution of the <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> in
<HI>France;</HI> I &s;hall not think one minute of the &s;pare-houres,
that I employed in tran&s;lating it, lo&s;t. But if withall, it
prove in&s;trumentall to the abating of any mans heat for cere|monies
and externals, or cau&s;e him to &s;pend it (where it
ought) in con&s;tant <HI>devotion</HI> to God alone, and unfeigned
Chri&s;tian <HI>charitie</HI> toward all his brethren, and <HI>reuniting</HI>
the &s;hattered pieces of groaning Chri&s;tendome; and &s;o induce
any one man to live a <HI>Holy life</HI> (which que&s;tionle&s;&s;e is or
&s;hould be the main end of all our preaching, religion, and
controver&s;ies) I &s;hall really deem it the happie&s;t time that
ever I be&s;towed.</P>
<P>The chief book that is now extolled by our Romani&s;ts is one
lately &s;et forth by <HI>M^r Edward Knot,</HI> alias <HI>Nich. Smith,</HI>
who&s;e true name is <HI>Matthew Wil&s;on,</HI> born at Pegsworth
neare Morpeth in Northumberland; who was for &s;everall years
<HI>Profe&s;&s;or</HI> of Divinity at the Engli&s;h Colledge in <HI>Rome;</HI> then
<HI>Vice-Provinciall;</HI> and that he might fini&s;h this his la&s;t book
the better, was made <HI>Provinciall of all Engli&s;h Je&s;uits;</HI>
all which I am informed by &s;ome of his own Countrey-men
and Society. The book is entituled&punc; <HI>Infidelity unmasked, or
the Confutation of M^r Chillingworth, &amp;c.</HI> Wherewith
if any wavering Prote&s;tant chance to be &s;haken in his belief
(whereof though the Romani&s;ts generally boa&s;t much, I &s;ee no
danger becau&s;e I have, a&s;ter much enquiry, not heard of two
in England that have had the patience to read it over, 'Tis
&s;o full of mon&s;trous<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>p. 52. &sect; 18. p.337. &sect; 75. p. 354. l. 20. p. 495. l. 31. p. 648. l.</HI> ult. <HI>p. 728. l.</HI> ult. &amp;c. <HI>p. 808. l. 20. pag. 812. lin.</HI> 16. But I delight not <HI>camerinam movere,</HI> &s;ince (to &s;ay nothing of <HI>Mr. P. du Moulin</HI> and o|ther Prote&s;tant collections, which I think not &s;o con&s;iderable in this kind) the Romani&s;ts have written &s;o much again&s;t one another, in &s;everall languages, to this purpo&s;e, that my &s;oul oft <HI>bleedeth</HI> in &s;ecret to fore&s;ee, That if they proceed thus, The re|ducing (if not this, yet) the next age to the good old <HI>Chri&s;ti|anity</HI> (wherein as Epiphan. witne&s;&s;eth <GAP DESC="foreign"> &amp; <GAP DESC="foreign"> divided the world into hereticall and Orthodox Profe&s;&s;ours) or even to morall hone&s;ty (while gain &s;hall be counted godli|ne&s;&s;e, and &egrave; <HI>contra</HI>) will be found a matter of farre more dif|ficulty and miracle, than at the fir&s;t plantation, as <HI>Aphori&s;mes ou Sommaire de la doctrine des Je&s;uites par lesquels le vray Chri&s;tiani&s;me e&s;t corrompu 1610. Mercure Je&s;uite 1631. My&s;teria Je&s;uitarum. 1633. Theologie morale des Je&s;uites extraict fidellement de leurs liures Contre la Morale Chri&s;tienne.</HI> which la&s;t the <HI>Sor|bon</HI> Doctours publi&s;ht. They and the <HI>Lovain</HI> have publi&s;ht &s;e|verall other Common-places or catalogues of Je&s;uiticall opi|nions, &s;hewing that they teach a large number of opinions, which open a wide door to <HI>treachery, revenge, covetou&s;ne&s;&s;e, de|bauchedne&s;&s;e,</HI> &amp;c. And 'tis likely the Je&s;uits who are &s;eldome behind-hand when they are able, have done as much for <HI>them.</HI> Mean while, I pray, <HI>God pre&s;erve Chri&s;tianity!</HI></NOTE>
tenents and
impertinencies) I &s;hall intreat (for
<PB N="15" REF="9">
his &s;atisfaction) to read likewi&s;e over <HI>M^r Chillingworth's</HI>
book, again&s;t which it was writ; and he &s;hall find <HI>M^r Chil|lingworth's</HI>
a &s;ufficient an&s;wer to it, if he plea&s;e to compare
<HI>Section</HI> with <HI>Section,</HI> from the beginning to the end of each.
For he will perceive, That the mo&s;t weighty arguments of
<HI>M^r. Chillingworth</HI> (as all the <HI>An&s;wer to the Directi|ons
of N. N.</HI> that is, <HI>M^r Knot,</HI> wherein <HI>Ma&s;ter
Chill.</HI> drew up, and proved, an high charge of <HI>Athei&s;me</HI>
and <HI>Sociniani&s;me, again&s;t M^r Knot</HI> and his party, and
cleared him&s;elf; and &s;o many places as it would be tedious to
&s;pecifie) are pa&s;&s;ed by as the <HI>&s;ick man,</HI> in the high way, was
by <HI>the Jew without notice taken:</HI> And the re&s;t &s;o jejune|ly
handled, and &s;o farre from a complete an&s;wer (though 'tis
&s;ufficiently known, That <HI>M^r K.</HI> being in &s;uch high place, and
dividing part of the task among many of his Inferiours, and
making u&s;e of tho&s;e three folio's writ by <HI>M^r G. H.</HI> again&s;t
<HI>M^r Chill.</HI> [which <HI>D^r Hammond</HI> mentioneth in his un|an&s;werable
Defence of the <HI>L^d Falkland]</HI> and other the like
helps had all the humane advantages that could be had) &s;o
little touched, that methinks he may well unchri&s;ten his book
<PB N="16" REF="10">
a little more, and recall that <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>The confutation
of M^r Chillingworths book,</HI> re&s;erving onely the re&s;t, <HI>In|fidelity
unmasked.</HI> And that in relation to him&s;elf.</P>
<P>I &s;hall give <HI>M^r K.</HI> a large catalogue of his omi&s;&s;ions,
when he &s;hall think fit to an&s;wer <HI>M^r Chillingworths Pre|face,
to the Authour of charity maintained;</HI> or (becau&s;e
that would perhaps be too long a trouble) when he &s;hall an|&s;wer
onely the la&s;t page of <HI>M^r Chillingworths</HI> book (which
in ju&s;tice &s;hould have been done 19 years &s;ince) containing
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> eleven di&s;cour&s;es of <HI>D^r Potter,</HI> which were never yet
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="3 letters">ched; although <HI>M^r Chill.</HI> concludeth his fir&s;t part in
the&s;e words; <HI>Now at la&s;t, when you are admoni&s;hed of
it, that my Reply may be perfect, I would entreat you
to take them into your con&s;ideration:</HI> promi&s;ing the &s;e|cond
part of his Reply, when <HI>M^r K.</HI> &s;hould de&s;ire it, but it
&s;eems he had enough of the fir&s;t, which made him de&s;ire to
&s;mother the &s;econd.</P>
<P>In the interim, I cannot but mind <HI>M^r Knot</HI> of one &sect;
containing two pages ('tis the <HI>96^t^h</HI> of the <HI>5^t^h</HI> c. of <HI>M. Chill.</HI>)
which he pa&s;&s;eth over as ordinary Commentatours do over
hard places, &s;aying not a word to it. Which I am minded of
by <HI>Mons^r Milletiere's Rhetorick,</HI> concerning the incon|&s;i&s;tency
of <HI>Prote&s;tant Religion</HI> with civil government. And
I do the more earne&s;tly be&s;eech him to an&s;wer it, becau&s;e I
&s;ee <HI>he</HI> &s;alls &s;ometimes into the &s;ame &s;train, and becau&s;e I bear
a great love to the per&s;ons of &s;ome in the Romane Communion,
and have been many years troubled
with an<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">That which one or two, or &s;ome few Ro|mane Catholick Do|ctours &s;ay is lawfull, may (in the judgement of Papi&s;ts) be done, without mortall &s;inne. [the <HI>major</HI> is M. Knots, <HI>Charity maintained</HI> c. 4. &s;ect. 25. as al&s;o <HI>Valen|tia's, Va&s;quez, Le&s;sius, Enriquez, Sa. Cellot de Hi&s;t. l. 8. c. 16. p. 714.]</HI> But not onely one, but many Rom. Cath. Doctours &s;ay, 'Tis law|full to murder or depo&s;e a Supreme Magi&s;trate, that is guilty of here&s;ie, or &s;u&s;pected of it. <HI>Cavete Principes concla&s;ioneni.</HI></NOTE> argument, which the
learned <HI>D^r Jer. Taylor</HI> brings p.
50, <HI>&amp;</HI> 51. of his &s;ermon on the <HI>Gun|powder-Trea&s;on</HI>
(having in my
&s;mall peru&s;all of Popi&s;h writers,
met with many confirmations, both
of <HI>major</HI> and <HI>minor</HI> propo&s;ition;
<PB N="17" REF="10">
which I &s;hall produce, when need requires: but I think it
doth not now, becau&s;e I mu&s;t be &s;hort; and the <HI>D^r</HI> hath &s;aid
enough in that excellent &s;ermon. Which &s;eemeth to me to con|tain
a very &s;ufficient an&s;wer to a book lately written by a
Romani&s;t, entituled, <HI>The Chri&s;tian Moderatour.</HI></P>
<P>Be&s;ides, that I am most credibly informed, by a Per&s;on of
great quality and integrity (who &s;aw both the &s;ub&s;criptions
and excommunication) That tho&s;e many Engli&s;h Recu&s;ants,
whom he mentioneth <HI>p.</HI> 17, and 37. were all excommuni|cated
for &s;ub&s;cribing tho&s;e three moderate negative propo&s;i|tions,
which are there &s;et down as the Doctrine of the En|gli&s;h
Rom. Catholiques, concerning the <HI>Popes power over the
Supreme Magi&s;trate.</HI></P>
<P>I was ever a great enemy to rancour in di&s;pute, and am of
that <HI>Vi&s;counts</HI> mind, who thought, That there ought to be no
more bitterne&s;&s;e in a <HI>treati&s;e of Controver&s;ie</HI> then in a
<HI>Love-letter.</HI> And therefore though I never &s;aw <HI>M^r Chil|lingworth</HI>
(whom I find commend|ed
by <HI>M^r</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Is it not a &s;hame that learned men &s;hould blame this [opinion concerning rea&s;on] in <HI>Ma&s;ter Chillingworth, Doctour Hammond, &amp;c.</HI> and thereby advance Sociniani&s;me, and ruine Chri&s;tianity. <HI>Saints re&s;t. Praef. to the 2. part. p. 18. &amp; &s;aepe alibi.</HI><Q><L>&mdash;<GAP DESC="foreign"></L>
<L><GAP DESC="foreign"></L></Q></NOTE> <HI>Baxter</HI> and other emi|nent
Divines; and commended by
his Adver&s;aries for a devout and
rationall man) yet I cannot but be
moved with pitty and grief to &s;ee,

how <HI>M^r Knot</HI> (who be&s;pattereth <HI>Ca&s;aubon,</HI> and &s;everall
other very learned men) in&s;ulteth over <HI>M^r Chillingworth</HI>
now being dead: who would not come near him to di&s;pute
while he was alive, though <HI>M^r Chillingworth</HI> at &s;undry
times and by &s;everall wayes entreated and &s;olicited, nay pre&s;|&s;ed
and importuned him to it, before the printing of this &s;olio.
(See <HI>The An&s;wer to the direction to N. N. &sect;</HI> 4. and
<HI>afterwards,</HI> as I am told by them that knew him) which he
&s;urvived &s;even years. How after &s;eventeen years studying to
lay this <HI>Hector</HI> in the dust, <HI>M^r Knot</HI> &s;ets &s;orth a book, where|in
(to &s;peak first of the manner of his di&s;cour&s;e) the chief
<PB N="18" REF="11">
thing be doth, is to &s;care his Reader with morm<GAP DESC="foreign">s (<HI>fortiter
calumniando Antagoni&s;tam, ut aliquid haereat,</HI> as his po|licy
was in <HI>Tacitus</HI>) chiefly be&s;pattering him (and that al|mo&s;t
in every page) with odious imputations of &s;uch opini|ons,
whereof he cannot point us out <HI>one</HI> in <HI>all</HI> his volumne,
concerning which he (who best knew his own <HI>belief,</HI> and
is long &s;ince gone to an&s;wer for it, <HI>good</HI> or <HI>bad</HI>) &s;aid, more
than once, as in his <HI>An&s;wer to the directions to N. N.
&sect; 28. Who&s;oever teacheth or holdeth them LET HIM
BE ANATHEMA!</HI> In which volumne, though <HI>M^r Knot</HI>
declaim oft against rea&s;on, and &s;ay, That <HI>to it the my&s;teries
of Chri&s;tian Religion &s;eem impo&s;&s;ible. c. xiii. &sect; 27.
p. 808. pro</HI> 812. yet he thinks it fitting to charge his Ad|ver&s;ary
with the &s;ayings not onely of <HI>S^t Augu&s;tine, B^<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">.
Andrews, Hooker, Grotius, Calvin, Beza,</HI> and the like
learned men, who yet confe&s;&s;ed them&s;elves <HI>men;</HI> but al&s;o of
<HI>Luther, Socinus, Crellius, Volkelius, Bonaventure,
Halen&s;is, Diony&s;. Areopagita,</HI> and I know not what other
rabble; as if poor <HI>Chillingworth</HI> were bound to defend all
who&s;oever, that wrote before him: Whereas all the world
knows, That he who would not believe the <HI>Romane
Church</HI> (whereof he had been a member) upon her own
bare word, would as little believe any <HI>particular</HI> member of
that, or any other Society upon theirs; and that he di&s;claimed
not her pretended <HI>Infallibility</HI> (which was her worst fault,
as making all the rest, how damnable &s;oever, <HI>incurable</HI>)
that he might affix it upon another, or the next man he met;
though never &s;o learned, or pious. And if <HI>M^r. K.</HI> will think it
unjust, That <HI>he</HI> &s;hould be put to maintain the writings of all
Papists, or even of tho&s;e few, of his own <HI>late</HI> Order; his citing
&s;o much the opinions of Protestants out of our Adver&s;ary <HI>Bre|rely,</HI>
is no <HI>argument,</HI> but of his own unrea&s;onablene&s;&s;e.</P>
<P>I &s;hall not take notice of half his impertinencies: not how
he grants, what <HI>M^r Chill.</HI> affirmed, concerning &s;ome mens
believing contradictions <HI>p. 803. lin. 5. There is no doubt,</HI>
&s;aith he, <HI>but that men may believe things, which in
them&s;elves are contradictions.</HI> &amp; p. 810. l. 18. <HI>'Tis
<PB N="19" REF="11">
needle&s;&s;e to be proved, it being a thing which no man
denyeth.</HI> And yet, how in attempting to &s;hew, that <HI>Ma&s;ter
Chillingworth's</HI> rea&s;ons do not prove it, he &s;pends from <HI>p.
802.</HI> to 815. To take notice of all &s;uch <HI>peccadilloes</HI> would
be very tedious to Thee and me. Onely becau&s;e I have men|tioned
his citing <HI>Brerely</HI> &s;o oft (and not onely <HI>M^r K.</HI> but
most of the other Engli&s;h Advocates for the Church of Rome
are very faulty therein) give me leave to adde a little, in that
particular.</P>
<P><HI>M^r Chill.</HI> c. 5. &sect; 91. an&s;wering <HI>M^r Knots</HI> alledging <HI>the
confe&s;&s;ion of Prote&s;tants</HI> concerning the Antiquity of &s;ome
Doctrines in the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> &s;ets down twenty Do|ctrines
of that Church, and entreateh <HI>M^r K.</HI> to inform him
what confe&s;&s;ion of Protestants he hath for <HI>them,</HI> viz. Com|munion
in one kind, Lati<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">e Service, Indulgences, the Popes
power in temporalities over Princes, picturing the Trinity,
wor&s;hipping of pictures, and of the B. Virgin, her immaculate
conception, infallibility of the Pope or Church, auricular Con|fe&s;&s;ion,
&amp;c. And that as &s;ome Protestants confe&s;&s;e the An|tiquity,
but alwayes <HI>po&s;tnate to Apo&s;tolick,</HI> of &s;ome Romane
points; &s;o there want not Papists, who acknowledge as freely
the <HI>novelty</HI> of <HI>many</HI> of them, and the <HI>Antiquity</HI> of ours.
To which, all that <HI>M^r K.</HI> an&s;wereth is <HI>p.</HI> 867. as follow|eth.
1. <HI>Some of the&s;e things are not matters of faith: and
&s;ome other points are even ridiculous. 2. We deny that
any Cath. approved. Authour, acknowledgeth the no|velty
of any of our Doctrines, or the antiquity of yours;
except &s;uch were ancient here&s;ies.</HI> How truly &s;poken the
first is, the Reader may judge; if he have read the Canons
of the Councel of Trent, Luc. Wadding's <GAP DESC="foreign"> or Hi&s;tory
of the Immaculate conception printed at <HI>Lovain</HI> 1624. or any
few Romane authours: How true the &s;econd, if he'l vouch&s;afe
to examine the places I have cited <HI>p.</HI> 6. or the&s;e which follow.</P>
<P>Though there are &s;ome Prote&s;tants who confe&s;&s;e the Antiqui|ty
(though not <HI>Primitive,</HI> which is the onely Antiquity they hold
obliging) of &s;ome few Romane Doctrines; &s;o there are not a few
<HI>Doctours</HI> &amp; Writers of their own Communion, who acknow|ledge,
<PB N="20" REF="12">
as liberally, the novelty of very many others: as, 1 that
<HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation was not named, much le&s;&s;e made
an Article of faith, before the Laterane Councel</HI>
(Bellarm. de Sacram. l. 2. c. 25.) 2 <HI>That for the fir&s;t
MCC years, the Holy Cup was admini&s;tred to the
Laity:</HI> (Lindan. Panopl. l. 4. part. 2. c. 56. &sect; Hunc igi|tur.
Ca&s;&s;ander &s;aepe. Alba&s;pinaeus Ob&s;erv. Sacr. l. 1. c. 4.
And your friend Petavius in his Treati&s;e again&s;t Arnault,
(de la frequent. Communion.) &s;aith, <HI>None but an extreme
ignorant, or impudent fellow can deny it.</HI> 3. That <HI>they</HI>
beleeved <HI>the &s;acrifice of the Euchari&s;t to be but the
IMAGE or COMMEMORATION of our Saviours &s;a|crifice
on the Cro&s;&s;e:</HI> (Lombard. Sent. l. 4. c. 12. &amp; Aqu.
3. p. qu. 83. art. 1. incorp.) 4. That the <HI>Primitive Chri|&s;tians
celebrated not the Euchari&s;t as the Romane
Church doth now:</HI> (Durand. ration. div. offic. lib. 4. c. 1.
Rupertus Abbas Tuit. Divin. Offic. l. 2. c. 21.) [he that
readeth Ju&s;tin Martyr in his Apology, largely de&s;cribing the
cu&s;tome of the Primitives in his dayes, may think he &s;peaks of
the Prote&s;tants now.] 5. That <HI>Divine Service was cele|brated
for many ages in a tongue under&s;tood by the
people:</HI> (Nic. de Lyr. in 1. ad Cor. 14. Ca&s;&s;ander in Li|turg.
c. 28. Alphon&s;. &agrave; Ca&s;tro de ju&s;ta pun. haeret. l. 3. c. 6.)
where, de&s;ending this differing from the Primitive Church,
he &s;aith, <HI>That he who &s;hould now conform to THEM,
would be accounted not onely an impious man, but an
Infidel.</HI> 6. That <HI>the Fathers exhorted the people to read
the Scriptures:</HI> (Azor. mor. l. 8. c. 26. part. 1. &sect; re|&s;pondeo.)
7. That <HI>they generally condemned the wor&s;hip
of Images for fear of Idolatry:</HI> (Polyd. Virg. de invent.
rerum, l. 6. c. 13.) In which treati&s;e, that learned Italian
oft ingemiou&s;ly acknowledgeth the novelty of mo&s;t of their cu|&s;tomes
in the Church of Rome, except &s;uch as came from Jews
or Pagans. As (lib. 5. c. 4.) where he &s;aith, 8 <HI>God and
the Primitive Church permitted marriage to Prie&s;ts, and
Pope Siricius</HI> (who lived at the end of the fourth century)
<HI>was the fir&s;t that forbad it;</HI> who&s;e laws to that purpo&s;e,
<PB N="21" REF="12">
though they came out very thick, were little heeded till the
eleventh Age. See Glo&s;&s;. decret. di&s;t. 84. c. 3. and <HI>P. Pi|us
II.</HI> in his 130. <HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> again&s;t the Bohemians and Tabo|rites;
where he oppo&s;eth the <HI>Modern</HI> Church to the <HI>Primitive.
9. That MCCCC. years after Chri&s;t, many learned
Romani&s;ts denied the Popes judgement to be infallible.</HI>
(Ger&s;on. Almain. Alphon&s;us. Adrian. PP. apud Bell. de
Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 2. &sect; <HI>Secunda opinio.) 10. Or his
authority to be above that of a generall Councel:</HI> (Ca|maracen&s;is.
Ger&s;on. Almain. Cu&s;an. Panormitan. Abulen&s;is
apud Bell. de Conc. l. 2. c. 14. initio.) 11. <HI>That the Ma&s;&s;e
was not in&s;tituted by Chri&s;t and the Apo&s;tles (who at
the con&s;ecration u&s;ed onely the Lords Prayer) but DC
years after them by Gregory I.</HI> Platin. in vit. Sixti I. &amp;
Gregor. I. Gregor. Epi&s;t. l. 7. c. 63. p. 664. edit. Pari&s;.
1571. And all the world knows how lately, and through
how plea&s;ant a trick, the Gregorian Mi&s;&s;all came in u&s;e, in
&s;tead of the Ambro&s;ian; becau&s;e being laid upon S. Peters
Altar, it was torn in peices in the night. The &s;tory may be
read at large in <HI>Durand's Rational. divin. offic. l. 5. c. 2.
&sect; 5. p.</HI> 212. And with what a deal of violence and diffi|cultie,
this Gregorian Mi&s;&s;all was brought into <HI>Spain,</HI> may
be &s;een in <HI>Rod. Ximenes</HI> his <HI>Hi&s;tory of Spain,</HI> l. 6. c. 26.
<HI>Ca&s;&s;and. Praef. de Ord. Rom.</HI> 12. That <HI>Purgatory was
very little, or not at all, mentioned among the Anci|ents;
a thing unknown to Antiquity; and received into
the Church but lately.</HI> Epi&s;c. <HI>Fi&s;her.</HI> A&s;&s;ert. Lutherane
con&s;utat. Artic. <HI>XVIII. 13. That, after</HI> P&V;RGATORY,
<HI>came in</HI> IND&V;LGENCES. Idem ibid. <HI>Durand. Anto|ninus</HI>
apud <HI>Bellarm.</HI> and, <HI>That the Jubilee was in&s;ti|tuted
MCCC yeares after Chri&s;t, by that good man
P. Boniface,</HI> who (their Hi&s;torians &s;ay) <HI>came in like a
fox, raigned like a lion, and died like a dog.</HI> See a trea|ti&s;e
of <HI>Indulgences;</HI> writ by <HI>We&s;&s;elus,</HI> al. <HI>Ba&s;il Gronin|gen&s;is.</HI>
and another of the <HI>Jubilee</HI> by <HI>Santarel</HI> the Je|&s;uite.
14. La&s;tly, (for &s;uch citations would be endle&s;&s;e, as I
might mind you, who it was that <HI>Nicephorus Cali&s;thus</HI>
<PB N="22" REF="13">
&s;aith, brought <HI>Prayer to Saints</HI> into the publick Liturgy, &amp;c.
According as M. <HI>Knot</HI> an&s;wers or approves of the&s;e,
I will give him more, which I have in readine&s;&s;e.) <HI>Alphon|&s;us
&agrave; Ca&s;tro</HI> in his Treati&s;e, <HI>de ju&s;ta punit. Haeretic.</HI> l. 2.
c. 22. &s;peaking of divers ceremonies, which the Church of
Rome u&s;eth in the con&s;ecration of <HI>Temples, Altars, Cha|lices,
habits, ornaments,</HI> &s;aith, <HI>NONE of the&s;e things
were in&s;tituted by Je&s;us Chri&s;t, but in after-times, by
little and little, in&s;tituted by the Church.</HI></P>
<P>Yet give me leave to adde one thing more; That 'tis cleare
to me, None of the Ancient Chri&s;tians believed the Church of
Rome to be a Guide, or Judge of all Controver&s;ies in Chri|&s;tianity:
wherein M^r. K. may do very well to &s;atisfie me,
or [as his friends do] blame <HI>them,</HI> for this rea&s;on among ma|ny,
Becau&s;e in <HI>Epiphanius,</HI> S. <HI>Augu&s;tine,</HI> and others their
Catalogues of Hereticks, none are branded for denying <HI>this</HI>
which they all did. And if it had been believed at all (e|&s;pecially
as it is generally now, <HI>viz. to be the original of all
other here&s;ies,</HI> it had been farre more rationall to have put
in <HI>this;</HI> and left out <HI>all the re&s;t;</HI> then to have dealt with
po&s;terity as we &s;ee they have. That <HI>Tertullian, Vincentius
Lirinen&s;is,</HI> and &s;everall others &s;hould give us <HI>rules</HI> to know
Hereticks by, and forget this, <HI>the main and cleare&s;t.</HI> And,
which is &s;tranger yet, that not onely <HI>Optatus</HI> (l. 5. <HI>contra
Parmen.</HI> mihi p. 130.) after a long di&s;cour&s;e again&s;t the
Donati&s;t, about the unlawfulne&s;&s;e of rebaptization <HI>[Inter</HI> licet
<HI>ve&s;tr&ucirc;m &amp;</HI> non licet <HI>no&s;tr&ucirc;m, nutant &amp; remigant ani|mae
populorum:</HI> Well, what mu&s;t be done in this ca&s;e? <HI>Quae|rendi
&s;unt judices.</HI> Who &s;hall they be? <HI>Si Chri&s;tiani&mdash;Si
Paganus&mdash;Si Judaeus&mdash;</HI> inconveniences on every &s;ide]
&s;hould conclude, <HI>Erg&ograve; in terris hac de re nullum poterit re|periri
judicium, de coelo quaerendus e&s;t Judex.&mdash;Habem&abus;
in Evangelio Te&s;tamentum.</HI> And S. <HI>Augu&s;t.</HI> to the &s;ame
purpo&s;e (in P&s;al. <HI>xxi.</HI> &egrave;xpo&s;ition. 2. <HI>Tabulae aperiantur, le|gantur
verba mortui.</HI> That, I &s;ay, not onely <HI>Optatus</HI> that
learned Bi&s;hop, and other Ancients &s;hould be &s;o much in tho&s;e
early dayes <HI>mi&s;taken</HI> (for certainly your Church was not
<PB N="23" REF="13">
then in <HI>heaven</HI>) but S. <HI>Paul</HI> al&s;o writing a very long epi&s;tle
to the Romanes, and &s;etting down therein arguments again&s;t
&s;everall here&s;ies &s;hould conclude with <HI>qui&s;que &s;uo &s;en&s;u
abundet</HI> [if I may believe your Bible] Rom. <HI>xiv. 5. &amp;
oportet e&s;&s;e haere&s;es;</HI> and not mention a word of any infal|lible
remedy, or <HI>Judge</HI> at <HI>Rome:</HI> which news would have
been worth all the re&s;t of the Epi&s;tle.</P>
<P>And again, That not onely all the Fathers of the fir&s;t
CCC yeares, &s;hould pa&s;&s;e over this opinion of the Romane
Churches great Authority in &s;ilence (the believing or disbe|lieving
which alone, with the Romani&s;ts now, denominates
every man a Catholick or an Heretick) but that the Hi&s;tori|ans
al&s;o of tho&s;e dayes &s;hould &s;ay nothing of it, if &s;he had any
&s;uch thing, &s;eemeth no more probable to me, then that any
learned man hereafter will write the Chronicle of England,
for the&s;e twelve years la&s;t, and never mention the Lords
<HI>Fairfax</HI> or <HI>Cromwell.</HI></P>
<P>Having &s;aid thus much in generall concerning the manner
of M. <HI>Knots</HI> di&s;putes, and his unfitting Topicks, wherein he
mi&s;taketh Antiquity for Truth, &amp; citations out of Prote&s;tants
(oft fal&s;ified) for <HI>infallible</HI> conclu&s;ions: and be&s;eeching
M. <HI>Knot,</HI> if he &s;hall vouch&s;afe an an&s;wer to this paper, not
to skip over the&s;e two la&s;t leaves, but to give me &s;ome rea&s;on,
<HI>Why any Chri&s;tian is BOUND to believe &s;uch po&s;iti|ons
as are confe&s;&s;edly novell?</HI> And if he will &s;ay, that
<HI>all</HI> (which he cannot with mode&s;ty; or that <HI>any,</HI> which he
cannot with truth) of the forenamed Romane Doctours, &s;peak
that which is not true; that he would con&s;ider how he puts in|to
my mouth, what to an&s;wer to much that he alledgeth out of
Prote&s;tant Doctours again&s;t Mr. <HI>Chillingworth:</HI> I come
now to take a &s;hort view of his particular di&s;cour&s;es, and be|gin
at his <HI>Preface.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Pref.</HI> p. 4. <HI>and</HI> 5. After he hath given his Readers &s;ome
<HI>admonitions how to read his book</HI> [I wi&s;h that he pre|tending
to an&s;wer the whole, had printed M. <HI>Chill's</HI> with
it, that we might the more readily have compared them] and
told them, <HI>that one half of CHARITY MAINTAINED
<PB N="24" REF="14">
is yet unan&s;wered</HI> [he who readeth Mr. <HI>Chill's</HI> book, or but
the la&s;t lines of it, &s;ees the rea&s;on of <HI>that]</HI> he profe&s;&s;eth,
<HI>That he will not meddle with Mr.</HI> Chill's <HI>an&s;wer to the
direct. to N. N.</HI> (very ingenuou&s;ly &s;poken!) but why? <HI>becau&s;e
it is confuted by a book entituled,</HI> THE J&V;DGEMENT
OF AN &V;NIVERSITY-MAN CONCERNING Mr.
CHILLINGWORTHS PAMPHLET: 'twas a pretty
little Pamphlet! but whether that <HI>Judgement of an Uni|ver&s;ity-man,</HI>
which I never met with any man who&s;oever that
&s;aw (unle&s;&s;e &s;uch to whom I have &s;hew'd it) be a reall an&s;wer
to <HI>any</HI> page of Mr. <HI>Chill's</HI> book, any more then <HI>Chaucers
tales</HI> are, I de&s;ire any unprejudiced man to determine. Onely I
mu&s;t take notice (as I pa&s;&s;e) that Mr <HI>Knot</HI> doth very well,
to ob&s;erve &s;o &s;oon that precept, which <HI>Tully</HI> gives his <HI>Ora|tour</HI>
(and <HI>Uly&s;&s;es</HI> in <HI>Ovid,</HI> again&s;t <HI>Ajax,</HI> practi&s;eth) to skip
over the harde&s;t arguments. What 'tis in an <HI>Oratour</HI> I'le not
&s;ay; but I am &s;ure, it is no great &s;igne of a good <HI>Di&s;putant.</HI></P>
<P>The next thing he telleth us is [&sect;. 10. and 11. and &s;o to
the end af the Preface] how the very title of Mr. <HI>Chill's</HI>
book may be con&s;uted out of Mr. <HI>Chill's</HI> own words: for
which he citeth p. 21. <HI>mihi</HI> lin. 3. from whence M. <HI>Knot</HI>
concludeth, <HI>That millions of Prote&s;tants erre damnably;</HI>
and that Mr. <HI>Chill.</HI> affirmeth, <HI>That the Prote&s;tant Re|ligion
is no &s;afe way to &s;alvation.</HI> I an&s;wer: <HI>I confide,</HI>
(to u&s;e Mr. <HI>Knots</HI> words) <HI>that every indifferent Reader
will find this to be clearly</HI> fal&s;e: For fir&s;t, he &s;peaketh no
more of Prote&s;tants than Papi&s;ts, but equally of both. Se|condly,
he &s;aith not categorically they <HI>do erre,</HI> but <HI>it is to be
feared</HI> they (both Prote&s;tants and Papi&s;ts) do. Thirdly, he
&s;aith not <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> neither, but on &s;uppo&s;ition, <HI>IF any Pro|te&s;tant
or Papi&s;t be held in any errour by any &s;inne of
their will, then &s;uch errour is as the cau&s;e of it, &s;infull
and damnable.</HI> And this none that I know, unle&s;&s;e him&s;elf,
will or can deny. It being a truth &s;ufficiently manife&s;t; and
a&s;&s;erted by his great Ma&s;ters, <HI>P. Lombard,</HI> and <HI>T. Aquinas,</HI>
and the greate&s;t &s;tream of Schole-men and Ca&s;ui&s;ts. And to
tell Mr. <HI>Knot</HI> my mind freely, I am clearly of Mr. <HI>Chill's</HI>
<PB N="25" REF="14">
opinion, viz. That <HI>Prote&s;tant Religion is a &s;afe way to
&s;alvation,</HI> and yet that many Prote&s;tants go to hell: That
there are millions of Prote&s;tants, who think, <HI>not to be a Pa|pi&s;t,</HI>
is enough not to be damned: and millions of Papi&s;ts who
think <HI>not to be a Prote&s;tant,</HI> is enough to oblige Almighty
God, and merit heaven. And I take both parties to be extreme
blame-worthy for deeming &s;o; and Mr. <HI>Knot</HI> mu&s;t give me
leave to wonder, if any rationall man &s;hall blame me for &s;ay|ing
&s;o, without giving his rea&s;ons.</P>
<P>Now we come to <HI>M^r Knots</HI> very large Introduction,
where &sect; 2. p. 38. he layeth down this propo&s;ition to be
proved, <HI>Chri&s;tian Religion is ab&s;olutely and infallibly
true.</HI> And &s;o he &s;pends you above fifteen &s;heets in pretending
to prove it, and the <HI>Nece&s;&s;ity of Grace;</HI> and the <HI>fir&s;t</HI>
of the&s;e by the <HI>la&s;t.</HI> And if <HI>M^r Chill.</HI> neither denied
the <HI>nece&s;&s;ity of Grace,</HI> nor the <HI>infallibility of Chri|&s;tian
Religion,</HI> I de&s;ire the Reader to con&s;ider whether
he have not fifteen &s;heets together of <HI>impertinencies.</HI>
And that <HI>M^r Chill.</HI> denyed neither of the&s;e, will clearly
enough appear to any that are not willing to be deceived, if
they can &s;pare lei&s;ure to read over <HI>M^r Chillingworth's</HI>
pamphlet (as <HI>M^r Knots friend</HI> calls it) or but con&s;ult
tho&s;e very pa&s;&s;ages from which <HI>M^r K.</HI> taketh the occa&s;ion
of the&s;e long di&s;cour&s;es, and which he citeth out of <HI>Ma&s;ter
Chillingworths</HI> &s;ixth Chapter; where his <HI>3^d</HI> &sect; begins thus,
<HI>I do HEARTILY acknowledge, and believe the Ar|ticles
of our Faith to be in them&s;elves Truths, as cer|tain
and INFALLIBLE as the very common principles
of GEOMETRY and MATHEMATICKS.</HI> But as if
<HI>M^r K.</HI> (notwith&s;tanding the Metaphy&s;icks he boa&s;teth &s;o much
of) knew not the difference between <HI>certitudo objecti &amp;
&s;ubjecti,</HI> he &s;eeketh advantage from what followeth imme|diately,
viz. <HI>But That there is required of us a know|ledge
of them, and an adherence to them, of SENSE
or SCIENCE; That &s;uch a certainty is required of us
UNDER PAIN OF DAMNATION: So that NO
man CAN HOPE to be in a &s;tate of &s;alvation but he
<PB N="26" REF="15">
that finds in him&s;elf &s;uch a degree of faith, &s;uch a
&s;trength of adherence; This I have already demon&s;tra|ted
to be a great errour, and of dangerous and pernicious
con&s;equence. And becau&s;e I am more and more con|firmed
in my per&s;wa&s;ion, I will here confirm it with
rea&s;ons, &amp;c. p.</HI> 311. From which pa&s;&s;age whether any ju&s;t
advantage can be taken, (e&s;pecially for a digre&s;&s;ion of &s;o ma|ny
&s;heets) let every unpa&s;&s;ionate Reader judge.</P>
<P><HI>Chap. 1. &sect; 2. p.</HI> 38. He layes down this propo&s;ition to
be proved, <HI>Chri&s;tian faith is ab&s;olutely and infallibly
true:</HI> by Chri&s;tian faith he explains (two lines after his
propo&s;ition.) him&s;elf to mean, <HI>the true Religion.</HI> Now
1. This is the &s;ame vein of Sophi&s;try which I noted even
now, and runnes through the whole book, when he &s;peaks
of <HI>infallibility.</HI> The que&s;tion being not at all <HI>de certitudi|ne
objecti</HI> but <HI>&s;ubjecti;</HI> not whether <HI>divine truths</HI> be ab|&s;olutely
<HI>infallible,</HI> (this none doubteth, who admits a <HI>God,</HI>
in the <HI>true</HI> notion) but whether we are <HI>infallibly</HI> certain,
That <HI>the&s;e</HI> or <HI>tho&s;e</HI> po&s;itions are <HI>Divine truths. 2. Ma&s;ter
Chill.</HI> tells us in the ninth &sect; of his <HI>Conclu&s;ion,</HI> that the
<HI>end of his book was to confirm the truth of the divine
&amp; infallible Religion of Je&s;us Chri&s;t. 3. M^r K.</HI> takes
notice of it, and citeth that very pa&s;&s;age, and &s;uch others.
<HI>[c. 1. &sect; 39. p. 66.]</HI> So that to make a great noi&s;e again&s;t
<HI>M^r Chill.</HI> and to endeavour to prove <HI>again&s;t him,</HI> what
he believeth and granteth (nay what he knoweth, and con|fe&s;&s;eth
he grants; as <HI>M^r K.</HI> doth here, and oft el&s;ewhere)
is &s;uch a piece of Je&s;uitical <HI>indu&s;try</HI> and <HI>civility,</HI> as Pro|te&s;tants
never learnt. 4. He tells us, that in the proof of this
propo&s;ition, he maintaineth the cau&s;e of <HI>All Chri&s;tians,</HI> and
of <HI>all men</HI> and <HI>mankind.</HI> 'Tis a comfort to meet with
&s;uch a charitable per&s;on. But if he have <HI>all</HI> Chri&s;tians, nay
<HI>all</HI> men, <HI>all</HI> mankind, of his per&s;wa&s;ion (and &s;aith &s;o him|&s;elf)
who are his <HI>adver&s;aries?</HI> If <HI>all men, all mankind</HI>
be for the infallibility of <HI>all</HI> faith, then &s;ure <HI>M^r Chill.</HI>
is &s;o too (for though I never &s;aw or knew him, otherwi&s;e
then by his printed book, I ever took him for a <HI>man;</HI> and I
<PB N="27" REF="15">
believe <HI>M^r K.</HI> who hath rea&s;on to know him better then I,
hath found him &s;o:) And if <HI>all</HI> be not of <HI>Ma&s;ter Knots</HI>
mind, then nothing can be concluded hence, but that he was
in a <HI>pa&s;&s;ion,</HI> when he wrote this book: &amp; &s;o may be the better
excu&s;ed for declaming again&s;t rea&s;on. But 5. Had <HI>M^r K.</HI>
read <HI>Sextus Empericus,</HI> and been acquainted with the
<HI>Pyrrhonians,</HI> he might have found many (and they no <HI>fools,</HI>
but famous <HI>Philo&s;ophers</HI>) who were not for his <HI>ab&s;olute
infallibility.</HI></P>
<P>And I wi&s;h Mr. <HI>Knot</HI> may never be one of them. I hope
be is, and will continue, <HI>a Chri&s;tian.</HI> Onely give me leave to
tell him, That if nothing el&s;e could be &s;aid for the truth of our
<HI>Chri&s;tian Religion,</HI> but what is in his <HI>Infidelitie un|masked,</HI>
and <HI>Vanninus his Amphitheatrum,</HI> heu! actum
e&s;&s;et de Palladio. Since (not to trouble you with tran&s;cri|bing
his po&s;itions, which I cited pag. 14.) having told us, That
it is <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> that &s;upernaturall knowledge &s;hould be mo&s;t
certain and infallible; and, That a man is <HI>as</HI> happy without
any belief of Chri&s;tian Religion, as without one that is infal|lible,
<HI>he &s;aith,</HI> p. 52. <HI>That 'tis impo&s;&s;ible Chri&s;tian Re|ligion
can retain the highe&s;t degree of probability, if it
have no greater perfection then it receiveth from the
&s;ole probable arguments of credibility.</HI> And then (through|out
the whole book) he hath not <HI>one</HI> argument which pretends
to reach higher than to a <HI>probability</HI> (I wi&s;h any of them
would reach &s;o high) for the <HI>infallibility</HI> of the Church or
living Judge (upon which he endeavours to build all the
re&s;t) unle&s;&s;e you will grant (which indeed he contendeth
hard for) <HI>Conclu&s;ionem non &s;emper &s;equi deteriorem
partem,</HI> That the conclu&s;ion may &s;ometimes be <HI>&s;tronger</HI>
than the premi&s;es. And indeed it concerns him, to de&s;ire it
&s;hould be granted: for the premi&s;es which he bringeth, can|not
po&s;&s;ibly be any <HI>ju&s;t</HI> foundation of his <HI>confident con|clu&s;ions.</HI></P>
<P>But let us come to his proofs: p. 2. &sect;. 2. he goes about to
prove, <HI>Chri&s;tian faith is infallible, and exempt from all
po&s;&s;ibility of errour, or fal&s;hood.</HI> His end is, as I &s;aid be|fore,
<PB N="28" REF="16">
that he may prove the Romane Faith and Church in|fallible:
His medium is this, FAITH <HI>is the gift of God,
and the prime veritie cannot in&s;pire a fal&s;hood.</HI> This I
confe&s;&s;e is an <HI>argument</HI> to prove the infallibility of the
Church, which I never met or heard of before. And I doubt
it will prove more then he would have it, <HI>viz.</HI> That Prote|&s;tants
(&s;ince they have faith, as Mr. <HI>Knot</HI> in Cha. Ma. par.
1. c. 1. &sect;. 3, 4. granteth they have [unle&s;&s;e he'l &s;ay, a man
may be &s;aved without it, contrary to Hebr. <HI>xi. 6.]</HI> and
Dr. <HI>Smith,</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Calcedon,</HI> &s;aith expre&s;ly in print, <HI>Pro|te&s;tantibus
credentibus, &amp;c. they neither want</HI> FAITH,
<HI>nor a</HI> CH&V;RCH, <HI>nor</HI> SALVATION) are infallible, as
well as <HI>Romane-Catholicks.</HI> And then Romane Catholicks
cannot be <HI>infallible,</HI> unle&s;&s;e infallible men may contradictions
another.</P>
<P>By the word <HI>&s;aith</HI> in this argument, Mr. <HI>Knot</HI> meaneth
either the <HI>object</HI> of faith, or the <HI>act</HI> of &s;aith. If he mean the
<HI>object</HI> of faith (the word of God revealed in the Go&s;pel)
he abu&s;eth <HI>him&s;elf,</HI> and <HI>us;</HI> for no Chri&s;tian ever denied it.
If he mean the <HI>act</HI> of faith (as he mu&s;t, if he &s;ay any thing
again&s;t his Adver&s;ary, or to the purpo&s;e) then by this di&s;cour&s;e
not onely the Pope, but <HI>every Bi&s;hop, every Prie&s;t,</HI> nay, Thou
and I, and <HI>every Chri&s;tian man and woman</HI> in the world,
who hath infu&s;ed &s;aith, and that gift of God, are as <HI>infallible</HI>
as the Church of <HI>Rome.</HI> And yet on this &s;andy argument Mr.
<HI>Knot</HI> at the fir&s;t entrance, layes the <HI>foundation</HI> of all his
Book; and choo&s;eth rather to build the infallibility of Chri&s;ti|an
Religion <HI>hereon,</HI> than (with his companions) upon the
infallibilitie of the Church.</P>
<P>In reading Mr. <HI>Knot's</HI> book I &s;tood amazed, to heare him
&s;ay &s;o oft, that he had already proved the <HI>infallibilitie of
his Church;</HI> and &s;earching from <HI>Chapter</HI> to <HI>Chapter,</HI> I
found no other argument, be&s;ide what I mentioned p. 10. <HI>con|cerning
the infallibilitie of faith</HI> (to which I conceive I
have &s;aid enough) but the notes of credibility, p. 428. viz.
<HI>Miracles, &s;anctitie, &s;ufferings, victory over enemies,
conver&s;ion of Nations, [wealthy,</HI> he might have &s;aid.]</P>
<P><PB N="29" REF="16">
Concerning which I come now to &s;peak &s;omewhat briefly.
1. For <HI>Miracles;</HI> Chri&s;t and the Apo&s;tles bid us to take heed
of them; and &s;o we have the evidence of their true miracles
then, to keep us from all fal&s;e ones now; and we are bid to
examine the <HI>miracles</HI> by the <HI>doctrine,</HI> not the <HI>doctrine</HI> by
the <HI>miracles.</HI> And the<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg"><HI>Chry&s;o&s;t.</HI> in 1. ad Cor. c. 2. hom. 6. &amp; ad Colo&s;&s;. c. 2. in Matt. hom. 49. <HI>Gregor.</HI> in Evang. hom. 29. <HI>Aug.</HI> de Civ. Dei l. 22. c. 8. &amp; de vera religione c. 25. <HI>Ju&s;tin.</HI> qu. &amp; resp. Orthod. qu. 5. <HI>Ter|tull.</HI> adver&s;. Marc. l. 3. c. 3. <HI>Opus imperf.</HI> in Matth. hom. 49. <HI>Theodor.</HI> in Deut. qu. 12. <HI>Augu&s;t.</HI> de unitat. Eccl. c. 16. de civit. Dei. l. 22. c. 8.</NOTE> Fathers
confe&s;&s;e as much, That miracles
are <HI>not now nece&s;&s;ary, nor pro|fitable&punc;
nor marks of the true
Religion.</HI><NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg"><HI>Augu&s;t.</HI> in Joan. tract. 13. <HI>Hieron.</HI> in Epi&s;t. ad Gal. c. 3. <HI>Tertull.</HI> de prae&s;cr. c. 44.</NOTE> That the Anci|ent
hereticks pretended to mira|cles,
as much or more then the Or|thodox.
And we know that the
<NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg"><HI>Baron.</HI> Annal. tom. 2. an. 139. &s;ect. 4. <HI>Sueton.</HI> in vita Vesp. c. 7. <HI>Tacit.</HI> hi&s;t. l. 4. annal. l. 2. <HI>Plutarch.</HI> in vit. Fu. Camilli. <HI>Val. Max.</HI> l. 1. c. 8.</NOTE> <HI>Heathens</HI> talked much of theirs;
and that many<NOTE N="d" PLACE="marg"><HI>Bellarm.</HI> de Eccl. milit. l. 4. c, 15. <HI>Card. Cajetan.</HI> apud Catharinum Annot. l. 4. p. 273. &amp; 274. <HI>Stella</HI> in Luc. <HI>xi. Ferus</HI> in Matth. praef. l. 2. <HI>Gregor. I.</HI> in Evang. hom. 29. <HI>Lyra</HI> in Dan. 14. <HI>Biel</HI> in Can. Mi&s;&s;ae lect. 49. <HI>Baron.</HI> Annal, anno 1027. <HI>Aco&s;ta</HI> de temp. novi&s;s. l. 2. c. 19. &amp; l. 3. c. 3. <HI>Salmeron</HI> de fal&s;is &s;ignis, disp. 3.</NOTE> <HI>Romane Do|ctors</HI>
acknowledge all this.</P>
<P>But it is &s;trange, (i&s; the Church of Rome have <HI>any</HI> mira|cles,)
and be (as &s;he pretends) <HI>de&s;irous</HI> of our &s;alvation,
and not <HI>afraid</HI> to convert us; that &s;he &s;hould never &s;hew them
among <HI>Prote&s;tants,</HI> where they may abide the touch; unle&s;&s;e
our pre&s;ence be a charm, and di&s;able her Prie&s;ts from doing
wonders: Very &s;trange, that mo&s;t of her miracles &s;hould be
done in <HI>&s;ecret;</HI> (when otherwi&s;e, they are oft &s;o notorious
<HI>cheats,</HI> that the Magi&s;trate takes notice of them, and pu|ni&s;heth
them) whereas <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> and the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> did theirs
in the face of the <HI>Sunne,</HI> and before all I&s;rael; before <HI>ene|mies</HI>
as well as friends; before <HI>hereticks</HI> and <HI>infidels</HI> as
well as Orthodox, that they might do <HI>good.</HI> And that
where &s;he doth &s;hew them (as in <HI>France, Italy,</HI> and <HI>Spain</HI>)
<PB N="30" REF="17">
they &s;hould not, if they be <HI>true,</HI> convince the <HI>Athei&s;ts&punc;</HI> who
more abound in tho&s;e, than in any other Countreys. <HI>Mar&s;ennus</HI>
told us long &s;ince <HI>comm. in Gen.</HI> that there were in his dayes
<HI>fifty thou&s;and</HI> Athei&s;ts in that one city of <HI>Paris. Colerus [l.
de immort. anim.]</HI> tells what &s;tore there be in <HI>Italy.</HI> And for
the <HI>Spaniards;</HI> I need but mind the Reader of their converting
the Indies, by depopulating them, and barbarou&s;ly <HI>&s;laying mil|lions:</HI>
auferre, trucidare, <HI>Imperium, [Religionem]</HI> vocant,
as <HI>Galgac.</HI> in <HI>Tacit.</HI> vit&acirc; Agric. c. 20. in&s;omuch that the poor
Natives thought Chri&s;tians the mo&s;t cruel and wicked people
in the world, and called them <HI>Guacci,</HI> that is, bea&s;ts that
live upon prey; and <HI>Viracochie,</HI> that is, the &s;cum of the &s;ea;
and pointing at a piece of gold, were wont to &s;ay, <HI>Behold
the Chri&s;tians God.</HI> Such were the &s;anctified lives of
tho&s;e that boa&s;ted of converting Nations! Concerning which,
&s;ee a book entituled, <HI>Spani&s;h cruelties,</HI> written by <HI>Barthol.
de las Cafas,</HI> a Bi&s;hop, and Dominican Frier, and tran&s;lated
into <HI>French, Italian, &amp;c.</HI> printed in <HI>Latine</HI> at <HI>Frankfurt,</HI>
with pictures, Al&s;o <HI>Benzo's hi&s;toria novi orbis,</HI> and other
<HI>Relations</HI> of the <HI>Indies.</HI> Which mindeth me of the <HI>2^d</HI> Note,</P>
<P>2. <HI>Sanctitie of life.</HI> This argument varieth with the
climate; and in mo&s;t places proveth rather <HI>again&s;t</HI> Roma|ni&s;ts,
than <HI>for</HI> them. 'Tis not long, &s;ince <HI>Clemangis, E|&s;pencaeus,
Alvarez, Petrarch, Pelagius, Dantes, Baroni|us,</HI>
and the <HI>Cardinals</HI> delegated by <HI>P. Paul III.</HI> and ma|ny
of the Romane Doctors complained, That all the mi&s;eries
and civil warres in Chri&s;tendome, came from the ill lives of
their Mona&s;tical and Clergy-men; &s;ince <HI>Bellarmine</HI> &s;ent great
numbers of Popes to hell together; and are they now come to
be the onely <HI>Saints</HI> on earth? 'Tis confe&s;&s;ed, That <HI>di&s;cipline</HI>
(wherein even tho&s;e <HI>Hereticks,</HI> whom Mr. <HI>Knot</HI> calls <HI>In|fidels,</HI>
by the confe&s;&s;ion of their mo&s;t dreadfull Adver&s;a|ries,
go beyond Romani&s;ts) <HI>dangers,</HI> and &s;uch <HI>externals,</HI>
make great alterations on &s;ome mens lives. And in <HI>Eng|land</HI>
there cannot be many <HI>mon&s;trous wicked</HI> men of that
Religion (yet &s;ome there are) becau&s;e not <HI>many</HI> men, in
compari&s;on with Prote&s;tants. But what kind of people the
<PB N="31" REF="17">
plurality of them be in <HI>other</HI> Nations, <HI>all the world</HI> knows.
And <HI>Salmeron</HI> [in epi&s;t. Pauli. de fal&s;is &s;ignis Eccl. di&s;p. 3.]
<HI>Co&s;terus</HI> [Enchirid. controver&s;. c. 2. p. 101.] <HI>&agrave; Co&s;ta</HI>
[de tempor. novi&s;s. l. 2. c. 20.] are &s;o ingenuous, as to con|fe&s;&s;e
expre&s;ly, That <HI>a life apparently good and hone&s;t, is
not proper to any one Sect, but common to</HI> JEWS,
TURKS, and HERETICKS. <HI>And</HI> Card. <HI>Per|ron</HI>
confe&s;&s;eth it tacitely; while in his letter to his &V;nkle, he
mentioneth not the good lives of any Catholicks. And S.
<HI>Chry&s;o&s;t.</HI> [in Matth. <HI>iii.</HI> hom. 4.] is as plain and large to
my purpo&s;e, as any of them. It is too plain, that arguing from
the pretended <HI>holine&s;&s;e</HI> of mens <HI>lives,</HI> to the <HI>goodne&s;&s;e</HI> of
their <HI>cau&s;e,</HI> or <HI>opinion,</HI> is a Paralogi&s;me, which hath ad|vanced
<HI>Ariani&s;me, Pelagiani&s;me,</HI> and other <HI>here&s;ies</HI> of old,
<HI>Mahumetani&s;me, Famili&s;me,</HI> and <HI>Anabapti&s;me</HI> of late:
And unle&s;&s;e God of His infinite Mercy prevent, may ruine
Chri&s;tendome now. His other Notes are &s;o far from arguments,
that I am a little a&s;hamed to &s;ay any thing to them.</P>
<P>The <HI>3^d</HI> is <HI>SUFFERINGS.</HI> And do not <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI>
&s;uffer more in mo&s;t other parts of Chri&s;tendome, by the <HI>State,</HI>
or the <HI>Inqui&s;ition,</HI> (where &s;ome, as our worthy Confe&s;&s;our
<HI>M^r Moll,</HI> have been and are kept in a clo&s;e pri&s;on or dun|geon
for above twenty years meerly for Religion) or by <HI>both?</HI>
So that tho&s;e arguments which their <HI>Chri&s;tian Moderatour</HI>
brings, &s;uppo&s;ing them <HI>rationall</HI> in them&s;elves, cannot be
&s;uch coming from a Romani&s;t, unle&s;s, <HI>Quod tibi fieri non vis,
alteri n&egrave;feceris,</HI> be an <HI>unrea&s;onable</HI> Law; &amp; not <HI>Nature's.</HI>
Nay, do not the Socinians, Anabapti&s;ts, Arians, Athei&s;ts, &s;uffer
too; and <HI>burn</HI> rather then <HI>turn?</HI> witne&s;&s;e <HI>Servetus, John
of Leiden, Hacket, Vanninus, Fontanier, Ket, Leggat,
Theophile, Gentilis,</HI> and many others.</P>
<P>4. <HI>Victory over all &s;orts of enemies.</HI> This makes more for
Turci&s;m then Popery, for the Alcaron, then the Conc. of <HI>Trent.</HI></P>
<P>5. <HI>CONVERSION OF INFIDELS.</HI> I would fain
know what he means by <HI>Infidels</HI> (for he cannot but know,
that thou&s;ands have been converted by <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI>) whe|ther
<HI>all</HI> of <HI>every</HI> nation? or how <HI>many</HI> converts are re|quired
<PB N="32" REF="18">
to make up this <HI>note?</HI> and whether <HI>&s;o many,</HI> in
<HI>every</HI> age? 'Tis certain, that multitudes of <HI>Infidels</HI> have
been converted to <HI>Mahumetani&s;me;</HI> and more <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI>
of late years to <HI>Judai&s;me</HI> and <HI>Turci&s;me,</HI> then <HI>Turks</HI> or
<HI>Jews</HI> to <HI>Chri&s;tianity</HI> or <HI>Popery.</HI> And to &s;ee what manner,
of Chri&s;tians the <HI>Romani&s;ts</HI> make in both the <HI>Indies,</HI> you
need read no other books then <HI>their own</HI> letters, their own
Bi&s;hop, <HI>de las Ca&s;as</HI> book, or <HI>Benzo's, cited p.</HI> 30. To turn
a rich fruitfull land into a de&s;olate wilderne&s;&s;e, is in the new
Romane language <HI>conver&s;ion.</HI> In a word, who ever &s;hall plea&s;e
to examine the&s;e notes (which are <HI>M^r Knot's la&s;t</HI> argument,
and other mens <HI>fir&s;t, chief,</HI> and <HI>ordinary,</HI> for the infallibility
of the Church) or any other that he or his <HI>Society</HI> can bring
&s;hall find that they offend again&s;t tho&s;e properties, which
<HI>Bellarmine, Salmeron,</HI> and other Romane <HI>Controverti&s;ts</HI>
require in all Notes; as That they &s;hould be <HI>verae, mani|fe&s;tae,
propriae, non communes, in&s;eparabiles, &amp;c.</HI> It be|ing
the mo&s;t undoubted <HI>note</HI> of a di&s;tingui&s;hing <HI>Note, Al|teri
non quadrare.</HI></P>
<P>Indeed his marks &s;eem to me &s;o weak arguments, that I
cannot find how any man can be convinced by them, unle&s;&s;e
through the <HI>Authority</HI> of the <HI>propounder:</HI> &s;o that if a
man yields upon them, it mu&s;t be out of <HI>civility,</HI> or <HI>fear of
gain&s;aying.</HI> But when men are <HI>re&s;olved</HI> upon a Conclu&s;ion,
impertinencies are ea&s;ily fancied to be as &s;trong demon&s;tra|tions,
as any in <HI>Euclide.</HI> The <HI>Pythagorians</HI> being bred up
in po&s;itions concerning <HI>numbers,</HI> fancied them the <HI>prin|ciples</HI>
even of <HI>Naturall bodies.</HI> Every <HI>rack</HI> in the clouds
is a Regiment in a young <HI>&s;ouldiers</HI> eye, and the lea&s;t <HI>&s;cratch</HI>
in the wall a babie in the <HI>childs:</HI> all chymnes &s;ound their
<HI>Whittington.</HI> I wi&s;h the <HI>be&s;t</HI> of <HI>M^r Knots</HI> arguments were
as concluding as the <HI>wor&s;t</HI> of <HI>Mons^r Drelincourts</HI> 100
again&s;t <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation.</HI></P>
<P>I <HI>heartily</HI> wi&s;h (as I &s;aid before) for an <HI>infallible
Judge,</HI> and &s;hall come with as much prejudice <HI>again&s;t</HI> my
own per&s;wa&s;ion (for as yet I &s;ee no hope of any in this
world) to hear <HI>M^r Knots</HI> argument, as he can de&s;ire, in
<PB N="33" REF="18">
any Reader. But I would be loth to run in a <HI>circle,</HI> and
mi&s;take a wi&s;h that &s;ome per&s;on were infallible for a <HI>proof</HI>
that he is. And therefore, if <HI>M^r K.</HI> &s;hall think this paper de|&s;erves
any an&s;wer, be&s;ides an <GAP DESC="foreign"> (which I ever ex|pected
in this Controver&s;ie) I &s;hall be&s;eech him, that before
he tell us again that he hath proved the Church of Rome in|fallible,
He would be plea&s;ed to re&s;olve the&s;e following que|&s;tions:
which I think mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily precede the examination
of that, which he in mo&s;t leaves taketh for granted.</P>
<P><HI>I.</HI> Whether there be any infallible Judge on earth? <HI>II.</HI> Whe|ther
any Church be that Judge? and not rather &s;ome one of
tho&s;e ten things which Mr. <HI>Chill.</HI> nameth, and bringeth
Scripture for, chap. 3. &sect;. 8? <HI>III.</HI> Whether the Romane
Church be that Church? <HI>IV.</HI> If it be, in what capacity? whe|ther
the Infallibility be 1. in the head (the Pope) as the Je|&s;uites
generally, and many Canoni&s;ts affirm; or 2. in the
body of the Church as <HI>Panormitanus, Occam, Walden|&s;is,
Antoninus, Clemangis, Cu&s;anus</HI> and others hold, and
give their rea&s;ons. And then whether in the whole body dif|fu&s;ive,
or in the collective in a Councel? And if a Councel
be infallible, then whether it be &s;o onely with the Popes con|firmation,
or without it? And which way &s;oever they &s;ay, I
enquire further <HI>V.</HI> How we &s;hall certainly know who mu&s;t
be members of it, 1. <HI>Clergy</HI> and <HI>Laicks,</HI> or 2. onely <HI>Cler|gy?</HI>
And if &s;o, whether 1. onely <HI>Bi&s;hops</HI> (as commonly they
&s;ay) or 2. <HI>Presbyters</HI> too and <HI>Deacons,</HI> or <HI>Chorepi&s;copi</HI>
at lea&s;t? for we find all the&s;e u&s;ually &s;ub&s;cribing. <HI>VI.</HI> Or
(let the Councel be as they would have it) how &s;hall I be
&s;ure they are infallible? For 1. Are they &s;o <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> infal|lible,
as that they cannot determine fal&s;ly <HI>in rebus fidei,</HI> do
what they will? Or 2. Are they infallible onely <HI>if they u&s;e
all tho&s;e good means, which God hath given them, to
find truth;</HI> that is, if they read, &s;tudie, di&s;pute, &s;earch
records, pray, and lay a&s;ide all pa&s;&s;ions, private ends,
and intere&s;ts? <HI>VII.</HI> How &s;hall I know when they
determine <HI>aright?</HI> what is required to a Synodicall
<HI>Con&s;titution?</HI> Mu&s;t <HI>all</HI> concurre in the Vote, or will
<PB N="34" REF="19">
the <HI>major</HI> part &s;erve the turn? <HI>VIII.</HI> What makes
a Councel <HI>Generall?</HI> Mu&s;t <HI>all</HI> the Bi&s;hops in the Chri&s;tian
world be <HI>called? IX.</HI> And when they are called mu&s;t they
<HI>all come,</HI> el&s;e is it <HI>no General</HI> Councel? <HI>X.</HI> Who mu&s;t
<HI>call</HI> the Generall Councel, the <HI>Pope,</HI> or Chri&s;tian <HI>Kings</HI>
and <HI>Emperours?</HI> and how &s;hall I be a&s;&s;ured <HI>which</HI> of them
mu&s;t? <HI>XI.</HI> How <HI>farre</HI> are their determinations infallible?
whether in matters of <HI>fact</HI> as well as <HI>faith?</HI> And <HI>XII.</HI> If
in matters of <HI>faith</HI> onely: then whether in <HI>fundamentals</HI>
onely (as <HI>many</HI> Catholicks &s;aid of old, and <HI>D^r Holden</HI> the
Sorboni&s;t at pre&s;ent) or in <HI>&s;uper&s;tructures</HI> too, as others be|lieve?
And then <HI>XIII.</HI> How &s;hall I infallibly know which
points are <HI>fundamental,</HI> which not? <HI>XIV.</HI> But admit
all this were determined, and our infallible Judge were a
General <HI>Councel</HI> with the <HI>Pope,</HI> yet in a time of <HI>&s;chi&s;me</HI>
when there be two or three <HI>Popes</HI> at once [as there were
<HI>Clement III, &amp; Greg. VII. Gela&s;ius II, and Greg. VIII.
Cele&s;tin II, and Honorius II. Anacletus II, and In|nocent
II. Victor IV, and Alex. III. Clement VII,
and Urbane VI. Eugenius IV, and Felix V. Gautier</HI>
the Je&s;uite will help you to a larger catalogue] and the&s;e
warring one against another; as when there were <HI>two</HI> triple-crowns,
one at <HI>Rome,</HI> the other at <HI>Avignon;</HI> the <HI>Italians</HI>
for the fir&s;t, the <HI>French</HI> for the latter: the <HI>Court</HI> and the
<HI>Cardinals, bulls</HI> and <HI>indulgences</HI> at both places. And
thus were there &s;aith <HI>John le Maire,</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">de la difference entre les Schi&s;mes, &amp; les Conciles. 3. part.</NOTE> many Popes at
once, one again&s;t another, for 40
<HI>years together: &s;o that the lear|ned&s;t
Clergy-men alive knew
not which was S^t Peters true &s;ucce&s;&s;our:</HI> and thus &s;aith
<HI>rea&s;on</HI> may there be again. Then I ask, how I &s;hall know
which is the <HI>infallible</HI> judge? And if <HI>M^r. K.</HI> give us <HI>in an|&s;wer</HI>
that generall rule which he &s;ets down p. 369. <HI>When</HI> de
facto <HI>any Pope defines &s;ome truth to be a matter of faith,
we are &s;ure even by his doing &s;o that he is true Pope.</HI>
Then I'le reply, (to omit the circle he runs in) that there may
be not onely two but twenty true Popes together, for twenty
<PB N="35" REF="19">
men may define twenty &s;everall po&s;itions at the &s;ame time,
and all true: and yet all the&s;e men may be foulely mi&s;taken
another time; and if &s;o, I de&s;ire to know whether all the&s;e
will be true Popes? Or by what rule a Romani&s;t may tell
when a truth is defined and when not? &s;ince <HI>Sixtus V.</HI>
defined one Bible to be true <HI>Anno</HI> 1590. and <HI>Clemens
VIII</HI> another, two years after; and each of them prohibited
and condemned all but his own: and the&s;e two Bibles con|tain
many contradictions each to other [See <HI>D^r James of
the contrariety of the vulgar Latine Bibles]</HI> and certainly
contradictory propo&s;itions cannot both be <HI>Go&s;pel.</HI> And if not,
then either one of the&s;e two was not &s;uch really (whence in|conveniences
enough will follow) or they were <HI>both</HI> true
Popes; and &s;o both their definitions true: and &s;o no true
Papi&s;t hath any true Bible. <HI>XV.</HI> But &s;uppo&s;e there be
no <HI>&s;chi&s;me,</HI> and all agreed on the <HI>Pope,</HI> and a General
<HI>Councel</HI> met; How &s;hall I be &s;ure that he who is reputed
<HI>Pope,</HI> is &s;o indeed? &s;eeing (by their own principles) <HI>Si|monie</HI>
makes him none; [See the <HI>Bull of P. Julius II.
&s;uper Simoniaca Papae electione. Si contigerit, &amp;c.</HI> and
<HI>Specul. in tit. de di&s;pen&s;. &sect; juxta.</HI> ver&s;. 2. and <HI>Majolus
de irregularitate</HI> l. 5. c. 47. p. 433.] and that he was not Si|moniacal,
it is impo&s;&s;ible for me to know. The election of <HI>Six|rus
V.</HI> was notoriou&s;ly Simoniacal; For Cardinal <HI>d' E&s;t&eacute;</HI>
whom he bribed and promi&s;ed to <HI>obey,</HI> and <HI>defend</HI> against
an oppo&s;ite faction, &amp;c. Sent all the&s;e obligations &s;ub&s;cribed
by <HI>Sixt. V.</HI> his <HI>own</HI> hand to <HI>Philip</HI> then King of Spain.
Who in the year <HI>MDLXXXIX</HI> &s;ent to <HI>Rome</HI> to bid the
<HI>Cardinals,</HI> who had been elected before <HI>Sixt. V.</HI> came to
the See, to come to a Councel at <HI>Sevil</HI> in Spain, where the
<HI>original</HI> writing was produced, and the crime was evi|dently
proved. And if &s;o, all the Cardinals which were
made by this <HI>Sixtus</HI> were in reality no Cardinals, and then
all the Popes which have been made by tho&s;e Cardinals &s;ince,
[as <HI>Montaltus (Sixtus</HI> his Nephew) <HI>Urban VII. Gre|gory
XIV. Innocent. IX. Clement. VIII.</HI> and <HI>In|nocent.
X.</HI> that now is,] have been really no Popes. See a
book entituled <HI>Supplicatio ad Imperatorem, Reges, &amp;c.</HI>
<PB N="36" REF="20">
written at <HI>Rome</HI> by one that calls him&s;elf <HI>NOVUS HO|MO,</HI>
and dedicated to <HI>K. James</HI> Anno <HI>MDCXII.</HI>
But te&s;timony enough of &s;uch doings may be &s;een in <HI>the let|ters
of Card. d' O&s;&s;at, and the tran&s;actions</HI> of <HI>Card. de
Joyeu&s;e</HI> &s;et down by Card. Pervon. <HI>Heul &s;edes Apo&s;tolica
(orbis olim gloria) nunc, proh dolor! efficeris offici|na
Simonis.</HI> Damian. epi&s;t. ad Firminum. Baronius T. 11.
1033. <HI>XVI.</HI> But admit the Pope were certainly known
to be &s;uch, and that neither he nor any of his predece&s;|&s;ours
came in by <HI>Simony;</HI> yet how &s;hall I know whe|ther
tho&s;e Bi&s;hops, who (with him) make up a Coun|cel,
are <HI>Bi&s;hops</HI> indeed? For if they be no Bi&s;hops,
then it is no Councel. And that they are true Bi&s;hops,
it is for ever impo&s;&s;ible for any Papi&s;t certainly to <HI>know.</HI>
For if he that did ordain them did not <HI>intend</HI> it, when
he gave Orders, (and whether he did or no, God onely
knows) then, by their own principles, they are no <HI>Bi&s;hops;</HI>
and by con&s;equence no <HI>Councel. XVII.</HI> But further how
&s;hall I know that the Pope and Bi&s;hops &s;o met (at <HI>Trent</HI>
for example) are <HI>Chri&s;tians?</HI> For if not, then &s;ure they are
no legitimate <HI>Councel,</HI> or Church repre&s;entative: And that
they are Chri&s;tians, 'tis impo&s;&s;ible for any Catholick to know,
with any infallible certainty. For if they be not <HI>baptized,</HI>
then I am &s;ure with them they are no <HI>Chri&s;tians;</HI> and if the
Prie&s;t that baptized them, did not <HI>intend</HI> to do it, then (by
the Canon of the <HI>Trent</HI> Councel) they are <HI>not</HI> baptized.
Now what the Prie&s;t <HI>intended,</HI> when he admini&s;tred that
Sacrament, 'tis impo&s;&s;ible that any (&s;ave God who knows
the heart) &s;hould certainly know (without immediate <HI>re|velation,</HI>
which they pretend not to) and con&s;equently,
'tis impo&s;&s;ible that any of them &s;hould certainly know, That
ever there was a <HI>Pope,</HI> or a <HI>Bi&s;hop,</HI> or a <HI>Prie&s;t</HI> &s;ince our
Saviours dayes: nay impo&s;&s;ible that <HI>They</HI> &s;hould know whether
there he now <HI>one Chri&s;tian</HI> in their Church, and therefore
much le&s;&s;e that there is or hath been a <HI>lawfull Councel.
XVIII.</HI> But admit all the&s;e doubts were clearly &s;olved,
and a Councel (in their own &s;en&s;e <HI>lawfull</HI>) &s;itting and
determining matters in Controver&s;ie; yet how &s;hall we know
<PB N="37" REF="20">
certainly (with that ab&s;olute certainty <HI>M^r Knot</HI> &s;peaks of)
that the&s;e are <HI>their</HI> determinations? (&s;pecially &s;ince the
Greek Church above two hundred years &s;ince accu&s;ed the
Romane for foi&s;ting a Canon into the Nicene Councels in
behalf of the Popes being <HI>Head of the Univer&s;al Church,</HI>
which could never be found in the authentick copies, though
the African Bi&s;hops &s;ent to <HI>Con&s;tantinople, Alexandria,</HI>
&amp; <HI>Antioch</HI> to &s;earch for them. Codex. Can. Eccle&s;. Afr. Ju&s;tel.
p. 39, 40.) We were not in the <HI>Councel,</HI> nor ever <HI>&s;aw</HI> any
of the men that made the Canons, we mu&s;t rely on the hone&s;ty of
the <HI>Amanuen&s;is,</HI> or of tho&s;e other per&s;ons that <HI>conveigh</HI> them
to us, and tho&s;e are (certainly) not <HI>infallible:</HI> and we know
there are &s;uch things as <HI>Indices expurgatorii,</HI> foy&s;ting
in, and blotting out of <HI>Manu&s;cripts. XIX.</HI> But ad|mit
all this cleared, yet (when I have indeed the <HI>genuine</HI>
Canons, and am &s;ure of it) how &s;hall I be a&s;&s;ured of the
true meaning of them? for <HI>M^r K.</HI> tells us, that we cannot,
without His Churches determination, know what <HI>faith</HI> or
<HI>repentance</HI> (or any word el&s;e in the <HI>Scripture</HI>) meaneth;
though I &s;uppo&s;e the Apo&s;tles intended as well as he or I
<HI>to be under&s;tood;</HI> and though he tell us <HI>That the Scri|ptures
are as perfect a rule as a writing can be.</HI> I am
<HI>fallible,</HI> and may <HI>mi&s;take;</HI> and in his opinion &s;o may <HI>any</HI>
man but the <HI>Pope,</HI> or a <HI>Councel.</HI> This is no vain &s;uppo|&s;ition,
for we know that <HI>Vega</HI> and <HI>Soto</HI> (two famous
and learned men in the Councel of Trent) write and de|fend
contradictory opinions, yet each thinketh the <HI>Canon</HI> of
the Councel to determine on his &s;ide. Now of nece&s;&s;ity one
of them mu&s;t mistake the doctrine of the Councel (unle&s;&s;e
you'l &s;ay the Councel determined contradictions, and then the
Councel is not infallible it &s;elf) and if either of them mi&s;|took
the Councel, then it was not an infallible guide to <HI>him.</HI>
Now if <HI>learned</HI> men, who were <HI>members</HI> of the Councel,
(&s;uch as di&s;puted much in it) could not <HI>infallibly</HI> know the
meaning of it, how can I who am <HI>neither? XX.</HI> Lastly, (not
to trouble M. <HI>Knot</HI> with any more queries then are nece&s;&s;ary)
what <HI>nece&s;&s;ity</HI> of an <HI>infallible Judge</HI> at all? The Christi|an
<PB N="38" REF="21">
world had no &s;uch Judge &s;or <HI>CCCXXIV</HI> years (for
the Nicene <HI>Councel</HI> was the fir&s;t <HI>General</HI>) and if They
<HI>vnder&s;tood</HI> Scripture, and were <HI>&s;aved</HI> then, when they had
no &s;uch thing, why may not We <HI>now?</HI> And if they were not
&s;aved, the Church of Rome mu&s;t blot out many <HI>hundreds</HI>
and <HI>thou&s;ands</HI> of Saints &amp; Martyrs out of her <HI>Martyrology.</HI></P>
<P>Till the&s;e twenty que&s;tions be in&s;allibly re&s;olved, it &s;eems to
me impo&s;&s;ible that any man &s;hould have any infallible know|ledge
of the <HI>Church of Romes</HI> Infallibility. And I am
the more confirmed in the <HI>nece&s;&s;ity</HI> of a plain re&s;olution to
this la&s;t querie, becau&s;e (though <HI>M. Knot</HI> be &s;ometimes hot
and po&s;itive, in grounding all Chri&s;tian Religion upon the in|fallibility
of the Church) I find (be&s;ide what I &s;aid p. 22.)
<HI>Chri&s;t</HI> and the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> intimating the contrary, <HI>Joh. v. 39.
Act. iv. 19. xviii. 11. 2. The&s;&s;. v. 21. 1. Joh. iv. 1.
Rev. ii.</HI> 2. But to pa&s;&s;e by &s;uch places of Scripture (becau&s;e
I know that they who make<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Belgic. Expurgat. pag. 12.</NOTE> profe&s;&s;ion of <HI>devi|&s;ing
&s;hifts,</HI> will find eua&s;ions for them) and to
omit the po&s;itions of many Romane Doctours of
le&s;&s;e note, who are as high for the <HI>non-nece&s;&s;ity</HI> of an infal|lible
guide, as any Prote&s;tant can wi&s;h; I &s;hall onely hint at
<HI>Lactantius</HI> his large Chapter to this purpo&s;e, <HI>lib. 2. de orig.
error. c.</HI> 7. beginning thus, <HI>Quare oportet in ea re in qua
vitae ratio ver&s;atur, &s;ibi quemque confidere, &s;u&oacute;que ju|dicio,
ac propriis &s;en&s;ibus niti ad inve&s;tigandam &amp; per|pendendam
veritatem; qu&agrave;m credentem alienis errori|bus
decipi, tanquam ip&s;um rationis expertem. Dedit
omnibus Deus pro virili portione &s;apientiam, &amp;c.</HI> and
rather in&s;i&s;t upon a couple of mo&s;t <HI>eminent</HI> Cardinals, <HI>Baro|nius</HI>
and <HI>Lugo.</HI> Both the&s;e give their <HI>opinions</HI> very plain|ly
on our &s;ide, and (which I value more) their <HI>rea&s;ons</HI> and
<HI>examples.</HI> The former hath &s;pent to our purpo&s;e a whole
<HI>Appendix,</HI> which he prefixed before the &s;econd tome of his
<HI>Annals,</HI> printed at <HI>Rome, MDLXXXVIII.</HI> where (ap|pealing
to every particular Prote&s;tant's judgement, concerning
the truth of his cau&s;e, and not once mentioning the <HI>infallibili|ty</HI>
of the Church) he goes on thus, <HI>Ingens &s;an&egrave; vis humanae
<PB N="39" REF="21">
in&s;idet rationi, &amp;c.</HI> <Q REND="inline margQuotes">Great is the power of humane rea&s;on if
it be left un&s;ettered and free in all things. And therefore our
Ance&s;tors placing great confidence in the force of truth, where
they contended with ob&s;tinate hereticks, when they declined
and de&s;pi&s;ed all judgement of the Church, were &s;o indulgent
as not to refu&s;e to try the judgement even of Infidels, and
expect their determination. Such men being Judges, the
<HI>Jews&punc; [Jo&s;eph. Antiq. l. 13. c. 6.]</HI> had the victory over
the <HI>Samaritans.</HI> And an <HI>heathen</HI> Philo&s;opher being by con|&s;ent
cho&s;en for an Arbitrator, to who&s;e judgement they were
to &s;tand, <HI>Origen</HI> [dialog.] overcame five mo&s;t wicked he|reticks.
And <HI>Archelaus</HI> [Epiphan. haere&s;. 66.] a Bi&s;hop in
<HI>Me&s;opotamia,</HI> did con&s;ute <HI>Manes,</HI> a mo&s;t de&s;perate Arch|heretick,
before certain Heathens who were by <HI>con&s;ent</HI> cho|&s;en
<HI>Judges, &amp;c.</HI></Q> The <HI>latter</HI> (though a Je&s;uite &amp; a Spaniard)
plainly a&s;&s;erteth this <HI>non-nece&s;&s;ity:</HI> tom. de virtut. fidei di&s;.
1. &sect;. 12. n. 247. <HI>&amp;c.</HI> And making it good by foure in&s;tances:
1. <HI>THE BELIEF OF THE INFALLIBILITY IT
SELF: which mu&s;t be received from &s;ome other mo|tive
than it &s;elf, or its own te&s;timony; and con&s;equently</HI>
(&s;aith he) <HI>all other doctrines of Chri&s;tianity may be
believed upon the &s;ame inducements; &amp; not meerly upon
the infallibility of the Church. 2. CHILDREN,</HI> or <HI>OLD
PEOPLE; who are newly converted to the faith, do not
believe the Infallibilitie, before they embrace other
Articles: for they believe Articles in order as they are
propounded, &amp; this is commonly one of the la&s;t. 3. RU|STICKS
AND COMMON PEOPLE, at this day in
Spain, Italy, and other Catholick Countreys: who
commonly re&s;olve their faith no further than their Pa|ri&s;h-Prie&s;t,
or &s;ome other learned, or holy man at the
mo&s;t. 4. He a&s;&s;erteth num. 252. That IN THE
LAVV OF NATURE, mo&s;t believed onely upon the
Authority of their Parents, without any Church-pro|pounding.
And al&s;o after the law was written mo&s;t belie|ved
Mo&s;es &amp; the Prophets, before their prophecies were
received and propounded by the Church for the &s;anctity
<PB N="40" REF="22">
of their lives, &amp;c.</HI> And this di&s;cour&s;e wa<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> written by &s;pe|ciall
order from the late Pope <HI>Urban,</HI> and dedicated to the
pre&s;ent Pope <HI>Innocent X.</HI></P>
<P>And now, <HI>my patient Reader,</HI> to draw to a conclu&s;ion
as my <HI>&s;pare-leaves</HI> do (for I have <HI>unawares</HI> detained thee,
very much longer then I intended, when I fir&s;t &s;et pen to pa|per
for this Preface; which was after the following <HI>Engli&s;h
Apologie</HI> was fully printed; and that is one rea&s;on of its
immethodicalne&s;s.) If I have writ any thing impertinent!, I hope
that my brother <HI>THE UNIVERSITY-MAN</HI> (Mr. <HI>Knots</HI>
friend) will help to excu&s;e me: if any thing that &s;avoureth of
pa&s;&s;ion (which I &s;hall be very &s;orry for, as &s;oon as it &s;hall be di&s;|covered
to me) that Mr. <HI>Knot</HI> will be my <HI>Advocate</HI> (each of
them being commonly conceived &s;ufficiently guilty of <HI>one</HI> or
<HI>both</HI> of the&s;e faults) and hereafter I may do as much for them.</P>
<P>And further to encourage <HI>M^r K.</HI> to do &s;omewhat for me; I
do here a&s;&s;ure him, That if he &s;hall vouch&s;a&s;e punctually to an|&s;wer
<HI>the&s;e xx que&s;tions</HI> (which &s;eem to me very <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI>
to be plainly determined, before he can <HI>a&s;&s;ure</HI> any man of the
<HI>Infallibility</HI> of the Romane Church, on which foundation he
layeth &s;o huge a &s;tructure) and withall to refute <HI>that one
argument</HI> which I mentioned pag. 18. out of Dr. <HI>Jer. Taylors</HI>
nervous di&s;cour&s;e: &amp; then&punc; prove that the Church of Rome is
infallible by any <HI>one infallible</HI> argument (for he hath told us
that nothing le&s;&s;e can do it) I will be his <HI>Pro&s;elyte.</HI></P>
<P>&V;ntill which time <GAP DESC="foreign"> unle&s;&s;e (which
I think far the more probable, and therefore &s;hall daily <HI>pray</HI>
for it) Mr. <HI>Knot</HI> will be &s;o ingenuous as S. <HI>Augu&s;tine</HI> was,
to retract his errours in his later dayes, and come over to the
good <HI>Old, Catholick, &amp; Apo&s;tolick</HI> Faith, leaving Romane
&s;uper&s;tructures. For I begin to de&s;pair (with that <HI>Milevitan</HI>
Bi&s;hop) of ever &s;eeing, while I am upon earth, any <HI>infallible,
living</HI> Judge in matters of &s;aith; and to believe, I mu&s;t, (as
the Jews &s;peak) <HI>expect the coming of Elias</HI> for that pur|po&s;e:
having long ob&s;erved, by Mr. <HI>Knot's &s;even</HI> books in
this Controver&s;ie, that</P>
<P>Cau&s;e <HI>patrocinio</HI> non bona pejor erit.</P>
<P><PB N="41" REF="22">
<HI>To the Preface</HI> p. 8. l. 29. <HI>adde,</HI> That there were
Chri&s;tians in <HI>Britain,</HI> before Augu&s;tine the Monk came over
is plain out of <HI>Eu&s;ebius, Theodoret, Arnobius, Tertulli|an,
Gildas, Bromton:</HI> and I &s;uppo&s;e no man that is not a
meer &s;tranger to Antiquity will deny. That tho&s;e Chri&s;tians
had no dependance upon Rome will appear to any who read|eth
the ancient Hi&s;tories of Rome or England. <HI>Platina</HI> &s;aith
that <HI>Antherus</HI> the <HI>20^t^h</HI> Pope &s;ate eleven years, and made
onely <HI>one</HI> Bi&s;hop. In a word, from the death of <HI>S^t Peter</HI>
till the entrance of <HI>Marcellus</HI> (which was <HI>CCC</HI> and
old yeares) there were not two hundred Bi&s;hops made in
all by all the Popes of Rome. <HI>One</HI> in a <HI>yeare</HI> was a rare
matter. He &s;aith not a &s;yllable of the erecting any <HI>Arch-Bi&s;hoprick,</HI>
or <HI>Patriarchate</HI> all that time: Not a word of
forreign Bi&s;hops travelling or &s;ending to Rome to beg <HI>Privi|ledges</HI>
and <HI>Confirmations,</HI> or to take an oath of fidelity
and obedience. But to come clo&s;er home and to the purpo&s;e;
The &s;tory of the &s;eaven <HI>Briti&s;h</HI> Bi&s;hops, and many other very
learned men (but e&s;pecially the Monks of <HI>Bangor</HI>) is very
remarkable; and may be read at large in the hi&s;tory of <HI>Bede,</HI>
&s;et forth by our learned <HI>M^r Whelock</HI> from p. 110. to 119.
wh<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">re it is &s;aid, that the&s;e Monks of <HI>Bangor</HI> were divided
into &s;even parts (&s;ee al&s;o <HI>Bromton's Chronicle</HI> p. 780.)
the lea&s;t whereof con&s;i&s;ted of three hundred; and That they
told Augu&s;tine plainly <HI>that they would not relinqui&s;h their
ancient cu&s;tomes, without the con&s;ent and leave of their
Countrymen.</HI> And when Augu&s;tine had made a long &s;peech
to per&s;wade them to be &s;ubject to the <HI>Pope</HI> of Rome, <HI>Di|nooth</HI>
their Abbot an&s;wered him briefly in the&s;e words.
<HI>Bid i&s;pis,</HI> &amp;c. [<HI>S^r H. Spelmans Councels</HI> p. 108.] <HI>Be
it known unto you and without doubt that we are
all and every one of us obedient and &s;ubjects to the
Church of God and Pope of Rome, and to every
godly Chri&s;tian: to love every one in his degree
with perfect charity, and to help every one of them
by word and deed to be the children of God. And
other obedience then this I do not know due to
<PB N="42" REF="23">
him whom you call the Pope, or that he hath right
to challenge or to require to be the Father of Fa|thers.
This obedience we are ready to give and
to pay to him and to every Chri&s;tian conti|nually.
Be&s;ides we are under the government of
the Bi&s;hop of Kaerleon upon Vske, who is to
over&s;ee us under God, to make us keep the &s;piri|tuall
way.</HI> Would you know what became of the&s;e Monks
hereupon? <HI>Epi&s;copi Abbates &amp; Doctores contra morem
Eccle&s;iae [Romanae] viventes &agrave; Rege Ethelfrido va|&s;tante
gentem Britonum ad nihilum redacti &s;unt, cum
tribus millibus Monachorum mona&s;terii de <HI>Bangor;</HI>
qui in campum bellatorum adducti &s;unt ut Regi adver&s;a
imprecarent. Hi omnes, ut fertur, de labore manuum &s;ua|rum
vivebant, &amp;c.</HI> Thus far Gerva&s;ius printed by <HI>M^r Bee,</HI>
p. 1632. [See the &s;ixteen immunities p. 1386.] And <HI>S^r H.
Spelman</HI> citeth out of the ancient <HI>Annals of Gisburn</HI>
the&s;e words p. 26. <HI>Till the time of K. Hen. 1. the Bi|&s;hops
of S. Davids were there con&s;ecrated by their own
Wel&s;h Suffragans, VVITHOUT MAKING ANY PRO|FESSION
OF SUBJECTION TO ANY OTHER
CHURCH.</HI> Not to in&s;i&s;t upon the tran&s;lating the <HI>Pall</HI> into
little <HI>Britain;</HI> he that would reade more to this purpo&s;e may
peru&s;e RR. Armach his <HI>di&s;cour&s;es of the Religion an|ciently
profe&s;&s;ed by the Iri&s;h and Britti&s;h, chap.</HI> 8, 9, 10.
&amp; <HI>de primordiis Eccle&s;. Britan.</HI> the eight fir&s;t chapters.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<HEAD>ERRATA.</HEAD>
<P><HI>In the Preface</HI> p. 6. l. 3. which by con&s;equence over p. 7.
l. 17. indi&s;pen&s;able. p. 9. l. 14. be in &s;chi&s;me or here&s;ie. p. 10. l. 20.
<GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 14. l. 34. intreat him (for p. 16. l. 35. <HI>Cellot de
Hierarchia.</HI> p. 17. l. 9. the <HI>Chri&s;tian Moderatour</HI> mentioneth. p.
18. l. 15. Beza, Luther. ibid. l. 17. <HI>dele</HI> Luther. p. 31. l. 30.
dele <HI>John of Leiden.</HI> p. 32. l. 30. chymes.</P>
<P><HI>In the Apologie</HI> p. 22. l. 27. <HI>not</HI> to S. Paul. p. 26. l. 11. unbe|&s;eeming
at the lea&s;t. p. 62. l. 23. <HI>dele</HI> not. p. 40. l. 13. nature, <HI>among
unintellectual beings.</HI> p. 73. l. 13. Rimmon. In. p. 83. l. 5, &amp; 7, ate
p 87. l. 3. <HI>in</HI> a &s;light. <HI>ibid.</HI> l. 24. alone? p. 88. l. 28. his con&s;cience.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="dedication">
<PB REF="23">
<HEAD>To the mo&s;t vertuous Lady,
MARY de LANOU,
wife to the Mar&s;hall of
THEMINIS.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>MADAM;</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>_HAving a de&s;igne to ju&s;tifie in this Book,
That it is not permitted to a con&s;cience
which is &s;atisfied in the knowledge of
our Religion, to continue in the profe&s;|&s;ion
of the Romane; and de&s;iring to con|firm
that by example, which I think I have proved by
rea&s;on; I have not found any more illu&s;trious than that
which you have been plea&s;ed to give in the &s;ight of
heaven and earth, in quitting the Romane Communion
(which is &s;o &s;weet, &s;o pompous and advantageous in
worldly re&s;pects) to ca&s;t your &s;elf into the lap of the
true Church; as low and de&s;olate as it appeareth in car|nal
eyes. This brave and gallant action highly befit|ting
your Name and Bloud, hath demon&s;trated, more
evidently than any words of mine are able, That the
&s;ouls of tho&s;e who believe as we do, cannot enjoy the
peace of God, nor a&s;&s;urance of his grace, nor hope of
his glory, in the communion which You have quitted.
For the&s;e things are all that you find among us worth
&s;peaking of; all other advantages do far more abound a|mong
them; nothing but the&s;e can you look or hope for
'mid&s;t us, who are de&s;titute of all the re&s;t. But You
have judged, that this rich pearl of the Go&s;pel is alone
worth far more then all other commodities be&s;ide; &amp; &s;o
have rather cho&s;en to hazard the re&s;t, to a&s;&s;ure your &s;elf
of this, than to endure for a&s;&s;uring the re&s;t to run any
the lea&s;t danger in the world of mi&s;&s;ing this jewell.
MADAM, It is the Almighty who hath in&s;pired into
<PB REF="24">
You, &s;o holy and &s;o wi&s;e a re&s;olution, and hath given
You &s;trength to put it in execution at &s;o unfavourable a
time: Whereat the <HI>Angels</HI> in heaven rejoyce, whereat
the <HI>Church</HI> on earth prai&s;eth Him. Amid&s;t &s;o many
evils which &s;he &s;uffereth, and more which &s;he fore&s;eeth,
'tis matter to Her of great comfort, that in an age &s;o full
of ill examples, &s;he can find &s;ome &s;ouls of your quality
and merit, that have courage to di&s;dain reproach, and
can rank them&s;elves under the Cro&s;&s;e of their Saviour.
Even they who approve not your change, admire your
vertue, and cannot deny, but that 'tis a rare and &s;ingu|lar
genero&s;itie, which cau&s;eth you to preferre the <HI>con|tentment</HI>
of your <HI>con&s;cience,</HI> before all other con&s;iderati|ons.
But be&s;ides the joy that your conver&s;ion hath
brought to tho&s;e of the Church, and the admiration
that it affects them with who are out of it, I hope that
your example will be to the great <HI>edification</HI> of <HI>all;</HI>
&s;trengthening the one in the Communion wherein they
live, and drawing in the other. Which (MADAM) is
the cau&s;e of my mentioning this to you in my en|trance:
mo&s;t humbly be&s;eeching you to take it in good
part, and to &s;uffer your name to &s;hine in the front of this
&s;mall book; to give weight and light to its di&s;cour&s;e, and
to invite all &s;uch as &s;hall read it to imitate You, in pre|ferring
the grace of Heaven, before the intere&s;ts of
earth; and the &s;olid hopes of Eternity, before the petty
joyes of the&s;e few moments which we pa&s;&s;e here below.
Which favour if I may (as I hope I &s;hall) obtain from
your goodne&s;&s;e; I &s;hall earne&s;tly pray our Lord, that he
would communicate to You more and more of his dear
Sonne JESUS (the onely happine&s;&s;e of our &s;ouls)
and crown that obedience, which you have rendred to
Him by confe&s;&s;ing His Go&s;pel here, with the ble&s;&s;ings
of this and a better world; remaining inviolably,</P>
<CLOSER><SALUTE>MADAM,</SALUTE>
<SIGNED>Your mo&s;t humble and obedient &s;ervant,
DAILLE&punc;</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="list of works cited">
<PB REF="24">
<PB REF="25">
<HEAD>The Editions of &s;uch Authours as are cited in
this Apologie of Mons^r. DAILLE, and in
another Engli&s;h Tract of his, entituled,
The u&s;e of the Fathers in controver&s;ies be|tween
Papi&s;ts and Prote&s;tants.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>AMbro&s;e,</HI> printed at <HI>Ba&s;il, Anno</HI> 1555. in five tomes.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Athana&s;ius, <HI>at</HI> Paris, 1627. <HI>by</HI> M. Sonnius, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Augu&s;tine, <HI>at</HI> Paris 1531. <HI>by</HI> Chevall.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Baronius, <HI>at</HI> Antwerp, 1612. Plantin.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Ba&s;il</HI> at <HI>Paris</HI> with <HI>Sonnius,</HI> &amp;c. 1618.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Bertram</HI> the Prie&s;t in <HI>Orthodoxographis,</HI> at <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> 1555.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Bibliotheca Patrum, <HI>at</HI> Paris, 1624.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Breviarium Romanum, <HI>at</HI> Paris, 1612.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Canus de locis Theolog. <HI>at</HI> Lovain, 1569. <HI>by</HI> Servat. Sa&s;&s;.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Ca&s;&s;ander, <HI>at</HI> Paris, <HI>by</HI> Hier. Drouart.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Ca&s;aubons exercitations <HI>again&s;t</HI> Baronius, <HI>at</HI> London.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Cathar. annot. <HI>on</HI> Cajet. <HI>at</HI> Lyons, 1542. <HI>by</HI> Matth. Bont.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Clemens Alexandrinus, <HI>at</HI> Florence, 1550.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Councels generall,</HI> Greek and Lat. at <HI>Rome,</HI> 1608.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Cyprian, <HI>at</HI> Paris, <HI>by</HI> Claud. Chappell.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Directory for the Inqui&s;itors at Rome, 1587. <HI>by</HI> Georg. Ferr.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Epiphanius, <HI>at</HI> Paris, 1622.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Fulbert. Carnot. <HI>at</HI> Paris, 1608. <HI>by</HI> Tho. Blai&s;e.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Gregory Ny&s;&s;ens Orations, <HI>at</HI> Paris, 1638. <HI>by</HI> Morel.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Hierom, <HI>at</HI> Paris, 1579. <HI>by</HI> Nivelle.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Hilary, <HI>at</HI> Paris, 1510. <HI>by</HI> A&s;cen&s;ius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Ireneus, 1570. <HI>by</HI> John Preux, <HI>and</HI> John Petit.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Ju&s;tin, <HI>at</HI> Paris, 1615. <HI>by</HI> Morel.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Origen, <HI>at</HI> Paris, 1536. <HI>by</HI> Nic. Pen.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Origen again&s;t Cel&s;us, <HI>at</HI> Augsbourg, 1605.</ITEM>
<ITEM>F. Paolo <HI>his</HI> Apolog. <HI>at</HI> Veni&s;e, 1606.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Pererius upon the epi&s;t. to the Rom. <HI>at</HI> Ingol&s;t. 1603. <HI>by</HI> Sartor.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Pontificale Romanum, <HI>at</HI> Rome, 1611.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Salmeron, <HI>at</HI> Coloiu, 1614. <HI>by</HI> Antony Hier. <HI>&amp;c.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Scaliger <HI>upon</HI> Eu&s;eb. Chronic. <HI>at</HI> Leiden, 1606. <HI>by</HI> Ba&s;&s;on.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Tertullian <HI>at</HI> Paris, 1616.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Theophilus Antioch.</HI> at the end of <HI>Ju&s;tin.</HI> 1615. by <HI>Morel.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<HEAD><PB N="1" REF="25">AN
APOLOGIE
for the
Reformed Churches,
Again&s;t tho&s;e who accu&s;e them
of having made a &s;chi&s;me
in Chri&s;tendome.</HEAD>
<DIV1 N="1" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. I. The Occa&s;ion and importance of this
Treati&s;e.</HEAD>
<P>_AMong all tho&s;e actions and per&s;wa&s;ions of
us (Prote&s;tants) that are ill taken by our
<HI>Adver&s;aries,</HI> there is &s;carce any that is
wor&s;e re&s;ented, or for which we are more
bitterly and generally reproached, then
our <HI>Separation</HI> from the <HI>See of Rome,</HI> and
the Churches of her Communion. For they charge us
of having by this means rent a&s;under the bowels of <HI>Je|&s;us
Chri&s;t,</HI> and mi&s;erably torn in pieces that holy Body,
which He formed of His own bloud. An horrible crime
(que&s;tionle&s;&s;e) and &s;uch an one as comes but little (if
at all) behind the impiety of tho&s;e outragious murde|rers,
who nailed our <HI>Saviour</HI> to the cro&s;&s;e, pierced his
&s;ide, and hands, and feet, with their abominable &s;pear
<PB N="2" REF="26">
and nails. And whereas other parts of our doctrine of|fend
onely our <HI>enemios,</HI> this hath the ill luck to di&s;|plea&s;e
&s;ome of our <HI>friends:</HI> For &s;uch I take them to be
who approve our <HI>belief,</HI> and yet blame us for being out
of the <HI>Church of Rome.</HI> It therefore doth behove us in|finitely
(for the common rectifying and enlightning of
both parties) to examine this accu&s;ation, and to &s;hew,
if it be po&s;&s;ible, the inju&s;tice and nullitie of it: to the
end, that they who approve our <HI>belief</HI> may joyn them|&s;elves
to <HI>our Communion,</HI> &s;eeing the weakne&s;&s;e of tho&s;e
rea&s;ons, which have hitherto kept them on a &s;ide in
which they acknowledge &s;ome errours; and that they
who entirely reject our per&s;wa&s;ion may hereafter con&s;i|der
the grounds whereon we go, without any more
troubling them&s;elves to throw upon us this invidious
<HI>but vain</HI> reproach. This is the &s;ubject, which I pur|po&s;e
to treat on in this paper; mo&s;t humbly be&s;eeching
tho&s;e who &s;hall vouch&s;afe to reade it, to bring with
them a mind free from pa&s;&s;ion, which turning its eyes
from the Per&s;ons, may regard nothing at pre&s;ent but the
worth and weight of the &s;ubject in hand.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="2" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. II. The nece&s;&s;ity of an union of Believers.</HEAD>
<P>IN the fir&s;t place, we confe&s;&s;e that <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> are obli|ged
both by the will of their <HI>Ma&s;ter,</HI> and by their own
<HI>welfare</HI> and <HI>&s;alvation,</HI> to continue united one to ano|ther,
and all together to make up but <HI>one</HI> body. And as
this union is their &s;overaigne happine&s;&s;e, and the nece&s;&s;a|ry
effect of <HI>charity,</HI> without which they cannot be Chri|&s;tians;
&s;o the breach of it, and divi&s;ion is the great|e&s;t
of their infelicities, and the mo&s;t grievous of their
crimes. And they who either procure it or foment it,
&s;hall never be able to avoid that cur&s;e, which our Savi|our
doth often denounce, of <HI>not inheriting the kingdome
of heaven;</HI> into which place none is received without
<PB N="3" REF="26">
this <HI>charity,</HI> which <HI>&s;uch men</HI> want. For as the being
and perfection of a <HI>naturall body</HI> con&s;i&s;ts in the union of
its parts; which di&s;&s;olving and falling a&s;under, the whole
doth pre&s;ently lo&s;e not its form and beauty onely, but
likewi&s;e its force and life: &s;o is it in all humane Socie|ties,
which are called <HI>Bodies</HI> onely by &s;imilitude. Their
being and their excellence depends upon the union of
the members whereof they are compo&s;ed. We &s;ee <HI>King|domes</HI>
and <HI>States</HI> flouri&s;h while the Subjects are <HI>united</HI>
and knit together with the lovely bond of concord, but
&s;traight crumble to nothing when di&s;&s;en&s;ion &s;eparates
them each from other. And among all the evils that af|flict
them there is none &s;o pernicious as <HI>divi&s;ion,</HI> which
&s;trikes at the very foundation of their being, and poi|&s;ons
the <HI>originall</HI> of their life and &s;trength. So that
to kindle &s;edition and &s;ow faction by breaking the
peace of Subjects, is que&s;tionle&s;&s;e the highe&s;t crime that
any man can commit again&s;t a <HI>State.</HI></P>
<P>So then, the Church being the heavenly <HI>Kingdome</HI>
and everla&s;ting <HI>State</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t Je&s;us,</HI> the mo&s;t admira|ble
of all the <HI>Societies</HI> that ever have been either &s;een or
&s;ancied in the Univer&s;e; We mu&s;t needs conclude, That
by proportion their crime who trouble and di&s;turb it (&s;o
farre e&s;pecially as to rend away from the Body any of its
parts) is the blacke&s;t of all crimes what&s;oever.</P>
<P>Thus farre we all agree. Nor are any ready to &s;peak
ought further in behalf of <HI>union</HI> or again&s;t <HI>divi&s;ion,</HI>
which we are not ready to &s;igne and con&s;ent unto; de&s;i|ring
&s;till, if po&s;&s;ible, to outbid any for unity.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="3" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. III. That it is &s;ometimes lawfull to &s;eparate from
a Company of men profe&s;&s;ing Chri&s;tianitie.</HEAD>
<P>BUt though union be a very great good, and divi&s;i|on
an extreme mi&s;chief, it followeth not thence&punc;
<PB N="4" REF="27">
That it is not &s;ometimes permitted us to &s;eparate in
&s;ome &s;ort, from &s;ome Societies, who make profe&s;&s;ion of
&s;erving God. Indeed how can it but <HI>be</HI> &s;o, in a &s;chole
that is full of precepts and examples to that purpo&s;e? in
a &s;chole wherein we are commanded <HI>to reject a man that
is an heretick, after the fir&s;t and &s;econd admonition?</HI> Tit.
iii. 10. <HI>to exclude them out of our hou&s;es, and to e&s;teem them
not fit to be greeted,</HI> who bring us any other doctrine
then that of <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t?</HI> 2 John x. to abhorre the
<HI>Apo&s;tles,</HI> nay even <HI>Angels,</HI> and to avoid them as cur&s;ed
and excommunicated per&s;ons, if they &s;hould take the
boldne&s;&s;e to preach ought el&s;e but that <HI>Gospel</HI> which
is already delivered? Gal. i. 8, 9. To depart &s;traight
out of <HI>Babylon,</HI> and not to be kept in there, le&s;t we par|take
at once of her <HI>&s;innes</HI> and <HI>plagues?</HI> Revel. xviii. 4.
In a &s;chole, where tho&s;e of <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> are commended for
having hated the <HI>Nicolaitans,</HI> and tho&s;e of <HI>Pergamus</HI>
blamed for having tolerated their doctrine? Rev. ii. 6,
15. In a &s;chole where, even at the beginning, the chil|dren
of the Church had continually &s;o much care to &s;e|parate
from the communion of hereticks, as Samo&s;ate|nians,
Arians, and others?</P>
<P>Who &s;eeth not, that according to this di&s;cipline, it is
&s;ometimes not lawfull onely, but even <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> to &s;epa|rate
from &s;ome Societies that make profe&s;&s;ion of Chri|&s;tianitie?
and that in this ca&s;e we mu&s;t blame not gene|rally
and &s;imply <HI>all</HI> that make a &s;eparation, but <HI>tho&s;e
onely</HI> who make it either <HI>lightly</HI> and without rea&s;on, or
<HI>unju&s;tly</HI> and without nece&s;&s;ity. The matter &s;eems &s;uffi|ciently
cleare. For &s;ince the <HI>con&s;ervation</HI> of &s;uch things
as are united is the <HI>end</HI> of union, 'Tis evident that we
are not to entertain any union but onely with them, who
may help forward that de&s;igne, and &s;o farre onely as they
may help it forward.</P>
<P>If therefore there be any, who under colour of the
ble&s;&s;ed name of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> &s;ubvert His <HI>doctrine,</HI> annihilate
His <HI>authority</HI> and our <HI>&s;alvation&punc;</HI> 'tis &s;o far from being our
<PB N="5" REF="27">
duty to <HI>unite</HI> our &s;elves to them, that on the contrary we
are obliged to <HI>part</HI> from them; becau&s;e to unite with
<HI>them</HI> were in effect to di&s;unite from <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> and from His
<HI>body,</HI> and in &s;tead of coming to &s;alvation to fall into eter|nal
ruine. If in a <HI>State,</HI> a City or Province &s;hould ob|lige
tho&s;e that live within it, to perform actions that are
contrary to the Maje&s;tie and &s;ervice of the <HI>Soveraigne,</HI>
the loyal inhabitants may thereupon &s;eparate them&s;elves,
and even oppo&s;e and re&s;i&s;t the <HI>rebels</HI> with all their
power, if occa&s;ion be offered. For 'tis a law generally
engraven by <HI>nature</HI> in all parts of the Univer&s;e (even
in in&s;en&s;ible creatures) That every thing &s;eeks after the
company of that which is like it, and with equal vio|lence
avoids to be near (or have any thing to do with)
that which is contrary to it.</P>
<P>So then, both the di&s;cipline of <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t,</HI> and the
lawes of <HI>Civil &s;ocieties,</HI> and even tho&s;e of <HI>nature</HI> her &s;elf,
permit us to avoid the communion of &s;uch as under any
pretence, name, or colour what&s;oever, go about to de|&s;troy
and ruine Chri&s;tianity. What, did I &s;ay that they
<HI>permit</HI> us? nay they <HI>command</HI> it &s;o expre&s;ly, that we
cannot refrain from &s;uch &s;eparations without offending
God, &s;candalizing our neighbours, and de&s;troying our
&s;elves. And though this be a truth received among <HI>all</HI>
Chri&s;tians, yet there is no Society or company of them,
wherein it is more &s;trictly and more &s;everely practi&s;ed,
then among tho&s;e again&s;t whom we now di&s;pute. For
who knows not with what rigour <HI>Rome</HI> hath continual|ly
rejected the Communion of tho&s;e who di&s;&s;ent from
her? In the infancy of Chri&s;tianitie &s;he anathematized
the Churches of A&s;ia for a matter of nothing, <HI>viz.</HI> be|cau&s;e
they celebrated <HI>Ea&s;ter</HI> otherwi&s;e then &s;he: and in
the&s;e later dayes how hath &s;he per&s;ecuted with fire and
&s;word all tho&s;e that would venture never &s;o little to op|po&s;e
her power and greatne&s;&s;e? How many ages have pa&s;|&s;ed
over her head &s;ince &s;he broke with the <HI>Ea&s;tern,
Northern,</HI> and <HI>Southern</HI> Churches, with which notwith|&s;tanding
<PB N="6" REF="28">
&s;he boa&s;teth much of her having &s;o great con|formity
of belief and &s;ervice? So nice is &s;he and de|licate
in this point, that we have &s;een not long ago the
chiefe&s;t of her <HI>Monks,</HI> the mo&s;t exqui&s;ite of her <HI>Religi|ous
Orders,</HI> fly off and &s;eparate from the <HI>State of Venice,</HI>
and renounce <HI>there her</HI> Churches and Altars (where all
the Articles of her faith were dayly publi&s;ht, where all
her devotions and &s;ervices were continually celebrated)
onely upon pretence, That this wi&s;e <HI>Commonwealth</HI>
would not endure, that <HI>Pope Paul the fift</HI> &s;hould bereave
her of the power &s;he had, to make and execute lawes for
the government of her &s;ubjects. So that if &s;eparation
&s;imply be a crime, who &s;eeth not that <HI>our Adver&s;aries</HI>
are faulty too, and con&s;equently are not to be admitted to
<HI>bring in</HI> the accu&s;ation again&s;t us?</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="4" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. IV. That our Separation from Rome was not made
ra&s;hly, willingly, or unnece&s;&s;arily.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> BUt they'l &s;ay, that <HI>They</HI> had rea&s;on to do
&s;o, and that <HI>We</HI> have none.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> So then, now we come to the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e, viz. To
examine the <HI>cau&s;es</HI> of our &s;eparation, before &s;entence be
given again&s;t it. Let us, I be&s;eech you, leave the odious
words of <HI>divi&s;ion</HI> and <HI>&s;chi&s;me,</HI> and apply them to none
but &s;uch to whom we &s;hall find they appertain. For if
we have not had any <HI>important</HI> cau&s;e of our &s;eparation
from the Church of Rome; if &s;he have not required any
thing of us which de&s;troys our faith, offends our con|&s;ciences,
and <HI>overthrows</HI> the &s;ervice which we believe
due to God; If the differences between us have been
<HI>&s;mall,</HI> and &s;uch as we might &s;afely have yeilded unto;
Then I'le grant, That men may call our <HI>Ance&s;tours
Schi&s;maticks,</HI> may condemn their &s;eparation to be <HI>ra&s;h</HI>
and <HI>unju&s;t,</HI> and may impute to them all the &s;ad di&s;a&s;ters
<PB N="7" REF="28">
and &s;candals, that have attended that action. B<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">t if they
were urged to <HI>believe,</HI> and pre&s;&s;ed to <HI>do&punc;</HI> a thou&s;and things
contrary to their faith and to their con&s;cience; if <HI>onely</HI>
for not doing them they were declared <HI>Hereticks, ene|mies</HI>
to <HI>J. Chri&s;t</HI> and his <HI>Church;</HI> if they were deemed
unworthy even of the honours, or po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ions, yea even
of that life it &s;elf which is enjoyed in this world; who
doth not &s;ee, That they de&s;erve, the <HI>pity</HI> of men in &s;tead
of their <HI>hate,</HI> and That their withdrawing them&s;elves
from people, who have Treated them in this manner,
was <HI>ju&s;t, lawfull,</HI> and <HI>nece&s;&s;ary,</HI> according to all the laws
of heaven and earth? Now it is very apparent, that
they were forced to make this &s;eparation for rea&s;ons
which they in their con&s;ciences judged to be very great
and important. For excepting the motives of con&s;ci|ence,
all other con&s;iderations evidently obliged them to
the contrary. In &s;eparating from the Church of Rome
they pluckt upon them&s;elves all the <HI>disfavours</HI> of the
world; they incurred the indignation of their <HI>Magi|&s;trates,</HI>
the hatred of their <HI>Countreymen;</HI> they expo&s;ed
them&s;elves to the lo&s;&s;e of their <HI>goods,</HI> their <HI>honours,</HI> their
<HI>friends,</HI> their very <HI>countrey,</HI> nay all that is &s;weet, neare, or
deare unto them in this life; and to the &s;uffering of po|verty,
ignominy, bani&s;hment, tortures and all <HI>imaginable
puni&s;hments.</HI> Who can believe, that men who had the
u&s;e of &s;en&s;e and rea&s;on (as well as their neighbours)
&s;hould ever choo&s;e (with chearfulne&s;&s;e, where there is
no nece&s;&s;ity) to embrace &s;uch a &s;ide? And though, <HI>they</HI>
had been &s;o blind, as not to have fore&s;een that &s;uch
would be the event of their de&s;igne (which yet is not a
jot probable) how &s;hould <HI>We</HI> come to have &s;o little ex|perience
as not to di&s;cern the danger? We, who follow
their &s;teps, and have &s;een the whole world in a con&s;pira|cy
for to reduce them with all po&s;&s;ible <HI>force</HI> and <HI>artifice</HI>
from this &s;eparation, and to reunite us to Rome. One
mu&s;t needs think then, that both our Ance&s;tours and
We were carried on to this motion, &s;o apparently con|trary
<PB N="8" REF="29">
to our own good and welfare, by &s;ome <HI>very &s;trong</HI>
rea&s;on, that <HI>forced</HI> us as it were again&s;t our wills to <HI>&s;leight</HI>
what ever is naturally de&s;irable, and in &s;tead of enjoy|ing
that to <HI>&s;uffer</HI> what we are wont to dread; which
certainly can be no le&s;&s;e then a &s;trange fanta&s;ticalne&s;&s;e
and a &s;illy opinionative humour, which &s;hould make us
take a delight in running counter to others, as &s;ome
(without any appearance of rea&s;on) are plea&s;ed to ima|gine.
I heartily wi&s;h it were in our power, to accommo|date
our &s;elves in this particular with a good con&s;cience
to the <HI>cu&s;tomes</HI> and <HI>Services</HI> of our Countreymen; who&s;e
friend&s;hip We know very well how much we ought to
value, and how highly to prize the good favour of tho&s;e
<HI>Princes</HI> whom God hath &s;et over us: e&s;pecially rather
then to di&s;plea&s;e them <HI>needle&s;ly,</HI> in a matter of &s;uch <HI>high</HI>
importance, and which they affect with &s;o much pa&s;&s;i|on,
according to the great and &s;ingular devotion which
they bear towards tho&s;e things that they e&s;teem <HI>divine.</HI>
We behold likewi&s;e (and grieve to behold) the di&s;or|ders
that this diver&s;itie in Chri&s;tianitie breeds; and the
extreme &s;candal that it gives to Infidels, and &s;uch as are
weak in faith. And what ever others &s;ay, We are not
(thanks be to God) &s;uch enemies to His glory and the
&s;alvation of mankind, as not be <HI>as</HI> &s;en&s;ible of the&s;e dole|full
emergencies, as of ought that mo&s;t concerns our
temporall good, and private intere&s;ts.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="5" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. V. Rea&s;ons of our Separation from Rome found|ed
upon the diver&s;itie of our Beliefs.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> BUt you'l &s;ay, If it be thus, how can you
po&s;sibly pa&s;&s;e over the&s;e con&s;iderations
your &s;elves, which you pretend to think &s;o important?
why do you not follow them whither they would lead
you? Seeing you de&s;ire the favour of Princes, the love
<PB N="9" REF="29">
of your Countreymen, a peaceable and &s;ettled condition;
&s;eeing you would gladly promote the glory of God and
the edification of men, and do really abhorre the &s;can|dal
of this di&s;union, why are ye not again <HI>reconciled</HI> to
the <HI>Romane</HI> Church? <HI>&s;he</HI> opens her arms wide unto you,
and is not &s;o &s;tiff and rigorous as you &s;eem to appre|hend
<HI>her,</HI> but for to gain you is willing to yield to &s;ome
Accommodation, and in favour of you to <HI>mitigate</HI>
&s;ome of tho&s;e things that offend you mo&s;t. What, I
pray, is there &s;o &s;trange in her doctrine, or in her &s;er|vice,
that &s;hould cau&s;e you to for&s;ake her communion, to
avoid the <HI>ancient</HI> Churches, and Religion of our <HI>Fa|thers,</HI>
to renounce the ordinary publick a&s;&s;emblies of
Chri&s;tian people, to &s;ever from all the re&s;t of the world,
and to &s;uffer all &s;orts of extremities? <HI>Our Church a|dores
the &s;ame JES&V;S CHRIST, whom you pro|fe&s;&s;e
to be the Prince and Authour of</HI> your <HI>Religion. She
confe&s;&s;eth the unity of His per&s;on, and the veritie of His
two natures. She believes Him to be God eternal, of the
&s;ame &s;ub&s;tance with the Father and with the Holy Gho&s;t,
and likewi&s;e man made in time, of the fle&s;h of the ble&s;&s;ed
Virgin, like to us in all things, &s;inne onely excepted, truly
Immanuel, as the ancient Prophe&s;ies foretold. She acknow|ledges
the truth, benefit, and nece&s;&s;ity of his &s;ufferings,
and preacheth (even as you) That His bloud expiated the
crimes of mankind; That the freedome and &s;alvation of
the world is the fruit of His death. She exalteth His glory,
and believes That He &s;its at the right hand of God in
heaven; and, That He &s;hall come in the la&s;t day to judge the
world; and &s;he hopes after the renovation of this world, for
a ble&s;&s;ed immortality (through his grace) in one to come.
She gives to her children bapti&s;me, which Chri&s;t did in&s;ti|tute,
and refre&s;hes them with His Euchari&s;t, and recom|mends
to them piety toward Him, and charity toward men.
She reverenceth the Go&s;pels, and the Epi&s;tles of the Apo|&s;tles
as books divinely inspired.</HI> And if there be any
other Article in the di&s;cipline of our Lord, &s;he recei|veth
<PB N="10" REF="30">
and embraceth it as well as you, and cur&s;eth the
names and memory of tho&s;e, who have gone about to
overthrow or &s;hake them, whether in former or latter
ages.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> The truth is, We neither can nor will denie,
that the Church of Rome doth at this day believe all
the&s;e holy truths; We thank our gracious <HI>Lord,</HI> that &s;he
hath pre&s;erved them through &s;o many ages, mid&s;t &s;o
many di&s;orders. But we would to God, That &s;he had
been as carefull of <HI>not adding</HI> as of <HI>not dimini&s;hing;</HI>
That &s;he had <HI>foi&s;ted in</HI> nothing of her own, but per|mitted
us to content our &s;elves with that, which &s;ufficed
the <HI>Primitive</HI> Chri&s;tians to bring them to &s;alvation.
For had &s;he kept within tho&s;e bounds, neither our Fa|thers
nor We had ever had any cau&s;e of withdrawing
from her Communion. We had then &s;worn to her o|pinions,
and performed her &s;ervice without any &s;cruple,
finding abundantly in this brief but full and admirably
complete rule of wi&s;dome, enough to repleni&s;h our
faith, and &s;ea&s;on our manners, under&s;tandings, and wills
with all perfections nece&s;&s;ary for attaining to that <HI>Sove|raigne
Happine&s;&s;e,</HI> which both you and We naturally
de&s;ire. But who knows not, That to the afore&s;aid di|vine
Articles (clearly expre&s;&s;ed in the Holy Scriptures,
authentically preach'd and founded by the Apo&s;tles, u|niformly
believed and confe&s;&s;ed by Chri&s;tians of all
places and ages) Rome hath added divers others, which
&s;he pre&s;&s;eth <HI>equally</HI> with them, forcing all tho&s;e of her
communion to receive them with the &s;ame faith as they
do tho&s;e afore&s;aid; thundring out horrible anathemaes
again&s;t all them that doubt of them, and u&s;ing for the
ruine of &s;uch all the power and credit that &s;he hath,
whether in the <HI>Church,</HI> or in the <HI>world?</HI> For be&s;ides
<HI>J. Chri&s;t</HI> (whom &s;he acknowledgeth with us to be the
Mediatour of mankind, the High-Prie&s;t and chief So|veraigne
of the Church) &s;he would have us hold the
<HI>Saints departed</HI> to be our <HI>Mediatours,</HI> and her <HI>Prie&s;ts</HI> our
<PB N="11" REF="30">
<HI>Sacrificers,</HI> and her <HI>Pope</HI> to be the <HI>Head and Husband</HI> of
the Church. Be&s;ides the &s;acrifice of the Cro&s;&s;e, &s;he for|ceth
upon us that of the <HI>Altar.</HI> Be&s;ides the bloud of
Chri&s;t, &s;he commands us to expect our clean&s;ing from
the <HI>&s;ufferings of Martyrs,</HI> and from the vertue of a cer|tain
<HI>fire</HI> which &s;he hath <HI>kindled</HI> under ground. Be&s;ides
the water of Bapti&s;me, and the refection of the <HI>Eucha|ri&s;t,</HI>
&s;he pre&s;&s;eth us to receive unction with <HI>oyles,</HI> and the
my&s;teries of her <HI>private Confe&s;&s;ions.</HI> Be&s;ides the Great
God, whom &s;he adores and prayes to as we do, &s;he com|mandeth
us to <HI>adore the holy Sacrament,</HI> to invocate <HI>An|gels</HI>
and beatified <HI>Spirits.</HI> Be&s;ides that &s;ervice of the
Go&s;pel wherein &s;he agreeth with us, &s;he impo&s;eth upon
us divers ceremonies, <HI>ab&s;taining from meats, di&s;tinction
of times, veneration of images.</HI> Be&s;ides the H. Scriptures
which are divinely in&s;pired, which &s;he confe&s;&s;eth with
us, &s;he would have us receive with the &s;ame faith and
re&s;pect all the <HI>traditions</HI> which &s;he approves of. Be&s;ides
the repo&s;e and re&s;t in the <HI>Kingdome of heaven,</HI> which &s;he
with us promi&s;eth to the faithfull, &s;he will have us to
believe another <HI>in Limbo,</HI> a pri&s;on for <HI>children</HI> that die
without bapti&s;me. And be&s;ides the torments of hell,
which &s;he with us threatens to the wicked, &s;he denoun|ceth
to the faithfull another like it in <HI>purgatoric.</HI></P>
<P>The&s;e (and &s;everall others like to the&s;e) are the po|&s;itions
which &s;he addeth to the true and fundamentall
Articles of the good <HI>Old</HI> Chri&s;tianity; and which are
the points that divorce us from her Communion. For
every one knows, how carefully &s;he hath e&s;tabli&s;hed them
in her <HI>Councels,</HI> how daily &s;he recommendeth them in
her <HI>Schools</HI> and <HI>pulpits,</HI> how rigourou&s;ly &s;he exacteth
them in confe&s;sion; having long &s;ince pronounced, and
oft &s;ince (daily &s;till) proclaiming and repeating, <HI>That
&s;he e&s;teems them Hereticks, Enemies of Chri&s;t, and wor&s;e
then Infidels, that reject the&s;e opinions or any of the&s;e.</HI>
And (which is more offen&s;ive yet) not content to teach
them by the voice of her Doctours, &s;he imprints them
<PB N="12" REF="31">
in the hearts of her people through continuall ob&s;erva|tion
and u&s;e; &s;o that among them of her communion,
the practi&s;e of the&s;e additionall Articles makes more
then a full <HI>half</HI> of what they e&s;teem <HI>Chri&s;tianity.</HI> For
the <HI>greate&s;t</HI> part of their &s;ervice con&s;i&s;ts in invocation
of Angels and Saints, in adoring the Sacrament, in
wor&s;hipping images, in offering up the Sacrifice of the
Altar, or in partaking of it, in making Confe&s;sions,
and exerci&s;ing other ceremonies. But as for <HI>us,</HI> all the
world knows that we have quite another opinion of
the&s;e matters. We content our &s;elves with the interce&s;|&s;ion,
&s;acrifice, and monarchy of <HI>J. Chri&s;t,</HI> and can joyn
to Him neither Saints, nor Prie&s;ts, nor the Pope in any
of tho&s;e three qualities, which the Scripture of the New
Te&s;tament attributes to none but Him alone. We deem
His bloud &s;ufficient for the purgation of our &s;ouls, ha|ving
never learnt that either S. <HI>Paul,</HI> or any other <HI>Saint</HI>
was crucified for us; nor, That after this life the <HI>Saints</HI>
&s;hall enter into any other place, but onely <HI>one</HI> of repo&s;e
and re&s;t. After <HI>Bapti&s;me</HI> and the <HI>Lords Supper</HI> we de&s;ire
no other <HI>Sacraments;</HI> not having heard in <HI>His Word,</HI> that
he hath obliged us nece&s;&s;arily to go to the eare of any
<HI>Prie&s;t</HI> to receive his ab&s;olution, or to the hand of any
<HI>Bi&s;hop</HI> to have his chri&s;me. We dare not <HI>adore</HI> the <HI>bread</HI>
which we break, nor the <HI>cup</HI> which we ble&s;&s;e; becau&s;e
all confe&s;&s;e, That it is not permitted us to adore any
but <HI>God</HI> onely. We can neither invocate creatures, &s;ince
we have in the Scripture neither commandment nor ex|ample
for it; nor pro&s;trate our &s;elves before images, &s;ince
we have expre&s;&s;e commands therein again&s;t it. We
&s;cruple at making any thing an Article of our Faith,
which we have not heard in the Word of God; be he
an <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> or an <HI>Angel</HI> that evangelizeth. So that &s;ince
we find nothing in the Scripture of <HI>ab&s;tinence from
meats, di&s;tinction of times,</HI> and other <HI>Romane ceremonies,</HI>
nor of the <HI>Limbus</HI> of infants, or <HI>purgatory;</HI> we cannot
yet be per&s;waded that it is <HI>nece&s;&s;arie</HI> for us to believe
them.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="6" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="13" REF="31">
<HEAD>CHAP. VI. That our Separation ari&s;eth not from particu|lar
matters of fact or private opinion, but
from &s;uch things as are believed generally
by all the Romane Church, and &s;o that it is
not like to the &s;chi&s;me of the Donati&s;ts.</HEAD>
<P>I Might yet alledge many other differences: but this
little may &s;uffice, to let you &s;ee, what are the main
rea&s;ons which oblige us to &s;eparate from Rome. Whence
it appears, how <HI>unju&s;t</HI> a compari&s;on it is (that I &s;ay not
<HI>impertinent</HI> and <HI>&s;illy</HI>) which &s;ome make of <HI>our</HI> Separati|on
to that of the <HI>Donati&s;ts.</HI> For they pretended not to
find any thing in the doctrine of the <HI>Catholick</HI> Church
from whence they &s;eparated, which was contrary to their
belief. Both the one and the other taught the <HI>&s;ame</HI> faith,
read the <HI>&s;ame</HI> books, exerci&s;ed the <HI>&s;ame</HI> &s;ervices. The
Donati&s;t entring with the Catholicks found nothing
either in their belief or di&s;cipline, which he had not
&s;een and learn'd in his own. But as for us, 'tis impo&s;&s;ible
that we &s;hould enter into the Communion of the
Church of Rome, without &s;wearing to many do|ctrines
which we formerly never learn'd in the &s;chole
of the Scriptures; without receiving Sacraments which
are utterly unknown to us; without bowing our knees
before images which is ab&s;olutely forbidden; without
adoring a thing for God who&s;e Deitie we know not;
without acknowledging him to be the Head and Hu&s;|band
of the Church whom we know to be but a mortall
man; without &s;ubjecting tho&s;e con&s;ciences to an <HI>hu|mane,</HI>
which are taught and wont to &s;ubmit unto none
but a <HI>divine</HI> Authority. And as for that which the Do|nati&s;ts
alledge, <HI>That Felix the Ordainer of Cecilian Bi|&s;hop
of Carthage did in former times deliver up the Holy
Scriptures to the Pagans, during the per&s;ecution,</HI> though
it had been true (as indeed it was not; the Catholicks
<PB N="14" REF="32">
having clearly ju&s;tified their innocence in this point by
many irrefragable te&s;timonies) &s;uppo&s;ing, I &s;ay, it had
been true, that he had committed this fault, who &s;eeth
not, that this is not a cau&s;e in nature like to tho&s;e for
which we make our &s;eparation? For this was a matter
of fact and not a doctrine, a fact of <HI>one</HI> man, that is of
<HI>Felix</HI> alone, and not of the whole body of the <HI>African
Church;</HI> So that it &s;hould have given the Donati&s;ts no
occa&s;ion or cau&s;e of &s;eparating from <HI>Cecilian,</HI> much le&s;&s;e
any ju&s;t cau&s;e of breaking communion with all Africk.
For &s;uppo&s;e that <HI>Felix the Ordainer of Cecilian</HI> had com|mitted
this fault, yet 'tis cleare, That he did not teach or
think that it was lawfull for him to deliver the H. Scri|ptures
up to Infidels; but on the contrary, by <HI>denying</HI>
that he committed it, and &s;tanding upon his <HI>defence</HI> as
he did, he confe&s;&s;ed plainly by con&s;equence, that it was a
fault. The Donati&s;ts then might have continued in
that communion without any way &s;taining either their
Creed or their manners, without being forced either to
do or believe any thing again&s;t their con&s;ciences. But
for all that, &s;uppo&s;ing (which yet is manife&s;tly fal&s;e)
that <HI>Cecilian</HI> had defended, and preach'd publickly in his
pulpit, <HI>That it was permitted Chri&s;tians in times of per&s;e|cution,
to deliver up the books of HOLY WRIT to the
enemies of the Church;</HI> and &s;uppo&s;ing again (which 'tis
not fit now to examine) that this errour were pernici|ous,
and incon&s;i&s;tent with a <HI>true faith,</HI> I cannot di&s;cern
how the <HI>Donati&s;ts</HI> had any ju&s;t cau&s;e of avoiding the
communion of the &s;ucce&s;&s;ours of <HI>Cecilian</HI> or other Bi|&s;hops
of Africk, who unanimou&s;ly held, taught, and
preached that to commit &s;uch a fault was a <HI>weakne&s;&s;e</HI>
unbefitting the &s;oul of a Chri&s;tian, and made all &s;uch
&s;ubmit to the rigours of Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall di&s;cipline whom
they found guilty of it. This crime (or what ever you
will imagine it) was onely <HI>Felix</HI>'s, or perhaps <HI>Cecilians;</HI>
but not any mans el&s;e: The <HI>whole Church</HI> had no &s;hare
in it: &s;o that it was an intolerable piece of inju&s;tice, a
<PB N="15" REF="32">
&s;trange pride, and mad fanta&s;ticalnes, to abhorre <HI>a whole</HI>
Church for the errours of offences of <HI>one</HI> particular man.
I would to God the ca&s;e between the Romane Church
and us had been the like! That we had &s;een nothing de|plorable
but onely the faults of her <HI>Pastours,</HI> and the di&s;|orders
of her <HI>manners!</HI> or That &s;uch of her doctrines
which we cannot receive, had been the thoughts of
&s;ome <HI>particular</HI> men onely! Had there been nothing el&s;e
we &s;hould have lived &s;till together. Our Fathers would
never have &s;eparated from Her Communion; or if &s;ome
&s;trange pa&s;&s;ion, which we dream not of, had precipi|tated
them into a rupture and &s;chi&s;me like that of the
Donati&s;ts; We do in our Con&s;ciences prote&s;t, that we
would have been afraid to follow their errour, and that
we would have lo&s;t no time of uniting our &s;elves with
them, from whom we had been &s;o <HI>imprudently</HI> &s;eparated.
For we cannot but confe&s;&s;e, That 'tis a piece of very
high inju&s;tice to impute the faults of <HI>men</HI> to their <HI>pro|fe&s;&s;ion,</HI>
and to accu&s;e their <HI>Religion</HI> of tho&s;e extravagan|cies
which <HI>they</HI> commit, e&s;pecially if <HI>again&s;t it.</HI> In &s;uch
a ca&s;e we &s;hould que&s;tionle&s;&s;e practi&s;e the doctrine of
our Saviour, &s;peaking of them who &s;it in Mo&s;es chair;
Matt. xxiii. 3. <HI>All tho&s;e things which they bid you ob&s;erve,
tho&s;e ob&s;erve and do; but do not after their works.</HI> The
<HI>Church</HI> wherein they live is not guilty of their errour,
e&s;pecially when it highly (and oft out of the mouthes
of tho&s;e very men) <HI>condemneth</HI> the faults and di&s;orders
of their lives. The Church may &s;ay to &s;uch fugitives,
<HI>The faults of my children are no fit rea&s;on to induce you to
abhorre Me. Live in my communion you may, and not be
obliged to communicate with their wicked deeds. Tho&s;e
very men who are thus wicked &s;hould drive you from the
vice, in &s;tead of bringing you to it: for, if you mark it,
They carry pre&s;ervatives in their mouthes again&s;t the poi|&s;ons
of their manners.</HI> But, alas! 'Twas not this that
drove us from the Church of Rome. 'Twas not the fall
of <HI>one</HI> Felix, nor the weakne&s;&s;e of &s;ome <HI>Cecilians,</HI> 'twas
<PB N="16" REF="33">
not the covetou&s;ne&s;&s;e of her <HI>Prelates,</HI> the licenciou&s;ne&s;&s;e
of her <HI>Monks,</HI> the filthine&s;&s;e of her <HI>Court,</HI> the exce&s;&s;e and
abu&s;e of her Sovereigne <HI>Pontifes.</HI> For though &s;he &s;uf|fered
the&s;e di&s;orders with too much indulgence, yet &s;he
neither doth command them, nor openly approve of
them. Though &s;he very gently <HI>tolerate</HI> &s;uch as were de|bauched
or vicious, yet &s;he did not <HI>force</HI> any to be &s;o.
No man was for entring into her communion <HI>con&s;trai|ned</HI>
to be a &s;lave to any of tho&s;e vices which bore &s;way in
the mid&s;t of her. No, a man <HI>might</HI> have lived within it,
and yet addicted him&s;elf to <HI>hone&s;ty and goodne&s;&s;e:</HI> And
as yet corruption had not gained &s;o farre, as that ill
manners were authorized by <HI>publick</HI> laws. But on the
contrary during the wor&s;t of times, though her voice
was weak and langui&s;hing, yet &s;he made <HI>&s;ome</HI> noi&s;e
again&s;t the impietie of the age. And oftentimes tho&s;e
very men that gave ill example in their <HI>lives</HI> preached
again&s;t it and decryed it horribly in the <HI>pulpit.</HI> That
which hath pulled us from her communion is her <HI>do|ctrine,</HI>
and not her <HI>actions;</HI> that which &s;he <HI>commands,</HI>
and not that which &s;he <HI>&s;uffers;</HI> that which &s;he requires
of <HI>us all,</HI> and not that which &s;he tolerates in <HI>&s;ome o|thers;</HI>
the articles of her <HI>faith,</HI> and not the faults of her
<HI>life.</HI> For the adoration of the Euchari&s;t, invocation of
Saints, veneration of images, and tho&s;e other articles
which we rehear&s;ed before, are not &s;uch things as &s;he
<HI>onely</HI> tolerates as bad, or excu&s;eth as doubtfull; but <HI>be|liefs</HI>
which &s;he <HI>commendeth</HI> as true, and ob&s;ervations
which &s;he <HI>commandeth</HI> as u&s;efull and <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> to &s;alvati|on.
Nor doth &s;he onely practi&s;e them in the hou&s;e and
privately, but likewi&s;e preach them in the Temple, as
perpetuall parts of her <HI>Faith.</HI> So that if we continue in
her communion, we mu&s;t needs make profe&s;&s;ion of be|lieving
them, that is, make our &s;elves guilty of an hor|rible
hypocri&s;ie, <HI>confe&s;&s;ing</HI> with our mouth what we do
not <HI>believe</HI> with our heart. Now if the&s;e were onely the
opinions of &s;ome one of her Doctours, if it were onely
<PB N="17" REF="33">
&s;ome <HI>one</HI> Divine that were to be blamed, and the re&s;t
of their. Church di&s;avowed the&s;e things; we &s;hould not
for &s;uch a matter make any &s;cruple of communicating
with Her; acknowledging ingenuou&s;ly, That 'tis an
unrea&s;onable thing to impute the opinions (and &s;o the
faults) of a few <HI>particular</HI> men to a <HI>whole entire body.</HI>
Since we &s;ee it often happens, that they who live in the
Communion of a Church, are neither in whole nor in
part of the &s;ame belief with that Church. Thus for|merly
among the <HI>Jewes,</HI> The &s;ect of the <HI>Sadducees</HI> had
their doctrines apart, and the <HI>Phari&s;ees</HI> had likewi&s;e
theirs. And for a mans being a <HI>Jew,</HI> he was not at all
obliged to embrace or hold preci&s;ely the opinions either
of the one, or of the other &s;ect. And at this very day in
the Church of Rome (whence we departed) the order
of the <HI>Dominicans</HI> hath &s;ome opinions proper to them|&s;elves,
and the <HI>Franci&s;cans</HI> have others, and &s;o likewi&s;e
the <HI>Je&s;uits</HI> others, <HI>peculiar</HI> to their re&s;pective Orders.
If therefore there were in the mid&s;t of Her, onely &s;ome
one &s;ocietie of men that held affirmatively tho&s;e things
which we cannot believe, and others lived at liberty ei|ther
to receive or reject them, In this ca&s;e I confe&s;&s;e, that
it were very difficult to excu&s;e our <HI>Separation,</HI> &s;ince the
Communion with that body whence we have departed
doth not oblige us preci&s;ely to any points contrary to
our con&s;ciences, But who knows not that tho&s;e Articles
which we cannot receive, are <HI>publick</HI> not <HI>private</HI> Do|ctrines,
common to the <HI>whole</HI> Church of Rome, and not
<HI>peculiar</HI> to the Pope and his party? e&s;tabli&s;hed authen|tickly
in her <HI>Generall</HI> Councels, by the &s;uffrages of the
Deputies of <HI>all</HI> the Churches in the world <HI>that live in
her Communion?</HI> Articles, to the belief and ob&s;ervation,
whereof, &s;he obligeth <HI>all</HI> &s;orts of per&s;ons what&s;oever,
Clergy and Laity, Monks and Seculars, Men and Wo|men,
little and great? anathematizing <HI>all</HI> as Hereticks,
who teach or believe otherwi&s;e; and be&s;ides the thun|derbolts
of the Church (excommunications) making
<PB N="18" REF="34">
u&s;e of fire and &s;word and what el&s;e they can again&s;t
them, where ever &s;he hath power.</P>
<P>Thus it appears, that our cau&s;e is no whit like that of
the Donati&s;ts, our Separation ari&s;ing from publick and
univer&s;all Doctrines of the Church of Rome, whereas
<HI>Theirs</HI> had no foundation or rea&s;on, but onely <HI>a pretended</HI>
act of <HI>one</HI> particular man, neither confe&s;&s;ed nor proved.</P>
<P>The <HI>African</HI> Church (who&s;e communion they fled
from) pre&s;ented them nothing in her <HI>Creeds</HI> and <HI>Ser|vice,</HI>
which was contrary to their faith; whereas <HI>Rome</HI>
(whence we are departed) will con&s;train us to think
and do &s;everall things, that directly overthrow the do|ctrines,
which we in our &s;ouls and con&s;ciences believe.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="7" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. VII. That there are two &s;orts of Errours; the one
overthrowing the foundation of faith, and
obliging men to &s;eparate, and the other not.
That the opinions of the Church of Rome
which we reject are of the fir&s;t &s;ort, and tho&s;e
of the Lutherans of the &s;econd.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> BUt you'l &s;ay, Is it lawfull then to &s;eparate
from a Church, becau&s;e it preacheth pub|lickly
and generally &s;ome Doctrine, which is contrary to
our belief? Is it po&s;&s;ible that our <HI>Soveraign Lord,</HI> who
would have us to beare with the <HI>ill manners and actions
of men,</HI> for the <HI>good</HI> that peace &amp; unity brings to a <HI>Com|munity,</HI>
&s;hould permit us to &s;eparate from them for <HI>fal&s;e
opinions?</HI> Suppo&s;e that Rome have added &s;omewhat to
tho&s;e things which Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles laid down;
Yet what need had <HI>your Fathers</HI> to depart from her <HI>&s;o
farre?</HI> This <HI>Spirit of concord</HI> you &s;peak of, which obliged
them (as you grant) to &s;uffer the <HI>faults</HI> in their neigh|bours
<HI>lives;</HI> how chance it did not make them beare with
&s;ome in their <HI>faith?</HI></P>
<P><PB N="19" REF="34">
<HI>An&s;.</HI> Becau&s;e there is in this re&s;pect an extreme dif|ference
between faults in <HI>doctrine</HI> and in <HI>life;</HI> the fir&s;t
drawing after them a con&s;equence farre differing from
that of the latter, becau&s;e that the Church propounds un|to
us not Her life but Her doctrine, to be the rule of
our faith and manners. Yet (which we Prote&s;tants con|fe&s;&s;e)
all errours in doctrine do not give a man a ju&s;t
and &s;ufficient cau&s;e to make a divi&s;ion from tho&s;e that
hold them. For the Apo&s;tle commands us, <HI>to receive him
that is weak in the faith,</HI> Rom. xiv. 1. and not to trouble
him with di&s;putes, and to afford him our &s;elves for an
example, in bearing gently with tho&s;e who are not of
our mind in every thing. <HI>Let us all who are perfect,</HI> &s;aith
he, <HI>be of the &s;ame mind; and if any of you think other|wi&s;e,
God &s;hall reveal even this unto him.</HI> Phil. iii. 15. 'Tis
evident, that this weakne&s;&s;e in faith and this diver&s;itie in
opinon, whereof S. Paul &s;peaketh, are errours; but &s;uch
as he would have us beare with. Yet &s;ince he el&s;ewhere
pronounceth <HI>anathema</HI> again&s;t tho&s;e, that preach any
other Go&s;pel then that which he preached, we mu&s;t of
nece&s;&s;itie conclude, that there are <HI>two</HI> &s;orts of errours in
religion: the one &s;uch, as a man may beare with with|out
dividing from them who hold them; and the other
&s;uch, for which he is bound to avoid their communion:
and this difference dependeth upon the nature of errours
them&s;elves. For as the truths which we are to believe
are not all of equall importance, &s;ome being e&s;teemed
fundamentall and &s;o <HI>ab&s;olutely requi&s;ite,</HI> that a man can|not
come to the kingdome of heaven if he be ignorant
of them; others being <HI>profitable,</HI> yet not &s;o <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> but
that a man may without the knowledge of them <HI>&s;erve
God</HI> and <HI>enjoy &s;alvation:</HI> &s;o it is with errours, Some are
pernicious and no way con&s;i&s;tent with a true piety;
others are le&s;&s;e hurtfull and do not nece&s;&s;arily draw in
men to perdition. S. Paul doth clearly enough di&s;cover
to us this di&s;tinction, 1 Cor. iii. 13, 15. <HI>where,</HI> after he
had &s;aid, <HI>That none could lay any other foundation but
<PB N="20" REF="35">
that which he had laid,</HI> to wit, <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t,</HI> he addeth,
That <HI>they who builded upon this foundation wood, hay,
&s;tubble, &s;hould have lo&s;&s;e in their work, when it comes to
be tried; neverthele&s;&s;e they &s;hould be &s;aved, yet &s;o as by
fire;</HI> that is to &s;ay, <HI>with difficulty,</HI> their per&s;on onely, or
that wherein their chief good con&s;i&s;ted, e&s;caping a burn|ing.
An evident &s;igne that there be errours, which do
not deprive the Authours thereof of <HI>&s;alvation,</HI> much
le&s;&s;e exclude &s;uch from happine&s;&s;e as believe them <HI>after</HI>
Them, and take them up (when they are dead or gone)
meerly upon their tru&s;t and credit. And to conclude, who
doth not &s;ee plainly, That there be errours which utterly
overthrow the foundations of Chri&s;tianity, ingaging us
unavoidably in &s;uch things as are incon&s;i&s;tent with &s;al|vation?
and that there be others which do not &s;o?</P>
<P>As for example, if one &s;hould think <HI>that he were bound
to wor&s;hip the Sunne.</HI> (For &s;eeing the Sunne is a crea|ture,
and tho&s;e who wor&s;hip creatures have no portion
in the kingdome of heaven) 'Tis evident that he who
hath &s;uch an opinion cannot attain eternal happine&s;&s;e.
And 'tis &s;o with all other errours which overthrow any
of the fir&s;t, nece&s;&s;ary, and fundamentall articles of Chri|&s;tian
religion. But the errour of tho&s;e, who believed of
old, That the Church &s;hall continue a thou&s;and yeares
(or &s;ome long time) with J. Chri&s;t upon earth after
the re&s;urrection, is no way repugnant to <HI>piety</HI> towards
God, or <HI>charity</HI> towards our Neighbour, nor doth it <HI>di|rectly</HI>
overthrow any of the foundations of the <HI>Gospel;</HI>
Though it be in my opinion contrary to divers pa&s;&s;ages
of S. Paul and &s;carce con&s;onant to the nature of <HI>Chri&s;ts
Kingdome.</HI></P>
<P>A man would &s;carce believe how nece&s;&s;ary it is, to
mark this difference among the errours of men in mat|ters
of religion, for preventing that vain &s;crupulo&s;itie
and importunate pen&s;ivene&s;&s;e, which many melancho|ly
&s;pirits are troubled with, who condemne all errours
alike, and thunder out one and the &s;ame anathema a|gain&s;t
<PB N="21" REF="35">
what ever differs (though never &s;o little) from
their apprehen&s;ions: yet for keeping them from falling
on the other &s;ide, into the indifferencie of profane per|&s;ons,
who conform to any thing, and &s;wallow a <HI>camel</HI>
as well as a <HI>gnat.</HI> Indeed the true <HI>pious</HI> per&s;on will en|deavour
to keep him&s;elf from all errour; and will purge
his neighbour too, as well as him&s;elf, &s;o farre as he is
able. For any deviation from truth though it may be a
light and &s;mall errour, yet 'tis an errour (that is to &s;ay
an ignorance, and contradiction to the truth) and by
con&s;equence an evil. But a man mu&s;t be very diligent
and circum&s;pect in ob&s;erving this di&s;tinction among er|rours,
and acknowledge that one is much more dange|rous
then another, and he &s;hould more or le&s;&s;e abhorre
them all, according as he &s;hall judge them to be more or
le&s;&s;e dangerous. If they be of the fir&s;t rank, <HI>viz.</HI> tho&s;e
which overthrow the <HI>foundations</HI> of Chri&s;tianitie, he
will be&s;tirre him&s;elf with all po&s;&s;ible prudence and dex|teritie,
according to his vocation and gifts, to free his
neighbour from them; and if he cannot gain upon him,
he will yet be &s;ure to &s;ave and deliver his own &s;oul from
the communion of &s;uch as hold them. This was the
practi&s;e of the Faithfull in reference to <HI>Paulus Samo&s;a|ten&s;is</HI>
Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch,</HI> and <HI>Arius</HI> a Prie&s;t of <HI>Alexan|dria,</HI>
who held that <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t</HI> was a meer creature,
throwing down Chri&s;tianitie from top to bottome by
this abominable doctrine. But if the errour be of a &s;e|cond
&s;ort, not pernicious nor incon&s;i&s;tent with the prin|ciples
of our faith, we &s;hould do well (if we could
hand&s;omely) to free our brethren from it: (for it
were to be wi&s;ht that we might be entirely exempt from
errour) but if we cannot get out, we mu&s;t not therefore
&s;traight &s;ever from them, but gently and quietly beare
with what we cannot alter; yet &s;o, that we prejudice
not any mans &s;alvation, much le&s;&s;e our own. For, as in
civil &s;ocietie, we keep not company with &s;uch per&s;ons as
we di&s;cover to be guilty of infidelitie or enormous
<PB N="22" REF="36">
vices, becau&s;e friend&s;hip or familiarity with &s;uch people
&s;lurrieth the honour and reputation of tho&s;e, that make
any &s;hew or profe&s;&s;ion of vertue; but we do with a deal
of &s;weetne&s;&s;e and ingenuitie, beare with the faults and
frailties of &s;uch as are not mi&s;creants at the bottome,
though notwith&s;tanding their conver&s;ation be not alto|gether
<HI>free</HI> from humane frailties: So are we to do in
Religion, to avoid communicating with tho&s;e, who&s;e er|rour
overthrows the foundations of piety; but chari|tably
to teach tho&s;e, who retaining the principles cannot
free them&s;elves entirely from all per&s;wa&s;ions contrary to
truth.</P>
<P>The <HI>Ancients</HI> mu&s;t pardon me, if I venture to take
notice that they were &s;ometimes too <HI>&s;crupulous,</HI> and (if
I may &s;o &s;peak) too curious and &s;trait-laced in this
particular; rejecting oftentimes innocent opinions with
very <HI>tragical</HI> termes, and handling &s;uch per&s;ons as gain|&s;ayed
them, with as much rigour as if they had <HI>over|thrown</HI>
the whole <HI>Go&s;pel</HI> of Chri&s;t. 'Tis a wonder to
&s;ee, how &s;ome of them did in a manner &s;port, with
changing errours into here&s;ies, and all faults into crimes.
<HI>Phila&s;trius,</HI> Bi&s;hop of Brixium (who lived in the time
of S. Ambro&s;e) was among others very hot; for he <HI>lib.
de Haere&s;. cap. 4. Bibl. P P. parte 1. p. 22. cap.</HI> 39. rec|koned
among here&s;ies the opinion of tho&s;e, who attri|buted
the Epi&s;tle to the Hebrews to Clement, or to
Barnabas, and to S. Paul; and of tho&s;e who thought
the <HI>CL. P&s;almes</HI> in the P&s;alter were not all compo&s;ed
by <HI>David;</HI> and of tho&s;e who thought <HI>the &s;tarres</HI> were
fa&s;tned to the <HI>orbs</HI> of heaven. But none were ever &s;o
ready to excommunicate, as tho&s;e very men; who keep
&s;uch a complaining of our quitting their commu|nion
upon too &s;light cau&s;es. To &s;ay nothing here of
the lightnings and excommunications of <HI>Victor</HI> again&s;t
<HI>A&s;ia,</HI> of <HI>Stephen</HI> again&s;t <HI>Africk,</HI> and divers other <HI>Popes,</HI>
as well <HI>one</HI> again&s;t <HI>another,</HI> as again&s;t <HI>&s;trangers,</HI> for rea|&s;ons
mo&s;t an end of very <HI>&s;mall</HI> concernment: Let any
<PB N="23" REF="36">
man reade onely the la&s;t <HI>Councel</HI> held at <HI>Trent;</HI> he &s;hall
&s;oon &s;ee how liberall they were of <HI>Anathema's.</HI> They
were not there content, as thunder doth from <HI>Heaven,</HI>
to &s;trike the cedars and the tops of the mountains:
&s;carce was there any herb in their adver&s;aries fields
(though never &s;o low and &s;mall) that &s;caped their
thunderbolts. They who doubted, whether <HI>marriage was
a Sacrament,</HI> or whether <HI>the Church can di&s;pen&s;e with the
degrees e&s;tabli&s;hed in Leviticus,</HI> or whether <HI>a Bi&s;hop be
above a Presbyter,</HI> or whether <HI>the rea&s;ons that moved Rome
to deprive the Laity of the cup were of &s;ufficient validity
to that purpo&s;e,</HI> (things as every one may &s;ee of none, or
at lea&s;t very little importance to pietie) were <HI>excommu|nicated,</HI>
anathematized, as well as they that denyed <HI>the
divinitie of our Saviour, or the truth of the la&s;t re&s;ur|rection.</HI>
And for my part I under&s;tand not how it agrees&punc;
with the <HI>mildne&s;&s;e</HI> and gentle behaviour, which the Do|ctrine
of Chri&s;t doth &s;trictly recommend unto us, to
have &s;uch an inhumane &s;everitie as to be able to beare
with nothing, to &s;pare no opinion; but to make &s;o high
a market of the pretended <HI>thunderbolts,</HI> as to let them fly
indifferently, again&s;t the <HI>le&s;&s;e</HI> errours as well as again&s;t
the <HI>greate&s;t</HI> crimes. Well, this I am &s;ure of, If we would
imitate Their examples, and ju&s;tifie our proceedings by
the maximes of theirs, we might end this que&s;tion in
three words. For if he that thinks marriage is not a Sa|crament
is an anathema to him that holds it is, I pray,
What &s;hould they who believe that the <HI>Euchari&s;t</HI> is not
<HI>bread</HI> but the <HI>Creatour</HI> of heaven and earth, be deemed
by tho&s;e that hold the contrary? And if to think that a
<HI>Presbyter</HI> was originally the &s;ame with a <HI>Bi&s;hop,</HI> give the
Church of Rome &s;ufficient cau&s;e to cur&s;e my commu|nion,
how much more doth her elevating (as &s;he doth)
the <HI>Pope</HI> above the <HI>Church,</HI> and above <HI>all</HI> the <HI>Kings</HI> in
Chri&s;tendome, give me ju&s;t cau&s;e to run away from her?</P>
<P>But 'tis now time we &s;hould (by Gods a&s;&s;i&s;tance)
clear our own innocence, of tho&s;e crimes which our &s;ide
<PB N="24" REF="37">
is accu&s;ed of. We confe&s;&s;e, That Chri&s;tian charitie is
not &s;o active and hot as their zeal: Charitie often bears
with what it doth not approve of, and rejects nothing,
but what it cannot &s;uffer, without hazarding the &s;alvati|on
of our neighbours and our own &s;ouls. 'Tis &s;o farre
from excommunicating (as the Councel of <HI>Trent</HI> doth)
Chri&s;tians for &s;mall errours, that I think it would ea&s;i|ly
beare with in faithfull per&s;ons that opinion of the
<HI>Greeks</HI> (for which they are &s;o roughly anathematized)
touching the <HI>proce&s;&s;ion of the Holy Gho&s;t.</HI> For though I
grant it is an errour to believe, that the H. <HI>Gho&s;t</HI> pro|ceeded
not from the <HI>Father</HI> and <HI>Sonne,</HI> but from the <HI>Fa|ther</HI>
onely <HI>by</HI> the <HI>Sonne,</HI> yet if you ob&s;erve 'tis hard (if
not <HI>impo&s;&s;ible</HI>) to under&s;tand what prejudice this errour
brings to <HI>piety</HI> and <HI>holy life.</HI></P>
<P>The difference that is between us and &s;uch of our
<HI>brethren</HI> as are called <HI>Lutherans</HI> is of the &s;ame nature.
I confe&s;&s;e, 'tis as impo&s;&s;ible for us to believe, as to con|ceive
their Po&s;ition, concerning the body of our
Saviour being <HI>really pre&s;ent in the bread</HI> of the Euchari&s;t.
But yet 'tis po&s;&s;ible (and I think according to the laws
of charity, nece&s;&s;ary) to bear with that in their doctrine
which we cannot believe. For this opinion, in the
terms and &s;en&s;e wherein They hold it, hath no <HI>venome</HI>
in it that I &s;ee. It aboli&s;heth not the Sacrament, it de|&s;troyes
not the &s;igne whereof it con&s;i&s;teth, it adoreth
it not, it neither divides nor mutilates it, it makes it
not an expiatory &s;acrifice for our &s;innes, it leaves it both
the nature and the vertue of a Sacrament, and doth not
take any thing, (formally, directly, and immediately)
from Chri&s;t, either of his &s;ub&s;tance or his properties:
onely it would have even <HI>the humanity of Chri&s;t</HI> pre&s;ent
in the Euchari&s;t (that we may receive the vertue of his
death, and <HI>communicate of his body and bloud,</HI> (as S.
<HI>Paul</HI> &s;peaks) 1 Cor. x. in &s;uch a manner as they confe&s;&s;e
incomprehen&s;ible. Which hypothe&s;is (whiles it goes
no further) engageth us not in any thing that is contra|ry
<PB N="25" REF="37">
either to piety or charity, either to the honour of
God or the good of men: And &s;o it may and ought to
be tolerated. And this hath been continually our judge|ment,
and &s;o declared by <HI>the French churches</HI> in the na|tionall
<HI>Synod</HI> held at <HI>Charenton</HI> in the yeare MDCXXXI.
by an expre&s;&s;e act, wherein they receive &s;uch as are called
<HI>Lutherans</HI> into their Communion, unto their <HI>Holy
Table,</HI> notwith&s;tanding <HI>this</HI> opinion, and &s;ome <HI>few others</HI>
of le&s;&s;e importance, wherein They and We differ.</P>
<P>Oh what a gentlene&s;&s;e was this, excellently becoming
Chri&s;tians! worthy to be imitated by all believers in the
world, and con&s;ecrated with commendation to the me|mory
of all &s;ucceeding ages! a plain, illu&s;trious, irrefra|gable
te&s;timony, of the innocence, of our Churches in
this particular! For had we been animated with a &s;pi|rit
of pre&s;umption, untractablene&s;&s;e and de&s;pight (as
&s;ome fondly imagine) how could we thus gently bear
with tho&s;e which are at difference with us? and in who&s;e
communion there are &s;ome who either blinded with
pa&s;&s;ion, or deceived with calumny, have a very <HI>ill opinion</HI>
of us, and do outragiou&s;ly <HI>defame</HI> us.</P>
<P>This example, one would think, might &s;how any man
clearly, That it is not want of <HI>charity,</HI> but &s;ome other
<HI>very urgent</HI> cau&s;e, which moved us to &s;eparate from the
Church of <HI>Rome.</HI> For had the differences between us
and <HI>them</HI> been like tho&s;e between us and the <HI>Lutherans,</HI>
what likelyhood is there, but that we &s;hould have been as
ready to joyn hands with them as with the&s;e? why
&s;hould we be willing to offend our Countreymen, and
bear with &s;trangers? &s;eparate from tho&s;e that have in
their hands, our honours, our goods, our lives; and in|violably
keep in with &s;uch as we have nothing to do
with, but onely as they are <HI>Chri&s;tians?</HI> what likelyhood
is there that we &s;hould not in this point have that com|placence
for our Princes and naturall Magi&s;trates, which
we have for &s;uch as in reference to civil Societie concern
us not? Certainly men mu&s;t needs &s;ay, we are either very
<PB N="26" REF="38">
furious and &s;en&s;ele&s;&s;e creatures (which cen&s;ure I think
many <HI>wi&s;e</HI> people will not ca&s;t upon us) or that 'tis &s;ome
great and weighty rea&s;on that made us &s;eparate from the
Church of Rome. And this is indeed the <HI>chief point</HI>
of the que&s;tion. For if the doctrines whereupon we &s;e|parated
were of the &s;ame nature with tho&s;e, that we dif|fer
with the <HI>Lutherans</HI> about; if they were tolerable, and
&s;uch as we could bear with, without violating our con|&s;ciences;
I confe&s;&s;e that our &s;eparation was, if not <HI>ra&s;h,</HI>
(as being not grounded upon a <HI>&s;ufficient</HI> cau&s;e) yet <HI>un|ju&s;t</HI>
at the lea&s;t: no &s;eparation in any matter being ju&s;t
if it be not nece&s;&s;ary. But we may truly affirm, (and
confidently call heaven and earth to witne&s;&s;e) that 'tis
not po&s;&s;ible to accommodate our &s;elves to tho&s;e things
which the Romani&s;ts require of us, without forcing our
thoughts, violating the peace of our con&s;ciences, and
overthrowing the foundations of Chri&s;tianity, which
we firmly believe. For we are at conte&s;tation, not con|cerning
matters that are &s;mall and of little importance,
but concerning <HI>the head of the Church,</HI> concerning <HI>the
foundation of faith,</HI> concerning <HI>the cau&s;es of &s;alvation,
the &s;ervice of God, the object to which that &s;ervice &s;hould
be given, the &s;tate both of our con&s;ciences in this world,
and of our &s;ouls in the world to come.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="8" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. VIII. That the adoration of the Euchari&s;t, as it is
practi&s;ed by the Church of Rome, doth (as we
believe) overthrow the foundation of pietie
and &s;alvation.</HEAD>
<P>MY intention is not to examine all the particulars
of the differences between us, one by one; to
know the weight and importance of each in particular.
That would cau&s;e me to be more large then I intend to
be on this &s;ubject, and would be more tedious to the
<PB N="27" REF="38">
Reader then nece&s;&s;ary for the end I propo&s;ed. We may
with le&s;&s;e adoe ju&s;tifie our &s;elves. For if among all tho&s;e
points wherein we differ there be but <HI>one,</HI> which over|throws
the foundations of Chri&s;tianitie; That is enough
to prove the nece&s;&s;ity of our &s;eparation, whether the re&s;t
be light or weighty: No man being bound to gra|tifie
tho&s;e who are in any communion &s;o farre, as to
joyn with them to the prejudice of his own &s;alvation.
Leaving therefore at pre&s;ent all other Articles, to the be|lief
whereof Rome would oblige us, I &s;hall onely con&s;ider
this one, viz. <HI>the adoration of the Ho&s;t</HI> (as they call it)
which is in my opinion a very important one; and I
hope, I &s;hall &s;hew briefly and clearly, that it is not po&s;|&s;ible
to receive it, without overthrowing the foundation
of our <HI>piety</HI> here, and eternall <HI>happine&s;&s;e</HI> hereafter. 'Tis a
Doctrine held by all Believers from the beginning of the
world to this pre&s;ent, that the Soveraigne and highe&s;t
kind of honour and &s;ervice, which is ordinarily called
<HI>adoration,</HI> is due to none but <HI>God</HI> alone, who created the
heaven and the earth, and redeemed us through <HI>J. Chri&s;t.</HI>
This is the foundation of all the doctrine and di&s;cipline
of Gods people of old; the fir&s;t and principall Article
of the divine Law, which God pronounced from heaven
with the voice of thunder, and which he wrote for them
with his own finger, upon the tables of &s;tone given to
Mo&s;es. <HI>Thou &s;halt not have,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>any other God be|fore
my face.</HI> I can not well here (if I would) &s;et down
all the places wherein His holy Prophets repeat this
commandment and comment on it. 'Tis likewi&s;e the
great and chief foundation of the Go&s;pel. <HI>This is life
eternall,</HI> &s;aith our Lord, <HI>to know thee the onely true God,
and him whom thou ha&s;t &s;ent Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</HI> Joh. xvii. 3.
For this knowledge of God and of Chri&s;t compre|hends
likewi&s;e the <HI>&s;ervice</HI> which is due to them. The
&s;ame God who taught us this truth, declareth in an
infinite company of places, That He can hold them for
no other then Enemies and Rebels, that break this His
<PB N="28" REF="39">
commandment, then for &s;uch who have broke His co|venant,
and renounced His communion; prote&s;ting,
That He will puni&s;h them very &s;everely both in this
world, and in the next; that He is <HI>jealous</HI> of His <HI>glory,</HI>
and will not by any means &s;uffer it to be given to <HI>ano|thor.</HI>
And to make us the better to conceive the horri|blene&s;&s;e
of this crime, He repre&s;ents it to us under the
image of the mo&s;t ba&s;e and abominable tran&s;gre&s;&s;ions
that are committed in the life of man: comparing it to
<HI>whoredome, adultery,</HI> and all the mo&s;t foul and infamous
&s;ymptomes and denominations of weakne&s;&s;e: &s;o that He
u&s;eth &s;ometimes, upon this &s;ubject, terms and expre&s;&s;ions
that a man can &s;carce reade or pronounce without <HI>blu&s;h|ing,</HI>
de&s;iring certainly thereby to &s;hew how hatefull this
fault is, and unbefitting any Believer. The truth is,
Since our Great God hath done us the favour, to call us
by His infinite goodne&s;&s;e to His Communion, and to
enter with us into &s;o clo&s;e a Covenant, that to expre&s;&s;e
it to us, he tells us that He is our <HI>Husband,</HI> and that we
are His <HI>Spou&s;e;</HI> it is &s;ufficiently evident, that they who
render to any other the honour and &s;ervice which is due
to God, commit the &s;ame fault, which a woman that is
married doth, when &s;he abandons that to another,
which is due to none but her own husband. So that as
<HI>adultery</HI> is the greate&s;t fault that can be committed a|gain&s;t
the bond of wedlock; &s;o may we be a&s;&s;ured, that
no man can more grievou&s;ly infringe his covenant with
God, then by devolving that &s;ervice which belongs to
him, upon any creature what&s;oever. And as adultery
doth di&s;&s;olve marriage; &s;o the crime of tho&s;e who &s;erve
creatures di&s;&s;olves the Covenant with God. Which
may the better be under&s;tood by another compari&s;on.
God is our <HI>King</HI> and Soveraigne, and we are His <HI>&s;ub|jects.</HI>
Ju&s;t therefore as a &s;ubject cannot more hainou&s;ly
offend his <HI>King,</HI> nor more openly renounce his &s;ubje|ction,
and that allegiance which he oweth him, then
by giving to &s;ome other be&s;ides him the name, glory,
<PB N="29" REF="39">
honour, and &s;ervice of his Soveraigne; &s;o tis not po&s;|&s;ible
that we &s;hould offend <HI>God</HI> more mortally, then in
attributing to any other but His Maje&s;ty the name of
<HI>our God and Lord,</HI> which appertains to Him alone, and
&s;o the honour and &s;ervice agreeable to the&s;e names.
This was the main crime of the <HI>Gentiles,</HI> who thus
broke Gods Covenant, and pulled upon them&s;elves
mo&s;t dreadfull wrath and cur&s;es in this world, and eter|nall
death in the next. S. <HI>Paul</HI> teacheth us Rom. i. 25.
That this <HI>rendering to the creature a &s;ervice due to the
Creatour,</HI> was the &s;ource and fountain whence all the
mi&s;chiefs i&s;&s;ued forth upon them. And 1 Cor. vi. 10.
he &s;aith plainly, That <HI>idolaters</HI> (that is to &s;ay, Such as
render to any creature the &s;ervice due to God) <HI>&s;hall ne|ver
inherit the Kingdome of heaven.</HI> And conformably
to this, S. <HI>John</HI> Rev. xxi. 8. prote&s;teth, That <HI>their por|tion
&s;hall be in the lake burning with fire and brim&s;tone,
which is the &s;econd death.</HI> For of all the truths that are
taught in the Old and New Te&s;taments, there is not
any <HI>one,</HI> which is &s;o clearly and &s;o often expre&s;&s;ed as this
very thing; not any <HI>one,</HI> which hath been le&s;&s;e conte&s;ted
by hereticks, or more univer&s;ally and affirmatively for|bidden
by the Church; w^c^h hath ever con&s;tantly broke
off from tho&s;e that under any pretence what&s;oever will
render to the <HI>creature</HI> the &s;ervice due to <HI>God.</HI> Even
<HI>Rome</HI> her &s;elf (of whom we complain) di&s;agrees
with us but very little, if at all, in this point. For
though &s;he render great honours to divers creatures, yet
&s;he ever acknowledged, That there is a kind of religious
&s;ervice which cannot without &s;acriledge be given to any
thing but God alone: this &s;he commonly termeth the
adoration of <HI>latria,</HI> to di&s;tingui&s;h it from other honours
and &s;ervices, which &s;he beleeves may without &s;in be gi|ven
to that which is not God. If therefore there be any
Article in all the Chri&s;tian faith, which &s;hould be cal|led
<HI>fundamentall,</HI> it is this. If there be any, which we
&s;hould pre&s;erve inviolably with the price of all that is
<PB N="30" REF="40">
deare unto us, it is this. Neverthele&s;&s;e, this very Ar|ticle
doth the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> oblige us to violate, if
we will communicate in her &s;ervices. For &s;he doth mo&s;t
expre&s;&s;ely command all &s;uch as be of her communion,
to render that &s;overaigne and highe&s;t kind of &s;ervice,
which &s;he calleth <HI>latria,</HI> (and confe&s;&s;eth to be due to
none but God) unto a thing which we believe to be a
<HI>creature,</HI> and not <HI>God</HI> him&s;elf. She would have us to
take for our great <HI>God,</HI> for the <HI>Creatour</HI> of Heaven and
earth, for the <HI>Redeemer</HI> of mankind, this <HI>&s;acrament,</HI>
which is indeed holy and precious; but which yet our
<HI>&s;en&s;e,</HI> our <HI>rea&s;on,</HI> and our <HI>faith</HI> grounded on the H. <HI>Scri|ptures,</HI>
findeth to be but bread. She would have us give
to this &s;ubject all the prai&s;e of the creation and redem|ption
of the univer&s;e; to inve&s;t it with all the glory that
is due to our Soveraigne and highe&s;t <HI>Lord;</HI> and hereup|on
<HI>pro&s;trate</HI> our &s;elves mo&s;t humbly (our bodies and
&s;ouls) before tho&s;e altars, whereon this is laid; and in
tho&s;e &s;treets where we meet it; that we &s;hould celebrate
the day which &s;he hath con&s;ecrated to the honour of
the Euchari&s;t, under the name of <HI>the fea&s;t of our great
God;</HI> and &s;hould pronounce <HI>anathema maran-atha</HI> a|gain&s;t
all them who approve not this doctrine, and this
practi&s;e. Here I &s;hall venture to addre&s;&s;e my &s;elf to any
the mo&s;t <HI>pa&s;&s;ionate</HI> among our Adver&s;aries, and take
them for my Judges in this cau&s;e, for my Coun&s;ellours
in this difficultie.</P>
<P>You, Sirs, command me to adore the Sacrament of
the Euchari&s;t, with the adoration of <HI>latria.</HI> Now I
cannot, I mu&s;t not conceal from you, That I believe
this <HI>Sacrament</HI> in its &s;ub&s;tance to be an <HI>inanimate</HI> crea|ture;
having not yet been able to re&s;i&s;t the Authority
of my <HI>&s;en&s;e,</HI> of my <HI>rea&s;on,</HI> and of the <HI>H. Scriptures,</HI>
which tell me that it is nothing but bread. My belief
being thus, what &s;hould I doe? Shall I <HI>adore</HI> that which
I know to be but a <HI>creature?</HI> Why, you cannot but &s;ee
how God forbids the adoration of a creature, under peril
<PB N="31" REF="40">
of <HI>eternall damation. Your</HI> Authoritie pulls me on one
&s;ide, and <HI>Gods</HI> on the other. In my judgement, He for|bids
the very <HI>&s;ame</HI> thing that you de&s;ire. Whither &s;hall I
turn me in this condition.</P>
<P>I doubt not but hereupon they'l &s;oon drive me from
their Altars, and forbid me to make u&s;e of <HI>that,</HI> the <HI>Di|vinitie</HI>
whereof I neither <HI>can</HI> nor will acknowledge. For
they oblige not men to adore their Ho&s;t, but becau&s;e of
a belief they have, that it is truly <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t,</HI> God
ble&s;&s;ed for ever. Did they not believe it &s;o to be, they
would not adore it, they would not bring it to others
to be adored. So that &s;ince I have not that belief, me|thinks
they &s;hould not judge it fitting for me to adore
it: and if I &s;hould adore it, they would impute this
action to nothing but an extreme <HI>pu&s;illanimitie,</HI> and
ba&s;ene&s;&s;e of &s;pirit, which for fear of men can cau&s;e me
to doe a thing, that I my &s;elf e&s;teem unlawfull and un|plea&s;ing
to God.</P>
<P>And let them not here alledge, That I am deceived
in the opinion that I have of the &s;ub&s;tance of the Eu|chari&s;t.
For the que&s;tion is not, whether the <HI>Euchari&s;t</HI>
be <HI>bread</HI> or not, (this &s;hould be di&s;puted apart) but
whether he who believes that it is bread in &s;ub&s;tance,
can <HI>adore</HI> it, without making him&s;elf guilty of <HI>Sacri|ledge,</HI>
and giving a creature that honour which is due
to the Creatour. For if one &s;hould grant, That he <HI>can|not</HI>
(which we now are coming to demon&s;trate from
the premi&s;es very evidently) I have gained the point
that I intended to prove: it being cleare, that this &s;up|po&s;eth
<HI>We</HI> have had rea&s;on to &s;eparate from <HI>Rome,</HI> &s;ee|ing
we believe that the Euchari&s;t is bread in &s;ub&s;tance;
it being impo&s;&s;ible for us to yield to that wor&s;hip, which
&s;he de&s;ires we &s;hould give it, unle&s;&s;e we give to a crea|ture
that, which we are bound to give onely to the
Creatour. Whence all the odious que&s;tion concerning
<HI>&s;chi&s;me</HI> is ended.</P>
<P>For we call that <HI>&s;chi&s;me,</HI> which is <HI>a &s;eparation made
<PB N="32" REF="41">
without nece&s;&s;ity.</HI> So that when my con&s;cience forbids
me under pain of Gods wrath, and my own damnation,
to obey that which you command me in this particular,
'tis evident, that it is not fancie, plea&s;ure, or faction, but
a pure nece&s;&s;ity that con&s;traineth me to &s;eparate from
you. If you cannot tax this my opinion, much le&s;&s;e
can you condemne my &s;eparation. Accu&s;e me if you
plea&s;e of &s;tupidity, For not being able to conceive, how
a <HI>body</HI> that is in <HI>heaven</HI> can be at the &s;ame time in a
<HI>thou&s;and places on earth;</HI> how all the quantity of a com|plete
man can be brought within one &s;ingle point; how
a thing, that my &s;en&s;e and rea&s;on knoweth to be <HI>bread,</HI>
and the H. Scripture calleth oftentimes <HI>bread,</HI> can <HI>not</HI>
be <HI>bread</HI> at all for all this; but the very <HI>Creatour of the
world.</HI> Blame as much as you plea&s;e the <HI>dulne&s;&s;e</HI> of my
&s;pirit, that cannot comprehend a whit of the&s;e preten|ded
my&s;teries. But once pre&s;uppo&s;e my belief to be true,
and then you cannot &s;hew me wherein I do ami&s;&s;e in &s;e|parating
from you. At this time 'tis &s;ufficient, that I
have &s;hown, that our &s;eparation is not contrary to chari|ty,
which obligeth no man to embrace that, in favour
or love of his neighbour, which he believes di&s;agreeable
to Gods will, and pernicious to his own &s;oul.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="9" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. IX. That the opinion of the Lutherans which we
bear withall, doth not bring with it the ado|ration
of the Euchari&s;t, either de jure, or
de facto.</HEAD>
<P>BUt becau&s;e this bu&s;ine&s;&s;e &s;eems to me of very great
importance, I am well content for the clearing of
it to examine, yet more particularly, all that can be &s;aid
in favour of this adoration of the <HI>Euchari&s;t,</HI> to render
it unto us more tolerable then as yet it doth appeare.</P>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> Fir&s;t then, &s;ome men may object, That we
<PB N="33" REF="41">
&s;hould not &s;o grievou&s;ly abhorre it, &s;eeing that the very
<HI>Lutherans,</HI> with whom we promi&s;ed that we would live
in communion, hold opinions about the Sacrament of
the Euchari&s;t, that &s;eem to come very neare this. For
they believe (as every one knows) <HI>that the body of Je&s;us
Chri&s;t, is really pre&s;ent in the con&s;ecrated bread;</HI> which
being once pre&s;uppo&s;ed, it &s;eems to follow, That we
mu&s;t <HI>adore</HI> the Sacrament. Seeing then we believe this
opinion (which &s;eems the principle and foundation of
<HI>adoration</HI> of the Sacrament) tolerable; a man may think
that we &s;hould not &s;o fiercely reject the conclu&s;ion
thence en&s;ueing.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> This con&s;ideration is but a vain and fal&s;e co|lour,
which doth no way conclude that which it pre|tendeth.
For there are very great and evident differences
between the doctrine of &s;uch of our brethren as are
termed <HI>Lutherans,</HI> and that of <HI>Romani&s;ts</HI> about this
point. At this time I &s;hall onely take notice of &s;o much
as concerns our pre&s;ent purpo&s;e. Truly what ever their
opinion be in other things, 'tis cleare that they do not
practi&s;e among them&s;elves, nor enjoyn any others who
joyn with them (nor otherwi&s;e approve) this adorati|on,
and this &s;overaigne <HI>latria</HI> of the Euchari&s;t, where|of
we now &s;peak. So that my con&s;cience (which can|not
yield for the rea&s;ons above rehear&s;ed to this <HI>latria</HI>
and adoration) findeth nothing in their Communion,
which wracketh it or offendeth it in this regard. But for
the Church of Rome, 'tis clean otherwi&s;e there. Be|cau&s;e
&s;he practi&s;eth this &s;ervice very &s;crupulou&s;ly, and
cau&s;eth it to be ob&s;erved by all &s;uch as are in her com|munion,
with all circum&s;pection imaginable; as being
in her opinion one of the mo&s;t principall devotions in
Chri&s;tian Religion; and is &s;o rigorous in it that where
&s;he doth ab&s;olutely beare rule, &s;he con&s;traineth all tho&s;e
who&s;e hearts &s;he cannot bend, to bow at lea&s;t their bo|dies
before the <HI>Ho&s;t,</HI> as oft as they meet it; whence it ap|peareth,
that it is a very great Paralogi&s;me and abu&s;e, to
<PB N="34" REF="42">
argue from the opinion of <HI>Luther</HI> to that of the <HI>Pope</HI> in
this point, there being a manife&s;t difference between the
one and the other. The fir&s;t leaving my con&s;cience at
liberty, without requiring of it any &s;ervice towards the
Sacrament contrary to my <HI>belief:</HI> and contrarywi&s;e, the
&s;econd forcing me extreme violently, to adore that
which I firmly believe to be but a mere creature.</P>
<P>And to that which they &s;ay concerning the opinion
of the Lutherans about the H. Sacrament of the Eu|chari&s;t,
That it follows thence nece&s;&s;arily, That we
mu&s;t adore it; I an&s;wer.</P>
<P>1. That it is fal&s;e. For becau&s;e they think, that
our Lord <HI>Je&s;us</HI> is really pre&s;ent in the Sacrament,
it doth not thence follow that they believe, That
the Sacrament is really Je&s;us Chri&s;t. On the con|trary,
they hold with us, That the Sacrament is
true bread in the &s;ub&s;tance, the con&s;ecration changing
nothing in its nature, but onely cau&s;ing that fle&s;h of
Chri&s;t, &s;ignified by the bread, to be there pre&s;ent, and
to be exhibited to them who communicate. Or &s;uppo&s;e
that it were as they hold, it follows not thence, that we
mu&s;t adore the Sacrament. For becau&s;e God is e&s;&s;enti|ally
pre&s;ent in all creatures, will you conclude, That we
mu&s;t therefore adore all creatures? Who &s;ees not, that
if a man &s;hould under pretence of this adore any one, he
would be &s;traight by all Chri&s;tians held an idolater?
The Holy Spirit dwels in the <HI>bodies</HI> of the faithfull,
which have the honour to <HI>be His temple,</HI> 1 Cor. vi. 19.
as S. Paul witne&s;&s;eth. Is this to &s;ay that a man mu&s;t or
may adore the bodies of Believers? The Ho&s;t of the
Church of Rome is in the <HI>Pix,</HI> and in the <HI>mouth,</HI> and
then in the <HI>&s;tomach</HI> of them who receive it in commu|nicating.
Will they allow that becau&s;e of this a man
&s;hould adore the <HI>Pix,</HI> and the <HI>mouth,</HI> and the <HI>&s;tomach</HI>
where it entreth? They would certainly hi&s;&s;e at a man
that &s;hould conclude, that we mu&s;t adore the&s;e things be|cau&s;e
the ho&s;t is there pre&s;ent.</P>
<P><PB N="35" REF="42">
Since it appears by the&s;e inductions, that tho&s;e things,
wherein is any &s;ubject worthy of adoration, ought not
thereupon to be adored; 'tis cleare, not onely that a man
may hold the reall pre&s;ence of our Lord's body in the
Sacrament, without being obliged to adore the Sacra|ment,
but al&s;o <HI>ex abundanti,</HI> That if a man be preci&s;ely
of another opinion, he is obliged not to adore it; whence
it follows, that the belief of the <HI>Lutherans,</HI> which doth
onely affirm the reall pre&s;ence of our Lords body in
the Euchari&s;t, is &s;o farre from inferring the <HI>adoration,</HI>
that on the quite contrary it inferreth, That we mu&s;t
<HI>not</HI> adore it.</P>
<P>2. But then in the &s;econd place, I &s;ay, That though,
according to the laws of di&s;cour&s;e, it &s;hould follow law|fully
and nece&s;&s;arily from the opinion of the Lutherans,
that we mu&s;t adore the Sacrament; yet 'tis enough to
keep me from abhorring their communion, To &s;ee that
they hold not this adoration to be the con&s;equence of
that opinion, but on the contrary reject it, as well as I.
For a man may hold the principle, who doth not at all
believe the conclu&s;ion. Po&s;&s;ibly he never thinks of it,
or if he doth think on it, he doth not perceive it to be a
con&s;equence from tho&s;e premi&s;es. 'Tis at this day gene|rally
received in our &s;choles for a good con&s;equence,
That if the &s;oul of man come from the &s;ub&s;tance of the
Father into the body of the Sonne, it may die and is
mortall: for (&s;ay we) if it depend upon the matter in
its <HI>original,</HI> it depends likewi&s;e on it in its <HI>being.</HI> So
that when the matter (that is the body) comes to die,
the &s;oul mu&s;t likewi&s;e nece&s;&s;arily be extingui&s;hed, &s;eeing
the &s;ub&s;i&s;tence of the one depends upon the &s;ub&s;i&s;tence
of the other. Will you hereupon &s;ay, that none ever held
the principle of this di&s;cour&s;e, <HI>viz. that the &s;oul is tra|duced,
and pa&s;&s;eth from the &s;ub&s;tance of the Father to the
Sonne,</HI> who did not likewi&s;e hold the conclu&s;ion, <HI>viz.
that the &s;oul is mortall.</HI> With what face dare you ven|ture
to a&s;&s;ert it; &s;ince <HI>Tertullian</HI> and many other <HI>Authors</HI>
<PB N="36" REF="43">
of <HI>very great</HI> e&s;teem were of that opinion, and S. <HI>Au|gu&s;tine</HI>
did rather approve it then condemn it? &s;ince I
&s;ay, they did openly believe the fir&s;t of the&s;e po&s;itions,
and expre&s;ly deny the &s;econd. So S. <HI>Hilary,</HI> accord|ing
to the true con&s;equences of that opinion which he
held concerning the impa&s;&s;ible nature of Chri&s;ts body,
&s;eems to me to have been obliged to denie the truth and
<HI>realitie</HI> of our redemption. And yet who dare impute
&s;o grievous an impietie to &s;uch a <HI>Saint?</HI> I &s;hould never
have done, &s;hould I re&s;olve to &s;et down here all the ex|amples
that may be alledged to this purpo&s;e. The&s;e two
&s;uffice to &s;hew that whoever maintains an ill opinion, is
not therefore to be held guilty of the <HI>con&s;equences</HI> of it.</P>
<P>S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">ppo&s;e then it were true, (as it is not) That from
the belief of the <HI>Lutherans</HI> concerning the Euchari&s;t,
it would follow, That we mu&s;t <HI>adore</HI> the Sacrament;
Since they own not this <HI>con&s;equence,</HI> nay on the con|trary
&s;trongly reject it, It would be an extreme in|ju&s;tice
to a&s;cribe <HI>it</HI> to them. And as it would have been
a want of charity in the primitive Chri&s;tians, to have
avoided the Communion of <HI>Tertullian</HI> or S. <HI>Hilary,</HI> up|on
protence, that from their opinions, touching the ori|ginall
of the &s;oul of man and the nature of the body of
Chri&s;t, there followed many propo&s;itions which are <HI>im|pious</HI>
and <HI>contrary</HI> to our <HI>faith,</HI> &s;ince they rejected and
abhorred them: &s;o would it be in my mind a great over|&s;ight
now, to &s;eparate from the <HI>Lutherans</HI> upon this pre|tended
con&s;equence from their opinion concerning the
holy Sacrament, if it could be deduced thence (as it
cannot.) Since they them&s;elves prote&s;t, that they will not
acknowledge it.</P>
<P>But as for them of Rome, 'tis quite otherwi&s;e. For
the adoration of the Euchari&s;t is a con&s;equence of their
doctrine concerning this point both <HI>de jure</HI> and <HI>de
facto,</HI> that is, it plainly follows from it, and they expre&s;ly
profe&s;&s;e and practi&s;e it.</P>
<P>1. <HI>De jure; it follows from it:</HI> For if the &s;ubject
<PB N="37" REF="43">
which we call the <HI>Sacrament of the Euchari&s;t,</HI> be in its
&s;ub&s;tance not bread (as we believe) but the body of
Chri&s;t (as they hold) 'tis evident that men both may
and ought to adore it, &s;eeing that the body of Chri&s;t is
a &s;ubject adorable. And then it follows from it</P>
<P>2. <HI>De facto; they practi&s;e it.</HI> For who knows not,
that there is not any one Article in all the <HI>Romane re|ligion,</HI>
which is profe&s;&s;ed more publickly, pre&s;&s;ed more
&s;everely, exerci&s;ed more devoutly, then this <HI>of adoring
the Ho&s;t?</HI></P>
<P>Since then they hold this article both <HI>de jure,</HI> ac|cording
to the plain con&s;equences of their belief in the
point of the Euchari&s;t: and <HI>de facto,</HI> in their confe&s;|&s;ions,
and practi&s;es; and That the Lutherans on the
contrary hold them not, neither in one manner nor the
other, neither <HI>in the&s;i,</HI> nor <HI>hypothe&s;i;</HI> 'Tis cleare, That
our bearing with the latter, without &s;eparating from
them for the diver&s;itie that is between them and us about
the point of the <HI>Euchari&s;t;</HI> doth no way inferre that we
&s;hould do as much with the former.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="10" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. X. That the dignitie and excellency of the Eu|chari&s;t,
doth not hinder it from being a
grievous and deadly offen&s;e to adore it, if it
be bread in &s;ub&s;tance as we believe.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> BUt you'l &s;ay, That you e&s;teem it a rude
compari&s;on to liken the adoration, which
the Church of Rome gives the Euchari&s;t, to the &s;er|vices
that the profane <HI>Pagans</HI> or debauched <HI>I&s;raelites</HI>
gave to <HI>mere creatures.</HI> For they adored idols, whereas
the Euchari&s;t is a divine Sacrament. So that it &s;eems an
abu&s;e of the Scripture to &s;care us with tho&s;e threats and
cur&s;es that it denounceth again&s;t &s;uch kind of people;
&s;eeing the object which they &s;erved was &s;o different
<PB N="38" REF="44">
from that which Rome will have us to adore. We con|fe&s;&s;e
we perform this action, but 'tis to one of the In&s;ti|tutions
of our Ma&s;ter, and for you to equall that and
compare it with an idol, 'Tis very unbe&s;eeming.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Thanks, be to <HI>God,</HI> we have a clean other opi|nion
of the Euchari&s;t. We hold it (as it is indeed) a
very <HI>holy</HI> Sacrament of the body and bloud of our <HI>Lord,</HI>
to be one of the mo&s;t precious in&s;truments of his grace,
which being lawfully and rightly celebrated, communi|cateth
to us all the trea&s;ures of heaven, the fle&s;h and
bloud of Chri&s;t, the pardon of our &s;innes, the peace of
our con&s;ciences, the &s;anctification of our &s;ouls, and the
right to a ble&s;&s;ed immortalitie. Farre be it from us to
give it the profane and infamous name of an <HI>idol.</HI> We
will not &s;ay, that it is &s;imply and onely bread: and if any
of us do chance to &s;peak &s;o, in &s;aying that 'tis <HI>bread,</HI> he
means in regard of the &s;ub&s;tance of the thing, not in re|gard
of its vertue or dignity; in regard of which we be|lieve
that it is quite another thing from bread. We
&s;hould take the word in the &s;ame &s;en&s;e that Gregory
Ny&s;&s;en doth on the like &s;ubject, who &s;peaking of the
<HI>water in Bapti&s;me [Orat. in Bapt. Chri&s;t. p. 803. tom.</HI> 2.
<GAP DESC="foreign">.] &s;aith, <HI>That it is
nothing el&s;e but water,</HI> he means in its nature. For in
the grace, 'tis another thing be&s;ide water, and both the
Scriptures teach it to be &s;o, and all Chri&s;tians believe
it, and this holy Doctour particularly witne&s;&s;eth it in
divers places. <HI>[Id. ibid. p. 801. c. 4. &amp; orat. Catech. c. 33.]</HI>
We therefore do willingly give to the Sacrament all
tho&s;e advantages and re&s;pects that ju&s;tly belong to it,
and not to any idol.</P>
<P>But if this be a creature, as we believe it to be, the ex|cellence
and dignitie thereof (as great as you &s;et it forth)
will not at all excu&s;e their crime who adore it. For the
Lord forbids us to adore, not ba&s;e or vain things onely,
as onions, and the Cats of the Egyptians, and the idols
of the Pagans, which have not any &s;ub&s;i&s;tence in na|ture,
<PB N="39" REF="44">
or any where el&s;e except in their fal&s;e imaginations;
but he forbids us generally and ab&s;olutely, to adore any
creature what ever it be; whether it creep upon the
ground, or &s;hine in heaven; whether it &s;wim in the
water, or flie in the aire; animate or inanimate; vi&s;ible
or invi&s;ible; corporeall or &s;piritual; profane or &s;acred;
comprehending under the &s;ame condemnation all tho&s;e,
who wor&s;hip any creature what ever it be, as guilty of
the &s;ame crime, and &s;ubject to the &s;ame puni&s;hment.</P>
<P>And <HI>de facto,</HI> the thing is very evident; for this adora|tion
which we give to God, being an acknowledgement
of his Soveraignty, &amp; a duty like to the love which a wo|man
oweth to her lawfull husband, Who doth not per|ceive,
that it is a manife&s;t crime to give it to any other
but to him, &amp; that the differences of the &s;ubjects to which
men give it are no way con&s;iderable in this particular;
&s;eeing (though they may differ in other things) they
are all one in this, That they are <HI>not</HI> God Almighty, to
whom alone we are to give that kind of homage? The
dignity of <HI>Charles Cardinall of Bourbon,</HI> and the affini|tie
he had with the late <HI>King of France</HI> of Glorious me|mory
(being his Nephew) did not excu&s;e them who
gave him the name and honour of <HI>King,</HI> and did not
keep their fault from being a true <HI>Rebellion,</HI> and a
crime of <HI>Trea&s;on,</HI> again&s;t the Supreme Governour. And
the honour which <HI>Jo&s;eph</HI> had in the hou&s;e of Potiphar,
being his deare and be&s;t beloved &s;ervant, did not at all
ju&s;tifie the love his Mi&s;tre&s;&s;e bore him. Who ever &s;he
be that yields to <HI>another</HI> man the affection &s;he ow's to
none but to her <HI>husband,</HI> renders her &s;elf manife&s;tly
guilty of adultery. 'Tis not needfull to know <HI>who</HI> it is
that &s;he loveth: 'Tis enough for her condemnation that
it is <HI>not her husband.</HI> If then the thing to which you
render the adoration of <HI>latria,</HI> be any thing but the
Great <HI>God,</HI> Creatour of the univer&s;e, you are extremely
blameable for it. It matters not a whit what el&s;e the na|ture
or the dignity thereof be. What ever it is, its not
<PB N="40" REF="45">
being <HI>God</HI> (to whom alone you owe &s;uch a &s;ervice) is
enough for your condemnation and conviction of ha|ving
committed Trea&s;on again&s;t the Maje&s;tie of your
Soveraigne, of having violated the promi&s;e of &s;acred
wedlock, which he hath vouch&s;afed to contract with
you. You are evidently a rebell, and a faithle&s;&s;e &s;pou&s;e,
and will never be able to avoid the infamy and the pu|ni&s;hments
due to this crime, unle&s;&s;e you wa&s;h your fault
with tears of a reall and &s;ad repentance.</P>
<P>If it were otherwi&s;e, a man might quit (or at lea&s;t
excu&s;e) them that adored <HI>the Sun,</HI> the eye of the world,
the mo&s;t beautifull and expre&s;&s;e image of the Creatour
that can be beheld in all nature, His punctual and ad|mirable
&s;ervant, which bears &s;o clearly upon it &s;elf the
marks of his power and wi&s;dome. A man might then
defend the &s;ervice that the <HI>I&s;raelites</HI> gave to the <HI>brazen
&s;erpent,</HI> offering thereto incen&s;e; &s;ince it was not an
Idol which they &s;erved, but a precious memoriall of the
bounty of God, an in&s;trument of his goodne&s;&s;e, and in
&s;ome &s;en&s;e a Sacrament of his grace. A man might then
maintain the action of the <HI>Collyridians,</HI> who adored the
<HI>Ble&s;&s;ed Virgin;</HI> &s;ince the object of their &s;ervice was not
a <HI>Pagan Idol,</HI> but the mo&s;t Holy and mo&s;t excellent of
all women, the <HI>Mother</HI> of our Common <HI>Lord,</HI> the <HI>pavi|lion</HI>
wherein he vouch&s;afed to lodge his glory, the <HI>&s;a|cred
ve&s;&s;ell</HI> where he did &s;o &s;pread abroad his graces. A
man might ju&s;tifie the Soveraigne &s;ervice that the <HI>A|rians</HI>
gave to their <HI>Chri&s;t:</HI> for though they made him a
creature, yet they &s;uppo&s;ed him the mo&s;t noble and
mo&s;t excellent of all the creation, and the in&s;trument
that the Eternall Father made u&s;e of, for the <HI>creation</HI>
fir&s;t, and then the <HI>redemption</HI> of the world.</P>
<P>But the honour of the&s;e things, and the dignity they
have in coming &s;o neare our Lord and great Ma&s;ter,
hinders not tho&s;e who adore them from being con|demned
as wor&s;hippers of the creature. For who knows
not, that God in the Scriptures, Job xxxi. 26, 27, 28.
<PB N="41" REF="45">
Deut. iiii. 19. &amp; xvii. 2, 3. puts tho&s;e who wor&s;hip the
<HI>Sunne</HI> and <HI>Moon</HI> and <HI>Starres</HI> in the rank of the mo&s;t no|ted
<HI>Idolaters?</HI> and &s;trictly forbids His people to imitate
them? And who knows not, that the good King <HI>Eze|chiah</HI>
did &s;o extremely abhorre the &s;ervice of the <HI>brazen
&s;erpent,</HI> that to aboli&s;h the u&s;e of it, he was not afraid
to break the &s;acred monument of the great miracles of
God, calling it by way of loathing, 2 Kings xxiii. 5, 11.
<HI>Nehu&s;tan,</HI> that is, a vain and unprofitable piece of
bra&s;&s;e. And then for the <HI>Collyridians,</HI> the re&s;pect which
we give to the <HI>Ble&s;&s;ed Virgin,</HI> whom tho&s;e &s;uper&s;titious
women took for the object of their folly, hindered not
the Church then from calling it <HI>[Epiph. Haer. 79.
p. 1058. &amp;</HI> 1061. <GAP DESC="foreign">.] <HI>an here&s;ie,</HI> or <HI>a &s;ect of &s;uch as made idols,</HI>
and to alledge again&s;t them all the precepts and ex|amples
which the Scripture giveth us for the adoration
of the <HI>one &s;ole God.</HI> The dignity that the Arians attri|buted
to their imaginary Chri&s;t, hindered not the mo&s;t
holy Doctours of the Primitive Church <HI>[Athana&s;. O|rat.
1. contra Ari. tom. 1. p. 297. B. &amp; 314. A. &amp; orat. 3.
p. 385. C. &amp; orat. 4. p. 468. Cyril. in Joh. l. 9. c. 41.
p. 471. A. &amp; The&s;aur. l. 2. c. 1. p. 30. C. &amp; l. 12. c. 4.
&amp;c.]</HI> from accu&s;ing them of <HI>Idolatry,</HI> and calling them
<HI>Idolaters;</HI> becau&s;e as excellent as they imagined that
<HI>Chri&s;t</HI> whom they believed on, they thought him but a
creature, and by con&s;equence could not render to him the
&s;ervice due to the Deitie, without manife&s;tly adoring a
creature.</P>
<P>The vanity of this pretence doth yet more plainly
appear, in that the mo&s;t excellent &s;ervants of God have
refu&s;ed that adoration which &s;ometimes hath been
yielded to them. For even as <HI>Jo&s;eph</HI> was &s;eized with a
ju&s;t horrour, &s;eeing the ungodly lu&s;t of his <HI>Mi&s;tre&s;&s;e;</HI>
and oppo&s;ed her de&s;igne, who would have given him
that which &s;he owed onely to her husband; and not be|ing
able by his grave and wi&s;e Remon&s;trances to quench
<PB N="42" REF="46">
her ba&s;e heat, he fled away from her, e&s;teeming it a ble|mi&s;h
to him to be in &s;uch <HI>uncha&s;t hands;</HI> &s;hewing &s;uf|ficiently,
that he held this attempt of hers to be a great
abomination. Semblably, the faithfull &s;ervants of God
have often very rudely thru&s;t away them, who would
have given Them that &s;ervice, which is due onely to
their Ma&s;ter; and have taken &s;uch honour in very great
indignation. <HI>S. John</HI> in a tran&s;portation of Spirit, be|ing
twice ca&s;t at the feet of an <HI>Angel</HI> (who di&s;covered
to him the &s;ecrets of heaven) intending to adore him,
was <HI>twice</HI> taken up. That Sacred <HI>Mini&s;ter</HI> of God would
by no means con&s;ent, that S. <HI>John</HI> &s;hould render unto
him that honour; <HI>Take heed,</HI> &s;aith he, Revel. xix. 10.
&amp; xxii. 8, 9. <HI>that thou do it not, I am thy fellow &s;ervant,
and of thy brethren which bear witne&s;&s;e to Je&s;us, Adore
God.</HI> In the &s;ame &s;ort did S. <HI>Peter</HI> the Apo&s;tle of our
Lord take up <HI>Cornelius</HI> the Centurion, when he was at
his feet, adoring him. <HI>Stand up,</HI> &s;aid he, Act. x. 26.
<HI>I al&s;o am a man.</HI> In like manner S. <HI>Paul</HI> and S. <HI>Bar|nabas,</HI>
&s;eeing that the Lycaonians would offer them
tho&s;e &s;acrifices, which they were wont to offer to
their Gods, took &s;uch a di&s;ple&s;ure, that they rent their
garments; crying out, Act. xiiii. 13, 14, 15. <HI>Sirs, Why
do ye thus? We al&s;o are men, &s;ubject to the &s;ame pa&s;&s;ions
with you.</HI> And we need not doubt, but that the &s;unne,
moon, and &s;tarres, and other inanimate creatures would
reject tho&s;e &s;ervices, which are given them by the Pa|gans,
with the like indignation, were their nature ca|pable
of it. <HI>[Et &s;i indignari pote&s;t, acerbius indignatur
contra fals&ograve; honorantem qu&agrave;m contra contumelio&s;um</HI> &s;aith
S. Augu&s;tine <HI>T. 8. fol. 216. in P&s;al. 93. praef.] Could the
Sun be angry, he would chafe le&s;&s;e to &s;ee him&s;elf ill u&s;ed,
then fal&s;ely honoured by mankind.</HI> And let them not
here object, That Gods people have &s;ometime wor&s;hip|ped
Angels; It being cleare out of the Scripture, and ac|knowledged
by all Chri&s;tians, That at &s;uch times either
the <HI>Angel</HI> adored was the <HI>Sonne of God,</HI> who under the
<PB N="43" REF="46">
Old Te&s;tament appeared &s;ometimes to the Fathers in
&s;hape of an Angel; or if it was a <HI>creature,</HI> That the ado|ration
given to him by the people of God, was an ho|nour
farre below that which we give to God, and that
which the Romani&s;ts commonly call <HI>the adoration of la|tria.</HI>
Otherwi&s;e they &s;hould openly have broken the
fir&s;t and principall article of the Law, which &s;o &s;evere|ly
forbids giving the other &s;ervice (adoration) to any
but to God alone.</P>
<P>As for tho&s;e pa&s;&s;ages of the Bible, which tell us, in
the Old <HI>vulgar Latine</HI> tran&s;lation P&s;al. xcix. (<HI>Lat.</HI> xcviii.)
5. That the <HI>Ark</HI> of the Ancient Covenant <HI>might be
adored,</HI> or in effect that it <HI>was</HI> &s;o. Either we mu&s;t &s;ay
(as our Authours do) that the People of God were
wont to pro&s;trate them&s;elves before the Ark (the &s;ervice
of God being in tho&s;e dayes to be made particularly to|wards
that place where the Ark was) or That this ado|ration
of the Ark was a kind of honour le&s;&s;e then that
of <HI>latria,</HI> which is due to none but God; or we may
have recour&s;e to the &s;ubtility of S. <HI>Augu&s;tine,</HI> who in
&s;everall places under&s;tands by <HI>the foot&s;tool of God,</HI> the
humanity of J. Chri&s;t, per&s;onally united to the God|head,
and by con&s;equent truly and properly adorable;
and in conclu&s;ion, we may rather admit any interpreta|tion,
then <HI>overthrow</HI> the foundation of <HI>piety</HI> and <HI>religion,</HI>
by granting that the highe&s;t wor&s;hip is to be given to
any but the <HI>Highe&s;t God.</HI> For, as for that <HI>relative</HI> and
<HI>mediate adoration,</HI> which &s;ome of the Divines of the
Church of Rome talk of upon this occa&s;ion, 'twill do
us no good, and that for <HI>three</HI> rea&s;ons.</P>
<P>1. Becau&s;e this di&s;tinction of <HI>ab&s;olute and relative</HI>
&s;ervice, <HI>mediate and immediate</HI> (as they &s;peak) is an
invention of their own brain and not able to &s;atisfie
con&s;cience. For though the honour which we give to
Emba&s;&s;adours, or to other repre&s;entations, are referred
indeed to the per&s;ons whom they repre&s;ent; whence it
comes to pa&s;&s;e that a Prince is honoured in his Vice|gerents,
<PB N="44" REF="47">
and God in his Mini&s;ters, and in his Sacra|ments;
yet neverthele&s;&s;e the honour which we give to
one, differs farre from that which we give to the re&s;t.
This is evident in <HI>civil conver&s;ation.</HI> For what King
would &s;uffer &s;ubjects to give the name of King or So|veraigne
to his Mini&s;ters and Officers, under colour
that they repre&s;ent his Maje&s;tie, and exerci&s;e his Au|thoritie
every one in their charge. The re&s;pect which
we give them redounds indeed to their Ma&s;ter, I con|fe&s;&s;e
it, but 'tis clean another kind of honour then that
which we render <HI>Him.</HI> 'Tis iu&s;t &s;o in the Sacraments of
Religion. For example, the reverence wherewith we re|ceive
Holy Bapti&s;me, redoundeth doubtle&s;&s;e to the glo|ry
of J. Chri&s;t, who in&s;tituted it, and of the H. Gho&s;t
who&s;e efficacy it repre&s;ents. Now if a Chri&s;tian &s;hould
hereupon, pretending this, affirm, That a man might
lawfully <HI>adore bapti&s;me</HI> with the &s;ame adoration that is
due to J. Chri&s;t or to the H. Gho&s;t, Would not he be
ridiculous even to our Adver&s;aries?</P>
<P>But we need not further examine this di&s;tinction in
this place. For Secondly, if you look to the bottome of
it, Rome doth not make u&s;e of it in this di&s;pute, &s;he
would have us render to the Euchari&s;t an adoration not
mediate, but <HI>immediate;</HI> not relative but <HI>ab&s;olute;</HI> and
which terminateth in the &s;ame &s;ubject, which is <HI>there</HI>
pre&s;ent under the &s;pecies of bread and wine; thinking
that it is really and per&s;onally <HI>the Sonne of God.</HI> So
that though the u&s;e of this di&s;tinction might ex|cu&s;e
the &s;ervice given to a creature, yet it will never
&s;erve to ju&s;tifie that which They would have us give to
the Romane Sacrament, which they pretend is per&s;onal|ly
the Creato<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">r.</P>
<P>Finally, though others might with &s;ome rea&s;on u&s;e
the di&s;tinction, yet 'tis cleare, That 'tis of no u&s;e to us,
who e&s;teem it vain and without any foundation, who
hold all <HI>them</HI> really guilty of <HI>Creature-wor&s;hip,</HI> and heirs
to all the <HI>cur&s;es</HI> which God threatens again&s;t it, who
<PB N="45" REF="47">
(under any pretence what&s;oever) render to any crea|ture
that Soveraigne kind of homage and &s;ervice, which
is due to none but the Creatour; whether they termi|nate
their adoration in the object it &s;elf which they
adore, or whether they let it pa&s;&s;e to &s;ome other where|to
it hath reference. As men hold that Woman in all
rea&s;on guilty of adultery, who &s;hall cau&s;e any but her
lawfull husband to &s;hare of her love and marriage bed;
though &s;he may plead for her &s;elf, That the de&s;igne in
committing &s;uch an act, or the cau&s;e whereby &s;he was
moved, or the manner of her proceeding was <HI>this</HI> or
<HI>that,</HI> The bu&s;ine&s;&s;e is no way capable of being ju&s;tified.</P>
<P>Thus I hope, it appeareth cleare enough, that if the
Euchari&s;t be truly <HI>bread</HI> (as we believe it) neither the
dignitie of its u&s;e in religion, nor the reference that it
hath to the body and bloud of <HI>Chri&s;t Je&s;us,</HI> will &s;ave
us, either from the crime of having <HI>adored</HI> a creature, or
from the puni&s;hments and cur&s;es that &s;uch a deed de|&s;erveth;
if believing as we do, we &s;hould dare to give
that &s;ervice and reverence to it, which the Romane
Church commandeth us.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="11" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XI. That the opinion which tho&s;e of the Romane
Church have touching the Euchari&s;t, ex|cu&s;eth
not &s;uch as adore it.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> BUt you'l &s;ay, That &s;he believes the Sacra|ment
which &s;he adoreth is not a creature but
<HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t,</HI> the Lord of glory; a &s;ubject really to be
<HI>adored,</HI> becau&s;e he is <HI>God</HI> Eternall, of the &s;ame e&s;&s;ence
with the Father. So that if it be &s;uppo&s;ed an errour,
'twill not amount to be criminall, or a mortall &s;inne,
becau&s;e the &s;ubject which the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> adoreth
de&s;erves, as all Chri&s;tians confe&s;&s;e, to be adored, if it be
really (what &s;he thinks it to be) <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="46" REF="48">
<HI>An&s;w.</HI> But who is there that doth not &s;ee, if he ob|&s;erve,
Fir&s;t, That this con&s;ideration is <HI>fal&s;e</HI> and vain
in it &s;elf; and Secondly, that though it were true, yet it
were <HI>nothing to the purpo&s;e?</HI></P>
<P>Fir&s;t, it is fal&s;e. And 'tis plain that the Romani&s;ts
them&s;elves think this excu&s;e a <HI>trifle,</HI> &s;ince determining
(though very ra&s;hly) that the Euchari&s;t was in all ages
adored by Chri&s;tians, they &s;ay, <HI>That no man can doubt,
but that, if the Euchari&s;t were bread, all the Church for
M D. yeares were idolatrous. And &s;o that as many of
our Ance&s;tours as adored the Sacrament were all damned,
adoring bread in &s;tead of the Creatour. Joh. Fi&s;her Roff.
lib. 1. contra Oecolamp. cap. 2. fol.</HI> 3. b. And their ar|gument
were good, but that 'tis built on a fal&s;e &s;uppo|&s;all,
<HI>viz.</HI> That the Church for the fir&s;t fifteen hundred
yeares adored the Euchari&s;t. For if the e&s;timate of a
religious wor&s;hip be to be taken from the opinion that
tho&s;e which u&s;e it have of it, ye &s;hall &s;carce find any,
which either can be called ju&s;tly an <HI>adoration of the crea|ture,</HI>
or condemned in conclu&s;ion, as forbidden by our
<HI>Lord.</HI> The <HI>Pagans</HI> will by this means pre&s;erve them|&s;elves
from that crime, which S. <HI>Paul</HI> chargeth them
with, of having <HI>adored the Creature,</HI> Rom. i. 25. and
<HI>&s;erved them which by nature are no Gods,</HI> Gal. iv. 8. For
they will plead, That they believed that <HI>Jupiter</HI> (to
whom they gave &s;overaigne adoration) was the great
<HI>God,</HI> creatour and pre&s;erver of the world, <HI>the Father of
Gods and men,</HI> as their <HI>Poets</HI> ordinarily term him. And
no man can denie, but that a per&s;on of &s;uch a qualitie
de&s;erveth adoration: and &s;o, according to the&s;e prin|ciples,
no man &s;hould accu&s;e them of idolatry, for giving
adoration to a &s;ubject which they thought de&s;erved it.
And if the I&s;raelites believed, that the golden calf was
really the <HI>God which brought them out of Egypt,</HI> Exod.
xxxii. (as the mo&s;t part of the Romane Divines &s;eem to
hold) they might with the &s;ame colour and &s;hift excu&s;e
them&s;elves, for that wor&s;hip which they did to <HI>it</HI> in the
<PB N="47" REF="48">
wilderne&s;&s;e, &amp; &s;ay that they took it for their <HI>Lord.</HI> They
might have affirmed, That it was their <HI>ignorance</HI> to take
their molten image for a God, but not <HI>idolatry</HI> to adore
it, having once impo&s;ed upon it that name. The Col|lyridians
that adored the B. Virgin, as we &s;aid even
now, would have been able by this means to defend
them&s;elves again&s;t S. <HI>Epiphanius</HI> (who taxeth them
expre&s;ly of idolatrie) if they did but think, as Card.
<HI>Baronius</HI> &s;uppo&s;eth, that the B. Virgin was really a
Deity, and that &s;he had nothing humane in her. For
they would have &s;aid, &s;uppo&s;e it were an errour to think
the Ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Virgin</HI> a <HI>Godde&s;&s;e;</HI> yet the &s;ervice which
We render her, who are of this opinion, cannot be &s;o
ill interpreted, as to be <HI>Idolatry;</HI> &s;eeing that &s;uch a &s;er|vice
is due to that nature which they attribute to Her.
S. <HI>Augu&s;tine</HI> in his preface to his Sermons on the xciii.
P&s;alme, <HI>p. 216. I. Tom.</HI> 8. &s;peaks of certain hereticks
that honoured the <HI>Sun,</HI> and &s;aid, <HI>That it was J. Chri&s;t.</HI>
Such may in the &s;ame manner excu&s;e the &s;ervice that
they rendred to this great luminarie; and &s;ay, that they
rendred it not to a creature, but that they believed the
&s;ubject to which they rendred it was <HI>J. Chri&s;t.</HI> Yet ne|verthele&s;&s;e
we &s;ee, that the Spirit of God calleth conti|nually
the &s;ervices rendred by Pagans to <HI>Jupiter,</HI> and by
the I&s;raelites to the golden <HI>calf, Idolatries,</HI> and tho&s;e
who rendred them <HI>adorers of creatures and idolaters.</HI>
And <HI>Epiphanius</HI> following that &s;tyle, calleth the Colly|ridians
(as we ob&s;erved even now) <HI>a &s;ect of &s;uch as
made idols,</HI> and their opinion <HI>an here&s;ie.</HI> And S. <HI>Augu|&s;tine</HI>
blameth the honour, that &s;ome whom he &s;peaketh
of gave to the Sunne; he e&s;teeming it a contempt ca&s;t
upon the Creatour. And in truth who &s;ees not, that
this errour we now &s;peak of, is but a vain pretence, and
&s;uch as can no wayes excu&s;e them that render divine &s;er|vices
to creatures? For if it were not, there would be
no &s;inne, no crime &s;o abominable, but it might be com|mitted
and excu&s;ed without errour. <HI>Rebells</HI> having
<PB N="48" REF="49">
&s;haken off the yoke of their lawfull King, and &s;ubmit|ted
to a <HI>Tyrant,</HI> and adhered to his Con&s;piracy, might
&s;ay, They thought this was the true Governour of the
Nation, and con&s;equently pretend, That they who cal|led
them <HI>Rebells</HI> and <HI>Traitours,</HI> did them a deal of
wrong. And &s;o we may &s;ay the &s;ame. I confe&s;&s;e, That
ignorance excu&s;eth, where it is again&s;t a mans will;
when the &s;ubject which we mi&s;conceive is &s;o concealed,
that what&s;oever de&s;ire we have, or pains we take to find
out the truth, 'tis not po&s;&s;ible for us to di&s;cover it: As
if one &s;hould &s;uppo&s;e a Subject &s;o like his Prince, that
'tis impo&s;&s;ible to di&s;tingui&s;h one from the other; in
this ca&s;e &s;uch would be excu&s;able as &s;hould give him the
honour and &s;ervice due to their true Soveraigne. But
where the ignorance of the object proceedeth not from
the ob&s;curitie and difficultie of the thing, but from the
malice or negligence of the man, 'tis &s;o farre from ex|cu&s;ing
the fault, that it aggravateth it extremely. Such
was the errour of tho&s;e who during the <HI>holy League,</HI>
took the <HI>Cardinal</HI> of <HI>Bourbon</HI> for the true <HI>King</HI> of
France: meerly their pa&s;&s;ion and not any ob&s;curitie
that was in the thing, made them ignorant of that
which was as clear as any thing in the world, viz. That
<HI>Henry</HI> the <HI>Great</HI> was the lawfull <HI>King</HI> of the Realm.
So that this errour, according to all laws divine and hu|mane,
hindered not their crime from being great, de|&s;erving
the name and puni&s;hment of a true <HI>rebellion.</HI>
Such, very &s;uch, and indeed le&s;&s;e tolerable is the errour
of tho&s;e who take a creature for the Creatour, and con|&s;equently
adore it, as if it were really He.</P>
<P>For what, I be&s;eech you, did the Pagans &s;ee in their
Jupiter, or the I&s;raelites in their golden calf that obli|ged
them to believe one or t'other to be the Soveraigne
God, who made the heavens, and pre&s;erves mankind by
his providence. Nay on the contrary, what did they
meet with in tho&s;e objects, that did not in a high and
evident manner declare, That they were nothing le&s;&s;e
<PB N="49" REF="49">
then <HI>that great Divinitie,</HI> whereof the&s;e mad men gave
them onely the name and the &s;ervice? And what cau&s;e
can the &s;uper&s;titious Collyridians alledge, why they
&s;hould be ignorant of that, which <HI>rea&s;on</HI> and the H. <HI>Scri|ptures</HI>
witne&s;&s;e &s;o clearly, <HI>viz.</HI> That the holy Virgin is a
woman and not a Godde&s;&s;e? or Tho&s;e that honoured the
Sunne, why they e&s;teemed, J. <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> to be truly the
<HI>Sunne?</HI> Take them out of their pa&s;&s;ion, and they had
nothing either in the nature of the thing, or in H. Scri|pture,
that could bring them into &s;o ridiculous an er|rour.
The ignorance of all the&s;e things then was vi&s;i|bly
<HI>affected and voluntary,</HI> bred from their vice onely,
and not from any ob&s;curitie of the things which they
were ignorant of: whence it followeth, that 'tis &s;o farre
from being able to excu&s;e or dimini&s;h the impiety of
&s;uch &s;ervices; that contrariwi&s;e 'tis one of their crimes,
for which God will enter into judgement with them,
and will ask them hereafter, why they were ignorant of
that, which was &s;o clearly and graciou&s;ly made manife&s;t.</P>
<P>Now to apply what hath been &s;aid to our pre&s;ent
purpo&s;e. If the Sacrament of the Euchari&s;t be truly
bread in &s;ub&s;tance (as we firmly believe it to be, upon
the credit of our <HI>&s;en&s;e,</HI> of our <HI>rea&s;on,</HI> and of the <HI>word</HI> of
<HI>God</HI>) I &s;ay, That the contrary opinion, which tho&s;e
of the Church of Rome hold, thinking it to be not
bread, but the <HI>Lord of the world;</HI> doth not at all hinder
that &s;ervice, which they render to it in the con&s;equence
of their belief, from being truly the <HI>adoration of a crea|ture,</HI>
and de&s;erving that name and rank which the
H. Scriptures give ordinarily to &s;uch &s;ervices. I con|fe&s;&s;e,
that while our Lord was upon earth, pre&s;uppo&s;ing
that at His being in Judea, &s;ome per&s;on had re&s;embled
Him much in vi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">age, and coming to one of the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI>
had been <HI>mi&s;taken</HI> for Him, and &s;o one had adored this
man in &s;tead of our Saviour; In &s;uch a ca&s;e, this mi&s;|take
might have excu&s;ed the action; and there would
have been a deal of rigour in making that pa&s;&s;e for a
<PB N="50" REF="50">
criminall &s;ervice, as <HI>adoration of the creature.</HI> And if
the Ho&s;t (as they call it) were really to be adored, as
they believe it is, I confe&s;&s;e, that he, who &s;hould adore
one <HI>not con&s;ecrated,</HI> (or con&s;ecrated <HI>without intention</HI>)
&s;et before him upon the Altar, could not ju&s;tly be con|demned
for having adored it: becau&s;e it was not his
pa&s;&s;ion or not heeding, that cau&s;ed this mi&s;take; but the
likene&s;&s;e and extreme uniformitie that was between the
one and the other, they being not di&s;tingui&s;hable one
from another by any apparent mark. But &s;uppo&s;e that
the Euchari&s;t be not J. <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> really; the errour then
of them, who take it to be <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> comes all from pa&s;|&s;ion,
and not from any thing that is without them. For
in your con&s;cience, what <HI>&s;imilitude</HI> can you di&s;cern be|tween
the&s;e two things, that &s;hould make us take them
<HI>one</HI> for the <HI>other?</HI> or what is there that doth not oblige
us mo&s;t firmly to believe, that the one is not the other?
The one is a round thing, without &s;en&s;e and motion,
and altogether uniform; the other hath a humane bo|dy,
organized, and furni&s;hed with &s;en&s;e and other orna|ments,
even as ours. The one is bread, which we have
&s;een kneaded, and made: the other a <HI>divine</HI> &s;ub&s;tance
formed of the fle&s;h of a <HI>Virgin,</HI> above MDC yeares
agoe. One is broken in our hands, and brui&s;ed between
our teeth, and con&s;umed in our &s;tomacks, the other is of
an immortall nature, glorious, and impa&s;&s;ible. I omit
other differences.</P>
<P>But if I had nothing el&s;e but the doctrine of the
<HI>Apo&s;tles,</HI> and the belief of <HI>all Chri&s;tians,</HI> That our
Lord is in heaven, whence he &s;hall come at the la&s;t day;
and the forewarning that he gave us Him&s;elf, to beware
of being &s;urprized, by them that &s;ay, <HI>Lo here is Chri&s;t,
or there, He is in the de&s;art, or &s;ecret clo&s;et,</HI> Matth. xxiv.
26. Is not this enough to render all errour inexcu&s;able
in this particular? For what will they be able to an&s;wer
our <HI>Lord</HI> again&s;t &s;uch cleare marks, and &s;uch expre&s;&s;e
forewarnings; when He &s;hall demand of them a rea|&s;on
<PB N="51" REF="50">
of this great mi&s;take? To <HI>men</HI> I wonder not that
they alledge, <HI>This is my body;</HI> but to the <HI>Great God,</HI>
who &s;eeth the &s;ecrets of the hearts (and in &s;o glorious
and cleare a light) I am confident they will never dare
to bring for them&s;elves &s;o weak a defen&s;e. For &s;ince they
have heard S. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;ay oft, that the <HI>Church is the body
of Chri&s;t,</HI> without believing thereupon that the Church
is <HI>tran&s;ub&s;tantiated;</HI> or <HI>not</HI> a creature but <HI>God,</HI> be|cau&s;e
'tis called <HI>the body of Chri&s;t,</HI> 1 Cor. xii. 27. Eph.
i. 23. And if the honour that the Church hath to be
called the body of Chri&s;t, doth not keep man from be|lieving
that it were impietie (and not Religion) to
give to the <HI>Church</HI> the adoration of <HI>latria;</HI> how will
that hold good which they &s;ay, That they think them|&s;elves
nece&s;&s;arily obliged to adore the Euchari&s;t, becau&s;e
it is called <HI>the body of Chri&s;t?</HI> If &s;uch phra&s;es of &s;peech
be enough to ground that &s;ervice upon, which they give
to the Euchari&s;t, they mu&s;t then al&s;o adore the <HI>rock,</HI>
whence Mo&s;es brought water in the wilderne&s;&s;e; &s;ince
S. Paul &s;aith, That that was <HI>Chri&s;t:</HI> And <HI>the body of
the faithfull;</HI> 1 Cor. x. 4. 1 Cor. vi. 15. &s;ince he &s;aith,
That they are the members of Chri&s;t: and tho&s;e here|ticks
taxed by S. Augu&s;tine would be excu&s;able for ha|ving
adored the <HI>&s;unne;</HI> &s;ince the Scripture &s;ometimes
gives that name to the Ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Je&s;us.</HI> If they'l confe&s;&s;e
that the&s;e phra&s;es of &s;peech did not excu&s;e that abu&s;e,
they mu&s;t likewi&s;e confe&s;&s;e that the words of our Savi|our,
<HI>This is my body,</HI> do not &s;uffice to authorize that &s;er|vice
which they give to the Euchari&s;t.</P>
<P>All this they grant &s;ufficiently, when their great
Doctours confe&s;&s;e, That they do not build their opini|on
upon <HI>tho&s;e words:</HI> and grant, they &s;ee no rea&s;on why
they &s;hould not take the words in that &s;en&s;e, which we
Prote&s;tants take them in. <HI>[Cajet. in 3. Thom. q. 75.
art. 1.]</HI> From the &s;ole Authoritie of the Church (that
is to &s;ay, in their language, of the Pope and his Coun|cel)
they deduce their tran&s;ub&s;tantiation. This Au|thoritie
<PB N="52" REF="51">
is the onely foundation of the adoration of the
Ho&s;t, which they can no way collect but from the will
of the <HI>Romane</HI> Church. So it appeareth, That laying a&s;ide
the pa&s;&s;ion of <HI>Rome,</HI> there is nothing in heaven, or in
earth, or in the &s;en&s;e of men, or in the Scriptures of
God, which &s;hould (I will not &s;ay <HI>oblige</HI>) but any way
<HI>allure</HI> them to be ignorant, that the Euchari&s;t is bread.
So that all ignorance that they can pretend, is purely
affected and voluntary; and &s;o not able to excu&s;e the
&s;ervice, which they render to the Ho&s;t.</P>
<P>To which adde, that it excu&s;eth them &s;o much the
le&s;&s;e, Becau&s;e the que&s;tion here is concerning the <HI>highe&s;t</HI>
adoration, the mo&s;t holy and &s;ingular act in all religion,
which by con&s;equence a man &s;hould give to none but
to Him, whom he knows mo&s;t a&s;&s;uredly to be God, and
the Saviour of our &s;ouls. Nor is it enough, to have an
opinion or &s;u&s;picion of this. It mu&s;t be certain. For
'tis ju&s;t as the <HI>conjugall bed,</HI> to which a <HI>woman</HI> mu&s;t re|ceive
none, but whom &s;he <HI>knows</HI> very <HI>certainly</HI> to be
her <HI>husband.</HI> If &s;he have any apparent doubt, that it is
not <HI>he</HI> in realitie, and if notwith&s;tanding this &s;he re|ceive
him, &s;he thereby forfeits her troth. And here I
cannot but commend a &s;aying I read (in <HI>Apothegm.
Anachor. Aegypt. lib. 15. cap. 70. Bibl. Patrum tom. 9.
p.</HI> 286.) of an old <HI>Egyptian Monk;</HI> who, when one
appeared to him in the re&s;emblance of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> was &s;o
farre from adoring what he &s;aw, that he would neither
view it, nor hearken to it: but &s;hutting his eyes, &s;aid,
<HI>I &s;hall &s;ee Chri&s;t in heaven; 'Tis enough for me to hope
and believe, while I am upon earth.</HI> But how? Was he
not afraid, that this refu&s;all would offend his <HI>Lord,</HI> in
ca&s;e this had been He indeed, as the light, &s;peech, &s;hape,
and other circum&s;tances obliged him to believe? Not a
a jot. For he was a&s;&s;ured, that his <HI>Lord</HI> &s;aw that this
refu&s;all proceeded, not from any want of re&s;pect toward
Him, but from a ju&s;t and rationall fear of giving
(through mi&s;take) that to another, which belonged
<PB N="53" REF="51">
to Him onely, and which he earne&s;tly de&s;ired to pre|&s;erve
inviolably for <HI>Him.</HI> A qualitie, which is &s;o farre
from offending our <HI>Lord,</HI> that it mu&s;t needs be very
plea&s;ing to Him. And in the &s;ame place (c. 71.) an
<HI>Anchoret</HI> is mentioned, who, when the Devils askt him,
whether he would &s;ee <HI>Chri&s;t;</HI> an&s;wered, <HI>Be you, and
he whom you would &s;hew me, anathema. For my part
I give heed to <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="2 letters">y Je&s;us, who &s;aid, If any &s;ay unto you,
here is Chri&s;t or there, believe him not.</HI> And to this
purpo&s;e is that, which the Egyptian Anchorets (c. 69.)
are reported oft to have &s;aid; <HI>If a true Angel appear to
thee, be not very ready to entertain him; but humble thy
&s;elf, &s;aying, I am not worthy to &s;ee an</HI> Angel <HI>while I
live in &s;inne.</HI> So that though we had &s;ome rea&s;on to
think <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> were pre&s;ent; yet 'twere good to refrain,
and not <HI>adore</HI> him, when we are not in all points a&s;|&s;ured
that it is <HI>He:</HI> becau&s;e this were evidently to pro|fane
the act of adoration; which mu&s;t by no means be
given to any ra&s;hly, and at adventure. Now our ad|ver&s;aries
find nothing in all this matter, which doth
not &s;hew clearly, that the Euchari&s;t is really not the
<HI>Lord of the world,</HI> but bread. And therefore there is
farre le&s;&s;e rea&s;on, that the adoration which they give to
the <HI>Ho&s;t,</HI> &s;hould be excu&s;ed by that opinion, which they
pretend to have of it.</P>
<P>II. But then &s;econdly, Though the <HI>opinion</HI> of the
Romane Church concerning the Euchari&s;t &s;hould (as
we have proved it doth not) ju&s;tifie, or at lea&s;t excu&s;e
that adoration which they give it; yet 'tis cleare, That
to alledge that <HI>opinion</HI> of theirs here as an excu&s;e, were
nothing to the purpo&s;e. For the que&s;tion is not con|cerning
the <HI>Romani&s;ts,</HI> who profe&s;&s;e that they believe
that the Euchari&s;t is really and per&s;onally the Sonne of
God; but concerning <HI>us,</HI> who are &s;o farre from believing
it, that we have not the lea&s;t &s;u&s;picion of it; being (God
be thanked) fully per&s;waded, that the Sacrament is tru|ly
<HI>bread.</HI> And why &s;hould we not believe it &s;o? &s;ince
<PB N="54" REF="52">
our <HI>&s;en&s;es</HI> witne&s;&s;e, our <HI>rea&s;on</HI> &s;heweth, the <HI>Scriptures</HI>
teach, that it is bread; which are the three <HI>fountains</HI> of
<HI>all</HI> our knowledge; and we cannot be &s;ure of any thing,
but from one of them. Having therefore this belief of
the Euchari&s;t, how can we adore it, without rendring
our &s;elves guilty of violating all tho&s;e precepts, wherein
God hath forbidden us to adore the creatures, and in|curring
all tho&s;e deaths and cur&s;es, which he hath de|nounced
again&s;t the breach of &s;uch precepts?</P>
<P>I meddle not with other mens con&s;ciences, nor will I
take upon me to judge <HI>their</HI> actions. Almighty God
will do that one day. And I think I have &s;aid enough
to &s;hew them, that 'Tis their duty in the mean while,
to con&s;ider it &s;eriou&s;ly. I &s;peak of <HI>my &s;elf.</HI> Since <HI>my</HI> &s;oul
is per&s;waded, that the Euchari&s;t is a creature, I cannot
adore it without offending the laws of God, and over|throwing
the foundations of my own &s;alvation. And
though my per&s;wa&s;ion were fal&s;e, yet &s;ince I believe it
(and that upon &s;o many, and &s;o certain, divine and hu|mane
a&s;&s;urances) Though the Sacrament were (as it is
not) really the Lord of glory; yet 'tis cleare, That if I
&s;hall <HI>adore</HI> it believing as afore&s;aid; &s;uch my &s;ervice will
be fal&s;e and unlawfull, addre&s;&s;ed not to <HI>God,</HI> (who is
the &s;ole true and lawfull object) but to a creature,
which my imagination &s;hall through mi&s;take have &s;ub|&s;tituted
in His place. Hereupon the Ancient Church
hath con&s;tantly accu&s;ed the Arians of <HI>adoring the crea|ture,</HI>
and continually called the &s;ervice, which they
gave to Chri&s;t, <HI>idolatry and adoration of the creature:</HI>
and with very good rea&s;on. For though the <HI>Lord Je&s;us</HI>
is the true God, eternall, the Creatour of the world,
and Redeemer of the Church, and of the &s;ame &s;ub|&s;tance
with the Father; and though the adoration
which is given to Him by them, who believe Him to
be &s;uch, be a lawfull wor&s;hip, not condemned, but
approved and expre&s;&s;ely commanded in the Scripture:
yet they, who by a dete&s;table errour hold Him to be but
<PB N="55" REF="52">
a mere creature, and think that the <HI>Father</HI> made Him
of <HI>nothing</HI> (either before or after the Creation of the
world) as well as the heaven and the earth; if they
give Him the &s;ame adoration, which is due to the Fa|ther,
they do evidently be&s;tow on a creature, that which
belongs to the Creatour onely. For they addre&s;&s;e this
&s;ervice not to the true <HI>Je&s;us,</HI> coeternall and coe&s;&s;entiall
with the Father, but to a phanta&s;me of a creature for|ged
in their own brain: hereby rendring them&s;elves
guilty of a crime, &s;o often condemned and dete&s;ted by
the Lord in the Scriptures.</P>
<P>Seeing then that the truth of the <HI>word of God,</HI> and
the Authority of the <HI>Ancient Church</HI> forbids us to
adore that which we believe to be but a creature, under
peril of incurring the cur&s;es denounced by the laws of
God again&s;t tho&s;e, who rob Him of His glory and give
it to another; We mu&s;t conclude that neither the opi|nion
of the Church of Rome, nor any other con&s;ide|ration,
can exempt us from the anathemaes of Heaven,
if we adore (as our Adver&s;aries do) the Sacrament of
the Euchari&s;t, firmly believing it to be <HI>bread</HI> in &s;ub|&s;tance,
and not (as they pretend) our B. <HI>Saviour</HI> really
and per&s;onally.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="12" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XII. The errour of tho&s;e, who think they may give to
the Ho&s;t of the Church of Rome that reve|rence
which &s;he commands, without adoring.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> BUt perhaps &s;ome will grant, That we can|not
lawfully adore the Euchari&s;t, while we
are of this mind; but will &s;ay, That we may give that
wor&s;hip to the Sacrament which the Church of Rome
commands without adoring it. For they'l &s;ay, Since
you acknowledge that the Euchari&s;t is a Sacrament in|&s;tituted
by our <HI>Lord,</HI> can you not kneel at receiving it,
<PB N="56" REF="53">
and addre&s;&s;e your adoration and &s;ervice, not to the <HI>Sa|crament,</HI>
which you e&s;teem to be a creature, but to J.
<HI>Chri&s;t</HI> the authour of it, whom you believe to be the
Creatour of the Univer&s;e, as he is indeed? If one of
you &s;hould be be <HI>baptized</HI> at years of di&s;cretion, think
you that he might not receive that Sacrament on his
knees, without being blamed for <HI>adoring</HI> the water?
Nay would it not be his duty to put him&s;elf into this
re&s;pectfull po&s;ture rather then any other, to &s;hew the re|verence
which he bears to our Lord, and to the &s;eal of
the new Covenant and adoption.</P>
<P>And when your Pa&s;tors are <HI>con&s;ecrated</HI> by impo|&s;ition
of hands, do they not receive it on their knees?
Yet none thinks that they do therefore adore tho&s;e who
lay hands on them, or the &s;igne which is u&s;ed to that
end. And then why do you make &s;uch &s;cruple of bow|ing
your knees, and bending your bodies in receiving
the Euchari&s;t, a Sacrament no le&s;&s;e precious then Bap|ti&s;me,
in&s;tituted by the <HI>&s;ame</HI> Lord, and for the <HI>&s;ame</HI> end:
one to regenerate us, the other to nouri&s;h us&punc; one to help
us into the Church, the other to help us to per&s;evere?
Why are you afraid in this particular, rather then in
any other, of the crime and the puni&s;hment that attends
<HI>adoration</HI> of the Euchari&s;t?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> But though this objection have &s;ome lu&s;tre
in it, and dazleth many per&s;ons, per&s;wading them to ac|commodate
them&s;elves outwardly to the Church of
Rome, retaining in their heart the &s;ame opinion which
we hold concerning the Euchari&s;t; yet nothing can be
more weak or vain. Thanks be to God, we are not &s;o
ill taught as to &s;cruple <HI>receiving the Sacrament on our
knees.</HI> Our <HI>Brethren</HI> of <HI>England</HI> never receive it other|wi&s;e:
and when we communicate with them, we do very
ea&s;ily and readily conform our &s;elves to their order.
And 'tis held among us a matter of &s;uch indifferency,
that though we receive the Holy Supper <HI>&s;tanding,</HI> yet
we do not exclude them from the number of Brethren,
<PB N="57" REF="53">
who receive it &s;itting or <HI>kneeling.</HI> And if the Church
of Rome had required no other thing of us, then one|ly
to receive the H. Communion on our knees, I con|fe&s;&s;e
we &s;hould have had no ju&s;t cau&s;e in this particular
of &s;eparating from it, &s;ince we might with a good con|&s;cience
perform what they demand. But, alas! how <HI>&s;tu|pid</HI>
mu&s;t we be, if we believe that &s;he requireth no more
of us in this Article? how <HI>hypocriticall,</HI> if we pretend
to believe it when we do not? For all the <HI>world</HI> knows
that the Romani&s;ts require us to believe that <HI>thing,</HI>
which we &s;ee on their <HI>Altars,</HI> and between the hands of
their <HI>Prie&s;ts,</HI> to be really and in truth the eternall <HI>Sonne
of God;</HI> and That it hath, under the &s;pecies which
our &s;en&s;es &s;ee and touch, no other &s;ub&s;tance but <HI>His;</HI> and
con&s;equently commands us to adore it, to bow our &s;elves
before it, to give thereto all the humiliation of our bo|dies,
and of our &s;ouls, terminating on it the act of our
veneration, as on its true object. She deeply and plain|ly
excommunicates all &s;uch, as doubt either of the
truth of the fir&s;t of the&s;e two Articles, or of the holi|ne&s;&s;e
of the &s;econd. Ob&s;erve the Decrees and Canons
of Her Councels, <HI>Concil. Trident. Se&s;&s;.</HI> 13. the confe&s;|&s;ions
of Her Faith, the &s;ermons of Her Mini&s;ters, the
devotions of Her People, and the univer&s;all practi&s;e of
all them, who adhere to Her communion; and you
&s;hall find the&s;e two points written, graven, and im|printed
all manner of wayes, in &s;uch legible characters,
that you &s;hall &s;carce find any point of the Apo&s;tles
Creed, which &s;he confe&s;&s;eth more clearly, or which &s;he
pre&s;&s;eth more &s;everely.</P>
<P>You'l &s;ay, I am willing to honour the Sacrament but
not adore it: No, &s;aith She, you mu&s;t adore it. And
le&s;t you &s;hould pretend to hide, under that equivocall
word, any veneration le&s;&s;e then the highe&s;t (like that
which we may render to the creature, without offend|ing
the Creatour) <HI>You mu&s;t render it,</HI> &s;he &s;aith, <HI>the
wor&s;hip or &s;ervice of</HI> latria, <HI>which is due to the true God;</HI>
<PB N="58" REF="54">
Well, you'l &s;ay, but I will addre&s;&s;e this &s;ervice of <HI>latria</HI>
which &s;he requireth of me to <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t,</HI> who is in
heaven; and not to the Sacrament of his bodie, which
is upon the earth: <HI>No,</HI> &s;aith &s;he, I do not intend it
&s;o. I would have you in the veneration which you
make in communicating, to render the &s;ervice of <HI>latria</HI>
to the <HI>mo&s;t holy Sacrament. Nullus itaque dubitandi lo|cus
relinquitur, quin omnes Chri&s;ti fideles pro more in Ca|tholica
Eccle&s;ia &s;emper recepto, latriae cultum, qui vero Deo
debetur, huic Sancti&s;&s;imo Sacramento in veneratione exhi|beant.</HI>
ibid. c. 5. See, with what a deal of care &s;he hath
expre&s;&s;ed her &s;en&s;e, and excluded all others, without
leaving them the lea&s;t place? For if &s;he had &s;aid that
the faithfull &s;hould adore J. Chri&s;t in the Sacrament,
&s;uppo&s;ing the re&s;t of her doctrine had left us in doubt
of her meaning, we might yet have interpreted this
expre&s;&s;ion, as 'tis u&s;ed in the books of &s;ome of her
Doctours, viz. That in receiving the Euchari&s;t, we
&s;hould adore the Lord, with whom we communicate by
the Euchari&s;t, and &s;o we might have pretended that &s;he
doth not oblige us to adore any creature. But &s;he ex|pre&s;ly
to <HI>exclude</HI> all &s;uch expo&s;ition, u&s;eth quite another
expre&s;&s;ion, &s;aying, That the <HI>&s;ervice of</HI> latria <HI>&s;hould be gi|ven
to the Sacrament.</HI> So that now there is no rea&s;on
to doubt of her meaning. For what I pray you is it
that &s;he calleth the <HI>Holy Sacrament?</HI> Is it <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t
re&s;iding in heaven?</HI> Who is &s;o ignorant, as not to know
whether it be He or no? Is it not preci&s;ely <HI>that</HI> which
the Prie&s;t ble&s;&s;eth upon the Altar? <HI>that</HI> which he puts
into the mouth of the Communicants? <HI>that</HI> which
they mu&s;t &s;wallow down into the &s;tomach? <HI>Yes; that</HI> is
the very thing, to which &s;he would have you addre&s;&s;e
your adoration, the bending of your knees, and the hu|miliation
of your body, and in a word all the parts of
that inward veneration, wherewith you communicate.
If this be not it, which you regard; when you bend
your knee to any thing el&s;e, She anathematizeth you;
<PB N="59" REF="54">
&s;he holdeth you for an heretick and a rebell, one that
de&s;erves the anger of God and eternall fire. And that
you may know, that &s;he hath regard, not to the holi|ne&s;&s;e
of the action which you celebrate, but to the ho|nour
of the &s;ubject which is propo&s;ed to you; &s;he
would have you pro&s;trate your &s;elf before it: not one|ly
at the time of Communion, but likewi&s;e out of it;
in the very &s;treets, and publick pa&s;&s;ages, and in all places
where you meet it. An evident &s;igne that Her inten|tion
is preci&s;ely &s;uch, as Her &s;elf explaineth it to be,
<HI>viz.</HI> That you hold this for your true God, and final|ly
render it all the honours due to the Soveraigne <HI>Dei|ty.</HI>
If then you e&s;teem this &s;ubject to be truly a Crea|ture,
is not this an open mocking of God and men, and
a mi&s;erable deceiving of your &s;elf; To tell us, That you
can do that which the Romane Church requireth, with|out
adoring that at all, which you believe to be but a
bare creature? For as for that which you &s;aid concern|ing
bapti&s;me, I confe&s;&s;e that being at yeares of di&s;cre|tion,
you may receive it upon your knees: But, if the
Church to whom you come for it, &s;hould command
you to believe, that which you &s;ee in form of water
to be really and in &s;ub&s;tance (not water, but) <HI>the true
God,</HI> Creatour of heaven and earth; and con&s;equent|ly
command you to render adoration to it, and the &s;er|vice
of <HI>latria,</HI> and to that purpo&s;e to fall upon your
knees; I &s;ay, That in &s;uch a ca&s;e, you cannot obey &s;uch
a commandment, without violating your con&s;cience,
and treading under foot the Law of God, and rendring
your &s;elf really guilty of <HI>adoration</HI> of a creature. The
&s;ame I &s;ay concerning the <HI>Mini&s;ters,</HI> which receive im|po&s;ition
of hands, and the <HI>Believers,</HI> who receive the
Euchari&s;t upon their <HI>knees.</HI> For if one &s;hould teach or
command either the one or the other to believe, That
the Pa&s;tor, who impo&s;eth hands on them, or the por|tion
of the Euchari&s;t which they receive, is truly and
in &s;ub&s;tance the great <HI>God</HI> who created the world, and
<PB N="60" REF="55">
by con&s;equence expre&s;ly enjoyn men to adore, either
the one or the other of the&s;e two &s;ubjects; who doubt|eth
but that this were openly to denie our faith, and
to renounce our profe&s;&s;ion, when we fall upon our knees
before the&s;e things, after &s;uch a commandment? But
men neither teach nor command any &s;uch thing among
us. God forbid they &s;hould! We believe and preach,
That our Mini&s;ters are <HI>men</HI> and mere <HI>creatures;</HI> &s;o that
no man can take the kneeling, which is <HI>before</HI> them,
who give impo&s;ition of hands, for an adoration ad|dre&s;&s;ed
<HI>to</HI> them; all the profe&s;&s;ion of our Churches,
and nature of the things them&s;elves directly contra|dicting
it. In like manner the Church of England
believeth and teacheth publickly, That the Euchari&s;t is
bread in &s;ub&s;tance, and that to adore it were grievou&s;ly
to offend God: So that the kneeling, which is in their
communion, cannot be taken for an adoration of ought
el&s;e but <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t</HI> who is in heaven, and not of
bread which is upon the earth. Did the <HI>Church of Rome</HI>
believe and likewi&s;e teach, that the Euchari&s;t were
bread in &s;ub&s;tance, and not a &s;ubject fit to be adored,
we think, that then we might bow the knee in her
Communion without wounding our con&s;ciences. But
while &s;he teacheth that which &s;he now believeth, while
&s;he exacteth of us this kneeling as a true <HI>adoration</HI> of
the Sacrament; who is &s;o blind as not to &s;ee that we can|not
obey her, without making our &s;elves (according to
the judgement of our own con&s;ciences) guilty of adore|ing
a <HI>meer creature,</HI> &s;ince we believe the Sacrament
&s;o to be?</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="13" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="61" REF="55">
<HEAD>CHAP. XIII. That he, who believeth the Euchari&s;t to be bread
in &s;ub&s;tance, cannot give it the reverence
which is practi&s;ed in the Church of Rome,
withoul evident fal&s;hood, hypocri&s;ie, and
perfidiou&s;ne&s;&s;e.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> FOr to &s;ay (Though the intention of the
Church of Rome be, that we &s;hould ad|dre&s;&s;e
this kneeling and adoration, whereof that is the
mark, to the Sacrament there pre&s;ent) That we may
neverthele&s;&s;e u&s;e it otherwi&s;e, and addre&s;&s;e it to J. Chri&s;t
&s;itting in heaven at the right hand of His Father, lift|ing
up our hearts, rai&s;ing our affections and thoughts to
Him; and by this means kneel with our Adver&s;aries,
without adoring (as they do) that which we believe to
be but a creature.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> This is a fal&s;e and dangerous excu&s;e of the
fle&s;h, which (might it take place) would open a large
and dangerous gate to impietie and hypocri&s;ie, and ruine
the foundations of all religion. And for the better un|der&s;tanding
of it, I mu&s;t begin with it a little higher.</P>
<P>God being the Creatour and Redeemer of whole
man, that is to &s;ay, both of his &s;oul and of his bodie,
would have him (which is but rea&s;onable) &s;erve Him
entirely, u&s;ing both the one and the other of the&s;e two
parts to that end. <HI>Glorifie God in your body and in your
&s;pirit, both which are Gods,</HI> &s;aith the Apo&s;tle, 1 Cor. vi.
20. And as in offices which concern our <HI>neighbours,</HI> he
commandeth us <HI>&s;incerity,</HI> willing us to love them in|wardly,
and to edifie and help them outwardly; &s;o doth
He command that in <HI>piety,</HI> which regardeth Him&s;elf, we
&s;hould joyntly make u&s;e of our <HI>hearts</HI> and bodies. And
as He abominates that man, who loving his neighbour
in his heart, &s;hould abu&s;e him with his tongue, or hurt
<PB N="62" REF="56">
him with his hand; or contrariwi&s;e &s;hould give him an
almes with his hand, and hate him in his heart: So
will He not approve of that man, who pretends to reve|rence
Him in the &s;ecret of his &s;oul; and yet with his
tongue bla&s;phemeth His name: nor him who ble&s;&s;ing
Him with his mouth, &s;hall cur&s;e Him with his heart.
'Twill &s;tand <HI>one</HI> man in no &s;tead to plead for him&s;elf,
That his &s;oul did his duty, but the bodie failed of his;
nor <HI>another</HI> to excu&s;e the defaults of the &s;oul by the &s;er|vice
of the body. So that in effect, the&s;e excu&s;es will be
but a meer mockery. The union of the mind and the
body being &s;o neare, that when the mind is di&s;po&s;ed as
it &s;hould, the body cannot but perform its devoir: and
he that abu&s;ing God or his neighbour with his tongue,
would have us believe that notwith&s;tanding all that, he
loveth them &s;incerely in his heart; is a <HI>bold lyar</HI> de&s;erving
to be puni&s;hed, not onely for his bla&s;phemy or wrong,
but likewi&s;e for his <HI>impudence.</HI></P>
<P>According to the&s;e undoubted Maximes we are
bound, not onely to receive in our hearts the truths,
which God hath revealed in Religion; but likewi&s;e out|wardly
to profe&s;&s;e them: And we are all bound not
onely not to disbelieve with our hearts the errours and
impieties, which are contrary to the truth of God; but
likewi&s;e not to confe&s;&s;e them outwardly in any kind.
For if it be enough to retain in the heart the know|ledge
and love of truth, and it be permitted to deny it
outwardly &s;ometimes; <HI>S. Peter</HI> had not fell in denying
his Ma&s;ter: for no man can doubt but that his heart
within, knew well enough what his tongue di&s;avowed
without. And &s;o, to denie our Lord before men, would
be no &s;inne; and confe&s;&s;ion with the mouth would be of
no u&s;e: which <HI>all</HI> are things evidently <HI>fal&s;e.</HI> For that
action of <HI>S. Peter</HI> is grievou&s;ly blamed in the Go&s;pel,
and his <HI>tears</HI> (if we had no other proof) &s;hew us &s;uffi|ciently,
that he thought he did <HI>extremely</HI> offend God.
And our <HI>Lord,</HI> Matth. x. 33. prote&s;teth expre&s;&s;ely, that
<PB N="63" REF="56">
<HI>He will denie him before His Father in heaven</HI> (that is
to &s;ay, that at the great day of judgement, He will not
own him for His; nor put him in the number of
His ble&s;&s;ed children) <HI>who will deny him before men.</HI>
And la&s;tly, <HI>S. Paul,</HI> Rom. x. 9, 10. teacheth us, That
<HI>with the heart men believe unto righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e, and with the
tongue they make confe&s;&s;ion unto &s;alvation,</HI> and to be &s;aved
he doth not onely require, That you &s;hould <HI>believe the
Lord in your heart,</HI> but likewi&s;e that you &s;hould <HI>confe&s;&s;e
him with your mouth.</HI> The &s;ame rea&s;ons do nece&s;&s;arily
induce us to believe, That it is not enough to bani&s;h
from our <HI>hearts</HI> the belief of impietie, and &s;uch errours
as are contrary to the foundations of true Religion; un|le&s;&s;e
we al&s;o bani&s;h the confe&s;&s;ion of them from our
<HI>mouthes.</HI> For to <HI>confe&s;&s;e</HI> an errour which overthroweth
the fundamentalls of Religion, is clearly to <HI>deny our R<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">|ligion.</HI>
Since then we are forbidden under pain of an
eternall cur&s;e, to confe&s;&s;e with our mouth the errours
which we dete&s;t with our hearts; Tis cleare, that if we
believe the adoration of the Ho&s;t of the Church of
Rome, to be an errour contrary to the foundations of
piety, as we do indeed: That we cannot confe&s;&s;e it,
without violating the commandment of J. Chri&s;t, and
pulling upon our &s;ouls eternall ruine and damnation.
For, where is the Chri&s;tian who firmly believing that
the Sacrament is a creature, and being asked if he &s;hould
give it the adoration of <HI>latria,</HI> will not dread to an&s;wer,
<HI>Yes?</HI> and who&s;e con&s;cience will not feel a thou&s;and re|mor&s;es,
if any pa&s;&s;ion cau&s;e his tongue to &s;ay &s;o? And
how can we &s;ay that <HI>the Sacrament is to be adored,</HI> or
confe&s;&s;e it more clearly, then by pro&s;trating our &s;elves
before the Ho&s;t of the Church of Rome, and giving it
in the pre&s;ence of men the &s;ame outward veneration,
which is the mark and &s;ub&s;tance of that which we give
to Him.</P>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> But you'l perhaps deny, That with your
mouth <HI>you</HI> ever &s;aid, that a man ought to adore it.</P>
<P><PB N="64" REF="57">
<HI>An&s;w.</HI> I an&s;wer, Fir&s;t, in this age wherein we live,
'tis very hard (if not impo&s;&s;ible) to adhere to the
communion of Rome, without making this confe&s;&s;ion
with the <HI>mouth</HI> and <HI>hand,</HI> and by the &s;peech and &s;ub&s;cri|ption;
&s;uch is the extreme rigour wherewith &s;he requireth
it of every one of her Communicants.</P>
<P>But to pa&s;&s;e by confe&s;&s;ion of the <HI>tongue.</HI> 'Tis
enough for my pre&s;ent purpo&s;e, that you are upon your
knees before the <HI>Ho&s;t.</HI> For in &s;o doing, you have con|fe&s;&s;ed
not with your tongue indeed, but (which is all
one) with all your body. Your action hath confe&s;&s;ed in
publick, what your heart hath rejected and abhorred in
private. For <HI>to confe&s;&s;e</HI> in the&s;e matters, is to <HI>declare</HI> by
&s;ome <HI>outward &s;igne</HI> what you believe, or on the contrary
what you do not believe; witne&s;&s;ing it either by words
of the mouth, or by writing of the hand, or by any
other intelligible &s;igne. Now &s;econdly, this in civill
conver&s;ation would be e&s;teemed a meer illu&s;ion and
mockery, to pretend that a man doth not own or con|fe&s;&s;e
a thing, though he declare as much by &s;ome evident
&s;igne, under pretence that he doth it without &s;peaking:
as if a man that did <HI>homage</HI> to another, &s;hould pretend,
that he did not acknowledge him for his Soveraigne,
under colour of his not expre&s;&s;ing <HI>in words</HI> that he did.</P>
<P>The <HI>actions</HI> by which men do ordinarily declare &s;uch
things, are &s;ignes not onely equivalent to words, but
much <HI>more</HI> preci&s;e and <HI>&s;ignificative;</HI> &s;o that to u&s;e them,
is to declare a thing more expre&s;ly and openly, then if
a man &s;hould &s;peak it in words. Now to <HI>kneel</HI> before
the <HI>Ho&s;t</HI> of the Church of Rome, to <HI>uncover</HI> the <HI>head,</HI>
and <HI>pro&s;trate</HI> the <HI>body</HI> to the earth, at the &s;ound of a little
<HI>bell,</HI> or to go in <HI>proce&s;&s;ion</HI> after it on the <HI>day</HI> of its <HI>Fea&s;t;</HI>
or to <HI>deck</HI> a mans lodging with <HI>hangings</HI> again&s;t it pa&s;&s;e
by, and other actions like to the&s;e, are the plain and or|dinary
&s;ignes, whereby men acknowledge the <HI>Ho&s;t</HI> to
have a <HI>Soveraigne Divinity,</HI> and pay (as it were) &s;o ma|ny
<HI>homages</HI> to it; as appeareth by the will of them, who
<PB N="65" REF="57">
command it in the Church of Rome, and by the com|mon
intention of tho&s;e, who practi&s;e it continually.</P>
<P>So that every one who falleth on his knees before the
<HI>Ho&s;t</HI> of the Church of Rome, or who goeth in proce&s;|&s;ion
when 'tis made in honour thereof, on the day of
that <HI>Fea&s;t;</HI> or who goeth out of his lodging to honour
its pompe; Declareth and witne&s;&s;eth, that he holdeth
it for his Soveraigne God (and not for a creature) as
clearly and expre&s;ly, as if he pronounced and affirmed
it in &s;o many words.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="14" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XIV. That every man who exerci&s;eth the ceremonies
and &s;ervices, which the Church of Rome
renders to the Ho&s;t, declareth thereby that he
adoreth it, and taketh it for his true and eter|nall
God.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> ANd let not any &s;uch man reply, That
though in the u&s;e of the Church of
Rome the&s;e actions have &s;uch a &s;ignification; neverthe|le&s;&s;e
he u&s;eth them (as to his own particular) in a quite
other &s;en&s;e; nor let him pretend, that in practi&s;ing
them, he intendeth them not to expre&s;&s;e that which they
commonly &s;erve to &s;ignifie.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> This an&s;wer is not onely vain and ridiculous,
but very dangerous; and the con&s;equence of it is de&s;tru|ctive
not onely to Religion, but al&s;o to civil Societie.
For &s;ignes in&s;tituted by men to &s;ignifie things, whether
in nature or in Religion, &s;hould be interpreted by the
publick and common cu&s;tome of tho&s;e who u&s;e them;
and not by &s;ecret and particular intentions, this or that
way. I confe&s;&s;e that in them&s;elves and in their own na|ture,
they &s;ignifie, for the mo&s;t part, no more one thing
then another: and that &s;uch among them, as have any
<PB N="66" REF="58">
naturall reference to the things which they &s;ignifie, are
not &s;o nece&s;&s;ary; but that a man may at the beginning
make them &s;ignifie otherwi&s;e. But when once the will
of men (which is the Mi&s;tris of &s;uch in&s;titutions)
hath limited and appointed them to &s;ome certain &s;ignifi|cation,
and publick u&s;e hath confirmed it; 'tis afterwards
(I conceive) an intolerable boldne&s;&s;e to go about to u&s;e
them in another &s;en&s;e; and he that &s;hall doe &s;o, will be
e&s;teemed either a &s;ot or a liar by every rea&s;onable per&s;on.
For example, Such words as we ordinarily u&s;e to expre&s;&s;e
the thoughts of our under&s;tandings, have not, in their
own nature, any vertue or &s;trength to &s;ignifie this thing
rather then that. The word <HI>Father,</HI> of it &s;elf may as
well &s;ignifie <HI>a &s;tone,</HI> or <HI>water,</HI> or <HI>fire,</HI> as that which it
doth &s;ignifie; and each of the&s;e words might as well
&s;ignifie that which <HI>Father</HI> doth, as that which now they
&s;ignifie. 'Tis cleare, That it is the will of man, and not
their own nature, that gave them the &s;en&s;e and &s;ignifica|tion,
which now they have in our language. But &s;ince
the publick u&s;e of our Nation hath limited and appro|priated
them to tho&s;e things which they &s;ignifie, who
doth not &s;ee, That 'tis not po&s;sible for any particular
man to u&s;e them hereafter in any other &s;en&s;e; to u&s;e the
word <HI>Father</HI> to &s;ignifie <HI>a &s;tone;</HI> or <HI>fire</HI> to &s;ignifie <HI>a Father?</HI>
'Tis ju&s;t &s;o with actions, which either by the will, in|&s;titution,
or cu&s;tome of men are u&s;ed either in Religion,
or civil Societie to &s;ignifie any thing; as for example,
Homage to &s;ignifie the &s;uperiority of him to whom it
is rendred: The giving a ring and a ki&s;&s;e in &s;ome nati|ons,
to &s;ignifie the taking of a woman to wife: in the
dayes of old among the I&s;raelites, to let one pierce the
eare with an awl, to &s;ignifie that one was willing to be
&s;ervant to him, from whom he endured it: and among
the Romani&s;ts, to be adored by Cardinals in the con|clave,
doth &s;ignifie that the man &s;o adored is acknow|ledged
to be Pope: and the kneeling before the Ho&s;t,
that one adoreth it, and acknowledgeth it for his God.
<PB N="67" REF="58">
I confe&s;&s;e that the&s;e &s;ignes and others like them, origi|nally
and of their own nature, &s;ignifie no more the&s;e
things then others; and that of them&s;elves they may be
applied to other &s;ignifications. But &s;ince they are apply|ed
and con&s;ecrated to the&s;e by publick u&s;e, 'tis an unpa|rallelled
folly for any man, to pretend to u&s;e them in an|other
&s;en&s;e. As if one &s;hould &s;ay in Engli&s;h, <HI>That he be|lieveth
the Pope of Rome to be the Head and Monarch of the
Church of Chri&s;t;</HI> He mu&s;t needs &s;ignifie the &s;ame thing,
that the&s;e words do u&s;ually &s;ound in the common notion
and cu&s;tome of them in our Language: So that if he
do not believe &s;o, he cannot in &s;o &s;peaking exempt him|&s;elf
from being held either a <HI>fool</HI> or a <HI>knave.</HI> So he who
falleth on his knees before the Ho&s;t, or who &s;olemnizeth
the fea&s;t of it, or a&s;&s;i&s;teth at it, or trimmeth his lodging
in honour of it; He, I &s;ay, doth likewi&s;e &s;ignifie, in an|other
kind of true language, yet neverthele&s;&s;e as expre&s;&s;e
as the former, that he holdeth the Ho&s;t for a God, for the
true Creatour and Redeemer of the world; and if he be
of a contrary per&s;wa&s;ion, he mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily grant, That
he is either out of his &s;en&s;es, or a notorious liar; abu&s;ing
the actions of his body, to &s;ignifie the contrary thoughts
of his heart. And as the former would be laughed at by
any judicious man, if, to excu&s;e his expre&s;&s;ion, he &s;hould
alledge, that by <HI>Pope of Rome,</HI> he meant not what tho&s;e
words &s;ignifie in the common u&s;e of men, but &s;ome o|ther
things; as for example, <HI>J. Chri&s;t</HI> our Lord: &s;o the
latter would be as ridiculous, who &s;hould tell us, That
he u&s;eth kneeling before the Ho&s;t, and other ceremo|nies,
not to let men know that he adoreth it (which is
the thing that the&s;e actions &s;ignifie in the common u&s;e
of men) but to &s;ignifie that he adoreth our Lord, who
&s;itteth on high in heaven. If &s;uch excu&s;es might take
place, if any one might be &s;uffered to u&s;e the &s;ignes of
things to a clean other &s;en&s;e, then that wherein they are
taken in the common and ordinary u&s;e of men; all &s;o|cieties
publick and private, religious and civill, would
<PB N="68" REF="59">
&s;traight be plunged into an horrible confu&s;ion. We
&s;hould not hereafter have any credit, or a&s;&s;urance among
men. For as for words, every man might abu&s;e them to
&s;ignifie what plea&s;eth him; the religion and great care
that &s;hould be taken of oaths, contracts, promi&s;es (a
thing &s;o ab&s;olutely nece&s;&s;ary for the &s;ub&s;i&s;tence of man|kind)
would quite fall to the ground. <HI>A woman</HI> may think
that a man hath promi&s;ed to be her <HI>husband,</HI> becau&s;e he
hath &s;worn that he will take her for his <HI>&s;pou&s;e;</HI> but the
perfidious di&s;&s;embling fellow will excu&s;e him&s;elf, &s;aying,
That by the word <HI>&s;pou&s;e,</HI> he meant a <HI>concubine,</HI> and not a
<HI>lawfull wife,</HI> which is that w^c^h the word commonly &s;ig|nifieth.
A Judge in France may believe that a guilty per|&s;on
is innocent, becau&s;e a witnes a&s;&s;ureth him (upon his
oath) that he did not <HI>tuer,</HI> that is, <HI>kill</HI> &s;uch a man; for
whom he is accu&s;ed. And according to this rule, the
witne&s;&s;e &s;hall quit him&s;elf from perjury, by alledging,
That he meant by <HI>tuer</HI> not to kill (as it &s;ignifies in
French,) but to keep alive, to defend and pre&s;erve (as it
&s;ignifieth in Latine) by an impudence like that of the
French pri&s;oner, who being asked, whether he ever pa&s;|&s;ed
the &s;traight of the &s;ea, &s;wore that he <HI>never</HI> did;
meaning by the word <HI>&s;traight,</HI> not that between <HI>Dover</HI>
and <HI>Calis,</HI> whereof the que&s;tion was asked him, but that
of <HI>Gibraltar,</HI> of which none of the &s;tanders-by thought
a whit. Briefly, all the language of men (that admirable
organ of their di&s;cour&s;e by which they di&s;cover the
thoughts of their hearts to each other &s;o u&s;efully) would
by this means become a meer ginne, a trick to cou&s;en
and delude. No man would be able by this means, to
under&s;tand his neighbours meaning, any more then if
the ancient confu&s;ion of Babel were again in the world;
every one would become a &s;tranger and barbarian to his
companion. And then for actions which &s;ignifie any
thing, If particular men might be &s;uffered to wre&s;t them
to another &s;en&s;e and meaning then that, whereto the
publick hath appointed them, the &s;ame di&s;order would
<PB N="69" REF="59">
take place. A &s;ubject after he hath done homage to the
enemie of his naturall Lord, to exempt him&s;elf from the
puni&s;hment due to this undutifulne&s;&s;e, might alledge,
That he meant by this act, not to acknowledge the Ty|rant
for his Soveraigne, (which is the common &s;ignifi|cation
of that action) but onely to &s;alute him, as we do
another man. And the &s;ervant of old time in I&s;rael
might have denied the &s;ervice, which he promi&s;ed to his
Ma&s;ter by the &s;igne of his eare pierced, (an ordinary
thing in that nation) excu&s;ing him&s;elf, that he meant
the clean contrary by that act, <HI>viz.</HI> to renounce his Ma|&s;ters
&s;ervice, &amp; not to oblige him&s;elf to it for the future.
The Souldier in warre might wear the enemies colours,
and pretend that he had not for all this renounced his
captain. But this abu&s;e will be more dangerous in <HI>religi|on,</HI>
by how much that &s;hould be kept more holy and in|violable
among men. For if a man may be permitted
to practi&s;e actions, whicd are in&s;tituted to another &s;en&s;e,
and that he may never intend them to that end for
which they are commonly u&s;ed; there will be nothing
certain in Religion. For as you will pre&s;ume to pro|&s;trate
your &s;elf before the <HI>Ho&s;t</HI> of the Church of Rome,
and think you may not thereupon be accu&s;ed of <HI>adoring</HI>
it; &s;o another will as well pro&s;trate him&s;elf before <HI>ima|ges,</HI>
and offer to them <HI>wax-candles,</HI> without being taxed
of having <HI>wor&s;hipped</HI> them. Another may wear a <HI>Tur|bant,</HI>
and enter into the <HI>Mo&s;ques</HI> of the Turks, and there
perform <HI>their</HI> devotions, without being guilty of <HI>Mahu|metani&s;me.</HI>
For (he will &s;ay) 'Tis to <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t</HI> that
I perform the&s;e &s;ervices, and not to the God of Maho|met.
And another among the inhabitants of <HI>China</HI>
may pro&s;trate him&s;elf without &s;cruple before their idols,
pleading that he addre&s;&s;eth this adoration not to the
<HI>Pagode</HI> there pre&s;ent (as the idolaters doe) but to God
the Father, or to Je&s;us Chri&s;t. And if they be permit|ted
to wre&s;t actions thus from their true &s;en&s;e and mean|ing,
why not words likewi&s;e? For the&s;e are &s;ignes of
<PB N="70" REF="60">
the &s;ame nature, both the one and the other are in&s;titu|ted
by men, and to the &s;ame end; &s;aving that the nature
of the words hath oftentimes le&s;&s;e reference to their &s;i|gnification,
then the nature of an action, or a ceremo|nie:
&s;o that a man &s;hould make le&s;&s;e &s;cruple of abu&s;ing
it. According to this account, a Prote&s;tant might &s;wear
boldly, that he believeth, A man &s;hould adore the Ho&s;t:
for he will &s;ay, that by the word <HI>Ho&s;t,</HI> he meaneth J. <HI>Chri&s;t</HI>
fa&s;tened to the Cro&s;&s;e, and not the Sacrament, which
they call <HI>&s;o</HI> at Rome. A Chri&s;tian might an&s;wer with|out
infidelity, That he is a <HI>Mu&s;elman,</HI> or a <HI>Jew,</HI> or a
<HI>Pagan,</HI> according as it &s;tandeth mo&s;t for his advantage,
and may take his <HI>oath</HI> on it, if need be. For (he 'l &s;ay)
I take the&s;e words in a &s;en&s;e different from that wherein
they are ordinarily u&s;ed; I mean that I am a <HI>Mu&s;elman</HI>
that is, a <HI>Believer</HI> (as the word in Arabick &s;ignifies) of
J. Chri&s;t, and not of Mahomet; <HI>a Jew</HI> &s;pirituall, not a car|nal
one; <HI>a Pagan</HI> by extraction or birth, and not by reli|gion.
For why may it not be as lawfull to wre&s;t <HI>words?</HI>
if it be lawfull to u&s;e kneeling before the Ho&s;t of the
Romane Church, to &s;ignifie any thing el&s;e be&s;ides ado|ration
of the Sacrament. Do you not perceive that there
is the &s;ame rea&s;on? Since in the u&s;e of the Church of
Rome it &s;ignifies, as clearly, properly, and univer&s;ally,
this adoration, as the words of <HI>Mu&s;elman,</HI> of <HI>Jew,</HI> of
<HI>Pagan,</HI> &s;ignifie the men of the&s;e three <HI>&s;ects</HI> in our com|mon
language? It will &s;oon appear how dangerous a
thing this libertie is, if permitted among men. But is
it permitted? God forbid. The laws both of <HI>God</HI> and
<HI>men</HI> cen&s;ure them as cheaters, treacherous, faithle&s;&s;e
per&s;ons, who offer to practi&s;e it; and puni&s;h them as the
wor&s;t <HI>Malefactours.</HI> As for men, who knoweth not
that their tribunals are for the mo&s;t part &s;et up to main|tain
faithfulne&s;&s;e and hone&s;tie in <HI>words,</HI> and other de|clarative
&s;ignes of our intentions? If one after he have
given his promi&s;e to a Maid, That he will take her for
his <HI>&s;pou&s;e,</HI> &s;hould refu&s;ing to marry her be brought be|fore
<PB N="71" REF="60">
a <HI>Ju&s;tice,</HI> and there be &s;o impudent as to plead, that
he meant onely to take her for his <HI>concubine;</HI> who
que&s;tioneth but that &s;uch a man would be taken, not
onely for a treacherous per&s;on and a perjured, but like|wi&s;e
for a <HI>mocker;</HI> and that he &s;hould be puni&s;hed, not|with&s;tanding
his excu&s;e? And the <HI>&s;ubject,</HI> who &s;hall
leave his <HI>Soveraignes</HI> colours, and &s;hall do homage to
his enemy, and wear his marks and badges; &s;hall he
be quitted for &s;aying, That his <HI>heart</HI> was <HI>loyall</HI> all this
while, and that he did the&s;e things with another inten|tion?
Shall he not neverthele&s;&s;e be held for a Rebell
and (which is more) for a mocker, and a man that
hath <HI>a heart and a heart,</HI> as the Scriptures &s;peak; and
one, whom errour and pa&s;&s;ion hath tran&s;ported into the
contrary partie, again&s;t his Liege-Lord? And if he fall
into the hands of the Princes Officers, will the&s;e ridi|culous
excu&s;es po&s;&s;ibly pre&s;erve him from infamy, and
that puni&s;hment which &s;hamele&s;&s;e and rebellious &s;ub|jects
de&s;erve, or will he not rather fare the wor&s;e for
them? Now if the ju&s;tice of man, in &s;tead of accept|ing
this kind of excu&s;es, is offended and incen&s;ed by
tho&s;e, who have the boldne&s;&s;e to alledge them, how can
we hope that the ju&s;tice of God (which is infinitely
more pure and more holy) &s;hall take <HI>&s;uch</HI> for payment,
when que&s;tion is made concerning Truth, and His
Service? I cannot believe that there is any man &s;o
bruti&s;h as to imagine, that after he hath expre&s;ly pro|nounced,
<HI>That we mu&s;t adore a creature,</HI> he &s;hall be ab|&s;olved
for &s;aying, that by the word <HI>Creature</HI> he meaneth
<HI>the Creatour.</HI> There is no man that hath common &s;en&s;e
but &s;eeth, that this would be a pure illu&s;ion; and that &s;o
dull and gro&s;&s;e, as I cannot think any man &s;hould ever
dream of making u&s;e of it. Tho&s;e very men who are
partly of our per&s;wa&s;ion, and yet think That a man may
with a good con&s;cience pro&s;trate him&s;elf before the Ho&s;t
of the Romane Church, will yet make &s;cruple of pro|nouncing
with their mouthes, that they <HI>mu&s;t adore</HI> it.
<PB N="72" REF="61">
Now the nature and rea&s;on of words, and of actions,
and ceremonies, is the &s;ame (as we have proved.) Both
the one and the other are &s;ignes and &s;ymboles, in&s;tituted
to &s;ignifie our thoughts.</P>
<P>Since then all Chri&s;tians agree that in <HI>Confe&s;&s;ions</HI>
and declarations of <HI>Faith,</HI> which we make either by the
mouth or writing, 'tis not permitted them to u&s;e words
in any &s;en&s;e, but that wherein they are taken in common
u&s;e; we mu&s;t conclude, <HI>That it is not lawfull for us to
abu&s;e the ceremonies and actions of one Religion, to a
&s;en&s;e contrary to what they &s;ignifie in the ordinary practi&s;e
of men.</HI> Whence it followeth, That, even as by the
confe&s;&s;ion of tho&s;e, who are our Adver&s;aries in this
point, he will &s;inne grievou&s;ly, that believing the Ho&s;t
of the Romane Church to be a creature, &s;hall &s;ay with
his mouth, <HI>That he mu&s;t render to it the adoration of la|tria</HI>
(in what &s;en&s;e &s;oever he pretend to take the&s;e
words;) &s;o is it a very &s;otti&s;h fault, for any to pro&s;trate
them&s;elves before the Ho&s;t, having the &s;ame belief as we
have, the &s;ame intention in &s;o doing: Since by &s;o do|ing,
they <HI>pronounce</HI> as much or more expre&s;ly, then if
they had &s;aid it with their <HI>mouth,</HI> That they mu&s;t adore
the <HI>Ho&s;t.</HI> The action which they perform, &s;ignifying
the &s;ame thing, clearly and expre&s;ly, in the common u&s;e
of men.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="15" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XV. An an&s;wer to the example of Naaman the Sy|rian,
objected by &s;ome.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> ANd whereas they object the famous exam|ple
of <HI>Naaman</HI> the Syrian, who, after he
was converted to the knowledge of the <HI>LORD,</HI> was
wont to bow him&s;elf <HI>in the temple of the Idol,</HI> and when
the King his Ma&s;ter went to perform his devotions,
he accompanied him; and bowed him&s;elf, that the King
might lean upon him at his devotions.</P>
<P><PB N="73" REF="61">
<HI>An&s;w.</HI> In an&s;wer, I &s;hall not mention the many in|terpretations
of this pa&s;&s;age, that &s;eem to draw the
words 2 Kings v. 18. to another &s;en&s;e, then what is
now pre&s;ented. Suppo&s;e (which is yet contended for)
that <HI>Naaman</HI> de&s;ired leave of the <HI>Lord</HI> to enter into
Rimmons temple, and bow him&s;elf there; That the
King might u&s;e him to lean on. Suppo&s;e that <HI>Eli&s;ha</HI> did
on <HI>Gods</HI> part grant him thus much; &s;o That this his
bowing was no way contrary to his <HI>piety</HI> to God, or
<HI>charitie</HI> to his neighbour: all this granted will conclude
nothing again&s;t what hath hitherto been &s;poken. For
Naaman doth not &s;imply entreat the Lord to let him
pro&s;trate him&s;elf in the Temple of Rimmon: in no
kind. That had been to entreat a thing clearly and ex|pre&s;ly
forbidden, which the <HI>Prophet</HI> would never have
granted. But he reque&s;ts leave, to yeild the King that
&s;ervice, which he had done formerly, <HI>viz.</HI> to wait upon
Him, and let Him lean upon him (as 'tis the cu&s;tome
of Princes and great Per&s;onages, in &s;tate, to lean upon
their &s;ervants or Favourites) and, That if his Ma&s;ter
&s;hould require that &s;ervice of him in the Idol-temple, he
might give it him without offending God. This acti|on
(if well con&s;idered) differs exce&s;&s;ively from that
we now &s;peak of. For we treat of &s;uch actions, as have
reference ab&s;olutely and &s;imply to the &s;ervice of that
<HI>object,</HI> which men pretend to <HI>adore:</HI> whereas <HI>this</HI> is
terminated directly and immediately in the &s;ervice of
an earthly King, and Ma&s;ter. <HI>Tho&s;e</HI> actions of the Ro|mani&s;ts
&s;ignifie nothing in common u&s;e, but the <HI>adora|tion</HI>
and <HI>divinitie</HI> of the objects, to which they are
publickly con&s;ecrated: <HI>this</HI> on the contrary, &s;ignifies
principally and directly, Onely that <HI>Naaman</HI> acknow|ledged
the King to whom he gave his &s;ervice to be his
<HI>Leige-Lord</HI> and Ma&s;ter. And therefore, as much diffe|rence
as there is between the <HI>adoration</HI> of a <HI>creature,</HI> and
the <HI>&s;ervice</HI> of a <HI>Ma&s;ter;</HI> &s;o much there is there between
<HI>this</HI> action of Naaman, and <HI>tho&s;e</HI> which the Romani&s;ts
<PB N="74" REF="62">
pretend to be permitted them. God no where forbids a
&s;ervant to obey his Ma&s;ter, to lend him a hand to move,
or a &s;houlder to lean on; or to kneel, that a man may
be the more commodious and &s;erviceable to him, there|in.
Nay on the contrary, He commands us in his H.
Word to keep all the degrees and offices of civil &s;ocie|tie
inviolably, and bids &s;ervants particularly beware of
abating ought of what obedience is due to their earthly
Ma&s;ters, under pretence of giving &s;ome to their hea|venly.
But as for adoration of the creature, He very ri|gorou&s;ly
forbids it. Whence it appears, that though
one may lawfully u&s;e words and actions that te&s;tifie
the fir&s;t kind of &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion; yet it follows not, that he
may exerci&s;e &s;uch as &s;ignifie the &s;econd.</P>
<P>I confe&s;&s;e, that Naaman's doing this in the Temple
of Rimmon, might (by the circum&s;tance of place)
give &s;ome occa&s;ion to another interpretation. For this
action which he did for the &s;ervice of his Prince, being
the &s;ame, <HI>re</HI> and <HI>mat<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">rially</HI> (as we &s;peak) with the
bowing which Idolaters make in honour to their God,
and <HI>both</HI> hapning to be in the <HI>&s;ame</HI> place and time,
where and when infidels were adoring their Idol;
&s;ome of the &s;tanders-by might think he addre&s;&s;ed it, not
to the <HI>King</HI> leaning on him, but to the image of <HI>Rim|mon</HI>
there pre&s;ent. And this was it that rai&s;ed the &s;cru|ple
in this great Per&s;onage. For though in his inten|tion
this act was onely a <HI>civil</HI> honour to the King,
and though in the cu&s;tome of the world 'twas &s;o e&s;teem|ed;
yet, becau&s;e time and place concurred &s;o unhap|pily
for it, that it might have been otherwi&s;e taken; he
doubted, it was not &s;o free from fault as he imagined,
and con&s;equently de&s;ired <HI>Gods</HI> pardon, and leave to per|form
his &s;ervice to his <HI>King.</HI> So it was this, which the
Prophet &s;eemeth to grant him in tho&s;e words, <HI>Go in
peace:</HI> and their opinion, who imagine that <HI>Naaman</HI>
here &s;erved an idol, is not built upon any rationall or
&s;trong foundation. For &s;ince the Prince leaned on him,
<PB N="75" REF="62">
why have they not as much rea&s;on to think, That he
was there in relation to <HI>His</HI> &s;ervice, as to the &s;ervice of
the <HI>Idol.</HI> Nay, it was probable that this act terminated
in his Ma&s;ter and not in the idol, &s;ince neither <HI>rea&s;on</HI>
nor the <HI>cu&s;tome</HI> of men would permit him to part Re|ligious
acts between <HI>God</HI> and <HI>men.</HI> And this one con&s;i|deration
(if nothing el&s;e could be &s;aid) were enough
to &s;hew that he then minded not the <HI>devotion</HI> of his &s;oul,
but the <HI>&s;ervice</HI> of his Ma&s;ter: It being cleare, that
though he were a Pagan in religion, this <HI>Rimmon</HI> whom
the <HI>Syrians</HI> &s;erved (&s;uppo&s;e him endued with under|&s;tanding
or &s;en&s;e, as he were an odd <HI>Deity</HI> el&s;e) would
not have allowed a &s;ervice done to a Prince, to bear
a &s;hare in the <HI>adoration</HI> to him. As &s;uppo&s;e a Noble
man rendring homage to his Soveraigne <HI>lean</HI> on one
of his &s;ervants who is <HI>kneeling,</HI> can you with any rea|&s;on
interpret this act of the <HI>&s;ervant</HI> an homage done to
the Ma&s;ters <HI>Prince?</HI> 'Twere unrea&s;onable, and imper|tinent,
to &s;ay or think &s;o. And for the better under|&s;tanding
of <HI>my</HI> meaning, Suppo&s;e this &s;ervant were a
va&s;&s;al, and held a farm of that Prince for which he
were yearly to doe him &s;ome <HI>homage;</HI> would you believe
he had performed that homage, by this very <HI>a&s;&s;i&s;ting</HI> and
&s;erving his Ma&s;ter upon &s;uch an occa&s;ion? No, &s;urely.
'Tis evident, that the&s;e are acts (though alike, yet)
plainly di&s;tingui&s;hed; one, whereby he cometh to ren|der
an honour that is <HI>due;</HI> the other, whereby he one|ly
bendeth his knees to a&s;&s;i&s;t his <HI>friend.</HI> Naaman's ca&s;e
was ju&s;t the &s;ame. The <HI>King</HI> of Syria gave religious
wor&s;hip to the <HI>idol;</HI> but <HI>Naaman</HI> in holding him up
&s;erved onely his <HI>Ma&s;ter;</HI> not the idol, his Ma&s;ter's fal&s;e
and unbe&s;eeming <HI>deity.</HI></P>
<P>But be&s;ide this Circum&s;tance, divers others free this
act of his from all &s;ini&s;ter interpretation. For ^1 <HI>Naa|man</HI>
entred into the idol-Temple onely when he was
obliged to perform &s;ome <HI>duty</HI> to his <HI>Ma&s;ter;</HI> he offered
no &s;acrifices; he performed neither this nor any other
<PB N="76" REF="63">
homage, or peice of devotion there <HI>alone.</HI> Whence it is
evident, that what he did otherwhiles in the Temple,
was to his Ma&s;ter and not to the idol. But ^2 There
is more in it yet: for he did not onely ab&s;tain from all
fal&s;e and unlawfull acts of wor&s;hip; but he made more|over
an open publick profe&s;&s;ion, by word and deed, of
reverencing and adoring the <HI>true God,</HI> who was known
in I&s;rael. He prote&s;teth as much, expre&s;ly to the Pro|phet,
&s;aying, 2 Kings v. 15, 17. <HI>I know that there is no
God in all the earth, but in I&s;rael. Thy &s;ervant will
henceforth offer neither burnt offering,</HI> nor <HI>&s;acrifice, un|to
other Gods but unto the LORD.</HI> Who &s;eeth not that
all the circum&s;tances of this action were &s;o plain, &s;o
farre from equivocation, that no man of any ingenuity
could take them in an ill &s;en&s;e, <HI>viz.</HI> for adoration to the
fal&s;e God <HI>Rimmon?</HI></P>
<P>Therefore as in common di&s;cour&s;e, an hone&s;t man
<HI>may</HI> u&s;e words which &s;ignifie divers things (as in all
languages there are very many &s;uch) provided, he u&s;e
them onely &s;o, as it may plainly appear by the circum|&s;tances
of his di&s;cour&s;e in what &s;en&s;e he takes them,
without any de&s;igne to <HI>deceive</HI> his auditors with the
ambiguitie: &s;o it was lawfull for Naaman to &s;ignifie
by this act the re&s;pect he bore to his Ma&s;ter, notwith|&s;tanding
the ambiguity which the place and time &s;eemed
to ca&s;t upon it; &s;ince all the circum&s;tances of this act,
and his life, and words, &s;hewed plainly what he intend|ed
by it, <HI>viz.</HI> a plain &s;erving his Ma&s;ter, no <HI>adoring</HI> the
Idol.</P>
<P>And now who &s;eeth not, what a va&s;t difference there
is between this act of Naaman, and tho&s;e which we
di&s;pute again&s;t in this place? For ^1 the <HI>Romani&s;ts,</HI> who
bow their knees before the <HI>Ho&s;t,</HI> declare not what opi|nion
they have of the object, to which they addre&s;&s;e
that wor&s;hip, by any other outward profe&s;&s;ion unle&s;&s;e
they &s;ay, 'Tis <HI>God.</HI> ^2 Naaman &s;erved the <HI>God of I&s;|rael</HI>
openly, and offered him &s;acrifices; and highly and
<PB N="77" REF="63">
plainly prote&s;ted, that he took not Rimmon for his
God; at the <HI>adoration</HI> of whom, the &s;ervice that he owed
his Ma&s;ter, cau&s;ed him to be &s;ometimes pre&s;ent. But
all who communicate with, or continue in the Church
of <HI>Rome,</HI> make publick profe&s;&s;ion of her doctrine; they
renounce not (in word, or deed) the <HI>adoration</HI> of that,
to which they pro&s;trate them&s;elves. Who then, unle&s;&s;e
he can divine, will interpret their bowing and adorati|on
otherwi&s;e, then as a te&s;timony they give of the <HI>DEI|TY</HI>
of that object, wherein they terminate it?</P>
<P>Furthermore, when they bend their knees before the
<HI>Ho&s;t,</HI> or deck up their hou&s;es again&s;t it come, or pa&s;&s;e
by them in the &s;treet; the&s;e actions cannot be taken
but for a profe&s;&s;ion of their <HI>adoring</HI> this, and taking it
for a reall <HI>deity.</HI> For &s;uch in the common and ordina|ry
u&s;e of men have no other interpretation then this:
whereas Naaman's act (as we have proved) was pro|perly
a duty, which he owed to his Ma&s;ter, and a token
of that &s;ervice, which he was to render to him. But as
for the men we &s;peak of, we &s;ee no <HI>Ma&s;ter</HI> they have to
lean upon them, nor to enter into their hou&s;es when
they thus deck them; We &s;ee nothing in their Temples,
or at their Proce&s;&s;ions, whereto we can imagine they
terminate the&s;e actions, but onely the <HI>Ho&s;t.</HI> And there|fore
in all rea&s;on, they cannot be taken for ought but
te&s;timonies of that honour, which they bear to <HI>it,</HI> and
of the <HI>Deity</HI> which they acknowledge to be in <HI>it.</HI></P>
<P>Thus it appears, that <HI>Naamans</HI> act doth not a jot
excu&s;e theirs, but rather evidently condemn it. For &s;ince
he was &s;o <HI>&s;crupulous</HI> of the deed (though &s;o many waies
qualified, and free from the &s;u&s;picion of idolatry) that
he dared not venture on it, without <HI>Gods expre&s;&s;e leave,</HI>
what think you would he have done, if he had been in
the Romani&s;ts ca&s;e? with what horrour would he have
refu&s;ed and dete&s;ted it, &s;ince here is nothing but naked
and plain demon&s;trations of honour and &s;ervice to a
creature. All that may hence be concluded, is in ap|pearance
<PB N="78" REF="64">
to favour tho&s;e, who &s;erve Kings, to a&s;&s;i&s;t them
at the ceremonies of the Religion of their Ma&s;ter; if &s;o
be their &s;ervice obligeth them to render any &s;ervice to
their per&s;ons; &s;o that the action which they exerci&s;e be
one of the functions of their charge, and that el&s;ewhere
they make a cleare and open profe&s;&s;ion of fearing the
Lord onely, &amp; that they acknowledge not that for God,
which is adored in &s;uch devotions. Yet I know not
whether the difference that is between the <HI>Old</HI> and <HI>New
Te&s;tament</HI> will permit us to extend the con&s;equence of
this example thus farre; God having formerly in the
time of the Churches infancy permitted in his children
divers things, which he forbids them now under the
light of the Go&s;pel; where our charitie &s;hould be &s;o
exqui&s;ite, that we &s;hould rather endure all &s;orts of mi&s;|chiefs
then give the lea&s;t cau&s;e of &s;candall to our Neigh|bours:
and I believe, it were more &s;afe to renounce
tho&s;e Dignities, which oblige us to any appearances
contrary to our Religion, then to cau&s;e any to &s;tumble
by our enjoying and exerci&s;ing them.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="16" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XVI. That to think it is lawfull for a man to exerci&s;e
the ceremonies of a Religion, which he be|lieveth
not, doth by con&s;equence dimini&s;h the
glory of, and ca&s;t a blur on, the Martyrs.</HEAD>
<P>BUt to this one example, which they without any
rea&s;on bring out of the Old Te&s;tament, we may
ju&s;tly oppo&s;e the belief and perpetuall practi&s;e of the
Saints under the fir&s;t and &s;econd Covenant; who have
not more abhorred <HI>confe&s;&s;ing</HI> with the mouth errours
contrary to pietie, then they have dete&s;ted <HI>practi&s;ing</HI>
(among&s;t tho&s;e who teach them) any of tho&s;e actions
that have reference to &s;uch errours. Holding as well
tho&s;e to be Apo&s;tates and de&s;erters of the Faith, who
<PB N="79" REF="64">
defiled them&s;elves with &s;ome fal&s;e and unlawfull &s;ervice,
as tho&s;e who expre&s;ly and publickly profe&s;&s;ed errour.
For example, Had not the <HI>three Hebrew children</HI> in Ba|bylon,
<HI>Dan.</HI> iii. been of this per&s;wa&s;ion, why &s;hould
they have been willing to have incurred the indignation
of the King their Protectour, and to have been deprived
not onely of all their goods and honours, but likewi&s;e
ca&s;t into a hot fiery furnace, there to endure a very grie|vous
and horrible death; rather then to pro&s;trate them|&s;elves
at his commandment before the golden image,
which he cau&s;ed his people to adore? Had it not been
ea&s;ie for them, to have kept them&s;elves from all this mi&s;|chief,
by doing that which the King commanded, but
in another &s;en&s;e; and with an intention different from
that, wherein he required it? <HI>viz.</HI> by referring and ad|dre&s;&s;ing
their adoration (whereof bowing or pro&s;trati|on
was the mark) not to the <HI>golden image</HI> before them,
but to <HI>God</HI> the Creatour? But this illu&s;ion and catch
was &s;o farre from prevailing with them, that they never
once thought of it; but with a brave genero&s;itie, befit|ting
that piety whereof they made profe&s;&s;ion, they an|&s;wered
boldly, at the fir&s;t word, <HI>that they would not pro|&s;trate
them&s;elves before the &s;tatue;</HI> thinking (which was
very true) That &s;ince that action which was required
of them, &s;ignified (in the cu&s;tome of that people) an
acknowledgement of a Godhead in the inanimate crea|ture,
they could not practi&s;e it without idolatry, or dam|nable
hypocri&s;ie; and con&s;equently without rendring
them&s;elves guilty of a very enormous &s;inne again&s;t
<HI>God,</HI> and an irreparable &s;candal again&s;t their <HI>neighbours.</HI>
The &s;ame may I &s;ay, of all the excellent and famous
Per&s;onages, that have from the fir&s;t dawning of Chri|&s;tianitie
to this houre, with &s;o much courage and glorie
&s;ealed the truth with their bloud. For if a man might
be permitted to counterfeit in this manner, and without
de&s;erving puni&s;hment to exerci&s;e impious &s;ervices and
&s;uper&s;titious adorations, (provided that in the &s;ecret of
<PB N="80" REF="65">
his heart, he referre and give tho&s;e very &s;ervices to
God the Creatour, which other men give to the crea|ture)
why &s;hould tho&s;e holy and ble&s;&s;ed Witne&s;&s;es of
God have expo&s;ed them&s;elves to &s;uch troubles and &s;uf|ferings?
Why &s;hould they continually have made &s;uch
&s;cruple of ca&s;ting two or three grains of incen&s;e into the
Cen&s;er, in pre&s;ence of their Soveraigne <HI>Prince</HI> who
commanded them? Why might they not have done
this, with an intention of rendring this &s;ervice either to
<HI>God,</HI> or to the <HI>Prince</HI> there pre&s;ent (that he might &s;mel
the &s;weet odour) and not to the <HI>idol,</HI> as others intend
and perform it? If this petty quirk of Logick might
have made the action co~mendable (or at lea&s;t tolerable,
and excu&s;able) what an incredible &s;tupidity was it in
tho&s;e great men, not to have u&s;ed it? Who perceives
not that after the rate of our new Sophi&s;ters, all the
Chri&s;tian courage of tho&s;e holy Per&s;onages, was but a
piece of &s;illine&s;&s;e; all their con&s;tancy a &s;otti&s;h and child|i&s;h
opinionativene&s;&s;e and wilfulne&s;&s;e? For who would
not judge them either infinitely &s;imple, as not knowing
or not thinking on &s;o ea&s;ie a &s;ubtilty; or extremely im|prudent,
if knowing it they would not have u&s;ed it at
&s;uch a time; &s;ince for want of u&s;ing it, they mi&s;erably
lo&s;t both their goods, and lives, and all that was deare
and precious to them upon earth? But if the Roma|ni&s;ts
be in the right, the Martyrs, be&s;ide &s;uffering,
&s;hould have had a deal of crime and &s;infulne&s;&s;e in their
fault: For to lo&s;e a mans life needle&s;ly, and to &s;pill ones
own bloud in a bravery, is an enormous offence again&s;t
<HI>God;</HI> who forbids us to violate or take away our neigh|bours
life, much more our own; and dete&s;ting tho&s;e
who procure another mans death, cannot but extremly
abominate them, who are the cau&s;e of their own de|&s;truction.
But God forbid, that in &s;tead of &s;etting forth
the prai&s;es and the glory, which all Chri&s;tians have ever
given to the&s;e holy <HI>Martyrs,</HI> we &s;hould be &s;o ungratefull
and malicious, as to reproach their memory (by accu|&s;ing
<PB N="81" REF="65">
them either of imprudence or inju&s;tice) meerly to
gratifie &s;uch, as having not courage enough to confe&s;&s;e
openly what they believe privately in their hearts, would
(in &s;tead of condemning their own weakne&s;&s;e) tax all
tho&s;e of <HI>ra&s;hne&s;&s;e,</HI> who are not &s;o fearfull as <HI>they.</HI> Let
us rather acknowledge, that the&s;e Saints (who&s;e names
have ever been precious and ble&s;&s;ed in the Church) have
well and rightly judged, thinking that none can with
le&s;&s;e then &s;uch a re&s;olution, perform the duty of a good
and faithfull Chri&s;tian, nor otherwi&s;e avoid the infamy
and puni&s;hments which they de&s;erve, who de&s;ert &s;o ho|ly
a di&s;cipline.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="17" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XVII. That this di&s;&s;embling is condemned by our Lord
in the Scriptures.</HEAD>
<P>FOr in truth, God will not be put off with &s;uch
quaint devices, which are but meer pretences, and
colours, wherewith fle&s;h and bloud endeavour to &s;mooth
over their fearfulne&s;&s;e. He deals with us <HI>bon&acirc; fide,</HI>
plainly and in earne&s;t, and will not own them, who goe
not the &s;ame pace, that is to &s;ay, who deal not roundly
and plainly with him. As for &s;uch &s;ly people as would
halt with Him, and walk awry between Him and the
world, and varni&s;h over their loo&s;ene&s;&s;e with fal&s;e and
artificiall excu&s;es, He &s;urprizeth them in their pretended
&s;ubtilties: leaving them with tho&s;e, who&s;e marks and
badges they have accepted of, contrary to the judgement
of their own con&s;ciences.</P>
<P>There was doubtle&s;&s;e among the I&s;raelites of old, du|ring
the corruptions that <HI>Ahaz</HI> and <HI>Jezabel</HI> brought in|to
Religion, great &s;tore of per&s;ons, who overcome with
their tyrannicall threats, did bow their knees to Baal
&s;ore <HI>again&s;t</HI> their wills; and in their hearts dete&s;ted tho&s;e
idols, which through fear they were driven to <HI>adore:</HI>
&s;ome who comforted them&s;elves with a vain imaginati|on,
that they might bow indeed to the Idol with their
<PB N="82" REF="66">
bodies, but keep their &s;ouls for God, and &s;o inwardly
addre&s;&s;ing to Him all their veneration, they &s;hould not
de&s;erve either the name or puni&s;hment of idolaters.
Notwith&s;tanding, the Lord not regarding this excu&s;e,
excludeth them from the number of His &s;ervants; count|ing
none for His, but onely &s;uch as <HI>had not bowed their
knees</HI> to Baal. <HI>I have left me,</HI> &s;aith he, Rom. xi. 4. 1. Kings
xix. 18. <HI>&s;even thou&s;and in I&s;rael, to wit, all the knees
which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which
hath not ki&s;&s;ed him.</HI> And then who would not take the
re&s;t, who did fall before the images of Baal, or did ki&s;&s;e
them, or &s;alute them, if not for idolaters or hypocrites,
yet for &s;uch, in a word, as God rejected from his com|munion?</P>
<P>Long time before this, while the I&s;raelites were yet in
the wilderne&s;&s;e, where they ca&s;t <HI>a golden calf,</HI> we cannot
imagine they were &s;o bruti&s;h, as to believe, That that
image which they then ca&s;t, was truly and really the
<HI>God</HI> which brought them out of the land of Egypt, be|fore
it was in the world. All the circum&s;tances of the fact
induce us to &s;ay, That they took it onely for a vi&s;ible
&s;ymbol of the <HI>Divinity,</HI> which &s;hould be to them in &s;tead
of Mo&s;es, who they thought was lo&s;t: &s;o that they &s;hould
have addre&s;&s;ed to God the honours, which they gave to
that image. But becau&s;e &s;uch &s;ervices were now become
the ordinary mark of idolatry, over all the land of Egypt,
where they lived; God without having regard to that,
which they might have &s;aid was in their intentions,
handleth them and puni&s;heth them, (Exod. xxxii.) as
being truly and indeed <HI>idolaters:</HI> for &s;o they are called by
S. Paul, where he recordeth their fault, 1 Cor. x. 7.
And that divine Apo&s;tle in the &s;ame place, is &s;o far from
permitting us, under any pretence what&s;oever, to do any
of tho&s;e actions, whereby &s;uper&s;titious men u&s;e to te&s;ti|fie
their devotion to that which they &s;erve (as <HI>pro&s;trati|on</HI>
before the &s;ubject which they adore) that he forbids
the <HI>Corinthians</HI> (1 Cor. x. 19, 20, 21.) to eat the fle&s;h
of tho&s;e living creatures, which <HI>they knew to have been
<PB N="83" REF="66">
&s;acrificed to idols;</HI> and this under perill of rendring
them&s;elves in &s;o doing, <HI>partakers of devils,</HI> and of their
Altars, and of depriving them&s;elves of the Table of the
Lord, and of his Communion. Was it, becau&s;e the
Chri&s;tians who eat of &s;uch meats, had in &s;o doing an
intention to honour Demons or Idols? In no wi&s;e.
They eat &s;imply of it, for the refection of their bodies, as
they would have eaten of other meats, if they had been
at hand. Yet becau&s;e the idolaters e&s;teemed them &s;acred,
and &s;anctified by the altars of their fal&s;e Divinities; and
becau&s;e eating at their fea&s;ts was an action, which in the
common u&s;e &s;ignified, that one had them in e&s;teem and
veneration; or at lea&s;t, that one did not think, That the
&s;ervice which they u&s;ed was impure and <HI>unlawfull,</HI> the
H. Apo&s;tle would not &s;uffer Believers to eat as idolaters
did. But you will &s;ay, I do it not to be &s;anctified there|by;
I will in this repa&s;t, addre&s;&s;e my thoughts, prai&s;es,
and ble&s;&s;ings, not (as the infidels do) to <HI>Idols</HI> upon
altars, whereon they lay their viands; but to <HI>God,</HI> our
onely true Creatour and Pre&s;erver. No, &s;aith the Apo|&s;tle;
I would not have you be partakers of Devils. I
know well enough, that an Idol is nothing; I know
well too, that you take it to be what it is. But what
ever your opinion be concerning it, you cannot exerci&s;e
tho&s;e actions, which are the ordinary &s;ymboles of ho|nour
that idolaters render thereto, without defiling and
rendring you unworthy of the Cup and Table of the
Lord. And 'tis ob&s;ervable, That entring upon this
bu&s;ine&s;&s;e, he u&s;eth this preface, <HI>Finally, my dearly belo|ved,
flee from idolatry<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"></HI> 1 Cor. x. 14. clearly intimating
thereby, that he held all them guilty of <HI>idolatry,</HI> who
with any heart or mind what&s;oever, exerci&s;ed any of
tho&s;e actions, which in the common u&s;e of idolaters,
&s;ignified the honour which they bore to that which they
&s;erved. And therefore, what can become of &s;uch people,
unle&s;&s;e they prevent the day of the Lord by a &s;erious re|pentance;
&s;ince there is no &s;inne again&s;t which the Scri|pture
threatneth a more horrible damnation, then a|gain&s;t
<PB N="84" REF="67">
this of idolatry? But le&s;t they &s;hould &s;ooth up
them&s;elves with an opinion that they are not idolaters;
it denounceth again&s;t them el&s;ewhere the &s;ame judge|ment:
but gives them a name which agreeth to them &s;o
<HI>properly,</HI> as they will not know how to di&s;avow it, Rev.
xxi. 8. <HI>As for the fearfull, and unbelieving, and the abo|minable,
and murtherers, and whoremongers, and &s;orcerers,
and idolaters, and all liars, their part &s;hall be in the lake
which burneth with fire and brim&s;tone, which is the &s;econd
death.</HI> I would fain have the&s;e people &s;eriou&s;ly con&s;ider,
what the&s;e <HI>fearful</HI> be, that are here thrown into hel-dun|geon,
with the wor&s;t and mo&s;t abominable malefactors.
For if the word &s;ignifie not preci&s;ely tho&s;e, who (le&s;t
they &s;hould di&s;plea&s;e the world) do outwardly conform
them&s;elves to &s;ervices and ceremonies, which in their
heart they acknowledge to be a pernicious errour; I
know not what other &s;en&s;e this pa&s;&s;age can beare. The
H. Gho&s;t meaneth not tho&s;e, who in this world are cal|led
<HI>fearfull.</HI> For He is not u&s;ed to put valour and war|like
force, among the qualities that be nece&s;&s;ary for in|heriting
the Kingdome of heaven: nor doth He mean
tho&s;e who follow errour, and &s;erve creatures with a full
heart, believing and approving inwardly, what they doe
outwardly. For He is not wont to call them <HI>fearfull;</HI>
They are rather &s;uch as He calleth a little after, <HI>idola|ters.</HI>
Nor doth he mean hypocrites, who under an open
profe&s;&s;ion of vertue, hide a filthy and infamous life:
though to call them &s;o, were as bad as to call them
<HI>fearfull.</HI> The name of liars, which followeth &s;oon af|ter,
agreeth to them a great deal better. Nor is there any
likelihood, that by <HI>fearfull</HI> he meaneth profane, or A|thei&s;ts,
or open &s;inners, and malefactors. For who ever
heard them &s;et out by this name? And then who can
be meant by the&s;e cur&s;ed <HI>fearfull</HI> per&s;ons, which are here
ranked in the forefront of all, that &s;hall be inheritours
of hell fire; but tho&s;e, who overcome with &s;ome carnall
fear, do not confe&s;&s;e outwardly that holy truth which
they believe inwardly; or tho&s;e who confe&s;&s;e outwardly
<PB N="85" REF="67">
&s;ome errour, which inwardly they misbelieve and dete&s;t?
Thus was it in the <HI>Martyrs</HI> of Chri&s;t not imprudence,
but a very excellent piece of wi&s;dome, That they cho&s;e
rather to <HI>&s;uffer</HI> the mo&s;t cruell deaths and puni&s;hments,
than through fear to <HI>conceal</HI> that opinion, which they
had concerning piety and errour. It was in them not a
cruelty, but an act of &s;weetne&s;&s;e in their loving devout
&s;ouls, rather to undergoe death, then to perform any of
the actions of <HI>Pagan</HI> &s;uper&s;tition; &s;ince they had no other
way to avoid tho&s;e puni&s;hments, which are threatned
to <HI>fearfull</HI> men. And on the contrary, it will be &s;ound,
That there are none more &s;otti&s;h, nor more cruell to
them&s;elves, then tho&s;e pretended Politicians, who to
pre&s;erve (as they &s;ay) the peace of the world, and to ex|empt
them&s;elves from temporall puni&s;hments, that &s;ome|times
betide open Believers, accommodate them&s;elves to
the &s;ervices of one, and avoid the freedome and commu|nion
of the other. For as it is prudence for a man, to
lo&s;e a &s;mall benefit, to pre&s;erve a far greater; and that is
truly and indeed to love a mans &s;elf, when he &s;uffers a lit|tle
&s;orrow (as a cut of a <HI>razour,</HI> or a Chirurgions <HI>lancet</HI>)
to keep him&s;elf from death: &s;o it is the highe&s;t degree
of imprudence, for a man to loo&s;e his <HI>Soveraigne good,</HI> to
pre&s;erve one that is <HI>incomparably le&s;&s;e;</HI> the wor&s;t of cruel|ties,
to &s;uffer a mans &s;elf to peri&s;h <HI>eternally,</HI> rather then
&s;uffer a <HI>&s;hort</HI> and <HI>&s;light</HI> inconvenience.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="18" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XVIII. That this di&s;&s;embling, grievou&s;ly offendeth God,
and &s;candalizeth men.</HEAD>
<P>BUt to the end that no man may accu&s;e the judge|ment
of God of too much rigour again&s;t fearfull
people, Let us briefly con&s;ider the greatne&s;&s;e and the
weight of their fault. Fir&s;t, they are evidently guilty of
a grievous and inexcu&s;able lie. For by their action they
make profe&s;&s;ion of believing that, which they do not
believe in realitie. As for example, he, that through fear
<PB N="86" REF="68">
pro&s;trateth him&s;elf before the <HI>Ho&s;t</HI> of the Church of
Rome, declareth highly and expre&s;ly, that he taketh it
for a <HI>Deity,</HI> de&s;erving adoration: &s;ince in common cu|&s;tome
that is the &s;en&s;e of this action. And yet he telleth
us privately, that his heart believeth, it is not a Deity,
but an in&s;en&s;ible and inanimate creature. Who di&s;cern|eth
not here a manife&s;t contrarietie, between the mind
and the body? between the heart and the tongue? And
though all lying be unplea&s;ing to <HI>God,</HI> and unbecoming
<HI>a man of worth</HI> and reputation; yet this is the mo&s;t vi|lainous
and enormous of any other &s;ort. For if lying
be farre more blamable in a <HI>&s;erious</HI> then in a <HI>&s;light</HI> &s;ub|ject,
who can de&s;cribe or imagine how highly dete&s;ta|ble
it is in <HI>Religion,</HI> the mo&s;t important thing in the
world? how abominable in the mo&s;t &s;olemn and &s;a|cred
act of Religion, where the que&s;tion is concerning
rendring to a Deity that Soveraign &s;ervice, which we
owe him? Is it not <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">pparently a reproach to the <HI>Divine
Maje&s;tie,</HI> who hath &s;o expre&s;ly prote&s;ted that He hateth
nothing upon earth, neare &s;o much as a lying &s;oul? and
to the holy <HI>Angels,</HI> who are &s;pectatours of our acti|ons?
and to <HI>Men</HI> our neighbours, that are a&s;&s;embled
with us? for Us, in the pre&s;ence of them all, to &s;ay
and impudently declare a thing, directly contrary to
what we think; to &s;wear and prote&s;t, as it were with
the hand lifted up, that we take a thing to be our Crea|tour
and Redeemer, which in reality we e&s;teem to be
as farre below the nature of Him, as earth is below
heaven. The mo&s;t de&s;perate knaves will &s;eldome endure
to heare of their having &s;worn fal&s;ly, that the Oxen of
<HI>another</HI> man belong to <HI>them;</HI> or they come to do it
with a &s;oul full of remor&s;e, and a face covered with
confu&s;ion. The rea&s;on is, becau&s;e the Authoritie of the
Judges, the dignity of the A&s;&s;embly, the holine&s;&s;e of
the Place, the hand which they lift up, and the tongue
which they move, cometh into their mind; and pri|vately
cha&s;tizeth them for violating the truth. So deep|ly
hath Nature imprinted in all mens hearts the hatred
and horrour of a lie.</P>
<P><PB N="87" REF="68">
Ye then, who before the face of heaven and earth,
before the eyes of God, Angels, and Men, have &s;worn
again&s;t your con&s;cience not a &s;light bu&s;ine&s;&s;e, but the
mo&s;t important; that concerneth not this pre&s;ent and
&s;ading life, but that other which is eternall; who have
&s;worn, not with two or three words let &s;lip between the
teeth, but highly and expre&s;ly, with the ge&s;ture and mo|tion
of all your per&s;on; who have affirmed, and as it
were &s;ealed, this lie by the mo&s;t authentick act that is
in the Religion of your Countreymen; how can you
have the face after &s;uch a dreadfull perjury to look again
up to Heaven? How can your con&s;cience choo&s;e but
trouble you and avenge it &s;elf, for the horrible outrage,
that you have committed on it, for your having &s;o vio|lently
and wretchedly &s;tifled its thoughts? If after
this, it do not prick and torment you night and day, I
know not how you can make appeare, that it is <HI>alive.</HI>
For be&s;ides the enormitie of the lie, &s;uch faults are in|finitely
contrary to the re&s;pect which we owe to God,
and extremely injurious to His Soveraigntie. For is it
not one of the greate&s;t crimes that a &s;ubject can po&s;&s;ibly
be guilty of towards his Soveraign, openly to be&s;tow
upon another, be&s;ide Him, the Name and Honour,
which is due to Him alone. I know the Romani&s;t will
&s;ay, That his intention is far from doing it, but 'Tis
enough to make him faulty, either to have &s;aid, or to
have done the lea&s;t thing like it: &s;o holy and &s;acred
is the Maje&s;tie of <HI>Soveraigns,</HI> that no man may with|out
impietie violate or profane the re&s;pect, that is due
to Them, with any intention, under any pretence what|&s;oever.
Now, to give unto any thing, which you do not
believe to have a <HI>Divine</HI> nature, the &s;ervices which are
given to &s;uch and under this notion, by tho&s;e among
whom we live; is clearly to te&s;tifie, that you give to an|other
be&s;ides God, the honour which belongeth to him
alone. As, to bring in our example, for You to <HI>pro&s;trate</HI>
your &s;elves before the <HI>Ho&s;t</HI> of the Church of Rome, or
to go on <HI>Proce&s;&s;ion</HI> after it, on the day of its Fea&s;t; is
<PB N="88" REF="69">
to declare that you give it the name and adoration of a
<HI>Deity.</HI> I do not affirm that you really adore it. I pre&s;up|po&s;e
that you know in your heart, that it is but a crea|ture,
and that your heart addre&s;&s;eth all its &s;ervice to
God onely. But becau&s;e you make this declaration with
your body, you witne&s;&s;e and make it appeare that you
hold this for your God. Do you not in your con&s;cience
take it to be an horrible crime to commit &s;o grievous an
offen&s;e again&s;t our Soveraign <HI>Lord?</HI> And here tell not
me, I be&s;eech you, that you do not make &s;uch a decla|ration,
in pro&s;trating your &s;elf before the Ho&s;t. For I
have &s;ufficiently &s;hown before, that this is the true
cleare and preci&s;e &s;ignification of that action, and others
like it: and he that will interpret them otherwi&s;e, mu&s;t
overthrow the laws and communion of all civil and Re|ligious
Societies among men. And to partake of &s;uch
actions again&s;t our con&s;ciences, is not onely an offence
again&s;t God, but likewi&s;e a mo&s;t cruell outrage and
&s;candall again&s;t our Neighbours.</P>
<P>For fir&s;t, one cannot abu&s;e a man, or mock him in a
&s;erious bu&s;ine&s;&s;e, without deeply violating the holy and
re&s;pective charity, which we owe to a creature, that bear|eth
the image of our Lord, and hath the &s;ame nature
that we are of. And I do not &s;ee, how one can more ap|parently
mock his <HI>neighbours,</HI> then by making &s;hew of
adoring that which <HI>they</HI> &s;erve, and approving <HI>their</HI> de|votion
as good and u&s;efull to &s;alvation; and yet to be|lieve
nothing le&s;&s;e, and in our con&s;ciences to hold that
to be a mere creature which they adore; and the honour,
which they give it, to be an unlawfull &s;ervice and un|plea&s;ing
to the true God. What greater affront can men
po&s;&s;ibly put upon them, than thus to abu&s;e and &s;port
with them? que&s;tionle&s;&s;e did they di&s;cern through
the mask, under which we hide our &s;elves, the thoughts
of our hearts, and the gullery that we put upon them,
when we pre&s;ent our &s;elves to them in this fal&s;e vi&s;age;
they would extremely abhorre us for brazen faced Cou|&s;eners.
Did we di&s;gui&s;e our &s;elves thus for <HI>their</HI> good,
<PB N="89" REF="69">
or did not our di&s;&s;embling doe them a mi&s;chief, they
would have le&s;&s;e rea&s;on to complain. But 'tis quite other|wi&s;e.
This our vain di&s;&s;imulation, and fond conceit is
a very great <HI>&s;candall</HI> to them; This masking and di&s;|gui&s;ing
our &s;elves is to a&s;&s;a&s;&s;inate and de&s;troy them. For
do you not by exerci&s;ing the acts and &s;ervices of <HI>Super|&s;tition,</HI>
in their pre&s;ence, plainly embolden (or as S. Paul
phra&s;eth it, 1 Cor. viii. 10. <HI>edifie</HI>) them in it? Is not
this to recommend the &s;ame things to them by your
example, and effectually to preach to them the belief and
practi&s;e of them? For example, when you are pro&s;trate
before the Ho&s;t of the church of Rome, doth not your
action authorize their belief? do not you thereby war|rant
them to be more confident in it? You tell them in
a language that is dumbe indeed, but yet more intelli|gible,
cleare, and &s;ignificative, then all the words which
you can u&s;e in this &s;ubject, <HI>That this Ho&s;t is not at all a
creature; That it is the Creatour, and Redeemer of the
world; That we &s;hould adore it, and give it the &s;ame
honour, which is due to the Soveraign Deity.</HI> This, and
&s;uch language as this, doth your action &s;peak to your
Neighbours: nor can they otherwi&s;e read or under|&s;tand,
what is the &s;en&s;e and meaning of your heart.
Seeing then, that in your con&s;cience you firmly believe
that this <HI>Ho&s;t</HI> is but a plain creature; do you not &s;ee,
how you per&s;wade them <HI>to adore a creature,</HI> which is a
pernicious and dangerous errour, as I have &s;hewed a|bove?
You lay before them that which you e&s;teem mor|tall
poy&s;on, and &s;eem to take of it your &s;elf, that you
may make them confidently &s;wallow it down; which is
the mo&s;t hurtfull and dete&s;table treachery in the world.</P>
<P>Now if tho&s;e, who poy&s;on the <HI>bodies</HI> of men, are de|&s;ervedly
reckoned among&s;t the mo&s;t abominable male|factours;
con&s;ider how great the horrour of your crime
is, who plunge not their bodies onely, but as much as
in you lyeth, their <HI>&s;ouls</HI> al&s;o, into that, which is in your
judgement, a dangerous and deadly poy&s;on. And if he,
who offendeth the <HI>lea&s;t</HI> of Believers, never &s;o little, de|&s;erveth
<PB N="90" REF="70">
a rigorous puni&s;hment, and one <HI>more grievous
then to be thrown alive into the bottome of the &s;ea</HI> (as our
<HI>Lord</HI> &s;aith expre&s;ly, <HI>Matt.</HI> xviii. 6.) what thunderbolts
and hells &s;hall he be thought worthy of, who ca&s;ts &s;o
enormous a &s;candall before <HI>all the congregation?</HI> And
if tho&s;e, who through errour mi&s;take a creature for a
Deity, are neverthele&s;&s;e <HI>inexcu&s;able</HI> (as we have proved
before) what pardon can you expect, who, knowing
well that this is a creature, cea&s;e not to pro&s;trate your
&s;elves before it? For the <HI>Lord</HI> prote&s;teth that <HI>the &s;ervant
who knoweth his Ma&s;ters will and doth it not, &s;hall be
beaten with more &s;tripes, than he who doth it not becau&s;e
he knew it not;</HI> Luke 11. 47. And common rea&s;on
teacheth us, that it is a very equitable &s;entence and de|termination.</P>
<P>Seeing then, that the fault of tho&s;e, who outwardly
practi&s;e the &s;ervices which they hold in their con&s;ciences
to be fal&s;e and unlawfull, is &s;o many wayes contrary
both to our piety toward God, and our charity toward
men; let none think it &s;trange, That our Lord con|demneth
<HI>them</HI> with an <HI>eternall</HI> cur&s;e, who are &s;o mi&s;|chievous
as to commit it. For &s;hould He do otherwi&s;e,
He would forget his own nature, and rob Him&s;elf of
all tho&s;e properties, wherewith the H. Scriptures inve&s;t
Him. He would be no longer the Father of <HI>truth,</HI> if
He left a lie unpuni&s;hed. He would not be zealous of His
glory, if He did not avenge &s;o evident an affront. Finally,
He would not be the Prince &amp; Protectour of mankind,
if He did not condemne tho&s;e to the greate&s;t puni&s;h|ments,
who do &s;o in&s;olently and cruelly abu&s;e poor men.</P>
<P>And now let every equitable per&s;on judge, whether it
be po&s;&s;ible for Us, in any manner to pro&s;trate our &s;elves
before the <HI>Ho&s;t</HI> of the Church of Rome, to deck our
hou&s;es again&s;t it pa&s;&s;e by, and to do other the like acti|ons
in&s;tituted to the honour of it, believing (as, thanks
be to God, we do) that it is a plain <HI>inanimate creature,</HI>
and not (as &s;ome pretend) our Soveraign <HI>Lord</HI> and <HI>God.</HI>
and whether we are not obliged by all the rules of
<PB N="91" REF="70">
Chri&s;ts Doctrine, rather to &s;uffer mo&s;t grievous extre|mities,
then to comply with what the Church of <HI>Rome</HI>
requireth of us in this particular. Indeed, if it were
lawfull to <HI>lie</HI> &s;ometimes, and outwardly to witne&s;&s;e any
thing <HI>contrary</HI> to what we believe in our hearts; or to
make profe&s;&s;ion of taking from our Lord the glory due
to Him alone, to give it to a creature; or finally to abu&s;e
men, and induce them to be confirmed in a belief of
that, which we e&s;teem pernicious and de&s;tructive to their
&s;ouls; If, I &s;ay, it were at any time lawfull for us to doe
any of the&s;e things, for <HI>fear of &s;eparating</HI> from our coun|treymen,
I confe&s;&s;e, that we &s;hould doe ami&s;&s;e in refu&s;ing
to perform the honour, which Rome commandeth us, to
her Sacrament. But if all Laws divine and humane for
the mo&s;t part command us under pain of damnation, ra|ther
not to fear undergoing all &s;orts of mi&s;chiefs, then to
fall into any one of the&s;e faults; 'tis evident that having
the belief which we have of the Euchari&s;t in the
Church of Rome, we cannot perform tho&s;e &s;ervices
thereto which they require of us, without incurring the
anger of God, and de&s;truction of our own &s;ouls.</P>
<P>So that if there were no other difference between
them and us, but this alone, it were enough to &s;hew, that
we were not tran&s;ported out of an humour, or froward|ne&s;&s;e,
or other &s;mall cau&s;e; but forced by an extreme and
irre&s;i&s;tible nece&s;&s;itie to &s;eparate our &s;elves from them.
Whence it followeth, that in this ca&s;e our <HI>&s;eparation</HI> was
<HI>ju&s;t;</HI> That which is <HI>nece&s;&s;ary,</HI> being not to be blamed as
<HI>unju&s;t.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="19" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XIX. That there are many other beliefs in the Church
of Rome, which overthrow the foundations of
our faith and &s;alvation, as the Veneration of
images, the Supremacie of the Pope, &amp;c.</HEAD>
<P>BUt be&s;ides this Article, there are great &s;tore of
others, to the profe&s;&s;ion and practi&s;e whereof they
<PB N="92" REF="71">
will oblige us again&s;t our wills; which are of &s;o great
importance in religion, that we cannot confe&s;&s;e them,
nor ob&s;erve them any more, then that of Tran&s;ub&s;tanti|ation,
without violating our con&s;ciences, and expo&s;ing
our &s;ouls to an evident danger of offending God, and
lo&s;ing that portion in his grace and glory, which we de|&s;ire
and hope for.</P>
<P>For example, Believing (as we do) That there is
nothing divine in <HI>images;</HI> and, That we are very &s;evere|ly
forbidden by our Lord to pro&s;trate our &s;elves before
them, under pain of moving Him to jealou&s;ie, and &s;tir|ring
up His indignation again&s;t us and our po&s;teritie:
How, and with what con&s;cience can we <HI>bow</HI> our bodies
before tho&s;e in the Church of Rome, offer to them <HI>wax|candles,</HI>
dre&s;&s;e them, and carry them in <HI>proce&s;&s;ion,</HI> and go
in <HI>pilgrimage</HI> to places, where they are con&s;ecrated, and
perform &s;uch other acts, as &s;he demandeth of us in her
Communion, to te&s;tifie <HI>that adoration</HI> which &s;he think|eth
due to them in Religion? In times pa&s;t, when a
report was &s;pred among the Donati&s;ts, That one <HI>Paul,</HI>
and one <HI>Macarius,</HI> both Catholicks, would come into
tho&s;e parts, and &s;et an image upon the altar, where the
Euchari&s;t was to be celebrated; the Chri&s;tians were
much <HI>a&s;toni&s;hed,</HI> &s;aying one to another, <HI>That to eat there,
was to eat of a thing &s;acrificed to an idol.</HI> And <HI>Optatus,</HI>
who recordeth it, &s;aith, (<HI>lib. 3, pag.</HI> 356. E.) that if this
rumour was true, they had good rea&s;on to &s;ay &s;o. If the
holy <HI>Fathers</HI> permitted the Donati&s;ts to abhorre the
Churches of the Catholicks, to avoid communicating
with them in the Euchari&s;t, as an unclean and profane
meat; in ca&s;e they could find any image upon the altar,
where they con&s;ecrated it: How can they be excu&s;ed,
who communicate at the Altars of Rome, partake of her
Devotions, frequent her Churches, where we know (not
by an uncertain rumour, but by the report of our eyes
and other &s;en&s;es) that every one is full of images, where
we &s;ee them daily con&s;ecrated anew, and the people
crowding to pro&s;trate them&s;elves before them? Belie|ving
<PB N="93" REF="71">
(as we do) that <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> is the <HI>&s;ole Head</HI> of the <HI>Ca|tholick
Church,</HI> with what con&s;cience can we give that ti|tle,
and this dignitie to the Pope of <HI>Rome;</HI> and ki&s;&s;e his
feet, and render him all other honours, which <HI>Rome</HI> is
wont to give him in relation thereto? Believing (as we
do) that the truth of the heavenly doctrine is the onely
foundation of our faith, with what con&s;cience can we
depend upon the Authority of <HI>Pope</HI> or <HI>Councels,</HI> &s;ub|mitting
to them even the books of H. <HI>Scripture,</HI> which
are divinely in&s;pired? Believing (as we do) that the
&s;acrifice offered by <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> upon the <HI>Cro&s;&s;e,</HI> hath perfectly
expiated our &s;innes; with what con&s;cience can we &s;wear,
That there is a nece&s;&s;ity and efficacy in the &s;acrifice of
the Romane Altar? Believing (as we do) that invoca|tion
by prayers makes part of the &s;ervice of God; and
not having learnt in the &s;chole of the <HI>Scriptures,</HI> to pray
to <HI>any</HI> but Him; how and with what con&s;cience can we
addre&s;&s;e to &s;o many <HI>&s;everall creatures,</HI> tho&s;e prayers and
invocations, which Rome commandeth us to addre&s;&s;e to
them? And particularly how can we invocate <HI>Domini|cus
a Monk, Ignatius Loyola, Charles Borromeus</HI> late <HI>Bi|&s;hop
of Millain,</HI> and others like them, who we know ha|ted
and per&s;ecuted that holy Faith, whereof we (by the
grace of <HI>God</HI>) make open profe&s;&s;ion? By the con&s;ide|rations
already repre&s;ented about the point of the Eu|chari&s;t,
it is ea&s;ie to &s;ee that the&s;e articles and divers o|thers
(which for brevity &s;ake I omit) overthrow the
foundations of Faith and Piety: &s;o that it is not law|full
for us to comply with tho&s;e which hold them.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="20" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XX. A conclu&s;ion of this Treati&s;e. That They, who
are of our per&s;wa&s;ion, are obliged to for&s;ake
the communion of Rome; and, They who are
not, are to prove and trie their own faith, be|fore
they condemne our &s;eparation from them.</HEAD>
<P>THus, I think, I have &s;ufficiently ju&s;tified our Se|paration
from the Church of Rome. Whence it
<PB N="94" REF="72">
appears, how lamentable the condition of them is, who
having the &s;ame opinion, which we have concerning her
doctrine and &s;ervices, do not depart from her Commu|nion,
but accu&s;e us for &s;o doing. For who doth not &s;ee,
that it is a nece&s;&s;ary prudence, and not a vain &s;uper&s;titi|on,
to avoid that which men judge to be pe&s;tilentiall and
<HI>mortall?</HI> and that on the other &s;ide, it is an unexecu&s;a|ble
carele&s;ne&s;&s;e, to doe and exerci&s;e continually,
what men acknowledge to be contrary to the glory of
God, the edification of their neighbours, and the &s;alva|tion
of their &s;elves? If I may be permitted to addre&s;&s;e
my &s;elf in this particular to tho&s;e, who are in &s;o dange|rous
an errour, I &s;hall conjure them by their pietie to
God, by their charity to men, by the care which they
&s;hould have continually of their own and others &s;ouls,
to think &s;eriou&s;ly of joyning them&s;elves hereafter, to
tho&s;e who&s;e belief they hold, and quitting the communi|on
of tho&s;e who&s;e Faith they di&s;approve. And let them
not &s;latter them&s;elves to think, that the Church of
Rome retaineth the <HI>Apo&s;tles Creed,</HI> and the <HI>&s;umme</HI> of
<HI>Chri&s;tian doctrine,</HI> &s;ince it is evident, That one at lea&s;t of
tho&s;e errours which they adde thereto are mortall. For
as tho&s;e good and whole&s;ome meats which a man eateth
at his refre&s;hment, hinder him not from dying, if by
and by he &s;wallow &s;ome poy&s;on; &s;emblably, true and
whole&s;ome doctrine doth not pre&s;erve tho&s;e which be|lieve
it, if together with it they entertain &s;ome perni|cious
and damnable errour in other particulars. Evil
hath this advantage above good, that it &s;preads much
farther, and is farre more <HI>active.</HI> For neither truth nor
vertue can &s;ave a man, unle&s;&s;e they be pure and &s;incere,
without the intermixture of any ill and dangerous ha|bite;
whereas errour and vice damne a man, be they
mingled with never &s;o many truths and vertues. For as
a man though he be <HI>cha&s;te</HI> and <HI>mode&s;t,</HI> &s;hall not inherit
the Kingdome of heaven, if he be <HI>covetous,</HI> or a <HI>&s;lan|derer</HI>
of his neighbour: &s;o &s;hall he not be exempted from
hell torments, for believing &s;ome principall truths of
<PB N="95" REF="72">
the Go&s;pel; if it be found, that after all he hath adored
creatures, or made profe&s;&s;ion of adoring them.</P>
<P>But as for you, Sirs, who continue &s;incerely in the
Church of Rome, verily believing all that &s;he teacheth
you, I &s;hall be&s;eech you, That if you do reject our
belief, you would be plea&s;ed at lea&s;t not to condemne
our &s;eparation, imputing that to us for a crime, which
inevitable nece&s;&s;itie hath forced us to doe. God knows
with what a deal of con&s;traint we are come thus farre;
how trouble&s;ome a thing it hath &s;eemed to us, to re|nounce
the duties and &s;ervices which we owe to them,
to whom we bear &s;o much re&s;pect and love, our <HI>Princes,</HI>
our <HI>Fathers,</HI> our <HI>Friends,</HI> our <HI>Countreymen.</HI> But what
&s;hall we doe, when we find our &s;elves &s;urprized with
nece&s;&s;ity? Ye &s;ee that our con&s;ciences torment us; that
they repre&s;ent to us heaven and the eternity thereof, hel
and its puni&s;hments, and (which is more yet) the will
of God, our Soveraigne Father. This is not a toy, nor
can we plea&s;e our &s;elves in it. You have &s;een that our
belief doth nece&s;&s;arily bring along with it all the&s;e con|&s;iderations.
Shall we preferre yours before them? Shall
we violate the motions of our con&s;cience? Shall we
di&s;turb the peace thereof; and overthrow that which we
beleieve to be the law of our Soveraigne <HI>God,</HI> to plea&s;e
you? Shall we venture willingly and knowingly, to
provoke His anger, to avoid yours? Shall we fear le&s;&s;e
to offend Him, then to di&s;plea&s;e you? You your &s;elves
(I know very well) will condemne &s;uch a loo&s;ne&s;&s;e, and
in &s;tead of approving it, will extremely abhorre it. For
ye know, and teach as well as we, both by word and ex|ample,
that we owe <HI>all</HI> to God, who looks upon the re|ligion
of our con&s;ciences. Be plea&s;ed then to bear with
us, if we preferre what we believe to be the intere&s;t of
His glory, before your de&s;ires and our own; And in
other things (where your contentment will not over|throw
His &s;ervice) we &s;hall freely acknowledge, that we
owe you our <HI>whole utmo&s;t,</HI> &amp; are ready to te&s;tifie it by a|ctions,
&amp; therein to do your ab&s;olute plea&s;ures, though it
<PB N="96" REF="73">
be with the lo&s;&s;e of what we count mo&s;t precious on
earth; our bloud, our life it &s;elf. Onely &s;uffer us to re|&s;erve
our con&s;ciences to <HI>our &s;elves,</HI> or rather to <HI>Him,</HI>
whole and entire; over which no man can reign with|out
affronting our <HI>God.</HI> And if you think that the
judgement, we make concerning the&s;e matters, is an er|rour;
be plea&s;ed to take the pains candidly to &s;hew us it.
We &s;hall willingly examine your proofs, we &s;hall bring
pliant minds, and as full of prejudice in your behalf as
you can wi&s;h: as per&s;ons that have all the intere&s;ts in
the world to per&s;wade us, to de&s;ire to live in your com|munion,
if it may be with the peace of our con&s;ciences.
We honour as well as you the H. Scriptures, given and
pre&s;erved to the Church by the Providence of God, to
be the laws and fountains of his Faith. Let us (we
pray) &s;ee you prove from thence the Articles, which
you pre&s;&s;e &s;o &s;trongly, or at lea&s;t the principles, whence
they may be clearly and lawfully deduced. If you &s;hew
them us, and after &s;uch a manife&s;tation we continue
&s;crupulous; we then neither can nor will denie, but that
you will have ju&s;t and good cau&s;e to e&s;teem us Schi&s;ma|ticks:
But if you cannot, or do not, me thinks you &s;hould
have no rea&s;on to refu&s;e what we reque&s;t, <HI>viz.</HI> To bear
with our &s;eparation, and not hereafter to give it the odi|ous
name of &s;chi&s;me, which agreeth onely to &s;uch &s;epa|rations,
as are made by a pure and voluntary opiniona|tivene&s;&s;e,
grounded onely upon the peevi&s;hne&s;&s;e, ambi|tion,
envy, hatred, animo&s;itie, or the like pa&s;&s;ion of
&s;uch, as depart from the Communion of a Church,
without a true and nece&s;&s;ary rea&s;on.</P>
</DIV1>
<TRAILER>THE END.</TRAILER>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
